Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
True story: When I last lived in PA, I had, as a neighbor, one of the most rip-roaring rednecks I've ever known. This guy walked around in tattered clothes, obviously never saw a "say no to crack" sign, chewed tobacco, talked like a hillbilly, knew next to nothing about computers, and could fix any car that had any problem in a fraction of the time it'd take the guy at the shop. (He was pretty good at working on houses too.) First thing he said to me when we met, after we told each other our names, was "if I see anyone messing around in your house when you're not there, I'm coming over with an ax and a gun- I'm gonna break the door down and blast his head off...... and I hope you'd do the same for me". I could go on and on. His neck was RED.
Yes, the caricature you paint is most certainly a quintessential blue-collar Democrat, and Pennsylvania absolutely has its fair share of those. I completely acknowledge that.
However, this is increasingly a vestige of the past. I'm not sure when you've last lived in the state, but Pennsylvania's trend towards a more progressive views on social issues is very pronounced and well-documented.
Also, again, you're emphasizing the rural electorate of the state, which is also stagnant or slowly declining. It's abundantly clear that the growth in Pennsylvania is almost entirely occurring in its urban areas.
In sum, based on current trends, more progressive, urban/suburban Democrats will comprise a greater share of the electorate over time, which will assuredly make PA more supportive of gay marriage.
Romani - I only have one observation on your long reply to my post that I see worth mentioning. It is that you not only claim personal knowledge of God's intent, you also can divine the true and absolute wishes of our long departed founding fathers:
Quote:
Originally Posted by RomaniGypsy
The Founding Fathers never intended America to become a liberal wasteland full of people who would reject religion and use that rejection to claim the right to cram immoral garbage down everyone's throats.
OK. If you say so, it must be true.
I have have said my piece on what I see as your misuse and selective use of scripture to justify reasons for discrimination against a group of your fellow citizens. I don't intend to give you any futher platform to do so.
Also, again, you're emphasizing the rural electorate of the state, which is also stagnant or slowly declining. It's abundantly clear that the growth in Pennsylvania is almost entirely occurring in its urban areas.
To be fair that is a demographic characteristic of the country. The rural population grew by an almost infinitesimal 0.0727% / year from 2000 to 2010. An estimated 98.4% of the population growth in USA is urban.
But attitudes about gay marriage will probably change much faster than the demographic shift towards urbanization. Look how radically view in media and in politics have changed. I find it unlikely to slip backwards. At the very least there is a growing population that is passive to the idea, instead of actively horrified.
Pennsylvania was settled by strongly religious people who sought to extricate themselves from persecution in their home countries. Strongly religious traditions don't break easily. In many cases, they have continued without weakening a bit. PA is full of Amish, Mennonites, Catholics, etc.
All of the aforementioned religions are variants of Christianity, which uses as its sacred text the Holy Bible. In the Bible, it is very clearly stated on numerous occasions that homosexuality is a sin, perversion, a one-way ticket to hell, etc.
People of even moderate religious strength feel that they do not want to invoke the wrath of God by essentially telling Him that His Word is wrong / archaic / whatever. Therefore, God says "no homosexuality", and Christians believe "no homosexuality".
It has nothing to do with hatred. Real Christians don't hate those who are opting to live a homosexual life. I should know - I am one such person. We see it as a sinful choice, and we all make sinful choices. We should seek to avoid such, but some do that better than others. People are not to be personally hated for their sinful actions, but the sinful actions are not to be condoned.
Strongly religious people also have the strength to resist the modern society machine hurling epithets at them such as "backward", "intolerant", "homophobe", "bigot", etc... because we all know that God will sort it out in the end. As such, we don't scream especially loudly... which may be the problem, as the squeaky wheel usually gets the grease. But we aren't the type to support, in any way, shape, or form, violation of the Word of God. Would you violate the word of your boss, if you didn't want to get fired? Probably not - you'd do your best to make the boss happy. In the same way, we do our best to avoid violating the word of God since we don't want to spend eternity in hell. Some people don't care - let the punishments fall on them. Those of us who understand, will never cave in. And Pennsylvania is home to a lot of people like that.
Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination... End of debate.
I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of God's Laws and how to follow them.
1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighbouring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?
2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of Menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15: 19-24. The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.
4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is, my neighbours. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
5. I have a neighbour who insists on working on the Sabbath.Exodus 35:2. Clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?
6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there 'degrees' of abomination?
7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle- room here?
8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?
9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?
10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? Lev.24:10-16.Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)
I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I am confident you can help.
Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.
My wife would object to a girlfriend, but I appreciate the bizarre and gratuitous suggestion.
Just calling out a douchebag when I see one. I really don't like the Taliban, and you are of their ilk.
Well, junior, since you're vying very fervently for the role of "comedy relief" here on City-Data, I see no reason to stop supplying you with fuel. I love a good laugh.
So here goes. I look nothing like a bag used for douching. Plus, you haven't seen me. This is an online forum, in case you've forgotten, and my picture is nowhere to be found thereon. If you were looking for me and your idea of what I would look like is "douche bag", you'd miss me for sure as I look like a fairly normal human being.
And when I say "fairly normal", I mean that in an American sense, not a Middle Eastern Taliban sense. I don't even look like that "American Taliban" guy from several years ago. (I don't like having facial hair, for one thing!) So again, you'd miss me completely. Which is a bit of a shame, I say, because I could use some good belly laughs in person as well.
And you're married? Wow. I stand corrected. I guess I never would have imagined that someone who was married (at least "happily" so) would be such an unhappy person as to create an account on an online forum with the express purpose of attacking someone else (you're three posts for three, buddy!). But that gives me some much better hypotheses about why you are the way you are. You're earning more and more of my pity with every post... which, I grant, may be exactly what you seek.
By the way, buddy, why do YOU think that Pennsylvanians are, on the whole, opposed to gay marriage? Here at City-Data, we try to stay on topic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duderino
Yes, the caricature you paint is most certainly a quintessential blue-collar Democrat, and Pennsylvania absolutely has its fair share of those. I completely acknowledge that.
However, this is increasingly a vestige of the past. I'm not sure when you've last lived in the state, but Pennsylvania's trend towards a more progressive views on social issues is very pronounced and well-documented.
I moved out in 2008. However, I've gone back multiple times per year since.
As for PA's trend toward more "progressive" views on social issues (a term I don't like because it implies that the present direction such movement is taking represents forward progress, whereas I personally feel it represents backsliding), that's essentially inevitable. It won't be long before Pennsylvanians are not quite so antipathetic toward gay marriage. I'll discuss the reasons why, a bit later.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duderino
Also, again, you're emphasizing the rural electorate of the state, which is also stagnant or slowly declining. It's abundantly clear that the growth in Pennsylvania is almost entirely occurring in its urban areas.
I'd say that's the case in most, if not all, of the states. With gas prices quadrupling and the manufacturing base that once supported such rural areas declining, it's pretty much a given that rural America will decline as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Duderino
In sum, based on current trends, more progressive, urban/suburban Democrats will comprise a greater share of the electorate over time, which will assuredly make PA more supportive of gay marriage.
Again, this seems to be the case with most (if not all) states. I'd say that even the traditionally conservative rural Midwestern / Southern states are not immune to this trend... especially since the trend is being forced by the federal government. If everything really were still state-level, this probably wouldn't be the case. But check the news and what do you see? Texas enacted a voter ID law to make you produce proof that you are legally allowed to vote if you try to vote - it was struck down by a federal judge. Oklahoma enacted a law banning Islamic Sharia law from usage and consideration in its state courts - it was struck down by a federal judge. Even California passed a law by popular vote banning gay marriage, and it was struck down by a federal judge. When the will of the state-level voting population is constantly ignored or violated at the national level, it's only a matter of time before they get to feeling that what they want at the state level shall be of no consequence and it's wasted effort to continue the fight.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jm02
Romani - I only have one observation on your long reply to my post that I see worth mentioning. It is that you not only claim personal knowledge of God's intent, you also can divine the true and absolute wishes of our long departed founding fathers:
OK. If you say so, it must be true.
I have have said my piece on what I see as your misuse and selective use of scripture to justify reasons for discrimination against a group of your fellow citizens. I don't intend to give you any futher platform to do so.
But yet you produced no intelligent rebuttal thereto. Typical.
However, this wasn't a thread about discrimination or how you feel about my usage of Scripture. It's a thread about why Pennsylvanians are generally against gay marriage. I said it's for Christian reasons. You said: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (silence). . . . . . . . . . . . .
Quote:
Originally Posted by PacoMartin
To be fair that is a demographic characteristic of the country. The rural population grew by an almost infinitesimal 0.0727% / year from 2000 to 2010. An estimated 98.4% of the population growth in USA is urban.
But attitudes about gay marriage will probably change much faster than the demographic shift towards urbanization. Look how radically view in media and in politics have changed. I find it unlikely to slip backwards. At the very least there is a growing population that is passive to the idea, instead of actively horrified.
And that's the tactic they've been trying to use. All it takes for them to gain a foothold and pass their agenda is to energize some people FOR their cause and take the wind out of the sails of those who are AGAINST their cause. They don't have to fight the people who are against gay marriage... they don't have to waste lots of time and energy shooting them down... all they have to do is make such people passive to the cause. Bingo - strong opposition is gone without a fight - and they can pass their agenda, despite being a very small minority. This will happen in Pennsylvania also... it's happening all over the place. Conservatives are realizing that the tide is against them, and they're giving up the fight. They've done what they can do, and it never matters. They'll pass conservative laws - only to see them struck down by activist federal judges. They'll vote for conservative candidates - only to see those candidates defeated due to many factors (including unchecked voter fraud and voter intimidation) which work in favor of liberal candidates. The one and only option left open to many of these conservatives is to move to conservative states if they currently live in liberal states... but even that isn't especially palatable, given the obvious drawbacks of leaving family / friends / their jobs / "home" behind, since most of the liberalization of America is happening at the national level. If the Supreme Court decides that marriage between two people of the same gender is a right, it doesn't matter that rural Midwesterners and Southerners (and Pennsylvanians) don't want it in their state. It will be rammed down their throats by the Feds, and there will be nothing they can do about it except move to a different country which is more antipathetic toward gay marriage (and there ain't many of those outside of the uber-conservative Middle Eastern Islamic countries which ban gay marriage and probably will for the foreseeable future). Thus, they just throw up their hands.
There's one other thing to consider. People of traditional social values, whether they're from rural areas or not, are generally older than people of modern liberal social values... so they're dying off in vast numbers, while babies are being born and children indoctrinated by liberal popular culture every day. It remains to be seen whether or not those who are presently young and liberal will grow up to become old and conservative... after all, a young kind-of-liberal friend of mine recently gave me a good quote he heard - "if you're young and you aren't liberal, you don't have a heart; if you're old and you're not conservative, you don't have a brain". All I know about the average-age discrepancy between conservatives and liberals is that old people are more conservative on the whole and young people are more liberal on the whole. That also plays into the "willingness to fight for the cause", as old people get to thinking "I won't be around much longer, and I'm old and tired anyway, so what's the use?"... and young people think "I'm going to be around for a long time, and I have the energy to fight, so I'm going to do what I can to make things a certain way!". When it comes to old people in rural Pennsylvania, ain't many people out there who understand that community better than I do. My wife and I perform music for elderly people for our living, and we have several dozen places in Pennsylvania where we play. I have never once heard any nursing home resident (or even any middle-aged visitor who is the child of a nursing home resident) talk about liberal causes in a positive sense. They abhor the liberalization of America, in such a huge majority that to me it seems like it's 100%. Countless dozens of elderly Pennsylvanians have talked with me (often randomly) about how they feel about the way the country is changing, and not one of them likes it. Their general attitude is that there's nothing they can do about it, and they won't be around for long enough to suffer much from it anyway, so they're not going to give themselves a heart attack over it. Essentially, they roll their eyes. This is exactly what the liberal machine wanted. Apathy from the conservatives, fervor from the liberals.
This is why Pennsylvania will eventually embrace gay marriage. I've heard that PA has the second-largest elderly population in the United States. (It's not hard to see why that would be.) So, they'll die off fairly soon, and in their stead will be the younger generations. The Baby Boomer generation was the first to be liberal to any appreciable extent (though even they seem mostly conservative these days)... and given their age range, they too will be dying off increasingly quickly over the next several years. The "Generation X" children of the Baby Boomers are generally more liberal than the Boomers were, and the "Generation Y"/"Millennial" children of the Gen-X'ers are more liberal still. So as the substantial elderly population of Pennsylvania dies off, and the Gen-X'ers, Gen-Y'ers, and Millennials are an ever-increasing share of Pennsylvania's population, Pennsylvania will liberalize even further.
But it will be interesting to see what happens when people of these generations become elderly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kerby W-R
blahblahblahblahblahblahblah
Dude, try reading the New Testament. Certain things changed... and certain things did not. God can change things as He wills, you know. We still have slavery today - it's all over the place, even in America. We call it work - but compare today's work climate with yesterday's slavery climate and you will find some very shocking similarities. Uncleanness was washed away by Jesus. Before you blather about what Exodus and Leviticus say, check the New Testament to see if any of that stuff was changed in the New Covenant.
But really - what does that have to do with the attitude of Pennsylvanians toward gay marriage? I love how most of you are taking this thread far off topic. All of these attacks on what I said, and yet not one person has hypothesized anything different about why Pennsylvanians are, at least presently, much more antipathetic toward gay marriage than their other Northeastern brethren.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clark Park
I confess I get annoyed when someone brings in their personal religious beliefs into the debate about the civil rights of LGBT people.
This is not a debate about the civil rights of people who choose to live L, G, B, or T lives. This was a question about why Pennsylvanians generally seem to oppose gay marriage.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clark Park
Blah blah blah God this blah blah blah God that ...
Look: we live in a secular society. Laws are not to based on people's religious beliefs. Period.
This isn't about laws. This was a question about.... oh, never mind.
Sometimes I wonder what's wrong with me, that I waste my time producing argument after argument on an intellectual plane obviously populated by shockingly few people. It's like trying to teach calculus to a kindergarten class. One of these days I'm just going to give up, let everyone else suffer the consequences of their ignorance / refusal to accept truth, and save my energy for other endeavors.
But that would bore the City-Data comedy relief squadron (many of whom frequent this thread), wouldn't it?
Any mention of God instantly invalidates an argument for same-sex marriage--or any law for that matter. Separation of church and state...this is not a new concept. Those that use religion as a defense show their lack of intellect and make themselves look like fools during a debate. YOUR religion, YOUR God do not get to dictate how a diverse state/nation govern themselves.
Long story short, marriage has NOTHING to do with religion and EVERYTHING to do with government. A marriage held in a church is nothing more than a ceremony. The physical acknowledgement of marriage comes in the form of a license from the government. It baffles me how many people think religion has a hand in marriage. It does NOT. Two people can CHOOSE to have a religious CEREMONY to celebrate their intent to join in the GOVERNMENT institution known as marriage. On paper, the government is the only entity that matters when it comes to marriage. Newsflash, heterosexual atheists can receive a marriage license in PA! And don't tell me that marriage started in the church, it didn't...look it up. Marriage also has changed significantly throughout history...back in "Bible times" men could have several wives, sell their daughters, stone people for reasons that we would never THINK of today, etc.
Anyone against same-sex marriage simply has a superiority complex. Such complexes can be cited throughout history for nearly any form of discrimination. When you thin the veil and make people even more equal in the eyes of society by law, certain folks don't like that, because in their minds, they're suddenly "on the same level" as "those people" they once looked down at. Humans are so so silly.
Now that we're all clear on how marriage actually works in the real world, I have to say, I'm embarrassed that my hometown of Pittsburgh is part of the state of Pennsylvania. With the Corbett administration continuing to prove that they are a smoldering pile of crap (see the latest remark below) it's a shame that cities like Philadelphia and Pittsburgh where equality is a non-issue in the respective city limits have to be a part of Pennsylvania. Pittsburgh has great momentum as a city currently going, the government in the city is very socially liberal and welcomes all residents. Sad to say that our state does not. Bravo to folks like AG Kathleen Kane and Representative Brian Sims...maybe one day this state won't be a total laughing stalk.
While certain isolated parts of Pennsylvania still may harbor bigots of all types, my travels tell me that the vast majority don't have objections to same-sex marriage. Even the folks in smaller towns. Everybody today knows gay people and eveybody has gay people in their family. The fact that gay people are out and not hiding like they used to has created a huge groundswell of changed thinking, fortunately. It's harder to hate when you know someone already, see that they are upstanding people, pay taxes, care for their houses, their children, and their spouse.
Pennsylvania politically is still a bit backward, mainly due to some extremists who have managed to hold onto their political offices. But that will change. Younger people don't even see why there is an issue. The old bigots will slowly die off and Pennsylvania will eventually join the 21st century and be on the right side of history.
The old bigots will slowly die off and Pennsylvania will eventually join the 21st century and be on the right side of history.
Given that context, it's a good thing that the US's substandard health care system results in shorter life expectancy than other, more advanced nations.
It's baffling to me the people that are bigoted and vote for conservative candidates based solely on social issues. None of these people that I've met have been rich enough to be Republicans, so while they're not helping themselves at all by preventing gay marriage or abortions, they are definitely shooting themselves in the foot when the people they vote for weaken unions, cut social support systems, and generally destroy the middle class.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
