# Republicans finally enter the 20th century (sexual orientation) **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 23, 2002, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-finally-enter-the-20th-century-sexual-orientation/105168 "2002-04-23T16:49:43Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![SuaSponte](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/67e7ee/32.png) [@SuaSponte](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SuaSponte)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2002, 4:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-finally-enter-the-20th-century-sexual-orientation/105168/41 "2002-04-25T16:28:10Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Scylla \* > \*\*So Sua, what party are you going to vote when black southern baptists find their funamentalism aligning with their Republican brethren on this issue? > > Urban minorities aren’t exactly pro-gay, either. > > Both of these are core democratic constituencies. > > I think you make a big mistake to characterize fundamentalist hate-mongering as a Republican issue, or to think Republicans are therefore not civil rights minded as a group.\*\* I’m flabbergasted that you don’t see the difference between a party that contains anti-gay groups and a party that adopts an anti-gay position as part of its **national platform.** If the Democratic Party succumbs to pressure by black southern baptists or urban minorities and makes an anti-gay position the official position of the Democratic Party, if it includes the reprehensible and illogical “special protection” language in its national platform, then I will start voting for the Libertarians or the Greens or somebody else. I certainly do not think that fundamentalist hate-mongering is solely a Republican issue. I do think that, at this point in our history, the Republicans have acted as appeasers to that hate-mongering, while the Democrats, thus far, have not. Sua ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2002, 4:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-finally-enter-the-20th-century-sexual-orientation/105168/42 "2002-04-25T16:29:11Z")
Just for the record, **Scylla** , I was raised in a family of moderate Republicans and was a registered Republican for over 20 years. I joined the Democratic party when I began examining where some of my party’s stances were taking them – in effect, **I** haven’t moved – the party just went by me, heading for the far Right. And I’d welcome having a choice of intelligent candidates to choose between – particularly in this state, where the Democrats range from fairly far to the left to Old South conservative, and the Republicans fall into two categories: (1) yuppies who don’t care about politics as long as the economy supports their lifestyle, and (2) reactionaries who think Barry Goldwater was a flaming liberal. BTW, I’m intrigued about Arizona having an out gay Governor; last I heard, their gay elected officials consisted of two Representatives, both Republican, who were out, one of whom was facing a recall vote (largely on homophobic grounds) which he won. ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2002, 4:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-finally-enter-the-20th-century-sexual-orientation/105168/43 "2002-04-25T16:30:24Z")
Oh, and thanks to **minty green** for providing the cites I requested. (Sometimes people ask for them just because they do want an assertion documented; this was one of those times.) ---
**Author:** ![SuaSponte](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/67e7ee/32.png) [@SuaSponte](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SuaSponte)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2002, 4:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-finally-enter-the-20th-century-sexual-orientation/105168/44 "2002-04-25T16:40:44Z")
**Scylla,** you appear to be misinformed. Arizona’s governor is [Jane Dee Hull](http://www.governor.state.az.us/bio/govbio.cfm) who is married with four children. Sua ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2002, 4:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-finally-enter-the-20th-century-sexual-orientation/105168/45 "2002-04-25T16:52:54Z")
You’re quite welcome, **Poly**. They weren’t the first-hand reports I would have preferred, but they at least back up my recollection of the early 2000 campaign. ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2002, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-finally-enter-the-20th-century-sexual-orientation/105168/46 "2002-04-25T17:22:46Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by SuaSponte \* > \*\ ***Scylla,** you appear to be misinformed. Arizona’s governor is [Jane Dee Hull](http://www.governor.state.az.us/bio/govbio.cfm) who is married with four children. > > Sua \*\* Misremembered actually. Arizona’s Governor is not an openly gay conservative Republican. I was thinking of Congressman Jim Kolbe or AZ, and had a brain fart. My apologies, and thanks for catching it. ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2002, 5:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-finally-enter-the-20th-century-sexual-orientation/105168/47 "2002-04-25T17:39:40Z")
Sua: > [@](#): > > I’m flabbergasted that you don’t see the difference between a party that contains anti-gay groups and a party that adopts an anti-gay position as part of its national platform Please don’t put words in my mouth. I didn’t say there wasn’t a difference. I didn’t even imply it. What I’d implied was the the new puritanism was the common enemy and that it little to do with what party you belonged to. Further I’d implied that if this puritanism continues to rise among core constituencies, I have no doubt that the Democratic party will cater to it as well. It’s polarized between parties right now, because there is other baggage that goes with these stances, and gay marriage is just one of the issues. I think my party is wrong on the stance of gay marriage but correct on much of the rest of its family oriented stance, and I still prefer package A with one or two items that I don’t agree with to package B with 74 items I don’t agree with and 2 that I do. I don’t characterize either party by this issue. Fundamentalism and intolerance isn’t Republican or Democratic **at all**. It will float where opportunity takes it. It has in the past, and it will again. ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2002, 6:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-finally-enter-the-20th-century-sexual-orientation/105168/48 "2002-04-25T18:49:20Z")
From a [summary](http://www.northwestern.edu/univ-relations/media/news-releases/1999-00/*politics/manza-law.html) of “Social Cleavages and Political Change” (Oxford University Press, 1999), by Jeff Manza: > [@](#): > > The discovery of the Christian right happened in conjunction with the 1980 election and the rise of the Moral Majority. Contrary to popular opinion, however, it was not so much that Ronald Reagan had pulled previously Democratic evangelical voters into the Republican camp as it was evangelical voters returning to their natural Republican home. A look at voting behavior over an extended time period shows that conservative or fundamentalist evangelical Protestant voters have always been Republican, with this one blip in 1976 towards Carter, the Southern Baptist who openly expressed born-again tendencies. > > Analysts have thus misunderstood the overall impact of the Christian right agenda on the electorate as a whole. It is true that the Christian right has a disproportionate influence over the Republican nominating process, both at the national and state levels. But the Republican Party’s focus on abortion and the social rights’ agenda has hurt the party among other traditionally Republican groups, such as professionals and managers. The conservative agenda also is reflected in the Republican party’s declining appeal to mainline Protestants, one of the most stable Republican voting blocs throughout the 20th century. Since the 1960s, mainline Protestants have become increasingly centrist. The shift reflects their increasing divergence from the Republican conservative agenda. Mainline Protestants also have been shrinking in size over this period, so much so that, combined with their decreasing loyalty to the Republican party, they have gone from contributing nearly half of all votes received by Republican presidential candidates to about one-fifth by the mid-1990s. In other words, to the shock of nobody but Scylla, fundamentalists are Republicans, and non-fundamentalists tend not to be. I can certainly understand why open-minded people vote Republican despite the huge amount of influence the fundamentalists have with the party’s agenda, but don’t fool yourself into thinking that agenda has–or is likely to have in the foreseeable future–any discernible influence on the Democratic platform. If Mary Cheney and her group are able to bring about positive changes in the Republican Party, more power to her. Shoot, kick out the fundamentalist agenda and I will happily vote Republican myself. But I ain’t holding my breath. ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2002, 6:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-finally-enter-the-20th-century-sexual-orientation/105168/49 "2002-04-25T18:57:20Z")
Minty: > [@](#): > > In other words, to the shock of nobody but Scylla, fundamentalists are Republicans, and non-fundamentalists tend not to be. Even when you’ve so artfully cut that quote from your cite that way it doesn’t say what you think it says. Nice try, though. ---
**Author:** ![SuaSponte](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/67e7ee/32.png) [@SuaSponte](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SuaSponte)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2002, 7:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-finally-enter-the-20th-century-sexual-orientation/105168/50 "2002-04-25T19:13:18Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Scylla \* > Please don’t put words in my mouth. I didn’t say there wasn’t a difference. I didn’t even imply it. Of course you implied it. In fact, here it is: > [@](#): > > What I implied was the the new puritanism was the common enemy and that it little to do with what party you belonged to. Excuse me? We have, as you acknowledge, a “common enemy.” You, however, think that it is excusable to pander to that common enemy, because they lend support on other issues we hold dear. I call that appeasement. You can call it whatever you will to aid your conscience. > [@](#): > > It’s polarized between parties right now, And right now, not during the age of Lincoln or Theodore Roosevelt, is when you and I cast our votes. I don’t give a rat’s ass right now as to the stance of the Democratic Party 10 years from now. If they change their stance, I will change my vote. > [@](#): > > I think my party is wrong on the stance of gay marriage but correct on much of the rest of its family oriented stance, and I still prefer package A with one or two items that I don’t agree with to package B with 74 items I don’t agree with and 2 that I do. Well, there, as I said before, is where we differ. I give certain issues weight (I’m sure you do also, but just different issues). > [@](#): > > I don’t characterize either party by this issue. Fundamentalism and intolerance isn’t Republican or Democratic **at all**. It will float where opportunity takes it. It has in the past, and it will again. This is, IMO, your major fallacy. What creates the opportunity that causes fundamentalism and intolerance to float between parties? The attitude of that party creates the opportunity - “we need fundamentalist votes, so we will assert in our platform that protection against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is providing ‘special rights’ to gays.” Guilt by association is improper. Guilt by **voluntary** association is highly proper. Sua ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2002, 7:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-finally-enter-the-20th-century-sexual-orientation/105168/51 "2002-04-25T19:44:54Z")
Actually, Scylla, that quote says quite plainly that fundamentalists are Republicans: > [@](#): > > A look at voting behavior over an extended time period shows that conservative or fundamentalist evangelical Protestant voters have always been Republican, with this one blip in 1976 towards Carter, the Southern Baptist who openly expressed born-again tendencies. And here’s the part where it says non-fundamentalists tend not to be Republicans: > [@](#): > > The conservative agenda also is reflected in the Republican party’s declining appeal to mainline Protestants, one of the most stable Republican voting blocs throughout the 20th century. . . . Mainline Protestants also have been shrinking in size over this period, so much so that, combined with their decreasing loyalty to the Republican party, they have gone from contributing nearly half of all votes received by Republican presidential candidates to about one-fifth by the mid-1990s. Sheesh, man, criticize me for the blatant appeal to authority (didn’t have time to dig up exit polls and the like), but don’t claim it doesn’t say what it says. ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2002, 7:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-finally-enter-the-20th-century-sexual-orientation/105168/52 "2002-04-25T19:51:29Z")
Sua: Have you lost your mind? Your first rebuttal makes no sense at all. You accuse me of not being aware of any difference and then use my quote where I point out the difference to prove that I wasn’t aware? You’ve negated your own point. > [@](#): > > Excuse me? We have, as you acknowledge, a “common enemy.” You, however, think that it is excusable to pander to that common enemy, because they lend support on other issues we hold dear. I call that appeasement. You can call it whatever you will to aid your conscience. How can you be so high on that horse with your head buried so deeply in the sand? Pandering to special interests **is** politics and in this category, the Democrats wrote the book. > [@](#): > > This is, IMO, your major fallacy. What creates the opportunity that causes fundamentalism and intolerance to float between parties? The attitude of that party creates the opportunity - “we need fundamentalist votes, so we will assert in our platform that protection against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is providing ‘special rights’ to gays.” Guilt by association is improper. Guilt by voluntary association is highly proper. You need to be careful there. I am of the opinion that my party doesn’t have the proper stance towards certain gay rights. But, you’re taking a difficult question and cutting it with a simplistic knife and saying everybody on one side is anti-gay and everyone on the other is not. The conveying of “special rights,” and the reverse discrimination that goes along with it is a seperate issue from equal rights. If Fred sends Jeff to the hospital for dating his former girlfriend, and Jack sends David to the hospital because he saw him kissing another guy, I think Fred and Jack have committed the same crime. I don’t think that one is a “hate crime,” and somehow worse than the other or more punishable than the other. That doesn’t make me anti-gay. Quite the opposite, I think. Last I heard, if you afford privileges or protection to a select group based on race, religion, disabilitiy, sexxual preference or what-have-you, you are engaging in discrimination. I think my party is absolutely correct on the “special rights” issue. ---
**Author:** ![Eve](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/9e8a1a/32.png) [@Eve](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eve)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2002, 8:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-finally-enter-the-20th-century-sexual-orientation/105168/53 "2002-04-25T20:04:07Z")
"Last I heard, if you afford privileges or protection to a select group based on race, religion, disabilitiy, sexxual preference or what-have-you, you are engaging in discrimination. I think my party is absolutely correct on the “special rights” issue." —So I assume, then, you are in favor of granting gays the same right to marry that straight people have? ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2002, 8:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-finally-enter-the-20th-century-sexual-orientation/105168/54 "2002-04-25T20:12:42Z")
Assumes “Karnak the Mystic” turban **Eve** , the response you will get is that gays already have the same right to marry that straight people have… the right to marry someone of the opposite sex. What I’m hearing, though, is the “Christians are…” problem that I’m always combatting. Because I stand for what my Lord **said** and not for what various people read into other portions of the Bible, I disagree with many if not most Christians on gay rights. However, the general assumption is that Christianity is monolithically and bigotedly opposed to gay people. Likewise, because many leading Republicans are coddling the religious Right and taking stances calculated to obtain their votes, this does not necessarily therefore mean that all Republicans take such stances, or even endorse such stances, but may have some sense of political allegiance that causes them to remain Republican even though they deplore what many Republicans have to say. Likewise, I remain committed to Christ and therefore to His Church even though I deplore what many Christians have to say. Not the world’s most perfect analogy, but does it work? ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2002, 8:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-finally-enter-the-20th-century-sexual-orientation/105168/55 "2002-04-25T20:27:23Z")
Minty: I’ve read your cite and your quote the first time through. First off, you start your quote a line or two after it’s explained that the period being examined is from 1960 or so onward. In that context “always” has a different meaning. Secondly, the analysis suffers from the same problem inherent in all works of this type, and if you look at the whole book instead of a blurb I’ll wager the large portion of the book is spent trying to work through this problem. Simply put, the problem is this: Let’s say you have a Southern, Black, Female, high income earning, evangelical protestant, Democrat. If you categorize her as a Southern black, or a southern black female, she fits the thesis. Classify her as a high income earning evangelical protestant and she does not. So what is the order of classifaction as far as demographics go? What’s the weighting? Doubtless the book will go into some detail as to it’s methods, but the blurb itself is useless. It doesn’t say “Fundamentalists are Republican” as you would seem to like to think it does in a simpleminded black and white sort of way. What it actually says is something like this “According to this set of studies and methods detailed within, which we feel are the best choices to make for statistical analysis for reasons also detailed within, we have come to the conclusion that as we categorize and define these groups for purposes of the study, evangelical Christian voting blocs tend toward the Republican in a significant fashion in the last 40 years.” That aside, let’s pretend that your simplistic assertion that fundamentalists are all Republican is true. **Big Deal! So What?** Just because a sqare is a rectangle doesn’t mean that a rectangle is a square. I’m sure most draft-dodgers were Democratic, but that doesn’t mean one can say that draft-dodging is a tenant of the Democratic party. ---
**Author:** ![SuaSponte](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/67e7ee/32.png) [@SuaSponte](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SuaSponte)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2002, 8:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-finally-enter-the-20th-century-sexual-orientation/105168/56 "2002-04-25T20:27:54Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Scylla \* > Sua: > How can you be so high on that horse with your head buried so deeply in the sand? That’s just rich. You’re the one asserting that homophobes are merely a “lunatic fringe” of the GOP, when homophobia is written into the Republican Party platform. Do you get it yet? On this issue, the “lunatic fringe” has taken over the party. > [@](#): > > I am of the opinion that my party doesn’t have the proper stance towards certain gay rights. > > But, you’re taking a difficult question and cutting it with a simplistic knife and saying everybody on one side is anti-gay and everyone on the other is not. No, I’m not. I’m saying that the GOP has appeased their anti-gay constituency. The question I posit is whether appeasing evil is appropriate. You can decide the answer according to your own ethics. > [@](#): > > The conveying of “special rights,” and the reverse discrimination that goes along with it is a seperate issue from equal rights. > > If Fred sends Jeff to the hospital for dating his former girlfriend, and Jack sends David to the hospital because he saw him kissing another guy, I think Fred and Jack have committed the same crime. > > I don’t think that one is a “hate crime,” and somehow worse than the other or more punishable than the other. You are conflating two unrelated issues. The “special rights” for homosexuals is not the same as the hate crimes issue, as you, an informed voter for the GOP, should know. Hates crimes legislation would inpose additional penalties if the crime was motivated by sex, race, creed, religion, ethnicity, etc. of the victim. In some states, sexual orientation is added to the list, but not by any means in all. It’s neither a gay issue or a special rights issue. > [@](#): > > That doesn’t make me anti-gay. > > Quite the opposite, I think. Last I heard, if you afford privileges or protection to a select group based on race, religion, disabilitiy, sexxual preference or what-have-you, you are engaging in discrimination. > > I think my party is absolutely correct on the “special rights” issue. It doesn’t make you anti-gay. It makes you ignorant of your party’s position. Question for you: is prohibition on discrimination on the basis of race in employment or housing a matter of equal rights for all or “special rights” for blacks? You see, “special rights” is the code word used by your party to distinguish between discrimination based on race, gender, sex, religion, etc., which your party condemns as a violation of “equal rights,” and discrimination based on sexual orientation, which your party does not condemn, because granting such protection to gays would be granting them “special rights”. According to your party’s platform, if Mr. Employer is not allowed to fire Joe Schmoe because Mr. Schmoe is a limp-wristed queer, Mr. Schmoe has been granted “special rights”. Cause, don’t you know, homosexuality is a “lifestyle choice,” and if Mr. Schmoe doesn’t want to get fired, all he has to do is stop being a fag. :rolleyes: Once again, for the record, :rolleyes: Sua ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2002, 8:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-finally-enter-the-20th-century-sexual-orientation/105168/57 "2002-04-25T20:35:26Z")
If you want exit polls, I found [this one](http://abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/2000vote/general/exitpoll_hub.html) from ABC. Among the nuggets: 14% of voters identified themselves as Christian conservatives, and 80% of those voted for Bush. Not quite the same thing as “fundamentalists,” but reasonably close. I did get a kick out of the 1% of the “religious right” who voted for Nader, however. 🙂 Here’s a fun one: Would Joe Lieberman’s religion make him more likely to do a good job as vice president, less likely, or no difference? Of the 8% who thought being a Jew would make Lieberman less likely to do a good job, **72%** voted for Bush. Woo hoo, let’s hear it for Republican tolerance! ---
**Author:** ![Polycarp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/82dd89/32.png) [@Polycarp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polycarp)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2002, 8:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-finally-enter-the-20th-century-sexual-orientation/105168/58 "2002-04-25T20:36:47Z")
(Invites **Eve** for a drink over in MPSIMS, while they hash out their differences and ignore us) ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2002, 8:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-finally-enter-the-20th-century-sexual-orientation/105168/59 "2002-04-25T20:41:55Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Eve \* > \*\*—So I assume, then, you are in favor of granting gays the same right to marry that straight people have? \*\* I’ll put it more precisely. I think that gay marriage should be treated exactly the same as straight marriage. ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [April 25, 2002, 8:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-finally-enter-the-20th-century-sexual-orientation/105168/60 "2002-04-25T20:45:53Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Scylla \* > First off, you start your quote a line or two after it’s explained that the period being examined is from 1960 or so onward. In that context “always” has a different meaning. That’s strange, I don’t remember arguing that fundamentalists had “always” been Republicans. As Sua has already pointed out, ancient Republican history has little to do with the here and now question of what the hell is wrong with the Republican Party. > [@](#): > > Let’s say you have a Southern, Black, Female, high income earning, evangelical protestant, Democrat. > > If you categorize her as a Southern black, or a southern black female, she fits the thesis. Classify her as a high income earning evangelical protestant and she does not. > > So what is the order of classifaction as far as demographics go? What’s the weighting? It’s really not that complicated, Scylla. Classification as a fundamentalist does not suddenly exclude all other classes and categories. Your hypothetical person is a fundamentalist, even though she is in the relatively small minority of fundamentalists who are also Democrats. > [@](#): > > It doesn’t say “Fundamentalists are Republican” as you would seem to like to think it does in a simpleminded black and white sort of way. Of course it doesn’t. I think I’ve already acknowledged that some fundamentalists are Democrats, or Libertarians, or whatever. But the great majority of fundamentalists are Republicans. Do you dispute this assertion for some reason? > [@](#): > > I’m sure most draft-dodgers were Democratic, but that doesn’t mean one can say that draft-dodging is a tenant of the Democratic party. You could if it was in the darn platform! [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-finally-enter-the-20th-century-sexual-orientation/105168.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/republicans-finally-enter-the-20th-century-sexual-orientation/105168.md?page=4)