Palin's "Alternative" Motives

[Phantom]

Hello all, another story has just peeked my interest to read and I was somewhat awe struck at what I read. Take a look for yourself:

Palin church promotes converting gays - Yahoo! News

Now, I'm not one for choosing sides, nor am I one a hardcore politcial fan, but I'd say if Palin and McCain were to take the white house I fear the future, not just for the gay population in the U.S but for the country in general. I think that this church saying "We can change homosexuals through the power of prayer, and convert them to heterosexuals" is full on bull $@#@. And the this line:

You'll be encouraged by the power of God's love and His desire to transform the lives of those impacted by homosexuality,"

This reeks of utterly bullcrap. She treats this like gays are some kind of disease that has ruined lives. I mean Hurricane Katrina ruined lives. If this line was for something like that then there wouldn't much of a issue, but this....this litterally stuck me....

And mind you, I don't get stuck up like this. And look at this line:

Gay activists in Alaska said Palin has not worked actively against their interests, but early in her administration she supported a bill to overrule a court decision to block state benefits for gay partners of public employees. At the time, less than one-half of 1 percent of state employees had applied for the benefits, which were ordered by a 2005 ruling by the Alaska Supreme Court.

This doesn't make sense to me. She hasn't worked actively against the rights of gays before, through she supported a bill to overrule a court decision to block state benefits to gay partners? Why start this controversy now? Is she going to use her standing as a Vice President (if elected) to strip gay partners of not only their right to marry but also their gay rights? This just scares me.

I'm not really into politics, but in all honesty I think Palin will bring alot of diaster to this country if she gets the standing as a Vice President, but it will be Even Worse if McCain (if elected as president) suddenly dies and Palin takes his place! If she becomes Preisdent she'll diffinitely strip gays of all rights.........That would be awful, no terrible. Think of it, no rights at all, marry is one thing, but to strip gays of all rights is just down right evil.


You know? I liked the idea of having a woman as president. A woman who would make the lives of everyone better, but...that was when I was somewhat rooting for Hilary, but if Palin becomes the first female president I could literally keel over. McCain by himself was somewhat...ok at least we know how he stands, homosexuals wouldn't (hopefully) be to disturbed by him, but with Palin its a different story. I would diffinitely root for Obama. He for one support gay rights and marriage, and supports the choice for women if they choose abortion (all in all its a woman's choice, but to deny them that is wrong.)

I've seen some scandals involved Palin, in newspapers and the net about her past, her so called "13 year old penegant daughter", her many faces that were said to be "two faced", a back stabber, etc. I'm saying if all those were true but from all I've read of her and this article I have analyzed her, and she can pretty much "take on different forms" I'm not saying she's a shapeshifter but in a way that makes her somewhat untrustworthy.

All in all, after reading this article, I think Palin is a monster in women's clothing. And bringing this controversy about gays out like this has no doubt blown a hole into the lives of many gay men and women who wishes to be left alone in peace so they can live out their lives. If Palin takes office, its over, and I for one don't want my life altered by her Beliefs.

Oh and one more line:

I think gay Republicans are going to run away" if Palin supports efforts like the prayers to convert gays, said Wayne Besen, founder of the New York-based Truth Wins Out, a gay rights advocacy group. Besen called on Palin to publicly express her views now that she's a vice presidential nominee.

That's just what I throught as well. I have this feeling that gay Republicans AND Democrats are going to ran away from Palin, I think gay community has a made up a pretty high voting mark, and if she supports something like that and combined with her beliefs she will no doubt lose a majority of voters which could also hurt McCain in the long run.


What do you guys think?


(Note: If a flame war breaks out here I'll request the thread to be closed.)

[Pete]

I don't think that this is going to be as big a deal as you make it out to be. Bush fought against gay rights and he didn't get very far. All he did was serve as a roadblock.

As far as gay rights go, I think that they should be given the same rights as straight people, though I don't believe that gay marriage really exists. Civil unions sure, but not a marriage per se. That's pretty defined as a union between a man and a woman in the Bible.

I also think that you're reading too much into the church aspect. Look who Obama's minister/priest was. I'd say that he is a lot worse and far more volatile than any minister who thinks he can "fix" gays.

While the fact of the matter is that Palin does have some weaknesses, shes still a viable candidate for the Republican party; one who can attract more conservative Republicans who feel that McCain is too liberal. It's actually a pretty wise political choice, given the fact that McCain can attract some liberals and moderates, while Palin can attract more conservatives.

[winterborn86]

That is aload of crap, the line "We can change homosexuals through the power of prayer, and convert them to heterosexuals" is rubbish. No has the right or the power to stop people being gay.
I agree with pete, gay people should have the same rights as straight people.

[Sasquatch]

Come on. You knew I was gonna post here.

Let me point this out first: It's Palin's church that expresses the belief that homosexuals can be "converted" back to heterosexuality. Palin has said absolutely nothing on the subject. The church that Palin has been a member of for six years said this, not Palin herself.

I also have a question. Are you really, honestly raising a fuss over Palin's church saying that gays can become Christian and heterosexual again, but have been completely silent over Wright -- whom Obama claims as his "spiritual mentor" -- accusing the government of inventing AIDS to control the black population, claiming that the U.S. government acted out 9/11, and blaming Israel for "terrorism" against "Palestine", the country that never existed? I mean, if you've spoken out against Wright, let me know, I must have missed it. But if you're saying that claims that the U.S. invented AIDS and carried out the 9/11 attacks are of no importance compared to saying that homosexuals can become Christian and heterosexual again, I'd like to know that too.

Now, I'm not one for choosing sides, nor am I one a hardcore politcial fan, but I'd say if Palin and McCain were to take the white house I fear the future, not just for the gay population in the U.S but for the country in general

Is this because of her stance on homosexuality, or issues completely unrelated? Because it's hard to believe that somebody would be a threat to the entire country because they realize that homosexuals can become straight again.

I think that this church saying "We can change homosexuals through the power of prayer, and convert them to heterosexuals" is full on bull $@#@.

So you're saying that no homosexual has ever become Christian and ended up straight? No homosexual, ever, has ever become straight again? Are you going to try to argue that they weren't "really" homosexual, or that they were just "pretending" to turn straight?

And the this line:

You'll be encouraged by the power of God's love and His desire to transform the lives of those impacted by homosexuality,"

This reeks of utterly bullcrap.

Christians have been "inspired" to overcome their problems and handicaps left and right. Even if you don't consider homosexuality a "problem", it doesn't matter -- Christians -- and any Christian can probably tell you this -- get, or feel that they get, inspiration through their faith to change.

She treats this like gays are some kind of disease that has ruined lives.

Where has she said that? Where has she said ANYTHING about gays, for that matter?

This doesn't make sense to me. She hasn't worked actively against the rights of gays before, through she supported a bill to overrule a court decision to block state benefits to gay partners?

What doesn't make sense? There should be no "but" in that statement. She hasn't worked against the rights of gays, period. She has even supported a bill to override a court decision to block state benefits to gay partners of public employees. If you didn't catch the double negative there, she supported state benefits for gay partners of public employees. So what do you have a problem with?

Why start this controversy now?

What "controversy"? There's an article about a stance of her church. Not only is it nowhere near a "controversy" for anybody but you, not only is it possibly completely unrelated to any of her stances, but even in itself, it isn't something that SHE came out with. She didn't start any "controversy", she didn't even voice her opinions on the subject of homosexuality.

Is she going to use her standing as a Vice President (if elected) to strip gay partners of not only their right to marry but also their gay rights?

Alright, first off ... Exactly how much power do you think a Vice President has? Even if she hated homosexuals, she couldn't use her "standing" to "strip" any rights from homosexuals. Second, and as far as semantics go, if homosexuals don't have the legal right to marry, she can't "strip" them of their right to marry. It's already been delegated as a state issue anyway. And third, other than marriage, what other "gay rights" are there? The same rights everybody else has? Or are you still under the impression that people can get turned down for a job or a house because they're gay?

I'm not really into politics, but in all honesty I think Palin will bring alot of diaster to this country if she gets the standing as a Vice President, but it will be Even Worse if McCain (if elected as president) suddenly dies and Palin takes his place!

Once again, is this because of her actual stance on issues, or what you believe may be a belief she might hold that concerns homosexuality? If it's because of her actual stance on various issues, it's irrelevant here. If you think she's unfit to lead a country because she holds the belief that homosexuals can become heterosexual again, well, I won't comment on that.

If she becomes Preisdent she'll diffinitely strip gays of all rights.........That would be awful, no terrible. Think of it, no rights at all, marry is one thing, but to strip gays of all rights is just down right evil.

Once again, what "rights" do homosexuals have, why do you think anybody would have the authority to "strip" them of these "rights", and what makes you think she would "strip" any homosexuals of these "rights", especially after you already know that she supported benefits for homosexual partners of public employees?

You know? I liked the idea of having a woman as president. A woman who would make the lives of everyone better, but...that was when I was somewhat rooting for Hilary ...

Did her gender make a difference, or did you just support her stances?

McCain by himself was somewhat...ok at least we know how he stands, homosexuals wouldn't (hopefully) be to disturbed by him

Tell me, how does he stand? What has been released on McCain's stance on homosexuality and "gay rights"? If you know McCain's stance, I'd like to hear it.

... but with Palin its a different story.

Despite Palin's track record of supporting special rights for homosexuals in the past (remember the benefits for homosexual partners of public employees that she supported?), you believe she'll actually take rights away from homosexuals? What logic are you basing that assessment on?

I would diffinitely root for Obama.

Were you considering "rooting for" McCain/Palin before you found out she was Christian, or were you always "rooting for" Obama, since Clinton got knocked out?

He for one support gay rights and marriage, and supports the choice for women if they choose abortion (all in all its a woman's choice, but to deny them that is wrong.)

The "right" of a woman to brutally murder her child is a completely different subject, but if you're expressing your point that you support Obama on more points than you support McCain on -- or, more generally, Democrats moreso than Republicans, it's no surprise. Oh, and you do know that abortion has more male advocates than female, right?

I've seen some scandals involved Palin, in newspapers and the net about her past ...

Like what?

... her so called "13 year old penegant daughter" ...

First, she's 17, not 13. Second, she's marrying the father. And third, how does her daughter being pregnant have any bearing whatsoever on how good of a Vice President Sarah Palin would be?

Do you honestly think that Bristol Palin's situation is being publicized because it has anything to do with Palin's stance on the issues, her experience, or her leadership, or do you realize that it's being publicized because it reflects poorly on a conservative?

... her many faces that were said to be "two faced", a back stabber, etc.

Do you know WHY? Because she, as a Republican, called out Republican corruption. There's nothing "two-faced" or "back-stabber" about that, only honor and courage.

I'm saying if all those were true but from all I've read of her and this article I have analyzed her, and she can pretty much "take on different forms" I'm not saying she's a shapeshifter but in a way that makes her somewhat untrustworthy.

How much, other than this article that isn't about her, have you read about her? She's held to her stances since the beginning of her political career and acted consistently with her beliefs. What you see is what you get with her.

All in all, after reading this article, I think Palin is a monster in women's clothing.

Because her church thinks homosexuals can become straight again? That's a little harsh, don't you think?

And bringing this controversy about gays out like this has no doubt blown a hole into the lives of many gay men and women who wishes to be left alone in peace so they can live out their lives. If Palin takes office, its over, and I for one don't want my life altered by her Beliefs.

Once again, there's absolutely no reason to think that Palin's Vice-Presidency would "alter" your life in any special way. This is no "controversy", it's not even something of Palin's doing, and it has no effect on any homosexuals who wish "to be left alone in peace", or any other homosexuals.

The woman fought for benefits for homosexual couples. What on earth would make you think -- knowing that she fought FOR benefits for homosexuals -- that she would take away rights from homosexuals? I mean, besides your obvious bias.

I have this feeling that gay Republicans AND Democrats are going to ran away from Palin, I think gay community has a made up a pretty high voting mark, and if she supports something like that and combined with her beliefs she will no doubt lose a majority of voters which could also hurt McCain in the long run.

First, the "gay vote" doesn't make much difference. It ain't like the "black vote" or the "blue-collar vote" or the "military/veteran vote". Second, Republicans have long been non-supporters of special rights for homosexuals, and the "gay vote", what little there is, has been bought and paid for by the Democratic Party. Republicans losing the homosexual voters would be like Nazis losing the Jewish voters, it really wouldn't hurt them.

Admit it. You don't like Palin because she's a conservative Christian, just like you don't like any other conservative Christians.

[Furore]

I think Phantom's onto something here, though I would have picked this quote:

She is staunchly anti-abortion, opposing exceptions for rape and incest, and opposes gay marriage and spousal rights for gay couples. - Palin church promotes converting gays - Yahoo! News

I mean, the thread is basically on politics in regards to homosexuality, right?
As I'm pretty sure the US has strong beliefs in the freedom of it's people (I mean seriously, look at the US' Bill of Rights. What was it trying to achieve?), and denying people the right to marry based on sexual orientation could quite literally be seen as a way of people being denied their freedom. You could argue that a lot of 'bad things' are illegal such as as murder, theft and the like, but considering that another demographic is allowed to marry, why should others be denied those rights?


The line 'We can change homosexuals through the power of prayer, and convert them to heterosexuals' seems to suggest that there's something wrong with homosexuals and that they should be converted into heterosexuals. 'You'll be encouraged by the power of God's love and His desire to transform the lives of those impacted by homosexuality,' doesn't help any argument against that connotation I mentioned.

Come on. You knew I was gonna post here.

And I bet you had some inkling I'd pounce on you myself. But hey, I got nothing else better to do at this time of night most days.

Is this because of her stance on homosexuality, or issues completely unrelated? Because it's hard to believe that somebody would be a threat to the entire country because they realize that homosexuals can become straight again.

It's more of a threat to the interests of the gay and lesbian communities of the US when a politician with such views can be made a rank that high I'd think. But you seem to be trying to trivialise things just a tad. It's not that she realises that homosexuals can become heterosexual again, it's that she doesn't seem to hold them in the same light as heterosexuals. As I stated above, she does not support providing them with the same opportunities as straight people.

So you're saying that no homosexual has ever become Christian and ended up straight? No homosexual, ever, has ever become straight again? Are you going to try to argue that they weren't "really" homosexual, or that they were just "pretending" to turn straight?

Firstly, some people might just be confused as to their sexual orientation or may just be bisexual and favouring one over the other before changing. I do believe that one view many churches supposedly hold, is that homosexuality isn't a sin, practicing acts of homosexuality is. They preach abstinence. And belonging to the Catholic church myself, and having a friend who is openly homosexual yet was advised to abstain rather than to force himself to act heterosexual, I know this all too well.

Christians have been "inspired" to overcome their problems and handicaps left and right. Even if you don't consider homosexuality a "problem", it doesn't matter -- Christians -- and any Christian can probably tell you this -- get, or feel that they get, inspiration through their faith to change.

Problems and handicaps being the key word. A Christian in it's loose term could very well be homosexual and practice acts of homosexuality so long as he/she believes in Christian beliefs. Whether or not the person believed they were sinning wouldn't matter entirely. But then most Christians do believe in tolerance to some degree. How are they taught to treat their fellow man in terms of the New Testament?

Where has she said that? Where has she said ANYTHING about gays, for that matter?

There's mainly that her church has said various negative things concerning gays (see quotes above), and as a practicing member of that church, she can be seen as a representative of the church in question.

The article has also said that Wayne Besen (the founder of a Gay Rights advocacy group) called on her to publicly express her views now that she is a vice presidential nominee. It could very well be a case of what she didn't say, as if she was planning on doing something positive in relation to them, wouldn't she have announced it in a bid to gain more support? That does seem to be happening right now with the parties who are going for the presidency.

So what do you have a problem with?

It might have something to do with how the articles says, and I quote 'Palin reversed her position and vetoed the bill after the state attorney general said it was unconstitutional'. And her church IS emitting vibes against homosexuals, or at least homosexuals not wanting to convert to heterosexuality.

What "controversy"? There's an article about a stance of her church. Not only is it nowhere near a "controversy" for anybody but you, not only is it possibly completely unrelated to any of her stances, but even in itself, it isn't something that SHE came out with. She didn't start any "controversy", she didn't even voice her opinions on the subject of homosexuality.

Can you say, 'conflict of interest'? If she belongs to a group who are against homosexuality in any way it could cause her to lose the possibility of being more impartial. And if it's not enough of a controversy to get several posts including this long as hell one from you, then why the long post?

Alright, first off ... Exactly how much power do you think a Vice President has? Even if she hated homosexuals, she couldn't use her "standing" to "strip" any rights from homosexuals. Second, and as far as semantics go, if homosexuals don't have the legal right to marry, she can't "strip" them of their right to marry. It's already been delegated as a state issue anyway. And third, other than marriage, what other "gay rights" are there? The same rights everybody else has? Or are you still under the impression that people can get turned down for a job or a house because they're gay?

First off, I do believe reading that a Vice President has the full power of a President when death, resignation or incapacity come into the picture. If something happens to the president, she has all that power at her hands. Secondly, homosexuals in some states DO have the legal right to marriage I believe and regardless of existing laws, it isn't in the best interests of the homosexual community to have someone who holds homosexuality in a negative light with that kind of power. Third, that's all homosexuals are fighting for. The same rights in terms of sexual preferences that are afforded to heterosexuals.

Once again, is this because of her actual stance on issues, or what you believe may be a belief she might hold that concerns homosexuality? If it's because of her actual stance on various issues, it's irrelevant here. If you think she's unfit to lead a country because she holds the belief that homosexuals can become heterosexual again, well, I won't comment on that.

Why won't you comment on that? If anything it should only serve to strengthen your argument. But then maybe the issue isn't that 'she holds the belief that homosexuals can become heterosexual again', but rather that she sees them in a negative light. She mightn't be serving their interests, and even if she would, it does raise a cause for concern.

Once again, what "rights" do homosexuals have, why do you think anybody would have the authority to "strip" them of these "rights", and what makes you think she would "strip" any homosexuals of these "rights", especially after you already know that she supported benefits for homosexual partners of public employees?

I would think they should have the right to freedom unless it's at the expense of someone else to a decent degree. I mean, that's how most laws in the US seem to try to be to me. Who's dying or being harmed by homosexual couples wanting to be able to have the same opportunities as heterosexual couples? And as the article stated that Palin reversed her position at some point, it can be seen that she was also against those benefits at some point. Or did I read that wrong?

Tell me, how does he stand? What has been released on McCain's stance on homosexuality and "gay rights"? If you know McCain's stance, I'd like to hear it.

He's traditional and doesn't support gay marriage. But on the other hand, he opposes a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.

One of many lionks to such information for your enjoyment.
John McCain on Lesbian/Gay Issues - Presidential Candidate John McCain's Stand on Gay and Lesbian Issues

Despite Palin's track record of supporting special rights for homosexuals in the past (remember the benefits for homosexual partners of public employees that she supported?), you believe she'll actually take rights away from homosexuals? What logic are you basing that assessment on?

I hope you're basing that on more than her being iffy on one bill promoting rights for 'less than 1 percent of state employees' as seen in the original article.

Were you considering "rooting for" McCain/Palin before you found out she was Christian, or were you always "rooting for" Obama, since Clinton got knocked out?

Does it really matter considering this thread is concerning Palin? But yeah, some Christian groups are known to be discriminatory towards homosexuals.

The "right" of a woman to brutally murder her child is a completely different subject, but if you're expressing your point that you support Obama on more points than you support McCain on -- or, more generally, Democrats moreso than Republicans, it's no surprise. Oh, and you do know that abortion has more male advocates than female, right?

Considering some abortions can be performed for the following reasons;

- to save the life of the pregnant woman;
- to preserve the woman's physical or mental health;
- to terminate pregnancy that would result in a child born with a congenital disorder that would be fatal or associated with significant morbidity; or
- to selectively reduce the number of fetuses to lessen health risks associated with multiple pregnancy.

Abortion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'd think there would be times it could be seen as the better choice for some. And is it really still 'brutal murder' with today's medical techniques? If it gets done illegally it might be. You could still see it as murder, but I'd think it's no longer that brutal. As for more male advocates than female, I'd think that might also be in terms of men who like to sleep around having to pay child support and similar occurences. There's more women with custody of children then men, and there's a good deal of men paying some women child support.

Like what?

Like all these:
Palin scandel - Google Search

First, she's 17, not 13. Second, she's marrying the father. And third, how does her daughter being pregnant have any bearing whatsoever on how good of a Vice President Sarah Palin would be?

Do you honestly think that Bristol Palin's situation is being publicized because it has anything to do with Palin's stance on the issues, her experience, or her leadership, or do you realize that it's being publicized because it reflects poorly on a conservative?

YAY!!! ONE OF THOSE AFOREMENTIONED SCANDELS!!!!
But yeah it is mainly just dirt digging. I put forwards to you this question though. If she has any possible problems leading her family, then how will her possibly getting presidential powers one day go in terms of her leadership ability? It's an iffy question, but when electing a leader and vice leader in a country as large as the US, I'd think you'd really want to cover as many of your bases as possible.

Do you know WHY? Because she, as a Republican, called out Republican corruption. There's nothing "two-faced" or "back-stabber" about that, only honor and courage.

That's the positive side. On the negative side, the fact that she sold out a faction could mean she's more than able to do it again. Don't get me wrong, I respect that she could call out corruption. I'm just stating the negative of doing something like that.

How much, other than this article that isn't about her, have you read about her? She's held to her stances since the beginning of her political career and acted consistently with her beliefs. What you see is what you get with her.

The article is about her. It's stating that she belongs to a church that has some decidedly anti-homosexual views. Her name is mentioned eight times in the short article and after mentioning that church, she is talked about herself. And that's the other thing. You say she's acted consistently with her beliefs. That supports that she might act with her beliefs as a member of that church that was mentioned as well.

Once again, there's absolutely no reason to think that Palin's Vice-Presidency would "alter" your life in any special way. This is no "controversy", it's not even something of Palin's doing, and it has no effect on any homosexuals who wish "to be left alone in peace", or any other homosexuals.

We can debate this with widely different opinions can we not? Because as far as I understand, that makes a controversy. And Palin very well could alter a homosexual in the US's life in some way if something befalls the aging McCain if he and her are elected.

The woman fought for benefits for homosexual couples. What on earth would make you think -- knowing that she fought FOR benefits for homosexuals -- that she would take away rights from homosexuals? I mean, besides your obvious bias.

It was mentioned one time in that article, and it sounds like she only supported it half the time. She supported a bill and then vetoed it. As for bias, it's a two way thing. Your bias seems fairly obvious as well as might mine.

First, the "gay vote" doesn't make much difference. It ain't like the "black vote" or the "blue-collar vote" or the "military/veteran vote". Second, Republicans have long been non-supporters of special rights for homosexuals, and the "gay vote", what little there is, has been bought and paid for by the Democratic Party. Republicans losing the homosexual voters would be like Nazis losing the Jewish voters, it really wouldn't hurt them.

They might be less in number, but that doesn't make their opinions or percieved needs any less valid. They are still a decently sized minority. And unlike the Nazis who were killing Jews, the Republicans aren't actively killing homosexuals. Homosexuals might be willing to vote Republican if the Republicans can address their needs.

Admit it. You don't like Palin because she's a conservative Christian, just like you don't like any other conservative Christians.

Isn't that being a bit presumptive? Did he ever say he disliked all conservative Christians? I mean you don't seem to support anything on these forums that grants rights to homosexuals, but you don't see Phantom calling you on that?

[Sasquatch]

As I'm pretty sure the US has strong beliefs in the freedom of it's people (I mean seriously, look at the US' Bill of Rights. What was it trying to achieve?), and denying people the right to marry based on sexual orientation could quite literally be seen as a way of people being denied their freedom.

Where does the Bill of Rights mention homosexuals, or the "right" to marry?

The line 'We can change homosexuals through the power of prayer, and convert them to heterosexuals' seems to suggest that there's something wrong with homosexuals and that they should be converted into heterosexuals.

It also conveys the Christian message, that through, Biblically, homosexuality is wrong, everyone can be "saved" from their sin through faith. Everybody already knows that Christians believe that homosexuality is a sin. It's no big deal at all that a Christian hold the same beliefs that are congruent with Christianity and the Bible.

It's more of a threat to the interests of the gay and lesbian communities of the US when a politician with such views can be made a rank that high I'd think.

Phantom's comment was that he "fears for the future ... for the country in general" if McCain and Palin end up in the White House. Worst case scenario, no more special rights are handed out. How is that in any way a "threat", or something to "fear"?

But you seem to be trying to trivialise things just a tad. It's not that she realises that homosexuals can become heterosexual again, it's that she doesn't seem to hold them in the same light as heterosexuals.

Really? Where does she say that homosexuals are any "less" than heterosexuals? Where is it that she says homosexuals are sub-human, or not worthy of the respect or livelihood that heterosexuals have?

I mean, really, in an article about HER CHURCH, where do you find any of Palin's personal beliefs?

Firstly, some people might just be confused as to their sexual orientation or may just be bisexual and favouring one over the other before changing.

Or they could be full-blown homosexual (no pun intended) and end up heterosexual.

Do some people still believe that nobody "changes" their sexual preference? Despite ... well, despite people changing their sexual preference?

A Christian in it's loose term could very well be homosexual and practice acts of homosexuality so long as he/she believes in Christian beliefs.

How "loose" are you implying, when you believe somebody that goes against the beliefs of a religion can supposedly follow the beliefs of said religion without a problem? Sure, a "Christian" could also be a murderer, a thief, or anything else, but that doesn't mean that they would be acting anywhere within the bounds of their religion.

But then most Christians do believe in tolerance to some degree.

That's why most Christians -- despite what some people would tell you -- don't beat up homosexuals. There's a difference in tolerance and encouragement.

There's mainly that her church has said various negative things concerning gays (see quotes above) ...

The only "negative" thing the church has said about homosexuals is that they can become Christian and heterosexual. Within the Bible, that's all they can do -- they're not going to denounce the Bible for teh sake of PR and say there's absolutely nothing wrong with homosexuality.

... and as a practicing member of that church, she can be seen as a representative of the church in question.

So every member of an organization is a representative of that organization? If I'm a member of the Republican Party (which I'm not), would EVERY Republican hold the same beliefs as I do?

If your argument is that a member of the church is a representative, and that every church member holds the exact same beliefs as every other member -- and the leadership -- of said church ... Where is your outrage over Barack Obama and Jeremiah Wright?

It could very well be a case of what she didn't say, as if she was planning on doing something positive in relation to them, wouldn't she have announced it in a bid to gain more support? That does seem to be happening right now with the parties who are going for the presidency.

Really? The "gay vote" is something Democrats are fighting hard for?

She's conservative and Christian. Most anybody can look at those two facts and tell you that she won't get the "gay vote". There's no point in her trying to pretend that she's something she's not to get an extra couple thousand votes in areas that are probably already decidedly Democrat anyway.

It might have something to do with how the articles says, and I quote 'Palin reversed her position and vetoed the bill after the state attorney general said it was unconstitutional'.

She found out it was unconstitutional and stopped supporting it. Once again, what is your problem with this. Would you like her to have supported an unconstitutional bill?

And her church IS emitting vibes against homosexuals, or at least homosexuals not wanting to convert to heterosexuality.

If that's the case, Christianity "emits vibes against homosexuals". In the same sense, they "emit vibes against" every sinner -- "What you do is wrong, but if you want to be "Saved", become a Christian and give up your sinful behavior". This isn't something special to Palin's church, this is Christianity. So once again, it's not Palin's beliefs or Palin's church that's the problem, it's Palin's Christianity.

Can you say, 'conflict of interest'? If she belongs to a group who are against homosexuality in any way it could cause her to lose the possibility of being more impartial.

Finally, an admittal that your problem is her Christianity.

First off, I do believe reading that a Vice President has the full power of a President when death, resignation or incapacity come into the picture. If something happens to the president, she has all that power at her hands.

And even the President doesn't have the power to wave his (or her) magic wand and "strip rights" away from anybody.

Secondly, homosexuals in some states DO have the legal right to marriage I believe and regardless of existing laws, it isn't in the best interests of the homosexual community to have someone who holds homosexuality in a negative light with that kind of power.

It's a state decision -- as shown by each STATE deciding. The views of somebody in a federal position hold no bearing on state decisions.

Why won't you comment on that?

Why won't I comment on the idea that if somebody realizes that homosexuals can become heterosexual again, they're unfit to lead the country? I didn't comment, basically, to keep the peace. It happens, Palin's church knows it happens and encourages it, Palin might hold the same belief, and if she does, it's nothing short of asinine to think that she'd be unfit to lead a country because she recognizes a fact that some people don't like.

But then maybe the issue isn't that 'she holds the belief that homosexuals can become heterosexual again', but rather that she sees them in a negative light.

Once again, tell me where she's said anything about homosexuals. The only thing that's been produced so far is from her church of six years, which believes that homosexuals can become heterosexual again, which is true.

And as the article stated that Palin reversed her position at some point, it can be seen that she was also against those benefits at some point. Or did I read that wrong?

You read it wrong. The article stated that she found that the bill would be unconstitutional and stopped supporting it.

He's traditional and doesn't support gay marriage. But on the other hand, he opposes a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.

And why do you think Palin would be any different?

I hope you're basing that on more than her being iffy on one bill promoting rights for 'less than 1 percent of state employees' as seen in the original article.

Umm, she supported benefits for homosexuals. If blacks couldn't get spousal benefits and they didn't make up that much of the state payroll and she fought to give them their benefits, would you be whining that it's not important because there weren't many of them?

Does it really matter considering this thread is concerning Palin?

Actually, it's concerning Palin's church, if you want to get picky about it. It was a simple question, on whether gender made any difference to his political preference.

But yeah, some Christian groups are known to be discriminatory towards homosexuals.

If you mean "discriminatory", as in, "refusing to give special rights to", then yes, some are. I you consider the KKK a "Christian group", you're sorely mistaken.

Considering some abortions can be performed for the following reasons ... I'd think there would be times it could be seen as the better choice for some.

Do you know any numbers on how many -- what percentage -- of abortions are performed for any of those reasons? I know that the fact of the matter is that the vast, vast majority of abortions are performed for convenience. "It was a mistake" and "I'm just not ready" are by far the most common excuses, not "carrying to full-term would be harmful to my health". There's a difference between abortion as a therapeutic procedure and abortion as an elective procedure.

And is it really still 'brutal murder' with today's medical techniques?

With an abortion, the baby is either starved, cut into pieces and sucked out, cut into pieces and scraped out, torn out piece-by-piece, injected with poison, or "born" feet-first until only his or her head remains inside the mother, then stabbed in the skull and has his or her brain sucked out.

How is that not brutal?

As for more male advocates than female, I'd think that might also be in terms of men who like to sleep around having to pay child support and similar occurences.

There are also women who sleep around, and end up getting a paycheck from the father of the child. There are some advocates -- I believe it's even been mentioned here -- of "male abortion", basically, the father cutting all ties to the baby. If the mother can decide to murder the child or to keep the baby and suck money from the father every week, the father should be able to decide if he wants the child or if he wants nothing to do with it, including a paycheck.

Like all these

Like all what? The only "scandal" mentioned is an investigation about some people she had fired.

YAY!!! ONE OF THOSE AFOREMENTIONED SCANDELS!!!!

Her daughter being pregnant is a "scandal"?

I put forwards to you this question though. If she has any possible problems leading her family, then how will her possibly getting presidential powers one day go in terms of her leadership ability?

Are you honestly implying that Bristol Palin's pregnancy is Sarah Palin's fault? Come on, I know you're smarter than that.

On the negative side, the fact that she sold out a faction could mean she's more than able to do it again.

It's "negative" that she called out corruption in her own party?

The article is about her.

The article has no quotes from Palin, no questions of Palin, no statements made by Palin or anybody representing Palin. The article isn't about Palin, it's about Palin's church.

It's stating that she belongs to a church that has some decidedly anti-homosexual views.

No more than any other church has "decidely anti-homosexual views".

You say she's acted consistently with her beliefs. That supports that she might act with her beliefs as a member of that church that was mentioned as well.

Because she's tried to take rights away from homosexuals before? NO, she hasn't.

We can debate this with widely different opinions can we not? Because as far as I understand, that makes a controversy.

It's an issue that is being blown out of proportion by people who take personal offense to anything Christian or conservative. That's not a controversy, it's an exaggeration.

As for bias, it's a two way thing. Your bias seems fairly obvious as well as might mine.

Except that my bias is towards common sense and factual information. The fact is that she supported benefits for homosexual partners of public employees. Common sense would dictate that, since she supported that, she wouldn't jump into office and start forming a task force to crusade around the country giving homosexuals the chance to repent and become Christian and heterosexual or be burned at the stake.

They might be less in number, but that doesn't make their opinions or percieved needs any less valid.

It doesn't mean that Republicans should focus on what a small group wants so they can get the vote of that small group, and ignore what the larger groups want so they can get the vote of the larger groups. For the same reason, you don't hear much about "little people" legislation. It's like Pizza Hut introducing an "Anchovy Lovers" pizza. Sure, it'd win over some anchovy fans, but most of the rest of us wouldn't give a damn.

Homosexuals might be willing to vote Republican if the Republicans can address their needs.

Homosexuals aren't the type to be conservative. Even if the Republicans did try to kowtow to homosexual special interests, chances are that the vast majority of them would support Democrats on other issues anyway.

Isn't that being a bit presumptive? Did he ever say he disliked all conservative Christians?

The only displayed reason, other than abortion, for his contempt of Sarah Palin is her possible stances that fall in line with Christianity. It's no great leap.

I mean you don't seem to support anything on these forums that grants rights to homosexuals, but you don't see Phantom calling you on that?

Actually, he has "called me out on that" in the past.

[Govinda]

She and her church have got themselves covered pretty well: http://jccalaska.com/images/10000/30...user/palin.htm.

Specifically the sentence: "Naturally, we are pleased that a person we are acquainted with and respect has been selected as a vice-presidential candidate. As a church, however, we do not endorse any candidate for any office."

I don't think you need to worry, Phantom. She'd need 2/3 support in all houses to ban anything; I doubt McCain would be up for vetoing things for her; and Bush was the same too. Her environmental policies are of more worry.

What Christian church doesn't promote converting gay people anyway? Even the Church of England, tame by American standards, are fond of the idea.

There are other things about Palin which need more attention, in my opinion. Her status as a dominionist is a religious aspect of her candidacy which is of more concern to me, for example.

[Furore]

Where does the Bill of Rights mention homosexuals, or the "right" to marry?

It doesn't specifically, but I was referring to what it's purpose was said to be. Isn't it's purpose to try to and protect the people's liberties and property? Well, sexual orientation would come under liberties I would imagine as liberties 'identify the condition in which an individual has the ability to act according to his or her own will.' (paraphrased, Courtesy of Wikipedia).

Hell, the first line of the wiki article is 'Liberty, the freedom to act or believe without being stopped by unnecessary force.' Isn't it unneccesary to regulate how people of one sexual preference act when you treat another differently? Especially as it isn't exactly hurting anyone.

It also conveys the Christian message, that through, Biblically, homosexuality is wrong, everyone can be "saved" from their sin through faith. Everybody already knows that Christians believe that homosexuality is a sin. It's no big deal at all that a Christian hold the same beliefs that are congruent with Christianity and the Bible.

Everybody? Last I checked, that literally included everyone. Including me. But there are others who would disagree with you Sasquatch. Within the Catholic branch of Christianity alone there are several beliefs held by different people. I'm personally of the belief that acts of homosexuality are what the Christian God warns against (just after reading the bible a few times to get my head in order). It's not homosexuals, but those who give in to lust, and that's in the same area as pre-marital sex. Be it heterosexual hanky panky or homosexual hanky panky.

Others believe that homosexuality is alright, including the acts, and the specific bible verses in question were merely against anal rape, same-sex prostitution in pagan temples, men sexually abusing boys, heterosexuals violating their fundamental nature by engaging in same same-sex acts during orgies and men engaging in bestiality by attempting to have sex with another species, some angels. (The Roman Catholic Church and homosexuality: Introduction)

I do also feel after reading this article, that a lot of the problem is that some mistakenly believe that a same-sex couple isn't capable of loving eachother and is only capable of lust. Which I greatly believe to be false based on some homosexual people I know. Yes, some of them might be sex crazed lust mongers, but you get just as many straight people like that too.

Here's a direct quote from the Catholic Catechism:

2358: "The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. They do not choose their homosexual condition; for most of them it is a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition."

The Church recognises that homosexuality ISN'T a choice, just as being heterosexual isn't. They may see homosexuality as a cross some must bare, but they also call for the avoidance of all unjust discrimination.

Phantom's comment was that he "fears for the future ... for the country in general" if McCain and Palin end up in the White House. Worst case scenario, no more special rights are handed out. How is that in any way a "threat", or something to "fear"?

How are they 'special rights' when other demographics have those rights by default? It's not allowing the liberties of some people, and I see it as tarnishing the whole 'freedom' connotation the US usually pulses with to countries such as mine.

Really? Where does she say that homosexuals are any "less" than heterosexuals? Where is it that she says homosexuals are sub-human, or not worthy of the respect or livelihood that heterosexuals have?

Her church (who she is a representative of) sees them as something that must be converted or changed into people like them. Don't get me started on some of the historical clashings (quite often involving unmoving Christians) that started as a result of one belief system clashing with another.

Violent or not, it breeds negative feelings, and it can get pretty personal.

I mean, really, in an article about HER CHURCH, where do you find any of Palin's personal beliefs?Or they could be full-blown homosexual (no pun intended) and end up heterosexual.

So you wouldn't see religious beliefs as a person's personal beliefs? There aren't many things more personal than religion influenced core beliefs.

Do some people still believe that nobody "changes" their sexual preference?

Absolutely. I was reading an article the other day (which I can't seem to find) and it suggested through research that 30% of a large sample seemed to be of more or less 'fixed' sexual orientation while the other 70% were deemed more or less bisexual though most often sticking to either 'heterosexual' or 'homosexual'. I personally believed that most people's orientation was more or less fixed, but some people wouldn't admit it to themselves and others were confused. It wouldn't surprise me with how much of a social stigma homosexuality is in some places. Like how 'gay' is a common insult now despite not everyone meaning it that way.

Despite ... well, despite people changing their sexual preference?

Some do, that's barely disputable. But just because some can, does that mean all can? Also bare in mind, that some people seem to find it's fashionable these days and seem to go from straight to gay and back quicker than I can get up and have a nice strong drink and then walk to the dunny and take a piss.

How "loose" are you implying, when you believe somebody that goes against the beliefs of a religion can supposedly follow the beliefs of said religion without a problem?

Not as loose as you might think. Even among single denominations, there are often several groups with their own interpretations/opinions. It doesn't help when you're generalising Christianity and it has over 20 denominations with an estimated 1.5 billion - 2.1 billion adherents around the world. My denomination is officially against discrimination no questions asked, yet there will always be those who look down on homosexuals because they are homosexual.

Sure, a "Christian" could also be a murderer, a thief, or anything else, but that doesn't mean that they would be acting anywhere within the bounds of their religion.

And it doesn't mean they would neccesarily be acting anywhere outside of their religion. Christianity establishes the fact that humans aren't perfect and are capable of sin. The main thing is that we can genuinely feel sorry for the evils we commit and also how we should act towards our fellow man. Jesus himself said in the bible that however you treat a fellow man is how you treat God. I'll go further and say this: If you discriminate against someone, you are discriminating against God.

That's why most Christians -- despite what some people would tell you -- don't beat up homosexuals.

No, most don't do it as they're either taught they should look out for their fellow man, or they fear the law. And many will beat up on homosexuals, especially verbally regardless of their stated belief. But either way, they're bullying the homosexual, and a true Christian should have a problem with that I'd like to think.

There's a difference in tolerance and encouragement.

There's a huge difference between tolerance and intolerance too. Is it still being tolerant if you're placing restrictions on a person's rights when you're not doing that same thing to another demographics?

The only "negative" thing the church has said about homosexuals is that they can become Christian and heterosexual. Within the Bible, that's all they can do -- they're not going to denounce the Bible for teh sake of PR and say there's absolutely nothing wrong with homosexuality.

They're preaching that homosexuality is wrong and that homosexuals should be encouraged to convert to heterosexuality. And the way they word it would be quite insulting to some homosexuals I would imagine. How do you think that church would feel if the local decently sized homosexual community started trying to convert them into homosexuals? And the bible says nothing that can be directly used to show homosexuality is evil. It's all in the interpretations of the little snippets you see every here and there.

So every member of an organization is a representative of that organization?

Yeah. Are you actually serious with that question? I mean some people could be bad representatives, but they're still representatives.

If I'm a member of the Republican Party (which I'm not), would EVERY Republican hold the same beliefs as I do?

I'd have no clue honestly. We don't have Republicans here that I know of as our two largest parties are the Liberals and Labour, and both seem fairly Liberal. Do Republicans attempt to establish a code or rule system that everyone is expected to pick up or are they individuals believing in allowing a person to hold their own thoughts?

If your argument is that a member of the church is a representative, and that every church member holds the exact same beliefs as every other member -- and the leadership -- of said church ... Where is your outrage over Barack Obama and Jeremiah Wright?

What about those two people? I'll admit personally that Obama appeals to me just as poorly as McCain does, but I haven't read any article about their churches advocating such measures. I do recall hearing that Obama was Muslim, but it shouldn't matter regardless as contrary to popular belief, Islam does tend to be one of the better religions in terms of what it allowed before people of other denominations. An example would be how Islam recognised the rights of women (albeit widows) to own land before any other society at that time would. After I heard he was Muslim, I then heard a conflicting report that he belonged to the United Church of Christ, which I also hear is pretty lax in terms of allowing a person to believe what they wish in terms of their faith.

Wright, I haven't heard all that much about thus far, but didn't he retire from being a pastor, and wasn't he denounced by Obama for the unpatriotic comments he made? That was the impression I got from the World News.

Really? The "gay vote" is something Democrats are fighting hard for?

So what? If you cover every groups interests to some degree or at least seem to express some interest in them, it's a lot better than being silent when your church has issues with one or two.

She's conservative and Christian. Most anybody can look at those two facts and tell you that she won't get the "gay vote". There's no point in her trying to pretend that she's something she's not to get an extra couple thousand votes in areas that are probably already decidedly Democrat anyway.

Not every Christian is anti-homosexual you know. Some can get pretty fired up when seeing someone treated unjustly over something like sexual orientation. Why pretend when you can seriously make an effort to give a damn? It wouldn't lose her any votes to try and look out for the intersts of some of the people she might end up being in some semblance of control over.

She found out it was unconstitutional and stopped supporting it. Once again, what is your problem with this. Would you like her to have supported an unconstitutional bill?

My problem is that you are using the one bill to describe her full stances on homosexuality. A bill she flipflopped on. Being constitutional or not, it's not properly supporting any member of the homosexual community if you're gonna be indecisive in the long haul.

If that's the case, Christianity "emits vibes against homosexuals". In the same sense, they "emit vibes against" every sinner -- "What you do is wrong, but if you want to be "Saved", become a Christian and give up your sinful behavior". This isn't something special to Palin's church, this is Christianity. So once again, it's not Palin's beliefs or Palin's church that's the problem, it's Palin's Christianity.

What did Jesus do? He focused on Sinners, even associating with prostitutes and tax collectors. And if a person is to follow his example, he/she shouldn't look down on others even if he/she does feel they are sinning. Jesus never seemed to aggressively change a person's beliefs. He gave them the decision with no threats, ill will nor with any words indicating he thought himself superior in his way of doing things. If a church has a specific belief that does show that another person may be considered inferior in any way due to a choice in lifestyle, it's the church's view, not the view of Christianity as a whole.

Finally, an admittal that your problem is her Christianity.

No, I said there's a 'conflict of interest' if her church displays a negative stance on homosexuality.

And even the President doesn't have the power to wave his (or her) magic wand and "strip rights" away from anybody.

Now, now, you make it sound like a powerless position. If I recall correctly, the President has the power to sign into law or veto any bills passed by congress. This could directly affect those seeking the same rights for homosexuals as the president could veto any bills supporting that end result. yeah, the President's magic fairy wand is a useless twig. But his (or her) signature is a damn powerful tool indeed.

It's a state decision -- as shown by each STATE deciding. The views of somebody in a federal position hold no bearing on state decisions.

Oh really, I wasn't aware of this fact. I mean I know the individual states have different laws, but I also thought the President had quite a lot of power if he/she wanted something, despite the set of checks and balances in place to stop one trying to seize ultimate power. So the president could have absolutely no bearing on any issues affecting homosexual individuals? Or is it just the local legislation type issues the the President has no control over?

Why won't I comment on the idea that if somebody realizes that homosexuals can become heterosexual again, they're unfit to lead the country? I didn't comment, basically, to keep the peace. It happens, Palin's church knows it happens and encourages it, Palin might hold the same belief, and if she does, it's nothing short of asinine to think that she'd be unfit to lead a country because she recognizes a fact that some people don't like.

Some people believe that 'some' people can be converted. Others believe that 'most' people can be. But if either of these are the case, what of those who can't or just plain don't want to change from homosexual to heterosexual? Shouldn't they have the right to live as they want to with the same benefits others in a heterosexual relationship get?

Once again, tell me where she's said anything about homosexuals. The only thing that's been produced so far is from her church of six years, which believes that homosexuals can become heterosexual again, which is true.

True as far as you believe. It's something you still get a lot of professionals split on. And her church does look down on heterosexuals which I see as being quite obvious through their wording.

'We can change homosexuals through the power of prayer, and convert them to heterosexuals' seems to suggest that there's something wrong with homosexuals and that they should be converted into heterosexuals. 'You'll be encouraged by the power of God's love and His desire to transform the lives of those impacted by homosexuality,' doesn't help any argument against that connotation I mentioned.

You read it wrong. The article stated that she found that the bill would be unconstitutional and stopped supporting it.

Unconstitutional or not, either way she flipflopped on the one piece of evidence you've displayed that she might be supportative of homosexual rights.

And why do you think Palin would be any different?

Because she hasn't stated anything to suggest otherwise.

Umm, she supported benefits for homosexuals. If blacks couldn't get spousal benefits and they didn't make up that much of the state payroll and she fought to give them their benefits, would you be whining that it's not important because there weren't many of them?

Umm, she flipflopped on benefits for homosexuals. If the homosexuals in question got the benefits than good for them, just as it would be good for blacks to be treated fairly. I do hope people aren't still giving them shit there, because that's just as much if not moreso petty than discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation.

Actually, it's concerning Palin's church, if you want to get picky about it. It was a simple question, on whether gender made any difference to his political preference.

And Palin's association with the aforementioned church. Just to be picky of course. And why would you think gender would make any difference to his political preference? He hasn't exactly been actively targetting females or doing anything else to give you a reason to think such a thing. Or has he?

If you mean "discriminatory", as in, "refusing to give special rights to", then yes, some are. I you consider the KKK a "Christian group", you're sorely mistaken.

No I meant discriminatory in terms of not allowing homosexuals to be left alone to do as they will. As for the KKK, I thought they were considering themself Christian? They were just one of those smaller sects most religions get who're like the bad eggs of the family. I know they're anti-catholic, anti-black, anti-homosexual and anti-several other groups, but I have heard them quoting from bibles and stuff.

Do you know any numbers on how many -- what percentage -- of abortions are performed for any of those reasons? I know that the fact of the matter is that the vast, vast majority of abortions are performed for convenience. "It was a mistake" and "I'm just not ready" are by far the most common excuses, not "carrying to full-term would be harmful to my health". There's a difference between abortion as a therapeutic procedure and abortion as an elective procedure.

I couldn't find many statistics on abortions that seemed to agree with one another too closely, but I did notice that there seems to be a trend of being twice as many in 1995 than halfway through this decade. The world average agrees with you however at 26 induced abortions per 100 known pregnancies. Bearing in mind this statistic would be bolstered by some countries where abortions are performed much more commonly, I really couldn't say I knew what percentage of abortions in the USA are performed for those reasons. Feel free to enlighten me.

With an abortion, the baby is either starved, cut into pieces and sucked out, cut into pieces and scraped out, torn out piece-by-piece, injected with poison, or "born" feet-first until only his or her head remains inside the mother, then stabbed in the skull and has his or her brain sucked out.

How is that not brutal?

Considering that most of the experts (fetal development researchers) believe that a fetus is unlikely to feel any pain until after the seventh month of pregnancy, I'd say it isn't as brutal as you would suggest. Keeping in mind it becomes illegal after a certain period of development (a deal shorter than seven months), the fetus wouldn't be in any way to feel pain.

I'm not really a fan of abortions myself, BUT I know the proper procedures (with the exception of illegal abortions) are believed to be pain free for the fetus (though usually not the mother).

There are also women who sleep around, and end up getting a paycheck from the father of the child. There are some advocates -- I believe it's even been mentioned here -- of "male abortion", basically, the father cutting all ties to the baby. If the mother can decide to murder the child or to keep the baby and suck money from the father every week, the father should be able to decide if he wants the child or if he wants nothing to do with it, including a paycheck.

But both of your examples are very small minorites, both smaller than the gay community. And you've said before to some extent that they don't matter politically, so why should these smaller groups?

Like all what? The only "scandal" mentioned is an investigation about some people she had fired.

- she had hired a private lawyer in an ethics investigation against her in Alaska, where she is governor. (After getting elected in 2006 on an ethics reform platform, I hope the irony there isn't lost.)
The Telegraph - Calcutta (Kolkata) | International | Palin scandal scalds Republicans
The Associated Press: Investigation dogs Alaska governor

- Sarah Palin endorsed a contingency lawsuit against one of the State of Alaska's pension consultants after the state legislature refused to bankroll the legal effort:

The state filed a $1.8 billion malpractice lawsuit Thursday against a consulting firm it claims is a reason Alaska's public employee pension system is in crisis.
JustOneMinute: A Not-Yet-Reported Palin "Scandal"

- And this page sums up the rest.
Open Left:: Palin Scandal Compendium

Her daughter being pregnant is a "scandal"?

Are you honestly implying that Bristol Palin's pregnancy is Sarah Palin's fault? Come on, I know you're smarter than that.

Nope. Just saying that if she has any difficulties controlling her family, how could she be expected to handle a country as big as the USA if it came to it? I'm smart and I also consider the smaller things that could possibly have an impact later. Would you rather have someone with a flaw or someone without a flaw, even if it's just something tiny?

It's "negative" that she called out corruption in her own party?

It's negative that she sold out her faction, especially if the US might one day be her faction. I imagine those in power can get access to a lot of intelligence...

The article has no quotes from Palin, no questions of Palin, no statements made by Palin or anybody representing Palin. The article isn't about Palin, it's about Palin's church.

It's about Palin's churches views. And why would she be a member if she didn't share their views? Even if she's faking it for some reason, chances are she'd want to make herself look genuine by sticking with their message. Or are those branches of Christianity like fashion accessories there?

No more than any other church has "decidely anti-homosexual views".

Oh I'm sure some have worse views concerning homosexuality. But on the same token, many have better views. You're generalising Christianity too much for my liking, especially as some denominations have made it known they're not ready to reform unless the views they hold differently are reconciled in some way. And even there, you'll find some who'll disagree and merge with a few others such as the Uniting Church here.

Because she's tried to take rights away from homosexuals before? NO, she hasn't.

That's not the point. The point is that she might be less inclined to do things in the best interests of the homosexual community than some other candidate.

It's an issue that is being blown out of proportion by people who take personal offense to anything Christian or conservative.

I consider myself Christian. I just don't consider some Christians to be acting very Christian. Especially those who won't stand up for others, even with it being as overbearingly self-righteous as it might make some look.

That's not a controversy, it's an exaggeration.

By definition it's a controversy, even if it's just people like us turning it into one. The views of her church which she is a representative of can be seen as controversial as some would harshly disagree with them.

Except that my bias is towards common sense and factual information. The fact is that she supported benefits for homosexual partners of public employees. Common sense would dictate that, since she supported that, she wouldn't jump into office and start forming a task force to crusade around the country giving homosexuals the chance to repent and become Christian and heterosexual or be burned at the stake.

Based on one point. And like I mentioned earlier, one she flipflopped on. Constitutional or not, it's the only example of anything I've seen pro-homosexual that she has supported. And she didn't stick with it. That's factual information.

It doesn't mean that Republicans should focus on what a small group wants so they can get the vote of that small group, and ignore what the larger groups want so they can get the vote of the larger groups. For the same reason, you don't hear much about "little people" legislation. It's like Pizza Hut introducing an "Anchovy Lovers" pizza. Sure, it'd win over some anchovy fans, but most of the rest of us wouldn't give a damn.

And we mightn't, but the store would get more business from the anchovy lovers of the world, wouldn't it? And so long as it makes flavours for the rest of us, it'd likely only be those prejudiced against Anchovy Pizza who would stop doing business with the store.

Homosexuals aren't the type to be conservative. Even if the Republicans did try to kowtow to homosexual special interests, chances are that the vast majority of them would support Democrats on other issues anyway.

So are you dismissing the existence of conservative homosexuals then? Because even if they are a minority, they do exist. And one of the ones I know is one of the most conflicted people I've ever met, solely through trying to please the expectations of society while remaining himself.

The only displayed reason, other than abortion, for his contempt of Sarah Palin is her possible stances that fall in line with Christianity. It's no great leap.

It's still a decent leap. I mean I'm Christian and me and Phantom are on friendly terms via MSN. Some of the others that hang around on MSN I'd also imagine are Christian. If anything I'd say he has a problem with those who are against him having the same rights as someone else. And can you blame him?

Actually, he has "called me out on that" in the past.

Good for you. It's good that someone's letting you know that minorities shouldn't be treated unfairly. You might learn something.

[Zargabaath]

How it should be viewed in the a Christian church is that they want everyone to go to heaven and be with god but if you are gay you are going against god’s will. If those gays don’t repent for their transgression against god they will go to hell. As Christianity says to love all people and to care for the poor, the wayward, and the sick it would be logical to think that they would want to save gays from a horrible afterlife because they don’t want that on anyone (at least they should want that).
“as a Vice President (if elected) to strip gay partners of not only their right to marry but also their gay rights?” This is a perfect example of the gross error in what and who have rights. There are only individual rights because that is the smallest minority, there are no such rights to groups. If there were then it would say that some people are better, more important, or take precedence over other humans. A group can have no rights other than the rights of its individual members. A person does not acquire new rights or loses rights by joining a group. The belief of collective rights (that rights belong to groups not individuals) means that “rights” belong to some people but not to others.
“in all honesty I think Palin will bring a lot of disaster to this country if she gets the standing as a Vice President… she’ll definitely strip gays of all rights”. What disaster would she bring? You use a scare tactic to bring negative feelings towards her yet don’t expand on it. You sound like the end of the freedom would pass by if she became Vice President or President. What you are “complaining” about is getting special rights for gays and I would be happy if she or any blocks any piece of legislation that gives out collective rights. You say that all humans are equal and should have equal rights yet you want more rights just for being gay – hypocritical and immoral.

[Furore]

How it should be viewed in the a Christian church is that they want everyone to go to heaven and be with god but if you are gay you are going against god’s will.

And here's little old innocent and completely naive me thinking that being gay wasn't really a sin but acting on it apparently is. I mean the reasons given to me by other Christians are usually things like lust driving a person away from God yadda, yadda, yadda. But wouldn't that mean sex for any means other than procreation is sinning? Probably, but we're only human and the Christian God is more than happy to forgive people of their transgressions. Unless you're in a denomination that don't like that thought.

If those gays don’t repent for their transgression against god they will go to hell. As Christianity says to love all people and to care for the poor, the wayward, and the sick it would be logical to think that they would want to save gays from a horrible afterlife because they don’t want that on anyone (at least they should want that).

And why are they taking it on themselves to act with God's authority? How can they feel they have the right to pass judgement on another human when they're human themselves? I could really link playing God to idolatry for those people who follow such a political leader. Like REALLY link that to them.

“as a Vice President (if elected) to strip gay partners of not only their right to marry but also their gay rights?” This is a perfect example of the gross error in what and who have rights. There are only individual rights because that is the smallest minority, there are no such rights to groups. If there were then it would say that some people are better, more important, or take precedence over other humans. A group can have no rights other than the rights of its individual members. A person does not acquire new rights or loses rights by joining a group. The belief of collective rights (that rights belong to groups not individuals) means that “rights” belong to some people but not to others.

A group's rights can be amended, changed or patched up by those in authority and those in authority can be overthrown if enough wish it and successfully stage an overthrow of government. People ruling other people in general is ****ed up as no humans are infallible, but unfortunately most alternatives seem to lead to a worse result.

“in all honesty I think Palin will bring a lot of disaster to this country if she gets the standing as a Vice President… she’ll definitely strip gays of all rights”. What disaster would she bring? You use a scare tactic to bring negative feelings towards her yet don’t expand on it. You sound like the end of the freedom would pass by if she became Vice President or President. What you are “complaining” about is getting special rights for gays and I would be happy if she or any blocks any piece of legislation that gives out collective rights. You say that all humans are equal and should have equal rights yet you want more rights just for being gay – hypocritical and immoral.

I'm sure she would have contributed to global warming with all the gas expelled in her speeches. But then the same can be said for most politicians. And what's not equal about wanting any people in love to be able to express themselves legally the same way? Sexual orientation means shit these days. Hell, I'd go as far as saying it's the new racism. Now that all people are equal regardless of race, we're gonna pick on people for sexual orientation. What's next though? Hair colour? Favoured car makes?

Take my words how you want, but if you can't see the stupidity in denying people freedoms like these, I see you as being the hypocritical one. And you can go **** your morality. Seriously.

[Zargabaath]

And here's little old innocent and completely naive me thinking that being gay wasn't really a sin but acting on it apparently is. I mean the reasons given to me by other Christians are usually things like lust driving a person away from God yadda, yadda, yadda. But wouldn't that mean sex for any means other than procreation is sinning? Probably, but we're only human and the Christian God is more than happy to forgive people of their transgressions. Unless you're in a denomination that don't like that thought.




And why are they taking it on themselves to act with God's authority? How can they feel they have the right to pass judgement on another human when they're human themselves? I could really link playing God to idolatry for those people who follow such a political leader. Like REALLY link that to them.



A group's rights can be amended, changed or patched up by those in authority and those in authority can be overthrown if enough wish it and successfully stage an overthrow of government. People ruling other people in general is ****ed up as no humans are infallible, but unfortunately most alternatives seem to lead to a worse result.



I'm sure she would have contributed to global warming with all the gas expelled in her speeches. But then the same can be said for most politicians. And what's not equal about wanting any people in love to be able to express themselves legally the same way? Sexual orientation means shit these days. Hell, I'd go as far as saying it's the new racism. Now that all people are equal regardless of race, we're gonna pick on people for sexual orientation. What's next though? Hair colour? Favoured car makes?

Take my words how you want, but if you can't see the stupidity in denying people freedoms like these, I see you as being the hypocritical one. And you can go **** your morality. Seriously.

Marriage is between a man and woman as it has been throughout history in all cultures. If gays want to create of word for their marriage I don't care. More power to them.

Only individuals have rights not groups. The gay community does not get a right that asian people are not able to get; mix-and-match with your imagination regarding other groups. Collective rights destroy the freedom from which our Founding Fathers envisioned for this country, free from the crazy world of Europe. And if gays don't like it in the U.S they can always leave, they can go to Europe, they'll be glad to take them.

Jesus did say to spread the word of the gospel/bible so what they are doing does follow his teachings.

Sex in christianity, as christianity teaches, is not just about propogation but about passion and love. God would not want them to have sex to propogate without passion just as he would not want them to only divulge in lust and not propogate.

I was once Catholic, know more than most christians about the doctrine, and my grandmother is a very devout Catholic, do not try to argue the doctrine with me.

Also swearing in a debate is never a good idea, makes you and your argument less appealing.

[Furore]

Marriage is between a man and woman as it has been throughout history in all cultures. If gays want to create of word for their marriage I don't care. More power to them.

Only individuals have rights not groups. The gay community does not get a right that asian people are not able to get; mix-and-match with your imagination regarding other groups. Collective rights destroy the freedom from which our Founding Fathers envisioned for this country, free from the crazy world of Europe. And if gays don't like it in the U.S they can always leave, they can go to Europe, they'll be glad to take them.

Jesus did say to spread the word of the gospel/bible so what they are doing does follow his teachings.

Sex in christianity, as christianity teaches, is not just about propogation but about passion and love. God would not want them to have sex to propogate without passion just as he would not want them to only divulge in lust and not propogate.

I was once Catholic, know more than most christians about the doctrine, and my grandmother is a very devout Catholic, do not try to argue the doctrine with me.

Also swearing in a debate is never a good idea, makes you and your argument less appealing.

Oh I wouldn't dream of arguing about your grandmother's interpretation of Christianity. She probably would have gotten along with my grandfather. He was a big fan of trying to convert Mormons to Catholicism when they knocked on his door.

I just don't think it would need to be a Christian marriage. I mean a marriage in itself is just a close union of two things and who says they have to be a man and a woman or even two humans? You have things such as the marriage of song and dance for example.

Some straight couples have sex using contraceptives and this isn't illegal. Why can't two homosexuals do the same thing for pleasure and still be legally recognised as a wed couple the same way a straight couple can be?

Also, don't go on about my ****ing swearing. If I wanted it that way I'd swear every ****ing second word. I'd rather be myself than appeal to whoever gets offended by a simple four letter word like ****. And I mean it's not like **** isn't censored.

****.

[Zargabaath]

I don't get offended however if you want to debate in the big leagues it is not wise.

The straight couples having sex with contraceptives and its legality. Is that within Christianity or what???

[Furore]

I don't get offended however if you want to debate in the big leagues it is not wise.

The straight couples having sex with contraceptives and its legality. Is that within Christianity or what???

Fortunately not all law is dictated by any religion even if much of the law is influenced by the major religion of the society in many cases. In this case we're speaking what's legal (and why that is or is not fair), not what Christians or the majority of Christian denominations believe.

[Zargabaath]

While there actually could be old laws prohibiting the use of contraceptives, they are ignored for they are out-dated and not for the government to dictate. There are a few old laws in Virginia that are still on the books but are not enforced: only missionary sex (man on top), sex only in the bedroom or kitchen.

A couple does not necessitate that they are married. Gay couples can use contraceptives if they want however, I don't think it is smart to apply "the ability to use contraceptives or not" as a base for being legally recognized. That is what I am getting from your second to last post.