Refreshing - DU


PDA






tellner
August 20, 2006, 08:53 PM
I went to Democratic Underground's forum searching for some research materials. I didn't find what I was looking for, but I did find something that brought a smile. There's a who sub-forum on gun issues. There are antis, but most of the folks there take a view of gun ownership and citizens' RKBA that wouldn't be out of place here. It's strange for a place that is full of old-style Democratic Leftists but gives me some hope that a wedge issue might turn someday to a non-partisan one.

If you enjoyed reading about "Refreshing - DU" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Green Lantern
August 20, 2006, 10:16 PM
I'd take it with a grain o' salt. There are some people that like to hang out at left-leaning (FAAAAAR left in DU's case!) message boards and sell the RKBA and self-defense. To take the argument right to the gun-grabbers. ;)

Then again, some of the pro-2A folks on there have a very high post count, leading me to think that what I described above is NOT their "raison d'etre!" (sp?!)

Heck...my little corner of WNC does not have a majority of Democrats, but there's more than a few of 'em. And we DO have a majority of gun owners.

Still....the day that the Democratic party as a whole starts treating Feinsten, Kennedy, Klinton, and Schumer like lepers the same way the Republicans treat lunatics like Mayor Bloomberg will be the day I buy into the Dem platform lie that "we support the right of law abiding citizens to keep and bear arms!" :rolleyes:

tellner
August 21, 2006, 03:04 AM
Yep, you right. Of course, we lefties would say that as soon as you all start treating Santorum, Cheney, Robertson and Frist like Old Testament lepers we'll be glad to return the favor :)

Seriously, a lot of the gunnies show up elsewhere on the forum with strong progressive positions.

In a really weird way the George W. regime has been one of the best things for gun-friendly leftists and progressives. All we have to say is "Do you really want to be defenseless in the face of that?" Puts a whole different face on Jefferson, Madison and the RKBA.

crazed_ss
August 23, 2006, 09:32 PM
Hmm.. no, they really arent that open minded. Their gun forum is made up from people other than the normal posters. Someone guy made a thread in the general forume about personal responsibility being a trait of the democratic party.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1965456&mesg_id=1965456
I asked why democrats are always trying to ban or restrict guns if they're so interested in personal responsibility. One of the responses I got..

Dems have done nothing to take away guns from honest sportsen, but we do want to keep "cop killer" bullets out the hands of criminals and weapons which no ordianry sportsman needs such as machine guns out of the pocession of criminals. Funny, how the police seem to back the Democrats up on this and yet we are supposed to be weak on law and order?


:barf:

Then I got banned.. Funny thing is.. I'm a registered democrat.. got a card and everything. Guess it's time for me to find a new party.

Liberal Gun Nut
August 23, 2006, 09:54 PM
In a really weird way the George W. regime has been one of the best things for gun-friendly leftists and progressives. All we have to say is "Do you really want to be defenseless in the face of that?" Puts a whole different face on Jefferson, Madison and the RKBA.

That's exactly what the RKBA is about. It's so that people can defend themselves against whatever government tries to push them too far. Liberals should support the RKBA. There is authentic support for it over at DU.

Marshall
August 23, 2006, 10:17 PM
"Liberals should support the RKBA." There is authentic support for it over at DU.

When pigs fly.

I'm reminded of the "leopards never change their spots" saying. They only appear to be different.

Number 6
August 24, 2006, 12:15 AM
I have a colleague that is a communist, but also is a supporter of the second amendment. Just because one is a Democratic or liberal does not mean they are going to support all of the issues that the more liberal members of the party does. The Democratic party as a whole is a tad more diverse in orientations than the Republican party, so trying to pin them down gets very difficult. Regional dynamics and support bases play into what issues some Democrats will support.

orionengnr
August 24, 2006, 12:35 AM
I have a colleague that is a communist, but also is a supporter of the second amendment.

Look in the dictionary under "cognitave dissonance" ...or, maybe your favorite psych textbook...

If you can't find that, look up "Bull******"
Same difference.

GigaBuist
August 24, 2006, 04:10 AM
In a really weird way the George W. regime has been one of the best things for gun-friendly leftists and progressives. All we have to say is "Do you really want to be defenseless in the face of that?" Puts a whole different face on Jefferson, Madison and the RKBA.
I highlighted what I find disturbing about the DU mindset about gun rights there. No offense to you, Liberal Gun Nut, but in my readings over there (and it has been some time since I visited) that seems to be the mindset of most folks.

I worry that the pro-gun liberals will return to an anti-gun stance once Bush is out of office. It seems like a very reactive stance. Of course, this is coming from a guy that got talked into purchasing a gun shortly after the 2000 elections based on the fear factor of "what if Gore won?" so I'm not exactly one to talk. However, every gun purchased by myself has been under the Bush administration (which I voted for) initially out of fear of the (future) government and then later just as a hobby.

I kind of what how many of those people would be arming up under the pretense of "what if Bush won?" I suppose. Obviously they feel fear now, so they arm themselves. On the other hand the conservatives and Republican leaning voters also continue to arm themselves. The later does it because of principle -- not because of a demonstrated fear. I think that's the big difference.

If the only reason DU members are arming themselves is because of Bush then there's no reason for them to keep it up come 2008 -- just two years away. Now, if they really are principled men and women we'll find out in 2008. Are they acting on fear or principle? Or, more accurately, have they learned the principle reasons that we own firearms as private citizens as a consequence of their fear?

Time will tell.

Number 6
August 24, 2006, 06:50 AM
Look in the dictionary under "cognitave dissonance" ...or, maybe your favorite psych textbook...

If you can't find that, look up "Bull******"
Same difference.

I am well aware of what cognitive dissonance is, and so is my colleague. There are many forms of communism and this person has worked out for herself a belief system that makes sense. I do not agree with it, but I understand her logic. My colleague is a tremendously smart person, but that does not mean that two reasonable people cannot disagree on some issues. This is just one person who I might disagree with on some issues, but can find some common ground on the right to bear arms.

RealGun
August 24, 2006, 08:14 AM
DU doesn't matter. What counts is Congress, and the current rating is 100% anti-gun among Senate Democrats. If DU wants to pretend that guns are no longer an issue, they better get some coordination with their Senators. Until then, the DU folks are just finding another way to obfuscate. Folks independent enough to defend themselves are anathema to everything Democrats stand for.

Rugerlvr
August 24, 2006, 04:26 PM
Which means fairly moderate. What I am is liberal on everything in the bill of rights. 2nd amendment included. Guns for all law-abiding citizens.

I really wish some of the posters here could believe that there are plenty of us to the left of them politically who are RKBA supporters. But we all seem to be written off as liars.

That's not fair, and will do nothing to enhance the dialogue.

Dravur
August 24, 2006, 04:46 PM
You all have missed the point, Like Di-Fi and her Ilk. They aren't against ALL gun control, just YOU having guns is out of the question. Di-Fi can own one, maybe even Chuckie Schumer and any other leftist, but not YOU!

YOU cannot be trusted. You have to be protected by the state. So, the next time a Dem says they are pro-gun, just remember, they mean it for THEMSELVES and not for YOU.

Silly Peon, why would you need to protect yourself.

Carl N. Brown
August 24, 2006, 04:54 PM
Time to drag out one of my favorite quotes of all time;
Once an argument has been classed as "positional," it is regarded
as having been demolished, since the "position" attributed to it is
always selected with a perjorative intent. The choice of the position
selected is an expression of the personal antipathies of the individual
critic, and the same arguments can therefore be attributed to any one of
a variety of "positions," according to what comes most readily to the
critic's hand. The wealth of variations afforded by such tactics is
well exemplified by the variety of classifications to which I have
myself been subjected. On my religious "position" I have been classified
as a Protestant, a Catholic, an anti-Semite and as a typical Jew;
politically, as a Liberal, a Fascist, a (Nazi) and a Conservative; and
on my theoretical "position," as a Platonist, a Neo-Augustinian, a
Thomist, a disciple of Hegel, an existentialist, a historical relativist
and an empirical skeptick; in recent years the suspicion has frequently
been voiced that I am a Christian. All these classifications have been
made by university professors and people with academic degrees.

Eric Voeglin on p. 289 in
Freedom and Serfdom: An Anthology of Western Thought,
edited by Alber Humold. (D. Reidel, Dordrecht, Holland, 1961).

c_yeager
August 24, 2006, 05:01 PM
Just realize that a fair portion of the population at DU is made up of "insurgents" from right-wing boards who are not representative of the typical left-leaning person.

RealGun
August 24, 2006, 05:06 PM
I really wish some of the posters here could believe that there are plenty of us to the left of them politically who are RKBA supporters. But we all seem to be written off as liars.

It is an issue of credibility, when elected officials, who definitely characterize a party, are radical in one way, while some party member claims that the officials don't represent their views. One would have to ask the question why one stays with a party that does not actively represent them.

There is the quandary in a system that has only two viable parties, those capable of fielding and funding a candidate with a chance of getting elected. For example, if one is pro-gun and pro-choice, he might find a conflict and have to prioritize what is important in a voting choice or even how he would characterize his politics.

LightningJoe
August 25, 2006, 11:18 AM
Number 6:


Communists have used guns quite a bit. But once they're in power, RKBA is unheard of.


Prisoner to Number 2: "Who is Number 1?"

Number 6
August 26, 2006, 03:35 AM
Communists have used guns quite a bit. But once they're in power, RKBA is unheard of.

There are a variety of different forms of Marxist theory. Some versions are more violent and repressive than others. This person is not a Stalinist, Leninist, or a Maoist. Placing my colleague in the same category as Stalin, Lenin, and Mao, is not reflective of her beliefs.

Helmetcase
August 26, 2006, 11:16 AM
A very substantial part of the reason I've not spent much time here recently is that it gets pretty tiresome listening to the same stupid **** from people who look gift horses in the mouth constantly. You should simply accept the fact that at least some substantial portion of people who don't share your right wing beliefs do accept and embrace gladly the RKBA. You should be glad that some of us are around, as it makes protecting the RKBA that much easier for all us.

It seems some (many?) of you do all you can to alienate as many pro-RKBA liberals as you can, you use baseless ad hominem attacks (like the notion that we'll stop believing in the right to self defense when W goes back to his ranch for good or the unprovable assertion that DU posters in support of the RKBA aren't really liberals) to try to divide or drive off those who aren't as right wing as you are, and you generally drive a wedge between two groups of people--really, one group, the group of people who respect the RKBA--over some stupid political squabble that isn't relevant to our cause.

In short, it's so painfully counterproductive to our goals that I can barely bear the thought that pro-RKBA community can include those who can be so petty, selfish, stupid, and willing to forgo embracing something that benefits our cause because they'd rather be bashing an idealogy they don't like.

Nothing hurts the cause of gun rights more than infighting and petty squabbling between gun owners on stupid **** like this. There is some definite portion of the left of center public that accepts gun rights. There are no conclusive numbers to how big that portion is, but it does exist, and you should accept us as brothers in arms. If you choose not to, it's an example of you hurting the RKBA cause. Period. If you disagree...then, fine, **** you. :banghead: :cuss:

Marshall
August 26, 2006, 11:33 AM
Nothing hurts the cause of gun rights more than infighting and petty squabbling between gun owners on stupid **** like this.

With the exception of voting democrat.

The problem is, once a democrat is in the senate, the pressure to succumb to their left wing party is too great. Also, the definition of RKBA to most left wingers is a far cry from what we're looking for. Many lefties will say they are for RKBA but only in the way they sit fit for you to do so.

"Sure, we are for RKBA, as long as they are not semi-auto rifles or shotguns, as long as handguns can't hold over 10 rounds, as long as they are in a national registry so we can come get them when we decide to do so, etc."

It's too risky to vote for Dems that say they are for RKBA. They are a wolf in sheep's clothing, and even if not, they are vote thrown down the drain for our cause because the pressure to vote against the "least restrictive party" on this issue, is too great.

Helmetcase
August 26, 2006, 11:44 AM
Whatever, Marshall. Clearly it depends on the candidate. Every one needs to be evaluated on their own merits. There are Dems that have voted with us recently, and those candidates should be rewarded for doing so. (http://www.a2dems.net/campaign2006/senatevote109.htm) What kind of message would it send about the RKBA community if a Senator or Congressman votes against the AWB, against allowing frivolous suits against gun manufacturers, etc...and we turn on them anyway? Screw that. It goes without saying that there are Repubs we can't trust either, and Dems we can. Deny that at the risk of being even more obviously one of those dividing characters I was warning about.

And you're dead ****ing wrong. Nothing hurts our cause more than a lack of unity.

As for this "pressure" you're talking about, show me some examples of those who've gone from being outspoken pro-RKBA Senators to being antis. Max Baucus? Nope. Bill Nelson of NE? Nope. Harry Reid? Nope. How about Brian Schweitzer, governor of MT? He's on the national stage...he succumbing to pressure yet? Nope.

In any event, a stupid argument. The point here is this--if you're trying to shut out or denigrate members of the RKBA community because they're not as right wing as you are, YOU are the one hurting the cause. It's not about party affiliation--I vote for the candidate that protects our rights, regardless of party.

ID_shooting
August 26, 2006, 11:52 AM
"You should simply accept the fact that at least some substantial portion of people who don't share your right wing beliefs do accept and embrace gladly the RKBA."

Please show me one member of congress that has a "D" next to his/her name who has a solid record of voting FOR every pro-gun bill and AGAINST every anti-gun bill in the last 4 years?

Helmetcase
August 26, 2006, 11:57 AM
Click on the link provided in my previous post, and then remove the boot from your craw.

Then, once you've had some coffee and your brain warms up, realize that even if I couldn't show you any "D" folks with such a record, it would in no way suggest that there's anything wrong with my statement as quoted by you.

See if you can figure out why. (Hint: "people who don't share your right wing beliefs" does not equal "Democrats in the US Congress") :rolleyes:

RealGun
August 26, 2006, 12:07 PM
I vote for the candidate that protects our rights, regardless of party. - Helmetcase

I believe it is fair to characterize Democrats as very much like the ACLU. Your rights are all fine and dandy as long as they don't include gun ownership.

Thinking of it another way, if I wanted to support a pro-life or pro-choice position, isn't the issue sufficiently polarized to have a clear choice.

ID_shooting
August 26, 2006, 12:11 PM
My boots are hanging in the shoe rack right where they belong thank you.

It matters not what the voting populace of the D party believe in regards to RKBA, they keep electing represntatives that are solid anti-RKBA.

These people that we send to washington are just that, REPRESENTATIVES. If they vote anti-RBKA every chance they get and have a "D" behind their name, the REPRESENT the D party as anti-RBKA.

Simple logic.

BTW, I am not right wing. That is a fallacy spouted by most of the rank and file Liberals. If you aren't a socialist, your a "right wing facist nut job."

I read DU daily, you can't tell me that is not a favorite quote.

Now please, argue the logic of the statement with out resorting to personal attacks about my state of alertness and the current position of my footgear.

Helmetcase
August 26, 2006, 12:55 PM
Sorry ID, but you made a very unsupportable assertion or at the very least asked a pretty silly and obviously rebutted question, and I called you on it. You also made a rather inaccurate conflation of "non right wing RKBA supporters" and "Dems in Congress. Silly on your part. Sorry if that hurts your feelings, but you were clearly eating shoe leather. In point of fact, there are plenty of RKBA Dems; it would just be easier to keep a black and white picture of the world if there weren't. The truth is always a bit muddier than we'd like it to be, and oversimplified reductions just don't pan out.

I believe it is fair to characterize Democrats as very much like the ACLU.

I'd like to see that change. It's harder to do when people who should be embracing people like me into the RKBA community instead try to divide and alienate us.

RealGun
August 26, 2006, 01:15 PM
While one does have to be selective beyond party choice who he votes for, once a politician joins a caucus, there will be pressure to vote with the group. If you figure that one party seems to have this need to obstruct everything the other initiates, there isn't much in which they share an interest, always picking opposite sides. The current mix of what it means to be a Democrat or what it means to be a Republican isn't very logical, begging for hybrid parties to be added to the mix. The only remaining essences are socialism versus capitalism, which certainly still matter.

There are combinations of religious issues, fiscal policy, gun politics, foreign policy, etc. that are not represented by a two party system, forcing voters to have priorities and always be in a compromised and somewhat frustrated position. Perhaps this is why American politics always seems to have an element of anger and ugliness involved. Even the parties have major internal struggles, it never being very realistic to split off into independent groups.

ID_shooting
August 26, 2006, 01:26 PM
"there are plenty of RKBA Dems"

Of this I have no doubt; hoever, this is not the case in the sampling that the D party sends to DC every 4 years.

But the question still remains. How many D reps, on the federal level, are pro RBKA?

Is there even one?

beerslurpy
August 26, 2006, 01:48 PM
DU groupthink is enforced very strongly by the mods there. Even the slightest deviation from the movement dogma is met with immediate bannage. Having any sort of real debate is nearly impossible there, so I gave up on it a long time ago.

I got banned for suggesting that the Democratic party would have better luck running conservative candidates in conservative regions rather than trying to convert southern Baptists into NYC intellectuals. I think most DU people find it deeply disturbing to be reminded that the old once-dominant Democrat party was filled with many people like Zell Miller, not just people like Hillary Clinton. As I said, bannage ensued.

I was a democrat until I moved to FL from CA and saw what happens when progressive/liberal policies run to their logical conclusion (CA) and then what happens when conservative/libertatian policies run to their logical conclusion (FL). I used to think of the blue state way of doing things as normal and looked down on flyover country as a bunch of simple minded rednecks. The trick that I missed was that the simple minded rednecks arent going to tell you how to live your life and wont pick your pockets at every opportunity. If the Dems could learn that simple lesson for themselves, I would probably go back to voting for them. But I'm not holding my breath and I'm not quitting the republican party just yet.

RealGun
August 26, 2006, 02:26 PM
But the question still remains. How many D reps, on the federal level, are pro RBKA?

By GOA ratings, 13 House members, zero Senators, less than 10% of the Dems. Hooray for those exceptions, but give us a break on saying that Dems don't deserve an anti-gun stereotype.

beerslurpy
August 26, 2006, 02:50 PM
Budding pro-rkba politicians know better than to join the democrat party. The Dems walked away from conservatives back in the 70s. The republicans embraced them in the 80s and unless the republicans continue to drift away from them, there is no reason they will go back to being treated like the red-headed stepchild of the democrat party.

Helmetcase
August 26, 2006, 06:02 PM
By GOA ratings, 13 House members, zero Senators, less than 10% of the Dems.
I'd be interested in the NRA's opinions on those numbers. Seeing as the link I provided (from a 2A activist site, but not mine) indicated several senators who voted against the AWB and for Gun Manufacturer Immunity...

Hooray for those exceptions, but give us a break on saying that Dems don't deserve an anti-gun stereotype.
Who's saying that? Over the last twenty five years they've gone from being a populist party that had long included many gun friendly folks to an authortarian party that largely has indeed drank the Bradyite Kool Aid. No one's denying that.

My point isn't really about the pols, it's about the people they represent. When you belittle and alienate people like me and Tellner, you're not doing the RKBA any favors.

RealGun
August 26, 2006, 06:56 PM
indicated several senators who voted against the AWB and for Gun Manufacturer Immunity...

A single act of apparent contrition doesn't get one a favorable rating. Furthermore, the ratings are not as current as an incomplete Congressional session.

Since GOA was dead set against the trigger lock amendment to the Gun Manufacturer Immunity bill and lobbied against it, I would expect that they will look closely at who voted how on that amendment, including Republicans.

I am not going to be too quickly impressed by votes on the AWB, because some of the Senators could have sensed serious trouble with getting reelected if they voted for it. A rating has to look at a series of votes over a significant period of time. Barring data on newcomers they use questionnaires. Those who don't respond are dead meat on gun ratings.

RealGun
August 26, 2006, 07:04 PM
duplicate

Helmetcase
August 26, 2006, 08:57 PM
All the more reason to evaluate each candidate individually. Not every candidate will vote the way you want them too on each issue, gun related or otherwise. Sometimes you'll have to choose from a mixed bag, Dem or Repub. Some issues are complex, others are pretty straight RKBA (AWBs come to mind) issues that give you a clue as to how someone thinks.

CCW rights and AWBs are the key metrics in my mind. Lots of Republicans wouldn't pass muster under Mr. Idaho's metric either, keep in mind.

ID_shooting
August 26, 2006, 09:28 PM
"Lots of Republicans wouldn't pass muster under Mr. Idaho's metric either, keep in mind."

No disagreement here, none at all.

I most certainly vote split ticket. In locals, I will even vote a D or two. Out here though, our Ds are very moderate and pro RBKA.

Don't get me wrong, I know not every D is anti-RBKA, far from it if you look at the population. All I am saying, and have said, is that the D party is solid anti-RBKA on the federal level and therefore reflects poorly on the entire D party.

RealGun
August 26, 2006, 09:35 PM
All the more reason to evaluate each candidate individually.

Absolutely, but it would be to try to figure out why they would be a Democrat, if you even bothered. It seems to me that one should be concerned about what issues, for which a party is well known, with which one would want to be associated. Appearances are more than half of politics.

Marshall
August 27, 2006, 04:40 PM
With the exception of voting democrat.

The problem is, once a democrat is in the senate, the pressure to succumb to their left wing party is too great. Also, the definition of RKBA to most left wingers is a far cry from what we're looking for. Many lefties will say they are for RKBA but only in the way they sit fit for you to do so.

"Sure, we are for RKBA, as long as they are not semi-auto rifles or shotguns, as long as handguns can't hold over 10 rounds, as long as they are in a national registry so we can come get them when we decide to do so, etc."

It's too risky to vote for Dems that say they are for RKBA. They are a wolf in sheep's clothing, and even if not, they are vote thrown down the drain for our cause because the pressure to vote against the "least restrictive party" on this issue, is too great.
__________________
Marshall



Helmetcase wrote:
And you're dead ****ing wrong. Nothing hurts our cause more than a lack of unity.

Show me the last time the democrats as a whole united with the Republicans in the senate on RKBA issues. So, you're right, nothing hurts our efforts more than unity, which your party is terribly guilty of and lacking in.



Helmetcase wrote:
In any event, a stupid argument. The point here is this--if you're trying to shut out or denigrate members of the RKBA community because they're not as right wing as you are, YOU are the one hurting the cause. It's not about party affiliation--I vote for the candidate that protects our rights, regardless of party.

Take the chip of your shoulder and step into the light. I'm sorry you can't understand the pressures put on your democratic senators by their own party to vote against Republicans on this issue and most every other issue as well. If you don't understand that, nothing I can say will help step you up to reality, where the rest of us are. As much as I hate to ask, since you brought it up, when was the last time you voted Republican, and for whom?

I'll never fault you for voting however you wish, that's your right and I'm glad you're voting. But this dude isn't about to add to the fire by placing more democrats in office and increase the base of the party that is out to hurt our cause. After all, stupidity has a knack of getting its way. I appreciate your thoughts but, I'll stand in the "momma didn't raise no fool line", thank you.

Green Lantern
August 28, 2006, 11:46 AM
When I see the comic so I get the line exactly right, I think it would make good sig material:

"This is the first lesson. They will ALWAYS hate us. Yes, in recent years there has been an increase in tolerance between them and us. But we must never mistake that for TRUST."
-Emma Frost, the White Queen.

In an X-Men comic book talking to the new mutant students about the human/mutant relationship.

I think it applies well to gun owners and the rabid "antis" and their opinion of us. The elite antis in power are "tolerating" us because they don't want to lose any more elections for people that are (either rightly or wrongly) seen as being "with" them. When/if there is a Dem/RINO majority, things will change.

I fully accept that there are Democrats/liberals that support RKBA. I live near Asheville, what DU calls the "liberal oasis in a neocon desert." :barf: But the lil' town where I work seems mostly Democrat. I KNOW one of my bosses is a 100% Bush-bashing Democrat...yet he and a colleage regularly go into the woods to plink.

You know, I've said that Dems need to demote Fineswine, Hillary, Kennedy et al to "LEPER" status for their extreme anti views. But apart from NRA ripping them a new one, are the Republicans doing anything against our own antis like Bloomberg????

In summation - look at the RECORD, both PAST and present! (especially if there's a D after the name, but it's wise for both I'd say.) Remember the antis are being careful and practicing our "concealed means CONCEALED" mantra - only on their gun-grabbing views! :cuss:

TX1911fan
August 28, 2006, 01:46 PM
Here's my question to our friends who are to the left of the political spectrum. I'm sure there are a few Republicans who support some left causes, let's say gay marriage. So, if gay marriage is something very important to you, would you rely on Republicans to protect that for you simply because there are one, two or a few Republicans who hold the same views as you do on that issue? I don't think you would, so forgive those of us who don't trust Democrats to protect our 2A rights, despite the fact that some Dems may agree with us.

Additionally, just as no political candidate is, or should be, a one issue candidate, I am not a one issue person. I am concerned not only about RKBA, but also security, the economy, etc. While there is becoming less and less of a distinction on many of those issues between R and D, in my book, Republicans still match my values and issues more closely on ALL the issues. I certainly an not going to vote in a Dem just because he likes guns just to have him or her vote against me on everything else. The national Republican party is more closely aligned to my issues, so that has to factor into it. If we could rely on our representatives to actually vote the way their constutents want every time, instead of voting the way the national party tells them to, then I might vote differently. Until that day, I'll stick with the Rs. Just as most left leaning people will stick with the Ds.

Helmetcase
August 28, 2006, 02:18 PM
That's an interesting point, TX. So what does a person like me do, a person who strongly supports the RKBA, but also believes that the govt shouldn't discriminate against and discourage stem cell research when it encourages so many other forms of medical research, that religion and govt should be kept separate, that we shouldn't tell gay people they can't enjoy the financial benefits of monogamous relationships that we afford straight folk, I believe in protecting the environment, that women should get to choose, and that RNC controlled neocon influenced foreign policy has made us less safe not more (if we're safer today, why the hell can't I take hairgel on an airplane?), and that the war on drugs = the war on civil liberties, and is something that's helped destroy not save our cities and families.

Should I vote Republican to support the RKBA and then have them vote against me everywhere else?

As great as you think your problems with pro-RKBA Dems might be, I can ASSURE you a pro-RKBA lefty is in an even tougher position than you are. Believe me.

beerslurpy
August 28, 2006, 03:04 PM
Helmetcase, do what I do and vote for the best viable candidate you can. Most republicans talk a solid game of being pro-life or pro-jesus but very few of them have those things as top priority goals. You also have to appreciate that some things are in greater danger than others, regardless of what people say in speeches.

Abortion rights are currently protected by republican political strategists. The main results of an overturn of Roe v Wade would be
1) the highly motivated pro-life constituencies that keep many republicans in office would no longer have an issue to drive them to the polls. This would be bad.
2) a lot of otherwise socially conservative women are pro-life. Not vocally so, but strongly enough that they would at least begin sitting out elections if not switching sides over the issue.

Stem cell research is protected by scientific innovation. The thumpers pride themselves on a lack of sophistication, which means it is very easy for both sides to have things their way without much drama. They have already figured out a way to make stem cells without killing embyros, so this is about to become a moot point.

The big issues that I see right now are:
-increased federal spending, which will get even worse if we vote non-conservatives into power (which sadly includes many republican incumbents)
-gun control
increased gun grabbing is only a real threat if dems take both houses and the presidency
getting stuff repealed will probably require another 10 pro-gun votes in the senate, at least
so basically this is likely to continue to be a stalemate
-illegal immigration
if the dems take the house, we could see a big amenesty push next year which bush would sign.
-war on iraq
not likely to change in the near future regardless of who is "running things"- iraq is running things, lets be honest.

TX1911fan
August 28, 2006, 03:13 PM
Helmet, you just made my case. Although, in your case, you can vote for your Dem candidates and trust Republicans will protect your 2A rights.

On your specifics, I have a few comments:

but also believes that the govt shouldn't discriminate against and discourage stem cell research when it encourages so many other forms of medical research

The government doesn't fund ALL medical research, nor should it, so if there is medical research that a large portion of the public reacts negatively to, the government should stay out of it. If fetal stem cell research is SOOOO promising, private enterprise will step in and fund it. If it will really cure people like Chris Reeves (as Edwards claimed) then think of all the money they would make. The fact remains that there is still NO clinical treatments available as a result of fetal stem cell research while there are many treatments that have been made available from adult stem cell research.

that religion and govt should be kept separate

There is absolutely no requirement that religion and government should be kept separate. There is only a requirement that the government pass no law respecting the establishment of a religion or the free exercise of religion. Hence, the 10 commandments in the Supreme Court building, an official congressional Chaplain, commencing each session of Congress with a prayer, and, until recently, the practice of swearing an oath in court by saying "so help me God." If the Founders had intended that religion and government be separate, why was there no objection to these until the last 20 years or so?

that we shouldn't tell gay people they can't enjoy the financial benefits of monogamous relationships that we afford straight folk

I don't believe any recent legislation has done this. Just because gay people cannot be married doesn't mean they can't enjoy the financial benefits of monogamous relationships. They certainly can live together, pool resources, draft wills, living wills and powers of attorney to enable their partners to have access to their assets. What they can't do is get married, because marriage is between a man and a woman. It's a definition thing. I may think its unfair that I'm classified as caucasian, but try as I might, I can't change the definition of what a caucasian is. Do I support civil unions for homosexuals. Sure. It's not marriage, but it provides the same benefits. What's the problem?

I believe in protecting the environment

The EPA was established by Nixon. Republicans, especially hunters, believe in protecting the enviornment too, just not when it doesn't make sense. Ceasing all logging to protect the habitat of an owl is silly, expecially because most research indicates that despite changes in habitats, species adapt and move. Making restrictions on petroleum refinining so harsh that a new refinery has not been built in this country in 30 years is not only stupid, it is economic suicide (as is refusing to swap 300 acres of ANWR for an additoinal 300,000 acres, so we can drill there). Leftists want to protect the environment to the detriment of all else. Conservatives take a more reasoned approach.

that women should get to choose

Choose what, to open carry a firearm? To have a fully automatic machine gun? To smoke? To drive 85 mph? To build a cabin in a national forest? Oh, you mean to have an abortion. That comes down to how we define life, and whether it is murder or not. What you really mean is not that women should get to choose, but that fetuses are not human, and therefore are not entitled to protection under the Constitution. You certainly don't support a women's right to choose to kill her baby after it is born, right? It's not about women's choice, it's about the definition of life. But it sounds much better to say it's about a woman's choice, right?

and that RNC controlled neocon influenced foreign policy has made us less safe not more (if we're safer today, why the hell can't I take hairgel on an airplane?)

It would be nice if President Bush could snap his fingers and all terrorists would stop thinking of different ways to wreak havoc on the world, but that would be a bit naive. The fact that those terrorists were caught, and did not succeed in their plot leads me to believe that we are safer now. However, I would have to agree with you that there are more things we could be doing. Would the Dems be doing better, however, is the question you need to ask yourself. Have you heard one Democrat articulate a plan other than "we wouldn't be President Bush"? Until they can tell us what they would DO differently, I'm not inclined to believe we actually would be safer under them.

and that the war on drugs = the war on civil liberties, and is something that's helped destroy not save our cities and families

I actually agree with you there. However, that is not a Dem/Repub thing. That is a libertarian thing. Dems are just as eager to fight that stupid war as Repubs are.

Helmetcase
August 28, 2006, 03:52 PM
The government doesn't fund ALL medical research, nor should it, so if there is medical research that a large portion of the public reacts negatively to, the government should stay out of it.
The thing is, most of the public doesn't support Bush's idiotic position (that isn't based on fact).

If fetal stem cell research is SOOOO promising, private enterprise will step in and fund it.
This is a fallacious argument. Most medical research is subsidized because the risk/reward ratio is drastic for all medical research (haven't you seen the Glaxo Smith Kline ad where the guy describes medical research as looking for a particular snowflake in a snow storm? That's about right). Commerical drug companies need to respond to shareholders, and you can spend many, many years and billions on medical research before profits can be realized. Without public funding, much of the research that we all benefit from today wouldn't have happened.

Because of this nearly every form of medical research gets public funding. Singling out stem cell research to NOT receive funding because of a misunderstanding (that you're killing a human--you're not, 90% of all the embryos in question are already destroyed on a daily basis) is stupid.

If it will really cure people like Chris Reeves (as Edwards claimed) then think of all the money they would make. The fact remains that there is still NO clinical treatments available as a result of fetal stem cell research while there are many treatments that have been made available from adult stem cell research.
The stuff doesn't happen overnight. You're making my point for me--the market rarely has patience for the relatively glacial pace of progress in medical research. Without public support, we'll all suffer from the slowing down of advances that would otherwise be made.

There is absolutely no requirement that religion and government should be kept separate.
We've already got a thread on this subject where myself and several others have done a rather convincing job of showing you why you're wrong here. If you care to, argue over there.

Leftists want to protect the environment to the detriment of all else. Conservatives take a more reasoned approachNo, conservatives pretty much advocate letting corporations do whatever they want. Your "reasoned" approach hurts all of us, whether you realize it or not. Your other arguments are fallacious--owls aren't the only creatures that rely on old growth forrest. Regulation has forced the logging industry to focus on sustainable processes, this is a good thing. Species adapt? The pace at which we can destroy our natural habitat far outstrips how fast the earth can adapt. And the reason we don't have new refineries isn't the EPA, but the fact that they're a huge investment that oil companies freely admit they don't want to make. They're recording record profits now, why should they bother?

But it sounds much better to say it's about a woman's choice, right?
We could and probably do have a whole 'nuther thread on this. If you're like me and don't believe a few cells that haven't formed anything anywhere near a functioning human are a separate life form, then no, it really is about choice. The whole anti abortion, anti-Plan B thing is about punishing women for having sex IMHO; but it sounds a lot better to say it's about life, right?

Look, the point I was making wasn't to defend my social policies or beliefs or start an argument about them. I was merely pointing out that on issues other than the RKBA, the Republicans strike me as a bunch of neanderthals who cravenly serve the religious right...so I'm in a pickle. You might like they're policies, but as noted above I personally believe they're wrongheaded and not serving my interests.

It's not really about who is right or wrong on those issues, it's merely me pointing out that damn, other than the RKBA I have little in common with the GOP.

TX1911fan
August 28, 2006, 04:01 PM
Helmet, good points, but we never really get anywhere when you call the other side neanderthals, do we. Especially given that it's a fallacious name to call them anyway, given that even Democrats had even more conservative positions 40 years ago than the positions you now claim are neanderthal.

Helmetcase
August 28, 2006, 04:05 PM
Neanderthal meaning "prehistoric"--thanks again for making my point. The GOP hasn't kept pace with the times over the last 40 years, and so they don't as a rule share my values.

It's pretty pot kettle black for anyone here at THR to gripe about saying something unfriendly about the GOP. Do a quick search and you'll hear Democrats called a lot worse in thread after thread. Spare me the violin music. :neener:

TX1911fan
August 28, 2006, 04:07 PM
I just find it interesting that the Left always claims we need to be more civil, and that Bush is so divisive, but any chance they get, the say things like idiotic and such. Maybe you aren't like that, so I guess it's ok.

And just because something is new doesn't mean it's better. Look at the Dem's position on guns as an example. I'm sure glad the GOP has not "kept pace" with the Dems on that one.

TX1911fan
August 28, 2006, 04:08 PM
Double tap

Helmetcase
August 28, 2006, 04:18 PM
Some things are values that are timeless. The right to defend yourself transcends all of human history, and will continue to do so. So kudos to the GOP for sticking to their guns there, literally and figuratively.

But their position on things like stem cells and the environment just doesn't fit with what science has taught us about the world around us, and needs to evolve IMHO.

I'd like to see some civility return to public discourse, but sometimes you gotta call a spade a spade and you're never gonna make everyone happy. Someone's always gonna be insulted by what you're saying when you talk politics...

Marshall
August 28, 2006, 04:42 PM
Helmetcase wrote:
The GOP hasn't kept pace with the times over the last 40 years, and so they don't as a rule share my values.


Should core values change just because time goes by?

benEzra
August 28, 2006, 04:49 PM
It is an issue of credibility, when elected officials, who definitely characterize a party, are radical in one way, while some party member claims that the officials don't represent their views. One would have to ask the question why one stays with a party that does not actively represent them.
You mean, like people who support repubs in spite of their repeated and blatant violations of the 4th Amendment?

Not everyone who supports the RKBA is a conservative. Not all conservatives support the RKBA (the father of the original "assault weapons ban" now codified into 18 USC 922(r) was non other than arch-conservative William J. Bennett, and Sarah Brady is by all accounts a conservative in the Reagan mold, except for her gun-banning views), and conservatives have in general been the loudest voices supporting infringments of the First and Fourth Amendments.

Those who criticize the current Democratic party leadership for falling hook, line, and sinker for the ban-more-guns agenda are 100% correct. But there is a grassroots swell within the Democratic party against that crap, that is slowly and gradually changing some minds. Will Feinstein become pro-gun? Not in this lifetime. But in the country's heartland, starting at the local and state level, things are IMHO changing for the better, and the gun-haters at the DLC and elsewhere have lost a lot of their influence. It's a work in progress, and who knows how deeply it runs, but I believe it is real.

Helmetcase
August 28, 2006, 06:44 PM
Should core values change just because time goes by?
When they're shown to be in error, yes, they should. Jim Crow used to be a core value. Not letting women vote used to be a core value.

Same goes for the environment, stem cells, the drug war, etc. in my book. The "core values" behind the positions of many pols, Dem and Repub, on these issues tend to be based on the way the world used to be, not the way it is. The "old way" of doing things sometimes needs to be changed because it's just not ethical anymore. It's not ethical to pretend that we don't need to protect our environment. It's not ethical to let just about every form of medical research EXCEPT stem cell research get public funds. If that's your "core value", then I'd argue you need to have a heart to heart with yourself about said values.

Marshall
August 28, 2006, 07:07 PM
Thanks.

I was curious what your response would be. Those aren't core values in my book. Core values to me are things such as honesty, integrity, honor, courage, commitment, etc. The things you listed are more beliefs and/or policies than core values.

Helmetcase
August 28, 2006, 07:28 PM
Ah, I stand corrected. You're right, the things I was talking about are more policy changes than core values. I misunderstood. :o :)

Marshall
August 28, 2006, 09:02 PM
Please, I stand corrected daily and misunderstand more often than that. ;)

TrapperReady
August 28, 2006, 09:14 PM
But in the country's heartland, starting at the local and state level, things are IMHO changing for the better, and the gun-haters at the DLC and elsewhere have lost a lot of their influence. It's a work in progress, and who knows how deeply it runs, but I believe it is real.


Democrats "in the country's heartland" are the ones most steadfastly clinging to failed gun control policies. In Wisconsin, we'd have had CCW years ago if it weren't for the prevalent pro-gun-control attitude of the state Democrats. Likewise, in Illinois, the Democrats are the ones pushing for tighter controls, not looser.

TX1911fan
August 28, 2006, 09:42 PM
Helmet, when talking about stem cells, please be specific and state that you are talking about fetal stem cells. That is the research that is not funded by the Federal Government. Adult stem cell research, by far the most productive, is funded. Fetal stem cell research continues to this day. It is not banned, it is just not funded by the Federal Government.

Helmetcase
August 28, 2006, 09:53 PM
You mean embryonic, not fetal, right?

The point remains--cherry picking one particular type of promising research at the behest of a religious movement, and doing so for some rather misguided reasons (the whole "it's murder" thing is such nonsense my blood pressure goes up every time that Tony Snow goober says it) is simply bad policy. There's not enough pearls out there for swine like that.

glummer
August 28, 2006, 10:33 PM
Sorry, OT, but I couldn't let this go by.
... we shouldn't tell gay people they can't enjoy the financial benefits of monogamous relationships that we afford straight folk...
We don't tell them that.

Homosexuals of the same sex have exactly the same rights as heterosexuals of the same sex.

Homosexuals of opposite sexes, likewise.

The financial benefits apply only to people of opposite sexes. No one ever asks if you're homo- or hetero- at the license bureau.

Helmetcase
August 29, 2006, 10:24 AM
Distinction without a difference. But point taken anyway...

glummer
August 29, 2006, 01:41 PM
Helmetcase
Distinction without a difference. But point taken anyway...There IS a difference. Opposite-sex unions are privileged because of their perceived value to society; procreation & continuation of the human race. Same-sex unions have no comparable value, and are therefore not privileged. Official government/social recognition of a union is NOT a right; it is a privilege conditioned on meeting certain socially-desired criteria. Just as plumbers are "denied" the "right" to perform heart surgery, which is granted to licensed physicians.

Hang in there. :) When it is not necessary to malign a Democrat, it is necessary not to malign a Democrat. Only a fool makes enemies unnecessarily.

Helmetcase
August 29, 2006, 03:16 PM
Well, not to restart this debate again, but I'd simply argue that A) your standard for why we recognize and reward marriage is wrongheaded and not the real reason--we reward marriages financially to make it easier to keep families together, gender isn't important in that regard, and B) would argue that in this day and age, monogamous relationships of any kind should be encouraged and are valuable in and of themselves.

Marshall
August 29, 2006, 05:08 PM
Helmetcase wrote:
Well, not to restart this debate again, but I'd simply argue that A) your standard for why we recognize and reward marriage is wrongheaded and not the real reason--we reward marriages financially to make it easier to keep families together, gender isn't important in that regard, and B) would argue that in this day and age, monogamous relationships of any kind should be encouraged and are valuable in and of themselves.

Helmetcase, let me help you become familiar with the reasons for marriage.

Let me start by saying it is one of the seven Sacraments instituted directly by Jesus, using almost the same words of the first book of the Bible, with a small addition: "From the beginning of creation God made them male and female. For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh. So they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate" (Mr.10:6-9, Mt.19:4-6).


There is a triple purpose of Marriage in the Bible: Generation and bringing-up children, mutual help, and the morally regulated satisfaction of the sex urge.

The first purpose, was established in the first commandment that God gave to the male and female just after their creation in the first chapter of the Bible, "be fruitful, multiply, and fill the earth" (Gn.1:28).

The second, in Gn.2:18, "let us make him a help like unto himself": So the purpose of marriage is the mutual completion and personal perfection of the marriage partners, or their mutual love and unity. St. Thomas Aquinas mentions this purpose as the "primary one", so a marriage without children can be also a perfect marriage.

The third, is taught by Paul in 1Cor.7:2, "For fear of fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband".

Marriage is a "Sacrament", a sacred or holy thing, perceptible to the senses, which on the ground of Divine institution possesses the power both of effecting and signifying sanctity and righteousness… a visible sign of Divinity on earth!.

Helmetcase
August 29, 2006, 05:11 PM
Well, some of us don't rely on religious texts only when considering these things. Especially when considering the fiscal and tax implications of marriage. Essentially I'm looking at the financial, IRS side of the issue, and I don't religion can or should speak to that, and vice versa. From a pragmatic standpoint, if you believe monogamy should be encouraged and rewarded, there's no reason to care about the gender of the participants. The church shouldn't be forced to marry those it doesn't want to marry, but the church shouldn't get to tell the state who it can or cannot offer the benefits of recognized monogamous relationship.

I guess, as a married man, I do find it funny that people want to tell me the "reason" for my marriage. I think I know. And no, honey, it's not to subsidize your shoe and makeup and jewelry fund. :)

It's to make sure my laundry is done. :D

Kidding...of course ;)

Keith Wheeler
August 29, 2006, 05:15 PM
Well, some of us don't rely on religious texts only when considering these things.

Or, in my case, don't think that our religious texts necessarily apply to others.

Marshall
August 29, 2006, 05:38 PM
From a pragmatic standpoint, if you believe monogamy should be encouraged and rewarded, there's no reason to care about the gender of the participants.

Unless of course the bible matters to you, then there is plenty of reason. But it's clear to me, the bible doesn't matter to those that say gender doesn't matter. If that's you, that's your choice, but please don't try to make a case for the biblical reasons and teachings and how things have been on this earth since the beginning of time as "wrongheaded". That's about as bassackwards as it gets.

beerslurpy
August 29, 2006, 05:43 PM
Getting marriage without religion is like getting a sandwich without bread. Marriage is a religious institution- just because governments have meddled in it doesnt make it any less of one.

I personally dont understand why gay people dont just form limited partnerships or one of the countless other forms of union that straight couples are trying out these days. The power of contract can probably give you 90 percent of what you want. You can already settle inheritance issues with trusts and wills. The only real benefit to traditional marriage is that you get a slightly easier time with health insurance if the spouse isnt working. But this raises the question- why would gay people be staying at home and not working? It isnt like they have children to raise. I also dont see why one gay person couldnt claim his partner as a dependant. If he is really supporting him financially, isnt that good enough? The IRS only cares if you both try to take a deduction.

What many gay people seem to want is societal acceptance. Newsflash: society doesnt want to cooperate. The best we can guarantee is that you be left alone.

Keith Wheeler
August 29, 2006, 05:49 PM
Unless of course the bible matters to you, then there is plenty of reason. But it's clear to me, the bible doesn't matter to those that say gender doesn't matter. If that's you, that's your choice, but please don't try to make a case for the biblical reasons and teachings and how things have been on this earth since the beginning of time as "wrongheaded". That's about as bassackwards as it gets.

So Marshall, are you sure to wear clothing made from only one type of material?

Phetro
August 29, 2006, 05:50 PM
A very substantial part of the reason I've not spent much time here recently is that it gets pretty tiresome listening to the same stupid **** from people who look gift horses in the mouth constantly. You should simply accept the fact that at least some substantial portion of people who don't share your right wing beliefs do accept and embrace gladly the RKBA. You should be glad that some of us are around, as it makes protecting the RKBA that much easier for all us.

Great! So why don't you all use your "substantial" numbers to influence the leftists in the Senate to support the RKBA? :rolleyes:

Keith Wheeler
August 29, 2006, 05:52 PM
I personally dont understand why gay people dont just form limited partnerships or one of the countless other forms of union that straight couples are trying out these days. The power of contract can probably give you 90 percent of what you want.

First off I'll say that I think "limited partnerships" or civil whatevers are probably the right answer to meet my concerns of "equal treatment under the law".

That said, how would you like it if someone suggested you only had 90% of the right to a firearm?

Keith Wheeler
August 29, 2006, 05:53 PM
Great! So why don't you all use your "substantial" numbers to influence the leftists in the Senate to support the RKBA?

Maybe because being "socially liberal" and "communist/leftist" aren't necessarily the same thing?

Oh yeah, the right wants everything to be binary; black and white, right or wrong, Democrat or Republican.

Helmetcase
August 29, 2006, 05:57 PM
Great! So why don't you all use your "substantial" numbers to influence the leftists in the Senate to support the RKBA?
Why don't you work to make the RKBA community a broader, more inviting, and friendlier place for all RKBA activists instead of rolling your eyes at a guy who took a day off work to confront Sarah Brady? :banghead:

Keith Wheeler
August 29, 2006, 05:58 PM
Why don't you work to make the RKBA community a broader, more inviting, and friendlier place for all RKBA activists instead of rolling your eyes at a guy who took a day off work to confront Sarah Brady?

You mean you stopped doing the job that G-d selected for you and expect the rest of us to take up the load? You communist!

;)

Phetro
August 29, 2006, 06:04 PM
Oh, how clever--you both must be proud of your English composition skills.

However, my question still stands unanswered: if your numbers are so "substantial," why does the makeup of democrat politicians not reflect it in the least?

Keith Wheeler
August 29, 2006, 06:07 PM
However, my question still stands unanswered: if your numbers are so "substantial," why does the makeup of democrat politicians not reflect it in the least?

Because "not republican" does not equal "democrat". It's not really that difficult of a concept.

Helmetcase
August 29, 2006, 06:08 PM
Because things don't change over night. Because most of the people you're griping about were in office before I graduated the 8th grade.

I really don't see the point of your question anyway; I'll gladly stipulate that I'm the distinct minority on this side of the aisle. So what? I'm working to change that. Every person who thinks as you do makes it that much harder.

Be a part of the solution, or remain part of the problem. Your choice. Be glad there are people like me and welcome me into the RKBA community, or continue to be as hostile as you've been. Your choice.

Rugerlvr
August 29, 2006, 06:09 PM
Amen Helmetcase.

Marshall
August 29, 2006, 06:12 PM
Do I hear ad hominem?

I'm sorry, I guess the difference in orifices of men and women wouldn't be a pretty damn good clue. I guess since a man can't give birth, that might be a good clue as well. It might also seem logical to understand that the two just might have been designed to go together and that the opposite is unnatural and not meant to be. We sure do have to go far and look long and hard to figure what was meant. Heck, if your mother was your daddy, you wouldn't be hear to argue this. Wait, what am I thinking, that's so far fetched. :rolleyes:

Gentleman, it's right in front of your face, or hopefully between your legs. If I have to explain it and try to convince you, you've just flat chosen to not give a damn, regardless of the evidence. There's no real argument for you to make. Just say, I don't really care.

Ah, I might as well just say bla..bla..bla.

Helmetcase
August 29, 2006, 06:16 PM
Nobody's saying that heterosexuality isn't the biological imperative. I'm just saying if you're not wired that way in your personal life, it's not really anyone's business but your own.

Marshall
August 29, 2006, 06:17 PM
Be glad there are people like me and welcome me into the RKBA community

Helmetcase, I am glad.

I just wish you wouldn't vote to put a person in congress that will be part of the party that is out to defeat us. I have no gripe with you personally.

Marshall
August 29, 2006, 06:21 PM
I'm just saying if you're not wired that way in your personal life, it's not really anyone's business but your own.

That I will agree with. But, too many of the people that are not wired that way want to make it my business. That's the problem.

beerslurpy
August 29, 2006, 06:21 PM
I'd be just as happy if NO marriages were recognized by the government. I personally object more to the government's involvement in marriage than I do religious institutions'. Our system of contracts is mature enough that you could probably roll all the stuff that goes into the average marriage and prenuptial into a relatively modest-sized contract.

Of course, this would mean that people could form ANY sort of union containing consenting adults. Not just gay couples, but group marriage, polygamy and polyandry for starters. This would probably complicate family law enormously, with unions larger than 2 people, especially as people join and leave the union, buy property, have children, etc. All of these problems can be solved IMO, but it would take time and probably constantly evolve as people thought up new ways to use the new system. Muslims and mormons would probably be thrilled though.

And by the way, if you guys actually manage to push through some bogus "equal protection" argument to get gay marraige legalized, expect all these other forms of marriage to get pushed through as well sooner rather than later. If you can allow something as historically unprecedented as gay marriage, there is really no bar to all the other groups being allowed unions. However, I doubt this is likely, as current gay rights stuff is all predicated on 9th amendment privacy, which doesnt apply to a public act like marriage, obviously.

Helmetcase
August 29, 2006, 06:24 PM
I would agree beermeister, but I'd be worried I'd be playing into the religious right's hands by agreeing with something that might be considered the death of marriage. :D

beerslurpy
August 29, 2006, 06:29 PM
My main point is that pushing for gay marriage right now might open up a much messier can of worms from a legal perspective. People may end up throwing up their hands and sweeping the experiment under the rug. Pushing for what appears to be the last ten percent can often give the other side a second wind- look what happened when the Dems embraced the assault weapons stupidity.

I honestly think that gays (including long term relationships) are already well accepted in most of society and that it will only get better with time. Most americans have a live-and-let-live attitude towards other people's sexual eccentricities, even conservatives.

glummer
August 31, 2006, 04:13 PM
can the rest of us get in on this, or is it exclusive to homosexuals?
I have only fair health insurance; my wife has none; but my brother has wonderful government insurance. So -

If I marry my brother, do I have to divorce my wife first?

Or will there be an exception in the bigamy laws?

And what about incest laws? Do they apply to this sort of "marriage?"

If I marry my brother, do we really have to, uh, "consummate" the union?
Like, are only active homosexuals eligible for these benefits? How will the government know? Sodomy inspector certifications? Do we sign affidavits, under perjury penalties? Or will it be "don't ask, don't tell?"

Somebody help me out here, please. I really need that insurance.

If you enjoyed reading about "Refreshing - DU" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!