Where the conservatives at? [Archive]

Bhodi_Li

03-20-2004, 10:33 PM

pssh whatever, this is about as moderate as it comes when it comes to AA forums
Damn liberal hippies! LOL, J/K.

My job makes me more of a conservative since they are the ones that will make sure we have enough money and manpower to properly prepare for what we need to do. Former-President Clinton decimated the military with the manpower and funding reductions. I saw tank company's train with HMMWV's because they didn't have enough money for tank fuel and parts. This was in 3d ACR, which is considered one of the elite armor units. There is a requirement for well-trainined, well-prepared armed forces, and that requires revenue. Failure to ensure this will result in needless deaths of soldiers and that is unacceptable.

At times the liberal nature of these forums frustrates me because there is a requirement for a global presence by the US. I'm not saying that it is necessarily a global military presence, but as the lone superpower we have an obligation to try to make the world a better place. Now, unfortunately, that can be taken the wrong way and result in a heavy-handed foreign policy, which I believe is currently the case. Having studied and been a part of, the US foreign policy, I have come to the conclussion that the US is extrememly manipulative politcally, economically, and militarily. As the executor of policy, this has always been one of my greatest concerns. That being my soldiers would perish for a policy that is immoral or at the very least questionable. The world that we live in has become extremely complex (wasn't it always?) and the right answers seem to be only right based on the position or perspective that you have.

actually i was a republican until bush came to office.
So your political views have changed or your opinion of the party has changed?

mr. x

03-20-2004, 10:37 PM

heres how i see myself

when i was a kid i used to say shit like "kill all iraqis, nuke em etc" and these days i know thats just not the way to go, and im hearing howard stern on the radio talking about wanting to blow some burqa's head off and im thinking "you got it all wrong man burqa's are what afghan women wear"

and then i remember its howard stern

Bhodi_Li

03-20-2004, 10:42 PM

i used to say shit like "kill all iraqis, nuke em etc" and these days i know thats just not the way to go
Most of us don't want to kill all Iraqi's, just the ones that keep shooting at us :wink: They make us angry.

Question on this thread..... Once you say "I'm a conservative," where does the thread go after that?

rice cracker

03-20-2004, 11:17 PM

Fuck it, I was a liberal before I knew what YW was. You can't be a colored person and be a republican. That's been the philosophy since I was a toddler.

Mr.Lum

03-20-2004, 11:21 PM

Craig

03-20-2004, 11:25 PM

Most of us don't want to kill all Iraqi's, just the ones that keep shooting at us :wink: They make us angry.

Question on this thread..... Once you say "I'm a conservative," where does the thread go after that?Do you really expect all Iraqis to just stand by after their country has been invaded ? Should they be welcoming the US soldiers with open arms ? At least some of them know if they cause enough trouble locally with the US soldiers, it has the potential to delay the US from invading the next country.

Kuchana

03-20-2004, 11:29 PM

Do you really expect all Iraqis to just stand by after their country has been invaded ? Should they be welcoming the US soldiers with open arms ? At least some of them know if they cause enough trouble locally with the US soldiers, it has the potential to delay the US from invading the next country.

I don't think that Bhodi was implying that all Iraqis would welcome the U.S. with open arms.

And as a matter of fact, I believe that it isn't a delay that the Iraqis want but to rule their own country.

To the topic, I consider myself a moderate Republican.

Yeahman

03-20-2004, 11:44 PM

umm.... OK why do you think this forum is so liberal?

I don't know where I stand, myself. I guess I'm a conservative Democrat but conservative in the exact opposite way that Joe Lieberman is, if that makes sense. Take Lieberman and replace all this liberal positions with the opposite conservative positions and all his conservative positions with the opposite liberal postions and that's pretty much were I stand.

I read an article somewhere a couple of days ago that used a term that I think fits me; a post-liberal.

I was a far-left liberal throughout college. I don't think I held a conservative position on anything. Maybe it was just getting older or something but I slowly became more and more conservative. Me now, would be frustrated at me then, and vice-versa in a debate on the issues.

Bhodi_Li

03-20-2004, 11:46 PM

Do you really expect all Iraqis to just stand by after their country has been invaded ? Should they be welcoming the US soldiers with open arms ? At least some of them know if they cause enough trouble locally with the US soldiers, it has the potential to delay the US from invading the next country.
Ahhh at least we know where the conservatives are NOT at. I'm not going to derail this thread. Let's find a different one to discuss this. For the record, you're generalizing all Iraqi's as resistance fighters. Over here it's not that way. The lines are as gray as you can get them.

AngryABCGirl

03-21-2004, 12:55 AM

Fuck it, I was a liberal before I knew what YW was. You can't be a colored person and be a republican. That's been the philosophy since I was a toddler.

Yeah that's my philosophy. I'm more liberal in the cultural sense of with gay marriage and abortion but you might consider me more conservative fiscally. Personally I'd like to a belong in a party that ephasizes not trying to beat each other into ambigious moral pulps and just do what works with least suffering, but that's too simple and perhaps logical to come true.

Jeff Yu :)

03-21-2004, 01:45 AM

I think I'm somewhat of a moderate, on things like foreign and domestic policy, and economics. However, I can't see myself voting for the Republican party anytime soon. Too many things about them piss me off. The Bush administration has been shamefully lying since they came into office, trying to sell a war in Iraq based on non-existent WMDs, and they've led more than half of America to believe that Saddam was behind the 9/11 attacks.

I'm no fervent democratic supporter, and I agree on a sound and somewhat conservative fiscal policy, but honestly Republican support base on the "flyover states" just scares me. I get a daily dose of conservative news from www.freerepublic.com and www.nationalreview.com just to see what differing opinions are. Just head there and take a look to see what I mean. I have no problem with moderate Republicans, but the following categories of Republican supporters scare me.

1) Religious right ie the "I hate gay people crowd": These people are constantly trying to enforce their religion on others. They preach damnation and hellfire on Muslims, atheists, and gays, and if they're extreme enough, Catholics too. They're the ones who don't believe in seperation of church and state, and that children in schools should be indoctinated with the Ten Commandments. And of course, science and evolution are EVIIIIIIIIIL works of Satan. Any woman who gets an abortion is a gleeful baby killer. And these idiots also oppose sex education and condom distribution, which contributes to teen pregnancy and STDs. Of course, they're also likely to oppose programs for helping teenage parents, too. We saw how influential they are when they collectively shat themselves and screamed for blood over a boob being shown at the Super Bowl. For examples, www.godhatesfags.com and www.chick.com

2) Neoconservatives ie the "I hate brown people" crowd: Neoconservatives are the ones who want a heavy-handed foreign policy, and want to bitchslap any country that so much as even blinks at the US. I'm all for peace and justice and the American way, but not manipulation of foreign governments, and advancing US interests at the expense of lesser powers. An example is Ann Coulter, who believes we should invade all Muslim countries, kill their leaders, and convert them all to Christianity. Of course, this can lead to crossovers with the previous category, who believes that the Crusades were good things and that we should start new ones. Many are also hostile to India, a democracy, because it's a developing economy "stealing" US jobs, while these same people may regard Pakistan, a dictatorship, as stout allies on the war on terror. In general these guys are constantly shitting themselves on China, see the European Union as socialist and enemies, virulently hate France and Germany, regard Canada as traitors, and are vehement supporters of Israel (of the kind that believe ethnically cleansing Palestine and creating a Greater Israel is a Good Thing). For example, look at http://www.newamericancentury.org/

3) Economic libertarians, ie the "I hate poor people" crowd: The extreme people who beleive that all government taxation is stealing, and that income tax should be at a flat rate, or completely abolished. May also be violently opposed to illegal immigration. I've heard some extremists advocating land mines on the Mexican border. They believe slashing all government spending except on military, and are virulently opposed to government spending of any type. For example, check the News forum for the new bill that would deny medical treatment to illegal immigrants. This is generally the same crowd that believes environmental laws, workplace safety laws, health care, minimum wage, and anti-discrmination laws are hindrances to economic growth and should be eliminated. For examples, see Pat Buchanan, or Harry Browne.
http://www.harrybrowne.org/articles/ExportingJobs.htm

4) Southerners, ie the "I hate black people" crowd: How many Republican supporing idiots in the south do we still have who proudly wave Confederate flags? Once in a while, we still hear about them, like the Georgian high school that held it's first interracial prom in 2001 and then promptly resegregated again in 2002. Remember, the Republican party gained the allegiance of the deep south when Nixon made race an issue. More of a dying breed nowadays (hopefully), or overlapping with the religious conservatives, but as we saw with Trent Lott, they still exist, and they vote Republican.

Before any conservatives start huffing and puffing and getting mad, I realize I don't represent the majority of conservative opinions out there, and that these are extremist views, and also that extremists exist on the left, too. HOWEVER, the right-wing extremists scare me far more than the left-wing ones, and in my opinion, hold more political power than any kind of left-wing people, especially the religious conservatives. Any politician must cater to his support base, or he won't stay in office for long and when a large portion of their support base consists of these people, they WILL respond, and appease them to get their votes. That's why I can't see myself ever voting for the same candidates as these people.

Maybe in ten years I'll feel different, but for now, these are opinions I believe pretty strongly in.

Holy crap, upon seeing this post, I just suddenly went and posted a spontaneous rant. Well, this is bound to generate some controversy :)

ModernLogic

03-21-2004, 03:56 AM

I think I'm probably the most conservative on this forum. By the way, liberalism/conservativism are ideologically irrelevant to Democrat/Republican. Lyndon Johnson was a liberal Republican.

Jeff Yu :)

03-21-2004, 07:13 AM

What the heck are you talking about? Lyndon Johnson was JFK's vice-president, and inherited after he got shot.

Nadjanema

03-21-2004, 07:19 AM

Hello??? So are Democrats :rolleyes:

I never said they weren't. :biggrin:

VV o n g B a

03-21-2004, 07:47 AM

So your political views have changed or your opinion of the party has changed?
my views had changed some, but my party affiliation had not. but upon taking office, bush pushed so many things that i disagreed with strongly that i really started regretting his election. the republican party backed his proposals and so i basically said to myself, "screw these assholes." i'm not a democrat right now either. i don't like their protectionist bent at all.

Yeahman

03-21-2004, 08:04 AM

LBJ was a Democrat.

Liberalism/conservatism are loosely related to Democrat/Republican parties. You don't find ultra-liberals in the Republican party and you don't find ultra-conservatives in the Democratic party.

Over the last 4 years it seems like the 2 parties have been pushed to the extremes. The Democratic party is so liberal that on many of the issues (ie. partial-birth abortion) the majority of Democratic voters think the party's too liberal. The Republican party is so neo-conservative that even traditional conservative Republicans have critisized the administration.

As I developed my ideology more and more over the years, I found that I don't fit into a neat little box. I think that because of our 2-party system, too many people are forced into little boxes at both extremes. It would be nice to have a 3rd party (probably ultra-liberal) so that one of the parties (probably the Democratic) would be forced toward the center. Still no party would be totally in tune with my views but they would get closer.

What is fiscal liberalism/conservatism? Those definitions have been blurred over the years. On the non-social issues Howard Dean was my man. I agreed with his fiscal policy, trade policy, foreign policy, healthcare policy, and even gun policy. He was moderate-to-conservative on those issues.

Socially, I don't think there is a politican out there who shares my views. I'm pro-life in all its forms (against abortion, capital punishment, and the war). Kucinich shared my views until he turned pro-choice. I am against gay marriage but strongly in favor of more gay rights (just don't think marriage is one of them). I hate how nudity is still taboo in the US but I also hate how religion is becoming increasing taboo too. I'm for the free expression of body and soul, even in government buildings. I hate how Bush uses religion as a political tool but I also hate how the Democrats try to be as religious ambiguous as possible.

i'm not a democrat right now either. i don't like their protectionist bent at all.
Oh I hate protectionism. That's why I liked Dean and why I thought that Kucinich may have made a worse president than Bush.
Paul Krugman on free trade and John Kerry...
http://www.iht.com/articles/131693.html

Mo'Taka

03-21-2004, 09:16 AM

I'm a little on the conservative side. Except I do believe that you can't rely on the democrat or the republicans on race issues. Both parties suck. But maybe it's because I'm economically conservative while socially liberal.
I have no home with these ideologies. :frown:

AliBabaIncorporated

03-21-2004, 09:49 AM

3) Economic libertarians, ie the "I hate poor people" crowd: <SNIP> For examples, see Pat Buchanan
Uh, if you think Pat Buchanan is a libertarian, it's clear you're highly confused either about libertarianism or about Pat Buchanan. Harry Browne is diametrically opposed to him.

Also, plenty, probably most libertarians are in favor of unlimited immigration, or of using market mechanisms to allocate work visas (e.g. if an immigrant can find a job and there's a company willing to pay his catastrophic expensies, let him in). I'm one of the rare ones who is opposed to unlimited immigration. Contrary to your fanciful image, there are no libertarian extremists planting mines on the Mexican border. That would be people like http://www.vdare.com/, who with the exception of maybe one or two authors, are firmly in the Buchanan, anti-libertarian camp. Interestingly enough, some VDARE authors have been leaning towards supporting Ralph Nader recently ...

Finally, libertarians are moving away from the Republican party because of two reasons:
1) Republicans claim to want smaller government, but they really only want less government spending in areas which support the Democrats, like the Department of Education or welfare. Conversely, the Democrats don't even try to claim to be for smaller government, but they'd also love to take an axe to some parts of the budget, e.g. the military.
2) Republicans claim to be pro-market, but they don't understand the difference between that concept and "What's good for General Motors is good for America" (e.g. they'll impose tariffs to protect GM's lazy ass and subsidize them out of consumer pocketbooks).

not even gonna respond to lame insults like "the i hate poor people crowd" ...

Faithless

03-21-2004, 09:53 AM

I'm no conservative, but yellow world looks like far-left world to me. Anybody here not a tree-hugger?
Well, how do you want YW to be?

Maybe there can be an accomodation.

Should YW just accept everything in the Bible and be happy with that?

Should YW just accept Mr. Bush as the savior of the American people?

Yeahman

03-21-2004, 10:12 AM

^ Thanks for proving my point.
You guys really do live in another world.

Tao

03-21-2004, 10:54 AM

^ Thanks for proving my point.
You guys really do live in another world.
i'm too lazy to look up your previous posts in other threads. what is it exactly that you so vehemently disagree on?

Chester

03-21-2004, 11:01 AM

^ Thanks for proving my point.
You guys really do live in another world.What is your point?

Yeahman

03-21-2004, 11:19 AM

missmeow

03-21-2004, 11:26 AM

I am not a liberal. I am not a tree hugger. I don't want Spanish as the nation's second language. I don't think everyone has a right to put their hands in the government pocketbook. I don't think we have the right to happiness.

Does it make me a conservative? I don't know.

I do know that I am liberal in certain respects, mostly social issues such as gay marriage/abortion/legalization. But in other social issues, immigration/welfare, I am very conservative. Fiscally, I am middle of the road.

Craig

03-21-2004, 11:30 AM

To make this fair an balanced:rolleyes: Just noticed you are explicitly stating your calling card and source of indoctrination.

Yeahman

03-21-2004, 11:53 AM

What is your point?
That the predominate views of this forum are liberal at least socially. And there are even elements of ultra-liberalism like ChottoMatte.

One may argue that a forum such as this which encourages social change, is necessarily liberal. The people of this forum would be expected to be for looser restrictions on immigration and for affirmative action. But does that mean that they must also be for gay marriage and abortion? I don't think so. The leaders of the civil rights movement of the 60's were conservatives. They were the religious right. I doubt that Martin Luther King Jr would be pro-choice today and I doubt that Malcolm X would be for gay marriage today.

:rolleyes: Just noticed you are explicitly stating your calling card and source of indoctrination.
It was meant as as subtle joke.
My calling card is Comedy Central. The Daily Show with John Stewart is my source of indoctrination.
I watch Fox News on occasion for laughs.

>:^|

03-21-2004, 12:39 PM

Yellowworld visitors abound
Who seem to give us the perpetual :mad:.
I find it really ironic and striking
That so many stay when it's not to their liking
It must have to do with achtung's great renown. :biggrin:

Nadjanema

03-21-2004, 01:31 PM

oh please, yw is only somewhat left liberal - it just might seem as though we're these radical terrorists because we never talk about anything conservative. if anything, it's moderate on most of the issues because you all make it moderate.

if it went to my liking, we'd be talking about killing white people, assasinating bush, and how dumb hapas really are (syke).

love,
prof. frink

KILL WHITEY! Er... I mean, yeah, people don't seem to be that radical.

yoMAMA

03-21-2004, 01:41 PM

I dispise both the republicans and democrats, and if i vote for anybody, it would be for the green party.

And oh yeah, Ralph Nader is a grumpy old man!

:tongue:

When you are young and conservative, you have no heart.

When you are old and liberal, you have no brain.

-Winson Churchill

missmeow

03-21-2004, 01:49 PM

I can't give frink anymore karmas, but I just gotta Bettie Page girls unite :D

Faithless

03-21-2004, 03:36 PM

^ Thanks for proving my point.
You guys really do live in another world.
We certainly do.

Aint it grand.

Chester

03-21-2004, 04:22 PM

That the predominate views of this forum are liberal at least socially. And there are even elements of ultra-liberalism like ChottoMatte.Maybe not, maybe so.

But, fundamentally, YW is not some organization that has the responsibility to represent all points along the spectrum with equanimity.

Certainly not in the Forums, which are composed of disparate individuals. If said individuals, as a group, are far-left or far-right, politically, then that's just the way it is.
The people of this forum would be expected to be for looser restrictions on immigration and for affirmative action. But does that mean that they must also be for gay marriage and abortion? I don't think so.What you think is largely irrelevant when it comes to how I arrive at my personal beliefs. I imagine this is the case for most people here.
The leaders of the civil rights movement of the 60's were conservatives. They were the religious right. I doubt that Martin Luther King Jr would be pro-choice today and I doubt that Malcolm X would be for gay marriage today.First: this is, again, irrelevant. Just because I agree with some or most of what MLK thought doesn't mean that I have to agree with everything he thought, or agree with his decision to not believe in certain things.

Secondly: your personal definition of how MLK would feel about current events is your own personal definition and is hardly definitive. I think, if MLK were alive today, he would support gay marriage. And I think that believing in civil rights for blacks goes hand-in-hand with believing in civil rights for homosexuals.

I won't speak for the others, but my belief that homosexuals deserve full civil rights on par with heterosexuals is based on my personal beliefs and are not some knee-jerk acceptance of "The Liberal Agenda."

Anyway...what are you proposing -- that the liberals in the Forums censor themselves or adopt rightist views just so that there's "equal time"? Should the moderators limit posts coming from certain viewpoints if that viewpoint is already overrepresented in relation to the contrary viewpoint?

I think people on YW lean to the left, with some leaning far-left. But...
1) I don't have a personal problem with this.
2) I don't see any way that this can be changed, nor do I see any need to change this.

So if your point is that YW is left-leaning/lurching, then I agree with you. But I don't see what that point has any bearing on.

Jeff Yu :)

03-21-2004, 05:04 PM

To make this fair an balanced, I am going to mirror Jeff Yu's list.

1) Secular left ie the "I hate religious people crowd": Constantly trying to deny the religious from expressing their religion freely. They'd love to have every mention of faith stricken from public sight. They want seperation of church and state to go beyond the constitution to mean that church is not allowed to be mentioned in any function or facility of the state. These people want not only to allow the barbaric practice of partial-birth abortion, but they want the government to pay for it with taxpayer money despite the fact that the majority of taxpayers are opposed to it.

2. Peaceniks ie the "I hate guns" crowd: These people not only opposed the war in Iraq which I agreed with but they opposed the war in Afghanistan. They want to pull our troops out completely without securing Iraq. These are people like Dennis Kucinich who wants to reduce the Pentagon to a cubical and destroy our military capabilities.

3. Protectionists/Socialists ie the "I hate Wal-mart and the WTO" crowd: These guys are possibly the worst because they hurt ALL Americans. They want an infinately progressive income tax which is not only unfair but economically unsound. They want to pull out of the WTO and NAFTA raise tarrifs. This of course, is the voodoo economics of trade. It makes goods more expensive, companies less competitive, foreign nations poorer, lowers quality, etc... They want to keep social security at the current low yields because they have a fundamental distrust of the markets (they are socialists afterall). They want to cut into the R&D spending of the pharmaceutical companies and will do everything they can to hurt big business.

4. San Franciscans ie the "I hate the law and order" crowd: The mayor is breaking the law, and nobody is doing anything about it. Far from it, people are supporting him. These people think that everything should be permissible. They'd legalize narcotics and polygamy if they could.

You know, I think you've just summarized European political attitudes in four simple points! :-) I'll try to address your points:

1) In general, I find that debating religion is useless because no one ever changes their opinion after a lot of headbutting, so I'll just state my views and leave it. I believe in seperation of church and state being enforced. If you're a Buddhist or atheist (or whatever): school prayer, banning evolution, teaching the ten commandments, means that you or your kids are being taught opposing religious values by the state. Abortion is opening a whole other can of worms, but the religious lobby has successfully halted other stuff, like unrestricted stem cell research, which holds the key to future medical research.

2) I don't agree with the extremists as I believe that the war was just, but I think they're important. They're the ones that are constantly reminding us of the need to be humane in war, of human rights, and whether our wars are justified. I don't believe that we should excercise our military power irresponsibly, and thanks to this crowd, someone will always point out if we do.

3) This crowd barely exists if at all in American politics. Socialism may be exclusive to the left, but protectionism isn't. Protectionists exist on both sides of the political spectrum.

4) The mayor is practicing civil disobedience, breaking a law to protest what he feels is unjust, accepting whatever punishment will come, and then attempting to challenge it in court. I find nothing wrong with this. Martin Luther King and the civil rights movement practiced mass civil disobedience to secure our rights. I find that in general, people diagree with civil obedience only when they advocate political opinions they disagree with, so I'll ask you: What's your opinion on Judge Roy Moore, who defied a court order to remove the Ten Commandments monument from the Alabama courthouse? Is he too an honorary San Francisco of the "I hate law and order crowd" despite being conservative? Or is he different because he's defending religion?

Kuchana

03-21-2004, 07:17 PM

I didn't see this thread for the sake of nothing. In fact I think it was an informative one where ye110man was curious to see who the conservatives were. I've also observed that the majority of the views represented here lean to the left but do I have a problem with it? No, being that it's their views and they're perfectly entitled to it just as I am to mine.

ellsworth81

03-21-2004, 08:45 PM

the question is who doesn't adhere to any of these bs political labels.

Yeahman

03-21-2004, 09:56 PM

First I want to say to everyone that I don't have a problem with the left lean of yw. I was making a simple observation and want to find out what the opinions of others were.

1) In general, I find that debating religion is useless because no one ever changes their opinion after a lot of headbutting, so I'll just state my views and leave it. I believe in seperation of church and state being enforced. If you're a Buddhist or atheist (or whatever): school prayer, banning evolution, teaching the ten commandments, means that you or your kids are being taught opposing religious values by the state. Abortion is opening a whole other can of worms, but the religious lobby has successfully halted other stuff, like unrestricted stem cell research, which holds the key to future medical research.
I'll agree with you somewhat. But I was just saying how the secular left wasn't much better than the religious right. Evolution should be taught in schools. The ten commandments should be taught in schools (in a world history class). That's what most moderates both religious and secular want. The extremists on both sides what something else.
The religious lobby don't oppose stem cell research. They oppose stem cell harvesting from the aborted. It isn't "other stuff." It's the same issue.

3) This crowd barely exists if at all in American politics. Socialism may be exclusive to the left, but protectionism isn't. Protectionists exist on both sides of the political spectrum.
Are you saying that the "I hate Wal-mart" and "I hate the WTO" crowd barely exists in American politics? They're very popular positions on the far-left.
You're right that protectionism exists on both sides. It's a great way to win voters at the cost of the common good. And the Democratic party does hold a stronger protectionist view which is why they are supported by the unions.

4) The mayor is practicing civil disobedience, breaking a law to protest what he feels is unjust, accepting whatever punishment will come, and then attempting to challenge it in court. I find nothing wrong with this. Martin Luther King and the civil rights movement practiced mass civil disobedience to secure our rights. I find that in general, people diagree with civil obedience only when they advocate political opinions they disagree with, so I'll ask you: What's your opinion on Judge Roy Moore, who defied a court order to remove the Ten Commandments monument from the Alabama courthouse? Is he too an honorary San Francisco of the "I hate law and order crowd" despite being conservative? Or is he different because he's defending religion?
No, the difference is that MLK and Judge Moore faced disciplinary action. The mayor of San Fran did not. The mayor of New Paltz in New York was charged for doing the same thing. You break the law, you gotta pay for it. I didn't think the 10 commandments should have been removed from Judge Moore's courthouse. But when he was suspended I also agreed with that decision. The law is the law regardless of whether or not you agree with it.
Upon charging the mayor of New Paltz, NY Attorney General Eliot Spitzer said "I personally would like to see the law changed, but must respect the law as it now stands."

Secondly: your personal definition of how MLK would feel about current events is your own personal definition and is hardly definitive.
Granted.

I think, if MLK were alive today, he would support gay marriage. And I think that believing in civil rights for blacks goes hand-in-hand with believing in civil rights for homosexuals.
I highly doubt MLK would be for gay marriage. Despite being liberal on most social issues, blacks today are opposed to gay marriage. Many black ministers have spoken against it. Jesse Jackson has said that gay rights is not civil rights.
I agree with you that gays deserve all the rights of heterosexuals. But marriage has been defined as being between one man and one woman. This is the law and the American people have spoken. Yet a small minority of America basically wants to change the English language.
Let me ask you, do you also support polygamy?

AngryABCGirl

03-21-2004, 10:54 PM

I agree with you that gays deserve all the rights of heterosexuals. But marriage has been defined as being between one man and one woman. This is the law and the American people have spoken. Yet a small minority of America basically wants to change the English language.
Let me ask you, do you also support polygamy?

Aww shit man, I was totally gonna respect your post, but you had to pull out the irrelevant polygamy agrument.

Yeah I guess this means I lean left, but for civil rights I'd say hell yes.

Yeahman

03-21-2004, 11:29 PM

I don't see how polygamy is any less relevant to gay marriage than black civil rights.

kitty

03-21-2004, 11:34 PM

I don't see how polygamy is any less relevant to gay marriage than black civil rights.

Because the slippery slope argument is more of a scare tactic than anything else.

I mean -- giving civil rights to blacks!! What's next? Giving civil rights to pets?
Let's let Asians into the country?? How about letting sheep get visas? Any law, under the slippery slope argument, could be used in a 'what-if' argument to scare people into not passing it for fear of the 'next step'.

It's pointless and doesn't address the actual merits of the actual topic at hand. If you disagree with gay marriage, argue about why you disagree, not try to talk about how scary the 'next step' is. If you can't put forth an argument based on its own merits, then one must assume that you have none.

Chester

03-22-2004, 12:00 AM

I highly doubt MLK would be for gay marriage.Your authoritative evaluation on MLK's hypothetical views are duly noted...and rejected.
Despite being liberal on most social issues, blacks today are opposed to gay marriage. MLK was not and is not "blacks today."
Many black ministers have spoken against it. MLK was not and is not today's black ministers.

Jesse Jackson has said that gay rights is not civil rights.
MLK was not and is not Jesse Jackson.

Furthermore, Jesse Jackson is not the grand arbiter of what does or does not constitute a valid civil rights struggle.
But marriage has been defined as being between one man and one woman. This is the law and the American people have spoken. ...in some states. And, I might add, unconstitutionally.
Yet a small minority of America basically wants to change the English language.If you're referring to the supporters of gay marriage, then a large minority of America supports gay marriage.

When people campaigned for the civil and human rights of minorities, a large minority of America supported a change in the English language to include blacks within the definition of "human."

And, in terms of the current struggle for the civil rights of homosexuals, a sizeable majority of Americans support unconstitutional exclusion of homosexuals. Perhaps that's what you're referring to.
Let me ask you, do you also support polygamy?Let me ask you: what does polygamy have to do with marriage between two men or two women?

Let me ask you: is your ostensible argument against gay marriage so barren and empty that you have to resort to the cheap, rhetorical tactic of changing the argument to mask your position's deficiencies?

sageb1

03-22-2004, 02:29 AM

I'm no conservative, but yellow world looks like far-left world to me. Anybody here not a tree-hugger? Actually, I like to be a *little bit* of BOTH, because of this yen to balance out.

It may not be realistic but in a far-left world I'll be left; in a conservative world, i'll be right.

I don't see how polygamy is any less relevant to gay marriage than black civil rights. Black civil rights isn't relevant to gay marriage.

Polygamy is relevant to countries where it may be the rule. Polyandry should also be considered, in light of traditional Tibetan marriages.

Yet polymorphous marriage overall is relevant to gay marriage.

As well, heterosexual marriage is relevant though since gay relationships may reflect straight relationships in ways that go beyond it i.e. neither female nor male aspects of the personality dominate.

My conclusion is that men and women would benefit from learning how to ensure that neither their female nor male traits dominate their personality.

I think it's called metrosexual.:biggrin: It might be called politically, equalitarian.

Yeahman

03-22-2004, 02:53 AM

Because the slippery slope argument is more of a scare tactic than anything else.

I mean -- giving civil rights to blacks!! What's next? Giving civil rights to pets?
Let's let Asians into the country?? How about letting sheep get visas? Any law, under the slippery slope argument, could be used in a 'what-if' argument to scare people into not passing it for fear of the 'next step'.

It's pointless and doesn't address the actual merits of the actual topic at hand. If you disagree with gay marriage, argue about why you disagree, not try to talk about how scary the 'next step' is. If you can't put forth an argument based on its own merits, then one must assume that you have none.
We're talking about consenting adult humans here. Hardly comparable to pets and sheep.

Mr.Lum

03-22-2004, 03:00 AM

I think conservatiives are pigs, and they are usually white. some asian and some black and some latino. usually white. I usually think of a crusty white man and grey hair.

if gays can marry, Mormons and Muslims and hindus should be able to have multiple wives. discrimination. its part of our religion eh? dont marry gays. thats bs. marriage is man and woman, everywhere always. give them a different name. then unite them and give them rights. but out of the respect for our civilization do not call it a "marriage".

Yeahman

03-22-2004, 03:08 AM

When people campaigned for the civil and human rights of minorities, a large minority of America supported a change in the English language to include blacks within the definition of "human."
Which edition of which dictionary excluded blacks from the definition of "human"?

Let me ask you: what does polygamy have to do with marriage between two men or two women?

Let me ask you: is your ostensible argument against gay marriage so barren and empty that you have to resort to the cheap, rhetorical tactic of changing the argument to mask your position's deficiencies?
That was weak. Just answer the question.

sageb1

03-22-2004, 03:09 AM

I think conservatives are pigs, and they are usually white. ... usually white. I usually think of a crusty white man and grey hair.
I recall once when I picketed Esso for Greenpeace along with a half dozen other people, this white guy matching your vague description come up and say he was choked we were picketing his friend's station, and that the employees needed to eat etc.

This guy even wanted to debate with us - I had a deja vue of a street preacher except this guy was more of a street politicker.

Here in British Columbia, Canada, is a 99% majority of conservative BC Liberals declaring war on "welfare bums", the homeless and the disabled.

I'm pretty sure conservatives when they get rabid veer into despotism, both in local government and federally.

kitty

03-22-2004, 05:52 AM

We're talking about consenting adult humans here. Hardly comparable to pets and sheep.

Agreed. We are talking about consenting adult humans.

We're also talking about the inapplicability and general weakness of the 'slippery slope' argument.

Which edition of which dictionary excluded blacks from the definition of "human"?

the editions that came out prior to civil rights and the end of slavery. it was in our Constitution that blacks were 7/8ths of a man.

Yeahman

03-22-2004, 10:22 AM

Agreed. We are talking about consenting adult humans.

We're also talking about the inapplicability and general weakness of the 'slippery slope' argument.
How come nobody in support of gay marriage wants to touch the polygamy question? Is it because you know you'll slip?

the editions that came out prior to civil rights and the end of slavery. it was in our Constitution that blacks were 7/8ths of a man.
I'm having trouble finding any dictionary from the 19th century. I would appreciate it if you could provide us with the definition of "human" from a pre-abolition dicitonary.

US Constitution Article I, Section 2.
"Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons."

They were full fledged "Persons" but only 3/5ths of them would be included in calculating the number of representatives and amount of direct taxes.

The definition of "person" did not change. The rights of certain persons changed. Let's work for gay rights not for editing dictionaries, especially against the will of the people who use them.

yoMAMA

03-22-2004, 10:29 AM

I really don't see why gays can't marry, just like straight people can.

Why is discrimination right?

Yeahman

03-22-2004, 10:48 AM

I really don't see why gays can't marry, just like straight people can.

Why is discrimination right?
Marriage: The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife.
That's why. Gay marriage is an oxymoron. It's like asking why dwarfs can't be tall. A dwarf should have the rights of a tall person, but he can't be called a "tall person"! And no it's not discrimination to deny a dwarf the "right" to legally be considered "tall."

Chester

03-22-2004, 11:08 AM

Which edition of which dictionary excluded blacks from the definition of "human"?
The Constitution used to define blacks as being 3/5ths of a person with regards to population counts and taxation. And because blacks were not afforded the full rights of other citizens, the Constitution's denial of their full human status was more than implicit.

But blacks are obviously humans, as are homosexuals. And because they are humans just like everyone else, they deserve full protection of the Constitution, just like everyone else. And because of this, they deserve the right to marry, just like everyone else. Quite simple.

And insofar as this tired talk of dictionary definitions: the last time I checked, neither Mr. Merriam, nor Mr. Webster, nor the editors of the OED were ever U.S. legislators and have no role in the formulation of our laws.

I don't consider authors of dictionaries to be experts on either the topic of jurisprudence or morality, and don't look to dictionaries in order to find answers about what is right or wrong for society.

Society changes over time, as do words, their definitions, and how we use them in our lives. The limits of our society are not defined by the short-sightedness of our forebears. This could be labeled "evolution" or perhaps "progress."

If you're unfamiliar with either term, you can always consult a dictionary.
That was weak. Just answer the question.
I don't answer questions that are obvious, weak attempts to divert the conversation onto irrelevant tangents.

kitty

03-22-2004, 02:11 PM

my bad, it was 3/5ths, not 7/8ths. moral of the story - jenn needs more than 3hrs a sleep a night.

and yell0man, contrary to your anachronistic interpretation of the text, the only interpretation taht matters is the one that was actually used in history. that being the one were each black person was counted as 3/5ths of a human.

>:^|

03-22-2004, 02:17 PM

I think we identified where the conservatives at.
Yanked them all out of the woodwork to combat.
Found some liberals too
And a leftist or two
Why don't we just leave it at that?

Jeff Yu :)

03-22-2004, 04:46 PM

Uh, if you think Pat Buchanan is a libertarian, it's clear you're highly confused either about libertarianism or about Pat Buchanan. Harry Browne is diametrically opposed to him.

Also, plenty, probably most libertarians are in favor of unlimited immigration, or of using market mechanisms to allocate work visas (e.g. if an immigrant can find a job and there's a company willing to pay his catastrophic expensies, let him in). I'm one of the rare ones who is opposed to unlimited immigration. Contrary to your fanciful image, there are no libertarian extremists planting mines on the Mexican border. That would be people like http://www.vdare.com/, who with the exception of maybe one or two authors, are firmly in the Buchanan, anti-libertarian camp. Interestingly enough, some VDARE authors have been leaning towards supporting Ralph Nader recently ...

Finally, libertarians are moving away from the Republican party because of two reasons:
1) Republicans claim to want smaller government, but they really only want less government spending in areas which support the Democrats, like the Department of Education or welfare. Conversely, the Democrats don't even try to claim to be for smaller government, but they'd also love to take an axe to some parts of the budget, e.g. the military.
2) Republicans claim to be pro-market, but they don't understand the difference between that concept and "What's good for General Motors is good for America" (e.g. they'll impose tariffs to protect GM's lazy ass and subsidize them out of consumer pocketbooks).

not even gonna respond to lame insults like "the i hate poor people crowd" ...

Ok, to respond, I have in fact seen opinions that advocated both extreme libertarianism, AND international isolationism, ie Browne in regards to domestic issues, Buchanan in regard to foreign policy. I realize that these are extremists, and thus don't represent mainstream libertarian opinion, and I don't mean to say as such. If that's what you interpreted, I'm sorry.

Man, fighting off the forces of evil is such a hard job sometimes.........

First I want to say to everyone that I don't have a problem with the left lean of yw. I was making a simple observation and want to find out what the opinions of others were.

Ok, to respond to your points again. I'll leave the abortion issue again since I don't want to go off-topic.

Are you saying that the "I hate Wal-mart" and "I hate the WTO" crowd barely exists in American politics? They're very popular positions on the far-left.
You're right that protectionism exists on both sides. It's a great way to win voters at the cost of the common good. And the Democratic party does hold a stronger protectionist view which is why they are supported by the unions.

What I meant was that socialists are almost non-existant in US politics. You'll find just as many "I hate Walmart" people in the right as on the left. The left hates Walmart for sweatshops and third-world exploitation; the right hates China and the US's huge trade deficit with them. The "I hate WTO" crowd barely exists as a political entity. By that I mean they're capable of drawing huge crowds, but don't exist as a united voting bloc. Go to any WTO protest, and you'll find it's a smattering of environmentalists, feminists, union groups, hippies, third-world advocates, promoters of cultural diversity, organic farmers, anarchists, socialists, communists, Wiccans, and more. On any issue other than anti-WTO, you'll find that they hold absolutely no political power.

No, the difference is that MLK and Judge Moore faced disciplinary action. The mayor of San Fran did not. The mayor of New Paltz in New York was charged for doing the same thing. You break the law, you gotta pay for it. I didn't think the 10 commandments should have been removed from Judge Moore's courthouse. But when he was suspended I also agreed with that decision. The law is the law regardless of whether or not you agree with it.
Upon charging the mayor of New Paltz, NY Attorney General Eliot Spitzer said "I personally would like to see the law changed, but must respect the law as it now stands."

The fact that mayor Gavin Newsome wasn't punished was the decision of the court, not his, probably because punishing him could have led to a court case where he could attempt to challenge the no-gay marriage law. Instead, the court just ordered him to stop, which he did. So I don't find anything wrong with what he did.

As for gay marriage, I'm very liberal on social issues, and I think it should be allowed. Canada and Massachussets haven't burned up in hellfire and brimstone yet for allowing gay marriages, and I don't understand the sanctity of marriage argument. How will two guys marrying make you enjoy fucking your wife any less? There was never any solid dictionary definition of marriage. Marriage differs from culture to culture. Different cultures may practice monogamy, polygamy, polyandry, may allow divorce, may prohibit it, may accept arranged marriages, or may have different customs and ages for marriage. I don't feel it's my place to judge. I don't see how a wedding in Who Wants to Marry a Millionaire is more sacrad and blessed than two men marrying. The fact that the religious lobby is attempting to pass a Constitution amendment to ban gay marriage means that gay marriage is constitutional.

mr. x

03-22-2004, 09:22 PM

again im gonna say it, ye110 you are NOT gonna find a more moderate asian forum than this one. everyone else is even lefter

Bhodi_Li

03-22-2004, 09:26 PM

even lefter
That's not even a word!!!! LOL

mr. x

03-22-2004, 09:39 PM

That's not even a word!!!! LOL

guess that makes me bush :rolleyes:

>:^|

03-22-2004, 09:42 PM

That's not even a word!!!! LOL

Sure it is. It's the perfect answer to the question What the conservative do with his liberal Asian girlfriend? :biggrin:

myself808

03-24-2004, 07:19 PM

myself thinks Mr Lum got it right in that most conservatives are white, and minorities tend to be moderate to left leaning, so on a board consisting of mostly minorities.....

Oh and using the dictionary to justify arguments against gay marriage is incorrect. the English language constantly evolves. it reflects societal usage, it does not define society. thirty years ago the word "party" was not a verb, a mouse was only an rodent, and the word byte was non-existant.

When there is a large enough support for polygamy as there is today for gay marriage then we can take the slippery slope argument seriously.

justchris

03-25-2004, 02:48 PM

Hello??? So are Democrats :rolleyes:

yeah, i think both groups can be pretty evil.
word up.

so i was wondering, what kind of "values" determines your political inclinations? what makes you conservate? is it belief in a more individual, self-deterministic view, and that's why people are in their respective situations? what kind of experiences have you had to lead you to your conclusions and ideals?

Emperor_Mike

03-29-2004, 06:51 AM

Not exactly a full Conservative, but more of a Centrist with Conservative leanings when it comes to non-social issues.

Pragmatist, really.

Yeahman

03-29-2004, 11:01 AM

myself thinks Mr Lum got it right in that most conservatives are white, and minorities tend to be moderate to left leaning, so on a board consisting of mostly minorities.....
I wouldn't say minorities. Hispanics tend to be conservative. Asians (outside of this forum) are fairly moderate.

When there is a large enough support for polygamy as there is today for gay marriage then we can take the slippery slope argument seriously.
So something has to have large enough support to be a civil rights issue?

kimpossible

03-29-2004, 11:28 AM

hooligan

03-29-2004, 11:29 AM

I'm part of the "I hate people who come on and post dumb sweeping assumptions about everyone's political affiliation that usually reinforces bi-partisan bullshit" crowd.

I swear you're absolutely fucked in this country if you're liberal on personal freedoms but conservative on fiscal issues or foreign policy. Well, I am an ardent supporter of gay marriage AND the right to bear arms AND a supporter of US troops AND think the troops need to come back home. Fuckin' A, this two party either/or system sucks ass.
word. : \

kimpossible

03-29-2004, 03:11 PM

To restate something similar to what mr. x said in another thread why is that if you don't like Bush Jr. and/or a strong supporter of the Republican party, you're like this leftist pinko commie tree-hugger all of a sudden? I can think of two recent threads started: this one and another by David Joo.

If you like Bush and you are a diehard Republican, just vote! I don't think most of us give a shit, it's not like we're not aware that there's an election this year. I personally don't see how you can look at the guy (Dubya) and think "Ah, a competent leader." But hey, I'm not you and you have the right to vote. Vote for your candidate and I'll vote for mine. I could care less if you don't like Kerry, I'm not a big supporter either but I'm scared shitless of four more years of Bush.

mr. x

03-29-2004, 03:13 PM

i think a lot of people even just casual republicans or conservatives are afraid of radicalism of any nature cuz it shakes up their black and white, good vs. evil simplistic universe. like i get this certain reaction when i hear words like zionist (coming from a leftist) and its probly cuz i grew up not caring much for israel vs. palestine and i still to this day no little about what goes on there other than the back and forth killings. i guess its cuz i feel like im being accused of helping israel commit crimes i dont know about nor really care for

mr. x

03-29-2004, 03:17 PM

lol - you are silly. you go to de anza community college, of whom the administration sends over funds to israel.

fucked up, yes, can you do something about it.........(?) but you're moderate, so it's all good. :wink:
love,
prof. frink

how so? like a "visit israel" sorta thing? whattaya want me to do about it.

and thats the thing frink obviously its hard to get guys like me to care so much cuz i didnt grow up with the israel = evil mindset and when im told im sleeping with them and aiding/abetting and im like "whats this got to do with me"

kimpossible

03-29-2004, 03:34 PM

^ Thanks for proving my point.
You guys really do live in another world.

One guy's answer didn't prove anything for all of us. You said yourself in another post that you had moderate political views, many of us said the same thing.

how so? like a "visit israel" sorta thing? whattaya want me to do about it.

and thats the thing frink obviously its hard to get guys like me to care so much cuz i didnt grow up with the israel = evil mindset and when im told im sleeping with them and aiding/abetting and im like "whats this got to do with me"

well the greater point here is that if you truly don't understand the nature of the relationship between the US and Israel, the bilateral funding, the special tariff reductions or outright eliminations, the arms sales, the purpose of the US in supporting Israel as a strategic proxy presence, these are the type of things that have the US as the ultimate responsible party or at least partner in what Israel does militarily.

just because one person or another paints you in ignorance unfairly without actually explaining some background or pointing you in the right direction really shouldn't dissuade you from looking into it. beyond that even, it's really worth it to start looking into the history of the region and i'd venture perhaps examining the history of the Crusades isn't out of line.

Yeahman

03-29-2004, 04:05 PM

and thats the thing frink obviously its hard to get guys like me to care so much cuz i didnt grow up with the israel = evil mindset and when im told im sleeping with them and aiding/abetting and im like "whats this got to do with me"
Nice to know that you don't care about human life.

To restate something similar to what mr. x said in another thread why is that if you don't like Bush Jr. and/or a strong supporter of the Republican party, you're like this leftist pinko commie tree-hugger all of a sudden?
I'm no fan of Bush. I am voting for Kerry in November. Most Democrats are not leftist pinko commie tree-huggers. But that doesn't mean that leftist pinko commie tree-huggers don't exist, even in this forum.

kitty

03-29-2004, 04:07 PM

why not embrace the leftist pinko commie tree-huggers? there's nothing but hate in this thread.

kimpossible

03-29-2004, 04:34 PM

I'm no fan of Bush. I am voting for Kerry in November. Most Democrats are not leftist pinko commie tree-huggers. But that doesn't mean that leftist pinko commie tree-huggers don't exist, even in this forum.

I'm no conservative, but yellow world looks like far-left world to me. Anybody here not a tree-hugger?

^That sounds accusatory to me. And I think we run the gamut of political stances, far right, far left and many in between. Of course they exist on the forum and in this thread. We don't dole out membership based on political stance and since this is the Rant Room it's the perfect place to air political stances and debate. I'm happy we have a variety, that way I can consider points of view I wouldn't normally have.

edit: but I am sorry if I misunderstood your point which I first interpreted as leftist=bad and should be labeled a silly name like treehugger which is meant to be a cheap shot at a pro-environmental stance.

why not embrace the leftist pinko commie tree-huggers? there's nothing but hate in this thread.

Because it's a juvenile attempt to render valid and serious political stances (questioning military involvment, imperialism, arms sales and the war on terrorism, taking a pro-environmentalist stance) invalid and I think I'm taking it more seriously because it's a Presidential election year.

nonamerasian

03-29-2004, 04:40 PM

I wouldn't say minorities. Hispanics tend to be conservative.

It's divided amongst the different nationalities.

For example, I believe people of a Cuban background have a reputation for voting Republican, especially if living in Cuban communities, such as those in Florida.

Hispanics with background in the other countries in the Caribbean, people of Central American descent and Mexicans tend to vote less Republican as a whole and individually are perhaps more diverse in voting patterns than Cubans.

At least those were the stats I learned in h.s.

I don’t remember where people of South American descent stand.

Yeahman

03-29-2004, 04:56 PM

why not embrace the leftist pinko commie tree-huggers? there's nothing but hate in this thread.
Would you embrace a right-wing Bible-thumping neo-con?

And I think we run the gamut of political stances, far right, far left and many in between. Of course they exist on the forum and in this thread. We don't dole out membership based on political stance and since this is the Rant Room it's the perfect place to air political stances and debate. I'm happy we have a variety, that way I can consider points of view I wouldn't normally have.
I have not seen anyone here who is a social moderate, let alone social conservative.

Chester

03-29-2004, 05:27 PM

they're are
Hah.

hooligan

03-29-2004, 05:30 PM

and sigh - get over it - so what if they're are [somewhat :rolleyes: ] politically left thinkers here. just start a conservative people of color club (now is that contridictory!)

love,
prof. frink
what exactly do you want to accomplish with this thread yellow?

Yeahman

03-29-2004, 05:52 PM

what exactly do you want to accomplish with this thread yellow?
I answered that question at least one other time a few pages ago.

I wanted to discuss an observation. There is nothing for me to "get over." There is nothing for me to "accomplish." I'm not a part of the right-wing conspiracy. Why is it that any moderate-to-conservative opinions are automatically thought to have a political agenda?

hooligan

03-29-2004, 05:55 PM

I answered that question at least one other time a few pages ago.

I wanted to discuss an observation. There is nothing for me to "get over." There is nothing for me to "accomplish." I'm not a part of the right-wing conspiracy. Why is it that any moderate-to-conservative opinions are automatically thought to have a political agenda?
haha. sorry, i should have read the rest of the thread, but that's like 100 posts. you're pretty moderate actually. this board veers to the left, but we've got conservatives here, those who don't go to the left are few in number. i was talking to andy about this and due to the lack of conservative voices this board just looks radically left-leaning. that's all right though, as long as we keep it professional and not resort to personal attacks, i think we can all get along. :)

Yeahman

03-29-2004, 05:57 PM

oh please - if there are some democrats that are pinko commie tree-huggers, they wouldn't be democrats. hmm - i must be a pinko commie tree-hugger!
Geez. Obviously it was not meant as a serious characterization.
By far-left I mean people like the presidental candidate Dennis Kucinich (as opposed to the pre-presidental candidate Dennis Kucinich who was a moderate).

hooligan

03-29-2004, 06:01 PM

Geez. Obviously it was not meant as a serious characterization.
By far-left I mean people like the presidental candidate Dennis Kucinich (as opposed to the pre-presidental candidate Dennis Kucinich who was a moderate).
i was thinking, but being a minority and left leaning is really different than being white and left leaning. being conservative and minority, where does that put your stance?

Yeahman

03-29-2004, 06:25 PM

The Republican party may have had a history of racism in the 60's but there is nothing inherent in conservatism that is anti-minority.

hooligan

03-29-2004, 06:36 PM

you can also say that some of the democratic party is anti minority as well. it's not a party issue, it's a people issue.

kimpossible

03-29-2004, 06:50 PM

lol.

he said people (multiple) had told him that. i don't see how that should deter him from learning regardless. he's of voting and tax paying age.

I have not seen anyone here who is a social moderate, let alone social conservative.

But why do we need to prove our political views to you? And let's say for the sake of argument that everything you just said is true. Where would the bad be in that?

Yeahman

03-29-2004, 07:08 PM

But why do we need to prove our political views to you?
You don't. It was a harmless query.

And let's say for the sake of argument that everything you just said is true. Where would the bad be in that?
Never said it was bad.
Unless, maybe you consider underrepresentation of social conservatism, a negative.

sageb1

03-29-2004, 07:48 PM

Supposedly because spirituality instantly appeals to me until the endorphins wear off I'm considered to be a fringe conservative.:confused:

No no! Mostly I am more harmless than Mormons objecting to a white guy who is a Buddhist. Honest!

From what I have been told, my claims of being a moderate (the ideal from the Buddhist standpoint) is entirely a delusion.:tongue:

Regarding Bush, if he can allocate money to Christian groups to look after the homeless and the needy, then why isn't any money forthcoming to the Buddhist community in America who are also contributing to looking after the needy within their own community? :confused:

Oh wait! I'm a naive Canadian and don't realize that the Buddhist community prides itself in looking after its own. Also I made the mistake of mixing religion and politics. :redface:

Um, hello!? A great man named Gandhi once said that people who believe that religion has nothing to do with politics, don't know what religion is.

Personally though I think the Clintons are cool since the Democrats have had a womanizer for president and a closet bisexual woman who thinks New York is one helluva town!:biggrin:

kitty

03-29-2004, 09:04 PM

Would you embrace a right-wing Bible-thumping neo-con?

All night, if I have to, to get that Bible-thumpin' juuuust right :biggrin:
(okay... bad joke. it was funny when I thought of it)

Seriously, I have. In fact one of the reasons I was well-liked among the campus politicos was because I made a concerted effort to outreach to the conservatives as much as the liberals.

A lot of my good friends are Bible-thumping neo-cons -- and I make fun of them for voting Bush all the damn time :)

Make love, baby. Make love, not war.

I have not seen anyone here who is a social moderate, let alone social conservative.

Well, YW is a voluntary forum -- and has only so much control (or should have only so much control) on the political ideologies represented here. If you feel like the lone conservative (which you're not, believe me) then you could try recommending the site to fellow conservatives.

Geez. Obviously it was not meant as a serious characterization.
By far-left I mean people like the presidental candidate Dennis Kucinich (as opposed to the pre-presidental candidate Dennis Kucinich who was a moderate).

kucinich is crazy. I think that would be obvious, since the gnome-like creature hasn't gotten more than like a fraction of a percent of the vote...

MellowDrama

03-29-2004, 09:12 PM

I was a card-carrying member of the RNC until 2002. Now I'm independent.

Yeahman

03-29-2004, 09:27 PM

I was a card-carrying member of the RNC until 2002. Now I'm independent.
Bill O'Reilly, is that you?

mr. x

03-29-2004, 11:18 PM

ye110 im curious about you, i mean sure there are conservative minorities, hell at one point i was saying we should kill all iraqis back in elementary school, but i wonder what your background is and stuff

hooligan

03-29-2004, 11:39 PM

Yeahman

03-30-2004, 12:25 AM

Background? I'm a post-liberal moderate Democrat. You can see my age and location. I was once just as liberal as all of you. My parents are moderate-to-conservative Democrats. In the voting booth I just pick Democrats down the line. The 2 exceptions were in the last NY governor's race (I voted independent but only because the top Democratic contender dropped out) and the last NY senator's race (I vote against Hilary, the tourist).

I'm not exactly sure why I became more conservative. I guess it's just age. I've become more set in my ideology. I realized that the world isn't grey. There is pleny of black and white. I may also have been the disillusionment due to my party moving to farther to the left. I'm not too happy with a lot of people within my own party.

My positions on the issues...
For the war in Afghanistan, against the war in Iraq (from the very beginning).
I do not want to pull out of Iraq until we get the UN in.
Very opposed to the barbaric death penalty.
I'm a Keynesian. I like government spending. Reducing unemployment should be the focus of fiscal policy.
Universal healthcare but kept in private hands if possible.
For helping big business. If I had my way I'd get rid of corporate income tax altogether.
I'm a flat-taxer but with an exemption on say, the first $15,000 for single filers with no dependents.
Against letting individuals invest their social security but for having the government invest it in the stock market.
I'm against the importation of generic drugs. Fix the laws here with shorter patent lives and matching government R&D funds.
I'm against government subsidies.
I'm for free trade.
I'm for school vouchers.
I don't believe in global warming and I believe we should be drilling in Alaska.
I'm for affirmative action based on economic status not race.
I'm against gay marriage but for gays in the military. If I had my way I'd get rid of civil marriage altogether.
I'm for the legalization of prostitution with certain limitations.
I'm against the decriminalization of drugs but I'm against the Rockafeller laws and other over-the-top laws. You should be fined. It would save the states billions.
I'm against taking "under God" out of the pledge.
I'm for malpractice payout caps and for a special court for malpractice suits. Jurers from the general population are too sympathic towards the victim.
I'm for strict gun control but against a ban on concealed weapons.
I'm pro-life but know that I cannot impose my views on others so if I had my way I would do everything in my power to stop abortions short of denying women the choice. I was for the ban on that barbaric partial-birth abortion. In fact I've been pretty satisfied with Bush on this issue and pretty disappointed with Kerry.
And I think Israel needs to get out of occupied territory and reimburse the Palestinian refugees and the US should deny aid if they do not comply. Granting the right to return is unrealistic. Once all that is accomplished the UN should personally go after Palestinian terrorists.

hooligan

03-30-2004, 12:30 AM

what are you views on race? and the positions that asian americans hold in relation to african americans and latino/a americans?

Yeahman

03-30-2004, 12:39 AM

what are you views on race? and the positions that asian americans hold in relation to african americans and latino/a americans?
I'm not sure what you mean.

myself808

03-30-2004, 01:04 AM

I wouldn't say minorities. Hispanics tend to be conservative. Asians (outside of this forum) are fairly moderate. hispanics being conservative is debatable. but what about asains and blacks? myself would say not a lot of conservatives there.
So something has to have large enough support to be a civil rights issue?yes for enough popular support for the public to take it seriously, and not laugh at it on the news as wackos or extrremeists, (slippery slope arguments aside of course).

Yeahman

03-30-2004, 01:52 AM

What constitues large enough support? Gay marriage doesn't have majority support in any party.

Hispanics are more socially conservative then the general population. Asians are fairly evenly divided. Blacks are socially liberal.

>:^|

03-30-2004, 05:12 AM

I highly doubt MLK would be for gay marriage. Despite being liberal on most social issues, blacks today are opposed to gay marriage. Many black ministers have spoken against it. Jesse Jackson has said that gay rights is not civil rights.

Many White ministers have spoken against it.

Here's what Coretta Scott King has to say:

Civil rights leader Coretta Scott King denounced the proposed constitutional ban on same-sex marriage during a speech on Tuesday, saying, "Gay and lesbian people have families, and their families should have legal protection, whether by marriage or civil union."

The widow of slain civil rights icon Martin Luther King Jr. has often spoken against discrimination based on sexual orientation during the last 10 years.

kitty

03-30-2004, 07:10 AM

Many White ministers have spoken against it.

Here's what Coretta Scott King has to say:

The widow of slain civil rights icon Martin Luther King Jr. has often spoken against discrimination based on sexual orientation during the last 10 years.

agreed. people get the 60's all messed up. MLK wasn't for 'black civil rights'... he was for 'CIVIL RIGHTS'. period. He would be completely for civil rights for the LGBTQ community because he was all about civil rights for every citizen.

It was only later that people started describing it as 'black civil rights'... almost as it's own form of racism.

Yeahman

03-30-2004, 04:52 PM

agreed. people get the 60's all messed up. MLK wasn't for 'black civil rights'... he was for 'CIVIL RIGHTS'. period. He would be completely for civil rights for the LGBTQ community because he was all about civil rights for every citizen.

It was only later that people started describing it as 'black civil rights'... almost as it's own form of racism.
But as Jesse Jackson has said, gay marriage isn't about civil rights! Fighting for something like serving in the military, would be a civil rights issue. Fighting to be considered a man and a woman is not. Not every ban of a class of people is a civil rights issue! I cannot go into a woman's restroom. You think MLK would have fought for desegregation of the bathrooms?

During the civil rights movement of the 60's a large portion of the religious right was active in supporting the movement. On this issue of gay marriage, the religious right are absent. Besides the gay community, no cross-section of America supports gay marriage. Not blacks, Hispanics, Asians, whites, men, women, the young, the elderly, Protestants, Catholics, Muslims, immigrants... Nobody.

You really think that REVEREND King would have supported it? BTW if you read his sermons, you will see that he was no Al Sharpton. He was a real minister of a very conservative denomination. There is no doubt that he would have disapproved of homosexuality on religious grounds.

maxwell

03-30-2004, 04:56 PM

People from the far right and the far left rub me the wrong way equally. The issue I care most about is taxes. Republicans are more likely to lower capital gain tax and I'd like that very much.

Yeahman

03-30-2004, 05:03 PM

The widow of slain civil rights icon Martin Luther King Jr. has often spoken against discrimination based on sexual orientation during the last 10 years.
"To equate homosexuality with race is to give a death sentence to civil rights." - Alveda Celeste King, niece of MLK

African Americans Offended By Comparison Made By Gay Marriage Activists
By Jimmy Moore
Talon News
March 8, 2004

Many African Americans have become increasingly offended by the comparison made by gay marriage activists to the struggle blacks went through to obtain civil rights in the United States.

Jason West, the young mayor of New Paltz, New York, who continued to perform weddings for homosexual couples over the weekend despite facing 19 criminal counts last week for allowing gays to get married, remarked that the gay marriage movement is simply "the flowering of the largest civil rights movement the country's had in a generation."

He added, "The people who would forbid gays from marrying in this country are those who would have made Rosa Parks sit in the back of the bus."

Similarly, San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, who has allowed nearly 4,000 gay marriages to take place in his city since February 12, used a civil rights comparison as justification for allowing same-sex weddings to take place.

"Rosa Parks didn't wait for the courts to tell her it was all right to ride in the front of the bus," Gavin told Newsweek.

However, many civil rights leaders are not pleased with the comparison.

Rev. Gene Rivers, president of the National Ten-Point Leadership Foundation and a minister in Boston, said gay activists have no right to compare their struggle with what blacks went through in the 1950s and 1960s.

"The gay community is pimping the civil rights movement and the history," Rivers told the Associated Press. "In the view of many, it's racist at worst, cynical at best."

Bishop Andrew Merritt, head of Straight Gate Ministries in Detroit, joined several other local pastors recently to support traditional marriage and denounce these comparisons to black civil rights.

"We find the gay community's attempt to tie their pursuit of special rights based on their behavior to the civil rights movement of the 1960s and 1970s abhorrent," Merritt told the AP. "Being black is not a lifestyle choice."

Even Rev. Jesse Jackson, an icon of the civil rights struggle, has stated gay rights cannot be equated with civil rights for blacks.

"The comparison with slavery is a stretch in that some slave masters were gay, in that gays were never called three-fifths human in the Constitution ... and in that they did not require the Voting Rights Act to have the rights to vote," Jackson recently stated in a speech he made in Boston.

Rev. Joseph Lowery, who supports gay rights, said he is disturbed that gay activists try to compare their struggle with what blacks went through.

"Homosexuals as people have never been enslaved because of their sexual orientation," he told the AP.

Star Parker, a conservative black leader in California, said black Americans may be liberal on many social issues, but "not this one," referring to gay marriage.

Rev. Jeffrey Brown, a Massachusetts pastor who has joined with others in the Black Ministerial Alliance of Greater Boston, said he is joining the effort against gay marriage because "there is something to this that is not right."

While some blacks may not agree with the comparison, the issue is a reminder to many of them of the struggles they went through for rights.

Yet, despite the attempt by gay activists to find empathy for their cause from black Americans, several conservative groups are encouraging black churches to outright deny the erroneous comparison.

"We oppose attempts to equate homosexuality with civil rights or compare it to benign characteristics such as skin color or place of origin," states the Family Research Council on its website.

Matt Daniels, executive director for the Alliance for Marriage, argues "communities of color" strongly support traditional marriage and a constitutional amendment that would define marriage as between one man and one woman.

Interestingly, black Americans, who have traditionally voted overwhelmingly for Democrats, are torn between supporting Republicans, the party that opposes gay marriage or the Democrats, who are leading the effort to give marriage rights to homosexuals.

As previously reported by Talon News, the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies found that black support for the Democratic Party fell sharply from 74 percent to 63 percent from the 2000 election to the 2002 election.

nonamerasian

03-30-2004, 05:08 PM

Besides the gay community, no cross-section of America supports gay marriage. Not blacks, Hispanics, Asians, whites, men, women, the young, the elderly, Protestants, Catholics, Muslims, immigrants... Nobody.

I support gay marriage.

I'm a young, Black, Protestant, woman and I support gay marriage. Clearly, many other people do, too.

A whole group, for example, all youth, all Blacks, or all Protestants shouldn't have to agree for the individuals of each group to be listened to.

Yeahman

03-30-2004, 06:10 PM

A whole group, for example, all youth, all Blacks, or all Protestants shouldn't have to agree for the individuals of each group to be listened to.
Not a whole. The majority of each other those groups oppose gay marriage. I forgot to include Democrats and Republicans.

Sure you can listen to them. I was just trying to show how this is totally different from the civil rights movement of the 60's.

>:^|

03-30-2004, 06:12 PM

You really think that REVEREND King would have supported it? BTW if you read his sermons, you will see that he was no Al Sharpton. He was a real minister of a very conservative denomination. There is no doubt that he would have disapproved of homosexuality on religious grounds.

Why are you so insistent on this point? Do you know who Bayard Rustin is? And what the heck does this have to do with Where the conservatives at? anyway?

God is not just interested in the freedom of Black men, God is interested in the freedom of the whole human race. All life is interrelated. Whatever affects one directly affects all indirectly. The Negro’s primary aim is to be the white man’s brother, not his brother-in-law. God is love. Death is not the ultimate evil, the ultimate evil is to be outside God’s love. The trailblazers in human, academic, and religious freedom have always been in the minority. Evil never voluntarily relinquishes its head, short of a persistent, almost fanatical resistance.

Can you hear me singing We shall overcome? :wink:

kitty

03-30-2004, 06:37 PM

A) Dr. King is dead. What he would or would not say about gay marriage is really, irrelevant because we don't really know. That being said, he was not only fighting for *black* civil fights but ALL civil rights for all American citizens.

B) The black protestant ministers in African American churches are not now and have not been even during the heyday of the civil rights movement the main pulse of black political thought. In fact, most ministers were very wary of being so publicly outspoken about civil rights and were against the way Dr. King led the civil rights mvmnt -- so what a few black ministers say now is in no way representative of all of black culture, especially today.

C) Why does what Alveda King have to say about this issue matter? <sarcasm>Oh wait, a member of the King family said it! It must be right!!</> :rolleyes: Black folk don't believe that shit.

Emperor_Mike

03-30-2004, 08:35 PM

I completely disagree with all who say that the fight for gay marriages is not a civil rights initiative. No one ever said that civil rights is limited to race alone. The issue of homosexual marriages is one that lies clearly within the realm of the fundamental right to pursue whatever course an individual sees fit so long that it does not cause real and tangible detriment to others. To think otherwise would require a very precise and logical explanation of why it would not fall within the category of basic social liberties. As such, I'd like to hear from those of you who don't think that gay marriage is a civil rights issue. After all, if this is your view on it surely you can provide a good explanation on the matter, right?

Yeahman

03-30-2004, 09:00 PM

Why are you so insistent on this point? Do you know who Bayard Rustin is? And what the heck does this have to do with Where the conservatives at? anyway?
You're the one that brought it up again!!! Geez! Is your position that weak that once I point out the fallacies of your claim, you have to act like you didn't really care?

To Kittygirl, please be consistant and critisize >:^| in the same matter. He's the one that brought it up. Or is it just conservative opinions that are irrelevant?

I completely disagree with all who say that the fight for gay marriages is not a civil rights initiative. No one ever said that civil rights is limited to race alone. The issue of homosexual marriages is one that lies clearly within the realm of the fundamental right to pursue whatever course an individual sees fit so long that it does not cause real and tangible detriment to others. To think otherwise would require a very precise and logical explanation of why it would not fall within the category of basic social liberties. As such, I'd like to hear from those of you who don't think that gay marriage is a civil rights issue. After all, if this is your view on it surely you can provide a good explanation on the matter, right?
Civil rights is not limited to race alone. It extends to homosexuals. But the definition of marriage is not a civil rights issue. A homosexual man can marry a woman if he wants. Nobody is stoping him.

I'm sure I'll be accused of raising another "slippery slope" question that the gay-marriage supporters here will refuse to answer on the basis of "principle" (see Conie Rice and 9/11 Commission) but I will ask it anyway. Hopefully someone here will step up and not hide behind the curtains whenever an arguement works against them.
Should blood brothers be allowed to marry? According to logic of the supporters of gay marriage, this would also be a civil rights issue.

kitty

03-30-2004, 09:58 PM

You're the one that brought it up again!!! Geez! Is your position that weak that once I point out the fallacies of your claim, you have to act like you didn't really care?

To Kittygirl, please be consistant and critisize >:^| in the same matter. He's the one that brought it up. Or is it just conservative opinions that are irrelevant?

why should i criticize visage? I merely said that it doesn't matter who in who's family said what -- I make my own decisions on this issue, so telling me what corretta or alveda king said doesn't matter one iota to me.

Yeahman

03-30-2004, 10:07 PM

why should i criticize visage? I merely said that it doesn't matter who in who's family said what -- I make my own decisions on this issue, so telling me what corretta or alveda king said doesn't matter one iota to me.
Oh OK so...
"<sarcasm>Oh wait, a member of the King family said it! It must be right!!</> :rolleyes: Black folk don't believe that shit."
...was directed at >:^| ?

kitty

03-30-2004, 10:14 PM

Oh OK so...
"<sarcasm>Oh wait, a member of the King family said it! It must be right!!</> :rolleyes: Black folk don't believe that shit."
...was directed at >:^| ?

no, it was directed at you. but as i said in my most recent post, I don't care who said what in the king family -- it shouldn't make the issue less wrong or right.

it was directed towards your earlier post because you countered some argument with a quote from alveda king...

Yeahman

03-30-2004, 10:33 PM

kitty

03-30-2004, 10:45 PM

But >:^| is the one who brought it up. I mearly responded in kind with a quote from another MLK relative. I agree with you that it doesn't matter. But what I want to know is why you would direct your sarcastic comments towards me and not >:^| who is the one who obviously thought that it did matter.

His quote supports gay marriage. And my response did not. You say it doesn't matter but only mock the later when the same exact charge can be applied to the former. That is what's called a liberal bias. Hell, I'd even call it discrimination in this case.

well, i think he was responding to your charge that reverand king would've been against gay marriage -- which is personally what I'm really against. I don't see why it matters what Rev. King would be supportive of or not.

But yes, I also felt that visage's bringing up of coretta was also irrelevant. but if it makes you feel better, you can call me liberally biased. I am a progressive after all.

Yeahman

03-30-2004, 11:20 PM

I don't see why it matters what Rev. King would be supportive of or not.
It matters only in the sense that a definitive 'no' answer would take away the left's habit of likening gay marriage to the civil rights movement of the 60's.

But yes, I also felt that visage's bringing up of coretta was also irrelevant. but if it makes you feel better, you can call me liberally biased. I am a progressive after all.
Progressive is good so long as it doesn't cloud your objectivity.

Chester

03-31-2004, 12:23 AM

It matters only in the sense that a definitive 'no' answer would take away the left's habit of likening gay marriage to the civil rights movement of the 60's.No...it wouldn't...because, as we've discussed before, you are hardly a definitive expert on what Martin Luther King, Jr. would or would not believe if he had lived till today.

If you disagree with same-sex marriages, fine. If you want to debate the issue, fine. But if you debate the issue with real, substantive points and quit pretending that you're some occult medium who can channel the thoughts of the dead, you might find that you'll receive a greater amount of intellectual respect.

(And, really...if you stop two seconds to think about the issue, you're arguing that MLK would have had less capacity for moral growth than Strom fucking Thurmond, who managed to grow a bit along with society, as time progressed. But, then again...maybe your elevation of someone like Thurmond over someone like King isn't entirely unintentional...)

Yeahman

03-31-2004, 01:06 AM

You completely misunderstood. I didn't say that "no" was the definitive answer. I mearly stated what the effects of a definitive "no" would be. So you can quit it with the arrogant accusations.

It'll take you more than 2 seconds for you to convince me that moral growth leads to support of gay marriage any more than it leads to support of polygamy.

Emperor_Mike

03-31-2004, 02:57 AM

Civil rights is not limited to race alone. It extends to homosexuals. But the definition of marriage is not a civil rights issue. A homosexual man can marry a woman if he wants. Nobody is stoping him.

I'm sure I'll be accused of raising another "slippery slope" question that the gay-marriage supporters here will refuse to answer on the basis of "principle" (see Conie Rice and 9/11 Commission) but I will ask it anyway. Hopefully someone here will step up and not hide behind the curtains whenever an arguement works against them.
Should blood brothers be allowed to marry? According to logic of the supporters of gay marriage, this would also be a civil rights issue.

How is limiting the scope of the term "marriage" to cover only a union between a man and a woman by way of constitutional amendments not limiting the civil rights of homosexual partners to get married and as a result reap the social and financial benefits of being in that status? I'm still not convinced of your views. Do try and help me see the well reasoned logic behind your opinions and I shall respect them for that they are.

Where is the difficulty in answering the blood brothers question? That goes far beyond gay marriages, you know. That's incest and it belongs in a category of its own. You might as well insert "brother and sister" in place of "blood brothers" and nothing really changes. All the question is doing is taking an existing issue and putting a contemporary gay spin on it with no discernible reason or intelligence about it. Besides, the medical ills of incestous relationships have long been proven. Even if society decides to nod their heads to inter-family unions and overnight the social stigma vanishes there will still be a perfect scientific reason why such arrangements can never and indeed should never come to pass.

I do, however, agree that prima facie it is a civil rights issue. But the main difficulty here is that such relationships will in all likelihood have the effect of causing some sort of harm (to the offspring.) Granted, it may never happen and the children could very well turn out healthy, but there is a risk. And even if there is a slim chance (e.g. less than 0.000001%) that harm can come to another party by such circumstances the matter altogether ceases to be a legitimate civil rights subject. For once you start granting rights with inherent risks of harm involved you're playing Russian roulette. True social, political, and economic liberties to be argued in favour of should never stand to cause another person or group of people grief. Does this answer suit your enquiry? If not, throw some more questions at me.

All in all, I think arguments by both sides on a variety of issues are often severely lacking in common sense and intelligence. There's is only so much free will you can allow in society and only so much you can withhold. Why do people find it hard to view things from a position of reason?

>:^|

03-31-2004, 05:27 AM

I think we already know where the conservative at. :wink:

kitty

03-31-2004, 06:35 AM

It matters only in the sense that a definitive 'no' answer would take away the left's habit of likening gay marriage to the civil rights movement of the 60's.

Why? Reverand King wasn't the only person in the civil rights movement. While a very influential figure, he didn't encompass in and of himself what the civil rights movement was about.

Civil rights isn't about carrying out what one man wanted -- it's about taking a germ of an idea that he believed in and making it a reality. To that end, Reverand King believed in civil rights for all people, but was never challenged with gay marriage. How would he have felt? We don't honestly know -- what we do know is that his message was simply that ALL people should have EQUAL rights on the basis of sex, color and creed. Any conjecture on whether or not he would have then appended sexual orientation to that list is just that -- conjecture, and frankly meaningless.

If you think that civil rights is all about pleasing some ghost of Reverand King, than I think you've missed what the point of the whole struggle is, in the first place.

Progressive is good so long as it doesn't cloud your objectivity.

It don't cloud my judgement. But I think it's funny you should be writing this, since you seem to be fixating on Reverand King, as if this will solve all the holes in your argument.

You completely misunderstood. I didn't say that "no" was the definitive answer. I mearly stated what the effects of a definitive "no" would be. So you can quit it with the arrogant accusations.

It'll take you more than 2 seconds for you to convince me that moral growth leads to support of gay marriage any more than it leads to support of polygamy.

well we're talking logic here. Reverand King was never challenged with gay issues... but who's to say that he wouldn't have evolved to see them as a struggling community looking for civil rights?

Near the end of his life, he began arguing for the civil rights of the poor -- against the preference of the black community (because this was talking about poor whites as well as poor blacks). It's highly likely that he would've recognized the gay community as a group in a similar vein.

But argh! this is so moot!

Chester

03-31-2004, 09:22 AM

You completely misunderstood. I didn't say that "no" was the definitive answer. I mearly stated what the effects of a definitive "no" would be. So you can quit it with the arrogant accusations.You can quit with the disingenuous backpedaling.

Yes, you have tried to explain what effects a "no" would have, but you have, multiple times, tried to definitively state that MLK would have been against gay rights. You have brought up quotes from Jesse Jackson and relatives of King in order to bolster your hypothesis, which you pass off as a fact.

And so, no, I did not misunderstand. You misrepresented.

The civil rights movement of blacks in the 60s is a fantastic analogy for the gay rights movement of today. Both are struggles of people who are discriminated against by mainstream society. Both are groups who are guaranteed full protection of the law by the Constitution of our country but who are not given this protection in practice.

If you want to dispute that, you're going to have to do something more substantial than hypothesize about what MLK would or would not have though, had he lived until today. If he were alive today, his opinion would not determine the validity of the gay rights movement. And your opinion of what his opinion would have been is dramatically less relevant...to the point that it is utterly immaterial.
It'll take you more than 2 seconds for you to convince me that moral growth leads to support of gay marriage any more than it leads to support of polygamy.I have no doubt that it would take much longer than 2 seconds to explain something so elementary to you.

But lets try terms you can agree with: you are positing that MLK was incapable of having his mind changed, when even someone like Strom Thurmond had his mind changed (publicly, at least).

Let me spell it out clearly and succinctly for you: if you want to argue against gay marriage you have to present reasons why gay marriage would be bad for society. Like...you have to explain why it would be bad.

Talking about whether or not MLK would approve is not explaining why gay marriage would be bad. Talking about marriage between siblings does not explain why gay marriage would be bad.

You need to detail why. it. would. be. bad.

VV o n g B a

03-31-2004, 09:55 AM

It'll take you more than 2 seconds for you to convince me that moral growth leads to support of gay marriage any more than it leads to support of polygamy.
what's so wrong w/ polygamy if it is between consenting adults? as long as there's some kind of vetting process where the ppl are of legal age and understand what they are doing, then what's the harm? its not like everyone in the country is going to start marrying multiple ppl. its not like it will lead to a breakdown in society cuz different societies have handled the situation for millenia. even king solomon and king david. it's distasteful to me personally so i won't participate, but what gives u the right to tell ppl they shouldn't if they are fully aware of the situation? what of all the swingers clubs that exist b/c ppl are bored? will u then go and outlaw adultery? or sodomy or blowjobs? as long as it doesn't hurt anyone in the public, who are u to tell them how to act?

and if u wanna tackle incest then here's my view: incest ought to be illegal as long as both partners is fertile, but if they can't produce a baby, who are u to tell them they shouldn't have sex (given both are of legal age)? who gave u the moral authority? what consequence would it have on greater society if it was allowed? would every son/mother and father/daughter in society suddenly go out and start having sex? i think not.

Yeahman

03-31-2004, 05:56 PM

How is limiting the scope of the term "marriage" to cover only a union between a man and a woman by way of constitutional amendments not limiting the civil rights of homosexual partners to get married and as a result reap the social and financial benefits of being in that status? I'm still not convinced of your views. Do try and help me see the well reasoned logic behind your opinions and I shall respect them for that they are.
By all means homosexuals should fight for financial equality. And any other quantifiable discrimination.
But using the traditional definition of marriage does not discriminate against men or women. A homosexual man can marry a woman just as a heterosexual man can.

Where is the difficulty in answering the blood brothers question? That goes far beyond gay marriages, you know. That's incest and it belongs in a category of its own. You might as well insert "brother and sister" in place of "blood brothers" and nothing really changes. All the question is doing is taking an existing issue and putting a contemporary gay spin on it with no discernible reason or intelligence about it. Besides, the medical ills of incestous relationships have long been proven. Even if society decides to nod their heads to inter-family unions and overnight the social stigma vanishes there will still be a perfect scientific reason why such arrangements can never and indeed should never come to pass.

I do, however, agree that prima facie it is a civil rights issue. But the main difficulty here is that such relationships will in all likelihood have the effect of causing some sort of harm (to the offspring.) Granted, it may never happen and the children could very well turn out healthy, but there is a risk. And even if there is a slim chance (e.g. less than 0.000001%) that harm can come to another party by such circumstances the matter altogether ceases to be a legitimate civil rights subject. For once you start granting rights with inherent risks of harm involved you're playing Russian roulette. True social, political, and economic liberties to be argued in favour of should never stand to cause another person or group of people grief. Does this answer suit your enquiry? If not, throw some more questions at me.
Why are you assuming that marriage has anything to do with procreation? That's a liberal no-no. Don't tell me you buy that conservative nonsense that children are the fruit of marriage.
Besides, I said "blood BROTHERS" for a reason. We can't make a person out of 2 sperms, yet.

I think we already know where the conservative at. :wink:
That's the funny thing. I'm not a conservative. I'm presenting the views of moderate America. I'm presenting of the view of John Kerry.
The far-left is so out-of-touch that they assume that only the right opposes gay marriage.