Jan. 21st, 2007 @ 06:35 pm
Firstly, I apologize if this sort of post isn’t allowed, but I found this community to be relevant to my search, so here I am.
I run gsa_lj
, one of the largest and fastest growing gay-straight alliances on LiveJournal. However, despite our initial mission to be a support network for youth, the focus of the community has evolved. Our members are largely educated, mature, and eager to expand their horizons. Previous outreach efforts have been made to teachers, parents, and those of faith in an effort to diversify our ranks.
Personally, I'm a gay Republican with a libertarian streak, although most members are liberal. I see four of my personal friends (who are also members of gsa_lj
) are also in this community.
Discussion of relevant politics and current events are common, but the community is multi-faceted. I’m attempting to further increase the level of intellectual discourse. We’re always looking to better ourselves.
I ask that you join our efforts, if you’re interested in such issues. At the very least, check out the community. See the type of posts and comments that are present. Read our user-info page, and see for yourself why our members are satisfied. I have a feeling you’ll be impressed.
If you have any questions, please feel free to e-mail me.
I would be interested, but the fact that you're a gay republican is abhorrent to me. You support a party that clearly and explicitly wishes to deny rights to you. That's a cognitive dissonance I simply cannot understand.
|Date:||January 22nd, 2007 04:31 am (UTC)|| |
That's such open-minded tolerance.
Other members here are gay and conservative. evil_admiral
, and although he isn't conservative, homais
is one of my good friends.
There's far more to life than gay rights - which I support - and I'd rather be true to my principles. By your logic, I should stay in the closet and act straight instead of being true to my true principles. I'd rather work to reform my party than admit defeat and join a party that would pay lip service to me, but supported DADT and the FMA.
The vast majority of members are very, very liberal and I have no issue with them. Most of them are actually pleased to see gay Republicans working on reform. But if you're not open-minded enough, and probably wouldn't be able to follow the rules, than I don't imagine you'd fit into the community.
Pardon me for having very little tolerance for people who support a party that blatantly tries to ensure that some people are defined as second-class citizens.
Tolerance of intolerance is not
|Date:||January 22nd, 2007 04:50 am (UTC)|| |
And I fight my party every step of the way. But I'm not going to put all of my eggs in one basket that has delivered very little for us. We live in a two-party system, and we have to work within that.
I suggest you look into the the Republican Liberty Caucus
, the Republican Main Street Partnership
, and the Mainstream Coalition
, to say nothing of the Log Cabin Republicans
Not every Republican is cut from the same cloth as Sam Brownback or Rick Santorum. Just like not every Democrat is gay-friendly. To judge me and other Republicans based on the nuts is like judging all Democrats as racist because Robert Byrd (who is behind Nancy Pelosi in the presidential line of succession) was in the KKK.
I'm not judging Republicans by the nuts in the party, I'm judging Republicans by public statements endorsed by the party
So you're intolerant for other's people's beliefs.
No... tolerance of intolerance is not a virtue, as I said above. Should MLK have been tolerant of the beliefs of the KKK and the segregationists? Of course not. Don't be foolish.
You have to remember that those in control of the party right now are not "Republicans" in the true sense of the word. Rather they are neo-conservatives, basically disillusioned liberals with a more than healthy belief in God. Traditional Barry Goldwater Republicans are much more libertarian in nature, in that they are fiscally conservative, want smaller government, want the private sector to handle as much as it can (free markets work dammit!), and while they might believe in tradition social values they will accept the government just staying out of peoples' personal lives. Neo-conservatives are much further than this and a lot more zany and controlling. So take messages from the current Republican party with a grain of salt.
Just like not every Democrat is gay-friendly
Zell Miller for example. Well, he's really a Democrat in name only.
I'm trying to remember the party affiliation of the president who signed the Defense of Marriage Act and who signed the ban of gays in the military into federal law, but it slipped my mind. Do you remember?
I do. And Clinton quite rightly deserves an ass kicking. However, he was brokering a political compromise--he wasn't flat-out saying that gays are second-class citizens.
I am done with this. Carry on with your self-hatred.
|Date:||January 22nd, 2007 09:20 pm (UTC)|| |
And Bob Byrd and Sam Nunn, who led the fight not to lift the ban on gays in the military (back when Democrats controlled both Congress and the Presidency).
In any event, who the Hell are you to judge or lecture Americans on their political affiliation?
isn't a Republican.
What part of "I'm done" do you not understand?
|Date:||January 23rd, 2007 01:17 am (UTC)|| |
You must not be, since you keep commenting.
It isn't my fault you're wrong.
Wow, way to assume. Do you usually assume that anyone who questions the Democratic Party in any way is a Republican, or at least engaged in some form of self-hatred? Is acceptance of oneself possible only through faith in the Democratic Party?
If it was a political compromise, what did he get for it? A compromise involves each side getting something. How exactly
would things have been made worse for gays if he simply vetoed both measures?
Isn't calling it "brokering a political compromise" when a Democrat does it just extending the benefit of the doubt to one party while not extending it to the other? Doesn't a federal law to prohibit one group of people from being able to marry qualify as "flat-out saying that gays are second-class citizens"? A constitutional amendment is worse than DOMA because it's harder to change and all that, but whether people are denied marriage rights by federal law or constitutional amendment, they're pretty much being declared second-class citizens either way, aren't they?
I am one of those that Jamie identified as on the more conservative end of the fence. I am a Libertarian, gay, and proud to say it. I support the legalization of drugs, withdrawl from Iraq, and diplomacy instead of war. I also think all government sponsored welfare and entitlement programs (such as social security, medicare, medicaid, etc...) should be immediately eliminated. I don't support gay marriage
, or frankly government sponsored marriage of any type. I feel the income tax should be eliminated and replaced with a national sales tax.
If you were to actually sit down and listen to those of us who are gay and conservative, you would find that we have a pretty airtight logic as to why we are conservative. Such as the basis for my beliefs above are founded in my training as an economist. Small, minimal government is best; entitlement programs give people incentives not to work or save; etc... We've based our political beliefs around sound logic and don't just necessarily vote with our sexuality. Our beliefs aren't binary in the sense of liberal=good conservative=bad, but rather they are more gray than you'd think.
Girls, you're all pretty...