Topic awaiting preservation: Are Rebulicans homophobic? (Page 1 of 2)

Well, another homophobic (?) scandal is rocking the Rebublicans...story here A Republican Group Demands That Senator Apologize to Gays. The heart of the matter :

quote:

---

Mr. Santorum, a Pennsylvanian who holds the No. 3 spot in the Republican leadership, has been buffeted by criticism of his comments about a Supreme Court challenge to a Texas law banning sodomy.

"If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery," he said, in an interview published on Monday by The Associated Press.

Democrats condemned the remarks, and gay rights groups called for Mr. Santorum to resign his leadership post. Mr. Santorum has said that he does not need to apologize and that he was engaged in a "legitimate public policy discussion."

--The New York Times

---

So, is this true, what he says? "Then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery," And what, exactly, has that to do with sodomy? I thought bigamy was having more than one wife (and that is clearly covered in the Marriage laws...no privacy here), as for incest, huh? How did that get in here? Incest has little to do with consensual sex issue and more to do with the fact that incest has a severe effect on gene pools (read : birth defects). As for the right to adultery...again huh? I wasn't aware that adultery was illegal...so anyone who wants to, can do so...doesn't make it correct, perhaps, but...isn't that the choice (or right) of the person(s) in question to decide?

So...just what is Mr. Santorum trying to say here? Maybe he is talking in the moral sense? If so, then yes, he is being homophobic...and once again, we see the problem with having these religious 'morals' in politics...he may have strong beliefs (or may not) on this privately, but as a public servant, he must be willing and able to divide his private feelings and beliefs from his job. Obviously, he cannot...and it would seem, that since this is not an isolated incident within the Republican party, that it is a problem. And because he is being supported by some other Republicans (higher animals on the totem pole)...I suspect that this is just the tip of the iceberg.

However, maybe Mr. Santorum is just a bit 'confused' on what is meant about consensual sex within the privacy of ones own home...in that case, we should first have pity on the man, and then have him fired, as he is obviously not qualified for such a position. And as far as I know, everyone does have the right to consensual sex within the privacy of ones own home...as long as you don't tell anyone, who really cares? Well, it would seem like Mr. Santorum cares...it would seem that consensual is not enough for him...he wants to make sure that any 'consensualism' is first done through him...or his beliefs, to be correct. Now, what could those be? And apparently, he has a problem with this being recognized by the Supreme Court...hmmm...combined with the Sourthern Baptist movement in Texas, I don't find this sort of stuff very surprising.

It's no wonder, that Mr. Bush has been trying to re-organize the Supreme Court lately...well Mr. Santorum, I hope that you don't get away with this...

Generally speaking, I believe that most republicans are homophobic. Prolly has something to do with the Christian streak in most republicans. Pure speculation, though.

What do those other acts have to do with sodomy? Well, they are all being lumped together as it's not just a question of sodomy. It's about adults doing what adults want to do with other consenting adults.

Consider: Why are these things illegal? Should they be illegal? Again, I think it goes back to a Christian streak - amoung voters and not just republicans.

I don't think it's possible for politicians to leave personal feelings out of their job. If they did, then we wouldn't have democrats and republicans and all that jazz.

Incest isn't always about molesting a child. Comment being taken out of context. I know a couple that is half brother sister. They even have a gaggle of normal children.

Umm...I don't think anyone was relating incest with that of child molestation...at least, I hope not. Rather, the chance of birth defects skyrocket with incest...along with other disorders/genetic problems...not meaning that it will definitely occur, just that the chances are much, much higher.

Anyone who relates incest to child molestation runs into the non-consensual sex question...and that is clearly not the case, here.

I read your comment about incest a little wrong. Looks like I'm the guilty one.

Actually a lot of republicans are asking for him stepping down including some openly gay republicans. So do I think all republicans are homophobic? No. This one is though and i believe he should step down.

The problem with the senator's argument is in relating sodomy with bigamy, adultery and incest. Bigamy, adultery and incest are concepts based on who you have sex with. Sodomy is a concept based on how you have sex. The two are completely different, therefore you can legalize (or at least legislate) one without affecting the other.



Evil in theory, not so much in practice...

I've got it... How about a law prohibiting sex with Republicans? Some folks would say that is a form of sodomy.

The term "homophobic" is as unclear as Santorum's comments. Someone please define it before we continue with this thread.

Homophobia is the fear of or contempt for lesbians and gay men.

I think in most cases Republican politicians are intolerant of different race, religion, or sexual preference. This probably has to do with the traditional demographic that makes up the party: an older, white, wealthy, Christian male. Of course theres always exceptions to this rule.

Jestah

While it seems that this kind of prejudice does seem to be relatively prevalent in the Religious Right who tend to be republican I think it would be hypocrtical to paint all republicans by this brush.

I'd say this looks more like a relatively small ultra-conservative portion of the majority.



.:[ Never resist a perfect moment ]:.

By Jestah's definition of "homophobic", I would say there are quite a few Republicans that are but I seriously doubt it is the majority. It certainly wouldn't apply to most of the gays and lesbian Republicans of which there are quite a few.

His remarks were confusing but one thing that bothers me is that he did not compare homosexuality with bigamy, polygamy, or incest. He was apparently saying that if the state does not have the right to govern sex acts *at all* then that would apply to the others mentioned. So it seems much of the outcry is based on a false premise.

I don't see how bigamy (two wives) or polygamy (more than one) makes any sense in his point. Those are legal licenses and are not defined by sex acts. Incest and homosexual sex are defined by sex acts (notice I did not say homosexuality there). So I can see the point he's making about incest being untouchable if *any* consensual sex acts between adults is off limits. In the case of a brother and sister having sex, that would certainly fall into that category.

But it is also true that all the states that have removed laws against homosexual sex have *not* had a problem keeping incest prohibited. It would seem to me, we can discriminate against the brother and sister regardless of what else we deem acceptable under the law.

I also find it interesting that the gay represetatives I've heard on interviews discussing this issue are "disgusted" by the thought of brother/sister sex acts. So much for staying out of people's bedrooms, eh? I don't get it, they want to add gay sex to acceptable level and keep every other kind of sexual arrangement taboo? What's the logic there?

Of course, if we go the other way, if the government can specify how you have sex, then the government apparently has the ability to mandate the missionary position, making every other sexual position, known or unknown, illegal. Oh, but that's ridiculous...

Yes, it is

not saying anything, but since when does Sodomy actually make you gay? .... you dont have to do it with a man....

"The only difference between me and a madman is that... i'm not mad!" - Salvador Dali

I haven't had time to read all the posts, but from what I've read, it seems that people are saying that Republicans are "homophobic."
There is no doubt in my mind that 99% of all Republicans are not "homophobic" per se, but that they are merely against homosexual acts and marriages etc.

Homophobia would be a fear of gay people, which I doubt many people are inflicted with. Being against homosexuality is another thing. I'm against homosexuality, but I am not homophobic. Besides, is there a point to being gay? I mean, people have to make conscious decisions to be gay. Our brains aren't hard-wired that way, unless it get screwed up in some way during development. I know people at our church who "turned" gay because "of their genes," yet, after becoming Christians, gave up being gay, and many are happily married in a heterosexual marriage. We heard a testimony from several about how they found that being gay didn't come naturallly, and they actually had to "work" at it.

Well... while i'm not homophobic... couldn't a homosexual man have anal sex with a woman? and it would ... well i imagine it would be the same for him.. not for the woman...

"The only difference between me and a madman is that... i'm not mad!" - Salvador Dali

quote:

---

Homophobia would be a fear of gay people, which I doubt many people are inflicted with. Being against homosexuality is another thing

---

You're rioght. It's called bigotry.

quote:

---

couldn't a homosexual man have anal sex with a woman? and it would ... well i imagine it would be the same for him.. not for the woman

---

By that logic couldnt you have oral sex with a man

quote:

---

Homophobia would be a fear of gay people, which I doubt many people are inflicted with.

---

Actually, '-phobia' is used to denote "extreme fear, intolerance or aversion for". With that, it covers a lot more ground than simple fear.

quote:

---

Being against homosexuality is another thing. I'm against homosexuality, but I am not homophobic.

---

Given that the definition of homophobia includes an 'aversion to' homosexuality, I might be inclined to argue that point. However, I do think that the word's been politicized to the point where the term 'homophobe' is akin to a Nazi ushering Jews to the Concentration Camps. I certainly don't think that of you, CFB, but you may have to admit that the literal definition of the word seems to apply.

quote:

---

Besides, is there a point to being gay? I mean, people have to make conscious decisions to be gay.

---

Did you make a 'conscious decision' to be heterosexual? If not, if it came naturally to you, why would you assume that gays are any different? Also, the question has been asked that, with all the fear/hatred/discrimination/threats gays receive, why would anyone choose to be gay?

quote:

---

Our brains aren't hard-wired that way, unless it get screwed up in some way during development. I know people at our church who "turned" gay because "of their genes," yet, after becoming Christians, gave up being gay, and many are happily married in a heterosexual marriage. We heard a testimony from several about how they found that being gay didn't come naturallly, and they actually had to "work" at it.

---

The source of homosexual behavior has yet to be definitively determined, though a lot of what I've read in recent years seems to lean toward 'nature' (genes, etc.) as opposed to 'nurture' (environment). Without knowing more about the people you reference, it's possible that they always were heterosexual and had other issues that caused them to explore homosexuality. Perhaps they're actually bisexual, and are genuinely attracted to their spouses while repressing any same-sex impulses. Perhaps, as church members, they're ashamed of their orientation, and are trying to convince themselves that they aren't really gay. I couldn't say, but I've heard of all of them (I was a Psychology grad, about a million years ago).

Homer Simpson (to Bart): "Did he give you gay?"

[Edit: rackin-frackin' spellcheck...]

[This message has been edited by Wangenstein (edited 04-25-2003).]

oh cfb, where to start.

Homosexuality is NOT a choice. It's not something that can be "cured" nor something most homosexuals have to "work" at, if it didn't come naturally then they probably weren't gay to begin with. I find it hard to believe that you are against homosexuality because it's unnatural in someway otherwise you may as well be against streets because theres nothing natural about an interstate going across the great plains.

comments like that my friend show a world seen with blinders on.



.:[ Never resist a perfect moment ]:.

Hmm...Ok, let me rephrase:

I don't think that I approach the world with "blinder" on, but, regarding my opinions, I do think that it is a choice. I'd stand by that. You know, maybe it is something in our genes, I'm just not too sure.

And why would people: "become gay?" Wouldn't they have been gay all there life?

why are people so scared of a gay person? its not like they're going to rape you... or somethign i donno. They're no different than anyone else except they choose a different sexual affiliation.... its not like they're going to make you gay by being around them? lol.. people are funny

"The only difference between me and a madman is that... i'm not mad!" - Salvador Dali

The following is an an unedited section of the Associated Press interview, taped April 7, with Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pennsylvania.

Santorum: 'I have a problem with homosexual acts'

This is the interview that started the whole controversey. I find it interesting that this is the quote that everyone is all upset about after reading the whole interview:

quote:

---

And if the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything.

---

[This message has been edited by Bugimus (edited 04-25-2003).]

quote:

---

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homophobia would be a fear of gay people, which I doubt many people are inflicted with. Being against homosexuality is another thing
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You're rioght. It's called bigotry.

---

pretty bold statement with no basis in reality there that i can see. why is it that tolerance only works for me accepting your views and not you accepting mine?

chris


KAIROSinteractive

and an interesting link:
the gay gene?

chris

Great point, Fig. I was listening to Al Rantel here in LA about this issue. He is a Republican gay conservative and he was interviewing a spokesman for the Log Cabin Republicans. He made the exact same point about Republican gays not being tolerant of fellow party members who believe that homosexual sex acts are immoral. Respect really does need to work in both directions.

I think my people dealt with the issue well...if you are homosexually inclined, so be it...and you were treated accordingly...at least, the men were...I'm not well-informed on the women...sorry. The men were mostly 'confined' to the role that they had chosen...though they weren't in that sense considered 'men'...

point is, history shows us that homosexuality has been with mankind from the beginning...so I don't think it's something that one conciously chooses...and nature shows us, that homosexuality is present there, as well...

My question...just why is Sodomy considered such a bad thing? Two (or more) consensual adults...who really cares what they do to one another? And why? Just why is Sodomy illegal? How can a sex act, between two (or more) consensual adults be illegal? I think that is the main point, isn't it?

Many good points brought up in this thread...Sodomy isn't just a man and a man...it could also be a woman and a woman, for that matter...I think the point Sodomy was originally based on Man and animals, wasn't it? What we call beastiality today?

The points brought up about the Republican party are relavant, I think...yes, I do believe that there are homosexual Republicans...but what is the main party line, regarding Homosexuality? Why can't homosexuals marry? Why do Republicans seem to come 'uder fire' for such things so often?

It just seems to me, that the Republican party line is homophobic.

I also agree, that the government shouldn't be 'regulating' things in the bedroom...as long as there are two (or more) consensual adults involved...no minors, of course. As for incest, I think I explained that already...it can be very harmful to the gene pool...that means, that the actual sexual act, has reprecussions on others...in this case, the higher chance of birth defects, etc. Certainly this should be prohibited...a child from such a union is at a higher risk. If one of both were 100% sterile, I wouldn't care...but because there is always a slight chance of pregnacy with present birth control measures...(and even '100%' sterility)...

As for Bigatry, Polygamy...I never really understood why that is illegal...is it really important, who is married to whom? Marriage is really just a legal issue, these days...and the instituion of Marriage existed far before the christian Church...in one form or another.

As for homophobia...I just don't understand why there are still people that suffer from this...or who are against homosexuality...if you are not homosexual, it certainly can't be bothering you...if you are, then you know all about the discrimination against you from people who are not!

What if the tables were turned? What if Hetrosexuality was discriminated against? 'What?? You are *gasp* hetrosexual? Oh my god!!! Why do you choose to be hetro?' 'I didn't choose it, I just feel attracted to the opposite sex!' 'You pervert! Stay away from us!'

Pretty silly, isn't it?

WS, remind me again please, when you speak of your people, are you referring just to the Cherokee? Or all native Americans?

I would be interested in hearing more about homosexuality in native americans, whether your tribe or others...

Along that line, as WS says, homosexuality has existed in humanity and in nature for as long as they've existed...in one form or another.

The Celts of continental europe were known to engage in pretty widespread homosexuality, and the men often spent much of their lives away from the women. The romans and the greeks had vast pockets of homosexual activity.

Dogs do it all the time

Now, I have to say that I have somewhat of a personal aversion to the idea of homosexuality. I don't, however, have anything against gays or lesbians. I have known and been friends with many gay men and women, and think of them no differently than any other person. To me, it's the same as my friend who's really into - as he puts it - 'fatties'. It's a personal thing and not up to me to judge in the slightest.

as for republicans...well, obviously he is. The party? Well...I'm sure there are plenty who are, and I'm sure there are plenty who are not. I think it's a moot point really...

There's a big difference between being homophobic and intstituting anti-homosexual legislation as well. One is ok, the other is not.





[This message has been edited by DL-44 (edited 04-25-2003).]

I'm not sure of all tribes, of course...I'm not sure if anyone has studied all the tribes of America, and their customs...I have heard that the plains indians also treated the subject similarly...but I could be wrong. As for the rest...your guess is as good as mine...I think I'll research it. I'm really curious as to how lesbians were handled...

My people in this reference is to the Cherokee. I'm not sure how it's dealt with now...since the reservation days...my people really took some hard hits, cultural- and heritage-wise...since the great 'split' I'm not sure how much really survived...and how much was lost...I'm not sure if anyone really knows...

I really should find a different way to describe and seperate my people and Native Americans, I guess...

Funny I just took an anthropological class that covered this for many cultures.

I don't know the Native American term but in anthropology they talk of the berdache or two-spirited people, mostly men ( I believe the term berdache is not accepted in the Native American community, so no disrespect intended). These men would almost for all intents become women in the tribe.

The interesting thing to note is that this type of trans-genderism goes across many cultures. There's the Indian hijra who literally do a little home surgery and live as women. There's also similar types in Arabic and Mexican cultures.



.:[ Never resist a perfect moment ]:.

quote:

---

Sodomy isn't just a man and a man...it could also be a woman and a woman, for that matter...

---

Hope I'm not bursting any bubbles, but it's not just same-sex sex. It's any sex that's 'non-coital', including between opposite genders.

I wasn't exactly sure how it was defined. Merriam-Webster has this:

Main Entry: sod·omy
Pronunciation: 'sä-d&-mE
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old French sodomie, from Late Latin Sodoma Sodom; from the homosexual proclivities of the men of the city in Gen 19:1-11
Date: 13th century
1 : copulation with a member of the same sex or with an animal
2 : noncoital and especially anal or oral copulation with a member of the opposite sex

Bingo, Bugs. That's where I got it. Man, WWWebster's is a convenient site.

Sodomy... it's not just buggery anymore. LOL!!! How's that for an ad campaign?

Hehe...it could become the Texas state anthem...no offense...hehe...

WS is my hero

"The only difference between me and a madman is that... i'm not mad!" - Salvador Dali

No offense to whom? There is a large gay population in the great country of Texas

I think he should step down... not because of his feelings.he has the right to his beliefs but because he Texas or whoever should stay out of our personal lives.....Whatever happened to the republican party? They used to be the party of privacy before they got involved with the religious right. I agree with Wangenstein's comments because I have read the same re: genes etc...there is good evidence there .We know it goes way back in time. I don't believe it is how one is nutured. lastly I certainly don't believe it is a lifestyle one would choose. I don't think one would choose to be hated or loathed. If you have ever had gay friends (I do) they will tell you they did not choose this life. They knew when they were children that they were not "straight.". All gay people want is humanity.

"whenever I find myself on the side of the majority, I pause and reflect. " Mark Twain

also )))
Where is Mary Cheney? I have visions of her locked in the Tower of London....until dad's time in office is over. Remember what Cheney said during the campaign re: homosexuals? With that i rest my case.

"whenever I find myself on the side of the majority, I pause and reflect. " Mark Twain