ASC Rules » Blog Archive » Typical (Log) Cabin Republican BS

Typical (Log) Cabin Republican BS

I love when articulate people like BoyFromTroy spew out tautological bullshit to defend their own impractical position.

BFT’s peeved at Jasmyn Cannick’s One Homosexual position . What she basically argues is that gays need to put gay rights first in certain situations and that California is now approaching one of those situations with a slew of anti-gay rights ballot initiatives.

Here’s BFT’s response in a nutshell:
1) WHAT?! You want me to join a cause that runs counter to some of my other Republican viewpoints? DAH! That’s just ridiculous. If I support you liberals in this instance a whole bunch of bad stuff is going to happen (and by bad stuff I mean not explicitly Republican initiatives! Yes. This makes tons of sense. If I support something that I usually don’t, then there will be things that I typically support that will not receive as much support from me. Well, yes. This is exactly what Cannick is asking gays to do. Potentially take a hit on some of your issues in order to support the one that should be most important to you.

2) Well, now wait a minute, you don’t get anywhere by being mean to the Governor. Afterall, he’s on our side. He’ll protect us. First, what makes you think he can protect you? I think his most recent political failures on elections show that he’s in no position to resist anti-gay initiatives if it starts to pick up steam. Secondly, if you go about attacking those that support this anti-homosexual position, then why would the Governer get mad? Afterall, he supports gay rights doesn’t he? Something seems inconsisten here.

I’m not saying that gays can’t be against Cannick’s position. I think being opposed to a One-Gay mentality is totally respectable. I’m simply saying that BFT’s arguments against it are silly, tautological and simply evince just how deeply he’s been sucked into the Republican collective. I fear he may be more Borg than Fag now…

4 Responses to “Typical (Log) Cabin Republican BS”

  1. Scott Says:

    Pardon my, but what, exactly, is the tautology in BFT’s arguments?

    Just cause you disagree with it, doesn’t make it tautological!

  2. Angelo Says:


    Thanks for the post. I do believe I erred in calling BFT’s argument tautological (although, I think one can make a case that it sort of is: as in, “it’s tautological if examined from the vantage point of conservative ideology). I think the argument is bettered referred to as circular. Think about it…


    BFT says: I’m a Republican, I support Republican policies.

    Cannick says: I get the fact that some of you don’t typically support the people and respective positions of this One-Homo policy, but given the impending situation one should place the defense of homosexual rights above other policies that are of lesser importance in this instance.

    BFT says: But wait, that’s absolutely ridiculous, because I am a Republican, I support Republican policies, Republican politicians and this would force me to abandon that. Therefore, it’s ridiculous.

    It looks pretty much like a circular argument to me. Perhaps if he explained why defending a direct attack on his rights is less important than other policies, instead of just saying “but look at all the other shit I’d be forced to value less” then I would consider his position respectable. It’s not so much that he’s against the One-Homo policy (since my boyfriend hates it too), it’s that he’s just another blind follower.

    He has a pretty significant readership and comes off as a very intelligent, articulate gay man. I’d expect (and to a certain extent) demand something more from him.

  3. North Dallas Thirty Says:

    Actually, BfT’s point was that we’re not going to win unless we engage both sides — and, given that “gay rights” now includes the right of unions to steal from workers automatically and protect incompetents, the right of abortion clinics to perform major medical procedures on minors with less notification or consent by parents than ear-piercing or emergency room treatment, the right of absurdly-gerrymandered Assembly districts, and the right for the state budget to spiral out of control, not a lot of both sides are going to support “gay rights”. Heck, I have trouble supporting “gay rights” if it includes that, and I’M gay.

    The other part that BfT nails is that what these campaigns are about is attacking Republicans, not about gay rights. Schwarzenegger has a position better than John Kerry’s on gay rights, but Schwarzenegger gets called virulently antigay, while Kerry and his fellow supporters of state constitutional amendments banning gay marriage and stripping gays of rights get called “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive”.

    Again, if this can be made about gay rights and not about pushing unrelated issues or pissing on half the electorate, I’m all for it. But if you demand the latter two, the support for the former I can give you is at the cost of compromising my own integrity, and my inclination is to sit this one out.

  4. Angelo Says:

    NDT — Thanks for your thoughts. Some compelling points, however …

    1) So let me get this straight — you discuss engaging both sides, and you’re advocating engagement of people who have opposing political views on non-gay related issues and yet what you respond to me with is an extremely reductionistic conflation of the political atmosphere a la gay rights. Yes, it happens that the same non-gays fighting for gay rights happen to be support unions, supporting a woman’s right to choose. I’ll have to disagree with you on absurd gerrymandering (ie: Texas) and on budgets (ie: George Bush). What you’ve basically done is rule out working with these people because they don’t they support OTHER issues that matter to you. What you instead propose is engaging a group of people on gay rights that will simply not budge on the issue. This is politically problematic. I’m not saying ignore your other causes. I’m simply saying that (and as a southerner, I hope you get this) “you gotta know when to hold them, and know when to fold them” and frankly it’s time for you to understand that the Republicans and crazy conservatives (notice how I do NOT conflate the two) have largely abandoned you on this issue. Perhaps, maybe, possibly if you all showed these repubs that you have a mind of your own and that you’ll walk away when they step over the line with respect to basic rights then they’ll start paying attention and be willing to engage.

    Look at the current situation with the Republicans in the Senate with respect to the war. Only when their own political base began to question them did they step up and look at the speck in their own eye and re-evaluate their current position. This is why Cannick’s One-Homo policy works, sometimes, or at the very least has more potential to work than a bunch of Repulico-Homos tugging the party line.

    2) With respect to attacking Arnold. I couldn’t agree with you more. In an odd twist I found myself staunchly defending him against my republican boyfriend during the whole gay marriage situation. I understand his position, I respect his position, and I’m not going to nor do I support attacks of the Governor on this issue. He is clearly friend. But just because he supports gay rights, does not mean that other Republicans in Cali (and elsewhere) support gay rights. Politicians need to be pushed on an individual basis with respect to this issue regardless of their political affiliation. I’d want to distance myself too from unwarranted attacks. But, I don’t see why it’s wrong to go after people (even if they support other issues that you care about, but might be less important) when they support either explicitly or through their silence the further erosion of gay rights.

    I’m simply saying, break from the party line now and again. It works! I respect your position though.

    Many Thanks,

Leave a Reply