Wyoming GOP exhibits the expected homophobia.

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

    Jan 25, 2011 11:18 PM GMT
    Socal? Mock?

    http://legisweb.state.wy.us/2011/Digest/HB0074.htm

    Note: All 10 Democrats voted against this measure.

    Seriously...do your moral compasses need demagnetizing? Cuz if you can STILL support the GOP after all this shit, some sort of treatment is surely in order.

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

    Jan 25, 2011 11:23 PM GMT
    I'm going to reiterate what I said on a similar thread, because noone really had any constructive ideas:

    given that the immediate moves of several new Republican politicians has been to institute anti-gay measures [here in Ohio, for example, Kasich did not renew the anti-discrimination provision], what sort of conversations could we have with our representatives that might make them change their mind.

    I really think that gay Republicans could have a really positive role here. Being, as they are, donors and participants in the party process one imagines their voice might at least be heard with the politicians concerned.

    I recognize that many of the politicians concerned, such measures are a quick way to identify to their base that they are "sufficiently conservative". This I understand, but it doesn't really help me very much. Or indeed any of us!

    What do you think? What do you Republican gays intend to do/have already done? What could those of us of other political philosophies to engage these politicians?

    I don't want to emulate others in attempting to restrict speech, but it would be nice if we could all have a mutually respectful conversation. :-)

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

    Jan 25, 2011 11:34 PM GMT
    This should be an interesting thread (if people respect the question). That is all I have to say since he specifically asked Republican gays, and not being one , it would be rude of me to say more. I understood and will respect the question and just read the answers. Maybe others will see how that works and follow suit.

    I will be very interested though to read their responses of the ones who were asked.
    icon_biggrin.gif



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

    Jan 25, 2011 11:54 PM GMT
    I'm sorry, if they won't even listen to the LCR (or listened in December but act as if they didn't in January), or attend major conferences if GOProud was in it, why would they listen to gay Republicans or libertarians?
    No election is upcoming for another 2 years, so don't tell me their pockets will listen now.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 26, 2011 1:28 AM GMT
    UpperCanadian saidThis should be an interesting thread (if people respect the question). That is all I have to say since he specifically asked Republican gays, and not being one , it would be rude of me to say more. I understood and will respect the question and just read the answers. Maybe others will see how that works and follow suit.

    I will be very interested though to read their responses of the ones who were asked.
    icon_biggrin.gif


    Oh no, please feel very free indeed to chime in! I love hearing everyone's opinions, and I'm certain everyone has something to contribute: things that have worked to bring politicians of any side on board, etc; experiences working with people unsympathetic to gay rights; arguments that have/haven't worked.

    I by no means intended to make an exclusive invitation, merely an olive branch so to speak.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 26, 2011 1:29 AM GMT
    I actually wrote a blog post before the Obama v McCain election that seems so terribly appropriate now:

    An interesting point made by Republican supporters about Democrats is that “you’re never going to vote for John McCain anyway, so why should he care what you think?” This challenges those of us who are inclined to consider carefully our endorsement to coherently answer the (admittedly weaker) question Under what circumstances might I vote for a Republican presidential candidate?

    If we are to be persuaded to vote for Mr McCain, or some future Republican candidate, we would naturally wish to be assured that they had a 'reasonable' stance on LGBT issues. A seemingly universal, and perennial, admission by LGBT Republicans is the judgement that LGBT rights issues are subservient to other issues, be they the war or the economy or whatever. We ought to question, then, presupposing that he is not a homophobe, whether Mr McCain is doing all he can within the confines of Republican ideology to support these issues, or if he is not, that there is an overriding justification for this.

    In this spirit, allow me to propose two compromise positions that seem to me to be consistent with Republican values (by which I mean conservative and broadly libertarian values):

    First, since there is excellent bipartisan evidence that DADT is harming the effectiveness of the military and its ability to recruit and train LGBT personnel, it would seem to be entirely consistent with McCain’s emphasis of military effectiveness to repeal DADT.

    Second, on the subject of LGBT marriage, any number of compromises might be possible even within the Republican ticket: for instance, recognizing that the realities of California and Idaho (for example) are rather different, it would be consistent with the principles of small government and state supremacy to endorse the states’ right to decide for themselves; alternatively, recognizing that objections to LGBT marriage are may be recast as religious objections to the nomenclature, he might propose a federal definition of civil partnership and propose marriage as an (excluded to LGBT people) special case of this. Such compromise positions are intellectually problematic – they continue to discriminate even as they acknowledge the existence of value in LGBT relationships – but if indeed other issues are more pressing then such a compromise might well be acceptable.

    In point of fact, if the various other issues are indeed so pressing, then any sort of statement that McCain acknowledges the contribution of LGBT people to society but that the time is not appropriate might well be persuasive. Tellingly, however, no such statement, nor either of the above suggestions, is a part of the McCain platform.

    In fact the strongest argument that Mr Mcain is not a homophobe would appear to be that his Campaign Chief of Staff is, so it is alleged, openly gay. The fallacy of this argument ought to be manifest, but in case it is not, allow me to explain: my boss is a homophobe, and he is nonetheless content to employ me (an openly gay man). Somewhat conveniently, and rather unfortunately for me, I am a demonstration of this logical fallacy.

    So why then are proposals like these, that are perfectly compatible with Republican views, not on a Republican platform that advertises itself as being “for change”? In order to explain this, I introduce a scientific (i.e. falsifiable) hypothesis:

    NO LGBT issue will EVER be on a Republican Presidential ticket UNLESS and UNTIL LGBT Republicans are able to VISIBLY clinch an election for the Republican platform.

    This claim is made from the experiences of many minority groups within many democracies and draws upon a common phenomenon: political access will change precisely nothing without political power. This was true for the Clinton administration, where despite LGBT people having considerable influence in setting policy, the lack of a grassroots LGBT movement meant that there was no political power to achieve that administrations goal of opening up the military. To take a second example, contemplate why, for that matter, did Boris Johnson (the Mayor of London) – a conservative – attend London Pride?

    The ramification for Gay Republicans of this principle is this: you shall forever be repeating the mantra “there are more important issues” until you are able to use your voice specifically as LGBT Republicans to elect candidates. Having LGBT people within the Republican party will never be enough to bring LGBT issues onto the Republican ticket in any form beneficial for LGBT people. If you really do disagree with the Democrats, and if you’re not prepared to defer your freedom perpetually, then you must build your own political power.

    Of course, the LGBT Democrats are a lot further along this road and there is a useful corollary for the Obama campaign: this will be a close election. If LGBT freedom is to be a concern of an Obama administration, it is essential that the LGBT Democrat vote is there and vocal in the swing states. Neither "I don't do politics" nor "I preferred Hilary" nor "I'm still deciding" is enough: this election is a unique opportunity to build considerable power for LGBT reform. We must not waste it.

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

    Jan 26, 2011 1:31 AM GMT
    What did you expect from a GOP constituency made up of nothing but "horse's asses"?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 26, 2011 2:22 AM GMT
    You will get no right-wing RJers to comment because to do so would mean finally admitting that the Tea Party is an AstroTurf group populated primarily by the same anti-gay religious nuts that supported the Bush regime. icon_rolleyes.gif
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19119

    Jan 26, 2011 2:55 AM GMT
    TigerTim said

    What do you think? What do you Republican gays intend to do/have already done? What could those of us of other political philosophies to engage these politicians?



    Tim, this is like the 3rd or 4th thread I think I have seen you post this question, but without any of your own infinite wisdom, ideas, or suggestions to lead it off. How about you start? icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 26, 2011 2:58 AM GMT
    TigerTimIf you really do disagree with the Democrats, and if you’re not prepared to defer your freedom perpetually, then you must build your own political power.


    Run for Congress, or better yet, out some of the Republicans in power now. icon_lol.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 26, 2011 3:18 AM GMT
    Well, let's see -- since the 2010 Republican election victories, we have seen a flood of anti-gay bills from Republicans now in power. Anti-gay bills submitted ahead of any of the economic and tax remedies on which the Republicans & Teabaggers were campaigning, and about which their supporters on RJ were trying to deceive us.

    Those of us who predicted such an outcome before the election, such as myself, were branded by US right-wingers here as "paranoid" and "delusional." Now that this has come to pass, may I have my apology, please?

    And could someone also please explain to me how anyone here, any gay man, could still support Republicans? Their first priority, as they have shown us themselves by these actions, is to attack gays. Not fix the alleged problems on which they dubiously campaigned, but attack gays. In State after State we see this. Can anyone identify a single PRO-gay initiative from a Republican?

    Yah know, when we're being beat up by these guys, you have to wonder about the members here who cheer them, support them and defend them. Now what should we conclude from that?
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19119

    Jan 26, 2011 3:28 AM GMT
    Art_Deco saidW
    Those of us who predicted such an outcome before the election, such as myself, were branded by US right-wingers here as "paranoid" and "delusional." Now that this has come to pass, may I have my apology, please?


    In a word --- NO! icon_rolleyes.gif

    These things haven't "come to pass" they have merely been bills that have been introduced. You can't preach your pill of "Doom & Gloom" and expect all of us to swallow it. Not gonna happen. Realistically, homophobia and bigotry in the world cannot be wiped away with a magic wand in an instant. We are making progress, albeit slowly, but surely. Try to look at the glass as half full --- and getting fuller.
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19119

    Jan 26, 2011 3:39 AM GMT
    Art_Deco said
    And could someone also please explain to me how anyone here, any gay man, could still support Republicans?


    In a word --- NO!

    You only want to hear what you want to hear. You can't comprehend that gays who lean more Republican can see beyond the tip of their gay nose.


    Art_Deco said

    Their first priority, as they have shown us themselves by these actions, is to attack gays.


    The sky is falling, The sky is falling. Arm yourselves --- those meanie Republicans are coming to get us!!!! icon_rolleyes.gif

    Art_Deco said

    Yah know, when we're being beat up by these guys, you have to wonder about the members here who cheer them, support them and defend them. Now what should we conclude from that?


    Personally, I couldn't give a rat's ass what you conclude from it. I don't see a single member here "cheering the Republicans" who you feel are "beating us up"
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 26, 2011 3:49 AM GMT
    CuriousJockAZ said
    Art_Deco saidW
    Those of us who predicted such an outcome before the election, such as myself, were branded by US right-wingers here as "paranoid" and "delusional." Now that this has come to pass, may I have my apology, please?

    In a word --- NO! icon_rolleyes.gif

    These things haven't "come to pass" they have merely been bills that have been introduced.

    The "come to pass" was exactly that: Republicans would make these attempts if they got into office. And some will be successful, because they have the votes. And when they do become law, will you return to this topic and admit your mistake? Somehow I doubt it.

    But why should precious legislative time even be spent on anti-gay initiatives, when there is important work to be done to repair the economy, on which Republican & Teabaggers campaigned & won? You haven't answered that question. Please explain WHY it's OK to make the first legislative priority a spate of anti-gay actions? Whether they pass or not is secondary to my question. Please explain this decision by the Republicans.
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19119

    Jan 26, 2011 4:00 AM GMT
    Art_Deco said
    The "come to pass" was exactly that: Republicans would make these attempts if they got into office. And some will be successful, because they have the votes. And when they do become law, will you return to this topic and admit your mistake? Somehow I doubt it.


    Of course I will. Will you admit your paranoia should your "Doom & Gloom" prove to be unfounded?


    Art_Deco said

    But why should precious legislative time even be spent on anti-gay initiatives, when there is important work to be done to repair the economy, on which Republican & Teabaggers campaigned & won? You haven't answered that question. Please explain WHY it's OK to make the first legislative priority a spate of anti-gay actions? Whether they pass or not is secondary to my question. Please explain this decision by the Republicans.



    Let's see how this plays out first. Introducing a bill, and having it actually voted on are two different things. Having the bill pass, is yet a whole different thing. Sorry, but I will not subscribe to your incessant pessimism.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 26, 2011 4:08 AM GMT
    CuriousJockAZ said
    Art_Deco said
    The "come to pass" was exactly that: Republicans would make these attempts if they got into office. And some will be successful, because they have the votes. And when they do become law, will you return to this topic and admit your mistake? Somehow I doubt it.

    Of course I will. Will you admit your paranoia should your "Doom & Gloom" prove to be unfounded?

    Art_Deco said
    But why should precious legislative time even be spent on anti-gay initiatives, when there is important work to be done to repair the economy, on which Republican & Teabaggers campaigned & won? You haven't answered that question. Please explain WHY it's OK to make the first legislative priority a spate of anti-gay actions? Whether they pass or not is secondary to my question. Please explain this decision by the Republicans.

    Let's see how this plays out first. Introducing a bill, and having it actually voted on are two different things. Having the bill pass, is yet a whole different thing. Sorry, but I will not subscribe to your incessant pessimism.

    That's an evasion. If I'm pessimistic it's because Republicans have done exactly as many of us gays feared, if they got in control: their first priority would be anti-gay, anti-social legislation. And we were right, you were wrong.

    That's not pessimism: that's reality.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 26, 2011 4:16 AM GMT
    CuriousJockAZ said
    TigerTim said

    What do you think? What do you Republican gays intend to do/have already done? What could those of us of other political philosophies to engage these politicians?



    Tim, this is like the 3rd or 4th thread I think I have seen you post this question, but without any of your own infinite wisdom, ideas, or suggestions to lead it off. How about you start? icon_rolleyes.gif


    The point is to reframe the dichotomy, of which we are all a little tired, of Republican v Democrat to a broader question of how we all can engage to combat anti-gay legislation.

    Furthermore, to begin with a prescription would preclude genuine generation of ideas because the frames would already be in place.

    I'm asking the question because I really want an answer.
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19119

    Jan 26, 2011 4:20 AM GMT
    Art_Deco said
    That's an evasion. If I'm pessimistic it's because Republicans have done exactly as many of us gays feared, if they got in control: their first priority would be anti-gay, anti-social legislation. And we were right, you were wrong.

    That's not pessimism: that's reality.



    Nope, your "reality" is your own pessimistic view of a future that is bleak. The future doesn't necessarily have to play out that way. I'm looking at it with a positive attitude. 2 months ago you were saying DADT wouldn't be repealed for a decade. I was singing a different tune. I think I'll stick with my own optimistic vision -- but thanks for sharing icon_wink.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 26, 2011 4:29 AM GMT
    Be careful CJAZ--

    next thing you know---Mr Deco will be attacking your physique and how dare you look so good and show off your slim athletic toned body.

    Why is it ok to be overweight and gay on REALJOCK but it is not ok to be non-Liberal and gay?



    God forbid someone go attacking the overweight people here on RJ---why that would be unheard of!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 26, 2011 4:35 AM GMT
    Of course it's OK to be Conservative; the operative word here is what kind of Conservative. Like the Liberal side, there are good and not-so-good.

    You only have two parties, after all.

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

    Jan 26, 2011 4:38 AM GMT
    deanaane saidWhy is it ok to be overweight and gay on REALJOCK but it is not ok to be non-Liberal and gay?


    Err..... I think it's ok to be non-Liberal and gay!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 26, 2011 4:40 AM GMT
    jprichva said
    deanaane saidBe careful CJAZ--

    next thing you know---Mr Deco will be attacking your physique and how dare you look so good and show off your slim athletic toned body.

    Why is it ok to be overweight and gay on REALJOCK but it is not ok to be non-Liberal and gay?



    God forbid someone go attacking the overweight people here on RJ---why that would be unheard of!

    Very strange analogy. Also a complete non sequitur. And there have been, sadly,. all too many threads attacking the fatties, though none recently. Perhaps the topic isn't brought up any more because the douchebags were publicly embarrassed? (Except that the very qualities that make them douchebags also prevent them from feeling embarrassment: See "Tea Party, The")


    Oh, and the femmes! Don't forget the femmes!

    And the headless!

    And those with no pics at all!

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

    Jan 26, 2011 4:44 AM GMT
    TigerTim said
    jprichva said
    deanaane saidBe careful CJAZ--

    next thing you know---Mr Deco will be attacking your physique and how dare you look so good and show off your slim athletic toned body.

    Why is it ok to be overweight and gay on REALJOCK but it is not ok to be non-Liberal and gay?



    God forbid someone go attacking the overweight people here on RJ---why that would be unheard of!

    Very strange analogy. Also a complete non sequitur. And there have been, sadly,. all too many threads attacking the fatties, though none recently. Perhaps the topic isn't brought up any more because the douchebags were publicly embarrassed? (Except that the very qualities that make them douchebags also prevent them from feeling embarrassment: See "Tea Party, The")


    Oh, and the femmes! Don't forget the femmes!

    And the headless!

    And those with no pics at all!

    Etc.


    Hey! Leave the femmes alone or we'll scratch your eyes out! icon_lol.gif
  • creature

    Posts: 5197

    Jan 26, 2011 5:07 AM GMT
    TigerTim said
    CuriousJockAZ said
    TigerTim said

    What do you think? What do you Republican gays intend to do/have already done? What could those of us of other political philosophies to engage these politicians?



    Tim, this is like the 3rd or 4th thread I think I have seen you post this question, but without any of your own infinite wisdom, ideas, or suggestions to lead it off. How about you start? icon_rolleyes.gif


    The point is to reframe the dichotomy, of which we are all a little tired, of Republican v Democrat to a broader question of how we all can engage to combat anti-gay legislation.

    Furthermore, to begin with a prescription would preclude genuine generation of ideas because the frames would already be in place.

    I'm asking the question because I really want an answer.


    Did CuriousJockAZ avoid answering another question directly? I guess I have to take another shot.
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19119

    Jan 26, 2011 5:14 AM GMT
    creature said
    Did CuriousJockAZ avoid answering another question directly? I guess I have to take another shot.


    Jack Daniels or Jose Cuervo? --- Hiccup icon_lol.gif