fanyfan
i once put 42 mcdonalds chicken nuggets in my anus
First of all, there was a point where pretty much every politician was anti-gay marriage. It’s a disgusting part of our history, but even most democrats (except Bernie) who have been around that long have had those views, conversion therapy aside. For what it’s worth, Tulsi has given us a pretty good idea on why her personal views have changed (her service in Iraq). It’s a criticism of her, but her pro-lgbt voting record is also something to take into account. Since she’s joined the U.S. House of Reps in 2012, her voting record has been 100% pro-lgbt, so in the end I don’t think that holding anti-gay views years ago counts as holding views that are politically expedient. She has also issued multiple apologies to the lgbt community, so that shows strength to admit you were wrong rather than throwing it under the rug.People itt have been upset that she has been called homophobic because “she has changed her personal views.” Problem is her old personal views weren’t just anti marriage, they were pro conversion therapy. She still goes to the same church which holds the same beliefs, so she’s probably still donating to an organization that supports conversion therapy. But saying that isn’t politically expedient anymore I guess.
Now of course that’s my opinion that’s shes changed, and it’s perfectly fine for you to look at all that and come to a different conclusion. Now, where you lose me, is where you say
I searched and couldn’t find any evidence that she attends/donates to the same church that she used to attend. Unless you’re referring to the Hindu faith as a whole, in which case what I could find is that hindus in general are quite accepting of gay marriage, with just a couple exceptions. The organization that she was a part of in her early years, the one her father started, is clearly not what you’re referring to. Could you please provide some link to what you’re talking about? Otherwise it comes off as weird that you’re talking about something we have no evidence of.She still goes to the same church which holds the same beliefs, so she’s probably still donating to an organization that supports conversion therapy. But saying that isn’t politically expedient anymore I guess.
As I was formulating this post, there was something else I wanna respond to
I disagree that it’s hypocritical. There’s a difference between changing public polisions because it’s politically expedient and someone having an actual change of heart. A point I didn’t bring up before is people like Kamala, Booker, Gillibrand, etc are already backtracking on policies like Medicare for All, letting us know that they won’t fight for it when they get elected. Tulsi, on the other hand, I have found no convincing reason to believe that she has not genuinely changed her mind. Again, voting record, apologies, etc. That’s the difference in my mind, and probably others as well.No my point was that it’s a tad hypocritical to say certain people only changed viewpoints because it’s politically expedient to do so, which disqualifies them, then support Tulsi. I was also trying to say I don’t necessarily think changing view points because it’s politically expedient is always a bad thing (though I didn’t put it very well).