I'm a gay conservative?

[cyravance]

Why do gay people HAVE to be anything either/or? I disagree with some of the angrier posters here...while I understand why they'd be angry (years of dealing with hypocrites can do that to a person) I don't understand how refusing to respect the fact that "gay" is not some kind of monolithic belief system makes anyone a "sell out".
Consider this, you angry gay men...your anger stems from the fact that the world you live in has decided to judge you harshly because have dared to express your sexuality in a way that is different from the "mainstream". Obviously you think this a bad thing, which is why you get so angry. So why do the same thing to a fellow gay man who dares to express his political and social views in a way different from the gay 'mainstream'?
Differences are what make a community lively and vibrant. You should be embracing your differences, and showing the world that gays are not some little group that only exists at the fringe of the far left (which is what a lot of right-wingers think), but that they are EVERYWHERE, in ALL walks of life, and from ALL political leanings.
The world is hard enough on you guys, stop attacking each other over your differences.

 

[Kulindahr]

Why do gay people HAVE to be anything either/or? I disagree with some of the angrier posters here...while I understand why they'd be angry (years of dealing with hypocrites can do that to a person) I don't understand how refusing to respect the fact that "gay" is not some kind of monolithic belief system makes anyone a "sell out".
Consider this, you angry gay men...your anger stems from the fact that the world you live in has decided to judge you harshly because have dared to express your sexuality in a way that is different from the "mainstream". Obviously you think this a bad thing, which is why you get so angry. So why do the same thing to a fellow gay man who dares to express his political and social views in a way different from the gay 'mainstream'?
Differences are what make a community lively and vibrant. You should be embracing your differences, and showing the world that gays are not some little group that only exists at the fringe of the far left (which is what a lot of right-wingers think), but that they are EVERYWHERE, in ALL walks of life, and from ALL political leanings.
The world is hard enough on you guys, stop attacking each other over your differences.

Ooh, good sense!

Except that supporting a party that wants you to not exist is a little ridiculous.
Of course, it's a ridiculous system that makes us choose between two deviants, neither of which really represents many of us at all.

 

[EwanSF]

If I recall, you threw a fit when I didn't agree with the kind of philosophy you posted. You don't even like different kinds of leftists. I said I was a social democrat (NOT associated with the American democratic party), as well as a green.

Not everyone believes the same as you.

I used to be a libertarian, and realized I was in error, but if gay people want to believe in that more power to them. I won't agree with them.

I don't recall dude, but I did give up drinking a wee while ago, could have been before that. I tend to get quite agressive about politics while drunk. Some would say flat out obnoxious. Well, most, actualy.

I'm not to keen on Social democrats because they have no interest in real revolution, they've all got this "well, it'll all work out in the end," lacadaisical kind of attitude to politics, and because they're not of the revolutionary persuasion, they usualy have a more right-wing element in the party, which will inevitably one day take it over, the Labour Party being the prime example. They've set the Labour movement in the UK back several decades, more than the right could ever have dreamed of.

But if I offended you before, I'm sorry. It's just your beliefs I take issue with. When it comes to gay conservatives, I take issue with them as people.

 

[opinterph]

You are not a moderator.

The moderator has been reading this thread from its inception. He has removed 5 posts and reminds everyone that the Religion, Spirituality & Philosophy forum is a no-flame zone.

my masculinity role

I’d like to know a little about that role. Do you think you gravitated toward conservatism because you are masculine, or was conservatism the last thing left standing after you became a man? Please note that you are not required to answer this question.

 

[cyravance]

You don't HAVE to support a party that "doesn't want you to exist!". Why would you even think you had to? But just because the party sucks, ALL of the ideas don't. And there are, I'm sure, a lot of gay men who hold more traditional conservative views on issues. That doesn't mean they agree with everything the conservatives believe. But their views should be respected, not put down or ridiculed. It's all part of the 'proof' that gays are not just some weird little minority...they are a huge community, with as much diversity and difference of opinion as the straight community.

 

[EwanSF]

Social Democrats actually set out real reform. I'm not talking about the UK in this regard. They tend to have different politics then the rest of Europe. Social Democrats are not right wing. I consider myself a leftist.



Why though? They have a right to believe in what they want.

Social democratic parties do tend to factionalise though, there tends to be more militant left, and then there's the "realists" as they like to view themselves that view thieving multinationals as another fact of life.

And I didn't say that gay conservatives didn't have a right to believe what they want, far from it, I just think they're dicks for holding these views.

Capitalism kills. This is an indisputable fact. The prosperity of multinational corporations is all that our governments in the west, on the left or right of the political mainstream, the banks, the arms companies etc. it's all they give a fuck about. They will lie through their teeth to convince you otherwise, but don't fuckin' fall for it. 1% of the population own 80% of the immediate wealth in the UK. There are areas of the city where I live where the life expectancy is 53 years old. My country has something like the 7th largest GDP on the planet and there's still poverty that bad that there are areas where you have a shorter life expectancy than some countries in Sub-Saharan Africa.

And what capitalism does to the third world....just an unending cavelcade of misery and wage-slavery.

So there's your answer. That's why I can't respect anyone that calls themselves a conservative.

 

[TX-Beau]

Well, when it comes to America, liberal and conservative no longer mean what it says in your political science textbook. Conservatives are not conservatives, and to a lesser extent Liberals are not liberal.

Both terms are used - usually by people who have no idea what they're supposed to mean - as polarized camps, and yes I do believe it's Conservatives who have pushed us there.

Whatever else I may disagree with Kuli about, he's absolutely right that our two party system has failed. It may have worked fine when most of us lived on the east cost in small villages with a homogeneous voting population, but in a huge, extremely diverse population with hugely diverse interests it's silly. It's forced us to the lowest common denominator. Simply because we have no other options.

How can you really get behind a party that you only partially agree with and don't really respect - simply because the other party is worse.

It breeds apathy, and cynicism - and since there are only ever two positions allowed to compete, nothing ever gets resolved.

 

[EwanSF]

Same to a slightly lesser extent here. We vote on voting reform tomoorow, but it looks like it's going to be defeated, so we're stuck with the same fucked system for a few more generations, or until they fuck things up so badly that we drag them all out into parliment square, shoot them all and start from scratch. I see option two being the most favourable one to be honest.

 

[TX-Beau]

I didn't say that gay conservatives didn't have a right to believe what they want, far from it, I just think they're dicks for holding these views.

I know, it get's pretty irritating when you disagree with a conservative and then they decide that means they're persecuted.

I personally don't care much what you believe, it's how you vote that's gonna draw comment.

 

[EwanSF]

Unfortunately, I can't register to vote as the bank will then be able to track me down and demand all that money that I aint got. There's only one party on the lists for the Scottish elections tomorow that I'd vote for and I don't think they'll get any seats.

 

[bankside]

Unfortunately, I can't register to vote as the bank will then be able to track me down and demand all that money that I aint got. There's only one party on the lists for the Scottish elections tomorow that I'd vote for and I don't think they'll get any seats.

Yeah, I forgot that your electoral list is public. I'm not fond of that. In Canada it is confidential.

 

[EwanSF]

Aye, if it weren't public, you'd see far fewer tory governments. Funny that.

 

[Kulindahr]

Capitalism kills. This is an indisputable fact. The prosperity of multinational corporations is all that our governments in the west, on the left or right of the political mainstream, the banks, the arms companies etc. it's all they give a fuck about. They will lie through their teeth to convince you otherwise, but don't fuckin' fall for it. 1% of the population own 80% of the immediate wealth in the UK. There are areas of the city where I live where the life expectancy is 53 years old. My country has something like the 7th largest GDP on the planet and there's still poverty that bad that there are areas where you have a shorter life expectancy than some countries in Sub-Saharan Africa.

Capitalism is what has lifted more people out of poverty than any other force in history.

What you're decrying is corporatism, where truly massive corporations hold so much power they behave like governments, indeed often dictate to actual governments.

As a libertarian I also hate corporatism. The foundational premise is that somehow corporations are "persons" -- but they are not, so just as government has no rights, so also corporations have no rights.

Libertarians who defend giant corporations and their "rights" are properly called propertarians -- at root, they exalt private property above humanity -- or anarcho-capitalists who truly believe that government should be done by corporations.

 

[EwanSF]

Anarcho-capitalism is just a derogatory term for a particular brand of libertarian thought that you don't agree with, vaunted by the likes of the Koch brothers. Corporatism and Capitalism are intrinicly linked in this day and age, with corporatism. Basically, in order for either one of our ideal worlds to be brought into effect Kuli, a whole lot of people need to get shot first. The ultra-rich won't give it up without a fight, power or material wealth.

 

[Kulindahr]

Anarcho-capitalism is just a derogatory term for a particular brand of libertarian thought that you don't agree with, vaunted by the likes of the Koch brothers. Corporatism and Capitalism are intrinicly linked in this day and age, with corporatism. Basically, in order for either one of our ideal worlds to be brought into effect Kuli, a whole lot of people need to get shot first. The ultra-rich won't give it up without a fight, power or material wealth.

It isn't a derogatory term, any more than liberal; it's a descriptive one.

I don't consider it libertarian, because it embraces a structure that de facto negates self ownership.

A "while lot of people need to get shot first"? I don't think any need to, though we're approaching that line.

For starters, adopt my law for replacing the inheritance tax: no tax at all on inheritance, but no single entity can be bequeathed more than (min wage/2) * $1million -- and when there's different minimum wage levels, the bequest limit follows the smaller of the two (or more).

That would bust up the concentration of wealth but let the people who (theoretically) earned it determine its destiny.

 

[EwanSF]

I fail to see how people, theoretically or otherwise, "earned" this wealth, when it's off the labour of ordinary people, or in the case of banks, making speculative gambles with the money of ordinary people. Doesn't matter how you spin it dude. Your vision of capitalism may be better than the dystopian hell no one seems to realise that surrounds us, but it still aint fair. The state needs to own all means of production in order that no group of people are more wealthy than others. I realise, put into practice, marxist political theory rarely ends up like that for long, but it's no reason to stop trying. The only alternative as far as I can see, is to keep going the way we're going, and that's not an alternative.

 

[Kulindahr]

I fail to see how people, theoretically or otherwise, "earned" this wealth, when it's off the labour of ordinary people, or in the case of banks, making speculative gambles with the money of ordinary people. Doesn't matter how you spin it dude. Your vision of capitalism may be better than the dystopian hell no one seems to realise that surrounds us, but it still aint fair. The state needs to own all means of production in order that no group of people are more wealthy than others. I realise, put into practice, marxist political theory rarely ends up like that for long, but it's no reason to stop trying. The only alternative as far as I can see, is to keep going the way we're going, and that's not an alternative.

I call this the "shoot the cow" approach to getting better milk.

 

[TX-Beau]

Wait a minute; isn’t “classical” conservatism supposed to be about minimal government in people’s lives?

So, what - and correct me if I'm wrong, you are saying, is that you have to be "conservative" to be a man?

right. That's pretty conflicted. You can be a man, gay or straight, or bi, effeminate or not, liberal or conservative. Because being a man has nothing to do with any of that. Being a man is being true to yourself no matter the opposition.

What does that have to do with girly boys and drag queens? Nothing. So this whole thing you’re posting about is basically that you are gay, and don’t want to be associated with them, because why? You think it reflects badly on you?

That’s not politics, that’s about you, and your issues with being a gay man.

Those “conservatives” don’t care if you wear a dress, don’t care if you are a manly man, you suck cock, and that’s enough for them to hate you. No matter how masculine you are, they don’t care, you are a faggot, just like the guy in the platform heels.

And really isn’t that pretty much what you are complaining about. No matter what you do, no matter how masculine you are, they will never accept you. Unless you lie and hide, because they think, no matter how much football you play, they think who you are is shameful and perverse.

We will accept you though, and a whole lot of other people, if you ever get to the point where you can accept yourself – HOWEVER you are, as one of us. Which you are anyway.

I begin to suspect your original story.

 

[Kulindahr]

You read your history right and I think, whether we're meet our conservative founding fathers or modern conservative legislative: There will be no room for gays! Gah..I just discover a very unfortunate answer frm my idealistic quest.
Event by event that I had experienced in my life were really showed that we never good enough as conservative. So, whoever posted earlier in this thread about being abandoned by conservative society..I feel you

It's the same like you want to be a christian but you're also embrace your identity as a gay man, that's totally mixed up.

Even though..I still have my idealize beauty about society of man acting appropriately (both in and out) but they can have boyfriend and girlfriend and kiss them whatever they want in public.
That just a dream...

Maybe I can't rely on conservative, I should reform my own cliche

There's no problem with being gay in classical conservatism, because there's no room for laws about people's personal lives, as that would be intrusive government. While researching about Goldwater once, I even ran across some old conservatives who objected to marriage being recognized by law in any way that gave privileges or status at all different from that of anyone else.

The difficulty is that conservatism in the U.S. especially has always had a strong Puritan streak stringing along. That streak has nothing to do with conservatism; indeed, it has more in common with totalitarianism (as can be observed in the histories of the religious colonies in America). But the strands are hard to untangle, so over time the Puritanism became an accepted addition to conservatism, and has slowly transformed the entire movement back toward its own dictatorial religious roots.

For this we can thank the Radical Reformation, which not infrequently featured ministers not merely riding with troops to battle, but riding as troops, even leading them. Along the way they transformed Augustine's concept of a just war into "any war we think will make more of the world Christian".

And most recently, these neoconservatives supported the invasion of a country that had not harmed it not so much in the name of democracy, though that was the excuse, but in the unstated conviction that somehow the application of military force could achieve a situation where missionaries could do their work.

If anything these days is in God's eyes, THAT is an abomination!

 

[Queerwitch]

Has anyone seen the documentary "Gay Republicans?" It follows the lives of 4 gay conservatives. Two of them were quite likeable, and made at least a semi-intellectual argument for their politics. Then, there's the nasty windbag who is yelling at and degrading anyone who disagrees with or challenges him. Lastly, is the spoiled rich sellout, who basically said gay rights don't matter to him as much as keeping his mansion and fancy car. It's an interesting film, for sure.

I don't agree with Democrats on everything, and they can be homophobic, too, but for me it's the lesser of two evils. After GW's disastrous presidency and 8 years of his moral pontificating, I vowed never again to vote Republican. If I don't like a Democratic candidate, I'll vote third party and call it good.