Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Now Peregrine, here's the question: if a candidate is against fundamental beliefs that are at the core of your being, would YOU vote for them, even if they were the "better" candidate? Remember, MILLIONS of people are killed over beliefs and hardly any are killed over facts or rationality.



Even better, if someone was the "better" candidate in every way, but wanted to support DOMA and push the civil union position to try to cater to both the evangelicals AND the LGBT community, would you vote for that person?

What people need to remember is that you don't get to vote for half a person, when you vote for someone, you're voting for all of them, their whole beliefs, their actions, their motives, it all.


And someone else may strongly disagree with you for doing so.

And it goes for both sides of the fence. I honestly thought this would be the election that finally saw a 3P candidate winning it, but both the Green party and the Libertarians picked soup sandwiches as their nominees. Next time, maybe they'll find someone who not only adheres to their beliefs/viewpoints/policies, but who is also charismatic

Rosebuddy wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
It's amazing that he just explained, again, that Clinton loosing has nothing to do with Russia interfering and right away you go back to the "Clinton could have done something to actually win" argument.

That isn't the narrative that's being pushed. The reason I keep repeating that Clinton's poor campaigning is why she lost is because liberals keep going on about Russia or Comey or Bernie Bros and pretty much everything other than the Democrats' own failures. Sebster keeps characterising it as voters being whiny idiots who forgot what's good for them and who will all come crawling back to the Democrats who don't have to change a thing because losing like this is simply a part of the Law of Cycles to which all politics are eternally bound.

No, not really. People keep bringing it up because having a candidate colluding with a foreign power to win an election is a serious problem (not to mention treason) even if it didn't make a difference in the end. Whether or not the Russian influence did make the difference is a side discussion, and even then based on the idea that it was the straw that broke the camel's back.

 Peregrine wrote:

Rosebuddy wrote:
The reason I keep repeating that Clinton's poor campaigning is why she lost is because liberals keep going on about Russia or Comey or Bernie Bros and pretty much everything other than the Democrats' own failures.

No, none of that matters. Clinton did not lose because she ran a poor campaign, she lost because ~60 million people thought that, contrary to all available information, Trump was a good idea.

Hrm, I would argue this to some extent. While I will absolutely concede that Clinton was the better candidate for the job, her campaign was, well, not particularly compelling for many beyond the simple fact that she just wasn't Trump. She excited few people positively the way Obama did in 2008, she had no strong central policy plank to form a hardened core of support (like Trump's wall or Obama's healthcare reform focus), and did not manage the culture war front particularly well. Clinton was the more suitable candidate, but her campaign in many ways ran as if it had a pre-ordained fate and she just had to go through the motions.

It was a bad campaign with bad candidates it is just that they weren't equally bad. HRC campaigned badly and to many leaned on the 'not Trump' element in the belief that would be enough to win: it wasn't. It was the competent but least popular kid in school versus the charismatic, narcissistic, mentally challenged bully and the bully won.

 Just Tony wrote:

Even better, if someone was the "better" candidate in every way, but wanted to support DOMA and push the civil union position to try to cater to both the evangelicals AND the LGBT community, would you vote for that person?

That position would be impossible to hold. The LGBT community wants to MARRY, just like everyone else. Civil union does, in no way "cater" to that community's views, but instead completely upholds the views of evangelicals as valid.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:

Even better, if someone was the "better" candidate in every way, but wanted to support DOMA and push the civil union position to try to cater to both the evangelicals AND the LGBT community, would you vote for that person?

That position would be impossible to hold. The LGBT community wants to MARRY, just like everyone else. Civil union does, in no way "cater" to that community's views, but instead completely upholds the views of evangelicals as valid.

It was my understanding that the argument was more about the benefits tied to marriage rather than simply crushing the belief system and practices of a religous group. I guess I learned something. Better yet, a simpler solution would be to end benefits and tax breaks for being married, then there is NOTHING left of the argument except bending the beliefs of religious groups to cater to another group. There is a midline solution, but only one group is willing to accept it. That should speak volumes. Probably played a little into the election results as well.

 Ahtman wrote:
It was a bad campaign with bad candidates it is just that they weren't equally bad. HRC campaigned badly and to many leaned on the 'not Trump' element in the belief that would be enough to win: it wasn't. It was the competent but least popular kid in school versus the charismatic, narcissistic, mentally challenged bully and the bully won.

I think it's less that she "leaned on the 'Not Trump' element" and more on the "Hopefully nobody is buying this clown's bull" bit.

Guess that backfired...

 Just Tony wrote:
Now Peregrine, here's the question: if a candidate is against fundamental beliefs that are at the core of your being, would YOU vote for them, even if they were the "better" candidate? Remember, MILLIONS of people are killed over beliefs and hardly any are killed over facts or rationality.

Even better, if someone was the "better" candidate in every way, but wanted to support DOMA and push the civil union position to try to cater to both the evangelicals AND the LGBT community, would you vote for that person?

That depends on the situation. But in this case there wasn't anything like that with Clinton. She wasn't the most enthusiastic about making progress in some areas, but the only place where you could reasonably argue that she would be moving backwards is on the foreign policy/national security/endless war/etc stuff that both parties are guilty of.

 Just Tony wrote:
It was my understanding that the argument was more about the benefits tied to marriage rather than simply crushing the belief system and practices of a religous group. I guess I learned something. Better yet, a simpler solution would be to end benefits and tax breaks for being married, then there is NOTHING left of the argument except bending the beliefs of religious groups to cater to another group. There is a midline solution, but only one group is willing to accept it. That should speak volumes. Probably played a little into the election results as well.

Of course it's about the benefits, and one of the benefits is the respect given to the term "marriage". Having civil unions creates a "separate but equal" situation where a lower-status thing exists for the sole purpose of excluding a group that some people don't like. And no, it has nothing to do with crushing the belief systems and practices of a religious group. Legal marriage is not a religious concept, is not exclusive to any particular religious group, and there is no obligation for religious groups to state their approval of it. The only thing that is being crushed is the belief that a certain religious group has the right to force people who are not a member of that group to comply with their rules, a concept that is entirely unacceptable in a secular country.

(And seriously, it's 2017, I can't believe I still have to explain this stuff.)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Hrm, I would argue this to some extent. While I will absolutely concede that Clinton was the better candidate for the job, her campaign was, well, not particularly compelling for many beyond the simple fact that she just wasn't Trump. She excited few people positively the way Obama did in 2008, she had no strong central policy plank to form a hardened core of support (like Trump's wall or Obama's healthcare reform focus), and did not manage the culture war front particularly well. Clinton was the more suitable candidate, but her campaign in many ways ran as if it had a pre-ordained fate and she just had to go through the motions.

This is kind of my point. Talking about how exciting she is or whatever shouldn't even be relevant for the simple fact that 60 million people should not have voted for the obvious worst candidate in recent history (and arguably all of US history). If even half of those 60 million voters make the correct choice instead of voting to commit national suicide Clinton wins in a landslide.

 Just Tony wrote:
There is a midline solution, but only one group is willing to accept it.

Keep promoting laws that unfairly disadvantage certain people solely based on other people's religion?

 Just Tony wrote:
That should speak volumes.

Sadly it does.

 Just Tony wrote:
Probably played a little into the election results as well.

No doubt.
Makes you sick, don't it.

What makes me sick is the fact that we should be colonizing every damn celestial body in our solar system that will tolerate a colony by now, domed of course, but we're still wasting energy and resources bickering about this whole thing. There is a tug of war that will not relent, and the fact that EITHER side's argument gets minimalized in an attempt to further the other side's argument is a travesty.

No adult coupling of any type should be prohibited from pursuing their own happiness (Unless you are talking incestuous relationships, but it looks like even THOSE are getting normalized), and no religious group or person from that group should be forced to do/support/endorse something they don't believe in. I'm sure there is a common ground, and making marriage a term that applies to everyone seems the easiest. But does that mean that religious groups who forbid homosexuality (Which is MORE than just evangelical Christians, FYI) should be forced to hold cerremonies because of it?

It seems blocking EITHER party there is wrong, but who do you think will be sided with? Freedom to practice one's religion is a RIGHT in this country, but as we all know, you retain a right as long as it does not infringe on the rights of others. Refusing to marry a gay couple would infringe, of that I'm sure nobody would argue. But would forcing the religious group/person/church not be as well?

And to Peregrine: yes, it's 2017, but freedom of religion is still a right guaranteed by law. Separation of church and state ALSO exists to protect religious groupls from being forced to alter their practices to adopt secular practices that run counter to their beliefs. Funny how people forget this and only apply it to public religious displays and the like.

Separate but equal still exist. How many female only clubs can I not gain access to, yet there is an active movement to dismantle any all male groups, up to and including elite military units? How many exclusively black organizations are there that I can't access, or gain assistance from, or be affiliated with, yet DARE to make one that's caucasian exclusive no matter WHAT ethnic group. I'm afraid that THAT isn't going to change at all, and that any attempt to force the change is going to be met with more resistance than anyone is really prepared for.

 Just Tony wrote:
But does that mean that religious groups who forbid homosexuality (Which is MORE than just evangelical Christians, FYI) should be forced to hold cerremonies because of it?

I honestly did not know this was happening. Would you give me more details on where religious groups have been forced to conduct same sex marriages.

What religious group has been forced to hold a gay wedding that goes against its teachings? Got a source? I smell a straw man.

Also, got a source for the claim that incest is becoming normalized? It seems like, if anything it is way more faux pas now than it was in the past, when first cousin marriages and royal incestuous relationships were much more common.

 Henry wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:
But does that mean that religious groups who forbid homosexuality (Which is MORE than just evangelical Christians, FYI) should be forced to hold cerremonies because of it?

I honestly did not know this was happening. Would you give me more details on where religious groups have been forced to conduct same sex marriages.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/hitchingpost.asp

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2113677/Church-forced-conduct-gay-weddings-say-lawyers-studying-Equality-Act-voted-Coalition.html

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/ontario-christian-minister-forced-to-conduct-same-sex-marriages-or-get-sack


That was from a rather lightspeed search in google, only on the first page. If the principle is about to be used to enforce that in the UK and in Canada, how far behind is the US?

So you don't have an example from the US? Gotcha!

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
What religious group has been forced to hold a gay wedding that goes against its teachings? Got a source? I smell a straw man.

Also, got a source for the claim that incest is becoming normalized? It seems like, if anything it is way more faux pas now than it was in the past, when first cousin marriages and royal incestuous relationships were much more common.

Smell away, you are incorrect. It always starts small.


Aaaaaaaand...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_sexual_attraction

Once again, you look for the small things that open the flood gates. And if you have been paying attention, age of concent is also being fought over. As in, lowering it. And since I know google works, and I have a block to prep for wash, I'll let you do the legwork for that. Which, of course, you will...

 Just Tony wrote:

and no religious group or person from that group should be forced to do/support/endorse something they don't believe in. I'm sure there is a common ground, and making marriage a term that applies to everyone seems the easiest. But does that mean that religious groups who forbid homosexuality (Which is MORE than just evangelical Christians, FYI) should be forced to hold cerremonies because of it?

It seems blocking EITHER party there is wrong, but who do you think will be sided with? Freedom to practice one's religion is a RIGHT in this country, but as we all know, you retain a right as long as it does not infringe on the rights of others. Refusing to marry a gay couple would infringe, of that I'm sure nobody would argue. But would forcing the religious group/person/church not be as well?

And to Peregrine: yes, it's 2017, but freedom of religion is still a right guaranteed by law. Separation of church and state ALSO exists to protect religious groupls from being forced to alter their practices to adopt secular practices that run counter to their beliefs. Funny how people forget this and only apply it to public religious displays and the like.

Except you're conflating religious belief with secular operations. Let's take 2 couples: one is a Baptist man and woman, the other are 2 women. Now, the man and woman are allowed to get married in a church of their choosing. What you seem to be conflating is the idea that the 2 women are automatically going to want to get married in the same Baptist church as the first couple. And that simply isn't true. The increasing trend, especially in my area is for people to get married with a close friend officiating it, often times not even in a church setting.

As far as the State is concerned, and what I am saying (and, coincidentally LGBT groups) is that SSM should be supported as marriage in the State's legal definition of it. Nothing in any state in the US that I know of has a mandate that after one signs a marriage license that they then MUST go to a religious body to make it "official." If that were the case, then my wife and I have not been married for almost 10 years now. Further, since SCOTUS has shot down DOMA and various other "protection" laws regarding marriage, this has recently become viewed as an equal protections amendment issue.


Finally, religion does not own the term "marriage". Granting, and protecting SSM in the US is not preventing anyone from exercising their religious rights in the least.

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
So you don't have an example from the US? Gotcha!

http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/hitchingpost.asp


Yeah, you got me. I forgot that Idaho isn't in the US. Damn foreign potatoes, no wonder the country is going to hell....

No, I won't. I wasn't the one to make the idiotic claim. The responsibility falls on you to defend your own paranoia.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Just Tony wrote:

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
So you don't have an example from the US? Gotcha!

http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/hitchingpost.asp


Yeah, you got me. I forgot that Idaho isn't in the US. Damn foreign potatoes, no wonder the country is going to hell....

Did you even read the article? Doesn't seem like you did because it doesn't defend the claim you made.

 Just Tony wrote:

 Gordon Shumway wrote:
So you don't have an example from the US? Gotcha!

http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/hitchingpost.asp


Yeah, you got me. I forgot that Idaho isn't in the US. Damn foreign potatoes, no wonder the country is going to hell....

I checked that link. The Hitching Post was not a church, but a registered for-profit business serving the general public (their own website, at one point, mentioned providing civil unions). Do you have an example of a bona fide church being forced to perform such a service? I'll be fully in support of them not being forced to do such should that happen, but businesses should have no such protections.

 Gordon Shumway wrote:

Also, got a source for the claim that incest is becoming normalized? It seems like, if anything it is way more faux pas now than it was in the past, when first cousin marriages and royal incestuous relationships were much more common.

Dude, just go to any major porn site, and you'll see the loads of mother/daughter, mother/son, father/daughter, brother/sister videos. Sure, most of them go with the relationship being that of "step-X" rather than direct biological, but not all. And, um, I don't know any of this from personal experience, I've just heard about it from other people. Yes. Other people.

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
I checked that link. The Hitching Post was not a church, but a registered for-profit business serving the general public (their own website, at one point, mentioned providing civil unions). Do you have an example of a bona fide church being forced to perform such a service? I'll be fully in support of them not being forced to do such should that happen, but businesses should have no such protections.

Exactly. For-profit businesses have been obligated to serve gay customers, but purely religious groups providing religious services to their members have not.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Just Tony wrote:
What makes me sick is the fact that we should be colonizing every damn celestial body in our solar system that will tolerate a colony by now, domed of course, but we're still wasting energy and resources bickering about this whole thing. There is a tug of war that will not relent, and the fact that EITHER side's argument gets minimalized in an attempt to further the other side's argument is a travesty.

It must be nice to be in a position where none of the bigotry is aimed at you, and you can handwave away the people that are hurt by it in favor of wishful thinking scifi plots about colonizing other planets.

But does that mean that religious groups who forbid homosexuality (Which is MORE than just evangelical Christians, FYI) should be forced to hold cerremonies because of it?

No. The belief that recognizing gay marriage in a legal context means that religious groups are required to give up their beliefs is right-wing tinfoil hattery, not reality.

 Just Tony wrote:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/hitchingpost.asp

Final line from that article;
However, the article referenced above also reiterated a city spokesman’s statement that officials “have never threatened to jail them, or take legal action of any kind” against them.

 Just Tony wrote:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2113677/Church-forced-conduct-gay-weddings-say-lawyers-studying-Equality-Act-voted-Coalition.html

Yuck, thanks, I just went to the Daily Mail. Now I need some bleach for my poor eyes.
That article peddled a rumour created by persons with agendas. It is not based on fact, is not law and in now way shows that religious groups have been forced to conduct same sex marriages.

 Just Tony wrote:
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/ontario-christian-minister-forced-to-conduct-same-sex-marriages-or-get-sack

That person was acting as a government official (who does not get to make those judgement calls as they are the very sort of person who is deliberately designed by the first amendment to be restricted) and not as a representative of a religious group.

So again I ask if you can provide me with the evidence of the claim you have made, I would be very interested in it - that is, a religious group being forced to conduct a same sex marriage.

 Just Tony wrote:

 Henry wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:
But does that mean that religious groups who forbid homosexuality (Which is MORE than just evangelical Christians, FYI) should be forced to hold cerremonies because of it?

I honestly did not know this was happening. Would you give me more details on where religious groups have been forced to conduct same sex marriages.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/hitchingpost.asp

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2113677/Church-forced-conduct-gay-weddings-say-lawyers-studying-Equality-Act-voted-Coalition.html

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/ontario-christian-minister-forced-to-conduct-same-sex-marriages-or-get-sack


That was from a rather lightspeed search in google, only on the first page. If the principle is about to be used to enforce that in the UK and in Canada, how far behind is the US?

The Daily fething Mail? You may as well cite the fething Beano.
Besides, even in jolly old Britain, we haven't got around to forcing priests to marry the gays.

Kim Davis

Steelmage99 wrote:

Kim Davis

The county clerk who refused to do her job? Sorry, she wasn't performing a religious service, but a secular one, so it falls under the purview of our secular laws.

Steelmage99 wrote:

Kim Davis

Oh boy a worker for a secular government

 Just Tony wrote:
crushing the belief system and practices of a religous group.

WTF you are talking about?
And I say this as someone who loves crushing the belief system of religious groups!

So basically it has to be an organized church, and can't be an individual? So that's the criteria? Also, what would be approved sources, as I'd like to not have to waste any more time on this than I have to.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:
It must be nice to be in a position where none of the bigotry is aimed at you, and you can handwave away the people that are hurt by it in favor of wishful thinking scifi plots about colonizing other planets.

I spent three decades of my life hearing about how my ethic group needed to be drug out and shot solely because of their subjugation by a foreign power. I spent those three decades watching as my ethnic group was lumped in with one of the most oppressive regimes of all time in every damn media outlet because of said subjugation. Don't fething lecture me about bigotry until your friend tells you TO YOUR FACE that everybody in your represented group needs wiped off the face of the planet.


And my point about colonization is more about how many advances we could be making if the whole of humanity was focused on things OTHER than our differences, but you go ahead and keep on belittling. You're setting the tone for every interaction we will ever have.

Which ethnic group is that?