I'm willing to give you a philosophical break regarding abortion that you are looking protecting the rights of person since personhood in your view begins at conception but the spin is just painful here.. This is text of the proposed amendment to the MN Constitution that was proposed and passed on an almost party line vote in the MN Legislature by Republicans. [rquoter]The question, along with the measure's ballot title, would be presented to voters as follows:[4] "Recognition of Marriage Solely Between One Man and One Woman[/rquoter] Note that is unambiguously stating that "marriage" will only be 'recognized' under one circumstance. It is absolutely about government defining marriage. Here is the part of the 2012 Republican Platform addressing marriage: [rquoter]Preserving and Protecting Traditional Marriage (Top) The institution of marriage is the foundation of civil society. Its success as an institution will determine our success as a nation. It has been proven by both experience and endless social science studies that traditional marriage is best for children. Children raised in intact married families are more likely to attend college, are physically and emotionally healthier, are less likely to use drugs or alcohol, engage in crime, or get pregnant outside of marriage. The success of marriage directly impacts the economic well-being of individuals. Furthermore, the future of marriage affects freedom. The lack of family formation not only leads to more government costs, but also to more government control over the lives of its citizens in all aspects. We recognize and honor the courageous efforts of those who bear the many burdens of parenting alone, even as we believe that marriage, the union of one man and one woman must be upheld as the national standard, a goal to stand for, encourage, and promote through laws governing marriage. We embrace the principle that all Americans should be treated with respect and dignity.[/rquoter] Even as they worry about more government involvement they state that one standard of marriage should be promoted through laws governing marriage. This isn't some fringe document but the official platform voted on and accepted by the party.
Hey look! It's the actual topic for this thread! Can we put a kibosh on the abortion+gay marriage discussion please? Geez. I totally agree with your assessment, and it's one that I've more or less come to; though, you certainly expressed it with more grace and tact than I've been using lately. I think the bolded portion (my emphasis) is key to a lot of this. For me personally, I grew up with a conservative's view of the poor and those on welfare. Growing up comfortably middle-class in a suburb, it's easy to just see the failures of a demographic so far removed from you and get the sense that you're "better" than them or that you've even earned your current status. Naturally, this led to a sink-or-swim mentality--my immature teenage self would've probably been a objectivist/randian-libertarian or some nonsense... That said, I wasn't completely heartless: in my late teens, I started doing volunteer work during my summers at an inner-city center for teens... and THAT really changed my perspective! All of a sudden, my social darwinism quickly faded as I saw how kids just like myself grew up in totally different environments and were completely underserved by their schools, communities, etc... These "inferior" factions of society were no longer a nebulous idea or stereotype, but rather, they now had a human face, and I began to understand the importance of supporting these communities and the vital role government could and should have in this. Granted, we can never make life fair for everyone, but if we have any semblance of compassion for others, then it very much falls on us (and by extension government... or is the other way around?) to try and enact change. Even for those heartless bastards without said compassion, society as a whole benefits when it is not dragged down with the problems of poverty (e.g. crime). The republicans' negative view of the poor--even more clearly apparent and galvanized over the last few years--is just sickening to me. It reeks of selfishness and/or (sometimes willful) ignorance. I still do volunteer work from time to time, and I can't think of anyone involved in similar work that subscribes to the current mentality of the Right.
Liberals demands there be a definition to marriage, this is not a position held by many Republicans. Claiming that what definition is chosen is proof that Republicans wish to force their beliefs on others is ludicrous. Any definition would be exclusive and therefore any definition would be forcing beliefs in your eyes. The legislation you posted is an attempt to have their definition prevail over others. That doesn't contradict the fact that liberalism has demanded a definition exist not Republicans/Conservatives/Libertarians and therefore liberalism has demanded a belief be pushed on others. Though the Republican Platform quote doesn't explicitly say governments should recognize marriage it certainly hints at it and does little to suggest otherwise. It's a terrible piece of writing. What I can tell you is that off the top of my head I can name plenty of Republicans who refute this position and I know of 0 liberals.
I think you confuse the Libertarians with the Republicans. While many Libertarians are also Republicans, they don't necessarily see eye-to-eye on every issue.
Everything has a defintion. Discriminatory definitions tend to change over time including words like citizen and voter. You want to live in this fantasy land that doesn't exist. You want to define things in a certain way as "the way it is and has always been" and then claim that the way it is isn't you forcing things on people. It's absurd. Furthermore, you've lost this battle already. You really don't want to be part of a civilized modern society, you want to live in 1800's America and let the pieces fall where they may even if as a society, we through government have the ability to solve serious problems. You seem to believe these problems get solved by everyone just magically pulling in the same direction through free enterprise. History shows that just doesn't happen and you're wrong, you're going to continue to be wrong, and as time goes on your thinking will continue to be marginalized.
Really? So when one side explicitly states it is only recognizing one definition of marriage you accuse the other side of actually being the ones of forcing a definition on others. It's amazing you aren't suffering whiplash from that much spin. It says right there. "we believe that marriage, the union of one man and one woman must be upheld as the national standard, a goal to stand for, encourage, and promote through laws governing marriage." I'm know a lot of Republicans who don't agree with that position (just like there are many Democrats who think marriage should be limited to heterosexuals) but that is the official platform of their party. Frankly if enough Republicans opposed that position they should take it out of their platform.
one side? Do liberals recognize multiple definitions of marriage? Question a) Should the government define marriage ? Question b) What is the definition of marriage? You confuse these 2 questions. The legislation addresses question b. The idea of forcing beliefs on others (our discussion) pertains to question a. Answering question b does not presume an answer to question a. I can't make this any simpler for you.
So, if liberals had never forced the issue, it would be easier for a same-sex couple to get a marriage license?
I have never fully understood this argument. Every law forces beliefs on somebody else. You could argue that a prohibition on prostitution is forcing somebody else's beliefs on a woman and telling her what she cannot do with her body.
I am consistent, prostitution should be a legal, regulated profession. I am similarly against every "victimless crime" that I can think of. What happens between two consenting adults is between those two and as long as there aren't any external costs, the government has no business butting its nose in. If there are external costs, they should be recouped through taxation.
I tend to agree with you on this. Besides, there is the inconsistency that, at this point, the uterus belongs to the woman, but the vagina is regulated by the state.
Most republicans are just illiterate racist assholes. Tall, basso and the others can testify to that. I considered myself more right leaning then left but have changed my stance over the years. The crazies just push me away.
It's always funny to me when people use poor English to condescend to others. The naive man is the one that falls for the simplest of propagandist ruses. And then rolls his eyes... the inferior intellect playing at superiority. It never gets old. "All politicians are the same so why bother?" That's not your line; it came from politicians that benefit from less people participating in the democratic process. Their niftiest trick is persuading you that you came up with the idea yourself. Way to be, sucker.
With today's Republican party? Unaware, fully aware but outrageously callous, greedy enough to be aware but callous, full of hate, misled by their local church, or insane. Call me whatever you like. I didn't turn your party into an extreme and radical freak-show, in which more Limbaugh and Norquist have more power than anyone that was actually elected.
Then why is it a wrenching decision? That's what you keep throwing back at my criticism of those decisions.... I threw some old meat out of the fridge the other day and didn't even blink.... also a rug the cats had peed on because they are mad about something. I think the real objection to re-distribution is the taking not the giving to the needy. The impetus is to want to take more and more and to want uninhibited access to take more and more.
