Why the Democrats lost and how the board provides an example

[frigidmagi]

I'm not a political expert. I'm not a genius. So while I could be wrong, I figure I could be right has well.

I live in Middle America, I was born here, I went to school here, I'll never quite fit in here. But you can see alot from outside and I sit outside the the biggest divide in America right now, Liberial or Conservative, Republician or Democrat, Red or Blue.

I don't agree with Gun Control. I don't agree with reversing Roe vs Wade. I don't agree with Banning Gay Marriage. I don't agree with Weakening the Military.

But that's a different a thread. I look at some of the speeches written here and I realize if I subbed Queer and Godless for Redneck and Fundie, I wouldn't be able to tell the difference. And while I despair at what my neighbors have done, I now see how it came about. This election was the Democrats to win, easy has pulling a trigger. But Middle America doesn't vote for a party that talks down to it, or talks at it. They want leaders that talk to them. Kerry failed to convince them that he would do that. It is not enough to be right. Perhaps it should be, but it's not.

Or has a drama teacher I know liked to say "Sincerity is not enough, you have to make the other guy believe it."

The Democrats failed to do that, first by picking Kerry, who has we all have faced ran a terrible campaign against an easy target. They convinced my nieghbors here that they don't care about what they think, or what they have to offer to the nation (I'm sure all of you will now scream that they have nothing to offer. If you believe that, why should they support you?). And the Republician party took that hopfully mistaken belief and ran with it all the way to control of the national government.

There is a middle ground, just has sure has there are extremist and it is up to the Democrats to find it. The Republician party is currently thriving on misunderstandings, illusions and distortions and the Democratic party is currently only helping.

[Darth Wong]

I look at some of the speeches written here and I realize if I subbed Queer and Godless for Redneck and Fundie, I wouldn't be able to tell the difference.

Sure you would; I can show logically why it's wrong to be a fundie redneck. They can't show any logical reason why it's wrong to be a godless queer.

And while I despair at what my neighbors have done, I now see how it came about. This election was the Democrats to win, easy has pulling a trigger.

What makes you think that support for Bush was so soft that the Democrats could have won so easily? I don't think it was soft at all. Bush supporters, in my experience, tend to be extremely obstinate about everything, and widespread poll results showing that the majority still think there were WMDs in Iraq or that Hussein was involved with 9/11 are a real indicator of the kind of ignorance we're dealing with.

There is a middle ground, just has sure has there are extremist and it is up to the Democrats to find it. The Republician party is currently thriving on misunderstandings, illusions and distortions and the Democratic party is currently only helping.

Sure, there's always a middle ground between the truth and outright pandering bullshit. It's unfortunate that politicians have to find it because of an ignorant populace.

And yes, I look down on those rural folk and their uneducated ways. Yes, that makes me an elitist. Boo hoo. What you're saying is just a long-winded version of "the Democrats need to pander to the dumb rednecks". No shit.

[Durandal]

This election was the Democrats to win, easy has pulling a trigger.

It's "as", not "has". This is a consistent mistake in your posts, and it makes them difficult to read.

[CJvR]

I think that the only time Kerry was ahead in the race was after the first debate when Bush all but blew his head off by one of the worst debate efforts I have ever seen.

However I seriously doubt a rather colorless technorat like Kerry will ever have a chance at winning an election in a country at war.

[MKSheppard]

Linky

“There is a large divide in the United States. This is a divide between rural and urban, uneducated and educated, sacred and secular. The defining moral issues of the election include that of abortion, illegal aliens and gay marriage.” Corey H., (New York, NY)

First came the shock. Then came the pouting. And lastly, we see the excuses.

According to the political “southpaws,” George W. Bush was re-elected by a group of voters who all share the same characteristics. Namely, they are all uneducated, racist, homophobic rural bible thumpers.

All 58,640,761 of them.

I makes you rather fearful of venturing beyond the protective borders of the “big cites,” doesn’t it?

Indeed, if you were to buy into the not-so-subtle condescension of the “progressive” urbanites of this country, you would be convinced that – with the exception of Chicago – everything between the East Coast and West Coast is one big “Damnation Alley” populated by hateful simpletons and gun-toting religious fanatics.

But the irony of this belief is that the real ignorance lies precisely within the “big cites.” And this is coincidently where most of the liberal elites of this nation call home.

If you look at the “blue” states, you will see that most of them have at least one large metropolitan area. Specifically, take a look at the cities of New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Philadelphia, Boston, San Francisco, and Seattle. These major urban areas tend to consolidate much of the economic and political power of their respective states. And it’s no exaggeration that very large cities are typically much more liberal in their political orientation than their smaller counterparts.

But do these large and highly influential metropolises really represent America as a whole?

The answer is a resounding “No.”

To begin with, the aforementioned cites are the collective home to approximately 25 to 30 million people. If you look at the most recent U.S. population estimates, this implies that there are more than 260 million Americans living elsewhere in this country. This significant fact has been carelessly ignored by many of the urban liberal elites who instead choose to characterize “Middle America” as some sort of savage outback populated by hoards of unwashed toothless Huns.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

The “red” states contain many of the “second tier” cites such as Indianapolis, Oklahoma City, Cincinnati, Dallas, Phoenix, Charlotte, and Tampa. Many of these “smaller” urban areas boast major universities and established high tech industries and are home to highly educated populations.

Indeed, city size is certainly no indication of the intelligence or aptitude of the population. You can find many well-educated and talented professionals in even smaller communities such as

Lincoln, Reno, Topeka, Richmond, Knoxville, Lexington, and Fayetteville.

The people in these places are not all rednecks, bible thumpers, rubes, or homophobes. Many are very well-educated business people whose primary concern is making a living and contributing towards their communities. Some go to church regularly. Some never go at all. Some hoist the flag every day outside of their houses. Others think this behavior is a bit too “over the top.”

In short, they’re not representative of the America that is portrayed in the popular media. Their lives don’t mimic “Sex in the City” or “Will and Grace.” The men in particular don’t act like the characters in “Seinfeld” or “Everybody Loves Raymond.” They quietly do their jobs and they do them well.

If you ask the people in “Middle America” directly, they will tell you that they don’t really pay much attention to the fates of the characters on “Friends.” As a matter of fact, many will tell you that they’re glad that that particular series is over. If you press them for more details, they will reluctantly (out of politeness) tell you that they always thought Joey was an idiot, Chandler was a wimp, and Ross was an irresponsible whiner.

Bottom line, they could never identify with the “hip” and “progressive” urban mindset and its mercurial sense of moral relativity.

But there is one thing that many in “Middle America” do have in common. They tend to believe in a more universal sense of fair play. It’s not necessarily a “moral values” issue as it is an issue of integrity and decency. And candidly, many of these “uneducated rubes” took 9-11 much more personally than did their urbanite counterparts.

In the final analysis, the urban liberal elites gravely underestimated “Middle America.” In fact, many of these urban intellectuals and media darlings did nothing but further alienate this sizeable voting block with their own deplorable behavior over the past year.

In other words, they turned off the majority of the American voters – most of whom still live outside of the large urban areas.

So now, as the initial shock of the election wears off, the Hollywood elite and the East Coast intelligentsia are looking to place the blame anywhere but on themselves. So instead of admitting that the rest of the nation doesn’t conform to their worldview, they are choosing to characterize “Middle America” as a bunch of gun-toting, bible thumping, xenophobic, NASCAR-obsessed morons.

In other words, they’re beginning to act just like Europe.

[fgalkin]

Except that almost all urban areas tend to vote democrat, as seen here. So, the article's argument that its all "teh librul elite" in the Northeast falls apart.

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[Pablo Sanchez]

Linky

Shep:
Your article contains a number of wholly incorrect statements which you may have missed because it glosses over them so fast. Key among them would be the references to urban areas in Red States as if their presence somehow disproves the stereotypes flung around about Red States. If you look at a county-by-county electoral map you'll find that urban (urbane? ) areas pretty much everywhere went Kerry.

Also, I think the person writing the article is misinterpretting exactly what some liberals are saying about the vote. It's not that the majority of those who voted for Bush are fundamentalist retards (though they were a significant portion)--It's switched around: the vast majority of fundamentalist retards voted for Bush. That's a reflection on his platform, and a bad one. One could make a strong argument that Bush's victory hinged on the unexpectedly high turnout among the ignorant. This is especially underscored by the vast numbers of people who decided their vote by the essentially meaningless criterion of "values."

[Axis Kast]

That's a reflection on his platform, and a bad one.

If a former criminal voted for Kerry, does that make his platform a bad one?

One could make a strong argument that Bush's victory hinged on the unexpectedly high turnout among the ignorant. This is especially underscored by the vast numbers of people who decided their vote by the essentially meaningless criterion of "values."

I don't vote "values" myself; but I know plenty of people who voted for Kerry based on the presumption that "social principles" - read: "values" - were the most important issue of the election. You do realize that when the liberals went to the polls this Tuesday, many - I dare say huge numbers, if not an outright majority - voted for values, as well. The thing of it is, they lost.

[Darth Wong]

That's a reflection on his platform, and a bad one.

If a former criminal voted for Kerry, does that make his platform a bad one?

If criminals overwhelmingly voted for Kerry, it would suggest that he's pandering to criminals.

I don't vote "values" myself; but I know plenty of people who voted for Kerry based on the presumption that "social principles" - read: "values" - were the most important issue of the election. You do realize that when the liberals went to the polls this Tuesday, many - I dare say huge numbers, if not an outright majority - voted for values, as well. The thing of it is, they lost.

The difference would be that the liberals' values came from a piece of paper called the Constitution, while the conservatives' values came from a piece of paper called the Bible.

[Pablo Sanchez]

If a former criminal voted for Kerry, does that make his platform a bad one?

No. Two problems with your bullshit analogy:
1) Defining the person as a "former" criminal makes the entire exercise inane. If he has reformed, then there is nothing separating him from any other citizen. An unrepentant fundamentalist is another thing entirely.
2) The heading "former criminals" does not represent millions of people distributed quite widely across the geographic and demographic landscape, whose primary shared beliefs are willful ignorance and xenophobic intolerance. This is the case for fundies.

So, yeah, your analogy is bullshit.

I don't vote "values" myself; but I know plenty of people who voted for Kerry based on the presumption that "social principles" - read: "values" - were the most important issue of the election. You do realize that when the liberals went to the polls this Tuesday, many - I dare say huge numbers, if not an outright majority - voted for values, as well. The thing of it is, they lost.

This argument only works if you use a totally vague and technically incorrect definition for "values voting." By the definition that you're trying to use, everyone who voted is a "values voter," because everyone voted in support of some value they hold. Since the polls quite obvious refer specifically to moral values, your argument has no substance whatsoever.

[Rogue 9]

1) Defining the person as a "former" criminal makes the entire exercise inane. If he has reformed, then there is nothing separating him from any other citizen. An unrepentant fundamentalist is another thing entirely.

I'm not taking his position, but if the person is voting, he can't be currently incarcerated, which renders him ineligible for voting. "Current" criminals cannot vote, and therefore cannot be used in the analogy.

[Drooling Iguana]

1) Defining the person as a "former" criminal makes the entire exercise inane. If he has reformed, then there is nothing separating him from any other citizen. An unrepentant fundamentalist is another thing entirely.

I'm not taking his position, but if the person is voting, he can't be currently incarcerated, which renders him ineligible for voting. "Current" criminals cannot vote, and therefore cannot be used in the analogy.

A criminal can still vote, provided he hasn't been caught yet.

[Axis Kast]

If criminals overwhelmingly voted for Kerry, it would suggest that he's pandering to criminals.

Not necessarily.

As I pointed out, plenty of Jews in my community vote the Democratic ticket straight up and down – quite irrespective of the platforms espoused by the candidates in question. In fact, their entire calculus consists of wanking about the supposed “good ole’ days” – which ones, I’ve never been able to get out of them – when Democratic Presidents stood by Israel, hook or crook.

Now, it’s true that Bush has pandered to fundamentalists. But, on the other side of the coin, it’s also true that Kerry pandered to the labor vote. You argue that, if Bush enacts his platform, social conditions in this country will go down the tubes. I ague that, if Kerry could enact his platform, economic conditions in this country would go down the tubes. Of course, the referendums on gay marriage would have been on the ballots irrespective of Bush, and as much as Bush panders to conservative voters, he did not push the country more toward conservatism in and of himself. That said, it doesn’t matter who the individual voted for on social issues this time around; they’re likely to get something more conservative anyway, since the processes would take place with or without George W. Bush. True Bush may “add” one or two points on the conservative agenda to the law-books, but as compared to Kerry, who would have had plenty of power to restrict corporate earnings and spend frivolously on subsidies to degrade the whole economy, it’s a trade-off many people are more than willing to accept for the time being.

So what does all this mean? If you’re going to cry about the ill effects of pandering to a voting block whose ideas are antithetical to the way the nation should be going per a liberal agenda, you had more reason to criticize Kerry than you did Bush. In fact, because Kerry probably wouldn’t have been able to enact his liberalizing social policies even if elected, the glaring faults and negatives of Kerry’s pandering outweigh those of Bush. And, since all politicians must pander to get elected, Bush comes out the fresher flower.

The difference would be that the liberals' values came from a piece of paper called the Constitution, while the conservatives' values came from a piece of paper called the Bible.

Uh, I hate to break it to you, but plenty of members on this forum have suggested that abortion should be banned not because the Pope says so, but because they feel people should take responsibility for their own actions. A huge segment of the anti-gay bloc is so disposed not because they “get it in Church,” but because, in fact, they have yet to come to terms with the possibility that somebody close to them might be gay, and are keen to restrict the possibility of having to encounter homosexuality in their everyday lives (in order that nobody around them be “swayed” into it, or feel comfortable announcing it). This ties into Pablo’s ridiculous argument that an election predicated on “social values” can only be read as an election on “religious morality.”

This argument only works if you use a totally vague and technically incorrect definition for "values voting." By the definition that you're trying to use, everyone who voted is a "values voter," because everyone voted in support of some value they hold. Since the polls quite obvious refer specifically to moral values, your argument has no substance whatsoever.

You seem to be arguing that a “values voter” is a “religious morality” voter. If so, that’s just stupid. As I’ve pointed out above, people can hold the social views you find so repugnant even without having read one iota of scripture.

[Darth Wong]

If criminals overwhelmingly voted for Kerry, it would suggest that he's pandering to criminals.

Not necessarily.

As I pointed out, plenty of Jews in my community vote the Democratic ticket straight up and down – quite irrespective of the platforms espoused by the candidates in question. In fact, their entire calculus consists of wanking about the supposed “good ole’ days” – which ones, I’ve never been able to get out of them – when Democratic Presidents stood by Israel, hook or crook.

Ignorance works too, but why should I assume that your personal anecdotes about "Jews in my community" translate into a nationwide trend, unlike the fundie pandering which is clearly nationwide? They're probably just going on the fact that the Democrats ran a Jewish candidate for VP in the 2000 election.

Now, it’s true that Bush has pandered to fundamentalists. But, on the other side of the coin, it’s also true that Kerry pandered to the labor vote. You argue that, if Bush enacts his platform, social conditions in this country will go down the tubes. I ague that, if Kerry could enact his platform, economic conditions in this country would go down the tubes.

Or the pendulum would swing back somewhat after 4 years of basically giving big corporations the keys to the country.

Of course, the referendums on gay marriage would have been on the ballots irrespective of Bush, and as much as Bush panders to conservative voters, he did not push the country more toward conservatism in and of himself.

I didn't say that Bush caused social reactionism. I'm saying that he took advantage of it.

That said, it doesn’t matter who the individual voted for on social issues this time around; they’re likely to get something more conservative anyway, since the processes would take place with or without George W. Bush. True Bush may “add” one or two points on the conservative agenda to the law-books, but as compared to Kerry, who would have had plenty of power to restrict corporate earnings and spend frivolously on subsidies to degrade the whole economy, it’s a trade-off many people are more than willing to accept for the time being.

I am fully aware of your "what's good for the big corporations is good for America" philosophy. I don't believe it's that simple. Quite frankly, with the sheer amount of money being spent, the government could have created more jobs by simply expanding the government.

So what does all this mean? If you’re going to cry about the ill effects of pandering to a voting block whose ideas are antithetical to the way the nation should be going per a liberal agenda, you had more reason to criticize Kerry than you did Bush. In fact, because Kerry probably wouldn’t have been able to enact his liberalizing social policies even if elected, the glaring faults and negatives of Kerry’s pandering outweigh those of Bush. And, since all politicians must pander to get elected, Bush comes out the fresher flower.

Actually, the real problem with Kerry is that he wouldn't have been able to enact anything because he would have been blocked by the Republican-controlled branches of government at every turn.

The difference would be that the liberals' values came from a piece of paper called the Constitution, while the conservatives' values came from a piece of paper called the Bible.

Uh, I hate to break it to you, but plenty of members on this forum have suggested that abortion should be banned not because the Pope says so, but because they feel people should take responsibility for their own actions.

Religious anti-abortionism in a clownsuit, just like intelligent design is creationism in a clownsuit. They always look for pseudo-secular reasons to justify their religious decisions when they're talking to people who don't accept "The LORD commands it" as a reason.

A huge segment of the anti-gay bloc is so disposed not because they “get it in Church,” but because, in fact, they have yet to come to terms with the possibility that somebody close to them might be gay, and are keen to restrict the possibility of having to encounter homosexuality in their everyday lives (in order that nobody around them be “swayed” into it, or feel comfortable announcing it). This ties into Pablo’s ridiculous argument that an election predicated on “social values” can only be read as an election on “religious morality.”

See above.

This argument only works if you use a totally vague and technically incorrect definition for "values voting." By the definition that you're trying to use, everyone who voted is a "values voter," because everyone voted in support of some value they hold. Since the polls quite obvious refer specifically to moral values, your argument has no substance whatsoever.

You seem to be arguing that a “values voter” is a “religious morality” voter. If so, that’s just stupid. As I’ve pointed out above, people can hold the social views you find so repugnant even without having read one iota of scripture.

See above. Do you think it's just a coincidence that all the most fervent supporters of anti-abortion and homophobic movement just happen to be religious?

[Pablo Sanchez]

You seem to be arguing that a “values voter” is a “religious morality” voter. If so, that’s just stupid. As I’ve pointed out above, people can hold the social views you find so repugnant even without having read one iota of scripture.

Showing that it's possible for someone to come to those conclusions without starting from a religious background is a meaningless exercise, because it does absolutely nothing for the fact that the vast and overwhelming majority of people who hold those viewpoints hold them because of their religious backgrounds. For every person who opposes abortion because of his secular reasoning, there are a hundred people who oppose it because their minister said that abortions make Jesus cry. You're saying that it's a possibility for an atheist to agree with Bush's values and vote him on that basis--and I won't disagree. It's just so wildly improbable and rare so as to be entirely irrelevant.

And even if your point possessed any sort of substance it doesn't change the fact that values voting is stupid no matter what your motivations. Bush and many GOP leaders publicly espouse socially archconservative values but it's not as if they're actually going to go anywhere with them! Politics is compromise and you have to realize that you can't just vote for what someone stands for, you have to vote for things that actually matter--the policies. Voting for Bush because he wants to overturn Roe v. Wade is submoronic because he cannot accomplish that goal and will probably not even make an earnest attempt to do so. I call the values voters stupid because they are voting for knee-jerk reasons that will have no effect on the next four years, rather than on things of actual substance like economic and foreign policy.

[McC]

I hate to do this, Mike, but I have to call bullshit:

Religious anti-abortionism in a clownsuit, just like intelligent design is creationism in a clownsuit. They always look for pseudo-secular reasons to justify their religious decisions when they're talking to people who don't accept "The LORD commands it" as a reason.

I agree with the secular version of what Kast said, to a point. The ideal solution in my mind is to either outlaw or severely scale back abortion options and instead greatly amplify sex education and access to contraception methods (condoms as available and acceptable as a pack of gum, birth control pills as available and acceptable as a bottle of vitamins, whatever). Unless the pregnancy comes from a rape or something, I basically think that having sex means you accept the possibility and responsibility that you may have to raise a child as a result. However, I'm not even remotely religious (in fact, I'm the black sheep in my family because I'm not; my nuclear family isn't particularly religious, but my extended family is very religious and I know full-well they want me to be "saved," which just chaps my bacon even more).

I don't think the "lord" commands it. I think, if there is a "lord," all he did was set off the big bang and then sit back to watch (as good an idea as any, since no one can explain where the hell the big bang came from anyway). I don't really think of it as killing, either (particularly if it's somehow aborted within the first trimester). But I do think of it as depressing and tragic and think a better way ought to be found.

/soapbox

[The Original Nex]

plenty of members on this forum have suggested that abortion should be banned not because the Pope says so, but because they feel people should take responsibility for their own actions.

What happens if a woman is raped and gets pregnant? Why should she be forced to give birth to the child of a man who raped her? Or should she have "taken control of the situation" so that the man hadn't raped her?

[McC]

What happens if a woman is raped and gets pregnant? Why should she be forced to give birth to the child of a man who raped her? Or should she have "taken control of the situation" so that the man hadn't raped her?

This is the exception to the rule, basically. Rape/incest/physical danger to the mother/child are scenarios wherein the measure is warranted. Otherwise, you ought to take responsibility for your choices.

[Master of Ossus]

What happens if a woman is raped and gets pregnant? Why should she be forced to give birth to the child of a man who raped her? Or should she have "taken control of the situation" so that the man hadn't raped her?

This is the exception to the rule, basically. Rape/incest/physical danger to the mother/child are scenarios wherein the measure is warranted. Otherwise, you ought to take responsibility for your choices.

I'm torn on this issue because, on the one hand, I believe in personal accountability for people. On the other hand, many women today get abortions because they don't think they can adequately care for a child, and no child should have to grow up in an environment that can't support it properly. If you were to take away the abortion option it would lead to children growing up in impoverished conditions and in difficult circumstances which to me is unacceptable.

Maybe the answer is just to raise the cost of abortions, except for very low-income women? I don't know about this issue.

[The Original Nex]

What happens if a woman is raped and gets pregnant? Why should she be forced to give birth to the child of a man who raped her? Or should she have "taken control of the situation" so that the man hadn't raped her?

This is the exception to the rule, basically. Rape/incest/physical danger to the mother/child are scenarios wherein the measure is warranted. Otherwise, you ought to take responsibility for your choices.

That's the problem isn't it? And I agree that it shouldn't be used as a convinient way for 15 year olds to get out of a pregnancy, but it certainly shouldn't be banned outright as many Right-wing Conservatives call for.

Also on the issue of gay marriage. I have yet to hear any logical reason against it that does not come back to religion. You care to know why? Because there isn't one.

[McC]

I'm torn on this issue because, on the one hand, I believe in personal accountability for people. On the other hand, many women today get abortions because they don't think they can adequately care for a child, and no child should have to grow up in an environment that can't support it properly. If you were to take away the abortion option it would lead to children growing up in impoverished conditions and in difficult circumstances which to me is unacceptable.

Maybe the answer is just to raise the cost of abortions, except for very low-income women? I don't know about this issue.

Precisely. My feeling is that the existence "unwanted" pregnancies/children (that ultimately end up living the life you describe) need to be curtailed as well, but abortion is the wrong way to go about it -- hence the amplification in availability of birth control and education.

[The Original Nex]

What they need to do with abortion is be very selective. Only let people who fit a certain profile have abortions. Depending on the circumstances of the pregnancy, how well the mother could care for the child, the health of the mother etc.

[McC]

That's the problem isn't it? And I agree that it shouldn't be used as a convinient way for 15 year olds to get out of a pregnancy, but it certainly shouldn't be banned outright as many Right-wing Conservatives call for.

Oh, you're certainly correct on that point. However, last time I checked, Bush was proposing a ban that left open the possibility of abortions for rape/incest/medical danger. So at least he hasn't gone all the way off the deep end...unless he changed his stance.

Also on the issue of gay marriage. I have yet to hear any logical reason against it that does not come back to religion. You care to know why? Because there isn't one.

*shrug* On this point, you're right. Two (or more) consenting adults ought to be able to do whatever they want with one another. I actually think it has less to do with religion and more to do with "gay cooties." Straight parents are afraid that their children will be gay, basically, irrespective of religion. In some respects, I almost think that the religion is an excuse to outlet and "justify" the "gay cooties" fear, rather than the source of it. These people would very likely shut up (or quiet down) if homosexuality were a strictly biological thing, I suspect. Of course, the jury is still out on that, so you are left with voiciferous objections.

[Master of Ossus]

Also on the issue of gay marriage. I have yet to hear any logical reason against it that does not come back to religion. You care to know why? Because there isn't one.

No. There are, they're just hard to find. They primarily revolve around it as "an assault to marriage" or some such. While they never explain WHAT the connection is between gay marriage and the degredation of marriage (ie. How does two men getting married damage marriage?), they seem to have a surprising amount of data to back them up (ie. Correlated drop in mean marriage duration, marriage rate in countries that legalize gay marriage, etc.). I think they tend to be out-shouted by the religious fundies, and to be honest the woman I watched in a debate about the issue wasn't too convincing, but she brought up a few reasonable points that might've made a modicum of sense if they were true.

[Dark Hellion]

McC you didn't really call bullshit on Mr. Wong as you don't seem to support a whole hearted ban, you more or less seem to be philosophically against the idea of abortion as a get out of jail free card for woman who (sorry to all the ladies for this) can't keep their legs shut.