Law School Discussion

Specific Groups => Minority and Non-Traditional Law Students => Topic started by: ->Soon on October 16, 2006, 12:47:51 PM

Title: Republican and Gay
Post by: ->Soon on October 16, 2006, 12:47:51 PM
Why?
Title: Re: Republican and Gay
Post by: jarhead on October 16, 2006, 04:22:33 PM
Republican...why? :-\
Title: Re: Republican and Gay
Post by: annab on October 16, 2006, 04:32:09 PM
Why is anyone a Republican?  :(
Title: Re: Republican and Gay
Post by: redemption on October 16, 2006, 04:39:56 PM
Republican + gay is as silly as Republican + black. You're in a tent with people who utterly despise you. It represents an utter lack of judgment.
Title: Re: Republican and Gay
Post by: annab on October 16, 2006, 04:43:11 PM
To be honest, I think lots of Democrats are just as homophobic and racist as Republicans.  :-\

It's just not a part of their official platform.  :P
Title: Re: Republican and Gay
Post by: redemption on October 16, 2006, 04:53:21 PM
To be honest, I think lots of Democrats are just as homophobic and racist as Republicans.  :-\

It's just not a part of their official platform.  :P

The difference? Republican court the homophobic. It's just too sad and too pathetic to see people trade away their dignity for a few dollars back from the IRS. I have nothing but contempt for them. And that's the truth.
Title: Re: Republican and Gay
Post by: annab on October 16, 2006, 04:59:36 PM
I think I feel more pity than contempt.  I think it's kind of sad.  :(

But I may feel differently depending on what happens in November.  We'll see.  :P

And I'm not a Salon member.  :-\
Title: Re: Republican and Gay
Post by: redemption on October 16, 2006, 05:01:04 PM
I think I feel more pity than contempt.  I think it's kind of sad.  :(

But I may feel differently depending on what happens in November.  We'll see.  :P

And I'm not a Salon member.  :-\

Pity I reserve for children. If they're paying their dues, they're grown folk: they've earned the contempt.
Title: Re: Republican and Gay
Post by: BrerAnansi on October 16, 2006, 05:32:24 PM
I don't think the issue is so much what the Democrats have done for you lately...but rather what the Republicans have never done and have made a point of saying they'll never do...
Title: Re: Republican and Gay
Post by: redemption on October 16, 2006, 05:48:45 PM
Well, it's not worth it to me to join a party whose tenents I don't believe in, just because they are less against gay marriage than the party that i identify more with on almost every other issue.

Are you gay?
Title: Re: Republican and Gay
Post by: FossilJ on October 16, 2006, 05:53:56 PM
To be honest, I think lots of Democrats are just as homophobic and racist as Republicans.  :-\

It's just not a part of their official platform.  :P

Irrelevant.
Title: Re: Republican and Gay
Post by: annab on October 16, 2006, 05:59:17 PM
Sorry, I think I've been misinterpreted.  :(

I'm not saying there's no difference.  I'm just saying there's still room for improvement with the Democrats as well.  :)
Title: Re: Republican and Gay
Post by: BrerAnansi on October 16, 2006, 06:01:10 PM
GRIDS...Reagan...C.Everett Koop...ring any bells...


yep
Title: Re: Republican and Gay
Post by: FossilJ on October 16, 2006, 06:04:31 PM
Sorry, I think I've been misinterpreted.  :(

I'm not saying there's no difference.  I'm just saying there's still room for improvement with the Democrats as well.  :)


Which is why it was irrelevant.   :D
Title: Re: Republican and Gay
Post by: annab on October 16, 2006, 06:06:13 PM
Sorry, I think I've been misinterpreted.  :(

I'm not saying there's no difference.  I'm just saying there's still room for improvement with the Democrats as well.  :)


Which is why it was irrelevant.   :D

Okay, just as long as people don't think I'm supporting the Republicans.  :) 
Title: Re: Republican and Gay
Post by: ->Soon on October 16, 2006, 06:26:04 PM
When did I say that I am a Republican? All I said was that I support way more of their ideas than Democrat ideas... except for gay marriage. I don't see either party committed to gay rights. So, I tend to vote Republican because although I consider myself Libertarian, we have a two-party system. Also, I refuse to just let the religious right continue to have its own way within the Republican party. Many people who would otherwise agree with many Republican ideals are turned off by Conservative Christians.

Dissent within the party is especially necessary now.

doesnt matter wgat you want.  the religious right owns the party.

cause, without it, the repubs have NO base.
Title: Re: Republican and Gay
Post by: ->Soon on October 16, 2006, 07:48:46 PM
cause seriously, 51% of the voters in this country are not psycho conservative christians

yes, the dems...
Title: Re: Republican and Gay
Post by: bridget on October 16, 2006, 07:56:27 PM
bludevil, could you give an example of a social issue you're republican on?  it's hard for me to think of something.  I tend to think of social isues as linked, so it would be hard for me to be conservative on one thing and not be conservative on something else.
Title: Re: Republican and Gay
Post by: ->Soon on October 17, 2006, 03:52:54 AM
political parties change over time.

the repubs are no longer about limited govt  or financial responsibility.
Title: Re: Republican and Gay
Post by: 'tiki on October 17, 2006, 06:20:20 AM
Although I consider myself a Democrat, I think it is somewhat myopic to hold contempt for a gay republican, elections and our goverment are not based on only one issue. Think about the candidates being put forth for the midterms by the Dem Party: Casey in PA is anti-abortion and anti-gay marriage, the same could be said about Ford in TN, and look at incumbents elected recently like Salazar in CO, or not so recently like both Nelsons. Where I am going with this is that parties are a spectrum of ideas and personally I would support a more moderate republican over any of the Dem senators I mentioned above. I have several friends that are gay republicans and at first I did not understand but they explain it easily by stating that elections and govt are not one issue, they are pro-life and believe in limited govt. therefore they believe they are better off supporting Republican candidates rather than Democrats. Moreover, I agree with them that dissent from within is sometimes more effective in changing the system.

Also, I will echo the comments of how none of the Democratic leaders will step up and support gay rights unless it helps them. People forget that the President that established "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" (which has caused the military to be worse for gay people) was the darling of the Democrats Bill Clinton.

PS I believe the Dem Party is better on gay issues than the Rep Party, I am just pointing out several reasons why criticizing gay republicans allegiances just because they are gay is just silly.
Title: Re: Republican and Gay
Post by: redemption on October 17, 2006, 06:32:25 AM
Although I consider myself a Democrat, I think it is somewhat myopic to hold contempt for a gay republican

Don't be silly. The choice is not between republican and democrat, it between whether to join up with people who are disgusted by you or not. If your dignity and humanity is worth trading for a $300 or $3000 check in the mail, you're beneath contempt.
Title: Re: Republican and Gay
Post by: ->Soon on October 17, 2006, 06:33:59 AM
oh so i guess i should just give up on them. thanks for enlightening me.

you can join them if you wish.  id like to hear how welcoming they are if you go to a meeting and wear a rainbow pin...
Title: Re: Republican and Gay
Post by: redemption on October 17, 2006, 06:44:54 AM
oh so i guess i should just give up on them. thanks for enlightening me.

you can join them if you wish.  id like to hear how welcoming they are if you go to a meeting and wear a rainbow pin...

Um. Ho do you know that I'm not Republican?  ???
Title: Re: Republican and Gay
Post by: ->Soon on October 17, 2006, 06:47:36 AM
oh so i guess i should just give up on them. thanks for enlightening me.

you can join them if you wish.  id like to hear how welcoming they are if you go to a meeting and wear a rainbow pin...

Um. Ho do you know that I'm not Republican?  ???

i wasnt referring to you Jane  ;)

and howd you know im a Ho?  ;D
Title: Re: Republican and Gay
Post by: 'tiki on October 17, 2006, 06:53:52 AM
Don't be silly. The choice is not between republican and democrat, it between whether to join up with people who are disgusted by you or not. If your dignity and humanity is worth trading for a $300 or $3000 check in the mail, you're beneath contempt.

You are thinking that all gay republicans care about is less taxes. Making democratic choices is more than one or two issues, if you can't see that then I am sorry. By the way there are tons of Democrats just as disgusted like most Republicans (see examples of Dem Senators above). The choice is not as clear as you make it seem.
Title: Re: Republican and Gay
Post by: 'tiki on October 17, 2006, 07:00:17 AM
This is exactly the reason why I hate the gay community sometimes. You preach tolerance and open-mindedness yet when a gay person doesn't fit what you think a gay person should be, you jump all over them.

Word.  ;)
Title: Re: Republican and Gay
Post by: redemption on October 17, 2006, 07:06:39 AM
Don't be silly. The choice is not between republican and democrat, it between whether to join up with people who are disgusted by you or not. If your dignity and humanity is worth trading for a $300 or $3000 check in the mail, you're beneath contempt.

You are thinking that all gay republicans care about is less taxes. Making democratic choices is more than one or two issues, if you can't see that then I am sorry. By the way there are tons of Democrats just as disgusted like most Republicans (see examples of Dem Senators above). The choice is not as clear as you make it seem.

Haha. Did university professors join the Khmer Rouge because they liked the country air?

As I have said before -- and this is a point you seem stuck on -- the choice is not between democrats and republicans, it's about whether to join the Republicans or not. Republicans outside ME, VT and RI court hatred. It's their strategy; it's the base from which they spring.  I dig that your average white straight joe might not care about that, but if you're gay, black etc -- that should register somewhere in your consciousness and make you pause.

What do gay republicans care about, anyway? Freedom? Equality? the Judao-Christian Tradition? The War on Terror? Please.
Title: Re: Republican and Gay
Post by: redemption on October 17, 2006, 07:07:45 AM
This is exactly the reason why I hate the gay community sometimes. You preach tolerance and open-mindedness yet when a gay person doesn't fit what you think a gay person should be, you jump all over them. Everyone can have their own beliefs. I think everybody should be able to be a part of whatever party they want to, whether they are gay, straight, black, white, rich, poor. Don't invalidate others' beliefs by assuming that you know better than they do which party aligns more with their best interests. That's just arrogant.

Who are you talking to? Me? I'm straight.
Title: Re: Republican and Gay
Post by: ->Soon on October 17, 2006, 07:08:07 AM
Don't be silly. The choice is not between republican and democrat, it between whether to join up with people who are disgusted by you or not. If your dignity and humanity is worth trading for a $300 or $3000 check in the mail, you're beneath contempt.

You are thinking that all gay republicans care about is less taxes. Making democratic choices is more than one or two issues, if you can't see that then I am sorry. By the way there are tons of Democrats just as disgusted like most Republicans (see examples of Dem Senators above). The choice is not as clear as you make it seem.

Haha. Did university professors join the Khmer Rouge because they liked the country air?

As I have said before -- and this is a point you seem stuck on -- the choice is not between democrats and republicans, it's about whether to join the Republicans or not. Republicans outside ME, VT and RI court hatred. It's their strategy; it's the base from which they spring.  I dig that your average white straight joe might not care about that, but if you're gay, black etc -- that should register somewhere in your consciousness and make you pause.

What do gay republicans care about, anyway? Freedom? Equality? the Judao-Christian Tradition? The War on Terror? Please.

its how they won the south...
Title: Re: Republican and Gay
Post by: redemption on October 17, 2006, 07:08:43 AM

its how they won the south...

No *&^%.   :)
Title: Re: Republican and Gay
Post by: ->Soon on October 17, 2006, 07:12:00 AM
This is exactly the reason why I hate the gay community sometimes. You preach tolerance and open-mindedness yet when a gay person doesn't fit what you think a gay person should be, you jump all over them. Everyone can have their own beliefs. I think everybody should be able to be a part of whatever party they want to, whether they are gay, straight, black, white, rich, poor. Don't invalidate others' beliefs by assuming that you know better than they do which party aligns more with their best interests. That's just arrogant.

Who are you talking to? Me? I'm straight.

not even a bit curious?  :(
Title: Re: Republican and Gay
Post by: Nemesis on October 17, 2006, 07:13:24 AM

its how they won the south...

No sh*t.   :)

Hey girly  ;)
Title: Re: Republican and Gay
Post by: 'tiki on October 17, 2006, 07:18:01 AM
Don't be silly. The choice is not between republican and democrat, it between whether to join up with people who are disgusted by you or not. If your dignity and humanity is worth trading for a $300 or $3000 check in the mail, you're beneath contempt.

You are thinking that all gay republicans care about is less taxes. Making democratic choices is more than one or two issues, if you can't see that then I am sorry. By the way there are tons of Democrats just as disgusted like most Republicans (see examples of Dem Senators above). The choice is not as clear as you make it seem.

Haha. Did university professors join the Khmer Rouge because they liked the country air?

As I have said before -- and this is a point you seem stuck on -- the choice is not between democrats and republicans, it's about whether to join the Republicans or not. Republicans outside ME, VT and RI court hatred. It's their strategy; it's the base from which they spring.  I dig that your average white straight joe might not care about that, but if you're gay, black etc -- that should register somewhere in your consciousness and make you pause.

What do gay republicans care about, anyway? Freedom? Equality? the Judao-Christian Tradition? The War on Terror? Please.

One point I made earlier is that joining the party allows for reform from within. Also, you ask what do they care about:
- being pro-life
- less welfare, they might not want their money going to sustain people simply because they do not work
- against affirmative action
- tougher immigration standards
- less government regulation of businesses
- also, some gay republicans do not believe in gay marriage
I do not necessarily believe in these causes and some gay republican might think differently since I am not a republican, but I think they clearly show a small smaple of the wide array of issues of why someone gay might want to join the republican party over the democratic party.

By the way democracy flourishes while there is debate and dissent, the day that having a different opinion merits contempt is the day that it dies. I might disagree with republicans on many, many issues but I do not hold contempt for them. Respectful debate and change of ideas is what allows a society to flourish.
Title: Re: Republican and Gay
Post by: ->Soon on October 17, 2006, 07:18:19 AM
then explain to me why?

if you wnet to a convention and announced openly you were gay, do you think they would welcome you with open arms?  or would they say thanks for your votes and money, heres a nice closet for you to wait in.
Title: Re: Republican and Gay
Post by: redemption on October 17, 2006, 07:19:32 AM

its how they won the south...

No sh*t.   :)

Hey girly  ;)

Hello, chica!! Long time. Missed you.
Title: Re: Republican and Gay
Post by: redemption on October 17, 2006, 07:20:19 AM
I don't think you guys are interested in an intellectual, informed discourse about what would possess someone to be a gay republican. YOu are interested in attacking the republican party and anyone (gay or straight) that would be a part of it. I can acknowledge that there are reasons why someone would be a Democrat, but you act as if every Republican is an idiot and being fooled. You're cutting off the possibility of rational discussion here by not even being open to what anybody has to say about being gay and republican, or being republican at all. What's the point of continuing.

Every statement in this para is false. Quite remarkable.
Title: Re: Republican and Gay
Post by: Nemesis on October 17, 2006, 07:22:27 AM

its how they won the south...

No sh*t.   :)

Hey girly  ;)

Hello, chica!! Long time. Missed you.


Same here. I don't want to hijack the thread but I wanted to say hello. Great to see you posting again! Let me know when you're coming to visit.
Title: Re: Republican and Gay
Post by: redemption on October 17, 2006, 07:24:40 AM

One point I made earlier is that joining the party allows for reform from within. Also, you ask what do they care about:
- being pro-life AGAINST WOMEN
- less welfare, they might not want their money going to sustain people simply because they do not work AGAINST THE POOR
- against affirmative action AGAINST MINORITIES
- tougher immigration standards AGAINST BROWN PEOPLE FROM OTHER COUNTRIES
- less government regulation of businesses HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. PLEASE.
- also, some gay republicans do not believe in gay marriage AGAINST GAY PEOPLE
I do not necessarily believe in these causes and some gay republican might think differently since I am not a republican, but I think they clearly show a small smaple of the wide array of issues of why someone gay might want to join the republican party over the democratic party.

By the way democracy flourishes while there is debate and dissent, the day that having a different opinion merits contempt is the day that it dies. I might disagree with republicans on many, many issues but I do not hold contempt for them. Respectful debate and change of ideas is what allows a society to flourish.


The last bolded part -- disingenuous. Gays can't debate if they're not Republicans? Or is it that I won't swallow those bumper stickers that you've listed? You want sophisticated debate, then present your argument; not hollow slogans. And I mean that nicely and sincerely  :)
Title: Re: Republican and Gay
Post by: redemption on October 17, 2006, 07:25:06 AM

its how they won the south...

No sh*t.   :)

Hey girly  ;)

Hello, chica!! Long time. Missed you.


Same here. I don't want to hijack the thread but I wanted to say hello. Great to see you posting again! Let me know when you're coming to visit.

I will, definitely.  :)
Title: Re: Republican and Gay
Post by: 'tiki on October 17, 2006, 07:26:21 AM
Do you think gays have always been welcome in the Democratic party as well? Ha. You should thank gay republicans for putting up with B.S. in an effort to change things in the party where they are unpopular, instead of rolling over and just giving up and joining the Democrats.

By the way red, saying "this is false" doesn't make it so.

I would not join teh Republican Party because I disagree with the vast majority of their platform. However, I definitely believe in changing the system from within and do respect gay republicans for that. And of all my gay friends I'd say 1/3 are gay republicans, quite remarkable IMO.  :D
Title: Re: Republican and Gay
Post by: redemption on October 17, 2006, 07:28:02 AM
Do you think gays have always been welcome in the Democratic party as well? Ha. You should thank gay republicans for putting up with B.S. in an effort to change things in the party where they are unpopular, instead of rolling over and just giving up and joining the Democrats.

By the way red, saying "this is false" doesn't make it so.

Bah. Democrats again. Jeez.
Title: Re: Republican and Gay
Post by: redemption on October 17, 2006, 07:29:45 AM
Red, your problem is not with gay republicans but with republicans, right? Then what's the point in having this discussion? If you can't see the possibility that others have different beliefs than you do, then how are we supposed to have a productive discussion?

Naw, man. If you're a white male WASP American and you're Republican, I'll say it again, I cab dig it. If you're a member of a group that they target for scorn, then there's something wrong with you if you pay dues to them.
Title: Re: Republican and Gay
Post by: redemption on October 17, 2006, 07:31:39 AM

I would not join teh Republican Party because I disagree with the vast majority of their platform. However, I definitely believe in changing the system from within and do respect gay republicans for that. And of all my gay friends I'd say 1/3 are gay republicans, quite remarkable IMO.  :D

You want to change the Republican Party? Vote against them. That's how the system works. They lose, they change. When they figure out that they lose because of their tendency to hate-monger, they'll drop it like a bad habit. Join them, and you subsidize it, provide cover for it, extend it.
Title: Re: Republican and Gay
Post by: 'tiki on October 17, 2006, 07:35:41 AM

One point I made earlier is that joining the party allows for reform from within. Also, you ask what do they care about:
- being pro-life AGAINST WOMEN
- less welfare, they might not want their money going to sustain people simply because they do not work AGAINST THE POOR
- against affirmative action AGAINST MINORITIES
- tougher immigration standards AGAINST BROWN PEOPLE FROM OTHER COUNTRIES
- less government regulation of businesses HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. PLEASE.
- also, some gay republicans do not believe in gay marriage AGAINST GAY PEOPLE
I do not necessarily believe in these causes and some gay republican might think differently since I am not a republican, but I think they clearly show a small smaple of the wide array of issues of why someone gay might want to join the republican party over the democratic party.

By the way democracy flourishes while there is debate and dissent, the day that having a different opinion merits contempt is the day that it dies. I might disagree with republicans on many, many issues but I do not hold contempt for them. Respectful debate and change of ideas is what allows a society to flourish.

You are being ridiculous. I do not believe in the majority of those issues I listed, therefore I will not debate their merits. However, they are examples of more issues than just taxes or gay rights. Red, the reality here is that you are agaisnt basically everything the republican party stands for and can't even imagine loosing what you think should be a key constituency of Democrats. Is this type of thinking that has led to the growth of the Republican party not only with gays, but with hispanics and blacks as well.

Quote
The last bolded part -- disingenuous. Gays can't debate if they're not Republicans? Or is it that I won't swallow those bumper stickers that you've listed? You want sophisticated debate, then present your argument; not hollow slogans. And I mean that nicely and sincerely  :)

I am pointing out that people are allowed to have opinions different from your own and that does not merit contempt. I think your main problem with the republican party is it disposition for intolerance (correct me if I am wrong) but you are clearly showing the same amount of intolerance by insulting those who believe different than you.
Title: Re: Republican and Gay
Post by: 'tiki on October 17, 2006, 07:38:47 AM
You want to change the Republican Party? Vote against them. That's how the system works. They lose, they change. When they figure out that they lose because of their tendency to hate-monger, they'll drop it like a bad habit. Join them, and you subsidize it, provide cover for it, extend it.

Again you assume that it is all about one issue. What if you agree with them on everything else, would you want the Dems to win? The obvious answer is NO.

Title: Re: Republican and Gay
Post by: ->Soon on October 17, 2006, 07:40:15 AM
not necessarily true.  im sure, like me, shes for some of the things they USED to stand for.

smaller govt.
less wasteful taxes


but those ideals have been thrown to the side over the past few elections, and they dont seem to be in a rush to get back to them.

the repubs today are about religion and big business.

oh, and

tax cuts for the rich!
Title: Re: Republican and Gay
Post by: redemption on October 17, 2006, 08:21:35 AM

I am pointing out that people are allowed to have opinions different from your own and that does not merit contempt. I think your main problem with the republican party is it disposition for intolerance (correct me if I am wrong) but you are clearly showing the same amount of intolerance by insulting those who believe different than you.

You'e trying my patience and I'm speaking as slowly and plainly as I am able. If you're not a member of a targeted group, go for it -- I'm fine with it, I can respect that you care about yourself, and that the $300 can pay for a new TV.

I cannot, however, comprehend the notion of a black Republican or a Gay Republican. It always ends in shame for those people.

Please read this. Please read it carefully, and tell me that you don't know that that's what many Republicans feel inside and (almost) never say:
http://www.newenglishreview.org/custpage.cfm?frm=3891&sec_id=3891

Title: Re: Republican and Gay
Post by: redemption on October 17, 2006, 08:27:45 AM
can you get it through your head that it's not about $300!

What is it about?
Title: Re: Republican and Gay
Post by: redemption on October 17, 2006, 08:28:34 AM
if someone is willing to fight to make a party more inclusive, then who are you to tell them it's not worth it? Your position that we should give up and join a party that is already accommodating instead of fighting to change people's minds is pathetic and cowardly.

Haha. True enough. I am kinda cowardly.
Title: Re: Republican and Gay
Post by: redemption on October 17, 2006, 08:45:22 AM
It's about different things for different people - that's the point - people choose a political party based on what works for them and what they believe.

Who are you to tell someone that they can't be a part of the Republican party because they are gay/black/poor? That takes away their agency and invalidates their beliefs.

The idea that a gay/minority/poor person might choose the Republican party might seem wrong to you, but it works for them.

The idea that a gay/minority/poor Republican is being "fooled" and is going against their own, personal best interests, is arrogant and elitist.

Who are you to tell someone else what their political party should or should not believe just based on their sexual orientation/race/socioeconomic status?

lol

You crack me up. I almost want to pet you.
Title: Re: Republican and Gay
Post by: redemption on October 17, 2006, 08:58:53 AM
Red - you are acting like a petulant teenager clothed in black, spouting marilyn Manson lyrics. The world is not simply Black and Pink. And I think that is the point BlueDevil is trying to make.

Eh, I don't think so. I'm saying something quite specific: don't pay dues to a party that hates you, or whose core identity springs from that hate. That's quite a narrow position, not at all complicated, and common sense.

I'm acting petulant because people are not reading what I say.

Title: Re: Republican and Gay
Post by: redemption on October 17, 2006, 09:00:12 AM
Red can you respond with answers to my questions and points instead of just patronizing me?

I agree with demingh. I am not even a Republican. My beliefs are pretty libertarian, but I identify more with the Republican party many times. I vote issue-by-issue, candidate-by-candidate. I plan to support my state's (moderate Democratic) incumbent for senator in a few weeks. It all depends on the issue/candidate.

But I would never tell someone else not to support a certain party/candidate/issue just because of their sexual orientation, race, or socioeconomic status. They are entitled to make their own decision. That's democracy.

See?
Title: Re: Republican and Gay
Post by: ->Soon on October 17, 2006, 09:06:28 AM
to lighten the mood

im all for turning red states pink  ;D
Title: Re: Republican and Gay
Post by: ->Soon on October 17, 2006, 09:15:59 AM
nope.

i keep saying we should split the country in three

the extreme right and left can pick thier coast, the moderates get the middle
Title: Re: Republican and Gay
Post by: redemption on October 17, 2006, 09:19:23 AM

I believe that Blue is trying to make the point that your view is too narrow and the political sphere and party alignment are far more complicated that your "quite specific" view.

Black and Pink baby.

If you live in NYC and want to vote for Bloomberg, I don't see a problem whether you're gay or black or whatever.

If you pay dues (if you are a member of) a national organization whose base and whose strategy is founded upon beliefs that deny your humanity and worth, you're a joke.

If you want the country to move in a more accomodating direction as far as (for heavens sake!) an essential part of your identity  is concerned don't finance a party who uses your money to mobilize against you.

-------
As an aside, a pragmatic question if anyone would care to answer it:

If you want to help move the national Republican party away from that base instinct of theirs, why is not voting against them when they appeal to homophobia and racism not at least as effective as joining them "and working for change from the inside"?

Title: Re: Republican and Gay
Post by: ->Soon on October 17, 2006, 09:23:38 AM
AND on a side note
looks like VA might ban gay marriages.

but im sure its not a repub inititative...
Title: Re: Republican and Gay
Post by: redemption on October 17, 2006, 09:33:15 AM
red my number one political goal is not to legalize gay marriage. It is one goal, but it's not the only goal. I have weighed the pluses and minuses for ME for supporting the democratic party, and there are far more minuses for ME PERSONALLY.

I'll ask again -- are you gay? if so, are you considering becoming a member of the Republican party? If not, I don't see how anything that I have said is relevant to this response or vice versa? Do you see what I mean? You seem to be wanting to answer objections that I haven't made and to things that I haven't said.
Title: Re: Republican and Gay
Post by: ->Soon on October 17, 2006, 09:36:13 AM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/16/AR2006101601261.html

you can almost see the frustraion in some of these posts/

im rick james 8itch!
Title: Re: Republican and Gay
Post by: redemption on October 17, 2006, 09:41:09 AM
Well, because it's not like the Democrats are pro-gay either. You think by voting Democrat gay marriage will be legalized and gays will be given equal rights? Laughable.

If in the next election every single Democratic candidate was voted in and not a single Republican, this still would not even come close to happening. At the end of the day, both parties simply care about winning seats and they will adjust their strategy to fit what they think the populace majority thinks on a particular issue.

Utterly non-responsive to my post!  :D

Ah, well.

I love ya demingh, and I'm not hot under the collar about this issue.  :)
Title: Re: Republican and Gay
Post by: redemption on October 17, 2006, 09:48:32 AM
Yes I am gay, and what do you mean by "join"? Do you mean go to meetings, donate money, etc? No I am not considering that. But I will vote for a republican candidate if I feel that he or she best represents my political ideas. And there is nothing wrong with that, but you seem to think there is just because I am gay. Narrow-minded?? Yep.

Okay, so you are gay and you're not considering becoming a Republican. Fair enough. Would you vote for an anti-gay candidate (he has said that he believes homosexuality to be a sin and that "the homosexual agenda in Washington needs to be challenged") even if you agreed with him on any other issue?
Title: Re: Republican and Gay
Post by: redemption on October 17, 2006, 10:18:55 AM

Goalie, this was in response to your post ----

Eh, I think that the care with with people read each other's posts gets better later in the cycle.

People who are addressing me in this thread are responsing to what they think I've said rather than to what I have actually said. Not sure why, since I speak rather plainly most of the time.

I have gone to great lengths -- more than is reasonable -- to point out that I am not against voting for Republican candidates who are not anti-gay. I am drawing the line at funding -- and formally identifying yourself -- with a national Republican party who uses your money and the cover that you provide to both whip up homophobia and pretend that it is a broad tent. That's silliness, and if you do and are, you'll be ashamed of yourself when the time comes for having been a part of it -- and believe me, you are complicit in homophobia if you fund it and lend it credence.

Now, these are identity-type issues. The base of that party hates you for who you are, which is different in kind from despising/hating what you do. There is very little that you can do by conversation to change a bigot's mind, and your options are to share a bed with him or not.

Policy questions are another matter. These are arguable, negotiable, compromisable. The torturers, for example, don't love torture itself so much as they think that it is a useful tool for whatever policy and political purposes they have in mind. This is an arguable matter, you can persuade and provide counter-arguments in a way that you cannot over identity issues. Same with taxes, regulation, border control, etc.

Therefore, if you are really interested in changing policy and platforms to positions that you believe in, you get in bed with people who think that you're human and persuade them, or you stay outside of the parties and sway them with your vote.

What Log Cabin types are doing is silly, contemptible -- "I know that core of this organization thinks I'm repulsive, but maybe I can persuade them that I'm not by formally joining up with them, paying them my dues, and agreeing with them on taxes and whatnot.". It would be ridiculous for an Arab to join the Front National because he liked their pledge of full-employment, and it is absurd for gays to finance the kinds of National and State campaigns that their money goes towards.

::steps off soapbox, hoping her position is clearer or better understood::
Title: Re: Republican and Gay
Post by: redemption on October 17, 2006, 10:21:36 AM
I am hot under the collar! (Not necessarily at you, but definetely about this issue.) The reason the Republican party is the way it is (which I agree is xenophobic at best) is because it has been taken hostage by religious extremists in this country! I grew up in the same town as Focus on the Family and Bibles for the World's headquarters. (Also crowned the least "gay-friendly" town in America. Awesome.) So I have seen, close-up, the effects of these organizations on a micro-level. It is not right. It is not fair. 50 years from now, I hope that the blocking of gay-marriage is looked upon with the same amount of disbelief and disgust with which the opposition to the Equal Rights Movement is looked. However, I do not believe that the Republican party stands for racism and bigotry, and until we do something to address the real problem behind it (The absolute lack of separation btw church and state w/i the current Republican party) America will suffer from a completely dichotimized political structure.

Is the answer to this voting Democrat and accepting their entire party stand? No - I do not think so. I think the answer is insisting that we do not want our politicians' votes determined by trying to appease the morals of the religious right or, on the other hand, simply trying to oppose or respond to those loons.

 

Okay. I think that what I would do, if I were gay, is to vote for whomever agreed with my position the most, with the exception that I would NEVER ote fr a homophobic bigot. Never. I would also not join the Republican party, even though I may live in Vermont and vote Republican across the board.  :)
Title: Re: Republican and Gay
Post by: dbgirl on October 17, 2006, 10:23:58 AM
Republican + gay is as silly as Republican + black. You're in a tent with people who utterly despise you. It represents an utter lack of judgment.

Yep.
Title: Re: Republican and Gay
Post by: redemption on October 17, 2006, 10:28:27 AM
if a republican candidate made an anti-gay marriage amendment their top issue, no I would not vote for them. I would not vote for any candidate that is only about one issue. If they generally oppose gay marriage but aren't psycho conservative christian "god hates fags," etc., and have a good platform with which I agree on many points, then yeah I would feel comfortable voting for them even though they don't support gay marriage rights.

Well, I'm telling ya -- you'd be surprised at what's really going on inside their toupeed heads. When you hear them say "gay marriage" to a particular kind of audience, believe that what they are really saying is "god hates fags". If you can live with that as long as that's not his top issue, and he's emphasizing his War on Terror credentials on his TV ads, what can I tell you?
Title: Re: Republican and Gay
Post by: redemption on October 17, 2006, 10:32:22 AM
I guess I don't believe that the core of the republican party hates gay people. And I don't agree that change cannot be implemented from the inside...but then we're getting into the Douglass v. Booker T. debate...which begins to stray from the argument at hand.

Lots of republicans don't; the base, I think, does.

Without the base, the current national Republican Party is nowhere, so they court it and feed it. I couldn't live with knowing that I gave them money to continue doing so.
Title: Re: Republican and Gay
Post by: redemption on October 17, 2006, 10:38:21 AM
Haha, okay. We're using "core" differently. I mean the death-grip people by it. I figure that they have a death-grip on the Party for a reason.

Title: Re: Republican and Gay
Post by: 'tiki on October 17, 2006, 10:39:06 AM
Sorry I was MIA for like 2+ pages of discussion, I just got back from Constitutional Development class... sooooo good.  ;D


People who are addressing me in this thread are responsing to what they think I've said rather than to what I have actually said. Not sure why, since I speak rather plainly most of the time.

I have gone to great lengths -- more than is reasonable -- to point out that I am not against voting for Republican candidates who are not anti-gay. I am drawing the line at funding -- and formally identifying yourself -- with a national Republican party who uses your money and the cover that you provide to both whip up homophobia and pretend that it is a broad tent. That's silliness, and if you do and are, you'll be ashamed of yourself when the time comes for having been a part of it -- and believe me, you are complicit in homophobia if you fund it and lend it credence.

Now, these are identity-type issues. The base of that party hates you for who you are, which is different in kind from despising/hating what you do. There is very little that you can do by conversation to change a bigot's mind, and your options are to share a bed with him or not.

Policy questions are another matter. These are arguable, negotiable, compromisable. The torturers, for example, don't love torture itself so much as they think that it is a useful tool for whatever policy and political purposes they have in mind. This is an arguable matter, you can persuade and provide counter-arguments in a way that you cannot over identity issues. Same with taxes, regulation, border control, etc.

Therefore, if you are really interested in changing policy and platforms to positions that you believe in, you get in bed with people who think that you're human and persuade them, or you stay outside of the parties and sway them with your vote.

What Log Cabin types are doing is silly, contemptible -- "I know that core of this organization thinks I'm repulsive, but maybe I can persuade them that I'm not by formally joining up with them, paying them my dues, and agreeing with them on taxes and whatnot.". It would be ridiculous for an Arab to join the Front National because he liked their pledge of full-employment, and it is absurd for gays to finance the kinds of National and State campaigns that their money goes towards.

::steps off soapbox, hoping her position is clearer or better understood::

I have understood your point from the beginning and stand by what I have said. If a particular person believes that the majority of his/her interests are best served by the Republican party even if one particular interest is not who are you to question their motives, let alone insult them? They are advancing the majority of their interests by paying their dues.

Mention me how many Democratic candidates support gay marriage? Not many at all so therefore gay marriage becomes a non-issue a lot of the time when it comes to choosing a candidate.

Also, who are you to tell someone what is key part of their identity? A person is compromised by many factors and he or she might be gay but not consider it to essential to who they are or what they believe.

Title: Re: Republican and Gay
Post by: redemption on October 17, 2006, 10:41:50 AM
Haha, okay. We're using "core" differently. I mean the death-grip people by it. I figure that they have a death-grip on the Party for a reason.




It's called campaign $$$ and the ability to shout louder than the rest of the crowd  >:(

Red., you would probably roll over and die or go postal if you ever visited my hometown. It would be hilarious. I kinda want to arrange a visit.

I wonder if it would be all that different from my home town?
Title: Re: Republican and Gay
Post by: 'tiki on October 17, 2006, 10:42:18 AM
AND on a side note
looks like VA might ban gay marriages.

but im sure its not a repub inititative...

Its on the ballot and it actually might not pass. The polling has shown it to be very close because it is too encompassing, banning civil unions too. If it passes (which I believe it will), it will be by a very slim margin.
Title: Re: Republican and Gay
Post by: redemption on October 17, 2006, 10:45:37 AM

I have understood your point from the beginning and stand by what I have said. If a particular person believes that the majority of his/her interests are best served by the Republican party even if one particular interest is not who are you to question their motives, let alone insult them? They are advancing the majority of their interests by paying their dues.

Mention me how many Democratic candidates support gay marriage? Not many at all so therefore gay marriage becomes a non-issue a lot of the time when it comes to choosing a candidate.

Also, who are you to tell someone what is key part of their identity? A person is compromised by many factors and he or she might be gay but not consider it to essential to who they are or what they believe.

Oh, boy.  :D :D :D

Okay, champ. You win.

Title: Re: Republican and Gay
Post by: redemption on October 17, 2006, 10:47:34 AM
Without a doubt - worse.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4287106

Yup, worse. Mine half-hippie and half-right wing nutjob.
Title: Re: Republican and Gay
Post by: 'tiki on October 17, 2006, 10:49:37 AM

Oh, boy.  :D :D :D

Okay, champ. You win.



Thanks!  ;D That is very generous of you.
Title: Re: Republican and Gay
Post by: redemption on October 17, 2006, 10:54:32 AM


Very sad. It wasn't always like that. Even as a child who knew nothing about political or religious power, I could see it changing.

My family has lived there for 4 generations, and as soon as my little sister graduates high school they're leaving. In less than 20 years extremist religion managed to completely transform what once was a quiet, idyllic, beautiful mid-sized town surrounded by beautiful scenery.
[/quote]

Sorry, couldn't resist  ;D
Title: Re: Republican and Gay
Post by: ->Soon on October 17, 2006, 11:00:53 AM
anyone care to find out what % of the repubs are the "moral majority"?
Title: Re: Republican and Gay
Post by: 'tiki on October 17, 2006, 11:14:18 AM
And some good news are...

Opposition to the ban in VA is growing... 53% in favor 43% agaisnt
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/16/AR2006101601438.html

While in Arizona the ban is failing... 48% against 41% in favor
http://www.advocate.com/news_detail_ektid37617.asp
Title: Re: Republican and Gay
Post by: redemption on October 17, 2006, 11:36:01 AM
dont get it.

Sorry, stepped away for a bit.

I was drawing a lame-ish analogy to our discussion in this thread.  :-[

I remember passing through Lynchburg, VA and being weirded out by it -- even the name of the town is creepy.

We live in odd times.
Title: Re: Republican and Gay
Post by: ->Soon on October 17, 2006, 11:44:00 AM
dont get it.

Sorry, stepped away for a bit.

I was drawing a lame-ish analogy to our discussion in this thread.  :-[

I remember passing through Lynchburg, VA and being weirded out by it -- even the name of the town is creepy.

We live in odd times.

i used to go to campe near there.

buncha hicks...
Title: Re: Republican and Gay
Post by: keepinitlegal on October 17, 2006, 06:01:06 PM
Whoaaaaa.....this thread is my life story.
I myself am a former member of the GOP- I'm also gay too. While I'm still pretty religious (and somewhat pro-life), as well as fairly conservative, I left the party permanently almost two years ago, and I'm not planning on returning anytime soon. I now consider myself to be a strong and exceedingly active Blue Dog Democrat, and unless the Dems run someone like Dennis Kucinich for president, I'll probably stay with the party for the rest of my life.
Even though my political views are perhaps more in line with the GOP, I cannot be part of a party that wants to deprive me of my civil liberties. Conservative Ideology aside- yes, limited government and libertarianism are more emblematic of the GOP- I find that it's necessary to face reality. The GOP does not and will not support me. Individual GOP politicians- i.e. Lincoln Chafee, John McCain and Christopher Shays- might be supportive of gay rights, and I appreciate it and would probably vote for them, but I will not be a member of a party that wants to treat me like a second-class citizen.
If you're a gay Republican, you need to wake up- your party will not support you. The Democrats are the only viable party in America today that will afford civil liberties to persons who identify as LGBT. Period.
Title: Re: Republican and Gay
Post by: President_Baccaga on October 18, 2006, 06:34:40 AM
Quote from: Blue Angel
political parties change over time.

the repubs are no longer about limited govt  or financial responsibility.

Correct (unfortunately) on the second point, although this change doesn't seem to be one that was gradual.  It's like I went to sleep one night, woke up the next morning and the majority of the Republican party had become infatuated with spending levels generally reserved for socialist governments.  :)  I guess that is why many parts of the libertarian ideology have become so interesting to me over the past couple of years.  Both Republicans and Democrats should keep their mouths shut when it comes to moral and social issues; both (especially Republicans) claim to be moral crusaders but in reality, they're both moral hypocrites.
Title: Re: Republican and Gay
Post by: ->Soon on October 18, 2006, 06:36:37 AM
the problem with third parties is that usually you are just throwing your vote away...
Title: Re: Republican and Gay
Post by: President_Baccaga on October 18, 2006, 07:36:21 AM

One point I made earlier is that joining the party allows for reform from within. Also, you ask what do they care about:
- being pro-life AGAINST WOMEN
- less welfare, they might not want their money going to sustain people simply because they do not work AGAINST THE POOR
- against affirmative action AGAINST MINORITIES
- tougher immigration standards AGAINST BROWN PEOPLE FROM OTHER COUNTRIES
- less government regulation of businesses HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. PLEASE.
- also, some gay republicans do not believe in gay marriage AGAINST GAY PEOPLE
I do not necessarily believe in these causes and some gay republican might think differently since I am not a republican, but I think they clearly show a small smaple of the wide array of issues of why someone gay might want to join the republican party over the democratic party.

By the way democracy flourishes while there is debate and dissent, the day that having a different opinion merits contempt is the day that it dies. I might disagree with republicans on many, many issues but I do not hold contempt for them. Respectful debate and change of ideas is what allows a society to flourish.


The last bolded part -- disingenuous. Gays can't debate if they're not Republicans? Or is it that I won't swallow those bumper stickers that you've listed? You want sophisticated debate, then present your argument; not hollow slogans. And I mean that nicely and sincerely  :)

These are ridiculous generalizations.  I support quite a few of the positions that contiki07 stated, but none of them do I support for the "motivation" provided by red.  You don't have to agree with a conservative platform or conservative ideologies but refering to those who do as "anti-woman", "anti-gay", "against brown people from other countries", etc. is pure hogwash (and demonstrates a sense of intolerance for people who do express other viewpoints).

Quote
being pro-life AGAINST WOMEN

For the rights of the unborn.  Regardless, the biggest hypocricy for me in this debate (and this is a little bit of a tangent) is the double standard that exists between the rights of women and the rights of men.  A woman can become impregnated, decide at any time up to the third trimester to abort the pregnancy, and the man has no right to assert his position.  On the other hand, if the woman decides to continue the pregnancy (even if the man is contrary), he/she must pay child support.  Anyway, like I said... a little bit of a tangent but get this straight: Those who vote for pro-life candidates are not voting against the woman but for a life that they believe to be sacred and hence worthy of protection.

Quote
less welfare, they might not want their money going to sustain people simply because they do not work AGAINST THE POOR

Right... against the poor.  Am I not in favor of constantly supporting a 25 year old drug addict that has sat on the corner for the past 10 years refusing to go look for a job or even to go get himself cleaned up so that he would have a chance?  Yes, I am... but I hardly feel that this equates to being against the poor.  I - as well as the majority of other conservatives - believe in helping those who cannot help themselves.  Furthermore, who said that believing in less welfare and the redistribution of wealth forced by the government is being "against the poor"?  I am firmly opposed to the government "forcably" taking the hard earned money of an individual and redistributing it.  That does not signify that I do not give to the poor, donate my time to help the disadvantaged, etc. (on the contrary, I donate over $10,000/year to charity and tutor and coach predominantly poor children, but I guess I'm still "against the poor", right?).

There is an interesting study by the Catalogue for Philanthropy that provides a state by state breakdown of overall charitable contributions by its citizens on an annual basis.  For all of those on the left who say that conservatives are "against the poor", you might find it interesting that out of the 10 highest ranked states based on generosity index (funds donated proportional to funds available), all of these 10 states can be considered strongly Republican; all were won by Bush in 2004 by 10 or more percentage points: Mississippi, Arkansas, South Dakota, Oklahoma, Alabama, Tennessee, Louisiana, Utah, South Carolina, and Idaho.  Funny though, generally I wouldn't think to see a correlation between those who give the most to charity and those who are "against the poor".  Furthermore it is interesting to note that those 20 states that gave the least (In order from 31 to 50 - Maine, Maryland, Hawaii, Delaware, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Connecticut, Vermont, Virginia, Oregon, Colorado, Arizona, Michigan, Nevada, Wisconsin, Michigan, Nevada, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Rhode Island, and New Hampshire), 16 out of 20 - or 80% - were states won by Kerry in 2004 - the only exceptions being Virginia, Colorado, Arizona, and Nevada.  So... my question is... why is it the Republicans that are against the poor when it is the Democrats that do not give much to the poor?  Strange... actions do speak louder than words.

Quote
against affirmative action AGAINST MINORITIES

Against using race as a deciding factor.  Believes in giving the job to the most qualified person, regardless of color or creed.

Quote
tougher immigration standards AGAINST BROWN PEOPLE FROM OTHER COUNTRIES

For national security.  For legal immigration.  Against those who break laws to gain entrance to the country and then want to be rewarded for it.  That's like getting a ticket for speeding and then instead of paying the fine, expecting to go to the front of the line at the DMV the next time you needed to renew your license.  There was an interesting piece on the news yesterday of how Islamic radical personal belongings have recently been found along the southern border (including a jacket with such things inscripted as "martyr" and having a patch of an airplane slamming into a building).  Estimates run as high as 25 Americans killed everyday as a direct result of illegal immigration.  It seems rather sensible to have an enforced immigration policy with a secure border, which does not mean that we are "against brown people from other countries".

Quote
less government regulation of businesses HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. PLEASE.

Right.  Please. 

Quote
also, some gay republicans do not believe in gay marriage AGAINST GAY PEOPLE

I have gay friends.  One of these gay friends was a professor of mine who I talk to several times a week and with whom I hang out when I am back in the area where I went to school, and is writing one of my LORs for law school.  I support gay civil unions, partnership benefits, gay adoption, etc.  However, I am opposed to gay marriage, the denotation being "the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.".  Regardless, I really don't think that I should be viewed as "against gay people".


With that said, I personally believe that this is a large part of the problem of the left (the right is guilty of it as well to a certain extent): everyone who does not believe in certain ideals or does not agree with a particular platform is automatically considered to be against the groups that the platform might support without comprending the motivation of those who are opposed.  Like I said at the beginning... ridiculous...
Title: Re: Republican and Gay
Post by: redemption on October 18, 2006, 07:53:12 AM

These are ridiculous generalizations.  I support quite a few of the positions that contiki07 stated, but none of them do I support for the "motivation" provided by red.  You don't have to agree with a conservative platform or conservative ideologies but refering to those who do as "anti-woman", "anti-gay", "against brown people from other countries", etc. is pure hogwash (and demonstrates a sense of intolerance for people who do express other viewpoints).


A cookie if you can spot the irony. Two if you laugh at it.
Title: Re: Republican and Gay
Post by: President_Baccaga on October 18, 2006, 08:02:16 AM
Quote
A cookie if you can spot the irony. Two if you laugh at it.

Three cookies if you actually had a point to be made. 

Calling a generalization "ridiculous" and "hogwash" is hardly the same as "intolerance".  I know that you want to shift the attention away from your errors, but get off it already.
Title: Re: Republican and Gay
Post by: redemption on October 18, 2006, 08:06:26 AM
Calling a generalization "ridiculous" and "hogwash" is hardly the same as "intolerance".

Hardly.

Title: Re: Republican and Gay
Post by: President_Baccaga on October 18, 2006, 08:11:08 AM
Calling a generalization "ridiculous" and "hogwash" is hardly the same as "intolerance".

Hardly.



Tssk tssk red.  You had a decent argument on the last thread where we clashed (although after going through Wightman's report and doing a few calculations, it's hardly as strong as you would have thought).  Same cannot be said here.  Disappointing.
Title: Re: Republican and Gay
Post by: ->Soon on October 18, 2006, 08:17:40 AM
i think the one argument that does jump out, and is hard to argue, is that a large number of repubs do NOT want gays in their party at all.

i wont say all dems do, but certainly more so than the repubs...
Title: Re: Republican and Gay
Post by: President_Baccaga on October 18, 2006, 08:19:56 AM
Quote
i think the one argument that does jump out, and is hard to argue, is that a large number of repubs do NOT want gays in their party at all.

I don't know about saying a "large" number (although that's quite relative and you'd have to be a little more specific regarding the actual amount), but I do agree with you that there is a higher percentage of Democrats that are accepting of gays in their part than Republicans feeling the same way.
Title: Re: Republican and Gay
Post by: ->Soon on October 18, 2006, 08:30:44 AM
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15239784/page/2/

theres the republican tactics for ya...
Title: Re: Republican and Gay
Post by: theprocrastinator on October 18, 2006, 01:35:47 PM

These are ridiculous generalizations.  I support quite a few of the positions that contiki07 stated, but none of them do I support for the "motivation" provided by red.  You don't have to agree with a conservative platform or conservative ideologies but refering to those who do as "anti-woman", "anti-gay", "against brown people from other countries", etc. is pure hogwash (and demonstrates a sense of intolerance for people who do express other viewpoints).

Great point. Some people just assume that anybody who disagrees with their ideology must do so for the worst possibly imaginable reasons.

Quote
For the rights of the unborn.  Regardless, the biggest hypocricy for me in this debate (and this is a little bit of a tangent) is the double standard that exists between the rights of women and the rights of men.  A woman can become impregnated, decide at any time up to the third trimester to abort the pregnancy, and the man has no right to assert his position.  On the other hand, if the woman decides to continue the pregnancy (even if the man is contrary), he/she must pay child support.  Anyway, like I said... a little bit of a tangent but get this straight: Those who vote for pro-life candidates are not voting against the woman but for a life that they believe to be sacred and hence worthy of protection.

I don't agree with your position for reasons that I won't get into here, but I certainly don't think it makes you against women. That kind of logic is the exact same thing used by pro-lifers who accuse all pro-choice people of being against children. For some reason most people seem to be completely incapable of having honest discourse when it comes to this issue.

I'm not touching the tangent because its not really relevant.

Quote
Right... against the poor.  Am I not in favor of constantly supporting a 25 year old drug addict that has sat on the corner for the past 10 years refusing to go look for a job or even to go get himself cleaned up so that he would have a chance?  Yes, I am... but I hardly feel that this equates to being against the poor.  I - as well as the majority of other conservatives - believe in helping those who cannot help themselves.  Furthermore, who said that believing in less welfare and the redistribution of wealth forced by the government is being "against the poor"?  I am firmly opposed to the government "forcably" taking the hard earned money of an individual and redistributing it.  That does not signify that I do not give to the poor, donate my time to help the disadvantaged, etc. (on the contrary, I donate over $10,000/year to charity and tutor and coach predominantly poor children, but I guess I'm still "against the poor", right?).

There is an interesting study by the Catalogue for Philanthropy that provides a state by state breakdown of overall charitable contributions by its citizens on an annual basis.  For all of those on the left who say that conservatives are "against the poor", you might find it interesting that out of the 10 highest ranked states based on generosity index (funds donated proportional to funds available), all of these 10 states can be considered strongly Republican; all were won by Bush in 2004 by 10 or more percentage points: Mississippi, Arkansas, South Dakota, Oklahoma, Alabama, Tennessee, Louisiana, Utah, South Carolina, and Idaho.  Funny though, generally I wouldn't think to see a correlation between those who give the most to charity and those who are "against the poor".  Furthermore it is interesting to note that those 20 states that gave the least (In order from 31 to 50 - Maine, Maryland, Hawaii, Delaware, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Connecticut, Vermont, Virginia, Oregon, Colorado, Arizona, Michigan, Nevada, Wisconsin, Michigan, Nevada, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Rhode Island, and New Hampshire), 16 out of 20 - or 80% - were states won by Kerry in 2004 - the only exceptions being Virginia, Colorado, Arizona, and Nevada.  So... my question is... why is it the Republicans that are against the poor when it is the Democrats that do not give much to the poor?  Strange... actions do speak louder than words.

In general, your point is well taken. As far as your insinuation that democrats are more against the poor than republicans based on the numbers you cite above, I'm not going to touch it because I think you were just trying to fight fire with fire.

Quote
Against using race as a deciding factor.  Believes in giving the job to the most qualified person, regardless of color or creed.

Fair enough.

Quote
For national security.  For legal immigration.  Against those who break laws to gain entrance to the country and then want to be rewarded for it.  That's like getting a ticket for speeding and then instead of paying the fine, expecting to go to the front of the line at the DMV the next time you needed to renew your license.  There was an interesting piece on the news yesterday of how Islamic radical personal belongings have recently been found along the southern border (including a jacket with such things inscripted as "martyr" and having a patch of an airplane slamming into a building).  Estimates run as high as 25 Americans killed everyday as a direct result of illegal immigration.  It seems rather sensible to have an enforced immigration policy with a secure border, which does not mean that we are "against brown people from other countries".

While I'm sure that these are your reasons for taking the position that you do, I just don't think that they accurately reflect the general consensus of republicans on the issue. The fact is that a lot of the rhetoric surrounding this issue reflects xenophobia and racism. Is this just a case of the loudest voices being the craziest? Maybe. Is red's generalization ridiculous as applied to you and others who share your views. Yes.

Quote
Right.  Please. 

This statement [less government regulation for business] is far too broad to even discuss in terms of generalizations. When you get into specific factual situations I don't see how anybody could take the same exact position across the board. 

Quote
I have gay friends.  One of these gay friends was a professor of mine who I talk to several times a week and with whom I hang out when I am back in the area where I went to school, and is writing one of my LORs for law school.  I support gay civil unions, partnership benefits, gay adoption, etc.  However, I am opposed to gay marriage, the denotation being "the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.".  Regardless, I really don't think that I should be viewed as "against gay people".

I think you and I would agree in most aspects of this issue, and I agree that as applied to you and others similar to you the generalization is ridiculous, but once again I think your beliefs just don't reflect the general attitude of the right when it comes to this issue. I don't care what the hell you call it so long as gay couples are afforded the same legal rights and obligations as heterosexual couples. Most of the republican proposals out there are not merely about reserving the idea of marriage as a social and religious institution between hetero couples, but are also about denying gay couples the rights that hetero couples have with regards to everything from taxes and intestate succession to evidentiary spousal protections and whatever else. I just don't see how the latter can ever be justified as anything but 'anti-gay'.

Quote
With that said, I personally believe that this is a large part of the problem of the left (the right is guilty of it as well to a certain extent): everyone who does not believe in certain ideals or does not agree with a particular platform is automatically considered to be against the groups that the platform might support without comprending the motivation of those who are opposed.  Like I said at the beginning... ridiculous...

The right does it as well to a certain extent? Give me a break. Liberal is a dirty word these days. Did you come out against the Iraq war? You're anti-troops, anti-U.S., Pro Saddam Hussein. Are you pro-choice? You must hate children. Do you think that the environment is an important issue? You must be anti-american business/capitalism. Did you oppose Bush's tax breaks? You must be a commie who is anti-american worker. Do you support affirmative action because you think that there are still vestiges of slavery and segregation and think that AA, though admittedly not perfect, may be the best way to remedy those vestiges? You are racist. Do you think that some interrogation tactics are just too sub-human for the U.S. military to be using? You love terrorists. Do you think that American citizens should not, under any circumstances, be deprived of due process and other constitutional guarantees? You love terrorism. 

I could go on and on but you get the idea.

The point is that the problem is on both sides. When it comes to political debate nobody ever seems to want to give the other side any credit for having any moral basis for their positions or concede that any weaknesses do exist in their own positions. What we sacrifice in the end is any chance at genuine and honest political discourse. I'm a firm believer that if most people would just step out of their ideological boxes and honestly listen to what the other side is saying for a minute they would find out that they have a lot more in common then they think.

/Rant
Title: Re: Republican and Gay
Post by: redemption on October 18, 2006, 01:45:43 PM
oops -- wrong thread  :D
Title: Re: Republican and Gay
Post by: theprocrastinator on October 18, 2006, 02:04:25 PM
I was wondering what the hell you were talking about.  ::)
Title: Re: Republican and Gay
Post by: FossilJ on October 18, 2006, 02:06:44 PM
While I feel like jumping in and attacking each and every point of those last two bloated posts, that would serve absolutely no purpose.


You two have, however, stumbled upon what I believe to be the most nefarious and troubling disease of American culture (and this counts, to an extent, for Canadians as well).  This is the disease of political polarity.

The American system fosters a sense of two sides.  It seems to me that people, no matter how heterogeneous their beliefs, and how gray their takes on issues, are forced to identify with and place themselves in one or the other category.  This supports an us versus them attitude: either you're for us, or you're against us.  This also propagates the sort of ridiculous caricature that has ballooned to epidemic proportions and that shows like The Daily News lampoon so well (and, ironically, while you are both incensed about this tactic, you both use it to your advantage in your posts -- I'm speaking here to Pres_Bac and theprocrastinator).  I should note that the causal relationship here could work both ways.    

The reality is that any single person's political take is bound to be extremely nuanced, and that any point will be qualified by several modifiers.  However, in the larger, "democratic", bureaucratic political sphere, the individual is left with only two choices: Democrat, or Republican.  If you join the one, you need to distinguish your team as right and their team as, in some way, wrong -- as the Other, in all the myriad senses of the word.  

This "us versus them" attitude seems to me symptomatic of American culture.  It's not necessarily a bad thing.  It can be used in a myriad different ways.  But when those generalizations it tends to breed start becoming solid political tools that have real and practical effects on the lives of millions of human beings, it can be very troublesome.  Hence the vehemence of your arguments.  Hence my statement that this is a disease.
Title: Re: Republican and Gay
Post by: BrerAnansi on October 18, 2006, 02:07:02 PM
oops -- wrong thread  :D

It's message was equally applicable in this one though...faux-libertarians make me laugh...particularly since they overlap with several other groups that I find comical as well...
Title: Re: Republican and Gay
Post by: President_Baccaga on October 18, 2006, 02:15:43 PM
Quote from: theprocrastinator
I'm not touching the tangent because its not really relevant.

You're right; it's not. :)  I added however because I think it's one of the biggest hypocrises when it comes to defending the right of women as the central objective to defending abortion (and hence a double standard with respect to men).  Anyway, no big deal here... it's not one of my most passionate issues.

Quote
In general, your point is well taken. As far as your insinuation that democrats are more against the poor than republicans based on the numbers you cite above, I'm not going to touch it because I think you were just trying to fight fire with fire.

I'm not saying that Democrats are against the poor; far from it.  The person who posted had claimed that because Republicans/conservatives were anti-welfare, they were against the poor, which is certainly not the case.  I sincerely hope that no one is "against the poor"; I just think different groups have different ways of demonstrating how they want to help and implementing policies to help.

Quote
While I'm sure that these are your reasons for taking the position that you do, I just don't think that they accurately reflect the general consensus of republicans on the issue. The fact is that a lot of the rhetoric surrounding this issue reflects xenophobia and racism. Is this just a case of the loudest voices being the craziest? Maybe. Is red's generalization ridiculous as applied to you and others who share your views. Yes.

I don't argue that there are some Republicans that are against immigration for racial motives, but there are many more reasons that border security/the fight against illegal immigration is supported by this group, and claiming that it is done purely as a result of xenophobia is naive.  Napolitano and Richardson (both Democrats) have done quite a bit to fight illegal immigration but no one is calling them racists or "against brown people from another country" (as the poster had put it).

Quote
I think you and I would agree in most aspects of this issue, and I agree that as applied to you and others similar to you the generalization is ridiculous, but once again I think your beliefs just don't reflect the general attitude of the right when it comes to this issue. I don't care what the hell you call it so long as gay couples are afforded the same legal rights and obligations as heterosexual couples. Most of the republican proposals out there are not merely about reserving the idea of marriage as a social and religious institution between hetero couples, but are also about denying gay couples the rights that hetero couples have with regards to everything from taxes and intestate succession to evidentiary spousal protections and whatever else. I just don't see how the latter can ever be justified as anything but 'anti-gay'.

Again, you make several valid points.  Unfortunately there are many Republicans (as well as many Southern and "heartland" Democrats) against certain gay rights.  Those on the extreme religious right give the rest of us conservatives a bad name.  My contention with the original point was the sweeping generalization.

Quote
The right does it as well to a certain extent? Give me a break. Liberal is a dirty word these days. Did you come out against the Iraq war? You're anti-troops, anti-U.S., Pro Saddam Hussein. Are you pro-choice? You must hate children. Do you think that the environment is an important issue? You must be anti-american business/capitalism. Did you oppose Bush's tax breaks? You must be a commie who is anti-american worker. Do you support affirmative action because you think that there are still vestiges of slavery and segregation and think that AA, though admittedly not perfect, may be the best way to remedy those vestiges? You are racist. Do you think that some interrogation tactics are just too sub-human for the U.S. military to be using? You love terrorists. Do you think that American citizens should not, under any circumstances, be deprived of due process and other constitutional guarantees? You love terrorism.  

I could go on and on but you get the idea.

The point is that the problem is on both sides. When it comes to political debate nobody ever seems to want to give the other side any credit for having any moral basis for their positions or concede that any weaknesses do exist in their own positions. What we sacrifice in the end is any chance at genuine and honest political discourse. I'm a firm believer that if most people would just step out of their ideological boxes and honestly listen to what the other side is saying for a minute they would find out that they have a lot more in common then they think.

Okay, I agree with you that there are too many partisans on both sides.  Personally it drives me crazy that someone votes in a certain manner just to follow the lead of the party, both Republicans and Democrats.  I applaud Democrats that have broken away from their party and have taken a tough stand against illegal immigration and securing the border, just as I applaud Republicans who question our commitment to and the necessity of the War in Iraq (yes, I am one of those conservatives who cannot understand what in the world we are doing over there in the first place).

Nothing further to add for now... good points made.
Title: Re: Republican and Gay
Post by: BrerAnansi on October 18, 2006, 02:28:08 PM

You two have, however, stumbled upon what I believe to be the most nefarious and troubling disease of American culture (and this counts, to an extent, for Canadians as well).  This is the disease of political polarity.


This "us versus them" attitude seems to me symptomatic of American culture.  It's not necessarily a bad thing.  It can be used in a myriad different ways.  But when those generalizations it tends to breed start becoming solid political tools that have real and practical effects on the lives of millions of human beings, it can be very troublesome.  Hence the vehemence of your arguments.  Hence my statement that this is a disease.

Substitute "human society" (clumsy term I know) for "American culture" and I'm right with you...the two-party state system doesn't only thrive in the ol Red, White & Blue...and though you may not have intended it, your phrasing and word choice create the implication that is a particularly American (or North American) condition...this isn't necessarily relevant to your central point, (chastising PB and thepro) but if you're going to encourage them toward nonpartisanship...you might as well provide them with an impartial model...
Title: Re: Republican and Gay
Post by: theprocrastinator on October 18, 2006, 02:40:07 PM
While I feel like jumping in and attacking each and every point of those last two bloated posts, that would serve absolutely no purpose.


You two have, however, stumbled upon what I believe to be the most nefarious and troubling disease of American culture (and this counts, to an extent, for Canadians as well).  This is the disease of political polarity.

The American system fosters a sense of two sides.  It seems to me that people, no matter how heterogeneous their beliefs, and how gray their takes on issues, are forced to identify with and place themselves in one or the other category.  This supports an us versus them attitude: either you're for us, or you're against us.  This also propagates the sort of ridiculous caricature that has ballooned to epidemic proportions and that shows like The Daily News lampoon so well (and, ironically, while you are both incensed about this tactic, you both use it to your advantage in your posts -- I'm speaking here to Pres_Bac and theprocrastinator).  I should note that the causal relationship here could work both ways.   

The reality is that any single person's political take is bound to be extremely nuanced, and that any point will be qualified by several modifiers.  However, in the larger, "democratic", bureaucratic political sphere, the individual is left with only two choices: Democrat, or Republican.  If you join the one, you need to distinguish your team as right and their team as, in some way, wrong -- as the Other, in all the myriad senses of the word. 

This "us versus them" attitude seems to me symptomatic of American culture.  It's not necessarily a bad thing.  It can be used in a myriad different ways.  But when those generalizations it tends to breed start becoming solid political tools that have real and practical effects on the lives of millions of human beings, it can be very troublesome.  Hence the vehemence of your arguments.  Hence my statement that this is a disease.

Ummm, the only point I was really trying to make was that broad partisan-based generalizations and 'anti-this, pro-that' rhetoric are generally counter-productive. While I don't think that any of my arguments where very vehement, I guess I can see how you might think that my rants about immigration and gay marriage utilized the same tactics that I was speaking against. In the case of immigration I thought it was clear that I was only trying to point out that there is a lot of xenophobia and racism mixed up in the debate not that anybody who favors more enforcement against illegal immigration and a more secure border is racist. Regarding gay marriage, I admit that I still don't see how one can be opposed to extending the legal benefits incidental to marriage to gay couples who are also willing to accept the legal obligations incidental to marriage for any reason not related to a distaste for gay people. Maybe I am blindly using the very tactics that I oppose in this particular situation, but you're going to have to convince me.
Title: Re: Republican and Gay
Post by: President_Baccaga on October 18, 2006, 02:41:50 PM
Quote from: BrerAnansi
(chastising PB and thepro) but if you're going to encourage them toward nonpartisanship...you might as well provide them with an impartial model...

FYI, I'm certainly not a partisan; although I do agree with Republicans on more issues than Democrats, the motivation is personal ideology.  As I mentioned in my previous post, I have problems with one size fits all cookie cutters on all sides - both Republican and Democrat - that are partisan and refuse to break party lines (or those many political pundits and follows that classify themselves as being of a particular party and therefore will defend that party regardless of the issue even if that position is out of line).
Title: Re: Republican and Gay
Post by: theprocrastinator on October 18, 2006, 02:53:39 PM
Quote from: BrerAnansi
(chastising PB and thepro) but if you're going to encourage them toward nonpartisanship...you might as well provide them with an impartial model...

FYI, I'm certainly not a partisan; although I do agree with Republicans on more issues than Democrats, the motivation is personal ideology.  As I mentioned in my previous post, I have problems with one size fits all cookie cutters on all sides - both Republican and Democrat - that are partisan and refuse to break party lines (or those many political pundits and follows that classify themselves as being of a particular party and therefore will defend that party regardless of the issue even if that position is out of line).

I'm not a partisan either. In fact, I think that our dialogue in this thread pretty much shows that neither of us are. Hence my confusion at us supposedly being examples of partisanship.
Title: Re: Republican and Gay
Post by: FossilJ on October 18, 2006, 02:57:29 PM
The whole point was that nobody is truly partisan (well, almost nobody) -- it's views filtered through this particular political system that makes them appear so, like diffraction.

You're right, Anansi, in that it's certainly not limited to American culture, and probably speaks to humanity as a whole.  Two points, however:

1.  The American political system is set up as a two-horse, first-past-the-pole race.  And, despite all the checks and balances, whoever wields legislative power wields CONSIDERABLE legislative power.  And this is important, because...

2.  The USA is the world's superpower.  The effects of US domestic legislation have far-reaching global implications.  Any political decision made in the US -- and I do mean any, including legal decisions -- has the potential to impact millions of lives, not just in America, but around the world.
Title: Re: Republican and Gay
Post by: President_Baccaga on October 18, 2006, 03:05:02 PM
Quote
The whole point was that nobody is truly partisan (well, almost nobody) -- it's views filtered through this particular political system that makes them appear so, like diffraction.

Agreed, in the sense that the vast majority of "everyday" American people are not truly partisan; the contrary is true for those within politics that represent the former group.
Title: Re: Republican and Gay
Post by: FossilJ on October 18, 2006, 03:07:36 PM
Quote
The whole point was that nobody is truly partisan (well, almost nobody) -- it's views filtered through this particular political system that makes them appear so, like diffraction.

Agreed, in the sense that tThe vast majority of "everyday" American people are not truly partisan; the contrary is true for those within politics that represent the former group.

Well, that's sort of the point.  It's a system that's set up to enforce partisanship.  Unfortunately, however, it's not your average nuanced citizen who gets to create legislation and make ultimate political decisions -- it's her elected representative who does, and this representative is, by necessity, merely a symbol within a rigid program.  This representative is EXPECTED to be partisan by the system within which he works. This is my concern.
Title: Re: Republican and Gay
Post by: redemption on October 18, 2006, 03:17:57 PM
You overestimate the 'average nuanced citizen", J.
Title: Re: Republican and Gay
Post by: annab on October 18, 2006, 03:20:06 PM
Aren't "average" and "nuanced" contradictory?  :D  :-\
Title: Re: Republican and Gay
Post by: President_Baccaga on October 18, 2006, 03:23:50 PM
Quote
The whole point was that nobody is truly partisan (well, almost nobody) -- it's views filtered through this particular political system that makes them appear so, like diffraction.

Agreed, in the sense that tThe vast majority of "everyday" American people are not truly partisan; the contrary is true for those within politics that represent the former group.

Well, that's sort of the point.  It's a system that's set up to enforce partisanship.  Unfortunately, however, it's not your average nuanced citizen who gets to create legislation and make ultimate political decisions -- it's her elected representative who does, and this representative is, by necessity, merely a symbol within a rigid program.  This representative is EXPECTED to be partisan by the system within which he works. This is my concern.


Then what would be your solution?
Title: Re: Republican and Gay
Post by: redemption on October 18, 2006, 03:26:41 PM
Nuance is rare. As a class, politicians may be the most nuanced people of all, paradoxically. Their messages are blunt and cynical because it appeals to the way the average jane/joe thinks, or rather, feels.

Average jane/joe has contradictory feelings acrss topics -- s/he's against Mexicans but for cheap drywall, but that doesn't mean that each half of that paradox isn't blunt and strongly felt.
Title: Re: Republican and Gay
Post by: FossilJ on October 18, 2006, 03:29:58 PM
You overestimate the 'average nuanced citizen", J.

Perhaps, but I'm just trying to be fair.
Title: Re: Republican and Gay
Post by: FossilJ on October 18, 2006, 03:30:22 PM
Aren't "average" and "nuanced" contradictory?  :D  :-\


No.  That's the point.

Title: Re: Republican and Gay
Post by: FossilJ on October 18, 2006, 03:31:02 PM
Quote
The whole point was that nobody is truly partisan (well, almost nobody) -- it's views filtered through this particular political system that makes them appear so, like diffraction.

Agreed, in the sense that tThe vast majority of "everyday" American people are not truly partisan; the contrary is true for those within politics that represent the former group.

Well, that's sort of the point.  It's a system that's set up to enforce partisanship.  Unfortunately, however, it's not your average nuanced citizen who gets to create legislation and make ultimate political decisions -- it's her elected representative who does, and this representative is, by necessity, merely a symbol within a rigid program.  This representative is EXPECTED to be partisan by the system within which he works. This is my concern.


Then what would be your solution?


Solution?  Who said I had any solutions?
Title: Re: Republican and Gay
Post by: President_Baccaga on October 18, 2006, 03:31:47 PM
Quote
The whole point was that nobody is truly partisan (well, almost nobody) -- it's views filtered through this particular political system that makes them appear so, like diffraction.

Agreed, in the sense that tThe vast majority of "everyday" American people are not truly partisan; the contrary is true for those within politics that represent the former group.

Well, that's sort of the point.  It's a system that's set up to enforce partisanship.  Unfortunately, however, it's not your average nuanced citizen who gets to create legislation and make ultimate political decisions -- it's her elected representative who does, and this representative is, by necessity, merely a symbol within a rigid program.  This representative is EXPECTED to be partisan by the system within which he works. This is my concern.


Then what would be your solution?


Solution?  Who said I had any solutions?

Quote
The whole point was that nobody is truly partisan (well, almost nobody) -- it's views filtered through this particular political system that makes them appear so, like diffraction.

Agreed, in the sense that tThe vast majority of "everyday" American people are not truly partisan; the contrary is true for those within politics that represent the former group.

Well, that's sort of the point.  It's a system that's set up to enforce partisanship.  Unfortunately, however, it's not your average nuanced citizen who gets to create legislation and make ultimate political decisions -- it's her elected representative who does, and this representative is, by necessity, merely a symbol within a rigid program.  This representative is EXPECTED to be partisan by the system within which he works. This is my concern.


Then what would be your solution?


Solution?  Who said I had any solutions?


Just curious...
Title: Re: Republican and Gay
Post by: FossilJ on October 18, 2006, 03:34:30 PM
Nuance is rare. As a class, politicians may be the most nuanced people of all, paradoxically. Their messages are blunt and cynical because it appeals to the way the average jane/joe thinks, or rather, feels.

Average jane/joe has contradictory feelings acrss topics -- s/he's against Mexicans but for cheap drywall, but that doesn't mean that each half of that paradox isn't blunt and strongly felt.

Maybe.  It doesn't matter.  The point is that each person has opinions that run contradictory to both political camps.  And I don't think you're being fair here, either -- even the plebs qualify the way they feel about many things through empathy and sympathy.  These might just not be the actual important issues, but that doesn't mean they're never nuanced in their thinking.

And you might be right about politicians.  That actually supports my argument that it's the system that forces a particular role.  I think both the electorate and the elected are merely cogs in this machine.

EDIT:  This is not to say that particular actors don't take advantage of the way it's structured by manipulating its code. 
Title: Re: Republican and Gay
Post by: FossilJ on October 18, 2006, 03:35:03 PM
Just curious...

Fair enough.  :D
Title: Re: Republican and Gay
Post by: _BP_ on October 19, 2006, 09:35:18 AM
Even after this good discussion,  "Gay Republican/Black Republican"....still makes me scratch my chin.  I would not be able to align myself with people who systematically vote against my interests, interests that speak directly to me.

It would be like me saying:

"Oh, I'm not with republicans on civil rights, race issues, poverty issues, minimum wage, affirmative action (shoot, even apartheid in S.A), but I like how they're strong on defense and against the gays".

Yeah right.
Title: Re: Republican and Gay
Post by: President_Baccaga on October 19, 2006, 10:37:23 AM
Even after this good discussion,  "Gay Republican/Black Republican"....still makes me scratch my chin.  I would not be able to align myself with people who systematically vote against my interests, interests that speak directly to me.

It would be like me saying:

"Oh, I'm not with republicans on civil rights, race issues, poverty issues, minimum wage, affirmative action (shoot, even apartheid in S.A), but I like how they're strong on defense and against the gays".

Yeah right.

Aside from Santorum and the more extreme part of the Republican party, anti-gay rhetoric is virtually non-existant (notice that I am not making a blanket statement suggesting that it does not exist whatsoever).  Voting against gay marriage but supporting civil unions for gays that provide for partnership rights such as health care coverage seems to be reasonable middle ground as it accepts gay partnerships while still promoting the traditional institution of marriage (the latter being quite important for a significant percentage of the country).

My point is this: I believe that anyone would find it strange for a particular voter to support a party that is virulently opposed to one of the central tenets of that individual's lifestyle, but the Republican Party has moderated its position over the course of the last few years.  I am not attempting to be a defender of the Republican Party; granted, the Democrats have historically done a better job promoting gay rights and continue to do so today.  However, I can understand a gay man or woman that votes in 2006 for a Republican candidate who might not be favorable to gay marriage but is accepting of civil unions and simultaneously promotes parts of that voter's ideology, such as lower taxes, anti-illegal immigration, reduction of the gov't bureaucracy, etc.
Title: Re: Republican and Gay
Post by: FossilJ on October 19, 2006, 01:43:11 PM
Voting against gay marriage but supporting civil unions for gays that provide for partnership rights such as health care coverage seems to be reasonable middle ground as it accepts gay partnerships while still promoting the traditional institution of marriage (the latter being quite important for a significant percentage of the country).

Why?  On what grounds?

My point is this: I believe that anyone would find it strange for a particular voter to support a party that is virulently opposed to one of the central tenets of that individual's lifestyle, but the Republican Party has moderated its position over the course of the last few years.  I am not attempting to be a defender of the Republican Party; granted, the Democrats have historically done a better job promoting gay rights and continue to do so today.  However, I can understand a gay man or woman that votes in 2006 for a Republican candidate who might not be favorable to gay marriage but is accepting of civil unions and simultaneously promotes parts of that voter's ideology, such as lower taxes, anti-illegal immigration, reduction of the gov't bureaucracy, etc.

I guess this is a fair enough point.  Still, I wonder if the distinction between marriage and "civil union" is one that might be particularly troublesome for homosexuals on an ideal level.
Title: Re: Republican and Gay
Post by: _BP_ on October 19, 2006, 02:52:52 PM
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15239784/page/2/

theres the republican tactics for ya...

Here's another one Blue Angel:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15329781/

GARDEN GROVE, Calif. - Orange County Republican leaders on Thursday called for the withdrawal of a GOP congressional candidate they believe sent a letter threatening Hispanic immigrant voters with arrest.
-
State and federal officials were investigating the letter, which was written in Spanish and mailed to an estimated 14,000 Democratic voters in central Orange County. It warns, “You are advised that if your residence in this country is illegal or you are an immigrant, voting in a federal election is a crime that could result in jail time.”

Title: Re: Republican and Gay
Post by: FossilJ on October 19, 2006, 02:59:07 PM
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15239784/page/2/

theres the republican tactics for ya...

Here's another one Blue Angel:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15329781/

GARDEN GROVE, Calif. - Orange County Republican leaders on Thursday called for the withdrawal of a GOP congressional candidate they believe sent a letter threatening Hispanic immigrant voters with arrest.
-
State and federal officials were investigating the letter, which was written in Spanish and mailed to an estimated 14,000 Democratic voters in central Orange County. It warns, “You are advised that if your residence in this country is illegal or you are an immigrant, voting in a federal election is a crime that could result in jail time.”



What does this prove, though?
Title: Re: Republican and Gay
Post by: _BP_ on October 19, 2006, 03:07:01 PM
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15239784/page/2/

theres the republican tactics for ya...

Here's another one Blue Angel:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15329781/

GARDEN GROVE, Calif. - Orange County Republican leaders on Thursday called for the withdrawal of a GOP congressional candidate they believe sent a letter threatening Hispanic immigrant voters with arrest.
-
State and federal officials were investigating the letter, which was written in Spanish and mailed to an estimated 14,000 Democratic voters in central Orange County. It warns, “You are advised that if your residence in this country is illegal or you are an immigrant, voting in a federal election is a crime that could result in jail time.”



What does this prove, though?


Voter intimidation. 

Not really pertinent to the thread though, if that's what you meant.
Title: Re: Republican and Gay
Post by: ->Soon on October 19, 2006, 03:11:42 PM
id be curious to know, if all voter intimidation is doen by the repub party.  i havent heard of any dems doing it...
Title: Re: Republican and Gay
Post by: FossilJ on October 19, 2006, 03:25:50 PM
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15239784/page/2/

theres the republican tactics for ya...

Here's another one Blue Angel:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15329781/

GARDEN GROVE, Calif. - Orange County Republican leaders on Thursday called for the withdrawal of a GOP congressional candidate they believe sent a letter threatening Hispanic immigrant voters with arrest.
-
State and federal officials were investigating the letter, which was written in Spanish and mailed to an estimated 14,000 Democratic voters in central Orange County. It warns, “You are advised that if your residence in this country is illegal or you are an immigrant, voting in a federal election is a crime that could result in jail time.”



What does this prove, though?


Voter intimidation. 

Not really pertinent to the thread though, if that's what you meant.


I was just referring to the fact that this individual was called out and expelled by Republican party members.


I'm everyone's devil's advocate, remember?
Title: Re: Republican and Gay
Post by: _BP_ on October 19, 2006, 03:36:11 PM
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15239784/page/2/

theres the republican tactics for ya...

Here's another one Blue Angel:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15329781/

GARDEN GROVE, Calif. - Orange County Republican leaders on Thursday called for the withdrawal of a GOP congressional candidate they believe sent a letter threatening Hispanic immigrant voters with arrest.
-
State and federal officials were investigating the letter, which was written in Spanish and mailed to an estimated 14,000 Democratic voters in central Orange County. It warns, “You are advised that if your residence in this country is illegal or you are an immigrant, voting in a federal election is a crime that could result in jail time.”



What does this prove, though?


Voter intimidation. 

Not really pertinent to the thread though, if that's what you meant.


I was just referring to the fact that this individual was called out and expelled by Republican party members.


I'm everyone's devil's advocate, remember?


Hey, we all need a devil's advocate from time to time..haha.

I'm a little iffy on "called out and expelled" though. Until I have info to the contrary, I'm going to have to lean more towards "found out and distanced from".  These guys don't usually sing til the ish hits the fan.  Kinda like giving Hastert a pat on the back for urging Foley to resign....lol a lil unfair, but oh well
Title: Re: Republican and Gay
Post by: FossilJ on October 19, 2006, 03:47:46 PM
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15239784/page/2/

theres the republican tactics for ya...

Here's another one Blue Angel:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15329781/

GARDEN GROVE, Calif. - Orange County Republican leaders on Thursday called for the withdrawal of a GOP congressional candidate they believe sent a letter threatening Hispanic immigrant voters with arrest.
-
State and federal officials were investigating the letter, which was written in Spanish and mailed to an estimated 14,000 Democratic voters in central Orange County. It warns, “You are advised that if your residence in this country is illegal or you are an immigrant, voting in a federal election is a crime that could result in jail time.”



What does this prove, though?


Voter intimidation. 

Not really pertinent to the thread though, if that's what you meant.


I was just referring to the fact that this individual was called out and expelled by Republican party members.


I'm everyone's devil's advocate, remember?


Hey, we all need a devil's advocate from time to time..haha.

I'm a little iffy on "called out and expelled" though. Until I have info to the contrary, I'm going to have to lean more towards "found out and distanced from".  These guys don't usually sing til the ish hits the fan.  Kinda like giving Hastert a pat on the back for urging Foley to resign....lol a lil unfair, but oh well



That's sort of the point, though.  Both parties are guilty of these actions.  The fact that he was "distanced from" the rest of the party should at least constitute some proof of their disagreement with his actions, no?
Title: Re: Republican and Gay
Post by: _BP_ on October 19, 2006, 08:18:18 PM
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15239784/page/2/

theres the republican tactics for ya...

Here's another one Blue Angel:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15329781/

GARDEN GROVE, Calif. - Orange County Republican leaders on Thursday called for the withdrawal of a GOP congressional candidate they believe sent a letter threatening Hispanic immigrant voters with arrest.
-
State and federal officials were investigating the letter, which was written in Spanish and mailed to an estimated 14,000 Democratic voters in central Orange County. It warns, “You are advised that if your residence in this country is illegal or you are an immigrant, voting in a federal election is a crime that could result in jail time.”



What does this prove, though?


Voter intimidation. 

Not really pertinent to the thread though, if that's what you meant.


I was just referring to the fact that this individual was called out and expelled by Republican party members.


I'm everyone's devil's advocate, remember?


Hey, we all need a devil's advocate from time to time..haha.

I'm a little iffy on "called out and expelled" though. Until I have info to the contrary, I'm going to have to lean more towards "found out and distanced from".  These guys don't usually sing til the ish hits the fan.  Kinda like giving Hastert a pat on the back for urging Foley to resign....lol a lil unfair, but oh well



That's sort of the point, though.  Both parties are guilty of these actions.  The fact that he was "distanced from" the rest of the party should at least constitute some proof of their disagreement with his actions, no?


Agreed.

Title: Re: Republican and Gay
Post by: FossilJ on October 19, 2006, 09:47:28 PM
I love reasonable people.   :D

Title: Re: Republican and Gay
Post by: Miss P on October 19, 2006, 10:18:17 PM
Interesting thread, y'all.

I just wanted to mention in case no one had brought it up (I didn't see it, but I only skimmed the thread) that Sen. Larry Craig (R-ID) was outed this week. 
Title: Re: Republican and Gay
Post by: redemption on October 20, 2006, 05:01:46 AM
Interesting thread, y'all.

I just wanted to mention in case no one had brought it up (I didn't see it, but I only skimmed the thread) that Sen. Larry Craig (R-ID) was outed this week. 

Figures.
Title: Re: Republican and Gay
Post by: ->Soon on October 20, 2006, 05:06:15 AM
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15338793/

some more on how the repubs are no longer the party they used to be...
Title: Re: Republican and Gay
Post by: ->Soon on October 20, 2006, 05:11:23 AM
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15338792/

and more...
Title: Re: Republican and Gay
Post by: President_Baccaga on October 20, 2006, 06:20:12 AM
Quote from: MaraudingJ
Quote from: President_Baccaga on Yesterday at 01:37:23 PM
Voting against gay marriage but supporting civil unions for gays that provide for partnership rights such as health care coverage seems to be reasonable middle ground as it accepts gay partnerships while still promoting the traditional institution of marriage (the latter being quite important for a significant percentage of the country).

Why?  On what grounds?

Political prudence; a policy that does not alienate homosexuals by supporting civil unions and the rights and privileges for couples that are generally granted by marriage while simultaneously promoting the "sanctity of marriage" (as it is often referred) that satisfies the majority of voters on the right.  Considering the entire political spectrum, it is a relatively moderate position.
Title: Re: Republican and Gay
Post by: _BP_ on October 20, 2006, 08:06:17 AM
Interesting thread, y'all.

I just wanted to mention in case no one had brought it up (I didn't see it, but I only skimmed the thread) that Sen. Larry Craig (R-ID) was outed this week. 

I wonder if he's going to admit/deny it.  Interesting though, this guy was balls to the walls for any anti-gay legislation. I think P DIDDY said it best, "and another one, and another one"

 : - )
Title: Re: Republican and Gay
Post by: Miss P on October 20, 2006, 09:48:08 AM
Interesting thread, y'all.

I just wanted to mention in case no one had brought it up (I didn't see it, but I only skimmed the thread) that Sen. Larry Craig (R-ID) was outed this week. 

I wonder if he's going to admit/deny it.  Interesting though, this guy was balls to the walls for any anti-gay legislation. I think P DIDDY said it best, "and another one, and another one"

 : - )

 :D
And by the way, he has denied it (http://www.spokesmanreview.com/local/story.asp?ID=155103). 
Title: Re: Republican and Gay
Post by: _BP_ on October 20, 2006, 10:10:27 AM
Can't access that Miss P, it's prompting for a password.

This might turn out to be a doozy, given that he denied it. 

Peep this article:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/19/AR2006101901931.html?referrer=emailarticle
Title: Re: Republican and Gay
Post by: Miss P on October 20, 2006, 10:32:16 AM
Can't access that Miss P, it's prompting for a password.

This might turn out to be a doozy, given that he denied it. 

Peep this article:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/19/AR2006101901931.html?referrer=emailarticle

Sorry, BP.  I thought that might be a problem.  It's not all that interesting, so I won't cut and paste it here.  Basically, through a spokesman, he called the  allegations "ridiculous," and said that they had "no basis in fact."  Why, then, you might wonder, is this married man with an anti-gay agenda not looking into a libel claim?  "That would be taking it more seriously than it deserves."  Okay.  I'm curious to see how this plays out. 

Thanks for posting the WaPost article.  And God help anyone, gay or straight, who accepts relationship advice from Bob Ney!  :D
Title: Re: Republican and Gay
Post by: _BP_ on October 20, 2006, 11:17:35 AM
Can't access that Miss P, it's prompting for a password.

This might turn out to be a doozy, given that he denied it. 

Peep this article:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/19/AR2006101901931.html?referrer=emailarticle

Sorry, BP.  I thought that might be a problem.  It's not all that interesting, so I won't cut and paste it here.  Basically, through a spokesman, he called the  allegations "ridiculous," and said that they had "no basis in fact."  Why, then, you might wonder, is this married man with an anti-gay agenda not looking into a libel claim?  "That would be taking it more seriously than it deserves."  Okay.  I'm curious to see how this plays out. 

Thanks for posting the WaPost article.  And God help anyone, gay or straight, who accepts relationship advice from Bob Ney!  :D

LOL, that got me too...haha

 ;D @ your sig.
Title: Re: Republican and Gay
Post by: Miss P on October 20, 2006, 11:26:29 AM
;D @ your sig.

I know that it's possibly offensive, but seriously, it cracks me up every time. ;)
Title: Re: Republican and Gay
Post by: FossilJ on October 20, 2006, 11:27:07 AM
Quote from: MaraudingJ
Quote from: President_Baccaga on Yesterday at 01:37:23 PM
Voting against gay marriage but supporting civil unions for gays that provide for partnership rights such as health care coverage seems to be reasonable middle ground as it accepts gay partnerships while still promoting the traditional institution of marriage (the latter being quite important for a significant percentage of the country).

Why?  On what grounds?

Political prudence; a policy that does not alienate homosexuals by supporting civil unions and the rights and privileges for couples that are generally granted by marriage while simultaneously promoting the "sanctity of marriage" (as it is often referred) that satisfies the majority of voters on the right.  Considering the entire political spectrum, it is a relatively moderate position.


Oops, I quoted too much.

This is what I was asking:

Quote
while still promoting the traditional institution of marriage (the latter being quite important for a significant percentage of the country).

Why?  On what grounds?
Title: Re: Republican and Gay
Post by: ->Soon on October 20, 2006, 01:14:16 PM
Hannity to Democrats: "Stay home on Election Day ... for the sake of the nation"

http://mediamatters.org/items/200610200001

another believer in democracy...
Title: Re: Republican and Gay
Post by: bridget on October 21, 2006, 08:14:05 AM
Quote from: MaraudingJ
Quote from: President_Baccaga on Yesterday at 01:37:23 PM
Voting against gay marriage but supporting civil unions for gays that provide for partnership rights such as health care coverage seems to be reasonable middle ground as it accepts gay partnerships while still promoting the traditional institution of marriage (the latter being quite important for a significant percentage of the country).

Why?  On what grounds?

Political prudence; a policy that does not alienate homosexuals by supporting civil unions and the rights and privileges for couples that are generally granted by marriage while simultaneously promoting the "sanctity of marriage" (as it is often referred) that satisfies the majority of voters on the right.  Considering the entire political spectrum, it is a relatively moderate position.

Separate but equal was determined to be a load of crap in 1954.  If things were equal, they wouldn't have to be separate.

And, I know this is rather late, but back to what I said very early on in this thread. I think most social issues are linked in some way or another.  For example, if you value the sanctity of life from conception to natural death, I think you also have to be in favor of the social programs that will protect the sanctity of that life throughout the course of it, not just the first and last nine months.  "no abortion for you, and neither will we give you high quality public schools, access to healthcare, food and shelter, and we certainly aren't going to teach you anything but abstinence."

systems of oppression (racism, sexism, classism, ageism, heterosexism, etc.) are linked and depend on keeping one group privileged over another.  Policies that inherently support any one of these things will eventually support them all because they perpetuate the beliefs that keep them in place- that someone has to win, someone has to lose, that some people are naturally inferior and just don't work as hard, etc.  If you then say, "I'm pro-gay marriage, but I still think public schools should be funded by the income taxes of that district" (perpetuating inequality based on socioeconomic status by underfunding low-income schools) that just doesn't make sense to me.  Or, if you say "I'm all for free trade, but keep those dirty immigrants out of the U.S., we just want their cheap labor in their home countries.  They can fuel our economy but they can't join it" that seems a little exploitative.

/preparing to be blasted.
Title: Re: Republican and Gay
Post by: FossilJ on October 21, 2006, 11:33:18 AM
Interesting, but too black-and-white (yes, pun intended).  Things are more intricate than that -- I don't think the "natural link" between ideological cause and practical effect is nearly as strong nor as inevitable as you postulate.
Title: Re: Republican and Gay
Post by: ->Soon on October 22, 2006, 09:15:27 AM
Scandal exposes gay-straight divide

By Scott Shepard
Cox Washington Bureau
Published on: 10/22/06

Washington —- The scandal over ex-Rep. Mark Foley's explicit electronic messages to teenage male former pages has highlighted a dividing line within the Republican Party between straight and gay conservatives.

The Foley scandal has exposed a "don't ask, don't tell" attitude with which many Republican lawmakers regard gay staffers on Capitol Hill, a more tolerant approach than GOP politicians generally present to supporters at election time.

As a result, some GOP conservatives are seizing the opportunity to try to push gays and lesbians further away from the party, even as prominent gay bloggers are vowing to out more closeted gay Republicans, all of which is causing openly gay Republicans on Capitol Hill to feel under siege.

And the long-simmering conflict has erupted at an inconvenient time for the GOP —- just weeks before mid-term congressional elections, in which the Republican Party needs a motivated base of religious conservatives —- "values voters," as they call themselves —- to hold onto control of Congress.

"It couldn't come at a worse time for the Republican Party, especially because of the element of hypocrisy 'values voters' are likely to see in all of this," said John Green, a Pew Research Center fellow and expert on religion and politics. "While their leaders may have known about the significant contingency of gay Republicans in congressional staff and policy positions, it's certainly been a surprise to your average Baptist and Pentecostal."

Religious activists have suggested that gay congressional staffers, not Republican House leaders, may have been responsible for covering up Foley's actions toward former pages. Moreover, some have alleged that this so-called "Velvet Mafia" may have thwarted such major policy initiatives as a proposed constitutional amendment to ban same sex marriage.

"Has the social agenda of the GOP been stalled by homosexual members or staff?" Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council wrote in an e-mail to his organization's "values voters" members.

The answer is yes, at least according to Cliff Kincaid, an activist who heads Accuracy in Media, a conservative watchdog group. "House leaders permitted homosexuals to infiltrate and manipulate the party apparatus while they publicly postured as friends of family values and traditional marriage," Kincaid said.

Similarly, in the week immediately after Foley's Sept. 29 resignation from Congress, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich came to the defense of his former colleague, saying the House leadership "would have been accused of gay bashing" if they had "overly aggressively reacted" to initial warnings about Foley's suggestive Internet messages to former pages. And conservative commentator Pat Buchanan said, "If the Republican leadership is guilty of anything, it is of being too tolerant, of allowing political correctness, a fear of being called homophobic, to trump common sense."

Uncloseted gay Republicans reject such suggestions, arguing that Foley's inappropriate overtures toward minors have become an excuse for conservatives to use homosexuals and lesbians as scapegoats for the declining political fortunes of the GOP this election season.

Patrick Sammon, head of the Log Cabin Republicans, a gay GOP organization, said Foley's behavior was "despicable" but the former Florida lawmaker's sexual orientation "is irrelevant to this story." But he also charged that "anti-gay groups have used this awful situation to push their divisive agenda ... and score political points" at the expense of gays and lesbians. Consequently, many gay Republicans, especially those still closeted and working in Congress, are "feeling under siege," Sammon said.
Title: Re: Republican and Gay
Post by: ->Soon on October 22, 2006, 12:19:35 PM
yep, repubs arent racist at all....


Campaign '06: The G.O.P. Gets Nervous in Tennessee
In the race for the Senate, Harold Ford wasn't supposed to have much appeal outside his home base of Memphis. But now that he is in a virtual dead heat with his Republican opponent, the race is getting down and dirty
By ELISABETH KAUFFMAN/NASHVILLE
SUBSCRIBE TO TIMEPRINTE-MAILMORE BY AUTHOR

   
If there is a place to measure growing Republican desperation over maintaining control in the U.S. Senate, it is surely Tennessee. The state was supposed to be a Republican sweep, but Democrat Harold Ford Jr. is unexpectedly running neck and neck with Republican Bob Corker and stands a fair chance of becoming the first black Southerners have popularly elected to the U.S. Senate. Indeed, Tennessee hasn't seen so much national political attention since President Bush beat Vice President Al Gore in his home state. Bush has come calling twice, helping Corker raise $2.1 million, as have U.S. Senators Lamar Alexander and Bill Frist, while former senators Fred Thompson and Howard Baker have thrown their support behind Corker even as former President Bill Clinton and Barack Obama have stumped for Ford.

Polls which weeks ago showed Corker with a double-digit lead over Ford now have Ford drawing even: a Wall Street Journal/Zogby poll released Thursday shows Corker leading 49.4% to Ford's 42%, but with a 3.3% margin of error, statistically that leaves the race too close to call.

How a junior Congressman with little name recognition in Tennessee beyond his native Memphis has managed to force the state's thoroughly entrenched Republicans into a panicked sweat is a testament to Republican overconfidence and Ford's charisma. Political observers say Republicans — and even some Democrats — were all too certain that no amount of support from national Democrats could convince conservative Tennesseans to send a young black candidate from a family tainted by political corruption to the Senate. Against all political wisdom and warnings that he was throwing money away, Ford, who had no primary opponents, launched his campaign in April, even while Corker and the other Republican primary candidates launched ugly attacks against each other.

While they alienated voters, Ford hit the airwaves with one ad after another, presenting himself as a conservative, middle-of-the-road Democrat who supports posting the Ten Commandments in public buildings, opposes same-sex marriage, and reminding Tennesseans that during his tenure in Congress he supported $5.5 trillion in federal tax cuts. Thanks to a personal charisma reminiscent of Bill Clinton's and a marathon schedule that includes visiting the most remote areas in the state, Ford inoculated himself against charges that he was an unwelcome, out-of-touch liberal from Memphis.

Still, Republicans have done their best to paint Ford as a Washington-reared insider dependent on out-of-state campaign contributions while subtly reminding voters of Ford's family history: while in Congress his father, Harold Ford Sr., was indicted on federal bank fraud charges (he was ultimately acquitted); that uncle John Ford was forced last year to resign his state senate seat after being indicted on federal bribery charges for which he now awaits trial; and that aunt Ophelia Ford was ousted from her state senate seat because of voting irregularities.

And as the race has heated up, the issue of race itself has become an ugly part of the campaign. Over the last few weeks, Republicans have aired three questionable ads against Ford, the latest so blatant that Corker condemned it and asked WHIN radio in Gallatin, Tennessee, to stop airing it. In the first 24 seconds, the one-minute ad attacking Ford and his father, and paid for by Tennesseans for Truth, uses the word "black" six times and accuses Ford of favoring African-American issues above others. "His daddy handed him his seat in Congress and his seat in the Congressional Black Caucus, an all-black group of congressmen who represent the interests of black people above all others," the narrator says. Station manager Jack Williams says he pulled the spot hours before Corker's staff contacted him and that it aired just once.

While the ad was not sanctioned by the Republican Party, it came on the heels of two that were: an RNC television commercial that concludes with a backlit figure of Ford striding into a dark hallway and towards the screen in a manner reminiscent of Willie Horton, and a fund-raising mailer designed by the state Republican Party bearing black-and-white photos of Ford that make him look much darker-skinned than he is and uses phrases including "purports," "pretends," and "passes himself off as" — all terms once used for light-skinned blacks who pretended to be white.

State Republican party Chairman Bob Davis has called the allegations of racism ludicrous, but whether the photos were intentionally darkened does not matter, says Robert Parham, executive director of the Baptist Center for Ethics. "The only plausible reason to use such a picture is to play the race card — in an effort to frighten and fire up white voters in a key senatorial race," Parham wrote in an editorial on the Center's website. "Whether they acted with malice or moral callousness doesn't really matter, the end result is race as a wedge issue."

For his part, Ford is trying to ignore the mudslinging, making just one comment about the racial undertones in the Republican ads when he told the Chattanooga Times-Free Press that the television ad "injects a little race into this thing, the way they have me pictured." He also refuses to discuss his family. Neither criticizing or defending them, Ford says only that he loves them but is not responsible for their flaws.

Ford's open appeal to Republicans, which relies largely on conservative discontent with the Washington status quo, appears to be working. Conservative East Tennessee columnist Frank Cagle endorses sending Ford to the Senate as a way of holding Republicans responsible for their shortcomings and broken promises.
Title: Re: Republican and Gay
Post by: kates on October 24, 2006, 11:02:11 AM
Hey all, thrilled to see so many gay-friendly folks here!  Just thought I'd throw this in:

The party that is not merely *not* anti-gay but most vocally *pro-gay* is the Green Party.  I think it deserves a closer look in this thread.

Also, politics aside, people who self-define as straight (and even self-defined gay folks) have to be very careful telling gay people how to be gay.

Cheers for queers - K.
Title: Re: Republican and Gay
Post by: redemption on October 24, 2006, 11:04:21 AM
people who self-define as straight (and even self-defined gay folks) have to be very careful telling gay people how to be gay.

1. why's that?

2. what does "people who self-define as straight" mean?
Title: Re: Republican and Gay
Post by: Miss P on October 24, 2006, 11:22:10 AM
Personally, it really turns me on when someone tells me exactly how to be gay.
Title: Re: Republican and Gay
Post by: redemption on October 24, 2006, 11:52:17 AM
lol
Title: Re: Republican and Gay
Post by: FossilJ on October 24, 2006, 01:30:30 PM
Personally, it really turns me on when someone tells me exactly how to be gay.


You just made me laugh out loud in the office.  Thanks a lot.  haahaha
Title: Re: Republican and Gay
Post by: ->Soon on October 25, 2006, 01:23:59 PM
http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/10/25/jersey.samesex.ap/index.html

THINK IT will affect the coming election?
Title: Re: Republican and Gay
Post by: ->Soon on October 27, 2006, 05:19:39 AM
Conservatives cheer N.J. ruling on gay couples
Religious right says court decision a wake-up call before election
  MORE ON WASHINGTONPOST.COM

WASHINGTON - The New Jersey court decision that gay couples are entitled to the same rights as heterosexual couples was bad news for social conservatives -- the bad news they were hoping for.

"Pro-traditional-marriage organizations ought to give a distinguished service award to the New Jersey Supreme Court," said the Rev. Richard Land, head of the public policy arm of the Southern Baptist Convention.

Land and other conservative religious leaders predicted that the court's 4 to 3 ruling, which was handed down Wednesday, would boost turnout of social conservatives in the midterm elections, particularly in the eight states that have constitutional amendments against same-sex marriage on the Nov. 7 ballot.
Story continues below ↓ advertisement

"I have to think there are Democratic strategists out there thinking the words of the old Japanese admiral: 'I fear all we've done is wake a sleeping giant,' " said Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, a Washington-based advocacy group. "They were coasting into an election with a Republican base with dampened enthusiasm. This brings it all back home to the base, what this election is about."

   

President Bush, at fundraising events in Iowa and Michigan, denounced the New Jersey ruling and called heterosexual marriage "a sacred institution."

Before the New Jersey decision, conservative religious groups tried to rally their supporters around the issue of same-sex marriage, but with far less success than they had in the 2004 elections.

Focus on the Family founder James C. Dobson, for example, held "Stand for the Family" rallies in three cities in September and October, drawing considerably smaller crowds than anticipated. The first rally, in Pittsburgh on Sept. 20, attracted 3,000 people to a 17,000-seat arena that Focus on the Family had predicted would be full.

The next two rallies, in St. Paul, Minn., on Oct. 3 and Nashville on Oct. 16, were moved from stadium-size venues to smaller auditoriums, and the tickets, which had been on sale for $7, were given away. Each event also drew about 3,000 people, according to Focus on the Family spokesman Paul Hetrick.

"We don't gauge the success by the number of people," Hetrick said, adding: "I don't think it's the rallies [that flopped]. I just think it's more of a challenge to enthuse people about midterm elections."

'Opponents: 'Real and present danger'
Evan Wolfson, executive director of Freedom to Marry, a group that supports same-sex marriage, said religious conservatives "have gone to this well too many times, and people are not buying it."

"They attack gay people when the sun rises, and they attack gay people when the sun sets, so no matter what the court had done in New Jersey, they would have said Americans need to shift their attention from the real threats to our country to the alleged threat from gay couples seeking to settle down," Wolfson said.

New Jersey's Supreme Court stopped short of requiring the state to allow same-sex marriage. It said that under the state's constitution, same-sex couples can no longer be denied the rights and benefits that opposite-sex couples receive. It gave the state legislature 180 days to craft a solution, which apparently could include allowing civil unions.

Land said conservative voters were more energized about same-sex marriage in the 2004 elections because Massachusetts had just become the first -- and so far only -- state to legalize it as a result of a state court ruling in 2003.

Since then, opponents of same-sex marriage have been on a roll. Twenty states have passed constitutional amendments banning it. Several courts, most recently in the states of Washington and New York, have ruled against it. Those victories, Land said, may have made some conservatives complacent.

"But whatever wind was pumped out of their sails has now been pumped back in," he said. "I frankly was amazed that the New Jersey judges issued their decision before the election."

Perkins agreed, saying that he "had long anticipated a bad ruling from New Jersey" and was glad that it occurred in time for voters to see the "very real and present danger" that same-sex marriage could spread. He spoke by telephone shortly before holding a news conference to denounce the New Jersey decision in South Dakota, one of the eight states with marriage amendments on the ballot. The others are Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia and Wisconsin.
Title: Re: Republican and Gay
Post by: guyminuslife on October 28, 2006, 05:06:55 PM
I haven't been following this thread, but I think gay Republicans are good for America. Not because I'd like to see more Republicans (perish the thought!) but because if gays---and not just homosexual, but agnostics/atheists and feminists and all the kinds of people that the Republican party pisses off became a more viable constituency within the GOP, we might be able to take social conservativism off the table.

Granted, I still wouldn't be very tempted to vote Republican, but they'd be less intolerable if they won.

On the other hand, we'd have even lower voter turnout, because, come on, who honestly wants to show up at the polls if the ballot isn't about dead babies and buttfucking?
Title: Re: Republican and Gay
Post by: ->Soon on October 31, 2006, 07:30:12 AM
Bush - Your gay?  your evil and immoral and i hate you.


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15495773/
Title: Re: Republican and Gay
Post by: Drew P. Bottom on November 02, 2006, 09:25:28 AM
Okay. Okay.

The Log Cabin Republicans made a statement that drives me absolutely insane. In defending their choice to be homosexual and Republican they cite Abraham Lincoln as a Republican, and insinuate (if not outright declare) that the Republican Party brings about change.

There is one problem with that.

Around the time of the civil rights movement, the political parties switched. Southerners became Republicans and Democrats picked up much of the Northeast. It is laughable to try and equate Abraham Lincoln's (relatively) progressive politics as Republican and by association call the Confederate conservative politics Democratic. The parties have flipped and changed in so many significant ways that evoking Abraham Lincoln as a Republican (in the context of today's Republicans) is just stupid.

Title: Re: Republican and Gay
Post by: redemption on November 02, 2006, 09:35:55 AM
Well, yes. People buy that nonsense, though.

As an aside, I think they evoke Lincoln because there's plausible evidence to suggest that he was gay.
Title: Re: Republican and Gay
Post by: ->Soon on November 02, 2006, 09:44:14 AM
Well, yes. People buy that nonsense, though.

As an aside, I think they evoke Lincoln because there's plausible evidence to suggest that he was gay.

a bear perhaps?

groooooooooowlllllllll
Title: Re: Republican and Gay
Post by: redemption on November 02, 2006, 09:54:19 AM
Well, yes. People buy that nonsense, though.

As an aside, I think they evoke Lincoln because there's plausible evidence to suggest that he was gay.

a bear perhaps?

groooooooooowlllllllll

lol.
Title: Re: Republican and Gay
Post by: _BP_ on November 03, 2006, 06:52:39 AM
The hits keep on coming. 

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/11/03/haggard.allegations/index.html

COLORADO SPRINGS, Colorado (CNN) -- The president of the National Association of Evangelicals resigned Thursday after accusations by a male prostitute that the pastor paid him for sex over three years.

The Rev. Ted Haggard said he also is temporarily stepping aside from the pulpit of his church in Colorado Springs pending an internal investigation by the church.

The church official who temporarily has assumed Haggard's post said late Thursday that there has been "some admission of guilt," but not to all of the allegations. He did not give any more details.

In 2005, Time magazine put Haggard on its list of the 25 most influential evangelical leaders, noting his participation in a weekly conference call with White House staffers and other religious leaders.

The National Association of Evangelicals is an umbrella group for more than 45,000 churches and some 30 million members across the country. (Watch Haggard deny the accusations -- 2:07 )

"I've never had a gay relationship with anybody. I'm steady with my wife. I'm faithful to my wife," Haggard told KUSA-TV, a CNN affiliate in Denver, on Wednesday.

Haggard is married and has five children, according to the National Association of Evangelicals Web site.

Colorado is one of eight states where voters will consider bans on same-sex marriage in Tuesday's elections, and Haggard has been a supporter of the measure.

Haggard, 50, put himself on administrative leave as senior pastor of the 14,000-member New Life Church.

The Rev. Ross Parsley, now the church's acting senior pastor, told reporters Thursday night that Haggard has made a partial admission after the allegations surfaced on a Denver radio station. "There has been some admission of indiscretion, not an admission to all of the material that has been discussed, but there is an admission of some guilt," said Parsley, the New Life Church associate senior pastor.

In a written statement, Haggard said that he could "not continue to minister under the cloud created by the accusations made on Denver talk radio this morning."

"I am voluntarily stepping aside from leadership so that the overseer process can be allowed to proceed with integrity," he said. "I hope to be able to discuss this matter in more detail at a later date. In the interim, I will seek both spiritual advice and guidance."

The allegations were made Tuesday and Wednesday on Denver radio station KHOW by Mike Jones, who said he was a male prostitute and had a three-year sexual relationship with Haggard, with the last tryst occurring in August. He also said Haggard used methamphetamine during their encounters.

Haggard also denied the allegations of drug use Wednesday. "I have never done drugs, ever -- not even in high school," he told KUSA.

The church's attorney, Martin Nussbaum, told The Denver Post earlier Thursday that the pastor had denied the allegations and his resignation from the evangelical group was in no way an admission of guilt.

Jones told the radio station he went public because of Haggard's support for Colorado's proposed constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.

"I cried many nights; I got sick tormenting myself about whether I should do this," he said. "I finally had to come to peace with myself. ... I had to do the moral thing."

Jones, who said he no longer worked as a prostitute, described himself as a Christian and said that although he was a registered Democrat he had voted for Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush for president.

Jones said the relationship began about three years ago, when a man identifying himself as "Art" -- who said he was a married man from Kansas City, Missouri -- sought his services. Jones said he advertised at the time as a male prostitute on the Internet and in newspapers serving the gay community.

The two saw each other about once a month, with Art visiting Jones in Denver and paying him $200 in cash "for no more than an hour," Jones said.

"It was not emotional. It was physical, just strictly physical," he said.

Jones said he learned Art's identity when he saw him on television four months ago. Jones said he became upset when he learned that Haggard's church supported the proposed state constitutional amendment.

Asked whether he has proof to support his claims, Jones told KHOW that he kept several voice mails from Haggard on his telephone answering machine and an envelope containing two $100 bills from him.

Support from Focus on the Family leader
Parsley requested "the community's compassion and prayers for the person who came forward with accusations, for the Haggard family and for the New Life Church community."

Under the church's governing structure, a board of overseers of four senior pastors of other congregations will lead the inquiry, with the power to discipline or remove Haggard or restore him to the pulpit, the statement said.

"New Life Church long ago adopted an overseer model of governance for situations just like this," Parsley said in the statement. "People need to be patient and allow this process to unfold as it was designed to do."

Amid the furor over the allegations, Haggard received support from another prominent religious conservative leader, James Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family, also based in Colorado Springs.

"It is unconscionable that the legitimate news media would report a rumor like this based on nothing but one man's accusation," Dobson said in a written statement issued before Haggard's leave was announced.

"Ted Haggard is a friend of mine, and it appears someone is trying to damage his reputation as a way of influencing the outcome of Tuesday's election -- especially the vote on Colorado's marriage-protection amendment, which Ted strongly supports," Dobson said.

Richard Cizik, vice president for governmental affairs for the National Association of Evangelicals, said that "the accusations do not comport with the person that I know."

"Since 1942, the NAE has never had a moral, ethical or financial scandal of any sort. Thus, this is very painful," Cizik said. "I believe that our record of speaking and acting in conformity with biblical values will be upheld."

Title: Re: Republican and Gay
Post by: _BP_ on November 03, 2006, 08:48:49 AM
In case you guys missed it before, this is my hometown and this man singlehandedly ruined our entire city.

This is possibly the greatest thing to ever happen!!!  ;D

I do love to see hypocrisy exposed (if this all pans out).
Title: Re: Republican and Gay
Post by: redemption on November 03, 2006, 08:50:35 AM
Is it wrong that I feel bad for him?
Title: Re: Republican and Gay
Post by: ->Soon on November 03, 2006, 08:54:12 AM
Is it wrong that I feel bad for him?

yes.

after all, we all know bad hypocritical gay repubs will get it in the end....
Title: Re: Republican and Gay
Post by: redemption on November 03, 2006, 08:58:02 AM
I hate hypocrisy and hate-mongering, but I also wonder of most of the news coverage on this is going to be motivated by a homophobic subtext.

I don't know. Maybe I'm just a ninny.
Title: Re: Republican and Gay
Post by: lindseyl on November 03, 2006, 09:10:46 AM
As a person who lives in CO and has attended New Life in the past, I feel bad for his family (he has a wife and five children). I also feel bad for his congregation of 14,000...this kind of thing is a shock, and it will take a long time for them to get through this. Too many snap judgments are being made, and he has yet to say what exactly what was accurate about the accusations. He has likely stepped down because of standard procedure (that many churches have) where pastors give up their duties until an inquiry/investigation has been completed. I don't know what the outcome of this will be, but my prayers are with his family and the congregation.
Title: Re: Republican and Gay
Post by: redemption on November 03, 2006, 09:14:47 AM
Is it wrong that I feel bad for him?

Yes.

This is the guy that has a weekly Monday morning conference call with G.W. to talk about Christian values and public policy. You want to know why Bush is so firm about pushing the anti-gay marriage issue repeatedly in public forums?

Ted Haggard baby.

I can pretty much guarantee you that everything Bush has said about gay marriage being a sacred union for a man and a woman is a direct parrot of what Haggard tells him over the phone on Monday mornings.

Yeah. This is all undoubtedly true. It's a disappointing business to see self-hatred so exposed. I always like to imagine that there's a 1% chance that these people are sincerely concerned for the country even though they are wrong.
Title: Re: Republican and Gay
Post by: redemption on November 03, 2006, 09:15:38 AM
As a person who lives in CO and has attended New Life in the past, I feel bad for his family (he has a wife and five children). I also feel bad for his congregation of 14,000...this kind of thing is a shock, and it will take a long time for them to get through this. Too many snap judgments are being made, and he has yet to say what exactly what was accurate about the accusations. He has likely stepped down because of standard procedure (that many churches have) where pastors give up their duties until an inquiry/investigation has been completed. I don't know what the outcome of this will be, but my prayers are with his family and the congregation.

Well, I'm sad for his children, certainly, and alittle for his wife. For his congregation, I have nothing but scorn.
Title: Re: Republican and Gay
Post by: lindseyl on November 03, 2006, 09:20:09 AM
Quote
For his congregation, I have nothing but scorn.

Why? (This is a valid question, not trying to start anything, just wonder why.) ???
Title: Re: Republican and Gay
Post by: LizPendens™ on November 03, 2006, 09:24:28 AM
Is it wrong that I feel bad for him?
You want to know why Bush is so firm about pushing the anti-gay marriage issue repeatedly in public forums?

Ted Haggard baby.

not just ted haggard but the votes he can deliver. you think the bush people give a rat's ass about evangelicals and their values?  it's about the votes, baby.
Title: Re: Republican and Gay
Post by: LizPendens™ on November 03, 2006, 09:29:53 AM
don't forget the monies. ooooh the monies.

I want to go home and watch the riots tonight.

oh right, i forgot the bushcorp sacred yet profane love of $$$$$
Title: Re: Republican and Gay
Post by: _BP_ on November 03, 2006, 09:34:18 AM
Thanks for the link demingh.

http://www.gazette.com/
Church leaders say allegations have 'some truth'

Haggard
 

Jones
 

PAUL ASAY AND DEEDEE CORRELL THE GAZETTE

An associate pastor at New Life Church said this morning that there's "some truth" to allegations made this week against the Rev. Ted Haggard, founder and senior pastor of the 14,000-member church.

A Denver man on Wednesday alleged that he was paid for sex during a three-year relationship with Haggard and that he saw Haggard use methamphetamine.

“It’s not entirely false," the Rev. Rob Brendle, associate pastor of New Life, said of the allegations. "We don’t know the extent of the truth of them.”

Also, the Rev. Ross Parsley sent an e-mail to church members saying that the church’s four-member board of overseers had since met with Haggard.

“It is important for you to know that he confessed to the overseers that some of the accusations against him are true. He has willingly and humbly submitted to the authority of the board of overseers, and will remain on administrative leave during the course of the investigation,” the e-mail stated. A copy was obtained by KMGH-TV in Denver
-

This is what I thought, no one is just going to resign over an unfounded random accusation.  If so I could accuse Dobson of having a homosexual affair with me and I could have him resign by tomorrow..lol at the thought.

Red, you werent' being a ninny, I see what you meant in your earlier post.



Title: Re: Republican and Gay
Post by: LizPendens™ on November 03, 2006, 09:41:18 AM
if anyone is interested in reading some really crazy sh*t, check out the comments being made on the story in the local newspaper:

http://www.gazette.com/

some of my  favorite quotes:

I would only be happier about this if Haggard had been caught having sex with Dobson.

Listen to how hateful you all sound. This is exactly what the devil wants.


I refuse to form an opinion one way or another until I hear the words directly from Haggard or his attorney, if he has one involved here (which, for his sake, I hope he does).

All I have to say is: "Let the Pastor Moo!"


Setting aside judgments, the one question I'd ask Rev. Haggard is this: since you obviously believe that one's sexuality is chosen by the person (that's what Evangelicals all say, right?) why three years ago did you decide you wanted to be a homosexual and get it on with another man? Details please.
good question

You alll crack me up. What makes you so darn perfect? Like you never wanted to hide/forget your past so before you judge think of this: when you point your finger at someone YOU have three more pointing back at you.
before we/they judge...?

In the words of the great musical that every card-carrying homo like me knows by heart: "Ding, dong the witch is dead, the witch is dead/Ding, dong the wticked witch is dead ..." Woo-hoo!! Gloat? You bet your a** I'm gloating!!

and the best:

First off, I would like to say that the newspaper...our wonderful Gazette has once again misquoted YET ANOTHER PERSON...Honestly, I am fed up with the LIE AND BULL that the GAZETTE is coming up with. I recieved the email that is stated in this article, because yes, I AM A PROUD NEW LIFER! The statement in the article where it mentions the email...stating...."“It is important for you to know that he confessed to the overseers that some of the accusations against him are true. He has willingly and humbly submitted to the authority of the board of overseers, and will remain on administrative leave during the course of the investigation,” the e-mail stated. A copy was obtained by KMGH-TV in Denver "....this here is a crock...The email never even stated the above quote. And HONESTLY, Ted Haggard is a man of God, I have known him probably longer than any of you people that are out there hating on him, but let me tell you, EVEN PEOPLE OF CHRIST MAKE MISTAKES!!!! NO ONE IS SIN FREE...It is impossible. So might I suggest, you stop acting all smart about the situation, get off your arse and leave the man alone!!! You all have made mistakes in your life, how would you like them to be brought forward publicly!!!! I will pray for you all!!

from someone going by the name  LuvMyPastorTed
Title: Re: Republican and Gay
Post by: redemption on November 03, 2006, 09:47:34 AM
Quote
For his congregation, I have nothing but scorn.

Why? (This is a valid question, not trying to start anything, just wonder why.) ???

I'm sorry that you deleted before I answered your question.

What you felt at the moment that you decided to delete is something like what gays and lesbians in Colorado Springs and elsewhere where his message gets across must have felt very regularly. It's not nice to spread nastiness disguised as Christianity, and I think that every adult free-born person has a deep responsibility to disassociate themselves from anything systematically and powerfully hateful. That's more or less why.

I understand the feeling of fellowship that comes from worshipping in large numbers, and I understand that there is something seductive and benign about a clean-cut guy saying terrible things in a soft voice. Still, I can't shake the knowledge that his congregation drew comfort from despising their fellow Americans, and this rude awakening is the least of that they could have expected.

Title: Re: Republican and Gay
Post by: President_Baccaga on November 03, 2006, 09:55:12 AM
Quote from: red
and I think that every adult free-born person has a deep responsibility to disassociate themselves from anything systematically and powerfully hateful. That's more or less why.

anyone seen irony here?  beavis do.
Title: Re: Republican and Gay
Post by: redemption on November 03, 2006, 09:56:08 AM
anyone seen irony here?  beavis do.

Meh. You prolly don't even know what irony is.
Title: Re: Republican and Gay
Post by: LizPendens™ on November 03, 2006, 09:56:27 AM
Please Lord Jesus let Ted's good buddy GW make a public comment on this one. Oh Please Please!


my imagination takes flight with this one.
Title: Re: Republican and Gay
Post by: President_Baccaga on November 03, 2006, 09:57:39 AM
anyone seen irony here?  beavis do.

Meh. You prolly don't even know what irony is.

good one red, go drown in lake titikaka.  red love personal insults, also like spend half of life on lsd.
Title: Re: Republican and Gay
Post by: Miss P on November 03, 2006, 10:06:30 AM
I hate hypocrisy and hate-mongering, but I also wonder of most of the news coverage on this is going to be motivated by a homophobic subtext.

I don't know. Maybe I'm just a ninny.

Of course most of the coverage will contain homophobic subtext.  True to my avowed consequentialism, however, I am more concerned with its practical effects, which others have highlighted.  The so-called Christian right loses authority on this issue every time its leaders are exposed this way.  I would prefer that we were instead talking about true Christian values of charity and peace or whatnot, but while the conversation is focused on this particular set of psueudo-values questions, I think it's important that we undermine them any way we can.
Title: Re: Republican and Gay
Post by: redemption on November 03, 2006, 10:11:04 AM
I hate hypocrisy and hate-mongering, but I also wonder of most of the news coverage on this is going to be motivated by a homophobic subtext.

I don't know. Maybe I'm just a ninny.

Of course most of the coverage will contain homophobic subtext.  True to my avowed consequentialism, however, I am more concerned with its practical effects, which others have highlighted.  The so-called Christian right loses authority on this issue every time its leaders are exposed this way.  I would prefer that we were instead talking about true Christian values of charity and peace or whatnot, but while the conversation is focused on this particular set of psueudo-values questions, I think it's important that we undermine them any way we can.

Yup. That sounds fair.
Title: Re: Republican and Gay
Post by: _BP_ on November 03, 2006, 11:11:56 AM
(http://static.crooksandliars.com/2006/11/haggerd-bush.jpg)





Man the rethugs love themselves some male prostitutes.  Remember Jeff Gannon? Haha

(http://www.infowars.net/pictures/news_files/Aug05/310805jeff_gannon_cspan.jpg)

(http://www.speciousreasoning.com/uploads/Jeff_gannon.jpg)
Title: Re: Republican and Gay
Post by: President_Baccaga on November 03, 2006, 11:13:25 AM
(http://www.vilefraud.com/mcgreeveyresignscrop.jpg)
Title: Re: Republican and Gay
Post by: _BP_ on November 03, 2006, 11:19:09 AM
(http://www.vilefraud.com/mcgreeveyresignscrop.jpg)

Is he a prostitute? haha
Title: Re: Republican and Gay
Post by: President_Baccaga on November 03, 2006, 11:20:01 AM
(http://www.vilefraud.com/mcgreeveyresignscrop.jpg)

Is he a prostitute? haha

He's the pimp.
Title: Re: Republican and Gay
Post by: President_Baccaga on November 03, 2006, 11:26:35 AM
Ohohohohohoho!

The Rev. Ted Haggard today admitted buying methamphetamine from a male prostitute, who he said he was referred to for a massage.

"I bought it for myself but never used it," he said. "I was tempted but I never used it."



Meth Mouth

(http://www.npr.org/programs/morning/features/2005/aug/methmouth/methmouth200.jpg)


how you get picture of breranansi's mouth?
Title: Re: Republican and Gay
Post by: President_Baccaga on November 03, 2006, 11:34:21 AM
http://www.denverpost.com/ci_4597552

Haggard's accuser fails lie detector

By Mike McPhee
Denver Post Staff Writer
Article Last Updated:11/03/2006 10:26:27 AM MST

Mike Jones, photographed in downtown Denver on Thursday, Nov. 2, 2006. Jones says that evangelical leader Rev. Ted Haggard paid him to have sex over several years. (AP / Ed Andrieski)Related

Nov 3:
Haggard admits some indiscretionsPastor takes leave amid allegations of gay sex"Struggled" on choice to step forwardClaim against evangelical leader stuns Springs-area residentsHaggard sex allegations could shape votes, political observers say Haggard profile: Man of cloth and cloutTed Haggard's accuser failed a polygraph test early this morning about the truthfulness of his accusations that he had had a three-year homosexual affair with the influential Colorado Springs minister.

The test was given to Michael Jones, 49, an admitted male prostitute, who made the allegations on the Peter Boyles Show on radio station KHOW Thursday morning.

The shocking allegations were denied by Haggard, who told KUSA-9News he never took part in a homosexual affair and had always been faithful to his wife, with whom he has 5 children.

So Boyles invited Jones to take a polygraph test at 5 a.m. this morning.

The test administrator, John Kresnik, said Jones' score indicated "deceptions" in his answers. However, Kresnik said he doubted the accuracy of the test he administered because of the recent stress on Jones and his inability to eat or sleep, according to KHOW producer Greg Hollenback.

Kresnik suggested that Jones be re-tested early next week after he was rested.
Title: Re: Republican and Gay
Post by: _BP_ on November 03, 2006, 11:35:01 AM
(http://www.vilefraud.com/mcgreeveyresignscrop.jpg)

Is he a prostitute? haha

He's the pimp.

Reminds me of the game on Al Franken's show:

Is the bolded

1) A lie
2) The Truth
3) or a Weasel
Title: Re: Republican and Gay
Post by: _BP_ on November 03, 2006, 11:48:25 AM

LMAO @ massage...hahaa


http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/11/03/haggard.allegations/index.html


Evangelist admits he called male escort to buy drugs and get a massage






COLORADO SPRINGS, Colorado (CNN) -- The Rev. Ted Haggard, who resigned as one of the nation's top evangelical leaders, admitted Friday he had contacted male prostitute Mike Jones "for a massage" and bought drugs from him.

Haggard said he never had sex with Jones and never used the methamphetamine drug he bought.

He told reporters earlier this week that he did not know Jones, who claims to have had a three-year sex-for-money relationship with him.

Haggard, 50, resigned Thursday as leader of the National Association of Evangelicals -- a group representing more than 45,000 churches and 30 million people -- and he also stepped down temporarily from leadership at New Life Church in Colorado Springs.

He was one of a group of religious leaders who regularly participated in conference calls with White House aides.

Haggard told CNN affiliate KUSA-TV Friday that he received Jones' name as "a referral" from a hotel where he was staying in Denver.

He did not name the hotel. "I did call him," Haggard said. "I called him to buy some meth, but I threw it away."

"I was buying it for me but I never used it. I was tempted, I bought it, but I never used it."

"He told me about it. I went there for a massage."

Title: Re: Republican and Gay
Post by: President_Baccaga on November 03, 2006, 11:54:19 AM
"I was buying it for me but I never used it. I was tempted, I bought it, but I never used it."

hilarious
Title: Re: Republican and Gay
Post by: redemption on November 03, 2006, 12:07:08 PM
on a more serious note, csprings has developed a really bad meth connection...which is causing burgeoning crime rates throughout the city.

My best friend's sister is a meth addict in Csprings. She has two beautiful kids, too, which is a heartbreaking thing.
Title: Re: Republican and Gay
Post by: LizPendens™ on November 03, 2006, 12:10:54 PM
"I went there for a massage."

shiatsu, perhaps, from the naked male masseuse?

and bought meth.

but you didn't use it.

and you don't know the guy.

mmmmm'kay.


Title: Re: Republican and Gay
Post by: redemption on November 03, 2006, 12:12:38 PM
i'm sorry to hear that red. it really is getting to be an epidemic in the city, and the violent crimes connected to it are getting totally out of hand as well.

What do think it is? Ennui?
Title: Re: Republican and Gay
Post by: Miss P on November 03, 2006, 12:15:33 PM
i'm sorry to hear that red. it really is getting to be an epidemic in the city, and the violent crimes connected to it are getting totally out of hand as well.

What do think it is? Ennui?

Meth works on lots of levels. It's cheap and terribly addictive. It counteracts a lot of symptoms of multiple organic mental illnesses (while also producing psychotic symptoms), provides energy (and makes people productive workers, etc.), helps people lose weight, etc.
Title: Re: Republican and Gay
Post by: redemption on November 03, 2006, 12:24:19 PM
Meth works on lots of levels. It's cheap and terribly addictive. It counteracts a lot of symptoms of multiple organic mental illnesses (while also producing psychotic symptoms), provides energy (and makes people productive workers, etc.), helps people lose weight, etc.

Very high risk behavior is interesting: it straddles suicide and a grab for a rich life.

I have always had this idea floating in my head that boredom explains a tremendous amount of destructive and self-destructive behavior, and that stimulation is a human right.

Something else (poverty or mental illness or history of abuse or whatever) + boredom = pathology. Something like that.
Title: Re: Republican and Gay
Post by: President_Baccaga on November 03, 2006, 12:25:07 PM
parasailing... jet ski... ecstacy...
Title: Re: Republican and Gay
Post by: FossilJ on November 03, 2006, 12:35:37 PM
anyone seen irony here?  beavis do.

Meh. You prolly don't even know what irony is.

good one red, go drown in lake titikaka.  red love personal insults, also like spend half of life on lsd.


Dude, seriously.  Cardinal rule of bad jokes: only use them once.

Otherwise, you're either a social retard, or worse, you're bluewarrior.
Title: Re: Republican and Gay
Post by: President_Baccaga on November 03, 2006, 12:41:45 PM
anyone seen irony here?  beavis do.

Meh. You prolly don't even know what irony is.

good one red, go drown in lake titikaka.  red love personal insults, also like spend half of life on lsd.


Dude, seriously.  Cardinal rule of bad jokes: only use them once.

Otherwise, you're either a social retard, or worse, you're bluewarrior.


dude, i do what i want.  you don't like, go @#!* off
Title: Re: Republican and Gay
Post by: FossilJ on November 03, 2006, 12:47:17 PM
Broken record.  Ah well...
Title: Re: Republican and Gay
Post by: President_Baccaga on November 03, 2006, 12:56:54 PM
Broken record.  Ah well...


you corrupted 8-track
Title: Re: Republican and Gay
Post by: ->Soon on November 03, 2006, 12:58:13 PM
 Radio host canned for calling candidate a 'fat lesbian'

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/11/03/host.fired.ap/index.html
Title: Re: Republican and Gay
Post by: President_Baccaga on November 03, 2006, 01:02:25 PM
Radio host canned for calling candidate a 'fat lesbian'

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/11/03/host.fired.ap/index.html

political correctness gone haywire.  someone fat lesbian, you should have right to call her fat lesbian.  truth be told.
Title: Re: Republican and Gay
Post by: Miss P on November 03, 2006, 01:05:33 PM
Radio host canned for calling candidate a 'fat lesbian'

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/11/03/host.fired.ap/index.html

political correctness gone haywire.  someone fat lesbian, you should have right to call her fat lesbian.  truth be told.

I'll stand on alert then.

EDIT: Also, Baccaga, you were much more engaging when you made actual arguments and used standard English prose.  I find today's posts borderline assaultive in their inanity.  You are smart enough, I'm sure, but no Julie Fern.
Title: Re: Republican and Gay
Post by: President_Baccaga on November 03, 2006, 01:15:18 PM
Radio host canned for calling candidate a 'fat lesbian'

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/11/03/host.fired.ap/index.html

political correctness gone haywire.  someone fat lesbian, you should have right to call her fat lesbian.  truth be told.

I'll stand on alert then.

EDIT: Also, Baccaga, you were much more engaging when you made actual arguments and used standard English prose.  I find today's posts borderline assaultive in their inanity.  You are smart enough, I'm sure, but no Julie Fern.

butthead never say he be julie... maybe apprentice status.  now just fun and games.
Title: Re: Republican and Gay
Post by: BrerAnansi on November 03, 2006, 01:21:15 PM
Radio host canned for calling candidate a 'fat lesbian'

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/11/03/host.fired.ap/index.html

political correctness gone haywire.  someone fat lesbian, you should have right to call her fat lesbian.  truth be told.

I'll stand on alert then.

EDIT: Also, Baccaga, you were much more engaging when you made actual arguments and used standard English prose.  I find today's posts borderline assaultive in their inanity.  You are smart enough, I'm sure, but no Julie Fern.

Nah...he starting talking out of his ass in another thread got called on it and instead of owning up to it resorted to the "oh look at me I'm a troll" tactic (though in trying so hard he does tip his hand) rather than having to actually learn something...he then followed Red and me around and made the same sort of remarks you see here wherever he encountered us...intellectual dishonesty at its finest....

http://www.lawschooldiscussion.org/prelaw/index.php/topic,74638.msg1739096.html#msg1739096
Title: Re: Republican and Gay
Post by: President_Baccaga on November 03, 2006, 01:23:56 PM
brer jealous he not understand statistics.
Title: Re: Republican and Gay
Post by: FossilJ on November 03, 2006, 01:32:59 PM
Classic case of the class geek who didn't realize everyone else was laughing AT him, not WITH him.
Title: Re: Republican and Gay
Post by: President_Baccaga on November 03, 2006, 01:35:25 PM
Classic case of the class geek who didn't realize everyone else was laughing AT him, not WITH him.


classic case of who gives a @#!*.
Title: Re: Republican and Gay
Post by: FossilJ on November 03, 2006, 01:37:26 PM
You read like a litany of punchlines.  I'll let you guess who the joke is...

Title: Re: Republican and Gay
Post by: redemption on November 03, 2006, 01:44:03 PM
Look him up on LSN. It's quite a profile.
Title: Re: Republican and Gay
Post by: FossilJ on November 03, 2006, 01:46:14 PM
PM me the link, damn you!   :D
Title: Re: Republican and Gay
Post by: President_Baccaga on November 03, 2006, 01:47:29 PM
You read like a litany of punchlines.  I'll let you guess who the joke is...


you continue as if i'm interested
Title: Re: Republican and Gay
Post by: President_Baccaga on November 03, 2006, 01:48:00 PM
Look him up on LSN. It's quite a profile.

funny red.  glad you had time to make up profile.
Title: Re: Republican and Gay
Post by: BrerAnansi on November 03, 2006, 01:48:47 PM
Raindrops keep falling on my head...
Title: Re: Republican and Gay
Post by: redemption on November 03, 2006, 01:53:06 PM
Look him up on LSN. It's quite a profile.

funny red.  glad you had time to make up profile.

C'mon. I'm just playing.  :D

Don't take yourself so seriously. And be nice.  :)
Title: Re: Republican and Gay
Post by: President_Baccaga on November 03, 2006, 02:03:18 PM
Look him up on LSN. It's quite a profile.

funny red.  glad you had time to make up profile.

C'mon. I'm just playing.  :D

Don't take yourself so seriously. And be nice.  :)

hah.  funny you say that, of all people. 

good try anyway, many mistakes in info. but maybe do better next time.
Title: Re: Republican and Gay
Post by: President_Baccaga on November 03, 2006, 02:05:30 PM
p.s. you fixated that i be italian.  i not!
Title: Re: Republican and Gay
Post by: Ulfrekr on January 31, 2007, 04:02:37 AM
I don't agree with the contention that there's no justification for being a gay Republican. For starters, the existence of gay Republicans at least suggests to the Democrats that they might have to do more than pay lip service to gay rights in order to retain the gay vote. But I do wonder whether the efforts of gay Republicans are accomplishing very much, since the party is only becoming more openly intolerant of gay people as time goes on. I wonder if gay Republicans have an upper limit to how much they will put up with from their party, and whether they worry about the tacit support they will have given to causes directly inimical to their own well-being by the time they've reached that point, should it ever come to pass.

Here's my question (sorry if someone's already asked it, but I didn't see it yet): If you're a gay person with conservative/libertarian leanings, why do you think it makes more sense to try to make the Republican party more tolerant than it does to make the Democratic party more libertarian? In either case you'd be trying to get a party to alter its dominant values. So why not try to change the Democratic party from within? Personally, I think that it's arguable as to which party is closer to the libertarian ideal these days anyway. Both parties now support some form of big government, censorship, social regulation, increased defense spending, etc.
Title: Re: Republican and Gay
Post by: jarhead on January 31, 2007, 02:10:19 PM
gay republicans make about as much sense to me as jews for jesus
Title: Re: Republican and Gay
Post by: IF on February 08, 2007, 12:47:45 AM
Well I know a couple of Messianic Jews...and a Log Cabin Republican for that matter.
Title: Re: Republican and Gay
Post by: JaySkizzle on February 13, 2007, 12:49:22 AM
Asian and haaaaayyyyyy!!! ;)