#282478 - 06/06/2006 01:51
Finally, America is safe!
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 27/06/1999
Posts: 7058
Loc: Pittsburgh, PA
|
No, not safe from terror. Safe from teh gayness!@! It really warms my heart to think that with all of the legitimate problems in my country, the Senate has chosen to spend almost a full week of the legislative calendar debating whether Adam and Steve (or Madam and Eve) can marry. All as a token gesture to the "conservative base", when they know the amendment has no chance to pass either house of Congress. Because, after all,allowing same sex marriages is a "threat to the "institution of marriage." Or, as Dubya said today, "Gay marriage poses an iminent threat to the American traditional family." Even though the states which allow (or don't explicitly ban) gay marriage are at the bottom of the divorce rate list. So then they say "we need to protect the children!" Because, you know, all gay parents will have gay kids, just like all straight parents have straight kids! If you had asked me two years ago, I would have swore to you that our political system is strong enough to withstand the moronitude of the current President and the incompetent buffoons which walk the halls of Congress. Today, watching Senators waste valuable legislative time on this phony issue (they only work 120 or so days a year to begin with), I felt for the first time that the train is off the track, and may never return to the station.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#282479 - 06/06/2006 04:44
Re: Finally, America is safe!
[Re: tonyc]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 23/08/2000
Posts: 3826
Loc: SLC, UT, USA
|
The American Traditional Family is a myth. Always has been always will be. It didn't exist except for on Ozzy and Harriet. The sooner these fricking "in my day" kodgers and "my way or the highway" tightwads figure that out the better. I mean seriously. Someone needs to burst into these deliberations with a flyer describing all of the disfunctions of each and every Senators family, and huge pie charts so they can all figure it out. You could argue their side of the "moral" issue in a number of ways... but saying it will disrupt the idea of the traditional family is a horseshite smoke screen.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#282480 - 06/06/2006 10:00
Re: Finally, America is safe!
[Re: loren]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 15/08/2000
Posts: 4859
Loc: New Jersey, USA
|
Speaking of "smoke screen", did you notice the number of "really urgent issues" that have been raised by both the government and press in the US recently? Let's see... Immigration reform, gay marriage...
I think that these "high profile" debates are being thrown out in desperation as a distraction from other things, like, for example, global warming, climate change, energy policy, debt, Afghasistan, Iraq, election reform, etc...
Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain...
_________________________
Paul Grzelak
200GB with 48MB RAM, Illuminated Buttons and Digital Outputs
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#282481 - 06/06/2006 10:49
Re: Finally, America is safe!
[Re: pgrzelak]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 20/12/1999
Posts: 31600
Loc: Seattle, WA
|
Quote:
I think that these "high profile" debates are being thrown out in desperation as a distraction from other things
Yeah. It's almost too obvious that's what they're doing.
And anyway, shouldn't the federal government's opinion on marriage be a moot point? I thought people were grantd marriage licenses by the state, not by the federal government. So shouldn't that be a per-state issue?
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#282482 - 06/06/2006 11:03
Re: Finally, America is safe!
[Re: tonyc]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 05/01/2001
Posts: 4903
Loc: Detroit, MI USA
|
First: I love how the Left is trying to redefine marriage from what it has been through out history yet the Right is considered "radical" for wanting to maintain having marriage equal a man and a woman. Doesn't that strike anyone a little odd? I mean, YOUR side is the one trying to redefine marriage and WE get demonized for defending it.
If you think that same sex marriage is okay then let's debate on that. But be honest about it. Say, "I know this is a radical move, but I think it is ethical and I support it." I respect that and would love to talk about it. Maybe you'll open my mind. But don't point the finger at conservatives or Christians or whatever other group you're mad at for disagreeing with you and call them radicals.
Second: You have to admit that the Right is NOT bringing this topic up. You either don't pay attention to the news or aren't being honest. It was gay activists groups that pushed this through the courts. State after state has voted to make same sex marriage illegal yet judges who don't like laws along with activists who are forcing the issue on the courts are the ones that are making this an issue. Again, even if you disagree with me on whether it should be legal or not, you have to recognize that it was not conservatives that are making this an issue.
I agree that the timing looks a little too perfect for the '06 elections, and I'll grant you that. But this ball has been rolling for several years now and it wasn't started by the Right.
On a total side note: I wonder how JFK would have felt about all of this. Honestly. I don't mean it as a debate, I'm just aking the question because I really have no idea. My instinct tells me that he'd be for preserving marriage as it is defined today but then I see his brother's statements and I'm amazed at the difference my "memory" or JFK is with how Ted is today. Were they pretty much in line with one another back in the day or was Ted always a bit more liberal? I'd read up on the subject but there are only about 2,000,000 JFK books...where to start?
_________________________
Brad B.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#282483 - 06/06/2006 11:08
Re: Finally, America is safe!
[Re: tfabris]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 05/01/2001
Posts: 4903
Loc: Detroit, MI USA
|
Quote:
I thought people were grantd marriage licenses by the state, not by the federal government. So shouldn't that be a per-state issue?
I agree. But I think that some states have had their laws ignored by some courts. Also, the issue of someone marrying in California and then moving to Iowa confuses the issue. Can one state choose to not recognize a marriage if it was done in another state? I'm not sure. That might make it a federal issue.
I would wager that most conservatives would be okay if some states were in support of this and some weren't. You'll always have the pundits trying to change the opinions of people in states they disagree with, but that always goes on.
I'd actually like if abortion was allowed to be this way. Abortion is legal in the UK and is no big deal because people were allowed to vote on it (either through representives or something I forget). If Row v. Wade fell today, abortion would still be legal in most states.
_________________________
Brad B.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#282484 - 06/06/2006 11:15
Re: Finally, America is safe!
[Re: SE_Sport_Driver]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 29/08/2000
Posts: 14496
Loc: Canada
|
Quote:
First: I love how the Left is trying to redefine marriage from what it has been through out history yet the Right is considered "radical" for wanting to maintain having marriage equal a man and a woman. Doesn't that strike anyone a little odd?
Yeah. Next thing you know they'll want to abolish slavery, and acknowledge that women should be equal to men and allowed to vote and work, and all of that other crap that's never been true throughout history..
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#282485 - 06/06/2006 11:19
Re: Finally, America is safe!
[Re: SE_Sport_Driver]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 13/07/2000
Posts: 4180
Loc: Cambridge, England
|
Quote:
But I think that some states have had their laws ignored by some courts.
Isn't the issue that the laws have been ruled unconstitutional? I had the impression that judges were supposed to "not like laws" if those laws contravene constitutional rights, constitutional guarantees of equality, and that this part of a judge's job was a cherished "check and balance" in case of the legislature overstepping its constitutional mark.
It's an interesting debate to follow from this side of the pond, because UK judges have only recently acquired similar powers -- overturning laws not because they're "unconstitutional" as such, as there is no constitution, but overturning them because they contradict the Human Rights Act and/or European human rights treaties. This has caused a certain amount of political fracas, and interestingly it's again mainly the Right who are objecting to this judicial oversight.
Peter
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#282486 - 06/06/2006 11:20
Re: Finally, America is safe!
[Re: mlord]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 13/07/2000
Posts: 4180
Loc: Cambridge, England
|
Quote:
Next thing you know they'll want to abolish slavery
Yeah, and, you know, it wasn't the Right that made that into an issue, it was the slave activists...
Peter
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#282487 - 06/06/2006 12:22
Re: Finally, America is safe!
[Re: peter]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 30/04/2000
Posts: 3810
|
The parallels between gay activism today and "equal rights" activism in the 1960's are quite striking, except the older activists have been quoted as objecting to the connection. An important semantic aspect to the debate is whether gay activists are asking for "equal rights" or "special rights" (i.e., whether current activists have a legitimate connection to earlier activists).
Regardless, I completely agree that the Senate has better things on which to be spending its time than arguing about a constitutional ammendment that has zero chance of going anywhere.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#282488 - 06/06/2006 13:39
Re: Finally, America is safe!
[Re: peter]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
|
Quote:
I had the impression that judges were supposed to "not like laws" if those laws contravene constitutional rights, constitutional guarantees of equality, and that this part of a judge's job was a cherished "check and balance" in case of the legislature overstepping its constitutional mark.
That is absolutely correct. It is pretty much the definition of a judge's job to interpret law. This is how precedent is made. The current notion of "activist judges" is complete horeshit. Those judges are doing their jobs and are no more "activist" than the conservative judges that make the same sorts of decisions in the opposite direction. I might disagree with them, but I at least recognize that they're doing their jobs as stated.
It has often, at least in the last 30 years or so, apparently been a part of the Republican agenda to make up terms to apply to liberals and turn them into dirty words. It seems to have started with the word "liberal" itself, though they didn't make that one up. And not that they have an exclusive contract with it, but the Republican party-liners seem to do a really good job of buying into the jargon wholesale. Language is a virus.
Quote:
UK judges have only recently acquired similar powers -- overturning laws not because they're "unconstitutional" as such, as there is no constitution, but overturning them because they contradict the Human Rights Act and/or European human rights treaties.
Same sort of thing, really. They're just recognizing that laws are in violation of other laws that have higher standing.
Quote:
This has caused a certain amount of political fracas, and interestingly it's again mainly the Right who are objecting to this judicial oversight.
In your case, though, I imagine that it's mostly do to the fact that those people don't want to be subordinate to any other governmental organization, and that doesn't really seem to be the case here. No one is really arguing the validity of the US Constitution as it applies to the rights of the individual states.
_________________________
Bitt Faulk
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#282489 - 06/06/2006 13:43
Re: Finally, America is safe!
[Re: SE_Sport_Driver]
|
old hand
Registered: 23/07/2003
Posts: 869
Loc: Colorado
|
Quote:
First: I love how the Left is trying to redefine marriage from what it has been through out history...
You know, I think it's this particular attitude about the marriage argument that's the most maddening. Mostly because it's incorrect. People making this argument seriously need a history class (any good Western Civilization course should do). The "church" had nothing to do with marriage until fairly recently (well, recently being maybe the last 1000 years or so).
_________________________
Dave
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#282490 - 06/06/2006 13:51
Re: Finally, America is safe!
[Re: SE_Sport_Driver]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
|
Quote:
First: I love how the Left is trying to redefine marriage from what it has been through out history yet the Right is considered "radical" for wanting to maintain having marriage equal a man and a woman. Doesn't that strike anyone a little odd? I mean, YOUR side is the one trying to redefine marriage and WE get demonized for defending it.
First, I believe the people that are really bringing this up are the gay people, not the "left". We just have a vested interest in civil liberties, which, despite posturing, the Republican party does not seem to have. Well, unless you're rich and white.
Well, "radical" means two different things. It means both "extreme" and "devoted to extreme change". I don't believe anyone with a brain in their heads (which does not automatically include or exclude everyone on either side) would think that your position complies with the latter. I believe that it complies with the former, though, though I would never use that term due to it's imprecision.
On the other hand, there is a basic tenet of our country that states that people should be given the opportunity to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". I think it's an important one. I still do not see how allowing people to share in the joy (and despair) of marriage prevents anyone else from pursuing those goals, yet it is clear to see how preventing people from marrying does prevent them from pursuing those goals. Not only that, and perhaps more importantly, it prevents the country from pursuing those goals, and that seems pretty radical to me, in both of those definitions.
_________________________
Bitt Faulk
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#282491 - 06/06/2006 13:52
Re: Finally, America is safe!
[Re: SE_Sport_Driver]
|
enthusiast
Registered: 11/06/2003
Posts: 384
|
Quote:
Quote:
I thought people were grantd marriage licenses by the state, not by the federal government. So shouldn't that be a per-state issue?
I agree. But I think that some states have had their laws ignored by some courts. Also, the issue of someone marrying in California and then moving to Iowa confuses the issue. Can one state choose to not recognize a marriage if it was done in another state? I'm not sure. That might make it a federal issue.
Quote:
Article. IV.
Section. 1.
Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.
Is it ironic that strict interpretation conservatives take "...prescribe the Manner in which...shall be proved" is being used to limit who can participate in such Acts?
"...the Effect thereof" certainly implies that federal law can limit the benefits of any type of marriage, but that's different than limiting who can be married.
--Nathan
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#282492 - 06/06/2006 15:26
Re: Finally, America is safe!
[Re: webroach]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 14/01/2002
Posts: 2858
Loc: Atlanta, GA
|
Quote:
You know, I think it's this particular attitude about the marriage argument that's the most maddening. Mostly because it's incorrect. People making this argument seriously need a history class (any good Western Civilization course should do). The "church" had nothing to do with marriage until fairly recently (well, recently being maybe the last 1000 years or so).
Just to point out, Brad said nothing about the "church", only that he believes historically marriage is between a man and a woman.
_________________________
-Jeff
Rome did not create a great empire by having meetings; they did it by killing all those who opposed them.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#282493 - 06/06/2006 15:32
Re: Finally, America is safe!
[Re: peter]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 12/11/2001
Posts: 7738
Loc: Toronto, CANADA
|
Did I miss something? We're not going to have to give up our slaves are we? Oh wait, you're talking about the US.
Isn't the "traditional" role of marriage one of slavery anyway? I mean, if things are gong to get fixed, let's make sure those women stay home making babies and taking care of them (and the house of course). After all, the military fodder is running dangerously low.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#282495 - 06/06/2006 16:07
Re: Finally, America is safe!
[Re: hybrid8]
|
enthusiast
Registered: 31/05/2002
Posts: 352
Loc: santa cruz,ca
|
"Gay marriage poses an iminent threat to the American traditional family."
A serious question I'd like to ask is just what exactly are the people that are against gay marriage afraid of? how will this change their lives?
I have heard a number of times that "marriage is a union between a man and a woman" - so what?
should gays be allowed to go to church?
should they be allowed to vote?
how about use the same wash rooms or water fountains?
are they actually any different from anyone else?
is it really in anyone's interest to suppress others?
and the biggie- does the 'right' believe being gay is a form of activism? a choice?
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#282496 - 06/06/2006 16:13
Re: Finally, America is safe!
[Re: JeffS]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
|
No, but rarely has such a dirty word become so mainstream as the ones the Republicans seem to use; see "liberal" for a long-term one and "activist judge" for a recent example. It just seems to me that the Republicans take existing words and contexts and twist them to serve their own needs. And, again, it's really mainstream. You're hard pressed to find a conservative pundit who doesn't use name-calling as part of their repertoire of "argument". Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, and Michael Medved all come immediately to mind.
In addition, the Republicans seem to have a stranglehold on using these terms in non-outrageous manners. If I call you a fascist or a nazi, I'm employing hyperbole, and quite obviously, I think. The ill-feeling behind "liberal" and "activist judge" is real, when, in many cases, I think that the speaker might not even really understand what it is that he's talking about. Personally, I'm very proud to be liberal, but words mean what people want them to mean.
_________________________
Bitt Faulk
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#282497 - 06/06/2006 16:17
Re: Finally, America is safe!
[Re: SE_Sport_Driver]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 27/06/1999
Posts: 7058
Loc: Pittsburgh, PA
|
Quote:
I mean, YOUR side is the one trying to redefine marriage and WE get demonized for defending it.
Defending it from what, exactly? So-called "activist judges?" The "attack" that is being "defended" against here simply does not exist. I cannot possibly speak any more eloquently on this than this document from the Center for American Progress has, so I will simply quote them here as evidence there is no "attack" on the institution of marriage:
Marriage is not being redefined by "activist judges." As a new Cato nstitute report by Professor Dale Carpenter notes, "The 'threat' from courts is more imagined than real." Only one state has adopted same-sex marriage as a result of a court decision; 45 states have barred same-sex marriage by various means. The question isn't whether "activist judges" should redefine marriage, but whether the states should have the opportunity to settle this matter in their own fashion, without federal interference.
For those unaware, the Cato Institute is a Libertarian (and often Conservative) think tank. The fact is, true conservatives believe in States' rights, and the goal of this amendment is to take away the right of individual states to confer marriage upon certain couples.
Again, what exactly is it that social conservatives are so afraid of that they need to "defend" from?
Quote:
Second: You have to admit that the Right is NOT bringing this topic up..
Bill Frist sets the legislative calendar for the Senate. He has chosen now to bring this issue up (along with flag burning, another golden oldie from the GOP Wedge Issue Greatest Hits collection.) With all of the other problems that need to be solved in the halls of Congress, why does he choose now?
You've acknowledged that the timing is a little too convenient, and I appreciate your candor. I will, in turn, acknowledge that gay rights groups are exerting a fair amount of legal pressure on the various state laws which restrict marriage. But, for you to claim that it's the left that's "bringing this topic up" means that the left somehow has the power to do so, and the only person with that power is Bill Frist. Bringing it up now, with all of the other things that need attention, implies that there is a grave, iminent threat. With 45 of 50 states having statutes or constitutional amendments explicitly barring gay marriage, how can this threat be categorized as iminent?
Quote:
Can one state choose to not recognize a marriage if it was done in another state? I'm not sure. That might make it a federal issue.
From The Defense of Marriage Act, signed by noted social conservative Bill Clinton:
"No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship."
In other words, under existing law, states have no obligation to recognize another state's marriage if it goes against their definition of marriage.
Quote:
I would wager that most conservatives would be okay if some states were in support of this and some weren't.
Would you put yourself in this "most conservatives" category? If so, you are in opposition to this amendment, which prevents states from deciding for themselves.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#282498 - 06/06/2006 17:01
Re: Finally, America is safe!
[Re: wfaulk]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 27/06/1999
Posts: 7058
Loc: Pittsburgh, PA
|
Quote:
In addition, the Republicans seem to have a stranglehold on using these terms in non-outrageous manners.
I encourage anyone who doesn't agree with Bitt's statement to read this blog entry, which puts a much finer point on the differences in how liberals and conservatives fight.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#282499 - 06/06/2006 17:07
Re: Finally, America is safe!
[Re: wfaulk]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 14/01/2002
Posts: 2858
Loc: Atlanta, GA
|
As for the word "liberal", I've never really seen this as a negative word, though I do often use it to contrast to my own, usually conservative, views. For me the word comes up often both in describing politics as well as religious views (liberal religious doctrine is decidedly different from liberal politics), but never do I mean it as inhertinly negative. Clearly I might find someone whose beliefs are more liberal than mine to be objectionable, but I also might find someone whose view are more conservative than mine to be problematic as well. I'm pretty much the most conservative guy around here on most issues, but there are many other groups of people in which my perspective is one of the most leftward leaning. When it applies, I am just fine with being labeled as a "liberal"- I don't feel that it the term contains any inherint negative connotation.
Not that what my feelings on the subject are is important to this particular discussion, since you are talking about broader tendencies among Republicans. I just wanted to make it clear that if I ever say "liberal", I don't mean "evil". I just mean the side of an issue that is more progressive than my own.
_________________________
-Jeff
Rome did not create a great empire by having meetings; they did it by killing all those who opposed them.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#282500 - 06/06/2006 17:20
Re: Finally, America is safe!
[Re: tonyc]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 13/02/2002
Posts: 3212
Loc: Portland, OR
|
Quote:
With 45 of 50 states having statutes or constitutional amendments explicitly barring gay marriage, how can this threat be categorized as iminent?
Presumably, in the same way that a certain country in the Middle East was categorized as an imminent threat: make shit up and play Chicken Little.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#282501 - 06/06/2006 17:33
Re: Finally, America is safe!
[Re: SE_Sport_Driver]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 23/08/2000
Posts: 3826
Loc: SLC, UT, USA
|
Quote:
If you think that same sex marriage is okay then let's debate on that. But be honest about it. Say, "I know this is a radical move, but I think it is ethical and I support it." I respect that and would love to talk about it. Maybe you'll open my mind. But don't point the finger at conservatives or Christians or whatever other group you're mad at for disagreeing with you and call them radicals.
Agreed. Which was my point. Let's debate exactly what the "traditional American family" is and why it's being threatened by same sex marriage. I think the entire premiss of "TAF" is flawed, so that discussion is sort of silly, but that's just me.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#282502 - 06/06/2006 18:19
Re: Finally, America is safe!
[Re: JeffS]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
|
Quote:
As for the word "liberal", I've never really seen this as a negative word
You're either lying, dense, or have never seen so much as a conservative campaign ad. (Or maybe you live in Texas. ;-) You can virtually hear the derision dripping off the word when, for example, Rush Limbaugh says it.
_________________________
Bitt Faulk
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#282504 - 06/06/2006 18:29
Re: Finally, America is safe!
[Re: SE_Sport_Driver]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 13/02/2002
Posts: 3212
Loc: Portland, OR
|
Quote:
First: I love how the Left is trying to redefine marriage from what it has been through out history yet the Right is considered "radical" for wanting to maintain having marriage equal a man and a woman. Doesn't that strike anyone a little odd? I mean, YOUR side is the one trying to redefine marriage and WE get demonized for defending it.
No, I don't consider it odd. I do consider it radical (not to mention outrageous) that people continue to defend bigotry and unethical, oppressive practices, simply because "that's the way it's always been", in contrariness to the spirit in which the country was founded, regardless of "who started it".
Quote:
If you think that same sex marriage is okay then let's debate on that. But be honest about it. Say, "I know this is a radical move, but I think it is ethical and I support it." I respect that and would love to talk about it. Maybe you'll open my mind.
If the previous thread on this topic was unable to sway your opinion on the subject, then I highly doubt there's anything left to be said that might open your mind.
Quote:
Second: You have to admit that the Right is NOT bringing this topic up. You either don't pay attention to the news or aren't being honest. It was gay activists groups that pushed this through the courts. State after state has voted to make same sex marriage illegal yet judges who don't like laws along with activists who are forcing the issue on the courts are the ones that are making this an issue. Again, even if you disagree with me on whether it should be legal or not, you have to recognize that it was not conservatives that are making this an issue.
Tit-for-tat... you are either incapable of following your analysis to its logical conclusion, or aren't being honest: if conservatives hadn't been witholding marriage licenses from same-sex couples, there would never have been an issue in the first place, since the same-sex couples would have just quietly gone about their business of getting married and living their lives in peace. And you (or any of the other conservatives) would never have known the difference.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#282505 - 06/06/2006 18:35
Re: Finally, America is safe!
[Re: wfaulk]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 13/02/2002
Posts: 3212
Loc: Portland, OR
|
Quote:
Quote:
As for the word "liberal", I've never really seen this as a negative word
You're either lying, dense, or have never seen so much as a conservative campaign ad. (Or maybe you live in Texas. ;-) You can virtually hear the derision dripping off the word when, for example, Rush Limbaugh says it.
I got the feeling that Jeff meant that, even though he's a conservative, he personally didn't view it as a dirty word, not that he's never seen it used as some sort of epithet by other conservatives. But then, Jeff seems to be one of the more even-keeled conservatives. 
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#282507 - 06/06/2006 19:12
Re: Finally, America is safe!
[Re: loren]
|
carpal tunnel
Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
|
Quote:
It didn't exist except for on Ozzy and Harriet.
I keep meaning to make a comment on this.
Even avoiding comments on the Nelson's real-life family, even old TV shows show non-"traditional" families. My Three Sons (1960) depicted a man raising his three sons with the help of a succession of male, live-in companions. Bachelor Father (1957), Andy Griffith (1960), Family Affair (1966), and The Courtship of Eddie's Father (1969) all had similar premises. I Love Lucy (1951) featured what some might have considered miscegenation, and a childless couple. The Beverly Hillbillies (1962) featured their ragtag set of relatives. Not to mention The Brady Bunch (1969). Even Make Room for Daddy (1953) had a mixed family. Or maybe these are also examples of the liberal Hollywood agenda. You'll note that I specfically left out shows that obviously had an agenda, like Julia (1968), for example.
These are bound not to have been coming from left field -- not in these numbers. Certainly many Americans of those times must have dealt in real life with single mothers widowed by WWII, at the very least. And that sort of thing couldn't have been isolated to the 50s and 60s. Surely many fathers died in WWI, and the Civil War. I think that this notion of a mother, father, and 2.3 kids has only become an endemic thought since the beginning of pax americana, when losing family members due to war and illness has become less and less of a common occurrence.
_________________________
Bitt Faulk
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
|
Previous Topic
Index