Talk:LGBTQ conservatism in the United States

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on LGBT conservatism in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140703032944/http://www.glbtq.com/social-sciences/republican_party.html to http://www.glbtq.com/social-sciences/republican_party.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140401073246/http://www.thetaskforce.org/issues/hate_crimes_main_page/timeline to http://www.thetaskforce.org/issues/hate_crimes_main_page/timeline
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140703032944/http://www.glbtq.com/social-sciences/republican_party.html to http://www.glbtq.com/social-sciences/republican_party.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140817104023/http://www.glbtq.com/social-sciences/republican_party,2.html to http://www.glbtq.com/social-sciences/republican_party,2.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130126102046/http://www.foxnews.com/politics/elections/2012-exit-poll to http://www.foxnews.com/politics/elections/2012-exit-poll

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:19, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Proposed addition to Demographics Section

I propose adding the following to the demographics section of this article. According to the 2016 Cooperative Congressional Election Study, slightly more than eleven percent (11.8%) of non-heterosexuals in the United States describe their political ideology as either somewhat conservative, conservative, or very conservative, compared to about sixty percent (60.2%) who would describe their political ideology as either somewhat liberal, liberal, or very liberal and about nineteen percent (19.1%) who describe their political ideology as middle-of-the-road Professorcravens (talk) 21:44, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

References

Proposed edit to Introduction

I propose the following changes to the introduction section, with appropriate links:

LGBT conservatism in the United States refers to a social and political ideology within the LGBT community that largely aligns with the American conservative movement. Although the majority of LGBT people are ideologically liberal and/or supportive of the Democratic Party, a significant proportion of sexual and gender minorities identify as ideologically conservative and/or support the Republican Party. LGBT conservatism is generally more moderate on issues of social conservatism, instead emphasizing values associated with fiscal conservatism, libertarian conservatism, and neoconservatism. Professorcravens (talk) 15:04, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

I support this edit.AnaSoc (talk) 22:13, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Eliminating Scruff polls?

Would anyone be opposed to eliminating the references to Scruff polls and instead substituting polls from more reputable sources? Professorcravens (talk) 15:46, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

This is a good suggestion, talk AnaSoc (talk) 22:14, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Outing?

I would propose a new section on Outing as this is a serious topic for LGBT conservatives. See Larry Gross, The Contested Closet. Any comment or suggestions? Professorcravens (talk) 22:16, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

is outing a problem specific to LGBT conservatives? I would be interested in seeing some suggested text. AnaSoc (talk) 22:15, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Outing is largely an outdated practice reserved mostly for Republican candidates and politicians. Generally if a GOP individual is married to a member of the opposite sex or is perceived to support anti-LGBT policy or people proposing said policies, they may be outed if found in compromising positions. But I do not believe this has happened in many years. Usually targets of outing are pastors who are accused of hypocrisy in their religious messaging but are found to be engaging in compromising behavior. For the average LGBT conservative, we tend to be indistinguishable from most other LGBT in America, living openly and identifying as LGBT without issue, so there is rarely an opportunity for it to be used against us maliciously. --Chadfelixgreene (talk) 15:52, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Homophile section

talk The homophile section reads nicely and is a valuable addition to this article. AnaSoc (talk) 22:12, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Gay Conservative Resource

Hello everyone, I am very new to wikipedia editing and am likely to make a lot of mistakes so I appreciate your patience. I am a political commentator in the conservative sphere as a gay conservative voice. I write largely on LGBT conservative ideas and accuracy of LGBT reporting. I am verified on twitter and a senior contributor to The Federalist, but I do not have a wiki page myself and I am not included on any LGBT conservatism pages (which is fine lol) so I am unsure if I would have a COI or not in editing information. I would enjoy offering proposals and being available as a resource for questions or any clarification if needed. I appreciate neutrality in these discussions which is often not well represented for individuals who identify within the sphere of conservative, libertarian or other areas of the American political Right.

Thank you! --Chadfelixgreene (talk) 15:06, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Map Source?

Just curious where the data for the first map is from since there are no citations for it and I couldn't find evidence supporting in through my own internet searching. Thanks! Kimclan1 (talk) 02:22, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Unsourced section

The LGBT conservatives section is unsourced and tagged since June 2018. I am NOT attempting to get into any politics but IF there is one name on the list, with an article or not, such as Neil Giuliano, then care has to be extended to protection allowed by BLP policies and Wikimedia mandates. I have seen that many of the names listed do have relevant content on the subjects article page but I did not look at all of them. This could result in article section blanking for possible BLP policy violations.

At this point, I am simply bringing this up that something needs to be done. A name used on an article does not get exclusion from sourcing because the subject may be sourced under another article.

An example: Robert E. Bauman is listed on this article (notes section) as: "Came out after time in Congress". This is unsourced and when I went to the article on the subject I found in the last section (Post-congressional activities): The Gentleman from Maryland: The Conscience of a Gay Conservative, which was published in 1986. Otr500 (talk) 18:44, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

I've arrived at this article through its tag for copyediting, which I have addressed, so I'm not an expert in this subject - but agree that this section either needs sourcing or deleting. In particular, people on the list who do not themselves have a Wiki article should be removed, even if referenced. Tacyarg (talk) 20:16, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Map is Outdated

The map provided with the color-coded legend does not correspond with the current positions of state party platforms. New Mexico, Montana, and Arkansas explicitly opposed same-sex marriage by defining marriage as exclusively heterosexual. The Massachusetts GOP platform stated that it supports "traditional marriage." While this is not defined by the platform, it is not the same as taking no position. It is, at best, a "wink" to the wing of the GOP that opposes same-sex marriage.SeminarianJohn (talk) 03:00, 28 July 2019 (UTC)