Gay Conservatives?

[headbang8]

I know I'll get trashed for this, but let me be deliberately provocative.

Here's why a Jew might have become a Nazi.

• He sees Communism as a threat to his way of life. The Nazis are the only political party that will take direct action against the way Communists try to foil the legitimate progress of commerce. And he believes in the virtue of commerce.
• He resents the humiliation to which his homeland was put after WW1. The Great War was such a clubby deal amongst monarchs, he feels that Germany was made a scapegoat. Had the dice rolled the other way, history would have cast the Brits as villains. In the Weimar years, he saw his government struggle under the yoke of crippling reparations, and his family's savings wiped out in the hyper-inflation that resulted. The Nazis have taken back honour and dignity for the German people.
• Germany has never worked better. Grand buildings are being built, huge public works undertaken, and, yes, the trains run on time. German technology moves ahead in leaps and bounds. They invented the ultra-efficient autobahns and, so everyone can enjoy them, began to build cars that anyone can afford: viz. the Volkswagen.

But...

• They pursued policies that resulted in the imprisonment and deaths of innocent people, many their own citizens.
• They burned down the Reichstag so there's no-one to ask questions.

Now, I'm not saying that Gitmo or Abu Ghraib are Dachau or Auschwitz--they ain't the Hilton, but there's no sanctioned murder inside, either. I'm not saying that the Patriot Act and voting shenanigans are akin to burning down the Reichstag--otherwise there would be no new Congress to turn up the heat on the current administration. And I'm certainly not accusing the Republicans of making Amtrak run on time.

There are plenty of gay men who agree that we should be tough on traitors, cut through government red tape where urgent matters of national security are concerned, and get public services running more efficiently. All noble conservative sentiments, for which I have a deal of sympathy.

Gay conservatives, yes. But gay Republicans? Get outta here.

I wish the putative champions of these noble conservative sentiments weren't liars, hypocrites, tyrants, homophobes, cheats and thieves. I wish they didn't let their cronies loot the treasury with their no-bid defense contracts. I wish they didn't ride roughshod over the mechanisms of government to settle political scores. I wish they had invaded Saudi Arabia rather than Iraq. I wish they would force the military to grow up and get a life when it comes to gays in the ranks. I wish the Republicans were half as smart as the Nazis.

In fact, the Democrats have proven better fiscal conservatives in recent times, no?

Whatever their virtues, the Republicans simply step over too many moral boundaries for me. Gay marriage is my personal deal-breaker: I'm living my liife in a long-distance relationship because the US is one of the few developed nations that won't recognise same-sex partnerships for immigration purposes.

Are the Dems any better? They're pretty spineless when it comes to taking a quotable, public stand. All of them swear allegiance to a Christian god, and none of the current crop of democratic presidential candidates will explicitly support gay rights. (If that's not true, someone please correct me. DC Deep?)

But even at their worst, the Dems are not as flagrantly immoral and untrustworthy as the Republicans have proven themselves, time and again. Just my opinion.

Is a gay Republican a Jewish Nazi? Hardly. But he ought to be feeling, in the words of Tom Lehrer, like a Christian Scientist with appendicitis.

Thankfully, this is America. Republicans won't give me the rights of my heterosexual fellow citizens to companionship, personal fulfilment and a dependent spouse tax deduction. But at least they don't want to kill me.

Do they?

 

[Onslow]

As many have noticed, I am essentially Conservative, and have even looked at the Log Cabin Republicans. and have voted Republican many times, however I will not actually register as one. Sorry folks--I'm a genuine registered Democrat. (should I call the medics as you all fall away in dead faints?)

 

[rubberwilli]

I tend to agree with DC on this one. I used to say I was a democrat, never have said I was a republican, but now a days I consider myself an individual making my own decisions be they right or wrong.

Two parties dominating and polarizing the nation can't be a good thing.

Once again I say we're a country that is too big for our own good. Issues of the west coast have little bearing to issues of the east coast and the middle north of the US is much different from the southern US. Pick an issue and try to get three of those areas to line up together. I doubt it can be done.

My advice to the OP is be true to yourself, not to a party or a community. What has a political party or the "gay community" really tangibly done for you?

 

[SpeedoGuy]

headbang8, that was one of the best posts I've ever seen here.

 

[DC_DEEP]

<...>
Now, I'm not saying that Gitmo or Abu Ghraib are Dachau or Auschwitz--they ain't the Hilton, but there's no sanctioned murder inside, either.

But we ain't too sure about the secret prisons in Europe, are we? Uh, well, no, because they are secret. Who knows what the hell goes on in there.

Are the Dems any better? They're pretty spineless when it comes to taking a quotable, public stand. All of them swear allegiance to a Christian god, and none of the current crop of democratic presidential candidates will explicitly support gay rights. (If that's not true, someone please correct me. DC Deep?)

They are pretty spineless about a lot of things, even villainizing the republicans over ethics issues, and then announcing (after they gain the majority) that they choose to continue the very practices they denounced. Pretty spineless, not to mention liars. Wow, they are starting to sound like the republicans, aren't they? As for gay rights issues, I don't have room to type it all here, so I will refer you to the website of The Human Rights Campaign. In the sidebar menu, select congressional scorecards. Those are in PDF format, and downloadable. That should have all the information you are looking for, including who would and who would not sponsor a bill to make immigration laws more equitable for same-gender international couples. No suprises on that one.

Thankfully, this is America. Republicans won't give me the rights of my heterosexual fellow citizens to companionship, personal fulfilment and a dependent spouse tax deduction. But at least they don't want to kill me.

Do they?

Just watch your back is all I'm sayin.

 

[JustAsking]

I don't find this as surprising as others might. Someone once said that the conservative tent is actually bigger than the liberal tent. The reason for it is that conservatives accept anyone who accepts at least one conservative idea. Whereas, liberals accept noone, unless they accept every liberal idea.

I am one a flaming liberal on most things except I am also a flaming libertarian, which used to be a core conservative belief (now completely gone, it seems). So conversely, I can imagine being a political and economic conservative with liberal social beliefs. Conservatives of 50 years ago would shudder at the thought of a government passing laws regulating marriage.

This still doesn't explain how one could be a gay "Limbaugh" conservative, though. I would like to hear more about that.

 

[DC_DEEP]

I don't find this as surprising as others might. Someone once said that the conservative tent is actually bigger than the liberal tent. The reason for it is that conservatives accept anyone who accepts at least one conservative idea. Whereas, liberals accept noone, unless they accept every liberal idea.

I am one a flaming liberal on most things except I am also a flaming libertarian, which used to be a core conservative belief (now completely gone, it seems). So conversely, I can imagine being a political and economic conservative with liberal social beliefs. Conservatives of 50 years ago would shudder at the thought of a government passing laws regulating marriage.

This still doesn't explain how one could be a gay "Limbaugh" conservative, though. I would like to hear more about that.

JA, as usual, you and I are on exactly the same wavelength here (maybe it's at 21 centimeters; knowing your background, I'm sure you get the joke...)

Today's (small-L) libertarian is pretty much what the conservative/republican was several decades ago. The funny thing is, in another thread, one stubbornly, stupidly binary neo-conservative keeps insulting me and calling me a liberal democrat. I support ethics in any political party, and denounce corruption in any party; it's just that one party tends to give me more ammunition.

I'm just guessing, so anyone feel free to correct me on this - perhaps the gay "Limbaugh" conservative feels that even though he may not agree with rush, he has to embrace him because of party loyalty. A sense of obligation to accept the whole party line.

 

[Corius]

I'm still reading the posts and I'm still not clear what kind of conservatism it is that the OP is attracted to and his just saying that he digs Rush Limbaugh hardly helps because Limbaugh certainly gives no aid and comfort to the gay concerns of the OP. I happen to think that there are a set of core values which Americans of all shades of political and sexual orientation share; and these values ought to come into play when we are trying to figure out what public policies would allow all of us to enjoy the blessings of liberty, to maximize the enjoyment of our different individual complex sexuality in a climate of mutual respect. I believe all this is possible but only to the extent that we all seek to enhance and expand our shared common values. There has to be a concentration of the shared goals. Anyone who espouses a goal which limits his fellow citizen in any essential way is working counter to the common good. Freedom, even in the land of the free, is not license to plunder, to limit, to abuse.
To the extent that we recognize that we have to get along with each other--- to that extent, we can hope for satisfactory policies. We have to go for compromises and accommodations that approach "liberty and justice for all" and we should all have learned that way back in kindergarten.

 

[Peter Wood]

I'm reading all these posts with big interest. I'm confused about a lot of things. I'm from a country that has only 6% of the population of the USA and we have a political system with more than 10 political parties. Three of these parties are the base of our Government.
The biggest party is a christian political party, second biggest is a labour party and they needed a third one to get the majority: a small conservative christian party.
Every election I have to choose which one will be most strategic to give my vote...... I'm one of those who finds issues best served every where.

 

[DC_DEEP]

I'm still reading the posts and I'm still not clear what kind of conservatism it is that the OP is attracted to and his just saying that he digs Rush Limbaugh hardly helps because Limbaugh certainly gives no aid and comfort to the gay concerns of the OP. I happen to think that there are a set of core values which Americans of all shades of political and sexual orientation share; and these values ought to come into play when we are trying to figure out what public policies would allow all of us to enjoy the blessings of liberty, to maximize the enjoyment of our different individual complex sexuality in a climate of mutual respect. I believe all this is possible but only to the extent that we all seek to enhance and expand our shared common values. There has to be a concentration of the shared goals. Anyone who espouses a goal which limits his fellow citizen in any essential way is working counter to the common good. Freedom, even in the land of the free, is not license to plunder, to limit, to abuse.
To the extent that we recognize that we have to get along with each other--- to that extent, we can hope for satisfactory policies. We have to go for compromises and accommodations that approach "liberty and justice for all" and we should all have learned that way back in kindergarten.

Corius, as much as I want to agree with your assessment, it just is not correct. It should be, but it is not. All Americans do NOT share those core values. They arrogantly assume that they should retain some of the same rights that they want to deny to others, and they want the ability to curtail the rights, by legislation, of any person whom they think should not have those rights.

 

[Corius]

Dear, Dear, DC DEEP. You make my point so beutifully clear. My strategy is always to impute to those I really don't yet know values which I assume all decent thinking folk would embrace. Even the founding fathers were being deceivers when they employed some of the words and phrases they did. But, even they recognized they had to appeal to the best in others even when that "best" was absent from their everyday lives. I'm glad Jefferson, the slaveholder, had to write that all men are created equal, and I don't think even those who claim to be conservative would want to get rid of those near sacred to Americans words. Words have power and it is good strategy to get those with whom you have disagreement to have to deal honestly with the words they also say they honor. Do you disagree?
Rush Limbaugh never ever wants to define those sacred words and he cuts off those folks who dare to suggest that he should.

Peace!

 

[DC_DEEP]

Dear, Dear, DC DEEP. You make my point so beutifully clear. My strategy is always to impute to those I really don't yet know values which I assume all decent thinking folk would embrace. Even the founding fathers were being deceivers when they employed some of the words and phrases they did. But, even they recognized they had to appeal to the best in others even when that "best" was absent from their everyday lives. I'm glad Jefferson, the slaveholder, had to write that all men are created equal, and I don't think even those who claim to be conservative would want to get rid of those near sacred to Americans words. Words have power and it is good strategy to get those with whom you have disagreement to have to deal honestly with the words they also say they honor. Do you disagree?
Rush Limbaugh never ever wants to define those sacred words and he cuts off those folks who dare to suggest that he should.

Peace!

No, really, I was agreeing with you, but I was also shaking my head sadly. I'm with you on expecting the best in others, I've just learned to be a little more pragmatic. And from the historical perspectives I've read, our founding fathers may not have been quite as idealistic as we like to believe. While the phrase "all men are created equal" was indeed used, they also used the phrase "we the people". There are some who think that the wording was precise, not eloquent, and that the phrase "all men are created equal" purposefully excluded women and slaves. Unfortunately, our contemporary lawmakers prefer both interpretations - choosing whichever one suits the purpose to achieve the desired result.

It would be refreshing and welcome if more people had even a molecule of altruism somewhere within their hard black little hearts.

 

[b.c.]

I don't find this as surprising as others might. Someone once said that the conservative tent is actually bigger than the liberal tent. The reason for it is that conservatives accept anyone who accepts at least one conservative idea. Whereas, liberals accept noone, unless they accept every liberal idea.

I am one a flaming liberal on most things except I am also a flaming libertarian, which used to be a core conservative belief (now completely gone, it seems). So conversely, I can imagine being a political and economic conservative with liberal social beliefs. Conservatives of 50 years ago would shudder at the thought of a government passing laws regulating marriage.

This still doesn't explain how one could be a gay "Limbaugh" conservative, though. I would like to hear more about that.

I think I'd have to disagree with the first part of what you say here J.A. I would think it the other way around, whereas conservatives accept no one (as truly conservative) unless they accept every conservative idea.

In fact, your description of the liberal mindset seems to be almost totally opposite to what the very idea of being liberal means (imo). I think if one had to speculate as to which political "tea party" (to use an analogy) would the OP be most wecome, I think it would probably be the liberal one.

Which is exactly why every news source that doesn't broadcast the news exactly as the conservatives would have it is labeled as "the liberal news media". You don't hear liberals going about complaining about the conservative news media do you? Why? Is it because the news media is under the control of all those liberals? Or is it because any news that doesn't have a conservative "spin" is liberally inspired news?

As far as the question of what kind of "conservatism" the OP is attracted to, I think it an interesting question, although having personally met more than a few "gay conservatives" here, I have an idea. Suffice it to say that there are some who want to be a part of "the club", who want to be accepted into "the fold" but they don't think everyone should be.

 

[JustAsking]

I think I'd have to disagree with the first part of what you say here J.A. I would think it the other way around, whereas conservatives accept no one (as truly conservative) unless they accept every conservative idea.

In fact, your description of the liberal mindset seems to be almost totally opposite to what the very idea of being liberal means (imo). I think if one had to speculate as to which political "tea party" (to use an analogy) would the OP be most wecome, I think it would probably be the liberal one.

Which is exactly why every news source that doesn't broadcast the news exactly as the conservatives would have it is labeled as "the liberal news media". You don't hear liberals going about complaining about the conservative news media do you? Why? Is it because the news media is under the control of all those liberals? Or is it because any news that doesn't have a conservative "spin" is liberally inspired news?

As far as the question of what kind of "conservatism" the OP is attracted to, I think it an interesting question, although having personally met more than a few "gay conservatives" here, I have an idea. Suffice it to say that there are some who want to be a part of "the club", who want to be accepted into "the fold" but they don't think everyone should be.

bc,
Perhaps you are right about conservatives, too. Things are getting so polarized now, that John McCain isn't even allowed in the tent.

As for my description of liberals being wrong, the only thing I can say is that I didn't actually describe liberals, so I am not sure what you are saying.

But I do see your point. If conservatives are truly "all or nothing" about who comes into the tent, then yes, I agree, the OP would be more welcome in liberal circles.

diekidik,
Your comments are interesting. I sometimes wish we had a large number of parties from which coalitions had to form in order create a government, such as happens elsewhere. I don't know why we have only two effective parties in America. At the moment, things look hopelessly polarized in America.

 

[MattBrick]

There are lots of gay conservatives, and lots of straight liberals.
Just like there are lots of Buddist meat eaters, and Christian vegetarians.
Tjey aren't always mutually exclusinve categories.

Check out this link :WorkingForChange-'I'm a walking contradiction'

 

[SpeedoGuy]

To the extent that we recognize that we have to get along with each other--- to that extent, we can hope for satisfactory policies. We have to go for compromises and accommodations that approach "liberty and justice for all" and we should all have learned that way back in kindergarten.

I truly believe the United States has moved away from the neighborly compromise and "live and let live" ethic, if we ever had it. Now our credo seems to be: Winner take all.

Compromise is seen as a failure to win, a dirty word. Why bother to learn to get along with each other when its much more gratifying to give a poke in the eye instead?

 

[SpeedoGuy]

Here's an example of what I'm referring to:

DeLay's book is tough on almost everyone - CNN.com

 

[thirdlegmeat]

There seems to be huge groups in America that can be classified as "single-issue voters." For the most part, gays tend to be one such group. It really is tragic, considering many gays DO have more in common with the GOP than with the American Communist Party. As a group, gays tend to have higher education, more disposable income and more business ownership. Such interests are best represented by the GOP, hands-down.

However, since many PEOPLE in the GOP are opposed to homosexuality--largely due to religious beliefs--most gay people throw the baby out with the bath water. Should a gay person really care if a candidate personally thinks an alternative lifestyle is immoral, as long as that same candidate best represents his interests (national security, border protection, economy, property rights, etc.). I think the answer is clear. I am not surprised that there exist Log Cabin Republicans and I commend any homosexual astute enough to separate hurt feelings from political policy and base his vote on the latter.

 

[adrianherman01]

jesus americans are stupid

 

[hot-rod]

Welcome to the club! I'm VP of our local Log Cabin Republican chapter and my partner and I are proudly church-going Christians. We embrace diversity, love that we are blessed to be Americans, and relish a good, heated political discussion with our friends. We also think the mainstream media is WAY biased to the left and that both political parties today do a damn poor job of keeping their focus on issues important to our country. They get too distracted with social agenda issues.

All this and we're a gay "married" couple living in suburbia all the while getting on famously with "the straights" as well as our gay friends and family. :biggrin1:

I say "come out, come out" to all the gay conservatives who long for this country to get back to its roots and focus on security, tax reform, political reform, term limitations, etc. blah, blah, blah - I could go on......

Ed

I'm kinda afraid you have to be a Democrat to believe in those things, don't you think?