The Future of the Republican Party

Remove all ads!

No, you better change that to 0% agreed. To me it is the homosexuals who are being juvenille and vindictive. Their only agenda at this point is to take away the meaning and use of a word from heterosexuals.

I agreed with the homosexuals that they deserved equal rights and protections under the law, but what they are doing now is just mean spirited.

 

TGS,
Heterosexuals have already made a mockery of the institution.* Nearly half of marriages end in divorce and a percentage of the remaining 50% do not honor marriage in any real way. They stay together 'for the kids' or because they have become mutually dependant on one another even though they don't like each other much. Or they are like my co-worker who has not kissed her husband or let him touch her in two years by her own admission...she hates him. I have come to understand that she will stay with him due to fear of loneliness and desire for financial comfort. Others stay together due to social pressures or fear of losing half of their belongings or paying child support. Then there are others who have open marriages who don't honor the concept of marriage by any standard measure or half of the couple has an open marriage while the other spouse sits at home with the kids...etc.

Stop trying to protect a word that is [snip] beyond recognition already and stop saying that heterosexuals are fighting to preserve the word as if there is some concerted coalition when what you mean is that *you* as an individual and a minority of heterosexuals who are not hypocrites (I don't care what the hypocrites say) wish to preserve an archaic definition of marriage. If you don't approve of homosexual marriage then I fully endorse your right not to marry a homosexual. Strive to live up to your standards in your own marriage and don't foist your point of veiw on others.

*No disrespect to the minority of heterosexuals who work at and achieve a happy and successful marriage.

[Please don't attempt to bypass the auto-censor; this is against our forum rules. -Tal]

 

That is a really great argument. (Divorce rates here)

So since heterosexuals are collectively making a mockery of the so-called "institution of marriage", why not give another group a chance to actually put some meaning back into the word?

And just in case someone wants to argue that their religion frowns upon divorce, I'll make two points:

1. Your religion does not have ownership of the word "marriage", and I don't recall seeing any objections to heterosexual couples not of your faith (including of no faith at all) referring to themselves as "married".
2. Divorces happen regardless of faith.

 

Sorry guys, but I'm not buying it. Since when do we change what words mean because of statistics. I don't believe that meteorologists are doing such a great job of predicting the weather, maybe we should call tarot card readers meteorologists and see how they do?

For how many thousands of years has marriage meant a ceremony between a man and a woman? As Splunge put it, even non-religious people have always considered it to be between a man and a woman. Why should we change it? I for one am sick of the "vocal minority" believing they have the right to tell everyone what to do. I say good for the people of California for not putting up with this anymore. The homosexuals are entitled to all the rights and privledges provided by the law, they are not entitled to change a culture because they want to.

 

First, I find it strange that you use the word "the" at the start of the sentence. I would have just started it with the word "homosexuals". Using "the" is referring to them almost as if they were objects and not people. But I digress from my true point.

When you use the phrase "change a culture" you make it sound like there is a singular culture in America, which just seems absurd on its face. Is my culture, as as a descendent of Italian and Czeckoslovakian immigrant grandparents the same as ghetto black culture just because we happen to have no homosexual marriage as a common factor in our histories? Of course not. Our neighbors across the street are immigrants from India, and they say that when their teenaged daughter becomes an adult, she will have an arranged marriage (to a man presumably). Because it will be a heterosexual union, does that mean our cultures are the same too? Again, of course not.

The fact is there are at a minimum dozens, and arguably hundreds of cultures present in a nation as diverse as the U.S. And one of the cultures that is present here is the gay culture. An argument can be made that by denying them the right to marry, you are attempting to change their culture, as they see nothing wrong (in their culture) with homosexual marriage.

 

Wow, Snook, for someone who is getting all in a snit over people wanting to change the meaning of things **, you sure do a good job of that yourself:

What I said was:

How you managed to re-interpret my statement to one that says I think "non-religious people have always considered it to be between a man and a woman" is beyond me. Assuming, of course, that you meant "exclusively" between a man and a woman.

**And just so that you don't twist my words around again, note that I mean that you think gays want to "change" the meaning of the word marriage. I don't think they're trying to change anything.

 

This is pointless to discuss, no matter how you twist and turn and what words are used the reality is that if you oppose gay marriage it is because you think homosexual people are icky, or wrong or against your religion. Someone else pointed it out as well. When all things are said and done you oppose gay marriage either because you find living as a homosexual to be a sin or because you plainly think homosexual are icky. I wonder how the discussion would go if it was only about lesbian marriages, I think you would get rid of a huge chunk of the opposition then.

There are no arguments against gay marriage that does not boils down to: I am a homophobe. It is an issue that plays on peoples base instincts and prejudices and reminds me of the attitude my teenage students have to homosexuals. People do not want to allow homosexuals certain rights because they disaprove of their lifestyle, period that is the entire issue.

You may think I am attacking people and insulting and whatnot and maybe I am but I will call him a lier to his face anyone who claims to oppose gay marriage on any other base.

 

My best friend is a homosexual, but he's more down-to-earth than the average gay man. He's a private person, and the only way you'd know he was gay, was if he chose to tell you, or his friend unwittingly mentions it.
Anyway, he'd be the first to admit that most homosexual relationships are flighty and whimsical. But there are definitely some gay couples out there involved in lasting relationships. Now gay couples who decide they'd want to marry, are primarily of the latter type. Can you imagine how outcast such a couple would feel? I still don't understand why people can't just let them be happy. If a church wedding is too much to ask, at least let them have a civil ceremony.
Tax benefits gained by married couples make gay households richer than straight ones. Since men still earn more on average, two men will earn much more, without the need to buy gifts
I wish I was gay, heheheh.

 

More like, for how many decades has marriage been about love, not property?

 

I wanted to take just a moment and get back to the original topic of the thread: The Republican Party. And I guess the thing that puzzles me most is the interesting opinion held by many in the party: that Bush was not really a conservative, and many within the party feel that it needs to return to it's "glorious conservative" roots it had in those long-lost pre-Bush days.

For a liberal like myself, GWB, is still a conservative, with a capital "C." He's just a different type of conservative. In fact, he may be the most conservative of any modern day president. This piece from the National Journal underscores just that notion.

I find little to disagree with in that statement. Yet, now we hear that the party needs to move further to the right in order to rebuld itself. The two notions seem to contradict each other, I would think. On the one hand, GWB pandered to his base, almost exclusively, while refusing to reach out to moderates and independents.

All this points to the real problem for the GOP, which is echoed by Charlie Cook:

In other words, just more of the same - playing to the base, and the hell with everyone else. In many ways, that sums up the Bush presidency for many of us. I suppose that many of those in the party have a different view.

But why would conservatives turn against him, even towards the end, with Palin blaming Bush as a major factor in the election? Pure politics is probably the reason. Everyone wants to save themselves at the expense of GWB's failures.

But I agree with the writer from the WJ and what Charlie Cook seems to suggest:

It would appear that there is not much the Republicans can do to rebuild themselves. It depends more upon the success or failure of President elect Omaba and the Democrats in Congress. They hold the cards and with them, the fate of Republican Party. But this is a critical moment for the nation. If Obama fails in the current crisis, the results could be catastrophic for everyone. So do the Republicans really WANT Obama to fail at the expense of the well-being of the country? It is an open question.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/njmagazine/nj_20081106_5653.php
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27909954/

 

Joacqin:

Just because I hate oversimplification, define homophobe, please. Is someone who is good friends with several homosexuals, but frequently tries to persuade them that they are living sinfully (as he does with his friend Sammy the Adulterer), a homophobe? He doesn't fear homosexuals, which is the clinical definition, he just sees the act as a sin, and wishes them not to go to Hell. If anything, he loves them, in a Christian fashion.

And please remember in this, my position is still one against legislation against homosexual marriages, because legislation is not going to solve this at all.

Chandos, on Bush, look at the Contract with America and tell me how many of those ideals did Bush uphold? That's what is meant by saying that Bush isn't a real conservative. That's also what is meant by saying the Reps need to get back to their conservative roots. Bush is a conservative in that he opposes the liberal Democrats, but that only works if you assume a bipolar political spectrum, which is often presented in the US, but isn't actually accurate.

 

Yes, he is a homophobe. He's basically decided that these people are going to hell because of his personal belief system. Let me repeat that: because of his personal belief system. Homophobia isn't just about fearing or hating homosexuality, it's about considering it Wrong in an absolute sense and acting accordingly. Now, if he decides that homosexuality is a sin and stays away from it, that's his personal life following his personal belief, and I'm totally 100% cool with that. If he starts harassing people about their homosexuality (and yes, I consider trying to "persuade them that they live sinfully" to be harassment, whether we're talking about homosexuality or anything else), then he's crossing the line. If he actively supports legislation to impede their rights, then you really cannot in any way convince me he's not a homophobe.

I agree that legislation against gay marriage will not solve anything. However, neither is mass-converting people to religion, but I won't go into this so as not to derail this into a religious discussion.

I actually agree with you about Bush not being a real conservative. Then again so does Bush, which I presume is why the term "neo-con" got coined at some point (same deal we got with "New Labour" in the UK). It's ironic that many, many tenets of the neo-cons go completely against traditional conservative and Republican values, and even more ironic that most people either don't notice or don't care. Then again I'm forever puzzled by the use of the word "liberal" in the USA to refer to someone who's more to the left, or even going so far as Bill O'Reilly making idiotic statements like "liberal commies" - liberalism is a right-wing ideal about the government not interfering in anything. In this respect neither Republicans nor Democrats are liberal at this stage - the Reps love to accuse the Dem governments of interference, but Republican governments have been happily interfering into everything as far back as Nixon's presidency.

 

I was not aware that conservatives were still using the "Contract with America" as Conservative doctrine. But Bush scores well on some of its items. I have brought up the Contract several times in the past, trying to get a feel for where Republicans now stand on its main ideas - Balanced budget, term limits, fewer committees in Congress, cutting the number of government employees, etc.

While doing well on some, Bush scores very low on some other points in the Contract. For instance, the "Taking Back Our Streets" item, Bush probably does very well. He did especially well as our governor. In fact, many thought he was a bit over the top and over zealous in his approach to the "Law and Order" problem, particularlly in his use of the death penalty. Bush also scores high on "tort reform," which is one of the Contract's main items.

But the Contract does not speak to the modern conservative's social agenda: no gay marriage, anti-abortion, and "faith-based" programs. Bush also scores very well on these items, which are not in the Contract with America. As an Evangelical Conservative, Bush scores pretty well, IMO.

 

It's putting Chirsitianity on trial. It's about challenging something sacred to them and insisting that they should have it too. It's about using the court to redefine religious doctrine to something more favourable to them. And the behaviour of some protesters indicated that this is an act of hatred towards the Christians who opposed them.

Defending my beliefs against those that want them changed is anything but juvenile and vindictive. It's an act of bigotry by gay rights protesters against the Christian faith to harrass Christians or to blacklist a prominent Mormon and force his resignation from a lucrative job he's held for 25 years. And This Article brings something horrific to light:

And you people call me a bigot? It's no skin of my nose if they never get the rights they really should have*, but they can get all of those rights without stepping on the toes of the majority that believe in the traditional definition of marriage. Since gays are no different from the rest of us, and thus posessed of reason and intellect, I must conclude that they are trying to instead attack religion.

* FOr Clarity, Marriage and Adoption are the areas where I draw the line. Most other things are fair game.

I wish they would go to the US supreme court. There's a precident set in 1878 that upholds the federal definition of marriage as one man and one woman. But in the mean time, 30 of 50 states have ammended the state constitution to defend that definition of marriage. It would better suit the gay community if they would stop their attacks on religion and focus on getting their rights within society. Until they do, any such discrepencies will only hurt the rank and file members of the community, giving them more and more martyrs to their cause. The problem being, that the other side is running out of patience with their antics.

 

The term "homophobe" implies that the disagreement with homosexual behaviour is an irrational, unthinking one, and that said disagreement constitutes a mental illness. The position that most opponents to homosexual behaviour is one based on logical beliefs, even though many of those beliefs may be religious in nature.

I do not have a mental illness, and therefore am not "phobic" toward anything. I simply disagree with another group of people.

I mentioned months ago that "filthy faggot" was a phrase used in the past by those wishing to de-humanize their opposition and thus disregard whatever they said. That was wrong then and it's still wrong. Using the term "homophobe" in the same way is just as wrong now.

From Wikipedia:

Rational discussion is one thing. Juvenile name calling, be it "faggot" or "homophobe", is something else altogether.

 

You've just contradicted your own point. "Logic" and "religious belief" are not synonymous. Attacking gay marriage because it "undermines the sanctity of the catholic marriage" is the complete opposite of logic, hence why it falls squarely into homophobia.

You don't "simply" disagree with these people. You're trying to prevent these people from getting something they think they have a right to, because in your religious and illogical belief (see previous paragraph) you think it'll affect your own marriage.

I think homophobia is a misnomer because it's definitely not a mental illness, it falls in the same category as racism and sexism: it's irrational bigotry and discrimination. I have absolutely no problem calling it homoism or whatever else, but it doesn't change the fact that attacking gay marriage is not disagreement; it is discrimination.

NOTE: I am using "you" in a vague sense that may or may not apply to you (LKD) personally. However I got from your post that you were anti-gay marriage, in which case my points do apply.

 

That's where activists should be working then. If they are just seeking equal rights, they can get them with little fanfare and thus little conflict. But when you try to use the courts to redefine religious doctrine, that's creating an unnecessary fight--one which the faithful aren't backing down from.

That's what I'm talking about. A difference in rights that can and should be fixed without changing the definition of marriage. Is this the price that avtivists are prepared to ask the homosexuals, whom they claim to represent, to pay for their hubris?

Heterosexual divorce is another issue. Those that abuse or neglect their spouse or violate covenents of fidelity are subject to God's laws. We allow them to marry, hoping that they will honour the covenents they made, and hope that they will work together to solve life's problems. If they do not receive the ideals, then one or both are at fault. Some cases it's obvious, some it's not...

It is not FUBAR. It is just as sacred now as it was in the days of Adam and Eve. Two, The Divorce rates that Splunge provides are horribly incomplete. It does mention that childless couples are more likely to divorce (thus legalizing gay marriage will likely increase divorce even more), but it fails to take into account religious influences on the divorce rate. I think you'll find that divorce rates among Mormons would be much lower than the national average.

It is not my standards being foisted on others, but the defense against their standards foisted on the children in my faith that we resist.

Your statistics make that unlikely. The way to put meaning back into the covenents for society as a whole is for the faithful to stand up in it's defense and for married people to redouble their efforts in times of trial and work together with their spouse.

1: The Church of Jesus Chirst of Latter Day Saints has no problem with any heterosexual couple that has formalized their union with the proper authority calling themselves married.
2: The Church acknowledges divorce, and accepts it as a last resort. The couples that struggle are advised to seek councilling before going to that step.

Very well said!

I took that as referring to them as a subset of the general culture.

But what Snook is saying is that the one minority is trying to foist their will upon ALL subsets of the culture of California. That's what he objects to.

In such cases, the law exists to ensure harmony between these cultures. One culture CANNOT be allowed to foist their morality on all others. By denying them that institution, you are preserving a major component of many other cultures.

I place myself in the Religious category, and object to it because it's a sin. I am not a homophobe.

It's not about rights, it's about preserving that which is sacred. I do believe that they don't get all the rights they are entitled to, but believe that that can be handled without changing the definition of Marriage.

I would have no objection to their commitment ceremony or whatever as long as it's NOT a marriage. They want their family and friends to see them commit to each other that's their business. These are the couples that are suffering for a differencial of rights, but not because we, the Christians, don't approve, but because those that claim to be campaigning on their behalf have lost their way and fail or refuse to find a way of granting them the rights they deserve without antagonizing the Religious faithful.

[/quote]the party needs to move further to the right in order to rebuld itself. The two notions seem to contradict each other, I would think. On the one hand, GWB pandered to his base, almost exclusively, while refusing to reach out to moderates and independents.[/quote]

You're right, that is the wrong answer for the Republicans. It's the independants and moderates that put one candidate over the other. Many of them would feel betrayed by Bush pandering to his base to their exclusion, many others believed in Obama, and that's what needs to be addressed.

Religion is not a personal belief system, but a collectively shared belief system. In the case of Prop 8, enough of the people in California shared compatable belief systems to pass this ammendment. Further, the most villified group, the Mormons, would not condemn them to Hell but to an eternal home with less glory than that of God, and a full knowledge of their sins and what they've lost out on because of them.

Wrong. Homophobia is acting or speaking hatefully about homosexuals. To believe it wrong is not homophobic, and to call them to repentance is an act of love, not hatred. To donate to a fund to defend marriage and to vote accordingly is also not an act of hatred for them, but a defense of your beliefs.

It is also an act of bigotry to use political correctness to attempt to bully them into silence on an issue they believe in.

Agreed. Legislation doesn't address the real issue, gay rights, only upholding the line in the sand. Conversions are personal experiences, and thus can't be truly done in large groups.

As an outsider on this, I would assume that "Neo-Con" infers something new being conserved as opposed to traditional conservatives. I think it would mean that change is not in and of tself good or bad, but each proposed change must be carefully weighed, the good staunchly defended, the bad relentlessly opposed.

That is one non-sequitor after another. Because Logic and Religious belief are not directly synonymous, does not mean that they are mutually exclusive. Further, as a Religious person, I find that my religious beliefs are more logical than the alternatives I find proposed! The Opposition to Gay Marriage because it undermines the sanctity of Marriage arguement can be logically developed from these religious beliefs as well. I'm not going into this because such development is very long...

False. I oppose gay marriage because I do not agree that they have that right, and that their redefinition of marriage will undermine religious doctrine in general. I believe that by weakening a strong voice for morality will have disastrous consequences for the nation as a whole.

Then I don't qualify as a homophobe. My views are rational, and it is not discriminatory. I believe that fornication is a grevous sin, and that marriage is between a man and a woman. I don't make an exception for ANY group.

And the attempt to use political correctness to bully me off my position makes you as much of a bigot as you claim I am.

 

Well done Gnarff. If I could rep you again I would. It gets tiresome and it is wrong that one side of an issue always has to defend themselves against calls of homophobia and/or racism. This entire issue should be about rights, not about the use of a word. I've said it before and I'll say it again, the homosexual community should be given all the rights, obligations, and pains (alimony, child support, etc.) that a heterosexual couple is entititled to, but that should be all they are entitled to under the law.

 

OFF-TOPIC

Ummm. no not at all.
As i have stated previously, my most frequent workout partner is gay & i have no problem with him being a foot away from & looking at my junk when i'm spotting for him or to have him almost rubbing his junk on my butt as he spots me during squats. Trust me, if you had ANY problems with gay people there is no way in hell you could workout with them.

I don't oppose it because of religion because mine is . . . well . . . undetermined(sorta) at the moment.
I am just in agreement with (apparently, a lot of) others that feel it is just wrong to force everybody to change to accomodate 1 group. Every right they want can be had under Civil Unions without touching the marriage agreement.


[Personal opinion ahead]
That being said, gays in america seem to be kind of "lost" or at a crossroads of sorts. Some of them are just fine with CU's while others are just incensed over the issue. The issue seems to be bringing out the worst in some & the well, not best but better, behaviour in others(i say better because some just don't consider it big deal).

My workout buddy's other half(who he calls his "life partner") hasn't talked to his family since he came out more than a decade ago. Their choice not his, they basically disowned him as a family member. Now i understand that they are very much old-school orthodox but, man, thats your flesh & blood !

Hmm, i've also noticed that there seems to be main groups in the male homosexual community, those who behave like every other joe out there & then there are the FLAMERS
You know the ones i'm talking about, you never quite know what they are going to do or say but your pretty sure it's either going to be embarrassing as hell or funny as hell or

Now my buddy(who works at a fitness equipment & product wholesaler) & his partner(who runs his own krav maga training center) seem like such macho redneck gym rats that a lot of people don't believe them when they first find out that they are a couple.

Typical response is "you can't be gay! you're a damn redneck!"
it's funny everytime i hear somebody say it(almost as funny as watching some really beautiful gym-bunny that has been hitting on one of them for half-an-hour with no success)

Now back on-topic, i don't think the republicans will do anything for about 3-6 months just to see if the dems fall flat on their face with the start of the new leadership change.
Personally, i don't think they will have to change much as i expect the dems to shoot themselves in the foot.