mused76

I've read, throughout various posts here, that people are upset that morals are being stuffed down their throat due to Bush winning, the possibility of Bush picking another Supreme Court judge, and the overwhelming ban on gay marriages. Now to those people I say the majority stuffed the morals down your throat and are tired of state judicial systems creating new laws, such as gay marriage acts, without going through the supreme court or proper channels.

What we have seen here, people, is that America is backlashing against the immoral practices by liberals. Larry Flint said he was going to move if Bush won office for a second term and so did many other celebs. See ya! America has spoken and it wants to get back on track. The majority is tired of immorals being stuffed down our throats and displayed this last night. Democrats need to rethink their stance on many issues including how they are going to get registered Dem's back on their side - like I once was.

Unright

Wow.. Whoever said that right-wingers were good winners were sure off the mark.

irateplatypus

i'm not sure i would second the original post exactly how it was stated... but i do know that mused76 does describe a feeling that is very prevalent among some i know in my home state. this sentiment has little to do with the recent election and is a very real force in how much of our country perceives national politics.

__________________
If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.

~ Winston Churchill

TheFu

That is so true. Democrats will push to please a small minority, gays who want to marry for example, and in turn piss off a majority and then wonder what the hell went wrong.

Unright

Um.. Kerry was against gay marriage. He felt it was an issue to be dealt with on the State level, not something that should be placed in the Constitution.

Cheney was the one with the gay daughter who was proud of her one moment, then furious if anyone but him brought that up.

bingle

Yeah, like in the 60s when they pissed off the majority by extending civil rights to a small minority. What the hell is their problem? The important thing is winning, not being so idealistic.

Luckily, now the majority will have their say again, and things can go back to the way they were... We can avoid all this so-called "social progress".

Bingle

mused76

Kerry was against yet would hand it to the states to decide? Thanks for the inside news because he never made that clear to voters.

filtherton

They need to learn to please that small minority, while convincingly fooling the majority into thinking that it is actually they who are being pleased. That's how you win an election in america.

I think, ideally, america is a place where we don't tell other people how to live if how they live doesn't infringe on any of our rights. There is a difference between telling someone how they can live and telling someone that they can't tell someone how to live.

mused76

Can't please everyone but you can please the majority.

Manx

This is the issue. The right wants to limit freedoms which would otherwise not affect anyone else simply due to their personal opinions of a moral position. The left wants to allow freedoms which would otherwise not affect anyone else.

For the right to be "angry" at the left for wanting to allow some people the ability to marry is purely and undeniably oppressive. It is a fascist position which, as evidenced in this election, is strongly held by millions on the right.

Whether an individual agrees with the concept or not should not affect the freedoms of millions of people in regard to the concept. But when millions of those individuals vocalize their desire to limit the freedoms of others - that is what comes to pass.

adam

To put it another way, we are seeing the evangelicals (and whoever else made up the 51%) gearing up to impose their definition of morality upon the rest of us. I don't personally see two guys who love each other and want to marry as being "immoral". Nor do I see a need for prayer in schools, etc.

I don't honestly give a hoot where Larry Flint lives. But I'm not anxious to have the Christian mafia try to brainwash my daughter through the public schools. (I'm fine with her becoming a Christian -- if she chooses to as an adult when she can weigh the arguments as an adult.)

Whatever happened to live and let live? It seems to be an unpopular philosophy...

mused76

Just the fact that we can disagree on issues like gay marriages is enlightening. Freedom has it's prices and we always have a choice to leave the state or country we live in if we don't agree. Can't say that for many countries.

drawerfixer

I'm don't really want to get into this, as I see the possibility of quick degradation into flame-fest. However, those who followed Kerry's policy knew this. It was his fault for not clearly expressing this, though.

Manx

I don't call it enlightening. That we are allowed to disagree is, in my mind, an absolute given. I would expect nothing less.

But when a relative handful of people are vocal enough, powerful enough, to demand the oppression of a large group of people, it assuredly does bring about the reality that there is little option other than leaving.

And there are MANY countries where we are able to disagree. America just happens to be one of the few of those which is forcing the exodus due to valueless moral oppression.

mused76

Maybe it's me but I don't understand this. Switch it around. If gay marriage and all these other things that left wingers want to be happened we'd be screaming foul and you'd say the majority spoke. That's backwards.

filtherton

Pleasing the majority is great, until the majority wants to deny the rights of the minority. Then, pleasing the majority means selling out the civil rights of your citizens.

Manx

I honestly do not understand how you can believe the difference is not obvious.

Gay marriage - if it is legal, you don't HAVE to marry a gay person. If it is illegal, a gay person CANNOT marry another gay person.

One is a limitation of freedom - the illegality of gay marrige, which only produces a negative affect for gay people. The other is an acceptance of freedom - the legallity of gay marriage, which only produces a positive affect for gay people. There is no positive aspect of the former other than the excersize of control (ego boosting) for those who would enforce their personal moral judgement on others and there is no negative of the latter at all.

You should be allowed to not marry a gay person - but you should not be allowed to prevent a gay person from marrying another gay person. There is no rationality to it beyond a personal moral choice being applied to everyone.

I don't like cauliflower - but I certainly would not require everyone else to refrain from eating it.

mused76

Maybe this should be brought in front of the Philosophy forum? Especially with that cauliflower statement. But then again cauliflower is one thing and moral issues is another. One is edible the other is emotional and intellectual.

Manx

It is an analogy.

mused76

like Kerry is to that certain footwear? Nevermind. Let's move on.

tecoyah

I would have to agree with Manx on this. Moral codes are not Law in most cases, and for understandable reasons. The legislation of limited freedoms is counter productive to a free society in my opinion, and should be avoided. I have no intention of getting married to another male, but I do not wish to force my personal beliefs on someone who may wish to.
The only reasons I see for forbidding such a marriage is religious, or based on fear.
Neither of which belong in government.

__________________
Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

mused76

Most current laws are based on morals - right? Theft, Rape, Etc. Except that cheating while you're married thing.

irateplatypus

realize that when a person defies others on the basis that they do not want a particular moral framework in place... what they are really saying is that they want their own moral framework instead.

__________________
If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.

~ Winston Churchill

mused76

which separates the prisoners from those opinionated

wnker85

People fear change, but I do not think that this is the main reason against gay marriage. The institution has been a main stay in religion (man and woman). And, they do not want to let the minority of people crap all over their beliefs. And, as those who claim to be open-minded can not let but one side of the argument in.

But People can choose what they want to beleive and noone can change that. But as a right-winger I think that the goverment should sat out of everyone business (on both sides)

filtherton

Good point, i want to impose my morality, which consists of "Don't tell me what i can and can't do when what i do has no relevance to your existence" as opposed to the other side's morality, which apparently is "If i don't do it or think it is okay than no one should do it or think it is okay, regardless of whether it is damaging to anybody or not".

Willravel

There are morals that are consistant to our society (murder, theft, rape, etc.), and there are morals that are philosophy specific (homsexuality, polygamy, premarital sex, etc.). Let's not get the two confused. I personally believe that it is very much wrong to interfere with foreign powers, but that is my personal belief. Obviously, our government does not share that moral. It is simply a belief that fits with my philosophy, but not our society. Murder in the first degree is wrong, socially, and with most philosophies. Homosexual marriage is wrong socially, but only with a certian philosophy is it bad. Why should an ancient text stop two people who are in love from being legally accepted as married? When tecoyah was saying "The only reasons I see for forbidding such a marriage is religious, or based on fear.
Neither of which belong in government.", he meant there are philosophical beliefs that are meant to be seperated from the government. I hope that cleard it up for you, mused76.

mused76

Not sure it will clear things up - ever. The majority voted, last night, and it's part of our democracy to vote on issues.

mused76

if it (any issue) was right or meant to be, in the first place, we would have never had to voted on it in the first place.

LeviticusMky

For me the problem extends from the people who wrote the Constitution...

Jackson and Adams and Washington and those old folk... They go off about "In god we trust" and "Under God" and stuff like that, and then say that there has to be an absolute separation between church and state...

What? Which are we supposed to beleive? If there is supposed to be a separation between church and state, marraige shouldn't be a federal institution in the first place! The constitution is an old document that has a vast array of merits but allows for squabbling over moral issues like this.

I feel that any additional bills passed in federal courts should start clarifying the basic foundations of this country, not muddying it with more laws that limit freedom. It seems to me that the more amending and bill passing that goes on, the less and less the constitution actually matters. Soon no-one will be able to even see the beginning, our nation will be run by the only people who know how to navigate legal text, the lawyers.

Or not. Maybe I'm just a crazy hippie.

sportsrule101

If you don't like the way people vote then find a country that has a leader that will do the stuff you prefer. Such as France or Germany.

__________________
winning isn't everything but
losing isn't anything

Mephisto2

I hope you're not equating gay marriage with theft or rape.

Say two guys get married down the street from you.

What are they stealing?
Who are they raping?

There are no victims.

Unless you consider stealing your sense of "righteous indignation" and raping your "body of faith" as crimes.




Mr Mephisto

mused76

I was making a point that most laws are based on morals but not saying gay marriages are equall to rape or theft.

nofnway

Has anyone in the democratic party considered that with the constant parade of candidates, spokespersons and strategists, that are the most left of all Americans, are
leaving more and more americans behind.
It takes a certain kind of myopia at best, and arrogance at worst ,that when election after election seats in congress, the senate and even the presidency are going to the Republicans to think that the Republicans are the problem. Anyone who supports a republican at all is some sort of extremist? 51-48 alone does not a mandate make. Gaining seats in congress and the senate over the last 20 years plus 51-48 and 3.5 mil gap in the popular vote is certainly worth noticing. Maybe the dems should re-examine what is extreme.

A sudden jump in one direction or the other is sure to be noticed but with some constant pressure over time you'll look up and wonder how you got where you are.

__________________
"Iron rusts with disuse, stagnant water loses its purity and in cold water freezes. Even so does inaction sap the vigor of the mind"
Leonardo Da Vinci

Unright

In that case you should be seriously encouraging all the anti-abortionists (including Bush) to leave the country. It's 100% legal in the US.

Also instead of the cauliflower analogy, let's go with pork. It's morally wrong to eat pork according to certain religions. Yet I don't see you championing anti-pork legislation.

If you think we should ban gay marriage, then you should also be for banning pork products.

Mephisto2

How very constructive.

Actually gay marriage is illegal in France. A city mayor tried to enact ordinace to allow it and he was removed and the marriages voided. Civil unions are allowed as far as I know.

Gay marriage (or equivalent civil unions) are legal in many countries, including steps to legalize it in the UK.

And we all know how George Bush feels about Blair.


Mr Mephisto

irateplatypus

but i think we'd both agree that everyone thinks of his own position like this. certainly there must be something that you consider harmful to one another that another person wouldn't bat an eye at.

for example, no one would condone murder. yet, millions of people have no problem with abortion and still millions more consider it nothing short of homicide. those who sincerely believe that abortion is murder are no more enforcing their moral code on a pro-life person than a pro-life person is on someone who may condone homicide. our own moral convictions always allow the maximum degree of human liberty (in our mind's most honest conviction)... but others who disagree with my code will forever be forcing their own agenda upon me.

we're never going to satisfy everyone. the best we can do is find a moral code that best promotes liberty, integrity, justice and compassion to one another. the debate will rage on, but we must recognize that everyone possesses a moral code and that such codes are the cornerstone of civilization. we are no closer to any of our ideals if we don't realize the relationship our own moral codes have with another person's.

__________________
If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.

~ Winston Churchill

mml

I do think that the Democratic party has, in many ways, alienated much of the electorate. It has increasingly become a less inclusive party while simultaneously trying to make American law and culture more inclusive. An easy example is gay marriage. Much of the Democratic party sees this as a right and that to deny it is discrimination(something I agree with). The problem lies in that the party does not easily tolerate those who may have difficulty with this notion. Joe Six-Pack is economically a Dem, but his social beliefs are more conservative and he puts God and family before his own fiscal well-being. Democrats, who preach inclusiveness, are often guilty of excluding those who do not fall in line with party dogma.

Both parties do this, but in an America that is increasingly religious and increasingly concerned about cultural change, Dems need to take a long hard look at our vision for America, the path we will take to get us to that vision and who will help us achieve it.

As far as Mused's original post, I don't think that liberals have the exclusive rights on immoral practices. If you truly believe that, then you live in a fantasy world, the one where Hannity and Coulter live. Larry Flint may be liberal, but he is not the face of liberalism. I could just as easily drop the name Don King, who is pretty much a soulless bastard, and remind you that he is a staunch Bush supporter and was even in attendance at Bush's acceptance speech today. I am fairly certain you would not consider him your typical conservative. Regardless of what you might think, the vast majority of liberals are not millionaire porn kings.

One thing I do believe is that over the years, the Republican party has given up its history as the party of freedom and change(ie the Party of Lincoln). I am proud to be a Democrat, fighting for the rights and freedoms of minority groups and the disenfranchised. It is a hard road to travel, particularly today, but nothing worthwhile is ever easy.

That being said, God bless America and God bless President George W. Bush(lord knows we need it)







And while God is at it, God bless John Kerry as well.

__________________
Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so."
-Douglas Adams

filtherton

There is still a difference between telling people how to live, when it has no effect on anyone else's quality of life, and telling someone that they can't tell someone how to live. Nowhere in the constitution does it say that the majority has the right to limit the rights of the minority.

There is a huge difference between murder and abortion. Namely, that the exact criteria for being "alive" are nebulous. Besides, murder is a legal word and currently abortion is legal, just like capital punishment.

On top of that, there is a huge difference between morals surrounding the ending of a life or potential life, and those surrounding two guys getting married. I believe in "live and let live", while many of those who shriek about the government limiting their freedoms, whether religious or second amendment, are more than gung ho when it comes to limiting another's freedoms in the bedroom.

There was a time when the "moral majority" believed in segregation, slavery, and manifest destiny.

Flyguy

So you're saying that the civil rights movement shouldn't have happened just because there was a "small" minority? Things can go back to the way they were??? Avoid social progress? So, how far back do you want to turn the clock? Do you want to re-segregate? This is why I will always reject the agenda of this fundamentalist christian nation (which it has become) I won't stand and have christianity shoved down my throat just because more people apparently voted for Bush than Kerry.

And don't get me wrong. I believe in god. I'm not against religion. BUT, what I do have a problem with is that this country wasn't founded on the beliefs of christianity. The founding fathers believed that people could choose the religion of their choice and the reason for the separation of church and state is to prevent what has now happened. Bush wants to return American to its moral roots, he said today. Whose morals?? christian morals?? But I'm not a christian. It's wrong to force it down my throat in the form of legislation. That's what's wrong with America now and that's why I'll always fight for the freedoms of the disenfranchised. Minority or not.