Log Cabin Republicans – What’s wrong with these Queens?

Great Debates
81

On party platforms: They are written, they are debated, they are passed . . . And then they are promptly forgotten. In both parties, the hardcore usually get appointed to the platform committees. The platforms are not accurate reflections of the mainstream of either party. The Democratic Party is not so liberal on gay rights as their platform would suggest, and the Republican Party is not as negative on gay rights as their platform would suggest.

Judging by interviews I’ve read during political conventions, few elected officials in either party have read their party’s platform, much less consider it Gospel.

BTW, it was a Republican governor (Lee Dreyfus of Wisconsin) who signed into law the nation’s first state gay rights statute, in 1982.

82

No elucidator:

The deomcrats lie. They make shit up. They demonize their opponents. They say Rebpublicans are evil, they hate children, they hate women, they are homophobic. They generalize like mad, and pretend they have the moral high ground.

But, when push comes to shove, they vote for DOMA.

It doesn’t matter what you say you stand for, or how badly you make the other guy out to be. What matters is what you do.

A democratic majority voted in favor of DOMA.

The democrats took their cue directly from that cite of the party plank, and in the spirit of the Texas cite, and they voted for it

It was as bipartisan a piece of legislation as you are likely to see.

Any attempts by Democrats to disown it or homophobia as a Republican phenomenom are sheer hypocrisy.

83

Which, of course, the Republican Party would never do.

84

Well, lets examine that a bit further. Lets take some guy, at the upper threshold of youth, devoutly hetero. Kind of guy, sees Crying Game, the scene where they guys finds out hes been, uh, rather intimate with someone who has something where it doesn’t belong unless its somebody elses (if you get my drift), and pukes his guts out… Somebody who would admit he can sort of relate to that. BUT: and this is a big BUT

Thinks that whatever somebody wants to do that ain’t none of his business, well, just ain’t none of his business. Thinks maybe “marriage” as traditionally described might best be left as traditionally done, but can’t see it as something to get all bent out of shape over. Its just a fight not worth having.

Then theres somebody who says that anybody who behaves sexually in a non-traditional fashion is a criminal who needs to be slammed up.

To your mind, they are equally homophobic? By that reasoning, Mike Tyson is on a par with Hannibal Lecter, just less hypocritical. Balderdash, sir. Tommyrot!

85

http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=3072
And let’s not overlook who supported (and supports–it’s once again at issue in Congress, though certain to be killed by the R’s) the Employment Nondiscrimination Act, which grant gays and lesbians the employment-related protections of the Civil Rights Act. It was defeated 49-50 in the Senate in 1996. 85% of the Republican senators voted against it. 89% of the Democratic senators voted for it.

http://www.senate.gov/~rpc/rva/1042/1042281.pdf
By any objective measure, the Democratic Party is far more supportive of gay rights than the Republican Party is or is ever likely to be.

86

I thought that tolerance was a good thing, or is that only tolerance for politically correct behavior?

87

So you’re saying the Republican Party is better than the Democratic Party because it tolerates anti-gay bigots, is that it?

88

Minty:

It would be nice if you would actually respond to my arguments rather than refuting with great gusto points that I have not made.

Senator Lott is entitled to his own personal opinions about what does and does not constitute a sin.

I for one agree with him. Having gay sex is a sin. No question about it, as I understand the meaning of the word. Sex for any purpose other than procreation is a sin as far as my understanding of Christian dogma goes. Having gay sex is like having sex with a condom, or masturbating, or engaging in oral sex with your wife. Furthermore, it is my opinion that the moral right is missing the point of what the Bible was actually trying to warn people about, which is really a warning about getting caught in the excesses of the flesh. Anyway, Trent Lott is entitled to his opinion, as I am to mine, and you are to yours.

Since Bob Packwood, Ted Kennedy, and Bill Clinton are all rapists, molesters, and philanderers, should I assume that the Democratic party stands for Rape, molestation and philandering? Cuz that’s your logic.

What the fuck does it matter what Trent Lott’s personal opinions are?

And you are a lawyer, and so you should clearly see that there is a huge explanatory gap in your little cite, which doesn’t quite have the guts to explicitly say that Hormel’s ambassadorship was being blocked specifically and only because he was gay. It doesn’t make that overt accusation and neither do you. You just imply it.

You have a cite that shows Trent Lott saying Hormel shouldn’t be ambassador because he’s gay?

If you don’t, then you’re just doing it again; demonizing an individual on flimsy and gutless evidence, and then applying that specific instance to the entire party.

It’s a shameless dishonest lie, and, besides abortion, seems to be all that I see mainstream liberals and the democratic party standing for today. They don’t stand for anything positive. All they do is stand against Republicans, and make accusations and snide remarks and allegations.

I don’t see anything but that on this board. There are a few democratic posters on this board who will engage on the issues, posters like RTFirefly, Jshore, and occasionally yourself.

More often than not all you (meaning Democrats in general) do is bitch about and demonize Republicans in general, and make up clever names for Bush, and pretend he’s stupid.

The fact is that if the Democratic party really gave a shit about gay rights and wasn’t just pandering and paying lip service so that they could claim the moral high ground, they would have fought with everything they had against DOMA.

There was a moral highground held by the Dems on this issue at one time, and they forfeited when they gave up on action, and now the sum total of anti-gay activism perpetrated by liberals seems to be calling Republicans names.

Again, if they gave a shit, they shouldn’t have thrown it away trying to win points, and alienate people. What they should have done was build support across the party’s so gay rights was a bipartisan issue. But, they didn’t. They don’t do anything, and they don’t want to do anything. The sum total interest in gay rights by the Democratic party, is the points they can win by calling Republicans bigots. It’s sheer hypocrisy.

No shit, Sherlock. I am not in dispute of that particular point. I didn’t call you out on that point, either.

You said the Democratic party didn’t tolerate homophobia. That’s what you said.

I’m not arguing whether Trent Lott is a shithead, of if on balance the record of the Democratic party on the issue of gay rights is stronger than the Republicans.

All I’m saying is this “I’m a Democrat because the Democratic party doesn’t tolerate homophobia,” is total bullshit!

89

Oh, and the Demcorats certainly tolerated Robert Byrd.

I guess that means Democrats hate black people.

90

Scylla, I have responded to your arguments. Quite directly. That you refuse to see that is about as surprising as that you refuse to see that the Republican Party is driving an anti-gay agenda. Trent Lott is an example. The peckerwoods from the 2000 Texas delegation are an example. You are a counter-example. You are also the exception.

But the official party platform is policy, and the overwhelming Republican vote against NDEA is the consequence of that policy.

91

Scylla, my man, I sincerely believe you have lost contact with the mother ship.

As to Hormel, I have, in fact, checked it out. It is true, as you say, that despite a number of clearly anti-gay remarks by Mr. Lott, he did not specificly say that Mr. Hormels sexual preference was the relevent factor. However, he does not offer any other reason why Mr. Hormel, who had considerable diplomatic experience, should not have been confirmed.

Mr. Lotts personal opinions are much more important than mine own, because he has power. Duh!

It is clearly absurd to try to build a bipartisan concensus with a group that entirely opposes the point of such concensus.

No, I can’t go with this, pretending to treat your brutal and nasty rant as though it were a temperate debate, with points to be measured and contradicted.

I’m going to assume that this is another of your object lessons, wherein you assume a posture that is hateful and dark, presumably as some sort of lesson.

Because otherwise I would have to suggest, with complete sincerity, man, get some kind of help. And your “Christian dogma” renders an avatar of mercy and compassion into some sort of bitterly vindictive hanging judge, an Eternal Judge Judy. What’s next, Buddha with a shiv?

I am astonished. This is the single most intolerant and abusive thing I have ever seen under your name, I would almost think someone was pulling a hoax.

92

Minty:

You must not be reading what I’m writing because you keep responding to points I haven’t made.

You seem to be of the opinion that the Republican party is the anti-gay party, and the Democrats main job is being the pro-gay party.

That is both false and a gross oversimplification.

I support truly equal rights for gays. Nonetheless, I think that hate crime and some other ostensibly pro-gay legislation sucks.

I don’t see the Democrats disowning the Byrds and the Farrakan’s and the Jesse Jacksons, and Al Sharpton’s of the world, nor do I see the Democrats disowning key fundamentalist black demographics.

I didn’t see you guys fighting DOMA.

Certainly I think we have more intolerance towards gays on the Republican side of the issue than the Democratic, and most if not all of the action against gays comes from my party.

However, I think better of you than to believe you really think your party does not tolerate intolerance.

Intolerance towards gays is a bipartisan problem that will only be solved when the intelligent and truly well-meaning people on both sides of the political spectrum (and there’s a lot of them) band together on the issue instead of sniping at each other. Once there’s a centrist majority on this issue, gay intolerance becomes about as potent a force as the KKK, and real workable legislation can pass that will accord gays the same protections and benefits as married hets.

93

Well, that’s more like it! Had me worried. Still wrong, but at least not certifiable.

94

elucidator:

Seriously, I have yet to see you for anything in a political thread. Now it might have happened that you made some kind of positive argument at some point, but if you did, I can’t for the life of me recall seeing it.

Your basic political repertoire seems to be attacking Republicans generally and specifically with whatever comes to hand.

I know you stand against George Bush, and Republicans in general and specific, but that’s about it.

I am well aware of, and unhappy with the fact that crackerhead fundamentalists tend to be and vote Republican.

But, I laugh at the idea that Democrats are out there with some kind of monopoly fighting the anti-gay Republicans.

We have gay Senators and governors in my party. We have these in geographic areas that are more tolerant, just as your party. In geographic areas that are less tolerant we don’t, also just like you.

95

elucidator:

My description of sin wasn’t necessarily my personal beliefs of what was right or wrong, but rather what Christianity terms to be “sinful.”
As far as I can tell from the Bible any sexual activity not for the express purpose of procreation is a sin.

A gay couple is morally equivalent to a married couple using birth control. That is my opinion of what the Bible actually says if indeed it can be said to have an internally consistent theory on this thing.

And, it’s a venial sin at that. In other words, it’s not a biggee.

Please note that I don’t necessarily buy into this philosophy, and my own religious and personal beliefs fall into the category that there is nothing intrinsically wrong with gay sex.

Clear on that?

96

What do you mean by “the” anti-gay party? Your point thus far–trite though it certainly is–seems to be that Democrats aren’t perfect on gay rights either. I’m aware of this. My point is that the Democratic Party is a thousand times better on gay issues. (Certainly not that its “main job is being the pro-gay party,” an assertion so obviously false that it doesn’t even serve as a passable strawman.) My party goes out of its way to support equality and oppose discrimination. Your party goes out of its way to fight equality and enable discrimination. I like my party, you like yours.

97

Yeah. I guess. Sort of. Well, kind of clear.

And if you haven’t seen any positive messages in my posts, perhaps it is the splinter in my eye that blinds you. But just to be sure you have at least one: justice above law, mercy above justice, love above all.

There you go.

98

Minty Green:

Than why did such a vast majority support DOMA?

Not only did they not go out of their way to fight, they practically leapt on the bandwagon. It is my opinion that DOMA is probably by far the single most important piece of legislation to come down the pike in regard to gay rights in the last 12 years or so.

Basically it completely blocks equal rights for gays on the most important issues.

If your party is a thousand times better on gay rights, how could they screw the pooch so badly on this?

Let’s face it, DOMA was the ball in this game. How do you explain the fact that the Dems grabbed it and scored a slam dunk for the opposing team?

It seems to me that it’s pretty obvious that there was no opposing team here.

Let me guess. You pulled that out of your ass, didn’t you?

I’m not even going to bother to ask you to defend that.

My point is that neither party has much to be proud of on the subject of gay rights in recent years. DOMA is all the evidence needed to show that the Dems aren’t doing anything besides lip service.

99

Without any sarcasm, that’s a fine sentiment, but putting it into practice is the real bitch, isn’t it.

Any person would do well to follow such a credo. However, that’s people. We’re talking politics (and when I said you weren’t positive I meant that in terms of politcs, not in general. My sincere apologies for insulting you by my inclarity.)

Justice mercy and love aren’t legislatable. I don’t beleive you can devise a system that encompasses or ensures them. I don’t even think you can try.

Those things are going to come from the quality of the people. Nowhere else. Their outside of the role of government, and inseperable from the people in it.

100

Cowardice and expediency. Your guys supported it on principle.

Utter nonsense. It provides only that states don’t have to recognize other states’ gay marriages, if such marriages are ever legalized. It neither prevents states from recognizing homosexual marriages nor attacks any right that gays and lesbians already possess.