anti gay agenda among right wing

[Prospero]

It is curious that we have in our ranks here people - especially OnMyKnees - who are clearly on the hard right of an increasingly homophobic Republican party and yet are members of this forum. There is surely a contradiction here.

Is OMK a fiscal hardliner but a social liberal I wonder - or does he and his lackeys actually support the sort of agenda that is increasingly obvious among the new breed of teaparty conservatives - a clear hatred of the gay and transgendered?

The latest news overnight from the heartland of the new Republican landscape was a decision to block the appointment in Virginia of a prosecutor as a judge because of his sexuality.

http://dcist.com/2012/05/virginia_re..._homosexua.php

What do OMK and his fellow Reublicans think about this? And if they support this decision why are OMK and other tea party supporters members here I wonder? In the past 48 hours OMK described the people here as "slime and cock hounds." Is his presence simply because he is a provocateur from the right. He clearly is NO ally in any push back against the right wing homophobic backlash.

Perhaps he'd like to elucidate?

[robertlouis]

It is curious that we have in our ranks here people - especially OnMyKnees - who are clearly on the hard right of an increasingly homophobic Republican party and yet are members of this forum. There is surely a contradiction here.

Is OMK a fiscal hardliner but a social liberal I wonder - or does he and his lackeys actually support the sort of agenda that is increasingly obvious among the new breed of teaparty conservatives - a clear hatred of the gay and transgendered?

The latest news overnight from the heartland of the new Republican landscape was a decision to block the appointment in Virginia of a prosecutor as a judge because of his sexuality.

http://dcist.com/2012/05/virginia_re..._homosexua.php

What do OMK and his fellow Reublicans think about this? And if they support this decision why are OMK and other tea party supporters members here I wonder? In the past 48 hours OMK described the people here as "slime and cock hounds." Is his presence simply because he is a provocateur from the right. He clearly is NO ally in any push back against the right wing homophobic backlash.

Perhaps he'd like to elucidate?

The fish aren't biting, P. I challenged omk on this very topic about a week ago on the General threads. No reply.

He's too busy desperately trying to breathe life into dead news like John Edwards' prosecution.

And hey, omk, I hope the lying scumbag goes down too, we all do. So where do you go from here?

[trish]

The following email was recently intercepted by internet surveillance software:

"My Dear Sweet Fox News,

I'm a culture warrior fighting the good fight at HungAngels' General and Political Forums. I believe that if we can break that stronghold of filthy gay, lesbian and transgender liberalism we will have succeeded in breaking the back of the Democrat party itself. So I faithfully repeat all the Fox News talking points, often just copying and pasting Fox News articles that I don't really understand. I've been perfecting the O'Reilly technique of affecting moral outrage to avoid rational criticism, because like O'Reilly, I believe there is nothing more communistic than a rational argument. Rationality restricts the free exercise of the entrepreneurial imagination and attempts to regulate it with socialistic laws like modus ponens, modus tollens or contradiction. I'll have none of that.

Lately I've been having trouble avoiding the question, "How can a closet case guy like me who loves fawning over chicks-with-dicks (huge, erect, ooze dripping dicks...aaaaaaahhhhh) justify supporting the very politicians who would just as soon see me and my beloved dick-girls burn for eternity in hell and who are writing legislation that strips gays, lesbians and trangenders of their civil rights? I really need to post something fast. I wait eagerly for your response.

Love
oooooxxxxxx
OMK"

It may have been written by our OMK. If so, it would explain why he hasn't answered yet. On the other hand, the number of spelling mistakes in the letter don't meet OMK's minimal standards.

[Prospero]

You are a brilliant woman, Trish. I laughed out loud.

[Stavros]

But in the interests of balance, I wonder how many people who don't vote Repubican in the US or Conservative in the UK are also alarmed at the advances made in legislation on LGBT rights. I don't mind it myself, but from my past experience in the Labour Party I know there are quite a lot of people on that side of politics whose views on LGBT issues, abortion, and immigration for example, are little different from the worst exemplars of the 'right': did you ever have an intelligent conversation with a Trotskyist from the old Militant Tendency? Their views on a range of issues were repuslive. And in any case there are plenty of Conservatives in the UK whose views on this subject are as liberal as most people on this forum.

So is the Republican Party truly homophobic, or is it a problem with their core voters, and in particular the Tea Party supporters? After all, most Muslims are conservative in attitude even if they mostly vote Labour, but I wonder how George Galloway -a Muslim himself- negotiates his way through that issue on which he has claimed to be supportive of gay rights even though such rights were never mentioned in Respect's manifesto in the 2010 election. But then homosexuality, we are told, is verboten for Jews and Christians too...

[hippifried]

The Republican party is just kising ass to the religious zanies. That's become their base. They're gambling that the blatant hatred won't become an issue with the rest of the people who would probably vote for them.

[Prospero]

Very true Stavros. Prejudice does cut right across all party lines. Of course it didn't exist in the Soviet Union of Mao's China. Funny that. And strong religious beliefs tend to oppose homosexuality. (Except i think Buddhism - though whether that is tecnically a religion is a moot point.)

[Stavros]

Very true Stavros. Prejudice does cut right across all party lines. Of course it didn't exist in the Soviet Union of Mao's China. Funny that. And strong religious beliefs tend to oppose homosexuality. (Except i think Buddhism - though whether that is tecnically a religion is a moot point.)

Puzzled by your sarcasm -you know perfectly well that 'homophobia' is not exclusively a problem for the Republican Party in the USA, and that there are plenty of Republicans whose position on LGBT rights is as liberal as yours. As for the Soviet Union, I think you also know that homosexuality was de-criminalised after the 1917 Revolution. When Grigory Batkis -director of Moscow's Institute for Sexual Hygiene- went to 1923 conference of the World League for Sexual Freedom in 1923, he said of the USSR:
"Concerning homosexuality, sodomy, and various other forms of sexual gratification, which are set down in European legislation as offences against public morality, Soviet legislation treats these exactly the same as so-called ‘natural’ intercourse.”

Stalin re-criminalised it in the 1930s -one wonders what wasn't criminalised (!); and it is also true that in spite of the revolutionary spirit and the freedoms that the early years of the Revolution enjoyed, there was still a lot of prejudice against it in Russia; it remains a hostile environment for the LGBT community.

In China, homosexuality has never actually been illegal, as far as I can find out; Confucius had nothing to say about it. In Chinese classical culture, same-sex relations are either explicit or implicit, the Dream of the Red Chamber being one well-known example. Attitudes to same-sex relations across China tend to be based on ignorance, superstition and prejudice -pretty much like everywhere else. Funny that, eh?

[robertlouis]

You are a brilliant woman, Trish. I laughed out loud.

I suspect our boy is locked away in wherever trolls go for rehab.

[Ben]

It is curious that we have in our ranks here people - especially OnMyKnees - who are clearly on the hard right of an increasingly homophobic Republican party and yet are members of this forum. There is surely a contradiction here.

Is OMK a fiscal hardliner but a social liberal I wonder - or does he and his lackeys actually support the sort of agenda that is increasingly obvious among the new breed of teaparty conservatives - a clear hatred of the gay and transgendered?

The latest news overnight from the heartland of the new Republican landscape was a decision to block the appointment in Virginia of a prosecutor as a judge because of his sexuality.

http://dcist.com/2012/05/virginia_re..._homosexua.php

What do OMK and his fellow Reublicans think about this? And if they support this decision why are OMK and other tea party supporters members here I wonder? In the past 48 hours OMK described the people here as "slime and cock hounds." Is his presence simply because he is a provocateur from the right. He clearly is NO ally in any push back against the right wing homophobic backlash.

Perhaps he'd like to elucidate?

President Obama, by affirming his support of gay marriage, is light years ahead of the Republican Party. (I mean, someone like President Eisenhower, too, would be a left-leaning Democrat by today's standards.) But the Party has to appeal to its base. The base are Christian Fundamentalists. Enough said. So, it explains the homophobia, the sexism, the classism and on and on.
I should point out: I don't have blind allegiance to President Obama. Nor should anyone. He's a politician. He's part of a system and structure that at its core is about power. Not democracy. Not meaningful democracy. But power. And part of that power structure is the concentration of private capital. Which he dutifully serves -- and has to.
You praise him when he does something good. Like endorsing gay marriage. And critique him when he does something, well, less than stellar.
Anyway, the so-called hard right, again, has to appeal to their [homophobic] base.
And I can't really speak about OMK because I don't know him....