Most likely openly gay Republican nominee in 2024

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

There will never be an openly LGBTQ Republican Presidential nominee in my lifetime.

This is...way too definitive a statement to make on the issue. (especially since it is LGBTQ and LBTQ)

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

There will never be an openly LGBTQ Republican Presidential nominee in my lifetime.

This is...way too definitive a statement to make on the issue. (especially since it is LGBTQ and LBTQ)

I am a middle-aged gay man and have lived in the United States for my entire life.  I have experienced homophobia first hand.   And I have had decades to observe the actions of the Republican Party and the attitude of their base.  I stand by my statement.

Aren't you a young man in your 20s? You are flat-out saying the GOP will never nominate anyone who is any kind of LGBTI in the time period between now and 2070 (assuming you live to average lifespans for an American, high 70s). Really, I don't think that's a believable statement, especially given the fact SSM is uncontested law of the land now and by that token alone you've removed one very major barrier keeping otherwise R-leaning non-straights from considering the party.
Trump gained heavily among LGBTI relative to 2016, didn't he? (at least in the G part)

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

There will never be an openly LGBTQ Republican Presidential nominee in my lifetime.

This is...way too definitive a statement to make on the issue. (especially since it is LGBTQ and LBTQ)

I am a middle-aged gay man and have lived in the United States for my entire life.  I have experienced homophobia first hand.   And I have had decades to observe the actions of the Republican Party and the attitude of their base.  I stand by my statement.

Aren't you a young man in your 20s? You are flat-out saying the GOP will never nominate anyone who is any kind of LGBTI in the time period between now and 2070 (assuming you live to average lifespans for an American, high 70s). Really, I don't think that's a believable statement, especially given the fact SSM is uncontested law of the land now and by that token alone you've removed one very major barrier keeping otherwise R-leaning non-straights from considering the party.
Trump gained heavily among LGBTI relative to 2016, didn't he? (at least in the G part)

LOL, HELL NO.  The last election I was a "young man in my 20s," Al Gore and George W. Bush were fighting over butterfly ballots and hanging chads in 2000!  

The country has come a long way on gay rights from when I was a young man, but the GOP has not.  The 2016 GOP party platform called same-sex marriage "an assault on the foundations of our society."  The 2020 GOP party platform language maintained its staunch opposition to same-sex marriage and sympathetic language for conversion therapy.

Our laws and our government’s regulations should recognize marriage as the union of one man and one woman and actively promote married family life as the basis of a stable and prosperous society

The platform also supports “the right of parents to determine the proper medical treatment and therapy for their minor children,”

https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/richard-grenell-addresses-rnc-gop-platform-still-opposes-gay-marriage-n1238272

This is not much different from the crap they were saying about us when I was a young man in 1996 and 2000.  So no, I don't see the GOP nominating an openly LGBTQ person in my lifetime.  The idea is laughable.

Also, the idea that Trump made gains among LGBTQ in 2020 is questionable.

The National Exit Poll reported that 64 percent of LGBT voters favored Biden and 27 percent supported Trump. If that’s true, Trump received the highest percentage of LGBT support any Republican presidential candidate has ever received — and LGBT support for Trump doubled since 2016. However, AP VoteCast found that 73 percent of LGBT voters supported Biden and 25 percent Trump, more in line with years past.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/12/01/had-lgbt-voters-stayed-home-trump-might-have-won-2020-presidential-election/

The laughable part isn't the idea the GOP in the recent future would reject the idea out of hand (outside of a Milo Y type). The laughable part is insisting you have a crystal ball that lets you know exactly how things are going to be like over the next 50 years. That's the part I'm quibbling with. It's awash in rank present-ism, projecting attitudes of the present far into the future.
The Jetsons envisioned interstate highways in space as the head of the eponymous household drove his way to work. That is what the future looked like back then. If there is one thing that is most frequently seen in prognostications about the future, it is that they tend to get at least one major thing wrong. The people of 1920 might not have expected what the issues of 1970 were; and the people of 1970 might not have expected what the issues of 2020 were. Why would we be any better at guessing with a high level of confidence what the main issues of 2070 are? Why would we assume with certainty things like LGBT rights stay in the exact same position? That's an indefensible position regardless of one's personal identity, as it would pertain to the debate anyway.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

There will never be an openly LGBTQ Republican Presidential nominee in my lifetime.

This is...way too definitive a statement to make on the issue. (especially since it is LGBTQ and LBTQ)

I am a middle-aged gay man and have lived in the United States for my entire life.  I have experienced homophobia first hand.   And I have had decades to observe the actions of the Republican Party and the attitude of their base.  I stand by my statement.

Aren't you a young man in your 20s? You are flat-out saying the GOP will never nominate anyone who is any kind of LGBTI in the time period between now and 2070 (assuming you live to average lifespans for an American, high 70s). Really, I don't think that's a believable statement, especially given the fact SSM is uncontested law of the land now and by that token alone you've removed one very major barrier keeping otherwise R-leaning non-straights from considering the party.
Trump gained heavily among LGBTI relative to 2016, didn't he? (at least in the G part)

LOL, HELL NO.  The last election I was a "young man in my 20s," Al Gore and George W. Bush were fighting over butterfly ballots and hanging chads in 2000! 

The country has come a long way on gay rights from when I was a young man, but the GOP has not.  The 2016 GOP party platform called same-sex marriage "an assault on the foundations of our society."  The 2020 GOP party platform language maintained its staunch opposition to same-sex marriage and sympathetic language for conversion therapy.

Our laws and our government’s regulations should recognize marriage as the union of one man and one woman and actively promote married family life as the basis of a stable and prosperous society

The platform also supports “the right of parents to determine the proper medical treatment and therapy for their minor children,”

https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/richard-grenell-addresses-rnc-gop-platform-still-opposes-gay-marriage-n1238272

This is not much different from the crap they were saying about us when I was a young man in 1996 and 2000.  So no, I don't see the GOP nominating an openly LGBTQ person in my lifetime.  The idea is laughable.

Also, the idea that Trump made gains among LGBTQ in 2020 is questionable.

The National Exit Poll reported that 64 percent of LGBT voters favored Biden and 27 percent supported Trump. If that’s true, Trump received the highest percentage of LGBT support any Republican presidential candidate has ever received — and LGBT support for Trump doubled since 2016. However, AP VoteCast found that 73 percent of LGBT voters supported Biden and 25 percent Trump, more in line with years past.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/12/01/had-lgbt-voters-stayed-home-trump-might-have-won-2020-presidential-election/

The laughable part isn't the idea the GOP in the recent future would reject the idea out of hand (outside of a Milo Y type). The laughable part is insisting you have a crystal ball that lets you know exactly how things are going to be like over the next 50 years. That's the part I'm quibbling with. It's awash in rank present-ism, projecting attitudes of the present far into the future.
The Jetsons envisioned interstate highways in space as the head of the eponymous household drove his way to work. That is what the future looked like back then. If there is one thing that is most frequently seen in prognostications about the future, it is that they tend to get at least one major thing wrong. The people of 1920 might not have expected what the issues of 1970 were; and the people of 1970 might not have expected what the issues of 2020 were. Why would we be any better at guessing with a high level of confidence what the main issues of 2070 are? Why would we assume with certainty things like LGBT rights stay in the exact same position? That's an indefensible position regardless of one's personal identity, as it would pertain to the debate anyway.

It is bizarre that you keep using that 2070 date.  As I have stated multiple times, I am not a young man in my 20s.  Statistically speaking, it is very unlikely I will still be alive then.

The average lifespan for an American man is around 78 years old.  But let's be optimistic and assume future health care advances have pushed that number in the low 80s.  Given that, I would probably be dead by 2060.

So based on the averages, we could speculate that the last election I will participate in is 2056.  Who here thinks the GOP will nominate an openly LGBTQ person for president by then?   It is a pity I cannot bet $1000 that will not happen.

I wrote that up just before I was going to hit the hay, so I didn't bother to check the years in question. My point still stands undiminished if you swab out 2070 with 2050 or whatever.