Demographics don't look good for the Republicans in 2020

 Pages PREV 1 2 3
 

Gethsemani:

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 did address your point. Gay rights is merely one issue facing this country. Dear lord how I WISHED it was the ONLY issue we were facing. A vote for dems is certainly a vote for legal gay marriage, but it is also a vote for a plethora of other important issues. Issues that can threaten LIVES, or at the very least vastly decrease your quality of living (the issues themselves, not neccessarily the party's stance on the issue). Now if you more or less agree with everything the Dems say, then that is another matter.

If gay marriage was put to a general vote, there is actually a pretty good chance that it would pass right now. But, gay marriage is on the backburner in our country as more important issues are rising to the top of the list. If it came down to a vote, I would vote for legalization. I think its a bandaid personally (still leaves us open to separation of church and state issues down the road, when we can have a solution to head many of these potential issues off right now), but I know that the odds of Rep and Dems (as they are currently) acting like adults and figuring a compromise to satisfy all sides has about a 0% chance as they are both adopting a "victory or death" mindset.

cthulhuspawn82:

ten.to.ten:

cthulhuspawn82:
I don't support the Republicans any more than the Democrats, but any "one party system" like we are headed for (already in?) is scary. When the majority of the people fall into that category of "I will vote for my party's candidate, no matter what he says or does", we might have a problem. I cant say this without sounding racists, but statistics show that most (all?) minority groups follow that behavior.

It doesn't matter what the politics of the two parties may be. When you have a "somewhat" balanced two party system, and over 90% of any demographic votes for one party or the other, its obviously not based off of logic or reason. Rational voting doesn't get you over 90% of a demographic, only serious brainwashing and demagoguery produces numbers that high.

I know there are a few "90%" Republican demographics as well, but any group of people who has a 90% voting rate for one party or the other is probably operating of blind partisanship.

Gay people don't vote 90% Democratic because the Democratic party is the only party that believes in recognising their relationships in order to give them autonomy over their family unit, financial security and legal protection, gay people vote 90% Democratic because they're brainwashed. Gotcha.

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.

If you think it should be 50/50 your grasp of politics is severely lacking. It should not be a 'balanced fight'. You have entered with the false assumption that each side is exactly equal and thus equally likely to get any person.

Btw, if we had a Nazi party, it's clear the Jews would be brainwashed since I'm pretty sure they'd give the Nazis 0% of the vote! /yourlogic

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.

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

You are forgetting that both the Democrats and the Republicans are working very hard to ensure homosexuals vote for the Democratic party. Teamwork!

As for still being relatively evenly split: Romney didn't lose by that many votes. So it is overall still very much split. I don't think you can extrapolate the overall numbers to specific demographics, though. Especially when the two major parties differ to such extremes regarding the specific demographic in question. The larger the differences in regards to the specific demographic (or at the very least the perception thereof), the less equal the split will generally tend to be.

Dijkstra:

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.

If you think it should be 50/50 your grasp of politics is severely lacking. It should not be a 'balanced fight'. You have entered with the false assumption that each side is exactly equal and thus equally likely to get any person.

Btw, if we had a Nazi party, it's clear the Jews would be brainwashed since I'm pretty sure they'd give the Nazis 0% of the vote! /yourlogic

Brainwashing inst always the case, sometimes its just about valuing one issue more than all other combined. The real problem here is that, for whatever reason, we have demographics that will vote for one party regardless of the circumstances. I would make a cash bet, with 50 to 1 odds, that I can call at least 80% of the electoral votes for the 2020 election right now, and nobody would be dumb enough to make that bet with me.

So, with the growth of certain demographics, we get to a point where a particular party or political organization can not lose an election. Scary stuff happens when a person or group realizes that they are the de facto winners of every election and therefor can not be voted out. You cant overlook how scary that concept is just because it happens to be your party in power.

The only solution to this problem is the abolishment of the party system, as long as the concept of parties exist, you can have political parties without indoctrination. Nobody should need a "seal of approval" from a political organization to know who they they should vote for. If they took the party names of the ballots, three quarters of the country couldn't vote.

cthulhuspawn82:

Dijkstra:

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.

If you think it should be 50/50 your grasp of politics is severely lacking. It should not be a 'balanced fight'. You have entered with the false assumption that each side is exactly equal and thus equally likely to get any person.

Btw, if we had a Nazi party, it's clear the Jews would be brainwashed since I'm pretty sure they'd give the Nazis 0% of the vote! /yourlogic

Brainwashing inst always the case, sometimes its just about valuing one issue more than all other combined. The real problem here is that, for whatever reason, we have demographics that will vote for one party regardless of the circumstances.

You have yet to cough up any proof that it is 'regardless of the circumstances'.

I would make a cash bet, with 50 to 1 odds, that I can call at least 80% of the electoral votes for the 2020 election right now, and nobody would be dumb enough to make that bet with me.

Yes, because the Republican party is only going to keep getting more racist and thus drive more minorities away. Oh look a different explanation besides "Minorities are being brainwashed!!!!"

So, with the growth of certain demographics, we get to a point where a particular party or political organization can not lose an election. Scary stuff happens when a person or group realizes that they are the de facto winners of every election and therefor can not be voted out. You cant overlook how scary that concept is just because it happens to be your party in power.

How about the Republican Party and the like should vanish and the Democrats should split. Without the backwards Republican Party solidarity would be less important. Your fear mongering is baseless. All we're seeing is the death of some backwards conservatism, and when that's done other issues will be come more important to people. Once the old issues are buried new ones can become important. Example, when homophobia isn't an issue anymore, why would gays feel compelled to be with a particular party? They wouldn't. Other issues would come to the front. It's called progress and I don't care if you find it scary.

The only solution to this problem is the abolishment of the party system, as long as the concept of parties exist, you can have political parties without indoctrination. Nobody should need a "seal of approval" from a political organization to know who they they should vote for. If they took the party names of the ballots, three quarters of the country couldn't vote.

No, that is a ridiculous solution. Have you ever even taken a course in politics? Do you even know how ridiculous that sounds if you actually think out why a political party exists and what it would entail for them to not exist? What, you think it will be some paradise where people only vote for the best person? Money will float out of nowhere and give this person support? Politicians won't exchange favors and vote together?

Ryotknife:
I did address your point. Gay rights is merely one issue facing this country. Dear lord how I WISHED it was the ONLY issue we were facing. A vote for dems is certainly a vote for legal gay marriage, but it is also a vote for a plethora of other important issues. Issues that can threaten LIVES, or at the very least vastly decrease your quality of living (the issues themselves, not neccessarily the party's stance on the issue). Now if you more or less agree with everything the Dems say, then that is another matter.

If gay marriage was put to a general vote, there is actually a pretty good chance that it would pass right now. But, gay marriage is on the backburner in our country as more important issues are rising to the top of the list. If it came down to a vote, I would vote for legalization. I think its a bandaid personally (still leaves us open to separation of church and state issues down the road, when we can have a solution to head many of these potential issues off right now), but I know that the odds of Rep and Dems (as they are currently) acting like adults and figuring a compromise to satisfy all sides has about a 0% chance as they are both adopting a "victory or death" mindset.

But for some people, gay marriage is a bit of a big deal. The main face of the Democrat's fight against DOMA as it goes to the Supreme Court is a woman in her 80s whose wife had died, and she was forced to pay federal estate tax because while the state of New York recognized her marriage as legal DOMA made the feds able to deny the legitimacy of the marriage. Normally when someone's spouse dies they pay no inheritance tax, the money and estate passes straight over with nothing taken by the government. But she had to pay a huge bill all because DOMA allowed the federal government to override New York's marriage law.

And there are countless other stories of married gay couples being refused visitation rights in hospitals unless given express permission by the in-laws. Imagine that--not being able to see the person you're married to because the state or fed refuses to recognize your marriage. There are some people to whom this matters a great deal. Just because not everybody has the same priorities as you doesn't mean their priorities are wrong.

The Republicans have put gay marriage on the backburner because it was too close to the front during the general election and they lost. While they made sure Romney spoke about it as little as possible, it was still an elephant in the room throughout the entire campaign and drug down people's confidence that the Republicans had their heads far enough out of their asses to do any better than Obama had done. I mean, even to the people to whom gay marriage mattered little, it was still a pretty bad sign that the Republicans weren't recognizing that they've lost and should really just jump on the train while they can rather than being dragged kicking and screaming the entire way. And the same goes with abortion and contraception. There's no way they're going to get any sort of a ban on it, they'd be lucky to get one or two more regulations in place. That's why most of them are just sticking with defunding planned parenthood--they can't attack it directly so they're trying to saw the legs off the table from underneath. It's childish, really.

Lilani:

Ryotknife:
I did address your point. Gay rights is merely one issue facing this country. Dear lord how I WISHED it was the ONLY issue we were facing. A vote for dems is certainly a vote for legal gay marriage, but it is also a vote for a plethora of other important issues. Issues that can threaten LIVES, or at the very least vastly decrease your quality of living (the issues themselves, not neccessarily the party's stance on the issue). Now if you more or less agree with everything the Dems say, then that is another matter.

If gay marriage was put to a general vote, there is actually a pretty good chance that it would pass right now. But, gay marriage is on the backburner in our country as more important issues are rising to the top of the list. If it came down to a vote, I would vote for legalization. I think its a bandaid personally (still leaves us open to separation of church and state issues down the road, when we can have a solution to head many of these potential issues off right now), but I know that the odds of Rep and Dems (as they are currently) acting like adults and figuring a compromise to satisfy all sides has about a 0% chance as they are both adopting a "victory or death" mindset.

But for some people, gay marriage is a bit of a big deal. The main face of the Democrat's fight against DOMA as it goes to the Supreme Court is a woman in her 80s whose wife had died, and she was forced to pay federal estate tax because while the state of New York recognized her marriage as legal DOMA made the feds able to deny the legitimacy of the marriage. Normally when someone's spouse dies they pay no inheritance tax, the money and estate passes straight over with nothing taken by the government. But she had to pay a huge bill all because DOMA allowed the federal government to override New York's marriage law.

And there are countless other stories of married gay couples being refused visitation rights in hospitals unless given express permission by the in-laws. Imagine that--not being able to see the person you're married to because the state or fed refuses to recognize your marriage. There are some people to whom this matters a great deal. Just because not everybody has the same priorities as you doesn't mean their priorities are wrong.

The Republicans have put gay marriage on the backburner because it was too close to the front during the general election and they lost. While they made sure Romney spoke about it as little as possible, it was still an elephant in the room throughout the entire campaign and drug down people's confidence that the Republicans had their heads far enough out of their asses to do any better than Obama had done. I mean, even to the people to whom gay marriage mattered little, it was still a pretty bad sign that the Republicans weren't recognizing that they've lost and should really just jump on the train while they can rather than being dragged kicking and screaming the entire way. And the same goes with abortion and contraception. There's no way they're going to get any sort of a ban on it, they'd be lucky to get one or two more regulations in place. That's why most of them are just sticking with defunding planned parenthood--they can't attack it directly so they're trying to saw the legs off the table from underneath. It's childish, really.

compared to issues that threaten thousands of lives or threaten the very future of 300+ million people, I can not see what amounts to an inconvience by comparison as more important issue. If your family is a problem, cant you disown your family to prevent them from having the final say?

Also, the Democrats do the EXACT same thing you accuse Republicans of doing. All you have to do is take one glimpse of the recent gun debate to prove this, especially with NY. If they cant get enough support on their own, they try to "saw the legs off the table from undernearth" like you said. Now keep in mind, this is coming from someone who voted for Obama twice (I would say that I regret the second vote, but the alternative is still Romney), so im not saying this out of ANY loyalty to the Republican party. Yet, I can see that both parties act the exact same fashion which is why it is wierd when someone demonizes one party for doing something and yet twists it into an act of good (or completely ignores it) when their party does the exact same thing (not you specifically, just in general when it comes to democrats or repubs).

I would actually like it if we put important issues that we have been ping ponging back and forth with for decades to a popular vote (ie not Congress or Senate) to put it to rest. If it doesnt pass, then they can bring it to another vote in 10 years. However, this firmly goes into "when pigs fly" territory. One, the Repubs will of course resist it on gay marriage. Two, there is a good chance that the Dems would resist it too (although they will be less obvious about it). If gay marriage was solved once and for all, the Dems could no longer count on the support of the homosexuals for votes. It is in the Dems best interest to keep the issue in limbo for as long as possible doing the bare minimum to garner their votes.

Ryotknife:

compared to issues that threaten thousands of lives or threaten the very future of 300+ million people, I can not see what amounts to an inconvience by comparison as more important issue. If your family is a problem, cant you disown your family to prevent them from having the final say?

You mean stuff like having to take the bus to work instead of your own car? Or that the president if a of a specific religious denomination (or isn't religious at all)? Whatever or not the President really was a war veteran or that you might have to cut down on luxury products like meat?

All these are "inconveniences" as you call them compared to global warming or getting an insane hawk as the President. It is trivial compared to the rising numbers of children living in poverty or the steady outsourcing of jobs from the USA to Asia. But you know what? Lots of people still go to vote with their mind made up by something as simple as "Kerry lied about his military career" or "Increased fuel tax would force me to take the bus instead of the car" or even "I want to have any number of military grade firearms that I feel like in my home."

To you it is an inconvenience, to the actual homosexual people like me it is just another obstacle in a very long line of obstacles that has prevented us from being treated like "real" people for decades. Honestly, you don't get to make the call whatever or no any particular issue is "just an inconvenience", especially not when you aren't even affected by the issue.

Gethsemani:

Ryotknife:

compared to issues that threaten thousands of lives or threaten the very future of 300+ million people, I can not see what amounts to an inconvience by comparison as more important issue. If your family is a problem, cant you disown your family to prevent them from having the final say?

You mean stuff like having to take the bus to work instead of your own car? Or that the president if a of a specific religious denomination (or isn't religious at all)? Whatever or not the President really was a war veteran or that you might have to cut down on luxury products like meat?

All these are "inconveniences" as you call them compared to global warming or getting an insane hawk as the President. It is trivial compared to the rising numbers of children living in poverty or the steady outsourcing of jobs from the USA to Asia. But you know what? Lots of people still go to vote with their mind made up by something as simple as "Kerry lied about his military career" or "Increased fuel tax would force me to take the bus instead of the car" or even "I want to have any number of military grade firearms that I feel like in my home."

To you it is an inconvenience, to the actual homosexual people like me it is just another obstacle in a very long line of obstacles that has prevented us from being treated like "real" people for decades. Honestly, you don't get to make the call whatever or no any particular issue is "just an inconvenience", especially not when you aren't even affected by the issue.

It is an inconvience by comparison to the lives/future of 300+ million people (which include the homosexuals btw) in the country. All your argument does is prove that many people are idiots and vote for idiotic reasons. There are people out there who voted for Obama just because he was Black, that is pretty idiotic wouldnt you say? The government has a responsibility to ALL people, not just yours.

Btw, I have been arguing for a solution that WOULD affect me. No more marriage, civil unions for all, so you are wrong on that front too.

Ryotknife:
compared to issues that threaten thousands of lives or threaten the very future of 300+ million people, I can not see what amounts to an inconvience by comparison as more important issue. If your family is a problem, cant you disown your family to prevent them from having the final say?

What on earth are you talking about, disowning families? Did you even read what I wrote? I'm talking about married couples being denied spousal rights upon being widowed, and not being allowed to see the person they are married to when they are injured or ill. The only "family" that can be a problem there is if the spouse's family either doesn't want the person they are married to to see them in the hospital or if they are unavailable or difficult to track down to give consent. In either case "disowning" them is impossible without divorce because they are in-laws, and even so that isn't exactly going to solve the problem.

Again, just because something isn't a problem for you doesn't mean it's not a problem for others. I think if my husband were in a non-responsive state in a hospital for an indefinite amount of time and I were unable to see him, or if he died and I was unable to inherit his properties because the government says our marriage isn't legitimate that would be pretty high on my priority list. I think people are perfectly within their rights to focus on certain issues, even for reasons that might be selfish. That's sort of the core of every political movement that's ever happened--focusing on one issue

Also, the Democrats do the EXACT same thing you accuse Republicans of doing. All you have to do is take one glimpse of the recent gun debate to prove this, especially with NY. If they cant get enough support on their own, they try to "saw the legs off the table from undernearth" like you said. Now keep in mind, this is coming from someone who voted for Obama twice (I would say that I regret the second vote, but the alternative is still Romney), so im not saying this out of ANY loyalty to the Republican party. Yet, I can see that both parties act the exact same fashion which is why it is wierd when someone demonizes one party for doing something and yet twists it into an act of good when their party does the exact same thing (not you specifically, just in general when it comes to democrats or repubs).

I never said that the Democrats don't do it, and if you expect me to sit here and argue otherwise I'm afraid you're going to be disappointed. This thread is supposed to be about the Republican's problems for the next several years, so that is what I'm addressing. If the Democrats happen to share the same problems, then so be it. They should deal with it, too. That doesn't mean the Republicans should just get a pass and ignore it, however.

I would actually like it if we put important issues that we have been ping ponging back and forth with for decades to a popular vote (ie not Congress or Senate) to put it to rest. If it doesnt pass, then they can bring it to another vote in 10 years.

I think the Republicans slowly and begrudgingly began to put at least gay marriage on the backburner during the Presidential election, though until the moderates finally get some pull back it seems they're going to remain pretty adamant against abortion. But with all of this gun stuff recently they have sort of thrown these two by the wayside, as it were. The only reason they are such big issues now is because the tea party whipped the social conservatives into such a frenzy about it in the first place. We had eight years under Bush with abortion being legal and Planned Parenthood being subsidized by the government, so if it were really such a core part of the conservative platform they had their chance and missed out. But they didn't do anything about it, because it wasn't a big deal to anyone. The closest Bush ever got to really tackling abortion was stem-cell research, and if there was ever an opportunity for him to get something done about it, that was his chance.

But it wasn't a big deal, and like I said it didn't become a big deal until the tea party came to prominence in 2010. And finally all of that nonsense has cost them a Presidential election--one they could have easily won if they'd played smarter--so they're finally letting those issues go by the wayside. Not only because it's pretty clear they aren't going to win at this point, but also because the people who made it such a problem in the first place are losing them more votes than gaining.

Personally, the thing I want the most from the congress and senate right now is something done about the debt. And being smart about it--the Democrats need to grow a pair and focus on not raising taxes on the middle class if they have to go up, while the Republicans need to stop whining like babies about welfare and government programs and read up on their history to re-learn the lesson learned in the Great Depression that the government can help people get out of economic crises if it just does the right things in the right places.

cthulhuspawn82:

Brainwashing inst always the case, sometimes its just about valuing one issue more than all other combined. The real problem here is that, for whatever reason, we have demographics that will vote for one party regardless of the circumstances. I would make a cash bet, with 50 to 1 odds, that I can call at least 80% of the electoral votes for the 2020 election right now, and nobody would be dumb enough to make that bet with me.

So, with the growth of certain demographics, we get to a point where a particular party or political organization can not lose an election. Scary stuff happens when a person or group realizes that they are the de facto winners of every election and therefor can not be voted out. You cant overlook how scary that concept is just because it happens to be your party in power.

The only solution to this problem is the abolishment of the party system, as long as the concept of parties exist, you can have political parties without indoctrination. Nobody should need a "seal of approval" from a political organization to know who they they should vote for. If they took the party names of the ballots, three quarters of the country couldn't vote.

http://www.naacp.org/news/entry/this-election-day-black-voters-made-historyhttp://voices.yahoo.com/a-look-bets-10-most-important-issues-black-1885752.html?cat=9

Most in the republican party when they think of the black community they think what they want is their handout and will only vote for those candidates based on that, the above article basically shows where they is complete bullshit.

The most important thing for every demographic is jobs/the economy. Does that tell you they want welfare or work? It's whether or not they think the politician can deliver on jobs, minorities don't see how giving tax breaks to the rich gets them jobs. Is that a problem of cultural differences or message? The GOP doesn't try to reach out to minority voters so they don't win their demographics, like marco rubio thinks there is a lot of message that minorities will accept.

The GOP also doesn't address other issues minorities neighborhoods care about like family planning or gun violence. They prefer to say there isn't a problem or the solutions don't appeal to others. Well eventually you have to decide whether you think majority(minorities now) of the country should be ignored while their primary voting block should be pandered to.

Ryotknife:
Btw, I have been arguing for a solution that WOULD affect me. No more marriage, civil unions for all, so you are wrong on that front too.

Just curious, how would this affect you? If you want to do away with marriage as a government recognized thing, and just make it civil unions, does anything really change for us as heterosexuals? We still get to enjoy the government benefits under civil unions as we do under government issues marriages.

Ryotknife:

It is an inconvience by comparison to the lives/future of 300+ million people (which include the homosexuals btw) in the country. All your argument does is prove that many people are idiots and vote for idiotic reasons. There are people out there who voted for Obama just because he was Black, that is pretty idiotic wouldnt you say? The government has a responsibility to ALL people, not just yours.

Btw, I have been arguing for a solution that WOULD affect me. No more marriage, civil unions for all, so you are wrong on that front too.

But really, I am not voting for those other 300 million people (or rather 9 million in my case), I am voting for myself. Whatever or not there are other issues that trouble other people more is pretty irrelevant, because people will always be voting for the party that they think will benefit them the most.

Jux:

Ryotknife:
Btw, I have been arguing for a solution that WOULD affect me. No more marriage, civil unions for all, so you are wrong on that front too.

Just curious, how would this affect you? If you want to do away with marriage as a government recognized thing, and just make it civil unions, does anything really change for us as heterosexuals? We still get to enjoy the government benefits under civil unions as we do under government issues marriages.

Well I would prefer it if civil unions formed by say:

-living in the same household fro x years (maybe shared lease)
-shared bank account

something a LITTLE more tangible than what is essentially a promise. The current method we have is kinda dumb to me.

Spouse 1: I promise to be with you forever, lets get married!
Spouse 2: okay!
Government Genie: congratulations! you now have new rights!

I dont want to just change the name, I want to change how it works as well.

Ryotknife:
Well I would prefer it if civil unions formed by say:

-living in the same household fro x years (maybe shared lease)
-shared bank account

something a LITTLE more tangible than what is essentially a promise. The current method we have is kinda dumb to me.

Spouse 1: I promise to be with you forever, lets get married!
Spouse 2: okay!
Government Genie: congratulations! you now have new rights!

I dont want to just change the name, I want to change how it works as well.

I think living in the same household would be rather counter-intuitive, given that America is still a very religious country. Given my religious values I wouldn't want to live with someone until we're married, so under that specific set of instructions I would just...never get married. Or do the religious ceremony, be "married" for a while, and then wait that amount of time to be able to have our marriage recognized by the government. And I also know of other people who aren't religious but still don't feel comfortable about it.

Also, I think even if you changed the requirements for marriage, I don't see that changing how people perceive it in their head. They'll still rush into it and tick off whatever requirements you give them as quickly as possible, and being focused on that goal would allow them to easily ignore the fundamental problems in their relationship. I agree that if marriage is to be taken so seriously in certain cases (like when adopting a child or getting a shared loan) then its value and meaning should hold some water. I understand the point of the government recognizing marriage is for banks and such to feel more secure about investments they make in couples and so that the taxation of them is more reasonable. But I don't feel like there are many rules you can set that don't marginalize one group or another by either going against their values or doing things that are beyond their reach (not everybody can afford a lease at the drop of a hat, even a shared one).

And people not being able to attain those rules will lead to them either ignoring them or lying about them. Like really, what are you going to do? Put up a nanny-cam in their house to make sure they are living together? Have regular inspections by government officials to make sure they're actually in the same household? How exactly is that "small government?"

Ryotknife:
Well I would prefer it if civil unions formed by say:

-living in the same household fro x years (maybe shared lease)
-shared bank account

something a LITTLE more tangible than what is essentially a promise.

In Australia this is called a "de facto relationship". Both gay and straight couples who have lived together for a certain amount of time (usually two years) and can prove they're in a relationship with things like shared finances qualify for the same benefits and have the same responsibilities as civil union couples (gay or straight) and married couples (straight only). While I'm glad this system exists, there's a reason why officially contracting into and registering a marriage or civil union with the state/territory government is preferable.

For example, hospital visitation and power of attorney. If your partner is dying or critically ill and you have to rush to the hospital, what can you do to prove you're their partner? Bring a stack of joint rent/mortgage receipts, all your joint bank statements and affidavits from several friends and family attesting to your relationship and hope that the staff think you're genuine? OR bring one piece of paper, your marriage or civil union certificate and have no doubt? And if your de facto partner's family don't like you they can deny that you're in a genuine relationship. When they have a definite way of proving their relationship (through birth records) and you don't, it's going to be very hard for you to win.

It can harm you in other ways too. A lot of welfare programs either treat a couple in a relationship as a single unit for the purposes of welfare eligibility, or offer reduced benefits for a person whose partner has the means to help support him/her. So what happens if you're living with a roommate who isn't your partner but you have a joint rental agreement and share financial obligations? Sometimes people in this situation have had to prove to the government that they're not in a relationship or be charged with fraud.

It also unfairly disadvantages poorer people who don't have access to as wide a range of financial tools that they could use to prove their relationship.

Recognition of common law de facto relationships is good to have as a safety net but to have it as the only form of relationship recognition is highly problematic and unfair.

Ryotknife:
The current method we have is kinda dumb to me.

Spouse 1: I promise to be with you forever, lets get married!
Spouse 2: okay!
Government Genie: congratulations! you now have new rights!

It's not dumb. The reason why marriage is relatively easy to enter into is because it's the legal tool that two unrelated people can use to join together and become related, and it's the duty of the government, nothing short of a basic human right, to respect the ultimate autonomy that each person has to form into a family of their choice and their will.

A few final points, it's unfair to penalise the vast majority that don't abuse the system just because a few people do, divorce isn't as easy as you seem to think it is, and quite a few marriage benefits (spousal immigration being a big one) aren't actually automatically granted and require additional proof of a genuine relationship outside of a marriage certificate.

Lilani:

Ryotknife:
Well I would prefer it if civil unions formed by say:

-living in the same household fro x years (maybe shared lease)
-shared bank account

something a LITTLE more tangible than what is essentially a promise. The current method we have is kinda dumb to me.

Spouse 1: I promise to be with you forever, lets get married!
Spouse 2: okay!
Government Genie: congratulations! you now have new rights!

I dont want to just change the name, I want to change how it works as well.

I think living in the same household would be rather counter-intuitive, given that America is still a very religious country. Given my religious values I wouldn't want to live with someone until we're married, so under that specific set of instructions I would just...never get married. Or do the religious ceremony, be "married" for a while, and then wait that amount of time to be able to have our marriage recognized by the government. And I also know of other people who aren't religious but still don't feel comfortable about it.

Also, I think even if you changed the requirements for marriage, I don't see that changing how people perceive it in their head. They'll still rush into it and tick off whatever requirements you give them as quickly as possible, and being focused on that goal would allow them to easily ignore the fundamental problems in their relationship. I agree that if marriage is to be taken so seriously in certain cases (like when adopting a child or getting a shared loan) then its value and meaning should hold some water. I understand the point of the government recognizing marriage is for banks and such to feel more secure about investments they make in couples and so that the taxation of them is more reasonable. But I don't feel like there are many rules you can set that don't marginalize one group or another by either going against their values or doing things that are beyond their reach (not everybody can afford a lease at the drop of a hat, even a shared one).

And people not being able to attain those rules will lead to them either ignoring them or lying about them. Like really, what are you going to do? Put up a nanny-cam in their house to make sure they are living together? Have regular inspections by government officials to make sure they're actually in the same household? How exactly is that "small government?"

maybe it is because i live up north but pfffft. Everyone I know is usually living together, married or not, within 6 months of a relationship (sometimes sooner). Especially in these hard times, living in two separate places is not very smart. Living by yourself is expensive as hell, it is significantly easier/cheaper with two people however.

For example, I used to live in a studio apartment that was 200 sq feet (about the size of a small hotel room, in fact the place used to be a hotel) that was 600$ per month with utilities. I could easily find a 2-3 bedroom apartment for....about 800-900$ per month with utilities (in a better location even)

Also a lot of people up north tend to be....hmm...Christian-Lite. All of the enlightenment, with about half of the rules/guilt

 Pages PREV 1 2 3

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked