Victory(?)

  • Saurion

    Posts: 29

    Mar 25, 2013 5:04 PM GMT
    I assume this is the right place, this is political.

    First off Im a Republicam *braces for hate mail* but, let me tell you what that means on a few issues; I believe in:

    Marriage equality
    Secularism in government
    Consolidation of government
    Free markets
    Legality of all abortion (but no more planned parenthood as publicly-funded)

    Etc. To me, the stereotype of an intolerant, bible-thumping, homophobe is both disturbinglytrue and contradictory to true American values.

    A good friend of mine conforms--or rather, conformed to this stereotype. After a very long, fairly violent argument, where he finally found out Im gay, I Ifinally got him to see how hypocritical his opposition to marriage equality is. I didnt find out until this morning, because he was avoiding having to apologize and admit he was wrong. (hehehe >=])

    Afterwards, I realized thats happening a lot lately. Prominent Republicans, like Portman, are finally acknowledging marriage is a right for ALL Americans. But then I remember, the establishment GOP is still strong, and those RINOs dominate this side of the political spectrum. But, thinking about my peers, I have some hope that things are changing, and that soon, otherwise worthy potential leaders wont be bogged down because of their stupid and archaic views.

    So, my question is, is this a victory for gay Repubs and gays/bis/trans...es(?) in general, where good things arent suppressed by morons like Ryan or Boehner (oh, that jackass...)? The start of a changing political landscape, where American values are embraced whether politicians like it or not? Or, just me grasping at straws for true moderates?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 25, 2013 7:51 PM GMT
    Saurion said...So, my question is, is this a victory for gay Repubs ...?


    I'm going to regret this, aren't I?

    Did I read that right: marriage for gay people is a political victory for your party because you happen to be gay while being Republican? No, that would be a defeat for the Republicans while being a win for Democrats. You haven't noticed who's been fighting for the long haul on which side?

    Gay Republicans for marriage aren't bringing victory for their side, that's gay Republicans breaking from their party on this single issue. Though you hopefully will get to enjoy the benefits, you don't get to stand at the podium and accept the award for this one. Your participation is accepting defeat for our cause. Claiming marriage for gay people as a Republican victory is called Revisionism. We're glad to have you party along--life's a banquet--but you're buying the drinks. We already paid for that hall.

    Even if we win and bring you along for this good ride, this won't be changing the politcal landscape. Conservatives will continue to lean towards maintaining the status quo and Liberals will continue to seek progressive policy. And I'm not saying that one is necessarily better than the other even if I might think one is probably a little better than the other. But I will say that I believe the conversation is important.

    We don't want to be stuck in the past with obsolete ideas and you don't always want to move forward too quickly into unknown territory. But if you think that some generation of wackos is dying out and that they won't be replaced by a whole new generation of wackos, you might want to reconsider your party affiliation. I need just three more recruits and I win a toaster oven.
  • Saurion

    Posts: 29

    Mar 25, 2013 11:48 PM GMT
    Well, a major catalyst in the repeal of DADT was Log Cabin Republicans v. United States of America; probably one of the most important actions. Not that you mentioned that, but they were the ones to really get that going, although the left has no problem forgetting that.

    Not that you specifically mentioned that, but that little fact largely addresses the overall theme of your pos.

    Also, why would you regret it? You just assume I'm some redneck nut job whose gonna "y'all hate 'Merica an' baby Jesus n' sich?" no, I intended for a civil discussion.

    And to answer your second question, no, you did not read that right. That was meant to be a "wow, are we finally making progress in moving these people away from their weird, twisted views, which will then expedite the process of achieving marriage equality?" Not for a party, but let's be honest, who really stands in the way of marriage equality at the state and federal levels? Republicans. Won't have it. So, if the LCR and the like can change their views from the inside, doesn't that have a rollover effect. I never mentioned a party, at least not the way you're describing. I mentioned a particular group of people within a party.

    Furthermore, you're making an awfully bold assumption, unsubstantiated, and unsupported with either anecdotal or empirical evidence about the future of right-wing parties/organizations. I highly doubt you've been to any event where you could actually get a feel for that (please, correct me if Im wrong). I have, and I can tell you there is increasingly more acceptance--or at least, indifference--among future leaders of those right groups.

    Furthermore, you cannot make the broad claim republicans/conservatives maintain the status quo--no more than liberals. A TRUE republican actually believes in reducing the size of government. RINOs like Romney, Ryan, etc. and many in the legislature use the government to get their way. And liberals don't? Maintaining the status quo involves using supremacy, and authority to control people. That's called government. And BOTH sides use that to get their way, but one side much more than others--i.e., all the supporters of Rand Paul's budget have an "R" after their name.

    I tried to address key points and themes from your post, I do hope this comes across logical and organized.

    Basically, your argument was based on a misunderstanding of what I was saying, hopefully I articulated it better. And if I came across as anything but civil and respectful, I apologize. Really, I'm not being sarcastic when I say that.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 26, 2013 12:41 AM GMT
    I understand that marriage for gay people is just as important for gay Republicans as it is for gay Democrats. I never said the gay movement had no support from gay people in the Republican party. I indicated simply that support for marriage for gay people within the Republican party runs counter the Republican party platform and that therefore a win now for marriage for gay people is not a victory for the Republican party per the title and what seems the gist of your thread.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 26, 2013 12:57 AM GMT
    The OP is delusional. Neither DADT repeal (which happened outside of the Courts) nor marriage equality has anything to do with gay Republicans. If anything, by kow towing to the religious nuts in your party, you probably held us back.;

    It should also be noted that LGBT rights will not be over if/when we win marriage. icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Saurion

    Posts: 29

    Mar 26, 2013 1:53 AM GMT
    It's funny, because you make these unsubstantiated blanket statements.

    How many libs/democrats support mandatory min sentences and are against legalization of pot.

    Also, what do you call Rand Paul's budget? And the fact that all it's supporters are republicans?

    I'm not going to argue reproductive rights because although I support abortion rights (which is what you mean), the fact that I don't think people should be paying for women's birth control, healthcare, etc. just means I'll just keep being accused of trying to control women's body because Zi believe people are on their own.

    Furthermore, on the list of infringement of freedoms, the left's list is just as nearly endless.
  • Saurion

    Posts: 29

    Mar 26, 2013 2:03 AM GMT
    Christian73 saidThe OP is delusional. Neither DADT repeal (which happened outside of the Courts) nor marriage equality has anything to do with gay Republicans. If anything, by kow towing to the religious nuts in your party, you probably held us back.;

    It should also be noted that LGBT rights will not be over if/when we win marriage. icon_rolleyes.gif


    Ya know, I was trying to be civil, but I'm delusional? Fuck you! Get your fucking facts straight before you insult me motherfucker.

    LCR v. USA led to an injunction prohibiting enforcement of DADT. After the DOJ appealed and was granted a stay of the injunction, Obama got involved, leading to the repeal. Never would have happened without them. Something so conveniently left out by schmucks like you.

    Furthermore, don't accuse me of kowtowing to religious nuts, you fuck, because I don't, and neither do other gay repubs. I tell religious theocratic repubs that they can shove their religion up their asses, the same place you can shove your rudeness and condescension.

    You wanna go toe-to-toe with me, you're entering a battle of brains and wit unarmed. Above you, theantijock--that's how you have a discussion, that's decorum. That's why he'll get treated with respect.

  • Saurion

    Posts: 29

    Mar 26, 2013 2:08 AM GMT
    theantijock saidI understand that marriage for gay people is just as important for gay Republicans as it is for gay Democrats. I never said the gay movement had no support from gay people in the Republican party. I indicated simply that support for marriage for gay people within the Republican party runs counter the Republican party platform and that therefore a win now for marriage for gay people is not a victory for the Republican party per the title and what seems the gist of your thread.


    I was not referring to victory for the Republican party, because there will still be retards taking up precious oxygen to breath while spewing their BS. I meant a victory for gay republicans for achieving goals, winning enough of them over to end the bs, and remove the main roadblock to equality. Which, again, benefits all gay people, bi, trans, etc.

    Succinctly put, I never claimed this to be a victory for republicans, unless they truly believe in freedom and equality, but not for the "party."
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 26, 2013 2:59 AM GMT
    I wonder how the $1.4 trillion in Iraq and Afghanistan wars started by Bush was fiscally responsible, or the Bush tax cuts for the rich that most economists warned against and put us further trillions in debt. Not to mention all the big government conservative programs like the War on Drugs, Patriot Act, Guantanamo Bay, US bases overextended all over the world. Corporations also receive tax breaks and some corporations pay basically nothing. Sure some Democrats do support these things, but they are supported overwhelmingly by Republicans. I'd say fiscally responsible is spending on responsible services and programs that benefit the people and not on wars, and also not making this a government that tries to serve the greed of the rich and keep them from contributing like working class Americans are contributing. If we spent less on war, then we would have more for the programs that need to be funded. So they can call themselves fiscally conservative, but I think the true "fiscally responsible" are progressives (which isn't a synonym for Democrat, as not all Democrats are progressive).
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 26, 2013 3:17 AM GMT
    Saurion said
    theantijock saidI understand that marriage for gay people is just as important for gay Republicans as it is for gay Democrats. I never said the gay movement had no support from gay people in the Republican party. I indicated simply that support for marriage for gay people within the Republican party runs counter the Republican party platform and that therefore a win now for marriage for gay people is not a victory for the Republican party per the title and what seems the gist of your thread.


    I was not referring to victory for the Republican party, because there will still be retards taking up precious oxygen to breath while spewing their BS. I meant a victory for gay republicans for achieving goals, winning enough of them over to end the bs, and remove the main roadblock to equality. Which, again, benefits all gay people, bi, trans, etc.

    Succinctly put, I never claimed this to be a victory for republicans, unless they truly believe in freedom and equality, but not for the "party."


    Again, the question you originally posed and the one I addressed was "So, my question is, is this a victory for gay Repubs and gays/bis/trans...es(?) in general" but now you seem to be saying that your question is not about politics but about orientation only in which case I would like to believe that our entire gay community regardless of political affiliations would benefit by gaining our human rights, of course.

    If you were speaking politics, which seems to me woven in this thread a tad, I don't know but kind of doubt your party enjoys clear claim to achieving goals even with the DADT suit (which did not originate the conversation on that by the way, though not to take away from any credit due, but that was sort of an earlier murder) because as Christian noted you can't take as much credit as you might have otherwise had you not simultaneously empowered the religious right to wrong us and hadn't so many of you guys come to the party pretty late in the game. This fight did not begin in 2004 with the Log Cabin. It's been a fight since before I was in high school when we were still considered a personality disorder.

    That gay Republicans didn't jump that plank of their ship until 30 years later might not be very brag-worthy. But glad to have you aboard the good ship Lollypop. I'm fixing cocktails for everyone and Christian over there has made you some lovely finger sammiches. We hope to be weighing anchor and setting sail shortly. I hope the journey through your gay life finds calmer seas than did mine. But note that we are not giving up the ship. As Christian rightfully notes, there will still be hazardous obstructions in the seaways. Eternal vigilance; you're welcome to take a watch but we're still gonna keep an eye on ya.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 26, 2013 3:31 AM GMT
    Saurion said
    Christian73 saidThe OP is delusional. Neither DADT repeal (which happened outside of the Courts) nor marriage equality has anything to do with gay Republicans. If anything, by kow towing to the religious nuts in your party, you probably held us back.;

    It should also be noted that LGBT rights will not be over if/when we win marriage. icon_rolleyes.gif


    Ya know, I was trying to be civil, but I'm delusional? Fuck you! Get your fucking facts straight before you insult me motherfucker.

    LCR v. USA led to an injunction prohibiting enforcement of DADT. After the DOJ appealed and was granted a stay of the injunction, Obama got involved, leading to the repeal. Never would have happened without them. Something so conveniently left out by schmucks like you.

    Furthermore, don't accuse me of kowtowing to religious nuts, you fuck, because I don't, and neither do other gay repubs. I tell religious theocratic repubs that they can shove their religion up their asses, the same place you can shove your rudeness and condescension.

    You wanna go toe-to-toe with me, you're entering a battle of brains and wit unarmed. Above you, theantijock--that's how you have a discussion, that's decorum. That's why he'll get treated with respect.



    Don't take your self-hatred out on me.

    Obama promised to repeal DADT in the campaign. It was always going to happen. So bone up on your political history outside the right-wing bubble.

    In point of fact, by supporting the GOP you are - by definition - kow towing to the lunatic fringe that runs that party. You can ramble all you want about your giving theocrats "what for" but the proof is in policy and the GOP had every religious zealot out in full force this weekend saying how the gays are bad for kids and we fuck dogs. So at least admit who you're in bed with.

    Lastly, any Rand Paul supporter challenging me to a battle of wits has already come to the ring unarmed. His budget? Are you fucking kidding me? He couldn't get even Republicans to vote for it. Only 17 of the most right-wing fascist assholes put their names to that budget.

    Not to mention that he frequently makes up entire "news" events out of whole clothe.

    Here's hoping your bubble is oxygenated.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 26, 2013 3:50 AM GMT
    Notice the intriguing thread title. OP knows that had he titled it 'I'm a Republican', no one would have bothered looking.