• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Conundrum: Gay conservatives

radcen said:
Where does a gay person go if they're strongly fiscally conservative?

To the Republican Party? They're hardly a gay person's best ally. And the whole fiscal conservative idea seems to have escaped them the last 20+ years, too. These two points make me wonder why a gay person would be a Republican. What else would the Republican Party have to offer them that no one else could?

To the Democratic Party? Not even close to fiscally conservative, but better on social issues.

The social aspect would be important, sure, but the fiscal aspect would affect them more on a mundane day-to-day basis. (I know it's difficult for some to understand there is more to life than just social issues.)

It almost seems like the Libertarian Party would be the better fit for a gay fiscal conservative.
Click to expand...

I don't think things would be so difficult for gay conservatives. Heck, nothing says they HAVE to belong to the Republican Party. I'm not gay, but those guys could be like me...an independent thinker.

If the Republicans had nominated Cruz...and the gay conservative didn't like him or Hillary, he could vote for someone else or not vote at all and not feel like he's betraying his Party.
 
i have heard it said that gay republicans have no dignity, they're traitors, sellouts, what have you. I won't go so far, but i do think it's clear they're embracing a party that openly despises them. This is why only 10-15% of gay voters will go republican, less than half as in 2004, when the democrats were just as contemptuous. That's 400k votes

I agree with the OP that libertarian party would be the way to go. While it does not support public accomodation laws or private employment protections, it does not do so for any other minority either. Whereas the republican party singles out LGBT as undeserving of protections:

"We denounce bigotry, racism, anti-Semitism, ethnic
prejudice, and religious intolerance. Therefore, we
oppose discrimination based on race, sex, religion,
creed, disability, or national origin and support
statutes to end such discrimination....condemn public officials who have
proposed boycotts against businesses that support
traditional marriage"

No mention of sexual orientation of course. I believe this part of the platform preamble encapsulates the party line: That anti gay prejudice is not bigotry at all

Now from the libertarian platform:

"We condemn bigotry as irrational and repugnant. Government should neither deny nor abridge any individual’s human right based upon sex, wealth, ethnicity, creed, age, national origin, personal habits, political preference or sexual orientation. Members of private organizations retain their rights to set whatever standards of association they deem appropriate, and individuals are free to respond with ostracism, boycotts and other free-market solutions."

The difference is so striking. The republican platform also delves into allowing the torture of gay minors as 'medical treatment' and repeats over and over that gay people cannot raise families or marry. To this i have to disagree with what the OP dismisses as "social issues." Being categorically denied the right to marry IS a fiscal deprivation, among many others that go beyond mere philosophy. In fact, the platform obsesses over putting a stop to gay relationships to the point i'm surprised it isn't covered in the "Natural Resources" section too

Again, libertarian:

"Sexual orientation, preference, gender, or gender identity should have no impact on the government’s treatment of individuals, such as in current marriage, child custody, adoption, immigration or military service laws"

vs republican:

"We do not accept the Supreme
Court’s redefinition of marriage and we urge its
reversal, whether through judicial reconsideration or
a constitutional amendment....We reject the use of the military
as a platform for social experimentation"


It's so bad even the Log Cabin Republicans condemned it in an ad attack, calling it "the most anti-LGBT platform the Republican Party has ever had.”

Of course, Dan Savage had this to say about their endeavor:

"You can back the GOP or you can advocate for equal rights for LGBT people. You can't do both at once—and anyone who claims to be doing both is lying."
 
X Factor said:
Or even religious or more socially conservative on other issues like abortion?
Click to expand...

i think that's an obvious fact, but sadly, the republican party doesn't seem to agree:

"Only a Republican president
will appoint judges who respect the rule of law
expressed within the Constitution and Declaration
of Independence, including the inalienable right
to life and the laws of nature and nature’s God, as
did the late Justice Antonin Scalia….Only such
appointments will enable courts to begin to reverse
the long line of activist decisions — including
Roe, Obergefell..."


Seems to be saying that gay rights and pro life is incompatible


"We endorse the First Amendment Defense
Act, Republican legislation in the House and Senate
which will bar government discrimination against
individuals and businesses for acting on the belief
that marriage is the union of one man and one
woman....
We support the right of the people to conduct
their businesses in accordance with their religious
beliefs and condemn public officials who have
proposed boycotts against businesses that support
traditional marriage. We support the public display of the Ten
Commandments as a reflection of our history and
our country’s Judeo-Christian heritage"


Seems to be saying that gay rights and religion are incompatible, and coming across as hypocritical bullies as well. So it's ok to force cities and states to allow anti gay discrimination, but public officials can't even use their speech to advocate for the very same 'free market solution'? This is of course what they've done in north carolina

I think it's sad that at a time when so many churches have welcomed gay people that the republican party persists to declare that these same people cannot be Christian. I also think it's sad because they have no hope of accomplishing any of this, so they're just alienating and belittling millions of americans for nothing
 
radcen said:
Right. And I chose to not go with the common name because I don't see how the Reps represent them. Can you address the question?
Click to expand...

the LCR would make excellent trolls - supporting a party that publicly wishes they did not exist and is embarrassed at the association. According to its own platform, this would be like an endorsement from "The Republican Arm of the National Abortion Federation" or "Single Mothers for Trump"
 
I don't see why a gay conservative couldn't be comfortable in the GOP. Most people until a few years ago had a moral and religious objection to gay marriage. Rational gays can accept this and be tolerant of others religious views. . Both Clintons, Obama and most democrats had the same view. If they are drama queens comparing their plight to slavery or threatening people who voted against gay marriage in various states then they should probably start their own gay panty wearing party.



radcen said:
Where does a gay person go if they're strongly fiscally conservative?

To the Republican Party? They're hardly a gay person's best ally. And the whole fiscal conservative idea seems to have escaped them the last 20+ years, too. These two points make me wonder why a gay person would be a Republican. What else would the Republican Party have to offer them that no one else could?

To the Democratic Party? Not even close to fiscally conservative, but better on social issues.

The social aspect would be important, sure, but the fiscal aspect would affect them more on a mundane day-to-day basis. (I know it's difficult for some to understand there is more to life than just social issues.)

It almost seems like the Libertarian Party would be the better fit for a gay fiscal conservative.
Click to expand...
 
Renae said:
Cause not all homosexual people are just fiscally conservative. Maybe you should stop trying to neat box people based on your preconceived notions of what's best for them.
Click to expand...

or maybe he is a gay conservative who asking a legitimate question.

Actually regarding "Conservatism'' I think there is a great misnomer here. Looking back from Time of Carter to Now. Lets talk about "Fiscal Conservative"

GDP under Carter was 2.3%, for Reagan was 2.6% but Also reagan raised taxes 7 out his 8 years not to mention Raised the Deficit from the lowest point Since WWII to over 30% of GDP almost by 2X

Reagan was in Office from Jan, 21 1981 until Jan 20, 1989. The deficit at the end 1981 was $78 billion dollars. His last budget deficit was $152 billion dollars. So during his term he had a net increase of only double, not triple. the deficit under Reagan reached $207 billion in 1983, two years after Reagan passed the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 which reduced taxes (for the wealthy but increased it for the poor, like the taxes on unemployment benefits), effectively reducing tax revenue. It turned out to be too much loss of revenue, combined with increased spending, so in 1982 the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 rescinded some of those cuts, and a few more laws in following years helped bring in more revenue, but with increased spending, decreased the budget deficit back to the $152 billion in 1989. Revenue doubled in Reagan’s 8 years, but so did spending, which in turn caused the doubling of the deficit.

US-national-debt-GDP-graph.png


There was nothing fiscal conservative about Reagan. He raised the capital income tax. Passed the gun law, huge government spending. Same with every Republican President from IKE to Nixon. what is this illusion with Conservative Republican President. Actually by the conservative Definition Clinton was far more conservative than Reagan over hopped to be. The same true for Obama.

History keeps showing you ...you want a fiscal conservative President vote Democrat. Actually Hillary has been a Goldwater republican Until Reagan, then she switched. justifiably so.

Diving Mullah
 
Diving Mullah said:
or maybe he is a gay conservative who asking a legitimate question.

Actually regarding "Conservatism'' I think there is a great misnomer here. Looking back from Time of Carter to Now. Lets talk about "Fiscal Conservative"

GDP under Carter was 2.3%, for Reagan was 2.6% but Also reagan raised taxes 7 out his 8 years not to mention Raised the Deficit from the lowest point Since WWII to over 30% of GDP almost by 2X

Reagan was in Office from Jan, 21 1981 until Jan 20, 1989. The deficit at the end 1981 was $78 billion dollars. His last budget deficit was $152 billion dollars. So during his term he had a net increase of only double, not triple. the deficit under Reagan reached $207 billion in 1983, two years after Reagan passed the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 which reduced taxes (for the wealthy but increased it for the poor, like the taxes on unemployment benefits), effectively reducing tax revenue. It turned out to be too much loss of revenue, combined with increased spending, so in 1982 the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 rescinded some of those cuts, and a few more laws in following years helped bring in more revenue, but with increased spending, decreased the budget deficit back to the $152 billion in 1989. Revenue doubled in Reagan’s 8 years, but so did spending, which in turn caused the doubling of the deficit.

US-national-debt-GDP-graph.png


There was nothing fiscal conservative about Reagan. He raised the capital income tax. Passed the gun law, huge government spending. Same with every Republican President from IKE to Nixon. what is this illusion with Conservative Republican President. Actually by the conservative Definition Clinton was far more conservative than Reagan over hopped to be. The same true for Obama.

History keeps showing you ...you want a fiscal conservative President vote Democrat. Actually Hillary has been a Goldwater republican Until Reagan, then she switched. justifiably so.

Diving Mullah
Click to expand...

Yeah we know Reagan was a **** **** turd progressive and all the so called wanna be conservatives really supported a lie and worship a lie and you got a chart that PROVES IT!
/ignore bye /wave
 
poweRob said:
I do it all the time in the long threads. I'll start reading at the beginning and start commenting on those posts and it'll have been hashed over already 75 pages later. lol
Click to expand...

Thank you. I appreciate your understanding.
 
blaxshep said:
Huh? I'm sure there are a butt load of gay conservatives out there.
Click to expand...

there are lots of gay gun owners. I know lots of lesbians who are taking CCW classes and packing heat. that puts them in a quandary since the the dems are better on gay rights but the GOP is better on gun rights. Gays tend to make more than straights and thus tend to be in higher income tax brackets as well.
 
radcen said:
Right. And I chose to not go with the common name because I don't see how the Reps represent them. Can you address the question?
Click to expand...

How would Republicans represent Americans? Republicans have been simply liberal lite so they don't represent Americans well just marginally better than the socialist Democrats. But, if we had conservatives there would be less taxes for those who work, smaller government, less income redistribution from workers to those who won't work, more jobs, free trade, less corruption, attempts at honest elections, less power to Washington.

None of that has anything to do with your sexual orientation. Liberals, socialists, Democrats are desperate to keep Americans segregated and to insist that people need to vote their own self-interest because if Americans realize the the divisions the liberals want are bad for the country they'll quit voting their own interest.
 
TurtleDude said:
there are lots of gay gun owners. I know lots of lesbians who are taking CCW classes and packing heat. that puts them in a quandary since the the dems are better on gay rights but the GOP is better on gun rights. Gays tend to make more than straights and thus tend to be in higher income tax brackets as well.
Click to expand...

Actually there's been studies showing a heterosexual applicant is about 30% more likely to get an interview. What we might have is more leftover income, due to having fewer kids. Anyway, if you read the GOP platform or their heavily filtered reaction to Orlando, i think they're more likely to oppose gun rights for lgbt specifically, than to encourage lgbt to join the party for more access to guns. They don't seem to approve of gay people being able to make a living or simply existing, so i don't see why this would be different
 
chromium said:
Actually there's been studies showing a heterosexual applicant is about 30% more likely to get an interview. What we might have is more leftover income, due to having fewer kids. Anyway, if you read the GOP platform or their heavily filtered reaction to Orlando, i think they're more likely to oppose gun rights for lgbt specifically, than to encourage lgbt to join the party for more access to guns. They don't seem to approve of gay people being able to make a living or simply existing, so i don't see why this would be different
Click to expand...

Most republicans I know-and that is the upper class ones and the gun owners in the middle class tend to be agnostic on the social issues. now I agree with the claim that the bible thumpers are anti gay. I want everyone who is pro gun and pro net taxpayer voting against Hillary
 
chromium said:
Actually there's been studies showing a heterosexual applicant is about 30% more likely to get an interview. What we might have is more leftover income, due to having fewer kids. Anyway, if you read the GOP platform or their heavily filtered reaction to Orlando, i think they're more likely to oppose gun rights for lgbt specifically, than to encourage lgbt to join the party for more access to guns. They don't seem to approve of gay people being able to make a living or simply existing, so i don't see why this would be different
Click to expand...
How would a prospective employer know?
 
chromium said:
Actually there's been studies showing a heterosexual applicant is about 30% more likely to get an interview. What we might have is more leftover income, due to having fewer kids. Anyway, if you read the GOP platform or their heavily filtered reaction to Orlando, i think they're more likely to oppose gun rights for lgbt specifically, than to encourage lgbt to join the party for more access to guns. They don't seem to approve of gay people being able to make a living or simply existing, so i don't see why this would be different
Click to expand...

Not that I'm questioning your claim, but why would homosexuals be less likely to get an interview?
 
Henrin said:
Not that I'm questioning your claim, but why would homosexuals be less likely to get an interview?
Click to expand...

There's a woman on a forum of Trumpkins who says she can tell absolutely if a man is gay just by looking at him on the street, in a store, anywhere. She can tell. Me? I can't tell but then I don't really care.

Now, a question. What have liberals, who've had the power for years, done to help gays?
 
Patrickt said:
There's a woman on a forum of Trumpkins who says she can tell absolutely if a man is gay just by looking at him on the street, in a store, anywhere. She can tell. Me? I can't tell but then I don't really care.

Now, a question. What have liberals, who've had the power for years, done to help gays?
Click to expand...

Uh...helped them have a right to marry, openly serve in the military and adopt children, just to name a few things.
 
Patrickt said:
There's a woman on a forum of Trumpkins who says she can tell absolutely if a man is gay just by looking at him on the street, in a store, anywhere. She can tell. Me? I can't tell but then I don't really care.

Now, a question. What have liberals, who've had the power for years, done to help gays?
Click to expand...

Some gay guys stick out like sore thumbs, while others blend into the crowd.
 
The GOP isn't fiscally conservative though, not anymore. That ship set sail a long time ago when neo-liberals gained control of the party. So that deepens the OP's question... why vote GOP if you're gay. They're not saving the nation money, and they hate you.

My answer would have to be that they are still loyal to their communities, kind of like gay Christians I've met over the years. It's not really an oxymoron if you're voting according to the values and ethics you were taught. It's not like a person being gay means they dismiss all other conservative principles.

I think the reason why the question baffles so many people is because they think gay = leftist and that's just an ignorant perception.
 
calamity said:
Uh...helped them have a right to marry, openly serve in the military and adopt children, just to name a few things.
Click to expand...

When I was in the military in 1962 we had gays serving and no one really cared. I had a friend who asked me if I supported gay marriage and I said, "Hell yes. Why should only heterosexual males get ****ed on divorce. Of course, judges will have trouble knowing who to screw when it's two men or two women. Maybe they'll need to wear signs.

But, you're right. The socialists with their dedication to science have also gotten birth certificates changed in some states so they'll show two men or two women as having a child. How scientific.

I'm sure a gay couple, unemployed, screwed on health insurance, and watching our President encouraging Mexicans to come to the U.S. illegally are damned grateful.
 
Henrin said:
Some gay guys stick out like sore thumbs, while others blend into the crowd.
Click to expand...

True, but they don't stick out as much as some think they do. I was in a meeting with the Gay Alliance. They asked if I thought most of the cops were homophobes. I said I really didn't know and suggested that some of their members come down and ride with cops for a few shifts, chat with them, and form their own opinion. I added, "But, I would suggest the first wave for the ride-alongs not be guys who are stereotypically gay." One of the guys hopped up, put his hand on his hip. and said, "And just what do you mean by that?" The chairman of the meeting said, "Sit down, Karl, we all know what he means by that."

I had a friend who kept talking about the "gay community". I finally drew up a list and said, "I'm having a party and want to take photos. Invite these people." He looked at the list, laughed, and said, "What, you want photos of a hockey game. This group all hate each other."

"Bingo. And that's the gay community." He thought a minute and said, "Yeah, pretty much."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom