It's a standard practice of conservatives to refer to their opposition in effeminate and emasculating terms. Can't get too much more feminine that "hysterical."

I do look nice in a dress. And I'm very much in touch with my feminine side. Perhaps I should join The Republican Alternative Sexuality Caucus? I mean, it isn't like the meetings would be real crowded or anything...

Eonist, Elspode?

Like Milton Berle and Monty Python, only when it is funny.

Only if you are guided by the Greek etymology of the word, which has been obsolete since we stopped believing that wombs cause panic attacks. We also no longer believe the moon causes "lunacy".

What other word would you prefer to denote "behavior exhibiting overwhelming fear or emotional excess" that you would consider nonsexist? (Not that I care to buy into your tacit premise that hysteria is a female trait; I've seen lots of behavior from men that I consider "hysterical".)

How about "Rabid"?

There's more of us than you might expect. Gay conservatives in general aren't very prominent because too many queer folks have been buffaloed into beleiveing that Liberals Are Your Only Friends. Which is hogwash...and probably has a lot to do with Log Cabin Republicans being the joke it is today.

Stop by http://www.gaypatriot.org sometime; there's blogroll there you may find instructive.

Because I had have a residuum of unusable frequent flier miles, I agreed to accept a subscription to The Advocate in partial payment.

After reading two issues I'm sorry I did; while it cost me nothing it does encourage them.

Isn't it possible to be gay, patriotic and liberal? Or does Patriotic nave a new meaning too?

[pedant]
and the word is iNfamy as in "infamy, infamy, they've all got it in fer me"
could just be a typo...
[/pedant]

So now you are stating that Elspode was exhibiting overwhelming fear or emotional excess? Where exactly?

I believe I can field this one. The answer is: "because."

Or it could simply have lot to do with using the term 'log cabin' for a gay men's group.

When any group of minorities feels let down by Democrats, we can always point to the Log Cabin Republicans and say 'yeah, but we didn't f**k you over anywhere near as bad as the GOP did those guys'.

Yes. Actually, it should, in my mind, be possible to be gay and *anything* else you want, since gayness/transgender/etc does not render you nonhuman.

Now, can you be a gay Republican? Sure, but why would you want to be automatically marginalized and seen as an aberration? That's what I can't figure out.

Elsp, I tend to like the Log Cabin Republicans. They do a good job of unscrewing a stereotype.

They're a brave lot, I'll give 'em that. I mean, they aren't taken seriously by their own party, the main voter base of which is absolutely certain that they're all going to burn in Hell. It must be tough to be a Republican candidate. You want the votes from a gay constituency, but at the same time you revile them and all their lifestyles stand for. I think there's a word for that...now what is it? Hmmm.

Oh, I know. Hypocrisy.