Not sure I've ever seen anything like this... [Archive]

Ksyrup

11-04-2004, 10:46 AM

And those people are idiots who serve a severe disservice to those of us who are truly frightened of this group of folks in charge.But here's the point. While the vast majority of you probably don't believe those kinds of extreme things about Bush, you're all using the same kinds of overly dramatic descriptions and comparisons about the Bush Administration that the true wackos are using. Bush is "evil," his presidency will bring us closer to the end of the world (if not THE end), etc. It's seems like just because a segment of the population does not believe that, and you seem desperate to get your point across - as if we fail to understand what you are saying - you fall into that trap and lump yourself in with those kinds of people. It's like yelling at someone who doesn't speak English in an attempt to get them to understand you. At some point, you do more harm than good and it becomes useless; you get tuned out.

Michael Moore is your (the Dems) spokesperson right now, in the eyes of a huge portion of this country. And you're doing nothing to dissuade that idea by feeding the Chicken Little scenarios with your doomsday descriptions of life after another 4 years of Bush. Particularly when we've already had 4 years of him - while you might not think things are going well, a lot of people are looking around and scratching their heads, searching for these awful, extreme things that are happening or about to happen.

Cuckoo

11-04-2004, 10:47 AM

From an outsider's point of view, I must say it is pretty disturbing to see such division and hate between people of the same country.

Remember guys, it is the United States of America.

I think you're exactly right.

I should clarify in one sense. I can understand ill feelings towards Bush. He's a pretty polarizing figure. He doesn't make an effort to be conciliatory, and he doesn't admit mistakes. In addition, I can't argue with those who point out his arrogance.

My issue is with the treatment of Bush voters. From a side of the aisle that doesn't believe in stereotypes, there are some very horrible things being said about certain portions of the population, some on this board.

I'm not perfect, please don't think I've ever said that I am. I just try to recognize that a lot of people have very different opinions from my own and that they are just as passionate about them as I am. I just think there needs to be a little more respect for those opinions from everyone.

Ksyrup

11-04-2004, 10:48 AM

The Hunter S. Thompson article on ESPN Page 2 is typical of the kind of stuff that motivates people who support the President - even if not overtly - to come to his defense. It's one thing to use the process to try to get rid of someone you don't personally agree with, or to see someone you do like/agree with elected, but with Bush, it goes way beyond that. And for most of "middle America," they're all scratching their heads, wondering what country you're looking at.

Suicane75

11-04-2004, 10:51 AM

But here's the point. While the vast majority of you probably don't believe those kinds of extreme things about Bush, you're all using the same kinds of overly dramatic descriptions and comparisons about the Bush Administration that the true wackos are using. Bush is "evil," his presidency will bring us closer to the end of the world (if not THE end), etc. It's seems like just because a segment of the population does not believe that, and you seem desperate to get your point across - as if we fail to understand what you are saying - you fall into that trap and lump yourself in with those kinds of people. It's like yelling at someone who doesn't speak English in an attempt to get them to understand you. At some point, you do more harm than good and it becomes useless; you get tuned out.

Michael Moore is your (the Dems) sppokeperson right now, in the yes of a huge portion of this country. And you're doing nothing to dissuade that idea by feeding the Chicken Little scenarios with your doomsday descriptions of life after another 4 years of Bush. Particularly when we've already had 4 years of him - while you might not think things are going well, a lot of people are looking around and scratching their heads, searching for these awful, extreme things that are happening or about to happen.

By suggesting that Micheal Moore is the spokesperson for the Democrats you're pretty much doing the exact thing you're accusing us of.
I believe Bush is not very smart and not very honest, and that's not because of what I see from MM but from what I see of GW.

QuikSand

11-04-2004, 10:55 AM

I had a long conversation with an ardent Bush-hater last night over dinner, and got a pretty good earful of this, too.

My first thought goes back to an underlying part of Cuckoo's thread-starter:

From a side of the aisle that I typically respect for their strong beliefs against intolerance and hatred, this may be getting out of hand.

I think there's a common logical flaw here.

Democrats/liberals are indeed fairly seen as advocating tolerance, but it's of a specific kind. The enlightened liberal believes it's wrong for people to be judged on matters that are objectively not relevant -- the color of their skin, their physical disabilities, their sexual preference, and the like. Who they are. Whle I don't think that there are all that many people who disagree with this in benevolent general concept, it's a more basic part of the left's idology than the right's, by any reasonable account, I think.

That's not to say that advocating tolerance means that you should accept and respect the actions and opinions of other people. Sometimes, people like to try to turn this into a game of "gotcha" -- suggesting that the liberals are obliged to be tolerant of others who have intolerant views. I think this is a false paradox -- the political principle at hand is to avoid faulting people for who they are... not for the things they do. If you are born into a culture and faith different from mine, I should treat you and your principles with respect. If you decide that you hate all white people, for whatever reason, that decision does not deserve my respect or tolerance.

Anyway -- I think there are quite a lot of Bush-haters out there who are just awestruck that so many people actually voted for the President. Polls and other data notwithstanding, they just cannot believe that "people like them" actually voted for Bush. I'm hearing an awful lot of Bush opponents use pejorative terms for Bush supporters -- a new breed of terms that for the hardcore, really. It seems to go like this: we knew all along that there were plenty of hard-core conservatives and Christian-right-wingers out there, so of course they will al go and vote for Bush. But the fact that so many soccer moms and lunchpail Joes did too is what staggers them -- they are amazed that these "swing voters" actually voted for the President who got them into this war, who presided over a poor economy, and (the list of Bush greivances goes on and on).

These are people who watched the debates and said to themselves -- "Well, this ought to settle it. It's perfectly clear that Bush is an idiot, and that Kerry isn't a monster, so there shouldn't be any contest." And they were wrong.

Back to intolerance. I think what the Dems are so outraged by is tha fact that a lot of the (so-called) middle-of-the-road voters actually agree with Bush on some fo the things that the Dems despise the most. The classic example is gay rights -- or more specifically Constitutional bans on gay marriages. They inspired turnout, and they passed in every single state where they were offered. The Dems are shocked -- they see this not as simply losing out on an issue (which happens all the time) but as a fundamental departure -- actually introducing discrimination right into these "sacred" governmental documents. Stand back a bit, try to see it from that perspective, and I think you might be able to understand the degree of alarm at hand. When the President (and now a formidable majority in the entire federal government) is talking about pushing creationism back into the classroom, about blurring the walls between church and state, and about curtailing science policy for faith-driven reasons -- it's more than just losing a vote on some tax bill. Some people see it as a much, much larger issue -- and they are appalled at what seems to be happening.

Many of them attribute the result of this election to stupidity. It's a common liberal trait -- if "the people" didn't see that my position was right, then "the people" were either ignorant or misled. Surely, if we had better articulated our elightened position, "the people" would have supported us. It then becomes a campaign to complain about things like misleading political rhetoric and advertising... rather than considering the other possible explnations (like the possibility that the majority of people really don't agree with them).

I'm really torn on this whole thing, personally. Those of you who recall back when I used to participate in the political discussions here (before it became physically painful to do so) might know that I hold a number of beliefs that are traditionally "liberal" -- and that I have grave disagreements with many of this Administration's policies. But I'm working hard right now to try to keep a fair perspective on this, and not to fall into the partisan self-protecting criticisms that seem to be taking over the vanquished left.

gottimd

11-04-2004, 10:55 AM

I just try to recognize that a lot of people have very different opinions from my own and that they are just as passionate about them as I am. I just think there needs to be a little more respect for those opinions from everyone.

I agree, and I have heard this all over biased news sites and reports. I am a democrat, but I do understand everyone is not the same in values, etc and I respect that. I hear about the ignorant voters and stupid people and the how could you scenario's, which I don't agree with. People went out in record numbers and voted for who they thought would be best to lead this country, and I respect that, although the outcome wasn't my choice, but America has spoken. I just hope that those people who are not in the moral majority, whether be Dem or GOP, are not alienated because they won't capture the majority of the vote in the next election. The only thing I was semi upset about is the low turn out for the younger generation. Not that I was expecting all of them to vote democrat, but just to get out there and vote, whether it would be Dem or GOP, and let your voice be heard, use the priviledge that we have as citizens to elect who you think is the best candidate for the job, and to not sit around for the next four years and complain about any injustices that have happened.

I admit, I fear for the future and what it holds, and can only hope that everything will turn around, and the 50-50 split (sorry 51-48), will come to some level of agreement where we as a country can move on. We will never get anywhere if we continue to take quick jabs at the other half or criticize too much. Each side should try and understand the other and come up with solutions that benefit both. I know it is easier written or said then done, but that is the only way we can possible "unite".

Ksyrup

11-04-2004, 10:56 AM

I'm saying that people see him out there, hear what he's saying, know his past, and equate him with the party. I'm not saying I believe him to be, I'm saying that's what a portion of this country believes - that the Dems are hell-bent on destroying Bush personally, and will do anything in order to achieve that goal.

CraigSca

11-04-2004, 10:58 AM

As an aside, on the Philadelphia TV-stations last night, they showed an impromptu protest of people walking down some streets yelling anti-Bush, pro-peace slogans. The reporter then said that when the cameraman tried to tape them for the broadcast last night, they asked not to be taped and then attacked the cameraman when he refused to comply.

I hereby roll my eyes.

WSUCougar

11-04-2004, 11:05 AM

Many of them attribute the result of this election to stupidity. It's a common liberal trait -- if "the people" didn't see that my position was right, then "the people" were either ignorant or misled. Surely, if we had better articulated our elightened position, "the people" would have supported us. It then becomes a campaign to complain about things like misleading political rhetoric and advertising... rather than considering the other possible explnations (like the possibility that the majority of people really don't agree with them).
This is an intriguing point. I think a decent case can be made, however, that the Republicans/conservatives do a better job of catering to simpler values. By that I mean that you can drum up more support among voters who do not study the issues quite as deeply by plugging "traditional" family values, propping your statements with religious terminology, and largely maintaining the status quo.

I don't consider myself a liberal or conservative, by the way. More of an issue-driven moderate.

CraigSca

11-04-2004, 11:13 AM

This is an intriguing point. I think a decent case can be made, however, that the Republicans/conservatives do a better job of catering to simpler values. By that I mean that you can drum up more support among voters who do not study the issues quite as deeply by plugging "traditional" family values, propping your statements with religious terminology, and largely maintaining the status quo.

I don't consider myself a liberal or conservative, by the way. More of an issue-driven moderate.

That's an intriguing point as well, WSU. I'm not so sure that Conservatives aren't issue-driven, I think it's more of a - "if the candidate's views are value-driven, then he/she is more likely to 'do the right thing' no matter what the issue is."

JonInMiddleGA

11-04-2004, 11:16 AM

But I am absolutely amazed at the venom I've seen onling in the last couple of days, not just from this site but from several others as well.

To be honest, I'm kinda amazed that you're amazed (or that anyone is).

As I've said before, and I'll say again -- the two sides of the political aisle don't like each other very much. Hell, a lot of the time we can't fucking stand each other.

And, as I've said many times before -- it isn't our politics that divide us, it's our values, our beliefs, the things that play strong roles in determining who we are. The political rancor is just a symptom of all of that. It's pushed to the forefront because it's something that, like it or not, the two sides have to share because of our political system. It's an area where we have to interact with our opposites.

Like tends to attract like, birds of a feather flock together, etc., and so on.
I suspect a lot of people probably don't have the dramatic skew toward similar politics among the people they interact with, I'd say that most people (not just FOFC'ers, but people in general) tend to do most of their voluntary social interaction with people who share their general politic slant. The same values & beliefs that influence my politics also influence my choices in entertainment for example. So, when I spend a weekend at a PBR event or a NASCAR race, it's not all that surprising that I'm probably spending time with a crowd that shares 75%+ of my political views too. Same thing with somebody who ... hell, if a self-described liberal would like to pick something they spend time doing with a crowd, I'll let them fill-in-the-blank ... but I bet they'll be able to find a similar comparison without much trouble.

We hang out with people we like; We avoid hanging out with people we
don't like -- I think those two things are pretty much givens. And conversely, it isn't unusual for their to be a good bit of hostility (whether expressed or not) between people who don't like each other.

So why "venom" between political polar opposites is anywhere near "amazing" is, well ... amazing to me.

Cuckoo

11-04-2004, 11:17 AM

I had a long conversation with an ardent Bush-hater last night over dinner, and got a pretty good earful of this, too.

My first thought goes back to an underlying part of Cuckoo's thread-starter:

I think there's a common logical flaw here.

Democrats/liberals are indeed fairly seen as advocating tolerance, but it's of a specific kind. The enlightened liberal believes it's wrong for people to be judged on matters that are objectively not relevant -- the color of their skin, their physical disabilities, their sexual preference, and the like. Who they are. Whle I don't think that there are all that many people who disagree with this in benevolent general concept, it's a more basic part of the left's idology than the right's, by any reasonable account, I think.

That's not to say that advocating tolerance means that you should accept and respect the actions and opinions of other people. Sometimes, people like to try to turn this into a game of "gotcha" -- suggesting that the liberals are obliged to be tolerant of others who have intolerant views. I think this is a false paradox -- the political principle at hand is to avoid faulting people for who they are... not for the things they do. If you are born into a culture and faith different from mine, I should treat you and your principles with respect. If you decide that you hate all white people, for whatever reason, that decision does not deserve my respect or tolerance.

Anyway -- I think there are quite a lot of Bush-haters out there who are just awestruck that so many people actually voted for the President. Polls and other data notwithstanding, they just cannot believe that "people like them" actually voted for Bush. I'm hearing an awful lot of Bush opponents use pejorative terms for Bush supporters -- a new breed of terms that for the hardcore, really. It seems to go like this: we knew all along that there were plenty of hard-core conservatives and Christian-right-wingers out there, so of course they will al go and vote for Bush. But the fact that so many soccer moms and lunchpail Joes did too is what staggers them -- they are amazed that these "swing voters" actually voted for the President who got them into this war, who presided over a poor economy, and (the list of Bush greivances goes on and on).

These are people who watched the debates and said to themselves -- "Well, this ought to settle it. It's perfectly clear that Bush is an idiot, and that Kerry isn't a monster, so there shouldn't be any contest." And they were wrong.

Back to intolerance. I think what the Dems are so outraged by is tha fact that a lot of the (so-called) middle-of-the-road voters actually agree with Bush on some fo the things that the Dems despise the most. The classic example is gay rights -- or more specifically Constitutional bans on gay marriages. They inspired turnout, and they passed in every single state where they were offered. The Dems are shocked -- they see this not as simply losing out on an issue (which happens all the time) but as a fundamental departure -- actually introducing discrimination right into these "sacred" governmental documents. Stand back a bit, try to see it from that perspective, and I think you might be able to understand the degree of alarm at hand. When the President (and now a formidable majority in the entire federal government) is talking about pushing creationism back into the classroom, about blurring the walls between church and state, and about curtailing science policy for faith-driven reasons -- it's more than just losing a vote on some tax bill. Some people see it as a much, much larger issue -- and they are appalled at what seems to be happening.

Many of them attribute the result of this election to stupidity. It's a common liberal trait -- if "the people" didn't see that my position was right, then "the people" were either ignorant or misled. Surely, if we had better articulated our elightened position, "the people" would have supported us. It then becomes a campaign to complain about things like misleading political rhetoric and advertising... rather than considering the other possible explnations (like the possibility that the majority of people really don't agree with them).

I'm really torn on this whole thing, personally. Those of you who recall back when I used to participate in the political discussions here (before it became physically painful to do so) might know that I hold a number of beliefs that are traditionally "liberal" -- and that I have grave disagreements with many of this Administration's policies. But I'm working hard right now to try to keep a fair perspective on this, and not to fall into the partisan self-protecting criticisms that seem to be taking over the vanquished left.

These are some interesting points, but I'm not sure I agree with you. Tolerance, at least as how I perceive it, is not just meant for the unalterable components of people (i.e. race, etc.) but is also used quite frequently from the more progressive portions of the population to represent opinions/values as well. For example, alternative lifestyles should be tolerated, religions out of the more mainstream protestant should be tolerated, and other issues that one would call in the category of "actions and opinions." This is something heard frequently from some who may be described as more liberal. And it is one of the things I truly respect.

In the past two days, however, this has not been the case. People who made decisions based on morality are being degraded as are a number of other reasons for voting for Bush. There has been absolutely no tolerance, and I think that's sad.

Like I've said before, I completely understand many of the objections to George W. Bush. But to simply assume that stupidity or ignorance is what made people vote for him is ridiculous and foolish, in my opinion.

The fact is that there is a very diverse population in the United States right now, and there isn't anything close to a consensus on either side. I've just been continually surprised by how venomous the attacks have become on population groups who have differing opinions.

JonInMiddleGA

11-04-2004, 11:23 AM

Remember guys, it is the United States of America.

Only on increasingly rare occasions. And, at the age of 37, I don't really recall much time that this hasn't been the case.

As a nation we are, IMO, very much like a family -- we might come to the aid
of a relative if their being attacked from outside the family regardless of the circumstances, but from within ... well, let's just say I probably have nearly as many relatives that I can't stand as I like.

Cuckoo

11-04-2004, 11:23 AM

We hang out with people we like; We avoid hanging out with people we
don't like -- I think those two things are pretty much givens. And conversely, it isn't unusual for their to be a good bit of hostility (whether expressed or not) between people who don't like each other.

Perhaps you're right, but as a person who considers himself to be conservative and is smack in the middle of academia, I frequently associate with people who have very different political opinions than myself. The majority of the time I don't think we're really that different; we simply have different priorities. While I may value economics, another may value the environment. When it's all said and done, my experience has been that we all basically agree on what is "right." We simply have a disagreement over the way to get there, or what should be done first.

On the internet, people are thrust into situations where they associate with others who have strikingly different political opinions. I have argued repeatedly with folks like NoMyths, John Galt, Chubby, and others over the course of this board, but I respect them for their opinions. Where my respect ends is when their respect for differing opinions ends. At the end of the day, we should be able to say, "I disagree with you, but I respect your opinion."

If you go out and read some of the posts on this board and the OOTP board and others, however, one would think that respect has completely disappeared.

Kevin

11-04-2004, 11:34 AM

My outsiders view is that politics has become way too much about personalities and not enough about policy. The same holds true here in Canada. There is little reasonable discourse during campaigns. I think either candidate would have been much more credible by also pointing out what issues that they are in agreement on. The campaign managers push them instead to demonize each other and in the end demoralize the country. I wish politicians would give us a reason to vote for them instead of a hundred reasons to not vote for someone else.

As in many other aspects of life, the media only make it worse as all they want is the sensational ten second sound bite. Far too much credit is given to people like Michael Moorer. Yes, he is a brilliant satirist, but not much more than that. Unfortunately many people don't realize it. It's good that he makes people think. It's awful that people tend to blindly believe everything he says. He's become so much a part of the political landscape that he's now going to become the subject of the satire.

My rant is starting to sound like a political speech: all criticism and no solutions. I wish I had one. I wish anyone had one.

QuikSand

11-04-2004, 11:36 AM

Perhaps you're right, but as a person who considers himself to be conservative and is smack in the middle of academia, I frequently associate with people who have very different political opinions than myself. The majority of the time I don't think we're really that different; we simply have different priorities. While I may value economics, another may value the environment. When it's all said and done, my experience has been that we all basically agree on what is "right." We simply have a disagreement over the way to get there, or what should be done first.

Okay -- but that exchange starts with a certain basis. All the people around you in an academic setting are certainly educated and presumably pretty intellectualy astute. You can have some very spirited left/right debates among such people, and easily come away with your preferred conclusion: I disagree with you, but I respect your opinion.

Matters of "moral values" (or whatever the phrasing was that turned out to be the supposed #1 issue in this election) rarely allow that sort of conclusion. It's awfully hard to "basically agree on what is right" when one person believes that public policy should be dictated by the words of the Bible, and the other person thinks that the Bible should have no place whatsoever in the public institutions. These might be intractable positions -- and while it's at least conceivable for one person to "respect the other person's view" there, they most certainly are not separated by just incremental matters of prioritization -- they are diametrically opposed about things as fundamental as the appropriate role of government, period.

Cuckoo

11-04-2004, 11:42 AM

Honolulu_Blue

11-04-2004, 11:47 AM

To be honest, I'm kinda amazed that you're amazed (or that anyone is).

As I've said before, and I'll say again -- the two sides of the political aisle don't like each other very much. Hell, a lot of the time we can't fucking stand each other.

And, as I've said many times before -- it isn't our politics that divide us, it's our values, our beliefs, the things that play strong roles in determining who we are. The political rancor is just a symptom of all of that. It's pushed to the forefront because it's something that, like it or not, the two sides have to share because of our political system. It's an area where we have to interact with our opposites.

Like tends to attract like, birds of a feather flock together, etc., and so on.
I suspect a lot of people probably don't have the dramatic skew toward similar politics among the people they interact with, I'd say that most people (not just FOFC'ers, but people in general) tend to do most of their voluntary social interaction with people who share their general politic slant. The same values & beliefs that influence my politics also influence my choices in entertainment for example. So, when I spend a weekend at a PBR event or a NASCAR race, it's not all that surprising that I'm probably spending time with a crowd that shares 75%+ of my political views too. Same thing with somebody who ... hell, if a self-described liberal would like to pick something they spend time doing with a crowd, I'll let them fill-in-the-blank ... but I bet they'll be able to find a similar comparison without much trouble.

We hang out with people we like; We avoid hanging out with people we
don't like -- I think those two things are pretty much givens. And conversely, it isn't unusual for their to be a good bit of hostility (whether expressed or not) between people who don't like each other.

So why "venom" between political polar opposites is anywhere near "amazing" is, well ... amazing to me.

I think JIMG is totally right here for the most part. I have a few friends who are conservative. I am still good friends with all of them, but we don't discuss politics. Ever. I really only tend to talk politics with friends of mine who share the same views. Not because I need to hear my views parroted back to me, but arguing politics with friends is rarely a good way to spend your time. Case in point, my father. He voted for Bush. Hell, he has a signed picture of the bastard in our house, he also got some sort of pin for being a "wrangler" or something like that (some fundraising thing). I don't see my dad often (as he lives in Mich.), but we have a simple rule: we don't talk about politics. Ever. Life's too short to argue with your dad or good friends about that kind of stuff.

As for you f*ckers, this place is all about wasting time! :D

JonInMiddleGA

11-04-2004, 11:53 AM

Before I say another word, please let me make something clear -- I'm not trying to give you a hard time about your thread, I'm just trying to bridge the gap between your amazement & my position, which could probably be described as "I border on amazed when there isn't venom".

You might have been wholly comfortable with that without any qualifying statement from me, but I feel a little better having said it outright.

Perhaps you're right, but as a person who considers himself to be conservative and is smack in the middle of academia, I frequently associate with people who have very different political opinions than myself.

I'll simply ask you to consider how much of that "association" is wholly by choice and how much is "practical realities"; i.e. dinner parties where you go because you "should", social functions that are career-oriented, etc. Eliminate anything that isn't purely "free will" association.

If your numbers don't change, then I'll simply say that I believe you're in the minority in this country.

If you go out and read some of the posts on this board and the OOTP board and others, however, one would think that respect has completely disappeared.

I'll go so far as to suggest that it hasn't disappeared nearly so much as it didn't really exist in the first place. What, IMO, has diminished significantly is the amount of effort expended on trying to create an illusion of respect.
We simply went behind their backs & said "what an idiot" or "can you believe this shit" or whatever. We smiled to their faces while they spoke, all the while writing "screw you" on the roof of our mouths with our tongues.

Also, there's another distinction which I think has to be made here on this same line -- the difference between respecting "your right to have an opinion" and "your opinion".

Even me, probably safe to call one of the more "reactionary" members of the board, will lean strongly toward acknowledging the former. The latter however ... well, at some point you simply can't "tolerate the intolerable" any longer. And the combination of those two things leads to my general statement of "you're free to hold any opinion you choose ... as long as you understand that acting on those opinions may carry consequences".

Cuckoo

11-04-2004, 12:01 PM

Before I say another word, please let me make something clear -- I'm not trying to give you a hard time about your thread, I'm just trying to bridge the gap between your amazement & my position, which could probably be described as "I border on amazed when there isn't venom".

You might have been wholly comfortable with that without any qualifying statement from me, but I feel a little better having said it outright.

Don't worry, I wasn't bothered by it at all. I recognize that some people aren't surprised by it at all.

In fact, you may be completely right. Maybe I'm not near as tolerant of other opinions as I think I am but that I simply put on a respectful face. To be honest, I really don't know. I do know that I express my exasperation to those who share my views, but I usually try to make a conscious effort to not belittle those I disagree with (as long as their opinions are supported and well thought out, that's an important distinction, I think).

I still think that the last couple of days have shown a great shift in that "respectful" face, even if it was just a facade.

I'll simply ask you to consider how much of that "association" is wholly by choice and how much is "practical realities"; i.e. dinner parties where you go because you "should", social functions that are career-oriented, etc. Eliminate anything that isn't purely "free will" association.

If your numbers don't change, then I'll simply say that I believe you're in the minority in this country.

I think you're right to an extent. I do have a number of friends whom I associate with out of choice that have very different political views than I do. I use the same tactic HB mentioned. We usually don't talk about it. :)

Arles

11-04-2004, 12:12 PM

Okay -- but that exchange starts with a certain basis. All the people around you in an academic setting are certainly educated and presumably pretty intellectualy astute. You can have some very spirited left/right debates among such people, and easily come away with your preferred conclusion: I disagree with you, but I respect your opinion.

Matters of "moral values" (or whatever the phrasing was that turned out to be the supposed #1 issue in this election) rarely allow that sort of conclusion. It's awfully hard to "basically agree on what is right" when one person believes that public policy should be dictated by the words of the Bible, and the other person thinks that the Bible should have no place whatsoever in the public institutions. These might be intractable positions -- and while it's at least conceivable for one person to "respect the other person's view" there, they most certainly are not separated by just incremental matters of prioritization -- they are diametrically opposed about things as fundamental as the appropriate role of government, period.
Here's the problem as I see it, and maybe my bias is coming through here, but this is how I see it. I have numerous hard-left friends and similar hard-right friends. I perceive a lot more tolerance for someone that is pro-affirmative action or pro gay marriage or pro-choice from the right than I do for someone that is anti-AA, against gay marriage or pro-life from the left. Now, I am trying to remove the extreme left/right here, but I think most republicans understand there are people that don't oppose gay marriage and are pro-choice (just look at Arnold and Rudy as main figures in the republican party). They may disagree entirely with their positions, but they have accepted the fact that intelligent people may hold those beliefs.

Yet, I think most of the left has a difficult time understanding how someone could be pro-life, against gay marriage and against affirmative action. I think much of the left has a real hard time believing that intellegent and well-educated people would believe the above.

I also think the fact that media tends to be pro-choice, pro-AA and pro-gay marriage has made many republicans become more accepting of people with those views than the left accepting the opposite. I think the fact that such a wide spectrum of personalities are shown in the media with pro-choice or pro-AA views makes it harder for the right to simply think that everyone that thinks that way is "stupid". Yet you rarely see personalities in the mainstream media that are staunchly pro-life or anti-AA, thereby making it easier for the left to assume that people thinking that way are "stupid" or "out of the mainstream".

EagleFan

11-04-2004, 12:21 PM

It seems to be a very simple thing to me. These Kerry supporters have been whipped into a frenzy by all of the Michael Moore type crap that they can no longer think logically. Once the issue is breached, hatred is all that spills out.

I don't like Kerry and what he stands for. Mostly because he stands for nothing, yet he stands for everythign at the same time. HE is like a usesd car salesman who will say what he thinks the people standing in front of him want to hear.

Bush at least seems to stick with his beliefe (if they are right or wrong). A true leader is closer to Bush than Kerry. A leader needs to be 100% secure with his beliefs and not be wishy-washy.

Sorry, I really didn't want to get into my reasoning here for who I like. Back to my original train of thought.

My office was filled whith who I thought were all Kerry suporters. This is because every single time Bush was mentioned, or in the paper, or on TV, there was nothuin but vile hatred spilling out from most of them (ie: one idiot who doesn;t even have enough respect for the office of the President to continually call him an asshole, or to quote his political beliefs "I don;t like him because he is an asshole." Deep political foundation there.).

Ths made me believe that the majority of those in the office were against Bush. There was only one person who was a right wing nut job who would speak out (not proud that I'm on the same side as that guy).

Afterthe election, I came to find out that there were quite a few in the office who suported Bush. The difference is that they kept their mouth shut the entire time before he election and generally after. The reason was that they knew if they even mentioned his name, the hate machine would get kicked into gear by the Kerry supporters.

It was a royal pain in the ass being in that office for the past months. Once word got out that I was a Bush supporter I was constantly being hounded by the Kerry group. Suddenly I was treated like I was some sort of idiot because I didn't agree with them. I generally kept my mouth shut, until a few pushed me a little too far which led to some rather strong debates (which I feel that I won most as the loudest ones (ie, the only ones that would eventually push me too far to where I would finally respond) were always the ones who seemed to have no real idea why they supported Kerry).

Many of these people now speak like the world is ending. What the hell is wrong with these people? Somewhere along the line they have lost all grip on reality. I disliked Clinton but didn't get all dramatic after his election wins. I also respected the office of the President and would not ever think of callnig him an asshole and disrespecting him in such a personal manner as many of these Kerry supporters have done and are doing.

WSUCougar

11-04-2004, 12:27 PM

I disliked Clinton but didn't get all dramatic after his election wins. I also respected the office of the President and would not ever think of callnig him an asshole and disrespecting him in such a personal manner as many of these Kerry supporters have done and are doing.
Not attacking you personally, EagleFan, but you must recall the vicious personal attacks that were made on Clinton throughout his presidency. The Republicans made a living out of it for four years.

Blackadar

11-04-2004, 12:30 PM

Here's the problem as I see it, and maybe my bias is coming through here, but this is how I see it. I have numerous hard-left friends and similar hard-right friends. I perceive a lot more tolerance for someone that is pro-affirmative action or pro gay marriage or pro-choice from the right than I do for someone that is anti-AA, against gay marriage or pro-life from the right. Now, I am trying to remove the extreme left/right here, but I think most republicans understand people that don't oppose gay marriage and are pro-choice (just look at Arnold and Rudy as main figures in the republican party).

Yet, I think most of the left has a hard time understanding how someone could be pro-life, against gay marriage and against affirmative action.

I also think the fact that media tends to be pro-choice, pro-AA and pro-gay marriage has made many republicans become more accepting of people with those views than the left accepting the opposite.

I think everyone has the right to their personal beliefs, even when I find those beliefs repugnant. So you can be anti-gay marriage or anti-choice. That's why we're all different - and that's ok.

But quite often, I'm seeing those who are against those issues trying to impose their belief systems on the rest of the country. It's ok to be anti-gay marriage. It may be something that isn't within your belief system or acceptable by your religion. But why is it permissable - even encouraged - to try to actively deny those who believe differently their ability to execute those actions?

Why is it necessary to actively go out of the way to deny the ability for gays to join in a union that would be recognized by the State? Why is it necessary to try to impose organized prayer in schools? Why can't someone see that my family may not have the same abortion opinion as yours?

So, no, I often can't accept the beliefs of the Radical Right - because they often want to directly impose those beliefs on everyone else. That's what I find repugnant about the Republican Party today. It really is the party of Big Government, Mob Rule and exclusion.

EagleFan

11-04-2004, 12:31 PM

I know there were attacks to get him out of office due to Monica-gate and other scandals but every politcal sicussion that I was ever involved in about him always came down to political reasons for not liking him, and this was by others as well as myself. Not once did it end up in some frenzy against him calling him an asshole, stupid, a moron, etc...

Bomber

11-04-2004, 12:31 PM

Bush at least seems to stick with his beliefe (if they are right or wrong). A true leader is closer to Bush than Kerry. A leader needs to be 100% secure with his beliefs and not be wishy-washy.

I just don't see the logic in being strong and wrong, rather than changing your views when new information is available. Who wants a leader that is wrong all the time and refuses to do anything about it?

EagleFan

11-04-2004, 12:37 PM

I just don't see the logic in being strong and wrong, rather than changing your views when new information is available. Who wants a leader that is wrong all the time and refuses to do anything about it?

Yeah, I would much rather have a leader who caves to change his beliefs depending on who is is talking to that day just to try to gain acceptance. :rolleyes:

Radii

11-04-2004, 12:41 PM

On the internet, people are thrust into situations where they associate with others who have strikingly different political opinions. I have argued repeatedly with folks like NoMyths, John Galt, Chubby, and others over the course of this board, but I respect them for their opinions. Where my respect ends is when their respect for differing opinions ends. At the end of the day, we should be able to say, "I disagree with you, but I respect your opinion."

If you go out and read some of the posts on this board and the OOTP board and others, however, one would think that respect has completely disappeared.

I think this is a "vocal minority" thing... there are a large number of political posters capable of having a political discussion while remaining "friends" with everyone on this board. I love reading the political threads until the vocal minority steps in and starts slinging shit around.

The respect amongst the majority of us are still there. But the vocal few are being *very* vocal now and causing some major problems.

I know that I can say myself that I respect most of the board's conservative posters, even though I certainly fall on the left side of the moderate label(not far over IMO but that's a matter of opinion too). The people I "despise" are the ones who step in and throw a thread off topic with their own agendas or with name calling or with wild-ass responses, taking a slight disagreement on some sort of ideal and turning it into a hate filled personal attack.

Something else i wonder... even amongst that vocal minority, how many of us here have formed opinions so strong that we'd refuse to discuss sports with them? There are strong conservatives on the board - JonInMiddleGA comes to mind, someone who I would disagree with politically in a most extreme(but still civil) way, but I read his dynasties and posts on other topics with great interest, his T-Ball dynasty was one of my favorite threads on this board ever. But he's not on my list of shit-slingers in these political threads, just someone I consider to be the furthest away from my own views of anyone I read here.

There are two people off the top of my head who have made such an impression on me in political threads that I would refuse to answer their posts even if they responded in one of my dynasties because I have such a distaste for them... not for their political opinions, but for their posting style and tone and lack of respect they show for anyone at all. Given the number of people who get involved in flamewars here, having that list at only 2 seems small to me, and I consider myself extremely tolerant. Have others felt this strongly about posters in political threads that it carries over to the entire board? I wonder how widespread this is.

GoldenEagle

11-04-2004, 12:43 PM

I just don't see the logic in being strong and wrong, rather than changing your views when new information is available. Who wants a leader that is wrong all the time and refuses to do anything about it?
I think QS hit the hammer on the nail and here is a perfect example of it. This liberal refuses to change his mind on anything and if you do not see it his way you are WRONG.

Jim and other have mentioned it before. If the democratic party wants to stand a chance in the few years they are going to have to shy away from this hard left stance and the general cockiness they have.

Ksyrup

11-04-2004, 12:43 PM

I just don't see the logic in being strong and wrong, rather than changing your views when new information is available. Who wants a leader that is wrong all the time and refuses to do anything about it?
Whether and/or to what extent he was "wrong" is primarily where the differences lie, right? So if someone doesn't accept the initial premise, then your point is largely lost on them, don't you think?

Arles

11-04-2004, 12:44 PM

Why is it necessary to actively go out of the way to deny the ability for gays to join in a union that would be recognized by the State?
I think unions are different than marriage. I would be willing to state that a vast majority of the republican party has no problem with legalized civil unions for gays (and polls have shown this).

They do, however, have a problem with redefining the mostly relgious term of marriage and essentially having the government endorsing the idea that a marriage can be between two people of the same sex.

Why is it necessary to try to impose organized prayer in schools?
I think many on the right would prefer to have their kids involved with some limited form of religion while they go to school. Since religion is a big part of their life and much of their kids life is spent in school, it certainly makes some sense. I think most republicans feel that each school district should be allowed to make that call. In other words, if a district in Mississippi wants to have school prayer, while on in New York does not. I don't think republicans have a problem with each district having different guidelines here. I would guess, though, that the left would have a problem with Mississippi allowing some form of school prayer in their school even if the community wanted it.

Why can't someone see that my family may not have the same abortion opinion as yours?
I don't know of that many republicans that want to completely outlaw abortion throughout the US with no way for individual communities to have different guidelines here. Yet, many do not feel the government should be sanctioning abortion through funds and/or the public school system.

I think the main difference here is that republicans have no problem if some community in Massachusates wants to have an abortion or not have school prayer or support civil unions for gays. They just want the ability to not have their kids indoctrinated by pro-abortion propoganda in school, perhaps be able to pray in their local district and not be forced to have a religious term they hold dear (marriage) be redefined to include people of the same sex.

Whereas, I think the left doesn't want anyone anywhere to be able to pray in school or not sanction gay marriage or not use public funds to support abortion.

That, IMO, is the difference. I don't think the republican party wants to impose their beliefs on everyone else, they simply want to be able to practice their beliefs in their local communities without being hasseled by the left.

rkmsuf

11-04-2004, 12:47 PM

Whether and/or to what extent he was "wrong" is primarily where the differences lie, right? So if someone doesn't accept the initial premise, then your point is largely lost on them, don't you think?

that's deep

Ksyrup

11-04-2004, 12:47 PM

Ksyrup

11-04-2004, 12:47 PM

that's deep
Go find me some more Belding pics, please.

rkmsuf

11-04-2004, 12:51 PM

Go find me some more Belding pics, please.

How about some happy Kerry supporters:

http://www.stereogum.com/img/teany7.jpg

They still look quite pleased.

Ksyrup

11-04-2004, 12:52 PM

"King of Fools" fits quite well.

I guess if you include Al's hair, they are, indeed, Shiny Happy People.

Bomber

11-04-2004, 12:52 PM

I think unions are different than marriage. I would be willing to state that a vast majority of the republican party has no problem with legalized civil unions for gays (and polls have shown this).

I'd be interested to see if that were true (not in polls, but in an actual vote), but somehow I doubt it. Most people who are against gay marriage are simply against being gay.

CraigSca

11-04-2004, 12:56 PM

Wasn't Kerry against gay marriage?

Ksyrup

11-04-2004, 12:58 PM

Yes, he was, but his reasoning was more enlightened.

Bomber

11-04-2004, 12:59 PM

Wasn't Kerry against gay marriage?

I believe he supports civil unions.

Ksyrup

11-04-2004, 01:00 PM

I believe he supports civil unions.
So he was against gay marriage...

Bomber

11-04-2004, 01:03 PM

So he was against gay marriage...

I think he was going to support allowing the states to choose, but I don't really know. It isn't an issue that concerns me too much. I just think they should be able to have the rights as man-woman couples.

Ksyrup

11-04-2004, 01:04 PM

It doesn't concern me either, but the fact is, he and Bush took the same position on that issue.

Bomber

11-04-2004, 01:06 PM

It doesn't concern me either, but the fact is, he and Bush took the same position on that issue.

Wasn't Bush originally pushing for an Ammendment, or was that just media hype? I really think both of them had to take that position on the issue to have any chance of being elected.

Blackadar

11-04-2004, 01:09 PM

I think unions are different than marriage. I would be willing to state that a vast majority of the republican party has no problem with legalized civil unions for gays (and polls have shown this).

They do, however, have a problem with redefining the mostly relgious term of marriage and essentially having the government endorsing the idea that a marriage can be between two people of the same sex.

I think many on the right would prefer to have their kids involved with some limited form of religion while they go to school. Since religion is a big part of their life and much of their kids life is spent in school, it certainly makes some sense. I think most republicans feel that each school district should be allowed to make that call. In other words, if a district in Mississippi wants to have school prayer, while on in New York does not. I don't think republicans have a problem with each district having different guidelines here. I would guess, though, that the left would have a problem with Mississippi allowing some form of school prayer in their school even if the community wanted it.

I don't know of that many republicans that want to completely outlaw abortion throughout the US with no way for individual communities to have different guidelines here. Yet, many do not feel the government should be sanctioning abortion through funds and/or the public school system.

I think the main difference here is that republicans have no problem if some community in Massachusates wants to have an abortion or not have school prayer or support civil unions for gays. They just want the ability to not have their kids indoctrinated by pro-abortion propoganda in school, perhaps be able to pray in their local district and not be forced to have a religious term they hold dear (marriage) be redefined to include people of the same sex.

Whereas, I think the left doesn't want anyone anywhere to be able to pray in school or not sanction gay marriage or not use public funds to support abortion.

That, IMO, is the difference. I don't think the republican party wants to impose their beliefs on everyone else, they simply want to be able to practice their beliefs in their local communities without being hasseled by the left.

Arles, you didn't miss the point, but you sidestepped it. What you're talking about is local mob rule.

Every community has the ability for communities to establish social norms. The social norms in NC are different than those in CA. However, there's a difference between establishing the social norms and forcing the imposition of those norms on everyone else. If I live in a community where the majority votes to enforce local prayer in schools, am I supposed to move or pull my kid out of school if I'm of a different religion?

As a minority, I find that idea very disturbing.

Again, how does a gay marriage - recoginzed by the State - effect someone who is against it? It doesn't.

How does my wife using birth control effect someone who is against birth control? It doesn't.

Prayer in school is slightly different because it's in a public, Government-run place - establishment of religion. But to counter it, how does prayer in a private school effect someone who's not in the private school? It doesn't.

I think the republican party wants to practice their beliefs in their local communities - I agree with you there - but they do not want to allow others who may have different beliefs to practice theirs.

JonInMiddleGA

11-04-2004, 01:11 PM

Something else i wonder... even amongst that vocal minority, how many of us here have formed opinions so strong that we'd refuse to discuss sports with them?

Oddly enough, considering your kind words later in the thread, I suspect I've got the longest list of people on "ignore" of virtually anyone here. It's a matter of self-preservation really -- if I don't put certain people on ignore, it's only a matter of time before my responses to them take me consisently into the realm of "shit-slinger". I'm a rather tit-for-tat person a lot of the time, so the only way I survive on forums like these is to simply remove temptation as much as possible. And, more to the point I think you were making, my disdain for those people has become so intense that I really don't care to discuss anything with them, from politics to the time of day. If I were choking to death, I'd pretty much rather die than have to tell them so they could administer the Heimlich Manuever.

Now, just to add to the oddity of all that ... you said

... who have made such an impression on me in political threads that I would refuse to answer their posts even if they responded in one of my dynasties because I have such a distaste for them.

That's probably the one scenario where I would do a "view post" and respond to those same people I described above -- presuming it was a reasonable, rational question on the topic at hand, I'd probably answer it in a civil tone.
And while typing this, I stopped to ask myself "why?" (something I hadn't consciously considered until just now) I guess I figure that failing to answer a direct & appropriate question might somehow detract from the enjoyment of other readers.

I guess I'm just a riddle, wrapped in an enigma ;)

Ksyrup

11-04-2004, 01:20 PM

Wasn't Bush originally pushing for an Ammendment, or was that just media hype? I really think both of them had to take that position on the issue to have any chance of being elected.
As far as I know, it's the "official" position (the amendment), but I don't know how far they will push it. But I think, in any event, that the amendment (which I would not support) would pertain only to marriages, not civil unions.

Bomber

11-04-2004, 01:26 PM

Bomber

11-04-2004, 01:28 PM

As far as I know, it's the "official" position (the amendment), but I don't know how far they will push it. But I think, in any event, that the amendment (which I would not support) would pertain only to marriages, not civil unions.

I don't think an amendment is needed, but if it pertains only to marriage and not civil unions, I'd be sort of OK with it. I just think a lot of the right-wingers want gays gone and are against them gaining the rights of man-woman couples at all costs.

rkmsuf

11-04-2004, 01:31 PM

Ksyrup

11-04-2004, 01:32 PM

Students at my campus had some kind of protest march thing yesterday. It was pretty ridiculous, how can you protest an election that was won fairly? I guess this is what happens when you choose to go to a school full of hippies.
...And you take as gospel the rantings of lunatics (or just seriously stunned/pissed off people) who have blogs and access to messageboards. There are people out there seriously questioning the validity of the popular vote based on the exit polls, that they didn't match and the exit polls were all for Kerry. People were talking about gassing up their cars and driving to Columbus, etc., and then Kerry pulled the rug on all of it at 2pm.

Like I posted early on in one of the threads yesterday, the reaction I've seen to the election results is similar to when OJ was found not guilty. It's a combination of stunned disbelief, anger, and suspicion.

Bomber

11-04-2004, 01:33 PM

What is there to do in Vermont anyway?

We're the number 6 weed smoking school and number 16 party school in the country for a reason.

Radii

11-04-2004, 01:34 PM

Oddly enough, considering your kind words later in the thread, I suspect I've got the longest list of people on "ignore" of virtually anyone here. It's a matter of self-preservation really -- if I don't put certain people on ignore, it's only a matter of time before my responses to them take me consisently into the realm of "shit-slinger".

I suspect that's just a difference of... reaction to such posts. Most of the time, if I see a post that really pisses me off, I stop myself before i finish my reply(I often start the reply, and it's often full of F-bombs or things that would be extremely out of character). I don't know why, I have those people I dislike, but seeing an ignored post in the middle of a thread I find interesting really annoys me, so I just do what I can to force myself to stay civil and don't use my ignore list at all.

Of course, I have the advantage of having Oliegirl in the house, so if a post pisses me off I can just bring it up with her later, "did you read that thread? God what a fucker he is." :D

HornedFrog Purple

11-04-2004, 01:37 PM

The guy I voted for lost. I'll get over it.

But it's nice to see people actually give a darn about the whole thing... yes even the radicals on both sides of the spectrum.

As far as President Bush the man, I'd have him over for dinner. We would most likely be friends of some degree. His cabinet minus Colin Powell sickens me profusely. That is what I voted against.

Crapshoot

11-04-2004, 02:06 PM

Here's the problem as I see it, and maybe my bias is coming through here, but this is how I see it. I have numerous hard-left friends and similar hard-right friends. I perceive a lot more tolerance for someone that is pro-affirmative action or pro gay marriage or pro-choice from the right than I do for someone that is anti-AA, against gay marriage or pro-life from the left. Now, I am trying to remove the extreme left/right here, but I think most republicans understand there are people that don't oppose gay marriage and are pro-choice (just look at Arnold and Rudy as main figures in the republican party). They may disagree entirely with their positions, but they have accepted the fact that intelligent people may hold those beliefs.

Yet, I think most of the left has a difficult time understanding how someone could be pro-life, against gay marriage and against affirmative action. I think much of the left has a real hard time believing that intellegent and well-educated people would believe the above.

I also think the fact that media tends to be pro-choice, pro-AA and pro-gay marriage has made many republicans become more accepting of people with those views than the left accepting the opposite. I think the fact that such a wide spectrum of personalities are shown in the media with pro-choice or pro-AA views makes it harder for the right to simply think that everyone that thinks that way is "stupid". Yet you rarely see personalities in the mainstream media that are staunchly pro-life or anti-AA, thereby making it easier for the left to assume that people thinking that way are "stupid" or "out of the mainstream".

AA and abortion are different things (I hate AA, and am pro-choice, but not in the 3rd trimester) Arlie, but to me, saying that we should find a middle ground between allowing gay marriage and not isnt a "liberal" or not stance- its a basic human rights thing. The only opposition to gay marriage is religious- nothing more. Religion alone should not be the reason to deny two adults consenting rights. A compromise as a middle ground is pointless here- you want a compromise where people are still actively being discriminated against. Christ, the Economist, hardly the bastion of liberal thoughts, endorsed Kerry and is an active supporter of gay marriage on the very same premise. Hell, fundementally, I think the govenment should get out of marriage and call everything Civil Unions- let churchs run their own ceremonies and call it marraige, and let gay people do they same- there's no government endorsement of it, nor should their be.

Essentially, to me, their are some inalienable rights that are beyond the reproach of majorities- consenting adults being allowed to join in a union with someone they love is not something you should be stopping./

Ksyrup

11-04-2004, 02:13 PM

For those wondering/worrying about possible Supreme Court vacancies:

The likely new chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, moderate Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pennsylvania, already has warned the White House against trying to fill any upcoming Supreme Court vacancies with judges who would try to overturn abortion rights or are too conservative to be supported by Democrats and win confirmation. "I would expect the president to be mindful of the considerations which I am mentioning," said Specter, who won a fifth, six-year term.

WSUCougar

11-04-2004, 02:36 PM

Christ, the Economist
I always heard he was a carpenter.

Crapshoot

11-04-2004, 02:43 PM

I always heard he was a carpenter.

Point WSUCougar. :D

Arles

11-04-2004, 03:02 PM

Arles, you didn't miss the point, but you sidestepped it. What you're talking about is local mob rule.

Every community has the ability for communities to establish social norms. The social norms in NC are different than those in CA. However, there's a difference between establishing the social nopate in religion at school, I am with you. But I was referring to a case where the ACLU wanted to prevent groups of kids from praying before they ate lunch in the cafeteria. Again, there is no reason why kids should not be allowed to do that.

[QUOTE]As a minority, I find that idea very disturbing.
Again, I am not taking about forcing people to pray. I am saying that if some parents support their kids praying at lunchtime before they eat, they should be allowed to do so.

Again, how does a gay marriage - recoginzed by the State - effect someone who is against it? It doesn't.
Personally, I think this is a strong argument. I do not support laws that ban gay marriage. But, continuing with the devil's advocate here, I think that some conservatives do not feel the government should be changing the definition of marriage to include homosexuality. That, IMO, is why many of the same people support civil unions.

How does my wife using birth control effect someone who is against birth control? It doesn't.
I don't think most conservatives are in favor outlawing abortion or birth control in general. They simply do not think it's right that their tax dollars should be paying for abortions and/or abortion education.

Prayer in school is slightly different because it's in a public, Government-run place - establishment of religion. But to counter it, how does prayer in a private school effect someone who's not in the private school? It doesn't.
I think there is a distinction I want to make here. Allowing people to pray on their own is NOT the same as the school defining its own religion. I think this is a common pitfall many against school prayer fall into. This is not the same as mandating that all students pray or participate in religion, which I think most would agree is something that should be not allowed in public schools.

I think the republican party wants to practice their beliefs in their local communities - I agree with you there - but they do not want to allow others who may have different beliefs to practice theirs.
Again, I don't see a big republican movement to completely outlaw abortion. Therefore, I don't think the above comment works with that issue. If someone in any community wants an abortion, they would have that ability even in conservative communities. I also don't think that republicans have a problem with homosexuals living together and being homosexual. Nor do I think republicans have a problem with kids that do not wish to pray at school.

Again, they simply want the option to have their kids pray at school and not have their kids indoctrinated in school with pro-abortion propaganda. On the homosexual issue, I think the primary argument is that legalizing gay marriage would mean a redefinition of a term that has very religious connotations to many conservatives.

JonInMiddleGA

11-04-2004, 03:23 PM

said Specter, who won a fifth, six-year term in a state that exit poll results indicated is noticeably less concerned with the "moral values" question than the nation as a whole

I finished out that description to say that I'm not sure Specter is in a position to be "warning the White House" about much of anything right now.

Ksyrup

11-04-2004, 03:29 PM

Chairman of an important committee on that issue, though.

GrantDawg

11-04-2004, 03:40 PM

Hell, fundementally, I think the govenment should get out of marriage and call everything Civil Unions- let churchs run their own ceremonies and call it marraige, and let gay people do they same- there's no government endorsement of it, nor should their be.
I agree with you completely. I think that "Marriage" is a fully religious ideal, and that the government should license civil unions in all accounts.

Here is the thing people are missing on how Gay marriage does affect others. Business and clubs will have to extend healthcare and other benefits that they now give to hetro married couples. Therefore, it does affect more than just the individuals, it actually hits some in the wallet. Further, many of those people will feel as if they are funding a lifestyle they do not agree with for moral grounds by having to extend such benefits. I think what will happen if gay marriage is allowed is many (far from all) will withdrawl those benefits from all couples, and everyone would have to pay more for family benefits, club memberships, etc.

Again, I disagree with the stand. Heck, I think it should be legal to make a roommate a dependant if they need healthcare, but to say that approving gay marriage doesn't affect anyone is wrong.

Bomber

11-04-2004, 03:51 PM

As someone who hails from CT I can say we're already dealing with the ramifications of Mass.'s gay marriage stance. If someone lives in MA but works in CT and is in a legal gay marriage, does their company extend healthcare coverage to their spouse?

GrantDawg

11-04-2004, 03:55 PM

Bomber

11-04-2004, 03:58 PM

I have no idea, but my guess would be it would depend the company location.

I'm not sure what the verdict was, but I remember reading that lawyers were predicting after MA legalized gay marriage that it would become a big issue for several companies. Of course I live right on the MA/CT border so it could have just been because of the location.

Poli

11-04-2004, 07:57 PM

I had a long conversation with...ardent
:)

Draft Dodger

11-04-2004, 08:53 PM

the worst news?

campaigning for 2008 should be starting up in just a few months!!!

Blackadar

11-04-2004, 09:04 PM

Leonidas

11-04-2004, 09:05 PM

I find this all a fascinating counterbalance to 1992 and 1996. As you all may recall, the Republicans hated Clinton with pretty much equal vigor back then, and it proved for the most part to be unfounded. True, using powerful influence to have a 21-year old intern is not the best sort of example we'd like the President to set, but it didn't exactly set the nation back any. And in that vain I think this is a gross overreaction, based upon the huge dissappointment at the realization that the majority of the nation simply didn't share their view. Republicans felt the same about Clinton. Get over it people. LIfe will go on. Bush doesn't bring Armageddon. We're not packing up for the Gulags, despite your grossest fears. I have been reading a good many liberal leaning columnists around the nation agreeing. Life goes on. Make the best of it, pitch in with your best effort to change things if you don't like them. But please, stop burdening us with your incessant whining.

gstelmack

11-04-2004, 09:18 PM

Here is the thing people are missing on how Gay marriage does affect others. Business and clubs will have to extend healthcare and other benefits that they now give to hetro married couples. Therefore, it does affect more than just the individuals, it actually hits some in the wallet. Further, many of those people will feel as if they are funding a lifestyle they do not agree with for moral grounds by having to extend such benefits.

But this is already happening without any government intervention. Marriage is being taken completely out of the equation; it's moving to a "domestic partner" definition which includes all couples living together, whether they be hetero/homo/married/unmarried. This is more appropriate; if the point behind gay marriage supporters is to bring benefits for couples who have made a commitment to each other, why are they focused so hard just on allowing gay marriage? What about other couples that want to make a commitment without all the legal entanglements that come with marriage? Why not push for improved rights for all couples?

And rather than using illegal protest steps (conning some politician into issuing illegal marriage licenses), economic pressure and legal protest is having a much greater positive impact on gaining rights for such couples. Part of what's happening right now is a backlash against some of the tactics being used.

I think what will happen if gay marriage is allowed is many (far from all) will withdrawl those benefits from all couples, and everyone would have to pay more for family benefits, club memberships, etc.

Actually, kind of the opposite. Companies / clubs that do not extend such benefits are receiving economic pressure and opening up.

Arles

11-04-2004, 09:24 PM

Arles, you and I must live in very different areas of the country.

It's quite common around here for Conservatives to push:

1. Mandatory prayer in school. BTW, I agree that spontaneous, individual prayer is legal in school. No establishment of religion there.
2. Outlaw all abortions. No exceptions.
3. Gays should be in jail. Or not allowed to teach. Certainly not to marry or join in a Civil Union.
I'd be real interested in seeing whether even a decent group of conservatives (20% nationally) would support what you just described. I would be willing to bet big money that if you put a ballot measure with the above three items to a vote of just republicans, maybe 15% would vote for it.

I think a problem you have is you project the most extreme conservatives as the norm. That's simply not true. There are many republicans and Bush voters that are pro-choice (but oppose partial birth abortions), don't feel prayer should be "mandated" in schools and definately do not feel gays should be "in jail" - even agreeing with gay civil unions.

I would be willing to bet atleast half of the people that vote republican fall into the above camp, with another 30% entering in if you change the abortion stance to pro-life but keep the rest.

You are talking about the "fringe" of the right. And, if you spent any time actually getting to know actual republicans and conservatives, I think your tone on this might change a bit.

miami_fan

11-04-2004, 09:26 PM

WOW I thought myself and a good friend of mine was the only ones that did not feel that the venom was unusual. My friend describe America's current political environment as "the Israelis and the Palestinians without the suicide bombings” That may be overly dramatic as well, but I don’t think it is not that far off. Too many people on both sides of the debate would not mind one bit if the other side disappeared off the face of the earth. You have to have at least a shred of commonality to unite. The only commonality between the Democrats and the Republicans is that hatred for one another. And you know what? It does not bother me it the least bit. Does anybody really expect either side to unite with the other side in any meaningful manner? Will the extreme supporters of either side allow it?

Cuckoo

11-04-2004, 09:36 PM

I'd be real interested in seeing whether even a decent group of conservatives (20% nationally) would support what you just described. I would be willing to bet big money that if you put a ballot measure with the above three items to a vote of just republicans, maybe 15% would vote for it.

I think a problem you have is you project the most extreme conservatives as the norm. That's simply not true. There are many republicans and Bush voters that are pro-choice (but oppose partial birth abortions), don't feel prayer should be "mandated" in schools and definately do not feel gays should be "in jail" - even agreeing with gay civil unions.

I would be willing to bet atleast half of the people that vote republican fall into the above camp, with another 30% entering in if you change the abortion stance to pro-life but keep the rest.

You are talking about the "fringe" of the right. And, if you spent any time actually getting to know actual republicans and conservatives, I think your tone on this might change a bit.

I pretty much agree with what Arles is saying here, although I would put the group that believes all of the things you mentioned Blacky as even lower than 15 percent. The vast majority of conservatives I know, and I know a lot because I live in Oklahoma :), are generally pro-life but very tolerant if not completely supportive of allowances for rape, incest, and health of the mother. They are also usually against homosexuality as a moral objection but certainly don't hate homosexuals in any way whatsoever. And the majority feel that prayer should be allowed for students who choose to do so but should never be dictated by the school.

I think it's unfortunate that people actually believe that what you described is the "norm." Contrary to what some say, even have said on this board in the past two days, being a conservative does not mean a person is a redneck/ignorant/jesus freak.

Blackadar

11-04-2004, 10:05 PM

I'd be real interested in seeing whether even a decent group of conservatives (20% nationally) would support what you just described. I would be willing to bet big money that if you put a ballot measure with the above three items to a vote of just republicans, maybe 15% would vote for it.

I think a problem you have is you project the most extreme conservatives as the norm. That's simply not true. There are many republicans and Bush voters that are pro-choice (but oppose partial birth abortions), don't feel prayer should be "mandated" in schools and definately do not feel gays should be "in jail" - even agreeing with gay civil unions.

I would be willing to bet atleast half of the people that vote republican fall into the above camp, with another 30% entering in if you change the abortion stance to pro-life but keep the rest.

You are talking about the "fringe" of the right. And, if you spent any time actually getting to know actual republicans and conservatives, I think your tone on this might change a bit.

Well, we already know you're wrong. Over 50% of Ohio voted to not allow Civil Unions for Gays. So there goes your 15% or 20% theory. I'd love a poll that details those questions - I think you'd be shocked by the results. Oh, wait, those polls have already been done...

According to Gallup:

56% of Republicans want Roe vs. Wade overturned. In 2003, 28% of Republicans said that abortion should not be permitted under ANY circumstances. 69% said it should be permitted with much stricter limits.

Almost 80% of Republicans are in favor of student-led organized prayer in schools. Over 60% want a "prayer time" in schools.

Facts are facts...and the simple fact here is that there are a lot more of these exclusionists in the Republican Party than you would like to admit.

sachmo71

11-04-2004, 10:22 PM

The best thing that might come out of this whole thing is maybe this conservative wave will cause the demon of oversensitivity that possesses our society to crawl back under the rock from whence it came. It would be nice to see American's start taking responsiblity for their actions again.

Then again, maybe we'll just subsititue oversensitivity with disinterest and neglect.

ARE AMERICANS EVER FRIGGIN' HAPPY?!?!?

JonInMiddleGA

11-05-2004, 06:18 AM

Ksyrup

11-05-2004, 06:37 AM

As distasteful as I find it, I lean more toward Blackie's side of this sub-topic.

-- I'm currently one of exactly 2 pro-choice GOP-voters I know IRL. And I'm married to the other one. It's like the 3rd-rail of conservative politics for me.

-- I'm in a distinct, but larger, minority on the school prayer topic. Or at least I think I am. It's hard to say for sure because there's so many different variations of what is possible. I support student-led / student-initiated prayer where such is practical, but administration-dictated versions leave me cold, largely because my religious "brand" & theirs doesn't often match.

I'm with you on both subjects.

I don't want or care for abortion to be a political topic. I'm pro-choice for everyone other than those I have responsibility for or persuasive abilities with. I have two daughters, and God Forbid they get pregnant before they are ready, but if they do, I will make my anti-abortion position quite clear. Abortion is not acceptable, IMO, but what the rest of the world does, isn't my business. They can take that up with whomever after they pass on.

And since that's what I believe, a politician's position on abortion means squat to me - unless it's one of the main issues they are running on. Then that tells me quite a bit.

Tekneek

11-05-2004, 06:56 AM

Domestic partner benefits are nowhere near the same as married benefits. I get tax advantages on the health insurance for my wife and son because I am allowed to have that taken out BEFORE taxes. A co-worker, who was buying benefits for her boyfriend, does not get the same tax advantage even though they have been living together just as long as my wife and I, and own their home together...just like my wife and I. The value of the benefits package (the total 'dollar value') was also added to her income as 'imputed income', which didn't happen to me (as the legal requirements are different for 'family benefits' and 'domestic partner benefits'). She was told it works the same way for any un-married couple, whether they are same gender or not. That example proves that the 'domestic partner benefits' are nowhere near the same as they are for married couples.

Putting a ban against gay marriage in a government constitution proves one or both of the following...marriage is a government matter, rather than religious...or we live in a theocracy.

Arles

11-05-2004, 07:55 AM

Well, we already know you're wrong. Over 50% of Ohio voted to not allow Civil Unions for Gays. So there goes your 15% or 20% theory. I'd love a poll that details those questions - I think you'd be shocked by the results. Oh, wait, those polls have already been done...

Here's what you originally stated:
1. Mandatory prayer in school. BTW, I agree that spontaneous, individual prayer is legal in school. No establishment of religion there.
2. Outlaw all abortions. No exceptions.
3. Gays should be in jail. Or not allowed to teach. Certainly not to marry or join in a Civil Union.

According to Gallup:

56% of Republicans want Roe vs. Wade overturned. In 2003, 28% of Republicans said that abortion should not be permitted under ANY circumstances. 69% said it should be permitted with much stricter limits.
OK, so 56% of republicans would like the decision to allow abortion to reside to each state. Remember, even if RvW is overturned, it does nothing to outlaw abortion until each state passes a law to do so. Plus, I'd be real surprised if those same people would outlaw abortion for all curcumstances - as your poll shows, only 28% favor it. You're original claim was:

"Outlaw all abortions. No exceptions."

As your poll shows, that's about 28%. Again, my stance that republicans would want to outlaw partial birth abortions and leave it at that had a 69% rate in your poll. Which do you think represents more republicans - 28% or 69%?

Almost 80% of Republicans are in favor of student-led organized prayer in schools. Over 60% want a "prayer time" in schools.

There is a big difference between the above and "1. Mandatory prayer in school."

If would be in the group that favors student-led organized prayer or even the ability to have prayer time. But in no way do I want anything close to "mandatory prayer". My guess is the above poll would drop to the 20% range like with the hard comment on abortion.

Facts are facts...and the simple fact here is that there are a lot more of these exclusionists in the Republican Party than you would like to admit.
The problem is your polls are much softer than your statements. You stated:

1. Mandatory prayer in school. BTW, I agree that spontaneous, individual prayer is legal in school. No establishment of religion there.
2. Outlaw all abortions. No exceptions.
3. Gays should be in jail. Or not allowed to teach. Certainly not to marry or join in a Civil Union.
You found no poll on mandatory prayer or even touched the idea that Gays should be in jail (and I don't blame you for that). The only thing you found was a poll showing 28% would want to outlaw all abortion. And considering I doubt all 28% of those would want mandatory prayer in school AND to put all gays in Jail. I think my stance that the above three beliefs would represent about 15% of overall republicans might even be on the high end.

Most republicans want to outlaw partial birth abortion, allow students the choice to pray in schools and are against gay marriage (but for civil unions). Your hyperbole on the beliefs of republicans is just that - hyperbole.

Easy Mac

11-05-2004, 08:02 AM

I'm with you on both subjects.

I don't want or care for abortion to be a political topic. I'm pro-choice for everyone other than those I have responsibility for or persuasive abilities with. I have two daughters, and God Forbid they get pregnant before they are ready, but if they do, I will make my anti-abortion position quite clear. Abortion is not acceptable, IMO, but what the rest of the world does, isn't my business. They can take that up with whomever after they pass on.

And since that's what I believe, a politician's position on abortion means squat to me - unless it's one of the main issues they are running on. Then that tells me quite a bit.
I agree with you and Jon on abortion. What baffles me is the position of my girlfriend. She doesn't seem to understand that I can be against abortion in itself but still say its not my choice to make. I can see instances where it would be beneficial, and times where its just a cop-out for irrespnsibility... but for her, this is one of the top issues determining whom she votes for, even though it will never affect her in her life.

Tekneek

11-05-2004, 08:04 AM

It's bizarre to me that some of you think some of this should even come to a vote. One can only hope that the judicial system will save us from the tyranny of the majority. Just because most people would vote to take rights from you does not mean it is the right thing for them to do. There are some things in this world that should be left up to the individual, and not to their neighbors, or any level of their government.

Arles

11-05-2004, 08:07 AM

-- I'm currently one of exactly 2 pro-choice GOP-voters I know IRL. And I'm married to the other one. It's like the 3rd-rail of conservative politics for me.
Just because someone is pro life does NOT mean they want to outlaw all abortion, no exceptions - as Blackadar put it. It simply means that they do not support anyone in their family having abortions and would probably like stricter abortion guidelines (ie, no partial births) and perhaps even go back to where states have the ability to define legal abortions individually (repeal Roe V Wade).

Again, as Blackadar's poll shows, only 28% favor outlawing abortion alltogether. That's definately in the low minority. The majority belief is a feeling that abortion to be limited (ie, outlaw partial birth). Now, I am pro choice, but I believe with that as well and therefore think the 69% of republicans that go for that is spot on.

-- I'm in a distinct, but larger, minority on the school prayer topic. Or at least I think I am. It's hard to say for sure because there's so many different variations of what is possible. I support student-led / student-initiated prayer where such is practical, but administration-dictated versions leave me cold, largely because my religious "brand" & theirs doesn't often match.
But there is a big difference between allowing students to participate in school prayer and "mandating it". I have yet to see any sect of the republican party go all out for mandating school prayer for all kids in schools. I think the often libertarian roots in most conservatives would throw a big red-flag up for this if it ever came to a vote.

Again, I would agree that most republicans are pro-life, but stop at banning partial birth abortions. Most would like their kids to participate in school prayer, but in no way mandate it. And I seriously doubt any legitimate number of republicans favor throwing all gays in jail. Heck, polls have shown a majority of republicans favor allowing civil unions. So, Blackadar's three statements would probably represent around 15% of all republicans, about the same percent of democrats that would favor dropping capitalism and creating a pure socialistic country. And I doubt Blackadar would state that belief is prevelant in the democratic party.

JonInMiddleGA

11-05-2004, 08:10 AM

There are some things in this world that should be left up to the individual, and not to their neighbors, or any level of their government.

But the collective individuals decide what those "some things" are.

And at least one of these topics, possibly more, are not/will not be among those "some things".

Tekneek

11-05-2004, 08:11 AM

Most republicans want to outlaw partial birth abortion, allow students the choice to pray in schools and are against gay marriage (but for civil unions).

Where can they not pray in school? You could always send your kid to a religious school if it meant that much to you...that choice is out there. Beyond that, there was plenty of prayer when I was in school. There was not an administrator-led prayer, nor should there be in a government school...unless they offer one for every possible religion, including an equivalent for no religion.

Being against gay marriage, but for civil unions, sounds remarkably like "seperate but equal." So we learned nothing from our past and are doomed to have it happen again. Once the gays get out from under the majority's thumb, who do you think they will go after next?

Tekneek

11-05-2004, 08:13 AM

But the collective individuals decide what those "some things" are.

And at least one of these topics, possibly more, are not/will not be among those "some things".

In other words, you are a proponent of mob rule? If the majority wants to restrict the rights of a minority, they are within their rights to do so?

EDIT :

I know it doesn't boil down like that, but it certainly feels that way. Where would you draw the line on what you think the majority can vote away? Anything that is not already protected by law? It's too bad that people feel the need to restrict others, when what they are trying to do poses no harm to them at all.

Arles

11-05-2004, 08:24 AM

Where can they not pray in school?
There have been lawsuits by the ACLU against schools allowing kids to pray (SILENTY, even!) during lunchtime, against allowing after-school religious clubs and against any type of student-led prayer during school hours.

Because most of these districts do not have the cash to fight the ACLU on most occassions, there is more of a swell in the republican party to increase the ability to allow kids to pray in school.

You could always send your kid to a religious school if it meant that much to you...that choice is out there.
But not all religious kids have that option. I think allowing participatory (but not mandated) school prayer is something that should be allowed on a community to community basis. Just saying that kids can organize and pray at lunchtime or have afterschool religious clubs is in no manner stating the school is defining a state religion.

Being against gay marriage, but for civil unions, sounds remarkably like "seperate but equal."
Name one civil right a gay person in a civil union would lack, but that a married couple would have? And no one is saying gays should have their own bathrooms, not be allowed to vote or even be descriminated against in the workplace or public settings. This is a silly argument, IMO.

Arlie

JonInMiddleGA

11-05-2004, 08:24 AM

In other words, you are a proponent of mob rule? If the majority wants to restrict the rights of a minority, they are within their rights to do so?

How is that any different than every other Federal law on the books?

Hell, I dare you to find a single law, be it federal, state, or local, that has 100% approval. I double-dog dare you. You'd have better luck finding a unicorn.

EVERY law restricts the rights of some minority. EVERY single one of them. That's the very nature of how laws are structured, they prevent some "minority" from taking certain action. Specifically a "minority" that believes XYZ action is okay.

You're welcome to argue that you believe abortion/gay marriage (I'm not sure whether you're focused on one or the other or both here) is perfectly alright; that's a difference of opinion/beliefs/values/whatever, but the "mob rule" argument falls extremely flat to me, it's a dog that just doesn't hunt ... unless
you're willing/advocating the abolition of every single law in the land.

gstelmack

11-05-2004, 08:28 AM

Ben E Lou

11-05-2004, 08:33 AM

I agree with you and Jon on abortion. What baffles me is the position of my girlfriend. She doesn't seem to understand that I can be against abortion in itself but still say its not my choice to make. I can see instances where it would be beneficial, and times where its just a cop-out for irrespnsibility... but for her, this is one of the top issues determining whom she votes for, even though it will never affect her in her life.Realize that for some, abortion is a social justice issue, because they believe it to be the willful killing of an innocent human being. Now, I realize that you do not believe it to be murder, and understand that your positions are based on that. From what I've observed about you, if you believed it to be murder, you'd do anything to prevent legalized murder of innocents. At the same time, understand that if someone is coming at it from the perspective of preventing the murder of an innocent, it would throw it into a whole different realm for them.

Tekneek

11-05-2004, 08:33 AM

Name one civil right a gay person in a civil union would lack, but that a married couple would have? And no one is saying gays should have their own bathrooms, not be allowed to vote or even be descriminated against in the workplace or public settings. This is a silly argument, IMO.

Name one right they would be guaranteed in a civil union. Do they exist? They do not exist here, so to say they would have the same exact rights is merely conjecture at best. If it is defined seperately, there lies the foundation to treat it differently. If the federal government does not recognize it, you lose some of the benefits that married couples already get...one of which was demonstrated above. I would not be so sure that gay civil unions will end up getting the same legal acknowledgement as marriages do, else there would not be such an uproar about it to begin with. Are these constitutional amendments really just about the semantics? They really don't mind if gay people are married and have related rights and protections, they just don't want it called marriage?

JonInMiddleGA

11-05-2004, 08:36 AM

I was replying while you were editing, but I think it'll make more sense for me to reply separately. Or maybe not ??? But I'll try it anyway.

It's too bad that people feel the need to restrict others, when what they are trying to do poses no harm to them at all.

And that, it appears, is probably where the actual disagreement lies (if I'm gathering correctly that we're now focusing on the gay marriage issue),
it's really the core of the matter as far as I can tell -- whether or not there is societal harm caused by legitimizing homosexual relationships. You say no.
I say yes. And that's why, ultimately, we're on different sides of the issue.

--------

Now, just for fun, I'll throw this in there too -- I have zero problem with, and I would very likely support, a move to end any legal recognition of "civil unions" or what I more commonly think of as "common law marriages". I mention this only to highlight a consistency in my position that "you're either married or you aren't". And that applies to any two people, regardless of their gender split.

And as a further addendum, there is at least one line I will draw on the restrictions -- IF a company/entity chooses to offer benefits (such as health insurance) to persons beyond their actual employee, then the government doesn't belong in that equation. Contractual obligations are at the discretion of the parties involved. If I want to offer health care to my employee's wife, lover, cousin, dog, next-door-neighbor, whatever, that's my business. When you tell me I have to include them ... I'll simply not make the hire.

Ben E Lou

11-05-2004, 08:38 AM

IF a company/entity chooses to offer benefits (such as health insurance) to persons beyond their actual employee, then the government doesn't belong in that equation. Contractual obligations are at the discretion of the parties involved. If I want to offer health care to my employee's wife, lover, cousin, dog, next-door-neighbor, whatever, that's my business. When you tell me I have to include them ... I'll simply not make the hire.Preach the word.

Tekneek

11-05-2004, 08:43 AM

You're welcome to argue that you believe abortion/gay marriage (I'm not sure whether you're focused on one or the other or both here) is perfectly alright; that's a difference of opinion/beliefs/values/whatever, but the "mob rule" argument falls extremely flat to me, it's a dog that just doesn't hunt ... unless
you're willing/advocating the abolition of every single law in the land.

I'm speaking more from a philosophical point. I know our law books are full of bad law, as nearly everyone would acknowledge. I draw the line at laws that restrict actions that would not result in anyone else's rights being abridged. I suppose most people feel they have a right to have the world just the way they want it, and there comes the rub. I happen to believe that people can do anything they want as long as they don't put others at risk (except for consenting adults). I don't think people have a right to not be offended. I don't think people have a right to force others to conform to their religious beliefs, or even to their lack of religious beliefs. I don't see how gay marriage infringes on anyone, but to deny them the opportunity denies them access to the same benefits and legal protections afforded to others.

Gary Gorski

11-05-2004, 08:43 AM

How is that any different than every other Federal law on the books?

Hell, I dare you to find a single law, be it federal, state, or local, that has 100% approval. I double-dog dare you. You'd have better luck finding a unicorn.

EVERY law restricts the rights of some minority. EVERY single one of them. That's the very nature of how laws are structured, they prevent some "minority" from taking certain action. Specifically a "minority" that believes XYZ action is okay.

You're welcome to argue that you believe abortion/gay marriage (I'm not sure whether you're focused on one or the other or both here) is perfectly alright; that's a difference of opinion/beliefs/values/whatever, but the "mob rule" argument falls extremely flat to me, it's a dog that just doesn't hunt ... unless
you're willing/advocating the abolition of every single law in the land.

Amen - each day it seems our society grows closer to eventual anarchy. Any time someone does something now somebody is offended and is going to sue for discrimination. There are people that believe incest is ok or that slavery should never have been abolished or that women should have never gotten the vote...but these people are a minority and a large one at that (I would hope) yet our laws restrict these people for the good of society.

We live in a free society but its a society that has laws and rules to govern people a certain way - not to allow everyone to govern themselves by whatever rules they think should apply to them. Our society needs to be governed by what a majority of the people living here want - it shouldn't make one bit of difference if Canada has government health care or no abortion laws or have different laws on gay marriages. If that's what you like but the majority of people here don't then why should the majority here have to change rather than you go to Canada? We're the United States of America and our government is supposed to represent the will of the people - not the will of the individual.

Tekneek

11-05-2004, 08:50 AM

it's really the core of the matter as far as I can tell -- whether or not there is societal harm caused by legitimizing homosexual relationships. You say no.
I say yes. And that's why, ultimately, we're on different sides of the issue.

Are you demonstrating the harm to society below, or holding that back for now?

--------

Now, just for fun, I'll throw this in there too -- I have zero problem with, and I would very likely support, a move to end any legal recognition of "civil unions" or what I more commonly think of as "common law marriages". I mention this only to highlight a consistency in my position that "you're either married or you aren't". And that applies to any two people, regardless of their gender split.

What is legally recognized as a "common law marriage" may not be what you are talking about here. Can you define this for me so I know where you are coming from? If your position is that marriage is strictly religious, you should insist that the government stop regulating it and remove all laws relating to it (IMO).

And as a further addendum, there is at least one line I will draw on the restrictions -- IF a company/entity chooses to offer benefits (such as health insurance) to persons beyond their actual employee, then the government doesn't belong in that equation. Contractual obligations are at the discretion of the parties involved. If I want to offer health care to my employee's wife, lover, cousin, dog, next-door-neighbor, whatever, that's my business. When you tell me I have to include them ... I'll simply not make the hire.

I'm not talking about the government forcing anything. I'm talking about things the government allows, and things they do not allow. A married couple can have their health benefits deducted from their pay BEFORE their pay is taxed. This is a real benefit in the financial sense. They do not extend this to domestic partners, and so a business cannot do it even if they want to. If government is to get out of it altogether, then fine, but it will hurt a lot more people than gay marriage and would clearly be a victory for big government and no one else (as more money would be taken out of each paycheck and sent to the government).

JonInMiddleGA

11-05-2004, 08:50 AM

Amen - each day it seems our society grows closer to eventual anarchy.

"Anarchy" is actually the word that I began my original reply with. Because, whether they realize it or not, that's what a number of people appear to be advocating for this country.

JonInMiddleGA

11-05-2004, 09:01 AM

This time, let's see if I can combine two of your posts back into one for reply.

I suppose most people feel they have a right to have the world just the way they want it, and there comes the rub.

That probably ain't a half-bad way of putting it.

I don't see how gay marriage infringes on anyone...

The general argument would be that it infringes upon the rights of the majority, who do not see it as acceptable, and specifically do not believe it should be "legitimized" by law.

Are you demonstrating the harm to society below, or holding that back for now?

Actually, I was planning to spare us both that argument. I'm pretty sure you know most of the talking points as well as I do, so detailing them seemed kinda redundant.

What is legally recognized as a "common law marriage" may not be what you are talking about here. Can you define this for me so I know where you are coming from?

Generally speaking (since laws still tend to vary from state-to-state AFAIK), I use the phrase "common-law marriage" to denote anything that extends any benefit of marriage to a couple that isn't legally married.

A quick search turned up a website at http://www.unmarried.org/common-law-marriage.html
which describes it as In fifteen states and the District of Columbia (see below), though, common law marriages are recognized. If a man and a woman (same-sex marriages aren't recognized) live together and "intend to be married" by acting like they are married, telling people they are married, and doing the things married people do (using words like "husband" and "wife," filing joint tax returns, etc.), they become common law spouses. This gives them the same rights and responsibilities as people who got married the old-fashioned way, with a trip to City Hall and a wedding.

I'm not talking about the government forcing anything. I'm talking about things the government allows, and things they do not allow.

I may have created unneeded confusion with my addendum. I didn't mean to address the issue of government-mandates so much as I was simply providing an indication of where I personally drew the line with regard to restrictions.

Tekneek

11-05-2004, 09:08 AM

Amen - each day it seems our society grows closer to eventual anarchy. Any time someone does something now somebody is offended and is going to sue for discrimination. There are people that believe incest is ok or that slavery should never have been abolished or that women should have never gotten the vote...but these people are a minority and a large one at that (I would hope) yet our laws restrict these people for the good of society.

Oh, ok. Incest and slavery are equivalents to gay people getting married? They aren't similar at all, and was previously pointed out. There hardly seems a reasonable right or liberty to commit incest, or have slaves. Entering into a marriage contract to be legally recognized as a couple, with next-of-kin, ownership, and general financial benefits on the other hand sounds quite reasonable to me. I really don't see how letting them bind their relationship in a legally recognized and protected manner hurts anyone anymore than heterosexual marriages. So many heterosexual marriages end in divorce these days that they aren't doing a particularly good job of respecting the institution of it anyway. Making adultery a crime that puts you in jail might go a lot further than banning gay marriage will.

Our society needs to be governed by what a majority of the people living here want - it shouldn't make one bit of difference if Canada has government health care or no abortion laws or have different laws on gay marriages. If that's what you like but the majority of people here don't then why should the majority here have to change rather than you go to Canada?

Oh. Here's the inevitable "If you don't like it here, then leave" argument. Clever one, Gary.

We're the United States of America and our government is supposed to represent the will of the people - not the will of the individual.

Not the will of the individual? You maintain that this is the land of the masses, and not of the individual. That the masses outweigh the individual. Group rights are more important than individual rights. This seems in conflict with the Declaration of Independece, if not other important documents as well, relating to the founding of this country. This is a very socialist line of reasoning, and many would maintain that is distinctly "un-American."

Tekneek

11-05-2004, 09:21 AM

The general argument would be that it infringes upon the rights of the majority, who do not see it as acceptable, and specifically do not believe it should be "legitimized" by law.

I think people should stop looking to the government as a legitimizer of anything. Government should exist to keep you from causing another person harm. If someone can demonstrate a compelling argument that a married gay couple will cause them harm, I may be convinced to change my position. I welcome anyone reading this to give it a shot. I'm not convinced people have a right to not find things unacceptable. I find plenty of things unacceptable, but I realize there is a line between what I should reasonably expect to control and that which I should not. I hate smoking. I will not patronize a restaurant where smoking and non-smoking are not definitively separated. While I clearly benefit from the government passing a non-smoking ordinance, I do not support that. I don't want the government telling those businesses what to do. If the business thinks they will make more money by changing, they will, otherwise they will not. If they want my business, they will at least section them off, but I would never dream of using the power of government to accomplish such a goal. I would leave it to the free market.

Gary Gorski

11-05-2004, 09:32 AM

Oh, ok. Incest and slavery are equivalents to gay people
getting married?

Where did I say this? I said that there are people that support those things but simply because they support them does not make it right or good for society.

Oh. Here's the inevitable "If you don't like it here, then leave" argument. Clever one, Gary.

Ok so we should just change all of our laws or maybe not have any laws at all so that nobody's rights are ever offended right?

Not the will of the individual? You maintain that this is the land of the masses, and not of the individual. That the masses outweigh the individual. Group rights are more important than individual rights. This seems in conflict with the Declaration of Independece, if not other important documents as well, relating to the founding of this country. This is a very socialist line of reasoning, and many would maintain that is distinctly "un-American."

If this is the land of the individual then why do 100% of the people today have George W Bush as their president? Shouldn't 49% of them get to have John Kerry making their policies for them because George W Bush doing so is definitely not in the interest of their rights. But that's not how it is. The group re-elected President Bush and the group now has to accept him as their president.

This is America - you have the right to speak your mind and you have the right to be heard and if you think something is wrong you have the right to try and get change made - but at the end of the day you do not have the right to have things your way any more so than anyone else does. Why are your wants or beliefs more important than your neighbor's? Are we all not equal people? Did we all not just have an equal say in who is going to run this country? If you had a belief that a majority of the population shared are you not going to be upset if the country isn't governed by that belief?

If the country took a vote and 60% of the country wanted the word God taken out of the pledge of allegiance would you not want it eliminated from the pledge or would you say that even though a majority of the people don't want God in the pledge there is a segment of the people that does want God in the pledge so I guess we could always just skip the word God when we say the pledge and leave it in there because we shouldn't infringe on someone's right to freely express his or her religion?

It's not just about abortion, gay marriage, stem cell research, the environment, taxes, the war, the pledge (nor do I want to debate any of these issues because that is not my point right now)....by living here you agree to abide by the rules of the country and the rules of the country should represent the will of its people as a whole. At some point you have to say enough is enough and you have to make laws and those laws are going to restrict some people from doing what they feel should be done. Sometimes maybe there can be a compromise like with the gay marriage situation maybe the state shouldn't marry anyone and just do civil unions for everyone and let people get married within their own church. Sometimes there cannot be a compromise and one group of people just has to not get their way.

Tekneek

11-05-2004, 09:38 AM

You accuse me of applying your statement improperly, and I must accuse you of the same. Championing individual rights does not mean each of us gets our own President. To suggest that I meant such a thing is disingenuous.

I guess, Gary, the dispute is really about which rights are unalienable then.

Does it seem unreasonable to you that if the government is going to allow two consenting adults to enter into a marriage union (as licensed by the government to do so), they should allow any consenting adults to do so? Why should that be restricted? What other ones should be restricted amongst consenting adults? Or is this the only one that should have restrictions placed upon it?

JonInMiddleGA

11-05-2004, 09:47 AM

I'm not Gary, but ...

Does it seem unreasonable to you that if the government is going to allow two consenting adults to enter into a marriage union (as licensed by the government to do so), they should allow any consenting adults to do so?

Yes.

Why should that be restricted?

Because "marriage" doesn't involve any combination of actors except
1 man + 1 woman. That's what marriage "is". Period, end of sentence.

The government should no more declare anything else than they should declare a living person dead or a dead person living. A zebra is a zebra,
a table is a table, and a marriage is a marriage. Some things just are what
they are.

Tekneek

11-05-2004, 09:51 AM

Are there any there any other contracts that the government specifies gender requirements on? Before anyone says there is no such thing as a "marriage contract", the idea has been presented in any divorce proceedings I have been privy to.

Crapshoot

11-05-2004, 09:53 AM

There have been lawsuits by the ACLU against schools allowing kids to pray (SILENTY, even!) during lunchtime, against allowing after-school religious clubs and against any type of student-led prayer during school hours.

Because most of these districts do not have the cash to fight the ACLU on most occassions, there is more of a swell in the republican party to increase the ability to allow kids to pray in school.

But not all religious kids have that option. I think allowing participatory (but not mandated) school prayer is something that should be allowed on a community to community basis. Just saying that kids can organize and pray at lunchtime or have afterschool religious clubs is in no manner stating the school is defining a state religion.

Name one civil right a gay person in a civil union would lack, but that a married couple would have? And no one is saying gays should have their own bathrooms, not be allowed to vote or even be descriminated against in the workplace or public settings. This is a silly argument, IMO.

Arlie

Arlie, there is no ban on people praying in school- it simply cannot be from some official platform, like an announcer at a football game. Prayer at school is limited to when a teacher leads them- and reasonably so. No one is opposed to the rights of people praying privately or even in a selected student led group - its simply as a large gathering or a school assembly where it is an issue.

As for the civil union/marriage thing- I still havent heard one arguement other than the government is changing religious people's definition of marriage - which is ridiculous. Marriage as defined by the government is NOT a religious thing- why do you insist on saying Gay Couples should not be entited to the same title from their secular government ? Its asking for equality, not "seperate but equal" - which is an accurate representation. No gay rights advocate in their right mind believes churches should be forced to marry gay people - they have every right to reject whoever they want to, and no one is telling Christians that they have to accept gay marriage as marriage when it comes to them- all the arguement consists of is that their religious beliefs are NOT an arguement for the government to not call gay marriage marriage.

Besides, as I've said earlier in this thread- I think the government shouldnt be in marriage at all- call everything a civil union, and then let every group call whatever it wants marriage. I'd be curious as to your take on that.

Tekneek

11-05-2004, 09:57 AM

Besides, as I've said earlier in this thread- I think the government shouldnt be in marriage at all- call everything a civil union, and then let every group call whatever it wants marriage. I'd be curious as to your take on that.

If I may...I completely agree with this. If you want to take the stand that marriage is a religious matter, and decreed by some higher authority that it can only be between a man and a woman, then let's have the government retreat out of marriage entirely. Let marriage be a religious institution, and not have any standing in matters before and in the government.

Ben E Lou

11-05-2004, 09:58 AM

Crapshoot

11-05-2004, 09:58 AM

JIMGA, in response to your mob rule question- do you agree with the basic principle (above and beyond gay marriage- which I know your stance on) that their some rights which are above public discourse- as in, a majority cannot and should not be able to take them away ?

Crapshoot

11-05-2004, 10:00 AM

That's been my stance for quite some time.

SD, that's at least 4 of us here then (you, GD, me, tekneek)- lets hope the country at large adopts a stance like this..

Gary Gorski

11-05-2004, 10:00 AM

Does it seem unreasonable to you that if the government is going to allow two consenting adults to enter into a marriage union (as licensed by the government to do so), they should allow any consenting adults to do so? Why should that be restricted? What other ones should be restricted amongst consenting adults? Or is this the only one that should have restrictions placed upon it?

Ok, I guess you're speaking solely on the issue of gay marriage whereas Im talking just about society in general.

In terms of gay marriage I think that if the government is going to perform "marriage" then they should not allow same sex couples to marry. If the government is going to perform "civil unions" they can recognize whatever couple they want as qualified in the eyes of the state to receive the same benefits a straight couple does. If the government decides that despite giving a same sex couple every benefit that a straight couple gets that allowing straight people to be "married" and homosexual people to be "civilly joined" is discriminatory then the government should just only declare civil unions for everyone and not "marry" anyone.

The issue you're going to hit with religious people is over the term "marriage" and really that is my only complaint against it. I don't want it to be illegal to be gay - gay people are living together and spending their life together already. I do not condone what they are doing but I don't condemn the people themselves nor do I feel that them being gay is hurting anyone. Gay people living together and being civilly joined and getting government benefits has zero impact on anything in my world. There's the downfall of society argument but if people being gay is causing our society to fall then its going to fall whether they are married or not unless you eliminate anyone who is gay.

Gay people being "married" does impact me though - I believe that "marriage" is meant to be between one man and one woman and that "marriage" is a holy ceremony in my religion and that allowing same sex couples to "marry" is a degredation of a holy ceremony in my religion.

If you're not religious you probably won't agree with that but you don't have to - however if you want people to be tolerant of each other it has to go both ways. Religious people can go out and bang a drum and say homosexuality is a sin and gay people should be shipped off to antartica or something equally ridiculous (and unfortunately a minority will do that) but you have to understand the other side of the coin where the religious majority sees something sacred to them with the possibility of it being perverted (for lack of a better word) by allowing something that is expressly forbidden in regards of "marriage".

This ties in with what Im talking about earlier though - you can't just ignore the majority of people and take a crap on them because a minority of people complain about something. If there is a civil unjustice you have to find a solution that is going to benefit the majority of people involved and I do not believe the majority of people want gay people to not be able to have the same rights as straight people but I do think the majority of the population does not want to see gay people with the ability to be "married". Ignoring the wishes and issues of either side is not going to solve anything though.

Crapshoot

11-05-2004, 10:02 AM

If I may...I completely agree with this. If you want to take the stand that marriage is a religious matter, and decreed by some higher authority that it can only be between a man and a woman, then let's have the government retreat out of marriage entirely. Let marriage be a religious institution, and not have any standing in matters before and in the government.

To further this point, if you as a religous christian believe that marriage is ordained at some higher authority than government, than why do you care about the governments authorization of it ? The government isnt the source of your faith in the institution of marriage- so why should it be the savior ?

Tekneek

11-05-2004, 10:03 AM

That's been my stance for quite some time.

I remember that much. To that end, do you side against any position by the government that deals with marriage? If it gets its claws further into it, does it stand to reason that it will be less inclined to ever let go of it?

Tekneek

11-05-2004, 10:07 AM

Gay people being "married" does impact me though - I believe that "marriage" is meant to be between one man and one woman and that "marriage" is a holy ceremony in my religion and that allowing same sex couples to "marry" is a degredation of a holy ceremony in my religion.

If the marriage is not performed with, or by, any portion of aforementioned religious ceremony, does your religious ceremony have any bearing on it? Are marriages between men and women that include elements that belittle or even outright denograte your religious ceremony any less meaningful in your eyes? Where do you draw the line on what degrades your holy ceremony? Is it only if they are same-gendered, or is it possible that it is being done in other ways (which are considered fully legal marriages, much like your own)?

Crapshoot

11-05-2004, 10:11 AM

Ok, I guess you're speaking solely on the issue of gay marriage whereas Im talking just about society in general.

In terms of gay marriage I think that if the government is going to perform "marriage" then they should not allow same sex couples to marry. If the government is going to perform "civil unions" they can recognize whatever couple they want as qualified in the eyes of the state to receive the same benefits a straight couple does. If the government decides that despite giving a same sex couple every benefit that a straight couple gets that allowing straight people to be "married" and homosexual people to be "civilly joined" is discriminatory then the government should just only declare civil unions for everyone and not "marry" anyone.

The issue you're going to hit with religious people is over the term "marriage" and really that is my only complaint against it. I don't want it to be illegal to be gay - gay people are living together and spending their life together already. I do not condone what they are doing but I don't condemn the people themselves nor do I feel that them being gay is hurting anyone. Gay people living together and being civilly joined and getting government benefits has zero impact on anything in my world. There's the downfall of society argument but if people being gay is causing our society to fall then its going to fall whether they are married or not unless you eliminate anyone who is gay.

Gay people being "married" does impact me though - I believe that "marriage" is meant to be between one man and one woman and that "marriage" is a holy ceremony in my religion and that allowing same sex couples to "marry" is a degredation of a holy ceremony in my religion.

If you're not religious you probably won't agree with that but you don't have to - however if you want people to be tolerant of each other it has to go both ways. Religious people can go out and bang a drum and say homosexuality is a sin and gay people should be shipped off to antartica or something equally ridiculous (and unfortunately a minority will do that) but you have to understand the other side of the coin where the religious majority sees something sacred to them with the possibility of it being perverted (for lack of a better word) by allowing something that is expressly forbidden in regards of "marriage".

This ties in with what Im talking about earlier though - you can't just ignore the majority of people and take a crap on them because a minority of people complain about something. If there is a civil unjustice you have to find a solution that is going to benefit the majority of people involved and I do not believe the majority of people want gay people to not be able to have the same rights as straight people but I do think the majority of the population does not want to see gay people with the ability to be "married". Ignoring the wishes and issues of either side is not going to solve anything though.

Gary, you're missing the larger point again. No one, repeat No one, is asking you or your church to recognize them as married in a religious context, yet you insist on framing the arguement in those terms. In a governmental context, religion is not the authority for determing the definition of marriage- and yet you keep arguing as if it is. Furthermore, this concept of "marriage", believe it or not, exists outside Judeo-Christian religious doctrine- you have no rights to the word per se as if Christianity alone is the ultimate source of what marriage should be.

And the majority/minority question- I refer you to my previous post- do you believe that their are some rights that are inalienable (above and beyond the context of gay marriage) such that a majority cannot take them away per se from a minority ? If not, than your last paragraph is a great, great arguement for segregationists.

JonInMiddleGA

11-05-2004, 10:11 AM

Hey Tekneek, lemme roll a question back at you (if you've already addressed it somewhere, my apologies, it's easy to miss posts when there's so many threads & so many discussions):

What's your position on polygamy?

Tekneek

11-05-2004, 10:15 AM

What's your position on polygamy?

I am sure you will not agree, but I think my position on this is consistent with my other views. If consenting adults wish to enter into such an agreement, it is fine with me. I draw the line of consent for these matters like all others, at 18 years of age. I figure that once you are allowed to vote in elections (edit: AND SERVE IN THE MILITARY), you are allowed to consent to any contract.

JonInMiddleGA

11-05-2004, 10:18 AM

I am sure you will not agree, but I think my position on this is consistent with my other views. If consenting adults wish to enter into such an agreement, it is fine with me.

Thanks, just double-checking for consistency ;)

Gary Gorski

11-05-2004, 10:20 AM

If the marriage is not performed with, or by, any portion of aforementioned religious ceremony, does your religious ceremony have any bearing on it? Are marriages between men and women that include elements that belittle or even outright denograte your religious ceremony any less meaningful in your eyes? Where do you draw the line on what degrades your holy ceremony? Is it only if they are same-gendered, or is it possible that it is being done in other ways (which are considered fully legal marriages, much like your own)?

Let me answer that with a question - what difference does it make if it does or doesn't? The issue isn't over other marriages - its over gay marriage. If the government brings up issues and constitutional amendments over whether certain straight people should be able to be married and when and how they can be married then I'll voice an opinion on that then but until then its irrelevant.

If you want me to take it at face value that homosexual people are offended if they could only be civilly joined while straight couples could be married then you need to be equally respectful and accepting of the opposing POV that says they are offended by same sex couples being allowed to marry even when I blatantly said I have no problem with a civil union.

People have as much right to their morality and to base their decisions and opinions on their own morality as people do to be gay. I can argue right back that as long as gay couples and straight couples get the same government benefits there is no difference in gay couples being civilly joined and straight couples being married. Other than in title there is no difference and no inequality. But unless both sides are willing to accept why each side feels the way it does the only thing that is going to happen in this case is that 50 states will have constitutional amendments banning gay marriage instead of 11.

Tekneek

11-05-2004, 10:25 AM

If you want me to take it at face value that homosexual people are offended if they could only be civilly joined while straight couples could be married then you need to be equally respectful and accepting of the opposing POV that says they are offended by same sex couples being allowed to marry even when I blatantly said I have no problem with a civil union.

It's not about being offended. My argument is in regards to the "separate but equal" idea that is being presented. Taking into account the history of this nation, "seperate but equal" was indeed seperate, but was not equal. There is no reason for any reasonable person to expect a different result this time. Besides, if your only argument against it is a religious one, it should hold no water in a secular matter. We do not live in a theocracy, so our government should not be determining matters solely on religious grounds (even if a majority wishes it to be so).

Gary Gorski

11-05-2004, 10:32 AM

Gary, you're missing the larger point again. No one, repeat No one, is asking you or your church to recognize them as married in a religious context, yet you insist on framing the arguement in those terms.

I think you're missing my point - I realize its not going to affect what my church can do but it is a direct opposition to a moral belief of a majority of the country - not just Christians. This isn't an issue over whether or not gay marriage can be done in some sect of society I am not a part of - I, along with everyone else is part of our society as a whole and therefore any issue that is raised that conflicts with my morality I have a right to be opposed to.

People opposed the war because they were morally opposed to it did they not? I saw a bunch of protests about it and people raising their voices in opposition of it. Was that ok because those people who were morally opposed to it didn't necessarily have their morality shaped from an organized religion?

And the majority/minority question- I refer you to my previous post- do you believe that their are some rights that are inalienable (above and beyond the context of gay marriage) such that a majority cannot take them away per se from a minority ?

Yes of course there are rights that the majority cannot take away from the minority but I do not think the majority should simply be ignored either and especially not ignored simply because they are religious people or share the same morality as some religious people - that would seem like discrimination to me as well.

Crapshoot

11-05-2004, 10:37 AM

People have as much right to their morality and to base their decisions and opinions on their own morality as people do to be gay. I can argue right back that as long as gay couples and straight couples get the same government benefits there is no difference in gay couples being civilly joined and straight couples being married. Other than in title there is no difference and no inequality. But unless both sides are willing to accept why each side feels the way it does the only thing that is going to happen in this case is that 50 states will have constitutional amendments banning gay marriage instead of 11.

Again, what part of this arguement is different from a segregationist "seperate but equal" arguement ?

Gary Gorski

11-05-2004, 10:41 AM

It's not about being offended. My argument is in regards to the "separate but equal" idea that is being presented. Taking into account the history of this nation, "seperate but equal" was indeed seperate, but was not equal. There is no reason for any reasonable person to expect a different result this time. Besides, if your only argument against it is a religious one, it should hold no water in a secular matter. We do not live in a theocracy, so our government should not be determining matters solely on religious grounds (even if a majority wishes it to be so).

Nope, not my point in the least - my point is that if 99% of people are religious and want to vote on issues or want decisions made based on their morals which are shaped by their religion that is their right. If 99% of people are not religious and want to vote on issues or want decisions made based on whatever they form their beliefs and morals from that is their right as well. You cannot tell someone they cannot think a certain way simply because they are religious - the same as you cannot tell someone they cannot think a certain way if they are not reliigous.

An opinion is not less valid because that person is religious - that too is discrimination. Do you feel its ok to discriminate against people who are religious and form their beliefs based on their religion? I've flat out said that not only do I not have a problem with same-sex civil unions but that I also don't have a problem with the government only performing civil unions period on everyone yet somehow that seems to have been overlooked while when a few others made those statments (including yourselves) that it was like great, he's on board as a rational thinking person with the rest of us. Is it simply because I have a religious morality behind my reasoning that you take issue with my POV?

Gary Gorski

11-05-2004, 10:43 AM

In terms of gay marriage I think that if the government is going to perform "marriage" then they should not allow same sex couples to marry. If the government is going to perform "civil unions" they can recognize whatever couple they want as qualified in the eyes of the state to receive the same benefits a straight couple does. If the government decides that despite giving a same sex couple every benefit that a straight couple gets that allowing straight people to be "married" and homosexual people to be "civilly joined" is discriminatory then the government should just only declare civil unions for everyone and not "marry" anyone.

^^^

Tekneek

11-05-2004, 10:44 AM

Yes of course there are rights that the majority cannot take away from the minority but I do not think the majority should simply be ignored either and especially not ignored simply because they are religious people or share the same morality as some religious people - that would seem like discrimination to me as well.

So, the minority should not be allowed to go against a moral belief of the majority, so therefore the majority should be able to force its morality upon the minority? As long as it is coming down from the majority, it is NOT discriminatory?

Gary Gorski

11-05-2004, 10:45 AM

Again, what part of this arguement is different from a segregationist "seperate but equal" arguement ?

Because nobody is being segregated - I don't think I saw it on the ballot that gay people would have to use their own restrooms or couldn't eat in the same area with straight people.

Gary Gorski

11-05-2004, 10:47 AM

So, the minority should not be allowed to go against a moral belief of the majority, so therefore the majority should be able to force its morality upon the minority? As long as it is coming down from the majority, it is NOT discriminatory?

Didn't say that either - I said

I do not think the majority should simply be ignored either and especially not ignored simply because they are religious people or share the same morality as some religious people

Please tell me where it says the majority should force its morality on the minority? All I'm saying is that the morality of the majority should be considered just as the morality of the minority should. Feel free to read into that what you want but what you alledge simply isn't there in my statements.

Crapshoot

11-05-2004, 10:49 AM

JonInMiddleGA

11-05-2004, 10:51 AM

So, the minority should not be allowed to go against a moral belief of the majority, so therefore the majority should be able to force its morality upon the minority? As long as it is coming down from the majority, it is NOT discriminatory?

Isn't that how we get laws against murder? Or rape? Or anything else?

I believe we're right back to my earlier point -- ALL laws are, by their very nature, majority " morality" over minority "morality".

{edited for attempt at clarity}

Crapshoot

11-05-2004, 10:54 AM

Because nobody is being segregated - I don't think I saw it on the ballot that gay people would have to use their own restrooms or couldn't eat in the same area with straight people.

Not allowing them to get marriages and instead using "seperate but equal" civil unions is what exactly Gary- a coincidental parting ? Seriously - wtf ? Are you actually arguing that segregation is only applicable when it comes to bathrooms or food ?

Tekneek

11-05-2004, 10:57 AM

Do you feel its ok to discriminate against people who are religious and form their beliefs based on their religion?

Is it simply because I have a religious morality behind my reasoning that you take issue with my POV?

Surely it is not alright to discriminate on the basis of religion or lack thereof.

No, it has nothing to do with that. I am on board with the government pulling out of marriage altogether. I feel it is wrong to ban "gay marriage" without first forcing the government to pull out of marriage, or even establish the "civil union" alternative. That is a majority merely stomping on a minority because it can, without demonstrating any intention of providing an avenue towards 'marriage', other than the one supported solely by religious reasons (1 man + 1 woman). I have my doubts that this civil union alternative is really on the horizon, and I strongly doubt the government will takes its hooks out of marriages anytime in the near future.

Gary Gorski

11-05-2004, 10:59 AM

Ill try this one more time Gary- religion alone is not a reason for a law - and that is the only arguement you are offering. the only arguement you have against gay marriage is that its somehow "morally" wrong on religious grounds, and this should overwhelm the lack of civil reasons for allowing it

Am I speaking in a foreign language here?

Besides, as I've said earlier in this thread- I think the government shouldnt be in marriage at all- call everything a civil union, and then let every group call whatever it wants marriage

If I may...I completely agree with this. If you want to take the stand that marriage is a religious matter, and decreed by some higher authority that it can only be between a man and a woman, then let's have the government retreat out of marriage entirely. Let marriage be a religious institution, and not have any standing in matters before and in the government.

That's been my stance for quite some time.

SD, that's at least 4 of us here then (you, GD, me, tekneek)- lets hope the country at large adopts a stance like this..

If the government decides that despite giving a same sex couple every benefit that a straight couple gets that allowing straight people to be "married" and homosexual people to be "civilly joined" is discriminatory then the government should just only declare civil unions for everyone and not "marry" anyone.

What part of me agreeing with your opinion didn't you like? The fact that the reasoning on my end was because of religion and yours wasn't? Correct me if Im wrong but doesn't everyone have the right to their opinion regardless if its based on Christianity, Judaism, Dr Phil or Miss Cleo at the Psychic Friends Hotline?

Tekneek

11-05-2004, 11:01 AM

Isn't that how we get laws against murder? Or rape? Or anything else?

I believe we're right back to my earlier point -- ALL laws are, by their very nature, majority " morality" over minority "morality".

{edited for attempt at clarity}

Murder is the unlawful killing of another person. It's less about morals, and more about order. It would be difficult, or impossible, to have an orderly society/civilization that tolerated murder at will. It has nothing to do with religion. Atheists are not shooting each other down in the streets just because they don't have Heaven to aspire to.

EDIT: And someone is harmed when they are allowed to be murdered on any whim. I don't support that at all. Make the appropriate case that gay marriage is anyway on the same level as murder, and I might be compelled to change my mind. The same stands for rape. It is about people not being able to use force against others, to deprive them of their life or liberty, or take their property. Gay marriage does not meet any standard set when discussing rape and murder. Gay marriage would not be forced on anyone that did not consent to it. They would not come and dissolve your existing marriage and force you to marry a man, Jon.

Crapshoot

11-05-2004, 11:02 AM

Am I speaking in a foreign language here?

What part of me agreeing with your opinion didn't you like? The fact that the reasoning on my end was because of religion and yours wasn't? Correct me if Im wrong but doesn't everyone have the right to their opinion regardless if its based on Christianity, Judaism, Dr Phil or Miss Cleo at the Psychic Friends Hotline?

the part where you argue incessantly that "marriage' is a christian definition, and should remain so on a secular governments' books.

Gary Gorski

11-05-2004, 11:07 AM

the part where you argue incessantly that "marriage' is a christian definition, and should remain so on a secular governments' books.

Where did I say that if you please? I stated what MY objection is to allowing gay people to 'marry' and if the government asks for MY vote then I vote based on MY objection which I have every right to do. I also said I personally have no problem with allowing civil unions or allowing everyone to have civil unions and nobody to be married by the state.

And if the government asks for a vote and the majority of people who vote have the same objection and vote the same way that is their business and their right to do so as well. You might not like the fact that people vote on morality but you can't tell them that its wrong to do so - everyone has the right to their opinion based on whatever reasoning they want.

Tekneek

11-05-2004, 11:12 AM

Having a right to an opinion is completely different than that being the right answer. You can have an opinion, but be wrong. By your logic, every law passed would be valid and could never be thrown out, because that would effectively be telling those voters/legislators that their opinion was wrong. You can tell people they are wrong any time you want to, and sometimes you will be proven right.

I respect your right to have an opinion, but it doesn't mean your opinion is the proper answer to a problem.

Gary Gorski

11-05-2004, 11:14 AM

I respect your right to have an opinion, but it doesn't mean your opinion is the proper answer to a problem. The two are not mutually exclusive.

Agreed - and that is my whole point. I never said I should make the laws but that everyone still needs to respect people's opinions to vote and make their opinions on their own reasons and that if people want to form their opinions on their morals (be them christian, atheist or whatever) that is their right.

JonInMiddleGA

11-05-2004, 11:17 AM

It has nothing to do with religion.

I didn't say "religion" (or don't think I did), I said "morality". And, as Gary seems to have tried to highlight, the basis for morality (or maybe substitute the word "values"?) should be largely irrelevant to this debate.

And someone is harmed when they are allowed to be murdered on any whim.

And there's an argument (whether you accept it or not) that societal gain is outweighed by individual loss.

I might argue (since I need a murder example for this exercise) that the societal benefit of allowing a 2-bag limit on crack dealers outweighs the loss of the crack dealers individual right to pursue his chosen profession.

It's roughly the same argument I'd make here -- that the benefit to society outweighs the individual loss.

Perhaps, lost amidst the details, is the very fundamental difference between us -- You have a very libertarian lean. I have about as authoritarian a lean as you'll find. There probably isn't much of a middle ground for us to find.

Tekneek

11-05-2004, 11:19 AM

Agreed - and that is my whole point. I never said I should make the laws but that everyone still needs to respect people's opinions to vote and make their opinions on their own reasons and that if people want to form their opinions on their morals (be them christian, atheist or whatever) that is their right.

I've stated what I think the government's role in our lives should be. I do think it is wrong to use the overwhelming power of government to further a religious agenda, though. I respect that they have a right to feel that way, but it doesn't give that belief any extra validity simply because they are in the majority. Not one person has demonstrated the danger gay marriage presents that justifies a ban on it. I'm still waiting for that. So many dangerous things that could kill me, on my way home today, are not banned...so you can see why I just am not able to see the justification for this.

Tekneek

11-05-2004, 11:23 AM

Perhaps, lost amidst the details, is the very fundamental difference between us -- You have a very libertarian lean. I have about as authoritarian a lean as you'll find. There probably isn't much of a middle ground for us to find.

Apparently so. :)

It doesn't mean we aren't good people. I do think you might find it easier to live in my society than I in yours. Simply because I'd let you have the freedom to do as you wish, and set your own rules on your own property, and with your business. I have a libertarian lean, but I'm not out for anarchy. Someday I'd love to just have us give our positions on any number of general political issues...just to see where they land.

gstelmack

11-05-2004, 11:32 AM

Since every discussion about the election so far has turned into a discussion on "gay marriage" (nice tactic to divert from all the other discussions about why we support Bush, btw), I propose the following:

Bush supporters will retract all support for gay marriage bans, if Kerry supporters will just shut the heck up and accept the fact that people can think differently from them without being "wrong" (or "ignorant" or "stupid" or "foolish")? The first time a Kerry supporter insults a Bush supporter for their stance, the bans go back on the books. Will that be enough to bring peace to this country?

Tekneek

11-05-2004, 11:37 AM

Bush supporters will retract all support for gay marriage bans, if Kerry supporters will just shut the heck up and accept the fact that people can think differently from them without being "wrong" (or "ignorant" or "stupid" or "foolish")? The first time a Kerry supporter insults a Bush supporter for their stance, the bans go back on the books. Will that be enough to bring peace to this country?

Sounds like fun, but you make a dangerous assumption that everyone had to support either Bush or Kerry. I wouldn't give my vote to either.

gstelmack

11-05-2004, 11:42 AM

Sounds like fun, but you make a dangerous assumption that everyone had to support either Bush or Kerry. I wouldn't give my vote to either.

As long as your not calling Bush supporters names, that's doesn't mess anything up ;)

Tekneek

11-05-2004, 11:48 AM

As long as your not calling Bush supporters names, that's doesn't mess anything up ;)

People can think differently than me AND be wrong, and sometimes right...and sometimes we will both be wrong. You should edit your request. It's unreasonable that Bush supporters can never be wrong. Bush himself is wrong from time to time, so it stands to reason that his supporters are at least the same. ;)

Bush supporters will retract all support for gay marriage bans, if Kerry supporters will just shut the heck up and accept the fact that people can think differently from them without being "wrong" (or "ignorant" or "stupid" or "foolish")?

Noop

11-05-2004, 11:54 AM

Didn't that Titor guy predict a civil war in 2004 or 2006 or something?
Yep. And from the looks of it he is right...

gstelmack

11-05-2004, 11:58 AM

People can think differently than me AND be wrong, and sometimes right...and sometimes we will both be wrong. You should edit your request. It's unreasonable that Bush supporters can never be wrong. Bush himself is wrong from time to time, so it stands to reason that his supporters are at least the same. ;)

It's not about right and wrong. It's the flat-out insults coming from the Kerry camp towards people that don't agree with them that I'm attacking here.

Tekneek

11-05-2004, 12:00 PM

It's not about right and wrong. It's the flat-out insults coming from the Kerry camp towards people that don't agree with them that I'm attacking here.

If you look at my quote, you said Kerry supporters could not tell Bush supporters they are "wrong." That was what I was referring to. :)

Arles

11-05-2004, 02:46 PM

Arlie, there is no ban on people praying in school- it simply cannot be from some official platform, like an announcer at a football game. Prayer at school is limited to when a teacher leads them- and reasonably so. No one is opposed to the rights of people praying privately or even in a selected student led group - its simply as a large gathering or a school assembly where it is an issue.
If "no one" includes the ACLU, then I agree. They have repeatedly taken cases to court involving after school programs and lunchtime prayers.

As for the civil union/marriage thing- I still havent heard one arguement other than the government is changing religious people's definition of marriage - which is ridiculous. Marriage as defined by the government is NOT a religious thing- why do you insist on saying Gay Couples should not be entited to the same title from their secular government ? Its asking for equality, not "seperate but equal" - which is an accurate representation.
The problem I have with the civil rights argument involving gay marriage is that gay marriage involves a lifestyle choice, not a discrimination. Descrimination is defined as prejudging someone based on their race, age, sex or religion. It has never been applied to someone's actions. If I see someone apply for a job and he has had 15 divorces and I don't want to hire him because of it, I am not discriminating. Marriage is currently defined as the union between a man and a woman. So, a homosexual man has the same rights to marry a woman as a heterosexual man from a government standpoint.

The problem is that some want to redefine marriage as a union between two "people", and most of the country does not want to do that.

Besides, as I've said earlier in this thread- I think the government shouldnt be in marriage at all- call everything a civil union, and then let every group call whatever it wants marriage. I'd be curious as to your take on that.
On marriage, I see no problem with the government using the tax code and government benefits to encourage a solid family unit. The tax code/benefit system is essentially created to try and dictate our actions to better society from the "government's" perspective. Be it encouraging us to buy a house, get married, invest in a 401K, have a child, put a child through college, ... The entire tax code is setup to try and direct our behavior.

Now, I don't think the government should be providing state funding for embryonic stem cell research, but a ballot initiative passed in California that allows that. Part of living in the US is that our wishes are sometimes overruled by the majority. And, when it comes to gay marriage, I don't see any civil right violations or descrimination occuring just because the majority of the US doesn't want to redefine the term of marriage.

Again, I personally have no problem with allowing gay marriage, but if a majority of the voters don't want that to happen, I don't see it as violating anyone's rights.

sterlingice

11-05-2004, 04:08 PM

I think JIMG is totally right here for the most part. I have a few friends who are conservative. I am still good friends with all of them, but we don't discuss politics. Ever. I really only tend to talk politics with friends of mine who share the same views. Not because I need to hear my views parroted back to me, but arguing politics with friends is rarely a good way to spend your time. Case in point, my father. He voted for Bush. Hell, he has a signed picture of the bastard in our house, he also got some sort of pin for being a "wrangler" or something like that (some fundraising thing). I don't see my dad often (as he lives in Mich.), but we have a simple rule: we don't talk about politics. Ever. Life's too short to argue with your dad or good friends about that kind of stuff.
I dunno, I get along really well with a friend of mine who was lambasted on a message board he frequents in a political thread as: "In all actuality, you'll not find a less caring or empathetic person on the planet. Considering that he'd be okay with enslaving all mexicans and forcing them to bag groceries so he can get hoagies for a nickel cheaper, I don't think he'd care if every one was marched at gunpoint into a gigantic meat grinder at age 18, let alone drafted." We love to pick each other's minds about what the other side is thinking, but we're both f'ing elitists who try to be above the fray most of the time and look at it from a political perspective.

But there are many times, particularly at holidays (since, being a thousand miles apart or so, there's just not enough time at any other time) where we get into the "I'm right, you're wrong" discussions. You *CAN* do it. Just most people can't be bothered to. And on an internet message boards, it's downright impossible because all you have to judge people and categorize people by are their beliefs. If I met this guy based just on his political beliefs, I'd feel the same way as the poster on his message board, but there's just no way to do that online.

SI

John Galt

11-05-2004, 04:12 PM

The problem I have with the civil rights argument involving gay marriage is that gay marriage involves a lifestyle choice, not a discrimination. Descrimination is defined as prejudging someone based on their race, age, sex or religion. It has never been applied to someone's actions.

There are so many things wrong with this section, I really don't know where to begin. Assuming being gay is a choice (something that goes against the best available evidence), how is it different than religion? I like how being gay is a choice, so you can discriminate, but it would be wrong to discriminate on the basis of religion.

Arles

11-06-2004, 11:18 AM

There are so many things wrong with this section, I really don't know where to begin. Assuming being gay is a choice (something that goes against the best available evidence), how is it different than religion? I like how being gay is a choice, so you can discriminate, but it would be wrong to discriminate on the basis of religion.
I think this is a very good point, and I think my wording was pretty suspect and not what I was getting at. It would just as wrong as not hiring someone that is gay as it would be to not hire someone that is catholic. My point was that marriage is currently defined as being between a man and a woman. So, from that standpoint, a homosexual man can marry a woman in the same manner that a heterosexual man can.

The difficult legal argument is that we should define marriage between "two people" even though that goes against what is currently in the constitution. So, a judge would have to say the constitution is "unconstitutional". I would think that you would need to pass an amendment changing the definition of marriage from "man and woman" to "2 people" before any of that can happen. But, again, I'm not the legal scholar that many others are. And, as I've said before, the liberatarian in me has a hard time with the idea of not allowing people of the same sex to be married as they wish.

duckman

11-06-2004, 12:40 PM

Yep. And from the looks of it he is right...
Quit being dramatic. :rolleyes:

Noop

11-06-2004, 12:50 PM

Quit being dramatic. :rolleyes:You felt like only commenting on my post? *Alot of cuss words*

duckman

11-06-2004, 12:51 PM

Bitch fuck you.
Nice. :p

duckman

11-06-2004, 12:54 PM

Dola

Believe it or not, the world is not going to end with Bush in office, Noop. People are just getting overdramatic about this election. You were just the straw that broke the camel's back.

Suicane75

11-06-2004, 12:56 PM

I've always wondered, how much straw would it take to break a camels back. I mean, I know they can hold a 90 pound child pretty easily.

Noop

11-06-2004, 12:57 PM

Dola

Believe it or not, the world is not going to end with Bush in office, Noop. People are just getting overdramatic about this election. You were just the straw that broke the camel's back.Your *bad word* dumb... why not say something to the person I was replying too? Feast on these *berrys*...

duckman

11-06-2004, 01:02 PM

Your fuckin dumb... why not say something to the person I was replying too? Feast on these nuts...
I might be dumb, but you're a whiner.

duckman

11-06-2004, 01:03 PM

I've always wondered, how much straw would it take to break a camels back. I mean, I know they can hold a 90 pound child pretty easily.
That was absolutely hilarious! :D

Noop

11-06-2004, 01:04 PM

I might be dumb, but you're a whiner.
Really? I know you have a bunch of steers in Oklahoma go chew on that beef...

duckman

11-06-2004, 01:05 PM

Really? I know you have a bunch of steers in Oklahoma go chew on that beef...
You know I love you, Noop. :D

Noop

11-06-2004, 01:08 PM

You know I love you, Noop. :D
Then why dont you show it more!!!:(

John Galt

11-06-2004, 01:20 PM

I think this is a very good point, and I think my wording was pretty suspect and not what I was getting at. It would just as wrong as not hiring someone that is gay as it would be to not hire someone that is catholic. My point was that marriage is currently defined as being between a man and a woman. So, from that standpoint, a homosexual man can marry a woman in the same manner that a heterosexual man can.

The difficult legal argument is that we should define marriage between "two people" even though that goes against what is currently in the constitution. So, a judge would have to say the constitution is "unconstitutional". I would think that you would need to pass an amendment changing the definition of marriage from "man and woman" to "2 people" before any of that can happen. But, again, I'm not the legal scholar that many others are. And, as I've said before, the liberatarian in me has a hard time with the idea of not allowing people of the same sex to be married as they wish.

In other words, your argument hurt your cause so you abandoned it. Yet, you never explain why (even if gay is being a choice), it is somehow different than religion. If a law required catholics to only marry jews (but not other catholics), would you find that ok since it treats everyone the same?

The rest of your new argument is utter nonsense - the Constitution does NOT say marriage is between a man and a woman and no judge would have to say the constitution is unconstitutional.