Presidential Hopefuls & LGBT Issues

[houtx48]

And the funny thing about Rick Perry, is he is sort of like Troy Aikman, those gay rumors are now decades old and just wont go away. I am expressing no opinion on either gentleman.

The last time Ricky Goodhair addressed the gay rumors he went so ballistic I think people thought he was protesting to much and it was funny to see him so upset. It probably would have been better to have said nothing.

 

[B_VinylBoy]

If Ron Paul wants equality by denial of recognition of ALL relationships then Mr. Paul needs to come out and flat say that. I would love to hear Ron Paul talk about the Government getting out of the "Church Business" and organized religion. I would love to hear Ron Paul talk about equality in taxation for everyone.

Now THAT would make my ears perk.

Sadly, I am not going to hold my breath on any of this because it is never going to happen. Ron Paul may sound good, but he has no ability in fact to do what he says. The system will not let him. The limitations of the Presidency of the United States will not let him and everything he says to the contrary is a waste of my ear canals.

Exactly. Obama is unfortunately learning this the hard way, which is why I get put off when people can't differentiate from the ideological preaching and what "should have happened", versus the reality of our Government and how it truly operates. It's going to take a series of presidents over a long period of time to eventually fix the problems of Government. No "one president" from any "one party" is going to get it done in "one term".

 

[D_Percy_Prettywillie]

I'm going to first say that I'm against any form of discrimination in the legal system, anywhere it exists. I avidly support equity in pay, benefits, and anything else you can think of, for all people.

Now, being gay, you walk a fine line when it comes to gay marriage; do I want to get married some day and have it be recognized as legal (meaning it comes with all the benefits of any other marriage)? Of course I do. Unfortunately, for a lot of my friends, this is the one issue that elections ultimately boil down to; is Candidate X a friend of the LGBT community?

As much as I think inequity needs to be addressed in our laws, I do not think of it as paramount insofar as LGBT issues are concerned. Hate crime legislation is important and should be aggressively pursued. The legalization of gay marriage will happen eventually and that fight needs to be continued until its won.

But (forgive me) this isn't the 60's. I can ride all the same buses, drink from the same water fountains, eat at the same restaurants, and use the same public toilets as straight people can. I don't think it's fair to say LGBT issues are as immediately imperative on the national stage as the civil rights they were fighting for back then and a great many of my associates feel exactly the opposite.

We're a short ways away from abolishing prejudice from our laws and until we have, we shouldn't relent in that pursuit. Prejudice, however, is always going to exist in peoples hearts. The right candidate and the right legislation won't fix that.

What will? I think a good start is advancement of the idea that gay people aren't really any different than straight people- that we too consider multiple things about Candidates before we vote for them as we too live in this country, drive on its roads, send our kids to its schools, shop and provide for its economy etc.




JSZ

 

[B_VinylBoy]

VERY astute perception!! (at least with those who are consistent in their philosophies and don't just blow with the political winds!!)

Thanks. :redface:
Some of the wisest words of wisdom came from my mom when I was about to enter my senior year of HS... it was raw and brutally honest, but absolutely true. "If they think you're shit, what makes you think they'll give you anything else but shit?"

That's why I really pay attention to civil rights issues as diligently as possible, even when it's not the top of the list of concerns for the nation. You can tell a lot about what they're gonna do for policy by what they say about and how they treat different people naturally, when nothing of any real financial significance is on the line.

 

[Hoss]

Of course the list you give us VB has President Obama with 2 firm 'maybe's one on the subject of allowing discrimination against gays in private sector jobs. It would be nice if he'd just have the balls to flat out say yes or no instead of playing in the middle. As a men who must have faced discrimination, President Obama and Herman Cain are both quite sickening in their lack of regards for equal rights for all people.


Equality at all levels for all genders, sexuality, ethnic background, skin color, height, weight and every other item which makes each of us an individual and at the same time all very equal that's what I'd like to see.

 

[B_VinylBoy]

Of course the list you give us VB has President Obama with 2 firm 'maybe's one on the subject of allowing discrimination against gays in private sector jobs. It would be nice if he'd just have the balls to flat out say yes or no instead of playing in the middle. As a men who must have faced discrimination, President Obama and Herman Cain are both quite sickening in their lack of regards for equal rights for all people.

To even try and compare Obama's stances on civil rights to Herman Cain is insanely laughable. Herman Cain, who openly admits that he wouldn't hire a Muslim to his cabinet and would force them to go through some kind of loyalty test before considering them, from being an obvious opponent to LGBT people... to Obama who has signed into law DADT, instructed the current administration to not actively enforce DOMA, who has done much to embrace the Muslim community among continued backfire from those who were quick to label them all as "terrorists", to nominating the first Latino Supreme Court justice. I could go on, but we'll leave it at that for now. When you say "all people", you need to be more specific here. As far as I can see it, Cain & Obama aren't even on the same planet (never mind the same page) when it comes to civil rights issues.

When it comes to politics (or life in general), I don't demand or expect absolutes nor do I expect an all-or-nothing approach to important issues. We can talk about how it's a shame that Obama still has doubts in certain areas. Alas, he's far more open minded than Herman Cain so your posturing comes off somewhat misleading and dishonest.

Equality at all levels for all genders, sexuality, ethnic background, skin color, height, weight and every other item which makes each of us an individual and at the same time all very equal that's what I'd like to see.

We'd all like to see that... but that, my friend, has never happened in our history even with the Civil Rights Acts in place. That's because ultimately, despite all of the physical features we can attach to the term "equality" the gap between financial & societal equality continues to grow. In some ways we're a lot better than we were before, but obviously there's a LONG way to go.

 

[Hoss]

VinylBoy, I am not really attempting to compare Obama and Cain on their individual stance. I was stating that considering that both of them are from backgrounds that have likely given them discrimination they should both be better able at understanding the importance of equality. As I added President Obama made it even worse (imo) by putting a 'maybe' for the rights of LGBTs in the private sector. I don't applaud Cain, or the others for taking a firm stand against the rights but I am more angered by a candidate that won't just flat out say yes or no. BY not firmly placing himself he is simply (again imo) trying to gain votes from both sides.

 

[B_VinylBoy]

VinylBoy, I am not really attempting to compare Obama and Cain on their individual stance. I was stating that considering that both of them are from backgrounds that have likely given them discrimination they should both be better able at understanding the importance of equality. As I added President Obama made it even worse (imo) by putting a 'maybe' for the rights of LGBTs in the private sector.

IMO, that shows me he's at least thinking about it. Herman Cain just comes outright and says no. Since when is thinking or trying to enlighten oneself "worse" than just outright denial? Your cynicism is glaring here.

I don't applaud Cain, or the others for taking a firm stand against the rights but I am more angered by a candidate that won't just flat out say yes or no. BY not firmly placing himself he is simply (again imo) trying to gain votes from both sides.

No kidding he's trying to gain votes from both sides. You kinda have to if you plan to win an election. However, if this is your argument for it then it's a pretty frail one. Anyone can tell (beyond the "D" or "R" next to their name) that one person's stance is decisively liberal and the other is exceedingly conservative despite the "maybes". If this is pandering to "both sides", then both Obama & Cain suck at it on this issue. Furthermore, if we are that obsessed to administer moral judgement we can pigeonhole the issue, see where any politician is technically indecisive and act as if there's some grand injustice going on because (s)he doesn't have the straight answers you're looking for. OR, we can look at a candidate's collective stances, understand that it may not perfect, but still realize that out of the choices one does shine above the rest. That's what I do.

As a gay man, I don't expect a heterosexual male to ever be in 100% alliance with what I say or do. I hold this view with all of my friends and close family, so why in the heck would I think differently when it comes to a politician?

 

[Hoss]

IMO, that shows me he's at least thinking about it. Herman Cain just comes outright and says no. Since when is thinking or trying to enlighten oneself "worse" than just outright denial? Your cynicism is glaring here.



No kidding he's trying to gain votes from both sides. You kinda have to if you plan to win an election. However, if this is your argument for it then it's a pretty frail one. Anyone can tell (beyond the "D" or "R" next to their name) that one person's stance is decisively liberal and the other is exceedingly conservative despite the "maybes". If this is pandering to "both sides", then both Obama & Cain suck at it on this issue. We can pigeonhole the issue, see where any politician is technically indecisive and act as if there's some grand injustice going on because he doesn't have the straight answers you're looking for. OR, we can look at a candidate's collective stances, understand that it may not perfect, but still realize that out of the choices one does shine above the rest. That's what I do.

As a gay man, I don't expect a heterosexual male to ever be in 100% alliance with what I say or do. I view all of my friends and close family like this, so why in the heck would I think differently when it comes to a politician?

There clearly will be a forever disagreement on certain issues, so I will let that drop after this last comment following.

Your last paragraph incidentally is very telling. You don't expect complete alliance from heterosexual men and even see family and friends that way. Then how are you any different from them when you've instituted your own form of discrimination?

 

[NYCdude]

I'm not a Ron Paul supporter, like I said. I just thought the chart was unfair. I agree he's a nutjob who believes the civil war was just a ploy to centralize government, citing falsely that every other country got rid of slavery without a war. I'm an Obama supporter, but this chart only highlights why I can't stand him these last few months. He's halfway, nervous. He's dealing with assholes who can't stand the idea of him being in office. I think now he's gotta say fuck you and do something right for this country that is going down hill for all of us, let alone the LGBT. Think of how he crushed Donald Trump. I have more respect for Trump than half of congress. Start calling these people out. Introduce a major jobs program, go to their districts and call these half-wits out. If he stands up, I'm sure his halfway approach to gay marriage will improve, because you just sense he believes in it.

 

[D_Percy_Prettywillie]

There clearly will be a forever disagreement on certain issues, so I will let that drop after this last comment following.

Your last paragraph incidentally is very telling. You don't expect complete alliance from heterosexual men and even see family and friends that way. Then how are you any different from them when you've instituted your own form of discrimination?

I think the point he was trying to make (though I guess now we'll never know) is that in the current political climate, lending ones political clout entirely to LGBT issues earns politicians the tagline of "advancing a radical homosexual agenda." So as not to derail their entire campaign, they tread lightly.

We live in the real world and understand that no politician who comes out and says "I'm all for the gays" right off the bat has much chance of securing anything let alone a victory. Even Ron Paul seems to grasp this as his stance is that he want's Government out of the yental business altogether but doesn't say so and says instead that he personally is against gay marriage.

We expect to win the fight eventually but know that we won't do so by waiting for one person to be 100% in favor of all things gay but rather by remaining active in local politics, keeping an eye on what those politicians are doing, and by voting nationally for the people most in line with our vision of the future in regard to LGBT issues.



JSZ

 

[Bbucko]

LGBT issues are not why someone one should vote or should not vote for any candidate. It's such a small piece of the puzzle. Same thing with abortion.

I am seriously unclear how you could support a candidate who wants to keep you as a second-class person; I really don't get it at all.

 

[dazedandconfused]

I am seriously unclear how you could support a candidate who wants to keep you as a second-class person; I really don't get it at all.

What someone cares about on who they are voting for sometimes goes beyond one issue (although I would argue not for most as the majority of the American public are sheeple).

There is an episode of "The West Wing" where it is centered around a bill in defense of marriage and as President Bartlett correctly labels, legislative gay bashing. The deputy chief of staff, Josh Lyman, goes round and round with Congressman who is a gay republican and finally the guy tells Josh "Just ask me the question." Josh finally basically asks how he could be gay and a republican. And, in a response that is a reason a lot of people leaning right like the show, the character said he agrees with the republicans on 95% of the issues, why would he vote the other side because of one issue?

Unfortunately, as Zombie pointed out, any candidate is not coming out in full support of gay rights because right now, unfortunately, the majority of people in this country do or do not vote for a candidate for one issue.

And with republicans, from an election standpoint, why would they talk about gay rights or african-american rights when doing so would lose a lot more voters than gain?

 

[Bbucko]

What someone cares about on who they are voting for sometimes goes beyond one issue (although I would argue not for most as the majority of the American public are sheeple).

There is an episode of "The West Wing" where it is centered around a bill in defense of marriage and as President Bartlett correctly labels, legislative gay bashing. The deputy chief of staff, Josh Lyman, goes round and round with Congressman who is a gay republican and finally the guy tells Josh "Just ask me the question." Josh finally basically asks how he could be gay and a republican. And, in a response that is a reason a lot of people leaning right like the show, the character said he agrees with the republicans on 95% of the issues, why would he vote the other side because of one issue?

Unfortunately, as Zombie pointed out, any candidate is not coming out in full support of gay rights because right now, unfortunately, the majority of people in this country do or do not vote for a candidate for one issue.

And with republicans, from an election standpoint, why would they talk about gay rights or african-american rights when doing so would lose a lot more voters than gain?

But they are talking about gay rights, specifically how best to infringe upon them. The thing is, at this point they're buttering up the base, which, within Republican circles is increasingly Christianist. It's a trap from which I believe we'll need a severe electoral beating next year to correct. This base seems to not realize that more than 1/2 of Americans favor allowing same-sex marriage.

I have always believed that we need two functional parties in the US to survive, and currently the Republican party is being guided by extremists at the edge, not the folks in the middle. I have voted for a Republican before, Bill Weld, and have never regretted it. But he got out of politics because socially he's unelectable as a Republican, except perhaps in Massachusetts or just maybe New York.

One of my best friends is a political consultant who heads an extremely conservative company (his business partner worked for Jesse Helms ). It took a lot of discussion and listening between us before I could understand how anyone can be conservative, gay, HIV+ and atheist all at once. He was a life-long Republican until 2008, when he voted for Obama, due mainly to the fact that he couldn't abide Sarah Palin. He understood that you cannot put a 72-year-old Cancer survivor in the world's most stressful job with her as a Plan B.

So now he considers himself to be an extremely conservative Independent, and will stay that way until the GOP returns to sanity. I have another very good friend who is in every way a Republican except for the fact that, as an HIV+ gay man, he's anathema to the party's principles. He considers himself to be a very conservative Blue Dog.

FWIW, at this point they loathe Obama: just can't stand him.

 

[DavidXL]

And the funny thing about Rick Perry, is he is sort of like Troy Aikman, those gay rumors are now decades old and just wont go away. . . .

I think that makes Rick Perry the most dangerous candidate on LGBT issues. To "prove" he's not G or B, he's going to come down hard on LGBT issues.

 

[lurker37160]

Ooooooooooh.... W O R D !

There clearly will be a forever disagreement on certain issues, so I will let that drop after this last comment following.

Your last paragraph incidentally is very telling. You don't expect complete alliance from heterosexual men and even see family and friends that way. Then how are you any different from them when you've instituted your own form of discrimination?

 

[Horrible]

Less than 5% of Americans identify as homosexual.

And the 2000 Census found that only .42% of American households consisted of same sex, unmarried couples as heads of households. This is less than 1%.

When there are much more important issues at hand, why does appealing to a minority need to be even discussed?

 

[Bbucko]

Less than 5% of Americans identify as homosexual.

And the 2000 Census found that only .42% of American households consisted of same sex, unmarried couples as heads of households. This is less than 1%.

When there are much more important issues at hand, why does appealing to a minority need to be even discussed?

Because majority rules doesn't trump the civil rights of minorities ever: ever.

 

[D_Percy_Prettywillie]

Less than 5% of Americans identify as homosexual.

And the 2000 Census found that only .42% of American households consisted of same sex, unmarried couples as heads of households. This is less than 1%.

When there are much more important issues at hand, why does appealing to a minority need to be even discussed?

See, my first post in this thread was basically the Oxford Debating Society's way of saying "I don't really give a flying fuck about this" but reading statements like that always manage to get me on board. Sometimes I'm impassioned about things simply because of the way certain people make their case for why said things aren't important.

It's unintended reverse psychology- thank you. The next time I attend a rally my fellow homosexuals will thank you for my renewed passion as well.



JSZ

 

[Horrible]

Jsz, I personally support gay rights. But, in light of everything else, it is not a pertinent issue.