"Coming out" guide for gay conservatives?

[TX-Beau]

The problem with that it it's completely pointless. There are a whole ton of conservatives who vote Republican. This argument that no true conservative is a Republican (see what I did there?) is only ever advanced in places where there are few if any conservatives.

Out there in the wild, no true conservative votes any other way. I don't like the pubs, I don't particularly think they have anything to do with the textbook definition of "conservative," but they certainly think they do.

It's a question of definitions, conservatives in gay spaces don't want to be associated with republicans, so be it, but that doesn't mean anyone can set themselves up as arbiters over who can and can't be "conservative," and if you're going to use that term in our modern political context, you don't get to ignore and explain away the vast majority of conservatives who wholeheartedly support the pubs and will turn right around and tell you no true conservative is a faggot.

If gay conservatives want to take that word back, they're in the wrong forum. it's not us they need to be talking to.

 

[Mariatenebre]

Let mr explain. The gay agenda is of miniscule importance in the over all picture: the economy, poverty, immigration, unemployment, confiscation, crime, the ebnironment, energy etc. But the pathetic gays think Boo Hoo we are more important than anything else. Grow up. If you want to get married,go ahead. Get a church, tuxedos, a reception, a big cake, a honey moon and live happily ever after. Nobody is stopping you. But stop whining.

Civil rights are always important you would not vote for a person who espoused racist policies even if you agreed with everything else they thought. It is like the old saying that those that sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither and that is exactly what Republican (and Democract) gays do.

When I took a stand against abortion, I was often told not to be a one issue voter. Couldn't the same go for those who vote strictly based on gay rights? In my opinion, both are human rights issues.

Except there is nothing wrong with abortion. As has been said before a fetus/embryo/cluster of cells is not a life and has as much intelligence, sentience and personhood as a jar of paste. Any given animal has more of these thinggs then said fetus/embryos/clusters of cells and I don't see pro lifers running out to be vegetarians.

 

[Mariatenebre]

Your arguments are straw man arguments. First you announce that Republicans hate gays. This is not true and is favorite gimmick of liberal propagandists even as they preach hatred of the rich and Christians and whites and all who do not agree with them. The Republicans disagree with the gay agenda, as do I, but few actually hate gays. You forget that several of Bush's first appointments were open gays. Most Christians do not hate gays. Even the ones who do not approve of gay sex do not hate gays. You have heard "love the sinner, hate the sin". A tiny few may hate gays, but you are deluding yourselves if you believe all Democrats like or love gays. Just because they pander to you doesn't mean they like you. And because Republicans don't pander to you doesn't mean they hate you.
But liberal propagandists create the straw many of Republican hatred, in order to lead gays around. "They hate you so you should hate the rich. They hate you so you should vote for socialism." And too many gays are duped by the propaganda. If gay Republicans felt hated, which they do not, they would not be Republicans.
Every time you claim that Republicans hate gays you are falling for liberal propaganda and spreading it around.

The gay agenda simply is equal rights for gay people. If you disagree with this then you are a bigot. Further more if you believe in discriminatory policies for gays or do not like homosexuality then you do hate gays. Further more the old love the sinner hate the sin is bullshit. Homosexuality is apart of the persons identity. It would be like saying hate blue eys but love people with blue eyes.

Next Republicans work tirelessly to make discriminatory policies against gays because they are on the side of Christianity. Liberals don't do much better as they are more concerned with appeasing Muslims then any other group. Workjing against a group is hatred.

 

[Mariatenebre]

Actually, we do have the same rights. Gays and straights have the same right to marry someone of the opposite sex. The is what the word "marry" means. What gays want is a new definition of the word, not the same right. Do straights have a right to sue for discrimination against straights in employment or housing. Not in most states. Some laws against sexual orientation discrimination, passed for benefit of gays may cover straights, but even without the laws, gays have the same right as straights.

By this logic interracial couples had the same rights as same race couples in antiquity as both had the same rights to marry someone of the same race. The definition of marriage has changed constantly through out history. At one point it was one man and many women, in some countries it was one women many men, in some places it was one man of the same race and one woman of the same race. There were even places with gay marriage such as the Celts. So the definition of marriage needs to be changed again to include gay people. Gays want to right to marry the people of which gender they are attracted to just like people in interracial relationships want to marry the people who they are attracted to saying that you have the same right to marry someone who you aren't in love with but not the one you love is not the same rights it is discrimination.

Further more since gays can be fired from jobs in some states or kicked out of places for their orientation we hardly have the same rigghts and gay marriage is another reason why gays do not have the same rights.

 

[Ninja108]

Benvolio..the only problem with your statement about gay marriage..we don't have access to the same rights straight couples have in most states other than a handful. And on the federal level..we have none at all.
As for your other point,that was the same theory used with interracial couples and it was a boatload of crap there too. Why should I marry someone I have no feelings for simply because I'm denied the right to marry who I love?
If you want to be a second class citizen,go right ahead. The rest of us will push for the equal rights we are still denied.

 

[Kulindahr]

The problem with that it it's completely pointless. There are a whole ton of conservatives who vote Republican. This argument that no true conservative is a Republican (see what I did there?) is only ever advanced in places where there are few if any conservatives.

Out there in the wild, no true conservative votes any other way. I don't like the pubs, I don't particularly think they have anything to do with the textbook definition of "conservative," but they certainly think they do.

I don't know about Texas, but here we have the Constitution Party and the Conservative Party, which have bled off some conservatives from the Republicans -- more so the Conservative, which is very much textbook conservative (the Constitution Party is more interested in stripping the federal government down to only what's literally authorized in the Constitution). If Oregon went proportional for our legislature, those two would take huge bites out of the GOP here.

It's a question of definitions, conservatives in gay spaces don't want to be associated with republicans, so be it, but that doesn't mean anyone can set themselves up as arbiters over who can and can't be "conservative," and if you're going to use that term in our modern political context, you don't get to ignore and explain away the vast majority of conservatives who wholeheartedly support the pubs and will turn right around and tell you no true conservative is a faggot.

If gay conservatives want to take that word back, they're in the wrong forum. it's not us they need to be talking to.

Heh -- no kidding.