Could LGBT fit in the GOP?

Well, maybe?

Plenty of talking heads in the media want to paint LGBT voters as a block that all share the same interests and should thus always vote the same way (i.e. Democrat). I previously wrote that LGBT voters have some strong incentives to be pro-life and want less government, which is something we saw when Donald Trump was running for office. I think the talking heads do everyone a disservice when they pretend that all LGBT voters look alike and should vote the same, rather than treating people as individuals. Donald Trump saw this and exploited it, and as we head into the 2022 midterm elections, I think Republicans should be doing the same (which likely means most won’t…).

But pro-life and economics don’t hint at what most GOP voters struggle with when working with potential LGBT voters, and that is the issue of LGBT families and children. I think this is with good reason, because what was sold in the past was the notion that an LGBT family would look very much like a normal family, but in reality, the LGBT lifestyle pushes many ideas contrary to this, such as relationships with significantly more sexual partners. Pointing out that “Well, heterosexual families often have multiple partners and open relationships too!” doesn’t really help, because those families also tend to not do well, especially when raising children.

And lets talk about children, specifically kids at school. Plenty of people probably didn’t care if a teacher was homosexual or transgender, but plenty of parents care about schools instructing their children about sex. Many of these parents don’t want schools instructing kids on sex even if it doesn’t include LGBT materials, so adding LGBT to the mix only throws fuel onto an already burning fire.

The key problem here I think is that the excesses of LGBT culture, with the drag shows, inappropriate books and hiding information from parents are the things that bother most people. I doubt too many parents would care about a homosexual or transgender teacher if they were focused on, you know, teaching kids about science, math, English and the like, just like they wouldn’t care that the kindergarten teacher runs a profitable OnlyFans on her weekends off. When you show up, do your work and leave most of your personal life out of it, it is incredibly easy to please most people.

Yes, there are people out there on a McCarthy-esque witch hunt, but they are becoming fewer and farther in-between. Violence against the LGBT community is becoming less and less tolerated, with even the Daily Wire is running a story about a gay Palestinian beheaded that expresses sympathy for the young man.

So can LGBT voters fit into the GOP? I’d give it a solid maybe. I think someone can be an LGBT voter and want parents rather than schools instruct children on sex, find drag shows for kids inappropriate, and place value on a monogamous relationship and a stable home to raise children. Given those parameters, I think there are plenty of GOP voters that might not care that the wife in the couple next door has XY chromosomes. Whether that person is Christian is a different matter, but that person could be a more conservative voter.

Most importantly, beginning to treat voters as individuals full of competing interests, and thinking about how conservative values satisfy those interests, is far more important if we want a long-term stable country.

This post represents the views of the author and not those of the Department of Defense, Department of the Navy, or any other government agency. Liked what you read? Try buying the author’s book to help him out!

LGBT voters benefit from less government and a market economy

Two weeks ago I argued that LGBT voters should be prolife, if nothing else because the prolife movement protects babies from premature abortions based on genetic testing, and it won’t be long before we develop testing good enough to hint that a baby might grow up gay or transgender (despite the fact that genetics don’t always equal outcomes). I’d like to go one step further and say LGBT voters benefit far more from less government and a market economy, especially as a minority.

Let’s start with a real obvious point: government likes people to fall in nice, neat boxes, and those that don’t get treated unfairly. The US government is always primed to pick on minorities. Recent examples include persecution against Japanese-Americans during World War 2, even in Hawaii, or the disproportionate number of black Americans used for drug testing by the CIA. LGBT voters probably feel this right now whenever they travel, get an ID of some kind, or interact with the government in general.

Let’s take ID cards for a second. The government continues to increase the amount of information it demands from people to get an ID. This invasion of privacy hasn’t made a lot of headlines, but the fact that you can basically be denied the ability to fly unless you surrender a lot of information to the government is a bit concerning. Worse though, what if you’re a transgender individual in the middle of hormone treatment? Try explaining that to the “nice” TSA agent, who should be concerned about you carrying a bomb onboard the aircraft, but will instead use their position to hassle you at a checkpoint. Why are you treated like a criminal for non-criminal activities.

Less government equals less interactions equals more freedom to be yourself. Whether you’re a gun-loving firefighter or his transgender wife, you benefit from less government in your life. Unless you’re violating a law, the government doesn’t need to snoop in your affairs.

If the government isn’t sticking its nose where it doesn’t belong, other people are often trying to use it to that end, particularly with hate crime laws and lawsuits. The Masterpiece Cakeshop lawsuits highlighted this weaponization. Despite the fact that there were hundreds of bakeries to get cakes of all shapes and sizes, Charlie Craig and David Mullins went all the way to the Supreme Court, only to lose. The damage was done though, since Masterpiece Cakeshop lost around 40% of its business.

This weaponization isn’t a long term strategy, since it tends to come back around and bite you, because plenty of people will use this tactic to shut down LGBT businesses. We’re far better off with a free market because it automatically promotes an exchange of goods that is inevitably linked to an exchange of ideas. For example, its really hard to say you want to kill all gay people if you regularly interact with the gay owner of a restaurant that has great food. It’s difficult to say you think transgender individuals are all pedophiles when you find out your neighbor is a transgender woman and an upstanding citizen in your community. Just like having a black or Hispanic neighbor makes it harder to hold negative opinions about them (assuming they are good neighbors!), the same goes for interacting with LGBT individuals.

In fact, these regular interactions are far more powerful then any lawsuit. I would argue the Masterpiece lawsuits only further cement the idea that most LGBT individuals want to find ways to punish Christians.

Free association in a market economy and less government interference, by default, makes us all learn to work together. We’re all better served under these models.

This post represents the views of the author and not those of the Department of Defense, Department of the Navy, or any other government agency. Please be sure to purchase something from the author’s collection of books, since Christmas is right around the corner.

Why LGBT voters should be prolife

This is part of a short series on why many LGBT voters would be better served under conservative values then far leftist values.

LGBT voters are traditionally associated with voting on left-leaning policies and almost always for Democrat candidates, yet during the last election almost a third of LGBT-identified voters said on exit polling that they voted for Trump.

Despite President Trump’s anti-LGBTQ past, including opposing LGBTQ workplace protections, he was able to attain 28% of the LGBTQ vote improving on his 2016 showing, when he ran against Hillary Clinton, and only won 13% of the LGBTQ vote.

thepridela.com

The article, not surprisingly, is shocked that any LGBT individual would even contemplate voting for a Republican candidate, much less President Trump. Yet I think this site, like so many others, misses the fact that in most cases conservative positions on issues are far more advantageous for LGBT individuals then leftist ones. I actually think that Republican candidates can probably capture more like 40% of the LGBT vote, which would finally start to highlight that LGBT individuals are not in fact one large, homogenous group of people, but rather individual voters that each have very different needs.

(A quick note: For this series I’m leaving of the …QIA+-= alphabet soup of people, which includes the pansexuals, cats and other really odd identities. Honestly, I think these people are overrepresented because they are so strange as to capture immediate attention and have an outsized impact via social media.)

First, lets look at who is considered an LGBT voter. In the case of the exit poll, its whomever happens to tell the pollster they identify as somewhere on the LGBT spectrum. This is somewhere around 1-5% of voters nationwide, by conservative and liberal estimates. However, I actually think its a bit higher, for two reasons. First, lots of people don’t like talking to pollsters, so exit poll sampling is notoriously very skewed liberal. Second, the LGBT people that would openly agree to the label are likely people comfortably out to their families, employer and the world…which is not the majority. There are likely a lot of closeted LGBT voters that simply stay quiet about their homosexual or transsexual inclinations.

That said, the ones most likely to be closeted are also most likely to lean conservative, since conservative voters are less likely to discuss this and other issues with…well, anyone really. This sets up a Harry Truman-esque scenario where traditional polling and thinking concerning LGBT voters and what they care about can be very easily misunderstood.

That doesn’t answer the bigger question of why LGBT voters would benefit from conservative policies. Let’s start with abortion, and over the next few weekends we’ll look at the economy, foreign policy and the military, plus marriage and the nuclear family. I’m leaving out religious discussions on these issues because 1., I’m not a religious scholar and thus not qualified to discuss it, and 2., Religions, especially Christian ones, vary widely on LGBT issues.

LGBT voters should be pro-life for many reasons, the most important being that as technology, and especially genetic testing, becomes easier and cheaper, there will be more people inclined to abort babies that aren’t “perfect.” This has been predicted for years, even appearing in science fiction films like Gattaca, where babies are tested and sorted into “Valids” and “In-valids.” The “Valids” are genetically perfect and given access to the best jobs, while the “in-valids,” if they aren’t euthanized, compose the underclass of citizens.

But that’s science fiction, you might think. One only needs to look across the Atlantic to see Europeans wipe out Down Syndrome kids through testing (which is not perfect, so plenty of otherwise healthy kids are lost to abortion in the process). It’s not a far stretch to assume that as we develop more and more genetic markers for what we consider disorders, it’ll be easier to “justify” aborting more and more babies that don’t line up to our idea of perfect.

Which brings up the LGBT issue, because scientists have been quite happily searching for a genetic link to explain homosexual and transgender individuals. If they find that there is a gene, or set of genes, that would incline an individual to this behavior, could there be an increase in people saying “I don’t want to bring life to this world that would suffer as a transgender individual.”? If abortion is available on demand, I can see a large number of religious mothers making this justification.

Which begs the question: don’t LGBT individuals have a right to life? Don’t babies with these genetic markers deserve a chance in this world? Who is to say that their genetics will ultimately determine how they think on any particular issue? I would argue that they do. Just because someone is genetically inclined towards something doesn’t mean they will take those actions. More importantly, this walks us down the slippery slope of euthanizing people who’s only crime is existing, which never bodes well for any minority group.

LGBT voters are best served with prolife policies, which may one day keep them from being literally aborted out of existence.

This post represents the views of the author and not those of the Department of Defense, Department of the Navy, or any other government agency.