GayPatriot

Comments

RSS feed for comments on this post.

The URI to TrackBack this entry is: http://www.gaypatriot.net/2009/04/05/the-pavlovian-response-to-gay-conservatives/trackback/

  1. there’s nothing wrong or even odd about being a gay conservative. what’s odd (and potentially self-hating) is when you’re a gay person actively arguing against basic rights for gay people.

    Comment by bob (aka boob) — April 5, 2009 @ 6:58 pm - April 5, 2009

  2. or a gay person cheering fascism, bob?

    Of course I don’t see anyone arguing against basic rights here, at least not from the right.

    Comment by The_Livewire — April 5, 2009 @ 7:08 pm - April 5, 2009

  3. oh knock it off with the fascism. the closest thing to fascism in this discussion is telling consenting adults what they can’t do sexually in the privacy of their bedroom because it’s bad for the “state”.

    Comment by bob (aka boob) — April 5, 2009 @ 7:14 pm - April 5, 2009

  4. You would make a better case if the “gay” Republicans who post here didn’t argue against gay rights so often. I understand that someone can be gay and agree with the Republican party on issues of economic policy and defense but lately it seems that they aren’t even opposing the party’s opposition to gay rights.

    Comment by Houndentenor — April 5, 2009 @ 7:35 pm - April 5, 2009

  5. the closest thing to fascism in this discussion is telling consenting adults what they can’t do sexually in the privacy of their bedroom because it’s bad for the “state”.

    Yes, boob, it’s so evil for people to say to brothers and sisters, or parents and children, that they can’t have sex in the privacy of their own bedrooms.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 5, 2009 @ 7:39 pm - April 5, 2009

  6. oh knock it off with the fascism.

    Translation: that point is true and gets me (bob), so stop pointing it out.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — April 5, 2009 @ 7:40 pm - April 5, 2009

  7. the closest thing to fascism in this discussion is telling consenting adults what they can’t do sexually in the privacy of their bedroom because it’s bad for the “state”.

    You mean like the liberals in Washington, Texas, etc?

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — April 5, 2009 @ 7:43 pm - April 5, 2009

  8. You would make a better case if the “gay” Republicans who post here didn’t argue against gay rights so often.

    What’s a “gay right”, Houndentenor?

    Since Obama opposes gay marriage, and John Kerry and Harold Ford support constitutional amendments banning gay marriage, obviously that’s not a “gay right”.

    Since Howard Dean discriminates against gay people in the workplace, obviously that’s not a “gay right”.

    Since Louis Farrakhan screams about gays being “filthy”, obviously that’s not a “gay right”.

    Otherwise you would be demanding that all of them be thrown out of the Obama Party, wouldn’t you?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 5, 2009 @ 7:43 pm - April 5, 2009

  9. A similar psychology experiment proves that inside every screaming leftist demanding gay marriage rights, there’s a fat, selfish little brat banging on his bell and demanding marshmallows.

    Comment by V the K — April 5, 2009 @ 7:47 pm - April 5, 2009

  10. john kerry does not support a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.

    Comment by bob (aka boob) — April 5, 2009 @ 8:18 pm - April 5, 2009

  11. john kerry does not support a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.

    Oops.

    John Kerry said in an interview published yesterday that he would have voted for the gay-marriage ban passed overwhelmingly this week by Missouri voters.

    The Democratic presidential nominee, who spent parts of two days stumping across the state, told The Kansas City Star the ballot measure was the same as one his home state of Massachusetts passed a few years ago. Kerry supported that measure.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 5, 2009 @ 8:20 pm - April 5, 2009

  12. In a separate interview with Kansas City’s NBC affiliate, Kerry reiterated that he and Sen. John Edwards oppose gay marriage, although they favor civil unions.

    “We’ve always argued the states will be capable of taking care of this by themselves,” Kerry said. “… We didn’t need a [federal] constitutional amendment in order to do what’s right.”

    Kerry was referring to a proposed amendment, backed by President Bush, that would outlaw same-sex marriage. The Senate has derailed the amendment.

    Comment by bob (aka boob) — April 5, 2009 @ 8:34 pm - April 5, 2009

  13. and john kerry said he would only support a state amendment if the state allowed civil unions.

    Comment by bob (aka boob) — April 5, 2009 @ 8:39 pm - April 5, 2009

  14. On 2/27/04 Kerry said, in the Boston Globe about a Massachusetts amendment to ban same-sex marriage, “If the Massachusetts Legislature crafts an appropriate amendment that provides for partnership and civil unions, then I would support it, and it would advance the goal of equal protection.” He was referring only to the state constitution, not US Constitutional ban that Bush has endorsed.

    Comment by bob (aka boob) — April 5, 2009 @ 8:40 pm - April 5, 2009

  15. next time do the fact checking BEFORE you head out the door to see your shrink.

    Comment by bob (aka boob) — April 5, 2009 @ 8:41 pm - April 5, 2009

  16. Translation: Obama Party members can support constitutional amendments banning gay marriage and not be against gay rights or “equality”.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 5, 2009 @ 8:43 pm - April 5, 2009

  17. next time do the fact checking BEFORE you head out the door to see your shrink.

    Actually, boob, given your claim:

    john kerry does not support a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage

    it seems rather amusing that you are now blaming ME for allegedly not “fact-checking”, since I got it right and you were dead wrong.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 5, 2009 @ 8:46 pm - April 5, 2009

  18. these democrats of whom you speak support allowing gays to 100% the same rights as heterosexual relationships. they are just not advocating the use of the word “marriage”. and frankly, the only reason they take that position is b/c to do otherwise means you’ll lose any national election. politically crass? perhaps, but i’ll take that over the overtly bigoted republicans.

    Comment by bob (aka boob) — April 5, 2009 @ 8:48 pm - April 5, 2009

  19. and i figured you were talking about a federal amendment, not some state amendment. you didn’t say “state” in your claim. and you also didn’t indicate that he would only support such a state amendment if it clearly outlined that gays should have full civil union rights.

    Comment by bob (aka boob) — April 5, 2009 @ 8:49 pm - April 5, 2009

  20. and bob, the facist in training, again tries to spin.

    Either a) John Kerry lies and says whatever he thinks will get him votes, or b) he’s addlebrained and doesn’t know what he believes one day to the next.

    Either way, it means that bob gives him a pass, as long as he likes what he hears.

    Comment by The_Livewire — April 5, 2009 @ 8:54 pm - April 5, 2009

  21. no, livewire, it means that i understand how the political process works, and i know that pols need to actually win elections in order to govern.

    Comment by bob (aka boob) — April 5, 2009 @ 8:56 pm - April 5, 2009

  22. bob to english “Yes, I know he’ll say and do anything to get elected, it doesn’t matter, as long as he’s not lying to me.”

    In the real world, this is known as the ‘If he didn’t love me, he wouldn’t beat me” arguement. Most often found in D/s and abusive relationships.

    Comment by The_Livewire — April 5, 2009 @ 9:04 pm - April 5, 2009

  23. Livewire, we know lying and corruption don’t matter to Democrats. That’s why Charlie Rangel, John Murtha, Sam Adams, Alcee Hastings, Tim Geithner, Barney Frank, John Street, and Chris Dodd are still in office, while Ted Stevens, Tom DeLay, and Mark Foley are long gone.

    Comment by V the K — April 5, 2009 @ 9:52 pm - April 5, 2009

  24. Hounentenor, we’re not oppose to gay rights, but gay rights as defined by the left-leaning gay interest groups. We just don’t believe creating gays as a separate class for legal (and political) purposes is a “right.”

    Comment by GayPatriotWest — April 5, 2009 @ 10:10 pm - April 5, 2009

  25. I’m in awe that our friends on the left treat this issue as if the culture wars started last year.

    No one even thought of gay marraige bans until our “robed masters” in Massachuchets (aping our robed masters in Hawaii) decided to manufacture new constitutional rights.

    Don’t give me the bull that conservatives have been plotting against gays. I’ve only missed three CPACs in ten years and the topic came up exactly once. Even then only as a pathetic, defensive crouch.

    They just want to be left alone. Christ, I just want to be left alone.

    Comment by MFS — April 5, 2009 @ 10:21 pm - April 5, 2009

  26. Houndentenor: ditto what GPW wrote.

    Myself, I don’t believe there is a “right” to marriage. Each state prescribes legal marriage: minimum age, waiting periods, who can perform a ceremony, how close the couple can be (first cousins can’t marry in KS, cousins can’t marry in OK regardless, CA allows cousins to marry), whether or not a blood test is needed, and so on. Likewise, the states get to decide under what conditions and how couples may dissolve the marriage.

    A right doesn’t require the consent of anyone else.

    I favor allowing gay couples to marry and be recognized as such by government because, IMHO, it would be a benefit to gays and a benefit to society at large.

    What I don’t favor is lawyers in robes telling the the people what they will and will not accept and allow (when it’s not addressed by the Constitution). Judges are not infallible.

    When a judge can manufacture rights from thin air, he can just as easily make them disappear.

    The judge that can decide that hundreds of years of tradition and jurisprudence just don’t fit the current culture can also decide that I don’t have a right to speech he believes to be “hateful”, can decide that my right to own guns is obsolete and then decide that my protection from unreasonable search and seizure isn’t as important as the State’s “need” to find and confiscate weapons.

    The Pavlovian response from the left is on display regardless of the issue. The more control the left gets in the world, the angrier it gets.

    Comment by SoCalRobert — April 5, 2009 @ 11:44 pm - April 5, 2009

  27. Filtered.

    Comment by SoCalRobert — April 5, 2009 @ 11:45 pm - April 5, 2009

  28. Boob vomitted:

    Kerry reiterated that he and Sen. John Edwards oppose gay marriage, although they favor civil unions.

    politically crass? perhaps, but i’ll take that over the overtly bigoted republicans.

    The “overtly bigoted” George W. Bush holds the SAME EXACT view as Kerry & Edwards.

    “I don’t think we should deny people rights to a civil union, a legal arrangement, if that’s what a state chooses to do so,” Bush said in an interview aired Tuesday on ABC.

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6338458/

    Long story short, Bush is “overtly bigoted” while Verry/Leftwards were the true champions of gays everywhere.

    Sorry, boob. You’re a fraud and you lose. Pete might have some lovely parting gifts (a swift kick in the arse) for you.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — April 6, 2009 @ 1:06 am - April 6, 2009

  29. I’ve got nothing… except to say that I always wanted to name one of my bands “Pavlov’s Dog”. But that trails second to my all time favorite band name I’ll probably never use….. “Cheerleader Deathsquad”!!!!!!!

    Comment by Sonicfrog — April 6, 2009 @ 1:22 am - April 6, 2009

  30. So boob, let me see if I have this right:

    Republican says he opposes Gay marriage: he is evil evil evil evil and the worst human being who has ever lived, ever.

    Democrat says he opposes Gay marriage: well you see, he really supports gays having all the same rights just um, not called marriage you see so um, its nuanced, you see!

    Do I have that right? I am not sure I can quite parse all the blaring left wing hypocrisy.

    Comment by Dark Eden — April 6, 2009 @ 1:38 am - April 6, 2009

  31. Boob personifies the intellectual dishonesty of the left:

    what’s odd (and potentially self-hating) is when you’re a gay person actively arguing against basic rights for gay people, the same SCOTUS that ruled that marriage was a right rejected the argument that gay marriage is therefore a right.

    …the closest thing to fascism in this discussion is telling consenting adults what they can’t do sexually in the privacy of their bedroom because it’s bad for the “state”.

    But of course no one is arguing against civil rights nor is there anyone trying to tell anyone what they can and cant do in the bedroom.

    The other Pavlovian liberal response….lying.

    Comment by American Elephant — April 6, 2009 @ 1:39 am - April 6, 2009

  32. :( Filtered :(

    Comment by American Elephant — April 6, 2009 @ 1:39 am - April 6, 2009

  33. I’m wondering if he could even name some of those “overtly bigoted Republicans” in congress.

    He can’t list any of the rights he says he’s being denied, so I doubt it.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — April 6, 2009 @ 2:13 am - April 6, 2009

  34. Off topic, but interesting. That evil conservative Fox news is the only major outlet I can find this morning reporting on the UPI story about gay related murders in Iraq. Wouldn’t it be ironic if Sadr’s militia were to find and punish the murderers?

    Comment by The Livewire — April 6, 2009 @ 7:36 am - April 6, 2009

  35. I am reporting from the shore of Lake Naive. I clicked on the comment which took me to the site Bruce mentioned. There, I discovered a raft of comments all centered on graphic, vulgarities concerning man with man sex.

    I am struck by the juvenile joy of sexual gratification in which these liberal gays wallow. It brings perspective to the comments here by thelittleletterpeople. Thelittleletterpeople are often trying to sell the myth that being gay is not sex centered. The gay left comments I just read give that theme a loud Bronx cheer.

    Comment by heliotrope — April 6, 2009 @ 10:38 am - April 6, 2009

  36. So Kerry gets a pass, because he really doesn’t mean what he says.
    On the other hand Dick Cheney as VP came out in favor of Gay marriage, but he’s just an evil Republican – so he is lying and really wants to lynch all gays.

    Boob did I get it right?

    Comment by Leah — April 6, 2009 @ 11:41 am - April 6, 2009

  37. boob & hound -

    I know it may be hard to do for you both, but please do not confuse “opposing gay rights” (codeword: homophobe), with SUPPORTING the constitutional process and foundations of our government.

    And I call bullshit on marriage being the be-all and end-all of “gay rights”. Since when? Marriage wasn’t even on the list 10 years ago.

    To me, the rule of law and Constitutional integrity is more important than ANY social issue.

    I know this is hard for liberals to comprehend, because they only obey the laws they approve of and ignore and defy the laws they don’t approve of. Examples: Gavin Newsome (gay marriage) & Nancy Pelosi (immigration).

    The Judicial Branch was never intended to create public or social policy. That is supposed to be in the hands of We, The People. And the Judiciary has very little accountability to We, The People.

    Comment by GayPatriot — April 6, 2009 @ 4:59 pm - April 6, 2009

  38. No boob. REAL self-hatred is throwing your support, money and votes at people who tell you how much they love you, but you KNOW damn well they are going to screw you over because they do it every time. More so than the “overtly bigoted” Republicans ever have.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — April 6, 2009 @ 5:14 pm - April 6, 2009

  39. Yeah Bob, don’t you ever notice all the conservatives at the gay pride booths? marching in the parades, petitioning their republican elected officals for more freedom and liberty?

    I guess all that Gay marriage on the ballot in 2004 was just an attempt at outreach to the gay community.

    Comment by Chuck In Del — April 6, 2009 @ 10:07 pm - April 6, 2009

  40. Chuck,

    Gay Marriage wasnt on the ballot in 2004 (or 2008). Liberals prefer to impose their beliefs on people.

    What was on the ballot in 2004 were attempts to defend traditional marriage from liberals attempts to dictate.

    And contrary to your implication, it is not a right wing or conservative phenomenon, as Proposition 8 proved when it passed with a healthy majority in deeply liberal, deep blue California.

    Comment by American Elephant — April 6, 2009 @ 11:29 pm - April 6, 2009

  41. Yeah Bob, don’t you ever notice all the conservatives at the gay pride booths? marching in the parades, petitioning their republican elected officals for more freedom and liberty?

    Conservatives have more important things to think about like national security, taxes, running their businesses, working hard and saving, practicing their faith, listening to and supporting what media they choose, and so forth.

    The irony, Chuck, is that gay-sex liberals like yourself whine about the importance of “freedom and liberty”, but support the Obama Party and its desires to confiscate guns, limit freedom of speech, suppress religion, punish business, and confiscate personal property and earnings in the name of “redistribution”.

    But then again, since your life is centered around your sexual orientation and whether it’s appropriately pandered to, I can see why you wouldn’t care about any of that old stuff. That’s what “breeders” do, not gay-sex liberals like yourself.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 7, 2009 @ 3:13 am - April 7, 2009

  42. #39
    Sure the liberals show up to your parades hunting for lunch money and votes. Guess you didn’t notice them signing laws AGAINST you over and over and over.

    And let’s not forget that they played the Everyone knows all gays are pedophiles card back in 2006. Nevermind that he never had sex with any kids. The liberals didn’t smear Foley so much as the smeared YOU.

    They show up at our parades. Well whoopty-fuckin-doo! They threw you under bus, backed up and ran over you repeatedly. And for what? So they could gain their absolute power to do NOTHING for 2 years.

    If there’s any self-hating faggots ’round here, it’s people like you, boob, gillie and all the other douchebags who slobber over that arrogant SOB in the WH and the other liberals in Washington who HATE you, but pretend to like you so you’ll keep on slobbering.

    Prove me wrong.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — April 7, 2009 @ 7:33 am - April 7, 2009

  43. OOPS, there go your guns. From 2005 Thank you Republicans:

    At issue is a provision in the Patriot Act reauthorization bill (S. 1266) authored by Sen. Pat Roberts (R-KS). Now, GOA has long opposed the vast majority of Patriot Act powers as being detrimental to freedom in general and dangerous to gun owners in the particular.

    In short, Sen. Roberts’ language would allow the FBI to seize ANY business records it believes would be relevant to an anti-terrorism investigation… without first seeking permission from any court in the land.

    From the GOA

    Comment by Chuck In Del — April 7, 2009 @ 12:53 pm - April 7, 2009

  44. As for proving you wrong.

    Democrats in my state are not hating me, they are, in fact, trying to pass non discrimination legislation, extend benefits to same sex couples for state employees, and getting hospital visitation rights.

    The Republicans? Trying to ammend the state constitution to ban same sex marriage and voting against the above listed legislation.

    Comment by Chuck In Del — April 7, 2009 @ 1:04 pm - April 7, 2009

  45. Delayed notification warrants have been used, and upheld by the courts, for many years (long before the Patriot Act). This is used to prevent folks from being tipped off about the investigation and destroying evidence or killing witnesses.

    Surely you can do better than looking up the GOA.

    And surely you won’t mind sharing the names of these local democrats you’re gushing about while ignoring the fact that I mentioned the liberals on the federal level. What’s more, with “non discrimination” legislation, they aren’t hating you as long as you don’t try to run your own business.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — April 7, 2009 @ 1:57 pm - April 7, 2009

  46. Democrats in my state are not hating me, they are, in fact, trying to pass non discrimination legislation, extend benefits to same sex couples for state employees, and getting hospital visitation rights.

    Or, in other words, they’re mandating who you can hire and fire, providing freebies to others at your expense, and making it easy for just anyone with any purpose whatsoever to go anywhere in a hospital they like.

    Republicans, on the other hand, think you should be free to hire whomever you want, that you shouldn’t be required to pay increased costs for state services, and that access to hospitals should be limited to people who take the time to fill out and complete the necessary legal paperwork.

    The problem is, Chuck, your sexual orientation so dominates your life and consciousness that you don’t think of these things. The Obama Party figured out a long time ago that gays like yourself would support anything, no matter how ludicrous, as long as the Obama Party threw you trinkets and beads. It all revolves around making you think of yourself as an oppressed minority first and an intelligent citizen second.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — April 7, 2009 @ 2:53 pm - April 7, 2009

  47. Uhm, no, NDT. I just proved to you that the democratic party is doing something I agree with. These are not “trinkets and beads” As for your view on these things, you are entilted to your opinion. We disagree. Its all good.

    And as I said in an another thread. I did fill out the proper paperwork and was still denied acess to my husband in the hospital. So the private free market model failed me. Hence, the need for legislation.

    And you don’t know me or my priorities. Your pavlovian response proves that its not just the democrats who assume and overreact. This is, after all a gay conservative blog, correct? So the topics might actually involve gay issues, no?

    Comment by Chuck In Del — April 7, 2009 @ 5:19 pm - April 7, 2009

  48. ? filtered ?

    Comment by Chuck In Del — April 7, 2009 @ 10:11 pm - April 7, 2009

Leave a comment

Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

**Note: Your first comment is held for moderation. Avoid profanity, avoid personal attacks on fellow commenters, and avoid complaining about personal attacks (even on you). Feel free to disagree with anyone, but focus on their ideas; give us the information that you think they overlooked.**


Live preview of comment

Close this window.

0.155 Powered by Wordpress