Aah, but there are many policy areas which true conservatives should not support but do. Really most of the people who call themselves conservatives are actually right wing radicals. True conservatives are pretty dismayed with most of the politicians who claim the label.
This is quite true, though it is equally true of liberals. People in this country are more caught up in partisan politics and 'democrat' v. 'republican,' and therefore willing to simply go along with whatever their chosen side does, than to think about the principles they are espousing and trying to be consistent in following them.
Well, with how our government is going, I feel there's just too many holes in the dike and not enough fingers to plug them.
There are dozens of archaic laws in Leviticus and the rest of the Bible that no one gives a rat's ear about. Why can't you put this one in the same category? And then there's this: Jesus' own words (if you believe that stuff) in Luke 17. (17:34-35) Increase your chance of being raptured: Pray to be gay! Obviously meant something to someone at the time it was written, makes little sense today. Of course that doesn't stop people from believing they know what it means, just like it doesn't stop people from believing they know which Biblical laws matter and which don't. The evidence is clear that the physical attraction to the same sex is not a choice, it's biology. Time to get over the immoral nonsense. Wouldn't you agree kids should learn tolerance of people who are different? There's no evidence they will change their sexual orientation because being gay is perceived as OK. As for preservation of the institution of marriage, look into the history of marriage. The definition has been revised a number of times in the Bible and in US law. The claim our current version is some sacred institution is a belief that just isn't true.
This is all very sensible and in my opinion very on point. The LGBT community has its own, internal "silent majority". We're not a gay pride parade any more than str8 people are Daytona Beach durring spring break. We're just people living lives, paying taxes, buying homes, looking at Consumer Reports to get a good deal on a car.
It's really not equally true of liberals. Although it is sometimes true, there is no equivalence. This false equivalency is perpetuated by the right, and has resulted in an entire skewing of everything to the right. The bigger problem with the liberals is that they are not willing to band together even if they don't agree on everything. There is a LOT of criticism of President Obama from the left. It's much harder to establish a coalition of left-wingers than it is to do so with those on the right. Liberal factions fracture very easily.
Of course a liberal will say this. And when you make this point to conservatives they say "No, it's not us, it's the liberals. We don't do it as much." Load of bollocks from both sides, it's just that the people on either side maintain a willful blindness to it.
Sure. This isn't any different than talking to a conservative zealot. Just the flip-side of the coin. Neither side susceptible to reason. All too common in the country, but as you've demonstrated, getting people to have an open mind about it isn't easy.
I don't think it's necessary to personally attack and disrespect people. You can disagree with someone without lowering yourself to name-calling. This kind of vitriol will cause this thread to be shut down. Please be respectful.
It's very different. I can be persuaded by facts and reason. You have not engaged me in such an exchange, although I am certain you are capable of doing so. More and more of the Right's positions are tied up with religion and with oppression of certain groups. One of my core beliefs is that people should not be oppressed and I won't change that. I also believe that religion should be completely separate from government, because entangling them will serve to the detriment of both.
The mousey little girl headed for the kitchen to make popcorn. "This is going to be a long one," she said to herself. A couple things, telling gay people they are immoral is not quite, but almost as bad as referring to the Religious Reich and calling everyone in a large heterogeneous group, hypocrites. The difference mainly being word choice, but intent is equally bad. The facts do have a liberal bias currently, it has fluctuated throughout the history of the US (and I imagine the same is true in other countries), and one can always find examples on both sides of the isle. I don't find fault with the ideology of a smaller government and fiscal conservatism, but I do find fault when the narratives used to support that ideology are not evidence based.
Keep it civil, people. This is a first warning that if this thread gets out of hand it will be closed.
I don't agree with this and I don't think the mods will either. My own beliefs are that homosexuality is wrong is inward, toward myself. I would never compare another person to Nazi's, because it is inflammatory. I also wouldn't compare a Buddhists beliefs to fictional characters out of anger. I respect your right to have a differing view without name-calling or being inflammatory. I respect Justin's right to have a different viewpoint, but I am not going to use inflammatory rhetoric. I don't personally care what people do in the privacy of their own bedrooms, but in my own house I choose not to promote homosexuality. I don't see how that deserves me being compared to Hitler or Jesus being referred to by a fictitious creature. I would never expect such behavior from mature adults.
And now a couple things from me ;-) Actually I think calling gay people immoral simply by virtue of their being gay is worse than referring to the "Religious Reich" There are many religious people who do not fall into that group, so it's not saying that all religious people are bad. Could you give me an example of a fact has a conservative bias? I can't think of any, despite trying. I was all for seeing whether the trickle down theory worked, and it's been pretty well established that it doesn't. I also don't have an inherent opposition to the idea of small government or fiscal conservativism. It's just that sometimes they don't work, given particular goals we have or particular problems we need to solve.
To make my position clear, I do not call every member of the Religious Right a member of "the Religious Reich". I reserve that only for those who fight against equality. Nor do I believe everyone who is a member of the Religious Right is a hypocrite. I don't even believe every member of the Religious Reich is - only those who are happy when the government reaches beyond its constitutional bounds when it serves them and whine that the government shouldn't go beyond those bounds when it goes against them. As for equating comments made against bigots to comments against those fighting for equality, I go to a comment made by Bishop Desmond Tutu, " If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor. If an elephant has its foot on the tail of a mouse and you say that you are neutral, the mouse will not appreciate your neutrality."
But the people commenting on this thread are far from neutral. Read the posts again. Away from the singular inflammatory opposition, there is nearly unanimous support. It's not frenetic support. It's level headed, well spoken, thoughtful, insightful, educated support. That's the kind of support we need and that in the end will make all the difference. These are not your enemy. Don't alienate them.
Amazing that the popular opinion trumps the minority and that my beliefs will be called 'inflammatory' just for speaking them. I respect everyone's right to their own views an opinions, but I think this thread shows how much intolerance there is toward respecting differing opinions.
Justin's comments were unacceptable, they crossed the line from information and went well into gratuitously insulting people. I don't know why Dante didn't just remove the post. But put yourself in Justin's and Wreybies' shoes. You called them both immoral. That's inflammatory and certainly inconsistent with "God is Love". I believe you are wrong that teaching tolerance equates to promoting a lifestyle. People don't turn gay. I don't get it, this is an era of science and easy access to information, how people still believe being gay is a choice is beyond me. And I apologize for earlier using the term, homophobe, because despite it being technically correct, it's used as an insult in most circles.
I didn't say you did. Remember that today is a day of celebration for me too. This is also my victory as a fellow gay person. Is JJ being inflammatory? Of course. Is his feeling that he can call us immoral but then turn around and ask for politeness when you refer to those who do belong to a very real Religious Reich hypocritical? Of course it is. Why do you play into his hands? You've seen his argumentative style. He says one thing and connotes another. If he gets called out on either, he repairs to the opposite side and then calls the other person an idiot for "misunderstanding". Don't let him play you into a frenzy. It's his little game.
This may be slightly off topic, but none of the arguments against gay marriage make sense to me. Most of them are religious arguments, but since we have separation of church and state (in theory), such arguments shouldn't apply when making and passing laws.
You called me immoral from your first post. You lost all credibility to argue from that moment. You hold no coin.
This is a second warning. I feel from a personal perspective that unless people do act in a civil, rational way this thread will have to be closed. This is a debate where views from either side can and will be seen as offensive to those on the other side. What may feel like a personal attack is in fact part of the argument, and each case must be stated if we are to have a debate.
