Why Do Republicans Hate Gay People?

[evilqueerpig]

"Hate" is in the title of this topic.  As an out and proud QUEER man and an unabashed Liberal, I could never understand why any gay man would identify as a Republican.  For me, that's the ultimate betrayal of one's gay self.  Once again, I ask, what has the Republican Party done for the 'gay' you?

[PozBearWI]

@evilqueerpig you must know that parties, in and of themselves, do absolutely nothing for any of us.  Parties lobby for self interest.  Thus it is equally true that the Democratic party as also done nothing for any of us.  

Our government(s) are who we should look to for services, productive legislation.  Most seem lump government into a single pot rather than more accurately pay attention to local government (which has the most impact on ones home life), the county government, state government and finally Federal government.  Each layer interacts with us as Americans.  Only one layer deals with all of us; but each layer is important and has affects us.  

 

[evilqueerpig]

2 hours ago, JimInWisc said:

@evilqueerpig you must know that parties, in and of themselves, do absolutely nothing for any of us.  Parties lobby for self interest.  Thus it is equally true that the Democratic party as also done nothing for any of us.  

Our government(s) are who we should look to for services, productive legislation.  Most seem lump government into a single pot rather than more accurately pay attention to local government (which has the most impact on ones home life), the county government, state government and finally Federal government.  Each layer interacts with us as Americans.  Only one layer deals with all of us; but each layer is important and has affects us.  

 

We DO have the Democratic party to thank for HIV/AIDS funding and the question STILL hasn't been answered!

[PozBearWI]

50 minutes ago, evilqueerpig said:

We DO have the Democratic party to thank for HIV/AIDS funding and the question STILL hasn't been answered!

What part of "Parties give us nothing" is confusing???  It was NOT the Democratic Party that gave us AIDS funding, it was Congress; although mostly democratic votes.  And that more because of straight children getting AIDS than us.

[evilqueerpig]

'mostly democratic votes'  How kind you are!  Yet STILL no answer!

[PozBearWI]

Every single response has answered that.  I'll conclude that english is not your native language or you ignored much of your early education. 

Neither PARTY has done a fucking thing for any of us.  Parties have one purpose, to carry a banner for their agenda and to promote election of people to follow that.  

If you think I am trying to be "kind" you are delusional.  

[BootmanLA]

3 hours ago, JimInWisc said:

Every single response has answered that.  I'll conclude that english is not your native language or you ignored much of your early education. 

Neither PARTY has done a fucking thing for any of us.  Parties have one purpose, to carry a banner for their agenda and to promote election of people to follow that.  

If you think I am trying to be "kind" you are delusional.  

I will agree with you that the party, on its own, does not do much, if anything, for people.

I will, however, acknowledge that "the party" is shorthand for "Elected members of the party". If we accept that shorthand - which I think EQP would - then what the Democratic party has done FOR us, and what the Republican party has done TO us, are a lot clearer.

[hungry_hole]

21 hours ago, evilqueerpig said:

Once again, I ask, what has the Republican Party done for the 'gay' you?

In Canada, it was during the Conservative government of Stephen Harper that the same-sex marriage became law.

[BootmanLA]

10 hours ago, hungry_hole said:

In Canada, it was during the Conservative government of Stephen Harper that the same-sex marriage became law.

Not true.

First, passage of the Civil Marriage Act happened AFTER courts - not Canada's parliament, not provincial government - had mandated recognition of same-sex marriage in eight of the ten provinces and one of the three territories.

By the time the government "acted" same-sex marriage was already the law of the land for >90% of Canadians. The act in question merely extended the status quo to the less than 10% of Canadians who weren't already covered.

Moreover: the act in question (the Civil Marriage Act) was introduced under the PREVIOUS government, a coalition headed by the Liberal Party, and it was during THAT government's leadership that the Act passed the House of Commons, the Senate, AND received royal assent - all in 2005.

The Conservative government didn't take power until 2006. Under them, in fact, the CONSERVATIVE government tried to UNDO the Civil Marriage Act, and was handed a defeat in Parliament. 

So basically your entire statement is incorrect. Calendars are tricky things, but it's a lot easier if you just focus on the years so you can see the Act  passed in 2005 and the conservative government was elected in 2006.

[NEDenver]

Republicans (conservatives elsewhere also) are best understood using the Republican dichotomy:  All Republicans are either stupid or evil.  Then you just need to figure out for any Republican which category they fall into.  And then, really, because they serve no other purpose, you have to decide if you’re willing to fuck a guy who is stupid or evil.

[PozBearWI]

5 hours ago, NEDenver said:

Republicans (conservatives elsewhere also) are best understood using the Republican dichotomy:  All Republicans are either stupid or evil.  Then you just need to figure out for any Republican which category they fall into.  And then, really, because they serve no other purpose, you have to decide if you’re willing to fuck a guy who is stupid or evil.

Or, perhaps, they're neither stupid nor evil.  Perhaps they just have differing priorities than most of us here.  

[hungry_hole]

17 hours ago, BootmanLA said:

First, passage of the Civil Marriage Act happened AFTER courts...

I'm sure you're right about the history, but what I know is that Harper was Primer Minister when same-sex marriage became legal in the province of Ontario, and that he gave permission to his party to vote independently.

[NEDenver]

2 hours ago, JimInWisc said:

Or, perhaps, they're neither stupid nor evil.  Perhaps they just have differing priorities than most of us here.  

No.  If their priority is to funnel resources from the bottom 99% of society to the top 1%, they're evil.  If they're pretending it's not happening or something else is more important, they're stupid.  "It's more important that gay people can't teach in schools than that I can eat and have a roof over my head."  Stupid.

[PozBearWI]

1 hour ago, NEDenver said:

No.  If their priority is to funnel resources from the bottom 99% of society to the top 1%, they're evil.  If they're pretending it's not happening or something else is more important, they're stupid.  "It's more important that gay people can't teach in schools than that I can eat and have a roof over my head."  Stupid.

That funneling for many is the side effect of their goals and party leadership.  Party leadership is likely NOT the elected ones, but those who paid to get them elected (Big Pharma, The oligarchs).  But indeed there are a number of R's who are in it only for the $$, not for any social benefit save their own self interests.  There are others who were taught from babyhood that us queers are the evil ones, and hold onto that like their next meal depended upon it.

[BootmanLA]

6 hours ago, hungry_hole said:

I'm sure you're right about the history, but what I know is that Harper was Primer Minister when same-sex marriage became legal in the province of Ontario, and that he gave permission to his party to vote independently.

Harper became Prime Minister on February 6, 2006.

Same-sex marriage became legal in the province of Ontario on June 10, 2003, nearly three years earlier.

You're simply misinformed about what happened under Harper. Same-sex marriages had ALREADY been legalized before his government took power. His government attempted to "reopen the question" - that is, repeal the previously enacted legislation that created same-sex marriage nationwide - and it LOST that vote.

Harper may, or may not, have been personally opposed to or in favor of same-sex marriage - I don't pretend to know what he believed himself. But I do know that he had nothing to do with it being legalized either in Ontario or in the country as a whole. The calendar simply refutes the entire premise.