Harvey Milk was a pedophile that raped young teenage boys. Something that the Left tries to cover up. I don't know what you have been smoking but a lot of Conservative groups have been more open to LGBTQ people for a while now in the states. Fuck, the former ambassador for the Middle East under Trump was a gay man! You won't give him credit though for that since you are a foaming at the mouth loon.
Sources please!
Shows how much you actually know about gays and how they have been treated trough out the history of the United States as it was normal to pretty much see every homosexual as (potential) pedophile, I quote :
John Briggs was forced to drop out of the 1978 race for California governor, but received enthusiastic support for Proposition 6, dubbed the Briggs Initiative. The proposed law would have made firing gay teachers—and any public school employees who supported gay rights—mandatory. Briggs' messages supporting Proposition 6 were pervasive throughout California, and Harvey Milk attended every event Briggs hosted. Milk campaigned against the bill throughout the state as well,[106] and swore that even if Briggs won California, he would not win San Francisco.[107] In their numerous debates, which toward the end had been honed to quick back-and-forth banter, Briggs maintained that homosexual teachers wanted to abuse and recruit children. Milk responded with statistics compiled by law enforcement that provided evidence that pedophiles identified primarily as heterosexual, and dismissed Briggs' assertions with one-liner jokes: "If it were true that children mimicked their teachers, you'd sure have a helluva lot more nuns running around.
This is what people growing up in the 1950s have been thaught - like in schools - and obviously in the 1970s and 80s a lot of people still believed in it.
And even up to this day you will find people saying "gays corrupt your children and youth!".
John Briggs was a conservative by the way.
Fuck, the former ambassador for the Middle East under Trump was a gay man! You won't give him credit though for that since you are a foaming at the mouth loon.
YAAAAAAAAAAAY The republican party has arrived in the 21. Century! Good for them ... I guess. Want a participation trophy now?
Here is the thing. Having an ambassador that's a homosexual shouldn't even be a talking point. The fact that you have to actually name this, proves that this is rare among conservatives. Look! We are not that bad ... we ... we have this gay man here as a token to prove that we're not bad! Accept us! Accept us! Plz! Minorities! We love ya! But we will still vote against your rights to please our core voter base.
Also, it was the Republicans in America that have always been against slavery and segregation
That was 200 years ago. Here is a small hint. It's not the party of Lincoln anymore. The Republican party changed heavily, particularly in the Southern States over the course of history. Besides the Republican party was never the party of abolitionism from the begining and it isn't why the republican party was formed as abolutionists have been the anti-slavery movement of the time and they have been seen as radicals and extremists. Lincoln him self held the position that a nation can not be divided on the question. Lincoln was against slavery seeing it as an immoral act.
"I am naturally anti-slavery. If slavery is not wrong, nothing is wrong," - "I can not remember when I did not so think, and feel.". But at the same time he was also a politican who understood that abolishing slavery was not a popular move not even among his own party. In the 1850s Lincoln was attacked for being anti-slavery in the 1860s he was attacked for not being anti-slavery enough. Many people back then, particularly in the north but not just there, have been anti-slavery but not necessarily part of the abolutionism movement as they asked them self, I quote "
of what would become of the four million slaves if liberated: how they would earn a living in a society that had almost always rejected them, or looked down on their very presence". Or to take a look at the history of Douglass Adams who was an abolitionist and why he chose the Republican Party even though there have been movement with a much stronger stance against slavery :
Frederick Douglass and the Republican Party
On 28 February 1854, In Ripon, Wisconsin, the name Republican was adopted as the new label for the Jeffersonians11 and their first convention was held later that year on 6 July in Jackson, Michigan. Members of this new party included those who had been previously aligned with the Whigs, the free Democrats, the Free Soilers, and the American Party and later converted members of the Liberty Party. The Republican Party, to start off, didn't hold strong views toward the issue of slavery, and it was only brought up in the context of Jefferson's support for "the idea of a nation of small landholders, radically opposed to the established aristocracy" with its "opposition to slavocracy along with support for new railroads, free homesteads, opening of West by free labor and protective tariffs."12 Douglass, having been previously allied with the William Lloyd Garrison and his followers (see Essay by Jay Thompson)13, found himself appreciating the possible benefits that political action could have towards abolitionism and in 1856 moved from the Liberty Party to the endorsement of the Republican Party, but only after a period throughout the 1850s where "he would align himself primarily with the Liberty Party14 or Radical Abolitionists in principle, but come election time he would opt for expediency and support the Presidential candidate he deemed the most pragmatic compromise between his radical abolitionism and his growing political activism."15 This was his way of conveying his radical abolitionism to encourage supporters and those in the main parties, specifically the Republicans, to establish a more concrete stance on abolition and slavery. In an editorial in 1856, he appealed to the masses with the following:
>>From our political philosophy, we are at liberty to consider the state of the public mind, and look at immediate results, as well as remote consequences. We are liberty to inquire how far our vote, at a given time, will forward what we conceive to be the highest interests of society; and having considered this, we are at liberty, -nay it is our indispensable duty to cast our vote in that direction, which, upon a survey of the whole facts in the case, will best promote that great end.<<
(...)
Part of Douglass's attraction to the Republican Party was it's new found strength and the fact that it seemed the most viable route to take. The other of the two powerful parties, the Democratic Party, was made up in large part of white Southerners and proponents of slavery. Since its establishment in 1854, the Republican Party had become somewhat of "an alliance of antislavery forces…[it] would only limit the expansion of slavery within the existing United States, believing that slavery would gradually die out."17 He believed that the Republican Party, with at least a basis of antislavery sentiments, had the best chance of winning an election over the smaller (yet more dedicated) parties,18 and he hoped to build upon this basis when it was put into place, which he and hundreds of black Americans helped by casting their votes. Lincoln was not an Abolitionist president - at best, moderately antislavery - however this option was better than having a Democratic candidate in office, one who would do nothing but hurt the abolitionist cause.
Frederick Douglass Project: Katharine Beecher Brodock's "Antislavery, Abolitionism, and the Republican Party of the 1800s " Essay | RBSCP (rochester.edu)
So yes. You're right. Compared to the Democratic Party of the 1800? The Republicans have been more anti-salvery. But have they been an abolutionist movement? No. They became one over time when the conflict between slavery and anti-slavery started to take form over the decades.
However it's funny to see how long Rebublicans today ride that dick when it comes to the issues of conservatism and their stance on equality and civil rights ... why do you have problems wit us! Republicans freed the slaves! Now move into the back of the buss, boy!
Yes and that was with the old evangelical wing of the Republican party. The Bush Republicans. They have no power anymore and are no longer the popular mindset with younger Conservatives.
Yes! Finally there is a change here. But to say that those evangelicals have no say in conservative circles? That's a really bold statement and not backed up the reality. Betsy Devos, Mike Pence and more which have been part of the Trump administration and they still hold significant influence within the republican and conservative establishment - probably Mike Pence less these days ... but I think we all know why. Anyway. Seriously. Do you even know conservatism, like really? It doesn't seem to me that you actually do. Just the surface of it.
You have high profile republicans which over the decades changed their message to appeal to the christian (fundamentalist) demographic and base. Don't believe it? Look at one example. Their stance on Evolution. How many republican politicans are there that actually believe it to be true? My guess. You won't find many that openly state that they think the Theory of Evolution to be the explanation for well evolution. But almost all of them promote creationism. From all the republican presidential candidates in the previous election pretty much all of them saw creationism as absolutely "true" while only one of them didn't outright dennied the theory of evolution.
Again, there is ... research ... about this stuff.
Significantly fewer Republicans believe in evolution than did so four years ago, setting them apart from Democrats and independents, according to a recent Pew Research Center study. But behind this finding is a puzzle: If the views of the overall public have remained steady, and there has been little change among people of other political affiliations, how does one account for the Republican numbers? Shouldn’t the marked drop in Republican believers cause a decline in the 60% of all adults who say humans have evolved over time?
Republicans' views on evolution | Pew Research Center
And this has a lot to do with the christian right gaining momentum and influence within the republican party in a time of a changing demographic as younger people are less likely to actually vote for Republicans and conservatives in general. Republicans in particular have serious issues in interesting young voters to their cause.
Lets see... What is it that Lydon B Johnson said about Blacks?
"I am going to have those niggers voting Democrat for the next 200 years!"
Why do you bring that up when I already adressed it? I quote my self :
And yes. Joe Biden and many other Democrats have been shit heads on those issues as well. But when it comes to who has blocked same sex marriage the most and the longest?
Conservatives.
Yes. Many democrats had back in those days very appaling views. Just. Like. The. Republicans. But here is the thing you're missing. Where are all those Republican legislators from the 1960s and 70s marching on the forefront with civil rights movements? Where. Are. They? Show them to me. Show me those Republicans and Conservatives that marched with MLK, that stood with Malcom X, that walked trough Selma and the countless other battles and fights the civil rights movement had from the 1950s trough the 1980s.
If Republicans have been this shining beason of equal rights than there should be countless of them to find. Right? When we're talking about the issues today within conservative movements than it is not very helpfull to say, yeah you see but in the 1970s democrats have been shit too! What relevance does that have to our time and someone like Rev. Ralph Drollinger.
"Environmentalists and people with “depraved minds” are also igniting "God's wrath," "Trump Cabinet's Bible teacher says gays cause 'God's wrath' in COVID-19 blog post (nbcnews.com).
Because here is the thing. While both Democrats and Republicans had some serious shitheads in their ranks ... the Democrats at the very least saw a change trough the 1980s and 90s. Much sooner than Republicans did. Who still have issues adapting to that reality. And in some cases they want even to reverse some policies and rights.
I do not agree with everything the democrats do or say and there are racists, sexists and homophobes in their ranks as well. But to believe that the Republicans and conservatives above all are the ... protectors of the LGBTQ communities and minorities? I really do not see the basis for that. Conservative legislators and politicans are usually the ones that block their protection and rights. Even today. What ever the "conservatives" here think as individuals, is one thing. I can't look into all their heads. But in the end the day the policies and ideas that come from conservative movements do not scream "yaaay gay rights!" in to my face.
