Log Cabin Republicans

[dazzleman]

Other

They are people looking out for their own perceived interests, like most people.  This doesn't make them either wonderful or horrible.

As to whether they are good for the Republican Party -- well, I don't think the party should belong exclusively to the religious right, so they are good to the extent that they help prevent that from occurring.

In any case, I think it's ridiculous that anybody would allow their political identification to be dictated solely by their sexuality.  To become a Democrat if you don't agree with the party's stances on taxes, foreign policy, crime, etc. simply because they have a "better" position on gay rights is giving too much weight to the gay issue, in my opinion.  Obviously though, that's for each person to evaluate on his own.  I just hate "identity" politics, and would rather see politics based on issues, not perceived identity.

[dazzleman]

Freedom Fighters...though a bit misguided.

The fact that they stay put in a party where they often tend to be unwelcome is a gutsy decision, however they are not agenda setters and could probably have more influence if they were members of the Democratic Party. Having said that I do support them in principle and that they are truer to traditions of the Republican Party that the evangelist intelligent design nutters are.

I do think you are being overly harsh on the Republican Party, afleitch.  You are assuming it's nothing but gay-hating fundamentalists, but that is no different than assuming that Michael Moore represents the whole Democratic Party.

I would pay gay people the respect of thinking that they're really no different than the rest of us when it comes to the major issues like taxes, economics, crime, foreign policy, etc.  Therefore, if they find Republican views on these issues more compatible with their own views than those of the Democratic Party, there is no reason they should not be in the Republican Party.

[dazzleman]

Sorry, im afriad thats not what I was implying though I can see how it can be read that way. What I was implying if that Log Cabinet Republican 'X' was in the Democratic Party, they would have advanced further in their political careers 'IF' thats what they had wanted to achieve.

I certainly don't have a 'harsh' opinion of the Republican Party, I am probably one of the most sympathetic members with a red avatar when it comes to the Republicans. I just have an immense dislike for Bush and for the people he surrounds himself with.

I understand your point.  They probably could proceed further the Democratic Party than in the Republican Party, no doubt.  I imagine that puts gay people who holds views compatible with the Republicans in a difficult position, since they have to choose effectively between their careers and their principles on most issues.

[dazzleman]

In any case, I think it's ridiculous that anybody would allow their political identification to be dictated solely by their sexuality. 

When you deny someone equality why should they care in any way what your other positions are?

"Oh yeah, we think you're going to hell and that you and your partner are committing an act we feel justifies a constitutional amendment to ban it."

Again its like a black man joining the Democratic Party of Alabama in 1900.

So I guess that means John Kerry came out for gay marriage in 2004?

Both parties have supported what you call "inequality" against gays.  I don't happen to think it's inequality to reserve marriage for a man and a woman.  And nobody is talking about banning gay relationships.

Until very recently, the idea of legalizing gay marriage wasn't even a thought.  You have a very one-dimensional view of things.