Why do you consider yourself a gay Republican?

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

    Jan 13, 2012 7:46 AM GMT
    What I would like to honestly know is why a gay man identifys with the Republican party. Is it the tax breaks for the wealthy, what? I ask in all honesty with no hidden agenda. If you belong to any party/team, you should be able to articulate why you are on that team.

    Unless there is something I am missing, homosexuals and Republicans don't make good bed fellows. They are against same sex marriage, have the family values thing going on, and seem to fight gays at every turn. I would like to know what about that party attracted you to it.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 13, 2012 12:32 PM GMT
    Very simple. 1) Many of us believe the particular groups of Democrats in power are leading the country to destruction. 2) Many of us are not completely defined by gayness. We have other dimensions. 3) We don't believe some moderate Republicans will be obsessed with anti-gay measures. 4) We put what we think is best for the country first. 5) I think when the Democratic Party becomes more moderate, the Republicans will have to work more for moderate votes and moderates within the party will get more power. There are pro-gay organizations within the party but their influenced is reduced at present because the Democrats going far left from our perspective has led to the influence of far right element within the Republican Party. If the Democrats lose this fall, likely Democrats will move more to the center, leading Republican center of gravity to do same.

    Side note: I don't consider myself a died in the wool Republican and in my state have supported Democrats, even some whose positions differed from mine if I thought they were of exceptional character.

    If you want to explore further why many of us believe in 1) above, I suggest a few sources. Generally, I find the editorial positions of the Wall Street Journal consistent with my own positions.

    http://www.wsj.com
    http://www.weeklystandard.com/
    http://www.americanthinker.com/
    http://dailycaller.com/
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 13, 2012 5:03 PM GMT
    As capitalist, republicans should embrace gay rights since an economy flourishes when everyone has the right to live to their full potential.

    But the GOP as it stands - and as it has been since Reagan, does not stand for free enterprise, rather just a set of special interests (just a different group from those on the democratic side) with a lot of homophobia thrown in. Sure it may change, but that will take a lifetime. It took generations for the GOP to go to the liberal and progressive party of T. Roosevelt and it may take another 80 years to rediscover that tradition. .

    So as a registered independent, I find there is no place for me in the GOP at either the national or even more reactionary state level.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 13, 2012 5:27 PM GMT
    I don't consider myself a "gay republican" but I do consider myself a fiscal conservative/libertarian and I usually vote Republican as long as the candidate is moderate enough on social issues for my comfort level. When you vote for a candidate from a party you aren't voting for one thing (unless you are a single-issue voter who doesn't care about the big picture), you are voting for the economic direction of your country--the future that is affected by decisions made now. The idea that a gay person would vote republican to "give tax breaks to the rich" is born from intense ignorance and prepubescent reasoning.

    While majorly flawed, the Republican party's economic platform is more in harmony with classical liberalism -- the idea of letting people keep more of what they earn and encouraging an opportunity society as opposed to an entitlement society. The democratic party, despite their visibly more supportive role with gay rights, represent a direction that seeks to constantly expand the role of government in order to increasingly grow the entitlement society and do what is "best" for society at the cost of limiting freedom. While the goals of statist policies seem outwardly "good" and based on human compassion, the results do not meet the intentions and the outcome of such collective policies (which I won't elaborate on further) result in far greater overall hurt and economic failure than accepting that we live in a flawed world where some degree of hurt and suffering cannot be averted as much as we want to think it can be. Liberals tend to believe they can "utopianize" society and that eventually somehow the whole world will sing kumbaya together (meanwhile in the real world there are united countries like China eager to claim the ascendency in world affairs). Conservatives are a bit more cynical about what is possible -- they tend to view things more realistically and therefore their policies emphasize sustainability and are often seen by those with little discernment to be "cruel" and "heartless".

    The "right" pushes for freedom, the "left" pushes for "equality". I agree with Milton Friedman when he said: "The society that puts equality before freedom will end up with neither, the society that puts freedom before equality will end up with a great measure of both".

    The inherent hypocrisy in the Republican party, of course, is their stance on social issues like gay rights, etc. Once that aspect (based on maintaining a minority but critical voting block) has been phased out they will be more in accord with what they preach about expanding freedom.

    When comparing the stances of both parties on almost every other issue besides gay marriage (democrats tend to be more sympathetic, although not all of them are in favor of gay marriage including the president) I find that I agree more with republicans on the issues, whether it's cutting spending, being business friendly, being against the lawlessness of illegal immigration, gun rights etc etc...

    Besides gay rights the three most important issues for me are 1. Reducing the deficit and balancing the budget. 2. Resisting the trend towards socialized medicine (it just isn't sustainable for large heterogeneous nations) and 3. Securing the borders and halting illegal immigration

    Please let me know which democratic candidates support the same issues I do and I will wholeheartedly throw my support behind them!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 13, 2012 5:45 PM GMT
    Its funny, I consider myself a fiscal conservative, but with both parties pandering to special interests, I find as an investor, Democratic policies make more sense in theory and practice.

    There are certain things which are too large for the private sector to do - or they are necessary for the Republic and the Federal govt has to step in. This has been accepted throughout this nation's history. By 1800, the USACE was building harbors and other civilian projects, President Adams supported Federal building of roads - later the US govt. funded a large part of the Cumberland Road, it paid for the transcontinental railroad, the Civil War Pension Program, the Panama Canal, the interstate highway system*, and having a social safety net, to public health --- all things the private sector could not or would not do.

    On specific issues, President Bush had a plan for securing the borders, but his own party killed it; neither party has a plan for balancing the budget but only the Democrats are willing to compromise, And since we spend about 1/3 more per capita on medicine and in some categories - like infant deaths - we approach third world levels, it is clear the private sector cannot or will not do it.

    * Its baloney that it was built for defense when in the Eisenhower administration the hardware - tanks &c. were moved by rail.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 13, 2012 5:51 PM GMT
    webster11111 saidIts funny, I consider myself a fiscal conservative, but with both parties pandering to special interests, I find as an investor, Democratic policies make more sense in theory and practice.

    There are certain things which are too large for the private sector to do - or they are necessary for the Republic and the Federal govt has to step in. This has been accepted throughout this nation's history. By 1800, the USACE was building harbors and other civilian projects, President Adams supported Federal building of roads - later the US govt. funded a large part of the Cumberland Road, it paid for the transcontinental railroad, the Civil War Pension Program, the Panama Canal, to the interstate highway system, to having a social safety net, to public health --- all things the private sector could not or would not do.


    No one denies that there is a place and a role for government. Democrats just don't know when to stop. Before you know it, they are rationing how much sugar you can have per month "for your own good".
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 13, 2012 5:58 PM GMT
    LOL, I have my mother's report card from elementary school right here. They were graded on how often they took a bath, how clean their nails were and how much milk they drank. (They were not graded on clothing, many did not have proper clothing after the crash and when Hoover was President). What we consider healthy today in hygine and nutrition did not exist before the govt., Federal and state stepped in - and those programs existed under both Republican and Democratic administrations.

    Somehow because a Democratic First Lady has a cause it is wrong, even though it has been Federal policy for over 100 years to promote good health. Heck, you don't see people complaining about the JFK administration promoting exercise, or Laura Bush promoting reading. If that was Michele Obama, they would be complaining that she was telling people what to do in their spare time.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 13, 2012 6:04 PM GMT
    webster11111 saidLOL, I have my mother's report card from elementary school right here. They were graded on how often they took a bath, how clean their nails were and how much milk they drank. (They were not graded on clothing, many did not have proper clothing after the crash and when Hoover was President). What we consider healthy today in hygine and nutrition did not exist before the govt., Federal and state stepped in - and those programs existed under both Republican and Democratic administrations.


    Citations appearing to entirely "require" the role of government are often societal inevitabilities that were expedited through government intervention.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 14, 2012 5:26 AM GMT
    mocktwinkie said
    webster11111 saidIts funny, I consider myself a fiscal conservative, but with both parties pandering to special interests, I find as an investor, Democratic policies make more sense in theory and practice.

    There are certain things which are too large for the private sector to do - or they are necessary for the Republic and the Federal govt has to step in. This has been accepted throughout this nation's history. By 1800, the USACE was building harbors and other civilian projects, President Adams supported Federal building of roads - later the US govt. funded a large part of the Cumberland Road, it paid for the transcontinental railroad, the Civil War Pension Program, the Panama Canal, to the interstate highway system, to having a social safety net, to public health --- all things the private sector could not or would not do.


    No one denies that there is a place and a role for government. Democrats just don't know when to stop. Before you know it, they are rationing how much sugar you can have per month "for your own good".
    Yeah.. and thats just like rationing METAL for bombs.. its "for your own good".

    You're so full of shit your diapers smell.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 14, 2012 5:40 AM GMT
    i swear to christ someone already posted a thread exactly like this one like 2 months ago and this is just a reoccurring theme.