GOProud and the Religious Right

[zsdersw]

A secular conservative party (think Conservative aside from religion, abortion, and gay rights) would be a powerhouse if done right.

A very wonderful pipedream.

 

[JS80]

Meh, I've never heard of these guys until 3 minutes ago.

The primary issue with the GOP is religion. A secular conservative party (think Conservative aside from religion, abortion, and gay rights) would be a powerhouse if done right.

Isn't that what the Libertarian party is?

 

[lupi]

If it's a cat fight between a couple of chicks, what do you call a fight between gays?

 

[zinfamous]

Isn't that what the Libertarian party is?

yes, as described by zsdersw, just before you:

A very wonderful pipedream.

 

[werepossum]

Oh come on man. Cut the relativistic crap. You judge liberals on this board all the time as being irrational and all sorts of other pejoratives. Are you appointing yourself in the role of
"parent?" This board is about people evaluating the opinions and positions of others, and often about passing judgment on them. It's hypocritical for you to suddenly take the position that it isn't right to judge others for their political views, just because in this case you happen to favor the one being judged over the one doing the judging.

For the record, I can see little explanation for why anyone would support discrimination against a group to which they belong, unless they are trying to gain acceptance by "kissing the master's ass." When I read about these people referring to others gays as "dumb as shit" and saying "I don't like gay people," what immediately came to mind was Jewish capo's in Auschwitz flogging other Jewish inmates to please their SS captors (note: this comparison is far more figurative than literal). It's truly pathetic. I can understand why a gay person could take a right wing position on any issue, but not this one.

- wolf

I don't necessarily favor the group being labeled as irrational; frankly I know nothing about them. My objection is this progressive nonsense that any minority or gay who does not toe the progressive line on everything is "self-hating". Instead of a color-blind, orientation-neutral society, progressives are insisting that one's skin color, ethnicity, or gayness (gaity?) must be the whole of one's identity and drive one's politics. Well, the majority of issues are not "gay issues" or "black issues" or "Hispanic issues"; they are American issues, and one's sexuality or skin color should not define one's acceptable solutions. One's respect (or lack thereof) for a political figure should not be based solely on that person's view on gay marriage or affirmative action. The OP's article is merely a typical leftist hit piece on GOProud, the GOP, and the Tea Party - just business as usual, assuming and asserting that every gay person must judge every politician on the basis of his or her stance on "gay issues" or be labeled as "self-hating".

You're right about my labeling progressives as irrational based on their arguments, though. (In my defense, I can only point out that progressives are irrational.) You'll notice though that I do not refer to progressives as "self-hating". I grant progressives the freedom to hold these views, silly and self-serving as they may be, without any assumption of mental deficiency beyond the views themselves.

 

[irishScott]

Isn't that what the Libertarian party is?

Not exactly. Libertarians are more radically in favor of smaller government, to the point of complete privatization and denial of gov. public services in many cases.

Hell I remember back when the healthcare debate was raging, the Libertarian party was getting its panties in a wad over the census. The Libertarian party as it stands is too irrationally radical, and takes issue with things the vast majority don't give a shit about.

 

[Sinsear]

Thanks for sharing. I'm touched that you took the time to read (or skim) a thread and then post about how it made you yawn.

Stupid me for holding out hope that i'll actually click on a thread you start and it won't be about gays or gay rights, neither of which interest me.

 

[DucatiMonster696]

So in other words a gay left wing website writes a slanted article against a gay right wing activist group.......And in other news dog bites man in what some view as an outrageous act of aggression.

 

[wuliheron]

If it's a cat fight between a couple of chicks, what do you call a fight between gays?

Smear the queer.

 

[woolfe9999]

I don't necessarily favor the group being labeled as irrational; frankly I know nothing about them. My objection is this progressive nonsense that any minority or gay who does not toe the progressive line on everything is "self-hating". Instead of a color-blind, orientation-neutral society, progressives are insisting that one's skin color, ethnicity, or gayness (gaity?) must be the whole of one's identity and drive one's politics. Well, the majority of issues are not "gay issues" or "black issues" or "Hispanic issues"; they are American issues, and one's sexuality or skin color should not define one's acceptable solutions. One's respect (or lack thereof) for a political figure should not be based solely on that person's view on gay marriage or affirmative action. The OP's article is merely a typical leftist hit piece on GOProud, the GOP, and the Tea Party - just business as usual, assuming and asserting that every gay person must judge every politician on the basis of his or her stance on "gay issues" or be labeled as "self-hating".

You're right about my labeling progressives as irrational based on their arguments, though. (In my defense, I can only point out that progressives are irrational.) You'll notice though that I do not refer to progressives as "self-hating". I grant progressives the freedom to hold these views, silly and self-serving as they may be, without any assumption of mental deficiency beyond the views themselves.

Yes I do understand your point, yet you are straw manning a bit here. Your argument would hold up better if anyone here said, "they're gay, therefore they should be progressive across the board." I think when someone supports policies that disadvantage a group to which they belong, it's a reasonable inference that it may be "self-hating." No one can know what is inside another's head definitively, but we draw inferences here and elsewhere, all the time. There is nothing special about this particular inference. It isn't even close impossible for it to be correct. I take your point, but I'll remember this if I see you speculating about what is motivating someone you disagree with. I think if you look around, you'll see it isn't only progressives who do it. The real point of contention about any given inference is whether it's reasonably probable to be correct under the circumstances, not whose making the inference.

 

[zsdersw]

Stupid me for holding out hope that i'll actually click on a thread you start and it won't be about gays or gay rights, neither of which interest me.

You're not stupid for clicking on a thread I start... you're stupid for posting in a thread that doesn't interest you when it would've taken less time to just move on to read another thread.

 

[zsdersw]

So in other words a gay left wing website writes a slanted article against a gay right wing activist group.......And in other news dog bites man in what some view as an outrageous act of aggression.

It's an example of how the Religious Right still controls the GOP.