Gore says Homosexuality is Abnormal and Wrong

[Cheyenne]

XXXXX DRUDGE REPORT XXXXX XXX XXXXX

GORE SAID HOMOSEXUALITY 'ABNORMAL' AND 'WRONG'; VOWED NOT TO TAKE MONEY FROM GAY GROUPS

Presidential hopeful Al Gore once declared that homosexuality is an abnormal lifestyle and vowed not to accept campaign funds from gay groups, the DRUDGE REPORT can reveal.

In 1981, Gore decried homosexuality during a town meeting, according to eyewitnesses and press accounts of the session.

When one participant asked Gore about homosexuality -- which the man described as a "sin" -- Gore responded that homosexuality is an abnormality which should be discouraged. "I think it is wrong," Gore explained to the audience. "It is not just another normal optional lifestyle."

During his senate race three years later, Gore said he would not accept campaign funds from homosexual groups, the TENNESSEAN reported on October 28, 1984. "I do not believe it is simply an acceptable alternative that society should affirm," Gore explained to a reporter.

[The press clippings quoting Gore on homosexulaity were first discovered in a local library in Tennessee. Library clerks later hid the papers in back rooms, claiming they were destroyed.]

The comments sharply conflict with Gore's current statements on homosexuality.

Earlier this year, Gore declared: "The time has come to widen the circle of fairness and dignity to include our brothers, sisters, friends, and neighbors in the gay and lesbian community. And if you entrust me with
Presidency, I will fight for the basic fairness and opportunity you deserve."

But in 1988, Gore considered taking steps to prevent homosexual activists from using his delegate slate in the Georgia presidential primary to win seats at the Democratic National Convention.

Homosexual activists won positions on the Gore slate during two Georgia congressional district caucuses that year. "We did not know that that was going to take place," Gore told the CHATTANOOGA TIMES AND FREE PRESS on February 3, 1988. "We are examining the situation now to see what the
options are... we want delegates who are loyal to my candidacy and who will not pursue another agenda."

"This is outrageous!" a senior Gore insider said this weekend from Nashville. "Are you sure the vice president said that? Could you fax me the newspaper stories. I just can't believe he would say those things."

After viewing the press clippings, the well-placed campaign insider agreed to comment on the record only on condition of anonymity.

"Listen, Drudge. I am gay, and this does not sound like the man I know, the man I have seen in action," said the stunned source. "I am not going to sit here and excuse what he said back in the 80s, but he sure is standing up for
gays and lesbians in this country right now. Look, he was running for office from a conservative southern state, maybe he had to say those things to get elected. I am sure he did not mean them."

When pressed if Gore could actually be tailoring his beliefs on homosexuality during the current campaign to win favor with the donation-rich gay community, the source laughed and said: "Vice President Gore is no Dr. Laura! He does not think I am 'deviant.'"

"I'm going to lay it on the line.. The next president of the United States has to be someone who the American people can believe will stay with his convictions." -- Al Gore, 1988 Democratic Presidential Debate, 2/18/88.

 

[Rosebud]

what do you expect from the guy who invented the internet??

 

[Bobtoad777]

I think we ought to consoladte all out Gore double talk threads in to the mother of all threads

btw ROTFLMAO

 

[Cheyenne]

I think we ought to consoladte all out Gore double talk threads in to the mother of all threads

btw ROTFLMAO

But, it would be longer than Slut_Boy's current reigning thread!

 

[Bobtoad777]

you do have a point there

 

[Cheri]

Doncha just love Matt Drudge? Now everyone will have to cover this interesting tidbit tomorrow on the legitimate news sources. lol

 

[Never Again]

That was going to be my reason for voting for him too..
I swear, no matter what I do I'm always the dog's dinner.

 

[Laurel]

Here's more than a little tidbit about Bush's crooked past, from a news source that doesn't consider "I Heard it on Rush Limbaugh" the end-all be-all in fact-checking.

This is straight from MSNBC.

The scandal no one cares about:
Why the media silence on Bush’s shaky business ethics?

Before he became governor of Texas, George W. Bush allegedly engaged in some questionable stock and real estate transactions. But mainstream media don't seem to care.

Oct. 16 - The Whitewater scandal has plagued Bill Clinton and obsessed pundits since minute one of his presidency. Al Gore's frequent exaggerations have inspired enough newspaper stories to fell a thousand forests. Even Hillary Clinton's commodity trades, which evidenced no apparent wrongdoing and were made by someone who had never run for public office at the time the story arose, were treated as front-page news for weeks.

But when a major story breaks that indicates that George W. Bush's fortune appears to have been constructed on a foundation shakier than anything anyone in Arkansas or the Gore campaign could even have imagined, the media says, "No thanks." If a candidate's credibility falls in a bunch of shady Texas business deals and no one bothers to look into it, did it really happen?

more at
http://www.msnbc.com/news/477199.asp?cp1=1

 

[Laurel]

And for anyone who cares, I watched both debates. In the last one, Gore said he would oppose gay marriages, but would like to find a way to legally protect same-sex partners. Bush flat-out opposed gay marriages, period.

Bush wants to drill for oil in a nature reserve.

Bush has made statements to his constituents that, if elected, he will ban RU-486.

Bush is against abortion, and has told pro-life lobbying groups that he will appoint judges to the Supreme Court who will favor the illegalization of abortion.

Bush has said that the US should only use the military in a foreign conflict if it's in "our interest". He's said that stopping genocide is not a reason to use our military, but protecting our oil interests is. Glad he wasn't President during WWII or there'd be no Jews left in Europe.

He refuses to sign a bill to ban soft money, which McCain drafted and Gore pledges to support.

I could go on, but why bore people with "issues"?

 

[Cheyenne]

That was going to be my reason for voting for him too..
I swear, no matter what I do I'm always the dog's dinner.

And that would be my point in posting it. My guess is there are probably a few people at Lit who planned to vote for Gore for the same reason. On the other hand, do actions speak louder than words? Perhaps the gay community is willing to overlook Gore's true feelings about them as long as his more recent actions remain supportive?

Since I'm not gay or bi, of more concern to me personally is the character issue again. Believing one thing but doing another just doesn't work for me.

"I'm going to lay it on the line.. The next president of the United States has to be someone who the American people can believe will stay with his convictions." -- Al Gore, 1988 Democratic Presidential Debate, 2/18/88.

 

[Laurel]

Perhaps the gay community is willing to overlook Gore's true feelings about them as long as his more recent actions remain supportive?

I find it interesting that you know Al Gore's "true feelings" by reading a single quote, possibly pulled out of context, on a website which has a long history of bias and animosity against him. Furthermore, even if we were to believe Drudge, which should be done with extreme caution to start with, the quote is from nearly 20 years ago.

Is there a single person over 20 years old reading this who has not, at least one time in the last 20 years, changed their opinion as a result of experiences gained through living life? If there is such a person, then that person should certainly look down on Al Gore for possibly continuing to grow as a human being as his life progresses.

If you want to go back to the 80's, let's talk about George W. Bush's cocaine use and long-rumored paying for of a girlfriend's abortion.

 

[teresafannin]

In speaking of George Bush's character the link to MSNBC is most interesting. His actions are no better than his words. The Ballpark deal in Arlington was a disgrace, Bush & his investors lied through their teeth & the families that lost their homes got very little, even with the added money from the court case. His stock dealings are so convoluted I don't think anyone knows exactly what he did. His brother in law may have a Hispanic wife, but George W is as white as they come. What does it say about his character that he was on the campaign trail while Fort Worth was being cleaned up after the tornado? As governor of Texas, he has done one thing only-sign the concealed handgun bill. Bush has no more character than any other politician. He is just such a doofus that he seems to get away with it. Do we really want him sitting down at the table with world leaders? Would he even know how to find the table? We already know that he doesn't know who many of the world leaders are. Once again, it comes down to the lesser of 2 evils.

 

[Cheyenne]

Is there a single person over 20 years old reading this who has not, at least one time in the last 20 years, changed their opinion as a result of experiences gained through living life?

Could be, but actually, I think it is unusual to change your opinion about major moral issues. Once people have a strong opinion on topics like abortion or homosexuality, I don't think many of them ever change their mind, even after 20 years. They probably spent that 20 years trying to get the other side to change to THEIR point of view.

 

[BushIsm]

See Laurel? Bad question to ask a Republican, they don't change their views even if they're wrong so they won't know what you're talking about. Instead they try to convince those around them that their bad opinions are right and they sling mud and namecall when they can't argue the issues. Look at this campaign, the Dems are arguing the issues, the Repubs are namecalling, and the irony is that there's more dirt out their on Bush than on Gore. The Dems just have the class to not play those games. They'd better get down and dirty if they want to win.

 

[Never Again]

Oops.

[Edited by Never Again on 10-16-2000 at 10:41 PM]

 

[Laurel]

BushIsm - be nice!

NeverAgain - lol!

 

[Slut_boy]

Laurel this ties in with your other thread

How is it that in this day and age there are still people who oppose queer marriages? In a constitutional climate where civil rights are supposed to promote equality, liberty and free choice I just can't understand the justification. That whole myopic line of reasoning seems to ignore that marriage represents but one form of life partnership - now why in the world should it only have legal validity if it is a conjugal relationship between two people of the opposite sex?

Is that not the clearest form of discrimination - drawing a distinction between two relationships on the grounds of gender differentiation and then depriving one group of the benefits accordingly? Apart from mere discrimination, it seems to also violate the right that all people have to dignity (because human dignity is harmed by unfair treatment premised upon personal traits).

..... and you are going to have to vote for one of these myopic tunnel-visioned architypes.

 

[Cheyenne]

BushIsm - be nice!

He can't be nice, he's a troll (even if he registered. See - I didn't change my opinion of him. ). And he should be in Coventry by now. Must have taken the wrong train out.

The troll still can't read, either. I didn't address my post to either Republicans OR Democrats, but PEOPLE in general. I really do think it is human nature to believe you are right and to try to change the other person's opinion rather than your own. That goes for people on both sides of the abortion debate, as well as for all topics related to homosexuality. No one really listens to the other side, they are too busy talking.

[Edited by Cheyenne on 10-17-2000 at 04:45 AM]

 

[Cheri]

I am a registered Democrat who has a tendency to vote Republican in national elections, and I find both candidates repulsive at the extreme and dishonest at the least. Voting for either of them will be an unpleasant task, but still something I will do because it is my duty and right. Unfortunately voting for Nader seems to be an exercise in futility since I doubt that he will win the national election, so I'm stuck with the other two boozos.

 

[Deborah]

Laurel this ties in with your other thread too

Slut_puppy, you just gave me the perfect ending for the story I was telling you about. You don't marry me, or your sister. Nope, you marry my brother! You don't do it for the "queer" sex but to champion the cause to end the discrimination.

Now I was wondering. The first priority seems to be obtaining legal rights for gay couples, medical insurance, etc.

Here's a question for you lawyers out there. Would it be possible for one party in a long-term gay relationship to legally adopt the other? Just as a step-parent might legally adopt a step-child?

I know this is just a possible ploy to circumvent the law but "I never had sex with that woman."

 

[Slut_boy]

Deborah baby !!!

Deb, you are the funniest by far *laughing*. Okay, wait ... so I get to marry your brother and that makes you and I brother and sister - and yup, we are back to the sibling incest thing that got you writing this story in the first place. You are a bad girl (even if you are my favourite) *wink*

 

[Deborah]

Yeah, well you're a bad boy, Slut_baby. Not to worry, I'll let you see the story before I submit it. Just in case you find something objectionable. In that case, I'll be sure to leave it in.

I agree with the points you made on this subject as well as similiar points made by others on this and Laurel's thread. Something needs to be done to afford gay couples adequate rights. Not only gay couples, but male/female significant other but unmarried couples experience similar problems, but of course not nearly as drastic.

In many instances, what with the divorce rate, marriage has failed as a viable institution. I don't know how exactly to fix the problem, but the consequences should be dealt with.

 

[Sparky Kronkite]

My two cents.......

If anyone cares - no biggie if you don't.

I generally agree with Laurel a lot here but I also hugely agree with Deborah - both these guys suck - big time too.

If you must vote and most here, I assume think they must - then to me some fairly straight forward choices ring clear. That is assuming that no one on the board "personally knows" either of these candidates and all here are dubious regarding what the men actually stand for - currently or in the past.

Yes, I am assuming that all intelligent folks here do know that both these guys will say, or have said, just about anything - and out of both sides of their mouths too - to garner your vote.

If all this is even remotely agreed upon. Then your clear choices are.....

1) Vote your parties line. Boom! Done. Did your duty. A no brainer. (And anyone who does this? I believe has no brain.)

2) Vote out of the two primary party powers, essentially wasting a "pertinent" vote - but making a statement with your vote. (Rah, rah - I hate the system! Fuck you! I did it see! Oh? Yeah, it means something "to me" though.)

3) Pick one or more issues and vote accordingly to those specific issues, assuming that the your latest "belief" in what either candidate has said is true. Or not true. (Abortion? Yeah? Nay? Vote that way!)

4) Or? Don't vote. (Watch the Simpson's, have a Bud and smile at Homer - because you're pretty much like him.)

I was going with 4 until I realized something and changed my mind to three. (Yes, I love Homer.)

Supreme Court judges! They are, they have become my one "main issue." Four or more will possibly come up for a change in the next four years. If you are like me then, choosing number 4, you can either choose to vote conservatively or liberally and hope for appointments to follow those philosophies.

And that is what I plan to do and that is why I have decided to vote - the only reason. (Slightly better'n Homer'd do - I think.)

Why?

Because I hate (well not hate, that's a bit strong) but I think these two guys are dickless, lying, silver-spoon fed, mommy's boys. I have very, very little respect for either. And I don't see (unless you might actually know either guy) how anyone can feel any different.

I simply hope for the best regarding judges appointments. Hail America. Kiss Uncle Sam's ass. And pass me a Bud.

 

[Lasher]

More on the Supreme Court...

Interesting choice of issues, Sparky, and it's one that I've been thinking about, too. From where I'm sitting, I think the US Government is at it's best... ummm, well, maybe not best, but least intrusive, when it's as evenly split along party lines as possible. That's why I think this country has had a really good last 20 years or so. For most of the 12 years of Reagan/Bush we had a Republican president and a Democratic congress, and then for most of the 8 years of Clinton we've had the opposite. To me, that's checks and balances at it's finest. Some might call it gridlock, but I'm a big fan of a laissez-faire approach to government and from what I've seen over the past few years we're finally reaping the benefits of 20 years of divided government.

Now, I look at the upcoming election and unfortunately it's too difficult to apply that standard in picking the lesser of two evils. Either party that wins the presidency is going to (more than likely) drag at least one house of congress along with them. I think it's pretty obvious that a Bush win will guarantee Republican control of both houses of congress, and from what I can see a Gore win should be enough for Democrats to have a very slim majority in the House, but I doubt it will be enough to change control of the Senate. On that level I would lean slightly toward Gore.

However, one thing that's greatly disappointed me is that I have so little respect for either of these men that I'm just numbed that neither party could select a candidate that I could easily favor over the other. I don't agree with a lot of what Bill Bradley says, but I respect his intelligence and what he's been able to accomplish and it would have been very easy for me to support him over George Dubbayah. On the Republican side I could say the same things of people like John McCain and Colin Powell. Hell, I think it's obvious to everyone that even Dick Cheyney is more qualified than Bush to be president.

Anyways, back to the Supreme Court. Something that's been bothering me is the amount of junk email I've been getting from companies involved in the adult entertainment business (remember, I do run a little porn site of my own, that's how I get on these lists) telling me that if I'm a good little Pornmeister that I'll support Al Gore because of all the changes that could be made in the Supreme Court over the next 4 years. Now that got me thinking. Cause I sure as heck don't want an overly Conservative Supreme Court banning porn. But not being one to take ANYTHING at face value, I decided to do a little investigating.

It seems that the Supreme Court has an almost mystical way of taking care of itself regardless of what party is in power or for how long. Justices don't normally retire when their party is out of power, and they also seem to live long and surprisingly healthy lives. So I don't expect the turnover to be as great as Sparky suggests it might be. Clinton has been in office for damn near 8 years now and has only appointed 2 Justices, and none since 1994.

Here's some other things I've noticed. That overly Conservative Supreme Court that the Democratic Party wants you to live in fear of already exists. Currently 7 of the 9 Justices have been appointed by Republican presidents. Which I find most interesting in regards to how that effects the Roe vs. Wade decision. I think another of the Democrats favorite scare tactics is to say that a conservative Court will overturn Roe vs. Wade. But the fact of the matter is, ALL current Supreme Court Justices have been appointed since the Roe vs. Wade decision in 1973. And, Republican appointed justices have been a majority on the Court since at least 1988. Let' face it, political parties pay lip service to core issues to secure their party base - in this case the Republican party continues to say they support bans on abortions to secure the religious right - but these people are first and foremost politicians, and as long as more than 51% of the public supports a woman's right to choose, nothing is going to change on that issue.

So then I took a look at what really might happen with the court over the next 4-8 years, and tried to decide if I could make a decision based on that. Here's what I see. With a win by George Dubbayah, over 4 years you may see 2 Justices replaced, and depending on health probably only 1. And over the course of 8 years I would expect George Dubbayah to appoint 3, maybe even 4 depending on the health of Ruth Bader Ginsberg. But none of that would really change the current make up of the court.

As for Gore, over 4 years he could be expected to appoint maybe 1 Justice, although I would expect John Paul Stevens to do his best to hang on for another 4 years if Gore is elected, so it could be 0. And over the course of 8 years, Gore might get to appoint 3 to 4 justices. I wouldn't expect Justice Stevens to last another 8 years, so definitely 1. And the rest depends on the health of Justices Rehnquist, O'Connor, and Bader-Ginsburg. Which would be nice, then we'd be back to the days of a 5-4 Court. But then I'm struck by the idea of living through 8 years of Al Gore just for that. That's pretty difficult to stomach. I can only look at Al Gore is a 4 year, ummm... not so much a solution... we'll call it an option.

Anyways, all I can come up with out of this is that the make up of the Supreme Court is not a good enough issue for me to base my decision on in this upcoming election. I think in the back of my mind the two issues that are most important to me at the moment are Tax Reform and what's going to happen with this "Projected" Surplus. I'll get back to everyone on those.

[Edited by Lasher on 10-17-2000 at 10:30 AM]

 

[Laurel]

The Supreme Court issue isn't a big one for me. However, that GWB has pledged to "review" the legality of RU-486 scares me.

What also scares me is that, by all accounts, the man is a raging homophobe and a bigot.

He refused to sign a hate crime bill supported by the family of James Byrd - the guy who was dragged behind a truck by racists - because it contained wording that included gays and lesbians. Byrd's oldest daughter Renee Mullins, an Army veteran, pleaded with him to support the bill. He told her "no".

And in 1994, GW Bush said he would veto any attempt to overturn the Texas sodomy law, calling it "a symbolic gesture of traditional values."

Here's a link to an article:
http://salon.com/politics/feature/2000/10/16/byrds/index.html