Homosexuality & Politics in the 21st Century

[Dreamy]

I'll just say this, Republicans, conservatives in general, basically don't want laws and the gov't to intervene in their lives, unless it is something they believe is "wrong", then they gladly step aside and let the gov't do it's job.

Not saying there aren't some Dems, who oppose gay marriage and they're aren't some Reps who support it, but the majority are the opposite.

 

[The Admiral]

I'll just say this, Republicans, conservatives in general, basically don't want laws and the gov't to intervene in their lives, unless it is something they believe is "wrong", then they gladly step aside and let the gov't do it's job.

Not saying there aren't some Dems, who oppose gay marriage and they're aren't some Reps who support it, but the majority are the opposite.

The great irony is that Republicans, being the party of small government, shouldn't be in favor of a government restriction on who can get married. At least, that's what I understand about what "smaller government" actually entails.

 

[Eterna]

I'm glad that in a time of such a deep and wide-ranging economic crisis, we have spent parliamentary time and money on an almost non-entity of an issue to satisfy one man's ego.

Proud to be British.

A non-facetious question for gay people in the U.K out there. Does it bother you at all that a major reason (by no means the sole reason, but a major one) for this bill being introduced is that the Prime Minister is simply trying to enforce the dominance of his side of the party over the other? It's as much about him as the rights of gay people.

Implying that they can't work on two issues at once. Surely they spent the last few years only dealing with Gay marriage whilst letting the economy rot.

 

[BJPalmer85]

The great irony is that Republicans, being the party of small government, shouldn't be in favor of a government restriction on who can get married. At least, that's what I understand about what "smaller government" actually entails.

If you look at the fact that legalizing gay marriage would help the economy...it makes even less sense that most Republicans are against it.

B

 

[BigLutz]

The great irony is that Republicans, being the party of small government, shouldn't be in favor of a government restriction on who can get married. At least, that's what I understand about what "smaller government" actually entails.

You are confusing Social Conservatives with Libertarians, Social Conservatives are basically Liberal in how they wish to see the National Government do things to implement their view. Libertarians are open to the local government's deciding such things if not the people, and having more of a patchwork set of laws when it comes to marriages.

 

[WizardTrubbish]

If you look at the fact that legalizing gay marriage would help the economy...it makes even less sense that most Republicans are against it.

B

Rhode Island governor Lincoln Chafee beat you to it

 

[7 tyranitars]

You are confusing Social Conservatives with Libertarians, Social Conservatives are basically Liberal in how they wish to see the National Government do things to implement their view. Libertarians are open to the local government's deciding such things if not the people, and having more of a patchwork set of laws when it comes to marriages.

That is true, however social conservatives do controll most of the party.

 

[Snorunt conservationist]

That won't work, because there are always going to be more important stuff, because not everyone experiences an issue equally important. It is better to just deal with rather then keep it dragging on forever. A government does more then just controll the money, it is involved into social issues aswell.

I'll happily see Gay Marriage on the agenda when we're not facing a triple-dip recession.

A government's involvement in social issues is generally a bad thing. This is one (rare) case where it isn't (as I say, I'm pro gay marriage, but don't see it as having any significance).

Implying that they can't work on two issues at once. Surely they spent the last few years only dealing with Gay marriage whilst letting the economy rot.

Any time spent on the non-issue of gay marriage in this parliament is a waste of time.

 

[The Admiral]

You are confusing Social Conservatives with Libertarians, Social Conservatives are basically Liberal in how they wish to see the National Government do things to implement their view. Libertarians are open to the local government's deciding such things if not the people, and having more of a patchwork set of laws when it comes to marriages.

Fair point, but I don't think it's right to say "liberal" to refer to "uses laws to put its ideas into motion," as that's (obviously) not a strictly liberal idea. That, and "libertarian" and "liberal" have the same linguistic roots (liber -- Latin, "freedom"). I don't really think there's a good word for it.

And "patchwork" is putting it lightly. Strictly speaking, I think libertarians would eventually push for no government regulation -- which is why I don't dislike all their ideas, but that's another issue.

Any time spent on the non-issue of gay marriage in this parliament is a waste of time.

And, as I'm to understand, it ended, er, not so great anyway, in terms of progress made in that department. Confirm?

 

[Sadib]

I'll happily see Gay Marriage on the agenda when we're not facing a triple-dip recession.

A government's involvement in social issues is generally a bad thing. This is one (rare) case where it isn't (as I say, I'm pro gay marriage, but don't see it as having any significance).



Any time spent on the non-issue of gay marriage in this parliament is a waste of time.

I agree. It's a waste of time for politicians to argue over something like gay marriage. Let's just let the homosexuals get married to each other, and move on to more important issues.

 

[THRILLHO]

I agree. It's a waste of time for politicians to argue over something like gay marriage. Let's just let the homosexuals get married to each other, and move on to more important issues.

gonna empty quote this

 

[Snorunt conservationist]

And, as I'm to understand, it ended, er, not so great anyway, in terms of progress made in that department. Confirm?

Not really. Passed the Commons pretty easily, should make its way through the Lords.

 

[7 tyranitars]

Fair point, but I don't think it's right to say "liberal" to refer to "uses laws to put its ideas into motion," as that's (obviously) not a strictly liberal idea. That, and "libertarian" and "liberal" have the same linguistic roots (liber -- Latin, "freedom"). I don't really think there's a good word for it.

And "patchwork" is putting it lightly. Strictly speaking, I think libertarians would eventually push for no government regulation -- which is why I don't dislike all their ideas, but that's another issue.



And, as I'm to understand, it ended, er, not so great anyway, in terms of progress made in that department. Confirm?

It passed in a 400-175 vote. I would say that is quite easily.

 

[Lion Demon]

I personally believe the title should be Homosexuality Vs Republicans. Though I am a British: I know for a fact that these 2 don't ever collerate with eachother... EVER!

 

[TheFightingPikachu]

I personally believe the title should be Homosexuality Vs Republicans. Though I am a British: I know for a fact that these 2 don't ever collerate with eachother... EVER!

That would be assuming that all Republicans subscribe to all of the same beliefs, would it not? Do you really think there are no pro-gay conservatives who are against abortion and no pro-life conservatives who oppose gay marriage?

 

[BigLutz]

I personally believe the title should be Homosexuality Vs Republicans. Though I am a British: I know for a fact that these 2 don't ever collerate with eachother... EVER!

Never heard of the Log Cabin Republicans have ya?

 

[Lord_Kain]

I dont get why people care so damn much, stupid religion. Its not a big deal, let them do as they please. If they want to ruin their lives like the straights let em.

 

[Sadib]

I made a joke and put it on my facebook:

How would the founding fathers react to homosexual marriage?

"A man marrying another man? That's almost as preposterous as letting a woman vote!"

What do you guys think?

Never heard of the Log Cabin Republicans have ya?

I read on Wikipedia that the LCR endorsed Romney, which only sounds surprising until you realize that LCR is itself an oxymoron.

 

[BigLutz]

I read on Wikipedia that the LCR endorsed Romney, which only sounds surprising until you realize that LCR is itself an oxymoron.

How is that surprising? Romney and Obama had the same view on Gay Marriage: Let the states handle it.

Besides not all gays are monolithic and believe in liberalism, they may not share the social views of Conservatives, but can see the dangers of liberal economic and foreign policy views.

or to quote a Gay Republican Congressman on the TV Show the West Wing

"I agree with 95% of the Republican platform. I believe in local government. I'm in favor of individual rights rather than group rights. I believe free markets lead to free people and that the country needs a strong national defense. My life doesn't have to be about being a homosexual. It doesn't have to be entirely about that."

 

[WizardTrubbish]

I made a joke and put it on my facebook:

What do you guys think?

That's pretty accurate