He's really nice so far. We're sitting in a Des Moines diner called Louie's and talking about our families. A sweet smile dominates his face as he recalls traveling to neighboring farms with his father when he was younger. His dad sold agricultural equipment, and that's what he wants to do too. It's a cute story. I let my guard down.
I see absolutely no point for a gun to be in our home, while my partner believes our son gives him more reason than ever before to have a weapon at his disposal. A gun will remain, but locked up and far from a toddler's reach.
His time in the Navy is why he believes in defense spending. But, more important, I have learned to set aside my need to be right, or appear right, or have someone tell me I'm right. His frustrated sighs when he concedes a point is far more comforting to me than declarations of solidarity. We're both human beings of value, and that value doesn't diminish just because we don't constantly agree with each other.
I am more informed, more patient, and, because I see bits and pieces of my partner in every Republican I end up debating, I'm more than willing to listen to someone I fervently disagree with. Now, as the most contentious and bizarre presidential election in recent memory unfolds, passionate debates fill our house.
I love my partner. I love his beard when it tickles my collarbone. I love his shoulders when they push against his shirt as he picks up our son. And I love him when we argue about politics, because it makes us better people, together and apart.
We both believe in raising children as a unit. We both believe in exposing our children to a Catholic upbringing we're both Catholic. Where we differ: he believes in a small government and he believes that corporations are the key to creating new jobs via Bush tax cuts.
I am hugely against Prop 8. I believe gay people deserve equal rights. Just because someone decides to stick their penis in another man instead of a woman doesn't automatically deny them constitutional rights.
Same for a gay woman. Who gives a crap? You have love? You have morals? Life has taught me that the more accepting we are of others, the more nurturing and friendly it becomes. Granted, I was raised by hippies. But I really believe this to be true. Dad: "Father, I have sinned I have smoked a shitload of Marijuana again this week Priest: sucking sound "Hmm Oh god, I'm sitting here at my desk giggling like a fool. This would be a conversation between my Catholic Grandfather and my husbands mother if Granddad was still alivewho is a major hippie.
Men Share Major Red Flags When Dating A Girl - AskReddit
It's not nearly the oxymoron it seems to be to people who didn't grow up Catholic. I had a teacher who often implied that he was a hippie before, involved in homosexuality, LSD, Heroin, etc. A religion teacher smoked pot regularly according to his son who was in my classand taught that Buddhism and Catholicism can be practiced together, etc.
We had gay teachers, too, though usually not out of the closet. I think "family values" is kind of an empty term, or at the very least something that is defined very differently by different people. I mean to some people that means no gay marriage, after all. But we disagree on almost everything.
In terms of politics. We are a literal state of how things actually are. A polar opposite couple. It is. Which is why politicians love to parade it around and hope no one realizes how hollow it is. When a term comes to mean so many different things to different people, it starts to lose all meaning.
If you're Catholic I find it hardpressed to say that you're liberal with a capital L. You might think you are but you aren't. If you were a member of the Liberal Catholic Churchyou might be but not if you're part of the Roman Catholic Church.
This isn't saying I don't support your worldview and I hope you stay active with the Democratic party. But Catholicism is not Liberal. What you say is true if and only if the definition of a Catholic is someone who believes everything the Catholic leadership believes.
Even the Catholic Church leadership doesn't believe that. There are some things they insist you believe but not everything! Um, that's the definition of a practicing Catholic who calls themselves Catholic. If they aren't then they're lying to themselves and others. You can't be an a la carte Catholic and still consider yourself truly part of the Church unless you're delusional.
The issue is that I have never told her that Im a Republican. I know if she was to find out it would be as if AOC found out she was dating a Republican, meaning it probably wouldn't be a fun interaction. I feel like im in a episode of Friends here (im aging myself) where she thinks im this when im really that. Feb 22, Indeed, it's very difficult to believe a Republican and Democrat could date (and make it last). Believe it or not, however, you should consider dating a Republican. Dating app Clover conducted a study to get the skinny on the hobbies and activities that best define Republicans and Democrats this election year. Some are obvious (spoiler: the GOP likes guns.
Did you grow up Catholic? I went to Catholic school for 13 years and was never once told that you couldn't be a Catholic if you didn't accept all the teachings of the Catholic church. I was told that some are more important than others, and that the church is clearly not always right given the history of abuses, and that everything needs to be interpreted in context.
Oct 12, I'm listening to mcauctionservicellc.com when I'm forced to self-examine. The topic on the radio is the growing political divide in America. A caller mentions that many people refuse to date someone from the opposing. I'm also dating a registered Republican. One of my majors in college was political science. My family is from the former East Germany. We're vehemently opposed to communism, but quite comfortable with the Western European ideal of democratic socialism. I consider the Republican establishment not practically far right on many issues and the.
For instance, very few Catholics believe in young earth creationism. I was taught the Big Bang theory and evolution in Catholic school as fact and seem to understand it better than many people from secular schools. Copernicus is revered. The whole "infallibility" thing is rarely invoked, and there's a certain ritual that must be done for a statement to be considered such.
It's usually done on something uncontroversial. The last time I know of it having happened was the 's. Morally they are conservative. Economically they are all over the map bending ever so slightly liberal. Aside from that, they are generally more liberal-though many who were excessively polarized on those topics had opened themselves to Rush Limbaugh and successors, and now resemble teabaggers. Catholics are taught that you should help the poor.
A large majority support the prosecution of priests. Of the popular religions, they're on par with Lutherans and Episcopals or something in terms of non-sheeplitude. No, historically they're extremely conservative in a real-world political sense. The Catholic church allied with Italian fascists and Nazis during World War 2, with fascists during the Spanish Civil War in the s, with the Sicilian Mafia in the later half of the s when Nosa Costra was growing, gave a carte blanche blessing to Spain to conquer Southern America with the choice of a bullet or a bible The 'church' allied with those regimes.
If you look at historic voting patters though, you'll find that catholics were solidly democratic until the reagan revolution. As stated, social issues were the divisive factor.
You can't put Church in quotations. They were the Church that they are today. No quotes, no. It seems that you've closed your mind to any input, even from people who are actually experts on the exact topic you're pontificating about. I'll talk to your points, just because they're hanging out there, but I'd recommend you not try to preach about a group you're not a part of to former members of that group.
A Italian fasicts: wrong. It was neutral, though influenced by the gun down it's throat in Rome. In fact, I was just there, learning cts of this very topic. There was a lot of friction, Mussolini was clearly wearing the pants, and, according to an italian design professor, it was his intention to design the via della concilazione in such a way to imply increased distance to the Vatican while putting it forward as an offering.
Implying that the Vatican had sway in this is equivalent to implying that Korea was responsible in some way for Japan's atrocities. As for the Spanish Civil war, I know less about it. From what I can tell, you are right. The Vatican was extremely political in Europe up until WWII pretty much, when Mussolini reduced its influence, and a large part of it was supporting regimes that pushed its agenda forward. The problem is that this is not reflected in the way that Catholics in the US voted.
This was the discussion at hand "If you're Catholic How about this sermon I heard one of the few times I've gone to mass since high school: paraphrased "Why are you worrying about gay marriage when you can't even keep your own marriage together. How much more closed-minded can you get?
If this was a discussion about any other group besides a religion, you would be seen as extremely ignorant. Let's try the "one speaks for all" tactic with libertarians. I hope you're beginning to at least consider the idea that you may have been wrong when you told someone that they aren't liberal based on your flawed understanding of what their religion meant.
The Catholic Church has a long and complex history spanning the entire globe. You can't cherry pick data to bolster your point of view. You're invoking irrelevant history when the very people you are talking about are telling you flat out that you're wrong about them Its not irrelevant if that's the history of the Catholic Church when talking about the farking Catholic Church.
You're willfully blind to a large part of the organization you're part of because it doesn't line up with how you fundamentally feel about it. You're more closedminded than I am. At least I'm not denying history. It wasn't neutral. Of course Italians are going to downplay a shameful part of their past, just like Americans downplay their role in Native American genocide or China downplays its role in the Great Step Forward. The Facist movement in Italy came to power in the s by courting the Catholic Church.
They espousing Family values and told Italians they should follow Catholic Church dogma so the Church actively supported their rise to power. Catholic officials held meetings with Fascist members to work against a common enemy: the socialist movement that was gaining momentum :.
A few months later January 20,Cardinal Gasparri, the Vatican Secretary of State, had the first of numerous secret interviews with Mussolini. During this meeting, the bargain between the Vatican and Fascismas yet weakwas struck. The Vatican pledged itself to support the new regime indirectly by paralyzing the Catholic Party, which had become as serious an obstacle to Fascism as were the Socialists. This, providing the new Government continued its policy of destroying Socialism, protected the rights of the Catholic Church and rendered other services to Catholicism.
Mussolini, aware of the Pope's goodwill towards his movement, tried to make of him an ally, and gave his promise. The Roman question was also discussed. As first-fruit of the new alliance, Mussolini rendered a good service to the Vatican. The Bank of Rome, which was controlled by Catholics, and to which the Vatican's High Prelates and the Holy See itself had entrusted their funds, was on the brink of bankruptcy.
Apr 20, I'm an outspoken Democrat. My partner is a proud Republican. But we've been together for four years, have a 2-year-old child, and couldn't be more in love. We met online. I published an. No way in hell I'd consider dating a republican. level 2. 5 points 1 year ago. Hello comrade. level 2. At the moment, I probably wouldn't date a Republican - their party platform supports too many things that I socially abhor. help App coins premium gifts. Hi , Sarah here! I have been studying dark matter and dark energy for the last 20 years, but when my kids started school I started to think about our own planet in the next 20 years and beyond. I learned about climate change properly for the first time, how it threatens worldwide food production, and how food causes about a quarter of all.
Mussolini saved itat the cost, it is believed, of approximately 1, lire, which the Italian State had to pay. Shortly afterwards, the first voices of the Italian Hierarchy in praise of the leader of Fascism could be heard.
On February 21,Cardinal Vannutelli, Head of the Sacred College of Cardinals, paid public homage to Mussolini "for his energetic devotion to his country," adding that the Duce "had been chosen by God to save the nation and to restore her fortune. I could go on, but I think that suffices to prove my point. I am right about this, and I am right about the Spanish Civil war and every other point I made. To be Catholic is to accept the Church's dogma. To call oneself Catholic, one accepts Church dogma.
You're not a Catholic if you make up some handy-pandy rules about what you can and cannot follow instead of following the Church's entire dogma. Its part of the sacraments and its in the freakin' Nicean Creed! I find that a lot of ors think this way. I don't think that your politics are defined by your religion unless you let that happen.
I don't agree with everything they say and I stated it's mostly for tradition's sake. I have a lot of issues with their stance on certain things but that doesn't mean I have to abandon my faith in order to think a certain way. He's against. He is against the term "marriage" and I call bullshit on him. But he also doesn't believe in gay adoption, which i also disagree with him on. I have zero issue with gay people adopting. I think it's their right. He does not. Sorry, I have to be a bit pedantic and point out that there is no such thing as a right to adopt.
I don't have a problem with gay people adopting, but the correct way to phrase it is 'I don't believe that sexual orientation should be a reason to automatically disqualify someone from being able to adopt children'. This is what people mean when they talk about a 'right to adopt'. I have a major problem with the term 'right' applied to adoption. No one has a right to adopt. Rights should be applied equally to all people - but no one regardless of sexual orientation can simply choose to exercise their 'right' to adopt - they need to be carefully vetted and assessed to ensure they would make suitable parents, and not everyone is deemed suitable.
So in that respect, adoption is not a 'right' because it is not available to everyone, only to those who would make suitable parents. Rights also imply duties - usually on the part of the state or on other people - to protect or respect that right or facilitate you exercising that right. If a couple regardless of sexual orientation chose to exercise their 'right' to adopt and, for whatever reason, there were no children available to adopt, there is no one whose duty it is to ensure you can exercise that right.
No one is obliged to find you a baby or produce one for you. So it is not a right in that respect either.
I realise that I might be coming across overly pedantic about this, but I think it's important not to throw around the word 'right' lightly. Adoption is not a right, it's a privilege. Sexual orientation should not automatically exclude someone from that privilege, but nothing should make it anyone's right.
I had the same reaction to seeing the word "adoption" couched in terms of a "right". Thank you. You would think it wouldn't take years of tolerance education to drill this into some people's heads.
But yet, the skulls are too thick Philosphy is their mission. Critical thinking is the end product. If you're gay Christmas is also for you. Or I will rip your balls off, feed them to you, and deprive you of sex until you behave. Reasonable people can disagree on many, many issues.
For dating a republican reddit accept
Those same people can love each other, and, sure, be in love with each other, and have lasting, meaningful relationships with one another. All granted. But you're trying to ignore the fact that your boyfriend is a bigot. Reasonable people will not abide bigotry, and 'love is not rational' doesn't really cut it on that one. Not wanting to allow 2 people who love each other to get married does make you a bigot, no matter what silly argument you want to make, because trying to stop something that does not affect you in any convincing negative way is the definition of immorality and intolerance.
And to me, imagining dating someone like that is I can understand why you would say this and you have a right to your opinion. Believe me I have an issue with his stance on this.
Being able to get married is not a constitutional right. Marriage is not mentioned at all in the constitution. I agree and am right with you on prop 8, but it is not a constitutional issue. It's a civil rights issue. Have you explained that the small government line is a load of Bush increased the size of gov't like no other. He decreased corporate regulation while increasing behavioral regulation free speech zones, spying, etc. That isn't true.
I do understand your point as I couldn't be with someone who, for example, doesn't believe in gay people should marry. But it isn't an entirely different outlook on life. You could agree that your parties are both corporatist, and that changing leadership is about as effective as changing the wallpaper in a house that's on fire! I actually personally believe that we live in a plutocracy and was hoping Obama would fix that. It remains to be seen. It is an every day exercise.
We have a rule though. You can keep living your way. I'd rather engage him and explain to him why I think otherwise. Not why he is wrong, but why I think the way I do. I believe that's the only way for them to understand us, the only towards compromise or convincing them they're simply wrong on certain issuesand the only way to live together. And, unfortunately for you, we do have to live together in this nation.
I simply wanted to confer to the OP that one can be progressive and socially liberal without being vindictively close-minded with regards to those who grew up in different circumstances. I agree. But this is hardly the only political issue of the day.
The GOP will continue to exist, and exert tremendous influence, after that has been decided. If that's the only reason you abhor that political party and you're still so adamantly set against them It's your life and I most certainly can understand where you're coming from.
You and my mother would get along great! And she's a really cool lady, I meant that as a compliment.
A fractionated democracy? See the "With us or against us" policy of the Bush administration. See the "Family" initiatives of the Repubs during the Clinton administration. Oh, I completely agree that the Republicans are primarily responsible for polarizing the political process - pushing towards complete no-cooperation as demonstrated in the dozens of attempts to repeal the Affordable Care Act.
That interrupt dating a republican reddit question confirm. And
Polarization is padded by redistricting on the state level, driven by Republican controlled state legislature. And finally, the polarization is twisted by the complete denial of facts as when it comes to be simply wrong as the Republicans are on voter fraud, the attack on Benghazi, and that list goes on.
As a Democrat I obviously view these as highly problematic realities. With fractionated democracy I'm not only addressing partisan polarization in the legislatures, and increasingly the judiciary, but also alluding to the fact that liberals consume their political news primarily from sources including but not limited to the NYT, Guardian, The Daily Show, MSNBC, Huffington Post, etc. The fact that people re-enforce their opinions in agreeable echo chambers makes the any dissenting views seem more alien and irrational than they already are.
And I view a fair and progressive tax code, an accessible healthcare system, and an effective education system as corner stones to a dignified life; more so in fact that the right to marriage, which is the only GSM discussed at a national level. The importance of work place non-discrimination laws? Left to municipalities and states. That said, I respect your difference in opinion and I'm happy - indeed grateful - that those such as yourself champion other issues. Issues that I hope will be addressed at the end of the day.
And I respect yours. The problem, in my opinion, with leaving non-discrimination laws of any sort to the states is that we know they are applied unequally if at all depending on the state, and that not doing so has been found by the Courts to be a violation of the 14th Amendment when it comes to protected classes. I really like the idea of state and local control of as much as possible, but we have many decades on all sorts of things, not necessarily social policy, where we've found it doesn't work well in practice.
Road signage for controlling traffic flow for example. I find it appalling that basic civil rights legislation cannot be agreed to at a federal level. I'm a federalist at heart. And this isn't just about GSM issues - women don't have an equal right's amendment that constitutionally protects them either.
However, social justice ends up as mere wedges issues to divide the electorate, because of the passion the stir up amongst the base during national elections.
It allows politicians to get away with saying little of substance and doing less. Moreover, progress at the state level creates a concrete political mandate at the federal level - as we can see with the string of state rulings on equal marriage rights and it's impact on the Obama administration. It seems ridiculous that voters should even have to consider working around the federal government, considering it's institutions are in place. But in the past two decades it's track record on progressive reform isn't exactly awe inspiring.
I've always assumed gay Republicans were self-hating too. Not sure if this is the case here though. He seems very relaxed and open about it, although that might just be a front.
Ya know, I've wondered too about younger Republicans, but then I look at the words coming from the Republican leadership at national, state, and local levels and can't figure out any other reason that someone would so vote and support a group that is so against their self-interest. I wish you the best in this endeavor. It's not always "self-hating".
Message, matchless))), dating a republican reddit mistaken
But it is always self-denying. Sure, some gay Republicans are indeed self-hating and hope that if they just do a good enough job being "mainstream" as Republicans that the "different"ness of being gay will go away - because they just really, really don't want to be "different".
But neither of those seems like your BF.
Yet, politics is still inherently about weighing what's important about your life. Some people really do place the highest values on being taxed as little as possible, carrying guns where they want, and being able to take economic advantage of others whenever the market will allow.
For some others their strongest value is a sincere concern for fetal life or orthodox religiosity, but that's uncommon for openly gay Republicans. For a few thousand less in taxes, they'd happily get rid of public schools, turn all roads into toll roads, and let poor children starve unless churches churches they don't tithe to decide to feed them.
Essentially, it's an "I get mine and screw you" mentality. They value their money and their right to make as much money in every way possible above ensuring that the disabled and poor are cared for, above improving equality for minorities of any kind that get discriminated against publicly or privately, above the destruction of Earth's ecology, scientific advancement that doesn't lead to a profitor product safety and other health regulations.
And, as you allude to in your post, a small number of people still are Republicans because that's the only party racists can safely belong to these days. If you don't understand what it's like to be on the receiving end of unfair discrimination or, as discussed, if you're a genuine religious zealotthen it's understandable that you might be a Republican.
But some people know full well how fundamentally unfair the world is, and they still have these priorities in life because they are jerks who don't see the rest of humanity as basically worth that much except as an economic resource for themselves.
This second category is what your BF seems to be in. So, the true problem is not that your BF is self-hating, but that the things he loves in life aren't very attractive.
But I still vote Democratic, because I believe in progressive values, and that government can be a major force for good. My point is this: I'm not a single issue voter. Republicans have one unifying belief: that less government intervention into the day-to-day lives of individuals and firms is better than the alternative.
If you disagree with that, that's fine. I disagree too, but to say that all gay republicans are self-hating is just You are literally what's wrong with politics today. How does that square with their anti-abortion stance which is in fact invading others lives? And your assessment of Republicans wanting "less government intervention. I mean, did you have a stroke while writing that? Republicans want to be in my bedroom, making sure I'm not getting married, making sure my health-care doesn't affect their personal beliefs.
And then, you have the audacity to say they want to stay out of my business? Any gay man that supports a party opposed to equal marriage is just as fucked up as a black person supporting a party in favor of Jim Crow laws. I'd think about how your discussions about politics go.
Are they civil? Is there empathy and understanding even when you disagree? Have either of you changed your views because of discussions you've had, or had your views informed by these discussions?
Do you get upset about the topic or about the person you're talking to? If your discussions deviate from the ideal, then see if you can bridge the gap, letting your partner know that mutual understanding and constructive discussion is your goal. If you don't want to do this or this doesn't work, then you should probably end it. If politics is important to one or both of you and you can't discuss it then the relationship will be very hard to maintain.
They're mostly civil. We have gotten into slight arguments over certain things That started our only real argument over politics, as he blatantly refused to listen to my points and basically argued that if he never experienced overt homophobia, then it wasn't an issue.
But usually if we disagree, one of us just drops it. Usually it's him saying some form of whatever, that issue isn't important to me. To me that's a major red flag. Not so much the homophobia, but his attitude that if he hasn't experienced it be it homophobia or whatever then it's negligible. That kind of selfish attitude usually leads to overt discounting of "others" such as the disabled, the poor, etc.
Economic conservatism is unrelated to sexual orientation. It's not hard to reconcile being fiscally conservative and being in a gay relationship, for example. On the other hand, religious and social conservatism is in direct conflict with LGBT rights. I really can't understand how you would consider being conservative economically worse than being socially conservative. Because it elevates economic inequality by saying that all people have an equal chance at success, and the government should recognize and respect that.
It's wholly incorrect. We need a radical redistribution of wealth and opportunity in this country. Could you define "economic conservative," because as someone who studies economics, I find it true that oftentimes, at least on some economic issues, conservatism is better but not for the reasons that they think they are. I find it funny how you stereotype republicans in this post.
Being gay you should realize that prejudging anyone is wrong. I vote republican but don't identify with ALL republicans. Ive voted Democrat before as well. It's not about which party one affiliates itself with, its what makes them part of that party. In the US we are stuck with two bad choices every election cycle and we get stuck picking the best of two evils.
Ask more questions about his views and beliefs. Don't worry if you disagree on some things because you will never agree on everything with any politician. In the end, if you can't vote for your own BF you should dump him. No really - whenever he opens his mouth to discuss his politics say "Benghazi" or "Obamacare". He'll think you're agreeing with him, or he'll get the point.
Either way you'll figure something out. If he thinks you agree with him the relationship will end because all hardcore politicians are subs and the whole point is to be dominated and that isn't as much fun when you agree all the time.
OTOH he may get the point that his whole political thing is mega tedious and obvious and shallow.
Dating a republican reddit
He won't like that either. As for ending the relationship? How's the sex? If the sex is good then stay.
Recommend dating a republican reddit consider
Actually not totally kidding, if other stuff is working then keep your own politics. Support his ambition to the point you can. Keep your own counsel. You know why republican wives are so stiff in public?
Half of them think their husbands are assholes on a lot of issues. In my opinion, if you're gay and Republican, you hate yourself.