Why Do Republicans Hate Gay People?

[Piggyybttmm]

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

[Nude]

They are playing with each other while the people suffer

[DocGun]

Well as a conservative and a gay male I think rpur over generalized the issue. There are many conservative gay people. And saying Republicans hate gays is like say white people are all racist. 

The real issue is people on both sides of this issue refuse to have rational conversation with each other. And those of us who do get drowned out by media bios.  We are tought to hate any other opinions that don't agree with our own. We are told to hate and far to many believe what there told. 

Not all white people are racist and not all Republicans hate gay people. Generalization of others is our biggest problem.  

Commutation is our only hope and until we as people take the time to communicate hate will prevail.  Just look at history are we doomed to repeat our past I so hope not.

[hntnhole]

On 6/21/2023 at 9:01 AM, marcum said:

to gather more consumers

Hello, marum, and welcome.

Per the above, the interests of Big Business are paramount to all elected officials, and to those seeking office.  This is the very deep well from which they get their multi-millions in "seed money" to run ads in major media, hold rallies, etc.  

On 6/21/2023 at 9:01 AM, marcum said:

the group of interest representing us.

While the liberal/progressive legislators are generally more inclusive in their outlook, many are still a bit behind-the-times in forward-looking political decisions.  The conservatives have chosen to limit their outreach for dollars (and votes) to the less educated, less responsible, and obviously less caring of their fellow citizens.  These "conservatives" in the general population are more concerned with preserving their imagine preeminence in the cultural life of the US, and care little for the trials and hardships of "the other".  Yes, there are gay conservatives, but they are Conservatives first, and gay secondly.  Thus, and by default, the "group of interest representing us" is the closest thing we have to a political "home".  Given that the liberal party has many other groups and sub-groups in their fold, the resources are spread over a wider pool of recipients.  There are so many groups that desperately need representation, the effect of getting attention seems to get watered down, compared to the conservatives.  The obvious answer for us, is to take part in the political life, as 'out' gay men, be recognized and thus a valued component of the so-called Progressive Wing of the liberal party, and no bird I've ever heard of has that many wings. 

It seems more and more clear these days, that one political party is looking backwards far more than the other, but it's simply not the 1950's anymore.  What were clearly defined limits then, are fading away, which is what we call "progress", socially, culturally, and as citizens.  That progress cannot be made, however, unless the majority of all the citizens agree on certain basic principles like respect for others, respect for oneself, listening to other's viewpoints as well as offering our own.  

On 6/21/2023 at 9:01 AM, marcum said:

Was it impossible that more moderate adults from both sides reached a compromise preventing people who are less aware :

- of homosexuality from fighting it?

No, it was not impossible.  In fact, we got really close to that.  An acceptance of others as-they-are was the order of the day, and quietly accepted even by the conservatives that never believed it in the first place.  But greed, jealousy, self-interest over the welfare of everyone took hold unfortunately, and may again rear it's hideous head.  When a group of citizens fears are pandered to by a con-man, then the forward progress - I mean culturally - can easily be arrested.  But fear is a powerful thing when let loose, as we're seeing all around us in the US.  

 

On 6/21/2023 at 9:01 AM, marcum said:

- of "non-(homo)sexuals" from imposing to them, to their incomprehension, a model extending 'sexual freedom' to minors' sexualization and drugs?

The only sense I can make of this issue, is the creation of a non-existent "threat" in the minds of straights, regarding their children.  No parent, regardless of political connection, wants their child to be exposed to "sexualization" or drugs.  The way I see it, no parent should be forced into anything, or kid forced into anything sexual or drug-related.  The problem arises when poorly-educated parents seem think that their kids learning about other groups of people have differing thoughts about what is right and proper for everyone else's kids.  Parents get to teach their own kids what's right and wrong, and so does every other parent.  No one gets to decide for others what is "right" or "wrong".

Thanks for the post.

[PDXCUMDUMP4USE]

Being a native Virginian and cutting my professional teeth inside the beltway I know this is guaranteed to piss off someone.  The GOP is not a monolithic group. It's fractured at the moment even more than the Donkeys.  There used to be a saying in DC that Democrats fall in love where Republicans fall in line. That little ditty doesn't hold as much water as it used too. The movers and shakers of the party or as I call them, The Untouchables , I dont believe hold strong opinions on  the topic except knowing what they must say to win a primary. Many of the younger staffers are gay. I never understood why someone would work for an organization that didnt want them in the first place.  It's not until you get down the ranks to the primary voters and those that must cater to them that you find most of the vitrol.. Most of the Ivy Leaguers realize that probably isn't the battle they should committ so much to if not for Bubba and Bubbette the primary  voters.

[NEDenver]

On 6/21/2023 at 7:01 AM, marcum said:

Hi, guys, and thanks for this enriching debate,

Coming from a less bipolar society where being a citizen remains more important (and rewarding) than belonging to a community, I have a question about the strategies chosen by American decision makers of the group of interest representing us.

They have chosen to open the door to sex education for minors, which is better than ignorance, without closing the one of their sexualization, claimed by marketing strategists as a way, among others, to gather more consumers.

Such a decision, accompanied by a blackmailing criticophobia ─ "if you aren't unconditionally with us as 'progressists', you are a homophobic bigot against us" ─ links "contradictors" to "haters," which is the best incitement to civil war.

Was it impossible that more moderate adults from both sides reached a compromise preventing people who are less aware :

- of homosexuality from fighting it?

- of "non-(homo)sexuals" from imposing to them, to their incomprehension, a model extending 'sexual freedom' to minors' sexualization and drugs?

That's my humble question to all of you 🙂

Take care xxx

Marc

Thanks to 3 decades of Limbaugh and Rupert Murdoch’s propaganda, we’re here.  I, the first veteran in my family generation and only second including the two older than me, was first told by a family member that I was the enemy of America in 1994.  There are no conservative adults.  

There’s no moderation on THE ONE SIDE and hasn’t been for at least 3 decades.  I had a friend in college intern for moderate Republican Senator Slade Gorton as a moderate pro-choice Republican in 1991, and already by then, 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.

Until and unless normal R people take out the entire Republican infrastructure and convince voters to quit scapegoating everyone else, nothing will change.  Given how useless the Lincoln Project is, there’s no hope.  Regardless, the only one hurting young people are conservatives wanting to starve and de-home them, inflict conversion therapy on gay teens, and just support their parents kicking them out, remove funding for Medicaid, and then leaving them with conservative male role models who do groom and molest them.

 

[Barebacker831]

I’m a republican, just more the way I lean politically, and I hate trump so please let’s not bother going there. But I love sucking cock and taking loads, so I really don’t think it has to do specifically with Republicans, just the extremists who fall into that category.

[viking8x6]

27 minutes ago, Barebacker831 said:

I’m a republican, just more the way I lean politically, and I hate trump so please let’s not bother going there. But I love sucking cock and taking loads, so I really don’t think it has to do specifically with Republicans, just the extremists who fall into that category.

Agreed. So, perhaps more helpful questions to be asking might be:

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

and

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

[tighthole64]

36 minutes ago, viking8x6 said:

Agreed. So, perhaps more helpful questions to be asking might be:

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

and

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

Vote BLUE! Not just at presidential levels!

[JeffSLmmPigDadd]

I hope this daddy isn’t dating himself, but I’m just trying to inject some humor into this. I hope my young bottom boys know who the Church Lady was. Maybe The Church Lady can answer your question. 😂 I

Edited June 22, 2023 by JeffPigDadd

[viking8x6]

31 minutes ago, tighthole64 said:

Vote BLUE! Not just at presidential levels!

Actually, I meant my question slightly differently than that:

Literally, what can we do to dissuade the Republicans from pursuing this legislation in the first place? It drags queer sexuality into the political debate, which distracts from other (far more important) issues that all of us face, and should be facing together. Furthermore, my impression is that the people in power are doing it deliberately in pursuit of exactly this goal. Not that they are morally bankrupt... but if that shoe fits...

8 minutes ago, JeffPigDadd said:

Maybe The Church Lady can answer your question.

Could it be...???

[BBArchangel]

Penis envy. Small-dicked republicans hate us because studies show that gay men’s dicks are bigger.

[BootmanLA]

On 6/21/2023 at 12:46 PM, topblkmale said:

I concur 100% 👍

Parents of children can decide what their children can and CANNOT watch or listen to.

We can agree to NOT force our values on others. Can we not?

Sure, if the GOP would stop banning what some of us are perfectly happy to let our children attend (like Drag Queen Story Hour).

NOBODY on the left is demanding that all kids be rounded up and forced to listen to Verandah Gazebo read Snow White. But lots of people on the RIGHT are demanding that such events be banned - that public venues be closed to them - that people who allow children to attend such things be charged with child endangerment.

It's pretty clear who's forcing whose values onto whom. 

[BootmanLA]

On 6/21/2023 at 8:54 AM, topblkmale said:

We all know this is not true. Pedophilia has no left-right political leaning.

I'm not saying pedophiles are all right-wingers. I'm saying that most of the ones publicly identified are affiliated with right-leaning groups - churches, the Boy Scouts, Republican elected officials, etc. They're also the ones most loudly insisting that all gay people are pedophiles-in-waiting, just looking to lure in other people's kids. It's projection. 

[BootmanLA]

On 6/21/2023 at 8:01 AM, marcum said:

They have chosen to open the door to sex education for minors, which is better than ignorance, without closing the one of their sexualization, claimed by marketing strategists as a way, among others, to gather more consumers.

Such a decision, accompanied by a blackmailing criticophobia ─ "if you aren't unconditionally with us as 'progressists', you are a homophobic bigot against us" ─ links "contradictors" to "haters," which is the best incitement to civil war.

Are you suggesting that gay people are pushing for sex ed and refusing to hide being gay so that we can recruit children to a gay lifestyle or something? Surely that's not what I'm reading. If not, please clarify; if it is, well, you'd fit right in with the right-wing assholes who've been trying to harm our community since forever.

On 6/21/2023 at 8:01 AM, marcum said:

Was it impossible that more moderate adults from both sides reached a compromise preventing people who are less aware :

- of homosexuality from fighting it?

- of "non-(homo)sexuals" from imposing to them, to their incomprehension, a model extending 'sexual freedom' to minors' sexualization and drugs?

I'm not sure how you reach people who think homosexuality is a sickness or a sin and "compromise" with them. It's like trying to compromise with people who think the earth is flat or the moon is made of green cheese. Sooner or later, reality has to intrude and responsible people have to ignore idiocy.

That said, I don't know any gay people whose goal in life is to promote sexual freedom and drugs to minors. Yes, of course they exist. They're not part of any governing or want-to-be-governing organization I know of.

On the other hand, there's a (small but vocal) portion of people on the far right that want to make it legal for adult men to marry young girls of almost any age - and unlike the handful of gay people who might be promoting sexual freedom for older youth, there's a measurable number of right-wing politicians, IN OFFICE, who support allowing adult men to marry girls - in some cases, as young as 12 or 13. But sure, tell me how it's the gays who are promoting sexualizing children.