Gays for Mitt Romney

There are many conservative gay republican organizations. Here are a couple we can talk about in this thread:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xETdsxUZREA

http://www.goproud.org/

http://www.logcabin.org/site/c.nsKSL7PMLpF/b.5468093/k.BE4C/Home.htm

Why do gays want to endorse republicans? Because they hate what the democrats and Obama are doing to this economy! They believe in freedom and free enterprise. They are not stupid. They are not one issue dolts who go along with all the bad because dems are for gay marriage!

 

Those organizations are making a massive mistake in supporting Republicans.

 

Your statements imply that people who don't vote for Republicans must not believe in freedom or free enterprise, as being stupid, as being one-issue dolts etc.

I'm sick of the insulting demeanor of partisans from both sides. And I won't be voting for Romney or Obama.

As for the pretend subject of this thread (which is obviously just a prop for bashing partisan gay Democrats): I'm having trouble finding a reason to care about the fact that there are gay, partisan Republicans. Was this news to you? They've been around for a long time.

 

Not voting for Romney is the same thing as voting for Obama - the incumbent always has better odds.
Obama has been nothing but a failure; when he should have been focusing on fixing Bush's mess (like he promised) he spent 2 YEARS creating another broken entitlement program.
When he should have been fixing jobs he spent a TRILLION dollars to pay back friends and contributors (and the unions) - many that have such went out of business.

Obama is a liar, a fraud, and has done NOTHING he promised - I voted for him once, not again.

Imagine what Obama could accomplish when he knows an election is not around the corner - he could open the boarders (on its way), forgive debt (attempted), more free money!!!!

"Hope and change" did not work out - "forward" will be worse.

 

And the other side likes to tell me the not voting for Obama is the same thing as voting for Romney.

There is no "lesser of two evils" here for me. They both disgust me to pretty much the same extent. So instead of choosing between the herds, I'll probably sit this one out or vote third party. Haven't decided yet. But take note: What is very firmly decided is that I'm not voting for Obama or Romney. My mind is made up on that at least.

 

While I partly agree; I would rather have a businessman with a lifetime of experience directing the direction of the country rather than a community organizer that thinks people that pop out babies and live off the government deserve my money better than I do. I believe in equality; not equal results regardless of effort.

 

every culture has it's elitist element. gays are no different, in fact they're a little particular in that regard. these people probably actually lead the republican party....

 

I've heard of them through word of mouth before but never seen them making a splash in the media the way they have this year.

Personally I think this could actually matter a lot in two ways.

One is that I think a part of the knee jerk reaction to homosexuals has to do with viewing them as far left iconoclasts out to destroy everything a conservative might care about. This is generally a pretty reinforced stereotype in the media from sit coms to reality TV.

The second is that they're pushing for a more libertarian angle for gay equality. By which I mean that where the left generally wants more government involvement so that gays get heaps of special benifits and criminalize the homophobes, the other option for equality is just backing the government out of the whole issue. Which is much more palatable I'd think.

 

Well, you'd be wrong. GOProud found out just how much impact they have after a bunch of groups threw a fit and boycotted CPAC in 2011 over their co-sponsorship of the event. GOProud was excluded from the event in 2012.

The plain fact is that social conservatives are the ones mostly running the show in conservative politics these days, and so long as they do, gay conservative groups won't have any sort of meaningful position in the conservative movement, their attempts to make themselves look more important and accepted than they really are notwithstanding.

 

Why do I care about their political idegoly? The fight has always been for them to be gay, without fear of prosecution.

 

Yep. Yes.

 

The problem for homosexuals as it relates to Republicans who are socially conservative, is that the literal policies they promote become seriously biased by their religious beliefs.

Gay people don't have much of a chance for 'equality' with Republicans in the role of "lawmaker".

I hope they learn better as time goes on.

 

You post something like that, and I was about to reply about the Log Cabin Republicans getting invited to the RNC and so on, but I'm betting you already knew that.

I'm a little unsure of where you stand on this and what point you're trying to make.

...you'd don't like them do you? The "traiters" working with conservatives instead of trying to screw the conservatives over and do damage to their families, jobs, and institutions.

Um, was that a typo? They haven't been prosecuted for a while now, and aside from a handful of idiots who have never heard the term "slippery slope" I don't think anybody on either side thought that was the desired endpoint of the movement.

I think these groups might have quite an impact on the GOP in the long run. It's not like they have to get everyone into a giant orgy. They just need some Republicans to be willing to pick fights other than gay rights.

And they might gain some serious traction with the growing libertarian leaning portion of the Republican party where the idea is you don't have to agree with everything someone else does, but you can agree to let each other live their lives as they want without having the government involved.

 

They will... but why not have a greater effect sooner? I think the idea of granting homosexual people equal rights and full protections under the Constitution, is an ideas whose time has surely come. Republicans WILL slow-roll that kind of thing, because it suits them 'politically'.

Good lick with that. As I said, the HOLD or STALLING is most usually stems from the fact that the "Right" has rolled extreme RELIGIOUS views into the political policies they promote. That extreme religious/social "Right" is where/how the Republican Party is defining itself right now; that is VERY evident.

We'll see. But for now, I think homosexuals on the Right, should surely realize that the Republican Party (especially today's iteration of it), isn't going to play reasonably or fairly concerning their human rights (at least not for a VERY long time). All of that isn't difficult to see.

 

Get this sorted in your head right here and now: YOU do NOT get to tell ME what I think about ANYTHING!

I am an independent, not a partisan. I dislike partisan thinking, regardless of whether it's liberals or conservatives. Pretending that I think people are traitors and that I want to screw over conservatives and do damage to their families, jobs, and institutions: That's all you misbegotten negative fantasy. It has NOTHING to do with who I am or what I think. Shame on you.

This just is not the reality of where things are headed in the GOP. The party is swinging so far to the right that more moderate Republicans don't feel they even have a place in their own party anymore.

Not so long as social conservatives have such a lock on the party. The libertarians will either have to split off to form a rival party, or they social conservatives will have to experience stunning losses in the elections, such that their stature in the party becomes very seriously weakened.

 

Oh come off it. There's a question mark there, and I even said I was unsure. You're just being very odd about how you're reacting to all this. You think you'd be pleased that the GOP invited a flagrantly gay group to the RNC. But you're part trying to pretend it didn't happen and seem to be a little pissed about the whole thing. So you can see how it would seem strange to someone else.

Why don't you go and talk to some social conservatives on this board about the "lock" they have on the party.

Well, there is already a Libertarian party. They're a bit of a joke but they win here or there. I generally don't agree with actual full on libertarians.

Rather I think you'll start getting politicians, hopefully in both parties, with libertarian leanings that are willing to allow mutual freedoms and get government out of situations.

If you're actually interested in equality under the law that would achieve it as well.

 

You come off it. You're not fooling me in the least. A question mark doesn't change a thing; people use rhetorical interrogatives all the time to suggest things about their opponents. My objections stands - do NOT presume to tell me what I think or what I want. Ever.

Spend a lifetime being condescended to and abused by clueless people, and maybe you'll have something genuine to say about how I react to more of the same.

"flagrantly gay" tells me pretty much all I need to know about your mindset. This is a perfect example of the condescension I was talking about. I should be positively giddy, squeal of glee and all that over the fact that a political party chose to not only acknowledge the existence of a gay political group, but completely over the moon that they were invited to participate. Yes, I'm exaggerating your position, because the real basis of it offends me deeply. Gay people wouldn't have to form their own political groups if their fellow citizens weren't working overtime against that singular aspect of their lives. So, no - I am not 'pleased' that the Republicans 'accept' and 'include' a gay group, as if we needed pats on the head, which frankly is about all this amounts to anyway.

I wouldn't expect them to feel overjoyed at being less than all-powerful. The fact remains that they have a strong enough influence on the party that they effectively control its general direction, despite occasionally being thwarted when other factions within the party work together against them. So "a lock" probably wasn't the correct wording.

As politics becomes more and more polarized, the GOP faces a situation where the divisions within the party become wider, yet the separate factions aren't strong enough to survive on their own or overpower the others completely to gain full control. Sure, they're united against Obama. What happens when he's out of their way and they no longer have a common enemy?

I'm not interested in "equality under the law". I'm interested in the real constitutional principle of "equal protection of the laws". They aren't the same thing.

As for both parties developing libertarian leanings, I'm skeptical. Left and right both have authoritarian factions. They aren't going to go quietly, and even if the libertarians manage to overcome the authoritarians, we will still have a divide between left and right. The battle just shifts focus to reform a new set of partisan alliances.

 

Wow!! Brilliant and reasonable stuff!!

 

The liberal lady doth protest too much, me thinks.

 

WHAAAAA? LOL ROTFL!

 

Nonsense, gays have no interest in equality. They want the inequality by design of marriage.

 

Wrong. (I see your opinion above, but it is both illogical and untrue.) You cannot prove what you say.

 

Here in America the married have certain entitlements and tax breaks not available to the unmarried. Its fact, not opinio. Reality you have difficulties dealing with.

 

That is EXACTLY why homosexual people should have equality under the law. There is no real need to discriminate against homosexual people seeking legal marriage.

It's not what you say. Perhaps YOU have a problem with possessing a myopic view overall. (I'm fairly certain that's what we're dealing with here.)

 

Inequality by design.