And:
Posted on 07/25/2009 11:40:35 PM PDT by rabscuttle385
Can this political marriage be saved?
BY GARY BAUER
Psychologists have discovered that the most important factor in predicting whether a marriage will succeed or fail is the existence of contempt. When one or both partners display contempt -- the intense feeling or attitude of regarding someone or something as inferior -- the union, ultimately and almost inevitably, will fail.
Psychologist John Gottman has even developed a methodology that enables him to predict divorce with an astonishingly high degree of accuracy, up to 90 percent. While watching a couple interact, Mr. Gottman looks for the subtle signs -- microexpressions such as an eye roll or a patronizing tone -- that reveal not just displeasure or disapproval, but also the hostile inflexibility that is a hallmark of contempt.
As a political analyst and Republican of more than 30 years, I am saddened to say this, but contempt has contaminated the Republican Party. And much of the contempt has been directed at one partner in the party's marriage, religious conservatives. If the Republican partnership is to survive, the contempt must end.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
Again: the claim was made in a Navy Times article in the mid to late 90s. I repeated the claim and have told you where/when I had read it. I cannot prove to you this article's existence because a search on the Internet didn't yield what I had read. So, either you're not comprehending this or you're calling me a liar.
When people start asking for veteran status it is usually a sign of desperation, especially on a thread where it isn’t relevant, I don’t know what experiences that you had in the military that lead you to believe that it is a hot bed of homosexuality but it isn’t, and that is why you cannot provide evidence for your silly claim.
Your veteran status (or lack thereof) is relevent. If you have not served, you have no idea whether this claim from the Navy Times article is plausible. Oh, and if the percentage is 8% and not many of those 8% reveal their proclivities to the 92%, how and why would you keep using the words "hot bed of homosexuality" to describe the atmosphere? It's relevent because you probably have no concept of what that might look like -- as if 8% of a population that happened to be gay/lesbian would be prancing around in a flamboyant manner for everyone to see when doing so, or even being much lower-key about it, would result in ridicule, hostility, and even disciplinary action.
What are the issues that the major presidential candidates are running on?
Let’s finish the discussion of typical socon views first. In your view, do socons tend to support federal drug laws as they apply to intrastate matters such as backyard pot for personal use?
OK, you are lying, the military is not 8% homosexual and I have given you every chance to substantiate your claim.
I said “hot bed of homosexuality” because if the young male military was 8% homosexual then it would truly be wild times, no one would be able to control that mob and the violence from conflict etc.
Like I said I don’t know what was going on in your units to convince you that 1 out of 12 Marines is homosexual, that is unique to you, I have never heard anyone that believed such a thing.
There are many, many small-l libertarians who are not big L, registered libertarians.
But more to the point, I don’t agree with your premise that a party needs to between courting Hispanic voters and libertarian voters. I believe basic Constitutional principles and practices, properly articulated, are the right solution for all people.
I’m not interested in getting into the mandatory dope discussion, I am interested in the nuts and bolts reality of conservatism, socons make up the conservative movement and you guys are trying to destroy it by eliminating the very people that created it and the nation.
Who will your voters be in your post conservative fantasy and why doesn’t it work for the libertarian party which is what you are saying that you want the conservative party to be?
From what I am hearing the antisocons like yourself are describing the libertarian party as the ideal if it could replace the republican party (or vice versa).
Right? their ideas, their platform prevailing within the republican party?
So, I did not read that article? Or is this all going way over your head?
I said “hot bed of homosexuality” because if the young male military was 8% homosexual then it would truly be wild times, no one would be able to control that mob and the violence from conflict etc.
Wow! I cannot follow your reasoning here. First off, the military is predominately male. Secondly, what percentage of U.S. citizens would you say identify themselves as homosexual? More than eight? Around eight? And when you observe everyday behavior by people, can you just see the "hot bed" around you -- and the wild and rampant homosexual behavior? Imagine now an atmosphere where one would be punished for revealing one's homosexuality. Wild times? That's a stretch only a dedicated homophobic could conjure up.
Like I said I don’t know what was going on in your units to convince you that 1 out of 12 Marines is homosexual, that is unique to you, I have never heard anyone that believed such a thing.
Yeah. About that. You never said (or wrote) anything like this so I have no idea where this opening to your first sentence is coming from. I served with nearly a 400 to 500 Marines and Sailors who I had familiarity. And of those, I suspected strongly that seven were homosexual. That's less than one percent, I know. But that does not mean that there was not more as the article suggested. It's very possible that there was a homosexual population that, if not mirroring the civilian population, came close to it. Though why, if true, would this like like "hot beds" and "wild times" when society doesn't even look like that; not even with the homosexual population that is prominently displayed on television.
Spin it all you want. What you are describing is like saying it is ok to hire a killer if you pay for it out of your own pocket. The child is just as dead, if you pay for it or the government pays for it.
No one has the right to decide if their child lives or dies in the womb except if the life of the mother is endangered, and that law has always been in effect.
Pro-choice means Pro-abortion, can't have it both ways and your statements border on the idiotic.
Look, you cannot use your claiming a memory of having read an article 15 years ago as a source, you refuse to back off of it so you now own it, you are claiming that 8% of the military are homosexuals and you are lying, it isn’t true and it is ridiculous to try and sell that smear here at FR.
“USA Today, in its April 15, 1993 issue published the following statistics from a Planned Parenthood/Alan Guttmacher Institute study:
Only 2.3% of males ages 20 to 39 said they had experienced a same-sex relationship in the past decade. Only 1.1% said they were exclusively gay.
A 1989 U.S. survey indicated that no more than 6% of adults had any kind of same-sex experience. Less than 1% said they were exclusively gay.
A 1992 French study found that only 1.4% of men and 0.4% of women said they had any same-sex contact in the past five years.
In 1991, the National Opinion Research Center (NORC) provided data indicating that of the 6% who have ever experienced same-sex relations, the number of currently active homosexuals (at that time) was .06-0.7%. The source for this is: T.W. Smith, Planning Perspectives 23, May/June 1991).
The Wall Street Journal shed more light on the 10% urban legend in its March 31, 1993 issue:
A survey conducted by the Minnesota Adolescent Health Survey (1986-86) of public school students indicated that only 0.6% of boys and 0.2% of girls identified themselves “mostly or 100% homosexual”-which is less than one percent!
In Canada, a 1988 survey of first-year college students under 25 indicated that 98% were heterosexual; 1% bisexual; and 1% homosexual. (Source: King, et al. Canada, Youth and AIDS Study, Kingston, Ontario: Queen’s University.) “
I can and I did. ...you refuse to back off of it so you now own it, you are claiming that 8% of the military are homosexuals...
Why would I back off? I'm claiming that its plausible. I do not know what the actual percentages are but I believed what I had read and still believe that that's probably close to the number. Though I am willing to check out the studies and surveys that you've discussed. None of this topic of homosexuality is important to me though. I think the focus that SoCons have on gay issues, rather than limited government issues, isn't particulary helpful to the conservative cause. Tell me, do you honestly care more about being an anti-homosexual crusader rather than a crusader for less government spending and less socialistic policies that are generated out of congress. Because voters with gay and lesbian family members that may lean conservative might be turned off by the crusading.
I am most assuredly NOT antisocon, except for the socons who believe that the federal government should be used unConstitutionally to “fix” social problems (I’m likewise against so called “economic” conservatives and defense hawks who want to do the same). I am on record on this thread and on many others saying that the GOP cannot win unless it follows principles and policies acceptable to social conservatives, libertarian conservatives and national defense hawks.
You’re clearly not interested in having a real discussion if you’re going to evade my questions and misrepresent my clear statements. I submit that this is part of the problem that is tearing apart the successful Reagan coalition. Have a good day.
If libertarianism, i.e. anti-tax (which is not necessarily the same as fiscal conservatism), pro-gun, pro-prostitution, pro-drug, pro-pornography, pro-abortion, pro-homosexual and all over the board on immigration and defense, actually has any appeal why haven't the libertarians EVER been effective?
Why should conservatives embrace so many ideals which are repugnant to them, especially when these ideals will lose more votes than they will gain?
Libertarians seem to conveniently forget that conservatism has been very successful on a national level.
Freepmail wagglebee or DirtyHarryY2K to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda or moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search
[ Add keyword homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list ]
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
[ Add keyword moral absolutes to flag FR articles to this ping list ]
Despite the efforts of the left to convince us differently, homosexuals make up AT MOST 5% of the population; I find it nearly impossible to believe that the percentage in the military would be almost double, if anything it is probably lower.
Oh, so I have your permission if I was one to support the gay agenda? Thank you so much for the priviledge you've extended to me. I think that you've used this fascination you have with homosexuality as a means to diffuse the stuff that I had mentioned early on: that many SoCons are narrow-minded and make political calculations that do not promote liberty and instead promote big government. Since you seem to be stuck on gay and won't tackle the economic issues, I have to assume that you're not too big on economic conservatism. Good luck with that and you authoritarian and nanny-state nature.
I think that you distracted everyone by trying to convince us that 8% of the military are homosexuals.
The actual high limit seems to be more like 1,1/2 or 2%, and you are right the military is no where close to what the civilian number is, much less is it more.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.