Comments on: Ruby-Sachs: Revisting gay Republicans

By: Kari

Kari — Tue, 14 Oct 2008 23:35:58 +0000

Ruby-Sachs: Of course anyone of a centre-right, classical liberal or libertarian would not be terribly welcome in the comments here. The gay community is overwhelmingly left-wing and as a result frequently the most outspoken in the community are left-wing themselves.

But you’re not going to get what you want; the notion of fair discussion with people who are not strongly left-wing is disturbing to most people here. Gays who are not obsessed with Obama or left-wing political views are labeled at best self-hating and at worst plants sent by the evil Republicans to troll.

Such is not going to change unless 365gay starts requiring registration for comment posting or something of that nature, which I suspect will never happen.

gwychooch: There is a gay agenda. Changing society such that it is more favorable to homosexuality and tolerant of same-sex sexual expression is a noble, “good” agenda, but it’s still an agenda.

While different LGB people differ on the particulars (e.g. hate crimes laws, discrimination laws, same-sex marriage), the overwhelming consensus is that the status quo is not acceptable and society needs to be changed to some extent.

Ergo, there is a gay agenda, albeit not the organized, sinister, satan-worshipping hedonistic plan the Christian right hypothesizes.

Daniel: Not all in the GOP passionately hate gays. The GOP is not a monolithic entity where everyone believes the same thing about every issue. There is an entire undercurrent people in the GOP who think the GOP has completely forgotten its economic mores and panders far too much to the Christian right, and it’s not just the LCRs that feel that way. (It’s My Party Too PAC, Republican Majority for Choice, Log Cabin Republicans, Main Street Republican Partnership, etc. are all examples.)

They’re hardly the majority, but they’re there, they’re active, and they’re not all gay.

Yes, the Christian right is by and large another faction within the GOP and unfortunately it is a dominant force right now, but it’s just one of several groups, and its days in the spotlight are probably waning.

And to be entirely fair, the budget deficit isn’t a partisan issue. Democrats are just as willing to spend money they don’t have as Republicans are. Unfortunately, politicians are in a position where constituents want new social projects but don’t want to pay more taxes and politicians seldom have the fiber to say that you can’t have one without the other these days.

By: Dan

Dan — Tue, 14 Oct 2008 01:14:04 +0000

What? You’ve never heard of “the agenda”? It all comes from this.
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/pwh/swift1.html

IOW, they (the religious right) are full of sh*t.

By: Daniel

Daniel — Mon, 13 Oct 2008 23:57:57 +0000

My contempt for gay Republicans stems from the fact that the GOP no longer even really champions the fiscal causes that so many gay Republicans claim justifies supporting them. As a party they’ve become obsessed with opposing abortions and gay rights, having unrestricted gun rights and making sure super rich business executives can plunder corporations and then hand the bailout responsibility to the general population. They’re eager to fight wars but can’t explain how they plan to pay for them. They can’t balance a budget to save their lives. So why would any sane gay person support this party given that in addition to all these problems, the GOP passionately hates gays?

By: gwychooch

gwychooch — Mon, 13 Oct 2008 21:50:25 +0000

Sticks and stones, sticks and stones… After hearing and reading the same catch phrases ad nausium, they all begin to lose their intellectual meaning after a time, kind of like saying the word elephant a hundred times as fast as you can. The utterances become gobbledegook. I’ve always wondered what the term “gay agenda” really means, exactly, when it used by right wing Christian fundamentalists and Republican conservatives. Do we gays actually have an agenda? Like wise, I’m confused as to Miss Emma meant to convey when she used the term “Republican point of view.” If so, would someone please explain it to me in simple terms that I can respectfully understand. It seems to me that if anyone has an “AGENDA” its the Republicans. And, as I hear it, it is appearently non-negotiable. Queers have no legal or constitutional rights: not now, not ever, no how. How can gay Republicans justify their allinances with a group that wishes they didn’t exist. It baffles the senses.