Political Crossfire Forums

[Ch33kY]

Selected paragraphs taken from The Age's artcile 'Gay conservatives and other queer couplings'.

Quote: AS CONSERVATIVE governments in Australia and the US continue to take a strong stance against gay marriage and civil unions between same-sex couples, a prickly question is raised: is there an inherent oxymoron in being gay and conservative in 2006?

Steve May wrote: Our party is supposed to be the party of freedom and democracy but people have turned it into the party of control and theocracy. The truth is that we are the spiritual descendants of the American Revolution. We are not just fighting for gay rights, we are fighting to make America stand up for what it really believes in.
- Openly gay former Republican senator Steve May

Quote: Professor Kerryn Phelps, former president of the AMA, who married her partner Jackie Stricker in New York in 1998, says she has been labelled everything from a radical conservative to a conservative radical. Phelps claims that the current anti-gay marriage push has been propagated by the extreme religious right wing in order to win votes.

Kerryn Phelps wrote: "A gay Liberal or Republican has to live with an inherent hypocrisy," she says. "It would be almost impossible for a thinking person to reconcile belonging to a political party that had as a part of its policy platform a denial of your right to have your relationship recognised and respected and treated equally under the law."

Publically, there are more hetrosexuals than homosexuals. Are conservative political groups taking a hard-line position on the gay marriage issue because they know this will win them votes? I believe so.

[WhatOthersMiss]

I would have to agree. While I have met many conservative people who have a strong anti-homosexual prejudice, I find it slightly more difficult to believe that the entire group of politicians are personally completely anti-gay. It wins them votes, guaranteed. My own siblings vote for the Presidential candidate who is opposed to gay marriage.

There is a very strong anti-homosexual group in America. Just today there was a picture in the paper of a church group protesting a soldier's funeral wearing "GodHatesFags.com" shirts, because the soldiers dying overseas are facing the brunt of "God's wrath on America for supporting homosexuality".

[Ek0nomik]

In all honesty I think the idea whether or not Republicans are gaining or losing votes based upon the homosexuality argument isn't very relevant. Sure, I think they can win votes that way. At the same time I am positive they lose votes. That argument can really flop either way.

WhatOthersMiss: I don't care if people are against homosexuality, that's their belief, and their right, and I'll stand up for that right any day. However, there's a proper way of making an argument, and what those groups are doing is not the proper way to do it. I would be so disgusted with those groups if I was a family member of one of the soldiers who died overseas. In fact, I am already disgusted and I don't have any close relatives that serve anymore. If the church doesn't want to recognize homosexual marriage, that's fine. I can live with their ignorance, I have been doing so for nearly 19 years of my life. They don't have the right to limit peoples freedoms though.

[Ch33kY]

Is there a contradiction in being a Gay Conservative in the USA and Australia seeing as both the Republican party and Liberal (in name only) parties are both very much against Gay marriage?

[Enoch]

Ch33kY wrote: Is there a contradiction in being a Gay Conservative in the USA and Australia seeing as both the Republican party and Liberal (in name only) parties are both very much against Gay marriage?

There is no contradiction at all.

I used to be Republican, and am still mainly conservative. The fact that I am gay is a moot point.

The problem represented with this line or questioning, or with the whole idea that gay conservatives are hypocrites, is that it assumes a single-issue voter mentality. While I won't deny that so many in this country are single-issue voters, I am not. Nor, I suspect, are the majority of people in this country.

True, I don't like the conservative (mainly Republican) stance on gay marriage. However, there are other issues that are important to me in which I find common ground in Republican ideals. To simply say "I can't be a Republican, they are against gay marriage" is not only overly simplistic, it is ignorant of the fact that our political reality is shaped by more than just one issue; regardless of what that issue is.

[F'losrix]

UrielsFyre wrote: Ch33kY wrote: Is there a contradiction in being a Gay Conservative in the USA and Australia seeing as both the Republican party and Liberal (in name only) parties are both very much against Gay marriage?

There is no contradiction at all.

I used to be Republican, and am still mainly conservative. The fact that I am gay is a moot point.

The problem represented with this line or questioning, or with the whole idea that gay conservatives are hypocrites, is that it assumes a single-issue voter mentality. While I won't deny that so many in this country are single-issue voters, I am not. Nor, I suspect, are the majority of people in this country.

True, I don't like the conservative (mainly Republican) stance on gay marriage. However, there are other issues that are important to me in which I find common ground in Republican ideals. To simply say "I can't be a Republican, they are against gay marriage" is not only overly simplistic, it is ignorant of the fact that our political reality is shaped by more than just one issue; regardless of what that issue is.
I agree with UrielsFyre, at least in principle. I think it's a matter of where one's priorities lie. I don't vote for Republicans for the most part because I disagree with them on other issues, not just the gay one.

That said, there are a whole lot of one-issue voters and I think the question of whether or not politicizing people's relationships to win votes is relevant. While I agree with Ek0nomic that it can cost them votes as well, I disagree that this negates the impact. There are a whole lot more one-issue and multi-issue voters against gay marriage than there are one-issue and multi-issue voters supporting it. The number of people you would lose by emphasizing this issue in your campaign is a minimal loss when compared with those you're likely to gain - which is why most politicians are taking a stance against it. I have to question whether it's really about what they believe as opposed to what they view as politically expedient. That's not to deny that for some it is about strong beliefs on the issue - I just happen to think there are fewer of them than people might be inclined to believe.