1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Is It a Contradiction To Be Gay and Republican?

Discussion in 'Current Events, World News, & LGBT News' started by Dan82, Jan 6, 2011.

  1. Dan82

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2009
    Messages:
    4,754
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Chicago IL
    http://bigthink.com/ideas/26430

     
  2. midwestblues

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2010
    Messages:
    427
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    North Dakota
    Yes.
     
  3. Emberstone

    Full Member

    Joined:
    May 26, 2008
    Messages:
    6,680
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Oregon, USA
    socially, yes, until republican party moves away from social facisem, and back to he notion of libertarian roots.

    economicly, no, for that is a different thing completly to the idea of being gay.
     
  4. Shevanel

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2008
    Messages:
    5,403
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Little Neck, NY
    It's stupid to group anyone into any kind of category based on the "majority's" rule.

    So No.
     
  5. Beachboi92

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2009
    Messages:
    1,099
    Likes Received:
    1
    no because the republican party isn't only about social issues. In fact there are many socially liberal republicans. I know i voted for them, as a registered republican....
     
  6. Emberstone

    Full Member

    Joined:
    May 26, 2008
    Messages:
    6,680
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Oregon, USA
    the realivance of social liberal republicans is made in part, but not completely, irrelevant, because that is at contrast with the overall, overwhelming movement of the party itself.

    it is ironic, kreger talks about how he is the party that freed the slaves, fought for womans sufferagetes, and worked to begin enviormental awareness... but that is only in name. the republican party of lincoln shares only the name with the modern republican party, but lincoln, and people who fought for woman to have the right to vote, and the people who sought enviormental protections were what you call "liberal progressives of their time." The democrats in lincoln's times were the conseratives, and the republicans of lincolns time were more the liberals.

    parties shift. That is why when the democratic party started to support civil rights more fiercely in the 50's and 60's, the racists, which used to be firmly rooted for the most part in the 'southern democrats', switched parties to the republican party, which was taking on the conservative movement. That is why right wing heros known or their racisem, like Strom Thurmman, became republicans after they were disgusted by their so-called 'n-word-loving' party members.

    Republicans tout states rights over the federal constitution or goverment constantly these days, most strongly when they are losing a battle on a issue, or are not the ones in power. yet republicans in lincolns time, led by lincoln belived strongly in federal authority, and the importance of the union. it was the southern democrats who were fiercly against that, and were for states rights.

    the parties switched their place in the spectrum.

    politics is not static and unchanging.

    but the two parties are defined now by the majority movement within them.

    that is why the republican party is in essense homophobic and anti-gay, because the majority of the party politicians, and to a lesser extent, its voting base, expresses anti-gay additudes.
     
  7. Fintan

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2010
    Messages:
    574
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Ontario, Canada
    I think it is ridiculous to suggest that someone must vote a particular way because of who they are.

    I am not an American, but politics is politics and I have never found anyone who perfectly represents what I believe.

    You should vote for the candidate that best articulates your values and what you believe. How you decide who that candidate is, is up to you.

    No one should tell you who to vote for. Just like no one should have the right to tell you what to believe.
     
  8. Shevanel

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2008
    Messages:
    5,403
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Little Neck, NY
    :thumbsup:
     
  9. Beachboi92

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2009
    Messages:
    1,099
    Likes Received:
    1
  10. Echidna1

    Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2009
    Messages:
    83
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Albuquerque, NM
    Gender:
    Male
    Sexual Orientation:
    Gay
    I'm republican and I'm gay. There are right wing nuts but like someone above me said you can't group everyone into one conglomerate.
     
  11. midwestblues

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2010
    Messages:
    427
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    North Dakota
    I guess I'm just not being open-minded about it. Sure, the vast majority of Republicans are against equal rights for gays, the Republican party is quick to shun its rare candidates who actually vote in support of LGBT rights, and Republicans are the ones giving generous amounts of time and energy to groups devoted to oppressing gay people. But it would be stupid of me to assert that a symbiosis between that vast majority of anti-gay advocates and the few gay people with identity crises so severe that they'd actually be willing to join these anti-gay advocates is contradictory.

    But I'm sure most gay Republicans have strong logical reasons behind their party affiliation as opposed to pure self-loathing...

    [​IMG]

    ...Oops.
     
  12. Emberstone

    Full Member

    Joined:
    May 26, 2008
    Messages:
    6,680
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Oregon, USA
    just remeber, coulter did it cause they paid her. she is still extremely anti-gay.
     
  13. Beachboi92

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2009
    Messages:
    1,099
    Likes Received:
    1
    i support anyone who votes democrat i have no problem with it and i understand voting based on issues that are important to you. However i also believe that the only way to pass progressive social reform is with bi-partisanship and working to make it so democrats and some republicans see eye to eye on social issues.

    Sweeping generalizations are an invalid argument for why gays should not be republicans, in fact they are a logical fallacy all together. Party politics in general are stupid and based in sweeping generalizations and a complete lack of logic voting for someone purely for their name and not for their ideals as a whole is stupid. In the primary election i voted for all pro-gay candidates and socially progressive candidates. Did all of them win, no, but some did and i voted for them again when the regular election came around. However i also ignored party lines and voted for a lot of democratic candidates.

    The idea is i contribute to changing the republican parties views on social issues in ways that a democrat can do and more, by actually being able to change the people who represent the political party. And i vote based on other issues, not just social ones.

    I've never supported or joined an anti-gay group, i've supported pro-gay candidates, and I support people who share my views not democrats or republicans regardless of me being registered republican.

    Yes there are many republicans who stand on sides of social issues that i don't agree with. I don't vote for them i don't support them. In the same way that parties that don't affiliate with republicans or democrats help change government gay republicans and republicans who stand with a progressive belief on social issues help change the party as a whole. Moving to get republicans and democrats on the same page with social issues, in my mind, is much better than ousting all the republicans and leaving the democrats to make all the decisions just so we can get gay marriage passed.

    I view that balance between republicans and democrats as important because, despite my loathing of political parties and party lines, it is the best we've got to keep balance.

    Otherwise i simply find your post offensive and rude along with other things. I don't throw a temper tantrum over your political affiliation don't do it over mine. I find my approach to politics as a good one. I register with a party to vote in the primaries because i would find it pointless to be registered independent when i can be voting in social progressive republicans, after all most democrats who get voted in are already going to be socially progressive.

    I'm going to eat dinner now altho there is more to say i will simply leave it with you should do better to respect and consider others points of view without being insulting or rude. It makes you look very close minded.
     
  14. Johnnieguy

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2010
    Messages:
    355
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Twin Cities, MN
    In one word, yes.

    In a more detailed analysis, it is easy to see the downsides of being republican. There might be millions of good ones out there, but the back-woods hicks in this country tend to be republican....And why would you want to be associated with them?

    Or Michele Bachmann for that matter.
     
  15. RedState

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2008
    Messages:
    1,456
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    The Southeastern Conference
    No...and I don't consider myself back-woods or self-lothing.

    You are not always going to agree with the party you identify with 100% of the time. Sure, some issues I obviously disagree with the GOP on. However I disagree with the Democratic Party more. But I've always considered myself a Conservative more than a Republican. Lately there has been little difference between Republicans and Democrats (at least from a fiscal standpoint).
     
    #15 RedState, Jan 6, 2011
    Last edited: Jan 6, 2011
  16. midwestblues

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2010
    Messages:
    427
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    North Dakota
    All of your points are valid and I'm not in disagreement with any of them. But you're admitting yourself that the reason you're voting Republican is to contradict the overwhelming anti-gay predilection that already exists in that party. So it's still contradictory. In your rare case, that contradiction is productive instead of hypocritical, but there's no denying that it's still a contradiction.
     
  17. the ry guy

    Regular Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2008
    Messages:
    86
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Chicago, IL
    Gender:
    Male
    Sexual Orientation:
    Bisexual
    Out Status:
    A few people
    lol i was going to say something but after seeing how many people have already responded it'd be like beating a dead horse
     
  18. Johnnieguy

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2010
    Messages:
    355
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Twin Cities, MN
    Living in Birmingham, you can hardly be considered "backwoods". I was hoping you wouldn't take offense to my post....Backwoods refers to anywhere off the beaten path...no interstate (or any state/federal highway for that matter), no stop-lights in town, etc etc....Those are the places where you find people with truly scary beliefs.
     
  19. RedState

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2008
    Messages:
    1,456
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    The Southeastern Conference

    Oh no offense was ever taken, so no worries.

    I happen to think Bachmann is bat-shit crazy too :slight_smile:
     
  20. maverick

    Full Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2010
    Messages:
    1,643
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Alabama *cue banjos*
    I can't really understand why anyone would vote Democrat OR Republican, but I particularly can't understand why any gay person would vote Republican.

    Every time I say something like that around the office or at the house and bring up the possibility of a third party (or a European style multiparty system), people always start talking about "the better of two evils"...no matter which party they vote for.

    Um, can I vote for a "non-evil" government please?

    As an independent voter, I've really had it up to my neck with this "Red Vs. Blue" bullshit. Two choices does not a democracy make.