[Savagelight]

Originally Posted by Autumnleaf To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Why do so many gay and feminist people gravitate to the Democratic party? It seems like they would both tend to be relatively high wage earners with few tax deductions, assuming less or no children relative to the traditional family where the guy is the breadwinner and the mother stays home with the children. Wouldn't the traditional Republican party with its low taxes stance be more appealing to them? 'But Autumn, the religious right is just unbearable to associate with so we must be Democrat.'... What makes you think the Republicans take the religious right seriously? Several times in the past 20 or so years they have held two of the three branches of government at which time they could have easily made abortion illegal. Time after time they did not do that. That tells me Republicans don't really care about the religious right beyond trying to get their vote. From my perspective both parties are corrupt and bad for America so its not like I'm wearing an elephant pin. Please explain what you think the allure of the Democrat party is.

People disgusted with social conservativism go to the Democrat party.

[eagleseven]

	Originally Posted by INTroJect To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	The democrats had more than enoug control to write a law recognizing gay mariages, where is it?

Obama would never sign such a law, for fear of alienating his African American and Latino base.

That said, LGBT can now openly serve in the military...taking the pressure off of some of my friends overseas. That's more than what eight years of Republican rule granted.

[curiousgeorge01]

Originally Posted by eagleseven To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I personally think other issues are more important than gay marriage...but I was simply answering the OPs question. You're not going draw the gay vote by promising to ban gay marriage. If you've been with a same-sex partner for over a decade, few issues affect you as personally as gay marriage legislation. It's a constant reminder of government interfering with your private life. I'm working to change that, so both parties support same-sex marriage...but with the Republicans it's a major uphill battle.

I agree with you on that. I just meant I find it odd when people say the gay marriage thing as the reason they won't vote Republican when the gay population is small compared to the heterosexual one and the fact that there are so many other pressing issues.

I don't get why Republicans don't support it. It's not like people have a choice beyond Democrat and Republican party so they don't have anything to lose; the conservatives have no where else to go.

[Subgenius]

Originally Posted by Autumnleaf To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Why do so many gay and feminist people gravitate to the Democratic party? It seems like they would both tend to be relatively high wage earners with few tax deductions, assuming less or no children relative to the traditional family where the guy is the breadwinner and the mother stays home with the children. Wouldn't the traditional Republican party with its low taxes stance be more appealing to them?

Why are you assuming that gays and feminists are relatively high wage earners? Are you assuming they are all Hollywood actors and stylists or TV News pundits and millionaire carpenters? This assumption of yours is rather retarded. Gay folk can be fuck ups just like straight folks, so can women believing in a feminist ideology. And even if they aren't fuck ups hardly means they would be anywhere close to being a "relatively high wage earner" or even a high or mid level wage earner. Please show me a citation that says this is true. Also the traditional family hasn't been traditional for quite a while now. Women, even from home, are bringing in quite a bit more cash now. Also, the anti woman/anti homosexual rhetoric of the Republican party should be enough to make them democrat. It's kind of a no-brainer, and like a couple comments in your got the topic you should have asked about, "log cabin republicans".

[INTroJect]

	Originally Posted by eagleseven To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Obama would never sign such a law, for fear of alienating his African American and Latino base.

If his African American and Latino base are desirous of opressing some other demographic, and he is cowtowing to this, it says enough about his guiding principles, and that of the Democrat party as well.

	That said, LGBT can now openly serve in the military...taking the pressure off of some of my friends overseas. That's more than what eight years of Republican rule granted.

They cant serve equally, as their unions are still not recognized by the military. Progress made is paltry and far from the advertised "change" that put him in office.

[Polymath20]

	Originally Posted by INTroJect To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	They cant serve equally, as their unions are still not recognized by the military. Progress made is paltry and far from the advertised "change" that put him in office.

Belittling the change doesn't undo it. Everything happens in steps, and it is a step in the right direction. One step of many.

[Eridal]

Originally Posted by Vermillion To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Then they lose their support from all the evangelical hatemongers and ignorant red-neck homophobes. The Republicunt party has fed off of hate and bigotry ever since the introduction of the Southern Strategy and they show no signs of stopping anytime soon. They will all ways appeal to the lowest common denominator just like the Democraps appeal to liberals to stupid to understand that there is no liberal party in the US.

With the libertarian movement gaining more power in the Republican party I don't think this as true as it would have been 4 years ago. Also you have the fact that public opinion is generally moving in the direction of supporting gay marriage, or at the very least civil unions, which really just means it's a matter of time.

While I do agree it would hurt them in the short run with the two groups you mentioned those same groups would not vote for generally for a Democrat so the worst that could happen is that the enthusiasm of that part of the base is lowered. They could even lessen that effect if they'd at least come out strongly for civil unions and support those instead of marriage.

[Subgenius]

Originally Posted by Eridal To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

With the libertarian movement gaining more power in the Republican party I don't think this as true as it would have been 4 years ago. Also you have the fact that public opinion is generally moving in the direction of supporting gay marriage, or at the very least civil unions, which really just means it's a matter of time. While I do agree it would hurt them in the short run with the two groups you mentioned those same groups would not vote for generally for a Democrat so the worst that could happen is that the enthusiasm of that part of the base is lowered. They could even lessen that effect if they'd at least come out strongly for civil unions and support those instead of marriage.

Why would you say the libertarian movement is gaining more power in the Republican party? And which libertarians?

---------- Post added 04-25-2012 at 02:38 PM ----------

	Originally Posted by INTroJect To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	cowtowing

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
.

[INTroJect]

	Originally Posted by Polymath20 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Belittling the change doesn't undo it. Everything happens in steps, and it is a step in the right direction. One step of many.

Cheering one step forward, while ignoring the two steps back, might confuse someone as to the direction being travelled.

[EdR]

Romney named Richard Grenell, an open gay, as a national security adn foregin policy advisor.

In today's Washington Post:

	.......the Romney campaign has had to fend off criticism from social conservatives who object to Grenell’s appointment because he is gay. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

The extreme right wing of the Republican Party is openly anti-gay. They seem to be a minority, actually a large minority. The extremists are also the loudest segment of the party and wield influence far beyond their numbers.

I think that the extreme right wing of the Republican Party is more than anti-gay. They are also anti-immigrant, anti-liberal, anti-education, anti-taxes, anti-abortion, anti-everything and anti-anybody who is not one of them, who does not agree with them and who does not put money into their pockets.

[Shoshana]

Originally Posted by Eridal To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

This is actually NOT been true for the past 100 years so either you don't study history at all or you just believe what you want to believe on things like this. If you look back 100 years you'll find that the parties were vastly different then and Democrats were the more racists of the two and attempted to prevent minority rights more than the Republicans. This did eventually change but that change was more recent than you make it out to be.

I stand corrected. THe Democrats didn't develop their current platform until after WW2.

[curiousgeorge01]

	Originally Posted by Shoshana To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I stand corrected. THe Democrats didn't develop their current platform until after WW2.

Yes I think within the last 50 years. I think its started with LBJ and his War on Poverty. The plan that ruined America...

[Shoshana]

	Originally Posted by curiousgeorge01 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Yes I think within the last 50 years. I think its started with LBJ and his War on Poverty. The plan that ruined America...

I think it was earlier. JFK, while not today's liberal was certainly considered more forward thinking than his republican opponent Nixon.

According to this article, it began in the 1950s:

Issues facing parties and the United States after World War II included the Cold War and the Civil Rights Movement. Republicans attracted conservatives and white Southerners from the Democratic coalition with their resistance to New Deal and Great Society liberalism and the Republicans' use of the Southern strategy. African Americans, who traditionally supported the Republican Party, began supporting Democrats following the ascent of the Franklin Roosevelt administration, the New Deal, and the Civil Rights movement. The Democratic Party's main base of support shifted to the Northeast, marking a dramatic reversal of history.


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[paleoeco]

Speaking personally, as a gay man, I see gay republicans in a few ways:

(1) Assimilationists: these are gays who think their sexuality is an extremely small part of their life and doesn't impact their lives in any significant way other than the choice of sexual partner. Assimilationists believe that gays should be "as straight acting" and "mainstream" as suburban middle america. For assimilationists, it's the don't ask, don't tell strategy of getting through life.

(2) Philosophical ideologues: These are gays who fundamentally disagree with progressive tax structures and social-welfare programs by the state.

(3) Financial Well-to-do's: These are gays for whom their financial status puts them in the cross-hairs of progressive tax structures.

(4) Nutjobs.

(5) Traitors.

I personally find it amazing that something as fundamental about ourselves as who we love can be so maligned by a major political party as done so by the Republican Party, that gays can support it. The modern Republican Party is not same party that ran Barry Goldwater who once claimed that he didn't care if a soldier was gay or straight, he only cared if he could shoot straight. The modern Republican Party hates gays, and if they don't, they sure as hell use has a scapegoat and a boogey man to drive their electoral programs. The gays that remain in the Republican party are doing far more damage to their brethren than they are in making progress with the Party to change it's progress. Log Cabin Republicans and republican voting libertarians who think they can change the Republican party might as well go poking windmills.

Yes, the Democratic Party has it's issues, and has not been perfect supports of gay rights. But at least the modern Democratic Party hasn't made it a practice of wanting to criminalize my sex-life and force me into the closet just in order to keep a job and housing.

[INTroJect]

The democrat party is only slightly less opressive to gays than the mainstream republican party. Gay democrats who get caught up in the hype are just pawns to the agenda, one that is very unfriendly to everyone's rights. Its sad to watch people all about "oah poo poo wee wee my rights, my life, gimme gimme gimme", and then selling out for a damn token benefit as our rights as a free society, this means all of us, are getting taken away from us one after another. Its not necessary to impose a gay agenda on the rest of society to be allowed to live freely, nor is it going to achieve the results desired.

[paleoeco]

So...some rights are not better than no rights? What rights does the Republicans offer that the Democrats don't? Honestly, it's not like I see Democracts taking away Rights from me that the Republicans would safeguard. If so, then maybe I'd be willing to start weighing things like "not having a constitutional amendment against gay marriage" versus "random right Republicans will safeguard".

Until I start seeing some material rights being safeguarded for me by the Republican party, I'm going to look to the Democratic Party as being more appropriate for me as a gay man.

Caveat: I'm not even a registered Democrat. As a socialist, I suffer and vote for lesser of two evils.

[curiousgeorge01]

	Originally Posted by paleoeco To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	can party might as well go poking windmills. Yes, the Democratic Party has it's issues, and has not been perfect supports of gay rights. But at least the modern Democratic Party hasn't made it a practice of wanting to criminalize my sex-life and force me into the closet just in order to keep a job and housing.

I don't think that would happen. Even if you have a Republican president the bill still has to go through Senate and House of Rep. And I don't think there are that many wackos in this country who want to string up homosexuals. I just think it's hyperbole to get people to vote for them; most people are in the middle area and pretty well adjusted. At least I think so.

[INTJRyan]

	Originally Posted by curiousgeorge01 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I don't think that would happen. Even if you have a Republican president the bill still has to go through Senate and House of Rep. And I don't think there are that many wackos in this country who want to string up homosexuals. I just think it's hyperbole to get people to vote for them; most people are in the middle area and pretty well adjusted. At least I think so.

Yup, let any hateful bill pass because it might not be enforced. Except when it is. Great idea! How about just not criminalizing sexuality in the first place, period.

[INTroJect]

	Originally Posted by paleoeco To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	So...some rights are not better than no rights? What rights does the Republicans offer that the Democrats don't? Honestly, it's not like I see Democracts taking away Rights from me that the Republicans would safeguard. If so, then maybe I'd be willing to start weighing things like "not having a constitutional amendment against gay marriage" versus "random right Republicans will safeguard".

The libertarian movement within the Republican party offers a far better all-inclusive rights package than both the Democrats and the mainstream Republican platform. This (very active) infestation into the Rep party is not only extremely gay friendly, far more than mainstream Democrats, but also staunchly opposed to the rights being taken away by both parties, such as, closing Guantanamo, repealing the patriot act, safeguarding internet freedom, ending the war on drugs, etc.

	Until I start seeing some material rights being safeguarded for me by the Republican party, I'm going to look to the Democratic Party as being more appropriate for me as a gay man.

They would need the support to continue reforming the Republican party in order for such rights to be safeguarded.

	Caveat: I'm not even a registered Democrat. As a socialist, I suffer and vote for lesser of two evils.

As a socialist, you many not be head over heels for the package from the economic perspectife, but from a rights perspective, nothing else out there comes even close. As a gay man, I very much give it avid endorsement, as its the rights that caught my initial attention, and I converted over from the democrats and have been advocating for this ever since.

[Autumnleaf]

Originally Posted by Subgenius To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Why are you assuming that gays and feminists are relatively high wage earners? Are you assuming they are all Hollywood actors and stylists or TV News pundits and millionaire carpenters? This assumption of yours is rather retarded. Gay folk can be fuck ups just like straight folks, so can women believing in a feminist ideology. And even if they aren't fuck ups hardly means they would be anywhere close to being a "relatively high wage earner" or even a high or mid level wage earner. Please show me a citation that says this is true. Also the traditional family hasn't been traditional for quite a while now. Women, even from home, are bringing in quite a bit more cash now. Also, the anti woman/anti homosexual rhetoric of the Republican party should be enough to make them democrat. It's kind of a no-brainer, and like a couple comments in your got the topic you should have asked about, "log cabin republicans".

They generally don't tend to have many children which means they have more time to devote to their careers.

[paleoeco]

Originally Posted by INTroJect To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

The libertarian movement within the Republican party offers a far better all-inclusive rights package than both the Democrats and the mainstream Republican platform. This (very active) infestation into the Rep party is not only extremely gay friendly, far more than mainstream Democrats, but also staunchly opposed to the rights being taken away by both parties, such as, closing Guantanamo, repealing the patriot act, safeguarding internet freedom, ending the war on drugs, etc.

Again, the libertarian movement within the Republican Party is a minority; it doesn't drive policy for the party nor the platform. Keep talking all you want about how the Libertarians can do a better job for me than the Democrats, but until the Libertarians Republicans can wrest control from the Evangelicals and actually start dictating policy within the party, it's a pipe-dream. And as such, the Republican Party offers me nothing.

I'd rather than 1/2 steps forward with the Democratic Party now, than take 3,4, and 5 steps back with the Republican Party in hopes that I can help the libertarian movement within the party get control.

[INTroJect]

Originally Posted by paleoeco To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Again, the libertarian movement within the Republican Party is a minority; it doesn't drive policy for the party nor the platform. Keep talking all you want about how the Libertarians can do a better job for me than the Democrats, but until the Libertarians Republicans can wrest control from the Evangelicals and actually start dictating policy within the party, it's a pipe-dream. And as such, the Republican Party offers me nothing. I'd rather than 1/2 steps forward with the Democratic Party now, than take 3,4, and 5 steps back with the Republican Party in hopes that I can help the libertarian movement within the party get control.

Oh, I get it. You would prefer to instead jump on the bandwagon for a free ride to the victory celebration. Well, you can go ahead and accept 2nd best, following the majority around. Just don't fool yourself into thinking that you are doing any favors for the gay rights movement. We have been in the minority for a loooooooooooooong time and we certainly have not done ourselves any favors with complacent acceptance of what any majority wants, but better off sticking with what is right, despite the odds and difficulties.

Massive difficulties have already been overcome, we are winning majority delegates in caucus states, political candidates are mimicking (albeit bastardizing) our platform. The war on drugs used to be a stereotypical Republican ideal, now they are cheering for it to be ended, its not like the parties are really that different from each other outside of the flavor of rhetoric used.

---------- Post added 04-27-2012 at 09:09 AM ----------

Why gay Democrats remain Democrats:

1 - bandwagon jumpers

2 - sell outs to the gay cause (would this be who the real traitors are?)

3 - old fashioned gays, way behind the times, have not yet read the memo

4 - politically uninvolved, or unaware

5 - complacent

6 - lazy, as all it requires is switching parties and they are really not that different from each other.

[paleoeco]

Originally Posted by INTroJect To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Oh, I get it. Your'e a bandwagon jumper. Well, you can go ahead and accept 2nd best, following the majority around. Just don't fool yourself into thinking that you are doing any favors for the gay rights movement. We have been in the minority for a loooooooooooooong time and we certainly have not done ourselves any favors with complacent acceptance of what any majority wants, but better off sticking with what is right, despite the odds and difficulties.

Oh yeah, because the Republican Party has been so helpful in integerating the armed forced and stopping a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage and supporting marriage equality in the states and helping get sexual orientation included in hate crimes and helping include sexual orientation in non-discrimination laws and policies. Oh yeah, the Democrats are second best for sure.

You're presenting a bullshit argument. You want to tell gays how great we'll have it if we dump the ONLY party that has done anything positive for us for the party that actively works against us, so we can bolster the libertarian wing of that party in the hopes it's enough to break the stranglehold of the Evangelical wing.

I'm reminded of a trite sayings, but it really is apropos here:

	A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.

If you want gays to vote Republican, give them a Republican platform that doesn't work against their interests. Asking us to join so we can hopefully get that platform isn't enough, especially when there's an alternative, that, while not perfect, is leaps and bounds better and more amenable to having a platform inclusive and respectful.

[curiousgeorge01]

	Originally Posted by INTJRyan To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Yup, let any hateful bill pass because it might not be enforced. Except when it is. Great idea! How about just not criminalizing sexuality in the first place, period.

Hey, sometimes you have to take a risk to get ahead in life. I would rather leave that bill up to the people rather stay in some unknown grey area.

[Aronnax]

	Originally Posted by curiousgeorge01 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Hey, sometimes you have to take a risk to get ahead in life. I would rather leave that bill up to the people rather stay in some unknown grey area.

There is no "unknown grey area".

If there isn't a law prohibiting something it's legal.