• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Gay GOP group hesitantly backs Romney

Gay GOP group hesitantly backs Romney - Yahoo! News



Not sure where I stand on this. On one hand, some people don't find gay rights (or well, just rights) in general. On the other, this feels like black people arguing that Jim Crow rights weren't all that important. However I looked up GOProud and found this:

"We founded GOProud to provide an unapologetic voice for gay conservatives and their straight allies. Since 2009, we have challenged conventional wisdom, smashed stereotypes and fought like hell for what we believe in."

...It feels "odd" to call people allies when they're actively working to deem your relationships as wrong and unworthy of the same societal and cultural benefits their unions get.

I know Jimmy and Chris quite well and they aren't idiots or playing a game. They work with those conservatives who accept their orientation and usually support gay marriage (their 'straight allies') as well as conservatives from across the spectrum to push their own agenda as conservative Republicans as well as expose people to the notion of Gay Republicans and erode opinions. I know they are also vehement about the compatibility of being gay and conservative as aside from a few obvious issues they believe more or less the same things that their straight compatriots believe about the outstanding issues facing our country.
 
Gay GOP group hesitantly backs Romney - Yahoo! News



Not sure where I stand on this. On one hand, some people don't find gay rights (or well, just rights) in general. On the other, this feels like black people arguing that Jim Crow rights weren't all that important. However I looked up GOProud and found this:

"We founded GOProud to provide an unapologetic voice for gay conservatives and their straight allies. Since 2009, we have challenged conventional wisdom, smashed stereotypes and fought like hell for what we believe in."

...It feels "odd" to call people allies when they're actively working to deem your relationships as wrong and unworthy of the same societal and cultural benefits their unions get.

They probably feel that some things are more important then SSM.
 
They probably feel that some things are more important then SSM.

Why am I not surprised you chimed in with your never ending wisdom on social issues? Again, if gay rights were SSM and just that, it wouldn't be the wedge issue it is.
 
I know Jimmy and Chris quite well and they aren't idiots or playing a game. They work with those conservatives who accept their orientation and usually support gay marriage (their 'straight allies') as well as conservatives from across the spectrum to push their own agenda as conservative Republicans as well as expose people to the notion of Gay Republicans and erode opinions. I know they are also vehement about the compatibility of being gay and conservative as aside from a few obvious issues they believe more or less the same things that their straight compatriots believe about the outstanding issues facing our country.

Why, yes. And the Log Cabin Republicans have been around a good while.
 
They probably feel that some things are more important then SSM.

They do, and what Jimmy and Chris will both say is that realistically they think the chances, absent a major supreme court victory, of getting gay marriage legitimized by the federal government and by a majority of states is low for the near future. Whereas entitlements that are privatized put options back into their hands that they do not need federal recognition for as far as healthcare and income security are concerned for them and their spouses.
 
They do, and what Jimmy and Chris will both say is that realistically they think the chances, absent a major supreme court victory, of getting gay marriage legitimized by the federal government and by a majority of states is low for the near future. Whereas entitlements that are privatized put options back into their hands that they do not need federal recognition for as far as healthcare and income security are concerned for them and their spouses.

Whaaaaaa? Jimmy and Chris sound like idiots.
 
If the courts are moving ahead of Obama whose support of SSM is a tepid election year conversion, I can see why they might see their ends not dependent on Obama as the means. I know a few gay republicans. They own small businesses and are more worried about their income than their marital status right now IMO.
 
Whaaaaaa? Jimmy and Chris sound like idiots.

They aren't, and Chris in particular is a very interesting guy. Though I think he endorsed Gary Johnson this time around, while Jimmy I think, and I'm not sure if I remember correctly, but I believe he endorsed Romney. One of the points that they make which I found interesting, and I think Chris makes it more often, is that they are remarkably well received at conservative functions all across the country and that one of the points that they always have raised by people is that they don't match their impression of what gays are like. The idea being that opposition to homosexuality and SSM in many communities and circles is fomented by an aversion to the cultural image and narrative that has been portrayed to them. Chris is quick to claim that this is the result of deep stream of radicalism and leftism and the manifestations of associated behavior within the overt gay community that obscure the majority who look like everyone else and wear a suit and tie to work every day.
 
I want to know why any gay person would be Republican. It's kind of like African Americans for the KKK.
 
I want to know why any gay person would be Republican. It's kind of like African Americans for the KKK.

Or like a pro-life citizen being a Democrat? Not a perfect analogy I know, but the point is illustrated I think. It is generally made up of people who identify strongly with the other 98% of the Republican platform that does not have to do with SSM. Obviously in this case the 2% of contention is integral to their identities and thus a major issue, but it pales in comparison for many to the wider issues at stake for the country.
 
I want to know why any gay person would be Republican. It's kind of like African Americans for the KKK.

For ****s sakes....really?

Republicans = KKK?

Yeah...I remember going to that GOP Convention the other year. We rounded us up some homo's and strung'em up in a tree before we had the floor vote for our new platform plank.

:roll:

Yes...a gay person couldn't possibly actually give a damn about limited government power, reduced federal spending, reduction in government intrusion into the private sector, strong defense, and other traditionally Republican stereotypes.

No...no, they must vote and care only about "Gay Rights" issues and THAT'S IT.

This kind of ridiculous stereotyping done in this thread, if it was done coming from the other side about homosexuals, would have cries of "HOMOPHOBES!" being shouted to the heavens...but somehow it's prefectly reasonable to assume every gay person must care about the same things politically to the same degree.
 
For ****s sakes....really?

Republicans = KKK?

Yeah...I remember going to that GOP Convention the other year. We rounded us up some homo's and strung'em up in a tree before we had the floor vote for our new platform plank.

:roll:

Yes...a gay person couldn't possibly actually give a damn about limited government power, reduced federal spending, reduction in government intrusion into the private sector, strong defense, and other traditionally Republican stereotypes.

No...no, they must vote and care only about "Gay Rights" issues and THAT'S IT.

This kind of ridiculous stereotyping done in this thread, if it was done coming from the other side about homosexuals, would have cries of "HOMOPHOBES!" being shouted to the heavens...but somehow it's prefectly reasonable to assume every gay person must care about the same things politically to the same degree.

Republicans don't lynch people, at least not yet, but they're every bit as bigoted as the KKK and the Nazi Party. History is repeating itself. We're in a time period similar to Germany in the 1920s when economic times were tough and people turned to extremism. The Republican Party is not the conservative party. We've seen a shift that started with Reagan and got more extreme with each Republican president after that. Republicans believe someone who can't afford health care deserves to die. That's a fascist position. Republicans are corporate owned by the Koch Brothers. Hitler was owned by the wealthy industrialists in Germany. Republicans start unnecessary wars and then appeal to vitriolic patriotism when anyone questions them. Republicans use scapegoating to get votes. Gays, liberals, socialists are all people irrationally vilified by the Republicans, just like Hitler did of the Jews and the communists.

The political breakdown of the United States is as follows: The Democrats are the conservative party. They're about where the Republicans were in the 70s before they turned extreme. The Republicans are the fascists, and the Greens are the liberals (but are nearly non-existent). That's why this election is so important. We must not just re-elect Obama. We must completely destroy the Republican Party. It's evil. If you support it, you're supporting evil and the destruction of the United States because we'll end up in a war with Iran that turns into World War III. Anyone who votes Republican is betraying his country. I know you don't like hearing the truth, but this is the truth.

The political re-alignment that could save the country would be if the Republicans were completely wiped out and Congress were made up of Democrats and Greens.
 
Republicans don't lynch people, at least not yet, but they're every bit as bigoted as the KKK and the Nazi Party. History is repeating itself. We're in a time period similar to Germany in the 1920s when economic times were tough and people turned to extremism. The Republican Party is not the conservative party. We've seen a shift that started with Reagan and got more extreme with each Republican president after that. Republicans believe someone who can't afford health care deserves to die. That's a fascist position. Republicans are corporate owned by the Koch Brothers. Hitler was owned by the wealthy industrialists in Germany. Republicans start unnecessary wars and then appeal to vitriolic patriotism when anyone questions them. Republicans use scapegoating to get votes. Gays, liberals, socialists are all people irrationally vilified by the Republicans, just like Hitler did of the Jews and the communists.

The political breakdown of the United States is as follows: The Democrats are the conservative party. They're about where the Republicans were in the 70s before they turned extreme. The Republicans are the fascists, and the Greens are the liberals (but are nearly non-existent). That's why this election is so important. We must not just re-elect Obama. We must completely destroy the Republican Party. It's evil. If you support it, you're supporting evil and the destruction of the United States because we'll end up in a war with Iran that turns into World War III. Anyone who votes Republican is betraying his country. I know you don't like hearing the truth, but this is the truth.

The political re-alignment that could save the country would be if the Republicans were completely wiped out and Congress were made up of Democrats and Greens.

What a distorted sense of the political landscape.
 
What a distorted sense of the political landscape.

That's what they would have said in Germany in the 1920s. This is reality. I have a degree in German and know that country's history inside and out. We're seeing the same thing happen here that happened there. If you don't think it can happen here, think again. Republicans meet the definition of fascist in every way. Here's a link that explains why:

Are Republicans Fascists

People thought Hitler was just a super patriot. They would have thought it absurd if they had been told the truth about his evil. Someone has to tell the truth about Republican evil now so that history doesn't repeat itself.
 
That's what they would have said in Germany in the 1920s. This is reality. I have a degree in German and know that country's history inside and out. We're seeing the same thing happen here that happened there. If you don't think it can happen here, think again. Republicans meet the definition of fascist in every way. Here's a link that explains why:

Are Republicans Fascists

People thought Hitler was just a super patriot. They would have thought it absurd if they had been told the truth about his evil. Someone has to tell the truth about Republican evil now so that history doesn't repeat itself.

This is what happens when bad political science meets up with bad historical methodology, and a tinge of the eccentric.
 
For ****s sakes....really?

Republicans = KKK?

Yeah...I remember going to that GOP Convention the other year. We rounded us up some homo's and strung'em up in a tree before we had the floor vote for our new platform plank.

:roll:

Yes...a gay person couldn't possibly actually give a damn about limited government power, reduced federal spending, reduction in government intrusion into the private sector, strong defense, and other traditionally Republican stereotypes.

No...no, they must vote and care only about "Gay Rights" issues and THAT'S IT.

This kind of ridiculous stereotyping done in this thread, if it was done coming from the other side about homosexuals, would have cries of "HOMOPHOBES!" being shouted to the heavens...but somehow it's prefectly reasonable to assume every gay person must care about the same things politically to the same degree.

If you take out the ridiculous KKK reference, there's something there as far as why would they want to be Republicans. I mean there is a subset of Republicans that believes that gays are all going to Hell. I can understand why a gay person would be hesitant to associate with them.
 
This is what happens when bad political science meets up with bad historical methodology, and a tinge of the eccentric.

They would have said that in the 1920s. Hitler was just a rabble rouser. He wasn't dangerous. He was just a loud patriot. We can work with him. I'd bet you don't rebut any of the claims in that link. They're all true. Republicans are fascists.
 
How dare they not be one issue voters. I bet they're not even artistic.

Yeah, they're probably not even real gays. I'll bet they aren't gay enough, maybe only half-gay.
 
It has always amazed me how the Republicans get so many people to vote for them against their own best interest. Seems like another example to me
Riiiiight. Because democrat policies have been SO tremendously beneficial to...say...black America... :lamo
 
There are certain character flaws which I would consider as being 'unforgivable' in a candidate. People who are for fostering unequal treatment for gay people (unequal treatment for any oppressed group) have a character flaw which cannot be accepted. It speaks either to their willingness to embrace a belief system that is cruel or even to foster such a belief system and extend it (in some cases). As such, no matter how much one might agree with the candidate on other issues, this single issue does in fact morally exclude the candidate from consideration for election.

This should apply to anyone considering the candidate, but one certainly is surprised when some gay people themselves minimize the significance of this character flaw. One can only assume that gay people are not immune to rationalization. Which is completely unsurprising since they are humans.

As to the criticism of 'single issue voting'. I will reiterate: There are some issues which speak to the character of the candidate, and which remove that candidate from consideration. This is one of them. When a candidate has shown they don't at all "get" the issues surrounding the matter... like, hospital visitation rights, for example. The insensitivity is not just mind boggling, it is symptomatic of evil.
 
Its official. Gay people should only vote based on whether or not a candidate supports gay marriage and NOT unimportant issues like debt, deficit, unemployment, crime, energy policy, gas prices...

****ing fabulous.
 
If you take out the ridiculous KKK reference, there's something there as far as why would they want to be Republicans. I mean there is a subset of Republicans that believes that gays are all going to Hell. I can understand why a gay person would be hesitant to associate with them.

...it was a two sentence post, half of which was that ridiculous KKK reference. It doesn't warrant having it "taken out". Even beyond that, it's an amazingly non-thinking kind of question. There a subset of the Democrat Party that hated the Military back in the Vietnam era, yet I could easily think of reasons why some military men would vote Democratic. Despite what people insulated in our little political bubble may think, many people don't decide their politics singularly based on identity. If you honestly think there is no reason at all why a gay person would ever vote Republican then yes...that's a ridiculous stupid statement no matter which way you slice it. I can understand COMPLETELY why a gay person would be hesitant to associate with Republicans. That's a LOT different than suggesting incredulously that you'd want to know why any gay person would ever consider being a Republican.

But the fact is, the comment DID include the ridiculous KKK reference as pretty much half of it's entire point and largely providing context to the only other sentence that was stated. Considering she has continued forward to label Republicans as Nazi's and reaffirmed the statement that they're on par with the KKK....yeah, I'm not going to view her deranged comment outside of the very clear, purposeful, twisted context she presented it in.
 
Riiiiight. Because democrat policies have been SO tremendously beneficial to...say...black America... :lamo

That's a community that's struggled no matter which party is in charge. I'd say they've been failed by the entire political system, not just one party or the other.
 
...it was a two sentence post, half of which was that ridiculous KKK reference. It doesn't warrant having it "taken out". Even beyond that, it's an amazingly non-thinking kind of question. There a subset of the Democrat Party that hated the Military back in the Vietnam era, yet I could easily think of reasons why some military men would vote Democratic. Despite what people insulated in our little political bubble may think, many people don't decide their politics singularly based on identity. If you honestly think there is no reason at all why a gay person would ever vote Republican then yes...that's a ridiculous stupid statement no matter which way you slice it. I can understand COMPLETELY why a gay person would be hesitant to associate with Republicans. That's a LOT different than suggesting incredulously that you'd want to know why any gay person would ever consider being a Republican.

But the fact is, the comment DID include the ridiculous KKK reference as pretty much half of it's entire point and largely providing context to the only other sentence that was stated. Considering she has continued forward to label Republicans as Nazi's and reaffirmed the statement that they're on par with the KKK....yeah, I'm not going to view her deranged comment outside of the very clear, purposeful, twisted context she presented it in.

There are good reasons why they might want to VOTE Republican. I don't know why they'd want to BE one. Two different things.

I voted for Obama. I am not a member of the Democratic party.
 
That's a community that's struggled no matter which party is in charge. I'd say they've been failed by the entire political system, not just one party or the other.
And yet...they offer near blanket support to democrats and if they dare openly support republicans they are hit with some of the most ugly descriptors imaginable.
 
Back
Top Bottom