Republicans, do you expect ANY gay people to vote for the Republican?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

There are plenty of gay people who vote Republican, they just happen to be the type of queer I have no desire to get to know.

I knew Nan Hayworth's son for a time. We were friends for a while, but in retrospect he was exactly the sort of person one might think he would be.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

The point is in state like New York, and others, the republicans are not as offensive and obsessed with gay rights as the many of the people running for the GOP on a national level. I can say that the state and local officials where I'm from are far to the left of Romney on gay issues, lets not even mention Santorum. For this reason, I have no problem as a gay person voting republican. I recently moved to Missouri, however and the story is completely different

the fact that people were concerned with fighting against marriage redefinition led to congressman Bob Turner, and will soon lead to State Senator David Storobin.

That's your specific part of New York. It's not representative.

Also, from what I've heard Storobin, uh, isn't exactly favored. Though I haven't actually heard all that much.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

The point is in state like New York, and others, the republicans are not as offensive and obsessed with gay rights as the many of the people running for the GOP on a national level. I can say that the state and local officials where I'm from are far to the left of Romney on gay issues, lets not even mention Santorum. For this reason, I have no problem as a gay person voting republican. I recently moved to Missouri, however and the story is completely different

the fact that people were concerned with fighting against marriage redefinition led to congressman Bob Turner, and will soon lead to State Senator David Storobin.

That's your specific part of New York. It's not representative.

Also, from what I've heard Storobin, uh, isn't exactly favored. Though I haven't actually heard all that much.

want to make a bet on Storobin.

Not really. As I said, I'm not terribly familiar with the race.

It remains that your district isn't really representative of other conservative areas of New York, though, partially since as I'm sure you recognize it's not conservative in the same ways or for the same reasons that places like a lot of rural upstate are.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

The point is in state like New York, and others, the republicans are not as offensive and obsessed with gay rights as the many of the people running for the GOP on a national level. I can say that the state and local officials where I'm from are far to the left of Romney on gay issues, lets not even mention Santorum. For this reason, I have no problem as a gay person voting republican. I recently moved to Missouri, however and the story is completely different

the fact that people were concerned with fighting against marriage redefinition led to congressman Bob Turner, and will soon lead to State Senator David Storobin.

That's your specific part of New York. It's not representative.

Also, from what I've heard Storobin, uh, isn't exactly favored. Though I haven't actually heard all that much.

want to make a bet on Storobin.

Not really. As I said, I'm not terribly familiar with the race.

It remains that your district isn't really representative of other conservative areas of New York, though, partially since as I'm sure you recognize it's not conservative in the same ways or for the same reasons that places like a lot of rural upstate are.

I don't live anywhere near that district.

There are many areas down state that vote based on marriage both Jewish and Catholic.

There are also many otherwise Republican-leaning areas that aren't particularly conservative on this issue.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

A lot of gay people don't think gay related issues are the most important ones with which America needs to deal right now.

They're still voting against their own (and other people's, let's not forget) rights for utilitarian reasons, which in my view is both morally and mentally questionable.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

A lot of gay people don't think gay related issues are the most important ones with which America needs to deal right now.

They're still voting against their own (and other people's, let's not forget) rights for utilitarian reasons, which in my view is both morally and mentally questionable.

I'm not sure their understanding of utility is necessarily so distinct from their sense of morality.  Although it's hard for me to imagine how they can feel especially comfortable in a party so overtly committed to assuring their relationships are codified as inferior.  I think it's totally defensible, but yikes.

Oh, I totally understand how someone with a utilitarian viewpoint could end up making those decisions, but I am by nature very much a deontologist so it's somewhat off-putting to me, to say the least.

Most people are utilitarians for other people and deontologists for themselves. It's one of the most common, one could almost say near-universal human character flaws. People who are utilitarians for themselves, while I can intellectually admire their consistency, give me the willies.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

A lot of gay people don't think gay related issues are the most important ones with which America needs to deal right now.

They're still voting against their own (and other people's, let's not forget) rights for utilitarian reasons, which in my view is both morally and mentally questionable.

I'm not sure their understanding of utility is necessarily so distinct from their sense of morality.  Although it's hard for me to imagine how they can feel especially comfortable in a party so overtly committed to assuring their relationships are codified as inferior.  I think it's totally defensible, but yikes.

Oh, I totally understand how someone with a utilitarian viewpoint could end up making those decisions, but I am by nature very much a deontologist so it's somewhat off-putting to me, to say the least.

Most people are utilitarians for other people and deontologists for themselves. It's one of the most common, one could almost say near-universal human character flaws. People who are utilitarians for themselves, while I can intellectually admire their consistency, give me the willies.

I'm sure there are people who hold deontological justifications for conservative positions.  Surely you've met super-libertarian types.

Why do utilitarian people give you the willies?  Both are accepting first principles in the same way.

Not utilitarians exactly; people who are willing to sign away their own claims that easily unnerve me. As I said I don't view it as morally unsound within the context of a utilitarian position; it's just a little emotively jarring.

Of course there are deontological justifications for conservative positions but I was referring to utilitarianism in terms of signing out on recognition of rights issues that pertain to oneself and one's relationships and people like one so as to acquire tax cuts or whatever. Perhaps utilitarian/deontological isn't the right dichotomy to draw there but I can't at the moment think of a specific better one.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Unfortunately, it also shows that Americans are starting to think the contemporary Republican Party is capable of generating economic success.