Conservative's in the LGBT community?

The candidate you're looking for is named Obama. He's endorsed the DOMA repeal and ENDA in the past year. He says he's "evolving" on marriage equality but everyone, EVERYONE, knows what that means. He's a smart politician. The support isn't there in the middle to be so blatant about it, as of today. But look at what the DoJ has done for us with the multitude of litigation recently. This is as good as it's going to get for now. I don't know what kind of point you're even trying to make here? That because some people only hate us a little bit it's alright to vote for those that blatantly do? The republican party has waged a war on LGBT rights for the last dozen years and even prior to that. To pretend that both parties share an equal amount of blame for what has happened to our community is a complete distortion of the truth, period.

That certainly isn't my problem, nor is it any of my concern. Maybe they should have thought twice about the political repercussions of the alliances that they've made. In case you haven't noticed, "big tent" conservatism is dead if it was ever alive in the first place. Republicans have gone out of their way to pander to the most hateful and vengeful republicans this year, that's undeniable. The candidates couldn't pander hard or fast enough to the right-wing fringe, which is one that believes in ideological purity over everything else. Even Romney, who in the 1990's promised to be a fiercer advocate for LGBT rights than Ted Kennedy, has now given money to NOM. So why should we even take the chance on republicans when we can consistently rely on a democratic majority to do what we want instead?

If all things were equal, then why not? That day will not be coming for a very long time, if ever.

 

Hey Jim, I know this wasn't the focus of your comments -- but I liked what you said nonetheless -- I think its a pretty fair and reasonable assessment (which doesn't happen much in EC when talking about conservatives) of Prime Minister Harper's position.

As I am sure you know Mr. Harper is an Evangelical Christian with a Caucus full of Western Canadian Hard-Right Conservatives and Eastern Canadian Moderate Conservatives. So he has a bit of a balancing act to maintain.

Personally -- you're probably right -- Mr. Harper probably isn't a fan of gay marriage or homosexuality. One would assume this from his religious denomination. I agree with you there.

However, you have to give him credit that he said he'd hold one free vote on the matter, which he did, and would never open up the issue again as long as he was Prime Minister. I think its pretty safe to say that as long as Mr. Harper is the Prime Minister gay-marriage is here to stay -- and now that he has a majority, it will be 10 years of gay-marriage in Canada before he leaves office. Essentially enshrined. It ain't going anywhere.

On top of this -- Harper's promotion of John Baird (a prominant gay politician) to Foreign Minister; plus Baird's seemingly free reign in leading the international charge against LGBT abuses overseas -- without the Prime Minister's Office getting involved, says something.

Lastly, I work in Canadian politics. And I am not sure if its something in the water or what, but you wouldn't believe how many gays work in politics. We're EVERYWHERE. Even in the conservative party; especially in the conservative party. We have way more than a 1 in 10 ratio here

 

"Conservative" and "liberal" have such nebulous meanings that basically trying to argue from a basis of conservatism or liberalism is reduced to a semantics argument. It is my personal opinion that the current two parties in the US aren't aligned with conservative or liberal ideologies. They're aligned against each other, and all their ideological statements are just pandering to voters.

The Republicans try to appeal to the "we want smaller government" crowd, but you can't be a career politician yet want smaller government. That's like being in middle management yet wanting to get rid of your own position. On the same token, the Democrats pander to the "we look out for you" crowd, but when you're in politics, you really only look out for yourself. Do you really think those same middle managers care about their employees? No, they just need to keep them happy enough so that they don't lose their positions.

American democracy really is a joke, but at least it's been stable enough to last over 200 years, longer than any other form of government currently in existence. I'm personally a fan of gridlock. At least then you make the parties come together to only pass bills that are needed and reduce the chance of agenda pushing.

 

Obama is really supportive about gay rights, yes, but I can't believe that we are content with our strongest ally still not being able to say that he supports marriage equality. You say its okay since the support isn't there, but then why isn't it okay for Romney to do the same? Why can't we just trust that he is playing his game of politics right now and then know that he will push it slowly in the future. And my point were asking for the impossible. Until Obama can openly support marriage equality then we do not have someone up there who is fully supportive in all ways.

How can it not be of your concern? You want equality, yet you are more focused on beating a certain party rather than educating them. The only thing that will get us is a lot of resentment down the road. In order for us to "win" this we need both parties. And that won't happen as long as we make part of our society our enemies. There was a point in history where neither party wanted us. We have done our job with the democratic party. Its time to start with the republican party as well. Relying on one single party is both dangerous and a waste of time.

Except they aren't equal. They both have some views that aren't the same and one of them considers himself a republican. They both have different leadership styles, they are both different people and they both have different experience.

A lot of people honestly disagree with Obama and other democratic candidates in more ways than one. They honestly think that other candidates are better leaders in many ways. Why then would they give their vote to someone who they believe cannot do their job?

All I'm saying is that we should focus more on educating the republican party than trying to force every single gay person out there to vote a certain way simply because they are gay. Is both oppressive and unfair to them.

 

At the voting booth, gay rights are pretty far down my list. My two hot-button issues are the economy and foreign policy; I traditionally vote Republican for these issues (although I am not a registered Republican and consider both sides every four years).

However, they aren't so unimportant to me that I would vote for a radical like Rick Santorum over a Democratic candidate I wasn't quite satisfied with.

 

I'm not really contributing to the argument here, since I have a fatalistic view towards political systems and don't wish to be too involved, but I just want to say I totally agree with the above...thank you for verbalizing what I couldn't even do in my head, for some reason (such as lack of sleep?? ).

Well..the underlying point there is that humanity and our varied perceptions of "the meaning to life" are one big joke - whether chemically or divinely ingrained. It's all just one big reality tv show, if you will (South Park reference XD).

Not that I intend to claim life as being pointless; meaning is always within human ability to create...

/end rant

 

He has all but said that he supports it by endorsing the repeal of DOMA. The only thing he hasn't done, in fact, is said the words "I support marriage equality." It's de facto support. Romney cannot be trusted because he is actively donating money to the most prolific anti-gay organization currently operating in the United States, and has signed a pledge to them as well. What more proof do you want and need? And again, I come back to the point I made earlier that has yet to be answered; why take a chance on Romney? Or any republican, for that matter, when they are so inexplicably linked to their base right now?

They don't want to be educated, Gus. Evangelicals, Mormons, and the rest of the right-wing fringe that are holding republican politicians by their balls aren't dumb. It's been 20 years since the LGBT community got really organized and "politically powerful." They know the arguments and they don't care. It's against their religion. That is the only thing they care about. That is what comes first above everything else. They say things like, "Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve!" And they consider that a well-reasoned argument. We are not going to convert them, and you cannot possibly draw a comparison between a genuine liberal and a right-wing conservative as they are entirely opposite ideologies. It's a totally different game.

Liberalism as defined by JFK was a response to the dogma that the right was producing during the 1960's, he defined a liberal as: "...someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions.." Progressive and minority politics with liberalism was and is a natural fit. The same cannot be said about someone who cites the Bible or the Koran or the Book of Mormon as scientifically proven fact, like Romney or Santorum or Gingrich or any of the other republican candidates that have ran this year, with the possible exception of Huntsman, but towards the end of his campaign he started pandering as well.

Trust me, I don't like seeing any of the negative things republicans have to say about the LGBT community. I was genuinely shocked and ecstatic when they finally did the right thing and upheld marriage equality in NH. But they were backed into a corner looking down the barrel of a loaded gun, metaphorically speaking. They didn't have much of a choice. So how much does that support really count for anything? The same can be said about the DADT repeal. If every republican came out of the closet in support of LGBT rights I would say it's about time and be genuinely grateful for it, but that is naivety beyond the pale. We've made plenty of progress without the republican party. Why do we need them now?

They can vote for whoever they want. They're entitled to that, but nothing anyone has said in this thread has changed my opinion even an iota. LGBT individuals who place other social issues above the LGBT community in the hopes of profiting from the rest of a homophobic politician's platform are traitorous to the LGBT cause and community, as far as I'm concerned. You've been making the exact argument that I already shot down, in my opinion, in my first post. Here it is:

"And gay conservatives say, "Well, shouldn't we be trying to convert them? Shouldn't we be trying to change their minds and let them know that we're their electorate too?" Which, in the words of David Rakoff, is like staging a protest outside a restaurant with signs that say "THE OWNER IS A REAL ASSHOLE AND THE FOOD SUCKS. WE EAT HERE EVERYDAY."

The point I was making, which was apparently lost in the shuffle, is that we are not going to change republican minds by telling them that we're expendable, that we'll stick by them at all costs for the sake of some misguided political "diversity," that we support them but have issues with their rhetoric and want to see a change but only when they get around to it, if they would please. Their base is more valuable to them than we are, and it will always be that way.

I genuinely have nothing more to say on the subject. The rest of you can pick apart and dissect my posts however you want, but I'm done now. It's starting to get repetitive.

 

I just have to say that I totally agree. Although, I think the majority of people don't mean to and do not insult anyone. (You probably agree with that statement but I just want to make sure people know I'm not talking about everyone.)

I'm not conservative or a Republican but I understand why there are LGBT Republicans. Maybe I'm odd but I like talking to people with different viewpoints

 

Technically, both the Democrats and Republicans are right-wing. The US is actually really right-wing compared to the rest of the world.

 

Why isn't it ok to steal food if you can't feed yourself? Everyone would steal food if they couldn't feed themselves because the alternative is starvation.

Lee Rhiannon used to be a communist but why can't people change opinions. I used to be right-wing but now I am left-wing, I honestly don't see the problem.

Sarah Hanson Young is an idiot but every party has idiots. The Liberal Party have idiots as well like the senator who talked about banning the burka (can't recall his name).

I do realise that some members of this forum are very bigoted against the right but it isn't fair to make sweeping generalisations about the left. I have seen from this thread that many people of the left respect the views of the right (as they should) but I have also learnt that the right is capable of spewing just as much hatred as some members of the left.

The majority of left-wing LGBT people (which I don't include American Liberals in) have no problem with right wing views and don't like to be associated with the hate does come from some members of the left.

 

I'm conservative in the sense I plan to not have sex until marriage, don't drink, and openly practice my faith but politically I'm liberal.

 

Conservatism is liberalism. They're both just different twists on neo-liberal capitalism.

 

Im going to make mine simple.

Im a fiscal conservative who believes in equality of all people. On social issues Im more independent; womens and lgbt rights, abortion: but never late term unless it is a complete and total last resort to save the mothers life, securing our borders, ect ect.

 

I'm a moderate to conservative libertarian.

 

Who is Conservative and why might he be in the LGBT community?

---------- Post added 9th May 2013 at 02:14 PM ----------

P.s. what?

 

Beliefs whether conservative or liberal are not an issue. It is when belief becomes dogmatic and the individual stops thinking for themselves.

The dogmatic liberal is just as destructive as a dogmatic conservative.

As long as people remain open minded and free thinking, avoiding the dogmatic stance belief systems are not good or bad.

Is straight bad? Is gay bad? Not if you are open minded and free thinking. All belief systems allow this, but to "belong" many give up free thinking and become dogmatic.

 

Of course you can be a LGBT conservative but, conservative has two meenings in the UK The Conservative Party (this pains me to speak good of them) is more open to LGBT people however people with so called Conservative morals are more likely to anti-LGBT. Just because you believe in gay rights doesn't automaticly make you are a Liberal just more progresive.

 

In the UK it's a little different as political split is due to monetarist vs keynesian economics and not on issues such as the NHS. I find myself agreeing economically with the "right" so. I guess I'm a republican? However I couldn't possibly find myself ever voting for Mitt Romney if I could vote in the USA