The last paragraph is, to my mind, the most remarkable. It's advising Republican candidates to emphasize the conservative nature of gay marriage, to say how it encourages personal responsibility, commitment, stability and family values. It uses Dick Cheney's formula (which was for a couple of years, the motto of this blog) that "freedom means freedom for everyone." And it uses David Cameron's argument that you can be for gay marriage because you are a conservative.

bizarre.

I think the choice of the word "evolve" is going to be big. Instead of pushing people back into a corner it's basically Obama saying, "I used to disagree with marriage equality like you, but I thought about it over time and I can't find a reason to oppose it any more".

FlashHarry: The last paragraph is, to my mind, the most remarkable. It's advising Republican candidates to emphasize the conservative nature of gay marriage, to say how it encourages personal responsibility, commitment, stability and family values. It uses Dick Cheney's formula (which was for a couple of years, the motto of this blog) that "freedom means freedom for everyone." And it uses David Cameron's argument that you can be for gay marriage because you are a conservative.

bizarre.

Actually, it's 100% correct. The only reason it's "bizarre" is that conservatives are no longer conservative.

James!: I think the choice of the word "evolve" is going to be big. Instead of pushing people back into a corner it's basically Obama saying, "I used to disagree with marriage equality like you, but I thought about it over time and I can't find a reason to oppose it any more".

I think they'll more likely use "intelligently designed"

The GOP convention is going to be a hoot. This might be the extreme right wing's last real chance to shoot themselves in both feet.

GAT_00: CPT Ethanolic: FlashHarry: The last paragraph is, to my mind, the most remarkable. It's advising Republican candidates to emphasize the conservative nature of gay marriage, to say how it encourages personal responsibility, commitment, stability and family values. It uses Dick Cheney's formula (which was for a couple of years, the motto of this blog) that "freedom means freedom for everyone." And it uses David Cameron's argument that you can be for gay marriage because you are a conservative.

bizarre.

Actually, it's 100% correct. The only reason it's "bizarre" is that conservatives are no longer conservative.

They are steadfastly opposing progress, innovation, and anything new. That is conservatism at its heart.

Not if it explodes or shoots.

You mean the people opposing gay marriage are just a very loud but very small minority?

Chariset: You mean the people opposing gay marriage are just a very loud but very small minority?

Pretty much

/along with one Utah based cult

MaudlinMutantMollusk: Chariset: You mean the people opposing gay marriage are just a very loud but very small minority?

Pretty much

/along with one Utah based cult

Romney is going to have a hell of a time with this issue. Support gay marriage and you lose the Mormons and the bigots and don't really pick up anything in return. Against gay marriage and you alienate half the people in the country.

Like I said, this will be fun to watch.

They should be for Gay Marriage but against Lesbian marriage... because it is a continuation of the war on women.

And the GOP is also increasing the chocolate ration to 20 grams a week.

James!: I think the choice of the word "evolve" is going to be big. Instead of pushing people back into a corner it's basically Obama saying, "I used to disagree with marriage equality like you, but I thought about it over time and I can't find a reason to oppose it any more".

That's exactly how I discarded my religious beliefs in my 20s. Just like that.

At some point, it occurred to me, "Why do I continue to believe this stuff?" and then it evaporated.

CPT Ethanolic: FlashHarry: The last paragraph is, to my mind, the most remarkable. It's advising Republican candidates to emphasize the conservative nature of gay marriage, to say how it encourages personal responsibility, commitment, stability and family values. It uses Dick Cheney's formula (which was for a couple of years, the motto of this blog) that "freedom means freedom for everyone." And it uses David Cameron's argument that you can be for gay marriage because you are a conservative.

bizarre.

Actually, it's 100% correct. The only reason it's "bizarre" is that conservatives are no longer conservative.

Oh please. Conservatism, for as long as conservatism has ever existed, has been built on a bedrock of antagonism toward minorities and those who are different from the norm, including homosexuals. The idea that conservatism and homosexual freedom are somehow naturally aligned is simply absurd.

James!: I think the choice of the word "evolve" is going to be big. Instead of pushing people back into a corner it's basically Obama saying, "I used to disagree with marriage equality like you, but I thought about it over time and I can't find a reason to oppose it any more".

Big in a positive manner or a negative manner?

Marcus Aurelius: The GOP convention is going to be a hoot. This might be the extreme right wing's last real chance to shoot themselves in both feet the face.

/whittington.jpg

I think the evangelical wing of the GOP would rather chew their own lips off than change their stance on gay marriage. in their view, they'd rather see the Republican party destroyed than 'compromise with evil'.

meh. works for me.

We're trying to fix the economy right now, yes? And we'd like to create more jobs, right?

The wedding industry is huge. It's a miasma of small businesses and large businesses. And in a typical wedding - even a small wedding - a lot of money goes to a lot of those businesses. A typical wedding is going to involve a wedding venue and a reception venue. You're going to need food, wedding clothes, wedding party clothes, drinks, entertainment, decorations, flowers, and cake. This means a lot of different businesses or individuals getting a cut of that money, which will stimulate the economy.

Allowing same-sex marriages will increase the amount of weddings, which means more money changing hands. It also means more cake.

And I'm not going to sit here and listen to anyone tell me they hate the economy and cake.

GreenAdder: We're trying to fix the economy right now, yes? And we'd like to create more jobs, right?

The wedding industry is huge. It's a miasma of small businesses and large businesses. And in a typical wedding - even a small wedding - a lot of money goes to a lot of those businesses. A typical wedding is going to involve a wedding venue and a reception venue. You're going to need food, wedding clothes, wedding party clothes, drinks, entertainment, decorations, flowers, and cake. This means a lot of different businesses or individuals getting a cut of that money, which will stimulate the economy.

Allowing same-sex marriages will increase the amount of weddings, which means more money changing hands. It also means more cake.

And I'm not going to sit here and listen to anyone tell me they hate the economy and cake.

And gay divorces will send money to our starving lawyers!

To be fair, I always have been. I'm still waiting for the rest of the party to catch up and stop listening to mouth breathers who only pick and choose the parts of the Bible that they like, and who seem to hate freedom of religion and equality under the law...

Marcus Aurelius: Romney is going to have a hell of a time with this issue. Support gay marriage and you lose the Mormons and the bigots and don't really pick up anything in return. Against gay marriage and you alienate half the people in the country.

Like I said, this will be fun to watch.

It gets worse.
Someone will ask the question, "what do we do with states which have amended their constitutions or have laws banning gay marriage?"

The GOP is for states' rights. But the only way to fix this is with federal law/SCOTUS.
So unless the GOP is going to do something about the issue ....

"Candidate Romeny, you claim to be in favor of equality, including, gay marriage. What will you do as president, at the federal level, to remove the unconstitutional bans on gay marriage at the state level?"

Bwahahahahahahaah

They love marriage, many have done it three or four times. Perhaps if they were able to marry persons of the same sex, they might be more satisfied with their partners.

Why public attitudes might be changing:

"As more people have become aware of friends and family members who are gay, attitudes have begun to shift at an accelerated pace. This is not about a generational shift in attitudes, this is about people changing their thinking as they recognize their friends and family members who are gay or lesbian."

1. You're lying. This is a generational shift in attitudes.
2. Fark you. If your reason to support gay rights is "I know someone who's gay", that both does nothing to convince anyone who doesn't know gay people, and is so obnoxiously self-serving as to make you detrimental to the cause.
3. Piss off. "People who believe in equality under the law as a fundamental principle, as I do, will agree that this principle extends to gay and lesbian couples; gay and lesbian couples should not face discrimination" but we will still bow to those who insist we not call it "marriage".

I honestly think this is a Republican strategist trying to triangulate liberals into "accepting" a lesser solution (and then rejecting that solution anyway as commie atheist socialismizing).

GreenAdder: We're trying to fix the economy right now, yes? And we'd like to create more jobs, right?

The wedding industry is huge. It's a miasma of small businesses and large businesses. And in a typical wedding - even a small wedding - a lot of money goes to a lot of those businesses. A typical wedding is going to involve a wedding venue and a reception venue. You're going to need food, wedding clothes, wedding party clothes, drinks, entertainment, decorations, flowers, and cake. This means a lot of different businesses or individuals getting a cut of that money, which will stimulate the economy.

Allowing same-sex marriages will increase the amount of weddings, which means more money changing hands. It also means more cake.

And I'm not going to sit here and listen to anyone tell me they hate the economy and cake.

you left out a couple parts

1) Gay marriage will also be a boon to the divorce industry a few years/weeks down the road.
2) the gop is NOT for job creation. the gop is for WEALTH creation for the 1%. Gay marriage does not benefit the 1%.

Seems like a no-brainer to me, if you're going to tout no big government in economic , why not apply the same credo to social issues? You know the whole libertarian Republican sect and all that jazz. Also there is something to be said to actually listening to the poll numbers of the people you actually claim to represent.

brap: if you're going to tout no big government in economic , why not apply the same credo to social issues?

Because Republicans can only get the non-wealthy vote by appealing to racists and homophobes, ie "social conservatives". And they're very good at it.

Makh: They love marriage, many have done it three or four times. Perhaps if they were able to marry persons of the same sex, they might be more satisfied with their partners.

Why, marriage, boy,
Is such a joy,
So lovely a condition,
That many ask no better than
To wed as often as they can,
In happy repetition.

Sorry, but the only principle that binds the Republicans together is a fetish for legislating away the rights of people who don't vote Republican. You aren't going to get them to give up their favorite past-time.

Three words to help the economy: Gay Wedding Registry

brap: Seems like a no-brainer to me, if you're going to tout no big government in economic , why not apply the same credo to social issues? You know the whole libertarian Republican sect and all that jazz. Also there is something to be said to actually listening to the poll numbers of the people you actually claim to represent.

to all issues

drinking age is 21 to protect the kiddies? nope. no drinking age. the government should not interfere with parenting. period
illegal drugs? no such thing. legalize all drugs. period. (we already have laws to deal with bad behavior while under the influence, so there is no need to even change those or add more. right?)
legalize prostitution. period. the government has no right to tell anyone what job they can do for a living.
legalize all gambling. period. but but but think of the families. nope. that is not the government's job.


yah, the GOP is filled with self0serving hypocrites

Mrtraveler01: I take it a lot of Republicans just tossed this memo into the garbage can.

nope
did you see foxnews coverage right afterward? they are fighting a holding action, rather than attacking. unless that has changed in the last day

Chariset: You mean the people opposing gay marriage are just a very loud but very small minority?

The minority that repeatedly bans it in multiple states by obtaining more than enough votes?
Oh how I wish those religious farkers were a minority.

They'll need to be brought into line the same way as woman's suffrage or the civil rights movement: kicking and screaming but eventually publicly giving up to save face.

I've given this matter some thought and I've compiled a list of reasons to oppose gay rights, and a list of strategies for dealing with the issue:



List of reasons to oppose gay rights

1/. Gay sex is icky.


List of strategies for dealing with the issue

1/. Don't have gay sex.

hubiestubert: To be fair, I always have been. I'm still waiting for the rest of the party to catch up and stop listening to mouth breathers who only pick and choose the parts of the Bible that they like, and who seem to hate freedom of religion and equality under the law...

I'll never understand how you're a conservative, much less a Republican.
It just goes against everything I know about this universe.

What's that?

Ron Paul has a mole in the GOP publicity machine?

You guys just don't understand.

The GOP was for gay marriage before they were against gay marriage before they were for gay marriage.

xsarien: I loaded that page and the slime from that document actually started oozing out of my monitor.

I may be vile and pernicious
But you can't look away
I make you think I'm delicious
With the stuff that I say
I am the best you can get
Have you guessed me yet?
I am the slime oozin' out
From your tv set internet

/with apologies to Frank Zappa

If you want to know if republicans are going to eventually lose the gay marriage debate, then just answer these two questions.
When is the last time you heard someone who changed him mind from being against gay rights to being for them?
When is the last time you heard of someone who used to support gay marriage and doesn't now?

eddiesocket: TyrantII: Marcus Aurelius: MaudlinMutantMollusk: Chariset: You mean the people opposing gay marriage are just a very loud but very small minority?

Pretty much

/along with one Utah based cult

Romney is going to have a hell of a time with this issue. Support gay marriage and you lose the Mormons and the bigots and don't really pick up anything in return. Against gay marriage and you alienate half the people in the country.

Like I said, this will be fun to watch.

Have you met a Mormon? Romney could strip down to his fundie undies and go whacking it in San Diego and they'd all go out and vote for him upwards of 90%...

Mormon's stick together. And the religions so new the elders will just announce they "misinterpreted" the gold pressed bars of latnium.

Like they did with black people. And polygamy.

Tenets, anyone?

CPT Ethanolic: Actually, it's 100% correct. The only reason it's "bizarre" is that conservatives are no longer conservative.

What a load of horsesh*t. The same type of people are still doing the same type of sh*t. Buy a f*cking encyclopedia.

Delay: hubiestubert: I'm still waiting for the rest of the party to catch up and stop listening to mouth breathers who only pick and choose the parts of the Bible that they like, and who seem to hate freedom of religion and equality under the law...

Serious question. Without the rich white guys to catapult the agenda, would there be anybody left?

They lost me, with the tanking of the economy and the idiocy over domestic issues, and the constant war drums. I stayed in as long as I could, trying to turn it as best I could, but I will admit, that we failed. And we failed badly, and the nation is worse for that failure.

red5ish: That it takes a pollster to inform the ethics of the Republican party speaks volumes about their inner nature.

Do you really think that the practice of polling or public opinion forming policy is unique to the Republican party? Wake up and smell the politics dude.

Karac: If you want to know if republicans are going to eventually lose the gay marriage debate, then just answer these two questions.
When is the last time you heard someone who changed him mind from being against gay rights to being for them?
When is the last time you heard of someone who used to support gay marriage and doesn't now?

You ask this question as if it would be unfathomable for any of these situations to happen. Yet, here we are.




Welcome to America, f*cker.

Karac: If you want to know if republicans are going to eventually lose the gay marriage debate, then just answer these two questions.
When is the last time you heard someone who changed him mind from being against gay rights to being for them?
When is the last time you heard of someone who used to support gay marriage and doesn't now?

With Mitt, you just have to wait a few minutes. For both.

red5ish: That it takes a pollster to inform the ethics of the Republican party speaks volumes about their inner nature.

yes, no, sort of

It is fair to say that societies change over time. A pollster determining that society HAS changed and that a party should think about that is not earth shattering. Lincoln was a republican. And yet the South votes republican.
Lincoln has been spinning in his grave since that shiat happened. (which also explains that magnetic pole shifting)

namatad: Republicans also used to be trust busters and were the original conservationists. Times change, and the money that rolls in changes ideas faster than ideals...

miscreant: hubiestubert: To be fair, I always have been. I'm still waiting for the rest of the party to catch up and stop listening to mouth breathers who only pick and choose the parts of the Bible that they like, and who seem to hate freedom of religion and equality under the law...

But we all know that you would have been considered a RINO long before you actually got fed up and left.

What bothered me about that is that I hewed to the sort of Republicanism that my Grandmother adhered to. The party has been askew for some time, but someone had to try to vote for sane folks. The leadership has abandoned that for the Wing Nut Brigade, and more's the pity, because we could some Old Skool right now in the party. Not the Voodoo Economics folks, and far less adventurism...

Esc7: I think the problem is that there are a spectrum of beliefs and positions that fall generally on the "right side" of our political spectrum that get lumped into "conservative"

That's not the problem. That's what "conservatism" is. They have always been and always will be "traditionalists.." They are comfortable where they are, change causes fear. If their paradigm is threatened, they lose their sh*t. They are basically fighting tooth and nail against basic the human instinct to wonder, innovate, and introspect. This isn't so much a right or left/party line situation. That's all incidental. This is Hateful Ignoramuses vs The Rest of Us, and the media will eat their young if it means that it looks like a close match.

hubiestubert: namatad: Republicans also used to be trust busters and were the original conservationists. Times change, and the money that rolls in changes ideas faster than ideals...

There is NO way that I can believe that!!! You are clearly just making up lies to make the GOP look bad!!!
@

/yes, I know that you are stating facts. ;-)

Carth: I wonder where all the Fark Independents who oppose same sex marriage will disappear to when both parties support it.

well, america has needed a 3rd party for a long time. I bet the Bat-shiat Crazy Party isn't taken.

herrDrFarkenstein: Dear GOP, it gets worse. As Benjamin Franklin wisely noted, "...a useful truth may be known, and exist, before it is generally received and practiced on." The truth is: Diversity makes our society stronger. But GOP, we need you to be yourself. Not everyone accepts this truth and they need you to derp for them. If you are being bullied into accepting gays. If you are scared of catching the gay. Or if you feel alone, reach out to those dwindling friends with right-wing family values. But know that there are communities ready to welcome homosexuals with open arms. The truth is: It gets worse.

I see what you did there.

Carth: I wonder where all the Fark Independents who oppose same sex marriage will disappear to when both parties support it.

That's what I said about gas prices. There is always something. They've already criticized Obama for professionally congratulating Hollande on his victory, AND criticized his hesitancy to lay out the red carpet for Putin. You know, the One Who Rears His Head at Alaska.

They are pissed off, and that's all they ever will be, and unfortunately for them, this isn't 1930s Germany.

tomWright: No, conservatives are still conservative, but they no longer control the Republican party. The religious right and corporate whores like Romney control it. Conservatives are a minority and are mostly frozen out.

Barry Goldwater may have been the last real conservative that had a leading position in the party, and Eisenhower the last one that served as president. Both of them essentially had a hands off policy on peoples personal behavior, and were worried about the entanglements between government and powerful corporations. Not perfect, but way better than the ones today.

this this more this an infinity of this
They were both prophetic as to the future in the most frightening ways.

Marcus Aurelius: Romney is going to have a hell of a time with this issue. Support gay marriage and you lose the Mormons and the bigots and don't really pick up anything in return. Against gay marriage and you alienate half the people in the country.

Like I said, this will be fun to watch.

You have to admit though, Romney has been preparing for this moment his entire life. If anyone can skate the middle ground on this and come out unscathed, it's him.

It's a big public fart in a car. They know it. We know it. They know that we know it. They will try to make it look like everybody else is screwy. This is the way of things.

thamike: It's a big public fart in a car. They know it. We know it. They know that we know it. They will try to make it look like everybody else is screwy. This is the way of things.

And the farkers are rolling up the windows

GreenAdder: We're trying to fix the economy right now, yes? And we'd like to create more jobs, right?

The wedding industry is huge. It's a miasma of small businesses and large businesses. And in a typical wedding - even a small wedding - a lot of money goes to a lot of those businesses. A typical wedding is going to involve a wedding venue and a reception venue. You're going to need food, wedding clothes, wedding party clothes, drinks, entertainment, decorations, flowers, and cake. This means a lot of different businesses or individuals getting a cut of that money, which will stimulate the economy.

Allowing same-sex marriages will increase the amount of weddings, which means more money changing hands. It also means more cake.

And I'm not going to sit here and listen to anyone tell me they hate the economy and cake.

I would pay $1000 to hear Obama say exactly that on national television. How hilarious would that be?! Funny and true at the same time.

Jackson Herring: thamike: It's a big public fart in a car. They know it. We know it. They know that we know it. They will try to make it look like everybody else is screwy. This is the way of things.

And the farkers are rolling up the windows

Look on the bright side. We get to grin maniacally.

madden101: tl,dr

But I'm assuming this is the event that causes the "religious right" to wake up and realize that Republicans have just been using them for the past few decades?

Parking tickets must take you a weekend.

PsiChick: but at the same time

There is no "but at the same time." Not for those f*ckers.

Lenny_da_Hog: What's that?

Ron Paul has a mole in the GOP publicity machine?

Ron Paul is against gay marriage and supports federal laws discriminating against it and states completely banning it. Yeah, the confederacy I mean "libertarianism".

PsiChick: thamike: PsiChick: but at the same time

There is no "but at the same time." Not for those f*ckers.

I want to have the right to marry a woman if I fall in love with one, but Steve down in Texas probably just wants the right to not be victim of a hate crime. How can we honestly deny him that?

It might give me a bad taste in my mouth, but is it ethical to choose revenge over helping people?

/Serious question. I don't know.

What question?

bugontherug: the numbers>

Right. There are always numbers.

Antimatter: Keep in mind, the purposely scheduled the vote during the GOP primary. I get the feeling things could have looked different in November.

That's a good pbugontherug: Smackledorfer: If these guys haven't damaged their brand for a generation yet, then I don't see how they possibly could.

This.

I'm glad progressives are feeling confident. But the numbers just don't support the notion that there's an anti-GOP tidal wave building. That's a shame, because the GOP has been beyond obnoxious for the past four twelve years, and really deserves to lose badly.

This is true, but I think a loss at all might inspire some reassessment on the Republicans' part. If they lose in 2012 against a black guy who supports gay marriage, and given the numbers in the link, do they really want to maintain their current position for four more years?

What happened in the 20th century that had the Democrats go from slavers and segregationists to civil rights champions, and had Republicans go from emancipation and reconstruction to the "eww gay" derpfest that they are now? It makes about as much sense as the founder of the Westboro Baptist Church having been a civil rights lawyer.

The Name: LordJiro: Myria: What happened in the 20th century that had the Democrats go from slavers and segregationists to civil rights champions, and had Republicans go from emancipation and reconstruction to the "eww gay" derpfest that they are now? It makes about as much sense as the founder of the Westboro Baptist Church having been a civil rights lawyer.

This. This happened.

Damn. beat me by 27 seconds.

see, if you had typed less characters in your post ...

LordJiro: Myria: What happened in the 20th century that had the Democrats go from slavers and segregationists to civil rights champions, and had Republicans go from emancipation and reconstruction to the "eww gay" derpfest that they are now? It makes about as much sense as the founder of the Westboro Baptist Church having been a civil rights lawyer.

This. This happened.

<3 Thank you!

shivashakti: today, with people being open about sexuality, and blowjob or buttsex jokes being fairly common, what are gay people doing that straight couples aren't?

Scissoring.

Jormungandr: It is icky because God told them it is icky.

Nah, religion's an excuse not a reason - there's plenty of shiat in the bible they don't give a fark about.

Marcus Aurelius: The GOP convention is going to be a hoot. This might be the extreme right wing's last real chance to shoot themselves in both feet.

And you know that they are, too.

With a 50-cal mounted machine gun.

If it wasn't for gay people, Nancy Reagan wouldn't have been able to dress so fabulously.

djkutch: If it wasn't for gay people, Nancy Reagan wouldn't have been able to dress so fabulously.

isnt she dead?

namatad: djkutch: If it wasn't for gay people, Nancy Reagan wouldn't have been able to dress so fabulously.

isnt she dead?

Dead sexy.

RedT: Bacontastesgood: This is not about a generational shift in attitudes, this is about people changing their thinking as they recognize their friends and family members who are gay or lesbian.

God what a bunch of assholes. I don't even currently know anyone who is definitely gay. I know a few people who probably are, but they haven't told me explicitly and I don't know them well enough to ask. Probably comes from being in a suburban area and knowing a lot of hetero married people with kids over the last 10 years. Anyway, why would you need to know people personally who are suffering from the effects of our shiatty outdated laws to wake up to the fact that they are being discriminated against? Seriously, you are a real asshole if that's what it takes. Let people do what and who they want and treat them according to the constitution, is that so farking hard?

For decades the gay stereotype was bath houses, anonymous sex, AIDS/disease, inability to commit, etc...
I think a lot of folks who do not know and observe normal gay couples still think gay is that sick perversion.

It DOES make sense that when that gay couple with their adorable daughter moved in next door and they go to work, now their lawn, pick their kid up from school, helped me that morning my tire was flat and "seem" so nice and normal, would change folks' attitude. In fact, I think this is how attitudes change in general. You meet folks who do not jibe with your stereotype.

Quite frankly, there is nothing wrong with this.

The only troubling thing with this premise (which I tend to agree with) is that there have been several times in the past when homosexuality was not a concern with society; blase even. Consider the Greeks, the early Romans, medieval times a lot of royalty were high profile poofs, even Frederick the Great of Prussia was accepted as gay. So apparently society's acceptance of LGB(T) waxes and wanes. We may be entering into a more tolerant period but I got to think homo bigotry will never be eradicated.

A good question perhaps is, why the shifts in tolerance through the ages?

*rtfa*

This is something I've known for an incredibly long time. It's one of many reasons why I lament the current state of the Republican party.

Whatever.

hubiestubert: miscreant: hubiestubert: To be fair, I always have been. I'm still waiting for the rest of the party to catch up and stop listening to mouth breathers who only pick and choose the parts of the Bible that they like, and who seem to hate freedom of religion and equality under the law...

But we all know that you would have been considered a RINO long before you actually got fed up and left.

What bothered me about that is that I hewed to the sort of Republicanism that my Grandmother adhered to. The party has been askew for some time, but someone had to try to vote for sane folks. The leadership has abandoned that for the Wing Nut Brigade, and more's the pity, because we could some Old Skool right now in the party. Not the Voodoo Economics folks, and far less adventurism...

All of that.

There's a reason why I was a Republican as a young kid. Just like what you were saying, I grew up with my parents and grandparent's view of the Republican ideal. At some point, the likes of Anita Bryant and Jerry Falwell overtook the party and now we had that whole "moral majority" crap going on.

It was about then that I became an "independent."

shivashakti: That's not really a common thing among lesbians, despite South Park.

I know. But it's even less common among straight couples.

Frederick: The only troubling thing with this premise (which I tend to agree with) is that there have been several times in the past when homosexuality was not a concern with society; blase even. Consider the Greeks, the early Romans, medieval times a lot of royalty were high profile poofs, even Frederick the Great of Prussia was accepted as gay. So apparently society's acceptance of LGB(T) waxes and wanes. We may be entering into a more tolerant period but I got to think homo bigotry will never be eradicated.

A good question perhaps is, why the shifts in tolerance through the ages?

A very fascinating quirk of human nature is that, whenever a minority group or subculture is vilified by the ruling culture, one of the first things they're accused of is sexual perversion. Sexual perversion is ALWAYS defined as gay, lesbian, multiple-partner, bestiality and/or pedophilia, REGARDLESS of what is actually accepted and common in the majority culture. Even at times when, as you say, the King was gay, persecuted minorities would be being tortured and burned for perceived homosexual behavior.

Examples include the early Roman persecutions of the Christians; the Christian persecutions of the various heretic groups and then the Jews; later Christian inquisitions against heretics and witches in the Middle Ages and Renaissance; the Conquista of America and the Westward Expansion; American slavery and oppression of the blacks during the Jim Crow era; the British Empire's colonialism; etc. etc.

In every instance, along with whatever specifics the rulers used to denigrate their subjects, they always were sure to add that the evil they were rooting out practiced all kinds of bizarre sexual deviancy. Witches were lesbians! Heretics were sodomites! Blacks were insatiable rapists! So today, the idea that gay men especially HAVE to be perverts, and especially because they are, well, sodomites, makes the charge that much easier. When the group you're vilifying is a sexual minority, you don't have to make up things like they worship Satan or eat dead babies, you can stick with the bizarre sexual practices. I suspect that's why fear of teh homogheys has been so virulent and pervasive lately. There's nothing else to attack them with, first of all; and second, it's ALWAYS easy to attack an outsider over their sexual practices--it's always been done. The problem is that that is what makes a person gay, who they have sex with.

RminusQ: 1. You're lying. This is a generational shift in attitudes.

Actually, it's both. While the generational shift in attitudes really makes the DOOMED, DOOMED, DOOMED obvious, there's also the aforementioned circa 1%/yr shift within cohorts.

bugontherug: But the numbers just don't support the notion that there's an anti-GOP tidal wave building.

Technically, no. They merely support that there's a pro-gay-marriage tidal wave building... though it won't reach full height for at least a few more years.
The GOP may instead within the next two decades shift its positions massively on gay marriage, church/state separation, and the war on drugs; or, it may become a regional party for a short while before going the way of the Whig.

Switching from a first-past-the-post voting system so as to shift dynamics in a way that would help third parties run might alter that scenario a bit, though.

Myria: What happened in the 20th century that had the Democrats go from slavers and segregationists to civil rights champions, and had Republicans go from emancipation and reconstruction to the "eww gay" derpfest that they are now?
LordJiro: This. This happened.
The Name: This is what happened.

Though that was just the end; the obvious beginning would be Hubert Humphrey's 1948 DNC address, though there were warning signs before that .

HeartBurnKid: /now all we need is a catchy nickname for southern Republicans

They're mostly Theocons and Xenocons, with a mix of Jingocons and Moneycons thrown in.

Though if you really have your heard set on a regional term... hm. Republiconfederates has too many syllables.

abb3w: RminusQ: 1. You're lying. This is a generational shift in attitudes.

Actually, it's both. While the generational shift in attitudes really makes the DOOMED, DOOMED, DOOMED obvious, there's also the aforementioned circa 1%/yr shift within cohorts.

bugontherug: But the numbers just don't support the notion that there's an anti-GOP tidal wave building.

Technically, no. They merely support that there's a pro-gay-marriage tidal wave building... though it won't reach full height for at least a few more years.
The GOP may instead within the next two decades shift its positions massively on gay marriage, church/state separation, and the war on drugs; or, it may become a regional party for a short while before going the way of the Whig.

Switching from a first-past-the-post voting system so as to shift dynamics in a way that would help third parties run might alter that scenario a bit, though.

Myria: What happened in the 20th century that had the Democrats go from slavers and segregationists to civil rights champions, and had Republicans go from emancipation and reconstruction to the "eww gay" derpfest that they are now?
LordJiro: This. This happened.
The Name: This is what happened.

Though that was just the end; the obvious beginning would be Hubert Humphrey's 1948 DNC address, though there were warning signs before that .

HeartBurnKid: /now all we need is a catchy nickname for southern Republicans

They're mostly Theocons and Xenocons, with a mix of Jingocons and Moneycons thrown in.

Though if you really have your heard set on a regional term... hm. Republiconfederates has too many syllables.

I don't know why you're trying to reinvent Dixiecrat. Everyone knows exactly what that means.

randomjsa: Some Republicans are for gay marriage and some Democrats are against it.

True; but they're outliers. (Also, tending to be from the parts of the country where that attitude is more prevalent regardless -- Southern Democrats on the one side, New England and Pacific Republicans on the other.)

randomjsa: For all of your jumping up and down screaming about the NC ballot measure? Might want to check the number of primary votes Obama got there. I'm totally sure that all those people voting for Obama surely didn't vote for the amendment.

The existence of such outliers is statistically certain.

Contrariwise, the measure ended about 60-40. Both the GOP and Democratic primaries got about a million votes; something around 20% of the democrats voted for "None of the Above" over Obama. Assume all the NOTA votes also voted for the NC-A-1 measure... first approximation, 60-40.

Gyrfalcon: I don't know why you're trying to reinvent Dixiecrat.

Because it's a different brand name that they're waving the same banner under.

PsiChick:
It might give me a bad taste in my mouth, but is it ethical to choose revenge over helping people?

/Serious question. I don't know.

It's normal human behavior and very hard to feel differently, but it's not very becoming of a liberal.
The prison "punishment vs. rehabilitation" debate is related. Sounds easy, but I fortunately haven't had a loved one raped or killed so my emotions aren't involved.

r1chard3:
I disagree. Conservatism is to try to conserve what you have.

I'm a conservative in that I want to preserve the system of social services, regulations, and workers rights that gave us a distribution of wealth and prosperity that made us the envy of the world.


Uhhh.... Not one of those is in the "Conservatism" column.

Wayne 985: I'm such a nerd that every time I see this, I think of Mace Windu.

quatchi: Just cos.

Actually, that provides me a good segue to an alternate nerd reference.

thamike: Karac: If you want to know if republicans are going to eventually lose the gay marriage debate, then just answer these two questions.
When is the last time you heard someone who changed him mind from being against gay rights to being for them?
When is the last time you heard of someone who used to support gay marriage and doesn't now?

You ask this question as if it would be unfathomable for any of these situations to happen. Yet, here we are.

[iveseenthings.jpg]

I don't believe that Karac's point was that these changes of heart never happen, but that they happen pretty much in only one direction.

randomjsa: Some Republicans are for gay marriage and some Democrats are against it.

But don't let your fragile little world view be shattered with reality. Just keep thinking that these anti-gay marriage amendments keep passing with 99% Republican votes while 99% of Democrats vote against them. Particularly in California.

Here's a hint for you: The bill in California passed with 53% of the vote, and as there are far more registered Democrats in California, and it is a liberal state, there is no way in living hell that didn't pass without plenty of registered Democrats, especially when you consider that even if 70% of the Republicans voted for it, then 30% of them voted against it... meaning the remainder of the votes came from who? Democrats.

For all of your jumping up and down screaming about the NC ballot measure? Might want to check the number of primary votes Obama got there. I'm totally sure that all those people voting for Obama surely didn't vote for the amendment. I mean that can't happen right? It's all those white red neck Republican hicks.

Again, don't let reality shatter that fragile world view.

I don't think anyone denies that some Democratic voters are morons... but only one of the two parties makes being a moron (in this specific way, mind you) part of the official platform.

You want to tell me I'm wrong?

Kittypie070: Yeah good point but do ya think people are just gonna keep on not noticing this kinda thing??

Well, presumably by "people" you're not talking about those who already notice it. Those who haven't....

Has anyone pointed you at the work of Dr. Robert Altemeyer yet?

Kittypie070: feeler-bedecked mouthflaps.



"Hey, f*ck you right back, lady."