Liberalism in the United States

Maybe so, Betty, but there is an undercurrent of liberalism that threatens American society. In Chicago, there is a museum of leather that celebrates sado-masochism. Residents have protested against the museum because of its proximity to local schools. On the museum website it says:

Quote :

The Leather Archives & Museum website offers information about a sexuality collection.

By clicking "continue" below, you agree that you are at least 18 years of age and do not
find sexuality resources or information offensive or illegal in your legal jurisdiction.

Continue

Needless to say, I did not enter. I'm well aware that similar heterosexual dens of iniquity exist in communities across America. The difference is that Americans can speak out against immoral establishments owned by heterosexuals, but if they speak out against the gay community they are called bigots and homophobic. In other words, gays are above moral judgement. No one should be untouchable, not even in a free society such as America's.

Shelagh wrote:

Maybe so, Betty, but there is an undercurrent of liberalism that threatens American society. 

Shelagh,

I don't think it's an undecurrent...more like a tidal wave!!!

This is one of those emotional issues that needs its own thread.  How a person feels from their religious upbringing and how they emotionally react to people that have different lifestyles will color the information they draw to them.

There are other developed countries much more liberal than the U.S. on these matters.  However, our politics are pretty messed up at present.  We have the republican party alligned with the religious right - very conservative point of view that believes their religious beliefs (Christianity as they write it) should be law for everyone.  

Then there are the rest of the people who are left as independents or Democrats and a liberal label if they do not believe religious dogma is the intention of the founders of this nation.

After all, it is one's religious background that pretty much determines one's beliefs regarding alternative lifestyles.  Personally, I don't see the U.S. as liberal on these issues but rather quite conservative.  It is the conservative and zero tolerance that caused people to speak out and gather together to gain rights.

My two uncles who were inseparable for their lifetime didn't need marriage.  They were committed to each other for their lifetime.  They did need legal rights to be able to care for each other financially and medically.  The right to "marry" legally is a right for legal rights afforded married couples that "partners" do not get for themselves and their children.  \

I don't care who marries whom.  I just find it unfortunate that if two women or two men wish to share their lives together that "people will talk."  Why should either spend their lives alone and childless just because they have no heterosexual partner?  Whether sex is involved is a private matter.  They may  just be roommates or companions.

To get legal rights, they have to make noise and be recognized.  When it's no longer an issue, the matter will quiet and life will go on as usual.  As far as I'm concerned it's all a waste of energy when there are far greater matters for legislators and courts such as hunger, crime, etc.

I agree that this subject may require its own thread.  Perhaps: “All about sex and religion”
As I recall, we discussed something similar some time ago. 
 
DK, what you say, especially concerning the religious connection, rings true.  Shelagh makes a good point and Don summed it up.
My personal take on this is that Americans have a stigma about sex.  My own religious upbringing attests to that.  It seems that prohibition becomes an attraction.  My first exposure to a more open society was when I was in the USAF, stationed in Germany.  Going to Frankfurt just to window shop on the famed Kaiserstrasse was entertaining as well as a learning experience.  The more exposure, the less intrigue.  Newspapers and magazines still show pictures of nakedness and it is no big deal.  When I worked in Holland, Amsterdam had its own Red Light District, and still does.  It was something one had to see to believe.  There are those whose sexual desires are very strong and need an outlet.  Having a place to find relief helps to prevent sex crimes.  
Age may be a factor in how I view this, but I can still remember my youth.  We like to think that young people seek love that leads to marriage when the truth of the matter is simply a desire to have sex.  The days of “shotgun weddings” are past.  Forcing a young man to marry and take responsibility for the girl and child ruined many lives.  Divorce was not acceptable and considered a sin in the church I attended.  Hollywood made divorce common using “incompatibility” as the excuse.  Today many couples live together without being married.  Some people, especially older folk, seek companionship and sex is not the driving force.  
 
The sex drive is strong.  Highly sexed people are high achievers.  That drive can be a positive as well as a negative force.   
As for the connection to politics and the conservatives, it seems that those who oppose same-sex relationships try to bring religion into the matter.  How many evangelists and/or pastors have been exposed for their sexual escapades?  In my view, their obsession is a reflection on themselves.  I recognize that morality has a connection to religious beliefs.  How one views morality is as tricky as how one interprets scripture.  Society sets the tone.  Society is influenced by what one views in the movies or TV sitcoms. 
 
I strongly believe that we become like the people we associate with.   Parents are becoming aware of how their children are influenced with the friends they associate with. 
 
Feeling sympathy for another - the subject of this thread, shows the human side of a person.   Does one hide their emotions or let them be seen?  Do we hide a tear or let it roll?  How much of our emotions are controlled by society?  Do you prefer to be in the presence of a person with a false smile or someone genuine?  Do you prefer to hear a lie or the truth?  So long as we have the ability to think, we can choose.  We choose what feels right for us and that includes religion, politics and friends.

Abe F. March wrote:

  We choose what feels right for us and that includes religion, politics and friends.

The open discussion of the first two can often cost you the third!!!

True Don, however those that I seem to have lost were no real loss.  It exposed them for what they are.

Abe,

The gay community is not content with just being allowed same sex marriage; they want changes to the whole structure of society to accomodate their lifestyles. Here's an example of how businesses are being called homophobic for using the titles Mr. and Mrs. The overuse of the word homophobia has brought about a negative reaction and had a negative effect on tolerance.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/a-gay-couple-is-angered-when-addressed-as-mr-and-mrs-is-it-homophobia/2014/10/12/26746318-4fd7-11e4-aa5e-7153e466a02d_story.html

6/11
             I believe yes everyone should have equal rights, not change the laws about marriage
             and I understand what DK says, people who live together who are gay need a backing
             I would say it should read " Partnership " so if one guy is ill the other can take care of
             him and see him not be blocked by hospitals or Dr.'s because your not a relative, I have
             known many men who went through this, they had to have legal documents to prove they
             are the care takers, it's sad that many guys were blocked by hospitals , families and they
             never saw their loved one again...Now there are as DK says there have been many scandals
             regarding the religious right, who will say one thing and get caught with their pants down as
             they say, I agree with Shelagh I'm old fashion I was stunned when she talked about that 
             museum in Chicago, I don't think that's right to me that's flaunting it..SO as far as I'm 
             concerned both sides are wrong the gays and the religious right ( Who I consider very
             dangerous, I just hope we don't wind up again like Salem , Mass. 1692 !) As far as religion
             is concerned I gave up on the Catholic Church when I was 18 , I do like very much the
             Episcopal Church their not prejudice....I think Pope Francis is doing a great job, he's trying
             to clean up the church..
                                                                          Cheers..Joe...

To whoever it may concern, I don't intend to change my life or lifestyle to accommodate a new breed of person.  If they choose to be gay or lesbian, that is their choice.  They don't need my approval.  A man is a man and a woman a woman.  That means I address a man as Mister and a woman as Mrs. or Miss.  As for who is wearing the pants, I don't intend to investigate their drawers to find out. 

It appears that they seek approval for their lifestyle and insist that everyone accept it.  That is pure BS and I for one won't buy into it.  I will continue to choose my friends and who I wish to associate with. 
To take a line used by Ann.  "Just me".

6/11
              Abe..

                     Being gay is not a choice, you re born that way, Yes I disagree about the gay
        groups, all I'm saying is that two people have some kind of document saying they are
        able to take care of their friend in severe situations, now I have known men who I think
        what they did is wrong is get married, have kids and 20, 30.40 years later come out, to
        me that's wrong yes I know at the time 1940's, 1950's, 1960's, yes even in 1970's you
        didn't say you were gay, if your gay come out and be a man don't get married and have
        children. And yes there are and were many Ministers etc. on the extreme far right  who 
        are phony and yes get caught in scandal and have the balls to stand before their congregation
        cry, hold their wives who to me are stupid ( Stand by your man attitude,) hello guess what he's
        caught again with his pants down, one name comes to mind who's still in business as they 
        call the bible belt, Jimmy Swaggert ..
                                                                 Cheers..Joe........

In honor of the title of this original thread, I would recommend we move this discussion to a new thread - as it it a lively and open discussion where each of us is expressing our own opinion without maligning the opinion of the other person that may be different.  That is the stuff understanding may grow from and not to be wasted.

I have more to say on the matter but wish to do son on a new thread.  Even if we have discussed it before, times change and so do opinions and sources of information.

Joe, we all support everyone's right to love the person of their choosing. We also think that partnerships should be protected by law equivalent to a married couple, but that marriage should be the uniting of a man and a woman. At the end of this month, it is most likely that the Supreme Court will force all States to allow same sex marriages. There is strong opposition, as there was in the UK. Since 2004, gay couples have had equal rights to married couples, in a civil partnership as opposed to a civil marriage. The difference between the two was very slight, but it meant that gay couples could leave their money in wills as they pleased, either to their partner or to their immediate families. In a civil marriage, a spouse has legal right to inherit everything, even if a will says otherwise. Heterosexual couples asked if they could have civil partnerships instead of civil marriages, but this was denied.  In 2013, against tremendous opposition across the UK, same sex marriage became legal.

This year, before the General Election, a Christian website listed all the MPs who voted for same sex marriage and asked the electorate to check if their MP had voted in favour, and then tactically vote against that MP being re-elected. The outcome was five million votes for UKip and the annihilation if the LibDems who lost forty-eight of their fifty-six seats.

The liberal policies from the coalition government were unpopular, so the electorate voted them out. The same thing might happen next year in the US.

Where is the new thread?

Here we are, Alice. 

I find labels are for the purpose of organizing information that is too complex to list in bits and pieces.  Unfortunately, in applying labels, much is lost in fact and more is included that is anecdotal. No person is a label.  Each varies.  Lumping people in labels and stereotypes never brings good in my opinion.

These are labels that I feel are harmful in the end:  labels that indicate color or ethnic origin, labels that indicate sexual orientation, labels that indicate social status or economic status, labels that separate out those with disabilities from the able people, etc.  While labels may help differentiate good in some circumstances, overall, they are warnings and create fear and division.

Whenever "most people" are used to described a segment of the population, I see that as anecdotal.  When there is a creditable survey that indicates the numbers of people with specific views, then I sit up and take note.

I believe that most people are too much concerned with the opinions of others instead of building their own code of conduct that works for them and harms no others intentionally.  If their rights and needs to live a quality life in society require new legislation, then all citizens have the opportunity to protest, to support lobbyists or otherwise seek regress of their grievance.

I oppose vehemently legislation that limits women's rights to make their own health decisions.  Unfortunately for my beliefs, the heavy dose of conservative Republicans are writing more and more laws to limit those rights and conservative courts are ruling them legal.  Conservatives are taking actions that are against my beliefs, but that does not make me a liberal.  Their actions do label them and they label themselves conservative, putting religious dogma into legislation.  I am grateful that I no longer work in the public sector where my job was to help women and men gain a quality existence.  I would see much suffering as a result of these laws.  I can shield myself from that reality since it's not my occupation.

I see that rather than fearing "liberals," I am prone to fear the conservative, religious right that is bent on taking away hard fought rights for people of color and women.  They pass laws against abortion, limit voting rights, want to send hard-working immigrants who pay taxes away from the country that employers invited them to.  Next, we'll be required to wear floor length dresses, walk ten steps behind the men and serve tea instead of participating in the work force.  Women need to wake up, but they are very indoctrinated by the religious dogma that tells them to stand with their men who are happy to gain back their dominant role over women's choice.

I am no expert on sexuality.  I know people are miserable when they live in what they consider to be a life lie.  Labeling themselves as bi-sexual, transsexual, lesbian, gay or any other label does not create nirvana.  Living alternative lifestyles create difficult choices.  For all people, finding like minded friends is often a comfort.

I really do not care about a person's sexuality unless I intend to be intimate with them.  However, as friendships grow, we tend to share information that reveals who we are.

I have a very close friend who I love dearly.  We have been friends for more than twenty years and have very different backgrounds and are of different ethnic origins that includes skin color differences.  Often people will say with special intonation, " And How did You Two become such good friends?"  It's not the question but the intonation that makes the question irritating.

I worked in Key West (and everyone knows that everyone in Key West is some sort of alternative sexual person) and a friend and I by the third year made a pact that whoever found a job outside the Keys first would help the other.  I found my job first and she came to room with me.  When we were out, we found it necessary to not say we were room mates as that would lead to assumptions and the dating arena of available men would shrink.

Right now people are trying to find in the system the rights that help them manage their lives and their families better when heterosexual relationships are not in their cards.  It always takes a bit of chaos before things get back to normal once people request their rights.  I look forward to the day when sexuality returns to private matters and we can just work and have fun together without delving into the bedroom until a relationship is heading in that direction.

I agree with Joe that people who know they are not the religious right's mainstream sexual him and her definition of beliefs should tell those persons in their intimate circle to limit expectations.  Unfortunately, sexuality is not always know or understood, sometimes not until much later in life.

From the other perspective, how nice for two people to be able to share companionship and support rights without declaring a sexual union instead of living alone to be clear they are "normal." 





Sexuality like mental disorders is full of myth and short on facts that are well understood.  People who wish to take a specific point of view gather their facts around them to support that point of view.

Years ago, I was a fully paid up member of the Liberal party. I thought everyone should be allowed to live according to their own beliefs, whether they be religious or secular. When those beliefs started to impinge on traditional life styles, and people who did not fit in wanted to change those traditions, I began to see the flaws in living a truly liberal life.

Tonight on the news, it was announced that the pilot of the Lufthansa aircraft that crashed a few months ago had seen forty-one physicians during the last ten years. This was unknown to the airline because it would have violated the pilot's right to privacy. We cannot afford this kind of liberal individualism.

If the only two choices for American voters is between the Conservative far right and the Liberal far left, then democracy is failing in the US.

Wow.  This thread has multiple areas for discussion, all to do with human relations.
We are living in a world of extremes.  One can talk about the extreme weather conditions indicating a problem that scientists associate with pollution.  What about pollution of the mind? 
The extreme Right or the extreme Left are polluting our way of life.  Imagine a situation where each extreme group lived separately.   When it comes to Gays or Lesbians, reproduction would cease and those groups would eventually die off.  Yesterday I was doing some research on bees.  Without the pollination by bees, we as humans would eventually cease to exist as we would not have food to eat.  Even the animals we eat require food to survive.  Protecting our environment is our means of survival. 
As for religion and/or politics, separating these groups wouldn’t work either.   We need each other within a healthy environment to survive.  Imagine how boring life would be with sameness.   Conflict and struggle are part of life.  Problems cause us to use our minds to find solutions.  Valuable employees are those who solve problems.  With marriage, there is a dominant in each relationship.  In the past, the dominant was considered to be the male.  That is no longer true.  We witness many marriages where the wife is the strong one and runs the family.  It should not have to do with the sex of the person, but with capability and allowing that person to use their ability.    
Controversy and struggle are part of life.  If we all agreed on everything, on this forum there would be no reason to make a post.  We need one another to survive.  Whatever we seek comes from human participation in some form.  How boring life would be without struggle.  There would be no comprehension for “Happy and Sad” Win and Lose”  “Sick and Well”. 
 
We seek balance.  To obtain that balance often requires taking an extreme opposite view to draw it to the middle.   We know that opposites attract and like repels.  My wife and I are opposites and we have been together for 54 years.  Life has not been boring.  We have been rich and poor.  We had our ups and downs in many facets of life.  The struggles made us stronger.  I relate that to a muscle.  Resistance makes the muscle strong and without it, the muscle becomes weak.  My family was closest when we experienced our greatest struggles.
 
If we can see problems as opportunity, we can grow and become stronger.   JMO.

6/12

               Too many people get their knickers all twisted when it comes to talking about gay
               rights, I believe everyone should have rights and no one should wear a dam label
               I find it interesting it's how we grew up, isn't it sad when you over hear someone say:
               " I was talking to that black lady over there,"  Not saying the proper way: " I was
               talking to the lady over there," or " Did you see that guy with the limp wrist." I 
               think the United States is so far behind Europe, In Europe they would never blink
               twice about seeing two guys greeting and kissing each other or holding hands, yes
               I do agree that anyone straight or gay giving each other a down you throat tongue
               kiss to me that's throwing in someone's face who you are I find that repulsive... so
               we have to stop the labels !!! We're all human beings, we all pee, we all eat, we all
               get sick and sad to say we all die, we all have the same emotions..........I have spoken
               I declare everyone a loving human being.......
                                                                    Cheers........Joe...........

What is the negative effect on me if two men or two women decide to marry? How am I disadvantaged by that event? What losses do I incur if they marry? It's none of my business. I am  free to approve or disapprove, but I am not entitled to prevent it. Neither should the government be so entitled. Why should "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" be denied to any segment of the population?

The only problem I see with same sex marriage is: Who'll control the remote?

It isn't in the constitution, Al, which is why the Supreme Court is having to decide. You could argue that it is within all the States' constitutional right to preserve marriage as the uniting of one woman and one man. At the time the constitution was written, women didn't have any rights. All men had to be treated equally, rich or poor or by sexual orientation, which meant they could all take a wife, and I think that the Mormons were allowed several. It was never considered that a man's wife or wives might, in fact, be male. The fourteenth amendment states that nothing should be allowed to one group thst isn't available to another. The gay community are insisting that this means that a man should be able to take a man as his wife, but in actual fact, they don't become husband and wife, they become husband and husband. Women are supposedly treated the same as men in the fourteenth constitution, although it doesn't actually say as much. 

I'm not against same sex couples forming legal partnerships; it's just that four thousand-year-old traditions are worth preserving.

6/12

                           SHelagh

                                     I say preserve it...Just that everyone should have the same rights
  for a partner being ill, death benefits,etc. I don't when I read that many have gone too far
  in the gay community suing private store owners, if you own a store you have the rights to
  refuse to serve someone , meaning if a gay couple went to a bakery and wanted a wedding 
  cake the owner has the right to say sorry I don't make those, the couple should move on and
  yes never buy there again and go some place else, just my thoughts we can beat this till it
  doomsday...
                                                                Cheers......Joe......

I am not opposed to gay marriages. It bothers me when they wish to adopt children, however. Why?
The children have no say. I am glad I had a Mom and a Dad--not two Mom's or two Dad's.

If I were a child in an institution, I would be glad for any parent that gave me a home and love and the change for a quality life.  Children that grow up in preacher's families end up incarcerated and addicts.  People who lived through the Holocaust went on to create wonderful families and make major contributions to society. Life is an uncertain toss of the dice that we can fluff around the edges and providing loving homes for children in institutions is some of that "around the edges" stuff.

At one time, no single parents were considered able to adopt. Yet, with divorce, single parenting is one of the major lifestyles.  Why deny a child a parent?  That may be all they get when they start out with a mom and a dad anyway, minus the shredding of divorce and the hatred it often engenders.

Yes, I will speak for children. What adults choose to do in terms of marriage and relationships is between them and their beliefs and their community.  "When in Rome..." applies to all cultural behaviors.  Whatever the majority standards represent so long as they are not prejudicial and present hatred should be respected in public.  Private life is an entirely different matter.

All this said.  There are always exceptions.  And with anecdotal experiences, exceptions often guide the legislation because of their appeal to base emotions of fear.  We fear what we do not understand and attempt to legislate against it.  

Whenever the Republicans want to go back to the good ole days Shelagh summed them up well, the days of slavery, women with no rights, child labor, lack of safety in the workplace, the poor house, pestilence and disease and the list goes on.  We must move forward with the knowledge we have and attempt to overcome our sense of "tradition" to meet the greater needs of a global world.

Another excellent thread with much to applaud in every post--and much that reasonable people can honestly disagree with.

I can't help but offer my two-cents worth, though I will refrain from addressing specific comments from our friends here simply for brevity's sake.

First, discussions on controversial issues such as gay marriage, women's rights and race are often derailed before any train of thought can leave the station by a seething intolerance for an opposing point of view and the adoption of "if you disagree you are a homophobe/sexist/racist" or equally ad hominem attack on the person who dares hold an opposing point of view, often dismissing and tainting the speaker with the broad brush of opprobrium as a a fundamentalist Christian, right wing nutcase, Tea Partier, or the preferred dismissive term by the left, Republican. 

The truth is that vital human rights issues are coopted and misused by people with political axes to grind on both sides of the political spectrum whose primary interest is not the rights of afflicted groups but the promotion of their agenda by any means necessary. To these people, ideology trumps the First Amendment's guarantees of freedom of speech and they call for "banning" speech they deem "hateful." And what is the definition of hateful speech, why disagreeing with them, of course. So, if one is against gay marriage, they are first dismissed as "homophobic," ones views are tarnished by dismissive accusations of being a mere Republican, Christian right wingnut and/or bigot. On what basis, well on the basis that "All Reasonable People Must Think as I Do," of course. An Alice in Wonderland syllogism is then formed and adhered to with all the flexibility of hardened steel:

All rational people think as I do.
You do not think as I do.
You are not a rational person.

Neat, tidy and approved by Aristotle. Anyone who dares to question the accuracy of the underlying assumption is promptly filtered through the official dogma, declared irrational, and sent off to the nearest gulag for "re-education."

We see this played out with the clarity of distilled water on all of the issues embraced by the left over the last 100 years. Russia, China, Cambodia, Cuba and every other "triumph of the proletariat" speak for themselves. Drink the Kool-aid, children, or off you go to "camp."

Now to gay marriage. The left has largely successfully framed the debate (aided and abetted by the media) as "do you support gay marriage or are you anti gay?" Which, of course, is no more logical than the aforementioned syllogism. Marriage is an institution that derives its existence from religious authority. Civil unions were available to gay and lesbian couples that provided ALL OF THE PROTECTIONS OF MARRIAGE except for the title which has always been reserved in Western tradition to unions of one man and one woman. If there were serious concerns about the accuracy of my statement, I would have supported making any change necessary so that civil unions provided all benefits (and liabilities--including marriage penalty taxes, etc.) at the state, local and federal levels. But the proponents of gay marriage claimed that civil unions were not enough--they wanted--and want--the formal recognition that men marrying men and women marrying women is a right and, if they could do so under our Constitution, would force all churches, synagogues and mosques to perform the sacred marriage ceremony. THAT is the issue, not protection of property, not decisions on health care, not tax law or any other reasonable concern already addressed by civil union laws in most states, including my own, long before the debate heated up nationally.

I support civil unions. I support gays and lesbians being given every right that everyone enjoys, and would and did support civil union laws being required on a national level that conferred all rights and privileges enjoyed by heterosexual married couples on gay and lesbian unions. I do not support the changing of the definition of a singular institution that has its roots in religion. The fact that my Church opposes marriage is not why I oppose gay marriage. My Church also opposed contraception and abortion for any reason, but I support the current law permitting both. 

Marriage is a unique institution defined from time immemorial as between "one man and one woman." Marriage does not include multiple partners in our western tradition. It does not allow brothers to marry sisters, fathers to marry daughters, or men or women to marry young children.  It also most certainly precludes a woman "marrying" a dolphin as was reportedly done a few years ago in what I can only hope was a stunt. The real reason that anyone who opposes gay marriage is attacked these days is not over the non-issue of "protecting civil rights" but rather promoting a lifestyle and further eroding any standards and attacking values, which is to say attacking conservatism. As with race and sex, the real motive in pushing an agenda is stifling debate and framing anyone who disagrees with the advance of progressive agendas as a "hater" whose speech must be silenced. If gay marriage is a civil rights issue, then anyone opposing gay marriage is by definition against human rights and a bigot. Neat trick that. No different, by the way, than saying that climate change is the most serious security concern facing the U.S. Wow. Who'd have thunk it? All climate change deniers please line up so we can shoot you for treason.

There are no gulags as yet to corral and re-educate "The Enemies of Freedom". But make no mistake, the tracks are being laid with increasing rapidity and the train has most decidedly left the station. All we need now is for one or more of those pesky right-wing-counterrevolutionary bozos on the U.S. Supreme Court to "be retired" [there's a a titillating idea for a thriller, eh?] and one or more "Right Thinking" justices added in their place and the train can quickly pick up a healthy head of steam, criminalizing speech that "offends" people, doing away with the Second Amendment altogether, allowing women to have partial birth abortions on demand in the ninth month of pregnancy (and jailing anyone who posts pictures of a baby's brains being sucked out before the head exits the vagina since it makes people feel uncomfortable about how baby like those large fetuses look). Toot toot!

Well said, Victor. I hope the Second Amendment survives. I can understand Joe's position very well, and your description of the protections afforded by civil unions seemed to match his requirements. Fighting for the right to marry seems to be less about gaining a right and more about forcing acceptance on a society that was becoming increasingly more tolerant. However, when the tail starts to wag the dog, something has to give. If what happened in the General Election here in the UK is anything to go by, 2016 might see a big change in who holds the balance of power in the US.