*promote

Self promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Friday, March 15th, 2013 12:49pm PDT - promote requested by original submitter Grimm.

I hate to be the cynic, but after reading about Rob Portman's sudden reversal, I have to wonder, which loved one of hers turned out to be gay.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

Yes, this. Conservatives seem to change their position on social issues as soon as it personally effects their lives and their families, and only then.

Not being able to feel anything unless it directly effects you is called - at best a lack of empathy - at worst - sociopathy.

It's human. You compartmentalize everything - me; my circle; my extended circle; strangers; enemies;super-enemies.

Different thoughts apply to different groups. While perhaps we should thinking of humanity as a whole, our brains don't really work that way.

It seems to me that conservatives make a stronger distinction between my circle and everyone else, than liberals do - whether that's a good or bad thing is up for debate, but you certainly apply your empathy in different ways.

This is how we can live with people being homeless as well - they have been compartmentalized outside of our immediate grasp and thus not worthy for "proper" empathy, they get pity or scorn instead.

If all of a sudden a homeless person has come from our immediate circle - let's say a parent or child - then we apply our thoughts different to that type of person. It opens our eyes to all the other homeless people, and we see them more favorably and don't shut them out as harshly.

Close example is the most powerful mind changer. I think.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

I agree with you mostly. I think the difference though, to use your homeless example, is that many people would not need to have a homeless person in their family to support social government programs that reduce poverty and homelessness.

For the Dick Cheneys and Rob Portmans of the world, it takes a son or daughter. That's a failure of empathy. You shouldn't need a homeless son or daughter or a gay son or daughter to support human rights.

It just really weirds me out. I should be glad that these convservatives are changing their minds. Support for same sex marriage is over 50 percent and is only going to get higher and higher. It's not an issue that will go away and even the most conservative people have to see the writing on the wall that they're going to lose.

but...

1. Either they are only changing their mind because of the reasons we've already talked about.

or

2. They do see the writing on the wall and know that same sex marriage will ultimately win and they're just changing their mind, not because they agree, but simply because they're a politician and they want to keep having a job.

So it's weird, it's progress, but it's not like the war is over or anything. I just hate that you pretty much have to wait for people to die and be replaced by people who didn't grow up in a time where it was socially acceptable to discriminate for real change to occur.

I always say that some of my friends might be gay, but I just don't care enough about it to ask.

Except for Chris and JJ. They're married, so it's sorta obvious.

I like the libertarian approach, which is to keep government out of marriage. Society should be allowed to evolve and people allowed to freely associate without the forceful constraints of the law on social institutions and conventions.

We shouldn't have to care what politicians think about gay marriage, why wait for them to have their own personal moments of insight (or political opportunism) so they can decide these issues for the rest of us? Take the institution of marriage out of their hands, take away their power over it.

It's unfair for them to dictate to society what marriage means, one way or the other. Let society embrace change in its own way and time.

While I agree with you @renatojj, there is is only one problem with your premise.

gov't, which libertarians seem to hate so much, IS a creation/evolution of free people.

The problem is not government. The problem is the kind of people in gov't. being anti-homosexuality is strictly a religious construct. It's a problem with hypocrisy. The same people who think we shouldn't regulate business seem to have no problem with regulating what goes on in the bedroom;

So again, it's not a problem inherent to gov't especially when there are a large number of people IN gov't who would agree that gov't has no place in marriage.

It has to do with religion and it has to do with fear. end of story.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

Just watched Bill Maher, he said the same thing re. conservative empathy.

I have to say I think I disagree in this case. The path she took to public office--joining the Republican party out of a convenient alignment on certain issues--is actually quite common, at least at the state level.

I personally know several people who got involved in political campaigns in my own state for Republican representatives when they were in college, a couple of whom (at the time) had aspirations for public office. None of them were opposed to gay marriage, abortion, or the other social hot-button issues which Republicans are supposed to be against. One of them, a political science major at Rice University in his junior year, was directly below the head campaign manager for a candidate to the state House of Representatives.

Especially in the context of the wheeling and dealing of legislatures, I can easily see someone making a "yes" vote on DOMA or similar legislative proposals merely in order to keep other doors open.

-

*equality

Adding video to channels (Equality) - requested by burdturgler.