Dorothy, We're Not In Kansas Anymore

[Sheryl]

Originally Posted by Azanon

If i dont personally like it, including seeing it as common place in society, then, Sheryl, you're saying i should vote for it for their sake, despite what I dont like? Look, i respect that some of you live this nobly, but I simply do not. I actually have to make an effort to not be visably sickened seeing two guys holding hands or kiss. When it happens in movies, i literally have to look away. Perhaps this is because i grew up in rural Arkansas, i dunno..... Regardless, I'd have to be Mother Teresa to vote for this anyway, and I assure you i'm not her.

I was not in any danger of confusing you with Mother Teresa.

I vote for what I believe it is right for our society to do.

I believe it is right for our society not to discriminate against anyone based on their gender. I extend this belief to the idea that any two human beings should be permitted to marry if they so desire.

If you don't believe this, you should not vote for it. It's really not any more complicated in my mind.

[haha]

I am one of those who would rather be accepted than understood at least by other than very close friends. In all the world, one of my brothers is the only person who knows how I think about most things. It drives my wife up a tree when she refers to some attitude she takes for granted, and I say, “Well, it all depends.” She likely will come back with , “Yeah, it all depends on whether you want any sex tonight.”. Helps focus me on what is important for the time being.

Many people are very narrow minded. They might be narrow minded right wingers or narrow minded lefties. I have lived in some of the most narrow minded lefty places of all --Berkeley, Cambridge, certain groups in Seattle. I like these people and have fun with them, but many of them would shun me if they knew how analytical I am about my social attitudes. I like almost everyone on a human or animal level- it’s just that I think certain modern social attitudes are ridiculous and are essentially making civic life untenable

There was an interesting article in the Seattle Times recently about how many young Indian professionals both here in US and in India are going back to arranged marriages, because they found that there was just too much divorce and disruption if young singles choose their own mates. One of my friends recently was divorced from an Indian man after quite a few years of marriage. He dated for a while, and then let his momma find him a suitable wife. This guy is 50! But according to my friend, he is way happier with his bride from India than he ever was in his first “love” marriage.

This would seem totally bizarre to moist acculturated Americans.

To me, one of life's ironclad laws is the "Law of Unintended Consequences".

Ha

[MasterBlaster]

But according to my friend, he is way happier with his bride from India than he ever was in his first “love” marriage.

Well I'll bet that the new wife would cook and clean. And most importantly for a happy marriage - she let the man handle the remote control.

Who wouldn't be happy with that !

[astromeria]

Are y'all aware of studies that show that people made uncomfortable by gay couples or hate gay people are likely somewhere along the gay spectrum themselves? Apparently they supress their sexual excitement when seeing a gay person, which their conscious mind then interprets as disgust. Hey, I read it on the internet!

[haha]

Originally Posted by astromeria

Are y'all aware of studies that show that people made uncomfortable by gay couples or hate gay people are likely somewhere along the gay spectrum themselves? Apparently they supress their sexual excitement when seeing a gay person, which their conscious mind then interprets as disgust. Hey, I read it on the internet!

This goes back to Freud's "The wish is father to the fear". Possibly true, IMO. Especially when we are talking about visceral feelings.

Certainly the recent performance of some religious and political leaders who have been heavy gay bashers would tend to support this idea, at least in some cases.

However, when we are talking specifically about homosexuality we should remember that there are whole cultures and subcultures which are very anit-gay. Surely this is on a social level, rather than the outcome of millions of men who just happen to be latent gay machos.

Ha

[Khan]

Originally Posted by astromeria

Are y'all aware of studies that show that people made uncomfortable by gay couples or hate gay people are likely somewhere along the gay spectrum themselves? Apparently they supress their sexual excitement when seeing a gay person, which their conscious mind then interprets as disgust. Hey, I read it on the internet!

Pastor Haggard?

[maddythebeagle]

Originally Posted by astromeria

Are y'all aware of studies that show that people made uncomfortable by gay couples or hate gay people are likely somewhere along the gay spectrum themselves? Apparently they supress their sexual excitement when seeing a gay person, which their conscious mind then interprets as disgust. Hey, I read it on the internet!

Astro: I was going to post that also and think it is true....I knew a guy that was like that....kinda obsessed with gays and how sinful it was...ended up coming out of the closet....

[alphabet soup]

Originally Posted by kaudrey

revolting against Bush?

Karen

Bush IS rather revolting.

[FinanceDude]

Originally Posted by Mr._johngalt

Yeah, you should be proud.
JG

So the fact I am a conservative and yet respect other's choices is somehow UnAmerican??

I didn't say I condone such behavior, I was merely trying to say that sexual choice aside, they work and play taxes and dream just like any other American..........

[greg]

Ha:

I wrote this early this AM for other purposes but thought it might fit here because it was while not thinking about Kansas. And after reading your posts :


Revisiting Occam’s Razor

We live in a complicated world, far more complicated than even our parents live in. Such is life and progress, as events evolve. At the core, we all want things to be simple, with easy black/white decisions about everything. That life should be so good!

I’d like to use vehicle traffic as an example to explain a political difficulty I see.

We have an enormous set of laws governing our road behaviors, perhaps hundreds of various prescriptive guidelines and a lists of punitive behavioral rules that if violated may force consequences. All for the purpose of modeling better behavior on the road. All we really want is to be able to get somewhere safely. But in the process, over time, we’ve created a huge bank of laws. We have simple rules that inform us “Slippery when Wet” and laws telling how fast we should go near playgrounds, etc. At the core, all we really need for ourselves, our families, our friends, and all society is to be secure in our travels.

I see Republicans as a group that currently sits atop all those rules and tries to press them down, reducing the quantity. They make a valid point: When does it all end? How complicated do you want to make my life? Just enforce the basic laws and stop adding new ones. The new ones don’t seem to make the number of traffic violations go up or down. The same folks just keep finding new ways to violate safety. Lock ‘em up.

I see Democrats underneath the laws pushing up new guiding principles into law, increasing the quantity in order to ‘model out’ best practices and nudge folks in the proper direction. They make a valid point: Things change, so new laws are needed to match those new circumstances. Life is complicated, so we need subtle, sophisticated, and matching laws. Get the behaviors fixed before they manifest as problems.

I think this is where a main schism lies between Democrats and Republicans, right at the interface of laws. It is a perceptual schism first. Afterwards it gets complicated and nasty. The slippery slope goes up and down in our political travels.

But underneath all these rule and law disputes we share a common enemy or—perhaps-- a common friend. We all want respect filled roads. We want all folks to respect each other so much, so very much, that they are willing to slow down not because it’s the law but because a small child may, just may, run into the street. We all want alert, responsible, and respectful drivers. We all share this feeling. Well, at least those who don’t violate the laws share those feelings and values.

Under these circumstance, the perfect Occam’s Law guidance says that all traffic laws in the world can be reduced to “Be respectful” at the subtlest level. Life would be good; life would be straightforward and simple under such circumstances.

But when the violations of that one simple rule occur, complications and grey areas begin to emerge. As they emerge, Democrats quickly crawl underneath and start pushing; the Republicans go find their hammers to pound things down. The essence of an Occam-like simplicity of good is lost at the intersection of complication.

[youbet]

Originally Posted by FinanceDude

Ever think that perhaps some women are affronted by bisexual women/lesbians

Well ya know, I was just sitting here thinking to myself, "gosh, I wonder if perhaps some women are affronted by bisexual women/lesbians?" So, I asked my DW of 36 years......."DW, are you affronted by bisexual women/lesbians?" And DW said to me, "Is that a glass of Jamison Irish Whiskey I see you holding? Do you have nothing better to do than sit in your office with that stupid computer drinking and thinking of bisexual women/lesbians?" And she walked away.

Please don't bring this subject up again on the forum. Or, if you must, add a reminder to me to not ask DW about it.

Thanks,

youbet

[mb]

Originally Posted by Martha

Az sweetie, it was a bad pun. Really bad. But funny.

So are you practicing your Southern?

[mb]

Originally Posted by Maddy the Turbo Beagle

Astro: I was going to post that also and think it is true....I knew a guy that was like that....kinda obsessed with gays and how sinful it was...ended up coming out of the closet....

Ahh, I was going to say that I react negatively (As in: "Oh yuck I don't want to see this!") to two guys kissing, etc. in public but I support gay marriage but maybe I'll have to think about the reaction a bit.

[honobob]

Originally Posted by Azanon

I actually have to make an effort to not be visably sickened seeing two guys holding hands or kiss.

Azanon

Dude Close your eyes when you're kissing your boyfriend! Gaaaaad! You're creeping him out!



Jokes aside. This is YOUR issue. You want to legislate the behavior of others because of your sexual immaturity?

Relax, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

[bpp]

Originally Posted by disEntropy Greg

I see Republicans as a group that currently sits atop all those rules and tries to press them down, reducing the quantity. They make a valid point: When does it all end? How complicated do you want to make my life? Just enforce the basic laws and stop adding new ones.

In the context of this thread, I don't think this characterization applies to the party that is working to add discriminatory clauses to state constitutions to ban same-sex marriages. The Republican party seems quite happy to create new rules governing other people's private lives.

What you are saying may apply to libertarians, who are pretty much the polar opposite of both Republicans and Democrats.

[Mr._johngalt]

Originally Posted by FinanceDude

So the fact I am a conservative and yet respect other's choices is somehow UnAmerican??

I didn't say I condone such behavior, I was merely trying to say that sexual choice aside, they work and play taxes and dream just like any other American..........

Just messin' with you man, but please don't get me started on
homosexuality. I am not going there; not on this forum.

JG

[Mr._johngalt]

Originally Posted by HaHa

This would seem totally bizarre to moist acculturated Americans.

To me, one of life's ironclad laws is the "Law of Unintended Consequences".

Ha

"Moist acculturated". I never saw that one before.

I agree with you about the "Law of Unintended Consequences",
ironclad indeed. Also, "The Road to Hell is Paved With Good Intentions".

JG

[donheff]

Originally Posted by disEntropy Greg

I see Republicans as a group that currently sits atop all those rules and tries to press them down, reducing the quantity.

I see Democrats underneath the laws pushing up new guiding principles into law, increasing the quantity in order to ‘model out’ best practices and nudge folks in the proper direction.

So if I want to get rid of all the drug laws that limit me, dump the sodomy laws without relying on activist judges, keep legislators from telling my schools how to teach science, etc., I should look to the Grand Old Party?

Gimme a break.