AuntiE
Member
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2013
- Messages
- 100
- Reaction score
- 39
- Location
- 44th Least Free State
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
I see that social conservatives in this thread are deliberately misrepresenting my position, which is: that it would be more profitable, both politically and programmatically, for social conservatives to emphasize a monogamous relationship structure for straights and gays alike, and to fight promiscuity by both, than to continue trying to exclude one from the family social form.
Not at all. That is, however, the implied - apparent - position of those social conservatives who embrace the use of State coercion to maintain monogamy as the default form of interpersonal romantic relationships. I have merely suggested they expand their definition of 'monogamous family' while cracking down on things like promiscuity.
:yt It has been my experience in life, no matter the issue, the louder the shouting over an issue the harder to bring about change.
When are the Libbos going to stop trying to force their beliefs on everyone else? Why not just shutup about it and let people come around on their own; the end result of that might be much more to your liking.
Exactly. You running their lives, something think is quite ok to do. So, running someone's life is perfectly acceptable to you. If it ever happens to you, don't whine.
However, normal is a useless term.
And, it matters not one bit if you have successfully legalized bigotry in 31 states. That's been done before, and over turned before. So don't get too comfortable.
Sounds like you got a problem of bigotry of your own.
Unfortunately, the old gay liberationists/ActUP/queer politics folks of the 1970s through the 1990s have conceded defeat. All they want now is to get married and grow conservative. No anarchy to be had, alas.
Not At all.
It is not bigotry to oppose bigotry. That's another false, pardon the word, meme use today. As a Catholic, I'm fine with religious beliefs. As an American I'm for freedom to believe differently. My marriage will be just fine if we allow SSM.
I ll be just fine, happy in fact, if they don't. Sounds kinda hypocritical to be a Catholic, believe in the bible yet advocate in behalf of certain kinds of sinning, but if you can get over the bigotry in other matters, I guess being a hypocrite isn't so bad either and easy to just ignore... oh, and let me tell you there is bigotry out there, calling anybody, as is done here in these rooms, homophobes just if you do not agree to allow SSM... that is bigotry most certainly.
I used to be tolerant, didn t want to know what people did in their bedrooms, etc...., but some just have to throw it in your face and most are not satisfied with just tolerance, now they want more... I am unwilling to give any more than tolerance... certainly do not intend to encourage what is by definition a deviant lifestyle... why would we do that, why would we confuse our kids so? That is just not right.
A solid point. The victory of the gay marriage movement is the demise of radical queer politics, it's the essence of conservatism: Gays no longer wish to express the uniqueness of their identity, they want a white picket fence and the tax benefits to go with it. How long will it take for social conservatives to accept gay marriage and gays enough to focus on integration as a political strut? I'm not sure. How long will it take for gays to desire assimilation into mainstream American cultural life including the nuclear family and all that goes with it? It's already happened.
I'm not convinced it is sin. I've linked many times why. My particular priest understands my argument, and doesn't dispute it. And frankly, heterosexuals throw their sexuality in people's faces all the time. I mean hold hands. Kissing.
Two epode living one another, being tender, committed isn't deviant. You might pay more attention to heterosexuals and their deviant behavior.
This might be the first post in this thread to address the essence of my initial topic, rather than rehash the outmoded debate about the morality of homosexuality or its political 'radicalism'. Thank you.
You mean like denying gays the right to marry. Yes, that is imposing your beliefs on some one else. But I don't think that's liberals doing that. And certainly conservatives have sent outsiders into states to demonize SSM. Both sides have likely sent people in, but the point is conservatives can hardly feign innocence.
Read MLKs Letter From a Birmingham Jail. I think it covers the notion of just shutting and letting it come around rather well.
Your inability to write a clear, concise grammatically correct sentence leaves one wondering what you said. An example would be, "Two epode living one another....."
I further am waiting to see heterosexuals acting as you say, ie. "hold hands"' "kissing" as it has become persona non grata to have such public displays because of the very issue under discussion on this thread.
You can fantasize about me losing, that is fine...no other fantasies allowed tho.
Ciao...really, I cannot waste anymore valuable time with a lost cause, sorry.
You're absolutely right. Sucks don't it? It's why I've done a 180 on gay marriage.
Why don't you people learn something from that and stop trying to judge everyone that doesn't agree with you and push your views on others through insults and ridicule. Doing so is highly hypocritical.
Yeah, I have trouble with auto correct, and being a poor typist multitasking, **** happens.
As for holding hands and kissing, I see it daily. Hell, I do it daily. You must live in a sad place.
Totally disagree with the arguments this side being the least bit vapid and superficial, I rather find the opposing viewpoints by far the more vacuous and disingenuous. The number of people affected would be on the order of 1-2%, so at least 98% not affected...so I fail to see where you are arriving at these ramifications for a large number of people, care to elucidate your point? Besides, long term health of a nation is at risk. This attempt by the left to make man and woman indistinguishable from one another is negatively trans-formative.
No doubt. Our objective should be towards the better outcome long term.
You will have to point out where I have gone to the opposite extreme and claim all ideas of the past are untouchable.
You cannot get that from our conversation...and I dare say from any conversation I have ever [ and I do not use absolutes like ever very often ] had, its not something I believe and again, I do not use absolutes lightly.
Well, I leave you to prove that point or leave it unproven. Perhaps one good example, since you brought it up, will do.
1. 1-2% of 300 million is 3-6 million. That's a lot of people IMO.
2. In what way is the long-term health of the nation at risk?
3. What does making man and woman indistinguishable from one another have to do with homosexuals?
While I agree with the premise of the objective to become better people, I do not follow your logic beyond that as you provided none and only say, cryptically, "Better outcomes can be obtained in horrible ways." I think same sex marriage is one of these attempts, misguided, at better outcomes attainment in horrible ways, however.No, our objective should be to become better people. Better outcomes can be obtained in horrible ways.
Hardly against all change, I am glad to be riding my car instead of a horse... or walking.Your argument was against change in general, you didn't make a specific argument against gay marriage, so I assumed you were opposed to it because it was change.
You stated in your first post to me, "I imagine if you (and to the OP's point, many hardline social conservatives) did a rigorous study on the history of the policies you advocate you may discover both that you do not like their origins and that they are not quite as old and time-tested as you believe.... so please point out an instance or two.Sure. Which point specifically?
As I live in the 44th least free state in the United States you can believe I "live in a sad place"; however, same gender marriage is available. As to any other freedoms, NOT!!!!!!!!!!:boohoo: Freedoms are constantly :vomit: on.
1. Considerably more people, 294 million or more, are to be risked, subjected to having the solid base of society, the continuing building blocks of our civilization [ the one man one woman family structure that has gotten us here] subverted and/or destroyed based upon some social experiment that benefits, perhaps, only the few.
The old saying you should go home with the one that brought you to the dance comes to mind... and you consider yourself a conservative... how so?
2. Destruction of the building blocks mentioned above and
3. The push towards the idea that men and women are indistinguishable and so families are not hurt/hindered in any way if brought up by same sex couples is false.The family unit to be balanced and for instruction of individuals and citizens to optimally occur in what would be considered the natural and normal relations between what is biologically,historically, societally and religiously determined as the most prudent fashion, man and woman being completely different constructs, both complementary and supplementary with each having their own important roles, that should be assured for the continuing health [mental, physical and spiritual ] of our general population and for the continuing health, the survival of the individuals and the nation.
The idea of same sex couples where the opposite gender is promoted to be able to stand in, to take on the role of the other gender, a role they cannot humanly replace or properly substitute for, yet there has been an attempt to meld the two in our culture making it appear as if they can be mixed and matched, that they are, in essence the same so what is the big deal. The big deal is that man and woman are not the same and we need that correct mix to continue to strive for the optimum.
While I agree with the premise of the objective to become better people, I do not follow your logic beyond that as you provided none and only say, cryptically, "Better outcomes can be obtained in horrible ways."
I think same sex marriage is one of these attempts, misguided, at better outcomes attainment in horrible ways, however.
Hardly against all change, I am glad to be riding my car instead of a horse... or walking.
You stated in your first post to me, "I imagine if you (and to the OP's point, many hardline social conservatives) did a rigorous study on the history of the policies you advocate you may discover both that you do not like their origins and that they are not quite as old and time-tested as you believe.... so please point out an instance or two.
You know, you can go back to previous conversations just as well as can I to figure out what you were saying but only alluding to and that I am questioning you about. In fact, when you answer my query, what it references should still be up there.
Says who? You? Where else has it worked long term in history? What is your basis for such an obviously unfounded formulation? In its absence, what is your logic?The one man one woman family structure is not destroyed through legalization of homosexual marriage.
Glad you are right on abortion, definitely wrong on this issue.I don't do drugs, smoke, drink, have promiscuous sex, or otherwise engage in inappropriate behavior on the basis of principle, but I also do not expect these things to be illegal.
Of course, this is also a single issue and there are several others for which a line up with the right on, such as abortion.
You don't care, I do care... I continue to want a strong America. You do not base policy on all the other bad things we allow to occur. We don't make murder legal just because we do not enforce jaywalking like we should, we don't make meth legal just because alcohol is legal. We should strive to improve society, not make it easier to take society down. As a prof I had used to say, lot easier going down two rungs of the ladder of civilization than one rung up. We should be striving to go up. We have allowed enough roadblocks to our children growing up well... easier divorce being one that leaves kids devastated. If divorce were made nearly impossible people would possibly evaluate more thoroughly those they intend to live the rest of their life with and who they will have kids with... I can see this promoting better families short and long term.I really don't care if the families are hindered or not. We don't ban people from marrying because they would be bad parents. Regardless of the validity of that idea, there are significantly more alcoholics/drug addicts than there are homosexuals who can freely get married and have children. We don't have the means as a society to check the utility of every family in the first place, and even if we did, it's not appropriate to do so. I'm not going to take away a single parent's child either, though the kid would definitely benefit from a two-family home.
Your plan requires too much oversight. Mine is easier, self policing.If we want to optimum, then do what is plan marriages at a young age. Then we can make sure that the parents compliment each other well and we can get the riff-raff out of marriage, and through forced sterilization at birth until the forced pairing, we can ensure the less desirables don't have kids.
No legal action is required, we already have the laws in place... changing our idea of marriage will create all sorts of new legal problems, not least of which how will we stop all the other deviant lifestyles that want to marry? Under theIf your point is that children raised by homosexual families face unique challenges because of the circumstances then I'll likely agree with you, but this does not justify legal action. Are homosexual parents worse then alcoholic parents? Drug addicts? Single parents? Foster homes? Are all the kids waiting to be adopted better off without families at all?
Yeah, no need for that. The current situation with one man one woman seems to work well, lets stick with the one that got us here.Forced sterilization with breeding only reserved for those demonstrated to be good parents. Mass killings of the poor and/or lower performing elements of society. Constant surveillance of every home to minimize crime. These are a view examples.
Its not fair to their kids, its a very self absorbed desire without much thought to anyone else. Not fair to society to have to change for the few, not fair to all of us that will have to endure all the rest of the collapse of remaining norms with this huge step in that direction.Same-sex marriage is not a matter of better outcomes, its about being fair as people, thus becoming better people.
I have no clue where you get the majority of your information on such things, but will just say you are way off and its hard to even read your reasonings as coming from a fellow declared conservative. We generally base our arguments on established facts.What is the history of marriage laws in United States? What purpose did they serve?
- Marriage laws in the United States, which were made conceived of sporadically across the states in the 19th century, served as a means for the government to hinder miscegenation. Prior to these laws, marriage was an issue handled by local churches. Marriage as a protected legal institution is a recent phenomenon. Even in Europe, for a very long time, marriage was primarily a private matter.
It depends on the society, however it is usually limited to that population, 1-5% generally, of a population... so while not unheard of, not practiced by many.How was homosexuality considered and treated for a vast majority of human civilization?
- In most civilizations, homosexuality was not uncommon. The early civilizations on the fertile crescent had open homosexuality, along with Greece and Egypt. Rome was more reserved, with homosexuality tending to be less spoken about though still not uncommon.
Wow... while some states did very early have a death penalty for these acts, all 13 did away with it after independence [ and prior to that it was not the United States ]...so again, need to do a little more work on your history sources.Why was homosexuality less of an issue in earlier times?
- Primarily homosexuality in the United States was not an issue because sodomy, defined as any sexual act not for procreation, faced the death penalty. Until sodomy laws were removed, even a mention of something like homosexuality would be dangerous. These are certainly not precedents we would like to follow as a society.
I meant to post "family structures", as even the most dispossessed homosexual has a biological family, but I reached the cut-off point.
My question is pretty simple: how long will it take until socially conservative mass movements, no longer strictly bound to the Baby Boomer literalist evangelism that has defined them for four decades, accept gay marriage (and a gay family unit that exists in precisely mirrored fashion to the heterosexual family) as part of their rhetoric?
This isn't merely an unprincipled concession to political reality, but would allow them to continue to disparage promiscuous "fast-lane gays" and to preserve the form of monogamy as the basis for collectively-sanctioned relationships.
(I meant to include a poll with this post but apparently cannot do so from this phone.)
Says who? You? Where else has it worked long term in history? What is your basis for such an obviously unfounded formulation? In its absence, what is your logic?
You don't care, I do care... I continue to want a strong America. You do not base policy on all the other bad things we allow to occur.We don't make murder legal just because we do not enforce jaywalking like we should,
We learned our lesson about trying to ban alcohol. It does not work. It does not work with meth either. We will have to accept, at some point, that merely banning things to try to make a better society is counter productive.we don't make meth legal just because alcohol is legal.
On a personal basis.We should strive to improve society,
Making laws that violate who we aim to be will only speed the decline of society.not make it easier to take society down.
As a prof I had used to say, lot easier going down two rungs of the ladder of civilization than one rung up. We should be striving to go up. We have allowed enough roadblocks to our children growing up well... easier divorce being one that leaves kids devastated. If divorce were made nearly impossible people would possibly evaluate more thoroughly those they intend to live the rest of their life with and who they will have kids with... I can see this promoting better families short and long term.
You just want to throw up your hands and let anything go, that is anarchy.
You just want to throw up your hands and let anything go, that is anarchy.Your plan requires too much oversight. Mine is easier, self policing.
Legal action is not required with gay marriage either. Let them get married and teach self-policing.No legal action is required, we already have the laws in place...
They should be allowed to be married.changing our idea of marriage will create all sorts of new legal problems, not least of which how will we stop all the other deviant lifestyles that want to marry?
Self policing.Under the 14 th Amendment, which is equal protection under the law, all those who want to get married will say, hey, you let them, so how are you going to legally deny what those want to do? Brother and sister [ of age and consenting] ...mother daughter, how are you going to stop that?
If same sex boundaries are to be erased, the others will not stand long. They cannot, not legally. Right now everyone has exactly equal rights. Don't fix it, it aint broke, bubba.
Yeah, no need for that. The current situation with one man one woman seems to work well, lets stick with the one that got us here.
Its not fair to their kids,
its a very self absorbed desire without much thought to anyone else.
Not fair to society to have to change for the few,
not fair to all of us that will have to endure all the rest of the collapse of remaining norms with this huge step in that direction.
I have no clue where you get the majority of your information on such things, but will just say you are way off and its hard to even read your reasonings as coming from a fellow declared conservative. We generally base our arguments on established facts.
It depends on the society, however it is usually limited to that population, 1-5% generally, of a population... so while not unheard of, not practiced by many.
Wow... while some states did very early have a death penalty for these acts, all 13 did away with it after independence [ and prior to that it was not the United States ]...so again, need to do a little more work on your history sources.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?