In a piece over at CNN.com, I do my best to take a coherent message out of a night that didn't particularly lend itself to one:
Corzine, for his part, ran a polarizing campaign; every time Christie's name appeared in one of his commercials, it came with a scarlet (R) -- for Republican -- attached. Republicans are not popular in New Jersey, but local issues drove the race.
Whereas three-quarters of Corzine's voters cited a national issue -- health care or the economy -- as their primary reason for voting for him, two-thirds of Christie's picked a local one (property taxes and corruption).
147 comments
incoherent to say the least. what happened in MAINE?!
Intereting that Christie's voters picked corruption as one of their top issue. Given Christie's history, does this mean they're for it?
> Given Christie's history, does this mean they're for it?
In a mud fight you don't have to come out clean. You just have to come out less dirty. Christie said he'd do something about it and, in spite of his own transgressions, people have hope that under him the situation will be better.
It might be a naive hope, or he might actually follow through. But there it is. Chris Christie has 4 years (assuming he doesn't manage to get himself bounced in the meantime) to come through on that promise. *shrug*
What happened in Maine is Yes got their vote out. I wonder, anyone on the ground there, was a proximity to a huge population of potential out of state get-out-the-vote volunteers a factor? Because in Washington the vote went the other way, right?
According to www.nj.com the Republicans picked up 1 seat in the NJ Assembly from the Democrats and NO incumbent lost. It would be interesting to know if NJ Republican Assembly candidates won larger percentages than they did in 2007 and 2009 to learn if Crhistie had any coattails or if the election was entirely about Jon Corzine.
Gotta love this AP story at the top of my Yahoo homepage:
GOP sweep: Big governor victories in Virginia, NJ (AP)
WASHINGTON – Independents who swept Barack Obama to a historic 2008 victory broke big for Republicans on Tuesday as the GOP wrested political control from Democrats in Virginia and New Jersey, a troubling sign for the president and his party heading into an important midterm election year.
Then, two paragraphs later...
And Democrat Bill Owens captured a GOP-held vacant 23rd Congressional District seat in New York in a race that highlighted fissures in the Republican Party and illustrated hurdles the GOP could face in capitalizing on any voter discontent with Obama and Democrats next fall.
Gotta love that kind of cognitive dissonance masquerading as political analysis.
From the CNN article:
"Because those activists -- however well-meaning they might have been -- misunderstood the district. The 23rd is a Republican district, but it is not a particularly conservative one, having split its vote between Barack Obama and the moderate Republican John McHugh last November."
John Mcwhatnow?
Also on the differences between ME and WA, in WA those pursuing equal rights didn't cutting off their nose with the rhetoric of the word "marriage".
I hope those interested in equality elsewhere take note of that.
@v
LOL.
Separate church and state. Take "marriage" out of government.
Civil unions for everyone.
Nice, pithy summary, Nate!
Not much to extrapolate from last night.
Check out: wizardofpolitics.blogspot.com
The interesting items from this election:
1) Obama's personal popularity in NJ did not translate into votes for Corzine despite Obama's concerted campaign to rescue Corzine. While the NJ election may or may not be an affirmative repudiation of Obama and the Dem national government, it is clear that Obama no longer has any coattails. The Blue Dogs are on their own next year.
2) In VA and NJ, the conservative Indis showed up in force and voted against the Dem status quo, giving McDonnell 66% of the Indi vote and Christie 60%. Remember, the Tea Party movement is a combination of GOP and Indi conservatives.
3) If the VA Gubernatorial results are any indication, the three Blue Dogs who very narrowly picked up GOP districts in VA last year are in serious trouble as McDonnell thrashed Deeds by 3:2 to 2:1 margins in these districts.
4) In NY-23, Scozzafava got the last laugh by throwing the election to the Dem Owens. However, the combination of GOP and Conservative party votes in that district still made up a majority. Indeed, apart from the deep blue CA-10, the Dems could not get a majority in any of the major races. Owens will only be renting NY-23 for a year.
5) Nancy Pelosi made a serious error not ramming her government health insurance bill through the House before the voters spoke. Her Blue Dogs did not sleep well last night after the election results came in. Reid is already signaling a retreat and postponement Senate government health insurance legislation until next year.
DEEP THOUGHT: Perhaps the bloom is off the rogue?
Seriously, I think we can add the folks at Harper Collins to the long, long list of people who've been screwed over by Sarah Palin.
Josh Marshall argues that the teabaggers are satisfied with NY-23, having accomplished their goal by dumping Dede, and a Hoffman win would have just been icing on their cake. But that's all politics. I'm interested in book sales and I can tell you, it's not kosher to do something so spectacularly boneheaded and risky just two weeks before a huge (and expensive!) book launch.
Sarah's major commercial value lay in her panache, her glow of success, her overweening invincibility. Now she's been beaten, she failed, she was rejected by ordinary rural Americans and she looks as sadly deflated as an empty smiley-face silver balloon. Tell me... do you think people will be as eager to buy her book now as they were last week?
I'm thinking the good folk of NY-23 may just have sent the Rogue straight to the remainder bin.
Oh, and speaking of "Going Rogue"... gotta love Carl Hiassen .
LOL...
WV..ingsles Sarah Palin's native language
@BDP: In NY-23, Scozzafava got the last laugh by throwing the election to the Dem Owens.
I think you got this one a little backwards. The GOP blew it by choosing Scozzafava, and the Palin/Beck/Rush triumvirate blew it by trying to stab their leadership in the back. Scozzafava's decision to support Owens was just the last in a comedy of Republican errors.
However, the combination of GOP and Conservative party votes in that district still made up a majority.
Well, considering this is a Republican district and has been in living memory should make that insight a big "duh." It was the Republican's to lose and they did it in style.
The question isn't whether it's a Republican/Democrat district but whether it's a liberal/center/conservative district. You don't consider Scozzafava or Owens conservatives, so the combination of liberal (or, at least "not conservative") votes in that district still made up a majority. That's bad news for ever running a "pure" conservative like Hoffman in that district.
Gotta love the euphemism "equality". LOL! It's not an equality issue as much as it is a problem with semantics on the part of the pro homosexual marriage people.
having split its vote between Barack Obama and the moderate Republican John McHugh last November."
John Mcwhatnow?
John McHugh is the Republican NY-23 Congressman who Obama appointed to Secretary of the Army, causing the special election. The district voted for a Republican congressman but a Democratic president, hence "split".
Anyone who reads too much into Gov races needs to remember that CA often votes Republican Gov but the state house/senate runs strongly Dem (as well as both Fed Senators and many Representatives).
States are focused on local issues and often on taxes at the state level (income, property, gas, sales, etc) and the Gov is always the lightening rod for this sort of thing.
stop_the_stutter said...
Gotta love the euphemism "equality". LOL! It's not an equality issue as much as it is a problem with semantics on the part of the pro homosexual marriage people.
===================================
You mean Larry Craig and Mark Foley.
Also on the differences between ME and WA, in WA those pursuing equal rights didn't cutting off their nose with the rhetoric of the word "marriage".
I hope those interested in equality elsewhere take note of that.
The really annoying thing about it, IMO, is that if we simply had civil unions which were legally the same as marriage, which waaaaay more people can get behind, it would A) really help the visibility of gay relationships, and B) probably turn into marriage with a "separate but equal"-style court claim at some point. Insisting on the word "marriage" does seem to be overreaching.
I mean, I get the whole Overton window idea... but I don't think it helps that the LGBT community seems to get routinely defeated at the polls. And I think most gays would prefer to be civil unioned than have nothing at all.
Mark-
Agree, civil unions for all, if you want a "marriage" go to church.
@Mr Furious
The media these days, and especially outlets such as AP, have become completely enamored of the concept of conflict in politics to the detriment of solid, objective reporting. Everything is a crisis that bodes ill for the future. Everyone is in disarray. Everything has a partisan slant. Everything is spin.
The WaPo website earlier this morning had a headline that, essentially, warned Democrats that it's not 2008 anymore ... apparently as if gaining two seats in Congress were a bad thing. Sure, we all understand that Democrats lost two governorships, but exit polling shows that most voters did not see the elections as a referendum on Obama's job, and that even those who did split fairly evenly between those who voted in favor of what Obama has done, and those who voted against what he's done.
The notion that the election was a wash, though, does not lend itself to sensational headlines or hyperbolic reporting.
Would you liberal pansies stop wondering why NO ONE wants men kissing and women kissing? We dont want to go on the road to all kinds of nonsense being legalized.
And when you say "No it will never happen." Remember people said that 10 20 30 years ago about homo marriage.
Gays have the right to marry. Just maybe not the way they want. I cant marry a dog even if we both wanted to.
@BDP, CA10 is not deep blue. It is very very purple. Remember that Orinda (West side) hosted Bush in fundraisers year after year. The whole East side of the CA10 voted McCain in 2008 and votes GOP mostly. CA10 has switched back and forth Rep/Dem for representative, although the incumbent tends to stay for a very very long time. Tauscher was a centrist and so appealed to Red and Blue. Garamendi is not a centrist, but is popular in CA.
In terms of NJ, an unpopular Gov who is believed to be very corrupt *and* incompetent will generally lose. Corzine tried to show that Christie is as corrupt, but it did not stick. Corzines negatives were high among Dems, so any who voted for him did so while holding their noses.
In VA, you had a weak Dem whose campaign was based only on trying to smear his opponent, who did amazingly badly in the debate, and who had no message to win over the independents - no message at all. He also had no plan to solve local problems for VA.
As I said in a previous post, look at CA: we have a Republican Gov as we often do, yet a Dem majority in every other position at State and Fed level. Similar reasons as VA.
Also on the differences between ME and WA, in WA those pursuing equal rights didn't cutting off their nose with the rhetoric of the word "marriage".
The campaign for same sex "marriage" has never been about the government rights and subsidies granted to marriage and most civil union statutes. This movement has always been about compelling society to recognize homosexual unions as equally important as marriage.
The major problem for the movement is that consistent majorities of voters (if not judges) in both Red and Blue states know that homosexual unions are not marriage and are unwilling to extend the recognition gays and lesbians seek.
juvanya,
"NO ONE" = 48% of voters in California and Maine??
Just curious, but if your grandparents had been vehemently opposed to interracial marriage, would you be embarrassed by that? I'm trying to figure out if your grandchildren are going to be embarrassed by you.
Also, that's like the 9th time you've mentioned wanting to get with your dog. Just saying...
@juvanya: No more slippery slope juice for you, sir(or maam)!
juvanya said...
Would you liberal pansies stop wondering why NO ONE wants men kissing and women kissing? We dont want to go on the road to all kinds of nonsense being legalized.
And when you say "No it will never happen." Remember people said that 10 20 30 years ago about homo marriage.
Gays have the right to marry. Just maybe not the way they want. I cant marry a dog even if we both wanted to.
===================================
You are aware Trent Lott resigned from the senate because he's gay.
http://snipurl.com/t22f8
PaulK said...
@BDP, CA10 is not deep blue. It is very very purple.
Really?
How many more voters are registered Dem rather than GOP in the district?
When was the last time CA-10 elected a conservative or even a moderate Republican?
Note: When I use the term moderate, I mean middle of the road nationally, not whatever that term means to the Dem left on the Left Coast.
@BDP: The major problem for the movement is that consistent majorities of voters (if not judges) in both Red and Blue states know that homosexual unions are not marriage and are unwilling to extend the recognition gays and lesbians seek.
Yup, it's a major problem currently. Much as it was a major problems for interracial marriages. And then it wasn't. And society didn't crumble because of it. And people who now try to stand against it are rightly ridiculed as bigots.
I look forward to what people will say about folks like juvanya and BDP in 50 years time.
Bart DePalma said...
When was the last time CA-10 elected a conservative or even a moderate Republican?
=============================
12 years ago. don't teabaggers have google?
Ever seen a hundred seagulls squabbling over a discarded hot dog? That's what political junkies are like with these meager election returns. We're all squawking, scratching, shouldering each other aside to get to any tiny scrap of meaning we can peck at.
Bottom line: it all means precisely nothing. If the economy begins to improve significantly in the first two quarters next year, Dems will do very well in the fall. If not, not.
The only two bits of meaning I can find are:
a.) the American public continues to resist gay marriage. Nevertheless this issue is slowly but surely acquiring a sense of inevitability. It will eventually prevail, just as it now has in every Canadian province.
b.) ordinary, hard-working, conservative Americans rejected the attempt at a wingnut takeover of their local politics... reminding me again why they are just simply the salt of the earth, and I love them.
@BDP, in 1994 when Bill Baker was re-elected. In 1996, Tausher picked up the seat by being more moderate in a changing district (more Dems moved into Walnut Creek and surrounds). It went from Republican +18% to Dem +12% now, much of that change due to the Bush years (and I think 4% due to the radicalization of the GOP driving more people to call themselves Dems or Independent) as well as redistricting.
I find it beyond hysterical that the homophobes have named their movement after a homo-erotic sex act - "teabaggers"
On the Gay Marriage thing, I think we get back to the fundamental problem of most people confuse the legal concept of marriage with their idea of a religious meaning. Many of the opponents of gay marriage think it is about imposing gay marriage on their religion, when it is really only about legal rights; this confusion is because religious leaders are allowed to "marry" a couple (when in fact, they only perform a ceremony, the paperwork is all handled by the gov).
This is why Civil unions do not create so much trauma. If the gay community would focus on Civil unions (with all rights) 1st, then it would be a lot easier to cross the marriage bridge later.
@Jenny
I find it beyond hysterical that the homophobes have named their movement after a homo-erotic sex act - "teabaggers"
I'm pretty sure they didn't name themselves that...
PaulK said...
@BDP, CA10 is not deep blue. It is very very purple.
BD: Really? How many more voters are registered Dem rather than GOP in the district? When was the last time CA-10 elected a conservative or even a moderate Republican?
@BDP, in 1994 when Bill Baker was re-elected. In 1996, Tausher picked up the seat by being more moderate in a changing district (more Dems moved into Walnut Creek and surrounds). It went from Republican +18% to Dem +12% now, much of that change due to the Bush years (and I think 4% due to the radicalization of the GOP driving more people to call themselves Dems or Independent) as well as redistricting.
I appreciate the research as I do not have the time at work this AM. I believe you have proven my point. CA-10 has shifted population and been redistricted into a Dem +12% district. This is not close to purple in my book.
You are aware Trent Lott resigned from the senate because he's gay.
http://snipurl.com/t22f8
While I had never heard that before, and find it pretty amusing, I think that's pretty far from a sure thing. Larry Sinclair said he had crack-fuelled sex with Obama in the back of a limo - I don't believe him either. :)
I am not so sure Owens doesn't keep this seat. It will probably disappear after the 2010 census so there may not be a lot of people vying for one term in the house.
New York is losing a seat and it will come from upstate so Owens may just hang on as a caretaker.
It's pretty funny when he ran for the seat he knew he was the sacrifice and probably never ever imagined actually having to serve.
Mark and Bradford:
I hope you will understand that "civil unions for all" impacts heterosexual "marriage" just a little bit (of course you do, if gays can't be elevated to "marriage" then they will bring the rest of us down to their level).
I find it beyond hysterical that the homophobes have named their movement after a homo-erotic sex act - "teabaggers"
Sorry, Jenny. The MSM, Anderson Cooper I believe, coined the term "teabaggers." So maybe you should question Cooper's sexuality...
@BDP, CA10 is not registered +12 Dems at all. I am talking about the Cook number (last two presidential elections - Obama picked up a lot of voters). In voter registrations, Republicans lost a lot of registered voters in the last year and Dems gained a lot in 2008 (mostly younger), so now 120K Ds, 70K Rs, 50K Decline to State (ind). Rs lost a lot of registered voters in the last year (18K it appears) thanks to Glenn Beck and Rush and the like turning the stomachs of otherwise Republican voters.
But, if you look at the district, it is almost 50-50 except for a few cities, which push the Ds out in front (e.g. Concord with 2:1 ratio). But, the voting trends are all over the map - the area has voted Republican and conservative in many elections.
BDP, I thought all the Dems in California had moved to Colorado? Thats the claim you made to excuse that state turning purple? Now it seems that actually they are just moving around in California? It is of course possible that some people have changed there mind and don't find the GOP to there tastes anymore.
Shorter Election Results:
"Dateline NJ: Governor with 30% approval rating in miserable economy loses! Details at 11:00!"
"Dateline NY: Republicans lose House seat for the first time since U.S. Grant was President. Tea-baggers rejoice!"
"Dateline VA: Moderate Republican who rejected offers of help from Sarah Palin and the Tea-bag movement wins Governor's race!"
Yup! Dems pick up 2 House seats and at least 1 more progressive vote for health care. Seems like the right-wing is a huge victor. Don't know how that is, but that's my story and I'm sticking to it!
"markymark said...
BDP, I thought all the Dems in California had moved to Colorado? Thats the claim you made to excuse that state turning purple?"
Most of the Californians who came to CO were conservatives from places like Orange county who moved to CO Springs area. That actually INCREASED Republican registration by over 100,000.
But, right-wing policies in the Bush era turned CO blue. It wasn't because we now have so many people come here from San Francisco!
Even the eastern rural CO-4 district got rid of their right-wing nut-job Congressman and elected a Democrat.
@Pan
1) There is no reason to question Anderson Cooper's sexual orientation (gay!)
2) The Tea Baggers, at least a sub-group of them, really did came up with it all by themselves. :) In connection with the Tea Party there were people that refered to them as Tea Baggers. Yes, it got jumped on quickly and adopted widely. Welcome to meme country! :)
I thought that I would just go ahead and aggregate the evidence that what happened in NJ last night was more of a referendum on Corzine then on President Obama or the Democratic Party as a whole.
Note: Most of these were lifted from this website.
Ok, evidence that NJ was a problem with Corzine instead of Obama:
1) Corzine had a 37% approval rating going into the election. Nobody has been able to find even a single instance of a sitting Governor winning reelection with an approval rating that low
2) Whereas three-quarters of Corzine's voters cited a national issue -- health care or the economy -- as their primary reason for voting for him, two-thirds of Christie's picked a local one (property taxes and corruption). -Silver
3) Obama approval was actually pretty strong in New Jersey, at 57 percent (the same % Obama won NJ by)-CNN
4) 27 percent of those who approved of Obama nevertheless voted for someone other than Corzine
5) the Democrats look like they'll lose just one seat in the state legislature in Trenton -Silver
6) Corzine went super-negative, including ads attacking his opponent's weight
7) Chris Cristie's ads mostly didn't even mention that he was a Republican, and most of his ads used the Democrat's blue background -Silver
8) the exit polls had 60 percent saying that Barack Obama played no role in their gubernatorial vote, 19 percent saying that their vote was one in support of the President, and 20 percent saying that their vote was in opposition to President Obama. -Mydd
9) The Dems did ok in some other areas, such as going 2/2 in Congressional elections (although they had a bad night in VA)
10) Corzine's polling numbers didn't drop when obama stumped for him. in fact, the agrgregate polling suggests a stable trend line - more evidence that it was about Corzine instead of obama having an effect
11) Gubernatorial races are extremely poor yardsticks for other elections, with almost zero correlation -Silver
12) NJ has gone for a Governor in the party opposite of the President's party for decades, including when Reagan and Clinton were very popular and including 2 months after 9/11 when Bush had 90% approval ratings.
@D-Man: Nice summary. In other words, New Jersey has switched parties to the same extent that Vermont did when it elected John Lynch. I give Christie approximately a 5% chance of serving 2 terms.
Of course, I meant Jim Douglas, not Lynch. Easy to mix up those states up there.
I still think tea-bagging isn't a real fetish -- it's just an excuse for making an error during oral sex.
"Ouch!"
"Oh, sorry! You're not into tea-bagging?"
--Greg (Just saying) :-)
"It will eventually prevail, just as it now has in every Canadian province."
This is a misinterpretation of how gay marriage came to be in Canada. The courts struck down Canada's marriage laws, and so the government passed the Civil Marriage act, which made gay marriage a reality.
Canada does not offer a good example of how to win the gay marriage fight for Americans, however. Our courts are seen as non-partisan, and so judgments are considered final in a manner I have not generally seen in the states. Secondly, our constitution is nigh on impossible to amend (the government can use a thing called the notwithstanding clause, but there is a norm against the federal government using it).
A more valuable example to look at would be the women's rights and civil rights movement. Most African Americans lived in states where racism reigned, and where they were not the majority of the population. While engaging the public was important, the main accomplishments took place through the gradual construction of a legal case at the national level. 30 years of liberal supreme court justice appointments didn't hurt either.
The women's rights movement mostly pushed for a state-by-state approach initially, but had great success when they shifted to a national strategy. They had a lot going for them, however. Many were wealthy and well-connected, and some politicians had much to gain from giving women the vote.
I believe a state-by-state referendum approach will probably fail. The problem is that statewide races have lower turnout than national ones. Highly motivated opponents of gay marriage tend to win out in the organizing game. Similarly people that tend to vote in low numbers (eg. young people) have even less impact in such races as usual. Moreover, even a successful referendum vote one year can be overturned in the next.
A court-based approach will take a long time to get results, particularly since the right has dominated presidential elections (and thus supreme court appointments) for the past 40 years. I suspect public opinion will change before then.
Meaningful change will take place nationally, and will require a president (not Obama, evidently) willing to grow a pair. Gay marriage polls about 41-49. It is not exactly a popular issue to take a stand on, but, in conjunction with a broadly popular platform somebody supporting gay marriage can indeed get elected. Moreover I suspect its numbers will only get better over time.
I would guess the tipping point should come after Obama leaves office. Obama's presence on any ticket will greatly raise African American voter turnout - which is not quite a good thing for same-sex marriage (look at the California exit polls). Moreover, Obama has made it pretty clear he isn't much of a friend to the LGBT rights movement.
Pan said...
Errr, ok. That's not me. Apparently, "Pan" is so popular a name that someone else is posting here under it.
For the record, the Pan that's been on here longest is me:
http://www.blogger.com/profile/04772888469456315638
This new Pan is:
http://www.blogger.com/profile/14658198231214073296
"But, right-wing policies in the Bush era turned CO blue. It wasn't because we now have so many people come here from San Francisco!"
That is the story in much of CA as well. 8 years of right-wing abuse by the Bush White House turned many Republicans to Democrats or Independents. The increasingly nasty tone of the Republican party, or at least their mouthpieces (Fox News and its ilk along with Rush), has changed even more over. That said, moderate Republicans will still have a place in CA.
I'm pretty sure they didn't name themselves that...
um....
Feb 20, 2009 Freeptardland: Operation Teabag
Not operation tea party,it was tea bag from the beginning.
It appears using insulting sexual terms like "teabagging" is cool on this site, so:
Too bad the fudgepackers won't be able to get married in Maine. Oh well.
The difference, Brian (since you seem to be somewhat linguistically and expressively challenged, poor dear) is this:
"Teabaggers", like it or not, is a really clever double entendre that has two distinct meanings... and was in fact created by the people who now object to its use which makes it even funnier.
"Fudgepackers" on the other hand.. well, that's just so 7th grade that we're all kind of embarrassed for you.
Do us a favor, beavis. Go off and seclude yourself somewhere, eat your own shit, then choke on it and die.
I'm tired of reading the hate you perpetrate on this site (yes, I realize the irony of this statement after making the one above).
Yep, using that teabag "double entendre" is at least 8th grade...definitely high level debate there. Its like you can see libs giggling like gradeschoolers when they write the term.
@brian, you seem to fail to understand that "Teabagging" is slang created by those who enjoy that particular sex act. "Fudgepacker" is a derogatory term created by people such as yourself.
Teagbagger for certain conservatives only became pejorative because they happened to choose a term that had a slang meaning.
I think the general difference here is that one term is making fun of you for what you believe, another is making fun of you for what you are.
It's kind of like how "libtard" and "republicant", though childish, are overlooked, while calling someone "nigger", "faggot" or "cunt" are not.
Sorry, brian, but sometimes you just gotta face facts. We've all been to school, so we understand how these things work.
Now, over here you've got a group of kids carrying earnest little signs and wearing hats with teabags hanging on them.
Over there you've got a group of kids who know what "teabag" means, and are grinning and nudging each other.
Tell me... who are the cool kids in this scenario?
It's just a loser, dude. It can never be rehabbed. Never. Give it up.
I'm just looking forward to continuing Republicant teabaggery.
Totally immature and unnecessary comment.
@brian
its not our fault that a movement decided to use a word that had a meaning they would probably not be proud of for their name.
The question is, did they do it on purpose, so that people would talk more about their movement because of their poor choice of name, or did they really not know what the word teabagging meant?
I gotta tell you--its the most insulting term I've heard in political debate. Even used on TV alot (always by libs). So, I guess you libs think this "double entendre" gives you license to insult people. But, I guess its us conservatives that have the hate, huh?
James, I'm sure they didn't know.
That's what makes it so delightful in fact, and why it's a political blunder that will (I believe) live in glorious, delicious infamy for decades to come.
Far-right Republicans fear SEX more than anything. More than spending, more than deficits, more than welfare and Big Bad Terrorists and people from Europe. SEX is abjectly terrifying to them. Even worse is DEVIANT SEX, which is truly too scary to contemplate, and is just waiting to reach out and grab their little well-scrubbed Republican tots, ravish them and turn them into (shudder) practising homosexuals.
OOOOH, the horror!
So what do they call their shiny new protest movement? An appellation commonly acssocaited with a sexual act practised by homosexuals (and... double shudder... promiscuous young people.)
It's a blunder of truly wonderful, historic proportions. It will have endless repercussions.
@JamesY
The question is, did they do it on purpose, so that people would talk more about their movement because of their poor choice of name, or did they really not know what the word teabagging meant?
You really think teabaggers are clever enough to have picked a silly off-color name for themselves just to get us talking about them? The same people who can be convinced in the reality of "death panels" are smart enough to engage in that sort of subtle self-deprecation? Not a chance.
@brian
I gotta tell you--its the most insulting term I've heard in political debate. Even used on TV alot (always by libs). So, I guess you libs think this "double entendre" gives you license to insult people. But, I guess its us conservatives that have the hate, huh?
Yes, and yes.
If you find the term so offensive, take it up with the teabaggers - who are the ones who came up with it.
Do us a favor, beavis. Go off and seclude yourself somewhere, eat your own shit, then choke on it and die.
I'm tired of reading the hate you perpetrate on this site (yes, I realize the irony of this statement after making the one above).
Hate?
By supporting gay marriage?
By pointing out that it was the freeptards that named the movement teabag?
There is no irony in your statements, just stupidity.
The question is, did they do it on purpose, so that people would talk more about their movement because of their poor choice of name, or did they really not know what the word teabagging meant?
As insane as the freeptards are, a few posted that a name change would be a good idea.
They brought the mockery on themselves. Not just because of the name, but because of their blatant hypocrisy.
They are for less government spending, but it didn't occur to them to protest it until a black democratic man was in the White House.
They claim that they are for individual freedom, but obviously they are not.
@brian
Fillstro's comment is WHY everyone keeps using the term in the way they did.
In what we can tell, this sect of society, who wants to lower taxes, keep gays from having equal rights, and stop all contraception from being disseminated to the people,
they CHOSE to call their organizing body a term that does NOT remind one of the tea party taxation protests of our country,
but instead reminds what seems to be MOST people about a SEXUAL act.
Does this make sense to you? Why would they do this and NOT expect for people to use the term how it is used in most people's vocabulary?
In my mind, they should have thought through their naming decision a little better, because their poor choice just begged for that.
And yes, the distinction comes in that THEY CALLED THEMSELVES THIS TERM. instead of derogatory terms used to talk about races of people, or sexual orientation, or mental retardation. Those terms originate from OUTSIDE the population that the term is used to describe.
This time, the term people are using to describe the protesters are EXACTLY the term THEY CHOSE to use for themselves.
But, I guess its us conservatives that have the hate, huh?
Right you are, brian. That's the biggest canard that man liberals love throwing around at every chance....that conservatives are so consumed with "hate" and "anger"....what is it they always call us? "Fearmongers"?
Puh-lease. One needs only to listen any given liberal for five minutes....be it any number of commenters on this site (people like beavis, PorridgeGun, and Cugel come to mind), prominent media personalities like Keith Olbermann or Markos Moulitsas, or Obama's own White House henchmen (see David Axelrod and Robert Gibbs)....to see just how hateful and sinister that group of ideologues can be.
Don't ever expect me to take you seriously if you talk about how hateful conservatives are so long as those smug bastards I mentioned (and many others) are still around.
There is no irony in your statements, just stupidity.
Guess the irony is lost on an imbecile like you.
Doesn't matter, though. A public record of your hate and vitriol is
on permanent display over at backtype.com. Your every (hateful) word is etched into the proverbial stone, you asshat. And you can't run from it now, so don't act all innocent. I invite anyone to follow the link below to beavis' string of comments and make your own judgement as to whether or not he is "hateful."
beavis' collection of maniacal rantings on backtype
This is from just ONE of beavis' posts several weeks ago. ONE, I tell you. He managed to squeeze in all of this anger into just ONE solitary post. Enjoy:
You are a fucking twit. This whole post like all your others is mindless.
Why don't you fucktards just be honest and say what you are thinking: "But he is a black guy!"
Even your fellow retards like Bart, Nova, and Ass Rider occasionally(vrey rare but happens) posts something substantial. Why can't you?
(side note: I was motivated to pick this one because of the dig on me.)
It is funny how the fact that it was the teabaggers who named themselves has so enraged him.
Facts always enrage the nutbag right like Ass Rider, especially when it destroys their attempts to blame Cooper Anderson for coining the term to describe these hateful, uneducated hypocrites.
I am not the one who makes physical threats am I?
Oy vey...
Hateful rhetoric knows no political orientation. Though the most putrid, teeth-grinding vitriol on this site most regularly comes from Mule, I can think of no regular poster on this site (myself included) who has not engaged in over-the-top and inappropriate rhetoric from time to time.
C'est la vie.
But hateful political issues are different. Using referenda to segregate and marginalize a small and oppressed portion of the electorate in order to stir up the base (as in Maine) actually hurts real people and real families.
And that sort of hate politics has been a Republican mainstay since Nixon's Southern Strategy.
It is funny how the fact that it was the teabaggers who named themselves has so enraged him.
I didn't jump in this thread and start dogging you because of anything about the 'teabagger discussion.' I just don't like you and am here to call you out.
Facts always enrage the nutbag right like Ass Rider,
WTF? Where, in this thread, was I on the wrong side of something factual? I posted all of the things YOU said. That way, I can prove without a shadow of a doubt something YOU said. That is a fact. But I haven't made any erroneous statements...just calling you out...with FACTS.
especially when it destroys their attempts to blame Cooper Anderson
Who the hell is Cooper Anderson? Anderson Cooper maybe? Get a clue.
for coining the term to describe these hateful, uneducated hypocrites.
Way to stereotype and generalize conservatives based on a handful of nutbags. Don't you hate it when the same is done to you because of all of the radical, militant liberal activists? They come across just as hateful, uneducated, and hypocritical. Stop castigating all of us because of some fringe far right-wingers, and we'll stop doing the same to you because of some fringe left-wingers. Otherwise, I'm left with no choice but to lump you all in together. And with the hateful speech you use, it's not hard to see why.
I am not the one who makes physical threats am I?
Still babbling this same line. Alright then. I'll give you what you want. You seem to be asking for it. I know you leave in Eastern Washington now. So tell me where you live. I'll come looking for ya. We can meet up face to face and settle this. Bring it, tough guy, or shut your damn trap.
Though the most putrid, teeth-grinding vitriol on this site most regularly comes from Mule
Hah! Your political biases cloud your judgement, you asshat. You obviously are blind to the vitriol of beavis, PorridgeGun, and Cugel.
Beavis can't go two sentences without using the words 'fucking' or 'retard.'
PorridgeGun said he wouldn't oppose a complete genocide of conservatives.
And Cugel is a complete manifestation of liberal anger. The collection of his 'bons mots' can be found here:
http://www.backtype.com/url/www.blogger.com%252fprofile%252f14415214853725925805
Mule Rider said...
"...you asshat..."
__________________________
Mmm, yeah. Might want to read my comment again and try to understand it before responding, kay?
Yep, call someone a "nappy headed ho", you're fired. Saying conservatives suck balls on TV is fine lib discourse though. Its only hate speech if its against libs.
Getting called teabagger is basically like cocksucker--but libs would get in trouble for that on TV. I hope someone like Pat Buchanan knocks a libs teeth in soon when they use that term. Btw, its the Boston Tea Party...why would we even use the term teabag.
Mmm, yeah. Might want to read my comment again and try to understand it before responding, kay?
Ummm...you might want to read through the comments of people like PorrideGun who have defended the complete eradication of conservatives before sticking to your guns in labeling me the most vitriolic poster on here, m'kay?
Try and understand that...you know, the difference in simply calling someone a "dickweed" or "asshat" versus defending the extermination of millions of people...before you get back with me.
Brian says... its the Boston Tea party...why would we even use the term teabag
Um... just a wild guess here, but maybe because of guys like this?
@brian
I don't know why a movement would use the term teabag, BUT YOUR MOVEMENT DID.
The leader of the movement used THAT TERM, 'TEABAG' to define his movement. Operation Teabag if I'm not mistaken
And better yet, the term TEABAGGER is one that people involved IN THE MOVEMENT have called themselves. I have even heard interviews where people in the teabag movement have called the movement the TEABAGGING movement.
Don't blame the media, or us for pointing out a movements poor choice for a name.
Have they changed it to tea party movement yet, after realizing their naming mistake?
....lets look at that one.
Mule said...
"who have defended the complete eradication of conservatives"
If I recall correctly, that was when you charged him with that ridiculous hypothetical and he refused to respond to your post, right?
Anyway, my larger point was that we all engage in needless vitriol, if you had read more than a few words of the post.
Actually, truth be told I kind of enjoy Mule's commentary more than the other trolls on this site. It's not the gloom and doom prognostication of a PeteKent, nor the "You're an ASSHAT" prattling of a Mike in Maryland, nor the DePalma-esque obsession to prove "we're more popular than you."
No, Mule's posts read more like an Antonin Scalia dissent. The subtlety-be-damned dismissiveness, the over the top (but admittedly very articulate) rage that someone might deign to disagree with The Way Things Ought To Be, etc.
Vitriolic to be sure, but they make for entertaining reading and some very clever (and effective) lines of attack.
Actually, truth be told I kind of enjoy Mule's commentary more than the other trolls on this site.
Funny you should say that, Jacob. I feel the same way.
Mule always reminds me of "Hawk" in the book Up the Down Staircase, a student who constantly contributed violent, angry and apocalyptic msessages to the school suggestion box (identified only with a scrawled depiction of a predatory hawk) but often coupled with thoughtful suggestions for improving traffic flow in the lunchroom and helping shy kids get involved in school activities.
A complex and interesting guy.... (if you can ever get past the pit bulls and the assault rifles ;-)
Interesting analogy filistro, and I'll give Mule this as well:
He was won of few posters on either side to put aside what he wanted last night's elections to signify and admit that it was basically a wash.
If I recall correctly, that was when you charged him with that ridiculous hypothetical and he refused to respond to your post, right?
I only prodded him because he hinted (admittedly, my interpretation) that he'd enjoy seeing something like that. Yes, my hyperbolic charge was/is over-the-top, but I found it damning that as much as I goaded him into giving me one simple answer, he couldn't muster the keystrokes to simply say, "I wouldn't support the genocide of conservatives." Seven words. That's all I asked of him, and he couldn't do it. My ridiculousness aside, that's pretty ridiculous too.
Anyway, my larger point was that we all engage in needless vitriol, if you had read more than a few words of the post.
I did read on, and I totally agree, and I'm totally guilty. I think, in a roundabout way, that was my point too...I just wanted to make it clear that I'm not the only one who does it and, subjectively, I believe others are worse (and my over-the-top replies are mostly just to balance the linguistic framework of each discussion - a stretch of an excuse, I realize).
Actually, truth be told I kind of enjoy Mule's commentary more than the other trolls on this site.
The 'troll' reference aside, I take this is as a serious compliment. Thank you. And might I see you're somewhat enjoyable yourself and generally intellectually stimulating. I can tell you are still more on the progressive end of things, but you reason your arguments well and don't immediately dive in the mud like the aforementioned posters I mentioned (and Mike in Maryland, who you mentioned but I had forgotten to include).
He was won of few posters on either side to put aside what he wanted last night's elections to signify and admit that it was basically a wash.
I admitted it because I truly believe it...and truth be known, though I'm admittedly more conservative than the average voter/citizen, I prefer a mostly divided government. Some people don't like this, but I do, as it seems like most of the legislation that passes under this arrangement is agreeable to more people. As I said, I'm generally more conservative - both fiscally and socially - than most, but I'd like to think I'm pragmatic as well, especially as it pertains to people's civil rights. I want to protect traditional marriage, but I'm all for extending additional (and equal) rights to same-sex couples. I didn't know the issue in Maine that well (Yes or No on 1), but I'm hoping we can have something nationally to address this in the next few years that is beneficial to the LGBT community while still acknowleding there is a difference between the various arrangements, as sort of a compromise with social conservatives.
@Mule Rider,
I know you said yourself that its a stretch of an excuse, but if what you say is true, that your over the top replies are to balance things out...
...I hope you realize stooping down to other's levels does not make your point better.
And I'm sure everyone else is going to say they were stooping to your level, and My point is still just as valid. I understand how most of the topics here get people on edge, but civil discussion is how you make points in general.
This point goes to all sides of every argument. as soon as someone starts using profanity, or name calling, their points just become that much less valid to the party they are hoping to convince.
I'm hoping, Mule Rider, that you stay along the lines of your last comment, because that was much more of a joy to read, and see where you are coming from. These are the types of conversations where people can come to common agreement, or discuss their differing opinions where others can see the real points.
sorry for the rant on this topic...
@Mule Rider
I am most impressed with your last post. I'll admit to enjoying unnecessary vitriol as much as the next guy - but I am also more than willing to forgo it for the sake of sane and intelligent conversation. I'm up for raising the level of discourse if you are.
@ jenny:
believe me jenny, "tea bagging" is no more nor less "homo-erotic" than fellatio.
it simply depends on the gender of the person doing the actual bagging, as it does in fellatio.
Bart DePalma said...
The interesting items from this election:
~~~~~~~~~~
BDP, what analytical thinking process did one use before you made these astute political statements/predictions:
Hoffman will win this in a walk.
Then again, if hopes were money, the Dems would be rich. Owens best shot was an effective Scozza campaign splitting the GOP vote. That distant hope is now gone. Hoffman will win this race easily and the conservative rebellion will go viral in the GOP.
just wonderin' ;)
Indeed, if hopes were money ...
Keep hope alive!
and may I ask :) when will the teabagger rebellion go viral in the GOP? bwahaha
btw, re: NJ ~ the GOP gained a single seat, leaving Democrats with a 47-33 majority in the Assembly. ie the election was all about Corzine and NJ is still very Blue, eh.
take care, blessings
and are you brave enough ;) to answer my simple question. Name a conservative who would have done better than McCain in the 2008 election, remembering as we discussed previously conservative turnout in both 2004 and 2008 was (34%).
Come'on BDP, be brave and give me an answer. Maybe if the ticket was switched palin/McCain lol
Thanks for the kind words, JamesY and shrinkers. I shall remain diligent in trying to raise the level of discourse. Rather than "call people out" or do whatever it is I think is reasonable to put some of these people in their place, I should just go about my business and ignore the likes of beavis, Cugel, Mike in Maryland, PorridgeGun, etc.
I can see a real difference between them and the rational progressives in here, so I need to act like it. In fact, some of you guys are downright pleasant and are hard to dislike (making me feel pretty guilty for some of my comments damning all liberals through generalized statments).
It will be toughest, though, to discern the best treatment for people like Pragmatus, liberal_defender_of_freedom and Dwight, who can make some very biting snarks and be derogatory at times, but are otherwise generally harmless and can sometimes make rational, reasonable arguments.
Guess the best thing is to not get too worked up over anybody...isn't that what they teach in Blogging 101?!
Guess the best thing is to not get too worked up over anybody...isn't that what they teach in Blogging 101?!
Best advice (and something I admit to ignoring quite often myself).
Lots of good forums have a separate channel for snark and nasty, and allow people to be as absurd and mean in there as they want. But everywhere else, they are expected to behave - and to simply ignore anyone who doesn't.
@MR
The thing that gets me most worked up is when I think people aren't being logical, whether or not I agree with them. That sometimes gets me in trouble with the irrational liberal posters as much as the irrational conservative ones. I guess I'm just too much of a realist to refuse to see how things are to putting on a filter.
@Mule Rider
and there is a difference between calling out someone's hypocritical statement, and using name calling and profanity to get your point across.
I, as a rather far left liberal on most issues, HOPE that people who say hypocritical things get called out on it on BOTH sides. The problem usually comes to when one side starts using name calling profanity, or other strawman arguments to 'help' raise their point. All that does is turn off people from listening to the point they are making!
And I don't mind when people, on either side, are called out for making arguments that just make no sense.
SO yes, continue to out eachothers retarded statements, but we can all do it in a way that will allow the discussion to continue forward.
@Pan
I'm right there with you.
as long as we all point it out in a way that doesn't belittle the person making the point - because that ends up belittling ourselves.
I know I'm guilty of that myself...
Oh sure, we all get frustrated with people and either want to call them idiots or just go ahead and do it. And I think that's okay at some point. If someone just appears that they're not going to bother trying to debate something rationally and will instead spin it and deny they are spinning it, you just have to call them an idiot. It seems like the amount of liberal troll posting here have increased in the last few weeks because of this election. I can definitely see why the independents and conservatives would get exasperated by some of these people. I do, and I generally believe in the same ideals as they do.
This is probably applicable to most frequent posters here (myself included), regardless of political persuasion:
http://xkcd.com/386/
The mouseover text for this is just as great: What do you want me to do? LEAVE? Then they'll keep being wrong!
Hey Pan, that was my biggest laugh of the day! Priceless.
Thanks :-)
Hee hee Pan! That is great! Thanks!
What's sad is when you find yourself in that exact same position. At least my wife reads xkcd so I can just answer with the line from the comic.
Jesus, I feel you guys are dangerously close to some kind of group hug or something.
Blogger George Taylor said...
"Jesus, I feel you guys are dangerously close to some kind of group hug or something."
LOL. Sometimes it's helpful to acknowledge that the people we often villify here can make some pretty damn good arguments.
Or at least make the arguments a lot more interesting.
You got that right, Jacob.
There was a time - for about ten minutes :) - when Americans could disagree without being disagreeable, when honest differences of opinion could be debated and supported with reason and logic - when we acknowledged that we all had the best interests of America - and maybe of the world - at heart.
Well, at least, it's a nice fantasy to believe there ever was such a time. And it there wasn't, maybe we could create one - in one small place, among one group of people.
It might not change the world.
But it might be worth doing for those who try.
Let's see who is up for it.
Hey, I'll cheerfully hug anybody in here including Muley (who is actually kind of sweet, in a sinister sort of way.)
I do draw the line, however, at crazy Pete Kent, or that creepy Charles dude who hates gay people.
A girl needs to have SOME standards... :-)
@filistro
Maybe we could simply ignore PK, and see if he gets the hint.
Maybe for Charles, when he starts to talk, we can say simply and only - "Does Jesus like gays?" And, whatever his answer (or non-answer) is, repeat again, "Does Jesus like gays?" Don't engage him, don't answer any questions, don't ask him anything else - "Does Jesus like gays?" Broken record. No argument, no discussion of his points - "Does Jesus like gays?" Nothing else.
Oh, maybe the occasional, "Does Jesus hate gays?"
Nope, won't work. Trust me, these guys have an answer for everything. Charles will just reply that Jesus hates the sin but loves the sinner.
Someday, you know (perhaps soon) it's going to be conclusively, irrefutably, scientifically demonstrated that homosexuality is something one is born with... in fact, gay people are just the way God made them.
I wonder what the bigots will say then. I can't wait to find out.
Oh, and as far as ignoring Pete... that won't work either.
Pete is an automaton. He needs no reaction, no intellectual exchange, no spirited give-and-take.
Like the little figure in the ciuckoo clock, Pete needs only to pop out, spout his predictable spiel and withdraw.
What an odd compulsion.
I'm a little surprised that there has hardly been a peep about New York partially repealing their Blaine Amendment by over a 2-1 margin. That was a pretty substantial victory for the Religious Right and one which is going to have considerably wider impact in the future than the one congressional race in the Adirondacks where they lost.
Still babbling this same line. Alright then. I'll give you what you want. You seem to be asking for it. I know you leave in Eastern Washington now. So tell me where you live. I'll come looking for ya. We can meet up face to face and settle this. Bring it, tough guy, or shut your damn trap.
Seriously, what is your mental condition?
When you threaten people and offer to fight them, your accusations sound just like a racist trying to accuse someone of racism.
Or an adulterer trying to call out another.
Come to think of it you are the quintessential GOOPer.
I don't hate gays. Jesus died on the Cross for them too.
filistro:
Are murderers "born" that way?
Blogger Charles said...
"Are murderers "born" that way?"
Interesting question Charles, that really touches on the heart of this matter. No, murderers are not born wanting to kill, just as you were not born wanting to hate, and yet you still do.
Maybe the answer to this problem lies in education and exposure. We need to let people know from a very early age that the families around them with same-gender parents are just like normal families. We need to encourage people to talk about their families in a normal context, and have them as characters on TV shows and in books, perhaps especially children's books. Much the way black children and there families were included into culture in the '70s, exposing children to the benefits of diversity and a very early age.
Remember there are some small children out there who could grow up to be Charles. We don't have to let that happen.
I mean everyone who realizes that they already know gay people is another mind changed.
Charles, you are a poser and a provocateur.
Nobody would equate homosexual behavior with murder unless he was just looking to start an argument.
Sorry, I won't play. I realize you have some sick urge to spout this garbage to an aghast audience, and I do sympathize with your need... but I just find you deeply, intensely boring.
I didn't equate homosexuality with murder. It's simply a question to see where (or if) you would draw the line. If I could prove that murderers were "born" that way, that doesn't change the fact that we have to punish them. That's why I was asking the question BEFORE I post links to scientific studies on the point. Alcoholism is another "condition" that scientists believe you are "born" with a predisposition toward. In a civil debate, I get to make those points. You probably know that, which is why you refuse to answer.
Charles, sweetie... is there some part of "no" that you don't understand?
I know quite a lot about homosexuality, which I researched in depth over several years for a major writing project. I'm sure you would love to spend a day in a "debate" with me, which would consist of me presenting data that you would counter with dogma.
For me that would be like wrestling with a pig... it gets you nowhere, and the pig kind of likes it.
I LOVE intelligent discourse and debate with bright people. It's what I do for enjoyment, relaxation and inspiration when I take breaks from my work throughout the day.
But you... you're a dull, one-trick pony. I'm just not interested.
Again, sorry.
So much for being "dangerously close to some kind of group hug or something."
Be careful what you wish for Chucky. A group hug means you might have to touch some of "The Gays." Watch out, you might like it too much.
:-)
Now, Jacob... THAT'S interesting.
Many of the really virulent anti-gay crusaders are using this behavior to battle their own latent, deeply repressed homosexual urges which truly appall and horrify them.
That's why I can feel some sympathy for Charles even if I don't want to argue with him. He may be a boring, bombastic bonehead, but he is human and he can feel pain.
Perhaps Charles is really just a tortured soul....
Oh damn. Now I'm beginning to find him interesting! LOL... I'd better go do some work.
Okay, I got mugged by some fascinating news on my way to work. Fortunately, the topic of gay marriage has been in the news and in our discussions recently, so I have a semi-valid pretext for posting this little nugget about another well-known anti-gay marriage crusader.
Jeez, these Republicans sure are getting to be a frisky group, aren't they? Once they're able to actually acknowledge and embrace their inner sex-addicts (instead of preaching morality to everybody else) they might even begin to be actually sort of human.
Hey, it's all progress.
Of course, I am a bigot and/or in the closet. That way you don't have to deal with the actual arguments.
Don't sulk, Charles. It's unattractive.
Like I care whether I am "attractive" to you (or, do I?).
Charles no one here knows or cares if you are gay, but you are demonstrably a bigot. All of your "arguments," or non-sequiturs, strawmen, false premises, etc (as we call them in the real world), have been rooted in bigotry.
WV: dement--just too apropos for this discussion
Ah... somebody with rational intelligence has returned to the conversation.
I'm looking for an excuse to postpone work for a while and ask a question that's been bugging me ever since the Maine results came in.
What, exactly, IS bigotry? And where does it come from? Is it rooted primarily in fear, or ignorance, or an insecure need for self-validation that involves violent rejection of the "other?"
And why does bigotry seem to occur in clusters of people as opposed to being evenly spread throughout society?
WV.. yobsixi... what all the boys keep saying to Charles
@Charles said...
"filistro:
Are murderers "born" that way?"
Actually, Charles, there is some recent scientific evidence from gene scans and brain scans that point to some murderer's in fact ARE born that way (more so when it comes to serial killers than the casual murderer). It is in there genes.
I'm having trouble finding the link to this story again, but rest assured, I'll find it and post it for you.
Thanks, JamesY, that was my original point. I have some of the cites to medical and scientific journals on that point if anyone actually wants to participate in some intelligent discourse and debate, rather than simple ad hominem personal attacks.
@Charles
If that is your point, than I must say, I do not understand what you are trying to say.
Yes, some people are born with a tendancy to violent action, and they need help - because that violent action HURTS OTHERS who DO NOT WANT TO BE HURT
some people are born with a tendency to like younger boys...and they need help to curtail that desire because it hurts people who do not want to be involved.
There are reasons why those two things are against laws in most (if not all) countries.
But people who are gay? How does two people loving eachother hurt anyone?
Is one person in the relationship unwillingly?
Does this relationship between two people of same sex hurt people around them?
and if so, give me a concrete example of how a same sex couple hurts those around them.
THEN tell me how heterosexual couples avoid the SAME hurt/problems.
Does a relationship between two people of the same sex at all hurt YOU? In what way does it affect who you are and what you are doing?
If marriage is a principle that needs to be adhered to...why is the divorce rate so high? Kids can come out of heterosexual parental relationships with problems just as easily as they can with homosexual relationships.
Why, with the amount of orphaned kids we have, would we not want to allow a loving family of ANY TYPE to adopt them?
Sure, check and make sure there is no violence, make sure the children will be protected, and have a standard of living.
But tell me how this is any different then with heterosexual couples.
Tell me why Britney Spears deserves to rear children, but my enthusiastic, intelligent, kind hearted music professor and his partner can not.
Explain to me how letting two people who love each other use the term Marriage to describe their relationship any way changes the meaning of that word when it comes to any heterosexual couples' marriage? When it comes to Your Own Marriage (if you are indeed married).
Explain to me, why in the 21st century, we have people who want to take a section of our society and make them NOT AS EQUAL as another section - not because they want to hurt others, not because their way of life breaks laws, but because their way of life is DIFFERENT than what you are USED to?
Why should people HATE themselves for a condition that a) does not hurt ANYONE and b) is something that they are inside and out because someone else tells them it is not natural?
And I promise you, if we lived in a homosexual run country that outlawed heterosexual marriage, I would fight just as adamantly for your cause; because everyone deserves to have the same rights and responsibilities as everyone else.
I appreciate that, but dealing with reality, males homosexual couples cannot procreate naturally and (all other things being equal) have higher physical and metal health costs to themselves and society in general. Is that "legitimate" enough for you? BTW if an adult father wants to marry his adult daughter, how do those two people loving each other hurt anyone?
@Charles
Can you give me any examples of your arguments? One? But here's my response anyway
in a world where we are already overburdened with human population, I fail to see procreation as a logical reason for making homosexuals feel like less of a person.
what are the higher physical costs associated with homosexual males?
The higher mental costs to themselves stem from the idea that they are not accepted, so they feel the need to hate themselves AND hide from the population at large.
If you want to destroy the 'higher mental cost to themselves' argument...you make them feel NOT ASHAMED TO BE WHO THEY ARE. and tada...done.
mental cost to society? give me an example. Other than those who for some reason or another do not accept homosexuals, how does being homosexual have any sort of mental cost to society.
If you are talking about things like them being kicked out of the military, that's an EASY fix. get rid of that rule.
If you are talking about effectiveness in society, i again, do not see your argument. Usually the ONLY reason people get kicked out of their jobs when they come out is because they are gay, not because they were doing their job poorly.
now, onto your strawman argument - which i hesitate to respond to;
There are biological reasons that this is illegal.
It is scientifically proven that inbreeding, that is procreation between people that are too close in relation to eachother, breed all sorts of genetic disorders.
Now, people who have genetic disorders are not bad people, BUT if there are easy steps to minimize this, we should.
If I knew i had a recessive trait for a genetic disorder, I would NOT procreate with someone who also had that gene - this applies to non family members.
Now, if people believe they are unjustly unable to marry someone they truly love because of this, guess what. I will gladly listen to their arguments, see if we can come up with a way to allow this and not hurt future generations. Legal documents not allowing them to bear children sounds like an example of where the compromise talking points may start.
There are biological reasons why same-sex marriage should not be allowed too. Putting aside the facts that homosexual males are SIX TIMES more likely to attempt suicide, that could actually be a cost "savings" but even I am not going to advocate for that "benefit.". Take a look at the higher rates of disease from HIV/AIDS to many types of cancer. That all takes a financial toll on society too.
@Charles
First off, i would ask that you cite such statistics,
and second, do you have any idea WHY homosexual males are more likely to commit suicide? Do you know the psychology behind it?
If you want to provide a cost savings for society, you should look at the underlying reason WHY this happens, and fix THAT - since you obviously can not stop someone from being homosexual (you agreed earlier that it IS something you are born with).
Let me explain something to you.
If your nature is something that your society REJECTS, something that no one wants to give you equal membership as a part of that society, guess how much more you will hate yourself.
If by telling the truth about a fundamental fact of your life to your employer endangers your being employed, tell me how much you are going to hate yourself.
Tell me how, by continuing a stance of NO EQUAL RIGHTS to homosexuals, you will STOP homosexual males from being more likely to commit suicide, and having a drain on our society (mentally and economically).
I can tell you how, by having a stance of EQUAL RIGHTS FOR ALL HUMAN BEINGS, we can lower that number. As soon as someone does not have to hide who they are in order to be accepted in society, they like themselves better. As soon as they are accepted for who they are, suicidal tendencies will go away.
Of course its not as simple as give rights, and suicide rate will go down. Just because you enact legislation that enforces equal rights, this does not change some peoples outlook (people still look at interracial marriages as bad things in certain places). But, overtime, it will allow people to view it as NORMAL. After they realize that it in fact has NO HARMFUL EFFECT ON HETEROSEXUAL MARRIAGE or couples, they will even come to accept it as a natural way some people are made.
@Charles
I forgot to respond to your biological reason...
Can you tell me what exactly is the biological reason that same sex marriages should not be allowed?
I don't want to assume what argument you are making before I respond.
Inability to procreate and higher rates of disease from HIV/AIDS to many types of cancer. Ask "shrinkers" about all of the previous statistics and cites to peer-reviewed studies already provided.
@Charles
For the second time, I say this: In a world where OVERPOPULATION is a HUGE problem, I fail to take procreation as a serious argument.
Feel free to talk to me again in a time period where humans have a pressing need to forward our species, because of a lack of births; and I'll gladly hear arguments about the need for everyone to procreate.
Once OVERPOPULATION is NOT an issue on the world playing field, let alone a local one...we can talk about that seriously.
20 years from now, when the U.S. population is in decline because of widespread same-sex "marriage" only then will you talk about it and. what, promise to annul all of those marriages? It will be too late to discuss anything once we jump off the cliff.
Higher rates of disease is also a "biologically" limiting factor. That is happening NOW. Why no discussion of that?
@Charles
There are plenty of heterosexual couples and marriages that NEVER PRODUCE OFFSPRING.
should we annul their marriage because they are not procreating?
Overpopulation is a REAL PROBLEM, RIGHT NOW.
So any argument that stops things from happening because those things can not procreate makes NO SENSE on ANY LEVEL.
IF, and this is a HUGE if, we actually are in a problem with our human species in a desperate need to procreate, yes, then we can talk.
But guess where the problem is RIGHT NOW. OVERPOPULATION.
so again, procreation as a necessity for anything is not a viable argument.
Now here's the REAL kicker. If you do not allow a gay person to get married, are they going to have kids anyway? Just because it is not acceptable to you, does NOT mean they are going to somehow fall in love with a woman and have kids with them.
The ONLY thing you are doing by not allowing same sex marriages is not allowing the term marriage and the legal securities for a family that it allows.
This one little thing does not at all affect who they sleep with, or if they have kids.
Not yet.
sorry, by falling in love with a woman I meant falling in love with someone of the opposite sex.
Here's a question I have on Chucky's "disease" strawman (ignoring everything else that's wrong with it):
Since lesbians are the lowest risk group for HIV/AIDS and straight women are the highest risk group (yes, more so than gay men), by your twisted logic, doesn't that mean we should only allow women to marry other women?
I mean, why should society encourage marriages that are statistically far more likely to result in HIV/AIDS?
If anyone else wants to discuss why normal women having sex is necessary for the continuation of the human species -- assuming that your parents haven't already had this talk with you -- let me know right away.
But by that logic, Chucky, marriage equality only needs better reasons for it than there are against it. And since we've presented many logical reasons for and you've presented none against it (I know, you've presented why you don't like gay people EXISTING but that's a different and even more bigoted question), then the only logical conclusion is that we should have marriage equality now!
WV: dewayst--Arguing with de homophobes is dewayst of de thyme.
@Charles
I'll reiterate my statement for a third time now.
Until we are not in a gross overpopulation crisis on planet earth, procreation is NOT A GOOD OR LOGICAL ARGUMENT for anything.
We are not in gross overpopulation mode here in the U.S. (I would argue anywhere) so it is relevant to my argument. Why not just proceed forward with how wonderful homosexual disease is?
Nor are we underpopulated. Many parts of the world such as Nigeria, Bangladesh, etc are indeed very very overpopulated.
Of course whether or not gays can get married or just live unmarried has nothing to do with overpopulation.
What was it that's so great about heterosexual disease again Charles? About diseases like AIDS that are no longer predominantly among gay men and are extremely rare among lesbians?
Post a Comment