Comments on: More gay-baiting campaign tactics

By: Illinois Republican

Illinois Republican — Thu, 31 Dec 2009 17:44:42 +0000

Call it “solid” or whatever you want, but the simple fact is rumors about Mark Kirk being gay have been widespread for years.

At least one pro-gay website goes further and says it’s an “open secret” that Mark Kirk is gay:

See: http://hillbuzz.org/2009/12/28/question-of-the-day-do-republicans-really-want-to-take-back-the-senate-in-2010/

And by the way, it’s Mark Kirk’s own campaign here in Illinois that is acting like being “accused” of being gay is some kind of slur. Me thinks he doth protest too much.

By: Sexuality is not a problem

Sexuality is not a problem — Wed, 30 Dec 2009 00:00:14 +0000

But what exactly does that mean anyways? Why is this such a perceived negative? Virginia Woolf was gay. Oscar Wilde was gay. Harvey Milk was gay. One of the best Roman Emperors of all time, Hadrian, the 14th emperor of Rome, is also widely presumed to be gay. Being gay doesn’t mean you’re stupid, unintelligent, or a bad leader. In fact, it would seem to be an indicator of the contrary!

Bottom line: being gay doesn’t disqualify you for office anymore than brown eyes or straight teeth. It’s simply another facet of a person, and Mr. Martin was out of line to raise the issue as a negative. If anything, it simply reminds voters of his incompetence, like when he made Anti-Semitic comments earlier in his career.

By: James Simmons

James Simmons — Tue, 29 Dec 2009 21:01:45 +0000

there is a “solid rumor that Kirk is a homosexual,”

Just what exactly is a “solid” rumor? Does that mean it’s a more reliable rumor than a rumor that isn’t solid? He instead should have said that there is perhaps a definite possibility that Kirk might possibly be a homo. Adding some clarification to the statement might perhaps have eliminated any potential ambiguity, wouldn’t you agree?