That's not true, just yesterday Mississippi legislature shot down a bill that would recognize domestic violence as grounds for divorce. You see, the bible says divorce is immoral unless your property, err wife, is a ho. Checkmate, harlots!
You would think so, but it just shows what the republican party has become. This still talk a big game about economic conservatism, but they are really the party of moral conservatism. I wish we could have more than two parties in the US. I'm fine with moral conservatives having a voice, because everyone in a democracy should have a voice. However, they have a managed to hijack the political arena because of the two party system. If there were more political parties, they would have a voice more proportional to the actual demographics. As a liberal, really a socialist, I feel the same way about the democratic party.
It makes sense from the perspective of wanting to control the sexuality and autonomy of women as the top priority. Because it's the single thread that binds all of those seemingly contradictory goals together: All of the things they're against are things that give women more control over their lives and especially their sexuality. Sex Education - Can't have that, girls may choose to have sex! Birth Control - Can't have that because it allows women to be in control over their fertility! Abortion - Another thing we can't have because it gives women control over their bodies! Welfare - When all else fails, when those dirty harlots went and had sex out of wedlock anyway, we have to punish them for their sins and make them and their children suffer!
This is what happens when you let the Evangelicals run the show. Their the right wing version of the SJWs, just much more effective unfortunately. I dont know shit about medicine or about womens health, so forgive me if I'm just talking out of my ass. But if they really want to defeat abortion (which both sides should want), they should overwhelm young women with sex education, free and easily available birth control in a variety of forms, and a number of other services. Coupled with advances in medical technology, there could be so many available options that abortion would only be necessary in the most rare or dire of circumstances. I dont like or support abortion at all, but I dont think the way to defeat it is to outlaw it. Keep it available, keep it safe, most importantly but at least make the alternatives easy to obtain. Like I said, I dont really know the details of any of it, but I at least know that the morning after pill is not an abortion pill.
I don't think this statement is accurate at all. I think it is based on perspective. I watch what both parties do and they both try to control public morality based on their own tenets. I personally feel it is repugnant that the Government or other people feel they know how people should live their lives and then try to legislate it in to reality.
Ah, yes, the old, "But both sides do it!" They do not. Democrats are not legislating a woman's body, trying to cut benefits, cutting educating, outlawing stem cell research, attempting to penalize a woman for wanting an abortion while at the same time pushing zero sexual education, allowing employers to deny reproductive health insurance, discriminating fellow Americans because of sexual identity and gender. This is all the republican party LAST MONTH. Liberals: they want to spend more. On what, that is dubious. But don't give me that shit the Democrats are trying to legislate morality, they don't want these regressive religious right people to legislate THEIR morality.
Russian and Syrian air strikes just bombed and levelled a Canadian-run health centre in Syria. Jesus Christ.
Please explain. What is inferred from your post is, "I don't like it and they are forcing me to accept someone else's sexuality which has zero bearing on my life." Please tell me how someone is personally affected by the bedroom or bathroom habits of another person. How does that infringe your rights? How does someone else's sexuality/gender prevent you from practicing your religion freely? Nobody is forcing anyone to accept anything. Discriminate all you want, you will not go to jail for it. Store owners are not being sent to jail for refusing to service LBGT people. What is happening is that state governments are not allowed to legislate discrimination. This is no different than discrimination against blacks, Asians, interracial marriage, or Jews. We must have different views on what is deemed moral.
We may have different views on what is moral but that's really not the point I wanted to make. A lot of what they seem to be trying to do by legislating LBGT rights as other than basic human rights are setting them up as a protected class. By doing so they are legislating that there is nothing wrong with their behavior or beliefs. Those are views not shared by many in the religious community. That was really my point. You are absolutely correct that it doesn't affect me and I personally don't care that much about it. I just feel like its a little disingenuous to say that it is only one group who does this. At some level, and I'm not saying it is equal because that would be laughable, both sides of the isle are trying to legislate morality.
Tell me again how the religious community is directly affected by what someone else does in their bedroom. Exactly. Zip. They are trying to make the world more palatable by legislating their idea morality on someone else, impugning someone else's rights. We wouldn't have to establish a protected class if LBGT people weren't being singled out for enacting their federally protected rights. The left is saying you cannot enact laws to discriminate against people. How is this legislating morality? Religious right is still free to exercise their religion and opinions any way they please so long as it does not infringe the rights of another.
I never said they were affected CJ, and really the only argument to be made is that by legislating that they are protected the government (mostly the Dems) are saying that its acceptable morally. I'm not religious and haven't been in a church for a very long time but those who are would tell you that the more liberal minded are forcing others to say that being LBGT is acceptable when they believe it is not. It's the same thing the religious right is doing, just the opposite end of the spectrum. Again, I don't care other than I see people say as you did that only the Republicans are trying to legislate morality when it's clearly not true. We could discuss the merits of each position but that's a bit different.
This statement is so close to being accurate. Both sides do it but my statement had nothing to do with justifying one over the other, only to point out that they both do it and Liberals shouldn't try to incorrectly claim the moral high ground for not legislating morals. Quite frankly, I don't care because I think both sides are pieces of shit but anyways, let's at least try not to be too biased about these types of discussions. Here's just a quick and easy example: Is this not an appeal to morality? Are they not trying to legislate based on their morality?
Of course each side is going to want to pass legislation based on their side's values, but as someone who considers himself pretty firmly liberal, I don't see it as legislating morality. The general liberal position on gun control (which I personally don't 100% agree with) isn't that gun ownership is immoral, but that the current proliferation of guns in the US constitutes a public health problem sufficient enough that restricting gun ownership is justified. Contrast that to all of the new laws that are increasing the restrictions - with the eventual goal of complete prohibition - of abortion, because the people who are passing those laws think abortion is immoral. That's the difference.
You are mistaken. This is precisely what is going on. I have written many times about the rise of the social wars, specifically starting in 1968 with the debates between Gore Vidal and William F. Buckley, Jr. They have ramped up and dominate our national discourse. Both parties, and both 'ideologies' - neoconservatives and neoliberals, seek to impose their moral code upon the population. In fact, this is intentional, because that way we're so enamored with these usually meaningless arguments that we ignore the complete and utter gutting of the American dream and the vast transfers of wealth from the poor and the middle class to the rich that we accept the idea that words like 'innovation' and 'globalization' are responsible for our predicament, completely ignoring the fact that these two ideas have been around since there have been humans. I urge you to read 'Listen, Liberal' by Thomas Frank. He is a liberal, but much like his book 'What's Wrong with Kansas' (a book wherein he deconstructs the Republican party) he piece by piece deconstructs what is actually going on in the Democratic party and what today's neoliberalism actually is and how it hurts the population at large. Do NOT get blinded by the smoke and mirrors. The actual issue facing America is the allocation of resources within our country. Or, more pointedly, the fact that resources are not allocated fairly and in line with how the majority believe they should be. Instead we are anaesthetized into believing that nothing can be done about it, it's the forces of 'history' and 'tradition' and 'technology' and 'innovation' and 'economics' that make it so. It isn't, and never has been. We make the decisions, theoretically, and we have absconded with logic and good reason in order to debate whether a baker has to make a cake for a gay wedding. We are pathetic. It needs to stop.
You're talking about a different issue here; the sleight of hand regarding the spotlight on social issues and obfuscation of economic legislation. I don't completely disagree with you here but it's a separate issue from what I was responding to, which was the difference on how liberals and conservatives approach legislating their social values.
No,no. No difference. Did you listen to the argument for gun restrictions made by Joe Biden? It sounded to me like he is saying that it would be immoral not to act because it would be the right thing to do if it saved even a single life.
I watched that video and he didn't say anything of the sort. However, even if he did imply what you're saying, it's still different. Because your implication is that it would be immoral for him as a legislator to not propose restrictions, but that still doesn't mean he's saying or thinking gun ownership itself is immoral.
Well, I guess we will have to just disagree. As I said in my first post, it's all perspective really. If you don't like this example there are plenty of others, VI had another good one: where both sides argue over whether a private company should be forced to bake a cake against their will for a gay couple.
A lot of progressives do think capital punishment is immoral, while others such as myself don't support the death penalty because of the way it's handed out. But anyway, what's the argument here? That because the left wants to eliminate the death penalty that it's ok to discriminate against gay people or ban transgender folks from using the "incorrect" bathrooms?