Are Republicans Anti- LGBT?

[Tzara]

Johnson had so many great buildings that losing one wouldn't hurt . . . especially that Temple to Unsound Theology. And it may be famous but it's still ugly!

I'd say boring rather than ugly, personally. (Glass boxes, however shaped, lost their appeal to me in the fifties.)

But not my point.

I think what I'm trying to say is that all of us are intertwined, regardless of our prejudices. Kind of the "call in gay" thing. So Schuller has a conservative megachurch. Yet he hired Johnson/Burgee to design and construct the building, surely knowing (unless he's remarkably stupid) that Johnson was gay.

A 'cuz Johnson's firm was über prominent and Schuller wanted to make a statement with the building. You hire the best guys.

Why, I think, that ultimately gay rights will be universally recognized, even in these United States.

Sorry. I seem to be standing on a soapbox, and someone may desperately need this soap.

 

[Safe_Bet]

That would destroy one of the signature buildings of a famous gay architect.

No, it would destroy a building designed by an architect who, incidentally, happened to be gay. You of all people understand the importance in the different wording. He may also have been left handed or had size 12 feet - NONE of which has any bearing on who or what he accomplished as a human being.

The Crystal Cathedral is one of the High Temples for the sonofabitches that want to make me be forcibly divorced, so I metaphorically hope it is filled to capacity when the roof shatters

 

[voluptuary_manque]

I'd say boring rather than ugly, personally. (Glass boxes, however shaped, lost their appeal to me in the fifties.)

But not my point.

I think what I'm trying to say is that all of us are intertwined, regardless of our prejudices. Kind of the "call in gay" thing. So Schuller has a conservative megachurch. Yet he hired Johnson/Burgee to design and construct the building, surely knowing (unless he's remarkably stupid) that Johnson was gay.

A 'cuz Johnson's firm was über prominent and Schuller wanted to make a statement with the building.

Sorry. I seem to be standing on a soapbox, and someone may desperately need this soap.

Don't bet on Shuller knowing that Johnson was gay. He probably didn't know that Britten or Copeland, were, either. The man isn't what you could call particularly urbane or cosmopolitan, yanno.

 

[Miss_Misaki]

I fail to see how it's true that ALL republicans oppose gays' right to marry when I'm a republican, and I support it. I know there are many others like me - my parents at the very least. Just because I haven't jumped ship on my party doesn't mean I support everything that they do, either. I vote with a combination of my conscience, my wallet, and my impression of the political standing of the candidate. I've voted democrat before, but I didn't during the last election, because Obama's financial policies scared the willies out of me. In such an unstable period for our economy, we need someone with actual VISION, not someone toting a catchphrase for change (that's not to say that McCain's promises were great, but they didn't scare me as much as Obama's did). Change is needed, but at the same time, this slump is also part of our market's natural cycle. We put it off for as long as we could to try to stimulate growth, and now that we've soared too high, we have to sink farther than usual. Economic upturns and downturns are inevitable, and no amount of change instituted by one man (or even one man backed fully by congress) is going to change that - I certainly wouldn't expect him to, regardless of what party he's affiliated with.

I'm not well-informed enough to back up my political opinions, so maybe I shouldn't be talking. Just the same, I do want to point out that I am a conservative by nature, who is not also a bible-thumping sheep, lol.

 

[cloudy]

I fail to see how it's true that ALL republicans oppose gays' right to marry when I'm a republican, and I support it. I know there are many others like me - my parents at the very least. Just because I haven't jumped ship on my party doesn't mean I support everything that they do, either. I vote with a combination of my conscience, my wallet, and my impression of the political standing of the candidate. I've voted democrat before, but I didn't during the last election, because Obama's financial policies scared the willies out of me. In such an unstable period for our economy, we need someone with actual VISION, not someone toting a catchphrase for change (that's not to say that McCain's promises were great, but they didn't scare me as much as Obama's did). Change is needed, but at the same time, this slump is also part of our market's natural cycle. We put it off for as long as we could to try to stimulate growth, and now that we've soared too high, we have to sink farther than usual. Economic upturns and downturns are inevitable, and no amount of change instituted by one man (or even one man backed fully by congress) is going to change that - I certainly wouldn't expect him to, regardless of what party he's affiliated with.

I'm not well-informed enough to back up my political opinions, so maybe I shouldn't be talking. Just the same, I do want to point out that I am a conservative by nature, who is not also a bible-thumping sheep, lol.

...and John McCain has "vision"?

http://bestsmileys.com/lol/1.gif

 

[Miss_Misaki]

...and John McCain has "vision"?

http://bestsmileys.com/lol/1.gif

Thank you so much for reading my entire post. I'd give you a cookie out of pity, but I'm fresh out.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

...and John McCain has "vision"?

http://bestsmileys.com/lol/1.gif

Ah, ah, Cloudy, you're changing the subject.

And this moderate Republican is incensed by what the would-be Taliban masquerading as follow party members have tried to pull off here. Prop 8 was an attempt at a theocratic takeover of the state, the nose of the camel into the tent if you will. It was not fiscally conservative, not limited government, not individual rights but a blatant attempt to impose one primitive version of Christianity on all of the rest of us. I hope to Heaven that the CalCourt gives it's backers the finger.

 

[cloudy]

Thank you so much for reading my entire post. I'd give you a cookie out of pity, but I'm fresh out.

I did read the entire post, darlin', but that particular part just struck me. Please don't assume things about me.

 

[Guest]

I fail to see how it's true that ALL republicans oppose gays' right to marry when I'm a republican, and I support it. I know there are many others like me - my parents at the very least. Just because I haven't jumped ship on my party doesn't mean I support everything that they do, either. I vote with a combination of my conscience, my wallet, and my impression of the political standing of the candidate. I've voted democrat before, but I didn't during the last election, because Obama's financial policies scared the willies out of me. In such an unstable period for our economy, we need someone with actual VISION, not someone toting a catchphrase for change (that's not to say that McCain's promises were great, but they didn't scare me as much as Obama's did). Change is needed, but at the same time, this slump is also part of our market's natural cycle. We put it off for as long as we could to try to stimulate growth, and now that we've soared too high, we have to sink farther than usual. Economic upturns and downturns are inevitable, and no amount of change instituted by one man (or even one man backed fully by congress) is going to change that - I certainly wouldn't expect him to, regardless of what party he's affiliated with.

I'm not well-informed enough to back up my political opinions, so maybe I shouldn't be talking. Just the same, I do want to point out that I am a conservative by nature, who is not also a bible-thumping sheep, lol.

I'm not going to use this thread to argue politics with you.

And yes, I think you could be better informed before you venture in the fray, although I do recognize a few solid Republican talking points in your post.

But - your own party's platform is quite specific on what they allow via this topic.

So you can say - well, I don't really believe that way - and that's fine.

But how can you still call yourself a Republican?

(That's kind of like a "good" Catholic girl taking birth control, even though the church doesn't allow it.)

 

[Miss_Misaki]

I did read the entire post, darlin', but that particular part just struck me. Please don't assume things about me.

When you take something out of context, you can make it say virtually anything you want, lol. I was just saying, is all.

In such an unstable period for our economy, we need someone with actual VISION, not someone toting a catchphrase for change (that's not to say that McCain's promises were great, but they didn't scare me as much as Obama's did).

 

[voluptuary_manque]

I'm not going to use this thread to argue politics with you.

And yes, I think you could be better informed before you venture in the fray, although I do recognize a few solid Republican talking points in your post.

But - your own party's platform is quite specific on what they allow via this topic.

So you can say - well, I don't really believe that way - and that's fine.

But how can you still call yourself a Republican?

(That's kind of like a "good" Catholic girl taking birth control, even though the church doesn't allow it.)

Really easy. My party leadership no more dictates what I believe than what I eat. Most American Catholics treat the Vatican's obsession with fertility as a bad joke. Let there be less stereotypical thinking around here.

 

[Guest]

Really easy. My party leadership no more dictates what I believe than what I eat. Most American Catholics treat the Vatican's obsession with fertility as a bad joke. Let there be less stereotypical thinking around here.

Then why be Catholic? What's the point? Why buy into something you can not believe? How could you sit in church week after week without sneering?

What an abysmal waste of time.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

Then why be Catholic? What's the point? Why buy into something you can not believe? How could you sit in church week after week without sneering?

What an abysmal waste of time.

As Lutherans, that is our normal response. Episcopalians feel the same way. So you got me there.

It's just that in politics, I'm not happy with the platform on the other side, either.

 

[Miss_Misaki]

I'm not going to use this thread to argue politics with you.

And yes, I think you could be better informed before you venture in the fray, although I do recognize a few solid Republican talking points in your post.

But - your own party's platform is quite specific on what they allow via this topic.

So you can say - well, I don't really believe that way - and that's fine.

But how can you still call yourself a Republican?

(That's kind of like a "good" Catholic girl taking birth control, even though the church doesn't allow it.)

So let me get this straight... because you've brought up a point that I've never really considered before (shame on me for not realizing this; after all the elections I've participated in, lol). If your party has a collective stance on a particular issue, you, as a member of that party, are morally, legally, or implicitly bound to adopt that stance?

I thought this was a country of choice. I choose the "best" candidate I can, but I never agree with everything any one candidate has to say. Likewise, I may be voting for a republican candidate (who will most likely take the collective republican stance on said issue) because he/she has a larger portion of agreement with my own opinions. I realize that you can't just vote for a part of a person, but that doesn't mean that I can say that I agree with everything my chosen candidate wants to do, does it?

By simply voting for that person, am I forfeiting my right to an opinion? I'm dreadfully serious here, because for the first time in my life, I'm in a serious conundrum about whether I ought to go out and vote or not. Up until now, I've had no inner debate about it at all, but if what you say is true, then what's the point in voting?

By the way, I am catholic, and I don't believe in everything the catholic church has to say, either. Some catholics would argue that I'm not a TRUE catholic in that sense, but like my method of voting, I went with the religion that most closely resembled my own beliefs, lol. I don't believe that God gave us free thought so that we could be led blindly like sheep. Questioning our authorities is part of what makes us American, and in my opinion, part of what makes us human. I'm also not what I'd consider a "good" girl, though, so meh.

 

[Guest]

As Lutherans, that is our normal response. Episcopalians feel the same way. So you got me there.

It's just that in politics, I'm not happy with the platform on the other side, either.

Yes, Lutherans.

And as an ELCA Lutheran, you'd better believe when we didn't like what the church was saying, we split. In this case, of course, we took the church with us.

As for me, there are main components of the other side that horrify me. Being female, bringing up a daughter, I worry for her future, her reproductive rights, the availability of health care for her as a young woman.

But - that's neither here nor there.

If I didn't like major components of my party, I'd leave the party. I've done it before.

 

[Guest]

So let me get this straight... because you've brought up a point that I've never really considered before (shame on me for not realizing this; after all the elections I've participated in, lol). If your party has a collective stance on a particular issue, you, as a member of that party, are morally, legally, or implicitly bound to adopt that stance?

I thought this was a country of choice. I choose the "best" candidate I can, but I never agree with everything any one candidate has to say. Likewise, I may be voting for a republican candidate (who will most likely take the collective republican stance on said issue) because he/she has a larger portion of agreement with my own opinions. I realize that you can't just vote for a part of a person, but that doesn't mean that I can say that I agree with everything my chosen candidate wants to do, does it?

By simply voting for that person, am I forfeiting my right to an opinion? I'm dreadfully serious here, because for the first time in my life, I'm in a serious conundrum about whether I ought to go out and vote or not. Up until now, I've had no inner debate about it at all, but if what you say is true, then what's the point in voting?

By the way, I am catholic, and I don't believe in everything the catholic church has to say, either. Some catholics would argue that I'm not a TRUE catholic in that sense, but like my method of voting, I went with the religion that most closely resembled my own beliefs, lol. I don't believe that God gave us free thought so that we could be led blindly like sheep. Questioning our authorities is part of what makes us American, and in my opinion, part of what makes us human. I'm also not what I'd consider a "good" girl, though, so meh.

It just sounds as if we need more than two major parties.

And I do hope we're headed in that direction.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

Yes, Lutherans.

And as an ELCA Lutheran, you'd better believe when we didn't like what the church was saying, we split. In this case, of course, we took the church with us.

As for me, there are main components of the other side that horrify me. Being female, bringing up a daughter, I worry for her future, her reproductive rights, the availability of health care for her as a young woman.

But - that's neither here nor there.

If I didn't like major components of my party, I'd leave the party. I've done it before.

Right! Schisms are us. And I don't want to admit how many times I've switched from to D to I to R to I to R and just maybe I'm headed back to I again. I'm still gonna vote the way I want.

 

[off2bed]

I somehow doubt you could ever find a woman who would marry you, either. So in that, you share the same lack of rights as I do.

Did it make you feel good to say that? I imagine that's how gay bashers feel when they bash gays. See? Both groups are exactly the same - petty, abusive, small-minded, just angry at the world. Maybe lashing out from fear that other side might be correct...

Oh, and our fifteenth anniversary is next March if you want to send us flowers. No, on second thought, fuck off.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Well, no one has said that ALL repubs are against gay rights.

But it's still true that the republican party, overwhelmingly, denies them.

It's sucha waste of your time to take this particular tack. Much better to be honest and say; "Yeah, I know guys-- Personally, I'm for equal rights, and I wish I could say the same about my fellow party members."

And so do we all.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

Well, no one has said that ALL repubs are against gay rights.

But it's still true that the republican party, overwhelmingly, denies them.

It's sucha waste of your time to take this particular tack. Much better to be honest and say; "Yeah, I know guys-- Personally, I'm for equal rights, and I wish I could say the same about my fellow party members."

And so do we all.

And that's probably the sanest comment made tonight. Put me down as "yes". And now, I'm going to go see how dinner is coming.

 

[Miss_Misaki]

Yes, Lutherans.

And as an ELCA Lutheran, you'd better believe when we didn't like what the church was saying, we split. In this case, of course, we took the church with us.

As for me, there are main components of the other side that horrify me. Being female, bringing up a daughter, I worry for her future, her reproductive rights, the availability of health care for her as a young woman.

But - that's neither here nor there.

If I didn't like major components of my party, I'd leave the party. I've done it before.

So what if you don't like major components of ALL the parties? That's the situation I find myself in... I'm a registered republican, but that doesn't necessarily mean anything with me, because I rarely (very rarely) vote straight republican down the ticket.

 

[Tzara]

No, it would destroy a building designed by an architect who, incidentally, happened to be gay. You of all people understand the importance in the different wording. He may also have been left handed or had size 12 feet - NONE of which has any bearing on who or what he accomplished as a human being.

The Crystal Cathedral is one of the High Temples for the sonofabitches that want to make me be forcibly divorced, so I metaphorically hope it is filled to capacity when the roof shatters

Yes, I understand your different wording. Of course I do.

And I understand, as best I can (of course, I can't really understand it, not being gay myself), your anger and frustration about the Prop 8 thing, and the forces and coalitions that enabled its passage.

I have nothing to compare to that.

But anger and smashing things (or buildings) is not the answer, in my opinion. That will simply scare people and fix their prejudices. I'm not, of course, in your position. And, you know, militancy sometimes works. Rarely, but sometimes. So, I'm not even making suggestions about how you proceed.

But I would recommend a change of vision. Don't look at the Crystal Cathedral as an icon of evangenical intolerance. Look at it as a major building by a stellar gay architect. Positive, not negative.

Ain't going away, in any case.

And I've been there. The place is basically a big parking lot with an office building. Hardly an architectural shrine.



So, Amy's Republican? Get out of here! Tell her that I'd love to be a liberal Republican, something that's been extinct since about 1970. We had some, up here in Washington, at one time.

All gone.

Happy New Year, m'dear.

 

[Stella_Omega]

So what if you don't like major components of ALL the parties? That's the situation I find myself in... I'm a registered republican, but that doesn't necessarily mean anything with me, because I rarely (very rarely) vote straight republican down the ticket.

So you register as "independent," if you wish.

I've often thought we should all of us register republican. subvert it with a liberal agenda, put centrist candidates on the ballots.


tzara, dear, "recommending a change of vision" is incredibly patronizing and assuming. You might not have noticed that-- I thought I'd let you know.

 

[rgraham666]

You have to remember, to many Republicans George W. Bush is a centrist. So are McCain and Palin.

 

[Stella_Omega]

You have to remember, to many Republicans George W. Bush is a centrist. So are McCain and Palin.

Let me modify then-- Capable, Intelligent centrists.