Culture and Authority: Could this explain Liberal/Conservative split?

[emilynghiem]

Why Did Malaysia Have Such Bad Luck with Plane Accidents

This study that identifies cultural differences in views of "Authority" and "collective/individual" roles
was cited in an article about the Malaysian air crashes. The implication is that people whose cultural thinking is biased toward "individuals" having equal authority might be quicker to respond to emergencies that require independent action even outside the rules without approval. And people who either depend on the authority of others, or submit to the collective will are slower to take independent action.

So I wanted to know if this correlates to liberals who depend on govt to establish the will of the people
and enforce things that way. Vs. conservatives and independents who put autonomy of the people first, and then form agreements among the people which then can be used to invoke authority of govt to establish public policy.
Not the other way.

I believe in forming a consensus between the individual and the collective level
so neither imposes on each other. So I believe in using both systems to check
each other, find where these agree, and base public policy on that so there is no imposition,
but all laws and reforms are formed by agreement so they fully represent the people and all interests/groups equally.

Since people are coming fromt hese different perspectives,
that's why the mediation process should account for cultural differences in communication and decision making

I thought it was interesting there are terms for these
differences and wonder if the liberal/conservative
differences in thinking can be explained in a similar way.

 

[Disir]

It has to do with recognizing the rule of law. This is something the right seems to have a problem with. The left doesn't depend on the government. The government is the consensus. I know, it's a tough one. It's that republic-y thingy.

 

[emilynghiem]

It has to do with recognizing the rule of law. This is something the right seems to have a problem with. The left doesn't depend on the government. The government is the consensus. I know, it's a tough one. It's that republic-y thingy.

Funny the right complains when the left doesnt follow what they deem as law.
And I don't consider the partisan split over ACA mandates to be a consensus by any means. Both sides sharply disagree and defend their beliefs. How is that consensus when it was objected to before it passed and has been contested and sued over afterwards.

People don't agree on marriage laws either so how is that consensus.

Sorry but my standards on what is truly consensus are not this bullying crap going on back and forth. Coersion is not consensus.

 

[Disir]

That's because the right consists of mostly whine bags led on by whatever their little radio talk show tells them to. Those are your standards.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"...liberals who depend on govt to establish the will of the people
and enforce things that way."

This fails as a straw man fallacy.

"...conservatives and independents who put autonomy of the people first..."

This is a lie, as most conservatives do no such thing; that conservatives for the most part are hostile to the privacy rights of women, the equal protection rights of gay Americans, and the voting rights of minorities is evidence that they have little regard for individual liberty and the rights of their fellow Americans.

 

[Disir]

Exactly. It's all a bunch of BS.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

"...liberals who depend on govt to establish the will of the people
and enforce things that way."

This fails as a straw man fallacy.

"...conservatives and independents who put autonomy of the people first..."

This is a lie, as most conservatives do no such thing; that conservatives for the most part are hostile to the privacy rights of women, the equal protection rights of gay Americans, and the voting rights of minorities is evidence that they have little regard for individual liberty and the rights of their fellow Americans.

Every example you made is wrong. Privacy for women isn't a problem at all for conservatives, murder of an unborn child is. You look at a fetus at 6 or 8 weeks and honestly tell me that is not a person. If they discovered a single cell organism on Mars you would celebrate that as a life in need of protection yet you won't say that for an unborn child.

I want rights for gays, thee same rights they have always had. They are free to live their lives as they wish. They can call what union they want a marriage but it isn't. My objection to gays is they don't want to live for themselves they want to force me to conform to their version of life. They want the one way street not me. Where is the so called tolerance for the rest of us?

Minorities are free to vote, it's been the law for a long time now. Illegals are not allowed to vote. That's not racist it's common fucking sense. Asking for an ID in order to vote in a country where we have 5-10 million illegals should be a no brainer. Only the dumbest of people would give them people the right to vote and call ID voting racist.

 

[Disir]

 

[Missouri_Mike]

Care to elaborate or are you just a emoticon moron?

 

[occupied]

"...liberals who depend on govt to establish the will of the people
and enforce things that way."

This fails as a straw man fallacy.

"...conservatives and independents who put autonomy of the people first..."

This is a lie, as most conservatives do no such thing; that conservatives for the most part are hostile to the privacy rights of women, the equal protection rights of gay Americans, and the voting rights of minorities is evidence that they have little regard for individual liberty and the rights of their fellow Americans.

Correct, conservatives adore big government when it seems to serve their interests, or should I say, confirms their fears and prejudices.

 

[emilynghiem]

Who are you talking to?
I don't agree with projecting blame by eother right or left.

I believe in solving problems by finding points of agreement and building consensus decisions and solutions. More like the Greens approach to democracy by nonviolence and noncoersion.

BTW speaking of,
Its the Greens who complain the corporate politics by both left and right politicians
Is bypassing the Constitutional checks on govt and buying out both parties.

So if you want to enforce rule of law,
Thats where both parties depend on pleasing the corporate interests that fund their campaigns, and they both blame the other party for conflicts of interest.

So that explains why the right points out where the left overlooks wrongs, and likewise why the left only points out where the rightwing interests went too far.

If you look at corporations they invoke individual rights as citizens but dont have to.follow the bill.of rights like govt, even though they act as huge collective entities with collective ability to nfluence govt, by buyng out lobbying legislation and litigation in their favor. How many wrongs dont even surface because corporations have more power to sue and set precedence in their favor.

So thats where rule of law has been skewed. Both parties are guilty of letting politicians run amok with corporate dealings to bypass the democratic system and checks on govt.

Republicans blame Democrats and Democrats blame Republicans but neither fixes any of these problems because they are both on the take. They dont want to go against their campaign donors and financers. How convenient to keep blaming the other party. To get more funding to fight and never fix the problems.

 

[Disir]

Care to elaborate or are you just a emoticon moron?

Don't let facts get in the way of your emotions. Even though science and the law say otherwise by all means let your emotions rule. Further, I have never seen an individual that is LBG&T force a hetro to become LBG&T. Don't know too many people that are for illegal aliens voting.

 

[Disir]

Who are you talking to?
I don't agree with projecting blame by eother right or left.

I believe in solving problems by finding points of agreement and building consensus decisions and solutions. More like the Greens approach to democracy by nonviolence and noncoersion.

BTW speaking of,
Its the Greens who complain the corporate politics by both left and right politicians
Is bypassing the Constitutional checks on govt and buying out both parties.

So if you want to enforce rule of law,
Thats where both parties depend on pleasing the corporate interests that fund their campaigns, and they both blame the other party for conflicts of interest.

So that explains why the right points out where the left overlooks wrongs, and likewise why the left only points out where the rightwing interests went too far.

If you look at corporations they invoke individual rights as citizens but dont have to.follow the bill.of rights like govt, even though they act as huge collective entities with collective ability to nfluence govt, by buyng out lobbying legislation and litigation in their favor. How many wrongs dont even surface because corporations have more power to sue and set precedence in their favor.

So thats where rule of law has been skewed. Both parties are guilty of letting politicians run amok with corporate dealings to bypass the democratic system and checks on govt.

Republicans blame Democrats and Democrats blame Republicans but neither fixes any of these problems because they are both on the take. They dont want to go against their campaign donors and financers. How convenient to keep blaming the other party. To get more funding to fight and never fix the problems.

If you believed that then you would not have said this:
.liberals who depend on govt to establish the will of the people
and enforce things that way.Vs. conservatives and independents who put autonomy of the people first, and then form agreements among the people which then can be used to invoke authority of govt to establish public policy.

The Green Party is lovely but don't ask for details on the platform because they don't have any.

I am a liberal and an independent.

 

[emilynghiem]

"...liberals who depend on govt to establish the will of the people
and enforce things that way."

This fails as a straw man fallacy.

"...conservatives and independents who put autonomy of the people first..."

This is a lie, as most conservatives do no such thing; that conservatives for the most part are hostile to the privacy rights of women, the equal protection rights of gay Americans, and the voting rights of minorities is evidence that they have little regard for individual liberty and the rights of their fellow Americans.

Hi C_Clayton_Jones
Yes and no
The difference is when I CONFRONT prolife and conservatives
and explain the biases in laws using Constitutional concepts,
they ACCEPT corrections.

I have more trouble doing this with the left who don't commit to enforcing the Constitution
but only their party principles. So it takes a lot more explaining for such people to understand
using personal secular terms.

With prolife, when I explain that the laws end up targetting and punishing women
more than men, we actually AGREE that the men should be held equally responsible
for the decision to have sex when this leads to either unwanted pregnancy children or abortion.

The problem is that the govt is not authorized to police on that level, which is private.
So that is why the laws on abortion are unfairly skewed toward affecting women more than men.

One of my prolife conservative friends even acknowledged
that the pressure to have abortion must be coming from the men, not the women,
since the men have more interest in NOT paying for another child they don't want.

So that is the biggest difference.

I am much more able to explain the prochoice defense to prolife people
but have an almost impossible time explaining how to respect the prolife
believes to prochoice people who discriminate on the basis of religion and creed
and believe that is justified.

One of my friends who is so prolife she even believes that abortion should not be
allowed even in cases of rape or incest, as she herself was a child born of rape
and supports other mothers who choose to have their children and are pressured
and bullied to abort against their will and have to fight their own families to protect their children,

She even understood that she does not want to support laws that
"criminalize and punish women"
She AGREES that the problem is men are not held accountable
for rape, incest and coercion.

So this is unfair to blame the right when the people I've talked with
are more open minded than people on the left who refuse to open up and work together on prevention.

I only met one guy, a college student, who was so adamant about
making a statement about the rights of the child over the mother
that he didn't want to work together to prevent abortion by working together.
The head of that prolife campus group understood what I was saying,
and did want to include and share with prochoice activists on preventing
abortion and especially the coercion and relationship abuse affecting women
more than men since the women bear the responsibility for pregnancy, children and abortion
even if they were forced by men.

I believe it is the people who put Constitutional law or Christian law
first who are able to put aside politics second.

But if the Democrats attract people who don't relate to either Christian or Constitutional law,
then they are invoking some other authority of law which excludes the conservatives and prolife.

I find that if we can connect on the level of natural laws that include all people equally,
or Christian laws that forgive, or Constitutional laws that protect beliefs equally and
don't abuse govt to impose beliefs, we have a chance of hearing each other.

So that is where I succeed in reaching more prolife people with the concept
of including prochoice, but have much more difficulty the other way, with
trying to explain respect for prolife and conservative values to prochoice liberals and Democrats
conditioned to reject these as the enemy.

If people can be forgiving and less fearful, that's a huge factor.

The people on either right or left who "can't forgive but fear the other side"
is the number one indicator that determines how well they can include the other viewpoints
in working out a common solution.

If people on the right put God first before party, they have a chance to include all people.
Compared with people on the left putting party interests first before Constitutional inclusion of
all people including those who believe in God.

Right now the Republican party is split over issues of how to enforce Constitutional principles
more consistently and inclusively without compromising one for the other. If they can resolve that, I hope that can set a better example of what Democrats can do to be more inclusive and less dependent on fear based bullying.

For the Democrats to unite around Constitutional principles, I am guessing that the Muslims fighting for inclusion might serve as leadership to pull the party together, since the Democrats won't listen to Christian Constitutionalists but might respect Constitutional principles if these are taught by Muslims.

I thank you C_Clayton_Jones for trying to represent the secular side of Constitutional defenses.

If we can unite more people, on left and right, on Constitutional principles,
then we can reform and write laws based on consensus and not abuse govt or bullying to override dissent.
We can actually agree on means of redressing grievances and resolving objections
so that policies are based on INCLUSION and don't exclude or discriminate on the basis of creed.

 

[emilynghiem]

Who are you talking to?
I don't agree with projecting blame by eother right or left.

I believe in solving problems by finding points of agreement and building consensus decisions and solutions. More like the Greens approach to democracy by nonviolence and noncoersion.

BTW speaking of,
Its the Greens who complain the corporate politics by both left and right politicians
Is bypassing the Constitutional checks on govt and buying out both parties.

So if you want to enforce rule of law,
Thats where both parties depend on pleasing the corporate interests that fund their campaigns, and they both blame the other party for conflicts of interest.

So that explains why the right points out where the left overlooks wrongs, and likewise why the left only points out where the rightwing interests went too far.

If you look at corporations they invoke individual rights as citizens but dont have to.follow the bill.of rights like govt, even though they act as huge collective entities with collective ability to nfluence govt, by buyng out lobbying legislation and litigation in their favor. How many wrongs dont even surface because corporations have more power to sue and set precedence in their favor.

So thats where rule of law has been skewed. Both parties are guilty of letting politicians run amok with corporate dealings to bypass the democratic system and checks on govt.

Republicans blame Democrats and Democrats blame Republicans but neither fixes any of these problems because they are both on the take. They dont want to go against their campaign donors and financers. How convenient to keep blaming the other party. To get more funding to fight and never fix the problems.

If you believed that then you would not have said this:
.liberals who depend on govt to establish the will of the people
and enforce things that way.Vs. conservatives and independents who put autonomy of the people first, and then form agreements among the people which then can be used to invoke authority of govt to establish public policy.

The Green Party is lovely but don't ask for details on the platform because they don't have any.

I am a liberal and an independent.

Dear Disir
* I still don't see the leap you made in assuming I listen and follow rightwing talk radio.

* As for the Greens, yes they do have their own innovations
that they put into action and don't just talk about.
examples
1. independent currency to foster local economy and education
2. consensus decision making which they use within their own process
3. proportional representation that recognizes and seeks to include diversity by party
4. holding corporations accountable to the public instead of enjoying unchecked personhood

* The reason I stated the things above
is that is my own personal experience
working with other liberals and Democrats where they keep depending on govt,
and are slow to take action and responsibility directly,
and working with Republicans and conservatives who have great ideas
for independent solutions, but can't get collective support if everyone
is too busy fighting and funding political campaigns instead of solutions.

I have been too busy working two jobs to support nonprofit groups trying to save two districts being destroyed by political abuses of govt, so no, this history is NOT heard on any radio station except some on KPFT pacifica. Because it involves the left progressive trying to out the corrupt Democrats you won't hear this in the mainstream news, and the rightwing gets slammed if they blame Democrats for oppressing poor blacks. this nonsense I have experienced firsthand is completely "blacked out" in the media because it doesn't fit the agenda of either party. it seems the left/right divide between blacks is so strong it trumps any efforts to overcome it, until their own leadership unites first and takes responsibility directly.

I was focused on building a consensus from the grassroots up.
And I trust that the best leaders from all parties will emerge in the process.

But I keep finding more and more that the liberals I talk with
all WAIT on the Supreme Court to tell them what is Constitutional
or the President to say or do this or that, or they depend on their
Party to make changes and if they don't they stay stuck.

By the liberals' own political religion of waiting on govt to establish the will of the people
they can't seem to act on their own.

The idea of setting up an independent solution and then feeding THAT to govt to use
as a model is unheard of.

The Greens I spoke with were all ready to jump on independent currency
and start promoting payback to citizens for misspending of govt funds.

So it seems a matter of taking the best of all the ideas from all parties,
and trying to use the strengths without getting held back by the weaknesses.

The Democrats are good at pushing to make minority interests feel included
even though they just as much alienate other people at the same time.

The Republicans Tea Party and Libertarians are strong on Constitutional
education and outreach, though you can find where they contradict
themselves such as leaving Muslims out of religious freedom.

The Greens are big on environmental solutions and sustainable reforms,
and on addressing the issue of corporate corruption of govt.

Why can't we take the best of all parties and quit shooting
each other in the foot on where parties violate their own principles.
The Democrats defeat the meaning of prochoice with the ACA mandates.
So you can find a reason to shoot down any of these parties on principles
they violate themselves.

But is that going to solve any problems?
Instead of discrediting the entire party, why not let each one
focus on areas that they manage best?

Why not delegate the work to be done, and share the responsibilities
in more effective team work, instead of competing to control all areas
which no party can do by itself.

So that's where I believe this country is heading.

I'm glad you are an independent and hope that means
you are in a better position to see both the strengths and
weaknesses of each of the parties equally.

Thanks for replying on this thread.
I tried to thank the posts where you offer content and substance, even if I disagree,
because we need to share our experiences and knowledge if we are
going to cover all the problems and put together solutions inclusively. Thank you!

 

[emilynghiem]

"...liberals who depend on govt to establish the will of the people
and enforce things that way."

This fails as a straw man fallacy.

"...conservatives and independents who put autonomy of the people first..."

This is a lie, as most conservatives do no such thing; that conservatives for the most part are hostile to the privacy rights of women, the equal protection rights of gay Americans, and the voting rights of minorities is evidence that they have little regard for individual liberty and the rights of their fellow Americans.

Correct, conservatives adore big government when it seems to serve their interests, or should I say, confirms their fears and prejudices.

occupied
from talking with a conservative friend, it seems the corporations benefit more from LACK of regulations.
anytime more regulations are enacted, the big corporations pay bigger lawyers to work AROUND them anyway.

What I suggested instead is holding corporations equally responsible
for respecting and protecting the equal rights of citizens as under the Bill of Rights
and Constitutional principles.

so you don't have to micromanage each and every company, instance and industry.
The incorporation and license to operate can be revoked
if the corporation refuses to redress grievances, and to resolve
conflicts by consensus to make sure no individuals are abused or oppressed
by the "collective" influence or resources of the corporation, similar to checks on govt.

To make sure individuals don't abuse this either,
I would recommend that all citizens who want to invoke
equal protections of the laws, due process and right to petition
must also agree to Constitutional equal protections of interests
and to use mediation to resolve conflicts by consensus.

So hold citizens, corporations and govt to the same principles
of equal inclusion and protection under the laws.

This would promote the Constitutional principles that the
Conservative Republicans claim to champion, and would
limit govt to just what can be agreed upon by all people.
The rest would be delegated to the private parties, the people or states
to manage themselves if they can't agree on policies.

 

[emilynghiem]

"...liberals who depend on govt to establish the will of the people
and enforce things that way."

This fails as a straw man fallacy.

"...conservatives and independents who put autonomy of the people first..."

This is a lie, as most conservatives do no such thing; that conservatives for the most part are hostile to the privacy rights of women, the equal protection rights of gay Americans, and the voting rights of minorities is evidence that they have little regard for individual liberty and the rights of their fellow Americans.

Every example you made is wrong. Privacy for women isn't a problem at all for conservatives, murder of an unborn child is. You look at a fetus at 6 or 8 weeks and honestly tell me that is not a person. If they discovered a single cell organism on Mars you would celebrate that as a life in need of protection yet you won't say that for an unborn child.

I want rights for gays, thee same rights they have always had. They are free to live their lives as they wish. They can call what union they want a marriage but it isn't. My objection to gays is they don't want to live for themselves they want to force me to conform to their version of life. They want the one way street not me. Where is the so called tolerance for the rest of us?

Minorities are free to vote, it's been the law for a long time now. Illegals are not allowed to vote. That's not racist it's common fucking sense. Asking for an ID in order to vote in a country where we have 5-10 million illegals should be a no brainer. Only the dumbest of people would give them people the right to vote and call ID voting racist.

Hi AzMike
1. the problem with laws on abortion and prolife
is they don't hold the MEN equally accountable but disproportionately affect the women after the fact.
if rape laws were expanded to hold MEN equally responsible for
acts of sex that lead to unwanted children, unwanted pregrancy and/or unwanted abortion
then it wouldn't come across as just targetting and affecting women

2. For gay marriage, the laws that went too far were the ones BANNING gay marriage.
Where these beliefs can be equal is on the level of personal practice outside the state.
So if laws were written neutrally enough, they would neither exclude nor impose gay marriage
but allow people to contract as they wish. And keep the state out of it, so nobody's beliefs end up imposed on anyone else.

3. for citizenship and voting, I recommend that partisan agenda be kept the responsibility of parties and their members to pay for themselves. only use govt for policies that all people and parties agree to. if they can't agree then keep those private.
the parties have enough resources and structures to represent people across the states. So health care and other policies that only one party is pushing can be implemented by that party for members who agree to those policies and not impose their partisan beliefs on anyone else who is free to organize their own health care systems htrough their networks or parties.

for citizenship I believe this should be based on agreements to follow the laws and be legally and financially responsible for any crimes or abuses convicted of that would otherwise impose a burden on the public. if you cannot afford to pay your costs of your criminal behavior and restitution owed for damages, there should be a legal guardian who agrees to be responsible, or this can be done through parties or through school districts or insurance or some way to hold people accountable to deter crimes and abuses that otherwise cost taxpayer money.

So there would be no incentive to commit voter fraud if the groups become responsible for the members they recruit.
they would become responsible for paying for th eprograms they promise to provide, so the incentive would be
to make these cost effective and self-supporting where the members can afford to operate these programs.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

Hi AzMike
1. the problem with laws on abortion and prolife
is they don't hold the MEN equally accountable but disproportionately affect the women after the fact.
if rape laws were expanded to hold MEN equally responsible for
acts of sex that lead to unwanted children, unwanted pregrancy and/or unwanted abortion
then it wouldn't come across as just targetting and affecting women

2. For gay marriage, the laws that went too far were the ones BANNING gay marriage.
Where these beliefs can be equal is on the level of personal practice outside the state.
So if laws were written neutrally enough, they would neither exclude nor impose gay marriage
but allow people to contract as they wish. And keep the state out of it, so nobody's beliefs end up imposed on anyone else.

3. for citizenship and voting, I recommend that partisan agenda be kept the responsibility of parties and their members to pay for themselves. only use govt for policies that all people and parties agree to. if they can't agree then keep those private.
the parties have enough resources and structures to represent people across the states. So health care and other policies that only one party is pushing can be implemented by that party for members who agree to those policies and not impose their partisan beliefs on anyone else who is free to organize their own health care systems htrough their networks or parties.

for citizenship I believe this should be based on agreements to follow the laws and be legally and financially responsible for any crimes or abuses convicted of that would otherwise impose a burden on the public. if you cannot afford to pay your costs of your criminal behavior and restitution owed for damages, there should be a legal guardian who agrees to be responsible, or this can be done through parties or through school districts or insurance or some way to hold people accountable to deter crimes and abuses that otherwise cost taxpayer money.

So there would be no incentive to commit voter fraud if the groups become responsible for the members they recruit.
they would become responsible for paying for th eprograms they promise to provide, so the incentive would be
to make these cost effective and self-supporting where the members can afford to operate these programs.

1- Men should be accountable, nobody ever claimed they shouldn't be. The problem is when you have a societal norm of whores and men who court them for the fifteen minutes they have to in order to get laid you have these kinds of problems. There's no law you can pass to replace morality. Rape is already against the law. Not sure why you added that in there.

2- There is no such thing as a gay marriage. Marriage is a religious based bond between one man and one woman. The government has no reason to be involved whatsoever. No marriage laws should exist and nobody should have to put up with the government defining it. Homosexuals can join together in whatever in the hell they think they have. It's not a marriage and never will be since the normal people can also have their own religion based marriage between a man and a woman without the government interfering. The problem is and always has been the government insisting on making the definitions.

3- I vote for simply making people who are citizens able to vote with an ID. I don't see a reason for your other bullshit. Party or not a party show a fucking ID that proves you are a citizen and you get to vote. If you can't do that fuck off.

 

[emilynghiem]

Hi AzMike I'm glad to see that we agree on more points than we disagree on.
Sorry for giving the wrong impression otherwise.
I think as you come to see how much we agree, you won't see the need
to throw in derogatory terms like "FU off" and referring to certain women as "whores" that just makes you look bad. I can look past that, but some people
can't so I hope you will be more careful in the future not to discredit yourself
by distracting from valid points you make by throwing in unnecessary language like that.

Please see below. Thanks!

1- Men should be accountable, nobody ever claimed they shouldn't be. The problem is when you have a societal norm of whores and men who court them for the fifteen minutes they have to in order to get laid you have these kinds of problems. There's no law you can pass to replace morality. Rape is already against the law. Not sure why you added that in there.

Great we agree, and clearly we do not want to see either men or women abusing the law to accuse the other wrongly if they are acting irresponsibly.

Regarding rape, was I was offering was to expand the degrees of "statutory rape" or have other degrees of rape, where ANY act that leads to unwanted pregnancy,
unwanted children, or unwanted abortion by either partner, can be used to file complaints of some form of "rape" or "relationship abuse" so BOTH partners
are held responsible, not just the woman.

How is it fair to punish the woman and not the man for abortion if
the pregnancy is caused by rape, incest or other coercion?

You are quick to point out cases of women abusing sexual relations
when they don't intend to have the child; but what about men?

Since this level of 'relationship abuse' starts on a private level that is not the jurisdiction of govt to police, that is why it is going unchecked.

What I suggest is that local communities, such as college and school districts,
come up with a policy to address ANY complaints of "relationship abuse" with
required counseling for BOTH parties until the issues are resolved, so regardless
who was the victim, who was the abuser or the abused, who was acting promiscuous or not, the problem is resolved to the satisfaction of the complaining parties. I believe that by holding both partners accountable for any complaints
of abuse, this would catch either men or women who are abusing relationships.
If we can intervene on this level, that would prevent all the focus and weight of the laws disproportionately targeting the women after pregnancy occurs.

2- There is no such thing as a gay marriage. Marriage is a religious based bond between one man and one woman. The government has no reason to be involved whatsoever. No marriage laws should exist and nobody should have to put up with the government defining it. Homosexuals can join together in whatever in the hell they think they have. It's not a marriage and never will be since the normal people can also have their own religion based marriage between a man and a woman without the government interfering. The problem is and always has been the government insisting on making the definitions.

I agree it should be kept out of govt since it is a private matter of personal beliefs.
I do believe churches and private groups/individuals have equal right to conduct marriages according to their beliefs as a spiritual ceremony.

With beliefs, if people in a district or state AGREE on laws, then sure, they can have those even if they involve religious beliefs; but if they cannot agree, they either need to keep laws neutral and all-inclusive, or keep the issues private and out of govt hands.

3- I vote for simply making people who are citizens able to vote with an ID. I don't see a reason for your other bullshit. Party or not a party show a fucking ID that proves you are a citizen and you get to vote. If you can't do that fuck off.

I happen to agree that using ID is the simplest way to verify Voter ID.
You are arguing with the wrong person, and I have no idea who the "FU off"
is directed at because I don't disagree with you.

The reason I bring up Voter ID is that it serves as a way to explain
between liberals and conservatives similar arguments that
'health insurance is necessary anyway' so "no one is losing rights by requiring it."

People are contesting both for their own reasons, and cannot understand
each other's objections.

So I brought this issue up, to try to compare it with the health care mandates.
Even if we don't agree, and we think these cases are completely different
and unrelated, they may help to shed light on why some people feel that
some rights are so "inalienable" they reject regulations that seem common sense to others.

I don't mind Voter ID, but I do mind the health care mandates
that aren't the only way to pay for health care.

Out of respect for people who are saying better means are needed besides Voter ID, I am open to resolving those conflicts, the same way I am asking people to resolve conflicts over ACA mandates that "aren't the only way" and shouldn't be imposed without the consent of people affected.

 

[Clementine]

It has to do with recognizing the rule of law. This is something the right seems to have a problem with. The left doesn't depend on the government. The government is the consensus. I know, it's a tough one. It's that republic-y thingy.

Liberals like making a lot of laws based on how they feel about things. They ignore laws, like immigration, that they disagree with. Obama has delayed parts of Obamacare just to try and make it look less harmful than it is. The law means nothing.

Liberals don't care about a consensus among the people. The majority didn't want Obamacare. Dems got their asses handed to them last election, but Obama continues to ignore the message sent by the people.

Liberals are all about authority as long as they can be the ones to dictate.