|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
 Posted: Sat May 16, 2009 10:02 am Post subject: Dumb Republican arguments against equality |
 |
|
| Quote: |
SAVANNAH, Ga. (AP) - Republicans can reach a broader base by recasting gay marriage as an issue that could dent pocketbooks as small businesses spend more on health care and other benefits, GOP Chairman Michael Steele said Saturday.
Steele said that was just an example of how the party can retool its message to appeal to young voters and minorities without sacrificing core conservative principles. Steele said he used the argument weeks ago while chatting on a flight with a college student who described herself as fiscally conservative but socially liberal on issues like gay marriage.
"Now all of a sudden I've got someone who wasn't a spouse before, that I had no responsibility for, who is now getting claimed as a spouse that I now have financial responsibility for," Steele told Republicans at the state convention in traditionally conservative Georgia. "So how do I pay for that? Who pays for that? You just cost me money."
|
Well, I guess according to Steele's logic, they could have saved a TON of money by refusing to recognized inter-racial marriages back in the 1960s.
As well, this new line of reasoning kind of contradicts the previous Republican argument that civil unions were a suitable alternative to marriage. Because civil unions cost money as well.
link |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Sat May 16, 2009 5:21 pm Post subject: Re: Dumb Republican arguments against equality |
|
|
| Quote: |
"Now all of a sudden I've got someone who wasn't a spouse before, that I had no responsibility for, who is now getting claimed as a spouse that I now have financial responsibility for," Steele told Republicans at the state convention in traditionally conservative Georgia. "So how do I pay for that? Who pays for that? You just cost me money."
|
The same thing happens when a straight employee of a small business gets married: suddenly someone who wasn't a spouse before (e.g. a girlfriend) is now getting claimed as a spouse. By this logic, Steele shouldn't be against merely straight marriage, he should be against all marriage, yet he's only using it as a rationale against gay marriage.
How is this any less bigoted than simply being against gay marriage without further qualification? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Sat May 16, 2009 9:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| How is this any less bigoted than simply being against gay marriage without further qualification? |
Well, I think it's supposed to seem less bigotted to the social liberal/fiscal conservative crowd. Because instead of saying IN THE NAME OF JESUS DAMN THOSE PERVERTS ALL TO THE FIERY PITS OF HELL!!!, they're saying "Hey, I've got nothing against gays, loved Brokeback Mountain. This is just a pocketbook issue".
The really ironic thing is that, if gays take the advice of the Religious Right and get themselves "cured", that'll end up costing at least as much money as will gay marriage, since they'll all have opposite-sex partners to put on the benefit rolls. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Sat May 16, 2009 10:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Steele's argument is stupid. Sorry, OTOH, I don't have any clever observations to make. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Sat May 16, 2009 11:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| By turning Steele's argument about 5 degrees, you get an argument for national health care. I don't however think that that was his intent. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Sun May 17, 2009 5:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Sorry, OTOH, I don't have any clever observations to make. |
I think our old friend Andrew summed it up best...
| Quote: |
At this point, one has to realize he is dumber than Wurzelbacher.
|
link |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sergio Stefanuto
Joined: 14 May 2009
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Sun May 17, 2009 5:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
Well, isn't this partly the reason the GOP is now of total irrelevance?
The religious/social conservatives seriously need to start their own party and see how far it gets them (as opposed to tainting Republicanism). We need a three party system, or preferably a two party system (libertarians vs everyone else)
Laissez-faire economy, laissez-faire society, but staunchly anti-Islamist foreign policy (and immigration). It's the only gig. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Sun May 17, 2009 6:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Sergio Stefanuto wrote: |
Well, isn't this partly the reason the GOP is now of total irrelevance?
The religious/social conservatives seriously need to start their own party and see how far it gets them (as opposed to tainting Republicanism). We need a three party system, or preferably a two party system (libertarians vs everyone else)
Laissez-faire economy, laissez-faire society, but staunchly anti-Islamist foreign policy (and immigration). It's the only gig. |
sounds all right except the anti-immigration thing goes against the libertarian philosophy. Plus america doesn't have that many Muslim immigrants anyway, especially compared to EU countries. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pluto
Joined: 19 Dec 2006
|
| Posted: Sun May 17, 2009 6:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Heather Mac Donald wrote: |
| The biggest social problem in the U.S. today is the crime and academic achievement gap between blacks and whites. The academic achievement gap (several grade levels and 200 SAT points (old system)) distorts our pedagogy, academic hiring and admissions, and employment standards in the public and private sectors (see the recent New Haven firefighters reverse discrimination case); it triggers huge and to date wholly ineffective government programs to try to close the gap (e.g., Head Start, No Child Left Behind). Black males commit homicide at ten times the rate of white males; in New York City, a representative locality, any violent crime is 13 times more likely to be committed by a black perp than by a white one. This crime gap results in depressed urban economies, huge incarceration costs, and the unjust demonization of the police as racist for merely going after criminals and of inner-city employers who worry about black thieves coming into their stores. |
Therefore it follows that...
Black illegitimate children and gay marriage, try and square that circle.
But she ends with:
| Quote: |
| I agree with Andrew and David Hume that gay marriage is inevitable, given the clout of the gay lobby and the power of the modern non-discrimination principle. But that doesn�t mean that it won�t have consequences beyond what we can possibly foretell and which conservatives should be attuned to. |
At least she understands that she's on the losing end of an argument. Conservatives are just grasping at straws right now w/r/t gay marriage. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Sun May 17, 2009 7:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
It's good to see an opinion-piece that looks at this issue from an angle other than the usual ones. Still, I don't find her arguments particularly convincing.
| Quote: |
As for the visceral reason: It is no secret that resistance to homosexuality is highest among the black population (though probably other ethnic minorities are close contenders). I fear that it will be harder than usual to persuade black men of the obligation to marry the mother of their children if the inevitable media saturation coverage associates marriage with homosexuals. Is the availability of homosexual marriage a valid reason to shun the institution? No, but that doesn�t make the reaction any less likely.
|
This seems like a pretty tenuous, Rube Goldberg sort of a causal relationship being posited here.
Some Do-gooder: You know, you should marry that woman who's having your child.
Black Guy: Oh come on, man. Don't you watch the news? Marriage is just for queers.
| Quote: |
| Black failure is at present a greater social problem in my view than whether gays who already have the right of civil unions have the right to marry as well. |
True, the existence of civil unions does alleviate some of the unfairness of marriage being a hetero-exclusive institution. But if we're following Steele's logic from the o.p., civil unions should never have been allowed either, since they just cost more money. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Sun May 17, 2009 7:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
Another odd thing about the article is that conservatives are normally the ones preaching individual initiative and personal responsibility. But Ms. MacDonald seems to argue that if some black guys refuse to support their own children, the fault lies partly with gay people who have nothing to do with those particular deadbeat dads, but are somehow sending the wrong message by getting themselves married.
Last edited by On the other hand on Sun May 17, 2009 7:49 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007
Location: retired
|
| Posted: Sun May 17, 2009 7:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
| On the other hand wrote: |
| Another odd thing about the article is that conservatives are normally the ones preaching individual initiative and personal responsibility. |
Which is why the whole gay marriage thing has never bothered me to the slightest. The individual may marry who she/he pleases. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pluto
Joined: 19 Dec 2006
|
| Posted: Sun May 17, 2009 7:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
| On the other hand wrote: |
| Another odd thing about the article is that conservatives are normally the ones preaching individual initiative and personal responsibility. But Ms. MacDonald seems to argue that if some black guys refuse to support their own children, the fault lies partly with gay people who have nothing to do with those particular deadbeat dads, but are somehow sending the wrong message by refusing to get married. |
I really had to re-read that article a couple of times because it seems so full of convoluted logic. Still, I ended up drawing this similar conclusion, and it isn't all that different than the arguments back in 2004/5 against gay marriage. Gay marriage will cause a breakdown of the family. Husbands and wives living peacefully together will be torn apart because Adam and Steve got hitched down the street. And you're right, this makes no sense for someone with an individualistic worldview. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hater Depot
Joined: 29 Mar 2005
|
| Posted: Sun May 17, 2009 5:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| On the other hand wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Sorry, OTOH, I don't have any clever observations to make. |
I think our old friend Andrew summed it up best...
| Quote: |
At this point, one has to realize he is dumber than Wurzelbacher.
|
link |
I don't think that Steele is dumb. I mean, he did get elected governor of Maryland. Granted, he has said a lot of dumb things. But he's also said a fair amount of non-dumb stuff, only to have to back off from it later under pressure from Rush Limbaugh, etc. He seems to know the Limbaugh rump is hurting the party, but lacks the courage to really lead. It's just a symptom of where the Republican coalition is at right now.
Of course, I've also seen it observed that he tends to drastically change what he is saying to suit his audience. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lithium
Joined: 18 Jun 2008
|
| Posted: Sun May 17, 2009 5:30 pm Post subject: Re: Dumb Republican arguments against equality |
|
|
| On the other hand wrote: |
| Quote: |
SAVANNAH, Ga. (AP) - Republicans can reach a broader base by recasting gay marriage as an issue that could dent pocketbooks as small businesses spend more on health care and other benefits, GOP Chairman Michael Steele said Saturday.
Steele said that was just an example of how the party can retool its message to appeal to young voters and minorities without sacrificing core conservative principles. Steele said he used the argument weeks ago while chatting on a flight with a college student who described herself as fiscally conservative but socially liberal on issues like gay marriage.
"Now all of a sudden I've got someone who wasn't a spouse before, that I had no responsibility for, who is now getting claimed as a spouse that I now have financial responsibility for," Steele told Republicans at the state convention in traditionally conservative Georgia. "So how do I pay for that? Who pays for that? You just cost me money."
|
Well, I guess according to Steele's logic, they could have saved a TON of money by refusing to recognized inter-racial marriages back in the 1960s.
As well, this new line of reasoning kind of contradicts the previous Republican argument that civil unions were a suitable alternative to marriage. Because civil unions cost money as well.
link |
Name any group, civilization or whatever that honors gay marriage. Even liberal California voted against it during the last election. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
