Dorothy, We're Not In Kansas Anymore

[Martha]

Other news. The first Muslim man was elected in Minnesota to serve in the House.

 

[azanon]

Here are just a few things that turn my stomach:

Coconut cream pie
Horror movies where people vomit all over things
Bloody surgery shown on medical dramas
Dead skunks in the middle of the road

I've managed to go through most of my life avoiding contact with them, and other things that I have learned will turn my stomach. That's my right and privilege. As long as they are not forced on me, things are fine.

It never occurred to me to put forth an initiative to outlaw them.

In fact I am very much in support of the rights of people everywhere who seem to enjoy them.

Financedude (and you) are right, what i said was certainly biased.

Come on guys, are you guys saying none of you vote "selfishly"? For example, i'm a government environmentalist, and if for no other reason (just sake of argument, Im 90% democrat anyway), i vote democrat because i know republicans generally speaking see people like me as a waste of taxpayer money and a roadblock to progress. Don't believe me? Confirm this with JG. Right or wrong, my job puts food on my table.

Same goes with this gay marriage issue. 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.

Yes, I'd never make statements like these publically in front of a bunch of people. I know this is not politically correct, but i'm sorry. I just cant support it directly, but obviously i'll continue to do so indirectly as i'm a strong democrat overall.

Oh, and by the way JG, the #1 reason i'm attacked on forums is because i have the guts to say what so many others only think or do. Most people prefer more friends at the cost of dishonesty.

Azanon

 

[Mr._johngalt]

Other news. The first Muslim man was elected in Minnesota to serve in the House.

Butler?

JG

 

[Mr._johngalt]

Yes, I'd never make statements like these publically in front of a bunch of people. I know this is not politically correct, but i'm sorry. I just cant support it directly, but obviously i'll continue to do so indirectly as i'm a strong democrat overall.

Oh, and by the way JG, the #1 reason i'm attacked on forums is because i have the guts to say what so many others only think or do. Most people prefer more friends at the cost of dishonesty.

Azanon

I admire your honesty. I surely do. As for me, I would even say what I think in front of "bunches of people". Hellfire................. the whole country for that matter. It is pretty nice to be at this point in my life; maybe the most non-PC person on the planet. Certainly on this forum.

JG

 

[sallie4th]

consider us a village.................idiot!

 

[Martha]

Another interesting result. South Dakota voted against the proposed abortion ban.

 

[shiny]

I agree that "marriage" is a church thing and the government should stay out of it. Maybe we should all have Domestic Partnerships. I mean, marriage doesn't mean much to a lot of people - just look at that pillar of Moral Values Britney Spears. Anyway...

I think of it as a rights issue. If one person has the right to marry the person they love most in the world and have all the rights bestowed upon them how can we deny those rights to another person just because we don't agree with who they want to marry? Just look at the anti-miscegenation laws of the past - those seem ridiculous now, but I'm sure there are some in the 60s that thought seeing a white girl with a black guy "turned their stomachs."

Sheryl, you are too funny! I hate seeing people vomiting too, not just in horror movies - we should start a petition here in WA.

 

[azanon]

but I'm sure there are some in the 60s that thought seeing a white girl with a black guy "turned their stomachs."

I'm going to take a safe guess that you're a yankee, since you stated this in the past tense. Where i live, some are still quite bothered by this, perhaps nauseated on occasion. Not me, but i definitely know some that are.

I have no doubt i would have been mocked by my extended family (behind my back mostly) had i married a black girl. She had best been an absolute knockout lookwise and education wise for me to have even stood a chance for them to have allowed that.

 

[greg]

What I meant was, you stated you are AGAINST gay marriage, but NOT if it's two bisexual females?? Can you say, biased??

I just blew all the stickers out of my nose.

 

[azanon]

I just blew all the stickers out of my nose.

I never pretended to not be biased on that issue. I'm glad he made the obvious evident, but i'll confess i fail to see the humor in that.

 

[Martha]

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

 

[shiny]

I'm going to take a safe guess that you're a yankee, since you stated this in the past tense. Where i live, some are still quite bothered by this, perhaps nauseated on occasion. Not me, but i definitely know some that are.

So, there you go. Some folks nausea has no bearing on what should and should not be a law.

I grew up in the south.



Edited to correct my bad spelling!

 

[grumpy]

Azanon,

Do you really think that your vote against gay marriages will make it any less likely that you will see two gay men holding hands? What does your visceral reaction to that have to do with extending legal protection to same sex couples? Your position seems to be like passing a law to prevent others from eating broccoli because you don't like the taste.

Grumpy

 

[donheff]

Financedude (and you) are right, what i said was certainly biased.

Same goes with this gay marriage issue. 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.....

I have defended you in the past Az but I have to call you on this one. I can understand a religious objection to gay "marriage." I can even understand, although not agree with, a religious objection to homosexuality as a sin. But an objection to civil unions or other equivalent rights simply because you don't like homosexuality is beyond the pale. That is no different than opposing rights for interacial, or interethnic couples simply because you personally believe they should "stick with their own kind."

 

[Martha]

What is really bothersome to me is amending constitutions to affirmatively insure one group is treated different from another. No matter what your state court or legislature says. Not only is that unseemly in and of itself, it makes you worry what could be next.

 

[Sheryl]

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]

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]

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]

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]

revolting against Bush?

Karen

Bush IS rather revolting.

 

[FinanceDude]

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.