The Original Gay Porn Community - Free Gay Movies and Photos, Gay Porn Site Reviews and Adult Gay Forums
-
Welcome To Just Us Boys - The World's Largest Gay Message Board Community
In order to comply with recent US Supreme Court rulings regarding adult content, we will be making changes in the future to require that you log into your account to view adult content on the site.
If you do not have an account, please register.
REGISTER HERE - 100% FREE / We Will Never Sell Your InfoTo register, turn off your VPN; you can re-enable the VPN after registration. You must maintain an active email address on your account: disposable email addresses cannot be used to register.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
The Mind of A Gay Republican: Help Me Understand
- Thread starter DiamondSkin
- Start date
Re: The Mind of A Gay Republican: Help Me Underst
That simply isn't true.
- McCain has a long anti-gay record and a poor 33% rating from the Human Rights Campaign.
- He opposed gay civil unions in supporting the failed anti-gay marriage voter initiative in Arizona, which would also have banned gay civil unions. (Obama supports gay civil unions with the exactly the same rights and benefits as marriage.)
- McCain supports the current anti-gay marriage voter initiative in California (which Obama opposes)
- McCain opposed extending anti-discrimination legislation to include discrimination against gays. (Obama supports such legislation.)
- McCain opposes abolishing repealing the Defense of Marriage Act. (Obama has promised to repeal it.)
- McCain opposes repealing don't-ask-don't-tell. (Obama wants to abolish it.)
- McCain opposes adoptions by gay couples. (Obama supports such adoptions.)
- McCain's reopened the door, in his discussions with the far right religious leaders, to the anti-gay marriage Constitutional Amendment at the federal level. (Obama opposes that Amendment).
- McCain's also promised to appoint judges to the Supreme Court in the mold of Roberts, Alito, Scalia and Thomas who don't read the Constitution as protecting individual privacy, which is code for being anti-choice and anti-gay. A Supreme Court with a majority of those judges would not have decriminalized gay sex and will want to overturn that decision. (Obama has promised not to appoint judges with right wing agendas to the Supreme Court.)
Obama has a long pro-gay record (a high 89% rating from the Human Rights Campaign), has repeatedly reached out to gay voters and has a list of pro-gay goals:
http://obama.3cdn.net/795174956a7f432e93_4iiemv52b.pdf
The disparity is way beyond polar.
Obama has a moderately pro gay voting record, and doesn't support marriage. McCain has a moderately anti gay record but NOT nearly as bad as many republicans. he is opposed to a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, sees it left to the states. also he supports some rights for gay couples in terms of insurance and economics. there is disparity, but it aint polar.
That simply isn't true.
- McCain has a long anti-gay record and a poor 33% rating from the Human Rights Campaign.
- He opposed gay civil unions in supporting the failed anti-gay marriage voter initiative in Arizona, which would also have banned gay civil unions. (Obama supports gay civil unions with the exactly the same rights and benefits as marriage.)
- McCain supports the current anti-gay marriage voter initiative in California (which Obama opposes)
- McCain opposed extending anti-discrimination legislation to include discrimination against gays. (Obama supports such legislation.)
- McCain opposes abolishing repealing the Defense of Marriage Act. (Obama has promised to repeal it.)
- McCain opposes repealing don't-ask-don't-tell. (Obama wants to abolish it.)
- McCain opposes adoptions by gay couples. (Obama supports such adoptions.)
- McCain's reopened the door, in his discussions with the far right religious leaders, to the anti-gay marriage Constitutional Amendment at the federal level. (Obama opposes that Amendment).
- McCain's also promised to appoint judges to the Supreme Court in the mold of Roberts, Alito, Scalia and Thomas who don't read the Constitution as protecting individual privacy, which is code for being anti-choice and anti-gay. A Supreme Court with a majority of those judges would not have decriminalized gay sex and will want to overturn that decision. (Obama has promised not to appoint judges with right wing agendas to the Supreme Court.)
Obama has a long pro-gay record (a high 89% rating from the Human Rights Campaign), has repeatedly reached out to gay voters and has a list of pro-gay goals:
http://obama.3cdn.net/795174956a7f432e93_4iiemv52b.pdf
The disparity is way beyond polar.
Austin40acres
Sex God
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2006
- Posts
- 593
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 0
Re: The Mind of A Gay Republican: Help Me Underst
I consider myself a conservative more than a Republican, although I vote with Republicans more than Democrats. Maybe I should just admit to being mostly Libertarian.
I put all religious and political issues aside and ask:
How much do I want the government (federal or state) involved in my personal decisions?
My answer: As little as possible.
Gay Marriage? I don't want/need official recognition from a state agency to determine who I can spend my life devoted to. Are there benefits for straight couples who are married? I don't know. If there are, my answer would be to eliminate any recognition of marriage as a violation of church and state. Let each individual pay taxes according to the laws at the time or whatever might "benefit" a straight couple that a gay couple doesn't have equal access to. Besides, while voters and courts are deciding this issue, most large companies are already granting same-sex benefits to their employees, so why sit around waiting for "official" government approval for some benefit many are already getting despite the DOMA?
Special Rights? My answer is ALL rights are given by God, and therefore, cannot be granted by other humans. (What I think the original post was reacting to is the comment that God created human beings in such a way that only men and women could procreate and so, therefore, sexual contact in any way that doesn't promote procreation must be sinful. Well, there's plenty o'that on the heterosexual side of the fence, isn't there? But that isn't the issue for me.) Of course we have the "right" to have sex, marry, partner with, or whatever you want to say, with anyone we choose. Do we have the "right" to demand that everyone else not only accept it but also celebrate it? Of course not. I can think of plenty of heterosexual couples who had no business getting married--but of course they did, and of course, it wound up being a disaster for them AND their kids and throwing it back on society to deal with the consequences!
In short, it bothers me that *unless official recognition comes from Washington DC or the state capital," by definition any act of government is without compassion or sympathy for those not affected. WE our responsible for our lives. Why should WE sit around and wait for some proclamation from "on high" to affirm or validate our experiences? That is not what this country is supposed to be about. When one reads the Constitution of the United States, there is a clause in there that states all rights not specified in this document are reserved to the states OR TO THE PEOPLE (paraphrasing). So, when did all solutions have to come from government?
- Health care? If it doesn't come from Washington DC, you must not have any and are suffering.
- Retirement? If you're not dependent on Social Security (and the government keeps playing "hide the salami" on the SS benefits and therefore, you're screwed) you're automatically screwed because the government is supposed to take care of you.
- Civil Rights? It was Republican Abraham Lincoln who caused the slaves to be freed. It was Republicans who got the Civil Rights Act of 1964 passed, over the objections of Southern Democrats---including Al Gore's father. Besides which, passing a law didn't end racism, anyway.
Bottom line: If we sit around waiting for Government to validate or celebrate our lives (and our lifestyle choices, for that matter) we get nowhere. Do what you want, according to your own values and choices. Don't "inflict" it on others and don't expect to have your choices celebrated by others. That's why I'm a conservative Republican. I need neither Government confirmation nor interference with my life.
A4A
I consider myself a conservative more than a Republican, although I vote with Republicans more than Democrats. Maybe I should just admit to being mostly Libertarian.
I put all religious and political issues aside and ask:
How much do I want the government (federal or state) involved in my personal decisions?
My answer: As little as possible.
Gay Marriage? I don't want/need official recognition from a state agency to determine who I can spend my life devoted to. Are there benefits for straight couples who are married? I don't know. If there are, my answer would be to eliminate any recognition of marriage as a violation of church and state. Let each individual pay taxes according to the laws at the time or whatever might "benefit" a straight couple that a gay couple doesn't have equal access to. Besides, while voters and courts are deciding this issue, most large companies are already granting same-sex benefits to their employees, so why sit around waiting for "official" government approval for some benefit many are already getting despite the DOMA?
Special Rights? My answer is ALL rights are given by God, and therefore, cannot be granted by other humans. (What I think the original post was reacting to is the comment that God created human beings in such a way that only men and women could procreate and so, therefore, sexual contact in any way that doesn't promote procreation must be sinful. Well, there's plenty o'that on the heterosexual side of the fence, isn't there? But that isn't the issue for me.) Of course we have the "right" to have sex, marry, partner with, or whatever you want to say, with anyone we choose. Do we have the "right" to demand that everyone else not only accept it but also celebrate it? Of course not. I can think of plenty of heterosexual couples who had no business getting married--but of course they did, and of course, it wound up being a disaster for them AND their kids and throwing it back on society to deal with the consequences!
In short, it bothers me that *unless official recognition comes from Washington DC or the state capital," by definition any act of government is without compassion or sympathy for those not affected. WE our responsible for our lives. Why should WE sit around and wait for some proclamation from "on high" to affirm or validate our experiences? That is not what this country is supposed to be about. When one reads the Constitution of the United States, there is a clause in there that states all rights not specified in this document are reserved to the states OR TO THE PEOPLE (paraphrasing). So, when did all solutions have to come from government?
- Health care? If it doesn't come from Washington DC, you must not have any and are suffering.
- Retirement? If you're not dependent on Social Security (and the government keeps playing "hide the salami" on the SS benefits and therefore, you're screwed) you're automatically screwed because the government is supposed to take care of you.
- Civil Rights? It was Republican Abraham Lincoln who caused the slaves to be freed. It was Republicans who got the Civil Rights Act of 1964 passed, over the objections of Southern Democrats---including Al Gore's father. Besides which, passing a law didn't end racism, anyway.
Bottom line: If we sit around waiting for Government to validate or celebrate our lives (and our lifestyle choices, for that matter) we get nowhere. Do what you want, according to your own values and choices. Don't "inflict" it on others and don't expect to have your choices celebrated by others. That's why I'm a conservative Republican. I need neither Government confirmation nor interference with my life.
A4A
Re: The Mind of A Gay Republican: Help Me Underst
What you're saying could equally be said by slave owner to slave.
The issue isn't about validating, celebrating, confirming or interfering, it's about having equal civil rights and not being discriminated against.
Marriage has certain legal and economic benefits that are currently denied to same sex partners. And a number of important ones can't be duplicated by complex private contractual arrangements that some folk try to substitute for marriage, e.g. adoption, immigration and citizenship rights, joint tax returns.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/mar_bene.htm
It's one thing to talk about abolishing government regulated marriage for all. In theory, that might be something to think about. In reality, I suspect the boat sailed on that option a long time ago.
However, while marriage is still a government regulated institution, it's discriminatory to tolerate a situation where some people have the rights and benefits of marriage and others don't.
Bottom line: If we sit around waiting for Government to validate or celebrate our lives (and our lifestyle choices, for that matter) we get nowhere. Do what you want, according to your own values and choices. Don't "inflict" it on others and don't expect to have your choices celebrated by others. That's why I'm a conservative Republican. I need neither Government confirmation nor interference with my life.
What you're saying could equally be said by slave owner to slave.
The issue isn't about validating, celebrating, confirming or interfering, it's about having equal civil rights and not being discriminated against.
Marriage has certain legal and economic benefits that are currently denied to same sex partners. And a number of important ones can't be duplicated by complex private contractual arrangements that some folk try to substitute for marriage, e.g. adoption, immigration and citizenship rights, joint tax returns.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/mar_bene.htm
It's one thing to talk about abolishing government regulated marriage for all. In theory, that might be something to think about. In reality, I suspect the boat sailed on that option a long time ago.
However, while marriage is still a government regulated institution, it's discriminatory to tolerate a situation where some people have the rights and benefits of marriage and others don't.
Austin40acres
Sex God
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2006
- Posts
- 593
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 0
Re: The Mind of A Gay Republican: Help Me Underst
"What you're saying could equally be said by slave owner to slave."
Seriously? You're equating being gay with being a slave?
Wow.
A4A
"What you're saying could equally be said by slave owner to slave."
Seriously? You're equating being gay with being a slave?
Wow.
A4A
Re: The Mind of A Gay Republican: Help Me Underst
No, I'm saying you are. Not seeking rights, benefits, liberties and privileges that heterosexuals can enjoy, if you want them for youself or your fellows, amounts to accepting a second class role in the country.
No, I'm saying you are. Not seeking rights, benefits, liberties and privileges that heterosexuals can enjoy, if you want them for youself or your fellows, amounts to accepting a second class role in the country.
youngnihilist
JUB Addict
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2007
- Posts
- 1,646
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 0
Re: The Mind of A Gay Republican: Help Me Underst
Some gay republicans like myself do want said rights. But taxes, foreign policy, crime and punishment just happens to be more important.
How would I enjoy my gay civil rights if I was a blown up in a terrorist attack?
Some gay republicans like myself do want said rights. But taxes, foreign policy, crime and punishment just happens to be more important.
How would I enjoy my gay civil rights if I was a blown up in a terrorist attack?
Re: The Mind of A Gay Republican: Help Me Underst
^ As Obama has a good shot at winning, my guess is that you'll just have to get over it. LOL.
Obviously, I think what you're saying is a completely misconcieved position.
Obama was against the Iraq invasion, which has severly weaked our military and financial resources, making us even more a debtor nation to China. Instead, he wanted to focus our resources on Afganistan and the terrorists there, who are now reviving and cause more and more trouble. That would have made us safter in my opinion. Nobody was planning to bomb US targets from Iran.
McCain has endorsed Bush's position on Iraq and would probably be more likely than Bush was to get into another war. God knows what Sarah Palin would do.
Taxes: Obama has promised to reduce taxes for 95% of Americans, for all but the super wealthy.
Crime and punishment: Maybe I haven't focused on it. But I'm not aware of any material difference between Obama and McCain that would make a difference to the ordinary man in the street. If there is, I suspect it has to do with stuff like gun control and, given the gun lobby, and support for guns, there may be more regulation with Obama, but, unless you're a backwoodsman with an arsenal, I doubt whether most people would notic any difference.
Just thinking out loud. I know we don't often change our minds once we get things fixed in our heads.
So the real answer to your question is that, if you really think that stuff is more of priority to you than concerns about gay discrimination and civil rights, you should vote for McCain (and whoever ends up being his Vice-President).
^ As Obama has a good shot at winning, my guess is that you'll just have to get over it. LOL.
Obviously, I think what you're saying is a completely misconcieved position.
Obama was against the Iraq invasion, which has severly weaked our military and financial resources, making us even more a debtor nation to China. Instead, he wanted to focus our resources on Afganistan and the terrorists there, who are now reviving and cause more and more trouble. That would have made us safter in my opinion. Nobody was planning to bomb US targets from Iran.
McCain has endorsed Bush's position on Iraq and would probably be more likely than Bush was to get into another war. God knows what Sarah Palin would do.
Taxes: Obama has promised to reduce taxes for 95% of Americans, for all but the super wealthy.
Crime and punishment: Maybe I haven't focused on it. But I'm not aware of any material difference between Obama and McCain that would make a difference to the ordinary man in the street. If there is, I suspect it has to do with stuff like gun control and, given the gun lobby, and support for guns, there may be more regulation with Obama, but, unless you're a backwoodsman with an arsenal, I doubt whether most people would notic any difference.
Just thinking out loud. I know we don't often change our minds once we get things fixed in our heads.
So the real answer to your question is that, if you really think that stuff is more of priority to you than concerns about gay discrimination and civil rights, you should vote for McCain (and whoever ends up being his Vice-President).
S
Soilwork
Guest
Re: The Mind of A Gay Republican: Help Me Underst
What civil rights? You're helping make sure we never get those.
And um.. you're a lot more likely to die of cancer alone in a hospital bed with your partner barred from being with you or making decisions about your treatment for you than you are of a terrorist attack.
Some gay republicans like myself do want said rights. But taxes, foreign policy, crime and punishment just happens to be more important.
How would I enjoy my gay civil rights if I was a blown up in a terrorist attack?
What civil rights? You're helping make sure we never get those.
And um.. you're a lot more likely to die of cancer alone in a hospital bed with your partner barred from being with you or making decisions about your treatment for you than you are of a terrorist attack.
youngnihilist
JUB Addict
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2007
- Posts
- 1,646
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 0
Re: The Mind of A Gay Republican: Help Me Underst
History just may see Bush going down as a great president. Notice we haven't had any terrorist attacks since 9/11, due to his controversial but effective homeland security policies. The Iraq war is now a success - the bumps in the road are gone (we were all so quick to condemn and give up), the surge worked, Iraq is stabilized, hardly any terrorism there, and more US troops are dying in Afghanistan, a far smaller country. it worked.
I understand what you're saying, but there will be no partner and no bed if we are blown up in an attack. The point is, I'm willing to take a partner being denied access to my hospital bedroom in exchange for not getting blown up by Obama's chit chat with Ahmadinejad.
History just may see Bush going down as a great president. Notice we haven't had any terrorist attacks since 9/11, due to his controversial but effective homeland security policies. The Iraq war is now a success - the bumps in the road are gone (we were all so quick to condemn and give up), the surge worked, Iraq is stabilized, hardly any terrorism there, and more US troops are dying in Afghanistan, a far smaller country. it worked.
I understand what you're saying, but there will be no partner and no bed if we are blown up in an attack. The point is, I'm willing to take a partner being denied access to my hospital bedroom in exchange for not getting blown up by Obama's chit chat with Ahmadinejad.
Re: The Mind of A Gay Republican: Help Me Underst
^ Bush a great President? You must be joking. "We" didn't have any terrorist attacks before 9/11 either. As before, they still go on elsewhere in the world. Iraq is still very unpredictable, dangerous and growing closer and closer to their fellow Shiites in Iran. There wasn't any terrorism in Iraq threatening the US before the war. The Taliban problem in Afghantisan is regrowing because resources where directed away to Iraq.
Bush has a pathetically low approval rating. Almost all the books that have already started to come out from ex-Bush Administration people show him as the disengaged dufus he appears to be. The economy is in shreds. We owe a fortune to China. Thousand of people are unemployed and without any healthcare. Etc. etc.
Even McCain isn't against foreign diplomacy. So your Obama chit chat line is a complete red herring.
I've already described why I think folk like you are gay and Republicans and my guess is that you fall into one or more of the following categories:
^ Bush a great President? You must be joking. "We" didn't have any terrorist attacks before 9/11 either. As before, they still go on elsewhere in the world. Iraq is still very unpredictable, dangerous and growing closer and closer to their fellow Shiites in Iran. There wasn't any terrorism in Iraq threatening the US before the war. The Taliban problem in Afghantisan is regrowing because resources where directed away to Iraq.
Bush has a pathetically low approval rating. Almost all the books that have already started to come out from ex-Bush Administration people show him as the disengaged dufus he appears to be. The economy is in shreds. We owe a fortune to China. Thousand of people are unemployed and without any healthcare. Etc. etc.
Even McCain isn't against foreign diplomacy. So your Obama chit chat line is a complete red herring.
I've already described why I think folk like you are gay and Republicans and my guess is that you fall into one or more of the following categories:
Many gay Republicans are just Republican about it. Some one else achieved their existing civil rights for them, they're happy with what they have and fuck the gay couple who want to adopt kids.
Some gay Republicans agree with Republicans on other issues and think they can work within the party to get change on gay issues. It's the abused wife syndrome. While it's true that the more educated Republicans don't care about gays and are sympathic to them, nothing's going to change while the religious right is such a large source of votes.
Many gay Republicans think other issues have a higher priority and see voting for someone because they support gay civil rights as a single issue decision. That's a slightly more benign version of the I'm-OK-And-You're-On-Your-Own attitude. Plus it doesn't factor in that how candidates respond to gay civil rights tells you a lot about how they are going to act in other area. No surprise that McCain shares Bush's punch-first-bring-'en-on foreign policy and will be equally happy to tap your phone.
Many gay Republicans are simply in denial. They keep themselves ignorant of the specifics of the Republican opposition to gays and the Democrats support for them. It's surprising how many gay Republicans have no or little idea of the impact of having an anti-gay majority on the Supreme Court.
Also, on gay issues, many gay Republicans just vote against their own interestes. The Republican party is still great at getting people to do that. Look at all the folk who voted for George W. because, if they were ever rich, they wanted to maximize the tax breaks on the wealth they don't have, or because they thought Republicans are still about self-reponsibility, small government or whatever or because George W. was good guy to have drink with.
S
Soilwork
Guest
Re: The Mind of A Gay Republican: Help Me Underst
What's funny is that you believe a single word of that.
The surge did NOT, in fact, work. At all. This was is not a "success" by any standard unless you're working in the Bush press office. There WAS no terrorism in Iraq before we got there, the country isn't even vaguely stabilized and so say that there are more people dying in Afghanistan (where there WAS terrorism, by the way) is somehow... good... it means you're so disconnected from reality that this conversation can't continue.
To say that Bush is good because there hasn't been a terrorist attack in a few years is so funny I can't even begin to address it. But thanks for a window into the mind of a gay Conservatard. I'll have my friends laughing for WEEKS by just repeating that post.
History just may see Bush going down as a great president. Notice we haven't had any terrorist attacks since 9/11, due to his controversial but effective homeland security policies. The Iraq war is now a success - the bumps in the road are gone (we were all so quick to condemn and give up), the surge worked, Iraq is stabilized, hardly any terrorism there, and more US troops are dying in Afghanistan, a far smaller country. it worked.
I understand what you're saying, but there will be no partner and no bed if we are blown up in an attack. The point is, I'm willing to take a partner being denied access to my hospital bedroom in exchange for not getting blown up by Obama's chit chat with Ahmadinejad.
What's funny is that you believe a single word of that.
The surge did NOT, in fact, work. At all. This was is not a "success" by any standard unless you're working in the Bush press office. There WAS no terrorism in Iraq before we got there, the country isn't even vaguely stabilized and so say that there are more people dying in Afghanistan (where there WAS terrorism, by the way) is somehow... good... it means you're so disconnected from reality that this conversation can't continue.
To say that Bush is good because there hasn't been a terrorist attack in a few years is so funny I can't even begin to address it. But thanks for a window into the mind of a gay Conservatard. I'll have my friends laughing for WEEKS by just repeating that post.
youngnihilist
JUB Addict
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2007
- Posts
- 1,646
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 0
Re: The Mind of A Gay Republican: Help Me Underst
The surge did work. Have you heard of a terrorist attack in Iraq in the past few months? Have hardly any US troops died there? Is Al Sadr basically in hiding? Are we now able to safely withdraw our troops (without fucking up the country) within 2-3 years? Yep. Thanks to the surge.
The Bush administration, through its aggressive homeland security, has caught countless attempted terrorists. If we had a more lax president I'm sure at least a few would have succeeded.
JD: You make it seem like McCain = we have to run back into the closet and we can't have sex and Obama = utopia. It's not that simple!
The surge did work. Have you heard of a terrorist attack in Iraq in the past few months? Have hardly any US troops died there? Is Al Sadr basically in hiding? Are we now able to safely withdraw our troops (without fucking up the country) within 2-3 years? Yep. Thanks to the surge.
The Bush administration, through its aggressive homeland security, has caught countless attempted terrorists. If we had a more lax president I'm sure at least a few would have succeeded.
JD: You make it seem like McCain = we have to run back into the closet and we can't have sex and Obama = utopia. It's not that simple!
youngnihilist
JUB Addict
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2007
- Posts
- 1,646
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 0
Re: The Mind of A Gay Republican: Help Me Underst
Exactly - hardly any (both counts). I'm not saying it's serene and calm but it's a hundred times better than it was a couple years ago. Remember when we were losing hundreds of troops a month, and every other day was some marketplace bombing with 150+ dead?
Exactly - hardly any (both counts). I'm not saying it's serene and calm but it's a hundred times better than it was a couple years ago. Remember when we were losing hundreds of troops a month, and every other day was some marketplace bombing with 150+ dead?
S
Soilwork
Guest
Re: The Mind of A Gay Republican: Help Me Underst
you get it that there were NO terrorist attacks in Iraq and none pending before we went blazing in there totally unprepared, right?
you get it that this is costing unnecessary lives, money and time, right?
You get it that if Osama Bin Ladin was such a scary guy we'd have found him by now, right?
You get it that this is all a way for the Cheney family to make money, right?
of course you don't. You feel real safe from those terrorists, though, don't ya?
you get it that there were NO terrorist attacks in Iraq and none pending before we went blazing in there totally unprepared, right?
you get it that this is costing unnecessary lives, money and time, right?
You get it that if Osama Bin Ladin was such a scary guy we'd have found him by now, right?
You get it that this is all a way for the Cheney family to make money, right?
of course you don't. You feel real safe from those terrorists, though, don't ya?
Re: The Mind of A Gay Republican: Help Me Underst
US deaths (and casualties to the last month available) in Iraq this year alone:
Jan: 40/216
Feb:29/216
Mar:37/590
Apr: 51/283
May: 20/132
Jun: 28/39
Jul: 13
Aug 22
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_casualties.htm
Have hardly any US troops died there?
US deaths (and casualties to the last month available) in Iraq this year alone:
Jan: 40/216
Feb:29/216
Mar:37/590
Apr: 51/283
May: 20/132
Jun: 28/39
Jul: 13
Aug 22
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_casualties.htm
Re: The Mind of A Gay Republican: Help Me Underst
It's very simple. A gay Republican is someone who agrees with most of what the Republican Party stands for, except that he believes that gays should have the right to get married and enjoy all the rights that heterosexual have. Being gay doesen't automatically mean that one will be in favor of big governments, welfare checks for the poor, universal health care, gun control and all other things liberals support just because liberals support gay marriage.
B) However gay republicans fascinate me because their clashing ideals. I'd like to understand them better.
It's very simple. A gay Republican is someone who agrees with most of what the Republican Party stands for, except that he believes that gays should have the right to get married and enjoy all the rights that heterosexual have. Being gay doesen't automatically mean that one will be in favor of big governments, welfare checks for the poor, universal health care, gun control and all other things liberals support just because liberals support gay marriage.
Re: The Mind of A Gay Republican: Help Me Underst
^ Because Republican Administrations don't produce big governments and Democratic Administrations don't produce meaninful healthcare reform? Right.
The issue isn't that gay Republicans just agree with Republicans on most things except gay issues. That goes without saying.
It's more the priority they put on gay civil rights and protection against anti-gay discrimination. They vote for Administrations that actively oppose those issues and then are happy to take advantage of any progress in those areas the liberals make. That's why they're so inauthentic and disliked.
I'm not saying don't be a gay Republican if you believe that other priorities are so much more important (some Jews did support Hilter, as they say), but at least you can feel guilty about it and grateful to the Democrats for the progress they do make on your behalf.
Actually, to make you feel gulity and defensive is probaby the most one can expect.
^ Because Republican Administrations don't produce big governments and Democratic Administrations don't produce meaninful healthcare reform? Right.
The issue isn't that gay Republicans just agree with Republicans on most things except gay issues. That goes without saying.
It's more the priority they put on gay civil rights and protection against anti-gay discrimination. They vote for Administrations that actively oppose those issues and then are happy to take advantage of any progress in those areas the liberals make. That's why they're so inauthentic and disliked.
I'm not saying don't be a gay Republican if you believe that other priorities are so much more important (some Jews did support Hilter, as they say), but at least you can feel guilty about it and grateful to the Democrats for the progress they do make on your behalf.
Actually, to make you feel gulity and defensive is probaby the most one can expect.
youngnihilist
JUB Addict
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2007
- Posts
- 1,646
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 0
Re: The Mind of A Gay Republican: Help Me Underst
Still getting better compared to 2005 and 2006. The situation ain't perfect but it's improving. Can't deny that. And by 2011/2012, I think it will be over.
LOL. Why should we feel guilty about anything? Democrats don't do shit on our behalf compared to what they COULD be doing. I have yet to see a major Democrat come out in favor of gay marriage. If it was the Green Party maybe I'd feel a little more thankful. But come on, the party of blue collar auto workers from Michigan and Jersey goodfella union thugs aren't getting my thanks for gay rights.
Still getting better compared to 2005 and 2006. The situation ain't perfect but it's improving. Can't deny that. And by 2011/2012, I think it will be over.
LOL. Why should we feel guilty about anything? Democrats don't do shit on our behalf compared to what they COULD be doing. I have yet to see a major Democrat come out in favor of gay marriage. If it was the Green Party maybe I'd feel a little more thankful. But come on, the party of blue collar auto workers from Michigan and Jersey goodfella union thugs aren't getting my thanks for gay rights.
Re: The Mind of A Gay Republican: Help Me Underst
Yeah. Iran will be very grateful to us.
But the Republicans are trying to push the shit back up you. That's the difference.
Still getting better compared to 2005 and 2006. The situation ain't perfect but it's improving. Can't deny that. And by 2011/2012, I think it will be over.
Yeah. Iran will be very grateful to us.
Why should we feel guilty about anything? Democrats don't do shit on our behalf compared to what they COULD be doing.
But the Republicans are trying to push the shit back up you. That's the difference.