Right Wing Homophobia
 

Are all right wingers homophobic? I used to think that bigots called themselves conservative because it sounds nicer.

The question arises in the interest of precise thinking. When somebody yearns for the 1950's I have assumed they want to go back to pre-Stonewall fag-bashing. This is frequently incorrect.

Because conservatives give political cover to bigots they don't deserve much sympathy. But it's good to know the sheep from the goats.

Is there a way to tell who is a true conservative and who is merely a bigot?

I don't believe all right-wingers are homophobic. Most are, but not all. It can be hard to tell who is conservative from who might be a bigot. But one thing has always been clear to me....bigots will ALWAYS give themselves away because they are stupid! In their conversations, attitudes, even dress....they are stupid and will ultimately give themselves away.

Please remember that even some of us gay men are conservative in some of our philosophies. Though I would never consider George W. as my REAL President, I do agree with his recent rescinding of the Worker's Repetive Syndrome Act. Some things in life get WAY out of hand and ridiculous in Democratic politics. Does this make me a right-winger? Does this make me a bigot? I don't think so.

Saying all right-wingers are homophobes would be analagous to saying all left-wingers are communists. Both examples are based on faulty generalizations. You will find bigots populate both the left and right. As for giving cover to bigots, both Conservatives and Liberals offer sanctuary to bigots because each group has its own agendas. As we all know (hopefully), a bigot by definition holds a prejudice against a racial or religious group. Bigots should never be given sympathy or allowed to seek refuge behind their political affiliation. A true bigot distinguishes themselves from a position of intellectual dishonesty. This is why you find more bigots on both the far left and the far right extremes. The word 'prejudice' is derived from the word 'prejudge'. When we prejudge others without having all the facts or information, prejudice is often harmful. When we draw incorrect conclusions about others based on faulty generalizations, the result is often not without prejudice or harm. Hence, making prejudgments about a group of people based on political affiliation is equally onerous.

[This message has been edited by ORD ComXchgGuy (edited March 21, 2001).]

Yeah! And as Gay people, we must never vote a bigot into office, just let Bush do it for us......

To demonstrate political correctness, George Bush made sure to appoint token members of different groups to his cabinet. There was one Hispanic, two Blacks, several women, two Asians, etc. But George didn't appoint any token homosexuals.

It's probably correct to say that right wingers are homophobic. There aren't many that aren't, and you have to get to know them before you find that out. The generalization works even though there are exceptions.

People who voted for Bush would probably not object if an active persecution of gays were to start up again. If it doesn't affect anybody they know, it doesn't affect them.

Given the rabid dogs on the radical right who are straining at the leash, the indifference of the moderate right is ominous.

i've come to believe just of late that many, many republicans don't give a shit about social issues. all they're concerned with is their money and their stock market. that's why they vote in the old white men. the old "i've got mine--i don't care if you've got any or not" philosophy.

i know many conservatives who are completely unruffled by homosexuality, but issues like equal rights, women's rights, gay rights have nothing to do with their voting.

Family issues are important to right-wingers and they actually work for a living feeling over burdened with taxes.. I am curious to know if dwight has any experience in the private sector. My guess is he receives a disability check and if he has ever worked, he was on a government payroll.Doors have been removed from toilet stalls in public restrooms--can you imagine why???? AIDS is still being spread by promiscuous men-is that ok in your book??? Incidentally, most of the multi-millionaires in the senate are liberal democrats.Name a right wing senate republican who is a multi-millionaire??? Dwight, refuses to believe that the hierarchy in the democratic party would never except him and he would not welcome. Why do some of you guys still believe wealthy people are conservative republican---in reality the more affluent areas in california, florida, new york, etc. are liberal democratic strongholds!

The reason that I narrowed the focus of an earlier thread is that right wingers kept changing the subject. Liberal-bashers are not good at sticking to the topic, especially an unwelcome one like homophobia within the right wing.

I didn't ask about toilet doors or government paychecks or Florida millionaires. I asked a simple question: Given that not all right wingers are homophobes, is there an easy way to tell the sheep from the goats?

I didn't get very good answers, and now I know why. Homophobia is part of a cluster of attitudes not usually found among gays. You don't expect to find this attitude among gays themselves. But when people oppose equal rights for gays can you call it anything else but homophobia?

I wonder, frankly, how gay right wingers really feel about themsleves. They don't sound like they affirm their own identities.

I would imagine Moderate Gays and Independents feel very good about themselves since they don't have to play the willing, sympathetic role of victim that Liberalism and the left demands of them.

What is becoming abundantly clear to many gays is that you don't have to play either the queer victim or subscribe to its tenants of victimology. Instead, we see the positive progress toward legal and social equality. The reason is simple: Politics has a limited, and declining, ability to shape society and social attitudes. Instead, we see social change and social attitudes shaping politics. Utltimately, politics can only adjust to the deep changes taking place in society. It might be useful to remind ourselves of a few of the fundamental changes taking place on a social, cultural, and economic level that encourage liberty or equality for gays.

We notice on a daily basis the increased visiblity of gays and lesbians as ordinary parts of our society. We see gays more visible in the mass entertainment media today. Almost every poll touching on gay issues shows young people (18 to 29 year olds) are far more accepting of gays than are older people (65 and above). Overall, social attitudes will slowly evolve as the older people die and the younger people carry their gay-friendly attitudes with them into their adulthood and maturity. Psychologists and other therapists firmly reject the idea that homosexuality is anything to reject. Now, they are focusing on helping gays to accept themselves and flourish in their lives and work. This change reflects the much needed decline of Freud and neo-Freudian doctrines. It also deals with the realization that 'conversion therapies' do not work and that gays do not exhibit evidence of pathology. With greater emphasis on self-acceptance and self-actualization, the new focus shifts the focus from compelling the individual to adjust to the majority to the personalist focus.

These are just a few of the changes taking place today that does not require gays and lesbians to be willing victims and the attendant victimology of the left politic.

Dwight as expected missed my point! Doors have been removed from toilet stalls in many public restrooms for obvious reasons. These decisions were made in certain colleges and theatres by persons who share your leftest ideology. Many union members who have children go ballistic when guys are messing around in public places. Does this make them homophobic????? You best realize right-wingers are not the only ones that don't want 'hanky pank' going on in public places.

NOLA Coonass???

NOLA = Northern Louisiana. Bordered on the north by Arkansas, on the west by Texas, on the east by Mississippi. A stronghold of the KKK.

Freudianism is not dead, because castration anxiety is alive and well and motivating behavior. As a people, Americans are not doing all so well psychologically that we can afford to dismiss the notion of passing laws guaranteeing equal protection to sexual minorities.

Gay people are legally second class citizens. That is what was held in the 1986 Supreme Court decision Bowers v. Hardwick, and remains the law of the land. Gays have not come so far that the Bowers decision is irrelevant. That is just not true.

I do not expect that the necessary changes in the law will come from the right wing. In fact, given the indifference of moderates, any changes coming from the right wing will probably take the form of renewed persecution.

Dwight ~

You're much too emotional and your persecution complex is beginning to dominate your life. As evidenced from your own rantings and delusions, a specter haunts you and the 'queer' left -- the growing ranks of ordinary homosexuals who don't feel all that radically different from heterosexuals except for the matter of being attracted to the same sex. It appears you are heartbroken that being gay isn't seen as being excitingly alien and subversive any more. How will the queer left go on feeling special and commanding everyone's attention?

The queer left is in denial that homosexuals are increasing ordinary. Instead, the queer left has tried to describe homosexuals as a sub-species of Homo Sapiens, with their own peculiar values and ideas. The queer left bitterly criticises gays who have put their own sense of being alien behind them.

Behind all the talk of the queer left's revolutionary values, the need for a sense of being alien, the supposed subversion of gender roles, lies the fear of being ordinary. It is like the childlike need to have everyone's attention. If it is ordinary to be gay, there's nothing special about you on that account. You have no secret rings or rites, no hidden passages or esoteric language, no distinct set of values, no special insight into human suffering or longing. You're only an individual who must make your own way in the world, unable to depend on the safety of belonging to an elect tribe.

It is mythology and harmful for the queer left to show gays as sexual revolutionaries, with alien natures and values, threatening and iconoclastic, angry, ennobled, and enlightened by our oppression, but just not ordinary in the sense that really matters. But, we are better, and bigger, that that. We needn't fear being ordinary.

And you needn't fear being a Sunny Dogg of a fella, NOLA.

I find Dwight's references to the Bowers v. Hardwick case amusing.

The Bowers v. Hardwick Case did not require the United States Supreme Court to make a judgment on whether laws against sodomy between consenting adults in general, or between homosexuals in particular, are wise or desirable. The case did not raise a question about the right or propriety of state legislative decisions to repeal laws that criminalized homosexual sodomy, or of state court decisions invalidating those laws on state constitutional grounds.

What was put before the United States Supreme Court to judge and decide is whether the Federal Constitution itself confers a fundamental right upon homosexuals to engage in sodomy, and hence invalidates the laws of many States that still make such conduct illegal, and have done so for a very long time.

The USSC, by a 5 to 4 majority decision, disagreed with the Court of Appeals and with the respondent (Hardwick) that the Constitution confers a right to privacy that extends to homosexual sodomy. The Court ruled no such right to privacy to conduct homosexual sodomy was reached in prior cases of the Court. The Court further stated the claim that such a right to engage in such conduct was deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition or implicit in the concept of ordered liberty was a facetious claim. The Court further reasoned that sodomy laws should not be invalidated on the asserted basis that majority belief that sodomy is immoral is an 'inadequate' rationale to support the laws.

What is amusing about Dwight's references to this case is that the Georgia Supreme Court struck down the Georgia sodomy law in 1998 (Powell v. The State). Hence, gays and lesbians in the State of Georgia have their right to privacy affirmed by the State's highest court.

Since the Georgia Supreme Court has struct down the sodomy law on the basis of violating a person's right to privacy, as implied in the State Constitution of Georgia, the effect of Bowers v. Hardwick becomes moot.

[This message has been edited by SunDogg (edited March 24, 2001).]

SunDogg is interpreting Bowers v. Hardwick as the majority interpreted it. But it's not necessary to rely on a "right to sodomy" that may or may not exist in the Constitution. That's the specious argument that was made by Justice White. I don't know how may other Justices joined him in that.

Justice Blackmun said that the State of Georgia has no right to be in people's bedroom, period. The rest of the stuff has nothing to do with it. Unless, of course, the unspeakable crime against nature puts homosexuals in a special category ... which SunDogg apparently concurs with.

A state court cannot overrule the United States Supreme Court. All they can do is moot one of their own laws, but that leaves in place the precedent not just for the other 49 states but for that state as well. Legislatures can change their mind, depending on the politics of the day.

I would like to see the law changed so that gays are not second class citizens in the eyese of the Supreme Court. The unspeakable acts I commit in the privacy of my bedroom are my business, not yours. And certainly not the government's. As Justice Blackmun remarked, every citizen's primary right is the right to be left alone.

I am not in any special category, and don't wish to be in one. There is nothing "romantic" or "iconoclastic" about that.

Dwight grow up & get real!!! The Georgia state legislature that passed the anti-sodomy laws was solidly democrat signed by a democrat governor. Georgia hasn't had a republican governor in over 100 years. Can't you be man enough to criticize democrats when they sponsor legislation you oppose??

I wish people would stop saying things like, "Are you man enough to ...?" Manliness has nothing to do with it. I am trying to stop questioning whether I am manly or not. Suppose you think my mannerisms are effeminate? Should I change to please you?

You really mean to say I should have the courage to criticize Democrats. But that doesn't take a lot of courage, don't you think? It might have taken courage to oppose passing an anti-sodomy law at the time it was being considered. Maybe it passed unanimously because the idea of legalizing sodomy never occurred to anyone at the time.

Yesterday's news brought the report that gays are still legally second class citizens. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected a claim from a homosexual whose supervisor encouraged his co-workers to ridicule and harass him. The court held that homosexuals were not entitled to legal protection from such abuse.

Which party do we turn to in the question for equal rights? Certainly not the Republicans. The Republicans are the traditional home of bigots like those Rutherford Foundation affiliates, the ones who believe that "unrepentant" homosexuals should be put to death.

Don't stay a Republican and work for change within the party. Leave that party altogether. Become a Democrat! Ours is the party of real inclusion. We won't cheat you out of your vote.

Our Liberal friend, Dwight, immediately attacks Penis2001 without ever responding to the question. This just goes to show you Dwight can't handle the message.

As for civil rights for gays, we do differ from the Liberal's need for group-based remedies and in perceiving ourselves as victims whose main recourse should be coercion by the government.

I think it is time for us to leave the plantation of liberal government and start acting like what we are -- a group of adults who want to live lives as normal and healthy as everyone else in the mainstream.

The question I'm ducking is: "Can't you be man enough to criticize democrats when they sponsor legislation you oppose??" (It has to be that question, that's the only one that was asked.)

I said I don't like questions that ask if I'm man enough. That's nobody's business. And it's not relevant to the question.

If the Democrats harbored homophobes the way the Republicans do, I would encourage gays to abandon them as well. If politicians want gay votes, they should earn them.

Legal remedies are certainly appropriate in questions concerning classes of citizenship. I'm not ruling out other remedies. If they work for you, knock yourself out.

I did not advocate government action as the only recourse available to gays, I simply don't rule it out. Coercion is an inherent part of government. Imagine civil rights in this country if that weren't the case. Let's see you get back your security deposit from your landlord if laws were only suggestions.

Dwight! The vast majority of gay men "HATE" effeminant & so-called nelly behavior. Most gay sexual venues and bars don't want 'fems' present'. These businesses are owned by hypocritical persons that share your leftish, victimization ideology. Could you ever critize a gay institution that harbors extreme animosity towards effeminant men?? You sound like you wish you were born a female and remain very bitter & angry.Blaming right wingers or republicans for your troubled life is a cheap cop out! Trust me, you will find scads of subtle discrimination within the various gay communities--guys like you would be the prime target!!!

Gosh, maybe you're right that I'd be a lot happier as a woman. But if I were going to be female I'd want to be young and pretty, otherwise why bother? If I have to be plain-looking and middle aged, I'd rather be a guy. It's something I've gotten used to.

Besides, it isn't that important to me that I act according to popular notions of how people with cocks (READ: guys) should act. I'd rather do what I feel like, whether you think it's correct or not.

By the way, this is the third time through this exercise -- you should have caught on by now. I said that I object to questions that ask if I'm "man enough" to do X, Y or Z. Manliness (or lack of it) usually has nothing to do with it.

I am man enough to hit the mint cake in the urinal. But heck, I've been practicing that for years! And I'm not planning on giving it up.

Dwight ~

If you are going to refer to United States Supreme Court rulings or those by the lower courts (i.e., 9th Circuit Court of Appeals), you should at least attempt to objectively stick to the facts in those cases.

In your March 30th Editorial, you failed to mention the fact the 9th Circuit found that Medina had failed to present evidence he had been discriminated against on the basis of sex (gender). The Court held that Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act was not violated by Medina's co-workers or supervisor at the MGM Grand Hotel in Las Vegas. The Court did recognize that Medina, an openly gay male, did sustain verbal taunts and was grabbed on several occasions by several co-workers. However, the Court said Medina had not availed himself of other legal action under the law such as criminal assault and battery. The 9th Circuit Court as well as other Circuit Courts of Appeals have consistently held in other opinions that sexual orientation is not proscribed under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

Once again, it is far better to stick to the facts presented in those cases rather than editorialize on those opinions to buttress your own arguments that have merit -- but only in the Court of Public Opinion.

Medina's co-workers tormented him because he was gay, but the Appeals Court said this doesn't justify a civil rights action, because gay is not a protected class such as race, creed or gender. Gender has only recently been protected. I am not old but I remember things like separate employment listings for male and female.

The anti-discrimination laws are an achievement for humanity; they highlight our progress as civilized people. We still have more work to do. First there was consciousness-raising, then there were laws. There was nothing inevitable about the laws; it took a lot of work.

The Republicans are retarding progress in this area. It's always the Republicans! If they had their way they'd go back to help wanted male and help wanted female. As things stand, Republicans are the party committed to preserving homophobia.

Become a Democrat! Ours is the party of genuine inclusion. We don't run pageants or minstrel shows, and we won't cheat you out of your vote.

If you had read the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals opinion more carefully for the substance of that ruling, you would have gleened the following:

Had Medina been a heterosexual male and his co-workers and supervisor been openly gay, Medina would have prevailed in his case because Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act does proscribe sexual harassment on the basis of gender.

It is particularly noteworthy that Medina had never availed himself of criminal sanctions against his co-workers or supervisor for assault and battery. Had Medina filed criminal assault charges against his co-workers and supervisor, he would have prevailed in the proper court.

A reasonable man or woman would correctly inquire why Medina allowed himself to be criminally assaulted for almost two years before he took any action whatsoever.

You got me. I haven't read the Medina case, just the story that made the local papers. The headline read "Court Says Gays Can Be Harrassed" or words to that effect. The text of the story said that the court specifically exempted gays as a protected group.

However, the details of this case - or any other - don't change the important fact that gays are second class citizens. That was held in the Bowers ruling, which is still the precedent today.

Who is more likely to remedy gay people's second class status, Republicans or Democrats? The Republicans on this forum have responded by denying that any such distinction exists, it's all in our heads! Clearly we can't look to the Republicans for any help.

That being the case, we look to the Democrats. This is a party of real inclusion, not pageants or minstrel shows. Join us! We won't cheat you out of your vote, like scumbag George Bush did.

The real 'scumbag' on this message board is Dwight not President Bush!!! Dwight remains a highly troubled and extremely frustrated individual who foolishly tries to blame all his disappointments & failures in life on Republicans. When will he 'fess up' to the fact that he would never be accepted nor welcomed at most gay businesses!! Furthermore,the democratic party hierarchy would reject him bigtime!!Elitism is not inclusion!The Hollywood crowd would avoid Dwight like the plague!! Dwight knows that illegal aliens are voting in large blocks overwhelmingly democratic-- does that bother him?? You sound like you are totally dependent on government services and are unable to fend for yourself. I will proudly remain an individualist. Dwight will continually whine, feel sorry for himself and think socialism is the panacea for his dismal lifetime accomplishments!!

The State of Massachusetts has decided that the Highway Patrol will no longer follow guys into the woods around rest stops. They're not legalizing blow jobs, but they do have different priorities. Rest stop cocksuckers weren't much of a social menace in the first place. Blow jobs are harmless good fun! It would be a better world if more people enjoyed them.

Do not expect such a progressive development to occur in a Republican-controlled state. If you put another man's cock in your mouth in Utah or Texas, the local authorities will punish you.

In some parts of the country it's even worse. Radical members of the religious right seek to put "unrepentant" homosexuals to death. Their chances of achieving that are greater with the Republicans than with the Democrats.

By the way, there's nothing quite like a woodsy blow job, especially in the summer. Getting or giving one has now become a lot less risky in Massachusetts. You can thank the Democrats for that social advance.

So you think the Massachusetts State Police are not going to enforce the state's sodomy laws? Maybe its time for another reality check here.

Massachusetts has two anti-sodomy laws (read: anti-gay ) on the books:

F272-34, Crime Against Nature
F272-35, Unnatural and Lascivious Acts

Since the Massachusetts State Police is the principle law enforcement agency, what assurance to you think people have that those sodomy laws will not be enforced against gays?

Unless the Legislature of Massachusetts repeals the sodomy laws, those laws will be enforced as they have been in the past. Public policy announcements, such as the recent one by the State Police, are dubious and facetious.

If you believe a state law enforcement agency is going to ignore its obligated law enforcement duty for ultruistic and benevolent reasons (i.e., respect for gays having private sex in public places), there are some bridges in New York and California I'd like to sell to you at bargain basement prices.
=============================================
With respect to the Medina v. MGM Grand Hotel, Inc. Case before the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Rather than rely solely upon newpaper articles to get your facts, it is far better to go to the source itself. In this case, you could have read the opinion brief itself.

I believe you have the honest but mistaken belief that news articles by various writers are without personal bias. Sadly, as we all have done many times, we sometimes rely too much on what is written in the various media without ever challenging the conclusions reached by a particular writer. My suggestion here is for you to go to the source and read the legal opinion. You may or may not agree with the opinion. But, at least you will become a better informed person.

[This message has been edited by SunDogg (edited April 02, 2001).]

The interview with the head of the Massachusetts highway patrol was published somewhere on the Web, but I don't remember where. I couldn't find it again after I looked for it. The highway patrol guy said that his officers would continue to enforce state laws, but they would no longer hide out in the woods to catch cocksuckers. A triumph of good sense, it seems to me. I've never really understood the need to suppress fellatio so long as it's discreet.

I am now confused about what happened in the Medina case. It sounded like a supervisor encouraged his subordinates to fag-bash, but the fag in question objected. Courts flip-flopped up the line to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which held that homosexuality is not gender in any legal sense.

Did the 9th Circuit hold that Medina should have sought other relief? Perhaps he should cruise the rest areas in Massachusetts. It's become a lot safer now that you won't trip over cops on your way to getting your nut off.

In Medina v. MGM Grand Hotel, Inc. the plaintiff (Medina) alledged discrimination based on sex (gender) in violation of Title VII of the the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the evidence presented by the plaintiff only supported harassment and discrimination based on his sexual orientation -- not his gender (sex). As such, there was no violation of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

The 9th Circuit Court did agree that Medina had suffered harassment and discrimination because he was an openly gay man. This fact was never in dispute. The 9th Circuit Court further commented that Medina had been criminally assaulted (i.e., co-workers grabbing his crotch and poking their fingers into his anal area through his clothing, as well as verbal taunts; his supervisor condoning such behavior, etc.)and such behavior constituted criminal assault. However, during the two year period Medina worked at the MGM Grand, he never pursued criminal assault charges against his co-workers or against his immediate supervisor for instigating such assaults.

Had Medina's co-workers been openly gay themselves, Medina might have prevailed in alledging a violation of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act since this act prohibits sexual harassment on the basis of gender.

=============================================
RE: Massachusetts State Police

Why would you "now" applaud the Massachusetts State Police for issuing a press release which purports to put a more benevolent face on a law enforcement agency with respect to the enforcement of state sodomy laws? Did the Massachusetts Sodomy Laws (F272-34 and F272-35) suddenly vanish overnight or loose their sinister impact upon gays? It remains to be seen whether or not the State Police will match its new rhetoric with the practical realities of law enforcement.

If you honestly believe the State Police of Massachusetts have turned over a new leaf in law enforcement, then you will have to accept the Salem witch hunts and burnings at the stake were exaggerations or embellishments of innocuous and inconsequential historical facts.

Dwight, come on now, you're not that gullible are you?

[This message has been edited by SunDogg (edited April 03, 2001).]

Given the temper of the times, any progress at all is welcome. George Bush is pledged to repay the religious right, probably by advancing the careers of judges who issue homophobic rulings. He's already nominated John Ashcroft who when he was Missouri state attorney general made sure that people around him had a "normal" sexual orientation.

The Massachusetts policy change isn't the best we could hope for, but at least it's something. I wouldn't reject it because it's short of some imagined optimum. Take note also that progress has occurred in a state run by Democrats. Do not expect it in a Federal government run by Republicans.

The right wing continues to provide political cover for homophobes. The best chance for achieving legal equality is with the Democrats. We don't run pageants or minstrel shows, and we don't cheat people out of their votes.

Policy change? What policy change?

Nothing has changed at all in Massachusetts because its sodomy laws remain on the books. Statements from the Massachusetts State Police are public relations fluff and nothing more.

The best predictor of the future is to look in the recent past. Massachusetts' past in law enforcement speaks for itself, and the fact still remains it still retains the right (sodomy laws) to regulate the sexual behavior of its citizens.

Repeal the sodomy laws and then we can talk about progress. I think we should measure progress based on substance--not style.

Believing that State Police public relations statements have credibility would be like believing the Red Sox are going to win the World Series this year. http://web.cruisingforsex.com/ubb/smile.gif

Dwight~massachusettes is an ultra-liberal state hardly a bastion of right-wing republicanism!Tell us if you receive a government disability check or receive food stamps?? Do/have you ever had a private sector job??? You obvious expect to be taken care of by government agencies!! I've read enough of your bs to recognize a non-productive welfare recipient who reeks from self-pity and expects others to feel sorry for him. Scape goating conservative republicans for all of your life time failures just doesn't wash!!! You fail to realize the fact that large segments of the gay community would totally reject you and your socialist ideology. Elitist democrats would never 'include' you at their guarded, gated, palatial estates.

Despite all the personal abuse, I am not the subject of this thread -- that's just a distraction. These guys don't want to talk about the actual topic, right wing homophobia.

The right wing is full of people who despise homosexuals and who want to punish gay sex. George Bush is their standard bearer. He owes the religious right a payback for turning out in huge numbers to support him.

What form will the Bush payback take? He has already appointed one homophobe, and we can expect others. We know him for what he is. Don't expect progress in civil rights while George is in office.

Whoever Penis2000 is, he sure has been thoroughly brainwashed by Rush Limbaugh, G.Gordon Liddy and the like...i kept expecting him to spit off something like "left wing pinko commie fag"; what cave did you crawl out of dude? stick a cock down your throat so we don't have to listen to your neanderthal rantings.

Penis is correct....but in true left-wing
fashion Swallowme wants to silence him...just see his last post.

I don't think that the majority of the gay community needs to fear the right-wing or
Republicans. Keep in mind that these two groups are not always the same. I think we need to fear the "left-wing, activist thought-police" which is so evident in these boards.

Sunn and Penis....and all others who have the courage to challenge the looney-left...go ahead. We need some words of wisdom or at least common sense.

One thing the lefties may find interesting is the FACT that President Bush won the election and he carried Florida...See both CNN and FoxNews sites for the news from yesterday..so there should be no more whinning about Bush not winning........I know this is almost ancient history but why do we never hear from these same whinners about the fact that Kennedy (JFK) "stole" the 1960 election...just how many dead people in Chicago and San Antonio voted for him...and they were so orderly that they even did it in alphabetical order (LOL).....more of the double standard !! It seems that it is OK for Saint JFK do win by dead people..but President Bush is critized for winning and taking the prize!!

I call on the moderator to intervene and remove the posts that are nothing but personal abuse. I've tried to keep the discussion at a high level. But the responses have take the form of insults directed at me personally. Words like "looney" or "gullible" or "fascist" or "zombie" are directed at me as though they addressed the topic.

May we once again get back on track? I say that the right wing provides political cover for homophobes, and that George Bush will be bad for gays. We ought to be able to discuss this like civilized people. Maybe the gay right really is as oxymoronic as it sounds.

Mamo Verga~

not trying to "silence" anybody(as if i could) i just can't stand when rational discourse degenerates into "left wing looney commie pinko fag" talk. i just wish you would ALL realize that NEITHER party is on your side. i choose the lesser of two evils, while the right wingers amongst you choose to make a deal with the devil and vote your pocketbooks. you wouldn't have the comfort level to be out(assuming you are) if it weren't for some pissed-off drag queens at Stonewall and the gay communists who started the Mattachine society.

you right wing guys do the dirty work for the bible-thumpers. sleeping with the enemy, you are apologists all. next time you suck a cock, remember that 99% of the memebership of the party you so cherish would like you to be arrested if not executed for your behaviour.

just for the record, i don't particularly care for the chest thumping of the Democrat supporters either. their case would be a lot more supportable without the "join the Democrats" cheerleading. (sorry Dwight)

dwight calls president bush 'scumbag' then starts whinning and requests that the moderator remove posts that call him names i.e. typical liberal hypocrisy!! you have never responded to any of your critics but constantly make personal, ad hominem attacks against them! this thread has absolutely nothing to do with gay rights, in reality it all boils down to what dwight and his ilk expect from government. they feel incapable of taking care of themselves and are scared that gop conservatives will make them take more individual responsibility, stop being parasites and have some repect for taxpayers -- NOT TAXUSERS!! Big government is your real enemy!!