It is, of course, *absurd* that anyone who actually believed the stuff NR listed (that Sean A did a great job cataloguing) would then choose to *become* a Republican.

Personally, I am smelling the same troll that posted as "Jae Anderson" in the other thread… and that has posted under other sockpuppet troll names here in the past.  Same canards.

We keep having the same fight.  Democrats are not as good as they should be on gay issues.  Republicans are abysmal.   but your standard is that Democrats have to be perfect and republicans just have to be against public executions of gays to get a pass.

I agree we should decide on a uniform minimum  standard and those who don’t meet it should not get an endorsement regardless of party.

That is entirely their fault.

Because, as I am fond of showing, gays and lesbians and their organizations and national leadership fully endorse and support as "pro-gay" and "gay-supportive" and give millions of dollars to politicians who push and support things like FMA and state constitutional amendments that they scream are "pandering to homophobes".

So in short, it’s not "pandering to homophobes" that bothers gays and lesbians; it’s that people are not Democrat Party members. They have linked being gay with being the most extreme of leftist, antireligious, and intolerant social liberals; hence, it should be no surprise that most Americans look at gay people askance.

being free from terrorist attacks isn’t a "right"

Imagine that. Jefferson was wrong; Life and liberty aren’t unalienable human rights from God. Thank you, MM, I appreciate your edumacating me.

You’re the one who harps on Americans who follow the Islamic religion, not me.

Au contraire. I haven’t ever once even so much as ***mentioned*** Americans who follow the Islamic religion. Not once.  Not ever.  You have.

OK, for the grownups on GayPatriot: How about if we get back to intelligent, topical discussion, "What is the conservative gay agenda?" Here’s where I left my version:

(A gay agenda that is conservative of, or good for society)

1) Legislated progress (not judicial progress) based on persuasion, respect for our opponents, and the patience that implies.

2) Cleaning up "our" own act. No tolerance for people who want kids at the Folsom Street fair. No tolerance for people who want to repeal or violate age-of-consent laws. No tolerance for gay men expecting to turn public spaces into gay sex spaces. No tolerance for "bug chasing". And so on.

3) Civil unions / gay marriage, in the States that want to experiment with them.

4) DADT repeal, or at least put the "DP" (Don’t Pursue) in DADTDP.

5) And of course… make sure sodomy laws stay away forever!

(And a general conservative agenda that is good for, or even essential to, living as a gay)

Self-defense rights… free speech rights, free association rights, freedom-from-excessive-taxation rights, free-market-medical-care rights, freedom-from-terrorist attack rights, and freedom-from-Islamic-Sharia rights…

Grownups, what would your version be?

the most silly right of the season: to be free from terrorist attacks?

Please check your Declaration of Independence and your United States Constitution. As one of them puts it:

We hold these truths to be self-evident… that [people] are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted…

In other words: Government is there, above all, to protect people’s right to life and liberty. I think the other document refers to it more as a right to "life, liberty and property."

But, whatever it is, let it be called "The silliest right of the season" in MM’s world… and anybody who likes it, "bigot".

Oh, and by the way, MM: I *didn’t* imply "Islamic American citizens… want to enforce their religious laws on America".  But you just did.

As Vince caught on – and any other mentally normal reader would – I was speaking of the goals of the terrorists… ‘Nuff said.

This is funny.. you’re defining a group of people by their faith.

Their faith has a clear command: Impose Sharia Law whereever you can when you are capable of doing it.

And you then accuse US of assigning them that activity.

No , idiot.. that’s what their religion tells them to do. By definition if you’re an Islamic-American you will be compelled to spread Sharia law or else you will be regarded as an apostate.

I didn’t know not being stupid was now regarded as bigotry.

Oh yeah.  There’s a "right" that no liberal believes in.

Shall we also add the right to know what’s under Area51 now or do we wait for the edited version?

1) Legislated progress (not judicial progress) based on persuasion, respect for our opponents, and the patience that implies.

2) Cleaning up "our" own act. No tolerance for people who want kids at the Folsom Street fair. No tolerance for people who want to repeal or violate age-of-consent laws. No tolerance for gay men expecting to turn public spaces into gay sex spaces. No tolerance for "bug chasing". And so on.

3) Civil unions / gay marriage, in the States that want to experiment with them.

4) DADT repeal, or at least put the "DP" (Don’t Pursue) in DADTDP.

5) And of course… make sure sodomy laws stay away forever!

That’s how I’d cover point (1), a gay agenda that is also good for society. Covering point (2), a conservative agenda for society that is also good for gays, I suggested yesterday:

Self-defense rights… free speech rights, free association rights, freedom-from-excessive-taxation rights, free-market-medical-care rights, freedom-from-terrorist attack rights, and freedom-from-Islamic-Sharia rights…

In 1978 there was an anti-gay ballot initiative in California called the Briggs initiative.  Carter wouldn’t go anywhere near this issue.  In fact, Carter went out of his way to avoid being photographed with anyone known to be gay.  Reagan came out against the initiative and that, probably more than any other single factor, helped defeat it in the election.

There is no reason for conservatives to be anti-gay.  The alignment of economic conservatives and religious conservatives was always a marriage of convenience if not an accident of history.  But they are still wed and until the divorce is finalized, you are going to have a hard time convincing most Americans that they can be conservative and gay at the same time.  I know plenty here disagree with me but you live in the real world and must confront this on a regular basis.  Most gay people think the R following a politician’s name means homophobe.  That’s not always true, but after a generation of pandering to homophobes it’s hard to feel sorry for Republicans who played the game and don’t like the score.

Is Log Cabin really a political group for gay Republicans?  Or is it a gay social and dating group that uses politics as its hook?

I’m under the impression that it’s the latter.  And I’m cool with that.  And if it is just the latter — that Log Cabin is just a social club and dating service — why are we demanding that its politics conform better to our conservative positions?

(1) A gay agenda formed on conservative principles, i.e.,  on what is good for society as well as gays; and

(2) A conservative agenda that accents the rights, reforms and/or issues of particular interest or necessity to a gay life.

It’s not rocket science.  But, one or two on the GP blog who like treading water with the special kids, may try to make it rocket science – or to drain it of everything except pure reactionism against their pet-peeve "GayLeft liberal monolith" – or even to try to tell Dan a thing or two he had argued himself.