Why do quite many homosexuals vote Republican?

[Nagas]

McCain made less of an issue out of gay marriage than Bush did, so I imagine that gays polarized from Bush came back into the fold when it appeared McCain was more focused on economic rather than social issues.

It will be interesting to see if gays swing back toward Obama this year, after DADT, refusing to defend DOMA, and the Dems adding a gay marriage plank.

[Gravis Marketing]

McCain made less of an issue out of gay marriage than Bush did, so I imagine that gays polarized from Bush came back into the fold when it appeared McCain was more focused on economic rather than social issues. 

Lots of gays (myself included, once) had the delusion that McCain was libertarian on social issues and ok with gays, even if he wouldn't do anything about it. Which meant that some Republican gays who felt they had to vote against Bush in 2004 because his campaign (if rarely him directly) made the election a referendum on rejecting gay marriage didn't feel they had to send the same message in 2008.

Or the exit poll was just wrong in one year or the other.

[A cowboy always follows his beard]

Here's a strange hypothesis: bisexuals who don't fully identify with the gay community and don't have as much of an incentive to be passionate about gay rights because they're already with straight partners.

How do they vote?

[cavalcade]

Why do many (probably around 20-25%) of small business owners vote Dem?  It's probably close to half of the broader "1%" too.  Because they are not single issue votes.

Or if you want to think of it this way, many Republican voters support same sex marriage.  Some of these people are gay.

[Senator MaxQue]

Why do many (probably around 20-25%) of small business owners vote Dem?

Well, Dems aren't anti small-business.

[xavier110]

They're usually the most insufferable people I've ever encountered... and oddly enough, from my experiences, they typically aren't rich.

[asexual trans victimologist]

Why do many (probably around 20-25%) of small business owners vote Dem?

Well, Dems aren't anti small-business.

I'd be astonished if only 20-25% of small business owners voted for Democrats.

[Ogre Mage]

Because gay rights is not a priority for them.  Sometimes I am rather irritated that they benefit from the equal rights work of others since they don't really deserve it.  But civil rights and women's rights went through this too -- some blacks and women were not supportive of the movement.

[Swedish Cheese]

Just read the first page. Not gonna bother with the rest. The stupidity hurt my brain.

Maybe, just maybe, and I know this is crazy but hear me out... gays are actually individual people with their own political thoughts besides one single issue. Maybe not all gays are stero-typical effeminate hippie pofters. Maybe some of them cares strongly about defense, maybe some gays like guns, maybe some gays even care about the economy without subscribing to an Social Democratic agenda.

But what do I know. It's probably just self-loathing.     

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

Just read the first page. Not gonna bother with the rest. The stupidity hurt my brain.

Maybe, just maybe, and I know this is crazy but hear me out... gays are actually individual people with their own political thoughts besides one single issue. Maybe not all gays are stero-typical effeminate hippie pofters. Maybe some of them cares strongly about defense, maybe some gays like guns, maybe some gays even care about the economy without subscribing to an Social Democratic agenda.

But what do I know. It's probably just self-loathing.     

You could say the same thing (obviously inserting a few different stereotypes here and there) about oil workers, blacks, academics, secular jews and union members. This forum is dedicated to psephology and the reasons why a member of the LGBT community would vote for a member of a party who consider them to be immoral sodomites should naturally interest us just as the reasons why we'd be interested in understanding the voting behavior of the few southern whites in rural areas who voted for Obama.

The real world isn't reflective of the forum: very few people are passionate enough about something as mundane as our health care system as opposed to an issue that directly affects them and where the opposition consistently refers to them in pejorative terms.

[President Marokai]

Just read the first page. Not gonna bother with the rest. The stupidity hurt my brain.

Maybe, just maybe, and I know this is crazy but hear me out... gays are actually individual people with their own political thoughts besides one single issue. Maybe not all gays are stero-typical effeminate hippie pofters. Maybe some of them cares strongly about defense, maybe some gays like guns, maybe some gays even care about the economy without subscribing to an Social Democratic agenda.

But what do I know. It's probably just self-loathing.

"Mister Generic Republican may not much like my existence and doesn't support me and my partner having any rights, recognition, or protection under the law, but I sure do like his views on the Second Amendment!"

If you can actually take something like that seriously, then God bless you, because you're a special kind of person.

I'm generally not a person that likes hearing the "it's so much more complicated" card when it comes to voting intentions. There are a few simple black and white things about voting that either consistently make sense, or they don't. If you claim to care about certain issues very high on your list of political priorities, and then don't vote for them, most people would rightly consider you a total moron.

No candidate is ever perfect for the individual voter, especially in the good old US of A, but if, for instance, Joe Average thinks union rights is important and hates infringement on them, but decides to consistently vote for candidates that infringe on them (as was represented in the recent Wisconsin recall election) then the only explanations for that are ignorance or evidently not caring that much about union rights to begin with. This isn't a difficult concept, it's the basis of a lot of conversations around here. "Why do you vote for Republicans if you support our welfare state?" "Why do you vote for old lobbyist insiders when you say you care about 'throwing the bums out'?" "Why do you support conservative Republicans if you claim to care about protecting abortion?"

They're good questions, because you shouldn't, shouldn't, and shouldn't. At least, not if you actually care about what you claim to care about and are at all consistent of an individual. All of that is besides the point, but it's worth mentioning because the only reason you wouldn't stick around to vote for something you should vote for or claim you will vote for is because it turns out, you don't really care or know that much to begin with. Contrary to niceties that make people sound like wise nuanced individuals, there is a right or wrong way to vote depending on who you are and what you care about.

Which is what brings me to being gay and voting for a political party as right-wing as the Republican Party. Being gay isn't just an "issue," it's who you, as a person, are. And no, I'm not particularly interested in hearing a long bulls**t diatribe about how being gay doesn't at all define anyone as a person and that it's just a sexual preference completely separate from everything else. It's an identity, full stop. And with that identity comes a set of unfortunate realities about the current world we live in.

One being, the Republican Party as a whole is not interested in defending the rights of gay people as people. At least, not yet. And unlike just deciding not to be specifically one-issue on broader voting preferences like with abortion, or union rights, etc, being gay and voting for a conservative Republican requires the type of compartmentalization that I just can't respect whatsoever. You're doing a disservice to who you are by separating yourself from your own identity when you shouldn't, and in a way that doesn't happen with other issues. It implies a level of prioritization that lists your civil rights as a minority group low on what you care about. And if you're a queer that doesn't care about your rights as a person, then I don't respect you or your voting decisions whatsoever, and I see no reason why I should.

I'd say the same thing to women not voting for women's rights or blacks being opposed to the civil rights movement.  If you oppose your own rights be it intentionally or unintentionally, you're a bad person, and if you don't care about them, you're just as bad as people who are actively opposing them. There's not a chance in hell I'll ever apologize for thinking of such people as bizarrely twisted individuals who either don't care about themselves or don't realize the harm they're doing to other people just like them.

Look; I don't like you much, but you're not a bad person. You're nice and also incredibly lucky with your position in life, but this has nothing to do with your constant crusade to poke at Social Democracy in literally any way that you can. It has nothing to do with it whatsoever. This is about the kind of mindset a person has to have to literally vote against themselves as people. It's not about voting for union rights or taxes, it's a bigger deal than that, and I don't think people realize what a psychologically damaging (or just damaged) worldview one has to have to be able to do that. You can flit around about how much you super duper hate Social Democrats, but on this one I have no way of viewing that type of behavior as anything but either supremely ignorant or self loathing.

[Ebowed]

Maybe not all gays are stero-typical effeminate hippie pofters.

That's some awfully inflammatory language, friend.

[afleitch]

Just read the first page. Not gonna bother with the rest. The stupidity hurt my brain.

Maybe, just maybe, and I know this is crazy but hear me out... gays are actually individual people with their own political thoughts besides one single issue. Maybe not all gays are stero-typical effeminate hippie pofters. Maybe some of them cares strongly about defense, maybe some gays like guns, maybe some gays even care about the economy without subscribing to an Social Democratic agenda.

But what do I know. It's probably just self-loathing.     

I don't know where a 'social democratic agenda' comes from. Gay marriage isn't a left or a right or a centre issue; it's a universal issue. It has as much to do with economics as it has to do with equality; why on earth should someone who is concerned with low taxation and individual freedom support a party that doesn't want to give them the right to marry and therefore force them to incur additional taxes if they want security with their other half? It doesn't make sense.

[Sibboleth]

pofters.

Two 'o's.

[Vosem]

Just read the first page. Not gonna bother with the rest. The stupidity hurt my brain.

Maybe, just maybe, and I know this is crazy but hear me out... gays are actually individual people with their own political thoughts besides one single issue. Maybe not all gays are stero-typical effeminate hippie pofters. Maybe some of them cares strongly about defense, maybe some gays like guns, maybe some gays even care about the economy without subscribing to an Social Democratic agenda.

But what do I know. It's probably just self-loathing.

"Mister Generic Republican may not much like my existence and doesn't support me and my partner having any rights, recognition, or protection under the law, but I sure do like his views on the Second Amendment!"

If you can actually take something like that seriously, then God bless you, because you're a special kind of person.

I'm generally not a person that likes hearing the "it's so much more complicated" card when it comes to voting intentions. There are a few simple black and white things about voting that either consistently make sense, or they don't. If you claim to care about certain issues very high on your list of political priorities, and then don't vote for them, most people would rightly consider you a total moron.

So any gay person who doesn't vote strictly based on the candidates' view on gay marriage is obviously a total moron. Whatever their views may be on any other issues, they are f**king not allowed to take those views into consideration. If they vote for a candidate that, god forbid, opposes their right to marry, obviously they are total dumbasses that hate themselves.

No candidate is ever perfect for the individual voter, especially in the good old US of A, but if, for instance, Joe Average thinks union rights is important and hates infringement on them, but decides to consistently vote for candidates that infringe on them (as was represented in the recent Wisconsin recall election) then the only explanations for that are ignorance or evidently not caring that much about union rights to begin with. This isn't a difficult concept, it's the basis of a lot of conversations around here. "Why do you vote for Republicans if you support our welfare state?" "Why do you vote for old lobbyist insiders when you say you care about 'throwing the bums out'?" "Why do you support conservative Republicans if you claim to care about protecting abortion?"

Because it's impossible to care about union rights or the welfare state but decide your belief in 'family values' is more important? Obviously there're zero voters who really think about how they have two beliefs which, in modern American politics, conflict and how they nevertheless have to pick a side. Because the particular old lobbyist insider you vote for may be the reason your district has nice things like bridges? Because (this last one I find particularly offensive, because it describes my views) you may find economic policy and the lack of a welfare state more important than protecting abortion?

Especially in the USA where you have, generally, a grand total of 2 choices, voting is never black and white, and it's honestly rather disturbing that you have lived in the US and view politics as the shining knight against the evil ogre.

They're good questions, because you shouldn't, shouldn't, and shouldn't. At least, not if you actually care about what you claim to care about and are at all consistent of an individual. All of that is besides the point, but it's worth mentioning because the only reason you wouldn't stick around to vote for something you should vote for or claim you will vote for is because it turns out, you don't really care or know that much to begin with. Contrary to niceties that make people sound like wise nuanced individuals, there is a right or wrong way to vote depending on who you are and what you care about.

No, that's wrong. Obviously, you have an opinion on which way to vote is 'right', and so do I. But I'll let you in on a secret: not everybody has the same opinion. And I'll let you in on another secret: it's totally possible to care about two different things, and decide one is more important than the other, and vote based on that. For example, to again take my ex-neighbors as an example, there's no contradiction between being gay and deciding that, really, tax policy is a more important issue for them than gay marriage, because they came to the conclusion it would, you know, actually affect their lives more.

Which is what brings me to being gay and voting for a political party as right-wing as the Republican Party. Being gay isn't just an "issue," it's who you, as a person, are. And no, I'm not particularly interested in hearing a long bulls**t diatribe about how being gay doesn't at all define anyone as a person and that it's just a sexual preference completely separate from everything else. It's an identity, full stop. And with that identity comes a set of unfortunate realities about the current world we live in.

Being gay isn't an identity; it's a characteristic that goes into building up your identity, which is always, always going to be more complex than "I'm gay." In addition to being gay, you might identify with the area you live in; with your ethnic background; and with other political views you may have. In addition to that, what that identity actually means is different for everybody. As I've already pointed out, there's also the reality, where you might like gay marriage to be legal in your state, but you recognize that tax policy will actually affect your day-to-day life much more.

One being, the Republican Party as a whole is not interested in defending the rights of gay people as people. At least, not yet. And unlike just deciding not to be specifically one-issue on broader voting preferences like with abortion, or union rights, etc, being gay and voting for a conservative Republican requires the type of compartmentalization that I just can't respect whatsoever. You're doing a disservice to who you are by separating yourself from your own identity when you shouldn't, and in a way that doesn't happen with other issues. It implies a level of prioritization that lists your civil rights as a minority group low on what you care about. And if you're a queer that doesn't care about your rights as a person, then I don't respect you or your voting decisions whatsoever, and I see no reason why I should.

Gay people who vote Republican suck because I don't understand them. They SUCK.

I'd say the same thing to women not voting for women's rights or blacks being opposed to the civil rights movement.  If you oppose your own rights be it intentionally or unintentionally, you're a bad person, and if you don't care about them, you're just as bad as people who are actively opposing them. There's not a chance in hell I'll ever apologize for thinking of such people as bizarrely twisted individuals who either don't care about themselves or don't realize the harm they're doing to other people just like them.

The difference between the women's rights or civil rights movement and the modern gay rights movement is that the former two groups were denied the opportunity to participate in government, which gays are not. Gay marriage is simply one issue. It becomes more important if you actually are gay, but it is still only one issue. Which is why some people, you know, take other things into account.

Look; I don't like you much, but you're not a bad person. You're nice and also incredibly lucky with your position in life, but this has nothing to do with your constant crusade to poke at Social Democracy in literally any way that you can. It has nothing to do with it whatsoever. This is about the kind of mindset a person has to have to literally vote against themselves as people. It's not about voting for union rights or taxes, it's a bigger deal than that, and I don't think people realize what a psychologically damaging (or just damaged) worldview one has to have to be able to do that. You can flit around about how much you super duper hate Social Democrats, but on this one I have no way of viewing that type of behavior as anything but either supremely ignorant or self loathing.

Any gay people who vote based on economic philosophy HATE THEMSELVES.

Honestly, son, you're going to find politics rather difficult to comprehend if you can't get past the idea that not everybody votes strictly on the issue you personally think is most important for them, in the way you think they should vote on that issue.

[President Marokai]

So any gay person who doesn't vote strictly based on the candidates' view on gay marriage is obviously a total moron. Whatever their views may be on any other issues, they are f**king not allowed to take those views into consideration. If they vote for a candidate that, god forbid, opposes their right to marry, obviously they are total dumbasses that hate themselves.

It's not just about the right to marry and the rights that come along with it, it's about being recognized and protected by the State in any way at all. About being given the expressed understanding that the government recognizes who you are as a separate and distinct group that is protected via hate crime laws and given all the respect that entails. The national Republican Party as it stands right now is interested in none of those things and no self-respecting gay man or woman should be complicit in that.

Because it's impossible to care about union rights or the welfare state but decide your belief in 'family values' is more important?

Union rights and the protection of the welfare state is infinitely more important than some crusty old grandma's views on boys kissing. I couldn't care less what your personal view on that is, but one is objectively more important and impactful than the other.

And before you hop on here thinking you have an excellent rebuttal, the gay point of view is not equally invalid. One is about one old traditional group's moral objections to other people doing things entirely separate from them, the other is about someone from that group being given equal recognition and protection under the law.

Especially in the USA where you have, generally, a grand total of 2 choices, voting is never black and white, and it's honestly rather disturbing that you have lived in the US and view politics as the shining knight against the evil ogre.

Oh please. I hate this country's politics and don't view it as anything close to that.

Being gay isn't an identity; it's a characteristic that goes into building up your identity

I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that I as a gay adult understand being gay better than you do.

One being, the Republican Party as a whole is not interested in defending the rights of gay people as people. At least, not yet. And unlike just deciding not to be specifically one-issue on broader voting preferences like with abortion, or union rights, etc, being gay and voting for a conservative Republican requires the type of compartmentalization that I just can't respect whatsoever. You're doing a disservice to who you are by separating yourself from your own identity when you shouldn't, and in a way that doesn't happen with other issues. It implies a level of prioritization that lists your civil rights as a minority group low on what you care about. And if you're a queer that doesn't care about your rights as a person, then I don't respect you or your voting decisions whatsoever, and I see no reason why I should.

Gay people who vote Republican suck because I don't understand them. They SUCK.

Is that really all that you got out of that paragraph?

The difference between the women's rights or civil rights movement and the modern gay rights movement is that the former two groups were denied the opportunity to participate in government, which gays are not. Gay marriage is simply one issue. It becomes more important if you actually are gay, but it is still only one issue. Which is why some people, you know, take other things into account.

But it's not just about gay marriage. It's about the broader treatment of a minority group in every way the State can affect them. Respecting them, protecting them in criminal statute and the privacy of their bedrooms, and affording them equal rights in all things. I can understand voting for a waffly Democrat who goes back and forth on the issue, but not for a conservative Republican in the vein of a Rick Santorum.

The ability to do that implies you either don't care about your rights as a minority group that much or at all, or that you have a remarkable ability to separate yourself from your identity when you walk into a voting booth. It's the sort of battered wife mindset that I can't imagine is anything but psychologically damaged and damaging. You're not only hurting yourself but also everyone else that is deeply hurt by a socially conservative agenda as the supposed side dish to the tax cutting main course. There is no justifiable way to "take other things into account" when it is the rights and respect of your own minority group on the line.

Honestly, son, you're going to find politics rather difficult to comprehend if you can't get past the idea that not everybody votes strictly on the issue you personally think is most important for them, in the way you think they should vote on that issue.

Did a 14 year old really just call me "son"?

[ZuWo]

As has been pointed out several times in this thread, I guess some homosexuals vote Republican simply because of the fact that there are issues that they find more important than "gay rights".

[CathKhan]

In response to Marokai's comments, how does one, and I"m trying to look for the right phrase here, afford them equal rights in all things. I'm not up on the law codes of any state or the national government, but I wasn't aware that it was okay just to kill a gay person and get away with it in certain states (well, the judge may decide that, but in terms of the actual law...).

[Vosem]

So any gay person who doesn't vote strictly based on the candidates' view on gay marriage is obviously a total moron. Whatever their views may be on any other issues, they are f**king not allowed to take those views into consideration. If they vote for a candidate that, god forbid, opposes their right to marry, obviously they are total dumbasses that hate themselves.

It's not just about the right to marry and the rights that come along with it, it's about being recognized and protected by the State in any way at all. About being given the expressed understanding that the government recognizes who you are as a separate and distinct group that is protected via hate crime laws and given all the respect that entails. The national Republican Party as it stands right now is interested in none of those things and no self-respecting gay man or woman should be complicit in that.

I really don't have a rebuttal to this beyond the fact that 27% voted for McCain, which is a pretty big number, and it's sort of preposterous to say none of them have any self-respect. Again, it isn't patently unreasonable to hold the view, even if you are gay, that tax policy is more important. Neither is it unreasonable to say that gay marriage is more important than tax policy. But you have the right to vote how you want.

Because it's impossible to care about union rights or the welfare state but decide your belief in 'family values' is more important?

Union rights and the protection of the welfare state is infinitely more important than some crusty old grandma's views on boys kissing. I couldn't care less what your personal view on that is, but one is objectively more important and impactful than the other.

My own personal opinion is that I agree with you about which issue is more important (welfare state+union rights), though I hold a very different view. But my point is that there are plenty of people who view family values as being more important, and that doesn't make them wrong -- it's subjective.  

And before you hop on here thinking you have an excellent rebuttal, the gay point of view is not equally invalid. One is about one old traditional group's moral objections to other people doing things entirely separate from them, the other is about someone from that group being given equal recognition and protection under the law.

You're getting ahead of yourself, Marokai; remember that I support making the gay community equal to everybody else under the law. (My opinion on legalizing gay marriage, since I'm on the topic of my own opinion, is more conflicted, since I do think gays should be equal but I'm unsure about the idea of a government definition of what marriage is existing at all.)

Especially in the USA where you have, generally, a grand total of 2 choices, voting is never black and white, and it's honestly rather disturbing that you have lived in the US and view politics as the shining knight against the evil ogre.

Oh please. I hate this country's politics and don't view it as anything close to that.

The point was that you seem to be saying that all gay people should vote Democratic on the basis of gay marriage, regardless of their opinions on any other issue, which is patently absurd.

Being gay isn't an identity; it's a characteristic that goes into building up your identity

I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that I as a gay adult understand being gay better than you do.

You're right in that you understand more, but I'm pretty confident that (for example) in addition to being gay, you also identify as 'living in Ohio'. Does that make you any less gay, or make being gay less important? No. But is it also part of your identity which affects your life every day? Yes. There is nobody in the world whose identity can be summed up in the one word "I'm [blank]."

One being, the Republican Party as a whole is not interested in defending the rights of gay people as people. At least, not yet. And unlike just deciding not to be specifically one-issue on broader voting preferences like with abortion, or union rights, etc, being gay and voting for a conservative Republican requires the type of compartmentalization that I just can't respect whatsoever. You're doing a disservice to who you are by separating yourself from your own identity when you shouldn't, and in a way that doesn't happen with other issues. It implies a level of prioritization that lists your civil rights as a minority group low on what you care about. And if you're a queer that doesn't care about your rights as a person, then I don't respect you or your voting decisions whatsoever, and I see no reason why I should.

Gay people who vote Republican suck because I don't understand them. They SUCK.

Is that really all that you got out of that paragraph?

What I got out of that paragraph is that you have no respect for gays who vote Republican, because they don't view gay marriage as their single most important issue, which can be expressed more succinctly in what I said up there.

The difference between the women's rights or civil rights movement and the modern gay rights movement is that the former two groups were denied the opportunity to participate in government, which gays are not. Gay marriage is simply one issue. It becomes more important if you actually are gay, but it is still only one issue. Which is why some people, you know, take other things into account.

But it's not just about gay marriage. It's about the broader treatment of a minority group in every way the State can affect them. Respecting them, protecting them in criminal statute and the privacy of their bedrooms, and affording them equal rights in all things. I can understand voting for a waffly Democrat who goes back and forth on the issue, but not for a conservative Republican in the vein of a Rick Santorum.

The ability to do that implies you either don't care about your rights as a minority group that much or at all, or that you have a remarkable ability to separate yourself from your identity when you walk into a voting booth.

But suppose (for example) you are Cuban and gay, and you vote Republican because you view them as being more anti-Castro. You're not separating yourself from your identity; you're simply deciding to focus on a different part fo your identity. It's the same with gays who vote Republican because of tax policy -- you're taking a different part of your identity into account. The fact that you personally view being gay as the single most important part of your identity does not mean all gays do, and it doesn't make the people who do vote Republican 'less gay'.

It's the sort of battered wife mindset that I can't imagine is anything but psychologically damaged and damaging. You're not only hurting yourself but also everyone else that is deeply hurt by a socially conservative agenda as the supposed side dish to the tax cutting main course. There is no justifiable way to "take other things into account" when it is the rights and respect of your own minority group on the line.

If you are Cuban, is there a justifiable way to take into account your support for union rights by voting Democratic, because after all Republicans are anti-Castro and it's the respect of your minority group on the line? It's the sort of argument that can be used to support any kind of tribal voting (the respect of our group is on the line!), where people end up voting for things that will hurt their livelihoods outright because that's what the rest of the tribe is doing. It isn't justifiable to not at least consider other issues.

Honestly, son, you're going to find politics rather difficult to comprehend if you can't get past the idea that not everybody votes strictly on the issue you personally think is most important for them, in the way you think they should vote on that issue.

Did a 14 year old really just call me "son"?

Haha, yes, I was trying to be patronizing, because saying that all gays should vote Democratic because Republicans are anti-gay marriage seems, to me, to be a very naive position. I'm sure in real life you're twice as old as me or so.

[Gravis Marketing]

They're usually the most insufferable people I've ever encountered... and oddly enough, from my experiences, they typically aren't rich.

It takes extreme self-confidence to find yourself at odds with 75% of gays and 75% of your party, thinking the former are deluded and part of the herd and the latter are fools whose bigotry is being used to serve your cause. You don't have to be arrogant to be a gay Republican, but for many, it really helps. They find themselves on the defensive all the time so the wall comes up.

[For Oklahoma]

Because there's more issues than gay marriage in the world?

[Swedish Cheese]

This forum is dedicated to psephology and the reasons why a member of the LGBT community would vote for a member of a party who consider them to be immoral sodomites should naturally interest us just as the reasons why we'd be interested in understanding the voting behavior of the few southern whites in rural areas who voted for Obama.

I'm not saying the question was stupid, but rather most answers so far was. It's absolutly legit to discuss why some LGBT voters decide to down-prioritate gay-rights in favour of other issues. When people seem to explain it by them only being "self-loathing" on the other hand.

I don't know where a 'social democratic agenda' comes from. Gay marriage isn't a left or a right or a centre issue; it's a universal issue.

Exactly. Your oppinion on gay-rights doesn't affect your oppinion on other issues. So if you're strongly Conservative on other issues why should you not be allowed to vote for Repulicans without being self-loathing. Especially considering that up until very recently Democrats was rather shy in their support for LGBT-rights.

Maybe not all gays are stero-typical effeminate hippie pofters.

That's some awfully inflammatory language, friend.

It was  ment to catch attention. Didn't mean to offend anyone. (Well maybe Marokai)
Personally I find the notion that people aren't allowed to vote a certain way because of their sexuality more offensive. Besides pofter isn't a slur, now if I've had used two 'o's in there...
 

[President Marokai]

Oh Swedish Cheese, we both know that you fit the stereotype far better than I do.

[Swedish Cheese]

Oh Swedish Cheese, we both know that you fit the stereotype far better than I do.

I might very well do in some ways.

[opebo]

I'm no innovator, Vosem.  Anything I post is obvious common knowledge.

Your posts, and I say this in the nicest way possible, are insane conspiracy theory bulls**t. But they're fun to read.

But how can it be a 'conspiracy theory'?  I'm describing the open and obvious legal/political/economic structure of the society.  There is nothing hidden or conspiratorial about capitalism, Vosem, nor have I ever claimed so.

stero-typical effeminate hippie pofters.

You know, I've never thought of hippies as effeminate, not at all.  They always seem very hetero to me - hairy guys, not particularly in shape, and sort of mother-earthy women.  Very uncool scene, centered around pot and hairness, probably mostly eschewing speed and $10 cocktails.. I don't see hippy as having anything to do with homosexuality.