Send a few over this direction. We’re gonna need 'em before this is over. 
Poly, I think your analogy is flawed.
First of all, Christianity is a description; the GOP is an organization.
Second, the few common attributes of Christians are based upon received wisdom, that J.C. is the Son of God. In contrast, the GOP’s beliefs are wholly derived from the contemporary wisdom of its members.
Third, “some sense of political allegiance” is, IMO, a difference in kind from “if I deny Christianity, I’m gonna go to hell” that many, though certainly not all, Christians believe.
Fourth, this isn’t an issue of what some other Republicans espouse. This is a case of the party platform, whch at least purports to be the intent and goals of the Republican party.
Sua
Sua and Minty:
I think you’re engaging in gross and irresponsible hyperbole to say that hating gays is a part of the Republican platform, and you oughtta be ashamed.
I find it reprehensible that my party is catering to its fundamentalist constituents by not being progressive on gay rights issues, but that’s a different animal from your accusation.
I guess I’ll just play your game, then.
I don’t know why I bother trying to reason with a bunch of irresponsible pot-smoking, tree-huggers.
I mean, single mothers tend to be Democrats. I guess that proves female Democrats are irresponsible sluts. I guess that also means that Democratic party’e platform of support for these women encourages teenage sex and the spread of Venereal disease.
I don’t know how your conscience can allow you to be part of such a thing, but I guess if that’s the kind of person you want to be, that’s your business.
The prison populations is overwhelmingly Democrat, so I guess I shouldn’t have expected anybody from people who identify with the party of lying, slut, child-neglecting, criminals.
Kindly provide a cite to the Democratic National Platform that endorses irresponsibility, pot-smoking, or tree-hugging
Kindly provide a cite to the Democratic National Platform that endorses teenage sex or the spread of venereal disease.
QUOTE]The prison populations is overwhelmingly Democrat, so I guess I shouldn’t have expected anybody from people who identify with the party of lying, slut, child-neglecting, criminals.
[/QUOTE]
Kindly provide a cite that demonstrates that prison populations are overwhelmingly Democrat. Here’s a hint, BTW - in most states, felons can’t vote and therefore cannot register as members of any party.
Now, OTOH, minty has already provided a cite to the Republican National Platform that states that discrimination in employment and other matters on the basis of sexual orientation should not be prohibited.
Do you see the difference? No? I didn’t think you would.
Sua
To be fair, I’m pretty sure he can find a platform statement on tree hugging. Good thing too, since that’s one of the big reasons I identify as Democratic! Back in the day, I might have gone for pot-smoking and teen sex planks too, but these days I’m willing to tolerate a little dissent on those issues. 
(And credit where credit is due: It was MEBuckner who posted the Republicans’ anti-gay rights plank.)
Some do, some don’t. Both party’s members have diverse views. But: [ul]
[li]Marriage is a State (not Federal) issue; citing a national party platform is a moot point. You won’t see many gay marriage laws passing until a majority of Americans (from either party) support it.[/ul][/li]I think the GLBT community has alot of work to do before gay marriage is accepted by more than a plurality of society. The spokespeople, activists & leaders have to convince Joe 6-pack and the average American voter that there’s a difference between gay marriage and other non-conventional living arrangements (i e polygamy) … something I don’t think they have done very well as yet.
I tend to side w/Republicans on most issues and have been having my fair share of sex in the 21st century…I hope that doesn’t that mean I have to vote for Hillary in '06
John I think you missed the point. The Rep.'s use the term “Special rights” only in reference to GLBT, not in reference to other more recognized minorities/groups. As in discrimination regarding gender, race, political affiliation etc. is against the law, and not referred to as ‘getting special rights’, but discrimination regarding sexual identity would be considered ‘special rights’.
So, a black gay male would be have the right to not be discriminated against 'cause he’s black, 'cause that’s not a ‘special’ right, but it’d be fine to discriminate against him 'cause he’s gay, 'cause otherwise, that’d be giving him a ‘special right’.
So you’re suggesting that the state Republican platforms are gay-friendly? I’d love to see a cite that shows the national platform is not representative of the state party platforms on this particular issue.
Also, marriage is a federal issue. Thanks to the federal constitution, when I get married in Hawaii this summer, Texas is required to recognize that marriage. The so-called “Defense of Marriage Act” (for shame, President Clinton) now says (IIRC) that sister states need not recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states. Vermont’s “civil unions” will therefore be entitled to no legal effect in other states.
Moreover, you’re ignoring the many, many federal benefits that are only given to married couples, such as tax breaks and social security survivor benefits. Those are clearly federal marriage issues.
Scylla:
sigh MEBuckner posted the relevant part of the platform. Is it or is it not pretty explicit therein that homosexuality, and the acceptance thereof, is counter to “the virtues that sustain democracy itself”? Since nobody but you has said specifically that this constitutes “hating gays,” but rather that it panders dangerously to homophobes and idjits, I think minty and Sua are perfectly in the right here. No shame necessary.
Sua:
No, I will not be providing cites to back up my outrageous generalizations. I won’t be doing so, because I have better things to do than look through the opposing party’s propaganda for words to twist to fit a prefabricated agenda.
That was the point which you seemed to so completely and thoroughly miss.
How are the words being twisted, Scylla? Seriously. Do you think opposition to homosexuality is a virtue that sustains democracy itself?
No, that’s just the official position of the party he votes for.
Gadarene:
No. It is most emphatically not explicit therein.
I personally beleive that my party is lacking in the area of gay rights, but you certainly can’t show that that’s the case From MEB’s quote.
There is absolutely nothing in that statement that can be interpreted as anti-gay rights.
Sua, Minty, and you seem to think that this is some damning piece of information that shows that the Republican party is anti-gay as a matter of it’s platform, but that is not what it actually says, and I think that it is safe to say that that statement is very careful about what it actually is saying.
You can’t read an anti-gay statement in there without placing something into that quote that was not there in the first place.
In fact, the only interpretation of that carefully worded statement that doesn not create a contradiction is a tacitly pro-gay marriage stance.
Anything else creates a contradiction between the first sentence and the final sentence.
What part of the quote says that the Republican party is opposed to Homosexuality?
What?! Parse it for me, if you please. And pass me some of what you’re smoking.
Coming right up Gad!
That’s the summary for the “Defense of Marriage Act.” It says states don’t have to recognize gay marriages in other states, so a gay marriage in Vermont wouldn’t be valid anywhere else. That strikes me as anti-gay.
Here’s the quote, in case you’d forgotten.
The core is clearly that the GOP “[relies] on the home…to instill the virtues that sustain democracy itself.” Pretty heady stuff. They–quite clearly, I might add–use that rationale to justify their positions against gay marriage and against discrimination laws based on sexual orientation.
How in the ever-loving world could you not see this as opposition to, y’know, gay marriages and discrimination laws based on sexual orientation?
A syllogism:
The traditional concept of marriage excludes gay couples who seek formal recognition of a long-term commitment.
The traditional concept of marriage leads to a home environment which instills the virtues that sustain democracy itself.
Formal recognition of a long-term commitment between gay couples will not lead to a home environment which instills the virtues that sustain democracy itself.
Comprendez-vous?
As blunt as this sounds, laws will never change the way people think or feel. Granted, they can control how people act, but do little to overcome people’s ignorance. By their own coercive nature, they do in some cases cause an adverse reaction. A warning bell rings every time legislation (with admittedly good intentions) begins do erode individuals rights to free speech and property rights.
Well, I can’t cite my (NY) State’s Republican Platform because I can’t find it anywhere…for all I know, there is no such documnt. I think it’s fair to point out, Governor Pataki (of the GOP), did make passage of a Sexual Orientation Non Discrimination Act, cited here, one of his top legislative goals in this year’s State of the State Address. He has neither the fortitude, vision or the independence to buck his own state’s party, so I will have to safely assume there is no “anti-gay” language in NY State’s GOP platform (if it indeed exists).
Not just Clinton, I might add. Of the 85 votes on the National Defense of Marriage Act of 1996, I think it should be pointed out 38% of the Yea votes came from the Democrats…some very liberal ones at that (Harkin, Mikulski, Wellstone Daschle & Biden to name a few).
I still feel it’s a States Rights issue. OK, far reaching hypothetical coming up: Let’s say Utah legalized Polygamy or California allowed people to marry their pets. Don’t you think there’d be a hue and cry from native Hawaiians if Californians or Utahans moved to the Aloha State and demanded the same rights afforded married residents of your state? I’m not equating Gay marriage & bestiality…I’m just trying to point out residents of each state should have a say in what is and isn’t a “recognizable union”.
I agree! Maybe now liberals, conservatives, democrats and republicans can unite to: [ul][]Convert the Ponzi-scheme known as Social Security into Personal Individual Retirement Accounts that can be willed to the beneficiary of your choice. []Impliment a flat tax or replacement of the hydra known as the Federal Tax Code with a National Sales Tax that gets rid of all these breaks and deductions all together.[/ul]
Scylla:
I just wanted to frame this underneath the passage from the GOP platform, so you could see exactly how Bizarro-world it looks.