Young Republicans in favour of same-sex marriage

[belfpala]

Why do you (and your similarly-minded compatriots) support a party with such rampant bigotry at the national level?

It's pretty simple. It usually comes down to, "I like some parts better, and the abhorrent shit doesn't affect me so there we go."

[petej0]

Oh we're blaming black people for when people are racist as shit against them?

Uh...it isnt that at all. Did I say only black people are called thugs? No. White people can be thugs too. If you are going to act thug dont be shocked when you are treated as a thug. If you act like a fool dont be shocked when people dont take you seriously. If you want to be respected show respect.

- - - Updated - - -

What is it about racists and projecting?

why wont you answer the question? Are you afraid of looking biased?

[Wells]

Uh...it isnt that at all. Did I say only black people are called thugs? No. White people can be thugs too. If you are going to act thug dont be shocked when you are treated as a thug. If you act like a fool dont be shocked when people dont take you seriously. If you want to be respected show respect.

You're just throwing up nonsequiters then. Our justice system has a serious racism problem.

why wont you answer the question? Are you afraid of looking biased?

Acting like everyone is a hotbed of barely contained racism is pretty much the purview of racists.

[petej0]

You're just throwing up nonsequiters then. Our justice system has a serious racism problem.

Yeah you are right, they are going around making up fake charges just to arrest black people all over the country. I have been pulled over for speeding 3 times by white troopers (once I had expired inspection) not once did I get a ticket. not once did they ask to search my car. Yeah they are really racist out there....lol. Now are there racist people out there. No doubt, but it does not make up for the vast majority of officers.

Besides this goes for everyday people. I will not go up to a dude wearing a tank top and covered in tattoos asking for directions. But if he is in a business suit i will not hesitate.

Acting like everyone is a hotbed of barely contained racism is pretty much the purview of racists.

lol.. avoid the question you and I know very well how you would divide those people up. Oh and if a dude and woman answered your call for a baby sitter we both know which one you would pick. So please step down from your high horse. We all have prejudices and biases, its ok to acknowledge them.

[Cthulhu 2020]

Ahhh...but arent we all biased and prejudiced on some level?
If there were 20 people in front of you
5 White men
5 Black men
5 White women
5 Black women

All of equal height and weight you knew nothing other then their appearance, and I asked you to choose 5 for basketball team, 5 for a hockey team, and 5 for a babysitter how would you classify them?

Are you not prejudice against obese and ugly people for a life partner? Arent men biased (mostly) towards younger women? Arent women biased towards taller men?

"I stereotype so clearly you would too!"

[Captain N]

Did you catch the Flyers game yesterday? I would definitely be taking Wayne Simmonds and Ray Emery for my Hockey Team...Oh and in case you don't watch Hockey...they're both black. XD

[Felya]

"I stereotype so clearly you would too!"

I wonder if someone choosing randomly would be a liar or if he would accept an answer that hinges on them all being the same.

[Sunseeker]

I wonder if someone choosing randomly would be a liar or if he would accept an answer that hinges on them all being the same.

Even if they are all "the same" we know absolutely nothing about them physically? Are they all fat an hairy? Are they tall and skinny? Average and muscular? Tall and athletic? If they are identical save for their nether regions, and the assumption is we'd pick black men for basketball, white men for hockey and women for babysitters, that makes no logical sense at all. They're IDENTICAL. That means they are for all intents and purposes, interchangeable. Assuming that we would assume the former, ie: blacks=basketball, whites=hockey, women=babysitting, that's a HUGE assumption, especially given that these people are for all intents and purposes, the same, except for their nethers.

If we were to say that each of these sets of people were "average" for their groups, that would be a different story entirely. Everyone has their own biases. There is no running assumption that blacks are better at basketball, whites are better at hockey, or that any of these women would know a damn thing about babysitting.

[satimy]

The rapidly changing demographics really call for a change that's more than just on the fringe. Frankly I think if the GOP hadn't managed to twist Obamacare into the political chip they have it would be a completely landslide in 2014 and 2016.

I think 2014 they'll be able to beat the Obamacare drum into some wins, but they are in real trouble in 2016 and beyond if they don't get a hold of their loud, vocal, offensive parts of their party.

Case in point -- Paul Ryan's "inner city culture of not wanting to work" comments. That is absolutely not winning you any favors with minority voters.

- - - Updated - - -

I think the most fascinating thing about the GOP civil war is that the money is now turning against the tea party because they've become so extreme and are costing the rest of the GOP voters.

The tea party is basically just another neo-con wing now. It may have started as something different, but its basically a bunch of neo-cons that hate Obamacare, which is funny because foreign policy wise Obama is pretty fucking neo-con

- - - Updated - - -

It's pretty simple. It usually comes down to, "I like some parts better, and the abhorrent shit doesn't affect me so there we go."

Well in the good ole USA you really only have 2 choices, and I think the democrats will destroy the economy faster than the republicans.....although this current batch of republicans seems to be worse than the Bush jr batch. I hate voted in 2 elections, and not once for a republican or democrat president. Im at the point where Im basically only going to vote Republican if Rand Paul gets the nomination, otherwise ill vote for the LP again.

[Endus]

Ahhh...but arent we all biased and prejudiced on some level?
If there were 20 people in front of you
5 White men
5 Black men
5 White women
5 Black women

All of equal height and weight you knew nothing other then their appearance, and I asked you to choose 5 for basketball team, 5 for a hockey team, and 5 for a babysitter how would you classify them?

This is a ridiculous question, and exists only because you are projecting your own biases on others.

They're the same height? Then there's no reason to think the black guys are any better at basketball than the white guys. Black people aren't magically "better" at basketball, dude. That's simply racist. They tend to be more prevalent in the NBA because there are certain African ethnic groups that are statistically taller than the average person. Height is an advantage, but it's one you removed in your example. There's also a socioeconomic and cultural aspect, particularly with the comparison to hockey and basketball; blacks are still statistically lower on the socioeconomic scale, since the effects of centuries of oppression don't vanish in a single generation, and hockey equipment costs a hell of a lot more than a basketball and some sneakers. Plus, hockey's most popular in Canada, and as we lack a history of slavery, our black population tends to be lower than the USA's, and hockey is a very Canadian sport (check out how many NHL players are Canadian, even on American teams).

Same for babysitting; if you're picking a woman over a man because she's a woman, that's outright misandry, and there's no justification for it at all.

You're just projecting your own irrational biases as if they were fact, and they're not. All you're doing is exposing your own issues, not making an actual point.

[Lenonis]

Ahhh...but arent we all biased and prejudiced on some level?

Sure, psychology studies show that were are unconciously influenced based on our experiences, etc.

That's a far cry from assuming someone with an ethnic name is a lesser worker than someone with a white name because you think blacks are lazy.

All of equal height and weight you knew nothing other then their appearance, and I asked you to choose 5 for basketball team, 5 for a hockey team, and 5 for a babysitter how would you classify them?

Assuming that I can't ask them anything I would choose the sports teams based on height and fitness, same for hockey. For babysitters I have absolutely no idea. But I wouldn't pick based on skin color, so nice try.

Are you not prejudice against obese and ugly people for a life partner?

What you are attracted to sexually is a stupid case to make in regards to prejudice because you aren't harming someone by deciding not to date them.

But keep trying to justify your racism as normal and acceptable.

- - - Updated - - -

Same for babysitting; if you're picking a woman over a man because she's a woman, that's outright misandry, and there's no justification for it at all.

The arguement in this case is that given a complete lack of personal data you have to go by statistics. In this case women are more often stay at home moms and caregivers for kids, thus would statistically speaking, have more experience with children than men. So you'd pick the women because of a complete lack of other data to go by.

That's not sexist...that's just dealing with data. What would be sexist is if you are told you have a man and a woman who have equal experience and skills and you pick the woman because she's a woman.

It's not rocket science to see how racism and sexism works in real examples and not make up scenarios.

[Osmeric]

This may be related to a downturn in religious sentiment, and the rise of "none/atheist" in religion surveys in the US.

I have a suspicion that 9/11 was a catalyst for this downturn. Before that, there was an attitude of religion being a personal matter with no great impact on others. Afterwards, a stronger case could be made that religion is inherently dangerous. In Gallup polls, the number of people in the US responding "none" for their religion has doubled since 2001, after having been largely stable up to that point.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/1690/religion.aspx

[Deleted]

I have absolutely no problem with civil union for same sex couples, that's the legal part of it, though I am Catholic I recognize that the church can't really interfere with legal matters, however, marriage is a sacred sacrament of the church, and should not be condemned for upholding its religious sacraments and traditions.

[Endus]

The arguement in this case is that given a complete lack of personal data you have to go by statistics. In this case women are more often stay at home moms and caregivers for kids, thus would statistically speaking, have more experience with children than men. So you'd pick the women because of a complete lack of other data to go by.

That's not sexist...that's just dealing with data. What would be sexist is if you are told you have a man and a woman who have equal experience and skills and you pick the woman because she's a woman.

It's not rocket science to see how racism and sexism works in real examples and not make up scenarios.

The thing is, in that situation, what I'd do is ask them. I wouldn't just assume the women must have more experience with kids because they're women.

That's the completely baffling leap that's made; that you can make these assumptions and there's any reason to think you'd get better results based on that prejudice than you would by just asking a simple question of them as individuals.

[Kraenen]

Ahhh...but arent we all biased and prejudiced on some level?
If there were 20 people in front of you
5 White men
5 Black men
5 White women
5 Black women

All of equal height and weight you knew nothing other then their appearance, and I asked you to choose 5 for basketball team, 5 for a hockey team, and 5 for a babysitter how would you classify them?

Are you not prejudice against obese and ugly people for a life partner? Arent men biased (mostly) towards younger women? Arent women biased towards taller men?

wow, just stop before you dig yourself in deeper lol

[Lenonis]

marriage is a sacred sacrament of the church

False. Marriage is a legal contract between two people recognized by the state. Holy Matrimony is the sacred sacrament of the church.

and should not be condemned for upholding its religious sacraments and traditions.

Except allowing legal same sex marriage doesn't affect the church in the slightest, which mean yes, they can and should be condemned for fighting to keep equal rights from others.

[Masark]

I have absolutely no problem with civil union for same sex couples, that's the legal part of it, though I am Catholic I recognize that the church can't really interfere with legal matters, however, marriage is a sacred sacrament of the church, and should not be condemned for upholding its religious sacraments and traditions.

Must not be a real important sacrament, given it took you over a millennium to make it one.

Seriously, study history.

[Lenonis]

The thing is, in that situation, what I'd do is ask them.

Well obviously -- however in the fake scenario I believe the idea was that you can't. Thus my response. (it's such a stupid scenario anyway)

[Trassk]

I have absolutely no problem with civil union for same sex couples, that's the legal part of it, though I am Catholic I recognize that the church can't really interfere with legal matters, however, marriage is a sacred sacrament of the church, and should not be condemned for upholding its religious sacraments and traditions.

Nope. Marriage is not so much sacred to the church, marriage has been around far longer then Catholicism or Christianity.

[Captain N]

I posted this earlier but how comes nobody ever acknowledges that the Right keeps Same-Sex Marriages as being illegal when the first amendment clearly states that Congress can pass no laws that respect an establishment of religion, when they constantly use The Bible as a defense as to why it should remain illegal?