thebin
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,869
|
Post by thebin on May 10, 2012 12:45:21 GMT -5
There are some elements on the right that think this is 2002 and are going to try to make November a referendum on gay marriage in any way they can as some sort of albatross to hang around the Dem's necks. There are even more people in the Democratic party hoping they do just that. Hence the Obama flip on this issue yesterday. This is not 2002. The shift in attitudes on homosexuality in America in the last decade has been nothing short of astounding. The older GOP base ignores this sea change at its long term peril. I just found this by accident more or less. This is how the Republicans of the future feel on this topic. Some statistics here backing up what I have felt for a few years: replace "Christianity" with "GOP base" at will. But this is the important part: this author is a committed evangelical Christian from the bible belt and a natural Republican and to the right of 95% of Americans her age. So older Republicans- this isn't your enemy talking- this is your replacement in the best case scenario. This is the GOP canary in the coal mine. If older conservatives want to condemn the only center-right party in this country to decades of not being able to win national office then keep it up on gay marriage: an issue for which their view is in utter free-fall among the young and not so young anymore. rachelheldevans.com/win-culture-w....-north-carolinaHow to win a culture war and lose a generation "When asked by The Barna Group what words or phrases best describe Christianity, the top response among Americans ages 16-29 was “anti-homosexual.” For a staggering 91 percent of non-Christians, this was the first word that came to their mind when asked about the Christian faith. The same was true for 80 percent of young churchgoers. (The next most common negative images? : “judgmental,” “hypocritical,” and “too involved in politics.”) .... Despite the fact that the North Carolina law already holds that marriage in the eyes of state is only between a man and a woman, an amendment was put on the ballot to permanently ban same-sex marriage in the state constitution. The initiative doesn’t appear to change anything on a practical level, (though some are saying it may have unintended negative consequences on heterosexual relationships), but seems to serve primarily as an ideological statement....an expensive, destructive, and impractical ideological statement. Conservatives in the state—who you would think would be more opposed to tampering with constitutions—supported the amendment, and last night it passed.... As I watched my Facebook and Twitter feeds last night, the reaction among my friends fell into an imperfect but highly predictable pattern. Christians over 40 were celebrating. Christians under 40 were mourning. Reading through the comments, the same thought kept returning to my mind as occurred to me when I first saw that Billy Graham ad: You’re losing us. I’ve said it a million times, and I’ll say it again...(though I’m starting to think that no one is listening): My generation is tired of the culture wars." |
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on May 10, 2012 15:49:05 GMT -5
I think half the problem with the culture wars is the messengers. There was a tinge of "culture wars" in President Reagan, but he was an easily digestible speaker/person for most, even left of center. For younger Americans, he had a certain grandpa feel to him, even if there were some disagreements on policy.
In a space of four years, the culture warriors went from him (a soft figure in many respects) to Pat Buchanan. In another 10 years, you go from Pat Buchanan (who now looks like an independent thinker by comparison) to Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and the like. I think most Americans look at that and think no thanks regardless of the culture war itself.
|
|
Elvado
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,080
|
Post by Elvado on May 10, 2012 16:13:31 GMT -5
Are the only culture warriors on the right? Leftists have waged non stop war on American institutions
|
|
thebin
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,869
|
Post by thebin on May 10, 2012 16:34:02 GMT -5
While I agree that the messenger matters a bit, I honestly think almost all of it is people are no longer frightened to reject the idea that churches in general and Christianity specifically deserves some form of deference in this country. There are lots of good reasons for that. But probably none did more damage more quickly to the tradition of religious deference than the child-raping epidemic and worse the systemic cover-up from the higher ups in the Catholic Church. The apparent greediness and not-rare homosexuality of several prominent born again pastors and the like is probably right behind that as a reason for the speed with which people are deciding the church(es) deserve no automatic respect anymore. Once that authority came into widespread question, well the bigoted edifice of "protecting marriage" started to crumble very quickly.
And I would certainly agree the left has been waging culture wars as well. Probably nothing so dangerous to long term national prosperity than the leftist-inspired cult in educational circles of granting un-earned"self-esteem" above all, often at the expense of the real skills with which one might actually EARN real self-esteem. Leftist ideas have utterly destroyed the quality of American public education, a crime they very seldom are called to answer for. But they just keep digging that hole and taking those teacher's union contributions, that's for sure. That's actually the one area where the Church has a record with which to be proud: they run a large number of American secondary schools which do not suck and for the most part do it on the cheap and for the benefit of the less-than-wealthy.
|
|
DFW HOYA
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,911
|
Post by DFW HOYA on May 10, 2012 17:47:34 GMT -5
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on May 10, 2012 18:55:46 GMT -5
thebin, how do you explain the fact that 31 states have voted, in one way or another, to outlaw same-sex marriages? It's my understanding that 100% of the states where this has been put to a vote, the opponents of same-sex marriages have won. And these were votes where young and old have had the opportunity to vote. And California and Washington were among the states. There appears to be a disconnect between national polls and actual votes.
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,480
|
Post by TC on May 10, 2012 19:14:09 GMT -5
thebin, how do you explain the fact that 31 states have voted, in one way or another, to outlaw same-sex marriages? Old people vote. |
|
hoyainspirit
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
When life puts that voodoo on me, music is my gris-gris.
Posts: 8,398 
|
Post by hoyainspirit on May 10, 2012 21:33:25 GMT -5
But it won't last. Eventually most, if not all, states will allow it. It's amazing to me that, in the twenty-first century, America still embraces, and indeed celebrates, denying civil rights to Americans.
|
|
Elvado
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,080
|
Post by Elvado on May 11, 2012 4:48:39 GMT -5
Mr. Obama and I almost never agree, but on this one we do. Two adults who wish to fully commit to each other in marriage should be allowed to, period.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on May 11, 2012 5:12:52 GMT -5
We've discussed this earlier, but why not three adults?
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,480
|
Post by TC on May 11, 2012 6:46:46 GMT -5
We've discussed this earlier, but why not three adults? We've discussed this before, but it boils down to 2 != 3. |
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on May 11, 2012 7:36:26 GMT -5
We've discussed this earlier, but why not three adults? We've discussed this before, but it boils down to 2 != 3. But all the same arguments in favor of allowing two people in love to get married apply to three people in love getting married. The # of people in the relationship is irrelevant. |
|
TBird41
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
"Roy! I Love All 7'2" of you Roy!"
Posts: 8,740
|
Post by TBird41 on May 11, 2012 9:21:38 GMT -5
We've discussed this before, but it boils down to 2 != 3. But all the same arguments in favor of allowing two people in love to get married apply to three people in love getting married. The # of people in the relationship is irrelevant. The problem is that polygamy tends not to be consensual. It's actually a pretty good proxy for a non-consensual marriage. Just like arranged marriages. Polygamy is like communism--it works in theory. If polygamy tended to be as consensual as gay marriage is, I wouldn't have a problem with the state recognizing it. This, of course, assumes we aren't going to force churches to recognize marriages they feel go against their beliefs. |
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on May 11, 2012 9:33:21 GMT -5
But all the same arguments in favor of allowing two people in love to get married apply to three people in love getting married. The # of people in the relationship is irrelevant. The problem is that polygamy tends not to be consensual. It's actually a pretty good proxy for a non-consensual marriage. Just like arranged marriages. Polygamy is like communism--it works in theory. "Polygamy tends not to be consensual?" You're painting with broad strokes and little pigment. Watching Big Love to be informed about polygamy is as valid as watching Will & Grace to be informed about gay marriage. |
|
thebin
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,869
|
Post by thebin on May 11, 2012 9:35:42 GMT -5
I personally don't care if polygamy is legal since its overwhelming lack of appeal on many levels will always severely limit it- as long as all of the individuals have full agency. That's Mill's conception of Liberty and I know no better one. (Anticipating the next question: dogs don't have agency.)
Moreover this inane argument could be just as easily used to prevent marriage between a man and woman too. There is no there there. You don't get to prevent two people from committing to each other in the eyes of the law because most people are offended by the notion of three people doing the same. It is a total non sequitur.
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on May 11, 2012 10:01:25 GMT -5
I personally don't care if polygamy is legal since its overwhelming lack of appeal on many levels will always severely limit it- as long as all of the individuals have full agency. That's Mill's conception of Liberty and I know no better one. (Anticipating the next question: dogs don't have agency.) Moreover this inane argument could be just as easily used to prevent marriage between a man and woman too. There is no there there. You don't get to prevent two people from committing to each other in the eyes of the law because most people are offended by the notion of three people doing the same. It is a total non sequitur. I'll see your non sequitur and raise you a strawman. Who is saying two people should be prevented from committing to each other in the eyes of the law because most people are offended by the notion of three people doing the same? |
|
thebin
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,869
|
Post by thebin on May 11, 2012 10:17:54 GMT -5
Was a slippery slope argument not just posited against gay marriage by EasyEd by suggesting that if you let two men marry one another you have to let three men marry? Or did you take his post to be advocacy of polygamy? Wait- are you splitting semantic hairs with the "eyes of the law" thing? If that's the case- please substitute "get married" where needed because yes I'm talking about marriage, not some legally classified second class version of it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Problem of Dog on May 11, 2012 12:01:24 GMT -5
thebin, how do you explain the fact that 31 states have voted, in one way or another, to outlaw same-sex marriages? Old people vote. Exactly. The amendments rally those who are terrified of change and "moral decline." "The Post-ABC polling shows a huge generational divide — with young people overwhelmingly supportive of legalization. Fully 65 percent of people aged 18-29 say gay marriage should be legal while 61 percent of those aged 30-39 agree. And there is every indication that each younger generation feels increasingly comfortable with the idea of gay men and women being married." |
|
thebin
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,869
|
Post by thebin on May 11, 2012 12:17:49 GMT -5
Does it not dawn on any of the anti-marriage peeps that one day their kids and grand kids are going to look on them like many of us look at our bigoted grandparents as regards race? When the writing is on the wall, man-up and re-evaluate whether supporting the imposition of liberty restrictions on people who you will never meet and whose actions will not impact you at all is worth looking so ignorant to anyone with a college degree. Jump on the winning team here. You don't look valiant going down with the ship, you just look like a mouth breather.
|
|
DFW HOYA
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,911
|
Post by DFW HOYA on May 11, 2012 12:29:04 GMT -5
Does it not dawn on any of the anti-marriage peeps that one day their kids and grandkids are going to look on them like many of us look at our biggotted grandparents as regards race? When the writing is on the wall, man-up and re-evaluate whether supporting the imposition of liberty restrictions on people who you will never meet and whose actions will not impact you at all is worth looking so ignorant to anyone with a college degree. Jump on the winning team here. You don't look valiant going down with the ship, you just look like a mouth breather. One of the problems in using arguments like this is the idea that your side is more "civilized" or more "educated" on issues. Relying on the "we are more enlightened than they are" fallacy is a historically weak branch to stand upon and subject to some scrutiny. |
|
