Yuku free message boards

Gregoire wrote:

---

When it comes to gay issues, there's a definite difference between conservativism and being a Republican. Under the ideals of pure conservatism, gay and lesbian equality is beneficial because it eliminates a destructive subculture, stimulates the economy and supports, not negates, the family unit by encouraging non-traditional pairings to conform to societal norms.

Even Democrats aren't that sophisticated. However, the Republican party hasn't been about true conservatism for at least the past 20 years.

That statement is hugely problematic. Part of conservativism is subjecting society to slow or no change, especially on social issues. This general belief that societies should evolve as slowly as possible. Conservativism was founded in the belief of a moral veracity of a small group of property-owning, heteronormative white males as moral paragons in a deeply immoral world full of inherently-evil mankind. Republicans very closely mirror social conservativism today.

Quotes from StarErrise:

UC, I think you're being a little disingenuous when you're saying that the Republican party is a party of bigots,

I would be if I said the Republican Party is forever the party of bigots. The Republican party started as an incredibly liberal social movement and, who knows, may return to that someday. But right now, the party is virulently bigoted against gay people.

Put yourself in other people's shoes. If the democrats were for banning straight marriage, you would say they were bigoted against straight people, and you would be right. The only reason a person would look at the modern-day Republican establishment and think it wasn't bigoted against gay people is because they have been socialized into a bigoted society and have accepted it as normal and/or moral.

Like when Nixon's Southern Stragedy had shored up all the southern bigots from democrats, and they fought for segregation and various Jim Crow laws. At the time, not as many people were willing to challenge him and say segregation and miscegenation were immoral because they had been socialized to accept such conventions. Now, the culture is changed, and we can call those actions for what they were: bigoted.

because that in itself is a bigoted view.

Bigotry is, by definition, attitudes and actions based in ignorance and inhumanity. Valid critism is not ignorant. And criticism may hurt the feelings of others, but it has to pass a far greater litmus test than that to reach the inhumanity that would be inherent with bigotry.

Just because they don't have the same views as you doesn't make them necessarily wrong or bad people.

Bigotry is immoral. The hatred of gays in the US and other societies has led to a deeply dysfunctional society with both relationship costs and human costs.

I've found lately that the liberals around here (and other places as well) have become quite intolerant of opposing viewpoints - that's exactly what we used to bash the GOP for.

I am steadfastly devoted to disassembling the bigotry and cruelty against gays in my time. I can't speak for "liberals," but I can speak for myself. I'm okay if people think differently than me. (In fact, in many ways, I celebrate it.) But if you're talking about putting your bigotries into the firmament of government, that goes far beyond a mere viewpoint. It becomes a cruel reality which turns the American dreams of many into an American nightmare.

I'm not a Republican, I don't agree with their positions on government, etc., but they're not all bigots. There are plenty of bigots in the Democratic party as well, along with a fair share of hypocrites and tax evaders.

Part does not prove whole. There will always be exceptions.

I simply don't understand how you can hold the Democratic party up on a pedestal when they've done as much to damage this country as the Republicans have.

Is this statemnt in regards to gay rights or in governance in general. Either way, you'd be wrong.

I'll address the statement as one relating only to gay rights. Bill Clinton shot in the 1992 election into office with the promise that he would no longer sexually persecute US troops. He fought for it, but was soundly defeated by the bigoted forces around him- republicans and conservatives and the democrat exceptions. Before the 1996 elections, Clinton signed DOMA, a virulently bigoted bill against gay marriage. And then he advertised on right-wing Christian radio stations that he had "stood up to the homosexual lobby." He stood up to the most oppressed, disempowered, publicly-hated minority and brandished himself some sort of moral vicotry. It was pathetic.

Why am I making this point? Because it's important to be critical of both parties- including democrats. But there is a wild disparity between the treatment of gays between the parties. Between nation and state, there have now been thousands of votes cast for gay rights over the past twenty years coming from democrats and thousands of votes cast against gay rights coming from Republicans. In fact, no issue defines the two parties more, today, than their treatment of gays.

Is it solely because you think they're going to push through gay rights? If so, that seems like a very narrow a view considering the larger issues the country is facing today.

Are you married? How much does marriage play into your life? A little? A lot? What about your parents? Were they married? Was their marriage important to them or unimportant? Studies suggest that people married are far happier than unwed people.

You never put yourself in our shoes. You wrote us off as less important, as less human than you.

There are many problems in this country today. And many are directly attributable to bigotry against gays. The country is radically disenfranchising a huge segment of Americans, costing the state billions. The state is denying them marriage, costing the state billions. Adding dysfunction to every segment of society, radicalizing Americans lives. I, personally, come from a family with a mixed-sexuality marriage, so I know the effects better than most.