Could the Dems' repeat history in regards to 1972?

Originally Posted By DouglasDubh

<Our definition of "religious right" must differ.>

It must. I've never heard the "religious right" so narrowly defined as to only consist of evangelicals.

 

Originally Posted By DouglasDubh

<I think moderates are the plurality in this country by a large margin.>

Last I heard, more people identify themselves as conservatives than liberals or moderates. I'm pretty sure it's 40-30-30. And most Americans are religious.

 

Originally Posted By Dabob2

I saw a more recent poll that had it at 35C-25L-40M. And religious Americans run the gamut of politics.

 

Originally Posted By TomSawyer

Most people identify themselves incorrectly. When they define themselves by a label, they say one thing. When you ask them about speficic positions, they are mostly moderate.

 

Originally Posted By Dabob2

<I am as much against politicizing sexuality as I am about politicizing the church but oh well, life is full of little disappointments.>

Would that more conservative Christians took that view. Unless you view my desire to essentially be left alone (but treated as an equal under the law) to be "politicizing sexuality."

 

Originally Posted By RoadTrip

<<It must. I've never heard the "religious right" so narrowly defined as to only consist of evangelicals. >>

Really? Do a search on 'Bush' and 'evangelical'. You get thousands of returns (the one I copied below having no special significance except for being the first one I looked at). If I am defining the 'religious right' too narrowly, I am certainly not the first person to do so.

<<Thursday, August 12, 2004
George Bush Hides His Evangelical Mistress - Friends

"Some prominent evangelical Christians say they have not been invited to participate in or attend the Republican National convention less than three weeks before the event is to begin. Analysts said the move likely reflects a GOP desire to sideline its more polarizing supporters during a tight presidential race....The Rev. Franklin Graham, who delivered the invocation at President Bush's inauguration, has had no request to attend so far, said Graham spokesman Mark DeMoss.

'People who are not part of the religious right might be alienated if they put too many conservatives as the public face of the party' said Merle Black, a political scientist at Emory University in Atlanta.">>

 

Originally Posted By Disneyman55

I really don't want to know Dabob, what your sexuality is, as I feel it is none of my business. I have no problem with you having equal rights as married people under the law, I am just not sure why it is even an issue.

Actually, out of curiosity, exactly what do married people get that gay couples do not recieve? (Honest question) And why is it necessary to be considered married? (Again honest question, as I have never really studied it.)

I just don't know why one's sexuality is even an issue on a legal, national level. In relationship to the bible, I believe certain things, but again, I am not comfortable with legislating morality.

 

Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan

>>Last I heard, more people identify themselves as conservatives than liberals or moderates. I'm pretty sure it's 40-30-30.<<

I dunno. I found this link which still shows that moderates are the largest group, self-identified as of 2003... (it could have changed in 2004 and 2005 that more people identify themselves as conservative than moderate or liberal, but that would be a huge shift unseen since 1968.)

<a href="http://www.mccmedia.com/pipermail/brin-l/Week-of-Mon-20050516/030497.html" target="_blank">http://www.mccmedia.com/piperm
ail/brin-l/Week-of-Mon-20050516/030497.html</a>

self-identification has long given
different results. For example, the Harris poll asks people to identify themselves as liberal, moderate, or conservative. The results have been:

Year C M L
2003 33 40 18
2002 35 40 17
2001 36 40 19
2000 35 40 18
1999 37 39 18
1998 37 40 19
1997 37 40 19
1996 38 41 19
1995 40 40 16
1992 36 42 18
1991 37 41 18
1990 38 41 18
1989 37 42 17
1988 38 39 18
1987 37 39 19
1986 37 39 18
1985 37 40 17
1984 35 39 18
1983 36 40 18
1982 36 40 18
1981 38 40 17
1980 35 41 18
1979 35 39 20
1978 34 39 17
1977 30 42 17
1976 31 40 18
1975 30 38 18
1974 30 43 15
1972 31 36 20
1968 37 31 17

 

Originally Posted By RoadTrip

<<Actually, out of curiosity, exactly what do married people get that gay couples do not recieve?>>

A huge number of things. Probably one of the most critical differences is that a gay person has absolutely NO legal input when it comes to making medical decisions in connection with his/her partner's care.

That is one of many instances where a person has no more input concerning his lifelong partner than someone you would drag in off the street. It just isn't right.

 

Originally Posted By itsme

Most people who are married dont get as much sex either.

 

Originally Posted By DouglasDubh

I stand corrected. The most recent Harris poll says its 41 moderate, 36 conservative, and 18 liberal (What do you suppose the rest are?). So I'll amend my statement to: the religious right aren't a fringe group, they're almost a plurality.

 

Originally Posted By Dabob2

<Actually, out of curiosity, exactly what do married people get that gay couples do not recieve? (Honest question) And why is it necessary to be considered married? (Again honest question, as I have never really studied it.)>

There are literally hundreds of things.

<a href="http://www.hrc.org/Template.cfm?Section=Center&CONTENTID=14698&TEMPLATE=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm" target="_blank">http://www.hrc.org/Template.cf
m?Section=Center&CONTENTID=14698&TEMPLATE=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm</a>

One that's not on the front page there that I've become very aware of due to friends of mine:

When a straight married couple has one spouse die, and they own their home, the surviving spouse simply inherits the house, and owes no taxes on it, and can thus continue to live there.

With a gay couple, even if you've done the legal work to bequeath the house specifically to your spouse, a hefty tax is imposed because that house is now a "gift," because the relationship had no legal standing.

Countless gay couples (including my friend) have been in that situation and the surviving spouse ended up losing the home they'd built over many years (after just losing their spouse!), because they couldn't afford the sudden tax bite.

<I just don't know why one's sexuality is even an issue on a legal, national level.>

Me either. See? Common ground.

 

Originally Posted By Disneyman55

Hey, here is a compromise. Why don't we create a law whereby gay people can legally obtain all of these protections and priveleges without actually calling it "marriage". Call it "Cohabitatioin Union" or some such.

That way "marriage is protected" (not that I think it needs to be, but I digress) and gay people get thier rights.

On a personal basis, I am not worried that gays will "damage marriage" as the heterosexuals have already done a good job of that. But if the word is the catching point then why not just work around it.

On another side point, I would not want to see the issue of gay unions and its legality become a way to chastise a church that happens to believe that homosexuality is immoral. Or force children fo religious people to be taught what they consider to be immoral. But that is a different issue altogether.

 

Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan

>>The most recent Harris poll says its 41 moderate, 36 conservative, and 18 liberal (What do you suppose the rest are?)<<

Osmonds.

 

Originally Posted By TomSawyer

>>Actually, out of curiosity, exactly what do married people get that gay couples do not recieve?<<

Mother-in-laws

 

Originally Posted By TomSawyer

>>The most recent Harris poll says its 41 moderate, 36 conservative, and 18 liberal (What do you suppose the rest are?)<<

Either moonbats or Nazis.

And they all happen to post here.

 

Originally Posted By Dabob2

>>Actually, out of curiosity, exactly what do married people get that gay couples do not recieve?<<

<Mother-in-laws>

Think again.

 

Originally Posted By Dabob2

<Hey, here is a compromise. Why don't we create a law whereby gay people can legally obtain all of these protections and priveleges without actually calling it "marriage". Call it "Cohabitatioin Union" or some such.>

That way "marriage is protected" (not that I think it needs to be, but I digress) and gay people get thier rights.>

I'm of two minds about this. One is that "separate but equal" tends to be unequal in practice. The other part of me says we should take that deal (not that it's been offered yet) and worry about the semantics of the "m-word" later; though my marriage has no legal force, my straight friends have always called it that and even my folks, who had a mental block with the "m-word" for a while, do so too.

Of course, it would have to be on a federal level to even approach equality. Even couples in Massachusetts, which has full equality on a state level, do not have equality on the federal level, which covers lots of ground (ability to file joint tax returns, and hundreds of others).

 

Originally Posted By Disneyman55

Well the nature of compromise is to settle for something less than ideal. But it is a step and gets the debate out of the public eye and back in the bedroom where it belongs.

 

Originally Posted By TomSawyer

>>Well the nature of compromise is to settle for something less than ideal. <<

I look at compromise as arriving at a solution that benefits the most people.

I don't look at negotiations as something to "win", though. I see them as a way to build a consensus. I wonder if that's the biggest difference between liberals and conservatives?