Why are so many conservatives in the US suffering from xenophobia?

ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
Why are so many conservatives in the US suffering from xenophobia?

ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:o

"A study funded by the US government has concluded that conservatism can be explained psychologically as a set of neuroses rooted in "fear and aggression, dogmatism and the intolerance of ambiguity".

As if that was not enough to get Republican blood boiling, the report's four authors linked Hitler, Mussolini, Ronald Reagan and the rightwing talkshow host, Rush Limbaugh, arguing they all suffered from the same affliction.

All of them "preached a return to an idealised past and condoned inequality"."

 

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/aug/13/usa.redbox 

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Clockcat, if you're

Clockcat, if you're interested in this kind of thing and haven't read "The Authoritarian Specter" by Robert Altmeyer, you're doing yourself a horrible disservice.

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:3

Hmm. Thanks, I will check that out. 


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
Can we get a couple million

Can we get a couple million bucks of public cash to find out what explains Michael Moore and Al Franken?  IF not then that throws any pretense of equal treatment out the window.

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
?

 equal treatment of what? Are they suffering from xenophobia?

 

 

You've lost me..

 

 

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


Jormungander
atheistScience Freak
Jormungander's picture
Posts: 938
Joined: 2008-07-15
User is offlineOffline
"The authors also peer into

"The authors also peer into the psyche of President George Bush, who turns out to be a textbook case."

Bush didn't follow fiscal conservatism at all. He didn't follow it in the slightest way. He did give empty, meaningless lipservice to social conservatism. But lets keep in mind that it was empty lipservice. When did he deliver on his empty promises of social conservatism? Those promises to push through and anti-gay marriage amendment never carried through because they were lies meant to fool people into voting for him. That is a pretty good example of the kind of faux social conservatism he offered to people.

He was a war-hungry corporatist. I honestly can't believe that people think that Bush was a conservative. He even admitted in his final week in office that he betrayed all free-market values that he should have had.

As far as I can tell, this report has taken the word "conservative" and used it to mean "authoritarian." The fascists were authoritarians, but I would not call them conservatives (seizing control of their economies is in no way a conservative move). Regan was a conservative, but I would not call him an authoritarian. I'll have to read the report, but this article makes it sound like they are confused about what the word 'conservative' means.

"George Will, a Washington Post columnist who has long suffered from ingrained conservatism..."

Is that part a joke or is it revealing their desire to attack conservatives just for the sake of attacking conservatives? It is hard to take a source seriously when it writes something like that.

"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
British General Charles Napier while in India


Jormungander
atheistScience Freak
Jormungander's picture
Posts: 938
Joined: 2008-07-15
User is offlineOffline
ClockCat wrote: equal

ClockCat wrote:

 equal treatment of what? Are they suffering from xenophobia?

You've lost me..

Don't play stupid. The NSF and NIH funded a political attack on conservatives (or maybe they meant this article to be about authoritarians? the Guardian makes them sound pretty confused on the matter) but didn't fund a similar attack on liberals. Funding attacks on your political opponents isn't the legitimate business of these organizations. It would appear as though these organizations are simply declaring that Reagan, Bush, Hitler and Mussolini are all similar in their political motivations. Did these researchers really discover that Regan and fascists are real similar, or did they merely claim that to discredit conservatives by comparing them to fascists? Since this is a political matter and the researchers seem to be unable to differentiate between hardcore authoritarian fascists and Reagan, I am inclined to distrust them. I am also inclined to question why public funding was spent on something that closely resembles petty partisan attack campaigns.

If you read a second-hand source claiming that liberals were motivated by the same flawed reasons and irrational feelings that Pol Pot and Stalin were motivated by: would you believe the source, or would you think that it is another petty political smear campaign that is probably a misuse of public funding?

Edited for spelling. The spellchecker on this site rarely functions for me.

"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
British General Charles Napier while in India


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
 Jorg wrote:....stuff...I

 

Jorg wrote:
....stuff...

I have no idea about this article, but the guy who did the 20-odd years of research on authoritarianism before Reagan took office was a social scientist working across cultures and political borders.  The reason an attack on American political conservatives as fascist-like does not require a similar attack on the American political left is that the left is dominated by low RWAs and anti-authoritarians, who are both very un-fascist.  To put a solid point on it, Altmeyer spent several years specifically trying to find a left-wing authoritarian personality and couldn't find it.  It doesn't exist.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
 P.S.  Please do some

 P.S.  Please do some research.  Left and Right wing do not mean the same thing in politics as sociology, and there is a very specific definition for Right Wing Authoritarianism.  Stalin was a High RWA in a politically leftist culture.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Jormungander
atheistScience Freak
Jormungander's picture
Posts: 938
Joined: 2008-07-15
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote: P.S.

Hambydammit wrote:

 P.S.  Please do some research.  Left and Right wing do not mean the same thing in politics as sociology, and there is a very specific definition for Right Wing Authoritarianism.  Stalin was a High RWA in a politically leftist culture.

That is what I was saying. The authors aren't talking about conservatives as the guarding claimed. They are talking about authoritarians. If someone can be politically left and a RWA simultaneoulsy, then I suppose that this has nothing to do with conservaties in particular and is only about authoritarians.

And I do believe that people can be politically left and authoritarian simultaneously. Altemeyer's bullshit doesn't fool me. He made a LWA scale and RWA scale. Political leftists who score high on the LWA scale also score high on the RWA scale. This is because there are fundamental aspects of authoritarians that have nothing to do with left-right politics; so people who score high on one scale also score high on the other. But, and here is were Altemeyer's BS comes in, since people who scored high on the LWA scale also scored high on the RWA scale, Altemeyer said that no LWAs existed at all. He simply refused to admit that they were left-wing and authoritarians. He instead called them 'wild card authoritarians' and refused to let the fact that they were politically left allow them to be called LWAs. So he found LWAs, he just refuses to call them that and instead invented the term 'wild card authoritarian' in order to be able to say that he has never found LWAs. His 'wild card authoritarians' is just a newspeak attempt to not admit that there are inded LWAs.

The reason he could never find people who score very high on his LWA test is because the test focuses too much on following a leader. LWAs differ from RWAs in that RWAs flock to a leader while LWAs flock to an ideology. The LWA scale only counts you as very authoritarian if you are like and RWA and focus on following a leader. Recap: the scale was poorly made, it half-tests for RWA tendancies rather than actual LWA tendancies, people approaching the midpoint on his scale are LWAs and Altemeyer pretends that they aren't by calling them 'wild cards' rather than admit that they are politically left authoritarians.

So I guess what I am saying here is: P.S. Please do some research yourself.

"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
British General Charles Napier while in India


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Quote:And I do believe that

Quote:
And I do believe that people can be politically left and authoritarian simultaneously. Altemeyer's bullshit doesn't fool me. He made a LWA scale and RWA scale.

He says explicitly that people can be politically left and authoritarian simultaneously.  He reached that conclusion after trying to construct a LWA scale and discovering that the personality simply doesn't exist.  You need to read more carefully.  Sorry.

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Subdi Visions
Bronze Member
Subdi Visions's picture
Posts: 278
Joined: 2007-10-29
User is offlineOffline
ClockCat wrote:Why are so

Because they are indoctrinated to believe that aliens are stealing their jobs and spending their tax dollars. Most of the conservative, republican whack jobs I know are as delusional as theists.

Respectfully,
Lenny

"The righteous rise, With burning eyes, Of hatred and ill-will
Madmen fed on fear and lies, To beat and burn and kill"
Witch Hunt from the album Moving Pictures. Neal Pert, Rush


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3995
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote:Clockcat,

Hambydammit wrote:

Clockcat, if you're interested in this kind of thing and haven't read "The Authoritarian Specter" by Robert Altmeyer, you're doing yourself a horrible disservice.

Please explain to us why leftists that support an authoritarian government control of our economy(minimum wage, takeover of health care, welfare, etc...) to wage war on poverty are different than conservatives that support an authoritarian government to wage war on terrorism and crime.

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:3

EXC wrote:

Hambydammit wrote:

Clockcat, if you're interested in this kind of thing and haven't read "The Authoritarian Specter" by Robert Altmeyer, you're doing yourself a horrible disservice.

Please explain to us why leftists that support an authoritarian government control of our economy(minimum wage, takeover of health care, welfare, etc...) to wage war on poverty are different than conservatives that support an authoritarian government to wage war on terrorism and crime.

 

It is hard to tell if you are trolling or are just earnestly crazy.

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3995
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
ClockCat wrote:EXC

ClockCat wrote:

EXC wrote:

Hambydammit wrote:

Clockcat, if you're interested in this kind of thing and haven't read "The Authoritarian Specter" by Robert Altmeyer, you're doing yourself a horrible disservice.

Please explain to us why leftists that support an authoritarian government control of our economy(minimum wage, takeover of health care, welfare, etc...) to wage war on poverty are different than conservatives that support an authoritarian government to wage war on terrorism and crime.

 

It is hard to tell if you are trolling or are just earnestly crazy.

Anything but a rational explaination. Is that all you got is insults since you can't rationally defend your position?

You bitch about conservatives. But you know damn well a large percentage of people in the USA would agree with me. Well, here is your chance to educate all us ignoramouses with a rational explaination. All you can do is insult. You have nothing.

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:3

EXC wrote:

ClockCat wrote:

EXC wrote:

Hambydammit wrote:

Clockcat, if you're interested in this kind of thing and haven't read "The Authoritarian Specter" by Robert Altmeyer, you're doing yourself a horrible disservice.

Please explain to us why leftists that support an authoritarian government control of our economy(minimum wage, takeover of health care, welfare, etc...) to wage war on poverty are different than conservatives that support an authoritarian government to wage war on terrorism and crime.

 

It is hard to tell if you are trolling or are just earnestly crazy.

Anything but a rational explaination. Is that all you got is insults since you can't rationally defend your position?

You bitch about conservatives. But you know damn well a large percentage of people in the USA would agree with me. Well, here is your chance to educate all us ignoramouses with a rational explaination. All you can do is insult. You have nothing.

 

I know of nothing that can be done to quell your irrational fear. The health care is a right thread kind of proved that. There is plenty of evidence there that you choose to ignore.

 

 

I have noticed though that there is a trend in the U.S....liberals tend to want to prove they are not wrong by providing evidence, while conservatives feel satisfied if "other people believe it" too, and jump on the fear-obsessed bandwagon without hesitation. This happened during Bush's presidency as well. It went from Afghanistan, to Iraq, and then to Iran. 

 

 

 

Do you ever stop to think before you type out something like "HEALTH CARE REFORM IS A GOVERNMENT TAKEOVER" ?

 

Thinking you might of made a mistake by not parroting verbatim from a talking head on TV doesn't count.

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:o

 I went onto twitter and started posting things like "DONT GET THE FLU SHOT! RFID CHIPS BEING IMPLANTED in your CHILDREN to mark DISSIDENTS for Obama's DEATH CAMPS!"

 

And within minutes I have a legion of conservative followers, agreeing with me and making conspiracy theories that it must be true because they heard from someone that they found a chip in their kid after getting a shot.

 

 

I expect to hear about it being on FOX NEWS within a month.

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3995
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
ClockCat wrote:Thinking you

ClockCat wrote:

Thinking you might of made a mistake by not parroting verbatim from a talking head on TV doesn't count.

Another dodge, do you want to answer the question or just hurl insults since you have nothing else?

How is the authoritarian war on terror different than the authoritarian war on poverty?

And why do you even ask the question about Xenophobia if you've already got an answer in your head(Conservatives are crazy)? All you want is people to justify your conclusion. No rational discussion about the causes, just people that don't agree with you are all nuts. Well, you're nuts for pretending to ask a question for which you already have an answer.

 

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:3

EXC wrote:

ClockCat wrote:

Thinking you might of made a mistake by not parroting verbatim from a talking head on TV doesn't count.

Another dodge, do you want to answer the question or just hurl insults since you have nothing else?

How is the authoritarian war on terror different than the authoritarian war on poverty?

And why do you even ask the question about Xenophobia if you've already got an answer in your head(Conservatives are crazy)? All you want is people to justify your conclusion. No rational discussion about the causes, just people that don't agree with you are all nuts. Well, you're nuts for pretending to ask a question for which you already have an answer.

 

 

Reading is tech, idiot.

 

I said WHY they are xenophobic, not IF they are. I already know many conservatives ARE xenophobic, I was looking for the cause of this. There is plenty of rational discussion, unfortunately you are not participating in it any more than Palin participated in the legislation of health reform by claiming DEATH PANELS WANT TO KILL THE ELDERLY. I didn't say I had the answer to the causes of conservative xenophobia, that is why this question is here.

 

You can let yourself out of the thread. Thanks, bye.

 

 

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3995
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
ClockCat wrote:Reading is

ClockCat wrote:

Reading is tech, idiot. 

I said WHY they are xenophobic, not IF they are. I already know many conservatives ARE xenophobic, I was looking for the cause of this.  

Where did claim this was not the case??? Sounds like you need to take your own advise.

And why is the person that hurls the personal insults instead of debating the point not considered the troll?

Is anyone allowed to have any answer other than conservatives are crazy, evil, brainwashed by Fox news idiots? So why even raise the question? And of course only conservatives practice authoritarianism.

ClockCat wrote:

You can let yourself out of the thread. Thanks, bye.

I know, respect your authority or I'm out.

 

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:3

EXC wrote:

ClockCat wrote:

Reading is tech, idiot. 

I said WHY they are xenophobic, not IF they are. I already know many conservatives ARE xenophobic, I was looking for the cause of this.  

Where did claim this was not the case??? Sounds like you need to take your own advise.

And why is the person that hurls the personal insults instead of debating the point not considered the troll?

Is anyone allowed to have any answer other than conservatives are crazy, evil, brainwashed by Fox news idiots? So why even raise the question? And of course only conservatives practice authoritarianism.

ClockCat wrote:

You can let yourself out of the thread. Thanks, bye.

I know, respect your authority or I'm out.

 

 

You haven't provided a reasoning as to why so many conservatives are xenophobic. When you do this, you will be participating. There is nothing to debate here BUT what causes xenophobia in many conservatives.

 

Your failure to understand the point of the thread is no one's fault but your own. The question has nothing to do with "if there are conservatives that are xenophobic" it is WHAT CAUSES IT to happen.

 

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
Well Clockcat, the fact

Well Clockcat, the fact that EXC seems to be flaming this thread does not really help matters but then again, your spending time responding to his flames with your own does not move matters on either.

 

However, xenophobia is about the in group vs. the out group. On that basis, why would you give liberals a pass on holding to xenophobic traits? Any well defined and coherent group ought to be capable of showing the us vs. them distinction. In fact, for a confessed liberal to even ask questions about why conservatives seem to be xenophobic comes off to me as inherently xenophobic in itself.

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:Hambydammit

EXC wrote:

Hambydammit wrote:

Clockcat, if you're interested in this kind of thing and haven't read "The Authoritarian Specter" by Robert Altmeyer, you're doing yourself a horrible disservice.

Please explain to us why leftists that support an authoritarian government control of our economy(minimum wage, takeover of health care, welfare, etc...) to wage war on poverty are different than conservatives that support an authoritarian government to wage war on terrorism and crime.

I think it's obvious: differences in values. Democrats seem to push for a more services-based mixed economy and things gradually improve economically, and then conservatives take over with their socialist bolstering of the military by contract and things get worse. It's been happening since the 50s that way. Some people even say it's the "business cycle" if they completely ignore politics.

Now, what that has to do with conservative xenophobia, I don't know.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:3

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:

Well Clockcat, the fact that EXC seems to be flaming this thread does not really help matters but then again, your spending time responding to his flames with your own does not move matters on either.

 

However, xenophobia is about the in group vs. the out group. On that basis, why would you give liberals a pass on holding to xenophobic traits? Any well defined and coherent group ought to be capable of showing the us vs. them distinction. In fact, for a confessed liberal to even ask questions about why conservatives seem to be xenophobic comes off to me as inherently xenophobic in itself.

 

 

I agree, actually with everything you said here. I am not giving anyone a "pass".

 

I don't hate, dislike, or fear conservatives, but I recognise at the same time that many of them are xenophobic. I am curious what causes this in such numbers among many conservatives? What in the philosophy of "keeping the status quo" demands division?

 

"Xenophobia is a dislike and/or fear of that which is unknown or different from oneself. It comes from the Greek words ξένος (xenos), meaning "stranger," "foreigner" and φόβος (phobos), meaning "fear." The term is typically used to describe a fear or dislike of foreigners or of people significantly different from oneself, usually in the context of visibly differentiated minorities." from wiki.

 

The difference here is, many conservatives feel that EVERYTHING outside their bubble is dangerous, everything not american is against america, everything against god is against america, etc etc. Following this line of thought, it is easy to see the viewpoints they hold...but I don't understand HOW they come to this. What starts it, and why is intolerance accepted by other conservatives so easily towards other people for simply existing? 

 

Liberals do not have a free pass, but this thread isn't about liberals. I don't see a large grassroot liberal movement against people who are "different". Maybe if you compare/constrast against liberal social views some insight could be gained?

 

 

 

Does it have to do with a generational thing, since many conservatives are elderly..and they lived in a different world? I'm going to ponder this a bit. If anyone has answer answers or insight into this, please feel free to add!

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


Jormungander
atheistScience Freak
Jormungander's picture
Posts: 938
Joined: 2008-07-15
User is offlineOffline
Clockcat, surely you see the

Clockcat, surely you see the irony of making an 'us vs. them' thread about liberals versus conservatives while claiming that the conservatives are xenophobic. Your us vs. them/in-group vs. out-group mentality seems to be the thing that you are blaming on convservatives. You have to see the irony in all this. What you are doing is not displaying xenophobia, but you are displaying the in-group vs. out-group mentality that xenophobia is a byproduct of. Perhaps before pointing out the splinter in their eye, you should worry about the beam in your's.

"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
British General Charles Napier while in India


Stosis
Posts: 327
Joined: 2008-10-21
User is offlineOffline
Oh irony so lol. But I dont

Oh irony so lol. But I dont think you can hold ClockCat for this. He was asking a question about a particular group. It just happens that in America everyone falls into one category or the other... or in between... The fact of the matter is that hardcore conservatives are much more likely to be xenophobic than anyone else. This deserves an explanation.


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4127
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Perhaps because foreign

Perhaps because foreign immigrants  bring foreign cultures ?  ClockCat you're an atheist as well as being gay.   Suppose millions of Muslim immigrants came to the US and after gaining sufficient political representation began to alter the laws in favor of their religion.  Do you think you could live under Sharia Law ? 

Patrick is an edgy edgelord.


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:o

Jormungander wrote:

Clockcat, surely you see the irony of making an 'us vs. them' thread about liberals versus conservatives while claiming that the conservatives are xenophobic. Your us vs. them/in-group vs. out-group mentality seems to be the thing that you are blaming on convservatives. You have to see the irony in all this. What you are doing is not displaying xenophobia, but you are displaying the in-group vs. out-group mentality that xenophobia is a byproduct of. Perhaps before pointing out the splinter in their eye, you should worry about the beam in your's.

 

I'm well aware. This is not intended to be as much an us vs them thread as it is myself trying to understand what causes the xenophobia so common in conservatives. 

 

Yes, I am a liberal because I believe that everyone should have the freedom to do what they want in life, so long as it doesn't directly intrude on other's freedoms. I do not hate or fear conservatives though, I just want to understand what causes the irrational fear of everything...well...not them. The mass labelling of "un-american" and the rhetoric of "do you hate america?" kind of things to everything that doesn't agree with them. Also, there is the utter contempt for nearly every minority, as well as the civil rights movement. I understand that the concept of the ideology is "to keep the status quo" but...the civil rights movement was a long time ago. 

 

I don't understand this.

 

 

 

As for the sharia law thing, no I would not be able to live under any religious law in all likelihood. Since I am not religious, and the abrahamic religions have a thing against gays... I would probably not do well at all. The same is true for mormon religious laws, or anything else for that matter. At least sodomy being illegal was overturned several years ago here in the states...but not that long ago, really.

 

 

Ironically enough, I used to be a conservative when I was very young (as my parents), and thought that all the gays in the country should be put to death. This is because the church my parents took me to told me that is what God wanted, and that since they aren't reproducing all they are doing is making disease and ruining society. When I was about 13 or so I kind of drifted away from religion, and the result of that is me as I am today.

 

I am not looking to my own experiences however, since I am expecting (and hoping...) that most conservatives were NOT raised like this. I am hoping it is just this area.

 

 

Also, please try to keep from preaching to me. Let alone paraphrased bible text....I did not make this thread to discuss my own issues. I am trying to understand why there is rampant unacceptance of nearly everything in one ideological group.
 

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
 Um... ok... I don't know

 Um... ok... I don't know if Clockcat is xenophobic or not.  However, pointing out a trait of a group does NOT necessitate or even imply having the trait oneself.

Consider:  Why are so many fisherman prone to tell tall tales of fish that got away?   Does asking this question make me prone to telling tall tales?  No.

Why are so many disadvantaged urban residence prone to using especially dangerous drugs like meth and crack?  

Why do so many rich men have attractive trophy wives?

Why are so many conservatives xenophobic?

 

See how it works?  You ask a question, and it doesn't imply a damn thing about you.  Ironically, it's xenophobic mentality that tends to drive people to assume a similar level of fear within the out-group.  That is, if I am afraid of everyone else, I assume everyone else is also afraid of me in a similar fashion.  

For the record, I am not a democrat nor a libertarian nor a republican.  I have strong disagreements with many of the democratic party platforms, but I tend to vote democrat because I feel their party platform is a much slower poison than that of the republicans.  Having said that, looking from the outside in, I see two different kinds of fear at work.  Republicans tend strongly towards genuine xenophobia, which is what leads people to say things like, "Gay marriage threatens us all!"  and "Immigrants will be the downfall of the American way of life!"  and "If you're not patriotic, you're siding with the terrorists."

The fear I see in democrats is fear of policy.  They are not afraid of the people.  Of course this is not universal.  I'm sure you can find plenty of xenophobic democrats if you look hard enough, but the proof is in the rhetoric.  Liberal Americans, for the most part, are in favor of broadly inclusive policies designed specifically to benefit everybody more or less where they stand.  (Notice I switched from Democrats to Liberal Americans.)  Conservative Americans, for the most part, are interested in policies that try very hard to make everyone like themselves.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Am I the only one willing to

Am I the only one willing to bet $50 that if socialist ideas were part of the original Americian ideal instead of conservative ones, then most RWAs would be Democrat?

 

 

 


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:3

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

Am I the only one willing to bet $50 that if socialist ideas were part of the original Americian ideal instead of conservative ones, then most RWAs would be Democrat?

 

 

 

 

 

What is the original American ideal? I'm pretty sure everyone that started here had different ideals. This was a hodgepodge of different peoples right from the beginning. Pretty much all the unwanted from Europe, not to mention being a penal colony. The same goes for Australia.

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:o

Hambydammit wrote:

 Um... ok... I don't know if Clockcat is xenophobic or not.  However, pointing out a trait of a group does NOT necessitate or even imply having the trait oneself.

Consider:  Why are so many fisherman prone to tell tall tales of fish that got away?   Does asking this question make me prone to telling tall tales?  No.

Why are so many disadvantaged urban residence prone to using especially dangerous drugs like meth and crack?  

Why do so many rich men have attractive trophy wives?

Why are so many conservatives xenophobic?

 

See how it works?  You ask a question, and it doesn't imply a damn thing about you.  Ironically, it's xenophobic mentality that tends to drive people to assume a similar level of fear within the out-group.  That is, if I am afraid of everyone else, I assume everyone else is also afraid of me in a similar fashion.  

For the record, I am not a democrat nor a libertarian nor a republican.  I have strong disagreements with many of the democratic party platforms, but I tend to vote democrat because I feel their party platform is a much slower poison than that of the republicans.  Having said that, looking from the outside in, I see two different kinds of fear at work.  Republicans tend strongly towards genuine xenophobia, which is what leads people to say things like, "Gay marriage threatens us all!"  and "Immigrants will be the downfall of the American way of life!"  and "If you're not patriotic, you're siding with the terrorists."

The fear I see in democrats is fear of policy.  They are not afraid of the people.  Of course this is not universal.  I'm sure you can find plenty of xenophobic democrats if you look hard enough, but the proof is in the rhetoric.  Liberal Americans, for the most part, are in favor of broadly inclusive policies designed specifically to benefit everybody more or less where they stand.  (Notice I switched from Democrats to Liberal Americans.)  Conservative Americans, for the most part, are interested in policies that try very hard to make everyone like themselves.

 

 

Thank you Hamby. This gives me some thoughts. If conservative americans want to make everyone like themselves....what caused this? Where does it stem from? 

 

Do they feel they are in some kind of culture war based on judeo-christian values then? Is that what this is about, trying to make everyone submit to their morals?

 

I'm not sure where to go on this. I know many people here locally that are conservative, and won't leave far from the town where they are born because it is "different". They never care to see a beach, a glacier...anything that isn't right in front of them already. They stay right in the immediate area. I can't fathom this kind of thing either. Is it just an utter, irrational fear of change maybe?

 

I couldn't ever live like that....I love travelling, and when I say something to that effect they just look at me with dead uncaring eyes. It is so strange to me....They go to the same church, work the same job, drink themself stuipid after the job, and sleep to wake up an do it again, in endless repitition...and it is "okay" to do this, because, I am told, their dad did it before them. 

 

I'm starting to ramble now. I'll stop. Maybe someone can get something from this that I missed and enlighten me. 

 

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
ClockCat wrote:What is the

ClockCat wrote:

What is the original American ideal? I'm pretty sure everyone that started here had different ideals. This was a hodgepodge of different peoples right from the beginning. Pretty much all the unwanted from Europe, not to mention being a penal colony. The same goes for Australia.

 

 

I'm talking more about the 60's or 50's where socialism was considered evil due to the Soviet Union.

 

 

I'm pretty sure that that's a big part of the reluctence of social programs and hence a dive into conservative thinking.

 

That is if the Soviet Union did not exist, or weren't enemies of the US, or something similar, then we should see more RWAs as democrats or whatever enviroment they were born into [whether liberal or conservative]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:o

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

ClockCat wrote:

What is the original American ideal? I'm pretty sure everyone that started here had different ideals. This was a hodgepodge of different peoples right from the beginning. Pretty much all the unwanted from Europe, not to mention being a penal colony. The same goes for Australia.

 

 

I'm talking more about the 60's or 50's where socialism was considered evil due to the Soviet Union.

 

 

I'm pretty sure that that's a big part of the reluctence of social programs and hence a dive into conservative thinking.

 

That is if the Soviet Union did not exist, or weren't enemies of the US, or something similar, then we should see more RWAs as democrats or whatever enviroment they were born into [whether liberal or conservative]

 

This isn't about Democrats or Republicans. 

 

Which party is made up more of conservatives or liberals has swapped a few times since creation of the parties. Republicans were the liberal party from the beginning of the last century until the civil rights movement, and then many conservative democrats left in an exodus...and the republican party which was struggling took them all in. They left because....well, honestly they didn't want to see blacks using the same things as whites. They were against ending segregation, and wanted a "seperate but equal" thing. 

 

Many republicans minorities then ended up pushed out of the party. Where african-americans almost exclusively leaned republican due to the ending of slavery...they now were mainly democrats, because of the want for equal rights. The original conservative democrats that didn't leave began calling themselves "blue dog" democrats after that. 

 

So, this is not about party. It is about an ideology. It just happens to be that the Republican party is, according to the GOP and Arlen Specter, "purifying itself" of people that they feel don't agree strongly enough with their current core issues. Basically, they are looking to get rid of the liberal republicans..the libertarians, from leadership roles. I'm not sure why, they are not doing well as it is...but then again, I don't claim to understand either of the main political parties in the country.

 

 

Also, the 50's and 60s are a long time ago...why would conservatives reach back in time? Aren't they supposed to "preserve the status quo" not "bring back ye olden times before the internet"?

 

 

I DO see a lot of worship among conservatives for this time period, but most of it seems to be due to it being before the civil rights movement... like this 

 

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AqY50ui2cMyfgF6uVbh5guKlDH1G;_ylv=3?qid=20090908151806AARwM62

 

question.

 

 

 

 

I'm studying on this as best I can to try and understand it.

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
Well Hamby, I don't

Well Hamby, I don't even care all that much if CC is xenophobic or not. What I am concerned with is the question that he is posing and where it goes wanting.

 

As far as your word game go, I question how they are even valid in this context.

 

P1: I play keyboard and bass

P2: I am Geddy Lee.

 

P2 simply does not follow from P1 and the same holds true for other word games. Allow me to toy with your example.

 

P1: Hamby came home with a fish.

P2: Hsmby is a fisherman.

 

From either, it should be clear that you have not addressed the basic issue of xenophobia. What is the reason why anyone would be xenophobic?

 

Seriously, I have some thoughts on why people could become xenophobic. However, those thoughts are rather group neutral. Take a note from game theory here: All of my people are mine and I know them. All of someone else's people are unknown.

 

P1: Clearly, the fact that they are outside of my group establishes that they are xenophobes.

P2: If you are part of my group, then you are immune from xenophobia even when you are explicitly displaying xenophobic behavior.

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:3

Would it be better if I rephrased the question, "Why do so many racist homophobic immigrant hating people, that fear and/or dislike anyone that believes in anything different than they do, exist in the conservative ideology of the United States?" Not claiming I am unbiased, I will say that there ARE people that fit into these categories that subscribe to other ideologies.

 

Many liberals I have found do not care what other people believe so long as they don't actively try to stop them from living how they want, while many conservatives here I have found want everyone to live how they do...like the banning of gay marriage, gay adoption, sodomy laws, etc to make sure people CANNOT do things in their personal lives that they disagree with, purely in a subjective way. (As in, trying to make taking rights away from minorities a state interest when it has no rational reasoning to do so. Like claiming "Gay marriage destroys marriage" so you have to "protect marriage from the attack of sodomites" )

 

 

I know these people frequently claim biblical values, but surely religion isn't making people conservative...is it? I suppose every sharia-law state is very conservative by it's nature...

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3995
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
ClockCat wrote:Would it be

ClockCat wrote:

Would it be better if I rephrased the question, "Why do so many racist homophobic immigrant hating people, that fear and/or dislike anyone that believes in anything different than they do,

 

Racism and xenophobia are natural phenomena. They have aided the survivability of groups that behaved this way. Same with waging war, groups and tribes that either refused to wage war or were bad at waging ware were wiped out by groups that were not this way.

Unfortunately, we live in a world with limited natural resources, so there is a great deal of competition for these resources. In the competition for these 'nice guys finish last'. So the human species is stuck with this tendency toward racism, xenophobia and belligerence.

The only way this can be cured is with a rational understanding of how we got this way and rational solutions. Hating conservatives and not trying to understand them is worthless. You become what you hate.

And what is so great about the immigrant groups coming the the USA. In the Latino and Islamic cultures, there is even more pressure than the USA for children to be religious. The have just as much racism, sexism and homophobia in their cultures as American conservatives.

 

ClockCat wrote:

Many liberals I have found do not care what other people believe so long as they don't actively try to stop them from living how they want,

 

Unless of course I want to live my life without having the government take nearly everything I earn with income taxes. I can't have the freedom to do this. So this liberal philosophy is pretty hypocritical by being selective about when the government should leave people alone.

ClockCat wrote:

while many conservatives here I have found want everyone to live how they do...like the banning of gay marriage,

 

Actually I'm against strait marriage as well. Why do we need the government to sanction anyone's relationship? This isn't a matter of the government leaving gay people alone. The gay couples are actively asking for a sanctioning, getting the title of marriage and they are not happy with just civil unions that give them the same legal rights. So the gay marriage debate is not just about getting the government to leave gay people alone. If gay couples want to be more accepted by society, they should just be happy with civil unions and not have to have "marriage" on a legal document.

 

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:I

Whoa whoa whoa...same legal rights?

 

EXC, Civil Unions do not give EVEN CLOSE to the same legal rights as marriage.

 

 

 

How in the world could you even think that? 

 

 

Also, EVEN IF IT WAS THE SAME, how can you be for this "separate but equal" crap?  

 

 

These are just a few of the issues that are problems with civil unions, copied from http://www.now.org/issues/marriage/marriage_unions.html

 

 

What is marriage?

Marriage is a unique legal status conferred by and recognized by governments all over the world. It brings with it a host of reciprocal obligations, rights and protections. It is also a cultural institution. No other word has that power and no other status can provide that protection.

Married couples have over 1,400 rights, protections and responsibilities such as:
  • Social Security benefits upon death, disability or retirement of spouse, as well as benefits for minor children.
  • Family and Medical Leave protections to care for a new child or a sick or injured family member
  • Workers' Compensation protections for the family of a worker injured on the job
  • Access to COBRA insurance benefits so the family doesn't lose health insurance when one spouse is laid off
  • ERISA (Employee Retirement Income Security Act) protections such as the ability to leave a pension, other than Social Security, to your spouse
  • Exemptions from penalties on IRA and pension rollovers
  • Exemptions from estate taxes when a spouse dies
  • Exemptions from federal income taxes on spouse's health insurance
  • The right to visit a sick or injured loved one, have a say in life and death matters during hospitalization.

What is a civil union?

A civil union is a legal status granted by a state. The State of Vermont created civil unions in 2000. It provides legal protection to couples at the state law level, but omits federal protections, as well as the dignity, clarity, security and power of the word "marriage".

Civil unions are different from civil marriage and that difference has wide-ranging implications that make the two institutions unequal, such as:

Portability:
Marriages are respected state to state for all purposes but questions remain as to how civil unions will be treated in other states. The two appellate courts that have addressed the issue in Connecticut and Georgia have disregarded them based on the fact that their own states do not grant civil unions.

Federal Benefits:
According to a 1997 General Accounting Office report, civil marriage brings with it at least 1,049 legal protections and responsibilities from the federal government alone. Civil unions bring none of these critical legal protections.

Taxes and Public Benefits for the Family:
Because the federal government does not respect civil unions, a couple with a civil union will be in a kind of limbo with regard to governmental functions performed by both state and federal governments, such as taxation, pension protections, provision of insurance for families, and means-tested programs like Medicaid. Even when states try to provide legal protections, they may be foreclosed from doing so in joint federal/state programs.

Filling Out Forms:
Every day we fill out forms that ask us whether we are married, single, divorced or widowed. People joined in a civil union do not fit in any of those categories. People with civil unions should be able to identify themselves as a single family unit yet misrepresenting oneself on official documents can be considered fraud and can carry potential serious criminal penalties.

Separate and Unequal—Second Class Status:
Even if there were no substantive differences in the way the law treated marriages and civil unions, the fact that a civil union remains a separate status only for gay people represents real and powerful inequality. The United States Constitution requires legal equality for all. Including lesbian and gay couples within existing marriage laws in is the fairest and simplest thing to do.

Ending a Civil Union:
If you are married, you can get divorced in any state in which you are a resident. But if states continue to disregard civil unions, there is no way to end the relationship other than establishing residency in Vermont and filing for dissolution there. This has already created problems for couples who now have no way to terminate their legal agreement.

 

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:I

EXC wrote:

 

This isn't a matter of the government leaving gay people alone. The gay couples are actively asking for a sanctioning, getting the title of marriage and they are not happy with just civil unions that give them the same legal rights. So the gay marriage debate is not just about getting the government to leave gay people alone. If gay couples want to be more accepted by society, they should just be happy with civil unions and not have to have "marriage" on a legal document.

 

 

 

 

.... Just no, EXC. You misrepresent everything you come into contact with.

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3995
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
ClockCat wrote:Whoa whoa

ClockCat wrote:

Whoa whoa whoa...same legal rights?

 

EXC, Civil Unions do not give EVEN CLOSE to the same legal rights as marriage.

How in the world could you even think that? 

I live in California and as a compromise, moderates have proposed that civil marriage would mean all the same legal rights as marriage. No legal difference, only semantics. There is actually a large number of gay people that are libertarian and found this acceptable, they don't want to have a war with the rest of society over semantics. But there is a group of gays here that want a war, they want to put it in the face of religious people that they are married. 

 

 

ClockCat wrote:

Also, EVEN IF IT WAS THE SAME, how can you be for this "separate but equal" crap?  

I'm not. I'm against strait marriage as well. Marriage has come to mean some kind of religious union, like it's only OK to have sex if you have a document on file with the government that says "marriage". Government needs to stay out religion. So I'm for same and equal, no "marriage" for anyone in legal documents, only civil unions. 

You keep assuming a a right wing nut, I'm not. I'm someone that thinks things through., so I don't believe things just because they are right or left wing.

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3995
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:ClockCat

EXC wrote:

ClockCat wrote:

Whoa whoa whoa...same legal rights?

 

EXC, Civil Unions do not give EVEN CLOSE to the same legal rights as marriage.

How in the world could you even think that? 

I live in California and as a compromise, moderates have proposed that civil marriage would mean all the same legal rights as marriage. No legal difference, only semantics. There is actually a large number of gay people that are libertarian and found this acceptable, they don't want to have a war with the rest of society over semantics. But there is a group of gays here that want a war, they want to put it in the face of religious people that they are married. 

 

 

ClockCat wrote:

Also, EVEN IF IT WAS THE SAME, how can you be for this "separate but equal" crap?  

I'm not. I'm against strait marriage as well. Marriage has come to mean some kind of religious union, like it's only OK to have sex if you have a document on file with the government that says "marriage". Government needs to stay out religion and relationships. So I'm for same and equal, no "marriage" for anyone in legal documents, only civil unions. 

You keep assuming a a right wing nut, I'm not. I'm someone that thinks things through., so I don't believe things just because they are right or left wing.

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:I

EXC wrote:

ClockCat wrote:

Whoa whoa whoa...same legal rights?

 

EXC, Civil Unions do not give EVEN CLOSE to the same legal rights as marriage.

How in the world could you even think that? 

I live in California and as a compromise, moderates have proposed that civil marriage would mean all the same legal rights as marriage. No legal difference, only semantics. There is actually a large number of gay people that are libertarian and found this acceptable, they don't want to have a war with the rest of society over semantics. But there is a group of gays here that want a war, they want to put it in the face of religious people that they are married. 

 

 

ClockCat wrote:

Also, EVEN IF IT WAS THE SAME, how can you be for this "separate but equal" crap?  

I'm not. I'm against strait marriage as well. Marriage has come to mean some kind of religious union, like it's only OK to have sex if you have a document on file with the government that says "marriage". Government needs to stay out religion. So I'm for same and equal, no "marriage" for anyone in legal documents, only civil unions. 

You keep assuming a a right wing nut, I'm not. I'm someone that thinks things through., so I don't believe things just because they are right or left wing.

 

I take it you did not read that list, at all.

 

One of the first things is the lack of support from ALL FEDERAL programs, not to mention that STATE benefits only are with you while in that state.

 

I'm not assuming you are anything, I'm noticing you repeat yourself and tell me that "gays don't need marriage". Marriage is not a religious thing, and never has been unless you wanted it to be, or had a state religion. I don't think a drive-through elvis impersonator marriage in vegas has anything to do with a religion, and yet look how popular that has been.

 

Why you want to keep marriage from gays, ignoring the glaring inequality in that, and then use the excuse "Well I am against it for straight people too..." is beyond me.

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:ClockCat

EXC wrote:

ClockCat wrote:

Whoa whoa whoa...same legal rights?

EXC, Civil Unions do not give EVEN CLOSE to the same legal rights as marriage.

How in the world could you even think that? 

I live in California and as a compromise, moderates have proposed that civil marriage would mean all the same legal rights as marriage. No legal difference, only semantics.

Holy shit. That is the most fucking backwater ridiculous thing I've ever heard.

Just let them marry each other! What the hell difference does it make to anyone? It's infuriating that this is still an issue!

Two humans ... getting married ... what's the problem? It seems straightforward.

[edit (still mad): doesn't that simplify the paperwork? People who get married are just married? No "civil union", no "different label because they're THE SAME SEX (gasp)" Fucking shit. It's like we're in the stone age.]

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3995
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
HisWillness wrote:Holy shit.

HisWillness wrote:

Holy shit. That is the most fucking backwater ridiculous thing I've ever heard.

Just let them marry each other! What the hell difference does it make to anyone? It's infuriating that this is still an issue!

Two humans ... getting married ... what's the problem? It seems straightforward.

Why are you in favor of strait marriage given that "marriage" has such religious connotations? Shouldn't the government stay out the religion and relationship business? What is wrong with just using the term 'civil unions' for everyone?

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3995
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
ClockCat wrote:I take it you

ClockCat wrote:

I take it you did not read that list, at all.

Why? I'm in favor of equal treatment. Including the semantics of what you call it.

ClockCat wrote:
 

I'm not assuming you are anything, I'm noticing you repeat yourself and tell me that "gays don't need marriage". Marriage is not a religious thing, and never has been unless you wanted it to be, or had a state religion. I don't think a drive-through elvis impersonator marriage in vegas has anything to do with a religion, and yet look how popular that has been.

 

OK. So you're in favor of special rights for married people, discrimination against single people. Why are you such a bigot against single people? I don't understand why you get all these special rights for marriage anyways. 

ClockCat wrote:
 

Why you want to keep marriage from gays, ignoring the glaring inequality in that, and then use the excuse "Well I am against it for straight people too..." is beyond me.

Do whatever you want. Make whatever agreements you want. Gay or strait treat them the same. But, why do we need to discriminate against single people?

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:Why are you in

EXC wrote:

Why are you in favor of strait marriage given that "marriage" has such religious connotations? Shouldn't the government stay out the religion and relationship business? What is wrong with just using the term 'civil unions' for everyone?

Because legally, straight marriage has significance. I don't care about the church part, just the part with the signing of the papers.

So let's go through this step by step:

1) Marriage is already set up as an institution, with paperwork and forms and associated legal procedures.

2) We figure out that it's ridiculous to ban two people from that institution simply on the basis of sex

then

3) We change the name of the institution for everybody?

Why? The simpler version is to just extend the existing institution to all people of the [already existing] age of consent. Same forms, same legal procedures, same deal. That's it. It's so simple that I don't understand the problem.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3995
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
HisWillness wrote:EXC

HisWillness wrote:

EXC wrote:

Why are you in favor of strait marriage given that "marriage" has such religious connotations? Shouldn't the government stay out the religion and relationship business? What is wrong with just using the term 'civil unions' for everyone?

Because legally, straight marriage has significance. I don't care about the church part, just the part with the signing of the papers.

So let's go through this step by step:

1) Marriage is already set up as an institution, with paperwork and forms and associated legal procedures.

2) We figure out that it's ridiculous to ban two people from that institution simply on the basis of sex

then

3) We change the name of the institution for everybody?

Why? The simpler version is to just extend the existing institution to all people of the [already existing] age of consent. Same forms, same legal procedures, same deal. That's it. It's so simple that I don't understand the problem.

Because if you ask the question "Are you in favor of equal rights for gay people?" You get about 70-30% in favor. If you ask "Are you in favor of gay marriage?" you get about 70-30% against. So if you're concerned about equal rights and not semantics, seems like you'd support my positions.

Also, why don't single people and unmarried couples have the same rights as "married" couples? Why do you support an institution that discriminates and is based on religious ideals like no-sex outside of marriage pisses off Mr. Invisible. What if you're a person that likes to have sex with multiple partners, does this mean you must be barred from adopting children? Only heterosexual and homosexual couples that are monogamous are fit to be parents? What about asexual people, can they adopt?

Taxation is the price we pay for failing to build a civilized society. The higher the tax level, the greater the failure. A centrally planned totalitarian state represents a complete defeat for the civilized world, while a totally voluntary society represents its ultimate success. --Mark Skousen


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:Because if you ask

EXC wrote:
Because if you ask the question "Are you in favor of equal rights for gay people?" You get about 70-30% in favor. If you ask "Are you in favor of gay marriage?" you get about 70-30% against. So if you're concerned about equal rights and not semantics, seems like you'd support my positions.

But that's crap. Let's say I get the right to vote, but you get the right to "emphatically endorse". They're completely the same in terms of rights, but for some reason, we've decided to give what you do a totally different name. How about I can have a credit card, but you can have a "debt incurring card"?

The reason you should find those cringe-worthy is because like anyone else, you would smell a rat. Having a different name for something is an obvious signifier.

EXC wrote:
Also, why don't single people and unmarried couples have the same rights as "married" couples?

Wow, is this ever not the point. (Of course, it's the point in a massive derail, but I might be the only moderator who doesn't know how to separate content properly, so ... sorry about that.)

Why don't limited partnerships have the same rights as corporations? You're asking a legal question about forms of agreements and the status of legal entities. Corporate entities, for example, have the benefit of virtual immortality, and the self-determination of their dissolution, two rights which do not exist for other legal individuals.

EXC wrote:
Why do you support an institution that discriminates and is based on religious ideals like no-sex outside of marriage pisses off Mr. Invisible.

Not concerned with the church part. Said that earlier. Do you mean an institution that leads to discrimination?

EXC wrote:
What if you're a person that likes to have sex with multiple partners, does this mean you must be barred from adopting children?

I don't know if that does bar you from adopting children, does it? An active night life might not be the best lifestyle for raising children, though.

EXC wrote:
Only heterosexual and homosexual couples that are monogamous are fit to be parents? What about asexual people, can they adopt?

That might be the lamest slippery slope I've ever seen. Oh wait -- there was that one about "What's next? People marrying their pets?"

Let me get this straight (no pun intended): asexual people aren't able to adopt?

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
So we are on to gay

So we are on to gay marriage now? OK, I can play that game as well. For the record, I would side with EXC to the extent that government really ought not to be involved with marriage. Yet it is, so we have to live in the real world.

 

OK, can a straight couple get a civil union? Answer that and you will know if civil unions are the same as marriage. Never mind the whole “rights and privileges” thing. Is a civil union something that is just like marriage but not exactly marriage? If a straight couple went into city hall and asked for the paperwork to establish a civil union, would they be told “that is for gays”?

 

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
Answers in Gene Simmons

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:

OK, can a straight couple get a civil union? Answer that and you will know if civil unions are the same as marriage. Never mind the whole “rights and privileges” thing. Is a civil union something that is just like marriage but not exactly marriage? If a straight couple went into city hall and asked for the paperwork to establish a civil union, would they be told “that is for gays”?

 

Let's say they're exactly the same thing in everything but name. Nobody says "that is for gays", the person behind the desk just gets a different form. One form has "Civil Union" on it, and one has "Marriage" on it. If the two people applying are the same sex, they get a Civil Union form, and if they aren't, they get a Marriage form.

I think the problem should be obvious. Let's say in 10 years, a suddenly powerful group of people want to retroactively annul all gay marriages. They'd be pretty easy to identify. It would be significantly more difficult to annul marriages on that kind of whim, because then the stability of the marriage contract is called into question for everybody.

I'm still flabbergasted that it matters, though. It's two people, and they're entering into a type of partnership that has existed for centuries. The fact that they share the same sex should be legally irrelevant.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence