Just because I love a good debate (Raze: "Bush lies", Phillyfan "DOMA, DOMA, DOMA,") I wanted to raise an issue.

In various posts, Charlie in the Trees, Phillyfan and William1865 have all talked about (and I am not quoting here fellas) gays as having "herd mentality," being "politically correct" or "sheep" and imposing a form of liberal politics on the entire gay community.

I know that we have discussed gay Republicans on the board before, but I want to flip the question - I am wondering if the conservatives on this board really believe that the progressives (preferable to "liberal" for me, after all I am Scottish and am not liberal in the wallet department ) are merely adopting a party line. I know that I am a progressive/liberal/Democrat not because of my sexual orientation, but because of my beliefs and values. I was raised by Democrats, including one union member, and through the course of my education have simply found the liberal arguments better.

Do conservatives really think that progressive gays don't think for ourselves, or is that merely another form of political B-S that we all spew at times?

I'll admit that when I was closeted and still subservient to my parents, I considered myself a conservative. I bought what they said and went with it.

Now that I am out and really follow gay issues, I have come to identify as a more liberal person, especially on social issues. Fiscally, I have remained pretty conservative, but I can't align myself with the more extreme side of the conservative cause. Recently, this extreme end has been very vocal and has alienated all gays, regardless of their political affiliation.

I definitely was more of a sheep before I came out and I was buying into every conservative cause and opinion. I think now I have a much more informed and varied outlook formulated through my own experience rather than what I'm being told. I have no gay friends outside of my boyfriend, so I never feel pressured to vote or think anyway because of my sexual orientation.

Great Question!

I think for many gays being liberal/lefty is trendy or fashionable, like wearing Prada. And I think there is a certain intolerance among gays for dissenting opinions, as there probably should be. One of my lefty professors in college once said that a social movement can't tolerate dissent from within, and that to the people in a particular movement, achieving that movement's goals is far more important than tolerance of different opinions. For someone fighting for gay marriages, I would hope they would think winning that fight is ultimately more important than being really welcoming of people who disagree with them.

I'm a bit of a cynic on something like this: I believe what I believe, I'm very confident in what I believe, and I doubt seriously that anyone could ever convince me otherwise. I doubt I would ever wake up one morning and say, "Hey, abortion isn't really so bad," or "What this country needs is hate crimes legislation," or "You know, Sheryl Crow's right. War is NOT the answer." And I could probably never convince most of you guys of anything I believe in. So topics like this are cute but ultimately futile, in my opinion.

But by all means, carry on...

I hold pretty conservative fiscal views. Before I came out at all, and even recently I considered myself a conservative republican, or maybe a moderate at the most. Part of this is due to the fact that I too am very cheep when it comes to money, and personal privacy rights and such.

Lately though, it seems that as gay issues come up more and more in the media and we have a stupid President spouting off about "hav'in to do sumptin about that thar Howmow-sexuuuall Marriage thingy, and lookin into it with thems liers." I just can't take it any more, I guess being gay has taken over my entire existance, but I litterly get physically worked up over some of the stupid conservative republican dogma that has been flowing freely from that side of the fence lately. I don't consider my feelings to be due to me joining any kind of herd, I see it as informed thought as far as accepting who I am, and not allowing people bully me around.

I don't know if you guys follow that, but I gave it a try.

My frustration with politics is that the public forces politicians into absolutes in a world that isn't.

There are liberals on this Board who even though they are left/liberal, they obviously are not just sheep going baa-baa-baa to whatever some member of Clinton family or the Hollywood elite tells them to think. By mentioning some names, it does not mean that I'm necessarily saying all the others are sheep: but the left-wing independent thinkers would include [omitted], [omitted] and, most definitely, [removed]. Their politics are way to the left of mine, but they've obviously thought through (most) of their positions and generally have intelligent, logical (but ultimately wrong wink ) reasons for taking those positions.

Then there are others who don't seem to think any deeper than a leftie bumpersticker. They blatantly exaggerate and caricature conservative positions instead of intelligently arguing the validity of a position. They'll make some snide, condescending remark that is merely parroting trendy/leftie groupthink. Those are people I think I can fairly lump into a group as sheep, who've chosen leftie, radical chic politics as a fashion accessory or, perhaps, an admission ticket to accepting gay society.

(CPT ... I would correct you that I would never call this a "herd mentality." I prefer: flock mentality.)

And I'm not just talking about people on this Board, but the few notable commentators in the gay media (as opposed to Andrew Sullivan, a gay commentator in the mainstream media). I find, for example, Michaelangelo Signorile to be unreadably superficial in his predictable trendy/leftie opinion columns.

I do think the "out" gay community is somewhat more prone to conformist thinking than most other groups of adults. (It's not as bad as teenagers of all sexual orientations, but it's close.) This is not limited to politics by any means. Fashion. Recreation. Entertainment options. I think it's because so many of us have been outsiders during our formative years that many of us seize the opportunity to finally be part of an in-crowd. But that's extremely amateur psychoanalysis. Although, the fact that some people mentioned that they moved leftward after they came out supports my theory. (Most people become more conservative as they get older, buy houses, raise families, etc.)

[ July 31, 2003, 07:49 AM: Message edited by: Charlie in the Trees ]

Did I miss something on Queer Eye for the Straight Guy? Being leftist, Liberal, progressive is a "fashion" statement? News to me.

I'm not sure what the Gay "herd" thinks on every issue and I try to think and analyze things for myself. For instance, I'm pro-choice and have no problem with the death penalty. So I guess I'm pro-death, but that doesn't put me in lockstep with either the Dems. or Repubs.

I for one am a proud liberal, but I did vote for RR. I try to think positions out for myself. But I do find more and more the Republican party is drifting towards the right, and they are no longer (IMO) better on the fiscal issues.

Democrat vs. Republican, Liberal vs. Conservative, Gay vs. Straight, Men vs. Women.

These are the trendy labels that keep getting foisted on us.

Politicians and moralists use them as devices to mobilize their own minions and to create their own agendas.

Bush's latest statements re: gay marriage are so indicative (as were Bill Clinton's rationalizations with DOMA) of this simple political philosophy that I am astounded that thinking people continue to fall for this manipulation.

It seems to me that so many of our younger brothers and sisters in the gay community are co-opted by this strategy. Rather than pursuing their own interests as gay or lesbians, they seem satisfied to be anti-Bush (no pun intended) or anti-Republican or anti-Democrat.

Being republican or democrat is besides the point. Being an American citizen, gay or straight, should guarantee you certain considerations under the law. Anyone that stands in the way of this realization, democrat or republican, should be cast aside.

My friends and I come from very different backgrounds and life experiences. We are far from group thinkers. However, the common trait we have is our philosophy on life and how you treat others. These social and personal values are what make us swing more progressive/liberal.

In the end, it doesn't really matter if we get to keep more of our money, see less regulation, be the world strong arm, or anything else. What really drives the politics in my circle is the desire to have leaders who demonstrate some of our values and a genuine care for the well-being of our society.

Where many people believe that you get more conservative with age, higher income, home ownership, etc, my friends and I recognize that all those things just don't matter much (even though we all enjoy all those things). Living in a country where pre-emptive military action is part of our foreign policy, critical world issues are swept aside, and big business gets to push a lot of buttons is just unacceptable.

I think that is just human nature, definitely not herd mentality.

I see this in every big city. Its not a "herd mentality" at all, rather another a reflection of a subcommunity that is unable to overcome the principle deficiency in a two-party system. Marginalized groups (read "minority") have all been corralled into a pen by the Democratic Party. And until Shrub came along, no GOP POTUS has given a whit about expanding their inclusiveness (and the only hand he's offered is to the Hispanic community).

There are GLB's who believe so STRONGLY in social equity for gays that they buy into the Democratic Party's fiscal policies. And there are GLB's who are so unenthused about their sexuality and LOVE money so much that they TOLERATE the GOP's hatred of all GLB's. And if you use the media as any type of gauge, you'd think the first group outweighs the second group 20 to 1.

If you took a survey in any gay town, I think you'd find that most GLB's feel no choice - they take the party that supports them socially. The downside is that SOME of these same GLB's begin to believe in a government giveaway program. "More welfare. Free pharma for everyone! Reparations Now!" [christ! that last one makes me wanna wretch]

Of course, there is a third way - the Libertarian Party. wink

I just want to point out that this is an extremely flawed topic, since no one is going to admit they follow a herd/flock mentality. It's like asking a journalists if they are biased like people say they are. Of course they're going to say no. Seems like this is just an opportunity for libs to brag about how they in fact are not part of any type of herd/flock.

And just because something isn't on some gay show on Bravo doesn't mean it's not true.

Y'mean when someone posts that all their friends, who think just like they do, are in agreement that they all have reached the exact same set of conclusions and opinions completely independently ... are you saying that's not credible? wink

Most Americans are apolitical. I would say that most gays and possibly lesbians are also rather apolitical as well. My straight officemate has no political views whatsoever. He simply doesn't care. He doesn't vote, and any discussion of politics makes his eyes glaze over. As a straight white-anglo-saxon-male (yes, he's protestant too!) no political issue compels him to care either.

In the absence of a spectrum of political issues, the normally apolitical homosexual will probably become a 'single issue voter.' Gay equality is a progressive issue mostly embraced by the left and eschewed by the right. Of course there are exceptions, but sheep like keeping things black and white... it's easier to comprehend.

I think most of the American populous are sheep, and the gay community is no exception. Clinton did some pretty bad shit, but no one (read most Americans) cared! Bush does some pretty bad shit too, and guess what... no one cares!

I've always been liberal. Coming out didn't make me more leftist, but it did solidify my position.

William is right though. Sheep would not be interested in this thread or this forum.

Ba-Ram-Ewe Ba-Ram-Ewe

Let me clarify - I was not asking any of the progressives on this board if they were following a herd mentality - I was more interested in determining what the conservatives on this board really think about the progressives - are we shallow thinkers or have we come to our conclusions based on sound rational analysis? Somewhere in between?

I ask this because even though I disagree with William1865, Phillyfan, Charlie in the Trees and others, but I do not believe that they are necessarily just parroting a "party line" - whether that be the Republican party line or the Conservative party line. Certainly there are many in the current Republican leadership, and unfortunately in the LCR, who are more than willing to toss their own convictions in order to defend and excuse certain Republicans. I do not get that same impression of the conservatives on this board.

I am simply asking whether you are using political hyperbole, or if you really think that gay progressives have been somehow co-opted.

Thank you, in all seriousness, for a giving me a light bulb moment. I hadn't thought about it like that, but your analysis makes perfect sense.

Maybe it is the apolotical gays - who will vote single issue on gay rights - maybe they're the ones who appear to be sheep-like to me, since their reasoning is usually limited to parroting (mixing animal metaphors here) the leftie/progessive party line coming from the Hollywood Left. The leftie/progessives who are politically active on a number of issues are the ones who are doing more than regurgitating bumperstickers when they give their opinions. Those are the ones I don't dismiss as mere sheep.

[ July 31, 2003, 08:38 AM: Message edited by: Charlie in the Trees ]

This is interesting to me because it goes larger than just political awareness, seeing things as a single issue. There seem to be many in the gay community that have lost all of themselves except their gayness. I feel like they have left all of themselves behind in order to "be gay", or, I guess, in coming out. Are we not the same people with the same ideas, hobbies, etc. after we come out? Is being gay 100% of our being? I know this is not typical of all gays but I have seen it A LOT. Just observing.

I can think of an excellent reason why, in the absence of a true liberal/Left in current US party politics, blacks and gays form the Democrats' most loyal "herds."

Because if the prevailing "conservative" views of 150 years ago had been perpetuated, blacks would still be enslaved and lynched, and active homosexuals would be jailed or executed.

(What was the first American political party to lobby for full desegregation? The Communists.)

Not only was your statement along the lines of gays are "liberal to be fashionable" untrue, it's a stupid notion that insinuates gays, who happen to feel differently than you, are silly queens who know nothing and are just trying to be in fashion. Typical from someone who, on a periodic basis, bolts from this forum in a childish huff (and breaks promise after promise about never coming back).

oh horn, you silly little queen....simmer down and leave the flock... it's ok... raze will let you out of your pen. Be a free thinker.

right back at ya! (Afraid little willie will leave...AGAIN?)

[ July 31, 2003, 04:51 PM: Message edited by: HornFan ]

Hmmm ... interesting question. From my experience, most conservatives worth listening to do not find liberals or progressives sheepish. But I think when we group people into one of two camps, we prejucially "herd" them ourselves before they open their mouths. We say, "Oh, he supports President Bush; he is a mindless simpleton with no more 'compassion' than an angry cobra." Or we say, "she reads Maureen Dowd; she is a commie-lovin', unpatriotic tree-hugger."

This has led way in many instances to people qualifying themselves; hence, "compassionate conservative," "liberal patriot," "pro-choice Republican," etc. I have even heard, "I am gay, but I'm not one of THOSE gays."

But, when the question is called -- that is, when a new topic is nationally addressed wither through the media or on discussion boards such as these -- we instinctively want to pick a side, as if by being the first one with an opinion will elevate us to expert status. We have moved away from discussing individual elements of political ideas to passing judgement over the whole thing.

So, if the question in this thread is "Do party-loyalists call the other side sheeps," then the answer is yes. But if it is "Do people who approach political issues with a certain philosophy discredit an opposing argument by calling them mindless," then I would say no.

Oh, and for the record, Clinton was NEVER a liberal.

You need to get over your obsession with me. It's sort of alarming.

[Sound of door slamming and William1865 leaving the P&R forum.]

[ August 01, 2003, 06:00 AM: Message edited by: William1865 ]

It's this sort of reductive nonsense that makes me "wanna wretch [sic]." ("Retch" is the verb, "wretch" is a noun.)

While I usually disagree with CITT, I have to say that when he is not tossing out distorting labels like "Hollywood Left" (which is a right-wing canard and hardly describes the complex ideological positions of a vast industry that on the one hand pushes sexuality like it's soda pop and on the other hand works with the Pentagon to choreograph rescues in a war zone or refuses to deal with the issue of abortion in an intellectually honest way), he often comes up with nuanced and provocative thoughts about issues. So I respect that.

I'm not sure what AU Tiger is talking about, but I'll say this: party labels really do not matter with two of the issues he's mentioning, because it was a DEMOCRATIC president who triaged his party to get "welfare reform" enacted (and yes, he signed it); it is a REPUBLICAN president who is pushing a prescription medicine bill that will reward "big pharma" and cover his ass while doing little for the people who most need the benefits; and NEITHER party has addressed the issue of reparations, nor picked up the mantle of the effects of slavery and segregation (including but not limited to Jim Crow) since the Republicans co-opted their ideals for business and governance purposes by destroying Reconstruction.

Now that's a line you won't hear from the Hollywood Left or the Democratic Party, since the former is utterly ahistorical, and the latter is trying as hard as possible to be the second coming of 1970s Republicanism.

[ August 01, 2003, 01:44 PM: Message edited by: fantomas ]

Good point - I am a gay moderate churchgoing Republican police officer... I have some things in common with people in each of those categories but cannot totally agree with all viewpoints in each, obviously. I'm sure most of us have additional ways we define ourselves IN ADDITION to being gay.

It would seem that this thread is living proof of the fact that there is as much diversity among gays as among any other minority group. That's a very healthy sign. If we all thought alike, I'd worry.

I, too, was thinking that the thread demonstrated a great deal of diversity. Perhaps some people confuse a key fact. While lots of gays and lesbians "generally" agree that social issues and human rights are at the top of the priority list, that does not mean that groups of friends/like-minded individuals are part of a herd mentality. I think there are some broad generalities that are true of either party, and (to some degree) groups that share some common trait.

However, the more relevant point is that these groups of friends or people with similar traits have a great deal of diversity under the surface. While my friends and I tend to agree on many larger issues, our approach to addressing our beliefs are very different.

I think that one of the hallmarks of most progressive people (in either party) is the ability to recognize and appreciate the subtle differences people have and how those add depth to the way people view issues. It goes well beyond whether you agree with a particular policy or not.

By contrast, the more radical people who "know their beliefs and that they are right" struggle to recognize and understand the value that these differences add to the equation.

It really comes down to whether a person is looking at things from an absolute perspective, or is more in tune with the subtle shades of gray. Interpretation is as important as intent.

It seems to me that PhillyFan and William1865 rarely speak to the issue at hand. Rather, they seem more preoccupied at disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing.

They would have us believe that this is for our own benefit, trying hard to liberate us from our enslaved, gay minds.

How presumptuous of them?

The irony is that this is the same moral posturing I would expect from a smug Ivy League liberal.

...sound of stilleto heals clomping away.


Don't be alarmed, I'm not the least bit obsessed with you OR your deficient sense of humor. (Hey, you created your own reputation for bolting the P & R forum, not me.)

We are all friends here (I think) who happen to have different opinions and philosophy in politics and religion even though we are gay. (This would shock a lot of people in the straight world BTW.) This thread should also prove that most of us, if not all, are not in lockstep with a certain way of thinking. We are all individuals.

There should never be a need to leave and not come back. You are safe here. Sticks and stones...blah, blah. Lighten up a little. wink

If anything, you will always have PhillyFan watching your back (which would scare the hell outta me, but I digress).

That's very well put, methinks. I think it's important there be the widest possible representation of all different beliefs in the queer universe. Ultimately, it honors the intent of our rainbow flag. Personally - and I speak for nobody but myself here - I often find it discouraging that some gay men, who call themselves progressive and open-minded, often spout pretty hateful and, I feel, ignorant comments and labels about gays who don't share their political beliefs. I usually get a much less combative attitude when I tell a Republican I'm gay than when I tell a gay I'm Republican. And that speaks volumes........

Munson, that's real sad story that has been told over and over. It's not really surprising that a Republican would be thrilled you are a GOP'er whether you are gay or not (they want your vote and your money). You are telling someone you have something in common with them, which by nature, usually gives a positive response. I'm not sure how that speaks volumes to you, but it speaks volumes to me in a much different way and it's certainly not saying to me that Republicans are more open to gays. Get real.

Maybe these mean gay people just don't understand how you can support a party that publicly does not support you? I'd venture a guess that the majority of OUT gays are NOT Republicans and that speaks volumes. When you get a combative response, it would seem to be a natural reaction because you are not on common ground. Hello!

Notice I'm not condemning you, calling you names or even saying I'm more progressive or open-minded. I just don't agree with your summation.

[ August 02, 2003, 07:31 PM: Message edited by: HornFan ]

Munson,

Being a Republican is a choice.

Being Gay is not.

[ August 02, 2003, 08:11 PM: Message edited by: ironjohn8 ]

Interesting argument, but it doesn't hold any water. If I'm talking to a Republican we do have that in common, but my being gay is probably something we do not have in common. If I'm talking to a gay we do have that in common, but my being Republican is probably something we do not have in common. In either case, there is both a unifying fact and a potentially dividing fact. The difference is in how one looks beyond dividing factors.

Are you more comfortable talking about politics with gay people or straight people? Gay liberals or straight conservatives?

See why I don't put a lock of stock in the "volumes spoken to you" that Republicans accept you being gay more gracefully than gays accept that you are a Republican. There's so many dynamics involved that I don't see how you are making a point as it seems to be apples and oranges (if you are comfortable talking about fruit). wink

Maybe it is as simple as someone said in a previous post about one dynamic (party affiliation) is chosen and the other is not (being gay). Seems a lot of Republicans and conservatives are of the mind we choose to be gay (and live "that lifestyle") and I think that mindset is a lot of their problem understanding and being more comfortable with gays in their world.

My first reaction to this is that it's hardly surprising that the educated, affluent New Yorkers who are probably the Republicans you know are not particularly homophobic (at least to your face).

My second reaction is that it's a hell of a lot easier to be tolerant of something that has absolutely no impact on you. We don't have a gay president who supported legislation criminalizing the act of voting republican. Gays aren't trying to prevent Republicans from serving in the military, or teaching in public schools. We don't see "Republican panic" being used as a homicide defense.

Finally, there may be some point in arguing with Republicans, because sometimes people do change their political opinions. Being combative with you when you say your gay is pointless: only very foolish people believe they can convert you.

What the hell does that have to do with the price of Bourbon and Coke at Liza Minnelli's house?

I believe your point is that's OK for gays to reject someone for their Republicanism because that's a choice, but it's not OK for Republicans to reject someone simply bacause he is gay because sexuality is innate. That's not a persuasive argument.

People's religious preference (or lack thereof) is a choice ... yet we as a society have made the decision that religion is not a legitimate basis for discrimination (which is just a fancy word for "choice").
Stupidity is innate. It's not a choice. Yet we as a society have determined that it's perfectly acceptable to discriminate on the basis of intellect.

The whole nature/nurture, hard-wired/selected argument is irrelevant (or, at the least, not dispositive) when discussing whether or not something is properly a basis for discrimination. We discriminate against many things that are not innate (another example: tendency toward violence). We do not discriminate
against many things that are simple choices. Just slapping a label like "choice" or "born that way" is not a legitimate argument.

And I hope people here are perceptive enough not to attack me for "equating homosexuality with stupidity." Puh. Leeze. I am equating sexuality with intelligence to the limited extent that they both are hard-wired into our brains. I have made no representation as to which respective parts of the dichotomy homosexuality and heterosexuality should be analogized, relative to stupid/smart.

"I believe your point is that's OK for gays to reject someone for their Republicanism because that's a choice, but it's not OK for Republicans to reject someone simply bacause he is gay because sexuality is innate. That's not a persuasive argument." (Charlie in the Trees)

Wrong! That's not my point. (Gee - did I hit a nerve?).

Munson made a personal observation that he found fellow Republicans to be less combative upon finding out he is gay - than - gays who find out he is Republican!

I responded to his observation by giving MY OPINION. (Nowhere did I state that discrimination = o.k.) I was merely offering a suggestion as to Why. In My Opinion, (this is me speaking) - "I" would have less tolerance for someone whose 'position' is based on choice - than I would have for someone whose 'position' is based on 'their innate-ness'.

Why? Choice is not inborn. One could cange their political party tomorrow - but - one could not change their orientation.

It is easier to find fault w/beliefs not facts!

[ August 03, 2003, 02:54 PM: Message edited by: ironjohn8 ]