Gay Conservatives?

Freddie53

Superior Member
Gold
Joined
Nov 19, 2004
Posts
5,842
Media
0
Likes
2,609
Points
333
Location
Memphis (Tennessee, United States)
Gender
Male
Do what you think you have to do. That is your right. The point being made is, don't expect to be heartily welcomed into the Republican Club in most areas. You will be tolerated, but not really accepted. Try taking your partner to one of "their" meetings and hold hands and see what happens.
 

fortiesfun

Sexy Member
Joined
May 29, 2006
Posts
4,619
Media
0
Likes
77
Points
268
Location
California (United States)
Sexuality
60% Gay, 40% Straight
Gender
Male
Neither. Fortiesfun warns against promoting the cause of a club that won't have me as a member, and I'm just wondering which "club" he was referring to that won't have me as a member--the gays or the conservatives.

I know it's possible to be both, but he seemed to be recommending that I stop advocating for conservative causes and I was just trying to say that I'm not willing to do that. It could've been said better.
My point, which I guess I didn't make explicit enough, is that you feel a conflict between two competing social identifications.

While it is true that the gay side rejects the conservative one, isn't that because they are denouncing the rejection of their rights? If so, then it would be logical to believe that the gay group could allow for and respect a brand of conservativism that didn't seek to harm them?

But that formula doesn't work in reverse. The conservative rejection of gays is not based on self-protection from harm, but from a belief that homosexuality is immoral, even evil, whether or not it affects them directly in any way.

This is the logical extension of that problem: If the conservatives gave up their opposition to homosexuality, the gay community could (theoretically) give up opposition in return since it is based on self-protection against denial of their rights. But if the gay community gave up opposition to having their rights denied, the conservatives have no reason (still theoretically) to change their belief that homosexuality was evil and still would not embrace their gay brethren.

I think you've clarified that you value some conservative positions over having your basic civil rights granted to you. As a purely personal opinion that is within your rights, but my warning was about suggesting to you that your are not just giving up your rights, when you advocate the anti-gay agenda of Rush Limbaugh and those who agree with him, you are deciding for me that I should give up mine, too. It will probably not surprise you that I'm not happy about that. (I'd rather like to be treated equally to other Americans whether or not that is important to you.) Very few other homosexuals will be either.
 

D_Harry_Crax

Account Disabled
Joined
Sep 3, 2006
Posts
4,447
Media
0
Likes
942
Points
228
Sexuality
No Response
I am not doubting your political convictions, but I am not sure you have it right that the "gay club" wouldn't have you as a member. It is not your conservatism that confuses. I know lots of gay conservatives, (and even more libertarian ones) but you specifically identify with a wing of the Republican party that expressly believes you should be denied your civil rights even though that has nothing to do with the other causes you hold dear.

Please don't mention conservatives and libertarians in the same breath. Most Western conservatives and libertarians are 100% in favor of keeping the government out of your bedroom, while most other conservatives are 100% in favor of having the government in your bedroom on abortion, gay sex, etc.
 

D_Harry_Crax

Account Disabled
Joined
Sep 3, 2006
Posts
4,447
Media
0
Likes
942
Points
228
Sexuality
No Response
John McCain being called "spineless," especially by a conservative, is absurd. First, there is his Vietnam record of not cracking being tortured, passing up opportunities to be released because other men wouldn't also be releasted, etc. And the only people who think he's not conservative enough either don't know his voting record in the Senate or are themselves to the right of Atila the Hun.

The American Conservative Union has given John McCain a "lifetime" voting record rating of 83. Right-wing nutcase Sam Brownback scored only 95 and other right-wing nutcase Duncan Hunter scored only 92.

Rudy Guiliani wasn't scored because he's never been in the Senate or the House (he's also never been a governor, never been a state legislator, never been a state attorney general, never been a member of the Cabinet, never been a state or federal judge, never been a general or admiral like Eisenhower, never been CEO of a major corporation like Ross Perot, never been a powerful or influential figure in organized religion like Jesse Jackson or Pat Robertson, never been a famous journalist like Pat Buchanan, never been--well, you get the idea).

At the American Conservative Union, John Edwards scored 10; Hilary Clinton scored 9; Al Gore scored 9; Barack Obama scored 8; and John Kerry scored 5.
 

Corius

Sexy Member
Joined
Mar 1, 2007
Posts
669
Media
0
Likes
28
Points
163
Location
Michigan
Sexuality
69% Straight, 31% Gay
Gender
Male
BIGNFLOPPY, I was not intending to start a political argument either. I assumed that you wanted some honest discussion. Since you started the thread, I was asking you only to be more specific. I'd love for this to be a civil discussion; I honestly would like for you to give us all a short summary of the conservatism you say you espouse. Be specific: what values are important to you? What principles do you think should guide the conservatism you favor? Frankly, I think that's a reasonable request.

I like to think that all Americans, that is those who call themselves conservatives and those who claim the name of liberal and those who can't be comfortable with any label, do have some common values. Ours, according to the founders was to be a government of laws and not of men. Governments don't have any rights to give away; the job of government is to secure (make safe) the God-given rights of the people. Government may only exercise such power as has been granted to it by the law and that law is binding on all including all persons who hold power under the law. The Constitution speaks of the purpose of this government under law; it is to insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and to secure (make safe) the blessings of liberty. To all of which I say a loud Amen.

There's a lot more, but I'll be happy to hear you join the chorus of Amens to the values stated and implied. Were the conservatives on the side of limiting the meaning of these wonderful words or were they the leaders in seeking to enlarge the meanings suggested to include women, slaves, and former slaves, child laborers, Native Americans, and persons whose sexual orientation might be a minority orientation?

Until we get down to cases in the USA of 2007 it's hard to have a meaningful discussion if you don't make clear where you stand. Be brave, give us your picture of the United States of America as it would be if we embraced your conservative vision. Fair enough?

Peace!
 

davidjh7

Expert Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2006
Posts
2,607
Media
0
Likes
111
Points
283
Location
seattle
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
I grew up with pretty conservative values, and many of my values are still socially conservative---I don't believe everybody deserves to be taken care of, unless they themselves are willing to take care of others in return. I personally don;t think anybody is truly GOOD enough to be overly judgemental against any other class of people, although I also believe that there are bad people and ideas you should stay away from, not support, or actively work against, because they are damaging to yourself, and those around you. But, on the other hand, I look at how radical the philosophies are of the extreme right, as well as the extreme left. Being gay, and having a certain sense of self preservation, I can't in good conscience support the ideals that if promoted, would end in, at best, the loss of my basic human rights, and at the other end of the spectrum, the loss of my life. Really talk to the most fundamentally religious conservative people, and they will tell you, if not openly in public, but one on one, that they feel that gay people are an abomination, are evil in the eyes of God, and are choosing to be homosexuals, and therefore, deserve any punishment, including torture and death and disease, that can happen to them. I persoanlly have been bashed--simply at the hint that I MIGHT be gay. MY own father, bless his dead soul, bragged openly to me about going out and beating up queers. MY own mother, under the religious conservative teachings, told me to my face that Aids is God's punishment for homosexuals. Conservative ideals can be positive things, and be for the betterment of society as awhole. A large majority of conservatives are NOT good for gay people, either in terms of rights, or in terms of survival. I truly hope your personal experiences are different than mine, and that you can feel the support of those around you that you share a common goal and ideals with.
 

DC_DEEP

Sexy Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2005
Posts
8,714
Media
0
Likes
93
Points
183
Sexuality
No Response
Other people tend to label me more often (and usually not very accurately) than I label myself.

One of the big obstacles you will have to resolve for yourself is to examine your own values, honestly, and see where that leaves you. Sometimes, you may find that some of your conflict is simply due to still believing some things just because that's how you have always believed. If you can question/challenge your own beliefs and still believe them, they may be valid. If you question/challenge your beliefs and find inconsistencies, then it's time to re-adjust.

Also, possibly more important, is to decide if you are a traditional conservative or a neo-conservative. Today's republicans bear little resemblance to pre-reagan republicans. The traditional republicans favored smaller, less intrusive government. The current republican agenda is tending toward fewer personal rights, fewer civil liberties, government swelling out of control, and government control over the smallest details of your private behavior.

It makes me cringe to think that you identify, in any way, with rush limbaugh. He knows how to push the right buttons and parrot the right phrases, to keep the neo-conservatives happy, but his underlying message is pretty damned dark. If you examine his message, you can see that he is closer to being a fascist rather than a republican. That's a dangerous direction to take yourself.

You don't have to support either political party to be either liberal or conservative. It is perfectly acceptable to pick and choose your ideals, and reject pary-line dogmas. Party loyalists from either side will lie to you and tell you that you have to accept the "total package." You do not.

I often get flamed by some of our more "conservative" members, I often get called names, usually (insert insulting adjective here)-liberal. Well, if demanding that laws follow the US Constitution is liberal, then so be it. Regardless of political party, any legislator who approved DOMA (and including the democratic president who signed it into law) are all traitors. Any legislator (and the president) who approved the so-called Patriot Act is a traitor.

And eventually, if you are honest with yourself and those who claim to love you and those whom you claim to love, you will have to come out. Only you know whether you are a good person or a bad person. If you are a good person, and you come out, and some reject you, then you really do not need them in your life. But is it going to be your conservative friends, your republican friends, your democrat friends, or your liberal friends, who will still be your friends and support you?

Make a list of the 15 MOST important things in your life; see which group most closely identifies with most of those things, and let that help guide you. All the side issues are just that - side issues. You can oppose abortion AND support gay marriage; you can reject both gun control AND the war in Iraq. You do NOT have to take the party-line side of all issues. The most important thing is to avoid supporting self-defeating issues.
 

fortiesfun

Sexy Member
Joined
May 29, 2006
Posts
4,619
Media
0
Likes
77
Points
268
Location
California (United States)
Sexuality
60% Gay, 40% Straight
Gender
Male
Please don't mention conservatives and libertarians in the same breath. Most Western conservatives and libertarians are 100% in favor of keeping the government out of your bedroom, while most other conservatives are 100% in favor of having the government in your bedroom on abortion, gay sex, etc.
Actually, that was the point I was trying to make and my reason for mentioning conservatives and libertarians in the same breath. I was pairing them in exactly the way you are. I like your distinction about Western conservatives. Perhaps that clarifies things.

In the post immediately above me DC makes many brilliant points, as always, but his point about the ideals of the Pre-Reagan Republicans, what used to be called conservatives before they got all hooked up with fundamentalist churches, is very important.
 

DC_DEEP

Sexy Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2005
Posts
8,714
Media
0
Likes
93
Points
183
Sexuality
No Response
Please don't mention conservatives and libertarians in the same breath. Most Western conservatives and libertarians are 100% in favor of keeping the government out of your bedroom, while most other conservatives are 100% in favor of having the government in your bedroom on abortion, gay sex, etc.
I'm not really clear on what distinction you are making by saying "Western conservatives" and "most other conservatives." Please elaborate before I comment on that one.
 

D_Harry_Crax

Account Disabled
Joined
Sep 3, 2006
Posts
4,447
Media
0
Likes
942
Points
228
Sexuality
No Response
I'm not really clear on what distinction you are making by saying "Western conservatives" and "most other conservatives." Please elaborate before I comment on that one.

Well, OK. A lot of conservatives in the western half of the U.S. are actually more like libertarians on social issues. It was no accident that Arizona was the first state to vote to reject a ban on gay marriage. I'm from the western U.S. (Oregon), and also have lived in Washington, Colorado, and even the dreaded Kansas. Just let's say there's a lot more "live and let live" among conservatives in the West than there is among the usually religion-driven conservative people trying to micromanage everyone else's lives elsewhere in the U.S.
 

joyboytoy79

Sexy Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2006
Posts
3,686
Media
32
Likes
61
Points
193
Location
Washington, D.C. (United States)
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
It seemed to me that fortiesfun was recommending that I avoid promoting the conservative cause because the conservatives won't have me as a member. I don't necessarily believe that to be true, but I was just trying to explain that I was not willing to do that.

Sir, i think you are confused. Gay isn't a political alliance. Being gay does not speak of your political convictions. However, i wonder why you are so bent on maintaining membership in a party that is (as is any political party) made up of people who are on all sides of fence, on just about all issues. Can't you just look at each individual issue and decide where you stand on it, rather than say "i'm a conservative, so must take the conservative stance." I think your life would be a lot simpler.
 

HotBulge

Worshipped Member
Joined
Jul 27, 2005
Posts
2,331
Media
108
Likes
17,265
Points
518
Age
34
Location
Lowells talk to Cabots, Cabots talk to God
Gender
Male
Joyboytoy79 is exactly right. The original OP can't live in a state of false consciousness in wanting to adopt the complete party-line of the current Conservative party. Today's Republican party likes to declare itself, with authority, as representing the social norms of American society. Some of those norms deny gays equal protection under the law and are marginalizing. You can't simultaneously declare the total Republican party line while being marginalized by their views as a gay person. It's a contradiction of your political identity by being labelled "gay". As someone wrote earlier, it's similar to Jew belonging to the Nazi party: you can't support a political party that marginalizes a core aspect of who you (and other people like you) are.

Sir, i think you are confused. Gay isn't a political alliance. Being gay does not speak of your political convictions. However, i wonder why you are so bent on maintaining membership in a party that is (as is any political party) made up of people who are on all sides of fence, on just about all issues. Can't you just look at each individual issue and decide where you stand on it, rather than say "i'm a conservative, so must take the conservative stance." I think your life would be a lot simpler.
 

fortiesfun

Sexy Member
Joined
May 29, 2006
Posts
4,619
Media
0
Likes
77
Points
268
Location
California (United States)
Sexuality
60% Gay, 40% Straight
Gender
Male
You can't simultaneously declare the total Republican party line while being marginalized by their views as a gay person. You can't support a political party that marginalizes a core aspect of who you (and other people like you) are.
Well, you can, but we are mostly asking in this thread why you would want to. Seems confused, and closeting, to me.
 

DC_DEEP

Sexy Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2005
Posts
8,714
Media
0
Likes
93
Points
183
Sexuality
No Response
Well, OK. A lot of conservatives in the western half of the U.S. are actually more like libertarians on social issues. It was no accident that Arizona was the first state to vote to reject a ban on gay marriage. I'm from the western U.S. (Oregon), and also have lived in Washington, Colorado, and even the dreaded Kansas. Just let's say there's a lot more "live and let live" among conservatives in the West than there is among the usually religion-driven conservative people trying to micromanage everyone else's lives elsewhere in the U.S.
Or at least it used to be that way, back in the Barry Goldwater days. And Oregon is a different animal unto itself. But most of the republicans of the western US have adopted a lot more of the party-line neo-conservative positions, and discarded the more traditionally conservative ideas of less government, less intervention, and states' rights. So now, the democratic party and the republican party both are in favor of larger stronger federal government, and fewer states' rights and individual rights.
 

Dave NoCal

Superior Member
Joined
Sep 5, 2006
Posts
2,719
Media
1
Likes
2,572
Points
333
Location
Sacramento (California, United States)
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
bignfloppy,

This may be of interest to you. It would seem to be directly relevant to the conflict you are experiencing.

Posted on Fri, Mar. 16, 2007
email this

print this

reprint or license this



COMMENTARY

Lesbian kiss falls flatter than a pancake

By MIKE HENDRICKS

Columnist

217365277118.jpg



Just one kiss. That’s all it took — to get thrown out of the IHOP in Grandview.
“It was a kiss I would share with my uncle,” Blair Funk told me. Except it wasn’t her uncle she kissed. It was her honey, Eva Sandoval.
Two young women sharing a kiss didn’t seem inappropriate to the other couple in the restaurant booth that night, Jackie Smith and the woman with whom she shares her life, Toni Smith. But someone watching the scene was offended.
So later, the manager confronted them in the lobby and told them to get out.
The way Blair tells it, “He said, ‘I have to tell you, we’ve had some complaints about public displays of affection, and we’re a family restaurant. We can’t accept it, and we won’t accept it.’
“The way he worded it was like: We don’t accept you.”
These days it’s rare for gays and lesbians to be denied service in restaurants for acting like who they are. Blair assures me that she and Eva did nothing that wouldn’t have been appropriate for a man and a woman to do at a dinner date. No heavy makeout. No groping.
However, incidents like this one are not unheard of, and the people affected often can do nothing about it.
There is no federal law prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation. Neither Kansas nor Missouri are among the few states that protect gay people from being discriminated against in areas of employment, housing and public accommodations.
Kansas City does have an ordinance protecting gays, as do St. Louis, Columbia and University City. But if you’re anywhere else in Missouri and you’re gay, you can legally be denied service in restaurant. Landlords can refuse to rent you a place to live.
You can even be canned from your job on the suspicion that you’re romantically inclined toward members of your own sex.
“Many people are shocked to hear that people can be fired from their jobs for being gay or being perceived to be gay,” says Julie Brueggemann, executive director of the Missouri gay rights group Promo.
That would change if bills pending in Kansas and Missouri would ever pass. It’s only the first year for Senate Bill 163 in Kansas. But the so-called Missouri Nondiscrimination Act, House Bill 819, has been up time and again.
And as in past years, it has almost zero chance in Jefferson City, says Rep. Jeneé Lowe, a Kansas City Democrat, the bill’s sponsor.
“It’s surprising to me,” Lowe says, “how many people think there’s federal legislation. But there is no law.”
No law, but there is power in public opinion. So the night that she and her friends were evicted from the restaurant, Jackie Smith started tapping furiously on her computer keyboard.
E-mails to the media yielded a TV report on Fox 4, as well as a call from me.
Promo and other civil rights groups responded with support. IHOP was apologetic.
“Thank you for taking the time to contact us concerning your experience at the IHOP in Grandview,” began the letter from someone identifying himself as the guest services representative at the company’s headquarters in Glendale, Calif.
“We are sorry to learn of the difficulties you encountered at this location. Please be assured that the matter will be shared with the proper individuals to address your concerns.”
When I called the Grandview restaurant for comment I was told to ring the company headquarters. But the P.R. director there failed to return my phone calls. However, I can tell you that the restaurant chain wants Blair, Eva, Jackie and Toni to come back for pancakes sometime.
“It is our hope,” the guest services rep wrote, “that you will once again allow us to earn your patronage.”
Jackie isn’t ruling it out entirely.
“But it’s not likely,” she said.
 

DC_DEEP

Sexy Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2005
Posts
8,714
Media
0
Likes
93
Points
183
Sexuality
No Response
Dave, thank you for posting this... I hope she DOES go back, and I hope she kisses her girlfriend right in front of the manager to see if he throws her out again.

I have posted on these very issues, many times, on this site, but I usually get the big yawn from everyone. You talk about evictions from their homes, being fired, being refused service in a restaurant, because of orientation, and people innocently and ignorantly protest, "But that's against the law!" No, it is not. Sexual orientation is NOT federally protected against discrimination. Here's a little bit of interesting background information on Scott Bloch:

On May 28, 1998, President Bill Clinton issued Executive Order 13087 prohibiting discrimination against federal employees based on sexual orientation. Enforcement of that order fell to the Office of Special Counsel. From the OSC's official website: "The U.S. Office of Special Counsel (OSC) is an independent federal investigative and prosecutorial agency ... OSC's primary mission is to safeguard the merit system by protecting federal employees and applicants from prohibited personnel practices, especially reprisal for whistleblowing." That's "whistleblowing" about federal corruption as well as "prohibited personnel practices" (such as sexual harassment) perpetrated against federal employees.

In January 2004, George W. Bush's choice to head the Office of Special Counsel began his reign. Since then, Scott J. Bloch has not only ignored President Clinton's executive order - which the Bush administration said it supported and wanted continued - but Mr. Bloch has removed all protections for gay and lesbian federal employees and, by his actions, condoned and encouraged "prohibited personnel practices" against them. His record with "whistleblowers" is just as bad.

One of Mr. Bloch's first moves as Special Counsel - in February 2004 - was to remove from OSC complaint forms and its official web site all references to "sexual orientation." Is it any surprise that while at the University of Kansas, Bloch enrolled in the Integrated Humanities Program, a curriculum established in 1971 to counter the anti-war and women's movements and the growing demand for greater multiculturalism on campus? Is it any surprise that Mr. Bloch has bluntly refused to investigate any claims of "sexual harassment" involving gay or lesbian federal employees?
(from counterbias dot com)

So, while he is not prohibited by law (and is actually encouraged by executive order) from giving LGBT employees protections, neither is he obligated by law to give them protections. By federal law, a supervisor CAN just fire someone simply because they are gay, and coworkers can create as hostile an environment for gays as they choose to.
 

HotBulge

Worshipped Member
Joined
Jul 27, 2005
Posts
2,331
Media
108
Likes
17,265
Points
518
Age
34
Location
Lowells talk to Cabots, Cabots talk to God
Gender
Male
You can if you want to maintain a philosophical contradiction - i.e. a false consciousness or self-deception or a lie to oneself.

Historically, why would a Jewish person belong to the Nazi party? Why would an American Black person in 19th century America want to own slaves? There were people who did in both cases, but their position was absurd.

I suspect that today's gay Republican who buys the complete party line wants to desparately be viewed as "normal" or as adhering to the prevailing norms. Meanwhile, today's gay Republican is engaging in behavior that would have him negatively labeled and marginalized in society. The gay Republican is denying his political marginalization according to the complete Republican party line. Bluntly stated, today's gay person who is completely Republican doesn't want to acknowledge his status as a 2nd class citizen. Let me go out on a limb and say that I view this as a form of self-hatred.


Well, you can, but we are mostly asking in this thread why you would want to. Seems confused, and closeting, to me.
 

fortiesfun

Sexy Member
Joined
May 29, 2006
Posts
4,619
Media
0
Likes
77
Points
268
Location
California (United States)
Sexuality
60% Gay, 40% Straight
Gender
Male
You can if you want to maintain a philosophical contradiction - i.e. a false consciousness or self-deception or a lie to oneself.

I suspect that today's gay Republican who buys the complete party line wants to desparately be viewed as "normal" or as adhering to the prevailing norms.

Let me go out on a limb and say that I view this as a form of self-hatred.
I was being a bit sarcastic in my previous post, but I agree with your points here. I think these last two quotes in my edited version of your remarks state bluntly and clearly what many of us have tried to say, only not as well.
 

DC_DEEP

Sexy Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2005
Posts
8,714
Media
0
Likes
93
Points
183
Sexuality
No Response
I don't trust anyone who adheres across the board with party-line politics. Democrat or Republican or any other who "accept" the hideous inconsistencies with their party, simply in an attempt to keep their party "in power", do a great disservice to themselves and our country.

I frequently get called "liberal", usually mixed in with several other disparaging adjectives, but the truth is, I'm closer to a libertarian philosophy, but I avoid the Libertarian party because, well, because it is a political party. Really, about the only thing I have in common with the "liberal" crowd is that I strongly support civil rights and individual liberties. Otherwise, my ideology is vastly different from either the dems or repubs.

By the way, could I ask one of the self-described "conservatives" to post a few lines, describing to me exactly but concisely what that means? And likewise from one of the self-described "liberals." Just curious.
 

isk8dude

Experimental Member
Joined
Jan 29, 2007
Posts
4
Media
1
Likes
3
Points
148
Location
Connecticut
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
I'm just curious as to whether there are any other gay republicans here and what their experiences have been, or what some of your reactions might be to a a very conservative friend (I'm very outspoken, politically,)coming out.

I'm not a gay conservative, but I grew up in Utah--not an easy place to grow up gay, especially if you are Mormon (I was Mormon, but am no longer.)

I'm sure that other gay guys who ended up staying in Utah did so because they were conservative. Mormonism or at least Mormon-friendly values appealed to them. Sadly, many of these guys did try to conform by marrying women and having kids, all the while keeping their homosexuality a secret.

I believe it's possible for a gay guy to lose his conservatism, if he is publicly forced out and then ostracized by his family and friends--for example, the wife finds out that her hubby is hooking up with men on the Internet, she goes running to the Mormon Bishop, they have an intervention, and so forth. Utah is known for being a haven of gay "rehabilitation."

Bignfloppy, I hope that you are able to stay on your own terms, as a gay man. You have an interesting life-challenge. If you are a sheep and enjoy the company of wolves, tread softly when entering the den...:cool: