# 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:** 13
**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, 1:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberals-hate-gays/557849/241 "2010-10-27T01:21:47Z")
> [@Scylla](#): > > …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… This is nearly perfect **Scylla** , a gossamer, venemous butterfly. **Starving Artist** , eat your heart out. ---
**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, 1:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberals-hate-gays/557849/242 "2010-10-27T01:25:11Z")
> [@jayjay](#): > > **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? Tradition! ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2010, 1:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberals-hate-gays/557849/243 "2010-10-27T01:27:01Z")
> [@Scylla](#): > > 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. No need to edit the post. And since you’ve acknowledged that it’s on the list, there’s no need to remind you. Please try to remember for next time. No warning issued. **Gfactor** Pit Moderator ---
**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, 1:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberals-hate-gays/557849/244 "2010-10-27T01:28:52Z")
> [@jayjay](#): > > **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? I dunno. Too general a question, and I dispute the assumption. Get specific. Name names an support your assumptions. Who specifically in the republican senate and congress fits that bill? What percentage do they represent? Is that percentage higher for Republicans than Democrats? Than, assuming it is, does correlation represent causation? For example if a Louisiana Republican congressman is racist is he racist because he’s a Republican or because he’s from a racist district in Louisiana? When that same district elects a Democrat will that Democrat tend to be racist? The assumption built into your question is actually a pretty complex and difficult one to demonstrate. ---
**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, 1:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberals-hate-gays/557849/245 "2010-10-27T01:29:10Z")
> [@Scylla](#): > > 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. What proportion of people must care about a subject (in a presumably either too negative or too positive a manner) for it to be an issue without being raised by a side of politics? How do we go about determining whether that proportion is reflected in reality or not? I mean, the easiest way I could think of (so probably not the best) would be to pick some percentage - let’s say 20% being a potentially problematic figure - and then look at opinion polls to discover whether more than 20% of the public have some strong opinion on the subject. How is it you’ve arrived at your particular opinion on this? Honestly while i’d agree with you that the nature of politics is such that you are guaranteed to find people who’ll cynically manipulate their potential voters, i’m not sure this isn’t a case both problems existing; yes, there’s liberals who’ll drum up support by pointing to or exaggerating cases of apparent inequality, but I don’t think that, in and of itself, means that such cases don’t exist. If I may address your examples from experience - you say that 99% of the time you hear things like this, it’s from liberals on here or TV and suchlike, as compared with your Republican friends and aquaintances who aren’t bothered. As you say, most of the people you know are Republican, but do you hear such things coming from the mouths of the few Democrat (or non-party) aquaintances of yours? ---
**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, 1:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberals-hate-gays/557849/246 "2010-10-27T01:33:12Z")
> [@Scylla](#): > > 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. Again, you simply ignore my points (that DADT was better than what was there and that it was, by and large, the Republicans party he had to compromise with) and repeat yourself. How utterly unsurprising. > [@Scylla](#): > > Agreed. I argue with specific examples and you counter with vague generalizations and assertions. More lies from you. You’ve been given Prop 8, the Republican refusal to support anti-discrimination laws both at state levels and in federal law, their fighting against recognition of same sex marriage, and the rhetoric that comes from Republican leaders about homosexuals, even homosexuals in their own party (some nice videos which have been linked to in this very thread). I could, of course, add in their support for the blanket ban on homosexuals in the military, their support of denying same sex partners the power to adopt children, and their support of anti sodomy laws like those in Lawrence v. Texas. Or a myriad of other examples. But, really, what’s the point. You’ve ignored them so far, you’re likelyl to just keep on ignoring them now. > [@Scylla](#): > > In all seriousness, fuck you. Buy me dinner first. I’m not easy. ETA: I see you edited it. Does that mean you weren’t serious? I bought a new pair of khakis, a really nice sweater, and a bottle of cologne just because of that offer. Now I’ll have to return them. > [@Scylla](#): > > Most of us just don’t care. Keep telling yourself that. Your party disagrees. You keep bitching about DOMA and Clinton. Here’s what your party has to say about it: "A Republican Congress enacted the Defense of Marriage Act, affirming the right of states not to recognize same-sex “marriages” licensed in other states. Unbelievably, the Democratic Party has now pledged to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, which would subject every state to the redefinition of marriage by a judge without ever allowing the people to vote on the matter. We also urge Congress to use its Article III, Section 2 power to prevent activist federal judges from imposing upon the rest of the nation the judicial activism in Massachusetts and California. We also encourage states to review their marriage and divorce laws in order to strengthen marriage. " [GOP Platform](http://www.gop.com/2008Platform/Values.htm#6) That’s the Republican party’s fucking platform, and they are against any change the Democrats want to make to DOMA. You have the audicity to sit there and condemn Dems for DOMA while ignoring that it’s the Republican party’s vehemence against it. Where do you live again? Pennsylvania? "States should not recognize gay marriage from other states. After more than two centuries of American jurisprudence, and millennia of human experience, a few judges and local authorities are presuming to change the most fundamental institution of civilization, the union of a man and a woman in marriage. Attempts to redefine marriage in a single state or city could have serious consequences throughout the country, and anything less than a Constitutional amendment, passed by the Congress and ratified by the states, is vulnerable to being overturned by activist judges. On a matter of such importance, the voice of the people must be heard. The Constitutional amendment process guarantees that the final decision will rest with the American people and their elected representatives. President Bush will also vigorously defend the Defense of Marriage Act, which was supported by both parties and passed by 85 votes in the Senate. This common sense law reaffirms the right of states not to recognize same-sex marriages licensed in other states. Source: 2004 Republican Party Platform, p. 85 Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage We strongly support a Constitutional amendment that fully protects marriage, and we [oppose] forcing states to recognize other living arrangements as equivalent to marriage. The well-being of children is best accomplished [when] nurtured by their mother & father anchored by the bonds of marriage. We believe that legal recognition and the accompanying benefits afforded couples should be preserved for that unique and special union of one man and one woman which has historically been called marriage." From the Republican’s platform in Pennsylvania found [here](http://www.ontheissues.org/Archive/2004_GOP_Platform_Civil_Rights.htm). Sorry it’s 2004, but I couldn’t access their 2008 or 2010 platforms without a password. You can pretend all you like that the it is just a few nutjobs who are ruining it for all Republicans, but it’s a fucking lie. Throw all the hissy fits you want, it won’t change any of the facts. ---
**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, 1:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberals-hate-gays/557849/247 "2010-10-27T01:33:13Z")
> [@](#): > > …coming from the mouths of the few Democrat (or non-party) aquaintances of yours? The butler only speaks when spoken to, and knows his place. ---
**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, 1:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberals-hate-gays/557849/248 "2010-10-27T01:34:32Z")
> [@Gfactor](#): > > No need to edit the post. And since you’ve acknowledged that it’s on the list, there’s no need to remind you. Please try to remember for next time. No warning issued. > > **Gfactor** > Pit Moderator Will do. ---
**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 27, 2010, 1:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberals-hate-gays/557849/249 "2010-10-27T01:48:26Z")
> [@Scylla](#): > > 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 I’m not offering any excuses for Obama. That’s **elucidator** ’s job, and I wouldn’t want to take it away from him. Not after he spent all that money on new knee pads and a fresh bottle of mouth wash. But here’s the thing. As fucked up as Obama has been on this issue, the worst that you can say about him is that he’s on par with Republicans on the issue. There are, after all, two attacks on DADT currently underway. One is the court case, which would have succeeded, if Obama hadn’t knifed us in the back. The other is the bill to repeal it, which would have succeeded if Senate Republicans hadn’t filibustered it. Now, if the question is, “Is Obama better or worse than the Republicans on this issue,” the answer is clearly that he’s worse, because in addition to working against our rights, he also lies to our faces about his intentions. However, if the question is, “Are Democrats better or worse than Republicans on this issue,” well, Obama’s just one guy. It took forty Republicans working together to stop the vote on repealing DADT from going forward. Oh, and a grand total of three Democrats voted with them. On the other side of the aisle, there were fifty five Democrats, one independent, and not a single Republican. Now, you’ve argued that those Democratic votes can be dismissed as hot air from people who knew that the vote wouldn’t pass. And you may be right about that. But it doesn’t change the fact that not one single Senate Republican stood up for what was right on this issue. Not. One. “But what about the Log Cabin Republicans?” you ask. Yes, they were the ones who got the issue to court, and good on them for that. But you may not be aware of the fact that the Log Cabin Republicans are a group of homos. A homosexual advocacy group advocating for homosexual rights is not really noteworthy. It is unusual that they’re a _conservative_ homosexual rights group, but I think it’s stretching things a bit to credit their actions to their politics, and not their sexuality. Lastly, keep in mind that DADT is not the whole of the gay rights movement. What positive actions have conservatives taken for gay rights outside the area of DADT? How many gay marriage bills have been sponsored or endorsed by Republican politicians? As near as I can tell, the number is just about zero. Which, as it happens, is only slightly fewer than the number of bills that have been sponsored by Democrats. And the Dems deserve a lot of condemnation for dragging their feet on that issue. However, lets look at the other side of the aisle again. Twenty nine states have banned gay marriage. Nineteen of them have banned civil unions. Three of them have even banned domestic partnerships. How many of those laws were proposed by Democrats, do you think? How many by Republicans? And note, please, that these are constitutional bans, enacted by the will of the people. I’m not even counting states where gay marriage is illegal by statute. So, over all, I agree with you that Obama’s appeal to the DADT decision was an unconscionable betrayal. And I agree that, overall, Democratic support for gay rights is a lot of hot air. But I don’t think you can make a reasonable case that Republicans are in any wise a better, or even equivalent, alternative to the Democrats on this issue. The Dems, on the whole, do nothing to make things better. Republicans, on the whole, are actively working to make things worse. And they are doing so with the approval of the majority of their voting base. ---
**Author:** ![waterj2](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/858c86/32.png) [@waterj2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/waterj2)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2010, 1:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberals-hate-gays/557849/250 "2010-10-27T01:59:39Z")
> [@jayjay](#): > > **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. There are some Democrats who actually are concerned about the issue and willing to fight for it. Several months ago, for example, I voted for Martha Coakley for Senate. As Attorney General for Massachusetts, she sued the federal government to overturn section 3 of DOMA. She lost to Scott Brown, who has consistently fought against gay marriage as a state senator, voted against DADT repeal twice, mocked his Cheryl Jacques’s (his predecessor in the state senate before she left to head HRC) “alleged family responsibilities,” and posed for a photo at a Tea Party event with the head of the anti-gay hate group Mass Resistance. Maybe Coakley was just trying to appease the gay lobby or whatever, and really does hate gays. I can’t know her heart. But when it comes down to her actions, she has certainly been the sort of “passionate advocate” that certain sitting Democratic presidents try to say they’ll be. I do realize that there are plenty of other reasons Coakley was a miserable Senate candidate. I had voted for Capuano in the primary. He’s got a near-perfect record on gay issues, but hasn’t really gone above and beyond, as far as I know. But he was a better candidate overall, IMHO. It’s a vast over-simplification to write Democrats as a group off as mediocrities. Yeah, as a group they end up tied to whatever they can get folks like Blanche Lincoln and Ben Nelson to go along with, the politicians who are willing to fight for gay issues are also almost invariably Democrats. And we can always try to get rid of the mediocrities and replace them with fighters. I’m still kicking myself for voting for John Kerry in the primary in 2008, when a pro-equality candidate challenged him. Sure, it was a long shot, but I’m not going to pass up those opportunities in the future. ---
**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, 2:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberals-hate-gays/557849/251 "2010-10-27T02:00:32Z")
Hamlet: You think DADT was a step in the right direction, better than nothing. I don’t. I think it was worse than nothing. I think the situation was coming to a head and likely to be resolved. The current state of affairs was intolerable. You had blatant violations of civil rights, investigations of people’s personal lives, intrusions of privacy, and witchunts. These issues were worse and getting more intolerable than the idea of gays in the military, because even the worst bigots have to realize that some are going to slip through. The situation was going to force those against gays in the military to choose which was more intolerable: some gays in the military (which let’s face it, have always been there and always will,) or making everybody’s life frizzy with witch hunts and what have you. It was a choice between practicality, or racism. DADT gave the bigots a way to hold onto their hate practically, it perpetuated. I believe that withou DADT gays in the military would be a fait accompli. So no, I think it was a bad idea. Sorry about the “fuck you.” and sorry to back out of the date. If it’s any consolation, I don’t think you’re missing out on much (at least that’s what my wife says.) As for your links and examples, I thought I’d already addressed this issue with Miller. I look at your examples from the Republican cites and I say what I said before… The Republicans are open with it. The Democrats are not. They’ll vote for DOMA, and Clinton will sign it, while claiming they support gays. Some support. Ultimately it’s not what you say you ate gonna do, but what you do, and I don’t see the Democrats actually acting in any fucking way that disagrees with what the Republicans are saying. I kind of went over this several times already. ---
**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, 2:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberals-hate-gays/557849/252 "2010-10-27T02:01:01Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > …Not after he spent all that money on new knee pads and a fresh bottle of mouth wash… Beavis? ---
**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 27, 2010, 2:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberals-hate-gays/557849/253 "2010-10-27T02:13:52Z")
> [@Scylla](#): > > You think DADT was a step in the right direction, better than nothing. I don’t. I think it was worse than nothing. I think the situation was coming to a head and likely to be resolved. The current state of affairs was intolerable. You had blatant violations of civil rights, investigations of people’s personal lives, intrusions of privacy, and witchunts. I think you may actually be correct in your assertion that DADT was worse than the situation it was intended to remedy. However, I’ll give Clinton this much credit on the issue: he tried to do something about it. He fucked it up, and caved to the Republicans far too easily. But again, if it hadn’t been for Republican opposition, the compromise of DADT would never have been necessary, and we’d have had gays serving openly in the military since the early nineties. DADT is a good example of Democratic incompetence, but I don’t think it serves well as an example of moral equivalence between the two parties on the subject of gay rights. ---
**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, 2:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberals-hate-gays/557849/254 "2010-10-27T02:16:25Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > But here’s the thing. As fucked up as Obama has been on this issue, the worst that you can say about him is that he’s on par with Republicans on the issue. There are, after all, two attacks on DADT currently underway. One is the court case, which would have succeeded, if Obama hadn’t knifed us in the back. The other is the bill to repeal it, which would have succeeded if Senate Republicans hadn’t filibustered it. Now, if the question is, “Is Obama better or worse than the Republicans on this issue,” the answer is clearly that he’s worse, because in addition to working against our rights, he also lies to our faces about his intentions. However, if the question is, “Are Democrats better or worse than Republicans on this issue,” well, Obama’s just one guy. It took forty Republicans working together to stop the vote on repealing DADT from going forward. Oh, and a grand total of three Democrats voted with them. On the other side of the aisle, there were fifty five Democrats, one independent, and not a single Republican. Now, you’ve argued that those Democratic votes can be dismissed as hot air from people who knew that the vote wouldn’t pass. And you may be right about that. But it doesn’t change the fact that not one single Senate Republican stood up for what was right on this issue. Not. One. I think that is a fair and accurate analysis, and I accept it completely. We agree. > [@](#): > > “But what about the Log Cabin Republicans?” you ask. Yes, they were the ones who got the issue to court, and good on them for that. But you may not be aware of the fact that the Log Cabin Republicans are a group of homos. NOOOOOO! (yeah, I kinda figured.) > [@](#): > > A homosexual advocacy group advocating for homosexual rights is not really noteworthy. It is unusual that they’re a _conservative_ homosexual rights group, but I think it’s stretching things a bit to credit their actions to their politics, and not their sexuality. No, but what seems to distinguish them from liberal activists is that they actually accomplished something. > [@](#): > > Lastly, keep in mind that DADT is not the whole of the gay rights movement. What positive actions have conservatives taken for gay rights outside the area of DADT? How many gay marriage bills have been sponsored or endorsed by Republican politicians? As near as I can tell, the number is just about zero. Which, as it happens, is only slightly fewer than the number of bills that have been sponsored by Democrats. And the Dems deserve a lot of condemnation for dragging their feet on that issue. However, lets look at the other side of the aisle again. Twenty nine states have banned gay marriage. Nineteen of them have banned civil unions. Three of them have even banned domestic partnerships. How many of those laws were proposed by Democrats, do you think? How many by Republicans? And note, please, that these are constitutional bans, enacted by the will of the people. I’m not even counting states where gay marriage is illegal by statute. > > So, over all, I agree with you that Obama’s appeal to the DADT decision was an unconscionable betrayal. And I agree that, overall, Democratic support for gay rights is a lot of hot air. But I don’t think you can make a reasonable case that Republicans are in any wise a better, or even equivalent, alternative to the Democrats on this issue. The Dems, on the whole, do nothing to make things better. Republicans, on the whole, are actively working to make things worse. And they are doing so with the approval of the majority of their voting base. And in all honesty, I don’t think they are any better. In all honesty I think that unfortunately the majority of the bigoted people, racists and homophobes are on the right. I even read a pretty good study that showed this was true (while the difference was statistically significant it wasn’t as large as you would guess.) I think the biggest difference is that the Democrats seem to pretend a lot more that they are not bigoted than the Republicans who are more open about it. Personally, I think it is easier and one is more likely to succeed in arguing against an open opposition, than a hidden one. ---
**Author:** ![waterj2](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/858c86/32.png) [@waterj2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/waterj2)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2010, 2:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberals-hate-gays/557849/255 "2010-10-27T02:20:44Z")
Oh, I should also mention that quite a number of gay folks will be voting for the Democrats because we’re also fairly liberal. Charlie Baker’s running for governor, and has an openly gay running mate and all the right positions on gay issues (aside from adding sexual identification to the anti-discrimination provisions, but his running mate’s been a supporter of the bill, and I suspect that if the legislature passed it, he’d be reasonably likely to sign it) , but I’m not going to vote for him because I don’t generally support the sorts of policies he supports. And the Democrat in the race, Deval Patrick, has been a strong supporter of gay rights as governor (I’d put him in the above-and-beyond category for the necessary arm-twisting to keep even 25% of the legislature from advancing the proposed amendment banning SSM to a ballot question). ---
**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, 2:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberals-hate-gays/557849/256 "2010-10-27T02:26:33Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > I think you may actually be correct in your assertion that DADT was worse than the situation it was intended to remedy. However, I’ll give Clinton this much credit on the issue: he tried to do something about it. He fucked it up, and caved to the Republicans far too easily. But again, if it hadn’t been for Republican opposition, the compromise of DADT would never have been necessary, and we’d have had gays serving openly in the military since the early nineties. DADT is a good example of Democratic incompetence, but I don’t think it serves well as an example of moral equivalence between the two parties on the subject of gay rights. That might be true, and perhaps I’m wrong, but I don’t think about it as incompetence. I think it was exactly what they wanted. If one stands up and solves civil rights issues, than the Democrats can’t use them as a platform to get minority votes. And, if you are looking for a group to perpetually screw over to polarize politics, gays are the perfect target. They are a small enough minority to fuck over safely, yet placed across the entire socioeconomic spectrum. They are not immediately identifiable. Ongoing injustice against gays is a great social issue for the Democrats to have. It would be a mistake for them to solve it. So no, I don’t think it was incompetence. I think it was perfect. Give the gays a pyrrhic victory that looks like your doing something for them that actually perpetuates the problem so you can milk it for decades more. That makes so much more sense than solving it. ---
**Author:** ![Bosstone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/22d042/32.png) [@Bosstone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bosstone)\ **Post date:** [October 27, 2010, 2:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberals-hate-gays/557849/257 "2010-10-27T02:35:31Z")
Just like doctors and pharmaceutical companies don’t actually want to cure illness and disease, because if they do then there’s no more patients to take care of, right? ---
**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, 2:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberals-hate-gays/557849/258 "2010-10-27T02:40:29Z")
Wow, they sure kept it under wraps! No documents leaked…you don’t _have_ any documents, right?..no body tattled. No stories on Drudge about the secret Dem anti-gay conspiracy? Which is kinda funny when you think about it, 'cause documents have leaked out about the Nixon Southern Strategy, which should make any decent American hurl. And stories, testimony of people who were there… And you got, what? Exactly? ---
**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 27, 2010, 2:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberals-hate-gays/557849/259 "2010-10-27T02:50:35Z")
> [@Scylla](#): > > No, but what seems to distinguish them from liberal activists is that they actually accomplished something. Now hold on a second, there. The finding against DADT was a major victory (or would have been, if not for a certain Muslim from Kenya), and I don’t want to take anything away from that, but it’s not the alpha and omega of the gay rights movement. Before Stonewall, simply being caught in a gay bar could get you arrested. In many states, you could be institutionalized for being gay. In California, there was a law on the books (never actually used, as near as I’ve been able to tell) authorizing lobotomies as a treatment for homosexuality. Being outed would almost certainly cost you your job, your house, even custody of your children. Things have changed a lot since then. There is no longer any state in the Union where homosexuality itself is a crime. Many states offer protections for gays in the workplace and the housing market. And it’s been a few years, at least, since the last time I read a story about someone suing for custody of their grandkids because their son or daughter turned out to be queer. Every time one of those unjust laws was repealed, or a protective law put into place, it was because some activist group was pushing for it. And almost without exception, in every one of those cases, if you looked at the group’s politics, you’ll find liberals. Now, I’m not offering that as an argument for the inherent superiority of liberals on gay rights, because those groups were all pretty queer, too. But the LCR was far from the first group to win a political victory for gays in this country. Actually, the thing I have the hardest time wrapping my head around in this story isn’t the ruling, but the plaintiff. To my knowledge, this is the first time the Log Cabin has ever actually done something for gay rights. Up to now, they’ve been the punchline to a particularly bad joke. > [@](#): > > And in all honesty, I don’t think they are any better. In all honesty I think that unfortunately the majority of the bigoted people, racists and homophobes are on the right. I even read a pretty good study that showed this was true (while the difference was statistically significant it wasn’t as large as you would guess.) > > I think the biggest difference is that the Democrats seem to pretend a lot more that they are not bigoted than the Republicans who are more open about it. > > Personally, I think it is easier and one is more likely to succeed in arguing against an open opposition, than a hidden one. I agree with you that the actual degree of bigotry of the individual politicians on either side of the aisle probably isn’t that great. I do disagree with you on where the dishonesty really lies. I don’t think the Democrats are secretly big ol’ 'phobes. I do think they’re moral cowards who will consistently choose political expediency over doing the right thing. However, I also don’t really think most Republicans are half as homophobic as their rhetoric suggests. I think most of them don’t really give a damn about gays one way or the other, but they’ve found out that giving gays a good public thrashing is good for them in the polls, and so they play it up for the genuine bigots and homophobes among the Republican electorate. ---
**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 27, 2010, 3:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberals-hate-gays/557849/260 "2010-10-27T03:06:34Z")
> [@Scylla](#): > > That might be true, and perhaps I’m wrong, but I don’t think about it as incompetence. I think it was exactly what they wanted. > > If one stands up and solves civil rights issues, than the Democrats can’t use them as a platform to get minority votes. And, if you are looking for a group to perpetually screw over to polarize politics, gays are the perfect target. They are a small enough minority to fuck over safely, yet placed across the entire socioeconomic spectrum. They are not immediately identifiable. > > Ongoing injustice against gays is a great social issue for the Democrats to have. It would be a mistake for them to solve it. So no, I don’t think it was incompetence. I think it was perfect. Give the gays a pyrrhic victory that looks like your doing something for them that actually perpetuates the problem so you can milk it for decades more. > > That makes so much more sense than solving it. I’ve heard people make the same argument about the Republican party, and abortion. Could be there’s something to it, but it doesn’t strike me as all that likely. Thing is, there’s only a few places in the country where being pro-gay really helps you. Out here in California, or over in New York, taking a pro-gay stance generally plays well with the voters, and helps get those celebrity endorsements. Most of the rest of the country, a pro-gay stance is a liability. Reportedly, Kerry took a pretty big hit in 2004 because he was perceived as favoring gay marriage, despite his regular statements to the contrary. An internally, it causes problems because the two largest minority blocs in the Democratic party are pretty virulently anti-gay. I think most Democrats would prefer that the gay rights issue be settled, already. Failing that, they like it if gays would just shut up and vote for them, and not make any waves about being treated like real people. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberals-hate-gays/557849.md?page=12) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/liberals-hate-gays/557849.md?page=14)