Log Cabin Republicans. - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Astrocloud · 10-23-2003, 01:37 PM

In case you didn't know, there is a group of gay republicans who seem to be an outcast brother to the republican party. They don't consider themselves a seperate group, but most straight, right wing republicans that I know certainly dismiss them as a fringe.

I don't really understand membership in such a group. (Okay, admittedly -I can't understand membership in the Republican Party... but that's another thread.) How can anyone be a member of a party that despise's you? I suppose that you could argue that you want to change it from within... but then why don't all opposition party's do that?

Just my thoughts... BTW Here is a tidbit from the Log Cabin -responding to a speech by the RNC Chairman who says that Gay Marriage should be banned:
http://www.lcr.org/press/20030923.asp

Quote:

Log Cabin responds to RNC Chairman Gillespie
September 23, 2003

(Washington) Log Cabin Republicans today responded to suggestions from Republican National Chairman Ed Gillespie that the Republican party platform next year might include a plank in favor of amending the United States Constitution to ban gay marriage. The amendment as currently written could also deny civil tax fairness, benefits and responsibilities for gay and lesbian Americans. In a Washington Times story today RNC chairman Ed Gillespie indicated growing interest in a potential constitutional amendment.

"The last thing the GOP needs to do is to pattern the 2004 Republican Convention after the 1992 Houston Convention which started a culture war in America. Log Cabin exists today because of that debacle in Texas, led by Patrick J. Buchanan, which led to the defeat of President George H.W. Bush," said Log Cabin executive director Patrick Guerriero

"Log Cabin's message is clear; for our party to be a pro-family party we must value all American families. We should not marginalize gay families. And, to be true to our conservative roots we should not tinker with the sacred United States Constitution to score temporary political points" continued Guerriero. Conservatives including Bob Barr, author of the federal Defense of Marriage Act, Vice-President Cheney and many conservative members of the United State Congress have argued against an amendment.

"We win elections by addition not subtraction. With the electorate evenly divided, a small number of fair minded swing voters who embrace tolerance and inclusion will decide this election. They want our party to focus on jump-starting the American economy and winning the war on terror not igniting the failed cultural wars of the past," Guerriero added.

Responding to concerns of religious freedom and tolerance and Catholic church teacings in the article, Guerriero, a Catholic, added, "The last time I checked the Catholic church was opposed to the war in Iraq and the death penalty. I doubt we will see those planks in our platform. The GOP platform and convention should be used to unite Republicans around the party's core principles of limited government, free trade, a strong national defense, and support for all American families."

lurkette · 10-23-2003, 02:34 PM

Even though I think they're wacko for exactly the reasons you state, I applaud their courage for trying to change the party from the inside rather than just defecting. Aside from this one issue - which happens to be pretty central to their identities - they have Republican values on other issues, and shouldn't be marginalized by the party just because they happen to be gay. If the Republican party wants to shoot themselves in the foot and push these folks out by clinging to their ideological standpoint, I'm sure the Libertarians or Independents would be happy to have some sitting members of Congress switch their affiliation.

mml · 10-23-2003, 02:51 PM

It is a really difficult situation. These guys(and gals?) have stong political opinions and are staunch Republicans except that they are gay. My assumption is that while they dislike that part of the Republican Platform they find the bulk of it to be to their liking. They are not letting themselves become bogged down with one issue, they are looking at the big picture and hope that over time they can educate and sway their party on the issue of homosexuality.

Mojo_PeiPei · 10-23-2003, 03:57 PM

Its very unfair of you to say that all republicans despise them. Sure you have the extreme's that do hate them, but what about people like me? I'm Republican, I DON'T AGREE with the life style choice, but I don't hate people on that basis. There is no rule written or otherwise that says you have to respect and welcome the lifestyle, just treat said homosexuals with respect and as human beings. This to me sounds alot like what happens to Pro-Life democrats...

mystmarimatt · 10-23-2003, 05:42 PM

Strangely enough, i'm almost willing to agree with mojo, but i would like to make the point that even if the general consensus isn't a feeling of hatred towards homosexuals, the GOP doesn't exactly do a splendid job of covering up their extreme "disagreement with the lifestyle".

Anyway, i may not agree with this group's poltical idealogy, but more power to them if they so able to stick up for their rights and beliefs. that's pretty damn admirable.

onetime2 · 10-23-2003, 05:54 PM

Nothing like characterizing an entire group as "haters". Just as there are shades of liberals there are shades of conservatives.

HarmlessRabbit · 10-23-2003, 06:58 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by onetime2
Nothing like characterizing an entire group as "haters". Just as there are shades of liberals there are shades of conservatives.

Nothing like building a straw man. Nobody characterized an entire group as haters. Astrocloud said the Republican Party despises homosexuals.

from m-w.com:

Main Entry: de·spise
Pronunciation: di-'spIz
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): de·spised; de·spis·ing
Etymology: Middle English, from Old French despis-, stem ofdespire, from Latin despicere, from de- + specere to look -- more atSPY
Date: 14th century
1 : to look down on with contempt or aversion <despised the weak>
2 : to regard as negligible, worthless, or distasteful

From the republican party platform:
http://www.rnc.org/GOPInfo/Platform/2000platform4.htm

Quote:

_We support the traditional definition of "marriage" as the legal union of one man and one woman, and we believe that federal judges and bureaucrats should not force states to recognize other living arrangements as marriages.__We rely on the home, as did the founders of the American Republic, to instill the virtues that sustain democracy itself.__That belief led Congress to enact the Defense of Marriage Act, which a Republican Department of Justice will energetically defend in the courts.__For the same reason, we do not believe sexual preference should be given special legal protection or standing in law.

From the 2000 GOP platform in Texas:
http://www.ngltf.org/elections/republican.htm

Quote:

On Homosexuality

"The party believes that the practice of sodomy tears at the fabric of society, contributes to the breakdown of the family unit, and leads to the spread of dangerous, communicable diseases. Homosexual behavior is contrary to the fundamental, unchanging truths that have been ordained by God, recognized by our country's founders, and shared by the majority of Texans. Homosexuality must not be presented as an acceptable 'alternative' lifestyle in our public education and policy, nor should 'family' be redefined to include homosexual 'couples.' We are opposed to any granting of special legal entitlements, recognition, or privileges including, but not limited to, marriage between persons of the same sex, custody of children by homosexuals, homosexual partner insurance or retirement benefits. We oppose any criminal or civil penalties against those who oppose homosexuality out of faith, conviction, or belief in traditional values."

On Texas Sodomy Statutes

"The party opposes the decriminalization of sodomy."

I would say that any reasonable person could read those statements and conclude that the republican party despises homosexuality.

I applaud these brave republicans for trying to change their own party from within. Last week on the NPR program This American Life there was a story on how the American Psychiatric Association had a long hard fight from within to change the classification of homosexuality as a mental disorder. These people face a similar fight from a party that despises them.

Astrocloud · 10-23-2003, 07:25 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by onetime2
Nothing like characterizing an entire group as "haters". Just as there are shades of liberals there are shades of conservatives.

Sorry to offend you so. If you actually look at what I said I restricted my comments to the republicans I know. (Yes, I have a life outside this forum). Again, sorry you took it the wrong way.

Of course, I'm assuming that you are a Republican who doesn't despise your fellow human beings. Perhaps you could look into changing some of the platforms given above by the harmless one.

irseg · 10-23-2003, 08:35 PM

Funny how you liberals always bitch about stereotyping and seeing everything in black and white. Unless it's about Republicans--they're all evil rich white bigots with identical opinions on everything.

I'd venture to say that there's more variation among Republicans than Democrats. With the Democrats, you more or less have a spectrum that ranges from "mildly socialist" to "very socialist".

Republicans encompass fundie bible thumpers who think we should live under theocratic rule, libertarians people who support things such as abortion rights, isolationists who want to favor American products by imposing tarriffs on imports, global free-trade proponents, etc, etc. The Log Cabin Republicans serve as an example of that variation in ideology.

Astrocloud · 10-23-2003, 08:47 PM

Nice false dichotomy there irseg. Is everything in your world divided into Conservative or Liberal(?)-then I am neither. I am suggesting that "Log Cabin Republicans" are also outside the dichotomy that you suggest. Maybe I'm wrong.

Your straw man "attack" of telling "Liberals" what they think really doesn't wash. Why don't you tell us what you think. Is the official republican position on Gays really legit?

Ustwo · 10-23-2003, 09:31 PM

*Yawn*

I'm an atheist and a Republican, BFD, I base my voting off more then one issue. The fact that Astro thinks the republican party despises homosexuals shows he knows very little about republicans. There are republicans who despise homosexuals, but that does not mean all republicans do.

Unions are big with the democratic party right? Do you think the average dock worker is any less homophobic then some bible belt republican?

Quote:

I would say that any reasonable person could read those statements and conclude that the republican party despises homosexuality.

Any reasonable person would read those statements and assume the republican party in Texas despises homosexuals. Since there are republican reps who are gay (Arizona Rep. Jim Kolbe) obviously not all republicans despise gays.

Oh and here is what someone who obviously despises gays thinks about GWB:

Quote:

He noted the following as evidence that the GOP had adopted a deliberate policy of embracing the gay agenda.

• In 2000 Candidate Bush tried to rid the GOP platform of planks against homosexual marriage, homosexuals in the military, and civil rights protection for homosexuals.
• President Bush kept in place a 1998 Clinton executive order prohibiting discrimination against homosexuals in the Federal workforce and had the military stop expelling homosexuals after the war on terror began.
• The GOP Congress, with White House support, passed legislation extending family health benefits to Washington, D.C. employee’s "partners" and also to grant adoption rights to D.C. homosexual couples.
• President Bush appointed openly homosexual Scott Evertz to head the Office of National AIDS Policy.
• President Bush appointed openly homosexual Michael Guest to be Ambassador to Romania. At Ambassador Guest’s swearing-in ceremony Secretary of State Colin Powell formally recognized Powell’s "partner". Tax dollars now pay for travel and housing of all homosexual "partners" of American diplomats.
• There has been an increase in the funding of homosexual propaganda campaigns in the guise of tolerance and health education programs.
• President Bush nominated AIDS-stricken Christian activist Jerry Thacker to the Presidential Advisory Commission on HIV and AIDS. Mr. Thacker and his daughter got AIDS from his wife who got it from a blood transfusion. On hearing that Mr. Thacker had referred to AIDS as a "gay plague" the White House chastised him for his views and Mr. Thacker withdrew his name from consideration.

Clymer added that "the record of the Republican elites’ sympathy for the radical homosexual agenda is too long and consistent to be anything but intentional and systematic."

"Conservatives of conscience can no longer empower that elite," Clymer said, "Instead of staying home on Election Day they can support the Constitution Party and its 100% pro-life, pro-family, pro-sovereignty, pro-second amendment philosophy."

Yes its obvious the GOP despises gays.

[Edited: Decided not to get a warning on this one

]

HarmlessRabbit · 10-23-2003, 09:56 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ustwo
Any reasonable person would read those statements and assume the republican party in Texas despises homosexuals.

I can accept your conclusion that the republican party in Texas despises homosexuals.

Thanks.

Astrocloud · 01-22-2004, 02:39 PM

In light of recent press releases and Bush's speech -I thought I'd repost here.

Quote:

Log Cabin responds to State of the Union address
A culture war is a recipe for defeat

January 21, 2004

(Washington) - In response to the President's State of the Union address Tuesday night, Log Cabin Republicans warn the President that engaging in a culture war is a recipe for defeat.

"George W. Bush was elected in 2000 by bringing Americans together. State of the Union addresses should be used to unite all Americans around the nation's highest priorities. Americans are threatened by terrorism and job uncertainty - not gay and lesbian families," said Log Cabin executive director Patrick Guerriero.

"Log Cabin Republicans have stood with this President in the war on terror. Log Cabin supports the President on cutting taxes for American families and expanding efforts to combat HIV/AIDS at home and abroad. Log Cabin will not stand by while anyone attempts to write discrimination into the Constitution. It is unnecessary and it cheapens our sacred Constitution," added Guerriero.

In the State of the Union address on Tuesday evening, the President defended the sanctity of marriage then said the Defense of Marriage Act may not go far enough in protecting marriage. The President said, "Activist judges, however, have begun redefining marriage by court order, without regard for the will of the people and their elected representatives. On an issue of such great consequence, the people's voice must be heard. If judges insist on forcing their arbitrary will upon the people, the only alternative left to the people would be the constitutional process."

Log Cabin supports efforts to strengthen marriages and all American families. Denying gay and lesbian families civil protections with a Constitutional amendment weakens those efforts. The Republican Party has always championed family values. Log Cabin reminds our fellow Republicans that if you truly support family values you must value all families.

"The mission of Log Cabin is greater than one President or one issue. Last night's speech shows us how much work remains in our effort to build a more inclusive GOP. To be the majority party, the GOP must be built on a foundation of freedom, fairness and equality---for all Americans," concluded Guerriero.

http://www.lcr.org/press/20040121.asp

seretogis · 01-22-2004, 03:40 PM

I have the seriously question the maturity and intelligence of most people who have posted on this thread so far. Being gay is one small aspect of ones life -- to be attracted to your gender and being fiscally or socially conservative are not mutually exclusive, and one would have to be a complete imbecile to think so. Are you shocked that there are white people in the Democratic party? What makes homosexuals so special that they aren't allowed to think outside of your hastily-drawn box?

This entire thread gets a "

" from me. Most of you are beyond this sort of nonsense, or so I thought.

Astrocloud · 01-22-2004, 04:24 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by seretogis
I have the seriously question the maturity and intelligence of most people who have posted on this thread so far. Being gay is one small aspect of ones life -- to be attracted to your gender and being fiscally or socially conservative are not mutually exclusive, and one would have to be a complete imbecile to think so. Are you shocked that there are white people in the Democratic party? What makes homosexuals so special that they aren't allowed to think outside of your hastily-drawn box?

This entire thread gets a "" from me. Most of you are beyond this sort of nonsense, or so I thought.

I agree that sexual identity is a small thing. However a growing portion of the Republican Party does not. Don't believe me?

http://www.ccofwa.org/newsletters/Is...#Homosexuality

Secondly, as I pointed out -it's not about homosexuals wanting to think outside the box. It's about the box itself rejecting homosexuals for this "small aspect of their life".

I'm not certain how gay republicans are supposed to take back their party. I'm not certain that Log Cabin Republicans are very effective in swaying the views of a sect of extremists that have taken over the Republican party.

Roll your eyes if you want but you haven't addressed this issue.

P.S. You'll have to explain that 'Whites in the Democrats' thing because it really made no sense.

Superbelt · 01-22-2004, 04:29 PM

I'm sorry but being gay is not a small factor in ones life. Especially when being so means your party is actively trying to keep you from gaining the same rights as straight couples. All marriage rights such as getting health benefits and property sharing. That is an enormous part of your life. The Republican platforms also are against gays and lesbians adopting. And being a "single parent" especially hampers that ability.
Raising children is an extremely large aspect of ones life.

I know there are Republicans who are supportive of gay rights, including civil unions and even marriage. But the simple fact is the partys official platform, its national agenda is to deny any kind of union rights to gays and lesbians. The Republican President has even made it a focal point of the 2004 general election through his SOTU to deny rights to them at any cost, up to and including modifying the constitution. That puts the party at absolute odds with its members.

I suppose these log cabin republicans want to feel effective in the national elections. Because the Republican party is not working in their interests. The closest part to their interests is Libertarian.

Ustwo · 01-22-2004, 05:41 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Superbelt I suppose these log cabin republicans want to feel effective in the national elections. Because the Republican party is not working in their interests. The closest part to their interests is Libertarian.

I like Libertarians, and I respect them, but you have to pick out whats important to you. Libertarians are for drug legalization, open borders, and a isolationist foreign policy (in terms of influence), which some people may have a problem with. So just because they have no problem with gay culture, doesn't mean all gays would embrace all aspects of being a Libertarian.

And while many Liberals sees members of the Christian Coalition hiding under their beds, they are not a majority of the republican party in any way. They are needed for votes, just like the democrats need their wackos, but you will be hard pressed to find anyone fitting that description outside of the bible belt, and even there most are quite normal. Also ironically devout Christians are less likely to vote republican then Black/Jewish/Hispanics vote democrat. They are not a monolithic group but divided as well.

Astrocloud · 01-22-2004, 05:55 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ustwo
And while many Liberals sees members of the Christian Coalition hiding under their beds, they are not a majority of the republican party in any way. They are needed for votes, just like the democrats need their wackos

Please name the wackos that you are talking about -and we'll compare their influence on policy.

Sparhawk · 01-22-2004, 06:00 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ustwo
And while many Liberals sees members of the Christian Coalition hiding under their beds, they are not a majority of the republican party in any way. They are needed for votes, just like the democrats need their wackos, but you will be hard pressed to find anyone fitting that description outside of the bible belt, and even there most are quite normal. Also ironically devout Christians are less likely to vote republican then Black/Jewish/Hispanics vote democrat. They are not a monolithic group but divided as well.

My interpretation of his paragraph is he thinks Blacks/Jewish/Hispanics are the Democrats' "wackos". Perhaps he needs to structure it better.

Superbelt · 01-22-2004, 06:03 PM

Quote:

I like Libertarians, and I respect them, but you have to pick out whats important to you. Libertarians are for drug legalization, open borders, and a isolationist foreign policy (in terms of influence), which some people may have a problem with. So just because they have no problem with gay culture, doesn't mean all gays would embrace all aspects of being a Libertarian.

You're right. I suppose, to these particular homosexuals, the rights they want to gain that are opposed by the main party platform are secondary to the other values they see the Republican party championing for them.

And I think that's why the Log Cabin Republicans are such a minor anomoly. Why the Republican party just doesn't get any substantial support from the gay community.

Ustwo · 01-22-2004, 06:59 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Sparhawk
My interpretation of his paragraph is he thinks Blacks/Jewish/Hispanics are the Democrats' "wackos". Perhaps he needs to structure it better.

Yes but since your interpretations are so often wrong, we don't need to really pay attention to it, but thanks for trolling.

Sparhawk · 01-22-2004, 07:04 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ustwo
Yes but since your interpretations are so often wrong, we don't need to really pay attention to it, but thanks for trolling.

Irony, I have named thee Ustwo.

Astrocloud · 01-22-2004, 07:04 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ustwo
Yes but since your interpretations are so often wrong, we don't need to really pay attention to it, but thanks for trolling.

No, you really weren't clear. Sorry, perhaps you should rephrase.

Ustwo · 01-22-2004, 07:11 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Astrocloud
Please name the wackos that you are talking about -and we'll compare their influence on policy.

While there are many wacko groups, envirowackos (greens, Sierra club, green peace (sadly the last two have gone to the wacko side, didn't start that way)), communists, radical feminists, etc, I think only the Greens have a major effect on democrat policy, and maybe the radical fems on some of the more horrific abortion procedures.

Dems take their marching orders from the Unions, NAACP, and tort lawyers, while trying to also maintain the vote plantations they turned the poor into at the expensive of their future. How’s that war on poverty going guys, figure out that handouts are counter productive yet?

matthew330 · 01-22-2004, 08:15 PM

[QUOTE]From the republican party platform:
http://www.rnc.org/GOPInfo/Platform/2000platform4.htm
quote:
_We support the traditional definition of "marriage" as the legal union of one man and one woman, and we believe that federal judges and bureaucrats should not force states to recognize other living arrangements as marriages.__We rely on the home, as did the founders of the American Republic, to instill the virtues that sustain democracy itself.__That belief led Congress to enact the Defense of Marriage Act, which a Republican Department of Justice will energetically defend in the courts.__For the same reason, we do not believe sexual preference should be given special legal protection or standing in law. [QUOTE]

..don't you think it would have been fair to make mention that Bill Clinton signed this act.

Macheath · 01-22-2004, 09:02 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by seretogis
Being gay is one small aspect of ones life -- to be attracted to your gender and being fiscally or socially conservative are not mutually exclusive, and one would have to be a complete imbecile to think so.

I do appreciate what your saying as a general principle, but the whole point of this thread is that there is a group that is making their sexuality, to the extent of giving their group a name, a substantial part of their (political) life.

And why not? It's a healthy thing for a person to stand up to their fellow partisans and say "You don't have the right to twist around the definitions of family values or patriotism or conservatism or liberalism for your own hateful and petty benefit. I'm not going away."

Superbelt · 01-22-2004, 09:24 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ustwo
While there are many wacko groups, envirowackos (greens, Sierra club, green peace (sadly the last two have gone to the wacko side, didn't start that way)), communists, radical feminists, etc, I think only the Greens have a major effect on democrat policy, and maybe the radical fems on some of the more horrific abortion procedures.

Dems take their marching orders from the Unions, NAACP, and tort lawyers, while trying to also maintain the vote plantations they turned the poor into at the expensive of their future. How’s that war on poverty going guys, figure out that handouts are counter productive yet?

You have demonstrated that you have absolutely no grasp on any of these groups, including the democrats.

I'm just wondering what kind of angry responses I would get if I characterized the Republican party as entirely beholden to Racists, rednecks, homophobes, Psychotic, militant Fundamentalist "christians" like Falwell, Bob Jones, and Robertson.

And take their marching orders from Utilities, banking institutions and big business in general. And exploit the poor South for votes at the expense of their future. The south, which is a welfare region as each state takes in tremendously more tax dollars than it pays into the federal government. Hows 30 years of voting republican been doing for the wacky south anyway guys?
Rugged individualism is alive and kicking down there ain't it?

Astrocloud · 01-22-2004, 09:27 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ustwo
While there are many wacko groups, envirowackos (greens, Sierra club, green peace (sadly the last two have gone to the wacko side, didn't start that way)), communists, radical feminists, etc, I think only the Greens have a major effect on democrat policy, and maybe the radical fems on some of the more horrific abortion procedures.

Okay, this is very strange that you've named at least two groups which are not affilliated with Democrats at all. The "greens" have their own party and excuse me "communists" -you've got to be kidding. The communists are not affiliated with the Democratic party in your worst fantasies made real.

I'm honestly suprised that I'm entertaining your thoughts at all. Could you please raise the level of intelligent discourse? The quality is just not here.

Remember your original statement was how the Christian Coalition were a bunch of "wackos" used by the Republican party for their votes. You said that the Democratic party had their wackos too.

It seems that this could easily diverge into a whole other thread. Why not create a seperate thread about the "radical fems" and other special interests of Democrats?

Quote:

Originally posted by Ustwo

Dems take their marching orders from the Unions, NAACP, and tort lawyers, while trying to also maintain the vote plantations they turned the poor into at the expensive of their future. How’s that war on poverty going guys, figure out that handouts are counter productive yet?

This statement is far more intelligible than your previous statement. It still dwells on the incomprehensible but it's shows you're trying. It is doubtful that the biggest Union has half the political influence of the Christian Coalition.

The Christian Coalition still has a stranglehold on the Republican Party unlike any Union has on the Democratic Party. It doesn't matter that their views are far different from the average human being's. The Republican Party's agenda is unduly influenced -so much that even though "not all Republicans despise homosexuals" -the party line does despise homosexuals.

Lebell · 01-22-2004, 11:19 PM

Back on track or it's time to lock this thread.

Zeld2.0 · 01-23-2004, 01:25 AM

Talk about thread deterioration

10-23-2003, 02:34 PM	#2 (permalink)
lurkette My future is coming on Moderator Emeritus Location: east of the sun and west of the moon	Even though I think they're wacko for exactly the reasons you state, I applaud their courage for trying to change the party from the inside rather than just defecting. Aside from this one issue - which happens to be pretty central to their identities - they have Republican values on other issues, and shouldn't be marginalized by the party just because they happen to be gay. If the Republican party wants to shoot themselves in the foot and push these folks out by clinging to their ideological standpoint, I'm sure the Libertarians or Independents would be happy to have some sitting members of Congress switch their affiliation. __________________ "If ten million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing." - Anatole France

10-23-2003, 02:51 PM	#3 (permalink)
mml Adrift Location: Wandering in the Desert of Life	It is a really difficult situation. These guys(and gals?) have stong political opinions and are staunch Republicans except that they are gay. My assumption is that while they dislike that part of the Republican Platform they find the bulk of it to be to their liking. They are not letting themselves become bogged down with one issue, they are looking at the big picture and hope that over time they can educate and sway their party on the issue of homosexuality. __________________ Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so." -Douglas Adams

10-23-2003, 03:57 PM	#4 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	Its very unfair of you to say that all republicans despise them. Sure you have the extreme's that do hate them, but what about people like me? I'm Republican, I DON'T AGREE with the life style choice, but I don't hate people on that basis. There is no rule written or otherwise that says you have to respect and welcome the lifestyle, just treat said homosexuals with respect and as human beings. This to me sounds alot like what happens to Pro-Life democrats... __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

10-23-2003, 05:42 PM	#5 (permalink)
mystmarimatt Omnipotent Ruler Of The Tiny Universe In My Mind Location: Oreegawn	Strangely enough, i'm almost willing to agree with mojo, but i would like to make the point that even if the general consensus isn't a feeling of hatred towards homosexuals, the GOP doesn't exactly do a splendid job of covering up their extreme "disagreement with the lifestyle". Anyway, i may not agree with this group's poltical idealogy, but more power to them if they so able to stick up for their rights and beliefs. that's pretty damn admirable. __________________ Words of Wisdom: If you could really get to know someone and know that they weren't lying to you, then you would know the world was real. Because you could agree on things, you could compare notes. That must be why people get married or make Art. So they'll be able to really know something and not go insane. Last edited by mystmarimatt; 10-23-2003 at 06:24 PM..

10-23-2003, 05:54 PM	#6 (permalink)
onetime2 Junkie Location: NJ	Nothing like characterizing an entire group as "haters". Just as there are shades of liberals there are shades of conservatives. __________________ Strive to be more curious than ignorant.

10-23-2003, 08:35 PM	#9 (permalink)
irseg Junkie Location: Florida	Funny how you liberals always bitch about stereotyping and seeing everything in black and white. Unless it's about Republicans--they're all evil rich white bigots with identical opinions on everything. I'd venture to say that there's more variation among Republicans than Democrats. With the Democrats, you more or less have a spectrum that ranges from "mildly socialist" to "very socialist". Republicans encompass fundie bible thumpers who think we should live under theocratic rule, libertarians people who support things such as abortion rights, isolationists who want to favor American products by imposing tarriffs on imports, global free-trade proponents, etc, etc. The Log Cabin Republicans serve as an example of that variation in ideology.

10-23-2003, 08:47 PM	#10 (permalink)
Astrocloud Apocalypse Nerd	Nice false dichotomy there irseg. Is everything in your world divided into Conservative or Liberal(?)-then I am neither. I am suggesting that "Log Cabin Republicans" are also outside the dichotomy that you suggest. Maybe I'm wrong. Your straw man "attack" of telling "Liberals" what they think really doesn't wash. Why don't you tell us what you think. Is the official republican position on Gays really legit?

01-22-2004, 03:40 PM	#14 (permalink)
seretogis Huggles, sir? Location: Seattle	I have the seriously question the maturity and intelligence of most people who have posted on this thread so far. Being gay is one small aspect of ones life -- to be attracted to your gender and being fiscally or socially conservative are not mutually exclusive, and one would have to be a complete imbecile to think so. Are you shocked that there are white people in the Democratic party? What makes homosexuals so special that they aren't allowed to think outside of your hastily-drawn box? This entire thread gets a "" from me. Most of you are beyond this sort of nonsense, or so I thought. __________________ seretogis - sieg heil perfect little dream the kind that hurts the most, forgot how it feels well almost no one to blame always the same, open my eyes wake up in flames

01-22-2004, 04:29 PM	#16 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	I'm sorry but being gay is not a small factor in ones life. Especially when being so means your party is actively trying to keep you from gaining the same rights as straight couples. All marriage rights such as getting health benefits and property sharing. That is an enormous part of your life. The Republican platforms also are against gays and lesbians adopting. And being a "single parent" especially hampers that ability. Raising children is an extremely large aspect of ones life. I know there are Republicans who are supportive of gay rights, including civil unions and even marriage. But the simple fact is the partys official platform, its national agenda is to deny any kind of union rights to gays and lesbians. The Republican President has even made it a focal point of the 2004 general election through his SOTU to deny rights to them at any cost, up to and including modifying the constitution. That puts the party at absolute odds with its members. I suppose these log cabin republicans want to feel effective in the national elections. Because the Republican party is not working in their interests. The closest part to their interests is Libertarian. Last edited by Superbelt; 01-22-2004 at 04:32 PM..

01-22-2004, 08:15 PM	#25 (permalink)
matthew330 Banned	[QUOTE]From the republican party platform: http://www.rnc.org/GOPInfo/Platform/2000platform4.htm quote: _We support the traditional definition of "marriage" as the legal union of one man and one woman, and we believe that federal judges and bureaucrats should not force states to recognize other living arrangements as marriages.__We rely on the home, as did the founders of the American Republic, to instill the virtues that sustain democracy itself.__That belief led Congress to enact the Defense of Marriage Act, which a Republican Department of Justice will energetically defend in the courts.__For the same reason, we do not believe sexual preference should be given special legal protection or standing in law. [QUOTE] ..don't you think it would have been fair to make mention that Bill Clinton signed this act.

01-22-2004, 11:19 PM	#29 (permalink)
Lebell Cracking the Whip Location: Sexymama's arms...	Back on track or it's time to lock this thread. __________________ "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU! Please Donate!

01-23-2004, 01:25 AM	#30 (permalink)
Zeld2.0 Cherry-pickin' devil's advocate Location: Los Angeles	Talk about thread deterioration