Right-wing forums and homosexuality

[01solara]

You cheer me up.

These people have been on my mind so much lately and it's quite haunting and overwhelming. I just remember that human beings can be naturally irrational at times and as each decade goes by, this way of thinking slowly dies off with last generation bigots.

A sentence that always gets under my skin is that homosexuality is immoral. The way I see it is that it's not a matter of opinion but a matter of possibility. It's impossible for homosexuality to be immoral because people are homosexual. For it to be immoral, that would mean that people's existence is immoral and a persons existence is not immoral.

If we had a choice in the matter why would so many children of religious parents risk being disowned and physically and mentally abused by choosing to be gay. I have often asked people that believe that who you are attracted to is a choice at what point did they sit down and say hmm do I want to be gay or straight. Not one so far has told me when they decided to be straight. I have even gotten some of the more open minded folks to actually stop and think how ridiculous the whole concept of chosen sexuality is. Who would choose to be a social outcast and not able at least in the conventional way to have a family and the American Dream.

 

[Kulindahr]

"In the process of gaining our rightful place, we must not be guilty of wrongful deeds. Let us not seek to satisfy our thirst for freedom by drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred."

-Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

What about getting nauseated and disgusted?

 

[construct]

Thanks, Jockboy, for your calling our attention to this caustic bile. I suppose it is good to remind of us of just how extreme both the conservative and the Republican rhetoric is.

Not all religious zealots are Republicans and all Republicans are religious zealots.

As a credentialed member of the Texas Democratic Party I've heard the same comments spit out in committee meeting by members of my own party.

So it's not just a "conservative" or partisan issue, it goes much deeper than that.

I figured it was only a matter of time before these two (more or less) replies would appear--even if not from these particular members.

Now, I make no claim that views such as those in the original post do not exist in the Democratic party. It's one thing for them to be brought up in committee meetings. It's another thing for them to spewed with such apparent pervasiveness on conservative and Republican websites.

Here's the challenge. Find similar pervasive comments full of anti-gay bile in a liberal or Democratic website.

 

[Kulindahr]

I figured it was only a matter of time before these two (more or less) replies would appear--even if not from these particular members.

Now, I make no claim that views such as those in the original post do not exist in the Democratic party. It's one thing for them to be brought up in committee meetings. It's another thing for them to spewed with such apparent pervasiveness on conservative and Republican websites.

Here's the challenge. Find similar pervasive comments full of anti-gay bile in a liberal or Democratic website.

My experience is that the division between rural/small town and urban is a better predictor that Republican v Democrat.

 

[iman]

Not all religious zealots are Republicans and all Republicans are religious zealots. In fact many of the super religious hateful people that you quoted in your message are leaving the Republican party because they feel it is too moderate. The sooner they start their own party the better they are a small hateful minority and have no chance of electing anyone not even in the south. There numbers are decreasing with every generation. They will die off in the next few generations. Hate is powerful but they will self destruct. They like the Fred Phelps of the world are a small but vocal minority even many of their own children will reject their bullshit.

Oh Bullshit! These people are the heart and soul of the Republican Party, their extremism may be a magnified reflection of the rest of the party, but it is basically an accurate reflection of Republican values.

The specter of a bogeyman, the contention that a moral way of life is being subverted, the call to arms against the immoral subverters and a generalized fear and paranoia are features of every Republican campaign. Commies, Jews, Blacks, Catholics and gays have all had their turn in the Republican barrel.

There maybe moderates in the Republican Party, but they have been intimidated into silence(Republicans have never been a profile in courage). Anyway, why would a moderate remain in the Republican Party if they were unsympathetic to the social extremists?

 

[Kulindahr]

Anyway, why would a moderate remain in the Republican Party if they were unsympathetic to the social extremists?

Because they're trapped by the same bullshit people spew here: "Where else will we go?"

They're certainly not going to switch to a party that doesn't like private property, free enterprise, or a myriad of other things.

 

[Centexfarmer]

<snip>

Here's the challenge. Find similar pervasive comments full of anti-gay bile in a liberal or Democratic website.

You won't. At least not in my experience. Even when those comments were being spit out by Democrats in a committee meeting of a Senatorial Caucus or State Convention, those comments were almost always made by another minority member.

Usually someone with a more "level head" reminded them of the a time when even they weren't allowed to caucus within the Democratic Party, and how hard they had to fight for their voice within the party.

Which is one of the things that I personally truly enjoy about having credentials within the Texas Democratic Party; Texas Democratic Politics: Not for the Squeamish.

We'll beat each other to a pulp, draw blood, kick the shit out of each other's ideas, motives, and self-righteous morals, but in the end we're all Democrats, and we will come together for the common good of each other, as well as those that we caucus with. Especially when we find that "one of us" are under attack from the opposing party.

My experience is that the division between rural/small town and urban is a better predictor that Republican v Democrat.

That's true, but in my experience another dividing factor within the Democratic Party in regard to LGBT Equality comes from African Americans and Hispanics. If the African Americans are Southern Baptists, or Evangelicals, and the Hispanics predominately Catholic, and they represent a majority of any given committee as a Gay Democrat I have to fight even harder to explain how my rights as an American and as a Democrat isn't an issue of "morality" but more so an issue of "fairness."

Because they're trapped by the same bullshit people spew here: "Where else will we go?"

They're certainly not going to switch to a party that doesn't like private property, free enterprise, or a myriad of other things.

I am far more "Libertarian" in my political views than the view that's held of the Democratic Party's label of "the government is the answer to all things."

But right now everything that's "Libertarian" seems to be what the "Moderates" (Fiscal Conservatives as opposed to Social Conservative) within the Republican Party are becoming.

There are a few messages within the Tea Party movement that I've found that I can support.

However I fear that those messages are being usurped by the Glenn Beck's of that movement, while the true message of the Ron Paul's is going ignored.

Personally? If I had to accept a label I'd be a "Clinton Democrat" within my Party.

I ultimately supported Obama because, through the democratic process of the Democratic Party, he was my Party's nominee for POTUS.

I can assure you that as Democrats we're still not all unified behind President Obama's policies, or the direction that our party is headed under his defacto leadership of the Democratic Party.

As to the Republican Party continuing to pander to the "Right-Wing" it's a policy that worked for them under the leadership of the likes of Tom DeLay, Dick Army, and "Bush's Brian" Karl Rove.

You look for the current voices of that element of the Republican Party and all that I hear are Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, and Rush Limbaugh.

As a Democrat I've always argued that, and been proud of the fact, that my Party "Looks like America." Go to any Democratic caucus or convention and you'll see a Rainbow of "color" everywhere that you look.

I had the fortune of providing Audio Visual Technical support for the Texas State Republican Convention in Dallas a few years ago and all that I saw was a convention floor full of angry white men, their drunk over dressed wives, and a few "token blacks."

When I had the chance to converse with a few of them I got the condescending attitude that somehow they were superior to Democrats because of their misconception that the Democratic Party was more diversified because the Party demanded "quotas" for it's membership.

IMO Republicans have historically been the party that plays upon everyone's fears, and then finds some group/minority to blame for what's wrong in America.

And in the absence of any real leadership, fairness or decency, clear and concise talking points, or 2 second sound bites, the voting public votes with the message presented by Right Wing, rather than what's in their best interests, or the interests of America as a whole.

Which is one of the reasons why I'm growing weary of Democrats, and the whole "two-party" system.


~

 

[Kulindahr]

IMO Republicans have historically been the party that plays upon everyone's fears, and then finds some group/minority to blame for what's wrong in America.

That depends, of course, how far back you reach for "historically" -- remember that the folks who got the slaves freed were the Republicans, and the founders of the Klan were Democrats; remember also that it was Republicans who ordered the troops to enforce integration and made sure the troops got integrated.

 

[Centexfarmer]

That depends, of course, how far back you reach for "historically" -- remember that the folks who got the slaves freed were the Republicans,

Yep and this Southern boy will be quick to remind you that Lincoln only freed the Slaves in the South and not those being held in servitude in the north.

and the founders of the Klan were Democrats;

Hence the term "Dixiecrat" and they're the same Democrats that stood against LBJ for his Civil Rights Act of 1964, which gave rise to the current Republican Party that we know today.

remember also that it was Republicans who ordered the troops to enforce integration and made sure the troops got integrated.

I'm confused, I was under the impression that it was Democratic President Harry S. Truman who signed a Executive Order 9981 establishing equality of treatment and opportunity in the Armed Services for people of all races, religions, or national origins.

Why would Republicans of the 1950's (who were busy witch hunting communists) be interested in enforcing integration?

 

[Kulindahr]

Yep and this Southern boy will be quick to remind you that Lincoln only freed the Slaves in the South and not those being held in servitude in the north.

He couldn't do the North by himself. Legally, it was doubtful that he could do the South by himself, either, but it stood.

I'm confused, I was under the impression that it was Democratic President Harry S. Truman who signed a Executive Order 9981 establishing equality of treatment and opportunity in the Armed Services for people of all races, religions, or national origins.

Why would Republicans of the 1950's (who were busy witch hunting communists) be interested in enforcing integration?

Truman signed the order, but Gen. Pres. Dwight D. Eisenhower made it stick. Despite the games the officer corps had been playing before, the former Supreme Allied Commander knew how to get the armed forces to behave.

 

[Centexfarmer]

He couldn't do the North by himself. Legally, it was doubtful that he could do the South by himself, either, but it stood.

Yep the Emancipation Proclamation of 1863 was some brilliant political maneuvering.

If you'll recall your American history of that era when the Lincoln's Executive order (because that's what it was) was issued Lee had not yet invaded Gettysburg, Pennsylvania and the outcome of the "Civil War" was still in question.

Though, both French and British editorial boards of the day proclaimed it a stroke of genius because the conflict defined by the animosity between Jefferson's "state's rights," and Hamilton's "Federalists" were now going to be defined by Lincoln's "freeing of the slaves," or a permanent division of the "Union."

To this day I personally know a few African-Americans who profess to being Republican for the sole reason that "Lincoln freed the Slaves."

Truman signed the order, but Gen. Pres. Dwight D. Eisenhower made it stick. Despite the games the officer corps had been playing before, the former Supreme Allied Commander knew how to get the armed forces to behave.

Yeah, and there's still some historical questions as to whether "Ike" was actually a Republican or not.

There was so much hatred and animosity for Truman during the 1953 elections at the time that even then Vice-Presidential candidate Richard Nixon's dog could have ran and gotten elected.

 

[construct]

You won't. At least not in my experience. Even when those comments were being spit out by Democrats in a committee meeting of a Senatorial Caucus or State Convention, those comments were almost always made by another minority member.

Usually someone with a more "level head" reminded them of the a time when even they weren't allowed to caucus within the Democratic Party, and how hard they had to fight for their voice within the party.

You are absolutely right. Some of our fiercest opponents are African-American and Asian preachers. I haven't really seen that kind of response among Latino folk. I also haven't seen much of it beyond the preachers. The majority of our vocal opponents (whom I have seen at city council meetings) have been white folk--almost always of the fundamentalist and charismatic Christian ilk.

In other words, we've got some education work to do. I would also remind our listeners, in agreement with you, that coming out is a political act. The personal is political.

 

[KTheLibra]

This is why I make fun of their absurd religion as much as I can.

Talking about being raped by Jesus makes them particularly furious. It's fun.

 

[construct]

One of the defining aspects of sexual orientation is the ability to keep what makes us different hidden. It's an understatement to say that we are under extreme pressure to make people assume we are straight until we feel comfortable to make known otherwise. The dilemma this poses is our comfort and functioning as individuals vs. what is in the best interests of our civil rights and cultural image of gays. It would immensely benefit both if we all would just come out, but since it is really such a personal issue as individuals that is neither practical nor advisable in many cases. So I see here why it is being reasoned that there is a dichotomy of personal and "political," but I would not classify public as political in every circumstance.

The problem is that if one waits until he is comfortable with being out because his surroundings have become hospitable, then he has waited until it's too late. If I had waited until I had nothing left to lose, I doubt I'd ever have come out. Coming out is political because it is the most effective way of bringing about changes in the political commitments of those around him.

 

[construct]

This is why I make fun of their absurd religion as much as I can.

Talking about being raped by Jesus makes them particularly furious. It's fun.

Heh, heh. I shall have to add that to my arsenal.

You are right that the only response to deeply held religious beliefs is ridicule and denunciation. Irrationally held opinions can never be effectively answered by reasoned argument.

I am a Baptist preacher. Well, I'm a licensed Baptist preacher despite my having become an atheist. Nevertheless, I'm still a preacher. I preach the liberating gospel of atheism.

I am the antichrist. I deny that the Christ has come in the flesh. I have renounced God and all his ways.

 

[construct]

I'm not going to debate the shoulds about coming out. That's for a different discussion really.

Some people do come out for change, and others for personal reasons, sometimes both, and sometimes they do it subconsciously. I just don't see labeling the coming out process as political in call cases. When it is said that it is a political process, I believe the conditional "some/sometimes" ought to be applied.

Oh, I grant that coming out may be motivated by a frustrating anxiety of living an inauthentic life or some such. In those cases, political change may be the farthest thing from that persons mind. I suppose it wasn't even particularly close to my consciousness when I came out. Nevertheless, I knew that it would change my surroundings and my relationships whether for good or ill. I found that it changed them in both ways. It's never as bad as you expect and it's never as good as you hope for.

 

[Kulindahr]

You are absolutely right. Some of our fiercest opponents are African-American and Asian preachers. I haven't really seen that kind of response among Latino folk. I also haven't seen much of it beyond the preachers. The majority of our vocal opponents (whom I have seen at city council meetings) have been white folk--almost always of the fundamentalist and charismatic Christian ilk.

In other words, we've got some education work to do. I would also remind our listeners, in agreement with you, that coming out is a political act. The personal is political.

From my experience with Hispanics, they only despise bottoms, and have no problem with bisexuals at all. As long as a guy likes women, or at least is "sticking it in something", he's still a man.

 

[Kulindahr]

One of the defining aspects of sexual orientation is the ability to keep what makes us different hidden. It's an understatement to say that we are under extreme pressure to make people assume we are straight until we feel comfortable to make known otherwise. The dilemma this poses is our comfort and functioning as individuals vs. what is in the best interests of our civil rights and cultural image of gays. It would immensely benefit both if we all would just come out, but since it is really such a personal issue as individuals that is neither practical nor advisable in many cases. So I see here why it is being reasoned that there is a dichotomy of personal and "political," but I would not classify public as political in every circumstance.

If I hadn't been so brainwashed into thinking sex itself was evil, and had realized who I was back in high school, my choice would have been between coming out a living.

There are still parts of rural and even not-so-rural Oregon where that's true.

Though I encountered an interesting phenomenon two summers ago: some definite rednecks were talking dirt about "fudge-packers" and "filthy fags", but when they offered a drag on a bowl of herb and I accepted, and we passed it around a couple of times, then later one got a clue about what my rainbow hex-nut choker meant, they decided I was kool because I was willing to share a bowl.

Their GFs even went skinny-dipping with me.

 

[Centexfarmer]

One of the defining aspects of sexual orientation is the ability to keep what makes us different hidden.

At face value that's bullshit because that's using their argument that "if you stay in the closet you have the same rights as I do."

It's an understatement to say that we are under extreme pressure to make people assume we are straight until we feel comfortable to make known otherwise. The dilemma this poses is our comfort and functioning as individuals vs. what is in the best interests of our civil rights and cultural image of gays.

Is that to imply that Mathew Shephad wanted to be a martyr to the "cause?"

It would immensely benefit both if we all would just come out, but since it is really such a personal issue as individuals that is neither practical nor advisable in many cases

Unless you're a closeted Republican!

While seeking reelection as the end game.

So I see here why it is being reasoned that there is a dichotomy of personal and "political," but I would not classify public as political in every circumstance.

From a "black and white" perspective there are those who put everything on the line for our Equality and what is right and fair, and the other who listen to every level of bile that's spewed from Right-Wing forums about homosexuality while lacking the intestinal fortitude (either politically as elected representatives, or privately as guides to live one's life), and do everything that they can to prove that they're not "one of us."

Or even remotely sympathetic for that matter.

 

[Kulindahr]

This is why I make fun of their absurd religion as much as I can.

Talking about being raped by Jesus makes them particularly furious. It's fun.

So you demonstrate how we deserve respect by shitting on their beliefs?

That's a tactic called "getting out the vote for the other side".


I prefer the tactic of sitting on a rock in the middle of the river with a bottle of SkinnyDip beer, wearing just my rainbow hex-nut choker and NRA hat, with my guitar and singing songs about Jesus.

That totally confuses them and has provided some openings for actually productive conversations. Your little game just fuels hate, because it is hate.