this post was submitted on
13 points (93% like it)
14 up votes 1 down vote
shortlink:
to anything interesting: news article, blog entry, video, picture...

12
13

Log Cabin/ LGBTQ Republicans: Can you explain why you still identify with the Republican Party despite their consistant platform against LGBTQ people? (self.lgbt)

submitted ago* by nicko1702

I don't mean to sound disrespectful, and I want to know the thought process of people who are LGBTQ and Republican?

I am from a very conservative state (AZ), and there is a huge Log Cabin group in the state. But I have never understood why LGBTQ people would support Republican candidates after the way they approach our rights. Is it the economic conservatism? or???

I also know many Log Cabin Republicans that are very against Obama, but I dont understand why after all he has done for our rights.

EDIT: Does Barry Goldwater's The Conscience of the Conservative help define your values. This book originally tried to define Conservatism, but the Republican party does not align with the ideas in this iconic book any longer.

I mostly want to open up a respectful dialogue to discuss Log Cabin/ LGBTQ Republicans and how they vote.

all 45 comments
sorted by:
best
hot
new
controversial
top
old

[–]Mewshimyo 9 points10 points ago

I'd have to say it's part "i grew up conservative" and part "other policies appeal to me". I believe they do consistently push for the Republicans to start getting on the right side of history.

Edit: I am not part of the organization. Just to clarify.

[–]paranoiastrikesdeep 6 points7 points ago

It probably has a lot to do with economic conservatism, but other than Paul, I can't see myself voting for anyone else in the primaries. If you really take a hard look at American politics, the Democrats and Republicans as a whole aren't very different. They more or less support the same bad policies, deficit spending, war mongering, and attempt to tax and spend the U.S. out of a depression. Come November, I'll probably vote for Obama, since he's more likely to veto anything that hinders civil liberties compared to the viable Republican candidates. Despite being conservative in general, I have a big problem with the GOP saying it wants smaller government, unless it involves what you do in the bedroom or in your personal life. Look at it this way, man. I'm not saying Ronald Reagan was perfect (he stupidly fucked over a lot of air traffic controllers back in the 1980s) but if he ran today, he would be considered a bleeding-heart liberal based on the policies he supported, in general. The GOP today isn't really "Republican" in the true sense of the word. They cater to ignorant voters who will vote against their economic interests in the name of morals and family values. When it comes to the Log Cabin Republicans, I think they're trying to steer the party back to its roots, but I don't know if they will be successful. I hope this makes sense. One more thing; many LCR's are probably against Obama simply because he hasn't done much for our rights, despite repealing DADT. I'm registered to vote in AZ, and normally I never vote along party lines. I do my research on every candidate first, from judges all the way up to the President. Yeah, it's a pain in the ass, but if I bitch about a policy change or a law after it takes effect, I feel justified in doing so.

[–]dcviper 6 points7 points ago

I've noticed that the main difference between Democrats and Republicans is what they want to regulate. Democrats want to regulate what happens in public and affects others and Republicans want to regulate what happens in private and affects nobody.

Yes, it's an extremely oversimplified view of things. I get that.

[–]paranoiastrikesdeep 1 point2 points ago

Well, yes, that's the perception, anyway.

[–]FlyingBishop 2 points3 points ago

I have my problems with Obama, but DADT was a BFD and with all the other shit he's been dealing with I'm amazed he managed to get anything done on the lgbt front.

[–]gaychitect 4 points5 points ago

Personally, I'm not conservative, but I know a lot of people that are fiscal conservatives, but also socially pretty liberal. Unfortunately, there really isn't a political party in the US that truly caters to these people (which, in my opinion is most people in this country). So, you're forced to either vote your wallet or vote your heart. When you are someone that has a mortgage and need to send your kids to college, you just might side with your wallet (as in vote for someone that is for lower taxes). The problem there is that means voting republican, which is a political party that feels the need to cater to the more ignorant portions of society.

[–]ryanpsychSocial Justice, Loudly Demanding Equality 6 points7 points ago

Basically: I don't care if I have no rights, as long as I get my tax cut!

[–]diamauntI asked for something special and all I got was this lousy flair 0 points1 point ago*

the problem is that they're too stupid to see that the power behind the republicans are just going to tax them more, so they (the 1% of the 1%) can have THEIR tax cut.

edit: and this whole "fiscal conservative" bullshit is just that, wanna talk fiscal, how did the country look after the last 8 year democrat, budget surplus, peace, how did the country look after the last 8 year republican? war on two fronts huge financial fuckups, and trillions of dollars in deficit... where's your "fiscal conservativeness" now?

[–]ryanpsychSocial Justice, Loudly Demanding Equality 1 point2 points ago

True. Also- with the new Republican proposals: there is nothing fiscally conservative about proposing MORE tax cuts that would only blow a bigger hole in the deficit.

[–]Calcularius 5 points6 points ago

It's like the homely fat girls in high school that want to be part of the cute-but-mean girls clique and no matter how bad the mean girls treat them they still aspire to be like them and be liked by them ... except the mean girls will always see them as ugly and laugh at them. How sad that the plain jane girls can't see the mean girls for what they are which is shallow and evil and it's so sad the poor everyday girls can't be themselves and aspire to be part of something that accepts and loves them for who they are. so sad...

[–]diamauntI asked for something special and all I got was this lousy flair 2 points3 points ago

you're gonna hurt Koelsch's feelings.

[–]ameliabee 2 points3 points ago

The only reason why I'm a registered Republican is because the Republican party dominates my district and either one votes in the Republican primary or one doesn't get any say in the political process.

[–]medussa727 2 points3 points ago

I've moved from the Republicans to the Libertarians over the last few years, but still consider myself to be "conservative".

Why? because social mistakes can be undone. Fiscal ones destroy countries. Yes, it sucks supporting some candidates. To that end, I abstain quite often. But imo, few Democrats are worth the risk.

[–]simonask 1 point2 points ago

Social mistakes destroy lives. They cannot always be undone.

[–]medussa727 3 points4 points ago

On an individual scale you are absolutely right. And that is an absolute tragedy. But that will happen no matter what the laws are. Some people are going to have terrible lives (myself included). But I know of no way to change that immediately. All we can do is make things better over time. And imo, nothing any Republican can do can stop that from happening.

[–]simonask 1 point2 points ago

On an individual scale you are absolutely right. And that is an absolute tragedy. But that will happen no matter what the laws are. Some people are going to have terrible lives (myself included).

Sure, but that doesn't mean it's a fruitless endeavor to try to minimize social mistakes and their impact.

One huge social mistake in America is the lack of ubiquitous healthcare. I hear the number one cause of personal bankruptcy in the US is unaffordable healthcare. That's a lot of personal tragedy that can be avoided right there. Republicans have consistently been against this type of reform, as far as I know.

As a European, it's very hard to take American politics seriously these days. It seems the few politicians you have that can actually think a coherent thought are consistently marginalized, and there is a huge disparity between your political debates and the problems that you face (take the fact that people in the US actually see the topic of global environmental change as "controversial", for example).

[–]medussa727 1 point2 points ago

Sure, but that doesn't mean it's a fruitless endeavor to try to minimize social mistakes and their impact.

Completely agree. But since very few politicians agree with my views on both social and fiscal matters, I need to value one over the other. And as I've said, I think fiscal mistakes carry much higher consequences than social ones.

One huge social mistake in America is the lack of ubiquitous healthcare. I hear the number one cause of personal bankruptcy in the US is unaffordable healthcare. That's a lot of personal tragedy that can be avoided right there. Republicans have consistently been against this type of reform, as far as I know.

Completely disagree. I've seen way to many stories from trans people about how their NHS rep in Canada or the UK treats them, and there is nothing they can do about it. In the US, if I get a phobic or gatekeeping therapist, I can take my business elsewhere. And I don't doubt this is true for most other medical needs as well.

Despite my strong libertarian beliefs, I can respect the idea of National Healthcare, but in practice it leaves a lot to be desired. And even more unfortunately, the half-assed reform we got a few years ago seems to be the worst of both systems.

[–]Pseudi 1 point2 points ago

You can get transition medicine privately in the UK, you just have to pay for it. (like from Transhealth clinic w/ Dr. Curtis) Having state health care doesn't mean private health care is illegal, after all.

[–]medussa727 0 points1 point ago

Good to know, thank you.

[–]simonask 1 point2 points ago

Completely agree. But since very few politicians agree with my views on both social and fiscal matters, I need to value one over the other. And as I've said, I think fiscal mistakes carry much higher consequences than social ones.

They're one and the same, in my view. Fiscal policy is impossible without social policy, and vice versa.

Completely disagree. I've seen way to many stories from trans people about how their NHS rep in Canada or the UK treats them, and there is nothing they can do about it. In the US, if I get a phobic or gatekeeping therapist, I can take my business elsewhere. And I don't doubt this is true for most other medical needs as well.

That's completely beside the point. Freedom to choose your own therapist does not preclude the government from paying said therapist's bills. :)

I live in Denmark, and I am perfectly free to go to any medical practitioner (in any European country!), as long as I bring my state-issued insurance card.

[–]medussa727 1 point2 points ago

That's completely beside the point. Freedom to choose your own therapist does not preclude the government from paying said therapist's bills. :)

unfortunately, it's not the government paying the bills. It's your fellow citizens. And that's the issue some people have with it. Should your life be up to you, or up to everyone? (rhetorical)

But, glad to hear your system is more open than I realized. I don't mind being proven wrong.

[–]simonask 1 point2 points ago

unfortunately, it's not the government paying the bills. It's your fellow citizens. And that's the issue some people have with it. Should your life be up to you, or up to everyone? (rhetorical)

The government is funded by the citizens and by its investments. My statement did not rely on an implication of the contrary. :)

Furthermore, there is a level of pathos in your response, and I fear it short-circuits your thinking. Can you explain exactly in which scenario you are worried that you may lose your life due to not personally paying your medical expenses?

But, glad to hear your system is more open than I realized. I don't mind being proven wrong.

Just to elaborate: To my knowledge, this is more or less how it works in all of Europe, despite very different models of financing. I may be wrong, but the key point is this: There is no reason that a state-financed medical system cannot provide freedom of choice. Furthermore, having your medical bills paid by the state does not logically mean you can't also buy your own supplementary insurance or treatment from any licensed medical practitioner. :)

[–]medussa727 0 points1 point ago

The government is funded by the citizens and by its investments. My statement did not rely on an implication of the contrary. :)

true. the issue is what exactly should the government be taking care of. I happen to believe it is only that which I can't take care of myself.

Furthermore, there is a level of pathos in your response, and I fear it short-circuits your thinking. Can you explain exactly in which scenario you are worried that you may lose your life due to not personally paying your medical expenses?

I'm not sure I follow this. I think you took the term "life" differently than I meant it. I didn't mean it in a life or death sense, but rather a day-to-day decision making sense. ie, should I be allowed to decline health insurance if I want to risk it, or can pay out of pocket? If HC is a tax, then I lose that option. Same with the mandate we got stuck with.

Basically, if health care is determined to be on the list of things government should provide for it's citizens, then so be it. There are ways to make that happen. But I for one think that list should be as short as possible. I know there are people who think that list should be as long as possible, most of whom are Democrats. Its basically the individual vs society debate.

[–]simonask 0 points1 point ago

true. the issue is what exactly should the government be taking care of. I happen to believe it is only that which I can't take care of myself.

A lot of your fellow citizens (40 million uninsured or so?) are currently not able to take care of their medical expenses. So assuming that you really mean each citizen and not just you (after all, why should your specific situation determine the policies of your country), there's that.

I know there are people who think that list should be as long as possible, most of whom are Democrats. Its basically the individual vs society debate.

I think you would be surprised how right-leaning your Democrats really are, compared with European political parties.

Most first world countries (all but the US!) have decided that basic healthcare is a right for every citizen. This is beneficial, because healthcare is an expense that all citizens are interested in, so socializing it will always be cheaper than private care (where you also have to pay the stockholder's and insurance people's salaries). For smaller countries, such as my own, it has the added benefit of pooling far larger sums of money than any private institution (other than a pseudo-monopoly) would realistically be able to, enabling the hospitals to offer procedures and types of surgery that would be otherwise impossible without traveling to another country.

In my country, that's generally the line of thinking: If everyone benefits, why not let the state fund it? Any investment in the health of its citizens is worthwhile, and the same goes for infrastructure and education. It always pays off, both through increased revenue (better infrastructure, higher education, healthier citizens = growth = tax income), but also through general happiness and satisfaction in the population, which increases safety by reducing crime.

Northern Europe universally has these benefits, and is universally safer than almost any part of the US. I would say your freedom from paying taxes is a complete illusion, if you don't have the freedom to go out at night, and you still have to pay for the same things the taxes would have bought you. :)

(For the record: Yes, I know there are very safe areas of the US, and I've never felt threatened going there, but the crime rates speak for themselves.)

[–]Koelsch 3 points4 points ago

There's a something to be said about strategic political positioning in US government. When the winner is decided by a plurality, the system filters down to a two party system where one party generally adopts one side of the issue and the other party the opposing side. That obviously means the members of said political parties aren't going to agree with the party on every single issue.

The fact that some Republicans oppose gay marriage is completely irrelevant to me. I don't have to to endorse 100% of their positions 100% of the time. I'm entirely allowed to both support and oppose a politician and his positions. The world isn't going to end if I support both the Republican Party and HRC.

Basically, what it comes down to is that I'm a political conservative. I don't just think with my dick. I support limited government, property rights, a strong national defense and a just and moral society too. I oppose Obama (who also opposes gay marriage, mind you) and the Democrats because I believe their world views are wrong. And I'll do everything I can to prevent them from gaining political power.

[–]myhatekillsworlds 1 point2 points ago

"Some republicans".

"Some".

Keep telling yourself that.

The fact that a handful of republicans have been key to legislation is commendable, but it is in no way a representation of their party as a whole.

[–]nicko1702[S] -2 points-1 points ago*

Obama doesn't oppose gay marriage, he has not politically taken a stance to support it (largely for fear of any political backlash if he were to do so). He has withdrawn the executive branch's (his administration's at least) support of DOMA, which is a step in favor of marriage.

[–]Koelsch 0 points1 point ago

You could replace 'Obama' with the names of dozens of Republican leaders and that entire response would still be correct. Hell, even Glenn Beck holds that position.

[–]nicko1702[S] -2 points-1 points ago

Obama is in a position of power where political backlash matters, as are many of these Republican leaders that have not officially announced their position on the matter. Each is trying to appeal to their constituents, so they have to think about any formal endorsements carefully.

The better thing to look at, over formal announcements and endorsements, is the actions of each individual in relation with their party.

But if you look at each party's consistent platform on LGBTQ Rights and how the office holders vote or act toward the issue, Democrats are consistently in favor of Rights, and Republicans are consistently against Rights. Obama is more likely to appeal to the Democrats by signing and approving in favor of rights. Republican leaders are more likely to vote against rights. Exactly as you said, if one shows support for a position, the other opposes it.

Basically Actions Speak Louder than Words

[–]Koelsch 2 points3 points ago

"Consistently"?! Democrats weren't even on board with the LGBT even as late as 2008! That's "consistent"? Three years? Can you even name the Presidential Democratic candidates that supported gay marriage and rights? You probably can't because there were only two! Dick Flipping Cheney supported the LGBT community more than they did.

... and honestly, it's the Democrats that seem to manage to kill gay rights over and over again. Either by unwillingness to advance gay rights like the NJ Democrats or refusing to vote for a gay rights bill. It's always the one or two Republicans who spit at the Christian Right backlash and provide the last and decisive winning vote.

[–]MaxinePayneSocial Justice, Loudly Demanding Equality 2 points3 points ago

I'm LCR though I identify as a Social Liberal Fiscal Reformist. I am voting for Gary Johnson if I get the chance. I know he wont win but To be honest. I just can't vote for anyone else at this point.

[–]myhatekillsworlds 2 points3 points ago

"I am not a one issue voter" tends to be their excuse, all the while ignoring the fact that this party they continue to support is at the forefront of perpetuating your classification as second-class.

They can cuddle with their tax cuts at night all they want, though.

[–]diamauntI asked for something special and all I got was this lousy flair -1 points0 points ago*

self hating to an extreme?

edit: it was meant as a question...

[–]Koelsch 0 points1 point ago

Really? That sounds like it'd compliment your loathing for others.

[–]diamauntI asked for something special and all I got was this lousy flair -1 points0 points ago

you don't know me.

what's your explanation?

why do they band with the people who's stated main goal is to exterminate them?

as a friend of mine once said "gay republcans, makes as much sense to me as jewish nazis."

[–]Koelsch 2 points3 points ago

"Who's stated main goal is to exterminate them"

Wow. This ladies and gentlemen, coincidentally demonstrates how the vast majority of the Christian Right and political conservatives that I work with are more tolerant of me being gay than this poster is of me being conservative.

[–]diamauntI asked for something special and all I got was this lousy flair -1 points0 points ago

ah, I get it now, you're one of the deluded ones try and tell yourself "they love me" while turning a blind eye to romney's pledge to try for a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, or all the other frothing at the mouth that the Christian Right and political conservatives are continually spouting.

it all becomes clear now.

they don't tolerate you, they use you.

[–]Koelsch -1 points0 points ago

Naw. I just don't use my dick to form my political ideas.

[–]myhatekillsworlds -1 points0 points ago

Yeah sure, because equating sexuality and your personal intrinsic feelings for another human being to "thinking with your dick" is perfectly valid and not further evidence of internalized homophobia.

Har har har.

[–]diamauntI asked for something special and all I got was this lousy flair -1 points0 points ago

apparently, you just talk with it.

thanks for your response, I've now classified you as "too stupid to correspond with" and shan't bother any further.

now, run along and help your masters destroy more civil rights in their quest for more profits for their masters.

[–]Koelsch -1 points0 points ago

Rofl! Bitter much? :P

[–]wintertash 1 point2 points ago

I'm actually quite liberal and don't ID as a republican, but I have been known to vote for republicans under certain circumstances. Specifically, if an even reasonably socially moderate GOP is up against an anti-gun DEM, they get often get my vote. Equal rights are great and all, but the bigot who violently attacked my family didn't care that the state we lived in had gay marriage rights and non-discrimination laws. Nor did those rights mean the police were able to get to our house any faster (or in time for that matter) when we called 911.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point ago

Probably because they have more to gain from republican economic policies.

[–]kovalevskaya 0 points1 point ago*

I grew up with conservative ideals. The fiscal policies always made sense, but social conservatism never did. When I grew up and took a look at how things really are compared to the lie that both parties promote, I realized that this "us vs. them" mentality was a disgusting tool used to gain political power for a given party.

For conservatives and liberals it's always about pinning races, sexualities, and financial classes against each other. I constantly defend issues promoted by the right as much as I do from the left. I don't vote according to what a party tells me to. I make informed decisions that help me and society.

It's easy being gay and for the democratic party. They pander to that one issue quite well. That's a shame. By giving your allegiance to one party you are throwing out common sense. You are setting yourself up to believe that this one issue is more important than all else. That is no different than what Republicans do with their members.

Once you stop identifying with a single party, then I'll take you all seriously. Until then, I'll be over here with all of the independents.

Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy. © 2012 reddit inc. All rights reserved.

REDDIT and the ALIEN Logo are registered trademarks of reddit inc.

π Rendered by PID 23868 on app-160 running 86c9e1d.