|
|
| Posted: 02 Nov 2009 18:23 |
|
|
Administrator
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 4786
Join Date: Jul 2007
|
Interesting. http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20091102/pl_politico/29008
Quote:
The conservative coup in upstate New York did much more than lay bare the power of conservative activists: It exposed how little control GOP officials hold over this surging and formidable political movement.
Quote:
To be blunt, many conservative activists couldn’t care less what Davis and top party officials think about them and their brand of politics.
They feel they were had by former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas), who urged them to stomach earmarks for the good of the party; by George W. Bush adviser Karl Rove, who urged them to stomach a massive expansion of education and Medicare for the good of the party; and by the rest of the Washington gang that collaborated in the largest expansion of government in their lifetime for the good of the party.
Erick Erickson, founder and editor of the conservative RedState blog, said grass-roots activists are done listening.
“Republicans are going to have to come our way,” he said, before going on to trash NRCC Chairman Pete Sessions and Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele for backing Scozzafava.
Their “level of disingenuousness ... is disgusting,” Erickson said.
His influential blog is now calling for Sessions to get the boot from the NRCC as a penalty for mishandling the race.
Erickson’s bombast may seem overboard, but it captures the depths of anger over the handling of this special election. It’s not just that Scozzafava wasn’t conservative — she was very liberal on abortion, unions and gay marriage and even left the impression she might join the Democrats once elected.
Indeed, on Sunday, the day after pulling out of the race, she endorsed Democrat Bill Owens.
“There is already a party for people who think like that,” conservative columnist George Will said on ABC’s “This Week.”
“It’s called the Democratic Party.”
Exactly. We don't need two Democrat parties. Ones enough. Give the voters a shot at making a real choice. It's like choosing between a bad horse and a really bad horse.
__________________Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
|
| Posted: 02 Nov 2009 21:40 |
|
|
Registered User
|
Posts: 4725
Join Date: Aug 2007
|
Do we really even need one of either?
__________________But the backdrops peel and the sets give way and the cast get eaten by the play, there's a murderer at the matinee, there are dead men in the aisles
And the patrons and the actors too are uncertain if the show is through and with sidelong looks await their cue, but the frozen mask just smiles
|
| Posted: 08 Nov 2009 20:28 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 391
Join Date: Nov 2009
|
See, what I took from the loss of the seat was that moderates would not be taken for granted by conservatives.
That if you wish to push an unacceptable far right agenda (especially on social justice issues) you can expect moderates to stay home, vote for an empty seat, or vote for the moderate democrat.
You can purge your party and push it further to any extream yo wish. The democrats did the same through the Regan years resulting in the Great Dukakis victory of 88. No wait that was on Bizaro world. In the real world, the Moderate Democrats were brought into the republican party by the moderate Regan who put forward middle of the road compromises on the great leftist machine that eventually lead to it's dismantleing under the Clinton Regime.
Now however after 36 years of conservative policies, the country has gone too far back to the right leading to our current great recession. Now people want intelegent middle of the road compromises to get the nation back to a competative footing.
The republicans are currently racing towards irrelevence. And the 23rd is a prime example of it.
Jersey (my home) and Virginia were victories for that middle of the road big ten brand of conservatism that put Regan in the whitehouse.
If you want to win you need a broad coallition. If you want to vote your concience then vote for a third party, or run yourself.
Otherwise, the current press of the "populists" is just another nail in the republican coffin.
|
| Posted: 08 Nov 2009 20:53 |
|
|
|
Administrator
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 4786
Join Date: Jul 2007
|
I never saw Reagan as moderate. He was more conservative than today's republicans. Bush's biggest problems stemmed from his straying from conservatism.
What Reagan had that modern GOP needs is the ability to communicate their ideas, a deep conviction of those ideas, and just a natural warm hearted personality that moderates don't feel threatened by. Face it. It's all about the delivery.
__________________Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
|
| Posted: 08 Nov 2009 22:07 Last Edited By: Matches |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 391
Join Date: Nov 2009
|
See, I see Regan as a moderate, and that's the point. You need to be seen as a moderate, truthfully I saw Bush II as a moderate as well, but realized he was being pulled to hard from the right. That turned me off, and so, he lost the congress, and lead to McCain (another moderate) to lose as well. Not just because of me, but because of every middle class intelectual like me.
I don't want to rock the boat, neither does most the U.S. so if you ain't moderate you ain't going to win.
|
| Posted: 08 Nov 2009 22:24 |
|
|
|
Registered User
|
Posts: 4725
Join Date: Aug 2007
|
|
Quote:
It's all about the delivery.
It's a shame that all these people(with a handful of notable exceptions) seem to deliver are empty promises and other forms of glamour, and that's regardless of title or affiliation.
If you get nothing and instead have something taken from you, can it really be called a delivery at all?
Maybe a heist or a hijacking would be more appropriate? (I know you meant the other usage of delivery-I'm just funning you there.)
__________________But the backdrops peel and the sets give way and the cast get eaten by the play, there's a murderer at the matinee, there are dead men in the aisles
And the patrons and the actors too are uncertain if the show is through and with sidelong looks await their cue, but the frozen mask just smiles
|
| Posted: 08 Nov 2009 22:25 |
|
|
|
Registered User
|
Posts: 4725
Join Date: Aug 2007
|
|
Quote:
Not just because of me, but because of every middle class intelectual like me.
I knew we would find the guilty parties eventually. Thank you for coming forward. 
__________________But the backdrops peel and the sets give way and the cast get eaten by the play, there's a murderer at the matinee, there are dead men in the aisles
And the patrons and the actors too are uncertain if the show is through and with sidelong looks await their cue, but the frozen mask just smiles
|
| Posted: 08 Nov 2009 23:38 |
|
|
|
Administrator
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 4786
Join Date: Jul 2007
|
I really believe a conservative that could communicate effectively, and really believed in the principles they said they believed in would mop the floor with any liberal any day of the week. It seems as though the Republicans don't tend to nominate great communicators anymore since Reagan. I wanted Fred Thompson or Huckabee. Huckabee is a lot better at discussing issues than McCain.
__________________Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
|
| Posted: 09 Nov 2009 02:01 |
|
|
|
Registered User
|
Posts: 4725
Join Date: Aug 2007
|
|
Quote:
really believed in the principles they said they believed in
This should apply to all politicians, shouldn't it?
Quote:
great communicators anymore since Reagan.
As you mentioned earlier, with Reagan it was all about delivery and who 'delivers' better than an actor? I'm not sure it's communication that you're after really or else you would actually be embracing Obama. Plenty of style from both, questionable substance from both as well.
On Thompson, you can't attack the other side for pushing a 'superstar' and then deploy a TV actor yourself. This leaves a bad taste in the mouth of even the most avid media freak. Thompson also did himself in with his apparent 'work ethic' being made public knowledge alongside the arrogant swagger. I agree that he was definitely a better choice for your party than McCain even after his negatives(at least from what I think you were saying there).
Huckabee should have kept his religion to himself. The religious right basically spit him out. 'He's a Christian(I guess), just not my kind of Christian(not a real one) - give him a talk show instead, we'll support him there.'
__________________But the backdrops peel and the sets give way and the cast get eaten by the play, there's a murderer at the matinee, there are dead men in the aisles
And the patrons and the actors too are uncertain if the show is through and with sidelong looks await their cue, but the frozen mask just smiles
|
| Posted: 09 Nov 2009 16:26 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 391
Join Date: Nov 2009
|
The great Bourgeoisie are the key to any political victory.
We have what we have would like to keep it, and understand that radical change at the top invariably leads to change in our lives.
That is both radical change to the left or the right.
The problem with conservatives at least the current crop isn't communication, it's message.
The free market isn't the cureall that was promised, and social issue campaigning comes from a barely cloaked hatred that most people (even if they agree with that hatred on principle) are uncomfortable voicing so loudly.
You could press the free market when the controled market has failed, now that the free market has failed and failed miserably, you will have a hard time pressing it. You need to find the middle ground, that middle ground is regulation not control. Enforcement and setting of common sense rules for the market, not entry into the market by the state.
Unfortunatly no one in the conservative movement is offering that right now, and if they did they would get shouted down by the folks who shouted down the republican candidate in the 23rd.
If you make your play about gay rights and abortion, again even if a large number of people agree with you the rhetoric turns them off.
Most people really don't care if gay people get married, or if women have abortions. They maybe care if it's within their own family, but even then you are far more likely to find leftward conversion rather than rightward. And at the end of the day, these issues have nothing to do with putting bread on the table, and so it's not going to get people to sign up in any large numbers, though it does motivate the already wound up.
The Healthcare debate is a prime example. Most polls say the majority of the American people want some kind of government involvement in healthcare. This based on the intuitive economic logic that the larger the player the better the deal they can strike. Now the Republicans could be operating within that understanding and offering a real reform package based on regulation of the industry (similar to the german model) without a public plan. Or they could just stand in stark opposition to anything, which is what they are currently doing.
Yes, a real conservative, meaning someone who is making slow considered decisions based on observation and evidence and not rushing to one extreme or another, could certainly win with the right communication. The people claiming to be conservatives at the moment however are nothing of the sort, and better communication won't help them.
|
| Posted: 09 Nov 2009 18:06 |
|
|
|
Administrator
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 4786
Join Date: Jul 2007
|
|
Quote:
Most people really don't care if gay people get married, or if women have abortions. I wouldn't say that. I've heard gay marriage is losing everywhere it's been voted on. I think more and more people are going against abortion too once they get more information about it.
It's more of a sensitivity kind of thing. People want somebody to sound nicey nice. Like Rush Limbaugh comes across to those that disagree with him as mean and all that. Basically he's trying to be entertaining, but a candidate can't take that approach. He's got to sound like he's not a hot head or the so-called moderates who fancy themselves as high follutin smart guys get offended. Country boys with outdoor toilets, road kill stew for lunch, and 50 dogs in the yard like me tend to gravitate toward common sense in your face kind of speech. That might be why the south goes more republican than the north I'd say.
__________________Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
|
| Posted: 09 Nov 2009 18:43 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 391
Join Date: Nov 2009
|
Well gay marriage fails primarily because those who hate gays are more active and a larger group than those who support them (and don't kid yourself it is all about screwing over gay people out of spite). However the majority of people aren't opposed to gay marriage, they just don't get that worked up about it enough to vote, and in that situation the larger motivated group (homophobes) win the day. That's democracy, and it's what kept Jim Crow on the books for decades, even when most people in the south had nothing particularly against equality and desegregation.
Abortion, again the majority of people favor some kind of legal access to abortion, but also consider themselves "pro-life". In that case, the activist push is on the otherside of the debate, so that attempts to curtail aboriton through referenda tend to fail, because there are more people who feel strongly in favor of the right than feel strongly to abolish it.
The problem for the Republicans is that history isn't on their side in these fights. The trend for the nation is towards more freedoms, and more recognition, not less. So if you move to the right, isolate yourself on these social issues, you are dooming yourself to failure. Especially when the Democrats are activly staking out the middle and progressive ground on these self same issues.
Party leaders in the Democrats are activly speaking about keeping abortion legal while discussing the difficult moral quandry of the issue. They endorse equality for gay unions, though hedge at gay marriage. All around the Left is seizing the center (in the way the right did under Regan) by seizing the center the Left appears to be more in the majority and can get more of it's ideas passed. By rejecting the center the right makes itself appear more a minority and it's efforts get thwarted.
You may think the Republicans are doing just fine in the minority (they are monkey wrenching health care pretty well after all) but that is because they aren't actually pushing anything at the moment, just trying to stop someone else.
Stoping is easy, but getting your own agenda moveing forward is hard. This is why the Democrats didn't just block Bush, they were building towards a place where they could move forward their agenda, and to do that, they had to stay in the middle long enough to set the republicans up for a major loss.
The Republicans now need to get the middle back or none of their actual initiatives will be able to move forward, what ever those initiatives might be.
|
| Posted: 11 Nov 2009 00:19 Last Edited By: Tim |
|
|
|
Administrator
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 4786
Join Date: Jul 2007
|
|
Quote:
and don't kid yourself it is all about screwing over gay people out of spite I don't think so. It's not a personal agenda.
No a lot of people especially in the heartland of America still believe marriage is between one man and one woman. That's it. It's not racist or homophobic. It's just the way it is. Like the highway is for cars not boats.
You know what's wrong with America these days is people trying to put a label on themselves instead of just being themselves.
African American, Native American. What's wrong with just being Americans. If I labeled myself being the mutt I am, I'd have a 9 mile long title.
__________________Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
|
| Posted: 11 Nov 2009 17:16 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 391
Join Date: Nov 2009
|
Look Tim, when you oppose marriage between two races that's racist. When you oppose marriage between gay people it's homophobic.
Now you have every right in the U.S. to be a racist or a homophobe. The question is should the state go along with all this.
The fact is, gay marriage has no effect on your life, at least no more than interracial marriage does. As such opposition to the practice is about voicing your opposition to a group of people and their efforts to "just be themselves" to use your words.
Gay people would like nothing better than to fade into the background. But because people block them from enjoying the privledges granted to others they feel obligated to fight for them.
The opposition to gay marriage comes generally from an opinion that gay people are morally flawed. While you are more than welcome to feel that way, in the way that people are free to feel that any other group from Jews to Mexicans are equally morally flawed, but the state has to make no moral judgement on the quality of it's noncriminal citizens.
As such, opposition to gay marriage is about homophobia. Not that there's anything wrong with that.
|
| Posted: 12 Nov 2009 20:48 |
|
|
|
Administrator
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 4786
Join Date: Jul 2007
|
Homophobia is a word created by the gay movement bud.
As if disagreeing with the gay movement made a person afraid of gay people. It's all political rhetoric. Nonsense to make people overlook the obvious.
Let's just for kicks say the government stopped giving out papers to sanction any kind of marriage. Maybe I'd get mad and maybe I wouldn't, but these days we're more worried about putting food on the table than what some jerk in washington has to say about our marriage.
Still it shouldn't even be brought up. There's no legal precedence for gay marriage.
The whole reason they want to push this is to make it seem right in the eyes of society. They want everyone's blessing. It's not about doing their own thing. They've been doing that for years now.
__________________Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
|
| Posted: 12 Nov 2009 21:14 |
|
|
|
Registered User
|
Posts: 4725
Join Date: Aug 2007
|
Opposition to gay marriages being homophobia means the person has actually thought through the argument on their own terms and come up with the result that it's wrong based on whatever measure the person feels, all on their own. It would seem most people are opposed to it as nothing more than a reaction without any thought whatsoever, just a little push from their clergy or their TV's or whatever their source of 'news'. Calling people homophobes is equally a similar and adverse reaction from the people who support gay rights. There are people who deserve this term and title obviously, but not based on the marriage issue alone.
Quote:
Let's just for kicks say the government stopped giving out papers to sanction any kind of marriage.
As a person who has said in the past that a marriage is mainly a religious ceremony this should be something you want, and not just for kicks. Don't you find it odd that a priest or rabbi has to invoke their authority by the state they're in instead of their place in their respective place of worship to carry out a religious ceremony?
Quote:
There's no legal precedence for gay marriage.
Sure there is. Interracial marriages. It's the same thing for the same reasons.
Quote:
They want everyone's blessing.
Last I checked they didn't need anyone's blessing. As you point out, they've been 'doing their own thing for years'. It is about equal treatment and protection under the law, alongside the more insistant monetary issues like filing taxes and small things like property rights or being able to visit someone in the hospital, etc.
I'm not alone in thinking marriage between any two people is insane myself, it doesn't mean all marriages should be prevented.
__________________But the backdrops peel and the sets give way and the cast get eaten by the play, there's a murderer at the matinee, there are dead men in the aisles
And the patrons and the actors too are uncertain if the show is through and with sidelong looks await their cue, but the frozen mask just smiles
|
| Posted: 12 Nov 2009 23:30 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 391
Join Date: Nov 2009
|
I'm all for civil unions for everyone. Let anybody who wishes to join in a legal contract to determine certain rights be allowed to. That I think is a fair compromise on the issue.
The fact is, there are religious groups who do marry gay people. Reconstructionist Judeaism for one, and certain protestant denominations as well.
So gay maarriage does occur regularly, the question is, should the state single out one group of marriages as valid and another as invalid. The state has this right to do so, as it does with polygamous unions, but the cause for antipolygamy statues (that they cause more legal issues for inheritence and transfer of property, the exact things that monogamous marriage solves) is differnt than the cause for Antihomosexual marriages.
The only cause for antihomosexual marriage is a "moral" one. Given that this view of morals is by no means universal nor even the vast majority it is hard to see why the state, a disinterested party in most of our personal affairs (or atleast it should be) would concern itself with the minutia of whom is entering into this legal arrangement.
Perhaps it is because my marriage would have been illegal not too many years ago that I feel a personal connection with these people. Until someone can show me how gay marriage harms me or anyone else, I will continue with my view that those who oppose it do so out of the same biggoted opinions that would have kept my wife and I from marrying in the fifties (had either of us been alive).
|
| Posted: 13 Nov 2009 01:07 |
|
|
|
Registered User
|
Posts: 4725
Join Date: Aug 2007
|
|
Quote:
I'm all for civil unions for everyone.
Amen. 
__________________But the backdrops peel and the sets give way and the cast get eaten by the play, there's a murderer at the matinee, there are dead men in the aisles
And the patrons and the actors too are uncertain if the show is through and with sidelong looks await their cue, but the frozen mask just smiles
|
| Posted: 13 Nov 2009 22:07 |
|
|
|
Administrator
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 4786
Join Date: Jul 2007
|
|
Quote:
Interracial marriages. It's the same thing for the same reasons. Uh, no it's not. An interracial couple can still have children. They still have all the working parts necessary to have a relationship in that way. Totally different. The only similarity you can draw from that is from public opposition.
Besides we have to look at why marriage has become a legal entity. The biggest reason I see is children. A man walks out on his family the law steps in and tries to prevent those kids from being financially abandoned. I'm not saying I'm a 100 percent for government involvement in such matters since they can be very unfair in divorce precedings. Still the main reason is keeping order in society.
I'm not for civil unions either. If they want to leave their buddy something in a will. Then make a will. Why the need for government sponsorship?
__________________Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
|
| Posted: 14 Nov 2009 09:05 |
|
|
|
Registered User
|
Posts: 4725
Join Date: Aug 2007
|
You said it yourself. It's not about the kids, it's a financial issue and there are more than a few of these in any relationship that have nothing to do with children at all. There are also quite a few gay couples and individuals interested in adopting, so this could still concern children in that way.
__________________But the backdrops peel and the sets give way and the cast get eaten by the play, there's a murderer at the matinee, there are dead men in the aisles
And the patrons and the actors too are uncertain if the show is through and with sidelong looks await their cue, but the frozen mask just smiles
|
| Posted: 15 Nov 2009 00:39 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 391
Join Date: Nov 2009
|
So Tim, people who can't have children can't get married. Oh and I guess since LEsbian's do still controll the means of production as it were, can get married?
No, the purpose of marriage is about merging of fincances and property. These are things that have no bearing on sex or reproduction. In fact, if you look historically at marriage, this is the whole of the purpose of the union. THe production of an heir was considered an obligation but it was not the purpose of the marriage. If it were, then Henry the V would have gotten his divorce, and there would be no protestant faith at all.
Given that gay people have property (oh and children, but that's beside the point) they should have access to this convenient legal construct that the state has created to facilitate to proper transfer and merging of property. To deny them access to this construct is purely discriminatory.
Oh and no, again it is no differnt than interracial marriage. That I and my wife can (and have) produced children does not mean that people fifty years ago didn't see it as an afront against god and nature. You oppose it because when you peep into people's bedrooms you are disgusted by what you see. I think you should stop looking in those windows (metaphorically speaking) and look at the fiscal question facing the state. Is this household, which contains two consenting adults merging income, debt, and property, and agreeing to raise any children in their custody together differnt in any objective way from another. That it contains two people of the same sex (something that is not illegal by the way) is not differnet than the house down the street with people of two races, or two religions.
That some moralist finds reason to take offense at the household is of no matter to the state, just as it's not the state's concern if the household memebers are Catholic, Jewish, Muslim, Wiccan, Atheist, or Evangelical Christian. There are moralists across the country that would find any one of those households improper places to raise children, but the state says it's not it's concern what goes on in your home. And the state should take a similar tack here.
|
| Posted: 19 Nov 2009 22:53 |
|
|
|
Administrator
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 4786
Join Date: Jul 2007
|
|
Quote:
Oh and I guess since LEsbian's do still controll the means of production as it were, can get married? Dude, think this through ok. Two girls can't naturally get pregnant without a guy.
The point of course is something you don't want to hear and that nature's way of bringing life into this world is just another sign that a intelligent God meant for man and woman to be together.
If it's only about money then let gay couples get a lawyer and create individual contracts.
Quote:
That I and my wife can (and have) produced children does not mean that people fifty years ago didn't see it as an afront against god and nature.
More of a sign of that particular day. If you go further back to ancient Biblical days that wasn't necessarily the case. God had told Israelites to marrry only Israelites but that was because of the differences in beliefs. The Bible in the New Testament instructs believers to marry other believers. People in the past used this as an example against interracial marriage. But most of that 50 or more years ago really had nothing to do with God as much as it was just politics of the day.
The perspective you aren't seeing is that this about gaining the hearts and minds of the next generation. The gay movement isn't about people doing their own thing as it is trying to bring other people along to their way of thinking. I'm just saying I'm not going along for the ride.
__________________Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
|
| Posted: 20 Nov 2009 02:08 |
|
|
|
Registered User
|
Posts: 4725
Join Date: Aug 2007
|
Perhaps marriage was only for the purpose of making children in your opinion or your house Tim. Why should anyone else hold themselves to this restriction, even other Christians and especially people who aren't Christians?
__________________But the backdrops peel and the sets give way and the cast get eaten by the play, there's a murderer at the matinee, there are dead men in the aisles
And the patrons and the actors too are uncertain if the show is through and with sidelong looks await their cue, but the frozen mask just smiles
|
| Posted: 20 Nov 2009 20:16 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 391
Join Date: Nov 2009
|
Yes bringing other to their way of thinking, just like that awful Martin Luther King Jr. did.
And just as predicted our nation has fallen to the evils of integration and misegination.
Why do you realize that a black man is currently president? If only we had listened to the wise men who tried to warn us.
Your right Tim, if gay people get to marry one another, who knows in 20 years, we might have to accept their basic humanity, employ them, and perhaps even serve under one as comander in chief.
What a horrible world that would be, Gay people as human beings and equal citizens. It is truly a dark world you imagine.
|
| Posted: 23 Nov 2009 23:37 Last Edited By: Tim |
|
|
|
Administrator
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 4786
Join Date: Jul 2007
|
You went off on a wild goose chase or something. I don't think I ever said gay people weren't human. I just don't agree with their lifestyle. I don't think they need to change marriage laws for them. I don't think they need special protection not granted everyone else already through the laws we've always had in this country.
The thing is they want me to say good job Lambert, kiss a guy on national TV and teach our kids it's ok, but I'm not going to do that bud. Not going to do that. So if I don't think a guy should kiss another guy, I think he's not human. That's stretching things a bit don't you think?
__________________Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
|
| Posted: 24 Nov 2009 17:41 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 391
Join Date: Nov 2009
|
That's fine Tim.
Just like people had a right to say, that it was shame and horror that Kirk kissed Uhura teaching our children that it was o.k.to mix the races. And look at where we are now, you let a white man kiss a black woman, pretty soon people will think it's o.k. for a white man to kiss a black man. It's a slippery slope.
The problem is Tim, you just can't see that you are dehumanizing a person. You see them as an other, and a pervert. That's fine, but you should own it.
People always want to say, "I'm not a bigot, I've got nothing against those people, I just don't want them around my people".
The bottom line is, it doesn't effect you. Seeing a hundred gay men kiss isn't going to turn you or your child gay, the most it will do is make your children not hate gay people (though not necessarily) the way you do, but to that I say, it's called being a parent.
If you want your child to hate the people you do, you have to sit them down and teach them yourself. You can't expect society to raise your children to hate the way you do, society is based on people getting along, it will always try to prevent disagreements where ever possible.
Don't expect society to raise your kids, If your kids dare to think gay people are human, that's because you didn't take the time to sit down with them and explain to them how they are perverts and dangers to your family. It's not my fault your a bad parent and can't teach your child to hate those differnt than themselves properly.
I know, cultures a hard influence to fight, but just think how hard it's been for all those people trying to raise their children without prejudice when everytime there is a display of nonconfoming behavior the airwaves are full of bigots calling it a danger to the naiton as a whole.
We all have to determine what kind of kids we raise, and society is going to do what it does regardless. At times society encouraged hatred and seperation, at other times not so much. But if you actually bother to be a parent it doesn't matter what society does, they will still reject your belifes, teachings and philosophies at the age of 16.
|
| Posted: 25 Nov 2009 18:19 Last Edited By: Tim |
|
|
|
Administrator
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 4786
Join Date: Jul 2007
|
I'm not sure I should even bother to respond. To me Matches to be quite honest. Your way of thinking is just plain, insane. I half way keep thinking that you are just pulling my leg, but I know how people think these days so I guess you actually believe what you are writing.
First of all stop comparing apples to oranges. I wouldn't compare a dude kissing another dude to kissing a black chick unless she was a really ugly black chick or ugly white chick for that matter.
I don't think it's dehumanizing to say kissing a dude is like kissing an old ugly hound dog. Gross dude! Just gross!
And your definition of hate is what I would call not liking someone or something. You know you can even love someone like a brother or sister and not like them based on their actions. Hate to me usually means an emotion that carries with it some kind of destructive action like murder. The Bible compares hating your brother to murder in your heart. So don't use the word hate to me because I'm not in that category of emotion on this subject.
All I can say is children shouldn't be taught that this behavior is acceptable. I will not put my stamp of approval on it to please you or to avoid being called a bigot by people like you. Good game you got going on, but I'm not playing.
__________________Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
|
| Posted: 25 Nov 2009 19:47 |
|
|
|
Registered User
Currently Offline
|
Posts: 391
Join Date: Nov 2009
|
You don't think it is dehumanizing to compare kissing a gay man to kissing a dog. You don't think it is dehumanizing to compare a gay person to a dog.
Any way, that's not the point. My point is. That all this righteous indignation you are throwing at gay people. It's the exact same righteous indignation that was thrown at every group from Africans to the Irish by those who hated them.
Their were biblical quotes trotted out to call interacial dating a crime against god and humanity, just as there are biblical quotes to say that gays are evil, and those that marry outside their religion are evil.
Now, I do get what you're saying, you find the activities of homosexuals repulsive. As an intereting point, the term "homophobic" while often thought to mean fear of homosexuals can mean simply repulsed by homosexuals (in the way that oil molecules are hydrophobic)
You're argument is if gay people would just stop being gay, you'd stop being repulsed by them. That it's nothing personal, but you find this intrinsic aspect of who they are repulsive.
Now maybe you think that homosexuality is a choice, much like your own heterosexuality was clearly a choice. And that gay people could just go out and have sex with the opposite sex, just as easily as you can go out and have sex with the same sex.
There's not much of an argument you can make against that. If homosexuality is choice, then you are certainly justified in thinking that it is perverted, but how is it anymore perverted at it's core than a white man having sex with a black woman, and would it have been seen as less perverted by those who worked to stop that sort of thing decades ago?
You say it's apples to oranges, but how is it? How when someone uses the same language, the same methods, and the same efforts to hold down a group, how can it be apples to oranges.
Your argument seems to be, those in the past were wrong because you disagreed with them, not because of anything intrinsic in their arguments. The fact is Tim, in 60 years, you will be seen as the bigot, in the same way those just trying to perserve the status quo were seen as being bigots 60 years ago.
As I said, you don't have to accept gay marriage, just realize that you are on the wrong side of history here. Just like those who refused to accept interracial marriage 60 years ago and still do to this day.
|
|
