2016 Republican Convention

GOP's Overall Message to LGBTs: We Don't Actually Want You Dead, Okay?

Are we really seeing a culture shift or a new marketing strategy for the war on terror?

|

Gays for Trump
Richard Ellis/ZUMA Press/Newscom

PayPal's Peter Thiel's self-identification as a proud gay man during his speech at the Republican National Convention is getting a lot of media attention, as it should. Though the RNC has had openly gay speakers before, this was the first time a speaker made reference to his own non-heterosexual identity.

When accepting the nomination for president, Donald Trump also made reference to the gay and transgender community. He referenced the Orlando attack on a gay bar that killed 49 people, noting that the killer targeted the "LGBTQ community." Trump said that was "no good" and that he "would stop it." This prompted cheers from the audience, and he continued that he would do everything within his power to protect LGBTQ folks from violence and the "hateful oppression" of radical Islam. This prompted another round of cheers, and Trump went off-script for a moment to say "As a Republican, it's so nice to hear you cheering for what I just said."

This has been characterized as a sign of advancement for the Republican Party in some fashion, but is it really something new for the Republican Party to say they don't want gay Americans to be murdered? Certainly the left would love to characterize the party that way, but for those of us who see ourselves independent of party ties, is this an actual shift in the party or something that was simply expected?

It's hard not to feel cynical about the invocations given that they're tied primarily to encourage a focus on a foreign policy on how to fight Islamic terrorism and no indication of any domestic policy shifts at home. The official platform of the party has stubbornly refused reforms, continuing to reject same-sex marriage recognition, attempting to classify it as a state-level issue, yet still calling for federal policies to encourage stable families.

The platform has taken a stand against federal demands that schools accommodate transgender students. Thiel described the transgender bathroom panic behavior as a "distraction," but did so in such a vague way that it's not clear whether he thinks state-level laws like those in North Carolina are bad or whether he thinks people just shouldn't get upset about it. It's easy to be dismissive of lawmaking as a "distraction" when it involves regulations that aren't likely to affect you.

Taken holistically, the message from the GOP seems to be "Hey, at least we don't want to kill you! Radical Islam and Muslim-dominated countries want to kill you, but we don't." Well … thanks?

I acknowledge I may be an outlier in my lack of warm feelings over how gay issues have been referenced at the convention, at least from the perspective as a libertarian gay man who is not a leftist or Democrat. Stephen Miller, over at the Independent Gay Forum's Culture Watch, sees the invocation of the gay community in speeches at the convention as a "dramatic change from the past" (he's nevertheless voting for Gary Johnson). ABC News tracked down a Trump supporter on the convention floor who was moved to tears by Trump's reference because she has a married gay son.

And the lack of actual platform shift is particularly disappointing because next week, when the Democratic Party has its convention, I know full well they're going to be running so far in the other direction I'll end up frustrated for completely different reasons. Hillary Clinton is openly calling for a raft of new federal laws to address any sort of concerns raised by anybody who is gay or transgender. I noted previously that her pursuit of the gay vote calls for six new federal laws, a whole host of regulations that can be used by the government to punish citizens for refusing to make gay wedding cakes or refusing to offer adoption services to gay couples.

I find such expansion of regulation oppressive to a culture that has navigated slowly but surely in the direction of naturally becoming more accommodating to gay and transgender people. I'm even okay with government funding adoption agencies that don't serve gay couples because the goal is to find kids happy homes and as long as there are agencies that do serve gay couples, we should be pushing for more participants, not fewer.

That the Republican Party is still playing catch-up on marriage recognition while the Democratic Party moves even further into the realm of federal government intervention on these issues is frustrating, and the message that the Republican Party doesn't want to see LGBT people killed by ISIS feels more about pushing a particular foreign policy agenda, not about actually becoming more inclusive. Maybe I would feel differently had I ever identified as a Republican, but as a lifelong political independent, it tastes like the weakest of teas.

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.

172 responses to “GOP's Overall Message to LGBTs: We Don't Actually Want You Dead, Okay?

  1. GOP’s Overall Message to LGBTs: We Don’t Actually Want You Dead, Okay?

    Oh yeah, that’s a fair summary.

    1. Shackford is just another leftard liberal democrat making his living as a professional faker.

      And he’s also fucked up and confused, as even after Orlando this sad creatures still thinks Christian conservatives are a bigger personal threat to him than radical Muslims.

      1. Your thoughts are always appreciated, Edward.

      2. Wow your butt sure does hurt loudly.

        1. That sounds pretty gay.

      3. *facepalm*

        Nice to see the fine art of retardation is still being practiced by the best.

      4. Don’t you mean Scoot Shackturd?

        1. It’s kinda fucked up that Mike is dogging it so hard lately that the rest of us have to pick up the slack making up his retarded slurs.

    2. Gays have lost their Most-Favored victim status from the Democrats. They’ve been replaced over by people who really do want to kill them.

      1. I imagine the cognitive dissonance this creates must be pretty overwhelming at times.

        1. I’ve found that people who don’t think very much aren’t that susceptible to the pains of cognitive dissonance.

          After all, cognitive dissonance requires cognition.

    3. Didn’t watch any of it, but I would guess they aren’t that silly, and instead wanted to push a statement more to the effect of “political differences aside, when it comes to life and death, your enemy is our enemy and we will crush them for you”.

      1. That’s so old it’s in a book, so it must be true!

        This is…actually not sarcasm. Shit.

    4. Both parties cater to a faction of homophobic religious nuts, but in both cases they’re a minority faction. The DNC religious nut faction wants to kill gays, the GOP religious nut faction wants to not make them cake. No good choices there if you’re gay, provided you think life without homophobe cake isn’t worth living.

      1. I’m always shocked at the (mis)use of the ending “phobic”, which should only mean “fear of”.

        I don’t fear gay people.

        Secondly, if you use the more modern usage “dislike” of “aversion”, it still doesn’t apply.

        I don’t dislike gay people and I’m not averse to them either.

        I simply follow the God of the Bible and recognize that He said homosexual acts are wrong. That’s literally it. And for that I get called all kinds of names.

        -Christian An-Cap

        1. lefties also confuse “hate” when they really mean “disagree with” or “criticize”. I’d say they’re dumb, but this use is intentional so really they’re just lying partisan hacks.

    5. I’m making over $14k a month working part time. I kept hearing other people tell me how much money they can make online so I decided to look into it. Well, it was all true and has totally changed my life. check it out this website and go to tach tab for more details. This is what I do…. http://www.trends88.com

    6. I’m making over $14k a month working part time. I kept hearing other people tell me how much money they can make online so I decided to look into it. Well, it was all true and has totally changed my life. check it out this website and go to tach tab for more details. This is what I do…. http://www.trends88.com

  2. The gay community is the only minority group that Trumpkins don’t have a hard-on for. Fortunately most don’t consider that a good reason to vote for him. As for Thiel, his data mining company stands to reap billions from Trump’s surveillance state. The fact is, gays see right through it. They don’t think you create peace by ‘bombing the hell out of ISIS’. After all, they are experts at ‘turning the other cheek’.

    1. I’m sorry, this collection of words is missing something that would have it make sense. Perhaps a nice carpet would tie it all together.

      1. Only rugs tie rooms together, you heathen! ^_-

    2. Come out of the closet, Weigel. You’ll feel a lot better about yourself.

      1. Tulpa is my gay sock, dumbass.

        1. In Derptastic Dickhead’s world everyone is Weigel, not Tulpa.

          1. Wait….what if Weigel is Tulpa!

            *head explodes*

  3. I would like to take a moment to congratulate almost everyone who posted on the cop thread. Good job, boys.

    The person who gets no credit is the tard who whined about not being told what to think.

  4. “They might be gays, but their OUR gays, good old AMERICAN gays!”

    USA! USA! USA!

    1. When Trump went into his law and order shtick he should have played the “pull over” routine from Eddie Murphy’s standup.

      1. Was that part before or after he promised to heal the blind and possessed, to raise the dead, and invited everyone to live in the many rooms of his father’s house?

        1. So Trump is Ginger Jesus, looking to replace Chocolate Jesus?

          1. He’s more like an old, white Oprah.

            1. “YOU GET A PONY! AND YOU GET A PONY! AND YOU GET A PONY! EVERYONE GETS A PONY!”

              1. Ohmygod! Ohmygod! Ohmygod!

                *tears*

          2. CHEETO Jesus, thank you very much.

        2. He does remind me of a tent preacher/healer/charlatan.

          1. A modern Elmer Gantry.

        3. I thought Trump Tower was his house, not dad’s.

        4. Duh- It was before he promised the seas would stop rising, racial peace was in sight, and the entire world would love us.

      2. Or the Chris Rock “How not to get your ass kicked by the cops” routine.

  5. I like how the people in that picture are actively subverting the stereotype of gays as fit, fashionable, and sophisticated.

    1. We’re the unfashionable gays
      We’re the unfashionable gays
      We’re comin’ to your town
      We’ll help you party down
      We’re the unfashionable gays

      1. Thanks for the earworm, dick.

        1. I got “Breakfast at Tiffany’s” stuck in my boss’ head the other day. She came over a few ours later and punched me in the arm.

            1. I am sitting in the morning at the diner on the corner
              I am waiting at the counter for the man to pour the coffee

              1. She actually has a worse earworm song, but it wasn’t a hit.

                Listen at your own risk.

              2. Doo doo doodoo doo doo doodoo
                Doo doo doodoo doo doodoodoo

                1. Lou Reed? Is he touring with the colored girls?

          1. You are evil. Go eat some cake by the ocean.

    2. Maybe bears are Republican and twinks are Democrats (except for Milo)?

    3. We’re not all fabulous. I make spreadsheets for a living.

      1. But they’re like…sparkly and shit, right?

        1. Sequinned bar charts that twirl while lip-syncing Adele.

          1. Attaboy!

        2. Gays are slobs now Hugh, it is us straights who are cutting edge. We’re hip so get a grip.

  6. Certainly the left would love to characterize the party that way…

    I’ve seen more than once in the comments section of Slate or Salon where commenters stated that all republicans and straight white christian men “secretly” want to murder all gays, and would do so if they thought they could get away with it. It’s only brave liberals holding the line and insisting on rule of law that prevents everyone who doesn’t fit a 1950s Iowa high school football jock stereotype from being slaughtered in the streets.

    I know, what commenters say isn’t indicative of any broader movement, because the internet is a filthy, filthy place. But still, goddamn.

    1. I’ll repeat myself:
      Most SoCons that do find homosexuality deviant, and a sin, also embrace the ideal that you should hate the sin, not the sinner. Therefore, they want gays not to die, so they can come to Jesus. Perfectly logical (and literally how my uncle thinks).

      1. Most of Republicans and conservatives (the overlap ain’t what it used to be) don’t really care. I think they react against gays the way they reacted against hippies in the 70’s – because the assume they are wholly owned by the Left.

        1. Really? They don’t care? That’s why we’ve been subjected to literally decades of hyperventilating about ‘The Gay Agenda’ (TM) and how gay marriage is going to somehow cause the collapse of western civilization? You sure are married to your narratives.

          1. You haven’t been alive for decades.

            1. One and a third decades is too more than one!

              1. That’s just math.

          2. He’s posing a theory that accounts for the recent convention evidence, unlike yours.

            There’s psychology research that backs up this perspective, based on so-called “value conflicts”. In studies, conservatives are found to have a more negative view of blacks they know nothing about versus liberals, but when the participants are told that the black guy is a businessman or something right wingers like, the bias exactly switches and the liberals have the negative bias against the black person. We certainly see this with females and blacks politically, I would expect the same with gays.

          3. They “don’t care” so hard they got pro-conversion therapy language put into the GOP platform. Please stop not caring about me, thanks.

            1. Report for Ludovico treatment, me droog.

            2. Does “pro” mean that gays should be forced into such therapy programs or dies it mean the government should not make them illegal?

              There is a big difference there.

          4. When the local conservatives recruited “marriage defenders” they did it in the name of balanced budgets and the gold standard.

            Only after they signed them up under the pretense of cutting spending did they send them out with fliers about defending marriage.

            So, I think the marriage thing is something that gains a lot of emotional sympathy from conservatives, but not a lot of proactive effort.

        2. Minus the 3-5 members of this commentariat that are out, they are wholly owned by the left.

  7. the Republican Party is still playing catch-up on marriage recognition…

    Is that really the solution? I don’t give a shit if the state recognizes my marriage. Sure seems a statist position for a libertarian mag.

    1. Equality before the law really isn’t statist.

      1. Is paying higher income taxes for being married?

        1. Fuck you, dumbass.

          You pay a lower rate than you would as a single person if your income differerential is significant, or you can pay the same rates as single people by going with “married, filing separately”.

      2. So women should be subject to the draft just like men?

        1. No. Neither should be.

          There is an interesting question of when imposing more bad stuff outweighs equality before the law. In the case of gay marriage, it clearly does not.

          Also, no one is being drafted into gay marriage so that comparison falls apart.

          1. So, even though state sanctioning of marriage is a bad idea, we must extend it to everyone because equality under the law. But we must not extend draft registration to everyone to ensure equality under the law, because I don’t like that one.

            1. The only thing worse than equal state sanction of marriage is state sanction of a few.

              The draft is a far greater evil than either of those.

              1. Utilitarianism all the way down!

          2. Cytotoxic derp de derp. Derp de derpity derpy derp. Until one day, the derpa derpa derpaderp. Derp de derp da teedily dumb. From the creators of Der, and Tum Ta Tittaly Tum Ta Too, Cytotoxic is Da Derp Dee Derp Da Teetley Derpee Derpee Dumb. Rated PG-13.

        2. Would forbidding black people from getting their marriages officially recognized be an improvement? It would, after all, mean less government involvement in marriage. So that would be good, right?

          I don’t see how the question of gay marriage is any different from that.

      3. Then why are all of these people still against polygamy and incest? If we don’t choose who we love, why does that stop at two unrelated people? Two brothers can’t reproduce and create an inbred baby, so there is absolutely no reason to not let them marry. Excellent reasons to get out of the marriage business entirely.

        1. “Then why are all of these people still against polygamy and incest?”
          Because polygamist and incestuous families haven’t been putting in the leg work to change hearts and minds.

    2. Drink?

    3. And the SC really fucked it up by making it a positive right to get married rather than an equal protection thing.

      But I don’t see how you can just dismiss the equal protection argument. Marriage does include tax benefits as well, such as being able to get untaxed health insurance from an employer for a spouse. I think that’s a terrible policy too, but as long as it exists, it shouldn’t only apply to a certain class of married people.

      1. The argument should be to get rid of it though, rather than expand it. Or does the ratchet really only go one way?

        No no, no need to answer. I already know it’s unidirectional.

        1. If you have a legal argument -persuassive to a court- that would get a state or federal judge to strike down a state’s marriage laws, you’re free to file suit and try it.

          If such an argument exists, I’ve never heard it.

      2. But I don’t see how you can just dismiss the equal protection argument.

        Tell the world..

        I tried to marry my lesbian sister in 2006( I’m a dude). She was on her deathbed at age 45 at the time due to liver cancer.

        But, she was my (post-menopausal) sister (ICKY!). All I wanted was to do was collect her 29 yrs of paying into SS for the “survivor” benefits – as she was “un-partnered” at the time (and she laughed at and supported my effort- she was the first “libertarian” influence in my life). Not even one gay person stood up for my right to marry her.

        “Gay marriage” was never about “equal protection”, it was simply a “money grab”- and the gays didn’t want to share with me.

      3. If it’s just a matter of the law deciding a case on facts, the facts of marriage having been set in law by custom, then failure to recognize same-sex couplings as marriages is no more a violation of equal protection than is failure to pay someone in silver equal by weight to the tin that person happens to be stuck with.

        But either way, we’re fucked by the precedent established that implies marriage is a creature of gov’t. It was already that way with money. Eventually they’ll do the same with parenthood.

    4. It matters if you want your spouse to make medical decisions while you are incapacitated.

      That said, the doc never asked for my marriage license. But, I suspect a woman would have gotten more push back.

      1. That’s funny… My brother never had to marry mom to have “medical power-of-attorney” rights. It’s called a “lawyer”.

      2. That’s funny… My brother never had to marry mom to have “medical power-of-attorney” rights. It’s called a “lawyer”.

        1. Even squirrel lawyers… lol

      3. Or, do you just want free “medical POA”?

  8. “PayPal’s Peter Thiel’s”

    He ain’t ‘Paypal’s”

    1. Kinda the other way around until he took his money out of it.

    2. He’s not your paypal, payfriend.

      1. He’s not your payfriend, paybuddy!

        1. He’s not your paybuddy, paymate.

          1. He’s not your paymate, payguy!

            1. Did somebody say payboy paymates?

                1. Is that the Orthodox Jew emoji?

                  1. *single tear of joy*

                    You all did not disappoint there. Thanks.

              1. Now you actually have to read payboy for the articles.

  9. I can’t believe Reason has not mentioned that the Trump campaign managed to get the goal of re-instating Glass-Steagal into the GOP platform.

    http://www.cnbc.com/2016/07/20…..ntary.html

    That’s how he’s going to make America great again faggots. With deregulation. And by deregulation, I mean more regulation.

    1. War is peace!

    2. That’s how he’s going to make America great again faggots.

      Remind me again how it’s the GOP that hates gays…

    3. Meanwhile, cytotoxic jerks off to Bieber, the Shat, and Trudeau in mommy’s basement where he pens thoughtful posts about the dangers of “homophobia”… when not using his self-hatred about homosexuality to insult others.

      Well played, young padawan!

  10. We Don’t Actually Want You Dead, Okay?

    We want you in airport bathrooms, and cheap motel rooms on the outskirts of D.C.

    1. Closet shaming. That’s what you just did.

      1. I’m still angry at The Wire for that unexplained, fleeting clip of Major Rawls in the gay bar. Either liberate the man, or let him live his life in peace.

        1. Oh, I just assumed he liked the drink specials.

  11. http://m.nydailynews.com/news/…..-1.2606872

    Five years? I can’t believe this didn’t ever make national news.

    1. Can you try and keep the Racist Police State news in the Racist Police State threads? and leave the LGBTQ threads alone? Its bad enough BLM has to squat on Canadian Gay Pride events; you can’t even let them have their own blog posts.

      1. BLM has to squat on Canadian Gay Pride events

        Phrasing!

      2. Nobody needs their own blog posts. That’s, like, privilege.

  12. I don’t believe it was a Christian Republican who shot up that night club. I believe it was a Muslim Hillary supporter.

    1. But we can never know what his motives were. So we must clearly blame the NRA and Republican Christians.

    2. I thought the guns were responsible?

  13. If I have this correct, devout Muslims do not advocate throwing gay off of rooftops. They are supposed to push a wall upon them instead. Given the lack of walls in muslim communities, throwing gays off of one is second best.

    1. Most Muslim cities have a fair amount of rubble and crumbling building available.

    2. Progressive Muslims throw gays off roof because it makes wall holding roof up a renewable resource!

    3. If I have this correct, devout Muslims do not advocate throwing gay off of rooftops. They are supposed to push a wall upon them instead. Given the lack of walls in muslim communities, throwing gays off of one is second best

      Cue Muslims voting for Trump because of wall-building promises?

  14. Scott, I think you should check out a fine article posted yesterday on reason.com by one Jesse Walker. There are some very good point in it concerning Republicans and gays.

  15. I don’t know that you’re ever going to get social conservatives to love gay people in their heart of hearts, but if they’re willing to cheer the gay pride parade on the podium at the Republican convention for pragmatic purposes, that’s a pretty good start. I wish the Republicans would drop the divisive verbiage from their platform, but the platform isn’t as important as people make it out to be.

    I’d love it if everyone were genuinely not racist in their hearts, but I don’t know how to achieve that through politics. If people with racism in their hearts feel compelled to cheer on diversity and oppose racist laws–just for pragmatic reasons–maybe that’s the best we can get from politics.

    1. While I agree, let us not pretend that there aren’t wide swaths of Liberal/Progressives who would be glad to see billions of people die to either protect ‘Mother Earth’ or simply to make the populace easier to control. Does that make them racist? If not, does that really make it any better?

  16. Taken holistically, the message from the GOP seems to be “Hey, at least we don’t want to kill you! Radical Islam and Muslim-dominated countries want to kill you, but we don’t.” Well ? thanks?

    C’mon, it’s not like Trump is Santorum. He’s more of a mafia boss “protecting” shopkeepers on his turf from other gangs.

    1. C’mon, it’s not like Trump is Santorum. He’s more of a mafia boss “protecting” shopkeepers on his turf from other gangs.

      That encapsulates what a sovereign state is, and why they exist. Mechanisms to select the ‘official’ crime-lord are varied – from tarts throwing swords to elections – but they all are means to the same end.

      1. Anatomy of the State. Yep.

      2. “Strange women lying in ponds, distributing swords, is no basis for a system of government.”

        1. I thought we lived in an autonomous collective.

        2. I dunno, I’ve started to wonder, of late.

  17. Thiel described the transgender bathroom panic behavior as a “distraction,” but did so in such a vague way that it’s not clear whether he thinks state-level laws like those in North Carolina are bad or whether he thinks people just shouldn’t get upset about it. It’s easy to be dismissive of lawmaking as a “distraction” when it involves regulations that aren’t likely to affect you.

    The transgender bathroom issue are two panics in opposition to each other. Panic B was a reaction to Panic A. That’s how I can possibly see Thiel’s remarks in regards to calling it a ‘distraction’.

    1. That’s how I can possibly see Thiel’s remarks in regards to calling it a ‘distraction’.

      He’s a cis-male, German-born, Republican-come-libertarian living in San Francisco. Scott distinctly/deliberately fails to demonstrate that it’s not a distraction and the fact that he asserts Thiel is taking the easy way out implies some sort of ‘us vs. them’ mentality that Thiel is obligated to make and skipping out on.

      It’s easy for people in San Francisco to not care about laws being made in N.C./Charlotte, so what? Thiel’s gotta worry about upping all of his wage-earners’ pay to $13/hr. by the end of the month, bathrooms in NC *are* a distraction.

  18. Denny Green died? RIP. In Heaven, nobody misses chip shot field goals to the Falcons.

  19. I’d love it if everyone were genuinely not racist in their hearts,

    I love you sweety, just as much as the gal next door.

  20. “If you don’t let us kill the terrorists, they’ll come here and throw you off rooftops!” It’s blatant extortion. No one is falling for it. Except maybe Milo and Thiel.

    1. Or, instead of importing Islamist terrorists, we can maybe leave them overseas where they won’t be able to throw Tonio or Rhywun off a roof? (No offense intended- just the first two “out” people here at Reason that I thought of) I don’t always agree with either of them, but also really, really, really don’t want them killed…

      It’s like the Orlando guy- he was born here- but if we didn’t allow his parents to immigrate, that killing would have likely happened in Paris, or Brussels, or Afghanistan instead,

  21. How much of it is being OK with equal rights under the law but not being all right with legally enforced endorsement of lifestyle choices?

    I could care less myself, but all during the Gay marriage debates, I was told this was about equal standing in society, equal property rights, end of life decision making, and tax law. Now it’s about forced association and endorsement.

    1. I believe that this is what the culture war is beginning to come down to.

      I feel it’s beginning to take a turn from “stop discriminating” to “you will participate”.

      1. I’d say about five years. That’s how long it’s been since that turn.

      2. It’s always been that way. It’s the classic, “First they came for…”. We’re just now at the point where they are coming for everyone who doesn’t have the special socially-approved ID card.

    2. And it is most assuredly not about polygamy!

  22. Another thought for you, Scott. There are people who see changes happening and think “we’re getting off to a good start”. Then there are people who think “this isn’t good enough”. How fast do you expect societal change to happen? It took 5000 years for people to start think slavery is bad.

    1. I’m sorry, this collection of words is missing something that would have it make sense.

      1. I get what FMS$ is asking.

        Points out people who think we’re going in the right direction vs. people who think that it’s too slow or not enough and need legislative nudging, with a question directed to Scott about the timeline for change to happen, buttressed by the point that it took 5 millennia to stop enslaving people.

  23. “Taken holistically, the message from the GOP seems to be “Hey, at least we don’t want to kill you! Radical Islam and Muslim-dominated countries want to kill you, but we don’t.” Well ? thanks?”

    More like the GOP claims to have policies which will reduce the threat of radical Islam, including its threat to gays. The GOP is also claiming that the Dems have their heads up their butts on the issue and refuse to face the reality of the radical Islamic threat. And that the Dems will go to the mat to help gays fight the scourge of bathroom segregation and homophobic florists, but are AWOL when it comes to protecting gays’ right to life.

    Of course, maybe the GOP is wrong. Maybe their terrorism policies are harmful and counterproductive. Maybe the Democrats have a *great* plan to protect Americans – including gay Americans – from Islamic terrorists. Maybe it’s just a fluke that they tried to censor out the part where the nightclub assassin pledged allegiance to ISIS.

    But if you don’t fairly state the GOP’s position, you won’t be able to rebut it. You can’t address an argument you don’t understand, or choose to ignore.

    1. BUT CAKE!
      BUTT CAKE!

      1. I’ll bake you a cake. With gelignite frosting.

  24. Speaking of the T in LGBT, yesterday night I watched an ad on Fox News that purported to speak on behalf of Transgender people. The ad showed what looked like a very ugly woman who happened to be, in reality, a man, talking to a group of friends gathered inside a restaurant. The narrator, which one realizes is the ‘woman’, is telling us how she has lived as a woman for 10 years. She then gets up from her chair and proceeds to go to the restroom under the suspicious eye of the restaurant manager, who then precludes her from entering the ladies’ restroom. The he indicates angrily at the men’s restroom, all while the narrator talks about the risk of abuse. At that very moment, the door of the men’s restroom opens and, from an angle, we see two guys with the look of drug dealers, peeking in amusement. The crisis is adverted when two very caring ladies who come out of different places who then proceed to lead the ‘woman’ to the ladies’ room.

    First, I don’t know who the FUCK would linger inside a men’s restroom in a fucking restaurant, sorely for the opportunity to humiliate a transgender person. Second, I got to see the little regard leftists and Marxians have for people’s property rights, embodied by the sense of entitlement displayed by this ‘woman’ and the two ladies who clearly did not have a stake in that restaurant.

    1. First, I don’t know who the FUCK would linger inside a men’s restroom in a fucking restaurant, sorely for the opportunity to humiliate a transgender person.

      I don’t know what restaurant it is, but they need a better class of troll. I would think it would be obvious that you hang out in the opposite gendered restroom to make fun of trannies and their ‘rescuers’.

    2. Simple solution: pass better.

    3. Maybe he wanted the ugly “woman” to go kick the drug dealers’ asses?

  25. You know, it’s kind of hard for conservatives to abandon the Kultur War when even libertarians seem bound and determined to see it to the bitter end.

    In practical terms, what does the anti-gay marriage plank amount to? As far as I can tell, a lot of whinging about something that’s already a done deal, roughly equivalent to the periodic return of the anti-flag burning amendment. As to school bathrooms, sorry, but I fail to the equivalence between letting teenage boys into the girls’ locker room and the end of Jim Crow. And even the much-hated NC law was little more than a response to a Charlotte ordinance insisting the private businesses had to allow shared bathrooms.

    Frankly, it would be nice if everybody FROM ALL FUCKING SIDES just gave this bullshit a rest.

    1. I volunteer at the high school so that I can use the girls’ shower.

  26. How do you think the Democratic Party would do if someone got up and came out of the closet as a Christian?

    The point of his speech was that he was proud to be a Christian!

    I bet he’d get booed.

  27. Sorry Scott, but you have been bamboozled by the libtard propangda that they use to convince every special-interest group that the Republicans are the sole basis of all societal intolerance.
    It’s all bullshit.

    There is a world of difference between a conservative Christian arguing about how to maintain the traditionalist viewpoint of the sacred institution of marriage and a rapid homophobic who likes to suckerpunch gay guys walking down the street.
    One is a political disagreement, the other is blatant hate. but, the Democrats (and liberal media) equate those two together….they portray the conservative Christian as no different as neo-Nazis. It is fucking repulsive and you buy into it when you equate Republicans and homophobia.
    The dems do that same crap to every Republican talking point.
    ID to vote – RACIST
    Investigate corruption at PP – SEXIST…WAR ON WOMEN
    Enforce immigration – XENOPHOBE
    It’s endless. go have some conversations with everyday Republicans…not the one extremist loon that MSNBC finds to interview…and learn how vastly more fucking tolerant they are than your average liberal.

  28. You know what I think would be a nice change from the Republican Party? If Cruz took the stage and said “when my office defended Texas in Lawrence v. Texas in 2003, that was a mistake. We should not have defended the state’s sodomy law. It is wrong to criminalize non-coercive sexual behavior between consenting adults, no matter what the bible says.”

    But we still have (Republican controlled) states that refuse to repeal their (unconstitutional) sodomy laws. That’s too high a bar for them to meet?

    1. do you have a comparison of “republican controlled states” and “democrat controlled states” that show relative tendencies to repeal antiquated crap like the sodomy laws? Because it seems kneejerk to blame Republicans when typically the lack of action is due to asinine beaurocracy and legislative gridlock over crony kickback schemes.

      Democrats are typically more homophobic than Republicans, although far better at talking points to convince otherwise.

      And on a side note, this tendency to expect people to refuse to do their fucking jobs because politics is stupid. The legislature makes the laws….the lawyers fight over them. We shouldn’t be expecting lawyers act like backroom legislators whenever the mood swings them.

      1. Because it seems kneejerk to blame Republicans when typically the lack of action is due to asinine beaurocracy and legislative gridlock over crony kickback schemes.
        You’re acting like no one’s tried to repeal these laws. Heck, the lion’s share of them were legislatively repealled in the 70s and 80s, the states that still had ’em on the book in 2003 were already standing out like a sore thumb. And you can look it up yourself, every state that still has ’em? Has had someone try to repeal them since. In the cases where it’s failed it’s because the legislators want the law, not because of bureaucracy.

        Or, to put it another way… if this is a “kneejerk”, it’s one hell of a slow one (13 years and counting here).

        “And on a side note, this tendency to expect people to refuse to do their fucking jobs because politics is stupid.”
        Even if state attorney generals were obligated to defend unconstitutional laws (they aren’t), they aren’t obligated to keep filing appeal after appeal, all the way to the Supreme Court. That’s wasting money, not “doing their job”.

        And for that matter, not a single one of the attorneys defending a sodomy or marriage law has tried the “it’s the state’s right to do this. They shouldn’t and it’s immoral, but it is their right”. Every single one has not only said that it’s the state’s right to do it, but that it’s their moral imperative to do so.

  29. That the Republican Party is still playing catch-up on marriage recognition

    I’m a gay man, and I don’t think “marriage recognition” is the correct policy either; it’s at best a band-aid for an otherwise broken system in which government intrudes too much into personal decisions. I also don’t want non-discrimination policies.

    Having said that, such issues are irrelevant to me when it comes to voting; the gay marriage genie is out of the bottle and no Republican president can put it back in. Likewise, there’s nothing Democrats can do to actually improve the lives of gay men and women (and a lot they could do to hurt us if they do to gays/lesbians what they have done to African Americans). So, frankly, I don’t care where either party stands on these issues.

  30. I got a “like” at Slate!

    My comment—(on the article about the trans bathroom ad on Fox during the RNC last night).

    “I love this.

    I went into a “women’s” restroom yesterday with my clippered semi-gray head and wearing my Zubaz “Steeler print” pj’s and a wifebeater tee. I whipped out “Big Jim and the twins”, and pissed in the sink. When confronted, I shouted, “who are you to police my ‘gender presentation'”?

    Good times were had all around.”

    Trolling can be amazing fun…

  31. my co-worker’s step-aunt makes $68 hourly on the internet . She has been without a job for seven months but last month her payment was $16869 just working on the internet for a few hours. Learn More Here …. http://www.Profit80.com

  32. many conservatives and Christians sure could be nicer, on a personal level, to gays – do more loving the sinner than hating the sin – but we shouldn’t confuse politics with decency. Disagreement with gay people’s policy choices isn’t a form of personal hatred. Christians have values and the promise of America is that we get to live by those values, as well. That doesn’t mean all of our beliefs will be implemented as policy, but it sure doesn’t mean that desiring to live by those values and be governed by laws that reflect those values turns one into a bigot or hater. It certainly doesn’t mean we want to kill gays. Suggestions otherwise are lies.

    That Republicans felt the need to cheer Trump when he said he wanted to protect gays from Islamic terrorists reflects the fact that they’re tired of the lies and insults about their beliefs from the left and reflects more the distortion of reality by the left than any sort of change of policy or beliefs by Republicans.

  33. As someone who did (very, VERY briefly) identify as a Republican in the past, I can tell you that no, you’re not alone in your interpretation of these moments. Thiel may be on the right side of all of this, but he’s preaching to the damned. Trump has triangulated his stated (and obviously insincere) position so that the rabid base will accept it while sounding “tolerant.” Neither one of them are doing anyone any favors, and the only people buying it are the ones who base their decisions on headlines rather than details.

  34. I don’t want the LBGTs to die,but I would like to send them back into the closet.

  35. Have to admit, one of the many reasons I detest the Republican Party is the chokehold the Religious Right has on them. I guess I take the optimistic view that those barbaric, ignorant dimwits on the platform committee can write whatever stupid 7th century crap they want, but if the candidate ignores them and acts like a normal person, then it is a step forward.

    The other thing I’d point out is that, despite his innumerable flaws, Trump lives in NYC, and I don’t believe he was just making up his response in the speech – he’s got to be used to being friends with or at least around gay or LGBT people. It seems clear he doesn’t share the platform committee’s backwards views, and has no intention of pushing them. Now his VP, I think he is lying to a Clintonesque degree – Pence is a ultra-hardliner on social issues (which is why I completely despise him). His choice as VP was monumentally idiotic.

    Still, what the platform committee came up with is truly appalling. It’s astounding that they can still be pushing social views indistinguishable from ISIS in this day and age.


  36. I quit my nine to five work and now I am making85 dollars hourly. …How? I am freelancing online from my home! My old workwas bad for me ,so I was forced to try something new? Two yrs have passed sinceAnd I say it was the wisest decision i ever made! Here is what i do?

    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.Reportmax90.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.