56 Comments

1. Pajamas Media » Gay Cruising Website Tycoon Donates to McCain:

[...] Read the entire article here. [...]

Aug 14, 2008 - 2:21 am 2. Boris:

I understand why they’re upset: Republicans generally HATE homosexuals, so much so that we have a shortage of Arabic translators because many were fired due to their their sexual orientation.

Aug 14, 2008 - 3:06 am 3. syn:

Other than the events on 9/11/2001, the dreadful tactics implimented by Leftist identity politics as a means to control the Collective is number two reason why I am no longer a brain-dead liberal. Ironically, my first introduction to this type of tyranny was when man who is homosexual said to me that he is not gay, he is a homoseuxal who no longer accepts the gay agenda, he is over the rainbow and wants his life back.

This is how identity pollitics works on behalf of the Collective:

If you’re a homosexual you are required to be pro-gay marriage even if you don’t believe in it.

If you’re a female you are require to support abortion even if you believe it is butchery of the innocent.

If you’re African-American you must support the Democratic Parties slave plantation even if you do not support slavery.

If you’re poor/middle/upper class you are suppose to believe that stealing from your neighbor to pay for your mortgage, your health care, your gasoline, your entertainment is really a righteous representation of doing God’s work even if you know you can make your own way on your own labor and believe that stealing is wrong.

Identity politics…my #2 reason why I am no longer a brain-dead liberal… they do awful things to people who don’t obey the Collective.

Aug 14, 2008 - 3:51 am 4. hp:

it’s not just the gay community. there’s another one out there starting to tell its community who they should be voting for while not giving the other candidates an equal playing field.

same same. a community that should fricking know better for all the griping it does about its rights getting trampled everywhere else.

if they weren’t so busy sucking up to themselves, they’d realized how dangerous their chosen candidate is and will be to everything they supposedly represent.

wandering off wondering why the image of a ring through a nose is coming to mind.

Aug 14, 2008 - 4:30 am 5. Chris in Toronto:

You should try being
a gay Objectivist if
you think that is tough.

Aug 14, 2008 - 5:03 am 6. Joshua:

Prominent African-Americans who are apolitical (see Tiger Woods), or who show any degree of independence from the Dems, much less actually support Republicans (see Clarence Thomas), have been similarly demonized by Dems (black, white and otherwise) for years. How is it any mystery that the same dynamic would exist among gay people?

Aug 14, 2008 - 5:36 am 7. Terbreugghen:

Your questions are rhetorical, but I would answer that gays are “tribal” out of political expedience in an era of identity politics at the expense of respect for the individual conscience. Groups get things done and groups have more power than individuals (at least it seems so on the surface). It truly is the party mentality from Washington extended to the electorate. Right or wrong, it does seem to be the operating principle.

Aug 14, 2008 - 5:50 am 8. rvastar:

Republicans generally HATE homosexuals

A claim that you have absolutely no proof of.

And you know, Boris, I’m sure that the millions upon millions of blue-collar whites, blacks, and Hispanics - IOW, DEMOCRATS - are all just really warm-n-fuzzy about the homosexual community.

Aug 14, 2008 - 6:47 am 9. Eric McDaniel:

This sort of tribalism might have made some sense a generation or two ago, when even medical health professionals still regarded homosexuality as a lifestyle with its own peculiar sociology. It makes sense on a practical and psychological level to band together and embrace one’s perceived separate identity when the rest of the world views you as the “other” - e.g., 19th-century Irish immigrants in New York City. Ironically though, the group identity the Gay community embraced and continues to espouse (or that at least its most vocally Left-wing spokesmen continue to stump for) is one that ensures their continued marginalization. Gay and straight are guilty of tacitly pereptuating this separateness in our everyday speech - “civil union” or “partnership” rather than marriage, for example. But almost all of us have moved beyond explicitly conflating Gay with subversive - it’s time for members of the Gay community and their self-appointed spokesmen to do the same.

Aug 14, 2008 - 7:20 am 10. Mary Jackson:

What’s a gay circle?

Aug 14, 2008 - 7:43 am 11. Boris is boring:

Ah Boris, another trite bit of tripe.

Are the Republicans who supposedly “HATE” gay folks the 60+ percentage majority in places like California and Oregon who voted for gay marriage bans? I’m betting not.

I second rvastar’s request for proof of your generalization. Perhaps you should have read syn’s post before commenting. Or are you trying to keep divisive Democrat politics alive?

Also proof of the shortage of Arabic translators due to the fact they are gay. I’ve seen you write a lot of stupid things, Boris, but this one takes the cake.

Aug 14, 2008 - 7:48 am 12. Richard Miniter:

Mary,

It is either a very happy circle or a group of people who are gay. Perhaps the misunderstanding turns on an unfamiliar idiomatic usage… Or are you just having a go at me?

Aug 14, 2008 - 8:00 am 13. Ethan:

“Republicans generally HATE homosexuals, so much so that we have a shortage of Arabic translators because many were fired due to their their sexual orientation.”

Boris, you are boring. Rudy Giuliani, for one Republican, lived with gays after his marriage broke up. Quite openly. John Edwards, one rather famous Dem these days, is known for making anti-gay slurs. Your mind is sclerotic. Not all Repubs and Dems the same on this. Think about the Libertarians.

Aug 14, 2008 - 8:02 am 14. Mary Jackson:

Not having a go at all - I just find the idea of a “gay circle” rather weird - like a knitting circle.

As for “gay community”, as you say, there isn’t one. There’s no reason why one gay person should think exactly the same as another.

(I would actually ban the word community completely, as it is overused. But I don’t want to be one of the banning community.)

Aug 14, 2008 - 8:43 am 15. Eric McDaniel:

Mary: There is certainly a gay community. To say otherwise is like saying there’s no Black community or no conservative community. Perhaps you have an overly narrow understanding of the word “community” - nice fodder for your blog.

Aug 14, 2008 - 8:59 am 16. Mike Shuster:

Richard:

First of all, I don’t know why ‘Gay’ is constantly capitalized in this post. Never seen that issue before.

Second, I don’t know why you’re asserting, based one one link to a blog that I’ve never heard of, that gays (or, as you might put it, ‘Gays’) are uniformly outraged by a gay (excuse me, ‘Gay’) campaign donor. I’d say gay people are about equally prone to group-think as any other group of people. Which is to say, too much. But this lock-step you purportedly see is a huge overstatement.

Aug 14, 2008 - 9:05 am 17. pch1013:

“Are the Republicans who supposedly “HATE” gay folks the 60+ percentage majority in places like California and Oregon who voted for gay marriage bans?”

No, but they are a significant proportion of it.

According to a Field poll from June, 68% of California Republicans support Proposition 8, while 63% of Democrats oppose it.

Aug 14, 2008 - 9:31 am 18. jvon:

Heh. I live in progressive, openminded Seattle, and I’ve lost consulting clients after they found out I voted Republican. Liberals are all for diversity and free speech as long as people think exactly the way that they do.

As for Republicans hating homosexuals, give me a break. We supposedly hate black people too but GWB has had more black cabinet members than any President in history. You don’t hear much about that, but people cite Katrina as “proof” of it. A hurricane. Yeah, that makes sense.

Aug 14, 2008 - 9:34 am 19. Sadly, No! » One Of These Things Is Not Like The Other Things*:

[...] why the only Olympic medal he might ever win would be for synchronized drooling or the 400-meter Freestyle Foolish Analogies Relay: While observers of the scene are two-minded about the Gay cruising site, Manhunt.com, they are [...]

Aug 14, 2008 - 9:44 am 20. Cletus:

I come from a Right wing Christian family, and while they don’t agree with homosexuality, they definitely don’t hate gays. Hate isn’t Christian, remember? And Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson and John Hagee do NOT represent the majority of Christians.

Aug 14, 2008 - 11:07 am 21. Zack Woodson:

You don’t seem stupid, Richard Miniter, so why are you writing like you don’t understand why gay rights advocates would be angry that gays are donating money to the Republican Party? You know very well that the Republican Party is generally against gay rights and that it is the party that actively seeks to curtail gay rights (the individual exceptions some commenters desperately try to invoke - Rudy Guiliani?! - to argue this only show how silly they are).

Why don’t you instead try to argue why gays should be able to vote for the Republican Party for other reasons besides the Party’s opposition to their way of life? I won’t agree with you, but at least it’s an argument that doesn’t depend on you pretending you just don’t understand.

Aug 14, 2008 - 11:10 am 22. Rubicon:

Katrina was NOT an example of racism. Bush controlled the managers of the system. BUT, the operators of the system are the bureaucrats of the political & government system. They are average Americans of every color, religion, sex, or sexual orientation.
“the system” failed the Katrina response. To assert Bush could have manipulated all of those civil servants is simply foolish talk.
DHS was ill prepared to deal with such a crisis because their management plan was a mess. Worse is that state officials had a lot to do with the who, what, where, when, why, & how a response was mounted.
The truth is, another huge government bureaucracy failed us, the people.
Now, imagine just how terrific a job the government bureaucracy will do with nationalized health care!!!
Death anyone?

Aug 14, 2008 - 11:17 am 23. molten_tofu:

the “Collective”:

Newsweek Poll conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates International. June 18-19, 2008. N=896 registered voters nationwide. MoE ± 4 (for all registered voters).

“There has been much talk recently about whether states should give gay and lesbian couples the legal right to marry. Which of the following comes CLOSEST to your position on this issue? Do you support FULL marriage rights for same-sex couples, OR support civil unions or partnerships for same-sex couples, BUT NOT full marriage rights, OR do you oppose ANY legal recognition for same-sex couples?”

(In percentages)
Full Marriage Rights Civil Unions/Partnerships No Legal Recognition Unsure
ALL reg. voters 30 27 37 6
Republicans 12 28 55 5
Democrats 42 23 28 7
Independents 30 33 32 5

——————————————————————————–
(source: http://www.pollingreport.com/civil.htm)

So either there are no gay Republicans, and there are a lot of gay Democrats, or the Republians have alienated gay people, and the Democrats have appealed to gay people, or once one gay person voted democratic and all the gay people standing around wondering what to do thought “I’m going to vote democratic because that gay person over there did and I’m gay, too”. Or people’s position on gay marriage has nothing to do with how they feel about homosexuality in general.

I googled “arabic translator homosexual” and got this, along with a lot of other viable hits:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14052513/

Syn - identity politics is number three on my list under:
1) warrantless wire tapping (can’t get much bigger brother than that)
http://www.eff.org/files/filenode/att/Mark%20Klein%20Unredacted%20Decl-Including%20Exhibits.PDF
2) direct-to-consumer-advertising of pharmaceuticals (mmm… soma)
http://www.gao.gov/htext/d0754.html

Aug 14, 2008 - 11:34 am 24. morton from vienna:

Obama probably get money from them, too. Why shouldn’t McCain?

Aug 14, 2008 - 12:10 pm 25. CHRIS SULLIVAN:

Richard - if you can’t see what is so obvious - you aren’t intelligent enough to write a column anywhere about anything. Period.

Aug 14, 2008 - 12:32 pm 26. Javelin:

Since I am not gay and don’t buy into their lifestyle, I make a por defender. AS a youth, I was maligned for my unathletic, unmacho ways and called a queerand fag and that made me hate both the bullies and the gays, which is wrong. But when you belong to a group of people who have been as habitually maligned, excluded, spat upon and jailed(at one time) as gays, only a total pinhead could fail to understand why they might want to join together in solidatity. And the defenders of all things American and free are usually their worse critics!

Aug 14, 2008 - 12:39 pm 27. Javelin:

I think it is a fair generalization to say that liberals and Democrats are more gay friendly than cons and Republicans. Tell me about all the cons who make the least bit of outreach to the gay community. I have seen and heard tons of gay hating remarks from con talk shows and sites. Just listen to the pinheads who call into the Alan Colmes show just to call him a queer.

Aug 14, 2008 - 12:44 pm 28. cecil la forte:

As a homosexual African-American in a long-term relationship with the love of my life, whom I know I met in a previous life(s) and is my soulmate, it doesn’t matter to me if he came back this time as a he or a she. Its the soul that counts and he found me in the Ocean of the Souls and I am fortunate that God guided me to him.

I don’t support gay marriage though. I don’t like being manipulated by Democcrats that order me to vote for them because I can get married. What I have with my soul mate from numerous generations ago until now is demeaned by calling it marriage, which is an innovation made only for heterosexuals and does not need to involve love as what I have most definitely does.

Aug 14, 2008 - 1:15 pm 29. Ernest Tee:

It’s not that the gay guy gave the money. It’s that Grampa McCain accepted it. What are the right wing religo-nuts going to say about that?

Aug 14, 2008 - 1:30 pm 30. Javelin:

I’m glad someone broached the topic of gay marriage, which is mainly a semantics problem. If the people, through their legislatures, voted that into law, I would respect that. I just don’t want to see it forced on us via the courts. I know my stand will delay it for decades. But for the good of the democracy, it is the best way.

Aug 14, 2008 - 1:51 pm 31. Artsykr:

This along with other reasons is why I will NOT vote for obama…but will instead cast my lesbian vote for John McCain…I do not expect this kind of crap from the Dems…I’ll wait and put HIllary in 2012 if for some reason she does not get the SD’s vote in 2 weeks….besides I vote based on “Content of Character” NOT “Color of Skin” how about you? I have seen way too much hatred coming from Brazile, Pelosi, Dean and the obamas for my taste…. Hatred IS NOT supposed to be a Democratic Party value…or at least so I thought.

An Unholy Trinity of Hate
http://savagepolitics.com/?p=329

“Bernice King, the youngest daughter of the King family, is a minister in her own right and, despite her own mother and the wife of Martin Luther King Jr., Coretta King’s opposite views, the daughter is an outspoken opponent of gay rights. Donna Brazille is too. Howard Dean has said that Brazille objected “most strenuously” to a proposal by Gay Democrats to add GLBT delegates to affirmative action guidelines that states follow when selecting those who attend the party’s national convention because she sees it as an affront to the civil rights movement. [This mirrors the national Association of Black Journalists who vetoed to include national Lesbian & Gay journalists Association in an umbrella group of minority journalists.]“

Aug 14, 2008 - 2:07 pm 32. Chanton:

“If the people, through their legislatures, voted that into law, I would respect that.”
In California, the people, through their legislatures DID vote Gay marriage into law not once, but twice. In both cases, they were shot down by ONE individual, a Republican governor! It took 4 judges to rule Prop 22 was unconstitutional. Where is the outrage over the action of a singular activist governor??

Aug 14, 2008 - 2:28 pm 33. Boris:

“Also proof of the shortage of Arabic translators due to the fact they are gay. I’ve seen you write a lot of stupid things, Boris, but this one takes the cake.”

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/11/14/attack/main529418.shtml

Remove head from colon before reading.

Aug 14, 2008 - 2:43 pm 34. syn:

“It’s not that the gay guy gave the money. It’s that Grampa McCain accepted it.”

Sure there is no discriminatory hateful implications displayed in this particularily deep thought.

Listen up bright bulb…the largest, most powerful voting block in America supercedes race, color and sexual orientation and McCain is a whole lot closer to that group than is Obama.

Aug 14, 2008 - 2:45 pm 35. Boris:

And more?

“But the GAO also noted that nearly 800 dismissed gay or lesbian service members had critical abilities, including 300 with important language skills. Fifty-five were proficient in Arabic, including Copas, a graduate of the Defense Language Institute in California.”

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14052513/

Do try to be informed, mr./ms. troll.

Aug 14, 2008 - 2:47 pm 36. j green:

The proper position on gay marriage at the RNC level should be to push it to the states where it belongs. Heterosexual marriage, after all, is a state. I have no idea why gay marriage should be a national level issue at all.

I don’t know why the government, even the states, is in the marriage business at all, but now that it is, this is where the topic clearly belongs.

Aug 14, 2008 - 3:07 pm 37. DavidN:

One of the Republican party’s shortcomings is also one of its philosophical strengths. The party never relates to groups, and never promises to give those groups *anything* in return for their support. This tends to alienate those groups of people who believe that the country owes them something, usually in return for perceived wrongs in the past. Hence the black vote being largely Democratic. Latinos tend to vote across this line more, I think because fewer of them perceive the wrongs inflicted on them in such a negative light, and also because they have an easier time assimilating completely. This means the more activist Latinos vote Democrat, and so do the more activist feminists. Activist gays are equally energized about how *as a group* they’ve been wronged, and how *as a group* they should be rewarded in return.

I’ve always believed that rewarding groups, as opposed to individuals, is fundamentally wrong. Individuals have rights, but groups shouldn’t. This has always been my interpretation of the Republican philosophy. I’ve also been periodically annoyed at the religious right (another group, though a conservative one) and their desire to run the Republican Party and make it, and the country through it, into their fiefdom. McCain’s doing what he should: taking contributions from people who support his bid for the Presidency. Period. End of discussion (for me anyway).

Aug 14, 2008 - 3:14 pm 38. Mike:

DavidN writes:
“One of the Republican party’s shortcomings is also one of its philosophical strengths. The party never relates to groups, and never promises to give those groups *anything* in return for their support. ”

Really? You don’t think the Repuvlican party hasn’t ‘related’ to evangelical Christians in the recent past and ‘promised to give them things?” That was a huge element in the 2000 and 2004 elections.

Aug 14, 2008 - 4:25 pm 39. Throbert McGee:

I’ll be interested to see whether McCain gets as much grief from conservatives/Republicans for accepting a donation from Manhunt, as the donors did for giving “gay money” to a Republican.

Also, count me among the contrarians who prefer to identify as homosexual — or just plain ol’ homo to save space — rather than the officially approved term gay. Because gay is just so… well, you know.

(The knee-jerk objection to homosexual is that it “sounds too clinical.” But I say “clinical-schminical” — to me, homosexual has a nifty futuristic sound, like nanotech or ultrasuede. And homosexual has the advantage of not meaning anything else.)

Aug 14, 2008 - 4:33 pm 40. Mauro:

So yeah, it’s a little ridiculous that gay people expect each other to be Democrats. They shouldn’t. But one party consistently speaks out against family values, and that is the Republicans. The Republicans push for laws against serving in the military, for laws against marriage, for laws even against adoption. Not all Republicans are like this, of course, but the most vocal anti-family activists are Evangelical Republicans, who try to use state Constitutions to prohibit marriage and to allow discrimination. The people who speak of a secret agenda that will undermine the country, the people who blame people for AIDS, the people who believe that parades are the source of hurricanes, they are Republicans, and if Republicans had their way, you can be sure that LGBT people would have no rights and any sort of affirmation of their orientation would be outlawed.

Is it any surprise, then, that people want to keep their rights and gain the rights they deserve but do not yet have (seriously, they’re not allowed to SERVE IN THE MILITARY; that’s one of the most idiotic positions ever taken by anyone who “supports the troops”), and believe that those who fight against their own rights are traitors? Would you say that, just like sweater-knitters and ice skaters, the arbitrary group called Americans should have support for Iran similar to that of the general world population (including that of Iran)? Sweater-knitters are not divided along political lines; plenty of them, especially Iranian ones, support Iran. Why should Americans not be similarly organized?

Aug 14, 2008 - 4:59 pm 41. j green:

First of all, a CBS news story provided by Boring Boris relating to 6 translators and making a judgement that, basically, all Arabs are gay is simply absurd. CBS is actually SEE B.S.

There are gays out there who don’t want gay marriage, and there certainly are conservative gays. See post from Cecil above. There are also some republicans who support both gays and gay marriage. For people to say things like “republicans hate gays” and “gays can’t vote republican because republicans don’t support gay marriage” is simply stupid. A gay would vote republican for the same reason any other republican voter would vote republican–because they believe in smaller government, lower taxes, strong defense, and so forth.

For people–typically democrats–to insinuate that all communities have their collective eye on their own respective prize which they want to extract by redistribution of wealth so they need to vote democrat, is the DNC’s classic tactic.

The Democrats constantly get vast majorities of the black vote based on a perception perpetuated by them that Dems care more. What do the blacks get in return? Bupkis. Republicans have done far more for blacks throughout history from Lincoln to the Republicans in congress forcing passed the Civil Rights Act to Bush 41 sending Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court and to Dubya having the most diverse and most black adminsitration in history. Yet the blacks are now enslaved by the Democrats. Now the Democrats want to enslave the gay voters the same way. This is horrible.

At the end of prohibition, the mob was looking for the “new booze” and now the Democrats are at a similar crossroads. The Democrats, like the mob, are losing absolute control over something they OWNED, and they are now looking for the “new blacks” to enslave.

Aug 14, 2008 - 6:55 pm 42. j green:

To be clear, the Democrats constantly use fear and intimidation (like the mob) to order the blacks to vote for Democrats, and the blacks have done so for a long time. The Democrats are now trying to similarly enslave the gays.

Aug 14, 2008 - 6:58 pm 43. Paris:

Larry Craig, Mark Foley, Bob Allen, Glenn Murphy, Ed Shrock, Jonathan Crutchley, Rich Miniter, John McCain. It’s a Republican party all right!

Aug 14, 2008 - 9:34 pm 44. Boris:

“First of all, a CBS news story provided by Boring Boris relating to 6 translators and making a judgement that, basically, all Arabs are gay is simply absurd. CBS is actually SEE B.S.”

That story says nothing about all Arabs being gay. It’s about a society so scared of the ghey that we fire people who are qualified to help our military effort. Try reading.

Aug 15, 2008 - 4:17 am 45. syn:

“but the most vocal anti-family activists are Evangelical Republicans, who try to use state Constitutions to prohibit marriage and to allow discrimination”

Interesting, who would have thought that California and Oregon (as previoulsy mentioned) was run by Evangelical Republicans?

In any case, homosexuals are not banned from marriage. Homosexuals have been marrying since the dawn of marriage, even have children…some divorce only to marry again.

It was also previously mentioned that gay marriage is a matter of semantics. As it stands ’same-sex union between a man and a woman’ is an illogical premise and in order to make this premise logical either the definition of homosexual must change or the definition of marriage must change. Homosexuality is a definitive action and cannot be changed. Marriage is also a definitive action, the union of opposites; if marriage is then redefined what then becomes of words such as husband/wife, father/mother? If there is this thing ’same-sex union between a man and a woman’ therefore terms such as husband/wife, father/mother become discriminatory and will also have to be altered. Will these words then be altered to Person A and Person B in order to to accomodate feelings? With this redefinition of words our language would soon become like reading Shakesphere ie original text on one side with translation and meaning provided on the other. The problem is very few can understand Shakesphere even with the provided translations and clarifications. If our language arrives at the point where words can mean whatever you want them to mean how will we communicate?

The State involved itself in the instituition of marriage because this system benefitted the State…child-bearing male/female healthy relationships has shown to produce solid citizens who do not become dependent upon the State. The State (ie government) intruded upon religion not the other way around. And yes, in our culture today marriage has become demoralized ie divorce, infidelity, abandonment, fatherlessness that we are seeing the consequences of such demoralization in so many communities; this actually shows the need to strengthen marriage, not redefine it.

My thoughts on ’same-sex union between a man and a woman’ has little to do with sexuality, it has everything to do with words and their meaning.

For example, it is the same issue I take with the word ‘fetus’ which isn’t even defined under the law yet there are laws written upon this undefined word which now, according to the law, can be altered according to time, gender and need. For Her if she decides she wants the ‘fetus’ then she can say it is life and receive government provided pre-natal care. If She decides She doesn’t want the ‘fetus’ then She can say it is just a clump of cells and will receive government provided abortion. Now if He is told by Her that She wants Him to kick her in the area of the womb and He complies then He is sent to prison for murder while She is simply enacting Her Right to Choose. This irrationalism has become so bad that doctors and nurses are leaving born-alive babies to die in dirty hospital linen closets because they failed the abortion of the born-alive baby.

Words and their meaning matter; since we never defined what what we are talking about with ‘fetus’ the last four decades has been embroiled in irrational emotionalism or rather we have become a culture of basketcases needing prozac.

You can call me a ‘homophobe’ all you want however this false accusation still will not make ’same-sex union between a man and a woman’ any less irrational.

Aug 15, 2008 - 4:19 am 46. KevinQC:

The only people who get in my face and scream, yell and berate me for being a conservative are liberals. I can count on half the fingers of one hand the number of conservatives who’ve had a problem with my sexual orientation - and been anything other than polite about it.

Aug 15, 2008 - 5:14 am 47. Tinfoil Hatter:

Boris:

I understand why they’re upset: Republicans generally HATE homosexuals, so much so that we have a shortage of Arabic translators because many were fired due to their their sexual orientation.

First, your equation of the Republicans and the Military is illustrative more of your ideological position than the truth of the matter.

Second, after you put down your copy of “The Advocate” where they are screaming “OMG!!!111THEARMYISCOOKINGANDEATINGGAYS!!!” you’d find that the vast majority of homosexuality related military discharges are SELF-INITIATED. Meaning, that people announce their orientation, for a variety of reasons, rather than a discovery at the hands of mythical gay witch hunt that is the boogyman of the gay left in this country.

Aug 15, 2008 - 8:39 am 48. jay:

Democrats, the party of Love for gays, African Americans, the poor and down cast.
Democrats good - Republicans bad.

You guys are suckers and I bet you think this is a republican writing this. hahahaha

Cool-aid anyone?

Aug 15, 2008 - 10:49 am 49. North Dallas Thirty:

The interesting thing is that no one is speaking about the fact that gay and lesbian Democrat Party members have fully endorsed and supported as “pro-gay” adn “gay-supportive” candidates who supported or done the following:

– State bans on gay marriage

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2001999067_kerrygay07.html

– A Federal ban on gay marriage

http://mpetrelis.blogspot.com/2007/02/lets-see-if-we-can-follow-bouncing.html

– Appealing to evangelical Christians

http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/politics/060510a.aspx

– Stating publicly that they have the “same position” as Republicans who these Democrat gay and lesbian people claim are “homophobic”.

http://instapundit.com/archives/018271.php

What that makes quite obvious is that gay and lesbian people who whine about Republicans are little more than hypocrites.

Furthermore, given the hate that gay and lesbian Democrats regularly fling against the military, including their attempts to ban JROTC from schools, block the creation of veterans’ museums, and support of resolutions calling the Marines “uninvited and unwelcome intruders”, it is ludicrous for them to complain about DADT; they have made it clear that they hate the military, and the military, in my opinion, can respond accordingly.

One wonders why, if there are so many gays who allegedly revere the military and want to serve, that they aren’t showing up at the meetings and telling off their fellow gay and lesbian people who are trashing the military. Probably because the end result would be the same as we see in the Manhunt story.

Aug 15, 2008 - 12:02 pm 50. Matt:

Gays are still overwhelmingly Democratic voters. Democrats don’t think they “own” the gay vote - it’s hard enough just to figure out who’s gay and who isn’t, or how many gay people there are out there in the first place. Some gays don’t even tell anyone that they’re gay and live out “straight” lives anyway, and no, we don’t expect them to vote for a Democrat.

Of course you have the right to support whatever party you want regardless of sexual orientation - to suggest otherwise is presumptuous - but I understand why those in the gay community would be upset by this. Religious or political conservatives get upset when their evangelical or political leaders turn out to be gay - Ted Haggard is the prime example (though not the first) - and boot them out of the community entirely. (As if they even have the choice to be gay in the first place!) But the owner of Manhunt.net has the choice where to put his money, and chose to put it behind a coalition to undermine what interests the diverse gay community does generally have in common. Their interests may vary economically or circumstantially, but when it comes to GLBT rights, the Democrats have their backs on an official level much better than Republicans do.

And were’t conservatives similarly up-in-arms about who but none other than John McCain himself, because he seemed insufficiently condmening on social issues like abortion and gay marriage? Many of them said they woudln’t vote for McCain under any circumstances because of it. He’s certaianly come around for them on those issues, which is part of why most gays, too, have drawn back, and are falling behind the Dems. Why wouldn’t they?

Aug 15, 2008 - 8:59 pm 51. syn:

“but when it comes to GLBT rights, the Democrats have their backs on an official level much better than Republicans do.”

Homosexuals have rights as far as GLBT is will to give them otherwise homosexuals are forced to step down for disobeying the tribal leaders.

So if I send money to pro-life candidates is National Organization of Women going to tell me I’m not a woman?

It’s getting to be disgustingly tyrannical this Liberal Fascism.

The Lives of Others.

Aug 16, 2008 - 3:36 pm 52. ProgMeister:

The outrage in Gay circles is interesting and revealing. Why should a particular sexual orientation demand a particular political orientation? Sweater-knitters and ice-skaters are not organized along political lines–and neither are all straight people expected to vote for one particular party. Why do Gay rights advocates demand lock-step political obedience?

How in hell did you get to write a political blog? Is your other work this insightful? You really don’t know the answer to this question? Hasn’t occurred to you that there’s no advocacy groups calling “sweater-knitters” and “ice-skaters” an abomination, nobody trying to oust them from teaching positions, etc etc? When your army is small, you can’t afford to lose any soldiers.

What trouble do they have with a free society where everyone is entitled to go their own way? Why are they tribal, not pro-individual?

Same reason the Family Research Council is tribal. When DOMA is gone and ENDA is law, you’ll see a more pro-individual posture in the gay community at large, but not before. You’ve heard the term “rational self-interest?” You may have been around the world but you really do need to get out more often.

btw, whatever the advocacy groups say, so far as I can tell gay people vote for whomever the hell they want to

Aug 16, 2008 - 9:54 pm 53. Nathan:

Okay, so it looks like there are two competing consensuses here. On the one hand we have the view that liberal gays are right to impose their will to the best of their ability on conservative gays because republicans are anti-gay and democrats are pro-gay, on the other hand we have the view that liberal gays are wrong to attempt to impose their agenda on conservative gays. One poster went so far as to imply that gays have a duty to vote democrat in the same way that soldiers have a duty to follow lawful orders. Am I reading this right?

Did nobody actually read the part about WHY a gay might donate to McCain? To put it more colorfully “we can rearrange the deck chairs after we do something about the hole in the side of the ship.” You may believe the U.S. is not in existential danger. The donor, based on the reasons given in the above article, assesses the geopolitical situation differently. Why do some commentors seem to feel acting on ones own perception of the relative importance of issues in an election is shameful or wrong?

Aug 17, 2008 - 7:58 pm 54. ProgMeister:

Nathan –

You completely miss the point; we’re not talking about “imposing will” on anyone; Miniter asks why gays “demand” political obedience? Surely you (and he) realize that gays cannot enforce the demand any more than Walmart or the Born Again folks can force people to vote Republican …. but they all can — and do — advocate for what they believe is in the consensus interest of their group. What do you suppose would happen to an evangelical church member wearing a button emblazoned with “ENDA Now!” or “It’s a Woman’s Choice” … or how about just “Obama ‘08″ ?? People belong to groups. Groups advocate for positions and candidates understood to be in the interests of the membership. And the members of a group can cat their vote any way they wish.

Got it yet?

And no, you didn’t read the “soldiers” metaphor correctly. The smaller a group is, the harder it works to retain its members.

This year, you don’t pass on McCain because you’re gay, or black, or Jewish, or Hindu …. you pass on him because you’re American and his policies are poison. The only people who arguably should vote for McCain are those in the top 2% in terms of wealth/income. He’ll save you a few bucks on taxes. Then again, despite the promises, his temper and bellicose posturing may end up costing you a lot more in the long run.

But the blog’s argument is a complete bullshit red herring; Miniter can’t be as stupid as he sounds here … he’s just stirring up the pot and playing the “homo card.”

Aug 18, 2008 - 8:27 am 55. Eric:

McCain returns money to manhunt.com founder: http://pandagon.net/index.php/site/comments/mccain_returns_gay_sex_cruising_site_manhunt_founders_2300_crutchley_gives_/

Aug 18, 2008 - 11:28 am 56. ProgMeister:

McCain returns money to manhunt.com founder: http://pandagon.net/index.php/site/comments/mccain_returns_gay_sex_cruising_site_manhunt_founders_2300_crutchley_gives_/

LOL!! maybe NOW Miniter will understand the issue … but I doubt it …

Aug 18, 2008 - 12:35 pm

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed) remember personal info?
Comments: