Gay Patriot Header Image

Senator Tom Coburn — an Interesting Dilemma for Gay Republicans

Posted by GayPatriotWest at 6:54 pm - January 29, 2006.
Filed under: Gay Politics,National Politics

While generally supporting the president, I disagree with him on a number of issues. I have criticized him for his support of the Federal Marriage Amendment and for failing to follow the Gipper’s vision of federalism. I have not, however, devoted as much time as I should to his apparent inability to veto pork-laden and otherwise bloated budget bills. But, thankfully, a number of House and Senate Republicans, particularly three Senators elected in 2004, North Carolina’s Richard Burr, South Carolina’s Jim DeMint and especially Oklahoma’s Tom Coburn, have stood up for fiscal discipline.

Taking the lead in the fight for fiscal responsibility, along with his Arizona colleague, John McCain, Senator Coburn is challenging “special projects that senators insert into spending bills until the practice stops.” Together with another Arizona Republican, Representative Jeff Flake, Coburn has proposed requiring “that every earmark be specifically included in the text of the legislation Congress is voting on” (via Instapundit), thus preventing legislators from slipping in expensive projects at the last minute.

Yet, this Republican who is spearheading an effort near and dear to the hearts of Reagan Republicans, including this blogger, has also made some unusual comments about gays. In his 2004 campaign, he warned of lesbians lurking in the lavatories in schools in southeast Oklahoma. Almost two years ago, he claimed that some kind of gay “agenda” threatens our freedom:

the gay community has infiltrated the very centers of power in every area across this country and they wield extreme power. That agenda is the greatest threat to our freedom we face today. Why do you think we see the rationalization for abortion and multiple sexual partners? That’s a gay agenda.

Despite this strange views on gay issues, when he served in the U.S. House of Representatives, he was, according to The Advocatea vocal supporter of AIDS funding.” He met with a Log Cabin group and told them, “We have a common enemy. It is called HIV.” At that meeting, he noted “the great strides being made in the battle against AIDS, adding that no one should allow his or her own prejudices or feelings of persecution keep him or her from doing the right thing.

Given his leadership on AIDS funding and his commitment to containing the growth of federal spending, Coburn would be my favorite U.S. Senator were it not for his attitudes toward the gay community.

While we may disagree with other Republicans on a handful of issues affecting the gay community, most (but, alas, not all) of them do not make anti-gay remarks — or like Senator Coburn — issue strange warnings about the gay community. Unlike that Oklahoma Republican, those who do, rarely champion issues of concern to us.

Thus, the case of Senator Coburn presents an interesting dilemma for gay Republicans. If the Oklahoman had not made such strange statements on gays and lesbians, I would agree with my friend Rick Sincere, another openly gay blogger, who believes that “Congress needs more Tom Coburns.” We do need more legislators like this man, eager to fight for fiscal discipline, but is it too much to ask that such Senators not have such unusual notions of the gay community?

-Dan (AKA GayPatriotWest): GayPatriotWest@aol.com

Share

37 Comments

  1. #0 – I’m basing this on the information you provided; I have never heard of Coburn until your post.

    Is Coburn’s statement that you quoted really that outrageous? Let’s break it down.

    – He sees a big political and cultural push for unlimited abortion, and unlimited sexual partners. OK, he’s right there.

    – He identifies the “gay community” as a big source of the push. That’s partly correct, if we read “gay community” to mean “gay Left community”. I mean, how many discussions have we had here, about gay lobby = abortion? On the other hand, that’s not the whole gay community. And gay leftists are hardly the only ones involved in the push for abortion / free sex. So he’s only partly correct here.

    – Lastly, he sees the agenda for unlimited abortion / unlimited sexual license as “the greatest threat” to America. OK, that’s weird. Hyperbole. I would have said al Qaeda is the greatest threat, and anti-capitalism and anti-Americanism in our universities is the next greatest. On the other hand, respectable people such as Reagan and Goldwater have seriously argued that the abortion / free sex agenda does constitute one threat to our freedoms; that freedom requires a bedrock culture of family values and individual restraint.

    So his statement, that you quoted, is at least 50-70% correct, and maybe 30-50% arguable. I don’t agree with it 100% but I don’t feel a need to be offended or find it outrageous, either.

    In view of his other pro-gay comments / actions that you cited, I would argue Coburn is no homophobe. He has a few strange ideas or hyperbolic tendencies, but is probably a decent person – as regards gays – as well as the great stuff you mentioned about controlling federal spending.

    Comment by Calarato — January 29, 2006 @ 7:16 pm - January 29, 2006

  2. So, long story short, I personally wouldn’t see Coburn as a “dilemma” for gay Republicans.

    On the other hand, I do have the luxury of not actually being a Republican. :-) (an Independent) So, just my $.02.

    Comment by Calarato — January 29, 2006 @ 7:19 pm - January 29, 2006

  3. My take on this is basic. Frankly, I am an American first and my gayness is never the basis for my vote for any candidate. It is the ‘total’ package that person presents not some words that can be taken out of context. Hell, if he says there is a ‘gay agenda’, well, maybe there is for some people who feel only ONE issue determines their vote. Given a choice between a possible homophobe who is as honest as the day is long or someone who carries the gay flag and is dishonest I will choose the honest person first. NO one can change my lifestyle, my religion or my values except me and I am not threatened by someone who may have a narrow view on homosexuality. The operative word is ‘may.’

    Comment by benj — January 29, 2006 @ 7:32 pm - January 29, 2006

  4. let’s set the record straight once and for all multi sexual partners is a singles agenda. Without the obligation of mouths to feed and and partners to consult, I spend a stoopid amount of time looking to screw. Now I suppose if the govt wanted less screwing they should make it easier for non-traditional couples to marry and promote ways for older singles to meet. Let’s face it, the older I get, the more selfish I become; screw the greater good of society, I am all for me getting some wet noodle as often as humanly possible.

    Comment by ralph — January 29, 2006 @ 8:54 pm - January 29, 2006

  5. It’s just binary htinking ot lump all your opponents together – that ias the only way to be able to say that abortion is part of the gay agenda, as opposed to a nasty little piece of political peonage. It may have made sone kind of sense 30 years ago when coalitions fored around AIDS , but what have these women’s groups done for us lately? Wait – i ofrgot – e may be gay, but we are still men, oppressors by definition. They owe us nothing and never will.

    There are plenty of women’s groups who do work in the interest of men, but oddly enough, they are all opponents of groups like NOW on other issues too.

    Comment by Jim — January 29, 2006 @ 9:11 pm - January 29, 2006

  6. I give Dr. Coburn credit for his support of AIDS funding. I’ll delay judgment on his efforts to curtail federal spending until we know whether the cuts he favors are meaningful or just symbolic. It will also be interesting to see whether the cuts he favors impact just the “have nots” and leave untouched benefits for the “haves”.

    But I don’t have a dilemma about Senator Coburn. He has as much use for equality before the law and human dignity as do his fellow travelers on the right: James Dobson, Lou Sheldon, Fred Phelps, Sam Brownback, Tony Perkins, Donald Wildmon, Rick Santorum, Gary Bauer and Jerry Falwell.

    Comment by Jack Allen — January 29, 2006 @ 10:23 pm - January 29, 2006

  7. Choosing who we support is really difficult sometimes. For example it’s easy for a guy to dislike W or Rush Limbaugh or Santorum (who’s my senator btw)or Colburn for that matter. Conservatives are smarter and more decerning than liberals so why are they anti gay i ask myself. I truely believe its cos they dont know us. Dont have gay friends and know us as people instead of “those gays”. If they did have gay friends, more than just one…they’d be more comfortable and understand where we are coming from. That’s my hope. That they get more sympathy thru contact. But will they? Conservatives view everything in mostly black and white terms. So once they think they have the gay thing nailed down they prob dont revisit any prejudices.
    Bottom line, if I and all gay men voted our sexuality…. we’d vote for the likes of Gore Kerry HRC etc. God forbid.

    Comment by Gene — January 29, 2006 @ 11:22 pm - January 29, 2006

  8. -

    – He identifies the “gay community” as a big source of the push. That’s partly correct, if we read “gay community” to mean “gay Left community”.-

    I can’t read “gay left community” into his comments when he said “gay community”. He said that girls can’t go into the bathroom on their own in southeast Oklahoma. Do you really think he meant this as referring only to the gay left?

    He supports AIDS funding, but how much of this is abstinence-only education? How much of this funding would go through someone like James Dobson, or Franklin Graham, or similar voices?

    Did you know that Tom Coburn while in Congress worked to block DC from having domestic partnership benefits? He also tried to ban gay adoptions in DC. That does not affect solely the gay left.

    Tom Coburn is the type of politician who unwittingly encourages the very excesses many gay conservatives deride in the gay community. By discouraging gays from taking responsibility, by entering partnerships or raising children, he was telling gays they should stay in a very limited way of life. To remember their place.

    Like it or not there are many conservatives who do not see a “gay left” and a “gay right”. They object to the existence of all gay people. And they don’t praise or give justifications for us just because they agree with us on one or two issues, even if we feel some need to do the same for them.

    Coburn isn’t even that consistent on pork. He voted for that huge transportation bill last year.

    Comment by Carl — January 29, 2006 @ 11:24 pm - January 29, 2006

  9. I didn’t want this to get cut off by running too long. So I’ll reply to Gene now.

    -
    Bottom line, if I and all gay men voted our sexuality…. we’d vote for the likes of Gore Kerry HRC etc. God forbid.-

    I’m not sure why you mean by ‘sexuality’. Could you elaborate? In a world run by the most extreme conservatives, homosexuals or people who are suspected of being homosexual would not be able to hold certain jobs, or raise children, or have most contractual rights with their partner. Children would be raised to believe homosexuality is pedophelia, or homosexuals can become straight, or all homosexuals have AIDS, or a combination of all 3 of these.

    I didn’t vote for Bush or Kerry in 2004, I just wrote in a name. I am celibate and have been for a few years. I didn’t vote based on matters of sex, I voted based on the dangerous attitudes so many Republican officials have toward even the mere mention of homosexuality.

    Comment by Carl — January 29, 2006 @ 11:33 pm - January 29, 2006

  10. Carl, I was analyzing the center quote of Dan’s post. That quote says, in effect and among other things, that the gay community is involved in the push for unlimited abortion and sexual license in America. Fact: That aspect of the statement would be true if he had meant the gay left, while meanwhile, it is untrue of the gay right. That’s what I was saying. Hope it’s clear now.

    Comment by Calarato — January 30, 2006 @ 12:46 am - January 30, 2006

  11. Saith GPW: “apparent inability to veto pork-laden and otherwise bloated budget bills”

    “Apparently?” “Otherwise?” Could you be any more gingerly about the most profligate spender since FDR? Are you sure you are referring to the big-government, big-business, anti-consumerist, hyper-religionist GWB? Or is it his shadow?

    At least you confess your discontent over GWB’s anti-gay stance. I assume you are referring to GWB’s brutal use of gay-inclusive marriage to divide America and make GLBT persona non grata? That GWB? Who’s kicked out more GLB from the military than his predecessors combined? That GWB? Forgive some of us who are more than discomforted and find these tactics VILE.

    As for Coburn. Jack Allen #6 said it all.

    Comment by Stephen — January 30, 2006 @ 1:39 am - January 30, 2006

  12. -Fact: That aspect of the statement would be true if he had meant the gay left, while meanwhile, it is untrue of the gay right. -

    I agree with you that his comment might mean one thing taken in one context. I was just talking about his history on gay issues. I don’t think he differentiates between conservative gays or liberal gays. I wish more conservatives did realize all gays are not alike, but they would rather use us as a political football or a target, or they genuinely believe there is something wrong with us.

    Comment by Carl — January 30, 2006 @ 2:07 am - January 30, 2006

  13. Stephen–my gosh, you indicate that you actually read this post. I chose the word “apparent” deliberately to modify “inability” because I hope that this year, he finds the ability to veto such bills if necessary. If I had not modified the word “inability,” it would suggest that he would never veto them.

    Call it perhaps the triumph of hope over experience.

    Comment by GayPatriotWest — January 30, 2006 @ 2:12 am - January 30, 2006

  14. He said that girls can’t go into the bathroom on their own in southeast Oklahoma.

    Actually, no; what he said is that in southeast Oklahoma, they will only let one girl go to the bathroom at a time because of rampant lesbianism.

    Now, that may sound odd at first, but when we have Lambda Legal, the national group which claims to represent all gays, trying to get overturned the convictions of glbts who solicit sex to be performed in a public restroom, it becomes completely plausible.

    Tom Coburn is the type of politician who unwittingly encourages the very excesses many gay conservatives deride in the gay community. By discouraging gays from taking responsibility, by entering partnerships or raising children, he was telling gays they should stay in a very limited way of life.

    Excuse me, but my “taking responsibility” has nothing to do with legalizing gay marriage or gay adoption. It has everything to do with MY willingness to control MY behavior and accept the consequences of it.

    Meanwhile, the gay community blames Viagra ads for skyrocketing AIDS rates among gays. Yeah, we’re REAL good at taking responsibility.

    Like it or not there are many conservatives who do not see a “gay left” and a “gay right”.

    Of course they don’t. HRC, NGLTF, and the other so-called “nonpartisan” gay groups make it clear that people who don’t hold leftist views are “not gay”, “Jewish Nazis”, “self-loathing”, “crazy”, and other things. They have systematically denied that there are any such things as “gay conservatives” or “gay Republicans”. They have made it clear that being pro-abortion outweighs being antigay.

    Those folks you mention have ironically taken these groups at their word.

    This is why I laugh when I hear Patrick Guerreiro and others begging gay conservatives to “come out” so we can show the world that gays aren’t all pro-abortion and anti-religious hatemongers.

    We’re already out. THEY just don’t want to admit that their constant whoring for the left wing, misuse of gay rights to push hate-filled agendas, and putting party affiliation ahead of action has made them virtual pariahs, unable to influence either party.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 30, 2006 @ 2:22 am - January 30, 2006

  15. I consider myself now to be a conservative and have many gay friends who prefer to be identified as homosexual not gay. They tell me that they are ‘over the rainbow’, want their lives back becasue they are fed-up with the way gay activisits have hijacked their sexuality all for political posturing.

    Maybe gays need to understand homoseuxals better before making judgments.

    Comment by syn — January 30, 2006 @ 7:47 am - January 30, 2006

  16. Now I suppose if the govt wanted less screwing they should make it easier for non-traditional couples to marry and promote ways for older singles to meet.

    So you’re not responsible for your morality — the government is?

    Comment by rightwingprof — January 30, 2006 @ 10:08 am - January 30, 2006

  17. Dan, you’re right on here. This is a perfect example of the Left hijacking the entire gay community and purporting to represent us. It’s no wonder Coburn (or anybody else, for that matter) might think of us all as a far-Left, monolithic, sex-crazed group; if he’s only been in contact with the likes of leftist Washington, DC, gay lobbiest groups (and yes, I include LCR in that). What he needs is to bookmark this site among others to see there are reasonable and conservative gays out there who agree with him more than he might otherwise think.

    Comment by ColoradoPatriot — January 30, 2006 @ 10:38 am - January 30, 2006

  18. WOW – alot of you guys sounds like JEWS for HITLER..” well he’s kinda nice…and doesn’t really hate us, he seems honest” — I guess you got Republican gay seed pods put next your beds while you were sleeping. How you honestly think that these Repubs under GWB will or do care one IOTA about you is beyond me….to them, you/we are ALL a cancer they want to irradicate…but, you blindly keep votying against yourselves..because ‘YOU’RE REPUBLICAN” —- until I know for SURE that the Repubs have dis-aligned themselves with the RELIGIOUS RIGHT – I will NEVER vote Repub. I’m not saying all Repubs are bad — but, this batch walks lock-step with anything GWB does – and let’s face it – CAN YOU NAME 3 THINGS – THIS PRESIDENT HAS DONE – (3) TO BENEFIT THE AVERAGE AMERICAN OR THE POOR?

    Comment by moderate gay — January 30, 2006 @ 10:43 am - January 30, 2006

  19. “Strange?” “Unusual?” You’re spinning. Coburn’s comments are anti-gay. It’s certainly not conservative, but then neither is the modern GOP.

    In general I’m sympathetic to the argument that the gay rights advocacy establishment is dominated by liberals. But that seems fairly natural to me. People thrive in communities that make them feel welcome. Just as the anemia of the conservative gay movement is likely the result of having to work within a political party that has demanded you remain in the closet to keep your seat at the table.

    So the left is out, proud and pushing the envelope, and the right publishes kranky blogs about it all.

    Comment by radical moderate — January 30, 2006 @ 12:07 pm - January 30, 2006

  20. Gene said:

    I truly believe its cos they don’t know us. Don’t have gay friends and know us as people instead of “those gays”

    Except quite a few very anti-gay politician DO have gay sons or daughters, Alan Keyes and California’s Pete Knight are two examples. Their views on the subject are strictly dictated by their religion. But the left suffers from the same strict, unthinking attitude concerning abortion. It is completely impossible to have a conversation on the topic of, say, parental notification, with some liberals. They argue against it so violently, you get the impression that to even consider this thought is tantamount to renouncing God.

    Comment by sonicfrog — January 30, 2006 @ 12:09 pm - January 30, 2006

  21. the gay community has infiltrated the very centers of power in every area across this country and they wield extreme power. That agenda is the greatest threat to our freedom we face today. Why do you think we see the rationalization for abortion and multiple sexual partners? That’s a gay agenda.

    Gay issue aside, its a rather nutty thing for anyone to say. It sounds to me like he has bought into the victim mentality that many on the right have started to embrace, particularly the Evangelicals.

    The “Homosexual Agenda” blurb that is mouthed so often now actually comes from a chapter in a book by former rep William Dannemeyer. I’ve been amused when occasionally I run into some anti-gay commenter who literally believes that there is an “agenda” as a written document created by and approved by all homosexuals.

    Comment by Patrick (Gryph) — January 30, 2006 @ 1:43 pm - January 30, 2006

  22. #16 – Yeah, and notice how the ‘fact’ (in ralph’s world) that older gay singles can’t meet for long-term relationships is the GOVERNMENT’s fault! to be solved by a government program!!

    LOL – the full absurdity just hit me… :-)

    Comment by Calarato — January 30, 2006 @ 3:23 pm - January 30, 2006

  23. (I mean here, the fact that they can’t even meet… We need mandatory-participation, government-sponsored dating sites! LOL)

    Comment by Calarato — January 30, 2006 @ 3:26 pm - January 30, 2006

  24. -

    Excuse me, but my “taking responsibility” has nothing to do with legalizing gay marriage or gay adoption.-

    NDT, Tom Coburn did not simply oppose gay marriage. He opposes domestic partnerships. Even moreso he opposed DC’s right to set up their own domestic partnerships. He wanted Congress to intervene and ban them. Do you agree with this?

    -

    Now, that may sound odd at first, but when we have Lambda Legal, the national group which claims to represent all gays, trying to get overturned the convictions of glbts who solicit sex to be performed in a public restroom, it becomes completely plausible.-

    If that’s the case then why didn’t he mention Lambda Legal or these laws? Have you ever heard of Lambda trying to legalize sex in junior high or high school bathrooms? He didn’t say “public school”. He said school. So these laws would not affect bathrooms in private or religious schools. Yet he thinks that lesbianism is in affect in any number of school bathrooms.

    NDT, why do we have to rationalize or justify every anti-gay remark a politician makes? Some people hate or fear gays based on reasons which are not caused by the gay community. These people will continue to hate us no matter what we do. We can change some minds and some hearts, but we can’t convince everyone. Someone who opposes domestic partnerships and who thinks lesbianism is taking over school bathrooms is probably beyond convincing.

    -

    Of course they don’t. HRC, NGLTF, and the other so-called “nonpartisan” gay groups make it clear that people who don’t hold leftist views are “not gay”, “Jewish Nazis”, “self-loathing”, “crazy”, and other things.-

    Then why should we have any respect or empathy for Tom Coburn, if he is so narrow-minded he dismisses millions of people based solely on HRC and NGLTF? How is he any better than the millions of people who dismiss the GOP because of Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson?

    Comment by Carl — January 30, 2006 @ 4:22 pm - January 30, 2006

  25. NDT, Tom Coburn did not simply oppose gay marriage. He opposes domestic partnerships. Even moreso he opposed DC’s right to set up their own domestic partnerships. He wanted Congress to intervene and ban them. Do you agree with this?

    Really pathetic, Carl. You know full well I oppose that. But the reason you’re bringing it up is to deflect the attention I brought to your statement that allowing gays to form partnerships will make them “more responsible”. Gays in San Francisco and the rest of California have had the ability to form partnerships for YEARS, and the drug addiction and STD rates among gays there are still skyrocketing. According to your logic, that’s impossible.

    NDT, why do we have to rationalize or justify every anti-gay remark a politician makes?

    We don’t. But, as I pointed out, a national gay organization defends and protects sex in public restrooms. Coburn is well within his rights to make his statement based on that fact. If you don’t like it, tell Lambda to quit defending stupid perverts, and quit blaming Coburn for pointing out the obvious.

    Then why should we have any respect or empathy for Tom Coburn, if he is so narrow-minded he dismisses millions of people based solely on HRC and NGLTF? How is he any better than the millions of people who dismiss the GOP because of Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson?

    I don’t. But I will continue to point out the irony of the fact that gay leftists are squealing like stuck pigs when conservative politicians take them at their word.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 30, 2006 @ 7:21 pm - January 30, 2006

  26. -Gays in San Francisco and the rest of California have had the ability to form partnerships for YEARS, and the drug addiction and STD rates among gays there are still skyrocketing. According to your logic, that’s impossible.-

    Can you tell me where I said STD and drug rates among gays would end if gay partnerships were legal (I think that STD, or at least HIV, rates in San Francisco are falling, BTW)? What I said was, and if you have an answer for this let me know — if people like Tom Coburn are so concerned about the immorality of homosexuals, then why has he spent years and years working to block avenues which encourage responsibility and monogamy amongst gay men?

    If straights were told that they can’t even have partnerships, or raise children, then you can bet that STD and drug use rates would be even higher amongst them. I think that the religious right actually wants gays to be promiscuous and to take drugs; they want images that live up to their worst fears, their stereotypes, and help them get more money and political clout. So they actively work to create laws that will allow doctors or insurers to refuse treatment to those they think are gay, they try to create laws that will bar gays from certain jobs, bar gays from raising children or having legal contracts. They want homosexuality to be a stigma.

    -

    We don’t. But, as I pointed out, a national gay organization defends and protects sex in public restrooms. Coburn is well within his rights to make his statement based on that fact. If you don’t like it, tell Lambda to quit defending stupid perverts, and quit blaming Coburn for pointing out the obvious.-

    But NDT, that isn’t what Coburn pointed out. He never mentioned Lambda Legal. He never said gay activists were trying to legalize sex in public bathrooms. The only “obvious” statement he made is that girls in Southeast Oklahoma can’t go to the bathroom by themselves. If he was talking about what you’re talking about, wouldn’t he say girls AND boys? Wouldn’t he say ONLY public school bathrooms, since these laws would not apply to private or religious schools?

    -

    I don’t. But I will continue to point out the irony of the fact that gay leftists are squealing like stuck pigs when conservative politicians take them at their word. -

    You can point that out as much as you want, but I don’t think a major elected official should be excused just because of what one gay group said. If the whole point of conservatism is these people are supposed to be so much more responsible and mature than liberal gay groups, then they should show some of that maturity.

    Comment by Carl — January 30, 2006 @ 8:10 pm - January 30, 2006

  27. Can you tell me where I said STD and drug rates among gays would end if gay partnerships were legal (I think that STD, or at least HIV, rates in San Francisco are falling, BTW)?

    Right here.

    If straights were told that they can’t even have partnerships, or raise children, then you can bet that STD and drug use rates would be even higher amongst them.

    Let’s see…..you insist that STD rates and drug use rates are held down in straights because they have partnerships, but refuse to acknowledge that STD rates and drug use rates have increased in populations of gays that have partnerships available to them — exactly the reverse of what should have happened if partnerships make gays responsible.

    It should be obvious to ANYONE that partnerships do not make gays responsible. The data clearly shows it. What you are doing is making excuses and deflecting blame for irresponsible behavior and promiscuity.

    I think that the religious right actually wants gays to be promiscuous and to take drugs; they want images that live up to their worst fears, their stereotypes, and help them get more money and political clout. So they actively work to create laws that will allow doctors or insurers to refuse treatment to those they think are gay, they try to create laws that will bar gays from certain jobs, bar gays from raising children or having legal contracts. They want homosexuality to be a stigma.

    And those cause gays to have unprotected sex and take drugs, HOW?Gays whine about how the right wing forces us to stick needles in your arm and fuck people bareback, and then wonder why a) we get no sympathy and b) over half of Americans still think gays are “immoral”.

    Next:

    The only “obvious” statement he made is that girls in Southeast Oklahoma can’t go to the bathroom by themselves.

    If it’s so “obvious”, how is it that you so blatantly misread it (emphasis mine)?

    In the tape released by the campaign of Brad Carson, the Democratic candidate, Coburn says a campaign worker from Coalgate told him that “lesbianism is so rampant in some of the schools in southeast Oklahoma that they’ll only let one girl go to the bathroom. Now think about it. Think about that issue. How is it that that’s happened to us?”

    It has nothing to do with going to the bathroom alone. They WANT girls to go to the bathroom alone because, if two go together, they’ll engage in sex, or so the belief is.

    Next:

    You can point that out as much as you want, but I don’t think a major elected official should be excused just because of what one gay group said. If the whole point of conservatism is these people are supposed to be so much more responsible and mature than liberal gay groups, then they should show some of that maturity.

    They are treating gay groups as if they are responsible and mature. Feel free to enlighten them otherwise; I certainly have. But then again, I’m nothing but a “Jewish Nazi”.

    Gee, guess I have to go get some meth and HIV….

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 30, 2006 @ 9:48 pm - January 30, 2006

  28. #16 Right Wing Prof, not really a question of morality, what is wrong with a healthy sexual appetite, it is part of who we are – just ask Jack Ryan. I just think it annoying that the govt assumes that people are getting their freak on based on preconceived notions based either on ethnicity or sexual orientation. It is a question of responsibility.

    #22 I think you got my annoyance with the govt. I have no idea about older single gays. I just think the govt has a misplaced emphasis. And people who spew the abstinence pill are at the top of my list of idiots.

    BTW: I am all for people entering into multiple m/m, w/w, m/w. m/m/w, w/w/m relationships and having as much sex as they like, just be responsible. Jimmy free sex between consenting individuals should only occur in committed relationships.

    Question: how is the rationalization for abortion a gay agenda item – last I checked you need a man and woman to make baby, so out of what m/m w/w union are abortions an issue (thus my singles stmt.)

    Comment by ralph — January 30, 2006 @ 9:56 pm - January 30, 2006

  29. Even though I despise everything that emanates north of the Red River (thanks in part to being a loyal Longhorn), Coburn is getting the short end of the stick.

    You don’t hear blacks being so judgmental of former KKK Grand Dragon Sen. Robert Byrd for using the “N” word in a Fox News Sunday episode. In fact, Kweisi Mfume was downright apologetic for that old racist’s term…he said it was the way “an old man opined.”

    God help the leftists in this country.

    Regards,
    Peter Hughes

    Comment by Peter Hughes — January 30, 2006 @ 10:47 pm - January 30, 2006

  30. -Right here.-

    NDT, you quoted something I said after your initial claims. So apparently I never said anything in my earlier comments that go along with what you said.

    -Let’s see…..you insist that STD rates and drug use rates are held down in straights because they have partnerships, but refuse to acknowledge that STD rates and drug use rates have increased in populations of gays that have partnerships available to them — exactly the reverse of what should have happened if partnerships make gays responsible.-

    That still doesn’t match what you claimed I said. I do think that if straight people had less responsibilities, they would be more involved with drugs and disease. Partnerships are not the same as marriage. Partnerships have been available for far fewer years than marriage. Gays grow up to believe that the only real relationships are between men and women. There is a whole other system gays are put under that straight people never go through.

    You also included only SF and maybe one other city. Vermont has had civil unions since 2000. New Jersey has had partnerships since 2004. Have Vermont and New Jersey seen an increase in drug use or STDs among gays since these benefits became available?

    -It should be obvious to ANYONE that partnerships do not make gays responsible. -

    It should also be obvious that barring legal benefits and gay adoption don’t make gays responsible. We have seen the White House and Congress try to push “pro-marriage” funding to encourage straight people to marry. We have seen them say that teens should wait until marriage. So the government does believe that marriage makes people more responsible. When they work overtime to deny gay couples a similar (or even a much smaller) relationship, they are saying they don’t want gays to have the responsibility. Yet they constantly criticize gays for being irresponsible.

    -And those cause gays to have unprotected sex and take drugs, HOW?-

    They don’t directly cause gays to do any of this. But when they pass these laws, and when they constantly tell gays they are pedophiles, they’re going to hell, they all have AIDS, by encouraging gays to think the worst of themselves, I think they want gays to have this self-defeat and self-hatred which goes on to produce bad behavior.

    -

    If it’s so “obvious”, how is it that you so blatantly misread it (emphasis mine)?-

    You got me. I misread it. I’m sorry I offended you.

    Now can you tell me where Coburn referred to the Lambda Legal efforts, or where he said that only public schools were affected?

    -They are treating gay groups as if they are responsible and mature. -

    By saying homosexuality is the biggest threat to America? By talking about girls in school bathrooms? By trying to ban partnerships or adoption for gays?

    -But then again, I’m nothing but a “Jewish Nazi”.-

    I’ve never called you a Jewish Nazi. I’m trying to have an honest conversation with and you act like I have somehow insulted you. I don’t know why we have to get in all these semantics and word games just because I don’t think that Coburn’s anti-gay efforts are justified by what some gay groups might say or do.

    -Even though I despise everything that emanates north of the Red River (thanks in part to being a loyal Longhorn), Coburn is getting the short end of the stick.-

    Byrd also has a long anti-gay history; the difference is I don’t see gay Republicans defending Byrd.

    Comment by Carl — January 31, 2006 @ 12:18 am - January 31, 2006

  31. Carl, you’re unraveling your own argument.

    You see, since you insist partnership cuts down on drug abuse, STDs, and other irresponsible behaviors among straights, it makes sense for the government to support it. Furthermore, the initiatives you mention are geared less towards promoting marriage itself and more as promoting marriage and abstinence as a means of avoiding single-parent households and teenage pregnancies.

    However, as I’ve demonstrated, partnership does NOT do the same for gays — indeed, it appears that irresponsible behaviors INCREASE (trust me, you don’t want to look up New Jersey’s ranking in terms of HIV/AIDS cases).

    The problem here is not lack of rights or people being mean, Carl. The problem is that our community is unable to a) keep its pecker protected and b) its forearms clear of needle scars. Mainly, I think that’s because the number-one lesson of gay socialization is….drum roll, please…… it’s somebody else’s fault. You can whine “victim” all you want, but at the end of the day, no one put the gun to your head and made you have unprotected sex or use drugs. You chose to do it, and blaming it on others is proof that you ARE irresponsible. And that’s all the “gay community does”.

    Now can you tell me where Coburn referred to the Lambda Legal efforts, or where he said that only public schools were affected?

    Here’s a clue….look up whether or not private schools are allowed to operate in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, which clearly defines what constitutes a “public area” or “public building”.

    By saying homosexuality is the biggest threat to America? By talking about girls in school bathrooms? By trying to ban partnerships or adoption for gays?

    Why not? NGLTF, HRC, and the other “gay groups” support unlimited abortion, underage minors having sex and making major medical decisions as a result, soliciting and performing sex in public restrooms, legalization of drugs, and the nine gazillion other “progressive” causes that have very little to nothing to do with gay rights.

    I mean, really. Think about the logic of lesbians and gays who claim they want children, but then go to rallies and give money to groups whose sole goal in life is aborting them.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 31, 2006 @ 1:25 am - January 31, 2006

  32. Let’s not also forget that Sen. Coburn, when he was a rep in the House, fulfilled his pledge to term limit himself. So impressed were Oklahomans when he stepped down that they whisked him right on into the Senate. Now there’s a guy that sticks to his principles. If he’s saying all he’s said about gays, I’m sure he actually believes it, and is not really just pandering to religious nutcases. We’ll need to educate him.

    Comment by Hello Moto — January 31, 2006 @ 1:25 am - January 31, 2006

  33. -However, as I’ve demonstrated, partnership does NOT do the same for gays — indeed, it appears that irresponsible behaviors INCREASE (trust me, you don’t want to look up New Jersey’s ranking in terms of HIV/AIDS cases).-

    So you’re saying that HIV rates in New Jersey have gone up for gays since the domestic partnership bill was passed? Has the same happened in Vermont?

    -

    The problem here is not lack of rights or people being mean, Carl. The problem is that our community is unable to a) keep its pecker protected and b) its forearms clear of needle scars. Mainly, I think that’s because the number-one lesson of gay socialization is….drum roll, please…… it’s somebody else’s fault.-

    But NDT, you are using the same argument. Just look at your argument about Coburn and the school bathrooms. You’re saying that it’s someone else’s fault (Lambda for wanting sex in public bathrooms). When Republicans support legislation that is harmful to gays, you usually say that it’s the fault of the liberal gay left for not being bipartisan. And how many times has the GOP in recent years said “it’s Clinton’s fault” or “it’s the Democrats’ fault” or “it’s the fault of a staffer” or “it’s the fault of the economy/the war on terror/the FBI” when they are questioned about a controversial event? Gays are not the only ones who play the blame game or play the victim.

    I have never said that discrimination is the sole reason that some gays are too promiscuous or use drugs (although I don’t think it’s fair to say that a lot of gays have this problem – many do, but many just live quiet lives and don’t get attention because the media would much rather focus on the most garish elements). But I do think that in a society where gays are told they are garbage, and where they are constantly scapegoated and have laws passed against them, then sure, they are more likely to turn to self-destructive habits. I don’t think it’s right to excuse them for all their problems, but I also don’t think it’s right to pretend there are no factors, or to justify politicians with anti-gay beliefs by trying to blame it on the gay community.

    -Here’s a clue….look up whether or not private schools are allowed to operate in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, which clearly defines what constitutes a “public area” or “public building”.-

    But Coburn did not mention any of what are discussing. He never said that gay groups were trying to say sex should be allowed in public bathrooms. This is like if someone said, “Bush is going to send troops to invade Scotland!!” and I said, “That won’t happen”, and the person responds, “He sent them to Iraq, so he’ll send them anywhere!!”

    -
    I mean, really. Think about the logic of lesbians and gays who claim they want children, but then go to rallies and give money to groups whose sole goal in life is aborting them. -

    Coburn is an elected official. He represented a district, and now an entire state. These gay groups just represent those who want to be represented by them. I think that Coburn should be held to a different standard. HRC and NGLTF and all the rest have very little power today; for all the talk of the mammoth gay left, the gay left is just begging for scraps. Coburn is in the majority party and has plenty of power. When he supports laws that ban domestic partnerships or ban gay adoption, he is having a very real effect on lives.

    Should we really hold our elected officials to the standard of, “Hey, it isn’t like (fill in the blank) is any better”? Or excuse them because someone else out there is bad?

    Comment by Carl — January 31, 2006 @ 3:07 am - January 31, 2006

  34. But NDT, you are using the same argument. Just look at your argument about Coburn and the school bathrooms. You’re saying that it’s someone else’s fault (Lambda for wanting sex in public bathrooms).

    Hardly, Carl. I hold Coburn responsible for making his statement, and I hold Lambda responsible for validating it. My point to you has been that you can’t say Coburn is wrong about gays pushing sex in bathrooms because Lambda is doing it.

    I don’t think it’s right to excuse them for all their problems, but I also don’t think it’s right to pretend there are no factors, or to justify politicians with anti-gay beliefs by trying to blame it on the gay community.

    Here’s the issue, Carl:

    Some people hate or fear gays based on reasons which are not caused by the gay community. These people will continue to hate us no matter what we do. We can change some minds and some hearts, but we can’t convince everyone. Someone who opposes domestic partnerships and who thinks lesbianism is taking over school bathrooms is probably beyond convincing.

    So basically, you in one thread say Coburn is beyond changing, but then spend all your time hurling vitriol at him trying to change him. How am I supposed to interpret that?

    Right now my interpretation is that the vitriol throwing is more important than solving the problem of rampant drug use and STD infection among gay men.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 31, 2006 @ 11:57 pm - January 31, 2006

  35. -Hardly, Carl. I hold Coburn responsible for making his statement, and I hold Lambda responsible for validating it. My point to you has been that you can’t say Coburn is wrong about gays pushing sex in bathrooms because Lambda is doing it.-

    Unless there have been a lot of reports of gay sex in junior high or high school bathrooms, then I can say he’s wrong. If I remember correctly, when educators in that part of Oklahoma were asked if what he said was true, they said they’d never heard of anything like that happening. There are some conservatives who have said that because of the AIDS crisis, gays should be branded or put in camps. That doesn’t mean I think that validates the idea that all Republicans want to brand gays.

    -

    Right now my interpretation is that the vitriol throwing is more important than solving the problem of rampant drug use and STD infection among gay men. -

    I don’t see how pointing out his record is throwing vitriol at him, or how not defending his long anti-gay history and statements is the same as not solving the problem of drug use or STD infection.

    I guess I just don’t get why some gay conservatives are so willing to criticize the gay community for pointing figures or ducking responsibility, yet when the GOP supports legislation harmful to gays, or a GOP makes anti-gay comments, there is always a justification or rationalization which involves gays bringing this on themselves because they are too partisan, or they don’t live up to the right standards, or whatever. The GOP has control of most power centers in America, the gay community has little power, yet we’re supposed to believe the big bad gays are forcing the hand of the reluctant Republicans.

    Comment by Carl — February 1, 2006 @ 2:32 am - February 1, 2006

  36. Coburn is a nut. His fantasizing about lesbian sex in high schools was beyond the pale.

    OK seems to have a habit of electing wackos. JCWatts, former representative, was definitely a nut.

    Comment by raj — February 1, 2006 @ 7:52 am - February 1, 2006

  37. I guess I just don’t get why some gay conservatives are so willing to criticize the gay community for pointing figures or ducking responsibility, yet when the GOP supports legislation harmful to gays, or a GOP makes anti-gay comments, there is always a justification or rationalization which involves gays bringing this on themselves because they are too partisan, or they don’t live up to the right standards, or whatever.

    You are missing my point, Carl.

    An organization which claims to represent all gays nationally is defending people who solicit and perform sex in public restrooms.

    Fix THAT problem first, THEN worry about Coburn. Or be honest and admit that you don’t want to fix the problem because you DO want to be allowed to solicit and perform sex in public restrooms.

    Same with HIV infection and drug use. You yourself have said that legislation or antigay comments do not directly affect both of these, but the vast majority of your efforts against HIV infection and drug use are focused on bashing people for legislation and antigay comments.

    Fix the real problem first.

    Of course, the reason that can’t be done is because victimization as a strategy completely unravels when it is admitted that even a portion of one’s problems are self-inflicted.

    This is why HRC and the like get away with it — they know that, rather than admit gays could be wrong in any way, shape, or form, most gays will ignore the excesses and stupid behavior of the community.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — February 1, 2006 @ 2:10 pm - February 1, 2006

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.