This is the gaping hole in Sam Stone’s argument (in general, not just on the subject of gay rights). The issue that generates the friction isn’t “social conservatives” simply wanting to live their preferred way; it’s “social conservatives” wanting laws to insure that everybody lives their preferred way.
Perhaps you haven’t heard, but the Log Cabin Republicans voted not to endorse Bush for president this year. They also spent several million dollars nationally on print and broadcast ads opposing the Federal Marriage Amendment. Perhaps you should check who they endorsed, and who they opposed, before posting.
As Log Cabin Political Director Chris Barron said to the New York Times, “I plan on having the Gary Bauers and Pat Robertsons leave the (Republican) party before I do.”
Really? You might be right, but do you think that if New York legalized gay marriage, you’d see marches in the street over it in Texas?
And let’s not forget that all eleven states that had gay marriage bans on the ballot this year voted overwhelmingly for them, and not all of them were ‘red’ states.
How would that affect the ratio of gay Republicans to gay Democrats? Are you claiming that gay Republicans are more likely to be identify themselves to pollsters, and that gay Democrats are less likely?
Er, no it isn’t, if you look at the numbers.
If the Democrats were smart, they’d agree to all the federal tax cuts Bush wants, so long as they are paid for by cutting red-state subsidies (farm welfare, road payments, electrification/phone lines, etc). Let the local Republican politicans explain to the rural voters that state taxes are going to have to go through the roof unless they want their kids to be driving on gravel to haul water from the well.
Well, it’s not nearly this simple, though. A few people have already pointed out that liberals want to legislate morality as well. It’s not that simple, either. The truth lies somewhere inbetween - the nature of the moral views liberals want to legislate are more compatible with a pluralistic society, whereas the nature of the moral views conservatives want to legislate trend dangerously close to theocracy. A quick investigation of history turns up pretty decisive evidence for which approach is more desirable. However, there’s a lot of confusion and misconception on both sides of the issue, and things get obscured.
I don’t think this is the gaping hole in Sam’s argument, actually. I think the gaping hole in Sam’s argument is that he’s advocating compromising with the Religious Right, but isn’t realizing that the Religious Right will not compromise in return. They won’t be satisfied with 2nd and 3rd trimester abortions banned. They won’t be satisfied with Creationism taught in a comparative religions course. They won’t be satisfied with gays being allowed civil unions but not marriage. These are people with “God said it. I believe it. That settles it.” bumperstickers, and they aren’t the compromising sort.
Among those eleven states, Oregon presents an interesting dichotomy: gay marriage ban passes, openly gay judge is elected to Oregon Supreme Court.
Not at all. Many laws are pure administrivia devoid of moral content (e.g. it clearly isn’t any less moral to drive on the left side on the road than to drive on the right side, but everybody has to be consistent).
Oh sure. You would say that. Obviously you are an amoral left-driving kitten killer.
Sam:
I’m not calling them fraidy cats, but I’m also not mincing words. Read over the OP and try to tell me that what you are describing is NOT fear. You say conservatives don’t want the things they value to be tampered with. Why is that? Because they are afraid of what will happen. It is not clear what that “what” will be, but they are uneasy just the same. Right?
I hate to harp on history, but imagine with Conservative America felt when blacks starting doing crazy things like going to “their” schools and drinking out of “their” water faucets. Is it reasonable to say that fear of losing control was behind the opposition to integration? Would labeling it something other than fear really be a fair and accurate diagnosis of the condition that caused otherwise sane people to behave like rabid, spiteful animals? Attributing that kind of bigotry to fear is actually a whole lot nicer than attributing it to hate and evil, anyway.
If words like “fear” are going to make discourse counterproductive, then we might as well give up talking right now. Neither side is going to understand each other if people do not use the words that most describe how they are feeling. Call a duck a duck, not a swan with a short neck.
I have no problem with you saying that I, as a social liberal, fear that conservatives will take away my rights. It would be more accurate, though, to say that I fear the government taking away my rights, because the essence of the fear is the same regardless of the reigning political party. There is nothing inherently irrational to being afraid of something. Most people hate the thing that they are afraid of. That’s why so many folks who hate Bush are not exaggerating when they say they are afraid right now. Hate and fear go hand in hand.
I wasn't talking about legislating morality, but rather that a straight-laced social conservative is characterized by never being intoxicated, never being promiscuous, never using foul language, etc. The free and easy liberal feels free to get hammered (at least every once in a while), score with as many willing men/women as possible in college, swear at the TV during a football game, etc. If a conservative did those things, he would feel bad about it afterwards. A fictional example would be Hank and Peggy Hill on the TV show "King of the Hill"... they take it to comical extremes, but they show how loveable and harmless social conservatives usually are.
In real life no conservative follows the conservative way all the time, but there IS a standard which can be broken. Also, most liberals don't do all the free and easy things that complete social liberals (like rock stars) do. I think if you "liberals" first explore what socially conservative values you possess yourselves, you can start hating less the people who have more of them.
_
_
And I repeat: liberals and conservatives don’t necessarily behave differently. They just have different ideas about government’s place in the lives of the people. Take my mother, for instance. Never drinks, thinks smoking is a sin, hits me upside the head whenever I come close to cursing in front of her, and thinks Madonna is evil. But she doesn’t think the government has anything to do with what people do in the privacy of their own homes, hates the idea of an anti-SSM amendment, and believes in a clean separation between church and state. Even though she’s an ordained minister!
I was referring mostly to free speech issues. It seems that many of the social conservatives I’ve heard from really believe that opinions simply should not be allowed to be stated. I don’t notice many on the left (with the exception of the PC crowd) wanting similar limitations on speech. Many liberals, such as those here on the SDMB, are willing to protect speech they don’t agree with in the name of the greater good, but many cultural conservaties don’t seem to see it this way. Why is this?
you with the face said:
That definition of ‘fear’ can be applied to any disagreement between anyone. As such, it’s a useless definition. Liberals voted against Bush because they were afraid of what he’d do, right? So are both sides driven by ‘fear’?
When you define something as loosely as you have, it just becomes a tool for smearing the other side. It’s meaningless as a differentiator between positions.
Dr. Love said:
I disagree vehemently. In Canada, you can be charged under ‘hate speech’ laws for simply voicing your opinion. These are a complete creation of the left.
In my opinion, the left, when it goes too far, becomes just as intolerant as the right. Ask someone who put a ‘Bush Cheney’ bumpersticker on their car in San Franscisco how long it took to get keyed.
** Sam:**
It’s not useless to say that conservatives fear things that go against a certain paradigm, just as it’s not useless to say that liberals fear losing civil liberities. It’s not a value judgement to say that. It’s simply a short-hand way of saying the same thing you expressed in the OP. Geeze, so what if both sides are driven by fear? They are afraid of different things. How is it to counterproductive to acknowledge the truth? Perhaps pointing out the obvious is just what we need to get to an understanding. We won’t understand why we feel the way we do until we understand just what we feel.
Something tells me that at the root of your disapproval with the word “fear” is the macho idea that to be afraid of something means to be weak, wimpy, and hysterical. That is not true.
God damn do I agree with you. I mean, I’d probably be happy if the pledge didn’t include those words, but it’s such a non-issue that I hate to see my fellow liberals get their undies in a twist about it. It’s only in the barest sense an endorsement of religion, and there’s so much else to worry about.
Fine by me. I sometimes think the secularization of society has gone too far, but I’m loathe to oppose it, because it sometimes seems like the Evangelical crowd wishes to impose a religion on the rest of us.
You don’t? Really? I can’t wrap my head around opposition to the teaching of evolution.
This is interesting to me, because to my understanding, neither of those things should be permitted by law - in fact, I think the SOCAS crowd has fought in particular to ensure that religious extracurriculars are permitted, and they certainly existed at my high school. And a kid ought to be able to talk about God in his class projects; if little Johnny does get kicked out of school for such things, trust me to be just as pissed about it as you.
But these examples interest me, because the law is on the side of the Evangelicals on this one. So it’s fascinating (if confusing and frightening) that this spectre of forced secularism seems to dominate the debate on SOCAS issues, even when organizations supporting the separation fight just as often to preserve these things as they do to create a generally secular society.
God knows that this is true - we HAVE become a group of special interests, and it’s something that we need to work through. We need to find the common thread of “liberal thought” that unites all our constituencies, and learn to use that thought to make liberalism a coherent movement in the way that the GOP has.
Anyway, thanks for continuing to be one of the few political posters of any flavor that offers something thoughtful and interesting. Would that the SDMB could get beyond tattletale threads and talk like this more often. Sorry to come across as your groupie, Sam Stone, but I really admire your contributions.
That was a screw-up on my part. I meant I don’t want creationism taught as science, of course.
As for kids being kicked out of school - I didn’t mean that the way it sounds. More bad writing. I meant things like the valedictorian last year who was not allowed to give her speech because she mentioned God in it. And there have been schools that refused to allow bible study groups as extra-curricular activities on school grounds after school hours. There was also a case (can’t find it now) where a kid was flunked on a class project. He was supposed to do a project on something that was important to him, and he picked Jesus. He wasn’t allowed to give his talk, and flunked on the project.
That kind of stuff just goes overboard. Keep the creationism out, absolutely.
This reminds me of my 11th grade history teacher, long since retired unfortunately. He was otherwise a very conservative WASP type, but when it came to the issue of school prayer, he would say – “I can’t wait until they bring back prayer in the schools, because the very next day, I’m getting some prayer rugs and we’re all going to be facing Mecca!”
It’s the perfect response to the argument by conservative Christians that they don’t really want to force their religion on others and that all they want is the freedom to practice their own religion. I heard another example back when that Texas high school football prayer case was in the courts. An N.P.R. reporter was interviewing some students at the school who were supporting the pro-prayer position (it was something along the lines of – it’s just us students expressing ourselves – no one is making us do anything). When the reporter asked what they would think if a Muslim student wanted to add his Islamic prayer to the program, the response was swift – “No, we wouldn’t want that.”
This was exactly the issue. Despite the outward expressions of – “oh, it’s optional” – DOJ employees felt enormous pressure to participate, especially when the attorney general invited them personally.