Can you support or vote for the GOP without doing harm to minorities and women?

[Arwon]

https://www.pewforum.org/fact-sheet/changing-attitudes-on-gay-marriage/

Catholics support gay marriage at the same rate as the overall US population at 61%. Catholics are more likely to support gay marriage than a republican (37%) or a black person (51%). Catholics make up about 23% of the christian population in the US.

That's even with the church's official stance being still anti gay marriage. And the entire reason is simple, it's not to discriminate against homosexuals but because the church's official stance on marriage is that the only reason to be married is to produce children. Since a same sex couple cannot naturally produce children it's not allowed. In that thinking it's the same as a couple who uses birth control or has sterilization procedures, although a huge number of Catholics do these things. In other words, it's like a rigid out date stance that most practicing Catholics don't pay that much heed to.

Indeed, of the countries where same sex marriage is performed, as listed on Wikipedia, a majority (15 of the 29) are predominantly Catholic countries. Of the remainder, it's the largest faith in Australia and Canada, and not far off in Germany, too.

 

[Gorbles]

LBGTQ community makes up 4% of the electorate.

I don't expect liberal monotheistic Faith's to go full pro LGBTQ. I'm not religious but can read and yeah being gay is verboten in the Bible and Koran.

But you don't need to be an asshat about it. The sin is on the sinner if God exists it's his business to judge if he doesn't it doesn't matter.

Islam is a bit more strict on it.

US Christianity has been hijacked though by economic right wingers. Bibles also big on charity and helping the poor so you think welfare state would be appealing.

It's not really a problem until one side enshrined the Bible in law or they require churches to perform gay marriages.

Plenty of things are forbidden in the Bible that aren't enforced by any modern denomination of Christianity. The fact they choose to do so selectively is on them. Hence, they choose to enforce ostracising LGBTQ partnerships.

You don't have to defend the Church. The Church itself is created, and run, by humans. Especially if you're not religious, there's absolutely no point to you making a point about the Christian God about judging "sinners".

I don't expect Christianity in America to overwhelmingly support LGBTQ rights anytime soon, either. The difference is, I feel like I can criticise that. For some weird reason, you argue against me doing so.

I was arguing against the claim that institution of marriage in the Church wasn't homophobic. It is. You might consider the reasons for such understandable, but that's not a counterargument.

 

[caketastydelish]

If you use California as an example, more Latinos results in less Republicans being elected. While the same result is not guaranteed in Texas, that's the way I would bet.

As someone who lives in Texas, (although there aren’t a lot of Hispanics in my area), Texas is unfortunately still a Republican. I would for us to turn blue in the 2020 general election but I sadly don’t see it happening.

 

[luiz]

Plenty of things are forbidden in the Bible that aren't enforced by any modern denomination of Christianity. The fact they choose to do so selectively is on them. Hence, they choose to enforce ostracising LGBTQ partnerships.

You don't have to defend the Church. The Church itself is created, and run, by humans. Especially if you're not religious, there's absolutely no point to you making a point about the Christian God about judging "sinners".

I don't expect Christianity in America to overwhelmingly support LGBTQ rights anytime soon, either. The difference is, I feel like I can criticise that. For some weird reason, you argue against me doing so.

I was arguing against the claim that institution of marriage in the Church wasn't homophobic. It is. You might consider the reasons for such understandable, but that's not a counterargument.

Hum, I would say that while catholic marriage certainly discriminates against homosexuals in the sense that they can't participate, it's not "homophobic" per se. It's just a very very old sacrament. Divorcees are not allowed either, non-Baptized people are not allowed, etc etc.

At the end of the day religion is tradition. We can't expect the Church to say that gay marriage is OK when their holy book clearly says it isn't. If they do so, they will cease being a religion and become a charity / social club, kinda like the modern Anglican church (I get the impression that most Anglican ministers nowadays don't really believe in God).

 

[Gorbles]

Hum, I would say that while catholic marriage certainly discriminates against homosexuals in the sense that they can't participate, it's not "homophobic" per se. It's just a very very old sacrament. Divorcees are not allowed either, non-Baptized people are not allowed, etc etc.

At the end of the day religion is tradition. We can't expect the Church to say that gay marriage is OK when their holy book clearly says it isn't. If they do so, they will cease being a religion and become a charity / social club, kinda like the modern Anglican church (I get the impression that most Anglican ministers nowadays don't really believe in God).

The one thing all of those things have in common is discrimination. I mean, there's a famous historic case r.e. divorcees and Tudor-era England

The Church says many things are okay, despite their holy book saying they aren't. That's entirely my point. Modern Christianity picks and chooses from the Old Testament where it pleases, even if the New Testament (which is something Islam, which is apparently always a frequent comparison, nor Judaism, have) arguably supercedes it by the written word.

 

[Zardnaar]

Plenty of things are forbidden in the Bible that aren't enforced by any modern denomination of Christianity. The fact they choose to do so selectively is on them. Hence, they choose to enforce ostracising LGBTQ partnerships.

You don't have to defend the Church. The Church itself is created, and run, by humans. Especially if you're not religious, there's absolutely no point to you making a point about the Christian God about judging "sinners".

I don't expect Christianity in America to overwhelmingly support LGBTQ rights anytime soon, either. The difference is, I feel like I can criticise that. For some weird reason, you argue against me doing so.

I was arguing against the claim that institution of marriage in the Church wasn't homophobic. It is. You might consider the reasons for such understandable, but that's not a counterargument.

Generally I don't believe in imposing beliefs on others.

Say with gay marriage for example. If you had a fundamentalist religious nut revoke the law thats wrong IMHO as they're imposing their beliefs on someone else

If a future Uber liberal type passes a law requiring churches to perform gay marriages that's also wrong, same reason.

And if someone's religious beliefs conflict with their job in say the public service tough luck get a new job or suck it up.

 

[luiz]

The one thing all of those things have in common is discrimination. I mean, there's a famous historic case r.e. divorcees and Tudor-era England

The Church says many things are okay, despite their holy book saying they aren't. That's entirely my point. Modern Christianity picks and chooses from the Old Testament where it pleases, even if the New Testament (which is something Islam, which is apparently always a frequent comparison, nor Judaism, have) arguably supercedes it by the written word.

The issue is gay marriage is clearly banned not only in the Old Testament, but also in the New. I do see the Church becoming more and more tolerant of homosexuality, indeed it already is way more tolerant than it was just 10 years ago, but not actually marrying gay people. At least not while it's still a real religion and not a charity / social club (which could well be its future given what happened to the Anglican church and some mainline protestant denominations).

 

[Gorbles]

Generally I don't believe in imposing beliefs on others.

Say with gay marriage for example. If you had a fundamentalist religious nut revoke the law thats wrong IMHO as they're imposing their beliefs on someone else

If a future Uber liberal type passes a law requiring churches to perform gay marriages that's also wrong, same reason.

And if someone's religious beliefs conflict with their job in say the public service tough luck get a new job or suck it up.

The entirety of society is imposing a shared of shared beliefs on said society. How else do we pass new laws, or change peoples' minds on contentious issues?

My original point was simple: in refusing to service same-sex couples, (any) Church is being homophobic. It can be justified with as much religious text as people like, but that doesn't make it not discrimination.

The issue is gay marriage is clearly banned not only in the Old Testament, but also in the New. I do see the Church becoming more and more tolerant of homosexuality, indeed it already is way more tolerant than it was just 10 years ago, but not actually marrying gay people. At least not while it's still a real religion and not a charity / social club (which could well be its future given what happened to the Anglican church and some mainline protestant denominations).

It's definitely not banned as per the New Testament. Argued, perhaps. Regardless, my point is that there are plenty of other things that are, but aren't enforced by modern Christianity.

 

[rah]

As someone who lives in Texas, (although there aren’t a lot of Hispanics in my area), Texas is unfortunately still a Republican. I would for us to turn blue in the 2020 general election but I sadly don’t see it happening.

I don't expect it in 2020 because I do agree with you, but the cracks are starting to show. Asshats like Cruz can't win automatically anymore. They actually have to work for it. The state starting to lean purple. Let's see what it looks like in 10 years. I'm betting full purple and leaning blue.

Eventually I expect Florida to turn also. As the older dying off are replace by a younger set of aging people, and more New Yorkers and other big city northern liberals retire there. But similar to Texas they're trying real hard to depress minority voting. Granted, Trump picked judges are going along with it but eventually that will change too. I expect the process will take a little longer in Florida.

 

[luiz]

It's definitely not banned as per the New Testament. Argued, perhaps. Regardless, my point is that there are plenty of other things that are, but aren't enforced by modern Christianity.

The New Testament is not only the 4 evangelical books. The Pauline epistles condemn homosexuality in general (as well as many heterosexual practices), so by extension gay marriage is not allowed.

 

[Gorbles]

The New Testament is not only the 4 evangelical books. The Pauline epistles condemn homosexuality in general (as well as many heterosexual practices), so by extension gay marriage is not allowed.

It's quite the matter of debate, interpretation and context, as far as I'm aware. And like I said, and keep going back to: the Bible (explicitly, in various cases) outlaws various things that the modern Church chooses not to. Which means keeping to specific tenents about homosexuality (which is primarily written as male homosexuality, with limited reference to women) is a choice, and indeed, an active one that continues to be upheld.

 

[luiz]

It's quite the matter of debate, interpretation and context, as far as I'm aware. And like I said, and keep going back to: the Bible (explicitly, in various cases) outlaws various things that the modern Church chooses not to. Which means keeping to specific tenents about homosexuality (which is primarily written as male homosexuality, with limited reference to women) is a choice, and indeed, an active one that continues to be upheld.

That is true mostly for Old Testament stuff. I'm not aware of anything which is forbidden in the New Testament that is currently allowed by the Church, though I'm by no means an expert (I studied for 11 years in Catholic schools but haven't gone to the mess in about 15 years...)

 

[Gorbles]

I'd argue that's because the language of the Old Testament trends to more emphatic rulings than the collection of parables that informs (a large amount, but not all) of the New, which leaves a lot more room for intepretation. Been a long time since I studied the differences myself, so just going to leave it there. Sorry for the derail folks (I'm bad at not getting distracted when it comes to religion).

 

[EgonSpengler]

Well the US won't become a single-party state at the federal level even when it becomes 50% Hispanic. The republican party will change, or the democratic party will split. If you look at Latin American countries, voters are as likely to vote for right-wing parties (or even far-right) as Americans or Europeans. There is nothing inherently left-wing about Latinos.

Right, exactly. African-Americans aren't innately progressive, either. This isn't about conservative-v-progressive or right-v-left, it's about the Republican Party going out of its way to actively alienate people of color. It was the Republican Party itself that identified Latinos as a potential voting block after the loss of John McCain, and since then they've doubled down on insulting, dismissing and angering Latinos and their allies. If the Republican Party could just quit being so damned racist all the time, they could win major elections without having to meddle in the process, but evidently they just can't stop.

 

[stinkubus]

Right, exactly. African-Americans aren't innately progressive, either. This isn't about conservative-v-progressive or right-v-left, it's about the Republican Party going out of its way to actively alienate people of color. It was the Republican Party itself that identified Latinos as a potential voting block after the loss of John McCain, and since then they've doubled down on insulting, dismissing and angering Latinos and their allies. If the Republican Party could just quit being so damned racist all the time, they could win major elections without having to meddle in the process, but evidently they just can't stop.

Your post raises a very important point. For wealthy interests winning elections with a broad coalition is a Pyrrhic victory at best. The goal is not just to win elections but to do so with the *SMALLEST* constituency possible.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Your post raises a very important point. For wealthy interests winning elections with a broad coalition is a Pyrrhic victory at best. The goal is not just to win elections but to do so with the *SMALLEST* constituency possible.

Can you explain what you mean by this?

 

[stinkubus]

Can you explain what you mean by this?

If the GOP builds their winning coalition by courting Latino voters they are actually going to have to deliver something of value to that constituency to keep their vote over time.

Why do that when you can gerrymander the map and win by doing nothing else than appealing to the racial, religious, and gender prejudices of white, middle America?

 

[Lexicus]

Right, exactly. African-Americans aren't innately progressive, either. This isn't about conservative-v-progressive or right-v-left, it's about the Republican Party going out of its way to actively alienate people of color. It was the Republican Party itself that identified Latinos as a potential voting block after the loss of John McCain, and since then they've doubled down on insulting, dismissing and angering Latinos and their allies. If the Republican Party could just quit being so damned racist all the time, they could win major elections without having to meddle in the process, but evidently they just can't stop.

Your post raises a very important point. For wealthy interests winning elections with a broad coalition is a Pyrrhic victory at best. The goal is not just to win elections but to do so with the *SMALLEST* constituency possible.

And the point here is that the right-wing in general and the Republican Party in particular are hostile to the very concept of majoritarian democracy. Ultimately it is perfectly true that the Republicans could win fair elections, not only by not being overtly racist, but also by creating policies that serve the population in a broad sense rather than impoverishing the vast majority so that people like Trump can enjoy gold-plated toilet seats or whatever. But serving the tiny elite is their reason for being, the condition of their existence. The right knows, and has known for more than two thousand years, that it cannot win free elections when the issues are discussed clearly and rationally and the public can understand what's going on, because the right's very essence is the defense of hierarchy, of the privilege and power of the few. By the nature of things, only the few will buy into such a vision - the many will rightly reject it as harmful to their immediate material interests, of course, but also ultimately as antithetical to their dignity and freedom as persons.

 

[Lexicus]

Also @thread topic generally if you vote for a party you own the bad stuff it does too. You don't get to cop out by saying "well I don't support that." This is why I get particularly annoyed when the Democrats, whom I vote for, do bad things, and I see it as a duty to speak out when they do bad things.

 

[stinkubus]

Also @thread topic generally if you vote for a party you own the bad stuff it does too. You don't get to cop out by saying "well I don't support that." This is why I get particularly annoyed when the Democrats, whom I vote for, do bad things, and I see it as a duty to speak out when they do bad things.

IDK, man. This line of thinking seems like a path to the sort of demoralization that will lead many, many people to simply not participate.

Let's say the stars align and Bernie wins both the Democratic nomination and the White House. Our government will still be engaged in all sorts of horrible things regardless. If we're too rigid the excitement he generates now can quickly turn to apathy in 2024.