Would any of you think more highly of a Democratic Party that...

[GrigoryRasputin]

This thread is not intended to be locked or turn into a flame war - so act accordingly.

After these previous elections its safe to say that the DNC does not touch the heartland or the South the way it used to (even 10 years ago).
Would any of you think more highly of a Democratic Party that accepted that abortion may be morally questionable - but that it is the government's duty to keep it legal for practicality's sake (i.e. b/c if theyre illegal, they'll occur just unsafely) and its society's God given duty to keep them rare.
How about if the DNC said "a marriage is between a man and a woman, but gays and lesbians can take vows of commitment and receive the same legal benefits as married people... but we dont expect your state or church to call it a 'marriage'".
What if the DNC also decided that christian prayer in school is fine... just as long as jewish, muslim, and hindu prayer is fine too - but it has to follow the nature of prayer which is personal and subtle. It also cannot be overtly endorsed by the school administration.
What about stopping all this ridiculous activism over "Under God" in the pledge, and just say if you want to express love for your country then say it - if you dont want to express patriotism just keep your mouth shut and listen.
How about if the Party accepts the fact that some people view the Confederate flag as a symbol of heritage, while others view it as a symbol of hate... therefore not wage war on the symbol just dont allow a federal government to endorse the flag of another nation - but leave the states to decide what to do w/ this flag over their own state houses

Would any of you welcome these changes? See these as more reasonable?

These are just thoughts b/c it is inevitable that the DNC will have to undergo serious alterations in message and platform in order to be a viable option in elections....

[L32Projekt]

You bring up some awesome points Grig.

Abortion: Don't make it illegal but make strides to reduce them.

Marriage: Marriage is a religious institution between a man and woman, period. However, I believe homosexual couples ahould be entitled to "civil unions" and be afforded all the rights of marriage. Just don't force people to recognize a religious institution that goes against many teachings.

Prayer: Hmm, touchy subject due to separation of church and state. I would be all for prayer in school, as long as it's done on the student's time and other students are allowed the same amount of time to pursue their interests/beliefs.

Pledge: Just leave the damn thing alone and stop chasing the issue, makes me sick.

Flag: Everyone's offended by something, but if it's a heratage thing, let the individual have it. If it's the state, if people are offended (and since they pay taxes) don't fly it.

I would respect the Dem. platform more if they stopped trying to stifle things that "offend" others. They shouldn't give up their core beliefs, because that's what makes them who they are. Diversity is a good thing. Anyways, I don't want to vote for someone who seems like they change their views/beliefs depending on where the polls go, that's just fake and makes a person/group seem too weak to stand for what they believe in.

Good topic Grig, let's keep this civil people...

[navyblue2000]

piss.
I spent 20 minutes typing up a well informed response, to hit the wrong button :mad:

Good subject Grig.

First though, I will say, I'm a republican, so some of my believes/values might be skewed, but I believe my values and opinions to be well thought out.

I'll try to sum it up.
Prayer: I was publicly educated, the school made announcements for "prayer group" or something, but it was for students of ALL faiths. Getting into specific religions would be violating separation of church and state.
I honestly think too, that the "separation of church and state" has been taken WAY off base by some of the more liberal liberals. The separation of chruch and state was to keep from ahving a state religion, and from having the government influence that church, and vice versa. This came from the founding fathers as a way of preventing the situation at the time in england where the head of the state was also head of the church and used his influence both ways, intertwining the two. It's not meant to take God out of people's lives, or for one to publicly say they are religious. (but that's just my east wing opinion [img]smile.gif[/img] )

I agree with L32 about trying to silence things that offend others. Lately I've seen a lot of liberals as "sympathisers" more than anything else. First amendment rights don't cover abusive, threatening, or deameaning (libel/slander) content, but that's all. offensive != demeaning.

Marriage: Touchy, I know. Marriage WAS meant to be a religious institution. Gay or straight, I know a lot of people who have been to church once in their life and that was just to get married. BUT, if you're going from a religious standpoint (which suprising numbers of homosexuals are...) WHy go directly against your religion to participate in something your religion says is wrong? (OR, what's worse, the organization condoning it....). Anyhow, I got a pretty weak argument for this once...
A friend of mine was pissed about the amendment vote on marriage...
her: The bible says that gay marriage is wrong, correct?
me: correct...
her: then there you go. separation of church and state, if it's in the bible it shouldn't be law.
me: :rolleyes: okay fine, let's make killing and stealing legal too, those are in the bible too... :rolleyes: /weak

Abortion: Take steps to make it legal in very few situations: No Partial birth or 3rd trimester. Allow really only if it will kill the mother, ESPECIALLY in rape cases. Also in the rare incestual cases.

I really enjoy a good political discussion where people really think things out and moreover respect what others have to say, as long as IT is well thought out. Today, especially among us youngsters (me anyway lol i'm 21)...there's a lot of people that regurgitate what their political figurehead says and everything else is wrong.
When I was taking some moral/political Idea classes, I learned a good way of forming an opinion...
1) research the topic
2) gather input from those who are informed
3) use 1 and 2 to make an informed decision.

unfortunately there's a lot of those younger ones out there who...
1)take spew from political figurehead's mouth and call it gospel
2)Said gospel is their opinion, and nothing else
3)All others who disagree or have other opinions are ignorant, wrong, and close minded, and need to be informed of this.


Most of all though, I really think that the dems are further left than a lot of pubs are far right. I honestly think a more Clinton like democrat would have won the election. Shoot I may have even voted for him. But, a bleeding liberal heart like Kerry...just too much change too fast?

[ November 09, 2004, 03:39 PM: Message edited by: navyblue2000 ]

[chas]

marriage is no longer a religous institution. since your auto insurance is going to tax you different based on your marital status, the government is going to tax you differently, your insurance carrier will only cover spouses its more than a religous 'choice'. its a civil union/institution at this point. the religous argument that marriage is only between a man and a woman only applies to people who follow a particular faith not the general population.

personally, none of these changes would make switch to the democratic party. the changes i need would be more along the the attitudes toward government programs and gun control.

[Infernal]

Originally posted by GrigoryRasputin:
Would any of you think more highly of a Democratic Party that accepted that abortion may be morally questionable - but that it is the government's duty to keep it legal for practicality's sake (i.e. b/c if theyre illegal, they'll occur just unsafely) and its society's God given duty to keep them rare.

I think that most conservatives take a similar view, but I don’t think accepting the questionable morality and then not taking steps to reduce the practice its self will help improve the image. Only the hard-core right wing wants to instantly outlaw abortion, despite the obvious consequences. I think it’s a fair “first step” towards an ultimate goal for those who want abortion abolished eventually, and it’s a reasonable compromise for the other side of the coin. I’d think more highly of the party under those circumstances, but only if the partial birth abortion ban was upheld (I personally don’t believe partial birth abortion even falls into the same discussion) and the government took steps to reduce abortion frequency – not by passing legislation that makes abortion illegal, but by educating people about alternatives and making them easier to reach.

Originally posted by GrigoryRasputin:
How about if the DNC said "a marriage is between a man and a woman, but gays and lesbians can take vows of commitment and receive the same legal benefits as married people... but we dont expect your state or church to call it a 'marriage'".

Isn’t that what the party has been saying all along? It didn’t seem to help Kerry win the election. I don’t think America is “ready” to accept gay marriage. Most of us see civil unions as gay marriage in disguise. The notion that gay marriage will dilute the concept of marriage is fine, but I think the real reason is that offering civil unions or marriage is another step towards normalizing homosexuality. Call it bigotry, or ignorance, or homophobia, but most Americans don’t like homosexuality and honestly the notion of teaching our kids by example that it’s normal is very distasteful.

On the other hand, I don’t know many people that would want to ban homosexuality (not even sure how that would be accomplished, but it’s the point that’s important). I think that most people believe what two people do in their bedroom is their own business, and their right. Again, the problem is normalization.

I think the best way the Democratic Party can address gay marriage is to leave it alone, for now, however unfeasible that is. I honestly believe that all the gay activism during the campaigns seriously hurt Kerry’s chances for election.

Originally posted by GrigoryRasputin:
What if the DNC also decided that christian prayer in school is fine... just as long as jewish, muslim, and hindu prayer is fine too - but it has to follow the nature of prayer which is personal and subtle. It also cannot be overtly endorsed by the school administration.
What about stopping all this ridiculous activism over "Under God" in the pledge, and just say if you want to express love for your country then say it - if you dont want to express patriotism just keep your mouth shut and listen.

That certainly seems fair.

Originally posted by GrigoryRasputin:
How about if the Party accepts the fact that some people view the Confederate flag as a symbol of heritage, while others view it as a symbol of hate... therefore not wage war on the symbol just dont allow a federal government to endorse the flag of another nation - but leave the states to decide what to do w/ this flag over their own state houses

I suppose – I don’t know how many people really give a crap about the confederate flag, but I’m a New York Republican which is a slightly different breed. ;)

To address your topic in general, I think that any move towards the center by either party will help to ease the current divisiveness. Anything the Democrats can do to align their values with the majority of Americans will strengthen the party, but it cannot come across as phony. I think the GOP did a very good job of repeatedly drilling out the concept that Senator Kerry would say or do anything to get elected, and whether or not it’s true (or true for any politician, for that matter), the message sunk in. It hurt Kerry and it hurt the entire party.

Sorry for the book. Good topic, though.

[speedy-v6-camaro]

If the DNC did this they might as well be called the RNC....cause those views are partly what make them democrats and not republicans.

navyblue2000-nice example of people being retarded when trying to define seperation of church and state...what morons.

[Blazing_Firebird]

1.) Homosexuality
I agree with the people who wrote before this about it. Marriage, though initially a religious ceremony, is no longer entirely religious. When my taxes, car insurence, benefits, and duties as a citizen change and are affected by marriage, I have an issue with being denied marital rights.
The fact of the matter is, government plays a role in marriage. End of subject. As a result of that, denying any American that right is unconstitutional. Am I saying churchse should be required to marry gays? Of course not, that's just as bad as denying gays marriage. I am saying that there is a large governmental benefit aside from the theological outlook on marriage, that you simply can't deny any American of, regardless. 50 years ago, interracial marriage would've been looked down upon, as well, and we would have never expected a 50+% divorce rate. Pity, both things occur now?
Part of the problem is the fact that people aren't willing to learn. People aren't willing to accept that there are other ways of life, and though you don't have to "believe in it", refraining from learning, from both yourselve and chilren, of it, is ignorent. People fear what they truly don't know, and I don't think anyone can make an argument about homosexuality or anything else without knowing the true facts about it.
Whoever mentiond the conversation about separation and church and state is way off base, I think. Though killing people and stealing are both "prohibited" by the Bible, they are social norms and mores, and are commonly accepted, both by believers and non-believers. I don't believe in a God and I am not religious, but that doesn't mean I don't abide by those. You can't compare gay marriage to incest, pedophilia, bestiality, or murder. There is a fine difference in the two. People are looking at marriage as a religious institution entirely, and the sad fact is that it isn't anymore. Not entirely at least.
Example: Two athiests want to be married. No one can deny them marriage on the principle that they are atheist or agnostic, and they could be married. Techincally, if you're not a believer, aren't you not supposed to be married? There's a lot of muddled facts we, as a society, need to get straight (no pun intented), here.

Abortion:
My views on this are simple: I disagree with partial birth abortion, and I don't think it's ANYONE's place (Especially a man's) to tell a woman what they can or can't do. If abortion is banned, people will still find ways to do it anyways.

[img]smile.gif[/img] I'm a democrat, fyi.

[Infernal]

Originally posted by Blazing_Firebird:
When my taxes, car insurence, benefits, and duties as a citizen change and are affected by marriage, I have an issue with being denied marital rights.
The fact of the matter is, government plays a role in marriage. End of subject. As a result of that, denying any American that right is unconstitutional.

I would ask you to consider that marriage is not a constitutional right, but a privilege. The government grants all sorts of benefits to the poor that they wouldn't dream of giving you. Your taxes are affected. Affirmative action allows racial quotas to determine who gets accepted to colleges. If you are white, this isn't a privilege granted to you. None of these are constitutional rights. Are affirmative action and federal PEL grants unconstitutional? Is it unconstitutional to take more tax revenue from myself than from my neighbor?

The fact is, people are not granted equal privliges under the federal government. It just so happens that this matter is biased towards gender instead of ethnicity or socioeconomic status.

[speedy-v6-camaro]

Originally posted by Blazing_Firebird:
When my taxes, car insurence, benefits, and duties as a citizen change and are affected by marriage, I have an issue with being denied marital rights.
The fact of the matter is, government plays a role in marriage. End of subject. As a result of that, denying any American that right is unconstitutional.

Ummm....last I checked marriage isn't in the US constitution. Take away free speech or the right to bear arms and that is unconstitional, but not something that isn't in the constitution. Marriage is regulated by the state and therefore each state has a right to regulate it how the people wish.

[GrigoryRasputin]

equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment says youre wrong.
Affirmative action and social programs dont apply b/c theyre enacted in the spirit of either pursuing equal protection or pursuing social justice - sorry bad examples.

Marriage as an institution should not be infringed upon by the state in any manner - it is a religious promise and a sacred bond that involves the man and woman, God and the congregation.
However, tax and other benefits that would be covered by equal protection under the law IS a right given to all Americans. Dont call it marriage... my feeling is that if a man and a woman goes before the justice of the peace it shouldnt be called a marriage either.

Marriage is religious. end of story.
Marriage isnt included in the constitution and should never be.

[HAZ-Matt]

That would be a step in the right direction, but the real problem with the Democratic party is that they are not employing same type of propagandists that allowed the Republicans and the Nazis to rise to power and hold that power.

The real difference in electablility is the fact that the Republican party was able to represent themselves in a manner that was not consistant with reality. How many people supported Bush because they are for small government for example? Politics in this nation are a bunch of nonsense. Like Bill Clinton said "When people think they vote Democrat." I'm here to tell you that people in this country don't think. That is the key. Talk to the people on the street and see how well informed they are of politics. Ask them about the difference between trickle down and Keynsian economics. Ask them what liberal really means or what conservative really means. Ask them what a realist foreign policy means. The Republicans were able to speak to the lowest common denominator. The Democrats could not.

[FirebirdGT]

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/...icy/index.html

[HAZ-Matt]

http://bsalert.com/artsearch.php?fn=2&as=354&dt=1

[L32Projekt]

Matt, that article was pretty worthless. Just more whining from someone that couldn't really come up with a valid reason why President Bush won a second term. Blaming the loss of a Democratic candidate on a mostly Liberal media? That's stretching a bit, don't you think?

[GrigoryRasputin]

The media did nothing to help out Kerry this time.