Demographics don't look good for the Republicans in 2020

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT
 

cthulhuspawn82:
No matter the politics, nobody can get numbers that high through legitimate means. Gay people, being humans, should be affected my more than just one issue. I understand "gay rights" is an important thing, and I support them, but seeing as every other political issue affects them as well, I would expect them to be more split, even if if the distribution was much more weighted towards Democrats than rest of the country.

The reason I said brainwashing is because you only get those 90% numbers by telling people, "If your in this group, you must vote for this party". If your gay, you must vote Democrat. There is no discussion, there is no choice, those are the rules. We have no idea who the candidates are going to be in 2016, but if your black or gay I can tell you right now who you will vote for, and who you will vote for in every election which you take part in for the rest of your life. That seems to deny the possibility of freewill, hence brainwashing.

To sum it up. If politics were a game, with a referee, any player getting 90% of the score in what should be a balanced fight will immediately come under review. Lance Armstrong wasn't as successful at cycling as some parties are with certain demographics.

You would have to be quite a wealthy and privileged gay person to not have "gay issues" be your #1 priority. I don't think you understand it very well.

What does a tax cut matter when it doesn't even come close to offsetting the thousands of dollars more each year on income tax you have to pay because you can't file with your spouse jointly because the federal government doesn't recognise your marriage/union?

What does job creation matter when it's legal to be denied work solely because you're gay anyway?

What can you possibly do to make up for knowing that you can't add your spouse to your work's health insurance plan or know that they won't see a cent of your pension when you die?

How can you sleep at night when you're not allowed to adopt your spouse's child from before you met and knowing that you have no legal right of guardianship if his legal parent dies?

What does anything matter at all when you can't even live in the country you were born in if you want to live with your foreign spouse?

If a political party came along and as part of its platform advocated for straight people to go through these ordeals they'd be lucky as hell to get 10% of the vote. This is what the Republican Party is comfortable at best, or happy at worst, with gay people going through. I have gay acquaintances who are conservative, who in any other circumstance would be solidly Republican, but no matter what the Republican Party offers them, it cannot possibly make up for what it wants to take away from them or prevent them from having, both on a personal emotional level and on a much broader legal and financial level.

You're right that gay people are affected by all the other political issues anyone else would be, but it's not the case that those other issues eclipse the lack of legal recognition of gay families and protections against discrimination, the lack of legal recognition of gay families and protections against discrimination magnify every single other issue and make life immeasurably more difficult.

Like I said in an earlier post, my partner is American and I'm not. He can't live in America if he wants to live with me. The Democrats want to change this, the Republicans don't. In this case he'd have to be brainwashed to not vote Democratic, and I dare you to tell me otherwise.

Maybe it's just drunk me but

"(b) Allow an inspector from the department to inspect the storage of assault weapons
and large capacity magazines to ensure compliance with this subsection;"

That is the section your talking about, in fact there is no other section that relates to "inspection" in private homes besides this.

ten.to.ten:

cthulhuspawn82:
No matter the politics, nobody can get numbers that high through legitimate means. Gay people, being humans, should be affected my more than just one issue. I understand "gay rights" is an important thing, and I support them, but seeing as every other political issue affects them as well, I would expect them to be more split, even if if the distribution was much more weighted towards Democrats than rest of the country.

The reason I said brainwashing is because you only get those 90% numbers by telling people, "If your in this group, you must vote for this party". If your gay, you must vote Democrat. There is no discussion, there is no choice, those are the rules. We have no idea who the candidates are going to be in 2016, but if your black or gay I can tell you right now who you will vote for, and who you will vote for in every election which you take part in for the rest of your life. That seems to deny the possibility of freewill, hence brainwashing.

To sum it up. If politics were a game, with a referee, any player getting 90% of the score in what should be a balanced fight will immediately come under review. Lance Armstrong wasn't as successful at cycling as some parties are with certain demographics.

You would have to be quite a wealthy and privileged gay person to not have "gay issues" be your #1 priority. I don't think you understand it very well.

What does a tax cut matter when it doesn't even come close to offsetting the thousands of dollars more each year on income tax you have to pay because you can't file with your spouse jointly because the federal government doesn't recognise your marriage/union?

What does job creation matter when it's legal to be denied work solely because you're gay anyway?

What can you possibly do to make up for knowing that you can't add your spouse to your work's health insurance plan or know that they won't see a cent of your pension when you die?

How can you sleep at night when you're not allowed to adopt your spouse's child from before you met and knowing that you have no legal right of guardianship if his legal parent dies?

What does anything matter at all when you can't even live in the country you were born in if you want to live with your foreign spouse?

If a political party came along and as part of its platform advocated for straight people to go through these ordeals they'd be lucky as hell to get 10% of the vote. This is what the Republican Party is comfortable at best, or happy at worst, with gay people going through. I have gay acquaintances who are conservative, who in any other circumstance would be solidly Republican, but no matter what the Republican Party offers them, it cannot possibly make up for what it wants to take away from them or prevent them from having, both on a personal emotional level and on a much broader legal and financial level.

You're right that gay people are affected by all the other political issues anyone else would be, but it's not the case that those other issues eclipse the lack of legal recognition of gay families and protections against discrimination, the lack of legal recognition of gay families and protections against discrimination magnify every single other issue and make life immeasurably more difficult.

Like I said in an earlier post, my partner is American and I'm not. He can't live in America if he wants to live with me. The Democrats want to change this, the Republicans don't. In this case he'd have to be brainwashed to not vote Democratic, and I dare you to tell me otherwise.

The relevant question is why these issues still exist. The action of "I'm voting for party X to get change Y" should only be a one time deal, not something you do every 4 years. If you vote for the Democratic candidate because you want gay Marriage legalized federally, and he doesn't do it, then what was the point of that vote? Every four years you vote for the resolution of the same issues that never get resolved. Although, I'll admit, there has been some successes in gay rights issues recently.

Gay issues get pushed to the bottom of the heap for the same reason that no Presidential candidate ever bothers to visit the state with the most electoral votes. There are people in this country whose vote is already cast, that's where the 90% numbers come in. From the point of view of all the political strategist and campaign managers, your vote has already been signed sealed and delivered. If someone needs to get thrown under the bus its going to be you. Their ideology is, "He's a good soldier, he'll take the bullet"

You don't have to vote republican, vote for any candidate who supports gay rights. A significant number of gay people voting for any other party would be a game changer. Until we have an election where the 90% demographics show they are not blindly loyal to a single party, they are never going to be taken seriously.

Gorfias:

Interesting stuff about drop out rates. This seems more relevant to the issue:

"Decades of social-science research have confirmed that there is a direct correlation between the incidence of illegitimacy, on the one hand, and the incidence of poverty, educational problems, prison confinement and innumerable other social problems and pathologies, on the other hand. Thus, the exploding illegitimacy rate among Hispanics is especially ominous given that the Hispanic birth rate (23) is now double the rate (11.5) of non-Hispanic whites, whose illegitimacy rate (25.4 percent) was roughly half the Hispanic rate (47.9 percent) in 2005. Moreover, the Hispanic birth rate increased in 2005, while the birth rates for non-Hispanic whites and non-Hispanic blacks declined. Indeed, non-Hispanic white women bore fewer children in 2005 than they had in 2004, while Hispanic births increased by 3.9 percent. The rising Hispanic birth rate is further augmented by the soaring and disproportionate Hispanic immigration rate. Unless the trend in the Hispanic illegitimacy rate is reversed, social problems in the coming decades will certainly explode - not only within the Hispanic community, but throughout the nation as well."

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2006/dec/01/20061201-084845-1917r/#ixzz2LlGlflfZ
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

If your theory is right, the Reagan Amnesty program was a huge success. Instead, we have a Democratic President, the "life of julia" social programs and the proportionately largest prison population of low income males in the industrialized world.

For this thread, look for increased racial "minority" government representation, more "redistribution" and ever larger numbers of low income males in prison. I think that is a problem.

Yikes... oh wait your illegitimacy rates you directly attribute to hispanics doesn't say anything about corresponding... anythings. You see it doesn't say anything besides this is what this means between 2004 and 2006... oh wait there where a couple years difference between now and then weren't there. The correct answer is yes there where.

We had the largest population of low income males in the industrialism world already, but if you want to look at stats we have less than we did 10 years ago, much less, and even less than that 20 years ago. The important difference is the biggest change wasn't among black males or white males or asian males it was among hispanics that go their amnesty.

even larger number of low income males in prison is pure bs, why? Because less mother fuckers are in prison in general.

So as far as I can tell you either don't have a point or you never made a good one to begin with. Make sure to correct me if I'm wrong though.

cthulhuspawn82:
The relevant question is why these issues still exist. The action of "I'm voting for party X to get change Y" should only be a one time deal, not something you do every 4 years. If you vote for the Democratic candidate because you want gay Marriage legalized federally, and he doesn't do it, then what was the point of that vote? Every four years you vote for the resolution of the same issues that never get resolved. Although, I'll admit, there has been some successes in gay rights issues recently.

You said it yourself. Change is slow. But it is happening. And it isn't being spearheaded by Republicans. If your analysis was correct, then the whole civil rights movement for women, or black people, should have only taken four years. Why didn't it? Because shit isn't so cut and dry. A politician doesn't just wave his magic wand when he gets into office and makes The Campaign Promises come true like a fairy godmother. That's not how our government works.

Gorfias:
"Decades of social-science research have confirmed that there is a direct correlation between the incidence of illegitimacy, on the one hand, and the incidence of poverty, educational problems, prison confinement and innumerable other social problems and pathologies, on the other hand.

That bit of text was all wrong. There's no causal link between legitimacy and crime. There's a link between only having one socially weak parent, relationship problems with the parents and other forms broken homes.

The term legitimate isn't even used in any respect study into families, and it hasn't for decades. The Dutch statistical bureau abolished the registration and use in 1954 already. For the same reason, marital fertility is no longer used as a demographic measure, except to convert it to useable fertility rates in countries that don't register actual fertility.

cthulhuspawn82:
You don't have to vote republican, vote for any candidate who supports gay rights. A significant number of gay people voting for any other party would be a game changer. Until we have an election where the 90% demographics show they are not blindly loyal to a single party, they are never going to be taken seriously.

This strikes me as a bit strange. Basically, in the context, this says that gay people should vote for homophobes who wish harm upon them, in order to be taken seriously.

I'd reason the other way around. Conservative politicians need to grow a heart and possibly a spine too, before they can be taken seriously. And not only have I never heard of any conservative politicians that either support or tolerate homophobic agendas, even if one such exception were to surface, voting for him would still mean supporting a party that basically wants your head.

Although admittedly, it's hilarious how some conservatives rant about how evil and unnatural gay sex is, just before gladly taking it in the ass from any rabid evangelical with either money or followers. But I ussually don't vote based on comical value.

cthulhuspawn82:
No matter the politics, nobody can get numbers that high through legitimate means. Gay people, being humans, should be affected my more than just one issue. I understand "gay rights" is an important thing, and I support them, but seeing as every other political issue affects them as well, I would expect them to be more split, even if if the distribution was much more weighted towards Democrats than rest of the country.

The reason I said brainwashing is because you only get those 90% numbers by telling people, "If your in this group, you must vote for this party". If your gay, you must vote Democrat. There is no discussion, there is no choice, those are the rules. We have no idea who the candidates are going to be in 2016, but if your black or gay I can tell you right now who you will vote for, and who you will vote for in every election which you take part in for the rest of your life. That seems to deny the possibility of freewill, hence brainwashing.

To sum it up. If politics were a game, with a referee, any player getting 90% of the score in what should be a balanced fight will immediately come under review. Lance Armstrong wasn't as successful at cycling as some parties are with certain demographics.

You're advocating for false equivalency as a legitimizing force. This is one of the dumbest things I've ever read on these forums.

The sports analogy is especially infuriating. What exactly is the purpose of a referee if, in the event reality forces him to favor one team over another, his actions are meaningless? Why is the "fight" "balanced"?

I'm just completely at a loss as to how to proceed with this post.

dmase:

Yikes... oh wait your illegitimacy rates you directly attribute to hispanics doesn't say anything about corresponding... anythings.

Actually, it the quote pretty specifically stated it was an indicator of continuing social dysfunction and dependence that we can predict will lead to wanting handouts forever and voting Democratic. Blablahb takes the concept of linking illegitimacy and says it is not relevant

Blablahb:

The term legitimate isn't even used in any respect study into families, and it hasn't for decades. The Dutch statistical bureau abolished the registration and use in 1954 already. For the same reason, marital fertility is no longer used as a demographic measure, except to convert it to useable fertility rates in countries that don't register actual fertility.

That would probably make Dutch stats very hard to study. But this is a, what's the term? "No true Scottsman" ? No "respected study"? I'm sure Conservatives have studies that find a link. From my personal experience, they're closer to the truth than those than their detractors.

Gorfias:
snipped

The analyst they choose to get is from the heritage foundation, no exactly unbiased. And the increase in "illegitimate births" can probably be attributed to a generally lower marriage rate. Since before 1985 marriage rates have been dropping and divorce is increasing meaning more births out of wedlock. Difference between a teen birth and just normally have a kid while not being married is extremely different. One has the effect of being a single parent probably without a job or education the other means you probably have a job you just wanted to have kids but don't believe in marriage you could even be a couple and have two people in the relationship. So as our attitudes towards marriage change with the times "illegitimate births" might increase but it doesn't mean they are tied with an increase in poverty, there is no longer a correlation there.

dmase:

Gorfias:
snipped

The analyst they choose to get is from the heritage foundation, no exactly unbiased. And the increase in "illegitimate births" can probably be attributed to a generally lower marriage rate. Since before 1985 marriage rates have been dropping and divorce is increasing meaning more births out of wedlock. Difference between a teen birth and just normally have a kid while not being married is extremely different. One has the effect of being a single parent probably without a job or education the other means you probably have a job you just wanted to have kids but don't believe in marriage you could even be a couple and have two people in the relationship. So as our attitudes towards marriage change with the times "illegitimate births" might increase but it doesn't mean they are tied with an increase in poverty, there is no longer a correlation there.

You just wrote a bunch of things one can predict based upon marriage: they tend to be older, more educated, etc. Marriage doesn't make a person older or more educated. But there are things we can predict based upon culture. A culture that works to have two responsible, civilized adults in a child's life tends to do well (marriage being an option for such a culture). A culture where it is typical for a single adult (typically a woman, and maybe an underage, uneducated, un-socialized one at that) will likely be dependent and need hand outs. A natural Democrat who will hate Republicans, even if Republicans become pro-Amnesty because, at least in theory, Republicans tend to be against handouts for the poor. (I imagine they love giving handouts to big financial backers.)

Does marriage make people better? I honestly do not know. There are reasons to think so. In my own personal experience, it does. But as a method to gauge the health of a given culture? I think it pretty good. And we're importing people much more likely to fit a broken culture. In the meantime, we're moving towards more subsidies to help middle aged college women stay barren so we can literally outsource our future. Seems a good path to destruction.

Gorfias:

You just wrote a bunch of things one can predict based upon marriage: they tend to be older, more educated, etc. Marriage doesn't make a person older or more educated. But there are things we can predict based upon culture. A culture that works to have two responsible, civilized adults in a child's life tends to do well (marriage being an option for such a culture). A culture where it is typical for a single adult (typically a woman, and maybe an underage, uneducated, un-socialized one at that) will likely be dependent and need hand outs. A natural Democrat who will hate Republicans, even if Republicans become pro-Amnesty because, at least in theory, Republicans tend to be against handouts for the poor. (I imagine they love giving handouts to big financial backers.)

Does marriage make people better? I honestly do not know. There are reasons to think so. In my own personal experience, it does. But as a method to gauge the health of a given culture? I think it pretty good. And we're importing people much more likely to fit a broken culture. In the meantime, we're moving towards more subsidies to help middle aged college women stay barren so we can literally outsource our future. Seems a good path to destruction.

That was very tangentee in fact you only have a couple sentences in there that relate to the topic at hand.

So since the 50's the number of marriages has decreased. In that same time high school drop out rates decreased and we have far more college graduates as a percentage of the country. Now I don't think that a decrease in marriages means an increase in graduation rates, however think about that for a second marriages are bottoming out and are populace is actually get more educated and have a higher standard of living. That kind of information would indicate that marriage is no longer a huge contributor to success or failure of your child.

dmase:

since the 50's the number of marriages has decreased. In that same time high school drop out rates decreased and we have far more college graduates as a percentage of the country. Now I don't think that a decrease in marriages means an increase in graduation rates

It may be a factor. In some ways, we are steering women away from family formation to advance their education.

populace is actually get more educated and have a higher standard of living.

I'm not sure there's a direct correlation there. I've read that Harvard grads make more because of the source of their education. But MIT? To get into MIT, you'd have to be pretty special to begin with. So a grad from there would tend to do well even if he didn't go there. I think there's some truth to that idea.

I also worry the USA is now the most over-credentialed society ever.

http://costofcollege.wordpress.com/2011/07/13/there-are-80000-bartenders-in-the-united-states-with-bachelors-degrees/

There's a video on the web of interviews w/ kids w/ double masters being bouncers at bars, etc. Looking for it.

That kind of information would indicate that marriage is no longer a huge contributor to success or failure of your child.

You could be right. I think of the young girl that has a kid rather than wait for marriage. It is her youth and relative social experience that is a problem. But a society that steers people into marriage might have gotten that young girl to wait some.

Back on topic: what I'm reading is that immigrants, particularly illegal immigrants, are less likely to wait till their married to have kids, and they are therefore more likely to need handouts and vote Democratic party accordingly.

Poverty itself? Not easy to do something about. I'm just concerned we're importing poverty.

http://www.cracked.com/blog/4-things-politicians-will-never-understand-about-poor-people/

FieryTrainwreck:

cthulhuspawn82:
No matter the politics, nobody can get numbers that high through legitimate means. Gay people, being humans, should be affected my more than just one issue. I understand "gay rights" is an important thing, and I support them, but seeing as every other political issue affects them as well, I would expect them to be more split, even if if the distribution was much more weighted towards Democrats than rest of the country.

The reason I said brainwashing is because you only get those 90% numbers by telling people, "If your in this group, you must vote for this party". If your gay, you must vote Democrat. There is no discussion, there is no choice, those are the rules. We have no idea who the candidates are going to be in 2016, but if your black or gay I can tell you right now who you will vote for, and who you will vote for in every election which you take part in for the rest of your life. That seems to deny the possibility of freewill, hence brainwashing.

To sum it up. If politics were a game, with a referee, any player getting 90% of the score in what should be a balanced fight will immediately come under review. Lance Armstrong wasn't as successful at cycling as some parties are with certain demographics.

You're advocating for false equivalency as a legitimizing force. This is one of the dumbest things I've ever read on these forums.

The sports analogy is especially infuriating. What exactly is the purpose of a referee if, in the event reality forces him to favor one team over another, his actions are meaningless? Why is the "fight" "balanced"?

I'm just completely at a loss as to how to proceed with this post.

What I meant by the "balanced fight" analogy was the fact that, until recently, the country was somewhat close to an even split between the two parties. If you did a general poll that didn't account for any given demographic, you would get somewhat close to a 50/50 Republican/Democrat split. In a system a system that balanced, a 90% success rate with any demographic is an extreme achievement.

The reason I used the Lance Armstrong analogy is because, in a competition, nobody can do that good without coming under suspicion.

cthulhuspawn82:
The relevant question is why these issues still exist. The action of "I'm voting for party X to get change Y" should only be a one time deal, not something you do every 4 years. If you vote for the Democratic candidate because you want gay Marriage legalized federally, and he doesn't do it, then what was the point of that vote? Every four years you vote for the resolution of the same issues that never get resolved. Although, I'll admit, there has been some successes in gay rights issues recently.

And it's looking like there's going to be more progress on that front, as DOMA and gay marriage is up on the court, and you wouldn't exactly be having the conversation of whether a President Romney will file a brief against bans and federal laws against gay marriage.

Then there's Don't Ask, Don't Tell getting repealed.

In the meantime, the GOP was calling for gay marriage bans and the reinstatement of DADT.

Punitive voting doesn't mean much if you're voting in someone who is even less in line with what your priorities are.

Gay issues get pushed to the bottom of the heap for the same reason that no Presidential candidate ever bothers to visit the state with the most electoral votes. There are people in this country whose vote is already cast, that's where the 90% numbers come in. From the point of view of all the political strategist and campaign managers, your vote has already been signed sealed and delivered. If someone needs to get thrown under the bus its going to be you. Their ideology is, "He's a good soldier, he'll take the bullet"

I don't think you know what "ideology" means...

Also, strategic political calculus is the nature of the legislative process. You'll never get everything (you're lucky if you even get half), so you focus on priorities that are going to have the biggest gain/risk ratio. This usually means economic policies have a priority over debt, social issues, and foreign policy.

You don't have to vote republican, vote for any candidate who supports gay rights. A significant number of gay people voting for any other party would be a game changer. Until we have an election where the 90% demographics show they are not blindly loyal to a single party, they are never going to be taken seriously.

All well and good, but it's kind of hard to do that if, of the two candidates with a chance of winning (and don't pull "vote third party," because until the voting system is changed to at least an alt-vote system, that will always be a vote against interests), only one actually supports your demographic at all and the other acts as if you are a blight on society, you're probably not going to the latter guy.

cthulhuspawn82:

What I meant by the "balanced fight" analogy was the fact that, until recently, the country was somewhat close to an even split between the two parties. If you did a general poll that didn't account for any given demographic, you would get somewhat close to a 50/50 Republican/Democrat split. In a system a system that balanced, a 90% success rate with any demographic is an extreme achievement.

No, not really. You just have to find a demographic that holds a certain view on an issue that one of the two parties favor and the other doesn't. This is the same as women flocking to the political parties that were in favor of the suffragette movement historically.

There's a very simple mechanic at work here:
One party considers me a human being, even if my partner is of the same sex as me, and wants to grant me the same right as people with a partner of the different sex. They also want to prevent discrimination done to me because of my sexuality.
The other party either doesn't give a damn about me or thinks I am deviant, dangerous to society and wants to infringe on my already curtailed rights even more.

Here's a working analogy for you:
One person offers to give you a hug.
The other offers to punch you in the face.
Are you seriously going to suggest that 50% of people would choose to go to the person that would punch them?

cthulhuspawn82:

No matter the politics, nobody can get numbers that high through legitimate means.

[citation needed].

I'm sorry, but expecting a random spread when it comes to votes is kind of stupid.

To sum it up. If politics were a game, with a referee, any player getting 90% of the score in what should be a balanced fight will immediately come under review. Lance Armstrong wasn't as successful at cycling as some parties are with certain demographics.

"Should be a balanced fight"? Why should it be balanced? If you have a shitty political program, you deserve to crash and burn, you are not entitled to balancing factors in your favor; and since it's a game, it only matters how well you play it, not how much money you threw at getting star players or the media exposure you're getting.

Gethsemani:

Here's a working analogy for you:
One person offers to give you a hug.
The other offers to punch you in the face.
Are you seriously going to suggest that 50% of people would choose to go to the person that would punch them?

an actual working analogy would be:

one person offers you a hug, treat you like a child, while robbing you blind.
the other offers to punch you in the face.

both parties are A-holes. One party is a bit more upfront with their A-hole-ness, while the other will pretend to be your best friend while taking everything away from you. Anyone that thinks that the democratic or republican party is the ultimate good and the other the ultimate evil is delusional and dangerous in my eyes.

Republican party isnt going anywhere, the Tea party might be (hopefully) marginalized and the moderates might make a comeback, but that is about it. Obama is pissing too many people off.

Ryotknife:
one person offers you a hug, treat you like a child, while robbing you blind.
the other offers to punch you in the face.

Yes, but enough about the Libertarian and Republican Parties. What about the Democrats who appear to actually want to try to provide equal opportunity rather than pretending it already exists?

The Gentleman:

Ryotknife:
one person offers you a hug, treat you like a child, while robbing you blind.
the other offers to punch you in the face.

Yes, but enough about the Libertarian and Republican Parties. What about the Democrats who appear to actually want to try to provide equal opportunity rather than pretending it already exists?

and yet they support affirmative action which is government sponsored racism. Such people that you describe hardly exist. People are mostly interested in "equality" so long as it benefits them, very few people (by comparison) want to take the good AND the bad with equality.

Before you think im on the Republican side of this, im not. Im against marriage being legal (or illegal) in general. If gay marriage is legal then the government is overstepping their bounds, if it is illegal then religion is oversteping their bounds. Marriage should not convey any legal rights as it is a religious event. Yes it is a religious event (and a fairly major one in many faiths), just because it was not one thousands of years ago is irrelevant, what matters is what it is now.

Homosexuals absolutely deserve equal rights, but marriage should not be a right (especially considering the divorce rate, how you can get married in 5 minutes, and how people abuse marriage in order to become a citizen of the country).

Ryotknife:

The Gentleman:

Ryotknife:
one person offers you a hug, treat you like a child, while robbing you blind.
the other offers to punch you in the face.

Yes, but enough about the Libertarian and Republican Parties. What about the Democrats who appear to actually want to try to provide equal opportunity rather than pretending it already exists?

and yet they support affirmative action which is government sponsored racism.

And how exactly do you propose remedying a century of racism after slavery in your country?

Such people that you describe hardly exist. People are mostly interested in "equality" so long as it benefits them, very few people (by comparison) want to take the good AND the bad with equality.

If there's one thing that that century between the US Civil War and civil rights movement showed, it's that equality under the law doesn't mean shit if you don't have equality in society. That means remedial measures such as AA.

Before you think im on the Republican side of this, im not. Im against marriage being legal (or illegal) in general. If gay marriage is legal then the government is overstepping their bounds, if it is illegal then religion is oversteping their bounds. Marriage should not convey any legal rights as it is a religious event. Yes it is a religious event (and a fairly major one in many faiths), just because it was not one thousands of years ago is irrelevant, what matters is what it is now.

Ah, you're one of those "it generally takes place in a church, therefore it must be religious" people who seem to always miss the "shitload of legal consequences" portion to it.

Marriages are legal, not religious, at their core. They entail additional legal rights and responsibilities both to the people involved and changes their relations with the state, particularly dealing with property and the ownership thereof. For example: it is far easier to jointly own property in a marriage and, in the event of the death of the spouse without a will, the surviving spouse maintains their property without inheritance issues. The ceremony is essentially a nice signing ceremony.

The Gentleman:
snip

1. not with more racism, that is for sure. Pass measures that help people that are race, sexuality, and gender neutral. You dont combat the -isms by going to the opposite end of the spectrum of prejudice.

2. "that means measures such as AA", so great, you support racism then. At the very least you support reverse racism.

3. I havent been inside of a church in about 15 years barring marriages and funerals (not a big fan of the church as an institution). And no, i dont miss the "shitload of legal consequences (hyperbole)" portion as i said that marriage should convey NO legal rights. Marriages are RELIGIOUS at their core. Hell, marriages are more tied to religion than my communion was. Other than sermons/mass/prayer, marriage is the second most "religiousy" event. I would prefer both straight and gay couples having civil unions. I WANT a separation of church and state, not having one dictate to the other what they should do which is where we are currently.

Also, for a "legal" proceeding it is oddly devoid of any kind of government official or lawyers.

How, exactly, are marriages a religious institution? Yes, religions favor them, but that is hardly unique to the religious. The secular favor them, too. I've been to three weddings in the last year (including one yesterday), and there was nothing religious about it. So you'll really have to prove that religions have exclusive right to marriage.

Gorfias:
Does marriage make people better?

I might postulate another possibility.

What makes children 'bad' is bad upbringing, which is the result of irresponsible, abusive, violent, criminal etc. parents. However, what causes children to be born out of wedlock or for their parents to divorce is the same thing: people who are irresponsible, abusive, violent, criminal, etc.

Thus in fact troubled children and poor marital relations have the same root cause. In the old days where there was a terrible stigma attached to children outside marriage and divorce; they stayed together but their children were troubled. We can force their parents together again, but it will not improve the children.

Gorfias:

You could be right. I think of the young girl that has a kid rather than wait for marriage. It is her youth and relative social experience that is a problem. But a society that steers people into marriage might have gotten that young girl to wait some.

Back on topic: what I'm reading is that immigrants, particularly illegal immigrants, are less likely to wait till their married to have kids, and they are therefore more likely to need handouts and vote Democratic party accordingly.

Poverty itself? Not easy to do something about. I'm just concerned we're importing poverty.

http://www.cracked.com/blog/4-things-politicians-will-never-understand-about-poor-people/

And my point is this rise in education among the latino community has meant an increase in their over all lives. The statement you made about the second generation of illegal immigrant being criminals is just not based in fact and when you look at the historical data of allowing amnesty they actually became a more educated minority. So when you say something like amnesty will make handouts increase to hispanics it's just not true and we have the 1985 bill to use as information.

Ryotknife:

an actual working analogy would be:

one person offers you a hug, treat you like a child, while robbing you blind.
the other offers to punch you in the face.

both parties are A-holes. One party is a bit more upfront with their A-hole-ness, while the other will pretend to be your best friend while taking everything away from you. Anyone that thinks that the democratic or republican party is the ultimate good and the other the ultimate evil is delusional and dangerous in my eyes.

Republican party isnt going anywhere, the Tea party might be (hopefully) marginalized and the moderates might make a comeback, but that is about it. Obama is pissing too many people off.

I am not saying that the democratic party is the ultimate good (they are still too much rightwing for me as a European), but I am pointing out the obvious point that to me as a homosexual they are the only viable alternative in the bipartisan US system. Since they are the only party willing to work form my rights to be equal before the law, irregardless of the gender of my partner.

In this case it literally is as simple as one person offering me hug and the other a punch in the face. Pretty much all other concerns are secondary when you still lack the same human rights as a majority of people, simply because of who you love or want to spend your life with.

Ryotknife:

The Gentleman:
snip

1. not with more racism, that is for sure. Pass measures that help people that are race, sexuality, and gender neutral. You dont combat the -isms by going to the opposite end of the spectrum of prejudice.

You tried that, and it failed miserably. Many of the "Jim Crow" laws were facially neutral, particularly the voting laws. Instead of fighting racism and discrimination, it institutionalized it and gave it the air of legitimacy. Race-based laws to fight racism may be blunt, crude, and offensive to some, but when you're trying to uplift groups that have been systematically oppressed for centuries, sometimes you have to take blunt method to get the job done.

2. "that means measures such as AA", so great, you support racism then. At the very least you support reverse racism.

I support not being served canned tuna and being told it's the finest swordfish. Your country has a serious problem with race that goes to its very core, and it's something you need to deal with. There are two major revolutionary events in your history (and, no, your founding is not one of them). Both of them, the US Civil War and the US Civil Rights Movement, were directly related to the relationship between the races and what it meant to be an American. You're still picking up the pieces from failing to fix it right the first time and AA is one of those ugly necessities that you need to do fix that. It's time that your country grew up and realized that.

3. I havent been inside of a church in about 15 years barring marriages and funerals (not a big fan of the church as an institution). And no, i dont miss the "shitload of legal consequences (hyperbole)" portion as i said that marriage should convey NO legal rights. Marriages are RELIGIOUS at their core. Hell, marriages are more tied to religion than my communion was. Other than sermons/mass/prayer, marriage is the second most "religiousy" event. I would prefer both straight and gay couples having civil unions. I WANT a separation of church and state, not having one dictate to the other what they should do which is where we are currently.

So how is marriage at its core a religious union? All you've described are the ceremonial aspects, but no real justification that marriage is not a legal institution. Like I said, it's a nice signing ceremony, but it's the signatures that make the marriage, not the wedding.

Also, for a "legal" proceeding it is oddly devoid of any kind of government official or lawyers.

Judges can issue marriage certificates. Clerks can issue marriage certificates. The power to marry of the reverend to is not vested by a god, but by the jurisdiction ("By the power vested in me by the state of [state], I hereby pronounce you man and wife").

And have you ever heard of a "prenup?" It's short for prenuptial agreement, a contract whereby they must be married for X years before full divorce consequences kick in, and is done usually right before the wedding. Even if they don't, a smart couple will consult a lawyer as a matter of organizing the property ownership in to a tenant in the entirety (only available to married couples).

And one more thing: just because something is legal, does not mean it involves a lawyer. If you bought a candy bar today, you participated in a legal action. Specifically, you entered into a binding contract with the shopkeeper for the sale of goods, whereby you exchanged money for an item. Hell, that's why you are offered a receipt, as it is evidence of the contract. And pray you didn't use a credit card to buy that, because then it get's real interesting.

Lawyers are brought in to sort out situations that a lay person cannot. The average person can easily comprehend and deal with the most routine legal matters such as a contracts, dealing with agencies, and civil fines. The lawyer is brought in when things get complicated or confrontational, such as a merger, easement, or criminal charge. You aren't going to call a lawyer to draw up a contract just to sell a $50 TV on Craigslist, but you might want to if you're selling your $200,000 house.

The Gentleman:
You tried that, and it failed miserably. Many of the "Jim Crow" laws were facially neutral, particularly the voting laws. Instead of fighting racism and discrimination, it institutionalized it and gave it the air of legitimacy. Race-based laws to fight racism may be blunt, crude, and offensive to some, but when you're trying to uplift groups that have been systematically oppressed for centuries, sometimes you have to take blunt method to get the job done.

so the answer to racism is more racism? To create more racists and give people even more reason to hate X group? To make a person's race the #1 defining aspect of who they are as a person in the government's eyes? Nope, sorry, not buying it. The government has a responsibility to all people, not just a few of them. You lift them all up equally, or dont bother.

The only basis on if the government should help you is if you need help, regardless of what group you belong to.

I support not being served canned tuna and being told it's the finest swordfish. Your country has a serious problem with race that goes to its very core, and it's something you need to deal with. There are two major revolutionary events in your history (and, no, your founding is not one of them). Both of them, the US Civil War and the US Civil Rights Movement, were directly related to the relationship between the races and what it meant to be an American. You're still picking up the pieces from failing to fix it right the first time and AA is one of those ugly necessities that you need to do fix that. It's time that your country grew up and realized that.

We have the most diversified population in the world, OF COURSE its going to cause problems. Hell the other "civilized" countries are having race problems with significantly less race diversity. We have every single culture, religion,race, and ideology under the sun in one country. It is not a problem with our country, it is a problem with human freakin nature.

UK i imagine doesnt have this problem because 90% of its people belong to ONE race. Guess what, in the US the safest areas are the ones which have 90% of one race in them too.

MADNESS!

So how is marriage at its core a religious union? All you've described are the ceremonial aspects, but no real justification that marriage is not a legal institution. Like I said, it's a nice signing ceremony, but it's the signatures that make the marriage, not the wedding.
Judges can issue marriage certificates. Clerks can issue marriage certificates. The power to marry of the reverend to is not vested by a god, but by the jurisdiction ("By the power vested in me by the state of [state], I hereby pronounce you man and wife").

If it is a legal union, then it is one that has more loopholes than our Tax Code and significantly less binding than a politician's campaign promise. No binding contract, no obligations, nothing. And you can quit at any time. Marriage itself is nothing more than a ceremony. It is symbolic at best. Not to mention, when the common person imagines what a wedding is, they do not imagine signing a document or the tax benefits they get. No, they imagine wedding bells, brides, grooms, rings, the whole nine yards. To most people, the rights that you get is SECONDARY to the ceremony itself.

Hell, I would love it if the marriage ceremony was no longer important to people. I think it is a huge waste of time and money personally. But, the religious aspect of marriage is of high importance to many people and many faiths. That is why I want marriage to just be that, a ceremony. I dont know why you are resisting my solution so much. Religion gets to keep what is important to them and homosexuals get all the same rights as heters. Hell, the burden of change wont even be placed on homosexuals but rather on hetersexuals as they will no longer have the ability to get the rights associated with marriage within 5 minutes of meeting someone anymore and have to jump through the same hoops as the homosexuals.

Gethsemani:

Ryotknife:

an actual working analogy would be:

one person offers you a hug, treat you like a child, while robbing you blind.
the other offers to punch you in the face.

both parties are A-holes. One party is a bit more upfront with their A-hole-ness, while the other will pretend to be your best friend while taking everything away from you. Anyone that thinks that the democratic or republican party is the ultimate good and the other the ultimate evil is delusional and dangerous in my eyes.

Republican party isnt going anywhere, the Tea party might be (hopefully) marginalized and the moderates might make a comeback, but that is about it. Obama is pissing too many people off.

I am not saying that the democratic party is the ultimate good (they are still too much rightwing for me as a European), but I am pointing out the obvious point that to me as a homosexual they are the only viable alternative in the bipartisan US system. Since they are the only party willing to work form my rights to be equal before the law, irregardless of the gender of my partner.

In this case it literally is as simple as one person offering me hug and the other a punch in the face. Pretty much all other concerns are secondary when you still lack the same human rights as a majority of people, simply because of who you love or want to spend your life with.

Your ability to afford food or get a job, the government slashing public sector funding so that the police can REALLY not protect you anymore while the government seeks to take away your ability to defend yourself, the educational system going down the toilet, the increase in drug trafficing, cartels, and gangs in the US, the government playing fast and loose with civil liberties in general besides the whole marriage thing, and abortion are of secondary concern than what is basically going to amount to a TAX BREAK mostly? If you had a kid whose grandfather was homophobic and would prevent your partner from raising her/him, then I would completely understand. Otherwise that is the same blind loyalty that causes so many problems in the US where people are more loyal to a party than to their ideals.

Ryotknife:
If it is a legal union, then it is one that has more loopholes than our Tax Code and significantly less binding than a politician's campaign promise. No binding contract, no obligations, nothing. And you can quit at any time. Marriage itself is nothing more than a ceremony.

You've never gone through a divorce, have you?

Agema:

Gorfias:
Does marriage make people better?

I might postulate another possibility.

What makes children 'bad' is bad upbringing, which is the result of irresponsible, abusive, violent, criminal etc. parents. However, what causes children to be born out of wedlock or for their parents to divorce is the same thing: people who are irresponsible, abusive, violent, criminal, etc.

Thus in fact troubled children and poor marital relations have the same root cause. In the old days where there was a terrible stigma attached to children outside marriage and divorce; they stayed together but their children were troubled. We can force their parents together again, but it will not improve the children.

The stigma of child rearing? Did it contribute to young women holding off on child bearing till they were older? As older women, were they better suited to raising a child?

The stigma against divorce? It was fault based and we didn't subsidize it the way we do today. How many couples, pre-no fault, stayed together against their wishes, and raised more socialized children? Hard to tell. The no fault movement had its hey day around the 1960s - 1970s. (California Governor Ronald Reagan (1967-1975) signed it into law there). Since then, divorce rates and non-marital rates skyrocketed, and we have record breaking numbers of young low income males in prison in the USA.

Cause and effect? I think, at least in part, yes.

dmase:

And my point is this rise in education among the latino community has meant an increase in their over all lives.

I can buy that. (though I think there will be diminishing returns. I had a non-hispanic gardner with a bigger, nicer house than mine at a younger age. Real skilled labor may in the near future easily overtake "credentialed labor".

I do feel bad picking on Latinos. To my knowledge, they make up the largest single illegal immigrant group, so, they matter to this discussion. Even so, I personally have experienced Latinos that bust their asses. I am sorry that they get dragged into this type of discussion. I'm of Russian descent. I'd hate to read of lots of threads of how Russians killed Bill Cosby's son. It isn't fair. Maybe that's why I keep trying to avoid using a Latino label, even editing my posts if I accidentally mention them.

The statement you made about the second generation of illegal immigrant being criminals is just not based in fact

I'm looking for the pdf to post, again. I've done it before. It states that 1st generation tend to bust their asses. But the 2nd generation is statistically more likely to engage in crime than other demographic types. It makes sense to me that the see their parents killing themselves for little in return and thinking crime a reasonable alternative.

and when you look at the historical data of allowing amnesty they actually became a more educated minority. So when you say something like amnesty will make handouts increase to hispanics it's just not true and we have the 1985 bill to use as information.

While I think non-hispanic whites are behind the curve demographically, that alone doesn't explain the radical increase in the number of Hispanics in the USA since that last Amnesty. The argument simply is: you are rewarding criminality. The more you subsidize something, the more you get of it.

The Gentleman:
You tried that, and it failed miserably. Many of the "Jim Crow" laws were facially neutral, particularly the voting laws. Instead of fighting racism and discrimination, it institutionalized it and gave it the air of legitimacy. Race-based laws to fight racism may be blunt, crude, and offensive to some, but when you're trying to uplift groups that have been systematically oppressed for centuries, sometimes you have to take blunt method to get the job done.

Except there isn't the slighest indication that racist or discriminatory laws create equality.

Not just that, but such racist policies stick to the favoured race, ethnic group or gender too. People who got to where they are because of affirmative action can't be taken seriously. They don't deserve to be there and should thus be ignored. Why is also not nice for the beneficiary of racist policies because their position is compromised from the start, and they'll be feeling the backlash too.

Dutch police for instance reported in an evaluation that appointed chiefs of police caused significant backlash in their organisation. During that period it was forbidden to promote white men, and every candidate had to be a minority or a woman. Result was that those chiefs were rejected by the organisation they were supposed to lead, because the people working there perceived the racism as a great injustice. A 2009 racist appointment was rolled back as a result, because the police corps openly said they wouldn't accept it.

Plus that it hurt the force quite a lot too. It was forbidden to promote white men beyond the two field ranks, meaning their career perspectives stopped there. Talented officers left the police in droves as a result. 41 detectives in 2008 alone according to Vrij Nederland, and 24 up to april 2009 before it got published. Quite a big hit if you consider there's only a few hundred of those in the country in total. Not just that, but police authority suffered too.

And what did it do, really? Not much. The evaluation showed a 1-4% increase in the part of women and minorities, which is just incidental, and two chiefs of police being female, one of whom already resigned and the other corps is undergoing restructuring because of extensive problems.


So how's that affirmative action racism working out for us? Answer: It isn't. It's a disaster.

Ryotknife:
Before you think im on the Republican side of this, im not. Im against marriage being legal (or illegal) in general. If gay marriage is legal then the government is overstepping their bounds, if it is illegal then religion is oversteping their bounds. Marriage should not convey any legal rights as it is a religious event. Yes it is a religious event (and a fairly major one in many faiths), just because it was not one thousands of years ago is irrelevant, what matters is what it is now.

Homosexuals absolutely deserve equal rights, but marriage should not be a right (especially considering the divorce rate, how you can get married in 5 minutes, and how people abuse marriage in order to become a citizen of the country).

I'm not sure if you realize the difference between "legal" and "religious" marriage. You can get any religious marriage you like at any time you like, as long as you find an official of that religion who's willing to do it for you. While the government won't consider you married, if a religious marriage is all you're after then you can do that whenever and however you want. That is a religious marriage--doing whatever ceremony or rituals are required and having a religious official confirm it for you. A "legal" marriage is simply the government recognizing that you are basically binding yourself to someone else and becoming, in some respects, like a single legal-entity. You are going from one person of one household to two people in one household[1]. This is what happens when people talk about "going to the courthouse" to get married. While there is no religious ceremony, they are still gaining the government-recognized status of marriage.

This distinction is significant because there are certain things being in a household does that makes taxes complicated. For example, who pays taxes on the house? You can get a loan with someone else with or without being married (though banks much prefer to do it with married couples because it's a slightly more assured investment), but if both names are on the mortgage then who pays taxes on it? If the government recognizes them only as two separate people, then trying to decide who pays taxes becomes a legal clusterfuck. Having both pay full taxes on the place would be ridiculous, and splitting it down the middle would be a royal pain if they aren't already recognized as "together." But, if they are considered to be in the same household and are able to file together as one, then figuring out what to do with them suddenly becomes much easier.

Also, legally recognizing two people as being in the same household is handy for hospital visitation, inheritance and estate management (if a spouse dies, their belongings pass to the widow with no inheritance tax, where if it passes to anyone else it would be taxed), child custody, adoption, joint bank accounts, joint insurance plans...having a legal and secular measuring stick for who is joined in one household and who isn't is very helpful to a lot of legal systems. I don't quite buy the "I don't want the government in the business of marriage" argument because nobody I have encountered who says that has offered a better way to handle all of this, apart from having the same system and just not calling it "marriage," which to me seems like a stupid waste of money and a slap in the face of every gay person who wants the legal status. It would be like the states that had interracial marriage illegal making it legal by not calling it "marriage" anymore. It's a disgusting an unnecessary concession to people's prejudices.

And that is what people who want gay marriage want. They're not asking religious institutions to be forced to marry people. They're asking to be included in this legal status, so they can enjoy the same benefits.

[1] "Household" being the term used in the world of taxes for a single legal entity.

Ryotknife:

Your ability to afford food or get a job, the government slashing public sector funding so that the police can REALLY not protect you anymore while the government seeks to take away your ability to defend yourself, the educational system going down the toilet, the increase in drug trafficing, cartels, and gangs in the US, the government playing fast and loose with civil liberties in general besides the whole marriage thing, and abortion are of secondary concern than what is basically going to amount to a TAX BREAK mostly? If you had a kid whose grandfather was homophobic and would prevent your partner from raising her/him, then I would completely understand. Otherwise that is the same blind loyalty that causes so many problems in the US where people are more loyal to a party than to their ideals.

Did you miss the part where I said I wasn't an american or held allegiance to the Democratic Party? Because it really seems as if you haven't read my post at all but instead punched out some standard reply that only makes sense in the context of same sex marriage.

It is a nice try, but I'd rather you address my actual points instead of trying to obfuscate and misrepresent my argument.

I know very few people who are happy with their own party. The GOP seems to be slipping into irrelevancy faster than the Dems, but let's not lose sight of the fact that both are in a footrace to the bottom.

itsthesheppy:
I know very few people who are happy with their own party. The GOP seems to be slipping into irrelevancy faster than the Dems, but let's not lose sight of the fact that both are in a footrace to the bottom.

That's very important, yeah. A lot of people are angry with the "Well, if you don't support us anyway, the other guy will get in and it'll be your fault" mentality.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked