All's Fair in Love and Politics

[brook]

My ex moved in with me on an election day when we were both active members of two very different political parties. That was a fun night, he spent the day making deliveries of food and water to where I was handing out how-to-vote cards so I was able to forgive him his gloating when results went the opposite of how I would have liked :).

He is an economic conservative only though, on social issues our views are very similar so it was a lot easier to agree to disagree about things. I don't think I could ever have a relationship with someone who was anti-gay marriage, anti-immigration etc.

Economic differences are so much easier to work around because generally I find we agree on what we are aiming for, just disagree on the best way for the country to get there.

[Seli]

We have many more aisles over here than in the US, but to get to the core of the question: yes there are political positions that would stop me from dating someone.

Isn't the anti-abortion argument based pretty much solely on compassion? Seems weird to include it with the others.

In large part it just seems to act as misogyny, so Kay seems to put it in the correct category.

[Shael]

Liberal Conservative women are far too vapid and lack strength of character.

I know you're just trolling, so I'll troll you back. High five! :thumbsup:

Seriously, if you're calling people like, just for example, Kay and Raidne "vapid" and "lacking in character" then you're just an idiot.

[Eponine]

My first thought was that sure, I could date someone with differing political opinions as long as they weren't very hardcore about their views. But then I started thinking, why would I want to date someone who both didn't share my politics AND was wishy washy with weak beliefs? However, I am not extremely politically involved myself, and the issues in which I am involved could conceivably be taken up by people who held different opinions in other areas.

My boyfriend is technically libertarian-leaning, but doesn't consider it a political affiliation because as Raids said, libertarians are crazy, and also he doesn't want to be associated with Tea Partiers. He's more conservative than I am and most of the board is on many financial issues. He's less concerned than I am about gay rights and would rather see the government become less involved in the personal relationships between people. None of that bothers me, since he doesn't believe in zero taxes and zero social programs (just having those things much more limited and constrained), and he does believe in equal gay rights and equal pay - just in different proportion or priority than I do. So maybe I'm not willing to date across the aisle but willing to date someone in a much different place on the same scale. Like, if someone who is passionate about gay rights is a 10, and someone who is anti-gay rights is a -10, then I'd be willing to date someone between a 2 and a 9 and it wouldn't matter to me where in that range they were.

I obviously couldn't date anyone who was pro-life, for the opposite reason to Asarlai's. Despite the fact that I've never gotten pregnant before, there's no way I would want to be in a relationship that could end with the other person accusing me of murdering their baby. :ack: And someone who was pro-life but was completely fine with terminating a pregnancy if it was ours would be someone I couldn't respect.

[Mya Stone]

I know you're just trolling, so I'll troll you back. High five! :thumbsup:

Seriously, if you're calling people like, just for example, Kay and Raidne "vapid" and "lacking in character" then you're just an idiot.

Shael, is this your first encounter with SYM? His name almost fits him, as he makes many of us smash our heads against our desks. :rolleyes:

PS: your last sentence is a truth bomb. :P

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Kay,

How about "anti-abortion rights" and "pro-abortion rights"? Is either description inaccurate?

[Asarlai]

Not in my opinion, reproductive issues are deeply skewed to low income, lesser educated women. Especially since I'm a woman who dates men, so I would find it a pretty serious lack of empathy toward women for a man to be strongly anti choice.

That's okay; I find it a very serious lack of empathy toward infants, the unseen, and the weak for anyone to think abortion is a legitimate action.

And as for demographics, abortion has gone from being primarily used by young white, childless girls to older minority women with children, because of the relative lack of access to other forms of birth control amongst the poor.

I also take issue with calling it "anti abortion." I don't think anyone on any side is "pro abortion," I think abortion sucks and is wrong and it's sad that anyone gets them, but I also think I'm not in their shoes and don't have any right to make choices regarding their body. Pro/anti choice seems more accurate and less belittling to both sides.

Most pro-choice people I have met wouldn't say that abortion is wrong, so I don't think you're the norm in that. Pro-choice is pro-abortion, like pro-life is anti-abortion. Pro/anti abortion is the neutral wording. Otherwise, you'll call me anti-choice and I'll call you anti-life.

I do understand that people who are anti choice are so out of what they feel is a moral imperative. I don't begrudge them that at all, though I very strongly disagree. I could have close friends and family who felt that way no problem, but I couldn't be with someone who would be comfortable imposing their morality on others via the legal system.

We already impose murder laws on people via the legal system; pro-life people believe that abortion is plainly murder, and so it follows logically that the legal system is a good place to stop it. Much like the legal system is already a place to stop the murder of an unborn child by anyone but a doctor authorized by the mother.

In large part it just seems to act as misogyny, so Kay seems to put it in the correct category.

That's really offensive. Large amounts of women (now including "Roe") are anti-abortion. It comes down to whether or not the unborn humans have human rights, not men vs women.

[Kelli Fury]

no, that would be fine, I just find the term "anti abortion" to imply that anyone who isn't is "pro abortion" which is ridiculous and imo, unhelpful to civil discourse. I prefer pro/anti choice because is is shorter and people who oppose reproductive rights do oppose it being a choice.

Another issue with dating a conservative for me would be who they end up supporting. I don't think I could even be friends with someone who would give a vote to Michelle Bachmann, even if you were a conservative, to not be disgusted and embarrassed by that woman would mean we are in very very different places. Even if someone that ignorant and hateful would personally call and ask me what I wanted their vote to be on every bill, I could not vote for them. If I dated a fiscal conservative, it could only be if they voted for candidates who were libertarians. Your disagreement doesn't matter much if you're still voting for people who are trying to overturn Roe and keep same sex couples from marrying and adopting. I just couldn't respect anyone to whom fiscal policy was more important than protecting civil liberties.

[Asarlai]

I don't think I could even be friends with someone who would give a vote to Michelle Bachmann

I keep thinking she's going to turn out to be a comedian, though, personally, I'm hoping for a clever leftist destroying the Tea Party from the inside out.

[Edda van Heefmstra Ruston]

No, as ever, it comes to -- if you even agree that the fetus has human rights -- whether the fetus's rights trump those of the pregnant person, or the other way around.

Also, you're still wrong on terminology: pro-abortion would be "Hey! go out and get an abortion! They're great!" Pro-choice is simply "Hey! You have the right to choose whether or not to remain pregnant!"

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Kay, Asarlai,

I have to disagree. Those who are "pro-choice" are "pro-abortion rights". Those who are "pro-life" are "anti-abortion rights". Once again is either phrase I've coined inaccurate or imprecise?

[Kouran]

Kay I have a question and it is slightly off topic. What if the plitician is just representing the majority opinion of his/her constituents? My state is majority democrat but voted 70% in favor of a gay marriage ban as a state constitutional ammendment. Would a politician who voted in line with state majority opinion still be a problem? For the record I voted against the ban, it isnt the states place to tell anyone who they can/cant marry, with some small exceptions e.g. brother-sister, man-animal, child-adult.

[Asarlai]

Also, you're still wrong on terminology: pro-abortion would be "Hey! go out and get an abortion! They're great!" Pro-choice is simply "Hey! You have the right to choose whether or not to remain pregnant!"

So pro-gay-marriage is yelling at people to go get gay marriages? Or is it saying that people have the right to choose to be married to someone of the opposite sex? Because, personally at least, the latter seems to fit better. So am I just pro-choice with respect to gay marriage, and not pro-gay-marriage?

[Shael]

Shael, is this your first encounter with SYM? His name almost fits him, as he makes many of us smash our heads against our desks. :rolleyes:

Still learning who be who around here. :blushing:

It comes down to whether or not the unborn humans have human rights, not men vs women.

It would be nice if that was where the debate stood in reality. But you can't honestly claim that that's the case.

[Asarlai]

it isnt the states place to tell anyone who they can/cant marry, with some small exceptions e.g. brother-sister, man-animal, child-adult.

Why brother-sister? If we're saying that two consenting adults can get married, why shouldn't two consenting adult siblings be allowed?

[Edda van Heefmstra Ruston]

So pro-gay-marriage is yelling at people to go get gay marriages? Or is it saying that people have the right to choose to be married to someone of the opposite sex? Because, personally at least, the latter seems to fit better. So am I just pro-choice with respect to gay marriage, and not pro-gay-marriage?

Probably. Or use Scot's phrasing - pro-gay-marriage-rights.

ETA re the brother-sister thing: If people have been raised in the same household, there are generally all sorts of ingrained power imbalances and aspect to the relationships that may or may not impede full and proper consent.

[Asarlai]

It would be nice if that was where the debate stood in reality. But you can't honestly claim that that's the case.

Yes, yes I can. I, nor anyone I know, have never used a "women shouldn't have rights" argument with regard to abortion. Hell, 50% (more, if you count India) of the people's lives I want to save are female. And some of the staunchest anti-abortion advocates I know are women. It's just the pro-abortion/pro-choice/anti-life/another-terminology-argument crowd that tries to paint it as a sexism issue to win the debate, demeaning the reality of true sexism.

[Asarlai]

Kay, Asarlai,

I have to disagree. Those who are "pro-choice" are "pro-abortion rights". Those who are "pro-life" are "anti-abortion rights". Once again is either phrase I've coined inaccurate or imprecise?

Yeah, that's accurate. So is "pro-inalienable-human-right-to-life" and "anti-inalienable-human-right-to-life." But these big terms are rather unwieldy, so pro-choice/pro-life seems to work better.

[Kouran]

Why brother-sister? If we're saying that two consenting adults can get married, why shouldn't two consenting adult siblings be allowed?

Because children born to brother-sister pairs have a huge risk of being geneticly defective.

[Asarlai]

Because children born to brother-sister pairs have a huge risk of being geneticly defective.

Well, should we ban brother-sister sex then? Couldn't they use condoms? Should all people with high risks of passing certain defects/diseases to their children not be allowed to marry?

And, of course, by this reason you gave, you only have a problem with legal brother-sister marriage, right? You'd be for brother-brother and sister-sister?