Why Do Republicans Hate Gay People?

[BootmanLA]

Here's the thing, though.

We can say "Not all Republicans..." until we're blue in the face, but that doesn't change the fact that (a) a lot of Republicans are, in fact, whatever negative characteristic we're trying to absolve the rest from (pick one or more: racist, religiously bigoted, anti-immigrant, whatever), and (b) that batch of (racist, bigoted, anti-immigrant, whatever) Republicans are not only the base of the party, but its heart and soul. They write the party platform, which - to this day - still opposes same-sex marriage. Despite decades of proof that abstinence programs result in more unplanned pregnancies, more sexually transmitted infections, and more abortions (until the Dobbs decision), they are stalwartly in favor of eliminating any form of sex education that actually teaches kids things like contraception and disease prevention.

We can say "Not all Republicans..." until we're blue in the face, but the party governance is in the grip of extremists, especially on the notion of Christian dominance. Even their would-be leaders whose family origins clearly mark them as "those people" feel compelled to Americanize their names to appeal to a bigoted primary electorate - hence we don't have former governors known as Nimarata Haley and Piyush Jindal, we have "Nikki" and "Bobby".

We can say "Not all Republicans..." but the man who is essentially its leader - a twice-impeached, twice-indicted grifter - brooks no dissent and despite ample evidence of his criminality is the frontrunner for his party's nomination. No one else is even close in any poll. If "not all Republicans" meant anything, he wouldn't have 76% favorable ratings among Republicans. And that's despite virtually every single one of his former top people - cabinet secretaries, chiefs of staff, whomever - coming forward to confirm that yes, he's just as ignorant and ill-informed as everyone says.

Sure, there are individual Republicans out there who don't want Trump in office again, who aren't anti-gay bigots, who aren't racist, who aren't anti-immigrants. The question I have is, "Why?" There was once a principled economic reason possible, that Republicans were better stewards of the economy, but since half our total debt was run up in just two Republican administrations, since the Republicans proved under both Shrub and Hair Furor that they had no principles other than spend the fuck out of the Treasury, that reasoning rings hollow. 

 What, exactly, does the Republican party stand for today - not some faded tintype image from 1952, but today - that any self-respecting, non-racist gay person could support?

[Kayne]

My 2 cents.

Its not specifically "Republicans" that are the problem. No, that's the easy out. What it is, is the different ideological factions that make up CONSERVATISM. Its a Pyramid scheme.

bottom tier, you have the commoners. These people are easily swayed. For a literal metric fuck ton of reasons they are trapped in an echo chamber of their own making. They are incapable of critical or objective thinking. They are ignorant and blissfully proud of it. 

The next tier above them are the ones that know better, but have grown bitter and given up. these are the generations that opposed their forebears because they recognized at one time that the system was broken, but as they got older, they see their kids fighting the fight they abandoned. their mindset is "it was good enough for me, how dare you demand better "

The next tier wants to keep control through division and conformity. New Ideas  diversity, and unity through common ground threatens thei position and view. that must be stamped out at once to keep their fragile pi ture stable.

Next tier is organized religion  doesn't really matter which God or God's.  ut religion has been an effective tool to keep those lower tiers in line.

The next tier are the wealthy. standing on those lower than themselves is how they .aintain their wealth and the work those below them do keeps the river of money flowing to then.

At the Top you have the powerful. These are the people that aren't going anywhere without a fight. these are the puppet masters, they control the strings.

Whether it is forbidding a certain class of people  to learn to read, or enforcing system of generational servitude, or itsa culture of misogyny, or its the Red Scare. Lavender Scare. Satanic Panic, immigrants,  ,Guns, social justice, Drag. it doesn't matter. All it is, is a distraction. 

Keeping everyone at odds is the goal and playing on the prejudices,  fears, and indignation of an obnoxious and vocal few keeps a majority capable of obliterating the status quo from organizing to do just that.

Tomorrow, a new fad will be the "It" thing to fight over. 

but thats just the way one big dumb jock sees it. 

 

 

 

[hntnhole]

On 6/22/2023 at 4:51 PM, NEDenver said:

she was telling stories of hushed meetings and quiet lunches with other moderate Republicans even knowing that moderate right wing Republicans were getting challenged and purged in primaries.

To my mind, the source of this discontent has been around for over 150 years now.  It's only in the very recent past that those clinging to disappointments, envies, jealousies, grievances, have crawled out from the rocks they've been steeping under for that century and a half. 

It's only lately that these above-referenced "moderate Republicans" have felt emboldened enough to be so open about their self-serving views, caught up in the truly ignorant platitudes of the amazingly dull "legislators" doing absolutely nothing to advance that Moral Arc of the Universe that bends towards Justice.  The odd thing is, once the mindset of at least attempting to be part of the "Greater We" fades away, thus laying their mis-directed sorrows bare, the urge to rip everyone and everything apart can take hold.  It's almost unimaginable that one of the major political parties has not advanced one single piece of legislation that might stand a chance of at least smoothing things over, if not actually ameliorate some of the more egregious wrongs.  

Thanks for the interesting discussion.  

[hntnhole]

On 6/22/2023 at 6:44 PM, viking8x6 said:

Why does the Republican Party (and the politicians who compose it) find it appropriate to pursue anti-gay legislation?

I think it's because our refusal to "toe their cultural line", which is interpreted as flipping them (and their values) off.  It's interpreted as dissing them.  It's interpreted as marginalizing the already extant sense of marginalization.  They think gay folk are beneath them, and we know we aren't - we're merely equal to them.  Thus, the Republican interest in repressing not only gays, but other groups they feel is beneath them on the social order.  I am not alluding to the validity of the conservative viewpoint; there are liberal/conservative parties in nations across the globe, and they usually managed to work together to advance the lives of their citizens.  

 

On 6/22/2023 at 6:44 PM, viking8x6 said:

And what can WE, as LGBTIA+ Americans, DO about that?

We can do our best to work with them, as equal citizens, and try our best to achieve small advancements in caring for the welfare of all our citizens.  We must vote in every single election.  Proof positive has been amply demonstrated that the down-ballot elections matter tremendously.  Take part in local politics.  Let our voices be heard, and not in an antagonizing way.  We can set an example in the practice of citizenship.  

Thanks for the questions.  I hope other guys respond as well.

[tighthole64]

HNT TOTALLY AGREE on the point of down ballot voting!  Sadly the Republicans have built a system of power to change what ever they want to defeat the Democrats.  Look at those who still support Trump.  Look at those who support DeSatan.  

Somehow the left has made some minor wins.  For instance today Florida's Drag Queen Bill had a win in court saying it violates Freedom of Speech.  Yes, it may be a temporary win, but fighting such laws distracts from finding winning candidates, either main stream, or down stream, and that's what the Republicans want.

[Guest]

On 6/21/2023 at 10:35 AM, Cumfilledbottomboi said:

Nah, just a self-centered person. You say you aren’t “conservative” but everything you’ve said here and the catch phrases you type says you ARE.

Lmao says who? You? Sorry son. I have been moderate/Independent for decades before your dad shot the best part of you into yer mum and dripped out of her pussy.

[Guest]

On 6/21/2023 at 3:20 PM, Piggyybttmm said:

Why do you think it's just republicans? Hilary Clinton (and a few others) weren't pro LGBT till it because necessary for them to in order to win votes. These politicians don't like anyone that isn't giving them money

Very true.

[Guest]

Hi guys, and thanks for your messages making me understand that I wrote mine without knowing how irreconcilable both sides are.

 

[hntnhole]

17 hours ago, TotalTop said:

Hilary Clinton (and a few others) weren't pro LGBT till it because necessary for them to in order to win votes.

While true, that doesn't mean she wasn't "pro LGBT".  All it means is that LGBT Community was not under direct threat by some on the other side of the aisle.  All it means is, there were other issues that the candidates were taking stances on, because the repressionists weren't coming after us like they are today.  

Political candidates develop/take positions that don't address the current issues of the day, in the effort to garner more votes than the other candidate(s).  Sure, there were those who hated us - there always have been - but Clinton wasn't faced with these issues at the time.  She, and other candidates were taking stances on the pressing issues of their election cycles.  Both the Clintons had addressed the issue of gay rights, and in an affirmative way previously.  

As the various issues arise, candidates state their positions when those issues become predominant in the political discourse.

[NEDenver]

On 6/24/2023 at 6:31 PM, marcum said:

Hi guys, and thanks for your messages making me understand that I wrote mine without knowing how irreconcilable both sides are.

 

We’re locked in the paradox of intolerance at this point.  We’re not alone.  Notably, Russia, the UK, Hungary, Poland, Italy, Uganda are all in the same space.  Other places also I’m sure, but just listing places where the hateful right is flexing or dominant is depressing.  Until you resolve the eliminationist Right, you just can’t move forward.  

[BootmanLA]

On 6/21/2023 at 2:20 PM, Piggyybttmm said:

Why do you think it's just republicans? Hilary Clinton (and a few others) weren't pro LGBT till it because necessary for them to in order to win votes. These politicians don't like anyone that isn't giving them money

That depends, in large measure, how you define "weren't pro LGBT".

For instance, when Hillary Clinton ran for president in 2008, she wholeheartedly endorsed civil unions for LGBT people with all of the rights and privileges of same-sex marriage. That was only four years after the massive push by Republicans (in 2004) to get states to enact state-level DOMA laws, barring recognition of same-sex marriages from states where it was already legal. Sure, you can that civil unions (even ones legally equivalent to marriage) aren't enough, but that was still light years beyond what the Republicans were doing at the time. Remember, too, that from 2009 to 2013 she was Secretary of State, during which time she had to be circumspect about getting out in front of the president she served on domestic policy issues; she came out fully in favor of same-sex marriage shortly after she stepped down from the State Department.

Her husband is largely remembered for signing DOMA and Don't Ask/Don't Tell into law, But DOMA passed both chambers of Congress by a wide, veto-proof majority, and as an incumbent up for re-election, vetoing the bill would have not only been  swiftly overridden, but it would have handed the Republicans another issue to beat up Democrats across the board with.

As for DADT, remember that was what Clinton was able to negotiate out of Congress from the Republicans' preferred position, which was codifying the outright ban on gay servicemen and women that had been effect as a policy (rather than by law). DADT was progress - slow progress, not enough progress, but better than the regression that threatened LGBT people at the time. Clinton had gone into office intending to simply lift that policy ban, but the threat from Congress to codify it into law led to the compromise of DADT. And which president ended DADT? Another Democratic president, Barack Obama.

Bill Clinton was also the first presidential nominee to have an openly gay speaker at his convention, the first to say “gay” in an acceptance speech, and the first to appear at a fundraiser expressly targeted at cultivating support from sexual minorities. And he got ENDA - the Employment Non-Discrimination Act - within one vote of passage in the Senate, despite having nowhere near a majority in the Senate.

Let's contrast that with what recent Republican presidents have done. Ronald Reagan famously did next to nothing for gay people as HIV began to ravage our community - despite his wife's close friendship with any number of openly and closeted gay celebrities. GHW Bush refused direct requests to remove the ban on gay people having security clearances or the ban on gay servicemembers, both of which Bill Clinton addressed. (In fairness, I should note that much, much later in life, he served as witness at the wedding of two female friends of his family, in Maine, and around the time of the Obergefell decision he said that gay couples have "a right to be happy".)

GW Bush, aka Shrub, not only pushed states across the country to constitutionally bar same-sex marriage, but announced support for a federal constitutional amendment to bar it nationwide (even in states that wanted to legalize it).

As for Mango Mussolini, he opposed the Equality Act (barring discrimination against LGBT people in employment, housing, public accommodations, etc.); his administration filed amicus briefs in the Supreme Court defending employers' rights to discriminate against LGBT people; he banned transgender people from serving in the military; instituted a policy to remove all HIV+ persons from the military; he proposed cutting nearly 1/3 of US spending on HIV/AIDS abroad; and a long, long, LONG list of other steps, all targeted at making an unwelcoming and/or unsafe environment for LGBT people. His famous claim to be the "most pro-gay president ever" stems from a single instance of appointing a right-wing gay proto-fascist, Richard Grenell, to a series of high-level positions for which he was utterly unqualified, solely because he was a solid Trumpanzee and gave Trump's hard-core fascist crew, like Santa Monica Goebels, "cover". 

Are all Democrats pro-gay? Of course not. Are those who are, perfect across the board in their support? Of course not. But are Democrats - at all levels - as a group far, far more supportive of us than Republicans? It isn't even close.

 

[BootmanLA]

And I should add: Never forget that George HW Bush gave us Clarence Thomas, replacing the nation's then-only black Supreme Court Justice, with a stellar record as a defender of the downtrodden, with a sexually harassing bureaucrat with a chip on his shoulder about having benefitted from affirmative action his entire life - who has voted against gay rights in EVERY SINGLE CASE brought in his more than 30 years on the Court. He has not once - NEVER - voted that any civil rights law, whatsoever, protects gay people; he has never voted once - NEVER - that any law targeting gay people is unconstitutional.

Justices sometimes surprise us with how they end up voting on our issues. Gorsuch wrote the Bostock opinion that laws that bar discrimination on the basis of sex include gay people, for instance, and Chief Justice Roberts joined him that opinion. But Thomas never has, and, I'd wager, never will.

[hntnhole]

Mr. Bootman,

Aside from the uplifting commentary - with which I agree completely - I simply must mention that your exceptional gift for satire, use of alliteration, composition of nick-names is a gift that keeps on giving.  I laugh throughout the day, doing chores, whatever, as snippets of your phraseology pass through my mind again. 

Thanks for your magnificent observations, doled out in such a winning way.  

[Guest]

11 hours ago, NEDenver said:

We’re locked in the paradox of intolerance at this point.  We’re not alone.  Notably, Russia, the UK, Hungary, Poland, Italy, Uganda are all in the same space.  Other places also I’m sure, but just listing places where the hateful right is flexing or dominant is depressing.  Until you resolve the eliminationist Right, you just can’t move forward.  

Have you ever actually traveled to or lived in the UK, Italy, Hungary, Poland, or Russia? These are modern day countries, modern day societies, with normal tolerant people and it is not as though they are Iran or Saudi Arabia, or third world shitholes like Uganda and almost all of Sub-Saharan Africa.

[topblkmale]

2 hours ago, TotalTop said:

Have you ever actually traveled to or lived in the UK, Italy, Hungary, Poland, or Russia? These are modern day countries, modern day societies, with normal tolerant people and it is not as though they are Iran or Saudi Arabia, or third world shitholes like Uganda and almost all of Sub-Saharan Africa.

 

🤯

wow!