• 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 Republicans draw support, concern at CPAC

Republicans will accept the gay organizationn under their tent but Conservatives will never accept the gay agenda so its a wash...Bottom line we will take your vote but never accept your social agenda..........

Tactical error. When you keep doing that eventually people start voting for the other guys. (or as we see now, a third party)

You heard the crowd there, NP. People aren't sharing your views much these days.
 
If 25% of openly gay people vote republican,

From the get go, the premise is based on something unverifiable.

what percent of closeted gay people do you think would vote republican? Given the effect of group dynamics and social expectations, I would expect that it would probably be higher.

The issue is complex because people with same-sex attractions often don't identify as gay. People who identify as gay are self-labeling. So it's a bit of a misnomer to say that there are closeted gays voting for Republicans, because that would in turn presume that all closeted gays identify as gay in the first place.

There are lots of "straight" guys that vote Republican who have had same-sex relations in their lifetimes. Ted Haggard comes to mind.

I don't see how labeling the sexual demographic in the voting process is useful.
 
a whole lot of gays voted republican

in massachusetts, virginia, new jersey

a whole lot of gays will do so in nevada

and pennsylvania, delaware, north dakota

just like in the bay state, they'll join happily with conservatives and independents and lipton lovers and bible thumpers and dems who can do math and libertarians...

all united passionately on one thing

VEHEMENT opposition to obama

the only explanation for THIRTY POINT SWINGS in all bailiwicks

so far, it's made for a lovely political marriage

party on, progressives

be proud!
 
Last edited:
a lot of em are probably pissed at a president who would drop em a line for his wednesday nite state of the union promising a repeal of dadt

only to see him pidgeon hole it in semi permanent parliamentary process on the proceeding thursday

kinda disrespectful, i'd presume

people feel played
 
From the get go, the premise is based on something unverifiable.

The issue is complex because people with same-sex attractions often don't identify as gay. People who identify as gay are self-labeling. So it's a bit of a misnomer to say that there are closeted gays voting for Republicans, because that would in turn presume that all closeted gays identify as gay in the first place.

There are lots of "straight" guys that vote Republican who have had same-sex relations in their lifetimes. Ted Haggard comes to mind.

I don't see how labeling the sexual demographic in the voting process is useful.

Of course it's unverifiable. I'm not arguing that this is something that can be scientifically proven or that we should use to firmly categorize various demographics. Hatuey asked whether the views of "closeted gays" (however they are defined) would affect that percentage, and if so, how. If you look solely at those who held themselves out as straight for a portion of their adult lives before beginning to identify as gay, I think it's entirely reasonable to hypothesize that they would, in the way I suggested, because of the factors that I suggested.
 
That is the dumbest interpretation of the first amendment that I have ever seen.

Are you calling Thomas Jefferson "dumb"?

Which oddly enough, doesn't call for a separation of church and state, but to keep government out of religion.

It was also meant to keep religion out of government, specifically the levying of taxes that would be given to state churches. Both Jefferson and Madison worked on laws to prohibit this in Virginia, and wrote the 1st Amendment with such in mind.

Religion is an extremely important part of any culture, and will influence the opinions of many. So claiming that the culture or beliefs related to religion should be left out of voting disenfranchises the majority of America.

Not when one group tries to use religious reasons to disenfranchise the rights of another group. In that respect, it is the religious group that has broken the 1st Amendment.

You'll know when the government starts breaking the 1st Amendment because either 1) religious people will have to hide it from the public, or 2) you will be church on Sunday, or Saturday, depending on what religion the government chooses for you.

And you'll know when a religious group starts breaking the 1st Amendment when they try to instill their religious beliefs into the laws that the rest of Americans must follow or be prosecuted by.

With that said, I put into my last post why it wasn't actually Christianity that would attack homosexuality. It's not part of the actual program. It doesn't matter if you're homophobic or not, their beliefs and ideas are just as valuable as anyone else's.

Their beliefs and ideas are valuable until they infringe on the rights of others who follow different beliefs and ideas.

Gibberesh,

Are you suggesting that homosexuals remain sexually oppressed due to the fact that they don't want to pay as many taxes?

Considering that the politicians they vote for tend to oppress the rights of homosexuals as well as try to cut taxes, that doesn't seem that far fetched.
 
such a brightly colored view of the world

must be nice to be able to see reality in all its complexity in such simple summary

good for you

Facts is facts :mrgreen:
 
Republicans will accept the gay organizationn under their tent but Conservatives will never accept the gay agenda so its a wash...Bottom line we will take your vote but never accept your social agenda..........

Which is EXACTLY why I cannot understand how any gay person would support the Republican party.
 
Are you calling Thomas Jefferson "dumb"?

No, actually I believe the views of Jefferson to be incredibly valid as one of the only founding fathers who wouldn't have considered himself religious. I found a lot of insight in Thomas Paine's, "Age of Reason" as well. And yet both found a huge validity in the morality of Christianity, while denying the more mythical aspects. Jefferson was a frequent reader of the parts of the Bible he found to be valid. The Constitution itself is built from morality. What they viewed as the rights of man and the limited powers of government. Where we draw these views from isn't nearly as important as the validity of our vote.

What I refer to as dumb is the incredibly overreaching statement that assumes the government should somehow decide where you draw your rights and wrongs from.

It was also meant to keep religion out of government, specifically the levying of taxes that would be given to state churches. Both Jefferson and Madison worked on laws to prohibit this in Virginia, and wrote the 1st Amendment with such in mind.

Right, which is still a long way from removing the perspective of a philosophy from social and political validity.

Not when one group tries to use religious reasons to disenfranchise the rights of another group. In that respect, it is the religious group that has broken the 1st Amendment.

lol, you know I am actually a supporter of gay rights, but I find myself on this side of the debate due to the extreme weakness of the debate presented. It's no wonder people fight so ardently against this movement when the motive used is that one should be viewed as valid and the other should not. So the argument is left, whose side should that be?

I'm a huge supporter of liberty, and believe myself that the morality of others should not be pressed on me. And yet an entire political party passes laws, under the idea of what they believe to be the greater good, which requires my tax dollars to pay for it whether the program they create is productive or not. Somehow this morality is justified because it doesn't come from a book anyone thinks of as holy.

It's also odd that you would validate a perspective based on sexual orientation, a classification that until very recently wasn't looked at in legal terms, and promote discrimination based on creed.



And you'll know when a religious group starts breaking the 1st Amendment when they try to instill their religious beliefs into the laws that the rest of Americans must follow or be prosecuted by.

Yes, let me know when we start arresting homosexuals because of God's law.

Their beliefs and ideas are valuable until they infringe on the rights of others who follow different beliefs and ideas.

Again, I love this thinking, let's run with it. I say we work to associate in every aspect of our lives. To be honest, my concept of Utopia lies somewhere on that road.

Considering that the politicians they vote for tend to oppress the rights of homosexuals as well as try to cut taxes, that doesn't seem that far fetched.

Wow, wow... wow... wow. If someone's financial beliefs leave them sexually confused I would say they seriously need to take some spiritual/meditation time for themselves. These claims are just amazing...
 
Of course it's unverifiable. I'm not arguing that this is something that can be scientifically proven or that we should use to firmly categorize various demographics. Hatuey asked whether the views of "closeted gays" (however they are defined) would affect that percentage, and if so, how. If you look solely at those who held themselves out as straight for a portion of their adult lives before beginning to identify as gay, I think it's entirely reasonable to hypothesize that they would, in the way I suggested, because of the factors that I suggested.

This doesn't seem logical to me, but hey, I accept your opinion on this matter.
 
Which is EXACTLY why I cannot understand how any gay person would support the Republican party.

Probably because being gay is not all that they are. You do a disservice to gay people to think that the only issue they should care about are gay issues. It is entirely possible to be gay, and "fiscally conservative", and socially conservative. Hell, it is possible to the point of not being horribly uncommon to be gay and opposed to gay marriage. It is also possible to be a republican who disagrees with their party on one or two issues, just as I am a democrat who disagrees with the democratic party on some issues.

What I cannot understand is how any one could expect gays to be some one dimensional they would base their vote on only one issue.
 
Probably because being gay is not all that they are. You do a disservice to gay people to think that the only issue they should care about are gay issues. It is entirely possible to be gay, and "fiscally conservative", and socially conservative. Hell, it is possible to the point of not being horribly uncommon to be gay and opposed to gay marriage. It is also possible to be a republican who disagrees with their party on one or two issues, just as I am a democrat who disagrees with the democratic party on some issues.

What I cannot understand is how any one could expect gays to be some one dimensional they would base their vote on only one issue.

I DON'T expect gays to be one dimensional. But go back and read the post that I responded too. Essentially he was saying that Republicans are happy to "take gay votes" but will always reject granting gays any rights and will oppose all efforts to do so.
I understand gays who might be fiscally conservate...but why would would support a party that is going to oppose efforts to treat you as a real person? or more than a second class citizen?
 
Probably because being gay is not all that they are. You do a disservice to gay people to think that the only issue they should care about are gay issues. It is entirely possible to be gay, and "fiscally conservative", and socially conservative. Hell, it is possible to the point of not being horribly uncommon to be gay and opposed to gay marriage. It is also possible to be a republican who disagrees with their party on one or two issues, just as I am a democrat who disagrees with the democratic party on some issues.

What I cannot understand is how any one could expect gays to be some one dimensional they would base their vote on only one issue.

Excellent post Redress :applaud

Don't expect DD to understand though........its called a closed mind.............
 
Gay support for Republicans has remained pretty constant. Bush got 25% in 2000, 23% in 2004, and McCain got 27% in 2008.

Yeah, but 90% of that 25% were in the closet. ;)

Republicans have had a lock on the Alby Grant portion of the gay community, its the rest they are having a problem with:

matt-ross-as-alby-grant.jpg


You have to be a Big Love watcher to get that though.
 
Last edited:
Gay Republicans draw support, concern at CPAC



Interesting--I wouldn't say this constitutes conservatives redefining themselves, as there were some not happy with the group, however, Cheney's comments on DADT and the presence of the this group at CPAC are steps in the right direction as far as getting more in touch with the mainstream and the next generation of voters.

I've never understood the Fiscal/Social dichotomy in modern conservatism. Fiscal wants less government involvement. Social wants government involved in certain aspects of people's lives.

And, Liberals want to socially engineer the country into the image they like the most and don't care how many liberties they have to destroy to do it.
 
Back
Top Bottom