Republicans on Gays: What's the Problem? (1 Viewer)

[flip2]

Me being a Republican, I'm probably in the minority regarding homosexuals. I know many, I'm friends with many, I'm close with many. I don't have a problem with many because they are gay. The fact that they are gay is a non-issue with me.

You don't have to believe me, but I grew up in very conservative households. My Dad served almost 27 years in the U.S. Navy, and believe you me he made damn sure we all knew it. Very much so the disciplinarian and military-runned. My grandparents made sure we attended Mass every Sunday; attended every May and October Devotion; said the Rosary every day after dinner; any other church-related function going on, we were there. My young life involved anything Navy and anything Catholic.

Maybe it was rebellion, maybe it was curiosity of society, maybe I didn't want to be an ignorant person, but somewhere along the way, despite the fact that I'm very aware of the Bible and Leviticus and religious teaching and societal responses to men and women who are gay, I've grown to not have any issue with a person who is attracted emotionally, spiritually, sexually, romantically with someone of the same gender.

I know I'm not going into great detail as to why I don't have an issue with men and women that are gay. I'll add on as this topic is being discussed by y'all.

To the Republicans: What is/are the reason(s) that prevent (for lack of a better term) you from establishing a healthy friendship with a gay person? Is it "guilt by association"? Is there a stigma of being friends with one?

 

[JustineCredible]

Me being a Republican, I'm probably in the minority regarding homosexuals. I know many, I'm friends with many, I'm close with many. I don't have a problem with many because they are gay. The fact that they are gay is a non-issue with me.

You don't have to believe me, but I grew up in very conservative households. My Dad served almost 27 years in the U.S. Navy, and believe you me he made damn sure we all knew it. Very much so the disciplinarian and military-runned. My grandparents made sure we attended Mass every Sunday; attended every May and October Devotion; said the Rosary every day after dinner; any other church-related function going on, we were there. My young life involved anything Navy and anything Catholic.

Maybe it was rebellion, maybe it was curiosity of society, maybe I didn't want to be an ignorant person, but somewhere along the way, despite the fact that I'm very aware of the Bible and Leviticus and religious teaching and societal responses to men and women who are gay, I've grown to not have any issue with a person who is attracted emotionally, spiritually, sexually, romantically with someone of the same gender.

I know I'm not going into great detail as to why I don't have an issue with men and women that are gay. I'll add on as this topic is being discussed by y'all.

To the Republicans: What is/are the reason(s) that prevent (for lack of a better term) you from establishing a healthy friendship with a gay person? Is it "guilt by association"? Is there a stigma of being friends with one?

Honestly flip2, you've got to be one of the most LIBERAL minded Republicans I've heard yet.
Actually I think that should answer your question. Most republicans are afraid of being labled "liberal" if they side with gays on the issue of marriage or non-discrimination in general. They believe that the party itself is the be all and end all and cannot seperate liberal/conservative from Dem/Rep lables.

 

[flip2]

Actually, I never mentioned whether I supported gay marriage or not. I don't. Nor do I support any new civil rights legislation made separate just for gay men and women. Nor do I support specific "hate crimes" legislation that would make any injustices against homosexuals, physical or otherwise, illegal.

But, to respond to your statement: Call a spade a spade. I admit that I am liberal when it comes to befriending men and women who are gay. Not embarrassed, ashamed, or unafraid.

I think many conservatives/die-hard Republicans can not separate the "gay" issues or "gay agenda" from the gay person.

 

[JustineCredible]

Actually, I never mentioned whether I supported gay marriage or not. I don't. Nor do I support any new civil rights legislation made separate just for gay men and women. Nor do I support specific "hate crimes" legislation that would make any injustices against homosexuals, physical or otherwise, illegal.

Now I have to ask, why do you not support equal access to marriage for gays/lesbians?

By saying you don't support "any new civil rights legislation made seperate just for gay men and women." does that mean you do not support a Constitutional Amendment prohibiting gay men and lesbians from marrying?

Please explain.

 

[flip2]

I'd be more than willing to relay my answer. But there's another thread for all that.

 

[JustineCredible]

I'd be more than willing to relay my answer. But there's another thread for all that.

Well please excuse my impestuousness, I am new and have not explored all threads. I'm attempting to muck my way through it all. You brought it up, so I asked about it. No need to be so hostile about it.

 

[flip2]

Didn't mean to sound hostile, as you put it. But, welcome. I joined not too long ago myself. Hope you have fun.

 

[Schweddy]

Me being a Republican, I'm probably in the minority regarding homosexuals. I know many, I'm friends with many, I'm close with many. I don't have a problem with many because they are gay. The fact that they are gay is a non-issue with me.

You don't have to believe me, but I grew up in very conservative households. My Dad served almost 27 years in the U.S. Navy, and believe you me he made damn sure we all knew it. Very much so the disciplinarian and military-runned. My grandparents made sure we attended Mass every Sunday; attended every May and October Devotion; said the Rosary every day after dinner; any other church-related function going on, we were there. My young life involved anything Navy and anything Catholic.

Maybe it was rebellion, maybe it was curiosity of society, maybe I didn't want to be an ignorant person, but somewhere along the way, despite the fact that I'm very aware of the Bible and Leviticus and religious teaching and societal responses to men and women who are gay, I've grown to not have any issue with a person who is attracted emotionally, spiritually, sexually, romantically with someone of the same gender.

I know I'm not going into great detail as to why I don't have an issue with men and women that are gay. I'll add on as this topic is being discussed by y'all.

To the Republicans: What is/are the reason(s) that prevent (for lack of a better term) you from establishing a healthy friendship with a gay person? Is it "guilt by association"? Is there a stigma of being friends with one?

If there was a category for this, I would fall in as well flip2. I have no issue with the act or the parties committing the act. That is private and to themselves. The issue I have is that it seems as though we are being forced to change traditions that have lasted hundreds of years and to accept this behaviour in public to be normal.

This forum has opened my eyes to the world. Literally. I currently do not have any personal and very close real life friends that are gay, but there are a few admitted gays on this forum that I respect greatly. If this makes any sense - in an online world - I consider them friends.

 

[JustineCredible]

If there was a category for this, I would fall in as well flip2. I have no issue with the act or the parties committing the act. That is private and to themselves. The issue I have is that it seems as though we are being forced to change traditions that have lasted hundreds of years and to accept this behaviour in public to be normal.

This forum has opened my eyes to the world. Literally. I currently do not have any personal and very close real life friends that are gay, but there are a few admitted gays on this forum that I respect greatly. If this makes any sense - in an online world - I consider them friends.

See this is what gets me, the statement you made about "committing the act" as if sex is all it's about.
That's actually quite disturbing.
Gay and lesbian couples aren't asking to have legalized sex in the streets mind you. We're asking for equal access to a legal institution which, by the way, has only been recently redefined in such narrow terms as "one man, one woman" (all thanks to DOMA). Your assertation that somehow gay marriage, or long term, committed gay/lesbian relationships is somehow a new concept is just plain ignorant.
No one is saying we want to force any church, if they do not agree with gay marriage, to preform such cerimonies. We're fighting for LEGAL recognition and protections of which we are denied simply because we're in a relationships which is different than those which are being granted special protections as is.
The one's with the "special rights" are the heterosexuals. Extending equal access to these benefits and legal protections to gay/lesbian couples would not in anyway infringe on the benefits or legal protections already afforded to heterosexual couples. It would not in anyway endanger heterosexual couples or their benefits.
There's no proof showing that allowing equal access to marriage benefits and legal protections would in anyway suddenly encourage heterosexuals to somehow CHANGE to being homosexuals. That's just simply stupid to even think such a crazy thought.

 

[flip2]

Now, how do all the Republicans feel? Come on GOP, answer my question!

As I pointed out in an earlier post, I think many conservatives/Republicans blur and confuse the issues for which men and women who are gay fight with the homosexual person.

 

[Schweddy]

See this is what gets me, the statement you made about "committing the act" as if sex is all it's about.
That's actually quite disturbing.
Gay and lesbian couples aren't asking to have legalized sex in the streets mind you. We're asking for equal access to a legal institution which, by the way, has only been recently redefined in such narrow terms as "one man, one woman" (all thanks to DOMA). Your assertation that somehow gay marriage, or long term, committed gay/lesbian relationships is somehow a new concept is just plain ignorant.
No one is saying we want to force any church, if they do not agree with gay marriage, to preform such cerimonies. We're fighting for LEGAL recognition and protections of which we are denied simply because we're in a relationships which is different than those which are being granted special protections as is.
The one's with the "special rights" are the heterosexuals. Extending equal access to these benefits and legal protections to gay/lesbian couples would not in anyway infringe on the benefits or legal protections already afforded to heterosexual couples. It would not in anyway endanger heterosexual couples or their benefits.
There's no proof showing that allowing equal access to marriage benefits and legal protections would in anyway suddenly encourage heterosexuals to somehow CHANGE to being homosexuals. That's just simply stupid to even think such a crazy thought.

Of course it's not a new concept.

Why are civil unions not acceptable? I have no issues with that.

 

[JustineCredible]

Of course it's not a new concept.

Why are civil unions not acceptable? I have no issues with that.

Brown vs. The board of Education has already shown presedence that "seperate but equal is not equal."
With "civil unions" there are over 1,349 rights, protections and benefits which are still denied to gay/lesbian couples.
It's simply not the same thing.

 

[LaMidRighter]

I think to say that republicans hate or even have an agenda against gays basically points out a generalization against the right. There is a segment of the extreme right that is openly anti-gay, they are typically the religious zealots that are the equivalent of the radical left. I personally am a mid-right conservative and have plenty of associates and friends that are gay or lesbian and have no problem with differences, I do not have a problem with admitting that and firmly believe that most republicans are of equivalent status in that area. My problem is that all groups have a dark side, those within said group that throw their differences in middle america's face and try to force acceptance no matter what, that is just as wrong as blanket discrimination in my own opinion.
On gay marriage, I am right at the 50/50 on this issue, I would have no problem with a same-sex marriage being legal absolutely on the state level such as a J.O.P. wedding or similar, even church weddings would be kosher as long as the church itself consents. One problem that I feel poses is the nature of radical liberalism, it is my great fear that if we allow gay marriages churches will be attacked for exercising their choice in not performing a same-sex marriage and will be accused of discrimination, or bigotry. Paranoid much? You might ask, not really, modern history shows many examples of just how far political and ideological oponents will go to satisfy their own desires towards their worldviews. Fact is that the church reserves the right to not perform a ceremony based on many factors that may concern the priest, and this pertains to straight couples as well.

 

[flip2]

You can be gay and republican. Why "fear" a person's sexuality and not embrace his or her ideology? I don't understand fellow republicans like that.

 

[jobezee]

I'm a college student in Texas (a very socially conservative place, mind you) and have attended three different universities in the state. In all places I often attended meetings of the Young Conservatives of Texas or the College Republicans and came across many young Republicans with attitudes similar to the one held by flip.

Polling and research have shown that under-30s are more likely than older Americans to be acqainted with or friends with someone who is gay. This might explain why many young Republicans, who albeit may be opposed to gay marriage, have no quarrels with gay people in general.

It has been my personal experience that those who are vehemently hostile to homosexuals do not actually know any (openly) gay people. I'm not a sociologist, but this might explain why some people on the right take a position that comes fairly close to bigotry. A person is far more likely to vilify a group of people if they don't actually know anyone is that demographic.

I think, flip, that you will find a more moderate attitude in general amongst young Republicans and a more conservative attitude amongst older Republicans. There are exceptions of course, but this is a generality.

 

[LaMidRighter]

Brown vs. The board of Education has already shown presedence that "seperate but equal is not equal."
With "civil unions" there are over 1,349 rights, protections and benefits which are still denied to gay/lesbian couples.
It's simply not the same thing.

Fair argument, what if the middle ground was sought here and those 1,349 rights would be included in a civil union? I am curious because I think there has to be a way to end this argument with mutual benefit.

 

[26 X World Champs]

Fair argument, what if the middle ground was sought here and those 1,349 rights would be included in a civil union? I am curious because I think there has to be a way to end this argument with mutual benefit.

That would be the same as suggesting that it would be OK to remove the 1,349 rights from heterosexual marriage?

 

[LaMidRighter]

That would be the same as suggesting that it would be OK to remove the 1,349 rights from heterosexual marriage?

What I'm getting at is this; If a civil union and marriage were of equal status what would the big problem be? No taking away of heterosexual rights and no leaving homosexuals in the cold.

 

[26 X World Champs]

What I'm getting at is this; If a civil union and marriage were of equal status what would the big problem be? No taking away of heterosexual rights and no leaving homosexuals in the cold.

Why is it necessary? Separate but equal is unconstitutional, right?

 

[LaMidRighter]

Why is it necessary? Separate but equal is unconstitutional, right?

Fair enough, but like I said in an earlier post, I have no problem with homosexual marriage if and only if it can be guaranteed that a church retains the choice as to whether they will perform the ceremony or not, if that is the case I am 100% on the left's side of it.

 

[26 X World Champs]

Fair enough, but like I said in an earlier post, I have no problem with homosexual marriage if and only if it can be guaranteed that a church retains the choice as to whether they will perform the ceremony or not, if that is the case I am 100% on the left's side of it.

A church DOES retain the right to marry whomever they choose. It's the GOVERNMENT that cannot discriminate. Gay people pay taxes just like we all do, and they deserve to have the same rights as straight people do. I don't know why people can't understand this oh so simple principle?

 

[justiceisboughtnotblind]

the government needs to understand the whole issue that tax payers = rights
thats how they look at things but when people pay taxes and they do not have rights does that create a flaw in a already unjust system .




We the people
it's what we always have to remember
I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that there may have been gay men and women back during the revolutionary war. Well i'm also going to go out on a limb and say that there may have been gay's that fought in the war and won the war along with the rest of the country and allies. So when we go back to basic rights and the most basic of American rights, so called "natural rights" that can not and should not be taken away from anyone, shouldn't gay and lesbian people have the same rights to marriage as straight men and women because they played a part in the birth of our country just like any other straight person in the war. Once again im going out on a limb

 

[JustineCredible]

the government needs to understand the whole issue that tax payers = rights
thats how they look at things but when people pay taxes and they do not have rights does that create a flaw in a already unjust system .




We the people
it's what we always have to remember
I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that there may have been gay men and women back during the revolutionary war. Well i'm also going to go out on a limb and say that there may have been gay's that fought in the war and won the war along with the rest of the country and allies. So when we go back to basic rights and the most basic of American rights, so called "natural rights" that can not and should not be taken away from anyone, shouldn't gay and lesbian people have the same rights to marriage as straight men and women because they played a part in the birth of our country just like any other straight person in the war. Once again im going out on a limb

No, you’re not going out on a limb by assuming gays and lesbians have been part of this nation for as long as we’ve been a nation. But it is neither here nor there if gays and lesbians were or weren’t. We, as a nation do not have the right to base citizenship on whether a person or type of person has been here since this nation’s founding. It’s pointless to even bring up.
The truth of the matter is the here and now. Gays and lesbians are here, are citizens and therefore simply for that alone, should not be denied any civil rights whatsoever.

We know gays and lesbians have existed throughout history. So what? Does it make gays/lesbians any more or less legitimate as citizens? No.

I was born here, I am a citizen. PERIOD.
I am a citizen, I am gay/lesbian, I deserve rights and access to said rights. PERIOD.

If a person is a citizen, regardless of whether naturalized or native, should not matter one iota in regards to access to civil rights.
It's really that simple.

 

[LaMidRighter]

A church DOES retain the right to marry whomever they choose. It's the GOVERNMENT that cannot discriminate. Gay people pay taxes just like we all do, and they deserve to have the same rights as straight people do. I don't know why people can't understand this oh so simple principle?

Then there is no problem in my opinion and I agree completely.

 

[26 X World Champs]

Then there is no problem in my opinion and I agree completely.

:applaud It's a pleasure to have an adult conversation with someone who can process logical thought after being presented with the truth!