Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by IJ Reilly, Oct 18, 2006.
I saw something about this yesterday. It's a whole new level of bigotry, and it's disgusting.
If they're going to go through with this, then I hope that the silver lining will be that it sends more Republican gays running to the party that really wants them.
I thought it was interesting in light of the suggestions that the Republican leadership failed to more proactively address the Foley situation a year or more ago, out of fear of being labeled homophobic. Obviously groups like the Family Research Council don't speak for the entire party, but they are highly influential, and I don't see any reluctance on their part to being openly homophobic. The second point being, if the Republican Party was truly concerned about not being seen as anti-gay, then they'd sever their ties with organizations like the Family Research Council who are in effect calling for a purge of gays from the party. But I don't see that happening either.
As heart-warming Foley's coming-out story was, I couldn't help but cringe when it became public. I think we all knew it would only be a matter of time before the Illogicans would turn this into a gay issue, as if it had anything to do with the situation. Foley's homosexuality is as relevant to his situation as Dan Crane's heterosexuality was during his.
How much longer before this turns into a Pink Ordeal?
I think this is a good illustration of the problems of a two-party system. Conservative gays are stuck between a party that hates them and a party that they don't agree with.
Who says anyone has to belong to a party? I've probably said it too many times already, but being a member of a party that fundamentally hates your guts doesn't make much sense, even if the other major party doesn't necessarily reflect your views.
Well, if you want to be involved in politics, it helps to belong to a party. There's been a long tradition of people belonging to marginalized groups who have believed that the best option is to work within the system to create a place for their group within it. Arguably, they could work within the Democratic party to try to turn it into a Republican party that accepts gay people, but I imagine they felt that was less likely than bringing the Republican party around. I think they are right, by the way. In 50 years, the only strongly anti-gay parties in the US will be fringe nazi-type parties.
Divided they fall. Good riddance, hopefully.
I don't see that it does, actually. One of the salient features of American politics today is the growing number of independent, unaligned voters -- now close to one third of the electorate, I believe. This group is often courted in elections, because it often decides who wins. I sometimes wish a party existed that represented my views closely enough to tempt me to join, but I don't feel like I'm missing much by not belonging to one, either.
Oh, I don't really mean belonging to a party as a voter. I mean belonging to a party as in working in politics. If you as an individual want to have an effect on American politics beyond your vote, working in politics is one of the stronger ways to go. Obviously, you could also work for an NGO, or a union, or politically active church, or a lobbying organization, or a... but arguably the strongest position is within the party system. In terms of actual effect on policy, democrat or republican is the way to go.
I see your point, but I don't entirely agree. I am very involved in local city politics, which is nonpartisan. I met our Democratic candidate for Congress last weekend. I'm free to work for or support any candidate I wish. Nobody will turn down the support simply because I don't belong to the party. Perhaps if I had aspirations to be named as a delegate to a convention or to participate in some-such party apparatus meeting it would be relevant -- but I don't, so the difference it what I can accomplish by being unaligned is pretty small.
In terms of Congressional membership, it's impossible to be a true "independent". You must play ball with one or the other, if only to receive committee assignments. We can see this with Bernie Sanders, AFAIK the only independent in Congress these days, who caucuses with the Democrats.
Isn't being a gay republican basically a practice in cognitive dissonance?
I mean, that's like a Catholic joining the KKK.
So true. FTW
I'm not wild about the fact that in states with a closed primary system you have to declare membership to one party or the other in order to vote in the primary. I understand that it's to keep one party from sabotaging the candidates of the other, but if Pat Buchanan is running against Satan in the Republican primary, and I'm a registered Independent, I don't get a say in keeping Buchanan off the ticket, and that's not fair.
Of course if you were Catholic, the KKK would not even allow you to join.
Wait, never mind.
Yeah, or like a black Republican.
I remember Bill Maher was laughing about the Republican convention last time, and the large number of black people on stage. He said: "The last time Republicans had that many black people on a stage, they were selling them!"
I fell out of my chair....
How true this would be if they try to purge homosexuals from the party. It would be a monumental mistake.
On the issue of black republicans however, remember that A. Lincoln was a republican and segregation in the south was put in place and maintained by the the democratic party.
Wow. Guess it's not only Army recruiters that have had to lower their standards...
Forgot to mention, Larry King had this topic last night for discussion. Sad really, two Gay Republicans fighting with a Christian Fundamentalist about if being gay is a sin or not, etc.. etc..
I just don't get how they can even be in the same room as some of these people. Last time I checked, I don't hang out with people who actively denounce me, and tell me that I'm going to burn in hell.
One of the good things nowadays about the Dem party (which is completely the opposite of the Dem party in Lincoln's time BTW) is how big a tent it is. Most of them lean more toward the Clinton moderate angle from what I've seen. Fiscal responsibility and intelligent national defense.
Since modern neoconservatives don't seem to believe in balancing the budget and are doing a piss poor job of fighting terrorism, I don't see why the modern moderate homosexual would even bother with that party these days.
Unfortunately, fundamentalism is a perversion that has come to be accepted in our country as a legitimate lifestyle choice.
We need to cure these people. With the proper psychological treatment, fundamentalists can be turned normal.
Well that was only 150 years ago.
The Republican Party after Theodore Roosevelt was by no means the same party as Abraham Lincoln's Republican Party. By the time of Taft, they'd completely abandoned their progressive agenda.
that's true enough, though it should be noted that Lincoln's anti-slavery sentiments had more to do with "equal protection" (all men are created equal) than anything else. He wasn't exactly a social progressive.