Syria

What Does Sexual Orientation Have to Do With Positions on Syrian Refugees?

It turns out they have nothing to do with each other, which has some people upset.

|

Kyrsten Sinema
Credit: Gage Skidmore / photo on flickr

The stated goal of the Gay and Lesbian Victory Fund is fairly simple: to increase the number of gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people holding elected positions in the United States. It doesn't automatically endorse a candidate for being LGBT, though. They have a vetting process to make sure the candidate also has community support and a good chance of winning and that they support efforts to "advance LGBT civil rights via the legislative and regulatory processes" (which could, depending on the issue, actually leave out some LGBT candidates). Candidates are also expected to endorse privacy rights and reproductive freedom to get an endorsement.

But that's it. There's no litmus test for political affiliation, or taxes, or school choice, or foreign policy. This became a sticking point over the weekend for some in the LGBT community when three openly LGBT Democratic representatives—Jared Polis (Colorado), Kyrsten Sinema (Arizona) and Sean Patrick Maloney (New York)—voted last week counter to President Barack Obama's wishes and in favor of legislation that demands increased background checks of refugees from Syria and Iraq. All three candidates have endorsements from the Victory Fund.

Gay activist, author, and radio host Michelangelo Signorile was angry about their vote and said that the Victory Fund should drop them. He posted on Facebook:

Totally shameful and Victory Fund & Institute should dump them just as it doesn't accept anti-choice, racist candidates even if they're LGBT. Equality should be litmus test of anyone in "LGBT Equality Caucus" in Congress. And realize that these individuals voted against desperate LGBT Syrian refugees—there was hope 500 of the refugee spaces would be set aside for them. Congresswoman Kyrsten Sinema is the worst: She was actually an attorney for an Iraqi refugee in '07, arguing that his vetting was taking too long, over 2 years, discriminated against based on his nationality. Now she votes this way. She's a total fraud. We don't need these people folks. Let's get pro-LGBT, real progressives (on all the issues), gay or straight, in office. [Emphasis added]

That bold part is where Signorile runs into a problem. Being gay has absolutely nothing to do with being "progressive (on all the issues)." The Victory Fund's standard is not "progressive." It doesn't indicate that it wants progressive candidates. It has a selective group of issues. Adding even more criteria to get a nomination goes against its goal of getting openly LGBT candidates into office and would dilute the value of its endorsements (and probably the number of them). It's not a group whose goal is to get "progressives" elected.

So, unsurprisingly, the Victory Fund isn't inclined to suddenly add a new test for endorsements that has absolutely nothing to do with its mission. Via the Washington Blade:

[Victory Fund CEO Aisha] Moodie-Mills said she was made aware of the disappointment in the lawmakers' votes via Twitter, but on the issue of endorsements said the Victory Fund and the Gay & Lesbian Victory Institute are "not policy advocacy organizations."

"I don't have an opinion about…who's doing what, where about Syria," Moodie-Mills said. "Because Syria, I tell you, is certainly not my policy expertise, and it is the furthest thing from Victory Institute's expertise."

Moodie-Mills said the Victory Fund continues to have three criteria for endorsing candidates: They must be viable, pro-choice and in favor of LGBT rights.

"That's about as deep in the weeds on any policy ideas or legislative maneuvers that we get," she added. "Other organizations are dealing with issues and issue advocacy, but that's not the role that we play. And for our candidates and for our elected officials, we surely don't get involved in the devil of the details of how they legislate and what they vote for and what they support."

While I disagree with the votes by Polis, Sinema, and Maloney, it is time now for gay activists to start coming to terms (just as the rest of America is coming to terms with gay relationships) with the realization that being a member of the LGBT community does not come with any obligation to support a whole host of progressive policies. It does not logically follow that support for the Employment Nondiscrimination Act also means support for letting in more Syrian refugees, regardless of their sexual orientations. They are completely different issues with completely different considerations, and the fact that some refugees are likely going to be gay doesn't change the fact that they're completely unrelated.

Advertisement

NEXT: President Hillary Clinton May Not Be Able to Tape Back The Obamacare Humpty Dumpty

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. While I disagree with the votes by Polis, Sinema, and Maloney, it is time now for gay activists to start coming to terms (just as the rest of America is coming to terms with gay relationships) with the realization that being a member of the LGBT community does not come with any obligation to support a whole host of progressive policies.

    They will have no problems coming to terms with that Scott. Don’t worry. They will come to terms with it the moment it becomes politically expedient meaning appealing to some other victim group at the expense of gays makes sense. This fights nicely with the refugee issue. The moment religious Muslims become more important to the Prog cause than gays, gays are going to be told to go back in the closet and stop the micro aggression against Muslims by being openly gay. Progs never gave a shit about gays. They care about power.

    1. Progs never gave a shit about gays.

      This. Progs only ever saw gays as another group for them to play identity politics with. They only care about individual gay people as long as they support the entirety of the “Progressive agenda”. Just as any blacks who fail to support the progs are “Uncle Toms”, so too are gays.

      Is there a term similar to “Uncle Tom” for gays who fail to support the prog agenda? I’m sure if there isn’t one already they’ll come up with something soon.

      1. Uncle Bruce?

  2. While I disagree with the votes by Polis, Sinema, and Maloney, it is time now for gay activists to start coming to terms (just as the rest of America is coming to terms with gay relationships) with the realization that being a member of the LGBT community does not come with any obligation to support a whole host of progressive policies.

    Scott, shut up and get back in the Goodthink line. In fact, go to the back of the line and think about what you said.

    1. Doesn’t Scott realize what these people did for him? Doesn’t he know what a great life he has on the Progressive plantation? Just another uppity queen I guess.

      1. I’m not shocked that the tribalists unconditionally expect everyone else to drink their groupthink Kool-Aid. It’s actually good to see an explicitly political group resist the siren song of being partisan fuckheads.

        1. It is but I am skeptical it will mean much or that many gays will walk away from the plantation. Maybe I am wrong. I hope I am. But I don’t see it.

  3. Are there any posts to facebook that don’t read like your vaguely racist uncle ranting about how God supports the troops and the troops protect the government and the government pays for the schools so why isn’t God allowed in schools?

    1. Yes Hugh there are. You just have to have actual friends or family that will speak to you to see them.

      1. If I had any real friends I wouldn’t be on facebook looking for fake internet friends in the first place.

    2. I don’t know what FB you get, Hugh. But my feed was so full of SJW bullshit and pro-Union (especially teachers unions) bullshit from people I went to high school with that I decided to pull the plug.

      1. I decided to pull the plug

        It still lives! It may get up and go for a walk.

        1. Nope. My FB is Schiavo-d. It may blink occasionally but for all intents and purposes, it’s dead.

          1. That explains the drool on the corner of your profile pic.

      2. That’s what I mean though. The content may vary depending on the issues and the person, but the tone all reads like unfiltered verbal diarrhea.

        1. This is pretty much inevitable. Facebook is a medium pretty much designed for memes and other arguments that can be fit onto a bumper sticker. You’re not going to find much in the way of insight or deep thought.

          1. Good thing I have H&R for that.

            1. You’re welcome, Hoyt.

      3. Sloopy to Hugh those are features not bugs.

  4. What Does Sexual Orientation Have to Do With Positions on Syrian Refugees?

    Well, the majority of Syrian refugees are reportedly swarthy, wiry young men.

    Jus’ sayin’

    1. And totally gay affirming I am sure. They are just dying to start baking wedding cakes.

      1. It’s Raining Men was released on September 10th, 1982.

        Illuminati pre-cog op? No? What if I told you that one of the co-writers of the song was Paul Shaffer?

        That’s what I thought.

      2. This has always confused me. Refugees from Muslim countries will likely still be Muslim, and therefore tend to be against things like womens reproductive rights, women working outside the home, LGBT rights, etc.

        1. The only thing I can think of to explain it is that maybe the proggies think that Muslim refugees will be so grateful to them for bringing them over that they’ll join the “free shit brigade” and vote for progressive democrats once they’re here and have signed up for full welfare bennies and been registered to vote by their local ACORN affiliate. I think they’ll be in for a nasty surprise.

        2. Muslim society tends to be pretty “traditional” with respect to homosexuality: nobody really cares if men sleep with men as long as they are quiet about it. There is a lot of pressure from parents on their sons to have families, but those men may still have sex with other men.

          Also, it’s a good bet that refugees from Islamic countries are predominantly people who either aren’t Muslim, or don’t like fundamentalist Islamic societies.

          1. I’ve heard before that in a lot of Muslim societies they tend to look the other way if young men want to fuck around with pretty much anything that moves, so long as they eventually settle down and start a family. Not sure how much truth there is to that though, I have no first hand experience living in Muslim countries.

            1. Loki if you read enough you will find that sex between Muslim men and young boys is a socially acceptable practice in Afghanistan. They term the Afghani men use for them is “Dancing Boys”. Google it Loki and educate yourself on the topic.

              Butt sex in Muslim countries overall is defined as good vs. bad by who is the pitcher and who is the catcher. Pitchers are good Muslim men but the catchers are abominations against Allah and deserve death. ISI recently threw 11 catchers to their deaths from a tall building and not surprisingly no moderate Muslims came to their rescue.

              An American service man is currently being court martialed because he beat the shit out of an Afghani Officer for continually raping young boys and the service man snapped hearing the screams coming from the Afghani officers sleeping quarters. American troops from Afghanistan report that there is regula butt sex between Afghani soldiers.

              What the hell does anyone expect from such a sexually repressive society ? Dem hormones aren’t going to repress themselves.

          2. Also, it’s a good bet that refugees from Islamic countries are predominantly people who either aren’t Muslim, or don’t like fundamentalist Islamic societies.

            Not really, given the major sectarian rift in the Islamic world (that is, they might just prefer the other sort of Islamic fundamentalism), and the fact that people are now drawn to West less by the promise of freedom, and more by the promise of free shit.

            Particularly in the case of Syria, the anti-Assad refugees are likely to be more religious. They’re the roundheads in this civil war. Assad’s regime was aligned with the Iranian mullahs, but secular as the Middle East understands that term.

            1. And plenty of new reports lately have explained that non-Sunni Muslims are not likely to be counted as “refugees” or benefited by refugee programs because the Sunnis in the refugee camps engage in violence and intimidation against Christians, Shia, Yazidis, and other religious minorities there, so said minorities stay away from the camps and find other avenues of escape.

          3. refugees from Islamic countries aren’t predominately Muslim ?

            You must be a complete idiot.

  5. What Does Sexual Orientation Have to Do With Positions on Syrian Refugees?

    Well it’s gonna be pretty hard to put a refugee in a reverse cowgirl if they’re not straight. And a woman.

    1. Sloop is bi-syrious.

      1. Oh, for the love of –

        *storms furiously out of room*

        SWISS! SWISS, GET IN HERE, HE’S DOING IT AGAIN!

      2. Somebody could make a shitload of money at Trimp rallies if they made a t-shirt with a ddcapitated head being held out by a hand, painted like that Joker meme with “Why So Syrian” written under it.

        1. Trump.

          1. He is a bit impish.

    2. I don’t know if you’ve thought this through.

  6. WTF does “reproductive freedom” have to do with LGBT issues?

    1. Yeah. Gay sex doesn’t lead to a lot of reproduction…

    2. Now that is a great question. How on earth could the gay community have any dog in the abortion fight? The only ways I can see would make them pro life. Gay men have to adopt if they want children. Abortion reduces the supply of available children. And there is always the possibility that they really will find a “gay gene” and abortion could be used to eliminate the gay population entirely.

      Yet, being pro abortion is some kind of gay issue. It just shows how far down the prob zombie hole gays have gone.

      1. PROB HOLE

        1. Is that anything like a glory hole?

      2. I’m pretty sure the gay community could have a dog in the abortion fight the same as heterosexuals are. And a lot of gays are choosing to have babies through surrogacy (gay men) or by using David Crosby (lesbians). I’m sure abortion will come up eventually as a legal issue when one partner decides he or she doesn’t want to financially support the decision of their spouse to have a child.

        1. I bet that already has come up. And that spouse will, assuming they are legally married be just as fucked as any other father who doesn’t want his wife or g/f to have the child.

          1. I thought it had come up and the anonymous donor was the one that the state said had to pay support.

            Talk about fucked in the head. I’ll find a link.

            1. That was before gay marriage. The rule in most states is the spouse of the mother is automatically considered the “father”. But if the spouse isn’t the biological father, I think they can divorce and refuse to provide support as long as they do it quickly.

              The whole thing is very fucked up.

              1. Is that really the case? I’m pretty sure the non-carrying spouse can affirm he/she is not a biological parent.

                But I may be wrong.

                1. Yes they can. But the presumption is they are. Yes the gay spouse can’t be. But I bet anything the states will extend that presumption because these things always come down to fucking someone so the state doesn’t have to pay as much welfare.

                  1. I’d honesty be surprised if red states did that. They’re going to want to keep M-F relationships the only ones they recognize in any way they can. And if this is a loophole to treat gay couples different than straight ones, they’re gonna probably do it.

                    1. No. This will be seen as a way to fuck gay couples by giving them what they want. The red states will happily bankrupt gay partners in the name of fairness. If anything it will be the blue states who have a double standard. For them this stuff is about fucking straight men. And treating gay couples like straight ones doesn’t do that.

                    2. If anything it will be the blue states who have a double standard. For them this stuff is about fucking straight men.

                      I don’t really believe that. Do you? Seriously? They’re class warriors, not sex warriors. They hate rich people, not straight men only.

          2. John and they will be just as fucked if they do want the wife/GF to have the child.

      3. Homosexuality has a fairly large genetic component. About 50%, last time I looked. This was taken from twin-separated-at-birth studies.

        1. I am not even sure that 50% genetic has any meaning. It is an either or proposition. You either are or you are not. The latest study found some genetic variation associated with gay twins but it still can’t explain how that makes them gay or what it would even mean if it did.

          Regardless, if they do find the “gay gene”, that is going to make it very fun to watch gays still defend abortion rights.

      4. It’s probably because of the wacky reasoning of the federal judiciary that led from Griswold thru Roe to Lawrence. They figure that transmission belt works in both directions, so that if abortion rights ever go away, so will the right to homo-sex. Because, you see, making babies is fundamental to human existence, therefore the choice of every step to making babies must be a matter of privacy, and homo-sex is something like hetero-sex, so that goes along w it.

    3. Women are a LGBT voting base and you aren’t going to get straight liberal women’s money without being pro-choice. And 99% of pro-life women weren’t going to give them a dime anyway.

      1. Then how about not taking a position? Why take positions on issues that don’t affect your members? I can see why they would not be pro life, though you could argue it is in their interests to be so, but I can’t see why they would feel they had to have a position at all.

        1. Not stating a position is a position. And there is no downside to this, and many upsides.

          And, no matter how Eddie with scream and squirm, “pro-life” is often associated with religious beliefs and those beliefs are almost uniformly anti-gay.

          1. There is a downside to this. It starts the process of making the gay rights movement just another arm of the Prog movement. And the other downside is what if not every gay is pro choice?

            1. Then they lose 0.00001% of their support instead of straight liberal women with deep pockets. They seem to think the trade off works.

              1. What Rywyn said. Why is every gay pro choice? I don’t believe that. But even if it is true, that doesn’t say good things about gays. In fact, maybe Scott is kidding himself here and gays are just mindless fucking progs who think any and every prog cause is really a gay issue.

            2. Hence my rhetorical question. Being “pro-choice” is in fact an automatic assumption of LGBT folks – so much so that this group can slip that in there without anyone so much as batting an eyelash.

              1. I’m not really qualified to speak for all gays.

          2. “And, no matter how Eddie with scream and squirm, “pro-life” is often associated with religious beliefs”

            You ignorant slut, when did I ever deny this?

            I keep responding to claims that support for the right to life of the unborn is a position which can *only* be based on bleef in a Sky Daddy.

            Rational people – yes, they are often religious – realize that what’s in the womb is a living human being and that there’s no good moral rationale for denying human rights to a whole class of living human beings.

            If religious people disproportionately believe this, it’s because they’re more rational.

    4. That’s from the Uhaul lobby.

      1. Fine – let them form their own lobby. The union of “G” and “L” was always a shotgun wedding anyway.

    5. Bisexuals can still get accidentally pregnant!

  7. Sorry, Shackford, gays have put themselves on the progressive plantation. It will be very difficult to escape for the official organizations to escape, even if very many even want to.

    Indeed, this specific seems halfway there. For what reason is”pro-choice” a must have ideological point for a gay activist organization?

  8. The stated goal of the Gay and Lesbian Victory Fund is fairly simple: to increase the number of gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people

    Dare I read past?

    1. But seriously…

      Let’s get pro-LGBT, real progressives (on all the issues), gay or straight, in office. [Emphasis added]

      I have no complaints with this. It’s straightforward and 100% honest.

    2. You missed the last clause “holding elected office in the US”. I would love to know just how many gay Republican candidates have ever gotten a dime from those people.

      1. The Gay Republicans who were out, or the ones in the closet?

        1. Out. There are a few. They do exist. And the victory fund should by the terms of its mission have supported them. And maybe they did. I don’t know. But I doubt it.

          1. Not if they didn’t support “reproductive freedom”.

            1. Or if they support freedom of association and religion.

          2. And absolutely not if they’re male and have never heard of Cyndi Lauper.

          3. And the victory fund should by the terms of its mission have supported them.

            Not if said gay Republicans are pro-life. Actually I think you might have inadvertently stumbled onto the reason why they include support for “reproductive rights” in their litmus test: so they can refuse to give money to gay Republicans.

  9. It’s almost as if – and hear me out on this – identity politics itself is bullshit, and that electing people because of some perceived similarity to you based entirely on sexual preference, gender, or race doesn’t actually produce positive results. Like, gay people can actually have different opinions and disagree on things despite the fact that they are all gay. This is revolutionary stuff.

    1. That’s crazy talk.

    2. It’s almost as if – and hear me out on this – identity politics itself is bullshit

      God, how I was hoping to see exactly this in the comments.

      /Kisses Brochettaward (Not gay….or, well, maybe just a bit. We’ll see)

  10. Right, but did anyone google Kyrsten Sinema?

    Would.

    1. Wood.

    2. She came up in connection with some other kerfuffle. No idea what, not gonna google.

    3. And you could. She’s bisexual and single. Also a closeted atheist.

    4. She’d be good for some bi-partisan action.

      1. A few years back, I would listen to a local talk radio guy in the afternoon. She’d come on the show now and again and they’d have downright…. reasonable debates.

  11. “advance LGBT civil rights via the legislative and regulatory processes” … Candidates are also expected to endorse privacy rights

    Mmm, yes. Nothing says “privacy” like regulatory policies.

  12. I would also like to add that while I find the whole thing rather boring, starting a group to get people who like to have sex with other people just like them seems like an odd goal for a political organization. Getting progressives in office is more honest and makes more sense.

    1. starting a group to get people who like to have sex with other people just like them seems like an odd goal for a political organization

      SAYS WHO?

      1. It is odd in the sense that it assumes that someone will share a set of values or goals simply because of their choice in sex.

        1. What other justification is there to start a political group except to try to have sex with people who like to have sex with people like them?

          1. Sure, the entire point of politics is for ugly people to be able to get laid. There is that I guess.

            1. But only with other ugly people.

              Otherwise..eeeuh !

    2. Is there a Gingers Alliance or something? There should be. Just because they don’t have a soul doesn’t mean they don’t have rights!

      1. That’s not the question… the question is do we want them in public office?

  13. I think I need another shot of caffeine. I read the headline as “What Does Sexual Position Have to Do With Orientation on Syrian Refugees?”

  14. LGBT is such an ugly construction. Why not go back the reclaimed “queer” as an umbrella term?

    1. How about For All Gay Stuff, or F. A. G. S.

      1. People might confuse it with the Film Actors Guild.

    2. Or why not create an entirely new word? One with no baggage, like “Firehorse,” “Loopnova,” or “Ethosien”?

    3. “Queer” is now a separate micro-subdivision of the alternatively-sexed. I have no idea what it really means, but I know that it has been added to the LGBT acronym (“LGBTQ”), sometimes along with other letters that I have even less idea what they are supposed to signify. Hence, my preferred all-purpose acronym “LGBTQWERTY”.

      1. The most recent memo I got was Q = Queer/Questioning.

        I believe this encompasses those who are rejecting the socially constructed gender identity and remain unaffiliated.

    4. I say we return to the more English version of Queer. Throw everyone off.

      1. And Gay also.

        Let’s really fuck them up and have a gay old time laughing about all their queer ideas.

        Who’s with me ?

    5. It bugged me that they switched the letters around, because “GLBT” I used to pronounce.

  15. Wait a minute.. wouldn’t your sexual orientation somehow define what sexual positions were of interest to you? I mean sure, being limited to only bagging Syrians sounds seem kind of lame, but then again, we are talking about sex, right?

  16. Ever notice how identity-based causes always turn out to be leftist identity based causes?

    Can anyone recall a feminist, gay, or racial “support” group ever kicking somebody out of the identity tent for being a lefty, instead of a righty? EMILY’s List is only for lefty pro-choice chicks, not any chicks, etc.

    1. Cloudy goals are useful.

      “Supports reproductive freedom” could easily be interpreted as taxpayer-funded abortions or free birth control.

    2. I know, right? It’s like they think the GOP has actively worked against their goals for the last hundred years or so. Silly bints.

      1. That’s the easy take. The trickier take is support of libertarian candidates who are fully pro-choice but come in on the wrong runway for dozens of other non-related issues.

        I wear my right-wing small government label loud and proud.

        1. I find identity politics pretty loathsome, but then I’m not an “identity” that gets marginalized. It probably seems logical to band together when you’ve been placed on a side in a culture war.

          1. LOL You are comic gold today SF. I will remember this post the next time you are bitching and moaning about the evil SOCONs actually voting and expecting to have a voice in politics.

            Seriously, did you type that with a straight face?

            1. I don’t blame SOCONS for banding together. I blame them for banding together for completely stupid reasons. And trying to make their religion into laws.

              1. You know who else… never mind.

              2. You of course love the gays for banding together to deprive people of their freedom of association and freedom of religion.

                I get it SF. You love gays and you hate SOCONs and therefore what one does is groovy and what the other does is the focus of evil in the modern world. You don’t need to tell me over and over again.

                1. You of course love the gays for banding together to deprive people of their freedom of association and freedom of religion.

                  You should take your amazing powers of mind-reading to the big poker tournaments.

                  Also, if the standard is not repeating yourself, all your contributions to this board ended about five years ago.

                  1. If you don’t love it just say so. And if that is the case, why do you say you totally get what the gays are doing above?

                  2. If you don’t love it just say so. And if that is the case, why do you say you totally get what the gays are doing above?

                  3. No, what happened is people like you walked away from your principles when affirming them required you to say something bad about the sacred gays. You just can’t stand anyone who refuses to go along with that lie and insists on reminding you of that fact.

                    1. The Amazing John, everyone. He knows all, and he’s going to be a real dick about it all the time.

              3. make their religion into laws?

                Like Global Climate change ?

              4. make their religion into laws?

                Like Global Climate change ?

          2. I find identity politics pretty loathsome,

            Now you know why I stopped listening to NPR. Well, I play “NPR for ten seconds” which is a fun game, but other than that…

            1. 10 seconds? You are strong. I can’t make it past the smooth jazz intros.

              1. Smoove Jazz?

                I much prefer the academic whimsy bumpers.

                Warning: A ten-things-i-hate type listicle, but it’s ok because it’s before everything on the internet became a listicle.

          3. I’m not an “identity” that gets marginalized.

            For some reason, I thought you were a white male.

          4. NutraSweet are not a white male ?

        2. They do make a point of viable candidates.

      2. Yeah Sugar Free. There are no other alternatives or anything. I mean gays couldn’t just not vote or vote for one of those third party things. Would you have any suggestion about possible third parties gays could have supported?

        And it goes both ways. If gays won’t vote Republican, why should Republicans give a shit about gays’ interests?

        1. Why is anyone wedding to the political parties they are?

          And fiscally conservative gays were abandoned by the GOP. What about “small-government” means “I hate fags”?

          1. And gays had no chouice but to vote Democrat?

            And what is small government about forcing people to affirm your lifestyle at threat of jail or bankruptcy? I am not seeing much small government in people being told they cannot run a business unless they believe in gay marriage.

            And to the extent Republican voters hate gays, maybe the fact that gays are happy to sue them out of business and criminalize any objection to homosexuality has something to do with that? I know you thought people getting sued out of business for not supporting gay weddings was just one of those things but maybe other people took it a bit more seriously.

            1. Or the GOP lost gays years ago when gays might have been very interested in a “just leave me alone” political ideology.

              But, no. It’s probably just that gays are evil progs all the way down to their proggy hearts.

              1. Even if they did, why would they ever want them back given what has happened in the wake of gay marriage? I know a lot of people who were abilivent about gay marriage that are pissed off as hell as a result of the law suits.

                If the gays don’t like ti that Republicans hate them, maybe they should try and mend a few fences by not suing anyone who doesn’t love gay marriage? And if they don’t want to do that, fine. But don’t come bitching to me when the political winds change.

                And what are the gays going to do when they are no longer useful to the Prog cause? You know that is going to happen one of these days. Who will the gays turn to then? It will be a bit hard to turn to the Republicans after they spent decades trying to run them out of public life. I wish them luck on the Prog plantation. They are going to need it.

                1. I’m sure all gay people are saddened to those the support from you they never had.

                2. The GOP will welcome the gay vote with open arms should it ever come to the progs telling them they no longer need their votes.

                  The gay vote is moneyed and organized.

          2. Why is anyone wedding to the political parties they are ?

            Free Shit ?

      3. It’s like they think the GOP has actively worked against their goals for the last hundred years or so.

        That’s the trick, though. Their stated goal is electing more women, gays, whatever their identity group is. The GOP opposes the election of Dems, regardless of their identity, and supports the election of GOPers, regardless of their identity (more or less).

        You have to re-state their goals as something other than electing more of their own kind to get to the conclusion that the GOP has opposed their goals for a long time.

    3. Conversely, “reproductive freedom” does not usually encompass a wild-west approach to fertility treatments.

      1. And “My Body My Choice” seems to never apply to getting rid of the FDA or ending the drug war. It just means getting an abortion at any age, any time for any reason. Funny that.

  17. From what I see, what this group demands ideologically would violate the tenets of several major religions. So they must exclude people of certain faithe who have not foresworn those beliefs, and I thought we were dead set against religious tests here.

    1. I bet you thought this was really clever.

      1. I think it is exactly on point with what some of the writers here were clutching their pearls about.

        1. A private organization giving money to candidates based on principles that might not jibe with certain religions is not a religious test.

          Now, I know you won’t be able to understand that, so I’ll dumb it down to your level:

          MICKEY NO SMART.

          1. And neither does someone saying they would not support a candidate who was not religious.

            Do goldfish have longer attention spans than you?

            1. Neither of them are religious tests and your analogy makes no sense anyway.

              Poor, Mickey. The world must be such a frightening place when you are stupid as you are. Lights and colors. Strange sounds in the night. Be brave, Mickey. Like a big dog!

              1. Tell that to Ron Bailey then.

                He wrote last week that Cruz saying that he would not support a candidate that was religious was an unconstitutional religious test and Hinkle thought Bailey has a point.

                It may not be saying much, but I am at least smarter than those two.

                1. So you admit your analogy has nothing to do with the subject at hand? You wanted to bitch about some article from the other day, and you thought the best way to do this is by bringing it up in a different thread and tying it to the topic in a completely idiotic and illegitimate way?

                  And you think this means you are smart?

                  1. Suge, I thought it was a legit point – if refusing to support someone because they follow religion X is a verboten religious test (as was claimed by some after Cruz (and Carson) said they weren’t thrilled about Muslim candidates because sharia), is it not equally a verboten religious test if someone follows religion Y?

                    Or is this yet another double standard?

                  2. Am I truly seeing this?

                    Sugarfree, of all people is complaining about someone being off topic? On these boards?

                    I am truly flabbergasted.

      2. No SF. I bet he thought it was true. And apparently it was or you wouldn’t be so butt hurt about it.

        1. I’m not butthurt about Mickey. He’s sort of cute. Like a commenter we let in out of pity.

          1. Wait a second, are you suggesting we let you in here… out of pity?

        2. John, on this sort of issue Sugar free whinges about my position, offers nothing of substance, and then goes into ad hominems.

          1. “ad hominems” That’s some big words, Mickey.

            I don’t dismiss your arguments because you make them. I dismiss them because they are stupid. They would be just as stupid if anyone else was dribbling them onto the board.

            I mean, maybe you aren’t stupid. Maybe you just play stupid on here for some sort of sexual thrill. Are you stupid, Mickey? Or are you just pretending to be a moron?

            1. Fuck off, Tulpa.

        3. As you can see, John, there is something that has truly unhinged the poor bastard. Sad, really.

  18. These Democrats had better get in line with the currently expected lockstep, and get to goosestepping to it. You gotta be the total package, comrades, no dissent will be tolerated!

  19. “And realize that these individuals voted against desperate LGBT Syrian refugees — there was hope 500 of the refugee spaces would be set aside for them”

    First of all, since when do we allocate refugee spaces based on sexual orientation?

    Second…500 spaces out of 100,000 Syrian refugees per year are to be “set aside” for LGBTs? One-half of one percent? And he sees that as a key feature?

    1. Like people fleeing the fucking Islamist decapitators and Shariah law enforcers are going to announce they’re gay on a UN “vetting” form.

      1. Actually, it would be in their interest to do so. Consider the legal definition of the term, “refugee:”

        “A refugee, according to the Geneva Convention on Refugees[1][2] is a person who is outside their country of citizenship because they have well-founded grounds for fear of persecution because of their race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, and is unable to obtain sanctuary from their home country or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail themselves of the protection of that country;[1][2] or in the case of not having a nationality and being outside their country of former habitual residence as a result of such event, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to their country of former habitual residence.”
        https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refugee

        LGBT folks fleeing Islamist decapitators would seem to fall well within this definition. Which is why “setting aside” 500 spots for them (out of 100,000 refugee spots per year) hardly seems like something to get excited about.

        1. Oops, I apologize. Obama wants to bring in 10,000, not 100,000, Syrian refugees per year. My mistake.

    2. these individuals voted against desperate LGBT Syrian refugees

      Talk about assuming facts not in evidence. How on earth does she know that any of these refugees are LGBTQWERTY? Is she just making an assumption here, or have they filled out forms declaring their sexder?

      Let’s say xe gets xir wish, and we set aside some spots for LGBTQWERTYs. I wonder how she plans to validate that someone trying to get one of those spots actually is an LGBTQWERTY? And, how will the spots be sub-allocated, anyway? Is it first come, first serve? What if the first 500 are all gay men, so the lesbians are left out in the cold?

      So many details . . . .

  20. Some law about organizations always going left, something something.

  21. I’m shocked, SHOCKED I TELL YOU that these gay congressmen would not want to let in refugees that stand a high likelihood of belonging to a religion that teaches that gays should be stoned to death. Can’t understand that at all…

  22. Oh, heck, I’ve heard this sort of thing for 40 yrs. Certain positions are just assumed to “go together”, reasons unstated. How often have you heard, “You can’t be a fiscal conservative without being a social conservative.”? Very frustrating.

    Also frustrating is the scripting at HyR the past few days. It’s gotten so MSIE has to reload the page 3 times & even then might not be able to render it. I tried an old resort: downloading, deleting the header, & deleting all occurrences of “script”. Surprise! I do that this time & no entry from the past 3 days shows up! So they’re using some counter-countermeasure.

    1. How often have you heard,”You can’t be a fiscal conservative without being a social conservative.”?

      Never.

      Wait. That’s not true.

      Once, here, from you.

  23. No complaint about the general direction of this article. But two things: “They are completely different issues with completely different considerations, and the fact that some refugees are likely going to be gay doesn’t change the fact that they’re completely unrelated.”

    a) Looks like LGBT refugees would have benefited disproportionally, which would make this a (welcome) concern for the organization. Unless their stance is nationalistic (potential conflict over “equality” there). The same goes when LGBT refugees are worse off than the other refugees because they are LGBT.

    b) What does being pro-choice have to do with LGBT?

  24. What the hell is wrong with you people – no love for Scott’s alt text at all?

    I feel like I don’t even know you!

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.