NYT Looks at Gay Conservatives

Point:

“I think the trans issue gets more attention than it warrants,” says Jamie Kirchick, a center-right gay writer and visiting fellow at the Brookings Institution who opposed Trump’s military ban but who believes “the gay movement has been overtaken by transgender issues affecting a minuscule percentage of the population.”

Counterpoint:

The unwillingness of many gay conservatives to prioritize the struggle of transgender people comes as little surprise to Richard Goldstein, a gay former executive editor for The Village Voice who published “Homocons,” a scathing book about gay conservatives, 17 years ago.

More. The comments section to the NYT article is full of clichéd comparisons of gay conservatives with Jews supporting Nazis. Well, if you have no understanding whatsoever that there are, in fact, actual arguments for limited government and individual vs. collective rights (not, mind you, that you disagree with such arguments, but that you’ve gone through four years of higher education and think that being conservative (or even libertarian) simply denotes bigotry), then you might assume that ritually reciting this comparison is a game-winner.

Furthermore.

3 Comments for “NYT Looks at Gay Conservatives”

  1. posted by Jorge on

    “Considering how much criticism L.G.B.T. conservatives face from outside their ranks, I was surprised by how often I heard them disparage one another. The assimilationist-minded Log Cabin Republicans, the Trump critics like Sullivan, the deliberately trollish Yiannopoulos acolytes and the conservative-leaning college students coming of age in an era of greater social acceptance have seemingly little in common besides their sexual orientation — and their oft-stated distaste for identity politics.”

    Mmmph. That’s how it is.

    I am saddened that a once moderate person like Chadwick Moore has become a shill for Tucker Carlson. (Slight exaggeration.)

  2. posted by Mike King & David "TJ" Bauler on

    1. IMHO the average gay Republican has decided that gay rights are not as important as issue x.

    2. Both major parties believe in “limited government” and “individual rights”. This is another bait and switch that gay Republicans like to do so. The difference is that Republicans tend to believe in a libertarian view of certain personal rights, but not others. Typically, this involves guns, Christian worship and tobacco. Democrats tend to have libertarian views on a different set of personal rights (i.e. gay rights, pot and non-Christian worship)

    3. The choice in terms of economic policy (within the realm of major parties) is between two versions of modern capitalism.

    The comments section to the NYT article is full of clichéd comparisons of gay conservatives with Jews supporting Nazis. Well, if you have no understanding whatsoever that there are, in fact, actual arguments for limited government and individual vs. collective rights

  3. posted by Mike King & David "TJ" Bauler on

    1. The Log Cabin Republicans have about as many substantive policy victories as the Human Rights Campaign. Despite the fact that people like to view one group or the other as being way more effective then it is or probably will be

    2. Andrew Sullivan has too many ethical lapses to be taken seriously. His book, Virtually Normal (circa 1996?) was interesting and well written. But he has not said much new on the subject of gay rights since then.

    3. Yiannopoulos makes his living being a troll. He can “debate” fools, much like the religious guy that goes around finding youngsters who cannot answer questions (on camera) about evolution.

    The assimilationist-minded Log Cabin Republicans, the Trump critics like Sullivan, the deliberately trollish Yiannopoulos acolytes

Comments are closed.