Not Logged In Log In   Sign Up   Points Leaders
Follow Us    9:56 PM

Message Forum - Read Message

Category: US politics > Topics Add to favorite topics   Post new topicPost New Topic
Author Topic: Fundamental Differences In Conservative And Liberal Views Back to Topics
SemiSteve

Champion Author
Tampa

Posts:17,643
Points:344,120
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Oct 25, 2013 12:24:31 PM

It may be helpful to recognize the fundamental differences in conservative and liberal views.

We seem to be repeatedly revisiting some of the same basic concepts and spending enormous efforts trying to convince the other side why our view makes more sense.

One of them I have noticed is the treatment of the poor.

Conservatives seem to feel that the poor are poor simply because they are lazy. That if they just got determined enough and worked hard enough in the right way that they could climb out of the poverty cycle.

Liberals seem to hold that they are poor because opportunities available to others are not available to them. And they blame the rich policy-makers for systematically doing things that limit these opportunities.

Do you concur?

If so, why do we need to re-argue what has already been covered? This forum is great for learning what makes the 'other side' tick; but would be better if we could move on from the same-old same-old and try to arrive at some solutions or equitable compromise suggestions to send off to our representatives.

What other subjects can you identify the views of both sides on?
REPLIES (newest first) Post a Reply
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:25,828
Points:2,541,905
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Apr 23, 2014 6:46:23 PM

gas_too_high - "You are right about this debate being between rationalists and ideologues. Of course, in opposing the institution of marriage over the specious argument of "rights," you are the ideologue, and I am the rationalist."

So why are all of your arguments based on dogma and strawmen, instead of facts and reason? For example, characterizing my position as "opposing the institution of marriage" is a strawman. The whole point of my position is that I approve of the institution of marriage to the point where I think it should be extended to others.

"Conservativces want to retain what works and has worked. And marriage as a basis of families, despite the wyat society has changed around it, has worked well, not just for decades, or even centuries, but millenia."

And you haven't been able to provide any rational argument that same-sex marriage would change that in the slightest. All you've got are baseless opinions. So, again, you're arguing against a strawman. You don't want to keep what works. You want to keep it from being extended to others, whom you don't approve of.

"your demands that marriage changed, based on a pressure group that has chosen to take offense at how their lifestyle is incompatible with marriage as traditionally defined, is the radical, ideologoical position."

Except that there are multiple "lifestyles", both homosexual and heterosexual, and that of a loving and committed same-sex married couple is not incompatible with marriage, but is, in fact, the essence of marriage.

"Change for the sake of new ideas seen as better, regardless of whether they are proven or not, and regarduless of how well the status quo works, is the hallmark of liberalism and its extreme version, leftism."

Except that, of course, that's not what's going on here, any more than ending slavery or giving women the right to vote was "Change for the sake of new ideas seen as better", etc..

"What you fail to realize is that marriage is not about the 2 individuals involved, but in society, which has a stake in encouraging them, even marriages that don't end up procreating for whatever reason. But including in the definition of marriage, unions that are fundamentally unable to procreate, changes the purpose associated with *all* unions away from families. After redefining marriage, there will no longer be any societal institution to encourage mothers and fathers to both actively participate in raising the children they have procreated. IOW, redefining marriages weakens families."

None of which is a rational argument. As I've argued before, procreation is not basic to families, raising children is. And same-sex families raise children now, and appear to do just as well, on average, as traditional families do, on average. Not recognizing that is an attempt to relegate those families, and the children they're raising, to second-class status. So "redefining" marriage will strengthen some families and have no effect on most others.

"That is a plainly rational, conservative position. To deny that, is to be an ideologue and a cultural leftist."

Except that you still haven't provided any arguments that you can support with anything except dogma.

Which is what makes your position one of ideology, not reason.
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:17,643
Points:344,120
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Apr 23, 2014 5:14:58 PM

"Conservativces want to retain what works and has worked."

But that's the thing. Nobody is saying that men a women will ever be prevented from marrying and having a family. It is conservatives who are attempting to prevent others that are not like them from enjoying what they have known. Allowing gays to marry and have families does not hurt hetero marriages/families.

All it does is make it difficult for them to answer their kids questions about others; which is probably what a big part of that debate is all about!
Profile Pic
gas_too_high
Champion Author Columbus

Posts:13,633
Points:2,259,275
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Apr 23, 2014 4:26:51 PM

rjhenn: 'Basically, this debate only points out the difference between ideologues and rationalists. Ideologues stick to their ideology, even if they can't provide any facts or rational arguments to support it, and even if the actual facts and rational arguments disprove their ideology."

You are right about this debate being between rationalists and ideologues. Of course, in opposing the institution of marriage over the specious argument of "rights," you are the ideologue, and I am the rationalist.

Or, to put it another way, I have the conservative argument, and you have the leftist argument.

Conservativces want to retain what works and has worked. And marriage as a basis of families, despite the wyat society has changed around it, has worked well, not just for decades, or even centuries, but millenia.

your demands that marriage changed, based on a pressure group that has chosen to take offense at how their lifestyle is incompatible with marriage as traditionally defined, is the radical, ideologoical position. Change for the sake of new ideas seen as better, regardless of whether they are proven or not, and regarduless of how well the status quo works, is the hallmark of liberalism and its extreme version, leftism.

What you fail to realize is that marriage is not about the 2 individuals involved, but in society, which has a stake in encouraging them, even marriages that don't end up procreating for whatever reason. But including in the definition of marriage, unions that are fundamentally unable to procreate, changes the purpose associated with *all* unions away from families. After redefining marriage, there will no longer be any societal institution to encourage mothers and fathers to both actively participate in raising the children they have procreated. IOW, redefining marriages weakens families.

That is a plainly rational, conservative position. To deny that, is to be an ideologue and a cultural leftist.

GTH
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:25,828
Points:2,541,905
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Apr 23, 2014 12:27:51 AM

gas_too_high - "If the Second Amendment were "followed" in the way you want to "follow" the First, your guns would be confiscated, except when you were actually serving with a militia."

Total nonsense.

"Not in the intended sense of "conceive". That still happens only one way, with a man's sperm and a woman's ovum."

But you didn't say "conceive" originally. What you said was: "Sometimes those 'childless' marriages turn out to have children."

"The laws in this country still assume that a biological father and mother are suitable parents (whether married or not, but including married parents), unless demonstrated otherwise. The rest is a dilemma of your own making."

What dilemma. You're the one who insists, with no supporting facts, that a same-sex couple cannot be "suitable parents". And that two parents and children don't "have any intrinsic relationship to families."

"Which was an attempt to address the small sample sizes that have plagued other studies. Very few same-sex couples have raised children from infancy."

But there doesn't seem to be any evidence that he studied any children who were raised by same-sex couples at all. Therefore, his study doesn't provide any information about children raised by same-sex couples.

"Invalidate the Regnerus study, using whatever rationale, and you are left with no valid data that 2 men or 2 women can raise a child as well as a father and mother."

Except for all the other studies that Regnerus referred to in his study.

"Individual exceptions do not invalidate the general rule. Just as the fact that single parents sometimes can raise great children does not make single parenthood as good as 2 parent families (that is, a mother and father)."

True, but you haven't established that there is any general rule regarding same-sex parents.

"'Tiny' like King Kong."

No, tiny like doesn't have any measurable effect on past, present or future marriages.

"Just as a counterfeit dollar bill doesn't change genuine money in circulation -- or the monetary system. Just as calling "marriages" that are not marriages doesn't devalue real marriages and weaken society."

Which is your opinion, and not anything that you can provide any remotely rational argument in support of.

Basically, this debate only points out the difference between ideologues and rationalists. Ideologues stick to their ideology, even if they can't provide any facts or rational arguments to support it, and even if the actual facts and rational arguments disprove their ideology. In this case, you've got no rational arguments or facts to support your position.
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:17,643
Points:344,120
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Apr 22, 2014 11:08:09 PM

It doesn't matter if a marriage of any form is capable of producing well adjusted children. Many traditional marriages produce violent criminals as children and some seriously messed up adults result. The parents are not held accountable for this. There is no law to do so and it would be highly inappropriate to create one.

Every marriage is capable of producing good and bad offspring. It is not the government's place to be picking marriage formats based on unknown future offspring.

This is an area to just think: Live and let live.
Profile Pic
gas_too_high
Champion Author Columbus

Posts:13,633
Points:2,259,275
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Apr 22, 2014 10:01:13 PM

GTH: "I want the First Amendment to be followed."

rjhenn: "No, you want it to be followed for religious beliefs that you agree with. And you want those beliefs imposed on others, in violation of the 1st Amendment."

If the Second Amendment were "followed" in the way you want to "follow" the First, your guns would be confiscated, except when you were actually serving with a militia.

GTH: "ALL? Gee, did 2 men or 2 women successfully conceive a child, and I missed that news??"

rjhenn: "There are many ways for 2 men or 2 women to have a child..."

Not in the intended sense of "conceive". That still happens only one way, with a man's sperm and a woman's ovum.

rjhenn: 'So the government should evaluate each marriage, both before and after the actual marriage, to see if they are "well-suited"???"'

GTH: "Another of your red herrings, since I made no such proposal."

rjhenn: "How else are you going to determine who is "well-suited". Your opinion?"

The laws in this country still assume that a biological father and mother are suitable parents (whether married or not, but including married parents), unless demonstrated otherwise. The rest is a dilemma of your own making.

'Nobody has invalidated the Regenerus study "based on its sample size". It's been invalidated because its methodology doesn't support the conclusions you want to draw from it.'

Which was an attempt to address the small sample sizes that have plagued other studies. Very few same-sex couples have raised children from infancy. Invalidate the Regnerus study, using whatever rationale, and you are left with no valid data that 2 men or 2 women can raise a child as well as a father and mother.

"Are there children who have been raised by same-sex parents who are healthy and thriving? Are there children raised in traditional married families that are totally messed up?"

Individual exceptions do not invalidate the general rule. Just as the fact that single parents sometimes can raise great children does not make single parenthood as good as 2 parent families (that is, a mother and father).

GTH: "I get that you have already mentally redefined marriage out of recognition, and redefined families away from fathers and mothers."

rjhenn: "Um, no. I've simply extended the definition a tiny bit."

"Tiny" like King Kong.

"That doesn't do anything to change any existing marriage or any family such a marriage may have created."

Just as a counterfeit dollar bill doesn't change genuine money in circulation -- or the monetary system. Just as calling "marriages" that are not marriages doesn't devalue real marriages and weaken society.

GTH
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:25,828
Points:2,541,905
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Apr 22, 2014 6:03:27 PM

SemiSteve - "The mature and polite of either political view do not use derogatory names because they understand that doing so actually detracts from a good argument."

But sometimes the response to a "derogatory" name can tell you a lot about how insecure someone is in their support. 7;-]
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:17,643
Points:344,120
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Apr 22, 2014 5:47:28 PM

The mature and polite of either political view do not use derogatory names because they understand that doing so actually detracts from a good argument.

***

"Gee, did 2 men or 2 women successfully conceive a child, and I missed that news??"

Surrogate, artificial insemination, adoption, etc are shifting from being progressive ideas to mainstream.
Profile Pic
El_Gato_Negro
Champion Author Miami

Posts:2,823
Points:503,680
Joined:Nov 2012
Message Posted: Apr 22, 2014 4:14:04 PM

<<Most people would know who you mean by "Obummer" but that doesn't make it right. "Shrub" isn't right either.>> gas_too_high

Thenwhy is it that we do not see you calling our conservatives when they use the term "Obummer"?

Do you only take liberals to task and let conservatives do what ever they want?
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:25,828
Points:2,541,905
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Apr 22, 2014 3:57:33 PM

gas_too_high - "IOW, you want an executive branch regulation to overrule the Constitution. (Typical of the Obama administration, and you as a liberal)."

So, how does it "overrule the Constitution"?

"I want the First Amendment to be followed."

No, you want it to be followed for religious beliefs that you agree with.

And you want those beliefs imposed on others, in violation of the 1st Amendment.

"ALL? Gee, did 2 men or 2 women successfully conceive a child, and I missed that news??"

There are many ways for 2 men or 2 women to have a child, just as for hetero couples who are unable to conceive.

"Another of your red herrings, since I made no such proposal."

How else are you going to determine who is "well-suited". Your opinion?

"Yes, I am aware of how major medical associations have caved to politically correct pressure and abandoned good science."

IOW, the fact that they point out that the methodology used by Regnerus doesn't support the results you insist on means that they've "caved to politically correct pressure and abandoned good science."

"In any case, again, if you invalidate the Regnerus study based on its sample size, then you invalidate every other study done, since they all had smaller sample sizes."

Nobody has invalidated the Regenerus study "based on its sample size". It's been invalidated because its methodology doesn't support the conclusions you want to draw from it. It didn't study children raised in a same-sex family. What it studied was children who had one or both parents who, at some point in their lives, had a same-sex relationship.

"You mean, other than modeling both genders and their relationshoip to each other, to a child? You mean, other than the explanation I have given multiple times? You mean, other than the explanation you want to pretend does not exist?"

No, I mean other than the explanation that you can't support. Why do we need to model "both genders and their relationship to each other"? The genders are not as distinct as you want to believe. While the average of any characteristic is different for each gender, there's considerable overlap in individual members of each gender. Thus it seems likely that there is no such thing as "gender modeling", unless you're talking about modeling gender stereotypes. What matters is modeling the relationship between two married and committed persons.

"Men and women as groups, and an individual man and woman in a viable marriage, complement each other."

So can two men or two women in a relationship.

"IOW, a child needs both a father and a mother."

A child usually does better with two parents, in a committed married relationship. Gender has little or nothing to do with it.

"(Not to mention, as an advocate of change, it's your burden of proof to prove the contrary. That is, you have to *prove* it, not just state you don't understand why)."

Oh, I understand why your arguments make no sense, but: Are there children who have been raised by same-sex parents who are healthy and thriving? Are there children raised in traditional married families that are totally messed up?

Proven.

"As long as that "civil definition" is used to compel individuals to violate their religious beliefs, yes it does."

As long as it doesn't force them to violate their religious beliefs in a religious context, then no, it doesn't. And whether or not the law considers someone married, and whether or not they want some special ceremony to celebrate that, is not in a religious context, as long as they aren't trying to get your church to perform the ceremony.

"I get that you have already mentally redefined marriage out of recognition, and redefined families away from fathers and mothers."

Um, no. I've simply extended the definition a tiny bit. That doesn't do anything to change any existing marriage or any family such a marriage may have created.

So "redefined" is pure propaganda.

"But you even redefine the First Amendment, despite its plain language, to a "right to impose on religious exercise"."

No, you want to redefine it away from "free exercise" to "exercise that gas_too_high agrees with".

"Not that it matters, but which one was elected twice, and which one only once?"

Look at the results of their policies, and who was in control of Congress during their first term.

"When I said "GW Bush" you knew who I meant."

But I had to stop and think about it first.
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:25,828
Points:2,541,905
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Apr 22, 2014 3:46:26 PM

flyboyUT - "You wouldn't mind if I rephrased that to make it more accurate would you?"

Add this: Ideologues, of whatever ideology, avoid both reality and reason and make decisions based on their ideology.
Profile Pic
gas_too_high
Champion Author Columbus

Posts:13,633
Points:2,259,275
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Apr 22, 2014 11:04:24 AM

GTH: "'Shrub' as a nickname was originally coined by Texas Democrat Ann Richards precisely as an insult, and it remains so (along with your jibe of "lesser"). To differentiate between the 2 President Bushes, use of the initials is sufficient."

rjhenn: 'I didn't think there was actually any argument about GW being the "lesser".'

Not that it matters, but which one was elected twice, and which one only once?

"Besides, if you use the initials, most people probably go "Whaaa?". If you say "Shrub", most know exactly who you're talking about."

When I said "GW Bush" you knew who I meant.

Most people would know who you mean by "Obummer" but that doesn't make it right. "Shrub" isn't right either.

GTH
Profile Pic
gas_too_high
Champion Author Columbus

Posts:13,633
Points:2,259,275
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Apr 22, 2014 11:01:26 AM

gas_too_high - "you admitted there is no right to employer-provided health insurance. So where's the imposition?"

rjhenn: "That the employer wants an exemption from legal mandates, when it should be the employee's decision, based on, among other things, their religious beliefs, whether or not to use the legally-required coverage."

In this case, the "legal mandate" is not even in the Affordable Care Act, which mandates only "preventative care" but in the regulations the HHS wrote ostensibly to implement that provision.

IOW, you want an executive branch regulation to overrule the Constitution. (Typical of the Obama administration, and you as a liberal).

"So you want laws to only apply to people whose religious beliefs comport with those laws?"

I want the First Amendment to be followed.

GTH: "Sometimes those "childless" marriages turn out to have children. Sometimes they adopt. Sometimes they strengthen families in other ways, like modeling marriages for young people."

rjhenn: "All of which also apply to same-sex marriages."

ALL? Gee, did 2 men or 2 women successfully conceive a child, and I missed that news??

rjhenn: "And, of course, same-sex [so-called] marriages can and do raise children..."

GTH: As can any 2 (or more, or less) unrelated people. That doesn't mean such groups are as well-suited as a married couple. That certainly doesn't mean such groups have any intrinsic relationship to families.

rjhenn: 'So the government should evaluate each marriage, both before and after the actual marriage, to see if they are "well-suited"???"'

Another of your red herrings, since I made no such proposal.

GTH: "As are all proper scientific studies, the Regnerus study is upfront about its limitations, which are not as you say they are. In any case, no other study even approaches the sample size of the Regnerus study."

rjhenn: "As a brief filed by several major medical associations stated:..."

Yes, I am aware of how major medical associations have caved to politically correct pressure and abandoned good science.

In any case, again, if you invalidate the Regnerus study based on its sample size, then you invalidate every other study done, since they all had smaller sample sizes.

GTH: "And you still cannot explain why a family missing either a mother or a father is as good as a family which has both in the home."

rjhenn: "While you can't explain why a family requires two parents who are of different sexes."

You mean, other than modeling both genders and their relationshoip to each other, to a child? You mean, other than the explanation I have given multiple times? You mean, other than the explanation you want to pretend does not exist?

rjhenn: "And you can't explain the necessity for "gender role models" at all. Do you think that all men are alike, and all women are alike? Or just that they should be all be alike?"

Men and women as groups, and an individual man and woman in a viable marriage, complement each other.

IOW, a child needs both a father and a mother.

(Not to mention, as an advocate of change, it's your burden of proof to prove the contrary. That is, you have to *prove* it, not just state you don't understand why).

GTH: "Funny thing, the First Amendment does *not* read "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof *except in a civil context*."

rjhenn: "Funny thing, the civil definition of marriage has nothing to do with religion."

As long as that "civil definition" is used to compel individuals to violate their religious beliefs, yes it does.

I get that you have already mentally redefined marriage out of recognition, and redefined families away from fathers and mothers.

But you even redefine the First Amendment, despite its plain language, to a "right to impose on religious exercise".

GTH


[Edited by: gas_too_high at 4/22/2014 11:05:50 AM EST]
Profile Pic
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:25,948
Points:1,266,925
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Apr 21, 2014 10:58:47 PM

Steve those werent real conservatives - them were the radical polluted ones who spent too much time beating their heads against the libs.....
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:17,643
Points:344,120
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Apr 21, 2014 10:47:11 PM

OK, fly. Let's rock.

"driven by storms of emotion and illogic."

--Such as ignoring pressing issues to ponder a flag burning amendment?

"They want to change things constantly and many times never look to see if what they wish to change is working well or not."

--Like changing French fries to 'freedom fries?'

"For sure they never seem to look at the consequences for the changes (based on emotional appeals to the uneducated masses) they demand. "

--Alabama imposed stiff penalties to hire undocumented workers (such as migrant farm workers). Crops then rotted in the field and an entire year of produce was wasted.

Oh, wait a minute.

Those were all -conservative- changes!

"Conservatives try to not change anything without examining the consequences of changing vs not changing things."

[yeah, right]

--Except when emotion gets the better of them.
Profile Pic
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:25,948
Points:1,266,925
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Apr 21, 2014 10:15:09 PM

Steve said -
"Conservatives don't like change.

Liberals are always looking for new ideas to improve things."
.
.
You wouldn't mind if I rephrased that to make it more accurate would you?
Conservatives examine things to see what is working properly and what isn't. Those things that are working just fine they leave alone and those things that are malfunctioning they either repair or dispose of. Conservatives try to not change anything without examining the consequences of changing vs not changing things.

Liberals on the other hand are driven by storms of emotion and illogic. They want to change things constantly and many times never look to see if what they wish to change is working well or not. For sure they never seem to look at the consequences for the changes (based on emotional appeals to the uneducated masses) they demand.

There Steve have fun with that one. snicker smile chuckle
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:17,643
Points:344,120
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Apr 21, 2014 8:27:56 PM

Conservatives don't like change.

Liberals are always looking for new ideas to improve things.
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:25,828
Points:2,541,905
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Apr 21, 2014 5:04:46 PM

gas_too_high - "you admitted there is no right to employer-provided health insurance. So where's the imposition?"

That the employer wants an exemption from legal mandates, when it should be the employee's decision, based on, among other things, their religious beliefs, whether or not to use the legally-required coverage.

"The real imposition would be if the federal government imposed its anti-religious laws in private employers with religious views."

So you want laws to only apply to people whose religious beliefs comport with those laws?

"And also single-payer. In fact, much more so, since single-payer means there are no other options."

Single-payer means that the employer is no longer paying directly for the insurance. Much like pacifists' taxes still pay for the DoD. With single payer, each person can follow their own beliefs as to what coverage to utilize.

"Yes. Sometimes those "childless" marriages turn out to have children. Sometimes they adopt. Sometimes they strengthen families in other ways, like modeling marriages for young people."

All of which also apply to same-sex marriages.

"As can any 2 (or more, or less) unrelated people. That doesn't mean such groups are as well-suited as a married couple. That certainly mean such groups ahve any intrinsic relationship to families."

So the government should evaluate each marriage, both before and after the actual marriage, to see if they are "well-suited"???

"As are all proper scientific studies, the Regnerus study is upfront about its limitations, which are not as you say they are. In any case, no other study even approaches the sample size of the Regnerus study."

As a brief filed by several major medical associations stated: "The Regnerus study placed participants (individuals between the age of 18 and 39) into one of eight categories, six of which were defined by the family structure in which they grew up — e.g., married biological parents, divorced parent, divorced but remarried parent, etc. There was no category for “same-sex couple.” Instead, the final two categories included all participants, regardless of family structure, who believed that at some time between birth and their 18th birthday their mother or their father “ever ha[d] a romantic relationship with someone of the same sex.” Hence the data does not show whether the perceived romantic relationship ever in fact occurred; nor whether the parent self-identified as gay or lesbian; nor whether the same sex relationship was continuous, episodic, or one-time only; nor whether the individual in these categories was actually raised by a homosexual parent(children of gay fathers are often raised by their heterosexual mothers following divorce), much less a parent in a long-term relationship with a same-sex partner. Indeed, most of the participants in these groups spent very little, if any, time being raised by a “same-sex couple.”
Hence the Regnerus study sheds no light on the parenting of stable, committed same-sex couples – as Regnerus himself acknowledges – and thus it is gravely misleading to say, as the American College of Pediatricians does, that the study involved 175 participants who “were raised by two women and 73 by two men.”"

His results could, in some cases, probably be equally well explained as due to the harm done by limiting homosexuals to traditional marriage.

"So, if this study is invalid, you still are left with nothing substantiating your claim that "sames-sex couples are just as good" as married couples in raising children."

Except all the other studies that have been done on the subject. As Regnerus himself states: "Since that time the conventional wisdom emerging from comparative studies of same-sex parenting is that there are very few differences of note in the child outcomes of gay and lesbian parents (Tasker, 2005; Wainright and Patterson, 2006; Rosenfeld, 2010). Moreover, a variety of possible advantages of having a lesbian couple as parents have emerged in recent studies (Crowl et al., 2008; Biblarz and Stacey, 2010; Gartrell and Bos, 2010; MacCallum and Golombok, 2004). The scholarly discourse concerning gay and lesbian parenting, then, has increasingly posed a challenge to previous assumptions about the supposed benefits of being raised in biologically-intact, two-parent heterosexual households."

"And you still cannot explain why a family missing either a mother or a father is as good as a family which has both in the home."

While you can't explain why a family requires two parents who are of different sexes.

"As for why that matters, a gender role model outside the home may or may not make up for a missing gender model in the home. That person may or may not have a close relationship to the child, may or may not be there at a critical moment when the child needs him or her, and probably won't model relationships to the other gender -- almost certainly not in an in-home family setting. Having 2 in-home parents of each gender is much more likely to model all of the above to a child."

And you can't explain the necessity for "gender role models" at all. Do you think that all men are alike, and all women are alike? Or just that they should be all be alike? There's considerable overlap between almost every physical or psychological characteristic of men and women, enough that the idea of fixed role models is completely ridiculous. It's the relationship that matters, not the gender of the individuals involved.

"Funny thing, the First Amendment does *not* read "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof *except in a civil context*."

Funny thing, the civil definition of marriage has nothing to do with religion.

"No matter how you try to evade it, you are the one limiting religious freedom, not I."

No, you're the one trying to use the government to impose your religious values on everyone else, a clear violation of the 1st Amendment.

"'Shrub' as a nickname was originally coined by Texas Democrat Ann Richards precisely as an insult, and it remains so (along with your jibe of "lesser"). To differentiate between the 2 President Bushes, use of the initials is sufficient."

I didn't think there was actually any argument about GW being the "lesser". In which case, Shrub, whatever its origin, is appropriate.

Besides, if you use the initials, most people probably go "Whaaa?". If you say "Shrub", most know exactly who you're talking about.

[Edited by: rjhenn at 4/21/2014 5:07:23 PM EST]
Profile Pic
gas_too_high
Champion Author Columbus

Posts:13,633
Points:2,259,275
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Apr 21, 2014 3:39:49 PM

gas_too_high - "THe word "reform" and your pet phrase, "fixing things" and too broad, meaning different things to different people. They are neither a platform, nor an organizing principle for a third party. Try again. Just how are you going to start a third party that can actually attract votes that won't be wasted?"

rjhenn: "You point out that the two main parties' reliance on political dogma isn't fixing anything, and promote a process based on reason and the Constitution."

Go ahead and try it. Let me know how that works out for you. I think you'll run into the same problem that the post-Perot Reform party had -- a free-for-all that can't agree on anything. (And that assumes you even attract enough people to make a free-for-all).

AC-302: "Have the right and the Reps given tax cuts? Sure. But generally cutting taxes actually ended up INCREASING income by stimulating the economy."

rjhenn: "Not the Shrub tax cuts...."

GTH: "Who was that?? I'm unaware of any President Shrub. If that was a reference to GW Bush, then you lost the moral standing to criticize anyone who refers to Obama as "Obummer" etc."

rjhenn: "There were two President Bush's. "Shrub" is simply shorthand for the 2nd, and lesser, one. "Obummer", etc., aren't comparable. They're merely insults."

"Shrub" as a nickname was originally coined by Texas Democrat Ann Richards precisely as an insult, and it remains so (along with your jibe of "lesser"). To differentiate between the 2 President Bushes, use of the initials is sufficient.

At least your fellow liberal SemiSteve had the integrity to call you on your use of insults.

GTH
Profile Pic
gas_too_high
Champion Author Columbus

Posts:13,633
Points:2,259,275
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Apr 21, 2014 3:38:59 PM

GTH: "My copy of the Constitution mentions free exercise of religion. But it says nothing about the "right" to employer-provided contraception, which is more properly an optional benefit. (And -- again -- contraception is cheaply and widely available, so insurance coverage of it deprives no one who wants it)."

rjhenn: "It says nothing about the right to employer-provided health insurance either."

GTH: "Thank you for proving my point. There is no 'right' being deprived; therefore, there is no imposition of religious views."

rjhenn: "Certainly there is. You want to let an employer impose their religious values on their employees."

you admitted there is no right to employer-provided health insurance. So where's the imposition?

The real imposition would be if the federal government imposed its anti-religious laws in private employers with religious views.

"Of course, this whole argument only points up some of the problems with employer-provided health insurance AND ObamaCare."

And also single-payer. In fact, much more so, since single-payer means there are no other options.

GTH: "As throughout history, pepople enter into marriage for any number of personal reasons, none of which invalidate the overarching purpose of marriage. (And what overarching princple can same-sex unions have, beyond the convenience and pleasure of individuals?)"

rjhenn: "You mean the same overarching principle that childless 'traditional' marriages have?"

Yes. Sometimes those "childless" marriages turn out to have children. Sometimes they adopt. Sometimes they strengthen families in other ways, like modeling marriages for young people.

"And, of course, same-sex [so-called] marriages can and do raise children..."

As can any 2 (or more, or less) unrelated people. That doesn't mean such groups are as well-suited as a married couple. That certainly mean such groups ahve any intrinsic relationship to families.

rjhenn: "A same-sex family can raise children and do just as good a job of it as the average hetero family."

GTH: "That assertion is unproven at best, with the study having the largest sample size reaching the opposite conclusion."

rjhenn: "That study, which I notice you refuse to link to..."

Since you mention it, here is a link to the Mark Regnerus study.

"...didn't study children raised by same-sex parents, as has been pointed out many times before."

As are all proper scientific studies, the Regnerus study is upfront about its limitations, which are not as you say they are. In any case, no other study even approaches the sample size of the Regnerus study. So, if this study is invalid, you still are left with nothing substantiating your claim that "sames-sex couples are just as good" as married couples in raising children.

And you still cannot explain why a family missing either a mother or a father is as good as a family which has both in the home.

As for why that matters, a gender role model outside the home may or may not make up for a missing gender model in the home. That person may or may not have a close relationship to the child, may or may not be there at a critical moment when the child needs him or her, and probably won't model relationships to the other gender -- almost certainly not in an in-home family setting. Having 2 in-home parents of each gender is much more likely to model all of the above to a child.

GTH: "But most religious groups, at least in North America, define marriage as between one man and one woman. Forcing them to recognize same-sex unions as marriages violates their religions freedom."

rjhenn: "They're only 'forced' to recognize them as marriages in a civil context, not a religious context."

Funny thing, the First Amendment does *not* read "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof *except in a civil context*."

No matter how you try to evade it, you are the one limiting religious freedom, not I.

GTH
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:25,828
Points:2,541,905
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Apr 21, 2014 1:30:13 PM

gas_too_high - "THe word "reform" and your pet phrase, "fixing things" and too broad, meaning different things to different people. They are neither a platform, nor an organizing principle for a third party. Try again. Just how are you going to start a third party that can actually attract votes that won't be wasted?"

You point out that the two main parties' reliance on political dogma isn't fixing anything, and promote a process based on reason and the Constitution.

"Thank you for proving my point. There is no 'right' being deprived; therefore, there is no imposition of religious views."

Certainly there is. You want to let an employer impose their religious values on their employees.

Of course, this whole argument only points up some of the problems with employer-provided health insurance AND ObamaCare.

"Right off the bat, your "rational analysis" fails. There is no such thing as "modern marriage" distinct from traditional marriage."

Funny, marriage today doesn't seem to be quite the same as marriage in OT times, or even marriage a hundred years ago. And there is a difference that you insist on ignoring between religious marriage and civil marriage.

"As throughout history, pepople enter into marriage for any number of personal reasons, none of which invalidate the overarching purpose of marriage. (And what overarching princple can same-sex unions have, beyond the convenience and pleasure of individuals?)"

You mean the same overarching principle that childless 'traditional' marriages have? And, of course, same-sex marriages can and do raise children, which is a more fundamental and universal reason than mere procreation.

"That assertion is unproven at best, with the study having the largest sample size reaching the opposite conclusion."

That study, which I notice you refuse to link to, didn't study children raised by same-sex parents, as has been pointed out many times before.

"But what is clear is what I already said: A same-sex couple cannot present both genders and how they relate to each other, to a child. In other words, such a family is missing either a father or a mother."

And, unless they live in total isolation, they'll still have plenty of models of both genders. And they will still model how a married couple relates to each other.

"Adoptive families headed by a married couple closely model an biological family with an intact marriage."

As does a same-sex married couple with children.

"Gender models out in the community are not the same as those in the family."

And exactly how do they differ?

"I an unaware of any religion that *requires* those with same-sex attraction to enter into same-sex unions (which in any case are not prohibited)."

IOW, personal choice is subordinate to your religious values. And you support making some families, and children, second-class.

Again demonstrating your anti-family and anti-child values.

"But most religious groups, at least in North America, define marriage as between one man and one woman. Forcing them to recognize same-sex unions as marriages violates their religions freedom."

They're only 'forced' to recognize them as marriages in a civil context, not a religious context. Just as they are 'forced' to recognize purely civil heterosexual marriages, with no religious component.

"You consistently try to invert that into a religious-based "right to redefine marriage" which is utter nonsense."

No, it's a civil law-based ability of the government to regulate the civil institution of marriage. Nothing to do with religion, except, perhaps, preserving freedom of religion from those trying to impose their religious values on everyone.

"If that was a reference to GW Bush, then you lost the moral standing to criticize anyone who refers to Obama as "Obummer" etc."

There were two President Bush's. "Shrub" is simply shorthand for the 2nd, and lesser, one. "Obummer", etc., aren't comparable. They're merely insults.

You may have noticed that I tend to refer to Obama as "BO", which is simultaneously accurate, being his initials, and an expression of how I feel about him.
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:17,643
Points:344,120
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Apr 20, 2014 7:00:08 AM

rjh: "Not the Shrub tax cuts. They cut revenue severely for several years, and we never did catch up to where we'd have been without the cuts. They also failed to stimulate the economy."

I must concur with GTH in decrying the derogatory reference. Your highly valid point is quite succinct to stand on it's own merit without the distracting cut. You'd come across better and be more credible without that habit.

It is the mark of enlightened conservatives to concede this point. When tax cuts do nothing but grease the rich it hurts the nation.

Profile Pic
Cirdan
Champion Author Nevada

Posts:2,394
Points:133,685
Joined:May 2006
Message Posted: Apr 20, 2014 12:49:19 AM

Sort of like Obama attacking Republicans, then decrying the partisanship in DC.
Profile Pic
gas_too_high
Champion Author Columbus

Posts:13,633
Points:2,259,275
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Apr 18, 2014 9:34:09 PM

AC-302: "Have the right and the Reps given tax cuts? Sure. But generally cutting taxes actually ended up INCREASING income by stimulating the economy."

rjhenn: "Not the Shrub tax cuts...."

Who was that?? I'm unaware of any President Shrub.

If that was a reference to GW Bush, then you lost the moral standing to criticize anyone who refers to Obama as "Obummer" etc.

GTH
Profile Pic
gas_too_high
Champion Author Columbus

Posts:13,633
Points:2,259,275
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Apr 18, 2014 9:28:46 PM

rjhenn: "Like I said, the Reform party was too identified with Perot. They also don't have an actual strategy to fix things."

THe word "reform" and your pet phrase, "fixing things" and too broad, meaning different things to different people. They are neither a platform, nor an organizing principle for a third party. Try again. Just how are you going to start a third party that can actually attract votes that won't be wasted?

rjhenn: "IOW, you do favor allowing an employer to impose their religious values on their employees. That is, itself, a violation of "free exercise of religion", for the employee."

GTH: "My copy of the Constitution mentions free exercise of religion. But it says nothing about the "right" to employer-provided contraception, which is more properly an optional benefit. (And -- again -- contraception is cheaply and widely available, so insurance coverage of it deprives no one who wants it)."

rjhenn: "It says nothing about the right to employer-provided health insurance either."

Thank you for proving my point. There is no 'right' being deprived; therefore, there is no imposition of religious views.

GTH: "But what the "gay rights" crowd, want, is to make something fundamentally different from marriage, and call it marriage."

rjhenn: 'Except that you still haven't any argument that stands up to rational analysis that it is "something fundamentally different from marriage".'

GTH: "You mean, other than a man and a woman can procreate, and a same-sex coupld cannot? ANd, other than a man and a woman can present both genders, and how they relate, to a child, and a same-sex union cannot?"

rjhenn: "Rational analysis: Procreation is not the basis of modern marriage."

Right off the bat, your "rational analysis" fails. There is no such thing as "modern marriage" distinct from traditional marriage. As throughout history, pepople enter into marriage for any number of personal reasons, none of which invalidate the overarching purpose of marriage. (And what overarching princple can same-sex unions have, beyond the convenience and pleasure of individuals?)

"A same-sex family can raise children and do just as good a job of it as the average hetero family."

That assertion is unproven at best, with the study having the largest sample size reaching the opposite conclusion.

But what is clear is what I already said: A same-sex couple cannot present both genders and how they relate to each other, to a child. In other words, such a family is missing either a father or a mother.

"Your insistence on procreation ignores things such as adoption and surrogates."

Adoptive families headed by a married couple closely model an biological family with an intact marriage.

"And any family that isn't totally isolated from the rest of the world has plenty of examples of both genders and how they relate."

Gender models out in the community are not the same as those in the family.

"No, it's completely consistent with freedom to practice your own religion, without violating the rights of others to practice their own religion."

I an unaware of any religion that *requires* those with same-sex attraction to enter into same-sex unions (which in any case are not prohibited).

But most religious groups, at least in North America, define marriage as between one man and one woman. Forcing them to recognize same-sex unions as marriages violates their religions freedom.

You consistently try to invert that into a religious-based "right to redefine marriage" which is utter nonsense.

GTH
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:25,828
Points:2,541,905
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Apr 18, 2014 1:28:40 PM

AC-302 - "--Semantics once again. Tell me.. those politicians who do want giveaways.. what party to the generally belong to? And what side do they gravitate to? That's right.. they tend to be Democrat, and they tend to be left, and in particular FAR LEFT of center (those that want the giveaways, that is)."

More appearance than fact. How many "giveaways" have the Republicans actually gotten rid of, rather than just made a lot of noise about?

"Have the right and the Reps given tax cuts? Sure. But generally cutting taxes actually ended up INCREASING income by stimulating the economy."

Not the Shrub tax cuts. They cut revenue severely for several years, and we never did catch up to where we'd have been without the cuts. They also failed to stimulate the economy.

"--OK, so let me get this straight, you are blaming George W. Bush, personally, for all of the economic shambles, 6 years later? Here, now, what about the 1994 Community Reinvestment Act, that forced banks to lend money based on race, rather than based on ability to pay?"

I'm blaming Bush administration policies, which were largely supported by the Republican Congress of his first 6 years.

And the CRA did not force banks to lend "based on race". Loans made as a direct result of the CRA were only a very small part of the problem. The CRA did trigger a stampede to make sub-prime loans to everyone and their uncle by greedy lenders, after they saw Fannie and Freddie making money off them.

"During the campaign, Obama SAID he had the answer. It's now 6 years later. Where is it? I'm not seeing economic prosperity."

Like I said, BO's incompetent. He got elected, and re-elected, on charisma, and the failure by the Republicans to select any kind of real candidate. If all that both parties put up are losers, guess what gets elected.

"The truth is that when we get individuals working again, then the economy and the country will do better. What do we do? Promote businesses to expand. How do we do that? 1) Reduce taxes and 2) Get rid of archaic and choking regulations and 3) promote international trade."

As I've said before, I'm all for reducing both business tax rates and the deductions they get, and for reviewing all current laws and regulations to simplify and get rid of stuff that just doesn't work.

But in order to get the economy working again, we also need to pay the actual workers more, so they can spend more, which will encourage businesses to expand.

"I, for one, believe in the power of the individual to provide for him/herself, and to know what is best for them and their family."

Ideally, yes. The problem there is that too many have been conditioned so that they are no longer capable of making those good decisions.

"Unfortunately, the liberals, and Democrats seem to legislate, based on them knowing better then people, what is best for them."

That's equally true of the other side, especially in the area of 'morality'.
Profile Pic
AC-302
Champion Author Los Angeles

Posts:29,063
Points:3,211,260
Joined:Aug 2004
Message Posted: Apr 18, 2014 12:34:32 PM

RJHenn said: "There's a core of truth there, but you started off with an invalid premise. It's not "liberals" that "want to provide so much, to so many". It's politicians. And their programs aren't designed to be effective, but to promote dependence on those politicians."

--Semantics once again. Tell me.. those politicians who do want giveaways.. what party to the generally belong to? And what side do they gravitate to? That's right.. they tend to be Democrat, and they tend to be left, and in particular FAR LEFT of center (those that want the giveaways, that is). Now, do Reps also have some giveaways? Sure. Medicare part D was one, and I think that this needed not to be done, as we couldn't afford it, and it wasn't well done either. Have the right and the Reps given tax cuts? Sure. But generally cutting taxes actually ended up INCREASING income by stimulating the economy.

RJ continued: "Unfortunately, much of Obama's overspending is due to the recession and reduced government revenues, which he inherited from Shrub. He's also incompetent, so his spending hasn't really done much to improve the economy."

--OK, so let me get this straight, you are blaming George W. Bush, personally, for all of the economic shambles, 6 years later? Here, now, what about the 1994 Community Reinvestment Act, that forced banks to lend money based on race, rather than based on ability to pay? Gee.. who set this up? Oh yeah.. Bill Clinton and the Democrat House and Senate? That is the root of the problem, my friend. And rather than blaming Republicans solely for the problem, you ought to be looking at your Democrat friends, too. But then again, in '08 we were already seeing problems in our economy with real estate falling. During the campaign, Obama SAID he had the answer. It's now 6 years later. Where is it? I'm not seeing economic prosperity.

The truth is that when we get individuals working again, then the economy and the country will do better. What do we do? Promote businesses to expand. How do we do that? 1) Reduce taxes and 2) Get rid of archaic and choking regulations and 3) promote international trade. I, for one, believe in the power of the individual to provide for him/herself, and to know what is best for them and their family. Unfortunately, the liberals, and Democrats seem to legislate, based on them knowing better then people, what is best for them.
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:17,643
Points:344,120
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Apr 18, 2014 12:21:11 PM

" I'll say it again, that especially liberals want government to be all things to all people, much like socialism/communism/marxism was."

Still clinging to that exaggeration? It is the same as saying there is no political spectrum; that one is either conservative or they are a complete all-out socialist/communist/marxist.

"The problem is that to make ANY economy work, you must have a fair medium of exchange."

That's exactly the problem with how the elite rich strong-arm the rest and control our government to suit themselves only.

" The problem with liberalism is that they want to provide so much, to so many, that there's really not enough money to go around."

That effect does dilute the buying power of earned money, but to say this is the only factor in a sluggish economy is an over-simplification. It disregards the effect of the greedy powerful hogging most of the currency for themselves which depletes the amount of currency in active circulation and causes sluggish economy with too few having enough buying power to purchase enough products and services.

"But if you're going to complain about unfunded mandates (and understand that I'm not criticizing you, I am AGREEING WITH YOU), then you also have to criticize Obama and his fool government overspending (at present like 4X that of Bush 2), and you also have to then "go after" ObamaCare - which is, in effect, and unfunded mandate. And make no mistake, the American taxpayer is going to be stuck with the bill as it collapses. Mark my words on that one."

Glad we agree on the run-away spending of Bush2 but the situation there is not comparable to Obama's challenges upon taking office. One was handed a rosy economy, the other a shambles.

We all know how much you like to place words in my mouth but you'll just have to let me be the one to decide what I say. The Obama administration has been dealing with high unemployment and low revenue due to the long-lasting effects of the Great Recession. Real estate values have still not recovered and many foreclosures remain bank-held. Those jobs which have replaced the lost ones pay less and offer fewer benefits. Many are forced to work part-time and rely on govt assistance. It appears universal health care arrived just in the nick of time. If it costs the prosperous a bit more to keep feeding the massive greedy insurance industry so those executives can continue increasing their wealth far and above the rest then we have only ourselves to blame for not going with single payer when we had the chance.

Are the poor poor because they are lazy or stupid?

The latest Hightower Report has a scathing assessment of the state of higher education in America. Most college teachers are now adjuncts. This includes PhD's on EBT because college tuition goes to support 6-figure executives instead of actual teachers. Most adjuncts are limited to part-time status, have zero benefits, no job security, and are forced to work several part-time jobs and burn up cars and gas commuting to many campuses and jobs. And, of course, none of their jobs pay travel.

How much respect can college students have for our economic system when they order a pizza and the guy who brings it is one of their professors?

[Edited by: SemiSteve at 4/18/2014 12:23:22 PM EST]
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:25,828
Points:2,541,905
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Apr 18, 2014 11:54:31 AM

AC-302 - "--Well, we're just going to have to agree to disagree. I'll say it again, that especially liberals want government to be all things to all people, much like socialism/communism/marxism was."

Like I said, massive stereotyping. There may be some liberals like that, but it's hardly the norm.

"The problem is that to make ANY economy work, you must have a fair medium of exchange. That medium we usually call "money". And the nature of people is that we don't like to work for free, and we like to have consideration for our labors (ie money)."

So far, so good.

"The problem with liberalism is that they want to provide so much, to so many, that there's really not enough money to go around. This is why there ends up being rationing, and why socialist governments tend to have universal poverty. EU socialism not as much, because there's a heavy dose of capitalism. Then again, there are still a WHOLE LOT of folks who want to move OUT of Europe to America to get a bit more capitalism, and improve their standard of living by KEEPING much more of what they make. If it weren't so, then why are many, many more people from the EU coming to the US, vs Americans moving to Western Europe?"

There's a core of truth there, but you started off with an invalid premise. It's not "liberals" that "want to provide so much, to so many". It's politicians. And their programs aren't designed to be effective, but to promote dependence on those politicians.

"--We will always have some of those kinds of "police actions" as situations pop up."

Afghanistan and Iraq were quite a bit more than "police actions". And cost a lot more.

"But if you're going to complain about unfunded mandates (and understand that I'm not criticizing you, I am AGREEING WITH YOU), then you also have to criticize Obama and his fool government overspending (at present like 4X that of Bush 2), and you also have to then "go after" ObamaCare - which is, in effect, and unfunded mandate. And make no mistake, the American taxpayer is going to be stuck with the bill as it collapses. Mark my words on that one."

Unfortunately, much of Obama's overspending is due to the recession and reduced government revenues, which he inherited from Shrub. He's also incompetent, so his spending hasn't really done much to improve the economy. Not to mention that the Republicans have done everything they could to sabotage things so the Dems don't get any credit for making things better.

I don't see how ObamaCare is an "unfunded mandate", though I think it was a bad idea from the get-go.
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:25,828
Points:2,541,905
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Apr 18, 2014 11:51:49 AM

gas_too_high - "THat issue turned out to be insufficient to build a party around. If you disbelieve me, please give my regards to the Reform party. (BTW, how many congressmen and senators have been elected by that party, again? How many electoral votes did their Presidential ticket get in 2012)?"

Like I said, the Reform party was too identified with Perot. They also don't have an actual strategy to fix things.

What Perot's original push for President did accomplish was to push the Republicans into the "Contract for America".

"They are attacking "business as usual," which I would have though was your aim as well. But then, you are against both Democrats and Republicans, especially Republicans."

The Tea party doesn't have a concrete strategy either. They're just a fragmented collection of groups against everything. Seems the only thing they've actually accomplished is to support the extremist wing of the Republican party.

"My copy of the Constitution mentions free exercise of religion. But it says nothing about the "right" to employer-provided contraception, which is more properly an optional benefit. (And -- again -- contraception is cheaply and widely available, so insurance coverage of it deprives no one who wants it)."

It says nothing about the right to employer-provided health insurance either.

"It is telling that, as a leftist, you invert a right to free exercise of religion, into "imposing your religious views on others"."

It's telling that, as a right-winger, you want to ignore the principle that "your right to swing your fist around ends where my face begins".

"You mean, other than a man and a woman can procreate, and a same-sex coupld cannot? ANd, other than a man and a woman can present both genders, and how they relate, to a child, and a same-sex union cannot?"

Rational analysis: Procreation is not the basis of modern marriage. A same-sex family can raise children and do just as good a job of it as the average hetero family. Your insistence on procreation ignores things such as adoption and surrogates. And any family that isn't totally isolated from the rest of the world has plenty of examples of both genders and how they relate.

"That sounds rational to me. And your position, in elevating a non-family non-child-bearing union to be legally indistinguishable to a child-bearing, child-raising union, is anti-family and anti-child."

As demonstrated, it's not rational, but dogmatic. Your argument here is also not rational, unless you're proposing that any childless hetero marriage ("a non-family non-child-bearing union" that is "legally indistinguishable to a child-bearing, child-raising union") shouldn't be considered a "marriage". Then you want to relegate same-sex families, even those raising children, to second-class status, while providing no argument how same-sex marriage would actually harm either marriage, families or children. Thus it's your position that's anti-family and anti-child.

"There, I fixed your quote for you."

All you did was confirm my argument.

"Then your inhibition fo religions freedom is schizophrenic."

No, it's completely consistent with freedom to practice your own religion, without violating the rights of others to practice their own religion.
Profile Pic
AC-302
Champion Author Los Angeles

Posts:29,063
Points:3,211,260
Joined:Aug 2004
Message Posted: Apr 17, 2014 7:07:40 PM

RJ said: "Massive stereotyping and, like many stereotypes, massively wrong."

--Well, we're just going to have to agree to disagree. I'll say it again, that especially liberals want government to be all things to all people, much like socialism/communism/marxism was. The problem is that to make ANY economy work, you must have a fair medium of exchange. That medium we usually call "money". And the nature of people is that we don't like to work for free, and we like to have consideration for our labors (ie money). The problem with liberalism is that they want to provide so much, to so many, that there's really not enough money to go around. This is why there ends up being rationing, and why socialist governments tend to have universal poverty. EU socialism not as much, because there's a heavy dose of capitalism. Then again, there are still a WHOLE LOT of folks who want to move OUT of Europe to America to get a bit more capitalism, and improve their standard of living by KEEPING much more of what they make. If it weren't so, then why are many, many more people from the EU coming to the US, vs Americans moving to Western Europe?

SemiSteve said, way below: ""passing unfunded mandates" Like starting wars with no plan to pay for them?"

--We will always have some of those kinds of "police actions" as situations pop up. However, if you will recall, overspending was one of the BIGGEST CRITICISMS I and others had of the Bush 2 Administration. I didn't deny it back then, and I'm not denying it now.

But if you're going to complain about unfunded mandates (and understand that I'm not criticizing you, I am AGREEING WITH YOU), then you also have to criticize Obama and his fool government overspending (at present like 4X that of Bush 2), and you also have to then "go after" ObamaCare - which is, in effect, and unfunded mandate. And make no mistake, the American taxpayer is going to be stuck with the bill as it collapses. Mark my words on that one.

[Edited by: AC-302 at 4/17/2014 7:12:26 PM EST]
Profile Pic
gas_too_high
Champion Author Columbus

Posts:13,633
Points:2,259,275
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Apr 17, 2014 5:27:25 PM

rjhenn: "IOW, you do favor allowing an employer to impose their religious values on their employees. That is, itself, a violation of "free exercise of religion", for the employee."

My copy of the Constitution mentions free exercise of religion. But it says nothing about the "right" to employer-provided contraception, which is more properly an optional benefit. (And -- again -- contraception is cheaply and widely available, so insurance coverage of it deprives no one who wants it).

It is telling that, as a leftist, you invert a right to free exercise of religion, into "imposing your religious views on others".

GTH: "But what the "gay rights" crowd, want, is to make something fundamentally different from marriage, and call it marriage."

rjhenn: 'Except that you still haven't any argument that stands up to rational analysis that it is "something fundamentally different from marriage".'

You mean, other than a man and a woman can procreate, and a same-sex coupld cannot? ANd, other than a man and a woman can present both genders, and how they relate, to a child, and a same-sex union cannot?

That sounds rational to me. And your position, in elevating a non-family non-child-bearing union to be legally indistinguishable to a child-bearing, child-raising union, is anti-family and anti-child.

'"Common sense" is usually whatever the one using the term wants it to be. In this case, it's only "common sense" if it conforms to mu opposition to religion.'

There, I fixed your quote for you.

'While promoting smaller government, but asking for more government to enforce religious 'morality' seems to be a very right-wing sentiment.'

Maintaining the age-old definition of marriage will grow government not one iota. Whereas, your ahistorical definition of marriage requires additional government enforcers to silence dissenters and coerce them to accept what their common sense and consciences tell them is untrue.

"Sorry, but I prefer more freedom than either side of the political spectrum supports."

Then your inhibition fo religions freedom is schizophrenic.

GTH
Profile Pic
gas_too_high
Champion Author Columbus

Posts:13,633
Points:2,259,275
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Apr 17, 2014 5:24:35 PM

rjhenn: "The wedge issue is the demonstrated inability of either major party to deal with our current problems."

GTH: "That issue is too abstract. (Ross Perot tried a similar tactic with his Reform Party. But voters were attracted to his personality, not to that issue)."

rjhenn: "Some were, some weren't. Actually, his personality got in the way of the message."

GTH: "A wedge issue needs to be a concrete issue people care about enough to support. It also needs to be an issue that cannot easily be co-opted by either major party."

rjhenn: 'That would be "fixing things".'

THat issue turned out to be insufficient to build a party around. If you disbelieve me, please give my regards to the Reform party. (BTW, how many congressmen and senators have been elected by that party, again? How many electoral votes did their Presidential ticket get in 2012)?

'The Tea Party is trying to take over the Republican party, though they're too disorganized and unfocused to do more than disrupt. Basically, all they've accomplished is even more partisanship.'

They are attacking "business as usual," which I would have though was your aim as well. But then, you are against both Democrats and Republicans, especially Republicans.

GTH
Profile Pic
SE3.5
Champion Author Indianapolis

Posts:20,485
Points:3,502,165
Joined:May 2004
Message Posted: Apr 17, 2014 4:49:30 PM

"Oh, sorry."

No problem. This is one of the more civil discussions in the politics form. I am happy with the effort to keep it that way.
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:25,828
Points:2,541,905
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Apr 17, 2014 3:32:01 PM

SE3.5 - "Ask SS. I was quoting his OP."

Oh, sorry. I was reading it as two completely separate statements, with the "they" in the 2nd one referring back to "Liberals", when, in fact, it refers back to "the poor" in the first statement.
Profile Pic
SE3.5
Champion Author Indianapolis

Posts:20,485
Points:3,502,165
Joined:May 2004
Message Posted: Apr 17, 2014 3:06:32 PM

"What makes you think that liberals think that THEY are poor?"

Ask SS. I was quoting his OP.
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:25,828
Points:2,541,905
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Apr 17, 2014 2:23:22 PM

SE3.5 - "Knee-jerk 'Liberals seem to hold that they are poor...."

What makes you think that liberals think that THEY are poor?
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:25,828
Points:2,541,905
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Apr 17, 2014 2:21:33 PM

gas_too_high - "Good thing that isn't happening."

Yet you still support it.

"In the case of the HHS mandate, there is no right to have one's employer pay for one's birth control. And, as a practical matter, contraceptive methonds (and non-abortifacient ones, to boot) are readily available at modest cost. That is, anyone can buy a pack of condoms at any grocery or drugstore for the price of a pack of chewing gum. No insurance mandate -- or consicence violations -- needed."

IOW, you do favor allowing an employer to impose their religious values on their employees. That is, itself, a violation of "free exercise of religion", for the employee.

"Because making such an articifial distinction, weakens marriage and its ability to enable children to be raised by their mothers and fathers."

And, again, you ignore the inherently anti-family and anti-child effects of your position.

"But what the "gay rights" crowd, want, is to make something fundamentally different from marriage, and call it marriage."

Except that you still haven't any argument that stands up to rational analysis that it is "something fundamentally different from marriage".

"That's not based on religion (even though religion supports that position), but what is (or used to be) called 'common sense."

"Common sense" is usually whatever the one using the term wants it to be. In your case, it's only "common sense" if it conforms to your religion.

"And what's most telling about your position, rjhenn, is that you somehow twist a desire to prevent the government violating my free exercise of religion rights, amounts to "imposing my religious beliefs on others"."

It is what it is.

"That is a distinctly leftist sentiment (yet again)."

While promoting smaller government, but asking for more government to enforce religious 'morality' seems to be a very right-wing sentiment.

Sorry, but I prefer more freedom than either side of the political spectrum supports.
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:25,828
Points:2,541,905
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Apr 17, 2014 2:18:27 PM

gas_too_high - "Whatever issues you care about, they aren't the major issues being contended currently, such as Obamacare, deficit spending or the out of control debt.

On those issues, you, not I, are disenfranchised."

Yeah, like either party is actually doing anything about those issues, other than using them to keep you voting for them.

"That issue is too abstract. (Ross Perot tried a similar tactic with his Reform Party. But voters were attracted to his personality, not to that issue)."

Some were, some weren't. Actually, his personality got in the way of the message.

"A wedge issue needs to be a concrete issue people care about enough to support. It also needs to be an issue that cannot easily be co-opted by either major party."

That would be "fixing things".

"Grassroots support doesn't raise the kind of funding needed to build and develop a third party, independent of the 2 major party network of operatives and big donors. (That, and the general alignment of their issues to the GOP, is why the Tea party, the biggest grassroots political movement currently, is working withing the Republican party, instead of operating as a third party)."

The Tea Party is trying to take over the Republican party, though they're too disorganized and unfocused to do more than disrupt. Basically, all they've accomplished is even more partisanship.

"On the issues above, the candidates I vote for, pay attention to me, at least often enough to make it worthwhile to vote for them. That is, while the Democrats disagree with me virtually all the time, the GOP agrees with me part of the time."

And neither is actually getting any of what you want accomplished.
Profile Pic
SE3.5
Champion Author Indianapolis

Posts:20,485
Points:3,502,165
Joined:May 2004
Message Posted: Apr 17, 2014 9:04:00 AM

Knee-jerk "Conservatives seem to feel that the poor are poor simply because they are lazy. That if they just got determined enough and worked hard enough in the right way that they could climb out of the poverty cycle."

Knee-jerk "Liberals seem to hold that they are poor because opportunities available to others are not available to them. And they blame the rich policy-makers for systematically doing things that limit these opportunities."

I do not concur, so I corrected your suppositions for you.

Now I concur.
Profile Pic
AFSNCO
Champion Author Montgomery

Posts:17,716
Points:1,589,775
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Apr 16, 2014 8:22:01 PM

"What about the straw-man thingy? My observation is that it is used primarily by conservatives here and not so much by liberals. Do you concur?"

Posting this not realizing that what he posted was a straw-man in itself. Talk about just a gross over-generalization.
Profile Pic
gas_too_high
Champion Author Columbus

Posts:13,633
Points:2,259,275
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Apr 16, 2014 8:17:00 PM

And what's most telling about your position, rjhenn, is that you somehow twist a desire to prevent the government violating my free exercise of religion rights, amounts to "imposing my religious beliefs on others".

That is a distinctly leftist sentiment (yet again).

GTH
Profile Pic
gas_too_high
Champion Author Columbus

Posts:13,633
Points:2,259,275
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Apr 16, 2014 8:09:36 PM

rjhenn: "However, freedom of religion does not permit an employer, for example, to force his religious values on his employees, which is something you support."

Good thing that isn't happening.

GTH: "Currently, the ones "imposing their religion" (more properly, their anti-religion) are the Obama administration, in forcing insurers to finance abortifacients; and the so-called "gay rights" movement, in forcing others to accept their ahistorical, non-traditional and anti-family definition of marriage."

rjhenn: "IOW, you want to force your religious values on others."

No. Neither issue represents any kind of positive right, certainly not a Constitutional one, as against the explicit Constitutional right of "free exercise of religion".

In the case of the HHS mandate, there is no right to have one's employer pay for one's birth control. And, as a practical matter, contraceptive methonds (and non-abortifacient ones, to boot) are readily available at modest cost. That is, anyone can buy a pack of condoms at any grocery or drugstore for the price of a pack of chewing gum. No insurance mandate -- or consicence violations -- needed.

"And, once again, you fail to distinguish between marriage as a religious institution and as a civil institution..."

Because making such an articifial distinction, weakens marriage and its ability to enable children to be raised by their mothers and fathers.

"...which falls under the constitutional issue of "equal protection of the laws"."

Which is a non-issue, since no arbitrary legal bar to marriage exists. But what the "gay rights" crowd, want, is to make something fundamentally different from marriage, and call it marriage. There is no right to redefine marriage, or have the general public agree to that redefinition.

That's not based on religion (even though religion supports that position), but what is (or used to be) called 'common sense."

GTH
Profile Pic
gas_too_high
Champion Author Columbus

Posts:13,633
Points:2,259,275
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Apr 16, 2014 7:58:42 PM

gas_too_high - "'If enough people start doing it' is a very big *if*, especially since those people have to disenfranchise themselves, with no guarantee they will overturn the 2 party system."

rjhenn: "They, and you, are already disenfranchised. Voting for anybody else is the only way to get their franchise back."

Whatever issues you care about, they aren't the major issues being contended currently, such as Obamacare, deficit spending or the out of control debt.

On those issues, you, not I, are disenfranchised.

GTH: "To have any chance of succeeding, you need a wedge issue, one that neither party is addressing or able to address, and around which you can establish a party. You need a region of the country where this party can take root and elect candidates locally, establishing a beachhead to spread throughout the nation."

rjhenn: "The wedge issue is the demonstrated inability of either major party to deal with our current problems."

That issue is too abstract. (Ross Perot tried a similar tactic with his Reform Party. But voters were attracted to his personality, not to that issue).

A wedge issue needs to be a concrete issue people care about enough to support. It also needs to be an issue that cannot easily be co-opted by either major party.

GTH: "And, you need the resources of a Ross Perot to fund it all, but without the ego of a Perot, who might otherwise capture this party and use it for personal aggrandizement."

rjhenn: "Or grassroots support."

Grassroots support doesn't raise the kind of funding needed to build and develop a third party, independent of the 2 major party network of operatives and big donors. (That, and the general alignment of their issues to the GOP, is why the Tea party, the biggest grassroots political movement currently, is working withing the Republican party, instead of operating as a third party).

'Voting for the ones who are ignoring you, just because they're the "lesser of two evils", is wasting your vote.'

On the issues above, the candidates I vote for, pay attention to me, at least often enough to make it worthwhile to vote for them. That is, while the Democrats disagree with me virtually all the time, the GOP agrees with me part of the time.

GTH
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:25,828
Points:2,541,905
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Apr 16, 2014 12:20:54 PM

gas_too_high - "'If enough people start doing it' is a very big *if*, especially since those people have to disenfranchise themselvers, with no guaranteee they will overturn the 2 party system."

They, and you, are already disenfranchised. Voting for anybody else is the only way to get their franchise back.

"To have any chance of succeeding, you need a wedge issue, one that neither party is addressing or able to address, and around which you can establish a party. You need a region of the country where this party can take root and elect candidates locally, establishing a beachhead to spread throughout the nation."

The wedge issue is the demonstrated inability of either major party to deal with our current problems.

"And, you need the resources of a Ross Perot to fund it all, but without the ego of a Perot, who might otherwise capture this party and use it for personal aggrandizement."

Or grassroots support.

"So tell me, how are you going to do that? Otherwise, you and any followers are throwing away their votes."

And, again, it's the "a vote for someone who cannot win is a wasted vote"? Voting for the ones who are ignoring you, just because they're the "lesser of two evils", is wasting your vote.

"No, I meant what I said. Citizens are entitled to bring their personal beliefs, on religion or anything else, into the public square and try to persuade whoever they can, to their point of view. Doing so is not "imposing their religion on others"."

That much is true.

"But the "public square" is not entitled to force private citizens to violate their conscience, specially not on matters on religion. Nor is the "public square" entitled to force citizens into silence on matters of religion, any more than it is entitled to do so on other matters."

However, freedom of religion does not permit an employer, for example, to force his religious values on his employees, which is something you support.

"Currently, the ones "imposing their religion" (more properly, their anti-religion) are the Obama administration, in forcing insurers to finance abortifacients; and the so-called "gay rights" movement, in forcing others to accept their ahistorical, non-traditional and anti-family definition of marriage."

IOW, you want to force your religious values on others. And, once again, you fail to distinguish between marriage as a religious institution and as a civil institution, which falls under the constitutional issue of "equal protection of the laws".
Profile Pic
gas_too_high
Champion Author Columbus

Posts:13,633
Points:2,259,275
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Apr 16, 2014 6:59:09 AM

GTH: "Conservatives take "free exercise [of religion]" to mean just that, and allow citizens to bring their faith into the public square."

rjhenn: "You mean, allow citizens to impose their religion on others."

No, I meant what I said. Citizens are entitled to bring their personal beliefs, on religion or anything else, into the public square and try to persuade whoever they can, to their point of view. Doing so is not "imposing their religion on others".

But the "public square" is not entitled to force private citizens to violate their conscience, specially not on matters on religion. Nor is the "public square" entitled to force citizens into silence on matters of religion, any more than it is entitled to do so on other matters.

Currently, the ones "imposing their religion" (more properly, their anti-religion) are the Obama administration, in forcing insurers to finance abortifacients; and the so-called "gay rights" movement, in forcing others to accept their ahistorical, non-traditional and anti-family definition of marriage.

GTH
Profile Pic
gas_too_high
Champion Author Columbus

Posts:13,633
Points:2,259,275
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Apr 16, 2014 6:57:42 AM

GTH: "Voting for an alternative that is no realistic chance of winning over either of 2 viable alternatives, is a much more effective means of disenfranchisement."

rjhenn: "It's the only way of putting pressure on the two major parties. If enough people start doing it, instead of buying into the "wasting your vote" lie, either one of the parties will change to pick up those lost votes, or another party will rise to possibly replace one of the majors."

"If enough people start doing it" is a very big *if*, especially since those people have to disenfranchise themselvers, with no guaranteee they will overturn the 2 party system.

"Or we might actually get a more representative three-party system. Not likely, Americans seem partial to binary partisanship."

To have any chance of succeeding, you need a wedge issue, one that neither party is addressing or able to address, and around which you can establish a party. You need a region of the country where this party can take root and elect candidates locally, establishing a beachhead to spread throughout the nation.

And, you need the resources of a Ross Perot to fund it all, but without the ego of a Perot, who might otherwise capture this party and use it for personal aggrandizement.

So tell me, how are you going to do that? Otherwise, you and any followers are throwing away their votes.

GTH
Profile Pic
rjhenn
Champion Author Des Moines

Posts:25,828
Points:2,541,905
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Apr 15, 2014 5:47:49 PM

gas_too_high - "So which is true about adverse Obamacare impacts: "Politically motivated propaganda" or "unforeseen side effects"?"

Both. I tend to agree mostly with the effects on business. Most of the rest are, so far as there's any actual proof, propaganda.

"Often it does. And often it does not."

And often it merely reinforces unrealistic dogma.

"Voting for an alternative that is no realistic chance of winning over either of 2 viable alternatives, is a much more effective means of disenfranchisement."

It's the only way of putting pressure on the two major parties. If enough people start doing it, instead of buying into the "wasting your vote" lie, either one of the parties will change to pick up those lost votes, or another party will rise to possibly replace one of the majors.

Or we might actually get a more representative three-party system. Not likely, Americans seem partial to binary partisanship.

"And I'm not "committed" to the 2 party system. it merely happens to be the least bad alternative, for the moment. You have suggested nothing better."

There are a lot of possibilities. But they're not going anywhere under the current two-party regime. Too much polarization.

"Conservatives take "free exercise" to mean just that, and allow citizens to bring their faith into the public square."

You mean, allow citizens to impose their religion on others.
Profile Pic
gas_too_high
Champion Author Columbus

Posts:13,633
Points:2,259,275
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Apr 15, 2014 4:45:42 PM

SemiSteve: "Would like to take credit for that one, but it goes to SE3.5, GTH."

You're correct Steve. My bad.

"I bet the conservative overuse of the straw man tactic stems from Ann Coulter's "How to talk to a liberal..."

As a conservative, I dislike Ann Coulter. I find she polarizes and demonizes unnecessarily. That is, she falls into the same traps that liberals often do.

GTH



[Edited by: gas_too_high at 4/15/2014 4:48:17 PM EST]
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:17,643
Points:344,120
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Apr 15, 2014 4:45:37 PM

I bet the conservative overuse of the straw man tactic stems from Ann Coulter's "How to talk to a liberal", in which she professes as much, ie: assume they are lying, nail them on what you think they're saying, etc.

All she really said was:

"Use the Straw Man approach!"

So that's exactly what we se here in the forum.

Another Conservative Myth: BUSTED!
Post a reply Back to Topics