American Government....From the waist DOWN..

[SoCalDem]

Americans have become way too obsessed with what goes on from the waist down..

It seems to me that most of our real problems need some serious action from the NECK, UP..


Does any sane person really think that there will EVER be a consensus about abortion or marriage (of ANY flavor)??

Nope.. because those are PRIVATE things.. I always told my sons that the "bad touching" that mattered, were touches that happened anywhere on their bodies that underwear would cover. It seems like America needs to follow Mom's advice, especially since it's our own government that is touching us all...figuratively , of course.

It's NOBODY'S business , certainly NOT the government's . Adults should be able to keep their privates ...PRIVATE..

The whole gay marriage issue is really about the money and benefits, folks.. The politicians have framed it as a "moral" issue, but when it comes right down to it, it's about the money,, Our social security system has been making a bundle off the "single" people in the US. My father was not gay, but he was single when he died. He died 4 months after he turned 65. He paid into social security for 40 years plus, yet he only collected 4 checks. Gay people have always been a mainstay of the "single population", so it makes sense that the government has a vested interest in keeping them single.. The religious undertones, are just to "frost that cake"..

The same can be said for the abortion rates. Does anyone really think that that average fundamentalist Christian would care so much about abortion if the only ones having abortions were Black or Hispanic women?? The extreme shortage of blond/blue eyed babies is driving the abortion "crisis".. It may be un-PC to say it, but that's the real reason. The right wingers want to retreat to the 50's because that was the era of "easy" adoptions from the unwed mothers' homes. The stigma of raising a baby , by a single Mom was legend. Legal abortions took the power away from the churches who often "ran" these homes. It was practically a cottage industry in some states..

These two "wedge" issues are driving us crazy, as a country, and we need to STOP IT.. We should all just agree to disagree and BUTT OUT.

There is no reason why ANYONE should have to live their life alone...Gay OR straight. A better way to approach the whole issue would be to remove it completely from government oversight. Civil unions/contracts should be allowed by ANY citizen.. It should be encouraged.

The religious ceremonies could/would/should still exist, if the participants wanted it, but two people who want to share their lives should be able to without the United States of Nanny putting its official imprimatur on the union. For legal purposes, each person of the union would share equally, as long as the contract existed. The need for "divorce" would be gone as well. It would be a simple matter of contract dissolution. If the churches wanted the divorce option, that would be separate from the civil arena.

If a single person (gay or straight) wants to have a civil union with his invalid sister, why should the government care. Maybe she has no benefits, and he has no family, so why should she not benefit from his, if he chooses to help her?..

Of course the underlying problem is that if we had a national health care/pension system like all the other "civilized" countries, these unions would be unnecessary anyway.

The problems we have are so much more dangerous than these two issues, and we need to GROW UP..and start facing them..It's time for the US government busy bodies to stay out of the bedroom,and quit worrying so much about who's "doing" whom.

We have bigger fish to fry, as a nation, and we need to quit obsessing about things that are none of our business..

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

1. Very well said!

Before any right to lifer starts spouting to me, I like to ask them how many children they have adopted. So far, I've met exactly 1 person (she adopted two kids). The problem with RTF is that they are very interested in fetuses but seem to completely lose interest in them once the babies are born.

And does anyone seriously believe that if Tom and Steve down the road get hitched, all the hetero couples will divorce?

The real reason that so many preachers and politicians are behind these issues is that it gives them power. Period.

[anarchy1999]

2. Thank you for saying it all so well. Cheers to you!!!!!!!!

Why are we allowing this shit to happen? Why? "Wedge issues"? WTF?

[SoCalDem]

4. We "allow" it because we have ceded too much "power"

and the "ordinary" people who truly do not have "issues" about either issue, do not speak out. The ones who DO are loud..organized..and have a direct line to the people who own the media..

Politicians "need" money so desperately, that they are afraid to alienate anyone, so they are always tippy-toeing into and out of issues that should not even matter..

Public financing of elections, free air time, and elimination of media monopoly would "solve" a lot of the problems surrounding these issues..

If a politician has exactly the same access and money as his opponents, and he was assured of getting equal time on the air to state his plans for the country, he would be less likely to have to pander to the extremes..

The extremes have been running the show for so long now, that they will not give in easily..

[drhilarius]

3. "What's the matter with Kansas".

If they were to get rid of the social/moral issues, then people would see their economic agenda and wouldn't go for it.

[SoCalDem]

5. I am a native Kansan , and I know what you mean..

Kansas is the buckle in the bible belt.. and they have been getting poorer and poorer..and cannot seem to figure it out :eyes:

[quaker bill]

6. I agree

The civil aspects of marriage should simply be termed domestic partnerships. The dissolution of marriage under the current system bares much similarity to the dissolution of a business partnership, with the exception of child custody matters. Even in that case, the decisions are made on facts rather than religious or spiritual principles.

The spiritual aspects of marriage, when cared for at all, are best cared for by the churches.

As an aside, the legalization of same sex unions is no threat to the sanctity of my marriage. This is because I am not attracted to other men in that way. I have to wonder if the rightwing feels that many in their ranks are closeted homosexuals that would bolt from their marriages at the chance of having a union with a member of their respective genders. I don't see this happening, but perhaps they do.

In so far as abortion is concerned, I have always felt that both the anti-abortion and anti-welfare positions have a racial component. When Ronnie Reagan speaking against welfare stated "you get more of what you subsidize" I am convinced he had the image of black children in mind. After all, it was his administration that popularized the image of the "poor black welfare mom defrauding the system and driving around in a Cadillac". This in spite of the fact that most welfare recipients were white. In the conservative and racist parts of the south there was a large concern that we were killing white babies and paying for more black ones.

[SoCalDem]

7. Ronald Reagan had so much hatred in his heart towards poor people

I never understood how anyone could think he was such a sweet old guy.. He started the whole stereotype of the "lazy welfare recipient".. I have known many people on welfare, and almost to a person, they were anything BUT lazy. It's mindboggling how much energy it takes to survive on next to nothing..

What's equally interesting is to see a person who is used to having a good job and lots of "stuff"..AFTER they lose it all.. They are amazed at how wrong they were before..