Reply With Quote
Most republicans and conservatives don't have a problem with gays. However, most have a problem with the leftist gay agenda. there is a difference. I think it's silly to leave over a small handful who care about such things.
It is not politically correct to be gay in the Republican party, it would appear.Richard Grenell, the openly gay spokesman recently hired to sharpen the foreign policy message of Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign, has resigned in the wake of a full-court press by anti-gay conservatives.
In a statement obtained by Right Turn, Grenell says:
I have decided to resign from the Romney campaign as the Foreign Policy and National Security Spokesman. While I welcomed the challenge to confront President Obama’s foreign policy failures and weak leadership on the world stage, my ability to speak clearly and forcefully on the issues has been greatly diminished by the hyper-partisan discussion of personal issues that sometimes comes from a presidential campaign. I want to thank Governor Romney for his belief in me and my abilities and his clear message to me that being openly gay was a non-issue for him and his team.
According to sources familiar with the situation, Grenell decided to resign after being kept under wraps during a time when national security issues, including the president’s ad concerning Osama bin Laden, had emerged front and center in the campaign
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...GcuT_blog.html
Last edited by RandomGuy; 05-01-2012 at 09:06 PM.
Most republicans and conservatives don't have a problem with gays. However, most have a problem with the leftist gay agenda. there is a difference. I think it's silly to leave over a small handful who care about such things.
"republicans and conservatives don't have a problem with gays"
privately, could be true, but publicly, esp politicians, they must violently, hatefully anti-gay or get pilloried and driven out by the Bible-thumping, "Christian" Taleban bullies, exactly the same way unelected bully Norquist enforces his anti-tax pledge.
Hate group AFA gloating over self-deportation of Gecko's gay aide.
AFA’s Bryan Fischer Declares ‘Huge Win’ Over Romney Spokesperson’s Resignation
http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2012/0...s-resignation/
phobic? Maybe You're Gay
WHY are political and religious figures who campaign against gay rights so often implicated in sexual encounters with same-sex partners?
In recent years, Ted Haggard, an evangelical leader who preached that sexuality was a sin, resigned after a scandal involving a former male pros ute; Larry Craig, a United States senator who opposed including sexual orientation in hate-crime legislation, was arrested on su ion of lewd conduct in a men's bathroom; and Glenn Murphy Jr., a leader of the Young Republican National Convention and an opponent of same-sex marriage, pleaded guilty to a lesser charge after being accused of sexually assaulting another man.
One theory is that sexual urges, when repressed out of shame or fear, can be expressed as phobia. Freud famously called this process a "reaction formation" - the angry battle against the outward symbol of feelings that are inwardly being stifled. Even Mr. Haggard seemed to endorse this idea when, apologizing after his scandal for his anti-gay rhetoric, he said, "I think I was partially so vehement because of my own war."
It's a compelling theory - and now there is scientific reason to believe it. In this month's issue of the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, we and our fellow researchers provide empirical evidence that phobia can result, at least in part, from the suppression of same-sex desire.
http://mobile.nytimes.com/article?a=...=28&sub=Sunday
Being a phobe could also be nothing but a career/income choice, pandering to the gay-hatin Bible-thumpers who feel so Christ-like and self-righteous financing the phobes.
Most republicans and conservatives have a problem with the thing they invented as a reason to justify the problems they have with gays?
Crazy.
Somewhat related
For example, take my friend Judith Butler. Of course from time to time, she pays lip service to some kind of anticapitalism, but it’s totally abstract, what it’s basically saying is just how lesbians and other oppressed sexual minorities should perceive their situation not as the assertion of some kind of substantial sexual iden y, but as constructing an iden y which is contingent, which means that also the so-called straight normal sexuality is contingent, and everybody is constructed in a contingent way, and so on, and in this way, nobody should be excluded. There is no big line between normality iden y and multiple roles. The problem I see here is that there is nothing inherently anticapitalist in this logic. But even worse is that what this kind of politically correct struggling for tolerance and so on advocates is basically not only not in conflict with the modern tendencies of global capitalism, but it fits perfectly. What I think is that today’s capitalism thrives on differences. I mean even naïve positivist psychologists propose to describe today’s subjectivity in terms like multiple subject, fixed-iden y subject, a subject who constantly reinvents itself, and so on. So my big problem with this is the painting of the enemy as some kind of self-identified stable substantial patriarch to which these multiple iden ies and constant reinventing should be opposed. I think that this is a false problem; I am not impressed by this problem. I think that this is a certain logic, totally within the framework of today’s capitalism, where again, capitalism, in order to reproduce itself, to function in today’s condition of consumption society, the crazy dynamics of the market, no longer needs or can function with the traditional fixed patriarchal subject. It needs a subject constantly reinventing himself.
http://www.believermag.com/issues/20...nterview_zizek
Yes they doMost republicans and conservatives don't have a problem with gays.
Gays people want the same benefits of hetrosexual people. The right says they don't deserve it. There is nothing leftist about wanting equal rights.However, most have a problem with the leftist gay agenda. there is a difference.
So why do you constantly pull a quote out of the air by some random person and attribute it to liberals?I think it's silly to leave over a small handful who care about such things.
What is the difference
Log Cabin Repugs (they say Abe Lincoln was gay so they use his famous log cabin as their name) have Repug/conservative agenda. iow, LGBT aren't monolithically progressive.
lol "leftist gay agenda".
yeah i am eagerly awaiting elaboration on this. i would be in favor of a quick nonsensical shortening like "gaygenda" but that may be confusing.
American Dad episode where Greg is a Log Cabin Repug to the terror of his gaymate Terry. Stan goes to the Repug Convention and ends up speaking on behalf of gay Repugs.
Seems like Romney is attempting to play both sides of the tortilla.
No problem with Grenells gayness then why not let him speak out and continue on?
"I want to thank Governor Romney for his belief in me and my abilities and his clear message to me that being openly gay was a non-issue for him and his team.
According to sources familiar with the situation, Grenell decided to resign after being kept under wraps during a time when national security issues, including the president’s ad concerning Osama bin Laden, had emerged front and center in the campaign."
Gecko is anti-gay, as much as he is anti-woman.
Define the "leftist gay agenda".
he would have scored some points by not accepting the guys resignation.
http://avibesser.weebly.com/uploads/...638937/p39.pdf
Whether or not someone was conservative, can be used to predict at udes towards sexuality, after controlling for all other factors, and the prediction was that conservatives had less favorable views.
(click on picture to go to site)
When compared to those with more favorable at udes toward lesbians and gay men, these studies have found that persons with negative at udes:
1. are less likely to have had personal contact with lesbians or gay;
2. are less likely to report having engaged in sexual behaviors, or to identify themselves as lesbian or gay;
3. are more likely to perceive their peers as manifesting negative at udes, especially if the respondents are males;
4. are more likely to have resided in areas where negative at udes are the norm (e.g., the midwestern and southern United States, the Canadian prairies, and in rural areas or small towns), especially during adolescence;
5. are likely to be older and less well educated;
6. are more likely to be religious, to attend church frequently, and to subscribe to a conservative religious ideology;
7. are more likely to express traditional, restrictive at udes about sex roles;
8. are less permissive sexually or manifest more guilt or negativity about sexuality, although some researchers have not observed this pattern and others have reported a substantially reduced correlation with the effects of sex-role at udes partialled out;
9. are more likely to manifest high levels of authoritarianism and related personality characteristics.
Sex differences in the direction and intensity of at udes have been observed fairly consistently. It appears that heterosexuals tend to have more negative at udes toward sexuals of their own sex than of the opposite sex.
I don't think that it is a "small number" of people.
I don't think that this number of people is without influence in conservative politics, or aren't the ones making decisions.
Why do you whitewash or downplay things that make conservatives look bad?
Shouldn't you be concerned enough to address things like this a bit more honestly, and pragmatically?
He would have scored some points with independents, but lost his base.
His base hates Obama so much, they might overlook such a thing, and it would possibly have been worth the risk.
well stated.
Except, not at all.
Very good trolling.
Wild Cobra? Probably.
does anyone know what the 'leftist gay agenda' is?
But that doesn't even make sense. Why not just allow gay marriage, compromise on the religious issues, and otherwise live and let live?
Between the deficit and the economy, don't Republicans/Democrats have bigger fish to fry right now anyway? (no offense)
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
