Post by: Werewolf on March 17, 2008, 12:12:14 PM
But - not that far left - not that far at all. Most don't really agree with the party agenda, it's stance on the war, immigration etc. It's no surprise that a democratic presidential candidate hasn't carried OK since Noah was a seaman.
It is my impression that most are dems because that's what their daddies were and their granddaddies were and if the Democratic party was good enough for those fine folk then it's good enough for them too.
I can't be certain but I would imagine that most Dems in fly over country are pretty much like Dems in Oklahoma.
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?
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?
Post by: Paddy on March 17, 2008, 12:17:17 PM
Post by: French G. on March 17, 2008, 12:18:40 PM
Post by: Standing Wolf on March 17, 2008, 01:10:17 PM
Quote
Is the far left really the majority view or do those folk just have the biggest mouthes and the most money?
Big mouths, lots of money, and most important of all, access to lots of "free" government money to buy votes with.
Post by: wooderson on March 17, 2008, 01:22:27 PM
Quote
But - not that far left - not that far at all. Most don't really agree with the party agenda, it's stance on the war, immigration etc. It's no surprise that a democratic presidential candidate hasn't carried OK since Noah was a seaman.
I have a very difficult time believing there's a lot of pro-Iraq, pro-Minuteman sentiment held by Democrats anywhere in the country, given that neither of those factions has a favorable rating nationally.Quote
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?
The 'far left' of the Democratic Party has less 'control' today than they ever had prior to 1976 (you've heard of Adlai Stevenson, right? George McGovern? Bobby Kennedy?). The party of the New Deal, Great Society, trade unionism, etc. bears little resemblance to the DLC-governed body of today.
But if you really mean 'how did it lose the support of southern whites,' the answer is very simple: civil rights.
Quote
And why conservative Democrats (yes they're out there) stick with a party that espouses policies that they really do not agree with?
Why do "liberal Republicans" stick with a party beholden to conservative Christians?Because politics aren't as simple - or as naturally right-wing - as you might generally believe.
Post by: Fly320s on March 17, 2008, 01:59:22 PM
or do those folk just have the biggest mouthes and the most money?
That's my bet.
Most folks don't really give a damn about party affiliation, hot topics, stump speeches, or politics in general. I think that is why voter turn-out is usually low.
All the peeps want is a "free" handout and to be told that "all is well."
Reality, for most people, would be a real bitch.
Post by: johnster999 on March 17, 2008, 02:12:07 PM
I tend to agree with your take on the local "right-of-center" democrat population. I grew up in OK and I find the phenomenon to be virtually identical here in Arkansas. It seems to be an emotional and familial attachment, more so than an ideological one. Almost as if they would be slapping their parents or grandparents (living or dead) in the face if they dared vote or register differently.
As one local Democrat, a gun-owning, hard-working and reletively conservative fellow in most viewpoints recently said to me: "Welp, I'd expect I'll be votin' for whoever the Democratic party nominates."
It's also my observation than in one way the Democratic party is actually two parties. The old school party that still remains a strong presence in the political sphere in the south and most of the midwest, and the newer more leftist party that dominates at the federal level and in the very blue states.
Outside of delegates, party officials and other true believers, the grassroots folks don't really interface much. Thus, I don't really think the old school Democrats really ever have to interface with their harder left counterparts enough to find them sufficiently off putting to consider a voting or registration change.
I do think however that in Barack Obama, the national party may have finally found a guy who will alienate even some of these folks. If there is one thing for sure, these old schoolers love their country as much as anyone and I've heard at least one react with disgust to "godd@mn America" and "first time I've been proud of my country" and so forth. Time will tell.
Post by: grampster on March 17, 2008, 02:26:52 PM
So the wealthy, socialist statists grabbed control because no one stood in their way. They were aided and abetted by the leftist media while the middle of the road dems of daddy and granddaddy were too busy working and raising their families to pay much attention. They came awake once and voted for Ronald Reagan. Too bad they don't have anyone to wake up to now.
As for the so called Religious Right. That's a myth promulgated by the leftist media and their statist extreme leftist who need a scapegoat.
The "Religious Right" are actually normal salt of the earth Republicans who just want to be left alone who also would like Social Security to continue to work. Most of them are people who have a grounding in knowing the difference between right and wrong, just like their quiet democrat neighbors and friends. Conservatives generally have succeeded financially through hard work and most of our small businesses are run by these sorts of folks. Leftists have no such grounding and they are mostly situational ethicists and believe people with principals are to be mocked. Ergo: The myth of the Religious Right came into being. They extreme right wing is no more religious than the extreme left wing having any ethics.
Post by: HankB on March 17, 2008, 02:42:47 PM
That said, 'conservatism' as a political system of governance hasn't succeeded anymore than has 'libertarianism'.
And when has it actually been tried, lately??? The closest we've come was the GOP "Contract with America" which was a tentative baby step in that direction, but the GOP abandoned it as fast as they could.
Post by: Perd Hapley on March 17, 2008, 02:46:03 PM
As for the so called Religious Right. That's a myth promulgated by the leftist media and their statist extreme leftist who need a scapegoat.
The "Religious Right" are actually normal salt of the earth Republicans who just want to be left alone who also would like Social Security to continue to work. Most of them are people who have a grounding in knowing the difference between right and wrong, just like their quiet democrat neighbors and friends. Conservatives generally have succeeded financially through hard work and most of our small businesses are run by these sorts of folks. Leftists have no such grounding and they are mostly situational ethicists and believe people with principals are to be mocked. Ergo: The myth of the Religious Right came into being. They extreme right wing is no more religious than the extreme left wing having any ethics.
The "Religious Right" are actually normal salt of the earth Republicans who just want to be left alone who also would like Social Security to continue to work. Most of them are people who have a grounding in knowing the difference between right and wrong, just like their quiet democrat neighbors and friends. Conservatives generally have succeeded financially through hard work and most of our small businesses are run by these sorts of folks. Leftists have no such grounding and they are mostly situational ethicists and believe people with principals are to be mocked. Ergo: The myth of the Religious Right came into being. They extreme right wing is no more religious than the extreme left wing having any ethics.
That's more or less true. Might disagree on some details. While there are some people that fit the stereotype, most of the voters that make up the "Religious Right" are neither especially religious or especially political. They just have traditional views about marriage, sex, etc., and have old-fashioned views on politics.
Post by: wooderson on March 17, 2008, 02:51:50 PM
Quote
As for the so called Religious Right. That's a myth promulgated by the leftist media and their statist extreme leftist who need a scapegoat.
The Christian Coalition... doesn't really exist.
eh?
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on March 17, 2008, 03:10:10 PM
Huckabee was the golden boy candidate of the "religious right". He came in last of the three main contenders for the Republican nomination. What does that tell you about the relative power of the religious right within the Republican Party?
Post by: grampster on March 17, 2008, 03:48:49 PM
The Christian Coalition exists, but they don't make up an significant part of the Party. They also don't make up the far right extreme.
Huckabee was the golden boy candidate of the "religious right". He came in last of the three main contenders for the Republican nomination. What does that tell you about the relative power of the religious right within the Republican Party?
Huckabee was the golden boy candidate of the "religious right". He came in last of the three main contenders for the Republican nomination. What does that tell you about the relative power of the religious right within the Republican Party?
There you go Wooderson. Read it and weep. The religious right is a propaganda tool promulgated by the left and bought into by the media. They bought into it because they desperately want to believe in something, but they just can't quite buy into ethics and that there is actually a difference between right and wrong. Situationalists are empty vessels filled with false hope, desperately seeking change; leaping from one false hope to another.
Post by: Dntsycnt on March 17, 2008, 04:11:17 PM
Post by: wooderson on March 17, 2008, 05:39:09 PM
Quote
The Christian Coalition exists, but they don't make up an significant part of the Party.
Quote
Huckabee was the golden boy candidate of the "religious right".
Except that outside of the deep south, Huckabee didn't even win a plurality of evangelical voters. Nor did he have the backing of the elders of the religious right.He tried to run as the candidate of the religious right and failed miserably. There's a difference.
Quote
He came in last of the three main contenders for the Republican nomination. What does that tell you about the relative power of the religious right within the Republican Party?
Insofar as they nominated Ronald Reagan and Dubya, and took a strong shot at an incumbent Vice President in between - their "relative power" is quite strong.(The Christian Coalition is so irrelevant Ralph Reed was chair of the Bush '04 crew for a quarter of the country?)
Post by: wooderson on March 17, 2008, 05:40:21 PM
Quote
There you go Wooderson. Read it and weep. The religious right is a propaganda tool promulgated by the left and bought into by the media. They bought into it because they desperately want to believe in something, but they just can't quite buy into ethics and that there is actually a difference between right and wrong. Situationalists are empty vessels filled with false hope, desperately seeking change; leaping from one false hope to another.
I have no idea what you're arguing here.
Unless you're agreeing that the 'Religious Right' consists of a large number of activists and voters - you're just taking issue with them being termed the Religious Right rather than just 'right.' Or something. I honestly don't know.
Post by: grampster on March 17, 2008, 06:42:28 PM
I'm not arguing anything. I'm merely pointing out that terms get coined. But there may not be any value in the term except for expediency or to deflect scrutiny. The religious right is no more of a powerful movement on the right than the SDS represented a large segment of the Democratic party.
Small committed groups can sway opinion. Propaganda is a powerful tool. And it is easy to bandy terms around when discussing issues. Opinion is one thing, truth is another.
I think Americans, regardless of political affiliation are interested in fair play. Using terms to ascribe beliefs to huge segments of the population oversimplifies the complexity of a free society. Perhaps there is one large group though. I'd call them the apathetic. But even there is complexity because one might be apathetic for a multitude of reasons.
Don't be too concerned if you don't understand my comments. My wife has been married to me for 42 years and she claim I talk in riddles all the time.
I understand what I mean, and that's good enough for both of us.
Post by: wooderson on March 17, 2008, 07:36:44 PM
Quote
I'm not arguing anything. I'm merely pointing out that terms get coined.
That's what an argument is...Quote
The religious right is no more of a powerful movement on the right than the SDS represented a large segment of the Democratic party.
The SDS itself wasn't a "large segment" because it was never a segment at all - the SDS rather pointedly did not support the party of LBJ during Vietnam. This is a rather marked difference from the role played by Religious Right partisans in the GOP, so trying to draw an equivalence beNow, what we might call the 'soft New Left' of the late '60s - the part which had left behind the increasingly radical and ineffective SDS and similar groups - was, in fact, a highly influential segment of the Democratic Party. And would have likely elected a President were it not for his untimely assassination.
Quote
Small committed groups can sway opinion.
And large committed groups can sway opinion even more effectively.Which is what the Religious Right is - a large, committed group of evangelical Protestants working with and within the Republican Party. It's really quite difficult to take seriously anyone who denies the role of Christian conservatism in the last thirty years of GOP history.
It would be like claiming unions don't support Democratic candidates or that African American leadership overwhelmingly works with the Democrats.
Quote
Propaganda is a powerful tool. And it is easy to bandy terms around when discussing issues. Opinion is one thing, truth is another.
Are these Zen koans or something?
Post by: Jamisjockey on March 18, 2008, 06:04:59 AM
As for the so called Religious Right. That's a myth promulgated by the leftist media and their statist extreme leftist who need a scapegoat.
The "Religious Right" are actually normal salt of the earth Republicans who just want to be left alone who also would like Social Security to continue to work. Most of them are people who have a grounding in knowing the difference between right and wrong, just like their quiet democrat neighbors and friends. Conservatives generally have succeeded financially through hard work and most of our small businesses are run by these sorts of folks. Leftists have no such grounding and they are mostly situational ethicists and believe people with principals are to be mocked. Ergo: The myth of the Religious Right came into being. They extreme right wing is no more religious than the extreme left wing having any ethics.
The "Religious Right" are actually normal salt of the earth Republicans who just want to be left alone who also would like Social Security to continue to work. Most of them are people who have a grounding in knowing the difference between right and wrong, just like their quiet democrat neighbors and friends. Conservatives generally have succeeded financially through hard work and most of our small businesses are run by these sorts of folks. Leftists have no such grounding and they are mostly situational ethicists and believe people with principals are to be mocked. Ergo: The myth of the Religious Right came into being. They extreme right wing is no more religious than the extreme left wing having any ethics.
That's more or less true. Might disagree on some details. While there are some people that fit the stereotype, most of the voters that make up the "Religious Right" are neither especially religious or especially political. They just have traditional views about marriage, sex, etc., and have old-fashioned views on politics.
Bush got reelected only because Karl Rove turned his second election into a referendum on Gay Marriage. Record republican turnout, Christians against homos.
Post by: MechAg94 on March 18, 2008, 09:40:26 AM
There was also the issue that Bush's tax cuts got passed and the economy wasn't so bad. That always helps a great deal.
Post by: MechAg94 on March 18, 2008, 09:46:11 AM
Post by: christopher on March 18, 2008, 11:36:39 AM
The founding fathers were very clear & specific about this because they understood the dangers as well as the benefits of a democracy. Our votes have been hijacked by privilege & special interest. And so our duty is no longer being fulfilled at the ballot box.
Ever 4 years we have two options:
1. Line up like sheep & vote for mismanagement, pork, corruption-the lesser of two evils or
2. Sit at home & complain that our vote doesn't count
What I propose is a third option. To stand up like men & say enough is enough. This November vote them all out!
Post by: Werewolf on March 18, 2008, 12:10:42 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!
There actually is a third option but it isn't one that will be implemented any time soon - probably never in fact - by the people of the USA.
Post by: Perd Hapley on March 18, 2008, 12:59:26 PM
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?
Post by: Manedwolf on March 18, 2008, 01:43:37 PM
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?
I'm opposed to it, and definitely not for any religious reasons. Purely sociological structure-of-stable-cultures reasons for me. That, and I see the unfairness of forcing people like small business owners to insure these new "partners".
Post by: wooderson on March 18, 2008, 01:48:40 PM
Quote
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.
Post by: Dntsycnt on March 18, 2008, 01:51:46 PM
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!
Post by: Manedwolf on March 18, 2008, 01:59:13 PM
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.
Post by: Dntsycnt on March 18, 2008, 02:07:14 PM
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*
Post by: seeker_two on March 18, 2008, 04:37:23 PM
Ultimate Power.....of course....
Post by: Perd Hapley on March 18, 2008, 06:59:10 PM
Quote
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.
Post by: Dntsycnt on March 18, 2008, 07:13:46 PM
Wooderson has provided some more grounded thought but you seem to have shrugged it off and just restated your original claim.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on March 18, 2008, 08:13:30 PM
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.
Post by: Manedwolf on March 19, 2008, 02:18:35 AM
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?
Post by: Perd Hapley on March 19, 2008, 02:40:54 AM
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.
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.
Post by: Dntsycnt on March 19, 2008, 04:57:32 AM
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...
Post by: Manedwolf on March 19, 2008, 04:59:56 AM
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.
Post by: Dntsycnt on March 19, 2008, 05:04:31 AM
It was to this that I was referring when I said "kept down".
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on March 19, 2008, 09:13:00 AM
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.
Post by: wooderson on March 19, 2008, 09:32:17 AM
Quote
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.
Post by: Manedwolf on March 19, 2008, 09:35:42 AM
Quote
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.
Post by: wooderson on March 19, 2008, 10:02:21 AM
Quote
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.')
Post by: christopher on March 19, 2008, 10:08:39 AM
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.
Post by: Werewolf on March 19, 2008, 10:47:38 AM
Quote
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.
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!
Post by: wooderson on March 19, 2008, 10:50:53 AM
Quote
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?
Post by: Werewolf on March 19, 2008, 10:51:09 AM
Quote
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.
Post by: christopher on March 19, 2008, 01:23:49 PM
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!
Post by: Perd Hapley on March 19, 2008, 01:37:05 PM
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.
Quote
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.
Post by: Werewolf on March 19, 2008, 03:10:57 PM
< 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!
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.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on March 19, 2008, 03:22:40 PM
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?
Post by: wooderson on March 19, 2008, 03:31:06 PM
Quote
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.
Post by: Werewolf on March 19, 2008, 03:41:55 PM
Quote
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.
Post by: wooderson on March 19, 2008, 03:53:56 PM
Quote
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?
Quote
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"?
Post by: wooderson on March 19, 2008, 03:56:30 PM
Post by: Werewolf on March 19, 2008, 04:02:10 PM
Quote
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?
Quote
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...
Post by: wooderson on March 19, 2008, 04:12:37 PM
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on March 19, 2008, 05:04:19 PM
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.
Post by: wooderson on March 19, 2008, 05:19:34 PM
Quote
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:Quote
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?
Post by: christopher on March 19, 2008, 05:43:47 PM
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.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on March 19, 2008, 06:16:07 PM
Quote
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"?"
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?
Post by: wooderson on March 19, 2008, 07:27:03 PM
Quote
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.
Quote
A Christian conservative expressing a well-reasoned argument against gay marriage is shouted down as bigoted, discriminatory, prejudicial, homophobic, "disturbing."
"Quit picking on me."Quote
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."Quote
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.
Post by: johnster999 on March 19, 2008, 08:17:59 PM
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.
Post by: grampster on March 20, 2008, 05:01:20 AM
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on March 20, 2008, 08:00:59 AM
Quote
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.
Quote
A Christian conservative expressing a well-reasoned argument against gay marriage is shouted down as bigoted, discriminatory, prejudicial, homophobic, "disturbing."
"Quit picking on me."Quote
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."Quote
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.
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?
Post by: Dntsycnt on March 20, 2008, 08:27:00 AM
Get it?
Post by: wooderson on March 20, 2008, 10:01:43 AM
Quote
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.Post by: Perd Hapley on March 20, 2008, 07:58:02 PM
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.
Post by: grampster on March 21, 2008, 03:56:37 AM
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.
Post by: RevDisk on March 21, 2008, 05:18:42 PM
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.
Quote
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?
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.
Post by: wooderson on March 21, 2008, 06:40:41 PM
Quote
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).
Post by: Bogie on March 21, 2008, 08:20:59 PM
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.
Post by: Perd Hapley on March 21, 2008, 08:46:24 PM
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.
Quote
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.
Post by: wooderson on March 22, 2008, 05:22:09 AM
Letting whites and blacks has no 'benefit to society.'
How do these differ from same-sex marriage?
Post by: Perd Hapley on March 22, 2008, 07:09:20 AM
Post by: Manedwolf on March 22, 2008, 07:11:13 AM
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?
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.
Post by: Perd Hapley on March 22, 2008, 07:22:29 AM
Not to mention that neither Christianity nor miscegenation bears much relevance to the topic at hand.
Anyway, Manedwolf, he's going to move on to the red herring of childless hetero couples, so you can probably write your response to that in advance. Have a fun time
Post by: Manedwolf on March 22, 2008, 07:26:44 AM
In a purely pragmatic sense, it's still in any nation's best interest to legally recognize hetero couples in marriage, because they have the greatest statistical chance of producing offspring that are:
1. Raised in a traditional household that will produce an educated, productive citizen
2. Raised with the values and traditions of the nation, thus ensuring its future
Sure, not all hetero couples will have kids. Doesn't matter. But NO homosexual couples can by and of themselves produce kids. Makes sense, doesn't it?
Post by: Perd Hapley on March 22, 2008, 07:54:56 AM
Quote
In a purely pragmatic sense, it's still in any nation's best interest to legally recognize hetero couples in marriage, because they have the greatest statistical chance of producing offspring that are:
1. Raised in a traditional household that will produce an educated, productive citizen
2. Raised with the values and traditions of the nation, thus ensuring its future
Oh, I guess. I don't know. I go back and forth on whether gov should recognize marriage at all.
Post by: grampster on March 22, 2008, 09:51:43 AM
Post by: Perd Hapley on March 22, 2008, 10:30:27 AM
Post by: grampster on March 22, 2008, 11:52:21 AM
(Long dissertation deleted. Pointless under the circumstances.)
Post by: wooderson on March 22, 2008, 12:44:23 PM
Quote
How are they the same?
They're relationships between two persons who wish to define themselves as married.A contract between two individuals to be considered as an individual in some circumstances and to have certain privileges and benefits bestowed upon them by the state.
Now, how are they different?
Post by: wooderson on March 22, 2008, 12:48:37 PM
Quote
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.
You may have noticed that humans are more than capable of "producing further population" without ever being married.In fact, humans are more than capable of "producing further population" without even having sex. Welcome to the 21st century, brother.
And if your argument is that the progeny of married couples are socially preferable (ie less prone to committing crime, etc.) to progeny of unmarried persons, then this should hold true for hetero or homo situations.
Unless, of course, you can provide evidence that children of gay parents are more prone to committing crimes, winding up with a lower quality of life, etc.. (Which you can't, and which would be absurd even if you believe the 'lifestyle' is 'passed on,' as homosexuals on the whole are less prone to commit crimes and make more money than the rest of us.)
Post by: Strings on March 22, 2008, 03:20:22 PM
Remove government from the "marriage" business all together. Develop some form of simple "civil union contract", which takes care of all the forms and such that Gramps listed easily, to deal with anyone wishing to enter into such an arrangement. Leave "marriage" to whichever "church"* the involved parties belong to.
*"church". Not trying to be irritating, but using this as a catch-all term for the "governing body" for whatever faith you belong to, regardless of faith
Post by: wooderson on March 22, 2008, 04:39:29 PM
But the end result is the same, however - you've just replaced 'marriage' (and established law) with two words.
Any (straight) couple who wants to get married can do so today without ever stepping foot in a church or talking to a minister/priest/imam/rabbi/etc., legally that part is irrelevant. It's the license issued by the state that counts.
Is it easier to simply say "okay, 'marriage' is between any two consenting adults" or to change the term entirely?
Is either option going to satisfy those who object to same-sex unions on moral grounds? "Devaluing marriage!" either way.
Post by: Strings on March 22, 2008, 06:32:10 PM
My support of some form of civil union for gays is based on one case: a couple that had been together for years. We'll call them Bruce and Joe.
They had a home together, lots of belongings, and a great relationship: the ideal that most couples strive for. Then Bruce fell ill with a terminal disease. Joe spent as much time as he could at the hospital with Bruce (like any spouse would). Finally, Bruce succumbed to his illness...
While Joe was at the hospital, grieving for the loss of his partner, Bruce's family made their move. You see, they had never approved of the relationship, and now saw their chance. They broke into the house, changed all the locks, and basically left Joe with nothing but the clothes on his back.
Because Joe and Bruce weren't "married", Joe really had no legal leg to stand on: what Bruce's family had done was perfectly legal, they being the legal "next of kin" and all.
Stop and think about that: the ONLY thing these guys had "done to society" was being in a non-standard relationship. And this guy was completely destroyed, emotionally and financially.
So... a mixed-sex couple can: go to the courthouse, fill out a simple form, present some ID, and pay $80 (what it cost for Spoon and I). Now they're protected from this kinda stuff. A same-sex couple must: go to the courthouse, get multiple forms, probably hire a lawyer, and spend a fair amount of cash for the same protection.
And some of you want to tell me that this is, somehow, "equal under the law"?
Wow. Just... wow.
Post by: Perd Hapley on March 22, 2008, 07:56:34 PM
Quote
And some of you want to tell me that this is, somehow, "equal under the law"?
And you want to tell me that Bruce and Joe is equal to Jim and Cathy?
Post by: wooderson on March 22, 2008, 07:59:57 PM
Post by: Strings on March 22, 2008, 09:01:44 PM
That possibility is enough to grant J&C an easier time protecting themselves? Especially given that, whatever contracts, wills, and what-not J&B have drawn up, their decisions can be much more easily contested in court?
Fistful, I am NOT suggesting that kids should be taught about homosexuality in elementary school (that whole "two mommies" thing just bothers me). Nor am I suggesting that overwhelming accomodations be made for gays. I'm simply suggesting that they be given the same protections other Americans enjoy. Is that REALLY so much to ask?
Post by: MicroBalrog on March 23, 2008, 03:15:16 AM
Quote
Fistful, I am NOT suggesting that kids should be taught about homosexuality in elementary school
If someone wants to ensure he has control of the content of their child's education, they should either send him/her into a private school or homeschool them. Public school means that the social engineers have greater control over your child than you do - not something you'd want unless you simply can't afford anything else.
Post by: Perd Hapley on March 23, 2008, 02:17:53 PM
Quote from: wooderson
You've yet to provide a substantive difference, so... yeah.
The fact that Bruce and Joe have matching junk is not substantive? Quote from: Strings
I'm simply suggesting that they be given the same protections other Americans enjoy. Is that REALLY so much to ask?
But you're not. You're asking for two men to be the equal of an opposite-sex couple. When the facts speak otherwise. Like wooderson, you're asking us to pretend that sex differences don't matter. If Bruce and Joe wanted to be equal to actual married couples, they would seek a partner of the opposite sex. But they clearly do not want that. And they have a right to shack up and do their thing. At their own risk, just like non-sexual roommates. HM is an arrangement based (legally) on mere sex, not on the very real possibility of procreation, with children being raised by their biological parents, as with real marriage.
Yeah, yeah, homosexuals could have children in the house, too.
So could two men (or thirteen women) who ain't having sex with each other. So could a brother and sister who live together. If we're going to have civil unions just for the sake of the kids, then let's do so. There's no reason for it to be based on homosexuality. That goes for every other facet of a homosexual relationship. If hospital visits, or power of attorney, or anything else is at issue, then let's make civil unions available to any two people (or fourteen people) who want one, not just for homosexuals. There is no reason why mere sexual relations should grant one govt. protection.
Post by: Strings on March 23, 2008, 03:17:21 PM
Which is exactly what I was suggesting: government out of the "marriage" business, and civil unions for whatever form of co-habitation agreement is needed between consenting adults
Post by: wooderson on March 23, 2008, 04:47:33 PM
Quote
The fact that Bruce and Joe have matching junk is not substantive?
Not in the least.Quote
But you're not. You're asking for two men to be the equal of an opposite-sex couple. When the facts speak otherwise.
What facts are these?Why shouldn't same-sex couples be treated as "equal" to opposite-sex couples?
Post by: wooderson on March 23, 2008, 04:51:19 PM
Quote
If hospital visits, or power of attorney, or anything else is at issue, then let's make civil unions available to any two people (or fourteen people) who want one, not just for homosexuals.
These already exist. They're called 'marriages' - they have nothing to do with God, religion, sex or procreation.You go down to the courthouse, you fill out some paperwork, maybe get a blood test - and voila! in the eyes of the state, you done got married. Doesn't matter if you ever bump uglies, have kids, visit a church, tell your parents, or anything else.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on March 23, 2008, 06:35:41 PM
Quote
If hospital visits, or power of attorney, or anything else is at issue, then let's make civil unions available to any two people (or fourteen people) who want one, not just for homosexuals.
These already exist. They're called 'marriages' - they have nothing to do with God, religion, sex or procreation.If it is available to any two people, and any 14 people, and if it has nothing to do with God, religion, sex, or families, then it most definitely is not a marriage.
Civil union? Sure, fine with me. But a dog isn't a duck, an apple isn't an orange, and that isn't a marriage.
Post by: wooderson on March 23, 2008, 06:41:04 PM
Quote
If it is available to any two people, and any 14 people, and if it has nothing to do with God, religion, sex, or families, then it most definitely is not a marriage.
Why not?
Go look at a marriage license application. Not once does it ask you if you believe in God, plan to have sex, or wish to procreate. Nowhere.
Thus, in the United States today, marriage has nothing to do with God, religion, sex or families. Like I said.
Quote
Civil union? Sure, fine with me. But a dog isn't a duck, an apple isn't an orange, and that isn't a marriage.
A dog, a duck, an apple and an orange are objects with physical properties.What are the physical properties of 'marriage'? What's it's shape? Color? Mass?
Post by: Strings on March 23, 2008, 07:09:46 PM
What are the physical properties of 'marriage'? What's it's shape? Color? Mass?<
dude... can you go argue for the other side for awhile? Please?
Post by: wooderson on March 23, 2008, 07:36:39 PM
Post by: Perd Hapley on March 23, 2008, 09:02:01 PM
>A dog, a duck, an apple and an orange are objects with physical properties.
What are the physical properties of 'marriage'? What's it's shape? Color? Mass?<
dude... can you go argue for the other side for awhile? Please?
What are the physical properties of 'marriage'? What's it's shape? Color? Mass?<
dude... can you go argue for the other side for awhile? Please?
I've been over this ground with him before. He seems to think anything non-physical is totally up-for-grabs.
I guess I could ask him why he's so sure about his idea of equality or rights. What are the physical properties of equality under the law? What's its shape? Why don't we just redefine it, until it means the majority has all the rights, and the homosexuals have nothing?
Post by: wooderson on March 24, 2008, 03:54:43 AM
'Marriage' (or 'the right to bear arms') has no such immutability. It's a question of mores and laws, and can be changed to suit the prevailing wishes of the populace at any time.
Like marriage, 'equality' and 'rights' are what a given society decides they are. There certainly isn't an unchanging, objective definition for either, natural law is a fiction, etc.
Quote
Why don't we just redefine it, until it means the majority has all the rights, and the homosexuals have nothing?
You could certainly attempt to do this, yes.
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on March 24, 2008, 08:16:27 AM
'Marriage' (or 'the right to bear arms') has no such immutability. It's a question of mores and laws, and can be changed to suit the prevailing wishes of the populace at any time.
This is a common liberal/leftist/Democrat fallacy. They seem to think they can change the rules of the game in order to gain themselves certain benefits they haven't earned.
As an example, notice how many Democrats are trying to rewrite the notion of "patriotism" so that it will apply to themselves. They clearly dislike their country and want it to lose its wars, but they still want the social benefits that come from being patriotic. They could earn the benefits by changing their actions and attitudes becoming patriotic. But no, instead they try to change patriotism into something that includes their anti-American selves. Then they demand that society go along with their charade. "Don't question my patriotism!"
Sorry, it doesn't work that way. Patriotism is what it is (love of your country), and it isn't what it isn't (anti-Americanism of the sort professed by too many Democrats), and no amount of wishful thinking will change it.
Likewise, marriage is what it is, and isn't what it isn't. You don't get to change it to suite your whims.
Post by: Perd Hapley on March 24, 2008, 09:01:13 AM
Quote
Like marriage, 'equality' and 'rights' are what a given society decides they are. There certainly isn't an unchanging, objective definition for either
So, on what do you base your argument for homosexual marriage? Anything solid to base it on?
Quote
Language does not modify physical properties.
Where do you get this idea that marriage will change, just by using the word differently? Why do you think that concepts and language are identical?
Post by: Strings on March 24, 2008, 09:55:18 AM
I'm pretty sure fistful and I pretty much agree on this, we maybe just use slightly different terms. If folks like me and folks like him were to sit down and hash it out, we would probably get this all worked out.
But we've got folks like wooderson (as a good example), who are going to push things absolutely as far as they can. INSIST on using the term "gay marriage", that there is absolutely no difference between a gay couple and a married couple, etc. And these people make folks like fistful dig their heels in...
And folks wonder why we're in the mess we are as a society...
Post by: Perd Hapley on March 24, 2008, 10:24:35 AM
I'm pretty sure fistful and I pretty much agree on this, we maybe just use slightly different terms. If folks like me and folks like him were to sit down and hash it out, we would probably get this all worked out.
We can get together, I'll just look for the guy in the kilt, this time. But I honestly don't think we could work out this particular issue, unless the working out involves you coming around to my point of view. Sorry.
Post by: wooderson on March 24, 2008, 12:48:35 PM
Quote
You're wrong. These sorts of things are NOT mutable. They are what they are, and they aren't what they aren't. You don't get to change them on a whim.
Nothing changes on a whim. Language evolves over generations, whether naturally or by direction. And, of course, changing laws and social attitudes is a painfully slow process. We're fourty years removed from Loving and in certain parts of the country, we're just now seeing the broad acceptance of interracial couples.But yes, they do change (again, naturally or by direction). This is a basic part of human language and thinking, denying it is meaningless.
What is 'marriage'? Where can I see it? What about it unchangeable?
Quote
Patriotism is what it is (love of your country), and it isn't what it isn't (anti-Americanism of the sort professed by too many Democrats), and no amount of wishful thinking will change it.
What you call anti-Americanism they might call "letting America be America again" - if you don't understand how that works, how people can have disagreements over the best way to run the state, and how not sharing your viewpoint doesn't make one an enemy of the state, then you are beyond reason.
Post by: wooderson on March 24, 2008, 12:55:43 PM
Quote
So, on what do you base your argument for homosexual marriage? Anything solid to base it on?
Sure - there is no reason to prohibit it. There is no harm to another being or to society at large or to the state. If we're granting privileges to one class of person, we should grant them to all classes unless there is a good reason not to.You're free to disagree about the role of the state and individual rights, of course. And if you can convince a majority of the people that we should prohibit same-sex unions because God said so - great, you win. And if I can convince enough people I win. The wonders of a democratic society - discourse and democracy.
Quote
Where do you get this idea that marriage will change, just by using the word differently?
Because 'marriage' is the 'the word.'If you suddenly allow all classes of people to enjoy the privileges granted by the state to marriage - you've just changed 'marriage.'
Quote
Why do you think that concepts and language are identical?
Because they are.
Post by: wooderson on March 24, 2008, 01:00:47 PM
Quote
But we've got folks like wooderson (as a good example), who are going to push things absolutely as far as they can. INSIST on using the term "gay marriage",
No, I don't. You should read more carefully.I said that turning 'marriage' into a legal contract between adults or 'civil union' is a reasonable conclusion.
What I said was
a) this is not a solution that is acceptable to religious conservatives on the whole. They maintain opposition to civil unions where they exist.
b) if you establish 'civil unions' as absolutely equal to 'marriage' there is no fundamental difference in them, and thus it's a pointless game of semantics. Why bother?
c) we have centuries of common law regarding 'marriage' - none for 'civil unions.' Is it easier to alter our entire legal system on that point, or simply to allow all classes of people to 'marry'?
Do you have a rejoinder to any of those?
Quote
that there is absolutely no difference between a gay couple and a married couple, etc.
One is straight and one is gay - what other difference is there?Do you think one is superior to the other?
Should one be granted more privileges and benefits than the other?
If no to both, then what difference exists?
And these people make folks like fistful dig their heels in...
Post by: Perd Hapley on March 24, 2008, 02:12:53 PM
Because 'marriage' is the 'the word.'
Quote
Why do you think that concepts and language are identical?
Because they are. My marriage to my wife is a word? What does that even mean?
You fail thinking. I promise that I will try very hard to avoid responding to your future attempts to destroy all reason in regards to this topic.
Strings, on the other hand, I'll be glad to talk with anytime.
Post by: grampster on March 24, 2008, 03:08:09 PM
If the secular government wants to create a legal entity, a vehicle to grant secular legal rights to homosexuals, homosexual partners or groups of same, the government certainly may do that, because the government can. Because it can, doesn't make it right. But, again, it can. Christians defer to the authority of government because they are counseled to do so in The Word. But also Christians test the spirit because not all spirits are of God. All things work for good for those who love the Lord and are called according to His purpose. Christians are also counseled to put on the whole armor of Christ. Further if He is for us who can be against us. Further that He is stronger than he that is in the world. Being a Christian is not an opinion. Being a Christian is repentance of sins and accepting Jesus as Savior. It is a living in the spirit while trapped in the flesh. Now we only see things as through a glass darkly, then we shall see things as they truly are.
I have many homosexual acquaintances, some pretty good friends. I do not reject them, nor do I judge them as the complete scripture goes on to say that If I do, I'll be judged in the same way. So, the scripture teaches me not to not judge, but to be very careful in my judgment as I'll be looked at in the same way. As a sinful man myself, I wouldn't stand that scrutiny very well. If I would say to one of my homosexual friends that I would pray for them, I would in the same breath ask them to pray for me as well.
My position is that as American citizens we all must be treated equally under the law. The government doesn't seem to do this very well, even though it is required to do so. The question to me revolves more around the government's failure to, or that it actually create laws that treat equals as not equal. I object to that and we as citizens should speak up in that regard. Now the way that equality comes down, might not necessarily come down the same way. But it should. Marriage as a Christian entity needs to be accepted by government, but perhaps the contractual givens granted marriage should not be. There should be tax policy and contracts that everyone needs to adhere to in order to gain or be a vehicle to gain certain secular legal (not human) rights.
Post by: wooderson on March 24, 2008, 03:15:56 PM
Quote
My marriage to my wife is a word? What does that even mean?
No, 'marriage' is a word.'Your' marriage is a concept, defined by society, codified in law.
Quote
You fail thinking. I promise that I will try very hard to avoid responding to your future attempts to destroy all reason in regards to this topic.
You have an odd concept of reason.Had you not stormed off, I was going to try a different tack, rather than arguing the last 150 years of linguistics...
If the word 'marriage' and the concept of 'marriage' are separate, unconnected - then why does the language matter? If the state chooses to grant the title 'marriage' to same-sex unions, that in no way alters the Godly/conceptual marriage you hold so dear, correct? It's just a word, and 'marriage' remains 'marriage' no matter what it is called or what is called by its name.
If, however, that's unacceptable because changing the laws of 'marriage' does, in fact, alter the concept of marriage, then you can't really argue with me about the mutability of language and concepts.
Post by: Gewehr98 on March 24, 2008, 03:23:42 PM
Next.