Conundrum: Gay conservatives

[calamity]

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

Gay people voting for Trump because he supports guns and lower taxes for those with money is like Jews voting for Hitler because he promised to build a Volkswagen plant with money borrowed from the Rothschilds.

 

[OpportunityCost]

"Gay conservative". These days, that's like "Poultry for KFC" and "Health Fanatics for McDonald's".

Not to mention pro life democrats. You really need to quit pretending your writing is pithy.

 

[Urethra Franklin]

Read this to try and understand a gay republican, even if a little old now:

 

[calamity]

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.

lol...MexiKans!!

 

[TurtleDude]

Gay people voting for Trump because he supports guns and lower taxes for those with money is like Jews voting for Hitler because he promised to build a Volkswagen plant with money borrowed from the Rothschilds.

uh that's beyond pathetic and stupid. What has Trump said that suggests he wants to kill gays, ban gay marriage or imprison gays

 

[TurtleDude]

Not to mention pro life democrats. You really need to quit pretending your writing is pithy.

or Hillary fan boys who claim to be gun owners

 

[calamity]

uh that's beyond pathetic and stupid. What has Trump said that suggests he wants to kill gays, ban gay marriage or imprison gays

He chose a running mate who is an avid gay basher

He is not a fan of LGBT rights: In 2003, Pence, then representing the sixth congressional district of Indiana, co-sponsored an amendment that would have prohibited same-sex marriage. Four years later, he voted against the Employee Non-Discrimination Act, which aimed to prevent job discrimination based on sexual orientation. While in Congress, he opposed a bill aimed at more effectively prosecuting hate crimes based on sexual orientation and voted against the repeal of the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy.
Mike Pence Has Led a Crusade Against Abortion Access and LGBT Rights | Mother Jones

And only the most naive gay person on earth doesn't know that Trump will nominate anti-gay rights SCOTUS judges.

 

[countryboy]

"Gay conservative". These days, that's like "Poultry for KFC" and "Health Fanatics for McDonald's".

You know damn well there are a significant number of gay conservatives. What a silly thing to say.

 

[chromium]

How would a prospective employer know?

one of the studies used two resume types that were identical except that one of them added they were treasurer of a gay campus group, while the other was treasurer of some other group. To further cement that homophobia was to blame, it was found that the different was much greater in southern and rural areas than cities and the west coast

in other studies, they simply facebook stalk or find out from former employers or whatever

 

[TurtleDude]

He chose a running mate who is an avid gay basher



And only the most naive gay person on earth doesn't know that Trump will nominate anti-gay rights SCOTUS judges.

I doubt anti gay is something on the agenda. however, he may well pick judges based on other issues who don't find that the 9th amendment was designed to invalidate state laws criminalizing homosexual sodomy or that ban gay marriage. Many of the people who will be on the short list to replace (most likely) RBG are judges who are not anti gay. and I doubt an openly anti gay judge is going to make it through the senate

 

[calamity]

You know damn well there are a significant number of gay conservatives. What a silly thing to say.

Gay conservatives strike me as being as mismatched as would be a Christian abortion doctor. But, I am sure both exist.

 

[chromium]

Not that I'm questioning your claim, but why would homosexuals be less likely to get an interview?

probably for the same reason republicans are frothing at the mouth to allow employers to discriminate against lgbt and only lgbt - the interviewers hate them

 

[calamity]

I doubt anti gay is something on the agenda. however, he may well pick judges based on other issues who don't find that the 9th amendment was designed to invalidate state laws criminalizing homosexual sodomy or that ban gay marriage. Many of the people who will be on the short list to replace (most likely) RBG are judges who are not anti gay. and I doubt an openly anti gay judge is going to make it through the senate

T-Dude, you still believe Scalia wasn't "anti-gay." Not sure you're credible on this one.

 

[TurtleDude]

Gay conservatives strike me as being as mismatched as would be a Christian abortion doctor. But, I am sure both exist.

so high earning wall street executives shouldn't support Hillary (Oh I forgot, hillary is a crony capitalist and only pretends to be against fat cats). or should straight men support Hillary given she's the antithesis of masculine values? I guess if "gay" is your main issue, you should vote for hillary. If say national defense, a better economy or law and order are your more important issues, you should vote for Trump

 

[Henrin]

probably for the same reason republicans are frothing at the mouth to allow employers to discriminate against lgbt and only lgbt - the interviewers hate them

That's not much of an answer. I realize that some people would prefer not hiring gay people, but the question was how would the employer know beforehand.

 

[TurtleDude]

T-Dude, you still believe Scalia wasn't "anti-gay." Not sure you're credible on this one.

Do you believe that someone can hold that the ninth amendment was not intended to give the federal government the power to strike down state laws that do not allow gay marriages and not be anti gay? I sure do. one thing is for sure, no federal judge is going to hold that a state cannot legalize gay marriage

 

[calamity]

so high earning wall street executives shouldn't support Hillary (Oh I forgot, hillary is a crony capitalist and only pretends to be against fat cats). or should straight men support Hillary given she's the antithesis of masculine values? I guess if "gay" is your main issue, you should vote for hillary. If say national defense, a better economy or law and order are your more important issues, you should vote for Trump

Since Trump said he'd abandon the Baltics in the face of Russian aggression, I'd argue Hillary is actually better on Defense. And, I'd win

 

[TurtleDude]

Since Trump said he'd abandon the Baltics in the face of Russian aggression, I'd argue Hillary is actually better on Defense. And, I'd win

the people at the embassy in Benghazi might disagree with you there. protecting AMERICA from foreign aggression-including an infusion of criminal illegal aliens is what matters to most of us. not us having to defend countries all over the world and waste american lives and tax dollars doing it

 

[chromium]

I doubt anti gay is something on the agenda. however, he may well pick judges based on other issues who don't find that the 9th amendment was designed to invalidate state laws criminalizing homosexual sodomy or that ban gay marriage.

aka an anti gay agenda westboro would be proud of. Seriously even the republican platform has given up on overturning lawrence v texas, and you're still on this. There isn't a party on the ballot that will agree with you

Many of the people who will be on the short list to replace (most likely) RBG are judges who are not anti gay. and I doubt an openly anti gay judge is going to make it through the senate

not that it matters, as after the tactics by repubs since scalia's death, there is no chance that dems would allow any SCOTUS and possibly any circuit appointment by trump. I predict even under trump, sexual orientation will be ruled a protected class 5-3 or 4-3

 

[countryboy]

Gay conservatives strike me as being as mismatched as would be a Christian abortion doctor. But, I am sure both exist.

Well, you clearly aren't the most perceptive person I've ever ncountered.

 

[TurtleDude]

aka an anti gay agenda westboro would be proud of. Seriously even the republican platform has given up on overturning lawrence v texas, and you're still on this. There isn't a party on the ballot that will agree with you



not that it matters, as after the tactics by repubs since scalia's death, there is no chance that dems would allow any SCOTUS and possibly any circuit appointment by trump. I predict even under trump, sexual orientation will be ruled a protected class 5-3 or 4-3

in the great scheme of things, I just don't find it all that worrisome. the worst possible thing that could happen is that few states would not recognize gay marriage. that is certainly not as big an issue compared to massive gun bans, massive tax hikes or some of the other idiocy that Hillary wants to impose on America. and there is no chance that a state is going to make gay sodomy a crime. and certainly not at a federal level.

where do you get off claiming I think gay sex ought to be banned?

 

[calamity]

Do you believe that someone can hold that the ninth amendment was not intended to give the federal government the power to strike down state laws that do not allow gay marriages and not be anti gay? I sure do. one thing is for sure, no federal judge is going to hold that a state cannot legalize gay marriage

If the country has a policy accepting that hetero marriages from each and every state are valid as they cross state lines, they have to accept that gay ones are too. If the country chose to leave marriage to the states, then someone like me who was married in Fla would have to re validate my marriage here in Ohio.

On the federal level, we have the whole tax return thing, you know, when you check the box married, single, etc. Is that to remain restricted to only men and women? For gays, will it now be dependent on which state wherein they were married, is it still valid if they were married in a state that allows gay marriage but now live in one that does not?

You state's rights people seem to ignore the need for federal norms and the interstate transfer of certain rules and bylaws. Of course, if it came to trains, none of you would argue that each state has the right to set it's own rules for rail gauge and tie spacing. But, then again, I don't expect partisans to be consistent.

 

[Henrin]

If the country has a policy accepting that hetero marriages from each and every state are valid as they cross state lines, they have to accept that gay ones are too. If the country chose to leave marriage to the states, then someone like me who was married in Fla would have to re validate my marriage here in Ohio.

On the federal level, we have the whole tax return thing, you know, when you check the box married, single, etc. Is that to remain restricted to only men and women? For gays, will it now be dependent on which state wherein they were married, is it still valid if they were married in a state that allows gay marriage but now live in one that does not?

You state's rights people seem to ignore the need for federal norms and the interstate transfer of certain rules and bylaws. Of course, if it came to trains, none of you would argue that each state has the right to set it's own rules for rail gauge and tie spacing. But, then again, I don't expect partisans to be consistent.

Using the need argument when talking about marriage laws is a bit goofy, imho.

 

[TurtleDude]

If the country has a policy accepting that hetero marriages from each and every state are valid as they cross state lines, they have to accept that gay ones are too. If the country chose to leave marriage to the states, then someone like me who was married in Fla would have to re validate my marriage here in Ohio.

On the federal level, we have the whole tax return thing, you know, when you check the box married, single, etc. Is that to remain restricted to only men and women? For gays, will it now be dependent on which state wherein they were married, is it still valid if they were married in a state that allows gay marriage but now live in one that does not?

You state's rights people seem to ignore the need for federal norms and the interstate transfer of certain rules and bylaws. Of course, if it came to trains, none of you would argue that each state has the right to set it's own rules for rail gauge and tie spacing. But, then again, I don't expect partisans to be consistent.

where has a married couple-man and woman ever have to do that? as I noted, I support gay marriage but I am not going to support gun banning, tax hiking, anti business, environmental extremists. Gay marriage doesn't matter all that much to me and I suspect most Americans -while not anti gay marriage-don't see it as the primary issue in a presidential election

 

[chromium]

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.

Shedding the religion we're born under is a different albatross than political attachment. Most kids don't give a damn and don't comprehend political spectrum. Also, it's a lot easier to reconcile faith with sexuality ("one of only many sins," "text is misinterpreted," "i can be forgiven") and there are even pro gay churches. There is not a pro gay republican party and the platform leaves no question the party's contempt for lgbt. About 50% of gays are still religious, but only 10-15% will vote republican. So something is going on

Perhaps that 10-15% lives mostly in rural areas even as adults, and the rest flee to the liberal cities. "Loyal to the community" would therefore change meaning over time. Religion OTOH is not only deeply ingrained from a young age (before realizing they're gay), but can be more easily brought with them wherever they go