This doesn't surprise me. I think the split between the parties should be about the same as it is in the heterosexual population. I'd expect it to be somewhat skewed because the Democrats give the impression that they will do some things to advance gay rights.
But that shouldn't have too great an effect because: 1. Gay people are interested in all the issues, not just who purports to care about specific gay-related issues, 2. There isn't much reason to trust the Democrats to do more than pretend to care, and 3. If the GOP seems libertarian, it may appeal to those who mainly want the government to leave them alone to live their lives according to their own values.
The 31% figure is probably also skewed by who is willing to tell pollsters that they are gay. It may be that more conservative respondents are less likely to convey the information and, especially in the case of religious conservatives, less likely to admit to themselves that they have a homosexual orientation.
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
८४ टिप्पण्या:
Is it surprising that 31% of self-identified gay/bisexual voters voted Republican?
Not to those of us who don't immediately resort to brute stereotyping, no... but, if you'd read all the threads on Democratic Underground and Daily Kos yesterday regarding this very story: you'd quickly discover that, to the ways of thinking of most in both of those places, sexuality irrevocably = rigid political/doctrinaire adherence.
Must be a wretchedly cramped, miserable way to try and navigate one's precious store of days, I'm thinking.
Plenty of gays don't want to get married. They have accepted their place as second-class citizens in exchange for keeping more of their income.
What's a homosexual who makes >$250k a year and drives an SUV to do?
Vote Libertarian, I guess.
fls, that's a stupid comment.
I have several conservative gay friends in NYC... of all places!
Their primary reasons for this:
1. An opposition to welfare payments to children not their own. Why should they pay for somebody else's bastards? This is particularly true for gay men who've never had children.
2. A belief that family courts screw men over. You'd be surprised. A log of men don't entirely figure out that they're gay until they're 30 to 35 years old. By then, they're married and they have kids. You can't believe how bitter the wife will be when she discovers that Daddy prefers sex with men and wants to leave her. This produces some truly hellacious divorces.
And, those gay men recognize that the courts and the social services are stacked in favor of women. And, who votes for that shit? Liberal democrats.
There are conservatives in every group. There's a conservative black senator from North Carolina (?), named Tim Scott. J. Edgar Hoover was gay, but was not exactly a Marxist or even a progressive.
Nero was gay, and also not exactly a Marxist.
There isn't much reason to trust the Democrats to do more than pretend to care,
Is the professor trying to salve her conscience for voting for a party that has pledged to preserve traditional marriage?
I like the Pledge to America document, by the way. For Reps who want red meat, there's a picture of a fully stocked butcher's case on page 11. No namby pamby organic vegetables for the American people!
Based on shouting thomas's inpu I will amend my second sentence:
Republigays have accepted their place as second-class citizens in exchange for keeping more of their income. Further, the GOP appeals to gays who hate women.
fls,
What is your purpose in commenting here.
In a way, your comments seem knowledgeable, but underneath the surface there's nothing but pure malice.
In two separate posts about governmental taxing and regulatory policy, commenters (one of them me) have used the word "forced" to describe the response of businesses.
Your response in both cases is that the government, which clearly tried to influence businesses and investors in a particular direction, didn't "force" anybody to do anything.
I can't see anything in this response except pure childish malice. You've picked at a tiny rhetorical issue... whether the government is "forcing" or "influencing," and made it into the paramount issue.
What's with you? What's the point of this BS? Are you just trying to impress us with what an incredibly nitpicking BS artist you are?
I can see why your are a "former" law student.
Most of the gays that I know own small business. I don't think they like the regulatory/tax environment anymore than the rest of us. After all, we are in a period of self preservation. Once we have stopped the attack on the country and are secure in our liberties and ability to live, then we can worry about the social issues.
As a strong right wing conservative (I thought Bush was a flaming liberal), I see no problem with gays doing whatever they want. I also think that the government should leave women's bodies alone. In fact, I support an open drug policy with elimination of all of our drug laws. But I would never, ever vote Democrat with the fools that are in that party and the way they want to destroy us.
Further, the GOP appeals to gays who hate women.
Expecting equal treatment in family courts equals "hating women."
Jesus, what a shit your are, fls.
You aren't a serious person at all.
Of course, fls, you could have been seizing on my other statement.
Is there some reason that men should be paying the bills for somebody's else's bastard children?
This equates to "hating women?"
Of course, liberals have been pulling out the "hating bigot" thing as their principal argument for decades.
Worked really well in the last election.
Why are we supposed to pay the bills for somebody else's bastard children? To encourage them to produce more?
I don't know any man who likes women who complains about family courts screwing them over. Only misogynists bleat like that.
I'm also having trouble dealing with the concept of a man not knowing he's gay until two decades after puberty.
I don't know any man who likes women who complains about family courts screwing them over. Only misogynists bleat like that.
There you go with the "bigots" BS, fls. You're a scoundrel. That's the new last resort of scoundrels. So, you've made a fool of yourself there.
The American people just resoundingly voted against those tactics, but I gather that shits like you will continue to use it... because you're shits.
I'm also having trouble dealing with the concept of a man not knowing he's gay until two decades after puberty.
Surprise! Many men try very hard to be what they're "supposed" to be well into their 20s and 30s. Get your head around it.
Next time, asshole, try to work the word "racists" into your steaming pile of BS. You forgot this time.
you'd quickly discover that, to the ways of thinking of most in both of those places, sexuality irrevocably = rigid political/doctrinaire adherence.
FLS: while I most sincerely do appreciate your willingness -- if not downright eagerness, in fact -- to demonstrate my point, above...
... dude: Mission Accomplished.
Gays hating women is one of the older anti-gay chestnuts out there. When it comes to women, gays, and racial minorities on the right, no slur is out of bounds for the left. And they rise to a level of viciousness that is hard for me to understand. Examples abound.
If voting for the GOP candidate makes sense to gay persons, that could mean that gays are intelligent people too. I guess that we will have to let them sit in the front of the bus too.
Thanks to st, I have insight into gay Republicans. They will deny their very nature in order to live up to what they believe society expects of them. Republicans are thus marked by rigid conformity to perceived societal expectations.
Thanks to st, I have insight into gay Republicans. They will deny their very nature in order to live up to what they believe society expects of them. Republicans are thus marked by rigid conformity to perceived societal expectations.
You're just a low life shit, fls.
What's the point of your bullshit?
Why don't you just go bang your head against the wall?
You've got an emotional problem that you think is a political agenda.
Gays hating women is one of the older anti-gay chestnuts out there.
The real-life gays I know either like women or are indifferent to them. I personally do not know any misogynistic gays.
Since gay men are a disproportionately high income group, it would make perfect sense that they would favor conservative policies.
After all, a lot of the gay rights agenda is simply the sort of identity politics nonsense that doesn't affect the way a successful person leads his life, while Democratic policies are going to affect him negatively.
Out-of-the-closet gays have long had to be daring individuals. Less so today, of course, but over the last few decades, admitting to conservative viewpoints has been a daring thing to do. It's not surprising that gays might have less trouble, on average, owning up to their principles than non-gays.
*For "gay", please read GLBT. I don't like that clumsy acronym much and can't figure out how to use it gracefully in writing to connote an actual group of people.
"I personally do not know any misogynistic gays."
Yet you bring it up to slur gays who vote Republican. This admission of yours makes you sound worse, not better.
The real-life gays I know either like women or are indifferent to them. I personally do not know any misogynistic gays.
They're "real-life" as opposed to what, you shit?
Tell us about your black friends. Some of your best friends, right?
You've got a lot, right?
You are not only sheer malice; you've almost got a corner on condescension.
What is your problem?
So, fls, tell us what a gay man must be to be "real-life."
Then tell us what a black man must be to be "real-life."
I can hardly wait.
Apparently, it has something to do with agreeing with your venomous politics.
You've got an emotional problem that you think is a political agenda.
Let's see. st came here to share with the group:
Is there some reason that men should be paying the bills for somebody's else's bastard children?
and
the courts and the social services are stacked in favor of women.
and after revealing his naked id like that, decides that I'm the one whose political agenda reflects an emotional problem.
Yet you bring it up to slur gays who vote Republican.
You mean shoutingthomas was wrong?
Oohh, cognitive dissonance time.
You haven't told us, yet, fls, you're qualification for a "real-life" gay man or black man.
I gather you expect them to stay on the plantation.
Is there some reason that men should be paying the bills for somebody's else's bastard children?
and
the courts and the social services are stacked in favor of women.
You've only pissed here, fls. You haven't said anything of any substance, except that you regard feminism as revealed wisdom.
Why should we pay the bill for somebody else's bastard children? You haven't answered that question.
Indeed, feminist dominance of family courts has stacked those courts in favor of women.
Say something of substance, if you can. Or, perhaps you'd like to call somebody a "racist." That's your usual tactic, right?
And, fls, tell about those "real-life" gay men.
They've gotta like musicals, too, right?
I gather you expect them to stay on the plantation.
"You are morally and/or ethically obligated to support a specific socio-political agenda, should you at any point place your Tab 'A' into or nearby a specific Slot 'B'! I said obligated, goddammit! CONFORM! CONFORRRRRRRMMMMMMMMMMM -- !!!"
With "friends" like FLS, there really doesn't appear to be much need on the part of self-determining gays for any actual enemies...
hmmm, the phantom specter of not being allowed to be gay vs. the concrete reality of not being able to keep what you earn.
Faced with conflicting inputs from shoutingthomas and Brian O'Connell, I have decided to ignore shoutingthomas.
Faced with conflicting inputs from shoutingthomas and Brian O'Connell, I have decided to ignore shoutingthomas.
Admission of defeat, not to mention admission of being an SOB, accepted.
st: you led me astray regarding gays' resenting their ex-wives.
st: you led me astray regarding gays' resenting their ex-wives.
I'll let my gay friends know that they're not really gay according to you, fls.
I'm sure they will amend their behavior immediately to conform to your agenda.
How flaming would you like them to be?
1) That fls believes that there is no such thing as a misogynistic gay is merely illustration of his own narrow worldview. There are also man-hating lesbians. Shocker! Guess what, there are gay-hating heterosexuals too. Gays are no more or less human than anyone else which means that they suffer from the same -isms as everyone else.
2) Do I have to point out, once again, that it was GOProud that took DADT to court while the Obama administration was defending it?
3) My wife (and, by proxy, I) wound up arguing with one of her gay classmates about gay marriage. One of the solutions that we proposed was the libertarian solution of just getting government out of people's bedrooms and the marriage business all together. (Remember that striking down anti-sodomy laws was a LIBERTARIAN concept that government had no business in the bedroom?). He rejected it soundly as not good enough because it didn't force religions like Roman Catholicism to perform gay marriages. He wasn't trying to fight FOR gay rights. He was trying to fight AGAINST religious ones. So the fight for gay marriage isn't always about "accepting second class status" as fls claims. It's often just about punishing the religious beliefs of others.
4) It doesn't matter who you choose to bed if the government has enacted (or is threatening to enact) legislation which will make it difficult or impossible to keep your job or your current health insurance or pay your electric bills, etc. There are lots of gays who prioritize bread and butter basics over waging cultural warfare.
I just hope to Christ FLS doesn't end up wandering off to mete out grim, relentless punishment upon all heretical gay men everywhere -- methodically smashing all their My Pal Joey and Pajama Game soundtrack LPs, or whatnot -- like some tight-lipped, smartly accoutred Solomon Kane.
Do we really have to point out all the celebrities, such as Wanda Sykes, who were previously married to a member of the opposite sex only to discover years later that they preferred sex with members of their own gender? And those are just the high profile people we all know about and don't include all the Average Joes that don't make the headlines.
In fls' world, ALL of those people are frauds and liars. Talk about your anti-gay bigotry....
2) Do I have to point out, once again, that it was GOProud that took DADT to court while the Obama administration was defending it?
1. It was the Log Cabin Republicans, not GOProud.
2. The LCR sued the Bush administration. For some reason the suit languished until 2010.
I don't find that any odder than me voting Republican despite being an atheist. If you wait to find a party you agree with 100%, you'll be waiting a long damned time.
Gay people are human!...well, almost human.
I voted Libertarian for the Senate (I could not bring myself to vote for any of the two political dynasties in Missouri, Blunt or Carnahan) and Republican for the House because I liked the candidate better on the issues. Besides, between two anti-gay marriage candidates (Cleaver II and Turk) I chose the one that sounded better on other topics.
And, yes, I stopped letting the DNC use me like a cheap whore many years ago. And FLS, I am pro-gay marriage, I just don't think your party really is.
wv: gucat
2. The LCR sued the Bush administration. For some reason the suit languished until 2010.
I named the wrong Republican organization. YOU GOT ME!!
And they sued the federal government - which required naming the Bush administration as defendent.
"For some reason the suit languished." Because it was ALL just a conspiracy to embarrass Obama precisely at the moment when he was disingenuosly promising to fight for gay rights. That's why they filed the lawsuit before Obama ever took office. They were just waiting to spring the trap on Obama.
Yep.
Are you buying tinfoil hats from the same 300 trade representatives of the Illuminati and Bilderbergers that garage is patronizing?
Now that Wisconsin is a newly red state:
The professor's new Lieutenant Governor Kleefisch compared same sex marriage to marrying clocks and dogs, back in January.
The Wisconsin State Journal expects Republicans will work to eliminate domestic partner benefits for state workers, and eliminate a domestic partner registry that allowed family leave for gay partners as well as hospital visitation rights. Last year, as Milwaukee County executive, Walker vetoed granting domestic partner benefits to county employees.
Jim said: "He wasn't trying to fight FOR gay rights. He was trying to fight AGAINST religious ones. So the fight for gay marriage isn't always about "accepting second class status" as fls claims. It's often just about punishing the religious beliefs of others."
I'm not going to say you're lying Jim, but I'm a 25 year old gay man who has many, many, gay friends. I have never heard a single one of them say that their support for same-sex marriage includes forcing places of worship to perform ceremonies. I think the argument that same-sex marriage is about forcing religions to perform ceremonies is not widely-held and is a red herring.
@fls:
I don't know any man who likes women who complains about family courts screwing them over. Only misogynists bleat like that.
Only racists would complain that criminal courts are stacked against black defendants, right?
FLS, you only ever have three tactcs:
Accusations of bigotry
Willful distortions of what other people wrote
Making shit up
They will deny their very nature in order to live up to what they believe society expects of them. Republicans are thus marked by rigid conformity to perceived societal expectations.
Wow! Gays AND Republicans! Two stereotypes for the price of one!!!!
1. I'm gay!!!! No denying my nature.
2. I don't give a F**K what society expects of me.
3. I'm a non-conforming non-conformist!
4. Though I admittedly suck as a businessman (for instance, I should be working right now) I do own my own business.
5. Though I'm a registered Libertarian (the only one in my district it seems), I generally vote Republican. Why? Because Dems talk a good game, but they don't deliver anything except greater govt interference and irresponsible govt. (hello Obamacare).
Why vote Republican?
Though I would love to get married to the Sonic-Mate (been together 14+ years, longer than most of my straight married friends), our lives are just fine w/o it, not being able to get married is annoying by no means, but there are more important things in this world than that one issue.
Why do I tend to vote Republican?
One word... CALIFORNIA!!!! This is the example of what happens when you have a Democrat dominated government.
It's not terribly surprising. I'm gay and conservative. And whenever I meet a new homosexual person, their political orientation (teehee!) about matches that for straights: some to the right, some to the left, some apolitical. However, the number of gays who are practice identity politics is quite large, so I suspect there will always be more progressive gays than conservative gays. I was a member of this site that was basically a Facebook for homosexuals, and they had a little sidebar of political news, and 100% of the stories were pro-Democratic and anti-Republican. The gay establishment will always be Democratic. But gays as a population tend to be less voted to the establishment than, say, blacks.
The professor's new Lieutenant Governor Kleefisch compared same sex marriage to marrying clocks and dogs, back in January.
If you approach gay marriage from a strictly legal standpoint, it is.
Legal marriage has always had several integral components:
1. Between a man and a woman.
2. Legal age of consent.
3. Only one at a time.
4. Only members of the human race.
What gays want is to redefine the word to change #1. But from a legal standpoint, if #1 is changeable then there is no legal justification that #2, #3, and #4 aren't also subject to change if the public will dictates it.
Don't believe me?
Woman marries dolphin.
Woman marries herself
These aren't hypotheticals. They ACTUALLY happened.
So it's not far-fetched to compare the two: it's the inevitable end product of changing the definition of marriage and why it is preferable to the social fabric if gays have the same rights but it is classified as "civil unions" or something else (that is, if government is still to be in the business of marriage at all).
Why isn't discriminatory to say that #1 denies equal rights but #2, #3 and/or #4 don't?
The reality is that both gays pushing for gay marriage and those who are against it BOTH AGREE that a line should be drawn as to who should be entitled to marry legally. The only difference between them is where that line is drawn. To draw on the old joke about whores: They're just haggling over the price.
Either legal marriage has a meaning which is open to everyone in every circumstance: in which it is completely meaningless as an institution and should be eliminated completely.
OR, it has a specific meaning which can be redefined by the morality and public opinion. In which case, denial of gay marriage isn't a CIVIL RIGHT at all.
So which is it? You can't have it both ways.....
@FLS:
Oh, I forgot gotcha. It works like this:
Somebody says something they believe, and FLS says that they must also believe something totally unrelated to that, or the topic, and twit them for being inconsistent.
It's a combination of willful distortion and making shit up.
Perfect example above:
Thanks to st, I have insight into gay Republicans. They will deny their very nature in order to live up to what they believe society expects of them. Republicans are thus marked by rigid conformity to perceived societal expectations.
None of that follows from anything anyone said.
Either fls cannot read, or he's a deliberate liar--either way his commentary is a waste.
I'm not going to say you're lying Jim, but I'm a 25 year old gay man who has many, many, gay friends. I have never heard a single one of them say that their support for same-sex marriage includes forcing places of worship to perform ceremonies.
It's a good thing you won't call me a liar because that argument ACTUALLY HAPPENED. He wouldn't accept getting government out of the marriage business BECAUSE he wanted the government to force Catholics (specifically) to perform gay marriages. His position was that Catholics shouldn't be allowed to be "bigoted" and that the government should force Catholics to have to perform gay marriages.
(They attend a Catholic university together. So why he chose a Catholic university when he so obviously hates their beliefs is still a mystery to me.)
Amazing. and how did we get to that number? self identified? Sean Hannity could have responded affirmatively for all anyone knows.
I know Ann Coulter did. I saw it. She was screaming "lesbians unite" or "unit" or something. i dunno.
@Jim:
I don't doubt your story, but you have to bear in mind that your friend is one person, he is not 1 one-millionth of the average gay person.
So why he chose a Catholic university when he so obviously hates their beliefs is still a mystery to me.
There are a lot of people who are "culturally" Catholic. They want the Church to change, they don't want to leave it.
I don't doubt your story, but you have to bear in mind that your friend is one person, he is not 1 one-millionth of the average gay person.
1) He wasn't the only gay person in the class who felt the same way. He was the only one actually arguing with my wife, but the other two gay guys felt the same way. (In fact, they now shun her and tell people that she's a bigot for not agreeing with them. So much for tolerance of other people, right? Isn't it amazing how the ones who argue the loudest for tolerance are the MOST intolerant ones?
2) I never claimed that EVERY gay person felt that way - nor even a majority. But making such sweeping claims that NONE of the gays feel that way is either an obvious lie or a gross ignorance of reality.
There are a lot of people who are "culturally" Catholic. They want the Church to change, they don't want to leave it.
I think the KKK is bigoted. I wouldn't enroll in any university they ran as the bigotry is a fundamental tenet of their belief system. Similarly, Catholic beliefs about the "fundamental disorder" of homosexuals (It's not considered a sin despite the lies of anti-Catholic bigots.), is a base tenet of Catholicism.
For the KKK to stop being bigoted, it would cease being the KKK. Similarly the Catholic church. If you feel that considering homosexuality a "fundamental disorder" is bigotry, then you are demanding that the Catholic not simply change, but cease existing as a Catholic Church.
You want them to be something else. And there are plenty of other Christian denominations which fit that bill.
@Jim:
But making such sweeping claims that NONE of the gays feel that way is either an obvious lie or a gross ignorance of reality.But making such sweeping claims that NONE of the gays feel that way is either an obvious lie or a gross ignorance of reality.
There's nothing so dumb you can't find someone saying it. There is no cause so worthy you can't find a fool following it. But you shouldn't judge the cause by the fools.
You do have some evidence on your side. eHarmmony was sued and lost and is now required to try to match gay couples as well as straight ones. You'd like to think a suit against a church that refused to perform same-sex marriages would fail the First Amendment, but in this day and age no one can tell what a judge will do.
@Jim:
You want them to be something else.
I want to change America in fundamental ways, probably in many of the ways you want to change it. Does that mean I should move out? Think about carefully about what you mean.
Of course you could argue that the "true America", the real America, is the one you are fighting for--but so could one of these Catholics, and they do. I don't claim they have a case. I claim that "love it or leave it" should not be the default response.
If opposition to homosexuality is so integral to Catholicism that Catholicism cannot change it without ceasing to be Catholic, then in the long run the Catholic Church is doomed. Homophobia is on the way out.
Of course you could argue that the "true America", the real America, is the one you are fighting for--but so could one of these Catholics, and they do. I don't claim they have a case. I claim that "love it or leave it" should not be the default response.
I think you're wrong here.
The Church is pretty consistent in saying that sex should be only for the purposes of procreation within sanctioned marriage.
So, the behavior of most heteros is not in line with Church teaching... never mind the homos.
Acceptance of homosexuality really is a complete repudiation of Catholicism.
If you refuse to accept the tents of the Church, you really should go elsewhere.
Or accept the Church the way I do. I'm a sinner who doesn't conform to the Church's teachings on heterosexual behavior. But, I still go to Church, confession and receive communion. What should I do? Force the Church to celebrate shacking up among heteros?
If opposition to homosexuality is so integral to Catholicism that Catholicism cannot change it without ceasing to be Catholic, then in the long run the Catholic Church is doomed. Homophobia is on the way out.
A complete nonsense statement.
The notion that "homophobia" is the reason behind Church theology is just a complete nonsense statement on your part.
And, if another epidemic even more virulent than AIDS is unleashed by the behavior of gay men, you might be surprised how much "homophobia" manifests itself.
I have to explain myself to Hanna:
st said:
A lo[t] of men don't entirely figure out that they're gay until they're 30 to 35 years old. By then, they're married and they have kids.
I replied:
I'm also having trouble dealing with the concept of a man not knowing he's gay until two decades after puberty.
st responded:
Surprise! Many men try very hard to be what they're "supposed" to be well into their 20s and 30s. Get your head around it.
So I deduced that [gay Republicans] will deny their very nature in order to live up to what they believe society expects of them.
I'll show Hanna where in the thread I got these from:
Gay Republicans (the subject of the post) will deny their very nature (by marrying a member of the sex they're not attracted to, per st) in order to live up to what they believe society expects of them (they try very hard to do what they're "supposed" to be, per st, and who sets those expectations other than society?)
Now is this characteristic of gays as a group? No. The gays I know are aware of their sexual orientation, and have been since puberty. What could explain this behavior?
Then I had an insight -- this shoehorning of oneself into a sexual identity that doesn't fit must be a characteristic of Republicans.
What does this behavior say about Republicans? I generalized this behavior and concluded that
Rigid conformity to perceived societal expectations must be a characteristic of Republicans.
Jesus, you're awful, fls.
Why do you exist?
Just to be a shit?
So, the dreadfully stupid, willfully malicious fls has posited that it is only Republicanism that is responsible for confusion about sexual identify among people.
Your BS is really beneath contempt, fls.
I claim that "love it or leave it" should not be the default response.
You're either intentionally or unintentionally conflating two separate and distinct things. The Catholic Church is an organization of completely voluntary choice. No one is forced to join or stay within its ranks.
I don't hold the beliefs of the Black Panthers. Therefore, I CHOOSE not to join. Similarly to many other organizations. So it is with many other religions. I don't believe in their basic tenets, so I don't join them.
Would you join Islam so that you can convince adherents that Mohammed WASN'T a prophet?
Would you join the NAACP in order to convince them that Affirmative Action perpetuates rather than ends racial enmity?
No. You simply join an organization which believes something else entirely.
It's ludicrous that the Catholic Church must change because those who don't believe the same things think that it should be something else entirely.
Let me know how that project to change Islam from "inside the system" works out for you.
Or accept the Church the way I do. I'm a sinner who doesn't conform to the Church's teachings on heterosexual behavior.
I agree. There's a HUGE difference between saying "I don't agree with the Church's stance on this issue" and "The Church, and its members, are bigots for not agreeing with me."
It's ludicrous that the Catholic Church must change because those who don't believe the same things think that it should be something else entirely.
I agree with Jim by the way. Breaking away from the Catholic Church has been happening since before the Reformation. Luther did not decide he was going to try to become Pope and change the church from within, he simply broke away.
Rigid conformity to perceived societal expectations must be a characteristic of Republicans
... he said, without even a faintest scintilla of irony or self-awareness.
::facepalm::
Absolutely no doubt in my mind that RINOs love homos more than they love small businessmen and women.
@fls:
There's nothing to explain. It is shit you made up that nothing to do with what st said.
First you "deduced" that "many men" equals "gay Republicans"--something you totally made up, it is not a deduction, which much follow from the stated premises. You "deduced" that because SOME PEOPLE were talking about, not "gay republicans", but gay people who had voted for Republicans.
Now is this characteristic of gays as a group? No. The gays I know are aware of their sexual orientation, and have been since puberty.
And now you commit the "anecdote = data" fallacy.
Then I had an insight -- this shoehorning of oneself into a sexual identity that doesn't fit must be a characteristic of Republicans.
Which doesn't even follow from the premises you made up!
Long story short, you can't read or do logic. You can't cope with math or basic biology. You can't argue without making things up. So, DIAF and let the rest of us use your oxygen, okay? Because your brain cells are just wasting it.
If the 31% is anywhere close to accurate, it has to scare the Demos as much as the increase of women voting Republican this time. The Demos rely on the fact that, even thought they are taken for granted, all their little slaves will never leave the plantation.
Now they have a mass escape.
HDHouse said...
Amazing. and how did we get to that number? self identified? Sean Hannity could have responded affirmatively for all anyone knows.
I know Ann Coulter did. I saw it. She was screaming "lesbians unite" or "unit" or something. i dunno.
No, she was talking about HD's unit.
Gabriel Hanna said...
There are a lot of people who are "culturally" Catholic. They want the Church to change, they don't want to leave it.
God, what nonsense. Those people aren't anything Catholic. They want the Church's tenets to be turned into a Chinese menu so they can do what they please when they please and no one is going to rebuke them for it.
@Jim:
You simply join an organization which believes something else entirely.
Very few people join religions like they do organizations. Most people are born into them.
Remember what "Catholic" means--universal. The Catholic Church regards itself as the universal representative of Christianity. They can't be that if they make themselves too narrow.
I personally do not know any misogynistic gays.
We're just being polite to you.
My step-mother's equally nasty sister tried to bankrupt her ex husband (now living with an Arab male doctor). He fled the state to avoid arrest. They were in their 50's with grown children.
FLS: "Rigid conformity to perceived societal expectations must be a characteristic of Republicans."
Are you a Republican? Because this sentence just concluded one of the most sterotyping paragraphs ever penned.
Remember what "Catholic" means--universal. The Catholic Church regards itself as the universal representative of Christianity. They can't be that if they make themselves too narrow.
They haven't made themselves too narrow. You act like this is some sort of NEW position taken by the Catholic Church. It's not.
And as far as being universal, fls nailed it on the head. They haven't been the sole face of Christianity since Martin Luther's time, so that argument isn't going to hold any water either.
(And I will note that the Catholic position on homosexuality - that it is a "fundamental disorder" is considerably to the LEFT of many Protestants who believe that homosexuality is a sin for which burning in hell is the punishment. As far as Christianity itself is concerned, Catholicism is located roughly in the center on homosexuality between the "anything goes" Unitarians and the fire-breathers.)
God, what nonsense. Those people aren't anything Catholic. They want the Church's tenets to be turned into a Chinese menu so they can do what they please when they please and no one is going to rebuke them for it.
It's called "a la carte Catholicism" which is designed for one reason, and one reason only: to absolve the practitioner of any sense that his choices could be wrong.
"A la carte" Catholics are mainly offended that anyone could disagree with their choices and hold them up to an objective standard of right and wrong behavior. It's just a different manifestation of the "there is no such thing as right or wrong" self-absolution of amoralists.
I make plenty of choices that go against the teachings of the Catholic Church. But I'm not in any denial about the teachings of the Church on the morality of those choices. I understand that the Church doesn't approve, and I don't demand that they change in order to accomodate me.
First you "deduced" that "many men" equals "gay Republicans"--something you totally made up,
Mea culpa. What st was talking about was the characteristics of gay conservatives. Sorry:
I have several conservative gay friends in NYC... of all places!
Their primary reasons for this:
...
not "gay republicans", but gay people who had voted for Republicans.
Actually, gay conservatives.
And now you commit the "anecdote = data" fallacy.
This "fallacy" is called inductive reasoning, very useful for navigating our complex world. Feel free to prove me wrong, btw: Find me some liberal or moderate gay men married to women.
I will amend my conclusion:
"Rigid conformity to perceived societal expectations -- strong enough to make men pair off with the gender they're not sexually attracted to -- must be a characteristic of conservatives."
FLS: "Find me some liberal or moderate gay men married to women."
Done. I can think of several.
Next.
Fls
Please watch some porn.
Learn a little about the wide variety of sexual appetites.
You lead a sheltered life.
I'm gay and I'm a Republican because of Obama. I joined the party when I read some of the things his administration said to the judge in the recent DADT case. Specifically, how they thought only members of the Log Cabin Republicans should be protected from DADT. After hearing THAT I immediately changed my voter registration and sent the Log Cabin Republicans 60 bucks.
The highest ranking Democrat, trying to keep fellow Democrats, and Independents, from getting equal rights, and instead giving them to members of another party. If even Obama thought Republicans were the only people worthy of this, how could I not join?
Then I had an insight -- this shoehorning of oneself into a sexual identity that doesn't fit must be a characteristic of Republicans.
You make shit up based on someone else's comment and you call it insight?
Find me some liberal or moderate gay men married to women.
I knew one personally. He "came out" to his children in his sixties.
It's not just gays that have lots of members who vote Republican, it's all minorities. I've heard some say they're tired of being told who they should vote for because of some label society gave them, and I agree.
What is our vote for a Democrat worth? Democrats think of us as on their side because they have a stereotype of us in their heads. They think they understand us all, even though they don't. And when they are in power they don't work to help us, but the people who match the stereotype in their heads.
It's better to vote for someone who will help all Americans, than someone who will give you special treatment you don't want or need.
Are some gays (and I hate that word) for lower taxes, for fiscal responsibility, freedom from gov't, pro gun, pro-life, etc....
I think so... they are gay, not stupid.
fls,
Then you must have lived a very sheltered life. I am gay myself and did not find out until I was 24 and married. I have friends who had been married for 15 years or more and then had their first gay experience and realized that they wanted that rather than their marriage.
None of my friends hate women. They just do not want to have sex with them. It has nothing to do with divorce at all.
Also a lot of us think of being gay as being just the sex part of it and that there really is not a gay sex lifestyle. Once I get out of bed and get over the sex, then there is essentially not much difference between me and any other man. I pay taxes, I worked in a technical field for over 40 years successfully, I am a lousy gardener and don't really much like flower arranging, fashion or partying until 4 AM while using ecstasy or other drugs. I like old cars, antiques, cooking, reading and watching some sporting events. And I am a vehement conservative politically and always have been. I have a lot of gay friends and even more straight friends. And I really don't care what you do so long as you do not scare the horses. I also hate Pride Parades. Just not my cup of tea at all.
how can anyone be suprised that barack has lost a chunk of the gay vote?
many in the gay rights community choose to ignore what barack actually says and does, choosing instead to 'believe in their hearts' that he doesn't really mean all that anti-marriage stuff or that he has no choice but to fight AGAINST gay rights in the courts. for two years there has been complete democratic control of the government. they could have passed anything they wanted to but they didn't lift a finger. instead, they blamed republicans who had no power to stop them (and, besides, there are many republicans who are supportive of issues like the repeal of DADT.)
just like everybody else, some gay folks are waking up to the fact that they are being bamboozled for their votes and donations. besides there simply being many gay citizens who believe in limited government and fiscal responsibility, many are also recognizing the need to cultivate the relationship with those on the other side of the aisle if they ever hope to be more than an election time 'wedge-issue'.
re the catholic 'controversy':
i frequently amuse myself by pointing out to the devout (mostly hispanic)folks i know that, in the eyes of the pope and his church, if you are divorced and re-married, then you are committing adultery. suddenly, the devotion goes out the window, the pope is an a-hole and they don't care what the church says..hahaha. works every time.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा