MORE hypocritical family-value Republicans!

Politics US Politics
61

For the umpteenth time, my bone of contention here is about how these guys are being treated by you and many other posters. I’m just not a string 'em up kind of guy. And I’m not a bandwagon guy. I don’t mind being a contrary voice. I have no desire to “see it from a new angle” as the angle is already clear. I understand your point. I really do. I understand why it makes you personally very angry and I have some sympathy for you and your man. (I have doubts about your contention that you are in exile when clearly there are States in the US where civil unions are law, but why you choose to stay in Taiwan is really none of my business.)

However, what I absolutely abhor is the green light given here by armchair headline reading douchebags who feel the need for some “righteous indignation” at the expense of my eyes. Mocking someone for opposing SSM? Why? Oh, because they oppose it and they bang dudes. I thought I touched on someone very pertinent to the whole “hypocrite” thing earlier: did these men legally marry any of the dudes they had sex with? I think the answer is a resounding NO. So, what’s the problem. Lots of politicians who don’t smoke support the tobacco industry (god bless them and their dividends). I simply do not understand how a man’s sexually behavior, unless it is illegal (ie with a minor or incestuous --although even that has become debatable–) matters.

Let me make this perfectly clear: I believe that these men are not being slammed for their political beliefs (because they are not seeking special gay rights/marriage for themselves) but that they are being slammed for their sexual behavior…and that is reprehensible.

Now, if you care to start a Who’s up for gay marriage thread, I will fully support it…although, it is doubtful that I will focus too much time on these bozos in this thread. instead I will focus on the Democratic Party which has weakly and very opaquely kinda supported the idea of civil unions and equal rights but not really gay marriage…especially the most recent supermajority which allowed the whole fucking issue to gather dust while they created the largest political clusterfuck in the history of the USA.

btw Dick Cheney supports SSM. Ha!

62

Why must everyone who engages in gay sex be pro gay marriage?

63

Because not being so would be self-betrayal, not to mention an absurdity. Kind of like shooting yourself in the foot.

It is absurd to be anti-oneself.

64

Because not being so would be self-betrayal, not to mention an absurdity. Kind of like shooting yourself in the foot.

It is absurd to be anti-oneself.[/quote]
I took you off ignore to answer this:
I believe the fallacy in your premise here is to believe that ALL people who engage in gay sex have the same ethical and moral standards and support or should support a similar political platform. I wonder what incarcerated men who engaged in gay sex (not rape mind you but hunka hunka burning prison love) would say about gay marriage. :ponder:

65

Because not being so would be self-betrayal, not to mention an absurdity. Kind of like shooting yourself in the foot.

It is absurd to be anti-oneself.[/quote]
I took you off ignore to answer this:
I believe the fallacy in your premise here is to believe that ALL people who engage in gay sex have the same ethical and moral standards and support or should support a similar political platform. I wonder what incarcerated men who engaged in gay sex (not rape mind you but hunka hunka burning prison love) would say about gay marriage. :ponder:[/quote]
No idea. Prison sex is a very abnormal, artificial situation with numerous motivations, so normal sociosexual rules don’t apply.

But we’re talking about politicians.

And I guess you missed my challenge to find a gay liberal who votes against gay rights.

66

An outed gay liberal?

That’s a challenge. Does John Edwards count?

Instead of that, which is just dick waving, how about this:

The US senate now has 100 members. 51 Dem, 47 rep, 2 Ind.

ONLY 19 Senators, all Dems, support SSM.

The US House of Representatives has 541 members. 193 Dems and 242 Reps

ONLY 59 Congressmen and woman, all Dems, support SSM.

So I guess I would fail if I were to look for a gay sex having Dem politician who didn’t support SSM. But then again, there are SO MANY Democratic who do not fully support SSM that the question should be, according to you, Why the fuck not?

HuffPo had an article titled: Prop 8 Ruling Exposes Dem weak Support for LGBT Community. Read it and then stop fucking blaming all the shit you want done that doesn’t GET done on the totally fallible opposition.

Now, back you go.

67

Because not being so would be self-betrayal, not to mention an absurdity. Kind of like shooting yourself in the foot.

It is absurd to be anti-oneself.[/quote]
I took you off ignore to answer this:
I believe the fallacy in your premise here is to believe that ALL people who engage in gay sex have the same ethical and moral standards and support or should support a similar political platform. I wonder what incarcerated men who engaged in gay sex (not rape mind you but hunka hunka burning prison love) would say about gay marriage. :ponder:[/quote]
No idea. Prison sex is a very abnormal, artificial situation with numerous motivations, so normal sociosexual rules don’t apply.

But we’re talking about politicians.

And I guess you missed my challenge to find a gay liberal who votes against gay rights.[/quote]

None of what you are talking about is relavent. A republican has gay sex while at the same time in his political life opposes gay marriage. That’s his business and it’s his own personal conflict. The fact that he engages in gay sex doesn’t make him “one of you” he owes you no loyalty. He is FREE to express what ever ideals he wishes to. Also, if he is a politician who is gay but who represents a conservative district where the overhelming consensus is of ‘Christian Values’ then he is behaving as he should. He is properly representing the will of his constituents. In that case his sexual preferences are his own business. As JDS has already said, smokers have no responsibility to vote for the tobacco lobby.

As for your African American example, sure the outrage would be justified. But, not because he was black but because of his words. Can you really tell me that the rhetoric of a hidden black black politician would be anymore damaging than that of a white politician? Of course in practice there would be more outrage but it’s not a apples to apples comparison is it. Concealing your race is extremely difficult and for better or worse is generally considered public information about a person simply because well, we literally wear it on our face. Sexual behaviour is something our society generally treats as private information. So someone revealing that they were actually black would alone be quite sensationational.

68

If he were an ordinary loser living down the road, I’d agree with you. But he’s a voting member of the legislature, and that makes it more than just his business; it makes it our business, because his vote has the potential of impacting millions of citizens.

The African-American example wasn’t mine, by the way. I’ll posit something different.

Let’s imagine a congressman who is running on an anti-Semitic platform. “Make the Jews wear yellow stars!” he says. “Outlaw Jewish marriage! Evict Jews from their apartments! Fire them from their jobs! Don’t let them adopt children! Don’t allow schools to teach our children about them! Bar them from military service!” Pretty odious, eh? One would be nuts to defend him.

But then it’s discovered that he is in fact Jewish (I choose this because it’s a trait that can be more easily hidden than, say, skin color). And not just Jewish in heritage, but a practicing Jew who secretly attends temple, observes the rites and keeps the covenant. The odiousness of his position is multiplied. It goes beyond bigotry and right into hypocrisy. He’s betraying himself and his fellow Jews.

Would you defend such a scumbag?

Anti-selfism is a pathology, in my opinion. It’s tantamount to saying “Persecute me!!” Something is wrong with that.

69

[quote=“Chris”]
Let’s imagine a congressman who is running on an anti-Semitic platform. “Make the Jews wear yellow stars!” he says. “Outlaw Jewish marriage! Evict Jews from their apartments! Fire them from their jobs! Don’t let them adopt children! Don’t allow schools to teach our children about them! Bar them from military service!” Pretty odious, eh? One would be nuts to defend him.

But then it’s discovered that he is in fact Jewish (I choose this because it’s a trait that can be more easily hidden than, say, skin color). And not just Jewish in heritage, but a practicing Jew who secretly attends temple, observes the rites and keeps the covenant. The odiousness of his position is multiplied. It goes beyond bigotry and right into hypocrisy. He’s betraying himself and his fellow Jews.

Would you defend such a scumbag?

Anti-selfism is a pathology, in my opinion. It’s tantamount to saying “Persecute me!!” Something is wrong with that.[/quote]

Well, it really wouldn’t even get that far would it? In your example he his advocating revoking somebodies human rights to an extreme extent so it really doesn’t matter what he is. He could be a 3 headed martian for all I care. The fact that he himself is Jewish would be a mere curiosity. I would fight his message and his agenda with all of the effort I could muster long before I ever found out he was Jewish. Are you telling me you would listen to someone spew this nonsense and then only get worked up once you found out he himself was Jewish? But, here you go again this is really just the same reptitious tatic you are Craig use over and over again. Use some crazy ass conflated example with completely outrageous hypothetical circumstances and then try to draw a real world parallel.

Was the Conservative Politician advocating making homosexuals wear pink stars? No.
Was he advocating evicting homosexuals from their homes? No I’m pretty sure he wasn’t.
Was he demanding homosexuals be fired from their jobs? Nope.

These are outrages that I haven’t heard any politician advocating so I’ll assume you are being dramatic.

The rest of it I’m not sure about. I’ve heard some of these policies being enforce/discussed but, I don’t know if this specific conservative politician was advocating them.

I’m certainly not debating whether such discrimination is defensable I just question the focus of your outrage and to a point the spin you want to put on this.

After All aren’t these guys really hypocritical homosexuals? So, maybe the more accurate title for this thread should have been “MORE hypocritical homosexual politicians”. But, I suspect that title doesn’t really fit your purposes all that well does it?

70

[quote=“Gman”]But, here you go again this is really just the same reptitious tatic you are Craig use over and over again. Use some crazy ass conflated example with completely outrageous hypothetical circumstances and then try to draw a real world parallel.

Was the Conservative Politician advocating making homosexuals wear pink stars? No.
Was he advocating evicting homosexuals from their homes? No I’m pretty sure he wasn’t.
Was he demanding homosexuals be fired from their jobs? Nope.

I’m certainly not debating whether such discrimination is defensable I just question the focus of your outrage and to a point the spin you want to put on this.

After All aren’t these guys really hypocritical homosexuals? So, maybe the more accurate title for this thread should have been “MORE hypocritical homosexual politicians”. But, I suspect that title doesn’t really fit your purposes all that well does it?[/quote]

  1. The comparisons Chris and I have made are totally accurate. That you can’t see it is maybe because you don’t belong to the oppressed group…or do you?

  2. Yes, in fact family-values politicians do indeed campaign on the idea that gays should be discriminated against, including in housing and employment, not to mention marriage. No pink stars, though, although I think it was upside-down-triangles we used to have to wear in concentration camps.

  3. The thread has digressed into a discussion on homosexuality, maybe because the latest examples have been about closeted gay politicians. I think you are as guilty of taking it there as anyone, though. There have certainly been LOADS of other politicians who have campaigned on family values, only to have been caught cheating on their wives…

71

No Craig, I don’t think the homosexual plight in America is anything like that of the Jews in Nazi Germany.

I agree with this, actually I mentioned this in my last posts. I think you’re right it was upside down triangles (semantics)

You’re right Craig, my bad for coming to the thread late. The thread digressed to a discussion on homosexualtiy on something like the third post that is loooong before I showed up. So, we are back to just garden variety political hypocrisy then? Is that still even news to people anymore?

72

[quote=“Gman”][quote=“Chris”]Let’s imagine a congressman who is running on an anti-Semitic platform. “Make the Jews wear yellow stars!” he says. “Outlaw Jewish marriage! Evict Jews from their apartments! Fire them from their jobs! Don’t let them adopt children! Don’t allow schools to teach our children about them! Bar them from military service!” Pretty odious, eh? One would be nuts to defend him.

But then it’s discovered that he is in fact Jewish (I choose this because it’s a trait that can be more easily hidden than, say, skin color). And not just Jewish in heritage, but a practicing Jew who secretly attends temple, observes the rites and keeps the covenant. The odiousness of his position is multiplied. It goes beyond bigotry and right into hypocrisy. He’s betraying himself and his fellow Jews.[/quote]
In your example he his advocating revoking somebodies human rights to an extreme extent so it really doesn’t matter what he is.[/quote]
And that’s exactly what the anti-gay politicians advocate: the revoking of human rights. They oppose anti-discrimination laws in housing, employment and adoption. They oppose same-sex marriage. They oppose gays serving in the military. They oppose schools teaching children about gays. (Yeah, I added the “yellow stars” bit… couldn’t resist.)

Would you do the same with the anti-gay politicians?

No. I would be worked up about his bigotry (see the bolded red bit above), as that would be perhaps my primary motivation to oppose him. His being Jewish compounds his bigotry with hypocrisy.

[quote]Was he advocating evicting homosexuals from their homes? No I’m pretty sure he wasn’t.
Was he demanding homosexuals be fired from their jobs? Nope.[/quote]
Anti-gay politicians routinely oppose anti-discrimination laws in housing and the workplace.

The other examples (marriage, adoption, military service, teaching about gays in school) are also things that anti-gay politicians routinely oppose.

But it turns out that they have something other than being “family values” hypocrites. It turns out they also all reside in the same side of the political spectrum. Now why is this? It’s because they paint themselves into a corner with their bogus “family values” rhetoric.

I challenge you: find me a gay liberal politician who votes against gays.

73

I didn’t compare gays in the US to those in Nazi Germany, either. I kinda thought you brought it up with the pink star comment.

Anyway, I stand behind the previous analogies.

74

No Craig, I don’t think the homosexual plight in America is anything like that of the Jews in Nazi Germany.[/quote]
Sure. But that’s only a matter of degree. The rights of gays are restricted on many fronts. Progress is being made, but the major obstacles to full equality remains conservative policy.

You’re right Craig, my bad for coming to the thread late. The thread digressed to a discussion on homosexualtiy on something like the third post that is loooong before I showed up. So, we are back to just garden variety political hypocrisy then? Is that still even news to people anymore?[/quote]
Well, it’s about “family values” hypocrisy: those politicians who run on a platform of “family values” yet fail to live up to the Christ-like standards they demand of others.

Ordinary garden variety hypocrisy (accepting kickbacks, breaking promises) is boring and to be expected of all politicians.

75

No Craig, I don’t think the homosexual plight in America is anything like that of the Jews in Nazi Germany.[/quote]
Sure. But that’s only a matter of degree. The rights of gays are restricted on many fronts. Progress is being made, but the major obstacles to full equality remains conservative policy. [/quote]

Not ALL conservatives maybe not even the majority and certainly not the Libertarian leaning conservatives.

I’m glad they fail to do so. I don’t think the government should be legislating ‘values’ on anyone so I’m glad they fail.

76

Well, I have far more respect for libertarians than I do the Christian Right. Libertarians have many ideas (particularly social ones, and even a few economic ones) that I agree with. I mainly disagree with libertarians on the idea that “Big Government is necessarily Bad Government”. I think that “Bad Government is Bad” and “Good Government is Good”, no matter what the size.

And I agree with you about legislating “values”. Problem is, these people don’t always fail in codifying their narrow ideas of values into legislation.

77

This is simply not true. While loudmouthed douchebags will spout off about abhorrent gay lifestyles and save the Scouts, the main culprit in gays not attaining “full” rights may very well be the Democrats. I did a bit of research the other night and found an embarrassingly small number of Dems actually support Same Sex Marriage. To blame a very small handful of ultra conservative wieners for the inequality gays are subjected to is simpleminded. It is my feeling that the Right would give in to pressure from the Left on this issue because it’s a no brainer. The Left simply focuses blame for failure, as YOU do, on these numbnuts and not on themselves thereby creating an “issue” that is good for distraction on both sides but one that ultimately results in nothing substantial. If you disagree with my feeling the Right wouldn’t care if SSM were passed, just look to all the protesting and complaints that resulted from Obama’s decision to overturn DADT. Oh wait…there were none. Why? because it’s a NON issue.

The major obstacle is that Dems themselves do not commit and come out fully in support of gay marriage and other gay rights issues. It is THEIR issue, is it not. You don’t have to convince Dems that gay rights are worth pursuing and passing into law. So where are the laws? Hell, where are the bills? Read the HuffPo article I referred to. Dems actually do not even have a stance on SSM…civil unions maybe but not SSM.

Conservatives cannot be counted upon for this. It is not their issue. Dems should take this issue, as they should with legalizing pot, but they not only drop the ball, most of them refuse to even pick it up. If one day the Right sees this as such a non issue they will pick it up themselves and jam it through any opposition and come out on top.

:2cents:

78

Well you should try to. Something that inflamatory doesn’t win you any support with moderates.

[quote]I would fight his message and his agenda with all of the effort I could muster long before I ever found out he was Jewish.
Would you do the same with the anti-gay politicians? [/quote]

Yes Chris, I would. At one point in my life I voted for a gay politician despite the fact that he represented a party who’s philosophy I oppose. Funny story actually because his political career was ended shortly after that because he stole a ring from a jewelery shop. I think he had a mental breakdown or something. It was a pity, because he was a high profile politician in Canada. I’ve said it on this forum before I’m a liberal, a real one. Even in the case of activities I may not be completely comfortable with, if it’s not infringing on someone else’s liberties I don’t think I or any body else has a right to curtial their liberty to engage in those activities of course, I also object to government funding of those activities. I think Craig’s situation is a travesty and I can’t understand why anyone would mock his situation.

Perhaps?!?!? Bigotry is bigotry compounded bigotry has the same ‘value’ as bigotry. His hypocrisy merely erodes his position. Frankly, I’m glad these guys exist it just illustrates further how unrealistic their position is.

Well, that’s a bit of a loaded question isn’t it. First of all, real liberal politicians as a default would not infringe on someone else’s liberties. Secondly in the more modern corrupted version of liberal politicians on left don’t really have an audience for them to express their view points do they. I don’t doubt there are politicians on the left that are bigoted they just wouldn’t last long if they made those views known.

79

[quote=“Chris”]Well, I have far more respect for libertarians than I do the Christian Right. Libertarians have many ideas (particularly social ones, and even a few economic ones) that I agree with. I mainly disagree with libertarians on the idea that “Big Government is necessarily Bad Government”. I think that “Bad Government is Bad” and “Good Government is Good”, no matter what the size.

And I agree with you about legislating “values”. Problem is, these people don’t always fail in codifying their narrow ideas of values into legislation.[/quote]

Well, I’ll have to work on you a bit with regards to your views on government then. It actually isn’t a matter of bad or good. Those are relative terms and the nature of a government can change (The US is a good example of this). The issue really is limited government. You have to first recognize that in it’s present form government is based on coercion and violence. So by limiting it’s power to only its essential functions you limit any damage caused by it being commendered by interest groups.

80

CraigTPE has already explained to you that his registered domestic partnership (“civil union”) in California is not federally recognized and does not grant him the right to bring his partner to the US. Which part do you not understand, precisely?

I don’t know why you’re being so dense. Your contentions have been addressed numerous times, very eloquently, from CraigTPE and Chris. You have taken this thread completely off-topic. This thread is about hypocritical family-value Republicans, not your concerns with their precious little feelings.

Note to Moderator:

Please split the off-topic conversation to a new thread.