NY passes same sex marriage

[_Morley]

It looks as if you're economically liberal and socially conservative?

Liberal and conservative are distortions. Most liberals in the US and most conservatives in the US support the capitalist system. To be economically liberal still makes for a person who supports the capitalist system.

I do see social conservatism as a plus but not in economics. We are now in an age where traditional values are being challenged by a postmodern minority. There has been an oceanic shift in values not just in america but also in europe. Is this a good thing? Only time will tell.

Underlining mine. Italics mine.

So, you're a socialist?

You question if the shift in values is a good thing. Some would say that we're actually becoming more moral, citing the granting of gay marriage and homosexual civil rights as an example. You'd maybe disagree?

[_CaliforniaKid]

Not only are Democrats not out there advocating for the end of the drug war, legalizing prostitution, etc.

It's true that Democrats aren't picking these fights-- unpopular fights to pick in a country still as religious as the US-- but they're much more likely to support these things than Republicans. The California Democratic Party voted not to endorse the recent marijuana legalization bill, but only by a narrow margin and only because it could hurt their candidates in the election. Give it a few years.

there are also plenty of stereotypically liberal bugaboos that involve regulation of voluntary, private decisions, such as banning smoking in private establishments, curtailing fast food advertising, or seat belt laws. Paternalism is extensive in the party.

It's true that Democrats love to promote health and safety through taxes, product safety standards, and advertising campaigns. But public health is distinct from morality, and in any case, this sort of regulation is often done as an alternative to legislation.

[_cafe crema]

Heaven forbid that people realize the human-ness of their gay neighbors.

Good grief.

It has very little to do with humanness. But much to do with pushing an agenda. And that was my point. The american public was softened by the recent sitcoms because these sitcoms brought the gay lifestyle into their living room. Hollywood had an agenda and they have did very well in pushing it.

It has everything to do with their humanness. Explain the "gay lifestyle" you speak of because in my experience their "lifestyle" could in everyway, aside from sexuality, be called mainstream. They have careers they apply themselves to, they have homes they care for and improve, friends, family and co-workers whose company they enjoy and spend time with. They are concerned about the same issues that heterosexuals are concerned and like heterosexuals have views all over the spectrum out them. They are interested in the same everyday aspects of living, the price of gas, what to have for dinner, good books to read, movies to see, whether or not the park district should sell a park to company to build a crematorium, or build a pool on it, should the school district get more money.

Your point is that homosexuals are underhanded simple as that.

[_jon]

The members have no voice in the Church. But there is an illusion of voice. Do you really think that the Church is a democracy of the members? Hardly. The GA's control business, politics, and the media. And the ecomonic agenda caters to the GA's and certainly not the poor members? What happened in Utah is just one example of how Mormons bypass a participatory democracy. But then again, Mormonism is not a participatory democracy. The Church media gives the middle class and the poor garbage on TV, influencing the members.

Edited to illustrate irony...

[_EAllusion]

's true that Democrats aren't picking these fights-- unpopular fights to pick in a country still as religious as the US-- but they're much more likely to support these things than Republicans. The California Democratic Party voted not to endorse the recent marijuana legalization bill, but only by a narrow margin and only because it could hurt their candidates in the election. Give it a few years.

It's not that the Democrats are carefully calculating not to pick that fight. It's that the vast majority of Democratic leadership favors the drug war. Marijuana legalization, the easiest part of that fight, is the tip of the iceberg. It's true that you'll find more Democrats than Republicans supporting ending the drug war, but not to such an extent that it makes sense to say they collectively favor "privatized morality." This is especially true when you realize that a substantial % of Democrats who favor at least scaling back the drug war don't want to make drug use a private decision, but rather want to force people into treatment programs instead of jails.

And, on a side note, there are two mainstream Republican candidates for the party nomination this cycle who favor ending the drug war. Neither will come close to winning, but that's two more than the Democrats had last cycle. The gap between the two parties might not be what you think it is, depending on what you think. That's because of the continued existence of more libertarianish Republicans on the edges of the party.

It's true that Democrats love to promote health and safety through taxes, product safety standards, and advertising campaigns. But public health is distinct from morality, and in any case, this sort of regulation is often done as an alternative to legislation.

I don't think you can come up with a justification for public health concerns that doesn't implicate morality. Anytime you make the statement, "The law out to be x" you are making a moral claim. I'm not sure what you mean by "alternative to legislation" when things like seat belt laws and smoking bans in private establishments are legislated.

[_Buffalo]

A victory for civil liberties!

[_Buffalo]

One major hurdle that was added to get the votes was a provision the protected religions and other organizations that may refuse to perform a gay marriage based on religious or other reasons.

The gay agenda is one step at at time. The pressure will come eventually. And then we will see people singing a different tune.

Why Me is askeered that he's going to be forced into a Mormon lay with Bruce the bartender. :D

[_Buffalo]

You should be more concerned about the lack of a participatory demcracy in America.

Civil rights should never be up for a vote.

Why do you hate true democracy?

[_Buffalo]

However on this board it is no surprise that there would be celebration about this. Any moral code that would go against the LDS church would be approved on this board. Every body is still a zebra but they wear their stripes differently.

It's no surprise that you would fight against civil rights for minorities.

[_Buffalo]

One major hurdle that was added to get the votes was a provision the protected religions and other organizations that may refuse to perform a gay marriage based on religious or other reasons.

The gay agenda is one step at at time. The pressure will come eventually. And then we will see people singing a different tune.

So you think that at some point the gay rights movement will try to force religions that opposes such unions to perform them? That for example the LDS Church will be forced to recognize such a marriage and seal them in the temple?

I am very skeptical this will ever happen.

No, but eventually the social pressure to do it will make any church that doesn't look backward and bigoted. Eventually there WILL be gay marriages in the temple. The church will cave to pressure, like it always does.