The political, social networking site that integrates politics with popular culture.
The political, social networking site that integrates politics with popular culture.

Profile photo of James L. Riggs
James L. Riggs @jlriggs57aol-com

@grand-vizier

I will try to phrase this to where I am not misunderstood. If it is not read all the way through it may seem I am saying something I am not.

Do I agree with the lifestyle? No. Is it a lifestyle I would pick for myself or a loved one? No. Are there many lifestyles, other than this, that I don’t agree with? Yes. And that’s the reason I live the lifestyle I do, because this is where my personal values have led me, just as anyone else lives by their values.

I have never, and will never, cause injury to, or rally against, anyone who lives without bringing harm to another person. Nor will I support such actions.

Gary, if what I have said offends you or anyone else, I apologize, it was not my intention.

Profile photo of Julia Wotten
Julia Wotten @juliaw

We also cannot deny that the Tea Party rallied behind Chic-fil-A when the founders of the company admitted they were against gay marriage. There are plenty of other examples of this happening.

I think an interesting discussion point would be to see how Tea Party backed candidates have voted on the issues of gay rights. Obviously, if you viewed the video above, the tea party members are overwhelmingly against gay marriage.

Profile photo of FoxWebster
FoxWebster @foxwebster

I’m openly gay and honestly I don’t consider myself republican, democrat or tea party. I consider myself as an American. I grew up with immigrant parents who are now citizens. They consider themselves Americans. We are not divided into class, party or social characteristics. Rather I think we’d be better uniting under a banner of liberty for all. We shouldn’t allow the media as well as political manipulators to determine who we are and who we “vote” for.

The LGBT community has long been defined as a liberal hand of the democrats. The Tea Party is described as a hand of the republican party, well I say are we not sick of being someone else hand? Why not be our own hands for liberty? It’s tragic that the media does such a great job at telling everyone who they are and who they support.

I think at the heart of all Americans, we are lovers of liberty. It should be what unites us. United behind being in America the land of freedom. Being in the land of liberty. Government should never play such a large role in the lives of anyone or in any issue. Companies should operate without fear of government intrusion. Citizens should act without fear of government intrusion. We shouldn’t be divided because liberty is what we all seek.

There is a lot both “sides” of the issue could do to come together for liberty and freedom from government intrusion.

Profile photo of TheChrisDoes
TheChrisDoes @chr1sday

They SHOULD be working together to keep the government off their backs (lower taxes, no Obamacare, no State interference in marriage or the bedroom) but sadly there are two things that prevent this.

1) The Tea Party has an influential social conservative element that doesn’t see the the contradiction in wanting limited government while fighting LGBT marriage and their bad treatment of gays has expunged the right of a good cultural and intellectual milieu which can be found in gay men.

2) This alienation from the Right has pushed the LGBT community to the Left, where they’ve been inculcated with a victim mentality that demands protectionism and entitlement from the State.

Whereas the LGBT activists of yesteryear (the Mattachine Society, etc.) only wanted the State to leave them alone, today’s LGBT political apparatus demands job protection, housing protection, the right to not be offended (see political correctness), special privileges (see gay armed servicemen being allowed to march in the pride parade in uniform), and a plethora of other political favors that rely completely on interference from and enforcement by the State. This entitlement/victim mentality puts them at odds with the Tea Party core philosophy of small government and will continue to do so as long as the Right keeps alienating LGBT’s and the Left keeps using them to increase State power.

Profile photo of Gary
Gary @grand-vizier

@jlriggs57aol-com
Riggs to the contrary I think we are pretty much on the same page.
I think in America we have the right to believe as we choose and others have the same right.
@chr1sday excellent points. I agree with you observations as well. Do you have any ideas how those of us who think likewise on both side of the sexual orientation can bridge the void being created by those who play both sides against each other in order to gain power over us?
@foxwebster,GREAT explanation ! I too think I am an American first ! Your points are right on the money. We need to stop letting the dividers use us.
@juliaw,I confess I had not seen the video and don’t know if it’s accurate. I note it says that the official agenda is NOT anti-gay and that “those with IQs over 80 may have differing views”. Since I doubt I often have discourse with those who have less than 80 IQs I really can’t argue the point. I just don’t know anyone with those views,but that really begs the issue.
My position is that there should be a way forward to co-operate to further the goals we have in common instead of being manipulated to the advantage of others for THEIR goal of using all of us to get what they want.
We are being played as fools on both sides.
I am really glad I started this post and hope to get lots more input.
So far everyone is really making good sensible points ,At least it seems that way to me.
Let’s try to make this a real beginning of better understanding.

Profile photo of TheChrisDoes
TheChrisDoes @chr1sday

@grand-vizier You have to break the Left’s hold on the LGBT community and show that much of what is being offered to them aren’t rights but privileges; there is no right to a job, there is no right to housing. Rights come naturally, if it must be provided then it is not a right.

As to the Right, you’d either have to break the social conservative element (which is plausible given the power struggle within the GOP between the old social conservative leadership and the new and very passionate libertarian faction that came in with Ron Paul) or convince that element that the benefits to be gained outweigh any potential threat that LGBT’s might pose. That would take convincing the LGBT community to move away from seeking to build family lives via marriage and parenting and to go back to what the Germans called Männerbund, communities of gay men who devoted their time to artistic aspirations and homosexual love. While I’d love to see the latter happen, the former is more realistic; we do not have the time for a mass philosophical overhaul of the gay man’s role in society and, even if we did, the majority of people aren’t up to the task of thinking about it or doing anything with it.

We have to wait out the old GOP leadership and strengthen the libertarian faction as much as possible, making the Republicans the new anti-establishment party of choice with the college voter and bringing the youth section of LGBT activists with them. There are a plethora of gay business owners ready to embrace the GOP’s economic policies; the Affordable Care Act is hurting them in the pocket as much as anyone. If we stop the witch-hunt on gays, we’ll have that part of the community.

As to the Left, you have to break the victim-mentality; the 50’s are over and LGBT’s aren’t the persecuted pariah they used to be, and don’t deserve to be or need to be treated as weak and incapable of helping themselves.

Profile photo of Gary
Gary @grand-vizier

@chr1sday
I am a bit dumbfounded at the Mannerbund idea.
The concept of isolating Gay men and restricting them in such ways is unbelievable.You cannot be serious.
I bet there will be plenty of comments about this!
Talk about stereotyping.
It seems to me that the biggest problem with conservatives is that while they want limited government and less intrusion in people’s lives there is a strong faction that wants to intrude into the very most personal aspects of peoples private lives,sex and religion.
This just boggles my mind!
I think I am a conservative and I want Government OUT of my life and your life as well.

Profile photo of Kevlar
Kevlar @kevlar

@grand-vizier
@twocents
@jlriggs57aol-com
@juliaw
@foxwebster
@chr1sday

First a bit of housekeeping. I need some help with Volkalize. When I first joined I was getting notifications in my personal email when someone mentioned me in a Volkalize post. This made it easy to respond to a post.

Recently I have not been getting these notifications in my personal email and several times I have gone to the “settings” page on my account and verified that the box was checked to receive email notifications. Can someone help me with this?

As it is, since I don’t get notifications I often miss out on some good debate. I currently have to go surfing to see if anyone includes me. It has occurred to me that this might be a conspiracy by everyone to exclude me because of my lengthy posts (just kidding). Any help would be appreciated.

On to the discussion at hand:

I tend to agree with Gary and the points he made in the opening post of this thread. I don’t necessarily consider myself a “member” of the TEA Party but I do support much of what they stand for. My reluctance to be a member stems in large-part from a local chapter in my opinion not being in sync with the official TEA Party movement but that is irrelevant.

I would offer one thing to Gary though. That is a minor point on the $459,000,000 worth of military aircraft he said we are leaving behind in Afghanistan. Although I can’t substantiate this (see below) I doubt that Gary would argue against it.

My point is that while that number is not in dispute, I don’t think that total is due to military aircraft. I believe it is military hardware, which probably includes aircraft parts. I seriously doubt that we are leaving aircraft behind, with the exception of foreign military sales and the like.

If we just abandon aircraft on the battlefield they will be used against us in a future engagement. A truck on the other hand is very much different. I am not advocating the abandonment of anything although I do understand some of the logic.

My only reason for even saying this is because I logged many flight hours in tactical aircraft in Afghanistan after 9/11 (and Iraq later) so I probably key in on this more than some. No harm no foul!

I absolutely agree with James’ first post in that I personally don’t agree with the LGBT lifestyle but just as James, I agree that those who do believe in it have the right to pursue their own happiness just as everyone else does.

Julia, the TEA Party in reference to Chick-fil-A, as I understand it supported the constitutionally protected right to freedom of speech used by Chick-fil-A when they stated an opinion of theirs. There is nothing wrong with supporting freedom of speech. Coincidently a large part of the TEA Party may share this opinion but I am reasonably sure that not all members do.

Folks please listen to what FoxWebster said because I believe he has the best input here so far. He said “I’m openly gay and honestly I don’t consider myself republican, democrat or tea party. I consider myself as an AMERICAN [my emphasis].” I have a great deal of respect for that statement. He is acknowledging his rights, particularly his right to the pursuit of happiness, and he is also acknowledging that others have rights as well by stating that he is “an American.”

As a matter of opinion you can agree or disagree with the lifestyle but until that lifestyle actually interferes with your same rights, there is nothing else you can do about it.

Chris (first post), I guess I am confused when you say the TEA Party doesn’t see “the contradiction in wanting limited government while fighting LGBT marriage” and then you contradict that later in the same post. I could have misread that and if I did I’m sorry, but I don’t think I did because you later mentioned LGBT demands for job protection, housing protection, the right to not be offended, special privileges, a plethora of other political favors, and so on.

While I don’t necessarily disagree with your list, that list supports having a bigger government in order to separately and independently ensure these things, and bigger government actually does fly in the face of the stated goals of the TEA Party. My point, and I don’t wish to take sides here (on this point) is that this is not a contradiction; in fact it is consistent with their stated goals.

Chris, this is not an attack. I agree with you in concept but I don’t think there is a contradiction. In fact your second post is pretty good.

Chris your second post is most interesting. I see that you are new to the Volkalize site (as is FoxWebster who joined the same day) and as such I am still trying to figure you out. So far I agree substantially with most of what you have posted.

You mentioned that much of what is being offered to the LGBT community is in fact not a “right” but a “privilege” and you list examples. You have hit the nail squarely on the head.

Then you used a phrase for which I have been looking for quite some time. You said “if it must be provided then it is not a right.” I couldn’t agree more and I wish I had the insight to come up with that on my own. I have been saying that (in concept) for years but never in those clear words. People look at the privileges they have and falsely consider them to be their rights.

As a separate issue and a bit off topic, your phrase “if it must be provided then it is not a right” goes a long way to explain why Obamacare must be defeated (repealed). That is for another thread.

We all have the right to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” as mentioned in the Declaration of Independence. Coincidently this was the sole reason to fight a war against the King of England for our freedom. We felt so strongly about those rights that we formed a government (nation) to guarantee that those creator-bestowed rights would NEVER be taken from us again. For clarity, all of the specific rights listed in the Bill of Rights are included in “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”

Those are our God-given (or creator-given if you prefer) rights and they say that you can do pretty much anything you want to do. We had a lengthy discussion on another thread as to the limits of those rights and because of the length of that discussion I will not copy it here. Suffice it to say that the ONLY limit to your rights are my identical rights. In other words I cannot interfere with your rights and you cannot interfere with my rights. We had some Libertarian input on that and I very strongly disagreed with the Libertarian. I later found that I was not the only one to strongly disagree.

The problem is that, as you so succinctly pointed out, we tend to confuse “rights” with “privileges.” Because you have the right to pursue happiness, any of a million “privileges” are available to you and you can exercise those “privileges” all you want until it interferes with my pursuit of happiness.

Marriage is NOT a right, it is a privilege. Therefore the LGBT community does NOT have a right to get married and as a matter of fact NOBODY has a right to be married. So where then is the problem in reference to marriage?

Marriage, being a privilege, is a matter of law, not a matter of a “right.” Therefore we can write that law as we see fit and that is just what we did. Long ago when the law was written marriage was defined as a relationship between one man and one woman (gays did not fit this legal criteria). Is this fair? Maybe yes and maybe no but that is irrelevant. This is how we (society) decided to write the law at the time it was written. This is a states issue by the way, not a power of the federal government.

Should the marriage laws be changed to allow marriage between two members of the same sex? Some say yes and some say no. Both sides are right and both sides are wrong. This is a matter of opinion and we as society write those opinion-based laws as society sees fit. If enough members of society (voters) want to change that law they certainly can. If they don’t want to change it they don’t have to because marriage is NOT a right.

I have an opinion on this and my personal opinion is that I would prefer marriage to be between one man and one woman, but that is only my personal opinion and I can cast my vote as I see fit. If I lose then I lose and there is nothing I can do about it, nor is there anything I would do about it.

We have to live within the confines of the constitution (although government seems to disagree) and those boundaries are pretty wide but clear. Within those boundaries we can do basically whatever the majority wants to do. Marriage, whether it be gay marriage or non-gay marriage, is well inside those boundaries meaning that society can write that law either way and it would be legal. Again, this is a states issue and not a power of the federal government.

Chris, you did say one thing that I am a bit cautious of and that is that we need to “strengthen the libertarian faction as much as possible.” I agree with some 70% of what the Libertarians stand for because that is constitution based. However, the remaining 30% is so untenable and so unacceptable (in my opinion) that it completely negates the good. These numbers of 70-30 are approximations but indicative of the notion that I agree with more than half of what the Libertarians stand for. I say this with all due respect for the views of others.

Profile photo of Two Cents
Two Cents @twocents

@grand-vizier
@twocents
@jlriggs57aol-com
@juliaw
@foxwebster
@chr1sday
@Kevlar

Great topic @Grand-Vizier, you’re definitely stirring the pot with this one.

First, my opinion:
I consider myself in support of the Tea Party when they stand for smaller government in ALL aspects of our lives. In order the Tea Party to stand for smaller government, I think there are two issues that I am unclear where they stand. I know they stand for economic freedom, lower taxes, less government regulation, the constitution, etc. But I do not know if they are fully against the nanny state when it comes to drugs and marriage. I think if Gays want to get married, they can do whatever they want. Who one legally binds themselves to is none of the governments business.

But gays be advised, marriage is great when you are happy, but when divorce comes around youl’ll soon know the suffering 50% of straight couples feel financially and emotionally! LOL. JK! Had to make a joke.

Anyway back to the point. The question @juliaw asked I think is very important. Where do these politicians stand when it comes to the law. I think that the Tea Party base is capable of holding two understandings of issues in our world: Those that government has a say in, and those that government has no business being involved in. Those that support the Tea Party Patriots could personally be against gay marriage, but realize that the government has no place in the matter. So although they may be against gay marriage, they do not support any legislation keeping gay marriage illegal.

Here are some interesting facts, one of Ted Cruz, Tea Party poster boy’s donors, is gay and a huge pot supporter. See this video I found:

Here is another interesting argument. Many Christians and people against gay marriage fear that once gays are able to marry, will there be lawsuits against pastors that refuse to marry gays. This is a religious freedom issue, and I think that this is also a small government issue. Churchs should be able to refuse ANYONE they want. They should not be forced to marry anyone: gay, lesbian, straight etc. that they feel does not reflect the values of their establishment. So I think any legislation to legalize gay marriage should state that all establishments still have the right to refuse anyone based of their religious values.

So my question to supporters of gay marriage: Can you support a resolution that insures religious establishments will not be sued for denying to marry you? If we legalize gay marriage, we must also protect the rights of religious establishments to refuse anyone.

Profile photo of Nancy
Nancy @hillary2016

Gary…

I’m flattered that you think of me as “prominent in the LGBT movement”. I am a proud lesbian, however I consider myself a community activist, who happens to be a lesbian. I work for preservation and a strong voice for neighborhoods.

I’m not “totally opposed to the TEA Party”. I do believe that there are prominent TEA Party leaders who are not supportive of the LGBT community, but hardly think I (or most anyone I know) would “oppose the TEA Party to my last breath”.

In support of my comment to you about prominent members of the TEA Party and their lack of support for the LGBT community, I include these recent remarks.

November 2013 — Fox News. Ken Cuccinelli, a Tea Party favorite, is known for his hardline conservative views on social issues like abortion and gay marriage.

October 2013 — Former Baptist pastor and Tea Party Unity founder Rick Scarborough spoke with conservative activist Peter LaBarbera on Thursday about potential anti-gay strategies, including a class action lawsuit against homosexuality.

October 2013 — Ben Carson, who became a tea party hero after he lectured President Barack Obama about a flat tax during the National Prayer Breakfast earlier this year, said that he drew fire from liberals when he suggested to Fox News host Sean Hannity that same sex marriage was like pedophilia and bestiality.

With that said, there are moderate Republicans in the TEA Party, like yourself, who support relationships like Ann’s and mine.

Profile photo of Gary
Gary @grand-vizier

There are too many voices to note each separately now, so I just have to hope you are all following.
@twocents, the video is interesting but makes far too many unsupported conclusions for my taste. They keep stating things with no factual foundation about what they think someone else’s beliefs are.

I think the female commentator was much more accurate when she tried to explain how Ted Cruz’s ideas were in line with the contributor but each of them was clearly slanting the topic instead of being objective.
I had a chance to meet Ted Cruz and talk to him one on one last year and he expressed NONE of the anti Gay thoughts being mentioned nor is he a Luddite that opposes research ,science etc.
He opposes the USA going BANKRUPT! Me too.
Surly thats a position the LGBT should also support.
Nancy,If there exits a video of Ben Carson saying what you describe please post it or send Volkalize the link. While I have my doubts he actually said that, I have an open mind and if its true he’s off my good list.
I do not support ANY hardline positions involving the personal lives of ANYONE ELSE and firmly believe those topics should not be in the Government’s scope of interest.
I think my CONSERVATIVE views should be aligned with the LGBT position on this issue.
Kevlar , I am really glad you are chiming in on this.Your comments are right on as usual ,now that you have brushed up on your history. LOL!

Profile photo of TheChrisDoes
TheChrisDoes @chr1sday

@Grand-vizier I only stated that it was my ideal, not a proposition for law. Homosexual men are notoriously gifted in fields of culture, art, music, etc. and what with the decline of Western Civilization I see that as being their best and most useful place. The idea of gay men being family men, parents, and spouses is only a recent phenomena, mostly having to do with Leftist attempts to normalize gay issues to the public: a Dr. Jekyll to the Mr. Hyde of gay pride parades if you will.

@kevlar Granted, anything given is not a right, marriage is never given; it is always (or should be) a mutual and voluntary contract between all parties involved. The demand for gay marriage is not a demand for the State to make contracts but rather to stop preventing them and give the legal recognition given to heterosexual marriage contracts. It’s my belief that the State shouldn’t be in the business of licensing marriage (or anything else for that matter) in the first place, but so long as it does, it must not prevent the making if contract and must give all the same recognition. It is not a private party and does not have the luxury of getting to choose which of the citizenry it gets to do business with.

Profile photo of Kevlar
Kevlar @kevlar

@grand-vizier
@twocents
@jlriggs57aol-com
@juliaw
@foxwebster
@chr1sday
@hillary2016

Chris:

Your points are valid and your support for them is good but I have a question. You say that marriage is never given and you support that with clear and rational logic that can be summed up by the words “mutual and voluntary contract.”

My question although it is not stated as a question, is this: the concept of marriage is not “given” but the marriage “license” is given by the state (the fact that you pay 12 dollars for it is inconsequential and irrelevant). I acknowledge your belief that the state shouldn’t be in the business of licensing marriage but it is (right or wrong).

A marriage has foundations in at least two areas. First it is founded basically in religion. If one doesn’t want to think in terms of religion then it can be thought of as the aforementioned personal commitment of consenting people. How you parse that depends on your belief or disbelief in a higher power. Either way, the point is that this aspect is separate from the state.

However, there is a state aspect also. That includes things like taxes, co-ownership of assets, legal authority to make decisions that affect the other partner and do so in their absence such as medical decisions if the other person is incapacitated. There are several reasons why people want to legalize gay marriage and medical decisions is one of them.

As long as society accepts these state implications then the state probably has some say in the matter. I have nothing against gay marriage from a legal or constitutional standpoint and I believe that if people want to make gay marriage legal then they, society, have the power to change the law to allow that. Some states have already done so.

As I stated earlier I personally would probably cast my vote to keep marriage between one man and one woman because for me marriage is steeped in tradition. This may sound selfish of me but when I turn 80 years old I don’t want my nephew’s kids coming to me and asking if my marriage 50 years ago was to a man or woman. If this is selfish then I will forever be a selfish person but that is my personal opinion. I have only one vote to cast and if I lose then so be it, I will deal with that. This is my preference only.

As another point on my personal views, I have no problem with gays having a bond identical to the bonds of marriage. I just don’t want it to be called “marriage.” If they want all the legal benefits of marriage such as tax issues, ownership issues, inheritance issues, and medical decision issues, then I have no problem with that. Just don’t call it marriage. I have one vote to cast and I will cast it in that direction. If I win, I win – if I lose, I lose. I have the freedom to speak but not the freedom to rule, and neither does anyone else.

Since “marriage” is not a “right” it can be controlled by law. That doesn’t mean that it must be controlled by law but over time that is what society has chosen to do. If society decides to remove and repeal all laws pertaining to marriage they can do so but they will also have to eliminate all tax consequences (many of which favor marriage, but some don’t) and other things such as the ability to make medical decisions for an incapacitated spouse because these would be absolutely ripe for abuse even more so than today.

I absolutely believe that if a governmental body is going to control things related to marriage (again I acknowledge your point that no governmental body should control marriage) that it is a states issue and specifically NOT a power of the federal government.

That said if some states recognize gay marriage and other states don’t, that could and probably will create problems. If two guys get married in a state where it is legal and then move to a state where it is illegal and one goes into the hospital and needs to have medical decisions made by the other, yet the state doesn’t recognize the marriage, then what? Does the state make that crucial medical decision? Oh I forgot, we now have Obamacare and that will solve all our problems (not hardly).

In the above scenario, I don’t think you can make that many exceptions to a single law and still have the law be meaningful so the best answer would probably be to make it so that no person anywhere can make a medical decision for an incapacitated spouse. This would defeat a large reason for gay marriage in the first place and further damage what is already in place. My point is that even though it is a state issue (not federal) it needs to be consistent among all states and that would be difficult.

Profile photo of James L. Riggs
James L. Riggs @jlriggs57aol-com

@grand-vizier
@twocents
@kevlar
@juliaw
@foxwebster
@chr1sday
@hillary2016

A Will would solve a lot of the legal issues for what happens in case of death, not all, and a medical power of attorney would take care of the medical decision making. Having titled or deeded items like land, houses, cars, boats, motorcycles, etc. put in both names would also solve a lot of issues.

I wonder if this is about a legal ceremony or if it’s about having the ability to use a certain terminology?

It seems that when there is a long standing tradition someone or some group wants to make the tradition null and void, and I’m not just talking about this issue, nor am I pointing a finger at any one group.

We have many traditions in this country that are being attacked daily.

Profile photo of Gary
Gary @grand-vizier

Well my opinion is that personally I am tired of having the TEA Party crashed by folks with the intent to use the TEA party for their agendas.
I don’t care if they are for or against Gay Marriage,Pro or Con Life,want to legalize or prosecute Pot,ban Guns or Arm everybody from kindergarten on up.
It’s the TEA party and surely all of us ,or at least most of us know the Government wastes huge amounts of money and so long as they get us to pay for it and it buys votes no one in Washington gives a damn!
We have to demand spending be controlled and waste stopped,not raise taxes to have more Money to throw away.
I see no reason for the LGBT movement not to agree with that and if side issues are preventing that joint agreement I want to sort it out.
I ask all of you to consider this and help get it done if you agree with this central idea !

Profile photo of James L. Riggs
James L. Riggs @jlriggs57aol-com

@grand-vizier
@twocents
@kevlar
@juliaw
@foxwebster
@chr1sday
@hillary2016

As long as the government can keep us at odds with each other, over issues like this, they will continue to do “business as usual” and taxes and the government will continue to grow bigger and bigger. Hence the continuing talk about racism and all the other topics designed to keep us separated.

Profile photo of kimberly
kimberly @ladylibertarian

This is a wonderfully informative post. I saw on facebook the other day a link to a survery which I filled out thinking that the Tea Party was completely against giving gays equal rights, which I find appalling. My major problem with the Republican party and tea party and all conservative groups is that they have been taken over by hardcore religious Christians who think that their social opinions should be imposed, while simultaneously complaining about government intervention. You can’t have it both ways.

Profile photo of Alex Butler
Alex Butler @thatdudeyoulike

A movement is shaped by it’s people. The fact that I can’t name a single…a SINGLE Tea Party politician that is a gay rights supporter and an advocate for marijuana legalization should say something about the movement as a whole. I think Republicans/Tea Partiers often drive gays away from them with their social authoritarian policies. Luckily Libertarians are much more accepting of social progress like LGBT rights and marijuana legalization. So homosexuals no longer need to seek refuge in the Democratic Party. I think Tea Party Republicans in general are pretty hypocritical when it comes to social and even economic issues. I find they are pro business rather than pro market(HUGE difference). Just my two cents on the subject.

Profile photo of Kevlar
Kevlar @kevlar

@grand-vizier
@twocents
@jlriggs57aol-com
@juliaw
@foxwebster
@chr1sday
@hillary2016
@ladylibertarian
@thatdudeyoulike

Alex:

For not even being a member for a full 24 hours you sure have some contentious statements to make (referring to this and the “principled non-voter” thread). I’m not complaining, I just thought it was noteworthy. That said, welcome to a great place to discuss and debate. This isn’t my site but I think whoever the owner might be would probably agree that your ideas are welcome.

The fact that you can’t name a single TEA Party politician who is a gay-rights supporter is something you should be thankful for. For the record, I can’t either.

Anyone who supports gay rights is in one form or another destructive to this country, specifically in the “created equal” part. You might think that a rather contentious statement but let me explain.

There is no such thing as “gay rights” and in a free country where we are all created equal there never will be. I challenge you to name a single “gay right” because for every right you list and attribute to “gays” only I will make the case that non-gays have the same right. Please use caution to not list privileges as “rights.” Also, for the record, I am not against gays having the same opportunities as non-gays. However I do reserve my right to vote as I see fit.

We as free Americans have many rights and they can all be summed up as the right to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Everyone has the same rights regardless of whether they are gay or otherwise.

If someone believes they have “special rights” by virtue of the fact they are gay, they are trying to place themselves in a class above all others. That is wrong according to how our country works. I don’t know any Libertarian with half a brain who would argue that.

Please explain; because I am seriously confused on this, how there is a “HUGE difference” between business and market. So that you where I am coming from I believe that if there is no market then there will be no business because there will be no-market need for the business to satisfy with a product or service. On the other hand if there is no “business” then there will be no need for a market place to sell or trade your goods and services because without business there will be no goods and services.

Business and markets are very closely related and very much depend on each other. One cannot exist without the other. Please explain what you mean by a “HUGE difference.” Thanks.

Profile photo of Alex Butler
Alex Butler @thatdudeyoulike

@kevlar

Yes I often come across as firm in my beliefs, and fairly strong headed. I rarely think of this as a detriment to my character although I do get carried away sometimes.

A good chunk of the gay rights movement, in particular the liberal side, advocate for special privileges granted to gays like legislation preventing businesses from refusing service, legislation preventing “sexual discrimination” in the workplace and other irrational laws. I am not one of those gay rights activists. I simply want equal opportunity for people of all sexuality. Basically I just want government to STOP making personal decisions for the populace. If gays want to marry, let them marry. If gays want to engage in sodomy, let them do it. Government should not be using law to enforce personal ideas onto others. Both sides of the field make this mistake. Gay rights activists want to force their sexuality onto others via law, traditionalists want to force their dislike of gays onto others via law. I simply propose not pushing EITHER via law, legalizing it all…and allowing for equal opportunity.

As for your inquiry about my pro-business vs. pro-market statement. Surprising as it may seem, “Pro-business” does not necessarily mean “pro-market.” In fact, many who call themselves “pro-business” actually work against the market and restrict the economic freedom upon which our prosperity depends.

Because businesses provide jobs and make other positive contributions to communities, both “sides” agree that government should promote business. Where they differ is over how. Pro-business advocates believe the government should directly assist specific businesses or industries through subsidies, tax breaks, or other advantages. Pro-market supporters reject this. They argue that government should simply ensure a level playing field for competition. Basically they nurture a competitive market in which businesses compete for customers. The companies that provide the best working conditions for employees, that create the best products, that have the lowest prices…will flourish. Those that don’t, will go out of business.

The truth is that intervention in the marketplace harms everyone, except those directly receiving the benefits, of course. When the consumer is no longer the deciding factor in whether a business succeeds or fails, businesses direct more and more of their resources toward securing government favors and less and less on pleasing customers. Corruption and cronyism often result. And it’s always the taxpayers who end up having to pay for it all.

So long story short: “pro-business” is not “pro-market.” One allows government officials to choose which businesses and industries get an advantage over others; one supports a fair marketplace in which all compete equally.

Profile photo of Kevlar
Kevlar @kevlar

@thatdudeyoulike

Alex:

I think you and I are dangerously close to saying the same thing. We just use different words to say it.

If I understand you correctly you do not support “gay rights” but you do support individual rights. In addition to that you believe the rights and privileges we all have should be equally accessible to everyone regardless of sexual orientation or race or any number of things that one prefers to do or be. If I have that correct then I think we are in lock-step on this issue.

I’m not sure I agree with you on the business/market thing though. As a conservative I am very pro-business and very anti big-government. I consider myself to be pro business yet I absolutely and adamantly oppose government directly assisting ANY specific business.

Furthermore I am against the government assisting a specific industry but honestly I would admit that I am not quite as much against that as assisting a specific business. Case in point: I am very much against having the federal government assisting Solyndra (a maker of solar panels) but I am not as much against the federal government assisting (when reasonable) the renewable fuel industry. I will concede that and I do not even advocate global warming. I don’t subscribe to the global warming issues of the day. I think it is a scam.

I don’t know a single conservative who sanctions having the government financially assist a specific business though. Funny that assisting specific businesses is exactly what Obama has done much to the detriment of the country. At least when Bush did it (a mistake in my opinion) he did it with an industry.

An pro-business economy where business competes for customers is an economy where you have the most satisfied customer because he wants a quality product at a reasonable price. If the business can’t supply both of those to the customer the customer will go elsewhere and the business will go broke. This is free-market capitalism at its finest (unfortunately we allow the government to over-regulate it though). Free-market capitalism is very pro-business and very pro-consumer yet within the same paragraph you both support AND condemn it.

You describe in pretty accurate terms why government interference in the free market is harmful to everyone.

Part of your post is spot on. That said, your notion that “pro business” is not “pro market” is totally misstated. If you are pro-business then you are pro-market and pro-consumer but anti big-government. On the other hand if you are pro big-government then you are anti-business, anti-market, and anti-consumer. Sadly, to take that one step farther if you are anti-capitalist you are anti-American (in my opinion).

Alex, you may consider yourself to be a Libertarian, I don’t know and don’t care, but you do have some conservative principles. For the record, Libertarians and conservatives do share some principles, yet differ substantially on others.

Good debate.

Profile photo of Alex Butler
Alex Butler @thatdudeyoulike

@kevlar

There are many conservatives/liberals who advocate for special treatment of certain businesses through bailouts and subsidies. Many conservatives that I’ve met believe that if an industry or a big corporation is on the verge of collapse, that the government needs to save them to save jobs and to stabilize the economy. That is contradictory to the ideas of a free market where businesses compete naturally; completely free from government intervention, whether “positive” or “negative.”

I think you slightly misunderstood where I was coming from on this specific topic.

Some major differences between “pro business” and “pro market”

Pro Business: Government should make special tax provisions for specific industries
Pro-Market position: Equal tax rates for all

Pro Business: Government should give out grants to individual businesses
Pro-Market: Government shows no preference to individual businesses

Pro Business: Government should use eminent domain to make way for private development
Pro Market: Eminent domain should never be used for private interests

Pro Business: Government should make loans to businesses that can’t secure them in the private sector
Pro Market: Government should not be making loans to businesses at all

Pro Business: Government should impose tariffs to protect domestic industries from global competition
Pro Market: Tariffs increase prices for consumers, and should not be imposed.

Those are just a few of the differences between being “pro business” and “pro market.” Please excuse my broad generalization of conservatives, I was just basing my observation off of conservatives I’ve met personally…who were staunch pro business.

One of the main reasons I say that capitalism is not pro-business, is because big corporations are very opposed to the free market. It will cut off their subsidies, and open the market up the competition. Businesses FEAR capitalism because it means they have to actually work for their money instead of currying political favors.

When the government supports certain companies or industries over others, the special interests unfairly benefit. Economic freedom is what can bring prosperity and opportunity to all. That’s why we must make sure we are not just “supporting business” but always upholding the virtues of the market. Even if it may prove detrimental to business.

Profile photo of Gary
Gary @grand-vizier

@thatdudeyoulike
@ kevlar
Alex you hit a lot of good points, I agree ,but unless we are trying to form a bond of agreement on this with the LGBT/ TEA PARTY,(a fine thing) perhaps a bit off the LGBT vs TEA Party track.
I love Volkalize but we ( especially me) really wander in our thoughts.

Profile photo of Steve Ja
Steve Ja @sdj54321

I support the TEA party on a lot of things smaller government and fiscal responsibility is what I believe it was founded on in the first place. I am in favor of smaller government and fiscal responsibility and a balanced budget myself. I have ideas on how to get there, but those are sensitive topics for another article.
As far as the LBGT part of it. I do not live that lifestyle, however I believe people should be free to live how they choose, as long as it is not violent, or involve illegal drugs(another topic for a different article). I also support Same sex marriage. It does not affect *Traditional* marriage in any way and people should be free to choose who they marry, regardless of gender.

Profile photo of Gary
Gary @grand-vizier

@thatdudeyoulike
@ kevlar
I am so pleased to have started this post just to watch Alex and Kevlar discuss this.
Alex, for me not to be able to name a gay rights Tea Party supporter (or detractor) is rather the my point.
I don’t want Tea Party issues to be other than “Taxed enough already”and that’s why I hope the Tea Party and LGBT people can join forces to agree on that point.
That benefits most of us.
Other personal beliefs ,for me at least,can be left at the door.
Letting the Politicians divide us with the other issues so they keep sucking the lifeblood out of us is the problem .
I find myself in agreement with your views,Steve’s also. Great posts.

Profile photo of Peter T. Burke
Peter T. Burke @peter-t-burke

@grand-vizier
@twocents
@jlriggs57aol-com
@juliaw
@foxwebster
@chr1sday
@Kevlar

I have the same issues as Kevlar with the notifications from Volkalize so it must be an inclusive conspiracy to exclude.

I do have a question for anyone who care to answer it.

Why do I have to know what somebody is doing in somebody’s – anybody’s, crotch?

The only way I know what somebody’s sexual preferences are is if they choose to inform me. I don’t ask, I don’t care and I don’t really want to know unless I am going to have sex with them and then it is strictly between ourselves and no one else.

The various groups who are determined to keep me informed of how and why they do what they in somebody’s crotch are just like the young man who comes to me looking for a job – he has face tattoos, a couple of nose rings, some things that look like washers in his ears, he is wearing the remnants of what appears have been a obscene T-shirt, he has his pants pulled down to around his thighs, and he is smoking a cigarette. He is absolutely convinced that the reason I won’t even interview him is that he is ___________ (fill in the blank -black, muslim, homosexual, Catholic, from somewhere over the rainbow, etc.) It certainly couldn’t be because he would offend and enrage my clients with his chosen appearance and costume.
Every loser has a complaint list as long as a roll of toilet paper.

If somebody doesn’t include me in the details of their private life I don’t feel at all deprived.

When somebody does include me in the details of their private life I feel perfectly free to say what ever is on my mind. It’s not that I am insensitive to the trials and travails of their woeful lot in life – it’s that I just don’t care. (for those who would like a better understanding look on YouTube for “Cell Phone Crashing”)

I have never encountered a TEA party member who posited that the reason he was a TEA party member is because of what somebody does in somebody else’s crotch.

The overwhelming issue and concern has consistently been the issue of excessive taxation and a vast bloated government that is entirely out of control.

Second question: What would these people who feel compelled to share their crotch news with anyone at hand, do if they didn’t have something to complain about?
Why not just let them complain? What is going to be accomplished by responding to their complaints? Once fixed the complaint will simply be replaced.

Si non hoc, igitur quod (If not this, then that) One complaint is as good as another.

Profile photo of Gary
Gary @grand-vizier

@peter.t.burke
@kevlar
@ jlriggs57aol-com
@alex
@ thatdudeyoulike
@twocent
@hillary2016
Hilarious,
I have never met a TEA PARTY member that wanted that discussion either but have met LGBT folks that think TEA party members,in spite of the name of the TEA party have that on their minds!
That’s why I started this post.
To change the dialog that politicians use to divide people into opposing groups that may otherwise have common interests such as being taxed to death in order to provide vote buying money.
As to notifications,the Volkalize site has Been having a technical issue with that.
I am not knowledgeable enough to understand the problem but it will be fixed and has NO INTENT to leave anyone out or censor .
I am so pleased to get the quality of views that have been received on this topic.
I can’t say it in Latin ( I did poorly in Latin class)but I have a similar expression
“Excuses are like assh***s,everyone has one”.

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

In order to comment you must:
SIGN IN

or

CREATE A PROFILE
VIEW SIMILAR TOPICS