Liberals or Conservatives: Who?s Really Close-Minded?

ringstrue · May 2012

Reeve:
caden:
I'm confused about this too. I didn't even think the actual text of the OP was about open/close-mindedness. It was mostly about understanding the opposing viewpoint. I think he made a good point about Cons frequently shutting down about their viewpoints and libs being more vocal. I know I do that. Reeve even snarked about it here -- that PCE libs tried to have a discussion and the Rs dismissed it. I know I dismissed it b/c "Rs are close-minded b/c they're intolerant" is not an attempt at rational debate to me, it's just insulting, which makes me run for the tall grass. That is exactly how I respond IRL too. So I wouldn't be surprised if it's true that some Cons viewpoints are less understood than a lib's. Whether that translates into open/close-mindedness I frankly don't care. And how this thread became consumed with gay marriage I really don't get, but that's par for the course.
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.

The implication in this article is that Libs are always outspoken and Cons always shut down - which just isn't true. There are many scenarios where Libs shut down in the face of an outspoken Con.

The definition of Conservative is keeping the status quo, the tradition POV. The definition of Liberal is "favorable to progress or reform." It seems to go without saying that people are already familiar with the status quo and their own traditions, and that new ideas need more time to be explained - but I disagree that that always translates to the Con shutting up and the Lib being outspoken.

laurenpetro · May 2012

+adamwife+:

i don't know what your gif means but HOW DID EVERYTHING GO WITH YOUR SON????

Vanessa Doofenshmirtz · May 2012

swimbikepuke:
I think the author of this book doesn't really understand the issue. It's not really that I think (or thought, prior to this landmark research) that Republicans are close-minded because they don't understand me. I think they are close minded because they are intolerant of difference (gays, minorities, women, religious differences) and reticent to accept progress or change. I don't really care why they are that way. And I don't really care if they understand why I want to legalize gay marriage and pot. I guess it's mildly interesting to me that conservatives understand my motivations better than I understand theirs, but I don't think it has any affect on the true question of whether conservatives are "close-minded."

I'm just starting to read the replies, but your comment here kind of supports the point. I have become more conservative than I am liberal, but your assessment of me as a conservative is wrong. I want to legalize gay marriage and pot, too. I am certainly not intolerant of gays, minorities, women or religious differences. And even here in a red state, I live in a "blue city" and find that I keep mum most of the time. But among my handful of friends who are vocal about their conservative politics, I assure you they, like me, are actually pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, and pro-tolerance of minorities, religions, etc. One of my family members who IS gay is also pretty much a Republican (no worries, she never would have voted for Santorum or Gingrich, not even holding her nose).

So, though I do respect you Heather, I do think you are demonstrating closed-mindedness about conservatives.

LittleMoxie · May 2012

hindsight's_a_biotch:
When it comes to social issues, I do think conservatives are more willing to assess their own opinions and change their minds. It's the nature of the beast, don't you think? After all, who is going to go from for gay marriage, divorce, legalize pot to anti-gay marriage, anti divorce, ban the ganja?

I agree with this. Especially the nature of the beast part. Civilizations tend to become more liberal over time so things tend to move from conservative to liberal.

So the author is right on this point, but I don't think the implied celebratory tone is really earned.

LittleMoxie · May 2012

3.27.04_Helper:

+adamwife+:

Your back. You were missed

Yes! You were!

casmgn · May 2012

Vanessa Doofenshmirtz:

swimbikepuke:
I think the author of this book doesn't really understand the issue. It's not really that I think (or thought, prior to this landmark research) that Republicans are close-minded because they don't understand me. I think they are close minded because they are intolerant of difference (gays, minorities, women, religious differences) and reticent to accept progress or change. I don't really care why they are that way. And I don't really care if they understand why I want to legalize gay marriage and pot. I guess it's mildly interesting to me that conservatives understand my motivations better than I understand theirs, but I don't think it has any affect on the true question of whether conservatives are "close-minded."

I'm just starting to read the replies, but your comment here kind of supports the point. I have become more conservative than I am liberal, but your assessment of me as a conservative is wrong. I want to legalize gay marriage and pot, too. I am certainly not intolerant of gays, minorities, women or religious differences. And even here in a red state, I live in a "blue city" and find that I keep mum most of the time. But among my handful of friends who are vocal about their conservative politics, I assure you they, like me, are actually pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, and pro-tolerance of minorities, religions, etc. One of my family members who IS gay is also pretty much a Republican (no worries, she never would have voted for Santorum or Gingrich, not even holding her nose).

So, though I do respect you Heather, I do think you are demonstrating closed-mindedness about conservatives.

As was pointed out somewhere within this thread, one of the main problems for people like you are that the social cons have basically taken over the "conservative" title. Rs like you need to work at taking back the party.

Vanessa Doofenshmirtz · May 2012

casmgn:
Vanessa Doofenshmirtz:

swimbikepuke:
I think the author of this book doesn't really understand the issue. It's not really that I think (or thought, prior to this landmark research) that Republicans are close-minded because they don't understand me. I think they are close minded because they are intolerant of difference (gays, minorities, women, religious differences) and reticent to accept progress or change. I don't really care why they are that way. And I don't really care if they understand why I want to legalize gay marriage and pot. I guess it's mildly interesting to me that conservatives understand my motivations better than I understand theirs, but I don't think it has any affect on the true question of whether conservatives are "close-minded."

I'm just starting to read the replies, but your comment here kind of supports the point. I have become more conservative than I am liberal, but your assessment of me as a conservative is wrong. I want to legalize gay marriage and pot, too. I am certainly not intolerant of gays, minorities, women or religious differences. And even here in a red state, I live in a "blue city" and find that I keep mum most of the time. But among my handful of friends who are vocal about their conservative politics, I assure you they, like me, are actually pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, and pro-tolerance of minorities, religions, etc. One of my family members who IS gay is also pretty much a Republican (no worries, she never would have voted for Santorum or Gingrich, not even holding her nose).

So, though I do respect you Heather, I do think you are demonstrating closed-mindedness about conservatives.
As was pointed out somewhere within this thread, one of the main problems for people like you are that the social cons have basically taken over the "conservative" title. Rs like you need to work at taking back the party.

I can't argue with that. But what does that really mean to "take the party back?" I'm totally unelectable, lol. See earlier support of pot. Is it really that it's out of balance, or is it just that the "average conservative" is portrayed a certain way? As Y4M pointed out in a different thread, bias doesn't have to be inaccurate reporting of facts -- it is more about selective attention. NPR usually lets the dim-witted cons through the phone lines, just like Sean Hannity lets dim-witted liberals through.

And I love NPR. But you know what I'm talking about.

casmgn · May 2012

Vanessa Doofenshmirtz:

I can't argue with that. But what does that really mean to "take the party back?" I'm totally unelectable, lol. See earlier support of pot. Is it really that it's out of balance, or is it just that the "average conservative" is portrayed a certain way? As Y4M pointed out in a different thread, bias doesn't have to be inaccurate reporting of facts -- it is more about selective attention. NPR usually lets the dim-witted cons through the phone lines, just like Sean Hannity lets dim-witted liberals through.

And I love NPR. But you know what I'm talking about.

Taking the party back - as a pp suggested, write to your elected officials to tell them that you support gay marriage, etc and that you want them to stop pandering to the party crazies.

I think that the average conservative is portrayed in a certain way because that is by far the loudest section of the party, and many of the R politicans are completely pandering to them. The financial cons need to start drowning out the social cons, and need to really start demanding that politicans stop pandering to the social cons. Otherwise the social cons will just continue to get louder and louder.

pennypenny · May 2012

+adamwife+:

Where have you been? I left for Lent and came back and you were gone.

MrsAxilla · May 2012

mysticporter:
sabrina69barnes:
swimbikepuke:

Help us understand. Why do conservatives oppose gay marriage?

Let's just start there. Please. Open my mind. I so want to understand why you oppose something that you understand why I support.

To sum up: I believe God says homosexuality is a sin. I chose to follow God and his rules even if I don't think they are fair. I don't care what other people do but that doesn't mean I agree with what other people do. I'm not going to vote for something I don't agree with.

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.

This is well articulated - thanks! I was thinking about this thread this morning, and I think liberals tend to be "intolerant" of intolerance. I don't care how someone feels personally about gay marriage or abortion, but when that person is intolerant of other views and tries to force and legislate theirs, I become intolerant of them. I'm not going to budge on my pro-choice stance because that's MY uterus. I'm not going to budge on gay marriage because I don't accept "because God said so" as a valid basis for legislation.

Vanessa Doofenshmirtz · May 2012

swimbikepuke:
sabrina69barnes:
swimbikepuke:

Help us understand. Why do conservatives oppose gay marriage?
Let's just start there. Please. Open my mind. I so want to understand why you oppose something that you understand why I support.

I don't know why all conservatives oppose gay marriage but I can tell you why I do. My religion tells me that acting on homosexuality is a sin. I chose to follow my religion but I didn't make the rules. Even if I don't think the rules are fair I believe that God made them and that it's not up to me to question him.
I teach my children about my religion. When they grow up it's up to them what to believe but I feel it's my responsibility to teach them what I believe to be the truth. I worry that if gay marriage were legal that they school I send my child to would tell them that acting on homosexuality is ok and an equally vaild lifestyle. I don't agree with that and I'm not ok with an authority figure like the school telling my child that. I understand that don't have to send my child to the public school but that costs extra money. I'm not going to vote for something that may make public school not a good fit for my family anymore.
I don't really care what other people do in their own bedroom who how they choose to live their life. It's not that important to me to debate why I don't agree with gay marriage or do anything to prevent it from becoming legal but if I where given the opportunity to vote I wouldn't vote for it. I'm fine with other people having a different belief system than I do but I'm not going to vote against what I believe just because so many other people think I should.
To sum up: I believe God says homosexuality is a sin. I chose to follow God and his rules even if I don't think they are fair. I don't care what other people do but that doesn't mean I agree with what other people do. I'm not going to vote for something I don't agree with.
Apparently you do care what they do in their bedroom, because you support legislation that tells people who do yucky things in their bedroom that they can't get married.
I believe that God never said a single thing about homosexuality. I believe Paul said a lot about it and whoever wrote Leviticus apparently had some thoughts on it too - though I suspect like most Christians, you've abandoned 99/100ths of what is in the old testament. But God is relatively silent on the topic. I also believe that Christ who had absolutely zero thoughts on homosexuality, made it pretty clear that ostracizing groups of people from society, elevating yourself above them based on some artificial categorization or superficial superiority, is a big fat Christian no-no and I don't understand how people still get away with doing it under the cloak of "but God wants me to hate these particular people."
I promise, He doesn't.

Yup. What she said. And Sabrina, sincerely...I am to understand that you oppose legalizing gay marriage because then it will be taught as acceptable in public school? And that such exposure might put your child at risk for acting on gay thoughts? Have YOU ever had gay temptations? I have not. No amount of exposure to gay people would make me want to "choose" to be gay, because I am only attracted to men (specifically, my husband), end of story. Isn't that the case for you? I have to break some news to you. Most teachers and counselors in public school don't need for gay marriage to be legal before they feel comfortable treating it as a legitimate orientation. God-willing, if a child is gay and is raised in an intolerant household, a kind teacher WILL tell them they are ok, they are worthy of respect, love and legal rights. The alternative to knowing these positive truths is darkness, guilt, depression, and risk of suicide. But at least they won't have buttsecks, amiright?

LittleMoxie · May 2012

sabrina69barnes:

I teach my children about my religion. When they grow up it's up to them what to believe but I feel it's my responsibility to teach them what I believe to be the truth. I worry that if gay marriage were legal that they school I send my child to would tell them that acting on homosexuality is ok and an equally vaild lifestyle. I don't agree with that and I'm not ok with an authority figure like the school telling my child that. I understand that don't have to send my child to the public school but that costs extra money. I'm not going to vote for something that may make public school not a good fit for my family anymore.

You realize that teachers can say that even if gay marriage isn't legal? And that just because it is, teachers won't necessarily all of the sudden be giving lessons on how to be gay or anything. Local school boards have a lot of say in what goes in the curriculum, and so long as you live in a place that doesn't think it is OK (or does) the marriage laws won't dictate everything that comes out of a teacher's mouth.

I think it's pretty horrible to only vote for something that is not a good fit for your family - why not just homeschool if you want your kids so incredibly sheltered and only hearing ONE viewpoint - which is to say yours (not even a Christian viewpoint is good enough, because many are more tolerant than you). You really think it's appropriate to force your viewpoint on others and their children? This could get into science, sex education, history, etc. Not to mention the fact that your children (and all those around you, if you get your way) are just going to enter the world that much more naive and inflexible. Good job.

I know, everyone votes values, blah blah... but I would never vote to make churches illegal just because I don't belong to one and think they do more harm than good.

+adamwife+ · May 2012

laurenpetro:
+adamwife+:

i don't know what your gif means but HOW DID EVERYTHING GO WITH YOUR SON????

Thank you for asking. His surgery was about three weeks ago and everything went well. Recovery was difficult and he was in a lot of pain, but the hardest part was keeping him inactive. My boys like to play together and play hard, so it was sort of torture keeping him away from my 3 yo. We actually had our last post-surgery follow-up this morning and everything looks like it healed perfectly. Praise God.

Now I'm just dealing with roseola with my 14 mo daughter. She had a fever between 103-105 for most of the week and the rash appeared yesterday afternoon.

Fun times. This hasn't been our finest medical month.

Oh, and I think my body is trying to ovulate despite the fact that I'm still nursing DD pretty hardcore. It's about that time. Ugh.

But we're all alive and kicking, so there's that, praise God!

/rant

Thanks again for asking

LittleMoxie · May 2012

AW, glad things are turning around for you in your bad medical month. It's nice to see you around.

Dylanite · May 2012

+adamwife+:
laurenpetro:

+adamwife+:

i don't know what your gif means but HOW DID EVERYTHING GO WITH YOUR SON????

Thank you for asking. His surgery was about three weeks ago and everything went well. Recovery was difficult and he was in a lot of pain, but the hardest part was keeping him inactive. My boys like to play together and play hard, so it was sort of torture keeping him away from my 3 yo. We actually had our last post-surgery follow-up this morning and everything looks like it healed perfectly. Allah Akbar.

Now I'm just dealing with roseola with my 14 mo daughter. She had a fever between 103-105 for most of the week and the rash appeared yesterday afternoon.

Fun times. This hasn't been our finest medical month.

Oh, and I think my body is trying to ovulate despite the fact that I'm still nursing DD pretty hardcore. It's about that time. Ugh.

But we're all alive and kicking, so there's that, Allah Akbar!

/rant

Thanks again for asking

I'm glad to see you sorta back, and glad things seem to be going well.

+adamwife+ · May 2012

Dylanite:
+adamwife+:
laurenpetro:

+adamwife+:

i don't know what your gif means but HOW DID EVERYTHING GO WITH YOUR SON????

Thank you for asking. His surgery was about three weeks ago and everything went well. Recovery was difficult and he was in a lot of pain, but the hardest part was keeping him inactive. My boys like to play together and play hard, so it was sort of torture keeping him away from my 3 yo. We actually had our last post-surgery follow-up this morning and everything looks like it healed perfectly. Allah Akbar.

Now I'm just dealing with roseola with my 14 mo daughter. She had a fever between 103-105 for most of the week and the rash appeared yesterday afternoon.

Fun times. This hasn't been our finest medical month.

Oh, and I think my body is trying to ovulate despite the fact that I'm still nursing DD pretty hardcore. It's about that time. Ugh.

But we're all alive and kicking, so there's that, Allah Akbar!

/rant

Thanks again for asking

I'm glad to see you sorta back, and glad things seem to be going well.

I see what you did there. God definitely is great and worthy of praise in any language.

Thanks.

Dylanite · May 2012

Lol, sorry AW. That's all I read when I saw what you typed. Couldn't help myself!

SunMoon&Stars · May 2012

pedantic_wench:
Both sides can be closed-minded, in their own ways and for their own reasons.

There are stupid liberals and there are stupid conservatives.

I just don't see how this article is proving a point one way or the other.

I agree with almost all of this, except this article does (inadvertently) prove one thing: why some people (me) are registered Independents.

SunMoon&Stars · May 2012

msmerymac:
I kind of pine for the 1950s and early 60s, when your position on social issues didn't dictate your party. At all. There were Republicans who were pro-integration and anti-Jim Crow, and then... well, there were the Southern Democrats. Now it seems like if you're a pro-choice or pro-gay marriage Republican, you have to stipulate that its despite your party's common beliefs.

At what point in history since the early 60's did position on social issues start dictating your party? It doesn't dictate my party (I'm a registered Independent) and I'd personally prefer we not return to an era where racism, homophobia, misogyny and intolerance of non-Christians were widely accepted and in many cases encouraged.

msmerymac · May 2012

SunMoon&Stars:
msmerymac:

I kind of pine for the 1950s and early 60s, when your position on social issues didn't dictate your party. At all. There were Republicans who were pro-integration and anti-Jim Crow, and then... well, there were the Southern Democrats. Now it seems like if you're a pro-choice or pro-gay marriage Republican, you have to stipulate that its despite your party's common beliefs.

At what point in history since the early 60's did position on social issues start dictating your party? It doesn't dictate my party (I'm a registered Independent) and I'd personally prefer we not return to an era where racism, homophobia, misogyny and intolerance of non-Christians were widely accepted and in many cases encouraged.

I'm also a "registered independent" meaning that I am not and never have been a member of any political party. And therefore social issues can't dictate anything about my non-party.

If you really want to know, in the mid-to-late 60s, the two major parties began to align themselves on modern issues in the way they are aligned today. There's a good section about it in Nixonland and some other books.

I'd personally prefer we not return to an era where racism, homophobia, misogyny and intolerance of non-Christians were widely accepted and in many cases encouraged.

What does that have to do with how Republicans or Democrats view social issues? You think some people aren't intolerant now? (*cough*Sabrina*cough*)

msmerymac · May 2012

Sabrina, your signature says your oldest son was born in 2006 and you were married in 2008. Which means you are either also divorced or you had sex without being married. Both are sins. HTH.

SunMoon&Stars · May 2012

msmerymac:
SunMoon&Stars:
msmerymac:

I kind of pine for the 1950s and early 60s, when your position on social issues didn't dictate your party. At all. There were Republicans who were pro-integration and anti-Jim Crow, and then... well, there were the Southern Democrats. Now it seems like if you're a pro-choice or pro-gay marriage Republican, you have to stipulate that its despite your party's common beliefs.

At what point in history since the early 60's did position on social issues start dictating your party? It doesn't dictate my party (I'm a registered Independent) and I'd personally prefer we not return to an era where racism, homophobia, misogyny and intolerance of non-Christians were widely accepted and in many cases encouraged.

I'm also a "registered independent" meaning that I am not and never have been a member of any political party. And therefore social issues can't dictate anything about my non-party.

If you really want to know, in the mid-to-late 60s, the two major parties began to align themselves on modern issues in the way they are aligned today. There's a good section about it in Nixonland and some other books.

I'd personally prefer we not return to an era where racism, homophobia, misogyny and intolerance of non-Christians were widely accepted and in many cases encouraged.

What does that have to do with how Republicans or Democrats view social issues? You think some people aren't intolerant now? (*cough*Sabrina*cough*)

Yes, political parties began aligning THEMSELVES to certain views. I get it, but that's not the same as saying it dictates which party with which one must identify oneself.

WRT your last paragraph- I didn't say no one is intolerant now. Come on.

Of course intolerance still exists, but you can't seriously be suggesting things weren't far worse in the 50' and early 60's than they are today.

msmerymac · May 2012

SunMoon&Stars:
msmerymac:
SunMoon&Stars:
msmerymac:

I kind of pine for the 1950s and early 60s, when your position on social issues didn't dictate your party. At all. There were Republicans who were pro-integration and anti-Jim Crow, and then... well, there were the Southern Democrats. Now it seems like if you're a pro-choice or pro-gay marriage Republican, you have to stipulate that its despite your party's common beliefs.

At what point in history since the early 60's did position on social issues start dictating your party? It doesn't dictate my party (I'm a registered Independent) and I'd personally prefer we not return to an era where racism, homophobia, misogyny and intolerance of non-Christians were widely accepted and in many cases encouraged.

I'm also a "registered independent" meaning that I am not and never have been a member of any political party. And therefore social issues can't dictate anything about my non-party.

If you really want to know, in the mid-to-late 60s, the two major parties began to align themselves on modern issues in the way they are aligned today. There's a good section about it in Nixonland and some other books.

I'd personally prefer we not return to an era where racism, homophobia, misogyny and intolerance of non-Christians were widely accepted and in many cases encouraged.

What does that have to do with how Republicans or Democrats view social issues? You think some people aren't intolerant now? (*cough*Sabrina*cough*)

Yes, political parties began aligning THEMSELVES to certain views. I get it, but that's not the same as saying it dictates which party with which one must identify oneself.

WRT your last paragraph- I didn't say no one is intolerant now. Come on.

Of course intolerance still exists, but you can't seriously be suggesting things weren't far worse in the 50' and early 60's than they are today.

Things were definitely worse (miscegenation was still illegal in many places). but I wasn't implying the 1950s were better in a broad sense. I actually don't believe any time in history was BETTER for most people in a broad sense. Just that the major parties not aligning along social issues in strict ways, as they did in the 1950s, was better. More fluidity was better in that department, IMO. Whose to say that just because you are fiscally conservative or for small government you also want to make abortions illegal or are against affirmative action in college admissions? Who decided THAT? As this thread proves, there are many fiscal conservatives who don't think those things should go together.

Of course, I think the argument can be made that until the 1960s, the parties didn't necessarily FOCUS on social issues, and therefore a politician's stance on something like interracial marriage just wasn't discussed or relevent to whether or not someone voted for him.

IAmMalcolmX · May 2012

swimbikepuke:
sabrina69barnes:
swimbikepuke:

Help us understand. Why do conservatives oppose gay marriage?
Let's just start there. Please. Open my mind. I so want to understand why you oppose something that you understand why I support.

I don't know why all conservatives oppose gay marriage but I can tell you why I do. My religion tells me that acting on homosexuality is a sin. I chose to follow my religion but I didn't make the rules. Even if I don't think the rules are fair I believe that God made them and that it's not up to me to question him.
I teach my children about my religion. When they grow up it's up to them what to believe but I feel it's my responsibility to teach them what I believe to be the truth. I worry that if gay marriage were legal that they school I send my child to would tell them that acting on homosexuality is ok and an equally vaild lifestyle. I don't agree with that and I'm not ok with an authority figure like the school telling my child that. I understand that don't have to send my child to the public school but that costs extra money. I'm not going to vote for something that may make public school not a good fit for my family anymore.
I don't really care what other people do in their own bedroom who how they choose to live their life. It's not that important to me to debate why I don't agree with gay marriage or do anything to prevent it from becoming legal but if I where given the opportunity to vote I wouldn't vote for it. I'm fine with other people having a different belief system than I do but I'm not going to vote against what I believe just because so many other people think I should.
To sum up: I believe God says homosexuality is a sin. I chose to follow God and his rules even if I don't think they are fair. I don't care what other people do but that doesn't mean I agree with what other people do. I'm not going to vote for something I don't agree with.
Apparently you do care what they do in their bedroom, because you support legislation that tells people who do yucky things in their bedroom that they can't get married.
I believe that God never said a single thing about homosexuality. I believe Paul said a lot about it and whoever wrote Leviticus apparently had some thoughts on it too - though I suspect like most Christians, you've abandoned 99/100ths of what is in the old testament. But God is relatively silent on the topic. I also believe that Christ who had absolutely zero thoughts on homosexuality, made it pretty clear that ostracizing groups of people from society, elevating yourself above them based on some artificial categorization or superficial superiority, is a big fat Christian no-no and I don't understand how people still get away with doing it under the cloak of "but God wants me to hate these particular people."
I promise, He doesn't.

THREAD CLOSED!!! Let me save this to my list SBP bad-a$$ replies.

2Vermont · May 2012

Just wanted to say that I'm *shocked* that this thread turned into 7 (and counting) pages...... :-)

2Vermont · May 2012

LaurierGirl28:
2Vermont:
hindsight's_a_biotch:
sabrina69barnes:

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.

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?

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.

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.

Thanks. And I guess part of my point is that those that would have opposed legalizing divorce probably weren't looking to discriminate against a group of people.

copzgirl · May 2012

swimbikepuke:
msmerymac:
Sabrina, your signature says your oldest son was born in 2006 and you were married in 2008. Which means you are either also divorced or you had sex without being married. Both are sins. HTH.
Ooooh, good eye. I need to start paying more attention to people's siggies. They are a treasure trove of valuable ammunition.

I bet we never get an answer, or I can give it to you all now....but you all are a bunch of smart cookies

2Vermont · May 2012

sandsonik:
hindsight's_a_biotch:

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.

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.

At the risk of being called a bigot once again, I want to say that this is a great way to describe where I fall on this issue. I'm not pro-gay marriage but I'm not out there fighting to keep it illegal. I'm not sure if that even makes sense to the rest of you.

Sou Desafinado · May 2012

swimbikepuke:
sabrina69barnes:
swimbikepuke:

Help us understand. Why do conservatives oppose gay marriage?
Let's just start there. Please. Open my mind. I so want to understand why you oppose something that you understand why I support.

I don't know why all conservatives oppose gay marriage but I can tell you why I do. My religion tells me that acting on homosexuality is a sin. I chose to follow my religion but I didn't make the rules. Even if I don't think the rules are fair I believe that God made them and that it's not up to me to question him.
I teach my children about my religion. When they grow up it's up to them what to believe but I feel it's my responsibility to teach them what I believe to be the truth. I worry that if gay marriage were legal that they school I send my child to would tell them that acting on homosexuality is ok and an equally vaild lifestyle. I don't agree with that and I'm not ok with an authority figure like the school telling my child that. I understand that don't have to send my child to the public school but that costs extra money. I'm not going to vote for something that may make public school not a good fit for my family anymore.
I don't really care what other people do in their own bedroom who how they choose to live their life. It's not that important to me to debate why I don't agree with gay marriage or do anything to prevent it from becoming legal but if I where given the opportunity to vote I wouldn't vote for it. I'm fine with other people having a different belief system than I do but I'm not going to vote against what I believe just because so many other people think I should.
To sum up: I believe God says homosexuality is a sin. I chose to follow God and his rules even if I don't think they are fair. I don't care what other people do but that doesn't mean I agree with what other people do. I'm not going to vote for something I don't agree with.
Apparently you do care what they do in their bedroom, because you support legislation that tells people who do yucky things in their bedroom that they can't get married.
I believe that God never said a single thing about homosexuality. I believe Paul said a lot about it and whoever wrote Leviticus apparently had some thoughts on it too - though I suspect like most Christians, you've abandoned 99/100ths of what is in the old testament. But God is relatively silent on the topic. I also believe that Christ who had absolutely zero thoughts on homosexuality, made it pretty clear that ostracizing groups of people from society, elevating yourself above them based on some artificial categorization or superficial superiority, is a big fat Christian no-no and I don't understand how people still get away with doing it under the cloak of "but God wants me to hate these particular people."
I promise, He doesn't.

Let the church say Amen. *tosses $20 in SPB's collection plate*

Dylanite · May 2012

I find it supremely obvious that conservatives are closed minded. Partly because I think they pride themselves in it. And by 'conservatives,' I mean what is represented in the news these days. Not Goldwater cons.

Liberals or Conservatives: Who?s Really Close-Minded?

Re: Liberals or Conservatives: Who?s Really Close-Minded?

Choose Another Board

Search Boards