On November 12 2012 06:07 Zergneedsfood wrote: Seems like Republicans might win more often if they just changed a lot of their social agenda, because fiscal conservatism is pretty common sense at times and is pretty appealing to a lot of people in this current economic climate.
the problem with this is that we cannot drop the social conservatives, who would definitely break off and form another party if the GOP dropped social conservatism.
also, as a social conservative, I can tell you that most of us feel as though we have a moral duty to push for these policies and to not compromise on them. the fact is that fiscal conservatism is not nearly so popular as the people in this thread want to think it is (as evidenced by their wild insistence against even the most moderate fiscally conservative positions) and social conservatism is not so unpopular as they think.
a very large portion of blacks do not approve of gay marriage (49% I believe). a large portion of Hispanics don't approve of legal abortion, possibly even a majority (not sure about that one, I'll look it up). liberals and conservatives both tend to put their own bias onto other people, but the fact is that the American people are usually right in the center on all these issues. Democrats don't, contrary to the opinion of most in this thread, represent that center any more than Republicans do, especially on social issues.
A very large portion is still a minority fyi.
The times are changing and more and more people will accept gay marriage, abortion, women's rights, etc and not force their beliefs on others and let people decide their own lives.
indeed, but if the claim is that abortion and gay marriage lost us the election... well, actually if that was the case (people voting on social issues and not fiscal ones) than we should have gotten close to 35% of blacks and 40% of Hispanics.
the fact is that fiscal conservatism is what turns minorities away from the Republican party. well, that and a good sixty years of being called racists by both the media and the education system. that certainly doesn't help. (and immigration policy has been a losing issue for us too.)
On November 12 2012 06:07 Zergneedsfood wrote: Seems like Republicans might win more often if they just changed a lot of their social agenda, because fiscal conservatism is pretty common sense at times and is pretty appealing to a lot of people in this current economic climate.
the problem with this is that we cannot drop the social conservatives, who would definitely break off and form another party if the GOP dropped social conservatism.
also, as a social conservative, I can tell you that most of us feel as though we have a moral duty to push for these policies and to not compromise on them. the fact is that fiscal conservatism is not nearly so popular as the people in this thread want to think it is (as evidenced by their wild insistence against even the most moderate fiscally conservative positions) and social conservatism is not so unpopular as they think.
a very large portion of blacks do not approve of gay marriage (49% I believe). a large portion of Hispanics don't approve of legal abortion, possibly even a majority (not sure about that one, I'll look it up). liberals and conservatives both tend to put their own bias onto other people, but the fact is that the American people are usually right in the center on all these issues. Democrats don't, contrary to the opinion of most in this thread, represent that center any more than Republicans do, especially on social issues.
Well, I'm not saying you take liberal positions on the issues, but at least just make it sound like you don't hate gays/lesbians/minorities/etc. I'm not saying Republicans are all like that, but the image and reputation that they get is very disturbing and doesn't lend the party any credibility that they might have otherwise.
The current Republican party is cobbled together from a bunch of disparate elements. It's like a dying patient who lives because of organ transplants but is constantly at risk of rejection.
There's no point to it. Kill the Republican Party. Let the intolerants and crazies form their own fringe parties. The remaining moderate Republicans should move the party to the center after ditching the baggage. There's a place to draw a new ideological divide on the right-ish side of the current Democratic party so the new Republican party can claim some of the more right-leaning Democrats while leaving the other more left-leaning Democrats, resulting in two parties closer to the center.
(I'm using left and right pretty relatively here, hopefully it makes sense.)
On November 12 2012 06:41 ticklishmusic wrote: The current Republican party is cobbled together from a bunch of disparate elements. It's like a dying patient who lives because of organ transplants but is constantly at risk of rejection.
There's no point to it. Kill the Republican Party. Let the intolerants and crazies form their own fringe parties. The remaining moderate Republicans should move the party to the center after ditching the baggage. There's a place to draw a new ideological divide on the right-ish side of the current Democratic party so the new Republican party can claim some of the more right-leaning Democrats while leaving the other more left-leaning Democrats, resulting in two parties closer to the center.
(I'm using left and right pretty relatively here, hopefully it makes sense.)
Black Americans and Hispanic Americans differ significantly in their attitudes regarding the legality of abortion. Two-thirds (67%) of black Americans believe that abortion should be legal in all or most cases, while 30% disagree. By contrast, a slim majority (51%) of Hispanic Americans agree that abortion should be illegal in all or most cases, while 46% say it should be legal in all or most cases.
I was also looking at same sex marriage, hispanics are continually moving in favor of support, and are approaching more than 50% according to polling from Pew. There seems to be a strange trend in abortion views, that bounces from more support to less support, it seems there is a downward trend in support right now, and many people saying they don't know, but women still were basically staying the same in their views.
gay marriage... I think that I personally am ready to let that one go, if I could actually receive evidence that it would be politically expedient to do so (gain more votes than lose). the only problem with it is that moral objections, in my opinion, should not usually, if ever, be sacrificed for political gain. that's where gay marriage gets sticky (no pun intended), is how do I, as a Christian conservative, justify letting the issue go?
On November 12 2012 06:41 ticklishmusic wrote: The current Republican party is cobbled together from a bunch of disparate elements. It's like a dying patient who lives because of organ transplants but is constantly at risk of rejection.
There's no point to it. Kill the Republican Party. Let the intolerants and crazies form their own fringe parties. The remaining moderate Republicans should move the party to the center after ditching the baggage. There's a place to draw a new ideological divide on the right-ish side of the current Democratic party so the new Republican party can claim some of the more right-leaning Democrats while leaving the other more left-leaning Democrats, resulting in two parties closer to the center.
(I'm using left and right pretty relatively here, hopefully it makes sense.)
I'd be okay with this, as long as the uber-left went to the Green or Justice parties, and the uber-right went to the Libertarian or Constitutional parties, for example. (I'm using these terms rather loosely too, lol)
Problem is then that the Dems unify together (always) and overwhelm the rest of the small parties with a majority. This is what convinces my parents election after election to vote Republican even though they'd agree far more with the Constitutional party.
On November 12 2012 06:49 sc2superfan101 wrote: how do I, as a Christian conservative, justify letting the issue go?
by realizing that this homophobia stuff is a totally unnecessary rider tacked onto the philosophical core of Christianity, and that one would in fact be a better Christian without it
one who is within the system is incapable of making a judgement like "christianity is better without it."
continue to uphold the moral wrong of homosexuality and be vocal in your objection to gay marriage. everyone will be better off because of your heroic sacrifice. peace.
On November 12 2012 06:49 sc2superfan101 wrote: gay marriage... I think that I personally am ready to let that one go, if I could actually receive evidence that it would be politically expedient to do so (gain more votes than lose). the only problem with it is that moral objections, in my opinion, should not usually, if ever, be sacrificed for political gain. that's where gay marriage gets sticky (no pun intended), is how do I, as a Christian conservative, justify letting the issue go?
Exactly what are your beliefs as a Christian conservative? What do you find is inappropriate about gay marriage?
I am not Christian-- I subscribe more to Deism with a creator who made the world but it content to let events unfold. Morally, I think happiness (even though it is not quantifiable and relative) is the measure of what is right and wrong. In this case, I'd say if something isn't hurting me or anyone else, the people should be allowed to do it. The intermediate would be if it creates more happiness than it takes away, its okay. I think gay marriage brings significantly more happiness to gay couples than it hurts others (and I think the reason people get offended is a little silly), so I'm fine with it.
On November 12 2012 06:49 sc2superfan101 wrote: how do I, as a Christian conservative, justify letting the issue go?
by realizing that this homophobia stuff is a totally unnecessary rider tacked onto the philosophical core of Christianity, and that one would in fact be a better Christian without it
it just isn't that simple. obviously we can't get into a huge discussion of JudeoChristian ethics/beliefs/history here, but opposition to gay marriage, and moral objections to homosexuality, do not go against any of the core philosophies. a Christian who supports gay marriage and has no moral objection to homosexuality will have to do some interesting maneuvers to justify it with Christ's message about lust and pre-marital (or extra-marital) sex.
but, as I said, it's not that important to me. I'm beginning to side more with the "pick your battles" crowd than not.
On November 12 2012 06:49 sc2superfan101 wrote: gay marriage... I think that I personally am ready to let that one go, if I could actually receive evidence that it would be politically expedient to do so (gain more votes than lose). the only problem with it is that moral objections, in my opinion, should not usually, if ever, be sacrificed for political gain. that's where gay marriage gets sticky (no pun intended), is how do I, as a Christian conservative, justify letting the issue go?
The simple answer is live and let live.
You are free to have and live your religion. However, any moral you derive from that religion should not be forced upon people that aren't part of your religion.
The problem with people being against gay marriage is because those people are forcing RELIGIOUS beliefs into regulation of GOVERNMENT definition of marriage. That is not right by how our country was built to be.
On November 12 2012 06:49 sc2superfan101 wrote: how do I, as a Christian conservative, justify letting the issue go?
by realizing that this homophobia stuff is a totally unnecessary rider tacked onto the philosophical core of Christianity, and that one would in fact be a better Christian without it
it just isn't that simple. obviously we can't get into a huge discussion of JudeoChristian ethics/beliefs/history here, but opposition to gay marriage, and moral objections to homosexuality, do not go against any of the core philosophies. a Christian who supports gay marriage and has no moral objection to homosexuality will have to do some interesting maneuvers to justify it with Christ's message about lust and pre-marital (or extra-marital) sex.
but, as I said, it's not that important to me. I'm beginning to side more with the "pick your battles" crowd than not.
Sure, but no more hoops than one would already have to go through to justify marital sex without the intention or possibility of producing offspring (e.g., with infertile people).
If you're going to have to jump through hoops regardless, jump through the non-homophobic ones.
On November 12 2012 06:59 sc2superfan101 wrote: Christ's message about lust and pre-marital (or extra-marital) sex.
wait, what Gospel is that in again?
Matthew 5:28
"But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart."
of course, the first response will be: but he said woman. yes, he did say woman. but understanding the culture of Jesus' time is important to understand the context. homosexuality was already considered by the Jews to be a mortal sin, and Jesus was speaking to fellow Jews who would have understood that homosexuality being included in the "adultery" list was implied. obviously there can be multiple interpretations of the passage, but it would take a pretty hefty leap to suggest that Christ was allowing for sleeping (or looking at with lust) with men, but not women.
stuff like this has two mental tracks basically. one is seeing homosexuality as a natural preference/condition, the other is to see it as a choice/action that pertains to moral character. it's a purity prohibition that is processed rather alike incest etc. (see e.g. liane young)
only by rejecting that impulse to condemn and see the other as human, in a naturalistic sense, can you get around gay hating.
edit: your argument basically comes down to: the culture of Jesus' time is the culture that should be for all time, and that we should import the peccadillos of ancient Judaeans wholesale into the twenty first fucking century
edit: the correct way to be a Christian is to try to look at the world today as Jesus would have looked at it, not to look at the world today as if it were the world of Jesus
On November 12 2012 06:49 sc2superfan101 wrote: how do I, as a Christian conservative, justify letting the issue go?
by realizing that this homophobia stuff is a totally unnecessary rider tacked onto the philosophical core of Christianity, and that one would in fact be a better Christian without it
it just isn't that simple. obviously we can't get into a huge discussion of JudeoChristian ethics/beliefs/history here, but opposition to gay marriage, and moral objections to homosexuality, do not go against any of the core philosophies. a Christian who supports gay marriage and has no moral objection to homosexuality will have to do some interesting maneuvers to justify it with Christ's message about lust and pre-marital (or extra-marital) sex.
but, as I said, it's not that important to me. I'm beginning to side more with the "pick your battles" crowd than not.
The bible has some pretty ridiculous messages/statements though, all sane Christians I've talked too agree on that, and they say that those aren't part of gods message or they choose too ignore it, so why is gay marriage relevant anymore? Why do so many Christians choose not to ignore that part? why is this a fight your willing to pick with the world, why aren't you fighting over something else equally as ridiculous. And then you sit there and say to yourself, this isn't the reason we lost the election, it's our fiscal conservatism, that's it, It has to be that, because everyone loves our bible, it's cool.
So should we be just as outraged as people having sex out of wed lock, or having sex with multiple partners, and not being solely with one person? Should we ban the lifestyle that I personally choose to lead as a human being? Why do we have to only bar gays from having civil rights, why shouldn't we ban all sinners?
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/eaPot.gif)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/b5CYC.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/uf17x.png)
