Why is the Republican party so anti-homosexual?

dlofnep

Looking at the history of the Republican party, but also the recent Republican debate on Fox - I was appalled to see the audience boo one of their soldiers because he stated that he was gay. It just goes to show the bigotry that exists in the Republican party. What is the Republican party trying to do to combat homophobia in the Republican party, and why didn't one of the candidates address the crowd booing a man who put his life on the line for them?

matthew8

dlofnep wrote: »

Looking at the history of the Republican party, but also the recent Republican debate on Fox - I was appalled to see the audience boo one of their soldiers because he stated that he was gay. It just goes to show the bigotry that exists in the Republican party. What is the Republican party trying to do to combat homophobia in the Republican party, and why didn't one of the candidates address the crowd booing a man who put his life on the line for them?

There were only a few people, 5 at most, booing. Many of the candidates didn't hear the booing, among them Rick Santorum so would not respond. Gary Johnson said after the debate his biggest regret was not speaking out against the booing. Traditionally both parties were anti-gay, though the democrats were the racist ones, so saying looking at the history of the republicans, the history of them pre-1960 is meaningless.

The republican party shouldn't combat homophobia imo, each to their own, discriminating against homophobics is as bad as discriminating against gays.

MOSSAD

Because many of them think that by being anti-gay it will deflect attention from their own concealed homosexuality. The history of the GOP is littered with the downfall of many members who were caught in the act with members of the same sex.

matthew8

MOSSAD wrote: »

Because many of them think that by being anti-gay it will deflect attention from their own concealed homosexuality. The history of the GOP is littered with the downfall of many members who were caught in the act with members of the same sex.

Yes, Santorum and Perry are both meant to be closet gays. It's very sad really the lengths that people go to to hide who they are, and it's shocking that they should want all gay soldiers to go through the same.

dlofnep

matthew8 wrote: »

There were only a few people, 5 at most, booing. Many of the candidates didn't hear the booing, among them Rick Santorum so would not respond. Gary Johnson said after the debate his biggest regret was not speaking out against the booing.

Day late, a dollar short. And of course they heard it, don't give them a cop-out. They had the opportunity to address it there and then, and not one of them had the courage to do so.

matthew8 wrote: »

The republican party shouldn't combat homophobia imo, each to their own, discriminating against homophobics is as bad as discriminating against gays.

What? How is tackling homophobia as bad as discriminating against gays?

matthew8

Day late, a dollar short. And of course they heard it, don't give them a cop-out. They had the opportunity to address it there and then, and not one of them had the courage to do so.

Santorum says he didn't hear them.

What? How is tackling homophobia as bad as discriminating against gays?

You are attacking the way they live and who they are.

dlofnep

matthew8 wrote: »

Santorum says he didn't hear them.

Suppose it were to be true (which it isn't) - He has a long record of anti-homosexual remarks, so that's irrelevant.

matthew8 wrote: »

You are attacking the way they live and who they are.

No - They are attacking the way homosexuals live, and who they are - I am addressing the matter, and asking why the Republican party does not speak out in support of homosexuals.

matthew8

Suppose it were to be true (which it isn't) - He has a long record of anti-homosexual remarks.

If he didn't hear them there's every chance other candidates didn't hear them.

No - They are attacking the way homosexuals live, and who they are - I am addressing the matter, and asking why the Republican party does not speak out in support of homosexuals.

Because they are social conservatives. They want to conserve the social norm, and gays and drugs don't fit into the social norm, and they want it to stay that way.

hangon

The Republican/Tea party are a disgrace IMO,their only goal seems to be that another type of minority will never again enter the WH even if it means that the US will go under.
Patriots my butt.

dlofnep

matthew8 wrote: »

If he didn't hear them there's every chance other candidates didn't hear them.

He most certainly heard them. But it doesn't change the reality that his record against homosexuality, and indeed the Republican party as a whole is very well documented. So stop deflecting. You are very aware that the Republican party is broadly against homosexuals at a political and social level.

matthew8 wrote: »

Because they are social conservatives. They want to conserve the social norm, and gays and drugs don't fit into the social norm, and they want it to stay that way.

That does not give them the right to discriminate against them.

Do you believe that homosexuality is wrong, and warrants the criticism it receives from Republicans?

matthew8

hangon wrote: »

The Republican/Tea party are a disgrace IMO,their only goal seems to be that another type of minority will never again enter the WH even if it means that the US will go under.
Patriots my butt.

It is incredible the abuse us tea partiers receive. next thing we'll be herded up and put in camps, those without guns mind you. The tea party want to make sure that people can choose not to buy health insurance first and foremost, they don't care about race, abortion or gay marriage. Less than 1% do.

He most certainly heard them. But it doesn't change the reality that his record against homosexuality, and indeed the Republican party as a whole is very well documented. So stop deflecting. You are very aware that the Republican party is broadly against homosexuals at a political and social level.

I was just pointing out that they may not have heard them and if they did they wouldn't have seemed loud, I think if Santorum saw what was seen on the TV his answer would've been different.

That does not give them the right to discriminate against them.

The thing is that if you have a government intolerant of homophobics, you then have closet homophobics, personally I'm terrified to speak out in support of israel in public and that could happen with homophobics in future.

Do you believe that homosexuality is wrong, and warrants the criticism it receives from Republicans?

No, it's natural.

hangon

dlofnep wrote: »

warrants the criticism it receives from Republicans?

dlofnep i have found US Republicans cannot be argued with they only think short term and despite their fine talk would bring their Country to its knees and are doing a fine job of it as it is.
i do not know why people will not just come out(no pun intended) and admit it.

hangon

Matthew8 i take your word on your personal view but not the Tea parties.
some are what it says on the tin,most are not and are the *enemy within* IMO.

dlofnep

matthew8 wrote: »

I was just pointing out that they may not have heard them and if they did they wouldn't have seemed loud, I think if Santorum saw what was seen on the TV his answer would've been different.

Santorum's views are well documented by now. He is a homophobe.

matthew8 wrote: »

The thing is that if you have a government intolerant of homophobics, you then have closet homophobics, personally I'm terrified to speak out in support of israel in public and that could happen with homophobics in future.

So politicians should stay quiet, and not highlight the wrongs of homophobia? I'm not sure if I'm following you.

matthew8

Santorum's views are well documented by now. He is a homophobe.

But to satisfy the neo-con movement he would shun the booers and praise the idea of someone doing his service if he knew that the soldier appeared on tv to have been booed.

So politicians should stay quiet, and not highlight the wrongs of homophobia? I'm not sure if I'm following you.

Let people live the way they want to. If they want to be homophobic, let them be, it's their life and politicians shouldn't live it for them.

matthew8

hangon wrote: »

Matthew8 i take your word on your personal view but not the Tea parties.
some are what it says on the tin,most are not and are the *enemy within* IMO.

The tea party has a lot of liars, Perry among them, but so does every political movement.

dlofnep

matthew8 wrote: »

Let people live the way they want to. If they want to be homophobic, let them be, it's their life and politicians shouldn't live it for them.

Not if it directly interferes with the lives of homosexuals. Should people be allowed to be racist?

hangon

matthew8 wrote: »

Let people live the way they want to. If they want to be homophobic, let them be, it's their life and politicians shouldn't live it for them.

sounds like very selective democracy to me.

matthew8

hangon wrote: »

sounds like very selective democracy to me.

Democracy is the people choosing. It's still democracy if people choose to be gay or not, whether to dislike gays or not. The government should treat all the people the same, and if they aren't homophobic quietly hope that others follow suit.

dlofnep wrote: »

Not if it directly interferes with the lives of homosexuals. Should people be allowed to be racist?

Oh I get it, outrage if the lives of gays are interfered with, but it's alright to mess up someone's life because they dislike gays. People should be allowed to be racist because you can't make someone not racist if they're already racist. It's as zany an idea as "pray away the gay".

dlofnep

matthew8 wrote: »

Oh I get it, outrage if the lives of gays are interfered with, but it's alright to mess up someone's life because they dislike gays.

I'm not following your logic... Why are you placing the homophobes in the position of the victim?

hangon

matthew8 wrote: »

Democracy is the people choosing. It's still democracy if people choose to be gay or not, whether to dislike gays or not. The government should treat all the people the same, and if they aren't homophobic quietly hope that others follow suit.

i would say that DADT did not work and a Govt should SHOUT that homophobia is wrong,what is wrong with people who cannot live and let live? honest to goodness it beats the hell out of me,how can people feel better by making others miserable?

hangon

dlofnep wrote: »

Why are you placing the homophobes in the position of the victim?

sorry 8 but that quote made me laugh a lot.:)

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Overheal

Santorum says he didn't hear them.

He heard them, having paused for silence again before giving his response.


Either way, when I saw the clip it became pretty evident the boos were a response to the idea that a Republican would ever reinstate DADT. Note for instance that nobody boo'd the video when it displayed a gay soldier. Surely if they were to boo the gay soldier they would have boo'd at the start of the clip, or somewhere in the middle. No, they boo'd about as soon as they were able to process the question: 'Should a republican reinstate DADT?'

Made up controversy.

Valmont

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

But if an individual business owner wants to prevent a member of a minority from entering his premises, well, that's his prerogative even if it's not a smart business move. Just the same way one could refuse somebody access to their home on racial grounds - it doesn't matter what their reasoning is only that it's their private property.

In fact the only racist actions I can think of as being criminal would still be criminal if visited any individual whether black, yellow, pink, or green.

snafuk35

The crew and passengers of Flight 93 were the first to fight for their country in the war on terror. Among them was a gay rugby player named Mark Bingham. Would these homophobic idiots if they were on the plane if they had known his sexual orientation have told him to go back to his seat?
That's how absurd this ridiculous homophobia is.

dlofnep

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Oh I agree, I'm a firm believer in freedom of speech. But when they use their homophobia to affect the civil rights of same-sex couples, then that equates to actions.

dlofnep

Valmont wrote: »

But if an individual business owner wants to prevent a member of a minority from entering his premises, well, that's his prerogative even if it's not a smart business move. Just the same way one could refuse somebody access to their home on racial grounds - it doesn't matter what their reasoning is only that it's their private property.

No, it's not their prerogative. It is illegal. All these Libertarians who believe that someone should have the right to reject someone from their establishment based on their race or sexuality are living in cuckoo land.

matthew8

dlofnep wrote: »

No, it's not their prerogative. It is illegal. All these Libertarians who believe that someone should have the right to reject someone from their establishment based on their race or sexuality are living in cuckoo land.

It's there property they can do what they want so long as they don't infringe on other people's property rights.

dlofnep

matthew8 wrote: »

It's there property they can do what they want so long as they don't infringe on other people's property rights.

No, they can't do what they like. If they refuse someone because of their race, or sexuality - it is illegal.

matthew8

dlofnep wrote: »

No, they can't do what they like. If they refuse someone because of their race, or sexuality - it is illegal.

I mean they can as in they should be allowed to.

Overheal

It plays into the right to refuse service, and libertarians (and Paul) subscribe to the idea. It works though (according to Ron Paul) because you're not going to stay in business very long if you want to refuse gay patrons, in one of his favorite examples. And, he's right. Just because something would be legal, doesn't mean it would be a good idea.

dlofnep

matthew8 wrote: »

I mean they can as in they should be allowed to.

No they shouldn't. Hence, why it's illegal.

matthew8

dlofnep wrote: »

No they shouldn't. Hence, why it's illegal.

Why not? It's their property. Do you want to police people's (racist) thoughts?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

irishh_bob

dlofnep wrote: »

Looking at the history of the Republican party, but also the recent Republican debate on Fox - I was appalled to see the audience boo one of their soldiers because he stated that he was gay. It just goes to show the bigotry that exists in the Republican party. What is the Republican party trying to do to combat homophobia in the Republican party, and why didn't one of the candidates address the crowd booing a man who put his life on the line for them?

during the primarys , the nominees must all court the party base and its this base who mostly show up at debates , the GOP base is primarily made up of fundamentalist protestants who make ian paisley look like a screaming liberal . theese people take the bible literally and when it comes to homosexuality , as woody harelsons charechter in kingpin said , its against it

irishh_bob

snafuk35 wrote: »

The crew and passengers of Flight 93 were the first to fight for their country in the war on terror. Among them was a gay rugby player named Mark Bingham. Would these homophobic idiots if they were on the plane if they had known his sexual orientation have told him to go back to his seat?
That's how absurd this ridiculous homophobia is.

didnt know thier were any rugby players in america who were good for anything , let alone gay ones

Overheal

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

In fact it's legal to refuse services to men in some cases. In particular there are a few Gyms that operate out there on a "women only" basis. Completely contradictory to the current thinking.

Valmont

dlofnep wrote: »

No they shouldn't. Hence, why it's illegal.

Illegal yet entirely inconsistent. If somebody tomorrow were to refuse an individual entry to their home on the basis of their race, would you propose to prosecute them?

dlofnep

Valmont wrote: »

Illegal yet entirely inconsistent. If somebody tomorrow were to refuse an individual entry to their home on the basis of their race, would you propose to prosecute them?

No, because homes are not providing a service to the public. Your logic is woeful. If someone has a private establishment that is providing a service to the public - then they should absolutely be prosecuted for refusing someone because of their race.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

dlofnep

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Are you equating a gym which has a program geared specifically towards women, with the right of someone to reject someone from their establishment based on their race?

A gym owner could have a reasonable argument to state to a potential customer that the gym's program is designed for women (weight loss after pregnancy, etc..) and that another program might suit them better. A person could not however make a reasonable argument for rejecting someone based on their race.

It's not a black and white issue. You don't have the right to reject someone based on their race from a public premises, and that is not a right that you should ever have.

hangon

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Permabear you are basicly endorsing the right to make others feel excluded.
very few people would go anywhere that they know they are not welcome by the members for whatever reason.
laws are made to protect in theory if not in practice.

A Country/State should never endorse elitism IMO.
it cannot be stopped in practice but people who feel left out should never have the weight of the law against them IMO.
barring of course sex offenders and known enemies of the state.

matthew8

This post had been deleted.

They are the ones feeling excluded so it's their right to feel how they want.

very few people would go anywhere that they know they are not welcome by the members for whatever reason.
laws are made to protect in theory if not in practice.

So we spend money on a law for no reason?

A Country/State should never endorse elitism IMO.
it cannot be stopped in practice but people who feel left out should never have the weight of the law against them IMO.
barring of course sex offenders and known enemies of the state.

Having no law about this doesn't "endorse" elitism.

dlofnep wrote: »

Are you equating a gym which has a program geared specifically towards women, with the right of someone to reject someone from their establishment based on their race?

A gym owner could have a reasonable argument to state to a potential customer that the gym's program is designed for women (weight loss after pregnancy, etc..) and that another program might suit them better. A person could not however make a reasonable argument for rejecting someone based on their race.

It's not a black and white issue. You don't have the right to reject someone based on their race from a public premises, and that is not a right that you should ever have.

If a gym BANS men from using it because it's WOMENS ONLY is it as bad? That is the question you were asked and you deliberately misinterpreted it.

dlofnep

matthew8 wrote: »

If a gym BANS men from using it because it's WOMENS ONLY is it as bad? That is the question you were asked and you deliberately misinterpreted it.

Care to cite me a gym that has intently banned men, rather than advertising it merely as a gym which caters to women?

hangon

matthew8 wrote: »

They are the ones feeling excluded so it's their right to feel how they want.

Hi matthew i think you know well they feel excluded because they are.
it does not mean they would want to go to a place they are excluded from. it just hurts minorities feelings when there is no need to.
there is no reason for this to be law.

So we spend money on a law for no reason?

i would say Yes you's do,prejudice will always be prejudice no matter how it is dressed up.

Having no law about this doesn't "endorse" elitism.

elitism will happen anyway laws or no laws about it.it is nice if decent people can fight their own battles without a law putting them at a disadvantage before the battle begins.:)

Overheal

dlofnep wrote: »

Care to cite me a gym that has intently banned men, rather than advertising it merely as a gym which caters to women?

http://fwofitness.com/

dlofnep

Overheal wrote: »

http://fwofitness.com/

The gym looks like it has developed a program to cater specifically for women. I don't think they are dissuading males out of malice, which is the case for people who reject based on race. So like I said, it's not a black and white issue.

Overheal

Either all of it's illegal or none of it is, imho. And already insurance companies discriminate premium based on gender.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Overheal

Not just the First Amendment, the freedom of association stands in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

Article 20
(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.
(2) No one may be compelled to belong to an association.