# Liberals hate gays **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [October 21, 2010, 1:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberals-hate-gays/557849 "2010-10-21T01:46:44Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 12
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2010, 8:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberals-hate-gays/557849/221 "2010-10-26T20:08:10Z")
**JayJay:** None of us “understand” each other. Couldn’t the latino guy just as easily say “Well, gays don’t understand what is like to be pulled over by the cops just because you look Hispanic”. And they would have a point, wouldn’t they? Its not about being the same. Its about treating each other with equal justice, to the extent that is humanly possible. Its about forming a coaltion around that idea and putting our own immediate concerns as second to that. It takes trusting each other. And it takes trusting ourselves, that if offered an immediate advantage at the other guys expense, we won’t do it. And if any of this were easy, we already would have won. Instead of just winning. Which we are. And remember, there is no “oy!” in “team”. ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2010, 8:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberals-hate-gays/557849/222 "2010-10-26T20:11:52Z")
> [@Scylla](#): > > Bush is better on gay rights than Obama because every gay person knew exactly where Bush stood on the issue. He was against gay marriage and gays in the military. No question about it. Most importantly, his actions were consistent with his stated stance. > > With the Democrats on the hand, we have Clinton reinforcing and giving credence to discrimination with “don’t ask, don’t tell.”. That piece of shit legally places a stigma on gays, literally forcing them into the closet. > > Obama on the other hand is actively blocking and speaking on the topic of blocking the repeal of DADT on the grounds that it is unconstitutional. > > You can play all the semantics you want, but when it comes down to actions, which is what matters, we have in this case conservatives fighting for gay rights, and liberals blocking them. I expect that, when Merriam-Webster next revise their entry for the word “sophistry,” this post will constitute the new definition. ---
**Author:** ![Bosstone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/22d042/32.png) [@Bosstone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bosstone)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2010, 8:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberals-hate-gays/557849/223 "2010-10-26T20:12:41Z")
> [@Hamlet](#): > > Ileana Ros Lehtinen (R) Fla has an 88 rating by the HRC. Susan M. Collins has a 78, as does Olympia Snowe, and there are 3 others with a 75. Sure the party has over 140 or so of Congresspersons with a rating of zero, but the Democrats have at least 7, so I suppose that balances out. > > [Cite](http://www.votesmart.org/issue_rating_detail.php?r_id=3520&sort=rating&rtype=) Well, fair enough. I don’t know how those percentages actually break down, but I asked for just one, and we have a whole 5 national Republicans at 75% or better. Brava. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2010, 8:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberals-hate-gays/557849/224 "2010-10-26T20:14:39Z")
> [@Scylla](#): > > Hamlet: > > Sorry I can’t quote easily, I’m posting from an iPhone in a car. I think this is different hwn your comparison of a KKK member to a moderate who did nothing. I think the more apt comparison would be between a KKK member, and a guy who joins the NAACP, and displays all the right attitudes and says all the right things but still won’t hire a black man or rent to him. > > And, I think the KKK member is better. He’s being true to his beliefs. He’s wrong, but he’s true to his beliefs. The possibility exists that if you can show him he is wrong and change his beliefs than than you can change the man. > > The other guy understands that he’s wrong, and he’s doing it anyway, and he’s hiding it, pretending he’s being true to his beliefs. I think that’s worse, and more difficult to change. Very serious question, here, **Scylla**. Would you prefer me to tell you a lie, or to shoot you in the chest? Based on your post here, I’d have to assume that you’d prefer the gunshot - because while I may be violent, at least I’m not dishonest, and you seem to be arguing that violence is the lesser sin than dishonesty. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2010, 8:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberals-hate-gays/557849/225 "2010-10-26T20:18:05Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Its not about being the same. Its about treating each other with equal justice, to the extent that is humanly possible. Its about forming a coaltion around that idea and putting our own immediate concerns as second to that. It takes trusting each other. And it takes trusting ourselves, that if offered an immediate advantage at the other guys expense, we won’t do it. And when you’re ready to treat gays that way, give us a call. We could really use some help, over here. ---
**Author:** ![jayjay](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jayjay/32/6765_2.png) [@jayjay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jayjay)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2010, 8:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberals-hate-gays/557849/226 "2010-10-26T20:23:36Z")
I just want to make clear, **luci** , that I don’t think you’re homophobic or anything. Nor do I think the majority of progressives are. But I do think you’re all under the influence of straight privilege, which makes it difficult for you to understand the gay experience. And, in all this talk of “gays before Latino/as” and “Latino/as before gays”, how about the gay Latino/a? How does he or she feel about the whole thing? Because it’s really easy to make the argumentatory assumption that “gay” = “white”, but it’s not an accurate assumption. This applies to black LGBT, or Asian LGBT as well. And **Miller** has a very good point that hasn’t been addressed by anyone but him yet…LGBT rights, outside of low-hanging fruit (shuddup, you!) like the hate crimes bill, has been on the back burner a long time. Do you know how long ENDA has been in process? I remember it not passing at the same time DOMA did pass, almost 20 years ago. And that was when it only covered orientation. Yeah, it would probably have passed at some point since 2007 if we hadn’t insisted that it include gender expression, too, but we don’t leave our wounded on the battlefield. I just find it really hypocritical of a party whose president has said to us, “hold my feet to the fire” on the issues we consider really important, to turn on the people with the kindling when it comes time to make things hop. The minute the LGBT community started to make their voices heard on DADT and DOMA, when it became apparent that it was all being slow-walked, the establishment Dems immediately started decrying us as hotheads and said we were “hurting the party”. Dan Choi and his fellow military heroes who continued to try to keep awareness of the damage that DADT does in the spotlight were insulted and made fun of by their own party because they were using direct action. I’ve spent the past two years watching Democrats belittle me and the LGBT community, even on sites as leftish as Daily Kos, because we try to hold this president and his party to their promise and platform. But our issues aren’t really important. We just “want a pony”. We’re “too brash”. We’re “hurting the party and the president”. Hell, over at DKos, gay critics of Obama are routinely painted as Republican covert operatives concern trolling. And the part that really galls, the part that just plunges the dagger in and twists, is that the Democrats are STILL a better deal than the Republicans. That bitter taste lingers, y’know? ---
**Author:** ![Don\_t\_Call\_Me\_Shirley](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/f4b2a3/32.png) [@Don\_t\_Call\_Me\_Shirley](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Don_t_Call_Me_Shirley)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2010, 8:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberals-hate-gays/557849/227 "2010-10-26T20:25:01Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Whoa, hold it right there! No way, Josefina! I know that’s how my words have been tiwisted, but its not what I think, and its not what I think is happening! There are some religious latinos who are uncomfortable with the whole gay marraige thing, but thats across the board, white, black, latino. But to the extent that the coalition has latino support, they already know what we think, we’ve already told them, and those who are on board are still on board. Mostly, the young, the urban, and so on. > > Personally, I think its the word “marriage” that sticks in their craw. I think we can build a civil union plan that offers all the same benefits but avoids the word. A compromise, to be sure. What I would ideally want if for latinos to whole-heartedly embrace gay marriage, but failing that, I’m OK with them shrugging it off, and staying on the team. But the only reason the word “marriage” sticks in their craw is because of their religion. As for the whole civil marriage offering the same benefits thing, “separate but equal” was a bad idea then, and it’s a bad idea now. I can put up with a lot of stuff, but not compromising with religious beliefs. Not anymore. Religious beliefs just keep changing, so it’s a fool’s game to begin with. > [@](#): > > But advancing an agenda centered around atheism? Boy, I dunno. I have a feeling we would certainly have Karl Rove’s enthusiastic support, but I don’t really trust him. Who said anything about building an agenda around atheism? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2010, 8:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberals-hate-gays/557849/228 "2010-10-26T20:32:03Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > Well, that’s going to be pretty time consuming, because what you mean appears to change every time you post… On at least two different occasions, I pointed out to you that your interpretation of my words were directly contrary to the intent. Ain’t my fault if you don’t get it. > [@](#): > > …That’s a pretty solid rebuttal to all the people who have been demanding that the Democratic party focus on gay rights to the exclusion of all other issues… Never said exclusion. Said you seem to want some preference. I say thats a bad idea for practical, political reasons. > [@](#): > > …And you know, they could do that. Because you can do somethings for gay rights, and somethings for Latinos, and somethings for health care. You can do all of these at the same time. Equality isn’t a zero-sum game. You can give gays rights, and still fight for immigrants, and work on health care, and all that other stuff… OK, now, we’re getting somewhere! Hot damn! > [@](#): > > …Really? So, you’re saying that if we did nothing at all for Latinos, then Latinos would leave our coalition? And the same for blacks? And people who need health care? Fascinating. So… why doesn’t the same logic apply to gays? Why are gays the one group who you expect to suck it up and let their agenda be ignored, while everyone else gets their concerns addressed? Why are you, our so called “ally,” treating us like shit, and yelling at us for not smiling while you do it?.. Oh, well, that didn’t last very long, did it? You want to think I treat you like shit, I can’t help that, there is no way to prove sincerity. Believe what you will. But one thing: I’ve been pulling on this rope longer than you’ve been alive. If that counts for something, fine. If not, oh, well. I would have done it anyway. Because its the right thing to do. I could use your help, but your approval don’t count for much. > [@](#): > > …You know, my issue has been on the back burner for my entire adult life. If a chance came along to jump ship to an organization that was actually willing to work (and work successfully) to help out me and mine, I might take it. Not because I don’t care about other issues - I do care, believe me… I do believe you. Its you who don’t believe me. > [@](#): > > …But maybe it’s time for someone else to spend some time on the back burner. Yeah, the Arizona immigration law sucks, and should be changed. But if, for some reason, it became a choice between one or the other: get gay marriage now, or repeal Arizona’s law, I’ll take gay marriage. Sorry, Latinos, I guess its your turn to wait for your rights, for a change… On what basis? Justice? Aren’t there more of them than there are of you? On what basis, besides self-interest, do you make this claim for preference? ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2010, 9:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberals-hate-gays/557849/229 "2010-10-26T21:12:37Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > On at least two different occasions, I pointed out to you that your interpretation of my words were directly contrary to the intent. Ain’t my fault if you don’t get it. And on both occasions, I explained why the words you used were not communicating the intent you claimed. > [@](#): > > Never said exclusion. You didn’t use the word, true. But you defined the concept perfectly. > [@](#): > > Said you seem to want some preference. I say thats a bad idea for practical, political reasons. No, I never said preference. I want the same attention to my concerns that everyone else in this coalition gets. I don’t think thats unreasonable, but you have consistently said that my concerns aren’t important enough to be dealt with. > [@](#): > > Oh, well, that didn’t last very long, did it? You want to think I treat you like shit, I can’t help that, there is no way to prove sincerity. Actually, it’s really, really easy to prove sincerity. Just live up to your promises. That’s all anyone here is asking. We’re not even asking for results. We’d just like to see you _try_. In the context of this thread, you want to prove your sincerity? Stop defending the utter betrayal of gay rights by the Democratic mainstream. Get on our side of the line, and start demanding that our elected officials live up to their promises and work on justice for everyone. Live up to the principles of coalition building you keep espousing, and demand that everyone in the group gets time for their issues. Hold every group in the coaltion to the same standards of self-sacrifice you have, heretofore, demanded only from gays. You start doing that, I’ll start believing you when you say you care about gay rights. > [@](#): > > On what basis? Justice? Aren’t there more of them than there are of you? On what basis, besides self-interest, do you make this claim for preference? On the basis that I am not endlessly selfless, and I can only spend so much of my life putting other’s needs ahead of mine with no reward, before I have to do something to help myself. ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2010, 11:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberals-hate-gays/557849/230 "2010-10-26T23:02:46Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > Very serious question, here, **Scylla**. Would you prefer me to tell you a lie, or to shoot you in the chest? Based on your post here, I’d have to assume that you’d prefer the gunshot - because while I may be violent, at least I’m not dishonest, and you seem to be arguing that violence is the lesser sin than dishonesty. Not really. Your serious question requires context. If you are asking whether I’d prefer if you shot me and remained honest or simply lied to me without shooting me when I asked if you took the last beer, I’d prefer the lie. However, if the choice is between you being openly hostile to me, and then shooting me in the chest, or acting all friendly and then shooting me in the chest, then I’d prefer the honesty. That’s more like what happened here. This thing was a done deal. Recruiters were told to accept gays. It was over, finito. And where were the hoardes of hateful conservatives protesting? Where were all the Republicans up in arms? Where was the outcry? There wasn’t one. Obama spoke out against it, and had the DOJ seek an “emergency” stay (what fucking emergency?) “Oh My God there’s a faggot in a uniform! Call the Police.” He put it back. Because this was not the way to do it. It should be measured and carefully considered. Again, I don’t fucking understand. If it’s unconstitutional why on earth would Obama need to defend it? Why on earth would there need to be a bill integrating gays into the military? Isn’t the Constitution good enough? And, it was fucking perfect. Obama didn’t even need to take the heat for it, because it was Log Cabin Republicans and a conservative judge that overturned it. If a bunch of social conservatives or Republicans or what have you got up in arms and pissed off Obama could just say “Hey, don’t look at me. Not my fault. I didn’t do it. It was those Damn Republicans. Don’t bitch to me because you can’t control your own people.” A done deal. For justice to get done, all he had to do was… nothing. And then, he actively the gays in the chest. And, he spoke out about it. “Hey, be patient. We’ll stop fucking you over later, sometime, when we get around to doing it.” It’s total bullshit to excuse this. Again, Truman racially integrated the military by executive order. 50 years later it’s still fine. The President swears in his oath of office to uphold the Constitution. THere is **NOTHING** that he has to fight to put back a law that was declared unconstitutional. The excuses for this are weak. And then these other assholes come out and say “Oh, well everybody knows Republicans are a lot worse on gay rights” or “Republicans fighting for Gay rights, that’s laughable.” or “You cannot argue that the Democrats have done more for Gay rights,” and such. It’s a stupid fucking argument on about 5 different levels. 1. What Democrats did or didn’t do in the past has no bearing on the fact that a Democratic President is fucking over gays in the military again, today. 2. Arguing by assertion, or acclaim is a logical fallacy. 3. It’s like arguing well Fritz the Nazi killed more Jews than Hans the Nazi so therefore Hans is a better guy. 4. The argument isn’t about who is generally nicer to gays or pays them more lipservice, the argument is about who is actively denying them their civil rights at this moment. Obama. 5. Arguing the general from the specific is another fallacy. Here we have specific Republicans fighting for gay rights and specific democrats fighting against them. Democrats maybe being generally nicer in the past has no bearing. It’s like if somebody is getting mauled by a bear and you tell them, and while it’s ripping their face off you tell them “Bears are generally timid creatures, and will tend to run from humans.” Idiotic. ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2010, 11:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberals-hate-gays/557849/231 "2010-10-26T23:05:46Z")
> [@Hamlet](#): > > And, for the second time, DADT was a compromise Clinton reached with mostly Republicans who wanted to keep the entire ban and investigatory problems. It was a small step in the right direction. Nowhere near good enough, but it was something. Yeah, it was an opportunity to do the right thing, like Truman and instead Clinton forced the gays into the closet. Some things you compromise on. Some you don’t. Basic civil rights are in the latter category. So no, he gets no credit for perpetuating an injustice. ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [October 26, 2010, 11:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberals-hate-gays/557849/232 "2010-10-26T23:09:03Z")
> [@Bosstone](#): > > Well, fair enough. I don’t know how those percentages actually break down, but I asked for just one, and we have a whole 5 national Republicans at 75% or better. Brava. It’s not that impressive to me. Again, there’s lots of bills that don’t pass and I don’t think much of a Senator or congressman voting for a Bill that he knows will fail simply so he can tell his constituents he voted for something. It’s a pretty old trick. I’d be more interested in seeing what the track record is on votes that became law. I don’t care about what lost causes were promoted. I care about what was accomplished. ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2010, 12:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberals-hate-gays/557849/233 "2010-10-27T00:00:28Z")
> [@Scylla](#): > > It’s not that impressive to me. Again, there’s lots of bills that don’t pass and I don’t think much of a Senator or congressman voting for a Bill that he knows will fail simply so he can tell his constituents he voted for something. > > It’s a pretty old trick. > > I’d be more interested in seeing what the track record is on votes that became law. I don’t care about what lost causes were promoted. I care about what was accomplished. Doesn’t that have the same problem, except the other way? Just as someone might vote for a Bill he knows will fail simply so he can tell constituents he voted for something, couldn’t they also vote for something that will pass on the basis that they then get to parade their successful voting record? Perhaps a good way to look at it would be to examine votes that were close, on the assumption that in such circumstances politicians are more likely to actually vote idealogically (or, at least, be pressured into voting in lockstep with party, but for this examination that’s just as helpful). ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2010, 12:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberals-hate-gays/557849/234 "2010-10-27T00:02:46Z")
> [@Revenant\_Threshold](#): > > Doesn’t that have the same problem, except the other way? Just as someone might vote for a Bill he knows will fail simply so he can tell constituents he voted for something, couldn’t they also vote for something that will pass on the basis that they then get to parade their successful voting record? That’s a good point. I’d thought of it, but couldn’t see a way around it. I just figured if it passed then whether they meant it or not, it’s an actual accomplishment. > [@](#): > > Perhaps a good way to look at it would be to examine votes that were close, on the assumption that in such circumstances politicians are more likely to actually vote idealogically (or, at least, be pressured into voting in lockstep with party, but for this examination that’s just as helpful). That’s an interesting idea. ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2010, 12:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberals-hate-gays/557849/235 "2010-10-27T00:06:52Z")
> [@Scylla](#): > > Yeah, it was an opportunity to do the right thing, like Truman and instead Clinton forced the gays into the closet. Again, I don’t like it anymore than you do. But it was better than what came before, which was a blanket ban, mandatory questioning of new recruits, the questioning and prosecution of suspected homosexuals, witchunts, dishonerable discharges, and extrajudicial beatings. And it was what the Republicans fought, and fought hard, to keep. Again, we agree, it was a poor compromise. But your insistance, once again, on ignoring the small steps forward and the role of the right wing as the one that the left had to compromise with is annoying as hell. Of course you’ve been doing it for almost a decade now, so who am I to change your mind. You trot out Barry Goldwater and DADT and ignore the entirety of what the Republican party has been doing regarding gay rights in the last 40 years. > [@Scylla](#): > > Some things you compromise on. Some you don’t. Basic civil rights are in the latter category. MWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. _sigh_, sorry about that outburst, but I … HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHA!!! Dammit! Seriously, I’ll try and keep a straight face this time, because having a “conservative”, who consistently backs Republicans talking about not compromising on civil … HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHA!! Sorry. I just can’t do it. Are you sure you’re not a liberal? With civil rights being so important and uncompromisable, I find it amazing you would support the Republican party and their clearly stated stance on homosexuality. But, in effect, we agree. It was a very poor compromise. But, for about the tenth time, you ignore who he had to compromise with. > [@Scylla](#): > > So no, he gets no credit for perpetuating an injustice. He replaced a greater injustice with a lesser injustice. And, once again, he did it because of opposition by the Republican party. The very same party you are laughingly trying to portray as standing up for gay rights. And I couldn’t help but notice how you clipped my reply to you to take out merely one point and ignored the rest. Why is that? ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2010, 12:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberals-hate-gays/557849/236 "2010-10-27T00:53:53Z")
> [@Hamlet](#): > > Again, I don’t like it anymore than you do. But it was better than what came before, which was a blanket ban, mandatory questioning of new recruits, the questioning and prosecution of suspected homosexuals, witchunts, dishonerable discharges, and extrajudicial beatings. And it was what the Republicans fought, and fought hard, to keep. So you keep saying as if assertion were argument. Oh yes, and this is the same brave President who signed DOMA which passed in a landslide with broad bipartisan support. Yeah, those brave Democrats really saved the day there. > [@](#): > > You trot out Barry Goldwater and DADT and ignore the entirety of what the Republican party has been doing regarding gay rights in the last 40 years. Agreed. I argue with specific examples and you counter with vague generalizations and assertions. > [@](#): > > MWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. > > _sigh_, sorry about that outburst, but I … > > HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHA!!! > > Dammit! Seriously, I’ll try and keep a straight face this time, because having a “conservative”, who consistently backs Republicans talking about not compromising on civil … > > HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHA!! > > Sorry. I just can’t do it. In all seriousness, fuck you. What fantasy world do you live in, where it’s all black and white with the good guys on the left and the bad guys on the right? It’s probably real comforting to think that way. Almost everybody that I work with is a Republican. Almost everybody that I know personally is a Republican. You know what they have in common. They don’t care about race or sexual preference. They just don’t fucking care. They don’t care if you are black, they don’t care if you are hispanic, they don’t care if you are gay. As far as they and I are concerned, these are among the least interesting and important things about somebody. That to me is equality. That to me is the paradigm to aspire to. 99% of the time when I hear about race or sexual preference as an issue, it’s usually on this board or somebody on TV, or some liberal or Democrat during a party going on and on about how prejudiced we all are. Bullshit. In most instances, the left is far more prejudiced than the right because race is an issue for them. I never heard Bush going on about race, but Obama is out there campaigning and today he said Republicans “need to ride in the back.” I also heard a quote where he was talking to a hispanic group and asking them whether they were going to stay at home or go out and fight “our enemies” by voting. It’s fucking race baiting, and it’s fucking racist and the left does it… all… the… fucking… time. Most of us just don’t care. Yes, there are fucking assholes and most of the assholes in this area are social conservatives and therefore Republicans. But… they get more fucking power because of the attention focussed on them by the left. Without that, they’d be just a bunch of sad assholes that most people despise. Take that group of fucking hateful baptists from Kansas protesting gays at military funerals.. Phelps et al. They wouldn’t fucking even exist and do what they do, without the attention focussed on them by the left. You guys like them. They are useful to you. You gotta go searching all the way to fucking to Wichita Kansas to find a group of 20 hateful motherfuckers that you can hold up and despise. Racial and sexual preference as issues are tools for the left to use to garner and keep minority votes. Nothing more. So yeah, we have a bunch of ignorant assholes, but you have a bunch of smug manipulative conniving sonsabitches playing at civil rights for votes. So don’t fucking laugh at me. Go fucking kick yourself and your party members in the teeth for politicizing a basic rights issue, and for purposefully muddying the stew and calling people bigoted and racist who disagree in good faith with arguments that really aren’t about civil rights. Affirmative action? I don’t like it. Hate crime legislation? I don’t like it. I understand the arguments for both, and I concede there are many merits, and it’s not an easy issue, but in the end I come down against both simply because I think singling people out and creating special laws based on race or sexual preference is the source of the problem, not the solution. I don’t think that disagreement makes me a racist or intolerant to gays. I fucking resent the fact that assholes on the left would try to color me or people who agree with me as racists or intolerant due to this disagreement, who would lump me in the same category as true racists or those idiotic intolerant social conservatives who are so fucking stupid that they don’t even know their own religion well enough to understand that gay sex is a venial sin not a cardinal sin, considered the same as masturbation or birth control for the same fucking reasons. If they want kick people out of the military for whacking off or deny marriage to people who wear a rubber then I guess it would be ok to deny the same to those who are gay, but until they make that argument they are a bunch of morons (not to say I’m in favor of any of that, but it would be consistent and make some sense.) Instead the religious and moral objections are just an excuse for plain old bigotry. Most of the people I know, you engage in bigotry at your own expense. Nobody is likely to say anything or make a big deal about it to your face. It’s gonna be about the same as if you announced that you seriously believed in faeries. People are gonna back away and distance themselves from you, because you are demonstrating that you are an idiot. Most people just don’t fucking care all that much about race or sexual preference. It doesn’t have to be that a fucking issue. The left makes it so. It baits it and it trades on it, and it perpetuates the divisiveness because it’s useful. If the majority of intelligent people who consider these things non-issues would stop making or allowing these issues to be political issues there would be no refuge in politics for racists. They couldn’t function. That they can and that they have a place is the fault of the left. > [@](#): > > Are you sure you’re not a liberal? With civil rights being so important and uncompromisable, I find it amazing you would support the Republican party and their clearly stated stance on homosexuality. Oh yeah, because Obama is doing such a great job, and Clinton didn’t start DADT, or sign DOMA, and the latter didn’t pass with bipartisan support 85-14, and like none of the Democratic candidates ever said they were against gay marriage (Oh wait, they all did.) The Democrats don’t have the moral high ground. They are panderers, and pretenders. They put down other people for not having virtues that they too lack. They are fucking hypocrites. So, no. I’m not a big fan of the Democrats on this issue. Again, minds can be changed. I think we can change minds on the right. But dishonest panderers whose position shifts depending on whether it is expeditious or not… that type of character weakness is hard to change. I’ll take the Republicans. > [@](#): > > And I couldn’t help but notice how you clipped my reply to you to take out merely one point and ignored the rest. Why is that? I thought the rest of it was bullshit. ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2010, 1:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberals-hate-gays/557849/237 "2010-10-27T01:10:06Z")
I just realized I said “Fuck you,” which is against the rules, part of that restricted language in the pit. I forgot. My bad, and the edit window is closed. If a moderator would change the “Fuck you,” in my previous post to “Lick my fucking balls,” or somesuch I would be appreciative. Thanks, and sorry. I’ll be more careful. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2010, 1:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberals-hate-gays/557849/238 "2010-10-27T01:13:44Z")
> [@jayjay](#): > > I just want to make clear, **luci** , that I don’t think you’re homophobic or anything. Nor do I think the majority of progressives are. But I do think you’re all under the influence of straight privilege, which makes it difficult for you to understand the gay experience… Sorry I didn’t see this earlier, **JJ.** I was walking along, chatting with **Milller** , and then there was this train wreck… Anyway, some thoughtfulness here, not to be ignored, that would be rude. So this is not about hearing myself talk, but being polite. Jus so you know. Understand the gay experience? Hell, I don’t even understand my own damn experience, and I’m him! About thirty years ago, I lied my way into a job waiting at a snooty restaraunt. Of a wait staff of twenty, I was the only non-gay man there. And it took me about two weeks to catch on. What with being a country boy from Waco, and all. But I digress… We fling ourselves into the utterly and absolutely subjective, what can be argued there? there is only witnessing. Not snarking, mind, but how do we judge, what can we measure? If we had the perfect impartial judge, entirely free of bias, and we offer him the life experience of an average black guy, an average latino, and an average gay man, who might he say was the more oppressed? The latino guy can marry, but the gay guy don’t get pulled over for being brown. So we can’t judge on the basis of who’s more oppressed. Whats left? Numbers, I suppose, an injustice visited on more people is a worse injustice. Seems sensible enough to me, how about you? But that won’t work either, because at least some of the groups are going to feel that their lot in life is far worse, so the numbers don’t matter. Human, all too human, no? So what is to be done? About all thats left is trying to treat all the same. But that means working for all the same, that means a coalition of equal partners. And that means, at least to some degree, a coalition of equal and willing partners who are willing to set aside their personal perspective. And, of course, trust. Oh, dear. Houston, we already have a problem. How else can this thing be done? How else do we bring our fellow citizens around to the truth? Progressive coalition politics is slow, agonizing, and all around pain in the butt. Oh, and you lose a lot of fights. (Didn’t want to leave out the upside.) So, if you got a better plan, hurry right in here and share. I’ll probably be pissed about the forty years shot to hell, but at least it won’t be forty-one! Yeah, I’m sure I’ll feel really fucking great about that. ---
**Author:** ![jayjay](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jayjay/32/6765_2.png) [@jayjay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jayjay)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2010, 1:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberals-hate-gays/557849/239 "2010-10-27T01:14:03Z")
**Scylla** , if all of these rank-and-file, average-joe Republicans are really all about equality and color-blindness and not caring about homosexuality and all that, then why do you (and they) keep electing racist, homophobic, misogynist, retrograde neanderthals to Congress and the Senate? ---
**Author:** ![jayjay](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jayjay/32/6765_2.png) [@jayjay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jayjay)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2010, 1:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberals-hate-gays/557849/240 "2010-10-27T01:16:48Z")
**luci** , I’m pretty sure that most gay folk who vote next week are going to vote for Democrats. I am. But we’re voting for them because, as much as the lip service and all that sucks, the Republicans suck even more. The Republicans are existential suckage for LGBT. The Democrats are just mediocrities on this subject that happen to suck. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberals-hate-gays/557849.md?page=11) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberals-hate-gays/557849.md?page=13)