The triumph of conservatism for gays

[JayHawk]

This isn't about Republicans, this is about conservatism.

Just because Republicans call themselves "conservatives" doesn't mean that they are really so. Banning gay marriage and restricting gay parents' adoption is actually BIG GOVERNMENT. If Republicans were really "small government" they would prefer if the government got out of the "marriage business" altogether and allowed two people, regardless of gender or sexual orientation, to have a legal "civil union" and let a religious organization, on it's own judgment, sanctify that union as a "marriage."

The reason why many Republicans (especially in the Midwest & South) are so "anti-gay" is because they pander to the "Religious Right" and evangelical Christians for votes & support in the following election. The "Religious Right" may call themselves "conservatives" but they are really not.

Don't confuse the true meaning of conservatism with what Republicans call themselves. It's not necessarily the same thing.

With that said, there is no way the Democratic Party is conservative either, with all of their big government policies.

This I agree with. However the vast gap between ideology and actuality is unbridgeable. I am mostly conservative with several social liberal views added for a the proper safety and individual rights in a society. Unfortunately for me there is no party that represents that idea.

If the right were to lose the Evangelical lunacy and simply support small government initiatives then I could solidly be behind that idea. That is not their intent. Unfortunately we will shortly find out what continuing down the path of being a corporate support nation gets us.

Being able to openly serve in the military of this country is a conservative win. A win for the homeless party-less creature I am which is a gay conservative. You will find very few true liberals who desire to shoot other people to defend the interests of their country.

 

[palemale]

With all due respect, I don't care what Karl Marx would think of me.

Bless your literal heart, but my statement didn't actually concern what Karl Marx would think of you. It concerned what I, and most of the guys who read your posts, think of you.

 

[JayQueer]

This I agree with. However the vast gap between ideology and actuality is unbridgeable. I am mostly conservative with several social liberal views added for a the proper safety and individual rights in a society. Unfortunately for me there is no party that represents that idea.

If the right were to lose the Evangelical lunacy and simply support small government initiatives then I could solidly be behind that idea. That is not their intent. Unfortunately we will shortly find out what continuing down the path of being a corporate support nation gets us.

Being able to openly serve in the military of this country is a conservative win. A win for the homeless party-less creature I am which is a gay conservative. You will find very few true liberals who desire to shoot other people to defend the interests of their country.

Thank you, JayHawk.

Thank you so much for your service to our country & protecting our freedoms. Every night, I pray for our brave men & women in uniform who are in harm's way.

You must be excited (or at least, relieved) about the repeal of DADT in a few days.

 

[T-Rexx]

Being able to openly serve in the military of this country is a conservative win... ...You will find very few true liberals who desire to shoot other people to defend the interests of their country.

I find this statement offensive.

The fundamental difference between liberals and conservatives is that conservatives advocate policies that will better them personally, liberals advocate policies for the common good.

There is nothing whatsoever about the willingness to lay one's life down for his country - altruism - that can be called conservative. To the extent that it benefits the common good, altruism is far more a liberal idea than a conservative one.

 

[Kulindahr]

I find this statement offensive.

The fundamental difference between liberals and conservatives is that conservatives advocate policies that will better them personally, liberals advocate policies for the common good.

There is nothing whatsoever about the willingness to lay one's life down for his country - altruism - that can be called conservative. To the extent that it benefits the common good, altruism is far more a liberal idea than a conservative one.

Both sides tend to emphasize policies that will benefit them personally, and both sides argue that they're really for the common good.

 

[JayHawk]

I find this statement offensive.

The fundamental difference between liberals and conservatives is that conservatives advocate policies that will better them personally, liberals advocate policies for the common good.

There is nothing whatsoever about the willingness to lay one's life down for his country - altruism - that can be called conservative. To the extent that it benefits the common good, altruism is far more a liberal idea than a conservative one.

Find it however you like very few liberal are willing to SHOOT another human being for their country. Not lay down their life. KILL.

I have served within many aspects of our nations military. I can tell you there are plenty of liberals or moderate libs as it were in the service. They typically work REMF positions. Door kickers who punch through doors and put holes in people are typically not concerned with social safety nets. There is no absolute to anything but that is typical.

The service in other spots can get you equally as dead and sacrificing your freedom and your life are very worthwhile devotions to country and people. But it is not what I refer to and you have no idea what I am talking about I would imagine.

 

[palemale]

You will find very few true liberals who desire to shoot other people to defend the interests of their country.

We had quite a few, true conservative chicken hawks who desired that others shoot people to defend the interests of Haliburton and other war profiteers, but who never had the guts to pick up a gun and defend the country themselves.

 

[T-Rexx]

Find it however you like very few liberal are willing to SHOOT another human being for their country. Not lay down their life. KILL.

I have served within many aspects of our nations military. I can tell you there are plenty of liberals or moderate libs as it were in the service. They typically work REMF positions. Door kickers who punch through doors and put holes in people are typically not concerned with social safety nets. There is no absolute to anything but that is typical.

The service in other spots can get you equally as dead and sacrificing your freedom and your life are very worthwhile devotions to country and people. But it is not what I refer to and you have no idea what I am talking about I would imagine.

That may well be true. If we've learned anything from the recent Republican debates, it is that conservatives have a taste for blood.

 

[JayQueer]

We had quite a few, true conservative chicken hawks who desired that others shoot people to defend the interests of Haliburton and other war profiteers, but who never had the guts to pick up a gun and defend the country themselves.

Yes, those "war profiteers" are so horrible, yet you see no problem with Obama handing out $500 million of federal government money to his "eco-cronies" at Solyndra solar company which later went bankrupt.

Being a conservative doesn't mean that you have to pick up a gun & defend the country yourself. But at a minimum, all conservatives believe in supporting the brave men & women who do defend our country.

Meanwhile, liberal activists like "Code Pink" stage protests against our military men, calling them "occupiers" and "murderers." In the famously liberal city of Berkeley, California, in 2005, the city gave Code Pink a permanent parking spot, right in front of the U.S. Marine Recruiting Office, so the Code Pinkers could more easily harass & insult U.S. Marines and potential recruits. Finally, the city of Berkeley tried to pass a formal resolution condemning the U.S. military & tried to get the Marines to leave the city. Seriously. You can't make this sh*t up.

It's no wonder that most people in the military are politically conservative & lean Republican. As JayHawk said, there are definitely some liberals in the military, but they learn to keep their liberal political beliefs to themselves really quickly. Military culture is very conservative in general.

Some African-Americans in the military may have voted for Obama in 2008, but the overwhelming majority of White men who are actively serving in the military lean Republican & don't support Obama.

 

[JayHawk]

It has nothing to do with a taste for blood. Whether you personally like it or you moral code wont allow for anything but paddy cake in deciding world events the nature of war is death. It occurs.

Usually in greater numbers under a dictatorial fist than if applied for a goal of individual liberty. Yet you can not institute democracy at the end of a gun. You can however kill off those that would rape an entire indigenous village just to breed future warriors. That sort of creature neither deserves to live nor will be allowed in a just world.

However it is a fundamental difference in liberal vs conservative thought. You win wars by making more of the other people die for their cause not by sacrificing your own life. He with the tenacity to effect such a outcome will reign victor and then write history to reflect his righteousness.

 

[Kulindahr]

It has nothing to do with a taste for blood. Whether you personally like it or you moral code wont allow for anything but paddy cake in deciding world events the nature of war is death. It occurs.

Usually in greater numbers under a dictatorial fist than if applied for a goal of individual liberty. Yet you can not institute democracy at the end of a gun. You can however kill off those that would rape an entire indigenous village just to breed future warriors. That sort of creature neither deserves to live nor will be allowed in a just world.

However it is a fundamental difference in liberal vs conservative thought. You win wars by making more of the other people die for their cause not by sacrificing your own life. He with the tenacity to effect such a outcome will reign victor and then write history to reflect his righteousness.

Yes. There's a liberal myth that engaging on negotiations will somehow civilize people.

The turth is that it rarely does -- and when it succeeds, their followers turn on the newly civilized as betrayers, and they end up signing an accord only only behalf of themselves (or they lie about it while preparing for the next round of violence).

 

[T-Rexx]

Both sides tend to emphasize policies that will benefit them personally, and both sides argue that they're really for the common good.

Nonsense.

Protecting the environment doesn't benefit me personally so much as it benefits the nation and the world.

Same for decent mass transit.

Same for universal health care.

Same for repairing our national infrastructure.

Etc., etc., etc.

Conservatives do not like to support such things, because it demands that they contribute something from their personal bounty to the common good.

The fundamental difference between liberals and conservatives is that liberals advocate policies for the common good. Conservatives advocate policies for themselves.

 

[JayHawk]

Nonsense.

Protecting the environment doesn't benefit me personally so much as it benefits the nation and the world.

Same for decent mass transit.

Same for universal health care.

Same for repairing our national infrastructure.

Etc., etc., etc.

Conservatives do not like to support such things, because it demands that they contribute something from their personal bounty to the common good.

The fundamental difference between liberals and conservatives is that liberals advocate policies for the common good. Conservatives advocate policies for themselves.

Nonsense the republicans want governments to spend on infrastructure. AT the Town, City and state level where it should be.

Republicans have instituted health care in various places and advocate a system of market based incentives vice government mandated support for corporate america.

Democrats desire mass transit in places where it will simply become a ward f the state because there isn't enough incentive currently to use the damn thing. Like in Ohio for instance.

The environment is tough the right argument is completely illogical at best.

 

[T-Rexx]

Nonsense the republicans want governments to spend on infrastructure. AT the Town, City and state level where it should be.

Nonsense. You name the city, and I'll point out local town, city, and state Republican opposition to infrastructure spending there.

The usual pattern is that Democrats propose some infrastructure improvement, and Republicans vote it down.

Republicans have instituted health care in various places and advocate a system of market based incentives vice government mandated support for corporate america.

"Market-based" because conservatives would like to convince themselves that someone else (not them, personally) is paying for health care. The fact that market-based approaches to health care never work well is necessary for them to overlook/deny.

Democrats desire mass transit in places where it will simply become a ward f the state because there isn't enough incentive currently to use the damn thing. Like in Ohio for instance.

Except that Republicans oppose it even when every study shows there is a need for it.

The environment is tough the right argument is completely illogical at best.

The environment isn't the only argument that is tough for conservatives to make.

 

[Kulindahr]

Nonsense.

Protecting the environment doesn't benefit me personally so much as it benefits the nation and the world.

Same for decent mass transit.

Same for universal health care.

Same for repairing our national infrastructure.

Etc., etc., etc.

Conservatives do not like to support such things, because it demands that they contribute something from their personal bounty to the common good.

The fundamental difference between liberals and conservatives is that liberals advocate policies for the common good. Conservatives advocate policies for themselves.

Protecting the environment is overwhelmingly about people wanting to have the world conform to a way that's comfortable to them.

Mass transit tends to be about making the masses conform to what someone else thinks is good for them.

Universal health care -- you may have a point.

The national infrastructure, in terms of transportation, was put in place by conservatives, for conservative reasons.

 

[Kulindahr]

"Market-based" because conservatives would like to convince themselves that someone else (not them, personally) is paying for health care. The fact that market-based approaches to health care never work is necessary for them to overlook/deny.

Only because no one is willing to challenge the established monopplies that make things so costly -- like the AMA and their control of medical schools.

Some real market-based reforms would smash that monopoly, for starters, and provide incentives for forming not-for-profit insurance systems.

 

[Centexfarmer]

The triumph that gay community has made in recent years in regards to service in the military, same-sex marriage & civil unions, adoption, etc. is due to a triumph of conservative ideals.

More like the triumph of liberal ideals of inclusion and equality, in conservative establishments.

That response is dead on, succinct, and concise, and correct IMO.



JayQueer you seem to be trying to fit a square peg into a round hole.

Beginning with a premise that everything "conservative" is correct, whole, and pure, and twisting the outcome to stay within your current understanding of things.

I might be able to see where you're coming from, at least from my perspective and opinion, that what passes for "conservatives" here in America were the driving force that kept liberal ideals of inclusion and equality alive.

Because without the "conservatives" in this country constantly going out of their way calling being "gay" a choice, a lifestyle, seeking "special rights," (among other things), dividing our families, calling AIDS the "wrath of god," destroying careers, individuals, and standing in the way of "life, liberty, and the pursuit happiness, they've been part of the inspiration the rest of us to work our asses off to show the Anita Bryants, the Jerry Falwells, Jesse Helms, and now the Michele Bachmanns OUR LIVES MATTER!

If that's where you might be headed with your line of thinking, then meh,
I might be able to find some ground where you and I might be able to agree.

The triumphs for our equality as Gay Americans happened in spite (or in some cases to spite) what passes for "conservatives" in this country, and not through any benevolent act of "conservatism" toward us.

Even the father of American Conservatism, Barry Goldwater, was in favor of our equality, but like Reagan even he wouldn't be welcomed with what passes for conservatism in the current Republican Party.

The more I thought about it, the more she made sense. Isn't love of military service & willingness to lay down one's life for one's country a conservative virtue? Isn't wanting to marry & settle down with your spouse in a monogamous relationship a conservative virtue? Isn't wanting to raise children in a stable, kid-friendly environment a conservative virtue?

No.

Those ideals are not "conservative" virtues.

No more than they're "liberal" anti-venom.

They're AMERICAN VIRTUES.

First outlined in OUR Declaration of Independance, LIFE, LIBERTY, AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS.

The things that you mentioned aren't the sole properties of Red State vs Blue State, Liberal vs Conservatives, Christian vs Secularist, Urban vs Rural, LGBT vs Heterosexuals.

They're American ideals.

The goals of the LGBT community was very different in the 1960s-1980s than it is today. Back then, gay people didn't want to (or couldn't) live in the suburbs. There was "safety in numbers" and gay people flocked to the urban core of cities, where they established "gayborhoods" & joined gay activist organizations, some with socialist undertones. It was an era of the sexual revolution & rebellion, and most gays did not want to emulate their parent's straight marriages. Fidelity was out. Sexual licentiousness & drugs were in. (HIV & AIDS would ultimately slow down the party & claim many lives).

And do you want to know what else HIV & AIDS did?

Among other things, it busted down the closet door.

It forced Americans to see and recognize that their children, members of their family, and even celebrities were in fact gay, and their contraction of that horrible disease forced a lot of Americans to accept the reality that people that they loved in respected weren't the stereotypical "gays" that the "conservatives" had been telling them that they were.

It was an extremely painful, brutal, and a lot of times cruel process for many of us both straight and gay at the time.

It wasn't just some 'historical footnote' is you seem to imply.

It changed everything.

And the "conservatives" of the 1960's-1980's reveled in dancing on our graves, and used that disease as an example our "sexual licentiousness" coming home to roost, and that in effect we deserved all the suffering that was coming our way.

I personally witnessed and experienced families, who would never cross the threshold of their son and his lover's home because they didn't approve of "his lifestyle," but once their son's emaciated remains stopped breathing in that hospital bed at the ripe old age of 29, couldn't wait to swoop down and pick the home clean that he and his lover had spent the past 5 years building together.

My friends lover didn't have a single leg to stand on, as they took everything.

Gotta love those "conservatives."

But somewhere along the way, the powers that be within the gay community

I have to stop you right here.

Do you have any names of who those "powers that be within the gay community" were?

I must confess that I've been remiss in sending them a thank you note for allegedly including in the Gay Agenda what you're about to say next:

...smartly realized that the public-at-large would be more sympathetic & supportive of gay people if the public could be convinced that gay people's desires, hopes, and fears were essentially the same as straight people (with the exception of the gender of the person whom they loved).

Yeah, things really turned around for us once we hired that big 5th Avenue Public Relations firm!

In the 1990s, 2000s & beyond, gay people are increasingly living in suburbs & in places other than the "gayborhood."

Do you want to know why?

We fixed up those run down neighborhoods/ "gayborhoods", and made them trendy again, that even many of us couldn't afford to live there anymore.

What with rising property values and taxes and all.

I was one of them. I sold my house for 3x what I originally paid for it.

We didn't move out to the suburbs, or to mingle with "breeders" because we felt "accepted" by the "conservatives," it was pure economics.

We did what Jesus did, and moved to live with those 'the least amongst us' because no one else would have us.

They were some really bad neighborhoods before we turned them into "gay-ghettos."

Indeed, many young gay people from the Midwest or South see no need to move to New York or San Francisco, as their predecessors did. Many younger gays today in their 20s & 30s find the notion of being in a monogamous relationship & raising children of their own to be perfectly reasonable. Furthermore, many younger gay people don't find that their gay sexuality is the most notable aspect of their lives. They often have other interests & dreams that have nothing to do with their being gay.

So once again American Values; of Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness, are beginning to win out.

Teenagers & "tweens" who read Archie Comics will read the storyline about Kevin Keller, a gay guy from Riverdale who ultimately serves in the military & comes home to marry "Mr. Right." What could be more conservative than a proud military man coming home to marry his sweetheart? (Seriously, next Kevin Keller will be running as a Republican for the Riverdale city council).

You mean, what could be more American.

"Conservatives," I expect will scream and howl at the very prospect of such an edition of Archie Comics as just another attempt of the gays trying to "recruit their children into homosexuality."

The triumph that gay community has made in recent years in regards to service in the military, same-sex marriage & civil unions, adoption, etc. is due to a triumph of conservative ideals.

I think your confusing Orange County vs West Hollywood, with the reality of what's going on outside of that bubble of yours.

The GLBT Community is representative of every possible and conceivable background and aspect that makes up the fabric of America.

Look at it like this, we're the only minority in America that doesn't necessarily share our minority status with members of our own Family, community, religion, or status in society.

And rather than attempt to view us that way, you seem to be attempting to conform your reality, to make sense of a greater whole which you've yet to completely understand, or to comprehend.

Friends of mine attempted to put a label on me once, and the following is the best that they could come up with; Gay-Redneck-Buddhist-Southern-Conservative-Democrat-Urban-Country-Boy.

If I were forced to pick my own label?

An American, who is also Gay. In that order.

I'd settle for being labeled an American, because my being Gay really shouldn't matter, and it's really no ones fucking business unless they're up for some fucking.

The people in my life who matter know that about me, and those who don't matter but want to attempt to make me feel less of an American, or to stand in my way for the same basic rights that they share because of who I am are going to know about me, my life, my love, and my personal experiences whether they like it or not.

Labels are for clothes, and closets is where they belong instead of out parading for the whole world to see.

Is there no shame?

 

[White Eagle]

Well, shut my mouth. I mean it. After that I have nothing I can say!!

 

[JayHawk]

Nonsense. You name the city, and I'll point out local town, city, and state Republican opposition to infrastructure spending there.

The usual pattern is that Democrats propose some infrastructure improvement, and Republicans vote it down.



"Market-based" because conservatives would like to convince themselves that someone else (not them, personally) is paying for health care. The fact that market-based approaches to health care never work well is necessary for them to overlook/deny.




Except that Republicans oppose it even when every study shows there is a need for it.



The environment isn't the only argument that is tough for conservatives to make.

They don't seem to want to pay for it, though, JayHawk. Costs money.

It would be a conservative idea that that should be what occurs. That is not what the republican party has as a goal. Therefore I have shifted my voting and loyalties over the last couple years as you have seen if your CE&P'er. The current Job stim that didn't result in actual construction and the proposed one that will not result in actual production are KEY as to why the federal government shouldn't be officiating such items.

If they do simply provide the funds to state systems that then build the infrastructure then there should be rules in place for how effective and how much the money will be used for X.Y and Z. That doesn't exist either.

SO in the end you have two combined systems that are mutually exclusive and cause a waste of money and no productivity.

Lemme ask you all this.

The new bill is to stim infrastructure spending right? Yet there is a rule that requires the work to be done by union contractors. SO how many of you think the union guys are the majority of the ones out of work because we have a million less housing starts?

SO many things that need fixing but Obama wont do what is necessary for fear of further alienating his base in an election year.

 

[Centexfarmer]

Well, shut my mouth. I mean it. After that I have nothing I can say!!

I accept and appreciate the fact that there is such a thing as Gays who believe in fiscal responsibility, balanced budgets, "traditional family values" when it isn't "code" for ANTI-GAY, not only supporting but serving in our United States Armed Services, and who attend church every day, or Sunday and Wednesday.

Who go out of their way to make sure that the American flag tethered to their porch on their suburban neighborhood home is fresh, new and crisp, and who proudly fly it everyday.

There's nothing that truly separates me from them; we're all AMERICANS.

What I personally take issue with are those even within the Gay Community, are those who wish to divide and separate us as Americans.

Which is a basic reason why I don't give one flying rat's ass for what passes for "conservative" in today's American politic.

I'm taking the OP of this thread at his word.

He shared a conversation that he had with his

very politically conservative & Republican. (They are aware that I'm gay & they're okay with it).

friends and he agreed with one of their statements/views about how "conservatives" are some how the new leaders of Gay Equality in America.

The OP gave his opinion and perspective, apparently based upon conversations that he's had with straight conservatives, books that he might have read, watching James Franco as Sean Penn's lover in MILK, or a Real Estate Magazine discussing the gentrification of Urban Real Estate by Gays in America while getting lypo-suction from eating to many Chick A Filet sandwiches in West Hollywood waiting for his closeted Marine boyfriend to find a parking place in West Hollywood while driving an "Urban Assault" gas guzzling vehicle with "support our troops" refrigerator magnet in the shape of a yellow ribbon attached to the tailgate, and some steel "truck nuts" dangling off the trailer hitch.

He shared his "opinion" and expects us to go on nothing but his "word."

I appreciate that!

I just figured I'd share mine.

As an American who's also Gay, and who's "friends" are "okay" with it.

Nothing personal, we're having a discussion here.

It's fascinating to me how so many lives can be relegated to marginal statistics, without any real concept of the suffering and sacrifices that have been made for someone to so freely embrace that which doesn't embrace his very existence as an American by his own definition in return.