[besson3c]

Same with advocating "traditional family values". I honestly want to punch these people in the face.

How come they never speak out against adultery, having lots of unprotected sex, being a swinger, and all of the other sexy things that can be done while in hetero relationships? Why is it inferred that the "gay lifestyle" is more prevalent than hetero adultery in particular? This is all assuming that any of this is their business, which it isn't. Sure there is a lot of sexual promiscuity amongst gay people, but this is also so amongst heteros too. To not utter a peep about heteros that are having as much sex as the human body can withstand is just plain hypocrisy.

"Traditional family values" is even worse. WTF is that? Why would a gay couple have values that are much different than being loving and supporting and all of that stuff, or by that do they mean something involving having a single male head of the household?

Moreover, with all of the problems this country is facing right now, "gay lifestyles" should be the least of anybody's worries. STFU about all of this and let's focus on what actually matters, and then we can fuss over where penises should go.

[Shaddim]

That's why I'm a Democrat.

[imitchellg5]

I don't know. Herman Cain is pretty faithful to have a 13-year long relationship with someone who isn't his wife.

[reader50]

I f-ing hate it when politicians speak out against the "gay lifestyle"

Perhaps that's all they can speak about based on personal experience.

Another vote here for politicians ignoring unimportant matters until the critical matters have been addressed. Like our pending national bankruptcy, no consequences for powerful people who break laws, and corporate interests dominating government.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

That's why I'm a Democrat.

Socially left of center, economically right of center?

[olePigeon]

So which politician said it this time? Seems to me every time a politician goes on a rant about the "gay lifestyle," they turn out to be gay.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

So which politician said it this time? Seems to me every time a politician goes on a rant about the "gay lifestyle," they turn out to be gay.

Rick Perry Decries Gay 'Lifestyle' After Obama, Hillary Clinton Call For Discrimination To End Worldwide

but it doesn't really matter, cause the key part of your statement is "this time", this is not the first nor last time this has happened.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Obama announced a wide-ranging effort to use U.S. foreign aid to promote rights for gays and lesbians abroad on Tuesday. The president said the effort would include challenging attempts by foreign governments to criminalize homosexuality.

So which country are we borrowing this money we don't have in order to dictate the policies of some other country? China? Or is our credit line there all dried up yet?

I'm very much in favor of ending discrimination toward gays, but throwing money we don't have at someone else isn't the way to do it. The whole concept of "US foreign aid" should be ended. Everyone else: fix your own damn problems with your own money, and chances are you've got plenty of busibodies always yapping about how much better you are than the US anyway, so this will be your chance to prove it.

And Perry comes off as an idiot. I'm realizing that apparently, it doesn't take much intellect to be governor of Texas. The state is probably the closest thing we have to being run by its citizens with their part-time legislature and governor mostly out of the way of progress.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

How come they never speak out against adultery, having lots of unprotected sex, being a swinger, and all of the other sexy things that can be done while in hetero relationships? Why is it inferred that the "gay lifestyle" is more prevalent than hetero adultery in particular? This is all assuming that any of this is their business, which it isn't.

It's all just a chance to scapegoat a minority to garner support from the majority. Heteros with adulterous tendencies are the majority, and if they have another group of "others" that they can find an excuse to look down their noses at, it assuages their guilt and makes them feel superior. Candidates can take advantage of that. I don't think they actually hate gays, they're just playing the cards they were dealt.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

It's all just a chance to scapegoat a minority to garner support from the majority. Heteros with adulterous tendencies are the majority, and if they have another group of "others" that they can find an excuse to look down their noses at, it assuages their guilt and makes them feel superior. Candidates can take advantage of that. I don't think they actually hate gays, they're just playing the cards they were dealt.

I think their willingness to play these cards may not mean that they hate gays, but whenever their willingness to gain an upper hand trumps their sense of not vilifying a group, it certainly suggests that they don't have love for that group either.

Why don't Republicans scapegoat the so-called 1% then?

[Waragainstsleep]

I work on the theory that the most homophobic people are deep down the most gay. This makes Fred Phelps the gayest man alive, possibly the gayest man who ever lived. He obviously spends most of his life thinking about c*ck. He clearly couldn't get an ordinary job or even a job in a mainstream church because he couldn't stop thinking about c*ck long enough to perform his duties. By structuring the WBC and its beliefs the way he has, he can preach about god and think about c*ck at the same time all day long.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I f-ing hate it when politicians speak out against the "gay lifestyle"

I'm all for making gays suffer mother-in-laws, but you wouldn't be the first leftie to hate it when the opposition says something you don't like.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

So which country are we borrowing this money we don't have in order to dictate the policies of some other country?

Strange, ain't it? The pot is supposedly empty but there's always money to spend on foreign aid or telling someone else what to do. We're currently sending over a billion (quid, not dollars) to Pakistan and India (two nuclear powers) so they can blow the crap out of each other in Kashmir. And for some reason we're funding programs for the poor in China (work that one out!).

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Same with advocating "traditional family values". I honestly want to punch these people in the face.

How come they never speak out against adultery, having lots of unprotected sex, being a swinger, and all of the other sexy things that can be done while in hetero relationships? Why is it inferred that the "gay lifestyle" is more prevalent than hetero adultery in particular? This is all assuming that any of this is their business, which it isn't. Sure there is a lot of sexual promiscuity amongst gay people, but this is also so amongst heteros too. To not utter a peep about heteros that are having as much sex as the human body can withstand is just plain hypocrisy.

"Traditional family values" is even worse. WTF is that? Why would a gay couple have values that are much different than being loving and supporting and all of that stuff, or by that do they mean something involving having a single male head of the household?

Moreover, with all of the problems this country is facing right now, "gay lifestyles" should be the least of anybody's worries. STFU about all of this and let's focus on what actually matters, and then we can fuss over where penises should go.

Completely agree. It goes along the lines of defining "marriage" once again failing to realize that heterosexuals have defined it as a life-long commitment of monogamy nearly half make at least twice in a lifetime to more than one person with court arrangements for who gets the kids and when, and prenups to protect assets. They'd do well to focus on government policies that have facilitated the breakdown of the traditional family for all, not indict the sexual proclivities of the few.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

I'm all for making gays suffer mother-in-laws, but you wouldn't be the first leftie to hate it when the opposition says something you don't like.

Whereas the right are so quick to embrace the opinions and idea(l)s of others.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Strange, ain't it? The pot is supposedly empty but there's always money to spend on foreign aid or telling someone else what to do. We're currently sending over a billion (quid, not dollars) to Pakistan and India (two nuclear powers) so they can blow the crap out of each other in Kashmir. And for some reason we're funding programs for the poor in China (work that one out!).

I do agree with this though. China already has all the money, we shouldn't be giving them any more and Pakistan certainly appears to not only be blowing the crap out of India but funding and/or assisting people who try to blow the crap out of us. Ridiculous.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

Whereas the right are so quick to embrace the opinions and idea(l)s of others.

The right don't pretend to be tolerant.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

The right don't pretend to be tolerant.

[Waragainstsleep]

But is it intolerant to be intolerant of intolerance?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I think their willingness to play these cards may not mean that they hate gays, but whenever their willingness to gain an upper hand trumps their sense of not vilifying a group, it certainly suggests that they don't have love for that group either.

Why don't Republicans scapegoat the so-called 1% then?

Why does it matter to you who is being scapegoated? Is it "good" to shift ridicule towards the rich or the religious or the gun enthusiasts instead of the gays? Or is that just robbing peter to pay paul?

To answer your question, habit. Voters also feel comforted by familiarity, in addition to feeling comforted by blaming minorities for things so they don't have to think about their own failings.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

But is it intolerant to be intolerant of intolerance?

Yes. Especially when the left chooses which intolerances they're intolerant towards and ignores others.

[Waragainstsleep]

Everyone has to prioritise.

[The Final Dakar]

I'm not ashamed to admit that I'm a Christian, but you don't need to be in the pew every Sunday to know there's something wrong in this country when gays can serve openly in the military but our kids can't openly celebrate Christmas or pray in school.

Paired with besson's link above, I think someone is hoping Conservative Christian voters can prop him back up in the polls.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

How come they never speak out against adultery, having lots of unprotected sex, being a swinger, and all of the other sexy things that can be done while in hetero relationships?

I'm guessing because there is no real visible "lobby" out there advocating for normalization and non-judgement of swingers, adulterers and those who practice other "sexy things" which go against traditional moral, religious values like there is for homosexual behavior.

I'm not aware of any national campaigns or legal movements getting much play in the media for "swingers rights" or the like, for instance.

The squeaky wheels get the grease, apparently.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Socially left of center, economically right of center?

Yes, Blue Dog, have been my whole adult life.

[el chupacabra]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

How come they never speak out against adultery, having lots of unprotected sex, being a swinger, and all of the other sexy things that can be done while in hetero relationships?

Because it's already established that those things are wrong. Screaming about how adultery etc is wrong would be kicking a dead horse since everyone who commits it already knows that. Look at Cain, when all this stuff came out about him he didn't try to justify it like gays do; he denied it; and it still quickly pushed him down, proving that these "hetero" activities you mentioned are even more unacceptable than the gay lifestyle. As far as gayness is concerned, people are still in the stages of trying to prove it's wrong and when politicians are questioned about it you shouldn't be surprised when they provide an answer.

Whether you believe it's wrong or not is beside the point. Over half the country either believes it is, or is disgusted by it. It might seem like mainly a republican/religion issue but the majority of democrats are also disgusted by gays; they're just more PC about it.

Personally I don't see why gay morals or anything else is worthy of political discussion. It's not the governments business. This stuff should be at the bottom of the list of priorities considering the countries real problems right now. Also considering the US is still one of the most tolerant countries when it comes to accepting other lifestyles, culture or race. Anyone who says otherwise hasn't been outside the country for any significant amount of time. It's nice to walk down a US street without having to constantly worry that someone is going to kill you because of your color, accent, or the way you dress.

edit: what it boils down to is gays are mad that the IRS doesn't recognize their marriage; If I were prez, I'd fix this by making the IRS not recognize any marriage; it's none of the governments business...

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Same with advocating "traditional family values". I honestly want to punch these people in the face.

Is someone looking to exit the closet ?

-t

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by el chupacabra 

edit: what it boils down to is gays are mad that the IRS doesn't recognize their marriage; If I were prez, I'd fix this by making the IRS not recognize any marriage; it's none of the governments business...

Marriage only provides tax benefits when the incomes of the two partners are vastly different (eg homemaker). Otherwise there is actually a penalty. Homemakers are far more common when there are children, and for obvious reasons children are less common in gay partnerships than hetero ones. So I don't think the issue is really about taxes.

[Leonard]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Is someone looking to exit the closet ?

-t

I have a better question. What's he doing in the closet?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Completely agree. It goes along the lines of defining "marriage" once again failing to realize that heterosexuals have defined it as a life-long commitment of monogamy nearly half make at least twice in a lifetime to more than one person with court arrangements for who gets the kids and when, and prenups to protect assets. They'd do well to focus on government policies that have facilitated the breakdown of the traditional family for all, not indict the sexual proclivities of the few.

I should have added the divorce rate into my post, this is a good point.

I think that the whole notion of government policies facilitating the breakdown of traditional family is a stretch though. You didn't say how often this is the case and what policies you had in mind, but I'd say that if any the divorce rate would be higher without government, since being married provides financial benefits. I can't think of any other way government would be relevant in the so-called breakdown of traditional family, so you'll have to elaborate. Maybe I'm not being creative enough with my thinking...

[Big Mac]

Don't be so sure. For one thing, our welfare laws promote children being born to unwed mothers in poor areas because the single mothers can qualify for welfare if they're unmarried and the husband doesn't live with the family. And Uncle Skeleton also mentioned that marriage can be a loser tax wise in certain income circumstances.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Yes, Blue Dog, have been my whole adult life.

I dig that. The question I have is, should the economic or social spectrum have more influence on political self-identification?

Sometimes I think the social spectrum is more important, because our intense economic debate and problems we are facing now are probably abnormal in the history of the planet. If the economy was in good shape talk of tweaking tax rates and other economic stuff would probably be mostly academic.

[subego]

Originally Posted by el chupacabra 

edit: what it boils down to is gays are mad that the IRS doesn't recognize their marriage; If I were prez, I'd fix this by making the IRS not recognize any marriage; it's none of the governments business...

I'm pretty sure it's more practical things like being allowed in while your mate is in the emergency room, or entering your mate into the immigration process if they're not American.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Don't be so sure. For one thing, our welfare laws promote children being born to unwed mothers in poor areas because the single mothers can qualify for welfare if they're unmarried and the husband doesn't live with the family. And Uncle Skeleton also mentioned that marriage can be a loser tax wise in certain income circumstances.

Is this statistically significant?

[Waragainstsleep]

I think I'd enjoy a spoof of this thread where an outrageously flamboyant homosexual delivers a public address condemning the evils of the 'political lifestyle'.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

I think I'd enjoy a spoof of this thread where an outrageously flamboyant homosexual delivers a public address condemning the evils of the 'political lifestyle'.

Paging Salty to the Pol Lounge. Salty to the Pol Lounge please.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Paging Salty to the Pol Lounge. Salty to the Pol Lounge please.

Belay that order.

[lpkmckenna]

Once again, the "social conservatives" are being taken for a ride by the neo-cons. That assh0le Perry is just saying this because he can't get nominated merely by braying loudly about reconstructing the U.S. into a crony capitalist paradise. The alliance between social conservatives and neo-cons has worked to the exclusive benefit of the neo-cons, who have made promises to the social conservatives and never, ever delivered; this is by design. Outrage fuels the social conservatives, and if they run out of things to be outraged by, they will lose interest in politics. But this one-sided alliance will remain until the social conservatives wake up and realize what moronic dupes they've been.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Big Mac

Don't be so sure. For one thing, our welfare laws promote children being born to unwed mothers in poor areas because the single mothers can qualify for welfare if they're unmarried and the husband doesn't live with the family.

There's definitely something to be said for that. But look at the flip side. Say you had a poor married family with young children. The man is an ex-con. Nothing violent. Not out molesting children. Just out hustling selling dope to make a living. He decides to stay on the stray and narrow when he gets out because he can't do anything for his family on the inside. But he can't find a job because whenever he checks the "Have you ever been convicted of a felony?" box ... the door gets slammed on the limited employment opportunities he does have. Childcare is utterly unaffordable so the woman working is out of the question until the man gets a job. So the question then becomes ....

A. Is it preferable for you that the family receive welfare temporarily as a boost until the parents find employment, thereby eliminating the incentive for out-of-wedlock childbirth?

or ....

B. Is it unthinkable to you that your tax dollars contribute to a family receiving welfare temporarily when there is an able-bodied man in the house?

The thing is ... the reason why the system is setup the way it is today is because when it's all said and done the majority of people would say B. And until that thinking changes the valid criticisms made against the welfare system will continue to ring as hollow ideological rhetoric and not genuine concern for the breakdown of the traditional family structure.

OAW

[Leonard]

Actually, marriage or spouse, is important for alot more than just taxes. Alot of laws, and other federal departments in Canada (for various benefits), at least, depend on knowing who's married or not and who their spouse is.

It's so ingrained in society and government that there is no way you can pull out "marriage" from all the laws and departments.

Ex. In Canada, if one of the parents dies, the remaining spouse and kids get widow's benefits. For taxes (as mentioned), kids can be claimed as dependents by one of the spouses and tons of credits and tax benefits are split depending on this and have to be validated. It's important in wills and estates. It's important in court for custody cases. Etc, etc.... you can't remove the government from knowing who is married.

Matter of fact, there is an important legal battle in Canada right now involving marriage. That it's illegal to be married to more than one person. They finally want to see if they can bring the mormons that marry more than once to court.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Once again, the "social conservatives" are being taken for a ride by the neo-cons. That assh0le Perry is just saying this because he can't get nominated merely by braying loudly about reconstructing the U.S. into a crony capitalist paradise. The alliance between social conservatives and neo-cons has worked to the exclusive benefit of the neo-cons, who have made promises to the social conservatives and never, ever delivered; this is by design. Outrage fuels the social conservatives, and if they run out of things to be outraged by, they will lose interest in politics. But this one-sided alliance will remain until the social conservatives wake up and realize what moronic dupes they've been.

Desperation is a sad thing, because if that strategy was worth a damn, Rick Santorum would be crushing his opposition.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Childcare is utterly unaffordable so the woman working is out of the question until the man gets a job. So the question then becomes ....

A. Is it preferable for you that the family receive welfare temporarily as a boost until the parents find employment, thereby eliminating the incentive for out-of-wedlock childbirth?

or ....

B. Is it unthinkable to you that your tax dollars contribute to a family receiving welfare temporarily when there is an able-bodied man in the house?

C. She works and he child-cares.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

C. She works and he child-cares.

Fair enough. But my fundamental point remains. Gainful employment is difficult to come by in really poor areas. For men and women alike. For those with records as well as those without. Especially for those with a high school education or less. Especially for those with no access to private transportation. If an employer willing to hire isn't on a public transportation route ... they can be SOL. So the question I'm raising is one not just of ideology but also of gut reaction. Say the parents ... the man and the woman ... are simply unable to find employment. Not because they aren't trying. They just can't find a job. Should the government provide them temporary income support even though there is an able-bodied man in the house? Or not?

Now I'll be honest. My "gut reaction" is Hell no! Why should my tax dollars be used for some grown ass man to be a "professional mailbox watcher"?" But the intellectual side of me sees that it would be better as a matter of policy to not disallow temporary income support for a family because a father is present in the home. Because that does create perverse incentives on some level.

It's one of those those situations that's not so cut-and-dried.

OAW

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Don't be so sure. For one thing, our welfare laws promote children being born to unwed mothers in poor areas because the single mothers can qualify for welfare if they're unmarried and the husband doesn't live with the family.

Could be worse. We could have welfare laws where husbands are paid to stay home and read the Bible all day and never work.

If you actually care about the problem of unwed mothers, comprehensive sex education is the only solution. America's comedically-backwards sex education is the cause of all your problems, not welfare laws. So stop being so stupid and blaming welfare.

Children are born to unwed mothers because those mothers are unwed. That's it. Welfare laws have nothing to do with it, certainly not the miserly pittance that unwed moms in the U.S. are expected to live on. If generous welfare laws caused family breakdown, it wouldn't be the U.S. leading the world in unwed mothers, but it is.

The United States has the highest percentage of single-parent families (34% in 1998) among developed countries, followed by Canada (22%), Australia (20%), and Denmark (19%). If welfare caused unwed motherhood, the exact opposite would be true! Single-Parent Families - Demographic Trends - Poverty, Family, Women, and Percent - JRank Articles

Besides, the public burden of supporting single parent homes is hysterically exaggerated by conservatives. http://www.census.gov/prod/2009pubs/p60-237.pdf

But it's ok, let's attack the welfare moms for wreaking the economy, not the bankers. Let's blame the welfare moms for draining the gov't coffers, not the monstrously bloated American military and its well-supported industries. Let's claw back those welfare dollars so we can give another tax holiday to corporations who off-shore their profits.

[Waragainstsleep]

Sex education is probably the best answer, but it isn't the holy grail you make it out to be. The sex education I got at school was pretty thorough and while they didn't exactly ram it home, they revisited it regularly between the ages of 11 and 16. There was still no shortage of girls at my school who actually planned to have kids by themselves. Some did it because they just 'wanted a baby', some did it because they knew they would get free housing and frankly a better lifestyle than they would be able to afford otherwise without having to actually make an effort.

Welfare systems are put in place to keep people going until they get themselves sorted out but how can you possibly legislate against people who are happy to live off it indefinitely by gaming the system?
The only thing you can do is take the children away and slash the welfare benefits.

Over here the system for taking children into care is not very good. Kids who go into care are much more likely to do badly at school and end up as criminals (or at least single parents themselves) so that doesn't really help anyone in the long run. Even if the care system was spectacular, there is a prevailing opinion that you shouldn't take children away from their parents unless they are in physical danger. It really has to get very bad before they take kids away. Drugs or violence usually.

So the answer is to build a care/fostering/adoption system that is better than any I know to exist anywhere in the world and educate everyone about contraception and put the idea in their heads that taking kids into care when their parents are lazy sponging wasters is ok. Either that or you have to start sterilising people.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I dig that. The question I have is, should the economic or social spectrum have more influence on political self-identification?

For me, it isn't a big deal on a local and state level, our Democrats are quite economically conservative and ~75% of the time I vote for them. Presidential and congressional elections, however, are a constant annoyance for me, and for a long time I've chosen "economic"*. I don't feel that I have a real choice, I just go with the lesser evil and ignore the smell. For President it'll be the same this time, if Ron Paul isn't nominated. I'll make up my pros/cons sheet, mark each category, and vote for the guy with the highest score. Maybe it's for the best, at least it makes me do my homework on each candidate.



*I couldn't make myself vote for GW Bush, though. So I voted Independent both times.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

For me, it isn't a big deal on a local and state level, our Democrats are quite economically conservative and ~75% of the time I vote for them. Presidential and congressional elections, however, are a constant annoyance for me, and for a long time I've chosen "economic"*. I don't feel that I have a real choice, I just go with the lesser evil and ignore the smell. For President it'll be the same this time, if Ron Paul isn't nominated. I'll make up my pros/cons sheet, mark each category, and vote for the guy with the highest score. Maybe it's for the best, at least it makes me do my homework on each candidate.



*I couldn't make myself vote for GW Bush, though. So I voted Independent both times.

Ahh, I seem to recall you being an outspoken pro-lifer, so maybe that is why my perception of you was different, but maybe you just felt strongly about the issue and not so much government involvement on this issue.

I have a real and hopelessly irreconcilable disconnect with all things socially conservative. Not so much the stances on the issues, but the point when we talk about government (at any level) claiming sovereignty over our bodies or otherwise making decisions for us or imposing a belief system on people. For one, I kind of want to rattle cages when these same sorts of people go on about minimal government that doesn't interfere with our lives, but also because these politicians almost always genuinely and sincerely come across as ****ing crazy to me.

I know I'm incredibly biased, but I would love for anybody to make a compelling case for some of these social conservative stances such as the stuff Perry said so that I can begin to wrap my head around this way of thinking.

I realize that this is all complicated by religion and I'm obviously not religious, but then I want to understand why these same people seem to want to recognize freedom of religion, yet they still want to make everything Christian. I don't understand why these people don't understand that freedom of religion also can include freedom *from* religion, as well as being free to promote and practice non-Christian beliefs, even if this means these beliefs penetrating government. However, if I had it my way, religious groups would be completely 100% shut out of politics anyway because they have never seemed to mix well, and probably never will.

[Shaddim]

Umm, I'm pro-choice through first trimester, even though I personally find it disgusting.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Why does it matter to you who is being scapegoated? Is it "good" to shift ridicule towards the rich or the religious or the gun enthusiasts instead of the gays? Or is that just robbing peter to pay paul?

Kaboom!

At the end of the day, it boils down to your fellowship. Both wings are trying to impose their moral values on someone else.

[andi*pandi]

Perhaps, but one set of morals expands personal liberty, one sets limits.

If gay marriages are made legal, straight people won't be forced to have gay marriage.