How NOT to Win the Gay Vote in Georgia

June 7, 2014 20:45 pm

by Tim Darnell · 49 comments

GOP leaders who want to reach out to gays in Georgia should take heed on how their Lone Star State counterparts are approaching that particular constituency.

The Texas Republican Party now endorses so-called “reparative therapy” for gays, under a platform approved at its annual convention Saturday night.

The AP is reporting that one group called Texas Eagle Forum urged the party to support psychological treatments to turn gay people straight.

All of this comes after Republican New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie last fall signed a law banning such therapies on minors, and California has a similar law.

The Texas GOP recognizes “the legitimacy and efficacy of counseling, which offers reparative therapy and treatment for those patients seeking healing and wholeness from their homosexual lifestyle,” the new platform statement said.

The American Psychological Association has condemned such counseling, saying the practice should not be used on minors because of the danger of psychological harm.

At the convention, gay conservatives did win the removal of decades-old language in the state party platform that states, “homosexuality tears at the fabric of society.”

Harry June 7, 2014 at 11:32 pm

Texas has it right. Opposing homosexuality, and encouraging remediation, is not bigotry.
http://godfatherpolitics.com/15766/opposing-homosexuality-bigotry/

John Konop June 8, 2014 at 7:50 am

Harry,

Now that gay people have come out of the closet statically between family, friends, neighbors….most people know gay people. Similar to the growth in interracial marriage…..When you attack family, relatives, friends……it becomes personal…….The culture war politics in the GOP is an anchor……Which will sink the party on a national basis……One of my best friends daughter is gay…..I promised him if she marries I would go to wedding via any on foreseen schedule issues…..Do you not see the issue? Family, relatives, friends much thicker than politics…..

Harry June 8, 2014 at 9:32 am

Just because we know homosexual people, doesn’t mean it’s not destructive behavior. I know some drunks, adulterers, and druggies too. They all need intervention. Some can’t change and will resist change, I acknowledge that, but some can change.

Chet Martin June 8, 2014 at 10:53 am

Besides Biblical proscriptions, how is homosexuality “destructive behavior?” Before you mention HIV, the high rate of HIV infection among gay men no more proves their iniquity then dirty blood transfusions prove the sinfulness of hemophilia. Not to mention that a majority of those who have practiced “homosexual behavior” are women and that lesbians have a famously low rate of STD infection. What is it about the love between my lesbian friends that is so terrifying?

Harry June 8, 2014 at 11:15 am

Homosexuality is destructive to the human organism and psyche. The high incidence of HIV in male homosexuals is one example, certainly not the only one. But you knew that.

Chet Martin June 8, 2014 at 12:36 pm

Based on what?

Harry June 8, 2014 at 1:39 pm

Average lifespan, for one thing.

Ellynn June 9, 2014 at 2:03 pm

The longest living person in my family was my great Aunt who died at 106. She and her ‘housemate’ started sharing a house in 1919. They were together for 76 years at the time of the housemate’s death at the age of 97.

Harry June 9, 2014 at 7:09 pm

The organic, physical problems generally don’t exist on the lesbian side of the homosexual gender divide. They do however quite often suffer from emotional trauma, psychoses and dependencies. This is the case with hetero infidelity and divorce also. If your relative was truly lesbian and passed on at such advanced age, then God bless her. She certainly managed a low-risk lifestyle.

MattMD June 8, 2014 at 10:43 pm

How do you equate homosexuality as to having a substance abuse problem?

I am glad that the majority of people in this country have come around to accepting homosexuals. People like you are just going to have to die off; I doubt you have the capacity to evolve your thinking.

Harry June 8, 2014 at 11:49 pm

You folks are always talking about how so many people in this country have supposedly changed their thinking to “accept” homosexuality. Unfortunately, 90% of the world still disagrees with your “acceptance” and they’re mostly younger than you or I.

Mrs. Adam Kornstein June 9, 2014 at 11:12 am

Harry, clearly this is just your opinion because all other evidence/polls/law/ doesn’t support your bigoted statements.

Maybe you should be looking for a new home in Uganda, they’re sentencing gay people to death there. You’ll fit right in.

joejohns June 9, 2014 at 3:14 pm

“Majority of people in this country have come around to accepting homosexuals”. Yet every time its placed on a ballot, the people continously vote to uphold marriage as marriage, and that is between 1 man and 1 woman.

I suppose I will just have to die off. Because I won’t be evolving my thinking.

So since you are in the midst of evolving, what will you be evolving to next…accepting marriages of 5 men and 2 women?…accepting pedophiles as a sexual preference?…accepting beastality as a sexual preference, I mean shouldn’t we all get to do whatever we want with things that we own? Because by definition if you are evolving you can’t stop evolving, lest you become a bigot again.

John Konop June 9, 2014 at 6:46 pm

In all due respect your talking about someone’s kid, grand kid, brother, sister….that is the part you are missing…..I have gay employees, relatives and friends….the diference between us is I am more focused on my own short-comings to judge other people. I think if people were more self reflective rather than judging others harshly we would have less issues.

Chet Martin June 9, 2014 at 6:50 pm

That was the story, until ballot initiatives in places like Oregon recognized same-sex marriage. The country is changing. We are better for it.

joejohns June 9, 2014 at 2:59 pm

I completely agree. How is it bigotry for someone to encourage another person to come out of a homosexual lifestyle? And how is it bigotry for someone to decide for themselves that they wish to come out of the homosexual lifestyle? So in the name of “gay rights”, the “gay rights” crowd is saying that a person does not have the right to choose reparative therapy for themselves? In essence, the only rights are “gay rights”???

Homosexuality is harmful and psychologically destructive. You have 2 men and 2 women fighting against nature and trying to replicate something that only 1 man and 1 woman can do. So if a person wishes to have help to heal themselves from such a sad state, why shouldn’t they?

Mensa Dropout June 11, 2014 at 10:50 am

So instead of praying the gay away a la Southpark, we legislate it away?
Not sure which one will be more successful.

saltycracker June 8, 2014 at 9:41 am

Friendly amendment: expand therapy/intervention to include homophobia……under ACA.

Harry June 8, 2014 at 10:27 am

Since when are one’s efforts to intervene and save others’ lives considered a phobia, even if such efforts to a third party seem misguided?

objective June 8, 2014 at 12:17 pm

for one person’s exercise of liberty to be be considered a crime upon another’s, the exercise of the former’s must cause actual harm to the others. not harm in theory. not moral hazard. not “it makes my head hurt to think about how two men can love each other”. if homosexuality makes anybody’s head hurt, that’s not the homosexuality’s fault. witness the ability of people to evolve and learn to accept homosexuality. ask them- like jon huntsman, right?- if they think they’ve grown or been damaged by accepting homosexuality.
on the other hand, the mere offer of “reparative” therapy doesn’t infringe either. it’s just a policy dumbly going against the evolution of the human mind, body, and spirit.

Harry June 8, 2014 at 12:38 pm

Ironic thing about what you write, with homosexuality there’s no natural selection (evolution) happening! Such practices mark the decline of every civilization.

xdog June 8, 2014 at 12:54 pm

The ironic thing is you invoking evolutionary processes to support your point. How then do you explain the continued existence of homosexuals?

Harry June 8, 2014 at 1:32 pm

How do you support the continued existence of gamblers, prostitutes, junkies and alcoholics? Yes, we all contain the seeds of our own destruction. The objective is to sublimate unhealthy urges in ourselves, and admonish others to do likewise. The objective is not to romanticize or to encourage others to support bad behavior.

xdog June 8, 2014 at 6:19 pm

I’d say you have the part about admonishing others down.

Harry June 8, 2014 at 11:54 am

Your ideas are being put into practice in Colorado
http://www.caintv.com/colorado-baker-who-wont-make-g

John Konop June 8, 2014 at 1:44 pm

Not all people of faith believe ” homosexuality” is abomination. Are you saying that if a person excepts a gay relative, friend……as any other human being they cannot have faith? Ironically strange argument, especially from a Christian….ie Jesus was all about not judging others, critical of people who thought rules were more important than love……

Harry June 8, 2014 at 3:48 pm

No, I didn’t say that.

John Konop June 8, 2014 at 4:33 pm

Your post did ie link…..read it…

Harry June 8, 2014 at 5:20 pm

I read it as tough love, maybe shock therapy. It’s required in some cases. You evidently got a different reading.

John Konop June 8, 2014 at 6:03 pm

Harry,

In all due respect this is a clear statement…..I am not sure how you could read it any other way? They believe if you except family, friends……as being gay that you cannot have faith. How would you read it any other way?

……….The secular left wants to remake the order of society in the image of its utopian vision, and people of faith are an obstacle to that dream. The embrace of gay marriage is not so much about the rights of gay people as it is a blunt instrument being deployed to marginalize the Christian faith. If you adhere to the Bible’s teachings about homosexuality, you are at odds with mainstream culture in America, and there is no such thing as live and let live……….

saltycracker June 8, 2014 at 6:57 pm

That makes both of you way off the reservation. So far off that revisiting previous posts on such positions would be a threadjack to Tim’s, correct, headlines.

John Konop June 8, 2014 at 8:14 pm

It is not a thread jack it is the point….the legislation proposed is being done via the same reasons….for the link Harry posted like it or not….It will hurt the GOP in the long run….my point is very clear….to many of us now know gay people via family, friends, work……When you know people on a personal level legislation like this is not helping the party…You really think I would go to one of my best friends and tell him I support sending his daughter to therapy for being gay? If anything it has made people either speak out publicly and or in the voting both….Blood is thicker than water….The polls show it…..

saltycracker June 9, 2014 at 10:07 am

I was referencing that revisiting my past posts on the role of government and churches in defining marriage in order to respond to Harry and your remarks would be getting away from Darnell´s correct headline that gay reparative therapy was not a good political direction.

You laid a strange foundation but came to the right conclusion, the Texas GOP is “how not” to get ‘er done.

John Vestal June 8, 2014 at 10:48 am

In other news, the Texas GOP has endorsed trepanation for the treatment of demonic possession. YMMV.

MattMD June 8, 2014 at 10:51 pm

Next up: Blood-letting for the common cold!

DrGonzo June 9, 2014 at 4:28 pm

Funny thing, doctors still use blood-letting in certain diabetic cases and others.

Leeches as well.

FormerRepub June 8, 2014 at 1:26 pm

Yeah! Let’s hear it for “traditional” marriage…. when men had multiple wives AND concubines! My church told me homosexuals are an “abomination.” I found another church that really meant “Just As I Am.” I changed my mind many years ago when I asked myself “When did I BECOME a heterosexual.” I am heterosexual because I was born that way …. same for my friends who are homosexual.

therightdirection June 8, 2014 at 10:41 pm

I was born with an eye toward attractive females (I’m male) and I often have inappropriate thoughts; I can’t help it. Does that make it moral for me to act on those thoughts, or should I show restraint within a moral framework? Should I be a slave to my impulses?

Bobloblaw June 8, 2014 at 3:45 pm

The TX GOP is able to do this because the TX Dems are so pathetic. Has anyone seen Wendy Davis lately? Plus the increasing base of the TX Dems are hispanic and not too sympathetic to gays

therightdirection June 8, 2014 at 10:39 pm

I was under the impression that sexual orientation is not necessarily static. In fact in undergrad, I specifically remember reading a text book stating that it is malleable. Obviously each person is different and circumstances play a large role. Taking that at face value,why is it so bad for a person that feels a homosexual orientation to seek out a way to overcome it, if they feel the need?

MattMD June 8, 2014 at 10:49 pm

When did you read this book? I don’t think your baseline orientation is all that ‘malleable’.

I have read a study that stated 40% of males had some event in their lives which could be defined as a homosexual experience. I would bet a thousand dollars a certain poster on this thread would confirm this. It is obvious to me that people who have serious issues with homosexuality likely have deep-seated fears of their own desires.

therightdirection June 8, 2014 at 11:11 pm

Baseline may not be malleable, but the book stated over a lifetime it could be. Obviously life events have an effect. 40% seems awfully high, I’d be interested in what events they included. Kind of like that absurd stat paraded around that 10% of adults are gay. Say anything to mainstream it…

http://www.gallup.com/poll/158066/special-report-adults-identify-lgbt.aspx

MattMD June 8, 2014 at 11:48 pm

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1447861/

I think it is believable especially when you factor in the repressed sexuality prevalent in the American South. 40% would not surprise me in the least. I would even wager it is higher in the south.

Mrs. Adam Kornstein June 9, 2014 at 10:22 am

I think ex-gay clinics should be required to have hospital admitting privileges.

Harry June 9, 2014 at 10:27 am

Be careful for what you wish.

Ghost of William F. Buckley June 9, 2014 at 3:58 pm

Except for a really close Atlanta local seat, do you honesty think there any other Statewide elected officials that need to care much about the gay vote?

I do not mean that to be crass or inflammatory to any reader, but honestly, what is the calculus behind the “gay vote?” There is no reason to shun or slam gay voters, but Tent Shrink has left many other, larger constituencies feeling left out and in the cold.

Candid and predictable rhetoric between regular contributors shows how deeply this issue divides people with conservative voting preferences. The GOP has much a larger WIN opportunity in wooing Hispanic and African American folks than it does with the “gay vote,’ whatever that may be.
The “gay vote” is already pretty much sided with the Blue Team, anyway.

Management needs to focus on ’16, because I can assure you that is what the Blue Team has been doing since ’12. All those folks that are slowly coming onto ACA, will be speaking compelling stories in the Summer of ’16.

Guns ‘n Butter in the 21st Century, Baby!

DavidTC June 9, 2014 at 5:36 pm

Some random quote from this article and posts. (Not trying to nitpick wording, it’s just I think it demonstrates the way Republicans are thinking about things.)
How NOT to Win the Gay Vote in Georgia
There is no reason to shun or slam gay voters, but Tent Shrink has left many other, larger constituencies feeling left out and in the cold.

I applaud the Republican effort to not be anti-gay, but I have to point out a slight misunderstanding here that’s perhaps limiting the real issue.

The problem is not if you’re anti-gay, then you don’t get gay people to vote for you. Gay people are a fairly small group.

The problem is that if you’re anti-gay, you get a lot of straight people to not vote for you, either.

At the convention, gay conservatives did win the removal of decades-old language in the state party platform that states, “homosexuality tears at the fabric of society.”

Likewise, it’s probably not specifically ‘gay conservatives’ that got that language removed. I’m sure some of them were gay…and probably others fighting to have that language removed were straight.

The assumption that Republicans like to keep making is that being anti-gay is just turning away gay voters. It’s not. It’s really, really not. It’s turning away huge amount of straight people under the age of 30, for one thing. And people of all ages with gay family and friends.

The Last Democrat in Georgia June 9, 2014 at 6:10 pm

The term “Gay Republican” sounds like an oxymoron.

Dave Bearse June 10, 2014 at 10:38 pm

In the current sense of the word gay, or in its historical sense?

Comments on this entry are closed.