CPAC boycott

On the subject of gay conservatives: I've met gay Christian fundamentalists before. They didn't think that there was anything wrong with gay marriage, and were pro-LGBT rights, but at the same time, were staunchly pro-life, against birth control, completely opposed to any sort of sex-ed except abstinence-only, firmly believed that any girl who has sex before she's married is going to hell (even if she was raped, because she was obviously asking for it), etc. So really, they're just like all the other fundamentalists, cherry-picking the Bible passages they want to adhere to.

So even if you do have a political party one of whose major tenets is "gay people are seconds class citizens," there are still going to be gay people who join them simply because they agree with the other things they have to say, and in our two party system, you gotta chose either one or the other, because it really doesn't look like parties like the Libertarians are going to get any widespread support anytime soon.

I don't think conservatism is dying at all. I do think anti-gay-rights as a major policy position of Republicans is dying, though slowly. They've tried to de-emphasize it in many ways of late, and just look at how many family members of prominent Republicans have come out either as gay or in support of gay rights, probably horribly embarrassing their political relative. I've no doubt it'll stick around at the fringes; it's just that those fringes will grow ever more fringey as time goes on.

Do note that while anti-gay-rights as a policy position of the Republican party may be destined to death, that doesn't mean it's going to die without a fight, and that may be what we're seeing now. No telling how long it'll last, though, unfortunately. Baseless bigotry can take a very long time to die.

That is why we need to better support alternatives to the two-party system.

in the case that it does die what will Chagen do?

Also on the matter of the two-party system I want to spread this image

http://tinypic.com/m/ea5pc8/2

edited 17th Mar '11 4:56:42 AM by tnu1138

Well, we certainly need a better alternative to the two-party system then simply filling the void left by the dying democrats with the libertarians. Because then your choices will be between the Republican Party and the Bong Water Party.

That will never happen without completely overhauling elections are done in this country.

I simply don't involve myself in politics at all.

It seems no matter which side you're on, you're wrong.

Johnnyfog would 7you mind explaining what you ahve against Libertarians?

That's off-topic.

I don't think soconism will disappear anytime soon. But it may be given lower priority, especially given the recession (after all, many evangelical voters aren't exactly doing well economically during the recession, and some only refuse to vote Democratic on account of them not sharing their values).

As for gay rights, I think what we'll see in the future is proposals for what I call the "California solution" - give homosexuals the financial and other rights relating to marriage, more or less, but not call it marriage. What you have to understand is that a lot of people are fine more or less with gay people getting a lot of the stuff they ask for, but will flip out when demands are made for the government to call it "marriage". That's part of the reason why the Yes on 8 people succeeded, largely - I remember a lot of the material the Yes on 8 side published seemed almost apologetic, telling the unconvinced that no, civil unions would be here to stay. But to call it marriage for a lot of people is a line they don't want to cross.

That said, the current party coalitions are becoming increasingly unsustainable. We see it now in the Tea Party-establishment divide in the GOP, but it's possible it could spread to the Democratic Party as well, depending on who wins the Republican struggle.

edited 17th Mar '11 12:30:03 PM by Cojuanco

True, though (WARNING: ANALOGY FILLED WITH DRAMA, NOT FOR THOSE WHO ARE PREGNANT, MAY BE COME PREGNANT, OR MAY BE FEATURED IN MPREG SLASH FICS) that was basically the same argument that was used for segregation. Namely, they get all the same rights, but we have separate facilities/legal mechanisms, and everyone goes about their business happily.

The problem with that is that to all practical intents and purposes, separate but equal racially didn't work. What is different is that in this case, the same rights would still exist, the same secular benefits - only they can't call it marriage in a strict sense. This isn't about making gay people sit at the back of the bus, or confining them to separate schools. The proposition wouldn't really be segregation except in a very, very narrow sense.

But the title is important; the title is almost as important as some of the actual rights.

After all, a good number of the legal bits can be duplicated if you have a sufficently dedicated lawyer. If it's so important for some straight people for it not to be called marriage when gay people do it, surely you can understand why it's important for gay people that it is called marriage when they do it.

^^ They'd have the same rights on paper. Calling it marriage would make them more likely to have the same rights in practice. (For instance, hospital visitation issues are currently a lot messier for couples in civil unions.)

"What is different is that in this case, the same rights would still exist, the same secular benefits" - Cojuanco

How would you prove that exactly?

I don't get why its so important to some people that it not be called marriage if they can find a credible text that strictly defines marriage then maybe and the Bible does not count as a Credible text. Wh y woulditb e so damned important to these bigots that itnot be called marriage?

Because, believe it or not, there some people who will believe what they read in one book (and sometimes misinterpreting it, to boot) rather than believe what they can clearly see in front of them.

EDIT: Actually, this would be off-topic.

edited 18th Mar '11 8:53:09 PM by Chalkos