Why are Liberals not Liberal-minded?

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Now don't just jump in here and start hurling insults at me, take a moment to really think about this for a moment. Why is it, Liberals tend to be the least Liberal-minded people of all? They have a certain 'liberal' ideology, and if you happen to not completely agree with it, you are called all kinds of nasty things. They are totally unwilling to bend, unwilling to accommodate other ideas, unable to find a point of compromise on their precious 'liberal' principles. They will absolutely refuse to settle for anything less than what they believe in, anything else is met with staunch refusal of consideration. It doesn't seem to matter what is conceded to their ideology, they simply push for more, never satisfied, never content.

Time and time again, we see Liberals leading the charge to force some mantra of "liberalism" upon society, whether they are willing to accept it or not, like gay marriage and abortion. Rather than allowing everyone to speak their minds through a vote or referendum, they insist on forcing policy through courts with judicial fiat.

You would think, people who call themselves "liberal" would be more open to flexibility, able to understand the viewpoints of others and at least try to accept them, but they don't even try. They are largely closed-minded to anything not in the 'liberal' playbook. They refuse to taste anything not on the 'liberal' menu. Just the thought of such a thing raises ire and draws rebuke. Why are Liberals not Liberal-minded?

 

[charver]

Maybe it's for the same reason that "Conservatives" make sweeping generalisations?

 

[KingCondanomation]

Now don't just jump in here and start hurling insults at me, take a moment to really think about this for a moment. Why is it, Liberals tend to be the least Liberal-minded people of all? They have a certain 'liberal' ideology, and if you happen to not completely agree with it, you are called all kinds of nasty things. They are totally unwilling to bend, unwilling to accommodate other ideas, unable to find a point of compromise on their precious 'liberal' principles. They will absolutely refuse to settle for anything less than what they believe in, anything else is met with staunch refusal of consideration. It doesn't seem to matter what is conceded to their ideology, they simply push for more, never satisfied, never content.

Time and time again, we see Liberals leading the charge to force some mantra of "liberalism" upon society, whether they are willing to accept it or not, like gay marriage and abortion. Rather than allowing everyone to speak their minds through a vote or referendum, they insist on forcing policy through courts with judicial fiat.

You would think, people who call themselves "liberal" would be more open to flexibility, able to understand the viewpoints of others and at least try to accept them, but they don't even try. They are largely closed-minded to anything not in the 'liberal' playbook. They refuse to taste anything not on the 'liberal' menu. Just the thought of such a thing raises ire and draws rebuke. Why are Liberals not Liberal-minded?

This reminds me of when on the show Politically Incorrect someone asked why Conservatives aren't for conservation.

You make a good point Dixie, I find when Conservatives come on here the first time they tend to go all out and then start to compromise some to get their points across better. Whereas Liberals go the opposite route, when cypress first came on he was actually a pretty reasonable guy and now look at him and Darla wasn't always super-shrill.

They are just more devoted to their causes. I think Conservatives in general are happier (there was some study that backed this up, not that it's not obvious here) and that leads to them to not be so dogmatically unflexible in persuing whatever it is they wish to change, they have something to fall back on, God, family, self-confidence, whatever. Whereas with Liberals they tend to need that cause as a basis for existence and compromise is not an end goal that they could be happy settling for.

Another point is that Liberals tend to debate in groups and it's always less reasonable to deal with any mob.

Those are generalizations of course, there are exceptions, some of the craziest mofos I've seen on political forums have been Conservatives (remember that trv guy?). But in general, the above holds true.

 

[Cancel3]

Perhaps it is because, in terms of social causes, liberals see the issue as one that should not be compromised.

Perhaps they see that the opposition is forcing laws based on their religious beliefs on people who do not believe the same thing.

Gay marriage was mentioned. The only reason gay marriage is unacceptable to conservatives is a religious one. Otherwise it has no effect on them. But the conservatives have tried, in several states, to actually change the state constitution to ban gay marriages forever. There is even a national movement to press for an amendment to the US Constitution that would ban gay marriage forever.



Perhaps it is the view from the inside that makes it look as though liberals won't compromise and conservatives will.

I see both sides as having a large number or rabid, unbending members who refuse to compromise.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

They are just more devoted to their causes. I think Conservatives in general are happier (there was some study that backed this up, not that it's not obvious here) and that leads to them to not be so dogmatically unflexible in persuing whatever it is they wish to change, they have something to fall back on, God, family, self-confidence, whatever. Whereas with Liberals they tend to need that cause as a basis for existence and compromise is not an end goal that they could be happy settling for.

That is exactly what I have noticed, and you are correct, it is a generalization, some liberals are more flexible, just as some conservatives are more stubborn. But, by-and-large, most liberals are not liberal-minded at all.

Perhaps it is because, in terms of social causes, liberals see the issue as one that should not be compromised.

But this is the point. Most conservatives feel just as passionately about social issues, yet they are (mostly) willing to compromise to some degree. More so than a liberal, anyway. With liberals, it's got to be the liberal way all the way.

Gay marriage was mentioned. The only reason gay marriage is unacceptable to conservatives is a religious one. Otherwise it has no effect on them. But the conservatives have tried, in several states, to actually change the state constitution to ban gay marriages forever. There is even a national movement to press for an amendment to the US Constitution that would ban gay marriage forever.

But this is not true, the issue of gay marriage to conservatives, relates to family values. The right we should have to raise our children in a traditional world, and not have our values destroyed by society. Let's say the issue was public nudity and public masturbation instead... it harms no one, has little to do with religion, but it's not something we want to raise our children around. It doesn't matter that 30% of the country might like to run around naked, masturbating in public, or how much they argue that it doesn't effect others, it does effect societal values and the conditions surrounding all of us.

That said, most Conservatives I know of, are not opposed to Civil Unions, and would be willing to compromise their personal 'religious' values and allow CU, in exchange for not redefining marriage. Liberals are the ones who are not liberal-minded enough to accept this. Same is true with abortion to a degree, many conservatives who oppose abortion, are willing to accept a compromise, in case of rape, incest, mothers life, but it is the liberals who are unwilling to bend, unwilling to be liberal-minded at all.

This is baffling to me, that liberals are so non-liberal-minded.

 

[Epicurus]

Maybe it's for the same reason that "Conservatives" make sweeping generalisations?

What a sweeping generalization about a group as diverse and thoughtful as conservatives.

 

[uscitizen]

What a sweeping generalization about a group as diverse and thoughtful as conservatives.

LOL, good one.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

I'm going to start telling people I am a liberal-minded conservative!

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

 

[Cancel3]

But this is not true, the issue of gay marriage to conservatives, relates to family values. The right we should have to raise our children in a traditional world, and not have our values destroyed by society. Let's say the issue was public nudity and public masturbation instead... it harms no one, has little to do with religion, but it's not something we want to raise our children around. It doesn't matter that 30% of the country might like to run around naked, masturbating in public, or how much they argue that it doesn't effect others, it does effect societal values and the conditions surrounding all of us.


This is baffling to me, that liberals are so non-liberal-minded.

Except that there is no change as far as what any person in your family experiences.

Do you think that not allowing gay marriage means there are any less gays out there? Certainly making public nudity illegal means that there is only a small chance that your kids will ever see anyone naked in public. But being gay is not illegal, so there will still be the same amount of homosexuals in your world.

What possible change can their be in your world if we allow gays to marry? I will tell you, there will be none.

If you see gay men holding hands now you will see them then. The law does not increase the number of gay people, it only allows them the benefits bestowed on them by the government.

This is why some are not willing to compromise. If we have separate versions of marriage it will end up being the same as the "Separate but Equal" nonsense that was given to the blacks. It was certainly separate but it was never equal.

I think you may have hit the nail on the head with one part of your response.

"The right we should have to raise our children in a traditional world, and not have our values destroyed by society."

If your values can be destroyed by what others do, it wasn't a value to you anyway. It was simply a lack of choices.

Allowing gay marriages would not change your "traditional world" or "family values" one iota.

And if you insist that it would, then allowing gays to have Civil Unions would do the same thing.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

I'm going to start telling people I am a liberal-minded conservative!

I am a conservative minded liberal.

 

[uscitizen]

I'm going to start telling people I am a liberal-minded conservative!

why not? you have been wrong about most everything else.

 

[Beefy]

Its the fiscal liberals that bug me. I'm a social liberal, live and let live. Who cares if your neighbor has a realistic dildo with moveable balls, or if another neighbor is a queen? You know who cares, who spends all their free time thinking about such filth? You guessed it - social conservatives.

Now in Foreign policy, I'm a conservative as well, a Pat Buchanan Conservative. Liberal Imperialists like Dixie throw out the term "liberal" without it being applied to Foreign Policy. But it should be.

 

[uscitizen]

But Beefy, true liberals think the govt should buy them a deluxe dildo as well ?

 

[Cancel3]

Its the fiscal liberals that bug me. I'm a social liberal, live and let live. Who cares if your neighbor has a realistic dildo with moveable balls, or if another neighbor is a queen? You know who cares, who spends all their free time thinking about such filth? You guessed it - social conservatives.

Now in Foreign policy, I'm a conservative as well, a Pat Buchanan Conservative. Liberal Imperialists like Dixie throw out the term "liberal" without it being applied to Foreign Policy. But it should be.

Now see, Beefy, you have the right idea. Whether you are liberal or conservative depends on what the subject is.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Except that there is no change as far as what any person in your family experiences.

Do you think that not allowing gay marriage means there are any less gays out there? Certainly making public nudity illegal means that there is only a small chance that your kids will ever see anyone naked in public. But being gay is not illegal, so there will still be the same amount of homosexuals in your world.

What possible change can their be in your world if we allow gays to marry? I will tell you, there will be none.

If you see gay men holding hands now you will see them then. The law does not increase the number of gay people, it only allows them the benefits bestowed on them by the government.

This is why some are not willing to compromise. If we have separate versions of marriage it will end up being the same as the "Separate but Equal" nonsense that was given to the blacks. It was certainly separate but it was never equal.

I think you may have hit the nail on the head with one part of your response.

"The right we should have to raise our children in a traditional world, and not have our values destroyed by society."

If your values can be destroyed by what others do, it wasn't a value to you anyway. It was simply a lack of choices.

Allowing gay marriages would not change your "traditional world" or "family values" one iota.

And if you insist that it would, then allowing gays to have Civil Unions would do the same thing.

You know, we can start another thread to debate "gay marriage" if we must.
You are missing the point, as usual. You want to make it about "homosexuality" and that is not the argument from social conservatives. Everything you have assumed so far, is predicated on the notion that social conservatives are intolerant of homosexuals. Far from it, in fact, some social conservatives ARE homosexual.

You insist that Gay Marriage would not change social values, but how is that so? Traditional marriage between a man and woman, is a foundational principle behind 'family values'. It is the basis for all social conservative values, and it is sanctified through religious beliefs. It is an important part of the fabric of our morality and societal values, much the same way as wearing clothes and behaving decently in public. That is why I drew the analogy with nudity and public masturbation. You can certainly understand why we have laws about public decency, being clothed in public, but isn't this a 'moral' standard set by society? What would be the harm in letting people run around au naturale? Think about it for a moment... really... who would this harm? It would harm no one directly, it would be an affront on societal values. The same is true with respect to 'gay marriage' it is an affront to the sanctity of traditional marriage and the foundations of family values. How can socially moral conservatives raise their children to appreciate traditional values, if those traditional values have been replaced in society?

I soundly reject any "same rights" argument, because Civil Unions would grant "same rights" without destroying the traditional social values. Just as, we have accepted ordinances to allow public nudity in certain places, the right to be nude in public is made available, without infringing on societal values. "Gay Marriage" is nothing more than an attack on Religion. Plain and simple. There is not a fundamental reason for redefining marriage, because the "same rights" can be arranged otherwise, it just won't destroy traditional societal values. My question is, why are Liberals so closed-minded, not Liberal at all, when it comes to how they think about this? Where is the understanding that a vast majority of people don't want to redefine traditional marriage or destroy the sanctity of it?

 

[Cancel3]

Actually, I think I just showed that a conservative can be as inflexible and closed-minded as any liberal.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Its the fiscal liberals that bug me. I'm a social liberal, live and let live. Who cares if your neighbor has a realistic dildo with moveable balls, or if another neighbor is a queen? You know who cares, who spends all their free time thinking about such filth? You guessed it - social conservatives.

Now in Foreign policy, I'm a conservative as well, a Pat Buchanan Conservative. Liberal Imperialists like Dixie throw out the term "liberal" without it being applied to Foreign Policy. But it should be.

You are not a social liberal. You are socially liberal. You are fiscally fascist.

 

[Cancel3]

You know, we can start another thread to debate "gay marriage" if we must.
You are missing the point, as usual. You want to make it about "homosexuality" and that is not the argument from social conservatives. Everything you have assumed so far, is predicated on the notion that social conservatives are intolerant of homosexuals. Far from it, in fact, some social conservatives ARE homosexual.

You insist that Gay Marriage would not change social values, but how is that so? Traditional marriage between a man and woman, is a foundational principle behind 'family values'. It is the basis for all social conservative values, and it is sanctified through religious beliefs. It is an important part of the fabric of our morality and societal values, much the same way as wearing clothes and behaving decently in public. That is why I drew the analogy with nudity and public masturbation. You can certainly understand why we have laws about public decency, being clothed in public, but isn't this a 'moral' standard set by society? What would be the harm in letting people run around au naturale? Think about it for a moment... really... who would this harm? It would harm no one directly, it would be an affront on societal values. The same is true with respect to 'gay marriage' it is an affront to the sanctity of traditional marriage and the foundations of family values. How can socially moral conservatives raise their children to appreciate traditional values, if those traditional values have been replaced in society?

I soundly reject any "same rights" argument, because Civil Unions would grant "same rights" without destroying the traditional social values. Just as, we have accepted ordinances to allow public nudity in certain places, the right to be nude in public is made available, without infringing on societal values. "Gay Marriage" is nothing more than an attack on Religion. Plain and simple. There is not a fundamental reason for redefining marriage, because the "same rights" can be arranged otherwise, it just won't destroy traditional societal values. My question is, why are Liberals so closed-minded, not Liberal at all, when it comes to how they think about this? Where is the understanding that a vast majority of people don't want to redefine traditional marriage or destroy the sanctity of it?

Gay marriage would destry the sanctity of traditional marriages? LMAO!!

Half of marriages end in divorce. Domestic violence is the number one cause of hospitalization for women. There are quickie marriages and quickie divorces. And you think allowing gays to marry will destroy the sanctity of marriage? Thats almost funny.


But I have a question for you. If a man and a woman want to join together, but neither of them wants the religious connotations (they are going to the courthouse, going to be married by a JP ect) will they be in a marriage or a civil union?

And if the civil union is the same thing, then why will it not destroy those values again? Are you claiming that something as trivial as the NAME of the institution is what is key?

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Gay marriage would destry the sanctity of traditional marriages? LMAO!!

Half of marriages end in divorce. Domestic violence is the number one cause of hospitalization for women. There are quickie marriages and quickie divorces. And you think allowing gays to marry will destroy the sanctity of marriage? Thats almost funny.


But I have a question for you. If a man and a woman want to join together, but neither of them wants the religious connotations (they are going to the courthouse, going to be married by a JP ect) will they be in a marriage or a civil union?

And if the civil union is the same thing, then why will it not destroy those values again? Are you claiming that something as trivial as the NAME of the institution is what is key?

You can laugh all you like, what I said is valid. Traditional marriage is sanctified because it is the mechanism by which a man and woman join in matrimony in order to procreate a family. Your examples of bad marriages is notwithstanding here, it's like saying... we have women in thongs and men in speedo's all over the beach, why not allow public nudity? We have women getting raped and children molested all the time, why not allow public masturbation? You are finding faults in values to justify destruction of values.

Let's be clear about this, while we are on the subject... Gays most certainly can "marry" ...I know, I went to a Gay Marriage in 1987! The couple are still together, still have their wedding album and honeymoon pictures! They were married by a Rastafarian priest on a mountainside in Alabama. No one stopped them, they weren't arrested. They have gone to great legal lengths to essentially establish a 'civil union' between them, with regard to various aspects of property, etc. So, this can be done, nothing prevents it now.

The argument is over changing the definition of a fundamental foundational principle of social conservative values, rooted in religious sanctity. Civil Unions legislation would give gay couples every single "married" right they desire, without disturbing the foundational fundamental principle of traditional marriage. Why is this not acceptable to Liberals? Simply put, because it doesn't attack and destroy a religiously respected establishment in society.