Conservative vs Conservative

[EriktheRed]

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.

No.

 

[Pete7469]

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,


>>>>

It won't, that's why most people don't give a shit anymore. They just want the butt pirates to STFU and get back in the closet.

 

[Mustang]

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?

Well, for starters, I can tell you that the country wasn't founded on Christian values since there is no mention of ANY deity in the US Constitution, let alone the Christian one.

 

[PredFan]

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

They’ve always co-existed, until conjoined some 40 years ago and injected into the GOP body politic like some malevolent virus.

But both represent classic reactionaryism: the disdain of change, diversity and dissent along with the naïve desire to return America to some idealized past that never actually existed to begin with.

Your version of conservatism may be accepting of same-sex couples with regard to marriage access but is likely hostile to public accommodations/Commerce Clause jurisprudence, for example.

The ‘best’ conservatives, if you will, the conservatives we need back, are conservatives from the 50s, 60s, and early 70s, before the bane of social conservatism. Such conservatives were intelligent, progressive, and pragmatic; they advocated for both responsible fiscal policy and responsible governance. They understood that environmental protection, worker safety, and civil rights were not a communist plot to overthrow America, and that although government should be limited and small, it could nonetheless play a positive role in Americans’ lives and was not the monster made out to be by today’s radical, extreme right.

So they were basically....progressives! No thanks.

 

[PredFan]

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.

You side with me, but which came first? Who is redefining Conservatives, me or him?

 

[PredFan]

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

Which definition came first do you think? Who is redefining conservatism, me or him?

 

[IlarMeilyr]

I am not sure this directly answer the OP's questions. But I tend to believe that -- properly understood --Conservatism values the idea of leaving others the fuck alone except as may be necessary under a rational social contract.

If two gay guys or a couple of lesbians choose to act on their own sexual impulses in the privacy of their own home, why the hell should I give a damn anymore than I'd care about some heterosexual couple doing likewise?

Similarly, if the state has any business at all being involved in "marriage," I suspect it should be properly limited to the familiar family civil obligations like child support and spousal support. It should never have been involved with any "religious" notions. The State's limited interest is a contract-like interest. So, frankly, I don't think the State should be putting its imprimatur on the question of who is or who is not "married" EXCEPT for protecting children and those with mental disabilities. Let churches and mosques and synagogues determine who can or cannot be married. That's a religious question in which the State has no legitimate interest.

The State does have an interest in the contract question between the parties -- and in supervising certain legal obligations (primarily financial but also school and health care to a certain extent) relative to children. It can be concerned with property rights and the rights of the survivors of that union. Probate court matters still count. That need not involve designating couples as "married" or not, however. All such "unions" over which the State does have any legitimate interest can be uniformly called "civil unions" or "civil relationship contracts."

And better yet, if a church or a synagogue declines to call a gay couple "married," the State doesn't get a vote in that discussion. Not in Court and not in any other way. It's none of the STATE'S damn business.

 

[PredFan]

The only reason I was discussing gays at all was because our debate began with the issue of the day; the SCOTUS' upcoming decision. It was not my intention to start yet another debate thread on gay marriage. I was hoping someone would know which definition of Conservative came first.

 

[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?

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

Which definition came first do you think? Who is redefining conservatism, me or him?

Honestly, that is hard for me to say. I believe the intent of our founding fathers and the constitution they wrote was an ideal to strive towards. Culture changes over time, but the principles are timeless. Even though the constitution could be read at the time of its origination that ALL men were created equal, that was not the reality. Religion has played a major part in our society....as well as all other societies, so the tenants of those faiths gets mixed in with peoples views on politics. Taken at face value, the constitutional freedoms and liberties should not be bound by religious beliefs, but you can't take the human element out of it. That isn't to say that the social conservative side came before the small non-interventional government side. From a purity and intent standpoint, I think our side came first, but keeping it pure in an impure society is difficult. Social conservatives just like socialist liberals will seek to misuse the power of government to mold the society they want........and that is not what I consider conservative. Freedom and liberty means leaving people alone to make their own decisions and live with the consequences. I believe that builds a better and stronger society than one engineered by either side.

 

[kaz]

Well, for starters, I can tell you that the country wasn't founded on Christian values since there is no mention of ANY deity in the US Constitution, let alone the Christian one.

Logically your argument only demonstrates that the country isn't founded on the Christian religion, it doesn't refute the values that were involved at all. To refute that, you would have to show that the Constitution doesn't reflect Christian values. Which you can't do.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

* * * *

Well, for starters, I can tell you that the country wasn't founded on Christian values since there is no mention of ANY deity in the US Constitution, let alone the Christian one.

Well for starters, you are wrong:

done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independance of the United States of America the Twelfth In witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names,

G°. Washington
Presidt and deputy from Virginia

One deity mentioned. And the Christian One at that.

Moreover, the Constitution need not mention any deity in order for it to nevertheless be true that the country WAS founded on Christian values.

Whether it was or not is a different question. But your "proof" that it wasn't falls far short of constituting actual "proof."