The next Obama

[CAnnoneer]

I don't think this would have worked out any better for someone in 1912 as it would now.  The biggest difference is the 1912 woman would be more likely to slap you.

My point is in 1912 you would not have to tell her, because society already conditioned her to a certain norm. Today, she does not hold to that norm and there is no conditioning left, so you must tell her if you want any chance for behavioral modification, and then the response would be rather vociferous and telling. 

Here is another way to think about it. If you want your politician to be anti-abortion, try being anti-abortion in the company of average women. See what happens. If you do not want to be in that situation, why do you expect your politician to fare any better?

My personal observations are that except for the religious, women are overwhelmingly for having access to abortion, even if they themselves do not expect to need it or even think they can do it. To the modern woman, that access is a component of her basic freedoms as an individual, no matter if she ever expects avail herself of it.

[TommyGunn]

Oh there's still conditioning going on .... it's just that it's not being done by the same people as it was 100 years ago ....

[CAnnoneer]

You claim that the massive tide of immigrants (the crushing majority of them, in your phrase) can be assimilated into middle-class free marketeers.

It has been my observation that people become more conservative as they succeed and have higher income, because they get hit by higher taxes. When you make nothing, you pay nothing. When you make more, you pay more. Ergo, latinos that get economically successful will likely turn fiscally conservative when their pocket starts hurting and they do not need the safety net. Where is the break in logic here? What kind of proof do you need?

Yet you deny the possibility that young people can be assimilated into the same view on social issues that many of their parents and grandparents hold. What other reason can there be, except that it doesn't appeal to you, and you presume everyone else is like you?

I deny it because I do not see the mechanism of it. Show me a mechanism for it, and I shall change my stance. By the way, I will likely feel far more comfortable in the 1950s America than I feel in today's milieu, so I don't think I have the personal beef in it that you suspect I do.

Ignore them? Who's ignoring them? I'm the one asking for them. You're the one not using them to support your point in a meaningful way, after making claims about what the numbers indicate.

roo_ster posted data just on the previous page. Assertions about advantage are based on news articles analyzing the election results. You do not need me to go get you an article about it.

You think young women vote a certain way for a particular reason, having to do with their lady parts. You think Hispanics vote a certain way for a particular reason, having to do with whether other Hispanics can immigrate more or less easily. Did it never occur to you that perhaps most young women just want a large, comfortable social safety net, just like most Hispanics do, just like most blacks do, just like a lot of white men do?

If abortion is not the issue, why are married women so much more skewed for Romney and the single women are skewed the other way? Do married women feel that much more secure and in no need of a safety net in today's world of underwater mortgages, high divorce rates, bad economy, and need for two-income households? If the difference is purely economic, they must be. But, I think the more likely explanation is that single women are sexually active without marriage, so they want to escape hatch of abortion if something goes wrong. A married woman by contrast knows that with her husband at her side, one more baby will likely be manageable, and besides they don't sleep around, get high, and get drunk every Friday and Saturday. Which explanation is more likely, yours or mine?

*If social conservatism, in American politics, had anything to do with telling people what they can or cannot do in the bedroom, you might have a point. But you are talking about the sort of social conservatism (anti-birth control laws, anti-sodomy laws) that even social conservatives don't currently adhere to. So maybe your analysis makes sense IF social conservatives want to go back to that sort of thing. Where is the evidence that they do?

Social conservatism in American politics today consists of restricting or outlawing abortion, keeping homosexuality in the realm of private behavior (not govt.-endorsed behavior), and those are the only two that seem to be major issues right now. The rest amount to a few odds and ends, like getting public school teachers to stop hassling students for reading the Bible, and maybe getting to keep the Christmas manger scene on the county square.

fistful, I do not see how anybody can oppose gay marriage if he/she does not consider gays somehow inferior, perverse, or damaged. If that is the view of them, then it comes exactly from thinking that there is a right way to have sex, in the right combination of parts and numbers. Everything else is wrong. Therefore, it is okay to treat them like *expletive deleted*it and deny them equal rights under the law. That is my perception of the conservative stance. Call me wrong, but I am not alone. Not by a very long shot.

[Strings]

CAnnoneer, he already stated that they have the "same protection": they can get married to anyone of the opposite sex they wish. Remember?

 

>What other reason can there be, except that it doesn't appeal to you, and you presume everyone else is like you?<

Which basically sums up the vast majority of America: the assumption that "the real majority thinks like me".

And honestly, is the true root of the folks that are against gays having the right to the same protection as straights

[makattak]

My personal observations are that except for the religious, women are overwhelmingly for having access to abortion, even if they themselves do not expect to need it or even think they can do it. To the modern woman, that access is a component of her basic freedoms as an individual, no matter if she ever expects avail herself of it.

Here's a question for you to consider given that women are slightly more likely to be pro-life than men... is "the average woman" likely to be religious?

Because I have no problem being anti-abortion in the presence of the average woman I know.


Now you are likely to point out my sample is not random... perhaps you may wish to consider that criticism of your own argument.

[makattak]

CAnnoneer, he already stated that they have the "same protection": they can get married to anyone of the opposite sex they wish. Remember?

 

>What other reason can there be, except that it doesn't appeal to you, and you presume everyone else is like you?<

Which basically sums up the vast majority of America: the assumption that "the real majority thinks like me".

And honestly, is the true root of the folks that are against gays having the right to the same protection as straights

Bullshit. I politely answered your insults in this thread previously, I'll not do so again.

I am opposed to the special rights for homosexuals because:
1) the main purpose of government recognition for homosexual unions is to use the power of the state against Christians. (Probably conservative Jews, too.)
2) no societal benefit is envinced by the union of homosexuals that compares to the benefits of a heterosexual union.
3) we've been screwing around with traditional marriage for 50 years because we think we know better and every time we have it has been worse for society.
4) societal experimentation should be done at a state by state level so my state doesn't get screwed by what California does, but the homosexual union supporters want to use one state's folly to impose it upon the rest
5) homosexuals already have all the benefits they claim to want in civil unions in several States. If the "benefits" were the whole purpose of wanting to call their relationship a marriage, why were civil unions not enough?
6) homosexuals are already using the power of the state to force acceptance, first amendment be damned.


Of course, it must be because I think the majority is just like me and not that I fear the tyranny of the majority being used against me and those like me.

[Perd Hapley]

It has been my observation that people become more conservative as they succeed and have higher income, because they get hit by higher taxes. When you make nothing, you pay nothing. When you make more, you pay more. Ergo, latinos that get economically successful will likely turn fiscally conservative when their pocket starts hurting and they do not need the safety net. Where is the break in logic here? What kind of proof do you need?

I deny it because I do not see the mechanism of it. Show me a mechanism for it, and I shall change my stance. By the way, I will likely feel far more comfortable in the 1950s America than I feel in today's milieu, so I don't think I have the personal beef in it that you suspect I do.

It has been the observation of many, that people who start families become more conservative. See? We can both propose mechanisms.

roo_ster posted data just on the previous page. Assertions about advantage are based on news articles analyzing the election results. You do not need me to go get you an article about it.

  YOU need to show them, if you want your argument to be convincing. You've posted a whooooooole lot of words the past few days, to get start getting reticent now.

If abortion is not the issue, why are married women so much more skewed for Romney and the single women are skewed the other way? Do married women feel that much more secure and in no need of a safety net in today's world of underwater mortgages, high divorce rates, bad economy, and need for two-income households? If the difference is purely economic, they must be. But, I think the more likely explanation is that single women are sexually active without marriage, so they want to escape hatch of abortion if something goes wrong. A married woman by contrast knows that with her husband at her side, one more baby will likely be manageable, and besides they don't sleep around, get high, and get drunk every Friday and Saturday. Which explanation is more likely, yours or mine?

The stated economic reasons are also reasons why a married woman would want abortion to be available. Or a married man. Being legally joined to another person can also alleviate the desire for a govt. safety net.

fistful, I do not see how anybody can oppose gay marriage if he/she does not consider gays somehow inferior, perverse, or damaged. If that is the view of them, then it comes exactly from thinking that there is a right way to have sex, in the right combination of parts and numbers. Everything else is wrong. Therefore, it is okay to treat them like *expletive deleted* and deny them equal rights under the law. That is my perception of the conservative stance. Call me wrong, but I am not alone. Not by a very long shot.

Okay?  I'm aware that about half of America is as confused as you are. But again, why do I care what you think about social conservatism's chances, when you don't know what it is, or what our positions actually amount to?


FWIW though, CAnnoneer, you bring more thought and facts to the discussion than most of the usual "social issues are killing the GOP!!Eleventy!" folks do.

[Strings]

"Answered my insults"? Funny... don't recall any note from a mod, telling me I had stepped out of line.

Will admit that I forgot one word in my previous post: "many". "... true root of many the folks that are against gays having the right to the same protection as straights". My bad



>I am opposed to the special rights for homosexuals because:<

How is this "special rights"? Seriously: it's about "the same rights"

>1) the main purpose of government recognition for homosexual unions is to use the power of the state against Christians. (Probably conservative Jews, too.)<

Persecution complex? Although I'll agree: taken with a bunch of other factors, I can see how y'all might feel that way

>2) no societal benefit is envinced by the union of homosexuals that compares to the benefits of a heterosexual union.<

And what societal benefit is there to Spoon and I having our relationship recognized by the state? There's a slew of benefits for us, but where does society get anything out of it?

>3) we've been screwing around with traditional marriage for 50 years because we think we know better and every time we have it has been worse for society.<

Example?

>4) societal experimentation should be done at a state by state level so my state doesn't get screwed by what California does, but the homosexual union supporters want to use one state's folly to impose it upon the rest<

Full faith and credit*. No state should be able to violate the rights of a group of people without due process, nor offer one group of people rights or privileges barred to another.

>5) homosexuals already have all the benefits they claim to want in civil unions in several States. If the "benefits" were the whole purpose of wanting to call their relationship a marriage, why were civil unions not enough?<

How many states allow such? And how many states have been trying to get constitutional amendments to define marriage as "one man, one woman"?

And remember: I'd be fine removing "marriage" from all civil discourse, and having everyone going for the strictly secular bond to get a civil union

>6) homosexuals are already using the power of the state to force acceptance, first amendment be damned.<

You referring to "hate speech" and "hate crimes"?? If you are, I'm right there with you, actually.

>Of course, it must be because I think the majority is just like me and not that I fear the tyranny of the majority being used against me and those like me<

I think I already addressed this...




*Couple of times, I've suggested the "Full Faith and Credit Act" as the ultimate legislative spectator sport. Basically, one bill that would switch the marriage license to a civil union contract (good between any 2 or more consenting adults), and conversely grant national reciprocity to CCW. Theory being, you would get to watch both sides melt down about the same bill. And it would NEVER pass (if it even made it to the floor)

[AZRedhawk44]

*Couple of times, I've suggested the "Full Faith and Credit Act" as the ultimate legislative spectator sport. Basically, one bill that would switch the marriage license to a civil union contract (good between any 2 or more consenting adults), and conversely grant national reciprocity to CCW. Theory being, you would get to watch both sides melt down about the same bill. And it would NEVER pass (if it even made it to the floor)

That's because the only winners in such an arrangement would be individual liberty, and no one actually capable of proposing/implementing/honoring such a bill gives a rat'sass about that.

[zxcvbob]

*Couple of times, I've suggested the "Full Faith and Credit Act" as the ultimate legislative spectator sport. Basically, one bill that would switch the marriage license to a civil union contract (good between any 2 or more consenting adults), and conversely grant national reciprocity to CCW. Theory being, you would get to watch both sides melt down about the same bill. And it would NEVER pass (if it even made it to the floor)

I like that, actually.  Any two consenting adults should be able to contract to cohabitate and take care of each other without sex having anything to do with it.  They are siblings?  No problem.  It's not a marriage; that's a religious covenant and the purview of the church.  The state shouldn't even be licensing marriage at all.

[Strings]

There are problems with my suggestion, though.

First is the obvious: you'd have the Far Right blow up about "Oh NOES, TEH GHEYS!!!!!". At the same time, the Far Left would blow over "Oh NOES, TEH GUNZ!!!".

You would also see the Left agitating against the Civil Union portions, because that would eliminate the social wedge between gays and other conservatives (yes, I'm serious). You would also have some on the right opposing the reciprocity portion to maintain the gun owner wedge...

[CAnnoneer]

That's because the only winners in such an arrangement would be individual liberty, and no one actually capable of proposing/implementing/honoring such a bill gives a rat'sass about that.

That pretty much sums it up, unfortunately. Politicians do not want to expand liberties, or even solve problems. They prefer perpetual gangrenous problems, so that they can keep getting re-elected by promising to solve them. When they fail, they blame it on the other side of the aisle.

[makattak]

Allow me to quote your insult:

You DON'T have to deal with the repercussions of your principles here, unless and until yourself or someone close to you is raped, and has to deal with the fallout...

I made sure to be unfailing polite after that callous claim, given you have absolutely no idea how close some of us may be to deal with the fallout.

Now as to your other points:

>How is this "special rights"? Seriously: it's about "the same rights"

No, it's about "the same benefits". Governmental recognition is not a "right". Hence, it is special.

>Persecution complex? Although I'll agree: taken with a bunch of other factors, I can see how y'all might feel that way

So I'm just making it all up cause I'm paranoid... except, WAIT, you agree... but only after accusing me of being paranoid.

>And what societal benefit is there to Spoon and I having our relationship recognized by the state? There's a slew of benefits for us, but where does society get anything out of it?

You and Spoon form the basis for a family, the best (scientifically proven!11!1!1) circumstances for creating a stable environment for the raising of children. Children raised in a home without both a mother and father are more likely to: earn less, end up in jail, be addicted to drugs, end up on welfare. Now, you can argue that we ought to restrict the benefits of being married to parents who are married. However, the benefits exist because at the time the government instituted them, marriage and child-bearing were nearly inextricable. They are less closely related now, but the legacy benefits remain. Now, because individuals have no clue as to the original purpose of the benefits, they think they have no reason but bigotry. Much the same as...

>Example?

No fault divorce. It was claimed at the time that children would be far better off if mommy and daddy got a divorce rather than fighting all the time. Of course, there were no studies on this, simply what people "felt" would be better.

Since then, we've found that, no, children do FAR BETTER when mommy and daddy stay together rather than divorce even if they do argue. (Prior to "no fault divorce", the divorce that required cause would of course accept abuse as cause, in addition to infidelity and other such reasons.)

Today, the argument is: kids are strong, they will adjust. Of course they will, but we ought to set up rules that are in the best interest of raising children that will be well-adjusted. (And, please, don't accuse me of meaning something other than the characteristics I already mentioned.)

>Full faith and credit*. No state should be able to violate the rights of a group of people without due process, nor offer one group of people rights or privileges barred to another.

Yes, to some extent. There is, however, a limit, given the vast number of things recognized by one state and not another. Given this is a matter of some import that creates a great deal of argument, federalism is the better option. (Which is ALWAYS my preference.)

>How many states allow such? And how many states have been trying to get constitutional amendments to define marriage as "one man, one >woman"?

>And remember: I'd be fine removing "marriage" from all civil discourse, and having everyone going for the strictly secular bond to get a civil >union

The constitutional amendments are attempts to prevent the use of the judiciary to make changes against the will of the voters. My point was not about the number of states that allow such, but about the number of states that already have civil unions that still have significant pressure to grant "marriage" to homosexual unions. If it was only the same benefits, why does the push still exist? (Which goes back to point 1)

>You referring to "hate speech" and "hate crimes"?? If you are, I'm right there with you, actually.

I am. Not solely, though. I am referring to the "free exercise of religion" as well. I would likely not have a problem providing a service for a homosexual couple any more than I would for a couple living together. However, I have no right to dictate to the conscience of other Christians who feel they cannot rightly, to pick a specific example, photograph a homosexual "wedding" because it would violate their conscience and encourage sin.

And given how many so-called libertarians I've seen argue that you give up your right to exercise your religion if you open a business, I am very unlikely to believe the supporters of homosexual unions would allow any businessperson to exercise their religion openly (just do it in the privacy of your home and don't bring it out where other people can see it!)

[Strings]

>I made sure to be unfailing polite after that callous claim, given you have absolutely no idea how close some of us may be to deal with the fallout.<

If someone close to you has had to deal with that issue, I apologize. I was using "you" as a generic...

Now as to your other points:

>How is this "special rights"? Seriously: it's about "the same rights"

No, it's about "the same benefits". Governmental recognition is not a "right". Hence, it is special.

Ok... I'll grant you the term. You're still talking about a special benefit for one group of people vis another

>Persecution complex? Although I'll agree: taken with a bunch of other factors, I can see how y'all might feel that way

So I'm just making it all up cause I'm paranoid... except, WAIT, you agree... but only after accusing me of being paranoid.

All I meant there was that I could see how, given a bunch of other things that have been said and done, a Christian might feel that anything that defies their value system is "targeted".

And, for some gays, I might even agree that this is what they're doing. But the majority of them that I know just want to have the same protections

>And what societal benefit is there to Spoon and I having our relationship recognized by the state? There's a slew of benefits for us, but where does society get anything out of it?

You and Spoon form the basis for a family, the best (scientifically proven!11!1!1) circumstances for creating a stable environment for the raising of children. Children raised in a home without both a mother and father are more likely to: earn less, end up in jail, be addicted to drugs, end up on welfare. Now, you can argue that we ought to restrict the benefits of being married to parents who are married. However, the benefits exist because at the time the government instituted them, marriage and child-bearing were nearly inextricable. They are less closely related now, but the legacy benefits remain. Now, because individuals have no clue as to the original purpose of the benefits, they think they have no reason but bigotry. Much the same as...

If that's the case, then those protections shouldn't extend to Spoon and I, as there is no chance of us having children. So... inequality

>Example?

No fault divorce. It was claimed at the time that children would be far better off if mommy and daddy got a divorce rather than fighting all the time. Of course, there were no studies on this, simply what people "felt" would be better.

Since then, we've found that, no, children do FAR BETTER when mommy and daddy stay together rather than divorce even if they do argue. (Prior to "no fault divorce", the divorce that required cause would of course accept abuse as cause, in addition to infidelity and other such reasons.)

Today, the argument is: kids are strong, they will adjust. Of course they will, but we ought to set up rules that are in the best interest of raising children that will be well-adjusted. (And, please, don't accuse me of meaning something other than the characteristics I already mentioned.)

Odd... I haven't seen any such evidence. And I have seen anecdotal that the inverse is often true, for couples that can't get along...

>Full faith and credit*. No state should be able to violate the rights of a group of people without due process, nor offer one group of people rights or privileges barred to another.

Yes, to some extent. There is, however, a limit, given the vast number of things recognized by one state and not another. Given this is a matter of some import that creates a great deal of argument, federalism is the better option. (Which is ALWAYS my preference.)

Oddly enough, I would usually prefer states to decide things. In this case, I think the feds would be the proper forum

>How many states allow such? And how many states have been trying to get constitutional amendments to define marriage as "one man, one >woman"?

>And remember: I'd be fine removing "marriage" from all civil discourse, and having everyone going for the strictly secular bond to get a civil >union

The constitutional amendments are attempts to prevent the use of the judiciary to make changes against the will of the voters. My point was not about the number of states that allow such, but about the number of states that already have civil unions that still have significant pressure to grant "marriage" to homosexual unions. If it was only the same benefits, why does the push still exist? (Which goes back to point 1)

How many states allow civil unions, with the same force of law as a marriage license? Honestly asking, as I don't know.

>You referring to "hate speech" and "hate crimes"?? If you are, I'm right there with you, actually.

I am. Not solely, though. I am referring to the "free exercise of religion" as well. I would likely not have a problem providing a service for a homosexual couple any more than I would for a couple living together. However, I have no right to dictate to the conscience of other Christians who feel they cannot rightly, to pick a specific example, photograph a homosexual "wedding" because it would violate their conscience and encourage sin.

When I owned my own business, there was a sign on the wall: "We reserve the right to refuse a customer for any reason". I fully believe this is the way things should be.

And given how many so-called libertarians I've seen argue that you give up your right to exercise your religion if you open a business, I am very unlikely to believe the supporters of homosexual unions would allow any businessperson to exercise their religion openly (just do it in the privacy of your home and don't bring it out where other people can see it!)

It's possible. The flip side of the "I must have my nose in your business, and control what you do/say/think" attitude present on both sides

[AZRedhawk44]

There are problems with my suggestion, though.

First is the obvious: you'd have the Far Right blow up about "Oh NOES, TEH GHEYS!!!!!". At the same time, the Far Left would blow over "Oh NOES, TEH GUNZ!!!".

You would also see the Left agitating against the Civil Union portions, because that would eliminate the social wedge between gays and other conservatives (yes, I'm serious). You would also have some on the right opposing the reciprocity portion to maintain the gun owner wedge...

This just came on Pandora, I thought of this thread:

What a field-day for the heat
A thousand people in the street
Singing songs and carrying signs
Mostly say, hooray for our side
It's time we stop, hey, what's that sound
Everybody look what's going down

And given how many so-called libertarians I've seen argue that you give up your right to exercise your religion if you open a business, I am very unlikely to believe the supporters of homosexual unions would allow any businessperson to exercise their religion openly (just do it in the privacy of your home and don't bring it out where other people can see it!)

And I gotta say... you're not a Libertarian at all if you believe in using the force of the State to compel compliance from others, where their "unwanted" behavior has no demonstrable victim.  Libertarians believe in free association and free choice, including the choice to be discriminatory in your market dealings and alienate customers that you don't want to associate with.

[Perd Hapley]

I like that, actually.  Any two consenting adults should be able to contract to cohabitate and take care of each other without sex having anything to do with it.  They are siblings?  No problem.  

Now that is something I've brought up before. I have no problem with a legal set-up that helps people in non-traditional arrangements (sexual or otherwise) to manage their affairs more easily. Just don't base it on non-reproductive sexual activities (since they don't affect others) or claim that it's marriage.

It's not a marriage; that's a religious covenant and the purview of the church.

While technically true, this statement ignores whole swaths of human beings and human history. It is like saying that governments shouldn't deal with murder or lying, because those are religious issues. As we know, marriage is a social and legal institution just as much as a religious one.

[Perd Hapley]

If that's the case, then those protections shouldn't extend to Spoon and I, as there is no chance of us having children. So... inequality

Stranger things have happened, and not necessarily with medical assistance. Marriage has never been conditional on whether people will have children together; just the idea that they might. Two people who aren't even of the opposite gender, though? That's a whole 'nother kettle of kittens.

[Strings]

Same sex couples can adopt. You now have your "whole other kettle of kittens"

From what I've seen of the gays insisting on the term "marriage", they fall into a few different categories:

a) feel that the difference in terms = inequality
b) are rabble rousing for political gain (see above, "wedge issue")
c) actually do like playing pudding stick, and causing trouble with Christians and other conservatives

None of which really has any bearing on the discussion. But realized it hadn't been addressed...

[birdman]

I like that, actually.  Any two consenting adults should be able to contract to cohabitate and take care of each other without sex having anything to do with it.  They are siblings?  No problem.  It's not a marriage; that's a religious covenant and the purview of the church.  The state shouldn't even be licensing marriage at all.

This is the opinion I have been expressing for a while now.  The problem I see currently is by the government extendeding certain things to heterosexual marriages, they have by definition not extended those things to other unions.  In the vein of "a government powerful enough to give you anything, is a government powerful enough to take everything", I don't believe there should be special government aspects to ANY union.  With the exception of tax effects, which I see as NOT an incentive (currently it discourages folks who have upper-middle class incomes from getting married, just to make it easier for lower incomes to do so--an attempt to encourage stable low income households who procreate, but the same could be said for tax credits and deductions for children, which are far more specific and reasonable, after all, while children are required for a growing population, childless couples typically reduce expenses when cohabitating), the remainder of the government benefits are easily covered by a power of attorney or other legal documentation--a marriage or other union "corporation" in effect--covered by free association inalienable rights.

Anything else is effectively forcing others to approve your union on a personal basis.  An individual or other entity rejecting a power of attorney can be litigated under current law.

So why not remove government from the union business entirely, that way it is truly equal under the law, and everything left is your right of free association.

[longeyes]

One of the reasons we've lost the "young" is that since WW II we've systematically built our economy on shopaholic women, both single and married, and teenagers.  This was the work of men, pretty much all white men, who believed that not only was satisfying needs the most important thing in God's universe but inventing some would help God along a bit...while enriching themselves.  We see the results of this ongoing brainstorm all around us, but of course since we "love" these women and kids and continue to enable and empower them we have blinded ourselves to the consequences.

Wonder why a fraction of one per cent of your young men actually serve in the military why Call of Duty II can sell $400 mlllion of fantasy in 24 hours???

Enjoy.  Your culture is dying.

[CAnnoneer]

Wonder why a fraction of one per cent of your young men actually serve in the military why Call of Duty II can sell $400 mlllion of fantasy in 24 hours???

Enjoy.  Your culture is dying.

I bet most of the CoDII players are too young, too old, or too out of shape to serve in the current military. In a large conflagration, conscription will almost certainly be introduced, the standards will be precipitously lowered, and many of them will be shipped to basic training and then to wherever they are needed. So, their current lack of service is not bothersome to me.

I actually find the success of games like CoD and Halo to be encouraging for the present and the future. The kid that blasts aliens with a plasma rifle in Halo today or the inevitable evil nazis in CoD with a Garand, will likely want a real gun or two when he grows up. That is why the liberals periodically complain loudly about violent and realistic (haha) videogames. They know those work against them. It also means the younger generation is not yet completely pussified that their natural urges for physical confrontation remain present even if redirected or sublimated into videogaming.

[MicroBalrog]

Governmental recognition is not a "right".

ON the contrary: enforcing and recognizing contracts is one of the few proper functions of government.

[MicroBalrog]

2) no societal benefit is envinced by the union of homosexuals that compares to the benefits of a heterosexual union.

It is not the proper role of government to manipulate the behavior of individuals to derive 'benefits', whether the benefits are 'equality', 'promoting domestic industry', or 'encouraging people to have children'.

[CAnnoneer]

It is not the proper role of government to manipulate the behavior of individuals to derive 'benefits', whether the benefits are 'equality', 'promoting domestic industry', or 'encouraging people to have children'.

Yes, the benefits argument is weak, sorry. Even if we stipulated it, it still cannot be used to justify denying marriage to gays. For one, it is pretty easy to see the societal benefit of allowing it:

1) a bunch of gay people that are now unhappy about their treatment will be made happy and can concentrate their energies and funds on other things
2) demagogues will stop using this issue to rile up their respective chunks of the electorate, so it may instead focus on more vital issues
3) simplification of regulations and legal issues, e.g. for rights of patients, inheritance, etc.
4) save costs on parallel legal initiatives, grass roots campaigns, and state propositions back-and-forths
5) one less thing Dems can attack Reps on
6) one less thing Reps can go on national TV and say something suicidal about

[longeyes]

I bet most of the CoDII players are too young, too old, or too out of shape to serve in the current military. In a large conflagration, conscription will almost certainly be introduced, the standards will be precipitously lowered, and many of them will be shipped to basic training and then to wherever they are needed. So, their current lack of service is not bothersome to me.

I actually find the success of games like CoD and Halo to be encouraging for the present and the future. The kid that blasts aliens with a plasma rifle in Halo today or the inevitable evil nazis in CoD with a Garand, will likely want a real gun or two when he grows up. That is why the liberals periodically complain loudly about violent and realistic (haha) videogames. They know those work against them. It also means the younger generation is not yet completely pussified that their natural urges for physical confrontation remain present even if redirected or sublimated into videogaming.

Well, you put a positive spin on an obsession with the vicarious, I'll give you that.  The point is that games of this kind can only exist in a world where the realities on which RKBA is grounded are slowly but surely evaporating in a mass culture created by people who don't like guns or, for that matter, men.  I grant you that many young men are deep down looking for an outlet for their masculinity, but if you have ever looked at Assassin's Creed or Grand Theft Auto you know this ain't the path we want civilized practicioners of RKBA to be taking.  This is the mentality of Hamas hooligans, not American patriots.