Agreed. Glad they support it (and hopefully all LGBT rights) but there are a lot of other issues I still won't agree with them on.
I meant in political office. Never seem a conservative in office who supports gay rights. (In America at least)
On the Senate side, Republican Senators Rob Portman, Mark Kirk and Lisa Murkowski. There are a few on the House side. Richard Hanna is one of them.
In 2012, I voted for Gary Johnson while still being very much in denial of my sexuality and opposing marriage equality, yet he supported it. Now, he is like my ideal candidate save the immigration issue. And yes, I'm also a conservative who supports gay rights. Even in my "denial days", I opposed workplace discrimination and did support civil unions even back then. ---------- Post added 21st May 2014 at 10:26 PM ---------- Ron Paul left it to the states decide. Some may call it a cop out, while others would say it is just supporting local control.
In general? Sure. Gandhi, Thatcher, Merkel, Elizabeth I, Agrippina, Catherine the Great, and many more have proven that a woman can lead a country just fine. On the other hand, the candidate would almost certainly be Clinton, and I don't want her anywhere near a political office. ---------- Post added 21st May 2014 at 08:13 PM ---------- Still a conservative, so I'm still going to hate them. Being pro-gay isn't going to fix that. ---------- Post added 21st May 2014 at 08:15 PM ---------- You're Australian. You guys already have a female head of state, don't you?
The problem with pro-gay conservatives is that it usually doesn't include poor queers, disabled queers, indigenous queers, and often refuses to acknowledge trans people, queer homelessness, etc. Pro-gay conservatives aren't pro gay unless they support all gays, which is why many queers don't want to have them within a kilometre of elected office. ---------- Post added 22nd May 2014 at 04:12 PM ---------- She was ousted by her foreign minister in June of last year, and their entire government was defeated by the conservatives who have one woman in their cabinet (who's white, straight, and comes from a rich and influential family) But if you're talking about the queen, a monarch doesn't really count, and our head of state, the Governor General, is now an old, male general.
If she was the best choice then yes I'd love to see a woman as president but they need to be qualified for the job
I see no problem with it. The fact that we haven't had one yet is proof of how primitive our society is.
I've always been ready for a president who is not straight, white, and male. However, voting for them will be a completely different story because I won't vote for someone whose political ideology conflicts with mine. Yes, it'll be a step forward in the white male-dominated field of politics, but their actions may prove otherwise. Hillary is leaving us hanging because she keeps implying that she'll run for president but there's no definitive answer. If she confirms that she'll run for president, I'll definitely vote for her on Election Day 2016 (I turn 18!). There has always been sexism whenever a woman runs for a high position in politics. Look at how it's been going for Wendy Davis in Texas. She got so much hate for going to Harvard and leaving her family behind with her husband. If this scenario was the husband leaving instead, then the reactions would be completely different.
So long as she is the best candidate for the job, yeah. I just think we should vote for the candidate who we think is best. Their physical characteristics are unimportant! Hillary Clinton... isn't really the kind of person I'd vote for, and I'll leave it at that and take my leave before anyone gets pissed off. ---------- Post added 24th May 2014 at 10:14 AM ---------- Yes, yes, a thousand times yes! :icon_bigg It's highly likely we would agree on economic and social issues. I'd probably vote for them in a blink of an eye.
^ Gay rights is obviously a big issue for all of us, but I meant any conservative politicians who support it.
