Inner Turmoil - Gay Conservative

  • Chunner

    Posts: 87

    Jun 19, 2011 9:26 PM GMT
    I am having a hard time dealing with politics right now. I have always considered myself as a Conservative Republican. My parents are business owners who started a business from scratch and built it into a very successful company. I have worked there since I was 14. I went to college and got a degree in education. I really have very conservative values.

    My problem is I am a gay man. I want to find a nice man, hopefully one day be allowed to marry and I want to have children. However this is not something Republicans seem to be okay with. I really like Michele Bachmann. I especially like her views on the national debt and that it is one of the issues she seems most concerned about. However she is not in favor of gay marriage. So once again I'm torn. Really the political ideology I identify with doesn't seem to have a place for me and the Liberal side is the side that accepts me or my sexuality, but I don't really agree on many of their other views. When election time comes, I don't know what I will do. If I will vote for a candidate that has favorable views on homosexuality or who's foreign policy and economic views I agree with.

    Any one else a little torn or have anything to say?
  • Chunner

    Posts: 87

    Jun 19, 2011 9:32 PM GMT
    Its just sad that here again I'm dealing with another issue that just stems from the fact I'm homosexual.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 19, 2011 9:50 PM GMT
    I'm in the same boat, and I think many others are as well. My opinion is the majority of gay issues will be decided at the state level and in the courts. I realize there is an impact in the make-up at the federal level in that they appoint judges, but I think this is indirect as most of these issues that go to court will be addressed at the state level.

    So for national politics, if both sides had similar economic policies but one side was more gay-friendly, that would influence me. But today the Democrats are not moderate, case in point they allowed the more moderate blue-dog Democrats to be sacrificed. Some have different opinions, but I think the policies of the Republicans with respect to the economy and international issues, are so much more in keeping with my view, that I will support them and actively work to change the government. I think we are on a disastrous course that must be changed, straight, gay, bi, or whatever.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 19, 2011 11:03 PM GMT
    I really wish you would cite somebody else as a champion of fiscal conservatism. True, she just earned her first True statement from Politifact about Obama's flip flop on the debt ceiling:

    http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2011/jun/16/fact-checking-michele-bachmann/
    True 1
    Mostly True 0
    Half True 2
    Barely True 4
    False 9
    Pants on Fire 7

    Bachmann earned her first True for a statement she made Monday night about President Barack Obama's position on the debt ceiling. She said that when Obama was a U.S. senator, he "refused to raise the debt ceiling because he said President Bush had failed in leadership." Obama's voting record and remarks in the Congressional record showed that to be the case.


    But for somebody who declares that social conservatism is fiscal conservatism and almost NEVER checks her facts but makes statements purely for the political impact, she's a terrible model for you.

    http://www.minnpost.com/dailyglean/2011/03/28/26934/social_conservatism_is_fiscal_conservatism_says_bachmann

    And she should really shut her mouth on anything scientifically related:
    http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2009/04/24/172739/bachmann-harmless-co2/

    3% is 0.03
    390 ppm is 390 x 10^(-6)= 0.00039

    Herman Cain or Ron Paul would be much better for you.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 19, 2011 11:10 PM GMT
    q1w2e3 said...Herman Cain or Ron Paul would be much better for you.

    Right, vote for the ones least likely to win. Good idea. icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 20, 2011 12:07 AM GMT
    I think you have to decide what is more important to you: your civil rights, which most, but not all, of the Republican candidates do not support, or your economic philosophy, which many of the Republican candidates espouse, but in practice, rarely live up to.

    I'm pretty Left-wing and tend to care more about economics and foreign policy than I do about gay rights. I would vote - and have - for those who I believe will maintain or expand the welfare state, protect entitlements, invest in education and infrastructure and work for economic justice. Rarely, are the politicians who believe in those issues anti-gay, but when it comes to priority, gay rights can take a back seat (as can most identify politics). I'm actually okay with that.

    When Obama came into office, the gay rights donors and groups gave him about six months before they started whining and complaining that he hadn't gotten us everything he promised. And, still, despite landmark hate crimes legislation, repeal of DADT and several other executive orders that made federal jobs fairer for LGBT employees, many are unsatisfied.

    When one is homeless or hungry or ill, not being able to marry or serve in the military, would be luxurious problems to have. So, I gave (and still do) Obama the benefit of the doubt.

    Anyway, that's my thought process. I'm fairly certain you won't agree with my positions, but I thought you might find an example of how I think about the two useful.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 20, 2011 12:16 AM GMT
    I became an independent because I'm fiscally conservative, but socially liberal. So who will I end up voting for? Someone who I perceive as more moderate than liberal or conservative. I think the majority of Americans tend to want moderation rather than extreme on either wing.

    (Wow, you're a knockout chunner! Oh to be 25 again.)
  • creature

    Posts: 5197

    Jun 20, 2011 12:18 AM GMT
    chunner,

    First let's not generalize and suggest all Republicans are anti gay marriage. There are some who are supportive of marriage equality. Unfortunately your primary choice for President is not in favor of it. Although an overwhelming number of Republicans don't support gay marriage, that does not mean there is no place for you. Republicans can also be socially moderate or socially liberal. Just like how Democrats can be socially conservative on some issues.

    Who you will vote for I guess will be dependent on what you think are the more pressing issues that need to be addressed. As socalfitness mentioned, many of the of the issues concerning gay rights occurs at the state level and at the courts. If Michele Bachmann were President, she couldn't do anything if the Supreme Court ruled that gay marriage is protected under the constitution.

    And by the way, being a gay man is not your problem. It's theirs. Not yours.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 20, 2011 12:27 AM GMT
    And fiscal conservatism is actually a big umbrella under which all things can hide. I'm probably the most fiscally conservative person you'll ever find with my own wealth (heck, I still live in an apartment when I could be living in a mansion), but for things that need to be done on a big scale, you'll find me voting for the economically sensible but not necessarily strictly fiscally conservative choice.
    http://www.economist.com/node/18620710America needs to get its macro-medicine right, in particular by committing itself to medium-term fiscal and monetary stability without excessive short-term tightening. But it also needs job-market reforms, from streamlining and upgrading training to increasing employers’ incentives to hire the low-skilled. And there, strange as it may seem, America could learn from Europe: the Netherlands, for instance, is a good model for how to overhaul disability insurance. Stemming the decline in low-skilled men’s work will also demand more education reform to boost skills, as well as a saner approach to drugs and imprisonment.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 20, 2011 12:27 AM GMT
    If we had the old Republican party back (pre Reagan), I could definitely see myself voting Republican with a clear conscience. However, today's Republican party is WILDLY DIFFERENT! Republicans used to very concerned with sending their kids to the best school to get the best education and were against mixing religion with government. Reagan changed all that! Since that time, the Republican party brown noses to all the religious nuts and are even working hard to replace evolution with "creationism" in school. Today's Republicans are hateful, bigoted and willfully ignorant. Democrats certainly have their issues too, but at least they tend to be kind hearted. The worst thing I can say about most Democrats is that they can be a little on the bleeding heart side, which I'm not fond of but it's nothing compared to the ignorance of the Republicans. I'd say if you value money over people, vote Republican.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 20, 2011 12:43 AM GMT
    Scruffypup saidIf we had the old Republican party back (pre Reagan), I could definitely see myself voting Republican with a clear conscience. However, today's Republican party is WILDLY DIFFERENT! Republicans used to very concerned with sending their kids to the best school to get the best education and were against mixing religion with government. Reagan changed all that! Since that time, the Republican party brown noses to all the religious nuts and are even working hard to replace evolution with "creationism" in school. Today's Republicans are hateful, bigoted and willfully ignorant. Democrats certainly have their issues too, but at least they tend to be kind hearted. The worst thing I can say about most Democrats is that they can be a little on the bleeding heart side, which I'm not fond of but it's nothing compared to the ignorance of the Republicans. I'd say if you value money over people, vote Republican.

    Extremely simplistic caricature that is totally incorrect with respect to many Republicans.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 20, 2011 1:03 AM GMT
    I stand (though in a Canadian perspective) in the same position as vincent7 and Q.

    chunner the issue with Bachman is that she stated gay people target children.

    There is a deep horror to that statement that an inner part of me shudders away from.

    “And what a bizarre time we’re in, Jan, when a judge will say to little children that you can’t say the pledge of allegiance, but you must learn that homosexuality is normal and you should try it.” — Senator Michele Bachmann, appearing as guest on radio program “Prophetic Views Behind The News”, hosted by Jan Markell, KKMS 980-AM, March 6, 2004.

    “If you’re involved in the gay and lesbian lifestyle, it’s bondage. It is personal bondage, personal despair and personal enslavement.” — Senator Michele Bachmann, speaking at EdWatch National Education Conference, November 6, 2004.

    "“You have a teacher talking about his gayness. (The elementary school student) goes home then and says “Mom! What’s gayness? We had a teacher talking about this today.” The mother says “Well, that’s when a man likes other men, and they don’t like girls.” The boy’s eight. He’s thinking, “Hmm. I don’t like girls. I like boys. Maybe I’m gay.” And you think, “Oh, that’s, that’s way out there. The kid isn’t gonna think that.” Are you kidding? That happens all the time. You don’t think that this is intentional, the message that’s being given to these kids? That’s child abuse.” — Senator Michele Bachmann, speaking at EdWatch National Education Conference, November 6, 2004.

    "“Normalization (of gayness) through desensitization. Very effective way to do this with a bunch of second graders, is take a picture of “The Lion King” for instance, and a teacher might say, “Do you know that the music for this movie was written by a gay man?” The message is: I’m better at what I do, because I’m gay.” — Senator Michele Bachmann, speaking at EdWatch National Education Conference, November 6, 2004.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 20, 2011 1:10 AM GMT
    chunner saidI am having a hard time dealing with politics right now. I have always considered myself as a Conservative Republican. My parents are business owners who started a business from scratch and built it into a very successful company. I have worked there since I was 14. I went to college and got a degree in education. I really have very conservative values.

    My problem is I am a gay man. I want to find a nice man, hopefully one day be allowed to marry and I want to have children. However this is not something Republicans seem to be okay with. I really like Michele Bachmann. I especially like her views on the national debt and that it is one of the issues she seems most concerned about. However she is not in favor of gay marriage. So once again I'm torn. Really the political ideology I identify with doesn't seem to have a place for me and the Liberal side is the side that accepts me or my sexuality, but I don't really agree on many of their other views. When election time comes, I don't know what I will do. If I will vote for a candidate that has favorable views on homosexuality or who's foreign policy and economic views I agree with.

    Any one else a little torn or have anything to say?



    It's hard for me to understand why you would say that you've always considered yourself a "Conservative Republican", and that you care about the size of the National Debt.
    If you care about not exploding the National Debt - you should be a Democrat, not a Republican.
    Why would you think that the Repubs are more fiscally responsible than the Dems when it comes to debt creation?
    Reagan more than tripled the National Debt.
    Dubya doubled the National Debt.
    When it comes to blowing up the National Debt, the Repubs have a vastly worse record than the Dems.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms
    Since 1946, Democratic presidents we've had have increased the National Debt at an annual rate of 3.2%.
    The Republican presidents we've had have increased the National Debt at an annual rate of 9.2%.
    The Republican presidents have outborrowed and outspent the Dems by a nearly 3 to 1 ratio.

    Today, both parties are proposing debt reduction proposals.
    The Dems want to cut spending and increase taxes on the richest 1-2% of Americans.
    The Repubs want to cut spending and destroy Medicare in order to pay for making the Bush tax cuts for the rich permanent.

    Both parties and both presidential candidates will be supporting debt reduction and reducing spending.
    But only the Repubs will be supporting anti-gay social policies, like pushing for a Constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage and overturning the repeal of DADT.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 20, 2011 1:14 AM GMT
    rickrick, with all due respect he is entitled to his decision to be conservative and it sounds like you are trying to persuade him to be a democrat. I have no doubt that chunner is an intelligent and broadly thinking individual.

    How about this topic NOT become a political flame-war?


    respectfully,

    -Doug

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 20, 2011 1:32 AM GMT
    meninlove said rickrick, with all due respect he is entitled to his decision to be conservative and it sounds like you are trying to persuade him to be a democrat. I have no doubt that chunner is an intelligent and broadly thinking individual.

    How about this topic NOT become a political flame-war?


    respectfully,

    -Doug





    I posted facts.
    I didn't "flame" anyone.
    I didn't post a personal attack against anyone.

    The OP posted that he's having a hard time trying to decide which party to support.
    I posted some factual information designed to help him make an informed choice
    Period.

    You on the other hand posted an attack on me - and you seem to be the one who is inciting a "flame war".

    I don't tell you what to post.
    How about you don't tell me what to post?
    That would be the way to treat someone with "respect".

    If you think something I posted is untrue and not factual, that would be a different matter.
    If you think that - then post proof that I got some of the facts wrong.
    I'm not interested in misleading anyone with false information.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 20, 2011 1:36 AM GMT
    Rickrick, he's conservative and the issue he's having is in the arena of social vs fiscal conservatism, and who in that realm to vote for. His turmoil specifically relates to Bachman.

    I think the subject should remain there, rather than start listing the evils of republican fiscal conservatism, which is not his issue or his topic.

    -Doug

    Apologies if you think I'm attacking you. Twice I mentioned I was meaning to be respectful in my post you quoted.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 20, 2011 1:39 AM GMT
    meninlove saidRickrick, he's conservative and the issue he's having is in the arena of social vs fiscal conservatism, and who in that realm to vote for. His turmoil specifically relates to Bachman.

    I think the subject should remain there, no?

    -Doug

    Agree about not getting in a general debate. Only thing I would point about RickRick's comments is I am not interested in fact checking his history, but the relevant point is the economic policies going forward today versus who did what years ago, and leave it at that.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 20, 2011 1:42 AM GMT
    meninlove saidRickrick, he's conservative and the issue he's having is in the arena of social vs fiscal conservatism, and who in that realm to vote for. His turmoil specifically relates to Bachman.

    I think the subject should remain there, no?

    -Doug




    He mentioned his concern re: the National Debt.
    I discusssed the facts on that.
    Since he cares about debt creation he should know that the Repubs have a WORSE record on debt creation than the Dems, not a better record.
    He mentioned his concern re: gay marriage.
    I discussed that as well.

    Why you would think that I strayed from the issues he raised is really rather puzzling.
    Perhaps you need to reread his OP.

    How about you post your advice to him instead of trying to censor other people's comments.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 20, 2011 1:45 AM GMT
    socalfitness said
    meninlove saidRickrick, he's conservative and the issue he's having is in the arena of social vs fiscal conservatism, and who in that realm to vote for. His turmoil specifically relates to Bachman.

    I think the subject should remain there, no?

    -Doug

    Agree about not getting in a general debate. Only thing I would point about RickRick's comments is I am not interested in fact checking his history, but the relevant point is the economic policies going forward today versus who did what years ago, and leave it at that.




    You don't want to "fact check my history" because the facts I posted are correct - and those facts prove the dishonesty of the Republican party's claim to be more fiscally responsible than the Dems on debt creation.

    Facts matter.
    They should be what people base their choice upon when deciding which party or candidate to support.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 20, 2011 1:49 AM GMT
    rickrick91 said
    meninlove saidRickrick, he's conservative and the issue he's having is in the arena of social vs fiscal conservatism, and who in that realm to vote for. His turmoil specifically relates to Bachman.

    I think the subject should remain there, no?

    -Doug




    He mentioned his concern re: the National Debt.
    I discusssed the facts on that.
    He mentioned his concern re: gay marriage.
    I discussed that.

    Why you would think that I strayed from the issues he raised is really rather puzzling.
    Perhaps you need to reread his OP.

    How about you post your advice to him instead of trying to censor other people's comments.



    I censored nothing, nor do I have the power to. I'd just once like to see a US political topic not instantly polarize and remain civil and focused on the OP's issue, which is being torn between wanting fiscal conservatism he is already in favour of (so really he's not offering that up for any debate) and the ugly face of social conservatism. His beef and upset is social conservatism.

    It seems to me he's trying to vote with his conscience while remaining what he has stated from the outset; he's conservative.

    So the question is, who shall he vote for as a conservative and not also shoot himself and other gay people in the foot? While the answer may seem to be to vote democrat, that's not what he's asking.

    -Doug
  • HndsmKansan

    Posts: 16311

    Jun 20, 2011 1:58 AM GMT
    Thanks for taking a bit of your time and posting something very real... and for sharing it with us.

    I think you will just need to weigh how important each consideration is when the next election comes along... gay rights, the economy, international issues.. so many and vote in the way that is most prudent and you are most comfortable. Hopefully you can evaluate each candidate option in shades of "color" so to speak and not just in black and white (or good and bad) methods. Make sure to ask a lot of questions, be an informed candidate.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 20, 2011 2:11 AM GMT
    chunner saidIts just sad that here again I'm dealing with another issue that just stems from the fact I'm homosexual.



    The problem is not your sexuality so much as the strange obsession of U S Conservatives with limiting gay rights. Were they not so obsessed with jealously guarding "rights" for themselves while denying them to others, being gay and being conservative would not carry an inherent contradiction.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 20, 2011 2:12 AM GMT




    The only one missing from this thread right now is Colonel Deco---icon_lol.gif


    He'll sniff you out and probably tell you that you are a Republican plant and that you probably aren't really gay----


  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 20, 2011 2:14 AM GMT
    jprichva said
    socalfitness said
    q1w2e3 said...Herman Cain or Ron Paul would be much better for you.

    Right, vote for the ones least likely to win. Good idea. icon_rolleyes.gif

    And you honestly think Bachmann has a chance?
    Jon Huntsman has a chance. Bachmann vs. Obama would be a 50-state sweep for the Democrats.


    Correction: Ron Paul is your only hope. Herman Cain is on the record for being against gay marriage and rights.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jun 20, 2011 2:17 AM GMT
    HndsmKansan saidThanks for taking a bit of your time and posting something very real... and for sharing it with us.

    I think you will just need to weigh how important each consideration is when the next election comes along... gay rights, the economy, international issues.. so many and vote in the way that is most prudent and you are most comfortable. Hopefully you can evaluate each candidate option in shades of "color" so to speak and not just in black and white (or good and bad) methods. Make sure to ask a lot of questions, be an informed candidate.

    Some fresh air. I would only to add when evaluating the overall considerations decide the degree they pertain to the federal government versus the states.