1 - 10 Next
In response to:

Romney Was Not the Problem

HappyStretchedThin Wrote: Nov 23, 2012 10:15 AM
You have substantive critiques. And now what will you say about the next candidate? Can you not see that this is cyclical? Blaming the candidate is easy, makes you feel good, but also anchors in an ideal that NO ONE can rise to. You're setting yourself (and the party) up to be the perpetually failing team because they always fire the quarterback when the team doesn't win. Get out of your armchair and change some minds in the ELECTORATE.
In response to:

Romney Was Not the Problem

HappyStretchedThin Wrote: Nov 23, 2012 10:12 AM
Typical ignorance from someone who's vision of what conservative media says comes from never reading/listening to/watching any of it, and getting their info from MSNBC instead. Conservative media castigated Romney all through the primaries, and kept picking his competitors as the better candidate until one by one they dropped out. Obama had higher unfavorable ratings (concerning his job performance, not necessarily his personality) than Romney, and the simple truth is, Romney earned his money by serving people (and his charitable contributions prove that your tired myth of greed as his sole motivator is not the "simple truth" you imagine).
Read carefully. I'm not arguing that all families will no longer have the right to be good parents. And I'm not arguing direct cause and effect between accepting gay marriage, and heterosexual families all falling apart. I'm also not arguing same-sex parents automatically can't be good parents. It's a tougher argument, because it mixes personal values with societal measurements. In the aggregate, it takes very few trendsetters to make a value no longer popular enough to uphold. This undermines the standard itself. Read Stanley Kurtz on marriage in Scandinavia, and you'll get a sense.
I'll fact check, and concede to the facts. However, my argument is about the process, not the timing. You carefully avoided that.
The constitution doesn't protect fairness? I thought it was YOU citing the 14th amendment earlier? The Constitution's not a document designed to maintain morality in society? What do you think limiting government DOES? What do you think keeping freedom in the hands of individuals DOES? The Founding Father's absolutely DID conceive of the Constitution as a means to guarantee people could decide for themselves to BE MORAL, and your narrow definition of marriage as ONLY religious STILL ignores m basic point that there are ALSO property considerations.
In other words, the NATURE of the war on gender doesn't require mass manifestations. It just requires institutions to bend to a single request to call something something different, and a new principle and precedent has been established in the name of "tolerance" that not only diminishes the upholding of moral values in the aggregate, but depending on the scope of the institution, can also force acceptance of values against one's conscience. It's wrong because it's thought-policing.
I should also address this idea that Prager's making a weak argument as well. You've misunderstood his argument. There has always been variation in gender roles (no rigid definition of masculinity or femininity). But there has always been clear separation of gender for certain essential functions (bathrooms, etc.). Prager is saying that once society reaches a tipping point of accepting gender roles too far removed, there's an inevitable consequence to the VALUE system of society. Society can't promote good fatherhood and motherhood values effectively (which are incontestably good, no?) if it's not allowed to uphold certain values and distinctions. Or do you think there's no link between the dissolution of the family and crime, poverty, etc?
Semantically, the word "cure" can imply a range of conditions of improvement of the condition. You're quibbling. And then you argue apples and oranges: hysteria diagnoses went out with Freud and new theories of mental operations, i.e. more or less objective and scientific criteria (as much as can be found in the psychiatric community, which deals in a whole lot of guess-work anyway). Wing's claim is that societal pressure scrubbed the APA definition (which does not require gay community influence, because it follows from feminist influence which WAS huge in 1972), NOT scientific criteria. Have proof otherwise?
Also, there WERE great thinkers who were gay, and advocated for gay relationships (the marriage question wasn't really an issue, you're right), but they weren't really great MORAL thinkers. And you're just flat out wrong about gender equality and anti-slavery debates. They've gone on centuries before. You argue well, but your facts don't line up, I'm afraid.
Your denial that there's a war on gender does not make it so. The issue isn't whether people can choose their own model of masculinity, femininity or anything else, it's WHO DECIDES what anyone MUST tolerate. The number of individuals calling for the changes isn't as important as the impact their having on the rights of the institutions and individuals to disagree. Also, get your history right: liberal legislatures ADDED gay couples to anti-discriminatory statutes to DISQUALIFY Catholic charities from receiving state funding, the Catholics weren't on the wrong side of the law until the definition of the law was changed.
1 - 10 Next