My family is also all Democrat - except for one brother who married a Republican and has become one himself. The rest of us can't stand them and gossip about them and one brother won't even attend family gatherings if the Republican sister-in-law is in attendance. You will probably outgrow your Republicanism as you realize what eejits they are. Dump the short guy, he sounds like a Tucker Carlson or David Frum anyway.

Morticia:

My family is also all Democrat - except for one brother who married a Republican and has become one himself. The rest of us can't stand them and gossip about them and one brother won't even attend family gatherings if the Republican sister-in-law is in attendance. You will probably outgrow your Republicanism as you realize what eejits they are. Dump the short guy, he sounds like a Tucker Carlson or David Frum anyway.

I'm just going to assume you're joking, because I can't imagine someone bragging about ostracizing a family member.

speaking of tucker carlson, I loved his cameo on 30 rock.

tucker: "why do we care what she thinks about anything? this woman strikes me as another empty-headed, self-involved member of the Hollywood ignorati."

jenna: "you know, for someone who's super, super hot, you're really cranky."

those who vote different then you?

or

those who judge & disown family members because they don't vote the same?

dumb_blonde:

those who vote different then you?

The thing to remember about those who vote differently than you is that often that vote represents a profound difference of belief about important issues - e.g., a gay son whose mother votes against a law giving gays equal rights, or protecting them from discrimination. This is not just about a "vote" - it's about whether or not the family members value and respect the same ideals and ways of life.

So it's okay to ostracize them?

The thing to remember about those who vote differently than you is that often that vote represents a profound difference of belief about important issues - e.g., a gay son whose mother votes against a law giving gays equal rights, or protecting them from discrimination. This is not just about a "vote" - it's about whether or not the family members value and respect the same ideals and ways of life.

Maybe thier vote was not based on the gay marraige issue, or maybe they are accepting of gays but for whatever reason do not believe gays should be married. Or maybe they believe in divil unions and have a good argument for why they believe that way. Many, MANY people ont he left assume that if you disagree with them it is because you are an inherently bad person. If you disagree with AA it's because you are a racist. Against gay marraige? The only possible reason is hatred of gays, against increasing social programs you hate the poor.....but often the differences between people from the right and the left have more to do with reasonable and rational differences in point of view, and not hatred and bigotry. Too many people assume that people who disagree with them are seeing an issue through the same contextual filter that they see it from, which explains why many tend to assume the worst of people with different ideologies. From our own point of view our own beliefs are naturally the more rational and well intentioned ones.

-

Terrils:

dumb_blonde:

those who vote different then you?

The thing to remember about those who vote differently than you is that often that vote represents a profound difference of belief about important issues - e.g., a gay son whose mother votes against a law giving gays equal rights, or protecting them from discrimination. This is not just about a "vote" - it's about whether or not the family members value and respect the same ideals and ways of life.

or it could be fiscal issues, foreign afffairs, crime, campaign finance reform, funding for certain programs, etc. - people vote the way they do for all sorts of reasons. and using that as some sort of character judgment is, quite frankly, very close-minded. few, if any of us, agree with the candidates we vote for on every issue.

thanks for going into a little more detail on 'why' good and reasonable people may disagree on political and social issues. I am Catholic and have always been a registered Democrat, but the party has changed radically over the past 20 years. I have always advocated for humane treatment of everyone and established the first HIV/AIDS programs in our local county health department 20 years ago. Therefore, one of my sons was completely shocked when he asked me if I supported gay marriage and I said 'No'. His response was that I was the kind of person who "burns people at the stake." In actual fact, I don't see marriage as a right, but as a responsibility for bearing, nurturing, and raising the next generation. This is not to say that gay people who adopt children are bad, or that the children are going to be seriously damaged, I just think that life is difficult enough and that most children would prefer to be born into a family where there are both a mother and a father who love each other and are committed to their duties to their family.

So the next time my son called me at work and asked me what time I was going to get home, I told him that I was leaving in ten minutes, but that I needed to stop off on my way and burn a few people at the stake.

I think he got the point.

Um, given the choice, most kids would probably also prefer to be born to well off or rich parents so they won't lack in food, clothing, shelter, or cool things. . . what's your point?

I've found that a large majority of people can't discuss politics, ESPECIALLY when it comes to social issues. As a gay man, I can read that statement about marriage and kids and see it as a weak attempt to validate a personal bias based on the "ick" factor. I'm sure that you, however, feel very justified in thinking the way you do. Because of that, we get stuck in either "agreeing to not agree" or hurling insults at each other. The problem is that I have no idea how to move past that.

Um, given the choice, most kids would probably also prefer to be born to well off or rich parents so they won't lack in food, clothing, shelter, or cool things. . . what's your point?

I've found that a large majority of people can't discuss politics, ESPECIALLY when it comes to social issues. As a gay man, I can read that statement about marriage and kids and see it as a weak attempt to validate a personal bias based on the "ick" factor. I'm sure that you, however, feel very justified in thinking the way you do. Because of that, we get stuck in either "agreeing to not agree" or hurling insults at each other. The problem is that I have no idea how to move past that.

Most kids even if they can't get rich parents would probably settle for parents who love them and love each other. I do not understand why people assume a man and a woman are the only acceptable arrangement for kids while totally ignoring the conflagration of divorce in this society that has affected far more children than any number of other marriage arrangements ever will. Why are those who are so outspoken about children being raised in a home only with a mother and a father so mum on the subject of the effect of the failure of so many of our straight marriages on the children of those supposedly "sanctified" unions?

Wow -- your brother and his wife are better off without all of you! No need to bother explaining any further. Some things you just "get" whether or not they are explained to you; other things, you will never get no matter how or how often they are explained to you. My sympathies to all of you for living in a family who has no idea what the word means.

"....I do not understand why people assume a man and a woman are the only acceptable arrangement for kids while totally ignoring the conflagration of divorce in this society that has affected far more children...."

You've raised an excellent point. Children brought up by gay parents usually have no idea that there is anything "different" about their household until later in childhood when people point it out to them. I'm really on the fence about gay marriage being written into any law, but when it comes right down to practicality, yes, a child is better off in a home with love, whether it's a single parent, a man-and-woman marriage, a gay marriage, or a grandparent.... than in a home where there is constant battle between a divorced mom and dad, or an unhappy mom and dad. (by the way .... I'm a Catholic Republican.)

xtine:

In actual fact, I don't see marriage as a right, but as a responsibility for bearing, nurturing, and raising the next generation.

However, that is not what legal marriage is so your opinion is completely meaningless when it comes to this point. Sterile people can marry, old people can marry, people who don't intend to have children can marry and so on. To say that you don't think that gay people should be able to marry is disgenous, especially given the number of gay men and women who are raising children.

xtine:

I just think that life is difficult enough and that most children would prefer to be born into a family where there are both a mother and a father who love each other and are committed to their duties to their family.

Considering how many children on the adoption lists are never adopted at all, your statement is unrealistic. Children would love to be born into a family with money, and "cool" parents as well.