Democratic Agenda

[wooderson]

Opposition to homosexual marriage is widespread among non-religious Americans. 

Given that non-religious Americans represent, at most, 10% of the population, and "opposition to homosexual marriage" is basically a 55-45 split (and support for an amendment barring same-sex marriage is much lower - 35-40% nationally)... I find that somewhat difficult to believe.

[Dntsycnt]

Bush got reelected only because Karl Rove turned his second election into a referendum on Gay Marriage.  Record republican turnout, Christians against homos.

Opposition to homosexual marriage is widespread among non-religious Americans.  That is why states were rejecting homosexual marriage by majorities on the order of seventy percent.  You think all, or even half, of those people are motivated by religion? 

Religion, bigotry, and fear of change, yes.  I don't think most homophobes are villians, they just can't beat the prejudice they were raised on.  But this senseless taboo is fading, so smile!

[Manedwolf]

Bush got reelected only because Karl Rove turned his second election into a referendum on Gay Marriage.  Record republican turnout, Christians against homos.

Opposition to homosexual marriage is widespread among non-religious Americans.  That is why states were rejecting homosexual marriage by majorities on the order of seventy percent.  You think all, or even half, of those people are motivated by religion? 

Religion, bigotry, and fear of change, yes.  I don't think most homophobes are villians, they just can't beat the prejudice they were raised on.  But this senseless taboo is fading, so smile!

Yes, smile like a Greek or a Roman, who also thought their world would last forever.

Some of us have studied history, and know what in stage of an empire it is that open and public homosexuality exists.

It's not the ascension, that's for sure.

[Dntsycnt]

Yep, the gays are bringing down America.

Have you studied up on a correlation between togas and falling empires as well?

How about when an empire starts using pillars and domes in their architecture?

The magic of correlation vs. causation.  *yawn*

[seeker_two]

What is the Democratic agenda?.......



Ultimate Power.....of course....

[Perd Hapley]

Opposition to homosexual marriage is widespread among non-religious Americans. 

Given that non-religious Americans represent, at most, 10% of the population, and "opposition to homosexual marriage" is basically a 55-45 split (and support for an amendment barring same-sex marriage is much lower - 35-40% nationally)... I find that somewhat difficult to believe.

Your idea of "non-religious" and mine are much different.  I'm talking about a much larger group, perhaps half the country. 

But having cleared that up, I'm not sure what you find so hard to believe. 

I don't know where you get your 55-45 numbers.  I was referring to the state-wide measures that were voted down by very large margins, in 2004. 

All that aside, the point is that opposition to HM is not merely a matter of "the Chrstian fanatics versus the homos."  Many Americans are opposed to it, quite apart from any religious motive. 

Religion, bigotry, and fear of change, yes.  I don't think most homophobes are villians, they just can't beat the prejudice they were raised on.  But this senseless taboo is fading, so smile! 

Yawn.  Heard it before.  Let me know when you have something besides talking points. 

[Dntsycnt]

Okay, define "non-religious".  It sounds like a pretty loose definition to include half the country.

Wooderson has provided some more grounded thought but you seem to have shrugged it off and just restated your original claim.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

You're new here, so lemme take the opportunity to 'splain things to you.  We've been round and round about gay marriage.  Check the archives.  Unless you have something novel to say, save you're fingertips some wear and tear.

Moving on...

It's an easy thing to blame "the religious right".  I get that.  The left loves to tell itself that conservatives are all evil racist, sexist, bigoted, homophobic, backwards Bible thumpers.  It gives them a good way to rationalize away their losses.  Far easier to believe that than to accept that the American public votes against them because we reject their socialist policies.

The people here who are actually members of the Republican Party and/or the far right are all telling you that "the religious right" isn't calling the shots.  It's only the leftists, folks who chronically misunderstand the right, who are trying to claim that "the religious right" is a big deal.  Take a clue from that.

[Manedwolf]

All that aside, the point is that opposition to HM is not merely a matter of "the Chrstian fanatics versus the homos."  Many Americans are opposed to it, quite apart from any religious motive. 

I already agreed with you on that, Fistful, but he ignored it. I'm not religious, and I'm against it. Orson Scott Card, one of the most respected speculative writers of the 20th century (a man whose job it is to look into the future and see where things are leading) is against it on purely academic grounds of what it would do do society. 

Even the Dalai Lama called it "unnatural". Maybe they can attack him as a bigot now, too?

[Perd Hapley]

Okay, define "non-religious".  It sounds like a pretty loose definition to include half the country.

Wooderson has provided some more grounded thought but you seem to have shrugged it off and just restated your original claim.

No, wooderson has cited some statistics, then failed to explain how they relate to my comment. 

Non-religious.  Hmm.  Perhaps it would be better to say "not-especially-religious," or "non-observant"?  Maybe I can expand on that later.  I'm going to work now. 

[Dntsycnt]

So by "non-religious" we're saying "not as religious"?  That seems a little dishonest to me...

And for the record, I think there are just as many religious people on the left as there are on the right.  They just shift their religions to match their world views...like everybody else.

So I guess I will agree that it's not the Religious Right vs. the Logical Left as is sometimes painted.  It's the Religious Right vs the Religious Left with the nonreligious on both sides shaking their heads in frustration.

I am still disturbed by the notion held by some on this board that the gays have to be kept down because they will destroy the country.  It's like when eugenics pops up on THR...

[Manedwolf]

I am still disturbed by the notion held by some on this board that the gays have to be kept down because they will destroy the country.  It's like when eugenics pops up on THR...

Strawman. Nobody has to be "kept down" regarding something done in the privacy of the bedroom.

Homosexual marriage, on the other hand, is taking a bulldozer to the very foundations of Western civilization.

[Dntsycnt]

You said you were against, "open and public homosexuality" because it would bring the collapse of our empire.

It was to this that I was referring when I said "kept down".

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Why is it that the left always finds it "disturbing" when someone else doesn't buy into the left's own peculiar view of the world?  Why is it OK for the left to blast the Christian right, but not OK for the right to think ill of gay marriage? 

The left claims to support diversity and open-mindedness.  It doesn't.  The American left is about as closed-minded as any social group has every been.  If anyone dares to disagree with the Politically Correct Viewpoint, they are branded as "disturbing" or <gasp> discriminatory.

[wooderson]

Why is it OK for the left to blast the Christian right, but not OK for the right to think ill of gay marriage?

Do you know of any groups who opposes "Christian marriage"? Large numbers of "left"-leaning individuals who do?

That's the proper analogy to the latter statement - and it obviously doesn't exist.

[Manedwolf]

Why is it OK for the left to blast the Christian right, but not OK for the right to think ill of gay marriage?

Do you know of any groups who opposes "Christian marriage"? Large numbers of "left"-leaning individuals who do?

Yeah, I do, actually. They derisively (and ironically) call straight and/or heterosexual married people "breeders".

From an evolutionary standpoint, that's pretty funny, actually.

[wooderson]

Yeah, I do, actually. They derisively (and ironically) call straight and/or heterosexual married people "breeders".

So which groups are these? You skipped that part.

(Hint: gay folks joking about 'breeders' doesn't mean they 'oppose Christian marriage.')

[christopher]

Quote from: votestrike on March 18, 2008, 04:36:39 PM
What I propose is a third option. To stand up like men & say enough is enough. This November vote them all out!

Uhhhhhh...

I've never seen None of the Above on any ballot I've ever used in the past 38 years so how do you propose that we ...vote them all out!


The technical term is "velvet revolution". When the people of East Germany, Poland, etc refused to cooperate the Berlin Wall came down & democracy was born.

When a corrupt government has no public support (Congresses approval rating between 10 to 20% depending upon the poll, the presidents around 30%) they are easier to vote out then we've been led to believe.

[Werewolf]

Why is it OK for the left to blast the Christian right, but not OK for the right to think ill of gay marriage?

Do you know of any groups who opposes "Christian marriage"? Large numbers of "left"-leaning individuals who do?

That's the proper analogy to the latter statement - and it obviously doesn't exist.

Horse Puckey...

The proper analogy is why is it ok for the left to push an agenda that says homosexuality is A-OK while it isn't OK for the right to voice their opposition to a practice they feel will only damage our culture.

Seems like a double standard to me!

[wooderson]

The proper analogy is why is it ok for the left to push an agenda that says homosexuality is A-OK while it isn't OK for the right to voice their opposition to a practice they feel will only damage our culture.

Er... no. You don't understand what an analogy is, I suppose.

But skipping that - can you find, please, the legislation authored by "the left," depriving "the right to voice opposition" to same-sex marriage?

[Werewolf]

When a corrupt government has no public support (Congresses approval rating between 10 to 20% depending upon the poll, the presidents around 30%) they are easier to vote out then we've been led to believe.

Again - how do you propose to vote them all out? Just not vote? The weenies in power would love that. There is no none of the above spot on the ballots.

What is this velvet revolution you speak of?

Sorry, man, but voting them all out just isn't an option within our system the way it is setup unless there's something you know that the rest of us don't.

[christopher]

< What is this velvet revolution you speak of?

Non cooperation

<Sorry, man, but voting them all out just isn't an option within our system the way it is setup unless there's <something you know that the rest of us don't.



 We  already  have  a  situation  in  which  50%  are  so  disgusted  they  don't  vote  &  the  people  who  do  vote  are  not  happy  about  their  choices.  Now  what  if  all  of  those  people  came  together  as  One  Voice  to  demand  new  parties  &  publicly  funded  elections.

Border agents, police, fire & now the republican talk show host have all come out saying it would betray the country to vote for any of the presidential wannabes. We live in a unique time in that even the middle-class is having to deal with issues (overcrowded roads, failing infrastructure, rising tuition, high taxes,low education levels,rampant crime, HMOs, Social Security, pedophiles,out-of-control debt, etc) that go unresolved under republican or democratic leadership. Meaning that for the first time the police are on our side & there is nothing keeping us from throwing the bums out, without firing a shot!

[Perd Hapley]

So by "non-religious" we're saying "not as religious"?  That seems a little dishonest to me...

What?  It's just a difference in perspective.  Sheesh.  I was talking about people who go to church twice a year.  He was talking about people that have no discernible religious practice or belief.  I guess.  He really didn't say what he meant. 

Nor did wooderson explain what his stats were supposed to mean.  Since you seem to care about it more than he does, perhaps you could interpret. 

I am still disturbed by the notion held by some on this board that the gays have to be kept down because they will destroy the country.

I'm not really sure what notions you're talking about, but I think you misunderstand.  I don't think anyone believes that some small percentage of fashion-conscious, male Broadway fans will destroy the country. 

[Werewolf]

< What is this velvet revolution you speak of?

Non cooperation

<Sorry, man, but voting them all out just isn't an option within our system the way it is setup unless there's <something you know that the rest of us don't.



 We  already  have  a  situation  in  which  50%  are  so  disgusted  they  don't  vote  &  the  people  who  do  vote  are  not  happy  about  their  choices.  Now  what  if  all  of  those  people  came  together  as  One  Voice  to  demand  new  parties  &  publicly  funded  elections.

Border agents, police, fire & now the republican talk show host have all come out saying it would betray the country to vote for any of the presidential wannabes. We live in a unique time in that even the middle-class is having to deal with issues (overcrowded roads, failing infrastructure, rising tuition, high taxes,low education levels,rampant crime, HMOs, Social Security, pedophiles,out-of-control debt, etc) that go unresolved under republican or democratic leadership. Meaning that for the first time the police are on our side & there is nothing keeping us from throwing the bums out, without firing a shot!

Let's assume not one person votes in the next election and 160 million or so eligible voters shout out as one, "step down, we want you gone".

What happens when the congress critters just say no?

That's what they'd do of course. Thumb their noses at the velvet revolution. They'd keep their offices by default if no votes were cast.

But we both know the voters aren't going to do as you suggest and the congress critters are going to keep doing what they've been doing since the very 1st politician.

Your velvet revolution sounds a lot like a peaceful replacement of the current government. That's not going to happen. Real life just doesn't work that way.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

I'm still waiting for a good explanation.  All I've seen so far is a crude attempt to misdirect.  So lemme ask it again:

Why is it OK for the left to think ill of the Christian right, but not OK for the right (Christian or otherwise) to think ill of gay marriage?