Gay conservatives...

[SEGrether]

Being a passionate libertarian, I often find it hard to find a place in the gay rights movement because it is so liberalized. It seems like every liberal issue is now a gay issue; whether it be environmentalism, abortion, social security, the war, etc. Now, being a libertarian, the only area I really disagree with liberals is on economic issues, but that's enough to almost make one feel unwelcome.

Now the question is: imagine what a LGBT person, who is conservative on every issue except gay rights would feel. Sometimes I wonder if we are becoming just as exclusive as the church has.

For anyone who is interested, there is a great conservative/libertarian website with loads of commentary.

www.indegayforum.com

I'll write another post about their most recent article. It's certainly a hot topic for debate.

Peace,

[BrentRichards]

Being a passionate libertarian, I often find it hard to find a place in the gay rights movement because it is so liberalized. It seems like every liberal issue is now a gay issue; whether it be environmentalism, abortion, social security, the war, etc. Now, being a libertarian, the only area I really disagree with liberals is on economic issues, but that's enough to almost make one feel unwelcome.

Now the question is: imagine what a LGBT person, who is conservative on every issue except gay rights would feel. Sometimes I wonder if we are becoming just as exclusive as the church has.

For anyone who is interested, there is a great conservative/libertarian website with loads of commentary.

www.indegayforum.com

I'll write another post about their most recent article. It's certainly a hot topic for debate.

Peace,

Speaking as a gay conservative, amen! We are, in some ways, people without a country. I'm a pretty atypical Republican, but being a Republican at all is frowned on in most gay circles. Mostly, I have to be a closet Republican!

[Steven E. Webster]

Friends,

I really enjoy reading Andrew Sullivan on an almost daily basis--even before he finally came around on the Iraq-war issue. I got introduced to Andrew Sullivan by reading his book Virtually Normal. I agreed with his arguments about marriage in that book--I did disagree with his views of employment nondiscrimination and hate crimes laws (he generally opposes those). Nevertheless, it was interesting to read his viewpoint.

I'm proud to say I'm a liberal democrat who considers FDR (and especially Eleanor) saints. The Clintons are too conservative for my taste.

So, you Conservatives, what can be done to get the Republican party to support the rights of all citizens gay and straight? Or is that party a hopeless cause?

Steven Webster

[BrentRichards]

So, you Conservatives, what can be done to get the Republican party to support the rights of all citizens gay and straight? Or is that party a hopeless cause?


I don't think it's a hopeless cause ... but Conservatives are (surprise) much slower to adapt to changing societal attitudes. Remember, the Democrats, on the whole, have only started speaking up for LGBT equality in fairly recent years. There are some encouraging highly placed folks in the Republican Party who are standing up for fairness for all of us, but yes, they are still a small minority. Still better, in my case, to fight from the inside.

What specifically to do is tougher. Much of what I can do personally is limited, but I am always certain to identify myself as Republican when contacting legislators on equality issues, and to voice my opinion with to Republican officials, party members, candidates, and most importantly fellow voters. More and more polls are indicating that the rank and file of the party is in a very different place than the visible leadership ... evidenced by the last general election. I don't think leadership "got it" at all yet, and they may need another election stomping or two to get it through their skulls ... and I for one am happy to help hand it to them. I have no problem crossing party lines with my vote when my party's candidates are being idiots. I do think it's going to be a long, slow process. I still think it's worth it ... better to end up with both parties on our side.

[SEGrether]

I just wish the Libertarian Party would stop scaring people away every chance they get by making their hallmark issue road privatization. The two party system is only making this process slower.

I think you are right, Steve, in saying that they may get it through their heads after losing a few more times... but it's going to take a while for Republicans look look more libertarian on social issues. But it'll be a great day when we see a "social conservative" third party b/c Republicans are no longer catering to them.

I don't know what I'll do in 2008... if a more moderate Republican or Ron Paul get the nomination, I might consider it. But I've always enjoyed the thought of sticking it the man and voting for a third party. The only Dem. I like is Bill Richardson. But he'll never get the nomination.

[simpleman]

I just wish the Libertarian Party would stop scaring people away every chance they get by making their hallmark issue road privatization. The two party system is only making this process slower.


The two party system will never go away, because all of our elections are single-member districts. In other words, one group of people has to choose between 2-3 candidates, the top two always being R or D. I was in Ireland in May, while their general elections to their parliament (the Dail) was going on. They rank their candidates, 1-6, and then the person with the most "1" votes, and then go back and do the process over again giving deference to what numbers each candidate was given. This is why they have 6-7 parties who always get at least one or two representatives elected. Our system is built for two parties, and often people get stuck hating both sides.

This becomes problematic, because the political spectrum in America is far too large to be divided evenly in half.

[SEGrether]

Yes, yes. I'm a huge supporter of proportional representation. Fringe ideas are so important to helping the majority reach the right decision. Quite frankly, Repub. and Dems. already know their stance on everything and no one is there to ask "why?"

[Gennee]

I don't think one can label a particular issue liberal or conservative. It is what a person feels about the issue and how they believes that issue can be improved, resolved,etc. The main question is why does a person believe the way they do? Everyone is entitled to his/her opinion. I have views about a number of things that I believe strongly about.

Another thing is that I have interest in other things beside trans issues. I find that many people are concerned about several things. A question I ask is because a person has religious convictions, why are they labeled as a 'right wing fundamentalist' in some circles? Why are transgenders called perverts? I hope you see my point. Labels are bandied around so much that no one hasnt a clue as to what that person is saying or what they are about.

I am a registered independent and I find myself agreeing with both sides on one issue or another. We all feel a certain way about a particular issue and I believe that it should be respected whether or not it lines up with our beliefs.

Gennee

:)

[simpleman]

I don't think one can label a particular issue liberal or conservative. It is what a person feels about the issue and how they believes that issue can be improved, resolved,etc. The main question is why does a person believe the way they do? Everyone is entitled to his/her opinion. I have views about a number of things that I believe strongly about.

I agree. The political spectrum in the country is so much bigger than just liberal or conservative, Republican or Democrat, so on and so forth. I like to consider myself a libertarian and fiscal conservative. The only reason that I would vote Republican is because I believe that is the lesser of two pretty poor choices. I know many who vote Democrat feel the same way.


Another thing is that I have interest in other things beside trans issues. I find that many people are concerned about several things. A question I ask is because a person has religious convictions, why are they labeled as a 'right wing fundamentalist' in some circles? Why are transgenders called perverts? I hope you see my point. Labels are bandied around so much that no one hasnt a clue as to what that person is saying what they are about.

This is an exceptional point. These labels exist for a reason, but those truly deserving of these various labels are a very small minority of the people in the country. Just think of all of the diversity that exists within the Christian faith alone. Certainly not every person who is a Christian, or even a Protestant, have the same set of beliefs.

[SEGrether]

Of course. And then you run into this problem of specific, usually polarized groups, who work to rally their own side by alienating anyone who thinks differently. I would argue that some gay groups do this just as much as the "evagelical, fundamentalist" groups.

I might have lofty dreams of seeing an incredibly small and limited government, but in order to get there (or to any more "extreme" view... and I would throw gay rights into that category in some cases) we need to move towards the middle and earn trust. Some people are just as afraid of gays who want to "convert" them (and some groups are a bit pushy) as others are of fundamentalist Christians.

I think the problem is... people tend to look at the most extreme manifestation of certain principles and applies it to everyone who identifies themselves that way.

[Daniel]

I might have lofty dreams of seeing an incredibly small and limited government, but in order to get there (or to any more "extreme" view... and I would throw gay rights into that category in some cases) we need to move towards the middle and earn trust. Some people are just as afraid of gays who want to "convert" them (and some groups are a bit pushy) as others are of fundamentalist Christians.


A look at how 'rights' are accorded to minorities shows that 'earning trust' doesn't factor into the equation very much. Standing up for one's rights does.

Rosa Parks didn't earn anyone's 'trust' by refusing to sit in the back of the bus. King and Gandhi didn't earn trust by protesting nonviolently and going to jail.

Highlighting injustice and discrimination is messy and produces discomfort. That's how change happens.

Trust comes after those in power start to see how they have acted in ignorance. You can't trust someone you fear. And people who are bigoted have to get over their fears.

It's that simple.

[BrianB]

Being a passionate libertarian, I often find it hard to find a place in the gay rights movement because it is so liberalized. It seems like every liberal issue is now a gay issue; whether it be environmentalism, abortion, social security, the war, etc. Now, being a libertarian, the only area I really disagree with liberals is on economic issues, but that's enough to almost make one feel unwelcome.

Now the question is: imagine what a LGBT person, who is conservative on every issue except gay rights would feel. Sometimes I wonder if we are becoming just as exclusive as the church has.

For anyone who is interested, there is a great conservative/libertarian website with loads of commentary.

www.indegayforum.com
I'll write another post about their most recent article. It's certainly a hot topic for debate.

Peace,

I used to be very republican until I came out to myself. In 2004 I got disgusted with the republicans "large tent" that kept shrinking and shrinking. Over the last several years my stance has shifted to the left on most social issues. I do tend toward a libertarian stance more than anything. Unfortunately most libertarians are not viable as presidential candidates. BTW, Neal Boortz (http://www.boortz.com)rocks!

[SEGrether]

A look at how 'rights' are accorded to minorities shows that 'earning trust' doesn't factor into the equation very much. Standing up for one's rights does.

Rosa Parks didn't earn anyone's 'trust' buy refusing to sit in the back of the bus. King and Gandhi didn't earn trust by protesting nonviolently and going to jail.

Highlighting injustice and discrimination is messy and produces discomfort. That's how change happens.

Trust comes after those in power start to see how they have acted in ignorance. You can't trust someone you fear. And people who are bigoted have to get over their fears.

It's that simple.


I see your point. However, I think "Christian-phobia" is just holding the gay rights movement back. I hope that while Soulforce is out working to pull the more traditional Christians our way... they are also helping LGBT people understand that Christians aren't ALWAYS out to get them.

I just have some hippy tendencies and think promoting tolerance is the way to go. And by promoting, I mean doing what parents always say and "be the bigger person." As soon as the gay movement as a whole starts acting more civilized than the fundamentalists on a regular basis, our point will be so much easier to make.

And as I said earlier, since this is a movement that is becoming pretty mainstream.. but still on the fringe in some ways... everything an LGBT person does reflects the movement as a whole.

[progressive4christ]

quick and simple. conservatives are racist, bigoted and greedy selfish mean jerks. They are the ones that have always taken away rights of every one. WHAT ARE THEY CONSERVING ANYWAY? Not morals. I grew up in a basically neocon house hold and did Christian schooling all they way to some collage. So, I been around the conservative agenda a long time. All talk and no heart. I can say as a liberal that I do not always agree with every liberal approach, but, I feel a whole lot free and safe with most of their approaches on most things. I really do not want to live in a police state or any such way as in the movie (1984: Orwell) or like (V for Vendetta).

Most but not all republicans would have it just like those movies if they had their way. Most of them would say no, but they do not realize that usually the things they fight against and for will make this happen. They have not really done any good for this country. THEY SCARE THE HECK OUT OF ME! they want to through every one in jail for anything. I have talked to people who our socially liberal, but economically conservative=GREEDY! stupid reason. Being a CONSERVATIVE DOES NOT MAKE YOU A BETTER CHRISTIAN EITHER. I hate that excuse too.

:love:

[u-dog]

quick and simple. conservatives are racist, bigoted and greedy selfish mean jerks. They are the ones that have always taken away rights of every one. WHAT ARE THEY CONSERVING ANYWAY? Not morals. I grew up in a basically neocon house hold and did Christian schooling all they way to some collage. So, I been around the conservative agenda a long time. All talk and no heart. I can say as a liberal that I do not always agree with every liberal approach, but, I feel a whole lot free and safe with most of their approaches on most things. I really do not want to live in a police state or any such way as in the movie (1984: Orwell) or like (V for Vendetta).

Most but not all republicans would have it just like those movies if they had their way. Most of them would say no, but they do not realize that usually the things they fight against and for will make this happen. They have not really done any good for this country. THEY SCARE THE HECK OUT OF ME! they want to through every one in jail for anything. I have talked to people who our socially liberal, but economically conservative=GREEDY! stupid reason. Being a CONSERVATIVE DOES NOT MAKE YOU A BETTER CHRISTIAN EITHER. I hate that excuse too.

:love:

Don't be so reticent, Progressive! tell us your REAL opinion ! ;)

[Daniel]

And as I said earlier, since this is a movement that is becoming pretty mainstream.. but still on the fringe in some ways... everything an LGBT person does reflects the movement as a whole.

What 'movement' are you referring to? The gay right' movement or the nonviolence movement? Both?

One thing doesn't sit right with me.

Do we think that Hugh Hefner represents all straight people? I don't think so. With that in mind, why do gay people repeatedly criticize their own? It's as if those who think of themselves as being more moral said: "If only that drag queen wouldn't have yelled at that Christian we would have our rights".

This strikes me as a very uncharitable view.

Those of us here at Soulforce are working towards the equal rights of every GLBT person, regardless of whether they are a card carrying Christian or not.

My sense is that, if we start judging others by their appearance, looks and how they act, we are no better than the conservatives who do the same. THEY are always talking about behavior, aren't they not? And gay 'behavior' in particular. I don't think 'behavior' has anything to do with the matter. Rights are not won the basis of who acts the nicest. Again, they are won by those who stand up for themselves and stop acting like slaves.

Is nonviolence the way to go about the matter? I think so, but judging others for how they go about the matter is, in my view counterproductive. In the end, I believe it's not what OTHER people do, but what WE do that matters. That's what "Be the Change You Seek" means to me.

We have to stand up and be counted. One at a time. Mean In Your Face Drag Queens included. Therein lies many a heart of gold.

[SEGrether]

Let me think about that some more. I definitely see your point. Maybe I'm just becoming self-rightous by expecting others to express their disdain for the status-quo the same way I do. (I don't really expect that... but I'm coming off that way, I fear). I'll think about it and get back to you.

I think I'm just so fed up with political debate in general anymore... because groups seem to just spend their time rallying their own side (and thus becoming more polarized) while just fighting for a simple majority. I'm more solution driven, I guess. My fustration is probably just carying over... and it shouldn't be. Because, you are right. These are basic rights we are talking about.

I knew I joined this form for a reason. Keep calling me out when I say something rediculous. haha.

[SEGrether]

quick and simple. conservatives are racist, bigoted and greedy selfish mean jerks. They are the ones that have always taken away rights of every one. WHAT ARE THEY CONSERVING ANYWAY? Not morals. I grew up in a basically neocon house hold and did Christian schooling all they way to some collage. So, I been around the conservative agenda a long time. All talk and no heart. I can say as a liberal that I do not always agree with every liberal approach, but, I feel a whole lot free and safe with most of their approaches on most things. I really do not want to live in a police state or any such way as in the movie (1984: Orwell) or like (V for Vendetta).

Most but not all republicans would have it just like those movies if they had their way. Most of them would say no, but they do not realize that usually the things they fight against and for will make this happen. They have not really done any good for this country. THEY SCARE THE HECK OUT OF ME! they want to through every one in jail for anything. I have talked to people who our socially liberal, but economically conservative=GREEDY! stupid reason. Being a CONSERVATIVE DOES NOT MAKE YOU A BETTER CHRISTIAN EITHER. I hate that excuse too.

:love:
Now, in response to progressive.

This is the stuff I'm talking about. That's not the way to go about convincing fiscal conservatives their views are warped.

And just b/c you opened up this can of worms, I think liberals are incredibly inconsistant. They push for social freedom, but think that government has the right to restrict/monitor/interfere with their right to use their human potential to make themselves better off.

I really am too tired to start posting mini econ. lessons haha. But everyone acts in their own self-interest. Even charitable works are done for self-satisfaction. That shouldn't be a problem, either. Because if self-interest is what gets people inspired to help others, so be it. I'd rather have self interested individuals helping out, than having a bunch of people who like to pretend they are selfish not doing anything.

And this is probably something I shouldn't say without a detailed explanation... but whatever.

Liberals support equality, look down on social oppression, etc etc. It's funny, then, that they so openly condone legal theft. (aka excessive taxation). I personally find the idea that armed US employees could come to my door and force me to give them money oppressive.

..wow, that opened up a lot of doors.

[Daniel]

I think I'm just so fed up with political debate in general anymore... because groups seem to just spend their time rallying their own side (and thus becoming more polarized) while just fighting for a simple majority. I'm more solution driven, I guess. My fustration is probably just carying over... and it shouldn't be. .

I'm married legally to my partner of 15 years (Canada) and my home state doesn't recongnize it. And it may take many years to obtain the same right that my co-worker's too often take for granted. And the 'gay tax' on my husband's health insurance sticks in my craw- let me tell you! (The fact that 60 million American's have no health insurance is reprehensible!)

Yes- I can be boiling mad and impatient at the status quo!

That said, I believe that the methods of nonviolence are the way forward. They have a way of cutting through all the posturing.

Politically speaking? I think real campaign finance reform would do wonders for our process of government. But this is very unpopular. Those who have power are very reluctant to give up the means by which they obtained it. But even this can change.

[BrianB]

Progressive4Christ, can you define 'greed'? If you say that it's a person having more than they should, who exactly decides what each person should have? Do you say corporations are greedy? Corporations are made up of stockholders which are individuals.

You try to paint every conservative with the same broad brush when you...

You know what? I'm not going to debate you because your mind is closed to someone being compassionate and conservative. Whatever I say will not change your mind one bit. I'll just say one thing more. There are police states on the far left as well as the far right. Both kinds scare me.

[progressive4christ]

Now, in response to progressive.

This is the stuff I'm talking about. That's not the way to go about convincing fiscal conservatives their views are warped.

And just b/c you opened up this can of worms, I think liberals are incredibly inconsistant. They push for social freedom, but think that government has the right to restrict/monitor/interfere with their right to use their human potential to make themselves better off.

I really am too tired to start posting mini econ. lessons haha. But everyone acts in their own self-interest. Even charitable works are done for self-satisfaction. That shouldn't be a problem, either. Because if self-interest is what gets people inspired to help others, so be it. I'd rather have self interested individuals helping out, than having a bunch of people who like to pretend they are selfish not doing anything.

And this is probably something I shouldn't say without a detailed explanation... but whatever.

Liberals support equality, look down on social oppression, etc etc. It's funny, then, that they so openly condone legal theft. (aka excessive taxation). I personally find the idea that armed US employees could come to my door and force me to give them money oppressive.

..wow, that opened up a lot of doors.

I Know that some conservatives love the Ayn Rand philosophy, that altruism is inherently bad and self interest is inherently good. Maybe you should try that argument out on all the Enron or Worldcom investors. There is no invisible hand directing individual efforts toward socially beneficial goals, remember that Wealth of Nations was written before the inception of the modern corporation.

When you say that liberals are inconsistent, I say how consistent is it that the party that believes in social Darwinism decries evolution. Can a person who supposedly believes in limited government possibly believe in the patriot act? How is the idea of freedom from government consistent with domestic spying or holding citizens without due process?

When you talk about excessive taxation you must understand, as Milton Freidman did, that tax cuts without the necessary spending cuts are merely deferred tax increases. Also look at the way conservatives cut taxes, Is it right that people who live off trust funds (Bush) who have never made a real contribution to society(Bush) or ever been gainfully employed pay less on their unearned income (maximum of 15% on long term capital gains) than the highest tax rate charged to those that work for an employer? We have a progressive income tax because one of the most important factors contributing to the great depression was the instability in the economy created by an overwhelming gap between the rich and the poor. Incomes of those working in the factories failed to keep pace with productivity growth, they could not afford to purchase the goods they were producing and inventories piled up.

As for economics, Reagan cut taxes in a time of high inflation, he forced Volker to jack interest rates to double digits just to control the damage. You must realize that increasing the amount of money in circulation during a time of inflation would only make the inflation more pronounced and that no sound business would ever make long term capital investments based on short term tax consequences. Kinsey and Galbraith, rather than supply-siders, provided the impetus for the post depression boom and the American Dream of upward mobility for all. The rising tide that lifts all boats.

If you believe that everyone acts out of self interest you should consider rereading the sermon on the mount, Jesus never acted out of selfish purposes. Jesus said that we should love God above all else and your neighbors as yourself. Inconsistencies are inevitable when society is too polarized to see the other side of the argument. Liberals and conservatives are both guilty.

[Steven E. Webster]

Now, in response to progressive.
Liberals support equality, look down on social oppression, etc etc. It's funny, then, that they so openly condone legal theft. (aka excessive taxation). I personally find the idea that armed US employees could come to my door and force me to give them money oppressive.


I hate to see us polarizing so much here, but I guess that's what's happening in the rest of society.

SEGrether is responding to some rhetoric from Progressive4Christ that I think was "over the top." I'm a Progressive too, but I could not support such rhetoric in this context.

Now SEGrether goes off to the other rhetorical extreme. What is "legal theft?" That term is self-contradictory. Theft is not legal, and legal taxation is not theft. In a democracy the people set the tax laws through their representatives and have the right to change those laws through the political process. Taxation is the price we pay for living in society. Many of the economic benefits the well-off enjoy are made possible by the infrastructures that we all pay for through taxes. It's distressing to see the party currently in power cut taxes for the wealthy and run the country into bankruptcy through a costly war that is lining the pockets of a wealthy few. If we don't correct the fiscal insanity of the current Republican administration, we are all going to suffer whatever our politics.

But in the end the solution of a more just society needs to come about through a constructive meeting of the minds. There needs to be some compromise--some fair and respectful give and take. All that is easier said then done. I get carried away with partisanship myself, but we all need to work on getting that under control.

I've stuck my neck out a few times in these discussions to express my admiration for a conservative, Andrew Sullivan. I really like alot that he says. I probably disagree with him on a lot of economic and taxation issues, but I can respect him in alot of other ways.

Society will not be improved by banning either liberals or conservatives. There is a balance that needs to be achieved.

Steven Webster

[progressive4christ]

I hate to see us polarizing so much here, but I guess that's what's happening in the rest of society.

SEGrether is responding to some rhetoric from Progressive4Christ that I think was "over the top." I'm a Progressive too, but I could not support such rhetoric in this context.

Now SEGrether goes off to the other rhetorical extreme. What is "legal theft?" That term is self-contradictory. Theft is not legal, and legal taxation is not theft. In a democracy the people set the tax laws through their representatives and have the right to change those laws through the political process. Taxation is the price we pay for living in society. Many of the economic benefits the well-off enjoy are made possible by the infrastructures that we all pay for through taxes. It's distressing to see the party currently in power cut taxes for the wealthy and run the country into bankruptcy through a costly war that is lining the pockets of a wealthy few. If we don't correct the fiscal insanity of the current Republican administration, we are all going to suffer whatever our politics.

But in the end the solution of a more just society needs to come about through a constructive meeting of the minds. There needs to be some compromise--some fair and respectful give and take. All that is easier said then done. I get carried away with partisanship myself, but we all need to work on getting that under control.

I've stuck my neck out a few times in these discussions to express my admiration for a conservative, Andrew Sullivan. I really like alot that he says. I probably disagree with him on a lot of economic and taxation issues, but I can respect him in alot of other ways.

Society will not be improved by banning either liberals or conservatives. There is a balance that needs to be achieved.

Steven Webster

Why is it that liberals feel the need to endlessly temper their ideas and justifications for them in order to placate the other side, while conservatives never have to dilute their disdain for liberalism? I wish that liberalism and conservatism did not always have to be heated divide.

[Steven E. Webster]

If you believe that everyone acts out of self interest you should consider rereading the sermon on the mount, Jesus never acted out of selfish purposes. Jesus said that we should love God above all else and your neighbors as yourself. Inconsistencies are inevitable when society is too polarized to see the other side of the argument. Liberals and conservatives are both guilty.

That last post, Progressive, was better than your earlier one--more reason and less damning the opposition.

I agree with what you say--but isn't it interesting that Jesus also references "self-interest." "Love your neighbor as yourself" links loving the neighbor with one's own self-love. I think Jesus is rejecting selfishness because selfishness is self-defeating. He rejects hate for the same reason. The golden rule makes good sense in terms of achieving the good life--it's not simply a command to self-sacrifice.

That doesn't make all self-interestedness good. Some people (maybe even most people much of the time) are just plain short-sighted and self-defeating in their selfishness.

I suppose sometimes some of us liberals can propose short-sighted and self-defeating policies in the name of promoting the public welfare. But I've not given up on liberalism. Sometimes we just need our views tempered with the viewpoints of others. That's what the political process should be about.

Steven Webster

[progressive4christ]

:dove::love:

I guess I am bit upset; for trying to compromise with conservatives in the past has been hard when a lot of them are relentless in their point a view and their view only.


Peace be with you!,
PH






How does God's love abide in anyone who has the world's goods and sees a brother or sister in need and yet refuses to help.

[SEGrether]

:dove::love:

I guess I am bit upset; for trying to compromise with conservatives in the past has been hard when a lot of them are relentless in their point a view and their view only.


Peace be with you!,
PH






How does God's love abide in anyone who has the world's goods and sees a brother or sister in need and yet refuses to help.

And I probably shouldn't speak in opposition to political polarity and then come back with my pseudo-anarchist like beliefs.

But if anything it makes a good point. There are some gay conservatives/libertarians in a movement that is largely liberalized. No LGBT person should have to be a "closet conservative" in a gay crowd. My hope is that the liberal majority in this movement stick to gay rights-- and don't throw in other liberal issues and label them as "gay issues" too. We can bicker back and forth about economics after we have the right to serve in the military and marry whoever we so choose. :love:

[Steven E. Webster]

And I probably shouldn't speak in opposition to political polarity and then come back with my pseudo-anarchist like beliefs.

But if anything it makes a good point. There are some gay conservatives/libertarians in a movement that is largely liberalized. No LGBT person should have to be a "closet conservative" in a gay crowd. My hope is that the liberal majority in this movement stick to gay rights-- and don't throw in other liberal issues and label them as "gay issues" too. We can bicker back and forth about economics after we have the right to serve in the military and marry whoever we so choose. :love:

SEGrether,
I'm sympathetic with what you are saying--especially the part about "No LGBT persons should have to be a "closet conservative. . ." I think where gay progressives are coming from is that we see issues of human rights and human equality and dignity as being all of one piece. We don't see the movement as merely getting my own rights and ignoring the rights of others (not that you are saying that.) Some of us believe that there is, for example, a universal right to good health care just as there is a right to be marriage and military service for LGBT people.

There is a whole philosophical debate we could have about what "rights" are and who's entitled to them. We're likely to divide along liberal/conservative lines on that debate.

We need to be practical, too. Maybe we can come together to work on single issues sometimes, and other times we can join in coalitions with others on a combination of issues.

I'm glad that there are gay conservatives who try to work within the Republican party--but right now it seems that "out gays" have almost no place in that party. Gay conservatives can only comment from the margins of that party. Andrew Sullivan, for instance, takes a very independent position. While he shares a lot of views in common with Republicans, he takes a very independent stance.

These are all very complicated issues. We need constantly to work on mutual respect and understanding. My hope would be that we in the United States can all come together somewhere in the middle--which means lots of compromises. Compromise, however, doesn't mean suppression of views that are on the so-called "extremes." Good ideas might come from any part of the political spectrum. I love the old saying, "even a blind hog turns up an acorn once in a while."

Steven Webster