All's Fair in Love and Politics

[WillWork4NinjaPowers]

My best friend watches Fox news and goes to church. She isn't opposed to woman's right to choose, but under almost any normal circumstance would not do it herself. I think she is for "civil unions" not sure if she would call it marriage or not. BUT, I know that she is a kind and caring person who would give someone in need, the shirt off of her back. Her husband is more conservative, though, and it annoys me.

My sister and her husband are very conservative and christian. She wouldn't have an abortion if she was raped, or so she says. When I asked what she would do if she had a 12yro that was raped, pregnant and would die if baby was carried to term, she said that was soo off chance she couldn't answer. Easy way out, because I know the answer would be a trip to a clinic and she couldn't admit it.

The conservatives where I live are also suuuuuper hickish and backwood. I could never date one.

I also don't allow my children to go to the homes of parents who have Palin, Bachman or Bush stickers on their cars. Their kids can come to my home, I would never turn away a child, but I don't want my kids to be around a Dad with a Palin sticker on his truck.

Before I started dating my boyfriend, I went on a date with a guy who is now a good friend, but a HUGE Ron Paul supporter. I don't even get into it with him, I can't think of Ron Paul without thinking about Bruno.

[adamsputnik]

My wife is quite liberal, and I am pretty libertarian, but the lines of politics are not cut and dried with either of those. Neither of us are ideologues beholden to a party or a particular political philosophy. Sometimes we talk politics and it can be interesting, although I do start to get annoyed when she veers into conspiracy theory territory (which I thought was more of a right wing trait, but there you are).

For me, politics aren't a huge deal. I think I can be civil with almost anyone who disagrees with me so long as they're not the sort of person who advocates violent revolution or anything like that. Plus, I can't vote, so it doesn't really matter what I think anyway :P

[S John]

I'm not particularly serious about politics anyway. I have my views on certain subjects, and I certainly enjoy a political chat now and then, but I find politics in practice to be tedious and distasteful.

Sure, we've got some great minds in political office, and historically there are plenty of political figures to be admired. But those are few and far between. If we were to play a word association game and my word was 'politician' my first thought would be 'fuck 'em'. I don't like or trust very many of the bastards and I can assure you that that extends to both sides of the aisle and to the adherents of ideologies on both ends of the spectrum. Being a politician requires a unique brand of arrogance. You've moved beyond the theory that you are, in fact, smarter than everyone else, and have decided to put that into practice by putting yourself in a position where you can inflict your bullshit on other people. In rare cases the stars will align and that person will be the perfect mix of benevolence and competence. But too often we don't get either one of those traits.

So I guess, ultimately I'll echo others. I think an open mind is all I would require. I don't think any political stance would be a deal-breaker unless she was an insufferable douche about it. In which case I'm still breaking it off due to doucheitude and not politics.

[Minaku]

I could never date across the aisle on social issues. I've had a couple of friends who are socially conservative thanks to religious backgrounds but those are rare. My daily life is too wrapped up in social issues to ever consider getting close to someone who doesn't believe in what I do.

Economic issues are a bit different, as are socio-economic issues. That, for me, seems a little more objective and I could divorce myself emotionally from them more easily than the social issues.

Now that I type this, it's weird to see myself as so hard-line on social issues. I always thought I was fairly accepting of others' viewpoints but as it turns out, I'm about as liberal as it gets (within reason, no incest or marrying non-humans) when it comes to social issues and I tend not to respect people who don't hold the same views as I do.

That's harsh, but it's the truth.

[Asarlai]

I'm about as liberal as it gets (within reason, no incest or marrying non-humans)

What's with all the double standards on incest? If we hold that the government should not interfere with the sex lives of two consenting adults, then why shouldn't that apply to two consenting adults who are siblings? It's hypocritical, derived merely from the strong social and psychological pressures telling us incest is wrong.

Do I feel incest is disgusting and wrong? Yes. Should the government reflect my feelings on this? No, of course not, just like it shouldn't reflect the feelings of someone who thinks homosexuality is disgusting and wrong. If the government has to be in the business of facilitating unions (ie, marriage), then shouldn't they merely be between any one consenting adult citizen and any other consenting adult citizen?

[AverageGuy]

To the subtopic, yes, and I have. Some specific things might make a difference, but a basic liberal/conservative self-identifier doesn't necessarily mean much.

When it comes to friends, mine are pretty diverse politically. I don't tend to see them all at the same time -- I separate my groups of friends as I figure the conservative Christians and anarchist Wiccans, among others, might not get along, though politics isn't the only way I sort the groups -- but I tend to get along with most people. I almost never talk about politics or religion, even among those who are pretty vocal about such, because while I do make an effort to follow politics and while I've had family members that actually made a living as politicians which has exposed me to it all my life, I always feel like an asshat when arguing about it. Guess my opinions aren't that strong.

[Asarlai]

Interestingly enough, most of my friends are conservative/Republican/libertarian. My good friends, at least. I don't mind that, and they don't mind that I'm a communist. Aside from mutual jokes, mutual hating on ridiculous figures on both the left and right, and the occasional funny comparisons ("Wait, so I'm communist and pro-life, and you're conservative and pro-choice??), we mostly leave politics alone.

[Minaku]

What's with all the double standards on incest? If we hold that the government should not interfere with the sex lives of two consenting adults, then why shouldn't that apply to two consenting adults who are siblings? It's hypocritical, derived merely from the strong social and psychological pressures telling us incest is wrong.

Do I feel incest is disgusting and wrong? Yes. Should the government reflect my feelings on this? No, of course not, just like it shouldn't reflect the feelings of someone who thinks homosexuality is disgusting and wrong. If the government has to be in the business of facilitating unions (ie, marriage), then shouldn't they merely be between any one consenting adult citizen and any other consenting adult citizen?

The Westermarck Effect would have me believe that incest is naturally taboo for us. Sure, it happens. Should it be against the law? Well, if they're both consenting adults with full knowledge of what happens, how is a law going to stop them? How is jail time going to stop them? I understand your argument and could agree that the government shouldn't interfere. If there were a referendum on this tomorrow on whether or not we should strike down incest laws, my brain would tell me to strike them down.

My heart and guts would go ewwwwwwwwwwwwwww, however.

Edit: One also has to think about the precedent that's set with regard to incest laws. I'd rather not head down that slippery slope, which is why I mentioned the human/non-human marriage thing. There's this dude in Japan who wants to marry a manga character. Creepy, yes, but he's not hurting anyone, and honestly I don't have a problem with it. But legistlation permitting that would just lead to other things and I'd rather not open that Pandora's box.

[Asarlai]

The Westermarck Effect would have me believe that incest is naturally taboo for us. Sure, it happens. Should it be against the law? Well, if they're both consenting adults with full knowledge of what happens, how is a law going to stop them? How is jail time going to stop them? I understand your argument and could agree that the government shouldn't interfere. If there were a referendum on this tomorrow on whether or not we should strike down incest laws, my brain would tell me to strike them down.

And to many heterosexuals, a disgust reaction is natural when it comes to homosexuality. Does that make it "naturally taboo"? Maybe, but that's not a good reason to ban it, now is it? On a purely "natural" level, humans are "meant" to have sex with healthy, non-related members of the opposite sex. But should that influence marriage law? If your answer is no (as it should be for proponents of gay marriage), then incest, however disgusting it may seem to us non-incestuous people, should be no exemption.

My heart and guts would go ewwwwwwwwwwwwwww, however.

How would you react to a conservative saying this to justify opposing gay marriage?

Edit: One also has to think about the precedent that's set with regard to incest laws. I'd rather not head down that slippery slope, which is why I mentioned the human/non-human marriage thing. There's this dude in Japan who wants to marry a manga character. Creepy, yes, but he's not hurting anyone, and honestly I don't have a problem with it. But legistlation permitting that would just lead to other things and I'd rather not open that Pandora's box.

This sounds like the ignorant slippery slope argument used by hate preachers. "What will people be marrying next, chairs??" It's merely the natural conclusion of the "two consenting adults" argument. A manga character is not a consenting adult.

Look, I'm not advocating incest here. Not only do I find it absolutely disgusting, but I'm a Catholic, and so consider it to be a sin. But I just realized earlier in this thread, I cannot in good conscience apply the logic for the legalization of gay marriage that I do if I do not apply it to incest. The government allowing incest doesn't make it right, but it does make it legal, and the government isn't there to reflect our religious or personal or biological views on sex.

[Minaku]

And to many heterosexuals, a disgust reaction is natural when it comes to homosexuality. Does that make it "naturally taboo"? Maybe, but that's not a good reason to ban it, now is it? On a purely "natural" level, humans are "meant" to have sex with healthy, non-related members of the opposite sex. But should that influence marriage law? If your answer is no (as it should be for proponents of gay marriage), then incest, however disgusting it may seem to us non-incestuous people, should be no exemption.

How would you react to a conservative saying this to justify opposing gay marriage?

I'd react poorly, as I believe that being gay is nature and not nurture. As far as I know, there aren't genetic proclivities towards incest.

This sounds like the ignorant slippery slope argument used by hate preachers. "What will people be marrying next, chairs??" It's merely the natural conclusion of the "two consenting adults" argument. A manga character is not a consenting adult.

Look, I'm not advocating incest here. Not only do I find it absolutely disgusting, but I'm a Catholic, and so consider it to be a sin. But I just realized earlier in this thread, I cannot in good conscience apply the logic for the legalization of gay marriage that I do if I do not apply it to incest. The government allowing incest doesn't make it right, but it does make it legal, and the government isn't there to reflect our religious or personal or biological views on sex.

I don't think we're at odds, honestly. You're making a logical argument that I agree with. It's a strict reading of being liberal.

As for the slippery slope, I didn't even think about hate speech or scaremongerers. I just thought about the mountains of legislation and useless bickering and filibustering that would have to occur in order to include various things that you could marry in legislation. Cows? Tissues? Windows? Do you have any idea how much of a pain in the ass that is to consider? Let's just not go there. For practical reasons.

[Joanna vander Poele]

Look, I'm not advocating incest here. Not only do I find it absolutely disgusting, but I'm a Catholic, and so consider it to be a sin. But I just realized earlier in this thread, I cannot in good conscience apply the logic for the legalization of gay marriage that I do if I do not apply it to incest. The government allowing incest doesn't make it right, but it does make it legal, and the government isn't there to reflect our religious or personal or biological views on sex.

Come on now... do you really think gay marriage and incest are on the same level as far as equal rights go? :P

[Asarlai]

I'd react poorly, as I believe that being gay is nature and not nurture. As far as I know, there aren't genetic proclivities towards incest.

There's a lot of interest in researching the origins of homosexuality; next to none when it comes to incest. Since the repulsion from incest is biological (pheromones in sweat smell disgusting to opposite sex in own family), I wouldn't be surprised if people could have a genetic predisposition to incest. But does it matter if it's nature/nurture? If homosexuality's genetic cause was disproved tomorrow, would you come out against gay marriage?

I don't think we're at odds, honestly. You're making a logical argument that I agree with. It's a strict reading of being liberal.

As for the slippery slope, I didn't even think about hate speech or scaremongerers. I just thought about the mountains of legislation and useless bickering and filibustering that would have to occur in order to include various things that you could marry in legislation. Cows? Tissues? Windows? Do you have any idea how much of a pain in the ass that is to consider? Let's just not go there. For practical reasons.

But here's the thing; we're already going about legalizing gay marriage, without writing provisions for cows and windows and the like. If you define what a person can marry, then you don't have to list everything not included. So if it's "another legally consenting human adult," then cows, windows, children, manga characters, and the like would all be excluded without having to do any more legislative work.

[Asarlai]

Come on now... do you really think gay marriage and incest are on the same level as far as equal rights go? :P

...Yes? It makes me really uncomfortable to say that, and I don't mean it as an insult to gays, honest, I believe in equality. But, strictly speaking, they are both groups that are denied equal rights when it comes to marriage, based on the social, religious, and/or biological taboos of the majority. The gays are more accepted now, and more vocal, but it wasn't too long ago they were underground, ashamed, ridiculed, hated; much like incestuous couples still are. I may find incest far more disgusting, but again, it doesn't mean a logical point of view would find them less deserving of rights.

[Minaku]

There's a lot of interest in researching the origins of homosexuality; next to none when it comes to incest. Since the repulsion from incest is biological (pheromones in sweat smell disgusting to opposite sex in own family), I wouldn't be surprised if people could have a genetic predisposition to incest. But does it matter if it's nature/nurture? If homosexuality's genetic cause was disproved tomorrow, would you come out against gay marriage?

But here's the thing; we're already going about legalizing gay marriage, without writing provisions for cows and windows and the like. If you define what a person can marry, then you don't have to list everything not included. So if it's "another legally consenting human adult," then cows, windows, children, manga characters, and the like would all be excluded without having to do any more legislative work.

Joanna has a good point. I'd be willing to wait until the incest lobbyists come out to play. Until then...

Edit: Why limit it to consenting human adults? Don't you want equal rights for everyone? Hell, there are people who want equal rights for animals.

[Asarlai]

Joanna has a good point. I'd be willing to wait until the incest lobbyists come out to play. Until then...

They're all too ashamed and afraid of hate/stigma, I bet. Much like most gays in, say, 1950. Does that mean you wouldn't have supported gay marriage in 1950?

[Minaku]

They're all too ashamed and afraid of hate/stigma, I bet. Much like most gays in, say, 1950. Does that mean you wouldn't have supported gay marriage in 1950?

Aren't we wandering a bit too far off the beaten path here?

Then again, this IS the board.

[Asarlai]

Edit: Why limit it to consenting human adults? Don't you want equal rights for everyone? Hell, there are people who want equal rights for animals.

This argument could be used just as well to "preserve the traditional definition of marriage," so I'd watch it if I were you. But let's break it down:

Consenting - Given that marriage is a major life decision, it should be available only to those who can properly understand its implications. See consent laws for sex.

Human - I'm willing to extend this to all sentient creatures, if we discover any others.

Adult - On the premise that children cannot properly understand its implications and thus cannot be consenting.

Aren't we wandering a bit too far off the beaten path here?

Then again, this IS the board.

I'm not going to be the one to start the incest thread! Albeit the 8700th incest thread on the Westeros forum, but still.

[Galactus]

^ Check out the Westermarck effect, yes, people have a predisposition towards incest, but it is counteracted by an aversion towards seeing people you grew up with as sexual partners. (which most of the time would mean your family)

[MinDonner]

Innate predispotision (or lack of) is not an argument for or against. What IS an argument against is the one Eefa mentioned some way upthread, about the skeevy power-dynamic that is inherent in a lot of incest and the corresponding difficulty of establishing true consent. I'm not saying that this is necessarily grounds for making it illegal, but it's not a battle I'm particularly interested in fighting right now, especially when the open-and-shut case of gay marriage is inexplicably still such a point of contention.

[The Warlock of Qarth]

Since the discussion seems to have veered of course a tad, allow me to put it back on track. ;)

Speaking from a Dutch PoV, I wouldn't find a potential partner's choice of political party objectionable, the exceptions being Geert Wilders' PVV or one of the Christian parties, especially the theocrats from the SGP (hardcore Christian party, as in "women shouldn't be able to vote" hardcore). The values and goals of these parties are so diametrically opposed to my own that I have a hard time seeing myself having a relationship with someone who would support them.