So apparently gay sex has more of a problem with John McCain than John McCain has with gay sex. Interesting.

/written before I started reading the article

This story has it all: gay sex, politics, scandal. Why isn't it getting more media play?

SphericalTime: Why isn't it getting more media play?

Because it would say something bad about McCain. Murdoch and cohorts really don't want to connect in any way John McCain and gay sex.

How incredibly offensive. Donating to McCain, that is. I'm cool with the whole gay thing. More power to him.

You mean gay people can be judgmental bastards about politics just like straight people? Holy crap, I'm shocked.

It's almost like... they're human.

lexnaturalis: It's almost like... they're human.

you've clearly been brainwashed by the gay agenda.

Hush money?

GAT_00: ...connect in any way John McCain and gay sex.

*throws up*

Thanks... for the... imagery...

GAT_00: SphericalTime: Why isn't it getting more media play?

Because it would say something bad about McCain. Murdoch and cohorts really don't want to connect in any way John McCain and gay sex.

Meh. More like it doesn't fit in with the media's script about what the Republican Party stands for.

If this were a story about racism or religious intolerance, the story would get lots of play. Just play a game of Mad Libs with a previous article, and you're set.

An article that effectively covered this would have to employ actual journalism, and I don't think they teach that anymore.

So it's bad for fags to support McCain?

*giggle*

That's the funniest thing I've ever heard.

The founder of the site went on to say that, "We'd rather not be associated with that sort of people."

Heh, well, I can actually understand that. If it was just politics, it would be assholish, but McCain is running for a party very hostile to gay rights.

LIVE, DAMNIT!

/nttiawwt

The article doesn't give much detail, but it sounds like he was forced out because of a private donation he made. If so, that's pretty disgusting. I don't think anybody on the left would cheer if the chairman of the board of a socially conservative site were forced out for supporting Obama.

Embarrassed to be caught supporting McCain? Hmmm

we_hates: The article doesn't give much detail, but it sounds like he was forced out because of a private donation he made. If so, that's pretty disgusting. I don't think anybody on the left would cheer if the chairman of the board of a socially conservative site were forced out for supporting Obama.

I don't think the left has recently fought against a civil rights movement. . .

we_hates: The article doesn't give much detail, but it sounds like he was forced out because of a private donation he made. If so, that's pretty disgusting. I don't think anybody on the left would cheer if the chairman of the board of a socially conservative site were forced out for supporting Obama.

If a member of the board of Colt's Manufacturing Company was giving donations to the Brady Campaign, I'd expect the rest of the board to can him in short order. No different here. You don't need to be running a company with a specific mission and purpose and then actively helping groups which attempt to hinder that.

Only Democrats are allowed to be gay.

TomD9938: Only Democrats are allowed to be gay.

You're located in St. Paul ... you're not a foot tapper are you?

TomD9938: Only Democrats are allowed to be gay.

Well, I see a lot less democrats advocating limiting the rights of gay people so. . . Yeah. If anti-gay marriage is part of your platform, maybe you shouldn't get pissed when gay people don't like your party? It'd be like pre-Civil Rights Act democrats biatching about not having black support.

Bucky Katt: TomD9938: Only Democrats are allowed to be gay.

You're located in St. Paul ... you're not a foot tapper are you?

Tap-a-tap-tap. You copy?

Only breeders believe in a flat tax.

Occam's Chainsaw: If a member of the board of Colt's Manufacturing Company was giving donations to the Brady Campaign, I'd expect the rest of the board to can him in short order. No different here. You don't need to be running a company with a specific mission and purpose and then actively helping groups which attempt to hinder that.

I still say it's a dick move. It shows how far we as a country have to go when a group dedicated to the rights of one group would fire a man for exercising his right to support the candidate of his choice.

RemyDuron: TomD9938: Only Democrats are allowed to be gay.

Well, I see a lot less democrats advocating limiting the rights of gay people so. . . Yeah. If anti-gay marriage is part of your platform, maybe you shouldn't get pissed when gay people don't like your party? It'd be like pre-Civil Rights Act democrats biatching about not having black support.

Who says Im pissed?

My own stance is the elimination of marriage from any state perspective.

If churches want to toss the rice...fine. Otherwise, no benefit and no regard from the government bodies.

Republicans arent all the cartoon figures you imagine them to be Remy.

So gays like donkey shows and not elephant walks?

TomD9938: My own stance is the elimination of marriage from any state perspective.

The Repulican platform is anti-gay marriage, whether you personally are or not. Nothing he said showed a "cartoon figure" understand of individual Republicans, he was simply pointing out the party's platform.

TomD9938: RemyDuron: TomD9938: Only Democrats are allowed to be gay.

Well, I see a lot less democrats advocating limiting the rights of gay people so. . . Yeah. If anti-gay marriage is part of your platform, maybe you shouldn't get pissed when gay people don't like your party? It'd be like pre-Civil Rights Act democrats biatching about not having black support.

Who says Im pissed?

My own stance is the elimination of marriage from any state perspective.

If churches want to toss the rice...fine. Otherwise, no benefit and no regard from the government bodies.

Republicans arent all the cartoon figures you imagine them to be Remy.

The party members? No, you aren't. But you support people, and a party leadership, who are largely anti-gay marriage. I realize there are other reasons to vote republican, but that comes with it, whether you like it or not.

I agree with you about marriage, BTW.

we_hates: TomD9938: My own stance is the elimination of marriage from any state perspective.

The Repulican platform is anti-gay marriage, whether you personally are or not. Nothing he said showed a "cartoon figure" understand of individual Republicans, he was simply pointing out the party's platform.

As soon as I see the Democratic Party candidates loudly voicing their support for gay marriage while running for office, Ill buy that they are operating out of principle (sp?).

Why is the retention of a tradition dating back hundreds of years considered radical anyway?

It could be argued that the stability and civility gained by society, by the union of man and woman, make it possible to safely exist in the homo-sexual minority.

TomD9938: It could be argued that the stability and civility gained by segregation make it possible to safely exist in the african-american minority.

You can argue about whether or not it's a flawed analogy, but your sentence makes just as much sense.

TomD9938: Why is the retention of a tradition dating back hundreds of years considered radical anyway?

I don't think it is considered particularly radical. Discriminatory, yes. Radical, not so much.

HunterT: TomD9938: It could be argued that the stability and civility gained by segregation make it possible to safely exist in the african-american minority.

You can argue about whether or not it's a flawed analogy, but your sentence makes just as much sense.

I was going to go the interracial marriage route, but this works too.

/great minds think alike!
//and so do ours!

TomD9938: we_hates: TomD9938: My own stance is the elimination of marriage from any state perspective.

The Repulican platform is anti-gay marriage, whether you personally are or not. Nothing he said showed a "cartoon figure" understand of individual Republicans, he was simply pointing out the party's platform.

As soon as I see the Democratic Party candidates loudly voicing their support for gay marriage while running for office, Ill buy that they are operating out of principle (sp?).

Why is the retention of a tradition dating back hundreds of years considered radical anyway?

It could be argued that the stability and civility gained by society, by the union of man and woman, make it possible to safely exist in the homo-sexual minority.

Radical != bad
Non-radical/Traditional != good

TomD9938: As soon as I see the Democratic Party candidates loudly voicing their support for gay marriage while running for office, Ill buy that they are operating out of principle (sp?).

I stand by my statement - the Republican platform is anti-gay marriage.

Why is the retention of a tradition dating back hundreds of years considered radical anyway?

The tradition will be retained, that's not the issue. The issue is whether denying the right to same-sex couples will be retained. Continuing to exclude marriage rights to homosexuals isn't radical, but it is being reexamined and more people are realizing there's no legitimate principle to justify the discrimination.

At least he didn't get caught in an airport bathroom soliciting heterosexual sex in the missionary position

http://www.manhunt.net/(NSFW)

The Site's motto is 'Get on, Get off'. ha!

Homos being intolerant???

Bucky Katt: TomD9938: Only Democrats are allowed to be gay.

You're located in St. Paul ... you're not a foot tapper are you?

Gays? In the Republican Party? No... thats not possible! Jesus isn't cool with the gay!

TomD, while I appreciate your personal views, the fact remains that anti-gay language is part of the official platform of the party you support, and therefore you're going to have to take responsibility.

I vote Democrat, and I support the right to bear arms because it's in the Constitution. I may not like it but it's there, so case closed in my opinion. But many of the people I vote for think differently so I have to take responsibility for the actions of people I help put into office.

Personal responsibility applies to you too, not just welfare queens.

Naman: GAT_00: ...connect in any way John McCain and gay sex.

*throws up*

Thanks... for the... imagery...

Part of the Lemon Party is the party.

we_hates: I still say it's a dick move. It shows how far we as a country have to go when a group dedicated to the rights of one group would fire a man for exercising his right to support the candidate of his choice.

I think the story's a bit more complicated than that. ManHunt is not a "gay rights" group, a social network, or even a dating site. It's strictly a sex hookup site.

They've been criticized in the past for preying on closeted gay men. By supporting the anti-gay party, the chairman's move smacks of a business move designed to help perpetuate a client base. Not only does that reek of sleazy opportunism, it's also a shiatty PR move. This has clearly caused them to lose customers, but more importantly, I'd be willing to bet they lost a lot more revenue from from gay-owned and gay-friendly businesses who purchase banner ads on their site.

He has every right to voice his political opinions and to spend his money accordingly. But so does anyone who might be a potential website client. Removing the chairman was a business decision.

Courtney Cox-Zucker:
They've been criticized in the past for preying on closeted gay men. By supporting the anti-gay party, the chairman's move smacks of a business move designed to help perpetuate a client base.

This.

Also, let me note that McCain's recently revealed "Dancing Queen" by ABBA as his favorite song. It's not uncommon for men confined to prison for long periods of time to look to one another for comfort. Intimacy, even. And buttsecks.

/How did he end up in prison in the first place?
//missile up the tailpipe, that's how.

How... intolerant of them.

Can the GOP be ANY more gay?

/Larry Craig is NOT gay, btw. He said so!

FTFA: 'The chairman of the board of Manhunt, the Cambridge-based hookup site, was forced to resign after reports that he gave $2,300 to McCain."

Tell me AGAIN how it is only Republicans and Conservatives who

are intolerant...

mfaby:
FTFA: 'The chairman of the board of Manhunt, the Cambridge-based hookup site, was forced to resign after reports that he gave $2,300 to McCain."

Tell me AGAIN how it is only Republicans and Conservatives who

are intolerant...

The Democratic motto after Obama wins the Presidency and they increase their House and Senate majority: "We tolerate all views, as long as they agree with us"

mfaby: FTFA: 'The chairman of the board of Manhunt, the Cambridge-based hookup site, was forced to resign after reports that he gave $2,300 to McCain."

Tell me AGAIN how it is only Republicans and Conservatives who

are intolerant...

Yeah, if it turned out a board member of a company that ran a jewish dating service donated to the American Nazi Party, and was subsequently dismissed, I'm sure people would be just as outraged on his behalf.

/Or a black dating service donated to a pro-segregation party, that's probably a better analogy, but there isn't a Segregation Party anymore to my knowledge.

wombatsrus: The Democratic motto after Obama wins the Presidency and they increase their House and Senate majority: "We tolerate all views, as long as they agree with us"

Supporting tolerance does not mean tolerating intolerance. The Republican Party has anti-gay issues in its platform, issues McCain has not distanced himself from (Hell, by getting close with the arch-fundies, he's brought himself more in line with the party of those issues).

Also, as said above, this could be construed negatively by the clients of said business, so it was a good business move to dump the guy. What, suddenly conservatives have a problem with the market? I guess it's only good when your brand of bullshiat is selling.

I refuse to tolerate intolerance towards the intolerant.

Wish I could have stayed up for the exchange.

/need to pick up a meth habit to support my Fark-Habit.