Anonymous wrote:

Rome does not equal Roman Empire; same with Greeks.

Those conquered territories maintained their own religions and customs. I don't know what their position was on homosexuality, but it's incorrect to assume that it was widely accepted throughout the empires just because it was accepted in Rome and Athens.

You know nothing about the Greeks and Romans. Homosexuality was widely accepted throughout the empires from the Celts, the Gauls, Germanic tribes, Dacians, Egyptians, etc. There were different 'flavors' to religion and customs but it was widespread and frequently depicted in art.

Don't overreach, actually I do: I grew up on the old continent and studied history there. Not surprised that sexual orientation was not included in school books. In any case, do you have any resources that back up your statement that it was depicted in Germanic, Celtic, Gaelic & Dacian art (or others)?

Anonymous wrote:There was a country that was born in the late 1700's that had founding fathers, but no founding mothers. Sounds pretty gay to me!

They are also fond of parading around in stockings, wigs, and capri pants.

There was a country that was born in the late 1700's that had founding fathers, but no founding mothers. Sounds pretty gay to me!

Anonymous wrote:

I'm amazed that the dominant wing of the GOP, Tea Party, has not insisited on an agressively anti-gay plank in the platform.
I the the previous posters stating that there are lots of closeted gays in Washington and that he or she's not going to out any of them just reinforces the paranoia of being gay and advocating for the GOP.

The poster said Washington establishment Repubs and openly gay. They did not say the Repubs at large outside of the Washington establishment are tolerant. As for the Tea Partiers, they want to stay away from social issues or so they say. Last, why would you want someone to post a list names of STAFF? Jeff would rightly delete the post.

I still don't get this. The poster said there are "OPENLY GAY" people working in republican staff positions. To me that means "Hi, I'm Phil. This is my partner, Allen, we come to this fundraiser every year". Not "I'm gay and the boss still hired me but I have to keep my private life on the down low".

I'm amazed that the dominant wing of the GOP, Tea Party, has not insisited on an agressively anti-gay plank in the platform.
I the the previous posters stating that there are lots of closeted gays in Washington and that he or she's not going to out any of them just reinforces the paranoia of being gay and advocating for the GOP.

The poster said Washington establishment Repubs and openly gay. They did not say the Repubs at large outside of the Washington establishment are tolerant. As for the Tea Partiers, they want to stay away from social issues or so they say. Last, why would you want someone to post a list names of STAFF? Jeff would rightly delete the post.

I think we can all agree that, for most of history, arranged marriage was the norm, if not the rule. Even in the United States, two people of different races could not get married, even if they were in love, in many states. Yes, arranged marriage was often about finding a spouse who could produce children, but that was only because the families wanted boys who could contribute to the family's financial well-being and make the family richer/more powerful. In addition, until the late 1960s, two people of different races could not marry in many U.S. states, even if they loved each other. In the U.S., the age of marriage for girls was often in the teens until the mid-1900s; that is still the case for much of the world. Marriage age for girls was certainly in the teens for most of the history of marriage.

So, if the idea is to avoid changing the "bedrock" of what marriage has been throughout history, then we should encourage arranged marriages, ban interracial marriages, and encourage girls to get married in their teens...

Rome does not equal Roman Empire; same with Greeks.

Those conquered territories maintained their own religions and customs. I don't know what their position was on homosexuality, but it's incorrect to assume that it was widely accepted throughout the empires just because it was accepted in Rome and Athens.

You know nothing about the Greeks and Romans. Homosexuality was widely accepted throughout the empires from the Celts, the Gauls, Germanic tribes, Dacians, Egyptians, etc. There were different 'flavors' to religion and customs but it was widespread and frequently depicted in art.

I'm amazed that the dominant wing of the GOP, Tea Party, has not insisited on an agressively anti-gay plank in the platform.
I the the previous posters stating that there are lots of closeted gays in Washington and that he or she's not going to out any of them just reinforces the paranoia of being gay and advocating for the GOP.

Anonymous wrote:Sorry I will not help you and your like in your Stalinist purges.

What kind of sense does that make? If your point is that they are openly gay, then you aren't exposing them. I will assume they are either not really openly gay, or these are people you think exist but don't really know by name.

In any case, libs like me don't purge gay people. We welcome them. You should try it!

Sorry I will not help you and your like in your Stalinist purges.

Anonymous wrote:A lot of them are not closeted. The point is the inside Washington republican establishment has very little problem with openly gay people.

Like who? If they are open, it should not be hard to point a few out.

A lot of them are not closeted. The point is the inside Washington republican establishment has very little problem with openly gay people.

Anonymous wrote:

The republican party is very accepting of gays as long as you are a staff.


Mitt was forced to fire his gay staff member.

He had a gay on staff and thought it would not be a problem. (Do you really think there is only one on his staff?) There are lots of gays on staff and in think tanks in Washington's republican establishment. You just can't take them on the road.

Not sure what your point was. Richard Grenell was very qualified, and the fact that he was openly gay got him ousted within one week. So now when the Republicans watch Romney flounder on his foreign policy message, they can thank the bigotry of the wingnuts who drove him out.

Of course I know there are closeted gays. There are closeted Republican gays in congress, and they even vote anti-gay. And yes there are staffers who can keep their job because they fly under the radar of the wingnuts. But while this is an improvement over the days of Hoover, none of this represents progress in the year 2012.

The republican party is very accepting of gays as long as you are a staff.


Mitt was forced to fire his gay staff member.

He had a gay on staff and thought it would not be a problem. (Do you really think there is only one on his staff?) There are lots of gays on staff and in think tanks in Washington's republican establishment. You just can't take them on the road.

Anonymous wrote:The republican party is very accepting of gays as long as you are a staff.

Mitt was forced to fire his gay staff member.