GOP: The Gay Old Party?

posted at 2:15 pm on February 3, 2011 by Jazz Shaw

With CPAC 2011 almost upon us, plenty of discussion has taken place over who will or won’t be attending. CPAC is something of a litmus test in the conservative community, particularly when we are gearing up for a presidential election. Since one bone of contention – at least for some – has been the inclusion of GOProud as a sponsor, Liz Mair composed a rather thoughtful analysis of the best fit for gays and lesbians in the Republican Party and the conservative movement in general.

The entire essay is worthwhile, but it boils down to a couple of key points. The first deals with the fallacy that gay voters are some sort of homogenous group which only cares about – as Liz terms it – “the gay stuff.”

Let’s just get it out there: A lot of people think gays and lesbians are naturally and should be liberal/Democrats because—wait for it—gay people only or mainly care about what I shorthand term “gay stuff.” You know, gay marriage, gay adoption, and so on and so forth. And then, just as you have within the straight population, there are people who think marriage is nice, and want gay relationships recognized but also think hey, you know what’s equally or more important? Killing terrorists, stopping ill-conceived policy like Obamacare, and not being spent-and-taxed to death.

Yes, it’s true: A lot of gays and lesbians do have concerns about the continued existence of the estate tax; concerns about the threat and potential spread of Islamic fundamentalism; concerns about the negative effects of Obamacare; concerns about our screwed up tax system, which takes too much money out of people’s pockets. You know what you typically call people with those kinds of concerns, no matter whether they are attracted to guys or girls and have boobies or not? You call them Republicans, conservatives, center-right, right-leaning libertarians, or some variation thereof.

The second part is a bit more tricky, and raises the question of whether or not the Democrats truly are more supportive of “the gay stuff” aforementioned, and precisely how out of line the GOP is. Liz points out that the positions of Barack Obama and George W. Bush on the gay marriage question were virtually identical. She also provides some background on the voting records of some big bad conservatives – along with several prominent Democrats – where votes on “the gay stuff” are concerned and delivers more than a few facts which may come as a surprise to some readers.

For me, trying to lump any group into one party or the other seems a futile effort. I’m reminded of a woman who contacted me during our last election, and still stays in touch with me to this day. She had seen my candidate at a press conference and though she was a Democrat, being very concerned over skyrocketing unemployment and debt, was impressed. But she closed her initial note to me with a disturbing comment.

Please, please, please tell me he’s pro-choice.”

It wasn’t an unreasonable question since we have a lot of pro-choice Republicans in the Northeast, but it was not the case with my guy. Being in New York, I kept my pro-life Republican candidate from discussing abortion any more than was absolutely necessary. But I was forced to admit to her that he opposed the procedure. This led to a lengthy discussion where I explained that the vote of a single member of the House on such matters probably wouldn’t be a significant factor in the long term since any legislation proposed along those lines would probably wind up being tossed to the judicial branch anyway.

In the end, she informed me that she had indeed voted for my candidate, but noted that our discussion would prompt her to keep voting for Democratic presidents in the future so they nominate Supreme Court justices. I considered it a win, since she had previously voted a straight Democratic ticket anyway.

The point here, similar to what Liz Mair has demonstrated, is that there is certainly room in the conservative movement – and the Republican Party – for voters who agree with a broad swath of other principles even if they disagree with what we might assume are their “single voter” key issues.

Welcome to CPAC. The tent is looking a little bit bigger, and it’s hard to argue that this is a bad thing.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4

I am appalled that there are so many people who just ignore the radical gay agenda of GOProud and insist on embracing them as “fiscal conservatives.” All you have to do to find out what their agenda is, is to go to their website. It’s all there. They are not conservatives. They are gay activists pretending to be conservatives. Some of you are really blind.

JannyMae on February 3, 2011 at 10:09 PM

Yes, it is on their web site. Is it their policy focus? No. Any interview you watch with either Chris or Jimmy LaSalvia (or Tammy Bruce’s podcasts!) do not make these their bread and butter ones.

It’s meant to appeal to those interested to their fiscal message. You put up there “against gay marriage” then it’s an automatic “Hell no!” from anyone peeking in through the keyhole, curious about conservatism.

To wit, I am pro-civil union and not against gay marriage. But I certainly am not strongly invested in this issue. At all.

Gov. Quinn just signed Civil Unions into law in Illinois. Ok. My life hasn’t changed one bit. But we also got a raise in the State Income Tax and now Rahm is wanting to tax us further if he wins in Chicago.

You bet like Hell I care far more about the latter two policy examples.

lansing quaker on February 3, 2011 at 10:16 PM

JannyMae on February 3, 2011 at 10:09 PM

No-one’s pretending, Janny. Speaking as a non-white (straight) woman I understand what lansing quaker is saying, and also his frustrations. I wish you would , too.

Fortunata on February 3, 2011 at 10:16 PM

Liberals don’t much like it when you break rank. A lot of people are ready to vote with their pocketbooks and are tired of the Democrats using single-issues as political footballs.

lansing quaker on February 3, 2011 at 10:06 PM

Sort of how they try to keep women for voting Republican by telling them Republicans would take away their reproductive rights…

Now to be honest would I like to see Roe V Wade overturned and this country not be one that condones abortion? Yes, but I know that is not going to happen anytime soon so I pray for a change in that woman’s heart.

CCRWM on February 3, 2011 at 10:17 PM

Sort of how they try to keep women for voting Republican by telling them Republicans would take away their reproductive rights…

CCRWM on February 3, 2011 at 10:17 PM

Exactly. And yet, there are still women who are “pro-choice” and vote Republican. Yet they still get barraged by Liberals with the “how COULD you? They’re against you!” card.

Mama Grizzlies, GOProud. Just horses of a different color and the left is trying to keep them all in the stable.

lansing quaker on February 3, 2011 at 10:22 PM

Getting pissed off that a gay conservative group is going to be at CPAC is totally…well…gay.

MadisonConservative on February 3, 2011 at 10:50 PM

Here is the problem I have with GOProud.

They say that they are all just conservatives who are for small government and fiscal responsibility. I believe them. That is great! They also say that they are not trying to push the gay activist agenda (or at least that seems to be the argument here). This is where I have a question to ask:

“If you are not pushing the gay agenda and are just another group of conservatives, then why did you form your own group instead of joining another?”

So…why? What would be the point? I’m all for gays joining the conservative movement…I’m not for them organizing a group to push “gay rights” under the conservative banner. Why?! Because the gay agenda is NOT conservative!

Pattosensei on February 3, 2011 at 10:56 PM

So…why? What would be the point? I’m all for gays joining the conservative movement…I’m not for them organizing a group to push “gay rights” under the conservative banner. Why?! Because the gay agenda is NOT conservative!

Pattosensei on February 3, 2011 at 10:56 PM

Please click back to the last page of comments, page 3.

Press Ctrl+F on your keyboard. Search for “lansing”.

I explained this exhaustively there. You may find some other comments related to proper social graces intermixed.

lansing quaker on February 3, 2011 at 11:04 PM

That sounds pretty difficult to prove…and there are plenty of examples of leftist organizations saying one thing to infiltrate another group and change in from within…

Also, it seems to me that they can be vocal without forming a group (which could turn into a voting bloc pretty easily).

However, I’m willing to give them a try. Consider them on a sort of probation where I watch and wait.

If they prove to be gay rights activists, expect the outrage to be ten-fold. It’s one thing to be attacked by a known enemy, but it’s a completely different thing to be attacked by a “friend.”

Pattosensei on February 3, 2011 at 11:25 PM

That sounds pretty difficult to prove…and there are plenty of examples of leftist organizations saying one thing to infiltrate another group and change in from within…

Pattosensei on February 3, 2011 at 11:25 PM

I have no idea who or what you’re responding to, but ok. Just please try to not disrupt my martini brunch.

lansing quaker on February 3, 2011 at 11:27 PM

lansing quaker on February 3, 2011 at 11:27 PM

I was responding to the post you made about how they are showing the libs that “hey, we’re here and we’re conservative.”

I just forgot to quote…sorry.

Pattosensei on February 3, 2011 at 11:29 PM

Pattosensei on February 3, 2011 at 11:29 PM

Fair enough. And while you wait for GOProud to please you, even though you are not their target audience, I will have my servant girl, Ermengarde, refresh my martini and bring me fresh olives this time (and you had better make sure they’re fresh you whelp, unless you want NO COAL FOR YOUR FURNACE THIS EVENING!).

There’s no reason to over-analyze this, Patty.

lansing quaker on February 3, 2011 at 11:36 PM

The first deals with the fallacy that gay voters are some sort of homogenous group which only cares about – as Liz terms it – “the gay stuff.”

It’s a fallacy all right. A straw man fallacy.

No one is claiming that gay voters in general are only motivated by gay issues, so acting like this is the “fallacy” that people are claiming is a classic straw man.

Move on from the straw man, and address the groups that form a coalition based on their identity as homosexuals. Obviously, the point of the group is to associate in a common cause, as with all political groups. Obviously, the cause is to advance the agenda they agree on, and it should be blindingly obvious that most points of the agenda will center around issues important to them as homosexuals. Otherwise, they would have simply formed up a “tea party” type group rather than an explicitly gay group like GOProud.

So the backwards and gullible people are the ones who look at GOProud and say, “But their agenda has nothing to do with being gay!” Of course it does. Oppose them or support them, but none of this phony “it has nothing to do with being gay” business.

There Goes The Neighborhood on February 4, 2011 at 12:02 AM

Fair enough. And while you wait for GOProud to please you, even though you are not their target audience, I will have my servant girl, Ermengarde, refresh my martini and bring me fresh olives this time (and you had better make sure they’re fresh you whelp, unless you want NO COAL FOR YOUR FURNACE THIS EVENING!).

There’s no reason to over-analyze this, Patty.

lansing quaker on February 3, 2011 at 11:36 PM

Whoa there buddy! I extend an olive branch despite my reservations (ones that are historically grounded I might add) and you insult me?!

The point is that you have NO PROOF of who their target audience is. It is not something you can prove any more than I can disprove it. Realizing that, I accepted your argument as plausible. Not true, but plausible. Therefore, I reserve my judgment of GOProud until they give me reason to do otherwise. It is not wrong to be suspicious. If you saw a man with needle scars in his arm that assured you he was clean now, would you go ahead and trust him fully? I doubt it.

I thought the first reference to disturbing your martini brunch was just you being cute, but you just showed your true colors in this post.

While I wait for GOProud to “please me” eh? A thinly veiled reference to me as some sort of rich, uncaring scrooge…a caricature of the liberals hated rich, white imperialist oppressor? A condescending “don’t over-analyze this, Patty?” <–very respectful.

Lansing: "I told you not to over-analyze, you're just being too suspicious. None of that Ermengarde stuff had anything to do with you. It doesn't matter, you wouldn't have ever accepted them no matter what they did. You just proved it, bigot!"

Me: "Yeah, being upset after listening and reluctantly accepting the plausibility of your argument just before being goaded and insulted proves that I am unwilling to trust people. Hey, maybe there's a reason…nah…/s"

There, I've finished our conversation for you so that you can go back to whipping your servant girl and drinking your martini.

You have completely destroyed your credibility with me…in exactly the same way I am worried that GOProud would do. You have certainly done nothing to ease my suspicions (quite the opposite in fact).

Pattosensei on February 4, 2011 at 12:08 AM

faux conservative.

Hey r4l!

Aren’t you supposed to be publishing your Earth-shattering thesis refuting once and for all the theory of Darwinian evolution in Nature and the Quarterly Review of Biology this month?

Let me know when it’s out.

Good Lt on February 3, 2011 at 2:35 PM

I can see why you’d be sore, since evolution is such a well-established FACT and all, yet you can’t seem to win the argument against those stupid backwater superstitious “fundamentalists.”

But this thread is not about evolution. At least, it wasn’t.

There Goes The Neighborhood on February 4, 2011 at 12:10 AM

While I wait for GOProud to “please me” eh? A thinly veiled reference to me as some sort of rich, uncaring scrooge…a caricature of the liberals hated rich, white imperialist oppressor? A condescending “don’t over-analyze this, Patty?” <–very respectful.

You clearly didn’t get the nature of my posts between some of the others here, on page 3.

But carry on.

lansing quaker on February 4, 2011 at 12:33 AM

hey gomer, he was one of us, a dreaded social conservative…I’d tell you to get a clue, but you don’t seem capable.

right4life on February 3, 2011 at 3:21 PM

LOL! You really think so? Name one of your precious social causes that he championed? Did he push for any laws regarding “that medical procedure?” Nope. Did he push for any laws regarding prayer in school or gay marriage or any of the other social issues you keep wanking on about? Nope. He worked on improving our economy, keeping us safe and mouthing platitudes to you religious types to keep you satisfied. You’re too stupid to know when you’ve been played, even decades after the fact.

MJBrutus on February 3, 2011 at 3:26 PM

This is your “proof?”

Fine. Let’s take them one by one.

Name one of your precious social causes that he championed?

Denied federal funding for abortions. Used the “bully pulpit” to speak out in behalf of the pro-life position and try to change peoples attitudes towards abortion. Advocated conservative positions. Said movies would be much better if they didn’t have raw sexuality, but left it to the imagination. Spoke in defense of marriage.

Did he push for any laws regarding “that medical procedure?” Nope.

What social conservatives are pushing for laws about abortion? We all know that such laws would just be ruled unconstitutional as long as Roe v. Wade stands. But Reagan advocated against abortion, immediately changed the laws to prevent federal funding of abortions, and pushed for laws requiring parental notification. Most importantly, he tried to nominate judges that would reject judicial activism and stick to the Constitution. Because any meaningful change in our national policy on abortion will depend on having a conservative Supreme Court.

Compare Reagan to other pro-life politicians, and they look pretty much the same. So how was he really “just playing you so-cons for fools?”

Did he push for any laws regarding prayer in school or gay marriage or any of the other social issues you keep wanking on about? Nope.

Prayer in school was ruled out by an activist court that decided that it was okay for Congress to pray, but an unconstitutional violation of the separation of church and state for a local school to allow prayer. Laws can’t fix the problem when SCOTUS declares any such law to be unconstitutional. That’s why you won’t find any social conservative politicians proposing we pass a law to bring prayer back to school. So how does the fact that Reagan didn’t do it either prove he wasn’t really a social conservative?

And same-sex marriage is a complete non sequitur, since no one started advocating for such nonsense until well after Reagan’s time.

You’re projecting your own positions onto Reagan.

There Goes The Neighborhood on February 4, 2011 at 12:38 AM

Reagan would be considered a RINO candyass if he were in the running today.

Pro-amnesty, pro-coalition-building, a pragmatist, crossed the aisle from time to time to get what he wanted, wanted to make the tent bigger, no “purity tests,” etc.

Good Lt on February 3, 2011 at 3:28 PM

Another one trying to remake Reagan into his own image. Get over it. Reagan united the social conservatives, national security conservatives, and fiscal conservatives together That’s why he won elections, and why all of you attacking those awful “social conservatives” will lose the upcoming elections if anyone is foolish enough to listen to you.

Which, given the GOP’s past behavior, is entirely possible.

There Goes The Neighborhood on February 4, 2011 at 12:43 AM

I can see why you’d be sore, since evolution is such a well-established FACT and all, yet you can’t seem to win the argument against those stupid backwater superstitious “fundamentalists.”

But this thread is not about evolution. At least, it wasn’t.

There Goes The Neighborhood on February 4, 2011 at 12:10 AM

LOL

it is interesting that he brought that into this thread…guess he’s still sore over being made such a fool of…but that happens to him in every thread…covering any subject

right4life on February 4, 2011 at 7:53 AM

My Christian beliefs tell me that homosexuality is wrong. Still, homosexuals have the same rights of assembly, free speech, and petition as everyone else. Gay parades are freak shows, but they have just as much right to their parade (within the limits of common decency) as do the Shriners or whomever. Therefore, my argument with GoProud or any other gay group is not that they shouldn’t be at CPAC. My argument is against the gay agenda becoming part of the Republican platform.

pugwriter on February 4, 2011 at 8:21 AM

no doubt about it now. Its time to form up the New Republican Party. The GOP has tossed out Nationalism and now wants to toss out marriage and the family by embracing a group that wants to legislate that their particular brand of sin is no longer a sin but totally acceptable.?? I don’t think so.
The democrat party is dying and a new 2nd party is needed. One that puts emphasis on the Constitution and puts our nation and its citizenry 1st. The GOP refuses to do that. Let Meghan McCain and her ilk have it. Form up a new party now!! In time for 2012. DD

Darvin Dowdy on February 4, 2011 at 11:13 AM

You clearly didn’t get the nature of my posts between some of the others here, on page 3.

But carry on.

lansing quaker on February 4, 2011 at 12:33 AM

You mean the one where you portray Christians as fainting upon velvet pillows like some uppity Southern plantation owner?

Yeah, some of your cohorts thought it was cute and carried it along…but that doesn’t make it less of a barb. The fact that you instructed me not to “over-analyze” it means that you understood what you were doing. Furthermore, you calling me “Patty” was a condescending “I know you’re not smart enough to understand this, child.”

Now you try to say “You just don’t get the nature of my previous posts. I’m just having some fun. You’re just over sensitive.”

Hmmm…reminds me of someone…Oh! I know! Clown nose on, clown nose off.

The point is, sir/madam, that we conservatives don’t play identity politics, nor should we. I am suspicious with good reason of a group coming together because they all identify themselves by the people they have sex with. Akzed’s post about wearing a button was quite prescient in that way.

A little research (google) finds that they did throw support behind the repeal of DADT…so don’t tell me social issues are off the agenda completely for them. Which again raises the question “if not for the gay agenda then why form a gay group?” Again, the “were here” argument is weaker than a wet paper bag, but I’m going to watch and see what happens.

You and other supporters (Vyce, PR, Lt., etc) confuse distrust of an organization with distrust of individual gays. I would be equally suspicious of a group called Black Elephant that is a race-based group (all black) that said “we are just for conservative principles like everyone else. We formed this group to say that we’re here to the liberals.” Fine and dandy if you say so, but this is self-segregation and identity politics no matter how you slice it. They would be identifying themselves by their skin color first…just like GOPround IDs itself by sexual preference first.

So there you have it, two very good reasons NOT to trust the group and yet I’m willing to give it a try. I feel like I’m being rather stupid for doing so.

Pattosensei on February 4, 2011 at 11:46 AM

Every time I hear the phrase “gay agenda” it sounds suspiciously similar to “vast right-wing conspiracy”.

MadisonConservative on February 4, 2011 at 12:38 PM

It’s difficult to be a conservative or republican gay or lesbian. Trust me, I know. I think of myself as a secret agent – sharing conservative thoughts with fellow gays & lesbians who listen to me because I’m not the enemy.

There are plenty of us – we’re just hiding in the closet from our democrat gays and lesbians.

Gays & Lesbians need to realize that there’s more to life than just the ‘gay stuff’. Just like women need to realize ‘women’s rights’ are more than abortion, title IX, ridiculous equal pay laws.

hotdax on February 4, 2011 at 4:16 PM

I recently accused rigth4life of predictably attacking two group of people with regular frequency. Glad to see Sylvia is maintaining her predictable nature of calling anyone not a religious conservative according to her mercurial standards eventually as Nazi.

In this thread, it only took Sylvia six posts to invoke Godwin’s law.

Another irrational stance Sylvia keeps making is her condemnation of Libertarians even though such people would be the first to support the right of a business owner to be able to refuse a customer, any customer, for any reason.

So since you have already called Libertarians Nazis and you support the same outlook as libertarians do when it comes to the rights of a business owner, I guess that makes you a Nazi as well.

Fascists of a feather and all.

Gene Splicer on February 4, 2011 at 7:00 PM

Getting pissed off that a gay conservative group is going to be at CPAC is totally…well…gay.

MadisonConservative on February 3, 2011 at 10:50 PM

Too funny.

Gene Splicer on February 4, 2011 at 7:40 PM

I recently accused rigth4life of predictably attacking two group of people with regular frequency. Glad to see Sylvia is maintaining her predictable nature of calling anyone not a religious conservative according to her mercurial standards eventually as Nazi.

Fascists of a feather and all.

Gene Splicer on February 4, 2011 at 7:00 PM

speaking of fascists look who showed up…did you starch your brown shirt today genie?

the gay marriage movement is fascist, because they seek to deny the rights of those who disagree, particulary freedom of religion and speech

the darwiniacs, like you, are fascists, because they have to sue to silence any dissent from their religion…and they have to get people like sternberg, and crocker fired, who won’t bow down at the altar of your racist god darwin.

tell me now do you have any evidence to back up you LIES and BS??? or as usual, are you just going to continue onto your next talking point…since its obvious you don’t have the intelligence to think for yourself.

right4life on February 4, 2011 at 9:49 PM

speaking of fascists look who showed up…did you starch your brown shirt today genie?

Sylvia,

I’m not the one who eventually calls everyone not like me a Nazi.

Over the last two years at least, you have done so for a plethora of people from several political points of view, ideologies and belief systems for lack of a better term.

Also odd how no matter how detailed the arguments are, no matter how civil and eloquent the responses are to you, you seem to resort to baser replies of ad homs or worse.

If you are, as you claim, so educated and so cultured, then why do your posts not reflect such?

the gay marriage movement is fascist, because they seek to deny the rights of those who disagree, particulary freedom of religion and speech

And that is an outright lie. Two men or two women getting married have nothing to do with or affects your freedom of speech or religion.

When xains claim such, what they typically mean is that they do not have the right to force others to live by their religious laws.

If two men or women are allowed to marry, you are still free to practice your xian faith and are still free to speak out against such marriages.

What you want is the ability to condemn such marriages and not be challenged or held responsible for your myopic and limited views and comments.

Marriage is nothing more than a civil contract and no religion, including yours, has the right to claim that such a civil contract is limited. It is a matter of civil rights Sylvia.

the darwiniacs, like you, are fascists, because they have to sue to silence any dissent from their religion…

You keep making hollow claims you cannot backup. Please cite where anyone was ever sued and silenced in the manner you claim.

You continually makes claims that you cannot backup with facts.

And again, you do not have the right to limit someone’s freedom simply because your religion says you have the right.

This is a secular nation and not a xian one.

and they have to get people like sternberg, and crocker fired, who won’t bow down at the altar of your racist god darwin.

Again, cite the source of what you speak of. Not my job to go look up your hollow claims.

As far as racist gods go, I have none, but you do follow, by your own definition, a racist harrygod.

tell me now do you have any evidence to back up you LIES and BS???

And what lies and bs would that be Sylvia?

Again, you tend to make very grand claims but also tend to provide nothing to back up those claims.

or as usual, are you just going to continue onto your next talking point…since its obvious you don’t have the intelligence to think for yourself.

Again, I am not the one who has posted contradictory claims. You have as well as resorting to insults rather than substance and backing up your claims.

Again, you condemn Libertarians as Nazis yet you profess the same standards that Libertarians have in regards to business. This makes you ignorant at best and a hypocrite at worst.

Odd how you again could not address your ignorance or intellectual dishonestly and double standard Sylvia.

And gain, cite where I have lied Sylvia. I have cited and can back up your reactionary attacks against anyone who is a homosexual or atheist. Pity you cannot cite or backup any of your claims.

But I’m sure your rebuttal will be more simplistic ad homs, insults and juvenile comments while you denounce the intelligence of others and place yourself as such a learned person.

So odd Sylvia that your comments, debating ability and language does not backup the intellect you claim to posses.

You can reply in your typical intellectually dishonest manner to one point taken to an irrational tangent like you typically do or you can post more insults.

Either way, you fail to realize that I have and continue to make you reply in the very typical closed minded xian manner in which you are known for across the net.

In other words Sylvia, you are a puppet that dances to a predictable, closed minded and religious zealot tune.

Odd for someone named after such a band.

Gene Splicer on February 5, 2011 at 12:55 AM

Also odd how no matter how detailed the arguments are, no matter how civil and eloquent the responses are to you, you seem to resort to baser replies of ad homs or worse.

If you are, as you claim, so educated and so cultured, then why do your posts not reflect such?

compared to your posts my are very civil. what is uncivil about my post? telling the truth about the fascism of the gay rights movement and the darwiniacs seems to upset you, why is that?

You keep making hollow claims you cannot backup. Please cite where anyone was ever sued and silenced in the manner you claim.

This is a secular nation and not a xian one.

I just did back it up…you’ve never heard of what happened to Sternberg and Crocker? can’t you read? are you just totally dishonest…and then of course all the school districts that get sued for daring to question your racist god. please.

why can’t you name the name of CHRIST?? we’re not ‘xians’ which an adhominen attack on christians. learn to love the name of JESUS, because the day will come when you will bow down and proclaim HIM LORD.

again you prove you cannot deal with facts, you just ignore them.

You continually makes claims that you cannot backup with facts.

And again, you do not have the right to limit someone’s freedom simply because your religion says you have the right.

but of course a fascist like you is ok with the gay rights movement limiting the speech of christians…and their freedom of religion…you have no problem with that…its why you’re a fascist.

And that is an outright lie. Two men or two women getting married have nothing to do with or affects your freedom of speech or religion.

When xains claim such, what they typically mean is that they do not have the right to force others to live by their religious laws.

If two men or women are allowed to marry, you are still free to practice your xian faith and are still free to speak out against such marriages.

you’re either a liar, or extremely ignorant, which one is it? if gay marriage becomes the law of the land, freedom of speech and religion will end for christians who oppose it. try to do your own research, before making a fool out of yourself again. tell that to the doctor in CA who lost his freedom of speech and religion to the gays…I would tell you to get a clue, but you’ve proven again and again that facts don’t matter to ideologues like you

Again, you condemn Libertarians as Nazis yet you profess the same standards that Libertarians have in regards to business. This makes you ignorant at best and a hypocrite at worst.

newsflash there genie, I’m not sylvia…are you hearing voices again sybil??

right4life on February 5, 2011 at 8:36 AM

In other words Sylvia, you are a puppet that dances to a predictable, closed minded and religious zealot tune.

Odd for someone named after such a band.

Gene Splicer on February 5, 2011 at 12:55 AM

you know I didn’t see anyone named sylvia in this entire thread…are you on drugs?

right4life on February 5, 2011 at 8:49 AM

Gene Splicer on February 5, 2011 at 12:55 AM

you really need professional help…seriously

right4life on February 5, 2011 at 8:53 AM

Page 1 of this discussion was a drag, but pages 2&3 were delish. I hope Page 4 doesn’t disappoint.

Jeddite on February 5, 2011 at 2:08 PM

compared to your posts my are very civil. what is uncivil about my post? telling the truth about the fascism of the gay rights movement and the darwiniacs seems to upset you, why is that?

Yes, calling people fascists and Nazis is not hate filled at all, for a petulant fifth grader, maybe.

As far as being upset goes, I’m not the one writing such ad hom postings or posting such frantic and emotion filled posts.

As far as truth goes, you tend not to server that too well.

I just did back it up…you’ve never heard of what happened to Sternberg and Crocker? can’t you read?

Again Sylvia, not my job to go looking up your claims.

are you just totally dishonest…

Again, not my job to go looking up your support material.

and then of course all the school districts that get sued for daring to question your racist god. please.

Again, cite your sources. And again Sylvia, as far as racists god go, I think xians are the last to be able to cry foul over that topic considering the history just in the US alone.

For us that follow no god, we have no such dark legacy or hang ups.

why can’t you name the name of CHRIST?? we’re not ‘xians’ which an adhominen attack on christians.

According to you, but your claims are not very well sourced or supported. I guess xmas must really upset you.

It’s called an abbreviation Sylvia. Not my fault you have a problem with it.

learn to love the name of JESUS, because the day will come when you will bow down and proclaim HIM LORD.

Now why would I proclaim the name of a person who is a myth?

And as far as your typical prediction that I will bow down to your god one day, sorry Sylvia, but you are no better than typical fundamental muslim who proclaims the same thing.

again you prove you cannot deal with facts, you just ignore them.

What fact? All you do is insult, make hollow claims and then make a religious-based threat.

but of course a fascist like you is ok with the gay rights movement limiting the speech of Christians

And again, a hollow claim you cannot back up. Repeating it does not make it true unless you are taking a page from the Nazis you often cite so much.

…and their freedom of religion

Again, nothing to back it up but your hollow claims.

Two men or women getting married does not prevent you from practicing your religion unless you believe your religion give you the right to interfere in the lives of others.

…you have no problem with that…its why you’re a fascist.

Again Sylvia, I am not the one seeking to limit a person freedoms. You are.

you’re either a liar, or extremely ignorant, which one is it?

I’m not the one making one hollow claim after another Sylvia.

if gay marriage becomes the law of the land, freedom of speech and religion will end for christians who oppose it.

And that is an outright lie. It is a typical one you hear from fearful xians, but it is simply not true.

Two men or two women getting married does not limit your freedom of speech or your right to practice your religion.

What you mean is that you fear you will no longer be able to publicly call gay people any number of vile and derogatory names you like or march against their exercising of equal rights without repercussions.

You are still free to practice your religion and speak out against anyone you want Sylvia, but you will be held liable for such speech.

Your religion does not give you the right to prevent others from exercising their freedoms.

try to do your own research, before making a fool out of yourself again.

Not my job to back up your hollow claims.

tell that to the doctor in CA who lost his freedom of speech and religion to the gays…

Again, source…

I would tell you to get a clue, but you’ve proven again and again that facts don’t matter to ideologues like you

Again, more hollow claims and insults. You have provided nothing else.

newsflash there genie, I’m not sylvia…are you hearing voices again sybil??

And odd how you couldn’t address how you condemn Libertarians as Nazis yet you profess the same standards that Libertarians have in regards to business. This makes you ignorant at best and a hypocrite at worst.

you know I didn’t see anyone named sylvia in this entire thread…are you on drugs?

And yet you keep replying to that name. This is sort of reminiscent when you were trying to pretend to be a male only to have your own claims from a feminine respective recalled.

I wonder why you would reply all this time to a name that is supposedly not yours and just start protesting now.

Either you didn’t catch it when you read my posts several days ago or you just overlooked it since it is so common for people to call you that.

you really need professional help…seriously

Wow. And yet you keep coming back to post over and over to me.

The fact remains Sylvia, right4life or whatever you wish to call yourself, xians do not have the right to prevent others from exercising their freedoms even if their religion claims they do.

Marriage in this country is not owned or controlled by any religion.

It is nothing more than a civil contract and as such any adult may enter into it.

Trying to claim that who wants to get married will prevent two men and two women from getting married is no different than when the same people claimed that people of different skin color couldn’t get married.

That line of thinking is an atavistic echo from organizations like the KKK, (your favorites)the Nazis and religious faiths like the Mormons.

Is that why you hate people who are not xian so much?

Gene Splicer on February 5, 2011 at 6:59 PM

Gene Splicer on February 5, 2011 at 6:59 PM

BWAHAAAHAAHAHAH damn you’re stupid you nazi piece of trash.

get some help you sick twisted lying nut-job.

right4life on February 5, 2011 at 7:26 PM

BWAHAAAHAAHAHAH damn you’re stupid you nazi piece of trash.

get some help you sick twisted lying nut-job.

And that is all you have to offer Sylvia; blind hatred and name calling.

No substance.

No facts.

No rational arguments.

Just rabid condemnation of anyone not falling in line with your mercurial definition of a xian.

In short, this is your reply to people who wish to protect and uphold personal freedoms and the exercise of such and not allow them to be limited or made illegal due to the religious faith of others who may not approve.

If this is the level of hatred that pours forth form you so easily over just the topic of equal protection under the law, equal right and equal freedoms, I fear to see how you will react when such things as gay marriage are facts of society.

What will you do then?

Gene Splicer on February 5, 2011 at 8:02 PM

And that is all you have to offer Sylvia; blind hatred and name calling.

And cowardice. Don’t forget cowardice.

Dark-Star on February 6, 2011 at 8:41 PM

Gah, hit post too soon.

I fear to see how you will react when such things as gay marriage are facts of society.

What will you do then?

Gene Splicer on February 5, 2011 at 8:02 PM

What do you think? The same thing wrong4life has always done…whine and complain on the Internet, just more than ever before.

There are a handful of wingnuts that will actually grab their shotguns to ‘teach them queers a lessun’. He isn’t one of them.

Dark-Star on February 6, 2011 at 8:44 PM

And cowardice. Don’t forget cowardice.

Dark-Star on February 6, 2011 at 8:41 PM

LOL from the punk-ass pu**y who threatened me then wouldn’t post his address when called on it. you’re real brave on the internet thats about it…you fat gutless POS.

right4life on February 6, 2011 at 10:45 PM

What do you think? The same thing wrong4life has always done…whine and complain on the Internet, just more than ever before.

Dark-Star on February 6, 2011 at 8:44 PM

hey dumbass, we win every vote 31-0 you and your fascist gay friends lose every time. you’ve lost the argument, hell its why you lost in CA.

gay rights…LOSES EVERY TIME…the only chance you have is for the fascist judges to impose it…damn you’re dumb. and gutless as hell.

right4life on February 6, 2011 at 10:47 PM

Dark-Star on February 6, 2011 at 8:44 PM

oh yeah you did tell me your city..what am I supposed to do wait on a street corner until some fat bald toothless loser who stinks like hell, walks by mumbling and foaming at the mouth?

right4life on February 6, 2011 at 10:52 PM

Dark-Star

What do you think? The same thing wrong4life has always done…whine and complain on the Internet, just more than ever before.

Hopefully, that is all that will occur.

There are a handful of wingnuts that will actually grab their shotguns to ‘teach them queers a lessun’. He isn’t one of them.

I hope so, but you never know what the tipping point will be for some.

Gene Splicer on February 8, 2011 at 6:24 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4