With which political party do you most affiliate?

[psych844]

When did I ever say anything that resembles such sweeping, absolute statement?

You said:

"No. I don't believe it is. It's a institutional policy that people may not agree with. Nothing disrespectful to your "dignity" about that."

I used a specific example. I said is it not against dignity of life to be against contraception in an area of the world ravaged by HIV/Aids. You seem to be saying "essentially no, that is just an institutional policy people don't agree with".

I don't see how this is not a clear example of the Church not respecting life. They have the potential to literally save people's lives, at least those who choose not to use contraception because of religious reasons, but they refuse to change their mind because of dogma.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[psych844]

Yes, but he was referring more to political moderation and bipartisanship. And, by most objective measures, it seems to work. Much better than our current partisan situation.

Yeah, but smalltownpsych doesn't want to be boring. Being civil is really boring, bro.

smalltownpsych
"I sure as hell wouldn't be happy being a German and my highly educated snobby Swedish relatives are so much more boring than my fun-loving dysfunctional Italian relatives. "

 

[smalltownpsych]

Yes, but he was referring more to political moderation and bipartisanship. And, by most objective measures, it seems to work. Much better than our current partisan situation.

Well, we might just have to disagree about whether it works better or not. Most of the time, I prefer our chaos to their order.

 

[WisNeuro]

Well, we might just have to disagree about whether it works better or not. Most of the time, I prefer our chaos to their order.

,

Well, there is no disagreement on the objective measures. Those are facts. But subjectively, sure, there can be disagreement. I just can't see how a significant difference in QOL would be preferable.

 

[erg923]

You said:

"No. I don't believe it is. It's a institutional policy that people may not agree with. Nothing disrespectful to your "dignity" about that."

I used a specific example. I said is it not against dignity of life to be against contraception in an area of the world ravaged by HIV/Aids. You seem to be saying "essentially no, that is just an institutional policy people don't agree with".

I don't see how this is not a clear example of the Church not respecting life. They have the potential to literally save people's lives, at least those who choose not to use contraception because of religious reasons, but they refuse to change their mind because of dogma.

I'm sorry, I just don't follow you here. If people dont agree with it, fine. But you can't reverse the position because people don't like it. What you can do, however, is let people know that its probably worse to knowingly spread an infectious disease to others. Thus, in circumstances such as this, the issue of contraception among committed couples is not universally viewed as "defying Gods plan" (as I think the logic goes). And indeed this is the case. Just as in the situation where the mother's life is in danger, the church views indirect pregnancy termination that happens as a result of the treatment as not sinful.

I also think you are straw manning the argument here a bit, as if Bishops are going to people homes and confiscating condoms and damning them to hell. I am not aware of this occurring.

None of this really means that I fully buy into the church's frowning upon contraception. It is born out a very legitimate place/rationale, but we also have to realize the historic reasons/influences too, right? So, for me, its pretty easy to divorce institutional policy from true Christian orthodoxy and orthopraxy. For example, I think the Church's rationale for banning the ordination of women is quite flimzy as well, so I am openly opposed to that policy as well. None of this effects my faith or my partipation in my faith community, however. Its a bit like recognizing the silly things the VA does, whilst ultimately recognizing that the overall mission and purpose of the VA is right and just.

 

[psyman]

I bet Westboro Baptist votes a straight Republican ticket.

 

[erg923]

I bet Westboro Baptist votes a straight Republican ticket.

They do not appear to participate in mainstream society, so I doubt they participate in the proces at all.

They are more accuratley described a cult, not a "church" and are not affiliated with any Baptist denomination, chapter, or seminary. I think its impoertant to be very clear about that.

I really dont think your sterotype is helpful to this conversation (which you started, btw).

 

[smalltownpsych]

I bet Westboro Baptist votes a straight Republican ticket.

That statement is using the guilt by association fallacy. There are fanatical fringe groups that might support a Democrat candidate, too. So what?

 

[QAsPsych]

The evidence suggests that Phelps was nominally a Democrat and ran for office as a Democratic candidate, actually. At various times WBC has strongly criticized both parties, and been criticized by leadership in both parties, including GWB. Protesting the funerals of heterosexual soldiers with anti-homosexual propaganda puts you pretty far outside any American republican/Democratic dichotomy.

 

[psyman]

The evidence suggests that Phelps was nominally a Democrat and ran for office as a Democratic candidate, actually. At various times WBC has strongly criticized both parties, and been criticized by leadership in both parties, including GWB. Protesting the funerals of heterosexual soldiers with anti-homosexual propaganda puts you pretty far outside any American republican/Democratic dichotomy.

I'm not a Democrat (or a Republican), but being against gay marriage is a core Rebuplican belief. Please argue otherwise.

That statement is using the guilt by association fallacy. There are fanatical fringe groups that might support a Democrat candidate, too. So what?

I'm not a Democrat, so good for them. I'd still love examples, especially since you used a "might" qualifier. I gurantee none of them protest homosexuals' funerals. And if my party even hinted at being against full equality, they'd never see my vote.

 

[erg923]

but being against gay marriage is a core Rebuplican belief.

Well, that's the first I've heard of that. Ill argue it because I've never heard that proposed by anyone before.

Although you are claiming to be neither, you are coming off as strikingly partisan...more so than any of the posters who responded to this thread.

 

[psyman]

Well, that's the first I've heard of that. Ill argue it because I've never heard that proposed by anyone before.

Although you are claiming to be neither, you are coming off as strikingly partisan...more so than any of the posters who responded to this thread.

https://www.gop.com/platform/renewing-american-values/

The GOP website regarding their PLATFORM. The FIRST bullet. Does the GOP Platform represent core beliefs of the party?

I am liberal, but not Democrat.

 

[erg923]

https://www.gop.com/platform/renewing-american-values/

The GOP website regarding their PLATFORM. The FIRST bullet. Does the GOP Platform represent core beliefs of the party?

I am liberal, but not Democrat.

What if I told you I very much am on board with bullet point number one, but support gay marriage? My belief in something does not preclude legally banning its opposite, does it?

 

[psyman]

What if I told you I very much am on board with bullet point number one, but support gay marriage?

How do you "preserve and protect traditional marriage" and be for equality for gays?

 

[erg923]

How do you "preserve and protect traditional marriage" and be for equality for gays?

You support their legal right to get married. I firmly believe that.

 

[psyman]

You support their legal right to get married. I firmly believe that.

You are dancing around something. In what way do you want to protect marriage, as stated in platform?

 

[erg923]

You are dancing around something. In what way do you want to protect marriage, as stated in platform?

I am dancing around nothing. I think marriage is a sacrament bestowed to us by God. I wish more people took the commitment of marriage seriously.

 

[WisNeuro]

If the GOP would support legal marriage that bestowed the same rights to gay couples that it did to straight couples, I'd have more sympathy. But, they've generally blocked those measures too. I have to agree with Psyman here, the GOP has, in many ways, obstructed the right of gays to marry, legally, religiously, common law, however you call it.

 

[WisNeuro]

Also, marriage is not traditionally a religious institution. It was initially a business transaction.

 

[erg923]

Also, marriage is not traditionally a religious institution. It was initially a business transaction.

Its one of the 7 sacraments where I come from.

 

[WisNeuro]

Yes, it was co-opted by christianity. But was still a business and political transaction. Even so, why does that make it ok to make it illegal for religions and people who don't follow your particular god?

 

[erg923]

Yes, it was co-opted by christianity. But was still a business and political transaction. Even so, why does that make it ok to make it illegal for religions and people who don't follow your particular god?

It doesn't. Gay marriage should indeed be legal within secular governments such as the state and federal laws. Did you not read my comments on this topic?

 

[WisNeuro]

But the point was, the GOP does feel that way. Based on their legislation, I don't see how any other assertion can be made. You may have a different view, but that governing body's views are pretty clear on the topic.

 

[psyman]

I am dancing around nothing. I think marriage is a sacrament bestowed to us by God. I wish more people took the commitment of marriage seriously.

Well we will disagree endlessly about this then. At least know that the Republican party does everything they can to block gays from having any sort of marriage rights and rights that go along with marriage. Marriage is not a religious institution anymore. If it were, why would atheists want to get married? It's a cultural union with legal and social benefits.

 

[erg923]

It's a cultural union with legal and social benefits.

To you, it is. And to a secular government like the US. it it Which is exactly why it should be legal.

I really wish it meant more to people, frankly. Marriage means very different things to you and me. Which, is why I can say I fully believe in preserving the traditional intuition of marriage, but do not want to legally ban it when it means something different to a person like yourself, right?

 

[WisNeuro]

So, how do you preserve it, while still respecting the rights of other people and religions who believe that they have a right to get married in the eyes of whatever god they choose? Even one of the dozen christian gods?

 

[psyman]

To you, it is. And to a secular government like the US. it it Which is exactly why it should be legal.

I really wish it meant more to people, frankly. Marriage means very different things to you and me. Which, is why I can say I fully believe in preserving the traditional intuition of marriage, but do not want to legally ban it when it means something different to a person like yourself, right?

It's interesting to see how things get rationalized. I think you are a bit blinded to the intentions and actions of Republicans. Even though yours is a more liberal conservative view, I still vehemently disagree. I'd like to leave it at that.

 

[erg923]

It's interesting to see how things get rationalized. I think you are a bit blinded to the intentions and actions of Republicans. Even though yours is a more liberal conservative view, I still vehemently disagree. I'd like to leave it at that.

I care little what their intentions are. I started this thread by saying I am pretty apathetic and cynical about politicians.

I support gay marriage but we have different views on purpose, meaning ,and function of marriage. So what?

 

[erg923]

So, how do you preserve it, while still respecting the rights of other people and religions who believe that they have a right to get married in the eyes of whatever god they choose? Even one of the dozen christian gods?

Advocate for it. But you're right, we can't trample on the civil liberties and legal rights of others who don't share my view.

 

[WisNeuro]

I agree, we can't. Unfortunately, in many parts of this country, those civil liberties are not yet legal rights for some citizens of this country. I actually lean right on economic issues, but I will always vote for basic human rights and dignities over money any day.

 

[psyman]

I care little what their intentions are. I started this thread by saying I am pretty apathetic and cynical about politicians.

I support gay marriage but we have different views on purpose, meaning ,and function of marriage. So what?

As I understand it, you do not support gay marriage. If you did, then you and I would agree completely. We obviously do not. What you seem to support is something not called marriage. No?

 

[psyman]

I agree, we can't. Unfortunately, in many parts of this country, those civil liberties are not yet legal rights for some citizens of this country. I actually lean right on economic issues, but I will always vote for basic human rights and dignities over money any day.

Same exactly.

 

[erg923]

As I understand it, you do not support gay marriage. If you did, then you and I would agree completely. We obviously do not. What you seem to support is something not called marriage. No?

I don't understand that above statement/question.

I have said I support legalizing gay marriage 4 times in this thread. How exactly do I need to word it?

 

[psych844]

On this question of left/right economically. I learned awhile ago that good ideas are good ideas, and some come from the right and others come from the left, so in terms of economics, I like good ideas. I find the best nations in the world really mix the ideas. Freedom aside, places like Singapore have things pretty right. Maybe the best place in the world to do business, low corporate taxes, no minimum wage, but virtually no unemployment either... all kinds of advantages to starting a business, yet they force savings on their citizens (substantial savings, an account for a home, an account for health, etc), so people actually have the funds to pay for healthcare, etc.

 

[WisNeuro]

Well, there is that whole mandatory death penalty for some crimes, like drug trafficking though, oh, and government controlled media

 

[psych844]

Well, there is that whole mandatory death penalty for some crimes, like drug trafficking though, oh, and government controlled media

I did mention that..freedom aside, lol.

 

[psyman]

I don't understand that above statement/question.

I have said I support legalizing gay marriage 4 times in this thread. How exactly do I need to word it?

Since you're a Bible believer (I'm not), I wonder how you rationalize supporting gay marriage then. Religion usually morphs to support the popular opinion...eventually. There have been thousands of gods worshipped in history, but you picked the right one. Good job.

 

[postitnote]

I don't often post here these days (though I often lurk) but I found this thread interesting. Since entering the field, working with clients, and especially since having children, I have become far more progressive. Our department is 75% liberal democrat and 25% libertarian. I'm finding that the longer I'm in the field, the further left I lean.

 

[QAsPsych]

I'm not a Democrat (or a Republican), but being against gay marriage is a core Rebuplican belief. Please argue otherwise.

Since you wrote this in reply to my comments on Phelps: I said nominally, which if you are unaware means in name; he was registered as a Democrat and ran for office as one (and lost) several times. Anyway, Phelps was an advocate for stoning gay people to death, a core belief of neither major US party.

This is why "with which political party do you affiliate" is a stupid question. Fred Phelps walked around with big signs saying "GOD HATES FAGS" yet he identified with the Democratic party (though obviously they were not enamored with him and would not want to claim him). People's politics are complicated and rarely seem to line up well with one of the two major U.S. parties And apparently nobody here is capable of understanding the concept that you can support legal gay marriage and want to strengthen traditional values of marriage. I am aware "traditional marriage" is often used as a smokescreen for "not-gay marriage" but it clearly can refer to an entire set of values surrounding a person's idea of an ideal family and the seriousness of entering into the commitment of marriage. Many of the gay people I know would like a traditional marriage. But this false dichotomy of the two political parties leads to people shouting meaningless talking points at each other.

Since you're a Bible believer (I'm not), I wonder how you rationalize supporting gay marriage then. Religion usually morphs to support the popular opinion...eventually. There have been thousands of gods worshipped in history, but you picked the right one. Good job.

In the words of Bugs Bunny: What a maroon.

 

[erg923]

Since you're a Bible believer (I'm not), I wonder how you rationalize supporting gay marriage then. Religion usually morphs to support the popular opinion...eventually. There have been thousands of gods worshipped in history, but you picked the right one. Good job.

Thank you. I believe I (and the 1 billion other Catholics) did as well. Faith is called faith for a reason, right?

I am guessing you are unfamiliar with the popular saying that Catholics would't know a bible if they were hit in the head with one by a Nun. We are not bound by the 4 corners of a book @psyman , and the fact that are you are unaware of this yet still choose to make judgmental statements and covertly bash those with faith is quite ironic. Please know your theology/orthodoxy before you bash it in the future. Mmmmmk?

 

[smalltownpsych]

Republicans hate gay people is the point that psyman is trying to make. I guess if that is his belief so be it. I am thinking that many don't understand the difference between liberal and conservative with regard to change. Someone who is more liberal in their views wants more change whereas someone who is conservative wants less. An example of conservative thinking that we often see on this board is preserving high standards of education and training for psychologists. Most clinical psychologists are going to be more open to change (liberal) on social issues because change is part of what we do for a living. I am almost a revolutionary when I challenge someones rigid cognitive perspective that keeps them mired in depression. I think that for a psychologist both as clincian and as a scientist it is important to foster a beginner's mind and remain open as opposed to categorizing and trying to fit people into little boxes.

 

[psych844]

Republicans hate gay people is the point that psyman is trying to make. I guess if that is his belief so be it. I am thinking that many don't understand the difference between liberal and conservative with regard to change. Someone who is more liberal in their views wants more change whereas someone who is conservative wants less. An example of conservative thinking that we often see on this board is preserving high standards of education and training for psychologists. Most clinical psychologists are going to be more open to change (liberal) on social issues because change is part of what we do for a living. I am almost a revolutionary when I challenge someones rigid cognitive perspective that keeps them mired in depression. I think that for a psychologist both as clincian and as a scientist it is important to foster a beginner's mind and remain open as opposed to categorizing and trying to fit people into little boxes.

My observation about the conservative/liberal thing...

I think sometimes liberals appear elitist to conservatives, many libs value education/science above tradition/culture, but my thinking is that this is simply a natural result of exposure. Libs aren't necessarily more intelligent but when you get exposed to the Social sciences, arts, humanities, i think you truly realize how complicated things are, and it becomes hard to as you say "fit people into boxes" or even be all that certain about any one thing. I think that cons sometimes get mad at libs because libs seem either wishy/washy or they don't have an answer despite often a vast education, and I'd say here that there is a difference between exposure and understanding. Once you get exposed to something, i think you change on the spot about how you see the world, and that exposure happens consistently during a university education. But remembering all that and being articulate about it is totally a different story. I'd say most students don't remember 30% of what they learned, but that doesn't mean that it didn't change them while they were in the moment of learning that material.

 

[smalltownpsych]

My observation about the conservative/liberal thing...

I think sometimes liberals appear elitist to conservatives, many libs value education/science above tradition/culture, but my thinking is that this is simply a natural result of exposure. Libs aren't necessarily more intelligent but when you get exposed to the Social sciences, arts, humanities, i think you truly realize how complicated things are, and it becomes hard to as you say "fit people into boxes" or even be all that certain about any one thing. I think that cons sometimes get mad at libs because libs seem either wishy/washy or they don't have an answer despite often a vast education, and I'd say here that there is a difference between exposure and understanding. Once you get exposed to something, i think you change on the spot about how you see the world, and that exposure happens consistently during a university education. But remembering all that and being articulate about it is totally a different story. I'd say most students don't remember 30% of what they learned, but that doesn't mean that it didn't change them while they were in the moment of learning that material.

I was talking about having a liberal verses a conservative perspective regarding change which is a much more fluid construct than Liberals and Conservatives.

 

[psych844]

I was talking about having a liberal verses a conservative perspective regarding change which is a much more fluid construct than Liberals and Conservatives.

Well conservatives in a general sense want to preserve the status quo, that status quo could be better or worse than the alternative.

If anybody is fighting for higher standards in Psychology it is certain liberals. Not sure where you get the idea that it is mostly conservatives fighting for this.

 

[smalltownpsych]

Well conservatives in a general sense want to preserve the status quo, that status quo could be better or worse than the alternative.

If anybody is fighting for higher standards in Psychology it is certain liberals. Not sure where you get the idea that it is mostly conservatives fighting for this.

This is government 101 regarding the political spectrum: conservative means some change, ultra-conservative means no-change, reactionary wants return to the past, liberal means more comfortable with change, ultra-liberal wants lots of change, radical wants revolution. Liberal and conservative obviously meets in the middle.
Allowing more schools to be created and creating a new paradigm of training to allow more psychologists was a liberal change. People who are more conservative on this issue say that we should not have expanded so rapidly and maybe we don't need a new paradigm and more reactionary people will say we need to go back to the way it was. I am probably more liberal in my thinking on this issue than many posters on this board. Many want it to go back to the way it was before the Boulder conference which is a reactionary perspective. other say that the horse it is out of the barn but we need to rein it in, that is a conservative perspective. Does that make more sense? It's hard to see because the adjectives have been turned into nouns; i.e., the descriptor becomes the label.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

To be fair, the Republican party of 20-25 years ago looked far different than it does today. Factions within the party have splintered and drastically changed the platform of "the base". I don't particularly like what it has become, but that is a discussion for another day.

It is probably easier to talk about liberalism v. conservatism as it relates to specific topics, as attributing a positions to a party platform is too broad a stroke. People also don't fit into boxes with their believes (most people don't at least), so talking about issue specific positions might actually yield a better discussion so people don't over generalize based on how someone identifies themselves.

 

[futureapppsy2]

I support more stringent (common sense)

Maybe I've spent too much time on the Internet, but I cringe a bit whenever I see anyone describe their beliefs as simply "common sense____" Everyone believes that their beliefs about an issue are "common sense" (or "exceptionally reasoned" sense ), so that really says nothing. One's person "common sense" idea can be another person's "irrational fool" idea.

 

[bcliff]

Maybe I've spent too much time on the Internet, but I cringe a bit whenever I see anyone describe their beliefs as simply "common sense____" Everyone believes that their beliefs about an issue are "common sense" (or "exceptionally reasoned" sense ), so that really says nothing. One's person "common sense" idea can be another person's "irrational fool" idea.

Common sense gun control is a specific type of gun control legislation. I didn't mean that it was simply based on what I think of as my own own common sense.

http://www.salon.com/2013/02/06/common_sense_gun_control_even_the_nra_should_back_this/

 

[QAsPsych]

.

 

[futureapppsy2]

Common sense gun control is a specific type of gun control legislation. I didn't mean that it was simply based on what I think of as my own own common sense.

http://www.salon.com/2013/02/06/common_sense_gun_control_even_the_nra_should_back_this/

Any links suggesting this is a consistent, unified platform that goes by that term specifically? The article just seems to be the author saying, "These are my obviously logical, great ideas that anyone with a brain would support," which, again, is what anyone thinks of their own strongly held beliefs. I'm not saying that I agree or disagree, but touting one's ideas as "common sense" seems akin to saying "the correct ones" when asked what your opinions are. That may mean a whole lot of things to a whole bunch of different people.