How can any gay man be a Republican?

[Stardreamer]

Its obvious that some gay men can be republican, because there ARE, naturally conservative-leaning, gay people.

However, the most respectable option for such people would be not to vote. Until such time that homosexuality is a non-issue to Repubs, all that is being achieved by giving them ANY gay vote, is to slow down progress. The republicans do not just include those who are politically conservative do they, they include the religiously influenced, they include some of the most bigotted groups in the US.

Pro-gay republicans have a battle on their hands, surrounded by 'the enemy', making 'changing from the inside' hugely difficult. It would make more sense to vote Democrat or simply deny the Repubs an extra vote by refusing to participate. When the Repubs have then had a long enough chance to sit down and wonder why the hell they are not winning presedential elections, they may finally realise that it is their non-progressive attitude as a party that is holding them back.

Gay rights are a huge factor in how gay people vote, but it is NEVER the only factor. What can you expect with only two parties to choose from? Gay people are hardly going to see the repubs as the most attractive option for deciding which they think is best for the nation.

As soon as gay rights are 'old hat', you will see a slight change in how gay people vote, but it won't be a massive
change, most will still vote Democrat because they are simply a more forward thinking party.

If you want positive change in the US, ONLY the Democrats are worth voting for. You don't have the luxury of choice that other nations do, a choice which brings the main parties closer to the mainstream because they have to fight harder for votes.

There actually are some Republicans who if not actively supporting of gays are at least libertarian enough to recognize what is wrong with the social conservative agenda and be neutral on gay rights. They are few and far between and certainly don't have the ear of the party but they can be found on occasion. The real gripe I have with the gay republican groups like Log Cabin is they aren't doing enough to shine the light on and promote these types of Republicans. I can only think it is because they get caught up in the us vs them mentality of that infuses all our current politics so they promote any Republican over a Democrat.

 

[Stardreamer]

Gay conservatives should be voting Libertarian. Libertarians actually DO support small government, responsible spending, and all the things gay conservatives claim attracts them to the Republican party -- and they DON'T support anything anti-gay, or anti-anyone.

I agree and I primarily vote Libertarian. But many fall for the Losertarian line that its a wasted vote. Third Party votes aren't wasted, the more there are of them the more the big two take note and make adjustments to their planks.

 

[Stardreamer]

The question here is... so? If most of the republican party is taking a sharp social conservative turn, who cares about a few who aren't against gay rights? And what is being "neutral"? You are either for equality, or you're not.

Overall, the real problem with the republican party is the party as a whole.

And the Libertarian party? I don't think anybody should be voting for that one. Most in charge of that party are just plain nuts.

Actually I take the current primary circus as a sign that the social/religious conservatives are losing their influence in the party. If the 'moral majority' still had the influence they had in the 80s/90s Romney would not be a contender. Fiscal conservatives, who have unfortunately turned tax cuts into a fetish, and RINO hunters are dominating right now.

While every party has its radical extremes, the only real problem I have with Libertarians is the too many of them are conservatives who have abandoned the Republican party to the Social conservatives and Neocons. Small Government and liberty are just catch phrases for the folks who dominate it now.

 

[opinterph]

Actually, most gay men are Democrat in order to be anti-Republican. As I've said …, gay do not have the luxury to choose between two parties, they only have one available to them if they have any self-respect and dignity.

Your statement suggests that in order for gay men to be self-respecting and dignified, they must be anti-Republican. Interestingly, you appear to cite yourself as validation for that opinion.

I have a question for Benvolio, Chance, Jack, MystikWizard and JayQueer. Regardless of how long the answer, I want it to start with "YES" or "NO"

The forum is open to all members. You can solicit participation of specific members to a particular question or debate; however, their participation is not compulsory.

Meanwhile, I count 8 questions in your post – the first of which is:

As the Republican party's main policy is to oppress gay people and deny them their rights, do you not agree that it isn't about any one issue?

Answering a loaded question with a yes or no requires the respondent to assume the presupposition included as part of that question. The format of your question constitutes a logical fallacy.

If the Republican Party’s main policy were to oppress gay people and deny them their rights, I would expect to see substantial evidence enumerating that policy in their party platform.

Using the 2008 Republican Party Platform as a basis to consider this possibility, I note that the word “policy” appears at least 20 times in relation to such matters as:

adoptions by same-sex couples
agriculture
allowing federal monies to NGOs that provide abortions
China
employment
energy
faith-based organizations
food prices
foreign policy
freedom in foreign policy
global terror network
housing
human intelligence
immigration
natural disaster insurance
open markets and fair competition
religious liberty and religious freedom
Taiwan
tax policy
taxes​

The word “rights” appears more than 2 dozen times in relation to such matters as:

aspirations of humanity
citizen rights
civil and constitutional rights
civil rights
Constitution
family schooling
firearms training
free speech
freedom of speech
habeas corpus rights to enemy combatants
homeowner's property
inalienable rights endowed to us by our Creator
individual rights
innocent victims
intellectual property
military students
parental consent to medical treatment
parental rights
personal conscience
privacy in education
private property
property rights
race-based government
rule of law
victim protection
victim rights
voting
voting fraud​

The word “deny” appears about 5 times in relation to such matters as:

al Qaeda
innovative education environments
people's right to self-government
secret ballot in union referenda
the Pledge of Allegiance in public school​

The word “oppressed” appears 1 time in relation to:

Cuban people​

The word “homosexuality” appears 1 time in relation to:

military service​

The word “same-sex” appears 2 times in relation to:

adoptions
recognition of marriages licensed in other states​

The word “gay” does not appear.


In this evaluation, I note that “the Republican Party’s main policy to oppress gay people and deny them their rights” seems to be focused on several key issues, including: military service, gay adoption, and marriage recognition. Thus, it appears that either the Party’s platform does not adequately disclose its full intent to oppress gay people, or that the presupposition in your leading question may be exaggerated or incorrect.

 

[Stardreamer]

I'm not so sure about that, and even if they do lose their influence in the party, I would still never consider supporting them and still wouldn't understand why gay people would support them. The republicans are out of ideas when it comes to economic matters.

I just don't think small government advocates are beneficial to this country... but that's a bigger ideological difference.

Likely you are associating small government advocates with their extremists just like you did above with libertarians. Small government doesn't mean NO government or that there is no role for government in solving social problems. It is a realization that Hayek is right about the inefficiency of centralized planning. Government is best when it is closest to the actual people governed.

Related to that note I read this rather interesting piece in the NYTs "Build a Bigger House"

The differences between the Senate and House have been diluted, they no longer function the way they were really intended to.

 

[Stardreamer]

In this evaluation, I note that the “Republican Party’s main policy to oppress gay people and deny them their rights” seems to be focused on several key issues, including: military service, gay adoption, and marriage recognition. Thus, it appears that either the Party’s platform does not adequately disclose its true intent to oppress gay people, or that the presupposition in your leading question may be exaggerated or incorrect.

A sound analysis. There is often a useful to push a certain group's viewpoints/positions to its outrageous extremes to illustrate an absurdity but all to often we start assuming the worst of the 'other side' and that the extreme is the intent. We should not forget Heinlien's Razor: "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity, but don't rule out malice."

Are their bigots in the Republican party? Yes and far too many are in vocal leadership positions. But most folk's hearts is in the right place, they just don't understand and are misguided. They fall prey to the same 'the other guys are evil' propaganda that drives the thinking above. As we see from the changing opinions and demographics, the more people get to know actual gay people and the more states pass gay marriage without the sky falling in, the more people are coming to accept it.

 

[Stardreamer]

Um, I don't like that view either. I think government has to take a more active role in the economy and other issues, like health care. Small government is not effective enough. I'm not calling for centralized planning. No. But a heavily regulated economy with a large government, like Sweden.

I'm still not buying the "small government" argument on matter who is making it.

From what little I've heard of the Swedish government it is closer to the small government ideal than you would think. They have some interesting ideas on representative democracy that pushes things down closer to the people. All to often 'heavily regulated economy with a large government' looks more like the Soviet Union.

 

[Kulindahr]

Fiscal conservatives, who have unfortunately turned tax cuts into a fetish, ....

Those morons are NOT fiscal conservatives: fiscal conservatives take NO actions which will increase a deficit, and prefer to take none which will even allow a deficit.

 

[Kulindahr]

I'm not so sure about that, and even if they do lose their influence in the party, I would still never consider supporting them and still wouldn't understand why gay people would support them. The republicans are out of ideas when it comes to economic matters.

They're not out of ideas -- they're just out of useful ones.

I just don't think small government advocates are beneficial to this country... but that's a bigger ideological difference.

If you mean the kind that want to slash most federal agencies overnight and all that, I agree -- it's my main issue with the Libertarian leadership. But if you mean the kind who envision slow steps to trim things down over, say twenty years, I don't.

I try to get through the "slash it overnight!" types by saying that small government is like a beautiful valley down below the road where we are on a steep, almost cliff-like mountainside: what they propose is like taking a sharp right and heading off the cliff. I'd rather take the road.

 

[Stardreamer]

Those morons are NOT fiscal conservatives: fiscal conservatives take NO actions which will increase a deficit, and prefer to take none which will even allow a deficit.

^Truth, unfortunately what passes for fiscal conservatives these days are a sad lot.

 

[Kulindahr]

Likely you are associating small government advocates with their extremists just like you did above with libertarians. Small government doesn't mean NO government or that there is no role for government in solving social problems. It is a realization that Hayek is right about the inefficiency of centralized planning. Government is best when it is closest to the actual people governed.

Related to that note I read this rather interesting piece in the NYTs "Build a Bigger House"

The differences between the Senate and House have been diluted, they no longer function the way they were really intended to.

I made a post about that some time back, noting that the House is supposed to be "the People's House", but with one rep per nearly a million people, that's a joke.

I think it would be possible to increase the House in increments rather than all at once, so as not to perturb the power-greedy denizens. And I'd like to point out another advantage: if the House was then made proportional within state delegations instead, we could get a House that actually represented the people!

 

[JB3]

No not really. Sweden has a heavily regulated economy and a well developed set of services provided by the government. I'm still not buying the argument that a small government is a good thing for anyone except big corporations.

This is more ideological. I think a small government, no matter the route you take to get there, is harmful to people. A small government is ineffective.

And large, heavily managed economies have never worked. The sharpest divide in the history of American progressivism had to do with the role of the government in the economy. The smart ones realized the damage that heavy-handed government influence would inflict, and railed heavily against it.

Oh, and I think you're confusing two different things. A large government is very different than a government that heavily regulates things. A small government could just as easily regulate the economy to that extent, and provide extensive services, as a large one could. (and more efficiently at that)

 

[Kulindahr]

No not really. Sweden has a heavily regulated economy and a well developed set of services provided by the government. I'm still not buying the argument that a small government is a good thing for anyone except big corporations.

This is more ideological. I think a small government, no matter the route you take to get there, is harmful to people. A small government is ineffective.

Why should it be good for big corporations? Most of our big corporations are big only because of big government.

And why is it ineffective?

 

[JB3]

No, I really am not confusing anything. One of the biggest declines in history has to do with the lack of effective governance. And I'm not talking about centrally managing an economy. I'm talking about a heavily regulated economy...

A small government cannot EFFECTIVELY regulate because it doesn't have the capacity to do so. A small government is not about efficiency. Small governments don't provide extensive services because it doesn't have the ability to effectively provide services to citizens.

The view of small government is just one that suffers from a lack of reality. It's not practical and will only lend to heavy amounts of corruption. I'm not saying government is clean either... but having a small government will only lend to great instability and corruption.

I'll never agree to such a viewpoint. I'll never even consider the viewpoint as I view it as contrary to the interests of the people. I view libertarians as an enemy of the workers and the people.

You betray your bias. A small government is just as practical as the government you're talking about, and more efficient in the process. You are assuming that just because they are small they do not effectively utilize their resources or stamp out corruption. You ignore a thousand years of recorded history in the process. The most corrupt governments have always been the biggest, and have always been the most intrusive. (look at Soviet Russia for an example) Its hard to hide when the government is small, and its hard to get away with anything.

Small governments can be as effective as larger governments in providing services and managing economies, while better utilizing their resources in the process. It is all in how it is executed. It is a complete myth that only an expansive government can do that.

 

[JB3]

Why should it be good for big corporations? Most of our big corporations are big only because of big government.

And why is it ineffective?

He can't explain it because he doesn't know how to do so. He has bought into the myths that the socialists have spread about small government.

 

[Kulindahr]

No, I really am not confusing anything. One of the biggest declines in history has to do with the lack of effective governance. And I'm not talking about centrally managing an economy. I'm talking about a heavily regulated economy...

Governance is not the same thing as government. There are quite a number of non-government governance institutions.

Besides that, heavily regulating an economy makes that economy less efficient, less innovative, less competitive, and less prosperous.

A small government cannot EFFECTIVELY regulate because it doesn't have the capacity to do so. A small government is not about efficiency. Small governments don't provide extensive services because it doesn't have the ability to effectively provide services to citizens.

You're talking about two different things -- regulating has nothing to do with providing services.

Nor should governments provide "extensive services" -- that's not what government is for. Government should really only protect rights; if it's going to provide services, it should be only those which the private sector absolutely cannot do.

The view of small government is just one that suffers from a lack of reality. It's not practical and will only lend to heavy amounts of corruption. I'm not saying government is clean either... but having a small government will only lend to great instability and corruption.

You've got that backwards: the best way to get rid of corruption in government is to make sure that government isn't handling much money -- which means keeping it small.

I'll never agree to such a viewpoint. I'll never even consider the viewpoint as I view it as contrary to the interests of the people. I view libertarians as an enemy of the workers and the people.

In that case you must absolutely despise the Founding Fathers of the United States, the Revolution they achieved, and the Constitution they produced.

 

[JB3]

I'm going to have to agree to disagree with you on this matter. I do not consider your viewpoints honoring history nor recognizing reality. In fact viewpoints like that were responsible for the Great Depression. A small government most certainly cannot effectively provide services to all its citizens, especially in more populated countries. It's all a hideously manufactured deception by corporations. Have a nice day.

You are under the assumption that the government we're talking about does not have the resources that the large government does. If a small government had the resources of our current government, it would most certainly be better able to do its job and provide services better than our current one can. That's how organizations like that work.

 

[JB3]

Weak minds flee when confronted with a challenge. Oh, btw, its night now. So its have a nice night.

 

[Rolyo85]

Opinterph, I misspoke when I used the term "main policy". Obviously nobody's main policy could officially be "deny people rights". I meant attitude, and the types of laws that are being proposed/opposed.

As to your first two quotes:

1. I am stating an opinion. It is my personal opinion and therefore I don't need to prove that it is my personal opinion.

2. Whatever made you shake your admin finger at me? Participation is not compulsory? Yes, I'm aware of that, and nothing in my post suggests otherwise. However, I am free to direct my questions to any particular member/s I decide. Of course everyone else is free to answer them too.

I am aware that after recent cases of you moderating me, you might not have the best opinion about me, but I don't see anything in my post that warranted a public reminder of the forum rules.

 

[TX-Beau]

Yeah...That's not true. A great many of them despised slavery and were ashamed of the fact that it was not outlawed from the beginning. But they were pragmatic and knew what the consequences would be if they pushed the issue, and they also knew what would happen to the slaves if they were suddenly freed.

Yeah that's just bullshit. Even Lincoln said that if he could preserve the Union by freeing no slaves he would do it.

Abolitionists - however right they were, were a fringe group.