As a gay GOPer, partnered, co-father to two boys living in uberLiberal Ann Arbor, I can tell you unequivocally that I’ve been subject to the same kind of intolerance and belligerency from gay liberals –and most liberals too– that Crutchley runs into now. And it goes almost to a level of seathing hatred… like the reaction Crutchley is getting in gay commerce.

On the flipside of that, I’ve been a participant and delegate to local, state and federal GOP conventions and I have yet to meet one of those rabid, red-eyed violently anti-gay GOPers that most gay liberals think populate the GOP rank and file.

Maybe it’s that the gay liberals have felt injured by the GOP that they dump such scorn on guys like Crutchley… and, as some here do, even Kirchick.

I think, however, it has more to do with a general willingness on their part to push the boundaries of political conversation to an extreme parallel to themselves, an unwillingness or inability to accept others for their political beliefs and (mostly) a deep-seated antipathy toward political abnormality in our gay liberal norm community.

Irrespective of the reasons, the simple unavoidable truth is that it will take moderating our community’s political voice to accomodate dissent gays in order to move gay civil rights forward and that’s why experiences like Crutchley’s and Kirchick’s and mine mean that we have a long, long way to go before we secure full civil rights… even within our community.

Tolerance is a family value.

Your comments indicate and ignorance of the style, content, and participants at this site.

Consider this a warning. We do not tolerate flaming at this site. If you have something to say, do so. But do not include language which is intended to insult or invite a battle of invective.

“You can take your dismissive and hateful stereotyping elsewhere, it has no place in civil discourse.”

Whether or not political gays have done a great job at insulting other gays out of the unicorn-like “GLBT community” is a *very* worthwhile discussion to have.

P.S. It isn’t a stereotype. It’s called “gay culture” — and that culture is flavor-aid-drinkingly leftist and extremely hateful and intolerant toward anyone who dares stray one tiny bit from strict mind-control.

You know nothing about me.

You can take your dismissive and hateful stereotyping elsewhere, it has no place in civil discourse.

This is a rhetorical question. Gay men, meaning men who are deeply devoted to gay culture, are some of the most hateful, vicious, and intolerant myrmidons on the planet. Their behavior has completely destroyed the idea of a “GLBT community” as far as I’m concerned.

No. However, GLBTQ people are often highly critical of politicians, and many are politically aware, educated and assertive.

It would be intolerance if GLBTQ bars and businesses refused to serve LCR’s. It would be intolerant if GLBTQ organizations, including MCC’s, refused to allow LCR’s to participate.

It is not “political intolerance” when a customer choses to stop doing business with a company because that company, directly or indirectly, diverts some of customer’s money to political organizations the customer does not approve of. The customer always has the right to decide whether or not to give his or her money to a vendor. The implication that GLBTQ people should be expected or coerced through peer pressure into supporting businesses, or businesspersons, which support candidates that are openly hostile to the civil rights of GLBTQ people, is oppressive and demeaning.

I think it was very naive of Crutchley to donate to McCain, when his source of income comes from the wallets of gay men. It was not honest of Kirchick to construe consumer non-participation as some form of prejudice, nor was it honest for Kirchick to leave out the fact that McCain returned Crutchley’s donation. I think the generalizations in the article here, as well as though in Kirchick’s Op-Ed, are erroneous and dismissive at best.

“I want DADT repealed, ENDA enacted, DOMA reformed or repealed, etc. just as much as you do, but not at the expense of national security.”

Apparently, the gay-rights issues you mentioned are a VERY distant second in order of importance to you, because they’ll certainly suffer further setbacks under a McCain presidency.

This reminds me of a conversation I had with a guy back in 2002. He was gay and had voted for Bush in 2000, his reasoning being that Bush was “very pro-gay.” I can’t help wondering what he must have thought on a certain November night two years later.

At the risk of diverging from the topic, McCain’s idea of promoting national security is to bomb yet another suspiciously oil-rich Middle Eastern country to the tune of “Barbara Ann” (singing about dropping bombs on people doesn’t make you a national security or foreign policy expert; it makes you a psychopath). He also wants to keep us in the neighboring country that we pre-emptively invaded and whose sovereign, internationally recognized government we overthrew and replaced with a puppet government on account of phantom WMDs and connections between the previous government and al-Qaeda and, later, to promote democracy (when those WMDs and al-Qaeda links turned out to be non-existent).

As someone who lived in a foreign country for three years and interacted with non-Americans on a daily basis, I think I have sufficient expertise to say that McCain, who basically wants to continue Bush’s policies, will do nothing but anger the rest of the planet and turn even more people against us than Bush already has. We’re not going to promote national security by making even more people resent us. The arrogance that Bush and previous administrations (including Clinton) have displayed abroad is the reason why so many people hate us and want to kill us in the first place.

A person who is interculturally competent captures and understands, in interaction with people from other cultures, their specific concepts in perception, thinking, feeling and acting. Earlier experiences are considered, free from prejudices; there is an interest and motivation to continue learning.
*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intercultural_competence.

During social change ie., the women’s suffrage movement, the civil right’s movement, etc., there was conflict within each movement. Some said ‘you’re asking for too much’ while others said ‘we will not settle for anything less’. Women still fight the glass ceiling, people of color still face discrimination.

In our GLBT community (a very diverse group of cultures), some folk have easily slid into the mainstream, make the necessary adaptations and even make concessions to fit in. Other folk face (or faced) humilation, discrimination, ostracization, oppression. . .thus, Intolerance comes into play.

In order to come to common goals, all members of the GLBT community will have to reach an understanding of each other and the different life paths we all have walked.

Critics of intercultural competence stress that it is important that intercultural competence training and skills not break down into application of stereotypes of a group of individuals. Although the goal is to promote understanding between groups of individuals that, as a whole, think somewhat differently, it may fail to recognize the specific differences between individuals of any given group. These differences can often be larger than the differences between groups, especially with heterogeneous populations and value systems (such as found in the USA.) *

Looking at the develeopmental stage of the GLBT community, for it is undergoing change very quickly, it is still fragile and from a sociological aspect, very young. It will take some time for it to mature and move away from the infighting and intolerance that exists within while it fights its battles out there.