Well, it’s so nice to have you back where you belong! 
Hey, if you’re doing the straight lines…!
Thanks!
In addition, Obama’s not perfect on gay issues, but he included us in his nomination speech, and he has gay people working for him in positions of responsibility. McCain has joined with the religious right in treating gay people as pariahs.
There is a clear difference between the GOP and the Dems on gay issues and I pity the deluded fools who vote for McCain.
When it comes to abusing gay people, the GOP doesn’t have a safety word.
I recently found out that a number of the German businessmen who supported Hitler fiancially in the 1920 becauase they saw him as a bulwark agaisnt the Communists waere Jewish. They felt that their identities as Jews were less important than their political allegiances.
I wonder how that worked out for them.
But this is not the official position of the GOP, not even close. It’s you projecting.
A shiny nickel to the first person who guesses where I got that from.
It’s the official position of the GOP that gays shouldn’t get married, but I don’t see the rest of that in the platform anywhere. There are, no doubt, Republicans who do feel that way, but it’s not the official position of the party.
It’s irrelevant anyway. Gay civil rights are coming. People are becoming more tolerant of homosexuality, and as time goes on, the tolerance will increase, whether it’s Obama or McCain in the White House.
Bullshit. The GOP consistently opposes all anti-discrimination legislation at the city, state, and federal levels. The GOP in their platform opposes marriage equality for gay people.
From the 2008 GOP platform:
" 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"
You. Are. Totally. Wrong.
Gay GOP supporters=quislings.
Period.
You miss the point. McCain opposes equality; even if it will come despite him, I see no reason to join him in holding it back.
Oh, come on, dude.
If you were prohibited from getting married, what do you think you’d say to someone who told you to calm down because it’ll be legal in 20 years?
Actually, aside from the “vermin” comment, he looks pretty much spot on. The Republicans are overwhelmingly against SSM, or even same-sex civil unions. The Republicans have consistently defended those who deny services to couples who are in a same-sex relationship. Republicans have consistently defended denying adoption rights to couples in same-sex unions.
Nothing to really add to the OP. I’ve never really understood LCR’s either. I just want to say hi to gobear. Long time, no see.
I’ve said before that as a general principle, I don’t favor a “Federal Marriage Amendment,” for two reasons: as a matter of wise social policy, we ought to permit same-sex marriage; and as a matter of federalism, marriage is an issue for the states.
I think someone could favor a “Federal Marriage Amendment” for many reasons: believing it’s unwise to permit same-sex marriage anywhere in the land; forestalling judicially-created federal marriage policy; being an asshole.
It’s the second reason that deserves a measure of respect, although I disagree with it. If our notion of self-governance means anything, sweeping, substantive changes should be brought about by legislators, not courts. I have a great deal of sympathy for people who wish to forestall a court-imposed same-sex marriage rule, even while I think they’re wrong on the underlying merits of the decision.
Same concept with abortion: if a court were to rule that unborn children were protected by the Constitution and thus outlaw abortion, I’d be outraged, even though I seek the outlawing of abortion. But not like that.
So… reasons are important.
I am prohibited from getting married, thank you very much, and I’d say what I do say; it’s coming, it’s not going to be stopped, and I doubt it’s going to be sped up much if we have Obama in the White House rather than McCain.
Really? If it’s the official position, I’m sure you can find it quoted on their website.
In all seriousness, I appreciate your anger toward the Republicans on this issue and, were I in your shoes I might feel the same way. My dispute with them on this issue is purely academic. However, I think it’s unreasonable of you to refer to them as giving up their birthrights and such. I don’t think it’s fair to expect that everyone who is homosexual must put the LBGT agenda as their number one priority when entering the voting booth. It’s no different than expecting every black/white/latino person to put their respective group first or whatever.
Further, I disagree that it is logically inconsistent at all. Yes, some republicans see homosexuals as subhuman, but so do some democrats. Granted, I imagine the number of republicans that think so is larger, but that’s beside the point. You shouldn’t be holding a party responsible for those people who happen to associate themselves with it.
Voting Republican isn’t going to destroy any gay rights any more than voting Democratic will necessarily promote them. The key point that has to change in favor of the LBGT agenda is to get both parties in favor of some of their points, and that is something that a group like LCR can help accomplish. Right now, the general discourse is “Democrats like gays, Republicans hate them”, so what happens is everyone who sees that as a key issue votes for one or the other based upon that.
What needs to happen is the entire discourse needs to change so that both parties are taking a look at the issues that are being presented. As long as a disproportionate number are a member of one party for that sake alone, one party will support them, the other will oppose them, and nothing will ever get done.
Are the LCRs trying to do anything to bring gay rights into notice in the Republican Party? If not, then I’d agree with the argument that its illogical, since there’s really no point to specifically being gay republicans and not making any effort to bring attention to their needs.
I don’t think they’ve lost self-respect as a result either, I think they just don’t put their orientation as the number one issue. By that logic all potentially discriminated groups (blacks, women) should also be Democrats, and all wealthy people or gun owners or Christians should be Republicans. This just isn’t the case. I think it just may be difficult to see why because it’s an important issue for you and because you’re a member of that group.
Frankly, I find the different drinking fountains that Obama is proposing a step in the right direction, but still insulting:
Like show tunes - check
Mother fixation - hmmm…I talk to my mom every day on the phone…check?
Like jewel tones - check (especially blues)
Like sex with good looking men? - Take a guess
Wow - turns out I’m gay! Who’da known?
Susan
Wrong, wrong wrong.
The United Church of Christ was the first mainstream Christian denomination to support same sex marriage.
I find myself in agreement with Weirddave, so the Four Horsemen can’t be that far off.
The LCR presumably see the running of the country as being more important than their own personal (and public, as a group) issues being made into law. Certainly I, for example, think it’s important and well, only fair, that the effects of sexuality in legal terms becomes more fair. But fairness and equality are just one of the important issues that a political party represents, and I for one could certainly see myself being willing to put one of my issues on the backburner if i’m in disagreement with the party that’ll uphold them on everything else. I mean, if the country goes down the toilet, that i’m able to get married to my partner isn’t going to stop me going down with it (no pun intended). And I can always hope that my party will see reason on that issue - at the very least, a party taking the country in the wrong direction on everything else could have some very significant, unpleasant, long-term effects.
Everyone comprimises with their voting in some fashion. There are probably very few Americans who agree totally with either of the current candidates stated positions, themselves included. I can certainly see that this is different in a way that other issues are not - people aren’t suggesting support of the free market is a mental illness, or that only a couple that support environmentalism can get married - but I don’t think that “betraying” onself in this fashion is horrifyingly, inexplicably worse than doing so on a good few issues, let alone a good swathe of them together.
as I pointed out, the GOP wants to repeal the rights already acheived in California and Massechussetts, and they oppose all legislation that would protect gay people from discrimination.
OK, “vermin” is hyperbole.
Dude, when did you turn into Otto? This isn’t like you, or at not like the way you used to be.
I knew it all along! (You can always tell- it’s in the way they move the right ankle.)
[Brother-Boy]Someone’s gotta carry on the legacy[/Brother-Boy]
That said, what in the piece that gobear cited implies the Republicans are open to SSM? Or anti-discrimination legislation?
And why aren’t gays even mentioned on McCain’s website? Unless you count, again, negative references in cited articles such as the ones you get when you google
On his official website he reprints an article saying he didn’t even know what LGBT stood for. We’re invisible to him.