Those God-Damned Conservative Gays and Republicans!

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 05, 2010 12:27 AM GMT
    Based on the attitude of many who post in these forums, Gay people who are conservative and republicans are antagonists to the community regardless of their actions or beliefs in gay rights.

    Because of this logic, I conclude that republicans like Ted Olsen and Gay conservatives like Judge Vaughn Walker tarnish this community by being the key proponents in legalizing gay marriage in California.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 05, 2010 12:32 AM GMT
    [quote][cite]

    Based on the attitude of many who post in these forums, Gay people who are not liberal and/or Democrats are antagonists to the community regardless of their actions or beliefs in gay rights.[/quote]

    Amendment noted and taken. Thanks for clarifying.
  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    Aug 05, 2010 12:39 AM GMT
    Uh .. uh can't have your cake and eat it too

    Ted Olsen and Judge Vaughn were definitely NOT on the conservative right's side of this argument and you know it
    If you're happy about the outcome? Mazel Tov
    But saying that conservatives by and large didn't try and stop this outcome anyway they could .... you'd be wrong
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 05, 2010 12:40 AM GMT
    In any case. The ideals of freedom, liberty, and Constitutional inclusion are the winners this day, despite any "sour grapes" that others of different mind may be sucking on.

    Can you hear the sucking noise?

    icon_lol.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 05, 2010 12:58 AM GMT
    GQjock said

    Ted Olsen and Judge Vaughn were definitely NOT on the conservative right's side of this argument and you know it
    If you're happy about the outcome? Mazel Tov
    But saying that conservatives by and large didn't try and stop this outcome anyway they could .... you'd be wrong


    You are misunderstanding my argument because you are under the false notion people exist in groups and not as individuals.

    I am arguing that it is false to lay blame and to criticize a group simply because they label themselves as "conservative or Republican." I also argue that isn't false to vilify gay men who claim to call themselves "conservative".

    The people who tried to stop this outcome are not conservatives. They are "individuals against gay marriage." This may statistically include large numbers of individuals who identify as conservatives, but those two groups ARE NOT synonymous. Olsen and Walker prove this by being the key proponents in this early step in nationally legalizing gay marriage.

    There are democrats and conservatives against gay marriage as well as vice versa. It would be wise to understand why this occurs.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 05, 2010 1:36 AM GMT
    VoteRepublican.gif
  • yankeesblazer...

    Posts: 243

    Aug 05, 2010 1:45 AM GMT
    elgringo77 saidBased on the attitude of many who post in these forums, Gay people who are conservative and republicans are antagonists to the community regardless of their actions or beliefs in gay rights.

    Because of this logic, I conclude that republicans like Ted Olsen and Gay conservatives like Judge Vaughn Walker tarnish this community by being the key proponents in legalizing gay marriage in California.


    I really think it's unfair to generalize ALL gay conservatives just based on a few famous ones.

    I am a Republican, and I am also gay. I believe that gay marriage should be legal not based on my emotions or my biases, but based on an opinion grounded in legal thinking.

    A long time ago, the Supreme Court struck down a law that made interracial marriage illegal. The reasonings behind this decision were that because a person cannot choose their race, it is unconstitutional to barr a human being from the right to be married based on something that is beyond their control.

    Now, take this same thinking to the gay realm: because most Supreme Court decisions are based on the precedents set by their peers in the past, any law banning gay marriage is unconstitutional. A person cannot choose their gender at birth, and with the science being irrefutable that a person does not choose their sexual orientation, they cannot choose who they are attracted to. In light of the fact that the "choice" factor in race was the key linchpin to the interracial marriage law being struck down, it has always been my belief that the "choice" factor in both gender and sexual orientation plays the same role in the fight over gay marriage.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 05, 2010 1:49 AM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    GQjock saidUh .. uh can't have your cake and eat it too

    Ted Olsen and Judge Vaughn were definitely NOT on the conservative right's side of this argument and you know it
    If you're happy about the outcome? Mazel Tov
    But saying that conservatives by and large didn't try and stop this outcome anyway they could .... you'd be wrong


    Are there any liberal homophobes?


    In my almost 50 years, I've never met a liberal homophobe.

    I've met VERY MANY conservative homophobes over those same decades.

    What exactly was your point in asking that question?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 05, 2010 2:03 AM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    elgringo77 said
    GQjock said

    Ted Olsen and Judge Vaughn were definitely NOT on the conservative right's side of this argument and you know it
    If you're happy about the outcome? Mazel Tov
    But saying that conservatives by and large didn't try and stop this outcome anyway they could .... you'd be wrong


    You are misunderstanding my argument because you are under the false notion people exist in groups and not as individuals.

    I am arguing that it is false to lay blame and to criticize a group simply because they label themselves as "conservative or Republican." I also argue that isn't false to vilify gay men who claim to call themselves "conservative".

    Thanks for stating the obvious... at least it was obvious to me from your first post.

    Some on here need a little "extra help" in understanding. icon_wink.gif

    Nice Dodge.

    Is it a Viper?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 05, 2010 2:32 AM GMT
    jprichva said
    southbeach1500 said
    Thanks for posting and also identifying yourself as not being a Democrat... very courageous thing to do here in the liberal lion's den.

    Ooh Southy, you so bwave! So unflinching! You are a profit wiffout honor in yer oan cuntry, yes u r! We admirez you SO.

    I can has cheezburger!icon_twisted.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 05, 2010 3:05 AM GMT
    yankeesblazerscowboys said
    elgringo77 saidBased on the attitude of many who post in these forums, Gay people who are conservative and republicans are antagonists to the community regardless of their actions or beliefs in gay rights.

    Because of this logic, I conclude that republicans like Ted Olsen and Gay conservatives like Judge Vaughn Walker tarnish this community by being the key proponents in legalizing gay marriage in California.


    I really think it's unfair to generalize ALL gay conservatives just based on a few famous ones.

    I am a Republican, and I am also gay. I believe that gay marriage should be legal not based on my emotions or my biases, but based on an opinion grounded in legal thinking.

    A long time ago, the Supreme Court struck down a law that made interracial marriage illegal. The reasonings behind this decision were that because a person cannot choose their race, it is unconstitutional to barr a human being from the right to be married based on something that is beyond their control.

    Now, take this same thinking to the gay realm: because most Supreme Court decisions are based on the precedents set by their peers in the past, any law banning gay marriage is unconstitutional. A person cannot choose their gender at birth, and with the science being irrefutable that a person does not choose their sexual orientation, they cannot choose who they are attracted to. In light of the fact that the "choice" factor in race was the key linchpin to the interracial marriage law being struck down, it has always been my belief that the "choice" factor in both gender and sexual orientation plays the same role in the fight over gay marriage.

    You guys are a breath of fresh air. There are many of us with similar viewpoints on RJ, but many do not care to post in the forums because of a very vocal group antagonistic to this viewpoint. In the coming days, several of us are planning to roll out a forum for RJ members with similar viewpoints, not only for discussion, but more importantly to point each other to organizations where we can work to impact the November election.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 05, 2010 3:19 AM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    elgringo77 said
    GQjock said

    Ted Olsen and Judge Vaughn were definitely NOT on the conservative right's side of this argument and you know it
    If you're happy about the outcome? Mazel Tov
    But saying that conservatives by and large didn't try and stop this outcome anyway they could .... you'd be wrong


    You are misunderstanding my argument because you are under the false notion people exist in groups and not as individuals.

    I am arguing that it is false to lay blame and to criticize a group simply because they label themselves as "conservative or Republican." I also argue that isn't false to vilify gay men who claim to call themselves "conservative".

    Thanks for stating the obvious... at least it was obvious to me from your first post.

    Some on here need a little "extra help" in understanding. icon_wink.gif


    Oh dear... where to start with the fuzzy logic. Yes, people are individuals, but they organize themselves in a variety of ways thereby existing in identifiable groups based on political ideology, religious affiliation, whether or not they enjoy fisting, etc.

    You identified yourself as a conservative. Now, there is an American Conservative Party and an ideology. For the most part, both of those are anti-gay. So, if you align yourself with that party or ideology, it's not surprising that you are being vilified, if not for personally being anti-gay than for aligning yourself with those who are.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 05, 2010 3:22 AM GMT
    socalfitness saidYou guys are a breath of fresh air. There are many of us with similar viewpoints on RJ, but many do not care to post in the forums because of a very vocal group antagonistic to this viewpoint. In the coming days, several of us are planning to roll out a forum for RJ members with similar viewpoints, not only for discussion, but more importantly to point each other to organizations where we can work to impact the November election.


    I, too, agree they're a breath of fresh air. They may actually be real people than that one guy - solak, CHRISMA, whatever he's calling himself these days, who creates new profiles with new "identifies" every couple of weeks.

    And I wish you all the best in your efforts to elect people who either believe their God wants to you smote (or at least denied you civil rights), or are willing to use anti-gay sentiment to win elections.

    Enjoy the Christian reeducation camps! icon_lol.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 05, 2010 3:29 AM GMT
    Christian73 said
    socalfitness saidYou guys are a breath of fresh air. There are many of us with similar viewpoints on RJ, but many do not care to post in the forums because of a very vocal group antagonistic to this viewpoint. In the coming days, several of us are planning to roll out a forum for RJ members with similar viewpoints, not only for discussion, but more importantly to point each other to organizations where we can work to impact the November election.


    I, too, agree they're a breath of fresh air. They may actually be real people than that one guy - solak, CHRISMA, whatever he's calling himself these days, who creates new profiles with new "identifies" every couple of weeks.

    And I wish you all the best in your efforts to elect people who either believe their God wants to you smote (or at least denied you civil rights), or are willing to use anti-gay sentiment to win elections.

    Enjoy the Christian reeducation camps! icon_lol.gif

    C'mon Christian - I think we are on the same page regarding social values and rights, and will work towards those goals. But in terms of other aspects of the political landscape, we have very different views of what this country should fundamentally be. I see a country with minimal Government involvement in our everday life. If we don't completely succeed and they do set up sex reorientation processing centers, we'll try to get RJ members and their partners exempt. icon_biggrin.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 05, 2010 3:35 AM GMT
    socalfitness saidC'mon Christian - I think we are on the same page regarding social values and rights, and will work towards those goals. But in terms of other aspects of the political landscape, we have very different views of what this country should fundamentally be. I see a country with minimal Government involvement in our everday life. If we don't completely succeed and they do set up sex reorientation processing centers, we'll try to get RJ members and their partners exempt. icon_biggrin.gif


    I'm sorry but it doesn't work like that. Look at Sharon Angel. She's conservative, wants minimal gov't intervention, etc. But she's also anti-gay and a racist. How can you vote for minimal gov't and against your own civil rights? Look at Sarah Palin, John Bohner, Niki Haley. The list goes on and on. The candidates that are being run in this mid-term are among the most radical in living memory. And those who are not so radical in their positions will step over your gay body to win the election. Remember the 2000, 2002, 2004, and 2006 elections?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 05, 2010 3:43 AM GMT
    Christian73 said...Remember the 2000, 2002, 2004, and 2006 elections?


    Ugh! I was a poll watcher in Broward "Dangling Chad" County, Florida during 2000, 2002, and 2004. It was agonizing to see the theft of the elections going on right in my backyard.

    Let us not forget, lest the neo-cons return again.


    (BTW, "Dangling Chad" is NOT the name of a male exotic dancer)
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 05, 2010 3:47 AM GMT
    Christian73 said
    socalfitness saidC'mon Christian - I think we are on the same page regarding social values and rights, and will work towards those goals. But in terms of other aspects of the political landscape, we have very different views of what this country should fundamentally be. I see a country with minimal Government involvement in our everday life. If we don't completely succeed and they do set up sex reorientation processing centers, we'll try to get RJ members and their partners exempt. icon_biggrin.gif


    I'm sorry but it doesn't work like that. Look at Sharon Angel. She's conservative, wants minimal gov't intervention, etc. But she's also anti-gay and a racist. How can you vote for minimal gov't and against your own civil rights? Look at Sarah Palin, John Bohner, Niki Haley. The list goes on and on. The candidates that are being run in this mid-term are among the most radical in living memory. And those who are not so radical in their positions will step over your gay body to win the election. Remember the 2000, 2002, 2004, and 2006 elections?

    I don't want to give a flip answer; it's a difficult situation. But I think first and foremost, the Obama-Reid-Pelosi influence needs to be stamped out. I am acting on my belief that they are an extremely bad influence for the country, and this is a polite way to describe my opinion of this administration. I realize we could debate that point for hours, but that is my position. I think achieving this objective is not inconsistent with maintaining individual rights, and I'm confident that the more extremist positions regarding gay-rights will not take hold.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 05, 2010 3:59 AM GMT
    socalfitness said
    Christian73 said
    socalfitness saidC'mon Christian - I think we are on the same page regarding social values and rights, and will work towards those goals. But in terms of other aspects of the political landscape, we have very different views of what this country should fundamentally be. I see a country with minimal Government involvement in our everday life. If we don't completely succeed and they do set up sex reorientation processing centers, we'll try to get RJ members and their partners exempt. icon_biggrin.gif


    I'm sorry but it doesn't work like that. Look at Sharon Angel. She's conservative, wants minimal gov't intervention, etc. But she's also anti-gay and a racist. How can you vote for minimal gov't and against your own civil rights? Look at Sarah Palin, John Bohner, Niki Haley. The list goes on and on. The candidates that are being run in this mid-term are among the most radical in living memory. And those who are not so radical in their positions will step over your gay body to win the election. Remember the 2000, 2002, 2004, and 2006 elections?

    I don't want to give a flip answer; it's a difficult situation. But I think first and foremost, the Obama-Reid-Pelosi influence needs to be stamped out. I am acting on my belief that they are an extremely bad influence for the country, and this is a polite way to describe my opinion of this administration. I realize we could debate that point for hours, but that is my position. I think achieving this objective is not inconsistent with maintaining individual rights, and I'm confident that the more extremist positions regarding gay-rights will not take hold.


    So, in a nutshell, you're putting your economic interests ahead of the civil rights of your brethren? Money just isn't that important to me.

    What's unfortunate is that most of what Obama-Reid-Pelosi get attacked for on the Right is largely untrue.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 05, 2010 4:00 AM GMT
    socalfitness said
    Christian73 said
    socalfitness saidC'mon Christian - I think we are on the same page regarding social values and rights, and will work towards those goals. But in terms of other aspects of the political landscape, we have very different views of what this country should fundamentally be. I see a country with minimal Government involvement in our everday life. If we don't completely succeed and they do set up sex reorientation processing centers, we'll try to get RJ members and their partners exempt. icon_biggrin.gif


    I'm sorry but it doesn't work like that. Look at Sharon Angel. She's conservative, wants minimal gov't intervention, etc. But she's also anti-gay and a racist. How can you vote for minimal gov't and against your own civil rights? Look at Sarah Palin, John Bohner, Niki Haley. The list goes on and on. The candidates that are being run in this mid-term are among the most radical in living memory. And those who are not so radical in their positions will step over your gay body to win the election. Remember the 2000, 2002, 2004, and 2006 elections?

    I don't want to give a flip answer; it's a difficult situation. But I think first and foremost, the Obama-Reid-Pelosi influence needs to be stamped out. I am acting on my belief that they are an extremely bad influence for the country, and this is a polite way to describe my opinion of this administration. I realize we could debate that point for hours, but that is my position. I think achieving this objective is not inconsistent with maintaining individual rights, and I'm confident that the more extremist positions regarding gay-rights will not take hold.




    It's amazing that someone who is such a hardened right-wing Republican as you could possibly be so totally out of touch with what your party stands for - and WHO your party look out for and cares about.

    Here's a hint - it AIN'T YOU.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 05, 2010 4:10 AM GMT
    elgringo77 saidBased on the attitude of many who post in these forums, Gay people who are conservative and republicans are antagonists to the community regardless of their actions or beliefs in gay rights.

    Because of this logic, I conclude that republicans like Ted Olsen and Gay conservatives like Judge Vaughn Walker tarnish this community by being the key proponents in legalizing gay marriage in California.



    It's TOTAL BS to take the actions of a VERY FEW pro-gay Republicans like Olson and Walker (and Schwarznegger as well) and try to spin the BS that they represent the agenda of the Republican party.
    Sadly, they DO NOT.
    And, if you believe that they do - you have your head stuffed somewhere where you're unable to see reality.

    The Republican party sides with the religious right on gay rights.
    NOT with us.

    Just look at how they VOTED in Congress when the repeal of DADT came to a vote.
    234 Democrats voted to repeal DADT.
    5 Republicans voted to repeal DADT.

    THAT is an excellent representation of the amount of support for gay rights that exists in the Republican party.
    The Republican party - including the Teabgger wing of the party - take their marching orders from the religious right haters.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 05, 2010 4:14 AM GMT
    You guys are characterizing the entire Republican Party in terms of the far right. That is not accurate. I think in any case, there are protections for gay rights based on the majority of voters' beliefs, the court system, which we have seen today, and the majority of folks in Congress, even if some with more extreme views are elected.

    My concern about Obama-Reid-Pelosi is not about my economic situation. My lifestyle is not affected by who wins. I like to keep more measured language normally, but I guess I should say it as I believe it: I think they are a cancer on this country, and should via legal means, be diminished. I don't think pursuing this course significantly jeopardizes gay rights in the long run. I realize points, such as what Rick mentions about DADT could be impacted in the short run, but in my view, removing the cancer comes first. (Sorry to be so blunt.) (BTW - not using strong language to incite, but I need to explain the intensity of my opinion to show why I put this before gay rights, though I want to see gay rights protected as well.)
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 05, 2010 4:32 AM GMT
    nope_definitely_cancer_youre_going_to_di
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 05, 2010 4:39 AM GMT
    GAMRican saidnope_definitely_cancer_youre_going_to_di



    Thanks.
    Laughter is sometimes the only way to deal with closed and brainwashed minds spouting nonsense they heard and believed without question.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 05, 2010 4:46 AM GMT
    rickrick91 said
    Thanks.
    Laughter is sometimes the only way to deal with closed and brainwashed minds spouting nonsense they heard and believed without question.


    We can't take anything said here too seriously or we would be all asshurt all the time. icon_biggrin.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 05, 2010 4:49 AM GMT
    GAMRican said
    rickrick91 said
    Thanks.
    Laughter is sometimes the only way to deal with closed and brainwashed minds spouting nonsense they heard and believed without question.


    We can't take anything said here too seriously or we would be all asshurt all the time. icon_biggrin.gif

    Agree about keeping things light. Rick assured me his blood pressure doesn't rise, so hopefully that's the case. Rick some of your points about brainwashed and closed minds might be a self-description. Could it be????? icon_lol.gif BTW, I get news from multiple domestic and international sources.