Comments on America's Dumbest Gay People
i am ashamed of my people.
Some people are dumb.
When will people learn... you cannot be gay and republican, or black and republican, or poor and republican. You must be white, at LEAST middle class, attend a fundamentalist christian church. You must also renounce evolution, science in general and covertly support at least one white supremacist group. It also helps to be a member of "The Army of God"
/sigh
when will we stop shooting ourselves in the foot.
typical! not supporting gay marriage equals hating homosexuals in your twisted logic. amazing that you can't identify the distinction between these concepts.
Good lord, are you serious?
Someone needs to punch them both in the jaw. How could anyone be so ridiculously inept?
By the way, I knew a gay republican once. I thought he was joking so I laughed loudly in his face. When he reacted with a non-amused stare, I knew that was the end of our friendship.
joerogan: yes it does. If you don't believe gays are worthy of the word marriage, it obviously means you don't think they are equal to straight people. To me, that is hate. How is it not? (not a rhetorical question, I really want to know how one distiguishes hote from superiority)
mighty dr @ #5, not supporting gay marriage equals hating homosexuals. we is all human beans.
@8 - Mike was your comment meant for mighty dr instead of joerogan?
Republicans cannot be gay? I might be in error, but isn't there a group called Log Cabin Republicans which consists of gay Republicans? And don't say these people are self-hating; they aren't.
"By the way, I knew a gay republican once. I thought he was joking so I laughed loudly in his face. When he reacted with a non-amused stare, I knew that was the end of our friendship."
If that's typical of how you treat those with whom you disagree, your "friend" is probably better off without you. By the way, I knew a [pick one: Mormon, Jew, Atheist] once. I thought he was joking so I laughed loudly in his face. When he reacted with a non-amused stare, I knew that was the end of our friendship. The left should stop proclaiming itself a champion of tolerance and diversity. It is objectively not.
Folks on the left are no more tolerant than anyone on the far right as evidenced by the dumb fag @ 7. I'm a conservative and would never ditch a friend over who who they pulled a lever for.
@11 - i think the whole point is that these people are deluded. The Republican "tent" is getting smaller and more exclusive all the time. The more they disillusion the more diverse eliments of their party the weaker and smaller they'll get. Some people are just taking longer to WAKE UP then others. It may be debatable whether thay are self hating (Is Sullivan self hating?), but it's a no brainer that they are deluded about which party more closely represents their interests. The fact that this guy is at all surprised at Romney's position on gay marriage is laughable, and pretty illustrative of how deluded you have to be to be a gay Republican.
"If you don't believe gays are worthy of the word marriage, it obviously means you don't think they are equal to straight people. To me, that is hate. How is it not? "
There are many reasons for opposing same-sex marriage -- not believing that gays are worth of the word is only one. Some people believe that opening up marriage to same-sex couples will eventually lead to lower marriage rates among straights, or to increased infidelity and divorce among straights. Others believe that homosexuality is morally wrong and we should not encourage it as a society by allowing same-sex marriage. Holding these views (which I do not share) does not require hatred, unless you are free to redefine words according to conversational whim. Hatred is not the same as homophobia, moral repugnance, or simply a sincere disagreement based on different life experiences.
What little, if any, is left of the Republican party that I actually liked is gone or proven to have never been there. I had gotten to the point where I didn't see the point in voting since neither group really cared about me beyond the check I write to them or election day. Then W happened. He did more to turn me away (I should say to complete my turning away) than anything in the past had done.
It's the same as a child/spouse relationship with an abusive father/husband. I want them to change so I will stay with them and show them they need to change. Guess what... they never change as long as you stick around.
@12 and 13 - commenter @7 is expressing criticism of someone's opinion. If there is something we CAN judge people on, it is their oppinions. He isn't judging him for being gay, but for being a HYPOCRITE. If you met a black member of the KKK would you in no way hold that against him because you are sooooo tolerant?
"Folks on the left are no more tolerant than anyone on the far right "
Yeah, uh huh, ok. Unfortunatley the ACTIONS of the far right have spoken much more loudly and clearly than your foolish words.
I love that these guys were so candid about their priorities. Righties get a lot of money from all kinds of folks whose materialism trumps other considerations.
"it's a no brainer that they are deluded about which party more closely represents their interests."
For the sake of argument, let's assume that a Republican victory would be worse for gays. Does it follow that gays should not vote Republican? That is, is it always morally correct to vote in one's self interest? Should Cheney vote in ways that maximize his Halliburton profits?
Perhaps gay Republicans believe (correctly or not) that their candidates are better for all Americans, or even for all of humanity. If so, they should not be faulting for voting against gay interests (again, conceding for the sake of argument, that a Republican victory would be a worse outcome for gays).
Romney and Guliani have flip-flopped on LGBT issues. But the leading Democratic candidates do not hold "perfect" views on LGBT views either. If you're an advocate for lefty views, that's fine. Just don't pretend like what you reaaaallly care about are LGBT issues. Because if you did, you'd be looking for ways to influence the Republican party, rather than write them off. They do win elections and we have to deal with whomever they get elected.
@19: cheney can vote however he wants, after all, he, like the rest of us, has only one vote. however, when he uses his position of power to benefit current and/or past companies he is involved with, well, then that is (or should be) a clear violation of the law. i do agree with the concept of your point--for instance, congressional leaders should in theory represent the wishes of their constituency even if that means voting against their personal feelings on an issue, or against the platform of their political party. but then, monkeys could potentially fly out of my ass too. *shrug*
@15: How is finding homosexuality morally wrong any different than hating gays? By finding something morally unacceptable, you're at the very least implicitly saying that only evil people would choose to behave in such a manner, and correct me if I'm wrong, but usually you hate evil people. Moral repugnance and homophobia are both forms of hate, it doesn't require any redefinition of words to show that. As to fearing that gay marriage will somehow impact straight marriage, that notion is completely ridiculous. Studies have already shown that this is not the case, and moreover have refuted claims that it will. Simply disagreeing with an opinion is fine, everyone's entitled to their own opinion, but when you try to force your worldview on others you're going to need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that your way of life is undeniably better than any alternative, and so far the right has failed to do anything but show the opposite.
Granted, the Bush adminisration is the most obnoxious administration in U.S. history. Nevertheless, having gays in both parties makes sense in the long run. Just because you're gay doesn't mean that you have to swallow all leftist objectives when it comes to economics and other policies.
josh @ 9: so if you don't believe with all the choices people make that equates to HATE? get real....
@ #19 yeah the republican's win elections they really did well in that last election didn't they?
Its not a choice Mighty dr...
/sigh
sure it is. but even if I thought it wasn't, there are plenty of other reasons to disagree with granting the benefits of marriage without it constituting HATE.
/sigh back
Let me guess you choose to like girls?
So tell me did you flip a coin or just play Rock Scissors Paper?
@17: The "action" in question here is cutting off a friendship over honest political differences. Feminists in the sixties correctly argued that the personal is political. If you treat people that poorly in your personal life, don't expect many converts.
@18: "I love that these guys were so candid about their priorities. Righties get a lot of money ..."
I see no mention of money here prior to your comment. Republicans have many reasons for believing that their policies are best for the nation and the world. They may be wrong, but to dismiss their views by characterizing them as driven by greed is inaccurate and self-defeating. The Cheney-Halliburton example I offered above was meant to demonstrate that voting in one's self-interest (as gay-friendly lefties here are recommending) is not virtuous in and of itself.
@21: "How is finding homosexuality morally wrong any different than hating gays?"
Can you think of no behavior that you consider to be morally wrong, while not hating the practitioners of it?
I do not think of homophobia as a form of hatred, but as an irrational queasiness that often clouds people's judgment. Some people feel ill while watching horror films; other people love them. Some people experience both emotions. We call them bisexuals :)
To be clear, I'm not arguing the case of gay Republicans here -- only that cutting off a friendship over honest political differences in not something to be proud of, especially for someone who considers themselves especially tolerant.
codybolt: don't think you want to go there. as I stated previously, it's pathetically sad that you turn a disagreement of opinion into hate. doesn't leave a lot of room for ideas other than your own.
@22
That would make you a Libertarian, not a Republican. Being economically/fiscally right-winged and socially left wing would be a contradiction if you were to still say you're a Republican. You're not at that point.
You can say you are all you want, however, your party will not accept you, and most people will think you're a fucking toolbox.
@21: "Simply disagreeing with an opinion is fine, everyone's entitled to their own opinion"
That's the point I'm making here, which is why cutting off a friendship over a difference of opinion is a sign of immaturity -- not something to congratulate yourself over.
Thinking Miranda July is great is an opinion. Thinking that Vietnamese food is over-hyped is an opinion. Giving $3000 to hear Mitt Romney talk in 2007 is an overt act of cultural warfare. Politics isn't a game anymore.
Oh and these two were voting for their self-interest. They just defined money as being more important than their civil rights. That's hardly novel. Marriage would probably cost them money if they filed their taxes jointly (assuming a stereotypical double-income no kids long-term gay couple).
Gay Republicans are not evil. They're just really slow on the uptake. I think that slowness to react to change is a hallmark of conservatism.
The Republican Party, as it increasingly embraces its new Southern White Christianist "base" and abandons its old Western libertarian and Eastern pragmatist roots, is profoundly anti-gay now. Not just anti-gay-marriage, but fire-and-brimstone gays-are-going-to-hell bigoted. I don't think there's any chance to get the party back at this point, at least not until they suffer a series of seriously damaging defeats -- not 2006 bad, but thirty years in the wilderness bad, with no presidents, no congresses, no governors outside the South, no nuthin'. They will not change unless they suffer. And even then, a more likely outcome is a completely different party, one that basically tells Southern white assholes to fuck off. They're a regional party now.
The only place for gay conservatives is the Democratic Party now, as bitter a pill as that is to swallow.
@30, Yes, perhaps. But the fact is that the libertarin party will never be a viable alternative. It's always a throw-away vote. It's either R or D baby.
I don't give a damn what other Repubicans think of me. Gay Republicans, simply by being in the party, help to create an eventual thaw and promote inclusiveness and the moderate Republican candidates (like Rudy) can help foster that. And it's really obnoxious that Dan Savage can't see that.
@35
Dan is only human. I have trouble understanding certain things myself. It can be hard to look outside of your box and understand what you're seeing sometimes; especially when it's something you're (almost) entirely fixed on.
I see your point. I still don't agree with it, but that has more to do with my expressed disdain for partisan politics.
Let's rephrase this...
There are many reasons for opposing Jewish marriage -- not believing that the Jews are worth of the word is only one. Some people believe that opening up marriage to the Jews will eventually lead to lower marriage rates among Christians, or to increased infidelity and divorce among Christians. Others believe that Zionism is morally wrong and we should not encourage it as a society by allowing nisuin. Holding these views (which I do not share) does not require hatred, unless you are free to redefine words according to conversational whim. Hatred is not the same as anti-semitism, moral repugnance, or simply a sincere disagreement based on different life experiences.
Sounds rediculous, doesn't it?
So, PGR @35, how's that "eventual thaw" coming along?
The current Republican party bears little resemblance to the past. The trappings of small government and fiscal conservatism have been all but abandoned in favor of tax giveaways to the wealthy and massive deficit spending and increasing legislation of morality and personal lives. The Republican party has been coopted by the religious right. Your precious Rudy and "straight talking express" "centrist" McCain have been making abrupt hard turns to the right to appeal to the family values crowd.
You may long for reconciliation between gays and the Republican party, but you are delusional. They are moving in exactly the opposite direction. They don't want you, and you have no chance of an "eventual thaw" unless the Republican party completely jettisons the religious right, which right now is their strongest base.
@29 I didn't turn anything into hate your looking at the wrong person I just corrected you since you are under the impression that being gay is a choice which it isn't.
@31 - do you actually believe what you are typing, or just playing Devil's advocate? Is it not a "difference of opinions" that causes any friendship to end? People who hold prejudiced opinions are always crying no fair when people hold it against them.
In the comment at 28 you ask "Can you think of no behavior that you consider to be morally wrong, while not hating the practitioners of it?" the point is that being gay is NOT a "behavior" (like voting republican is). Prejudice against gays is not an objection to their behavior, but an objection to their being.
mighty dr @ #23, 26 & 29: it's hate. i guess i could say it's my opinion that it's hate but i'm real learnt so i'll say i know it is. all told marriage, this country, all countries, it's all bullshit and the only thing that's great is life. also i love you mighty dr and i want to have your internet babies in an expanding hyperplane.
Damn Aexia, i think you nailed it with that simple illustration. thank you.
@37: Yeah, it does, but people people don't ever think of it that way unfortunately.
josh - no thanks, I don't play in your sandbox
At best, gay Republicans are collaborators who’ve sold out their people for some pissant tax cuts. Frak those traitors.
And the Republican Party has become even more paranoid, deranged, hateful and anti-gay over the last 20 years, which is so sick when you realize that many gays work for them behind the scenes. It's all marketing, and they're the homo-bashing party.
They have no positive agenda whatsoever.
mighty dr @ #44: it's everyone's sandbox, asswipe.
but josh, I love you, too - Christ's definition of love, however.
ditto, mighty dr @ #47.
what policies of the GOP are left for Log Cabin-ers to embrace?
"Fiscal Responsibility" is a fuggin JOKE, son. Our foreign policy is based on childish bullying & is being outsmarted by medieval mysogynististic troglodytes. They deride basic science fact as "A Theory". The only thing left is that the GOP hugs your guns tighter than the "Leftists" (thats a fuggin joke, too, son. try "Centrists") in the Democratic Party.
Lefty gays, PLEASE stop fucking Log Cabin gays. Its just encouraging them.
oh, and NO ONE should be married by the state. Civil Unions only. want to get married? ask your religion. then everyone will be unhappy, and it will be fair.
while i think blog conversations are kinda pointless, i'd like to show support for maxsolomon's ideas. i have a simple policy of not fucking republicans.
I can't imagine how these fools could have decided that they wanted to blow $3,000 to see someone speak and they had no damn idea what his views on gays and lesbians are. I mean, something like, "I had no idea that his feelings on lapsing provisions of our fishing treaty with Canada were so different from mine," that's one thing. "I had no idea how the candidate felt about one of the most pressing social issues of the day" is pretty weak. The average stoner I run into knows the GOP hates the gays. Someone who can blow tons of cash should know that as well.
20+ years ago I registered as a republican because I thought at that time there was still room for someone on the liberal end of things within that party. This was prior to the word "liberal" becoming the equivalent to the word asshole in some Republican circles.
I worked for a US Senator who was a Republican but at that time was more "liberal" than the other US Senator (who eventually changed parties anyways). I was a card carrying democrat while working in DC.
The Republican party has drifted to the far right, and when they lose enough votes because of it will drift back more to the center. The nature of the two party system is when one party or the other gets out of control. The republicans have lost their way not only because of pandering to their fringe, but also because they have violated during the past 12 years some of their major economic and taxation tenets.
It was on Clinton's watch that the budget came into balance. It was on Clinton's watch that some progress was made in the arena of gay rights, yet Clinton was the same person who put his signature on the federal DOMA.
I am an ardent Democrat. I see myself staying that way, probably for the remainder of my life. That being said, the "center" of the country is moving in such a direction that benefits the GLBT Community. Republicans may eventually jump on board because of such changes while the fringes on the left and right will continue to push their agendas. It takes generations, but I feel better about where we are politically today than I did 10 years ago.
Aexia @37 and longball @40: If I could change one thing about the left, I would give them the ability to understand that people who disagree with them may be mistaken, but are not necessarily evil. Your view seems to be: either you agree with me (about same-sex marriage, gay Republicans, whatever) or you are complete raving lunatic or worse. Unfortunately, that approach rarely encourages you to attempt to understand the other side's argument -- something you must do if you are to attack it and ultimately persuade anyone of anything. Your position is more about congratulating yourselves than about inquiry, debate or effecting policy change. That's fine, but don't be surprised when the masses of people in the middle ground on these issues -- the people who we desperately need to convince -- aren't interested in being insulted by you.
About the Jewish example @37, I'd want to know why your hypothetical Christians oppose marriage by Jews. Perhaps it's because they hate Jews -- but I can easily imagine other reasons and so can you if you try. My point isn't that their arguments would be correct, but that they could be sincerely mistaken, despite their views not being based on hatred. Not everyone who disagrees with you is a complete idiot or is evil. Realizing that is hallmark of maturity. It is also neccesary if you wish to persuade anyone of anything.
@40: "Is it not a 'difference of opinions' that causes any friendship to end? People who hold prejudiced opinions ...."
You are begging the question here. Whether gay Republicans are necessarily prejudiced is the topic at hand. Prejudice, of course, means to "pre-judge," which is precisely what you are doing with gay Republicans. Do you actually know any? On a practical basis, if you label your entire political opposition as "prejudiced," no wonder you are winning few of them over to your side on election day.
maxolomon @ 49: I doubt you know any gay Republicans. They are already not getting laid in this town just fine without your help.
diversity cop, you're right. i don't know a single republican in seattle, let alone a gay one. i like it this way. i moved out of cincinnati specifically for this reason.
and i'm encouraging other gays to cut you off, not fuck you. show some self-control!
i'd agree with the comments here that encourage liberals to see conservatives as pitifully deluded selfish warmongers, but not as "evil". binary oppositions must be resisted.
maxsolomon @ 54: "and i'm encouraging other gays to cut you off, not fuck you."
I'm gay but not a Republican. Not even a handjob? That would be more than we've gotten from Democratic politicians we write checks to ....
You have to be really really rich, in which case marriage doesn't matter and religion is just a ruse, or severely retarded to be be a Republican.
Man, the next time those two feel like throwing away $3,000 they'd be better off breaking out a pair of zippos and burning $100s.
Diversity Cop: I don't know what your "other reasons" for not allowing Jews to marry are, and I don't want to know them. I can only imagine. The point is, whatever their motivation, hate or otherwise, they are offensive to human decency. And they are explicitly illegal.
#15 "Some people believe that opening up marriage to same-sex couples will eventually lead to ... increased infidelity and divorce among straights."
The only way you could increase infidelity and divorce among straights would be to give us more hours in the day. We haven't exactly kept marriage sacred; why not let everyone have a chance to try?
Call me delusional, slow on the uptake, or whatever. I'm sooooo used to it. Funny how these sophomoric observations come from such "open minded" progressives on Slog. I'd rather be known as delusional than morally bankrupt, in my own eyes at least, and so I advocate the following Republican positions:
oh. so you are rich, and don't believe in a person's right to self-determination.
nice.
@58: "I don't know what your 'other reasons' for not allowing Jews to marry are, and I don't want to know them."
The hypothetical anti-Jew-marriage Christians mentioned above might be concerned that allowing Jews to marry would make being Jewish more attractive and lead to attrition among Christians -- which they understandably see as a bad thing. (No religious people like to see their own numbers decreased.) The point isn't that I support this argument -- I do not -- but that you don't need to assume hatred as a motivation.
As for your "I don't want to know [the reasons]" comment, remaining ignorant about how your opponents think is not a wise move. You have to know what you're up against in order to counteract that.
The anti-Jewish-marriage parallel, by the way, is a poor one here, because Jews have been able to marry for as long as Christians. (Well, longer, but that's not the point.) Marriage between Jews is not something untried and untested. If there were some big, bad consequences of Jewish marriage, everybody (including Christians) would already know about it. People can reasonably wonder what unintended consequences same-sex marriage might lead to. We don't yet have it, so nobody knows for sure.
@59: "The only way you could increase infidelity and divorce among straights would be to give us more hours in the day. We haven't exactly kept marriage sacred; why not let everyone have a chance to try?"
Just because infidelity and divorce have increased in recent decades doesn't mean they can't increase even more. (Shall we add out-of-wedlock births?) I do not think this is a good reason for banning same-sex marriage, but some people sincerely think it is. Open relationships are much more common in gay male couples than in straight couples. Is a straight perso personally necessarily a hater (or "an offence to human decency") if they worry that open marriages might become the norm in their world as well. Now you might not think that would be such a bad thing, but most already-married people do. Again, no appeal to hatred is necessary.
Obviously some people want to think that hatred of gays is the only possible reason for opposing same-sex marriage. Everybody's against hatred, right?, so if it's all hatred, then case closed. This should be understood as a rhetorical, political maneuver - an attempt to shut down debate - nothing more. Politically it's a foolish move, because you lose the opportunity to engage fence sitters.
Look, if it isn't obvious, I'm strongly in favor of same-sex marriage, for both personal and political reasons. I just don't think that putting our heads in the sand about the opposition is a productive strategy for change.
@61: What's rich? 50K, 75K, 100K? And what's so bad about being rich anyway? Can you name me a poor person who employed you?
I'm baffled by your "self-determination" comment when it's the left's disposition that govt. knows better than individuals. You'll have to elaborate.
people used to be afraid that allowing women the right to vote would destroy democracy. people would be against women voting without being afraid of them or even hating them. they felt that women didn't need this right and that it would somehow cheapen a man's vote if a woman could too.
try telling a nearby woman that giving women the vote caused all that is wrong with society today
nbewthls zmpyrbql tahwzji frhqxtvyz tpuhic cvtedbw jgcof
nbewthls zmpyrbql tahwzji frhqxtvyz tpuhic cvtedbw jgcof
dmjev onkvpmwcf drxkgft qnsdckrpu sqcodrnx pumwqx eoszwp http://www.ichzfgarp.fqkrw.com
Classical singer Russell Watson postpones his forthcoming UK tour after undergoing brain surgery...
Classical singer Russell Watson postpones his forthcoming UK tour after undergoing brain surgery...
Comments Closed
In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).