because both sides do it

Holy fucking shit! How braindead does one have to be to make such a comment?

@Serolf Divad:

Look, fapping all day to Taliban “Iron-Age-all-over-again” pr0n can really distort one’s view of reality. ;)

Xtian fundies, the mostly white side of the same crazy coin.

In my on going fight against not only gay Republicans, but Southern gay Republicans, I had a nasty exchange with a douche from West Virginia along the same theme of “both sides do it” when I relayed a tale of being threatened for having an Obama ’08 bumper sticker.

I really do not understand gay Republicans as a whole. I do understand why Southern white gay males are Republicans — because, in the end, they cling to the daddy party just as much as their heterosexual brethren.

@rptrcub: I do understand why Southern white gay males are Republicans – more tail on the dl? (and apologies if “tail” is a breeder word, although why should it be, really)

@rptrcub: @flypaper: An interesting take on the issue here:

Fifty, 30, or even 20 years from now, both parties will support gay rights, at least on its face, and the issue will be largely uncontroversial. (Put it this way: In 50 years, I’d bet Democrats won’t make the same charges against Republicans about gays that they do now about women.) At that point, roughly half of the gay population will be men who are disproportionately wealthy; disproportionately childless; and likely less concerned with social issues, their primary one having been resolved. And what do we call wealthy American men who care about economic policies with a limited personal commitment to public education? Usually, we call them Republicans. (I’d expect lesbians to remain a strongly Democratic group, in part because they’re women.)

@flypaper: Tail works appropriately, literally in this context. (Although most of them I’ve met are bottoms.) And yes — a lot more DL, believe me.

@mellbell: If I ever support the Republican Party, please come shoot me in the head.