Politics & Current Events
Dear Community,
Our tech team has launched updates to The Nest today. As a result of these updates, members of the Nest Community will need to change their password in order to continue participating in the community. In addition, The Nest community member's avatars will be replaced with generic default avatars. If you wish to revert to your original avatar, you will need to re-upload it via The Nest.
If you have questions about this, please email help@theknot.com.
Thank you.
Note: This only affects The Nest's community members and will not affect members on The Bump or The Knot.
Our tech team has launched updates to The Nest today. As a result of these updates, members of the Nest Community will need to change their password in order to continue participating in the community. In addition, The Nest community member's avatars will be replaced with generic default avatars. If you wish to revert to your original avatar, you will need to re-upload it via The Nest.
If you have questions about this, please email help@theknot.com.
Thank you.
Note: This only affects The Nest's community members and will not affect members on The Bump or The Knot.
Re: Liberals or Conservatives: Who?s Really Close-Minded?
At the risk of being flamed, I don't find it necessarily anti-gay or hateful or bigoted to not support gay marriage. I think the very concept of gay marriage is a relatively modern concept and people have a gut reaction against new thinking.
I think it's going to take time to reshape the way people have historically thought about it. Just as it took time for people to come around to other new concepts.
Social conventions take time to change.
Click me, click me!
Except as far as I know the church won't just marry anyone...DH and I couldn't be married in a church for example (not that we wanted to), so how is this any different?
And I'm confussed are the Dems so pro gay marriage, because I just don't see it, only in certain states does gay marriage seem to be supported not by the Dems as a whole.
I am not BTW a conservative.
Actually, I think that should be taught in school - - along with teaching that Black people came here as slaves and are equal to White people, and we're a nation of immigrants, and women have the same capabilities as men, and why we accommodate people with disabilities - - it's a civil rights issue. Whether it's OK for them to hold jobs with you, or rent an apartment from you, or patronize your business without harassment is a civil rights issue.
You can (attempt to) teach your children about what is OK for them.
I don't want you (and your buddies) telling me I can't fight tooth and nail to have civil rights history and issues integrated into every level of public school. I want my kids graduating high school knowing who Martin Luther King, Jr. and Malcom X and Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Harvey Milk were.
I am the 99%.
just reading this all... whew.
and wanted to thank you, as always, for representing so well
g'night
DH made the decision to get a divorce before I was in the picture. Right or wrong that decision had nothing to do with me. I believe that everyone is a sinner. If I refused to marry DH because he had done something that God didn't agree with that would make my a hypocrite. As long as DH has made peace with God and is doing his best for follow him going forward, that's what is important to me. I may have married someone who who has gotten divorced but that doesn't mean I'm ok with divorce.
this chick did: http://www.toomanyrights.org/
Former PP person, now on the pro-life speaking circuit.
ETA: only aware of her because she's speaking locally, it came up.
I am the 99%.
So you are okay with deciding people who have sinned can proceed as they wish but the law cannot make that distinction?
Also, you never answered the part about the Bible saying one should not remarry after divorce.
Surely you understand that legalizing gay marriage isn't you saying it's okay. Your husband had the legal right to divorce regardless of your feelings on how sinful it is. I'm not sure why you feel it's consistant to then say that gay people should not be allowed to marry because you find it sinful.
Do you think divorce should be made illegal?
Click me, click me!
and, do you plan on teaching your kids that divorce is sinful, in any circumstance?
Will you withhold from them that their father is a divorced man?
I am the 99%.
Also, I have a gut hatred for the implication that we should raise our children in a bubble where they will only hear the messages we approve of. That's not realistic and it does nothing to further critical thinking or to raising a productive member of society who holds reasonable and well thought out opinions.
It's not as important to me that my children believe what I do as it is that they fully flesh out their own opinions based on imput from a variety of sources.
Click me, click me!
Oh, I thought the thread was about how Liberals were closed minded and Republicans weren't. Thats what I read as the main point of the original post - I guess I should have run for the tall grass instead of responding then?
Anyway Caden, your quietness is one of the reasons the board is so unbalanced nowadays - I always respected what you had to say. You would be the perfect person to properly weigh in on these sort of threads, because past experience has shown that you have the patience and smarts to do it well.
Sorry if my earlier post read as super snarky - I usually write posts, then edit them, but had no time today. Of course, sometimes I am just being snarky lol, but I wasn't this time.
Here's the thing. You're basically saying that while you disagree with divorce, you understand it happens and I'm assuming are fine with its legality, despite the fact that the Bible clearly says its wrong.
So why can't you accept that gay marriage might happen and be legal despite the fact that the Bible might say that its wrong?
Again, hypocritical. What will you teach your kids about divorce? Or your step-kid?
FWIW, I understand that you have strong religious convictions that lead you to be anti-gay marriage, and I'm not trying to undermine those, but its difficult to accept that reasoning when you've clearly ignored other major parts of the Bible in your life.
But thats what all religious people do all the time - you kinda have to when dealing with books that are 2000 years old. Its pick and choose - followed by discriminate of course lol.
I see you all were busy today.
The only thing good about this thread was the word barf-tacular. Thank momimatrix. I may have to incorporate that into my everday vocabulary.
Perhaps you are not really conservative. It used to be that being Republican wasn't necessarily the same thing as being conservative. But the conservatives are the bullies in GOP politics these days. I would think you'd be much more afraid of speaking openly about your views with a group of conservatives than with a group of liberals.
Is there one conservative candidate that doesn't oppose gay marriage? I think the only one with some wiggle room is Ron Paul, but I gather that he does indeed oppose gay marriage - he just thinks he should get to vote against it at the state level, rather than having national legislation or having it decided in the courts.
Also, last I checked all Rs are not anti-gay marriage. Example: Log Cabin Republicans. And not all Libs are pro-gay marriage. Example: all the people who came out in droves to vote for Obama in '08.
I mean to reply to this post...what is Obama's current position on gay marriage? The reality is that we are not a good representation of the rest of this country. There are scores of people, R and D, who are against gay marriage, for a variety of reasons (IMO, mostly misguided religious ones).
***
Also, last I checked all Rs are not anti-gay marriage. Example: Log Cabin Republicans. And not all Libs are pro-gay marriage. Example: all the people who came out in droves to vote for Obama in '08.
I'd agree except for one thing. We're talking about wanting to legislate against gay marriage.
I can understand someone thinking to themselves that a gay marriage isn't a "real" marriage, not like their straight marriage.
People hold all sorts of prejudices - it's only human. I think there are probaby plenty of people who are befuddled that gay people would even want to get married
But when you overtly use your power to legislate against a group - that's the difference between prejudice and racism or between just not being comfortable with gay marriage and being anti-gay.
Actually, in re-reading what you wrote, maybe you're right. I think you're saying that there's a difference between being not particularly pro gay marriage and being anti gay. I could agree that's possible. But when you go from being "not pro-gay marriage" to anti-gay marriage, then I think that's anti-gay. You actively believe that someone else shouldn't have the same rihghts as you.
Besides, there really aren't that many people having a gut reaction against gay marriage. Nationally, more than 50% favor it. Republican candidates lag way behind the populace.
I was going to add that all politicians are lagging behind the general population on the issue of gay marriage. And I think that's probably even more pronounced when it comes to abortion, where a clear majority of the country wants abortion to remain legal. In both cases though, I think Republican politicians present a much different picture of reality in that their views are SO uniform.
Man, I have seen the light. All this time I thought I was a conservative, when I'm really a liberal.
I guess that means Romney really DOES have a chance of getting the liberal vote.
Who wants to join Liberals For Romney? I'll make bumper stickers!! What about t-shirts? Caden? You want to handle that? Or are you still a conservative?
Does this mean I'm not allowed to list Reagan as one of my favorite Presidents?
<a href="http://www.thenest.com/?utm_source=ticker&utm_medium=HTML&utm_campaign=tickers" title="Home D
I think you have to look at it this way to get a better idea of the thinking here:
When divorce was illegal, those who were against divorce on religious grounds probably would not have supported legalizing it. Now that it is legal for many years, those same types of people are probably not looking to make it illegal (well, most...I do know there are some folks out there that wouldn't mind seeing this happen).
I think we often bring up divorce but it's really not apples and apples until you bring it back to the point in history when divorce was illegal.
Your back. You were missed
Above Us Only Sky
I think thats a fair distinction. Actually, i would compare to what happened in Canada before gay marriage was legal here. There was certainly strong opposition, but since it passed (7 years ago?) and gay marriage has been legal country-wide, virtually no one bothers to protest it anymore. There have also been a lot of people who were formerly against it who realized that it really was a non-issue.
This is why, although KA's suggestion on explaining the lib viewpoint on gay marriage makes for a more civil discussion (and I agree with it), it doesn't end up being any more effective. No one votes against their values, unless it is trumped by one of their other values. This illustrates *exactly* the Haidt hypothesis: conservatives base their decisions on 6 moral foundations, liberals base their decisions on 3 moral foundations (care, fairness, and liberty). Those three moral foundations translate to wanting equality for gays. The other three (loyality, authority, and sanctity) can mean that although someone may not hate the gays, they don't prioritize caring for them, or equality, or the avoidance of oppression more than they care about things like sanctity (in this case, what their religion says). To me that's why conservatives "understand" liberals better on Haidt's test: a conservative can empathize well with care, fairness, and liberty, because they do want those things for people. They just don't want them for people that they've decided aren't holding up the other three foundations. That's what can lead liberals to be intolerant: because they don't actually find the other three foundations to actually be moral positions, someone who prioritizes them over care for their fellow humanity, equality, etc., is acting immorally.
Haidt has a really interesting example of a neighbor putting up a sign in their yard that says cable television is evil, wrong, and corruptive. Most people would look at that and think the person is delusional, because there's no reason for their argument. If someone puts up a sign that says gay marriage is evil, wrong, and corruptive, unless you recognize the "moral" rational, you'd also think that person is essentially delusional. He's arguing that liberals are less open-minded because of this, but I think it's a false argument because it's based on accepting that their "extra" three foundations for decision are valid and "moral", as opposed to the cable person.