So if black people were called "Uncle Toms" would we call these guys "Aunt Tammys?"

FTA: "Two other gay Iowa residents interviewed by the Blade said they're backing Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) because of the candidate's libertarian views."

Well, they certainly will take it in the ass from Paul, maybe not literally like they hoped.

Diogenes: "I come from a farming family, so it's conservative or Catholic," Pulda said. "Our personal views are more reflected in the Republican candidates."

Dude doesn't even know if he's Catholic. So his confusing views make a degree of sense.

He's definitely not Catholic. He's using code to show that Catholics are lesser people and not true Christians but sort of acceptable because they kind of agree with true Christians.

GAT_00: Just how much do you have to hate yourself to be openly gay and Republican?

Not only do these people stink at being gay, they stink at being young, too. A big part of being young is establishing an identity separate from that of your parents, and it sounds like they're all conservative for no other reason than that's how they were raised.

I'm pretty old, and I hope to hell my kids have learned to think for themselves.

jumbo shrimp?

This just in: rich people care about money more than sexual escapades.

sweetmelissa31: I have the luck of knowing a gay Republican. His only issue is Israel. Nothing else matters. Not sure why he doesn't just move there.

Flannel wearing lesbians vote R, almost without exception. Somehow, dumb and sheepish is now perceived as masculine.

FTFA: Several young gay Iowa caucus goers discuss which GOP candidates they will support today

Isn't that equivalent to checking with cows what burger chain they will support today?

They should talk to the formerly gay Marcus Bachmann.

Shaggy_C: This just in: rich people care about money more than sexual escapades.

uh, they might be ballers but they aren't ballers...

C.J. Petersen, 21, a customer service representative

Zach Coffin, 22, a collector for Wells Fargo bank

Bryan Pulda, 21, a processor for Wells Fargo Bank

Although he hasn't made a final choice, Pulda said he's leaning toward backing Paul because he believes the candidate's politics "are consistent" and he "hasn't been in the news with anything controversial."

Huh? and also:

"I don't know if it's because I've always lived in Iowa, and Iowa is one of the states where you can be married," Coffin said. "With the amount of rights that gay people have right now, I feel totally comfortable with what we have."

So as long as you have rights, its okay for no one else to have them? Clearly a republican.

Remember your reactions to this story next time Heritage (or George Will, or that vampiric farksyrup Krauthammer) farts out a "Why don't rich people (Buffett, Clooney, Gates, etc) vote Republican?" column.

Headso: Shaggy_C: This just in: rich people care about money more than sexual escapades.

uh, they might be ballers but they aren't ballers...

C.J. Petersen, 21, a customer service representative

Zach Coffin, 22, a collector for Wells Fargo bank

Bryan Pulda, 21, a processor for Wells Fargo Bank

What a shocker. They are in it for the money, not principles. Being a Democrat in the financial services industry is about as useful as a poopy flavored lollipop (thanks Patches!)

PanicMan: Although he hasn't made a final choice, Pulda said he's leaning toward backing Paul because he believes the candidate's politics "are consistent" and he "hasn't been in the news with anything controversial."

Huh? and also:

"I don't know if it's because I've always lived in Iowa, and Iowa is one of the states where you can be married," Coffin said. "With the amount of rights that gay people have right now, I feel totally comfortable with what we have."

So as long as you have rights, its okay for no one else to have them? Clearly a republican.

Wow. That's an amazingly obnoxious "I got mine, so fark you."

PanicMan: Although he hasn't made a final choice, Pulda said he's leaning toward backing Paul because he believes the candidate's politics "are consistent" and he "hasn't been in the news with anything controversial."

Huh? and also:

"I don't know if it's because I've always lived in Iowa, and Iowa is one of the states where you can be married," Coffin said. "With the amount of rights that gay people have right now, I feel totally comfortable with what we have."

So as long as you have rights, its okay for no one else to have them? Clearly a republican.

AND bonus: he thinks rights can't be taken away? What a tard.

Bloody William: PanicMan: Although he hasn't made a final choice, Pulda said he's leaning toward backing Paul because he believes the candidate's politics "are consistent" and he "hasn't been in the news with anything controversial."

Huh? and also:

"I don't know if it's because I've always lived in Iowa, and Iowa is one of the states where you can be married," Coffin said. "With the amount of rights that gay people have right now, I feel totally comfortable with what we have."

So as long as you have rights, its okay for no one else to have them? Clearly a republican.

Wow. That's an amazingly obnoxious "I got mine, so fark you."

It's interesting that they're going to vote for people who would happily roll back those very rights. Completely oblivious.

coeyagi: PanicMan: Although he hasn't made a final choice, Pulda said he's leaning toward backing Paul because he believes the candidate's politics "are consistent" and he "hasn't been in the news with anything controversial."

Huh? and also:

"I don't know if it's because I've always lived in Iowa, and Iowa is one of the states where you can be married," Coffin said. "With the amount of rights that gay people have right now, I feel totally comfortable with what we have."

So as long as you have rights, its okay for no one else to have them? Clearly a republican.

AND bonus: he thinks rights can't be taken away? What a tard.

Next line of the article: "While Iowa has achieved marriage equality, if a Republican administration succeeds in passing a Federal Marriage Amendment as many of the candidates have promised, the measure would abrogate the 2009 court ruling allowing gay couples to marry in the state."

This thread was done in one, but I'll throw in that being gay doesn't mean you're not stupid.

Dr Dreidel: Remember your reactions to this story next time Heritage (or George Will, or that vampiric farksyrup Krauthammer) farts out a "Why don't rich people (Buffett, Clooney, Gates, etc) vote Republican?" column.

Yes, because hurting themselves in the interest of the country is the same as helping oneself (career-wise) while hurting the rest of the country.

False equivalence troll is false equivalencyesque.

Ok, I just finished reading the article and...

"It was basically Senators [Susan Collins] and Joe Lieberman who said they were getting this done at the end of the year,"

WHAT?! Because they voted for it they got it done? Obama made it a focus and the Democratic leadership proposed it as part of a DA bill. Lieberman, it's true, did introduce the Senate version, but Collins didn't do anything except not hold it up.

they're free to suck all the dick they want. maybe they want a healthy country to go along with it.

coeyagi: Dr Dreidel: Remember your reactions to this story next time Heritage (or George Will, or that vampiric farksyrup Krauthammer) farts out a "Why don't rich people (Buffett, Clooney, Gates, etc) vote Republican?" column.

Yes, because hurting themselves in the interest of the country is the same as helping oneself (career-wise) while hurting the rest of the country.

False equivalence troll is false equivalencyesque.

I never realized that there are actually people who think lower taxes for the rich is a civil rights issue. The things you can learn on Fark!

coeyagi: Dr Dreidel: Remember your reactions to this story next time Heritage (or George Will, or that vampiric farksyrup Krauthammer) farts out a "Why don't rich people (Buffett, Clooney, Gates, etc) vote Republican?" column.

Yes, because hurting themselves in the interest of the country is the same as helping oneself (career-wise) while hurting the rest of the country.

False equivalence troll is false equivalencyesque.

I'm not even sure which side you were hating on.

A single-issue voter is an uninformed voter. If a gay person votes Republican (even for Santorum), perhaps they really like his two-tiered tax plan, his blue-collar roots, the fact that he's never been involved in a personal or professional scandal - but we're fairly sure a gay person is...at odds with Santorum's stance on the topic.

Similarly, I'd love to vote for RONPAUL's support of the 5 things we agree on - he's the only one seriously talking about winding down the War on Drugs (well, Gary Johnson is, but that guy didn't place FIRST IN THE IOWA CAUCUSES BOOYAH!), rolling up some of the military budget, the role of federal/state power.

There are things in his platform - many more of them - that I abhor. So I'm voting for someone else - Obama. Who I also don't agree with 100%.

Shaggy_C: This just in: rich people care about money more than sexual escapades.

Rich? The article suggested they were anything but rich- a 22 y/o debt collector for Wells Fargo, a 22 y/o gas station attendant, 21 y/o 'processor' at Wells Fargo, and a 21 y/o customer service rep at an insurance company.

Related:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/gingrich-to-gay-voter-support- o bama/2011/12/21/gIQABGvK9O_video.html

Dr Dreidel: A single-issue voter is an uninformed voter.

But saying they shouldn't vote Republican isn't the same as saying they ought to be "single-issue voters."

Some positions are so abhorrent - such as denying basic civil rights, whether to gay people or anyone else - that no matter how much you might like a candidate's tax policy or whatever, you just can't vote for them in good conscience.

Wooly Bully: coeyagi: Dr Dreidel: Remember your reactions to this story next time Heritage (or George Will, or that vampiric farksyrup Krauthammer) farts out a "Why don't rich people (Buffett, Clooney, Gates, etc) vote Republican?" column.

Yes, because hurting themselves in the interest of the country is the same as helping oneself (career-wise) while hurting the rest of the country.

False equivalence troll is false equivalencyesque.

I never realized that there are actually people who think lower taxes for the rich is a civil rights issue. The things you can learn on Fark!

Since many of them have inherited their wealth similar to how the rest of us inherit our race genetically, it is obviously a civil rights issue.

As someone who is gay and leans libertarian I can understand the appeal of many of the planks of the Republican platform. But the fundamental problem is that the official party position also includes taking away our rights. That should be a deal breaker. Then again - many of the planks of the Democratic party are completely fark'n delusional and they haven't exactly been that progressive in pushing for GLBT rights in the past. So I have a hard time supporting either.

/In Minnesota at least - the local chapter of the Log Cabin Republicans is more big government than the Stonewall Democrats. When I point that out - they get very defensive

Gay Republicans, and they aren't pushing Santorum? How queer.

Guuberre: Bloody William: PanicMan: Although he hasn't made a final choice, Pulda said he's leaning toward backing Paul because he believes the candidate's politics "are consistent" and he "hasn't been in the news with anything controversial."

Huh? and also:

"I don't know if it's because I've always lived in Iowa, and Iowa is one of the states where you can be married," Coffin said. "With the amount of rights that gay people have right now, I feel totally comfortable with what we have."

So as long as you have rights, its okay for no one else to have them? Clearly a republican.

Wow. That's an amazingly obnoxious "I got mine, so fark you."

It's interesting that they're going to vote for people who would happily roll back those very rights. Completely oblivious.

It kind of reminds you of the Apache scouts that helped the army track down the Chiricahua Apache known as Geronimo back in the latter part of the 19th century.

When Geromino surrendered, he and his followers were placed on a train and sent to Florida as prisoners. Guess who were also arrested and placed on that same train? That's right -- the Apache scouts.

Wooly Bully: Dr Dreidel: A single-issue voter is an uninformed voter.

But saying they shouldn't vote Republican isn't the same as saying they ought to be "single-issue voters."

Some positions are so abhorrent - such as denying basic civil rights, whether to gay people or anyone else - that no matter how much you might like a candidate's tax policy or whatever, you just can't vote for them in good conscience.

I'm not saying they shouldn't vote Republican. I'm suggesting that perhaps they're voting Republican for reasons other than their sexuality. If their sexuality was the only thing they considered, they'd not vote Republican. Perhaps economics is more important, I really can't say.

You and I might find a position morally repugnant, but to someone who believes it, you and I are the morally repugnant ones. That's why I'm glad the country is structured the way it is - for Santorum to undo Iowa's marriage laws, he'd have to pass a Constitutional Amendment, and that's not happening so long as there are 13 states like NY, CA, MD, DE, NH, VT, OR, WA, MN, NJ, IL, IA and FL; and probably OH, PA, WI, ME and several others as well.

Again, I think they're wrong-headed. Had I the chance, I'd love to engage them in discussion to find out a little more about their stances, but saying they shouldn't vote Republican just because they're gay is almost (not exactly) like asking why rich folks wouldn't vote GOP.

The way they're examining the issue(s) is not the same way you and I are. If it was the same, they'd be caucusing for Obama.