Another Republican Homophobe Outted as a Closet Case

[Duckie]

So you would classify running for congress on an explicitly 'family values' platform as not always homophobic, to confirm? You would also state that he can be personally and privately not homophobic while publicly supporting homophobic policies for solidarity with his political supporters?

[Dalton]

So you would classify running for congress on an explicitly 'family values' platform as not always homophobic, to confirm? You would also state that he can be personally and privately not homophobic while publicly supporting homophobic policies for solidarity with his political supporters?

Are you new to American politics or something? Every fucking pol in the US does this to win votes. It's disgusting and despicable, but it is still not proof that the man was himself homophobic.

[Duckie]

So you would classify running for congress on an explicitly 'family values' platform as not always homophobic, to confirm? You would also state that he can be personally and privately not homophobic while publicly supporting homophobic policies for solidarity with his political supporters?

Are you new to American politics or something? Every fucking pol in the US does this to win votes. It's disgusting and despicable, but it is still not proof that the man was himself homophobic.

So to ask again, you would claim that running on an explicitly homophobic platform is not homophobic in and of itself, personally?

For point of comparison, let us assume I am a man in 1930s germany. I personally am not anti-semitic, inasmuch as I do not personally hold any animus against the Jews, and may secretly have Jewish heritage that I hide myself. However, I run for the Reichstag on the Nazi party platform with special emphasis on anti-semitism (rather than, say, being a committed Nazi who extols the virtues of KdF or something).

You would state that I would not be personally anti-semitic, and therefore cannot be tarnished as anti-semitic for belonging to an anti-semitic party, advocating anti-semitic views (even if I do not hold them), supporting anti-semitism, and advertising myself as the person to vote for if you hate Jews because I in my off time do not personally hate Jews (how is this supposed lack of hatred possible, anyhow, considering my actions?)

I must be mistaken on what exactly you are claiming.

[Zinegata]

"Conservative Family Values Platform" is also a pretty broad definition and the link doesn't actually define what his particular "Conservative Family Values Platform" was. It could be anything as benign as general "I support American families" to something that's outright homophobic like "Families should cast out their gay members".

I'd also note that the Mayor claims to be conservative and yet also progressive - albeit again he doesn't really define what he means by "progressive". Is he a social progressive? An economic one? Not enough information to go by in that link.

I would suggest to get more sources and quotes before making a full determination.

[Terralthra]

His various websites and public positions have not mentioned any homophobic speeches, votes, or policies. The "Mississippi values" public statement read, in short, "Protect the second amendment and unborn children." I'm hard-pressed to find a single homophobic thing the guy ever said. Doesn't mean he isn't one, but in the absence of evidence...

[Dalton]

So to ask again, you would claim that running on an explicitly homophobic platform is not homophobic in and of itself, personally?

Where is the proof that his platform was explicitly homophobic?

For point of comparison, let us assume I am a man in 1930s germany. I personally am not anti-semitic, inasmuch as I do not personally hold any animus against the Jews, and may secretly have Jewish heritage that I hide myself. However, I run for the Reichstag on the Nazi party platform with special emphasis on anti-semitism (rather than, say, being a committed Nazi who extols the virtues of KdF or something).

You would state that I would not be personally anti-semitic, and therefore cannot be tarnished as anti-semitic for belonging to an anti-semitic party, advocating anti-semitic views (even if I do not hold them), supporting anti-semitism, and advertising myself as the person to vote for if you hate Jews because I in my off time do not personally hate Jews (how is this supposed lack of hatred possible, anyhow, considering my actions?)

I must be mistaken on what exactly you are claiming.

I have already stated my claim, and you have confirmed it. I am not saying it is right or proper, but it is true. Service to evil does not necessarily make one evil. Mara Jade served the Emperor, yet was a Jedi.

To reiterate, you are making a claim with no evidence to back it up, and then pulling out this Nazi example like it somehow justifies your argument. Provide proof of this person's personal homophobia. Back it up. If it's so obvious, you should be able to do better than anecdotal evidence and historical analogies.

[Zinegata]

I have already stated my claim, and you have confirmed it. I am not saying it is right or proper, but it is true. Service to evil does not necessarily make one evil. Mara Jade served the Emperor, yet was a Jedi.

Or for a real world example, there's Oskar Schindler who was a Nazi party member. And yet he's also honored as one of the Righteous Among Nations.

Edit Clarification: Not claiming that the mayor's a saint though, but I am saying the evidence presented so far in support of homophobia is pretty thin, and the argument of guilt by affiliation or association does not hold much water.

[Duckie]

I don't particularly care whether this person is or is not nor do I have much commitment to the idea, but I don't think it makes sense to presume members of the republican party who run on 'family values' platforms innocent of homophobia until proven otherwise. One might say that all people are innocent until proven guilty in a legal sense, but except outside of the confines of a court of law's heavy burden of proof due to their ability to levy punishment it's a fair assumption that a member of the mafia has committed crimes, and a person who talks about 'blood purity' is a racist. I can't see why it's outrageous to not make the assumption that 'family values' means something other than what it typically means.

[Dalton]

Because you haven't fucking proved your point. You are relying on your own bias to fill in a gap where there should exist evidence. By saying that you don't really "care", all you're doing is proving that you can't back up your claim and instead are relying upon stereotypes and generalizations and expecting us to just go along with it.

[Zed]

So you would classify running for congress on an explicitly 'family values' platform as not always homophobic, to confirm? You would also state that he can be personally and privately not homophobic while publicly supporting homophobic policies for solidarity with his political supporters?

It's perfectly capable to promote the nuclear family as the cornerstone of society, while maintaining that monogamy is essential and that marriage should be for life, and also maintaining that gay people can do just that thing. This is a very conservative ideal, and it is exactly why it is so ironic that conservatives oppose gay marriage: marriage is one of the most conservative institutions there is. Gay people aren't looking for legislative support for wild, polyamorous sexual adventures - they're looking to be able to start a family: a conservative ideal.

Without further information on this specific case, it's therefore not at all clear whether the man was supporting a homophobic platform, just using a vague term to appease voters, or actually trying to reclaim the term 'family values' in a way that includes homosexuals.

[Duckie]

1

Morgan Wakham, 18, quizzed Davis about gay marriage and abortion. Davis said he opposes both, but didn't mention that Childers does, too.

"Why?" Wakham asked.

"Because I'm a Christian, and that's what's in the Bible," Davis said, gaining applause from most students.

Wakham persisted, asking Davis if he believes openly gay people should serve in the military. Davis was briefly stumped, but he said military members shouldn't be openly gay for the same reason he believes firefighters shouldn't be -- because it might make others uncomfortable in close sleeping quarters.

Moments later, 18-year-old Trae Stine asked Davis whether black and white firefighters or military members should sleep in the same room if doing so made them uncomfortable. Without hesitation, Davis said race should not be a consideration.

"Then, the person who's uncomfortable's got a problem," Davis said.

2

Before he was elected Mayor in 1997, Mr. Davis served six years in the Mississippi state legislature, occupying the seat vacated by novelist John Grisham. His website says he has been “happily married” to wife Suzann since 1991 and that he is a charter member at Southaven’s Heartland Baptist Church. The church is also attended by Kathy Bailey, the author of The Full Circle of Coming Out, an account of how she was “delivered” from homosexuality.

“Being dependent on … a homosexual relationship were the outward manifestations of the inner depravity of my heart,” Ms. Bailey wrote in a description.

Anti-gay marriage, Anti-DADT, Anti-Gay Rights at all, and was a major member in a small southern baptist church alongside an Ex-Gays, meaning his church even among bigoted instutitions undoubtedly is one of the most virulent of virulent anti-gay places you can find.

In other news, most members of the klan are racist.

[Darth Fanboy]

I see plenty of pandering in the first article and since the man is a practicing Christian in the South in a heterosexual marriage it makes sense he would say something like that. If he is practicing faith in a baptist church of course he would say hypocritical things.

In the second article you are using guilt by association again since all it mentions is that he attends a southern church. And the person quoted in that second article is one of those poor souls who thinks they have to "pray away the gay".

I actually have more sympathy for this guy now as it seems he is stuck between his faith, his ambitions, and his orientation so badly in a part of the country. So unsympatheticthat that he was forced into living a steep lie. Its not like he has come out and said "Oh it was the devil and temptation", he outright stated he was gay. All we have seen is that he is a hypocrite whose life is pretty fucked up right now.

If the embezzling allegations are true though he's still a crook and deserves what he gets. That is the only crime here.

[Dalton]

Fanboy said it quite succinctly. I'm not saying the guy is innocent or a saint. I'm saying that people have to be more careful with hasty generalizations, assumptions and stereotypes.

[Duckie]

So pandering to and supporting homophobia is not in and of itself homophobic? It now depends upon some ephemeral hypothetical 'private' feelings that are utterly divorced from one's actions entirely?

That's a surprising answer. I'm still not sure I understand why this is said to be the case. My Nazi comparison might have fallen afoul of the instant shutoff to proper comparisons that they always encounter, so let's try again.

"I am not personally a racist. I say racist things, support racist people, pander to racist people, run for office in the ticket of the Racial Nationalist Party whereupon I promise to utilise my power to support blood purity. However, deep down in my heart, despite all of my actions personal and political, I actually don't dislike people of other races."

How is this the case? How can we make the statement that this man deep down in some ephemeral manner has a true feeling of racial harmony, and merely acts 100% like a racist? Would not a thing that is completely identical to a duck in appearance, action, and gait, be a duck and a crypto-owl?

Any system that allows us to assume that this mayor's statements and actions political are all completely divorced from his label as discriminatory because of hidden personal problems with discrimination never actualised must allow this man to also not actually be a racist.

[Akhlut]

It's seems to be treading a mighty fine line indeed. There's also the matter of how truthful he's being about not being homophobic, at least at the time. Self-hating members of groups, while rare and unusual, aren't unheard of, either. It's also much more common for people to hold views that are fairly repugnant and to dress them up in obfuscating language, such as "I'm not racist! I have black friends! I just think it'd be better if we segregated ourselves and if they just moved back to Africa is all!"

At a certain point, one has to think that the speaker isn't being exactly truthful, even if they are lying to themselves.

[Darth Fanboy]

So pandering to and supporting homophobia is not in and of itself homophobic? It now depends upon some ephemeral hypothetical 'private' feelings that are utterly divorced from one's actions entirely?

Well the guy admits he is gay, and that is what I am using as my biggest source of evidence that he is not truly homophobic, so I wouldn't say that we are talking about private feelings divorced from actions at all.

That's a surprising answer. I'm still not sure I understand why this is said to be the case. My Nazi comparison might have fallen afoul of the instant shutoff to proper comparisons that they always encounter, so let's try again.

"I am not personally a racist. I say racist things, support racist people, pander to racist people, run for office in the ticket of the Racial Nationalist Party whereupon I promise to utilise my power to support blood purity. However, deep down in my heart, despite all of my actions personal and political, I actually don't dislike people of other races."

How is this the case? How can we make the statement that this man deep down in some ephemeral manner has a true feeling of racial harmony, and merely acts 100% like a racist? Would not a thing that is completely identical to a duck in appearance, action, and gait, be a duck and a crypto-owl?

Any system that allows us to assume that this mayor's statements and actions political are all completely divorced from his label as discriminatory because of hidden personal problems with discrimination never actualised must allow this man to also not actually be a racist.

Is he secretly married to a black woman, or secretly practicing Judaism or something? In the example you provide, we have nothing to go by other than the secretly hidden feelings.

Because in the real life example we are discussing, the man made pandering statements that are in fact in line with his faith, and also at the same time came out of the closet and admitted that he is gay, which is a bit more tangible in this situation. It is unfortunate for him that his faith and his orientation appear to be mutually exclusive (even if there is no good reason).

[Akhlut]

So pandering to and supporting homophobia is not in and of itself homophobic? It now depends upon some ephemeral hypothetical 'private' feelings that are utterly divorced from one's actions entirely?

Well the guy admits he is gay, and that is what I am using as my biggest source of evidence that he is not truly homophobic, so I wouldn't say that we are talking about private feelings divorced from actions at all.

Just because someone is gay doesn't necessarily mean they aren't homophobic. "Cures" for gay people sometimes have willing volunteers. It's entirely possible for queer people to internalize prejudice against queer people due to how they were raised and to be prejudiced against queer people themselves.

[Duckie]

Why would being married to a black person excuse being a white nationalist towards everyone else? "I have black friends/a black wife" is the literal classical example of racist people who don't realize they're racist because they think their very limited private behaviour excuses their public behaviour towards the majority of people.

[madd0ct0r]

well yeah, but we've not got any evidence either way. And given that 1) he's going down for fruad and 2) he's probably just lost his career, marraige and social posisition he dosen't need a bunch of internet fattynerds proclaiming he's a homophobe by asscoiation.

frankly, the way I see it, given how easy it would have been for him to have made horrible statements in the past and given that nobody seems able to find any, I'm guessing he didn't.
maybe self-hating, maybe privately homophobic, but we have no evidece either way.

[Duckie]

What, you don't think his statements aren't already homophobic? Is it a non-homophobic opinion to be anti-gay marriage and pro-DADT and whatnot now? Anyone who proclaims their support for "Family Values" are either homophobes, pandering to homophobes (I would like someone to refute the idea that being a fellow traveller to homophobia itself is homophobic if they disagree) or using the word in a strange way, which we have confirmed he wasn't despite all the 'oh what if he meant 'pro nuclear family' and was trying to reclaim the word' bending over backwards to avoid it.

We don't have any statements from him that are exceptional for homophobes, but we certainly have statements pandering to the homophobic crowd. Which is in and of itself homophobic already, unless we believe that david duke could secretly not actually be racist if he just acts 100% racist but deep down inside has some hidden soul of non-racism. If it turns out he's descended from black people it doesn't change his racism one whit.

There's no need to bend over backwards to say "Well, 99% of people who have proclaimed their support for segregation and are members of the KKK and a church frequented by famous white nationalists are racists, but it's possible this guy could be clueless about what 'segregation' means and not-racist if we discount all of his public actions and say only some ephemeral 'personal feelings' matter". We can just say "Yeah he's probably a racist".

[Darth Fanboy]

Why would being married to a black person excuse being a white nationalist towards everyone else? "I have black friends/a black wife" is the literal classical example of racist people who don't realize they're racist because they think their very limited private behaviour excuses their public behaviour towards the majority of people.

It doesn't excuse the person of ingorance or making ignorant statements. But in the example you mentioned:

"I am not personally a racist. I say racist things, support racist people, pander to racist people, run for office in the ticket of the Racial Nationalist Party whereupon I promise to utilise my power to support blood purity. However, deep down in my heart, despite all of my actions personal and political, I actually don't dislike people of other races."

There is nothing outward that we can see from the person other than the statement itself, there are no actions supporting the statement. It doesn't fall into line entirely with the real life example because there is no actual behavior which is contradictory to the political message. In the real life example, we can see that this person clearly doesn't entirely practice what he preaches. He has outed himself, which I think goes far and above what your hypothetical alleged racist says. The religious beliefs of his church do not permit the homosexual lifestyle, but it is obvious that the only problems with homosexuality this person has are the now artificial problems that come from the institution. I will not try and defend the Southern Baptists and their bigoted stance, but I also will not label every individual in said congregation through simple association.

I see you've made another post again while I was writing this also, so i'll check it out now.

BTW Duckie, I genuinely appreciate that you took the time and effort to provide evidence when certain lazy dipshits in this thread could not be bothered to.

[Darth Fanboy]

What, you don't think his statements aren't already homophobic? Is it a non-homophobic opinion to be anti-gay marriage and pro-DADT and whatnot now? Anyone who proclaims their support for "Family Values" are either homophobes, pandering to homophobes (I would like someone to refute the idea that being a fellow traveller to homophobia itself is homophobic if they disagree) or using the word in a strange way, which we have confirmed he wasn't despite all the 'oh what if he meant 'pro nuclear family' and was trying to reclaim the word' bending over backwards to avoid it.

Highlighted in bold. Pandering to homophobes he is definitely guilty of and it isn't something to be excused, but I think there is a difference between the two. While he did make statements that support your position, I think his actions contradicted the pandering itself to the point where it is clear he was just full of shit and doing what he was doing to keep his status quo with his religion and his voters. Aside from the pandering there hasn't been anything else, like a vote on a key issue, that we have to support these claims.

We don't have any statements from him that are exceptional for homophobes, but we certainly have statements pandering to the homophobic crowd. Which is in and of itself homophobic already, unless we believe that david duke could secretly not actually be racist if he just acts 100% racist but deep down inside has some hidden soul of non-racism. If it turns out he's descended from black people it doesn't change his racism one whit.

No but if David Duke secretly had a black wife or started attending a synagogue I would start to rethink what the hell his actual beliefs are.

There's no need to bend over backwards to say "Well, 99% of people who have proclaimed their support for segregation and are members of the KKK and a church frequented by famous white nationalists are racists, but it's possible this guy could be clueless about what 'segregation' means and not-racist if we discount all of his public actions and say only some ephemeral 'personal feelings' matter". We can just say "Yeah he's probably a racist".

I don't think its fair to equate the Southern Churches or the Republican Party with The Nazis or KKK. While I do not think that either of the former group have much in the way of redeeming values I also don't believe that they have the same outright diabolical agendas of the latter either.

[Duckie]

No but if David Duke secretly had a black wife or started attending a synagogue I would start to rethink what the hell his actual beliefs are.

Why? Lots of racists have friends of the race they are racist against. That's practically the ur-example of things people think are mitigating factors or disproof but which really aren't.

I don't think its fair to equate the Southern Churches or the Republican Party with The Nazis or KKK. While I do not think that either of the former group have much in the way of redeeming values I also don't believe that they have the same outright diabolical agendas of the latter either.

Well, obviously the Republican Party isn't the KKK or the Nazis in a literal sense, but comparing A is to B as C is to D equates neither A-C nor B-D. I don't claim the Republican Party is the Nazis any more than I claim Homophobia is Anti-Semitic. It's merely easiest to use examples of prior bigotry for comparisons. A longwinded comparison of "Imagine a guy who believes deep down he's of malaysian culture, but doesn't act malaysian in any way and lives in France. Does it matter what race he is? Clearly he isn't malaysian." or whatnot would be less edifying and probably just confusing. And honestly probably more offensive- comparing malays to bigoted organizations, even if you don't equate them, is probably more offensive that comparing the apples of today to apples of yesterday.

[Darth Fanboy]

Why? Lots of racists have friends of the race they are racist against. That's practically the ur-example of things people think are mitigating factors or disproof but which really aren't.

Yes but I doubt any of those guys would be taking wives of another ethnicity.

Well, obviously the Republican Party isn't the KKK or the Nazis in a literal sense, but comparing A is to B as C is to D equates neither A-C nor B-D. I don't claim the Republican Party is the Nazis any more than I claim Homophobia is Anti-Semitic. It's merely easiest to use examples of prior bigotry for comparisons. A longwinded comparison of "Imagine a guy who believes deep down he's of malaysian culture, but doesn't act malaysian in any way and lives in France. Does it matter what race he is? Clearly he isn't malaysian." or whatnot would be less edifying and probably just confusing. And honestly probably more offensive- comparing malays to bigoted organizations, even if you don't equate them, is probably more offensive that comparing the apples of today to apples of yesterday.

Setting aside the forum rules issue where proof of a claim is require, do you agree with statements and/or sentiments like Schatten and Scorpion made earlier?

Another Republican Homophobe Outted as a Closet Case

Is this warm fuzzy feeling I get inside when another fucktarded homophobe gets outed as being gay wrong?

I have none besides the thread title. That, however, does not change the fact that I do have a warm fuzzy feeling inside whenever a conservative homophobic fucktard get's outed as teh gays.

I jumped into this discussion because, while I do not support any belief or legislation that inhibits gay rights, I don't find this situation amusing at all. On the one hand, taxpayer money has allegedly been stolen. On the other issue, a man of conservative faith who was pretty deep in the closet is now being painfully forced out into the open. Calling him a "homophobic fucktard", labeling him inaccurately, and reveling in the man's suffering as a result of that is pretty damn lame. It's the same old internet tough guy bullshit that goes too often left alone on this forum because it falls in line with popular opinions against Republicans.

Setting aside the alleged embezzlement for a moment, which in any circumstance must be punished if found true, to me if the guy really is a self hating homosexual that has to deal with a deep conflict between a deep faith and his sexual orientation then kicking the guy while he is down is pretty low. I am not a homosexual, but it is my understanding that coming out is an experience that needs to be handled in a much more positive way than this. I cannot begin to think that if this story had come out about a corporate embezzler and politics and/or religion were removed from the discussion we would have people lined up to try and earn liberal-cred with the other left wingers on this board and I cannot begin to think that if it were a religiously conservative democrat we would even be having the same discussion.