Or, at least, the ones in this article. I guess I still hold out some hope that the political party that currently controls the government generally DOESN’T think that all them dirty queers should be converted or jailed because their dirty dirty immoral love ain’t real.
Is it just me, or do some of those quotes sound like stereotypical Western movie hicks (“We don’t take kindly to your kind in these parts…”)?
Well, well, well :rolleyes: Having lived in the South at one time, I know for a fact that there are a lot of gays and lesbians in that part of the world. Even some of the tiniest towns have homosexuals. Most of them live quietly and peacefully with their neighbors. (Just like most homosexuals live unobtrusively wherever you go.) Except for the most rabidly homophobic types, most straight Southerners are acquainted with at least some of these “horrible perverts.” It’s similar to how racist types will admit, privately of course, that they have at least one black friend.
I suspect that many of the jerks quoted in the article are, 1) possessing major skeletons in their own closets so therefore they divert attention to an easier target; 2) secretly gay themselves; or 3) the old Middle Ages attitude that sex should only be allowed for procreation and not (horrors!) for fun. :rolleyes:
Well, I really wish you wouldn’t paint ALL Republicans with the same brush. I can’t stand generalizations. As a Republican myself, I can tell you that I really don’t give a damn what two people (or more) do with one another so long as it is consensual and said members are of an age that they can rationally make decisions on their own. Yes, I realize there are some bigots within the Republican party, but by no means do we have a monopoly. The party in recent years has been hijacked by a few religious zealots, but I hope over time their intolerance will be recognized and their respective constituencies will vote them out of office. Even as a self-avowed Republican, I do not strictly vote the “party line.” In fact, I have voted for Democrat, Libertarian, and Green party candidates as well. The country would be a lot better off if there were more people who wouldn’t simply tow the party line and would instead think for themselves. And I’d also like to address the thought that the South has a monopoly on racism. That, too, is simply untrue. In fact, I’ve seen several surveys that show most people to believe that Boston is the most racist city in the country. I wouldn’t consider Boston to be in the “south.” Just my .02 cents…
You’re entitled to another 1.98 cents, by the way, just as a matter of tradition. Go on, help yourself…
*Although, perhaps I should try to avoid bringing up the subject of wasting bandwidth, with a post like this one…
I’d argue, it just isn’t the Republicans, but the straggle hold that the Religious Right has on the Republican party. IIRC, one of the head honchos RNC recently met with HRC and tried to push the idea of inclusiveness to them. Of course, the FRC blew its stack at such an idea.
Of course, if you go back 100 years the Democrats were doing nearly the same thing. Which makes me think, more and more there’s little difference between the two major parties in the US.
FYI:
RNC = Rupublican National Committee
HRC = Human Rights Commision
FRC = Family Research Council
It’s truly unfortunate that the Republicans have been invaded by the Religious Right and their moronic supporters. They’d serve themselves a lot better by focusing on fiscial policy and the theory of limited government instead of making themselves look like fools with rants about restoring prayer to schools and misc. ad nausem.
If they had any political sense, they’d do what they did to Trent Lott…and give these homophobes a good public smack for casting a taint on the collective image of the party.
Since I’d guess that about half of the voters who classify themselves as Republicans would be what we’d call ‘religious right’, that’s about five times as unlikely as Democrats telling blacks or organized labor to fuck off. They’re the most core constituency that either party has, and if they were to suddenly become apolitical, the Dems would instantly be the majority party by a large margin.
Sad to say, the Republicans probably do gain politically by opposing civil unions for gays. I find the tone of the cited article disgusting. It’s written from a purely political POV, but this is also a moral issue.
Wow-I agree with december!
I think I’m going to have to lie down now…
Oh my God, december supports gay rights.
You aren’t as evil as I thought.
Human Rights Campaign, actually.
I don’t understand why anyone continues to express surprise when the Republican Party takes an anti-gay stance. The party’s anti-gay stance is written into the party platform, so why does it come as a shock when Republicans make statements and take actions in support of the party line?
For me, as with december, it was the tone of the piece, especially on such a nationally popular source as Fox News (tho’ even that shouldn’t surprise me, I suppose). It was so nasty above what I usually expect that I was stirred, in a sense.
As a result of this article, I fully expect Republican ads like this in 2004:
VOICEOVER: Candidate Democrat loves flaming gays.
[dramatic chord]
VO: Candidate Democrat wants to let them marry and give them the same rights as god-fearing Christians.
[dramatic chord]
VO: How do we know Candidate Democrat isn’t gay?
[dramatic chord]
VO: Candidate Democrat wants to destroy the family, and the moral fiber of this nation, everything that we went to war to preserve.
[dramatic chord]
VO: Candidate Democrat: bad for families. Bad for America.
(Sprinkle with provocative still images to taste.)
Really?
Is that just a guess or do you have some basis for it?
I would think it would be much less.
To me that’s like saying half of all Democrats couid be termed as hippies.
RT, I’m going to side with Scylla on this one. In upstate New York, fiscal conservatism and social moderatism are the party’s characteristics. In the Triangle metro area, there are a small (and vocal) group of Religious Rightists who seem to regard Bush as the forerunner of the Second Coming, and a large group who went Bush/Cheney largely because they saw them as much more pro-business than Gore/Lieberthal.
Thanks for the correction.
I’m not surprised by the anti-gay stance, just that everytime a big wig in the Republican party tries to be moderate, the Religious Right squawks and plays the “Scorned Lover” card, usually very successfully.
In the 90s, the Religious Right was really successful in grassroots organizing and Republican party politics on a local level, which gave them influence way beyond their numbers. They’ve let a lot of that organization slip, but still hold onto enough power that, if they make noise, they get listened to.
ShaneVA- Have you ever visited [insert city here] California? Hands down the most racist lot I personally have seen.
RTFirefly- I believe you are wrong my man…us pubs only worship the almighty dollar.
Equal time for those Democrats who expressed an unwillingness to do anything about the issue.
Some of his best friends are gay, I’m sure.
Spit: Nah, I’ve never been to California. The furthest west I’ve ever been is Minnesota. However, I’ll be graduating college in May, and plan to look for some jobs out west. I hope I don’t run into any of the people you refer to.