Cognitive Dissonance Being Gay & Republican

[pellaz]

Cognitive Dissonance of Being Gay and Republican

Cognitive Dissonance
a 1960's technical phyc term where a person has conflicting beliefs that generate latent hate. An example is the homophobic parent who is unsure of his sexuality but by keeping the focus of his family narrow was able to cope for 17years and raise his children.

reference


The moral majority wing-nuts have managed to totally distract the republican party away from the issues of jobs, economy and in general any tough decisions.
-Obama is not the idealist he was elected to be but he is creating a basis of peace and prosperity. He was given nothing to start with, the US has lost the war on terror and now can feel it at a personal level; recession. So sad. It will be a long struggle to regain second place behind the Chinese/ Foxconn.

-I dont see the 3-8% gay population of a old genetic variance changing society. It is not like we need to breed any more past the 6.66 billion. Who is this craigslist boy??

better recognized, former Romney manager, wannabe GOP AZ Congress man ??


before the gayspeak members go negative on this remember to check out of your closet. Serious there are still some conservatives here but look at their profile. Embrace the Cognitive Dissonance of Being Gay and Republican.

[Sylph]

I actually agree with you Pellaz, but on certain things :/

I've heard of Cognitive Dissonance, as before I was born, a relative of mine was in denial of his homosexuality and therefore raped multiple women and was later charged for it. He even tried to kill one woman and now he's behind bars (probably for the best :tongue: jk), but people know he is related to me. We don't have republican/democrates here per se, but a different form of it.

I remember when Obama was first made president and people wanted him to be assassinated and what not because he is black(or half black if you want) and now some religious groups/people want him gone because he's allowing things the church has buried for so many years. Free Birth control, and the like, some people even blame him for the gay marriage approvals that have been spreading around the world.

Personally, I love Obama, and not just because he's black(half black), but because he's trying to make the world a better and more equal place, for everybody. Bush would've never, ever done the things Obama is doing and I think that the republicans are just bitter that the world is moving on without them, while they're stuck in the 50's & 60's. No offense to anyone, but the world and society with it is moving on from the old ways and into a new era and the republican ideals are holding us back.

I'm not technically into politics, but I do know what side I agree with more and therefore am not a fan of the republican idealisms. I really wish people wouldn't allow Barack to be replaced so soon, but because of the overwhelming amound of "gayness" in the world today, some people are afraid and want to go back to how things used to be.

I also agree with your 3-8% statement. Straight men have this idea that they're so attractive that we have to automatically go after them and "infect" them and then are dissapointed/angry when we don't.

History Lesson

I've read that, it is believed that the reason why gay men are the way we are can root back to cave men days.

Straight men go after women = Children/Sex
Straight Women go after men = Children/Protection
Gay men go after other gay men = No competition towards either

This was pretty much the basic foundation to a tribe/community.

There's a study in the gay male brain that states that, although we are male, the female part of our brain that recognizes emotions and pain are significantly larger than our straight counterparts. Also, it is thought that; the age old "womans intuition" is amplified in gay men, because(no offense to women) they say men are more singularly focussed, while women have a tendency to have multiple things on their mind, making them less effective. They believed this intuition allowed gay men to be able to foretell when a storm was coming or a danger was upon the tribe, so they would hold the gay man in high esteem.

It is believed that the only male allowed to become a "shaman" of sorts, was the resident gay male and he was the one the leader of the tribe went to for conformation, as he was believed to be able to know whether or not trouble or danger would come from the decision the leader made.

The Gay men didn't fight the women for clothes/ resources for their children, since they didn't have any and didn't fight the men for the women, as they don't like women. They were considered the "middle ground" and were the peace makers of the tribe. They say that, were it not for gay males in a tribe, they would've either died from natural disasters, gone unseen by them or from fighting within the tribe, for resources/mates and what not.

The Gay males back then were buried like women(facing the east I believe, with pots and bowls), but had the same articles a man would have(tools, weapons), along with their own special possessions (like the shamans robe and what not).*
Back to present day

So people in today's society should think again when they think about gay people and how they affect them. Without us this world would probably be worse off.

This is why I don't particularly like politics, because they keep trying to organize the world into a way they see fit, especially the republicans.

I feel like, they should make everything fair for everyone, not this "oh if we give you free birth control, you're eternally condemned by god for destroying a life" business. I think that's ludacris! Also, the fact that that case was handled by majoritively males, when it was a womens issue, is just another way for men to feel in control and powerful over women. Same for gay men, they treat us like women, because we happen to not fit in with their "group", so the only other group is women and history shows us that "men" were the rulers and were more powerful and better than women.

Oh gosh, let me stop now before I go on another rant :tongue: .

Being Gay and Republican to me is like being Gay and the Pope. But atleast the Pope actually blesses gay marriage and doesn't condemn them to burning at the stake.

*
Gay Caveman- http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopi...found.html

[ceez]

I'm going a little off topic but its related to what QueenOdi said.
the Eunuch where gay/bi people but some were not given a choice, here is the Wiki definition.

A eunuch (play /ˈjuːnək/; Greek: Ευνούχος is a person who (by the common definition of the term eunuch) has been castrated, typically early enough in his life for this change to have major hormonal consequences. Less commonly, in translations of ancient texts, "eunuch" may refer to a man who is not castrated but who is impotent or celibate.

Castration was typically carried out on the soon-to-be eunuch without his consent in order that he might perform a specific social function; this was common in many societies. The earliest records for intentional castration to produce eunuchs are from the Sumerian city of Lagash in the 21st century BCE.[1][2] Over the millennia since, they have performed a wide variety of functions in many different cultures: courtiers or equivalent domestics, treble singers, religious specialists, government officials, military commanders, and guardians of women or harem servants.

something else interesting, in the bible Eunuchs are mentioned and in a positive way. look up Matthew 19:11-12.

on the issue of being gay and republican, I could see myself voting for some republicans but when it gets to the point were the candidate wants to run a nazi like government and hunt down anyone he disapproves of I have to go democrat. my grandmother still refuses to vote republican because of the segregation days, it was years even after it was over before there was a Republican candidate that didn't want to bring it back.

[Inchante]

I don't know if it is necessarily "cognitive dissonance". Not all people in the Republican party are Republican because of social issues. And, if more Republicans were true to their beliefs in small government, there would be no conflict between sexual minorities and Republicans at all. I think, in order for this "cognitive dissonance" theory of yours to play out you would have to paint the Republican party and all its constituents with a very broad brush indeed. But, in earnestness, there is a great variety of perspectives that fit under "Republican" just as there are a great variety of perspectives that fit under "Progressive". Remember that African Americans (the majority of whom are Democrats) were the swing vote on Prop. 8.

Just today I found a rather interesting bit from the Huffington Post regarding former Republican Sen. Alan Simpson's (you'll remember the Simpson Bowles Plan) condemnations of Santorum for his Homophobia.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/22...93757.html

And then there are the Log Cabin Republicans, you really couldn't work for this organization without being open in regard to your sexuality. So, perhaps "cognitive dissonance" may be true for some gay Republicans, but it certainly is not a universal characteristic of the group.

[pellaz]

... Not all people in the Republican party are Republican because of social issues.

of the US 2.25 party system no other party rides with Jesus so much. They drag the social issues along to distract the population and shock value.

... you would have to paint the Republican party and all its constituents with a very broad brush indeed. But, in earnestness, there is a great variety of perspectives that fit under "Republican" just as there are a great variety of perspectives that fit under "Progressive".

just there is 91% LESS pro religion and anti gay rhetoric in the Democratic domain.

[East]

I am a socialist at heart so even the Democrats are often hard for me to vote for....I usually end of voting against someone rather than for someone. The politicians defined as "liberal left" I usually have no problem with.

As much as I have a problem with alot of Democrats...Republicans are not even on the radar. The party of greed, The party that wants less government (bad idea) but wants to legislate your body...wants to legislate morality...wants to introduce theocracy and let the government rule from the Bible.....

I can understand a fiscally conservative POV from a gay person but to support someone who wants to insure you are a second class citizen...cognitive dissonance....absolutely.

[Inchante]

of the US 2.25 party system no other party rides with Jesus so much. I would have less issue with the Republican party if this were not so. They drag the social issues along to distract the population and shock value.



just there is 91% LESS pro religion and anti gay rhetoric in the Democratic domain. You dont see Obama for prop8, maybe he could push gay issues more directly. Hopefully more changes for his second term.

Oh, I don't disagree with you. Gay rights is used as a wedge issue to distract voters from more pressing issues. But, again, that is not the only reason to vote or not vote for a person or to ally yourself with a certain political party. Many people including gay people have a variety of issues they are concerned about. For instance, I believe that there needs to be a more even distribution of wealth in the United States and the world in general, I believe in a woman's right to chose, I believe that war should be a last resort, and I believe that environmental regulations are necessary for the continued well-being of humanity (though, there are times where I would just rather see the human species go extinct through its own idiocy). Some gay people even think that there are more important issues to vote on than gay rights in America. And I don't disagree with them, there are more important issues to vote on. But therein lies the clincher, some gay people do not agree with me on what those issues are or what the right course is to address those issues. So, they do not fit under the bracket of "Liberal". I don't think that that makes all those gay people who disagree with me subject to "cognitive dissonance".

Indeed, there could be a very legitimate argument made that those who want everyone to share the same perspectives and opinions suffer from cognitive dissonance, as difference is an inherent part of Democracy and is beneficial to society as a whole. Desiring otherwise is self-destructive. Yet, I would say that we all very much want people to agree with us.

[pellaz]

... Republicans are not even on the radar. The party of greed ...

they dont care who they step on, maybe YOU



Boos for Gay Soldier at Republican Debate

[Inchante]

they dont care who they step on, maybe YOU



Boos for Gay Soldier at Republican Debate

I'll let my most recent post stand as an answer to this.

[pellaz]

Indeed, there could be a very legitimate argument made that those who want everyone to share the same perspectives and opinions suffer from cognitive dissonance, as difference is an inherent part of Democracy and is beneficial to society as a whole. Desiring otherwise is self-destructive. Yet, I would say that we all very much want people to agree with us.

please recall the OP's (me) original definition of Cognitive Dissonance as
a 1960's technical phyc term where a person has conflicting beliefs that generate latent hate. An example is the homophobic parent who is unsure of his sexuality but by keeping the focus of his family narrow was able to cope for 17years and raise his children.





i am saying the homophobic gay republican population have an un supportable moral belief system that they cant handle in their live and thus they are in the closet. Even tho they are self supporting grown men.