Conservative vs Conservative

[Crackerjaxon]

Marriage laws apply to all people equally. If states want to change them, the states can do that.

That argument worked well for the Commonwealth of Virginia in Loving v. Virginia.

Gay caterwauling does nothing to advance their cause.

In the year 2000 there were zero legal entities in the United States with legal Same-sex Civil Marriage and Civil Unions and (IIRC) only about 25% of the people supported Same-sex Civil Marriage.

Now it's 2013, 10 legal entitites (9 States + DC) have Same-sex Civil Marriage and another 9 have Civil Unions and the support for Same-sex Civil Marriage (on a national basis) has become the majority opinion.

Seems like the "caterwauling" is doing just fine.


>>>>

No, it is solidifying resistance to it and hurting the cause. Most reasonable people believe that people should be able to contract with each other pretty much as they please, provided one party is not taking advantage of the other. Instead of approaching the subject reasonably, gay activists go out of their way to be as offensive as possible to Christians.

Marriage is a sacred Christian rite. Instead of showing the slightest modicum of tolerance toward Christians, gays continue their onslaught.

As for your silly survey, there is not a doubt in my mind that the questions are cooked.

 

[Crackerjaxon]

Today's self proclaiming GOP Conservative are not remotely conservative in the true sense of that word.

Conservative does not mean anti-government, anti-abortion or pro-guns.

And that is what today's pseudo-cons seem to think (or more like WISH) the word means.

A lot of "conservatives" judge other "conservatives" based upon whether or not they dislike the same groups.

I cannot imagine any true conservative being against small government or private ownership of firearms.

Conservatives are torn between a woman's right to make choices concerning her own body and the rights of the unborn to survive.

 

[sfcalifornia]

Marriage laws apply to all people equally. If states want to change them, the states can do that. Gay caterwauling does nothing to advance their cause.

What do you think? Prop H8 and DOMA just walked into SCOTUS on it's own?

Gays refusal to be accepted as second-class citizens does EVERYTHING to advance their cause.

 

[editec]

Today's self proclaiming GOP Conservative are not remotely conservative in the true sense of that word.

Conservative does not mean anti-government, anti-abortion or pro-guns.

And that is what today's pseudo-cons seem to think (or more like WISH) the word means.

A lot of "conservatives" judge other "conservatives" based upon whether or not they dislike the same groups.

I cannot imagine any true conservative being against small government or private ownership of firearms.

Conservatives are torn between a woman's right to make choices concerning her own body and the rights of the unborn to survive.

The terms conservative and liberal have real meanings.

The fact that some political group wants to call itself one or the other means absolutely nothing.

There are no conservatives in power.

There are no liberal in power either.

There are two opposing teams squabbling over who gets to rip off the American people.

Maybe its time for you to stop thinking like a team player and start thinking like a patriotic citizen, eh?

 

[WorldWatcher]

No, it is solidifying resistance to it and hurting the cause. Most reasonable people believe that people should be able to contract with each other pretty much as they please, provided one party is not taking advantage of the other. Instead of approaching the subject reasonably, gay activists go out of their way to be as offensive as possible to Christians.

Marriage is a sacred Christian rite. Instead of showing the slightest modicum of tolerance toward Christians, gays continue their onslaught.

As for your silly survey, there is not a doubt in my mind that the questions are cooked.

Solidifying resistance against Same-sex Civil Marriage? The GOP has been bleeding voters to the liberals and one of the issues that is over is the GOP's resistance to equal treatment for homosexuals.

"Marriage" is not a sacred Christian rite. No don't take that wrong and let me explain.

1. "Marriage" (as in Religious Marriage) is present in pretty much every religion, most of those extending back farther than the Christian religion - therefore "marriage" is not exclusively a Christian rite and as a matter of fact there are a growing number of Christian Churches that will perform Religious Marriages for same-sex couples.

2. Secondly "marriage" is an inexact term because it doesn't provide context. "Marriage" actually exists in two realms: Religious and Civil. They are individual and distinct from each other. People can go to any Church willing to perform a Religious Marriage - and in the eyes of the government they are not Civilly Married. A couple can go to the County Clerk, get a license, get Civilly Married and have no religious component. Or they can do both. The fact remains though, that for hundreds of years (perhaps thousands), once the first Civil Law was written pertaining to Civil Marriage, that "marriage" was forever no longer an exclusively religious concept.


The trends in public opinion are well documents in polls from multiple sources, even Fox news now admits with their own polling that more American's support Same-sex Civil Marriage then oppose it. Then of course you can look at the results of General Election ballots. Early 2000's initiatives won at the ballot with 23-76% margins of victory, by 2008/2009 that had shrunk to where a change of 2.5% would have changed the outcome. Then there was last year with 4 states voting in the General Election and Same-sex Civil Marriage winning in all 4 states (3 passing it directly, 1 refusing to put discrimination in their Constitution).

If you think that opposition to Same-sex Civil Marriage is "solidifying", then reality shows that position to be incorrect.



>>>>

 

[whitehall]

Left wingers spend a lot of time pretending to be conservatives and analyzing conservative values while the freaking Country is going to hell under a socialist regime. The most liberal state in the union voted against homosexual marriage. What does that tell you? The sissie agenda is hoping for a ruling by a panel of judges rather than the will of the people.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Left wingers spend a lot of time pretending to be conservatives and analyzing conservative values while the freaking Country is going to hell under a socialist regime. The most liberal state in the union voted against homosexual marriage. What does that tell you? The sissie agenda is hoping for a ruling by a panel of judges rather than the will of the people.

1. Prop 22 passed in California in 2000 with a 23% victory, Prop 8 passed in 2008 and barely squeaked by at 2.5% over what was needed. That's a 2.5875% per year. If the same question were put to the voters in California today would you make book on the fact that Same-sex Civil Marriage wouldn't be approved at the ballot box?

2. The majority of legal entities in this country currently granting Same-sex Civil Marriage have done so through legislative and ballot actions - not through the courts.

3. Personally, I think the Prop 8 legal challenge was a mistake from a tactical standpoint. California should have done what Maine did, accept the rejection - and then work for repeal. If they had done that the repeal of Prop 8 would have been on the November 2012 ballot and it would already be gone. The political capital of Prop 8 being repealed by the voters (the same thing they did to Maine's Question 1) would have been HUGE.


>>>>

 

[kwc57]

I was having an argument with a fellow Conservative that started with the mention of gay marriage and went on to include other subjects.

Me: You are redefining "conservative", a true conservative would not want to use the police power of the Federal Government to force someone to act in a certain way, or refrain from doing some thing.

Other: No, "conservative" has always been about conserving traditional values. It is YOU who are changing the definition of "conservative".

Me: I'm using the Founding Fathers' definition. They didn't say "Freedom and Liberty except for gays and immoral people".

Other: They were Christians, and founded this country on Christian values."

Me: There were gays back then and I'm sure that they knew about gay people, why didn't they specifically say "except for Homosexuals"?

Other: Gays were not discussed openly back then like they are today.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ---

Two questions for you:

1. Who is doing the redefining of "conservatism", which was the original definition?

2. Who won that discussion?

You're dealing with a social conservative who just like their socialist liberal counterparts want to legislate people's actions and behavior. While popular with liberals who need t obe looked after and cared for, it is destroying conservatism. They need to be purged into their own little splinter group.

 

[kwc57]

So, which came first? The Total Liberty Chicken, or the Family Values Egg?

I think the question is, who are the bigger Rubes.

The "Total Liberty Rubes" or the "Family Values Rubes".

I'm going to go with the "Family Values Rubes", because they are a lot easier to fool.

The reality. The Puppetmasters of the Conservative Movement are about getting the working class to go along with the transfer of wealth from the working class to the investor class.

"Liberty" and "Family Values" are just how they fool the Rubes into voting against their own economic interests.

Then there are the fuckwit rubes like you who depend on the government to wipe your ass for you.

 

[bendog]

Goldwater, who is generally acknowledged as the intellect behing Reagan's social/small govt idealism, didn't give a rat's ass about social issues. And, unless that's the gop's position, it'll be a permanent minority power with the ability to frustrate the majority will, but no power to accomplish anything else.

Hmm... from a libertarian perspective, isn't that the point?

Well, there are two pts: 1) either Goldwater's views (which I don't see as libertarian so much as neoconservative in which govt does have a role in econ regulation) or social issues are not necessarily "not conservative."

But 2) the Gop better get back to Goldwater if they want to actually effectuate change from Obama or Hillary.

 

[t_polkow]

Goldwater, who is generally acknowledged as the intellect behing Reagan's social/small govt idealism, didn't give a rat's ass about social issues. And, unless that's the gop's position, it'll be a permanent minority power with the ability to frustrate the majority will, but no power to accomplish anything else.

Hmm... from a libertarian perspective, isn't that the point?

Well, there are two pts: 1) either Goldwater's views (which I don't see as libertarian so much as neoconservative in which govt does have a role in econ regulation) or social issues are not necessarily "not conservative."

But 2) the Gop better get back to Goldwater if they want to actually effectuate change from Obama or Hillary.

This guy really explains how the Republicans were hi jacked by the christian fundamentalist sub "culture"

 

[kaz]

1. Who is doing the redefining of "conservatism", which was the original definition?

There are "fiscal" conservatives, who believe government should have small budgets and deficits, and there are "social" conservatives who believe government should enforce their personal morality on everyone using the force of government guns.

I am a fiscal conservative, but not a social conservative. So in general, I call myself a libertarian either in general or when I'm talking to social conservatives. When discussing fiscal issues, I call myself either a libertarian or a conservative. When talking to people who know what the words mean, I call myself a "classic liberal."

There is no right or wrong answer to the use of the word "conservative" without context.

 

[Pete7469]

I would tend to agree with you on these issues, and I call myself conservative. Plenty of older conservatives call me libertarian, but I'm not quite there.

One thing I notice about conservatives in general though is that we don't all agree on every issue.

With moonbats you agree on everything, or they take their hackey sack and go home.

 

[t_polkow]

Marriage laws apply to all people equally. If states want to change them, the states can do that.

That argument worked well for the Commonwealth of Virginia in Loving v. Virginia.

Gay caterwauling does nothing to advance their cause.

In the year 2000 there were zero legal entities in the United States with legal Same-sex Civil Marriage and Civil Unions and (IIRC) only about 25% of the people supported Same-sex Civil Marriage.

Now it's 2013, 10 legal entitites (9 States + DC) have Same-sex Civil Marriage and another 9 have Civil Unions and the support for Same-sex Civil Marriage (on a national basis) has become the majority opinion.

Seems like the "caterwauling" is doing just fine.


>>>>

No, it is solidifying resistance to it and hurting the cause. Most reasonable people believe that people should be able to contract with each other pretty much as they please, provided one party is not taking advantage of the other. Instead of approaching the subject reasonably, gay activists go out of their way to be as offensive as possible to Christians.

Marriage is a sacred Christian rite. Instead of showing the slightest modicum of tolerance toward Christians, gays continue their onslaught.

As for your silly survey, there is not a doubt in my mind that the questions are cooked.

"Marriage is a sacred Christian rite."

Marriage is a legal contract and only the state can give out marriage licences, not religion is necessary, there a plenty of people who aren't christian who are married and would laugh at the sacred right non sense

 

[bendog]

It's interesting to me. In my denomination/church marriage is a sacred christian right. However, the irony is that either party can engage in conduct that is clearly not sanctioned by "chistian ethics," and the other party can't do a damn thing about it.

So, you're sort of back to "legal contract." And, I'm not so sure that's exactly correct. By entering into a marriage, where a cleric or official signs a marriage certificate, the parties submit themselves to financial, and even criminal contempt, penalites for stuff like support and property division. A super majority support treating GL (not so sure about the BT in many ways) unions the same as hetero ones.

The question, imo, is whether the term "marriage" is merely semantic, or whether denying that term to GLBT folks involves some denial of substantive rights that violates equal protecton. I really don't know about civil law.

In my church, GLBT unions have a different "right." having lived in Miss for twenty years, anything smacking of seperate but equal makes me nervous.

 

[Staidhup]

What is astounding is that this issue of rights has been blown out of context, furthermore evolved into a social litmus test by both political persuasions of the conservative party. The Constitution and Bill of Rights affords the same rights to all, indistinguishable of sex, race, ethnicity, preference, or origin, why one group should desire preferential treatment and law specific to their agenda is absurd unless for the purpose of political ideology. If one wishes to be gay, so be it, why should they receive preferential treatment because of their personal choice? Is it just that a person be subjected to having to alter their moral or lifestyle to accommodate the deficiencies of the gay minority, I think not, they can live as they so choose, enter into contracts, agreements, whatever, but to demand that the church and majority of society afford them a legal basis other than equality under the Constitution and Bill of Rights as written is preposterous. The argument that a conservative should be forced to accept this biological abnormality for political reasons is contrary to the very premise of the rights guaranteeing freedom, the backbone of the conservative political philosophy.

 

[WorldWatcher]

It's interesting to me. In my denomination/church marriage is a sacred christian right. However, the irony is that either party can engage in conduct that is clearly not sanctioned by "chistian ethics," and the other party can't do a damn thing about it.

So, you're sort of back to "legal contract." And, I'm not so sure that's exactly correct. By entering into a marriage, where a cleric or official signs a marriage certificate, the parties submit themselves to financial, and even criminal contempt, penalites for stuff like support and property division. A super majority support treating GL (not so sure about the BT in many ways) unions the same as hetero ones.

The question, imo, is whether the term "marriage" is merely semantic, or whether denying that term to GLBT folks involves some denial of substantive rights that violates equal protecton. I really don't know about civil law.

In my church, GLBT unions have a different "right." having lived in Miss for twenty years, anything smacking of seperate but equal makes me nervous.

The problem is that use of the word "marriage" by itself adds to confusion. Context is need to understand or define what type of "marriage" you are talking about. "Marriage" exists in two realms: Religious and Civil. The two are not the same.


A couple can have a Religious Marriage with no civil component.

A couple can have a Civil Marriage with no religious component.



>>>>

 

[Two Thumbs]

I was having an argument with a fellow Conservative that started with the mention of gay marriage and went on to include other subjects.

Me: You are redefining "conservative", a true conservative would not want to use the police power of the Federal Government to force someone to act in a certain way, or refrain from doing some thing.

Other: No, "conservative" has always been about conserving traditional values. It is YOU who are changing the definition of "conservative".

Me: I'm using the Founding Fathers' definition. They didn't say "Freedom and Liberty except for gays and immoral people".

Other: They were Christians, and founded this country on Christian values."

Me: There were gays back then and I'm sure that they knew about gay people, why didn't they specifically say "except for Homosexuals"?

Other: Gays were not discussed openly back then like they are today.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ---

Two questions for you:

1. Who is doing the redefining of "conservatism", which was the original definition?

2. Who won that discussion?

Tyranny is not a politically conservative value.

your friend is a religious righty and not a conservative.

Political conservatives accept freedom and liberty, warts and all. ESPECIALLY, when it hurts

 

[WorldWatcher]

What is astounding is that this issue of rights has been blown out of context, furthermore evolved into a social litmus test by both political persuasions of the conservative party. The Constitution and Bill of Rights affords the same rights to all, indistinguishable of sex, race, ethnicity, preference, or origin, why one group should desire preferential treatment and law specific to their agenda is absurd unless for the purpose of political ideology. If one wishes to be gay, so be it, why should they receive preferential treatment because of their personal choice? Is it just that a person be subjected to having to alter their moral or lifestyle to accommodate the deficiencies of the gay minority, I think not, they can live as they so choose, enter into contracts, agreements, whatever, but to demand that the church and majority of society afford them a legal basis other than equality under the Constitution and Bill of Rights as written is preposterous. The argument that a conservative should be forced to accept this biological abnormality for political reasons is contrary to the very premise of the rights guaranteeing freedom, the backbone of the conservative political philosophy.

You realize that we heterosexuals that are getting the preferential treatment because of Civil Marriage laws right?


When Same-sex Civil Marriage becomes legal in more places and under the federal government - please outline how the marriage laws will provide preferential treatment to same-sex couples?


Thanks,


>>>>

 

[Erand7899]

So, which came first? The Total Liberty Chicken, or the Family Values Egg?

I think the question is, who are the bigger Rubes.

The "Total Liberty Rubes" or the "Family Values Rubes".

I'm going to go with the "Family Values Rubes", because they are a lot easier to fool.

The reality. The Puppetmasters of the Conservative Movement are about getting the working class to go along with the transfer of wealth from the working class to the investor class.

"Liberty" and "Family Values" are just how they fool the Rubes into voting against their own economic interests.

Tis a pity, but I think you actually believe that BS.

First, you have to know what is in your own economic interests before you condemn others for voting against them. You obviously don't know. You have been duped by your puppetmaster.

Second, a "class" has no wealth to be transferred. Wealth belongs to individuals or financial entites, not to classes. That wealth is only transferred through mutual agreement, or through the power of government. Conservatives are mostly in favor of limiting the ability of the government to transfer wealth.

Third, the basic financial interest of the working class is good paying jobs with benefits. Only two entities can provide good paying jobs with benefits, and those are government or people with capital to invest.

Fourth, your desire to stick it to those rich bastards is in no one's financial interest, except for the power seekers who feed you this nonsense.