3 ms·

That may be true, I never claimed to be accurate (certainly not in a general sense), I am just conveying what I hear when I talk to people about what matters to

That may be true, I never claimed to be accurate (certainly not in a general sense), I am just conveying what I hear when I talk to people about what matters to them. Fear is certainly not a value, but americans rarely talk about values in any explicit way.

garmaine 7y ago
What I'm saying is that what you describe is the straw man caricature of the right that lefties like to dismantle, not how an actual right-of-center person would describe their political motivations. Take gay marriage. The left likes to lampoon the right for claiming that "homosexuality is against our values" or some such homophobic nonsense. But that's not why republicans are against gay marriage--because you might be surprised to learn that republicans are NOT against gay marriage! They're against the government defining what marriage is: marriage is a religious and/or cultural tradition and it's none of the government's damn business to define or restrict it in any way. Being right-of-center is more about preferring distributed, consensual, market-based solutions over government mandates and regulation, and staying out of people's lives. The obsession with "our values!" and fear response is a weird leftist caricature of the right, not reality.
- StuffedParrot 7y ago
  A straw man implies I am trying to convince you of something. I am just sharing my perspective. “Market based solutions” is no more a value than fear is. You can’t evaluate its efficacy without having a value with which to measure. There’s really no point in discussing politics at all without values. Personally I think it’s fucked up that government recognizes marriage at all. The benefits have very little to do with the pluralistic definitions of marriage that exist around the world today—tax benefits & visitation rights are not closely related to tying family assets together OR romance. It’s abhorrent that these rights were ever denied to couples regardless of whether they married or not. Religious couples deserve these rights regardless of marriage too. It makes no sense to recognize marriage at the state level. As a gay man I have never nor will ever have any ambitions of marriage, but these rights are still denied to me. I hope you can see through this that the policy and dialogue championed through partisanship is divorced from values that I hold dear, though I emphatically do not begrudge the gay couples that did find a victory through the policy.
- DoofusOfDeath 7y ago
  I would wager that people who vote Republican and oppose gay marriage do so for a variety of reasons, not just the one you stated.
- rfrey 7y ago
  Honest question from someone who knows nothing about American culture except what the media chooses to tell me. Wouldn't the position outlined above lead to preferring policy that: 1. In the best case, removed all government recognition of marriage: e.g. remove all differential tax treatment, remove marriage licenses, remove any recognition of marriage whatsoever from government documents 2. In the case that (1) is not possible or complete, ensure that what regulations do exist make no distinctions at all between "types" of couples that marry - e.g. no distinction or restriction between same-sex marriage, cousins marrying, more-than-two-partner marriages, etc. That seems to me to follow logically, but also does not seem to be the position of the Republican party, at least the parts of it I read about.
  - Gibbon1 7y ago
    > Honest question from someone who knows nothing about American culture except what the media chooses to tell me. As an American all I have to say is don't take anything that guys is telling you at face value.
- mnm1 7y ago
  If they are against the government defining marriage, then why do they want to define marriage as being between a man and a woman? For example, the California proposition 8 ballot measure read: "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." [1] So please explain how this is not defining marriage and how it is supportive of gay marriage rather than in opposition to it. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_California_Proposition_8 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_California_Proposition_...
  - garmaine 7y ago
    Prop 8 was a ballot initiative, started by and primarily funded by religious groups. It's not a "republican" thing. It was supported by some prominent republicans because of the word "marriage," and for political reasons[0]. Note that to religious conservative thinkers the word "marriage" has deep religious meaning, and to regulate marriage is to encroach on the separation of church and state. This is why many republicans are okay with "civil unions" but have such strong opinions over the word "marriage." Personally I voted NO on Prop 8, fwiw. [0] Political science is the pinnacle of complexity in human society. But a lot of it can be understood as virtue signaling combined with pandering to the lowest common denominator and their short attention spans, combined with the destabilizing effects of primary-issue voters. So while there is a primary distinction between the left- and right- political spectrum which has to do with the role of government, there's also a bunch of tag-along, hot-button issues which politicians pay lip service to in order to get elected by the ignorant majority, but don't really influence legislation to large degree. Things like gay marriage, abortion rights, and climate change fall in these categories, sadly. Which is to say, you'll find conservative think-tanks putting out policy papers justifying the status quo for marriage rights on the grounds that I mentioned. But then some religious fanatics get something like California's Prop 8 on the ballot and republican politicians feel they have to endorse it if they want to get re-elected, which they do. But in reality they're quite happy with the "civil union" compromise because it solves the fundamental civil rights issue without infringing on the religious definition of marriage.
    - mnm1 7y ago
      I'm curious, which fanatical Christian religious groups in California that are not Republican supported prop 8? Also pretending like the core issues of the party are small auxiliary issues that the party doesn't believe in is ridiculous considering their work on passing laws and enforcing them in the courts. If abortion or other issues were not big issues, why does the party constantly pass laws and enforce laws against them? Actions speak for themselves. No amount of propaganda changes that. It'd be like pretending that healthcare is not an issue for the democrats right now. It's absurd.

garmaine 7y ago

What I'm saying is that what you describe is the straw man caricature of the right that lefties like to dismantle, not how an actual right-of-center person would describe their political motivations. Take gay marriage. The left likes to lampoon the right for claiming that "homosexuality is against our values" or some such homophobic nonsense. But that's not why republicans are against gay marriage--because you might be surprised to learn that republicans are NOT against gay marriage! They're against the government defining what marriage is: marriage is a religious and/or cultural tradition and it's none of the government's damn business to define or restrict it in any way. Being right-of-center is more about preferring distributed, consensual, market-based solutions over government mandates and regulation, and staying out of people's lives. The obsession with "our values!" and fear response is a weird leftist caricature of the right, not reality.

StuffedParrot 7y ago
A straw man implies I am trying to convince you of something. I am just sharing my perspective. “Market based solutions” is no more a value than fear is. You can’t evaluate its efficacy without having a value with which to measure. There’s really no point in discussing politics at all without values. Personally I think it’s fucked up that government recognizes marriage at all. The benefits have very little to do with the pluralistic definitions of marriage that exist around the world today—tax benefits & visitation rights are not closely related to tying family assets together OR romance. It’s abhorrent that these rights were ever denied to couples regardless of whether they married or not. Religious couples deserve these rights regardless of marriage too. It makes no sense to recognize marriage at the state level. As a gay man I have never nor will ever have any ambitions of marriage, but these rights are still denied to me. I hope you can see through this that the policy and dialogue championed through partisanship is divorced from values that I hold dear, though I emphatically do not begrudge the gay couples that did find a victory through the policy.
DoofusOfDeath 7y ago
I would wager that people who vote Republican and oppose gay marriage do so for a variety of reasons, not just the one you stated.
rfrey 7y ago
Honest question from someone who knows nothing about American culture except what the media chooses to tell me. Wouldn't the position outlined above lead to preferring policy that: 1. In the best case, removed all government recognition of marriage: e.g. remove all differential tax treatment, remove marriage licenses, remove any recognition of marriage whatsoever from government documents 2. In the case that (1) is not possible or complete, ensure that what regulations do exist make no distinctions at all between "types" of couples that marry - e.g. no distinction or restriction between same-sex marriage, cousins marrying, more-than-two-partner marriages, etc. That seems to me to follow logically, but also does not seem to be the position of the Republican party, at least the parts of it I read about.
- Gibbon1 7y ago
  > Honest question from someone who knows nothing about American culture except what the media chooses to tell me. As an American all I have to say is don't take anything that guys is telling you at face value.
mnm1 7y ago
If they are against the government defining marriage, then why do they want to define marriage as being between a man and a woman? For example, the California proposition 8 ballot measure read: "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." [1] So please explain how this is not defining marriage and how it is supportive of gay marriage rather than in opposition to it. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_California_Proposition_8 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_California_Proposition_...
- garmaine 7y ago
  Prop 8 was a ballot initiative, started by and primarily funded by religious groups. It's not a "republican" thing. It was supported by some prominent republicans because of the word "marriage," and for political reasons[0]. Note that to religious conservative thinkers the word "marriage" has deep religious meaning, and to regulate marriage is to encroach on the separation of church and state. This is why many republicans are okay with "civil unions" but have such strong opinions over the word "marriage." Personally I voted NO on Prop 8, fwiw. [0] Political science is the pinnacle of complexity in human society. But a lot of it can be understood as virtue signaling combined with pandering to the lowest common denominator and their short attention spans, combined with the destabilizing effects of primary-issue voters. So while there is a primary distinction between the left- and right- political spectrum which has to do with the role of government, there's also a bunch of tag-along, hot-button issues which politicians pay lip service to in order to get elected by the ignorant majority, but don't really influence legislation to large degree. Things like gay marriage, abortion rights, and climate change fall in these categories, sadly. Which is to say, you'll find conservative think-tanks putting out policy papers justifying the status quo for marriage rights on the grounds that I mentioned. But then some religious fanatics get something like California's Prop 8 on the ballot and republican politicians feel they have to endorse it if they want to get re-elected, which they do. But in reality they're quite happy with the "civil union" compromise because it solves the fundamental civil rights issue without infringing on the religious definition of marriage.
  - mnm1 7y ago
    I'm curious, which fanatical Christian religious groups in California that are not Republican supported prop 8? Also pretending like the core issues of the party are small auxiliary issues that the party doesn't believe in is ridiculous considering their work on passing laws and enforcing them in the courts. If abortion or other issues were not big issues, why does the party constantly pass laws and enforce laws against them? Actions speak for themselves. No amount of propaganda changes that. It'd be like pretending that healthcare is not an issue for the democrats right now. It's absurd.