Addressing the contention some gay liberals that “gay people cannot be conservative”, Naamloos wonders at their assumption “that since liberals are more supportive of gay rights than conservatives, that gays should be liberal and conservative gays are self-loathing,” faulting them for making “a flawed assumption“:
And that assumption is that gay people are one-dimensional, or that they have no other qualities, or perhaps their sexual orientation is the most important aspect of them. While that may be true for some people, it certainly isn’t for others. For them, it seems, gay rights issues trump all others. So, it follows that, since liberals are better on gay rights issues, it doesn’t make any sense for a gay person not to be a liberal.
I would build on his description of this “flawed assumption,” adding that those who assume gays can neither be conservative nor support the Republican Party without hating themselves also have other concerns besides gay rights (as defined by the various left-leaning “equality” groups headquartered in our nation’s capital).
We believe that conservative policies better respect the separation of powers as set forth in the federal constitution (and elucidated in the Federalist) — and better provides for the common defense. Not just that, we believe the big government approach favored by the Democrats serves to limit our freedom, reducing opportunities for all Americans, particularly those, such as gay people, who differ from the societal norm.
The freer the market, we believe, the better private institutions can address social change — as we have seen private companies react rather quickly to the increasing social acceptance of gay people by offering benefits to the same-sex domestic partners of employees. In short, we don’t accept the notion that government action is the best way to help the economy or to allow individuals the opportunities to pursue their happiness as they see fit.
Simply put, as Naamloos expressed in his post, gay issues aren’t the only ones of concern to us. And to be sure, we do appreciate that Democrats (as a whole) have done a better job on certain issues of concern to gay people (namely repeal of DADT).
That, however, doesn’t make up for the fact that on nearly every other issue where the parties lock horns, we believe Republicans have a better approach than Democrats. We just can’t support a party because they vote with us on a handful of issues while voting against our interests the remaining 80 or 90 percent of the time.
God forbid people would choose NOT to identify themselves by who they sleep with or the color of their skin.
I think there are (at least) two wrong-headed ideas running concurrently here. One is the application of the unsupported pop-psychology idea of self-hatred if you don’t support a particular political agenda. And the other is that lefties refuse to see people as individuals – only members of a group or class involved in a class struggle (now changed to a social rights struggle because the hated free market has made most economically pretty well off all at this point in history). Both are completely de-humanizing and make it very easy for lefties to do horrible things to individuals in the name of the group.
It’s a flawed assumption that liberal leaders (Democrats) give a hoot about gay rights.
great post – and very true – and I really don’t think the liberals in charge of this country are as pro-gay as they claim – they will publicly embrace anyone and their cause to get their vote – even the terrorists who want to destroy this country
The Democrats can not survive without victim groups. Gays are not huge block of votes in the grand scheme of things.
The Democrats just need the tales of oppression to fuel the larger spectrum of Democrats who need constant validation that big government and regulation is the key to realizing eternal peace and contentment.
The more gays whine, the more useful they are to the Democrat cause. So, I wonder, why would the Democrats try to cure the cause of the whining?
Obama Party members assess worth by what you are, not who you are.
The vast majority of gays and lesbians — and the entire Obama base, for that matter — fall for it because it is the lazy man’s method of valuation.
Who wants to educate yourself and work and prove yourself via results when you can demand the same thing based solely on sexual orientation/gender/skin color?
Furthermore, as Heliotrope wisely explains it, if the Obama Party were to free the slaves, they could not exploit the plight of the slaves. Hence, it is in the Obama Party’s overarching interest to make sure that the slaves stay as enslaved and oppressed as possible, and they do a fine job of ensuring that gays and all members of the Obama Party base know that they are helpless, that there is no hope outside welfare, that no one would ever want them, that anyone who is not an Obama Party member hates them and wants to kill them, and that if they dare question the Obama Party, they are traitors and Uncle Toms.
From my experience, it has been my more conservative friends who have proved to be my staunchest allies, while my more left-leaning friends, who happen to be almost all gay, have near abandoned. Why? Because the more conservative/libertarians of my friends judge me based on who I am as an individual, whereas those on the left view me based on how I represent a “victimized” group. My name is Shelter Somerset. I have an ad for my novel on this website. As an author I am surrounded by narrow-minded left wing cult-like platitudes. Gay Patriot has been an oasis of sanity in a sea of irrational group think. Thank you.
FIFY.
Let’s not forget what motivates some Democrats to be for “gay issues”: Money and Votes.
Republicans tend to follow the idea of “majority rule,” but Democrats try to stitch together a group of minorities in the hope that they’ll assemble a majority that way. It’s why the Dems talk and talk and talk all day about problems but never solve them so they can have the group around for the next election.
Another argument against this flawed assumption might be called the argument from history, which is related in some ways to Stan’s point above at number 2. That argument advances the premise that the more power government claims for itself (and the more power it takes from individuals in the process), the greater the possibility that gays will eventually be targeted or scapegoated by the government. Left-wing governments usually exploit the idea of sexual freedom to gain power and then turn against gays and lesbians once power is consolidated, or at the very least, they fail to take up any gay interests in the face of challenges from competing but more powerful minority group (which may include many anti-gay members).
Trying to think. Bill Richardson called a guy “maricón” on the Imus show. Pete Stark called a Republican “fruitcake” on the House floor, I think. Then there was Max Bauchass’s (sp?) campaign ad smearing his opponent as gay. I’m sure there’s other examples, but my question is:
Have Republicans ever carried on thusly? No, Ann Coulter was making a point and everybody who went batshitcrazy about it proved that she was right.
Again, thanks Dan! I realize this is a worn out issue, but it isn’t for me.
Good point. This would explain a lot, like their tendency to use the poor behaviour of one individual who claims to be conservative to define all conservatives.
It’s simply time to evolve. The Left is clinging to an ideology that is over 150 years old, and it was worn out long ago. They are not progressives in any meaningful sense — nor can they even be said to be liberals. They are merely a very tired, alternative type of conservative.
What has become apparent is that color-blindness is not the same as advocacy for any particular race against any other. Women and men do not have to be enemies to have equal rights. And gays do not need to think 24/7 about being gay. I get tired of being continually reminded that I need to remember I’m gay whenever I make any political decision.
The Left is imploding because its ideas are no longer relevant. The world isn’t the way it was 50 years ago. They like to accuse conservatives of being out of date, but when they make this accusation, they ought to look in a mirror.
All very good observations above. As for me, all I can say is what another GP’er said a couple years ago:
I am treated better as a gay man at a Tea Party rally than I am as a gay conservative at a gay bar in town.
I think that sums it up right there.
Regards,
Peter H.
Any “us vs. them” mentality when it comes to “groups” based on race, gender, sexual orientation, etc. is never productive. That is what is fundamentally wrong with things like radical feminism and groups like the NAACP and some gay rights groups. They seem to view anyone who isn’t one of them as the enemy. This belligerent mentality is counter-productive, as it makes them seem undeserving of anything. And I cringe whenever I see a gay person talk negatively about “straights.” The best way to have equality is not to have any such labels at all, just to treat people as individuals.
I linked this great article on my personal Facebook political discussion sub-group and added my own views of this:
I am more fortunate than some that those of my (true) friends who are on the left haven’t been bullying or derisive and have allowed me to speak my political peace. My worst complaint is that many DO express pity for me and that “it’s a shame” and “sad” my views have evolved back to conservatism. There’s this attitude among them that I’m too “nice”, “compassionate” and “decent” a guy to fall for the right wing line…. as if conservatism was a Darth Vader using the Force to seduce me to the Dark Side. In a way, that was true, except in reverse, where the Darth Obama repelled me with his actions and attitudes from left-centrism and back over to the right that I had embraced fully in the 1980s.
While I am still somewhat circumspect before divulging my orientation to conservative friends, here too I have not been subject to homophobic rants and have been engaged in mature dialogues by conservatives I know. Most of the homophobia I encountered was when I was still in the closet and in self-denial.
As a hetero conservative, I’m interested to know what gay patriots have to say about this,
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/10/17/controversial-therapy-for-young-transgender-patients-raises-questions/
and this,
http://www.newrochelletalk.com/content/campaign-manager-new-rochelle-city-council-candidate-former-planning-board-member-arrested-s
You’re in good company. Herman Cain sees himself as a Black America, not an African American. Of course, he is criticized most severely by other blacks for not towing the racist line. It is even worse when whites do it on MSNBC.
MR. Richard Bell — you are assuming that there is a “gay” position on any of the examples you provide — there is not. What you have, and we have — is liberal loony gays, and conservative rational gays, as much as there are liberal loony heteros — how will you answer for your hetero Pelosi or Ruben “gays are worthy of death” Diaz, or Obama? They are heteros all — you are all alike, no? For you attempt to tar us conservatives with this liberal mush nonsense. Let me ask you about “red-shirting” – or holding back students so they are bigger for football the next year — is that the position of “conservative” or “liberal” heterosexuals? Need I go on? Yes, some gays are liberals — as are some heteros – what the hell do you want us to do about it? And all the while you liberal heteros are wrecking the place — what is wrong with you people, all alike, as heteros? Hmm? Are are some heteros liberal and some conservative, as some gays are?
#20 – Ah, my apology, Jim. Re-reading my post, #18, I notice I left out the context to my question. The context was to do with SSM which I do not support and the links have to do with two influences for the SSM position I hold. I’m interested in what gay patriots have to say concerning SSM and how they square anomalies and “liberal loony gays” in their own minds.
For instance, in the first link we have a lesbian couple raising a male child. As a male hetero I know there is a part of every hetero male’s maleup lesbians can’t accept so naturally I’m wondering what effect that fact might have on a hetero male child growing up in such a dynamic. The situation for male children maturing in the single parent dynamic today is one I find troubling and it seems to me SSM might only add to the problem. I know many hold the position that SSM is a better dynamic than foster/orphanage care but I’m not so certain. What’s your opinion?
#21 – “maleup” should be “makeup”.
That is appalling. But appalling parenting is
not exclusive to gay/lesbian parents.