Gay/Lesbian vote historically

[DavidB.]

I also think it would be interesting to see the in the closet/out of the closet breakdown. Openly gay voters have probably always voted to the left, but I wouldn't be surprised if closeted gays were/are significantly farther to the right.

That might be very hard to measure. Many closeted people might also be "closeted" while filling out surveys.

[DavidB.]

I wonder whats the demographic profile of those 30% of gays who vote for the GOP candidate. My guess is that some of it is trolling/checked the box by mistake. While the rest are probably either wealthy gays OR gays that are quite religious.

Why? There are LGBT people who don't think that's what primarily defines their political identity, you know.

Yes, I know the type. Utterly intolerable. Pretentious snobs who have gobs of money because they never had kids, have good careers, and are just "mee mee mee mee" all the way home! (...) they just want their civil rights, but don't want to contribute to the society that makes that and all of their highfalutin' possible.

The idea that LGBT people should automatically vote Democratic just because they are LGBT seems pretty offensive. Perhaps it doesn't work like that in the world of intersectionality, but LGBTs, too, have the right to define their politics themselves. Being LGBT and in favor of same-sex marriage doesn't mean one automatically has to make that a decisive factor when voting.

[DavidB.]

I think many of us came at this with the assumption that, all else being equal, we would expect gay people to have the same voting patterns as black people in the South or natives living on reservation land.  It's interesting that they don't view their historical oppression or need for government services as being anywhere near that level.

Because while it was bad, it wasn't actually anywhere near the level of discrimination and disenfranchisement of black people in the south or Native Americans.

Besides, I think you misunderstood my post. It is not the assumption that LGBTs would be inclined to vote Democratic that I find problematic -- on the contrary, this assumption seems perfectly reasonable. However, in my opinion, this assumption should remain something descriptive, as opposed to something prescriptive. The idea that LGBT people who don't vote Democratic (who could have all sorts of legitimate reasons to do so, most importantly the right not to primarily identify as LGBT or to deem other issues more important) are egotistical or "intolerable", to me, simply seems to effectively deny LGBT people the same "right to choose" -- without being judged negatively -- as non-LGBTs.

[DavidB.]

I think this is the best place for such a discussion. What about a gay libertarian who opposes anti-discrimination law? Are they terrible for being different politically?

It is an interesting discussion in which I'd love to engage, but to me the US Presidential Election Results subforum doesn't seem to be the right place for it.

[DavidB.]

Your elaborate post merits a response on my part, so here I go.

DavidB.,

Point No. 1 is not exactly getting it. It isn’t “political identity.” It’s one’s very own identity.

Sure, but the extent of the "politicalness" of one's own identity is not set in stone. People get to decide on that themselves.

And sexual identity is a major factor in a LGBT person’s identity.

Is it? For everyone? I think people get to decide on that themselves. And even if it is, does this necessarily translate into being a major factor in one's political identity?

A LGBT person who votes Republican—a party whose platform is well-established in being against LGBT people’s rights—may do everything he/she can to suppress himself/herself, which is part of the “compartmentalization”. I mentioned previously but, even if never having had sex with another person his/her entire life, that doesn’t change the fact that we all have a sexual identity and that Republican-voting LGBT person’s efforts to suppress himself-herself fail.

I vehemently disagree. Being LGBT does not mean one automatically has to consider LGBT rights the most important political issue. One can be perfectly happy with one's identity (apart from that, LGBTs, just as non-LGBTs, also have a right not to be happy with their identities), be in favor of same-sex marriage and the like, disagree with the Republican position on this, yet find themselves compelled to vote for the GOP nonetheless, because of, for instance, reasons related to national security.

And, in reality, being not among the majority of people, who are heterosexual, is not avoidable to people who are among the LGBT community. So, that is key to why LGBT people, who make sure to not vote Republican, view those LGBT persons—especially homosexual men—who do vote Republican, for a party which has actively worked against all LGBT people (like with George W. Bush’s 2004 re-election campaign to get a constitutional amendment banning same-sex couples from being able to get married), as being “sick.” Those Republican-voting LGBT persons are looked at as sick because, by voting for a political party actively working against their rights, that is a form of self-loathing.

I can understand this criticism, which is essentially about the question what it is that primarily defines one's identity. Anti-Republican LGBTs think LGBTs should prioritize their identity as LGBTs when voting, and therefore think LGBTs should not vote Republican. The problem with this argument, to me, is that LGBTs have a right to define their own identities, socially as well as politically. To state that all LGBTs should vote Democratic is to negate LGBT people's agency, whereas this agency to define one's own political identity is, in fact, considered acceptable when a person is not LGBT. Therefore, this opinion is problematic in that it denies people the right to define their own identity because of their sexual orientation.

And the compartmentalization of it—with the “excuses” like one’s pocketbook, the lower taxes, the military—are typical of a Republican-voting LGBT person’s attempts to justify his/her votes for a political party which also works against that Republican-voting LGBT person.

You say these are "excuses". Why does that have to be true? Couldn't it be that Republican LGBTs are actually just as accepting of the fact that they are LGBTs as Democratic LGBTs, yet they do actually think one's pocketbook, lower taxes and the military are more important than LGBT rights? (The answer is: yes.)

Point No. 2 is not accurate. LGBT people, who make sure to not vote Republican, are not necessarily urging those Republican-voting LGBT persons—especially homosexual men—to become automatically Democratic-voting. Those non-Republican LGBT people want Republican LGBT persons to stop voting for Republicans because of that party’s positions on the LGBT people and their rights—that the Republicans want discrimination against LGBT people.

- Not all Republicans "want discrimination against LGBT people".
- "People don't necessarily have to become Democrats, they should just stop being Republicans" doesn't really work in a political landscape that effectively functions as a two-party system.

So, if there is anything in this that is “offensive”…it is that the LGBT people, who will not vote for the Republicans, are the ones who are offended by the Republican-voting LGBT persons who do vote for a political party which actively works against the people—including that Republican-voting LGBT person.

You might find that to be offensive, but I find to be offensive the idea that LGBT persons should always take into account LGBT issues as a decisive factor when voting and when defining their political identities. Just as any non-LGBT person, LGBTs have a right to define their political identities as they wish, on issues they themselves deem to be important. Of course everyone has the right to judge and evaluate negatively other people's political views or voting behavior, but let's please not hold LGBT Republicans to different standards than non-LGBT Republicans.

[DavidB.]

Unlike your first post, I don't think these ones merit an elaborate response, DS0816, because you're basically just saying all LGBT people should agree with your analysis regarding 1) the meaning of being LGBT and 2) American politics. This forum is full of LGBT people who don't hate themselves, who are in favor of LGBT rights, who vote Republican, and who think these things are perfectly compatible with each other. Deal with it.