Democratic Agenda

[wooderson]

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?

I guess y'all still aren't clear on that whole analogy deal.

There is a vast difference between "thinking ill of" and opposing the grant of legal privileges to a class of people.

For an analogy to work, you need the two sides to balance - to be about the same thing. Partisanship and opposition to same-sex marriage aren't the same issue. There's no hypocrisy involved, as they don't inter-relate.

If you'd like to illustrate the 'hypocrisy of the left' in terms of right-wing opposition to same-sex marriage, you need to find the groups and large numbers of people opposing "Christian marriage."

Good luck.

[Werewolf]

The proper analogy question 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?

There fixed it for you. Happy now? Ever think about becoming a HS English teacher?

That said: ANSWER THE QUESTION! Don't play side walking sand crab and sidestep the issue with BS about some imaginary and irrelevant  legislation.

We both know there's no such legislation and you were just ignoring the real issue which is:

Why it is OK for leftists to push their agenda re: Homosexuality but it isn't OK for those opposed to the homosexual agenda to voice their opposition.

And just so you'll get it Wooderson, since you obviously focus more on individual words than the content built within the aggregate - when the right opposes homosexuality - the left, be it the media, individuals or homosexual organizations shout as one that those opposing their agenda are backwards, redneck, intolerant homophobes. Yet those that agree with them are forward looking, tolerant free thinkers. That sounds an awful lot like it's OK for them to push their agenda, but no one else has the right be it political or moral to push their's. Go ahead and deny that that is what happens. If you do you will be practicing the worst form of intellectual dishonesty imaginable - or you're just blind to the real world around you.

A good example of that very thing is what happened right here in OK just last week - even made youtube - and sparked a protest by the pro homesexual orgs here. One of our female legislators made a speech about homesexuality and how it is more dangerous to our nation than terrorism and will destroy our nation. A bit over the top in my opinion but she had every right to say it. Not according to the homosexuals though. They called for her resignation, called her an intolerant bigot. Made it clear they didn't want her in public office saying her piece. In other words they wanted her to shut up and go away for having the effrontery to question the morality of homesexuality and whether or not it is good for the USA.

And you know what? We right wingers are a heck of a lot more tolerant about you guys than you are about us. Most of us could care less what you do in the privacy of your bedroom with the porn you bought and/or your boyfriend/girlfriend. WE JUST DON'T WANT TO HEAR ABOUT IT! But you guys insist on telling us all about your homosexuality, that it's a good and natural thing, that there's something wrong with us if we don't accept your practices and oppose it being taught in our schools. WE DON'T CARE WHAT YOU DO WITH YOUR SAME SEX PARTNER - just stop talking about it, marching about it and trying to make it a culturally accepted practice in our society and in our schools  (yes you do do that with books like "Tommy has TWO Mommies" and it's ilk.

The LEFT seems to believe it is the way, that it has a lock on the truth and no one else does and any who disagree with its version of the truth must be stupid, illiterate or just plain mean.

Got news for ya Wooderson and the rest of your leftie buddies. You don't have a lock on the truth and you're the intolerant ones who seem to have forgotten where you live and the fact that free speech works both sides of the same coin and not just yours to use.

[wooderson]

That said: ANSWER THE QUESTION!

I can't answer a question based on false premises and faulty assumptions.

To whit - have you stopped beating your wife yet?

Why it is OK for leftists to push their agenda re: Homosexuality but it isn't OK for those opposed to the homosexual agenda to voice their opposition.

I've yet to see anyone argue that "opposition to same-sex marriage" should be prohibited by law.

Can you find the proposed legislation criminalizing opposition to same-sex marriage, gay adoption or any of the other elements of this insidious "homosexual agenda"?

[wooderson]

If I wanted to really have fun, I'd just ask you why "opposition to opposition to same-sex marriage" is wrong and awful in your eyes.

[Werewolf]

That said: ANSWER THE QUESTION!

I can't answer a question based on false premises and faulty assumptions.

To whit - have you stopped beating your wife yet?

Why it is OK for leftists to push their agenda re: Homosexuality but it isn't OK for those opposed to the homosexual agenda to voice their opposition.

I've yet to see anyone argue that "opposition to same-sex marriage" should be prohibited by law.

Can you find the proposed legislation criminalizing opposition to same-sex marriage, gay adoption or any of the other elements of this insidious "homosexual agenda"?

Sidewalking sandcrab...

[wooderson]

If you can't answer, that's okay.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

If you can't answer, that's okay.

That's amusing coming from you, given that you still haven't answered my simple question.

Why is it OK for the left to have their opinion on gay marriage but not OK for the right to have theirs?

It's an amusing question to be sure. 

Those who champion diversity try to stifle it whenever possible.  Anyone who exhibits diversity is branded "disturbing".  When caught discriminating against others, they have the nerve to accuse those others of discrimination. 

Those who champion populism and pure democracy refuse to accept the clear majority opinion on the issue.

Those who claim to be most open minded consistently and stubbornly refuse to open their mind to anything accept the socially acceptable politically correct viewpoint. 

Anyway, I don't expect much in the way of a straight answer.  But it's still fun to watch you squirm around the issue.

[wooderson]

That's amusing coming from you, given that you still haven't answered my simple question.

Sure I have. Read above. Or wait, I'll quote myself:

Why is it OK for the left to have their opinion on gay marriage but not OK for the right to have theirs?

"I can't answer a question based on false premises and faulty assumptions."
"Can you find the proposed legislation criminalizing opposition to same-sex marriage, gay adoption or any of the other elements of this insidious "homosexual agenda"?"

Why is it OK for the right to have their opinion on gay marriage, but "not OK for the left to have their opinion of that opinion"?

Do all opinions deserve the same forum, the same degree of respect?

Do you value all opposition opinions to the same degree as you value your own?

[christopher]

<That's not going to happen. Real life just doesn't work that way.

So the Berlin wall is still standing. The Poles are still controlled by Communist?

Uhhhh, yes it does work that way. When people refuse to cooperate with a corrupt government they can only stay in power through force. What happens when the police refuse those orders? Politicians have two options then 1. get the hell out of the way or 2. get arrested.

Politicians don't fear us now because 1. we're not organized & 2. they can rely on the police. But the police are citizen too & their support is shakey at best. People in the military & the police have to travel the same congested highways, send their kids to the same overcrowded out-of-date schools that we do, etc., etc.

So the question shouldn't be about gay marriage or any other wedge issue used by politicians to keep the 49/51% split. Before we were republicans or democrats we were Americans. We need to set aside all of our political differences & start working together.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Why is it OK for the left to have their opinion on gay marriage but not OK for the right to have theirs?

"I can't answer a question based on false premises and faulty assumptions."
"Can you find the proposed legislation criminalizing opposition to same-sex marriage, gay adoption or any of the other elements of this insidious "homosexual agenda"?"

That's not an answer, that's a dodge. 

A Christian conservative expressing a well-reasoned argument against gay marriage is shouted down as bigoted, discriminatory, prejudicial, homophobic, "disturbing."  Why isn't it equally "disturbing" when a leftwinger discriminates against, or insults, shouts down, or exhibits brazen prejudice against Christians?  Or conservatives?  Or gunowners.  Or...?

I hadn't thought of it in terms of a crime, but now that you mention it, political incorrectness is in fact a serious social crime.  Try it at a dinner party some time.  Try it at the office, or at school.  What happens to public figures who utter a politically incorrect remark on TV or the radio?  You have to be politically correct every moment of you social life, or else!

It could just as easily be the other way around.  Why isn't it a social crime support closed-minded political correctness?

[wooderson]

That's not an answer, that's a dodge.

No, what you're doing is dodging.

See how this works? You're begging the question, and then getting upset when I don't accept your premises.

A Christian conservative expressing a well-reasoned argument against gay marriage is shouted down as bigoted, discriminatory, prejudicial, homophobic, "disturbing."

"Quit picking on me."

Why isn't it equally "disturbing" when a leftwinger discriminates against, or insults, shouts down, or exhibits brazen prejudice against Christians?

"Quit picking on me."

What happens to public figures who utter a politically incorrect remark on TV or the radio?  You have to be politically correct every moment of you social life, or else!

"Quit picking on me."


The problem continues to be that you're making, out of whole cloth, a feeling of being put upon, and then demanding an answer as to why this oppression is acceptable. "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?" - do you understand the problem with this kind of question?


But, again, I think it's wonderfully amusing that "opposition to same-sex marriage" is reasonable in your mind - but "opposition to opposition to same-sex marriage" is bigotry and discrimination of the highest order. You can't have it both ways, dude.

[johnster999]

I think that many Americans, including many of the conservative democrats that were the original topic of this thread, oppose gay marriage because they don't want to see homosexuality further legitimized and society further confused by it.

They are not interested in outlawing private gay activity. They simply reject the notion that homosexuality is normal or should somehow be legally recognized as normal. They have a strong case for that argument since they can readily observe that homosexuality clearly deviates from the norm.

[grampster]

Gunner asks a reasonable question.  He gets the usual answer. 

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

That's not an answer, that's a dodge.

No, what you're doing is dodging.

See how this works? You're begging the question, and then getting upset when I don't accept your premises.

A Christian conservative expressing a well-reasoned argument against gay marriage is shouted down as bigoted, discriminatory, prejudicial, homophobic, "disturbing."

"Quit picking on me."

Why isn't it equally "disturbing" when a leftwinger discriminates against, or insults, shouts down, or exhibits brazen prejudice against Christians?

"Quit picking on me."

What happens to public figures who utter a politically incorrect remark on TV or the radio?  You have to be politically correct every moment of you social life, or else!

"Quit picking on me."


The problem continues to be that you're making, out of whole cloth, a feeling of being put upon, and then demanding an answer as to why this oppression is acceptable. "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?" - do you understand the problem with this kind of question?


But, again, I think it's wonderfully amusing that "opposition to same-sex marriage" is reasonable in your mind - but "opposition to opposition to same-sex marriage" is bigotry and discrimination of the highest order. You can't have it both ways, dude.

I rather enjoy reasonable debates with reasonable people who have differing viewpoints.  That's one of the reasons I like APS so much.  I've made it clear all through this thread that mere "opposition to opposition to gay marriage" isn't what I have a problem with.  Please stop hiding behind that as an excuse not to answer.

My problem is that the left personally attacks anyone who opposes gay marriage, accusing them of bigotry, discrimination, homophobia, prejucide, or whatever other ugliness they feel like hurling at us.  Worse, their attacks are generally held to be right and proper.  Occasionally Christians attack gays, but when we do it it's always a great travesty and injustice.

By the standards of the left, Christians ought to be openly accepted in the spirit of diversity and tolerance.  Obviously we aren't accepted or tolerated.  The left expects (demands, threatens, attacks) us to accept and tolerate the diversity of homosexuality, yet we never receive any tolerance or acceptance from them.

Why is it always a one-way street?  Why are we held to a double standard? 

[Dntsycnt]

The difference is homosexuals do not want to end/make Christian marriage illegal.  Christians DO want to end/make/keep homosexual marriage illegal.

Get it?

[wooderson]

By the standards of the left, Christians ought to be openly accepted in the spirit of diversity and tolerance.  Obviously we aren't accepted or tolerated.

See, there you go again - working from questionable (if not outright absurd) assumptions, and then demanding someone apologize or defend said assumptions.

[Perd Hapley]

Christians DO want to end/make/keep homosexual marriage illegal. 

Not illegal.  Alegal.  The can pretend all they want.  But there's no reason why they should be legally recognized. 

[grampster]

   There are tools available to solve the homosexual companionship issues. Change some tax policy, use of power's of attorney, and creating a will and trust document solve many if not all issues.  Homosexuals are not looking for ways to solve the problems they complain about.  The issue is more about being recognized as being "normal".  Just my disinterested opinion

    Health insurance issues could be solved by making it lawful to place anyone one on a company provided or individual health plan.  If one is willing to pay the additional group premium (not company subsidized) or individual premium based upon a proper (regulated) multiplier, so be it.  This actually can solve a lot of health insurance premium issues.  The present set up that disallows kids and family after a certain age is silly.  In insurance the law of large numbers makes insurance more affordable by spreading the risk.  All direct family members or residents of a household should be optional insureds.

[RevDisk]

Which has gotten me wondering how the far left of the Democratic party got control of it and is allowed to set the agenda? Is the far left really the majority view or do those folk just have the biggest mouthes and the most money?

Would it be a bad time to point out the far left isn't in power or in control of the Democratic party at a national level?  State level, in MA, NJ and especially CA, oh gods yes.  Bloody wacko lot, them.  Aside from the showboating and such, both parties at a federal level are pretty identical when you take time to actually look at the details of the laws and who votes for what.  You'd honestly be surprised how different votes are from publically stated positions.  Oh, there are a few token issues they disagree about, and very loudly proclaim the differences.

But yes, most of the publicity goes to those with the biggest mouthes and most money. 

And why conservative Democrats (yes they're out there) stick with a party that espouses policies that they really do not agree with?

It's a wonderment but there's got to be an answer and maybe within that answer lies a way to attract more of them to a more conservative political party.

Comments?

I don't know if you'd count me as a conservative or liberal Democrat.  I highly value the Bill of Rights.  All of them, not one or two pet favorites.  Affirming beliefs founded in the Constitution and BoRs will ensure that liberals think you're a right wing nutjob and conservatives think you're a left wing pinko socialist or whatnot.  Not that I don't have my own issues.  I deeply respect and acknowledge the Anti-Federalist Papers.  Which fewer people have read than the Federalist Papers.  But let's for the moment just consider me a conservative Dem.  Why?  Well, I have half a boot in the local Dem politics.  I believe I have a better chance of making Dems see the light than at reforming any aspect of the Republican party.  Then again, I know a large number of 'conservative' Democrats.  Yes, we're frequently at odds with some aspects of the federal level Dem politicians, but not so much with the locals.

All I really know is PA Dem politics, and that excludes Philly which is its own little world.  The rest of PA is a decent place, with fairly moderate politicians and fairly pro-liberty stance.  Considering who we are surrounded by, politically wise, it's a wonder we haven't been contiminated by nutjobs from Maryland, NYC and New Jersey.  Tax rates aren't too bad, very progun, and we have the largest State controlled military in the US.  Hell, our National Guard division has more troops and equipment than most countries. 

[wooderson]

There are tools available to solve the homosexual companionship issues. Change some tax policy, use of power's of attorney, and creating a will and trust document solve many if not all issues.  Homosexuals are not looking for ways to solve the problems they complain about.  The issue is more about being recognized as being "normal".  Just my disinterested opinion

A thoroughly debunked red herring.

In the first place - why place such restrictions on one class of people/marriage? Why should same-sex partners be forced to jump through hoops?

That aside, there is a wealth of common law in regard to the marriage contract - the convent is legally solid as far as inheritance, medical visitation, decision making, property division. For those who believe it to be no great deal for individual couples to create 'marriages' out of a mish-mash of legal documents, each and every step is challengeable in the courts. Putting the living (or healthy) partner in emotional and financial duress from the court process - and potentially losing because of a jury or judge who isn't fond of 'teh gayz' (this is not an uncommon occurrence today).

[Bogie]

The democratic agenda is to get elected, get in office, and score as much power/money as possible before the next guy gets in.
 
Same for the republicans.
 
Every so often, you get someone who bucks the system. They get their lifetime buyout, and they're gone.
 
Too many union folks out there who still think that bankrupting their employers is a viable option. And after they've darn near done that, they wonder why their employer just spent major money on a complete facility in China.
 

[Perd Hapley]

Why should same-sex partners be forced to jump through hoops?

Who's forcing them?  They're the ones who want to play marriage, without the right equipment.  It's their problem.

That aside, there is a wealth of common law in regard to the marriage contract - the convent is legally solid as far as inheritance, medical visitation, decision making, property division. For those who believe it to be no great deal for individual couples to create 'marriages' out of a mish-mash of legal documents, each and every step is challengeable in the courts. Putting the living (or healthy) partner in emotional and financial duress from the court process - and potentially losing because of a jury or judge who isn't fond of 'teh gayz' (this is not an uncommon occurrence today).

Again, their problem.  Treating them as a married couple has no benefit to society.  Let them work it out for themselves. 

[wooderson]

Letting Christians marry has no 'benefit to society.'
Letting whites and blacks has no 'benefit to society.'

How do these differ from same-sex marriage?

[Perd Hapley]

How are they the same? 

[Manedwolf]

Letting Christians marry has no 'benefit to society.'
Letting whites and blacks has no 'benefit to society.'

How do these differ from same-sex marriage?

Um. The first two have a definite possibility of producing further population, which is most certainly beneficial to any nation-state that wishes to continue existing.

The latter, that's quite impossible.