<p>"People who publicly proclaim that homosexual acts are sinful, which is a part of their religious faith, are risking being charged with hate crimes"</p>
<p>What exactly do you mean by public? If you want to sit around with other bigots in your church and talk about how sinful homosexuality is, that's freedom of speech. If you want to go to a gay wedding and hold up signs saying that they are going to hell, that's harassment. The former is guaranteed to you the latter is not.</p>
<p>By public I mean, say, an article in a religious or political publication, or an academic ethics journal. In present-day Canada, writers who assert views that are not pristinely politically correct (no matter how true, logical, and well-researched) are risking a lot. All it takes is some liberal group making a stink about it to the Supreme Court with charges of "hate" and "intolerance" and your ass is being investigated under hate-speech laws. If you ask me, this is seriously messed-up.</p>
<p>And please, save the "bigot" rhetoric. I believe that homosexual acts are a sin and I am not a bigot. Or, to use that ever-popular charge, a homophobe. It just goes against my religion. You wouldn't be so free with those charges around an orthodox Jew or Buddhist, so don't be with me.</p>
<p>Fides: Too bad that your party advocates passing an amendment that affects everyone, even people who don't share the same beliefs as yourself. When people take action like this, it goes beyond saying "it just goes against me religion". If you're so vehemently opposed to gay marriage, then don't marry someone of the same sex, but don't try to push your religion to become the law of the land. I respect your beliefs, but I just find it hypocritical that people who are supposed to be tolerant and accepting are trying to control people who don't necessarily share their views. Also, I don't think that the left's push for gay rights should be considered an assault on religion by the state. It doesn't affect whether straight, Christian couples can get married, does it?</p>
<p>Actually, I think MD's can go two ways. Those who are in private practice and are making the big bucks are going to be especially conservative because, essentially, they're running a private enterprise. However, MD's who focus on research, especially in the area of adut and embryonic stem cells, will definitely be more likely to lean towards the left. I tend to have more respect for the latter because they are choosing an intellectual fulfillment rather than a monetary one, but that doesn't mean that practioners aren't well educated or that I'd want one who wasn't.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Those who are in private practice and are making the big bucks are going to be especially conservative because, essentially, they're running a private enterprise.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Most private practice physicians I know are still fairly liberal folks.</p>
<p>And remember, everyone, one can be libertarian about economic issues, but socially conservative. Or, one can be liberal about economic issues, but socially libertarian.</p>
<p>All too often, these silly Internet debates end up hinging on the so-called dichotomy between those bleeding-heart liberals and baby eating conservatives: a gross oversimplification, to be sure. For example, I know plenty of folks who are upset by the GOP's current trend toward socially conservative legislation regarding gays, yet still agree with its economic policies and security policies (I'm thinking of the Lynn Cheney types.)</p>
<p>But, talking about the subtleties of voters and citizens isn't as much fun as just grabbing those wide brushes, so cleverly wielded by the talking heads, pundits, and arseholes in the media, and basically telling people where they fall on every issue based on arbitrary distinctions.</p>
<p>"Fides: Too bad that your party advocates passing an amendment that affects everyone, even people who don't share the same beliefs as yourself."</p>
<p>What party are you speaking of? My party, the Conservative Party of Canada, merely advocates democracy -- that is, holding the question of gay marriage to an open vote (something former Liberal PM Paul Martin failed to do in passing the legislation). And that's what we're going to be doing this fall. The citizens of Canada, through their elected Members of Parliament, will decide the issue. I am perfectly happy with that; I think it is the noble way.</p>
<p>"Also, I don't think that the left's push for gay rights should be considered an assault on religion by the state. It doesn't affect whether straight, Christian couples can get married, does it?"</p>
<p>No, but it has a way of making the social and moral views of Christians and others who share them suddenly intolerable in society. If you dare to respectfully disagree with the Rainbow Gestapo, you are a "problem" that must be dealt with.</p>
<p>
[quote]
No, but it has a way of making the social and moral views of Christians and others who share them suddenly intolerable in society.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>How does allowing gay marriage suddenly make straight marriage intolerable? The majority of people will still be straight after any such legislation has passed.</p>
<p>Fides: My sincerest apologies. I didn't know you were from Canada (though I should have checked your location). I assumed that you were a member for the Republican Party of the United States, which was my error.</p>
<p>Well, if a sort of "Rainbow Gestapo" becomes formed, then liberalism is going against what it advocates, which is tolerance and acceptance. However, I must admit that many of your comments have not been very respectful... T_T</p>
<p>Coulter is usually just pointing out that the liberal battle-cry of "tolerance" and "acceptance" is a load of crap, that the only things liberals tolerate and accept is themselves.</p>
<p>To add, libs, the next time you feel an urge to call conservatives intolerant, bigoted, and closed-minded, keep in mind that your side is those very things underneath its happy-face. </p>
<p>And before you say "conservatives are too," yeah, that may well be. But at least we aren't the ones screaming the contrary from the rooftops.</p>
<p>Fides....let's just agree there are people from both sides of the political spectrum who are extremely intolerant, despite what they may claim otherwise.</p>
<p>"No, but it has a way of making the social and moral views of Christians and others who share them suddenly intolerable in society. If you dare to respectfully disagree with the Rainbow Gestapo, you are a "problem" that must be dealt with."</p>
<p>Passing regulations banning gay marriage is not the same thing as "respectfully disagreeing." And yes, you are a bigot. If a form of religion is bigoted and you practice that religion, then guess what? By transference, you yourself are bigoted. The very least you can do is stand by your views and stop trying to hide behind your religion. Don't get me wrong, Christian bigots aren't the only ones I despise. But I'm American, so those are the ones that have any effect on my immediate surroundings. If I were in India, I'm sure I'd be protesting Hindu religious fanatics, and if I were in some Muslim country(or at least one where I wouldn't get shot for doing so), I would be protesting the Islamic fanatics too. </p>
<p>"Coulter is usually just pointing out that the liberal battle-cry of "tolerance" and "acceptance" is a load of crap, that the only things liberals tolerate and accept is themselves."</p>
<p>Yeah, I actually took the 2 hours to read through her new book. Let's take for example, a subject that she spends a good deal of it on: Creationism. Now what sort of tolerance are we supposed to extend to the subject? No one is certainly threatening it overall: that is you're free to practice Christianity pretty much anywhere. But if you're asking that it be tolerated in public education, then that is a whole different story. The goal of education, scientific education, is to deliver facts that can be verified. For all the fuss about so-called Creation Science, all the so-called proof comes down to is what a book says. It has no more place in school than does Dianetics(the Scientology book). So if that is the "tolerance" you are looking for, then I agree, people should be intolerant of your beliefs. If you want to learn that story, do it on non-taxpayer money. </p>
<p>But other than that, I don't know how you can say people are intolerant. No one is outlawing Christianity or excluding people from groups just because they are Christian. If professors and students disagree with you or don't want to include your views in certain discussions, it may well be because they've heard your side of the story before and have dissmissed your points. That's not being intolerant, it's a logical process of elimination. They have the right to their own beliefs too, you know. Contrast that with an amendment BANNING gay marriage, and you see what real intolerance is.</p>
<p>I just want to point out, that I do not consider myself a liberal overall(or a conservative, though I'm sure you figured that part out). I don't support affirmative action(at least not on the basis of race), nor do I support Political Correctness. I support the death penalty under some circumstances. My mind is still out on the whole issue of gun control. But when it comes to religion and state, I'm very firm on the whole division of church and state, and find it sad to see the US wasting time we don't have regressing in this regard.</p>
<p>Sigh, I'm just trying to be a nice guy, but you're still being stubborn as usual, Fides T_T. Some liberals are quick to condemn conservatives as bigots, but that goes against what liberalism is supposed to stand for, for one, and, two, isn't true of everyone who has liberal views.</p>
<p>I'm sure many liberals respect your personal beliefs about gay marriage and the place of religion in state, but you keep offending them by generalizing them into one big group of hypocrites and saying that "the only thing liberals only tolerate and accept is themselves". It's hard to be nice when you put people on the defensive. I think you'd win a lot more people over to your way of thinking if you showed them a little more respect. </p>
<p>Anyway, the point is, and I'll be surprised if this hasn't been said before, it's not a good idea to generalize. When we do that, we leave out all the intricacies that make us individuals. I think both ends of the political spectrum should be more receptive towards each other.</p>
<p>"I pointed out that, for the last 50 years..." No actually you just brought that up now. I'm not debating that I'm right, I only pointed out 2 things: 1. that there's backing to my claim using the data that YOU provided. 2. the citation you provided does not prove anything about your claim. Instead it proves it false. On the other hand, you seem to be debating for absolute correctness. Here is my caricature of you: "I AM RIGHT. LOOK AT MY PROOF. DON'T CHECK THE VALIDITY OF MY PROOF. JUST LOOK AT WHAT I SAID. I AM RIGHT." :) </p>
<p>My post is all about interpreting the data that you linked in the correct manner. Your post contains maybe two sentences of factual information. As other people have already pointed out, it is much more arrogant and attacking than my explanation of the link you provided. Take a look:</p>
<p>Hell, I know how accomplished I am, and it's weird.
I am stunned at how condescending you are. You can hide it as "information," but it is too direct and cruel for that.
I hope you will learn that the most intelligent people are the ones who are the most secure in it and lack your compulsion to win on trivial points and then shove it down someone's throat.
It does not bring to mind an intelligent, thoughtful young man, secure in his brilliance; it brings to mind the acne-ridden third-string football player who trips people in the hallway for laughs.
Score your cheap points. It doesn't undermine my intellect nor my accomplishments.
Babe, I worked with NASA doing nanotechnology before I went to a top law school. Try engaging me in intelligent, civil discourse.
even if you missed that episode of Sesame Street</p>
<p>So much for useful information. Wake up. "If you reread your own post, ariesathena, you might find that it is quite a bit more condescending (and arrogant) than the previous post." I haven't posted anything about myself because I'm sticking to the issue at hand, while you go on and on about how accomplished you are lol. Instead of ending it at "I'll more than happily admit that the CNN data does not support the majority all college grads/conservative. My apologies." you go on and on about trivial things. </p>
<p>The classic indicator of someone who is arrogant is when he/she can't just admit that they're wrong. The link that you provided with your original statement doesn't back up the statement. It's as simple as that. Accept it and move on. We don't need to hear your NASA stories, because honestly nobody cares. Focus your energy on understanding why three or four people posted under you disagreeing with your points.</p>