If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Think Progress)   Third Republican senator comes out   (thinkprogress.org) divider line 26
    More: Hero, Republican senators, Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski, Republican, Matthew Shepard, senator, Mark Kirk  
•       •       •

5425 clicks; posted to Politics » on 19 Jun 2013 at 2:06 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2013-06-19 01:16:29 PM  
5 votes:
This is the lady that was primaried out of the party and had to run a write-in campaign. And won. Yet for some reason she still calls herself a Republican
2013-06-19 02:34:35 PM  
3 votes:

Theaetetus: make me some tea: abb3w: Tick-tick-tick-tick-....

[img.fark.net image 850x575]
[img.fark.net image 449x533]

Interesting that there's a dip in the numbers from the 40s and the 50s folks. I wonder what accounts for that?

Bunch of young people dying in WWII, resulting in more crotchety old people as a percentage?


The Religious right's first great enemy was communism. It was a natural villain for both its economic values (the religious right has always been ultra capitalist) and the prevalence of atheism in communist states. After McCarthyism imploded, the leaders of the religious right needed a more credible boogie man. The horrors of Jim Crow were not palatable on the national level, so blacks were out. Homosexuals were unorganized, presumptively corrupt, and largely anonymous. The religious right began a relentless campaign to personify the resentment of national post-war social changes into religiously sanctioned fear and hatred of homosexuals. Before the 50s homosexuality was presumed to be unacceptable, but homosexuals were not looked at as a threat.
2013-06-19 02:20:16 PM  
3 votes:

abb3w: Tick-tick-tick-tick-....

[img.fark.net image 850x575]
[img.fark.net image 449x533]


You know, I see that posted in all of these threads, and I really do want to believe it is true.  There are so, so many things that could occur to upend that whole chart though.  And just because those born in the 70's, 80's, and 90's feel that way, doesn't mean as they age, they will continue to feel the same way.  Popular opinion also doesn't write the laws of the land, a few well funded individuals with a zealous following can overturn popular support.

Those of us that support marriage equality must continue to fight, even if it looks like the demographics will turn in our favor in the future.
2013-06-19 02:17:13 PM  
3 votes:
Why any woman would be a GOPer is beyond me.

"HURR why single issue there is much to the GOP than a single issue DERR"

Really, derper?

1) Against equal pay
2) Against reproductive rights
     a) birth control
     b) abortion
3) Against universal healthcare (well, now they are)
4) Not very delicate when it comes to rape
5) Seem to think that gender roles are written into the Bible and therefore law
2013-06-19 02:16:10 PM  
2 votes:

vernonFL: "First, this is a personal liberty issue and has to do with the most important personal decision that any human makes. I believe that, as Americans, our freedoms come from God and not government, and include the rights enumerated in the Declaration of Independence: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. What could be more important to the pursuit of happiness than the right to choose your spouse without asking a Washington politician for permission? If there is one belief that unifies most Alaskans - our true north - it is less government and more freedom. We don't want the government in our pockets or our bedrooms; we certainly don't need it in our families"

Why can't more so called "conservatives" think this way?


We do.  Except now they insist on calling us democrats.

(no really.  I'm a registered republican...and no one believes me anymore, I'm just another libby lib libtard democrat.  My views have not changed.  At all.  The party sure has though)
2013-06-19 02:11:53 PM  
2 votes:
"First, this is a personal liberty issue and has to do with the most important personal decision that any human makes. I believe that, as Americans, our freedoms come from God and not government, and include the rights enumerated in the Declaration of Independence: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. What could be more important to the pursuit of happiness than the right to choose your spouse without asking a Washington politician for permission? If there is one belief that unifies most Alaskans - our true north - it is less government and more freedom. We don't want the government in our pockets or our bedrooms; we certainly don't need it in our families"

Why can't more so called "conservatives" think this way?
2013-06-19 01:17:47 PM  
2 votes:
Wonder how much of this is a fark you to the Tea party asshats who tried and failed to primary her out of office.
2013-06-19 01:17:13 PM  
2 votes:
I'm honestly surprised to not see Collins on that list.  Guess she isn't THAT much of a RINO...
2013-06-19 01:10:35 PM  
2 votes:

Tick-tick-tick-tick-....

img.fark.net
img.fark.net
2013-06-19 04:49:17 PM  
1 votes:

BojanglesPaladin: Serious Black: A lot of Christian churches and sects do not view homosexuality as sinful,

Remember we are talking about the religious right here, not the religious left.

While not every Christian church goes for "abomination before the Lord", and many go with "Love the Sinner, hate the sin", the overwhelming Christian stance is that homosexuality is a sin, because it is a sin of lust and fornication, same as adultery. Some may put it in the same bucket of sin as masturbating, and some may put it in the same bucket as adultery. And I suppose some just don't consider it a sin at all, but that means ignoring part of the doctrines, which I know happens.

I guess we could ALSO say there has been a trend in "new" Christian Churches and non-denominational which allow for a much broader spectrum of "pick and choose" doctrine. Or maybe I should have specified that I meant major denomination churches.

Anywho, in 1945 you would have a very hard time finding any Church in America advocating that homosexuality is not a sin. Today, the Episcopalians are ordaining openly gay priests. And I doubt many of the religious right are still going to mass with an openly gay priest. In fact, I know they are not because the Episcopal Church is facing schism over this very issue.


Sure, acceptance of homosexuality is a pretty novel concept. Of course, homosexuality itself is a pretty novel concept historically given that the word homosexuality was not coined until the late 19th century. And every sect of Judaism and Christianity engages in some level of picking and choosing today. As an example, there were a number of religious leaders who openly advocated for slavery being just and referenced parts of the Bible to defend owning people. I believe it was something along the lines of civilizing the heathen. But I very rarely, if ever, hear Jews or Christians defend slavery as an acceptable practice today, let alone a good one.

BojanglesPaladin: Serious Black: 2) I'd fully agree that sexual mores are changing, but we are not a society where anything goes.

Nor did I suggest that we were. I'm not really sure where you are going with the "but we still don't like pedophilia or bestiality!" line....


You just said "Remember we are talking about the religious right here." Pedophilia, incest, bestiality, and polygamy are among the many things that the religious right say will have to be legally recognized if the government legally recognizes marriages between same-sex couples. Yet none of the people who are currently advocating for letting same-sex couples get married are advocating for morally or legally accepting any of the other practices I mentioned.
2013-06-19 04:47:49 PM  
1 votes:

BojanglesPaladin: Remember we are talking about the religious right here, not the religious left.


Yes, but you can't say "The religious right sees homosexuality as immoral and corrupt, because, well, according to the tenants tenets of all of the Judeo-Christian faith, it is." and then ignore the fact that many, many Christian churches do NOT see homosexuality as immoral and corrupt, and certainly not The Worst Sin Evar the way the religious right plays it. I know many, many Christians who support marriage equality. I even know a few Catholics who support it. So you simply cannot say that all of the Judeo-Christian tenets believe homosexuality is immoral and corrupt.
2013-06-19 04:02:13 PM  
1 votes:

BojanglesPaladin: salvador.hardin: The Religious right's first great enemy was communism. It was a natural villain for both its economic values (the religious right has always been ultra capitalist) and the prevalence of atheism in communist states. After McCarthyism imploded, the leaders of the religious right needed a more credible boogie man. The horrors of Jim Crow were not palatable on the national level, so blacks were out. Homosexuals were unorganized, presumptively corrupt, and largely anonymous. The religious right began a relentless campaign to personify the resentment of national post-war social changes into religiously sanctioned fear and hatred of homosexuals. Before the 50s homosexuality was presumed to be unacceptable, but homosexuals were not looked at as a threat.


The answer is much simpler. It's not some arbitrary need for a "boogieman", where any candidate will do. The religious right sees homosexuality as immoral and corrupt, because, well, according to the tenants of all of the Judeo-Christian faith, it is.

However, two trends have begun to intersect: The first is that from the 50s forward, strict adherence to religious orthodoxy among the mainstream has been waning with even "religious" people choosing to simply ignore certain aspects of their religion from birth control, to pre-marital sex, to abortion, to marriage, to divorce, to homosexuality. The supplemental trend of more and more mainstream Americans simply foregoing churchgoing at all meant that social mores and society standards are very different today than they were even 50 years ago.

The second trend is that there has been a significant societal shift toward sexual liberation in all aspects and an emerging acceptance among the mainstream for previously "deviant" behavior whether it be homosexuality, bisexuality, multiple partners, general promiscuity or even just "being adventurous". The conservative religious right has attempted and failed to stop this progression at every stage, from Elvis' gyrating hips to bikinis to pornography to Will & Grace. And each time, the general public has re-enforced an acceptance of loosened mores. This acceptance has emboldened gays and other members of the broader LGBT community to be more open and "come out of the closet".

So at the same time that the religious right is becoming more of a minority view, and fewer and fewer young people are joining their view, they are seeing the continuing trend as more and more unacceptable, making them more and more strident and hard-line.

No one was "looking" for a boogie-man. From their perspective, the boogie-man has become unavoidable. No longer relegated to the fringe and the shadows, homosexuals have taken the spotlight and "operate in plain sight". If you earnestly believe, as many do, that homosexuality is a corrupting, sinful thing, then they have a duty to try to stop it.

/not arguing that their viewpoint is right, only that the objection stems from a genuine difference in worldview, and not some disingenuous desire to screw people over or fabricate some "enemy".


1) This is not necessarily true. A lot of Christian churches and sects do not view homosexuality as sinful, and the less orthodox branches of Judaism similarly see homosexuality the same way. There's a pretty large faith-based movement towards legalizing marriages between same-sex couples.

2) I'd fully agree that sexual mores are changing, but we are not a society where anything goes. I think the big change is that consent has turned into the lynchpin of what is sexually acceptable and what isn't. In a lot of ways, accepting consent as the benchmark is a sexual liberation. But consent does have some clear limits. Carrying out a sexual act on an animal that cannot provide consent is unacceptable. Having sex with a child is unacceptable. Cheating on a significant other is  unacceptable (9 out of 10 Americans polled by Gallup think so, more than anything else they asked about).
2013-06-19 03:45:56 PM  
1 votes:

salvador.hardin: The Religious right's first great enemy was communism. It was a natural villain for both its economic values (the religious right has always been ultra capitalist) and the prevalence of atheism in communist states. After McCarthyism imploded, the leaders of the religious right needed a more credible boogie man. The horrors of Jim Crow were not palatable on the national level, so blacks were out. Homosexuals were unorganized, presumptively corrupt, and largely anonymous. The religious right began a relentless campaign to personify the resentment of national post-war social changes into religiously sanctioned fear and hatred of homosexuals. Before the 50s homosexuality was presumed to be unacceptable, but homosexuals were not looked at as a threat.


The answer is much simpler. It's not some arbitrary need for a "boogieman", where any candidate will do. The religious right sees homosexuality as immoral and corrupt, because, well, according to the tenants of all of the Judeo-Christian faith, it is.

However, two trends have begun to intersect: The first is that from the 50s forward, strict adherence to religious orthodoxy among the mainstream has been waning with even "religious" people choosing to simply ignore certain aspects of their religion from birth control, to pre-marital sex, to abortion, to marriage, to divorce, to homosexuality. The supplemental trend of more and more mainstream Americans simply foregoing churchgoing at all meant that social mores and society standards are very different today than they were even 50 years ago.

The second trend is that there has been a significant societal shift toward sexual liberation in all aspects and an emerging acceptance among the mainstream for previously "deviant" behavior whether it be homosexuality, bisexuality, multiple partners, general promiscuity or even just "being adventurous". The conservative religious right has attempted and failed to stop this progression at every stage, from Elvis' gyrating hips to bikinis to pornography to Will & Grace. And each time, the general public has re-enforced an acceptance of loosened mores. This acceptance has emboldened gays and other members of the broader LGBT community to be more open and "come out of the closet".

So at the same time that the religious right is becoming more of a minority view, and fewer and fewer young people are joining their view, they are seeing the continuing trend as more and more unacceptable, making them more and more strident and hard-line.

No one was "looking" for a boogie-man. From their perspective, the boogie-man has become unavoidable. No longer relegated to the fringe and the shadows, homosexuals have taken the spotlight and "operate in plain sight". If you earnestly believe, as many do, that homosexuality is a corrupting, sinful thing, then they have a duty to try to stop it.

/not arguing that their viewpoint is right, only that the objection stems from a genuine difference in worldview, and not some disingenuous desire to screw people over or fabricate some "enemy".
2013-06-19 03:11:15 PM  
1 votes:
Good for her. Also good for the Republican civil war.
2013-06-19 02:46:26 PM  
1 votes:

salvador.hardin: The Religious right's first great enemy was communism. It was a natural villain for both its economic values (the religious right has always been ultra capitalist) and the prevalence of atheism in communist states. After McCarthyism imploded, the leaders of the religious right needed a more credible boogie man. The horrors of Jim Crow were not palatable on the national level, so blacks were out. Homosexuals were unorganized, presumptively corrupt, and largely anonymous. The religious right began a relentless campaign to personify the resentment of national post-war social changes into religiously sanctioned fear and hatred of homosexuals. Before the 50s homosexuality was presumed to be unacceptable, but homosexuals were not looked at as a threat.


Interesting...
2013-06-19 02:46:17 PM  
1 votes:

Lost Thought 00: This is the lady that was primaried out of the party and had to run a write-in campaign. And won. Yet for some reason she still calls herself a Republican


Alaskians have a very, very strong 'mind your own business' streak.

Even La Sarah was forced to sign a domestic partner benefits law.
2013-06-19 02:32:02 PM  
1 votes:

vernonFL: "First, this is a personal liberty issue and has to do with the most important personal decision that any human makes. I believe that, as Americans, our freedoms come from God and not government, and include the rights enumerated in the Declaration of Independence: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. What could be more important to the pursuit of happiness than the right to choose your spouse without asking a Washington politician for permission? If there is one belief that unifies most Alaskans - our true north - it is less government and more freedom. We don't want the government in our pockets or our bedrooms; we certainly don't need it in our families"

Why can't more so called "conservatives" think this way?


They do. They are called the Democrats. If it's Republicans you are thinking about, they are (a) not conservative, and (b) not interested in anything involving love, compassion, or basic human decency.
2013-06-19 02:29:22 PM  
1 votes:

abb3w: Tick-tick-tick-tick-....

[img.fark.net image 850x575]
[img.fark.net image 449x533]


Every time I see that cohort graph I think, "Cool, we just need to wait for some old folks to do off." And then I feel bad because my mom is a senior. And then I feel better because she supports marriage equality. And then I think about what a cool mom I have.

/she also wants to legalize drugs, gambling, and prostitution
2013-06-19 02:24:22 PM  
1 votes:
img.fark.net
don't make me talk about quitting this gig to un-seat you!...
....squirrel...

2013-06-19 02:17:45 PM  
1 votes:
She doesn't deserve the "Hero" tag for doing what any decent, moral human being should.
2013-06-19 02:13:02 PM  
1 votes:

SilentStrider: Wonder how much of this is a fark you to the Tea party asshats who tried and failed to primary her out of office.


It might simply a flip-o-teh-bird to Palin.
Seriously.  Those 2 HATE each other.
2013-06-19 01:50:11 PM  
1 votes:

make me some tea: abb3w: Tick-tick-tick-tick-....

[img.fark.net image 850x575]
[img.fark.net image 449x533]

Interesting that there's a dip in the numbers from the 40s and the 50s folks. I wonder what accounts for that?


Bunch of young people dying in WWII, resulting in more crotchety old people as a percentage?
2013-06-19 01:44:43 PM  
1 votes:
Is it sad that my first thought on seeing the headline was "which family member just came out to her?"

Glad to see that her motivation was not so self-serving.
2013-06-19 01:31:02 PM  
1 votes:
Well isn't that just special.
2013-06-19 01:28:59 PM  
1 votes:

abb3w: Tick-tick-tick-tick-....

[img.fark.net image 850x575]
[img.fark.net image 449x533]


Interesting that there's a dip in the numbers from the 40s and the 50s folks. I wonder what accounts for that?
2013-06-19 10:24:00 AM  
1 votes:
Let's see how long it takes for her to flip to Democrat now.
 
Displayed 26 of 26 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report