The answer is easy. Lets break down the system. The percentage of people who fit the criteria to be able to vote is probably 70%, though this is just an estimate. About 120 million of those people voted, which is actually about 40% of the U.S. population. A little more than half went towards bush which, for simplicity sake, lets call 25%. So 20-25% of the US are responsible for whatever president got eleceted. Now lets see who voted for Bush. Was it the minority who decided the election. No. Was it women? No. Men? no.
IT WAS THE EVANGELICAL CHRISTIAN VOTE. Did you know that Evangelical Christians make up around 1/3 of this country? And that's just Evangilacals! Who did they vote for? Hmm... letss see. Who wants to ban gay marriage? Who wants to make abortions illegal? Who wants to stop stem-cell research? That's right, you guessed it! Bush! As anyone who reads this can probably tell, I would call myself a "liberal" even though i don't really believe in partisanship. You see, Bush didn't win because he had better plans for social security, healthcare, Iraq, whatever. It was Values that won him the election. And let's face it, that man can talk. He talks it up, and Kerry, although I wanted him to win, didn't really take a stance or share his ideas for what to do, just stated that he knew how to do it. I'm an athiest. I'll just be up front and frank. I also realize, that I have a lot of biases. Though one thing that I can not see the other side of is the way Bush twists the bible. As bush says stating from the bible in his own words based on Leviticus 18:22: "in the eyes of God marriage is based between a man a woman." Okay, so it does say that in the bible. Well guess what else the bible says? Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. Well how about that! Besides the obvious response that, "Obviosuly not everything in the bible is true today." Then what the hell makes homosexuality so godamn bad. Why do you get to decide what in the bible is right today and what's not? I guess God really does talk to Bush. Doesn't it also state that A camel would have an easier time getting through the eye of a needle than a rich man getting into heaven? Maybe im missing something, in which case I PLEAD TO YOU, inform me. I realize I have biases, but I honostly cannot see how anyone can justify the contradictions the bible makes.
I really am not trying to inflame anyone or bash against religion because I believe if I was raised by a religious family (I am only 17) I would be a totally different person with different beliefs. I love Orson Scott Card's books too. His Ender's Game Series has had one of the most profound effects that anything like a book or movie has ever had. I love all of his books. I just can't read his essays and let it go by. I mean, he's calling minorities dumb! Well lets see, who gets the least amount of money for education? Well I'll be, it's the minority counties! That's not even the point. They aren't dumb, they are ignored. Kerry saying to the minorites vote for me because im better than bush. Wow, great going Kerry, that'll really make you popular. The fact that the minority vote did not come out has nothing to do with the republicans. The Dems need to learn to FOCUS on minorities and not just say vote for us because we're better. When you give a group of people attention they are going to have more incentive to go vote. Not only that there is also a reciprocal effect. If a majority of the minority DID go vote, both the dems and reps would HAVE to pay attention to them. They couldn't be ignored because they would have such a voice that either party would have to please them. This, I don't think people understand.
To Orson: It really offended me (even though im not a minority by any means, in fact id say im nationally around the 80th percentile in wealth) that you would say the liberals are calling the minorities dumb by really trying to get them to get to the polls. I think if they really wanted to get to the polls, they would. But that is in only some areas. How can you deny the fact that in a VAST MAJORITY of minority county has a 3 HOUR LINE TO VOTE. Why would they reduce the number of polling stations when the knew the voter turnout would be extremely high? In conclusion. If you disagree with me, please IM me or dont hesitate to send me an email at Shearplaya@gmail.com. I think the dems are headed down a bad road trying to move more conservatively. They need to have their own voice, not try to imitate the right.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: I just can't read his essays and let it go by. I mean, he's calling minorities dumb!
I've never seen him do that. I've seen him accuse the democratic party of acting as though minorities are dumb, but that's it. Please provide a source for this accusation.
Posted by Just another Dharma bum (Member # 6879) on :
Interesting that you chose your first post as a Bush bashing one, I'd say introduce yourself first
I do not support Bush in anyway, in fact I wish that he hadn't been elected, but the election is over, there's nothing we can do. Just wait the 4 years out and hope he doesn't screw up even worse than he all ready has Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote: states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
Evangelicals make up 1/3 of the population? Where did you get that number?
Edit: Incidently, this post doesn't bash Bush at any point that I can see. It's bashing the Democrats' strategy.
[ December 04, 2004, 07:32 PM: Message edited by: Xaposert ]
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
quote: Doesn't it also state that A camel would have an easier time getting through the eye of a needle than a rich man getting into heaven
Yes it does, but no one knows what "the eye of a needle" means anymore, at least in the reference. When one entered a city with city walls, there's was always a small, low, entry off to the side (I forget why now, someone help me out). Sometimes they'd have to try and get a camel through this door, and the camel would have to bend way far down and they'd push and pull and all this until finally the camel popped out on the other side. This door was reffered to the eye of the needle, that's what the reference is talking about.
Hobbes Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Obviously, this nation is going to heaven in a handbasket. I recommend you flee to Canada ASAP.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote: I recommend you flee to Canada ASAP.
But then he'll/she'll be eligible for slavehood!!
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
*tents fingers* Excellent.
Hobbes Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
Bush won because there were more people who decided to vote and to use that vote to vote for Bush than there were people who decided to vote and to use that vote to vote for Kerry. As Dagonee showed in another thread, church goers did not represent a larger percentage of people who turned out.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: But then he'll/she'll be eligible for slavehood!!
Shhh!!! Posted by Shear (Member # 7093) on :
OSC states:
But please think what the Left is saying. They believe that their core voters are so stupid and so uncommitted that they either can't figure out where they're supposed to vote, or, having been informed that they made the wrong guess, they won't have the initiative to go to the correct polling place and cast their votes there.
That was my source for this accusation. As for the hobbes reply. I think that's really interesting. I haven't read much about hobbes, just done a little studying at school. Could you tell me where I could read more about that? Maybe a book hobbes wrote, or what specific peice of writing it's in.
This has all the info you'll need with viable sources. By the way, I actually am thinking about going to college in canada Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Read what you posted carefully.
OSC isn't saying that minorities are stupid. He's saying that the Left is acting as though they are. (he doesn't consider himself as part of the Left)
[ December 04, 2004, 07:45 PM: Message edited by: mr_porteiro_head ]
Posted by Shear (Member # 7093) on :
I see you're point. Now that I look at it again, I think you're right. Thanks for clarifying that. I still think there's a hint of harsh cynicism in that quote
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Also, the link you provided doesn't say anything about 1/3 of the nation being "Evengelical Christian".
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote: This door was reffered to the eye of the needle, that's what the reference is talking about.
Really Hobbes? That's very interesting... I mus find somehow to fit that into a casual coversation.
Posted by Shear (Member # 7093) on :
Xaposert, Again I am not bashing either side. I'm stating my opinion. But i am critisizing, yes, the democrats AND the republicans. Nobody is perfect.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: I still think there's a hint of harsh cynicism in that quote
There's not just a hint -- there's a lot of it. But he's criticizing "The Left", not the minorities.
Posted by Shear (Member # 7093) on :
quote:What we have instead then, I believe, is a beautiful Hebrew hyperbole, as in the tree sticking out of one's eye whilst one is removing a speck in another's eye! Indeed, Jewish Talmudic literature uses a similar aphorism about an elephant passing through the eye of a needle as a figure of speech implying the unlikely or impossible:
"They do not show a man a palm tree of gold, nor an elephant going through the eye of a needle."4
This first instance concerned dreams and their interpretation and suggested that men only dream that which is natural or possible, not that which is unlikely ever to have occurred to them.
"… who can make an elephant pass through the eye of a needle."5
In this case, the illustration concerns a dispute between two rabbis, one of whom suggests that the other is speaking "things which are impossible".
The camel was the largest animal seen regularly in Israel, whereas in regions where the Babylonian Talmud was written, the elephant was the biggest animal. Thus the aphorism is culturally translated from a camel to an elephant in regions outside of Israel.
The aim is not, then, to explain away the paradox and make the needle a huge carpet needle for, elsewhere, the Jewish writings use the "eye of the needle" as a picture of a very small place, "A needle's eye is not too narrow for two friends, but the world is not wide enough for two enemies."6 . The ludicrous contrast between the small size of the needle's eye and the largest indigenous animal is to be preserved for its very improbability.
Jesus' hearers believed that wealth and prosperity were a sign of God's blessing (cf. Leviticus and Deuteronomy). So their incredulity is more along the lines that, "if the rich, who must be seen as righteous by God by dint of their evident blessing, can't be saved, who can be?". Later Christians have turned this around to portray wealth as a hindrance to salvation, which it can be – but no more so than many other things, when the message is that salvation is impossible for all men for it comes from God alone.
But beyond impossibility is possibility with God for, elsewhere, a Jewish midrash records:
"The Holy One said, open for me a door as big as a needle's eye and I will open for you a door through which may enter tents and [camels?]"7
In other words God only needs the sinner to open up just a crack for him and God will come pouring in and set up room for an oasis. God only needs a 'foot in the door', so to speak.
This is similar to the Talmudic use of two Hebrew letters, one which represents God holiness ('Q' Qoph, as in qadôsh 'holy') and another representing evil ('R' Resh, as in ra' 'evil'), in a story told for the purpose of teaching the Hebrew alphabet and Jewish morals. It is said that 'q' has a separated opening in order that should 'r' repent he may enter into God's holiness through the small opening.
A brief survey of sermons or search on the Internet reveals how many perpetuate the myth of the small gate in Jerusalem. Victorian travellers to the Holy Land even claim to have been shown it. The inaccuracy may appear harmless but it is neither good scholarship nor good exposition. The exaggerated and contrasted size is deliberate and is not an overt judgement on riches or poverty. Jesus reflects on how hard it often is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God. The riches are a distraction and hard to share if one is too attached to them. The disciples' incredulity is that if even the rich cannot be saved, who can? But the verdict is that even the rich, not only the rich, will find it impossible to save themselves – but with God all things are possible.
Dagonee
Posted by Shear (Member # 7093) on :
Im sorry i was 10% off. You got me, after i listed the source that gave the information. That wasn't the point that i was trying to make. You're playing with semantics. The point is the religous vote (not just evangelical) won bush the election. a vast majority of the US are a specific sect of christian who believe in the same "values" as bush. Thats the point I was trying to make.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Well either way I never realised there was so much history behind that one little phrase!
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Stop whining about "semantics." Now we have the real numbers and can attempt to reach conclusions based on actual data.
Dagonee
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
How does 24% make a "vast majority?"
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I do not think that word means what you think it means.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Shear, I'm sorry you feel upset about Bush's win but the way you are stating your argument is not very clear or precise. Please, take some time to think and organise your ideas before you start or continue your discussion.
Posted by Phanto (Member # 5897) on :
I agree with Teshi. This is a huge blurb/rant.
To argue, your words must be in fit fighting shape. Each one must be a deadly punch to the opponent's stomach...or if you're desperate, perhaps lower...
One major failing of yours is to not bother capitilizing a proper noun, namely Bush. Even if you are arguing against something you hate, grammar still applies.
Of course, all the above are irelevent if you are talented enough at rhetoric. If you are a great demagogue, you can break whatever rules you want.
[ December 04, 2004, 08:42 PM: Message edited by: Phanto ]
Posted by Shear (Member # 7093) on :
"playing with semantics" is phrase used when someone takes what you say and uses it to their side of an argument when it's not the point the person was trying to make. Perfect example: what i just said. I don't see why everyone is getting so defensive? Yes i wish kerry would have won, but thats not the point of what my original entry was about at all.
a vast majority of the US is some sect of christianity... I dont understand what the miscommunication is.
my thoughts are organized. It's just very aggrovating when you try to make a point and you have a minor statistic wrong and thats all people talk about.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Why are you so upset about someone providing accurate numbers?
Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
Because your premise (a vast majority of the US is some sect of Christianity) isn't valid. Posted by Shear (Member # 7093) on :
If you really want me to punctuate perfectly and be grammatically correct, I will be. On the other hand, you should really proof read before you criticize me for having spelling errors.
Posted by Shear (Member # 7093) on :
WOW. Am I in an episode of the Twilight Zone? I can't beleive everyone is still caught up on a small statistical error. It's like saying, Nate Robinson has the highest vertical in the NCAA, it's about 50 inches! Then people respond saying it's only 48 inches! You're wrong! Please gather your information correctly before you write responses when my point is he has the highest vertical. Do you understand where I'm coming from? Anyone?
Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
Shear, please don't take offense where none is intended. We're all (mostly) grown-ups on this forum, and as such we appreciate well-written rhetoric as opposed to hastily-typed rants.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: "playing with semantics" is phrase used when someone takes what you say and uses it to their side of an argument when it's not the point the person was trying to make
If it's used that way, it is done so in error. Did you read the definition of the word semantics that I provided?
Playing with semantics would be arguing about what the words mean. For example, we could disagree about what the words "evangelical", "majority", or "is" mean.
I will now commence to argue semantics. A simple majority is, by definition, over 50% of the population. A vast majority would be more than that. According to the numbers you provided, it's less than half that. Therefore, I say you are in error.
Posted by Phanto (Member # 5897) on :
I shall refrain from commenting on your last post (except in this nasty, passive-aggresive manner) and shall overlook the minor fact that you used poor grammar even when you tried to correct yourself.
Look:
I do not care enough about this situation to spell check my posts. Writing quite seriously for two years has already improved my spelling to the point where it is almost always correct.
I was merely making the point that your post was an ineffective piece of rheotric for many reasons, but mostly because you reveal a heavy bias and do not organize your thoughts in a compelling manner that overcomes the biases of the readers.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
I admit it, I'm so wrong, last time I believe something I learn in Sunday School. ;D
[EDIT: By the way, the stuff following the first section in that link is really interesting, about possibly being a rope and what not]
Hobbes
[ December 04, 2004, 08:55 PM: Message edited by: Hobbes ]
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
SM -- what's up? You're posting, but you don't seem to be on AIM. If you can, get on AIM, por favor.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:WOW. Am I in an episode of the Twilight Zone? I can't beleive everyone is still caught up on a small statistical error. It's like saying, Nate Robinson has the highest vertical in the NCAA, it's about 50 inches! Then people respond saying it's only 48 inches! You're wrong! Please gather your information correctly before you write responses when my point is he has the highest vertical. Do you understand where I'm coming from? Anyone?
Had you not whined about being corrected, no one would be talking about the statistics still. As it is, you overstated the case by 20%, so your example with a roughly 4% overstatement doesn't seem very applicable.
Feel free to get back to your point any time. Or you can keep whining and therefore keep the issue active.
Dagonee
Posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan (Member # 5626) on :
quote: Because your premise (a vast majority of the US is some sect of Christianity) isn't valid.
A vast majority of the US is Christian.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Hobbes, I have no idea if that link is accurate. I just thought it interesting, and it seemed well-researched enough to be worth posting.
Dagonee
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Of which sect?
Posted by Shear (Member # 7093) on :
Please read my original post on what exactly I was stating a vast majority was. Because it sure wasn't evangelicalism. And I guess my post was a success because no one has yet to reject my point on how "values" won bush the election.
Posted by Shear (Member # 7093) on :
Hahahahahaha, you call this a rant? Hahahahaha
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote: my thoughts are organized. It's just very aggravating when you try to make a point and you have a minor statistic wrong and thats all people talk about.
Shear, your argument isn't very organised. Your first post is a rambling and ranting mess that makes use of false statistics. Posting a view that is not only badly written and makes frequent use of information that is either wrong or misinterpreted is by no stretch of the imagination a convincing way to go about presenting an opinion that you want to be taken seriously.
Also, yes, correct grammar is the norm here. Please use it to the best of your ability .
Finally, the reason people will not take you up on the validity of your argument itself is because your ideas seem to be deliberately insensitive and inflammatory. This is why I advise you to re-organise and re-think your position.
[ December 04, 2004, 09:06 PM: Message edited by: Teshi ]
Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
Quoth Dag:
quote: If 70 million are evangelical, then they make up 23.9% of the 293,027,571 in the U.S.
23.9 != vast majority.
Quoth Shear:
quote: Now lets see who voted for Bush. Was it the minority who decided the election. No. Was it women? No. Men? no.
IT WAS THE EVANGELICAL CHRISTIAN VOTE
Generally, when something is written in big huge giant letters, I think that is they point they're trying to make. Then again, I don't see big huge giant letters that often. Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Actually, I think no one has found it worth refuting. There are numerous threads on the subject in the forum, with many posts taking your side in a more coherent manner, without the poor biblical scholarship.
Dagonee
Posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan (Member # 5626) on :
quote: Of which sect?
Of all sects. I interpreted what Shear said to mean that 1/3 of Americans are evangelical Christians and a vast majority are Christians of any denomination.
But I don't really feel like defending what he/she said after that last post. Shear, be more mature.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Well all the information I found agreed with your (like the link I posted), so I'm admitting I'm wrong.
Hobbes Posted by Shear (Member # 7093) on :
Okay Dragonee let's do math! I say: 1/3rd. 1/3 = 33.3%. You say but it's only 23.9%!
quote: As it is, you overstated the case by 20%, so your example with a roughly 4% overstatement doesn't seem very applicable.
WOW I guess I was really only about 10% off.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
For somebody complaining about people talking about statistical errors...
*boot to the head*
Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
Nevermind. It's not worth it.
[ December 04, 2004, 09:10 PM: Message edited by: sarcasticmuppet ]
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: Now, I just want to say, everybody seems so against Bush being the president? why is that?
Actually, a lot of us were for Bush being president. That's why he won in the first place.
Posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan (Member # 5626) on :
quote: Hobbes, At night major cities would close their doors. This was mainly to keep out anything unwanted. The eye of the needle was a small door, usually on a different side of the city, the would permanantly stay open, so that travelers would not have to stay out of the city at night. The door was large enough that the camel could, concievably, crawl through it on it's knees, but it was difficult to get the camel to cooperate. The phrase implies that rich man 'is' the camel, and heaven 'is' the eye of the needle. It's concievable, but not likely.
I guess you didn't see the whole conversation between Hobbes and Dagonee where there was shown to be no evidence for that story of the "eye of the needle" being a doorway, didya?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
RRR -- I think you must have imagined Peter's post.
As did I.
[ December 04, 2004, 09:15 PM: Message edited by: mr_porteiro_head ]
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Peter, that's what I thought, but after doing some research it looks like that wasn't the case, or at least there's no proof. Apparently the first reference that can be found to this "eye of the needle" as a small door was in the 9th century, but nistorical (textual) evidence nor archealogical (ruins with a small door by the gate) bears it out. I guess that's not proof that it isn't true, but it makes it unlikely. Some suggestions are that the word for camel and the word for rope are very similar (and apparently, in one of the "more orginal" languages the same word), and thus it would be hard to get the rope through the eye of a needle, but once again, not impossible. One final interpreatation is that it's impossible to get in to Heaven because of your wealth (where as sometimes a person's worthyness was based on wealth), only by accepting Christ could one reach Heaven. I love the scriptures.
Hobbes Posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan (Member # 5626) on :
And Hobbes, too.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Apparently.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Hmmm, apparently Peter left, well if it helps there's apparently one possible example of "eye of the needle" door, but it looks like most people don't think that's what was there, and only the lack of recources of the Russian nation allowed that idea to be perpetuated.
Hobbes Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Can we turn this into a pun thread about camels and needles? I'm feeling like it's reaching that point when the sharpness of people's opinions are reaching the top of a hump.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
I'm having tons of fun here with this scripture, there's so many layers you never hear about!
Hobbes Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
Don't worry Hobbes; the point of your post wasn't lost on me.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
I'm begining to agree with the final answer, that the rich young man was asking what he could do to reach Heaven, and basically Jesus says, nothing, you'll never reach it because of what you can do, it's as ridiculous as getting a camel through the eye of a needle, come unto me and you shall recieve exalutation.
quote:So it's impossible for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of God, that is, if he is going to remain rich in his own resources, if he's going to remain rich in his own good works, in his own things which he has done which he believes ought to merit God's favor. These things are an impossible means by which he can go into the Kingdom of Heaven.
[ December 04, 2004, 09:27 PM: Message edited by: Hobbes ]
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
From the New Testament Apocrypha
quote:The Saviour appeared in the form of a boy of twelve years, wearing a linen garment 'smooth within and without', and said; Fear not: let the needle and the camel be brought. There was a huckster in the town who had been converted by Philip; and he heard of it, and looked for a needle with a large eye, but Peter said: Nothing is impossible with God rather bring a needle with a small eye. 17 When it was brought, Peter saw a camel coming and stuck the needle in the ground and cried: In the name of Jesus Christ crucified under Pontius Pilate I command thee, camel, to go through the eye of the needle. The eye opened like a gate and the camel passed through; and yet again, at Peter's bidding
Hobbes Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
OK, I'm done. Thank-you all for your attention.
Hobbes Posted by Shear (Member # 7093) on :
I was making the statistical correction because that's all that other guy talks about. God damn it why won't you people talk about the real issue at hand Please someone just tell me why they wanted bush to win. I'd enjoy talking about that instead of why my statistics are slightly off. Thanks a bunch guys! By the way im playing violent video games so ill check back in about an hour. peace.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
Peace, eh?
Hobbes Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Oh all right- needles and camels it is. I just had to make that post. I feel special when I actually have puns to make .
EDIT:
quote: Please someone just tell me why they wanted bush to win.
Ah! Here is the real question, and in eleven words. Shear, if you want to rifle through the forum and find the threads on this topic you are quite welcome to .
[ December 04, 2004, 09:34 PM: Message edited by: Teshi ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Okay Dragonee let's do math! I say: 1/3rd. 1/3 = 33.3%. You say but it's only 23.9%!
quote: As it is, you overstated the case by 20%, so your example with a roughly 4% overstatement doesn't seem very applicable.
WOW I guess I was really only about 10% off.
Try doing the math right.
If you say there are 30 people, and there are really 20, then you've overstated the number of people by 50%. Why? Because 10 (the overstatement) is half (50%).
Similarly, going from 24% to 30% is an increase of 6%, or 25% of 24.
Edit: And comparing it to 33.3% instead, it's a 38.9% overstatement.
Dagonee
[ December 04, 2004, 09:53 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I was making the statistical correction because that's all that other guy talks about. God damn it why won't you people talk about the real issue at hand [Wall Bash] Please someone just tell me why they wanted bush to win. I'd enjoy talking about that instead of why my statistics are slightly off. Thanks a bunch guys! By the way im playing violent video games so ill check back in about an hour. peace.
Once again, the statistics are still being discussed because YOU seem incapable of simply moving on.
Dagonee
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Dag., just let him play his games. All he wants is people to bicker with, that should be very clear...
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
quote: I was making the statistical correction because that's all that other guy talks about. God damn it why won't you people talk about the real issue at hand Please someone just tell me why they wanted bush to win. I'd enjoy talking about that instead of why my statistics are slightly off. Thanks a bunch guys! By the way im playing violent video games so ill check back in about an hour. peace.
Now the thread is why did you vote for Bush? Because originally I thought it was why did he win. I'm not trying to argue semantics here because those are two separate topics. Personally, I voted for Bush because I agreed with him more often than I agreed with Kerry.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Personally, I voted for Bush because I agreed with him more often than I agreed with Kerry.
That's crazy talk, nfl. It must be because you're an Evangelical Christian!
Dagonee
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
A lot of people already answered your question over here. That's where my answer is.
Posted by Tater (Member # 7035) on :
I think democrats should definately stick with what they really believe in, even it means not winning some. Of course, I dislike George Dubya. Of course, I dislike Dick Cheney. Of course, I'm very upset Kerry/Edwards didn't win. Of course, I was upset Edwards wasn't the democratic candidate in the first place. Of course, I'm upset Ralph Nader is allowed to repeatedly run and take democratic votes. Of course, I have issues. [I'm also upset about Rice..but that's a whole 'nother can o' worms.] There's always the next election!
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
Alright, I'm gonna go out on a limb here, and see if I can defend his argument.
From www.adherents.com: Christianity - 76.5% of the US adult population in 2000 Non-religious/secular - 13.2% " " Judaism - 1.3% " "
This is by self-identification.
I searched for a long time for facts and figures on fundamentalist christianity in the US and could find little or nothing. I found many definitions of it, but they all said it was a difficult thing to define, and an even harder thing to track number wise as many people who might fall under the definition would never admitt to it do to its rather negative connotations. I found an esimate somewhere that was stated to be "a very conservative estimate that at there were at the least 30 million fundamentalist christians in the US". That translates into about 10% of the total US population.
In 2000: Total US Population: 281,421,906 Us Population eligible to vote: 209,128,094 or 74.3%
They estimate the current US population to be around 294,000,000 it is probably safe to assume that the percent of the population eligible to vote is still around 70%.
From Slightly under 60% of eligible voters(around 120 million people) in the US turned out to vote in 2004. Which means about 40% of the total US population voted.
The article states:
quote: "On both sides, the presidency of George Bush was a lightning rod," he said. "For those who supported him, they supported him for traditional values, strong leadership, the war on terrorism and some rejection of things that the Democrats advocate," such as abortion rights and gay civil unions.
"On the other side, it was the war on Iraq, debt, the feeling he hadn't been candid with the American people, too conservative values and division in the country," Gans said.
Hm... Ok, so some of his statements seemingly are right. At least he WAS right about Christianity making up the vast majority of the US population.
So his argument, the way I read it, was that it was 'moral values' inspired largely by christian religious belief that won president Bush the presidency in 2004.
From the above data it is very possible that this is indeed the case. However, I couldn't find any data anywhere to unarguably support or refute it. I know many people who self-identify as christian but who are as liberal as I am and find it disgusting that people voted Bush in on issues such as gay civil unions/marrige and abortion.
The general opinion in the media however does seem to be that the election was won on 'moral values' and that Bush managed to bring out enough of the 'religious right' vote to counter act the huge liberal vote that Kerry managed to raise. This is just going from things I recall reading around election time, I could go and dig up the articles if people would like, but I just spent an hour combing the internet for information and am a tad burnt out on that level.
Conclusion: his argument states what seems to be the general media opinion, but I could find no statistics to prove or disprove it. It is plausible from the avalible statistics.
Now I'm just going to state my own opinion, assuming that the general media opinion is true: WARNING: Ranting contained within If people voted for Bush on the abortion issue, well I can respect that. While I myself am pro-choice, pro-life views are views I can respect. While I disagree that it should be made law I can entirely understand where they are coming from. Now the anti-gay marrige/civil unions DISGUSTS me. I have ABSOLUTELY no respect for people who want to ban gays from civil unions or marrige. Especially when they use stuff from the bible to support their arguments for making a constitutional gay marrige ban. HELLO? Separation of church and state? Making a constitutional amendment based on stuff in the bible in a country that supposedly has separation of church and state? Wtf? If you want to ban your churches from giving gay marriges fine, but the government issuing gay couples marrige licenses is COMPLETELY different, and religion should have absolutely NO say in it. Thats the government issuing a state benefit to a significant part of its population. Gays should get the same benefits as everyone else! CONSTITUTIONAL GAY MARRIGE BANS ARE EXAMPLES OF LEGALIZED CONSTITUTIONALIZED DISCRIMINATION AS BAD AS DISCRIMINATION AGAINST BLACKS OR JEWS!! The fact that many religions preach otherwise AND THAT PEOPLE BELIEVE makes me lose a lot of repsect for the religions preaching it and the people believing it.
End Rant
[ December 04, 2004, 11:48 PM: Message edited by: Alcon ]
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: I have ABSOLUTELY no respect for people who...
So if people disagree with you on this one issue, nothing that they have done is worthy of your respect?
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
If you follow the rant, I say why. Its not just a matter of disagreeing on issues. I have a great deal of respect for people who disagree with me on issues (though I know I don't always show it when I get into arguments ), I just can't respect people who discriminate based on things like race, gender and sexual orientation, and these people are trying hard to legalize discrimination. Hence cannot respect them. And I did warn I was ranting
Edit: Ok, now I see what you are saying. Well, I respect them a great deal less than everyone else. Becuase it takes a lot to make up for discriminting against people based on their sexual orientation(or race, or gender) in my mind.
[ December 04, 2004, 11:50 PM: Message edited by: Alcon ]
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Let me put it in another way. If they have this one character flaw (as you see it), that makes them ABSOLUTELY unworthy of any respect as human beings?
I'm assuming that what you said is hyperbole. I'm realy just pointing out that it is.
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
Look up, I editted.
And yea, I was ranting. I have yet to meet someone with this view who I could really respect, but I suppose its entirely possible that I could. But in the general case I have little to no respect for these people and their arguments.
I suppose I should shut up now before I make even less sense, as my brain is rather wiped from all the fact finding and net finding I did earlier, which now seems to have been ignored becuase of a ranting paragraph below.
[ December 04, 2004, 11:52 PM: Message edited by: Alcon ]
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I can understand if you totally cannot respect the action. But when you say that you when people have X quality, they are not worthy of respect, you are doing the exact same thing you are accusing others of doing.
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
You have a point. Which is why I do try and take people one on one when I meet them. It is possible I'll meet someone with that quality that I can respect, it just has yet to happen.
And those people that I haven't met, well I can't very well judge them individually can I, at least not until I meet em.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
But you've already judged them generally. Or, at least, you sounded like you have.
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
Here's the inherent contradictory problem: If all Christians believed the things they do because of their religion then why did Bush only capture 51% of the vote? Shouldn't it be closer to 70, especially when some people who aren't Christian, like myself, vote for Bush?
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
Well, becuase that 40% of the country that actually voted doesn't necesarily have to match the countries religious, ethinic, and economic break down. It may be that only only say 60% of that 40% of the country that voted was christian (rather than the 70% you might think it'd be).
However, it is also the case that just becuase someone is christian they may not have had those values and voted Bush. I know of many, many christians with which this is the case. Including some gay christians.
So in short, the data above shows that its plausible that it could have been the christian vote on values, but it can't really be proved or disproved.
To MPH: I have made a general judgement, but I reevaluate it with every individual I meet. It happens to be the case that I have yet to meet an individual that fit held the belief that didn't also end up fitting the general judgement. But I may eventually meet someone whom I can respect in general that holds that belief. ...thats not to say I'll respect the belief and won't try and change it though
Really if you think about it we all have to work this way on things we feel strongly about. Make a generally judgement about something, and then reevalutate it for every individual we meet. And I am now rambling
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
If 24% of Americans are Evangelicals, then 76% are not. Thus, I think it's safe to say that non-Evangelicals probably decided the election.
But if you ask me, I suspect the most important statistic is the percentage of people who don't understand the situation in Iraq, the motivations of terrorists, and the relationship between Iraq and the War on Terror. I suspect the reason Bush won is because that number was too high.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Bush won because enough Americans DID understand the situation in Iraq, the motivations of terrorists, and the relationship between Iraq and the War on Terror.
quote:Here's the simple fact: The evidence that moral values determined the election rests on a single dodgy exit poll question. And it's not at all clear that more voters are preoccupied with moral values now than were fretting about "family values" on Election Day 1996, when exit pollsters included that phrase in a question about "priorities for the new administration." But in the often arid and repetitive arena of American political ideas, fun new contestants can be hard to disqualify. The myth of the moral values election is proving hard to snuff out.
The mantra was in full hum on election night. Television commentators were understandably struck by the results of the question asked of almost 7,000 voters as they left their polling places: "Which one issue mattered most in deciding how you voted for president?" The most cited issue on the list of seven options offered to those surveyed was "moral values" at 22 percent; 80 percent of these voters went for President Bush, 18 percent for Democratic nominee John Kerry. "Economy/jobs" came next on the list at 20 percent, followed by terrorism (19 percent), Iraq (15 percent) and then health care, taxes and education in single digits.
Brian Healy was the CBS News producer covering the exit polls, something he has done in many elections. He recalled that everyone was surprised that moral values topped the list as the numbers came in, but it wasn't until about 4 a.m. that someone quite innocently asked, "What exactly are 'moral values'?"
Too late. The story line was already set. And the surprise nature of the moral values result boosted its allure for the commentariat. When the newspapers could finally write definitive headlines, the notion that moral values was a synonym for various conservative positions became a given -- as did its decisive effect on the outcome of the contest. "Faith, Values Fueled Win," reported the Chicago Tribune. " 'Values voters' key to Bush re-election," declared the Fort Worth Star Telegram. "Moral Values Decide Election," the Tri-Valley Herald in northern California told its online readers.
From the modest experiment of one exit poll question, a Unified Theory of Election 2004 was hatched. Pundits began to spread the word. "Ethics and moral values were ascendant last night -- on voters' minds, in Americans' hearts," William J. Bennett wrote in a column posted in the National Review Online at 11:09 a.m. on the morning after the election -- even before Kerry's concession and Bush's victory speech.
Later in the same article:
quote: Now, to the hard question: Are there more values voters than there used to be?
In 2000, the consortium that ran the national exit poll did not list "moral values" as an option on their issues menu. At that time, it would have been seen as a question about Bill and Monica, and so pretty useless. So it's hard to know whether the slice of the electorate concerned with such matters has grown during President Bush's term.
We do know that in the 1996 question about the next administration's priorities, "family values" was tops for 17 percent (behind the winner, "health of the economy," at 21 percent), and that group largely went for Bob Dole. So you could argue that the 17 percent whose top worry was family values and went heavily Republican turned into 22 percent worried about moral values in 2004. That's a slight shift, but hardly a cultural tsunami -- and remember, no one asked these voters for their definition of family values then, or moral values now.
Nonetheless, analysts have been surfing on tidal-wave conclusions. It has become a breast-beating crisis for Democrats that the values voters who were 22 percent of the electorate went for the Republican by a crushing margin, 80 percent to 18 percent. By that logic, it must follow that it's a crisis for Republicans that the 20 percent who care most about the economy and jobs went 80-18 for the Democrat.
Or perhaps it's a crisis for the Republicans that the 45 percent slice of the electorate that describes itself as moderate went for Kerry 54-45? Or that first-time voters went 53-46 for Kerry? So many crises, so few facts to support them.
Voting behavior does divvy up Americans into certain patterns. Rural residents and heavy churchgoers vote Republican. City people and church-avoiders vote Democratic. But these cleavages have persisted in several elections. Moral values didn't just seep into the drinking water.
Yet the myth persists. Sometimes it's perpetuated by partisans claiming that Democrats are hostile to values voters. "There simply aren't enough voters in Berkeley, Santa Monica, Santa Fe, Manhattan and Cambridge to offset the many concerned evangelicals, Catholics and Jews in the rest of the nation for whom moral values are a determining issue," wrote Richard A. Viguerie and David Franke in a Nov. 15 Los Angeles Times op-ed.
Dagonee
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
More from the Post, by Steve Rosenthal the chief executive officer of America Coming Together and the political director of the AFL-CIO from 1996 to 2002. He worked on get out the vote campaigns for the Democrats.
quote: We've done a post-election poll of 1,400 rural and exurban voters in Ohio counties that Bush won by an average of 17 percentage points. Their answers, and a closer look at other poll data, explode a few widely held theories about what happened.
The first myth: Many more churchgoing voters flocked to the polls this year, driven by the Bush "moral values" and the gay marriage referendum.
Reality: The 2004 election brought no increase whatsoever in the portion of the voting electorate who attend church on a weekly basis or more often than that, according to exit polls. In Ohio, the share of the electorate represented by frequent churchgoers actually declined from 45 percent in 2000 to 40 percent in 2004. Nationwide, Bush improved his vote among weekly churchgoers by just one point over 2000, while increasing his support among those who don't go to church by four points.
So how could religious voters have been the basis of Bush's victory, at least in Ohio? Answer: They weren't.
Second myth: The Bush campaign won by mobilizing GOP strongholds and suppressing turnout in Democratic areas.
Reality: Turnout in Democratic-leaning counties in Ohio was up 8.7 percent while turnout in Republican-leaning counties was up slightly less, at 6.3 percent. John Kerry bested Bush in Cuyahoga County (home of Cleveland) by 218,000 votes -- an increase of 42,497 over Gore's 2000 effort. In Stark County (Canton) -- a bellwether lost by Gore -- Kerry won by 4,354.
Third myth: A wave of newly registered Republican voters in fast-growing rural and exurban areas carried Bush to victory.
Reality: Among Ohio's rural and exurban voters, Bush beat Kerry by just five points among newly registered voters and by a mere two points among infrequent voters (those who did not vote in 2000).
Fourth myth: Republicans ran a superior, volunteer-driven mobilization effort.
Reality: When we asked new voters in rural and exurban areas who contacted them during this campaign, we learned that they were just as likely to hear from the Kerry campaign and its allies as from the Bush side. (In contrast, regular voters reported more contact from the GOP.)
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I think Bush has quite clearly shown us post-election where his foreign policy lies: with Rice, who deliberately mislead the 9/11 commission, and Rumsfeld.
I think those people who saw a more tempered foreign policy before the election can take a good guess from these choices at what sort of foreign policy Bush prefers. It will be interesting to see what happens.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"Bush won because enough Americans DID understand the situation in Iraq, the motivations of terrorists, and the relationship between Iraq and the War on Terror."
Says a Bush voter, of course. Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Of course. In response to a non-Bush voter who made a similarly broad statement. Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
Isn't the symmetry beautiful? Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
And I was honored to be a part of it.
Posted by babager (Member # 6700) on :
Not going to argue about math and percentages, that requires too much thought on a Sunday afternoon (and frankly it scares me a little - don't want to make a silly mistake )
In regards to the Camel through the Needle's Eye part of this thread; I always imagined Jesus was making a funny. I think he was being sarcastic. I imagine that sometimes he grew weary of trying to explain everything. Maybe it is just a biblical idiom. I imagine that if Jesus were walking the Earth today he might say something to the effect "Look guys, I heard it straight from the horses mouth, you can trust me on this". Then 2000 years from now people would be arguing about the impossibilities of equine speech!! Posted by J T Stryker (Member # 6300) on :
i think everyone is missing the real point here, Kerry lost due to his allying himself with John Melloncamp
Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
babager: Posted by foundling (Member # 6348) on :
I think it's sad that Shear has yet to repost in what is probably one of his or hers first topics. And yet, I'm not suprised. The responses to the original post were so harsh and obnoxious, I dont blame Shear for not staying with the topic. All of you who bashed the kid for having skewed statistics and an overly generalized view of what made Bush win should feel proud. You probably ran off a 17 year old kid looking for answers in a forum that seems to be open minded and intellectually stimulating. Hell, Shears post was articulate and interesting, polite, and while misinformed, obviously looking for others opinions. It was petty to try and deride Shears opinions based on grammar, as well. You turned what could have been an informative discussion into a nasty little pig pile, and you should be ashamed of yourselves. How old are you all? Does it make you feel good to dismiss a 17 year old kids opinions so ruthlessly?
Posted by Shear (Member # 7093) on :
Yeah I've been following the forum. I wouldn't call myself misinformed just because I have different views than you though. The reason I haven't been posting is because I don't think this specific thread going anywhere. There have been like 10 to 15 replies on just the camel and eye of a needle anecdote I used when it has nothing to do with the point I was trying to make. I find that infuriating.
If anyone wants to talk about why they think bush won, or his policies on Iraq, abortion, whatever I'd be happy to hear what you have to say. If you want to talk about how I'm a misinformed 17 year old, well then I guess I don't have much to say.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
quote:There have been like 10 to 15 replies on just the camel and eye of a needle anecdote I used when it has nothing to do with the point I was trying to make. I find that infuriating.
Shear, that's fairly typical thread derailing--don't take that personally.
And welcome to the forum!
[ December 05, 2004, 03:49 PM: Message edited by: Morbo ]
Posted by Peter (Member # 4373) on :
Yeh, i did disappear, but only because i realized i had been trumped, and had somehow missed the post way ahead of me, and i felt dumb.
Alcon, i think waht is great is that you are saying that the only opinions that can decide anything are those that do not come from religion. people are allowed to ban anything they want. if there was a religion out there that said that homosexuality was a must, would it be ok for those people to vote on a bill like that? just wondering
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Bush won because a large number of people who could vote agreed with something he said, whether it was the war, his morals, his values, his strong stance, his familar name or his policies.
If you're looking for answers, Shear, and not just looking to cause argument, I apologise. Many people are upset at the fact that Bush was re-elected and right after the election the argument here was very fierce- most points have already been driven into the ground. If you do a search for Bush you will probably discover many arguments and many tears over the very issues you brought up, from all viewpoints.
All these threads were found under the search "bush" and "election". There are many more. Please do not post in these- if you are interested in pursuing a single point of one of the topics, start a new thread.
[ December 05, 2004, 04:03 PM: Message edited by: Teshi ]
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
There are still at least two things you don't realize. The first is that very often thread will get derailed or sidetracked and people will start discussing things like the eye of the needle quote, and just because that happens doesn't mean that you did something wrong, it just happens. The second thing is that you originally made bold assertions based on no facts and have since changed your question and seem suprised that people responded to the original one.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
foundling, you need to reread the thread. The statistics were an important part of his thesis. Someone asked where they came from, a perfectly reasonable question. No answer was forthcoming.
The first correction of statistics was this:
quote:If 70 million are evangelical, then they make up 23.9% of the 293,027,571 in the U.S.
Dagonee
The response was this:
quote:Im sorry i was 10% off. You got me, after i listed the source that gave the information. That wasn't the point that i was trying to make. You're playing with semantics.
Had he said accepted the correction and moved on, or said "thanks for the right number," or posted different evidence, or even said nothing about the statistics, no one else would have mentioned them. But he had to cry foul instead.
And he got worse after that. We're not going to treat him differently because he's 17. We treated him as an adult. We asked for backup, we posted different statistics. He responded by attacking us for posting accurate information.
Further, I posted some links and quotations this morning that speak directly to the original topic.
Posters don't get to decide which part of their post people respond to.
Posters shouldn't whine when someone corrects a factual error.
They certainly shouldn't call someone's calculations inaccurate without double-checking their math first.
Posters have no standing to complain because side conversations develop in a thread.
Above all, this forum is open-minded and intellectually stimulating precisely because we expect accuracy, call each other on it when it's not forthcoming, and generally expect people to be able to hold their own in a thread they start about a controversial topic.
Dagonee
Posted by foundling (Member # 6348) on :
Sorry Shear. Didnt mean to imply that your views were misinformed , merely that some of the people who replied to your posts considered your statistics and assumption that the Evangelical Christians won the elction for Bush to be incorrect. And the fact that you are 17 should only effect the way people respond to your posts in that there should be a level of understanding for your youth.
Posted by Peter (Member # 4373) on :
Dagonee, thank you for that, it really brightened my day. (no sarcasm)
foundling, youth has nothing to do with it, im technically a yout and i don't want to be looked down upon, or held in a different light for that. i'm willing to except the mistakes i have made.
[ December 05, 2004, 04:02 PM: Message edited by: Peter ]
Posted by Shear (Member # 7093) on :
I give up. Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Why do you give up? There are several posts speaking directly to the question you asked.
Dagonee
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Shear see my edit in my last post up there ^.
Posted by Shear (Member # 7093) on :
Dagonee, I guess I haven't done a good job explaining what I want to discuss because there haven't been posts about what I want to talk about. I'm new to forums so I guess I have to learn how to ask questions better.
When I get responses like:
quote: Bush won because a large number of people who could vote agreed with something he said, whether it was the war, his morals, his values, his strong stance, his familar name or his policies.
Yes i realize you gave me links to other threads about why people said Kerry lost or Bush won etc... but I want to talk about it in this thread because I didn't get to talk about it in those threads. I, me, want to talk about it. Not just read what other people have to say. That's why I started this thread. I have the New York Times to read other's opinions.
Posted by foundling (Member # 6348) on :
Dagonee, you sound like a high school football coach who got swallowed by a lawer. I thought this forum was open-minded and intellectually stimulating because it is composed of a group of empathetic, intelligent people who are willing to listen to others opinions and give thier own in a kind, civilized manner. That attitude was not in evidence in the replies I read to Shears posts. I'm not saying your evidence and statistics were incorrect. I'm saying the tone of replies was nasty and unnecessarily chastizing.
Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
Shear, you're not the first in this situation. Newcomers are usually encouraged to do a little research among the recent topics before starting posting about a certain matter. Most people don't like giving the same arguments over and over again, whenever a new thread is started, so they'll probably ignore it. Really, what would you do? And also, think about the following: the very arguments you post in the new thread might have already been posted and confirmed / rebuted / discussed in previous threads, so why not look there first? If you start a thread only for the sake of arguing, it's not going to work. If, on the other hand, after reading some of the older threads, you think you have something new to add, well, do it then!
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
So do as I suggested, find an interesting topic and create a thread that focuses on a single issue without being a rant.
If you wish to talk about the Evangelical Vote, pause before you do so because if 23% of Americans are Evangelicals do they not have the right to vote, even if you disagree with them or think they're wrong?
One thing to take into consideration might be the issue of felons not being able to vote, or the naturalization policy of America which skews the minority vote which then in turn causes the Evangelical Vote to have more say that perhaps it might do were this not the case.
[ December 05, 2004, 04:24 PM: Message edited by: Teshi ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Frankly, foundling, I'm not sure what wasn't "civilized." Please point it out, in context.
[ December 05, 2004, 04:18 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
quote: Alcon, i think waht is great is that you are saying that the only opinions that can decide anything are those that do not come from religion. people are allowed to ban anything they want.
Not anything, national laws. People are using religion as their only reason to try and make a national law. Thats what pisses me off. If they wanna make a ban on gays in their church or other private organizaton, thats fine with me. Becuase I don't have to be part of the organization if I don't want to. An example would be the boyscouts. They can discriminate against gays all they want, and while I think its wrong and protested it by quiting the scouts, I'm not gonna disagree with their right to do it.
But when you make a national law, with your only reason for passing it being that your religion says it wrong, then you're forcing your religion and its particular set of morals on the rest of the country. And that violates the separation of church and state. I have yet to see an argument against gay marrige/civil unions that isn't either religion based or ignorance/predjudice(being "I hate gays, so they shouldn't be allowed to marry!") based.
Therefore, national laws should not be made with a religious principle as their only reason.
And people are not allowed to ban anything they want. What if they wanted to ban your right to live?
quote: if there was a religion out there that said that homosexuality was a must, would it be ok for those people to vote on a bill like that? just wondering
No, then you're forcing a homosexual lifestyle on people who are heterosexual with your religion as the only reason. Its just as bad.
[ December 05, 2004, 04:36 PM: Message edited by: Alcon ]
Posted by Shear (Member # 7093) on :
Teshi, that is exactly the kind of reply that I like to talk about. Maybe it's because you're asking me a question, I'm not sure. Do I feel that the Evangelical vote should count? Of course. I think even a nazi should have his vote counted (See David Duke, Louisiana).
As for felons, why should they not have their vote counted? I realize it's part of the punishment of being convicted, but once they're free from encarceration, why not have their votes counted?
By the way, did you know that as of December 31, 2002, black males from 20 to 39 years old accounted for about a third of all sentenced prison inmates under state or federal jurisdiction. On that date 10.4 percent of the country's black male population between the ages of 25 to 29 were in prison, compared to 2.4 percent of Hispanic males and 1.2 percent of white males in the same age group.
How's that for discrimination? By the way, Alcon, that reply was right on. I'm totally with you.
Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
Look, foundling and Shear: in a discussion about facts, your facts have to be accurate! It's as simple as that. You can't start basing your posts on erroneous facts, then when they're corrected say "it was a minor error" and "that's not what I was talking about". It IS what you were talking about! And please, don't mistake Dag's quest for accuracy as him being rude, nasty, whatever. When someone's correcting you about use of words or statistics, either prove that what they said is wrong - for example, you meant the phrasing to mean something else, or your statistic was misinterpreted because... - or, if you're wrong, accept the fact and move on.
Also, I've seen this happening elsewhere too: when someone defends an 'old timer' like I just did, newcomers often assume that it's just because I'm more familiar with him so I'd support everything he's saying. To quote from a book I just read: soyas**t! The 'old timer' is probably more experienced, but that doesn't make him 100% right, and people are not going to agree with him just because he has more posts!
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
Forget it, I'm not going to encourage this.
You don't just put up statistics and say, "Did you know that you're all racist?" If you're trying to prove a point you incorporate statistics into your arguments, you don't just throw out statistics for the sake of looking smart.
[ December 05, 2004, 04:41 PM: Message edited by: newfoundlogic ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Alcon, you've made a clear case as to what laws should not be based on.
What do you think are acceptable motives for supporting particular laws? Every single rule of law will have a subjective moral supporting principle. Which ones are acceptable and why?
Dagonee
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Shear, I just wrote an essay that included this topic so I have all the numbers etc. I agree that it is descrimination, especially since it is not only those incarcerated who are denied of the vore but also those who have paid their debt to the state and are technically free.
The other issue, that of naturalization, concerns immigrants. Many immigrants do not become citizens because it closes the door to their country. Only 35% percent of immigrants become citizens compared with 85% of those in Canada.
Thomas Paine said without a vote, people were like slaves. Although I would not go that far, I agree that the discrimination that exists does disenfrachise a large section of the minority voting body.
Posted by WheatPuppet (Member # 5142) on :
Basing law on some basic religous basis assumes that there aren't a few common threads of morality between disparate belief structures. That also assumes that a consensus cannot be achieved about what is needed to maintain a society that is conducive to continuing the democracy. In a utilitarian sense, that would be the only thing a democracy needs to legislate.
[EDIT to make a little bit of sense]
[ December 05, 2004, 04:47 PM: Message edited by: WheatPuppet ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
But even the idea of democracy is based on a subjective moral principle. So, again, which subjective moral principles are acceptable foundations for laws?
Dagonee
Posted by Shear (Member # 7093) on :
Newfoundlogic, research (http://www.gibbsmagazine.com/blacks_in_prisons.htm) shows that no state has a higher percentage of black people than white people. But, In virtually every state they make up the majority of the jails. Does this seem right to you? Do you honostly beleive that there are more black people in all of those states in poverty than white people, or at least lower class?
(I think my stats might be right this time...)
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote: Do you honostly beleive that there are more black people in all of those states in poverty than white people, or at least lower class?
Minorities are much more likely to be below the poverty line.
Posted by Shear (Member # 7093) on :
While this is true Teshi, do you think that black people are inherently going to commit more felonies than white people?
EDIT: In several states there is a higher percentage of white people in poverty than black people, yet more black people in jails.
[ December 05, 2004, 04:55 PM: Message edited by: Shear ]
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Sadly, poverty does often equate more crime.
Posted by Shear (Member # 7093) on :
Do you think throwing people in jail is going to stop crime?
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
No; but I think working on reducing poverty would. America has one of the most unequal economic societies and I think this is big problem.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Do you think throwing people in jail is going to stop crime?
Unless you think other criminals pick up the pace when someone goes to jail.
Not counting crimes commited in jail, incarceration does reduce crimes, if only because offenders are out of circulation for a while.
Dagonee
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
quote: Alcon, you've made a clear case as to what laws should not be based on.
What do you think are acceptable motives for supporting particular laws? Every single rule of law will have a subjective moral supporting principle. Which ones are acceptable and why?
Dagonee
Ok, things I consider acceptable motives:
a) laws where the general moral idea is shared not just by a particular religion, but by most people, including the non-religious. For example, laws against murder. We can generally agree that your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins.
b) laws that have real, well supported scienctific reasons to behind them. An example would be drug laws. Drugs are proven to be harmful to users and people around them often (drunk driving).
c) Laws with facts and statistics that can be debated. Kind of connects with the scientific reason. But an example, would be outlawing drinking. The statistics are their to argue, and if the arguement is made that there is enough damage done from drinking to merit outlawing it, then if that gets voted in its a good basis for making a law.
Now with these often you can debate at what point we should make the law. At what point is it harmful enough to remove a right to do something? But the motivation for attempting to outlaw it in the first place is that it is shown by statistics or science to do harm to people. And for the first one, its a moral shared not just by one religion, but by a true majority of the country. And not just the voting country. Yes often they are upheld in religion, but they are upheld in many many religions, not just one or two. And they are also held by the non-religious. If its just one or even two religions that support it and then only becuase their religion says something is immoral, then they are forcing their religion on other people. Another example other than gay marrige/civil unions would be the jewish community outlawing the eating of pork.
Edit: And I've probably left some off. But thats all I can think of for now.
[ December 05, 2004, 05:15 PM: Message edited by: Alcon ]
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Let me clarify:
Criminals obviously have to go to jail. You cannot say "sorry, you're a minority, you don't have to go." However, the vote should be extended to those who now walk free and more measures should be taken to reduce the rich/poor gap, improve education and opportunity in poor areas.
Putting people in prison may stop crime comitted by that person but will not, by any stretch of the imagination, prevent it from happening.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
There are absolutely crimes that do not occur simply because the person who would commit them is afraid of going to jail.
So it's true that putting people in jail won't prevent all crime. But it's NOT true that putting people in jail doesn't prevent crime.
Dagonee
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
That's not quite what I mean. You can keep building jails and putting criminals in them and sure, lots of people are afraid of being incarcerated and so do not commit a crime. But this doesn't reduce crime any more- more measures need to be taken beyond that to reduce poverty etc.
Posted by Shear (Member # 7093) on :
The problem with that Dagonee is that if you say: they committed a felony, let's throw them in jail. A lot of the time you're going to be wrong in convicting them. Also as you throw more people in jail you're going to exacerbate the situation of discrimination against black people because, obviously, they are way more likely to go to jail than white people ( Statistics )
The death penalty is the epitome of this. Black people are much more liekly to be put to death than white people, at the same time if a white person is accused of killing a black person they have a much lower chance of being put to death.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
I think Shear you need a "for the same crime" in there somewhere .
Black people are, indeed, according to statistics, more likely to be in jail for a longer time than those who are white who have comitted the same crime.
Posted by Shear (Member # 7093) on :
Agreed Teshi
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Yes often they are upheld in religion, but they are upheld in many many religions, not just one or two. And they are also held by the non-religious.
Gay marriage can easily be described in this way. Many religions sanction homosexuality, and I know several non-religious people who oppose legal gay marriage.
Dagonee
Posted by Shear (Member # 7093) on :
I also know several religious people who are pro-gay marriage.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:A lot of the time you're going to be wrong in convicting them.
It depends on what you mean by "a lot."
The vast, vast, vast majority of indicted people actually committed the crime they are accused of. It's not even close - we're talking 95% plus.
Far more guilty go free than innocent get locked up. This is as it should be, and we should be working to reduce further the number of innocents wrongly convicted.
But indicting the whole system is not fair. The poorest people are the ones most victimized by crime. Most police officers, prosecutors, and judges are simply trying to stem an unrelenting tide of crime.
I'm not saying there aren't improvements to be made. But the number of innocent people in jail is a tiny percentage.
Dagonee
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I also know several religious people who are pro-gay marriage.
If by "pro-gay marriage" you mean equal civil marriage rights for any two currently unmarried, consenting adults not related by blood, then I'm one of them.
My point was that Alcon's criteria do not unassailably prevent blocking legal gay marriage.
Dagonee
Posted by Shear (Member # 7093) on :
Dagonee, do you believe in the saying: the ends justify the means?
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
Ok, let me break the top one down.
a) if it is supported by wide reaching morals and the thing being outlawed harms people. Example murder, by definition harms someone(those this is supported by more than just wide reaching morals, becuase again, it by definition harms someone).
b) if it is supported by wide reaching morals and its a law being passed that will help people in a way that does far far more good than harm. I can't think of an example of this off of the top of my head.
Both of these cases are for if it is only supported by wide reaching morals.
Gay marrige harms no one. And the people who are opposed to gay marriges that are not religious often fall under the ignorance/predjudice bit.
Dag the none-religious people you know who are opposed to it, what were their reasons for being opposed?
And on a similar note I know a pair of lesbians currently living together with a son who are wonderful people. They are also devote catholics.
[ December 05, 2004, 05:48 PM: Message edited by: Alcon ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Dagonee, do you believe in the saying: the ends justify the means?
I don't believe that the ends always justify the means, but I do believe that the ends are necessary variables in the calculus that determines the morality or immorality of a given action.
Why are you asking this question?
Dagonee
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote: Another example other than gay marriage/civil unions would be the Jewish community outlawing the eating of pork.
*sigh* I will say it again. Jewish law DOES NOT forbid non-Jews from eating pork. Therefore this is NOT a correct -- or useful -- analogy.
Posted by Shear (Member # 7093) on :
I have basketball practice (yes on sunday) and must go. I'll be back later. Hope we can finish our conversation!
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Gay marrige harms no one. And the people who are opposed to gay marriges that are not religious often fall under the ignorance/predjudice bit.
Yes, but in the current state of the law, gay couples are not prohibited from living together as a monogamous, dedicated couple. They are denied benefits that other monogamous, dedicated couples can obtain. I favor extending these rights to homosexual couples because they can be conveyed to them easily, cheaply, and without hindering the societal goals of marriage laws, and because society would obtain some benefits from allowing it.
quote:Dag the none-religious people you know who are opposed to it, what were their reasons for being opposed?
Most of them are using cost-benefit analyses, mainly based on the realities of reproduction.
Dagonee
[ December 05, 2004, 05:49 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
quote: *sigh* I will say it again. Jewish law DOES NOT forbid non-Jews from eating pork. Therefore this is NOT a correct -- or useful -- analogy.
Oops, sorry I'd always heard that pork wasn't kosher... which translated into forbidding from eating it. So what does kosher do then? *boggle* And is pork Kosher? (yea its a derailment but I'm curious now)
But just becuase that particular analogy is wrong, doesn't mean the general idea translated is. Take any religion, a rule it has thats just that religion's, and insert it in its place.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
There are many problems in the world that would be solved if everybody had sex with at most one person in their lifetime. Do those problems justify banning pre-marital sex?
Dagonee
Edit: This was a comment on this portion of one of Alcon's posts:
quote:b) laws that have real, well supported scienctific reasons to behind them. An example would be drug laws. Drugs are proven to be harmful to users and people around them often (drunk driving).
c) Laws with facts and statistics that can be debated. Kind of connects with the scientific reason. But an example, would be outlawing drinking. The statistics are their to argue, and if the arguement is made that there is enough damage done from drinking to merit outlawing it, then if that gets voted in its a good basis for making a law.
[ December 05, 2004, 06:11 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Pork is indeed not kosher. However, Judaism doesn't believe that all the laws that apply to Jews apply to non-Jews as well.
There are certain laws which do. Included: not killing people, not cursing God, and sexual morality.
And Judaism is certainly not the only religion that applies different rules to members. Hence the problem with your analogy.
[Addit: Dags, was that last post directed to me?]
[ December 05, 2004, 06:02 PM: Message edited by: rivka ]
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
Ok say take a religion that applies at least some of its rules to none members, take that rule, and insert. (Do I need to clarify more, or have I gotten to a point where the analogy holds?)
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Now the problem is . . . in Judaism, at least, most of the rules that apply to all (like that murder one) are agreed on (more or less) by all as being Good Rules.
So there are very few rules left to use as analogies. And most of those ARE the hotly debated issues, and thus not useful as analogies for other hotly contested issues.
[ December 05, 2004, 06:14 PM: Message edited by: rivka ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I think the analogy holds, but I think there's actually very little that fits under it.
Most religions consider those laws that apply to all to have positive effects in this life (or to prevent negative effects in this life).
Ultimately, every law has to rely on an unproven (and scientifically unprovable) assertion that "X is good" or "X is bad." There must be a way to distinguish between those assertions that justify a law and those that do not.
For example, while it is scientifically provable that drugs kill, why is the fact they kill reason to make them illegal?
Dagonee
[ December 05, 2004, 06:17 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Wow, rivka, we're synched up today.
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
Dag will now be giving a free internet course on laws and morality. No signup necesary, just read this thread.
Wow... My head is going into a spin now. I think I'm going to keep reading, but my mind is going into shut down mode... its nearly my evening nap time, so I think I'm going to stop trying to add stuff. We've gotten over my head Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
By the way, I agree that not all moral imperatives should be codified in law.
I just think the question of which ones should be is incredibly complicated.
Dagonee
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
I completely agree with you on that one.
Posted by Peter (Member # 4373) on :
After reading all this i am so confused that it's not worth it. I'm gonna quit with this argument:
One of the main arguments for gay marriage is that they love each other. Fine, i do not doubt that they do, but just because they love each other is no reason to allow marriage. If a man loves his dog, should they be allowed to be married? Marriage has been and should continue to be between one man and one woman. Discriminating against gays is different than discriminating against, say, whites, blacks or hispanics. Gays decide to live that lifestyle, while one cannot decide not to live as a white, black or hispanic.
For the record, I have no negative feelings towards gays. I have several friends who are gay and i get along with them fine. I just feel that marriage (and the benifits that apply) should be kept as they once were.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
First, some flaws with the analogy in your argument: whether or not the man loves his dog in the same way as a husband loves his wife, the dog does not love the man in the way a wife loves a husband. So your analogy is pretty darn stupid from the get-go.
Second, A dog is not a consenting human being (another major flaw). Also, the reasons for many of the benefits of marriage (such as being able to make medical decisions when the spouse is incapacitated) are there because we accept the love between the two people and the importance for each other consequent of that love. To give such rights only to people of opposite sexes is to undermine our very reason for granting those privileges, by saying that it is not the bond between them that is important, but the sex of the people in the bond.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Oh, and then we can point out that allowing marriage between a man and a dog does not stabilize society, whereas allowing marriage between people of the same sex does, as it allows them to participate in the same way as other married couples, setting up stable households, supporting each other so the two are more secure than the one, et cetera.
If I seem a bit dismissive, its because I am. You made a very stupid argument that's been slapped down here and elsewhere repeatedly, and that you bothered making it reflects that either you don't have the wit to understand the replies, or you've paid so little attention you shouldn't be commenting as if your statement somehow brought something new and important to the debate.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:because we accept the love between the two people and the importance for each other consequent of that love.
Obviously not everybody does. That's what Peter was saying.
quote:Oh, and then we can point out that allowing marriage between a man and a dog does not stabilize society, whereas allowing marriage between people of the same sex does,
You can state that, but it will not be agreed upon by both sides.
[ December 06, 2004, 10:28 AM: Message edited by: mr_porteiro_head ]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I'm curious, then, what do you think the reasoning for allowing married people to make medical decisions for each other is?
Also, I gave specific examples as to how allowing homosexual marriage would stabilize society. Would you do me the courtesy of attempting to refute them instead of ignoring them?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Whate'er the discussion be, it always comes down to sex, sex, sex.
Buncha loonies.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:One of the main arguments for gay marriage is that they love each other. Fine, i do not doubt that they do, but just because they love each other is no reason to allow marriage. If a man loves his dog, should they be allowed to be married? Marriage has been and should continue to be between one man and one woman.
Peter, I'd like you to elaborate on the last sentence of that quote. Why should marriage continue to be that way?
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
Presumably because it has been and love alone is no good reason to change its meaning, as illustrated by his example of marriage to a dog?
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
I read the first page only, but I have to say, unless things turned around in the later threads, it's about time Hatrack got this sort. We'd gotten a lot of the other sort in the past few months that I was afraid the universe was out of balance.
If things have improved in the thread, I apologize in advance, but the first page wasn't exactly a great first impression.
-Bok
Posted by SausageMan (Member # 5134) on :
quote:whereas allowing marriage between people of the same sex does, as it allows them to participate in the same way as other married couples, setting up stable households, supporting each other so the two are more secure than the one, et cetera.
The only deal here is that it's extremely debatable whether or not homosexual marriage in America would actually be "stable". Notice I don't say that it is for sure unstable, it's just debatable.
But I'm a hard person to argue with on this subject, because almost my entire defense stems from the fact that I'm a Christian and I simply follow what the Bible says. If you wanna argue with me on that subject, fine, but not here.
quote:whether or not the man loves his dog in the same way as a husband loves his wife, the dog does not love the man in the way a wife loves a husband.
So what would be wrong with a man marrying his sister, or marrying more than one woman, if they love each other, and it would create for a more stable society, as they'd be able to support each other in the way they want to?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"Presumably because it has been and love alone is no good reason to change its meaning, as illustrated by his example of marriage to a dog?"
I'd like to see him prove that his dog consented to marriage.
--------------
"But I'm a hard person to argue with on this subject, because almost my entire defense stems from the fact that I'm a Christian and I simply follow what the Bible says. If you wanna argue with me on that subject, fine, but not here."
Where would be a good place? I'm always up for that argument. *grin*
Posted by SausageMan (Member # 5134) on :
quote:I'd like to see him prove that his dog consented to marriage.
He could go to one of them "animal psychics" or something. (?)
quote:"But I'm a hard person to argue with on this subject, because almost my entire defense stems from the fact that I'm a Christian and I simply follow what the Bible says. If you wanna argue with me on that subject, fine, but not here."
Where would be a good place? I'm always up for that argument. *grin*
Bring it. You could start a new topic if you wanted. I'm not going to start a "religion war" in here until I've posted a little more. Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: Would you do me the courtesy of attempting to refute them instead of ignoring them?
I would prefer not to, but I'll do you the courtesy saying so. You said that you could just "point out" something as though it should be obvious to everyone.
I'm saying that I disagree with this thing you've pointed out.
But, no, I don't feel like expaining to you why.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
My opinion on how laws should be analyzed for their appropriateness:
1) Any law that ALLOWS behavior is a good law, if it can be shown to have pragmatic benefits, or pragmatic and demonstrable lessening of negatives that currently exist in society
2) Any law that RESTRICTS behavior is a good law, if it can be shown pragmatically to reduce social ill(s) without restricting non-destructive pragmatic behaviors
3) Any law that FUNDS the government is essentially a variation on 2)
Basically, I'm asking that in a society that is rather pluralistic as the USA is, metaphysical repurcussions should be outside the purview of the US government, especially since Amendment 1, to me, implicitly restricts the US government from codifying such positions as would allow ruling on metaphysical repurcussions.
I believe that society, with or without a God, in its "natural" state is an antagonistic anarchy. That is, everything is permissable by default. Only through social pressures, whether violence or coercion (like growing up under a certain ideology, bribery, or implied violence) are things like rights and responsibilities defined and honed. I also think that some laws, useful in the past may not be useful in the future (imo, this includes same-sex marriage), and that some laws that weren't necessary in the past, are so now, or in the future (I think that certain, no brainer restrictions on 2nd amendment rights, like private ownership of surface-to-air missiles, are applicable under my opinion here). Just because something, within the scope of law and government, has been a legal construct for ages, does not mean it needs to continue to be, and vice versa. Things that conservatives want to bring back, say from the 1950s (where there were good things) didn't exist in the 1900s. And even most conservatives don't want to bring everything back from the 1950s.
If God gives us free will, then I think, even if we are given instructions, my idea of antagonistic anarchy as the default is true (and isn't even a novel idea in political science). Our "God given" rights, while a beautiful phrase, are really human-given rights, but since our existence is contingent upon God in this worldview, it ultimately is still God-given, just not in the ways that most people consider it. If you follow a God, please, follow Him/Her/It/Them. Try to convince others to follow. teach your children to follow. but don't restrict people without your worldview to be restricted in action, by law, because of something that might happen to them in the Hereafter. The government is not designed, and shouldn't be designed, imo, to enforce metaphysically condemning behaviors in the here and now.
This, of course, is my opinion, and doubt many have this same set of assumptions...
Although, seriously folks, you all should agree with me. I mean you're all bright people; smarter than me. Why haven't you figured this all out by now??
-Bok
[ December 06, 2004, 01:55 PM: Message edited by: Bokonon ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Which category does not allowing legal recognition of gay marriage fall into?
Dagonee
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
It's a restriction of action. If you can show that in this earthly existence there are repurcussions that outweigh the benefits (and this is ultimately subjective, I admit), then you have an argument. However, you can't argue solely on tradition, to me anyway, and you can't appeal to damnation in the Afterlife, since the government should be silent on the latter (to pass a law restricting gay marriage is either: a tacit establishment of a part of a majority's religion, even if it could be applicable to a bunch of separate religions, like Islam, Christianity, and Judaism, in this case; or, it's appealling to tradition for the sake of an essentially aesthetic preference, and tangible, pragmatic effects from a proposed law trump beauty, in mo opinion.
For the record (and I even wrote this to my state (MA) rep when the hullaballoo of a MA state constitutional convention was going on about possible amendments to overrule the Goodrich decision), I am in complete favor to granting same-sex couples who go through the same paperwork as a heterosexual couple, to receive the benefits and responsibilities of a civil marriage. It seems to me to be the easiest and most streamlined way to grant this equality, avoiding all the work to create a separate civil union chapter in the law, or to change civil marriage to civil union. THAT said, I also wrote that I myself would not necessarily be in favor of allowing a same sex marriage to occur in my church. I am still conflicted about that, given what I believe to understand about my religion.
-Bok
[ December 06, 2004, 02:10 PM: Message edited by: Bokonon ]
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
I'll elaborate a tad... It's a restriction, because by default everything is allowed. It may have been restricted, but the subsequent amendment to the MA state constitution that Goodrich ruled as being applicable reopened it as being allowed, even if it wasn't immediately evident (emmergent behavior, and all that).
-Bok
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Why is it a restriction? Legal recognition of marriage definitely isn't a "default" that's allowed.
In other words, since Lawrence, there's no legal rule that stops two people from living together and acting as spouses act toward each other.
As it stands right now, two gay people can get married in a church or secular marriage ceremony. They will not receive the legal benefits of marriage, but they also aren't restricted.
What I'm getting at is that you're leaving out at least one category of - legal subsidy or encouragement of behavior.
Dagonee
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
I think that category is included in my categories, since the reason subsidy or promotion/discrimination of an act is done is either to protect the person that might act that way from some damage (Drunk driving laws) or to promote something that is believed to benefit society (like only heterosexual marriage). My contention is that while such beliefs are fine to hold and teach and convince others with, in a personal sphere, within the scope of the government, they ought to be justified using concrete, in this lifetim, effects.
-Bok
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Yes, but in the case of gay marriage, it isn't that behavior is being restricted so much as behavior is not receiving the same legal encouragement as similar behavior in others. So I don't think your categories cover that.
Dagonee
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
Another thought:
If the government provides a subsidy of some sort, whether it's farms, medicare, or marriage privileges, there has to be a reason to restrict them to a particular industry, say, or only to heterosexual couples. The same-sex marriage decision in MA is good, IMO, in that it provides a boon to a subset of society without any tangible restriction to others. The onus is on those that would restrict it to put forth a pragmatic rationale whereby restricting marriage would provide a greater benefit to society, either by stopping demonstrably immediate dangerous non-consensual behavior, without restricting liberty unacceptably.
-Bok
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
But clearly the cost of a subsidy/encouragement compared to the benefit to society of the encouraged behavior is relevant to subsidy questions, right? So wouldn't it be a valid argument that extending benefit X to group Y costs more than the expected return, so we shouldn't do it?
A similar analysis in which I reach the opposite result is why I favor legalized civil gay marriage.
Dagonee
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
That would be valid (the negative of the cost is in terms of money, in this case), but I don't see how that can be made here. Or rather, if that's the rationale, then you have to convince people that the cost is exorbinant. That's a fine argument, though in this particular case, I don't think it can be made to me successfully.
Of course, I'm in topsy-turvy land, where the opponents of same-sex marriage are not on the side of the current law, so that may be my difference.
-Bok
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I'm interested in it more in the theoretical sense - your scheme doesn't seem to have a place for that kind of analysis. I think a new category is needed, something about assigning of government benefits or what attributes can be used in determining who gets a benefit.
Dagonee
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
I think it's implicit in the categories above... Much as I said for #3. If you are providing money or privileges (or restricting people from such things) you ought to abide by whether more good than bad, in a this-worldly sense, is happening.
That said, there's also a lot of leeway to have differences of opinion in the weighting of such things. My categories don't address that, nor do I really want to. I don't pretend to have thought up a legal Rosetta Stone here It's just as easy to accept my premises, and still come out completely against something I'm for.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
![[No No]](graemlins/nono.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
Please someone just tell me why they wanted bush to win. I'd enjoy talking about that instead of why my statistics are slightly off. Thanks a bunch guys! By the way im playing violent video games so ill check back in about an hour. peace.
![[Wave]](graemlins/wave.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
You could start a new topic if you wanted. I'm not going to start a "religion war" in here until I've posted a little more.