Politics... argh!

[Megandy]

Okay, so I have to admit something that might surprise or even offend some of you. If I offend, I am sorry, I have not set out to do so! While I was still in the closet, living as a fundamental right-wing evangelical Christian, I was a Republican mainly for the reasons that I now would never agree with: anti-gay-marriage & anti-gay-rights, and support for any political legislation that seemed to be based in what I thought was Biblical support. I probably would've been happy if the country turned into a "theocracy"! (that realization now scares me!) Just to clarify...in the present, I am NOT a fundamental right-wing evangelical Christian, set out to vote against gay rights and for theocracy.

So anyway, I am having a hard time reconciling my new way of life to my old political background. No, I'm not going to vote against gay rights legislation, however I find it hard to vote for some things that the left-wing wants to do with my tax dollars, the military, and other government issues that have nothing to do with gay rights or religion.

I wonder if there is a political leader that has conservative practices when it comes to issues like I mentioned above, but has "liberal" practices when it comes to social issues like gay rights? Its hard when people bring issues into the government that should never have been there in the first place! (religion, for instance). I wish the right-wing conservatives would leave religion to the private sector, and the left-wing liberals would stop paralleling socialist legislation.

Part of me says... hey, the main reason I voted republican all those years was for religious reasons... so why can't I turn the table and vote for gay rights issues now? I never claimed to be an economist then, and I don't now. Even if it seems like liberals want to make a socialist country that demolishes democracy over time, at least gays will be treated equally under the law!! But then another side of me says... the trend in today's society is becoming MORE gay-friendly, not less, so eventually gays will have rights, but in the mean time I want to keep our government working towards a democracy not a socialist government. But then again, most republicans these days are working towards a theocracy, not a democracy! So then, who's left to vote for???? Small third-wing parties who make their participants feel better by letting them vote for who they want yet never seem to make changes in the larger government? Its also a paradox because my partner is still a moderate republican, and she would be very offended if I changed political parties.

So I guess I post all this to get some of your opinions, and to hear why you vote for which side!

[pnggrad79]

I totally understand where you are coming from. I, too, was a Southern Baptist Republican and voting solely on the issues of abortion, and things like that. Since coming out of the closet, and being consummately thrown out of the SB churches I used to go to, I sit here wondering who I should vote for as well. I agree that if Huckabee wins the nomination for the Republican party, and then wins the election, this country will turn back 30 years as far as civil rights for ANYONE goes. I tend to want to vote for anyone leaning toward more gay rights, and a socialist government, in theory, might not be a bad idea, except that history has proven it can't work. They would have to take the socialist "experiments" all over the world, (like Spain and Canada) and see what works, revamp it, and throw out what doesn't work. I don't know. People a lot smarter than me will figure it out, I am sure.:rolleyes:

[scott snedeker]

They would have to take the socialist "experiments" all over the world, (like Spain and Canada) and see what works, revamp it, and throw out what doesn't work.


You have just given yourself the political definition of a Radical!


Welcome Home!

We have been here all along waiting for you!

Maybe it's time for you to visit The Short Mountain Sanctuary in Tennesse?

[Steven E. Webster]

Megandy,

Interesting thoughts. It seems to me that the political philosophy that might fit where you are right now might be "libertarianism." Libertarianism tends to be "liberal" on "social issues" and still "conservative" on issues of economics and national defense. Libertarians have been part of the Republican coalition sometimes, but they are not necessarily happy there because of the Theocrats.

I would suggest you re-consider your prejudices against socialism. (I'm not accusing you of being especially "prejudiced" now--everyone has "pre-judgements" that they've not gotten around to questioning yet. From time to time I need to question my prejudices.) For one thing "Socialism" is a word that seems to cover a whole lot of territory. I don't think we can take Joseph Stalin and Eleanor Roosevelt and brand them both together as "socialists."

I don't believe we should have a system where the government controls everything. But at the same time I don't want a system where the government controls nothing. Free trade is a fine thing, but it would be nice if our government would have effective regulations to prevent lead in toys poisoning our children.

Some Libertarians seem to think we could have an ideal world where there would be no taxes at all. I don't think that is possible. I also believe in a system that allows for some of our society's wealth to be shared. I think it's fine for people to be rich, but often that wealth depends on the hard work of many people who are relatively poor. Our society would be better off if there was a economic floor beneath which we would not let people sink. So I'm for things like the minimum wage, and universal health care. That doesn't make me a communist.

I really think it's all about finding some place in the middle of the political spectrum--not too extreme at the no-taxes, no-government services end of the spectrum, and not too extreme at the government controlling everything end of the spectrum.

Canada seems to be a perfectly lovely place. And their dollar is worth more than ours right now. And, in some ways, people have more freedom there. (I'm free to marry the man I love there.) I'm not planning to emigrate, mind you. I'm going to stay here and try to improve the country I live in.

Steven Webster

[Progo35]

I think that, perhaps, or at least I'm hoping, that as the younger generation (those born in the late seventies to mid eighties) gradually rises into politics, there might emerge a more visible faction of just the people you speak of: leaders who would have conservative principles on various social issues but would also be pro-LGBT rights.

[Megandy]

Megandy,
I would suggest you re-consider your prejudices against socialism. (I'm not accusing you of being especially "prejudiced" now--everyone has "pre-judgements" that they've not gotten around to questioning yet. From time to time I need to question my prejudices.) For one thing "Socialism" is a word that seems to cover a whole lot of territory. I don't think we can take Joseph Stalin and Eleanor Roosevelt and brand them both together as "socialists."


Stephen,
Thank you for such a well-worded and thought-provoking reply! It has helped me a great deal. You are right, I don't know much about what I call "socialism", and I hope people don't hold that against me. All I know is that although the system we currently have doesn't seem to be adequately meeting the country's needs, there is not a simple solution to fix that problem. I have seen the need for things that would give us the kind of economic threshold that you speak of. But things just get so muddy. Where do we draw the line? There will always be people who manipulate the system, and there will always be people who are in genuine need and fall through the cracks. The bottom line for me is that I always want a country where we can continue to be a democracy, having a country by the people for the people. Everything else is up for debate, because I think democracy is a running experiment (especially in the "united states"... where each state has its own government and can experiment different policies). I guess thats why I lean towards the conservative mindset because I think that the powerful thinkers of our country can figure out a way to have as little governmental control as needed while also meeting the needs of marginalized people.

Anyway, I shouldn't ramble on about politics at 1 AM! But thank you for your reply, it has helped me along my journey of learning and understanding!

[Megandy]

I think that, perhaps, or at least I'm hoping, that as the younger generation (those born in the late seventies to mid eighties) gradually rises into politics, there might emerge a more visible faction of just the people you speak of: leaders who would have conservative principles on various social issues but would also be pro-LGBT rights.

I agree! It will be interesting what trends will change once that generation is really "in control" of things in the government.

[pnggrad79]

You have just given yourself the political definition of a Radical!


Welcome Home!

We have been here all along waiting for you!

Maybe it's time for you to visit The Short Mountain Sanctuary in Tennesse?

I would hardly call myself a radical, but ya never know. I am flat sick of Bush and the whole Republican party sucking up to the Religious Right crazies who want to throw this country back 50 years to where African Americans, women and gay people have no rights, and all the WASPs run everything. It is just so stupid that African Americans, women, and gays (as well as Mexicans, Native Americans, etc) have had to fight, even give their lives for the basic rights that are given to them by the Constitution. Why do they (we) have to fight so hard for something that is already ours? Because idiots run the country, influenced by Pharisees, the Taliban,(metaphorically speaking) and James Dobson, who haven't a clue about civil liberties, but are fearful and afraid that their power is about to be taken away.

Let's just suppose for a second that full marriage rights, tax benefits, employment, housing, etc., were granted. It wouldn't cause the marriages of straight people to be threatened in the least. It wouldn't cause neighborhoods to be overrun with gay people (they are already there), and hell, we already contribute so much to the economy, and we pay our taxes. Seriously, what harm would it cause to give us the rights we already are supposed to have?

BTW, what is Short Mountain, Tennessee?

[Gennee]

I understand your plight, Megandy. I was a Democrat which switched over to the Independent Party. I never thought that I would ever leave the Democratic Party. to me it has gotten too radical, elistist, negative, and clueless as to how to resolve social and economic problems.
Another thing is that I am African-American and I voted Republican in the last presidential election. If my family and some friends found out, I would have been crucified. This group of candidates does not excite me. I'm concerned about social issues but I don't feel we have to give all our liberties to achieve it. I wonder if some of these people really know what socailism is.

Gennee

[ladyinred]

Seriously, what harm would it cause to give us the rights we already are supposed to have? Because it would mean the end of western civilization and heterosexual marriages according to their view,(as if Gays have some sweeping magical power to stop heterosexuals from getting married and having children)or perhaps they are so insecure in their own sexuality they are afraid that heterosexuals would stop getting married having children and join the "other side."..Something about what Paul Cameron said comes to mind,ok I have to dig it up ,but will post it as soon as I can.
Ok dokey, here it is: "If you isolate sexuality as something solely for one’s own personal amusement, and all you want is the most satisfying orgasm you can get- and that is what homosexuality seems to be-then homosexuality seems too powerful to resist. The evidence is that men do a better job on men and women on women, if all you are looking for is orgasm." So powerful is the allure of gays, Cameron believes, that if society approves that gay people, more and more heterosexuals will be inexorably drawn into homosexuality. "I'm convinced that lesbians are particularly good seducers," says Cameron.

Uh, I thought heterosexuality was a fixed immutable characteristic according to their view.. uhhh,uhhhh,lol This is so convoluted...

[pnggrad79]

Because it would mean the end of western civilization and heterosexual marriages according to their view,(as if Gays have some sweeping magical power to stop heterosexuals from getting married and having children)or perhaps they are so insecure in their own sexuality they are afraid that heterosexuals would stop getting married having children and join the "other side."..Something about what Paul Cameron said comes to mind,ok I have to dig it up ,but will post it as soon as I can.
Ok dokey, here it is: Uh, I thought heterosexuality was a fixed immutable characteristic according to their view.. uhhh,uhhhh,lol This is so convoluted...

Are you kidding me? This guy, Cameron, thinks lesbians are particularly good at seducing? As one lesbian, I am not at all interested in seducing anyone. I don't prowl around looking for some unsuspecting straight girl to bring under my spell. First of all, I don't have the commanding personality to do that, nor would I want to. This is ridiculous! Such are the misconceptions of straight people who don't have a freaking clue!:rolleyes:

[Megandy]

lol!! I agree, pnggrad! I'm not much of a seducer either, nor do I want to be! Unfortunately, my father thinks that my partner "made" me gay... she somehow has this incredible power over me that makes me sexually attracted to a woman. ::rolls eyes:: Well I guess it's not too surprising that he has this opinion since his father-in-law lived his life as a gay man, and my dad had the same explanation, that his partner made him gay!! What a funny notion.

[ladyinred]

First of all, I don't have the commanding personality to do that, nor would I want to. This is ridiculous! Such are the misconceptions of straight people who don't have a freaking clue!
Well I wouldn't lay claim to being the seductress either.( I mean big ha, ha, ha I was even told my underwear isn't even hot, perhaps I should change brands? Ok maybe TMI here, I just threw it in for comic relief and you are allowed to laugh at my expense, I did this to myself) I guess we are just ordinary folks me and you with better things to do :rolleyes

[pnggrad79]

lol!! I agree, pnggrad! I'm not much of a seducer either, nor do I want to be! Unfortunately, my father thinks that my partner "made" me gay... she somehow has this incredible power over me that makes me sexually attracted to a woman. ::rolls eyes:: Well I guess it's not too surprising that he has this opinion since his father-in-law lived his life as a gay man, and my dad had the same explanation, that his partner made him gay!! What a funny notion.

We must have dads cut from the same cloth, because my dad asserts that my partner made me gay too. I didn't tell him I had also had a huge crush on a girl who was much older than me when I was in 6th grade, or the crush I had on several other girls growing up, and that being with a man was disgusting to me. When my dad made that assertion, it just didn't seem important at the time. It would have only added fuel to the flame. I just said Dad, she didn't make me gay, I am gay all by myself. :rolleyes:

[BrianB]

Stephen mentioned libertarianism. I have long been in favor of the libertarian view of less government and more liberty. Which is why I am supporting Ron Paul for president. He may be running as a republican but most of his platform is based on libertarian ideals. He may be down in the polls right now but his successes have been under reported. Dr. Paul recently raised more campaign money in one day than any other candidate. His supporter's call it a "money bomb". I just wanted everyone to know that there is an alternative on the republican side to Mike Huckabee.

[ladyinred]

We must have dads cut from the same cloth, because my dad asserts that my partner made me gay too. I didn't tell him I had also had a huge crush on a girl who was much older than me when I was in 6th grade, or the crush I had on several other girls growing up
I remember crushes too,one was when I was 19 and the other woman was almost 10 years older then me, would I admit that to her?

Nooooooooooooo. Of course my mom never said I was made gay by someone else. In fact she said she could never understand people who would disown or throw their children out of the house because they were gay and lesbian. Was mom perfect? No. She had some hangups. but not where she would say she hated me and would disown me. And of course she didn't always get along with my ex, but for the most part, she did get along with her . But they were things unrelated to sexual orientation . My own family may have had a few reservations, but they didn't attack me on that front either.My brother actually sent me an email about not being too judgmental .

[ladyinred]

Which is why I am supporting Ron Paul for president If you'd like to learn more about the candidates , ontheissues.org has info on candidates and where they stand on issues. I'm looking at Ron Paul but I'd like to know more about where he stands on various issues, I know he's anti-abortion ( While I'm not gung-hole about abortions, I think education ,contraception, family planning among other things could probably help(hopefully) reduce the need for more abortions , by hopefully giving women more options about what to do,but also a concern if it is made illegal we may go back to the times when women were getting abortions through other means that may put their life and health in jeapardy. My views are just that of course,mine and perhaps other people may have more enlightened views about it. Another question that comes to mind should we limit women's freedom and choices?

Also on Ron Paul, he is not ignorant on Middle Eastern affairs and history, and seems to know alot fo what he is talking about. He seems to understand the constitution better than alot of the politicians. That is one of my major concerns the erosion of civil liberties and Americans rights.

For example: To me those who are protesting the Iraq war are exercising their right to free speech which is guranteed to them by the constitution. When the govt tries to censor and squash public disent or disagreement, I call that violating the laws of our constitution. In my mind they personally have no right to.The same govt officials who assert the right to "hate speech" ,trying to deny others the basic right to disent or disagree as long as they don't violate the rights of others to me seems unconscionable. We need debate and open communication about what concerns us as citizens.Without having to worry about big brother breathing down our necks and saying we aren't being patriotic when we happen to disagree with their policies.These same people are sworn in to defend and uphold the principles of our constitution and they better start doing it..We as American citizens aren't beholden or accountable to them, they are to us.

But rather than me promote any particular politician and tell people how to vote, I think it is a good idea if they know enough about the candidates to decide for themselves whom to vote for. Ontheissues.org is a good place to start for people who want to know about the candidates and where they stand on issues they feel are pertinent to them. Radio and tv and even reading about the candidate in the newspaper to me may not be enough information for people who really want to know how these people vote on issues, what they plan to do about the war ,the environment and economy, and education and where they stand on certain issues such as civil rights for example.

A candidates religiosity is not something I would use as a guide for my voting for him. I want someone who is office who will do the job that needs to be done to the best of his ability and abide by the constitution .

[tdogg]

Socialism isn't all bad. Like Stephen says, check out Canada. The socialist health care system in the UK is very effective. Yes, taxes are higher, but as a society we are responsible for others in the society, like it or not. It can't be a free-for-all, look out for your own self at the cost of others. When the tables are turned, it doesn't feel too good.

We already have many 'socialist' type of programs - welfare, public schools, prison system, etc. Capitalism promotes less for those who have less, and more for those who have more. While that isn't entirely bad, it does make for higher rates of unemployment, homelessness, hunger, poverty, illness, and the like. With some government control and involvement, theoretically we have a more even playing field for everyone, in regards to survival. Reality is it sometimes doesn't work as it should, but I certainly would not want my life to be controlled by the rich and famous.

My years as an 'independent voter' saw Republicans in office and control of this country, and look where that has put us. So, although I'm not 100% behind everything the democrats do or stand for, my views and opinions more fully lie well to the left so I'm going Dem for now.

[scott snedeker]

BTW, what is Short Mountain, Tennessee?


A commune where I met my first gathering of Radical faeries. A magical spiritual mountain sanctuary populated by the gifted and the challenged

[tymejumper]

[QUOTE=pnggrad79;49460]Are you kidding me? This guy, Cameron, thinks lesbians are particularly good at seducing? /QUOTE]


Personally myself, I can buy my OWN toaster oven, I mean, I have a career!:lol::lol::lol:

One of the biggest things I noticed was that as a lesbian, I am just not sexually or emotionally attracted to women who are straight. I have always had pretty reliable gaydar, and when I was single and saw an attractive woman, I would just seem to not be able to think of her as a potental partner if she was straight. I would have no spark or desire to have anything with her but to say 'hello' . Of course I have female friends who are straight and I have never been sexually attracted nor wished any of them were gay.

On the other hand, if I noticed a gay woman, then it was like a switch was turned on somewhere inside me and I was 'free' to be attracted to her and so I was. The mere idea of 'lesbians being able to seduce' is about the most hilarious thing I have heard in a long time. :D

[pnggrad79]

LOL, Tyme, you hit the nail on the head, girl.

I am with you there. Although I have been attracted to straight women, the door seemed to open really wide when I suspected my now wife was a lesbian and knew she was attracted to me. I fought it for years, but there was no doubt in my mind she wanted me, and I wanted her. Now look who won that battle-we both did. It was a matter of just admitting it and moving forward.

This whole idea about lesbians being on the prowl, is just hilarious and one more fear factor that homophobes like to throw at us. No doubt, there are some lesbians who are on the prowl, but for other lesbians... or curious... or bi....
But the other side of that coin is that there are no less straight people also on the prowl looking for anything or anyone to get laid. So until they look at the own speck in their eye, they need to stay outta mine!!!! These people are ridiculous and look really stupid to suggest such a ludicrous thing.