Topic: Obama wins

[sirean_syan]

With things winding down, I'm feeling strangely sorry for Palin now that I see Fox news tearing her to shreds and dumping the loss on her. Now, Palin pretty much became the icon of everything that bothered me about the Republican camp this time around, but the conservative media was the one place unwilling to ask these questions, wouldn't make these statements about her abilities when it was relevant, and called others biased when they did. If they were running stories two weeks ago that'd be a different story, but to suddenly turn face and turn her into the scapegoat by destroying her just feels tasteless and wrong.

I also feel pretty sad for McCain. After last nights speech, it seems pretty clear he was playing to the worse aspects of the party during the election and after everything was done he was able to go back to his old self. That's got to be soul killing and I genuinely think it hurt him inside to act like he did over the past months. Of course, this is all extremely speculative. Still, it feels like both him and Palin were used in a way that probably helped cost them the election and they went through with it out of loyalty. I don't know if the outcome would be any different, but I imagine things would feel pretty different had McCain ran his election according to what I believe his character was even four years ago.

Actually, this whole election just sort of makes me sad (Sy is sad bears... (why did I just say that?)). On one hand, people seemed to elect the candidate who ran the classier election, which is good, but then things like prop 8 won all over the country showing how divided we still are. People voted for Obama because of the economy, not because he represents the possibility for a clearer, more effective government or something in line with what they really believe in. Things like the anti-gay bills reveal that most/many of the people in this country still want to infuse their personal morality into government policy. We're split along lines that cannot be compromised because they are not about what real government policy should be about. I've come to the belief that religion has ripped this country apart and will continue to do so. That isn't a statement against religion, but the fact that it's way too intertwined with government and politics in a time when government should simply be about protecting and helping its people regardless of who they are so long as they don't hurt others. I also worry what both sides are going to do in response as they become more extreme out of the hatred of the other side. There needs to be some sort of healing process, but I'll be damned if I knew how that would work.

[Cobra951]

I think it also shows some obtuse stubbornness.  "Marriage" is too tied up with the man/woman church thing.  Call it something else.  "Civil union" or whatever might make it easier to get through.  The morality is religion-based, and it will not budge, even in the most liberal state in the union.  Get over it.

I watched Fox for the conservative perspective tonight, off and on for a lot of the evening.  When did they disparage Palin?  I didn't see that at all.  If anything, they seemed sympathetic and supportive.

[Quemaqua]

How is it religion's fault when religious beliefs were what founded this country and have been here all along?  I mean... one of the consistent things that have been a part of the country from the beginning is what's ripping us apart?  I'm afraid I can't follow that line of logic.

Agree with the rest of your assessments, though.  I feel much the same.  Along with the rest of you about the whole "won/lost" thing.  I think it's very apparent in everyone's minds whether they realize it or not.  If I ever say anything against one party's ideology, the all but guaranteed response is "Oh, you're one of those people and you must think <xyz>".  Even if I never said or even implied a connection with a directly opposing viewpoint, it's immediately assumed.  Being more in the middle of certain issues, that gets really, really annoying.  It's another element of a broken bipartisan system that offers very little in the way of real choice, and I think there does indeed need to be a healing process, but we aren't on our way there by any stretch of the imagination, Obama or otherwise.

[idolminds]

I'm going to have to disagree with the notion that our country was founded with religious beliefs. But that would be another thread.

[nickclone]

Some of our laws are based off of the 10 commandments, but not because we're based on religion...they're just good laws. Some are them are laws because they should be laws (don't murder, steal, bear false witness) and some aren't laws, but we consider "moral laws" because it's the right thing to do (honor thy mother/father, don't commit adultery, covet thy neighbor's wife). The rest are arbitrary...but I guess in a way they all are.

The reason people don't want gay marriage is because they're afraid of gays or they make them feel uncomfortable. Most people believe that if gay marriage were legalized, gays would run around in public wearing tutus and having big gay orgies at the local shopping mall. I believe that by legalizing gay marriage, people think they would be "oking" the gay lifestyle.

[Ghandi]

I'm going to have to disagree with the notion that our country was founded with religious beliefs. But that would be another thread.

It depends where you start. The pilgrims fled here to escape religious persecution. They were clearly religiosly motivated.  If you are speaking specifically about the Constitution, you might have an argument, although you'd be hard pressed not to acknowledge that religion (specifically Christianity) had some influence in its creation.

[gpw11]

Yeah, the first settlers were basically zealots.  As for the founding fathers, I don't really have any idea, and I don't think it matters.  Things change.  Regardless, I personally think a lot of people are just ridiculous when it comes to these kinds of things (religions and the gays).

-Gay marriage I could care less about.  I'd say I was for it, but I'm pretty self-centered and (like I said) don't really care. I wouldn't base a vote on it (remember: because I don't care), but don't see why they shouldn't be allowed to get married.  I do agree with Cobra, however, that if it comes down to it a compromise would be the best solution and stubbornness isn't going to get anyone anywhere.  Marriage went through pretty easily here, and that's great, but if there was a TON of opposition I think Civil Unions with every single benefit of a marriage would be the right way to go about it. The whole "It's like segregation....separate but 'equal'!" argument is valid, but also pretty pointless. Who cares what you call it, this argument is based on it actually being equal (obviously, unlike segregation), and the people who say this are usually just being huge bitches.  I hate bitches. 

-People need to stop giving a fuck about religion so much.  This goes on both sides of the fence.  "The religious right are taking over the country!!!!" Democracy can be shitty, but all kinds of people believe in equally stupid shit that makes no sense.

Who cares, let people be people and just snicker because you know you're better than them because you are so fucking rock and roll. 

[sirean_syan]

I watched Fox for the conservative perspective tonight, off and on for a lot of the evening.  When did they disparage Palin?  I didn't see that at all.  If anything, they seemed sympathetic and supportive.

I caught a glimpse of the O'Reilly show and he had some McCain campaign dude going on about how bad they all thought Palin was. Given that O'Reilly wasn't interrupting him every ten seconds, it seemed like he was approving of the message. The campaign guy even mentioned this one story about how one day Palin was running late so she answered the door wearing a towel when they went to pick her up as if that was an earth shattering event. All the talk just struck me as blatant and meaningless character destruction.

People need to stop giving a fuck about religion so much.  This goes on both sides of the fence.  "The religious right are taking over the country!!!!" Democracy can be shitty, but all kinds of people believe in equally stupid shit that makes no sense.

This is more or less my feelings on the issue, or at least what I'd like to aspire to. I know my own feelings on the religious right are stronger than they should be. There are things that just shouldn't be pushed into government policy. The left shouldn't want to cut down on religious practices and the right shouldn't want to prevent others from living how they want to live. Neither side really even bothers the other until policies are pushed because of the desire to spread beliefs (or lack of). I suppose my biggest issue steams from politicians exploiting those beliefs in order to push other agendas through and people eating it up. The GOP scared the shit out of far too many people with rumors that Obama was a Muslim. Thank gods it didn't work, but it shows not only what kind of bile the GOP is capable of spreading, but how their constituents will react when confronted with the possibility of other religions existing on a high level. In the last election, Bush used gay marriage and moral right to the same effect. Those ideas had nothing to do with his policy, but people fell for it.

Religion has always been at the core of what the US was, but I think that steams more from the fact that most people were Christian. The real core is about freedom and all that jazz. Toes weren't stepped on in the past because most people followed the same moral codes or were in such small groups that they were either unnoticed or didn't have enough backing to make their voice be heard. Now, things have changed but the sides won't coexist. That's the issue.

[Quemaqua]

But most people are still Christians.  You live here so you'd never know it, but living here and what the heart of the actual country is like aren't even remotely comparable.  If you're basing anything on what you see around you here and what you see on TV, then yeah, this is a godless country of amoral fuckwits.  But that isn't an accurate portrayal of what more reasonable people on the other side of religious and political issues are like, either.  Many of them are perfectly reasonable, not Daily Show caricatures.  That goes for both sides, really.  I get very tired of such satire because of that, even.  I think all it does is fuel misconception and foster wrong attitudes about people who believe differently.

Take this place.  If anything in the world has taught me that I can respect the positions of those who feel differently than I do on certain issues, it's OWnet.  Idol and I are polar opposites on certain fundamental things, but at the same time I think we're both really similar people and he's one of my favorite people on the planet earth.  Being able to chat with him on IRC is always a highlight of my day.  One of my best friends who lives around here I basically consider my brother, and he's very much an agnostic, if not an atheist.  Cobra and I see eye to eye on a lot of stuff, but not at all on other things, and I absolutely bask in the conversations I have with him because of his good humor and intelligence.  And some of the great men in American history believed differently from me, too.  Benjamin Franklin was an atheist.  But he was a sensible and insightful one with a concept of morality.

I think the whole gay marriage issue comes down to the fundamental fact that marriage is traditionally a religious ceremony, and less a legal one (even if that isn't quite so much the case these days).  Cobra kind of said it earlier... you'd find a lot of folks would be okay with gay couples getting some sort of legal acknowledgment if they simply didn't use the word "marriage".  Fine, maybe you find it completely arbitrary, but you have to understand that this is an institution with deep roots.  Don't expect people to simply change the definition of what it is because someone else wants them to.  There's really no obligation on their part.  Frankly, I don't even understand why gay people want it so badly, nor do I understand why non-religious couples bother with it.

[sirean_syan]

Oh I'm sure most people are Christian still and many of those are perfectly reasonable people. Still, times have changed and there are more people who live outside of the church. What I do see, or at least think I see, is enough people preventing others from something fair that doesn't affect the first group in any way shape or form outside of symbolism. If the symbolism is too much, we're on the same page. Just call it civil unions. Heck, take marriage out of the laws and allow for legal partnerships in the same vein. Marriages will be in churches. That's totally fair to me.

You know I'm not dumb enough to base the world on what we have here. I might be forehead deep in the world of Berkeley, but I know this is an anomaly of the most extreme kind. Give me some credit.

You are right though. I don't know if we lost the ability or never had it, but it is not okay to simply respect the other side of an argument. Even worse, a lot of the impressions of hate and fear of the other are done underhandedly and through passive aggressive means. It can't be approached because it's denied. That just makes the issue harder to fix.

[Quemaqua]

Indeed.  Makes it frustrating as hell, too.

[Ghandi]

Frankly, I don't even understand why gay people want it so badly

There are a number of legal restrictions associated with not bring married. Hospital rights are one of them, though I forget the rest.

That being said, I agree with it being called something different. It's impossible biologically or even categorically to call them the same thing.

I think the issue of adoption is much more controversial than marriage.

[Quemaqua]

Yeah, that's a whole different ball of wax, and one that's likely to get people a whole lot more riled up.

[scottws]

It can't be approached because it's denied. That just makes the issue harder to fix.

You are right, it can't be approached.  It's not a debatable topic.  If you aren't a religious person (which obviously, you aren't), then you will probably never understand.  In its simplest terms, marriage is a holy sacrement between a man, a woman, and God.  It is impossible, therefore, for gay people to be married!

If states want to create some sort of concept that is similar - legally - to marriage but called something else then that is something that is debatable.

I think where the waters got muddied is how non-religious, heterosexual couples can get "married."

[Pugnate]

I was reading the analysis of the votes, and I don't believe the US of A is so divided. The vast majority of voters under the age of 30 (regardless of state) voted for Obama. In a decade, people from this likeminded populace will be making the big decisions, and with the generation gap tightening, the USA will be probably be more united.

As for John McCain, his campaign was ridiculous, and his final speech reeked of hypocrisy -- no matter what sort fairy tail spin you want to put on it. He accused Obama openly and secretly of all sorts of things, and then suddenly endorsed him after he lost? Though I guess the blame lied as much in the election process as it did with McCain.

It sadly reminded me of the amusingly fake storylines on the WWE/WWF. You know, how one show you had two tag team partners closer than brothers, and the next, you had them fighting viciously, and accusing each other of all sorts of stuff like necrophilia, bestiality, homosexuality, sadism, rape, murder etc etc..... only to see those very performers reconcile easily a few weeks later without any memory of the murderous animosity earlier.

What I found hilarious was when Hilary Clinton said all sorts of stuff about Obama, and then did a U-turn when she conceded to him days later. Yes I know I said he was incompetent, but that's not what I think anymore?

You are right, it can't be approached.  It's not a debatable topic.  If you aren't a religious person (which obviously, you aren't), then you will probably never understand.  In its simplest terms, marriage is a holy sacrement between a man, a woman, and God.  It is impossible, therefore, for gay people to be married!

If states want to create some sort of concept that is similar - legally - to marriage but called something else then that is something that is debatable.

I think where the waters got muddied is how non-religious, heterosexual couples can get "married."

I guess the problem is that there are lots of legal privileges associated with marriage, that gay couples want. They don't give a rat's ass about what god thinks -- I am sure.

[nickclone]

I don't think marriage is a religious thing, non-religious people do and you have to go through the state to make it official...shouldn't there be a separation of church and state. Also, the state recognizes people who marry their pets, houses, cars, trees, etc, but two dudes can't get married. Anything that lets some old widow marry her house, can't be taken seriously.

Before I go, why would changing the name of marriage to something else matter? It seems so petty...

[Pugnate]

At first glance, I thought you wrote pretty...

Yes, I think they need to introduce new concepts here. "Married couples" should be those who have gone through the process in their respective religious organizations (Church, Mosque etc), while couples that have gone through a "Civil Union" could be those that have gone through the process in a court. Both types of couples should have the same rights, but different wording on their documents... what's the harm in that?

I do agree that gay couples that insist on getting married in a church or mosque (yes there are gay Muslim groups) are just asking for trouble. Homosexuality is - without room for doubt - considered a sin, and is illegal in any popular religion. To try and say it isn't, is silly -- but to ask for a similar state supervised process that provides the same recognition, is not at all unreasonable. 

[Cobra951]

It's not petty.  Clearly, there is a brick wall here.  It's not going away soon--maybe in another generation, but I wouldn't bet on it.  Scott expressed the Christian point of view well.  Many, many black people are deeply Christian.  Most Spanish-descent people are Catholic (Christian).  This is not just evangelical whites putting up their hand and saying "no way".  And isn't homosexuality a "great sin" in Islam?

I saw the figures on the voting breakdown.  CNN had this tall wall of bars, each of which could be touched to expand into a pie chart.  Cool visual concept which worked well (unlike the pseudo-hologram bullshit they also toyed with).  The young vote doesn't surprise me at all.  Some of the other divisions were more surprising.  The latino vote also went overwhelmingly to Obama, and that was somewhat unexpected.

The losers always come out looking foolish.  But WWF?  Only douche commercials make me reach quicker for the remote control.

[Pugnate]

And isn't homosexuality a "great sin" in Islam?

Yes, but this is planet earth. Where a subdivision is possible, you find it. Also, it is a sin, but not a great sin. There are three or four "great" sins that aren't forgivable... but homosexuality isn't one of them. Also, I have seen more gay people in Pakistan than I did in North America... I was actually quite shocked. Not only are they walking the streets, but many TV personalities here are openly gay. From a hardline Muslim country, I found that shocking... I guess we finally found a group even the extremists are afraid of.

Actually, it has more to do with culture. In the Indian subcontinent (India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh etc), there is a belief that gay people are as such because they were born that way, and their curses stick. Morons...err... normal people in the Indian subcontinent actually believe that if a homosexual curses you, then it has a good chance of coming true -- again, I kid you not.

So, yea, they seem to leave gays alone in these parts. It is all superstitious nonsense of course, but there is a certain minority that isn't unhappy I am guessing.

The latino vote also went overwhelmingly to Obama, and that was somewhat unexpected.

Yes, it was. Apparently both the Latino and Black leaders lobby for the same government dollar, which is why there has been historical friction between the two groups.

But WWF?  Only douche commercials make me reach quicker for the remote control.

I had nothing to do when I first came here, though I stopped watching after six months.

[Quemaqua]

I wouldn't say the country is unified.  Just because one candidate had a somewhat decent lead over the other implies very little, since many people (as has already been discussed) were so anti-Bush and are so fed up with the pathetic way the Republicans have been behaving for so long now, that they just went to the other side and didn't give a crap about anything other than evicting the current camp.  This country is more divided than ever, and it's only going to get worse as we get further from our roots.

I'm quite afraid of what it'll be like 20-30 years from now.  The youth are so unbelievably brainwashed by popular media and the "educational" system it isn't even funny.  This is going to be a hellish place to live if these young people remain as stupid as they are now once they enter adulthood/middle age.

[Ghandi]

I don't understand what you are getting at, Que. How are the "youth" anymore disillusioned than the rest of us from popular media? And how is our educational system brainwashing them?

I may be brainwashed, after all - I am still very young.

[Quemaqua]

Academia has gone off the deep end into liberalism, not to mention much of what's being taught in public schools.  I don't think I even need to say anything more about it given the obviousness of it, and anyone who denies it I call Liar.

And come on, if you ever turn on the TV, 99% of what you see when it comes to politics or religion is people making fun of conservatives or conservative ideals (a lot of this is just plain Republican stuff, which I don't disgaree with since I think the Republicans have become a flock of morons -- but it's still just one group taking a piss on another because it can).  Look at what Adult Swim has become, with at least one show whose entire purpose is to openly mock Christians.  Hollywood is one of the most liberal establishments in the country.  And yet we've got guys like Schumer who aren't satisfied with that at all, but want the "Fairness Doctrine" to take over radio as well so they can control even more of what people hear.  This is obviously a priority, especially in an age where so many people, especially young people, get and regurgitate their entire lives from the shit they see on TV.

[Pugnate]

That's pretty awesome.

I still credit Ron Paul with saying the smartest thing during the election.  It's too bad at least 70% of the other stuff he said was ridiculous and he'd make a horrible president.

What'd he say?

[Cobra951]

Conservatives do find their voice and they have some big supporters.  Fox news is good as counterpoint for the liberal slant in most of the media.  After seeing something reported and "analyzed" on CNN, I will often turn to Fox to hear their take on it.

I think the country is fairly unified in sentiment.  We may not agree on how to go about changing direction, but there is a consensus that it's needed.  The dissenters I can think of are big-money people, and not even all of them.  The social divisions will stay as always.  We've been talking about one of them, the California Prop-8 drama.  Will not go away short of a purge or civil war.  I think it's better we continue to live with them.

[Quemaqua]

I think everyone agrees we need change.  But some of us want a return to more traditional ideals (move back to things that once made American great), others want a new direction (things that they think have made other countries great, or more unproven policies that they visualize as having great potential).  This is where the division lies.  I think lots of people pull from both extremes, thereby ending up more in the middle, but it still doesn't equal any true neutrality, it just means you bicker with both camps over a variety of issues instead of with one camp over all of them.  The only thing we can agree on is that we all don't like where things are right now, which I think is why Obama got as much support as he did.  People just want to distance themselves from the failures of the prior administration as much as possible, and he *seems* like the antithesis in a number of ways.

[Cobra951]

Part of that former great America you (and I) want came from self-reliance and even a period of relative isolation.  To bring that back, or at least self-reliance (i.e., self-sufficiency) we need to encourage it strongly, if not outright force it.  There are plenty of resources right here.  Plenty of people and talent.  I am convinced that allowing free rein to bleed out jobs and money through our borders is the single greatest cause of the current mess.  People with no jobs, or Walmart-greeter jobs after losing good jobs that ended up elsewhere, can't pay credit card debt and mortgages, subprime or not.  Sooner or later, pretending that they can by assuming even more debt comes to an end, inevitably.  The ability of banks to pretend along with them by lending out more money without enough collateral also comes to an end, inevitably.  The end is here.

Antithesis to what, your vision of a good future?

[Quemaqua]

No no, I'm saying that's why people voted for him, because he seems, in some ways, like the antithesis of not only Bush but the General Fuckwittery™ of the Republican party.  My personal resistance to him isn't because I support the old regime, which I'm thoroughly in agreement needed to be ousted, and I think it took a general Democratic sweep to do it in this case.  I simply think that much of the hope people currently have is a little false, because it's built more on the kicking out of the old and much less on any tangible evidence of the quality of the new.

[shock]

People saw and see him as more than just the antithesis of Bush, Que.  Prior to the financial crisis, the numbers were VERY close between the too, some even giving an edge to McCain on the national level.  This was especially true right after the Palin pick (before it imploded).  It was Obama's intelligent, cool display of leadership in the face of the financial crisis that began to turn the tide in his favor.  Both candidates were anti-Bush.

America is still a very conservative place, despite what the alarmists say.  Electorally, the election was a landslide, but the popular tells a different vote.  There are still a lot of Republican governors(only 1 gubernatorial race this year in which a Republican lost his seat to a Democrat) and the Republicans didn't lose as many seats in the Senate as it looked like they were going to.  Tons of ballot measures went the conservative way, including Prop 8 and identical measures in other states.


Few random thoughts:

1) Wind's statement about McCain is totally true.  In the words of the Economist, "there are few better men in American politics."  He has done great things, and it saddens me to see him used by his party in the way he was.  It's even sadder how the search for scapegoats has hit Palin in the face.  I disapproved of her from the start, and I think she was the embodiment of the perversion of John McCain's actual ideals in favor of what the party wished for, but it is shameful how they are throwing her under the bus in order to save face.

2) Concerning the whole gay marriage bit: We can at least take solace in the fact that social conservatism, eventually, fails.  The only thing that is to yet to be determined is the time it will take for existing institutions to fall and for inherent freedoms to be granted to minorities.  This may be a defeat (and a surprising one), but the war will go on.  The exit poll numbers from California are telling: The younger populations overwhelmingly voted no, while the older voted yes.  Fortunately for us, time is on our side, and people do not become more intolerant with age.

[Cobra951]

What a good, thoughtful post, shock.  Thanks for taking the time.  I caution you not to underestimate the unyielding moral barrier to mainstream acceptance of all things gay.  Religions and other strong codes of morality wouldn't be very good if they died off with one human generation.  I also think you're a bit naive if you don't think age hardens you a bit.  The idealism of youth seldom survives intact.

[Quemaqua]

Don't count out the survivability of youthful idealism in an age where nearly none of the youth understand the true meaning of responsibility, much less hardship.  Why change your ideals when there's nothing to test them?

I do agree with some of your post, shock, but not all of it.  I won't bother getting into it, as I'm about as entirely sick of talking politics right now as I've probably been in the last 4 years, but I do agree with your general assessment of McCain and Palin.  It's funny, because the more I've talked to liberals, conservatives, and independents, the more I realize that a lot of people feel the same way about the Republican party and the way the campaign was run.  And there's a surprising sense of sympathy for McCain because of that, because they realize that a lot of what went wrong was the fault of the party.  And I think love of the party is at an all time low, not just because of that, but because of a lot of stuff.  I see more and more people (on both sides, though I see it more on the conservative side because I'm obviously much more conservative) moving to call themselves independents.  It's interesting, and I think quite necessary if the Republicans are ever going to remedy their habits.

Also, you're right, social conservatism does usually fail as the natural habits of man and his immortal love of himself eventually take over, pride and its demands growing stronger with every successive generation that thinks itself more enlightened than the last.  This has never struck me as a good thing, particularly since I find the average young person to be all but subhuman at this point.  Yeah yeah, don't bother writing 40 paragraphs disagreeing with me, because I know that most people think we're evolving and becoming greater, but I have only seen evidence of Devolution in my lifetime.  I wish I had an optimistic outlook, but alas, my faith in humanity is at an all time low.

[shock]

Cobra: Thanks.  I'd further specify by saying that it is a common occurrence that people become more inclined to support the conservative party with age.  I believe that this is for monetary reasons less so than social, however.  But time shall tell!  I just don't see prejudices and intolerance setting in later in life is all.

Que:  We've never really agreed on much of anything about the state of the world, and I'm not naive enough to think I can convince you to drop your pessimistic side for my (perhaps overly)optimistic one.

Maybe I will start sending you cute stories?

Start here!  http://www.craigslist.org/about/best/tus/487665904.html

[ren]

Regarding Proposition 8,

states the No view pretty well and asks some good questions. I read what Scott said and I still just cannot comprehend it.

[Cobra951]

Interesting.  I don't know who he is.  He looks conservative.  Is he?  He's certainly not a devout Catholic, or a devout member of a traditional Protestant sect.  Because if he were, his moral choice would be clear, and would not originate from his feelings or thoughts on the issue.  The morality would not be his to decide upon.  Instead, he comes across as a strong advocate.  He doesn't just ask good questions.  He accuses.  It's an emotionally charged loaded speech.

This is what you need to understand, or at least accept.  Religion-based morality is not at all flexible.  Scott's comment illustrates that.  Let me try to illustrate with a ludicrous analogy.  If you are an animal lover, and people started to kick their dogs in public, you would be outraged.  They're not doing it to you.  They're not even doing it to your dog.  That doesn't change your reaction.  If an organized group came to you and demanded that you allow them to expose your dog to kicking, to see if he likes it, now how would you react?  You know it's wrong.  There is no way they're going to talk you into it.  Are you keeping your dog from achieving true happiness with someone's foot up his ass?  You can't answer that.  The situation suddenly being presented to you is so alien to you that you will not entertain it with much rational thought.  It is to be shunned, walked away from, prevented in your presence as far as you have the power to do so.  Your conviction about it is as clear and as true to you as a sunrise.  Those people are evil, or just plain crazy.

That degree of conviction cannot be swept away with legislation, indoctrination, threats, mobs, or perseverance.  If it could, there would not be an abortion issue after more than a generation since Roe vs Wade.  People with different convictions can try the brute-force approach through such a wall, or they can try to find ways around it.  This time, brute force was not brute enough for gay marriage.  The unyielding opposition was too strong.  Maybe next time.

[ren]

I have no idea who he is, that was just linked to me.

I don't accept that analogy because kicking a dog causes physical harm to the dog. Gay people marrying does not cause physical harm to anything.

If an organized group came to you and demanded that you allow them to expose your dog to kicking, to see if he likes it, now how would you react?

How is this analogous to gay marriage? First, "demanded that you allow them" implies that as straight people, you have the right to decide whether gay people should get married. What gives you this right? Gay people getting married is in not gay people demanding you're exposed to their marriage to see how you like it.

I won't get caught up in the analogy because you said yourself it's ludicrous.

That degree of conviction cannot be swept away with legislation, indoctrination, threats, mobs, or perseverance.  If it could, there would not be an abortion issue after more than a generation since Roe vs Wade.p

Abortion is an entirely different issue that has to do with the sanctity of life and the status of a foetus. Nobody will argue that gay people aren't people. Gay marriage is more closely likened to interracial marriage which was swept away through legislation, indoctrination, threats, mobs and perseverance.

I will do what you say and just accept it. Usually even if I don't agree with a point I can at least see the other side but in this situation I simply can't. I'll just be happy that I live in a place where none of this is an issue.

[gpw11]

Nobody will argue that gay people aren't people.

gpw12 argues that all the time.

[nickclone]

I think another reason this didn't pass is because of how it was worded. In every instance of voting, since...the invention of voting, has always been yay = yes as in for it and nay = no as in not for it. The vote should've been, yes if you're for gay marriage and no if you're not for gay marriage. Instead, it confused a lot of people by being set up as yes for no gay marriage and no for gay marriage. So vote yes for no gay marriage...or no for not gay marriage...whatever.

This is going the supreme court because people can't vote on civil rights issues. Lets see how this ends up.

[scottws]

I have no idea who he is, that was just linked to me.

I don't accept that analogy because kicking a dog causes physical harm to the dog. Gay people marrying does not cause physical harm to anything.

How is this analogous to gay marriage? First, "demanded that you allow them" implies that as straight people, you have the right to decide whether gay people should get married. What gives you this right? Gay people getting married is in not gay people demanding you're exposed to their marriage to see how you like it.

I won't get caught up in the analogy because you said yourself it's ludicrous.
Abortion is an entirely different issue that has to do with the sanctity of life and the status of a foetus. Nobody will argue that gay people aren't people. Gay marriage is more closely likened to interracial marriage which was swept away through legislation, indoctrination, threats, mobs and perseverance.

I will do what you say and just accept it. Usually even if I don't agree with a point I can at least see the other side but in this situation I simply can't. I'll just be happy that I live in a place where none of this is an issue.

Gay people simply cannot become married.  It is impossible for the reason I previously stated.  Also, I would never support a government law that would seek to force a change in a major, accepted* religion's dogma and nor would virtually any other even mildly religous person that is a member of one of those religions.

Again, if states want to write laws allowing something that has the same legal pros and cons as marriage, but call it something else (e.g. "civil unions"), then that is another matter entirely.  Some people will still be against even this anyway, but at least some of the more progressive religious people will be more open to such a concept.

I don't know what else to say really.  To me it is crystal clear.  I'm sorry that you don't understand.

* I threw "major, accepted" in there because there are exceptions.  If someone said they believed in a flying spaghetti monster god and claimed they needed to kidnap and sacrifice as many five year old children to please the god, I would never consider this to be a true, acceptable religion and would obviously support laws and enforcement that prevented this practice.

[ren]

Perhaps it's because I didn't consider marriage a Christian concept until hearing so on Prop 8; marriage was a concept I was familiar with and understood far before I knew what Christianity was.

To me, the concept of marriage being Christian is as foreign as gay people being married is to you. It doesn't matter where the word came from historically but it's in everyday use and it seems odd to me to think of it as anything but secular.

So, with what you said in mind, is common-law marriage bad too?

[scottws]

I already touched on that in my previous post.  It definitely muddies the waters.  I think that met with less (no?) resistance from religious people because of the fact it is between a man and a woman.  It is possible for a man and a woman to get married.  Two men or two women cannot.  Thus, there wasn't a barrier that is anywhere close to being in the same ballpark.

If it were up to me, I would say that "marriage" would a civil union between a man and a woman and also a religious union between a man, a woman, and God.  Anything else would simply be a civil union whether it be between a gay or straight couple.

Yes, I realize the word marriage is already commonly used to represent both religious and non-religious unions.  Like I said, it really muddies the waters.  It would be interesting and enlightening to find out if the concept of marriage is rooted in religous ceremony/celebration and the concept of a legal, non-religious "marriage" grew out of that or if the religous idea of marriage grew out of existing legal practices.

Look, here's the big problem as I see it.  If "gay marriage" is legally permissible, someday a gay couple or multiple gay couples are going to challenge a church, synagogue, or mosque to allow them to get "married" under the banner of the religion or at the very least within the walls of the center of worship.  Yes, I realize that an overwhelming majority of homosexuals are atheist, but you cannot tell me that 100% are.  Thus, such a law could put unfair legal pressure upon a religious organization to change its dogma, which I find to be ludicrous and utterly unacceptable as I previously stated.

Again, I don't find the topic of "gay marriage" debatable.  Yes, I realize why and how the distinction between marriage and a civil union can seem picky and obtuse to non-religious people when seemingly the distinction did not seem to previously exist.  All I can say to that is that you do not understand, that I apologize you do not understand and that I cannot make you understand, and to ask you to please respect my beliefs.

I have not come out and said it yet but I'll go ahead and do so.  I do not support gay marriage.  The concept is entirely alien to me.  I never have and I never will even budge one inch on this.  That said, I have no problem with the concept of a legal, civil union between two men or two women, whether they take place in the office of a Justice of the Peace or in a large celebration format, so long as they don't take place with religious overtones or in a religous center of worship.

[Quemaqua]

That about sums up my position on it as well.