LPSG Republicans

travis1985

Expert Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Jun 22, 2011
Posts
835
Media
1
Likes
103
Points
288
Location
Coeur d'Alene (Idaho, United States)
Verification
View
Sexuality
50% Straight, 50% Gay
Gender
Male
What's confusing is that despite the multi-millennial oppression, ostracization, and persecution of gays, as well as the ongoing denial of basic human rights to gays.....you remain opposed to gay rights. What other conclusion could one draw but that you are either self-loathing, mentally ill, or a political shill?

You could draw the conclusion that I'm content, comfortable with myself, and, despite being bisexual myself, don't feel that marriage between same-sex couples needs to be legally recognized for a variety of reasons that are not what this thread is about. There's no need to discount me with the knee-jerk armchair diagnosis of being "self-loathing" or to call names. I have seen in your past LPSG activity that hostility is your usual reaction strategy when confronted with views different from your own, so I won't take it too personally.
 

SilverTrain

Legendary Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2008
Posts
4,623
Media
82
Likes
1,312
Points
333
Location
USA
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
You could draw the conclusion that I'm content, comfortable with myself, and, despite being bisexual myself, don't feel that marriage between same-sex couples needs to be legally recognized for a variety of reasons that are not what this thread is about. There's no need to discount me with the knee-jerk armchair diagnosis of being "self-loathing" or to call names. I have seen in your past LPSG activity that hostility is your usual reaction strategy when confronted with views different from your own, so I won't take it too personally.

Not "views different from my own", but views that defy all reason. I continue to fail to see any rational basis for your contentions. Interesting that you've moved from gay to bi.

Please feel free to list the "variety of reasons" why same-sex marriages don't need to be legally recognized.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Frotninja21

B_Nick8

Cherished Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2007
Posts
11,403
Media
0
Likes
298
Points
208
Location
New York City, by way of Marblehead, Boston and Ge
Sexuality
80% Gay, 20% Straight
Gender
Male
Hey, it's Jingoist gone subtle-r. For the moment, no doubt.


I'll save the long-winded responses for now, since I'm getting a potent whiff of TROLL.

I'll await your further flowering.

I was just about to say so. That rose, by any other name, still stinks.
 

dandelion

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Sep 25, 2009
Posts
13,297
Media
21
Likes
2,705
Points
358
Location
UK
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
Equal means equal. As I said, discriminating against people is wrong. And, frankly, discriminating in *favor* of people is wrong, too.
So heres an example. In the UK we have privately run schools and state run schools. It is universally considered that the privately run schools, on the average, end up getting students to perform better and get higher examination results, etc. To such an extent that the people coming from these schools take a disproportionately large (and significantly large) percentage of the places at top universities. Money really buys a good start in life.

In response to this the UK government has appealed to universities to take students from state schools with lower exam results than their private school counterparts. positive discrimination. Is this wrong? All the statistical evidence says state school kids are no less intelligent than private school kids, they have just been trained less well. But if we refuse to allow them into university then we are likely harming the state because we are excluding clever people from positions in society where they will benefit everyone.

The difficulty with a hands off approach is that 'the market' never looks out for the greater good of all. It is a purely selfish mechanism which only works by incidentally benefitting bystanders. So we need rules to moderate the exploitation which automatically occurs in a free market. Everyone agrees about this, it is just a matter of degree.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Frotninja21

bearvwe

Loved Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Nov 7, 2008
Posts
246
Media
4
Likes
522
Points
448
Location
London, UK
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
I have long given up understanding Americans and politics (e.g why do blue collar people vote Republic when it would appear to make more economic sense for them to support the Democrats? why is available healthcare a bad thing? etc etc) but luckily Mr Santorum has come to this European's assistance. He said "the problem with Europeans is that ... they see the world through the eyes of reason". We try.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Frotninja21

nmf9in

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Jan 10, 2007
Posts
705
Media
24
Likes
2,913
Points
498
Location
Bay City (Michigan, United States)
Verification
View
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
I know for a fact that there are no well-hung Republicans! ;-)
I'm a conservative Republican-self employed-and enjoy this site very much. I've chatted with girls and guys, gay and straight-even some in person-and have some real friends on here. I'm not a hater & didn't join because of politics-in fact this thread is my least favorite. When I read it I hear a lot of hate from the left expressed.

Nobody asked for my advice, bit I say lighten up & enjoy LPSG for what it really is. As for whether I'm hung or not-that's for others to decide...!!!
 

houtx48

Cherished Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2006
Posts
6,900
Media
0
Likes
308
Points
208
Gender
Male
"Nobody asked for my advice, bit I say lighten up & enjoy LPSG for what it really is. As for whether I'm hung or not-that's for others to decide...!!!"............... a gay big dick website.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Frotninja21

redneckgymrat

Experimental Member
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Posts
1,479
Media
0
Likes
17
Points
73
Location
Texas
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
Hey, it's Jingoist gone subtle-r. For the moment, no doubt.

Huh? Jingoism is defined in the Oxford English Dictionary as extreme patriotism in the form of aggressive foreign policy.

Where did I mention foreign policy?

Why do I feel like I'm being cyber-bullied?

Separate but equal. Wow. That you invoke that language is telling. Plessy v. Ferguson, Brown v Board of Education...what it means is precisely that you can't say straight and gay are "equal" but we're going to treat them different.

OK, I'm impressed. My intention was to keep my part in this discussion simple and light, but you've brought up even the specific court cases. Your language and aggressive writing style did not imply the depth of knowledge that you are now displaying.

Bravo to you, good sir.

There are a number of ways that I could respond, but since it is obvious that your mind is closed, and that you will simply shout down anyone who DARES to disagree with you, any further *political* discussion between us will be futile. And, frankly, I haven't the patience to deal with someone like you.

Let's just say it this way. You're not going to convince me, and I am not going to convince you. As I said before, we can agree to disagree, on this point.

I look forward to many friendly discussions between us, in the Clothing/Appearance section.

I'll save the long-winded responses for now, since I'm getting a potent whiff of TROLL.

Oh yes, obviously. I disagree with you, therefore I must be a troll. Sigh.

I just want to state for the record that I am not a troll, and am getting tired of being accused of it...only in this thread, mind you.

Now that I consider it, was the purpose of this thread to "entrap" conservatives, and attack us? Because I'm not going to put up with that.

Your behavior is belligerent, unfriendly, and generally reflects badly on this forum and its user base. Shame on you.
 

tamati

Sexy Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Jun 6, 2011
Posts
1,875
Media
7
Likes
94
Points
308
Location
NorCal
Verification
View
Gender
Male
Belonging to, but not standing up against the discrimination the gop and tea party spews is just as bad as spewing the hate speech yourself.

If the whites had been slaves, you know full well they'd have made sure they actually got the 40 acres and a mule they had been promised when the government set them free.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Frotninja21

cruztbone

Experimental Member
Joined
May 22, 2004
Posts
1,284
Media
0
Likes
11
Points
258
Age
70
Location
Capitola CA USA
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
Melbbigguy , i would rather become impotent than vote republican, also known as repugnantcan, or repugnantone party. Think of the most obnoxious animal in the outback or the coral reefs of australia, and you have got an idea of who repugnantcans are.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Frotninja21

hung9mike

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Jul 4, 2004
Posts
708
Media
9
Likes
3,306
Points
498
Location
Georgia, USA
Verification
View
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
I was not trying to polarize, I'm just making an observation. I was referring to social conservatives in my post, not fiscal conservatives. (Perhaps that point should always be clarified, since "conservatism" takes on several forms.) Fiscal conservatives can be all over the map in terms of their views on sexuality as I believe you're trying to point out, but social conservatives have very traditional views as to when-- and how-- and even if-- people express their sexual interests. :wink:
I've often known conservatives to be sexually liberated. Try not to polarize or work from stereotypes. It's never as simple as "Republicans are prudes and Democrats are sluts."
 

redneckgymrat

Experimental Member
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Posts
1,479
Media
0
Likes
17
Points
73
Location
Texas
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
Fiscal conservatives can be all over the map in terms of their views on sexuality as I believe you're trying to point out, but social conservatives have very traditional views as to when-- and how-- and even if-- people express their sexual interests. :wink:
Some social conservatives are more traditional, and some are more open. It's a spectrum.

You'd better watch yourself, though...showing compassion or even understanding for a conservative, might get you attacked, too.

@Nick8:
The word 'jingoism' leaves a bad taste in my mouth. As does the word 'redneck'.

If jingoism is so offensive, why is the term being used to describe me??

As for redneck, it's my chosen username. I'm a self-identified redneck.
 

petite

Expert Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2010
Posts
7,199
Media
2
Likes
146
Points
208
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Female
They're referring to a recently banned troll who called himself Jingoist. I haven't followed these posts closely, but it seems that the reason is because you appear to share similar views, although he was an outright troll whose intention appeared to be to upset people and mock them and look down on them you seem to be a person who is engaged in an actual discussion.

I don't understand how marriage rights aren't a special right for heterosexual people but they would be for gay people. That's the part that doesn't make sense to me. It seems like sidestepping the equality issue entirely, like saying that men and women have equal pay because women have equal pay with women and men have equal pay with men, or some such division by social group that obtusely ignores the obvious inequality referred to by the phrase "equal rights." If I can marry the man that I love and share my life with and adopt children and inherit his property and get shared benefits, then gay people should, too, because they're also citizens of the United States and under the Constitution they're granted the same rights as me.

You are right, you don't have to engage in this discussion. You were asked questions about your beliefs and you answered them. Your answers were puzzling to me, too, and my reaction was the same as Silvertrain's reaction, but I'm starting to understand that the point of view on gay rights that made me think Michelle Bachmann was a kook (or one of the reasons) isn't an isolated situation and that she really does represent the beliefs of some conservatives.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Frotninja21

petite

Expert Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2010
Posts
7,199
Media
2
Likes
146
Points
208
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Female
Here's an article I shared on another thread, but I think it's excellent and worth sharing again.

The Conservative Case for Gay Marriage​


Here's an excerpt, but I recommend reading it in full:

Many of my fellow conservatives have an almost knee-jerk hostility toward gay marriage. This does not make sense, because same-sex unions promote the values conservatives prize. Marriage is one of the basic building blocks of our neighborhoods and our nation. At its best, it is a stable bond between two individuals who work to create a loving household and a social and economic partnership. We encourage couples to marry because the commitments they make to one another provide benefits not only to themselves but also to their families and communities. Marriage requires thinking beyond one's own needs. It transforms two individuals into a union based on shared aspirations, and in doing so establishes a formal investment in the well-being of society. The fact that individuals who happen to be gay want to share in this vital social institution is evidence that conservative ideals enjoy widespread acceptance. Conservatives should celebrate this, rather than lament it.

Legalizing same-sex marriage would also be a recognition of basic American principles, and would represent the culmination of our nation's commitment to equal rights. It is, some have said, the last major civil-rights milestone yet to be surpassed in our two-century struggle to attain the goals we set for this nation at its formation.

This bedrock American principle of equality is central to the political and legal convictions of Republicans, Democrats, liberals, and conservatives alike. The dream that became America began with the revolutionary concept expressed in the Declaration of Independence in words that are among the most noble and elegant ever written: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Sadly, our nation has taken a long time to live up to the promise of equality. In 1857, the Supreme Court held that an African-American could not be a citizen. During the ensuing Civil War, Abraham Lincoln eloquently reminded the nation of its found-ing principle: "our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal."

At the end of the Civil War, to make the elusive promise of equality a reality, the 14th Amendment to the Constitution added the command that "no State É shall deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person É the equal protection of the laws."

Subsequent laws and court decisions have made clear that equality under the law extends to persons of all races, religions, and places of origin. What better way to make this national aspiration complete than to apply the same protection to men and women who differ from others only on the basis of their sexual orientation? I cannot think of a single reason—and have not heard one since I undertook this venture—for continued discrimination against decent, hardworking members of our society on that basis.

Various federal and state laws have accorded certain rights and privileges to gay and lesbian couples, but these protections vary dramatically at the state level, and nearly universally deny true equality to gays and lesbians who wish to marry. The very idea of marriage is basic to recognition as equals in our society; any status short of that is inferior, unjust, and unconstitutional.

The United States Supreme Court has repeatedly held that marriage is one of the most fundamental rights that we have as Americans under our Constitution. It is an expression of our desire to create a social partnership, to live and share life's joys and burdens with the person we love, and to form a lasting bond and a social identity. The Supreme Court has said that marriage is a part of the Constitution's protections of liberty, privacy, freedom of association, and spiritual identification. In short, the right to marry helps us to define ourselves and our place in a community. Without it, there can be no true equality under the law.
 

redneckgymrat

Experimental Member
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Posts
1,479
Media
0
Likes
17
Points
73
Location
Texas
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
They're referring to a recently banned troll who called himself Jingoist. I haven't followed these posts closely, but it seems that the reason is because you appear to share similar views, although he was an outright troll whose intention appeared to be to upset people and mock them and look down on them you seem to be a person who is engaged in an actual discussion.

Aaah...that actually makes sense! Jingoism is not a commonly used word...its abrupt appearance in this thread took me by surprise.

This also explains the level of hostility I've been shown.

No, I can assure you that I am not the user who was named jingoist. And, thank you for being able to see the difference.

I don't understand how marriage rights aren't a special right for heterosexual people but they would be for gay people.

An excellent point, and one which I would fundamentally agree with. For years I've been saying that I would like to see the government out of the marriage business, entirely. I view marriage as essentially a religious construct, and trying to apply legalistic principles invariably creates issues, much like the "gay marriage" issue.

I happen to agree with you. Equal. Equal needs to be equal. It's got to work both ways. Homosexuals should not be given special rights. Heterosexuals should not be given special rights. Red or yellow, black or white, they are precious in His sight... Oops, lapsed into a song, there.

If I can marry the man that I love and share my life with and adopt children and inherit his property and get shared benefits, then gay people should, too, because they're also citizens of the United States and under the Constitution they're granted the same rights as me.

So far we're actually in complete agreement. I have no problem with two people hooking up, committing to each other, engaging in a monogamous loving relationship, and establishing a joint checking account, or having inheritance rights. Nor do I have any issue with that relationship being legally recognized, though I would prefer it if they were treated more closely akin to two principals in a legal corporation, and just let "people" enter into (marry) or leave (divorce) that legal structure.

Instead, by throwing the duality of legal marriage and religious marriage into the discussion, it gets quite a bit muddier.

Words matter.

gay rights that made me think Michelle Bachmann was a kook (or one of the reasons) isn't an isolated situation and that she really does represent the beliefs of some conservatives.

Conservatism can be effectively broken down into two branches, fiscal and social conservatism. There is often a lot of overlap, but there does not have to be. I am very fiscally conservative. In many respects I am also a social conservative, but I'm not so extreme as many on the "radical right" can be.

Despite recent claims to the contrary. ;)
 
Last edited:

petite

Expert Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2010
Posts
7,199
Media
2
Likes
146
Points
208
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Female
Jingoist also used this argument, that government is too involved with marriage already. The problem with it is that it's a cop-out. Saying that one cannot support gay rights because he actually believes straight people have too many marriage rights is BS unless he refuses to vote for a candidate who doesn't promise to remove marriage rights from straight people. If conservative people did that, then that argument would have legs, but they don't because their actions show that's not what they actually believe. They actually vote to strengthen marriage as much as possible.

I don't believe that marriage is a religious construct. If it was, then non-religious people wouldn't want to get married. The existence of the gay marriage debate and legalization of it around the world disproves that it's just some religious thing. There are obvious personal reasons and practical benefits for it, if one is straight, and gay people deserve to be treated the same way.

If you don't believe in legalizing gay marriage, then you are a social conservative.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Frotninja21

houtx48

Cherished Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2006
Posts
6,900
Media
0
Likes
308
Points
208
Gender
Male
How would you get the government out of the marriage business and still carry on the business of marriage? You can't do it with religion because of all the over lapping variables not to mention the non believers.
 

Tattooed Goddess

Worshipped Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Oct 17, 2007
Posts
14,088
Media
70
Likes
20,563
Points
668
Location
United States
Verification
View
Sexuality
60% Straight, 40% Gay
Gender
Female
When I came to LPSG I was Right Wing Religious but Sexually Open Conservative Republican. Now I'm Atheist Left Wing Anti-Religious EXTREMELY Sexually Open. I wouldn't say LPSG changed me entirely but it certainly put the rusty parts in motion. Most of the other changes officially took place during my 1.5 year sabbatical.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Frotninja21

redneckgymrat

Experimental Member
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Posts
1,479
Media
0
Likes
17
Points
73
Location
Texas
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
Jingoist also used this argument, that government is too involved with marriage already. The problem with it is that it's a cop-out.

It's not a cop-out, though it is a rather unpopular position within the conservative "ranks," but I do feel that it has genuine logic behind it, and will come to be embraced over time. Logical arguments like the one you posted, above, can help to make the case in the meantime. My only issue with it is the piling on of *more* legislation, rather than the repeal of the existing stuff...similar result, different approach.

It's an ideological difference. More government vs less.

Actually, the fact that there were two of us, on this site, who would use this generally unpopular argument does seem a bit suspicious. I can better understand, now, why a correlation between us was drawn.

Did Jingoist also self-identify as a redneck, or as an asexual? Are his posts still around, or were they deleted? You've got me curious, now...may have to look them up, and see for myself.

Saying that one cannot support gay rights because he actually believes straight people have too many marriage rights is BS unless he refuses to vote for a candidate who doesn't promise to remove marriage rights from straight people.

There *are* no conservative candidates who say that, right now. Nor, I believe, are there any Democrat candidates who hold that position.

Of the current Republican hopefuls, Ron Paul, with his right-leaning libertarian views, *might* have the courage to say something like this. His general theme is "get out of my life, and stay out," so this would be consistent with his beliefs over 30 years of public service.

I don't believe that marriage is a religious construct. If it was, then so many non-religious people wouldn't want to get married. There are obvious personal reasons and practical benefits for it, if one is straight, and gay people deserve to be treated the same way.

Let's use an analogy. I presume that you are over 18, which means that legally you are an adult. And, likely, you were excited or happy about becoming a legal adult.

Did it occur to you to demand a bat mitzvah? It's the Jewish "becoming an adult" ceremony...after all, you want to be an adult!

Oh... It's precisely because the language is different! As I said before, words matter.

Being joined in a legal union is great. Establish a pair bond with anyone you want. I fully support it. And, the same benefits that come from a heterosexual marriage would be extended to a homosexual/bisexual/transsexual/whatever marriage. No problem. But, being *married,* despite the overlap in the language, is significantly more than just the legal recognition, and that is where we likely differ.

If you don't believe in legalizing gay marriage, then you are a social conservative.

Because that is the *only* issue in the entire world? And, that's the *only* approach to solving it?

I am socially conservative...said that early on. I am not so far to the right that I am a member of the "radical right," any more than I believe that you are *so* far to the left that you would be part of the "looney left," based on your posts in this thread. In fact, you come across as rational, reasonable, and thoughtful. For that I thank you.

And, just for reference, I'm a member of a sexual minority, too. Asexual.

At least other people know what gay means...most people don't even accept that "lack of attraction" can exist!