[ezinra]

I dare say one imagines that in the light of experience of prejudice against them as members of a minority group, it might be reasonable for any gay person of a certain level of IQ to harbour a certain solidarity with other minority groups (as well as their own) suffering prejudice - quite often at the hands of the Tory party - that would logically preclude them embracing Tory ideology.

There are all sorts of problems with that, though. We see all the time on here how Mail readers — often from the aspirational working classes or the lower middles, and especially women — fail to identify a) their own long-term interests as a group, or b) the true source of the obstacles that impede them from achieving what they desire and deserve.

For gay people, there's an extra complication because they've probably formed some sort of worldview before they identify as gay — ie, before they've suffered prejudice on this count. It's also worth noting that one of the most common ways of coping with prejudice — developing a thick skin, getting on with your life — is quite in keeping with conservative ideology. Moreover, gay subculture is much more materialist and individualist than ever before; the emphasis is now on identity rather than politics.

I find gay christians easier to understand — being in the closet, coming out, and being part of a minority can all be lonely experiences, and faith can be valuable as a guide and support. University churches, in particular, are likely to have LGBT communities, where young gay people find a safe space to practise their faith and discuss their sexuality openly.

[Andy McDandy]

And besides, as we have (usually negatively) noted, many Christians manage to reconcile their personal faith with the less practical bits of scripture and dogma, by ignoring them.

[Captain VXR]

Your party claims to be libertarian, but doesn't want to give gay people the same 'liberty' to get married that straight people have.

If they were more like the Libertarian Party in the USA, I might even consider voting for them. So yeah, if they came out in support of gay marriage, legalising mos currently illegal drugs and so on I'd be far more likely to vote for them. In their current form, I don't consider them to be libertarian, simply social conservatives who hop on the libertarian bandwagon when it suits them.

[spoonman]

Your party claims to be libertarian, but doesn't want to give gay people the same 'liberty' to get married that straight people have.

If they were more like the Libertarian Party in the USA, I might even consider voting for them. So yeah, if they came out in support of gay marriage, legalising mos currently illegal drugs and so on I'd be far more likely to vote for them. In their current form, I don't consider them to be libertarian, simply social conservatives who hop on the libertarian bandwagon when it suits them.

Quite a lot of self-proclaimed "libertarians" on both sides of the Atlantic are like this. Over there you'd find that such people had voted Republican for the last 30 years but now appear embarrassed in public to identify themselves as Republican so call themselves Libertarian where as a better name for them would be Denial-can.

Scratch away the surface on Ron Paul and you'd find he's less a Libertarian and more an isolationist paeloconservative whom more than object to the powers and size of American federal government would rather they were simply devolved down to the states to handle as they pleased provided they didn't breach "...the intention of the constitution of the Founding Fathers™" which according to the interpretation he and most of his supporters of such intention would leave large swathes of the United States looking like the Republic of Gilead. Same goes for most Tea Party nut jobs, the difference is that Ron Paul compared to them is quite intelligent enough to appear calm, reasonable and consistent whilst built up a fanatical robot-like following that on the internet even beats the... well, the last time I mentioned it some people here got easily offended so best I not bring it up for now.

[Andy McDandy]

Standard Maily attitude - libertarian for themselves and people like them. Authoritarian and controlling for everyone else. I'm perfectly capable of driving after a couple of snifters, and besides it's a waste of police resources to persecute motorists. He on the other hand is a drunk driver who should be banged up.

[mattomac]

What is the Q for? and the Astrix for that matter.

[Esqui]

Q is for queer (or questioning)

The asterisk I would have put after the T, because of the myriad suffixes to 'trans'. But that's just me.

Oh wait, it says there.
"The Q refers to people who are queer/questioning, and the * refers to those not defined under LGBTQ, such as otherkin. We therefore are clear that we provide a safe space for all people of whatever sexuality, gender, orientation (etc)."

[new puritan]

Quite a lot of self-proclaimed "libertarians" on both sides of the Atlantic are like this. Over there you'd find that such people had voted Republican for the last 30 years but now appear embarrassed in public to identify themselves as Republican so call themselves Libertarian where as a better name for them would be Denial-can.

Scratch away the surface on Ron Paul and you'd find he's less a Libertarian and more an isolationist paeloconservative whom more than object to the powers and size of American federal government would rather they were simply devolved down to the states to handle as they pleased provided they didn't breach "...the intention of the constitution of the Founding Fathers™" which according to the interpretation he and most of his supporters of such intention would leave large swathes of the United States looking like the Republic of Gilead. Same goes for most Tea Party nut jobs, the difference is that Ron Paul compared to them is quite intelligent enough to appear calm, reasonable and consistent whilst built up a fanatical robot-like following that on the internet even beats the... well, the last time I mentioned it some people here got easily offended so best I not bring it up for now.

Good post. When push comes to shove, most right-libertarians there and here vote for the mainstream right-wing parties in spite of their haughty rhetoric. Their anti-war, pro-drug legalisation stance tends to attract a lot of disaffected liberals but their economic policies are utterly crankish. I can't be the only one who gets sick of seeing Austrian economics talking points popping up all over the bloody internet.

[mattomac]

Q is for queer (or questioning)

The asterisk I would have put after the T, because of the myriad suffixes to 'trans'. But that's just me.

Oh wait, it says there.
"The Q refers to people who are queer/questioning, and the * refers to those not defined under LGBTQ, such as otherkin. We therefore are clear that we provide a safe space for all people of whatever sexuality, gender, orientation (etc)."

That is a bit meh, Our LGBT group on campus uses + much more positive I have to say.

[ACG]

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2012/11/16/no ... says-ukip/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

In a lengthy statement, UKIP added that marriage equality was “not a burning issue,” and that “it is not a matter which animates the daily discourse of our nation."

well, it seems at least they're not pretending that the majority of people are actually against it any more, but that does make their current argument "we should continue to keep marriage rights away from a minority because the majority don't feel strongly about it one way or another" ...compelling

[crabcakes_windermere]

Equality is all about perception. It's an uphill struggle for those who don't have it, but for many that do it's seen as a 'slippery slope' because they're already at the top and they don't want to share the high ground with people they think are "icky".