why do democrats want to turn the U.S. into a gay republic?
919063
We want republicans to be comfortable with their sexuality so they don't have to hire male prostitutes and hit on under age pages.
368799
I don't think that the US will have any openly gay president for at least 150 years if maybe bisexuality and homosexuality becomes normal. People are too close-minded to vote for them.
1092897
its the democrats and liberals.  they want a communist society where the gov gives you everything;  food, medicine, housing, how to feed our children, what we can and cannot look at (like a cross on a hill)....to name a few.  liberal judges have been incorporating european laws into our own to make us more like europe, a secular society, a generally socialist society.  because the current administration believes in the core values of america and the libs and dems hate bush, they must go against what all americans believe, morals and values.  but, the silent majority speaks at the polls.  \n\ni will never forget rikki lee jones (as if anyone listens to her music anyway) stated from europe, that she was sickend by her home country after 9/11.  all the flag waving made her think of hitler and his nationalistic society.  stay in europe, rikki.
294006
I'm pro but it's interesting to see that some gay are driven towards a "bourgeois" lifestyle when themselves say they are opposed to conventions.\nWHat we have in France with the PACS (the alliance between two people) is a good option because Pacs'ed people, whether they are gay or heterosexuals can share their lives, their taxes, have children and inherit the goods of the other person.
148222
First of all, I hope I'm open-minded enough not to give a rat's ass about a person's sexual preferences (provided it involves consenting adults) no matter what job they're seeking. So yeah, I could vote for a gay president if I agreed with most of his or her policies. What the hell do I care what they do in their private life? And why do YOU care?\n\nP.S. For the record, we've likely already had a gay president. James Buchanan, widely considered one of the worst and most ineffectual presidents in US history (some blame him for failing to prevent the Civil War), never married but rather lived for 16 years with an Alabama senator named William Rufus King. Seems harmless enough -- except for the fact that he referred to King as "Nancy" amid rampant rumours of their having had a homosexual relationship.
664903
The ones that say they are ultra Conservative would be Amish, so that's a lot of crap isn't it. I am a Democrat and I wont vote for a Republican unless for a local position as mayor or police chief. Otherwise no way. I have no positions on gays because i am not gay. I guess they have a right to fight for their own freedoms too.
319275
Welcome to the "Big Tent" party!! We Democrats are proud to say that we have no membership quotas of any kind. Black, Brown, Yellow, Red, Young, Old, Female, Gay, Lesbian, whatever.\n\nWhy, they even have room for middle-aged, fat, bald, straight, white guys, like me.\n\nWelcome, my brother, welcome!
920943
It's not about being gay... you hit the nail on the head, it is about hypocrisy of the Republic party. \n\nPpl think I am joking or being facetious when I say they live by a double standard. When I make that statement, I am completely serious.
700610
Democrats are working for the people who voted for them.\nRepublicans do not work and do not have any support, just the homos, pedophiles and lesbians vote Republican
782651
I am a lesbian and what is called a 'yellow dog democrat'. A yellow dog democrat versus a blue dog democrat means that I would vote for a yellow dog before I would vote Republican.\n\nNow, before someone reads this and jumps to the conclusion that I vote Democrat because I am a lesbian let me nick that in the bud. I was raised Republican and voted Republican until my late 20s even though I was a lesbian.\n\nI used to be of the mind-frame that being gay was second to other national priorities.\n\nIt's a long story as to why I became a democrat... went independent and voted for Perot in 92 and 96 then went yellow dog democrat in 2000.\n\nMy transition to democrat actually had nothing to do with being gay... BUT my transition to yellow dog democrat did. I was perfectly willing to put my sexual orientation aside UNTIL the Republican party declared war on me...\n\nPpl think that gays all of a sudden wanted gay marriage, etc... NO... we were going about our business and it was the Republican party that made it an issue, not us. Clinton signed the  ... marriage act in 96 that the Republican Congress constructed and sent to him for approval (forgot the name of it - its late here). \n\nMy point is that was not enough... they had to keep on and on with the issue spreading it from state to state banning gay marriage.... in states that didn't even have cases pending in their state Supreme Courts.\n\nFor me, this was a clear declaration of war on ME, what I am. From that point on, I have vowed to never vote for a Republican again.\n\nTo answer the rest of your question: I am in a very RED southern state.
958562
If you are a kid, it's time to go to school and ask for some civics lessons. The democrats are not homogeneous - that is one of the differences. Whereas the Republicans allow no discussion within their party - you have to support everything or you are not a republican - the Democrats are a broad house that allows differences of opinion.\n\nEven so, in both parties you'll find some that support and some that oppose both issues you mentioned. And there is definitely not general support for gay marriage in the Democratic party. In fact, it was President Clinton, a Democrat, who signed into law the Defense of Marriage Act, which forbids the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages. It was also Clinton who approved the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy for the military, which forbids gay men and lesbians from serving openly in the armed forces. Under that legislation, several thousand men and women have been fired from the army in the last few years (despite the fact that they had important skills like Arab translation) \n\nThe person who told you that was the difference was incorrect.\n\nRepublicans used to be the party for fiscal management and responsibility, but they stopped that six years ago and have been on a huge spending spree with tax payer's money. In the process, they've created a national debt 50% higher (8 TRILLION dollars) that you as a kid can look forward to paying off for the rest of your life. Under Clinton, the nation debt REDUCED every year - so I guess the Republicans are no longer willing to be fiscally responsible.\n\nGenerally though, the Democrats are better at representing the interests of the majority of Americans (those earning less than $100,000 a year), and the Republicans are better at representing the rich. The Democrats want everyone to have health care, and for poor families to be able to feed their families. These are not priorities for Republicans.
700329
Why do Republicans push for discrimination at the national level? Republicans fought against rights for women and blacks. Now gays. Why do Republicans fear gays?
478099
This is another long one, sorry, but asking complicated questions and expecting short simple answers, isn’t realistic.\n\nThe religious right has two issues with Democrats; abortion and homosexuality.  Their need to impose their beliefs onto others is their motivating force behind supporting the Republican Party.  \n\nI am against abortion, but instead of creating laws which take control of a person’s beliefs and body out of that person’s hands, I believe in working harder to create a world where teenagers don’t get pregnant with unwanted children, where fathers don’t rape their children, and life is considered a gift from God.  Instead of being so determined to force a person to give birth to a child who will live a life of abuse and neglect or be dumped in a trash dumpster, they should work harder to create a world where people want to keep their children.  I believe they have given up on the power of faith and prayer.\n\nAs for homosexuality, most Christians don’t understand what the Bible says about homosexuality; they keep quoting a scripture from Leviticus which is alongside scriptures which condemn wearing cotton, shaving, and eating shell fish.  None of these Christians follow those rules, but still quote good old Leviticus to condemn something Jesus said nothing about. \n\nUsing watered down versions of the Bible which replaces the words for male prostitutes and rapists with homosexuals (a word and a culture which did not exist during the writing of the Bible), the Christian right are lost in a sea of misinformation.  \n\nInstead of following what Jesus commanded, they use the scriptures to justify what Jesus warned them not to do;  throw the first stone and judge in God’s name.\n\nUnfortunately there’s a lot of truth to what “bring ‘em on” says.  Up until the mid 1940’s modern day Republicans were Southern Democrats.  When Truman betrayed the party’s agenda of a segregated America by introducing the Fair Deal, they switched to the Republican Party.\n\nThe Republican puppeteers use the issues of abortion and homosexuality to instill fear into well meaning Christians in order to gain support for their agenda of a white, rich, segregated America.\n\nThe history is long and complicated and most people don’t have the desire to study Plato, Shakespeare, and read the philosophies of a man by the name of Emanuel Kant.  They don’t know who the Bones or the Skull and Crossbones are or how they originated.  It was no accident Roosevelt stayed out of WWII until the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor or that every American city named Delano is almost 100% white. They take the word of their leaders and don’t know much about underlying philosophies of their party.\n\nTo learn all the history, or study a man named Erasmus, or understand how the Bible came about, takes years of research and can’t be found on some propagandist web-site.   The answer to your question is written in the history of mankind by philosophers, religious leaders and world rulers, but is like a mystery which you must unravel.
732575
They can't go with the real issues because they are lost in what to do about it. Reps can only hope to get their evangelicals motivated to vote for only one issue: gay marriage. It seems stupid to me to affiliate yourself to a party only because of a single issue. Dems talk about real issues and reps want trivial issues.
1144136
My opinion: the Democrats have not had a strong, charismatic candidate for President since Clinton, and have had the same problem with many Senatorial and Congressional elections. Also the Republicans have been very good about their "market research" and know the right issues to promote, to get their candidates elected. I do not care for George Bush and most certainly did not vote for him, but his public relations and strategy planning teams do an amazing job.  They are always first to bring up "hot" issues, things that people get heavily emotionally involved, and have done a nice job of picking some issues that really have no deep impact on the country but are guaranteed to rally supporters.\n\nFor example, gay marriage... now, in the grand scheme of things, unless you are a gay person who wants to get married, gay marriage is not going to change your life. Most companies offer domestic partner benefits already so your insurance won't go up, and if the gay guys down the street have a wedding, that won't magically turn you gay too. But it's a very hot issue and people who oppose gay marriage will be very loyal to a candidate who does too. And don't get me wrong--- I support gay marriage but I know it won't change my life one bit (except I guess I will have to buy some wedding gifts!).\n\nI do think there will be a Democratic turn in the mid-term elections but that may also be wishful thinking on my part. Many Republican candidates are distancing themselves from the President, where they usually would bend over backwards to have the President on the campaign trail with them. Whether or not the Democrats take advantage of how the Republicans are falling from favor is another story, though!\n\nPS The Supreme Court is leaning towards the Conservative side now but that's an appointed position, not an elected one, so we can thank all those who voted for Bush for that...
1035479
Because democrats generally want minorities to become wards of the state. Collect government benefits, and entitlements. They can't bear to see a minority become successful. Notice how they turn on them when they do? \nConservatives want minorities to be successful contributing members of society.
360901
Because the GOP has been more successful than the Democrats at using social issues to attract people - most who wouldn't benefit from Republican economic policies. \n\nPeople do vote against their economic self-interest, if they have a compelling enough reason. Last election cycle, the GOP made it imperative to include a gay marriage initiative on most ballots. This was their main focus, and it caused people who hated gay marriage to vote, often for the Republican party. \n\nAnother example was under the first Bush, who made flag-burning a political issue - it was an unsuccessful attempt to turn out morally conscious people to vote for the GOP, even if under close inspection, their economic policies would not have directly benefited them as much as rich voters.