Another great gem from PrismWarden — Tell Me Lies And I’ll Love You Forever.
No matter what our disagreements, we are forced through various pressures to live in the same homosexual house, and we all have different ideas about how that house should be run. Studying this, I have come to a conclusion:
Gay conservatives are the parents, and gay liberals are the teenagers.
Nailed it!
The problem with the gay liberal mindset is that it is infested with a naïve idealism and penchant for wanting to see the world as how they wish it to be, not how it objectively is. The Democratic Party is their first true high school love, and like all true loves, the warts and faults have been smudged to a blurry shadow cast by their perceived Adonis.
Gay conservatives, on the other hand, are generally cynical adults. While some decry it as nothing more than jaded bitterness, cynicism is a characteristic wrought of experience and the wisdom that accompanies it. The Republican Party is not our true love, nor particularly a love. They are a friend we generally respect without feeling a need to be inexpressibly loyal to their every belief. We realize grown adults may reasonably disagree with one another without destroying a friendship and indignantly declaring, “You don’t love me!” before flouncing out of the room.
Please read the entire piece. PrismWarden gets to the heart of something I’ve been thinking a lot about since beginning this blog. Why are gay liberals so hateful toward gay conservatives?
The parent/kid relationship is a great way to explain it. Another way is that Gay Conservatives have figured out how to be gay within the American mainstream and even among those who tolerate but disapprove. Gay Liberals want to be there, but are too busy throwing stones and having temper tantrums and demanding instant and total gratification to figure out how to do it.
In short, Gay Liberals are jealous of Gay Conservatives. Discuss…
-Bruce (GayPatriot)
It’s not just gay liberals. It’s liberals in general. A lot of my friends in college were straight liberals, and today they are still straight liberals. It’s not just the adolescent crush factor, it’s the “resentment of the jocks/popular kids” factor. The more someone was on the outskirts of high school society, the more left-liberal they are likely to be. And the reason they hate Republicans and conservatives is because they associate them with the high school kids who, in their minds, had everything going for them. The criticism of Bush I hear more than any other is a variation on, “he’s a spoiled rich kid who always had everything handed to him.” 1. It’s interesting that they refer to him as a “kid” even when he’s pushing sixty, which fits in with the “stuck in high school” emotional development idea; 2. It’s interesting that the “spoiled, rich, never had to work for anything” critique is equally, if not more true, of Al Gore and John Kerry.
This is a very interesting post and a good analogy. Parent/child is a apt description but it also points out something about convervatives as well. I think sometimes conservatives see themselves as “parents” and as such it is their responsibility to instruct and teach the “kids” how to function in the world. Sometimes this comes off as condescending and that doesn’t help with the friction between the two groups. As a parent I can tell you that it is a constant power struggle. Parental authority vs. teenage/child ideology (for lack of a better term). The best route is not to dismiss what the child has to say simply because you, as the more experienced and wiser parent, know better.
Liberals by and large do see the world as it should/could be. There is nothing patently wrong with that. It is through a vision of what the world should/could be that good changes have occurred. Though I agree that this pie in the sky attitude must be grounded with a bit of realism. That is where the conservatives come in. If both sides could see the value in both views, I think we would finally be getting somewhere.
“Liberals by and large do see the world as it should/could be.”
I disagree with that premise.
If you’re talking about 19th-century “classical liberals”, who wanted capitalism and freedom and (among other things) an end to slavery – Yes, absolutely.
I can’t find a single point with today’s socialist liberals, however, where they see the world “as it should/could be”.
What’s their vision for Iraq and the Middle East? – Leave Saddam in power. Leave the U.N. oil-for-food scandal going. Don’t confront Iran, an evil gay-killing theocracy if there ever was one.
What’s their vision for America? – Ever-increasing regimentation. Socialize everything, so that everyone will be “equal” (in grinding misery and lack of opportunity), every petty complaint will have the force of law, and no one will be able to rise above anyone else’s complaints and crap.
That is not the world “as it could/should be”.
Now, of course they would say it differently. Of course, they would say they want peace, they want security for all, etc. But they don’t, number one. And number two, a life where every person is totally protected by government/law against every little thing is, again, no life at all. It is NOT as the world “could” be, ever, at any time; nor is it as the world “should” be.
So, in today’s world, it is the descendants of the “classical liberals” – now known as “conservative libertarians” or “libertarian conservatives” – who see the world as it could/should be, and fight for that.
Bruce —
Gay liberals “jealous” of gay conservatives? I think “resentful” perhaps. “Incredulous” more likely. It’s one thing to support fiscal conservatism, but wholly another to join in social conservatism and be gay. It’s an oxymoron. It’s not that liberals are the gays’ best friend; rather it’s that conservatives are the gays’ worst enemy. Conservative stalwarts like Pat Robertson, Lou Sheldon, Rick Santorum, James Dobson, Jesse Helms, et alia are not benign, but hostile to all things gay. Even if the “left” doesn’t go as far as many gays would like, the Left is not out to eliminate us. The Right is. THAT’S the difference, and a big difference it makes!
Where is everybody? This place was buzzing just a couple of days ago.
Joey Petain
Whenever I go to LIPS here in NYC or other gay establishments and need to use the restroom I have either the choice of using the men’s room or ‘the other’ room. I’m female and experience a great deal of resentment towards and even denial of my existence by many in the gay community so don’t pretend like gays are not hostile to anyone who is not gay male.
I can’t count the number of hurtful and mean,rather nasty jokes gay men make towards females (particularily straight females) and the expectation is that the jokes are assumed to be perfectly acceptable humor yet I know I’m never going to change such sexist hateful minds by insisting they take ‘politically correct social behavior’ courses. The only thing I can do is be myself, rise above the mean jokes and continue on with my life.
One question for the Gay Left:
Not to defend them or their views on gays, but honestly, what are you afraid of from “Pat Robertson, Lou Sheldon, Rick Santorum, James Dobson, Jesse Helms, et alia“? I mean literally, what are they going to do to you?
What I don’t mean: “if they had their way”…I mean, in 2005, where we culturally and politically are as a Nation, in what specific way do these boogeymen threaten us?
Also what I don’t mean: paranoid suggestions that, for example, they’re “out to eliminate us“. Again, this is 2005, let’s be realistic about your (probably legitimate, but heretofore not well expressed by your ‘leaders’) concerns.
Oh, and by the way, I’m not necessarily trying to call out DHS or even suggest he’s of that group. I’m looking for the likes of Chandler, Reader, GCB, etc., to come up with literally substantive and indisputable things these people are trying to do to hurt us. No paranoia, no hyperbole, let’s talk no-kidding facts on the ground.
Right, ColoradoPatriot. That’s what I was just asking. Where are all those crazies you mentioned? You couldn’t shut them up for a while here.
Joey
#6 – Stephen – It was so clear you’d be back.
Still waiting…..for your response here.
You should really also consider trying one to the first part of here.
If you respond, kindly post a link here so I’ll know.
#8 – Good for you, syn. And I know what you mean and I’m sorry you have to go through that crap.
More general topic: What is today’s drag queen scene, but one giant exercise in misogyny? (Turning womanhood into an over-the-top, often ugly caricature.)
#10 – A statistical lull. For comparison, believe or not, I have days when I don’t comment! sometimes even a week! 🙂
As Reagan pointed out, people vote with their feet. Lots of people were trying to flee communisim, not the other other way around.
Where is ND30 moving to again?
Gays should not be beholden to one (the Democratic) party. It’s not in their best interests. Better to be courted by both parties. Think AIPAC, not HRC.
Of course, it has nothing to do with the fact that 90% of the time there is an anti-gay ballot initiative in an election, or for that matter in almost any instance of anti-gay prejudice, it’s initiated, organized, and voted on by people who primarily identify themselves as “Conservative”.
There are some points to the parent-child analogy, but he gets it wrong. Conservatives think that people, when generally left to their own devices, will do bad things. So they believe in restricting individual liberties. Liberals believe the opposite, so they believe in expanding them.
Of course they are both schizophrenic. Conservatives believe in expanding the liberty of corporations and business, while restricting the liberty of individuals in social areas, such as the bedroom. Liberals believe in expanding the liberties of individuals, but also want huge welfare-state spending programs that restrict choice.
This is why people such as myself become Independent. They are all nutz!
I think a conservative is just a liberal who has emotionally matured since high school.
And intellectually matured….
Maybe you #13, but not those nuts. Been reading Gay Patriot for a couple of months and the fun of it was watching good Patriots take them apart. And the 3 that Colorado mentioned were always here umpteen times a day and always with long rants. Suddenly in the last few days, nada. Heh, maybe somebody’s knocking off libs!!
cool. Just realized you don’t have to sign your comment. The software does it for you. Sorry, one of the small joys of the young.
And for all the propaganda about “conservatives” favoring “big corporations,” the truth is that big corporations have a more symbiotic relationship with liberals. The high taxes and regulations favored by liberal politicians create barriers that make it harder for smaller businesses to compete in the economy. Big corporations are better capitalized to comply with government red tape. (Remember Hillary, “I can’t be responsible for every under-capitalized business in the country”). Big businesses become big, slovenly (often subsidized) bureaucracies, like the major airlines. And liberals like that because its easier to regulate a few large companies that a lot of smaller ones. It’s worth nothing that in heavily socialistic economies like Sweden, small enterprises have been virtually eliminated from the economy.
R Cane: I do not think liberals see the world as it should be/could be, but as they see it should be. I may not go as far as joe does in saying the ‘classical liberals’ / ‘conservative libertarians’ do either. I think it may be that they see the potential everyone has. This may seem like splitting hairs, but I never see libertarians trying to ‘shape the world’, just try to allow themselves to be themselves.
syn: Amen sister ! ! Even though you would think someone would be sensitive to saying mean / sexist / hateful comments, you can still be disappointed. All we can do it live our lives. Rising above the insults sets an example.
joe: The thought you may want to ponder is “if the DQ is presenting themselves as a woman or a man’s perception of a woman ?” I know a lot of trans-women, not many drag queens, so the issue may be based upon what the person percieves themself as.
try this link from Catherine Devlin
Speaking of the crazies, I heard Chandler was spotted in a West Hollywood coffee shop reading a newspaper. The headline read “2 Brazilian Soldiers Killed.” And so he asked the barrista, “How many is a ‘brazilian?'”
Bejebus, all that petered out in a hurry. Well, last one out turn off the lights.
My god, it’s happened. You’ve finally posted something so loony I simply can’t respond except with a slack-jaw expression of “you’ve got to be kidding me.”
Anytime you actually want to have some real debate, about a real issue though, just let us “kids” know.
I’m, like, outtie. I, like, have to go shapping with my peeps.
GCB proving once again… when liberals have no substance, they start name calling and walk away from the debate.
*yawn*
#20 – Exactly right. “Anti-business”, Big Government liberalism (which lazy businessmen adore, and pay the Democrats to implement for them) is all about trying to slow down the rate of change in the economy or business world. It ensures that the trust funds of liberal rich kids (their GM and Microsoft stock) will continue to be worth something, with zero effort and zero understanding of business on the rich kids’ part….while at the same time, letting the rich kid feel virtuous because he “cares” about “helping” the poor (who are damaged by government welfare policies) and willingly “shares” other people’s money.
#21 – Catherine, you’re right – Let me exempt genuine transgenders(there are some) from my comment on gay male DQ misogyny.
#22 – LOL – did you really see him? 🙂
#25 – LOL
So, basically, GayCowboyBigot’s response to a post about how immature and spoiled gay lefties are is to… throw a tantrum and go shopping.
Speaking of Crazies, Mother Moonbat wants us to “Pull our troops out of occupied New Orleans”
Her friends David Duke, Fred Phelps, and Stormfront no doubt agree.
NeverARepub…. I only wish I could cover my eyes and ears to what gay liberals are saying. The fact is, every single one of them that I’ve come across spew nothing but hatred and vitriol at me because I vote Republican. Not once have I gotten a sound debate out of any one of them. As soon as they hear I lean right, it’s “self-loathing” this and “self-hating” that.
I’ve gotten more shit from the open minded gay left about being a Republican than I ever have from any Republican for being gay.
#8 LIPS?
I’m guessing that doesn’t stand for Local Indigenous Personnel?
GCB proving once again… when liberals have no substance, they start name calling and walk away from the debate.
*yawn*
If there were substance in the first place I’d be happy to. What’s there to debate about you calling yourselves grown-ups and calling people who don’t think like you children?
To quote the estimable Peter Brady: “Baby-talk, baby-talk, it’s a wonder you can walk.”
Conservatives think that people, when generally left to their own devices, will do bad things. So they believe in restricting individual liberties.
Can you offer more examples other than sodomy laws?
#29
Is that anything like the time I got booted from Dr. Howard Death’s campaign message board for daring to ask simple questions for clarity?
#32
GayCow, don’t let the door hit you in the….oh who cares.
LOL – TGC, besides, of course he’ll be back. He gets his “fix” here. Or he tries to. 😉
Whatever. I haven’t read all those comments above, but I haven’t found one conservative, which makes me jealous. I mean, they are all dumb. Expecially gay Republicans. I mean, come on now…what is the chance the Republican party will ever swing your way. Sure, there are other national problems more important than the gay agenda; however, these problems are all created by Republicans: (1) The Iraq War, (2) America’s lack of image around the world, (3) The federal deficit, (4) Declining education standards, (5) increase in poverty, and (6) Well, maybe not directly, but God hates Republicans more than God Hates Fags, so Katrina is a result of Republicans lack of supernatual power.
Wannabeleader
Now, I ask you, is this the blog of a bitter man? Sick and twisted, yes, but bitter?
Gay liberals attack their conservative counterparts for much the same reason that black Democrats excoriate those who vote Republican. Both groups are insular minorities that respond by circling the wagons in response to even the hint of unorthodoxy.
The effect of such an attitude remains the same: the minorities remain insular and do not allow for any diversity of ideas. Eventually, the attitude has the consequence of isolating the group from economic, cultural and intellectual debate and the opportunity to benefit from change. With their sole support being the left acting paternalistically, they have no perceived abilities beyond being the objects of pity.
#36 illustrates the “Underpants Gnomes” style of argument popular among left-libs. 1. List a bunch of “problems” 2. ??? 3. Conclude all “problems” are the fault of Republicans.
Bruce asks the question that I have pondered for as long as I have been out–why are gay liberals so hateful toward us? And he was correct to italicize the word, “hateful,” for sometimes it seems that the object of their hatred is not as important as the feeling/expression of hatred. Almost as if they need an object onto which to project their own shadow.
To me, it seems related to the constant “need” of some gay activists to shout “Shame, shame, shame” at many public figures with whom they disagree.
We need to blog on this more. Good post, Bruce. And good thoughts, PrismWarden. There’s a reason I left this as the top post today on our blog (i.e., saving my posts for another day).
What are they so hateful? Maybe it’s just jealousy, huh? After all, we’re the winners — our party wins all the time and their’s, well, they lose all the time. This is America and lets face it, it’s mainly about competition, winning and losing. The losers are always jealous. Let me put it in the context of something I know well, baseball. You ever talk to fans of teams like the New York Mets, the Kansas City Royals, the Colorado Rockies, the LA Dodgers (lately), the Seattle Mariners, the Detroit Tigers, and of course, fans of the Chicago Cubs? Talk to them and one of the first things you pick up from them is that they despise fans of the NY Yankees (especially), and the Atlanta Braves — well that’s about it really, the rest are at least sometimes losers. You talk to those other teams’ fans all you hear is resentment about the two dominant teams and how much they spend and blah, blah. It’s all jealousy and it comes from losing all the time (or most of the time). Theyre losers, it’s simple. Losers hate and stew and brew (and I forgot the Brewers, another bunch of losers, big time) and kavetch about the winners. So, there’s your Libs (losers) and your conservatives (winners). Think about it, how many of us here are full of pride about W being a natural born winner? The man’s always won at everything he did. His enemies always lose, and then they lose to him — and they hate him because he beats them. Sort of like the nelly guy and the butch guy. The nelly fag always hate the butch mano-mano, so he bitches about the butch guy…well you get my point. Fans of winning teams are confident proud and draw a lot of heat. Losers who root for the teams I mentioned are sad and always resentful. Fuck them.
How could I forget the Pirates and Rangers in that list of losers? Both nothing but. And fans of both — major loooossseers!
#42 — I am tempted to make a crack about Butt Pirates and Rump Rangers, but I think that would be scraping bottom so I better end it right there.
Okay, that was evil and juvenile… but definitely not bitter.
“In short, Gay Liberals are jealous of Gay Conservatives. Discuss…”
Nothing to discuss. You are just plain wrong. And living in your fantasy world.
“The Republican Party is not our true love, nor particularly a love. They are a friend we generally respect without feeling a need to be inexpressibly loyal to their every belief.”
This may be true of Dan, but certainly not of Bruce.
I’ve gotten more shit from the open minded gay left about being a Republican than I ever have from any Republican for being gay.
That is so true. And one of my Republican friends is now in her 80s and used to entertain Senator McCarthy (whisper: McCarthy) at her home back in the 50s. She has no problem with me being gay. My gay friends gave me so much crap about being Republican I don’t even talk to them about politics anymore.
Urph. I think what I was trying to say went wildly astray. My fault, no doubt, because I was cutting like no tomorrow, and I think a vital distinction was missing. Will correct in a post once I’m sober (hey, it’s Friday).
It isn’t that it was necessarily a Democratic vs Republican thing. It was that gay liberals are for more willing to sign onto anything and everything their political ideology requires.
Gay “rights” organizations tend to sign onto anti-war projects, abortion projects, etc. They’re liberal, and they sign onto every liberal cause under the sun. Why? Because the Democratic Party and the Left have given them just enough indication to have hope. These politicians don’t even need to be pro-marriage. Kerry certainly wasn’t. But he muttered a good game out of the side of his mouth. So, gay liberals adore their Democrats and do all this shit for them when they really shouldn’t. Can you spell water boy?
Gay conservatives rarely to never sign onto reactionary Republican bullshit. If you showed me a gay conservative parroting Pat Robertson’s bs, I actually would join in on the “self-loathing” chorus. But it just doesn’t happen. Gay conservatives are adult enough to agree with the Republican party on vital issues, without feeling the need to go full steam ahead on every right-wing issue that rares its head.
We don’t want to be liked. We don’t want them to love us. So we don’t go all subservient and support their every whim. We want to have a conversation. We want to change things given enormous odds, because we think we can.
Gay liberals believe they’re accepted in the Democratic Party. Newsflash, you’re not. But you think you are. you think these quarter steps make all the difference. you don’t get it. They like you because you hate republicans. That’s it. They offer “the enemy of my enemy is my friend,” not “You are my friend.” If they were our friends, they’d offer up gay marriage on a silver platter.
They don’t. and as long as gay liberals maintain this illusion about the Democratic Party, I consider them starry-eyed youths who want to be liked and loved so badly that they’re willing to overlook any fault, any slight, and abuse. Just because they hope that party likes them as much as they want them to.
and that is a very, very adolescent frame of mind.
Call it ad hominem, but it is.
Hey! What’s wrong with Pat Robertson???? Can’t believe a gay Conservative is making a sideways comment about Pat R. Maybe in ’92, but not anymore. The man’s one of the wisest and clearest spoken Republicans. I love him (except for his weird thing about the war, where he’s against it). But I agree with the rest of what you say. We don’t just latch on to every thing under The Big Tent, for example, the anti-abortion groups. Gay Conservatives don’t join up with those loons either. Or the crazies in NRA. You never hear any Gay Conservatives talking about 2nd Amendment rights like they’re sacred or something. And while we tolerate the Chrisitan groups, we don’t get all jacked up over their issues. In fact, I don’t even like to be around those lame-brained, smug shits. I call them the Great Unlaid.
I agree with some of the above comments.
Here are the differences I notice between gay conservatives and liberals:
1) Gay liberals are more likely to be “all gay, all the time”. Not all gay liberals are like that – but, in my experience, few gay conservatives are like that.
2) So, for gay liberals on average, every little question of homosexual affirmation or degradation (real or imagined) is far more important; even felt to be a matter of life and death.
3) I believe that as a consequence, then you get into all the emotionalism, subjectivism, gay-obsession, and “willingness to settle” (for Democratic party abuse while pretending or denying that it’s abuse) which we see in gay liberals.
I really think it comes down to low self-esteem. In my experience, gay liberals on average tend not to be emotionally secure. I think their accusations of low self-esteem against gay conservatives (“self hating” and all that) are then a safety valve, a vitally important form of deflection or projection.
To someone with low self-esteem, few things are more painful than acknowledging just how low their self-esteem is. Even if they’re psychologically sophisticated, saying “Yeah I have low self-esteem”, they’ll be sure to say it in a way that’s joking or ironic (so it isn’t quite “real”), then accuse others (gay conservatives) of self-hatred with deadly seriousness.
#49 P.S. –
Oh, and just to get Stock Liberal Response 5c out of the way, “But you put up with Republican abuse!!”…….No, I don’t. I am not a Republican. Nor a conservative. (I am more of a radical for liberty, and a registered Independent, speaking about my observations of both gay liberals and gay conservatives.)
Moreover, to the extent that today’s Republican party is indeed abusive of its gay members in terms of platform or policy, I have yet to meet a gay Republican who is in the least bit of denial about that; in contrast to the many gay Democrats I have met who are in a deep, deep, willful denial about their party’s abuse, which denial they maintain aggressively, or even advocate for.
Conservatives think that people, when generally left to their own devices, will do bad things.
Actually, we believe that Government, left to its own devices will do bad things. And we are validated in this belief time and time again. Hurricane Katrina not only showed us the incompetence of government in dealing with a disaster, but also showed how Government schemes to redirect the natural flow of the Mississippi River and the misuse of funds allocated to shoring up the levees made the impact worse.
Take Social Security… a program into which I will be forced to contribute 12.6% of my income for the rest of my working life… and from which I will get zero because it will go bankrupt before I reach retirement age.
Take Health Care, which has been so insulated from market forces by Government actions that it grows wildly more expensive year-after-year.
Take the pork laden highway, energy, and farm bills… with massive subsidies that do nothing more than distort the market and fatten the pockets of interest groups and well-connected recipients of government largesse.
See, Government is basically like a senile old rich guy, and there are about 280 million Anna Nicole Smiths ready to wring every dollar out of him they can get. Unfortunately, instead of blowing his own money… he gets to spend yours, mine, everybody else’s, and the future generations money to satisfy the gold-digging whores who take advantage of him at every opportunity. And liberals, by and large, are okay with this.
#41: Easy there, Joey. As a Coloradan, we’ve hated the Braves even before we had a team. My hatred of them goes back to Ted Turner, so ease up. 😉
#47: Robbie, if you can write that well when you’re drunk, I’d marry you sober!
#48: Back to Joey, I’m a life-member of the NRA. Nothing about my sexuality makes me any less dedicated to the Constitution or the rights it defends.
#6 and #11 follow-up, if I may.
#6 / #11 are about Stephen/DSH. One of his repeated pieces of bullcrap here, over the past month, is about Bush having “invaded a sovereign nation” in invading Iraq. DSH/Stephen has been challenged on that canard many times, and not responded.
This comment can be taken as another challenge, because I just came across a more eloquent explanation of the question than I can make. Christopher Hitchens summarized it as follows:
“Iraq had lost its sovereignty as far as a state can do under international law. There are four conditions under which a state may be deemed or said to have sacrificed its sovereignty.
These are: if it participates in regular aggressions against neighboring states or occupations of their territory; if its violates all the letter and spirit of the terms of the non-proliferation treaty, and in other words, fools around promiscuously with the illegal acquisition of weapons of mass destruction; third, if it should violate the Genocide Convention, the signatories to which are obliged without further notice to act either to prevent or punish genocide; and fourth, if it plays host to international gangsters, nihilists, terrorists, and jihadists.
Iraq met all these four conditions repeatedly, and would demonstrate its willingness to repeat them on many occasions. Its sovereignty was at an end, it was under international sanctions, it was a ward of the international community.”
I will add the above to my little standard response file for DSH/Stephen’s future posts.
Christopher Hitchens is a somewhat famous Left writer, who decided that in all good conscience (solidarity with the oppressed and all that), he and other Leftists could do nothing but openly support Iraq’s liberation, however critical of Bush they may be in other ways.
Hitchens recently debated George Galloway, a British MP who is an open supporter of Saddam Hussein, over the issue. A transcript of their entertaining and enlightening debate can be found here. Video of same here.
#36
God. Talk about Nucking Futs. Wannabe has gone over the edge.
This all goes to show that the whole “celebrate diversity” line in the “gay community” is BS. Same with the “inclusiveness” of the left.
#53 — Actually joe, if you’ve a mind to take on DSH about anything, (And I don’t because I perceive him to be a provocateur who is uninterested in real debate), I’d address his comment that, “the Left is not out to eliminate us. The Right is.” Which is just paranoid bullcrap. I read somewhere that, there are even gay nutjobs who believe that concentration camps are under construction in the Pacific Northwest. But this is the kind of left-wing “Vote for Democrats or the Boogeyman will get you” fairy story that mature adults don’t buy into.
#56 – Totally agree. And I thought about it.
But I think the Iraq stuff bears repetition better, because the canards there keep being repeated by the MSM – whereas “Bush wants to kill us” is not repeated by the MSM. Or not yet 😉
“Bush wants to kill us”
Nah, according to the MSM, Bush is still just trying to kill black people.
I just meant that if anyone believes that big government and high taxes are the answer to every problem, if anyone trusts the same people who diverted funds from levee construction to build walkways for riverfront gambling casinoes to be the best judge of how to spend tax dollars, if anyone thinks the current health care system should be replaced by one designed by Hillary Clinton and 200 bureaucrats and trial lawyers… then by all means, he should vote Democrat. But anyone who votes that way because they think Republicans want to send all gay people to death camps is a paranoid moron.
I couldn’t agree more with the analogy. With apologies to Rush Limbaugh, here is my Undeniable Truth of Life. Ready? You may quote me on this one:
The liberal gay rights movement was formed in order to allow effeminate men easier access into the mainstream of society.
Let’s be honest here. Compare a LCR member to an ACT-UP screamer or Queer Nation kool-aid drinker. Who is more butch? Who is more of a realist? Who is actually more savvy when it comes to “blending in?” WE ARE, of course!
The reason why we as gay conservatives are more approachable, more realistic and more (dare I say it?) unthreatening is simply because we do not seek to alienate anyone through our actions, manners and even appearance.
Compare us to black conservatives like Condi Rice, Niger Innis and Dr. Walter Williams. We are fully integrated into the mainstream of society simply because we fully embrace its mores and values. This does NOT make us Uncle Toms in the least. Rather, it reinforces our core beliefs and does not force us to give up what makes us different.
Keep up the good work, guys and gals! We ARE the future.
Regards,
Peter Hughes
Houston
#59
Hence the jealousy.
To me, they are pitiful group of losers.… who never ask me out.
#52 — with all due respect, because Colorado is a beautiful state with really interesting people, but the baseball team, the Colorado Rockies, could not possibly suck more — and their fans are looossseeers for sticking with such hapless crap, thos who do, many are deserting them. And regarding the NRA, they are over the edge with their belief that they need massive weaponry to “hunt” with.
And 61-62, butch is natural, guys. Nelly is nothing but freaky. Sorry if there are fems here offended by that, but fact’s fact.
63.
The Second Amendment has nothing to do with hunting.
From comment # 59 …
“The liberal gay rights movement was formed in order to allow effeminate men easier access into the mainstream of society.”
… is there a problem with that ? (the easier access to society part, not the liberalism)
Peter, you mentioned Dr. Rice as integrated into society. Would she be as integrated if she let her hair be more natural ?
From comment # 63 …
“And 61-62, butch is natural, guys. Nelly is nothing but freaky. Sorry if there are fems here offended by that, but fact’s fact.”
ok … ‘butch’ is more mainstream … Should an effeminate man change who he is just because it will allow him to fit in better ?
Should we all change what is ‘not norm’ about us just to easily fit into society ? While it may be easier to, that would be like asking me to chop off an arm, or get a lobotomy. I hope never to do that.
Dr. Rice as integrated into society. Would she be as integrated if she let her hair be more natural ?
Maybe it’s because I’m a conservative, but somehow, I think Dr. Rice’s success has more to do with her Stanford Ph.D, her fluency in multiple languages, her outstanding intellect, and her professional achievement than her choice of hairstyles.
V the K,
I never challanged her intelect, which I think is top notch. She would also have my full support if she ran for office.
If I need to clarify my comments more, then so be it. The comment was about being integrated into society, not a success.
Has your perception of a person been affected by appearance or mannerisms ? By appearance, say clothing choices, make-up (or lack of), grooming, etc.
Does a woman who by choice, doesn’t wear make-up and skirts/dresses, and as a result has a butch appearance, less of a woman ? What would society say if compared to a fashion magazine model.
It is easier to integrate into society if you look more like what society wants. Previous posts note a non-effeminate gay man will have an easier time than an effeminate one. A trans-woman who is petite and has a pretty face has an easier time passing than someone 6’1″ and with a very square jaw.
Actually, I’ve found most gay conservatives to be bitter queens who enjoy defending a position, as people become more accepting of gays they are used to attacks, and certainly seem to enjoy it. (And don’t tell me your not bitter queens, read your own blog and you’ll see you quite clearly are).
From one Joey to another, let me tell you Joey (not Joey Petain) that most guys here are not what you described. I’ve been watching and reading for quite awhile and it is plain that the only proud “fags” here are the loons that troll this website. They’re the ones always talking about gay marriage when most of the rest of us don’t give a shit about gay marriage. Why, because we’ve got better things to do with our lives than worry about “appearing” like straights by co-opting their marriage thing. We care about things like low taxes, good schools (for the betterment of all society), a strong national defense and punishment for murderers like Saddam H., who yes was at least partly responsible for 9/11 though th e Libs try to deny that — check the evidence, and we care about the people of Iraq and their good future which is why we are working so hard at rebuilding what Saddam destroyed in Iraq. And number 68, you’re full of it and probably leave here and go log onto male-movies.com or somepllace like that so you can get your daily fix of big boners. Get a life, you loony Lib. Oh, one mor thing, the guy up there talking about the 2nd Amendment not being about hunting was so right. The 2nd was about self-defense and defense of the country, but that was 200+ years ago. Today it’s about hunting mainly. Read your NRA phamplets. And just how far are those personal weapons going to go in today’s world, where the biggest danger you face is a terrorist attack?
#68
I love how “normal” is just the most horrifying thing ever to some people. No one is particularly normal, especially not gay men. As someone once said, we have the kink built right in.
It’s all about personal tastes. Some people like straight-acting, some don’t. Personally, I’m a guy who likes men – that’s what attracts me. So, the more like a stereotypical male a guy is, the more attracted I am.
I like how that is derided, though. Freedom of sexuality is a must for all people . . . unless what turns you on is seen as derogatory of a certain subset of homosexuals. Then your sexual tastes are assimilationist, discriminatory, and evil. It’s little different from those 50 somethings who get a burr up their ass when an 18 year old isn’t interested. “They’re being ageist!” No, people are turned on by what turns them on. I thought the gay rights movement was about freedom of sexual choice. Guess not, eh?
There’s plenty of sneering on both sides of the flamboyant vs straight-acting debate. If you’re comfortable with yourself, who gives a crap. I’d probably horrify the anti-assimilationists. I want a house with a white picket fence, and a guy, and I generally don’t ping anyone’s gaydar because I come off terrifically straight. I also like musicals, hit up the clubs in Boystown, and have plenty of fem friends I like a great deal.
Sexuality isn’t supposed to be a pose, nor should it dictate every tiny characteristic a person presents to the world.
“The liberal gay rights movement was formed in order to allow effeminate men easier access into the mainstream of society.
Let’s be honest here. Compare a LCR member to an ACT-UP screamer or Queer Nation kool-aid drinker. Who is more butch? Who is more of a realist? Who is actually more savvy when it comes to “blending in?” WE ARE, of course!”
So, I should be a gay conservative so I can feel like a big strong man? Are you saying that butch is better than femme? Or masculine better than feminine? That I’m less of a man because I don’t like guns or football?
Hmmm. So far this thread has helped me realize that I’m a pansy-ass faggot, and emotionally immature because of my ideological beliefs. A gay conservative ideology sounds really inclusive.
#72 — I might be more impressed if you actually presented a counter-argument, instead of sarcastically regurgitating what you think other people are saying.
And, I’m sorry, but it’s true. Not liking guns or football does make you less of a man.
Whoa – when I posted my Undeniable Truth of Life, I never knew I’d be opening up a can of worms!
Of course, you anti-establishment libs have just proven my theory by your hysterical ranting and raving. “How dare you tell me how to behave!” “How dare you call me a pansy-ass!”
If you read #58, I did no such thing. I merely pointed out that someone who is able to embrace society’s norms without resorting to anti-establishment screed will succeed much more than someone who doesn’t.
And as far as Dr. Rice goes, who cares if she has pressed hair or not? Typical of a leftist who supports women to be themselves, but will criticize a conservative woman for her appearance. (A Katherine Harris redux, if you will.)
And I have not heard a single person – gay, straight, conservative, liberal or otherwise – mention how much of a butch dyke Janet Reno resembled, because it doesn’t deserve mention. Who cares if she resembled Will Farrell in drag? Now, kidnapping Elian Gonzales is “una otra cosa,” if you ask me.
So…regarding my Undeniable Truth of Life…if the shoe fits, honey, WEAR IT, IMELDA.
Regards,
Peter Hughes
#61
NeverARepublican sounds like a puny little sissy-fag who felt totally out-of-place in high school and now wants her chance to get back at all the popular jocks who he claimed to hate but really wanted to get drilled by all along. But now she’s a grown-up sissy fag, still pretending to hate the cool, manly men but secretly worshipping them and wanting desparately to be one of them. She knows it’s true.
This is what happens when you’re born with the genes of a male but the the mind and, to a certain degree, the body of a female. Sorry that God dealt you such a queer hand, NAR. Personally, I would hate to think that I would go to my grave without ever knowing what it was like to be fully a MAN. Oh, well…that’s your cross to bear, not mine.
# 69
LOL! Real MEN don’t get ‘bitter’, woman. We don’t have to…we have the best of both worlds. We look, act, talk and think like a masculine man shoud so we fit in perfectly in the straight world and nobody laughs at us for being a limp-wristed, femme. But we can also walk into any gay bar in the world and get drooled over by everyone in the house because we’re so butch in room filled with Nellies. And the best thing about it is, IT’S NOT AN ACT!
But I guess I can understand why it’s YOU who’s so bitter. Like NAR above, I guess I’d be pissed off too if I got screwed in the genetics dept. and had to go through life as anything less than a complete man. Sucks to be you.
Ok, #73. Here’s my counter argument:
First your arguments: Many of you seem to hold the belief that being more conservative means you are more masculine and that being more masculine is better than being less masculine which you equate to being liberal. Masculine, here, can also be substituted for ‘grown-up’ as that was the original argument.
I believe this argument is flawed. Being manly is no better than being womanly, unless of course, you have a low opinion of women. Which doesn’t really involve politics so much as therapy for antisocial behavior.
At its root, the liberal ideology involves protection of the weak, the poor, and the disadvantaged. And attempting to help people gain a better foothold in society. Protection is a masculine trait (for those that can’t get past my first point). Now many can argue whether the liberal ideology has done that effectively or not. But that’s not the point.
And finally, while the Democrats and the Left are not doing an incredible job of looking out for the interests of GLBT people, they are doing a much better job of it at the local level than the Republicans and the Right. And if anyone has information to the contrary, I’d be glad to hear it, as I’m in support of anyone, either liberal or conservative, who is doing the right thing.
I have a more extended argument at my blog. 11th Ave S
the liberal ideology involves protection of the weak, the poor, and the disadvantaged.
And the effect of liberal policy is to keep people who are weak, poor, and disadvantaged in a perpetual state of being weak, poor, and disadvantaged. Exhbit A: Inner City Public Schools. Exhibit B: Multi-Generational Welfare Dependency. Exhibit C: The Continent of Africa
“And as far as Dr. Rice goes, who cares if she has pressed hair or not? Typical of a leftist who supports women to be themselves, but will criticize a conservative woman for her appearance. (A Katherine Harris redux, if you will.)”
Mr. Hughes,
Which leftist in this comment stream criticized conservative women for their appearance ?
I will make this simple for everyone …
1. I pointed out the importance of appearance for being integrated into society.
2. I never gave an opinion on anyones appearance choices.
3. I have not shown any evidence I am a leftist. I believe I have shown consistancy with libertarianism.
4. There have been no Imelda’s in this comment stream.
If my posts in this stream tell otherwise, please point that out.
Kind Regards as well … and Enjoy Life when possible,
Wendy Jensen-Murray
P.S. I do agree with your observations of Ms. Reno. Putting this into context with respect to a question I asked V the K, do you believe society gives her the same fair shake as someone who looks less butch ? This is posed as society’s take, not your personal take.
Robbie: I’m falling for you!
Joey: As for the 2nd Amendment, it states pretty unequivocally that the right to bear arms “shall not be infringed.” No mention of hunting.
Curiously, the Founders chose to use stronger language in this Amendment, than even in the First (which technically only limits what “Congress shall” not do, not that it makes any difference to McCain and Feingold…another topic for another time, but anyway).
People who advocate limiting the right to bear arms need to put up or shut up: Propose an Amendment to the Constitution specifically limiting this right. Otherwise, ANY limitation placed on this right is a violation of the Constitution. I’m not the smartest guy in the world, so it still amazes me how something that makes so much sense to me isn’t understood the same way by everybody.
That’s cool Colorado. You can have your guns for whatever you think you’re doing with them. So long as you vote Republican, I don’t care if you take your gun to bed at night. I was just saying that Gay Republicans generally don’t pay a lot of mind to NRA types. We’re interested mainly in the Party’s success and don’t really care who’s under the Big Tent, so long as they kind of don’t interfere in the winning. Know what I mean?
Um, when somebody goes out of their way to effect a freakish appearance, isn’t part of their point in doing so to reject mainstream and demonstrate his/her refusal to take their place in it?
V the K,
Please elaborate on ‘freakish appearance’ … piercings other than the ear ? tatoos (any kind) ? shaved head ? goatee ?
CP (80)-
Some beliefs are so convoluted that only a highly educated person can hold them without seeing the contradiction.
CP – I’m available!
Andy – People far more thoughtful than I have devoted a raft of literature exploring how the Democratic Party is the mommy party and Republicans are the daddies.
I’m slightly inclined to buy into it. Democrats tend to want to coddle and cradle, whereas Republicans tend to wax towards “Stand up for yourself! Be a man!”
These are generalizations, however, and there is more than enough room to quibble.
I’d be happy to arrange a civil union between ColoradoPatriot and Robbie. 🙂
“#76 – At its root, the liberal ideology involves protection of the weak, the poor, and the disadvantaged.”
Scanning through the comments quickly after my weekend…..can’t let that one go by. It is such a lie.
I know it’s a very popular lie. I know it’s what liberals tell themselves.
But if liberals truly cared about “protection of the weak, the poor, and the disadvantaged”, they would have supported the liberation of Iraq and Afghanistan. Period.
And they would support the liberation of the poor people of this country from welfare-statism, liberal teachers who are systematically failing them horribly, and so many other causes of oppression, stagnation, poverty and injustice that have been created in today’s world by liberals.
So, just to get the correct idea out there:
At its root, the liberal ideology (taking “liberal” in today’s neo-socialist or neo-communist sense; not as 19th century pro-capitalistic, anti-slavery “classical liberal”) is about slowing down change, tearing down the successful, “enslaving all to all” (which we see so clearly in Welfare State and Regulatory State policies) and enhancing the political power of those politicians, bureaucrats, union leaders, activists, etc. who will be setting the liberal policies.
But if liberals truly cared about “protection of the weak, the poor, and the disadvantaged”, they would have supported the liberation of Iraq and Afghanistan. Period.
Absolutely. For all the comparisons they like to make of calling the religious right “American Taliban” and the Bush administration “fascist” and “like Saddam”, one should never forget that they opposed the removal of BOTH the Taliban AND Saddam.
I believe the most common words used are “unnecessary and unjustified”, as spoken by Howard Dean, John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, and Cindy Sheehan; thus, the implication is that people in Afghanistan and Iraq were neither weak, poor, or disadvantaged.
But…but…but….
There were no WMDs!
No Blood for Oil!
Halliburton!
Bush Knew About 9/11!
(Have I convinced you yet?)
😉
I didn’t realize gay Republicans had such fragile egos until I came on this board. What is going on here, one or two Democrats on this blog have an opposing viewpoint and your internal reality starts to crumble? To put it in perspective, I would strongly advice deflating that Republican ego by at least a 1/3. Perhaps then you might start earning the respect of the Democratic party that you so desire. I think that being respectful means that you value another person’s viewpoint. You might want to start there. And I would just say one other thing, I do believe the Democrats perspective on this site is worth considering. They obviously make you frustrated for a reason. Even though you may disagree with anothers viewpoint you should continually try to overcome your own prejudices to see things from their perspective.
Gary youre a Lib loon. And we’re banning people like you at the rate of about 2 a day! Zip yourself up and head on out of here loon.
No. 92 certainly proves No. 91 right.
Do you realize that one’s political philosophy has no bearing on whether they are “assimilated” into the mainstream?
#94 … Absolutely …
By the way, no one is “banning” anyone, at least not me. I’ve chosen now to take myself out of this ridiculous partisan website and focus my efforts on activating centrists views…
Until those who post here acknowledge that their ideas do not represent the mainstream, I personally won’t be adding fuel to the fire just to spawn more traffic to your already overexposed, partisan site. GayPatriot has now entered the Coulter, O’Reilly, Malkin area of controversy for controversy’s sake (not to mention financial and celebrity rewards). There’s just a lot of hollow, partisan sentiment here now, not real dialogue, that only serves to promote Dan and Bruce. So enjoy guys. I look forward to the karma you sow. Should be interesting.
By the way, feel free to yank this if you want but I’ve already posted my sentiments to my blog.
GayCowboyBob, I’ve been reading your posts (part of the reason I was drawn here in the first place) and I, for one, will miss them if you follow through on this decision to leave. So please reconsider. Our losses (in numbers here) have already been too great. And remember, we’re all that stands between the Gay Patriots and their illusions that the Republican Party wants them.
Thanks for the support Queer Patriot but I would simply further the end that people like Bruce and Dan hope to achieve.
I had an intense debate with someone last night who had very strong ideas about this whole issue. His basic premise was that radical right republicans, like what we see on this site, have so skewed the national debate that the only way to bring that back to the center is to advocate an equally radical leftish agenda.
I appreciate his viewpoint and logic that to bring things back to the center you must apply an equal, opposite force. However, politics is not physics and I think he’s unequivically wrong.
It’s time for the centrists of American politics to stop being fascinated by the histrionics of radical factions both on the left and the right. Are we not all just tired of the fractious nature of modern politics? The finger pointing and the name calling and the crazy ideas that make the leadership of the country one big joke?
It’s time for the centrists of the country to just say “enough.” It’s time for the centrist to turn off Bill O’Reilly, write letters to the editor of newspapers to demand the removal of columns like Ann Coulter and Peggy Noonan and Michael Moore et al. and make it clear that, without having to go to an opposite crazy extreme, that these people do not represent the majority of people in the United States. Their viewpoints may be valid personal expressions but the authority and the attention they receive, and more importantly the influence and money they garner from that are gross examples of how the centrist ego has been completely undermined.
Pundits like this have learned to thrive, both for attention and financial incentive, on being controversial. It’s clear to me, as I hope it should be to everyone else, that although there may be true sentiment in their words, there’s absolutely no reason to trust them. They receive their living from stirring up trouble, from being bat-shit crazy on national TV, from writing books with controversial, undocumented or even made up rhetoric all for the money. And regular people like you and me are rendered powerless because we don’t have some nutso sound-bites. We’re suddenly not interesting enough to have money or power or influence because our viewpoints aren’t tweaked enough. This is the true silent majority, or perhaps I should say not interesting enough majority.
These radicals do not represent the general feeling of people in the United States. Period. And when we look at them, we somehow don’t make the connect that these people do harm even while they’re dragging attention away from the more important, and overwhelmingly larger consciousness of the middle.
So I feel it’s time for the middle to take back the spotlight and influence and expose these people for what they are and stop giving them exactly what they want. No more money, no more TV exposure, no more book sales, no more political influence, no more business deals that are designed to make regular people seem insignificant and unworthy of being listened to. When they thrown out a crazy idea, we say “you’re crazy” and return and focus on the important things in our lives. When we refuse to get sucked up in this craziness we take away their power. When we expose the shenanigans and then move on, we reclaim the right to make decisions and lead in a way that can make our country proud.
#97, #98, #99 – Oh, puh-leez. What a couple of drama queens. Bob threatens to leave about every 5 days or so. He will always be back – he gets his fix here. Even after he has been banned (if I remember correctly) for posting something really ugly and destructive, he still comes back.
P.S. And if he doesn’t, of course it makes little difference. Bob has always been full of hot gas – on a good day. (Some combination of self-pitying, destructive and/or delusional on a bad one.)
We are still waiting for Bob to deal with, for example, such very basic facts as the one found by the 9-11 Commission and other commissions, that Iraqi Intelligence had been cultivating some rather troubling links to al Qaeda, throughout the 1990s and until Saddam’s removal in 2003.
GayCowboyBob, I have to say (in the words of the last great leader of our country) that I “feel your pain”. I too intensely dislike all of this back-biting from the extremes and wish it would just somehow stop. Take for instance the serial commenter above: posts 3 consecutive comments riddled with hominy such as “drama queen”, “ugly”, “destructive”, “cums” (oh, never mind, that was “comes”), “self-pitying”, “delusional”, etc. He wants to keep us all driven apart, while you and I hew to the center. But the middle’s day will come — and maybe sooner than 3 years if the Bush swan dive continues.
I always take talk of the “center” with rather large grains of salt. It’s a bit like when the New York Times and Democratic Senators say “So and so is outside of the mainstream.” The mainstream in these categorizations is always, always, always liberal.
The political center? Sad to say, I’m the political center. Which is scary enough, because I really don’t like the Left anymore. I never cared for the far-right, but the Left has earned a certain enmity with me in a post-9/11 world.
The fact people like me have turned on the Left and the Democratic party after 9/11 should give people pause. But it doesn’t. We’re just radical neo-cons and the like while the fantasy “center” who paid attention to the New York Times and actually believed a word of the bs coming from Democratic politicians goes on being mourned, a mythical constituency.
And they wonder why they keep losing elections.
Thanks for the comments Joe but you’re radically right which makes you out of the mainstream, and in my book, makes ANY argument you pose invalid. There’s no debate. You’re simply wrong.
Puddintame.
No. 104, me suspects you’re not as “centrist” as you’d have us believe. Using feigned centrism and 9/11 as a cudgel against Democrats only is a rather tired, old ruse after 5 years of non-stop usage by Republicans. You want to know where the center lies? Check the latest Gallup Poll.
Wow… the funniest thing I have read in a while is GayCowboyBob and “QueerPatriot” thinking they are “centrists.”
ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Darling GayPatriot, we are pleased we amuse you. But, your inability to see the centrism present here in the persons of Bob and Queer Patriot (and in our family, we put a space before the “Patriot”) only indicates just how far to the extreme right you are. Which is surprising, for a gay man. You ARE a gay man, aren’t you? I’ve been working under the assumption here that “Gay Patriots” are actually gay, but well, now I’m wondering about that — especially with the masked ball now underway. Perhaps a challenging post on “what I love about being gay” would help separate the truly gay from the RNC operatives here who are trying to give “gay” a bad name.
#107
Bruce,
Are you saying that nothing posted by Joey Flatus Magnus rises to that level?
#107 — They are in the center… the center between the far left and the extreme left.
LOL