Law School Discussion

Republican and Gay

President_Baccaga

Re: Republican and Gay
« Reply #80 on: October 18, 2006, 07:36:21 AM »

One point I made earlier is that joining the party allows for reform from within. Also, you ask what do they care about:
- being pro-life AGAINST WOMEN
- less welfare, they might not want their money going to sustain people simply because they do not work AGAINST THE POOR
- against affirmative action AGAINST MINORITIES
- tougher immigration standards AGAINST BROWN PEOPLE FROM OTHER COUNTRIES
- less government regulation of businesses HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. PLEASE.
- also, some gay republicans do not believe in gay marriage AGAINST GAY PEOPLE
I do not necessarily believe in these causes and some gay republican might think differently since I am not a republican, but I think they clearly show a small smaple of the wide array of issues of why someone gay might want to join the republican party over the democratic party.

By the way democracy flourishes while there is debate and dissent, the day that having a different opinion merits contempt is the day that it dies. I might disagree with republicans on many, many issues but I do not hold contempt for them. Respectful debate and change of ideas is what allows a society to flourish.


The last bolded part -- disingenuous. Gays can't debate if they're not Republicans? Or is it that I won't swallow those bumper stickers that you've listed? You want sophisticated debate, then present your argument; not hollow slogans. And I mean that nicely and sincerely  :)

These are ridiculous generalizations.  I support quite a few of the positions that contiki07 stated, but none of them do I support for the "motivation" provided by red.  You don't have to agree with a conservative platform or conservative ideologies but refering to those who do as "anti-woman", "anti-gay", "against brown people from other countries", etc. is pure hogwash (and demonstrates a sense of intolerance for people who do express other viewpoints).

Quote
being pro-life AGAINST WOMEN

For the rights of the unborn.  Regardless, the biggest hypocricy for me in this debate (and this is a little bit of a tangent) is the double standard that exists between the rights of women and the rights of men.  A woman can become impregnated, decide at any time up to the third trimester to abort the pregnancy, and the man has no right to assert his position.  On the other hand, if the woman decides to continue the pregnancy (even if the man is contrary), he/she must pay child support.  Anyway, like I said... a little bit of a tangent but get this straight: Those who vote for pro-life candidates are not voting against the woman but for a life that they believe to be sacred and hence worthy of protection.

Quote
less welfare, they might not want their money going to sustain people simply because they do not work AGAINST THE POOR

Right... against the poor.  Am I not in favor of constantly supporting a 25 year old drug addict that has sat on the corner for the past 10 years refusing to go look for a job or even to go get himself cleaned up so that he would have a chance?  Yes, I am... but I hardly feel that this equates to being against the poor.  I - as well as the majority of other conservatives - believe in helping those who cannot help themselves.  Furthermore, who said that believing in less welfare and the redistribution of wealth forced by the government is being "against the poor"?  I am firmly opposed to the government "forcably" taking the hard earned money of an individual and redistributing it.  That does not signify that I do not give to the poor, donate my time to help the disadvantaged, etc. (on the contrary, I donate over $10,000/year to charity and tutor and coach predominantly poor children, but I guess I'm still "against the poor", right?).

There is an interesting study by the Catalogue for Philanthropy that provides a state by state breakdown of overall charitable contributions by its citizens on an annual basis.  For all of those on the left who say that conservatives are "against the poor", you might find it interesting that out of the 10 highest ranked states based on generosity index (funds donated proportional to funds available), all of these 10 states can be considered strongly Republican; all were won by Bush in 2004 by 10 or more percentage points: Mississippi, Arkansas, South Dakota, Oklahoma, Alabama, Tennessee, Louisiana, Utah, South Carolina, and Idaho.  Funny though, generally I wouldn't think to see a correlation between those who give the most to charity and those who are "against the poor".  Furthermore it is interesting to note that those 20 states that gave the least (In order from 31 to 50 - Maine, Maryland, Hawaii, Delaware, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Connecticut, Vermont, Virginia, Oregon, Colorado, Arizona, Michigan, Nevada, Wisconsin, Michigan, Nevada, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Rhode Island, and New Hampshire), 16 out of 20 - or 80% - were states won by Kerry in 2004 - the only exceptions being Virginia, Colorado, Arizona, and Nevada.  So... my question is... why is it the Republicans that are against the poor when it is the Democrats that do not give much to the poor?  Strange... actions do speak louder than words.

Quote
against affirmative action AGAINST MINORITIES

Against using race as a deciding factor.  Believes in giving the job to the most qualified person, regardless of color or creed.

Quote
tougher immigration standards AGAINST BROWN PEOPLE FROM OTHER COUNTRIES

For national security.  For legal immigration.  Against those who break laws to gain entrance to the country and then want to be rewarded for it.  That's like getting a ticket for speeding and then instead of paying the fine, expecting to go to the front of the line at the DMV the next time you needed to renew your license.  There was an interesting piece on the news yesterday of how Islamic radical personal belongings have recently been found along the southern border (including a jacket with such things inscripted as "martyr" and having a patch of an airplane slamming into a building).  Estimates run as high as 25 Americans killed everyday as a direct result of illegal immigration.  It seems rather sensible to have an enforced immigration policy with a secure border, which does not mean that we are "against brown people from other countries".

Quote
less government regulation of businesses HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. PLEASE.

Right.  Please. 

Quote
also, some gay republicans do not believe in gay marriage AGAINST GAY PEOPLE

I have gay friends.  One of these gay friends was a professor of mine who I talk to several times a week and with whom I hang out when I am back in the area where I went to school, and is writing one of my LORs for law school.  I support gay civil unions, partnership benefits, gay adoption, etc.  However, I am opposed to gay marriage, the denotation being "the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.".  Regardless, I really don't think that I should be viewed as "against gay people".


With that said, I personally believe that this is a large part of the problem of the left (the right is guilty of it as well to a certain extent): everyone who does not believe in certain ideals or does not agree with a particular platform is automatically considered to be against the groups that the platform might support without comprending the motivation of those who are opposed.  Like I said at the beginning... ridiculous...

redemption

Re: Republican and Gay
« Reply #81 on: October 18, 2006, 07:53:12 AM »

These are ridiculous generalizations.  I support quite a few of the positions that contiki07 stated, but none of them do I support for the "motivation" provided by red.  You don't have to agree with a conservative platform or conservative ideologies but refering to those who do as "anti-woman", "anti-gay", "against brown people from other countries", etc. is pure hogwash (and demonstrates a sense of intolerance for people who do express other viewpoints).


A cookie if you can spot the irony. Two if you laugh at it.

President_Baccaga

Re: Republican and Gay
« Reply #82 on: October 18, 2006, 08:02:16 AM »
Quote
A cookie if you can spot the irony. Two if you laugh at it.

Three cookies if you actually had a point to be made. 

Calling a generalization "ridiculous" and "hogwash" is hardly the same as "intolerance".  I know that you want to shift the attention away from your errors, but get off it already.

redemption

Re: Republican and Gay
« Reply #83 on: October 18, 2006, 08:06:26 AM »
Calling a generalization "ridiculous" and "hogwash" is hardly the same as "intolerance".

Hardly.


President_Baccaga

Re: Republican and Gay
« Reply #84 on: October 18, 2006, 08:11:08 AM »
Calling a generalization "ridiculous" and "hogwash" is hardly the same as "intolerance".

Hardly.



Tssk tssk red.  You had a decent argument on the last thread where we clashed (although after going through Wightman's report and doing a few calculations, it's hardly as strong as you would have thought).  Same cannot be said here.  Disappointing.

->Soon

  • *****
  • 18818
    • View Profile
Re: Republican and Gay
« Reply #85 on: October 18, 2006, 08:17:40 AM »
i think the one argument that does jump out, and is hard to argue, is that a large number of repubs do NOT want gays in their party at all.

i wont say all dems do, but certainly more so than the repubs...

President_Baccaga

Re: Republican and Gay
« Reply #86 on: October 18, 2006, 08:19:56 AM »
Quote
i think the one argument that does jump out, and is hard to argue, is that a large number of repubs do NOT want gays in their party at all.

I don't know about saying a "large" number (although that's quite relative and you'd have to be a little more specific regarding the actual amount), but I do agree with you that there is a higher percentage of Democrats that are accepting of gays in their part than Republicans feeling the same way.

->Soon

  • *****
  • 18818
    • View Profile
Re: Republican and Gay
« Reply #87 on: October 18, 2006, 08:30:44 AM »
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15239784/page/2/

theres the republican tactics for ya...

Re: Republican and Gay
« Reply #88 on: October 18, 2006, 01:35:47 PM »

These are ridiculous generalizations.  I support quite a few of the positions that contiki07 stated, but none of them do I support for the "motivation" provided by red.  You don't have to agree with a conservative platform or conservative ideologies but refering to those who do as "anti-woman", "anti-gay", "against brown people from other countries", etc. is pure hogwash (and demonstrates a sense of intolerance for people who do express other viewpoints).

Great point. Some people just assume that anybody who disagrees with their ideology must do so for the worst possibly imaginable reasons.

Quote
For the rights of the unborn.  Regardless, the biggest hypocricy for me in this debate (and this is a little bit of a tangent) is the double standard that exists between the rights of women and the rights of men.  A woman can become impregnated, decide at any time up to the third trimester to abort the pregnancy, and the man has no right to assert his position.  On the other hand, if the woman decides to continue the pregnancy (even if the man is contrary), he/she must pay child support.  Anyway, like I said... a little bit of a tangent but get this straight: Those who vote for pro-life candidates are not voting against the woman but for a life that they believe to be sacred and hence worthy of protection.

I don't agree with your position for reasons that I won't get into here, but I certainly don't think it makes you against women. That kind of logic is the exact same thing used by pro-lifers who accuse all pro-choice people of being against children. For some reason most people seem to be completely incapable of having honest discourse when it comes to this issue.

I'm not touching the tangent because its not really relevant.

Quote
Right... against the poor.  Am I not in favor of constantly supporting a 25 year old drug addict that has sat on the corner for the past 10 years refusing to go look for a job or even to go get himself cleaned up so that he would have a chance?  Yes, I am... but I hardly feel that this equates to being against the poor.  I - as well as the majority of other conservatives - believe in helping those who cannot help themselves.  Furthermore, who said that believing in less welfare and the redistribution of wealth forced by the government is being "against the poor"?  I am firmly opposed to the government "forcably" taking the hard earned money of an individual and redistributing it.  That does not signify that I do not give to the poor, donate my time to help the disadvantaged, etc. (on the contrary, I donate over $10,000/year to charity and tutor and coach predominantly poor children, but I guess I'm still "against the poor", right?).

There is an interesting study by the Catalogue for Philanthropy that provides a state by state breakdown of overall charitable contributions by its citizens on an annual basis.  For all of those on the left who say that conservatives are "against the poor", you might find it interesting that out of the 10 highest ranked states based on generosity index (funds donated proportional to funds available), all of these 10 states can be considered strongly Republican; all were won by Bush in 2004 by 10 or more percentage points: Mississippi, Arkansas, South Dakota, Oklahoma, Alabama, Tennessee, Louisiana, Utah, South Carolina, and Idaho.  Funny though, generally I wouldn't think to see a correlation between those who give the most to charity and those who are "against the poor".  Furthermore it is interesting to note that those 20 states that gave the least (In order from 31 to 50 - Maine, Maryland, Hawaii, Delaware, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Connecticut, Vermont, Virginia, Oregon, Colorado, Arizona, Michigan, Nevada, Wisconsin, Michigan, Nevada, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Rhode Island, and New Hampshire), 16 out of 20 - or 80% - were states won by Kerry in 2004 - the only exceptions being Virginia, Colorado, Arizona, and Nevada.  So... my question is... why is it the Republicans that are against the poor when it is the Democrats that do not give much to the poor?  Strange... actions do speak louder than words.

In general, your point is well taken. As far as your insinuation that democrats are more against the poor than republicans based on the numbers you cite above, I'm not going to touch it because I think you were just trying to fight fire with fire.

Quote
Against using race as a deciding factor.  Believes in giving the job to the most qualified person, regardless of color or creed.

Fair enough.

Quote
For national security.  For legal immigration.  Against those who break laws to gain entrance to the country and then want to be rewarded for it.  That's like getting a ticket for speeding and then instead of paying the fine, expecting to go to the front of the line at the DMV the next time you needed to renew your license.  There was an interesting piece on the news yesterday of how Islamic radical personal belongings have recently been found along the southern border (including a jacket with such things inscripted as "martyr" and having a patch of an airplane slamming into a building).  Estimates run as high as 25 Americans killed everyday as a direct result of illegal immigration.  It seems rather sensible to have an enforced immigration policy with a secure border, which does not mean that we are "against brown people from other countries".

While I'm sure that these are your reasons for taking the position that you do, I just don't think that they accurately reflect the general consensus of republicans on the issue. The fact is that a lot of the rhetoric surrounding this issue reflects xenophobia and racism. Is this just a case of the loudest voices being the craziest? Maybe. Is red's generalization ridiculous as applied to you and others who share your views. Yes.

Quote
Right.  Please. 

This statement [less government regulation for business] is far too broad to even discuss in terms of generalizations. When you get into specific factual situations I don't see how anybody could take the same exact position across the board. 

Quote
I have gay friends.  One of these gay friends was a professor of mine who I talk to several times a week and with whom I hang out when I am back in the area where I went to school, and is writing one of my LORs for law school.  I support gay civil unions, partnership benefits, gay adoption, etc.  However, I am opposed to gay marriage, the denotation being "the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.".  Regardless, I really don't think that I should be viewed as "against gay people".

I think you and I would agree in most aspects of this issue, and I agree that as applied to you and others similar to you the generalization is ridiculous, but once again I think your beliefs just don't reflect the general attitude of the right when it comes to this issue. I don't care what the hell you call it so long as gay couples are afforded the same legal rights and obligations as heterosexual couples. Most of the republican proposals out there are not merely about reserving the idea of marriage as a social and religious institution between hetero couples, but are also about denying gay couples the rights that hetero couples have with regards to everything from taxes and intestate succession to evidentiary spousal protections and whatever else. I just don't see how the latter can ever be justified as anything but 'anti-gay'.

Quote
With that said, I personally believe that this is a large part of the problem of the left (the right is guilty of it as well to a certain extent): everyone who does not believe in certain ideals or does not agree with a particular platform is automatically considered to be against the groups that the platform might support without comprending the motivation of those who are opposed.  Like I said at the beginning... ridiculous...

The right does it as well to a certain extent? Give me a break. Liberal is a dirty word these days. Did you come out against the Iraq war? You're anti-troops, anti-U.S., Pro Saddam Hussein. Are you pro-choice? You must hate children. Do you think that the environment is an important issue? You must be anti-american business/capitalism. Did you oppose Bush's tax breaks? You must be a commie who is anti-american worker. Do you support affirmative action because you think that there are still vestiges of slavery and segregation and think that AA, though admittedly not perfect, may be the best way to remedy those vestiges? You are racist. Do you think that some interrogation tactics are just too sub-human for the U.S. military to be using? You love terrorists. Do you think that American citizens should not, under any circumstances, be deprived of due process and other constitutional guarantees? You love terrorism. 

I could go on and on but you get the idea.

The point is that the problem is on both sides. When it comes to political debate nobody ever seems to want to give the other side any credit for having any moral basis for their positions or concede that any weaknesses do exist in their own positions. What we sacrifice in the end is any chance at genuine and honest political discourse. I'm a firm believer that if most people would just step out of their ideological boxes and honestly listen to what the other side is saying for a minute they would find out that they have a lot more in common then they think.

/Rant

redemption

Re: Republican and Gay
« Reply #89 on: October 18, 2006, 01:45:43 PM »
oops -- wrong thread  :D