Gay Republicans...

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

    May 03, 2007 11:02 PM GMT
    Recently there was a member who was thrown off this site for using abusive language, spreading statements of hate, and turning every forum into a debate about the political and cultural state of the US. He was verly clearly a "Gay Republican."

    The extreme right conservative has always used insideous and manipulative, but loud and powerful tactics to persuade public opinons on important civil issues in the US, many of them simliar to the tactic used by many fascits states in history. This ex RealJock member's behavior was not that much different from the likes of Ann Coulter and Bill O'Reily...

    I have always been very perplexed by the phenomenon of "Gay Republicans." Aside from principles of economics, what is the justification of such a person to take a stance on the political and civil issues with Republicans? How can a gay person side with a group who believes and treat us as 2nd class citizens...? It just seems ignorant, self hating, and a contradiction in existence...

    Anyone who is a gay Repulican or knows someone who is have something to say about this phenomenon?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 03, 2007 11:57 PM GMT
    Good topic. A dear friend is a gay republican, and he and i disagree on many things. But it really is more how to approach an issue or tackle it versus the more obtuse thinking prevalent among conservative thinkers.

    One thing he takes issue with from a "conservative" standpoint is the oversexed nature of the gay culture. He is a physically gorgeous man, has a bod for sin, but refuses to get involved in that kind of lifestyle (promiscuity and etc.).

    My point is that while you might not agree with that for yourself it is not helpful to judge it as inherently evil.

    So his republicanism while at many points is socially conservative, is not the reactionary and fearful hatemongering of reductive thinkers like Ann C. and Bill O'Rielly. He also espouses a more economic conservatism as well. So I can see how he can be gay, celebrate his identity as such, but not be liberal politically.

    Unfortunately the "sides" have stopped communicating due to the likes of O'Rielly and the others. In the US there should be democratic debates about things like Gay Rights and the like, so that people understand that being gay is as human as anything else, and stop this idiotic fear of a "gay agenda."
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 04, 2007 12:24 AM GMT
    I have a few friends who are "Log Cabin Republicans" but, like that organization, they drew the line at supporting Bush after he advocated a Constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. Generally, their argument is that they favor Republican economics, they want to change the party from the inside, etc.

    There is the same breadth of ideology among gay Republicans as among party members generally. If you wanna read gay wingnuts, check out gaypatriot.org. They routinely misrepresent facts, attack dissenting posters viciously and, in fact, now routinely evict anyone who doesn't toe the line. I find them almost comical to read.

    Only vaguely related, but I found this post on Glenn Greenwald's Salon blog yesterday astounding. It's about the Wall Street Journal's publication of an editorial column explicitly arguing that the president is properly above the rule of law:

    http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/05/02/mansfield/index.html
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 04, 2007 12:26 AM GMT
    I wonder how a "moderate" conservative votes on issues like legalizing gay marriage and being able to serve ithe military while openly gay?

    This is not a topic about "special rights" and the implication carries significance beyond "moral values" and religeous believes.

    Legal marraige would entitle basic citizen rights in the areas of immigration, child custody, child support, health proxy, inheretance, etc.

    Military rights extend to military health care, pension funds, spous inheretence, etc.

    Just because a gay man does not agree with the sexual practice and sexual culture of some gay men does not automatically send you to eht Republican camp...

    How does your friend, who is a moderate conservative, vote on the above issues as a gay man?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 04, 2007 12:30 AM GMT
    Obscenewish..

    Since you are the expert in psychology..., is there a known phenomenon with people who vote and actively participate in acitvities to do thier own group in..?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 04, 2007 12:38 AM GMT
    NYC,

    You're a smart guy. What exactly is so "perplexing" about gay Republicans?!

    Many gays are wealthy and educated beyond the 'average' American norm. Clearly some of these folks can be expected to support a strong pro-business platform, social conservatism, nationalism and economic libertarianism.

    Perhaps it is time to acknowledge those who buck the gay 'trend' and bring a steady voice to grass-root GLBT concerns where there have been very few indeed.

    There is more than one way to fight homophobia. If more gays WERE contributing time and money to the Republican party it might actually move that platform closer to center and foster more collaboration between our two leading parties.

    PM8
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 04, 2007 12:39 AM GMT
    Obscenewish..
    Read that site...

    Harvey Mansfield = Fascism re-visited...
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 04, 2007 12:39 AM GMT
    My only experience with gay republicans has been online, and without exception, they all exhibited the same angry reactionary jingoism that the guy who got booted from RealJock did.

    Personally, my political views span both parties, and I consider myself an independent. For example, I believe there should be laws to protect the environment. I believe the benefits bestowed upon married couples should not be a special right for opposite sex couples. I also strongly believe in the right to keep and bear arms, and I support CCW laws. And, I shudder at the thought of the federal government taking over the healthcare system. But, somehow, I manage to not be an angry fuckwit when discussing such things.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 04, 2007 12:50 AM GMT
    Perhaps because gay marriage isn't the biggest issue to me. If you look at the top candidates running for office, EVERY one of them treats gay marriage the same. They all oppose gay marriage, yet are for domestic partnership and "equal rights." So...I turn to the other issues. Someone who agrees with me on 80% of the issues is my kind of candidate. Simply because they disagree with me on one issue - gay marriage - doesn't mean they treat me as a "second class citizen".

    Romney in 08
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 04, 2007 12:50 AM GMT
    To equate one's "formal" education level and income as "smart" or not being ignorant is a dangerous thinking...

    Ignorance knows no boundaries, income leevl or "formal" eduation.

    If one beleives an ideaology to the point of being tunnel visioned, for whatever inner and complex reasons, one can use all the deductive and rationalization skills to argue your case. It is not that difficult to use one's formal education to manipulate with fallible human nautre and reactiveness. There are intelligent lawyers and educators, but not all of them are ethical or have good agendas Intelligent does not rule out ignornance.

    Just look at Harvey Mansfiled...Harvard professor...but nothing really new to say... Just re-packaging fascism...
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 04, 2007 12:54 AM GMT
    Domestic partnership is not federal and may not be honored nation wide. That included if your partner gets very sick and cannot express himself in a sate hostile to gay men, you will not be able to monitor the level of health care he gets.

    Not federal also means no EQAUL right when it comes to your straight counter part who can get his wife to become an American citizen and you are cannot. That means you have the right like a 2nd class citizen.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 04, 2007 1:00 AM GMT
    So domestic partnership is NOT equal rights...

    There is a famous politician who died, and his life time partner got NONE of his pension from the military. While some one who may have served LESS than this man did in the military would have the full right of having their wives get the pension. This is NOT EQUAL rights.

    Don't let domestic partnership fool you into thining it is EQUAL rights, because it is NOT.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 04, 2007 1:05 AM GMT
    Another example in our country's history of ignorance not limited by income level or formal education: SEPARATE BUT EQUAL.

    That was supported by many who had high income and formal education. It did nothing to progress the civil rights movement in this couuntry. Even after the supreme court change this ruling and separate was then ruled inherently NOT equal, the school systems in South did not comply to this and shut all the public schools down. It took a blood bath to get things going..

    Again, formal education and income leve does not define ANYTHING...
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 04, 2007 1:10 AM GMT
    NYCM... LOL We agree! 'Ignorance knows no boundaries.'

    You just proved it. Your knee-jerk responses (all 3 of them - true to form) have nothing to do with what I said. The forum topic isn't "gay marriage."

    If I understood what you originally said the topic was (perplexing) "gay Republicans."

    Re-read my post.

    PM8
  • dfrourke

    Posts: 1062

    May 04, 2007 1:12 AM GMT
    ...I am jumping into this thread a bit late, but would like to speak about the original post...

    It seems there is an assumption that Republican = conservative...which may be true for the base of the party, but I think it is a generalization...Republicans/Democrats are not two sides of the same coin...there are a great deal of similarities between the parties...media really likes to highlight the differences to polarize politics and voters...

    This isn't to say that stereotypes of the parties doesn't have any validity, but honestly I could see a Gay Republican who is FISCALLY conservative, but also socially inclusive...

    I personally agree with social welfare programs and trying to create a supportive social network for our citizenry, but I also believe in balancing a budget at the end of the day...the fiscal conservative in me has jumped out as I have gotten older...

    Politics is more complex than "either or" which the media soundbites have the voters believe...

    There is also the concept of "change from within"...which I am happy there are gay people in the Republican party...they are more apt to help bring the party's policies in line with centrist views...

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

    May 04, 2007 1:31 AM GMT
    To tell you the truth I am not into politics at all perhaps it is a Candian thing. We Canadians punish our political parties by not voting them in the next election even if we are voting for someone we don't like.

    Republicans from what I see as an outsider (I was born in the US, living in canada) is that they give this illusion of saintliness as people but I am sure they have less morals and values than scumbags. It is a do as I say, not as I do.

    I had some experience in the court system in the bible belt. They are the most corupt bunch of crooks that I ever exerienced. Even my lawyer told me that too. The lawyers are in kahoots with the judges and the District attory. They are all republican, so I rest my case. I have had lots of experience with religious neighbors and they can do as they please but don't you look at them cross eyed cause the whole town will know = Just like the REPUBLICANS

    Give me Clinton back any time and he can squirt on anyone's dress, I don't give a damn. He stil was a great President in my book.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 04, 2007 1:32 AM GMT
    Re: Republican = conservatives

    There are real conservatives who are utterly disgusted with today's Republicans, who in no way stand for the Constitution, small, limited government, state's rights, and fiscal conservatism.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 04, 2007 1:45 AM GMT
    There is utterly nothing fiscally conservative about the current Republican leadership. Bush has never seen a spending bill he didn't like. He's the only president to cut taxes during a war. How "conservative" is it to grant the wealthy enormous tax cuts while creating an enormous deficit? Even Reagan and Bush Sr. saw the insanity of that.

    Democrats, like Bill Clinton, generally are far more fiscally conservative in reality. Republicans talk fiscal restraint all the time but it's nothing but a vote-getting abstraction for them.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 04, 2007 2:58 AM GMT
    If cutemascjock was asked to leave id be a bit disappointed. he gave us something to rally against. lol. But back to the topic on hand. The reason it is strange for someone to be gay and republican is that we are a minority and institutionally oppressed. Republicans believe we are imoral, that we are a disease. The majority of americans believes this as well. Although being gay isnt everything to us, but it does substantially define us and drives us to love other men. Any party that denies me the right to see someone I love and want to spend the rest of my life with in the hospital, or prevent me from declaring it offically and financially, does not deserve my support. We aree fighting for our RIGHTS. There are only roughly 10% of us in the US and we can't afford to have some people who would rather get a tax break or buy guns than to have our right to be officially recognized. AS far as I'm concerned Republicans can burn in hell.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 04, 2007 4:23 AM GMT
    PHLMuacle..

    Yes, I do know how to read, and understand what I read... I mentioned gay marriage in response to another memebers' reply and I was not replying to only your post as your posts are not the center of my thoughts (really.)

    One memeber responded that not having the rigth to marry does not equate being treated like a 2nd class citizen. I chose to provide examples and evidence that this is not the case. It is no different from a government telling a white kid in the 50's that he deserves a good public education, and then turn around telling a poor black kid: NO, you cannot come to class. The government is telling gay men and women: NO, you cannot make your foreign born spouse an American citizen; NO, you cannot bypass the HIPPA law when it comes to the health care of you spouse; NO, you deserve nothing you and your spouse owned togehter and were entitled to (like pension) as a couple after your spouse dies; NO, you have no rights to the children you raised with your spouse if he dies. AND then say to your straight neighbors: YES, YES, YES, and YES. MORE TO THAT: The govenment wants go an extra step to introduce a LAW to make EQUAL rights for gays ILLEGAL.. HOW IS THAT NOT BEING TREATED LIKE A 2ND CLASS CITIZEN?

    AND I do not agree putting more $$ into the Republican Party would "center" the current trend. That would just be unspeakably simplistic... I do not think any intelligent adult would really buy into that, so I did not even bother to address it earlier...

    Furthermore, in thinking over Obscenwish's comments about the current Repulican being fiscal concervative... He provided evidence so I do agree with him. But I can see how many gay men would have chosen to vote for Repulicans believing they are choosing the lesser of 2 evils: gay rights now, or better fiscal plans today...

    But what many gay men do not see are the LONG term effects of this action. The Supreme Court Justice can cahnge hands... Jsut look at the recent abortion law passed! What IF the lay making gay marraige illegal was actually passed? And the economic benefit are not passed on to the country but only to the very, very few extremely wealthy group...

    So, I am STILL perplexed..., Gay Republican, I don't get it...
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 04, 2007 4:25 AM GMT
    Tell us how you really feel about Republicans, Owl. :)

    The things you describe are part of the reason being gay is, like it or not, about more than where you put your dick. As members of an oppressed minority, all of us develop strategies for dealing with the dominant culture that heterosexuals do not have to. These strategies become part of our shared culture.

    One popular strategy in recent years has been to re-closet gay sexuality in the guise of "normality." For some gay people, that means becoming a Republican. I have noticed among Republican friends, though, that many kind of outgrow that when they lose their fear about being gay. I'm including a close friend who won political office as a closeted Republican and, two years later, after coming out, ran as a Democrat for re-election.

    That reminds me: Some experiments in experimental existential psychology (XXP) recently demonstrated very clearly that when people are scared, they automatically become more conservative-minded, more "patriotic," more authoritarian. When college students in one experiment were asked whether they preferred Kerry or Bush, the majority chose Kerry. When, however, they were reminded of 9/11 and terrorism, a clear majority changed their vote to Bush. When people were asked if they supported nuking the Middle East, the vast majority, including conservatives, said no. When they were reminded of terrorism, the conservatives all changed their minds to support nukes.

    So, maybe fear analogously drives some gay people to conservative politics and, as they become more comfortable with being gay, they drift out the Log Cabin Club's door.

    I don't mean to pathologize every gay person who votes Republican but in a party with such blazing hypocrisy and cruelty directed toward gay people (Haggard, Foley, etc.), it's hard to logically rationalize supporting politicians with hateful agendas.

    By the way, it's worth remembering that the 2004 Republican platform, besides opposing gay marriage, also opposed all gay military service. The official party position is not merely resistant to change; they want to turn back the clock.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 04, 2007 4:33 AM GMT
    "AND I do not agree putting more $$ into the Republican Party would "center" the current trend. That would just be unspeakably simplistic... I do not think any intelligent adult would really buy into that, so I did not even bother to address it earlier..."

    This could only happen if corporations, which give the vast majority of their political contributions to Republicans, also demanded more egalitarian policies for gay people.

    It would also require asking the evangelical Republicans to abandon their Bibles.

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

    May 04, 2007 4:33 AM GMT
    WOW! Good post Obsenewish!

    Speaking about the psychology of fear... I would like to mention fascism again. One of the tools fascism gains popularity throgh out history is FEAR:

    If you do not do this or that, terrible things are ahead, therefore, you must choose to be one of us. And, if you are not one of us, you are one of them! One of them is to be feared and supressed at any means in the sake of patriotism and better outcoem for all, even if it means end of libreal thoughts, questions, and the begining of tyranny (read the article about Harvey Mansfield provided by Obscenwish in an earlier post.)

    Intersting you bourght out the psychology of fear amongst gay men...
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 04, 2007 4:47 AM GMT
    So PHLMuscle8..

    So, to me, being simplistic is a form of ignorance, while multiple replies to more than one members posts is just covering all grounds..
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 04, 2007 4:59 AM GMT
    I think that the issue of one's politics is always a hot potato. It's hard to juggle the strong opinions one way or the other.

    I don't think that being a Democrat implies being fiscally irresponsible, any more than being a Republican means that one has an automatic knee-jerk reaction to any progressive ideas. I do believe, however, that there are far more fiscally-responsible Democrats than there are progressive Republicans.

    I also agree that we need to think globally. The gay marriage issue, IMHO, will turn in our favor sooner or later, just as civil rights developed in a sinusoidal way over the 20th century. However, there are some serioius issues that cannot be reversed...including environmental issues that could have catastrophic implications.

    To me, I'd be much more willing to vote for a candidate on those environmental issues that might have an implication about the planet's basic livability for all, than on the gay marriage issue. The latter will come around...the former can become an issue of life and death.

    John