The W
Views: 98537242
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Color chart | Log in for more!
30.8.07 0534
The 7 - Current Events & Politics - Gay Republican Group Challenges GOP with Ad Register and log in to post!
Pages: 1 2 Next(707 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (28 total)
DrOp
Frankfurter
Level: 60

Posts: 666/859
EXP: 1711774
For next: 61014

Since: 2.1.02

Since last post: 2180 days
Last activity: 1047 days
#1 Posted on 31.8.04 0700.29
Reposted on: 31.8.11 0704.31
I link to this because a while back, I remember Guru stating that the GOP's stance on gay issues (marriage?) was sort of pushing him away from the party (My apologies for the crappy paraphrase). A few exerpts from the article follow:
    Originally posted by CNN.com
    The party's platform, adopted in advance of the convention, rejects not only same-sex marriage but also benefits for same-sex couples. It also rejects letting openly gay people serve in the military, and does not offer a "unity plank," which would encourage respect for Republicans who disagree with the party majority on social issues...

    Guerriero said the "final straw" for his group was what he termed "insulting" language in the Republican platform opposing same-sex marriage and saying that homosexuality is "incompatible" with military service...

    Noting that the 1 million gay and lesbian votes President Bush received in 2000, according to exit polls, could be vital for the president's re-election, Guerriero said the platform will drive away "fair-minded voters."



Since we have Grimis, Seven, and Palp around (among others)I thought I'd just ask what you guys feelings are about this sector of the GOP, their concerns and worth to the party as a whole?

Your thoughts?
Promote this thread!
Grimis
Scrapple
Level: 124

Posts: 3854/4700
EXP: 21453058
For next: 383604

Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1215 days
Last activity: 1012 days
#2 Posted on 31.8.04 0723.16
Reposted on: 31.8.11 0724.57
I would prefer some of the hardcore religious right stuff be pulled out in regards to gay issues and stem cell research. I'm on record in this forum saying that while I may be opposed to homosexuality, I am not opposed to other people doing what they want to do. That is the true small-c conservative position how it relates to less-government. Maryland Lt. Governor Michael Steele(who speaks to the convention tonight) is a very religious, very conservative Catholic who stated(to paraphrase) "Don't we have better things to worry about."

I wish that there were a floor fight on the platform, incidentally, to at the very least fight the illegal immigrant amnesty program.
Spaceman Spiff
Knackwurst
Level: 101

Posts: 1613/2902
EXP: 10628706
For next: 89006

Since: 2.1.02
From: Philly Suburbs

Since last post: 3 days
Last activity: 8 hours
AIM:  
#3 Posted on 31.8.04 0728.42
Reposted on: 31.8.11 0728.56
I posted a link to a similar story (philly.com) last week in this thread (The W). This came out shortly after Cheney's comments about letting the states decide on the issue of gay marriage, and, IMO, completely pissed away any goodwill that may have been generated by Cheney's comments. In what is likely to be a close election, I don't see the logic in making this a big issue, when all it is really doing is playing to groups that are going to vote for Bush anyway (religious right & ultra conservatives).
DrDirt
Banger
Level: 96

Posts: 1152/2697
EXP: 8834850
For next: 153969

Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country

Since last post: 16 days
Last activity: 15 hours
#4 Posted on 31.8.04 0821.17
Reposted on: 31.8.11 0821.43
    Originally posted by Grimis
    I wish that there were a floor fight on the platform, incidentally, to at the very least fight the illegal immigrant amnesty program.


However, the last thing they want is a show of disunity. I agree with you as healthy debate from both parties would serve us well. Also it would help the Reps seem more inclusive.
DrOp
Frankfurter
Level: 60

Posts: 667/859
EXP: 1711774
For next: 61014

Since: 2.1.02

Since last post: 2180 days
Last activity: 1047 days
#5 Posted on 31.8.04 0912.25
Reposted on: 31.8.11 0915.30
    Originally posted by DrDirt
    However, the last thing they want is a show of disunity. I agree with you as healthy debate from both parties would serve us well. Also it would help the Reps seem more inclusive.


I'm with you on a party needing to show a unified front. Do you believe that failure to adequately acknowledge this sector of the party, coupled with the GOPs stance on gay rights (for lack of a better term) heightens or hides the fracture that exists?

I guess I'm trying ask (and get some clarification without any of the usual slings and arrows being thrown)--why this/these issue(s) now? Why not acknowledge these party members in a more genuine manner? Do you think it can/will backfire in some way?
Grimis
Scrapple
Level: 124

Posts: 3856/4700
EXP: 21453058
For next: 383604

Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1215 days
Last activity: 1012 days
#6 Posted on 31.8.04 0931.48
Reposted on: 31.8.11 0931.55
    Originally posted by DrOp
    I guess I'm trying ask (and get some clarification without any of the usual slings and arrows being thrown)--why this/these issue(s) now? Why not acknowledge these party members in a more genuine manner? Do you think it can/will backfire in some way?
I doubt it is going to backfire in the short term since most Americans are opposed to gay marriage, but it could coneivably create longer term problems if opinions change.
JoshMann
Andouille
Level: 87

Posts: 1153/2159
EXP: 6295923
For next: 96876

Since: 17.11.03
From: Tallahassee, FL

Since last post: 2238 days
Last activity: 2235 days
AIM:  
Y!:
#7 Posted on 31.8.04 1013.16
Reposted on: 31.8.11 1014.15
    Originally posted by Grimis
    I doubt it is going to backfire in the short term since most Americans are opposed to gay marriage, but it could coneivably create longer term problems if opinions change.


I'm sure if you took a poll in 1992, there would have been more people against it then as well...of course, that didn't stop certain Republicans from making the mistake of bringing gay bashing into play and getting torched on the backlash. Not just from the so-called liberal media, but from the more moderate faction of their own delegation.

(edited by Blanket Jackson on 31.8.04 1113)
spf
Scrapple
Level: 132

Posts: 2916/5402
EXP: 26993775
For next: 138229

Since: 2.1.02
From: The Las Vegas of Canada

Since last post: 31 days
Last activity: 5 days
AIM:  
#8 Posted on 31.8.04 1048.42
Reposted on: 31.8.11 1048.46
    Originally posted by Grimis
      Originally posted by DrOp
      I guess I'm trying ask (and get some clarification without any of the usual slings and arrows being thrown)--why this/these issue(s) now? Why not acknowledge these party members in a more genuine manner? Do you think it can/will backfire in some way?
    I doubt it is going to backfire in the short term since most Americans are opposed to gay marriage, but it could coneivably create longer term problems if opinions change.

I would say it is part of a larger and possibly problematic strategy. The Wall Street Journal yesterday had a large article on how the Bush people have decided rather than trying to move to the middle they are instead going to try and ramp up their right-wing base even more than usual. Thus the total refusal to move on stem-cell, the more strident than usual anti-gay language in the platform, etc. The idea being that since everyone has just about made up their mind, that the race will hinge on turnout. An interesting strategy, but I think it could backfire as they could end up turning off more of their moderate supporters than bringing in more of the theoretical far-right non-voters.
DrDirt
Banger
Level: 96

Posts: 1153/2697
EXP: 8834850
For next: 153969

Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country

Since last post: 16 days
Last activity: 15 hours
#9 Posted on 31.8.04 1121.50
Reposted on: 31.8.11 1121.51
Spf, if they aren't careful, they may turn off their moderate Republican foot soldiers. They may appear mean-spirited and vindictive as well as self-righteous. This may well help the facist tag stick and divert attention form real issues.
Grimis
Scrapple
Level: 124

Posts: 3864/4700
EXP: 21453058
For next: 383604

Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1215 days
Last activity: 1012 days
#10 Posted on 31.8.04 1527.39
Reposted on: 31.8.11 1528.16
I think James Taranto makes a good point in OpinionJournal today:
    Originally posted by James Taranto, WSJ/Opinion Journal
    Gephardt is a fairly moderate Democrat, at least by the standards of today's far-left House party. His district leans Democratic, but not overwhelmingly so; Gore beat Bush 54% to 43%. And Federer thinks Carnahan is vulnerable on the issue of same-sex marriage. An initiative on Missouri's Aug. 3 primary ballot prohibits the redefinition of marriage to include same-sex couples; it passed with more than 70% of the vote. On July 27 Carnahan, a state representative, wrote a letter to the Friends of PrideFest, a gay-rights group, boasting: "This year I was one of the few to vote against House Joint Resolution 47, which put the constitutional ban on same-sex marriage on the ballot."

    Federer hands a copy of the letter to anyone who's interested, and he says Democrats in the district, many of whom are socially conservative, are usually persuaded to vote for Federer after reading it. That this is such a radioactive issue in a Democratic-leaning district in the ultimate bellwether state illustrates why John Kerry, in his nomination speech last month, referred only in code to his opposition to the Federal Marriage Amendment. In fact, we mentioned that reference to Federer, who obviously closely follows this issue, and he said it escaped him.

    At least Russ Carnahan stood up and took an unpopular position on principle. Agree with it or not, you have to admire him for having the courage John Kerry lacks.


(edited by Grimis on 31.8.04 1628)
AWArulz
Knackwurst
Level: 108

Posts: 854/3355
EXP: 13175218
For next: 345325

Since: 28.1.02
From: Louisville, KY

Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 11 hours
AIM:  
Y!:
#11 Posted on 31.8.04 2046.27
Reposted on: 31.8.11 2046.28
    Originally posted by DrOp
      Originally posted by CNN.com
      Guerriero said the "final straw" for his group was what he termed "insulting" language in the Republican platform opposing same-sex marriage and saying that homosexuality is "incompatible" with military service...

      Noting that the 1 million gay and lesbian votes President Bush received in 2000, according to exit polls, could be vital for the president's re-election, Guerriero said the platform will drive away "fair-minded voters."



    Since we have Grimis, Seven, and Palp around (among others)I thought I'd just ask what you guys feelings are about this sector of the GOP, their concerns and worth to the party as a whole?

    Your thoughts?


Didn't read any of the responses yet. I tend to be rather skeptical of the number of homosexuals claimed by various groups and don't really think the lobby is large enough to really matter, politically.

That being said, I could care less what adults choose to do in their private lives and in fact, I don't want to know. I don't support homosexual marriage sponsored by the government and in fact, do not support hetrosexual marriage sponsored by the government. And regarding the military, I was IN the military and don't have a problem with people who are homosexual in the military - but I don't want to know about it. Here's the reason: as a guy, I have to shower with, lay in a hole with, pull on and in many other situations, be in extremely close contact with, other people, mostly of the same gender - although, admittedly, not as exclusive as it was when I was in. I don't care to shower with someone I am not married to who might be checking out my fine booty. Nor do I think those kinds of sexual tensions are condusive to military discipline and honor.

But, as mentioned, I am pretty parochial. I certainly don't believe women should be in combat arms or in forward units in general. The reason is similar to the one that makes me think open gays in the military are not condusive: If a woman is in combat and is in trouble, it is the natural and traditional role of a male to rescue them. In combat, that might not be the right move.

Do I sound like PaPaw? Probably.

Now, let's see what Grimis says: I bet something about removing the religious right from the picture

fuelinjected
Banger
Level: 97

Posts: 2386/2679
EXP: 9135147
For next: 182211

Since: 12.10.02
From: Canada

Since last post: 3208 days
Last activity: 3208 days
#12 Posted on 31.8.04 2129.15
Reposted on: 31.8.11 2129.15
    Originally posted by AWARulz
    And regarding the military, I was IN the military and don't have a problem with people who are homosexual in the military - but I don't want to know about it. Here's the reason: as a guy, I have to shower with, lay in a hole with, pull on and in many other situations, be in extremely close contact with, other people, mostly of the same gender - although, admittedly, not as exclusive as it was when I was in. I don't care to shower with someone I am not married to who might be checking out my fine booty. Nor do I think those kinds of sexual tensions are condusive to military discipline and honor.


So you DO have a problem with homosexuality. You immediately associate homosexuals with perverts. What do you care if a gay man or a straight man sees your penis? What's the gay man going to do that the straight man won't? Is he going to try and bang you? What business is it of yours what goes on in his mind?

(edited by fuelinjected on 31.8.04 1929)
Lise
Mrs. Guru
Level: 71

Posts: 72/1274
EXP: 3098990
For next: 68139

Since: 11.12.01

Since last post: 365 days
Last activity: 32 days
#13 Posted on 1.9.04 0010.02
Reposted on: 1.9.11 0014.02
Whoa. Easy there, fuelinjected.

I believe AWARulz said he had a personal problem with knowing for sure that someone he was showering with might find him attractive. He also didn't specify that by gender. He admits his uneasyness has to do with things in his own head and not the heads of other people.

I'm not agreeing that the don't ask don't tell thing is a good idea, I just don't like people being attacked for things I can't see that they said.

Personally I'd like to see openly gay members of the military being able to serve (and not just at desk jobs). I think that after a period of adjustment, it would work out, just as it did with women. However, I can see how pretending the issue isn't there SEEMS like a good idea, since you have a better chance of causing a problem with the majority by addressing it. I do not agree with this sentiment, and I hope the policy is changed in the near future, but I understand it.


fuelinjected
Banger
Level: 97

Posts: 2388/2679
EXP: 9135147
For next: 182211

Since: 12.10.02
From: Canada

Since last post: 3208 days
Last activity: 3208 days
#14 Posted on 1.9.04 0034.38
Reposted on: 1.9.11 0035.05
I'm just real sick and tired of the whole, "I don't care what people do, just don't do it around me" line that gets repeated and accepted in society as not being homophobic. I apologize if I took it out on AWARulz but I saw traces of it in his post.

It's assuming that anyone who is homosexual is some kind of sex craved pervert looking to tackle any man he sees rather then as a human being with another sexual preference.

A lot of the stuff I read and hear about homosexuality in the past year or two sounds a lot like what white people used to say about African Americans. "I don't care what colour you are, just don't come 'round me."

All I can speak from is experience. I have several openly gay friends and I knew a couple of them before they were openly gay. They've never treated me any different nor have I ever treated them different. And seeing all the shit they deal with in their lives, it sometimes sets me off because we as a society seem to be taking a backward trend when it comes to destroying homophobia.
PalpatineW
Lap cheong
Level: 77

Posts: 1216/1528
EXP: 4060901
For next: 130247

Since: 2.1.02
From: Getting Rowdy

Since last post: 2776 days
Last activity: 2618 days
AIM:  
#15 Posted on 1.9.04 0049.10
Reposted on: 1.9.11 0051.27
    Originally posted by fuelinjected
    All I can speak from is experience. I have several openly gay friends and I knew a couple of them before they were openly gay. They've never treated me any different nor have I ever treated them different.


Did you live together in close quarters, shower together, and train for combat together? If your answer to the above three questions is 'no,' then I would suggest you don't have a reasonable frame of reference to compare to that of AWA.

Certainly not grounds for insinuating that he's some kind of bigot.
fuelinjected
Banger
Level: 97

Posts: 2389/2679
EXP: 9135147
For next: 182211

Since: 12.10.02
From: Canada

Since last post: 3208 days
Last activity: 3208 days
#16 Posted on 1.9.04 0114.39
Reposted on: 1.9.11 0114.58
    Originally posted by PalpatineW
    Did you live together in close quarters, shower together, and train for combat together? If your answer to the above three questions is 'no,' then I would suggest you don't have a reasonable frame of reference to compare to that of AWA.


That statement really irks me because it assumes gay men are something other then our fellow human beings.

And if you want a clearer answer, if they had gone through the same training and had the same qualifications as me to be in combat, I wouldn't think twice about it. They're people, not gays.
Lise
Mrs. Guru
Level: 71

Posts: 73/1274
EXP: 3098990
For next: 68139

Since: 11.12.01

Since last post: 365 days
Last activity: 32 days
#17 Posted on 1.9.04 0130.07
Reposted on: 1.9.11 0131.08
The problem with gays in the military isn't that people don't think they can do the job. It really doesn't have anything to do with the gay individuals themselves. It has to do with how having having an openly gay individual changes how individuals and groups will think and perform in a military setting. When this does happen (and I think that it will) military decorum will be drastically disrupted for a period of time.
PalpatineW
Lap cheong
Level: 77

Posts: 1218/1528
EXP: 4060901
For next: 130247

Since: 2.1.02
From: Getting Rowdy

Since last post: 2776 days
Last activity: 2618 days
AIM:  
#18 Posted on 1.9.04 0139.12
Reposted on: 1.9.11 0141.06
    Originally posted by fuelinjected
    That statement really irks me because it assumes gay men are something other then our fellow human beings.

    And if you want a clearer answer, if they had gone through the same training and had the same qualifications as me to be in combat, I wouldn't think twice about it. They're people, not gays.


No it doesn't. It assumes they're gay people. People are different. Men and women, gays and straights, etc. Would you have a problem with co-ed showers?
Pool-Boy
Lap cheong
Level: 81

Posts: 1544/1759
EXP: 4899940
For next: 92930

Since: 1.8.02
From: Huntington Beach, CA

Since last post: 1261 days
Last activity: 27 days
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#19 Posted on 1.9.04 0211.54
Reposted on: 1.9.11 0214.48
I have to second those thoughts. There is a reason we have men's and women's bathrooms. It is about modesty. You do not expose yourself to a potential "mate." It introduces an aspect of sexuality into an otherwise platonic relationship.

If you are going to suggest that it is perfectly acceptable for a gay man to see the penis of a straight man, you have to therefore say it is ok for all bathrooms to be made unisex, the end of separate sex locker rooms and showers - in other words, the end of modesty.

That gay man may not want to jump all over the first naked guy he sees, straight or otherwise, but the potential is there. You can take the most unattractive woman in the world, and it is still inappropriate for her to be nude in the presence of a man. The same applies for gays.

I have no problem with gay men, but I wouldn't want to strip naked in front of them. This doesn't mean I think all gay men "want my hot bod," it means I have a degree of modesty and I don't feel comfortable in that situation. To say that attitude is homophobic is just ridiculous to me. I feel the same way about stripping in front of women I am not intimate with. Does that make me a sexist?

(edited by Pool-Boy on 1.9.04 0015)
DrOp
Frankfurter
Level: 60

Posts: 670/859
EXP: 1711774
For next: 61014

Since: 2.1.02

Since last post: 2180 days
Last activity: 1047 days
#20 Posted on 1.9.04 0652.09
Reposted on: 1.9.11 0652.13
    Originally posted by Pool-Boy
    I have no problem with gay men, but I wouldn't want to strip naked in front of them. This doesn't mean I think all gay men "want my hot bod," it means I have a degree of modesty and I don't feel comfortable in that situation.


We're off topic here, but all I can say about that is while I totally respect your efforts at and beliefs in modesty, the fact remains that you probably HAVE showered with gay men and been naked with gay men and in a locker room with gay men. If you chose to just accept that its already happening what's the big deal?


So, (back to my original posts)--I guess a further question would be--if we accept that there will always be different people (black, white, gay, bi, hetero, men, women) and that they we will have to live/work/play/party together--what's the big deal? Why can't these folks be fully acknowledged? Or are they really a small part of the parties as AWA suggests?
Pages: 1 2 NextThread ahead: God bless Alan Keyes (for comedic reasons)
Next thread: Bush says we can't win War on Terror
Previous thread: Michael Moore shows up at GOP Convention
(707 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
The 7 - Current Events & Politics - Gay Republican Group Challenges GOP with AdRegister and log in to post!

The W™ message board - 7 year recycle

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim
This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.375 seconds.