The GOP is sick. It didn’t start with Trump — and won’t end with him.
excerpt
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
... Much has been made of polarization in our politics, and it’s true that moderates are a vanishing breed. But the problem isn’t primarily polarization. The problem is that one of our two major political parties has ceased good-faith participation in the democratic process. Of course, there are instances of violence, disinformation, racism and corruption among Democrats and the political left, but the scale isn’t at all comparable. Only one party fomented a bloody insurrection and even after that voted in large numbers ( 139 House Republicans , a two-thirds majority) to overturn the will of the voters in the 2020 election. Only one party promotes a web of conspiracy theories in place of facts. Only one party is trying to restrict voting and discredit elections. Only one party is stoking fear of minorities and immigrants.
Admittedly, I’m partisan — not for Democrats but for democrats. Republicans have become an authoritarian faction fighting democracy — and there’s a perfectly logical reason for this: Democracy is working against Republicans. In the eight presidential contests since 1988, the GOP candidate has won a majority of the popular vote only once , in 2004. As the United States approaches majority-minority status (the White population, 76 percent of the country in 1990, is now 58 percent and will drop below 50 percent around 2045 ), Republicans have become the voice of White people, particularly those without college degrees, who fear the loss of their way of life in a multicultural America. White grievance and White fear drive Republican identity more than any other factor — and in turn drive the tribalism and dysfunction in the U.S. political system.
Other factors sped the party’s turn toward nihilism: Concurrent with the rise of Gingrich was the ascent of conservative talk radio, followed by the triumph of Fox News, followed by the advent of social media. Combined, they created a media environment that allows Republican politicians and their voters to seal themselves in an echo chamber of “alternative facts.” Globally, south-to-north migration has ignited nationalist movements around the world and created a new era of autocrats. The disappearance of the Greatest Generation, tempered by war, brought to power a new generation of culture warriors.
But the biggest cause is race. The parties re-sorted themselves after the epochal changes of the 1960s, which expanded civil rights, voting rights and immigration. Richard Nixon’s “Southern Strategy” began an appeal to White voters alienated by racial progress, and, in the years that followed, a new generation of Republicans took that racist undertone and made it the melody.
It is crucial to understand that Donald Trump didn’t create this noxious environment. He isn’t some hideous, orange Venus emerging from the half-shell. Rather, he is a brilliant opportunist; he saw the direction the Republican Party was taking and the appetites it was stoking. The onetime pro-choice advocate of universal health care reinvented himself to give Republicans what they wanted. Because Trump is merely a reflection of the sickness in the GOP, the problem won’t go away when he does.
Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
Tags
Who is online
302 visitors
Lol.
The party of conspiracies relating to 9/11 , the 2000 election, the Ohio Voting machines and decades of election denial wants to discuss conspiracy theories?
Sure. Surprise, surprise a partisan hack like Milbank doesn't mention those.
Once again you rely on false equivalencies. Get a new act will you?
Has the Democratic Party promoted conspiracy theories John?
What is interesting is Donald Trump does not hate homosexuals; but MAGA (GOP) does. How can this be?
Where did you come up with this BS?
What do you mean?
So no reply to 3.1.1?
Dana Millbank is a hard left hack, and a spreader of lies and misinformation.
The progressives are a dying faction of the electorate .
This article speaks for itself for people who are honest.
As we see, a lot of right wingers are not honest about this topic.
A lot of left wingers continue to deny reality.
It's an opinion piece. Nothing more. Or does what one person say dictate your reality?
An honest article would point out that both parties have taken advantage of conspiracies for partisan reasons explain why they've become so popular . This is just partisan propaganda.
There is no comparison between conspiracies from the right and what Democrats have believed. NO COMPARISON. Yet every day here, you try to make this truly ridiculous case. You probably believe Nancy Pelosi is a bigger liar than Donald Trump too. There is no explanation for this.
And here we have ANOTHER Opinion piece presented as "fact".
The one thing that I do agree with is that Trump didn't start anything, nor does his election loss end it. He merely rode a wave.
[Deleted]
You should never, ever, ever wish death upon someone.
Even if the manner in which you do it is pretty funny.
Why does MAGA GOP hate homosexuals and their marriages? This is a union of 50 states, after-all. And if the union is divided, so are its people! That's sick, in my opinion.
[Deleted]
uh-huh, man-up and own your comment.
Most of them don't. They would say that they've never hated homosexuals and their objections to gay marriages are based on a reluctance to normalize what most Christians and all Muslims define as sinful behavior.
But their objection to behavior does not translate to hatred of homosexuals. Many Christians and most Muslims believe drinking alcohol is sinful. There are still all kinds of laws throughout the Bible Belt trying to keep Jack_TX and Jack Daniels away from each other, which are almost never successful. That doesn't mean those Baptists hate me. It does, however, mean that they have the right to exclude alcohol from church functions.
Their anger/hatred comes out in response to other people attempting to impose a moral code upon them, and yes, I completely understand the phenomenal level of irony in that statement. They do not like the dose of their own medicine.
But there is some validity to the widespread pushback on some of the tenets the angry left demands we accept.
For example, there is no conclusive evidence that people are born gay. "Identifying" as a man or woman does not magically override the millions of years of evolutionary biology that produces the X or Y chromosome. Now, that doesn't mean that whom you choose to marry is any of their business, but it does raise questions about some of the arbitrary policy decisions we've seen.
I don't think we're as divided as we think we are, but we don't communicate as well as we should.
i'll OEWN whatever, and whoever i choose.
i wrote the way i right, irregardless of how WRONG, and awn oh, and not OH K ZHUN, there is am pill oprrrrrrr tuna T, 2 C watt i've herd won wants 2c and here hear, and, width ample ambiguity peep holes Ken sea asz deep az they pier, and moored to end due a peer to grasp, cuz ill take on that parse word challenge with an unlocked hasp, cause i never red the claws that sink inn deep, wear asz sum other added paws where as the clause does leave Know Doubt that NOT all NO what it is i AIN'T talkin about, know Comprende', me neither but i can slink and Seether 'Till She Told Me She Had A Gun, asnd she told me that she used it, once before' , thus Y eye saw her through the peep hole in my floor, while looking up her address, slipped it buy, right up her thigh b cause she never has wings, so i don't give a Flying FCK, but, ionly B cause eye can't FLY, unless it iz in the Face of Reason,, it is probably out of season
Let's 'start' here: We are being majorly divided. Girls and women can't get an abortion and possibly a contraceptive in Texas (sooner or later) when it's a female's decision to make. A female is told she has no privacy in Texas. That is a major divide.
BTW, I wonder if conservatives have a plan to withhold Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis (PrEP) products from homosexuals and all others unless they pay through their 'teeth' to get it? This is rhetorical, for now.
This is a major issue that will divide us soon enough too:
What is the conservative justification for homosexuals being denied marrying other homosexuals? Clearly, there has to be a clear justification that unifies the country against same-sex marriage. What do conservatives have to say about that?
Who is even asking Christians and Muslims to sleep with homosexuals? Is this the myth of 'grooming' heterosexuals at work here?
Do you know that a comparison to 'grooming' is dating?
Do heterosexual men 'groom' females for sex and frolic?
Are heterosexual girls and women 'grooming' males when they 'steal' - okay sneak a crotch squeeze or let their breasts be lightly touched or exposed?
(Is 'grooming' what we watch on our televisions when boys and girls get together in private or public and 'frolic'?)
Turning to the marriage bed: How come what is 'performed' in the marriage bed is "okay" for heterosexuals, but sinful for homosexuals? It's the same activities, generally speaking.
Are you aware that sexual 'behavior' as you put it is not homosexual exclusive. Generally, speaking we all do the same sexual positions in bed if we are engaging in sexual activity. And that being the case, here is the question:
If a behavior is a sin; why is it not a sin when heterosexuals do 'it'? Is it really the sex? REALLY?!
Now back to the question:
Why do MAGA GOP hate homosexuals and same-sex marriage?
Why? Is MAGA GOP pretentious? A proper bunch of hypocrites? Jealous?! I ask because none in this set of three are fruits of the Spirit!
What does 'born gay' mean to you, Jack_TX?
What is the appearance and attitude of someone 'born gay'?
How many children do you know go around talking about how 'born straight' they are?
When you people decide their sexual sense of self?
When did say. . . someone similar to you (but not you) know for sure s/he was born straight?
Did s/he feel 'relief' at being apportioned with the heterosexual majority; doing the same things behind doors that homosexuals do?
Let us 'talk' it out! Balls to the wall!
As I said, most conservatives support gay marriage. That number is increasing steadily, BTW. And as I also said, the few that do oppose gay marriage are reluctant to normalize what they see as sinful behavior.
After people getting loud applause at cpac for being against gay people, I have a hard time believing most of them support it.
The whole "grooming" line of questioning is a bit crazy, IMO.
Because the Bible condemns it.
Log Cabin Republicans Denied Booth at Texas GOP Convention
June 17, 2022
The Log Cabin Republicans, an organization of gay conservative activists, have been denied a booth at the Texas GOP convention, which runs June 16-18.
The decision was apparently a close 4-3 vote of the Texas State Republican Executive Committee.
In a statement on Thursday, the Log Cabin Republicans said the Texas convention should allow the organization to host a booth in the name of the Republican Party’s growing “inclusion,” citing the victory of Mexican-American conservative Mayra Flores in this week’s special election in the state’s 34th congressional district.
Other conservatives, including Donald Trump Jr., criticized the Texas GOP’s decision to exclude the Log Cabin Republicans.
“The Texas GOP should focus its energy on fighting back against the radical democrats and weak RINOs currently trying to legislate our 2nd Amendment rights away, instead of canceling a group of gay conservatives who are standing in the breach with us,” he said in an exclusive statement to Breitbart New s.
The Log Cabin 'queens' could not have a booth in the party near and dear to their hearts! UNWANTED!
Born with a proclivity toward becoming homosexual.
Current science suggests people aren't actually born gay (or straight), so they would have neither appearance nor attitude.
None. Which makes the insistence by some people that homosexuals and/or gender dysphoric people are born that way all the more bizarre.
Again, there is no conclusive evidence that people are born one way or another.
Why would it possibly matter whether or not a person was "born" gay?
Do you think being gay is a learned behaviour?
Is that a valid reason in your opinion? That is, do you hold that people should take the Bible as the divine word of God; that any passage attributed to God is indeed the word of God and should be followed?
An example of this given the local context is Leviticus 20:13. Should believers hold that to mean God considers male-male homosexual relations to be an abomination (or at least 'morally wrong')?
CPAC is like ComiCon for RWNJs. It attracts the most dedicated, hard-core, raving lunatics...in full costume.
Imagine a liberal conference where Bernie and AOC are worried about being too conservative. Those are the kind of whackjobs we're talking about.
Texas Log Cabin Republicans are finally admitting the obvious: “We failed.”
After the Texas GOP Convention in June added language to their platform declaring that “homosexuality is an abnormal lifestyle choice”; after Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R) issued an order this year equating transgender care for minors with child abuse; after the Texas Legislature passed a bill in 2021 banning transgender kids from sports teams that align with their identity; and after U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) declared this weekend that his pronouns are “kiss my ass”… Texas Log Cabin Republicans are finally admitting the obvious: “We failed.”
The group of gay Republicans, founded in the late 1970’s as a safe space for LGBTQ establishment types in the GOP, is looking on in disappointment as the few gains they did make over four decades evaporate under the Texas sun.
“We failed to moderate the Republican party,” said Paul von Wupperfeld, now a 56-year-old Democrat who has not voted Republican since 2000. “I’m glad we tried, and I think we did the right thing by trying. We’re actually going the other way, faster and faster.”
They had been warned.
When von Wupperfeld served as the first president of the Log Cabin Republicans of Texas in 1990, the GOP party platform called homosexuality “biologically and morally unsound” and compared same-sex relationships to “necrophilia, pedophilia, bestiality, or incest.”
By 2012, the Texas GOP had abandoned a platform condemning sodomy, after the Supreme Court overturned anti-sodomy laws in 13 states with Lawrence v. Texas nine years earlier (though moot, Texas’ anti-sodomy law is still on the books).
But the state party also retained the official position that “homosexuality is a chosen behavior that is contrary to the fundamental unchanging truths that has been ordained by God in the Bible.”
As social and religious conservatives rose in prominence in the Texas GOP through the 90’s, Log Cabin Republicans confronted increasing hostility in the party.
GOP presidential candidate Pat Buchanan delivered his infamous Culture Wars speech from Houston in 1992, declaring, “We stand with [President George H.W. Bush] against the amoral idea that gay and lesbian couples should have the same standing in law as married men and women.”
The Travis County GOP added language in its 1994 platform opposing “homosexual education” in public schools.
The Galveston County GOP called for all HIV patients to be quarantined.
In 1998 at a Ft. Worth convention, Log Cabin Republicans were protesting a state GOP official who compared the group to the Ku Klux Klan and pedophiles, when counter-protesters showed up pushing and spitting and carrying signs like “The Gay Life = AIDS Then Hell.”
And the group was repeatedly denied a booth at state conventions.
Getting a booth was “a signal of party approval,” recalled Paul Carpenter, another past Log Cabin president. “You have ‘arrived’ and are accepted in the GOP.”
The group has never been awarded a booth.
So Jack_Texas , I ask again: Why do MAGA conservatives hate homosexuals and same-sex marriage?
Here is a thought experiment.
If homosexuality is a choice (meaning that our conscious mind determines our sexual orientation) then it should be possible to change our orientation by will alone.
Thus, you and I, as heterosexual men, should be able to become legitimately gay for, say, 60 seconds, by will. We can, of course, will ourselves back to heterosexuality after the 60 seconds.
I am incapable of willing myself to no longer be attracted to women and instead be attracted to men. I have posed this scenario for years now and none of my heterosexual compatriots have been able to will themselves gay for even 60 seconds.
Also, I have asked homosexual men if they chose to be gay. None in my experience have stated that it was a choice. In fact a number have stated that they would not willingly choose that which would lead to a life of discrimination (typically phrased sarcastically).
Opioid or a hallucinogenic?
I think it's probably a preference that develops over time. We all have our preferences about the kind of person we find attractive, regardless of whether we're straight, gay or some combination.
Why should CB's preference for men be any different than my preference for blondes or Mix A Lot's affinity for big butts?
So do 'the few' oppose themselves when they are 'found' doing sinful behavior in beds across this nation? Is the behavior 'abnormal' when heterosexuals do it-or just when homosexuals do it?
Or, is this what PRIVACY means when it KICKS IN in the bedrooms of conservatives but not liberals—according to conservatives, that is?
Expound liberally. A comprehensive answer would do nicely.
It's not my opinion. Note the consistent use of third person.
I believe the Bible is divinely inspired. I also recognize that it contains cultural references that were applicable at the time and place they were written, but do not necessarily apply in the same manner today.
I don't know.
Fortunately for me, the Bible is also very clear that it's God's decision and not mine It's also very clear that I need to clear up my own sins before I worry about anybody else's, and I'm still working on those. In the meantime, I'm commanded to love God and love his other children to the best of my ability (there is no gay/straight determinant on that, BTW).
Per @7.1.24, did your preference for men vs. women develop over time?
Young children, innocent prepubescent kids, are easily able to identity differences in themselves and others long before they have any real concept of adult sexuality. Researchers almost universally agree that most children's future sexual orientation is pretty much set by the ages of three to five...
LGTBQ children usually experience bullying in grade school.
I don't think it's a conscious choice.
But I was asking for your opinion.
I certainly agree. How is that reconciled? How do we know what applies today without God updating his word? Serious question.
Great answer! Seriously.
Traditionally, any sex outside of marriage is deemed to be sinful.
Okay, but you have to be able to 'articulate' what the distinction is. "Just because" is an INSUFFICIENT in every other area of your life, likely.
Do try again, won't you?
Why do you suppose that Jack would know what these “few” think about themselves?
Clearly neither do I.
I think sexual orientation is beyond the realm of choice the same way that our basic body types (and natural strengths and weaknesses) are beyond our choice. Our bodies and minds form without our conscious direction and mostly function without conscious direction. Our conscious minds (our choices) are actually a very tiny portion of the decisions made continuously by the balance of our bodies.
Why, because CB says so?
Exactly, I don’t like the smell of shit without ever thinking about it.
Most of the time when you start with 'exactly' you proceed to argue the exact opposite. I do not see how what you stated is anything but agreeing with my point. Was that your intent?
I don’t want to be so predictable. My intent is expressing that I’ve always recoiled from the smell of shit, even when I didn’t know what it was.
It matters if I am born gay-if I tell you so. And MAGA conservatives say to me: Uh-uh. You were not! God would not make you that way! Thus, we will not let you 'pass' go. And well, here we are 'today': Still dealing and 'bout to re-deal with the same old 'hit different day' GOP 'standard.'
I mean, assuming you are heterosexual. . . one 'day' you came to the realization that you were 'straight' because the majority encircled you and welcomed you! 'Whew!' Right? Yeah, no, That did not happen for me.
I got a rude awakening. It's lasted for damn near a lifetime.
Now, a question: Is a child prodigy born or nurtured? Is a precocious child born or nurtured?
Finally, if you don't know about the formations in the prodigy or precocious or homosexual childrens' brains, why do MAGA conservatives insist on overuling the children who are sharing what the experiences of being a prodigy, precocious, and homosexual is (for them)?
Jack_Tx, you wrote: "Born with a proclivity to be gay."
Jack what does that mean? Do you suggest that had you been born into a homosexual landscape, your "proclivity" could radically adapt to homosexual for the duration of 30-60-90 years? You will have to explain how you have changed any "inclinations" throughout life or have you changed any?
Emphatically. What a homosexual learn as 'nurture' from the conservative side of the United States and the 'confused' churches in the United States is scorn, derision, abuse, violence, hatred, abandonment, isolation, separation, . . . . . . . . . death.
It is a wonder homosexuals are stable at all. And yes, we are a resilient 'people.'
As a young person, I fooled around with fitting in with girls my age. It was interesting, awkward, and nothing much came of it. I have slept with a few women in my 'day,' it was interesting, awkward, and nothing much came of it.
What makes a homosexual a homosexual "for life" is this: When sexual relations meet spirit 'bonding' a connection in the flesh and mind. That is homosexuality. The 'act' is complete. The person is rendered: unspeakably satisfied.
Heterosexuals know this sensation: You call it: Love.
You love your 'partner' for life. 10-20-30-40-50-. . . 60 years of love!
MAGA conservatives disallow homosexuals the love which they wish for (and only for) themselves. We get the trials, tribulations, and worse for a lifetime!
I can only tell you how I do it. Although I think Drakk probably would go along with some of this.
Almost all Christians believe the same fundamental tenet, found in John 3:16.
That's idea number 1. It's the basis of everything, so you start there. No matter how wretched the sinner, God loves that person SO much He sent his only son to die on the cross for them. How do you think He's going to feel about me condemning them when He would not? If God is willing to go to THAT length to redeem that person and have relationship with them, how do you imagine He's going to feel about some self-righteous bastard getting in the way? I don't want to find out.
It's also vitally important to remember (but many Christians don't) that the rules for living in the Bible are for believers only. They're not for the world at large. They are supposed to make God's followers stand out from everybody else. The laws in Leviticus were for the Israelites, not the Egyptians or the Philistines or Hittites or anybody else. The Pauline Epistles or the Sermon on the Mount are instructions for Christians, not Jews, Muslims, atheists or anybody else.
So taking those two ideas together, interpreting the Bible for modern times gets somewhat easier. When in doubt, interpret any archaic passage in the context of God wanting the best for all of us.
There are also times in the Bible where the context of the writing is important. If we take Paul's letter to the Corinthians, he tells them that women should not speak in church. But we know he endorsed a woman as the pastor of the church at Ephesus (Priscilla), and we know God appointed a woman (Deborah) to lead the nation of Israel hundreds of years before that. So the idea that women should be seen but not heard is actually contrary to most of the other things we believe about God.
When we delve further into Corinthians, we learn that that particular congregation was struggling with a group of women who were doing all manner of things to draw attention to themselves and were distracting from the worship of God, like they were Kardashians in a nightclub. So Paul came up with a solution for that particular problem in that particular place and time. It does NOT mean that the lady in my church with the PhD should stay silent in 2022.
Paul also says that believers should "greet each other with a Holy kiss". Well...that was a common greeting at the time in that part of the world. That's not the case anymore, so we don't do that.
There are a lot of other examples, but I won't bore you.
I'm not sure what part of "the Bible condemns it" translates to "just because".
What?! Only a heterosexual born to the majority and here I include all heterosexual men including people of color could make such a comment. Let me be clear:
Nobody chooses to be black or homosexual and in some cases, girls and women, don't choose to be girls who turn into women who get breasts, have periods, wide hips, or give birth to babies. It is not a preference: It is what we are born 'to be' in a world full of heterosexual, male dominated society with white majority.
The only comparison to my life with your "preference" to blondes and Mix A Lot's big butts is this: I
If the overwhelming number of blondes you encounter hated men with a passion and Mix A Lot was only allowed to look but don't touch!
Furthermore, I am right here you can ask me your question/s about homosexuality. I am the one with x amount of years of experience on the job!
Why? And why would you tell me so? It's bizarre on several levels.
Why do you care what they think?
What is the "go" you are trying to pass and how are they stopping you?
I assure you that's not how it happens for us, either.
What precisely is wrong with the answer "we don't know...the science is inconclusive so far"?
Proclivity: noun. a tendency to choose or do something regularly; an inclination or predisposition toward a particular thing.
Why do you consider it "radical"? You just said gay sex is barely different from straight sex.
That's easy. I'm 56 years old. There are 60-year-old women that I find attractive. That was absolutely not the case 30 years ago. I also used to be very particular about weight. Not so much anymore. My preferences have evolved over time. See how this works?
Do you understand the difference between a preference and a choice?
Do you? I don't "prefer" men, Jack_Tx. Why the "h" would I do that in a hetero pervasive country?
Yes.
You've said you do.
Whom do you prefer, then?
For the same reason you may prefer chicken at the steak house or marigolds to roses or football over basketball or mountains over beaches. You just happen to like that better.
Well there is one distinction that you might consider radical , but until/unless you 'catch one' you won't notice the difference.
I will go there if you 'push' hard enough. Get it? Push hard enough?
Are we talking about aesthetics now? Because a 60 year old women still is female and in this country has been marriage 'material' all her adult life! And weight 'shifts' with how you see yourself and all those 'gray hairs' popping around 56 years old nethe regions. Also, eyesight is changing too- "aging processes" are blooming.
By the way, the remainder of your comment is just 'combat' and its fatiguing. You are not an expert on homosexuality, and you clearly have not garnered any 'awards' for living 'out' the experience. So try to listen to someone who has been "in" there for twenty years, and is getting old(er) as one with a bible tucked 'smartly' too for thirty plus years running.
We're talking about whatever it is that causes one person to look at another person with that gleam in their eye.
I don't want to rush or become aggressive, due to tireness. I will love to continue Tuesday. I am exhausted for now, however. Good night, Jack-TX and 'everybody.' Great discussion.
Drakk, seems to me, operates on first principles too. He holds that God is good and that He wants everyone to follow the 'love thy neighbor' principles of Jesus. When interpreting the balance of the Bible, Drakk seems to also hold these first principles as the overarching context. I do not believe he would accept the notion that any portion of the Bible is incorrect, I could be wrong here, but I know that strictly holding to first principles has introduced very awkward attempts to explain moral contradictions (in objective morality) such as that found in passages like:
God, as described by the Bible, condones owning human beings as property (in many passages). There is nothing (even though lesser directives such as not mixing wool and linen exist) in the Bible that is equivalent to "thou shalt not own human beings as property" but there are plenty of passages (as above) which make rules for properly handling one's property. Throughout the Bible, human ownership is a commonplace occurrence. From my perspective that makes perfect sense since the men who wrote the Bible lived in times where such ownership was key to their economic system and quite normal; slavery was part of the environment they grew up in and replete in their history. The anthropomorphic God they defined would of course not make rules against owning human property and compromise their economic system.
There seems to be no good way to explain the moral contradiction of condoning owning human beings as property (that can be granted as part of an inheritance even) by a loving God other than to fall back to "the Lord works in mysterious ways" and argue that while we might not understand why God condones owning human beings as property, whatever God does is perfect and it is our failure of understanding that creates the apparent contradiction. Of course some of us do not find that persuasive.
I appreciate the importance of context in exegesis in both theological interpretation and in scholarly analysis. Biblical scholarship is very impressive. It is, for example, fascinating to see the level of deep analysis by scholars who work at the level of language variances, historical tales, etc. to hypothesize authorship (e.g. the Documentary Hypothesis ... the four sources J,P,E, and D which are interwoven into a single story) of stories such as Noah's flood.
I think CB here is stating what I have offered earlier. I interpret his words to mean: I would not choose to be homosexual, but there is no denying that I am primarily attracted to men with little or no attraction to women and that attraction is how I am wired, not a result of conscious choice.
Not the first time I have observed such an answer.
Do you want to be understood by your readers?
My take is this. I have yet to speak with a homosexual individual who accepts the notion that their orientation is not part of who they are at an intrinsic, biological level. They all, thus far, have insisted that their orientation was determined by biology and not by conscious choice.
I find that easy to understand. My attraction to females drove me; I did not drive it. My lack of interest in males (sexually, etc.) was not choice, there just is nothing there. I expect that the exact same phenomenon occurs with homosexual, pansexual, asexual, etc. oriented people.
What sentence wasn’t understandable?
DoW, I do not have the patience for this. You can trace our comments if you are interested.
Good day!
Why does MAGA GOP hate homosexuals and same sex marriage?
This is the question I asked to which you gave a rather "limited' reply to the effect that homosexual behavior is sin for 'the bible says so.'
A reply that fails to take account that MAGA GOP is a political party not a church; that presently MAGA GOP has as its prime leader an amoral man named Donald Trump who has no qualms with homosexuals beyond the political platform itself.
In addition, it has been demonstrated that these so-called "sinful" practices happen between hetero-people for centuries. Thus, it is evident that homosexuals are being singled out for political scorn and setback by MAGA GOP.
__
Sexuality is a category. Homosexuality is a subset of sexuality. Sexuality is permanent. See yourself as a for instance. See "me" for instance from earlier comments. Taste in men or women, preferences, and choices can be transitory based on a phase in life.
I am pretty sure you won't be dating any blonde boys or men as a heterosexual exclusive man any time soon: So what is your point for bringing up preferences and choice?
Dang it. I have lost my end spot on the comments-will take some time to go back up and see what I have missed from others. See you in a few.
Y
Y
Whose at fault for that?
Is current science suggesting people are not born gay or straight or is science inconclusive or is it both?
By the way, I am pretty sure it is disingenuous and inconsistent for MAGA conservatives to both accept and repudiate scientific theories as a means of 'gain.'
Do try to be consistent here; even when MAGA conservatives won't. It will be appreciated.
MAGA conservatives (in Texas) are hurting liberals. MAGA adherents need to deal with that! It is not enough to merely look the other way while voting blindly or passionately for one's self-interests. God has not called MAGA conservatives to act expeditiously using any means necessary.
Why would we ignore the fundamental fact that people vote in alignment with their moral views? Or will you be supporting Pro-Life candidates this fall?
As I have explained and documented, most Republicans have no qualms with homosexuals. That said, the support for Trump among Christian fundamentalists is both strong and contradictory.
The Bible doesn't condemn that. It does condemn homosexual behavior.
Why? Because you say so? The "B" and "Q" in LGTBQ would seem to indicate otherwise.
To get you thinking about what's possible if we just start thinking differently.
To illustrate the problems created by the often militant demands for universal acceptance of views that do not have conclusive scientific basis.
To draw consideration to the idea that, unlike heterosexuals, homosexuals (particularly men) tend to adopt their homosexuality as their primary identity, and the idea that "we're born this way" is the first step in that process. Who I'm attracted to does not define me as a person, yet you allow it to hold a place as a central part of your identity.
To illustrate the folly of connecting an argument for rights with the premise "we can't help ourselves". Pedophiles don't choose to be attracted to children, but that doesn't mean they'll be allowed to marry one.
Finally, to get you to consider the paradigm shift that is possible if we reject the religious fundamentalist ideas that your preference for men makes you some sort of freakish abomination, and open our minds to the idea that it is very similar to my preference for blondes or somebody else's preference for tall black women. It can be expressed with a "meh", rather than become the core of who a person is.
How? Be specific.
TiG, sorry this took so long but I lost track of the comments and had to review the whole board.
The answer to your question is officially 'no.' That said, what is confusing to heterosexuals about homosexuals is that 'onset' of homosexuality happens in varying ways. That is, some display traits as 'youths' of various ages; some become aware of sexuality at puberty, some through 'trial and error' experimentation while adults.
In my case, I became aware of my homosexual attraction at puberty in a PE class locker room. And nobody was doing anything out of 'order' to me. One more I was laughing with my friends as we dressed; the next I was observing how 'hot' this one guy was across the benches.
The feeling has spanned a lifetime.
You may have read that I have tried to make it with girls my age before and women. Well, that is 'required' that we give it the old 'football try,' in a hetero-dominated setting-eh?
My sexuality and loosely preference has always been towards men. And I can say it is so all these years later while celibate (nearly 30 exactly) that men excite me more than women though I seek neither for sex.
BTW, there are intricacies involved in this line of questioning and understanding, in part, because there are forces active for centuries negatively affecting the 'time-lines' and 'strumming the threads' of homosexual people. That is, unlike heterosexuals who can be consistent in their sexuality if they CHOOSE to be so-homosexuals feel at times senses of urgency to explore alternatives to who they are—for the sake of family, friends, and self!
This thread is 66 comments, almost all of them off topic.
I may close this seed.
You dodged the question; don't do that. I asked you about the act(s) themselves.:
Are the acts you credit to homosexuals as sinful in and of themselves, sin when performed by heterosexuals on other heterosexuals- in or out of marriage? Yes or No.
Exactly. And this is where I am pointing the discussion of homosexuality: Consistency. It is demonstratively wrong for Christians to engineer life beyond its brethren in the faith realm. Especially, when doing the same things themselves in a marriage. The first order for Christians is to "get understanding." That is not happening in churches issuing "prescriptions" from Ivory towers away from and out of touch with what is happening in the pews. God sees the pain and affliction the Church has caused, causes, and in retrospect apologizes for its participation, association, and doing.
And then a 'wing' of the Church goes out and recreates the harm all over again. We, the Church, shall suffer many stripes! We need self-correction.
"The Bible condemns it." This is circular-reasoning. Also known as: Because I say so. Also known as: Just because. Also known as: Begging the question.
Try to answer the question, please.
I hope you do not. I am 'desperately' wanting to get back to the sick GOP but sometimes matters have a way of their own. . . as people need to talk out what is close to the root or a root of the GOP sickness! Because the GOP needs to stop its insufferable and hostile behaviors towards all manners of minorities in this country. I really mean it. Sometimes, it takes the 'long way around.'
All the same, it is your call. Peace, John.
BTW, these 'opportunities' do not happen when I write articles. I am not sure why not.
Your metaphor is ignoring the issue: chicken and steak are both meats. As the other are flowers. And the third are sports. And the forth are land masses. Categories.
TiG thank you. My sexuality is homosexuality. It is set permanently. Preference in sexuality specifies who one chooses to be with individually, not who one is categorically when it comes to sex.
As an example of a preference: In the past, I spent my time with slender males (not 'Bears' or "Beards"). Preference.
The question of sexuality could be approached from a different and dark perspective: Ask a pedophile.
Here me out. As pedophiles endure internecine hatred and dismissal from nearly every other group in our country, one can more clearly and readily see the struggle of being "born this way" and "choice and choosing" playing out in real time.
No one, bar none, would choose a sexual way of life that would force them to live in extreme exile like lepers for the duration of their time on this planet. No one.
What is confusing to some of us is why you talk about it like it's a disease. "Onset". Like it's cancer or Alzheimers or something.
JR, I was trying to address one of the issues that makes the MAGA GOP sick: It's deep obsession with interfering in the lives of liberals who simply want to live in a diverse community that includes conservatives. But, not controlled by conservative values alone. LGBTQ people are one of MAGA GOP's obsessions. Another as we know is girls and women. A third, Muslims. And always: Blacks!
Once again, it's not me doing the "crediting" or declaring anything sinful. I'm telling you what fundamentalist Christians read in the Bible and how they interpret it, which is exactly what you asked, BTW.
One of the verses they refer to is Leviticus 20:13.
Notice it makes no reference to any restrictions on heterosexual activity.
You're giving me more credit than I deserve. I didn't write the Bible.
I don't know why it was forbidden. I don't know whether or not it's still off limits or that was a set of instructions for a particular time and place. I wasn't consulted.
Donald Trump is MAGA supported. Donald Trump is known as an amoral person. How is he aligned with say, your, moral worldview?
Why would I support the Pro-life candidate when that movement is aligned with the worst amoralist, Donald Trump, in a political party that is eating its own good people while leaving the worst representatives to populate it? And that is my view before we discuss what is wrong with the pro-life group's self-deception about supporting new life at the expense of girls' and womens' privacy!
Men and women are both humans.
Categories.
Why?
That's amazingly arbitrary. We're back to "because CB says so".
Yes and yes.
He is not. Which is why I voted against him.
Oh Jack_TX, be topical and relevant already. Start at 7.1.21 and continue on to ending abortion in Texas to criminalization of doctors who perform them. And here is a link to the Texas GOP platform:
I will pull out one or two 'planks' for observation. This does not stand alone in its attempt to thwart liberal expression and extreme domination by MAGA GOP in the state!
I am sorry "some of us" would take my comment out of context of everything I have stated on the subject throughout. My best advice: Don't hang the gist of your commentary on one or more throwaway words. Not even for the levity it gives. . . "them."
Don't squander the time we have together on foolishness.
I have provided you demonstrable proof of it and true to form you avoid picking it up and examining it with your analysis.
Fundamentalist Christians signifies what exactly? Be clear. Why should you or I care about fundamentalists concerns? That is, what makes them the 'be all' of a commitment to Christ? Or the fundamentalist the 'cornerstone' supporters of an amoral leader in their midst named Donald Trump?
Moreover, I think you make the case above for New Testament authority. Why are you quoting Old Testament law of Moses to me? Christians have their own spiritual tomes to guide them.
Finally, do not equivocate heterosexual acts that are equivalent to homosexual acts in an attempted 'pass' for heterosexuals. That is self-deception and unfair.
MAGA conservatives are isolating and targeting homosexuals for hatred, stigmatization, and set-back!
Then do not use it as a form of discussion manipulation. Let's move on.
Nope. You are back to argumentation for argument sake. Preferences are choosable. Sexuality is permanent. Even in your own life: You are lifelong heterosexual, though your 'taste' in women has changed significantly. Be fair to yourself or at least to this discussion so we can move forward and not become 'stunted.'
Why would abortion restrictions hurt only liberals?
It's absolutely not out of the context of everything you have stated. That's the point.
I never said it did hurt only liberals. The fact is why hurt liberals at all?
BTW, you imply MAGA conservatives have in the past and will in the future abort or use contraceptives against their pregnancies, right?
Is that right?
Since MAGA conservatives are using contraception and abortion as tools to prevent births, why do they bother persecuting liberal girls and women over abortion?
You have annihilated your message.
Probably because you're getting into one of those phases where you're about as clear as mud. What are you talking about?
Fundamentalist Christians are those who believe the Bible is inerrant and (generally speaking) historically accurate.
I don't. You've been asking about them. The only relevance they would have is their heavy overlap with the MAGA crowd.
Because the Old Testament is over half of the Christian Bible. Admonitions against homosexual behavior are also found in the New Testament.
I have no idea what you're talking about.
That is what I would expect.
we're done here
He was merely the symptom of the mind altering virus that has infected right wing conservatism for decades.
He tapped into decades worth of irritation that had boiled into (not completely unjustified) anger.
And Donald Trump seared the GOP into MAGA! Keep in mind, there were GOP conservatives who departed the party whether than become bitter, wretches vying for the discontinuance of the union. Donald Trump once again became the 'big man' who will only lead if the anger vents itself upon its opponents and enemies.
The dilemma for the evangelicals is this: God never asked for their help to seek out a 'strongman' and place a 'holy' crown and scepter into his right hand. Evangelicals have played the fool and compromised themselves. For they have behaved 'faithless' in that they thought to do for God what only God can do for God: Clean up this nation on God's timetable.
Thus, Donald Trump was 'tumbled' and will likely not be allowed to sit in high places again. Much like that 'Other' who sought the 'highest' without proper authentication or service to the Good. Above all else - God as we know God is Humble.
Donald Trump is a fool!
I, and my fellow homosexuals can show MAGA GOP how real decades of irritation boils down. The entirety of our lives, our freedoms, our understanding, and acceptance of who we are was 'cooked' for thousands of years and only a limited amount of us made it out—made something of and for ourselves. And here MAGA conservatives are 'applying' for a homosexual 'recook'?
And "we" know the 'submission' is foreshadowed, because the 'crazy' GOP elephant has a long memory. And girls and women are already in dire straits over abortion (again) fifty years later!
Yeah, you want to 'know' real irritation? Try living immersive with stigmatization, physical and mental abuse, and otherizing as a way of life!
See? I told you we weren't as divided as we think.
I think the FBI may have something to say about him leading much of anything.
You are correct. But let's not forget that they're complete amateurs at this. The Catholics have been doing it for thousands of years.
Touché. To the Catholics among us.
I don’t think it’s useful to write these articles and infuse a constant comparison to the other party. It just invites argument that is not constructive. Rather, if you want to criticize a particular party, just do it and stay focused on that. Then if someone tries to talk about the other party, you can legitimately say that they are engaging in whataboutism and deflection. I could nitpick the things said about Democrats here, all day, but if I did, we’d never get to the Republicans, and I think a lot of those criticisms are valid.
From a political science perspective, my most fundamental criticism of Republicans is that they have ceased to be the party of individual freedom, limited government, a robust economy, and a strong military. It also used to be fairly easy - in the late 60s and early 70s - to find Republicans who cared about racial justice or the environment.
Instead, today, they are a big government party that wields power to enforce the morality of an extremist socially conservative minority. Beyond that, the biggest thing they stand for is frustrating the Democrats. Actual governance and administration of the country’s business takes a back seat.
Agree.