• 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

hazlnut

hazlnut

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 27, 2009
Messages
11,963
Reaction score
3,543
Location
Naperville, IL
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Gay Republicans draw support, concern at CPAC

From Brianna Keilar, CNN congressional correspondent
February 19, 2010 12:25 p.m. EST

Washington (CNN) -- An unlikely sponsor at this year's annual conservative conference is hoping to not only promote the issues that set it apart from many Republicans, but also draw attention to the beliefs they share.

The group is called GOProud -- a name that combines GOP and gay pride. So far, the group is getting a mixed response at the Conservative Political Action Conference.

GOProud was founded by former members of the Log Cabin Republicans, a gay and lesbian Republican grass-roots organization.

GOProud has a booth at CPAC just two spaces away from the exhibition for the National Organization for Marriage, which wants the government to define marriage as between a man and a woman.
Click to expand...

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.
 
hazlnut said:
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.
Click to expand...

They combined so conservatives had a chance to get elected. It's called Duverger's Law. Basically, it states that when we have a winner-take-all electoral system, that is whoever gets the most votes wins the office, a two-party system naturally emerges to prevent spoiler votes.

Say that Fiscal Conservatives made one party, Social Conservatives made another party, and both had to compete with the Democrats. Fiscal Conservatives would get 30% of the vote, Social Conservatives would get 30% of the vote, and Democrats would get 40% of the vote, thus causing Democrats to win the seat despite 60% of the voters being conservative of one form or another.

So all conservatives join up together under one broad party as the Republicans to compete with the broad party of the Democrats. If we implemented some kind of proportional system or a system that allowed third-parties to compete, such as IRV, then they could split and each political faction could form their own separate party on which they can campaign.
 
samsmart said:
Say that Fiscal Conservatives made one party, Social Conservatives made another party, and both had to compete with the Democrats. Fiscal Conservatives would get 30% of the vote, Social Conservatives would get 30% of the vote, and Democrats would get 40% of the vote, thus causing Democrats to win the seat despite 60% of the voters being conservative of one form or another.
Click to expand...

I understand what you're saying about the 2-party system, however, if you account for independents, centrists, moderates--I think a fiscal conservative party that focuses on limiting the role of federal government would attack this giant 'swing' vote.
 
hazlnut said:
I understand what you're saying about the 2-party system, however, if you account for independents, centrists, moderates--I think a fiscal conservative party that focuses on limiting the role of federal government would attack this giant 'swing' vote.
Click to expand...

Not if it splits the conservative vote so much that Democrats would win.
 
I was just watching someone who objected to the presence of GoPride. He was very in their face about it.

I've never understood that dichotomy either. I've attempted discussions on other political forums with conservatives regarding that, but they usually avoided direct comment or just never replied.

The GOP may make room under their tent for the new version of Log Cabin Republicans, but if GoPride has a pro-gay rights agenda, I can't imagine they would get very far with it.
 
Gina said:
I was just watching someone who objected to the presence of GoPride. He was very in their face about it.

I've never understood that dichotomy either. I've attempted discussions on other political forums with conservatives regarding that, but they usually avoided direct comment or just never replied.

The GOP may make room under their tent for the new version of Log Cabin Republicans, but if GoPride has a pro-gay rights agenda, I can't imagine they would get very far with it.
Click to expand...

Gay support for Republicans has remained pretty constant. Bush got 25% in 2000, 23% in 2004, and McCain got 27% in 2008.
 
Gina said:
I was just watching someone who objected to the presence of GoPride. He was very in their face about it.
Click to expand...


You mean this guy:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OJKU7eoNM2s"]YouTube- CPAC crowd boos Gay Basher Ryan Sorba[/ame]

It just got very uncomfortable under the big tent...:shock:
 
RightinNYC said:
Gay support for Republicans has remained pretty constant. Bush got 25% in 2000, 23% in 2004, and McCain got 27% in 2008.
Click to expand...

I have to ask because I think it is relevant. Are these estimates? Or actual numbers? Because I thought I saw the same numbers on CNN and their polling was quite suspect. Admittedly gay people make up at most 3%-5% of the entire population but that doesn't count people who have yet to come out of the closet. How can you poll a group when you do not know how big it really is? Or does that matter when doing polls? Just asking cause I saw those numbers and given the Prop 8 situation I thought they were way off.
 
outside the gates of politcal gossip, within the halls of real power, the white house's pledge to end don't ask don't tell is revealed to be utterly hollow

no leadership, laments the left, just indications of general direction

exactly like health care

gates meanwhile calls for a ONE YEAR review

and asks for ANOTHER YEAR to implement

don't ask don't tell aint moving an inch for the far foreseeable future

words for a wednesday nite, the president's empty promise

typical

party on, progressives

represent

Left frets over fate of 'don't ask' - Jen DiMascio and Glenn Thrush - POLITICO.com
 
hazlnut said:
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.
Click to expand...

every party evolves with time, but this really is not a case of that I do not think, or at least more a case of the country evolving, and the republicans included. I have always had a lot of respect for gay republicans who put their political beliefs before pragmatism(the democrats being the party more for gay rights), though that may not be the best word for what I am thinking.
 
hazlnut said:
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.
Click to expand...

I've never understood it either, and I'm a conservative. I debate the subject pretty aggressively to anyone who makes the mistake of mentioning it to me.

I love to take it back to sanctity. That gay marriage, whether it's legal or not, has no influence on the sanctity of my marriage. If Pharisee minded Christian's really want to attack things harmful to marriage in our country let's attack infidelity or pornography. Attacking something that can no way ever affect you seems pretty shallow. Especially when it comes to a religion based on the transformation of a person through God's love. Apparently some believe that the one thing God can't transform you from is homosexuality. Anyways, I've seen a lot of conservatives change their stance on the subject in the last 6 or 7 years. It's really not consistent with Christian ideals, and definitely not with conservative ones.



Technically though, on the political spectrum the right supports a type of social authoritarianism and fiscal liberty. The left is supposed to believe in social liberty and a type of fiscal authoritarianism. Personally, I think that the right in this country are more likely to support social liberty. The left seems to believe in passing legislation to enforce some idea of it. Which kind of contradicts liberty but makes people feel good about trying. Homosexuality would be one exception of this for the right.
 
Hatuey said:
I have to ask because I think it is relevant. Are these estimates? Or actual numbers? Because I thought I saw the same numbers on CNN and their polling was quite suspect. Admittedly gay people make up at most 3%-5% of the entire population but that doesn't count people who have yet to come out of the closet. How can you poll a group when you do not know how big it really is? Or does that matter when doing polls? Just asking cause I saw those numbers and given the Prop 8 situation I thought they were way off.
Click to expand...

As close to actual numbers as we can get - they're from each year's exit polls. There are of course issues involved with not counting people who are not out of the closet yet, but I'd imagine that if anything, those people are more likely to vote Republican.
 
RightinNYC said:
As close to actual numbers as we can get - they're from each year's exit polls. There are of course issues involved with not counting people who are not out of the closet yet, but I'd imagine that if anything, those people are more likely to vote Republican.
Click to expand...

What an assumption.
 
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..........
 
hazlnut said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yeah, makes no sense to me either. But then, liberals do the same ..only the opposite. Fiscal wants more government involvement and social wants less government involvement.

Go figure :shrug:
 
Orion said:
What an assumption.
Click to expand...

It's certainly an assumption, but I don't think it's that unwarranted. If 25% of openly gay people vote republican, 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.
 
RightinNYC said:
It's certainly an assumption, but I don't think it's that unwarranted. If 25% of openly gay people vote republican, 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.
Click to expand...

I agree. For the more liberal groups homosexuality is seen as normal as any other sexuality. It's the conservative groups where it is taboo and thus we can assume those homosexual conservatives are the ones unwilling to come out publicly with their true sexuality.
 
Last edited:
Hmmmm...

What the right needs to do is to realize that their is seperation of church and state for a reason. That you cannot say that gays can't get married and use religion as a way of covering up your own homophobia. If the right can managa to successfully intergrate homosexuals into their party or at least have the gay GOPers and the straight ones overcome their differences to face the common enemy, then not only will people be more drawn to the Republican party, but also they may stop being hated on so much.
 
Navy Pride said:
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..........
Click to expand...
So your willing to sell your morals for an extra vote?
 
Mr. Invisible said:
Hmmmm...

What the right needs to do is to realize that their is seperation of church and state for a reason. That you cannot say that gays can't get married and use religion as a way of covering up your own homophobia. If the right can managa to successfully intergrate homosexuals into their party or at least have the gay GOPers and the straight ones overcome their differences to face the common enemy, then not only will people be more drawn to the Republican party, but also they may stop being hated on so much.
Click to expand...

That is the dumbest interpretation of the first amendment that I have ever seen. Which oddly enough, doesn't call for a separation of church and state, but to keep government out of religion. 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. 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.

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.

Gibberesh,

Are you suggesting that homosexuals remain sexually oppressed due to the fact that they don't want to pay as many taxes?
 
Navy Pride said:
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..........
Click to expand...

LOL -- that's what they been doing to the evangelicals for years... taking their vote, but really doing nothing but posturing and making noise on social issues.

Family Values conservatives get as many bjs (from men and interns) as their "liberal" counterparts.
 
stomach turning commentary
 
CrusaderRabbit08 said:
Yeah, makes no sense to me either. But then, liberals do the same ..only the opposite. Fiscal wants more government involvement and social wants less government involvement.

Go figure :shrug:
Click to expand...

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
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom