Society for Anachronistic Republicans: Free Republic

There is (or at least was) a group of "Renaissance Fair" enthusiasts called The Society for Creative Anachronism. That "out of time" name could apply to the current most vocal group of conservatives/Republicans best embodied by the denizens of FreeRepublic.com. Well, possibly minus the "creative" part.

Tonight on Countdown with Keith Olbermann, one of the topics of discussion was the odd practice by Republicans to mine the past for "new" ideas. For years, they tried tapping the feel-good '50s, or rather the Leave it to Beaver, Happy Days fictional TV version. Later, they tried a modified McCarthyism (Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann is still trying this). And further back they go, to the late 1800s corporatism, and now to rumblings of secession, which plunks them somewhere in the 1840s or so.

But there was something that wasn't covered on Countdown that I keep finding on the interwebs. The topics of abortion and gay rights are almost universally treated on right-wing sites as the biggest problems facing America. Oddly, they often combine the two, though gay people are probably statistically the very, very least likely group to have abortions. The oddness of the fervor on both of these topics always strikes me. The people on these sites--you would think--have no people in their families, circle of friends, co-workers or acquaintances who have anything to do with either issue. Or if they do, those people are to be reviled.

The things said--and here I can attest more to the gay issue than the abortion one--are strident, vulgar, immature, and very often baseless fiction. They are also anachronistic, in that they are a throwback to. . .well, I'm not sure when. Even Archie Bunker wouldn't fly into the kind of frenzy that FReepers do when confronted with these controversial issues.

I happened upon a new FreeRepublic thread on--of all things--homosexuals and feminists. I found this even more anachronistic. When is the last time you heard of a radical feminist group in the news? Code Pink? They might be feminists, but that is hardly their prime issue. The only thing I could think of for such venom toward feminists are that they have historically fought for abortion rights. Oh, and of course, they must all be lesbians.

Anyway, I found their comments to be so beyond the pale, so out of step with the mainstream, I didn't even really get offended. I was appalled with a dash of amused that these wackos hold such views. . .and are willing to say so more or less publicly. Wanna see?

"One is unable to procreate, the other, unwilling to give birth. How is it there are still any of them left? We conservative married types have to do more to populate and overrun the nation since there is no competition in this arena from the other side as mentioned above. You wanna change the world, leave more people in it that believe as you do when you go........"

Editor: Brilliant! Because married conservatives only breed conservative Republicans. Newsflash, sparky: I'm a gay liberal who was raised by married conservatives.

"I would really like someone to put forth a list of quantifiable things homosexuals have done, and only they could have done because they are homosexual and not heterosexual, for this country, that are positive."

Ed: “If you removed all of the homosexuals and homosexual influence from what is generally regarded as American culture, you would pretty much be left with "Let's Make a Deal” --Fran Liebowitz

"I think most homosexuals are smart enough to understand they can’t procreate. The question is how many want to ‘perpetuate’ themselves and how to accomplish that. As I see it they can 1) find a surrogate to bring ‘their’ child to term (with the donation of egg/sperm), 2) adopt or 3) recruit."

Ed: What's with this bizarre notion that gays want to make more gays? There are plenty of us! Many gays want to have children. . .because they want kids. Not because they want to "make more gays." I really fail to understand the conservative mind set on this one. It's nutty.

"They don’t want monogamy. They want to compromise the definition of marriage."

Ed: Again, you're a friggin' nut. This "fact" is the exclusive province of conservative crazies. I've never heard--not ever--a gay person seriously contend that they want to destroy or "compromise" marriage, or anything else.

There are more, but I won't subject you to them. If you want to read more, go to:

FreeRepublic.com