Psych. Questions For Gay Republicans & Conservatives: Let Us Better Understand You!

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

    Aug 19, 2011 5:37 AM GMT
    Hi, y'all. First post here.

    I'm fascinated by those who consider themselves gay Republicans. I myself consider myself a moderate who is fiscally conservative and socially liberal; a true rare and dying breed in America today.

    Gay Republicans understandably get a bad rap with typical stereotypes of "self-loathing", "selfish" or even extreme accusations of being "traitors". They are often social pariahs.

    However, I think stereotypes are stereotypes and people are more complex than they seem.

    So for any gay Republicans, feel free to answer these questions!

    I'd like to understand the psychology of gay Republicans better.

    And I think this will help those with liberal-leanings understand you better as people.

    1) How difficult was your coming out process? Did you face considerable opposition to your homosexuality from your family and friends? Are they more or less accepting today?

    2) What is your religious background and how does it affect you today?

    3) Describe the relationship with your parents? How does your father feel about your homosexuality? Your mother? On a scale of one-to-ten, how comfortable do you feel discussing your 'gay life' with your parents?

    4) How active are you in the 'gay' scene (i.e. bars, clubs, organizations, volunteer, travel destinations, etc.) and how many gay friends do you have? Is your 'straight friend' ratio greater or less than your 'gay friend' ratio?

    5) What is your opinion on masculinity and femininity? Do you value masculinity in gay men and despise femininity in gay men?

    6) What is your racial/cultural/ethnic background and how did it effect your opinions of homosexuality

    7) Did you come from a low-income, middle-class or high income background?

    8 ) How out are you to those you interact with? Do you find yourself more closeted or "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" or you are you completely open? If you find yourself more closeted, is it out of embarrassment?

    9) Do you see yourself as 'better' than most gay people who are predominantly liberal or Democratic? If so, why?

    10) On a scale of one to ten, how important is gay rights to you? Do you see it as important as the Civil Rights Movement was to African-Americans or do you see it as low on your priorities when it comes to voting?

    11) Are you socially conservative? If so, what are you socially conservative about?

    12) Describe your dating life. Are you in a relationship now or are single/casually dating? What is your opinion on monogamy?

    13) Do you think some gay Republicans do experience a sense of self-loathing? If not, why do you think this perception is so wide-spread? If so, do you consider yourself having some self-loathing or low self-esteem in regards to your homosexuality that you haven't conquered yet?

    14) Would you vote for an anti-gay candidate who has an extreme anti-gay record and has the power to strip or deny civil rights to gay citizens if you agreed with his or her other views? If so, why?



    Thanks for all who answer! icon_biggrin.gif

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

    Aug 19, 2011 6:07 AM GMT
    FinalHeaven86 said I myself consider myself a moderate who is fiscally conservative and socially liberal; a true rare and dying breed in America today.


    Actually, that sounds like about half of everyone in their 20s and 30s.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 19, 2011 2:35 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 saidI'm not a Republican.


    icon_lol.gif

    icon_lol.gif

    icon_lol.gif

    Right... and Nixon wasn't a "crook."
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 19, 2011 5:24 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 saidI'm not a Republican, so I don't qualify for your polling target.

    Also... I think you have too many questions. You can probably eliminate a few - definitely this one:

    14) Would you vote for an anti-gay candidate who has an extreme anti-gay record and has the power to strip or deny civil rights to gay citizens if you agreed with his or her other views? If so, why?


    No one person under our Constitutional system has the power to "strip or deny civil rights" whatsoever.




    No, Southbeach isn't a Republican.
    He's a REPUBLICAN!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 19, 2011 5:36 PM GMT
    No, SB's a Republican.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 19, 2011 5:42 PM GMT
    No, SB is a troll.

    BTW fiscally conservative, socially liberal is kinda Clinton and Obama. THere have been no fiscally conservative republicans for decades - they all create massive deficits. It´s the dems who leave surpluses #verifiablefact
  • Lincsbear

    Posts: 2605

    Aug 19, 2011 5:44 PM GMT
    I wouldn`t be surprised if some of the conservative republicans/christian fundamentalists had a good try at taking our rights away,especially if they had the Presidency and Congress and some states on their side.They would probably fail,but harm a lot of gay men/lesbians in the process.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 19, 2011 10:06 PM GMT
    JakeBenson said
    FinalHeaven86 said I myself consider myself a moderate who is fiscally conservative and socially liberal; a true rare and dying breed in America today.


    Actually, that sounds like about half of everyone in their 20s and 30s.


    It sounds like me and many people I know, from their 20s through their 70s.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 19, 2011 10:11 PM GMT
    I thought kids were the most socially liberal and fiscally conservative people. Ever ask a kid to share their candy? They couldn't care less if you're gay or not--no sharing! icon_lol.gif
  • metta

    Posts: 39143

    Aug 19, 2011 11:05 PM GMT
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 20, 2011 12:37 AM GMT
    That was a great lecture.

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

    Aug 20, 2011 1:47 AM GMT
    metta8 saidthe embedded video

    I'll just comment on the first couple of minutes. The blanket terms "Liberal" and "Conservative" are used without qualification as to fiscal, or social, for example. Then "Liberals" are described as high on "open to experience", while conservatives are described as low on "open to experience". The terms, being so broad, also over-simplify to the point of not just being inaccurate, but incorrect.

    I'll take myself as an example. I would say I'm strongly fiscal conservative, wanting limited government. I believe the private sector will fuel the growth, and that government role should be limited. I agree with the government being a safety net for those who really are in need, but I don't want to see helping them be an excuse for government takeover of large parts of the economy.

    Does that fiscal conservative position make me an Appleby's eater or someone who is closed to experience? I don't think so. I travel extensively, have friends in several countries, will willingly go alone if need be into a restaurant in a country whose language I don't understand knowing they have no menus in a language I do understand, I eat natural foods, have a juicer and blender to process fresh greens, drive a Prius (in addition to a gas guzzler), I could go on and on. And I don't think I'm much different than others who are also fiscally conservative. I could name a number of RJ members just like myself in this regard.

    I do realize that there are many in the population who are low on openness to experience and also fiscally and politically conservative, but the attempt on the video reflects a tendency to use those people to look down on the conservative fiscal and political ideology. For balance, we could look at a number of liberals who do not have the capacity to explain logically why they are liberal, and can only parrot slogans and engage in ad hominem and class-oriented arguments.

    I only watched the first few minutes, but based on that, I saw a liberal, smug, intellectually dishonest, elitist, of the "they cling to their guns and religion" mantra.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 20, 2011 2:02 AM GMT
    Perhaps you should have listened to what he actually said.

    Maybe a deficiency of open-ness (or just attention span.)

    You demonstrated his thesis admirably.

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

    Aug 20, 2011 2:11 AM GMT
    Upper_Canadian saidPerhaps you should have listened to what he actually said.

    Maybe a deficiency of open-ness (or just attention span.)

    You demonstrated his thesis admirably.

    icon_lol.gif

    I wanted to be honest in stating my impressions, although pretty strong, were based only on the first few minutes. I read liberal positions extensively, so I am definitely open to other viewpoints. I have quoted from the NY Times, for example. Being open to experience does not mean spending time reading a book if the first few pages are not impressive, or taking the time to listen to a lecture if the first few minutes are similarly not impressive. But you can define it how you want - makes no difference to me. Not surprised you found the lecture great.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 20, 2011 2:27 AM GMT
    OP: If you are interested in studies on liberals versus conservatives, here is one:
    http://neuropolitics.org/Anxiety-Depression-and-Goal-Seeking-in-Conservatives-Liberals-Moderates.htm
    I posted this a while ago. The reactions here among liberals ranged from outrage to being dismissive.

    Couple of others:
    http://anepigone.blogspot.com/2011/03/republicans-are-more-scientifically.html
    http://www.bakadesuyo.com/are-we-all-liberals-at-heart very brief, but references 'Journal of Experimental Social Psychology"
  • Lincsbear

    Posts: 2605

    Aug 20, 2011 3:44 PM GMT
    A very good,useful short lecture on the differences between Liberals and Conservatives,even if the definitions are less than perfect.
    Socalfitness,your reaction to it makes you sound like a conservative to me.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 21, 2011 8:27 AM GMT
    jprichva said
    Lincsbear saidA very good,useful short lecture on the differences between Liberals and Conservatives,even if the definitions are less than perfect.
    Socalfitness,your reaction to it makes you sound like a conservative to me.

    No! Really?

    His comment on me be being a conservative was rather obvious, because I stated I was a fiscal conservative and gave my views about limited government. I took issue with the lecture associating conservatives as a whole with a lack of openness to new experience, using myself as an example.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 21, 2011 7:47 PM GMT
    socalfitness said
    Upper_Canadian saidPerhaps you should have listened to what he actually said.

    Maybe a deficiency of open-ness (or just attention span.)

    You demonstrated his thesis admirably.

    icon_lol.gif

    I wanted to be honest in stating my impressions, although pretty strong, were based only on the first few minutes. I read liberal positions extensively, so I am definitely open to other viewpoints. I have quoted from the NY Times, for example. Being open to experience does not mean spending time reading a book if the first few pages are not impressive, or taking the time to listen to a lecture if the first few minutes are similarly not impressive. But you can define it how you want - makes no difference to me. Not surprised you found the lecture great.


    Had you listened further, yo' have found after he listed all the stereotypes you did , he went on to dissect and deplore them and get the audience to examine their degree of dogmatism.


    Hi point was it takes an Open mind (liberal or conservative) to listen before shutting down. That window is defined their degree of dogmatism.He directs you actually to a link where ytou can assess yourdogmatism against the very scale he uses to DESTROY the preconceptions in his lecture.


    So - had you been a bit more OPE (as he is talking about) , you might not have decided "he is a Liberal" and shut down before realising he was saying something you actually AGREE WITH.


    The point of the lecture is that dogmatism is the REAL problem and it exists on BOTH sides.

    the fact that you refused to hang in long enough to discover he was saying something you essentually agree with, illustrates his point.

    Quod Erat Demonstratum


    I took the test, btw. I scored a couple of points LESS dogmatic than than the AVERAGE self -identified Liberal imagine that!)

    (And, yes, the test asks you what country you are in)

    So, , it is indeed no surprise that I thought the lecture great (Based on your posts, you are VERY dogmatic - that test would quantify it for you (if you were interested. - An open minded person would be interested in knowing how they compare.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 21, 2011 7:49 PM GMT
    q1w2e3 saidNo, SB's a RepubliCan't.
    Fixed.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 21, 2011 8:23 PM GMT
    Upper_Canadian said
    socalfitness said
    Upper_Canadian saidPerhaps you should have listened to what he actually said.

    Maybe a deficiency of open-ness (or just attention span.)

    You demonstrated his thesis admirably.

    icon_lol.gif

    I wanted to be honest in stating my impressions, although pretty strong, were based only on the first few minutes. I read liberal positions extensively, so I am definitely open to other viewpoints. I have quoted from the NY Times, for example. Being open to experience does not mean spending time reading a book if the first few pages are not impressive, or taking the time to listen to a lecture if the first few minutes are similarly not impressive. But you can define it how you want - makes no difference to me. Not surprised you found the lecture great.


    Had you listened further, yo' have found after he listed all the stereotypes you did , he went on to dissect and deplore them and get the audience to examine their degree of dogmatism.


    Hi point was it takes an Open mind (liberal or conservative) to listen before shutting down. That window is defined their degree of dogmatism.He directs you actually to a link where ytou can assess yourdogmatism against the very scale he uses to DESTROY the preconceptions in his lecture.


    So - had you been a bit more OPE (as he is talking about) , you might not have decided "he is a Liberal" and shut down before realising he was saying something you actually AGREE WITH.


    The point of the lecture is that dogmatism is the REAL problem and it exists on BOTH sides.

    the fact that you refused to hang in long enough to discover he was saying something you essentually agree with, illustrates his point.

    Quod Erat Demonstratum


    I took the test, btw. I scored a couple of points LESS dogmatic than than the AVERAGE self -identified Liberal imagine that!)

    (And, yes, the test asks you what country you are in)

    So, , it is indeed no surprise that I thought the lecture great (Based on your posts, you are VERY dogmatic - that test would quantify it for you (if you were interested. - An open minded person would be interested in knowing how they compare.





    Exactly.

    Socal's claim to be open-minded (LMFAO!) is yet another example of the epic degree to which socal is absolutely delusional.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 21, 2011 8:31 PM GMT
    Upper_Canadian said
    socalfitness said
    Upper_Canadian saidPerhaps you should have listened to what he actually said.

    Maybe a deficiency of open-ness (or just attention span.)

    You demonstrated his thesis admirably.

    icon_lol.gif

    I wanted to be honest in stating my impressions, although pretty strong, were based only on the first few minutes. I read liberal positions extensively, so I am definitely open to other viewpoints. I have quoted from the NY Times, for example. Being open to experience does not mean spending time reading a book if the first few pages are not impressive, or taking the time to listen to a lecture if the first few minutes are similarly not impressive. But you can define it how you want - makes no difference to me. Not surprised you found the lecture great.


    Had you listened further, yo' have found after he listed all the stereotypes you did , he went on to dissect and deplore them and get the audience to examine their degree of dogmatism.


    Hi point was it takes an Open mind (liberal or conservative) to listen before shutting down. That window is defined their degree of dogmatism.He directs you actually to a link where ytou can assess yourdogmatism against the very scale he uses to DESTROY the preconceptions in his lecture.


    So - had you been a bit more OPE (as he is talking about) , you might not have decided "he is a Liberal" and shut down before realising he was saying something you actually AGREE WITH.


    The point of the lecture is that dogmatism is the REAL problem and it exists on BOTH sides.

    the fact that you refused to hang in long enough to discover he was saying something you essentually agree with, illustrates his point.

    Quod Erat Demonstratum


    I took the test, btw. I scored a couple of points LESS dogmatic than than the AVERAGE self -identified Liberal imagine that!)

    (And, yes, the test asks you what country you are in)

    So, , it is indeed no surprise that I thought the lecture great (Based on your posts, you are VERY dogmatic - that test would quantify it for you (if you were interested. - An open minded person would be interested in knowing how they compare.

    I did make it clear that I only watched the first few minutes, and that my comments were based only on that. But when I saw the smugness that people in the audience don't know anyone who eats at Appleby's, then I decided my time was too valuable to invest further. If not wanting to spend the time watching the whole thing is a litmus test for you, then so be it. Fact is I do read higher quality liberal viewpoints, but will limit the time I spend with lower quality input, whether it be from videos or forum messages. If discriminating is not being open-minded, then you can have and enjoy your definition.

    Regarding you labeling me dogmatic, you are really not in a position to make that assessment based on your degree of knowledge. Specifically, if I spent some time before coming on RJ thinking critically about political positions, reading much, and interacting with intelligent people who both challenged as well as reinforced my positions, I could have gradually come to my position after much introspection. Then, from your frame of reference, you have no idea my background and how I came to my positions. All you see is I have my position on RJ and am not easily bent from those positions by the arguments here, many of which I think are pretty lame. When you label someone like that, you are really showing not only your limited perspective, but the fact that you don't realize it is limited.
  • 4another

    Posts: 20

    Aug 21, 2011 8:54 PM GMT
    1) How difficult was your coming out process? Did you face considerable opposition to your homosexuality from your family and friends? Are they more or less accepting today? It was (and still is) an awkward process. At this point, my family and most friends know. It's no longer a secret but not something that I advertise openly unless I'm directly asked, although I have gotten to the point now where I can throw some things into a conversation and let people deduce from there... But really, why is this a Republican question? Don't pretty much ALL gay kids have their own struggles coming out?

    2) What is your religious background and how does it affect you today? I went to Lutheran school from pre-school to 5th grade. I'm not a "practicing" Christian and neither is my family.

    3) Describe the relationship with your parents? How does your father feel about your homosexuality? Your mother? On a scale of one-to-ten, how comfortable do you feel discussing your 'gay life' with your parents? My dad isn't much of a dad. The few times a year that we talk, our conversation lasts about 3 minutes, hopefully less if I can manage. I don't know if he knows I'm gay. I know that his wife knows and I'm assuming she shared it with him. My mom knows and it very supportive of me.

    4) How active are you in the 'gay' scene (i.e. bars, clubs, organizations, volunteer, travel destinations, etc.) and how many gay friends do you have? Is your 'straight friend' ratio greater or less than your 'gay friend' ratio? I go to gay bars fairly frequently. Unfortunately, the town I live in is small and rural, and there are no organized gay activities, clubs, etc that I know of. This is also the reason why I have only 1 or 2 gay friends and the rest are straight.

    5) What is your opinion on masculinity and femininity? Do you value masculinity in gay men and despise femininity in gay men? I'm sexually attracted to masculine guys. I don't despise anyone. Some of the funniest and sweetest people I know are the queeniest people I know.

    6) What is your racial/cultural/ethnic background and how did it effect your opinions of homosexuality. I'm white. What does race have to do with sexuality? I get tired enough of racial minorities pulling the race card all over the place, but do the gay minorities have to do it too? Come on.

    7) Did you come from a low-income, middle-class or high income background? Lower middle?...

    8 ) How out are you to those you interact with? Do you find yourself more closeted or "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" or you are you completely open? If you find yourself more closeted, is it out of embarrassment? This is a difficult question to answer, and one that doesn't come without judgement from others. Like I said earlier, I'm out to most family and friends (i.e. the ones I interact with the most). I'm also out to co-workers because it's a small office and we talk about our weekend activities, relationships, etc. I'm out if asked. I don't wear a rainbow bracelet, my car doesn't have an HRC sticker, and my Facebook doesn't say I'm interested in "men" (it doesn't say anything at all). I'm not a closet case, but I don't understand why my sexuality has to be my defining characteristic. I would rather be known as the guy does does X, Y, Z who happens to date guy rather than "that gay guy."

    9) Do you see yourself as 'better' than most gay people who are predominantly liberal or Democratic? If so, why? No?...This is kind of a loaded and offensive question.

    10) On a scale of one to ten, how important is gay rights to you? Do you see it as important as the Civil Rights Movement was to African-Americans or do you see it as low on your priorities when it comes to voting? It's certainly a very important topic. The fact that there are certain legal rights that are being denied to citizens because of sexual orientation is definitely outrageous.

    11) Are you socially conservative? If so, what are you socially conservative about? I'm fairly liberal when it comes to social topics.

    12) Describe your dating life. Are you in a relationship now or are single/casually dating? What is your opinion on monogamy? I'm not in a relationship at the moment. When in a relationship, monogamy is the only thing that works for me.

    13) Do you think some gay Republicans do experience a sense of self-loathing? If not, why do you think this perception is so wide-spread? If so, do you consider yourself having some self-loathing or low self-esteem in regards to your homosexuality that you haven't conquered yet? I'm not sure about self-loathing, but I've seen a lot of gay-on-gay hate on these forums. It mostly stems from the fact that the hardline liberal homos who preach about equality and individuality can't take their own medicine and just leave conservative gays alone. The fact of the matter is, NO party is perfect. The GOP definitely has its losers (read: Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachman), but the Democrats have their own faults. Yes, there are anti-gay Republicans, but not all Democrats are gay-lovers (you know what I mean). Check out SB1123 in Illinois for just a small taste.

    You have framed this question in such a way so as to suggest that being Republican and gay are mutually exclusive, or oxymoronic. I'm not Republican because I hate myself. I'm Republican because I believe that public pensions and unions are destroying this county's economic prowess. I believe that free-marketing economies will always correct themselves. I believe that (to a certain degree) those who have earned wealth should be able to enjoy it rather than having to distribute it to the masses.The list goes on.


    14) Would you vote for an anti-gay candidate who has an extreme anti-gay record and has the power to strip or deny civil rights to gay citizens if you agreed with his or her other views? If so, why? Don't ask stupid questions. And technically, no single person has the power to strip or deny civil rights. Basic civics lesson: the legislature creates law, the chief executive enforces law, and the judiciary interprets law.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 22, 2011 8:57 PM GMT
    socalfitness said
    Upper_Canadian said
    socalfitness said
    Upper_Canadian saidPerhaps you should have listened to what he actually said.

    Maybe a deficiency of open-ness (or just attention span.)

    You demonstrated his thesis admirably.

    icon_lol.gif

    I wanted to be honest in stating my impressions, although pretty strong, were based only on the first few minutes. I read liberal positions extensively, so I am definitely open to other viewpoints. I have quoted from the NY Times, for example. Being open to experience does not mean spending time reading a book if the first few pages are not impressive, or taking the time to listen to a lecture if the first few minutes are similarly not impressive. But you can define it how you want - makes no difference to me. Not surprised you found the lecture great.


    Had you listened further, yo' have found after he listed all the stereotypes you did , he went on to dissect and deplore them and get the audience to examine their degree of dogmatism.


    Hi point was it takes an Open mind (liberal or conservative) to listen before shutting down. That window is defined their degree of dogmatism.He directs you actually to a link where ytou can assess yourdogmatism against the very scale he uses to DESTROY the preconceptions in his lecture.


    So - had you been a bit more OPE (as he is talking about) , you might not have decided "he is a Liberal" and shut down before realising he was saying something you actually AGREE WITH.


    The point of the lecture is that dogmatism is the REAL problem and it exists on BOTH sides.

    the fact that you refused to hang in long enough to discover he was saying something you essentually agree with, illustrates his point.

    Quod Erat Demonstratum


    I took the test, btw. I scored a couple of points LESS dogmatic than than the AVERAGE self -identified Liberal imagine that!)

    (And, yes, the test asks you what country you are in)

    So, , it is indeed no surprise that I thought the lecture great (Based on your posts, you are VERY dogmatic - that test would quantify it for you (if you were interested. - An open minded person would be interested in knowing how they compare.

    I did make it clear that I only watched the first few minutes, and that my comments were based only on that. But when I saw the smugness that people in the audience don't know anyone who eats at Appleby's, then I decided my time was too valuable to invest further. If not wanting to spend the time watching the whole thing is a litmus test for you, then so be it. Fact is I do read higher quality liberal viewpoints, but will limit the time I spend with lower quality input, whether it be from videos or forum messages. If discriminating is not being open-minded, then you can have and enjoy your definition.

    Regarding you labeling me dogmatic, you are really not in a position to make that assessment based on your degree of knowledge. Specifically, if I spent some time before coming on RJ thinking critically about political positions, reading much, and interacting with intelligent people who both challenged as well as reinforced my positions, I could have gradually come to my position after much introspection. Then, from your frame of reference, you have no idea my background and how I came to my positions. All you see is I have my position on RJ and am not easily bent from those positions by the arguments here, many of which I think are pretty lame. When you label someone like that, you are really showing not only your limited perspective, but the fact that you don't realize it is limited.


    dogmatic is as it does. The action of cutting it off early just happened to conform exactly to the definition of dogmatism he was talking about. Accept it for what it is. If you don't want your behaviour characterised as dogmatic just avoid dogmatic behaviour. Since the point of the lecture was all about the biggest obstacle to effective government (and social interaction) , your example is particularly timely (if sadly apt).

    I wish to engage in no further discussion with you today.

    My political leader (who elevated pragmatism over dogmatism) died this morning, and even the most dogmatic of his political opponents are taking the day off out of decency.




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

    Aug 22, 2011 9:05 PM GMT
    Upper_Canadian said
    socalfitness said
    Upper_Canadian said
    socalfitness said
    Upper_Canadian saidPerhaps you should have listened to what he actually said.

    Maybe a deficiency of open-ness (or just attention span.)

    You demonstrated his thesis admirably.

    icon_lol.gif

    I wanted to be honest in stating my impressions, although pretty strong, were based only on the first few minutes. I read liberal positions extensively, so I am definitely open to other viewpoints. I have quoted from the NY Times, for example. Being open to experience does not mean spending time reading a book if the first few pages are not impressive, or taking the time to listen to a lecture if the first few minutes are similarly not impressive. But you can define it how you want - makes no difference to me. Not surprised you found the lecture great.


    Had you listened further, yo' have found after he listed all the stereotypes you did , he went on to dissect and deplore them and get the audience to examine their degree of dogmatism.


    Hi point was it takes an Open mind (liberal or conservative) to listen before shutting down. That window is defined their degree of dogmatism.He directs you actually to a link where ytou can assess yourdogmatism against the very scale he uses to DESTROY the preconceptions in his lecture.


    So - had you been a bit more OPE (as he is talking about) , you might not have decided "he is a Liberal" and shut down before realising he was saying something you actually AGREE WITH.


    The point of the lecture is that dogmatism is the REAL problem and it exists on BOTH sides.

    the fact that you refused to hang in long enough to discover he was saying something you essentually agree with, illustrates his point.

    Quod Erat Demonstratum


    I took the test, btw. I scored a couple of points LESS dogmatic than than the AVERAGE self -identified Liberal imagine that!)

    (And, yes, the test asks you what country you are in)

    So, , it is indeed no surprise that I thought the lecture great (Based on your posts, you are VERY dogmatic - that test would quantify it for you (if you were interested. - An open minded person would be interested in knowing how they compare.

    I did make it clear that I only watched the first few minutes, and that my comments were based only on that. But when I saw the smugness that people in the audience don't know anyone who eats at Appleby's, then I decided my time was too valuable to invest further. If not wanting to spend the time watching the whole thing is a litmus test for you, then so be it. Fact is I do read higher quality liberal viewpoints, but will limit the time I spend with lower quality input, whether it be from videos or forum messages. If discriminating is not being open-minded, then you can have and enjoy your definition.

    Regarding you labeling me dogmatic, you are really not in a position to make that assessment based on your degree of knowledge. Specifically, if I spent some time before coming on RJ thinking critically about political positions, reading much, and interacting with intelligent people who both challenged as well as reinforced my positions, I could have gradually come to my position after much introspection. Then, from your frame of reference, you have no idea my background and how I came to my positions. All you see is I have my position on RJ and am not easily bent from those positions by the arguments here, many of which I think are pretty lame. When you label someone like that, you are really showing not only your limited perspective, but the fact that you don't realize it is limited.


    dogmatic is as it does. The action of cutting it off early just happened to conform exactly to the definition of dogmatism he was talking about. Accept it for what it is. If you don't want your behaviour characterised as dogmatic just avoid dogmatic behaviour. Since the point of the lecture was all about the biggest obstacle to effective government (and social interaction) , your example is particularly timely (if sadly apt).

    I wish to engage in no further discussion with you today.

    My political leader (who elevated pragmatism over dogmatism) died this morning, and even the most dogmatic of his political opponents are taking the day off out of decency.

    Quite dense. I extend the discussion moratorium past today.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Oct 01, 2011 11:03 PM GMT
    I realize I'm a little late with this so I apologize, but it looked interesting so here you go. Sorry for the length and I hope you find something interesting or thought provoking. If you have any questions, please email me.

    1) How difficult was your coming out process? Did you face considerable opposition to your homosexuality from your family and friends? Are they more or less accepting today? After I realized it was time to start telling people, I started by telling my closest of friends one at a time, when I thought the moment was right. Then I told my brother in the same way, and I went home on leave specifically to tell my parents. They were surprised, but there were no problems. Not one of my friends left me, lectures me or excludes me, and I have the best family a man could hope for. All of my closest friends are very faithful Catholics or Baptists, and my honesty with them regarding my lifestyle has only strengthened our relationships.

    2) What is your religious background and how does it affect you today? I am Jewish but dont practice as often as I would like to.

    3) Describe the relationship with your parents? How does your father feel about your homosexuality? Your mother? On a scale of one-to-ten, how comfortable do you feel discussing your 'gay life' with your parents?My parents are accepting and supportive of everything I do.

    4) How active are you in the 'gay' scene (i.e. bars, clubs, organizations, volunteer, travel destinations, etc.) and how many gay friends do you have? Is your 'straight friend' ratio greater or less than your 'gay friend' ratio?I am not active at all in the gay scene. I have no gay friends, although since joining this site and others I have been emailing and talking on the phone with a handful of interesting people whom I look forward to calling "friend." I think my location, Augusta GA, limits the number of friends I have who are gay, not because its the South but because Augusta is a very clique-ish gay community and the number of like-minded men is limited.

    5) What is your opinion on masculinity and femininity? Do you value masculinity in gay men and despise femininity in gay men? I value masculinity in men. I dont despise femininity in men, but the more there is, and the more obvious or obnoxious it is, the more uncomfortable I am with it and the morel likely I am to avoid that person.

    6) What is your racial/cultural/ethnic background and how did it effect your opinions of homosexuality I'm a white Jew, ethnically German, Russian, Polish, Scottish and Irish. It had no bearing on my opinions regarding homosexuality.

    7) Did you come from a low-income, middle-class or high income background? My parents worked hard and earned a comfortable living. I wanted for nothing growing up.

    8 ) How out are you to those you interact with? Do you find yourself more closeted or "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" or you are you completely open? If you find yourself more closeted, is it out of embarrassment? I'm in the Navy, so DADT played a big role in how out I was with people. With family and friends I didnt hide anything. Now since the repeal I dont hide anything from anybody, but I dont make announcements or focus attention on my private life.

    9) Do you see yourself as 'better' than most gay people who are predominantly liberal or Democratic? If so, why? I dont believe that I as a person am better, unless a person's political or philosophical beliefs are malicious in nature. Then, I am better than that person. I do, however, believe that my political philosophy is better than a liberal or a Democrat, as well as most Republicans.

    10) On a scale of one to ten, how important is gay rights to you? Do you see it as important as the Civil Rights Movement was to African-Americans or do you see it as low on your priorities when it comes to voting?Individual liberty and individual rights are important to me, regardless of demographic or lifestyle. I am not a one-issue voter, but I tend to not worry about it because I tend to vote for people who believe in liberty and extremely limited government - regardless of their own personal opinions. I think the slow generational change of increasing tolerance towards gay people is in a way equal to the changes in society brought about by the black civil rights movements from the 50s-70s, or the suffrage movement at the turn of the last century.

    11) Are you socially conservative? If so, what are you socially conservative about? I'm socially conservative in that I believe in traditional manners and respect for institutions, even while perhaps trying to change them.

    12) Describe your dating life. Are you in a relationship now or are single/casually dating? What is your opinion on monogamy? I am single, not dating. I think once I stop deploying and move to a different city, it will be easier for me to meet like-minded men.

    13) Do you think some gay Republicans do experience a sense of self-loathing? If not, why do you think this perception is so wide-spread? If so, do you consider yourself having some self-loathing or low self-esteem in regards to your homosexuality that you haven't conquered yet? I do not think gay Republicans or conservatives are self-loathing. I think religion or environment would play more of a role in that than politics would. I think that perception exists because the gay community seems to be overwhelmingly liberal, and in my experience liberals are tolerant of most things except divergent opinions. I experience no self-loathing or low self esteem.

    14) Would you vote for an anti-gay candidate who has an extreme anti-gay record and has the power to strip or deny civil rights to gay citizens if you agreed with his or her other views? If so, why? I would not, primarily because that person clearly does not believe in individual liberty for anybody, and will eventually move from an anti-gay agenda to anti-something else.