A question for members of the Tea Party?

[Your Star]

Where do you stand on LGBT issues? Do you support or are against things like Same Sex Marriage, spousal benefits, adoption rights, DADT, anti-discrimination laws? And why?

 

[Ned Racine]

Where do you stand on LGBT issues? Do you support or are against things like Same Sex Marriage, spousal benefits, adoption rights, DADT, anti-discrimination laws? And why?

Let's See - You hope to throw a little light on the subject so all Gay people will Vote basically how you will Vote next month - Right ????

 

[samsmart]

Let's See - You hope to throw a little light on the subject so all Gay people will Vote basically how you will Vote next month - Right ????

What's wrong with getting some insights from a group of people in a political movement concerning a specific set of issues?

 

[Your Star]

Let's See - You hope to throw a little light on the subject so all Gay people will Vote basically how you will Vote next month - Right ????

What are you talking about? You have a problem with me asking questions? And I didn't know all LGBT people were influenced by this site :roll:

 

[CriticalThought]

Let's See - You hope to throw a little light on the subject so all Gay people will Vote basically how you will Vote next month - Right ????

How interesting. You just assume there are no LGBT members in the Tea Party.

 

[DarkWizard12]

heeehehehehe trolled

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

heeehehehehe trolled

Moderator's Warning:

heeehehehehe... Thread banned.

 

[Josie]

I consider myself someone who agrees with the foundation of the tea party. I am for same sex marriage, for spousal right, for gay adoption and.....I didn't choose on the anti-discrimination laws because there are always 12,000 other things stuffed into a law that have zero to do with the actual law.....so I can't be for that unless I agree with EVERYTHING that's in the law.

 

[phattonez]

I don't think that there would be any consensus about this in the Tea Party. The movement to me seems based wholly on economic and budgetary issues, not social issues.

 

[Gipper]

Phat's right. The tea party, while it seems by liberal media outlets to have been hijacked by the right-wing Bible thumper crowd, still has its grass roots of anti-taxation minarchists like myself. For many libertarians, social issues are a non-factor. It ultimately boils down to government staying out of the affairs of people who can make informed, conscious choices on their own without bureaucratic red-tape or Big Brother interference.

I, for one, have absolutely no qualms with gays being allowed benefits allowed married couples through the use of civil unions, and additionally have no problem with adoption.

The whole "tea party is anti-gay" crap has been sensationalized by those Big Tent Obama worshippers who are slinging mud at anyone on the wrong end of center-left in a feeble attempt to marginalize core American values. It's a thinly veiled attempt, and I expect the midterms to be a harbinger of a crossfire on this.

 

[Psychoclown]

I identify with the tea party movement, or at least the initial founding concepts of the movement. I'll answer each question you raised in some detail, since my position can be a bit more nuanced than just FOR or AGAINST.

Gay marriage - I'm opposed to government trying to redefine a cultural and religious institution that has a very long tradition as being defined as being between a man and woman. However, I'm not opposed to Civil Unions that grant the same legal rights and protections. I don't think there is a "right" to it, but I don't oppose it.

Spousal Rights - I guess my feelings would've been covered under my answer for gay marriage.

Adoption - Gays should absolutely be allowed to adopt. The traditionalist in me feels that the optimal situation is a household with a man and a woman, but there are so many children who need adoption we shouldn't limit our selves to only the most optimal settings. If a person or couple is financially secure and emotionally stable, they should be allowed to adopt. Who they get their rocks off with really doesn't matter.

DADT - I think eventually it should be repealed. Other nations allow gays to serve openly and they seem to manage just fine. But I don't think now is the right time, with our troops serving in combat. It will unquestionably have a negative short term impact on enlistment, re-enlistment, and unit cohesion/morale. Once the troops are home safe and sound, then we can deal with the issue and iron out any wrinkles that come up.

Anti-Discrimination - I'm all for laws prohibitting the government from engaging in discrimination. I oppose laws that apply that to private businesses and my opposition is not limited to gays, I feel that way regarding race and gender as well. Anti-discrimination laws may have once been needed in the name of the greater good, but open discrimination of people is no longer acceptable in most communities. Therefor, I feel we need to return to protecting our constititional right of freedom of assembly (which includes deciding who we will assemble with). Plus it has the advantage of bringing the real backwards bigots out into the open so they can be treated with the disdain they so richly deserve.

 

[ender1]

How interesting. You just assume there are no LGBT members in the Tea Party.

You learn something every day. I thought they were all "Left hate'n, Gumball chew'n, Burger eat'n and Tea drinkers"

Im kidding Im kidding

 

[digsbe]

I'm against ssm, I'm against allowing gays to adopt, but I am also for a repeal of DADT.

 

[Your Star]

I'm against ssm, I'm against allowing gays to adopt, but I am also for a repeal of DADT.

I didn't know you were a member of the Team Party.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

This is like asking MADD about eminent domain. :shrug:

 

[digsbe]

I didn't know you were a member of the Team Party.

Yep, I support the Tea Party.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

I didn't vote because its not that black and white.



For Same Sex Marriage
Against Same Sex Marriage

I am for the Government getting out of the marriage business. I think all "marriages" should they need to be registered for some of the reasons below all be registered as "civil unions"

For spousal rights
Against Spousal rights

What's this? I think all folks as part of the civil union registration gets the same rights.

For allowing LGBT to adopt
Against allowing LGBT to adopt

I don't think it's optimal, but there are far worse places for orphaned children than in the company of 2 loving people of any persuasion. :shrug:

For DADT
Against DADT

Don't think it's needed, If you don't make your service about your genitalia, it shouldn't be an issue.

For Anti-Discrimination Laws
Against Anti-Discrimination Laws

All folks should be treated equally. That means no affirmative action or anything that helps one group of people over another....



What the tea party folk think will vary since it's not the focus of the tea party.

 

[Gipper]

Rev has my opinion on gay adoption too. If there were more loving, stable heterosexual couples willing to open their homes than kids who need homes opened to them, I'd probably be against gay adoption. However, basically...well, I don't want to use the term "lesser of two evils", but I think two homosexuals committed and willing to raise a child in their own home has to be leagues better than an orphanage or whatever PC term they use nowadays for them.

 

[Josie]

I'm against ssm, I'm against allowing gays to adopt, but I am also for a repeal of DADT.

Why against SSM and adoption?

 

[digsbe]

Why against SSM and adoption?

I believe homosexuality is a sin and does not fit under the status of marriage. I also think homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to adopt because it's best for them to grow in a father and mother environment, not a daddy/daddy or mommy/mommy environment.

 

[Your Star]

I believe homosexuality is a sin and does not fit under the status of marriage. I also think homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to adopt because it's best for them to grow in a father and mother environment, not a daddy/daddy or mommy/mommy environment.

Let me ask you this, why do you think that people should be forced to conform to your religious beliefs?

 

[digsbe]

Let me ask you this, why do you think that people should be forced to conform to your religious beliefs?

I'm not forcing gay people to stop being gay. I'm just against legally recognizing it as marriage equal to a heterosexual union.

 

[Your Star]

I'm not forcing gay people to stop being gay. I'm just against legally recognizing it as marriage equal to a heterosexual union.

But your belief that marriage is just between a man and a women is a religious belief, and your belief that same sex couples shouldn't adopt also stems from the religious belief that homosexuality is inferior to heterosexuality. Now why should the people who don't belief your specific set of religious beliefs be forced to follow laws that stem from your religion?

 

[digsbe]

But your belief that marriage is just between a man and a women is a religious belief, and your belief that same sex couples shouldn't adopt also stems from the religious belief that homosexuality is inferior to heterosexuality. Now why should the people who don't belief your specific set of religious beliefs be forced to follow laws that stem from your religion?

It's also my legal opinion as the roles of marriage are husband and wife, gender specific roles. Same sex couples don't fit that, therefore their union is not marriage legally and definitively. I believe kids should have a stable mother and father. Adopting parents have to prove stability in most places and must prove to be supportive and able to raise a child. Why should I be forced to treat homosexuality as something non-sinful and recognize it as legal marriage? My state has already constitutionally defined marriage, others have defined it a different way. It's up to society.

 

[Your Star]

It's also my legal opinion as the roles of marriage are husband and wife, gender specific roles. Same sex couples don't fit that, therefore their union is not marriage legally and definitively. I believe kids should have a stable mother and father. Adopting parents have to prove stability in most places and must prove to be supportive and able to raise a child. Why should I be forced to treat homosexuality as something non-sinful and recognize it as legal marriage? My state has already constitutionally defined marriage, others have defined it a different way. It's up to society.

Legally, that is breaking the 14th amendment. Why should someone be denied the contract of marriage just based on their gender? And numerous studies show that two parent homosexual home is just as effective at raising kids as two parent heterosexual homes.
Also stop with the argument that you have to accept homosexuality as something as non-sinful. It's crap, you don't have to recognize anything, but the state does. You can believe that homosexuals who get married aren't really married all you want, nor does your church have to recognize their marriage, but the state can't deny them the contract of marriage, because you believe it is sinful.