Politics

Gingrich Reportedly Tells Gay Iowan Voter He’s Better Off Supporting Obama

Gingrich Allegedly Tells Gay Man to Vote for Obama

Republican presidential contender Newt Gingrich has had a rough couple of weeks. He’s come under fire for having an alleged progressive record and his own half-sister, a lesbian, has said she plans to support President Barack Obama’s re-election campaign — even if it means going against her own blood. Now, Gingrich is making headlines after he reportedly told an Iowan man that he’d be better off supporting Obama.

Gingrich, who was campaigning in Oskaloosa, Iowa, allegedly made this assertion to Scott Arnold, an associate professor of writing at William Penn University. This response reportedly came after Arnold asked Gingrich how he planned to engage with gay Americans, should he assume the presidency.

Gingrich Allegedly Tells Gay Man to Vote for Obama

Scott Arnold (Photo Credit: Des Moines Register)

In the past, Gingrich has made his opposition to homosexuality known. “I believe that marriage is between a man and woman. It has been for all of recorded history and I think this is a temporary aberration that will dissipate,” he said back in September. “I think that it is just fundamentally goes against everything we know.”

The New York Daily News has more about Gingrich’s gay marriage views:

Earlier this month, he told the conservative Christian Family Leader organization that, if elected, he would “oppose any judicial, bureaucratic or legislative effort to define marriage in any manner other than as between one man and one woman.”

“When you ask somebody a question and you expect them to support all Americans and have everyone’s general interest…It’s a little bit frustrating and disheartening when you’re told to support the other side,” Arnold explains. “That he doesn’t’ need your support.”

According to the Des Moines Register, Arnold, who is a gay Democrat, says that he went to the event with an open mind. After seeing Gingrich’s past comments about gays, he was curious to know how, as president, the GOP contender would represent him. Arnold said the candidate‘s past statements don’t “inspire hope at all.”

Considering Gingrich‘s own sister’s pledge to support his rival, should he secure the nomination, as well as his own words on same-sex unions, it‘s safe to say he won’t be getting America’s “gay vote.”

(H/T: National Journal)

Comments (253)

1 2 3 ... 5
  • JP16
    Posted on December 21, 2011 at 9:42am

    It’s sad that so many people are this obsessed about something like this. If the value of your marriage is dependent on if gay marriage is allowed by a government, you have to re-evaluate your marriage and understand what it means to you.

    You’ll fight against Obama restricting certain freedoms and liberties and promoting government intervention in others, yet you’ll argue to do the same thing just in different situations. You will call it Progressive when Obama does it, and you’ll Conservative when you do it. Welcome to the reason why Christian Conservatives and Progressive Liberals are so disliked by the majority of Americans who are just looking for a candidate that doesn’t want to have government tell people what they can do in their own lives, providing that it doesn’t harm anyone.

    Report Post »  
    • Dirty Harry
      Posted on December 21, 2011 at 10:02am

      P16, don’t cloak your low moral standards under the guise of protecting liberties. Approve of gay marriage and next thing you know, men will be demanding the right to marry a donkey.

      These people are abberations, oddities. Working to normalize their dysfunction serves no useful purpose.

      Report Post »  
    • JP16
      Posted on December 21, 2011 at 10:13am

      Tell me then, if these are oddities, then why be so worried about what they do on their own? People will still see these individuals as different and not typical of normal society. So, once again, what harm do they do to you? Furthermore, if every is held to your moral standards, does that mean that if people are not the same religion as you that they should be banned from practicing their religion? I mean, a few more steps and some of these comments on these comments boards would be close to the extreme radical Muslim variety, the same group that many comments say are absolutely insane.

      Report Post »  
    • TheLeftMadeMeRight
      Posted on December 21, 2011 at 10:17am

      “Christian Conservatives and Progressive Liberals are so disliked by the majority of Americans ”

      Back up your statement with fact please.

      Report Post » TheLeftMadeMeRight  
    • Favored93
      Posted on December 21, 2011 at 10:18am

      Your premise is flawed in that you think we are worried about our marriages some how being diminished as the result of gay people being allowed to marry.
      We could care less what other people choose to do as long as it does not break my leg or pick my wallet (or my neighbor’s).
      The issue is that a Marriage is a religious institution. There is a reason we stand before a priest or preacher or rabbi etc when we say our vows. BECAUSE WE SAY THEM BEFORE GOD who is the one that MADE this institution in the first place when He made Adam and Eve (NOT ADAM AND STEVE).
      I am against having to get a license to get married in the first place gay or no. Government does not belong in our religious institutions. IMO if a gay person wants all the legal stuff that comes with marriage (including what comes with divorce) then let them have “cavil unions” but keep their a-moral and perverse junk out of our religious institutions!!!

      Report Post » Favored93  
    • gramma b
      Posted on December 21, 2011 at 10:23am

      Gay “marriage” has nothing to do with what people choose to do privately. It is about forcing the people, through their government, to give their imprimatur to deviant behavior, and marginalizing anyone who clings, not just to traditional morality, but to objective reality. Gay “marriage” isn’t about gays wanting to be left alone. It is about silencing anyone who disagrees witht them.

      Sexual attraction and intercourse have an obvious biological purpose. The urge to imitate intercourse with a person of the same sex is an obvious dysfunction or, as the Catholics say, “objectively disordered.” But, the homosexuals are trying to force everyone into going along with their imitation of marriage, and to pretend that this objectively disordered behavior is “normal.”

      The agenda of the homosexuals has been two-pronged. They have been part of the move among the media and popular entertainment to destroy traditional morality on every front, so that a substantial portion of our population is now completely sexually amoral. Yesterday there was a story about a disturbingly large segment of our teenagers engaging in group sex, for example. Morality matters. Not just because God said so, but because morality protects the family unit.

      But, the homosexuals can’t stop with simply destroying morality. They have a second battle to fight, and that is to get people to untether from reality, and accept deviant behavior. That is what gay “marriage” is all about.

      Report Post »  
    • Vechorik
      Posted on December 21, 2011 at 10:32am

      The FEDERAL government has no authority to regulate abortion, drugs, marriage, prostitution and a host of other issues. That right belongs to the STATES!

      Ron Paul on backstage interview after Jay Leno:
      http://www.nbc.com/the-tonight-show/…n-paul/1374530

      Report Post »  
    • Mr. Oshawott
      Posted on December 21, 2011 at 10:35am

      @JP16

      Amen to that. It really is appalling that so many people on this website would condemn freedom suppression from a Progressive Democrat, but then call for freedom suppression from a “Conservative” Republican (which is, in reality, a PROGRESSIVE with an R next to his name). These ignorant neo-conservative Blazers really need to stop drinking the media establishment’s propaganda-laced Kool-Aid and GET A LIFE. The government should NEVER be involved in the definition of marriage and/or what a person does in his/her bedroom.

      Report Post » Mr. Oshawott  
    • Vechorik
      Posted on December 21, 2011 at 10:38am

      Gingrich belittling someone for sexual behavior is like Gingrich belittling someone for lobbying. Talk about serial hypocrisy.

      Report Post »  
    • KTsayz
      Posted on December 21, 2011 at 10:41am

      What excellent comments on this thread! And not any real personal attacks – KUDOS!
      I’m most in agreement with Favored93. I also believe marriage is a religious ceremony pledged before God and should have remained like that. Let the gays have their government santioned union if they want it – a civil union. I remember a long time ago some gay person comlaining that they don‘t want a civil union because they didn’t want to ask, “Will you civil union me?” ROFL

      Report Post »  
    • NOTAMUSHROOM
      Posted on December 21, 2011 at 10:42am

      Gramma
      “Gay “marriage” isn’t about gays wanting to be left alone. It is about silencing anyone who disagrees witht them.”

      Amen. Also they want to force people to like them for who they are. That’s why most of them vote Democrat: the party of You Will Like Me and You Will Do As I Say. When will they figure out that no one cares about who they sleep with; just keep it to yourself. I don’t need to know nor do I want to know. It’s your problem. Stop making it mine.

      Report Post »  
    • Mo Better
      Posted on December 21, 2011 at 10:44am

      Moron – Christian Conservaties are the majority!

      Report Post » Mo Better  
    • marjorie faye
      Posted on December 21, 2011 at 10:44am

      JP16,
      No one is telling you what to do in your private life. I assume you are doing precisely what you wish to do and no one is interfering with that. However, there is no logical or moral basis for demanding that America should be willing to destroy the sacrament of marriage for the sake of homosexuals who number no more than a few percentage points of the population. It is utterly selfish of you to disrupt and distress people in this way. It is a lie that homosexuals want the same rights to marriage that heterosexuals have. First, you have the same right to marry any eligible person of the opposite gender. Beyond that, male homosexuals do not want the same type of marriage that traditional marriage represents. Studies have shown (e.g., one in 2010 in San Francisco, written up in the NY Times) that male homosexuals are generally ultra promiscuous and generally do not require sexual fidelity of one another even in committed relationships. It simply does not interest them, because freedom to be promiscuous is part of the paradigm for them. Also, there is great harm in male homosexual practice. They tend to die younger than heterosexuals because of the disease and other types of severe medical harm caused by their specific sexual practices. Check with the CDC for truth on that. Why should society disrupt its institutions for something so harmful as that? And why are these realities not made more generally known? Well, you can guess why. Politics.

      Report Post »  
    • Heatherdew
      Posted on December 21, 2011 at 10:45am

      I think it is more important for the leader of our country to do all in his or her power to keep us safe from harm. I don’t believe we need to protect ourselves from gay marriage. More importantly is to elect a person who can get this country on the right fiscal tract. Gay marriag is in the noise level as far as I am concerned. It is a nitnoy. Nada! Zero. We have so many other problems to solve: the economy, terroism, falling housing market, etc. Get real.

      Report Post »  
    • super redhawk
      Posted on December 21, 2011 at 10:50am

      JP16, you poor ignorant lib… first, the majority of Americans are Christian. Second, the founders believed religion taught morality, which was needed for a people to govern themselves. Third, religion and christian are not the same. All religions have equal rights here in the USA. One thing all religions believe in is a supreme being, which gave mankind the ability to reason. Use some reason please.

      Report Post »  
    • The10thAmendment
      Posted on December 21, 2011 at 10:51am

      To hell with queers.

      Report Post » The10thAmendment  
    • Ookspay
      Posted on December 21, 2011 at 10:52am

      No one is trying to stop homosexuals from having that 5 second funny feeling however they like. We just don’t want to be forced to approve of their lifestyle, accept it, condone it, or sanction it.

      What more do these freaks want? They teach in our schools, adopt children, make out in public, their right to work and housing is protected by law, they are judges, preachers, cops and soldiers. What do these perverts want? For us to think they’re normal? Not gonna happen…

      Report Post » Ookspay  
    • Vechorik
      Posted on December 21, 2011 at 10:55am

      Mo Better
      Posted on December 21, 2011 at 10:44am

      Moron – Christian Conservaties are the majority!

      ———————-
      Well, fortunately America is not “mob rule by the majority”
      America is a REPUBLIC and should be operated according to the Constitution.

      What happens when “mob rule” isn’t on the side of right?
      Mob rule never works — that’s socialism, facism — downright unAmerican!

      Report Post »  
    • Duey2000
      Posted on December 21, 2011 at 10:56am

      As Dirty Harry pointed out, this opens the door for other legislation. Is homosexuality a choice or natural? The same argument can be made for pedophilia, beastiality, and even rape.

      Report Post »  
    • hidden_lion
      Posted on December 21, 2011 at 11:15am

      The government has no business in this area. Who cares if a person wants to marry a donkey. I am pretty sure that kind of thing is not contagious. People and the government need to mind their own business. Marriage is one of two things. a) a social contract or b) a religious ceremony not under pervue of government intervention. There are lots of “sinful” things that are legal. It is supposed to be a free country for all, not just a select few. If you believe morals are important, demonstrate them and show how much better life is when you have principles, but don‘t let the government enforce your moral standard on people who don’t believe the way you do. That is Sharia law.

      Report Post » hidden_lion  
    • Mr. Oshawott
      Posted on December 21, 2011 at 11:15am

      @The10thAmendment

      “To hell with queers.”

      I’m hoping your statement was only a joke.

      Report Post » Mr. Oshawott  
    • AvengerK
      Posted on December 21, 2011 at 11:16am

      DIRTY HARRY is dead on. Putting the “ok” stamp on homosexual marriage at the federal level would simply open the door for groups like NAMBLA to push their agenda. And before you say that’s a stretch…keep in mind that Obama’s “Czar of Safe Schools” Kevin Jennings a very militant homosexual and founder of GLSEN (an organization that wants to teach extreme sex acts to school age children) admires Harry Hay-endorser of NAMBLA.
      http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/obama-appointee-lauded-nambla-figure
      There is absolutely no credible reason why homosexual marriage should be recognized at the federal level. Firstly, there’s no reason why an abberation of the human sexual psyche requires Federal recognition. Homosexuals comprise less than 2% of the population. The whole “what about benefits” line is a distraction. Two adult males together should be earning good salaries and have excellent benefits between them.
      Furthermore…Gingrich is right…this homosexual democrat would never vote for Gingrich and he shouldn‘t waste anyone’s time…go vote for Obama. He did what many militant homosexuals have been doing lately, confronting GOP candidates and trying to play “gotcha” while appearing as the victim. It’s a very passive/aggressive approach. I dont‘ believe for a second he’s “open minded” about a GOP candidate. I applaud Gingrich for not taking the bait. Quite honestly…we have bigger concerns than homosexual sensibilties in thi

      Report Post »  
    • smackdown33
      Posted on December 21, 2011 at 11:17am

      The homosexual issue is not a religious issue. It is a secular, societal issue.

      Sexual attraction serves a species specific purpose, the propagation of that species.It is necessary, and it’s developmental program can be found in our DNA. Errors in the program result in errors of expression.

      Errors result in a myriad of developmental human attractions, from inanimate objects, to animals, to children, to family members, to parents… on and on. Homosexuality is no different. It is just one of these developmental peculiarities, abnormalities.

      That being true, the state has no obligation promoting, legitimizing, legalizing, sanctioning, normalizing, the unnecessary or the abnormal. The only sexual attraction that warrants promoting and protection is the male/female. All of the others serve no society wide purpose.

      .

      Report Post »  
    • hidden_lion
      Posted on December 21, 2011 at 11:25am

      Episcopal churches allow gay priest so they could marry gays and leave the rest of the christian churches to stick to christian fundamentals. Still is no business of government or citizen to not allow anyone their rights. Most of you are not truly for liberty and freedom, you just want to control different parts of peoples lives. You have no complaint against the Sharia pushers, as you have the same inclinations.

      Report Post » hidden_lion  
    • AvengerK
      Posted on December 21, 2011 at 11:25am

      Seriously HIDDEN-LION? No problems with people making it with animals? Health risks not registering in that libertarian mind of yours? Health risks which lead to insurance premiums which affect all of us? Then you‘ve got the ones that can’t afford insurance so the government gets involved..that means tax money? I’m using that as an illustration of the silliness of libertarianism sometimes. For instance…decriminalizing all drugs. Libertarians say much like you did here HIDDEN..”who cares what an individual puts in their body?”. Well…we do indirectly. That kind of drug use leads to the user’s body ending up in a state of dessicated decreptitude…who pays for that person’s health concerns then? Himself? Maybe. Likely the insurance company or the taxpayer. If that kind of rampant drug use becomes more prevelant and more cases end up needing long term and extensive care..premiums go up, or if government’s involved, government grows. So yes…we should care if people want to make it with animals.

      Report Post »  
    • AvengerK
      Posted on December 21, 2011 at 11:28am

      MARJORIE FAYE…you’re being far too generous. Homosexuals consistently comprise less than 2% of the population at any time. They’re nothing more than an abberation of the human sexual psyche. What next? Should the federal government recognize the lobby that wants to lower the age of consent? The polygamists? Coprophiliacs?

      Report Post »  
    • JP16
      Posted on December 21, 2011 at 11:30am

      So, who is for getting the government out of marriages to begin with and for legal purposes consider all to be civil unions?

      If it takes away government regulation over the lives of American citizens, I’m all for it.

      Report Post »  
    • AvengerK
      Posted on December 21, 2011 at 11:31am

      Well here’s a first…I can’t believe I agree with SMACKDOWN.

      Report Post »  
    • zorro
      Posted on December 21, 2011 at 11:31am

      JP16, the only ones obsessed with this issue are the liberals.

      Report Post »  
    • Walkabout
      Posted on December 21, 2011 at 11:37am

      Dirty Harry

      JP16 is playing human “othello”. It is a psychological theory. He is only here to change minds so he doesn’t feel bad about his conduct.

      Report Post »  
    • smackdown33
      Posted on December 21, 2011 at 11:38am

      AvengerK, ‘Tis the season. Merry Christmas.

      Report Post »  
    • AvengerK
      Posted on December 21, 2011 at 11:42am

      SMACKDOWN…the only point I would argue with you is the “DNA” point. I have found no research confirming a physiological difference between a homosexual brain and a heterosexual one. No genetic pointer for homosexuality. I’m convinced as people like Dr. Charles Socarides were that homosexuality is a deep psychological state not a genetic one. That doesnt‘ mean it’s “treatable” it just means it’s a psychological state. To offer both sides…Socarides’ son I believe is also a psychiatrist and a homosexual and he vehemently disagrees with his father. In any case…no one can present a credible genetic pointer for homosexuality.

      Report Post »  
    • smackdown33
      Posted on December 21, 2011 at 11:53am

      AvengerK, to me it’s logical. When Dmitri Ivanovich Mendeleev published his periodic table of the elements he left gaps in the table when it seemed that the corresponding element had not yet been discovered. He knew the elements and their properties well enough to conclude that there must be other elements that will someday fill these spaces. He was correct.

      Likewise, we now know enough about DNA, and its properties, to make similar predictions. The specifics will be worked out later, but the evidence of its developmental impact is overwhelming.

      Report Post »  
    • JP16
      Posted on December 21, 2011 at 11:53am

      Walkabout

      I have no need to change anyone’s minds to justify my own, I’d rather they at least be challenged to develop and reinforce their beliefs and consider their reasoning. I, as an individual, don’t need to be told that tolerance will be better for myself now and in the future and I will have no doubts when I eventually get judged for my own conduct. Just as I don‘t believe in Obama’s idea of collective salvation, I don’t believe that resorting to force to restrict the actions of others is somehow required in order for my salvation after I pass. I’ll leave any sort of judgement to God when it comes to the way people live their lives.

      Report Post »  
    • JRook
      Posted on December 21, 2011 at 11:58am

      In any intellectual discourse or decision process it is best to ignore the zealots as they are neither intellectual nor interested in anything or anyone other than themselves and their own self interest.

      Report Post »  
    • Therightsofbilly
      Posted on December 21, 2011 at 12:04pm

      @JROOK

      OK, we will ignore you.

      Report Post » Therightsofbilly  
    • JRook
      Posted on December 21, 2011 at 12:05pm

      @Mo Better Actually they are not and once again the President will be elected by Independents who favor a rational thought process and vote. Independents ignore zealots from both sides of the spectrum and actually hold fast to a true applications of liberty and justice for all. That is particularly applicable when you are considering individual behaviors which don’t impinge or limit the freedom of others. While I don’t support the lifestyle nor the overly zealot program to co-opt the term marriage. The christian conservative rhetoric is laughable and self serving at best. If people focused more on their contribution as a citizen and contribution to the greater good rather than promotion of their own beliefs and views, the country would be far better off.

      Report Post »  
    • AvengerK
      Posted on December 21, 2011 at 12:09pm

      MARJORIE FAYE..here’s some numbers for you. 55% of HIV cases in this country are from homosexual men. They comprise less than 2% of the population. That’s an overrepresentation of 2,750%. Clearly….something is wrong with the way homosexual men copulate. You’re also correct in your assertion that homosexual men have a very high degree of promiscuity. It’s not unusual for a homosexual male to have had hundreds of sex partners in his lifetime. This is why gonorrhea and syphillis are also in high numbers in the male homosexual community.

      Report Post »  
    • AvengerK
      Posted on December 21, 2011 at 12:10pm

      JROOK….wishing upon a star isn’t going to help Obama. Obama has been bleeding independents for months now. But keep whistling past the graveyard champ.

      Report Post »  
    • AvengerK
      Posted on December 21, 2011 at 12:13pm

      SMACKDOWN…until I see something more concrete than “it’s possible” I won’t tout any genetic predispostion for homosexuality. I’ll adhere to the “psychological condition” that the APA (American Psychiatric Assocation) abandoned due to lobbying from social groups rather than dictated by clinical evidence.

      Report Post »  
    • Bible Quotin' Science Fearin' Conservative American
      Posted on December 21, 2011 at 12:18pm

      “DIRTY HARRY
      Posted on December 21, 2011 at 10:02am
      P16, don’t cloak your low moral standards under the guise of protecting liberties. Approve of gay marriage and next thing you know, men will be demanding the right to marry a donkey.”

      You’re a moron. Having said that, if some weirdo wants to marry a pet rock, who cares? What’s it got to do with you?

      Report Post » Bible Quotin' Science Fearin' Conservative American  
    • TSUNAMI-22
      Posted on December 21, 2011 at 12:25pm

      @ gramma b

      Wise comments above. I agree with you.

      Report Post »  
    • carl_in_ohio
      Posted on December 21, 2011 at 12:28pm

      JP,

      I agree that its a shame that we have to obsess over discussions of gay issues.
      But the gay agenda is obsessed with pushing its agenda — so we have to continue to defend our values.

      Report Post »  
    • TSUNAMI-22
      Posted on December 21, 2011 at 12:29pm

      @ Bible Quotin‘ Science Fearin’ Conservative American
      Posted on December 21, 2011 at 12:18pm

      “DIRTY HARRY
      Posted on December 21, 2011 at 10:02am
      P16, don’t cloak your low moral standards under the guise of protecting liberties. Approve of gay marriage and next thing you know, men will be demanding the right to marry a donkey.”

      You’re a moron. Having said that, if some weirdo wants to marry a pet rock, who cares? What’s it got to do with you?
      ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
      I care, because it degrades moral continuity and tradition.

      Why don’t YOU care? I think that’s the question. What do you gain by being apathetic to the moral degradation of society?

      Report Post »  
    • kansas hawks 3
      Posted on December 21, 2011 at 12:31pm

      @jp16.. It is people like you that have ruined our country. You know that God said that it is wrong to do that. We don’t have to wait for God to come to know the truth and try to do what is right and not pass laws that say we approve. IT IS AGAINST GODS LAWS ………..

      Report Post » kansas hawks 3  
    • Andy
      Posted on December 21, 2011 at 12:34pm

      As a Christian, you should pray for the salvation of the homosexual the same as you would for any other person in sin. The homosexual is still made in the image of God — even though he is in grave sin. Therefore, you should show him the same dignity as anyone else with whom you come in contact. However, this does not mean that you are to approve of his sin. Don’t compromise your witness for a socially acceptable opinion that is void of godliness. Instead, stand firm in the truth that God has revealed, love him/her biblically, and pray for his salvation.

      Report Post »  
    • smackdown33
      Posted on December 21, 2011 at 12:39pm

      AvengerK, “psychological conditions” are not based on hard science. Psychological conditions are deductions, and no more more valid than intuitive, reasoned opinions. This is why the APA was able to remove homosexuality from the DSM under social, not scientific, pressure back in the 70′s.

      I would argue that my reasoned, intuitive opinion is based more on hard scientific data, trends.

      Report Post »  
    • TSUNAMI-22
      Posted on December 21, 2011 at 12:47pm

      @ Andy

      It is also said that God helps those who help themselves.

      Report Post »  
    • hidden_lion
      Posted on December 21, 2011 at 12:49pm

      Avengerk-
      The animals and children cant consent. If a deviant risks getting disease from his actions then that is the just punishment, no government intervention required. Why don’t you go after the fornicators and adulterers, of which probably most of you have done. How many of you fail to keep the sabbath day holy or any of the other moral violations? with a more than 50% divorce rate, how can you be concern that homosexuals will tear down the sacrament of marriage. You are doing it yourself. Try actually being a practicing christian and the world will brighten for you. Quit casting stones and maybe you will avoid being hit by the ricochet. America was founded on the principle that man can regulate himself. You either believe it or you don’t. Libertarians believe man can and should control his own destiny, his own choices dictate success or failure. If you want to enforce morals, found your own country complete with Sharia law, because that is what you advocate.

      Report Post » hidden_lion  
    • Therightsofbilly
      Posted on December 21, 2011 at 12:54pm

      Tsunami-22 Wrote:
      “I care, because it degrades moral continuity and tradition.

      Why don’t YOU care? I think that’s the question. What do you gain by being apathetic to the moral degradation of society?”

      Perfectly said.

      Report Post » Therightsofbilly  
    • last frontier
      Posted on December 21, 2011 at 12:59pm

      The gays are better off with Obama now they can serve openly in the Military, and have sex with animals if they choose to do so.

      Report Post » last frontier  
    • COFemale
      Posted on December 21, 2011 at 1:02pm

      Mr. Oshawott It is God who define marriage in the Bible. As a Christian-Judea nation, our government has supported this premise with the issuance of a marriage license. Why do you think Sodom and Gomorrah was destroyed? Even God had issues with sexual deviants in Biblical times and he chose to deal with it. Romans in the New testament is very clear that God does not support men with men and women with women. Whether you believe in God or not is not the issue. The issue is marriage has always been defined as one man, one woman.

      When two people enter into marriage they come before God to pledge their love to each other as well as well as to God. This unfortunately, has also been taken lightly by people and this is why we see so many divorces and now less young people getting married. Many people uses Justice of the Peace and remove God from the equation.

      Civil unions is just a word to describe marriage. The problems is gays want to receive “special treatment” because they are gay; this is wrong. If you want to allow a partner to be on your health insurance, then get the health industry to change, not have the government pass a law. If you want to receive tax benefits as a married couples do, then get the IRS to change the tax code; but if you do this, then that same benefit would have to be carried to couples who live together.

      Report Post » COFemale  
    • AvengerK
      Posted on December 21, 2011 at 2:06pm

      Again SMACKDOWN…until you give me a definite genetic pointer for homosexuality I have to adhere to the psychological explanation. The human psyche and the human sexual psyche are very complex things. I’m not discounting your DNA assertion outright, there’s always a possibility but as of today, that genetic pointer doesn‘t exist and there’s no hint of it existing.

      Report Post »  
    • AvengerK
      Posted on December 21, 2011 at 2:09pm

      It didn’t take much to reduce you to hysterics did it HIDDEN-LION? By all means if libertarians want to foot the health cost for unbridled, unmonitored drug use and unsafe sexual practices…you may do so. But unfortunately, in the real world that’s not the case is it?

      Report Post »  
    • NarnianWarrior
      Posted on December 21, 2011 at 2:30pm

      JP16- First of all, your make no sense whatsoever. Your posts are nothing more than incoherent ramblings in defense of these militants. In my view, just another insensitive propaganda tool intent on FORCING others to submit to their destructive lifestyle.

      Report Post » NarnianWarrior  
    • macpappy
      Posted on December 21, 2011 at 2:31pm

      Favored93
      you said
      The issue is that a Marriage is a religious institution. There is a reason we stand before a priest or preacher or rabbi etc when we say our vows. BECAUSE WE SAY THEM BEFORE GOD

      You do know that JPs, Judges, and even Captains of sea going vessels can marry folks without religious slant don’t you. They do that because not everybody believes in God and therefore make the vows before the municipalities officials.
      Just saying.

      Report Post » macpappy  
    • bhohater
      Posted on December 21, 2011 at 3:01pm

      Not to worry Newt, you wouldn’t get the gay vote even if you were gay because you are a mean old Republican.

      Report Post » bhohater  
    • techengineer11
      Posted on December 21, 2011 at 3:58pm

      First of all Newt is a big gov’t Statist; however, he does have some good ideas and I love his no nonsense approach on some issues including this one.. Why bother even trying to get a homosexual’s vote. Personally I woudln’t want it.

      AvengerK: I like Smackdown’s position on this topic. I’m not prepared to get into a debate or even an intellectual converstation on the topic however back before football season I was reading a book dealing with genectics, race and homosexuality. Now I had always been trained or led to believe that homosexuality is a psychological disease like you were describing but the material in this book really caused me to stop and really think on the matter.

      The author was saying that women undergo these huge hormone cycles during pregnacy which determine the masculinity or feminity in women and men.. He also cited many other studies and I tend to believe what the person was saying after hearing his evidence.

      From personal experience I recall two boys that I knew well when growing up. They were both sissies and always hung out with the girls even elementary school. Now they were never openly gay even in HS; however, I only recently found out that one came out about 15 years ago.. The other guy was very athletic and a good looking dude. The women loved him.. I really hadn’t heard from him since graduation and my nephew tells me a few weeks ago that he will be delivering their baby and that he has a “partner”! lol

      I believe it’s mostl

      Report Post » techengineer11  
    • Walkabout
      Posted on December 21, 2011 at 4:02pm

      JP16
      Yup, you are on this site to play a psychological game of “Othello” or “GO”.

      It thought you were gay & your reply leaves me believing more so that you are gay. Just come out & say you are gay.

      “I’d rather they at least be challenged to develop and reinforce their beliefs and consider their reasoning. ”

      I have been reinforcing my belief. Gays have a 3 pronged assault or plan on society. Deprecate the bible; tout animal studies as showing homosexuality as rampant & normal in nature; & use a libertarian angle of “what business of it of yours anyway”.

      Let‘s see the Bible’s purity codes have kept mankind alive & out of the dark ages. Kind of heard to pass on knowledge & advance if everyone is falling over dead from rampant disease because there is no refrigeration & vaccines. Second animal studies are not all they are hyped up to by the honey badgers. The libertarian angle only works so far as we can keep gay educators away from children. then has been a nature or nurture argument about the causes of homosexuality for a while. If there is an element of nurture in causing homosexuality (or increasing it above its’ basal level of 2 to 4%) then many of us don;t want gays around kids. It would be a moot point if parents had school vouchers & could choose send their kids to school of their choice. A school without gay pride month.
      You want to engage in anal sex between two consenting adults & misuse the human body then fine. While you

      Report Post »  
    • Rowgue
      Posted on December 21, 2011 at 4:05pm

      @JP16

      Trying to equate not wanting to endorse gay marriage with muslim extremism is completely idiotic. There’s a difference between not supporting something and stoning someone to death.

      By your logic we have to support every depraved disgusting behavior or we’re as bad as palestinian suicide bombers. It’s not possible to describe how utterly stupid that is.

      Report Post »  
    • SgtB
      Posted on December 21, 2011 at 4:24pm

      Here’s an idea for all of you people. How about we get gov’t out of marriage all together! Maybe, just maybe, marriages should be done by a person’s church instead of by a justice of the peace or a county clerk. Maybe, if a church believes that it is okay for a gay couple to get married, they should marry them and the other church that only marries straight people can do that too. What if we stop letting gov’t decide everything for us and make up our own damn minds?

      Personally, I think that the only reason the gov’t has to give a damn about your marriage is because of tax law. If we gutted the IRS and went to a system like the Fair Tax in which everyone pays taxes on new goods and services only, then we wouldn’t need a federal tracking system to keep track of your wages every year, how many kids you have, or who you are married to. And really, all of that is none of the govt’s damn business.

      I used to think like alot of you and I despised (and still do to some extent) homosexuals because I think they as human beings make horrible decisions. HOWEVER, I understand that I do NOT have a right to tell others how to live their lives for better or worse. I cannot through arguments change a homosexual into a straight person. And I sure as hell am not ready to commit a hitleresque genocide against all people with whom I disagree…

      So the only way to deal with this is to recognize that we have no right to make these decisions and neither does our gov’t.

      Report Post » SgtB  
    • Walkabout
      Posted on December 21, 2011 at 4:27pm

      JP16

      Using a tap water with a neti pot shows us that some organs are used naturally for some things & not for others. How is that a water possibly containing brain eating amoeba is dangerous if used with a neti pot, but the same water can safely be consumed?

      If you can’t figure that out, you can’t figure why an al sex is riskier by orders of magnitude (not just 1 order of magnitude) than vag inal sex. Only a fool would say that regular coitus & an al coitus have the same risk. You a just such a fool.

      Natural? Why is it that the 1st thing you hit when engage in deviancy is a sigmoid process? All that zig-zagging is there because it is meant to be a challenge. Yes evolution (nature) definitely designed the lower colon, the sigmoid process & the an us for sex. NOT!

      With queer study department going in their 3rd or 4th decade at many universities that you can make up all sorts of rationalizations.

      Who has a better way of living JP16?

      Without AZT and/or vaccines & cheap latex your way of life is doomed.

      With or without AZT, vaccines & latex, the religious with their stupid (according to LGBT) purity codes will carry on. People will stray. There will be casualties. But they will live much safe & healthier the more they adhere to purity laws & the other lessons of religion.

      Report Post »  
    • Walkabout
      Posted on December 21, 2011 at 4:33pm

      Scott Arnold is a man who will end his days living with a cat, not abusing a the cat just living with it.

      Report Post »  
    • techengineer11
      Posted on December 21, 2011 at 4:33pm

      SgtB: Hitler was a punk. He was only responsible for the deaths of a few million. What about a Stalin or Mao genocide? Now they really took some people out during times when there wasn’t even a World War going on? lol Think America! But we didn’t invade Russia? We didn’t invade China? Was never even discussed. I doubt that the NY Slimes ever even reported it? lol

      Regardless, I agree with your post for the most part. The State should not be involved in marriage period.

      Report Post » techengineer11  
    • AvengerK
      Posted on December 21, 2011 at 5:08pm

      TECHENGINEER….I really don’t need any input from an anti-semite like you. If your purported “reading” is anything like the anti-jewish bile you produce here I’d say it teeters on the Nazi-esque anyway. Don’t address me in the future..ok?

      Report Post »  
    • techengineer11
      Posted on December 21, 2011 at 6:11pm

      AvengerK: Nazi-esque? Anti-jewish bile? Oh my. Merry Christmas to you as well.

      I suppose you’d prefer that I appreciate and be happy about Jews running our Fed, banks, making our filthy movies, overseeing our perverted Media, and increasingly dominating our politics.. lol

      Sorry AvengerK. Only a Jew or an ignorant fool would be happy over the status quo.. lol I’m neither.

      You never address me again avengerk.. Never! Ever! You hear that? You wicked person. ;)
      What are you 12 dude? lol

      Jesus loves you.

      Report Post » techengineer11  
    • WiseFox
      Posted on December 22, 2011 at 12:05am

      When you make believe that it is normal behavior for two males or two females to fornicate, there indeed is something wrong with your thinking. Most people feel that if YOU keep your sexual life private, it is none of their business. When YOU want to make others fawn over your behavior even though the majority of people consider your lifestyle perverted. there is something definately wrong with your thinking. People do not hate you, but that doesn’t mean that they agree with your actions. They simply do not want to be part of your lifestyle. God doesn’t hate you, it’s what you do that is hated.

      Report Post »  
    • Jesse Tampa, FL
      Posted on January 24, 2012 at 9:52am

      @JP16 Your premise is false. The argument isn’t what big government can do for Republicans/Conservatives, at least not on the subject of marriage. Marriage has a clear definition. It‘s the same as it’s been since the first civilized societies. It’s your (Progressive) efforts that will be used to CHANGE what every civilization has recognized as marriage. Conservatives want to KEEP you from changing the values that make us American. That’s not Big Government. I’m not a Newt Gingrich supporter, oddly enough. I seem to be defending him, however, I’m actually defending an American value, at least until this “enlightened” generation. Newt Gingrich is a Progressive, just like you. He plans to use/abuse government’s power just like you would. He simply has more conservative values than you do, therefore, he’s willing to use the power of big government to push HIS, more conservative, agenda. Some of that agenda will make me happy but in the end it always turns out the same, Big Government’s heavy hand pushing citizens in the direction it wants them to go. Newt, admires greatly, FDR, Woodrow Wilson (both Progressives and racists) and Republican Theodore Roosevelt, whom is credited with starting the Progressive movement. So, you’re wrong! We aren’t like the “extreme radical Muslim variety”, as you claim. We value Americanism!

      Report Post » Jesse Tampa, FL  
  • mikester8888
    Posted on December 21, 2011 at 9:38am

    WOW!!! An honest answer from a canidate running for president. Its amazing that we can hear that in the age of politicians bobbing for votes in this day and time. The president on the other hand would sell his mothers teeth on her death bed if he thought he sqeeze a vote out of the toothless.

    Report Post »  
    • thegrassroots
      Posted on December 21, 2011 at 10:18am

      Good Job Newt! I Like A Candidate Who Refuses To Play The “Politically Correct” Card!

      Report Post »  
    • CptStubbing
      Posted on December 21, 2011 at 10:43am

      An honest answer from a candidate running for the republican primary. There aren’t a whole lot of Republican gays out there. It doesn’t hurt him, and it helps him to be honest in this instance. I don’t understand how we can vote for discrimination, in any form. I don’t approve of the gay lifestyle, but I am not in favor of discriminating against them because of their choices. Even if gays get a civil union they still call themselves married, or they go to Canada in an attempt to get it legitimized so they can call themselves married.

      If we stopped requiring licenses for everyone it would be beneficial for all. I wouldn’t have liked for the government to have told me I couldn’t marry my wife. Which they very well could have seeing as I had to get a marriage license. When the government gets involved in these ways we all lose are liberties.

      I have to ask, why do I have to pay the government in order for me to get married?

      Report Post »  
    • AvengerK
      Posted on December 21, 2011 at 11:35am

      MIKESTER..remember Obama’s thoughts on homosexual marriage are “evolving”. In simpler terms…while he needs the votes of those “bitter clingers” he won’t openly support it. Once he’s locked in a second term..VOILA..he’ll openly support it.

      Report Post »  
    • zorro
      Posted on December 21, 2011 at 11:35am

      I find it sad that this guy feels his homosexuality is the most important thing. Clearly, he’s not interested in anyone else. He is only thinking of himself and how a candidate can help him. Typical liberal…”what’s in it for me?”

      Report Post »  
    • SgtB
      Posted on December 21, 2011 at 4:29pm

      Think for a minute, what Republican candidate could he have suggested that this man vote for? Let me think…hmmmm. The more I think about it, the more firmly I hold the belief that Newt only got into this race to upset the surge in popularity that Paul was having. Since having entered the race, he took alot of the spotlight off of the “3rd party” candidate who looked like he was going to win Iowa (and still does) over Romney. Newt will just bring us ever bigger federal gov’t and more spending. The only difference is that it will be one that favors the far rights view of the world. But don‘t think that it isn’t just more big gov’t BS.

      Report Post » SgtB  
  • txwheels
    Posted on December 21, 2011 at 9:37am

    Seems to me the queer asked a question and Newt gave him an answer. ‘Nuff said..

    Report Post »  
  • Future Hope
    Posted on December 21, 2011 at 9:36am

    The lame stream media blast Newt every chance they get. The gays should hang out with King obama. It is where they belong.

    Report Post »  
    • Eliasim
      Posted on December 21, 2011 at 9:53am

      dejon,
      Are you out of your mind? Don’t answer that. Doesn’t God let the sun shine on the devil? You love them (because that‘s exactly what they don’t want), love them as the Father in Heaven loves you, and they will shriek and run away. Because they feed on your dislike of them.

      Report Post »  
    • Eliasim
      Posted on December 21, 2011 at 10:01am

      But I mean, don’t love them because you want to make them run away, but love them because you really do. After all, they are still your distant, distant…………..distant, and I do mean distant, spiritual brethren.

      Report Post »  
    • markchristopher
      Posted on December 21, 2011 at 10:08am

      The reason Obama is so much into the gay culture is because he himself has experimented. It’s a known fact that there was a big scandal before his presidency pertaining to several people that stated they took part in sexual relations with him, and they mysteriously met their fates afterwards. The lame stream media have blocked this information since its inception. What a world, what a world. The adversary is everywhere…

      Report Post » markchristopher  
    • jasmer
      Posted on December 21, 2011 at 10:42am

      I dunno, maybe it’s the other way around?

      http://fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com/2010/07/25/mom-of-murdered-obama-gay-lover-speaks-up/

      Report Post »  
  • Mo Better
    Posted on December 21, 2011 at 9:36am

    Newt may not be perfect, but I like what he says.

    If you are a homosexual Democrat why are you trying to impose your lamebrain idea that the President is supposed to represent all people – does that include perverts of every stripe, anti-Americans, terrorists, radicals bent on destroying the country, reparationists, Black Liberation theology supporters, Mohammedans attempting to obliterate Christianity, atheists intent on removing all vestiges of religion from society, anti-Constitutionalists, traitors, thieves, white collar criminals, and any other person working toward the destruction of our society? Do you really think MAObama represents all of America? He only represents those listed above; MAObama has the perverse side covered; Gingrich will represent what is left of normal American society and many of us concur that does not include the perverted homosexuals and their demented agenda to promote their perversion to our children and grandchildren.

    Report Post » Mo Better  
    • dejon
      Posted on December 21, 2011 at 9:45am

      Here Here!!

      Report Post » dejon  
    • Vickie Dhaene
      Posted on December 21, 2011 at 10:05am

      You articulated that well. Kudos… Also, don’t forget the perversion of bestiality being re-introduced.

      Report Post »  
  • Tankertony
    Posted on December 21, 2011 at 9:35am

    Once again, Newt was just speaking the Truth. Obummer will continue to rule against the will of the people and foist this abberation on America. Notice how the coward obummer didn’t run on this when he was seeking the presidency. He knew he would’ve lost.
    But this is how godless leftist do it. Anything for power.

    Report Post » Tankertony  
  • Tri-ox
    Posted on December 21, 2011 at 9:35am

    All selfish, uninformed, un-American one-issue voters would be better off supporting obama (just as they did in 2008).

    However, patriotic Americans who want what is best for our country, and who care whether or not we survive as a nation, must work to remove obama. Any American who loves America must look past their own short-term personal needs, and think about where our country is headed – if obama is re-elected, there will be no America – there will be nothing left for anyone. In 2012, voters will choose between America, and obama.

    Report Post » Tri-ox  
    • singleparent
      Posted on December 21, 2011 at 9:53am

      America has been gone for a long while now.. It‘s just people are start’ing to notice it with this current president he just sped up the process of a complete failure and take over of our country. As for the gay‘s send them all to Iran for a month’s vacation….Vote‘ing is not go’ing to change a thing just the speed of the process..

      Report Post »  
  • 2sisters
    Posted on December 21, 2011 at 9:34am

    I’m liking Newt more and more!!
    Marriage is between a man and a woman.
    I’m tired of immoral people trying to make me not only tolerate immoral behavior, but tell them what they are doing is OK. It’s not!!!! Just like having sex out of wed-lock is not OK. Just like having an affair is not OK. Lying is not OK. Raping children is not OK. Raping anyone is not OK. Murder is not OK. Back talking your parents is not OK. Kids thinking they can do whatever they want to is not OK. Bad parenting is not OK.
    I could keep going on and on. Stand up for what you believe in!!!

    Report Post »  
    • barber2
      Posted on December 21, 2011 at 10:29am

      Totally agree. Witness the Tax- paid Occupiers : our oh-so-politically correct culture is going to hell in a hand basket ( read that now polygamists are demanding their “right” to many wives because they “want” it ! ) Time to revisit ” right/ wrong.” n

      Report Post »  
    • TheLeftMadeMeRight
      Posted on December 21, 2011 at 10:32am

      Boy someone should write all those down, they sound like really good ideas, or even “commandments”.

      Report Post » TheLeftMadeMeRight  
    • CptStubbing
      Posted on December 21, 2011 at 10:58am

      You say, “I’m liking Newt more and more”?

      and then

      “Just like having sex out of wed-lock is not OK. Just like having an affair is not OK. Lying is not OK.”

      These statements don’t seem to line up.

      Report Post »  
    • 2sisters
      Posted on December 21, 2011 at 5:26pm

      CPTSTUBBING:
      There is nothing confusing about my statements. All of the things I listed and more are not OK. Newt is also not out there trying to make the case that marring and divorcing is OK. Are you saying that I CAN”T like someone and disagree with them?? Now that makes no sense. I bet if you asked him if he’s lived his life perfect, he’d answer no. No one does.(Accept Jesus)
      My point IS: People make immoral decisions and do immoral things, and instead of feeling bad/guilty or whatever, they try to justify their poor choices by getting others to accept and agree with them.

      Report Post »  
  • searching for the Truth
    Posted on December 21, 2011 at 9:33am

    Now, that would be a skillful verbal touche.

    Report Post »  
  • Vechorik
    Posted on December 21, 2011 at 9:31am

    Re: drugs, porn, prostitution
    The Republican National Committee pulled a dirty trick on Paul. According to the Times, Paul was running for Congress against fellow Republican Greg Laughlin, whom he eventually defeated in a runoff. During the campaign, an Austin marketing company called people and asked respondents who favored Paul if they would still support him knowing that he was in favor of legalizing drugs, pornography and prostitution. The real truth, the Times noted, was this: “Dr. Paul said he only favored repeal of Federal laws on drugs, pornography and prostitution, leaving states to prohibit them.”

    Report Post »  
    • dejon
      Posted on December 21, 2011 at 9:48am

      Paul or noboma, well Paul gets the nomination he gets my vote.

      Report Post » dejon  
  • rotcarpenter
    Posted on December 21, 2011 at 9:31am

    Newt just told him to do what he was planning on doing anyways. How is this a story or a surprise. I’m getting tired of homosexuals ambushing every Republican candidate like they owe them something for having a different sexual orientation than the norm. Their obsession with their sexual orientation highlights the fact that it is indeed a mental disorder.

    Report Post »  
  • DREDGE
    Posted on December 21, 2011 at 9:29am

    What the does your sexual preference have to do with electing a president.
    Why should there be special rights for these minorities. What happened to majority rule?
    There are established norms in a society that protect the society as a whole.
    There are always the oddball that wants to change this hence, we have political correctness.
    Gingrich has stated nothing wrong and the press has twisted his words.
    We need to get rid of the current embarrassment of a president we now suffer with.

    Report Post »  
    • c0mm0nsense
      Posted on December 21, 2011 at 9:44am

      DREDGE
      “What the does your sexual preference have to do with electing a president.”

      Exactly, The President or any other part of the Federal Gov. shouldn’t have beans to say about someone’s personal life.

      Report Post » c0mm0nsense  
  • jihadazzkicker
    Posted on December 21, 2011 at 9:29am

    For all of you .ooo1% your days of telling everyone else that your sick way of life is ok is OVER. You are sick people because it never fails that you have to force your exhibitions down everyone’s throat. Your dress, your actions, your tone, all of these things are exhibited on purpose so you can dance around just looking for someone to sue. “Look at meeee I am GAY looook everyone”
    At the end of the day, simple logic dictates your way of life is wrong …. you can not reproduce ! If it is so right that would not be the case

    Report Post » jihadazzkicker  
    • Gerrymanderer
      Posted on December 21, 2011 at 9:35am

      “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you” – Matthew 5.43-45

      Report Post » Gerrymanderer  
    • searching for the Truth
      Posted on December 21, 2011 at 9:55am

      Key word ” enemy.”

      Report Post »  
    • barber2
      Posted on December 21, 2011 at 10:23am

      GERRY: “Praying for those who persecute you ” does not entail condoning their evil acts. Don’t think that Jesus or the early Christians preached cozying up to evil. They were pretty clear on that one… We have become so “ politically correct ” in our current culture that we have lost our “ immoral meters ”…

      Report Post »  
  • Sibyl
    Posted on December 21, 2011 at 9:27am

    Scott Arnold, Democrat, went to bait Gingrich with a question, like a child does a parent.

    Gingrich gave him the answer that aligns with all of history, Scripture and science research…and Arnold didn’t like it.

    Arnold and the social agenda activists want special privileges and rights, to re-define marriage, society and everyone’s beliefs to suit their own wishes and feelings.

    No matter how hard they want to do so (lying on the floor, banging their head, screaming, calling people vile names, breaking things, holding vulgar pride parades, lobbying, etc.), they can’t change reality or make their activities and lifestyle healthy, happy or holy. It is a disorientation and conditioned response that needs help and treatment, not persecution and bullying, and especially not promoting and normalizing.

    Gingrich said no, if you want all that, support Obama.

    End of story.

    Report Post »  
    • Sibyl
      Posted on December 21, 2011 at 9:45am

      The best reason to say NO to these petulant children are the evidence (CDC statistics and published research, clinical medicine and mental health practice, police reports, etc.) have shown these behaviors are the highest risk for all STDs and other physical injuries and mental health issues should not be practiced.

      This is not a viable alternative for living a long and healthy life. Vaccines and condoms are not reliable and do not help with all the other problems. Studies have shown that incidence/percentage of negative consequences only increase even in highly tolerant environments.

      Gingrich is being a ‘good father’ not a permissive one, by not giving in.

      That is impressive. This will have the rabid leftist liberals and media writhing and foaming at the mouth until next November.

      He doesn’t bow and cow tow to 1. Islamists 2. activist bully bench judges in the courts 3. to the ‘gay’ lobby.

      3 very big points.

      Report Post »  
    • AvengerK
      Posted on December 21, 2011 at 2:18pm

      SYBIL…we’ve seen this from liberals now numerous times. They confront a GOP candidate at some kind of event, play the victim, and then try for a “gotcha” moment. It’s classic passive/aggressive behaviour. Gingrinch is far too smart for this militant homosexual democrat. Gingrich knows he‘ll never have that person’s vote. So not wasting Gingrich’s or his time..he directed him to Barack Obama. It’s so common sense. It’s an excellent response and typical of Gingrich.

      Report Post »  
  • moxjet1
    Posted on December 21, 2011 at 9:24am

    You cant talk to these people I would tell him to
    go vote for Obama to its like talking to a wall they
    arent really there to listen just to make trouble

    Report Post »  
  • normbal
    Posted on December 21, 2011 at 9:24am

    The President represents Americans within the limits of his legitimate constitutional authority and delegated powers. The President does NOT represent minorities, NOT homosexuals or child predators, NOT unions, but everybody. Marxists, communists, leftists, liberals, democrats play this game of breaking down the unity of Americans by appealing to ever smaller groupings of self-declared victims and minorities. It is a losing proposition. If you’re a self-selected homosexual and you don‘t like someone’s policies or beliefs, GET OVER IT.

    Report Post » normbal  
    • Locked
      Posted on December 21, 2011 at 9:33am

      “The President does NOT represent minorities, NOT homosexuals or child predators, NOT unions, but everybody.”

      By definition, all of those people are included in “everybody.”

      Report Post »  
    • capitalizmworks
      Posted on December 21, 2011 at 9:35am

      Thank you! Well said.

      Why doesn’t anyone ever point out that up until now, the President never supported gay marriage either? Obama is now only pandering to gays now because it gets him votes. Now, can we get back to the economy, jobs & national security. That’s the only thing this election should be about.

      Report Post » capitalizmworks  
    • barber2
      Posted on December 21, 2011 at 10:16am

      And this president / DOJ represents ALL men – even illegal aliens AND enemy combatants at Gitmo !

      Report Post »  
    • Walkabout
      Posted on December 21, 2011 at 4:31pm

      Locked

      The president does not represent everyone. He didn’t support cops before the beer summit to name just one example. The Democrat party has given up on working class white vote. He is the leader of the Democrat Party. This president does not represent everyone. Her is a divider via his legislation & his condescending yet demanding political rhetoric.

      Report Post »  
    • Locked
      Posted on December 21, 2011 at 5:01pm

      @Walkabout

      I’m not debating that. I‘m contending the OP’s statement that the president represents everyone, immediately after saying he doesn’t represent a bunch of people. “Everyone” means “everyone.” :-)

      Report Post »  
  • Hugh Williams
    Posted on December 21, 2011 at 9:23am

    Arnold, who is a gay Democrat, says that he went to the event with an open mind. After seeing Gingrich’s past comments about gays, he was curious to know how, as president, the GOP contender would represent him.
    We all have seen how Obama is representing those of us that work, produce and love the Constitution. He ridicules, lectures and punishes us. He does not represent us at all.

    Report Post » Hugh Williams  
    • barber2
      Posted on December 21, 2011 at 10:13am

      Don’t forget he also foments ” anti-rich / fat cat “ class divides and he offers ”redistribution” of tax payers’ money. A real Robin Hood…

      Report Post »  
  • V-MAN MACE
    Posted on December 21, 2011 at 9:23am

    I don’t care what neocons say to try to rile up support from the bigot class.

    I’ll NEVER, EVER vote for that adulterous slime.

    Ron Paul 2012.

    Report Post » V-MAN MACE  
    • JLGunner
      Posted on December 21, 2011 at 9:44am

      When you use the term bigot, are you including the ron paul newsletters?

      Report Post » JLGunner  
    • booger71
      Posted on December 21, 2011 at 9:50am

      Then don’t.

      Report Post » booger71  
    • V-MAN MACE
      Posted on December 21, 2011 at 10:06am

      Those “newsletters” have already been proven fake (they were written by anonymous), Ron Paul has vehemently denied them, and this attack angle has no credence.

      Ron Paul is the only one who said he would release all non-violent drug offenders and that resonates with minorities more than anything you neocons could fabricate about this man.

      Try again.

      Report Post » V-MAN MACE  
    • barber2
      Posted on December 21, 2011 at 10:10am

      “adulterous slime ” : just more of that classy Lefty Character Assassination from the “I Left My Social Development in Junior High ” Crowd….

      Report Post »  
    • JLGunner
      Posted on December 21, 2011 at 11:21am

      @ V how about that lovely soundbite“ Bachman hates all muslims”? Don’t get me wrong, if it comes down to Ron or barack, I’m voting for Ron (just to get rid of barack). How many of you Ron supporters would do the same? I’ve seen many of you that swear they want to get back to the constitution but would vote for barack instead of anyone in the GOP. Do any of these folks understand just how dangerous barack is to the constitutio? Whos a greater threat, Bachman or barack?

      Report Post » JLGunner  
    • V-MAN MACE
      Posted on December 21, 2011 at 12:28pm

      barber2

      My characterization of Gingrich as adulterous slime isn’t “Lefty” (because I’m not a lefty, I’m Conservative Libertarian and Registered Independent, Tea Party member, thank you very much).

      It’s the truth. HE CHEATED ON HIS WIFE (or wives, however you look at it). So go back to Neocon 101 and let those underachievers know that their attempt at character assassination by painting Ron Paul as antisemitic because of his foreign policy views has ***FAILED***. Don’t forget to iterate that their repeated attempts to smear him based on some anonymous newsletter has ***FAILED*** miserably too. They better try bringing up “Aqua Buddha” or some other fabricated drivel (as if that worked…HA!).

      Bachmann does hate muslims. She’s a crazy, wild-eyed, religious zealot who can’t get her intel right from the IAEA on the Iranian Nuke program.

      I’m voting my conscience. Vote yours (if you have one). I‘ve never said I would vote for Barack if Ron Paul doesn’t GET the nomination, and I haven‘t heard any of Ron Paul’s supporters say that, BTW I don’t really care what they do, it’s not my prerogative.

      I’m voting MY conscience. You present a false choice- vote for the neocon nominee, vote for Obama, or stay home and don’t vote….

      You forgot that I‘m WRITING IN RON PAUL 2012 if he doesn’t win the nomination. I’m not voting for the lesser of evils.

      No compromise on Liberty.

      Report Post » V-MAN MACE  
  • mickie4
    Posted on December 21, 2011 at 9:22am

    Good for Newt. He is not afraid to speak his mind. These “gays” have caused enough trouble in our schools, military and government, etc. I’m sich of it all!

    Report Post »  
    • barber2
      Posted on December 21, 2011 at 10:08am

      Closet please. Free to do what they please but tired of the childish “ in your face ” attitude. Wish they would concern themselves with more important ISSUES than their sexual orientation.

      Report Post »  
    • JLGunner
      Posted on December 21, 2011 at 11:59am

      @ barber You are right. I could care less who They share apillw with. Just stop acting as if someone owes you something becouse of it. You throw glitter on me and I’ll take that as an assault and “will” kick your a$$.

      Report Post » JLGunner  
  • Eliasim
    Posted on December 21, 2011 at 9:22am

    Well look at it this way: if the whole world was gay, they would have to become un-gay or go extinct. It‘s a good thing the Almighty isn’t gay or mankind would have never been.

    Report Post »  
    • Eliasim
      Posted on December 21, 2011 at 9:24am

      Then again, that’s the idea, they want to go extinct. Ah, yes, they despise themselves and keep their foot in that door with abortion.

      Report Post »  
  • Locked
    Posted on December 21, 2011 at 9:21am

    Let the states decide it for themselves. A few have gay marriage; the vast majority have legislation dictating marriage as man-and-woman only.

    Report Post »  
  • MuleRider
    Posted on December 21, 2011 at 9:18am

    Arnold, a gay democrat, went to the event with an Open Mind? I’m sure.

    Report Post »  
    • plastixman
      Posted on December 21, 2011 at 9:29am

      Exactly!

      Report Post » plastixman  
    • barber2
      Posted on December 21, 2011 at 10:00am

      Arnold was the Democrat’s Daily Troll and Gingrich was their Media Target Du Jour. The newest, more subtle form of Character Assassination by the Left. Much more subtle than their targeting of Cain….

      Report Post »  
    • barber2
      Posted on December 21, 2011 at 10:03am

      Sure, Arnold went with an “open mind ”….just another one of those Lefty 99% Lies…

      Report Post »  
    • Constantine Ivanov
      Posted on December 21, 2011 at 4:18pm

      I am curious: did Arnold have his mind open surgically? -:)

      Report Post » Constantine Ivanov  
  • cayenne
    Posted on December 21, 2011 at 9:17am

    Memo to Mr. Arnold
    The President of the United States does not represent anybody. You have about a dozen legislators in several law-making bodies whose job it is to represent you. The President of the United States is to be a LEADER. He is to set a course for the federal government that is consistent with his principles, not pretzel himself to try to appease all interest groups in the nation. Grow up!

    Report Post »  
  • JLGunner
    Posted on December 21, 2011 at 9:17am

    I’m not union or a “minority” so bnarack doesn’t represent me. I’m more than fine with that. I will continue to support those who support my right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. You can shove that obamacare crap right up you a$$, I won’t be playin ball.

    Report Post » JLGunner  
1 2 3 ... 5

Sign In To Post Comments! Sign In

Sign Up For Our Newsletter!

Glenn Beck Radio

Listen to Glenn Beck 24/7 Listen Now
Restoring Love