Page 13 of 13 FirstFirst ... 3111213
Results 121 to 125 of 125

Thread: When will social conservatives reorient to focus on integrating gays into families?

  1. #121
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: When will social conservatives reorient to focus on integrating gays into familie

    Quote Originally Posted by AuntiE View Post
    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!!!!!!!!!! Freedoms are constantly on.
    We have same ex marriage here. No trouble with freedoms. Of course, it may be a bit of hyperbole on your part. Many who complian have seen real abuse of freedoms.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  2. #122
    Guru
    Republic Now!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Last Seen
    09-12-14 @ 11:40 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    2,671

    Re: When will social conservatives reorient to focus on integrating gays into familie

    Quote Originally Posted by Gaugingcatenate View Post
    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 one man one woman family structure is not destroyed through legalization of homosexual marriage.


    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
    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.

    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.
    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.


    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.
    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.

    If 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?


    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."
    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.

    I think same sex marriage is one of these attempts, misguided, at better outcomes attainment in horrible ways, however.
    Same-sex marriage is not a matter of better outcomes, its about being fair as people, thus becoming better people.


    Hardly against all change, I am glad to be riding my car instead of a horse... or walking.
    Good.

    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.
    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.

    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.

    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.
    One who makes himself a worm cannot complain when tread upon.

  3. #123
    controlled chaos
    Gaugingcatenate's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Formerly of the Southern USA, now permanently in the mountains of Panama
    Last Seen
    07-21-17 @ 02:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    8,159

    Re: When will social conservatives reorient to focus on integrating gays into familie

    Quote Originally Posted by Republic Now! View Post
    The one man one woman family structure is not destroyed through legalization of homosexual marriage.
    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?


    Quote Originally Posted by Republic Now! View Post
    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.
    Glad you are right on abortion, definitely wrong on this issue.

    Quote Originally Posted by Republic Now! View Post
    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.
    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.

    You just want to throw up your hands and let anything go, that is anarchy.


    Quote Originally Posted by Republic Now! View Post
    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.
    Your plan requires too much oversight. Mine is easier, self policing.

    Quote Originally Posted by Republic Now! View Post
    If 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?
    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 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.


    Quote Originally Posted by Republic Now! View Post
    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.
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Republic Now! View Post
    Same-sex marriage is not a matter of better outcomes, its about being fair as people, thus becoming better people.
    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.


    Quote Originally Posted by Republic Now! View Post
    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.
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Republic Now! View Post
    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.
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Republic Now! View Post
    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.
    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.
    "...But resist we much, we must and we will much, about that be committed..." --- the right Reverend Alfred Charles "Al" Shaprton, Jr.

  4. #124
    Sage davidtaylorjr's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    South Carolina
    Last Seen
    10-18-13 @ 08:57 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    6,775

    Re: When will social conservatives reorient to focus on integrating gays into familie

    Quote Originally Posted by Einzige View Post
    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.)
    I wont be.
    Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same.

    Ronald Reagan

  5. #125
    Guru
    Republic Now!'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Last Seen
    09-12-14 @ 11:40 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    2,671

    Re: When will social conservatives reorient to focus on integrating gays into familie

    Quote Originally Posted by Gaugingcatenate View Post
    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?
    My logic is that men and women can still be married.

    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,
    Let's be clear: Do you support the idea that it is the government's responsibility to create laws which try to ensure that only the best parents have children?


    we don't make meth legal just because alcohol is legal.
    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 should strive to improve society,
    On a personal basis.

    not make it easier to take society down.
    Making laws that violate who we aim to be will only speed the decline of society.

    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.
    Or they'll have children out of wedlock, or those who wish to divorce but can't will act as though they have.

    You just want to throw up your hands and let anything go, that is anarchy.
    Actually Government will continue to exist. Crazy, I know.

    Your plan requires too much oversight. Mine is easier, self policing.
    You just want to throw up your hands and let anything go, that is anarchy.

    No legal action is required, we already have the laws in place...
    Legal action is not required with gay marriage either. Let them get married and teach self-policing.

    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?
    They should be allowed to be married.

    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?
    Self policing.

    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.
    All of that is true. It's matter of a silly restriction in place, not some right to marriage which does not exist.

    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.
    Alright, you do that.

    You don't need a law for that, though.

    Its not fair to their kids,
    Now you're starting to sound like a pro-choice advocate.

    Yes, kids get less than optimum families. That's life. Sometimes we have to overcome hardships. We don't violate principle to protect people from hardship.

    its a very self absorbed desire without much thought to anyone else.
    Generally, in a free society, people's private lives are their business.

    Not fair to society to have to change for the few,
    So we should keep laws that pointlessly restrict individuals on the basis of societies benefit? And you question my status as a Conservative? You sound like a social engineer of the strain of America's 1930s left wing.

    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.
    Well, that went out the window with interracial marriage.


    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.
    Well, I actually have researched the issue. That's kind of what I suggested in the first place. Your claim that the facts are not true demonstrate why you need to do a rigorous study.

    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.
    Okay. Homosexuals existed and had families. They were a small amount of the population. We have homosexuals who want to have families. They are a small part of the population. You are aware that I'm not arguing for everyone to become gay, right?

    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.
    Um, actually the death penalty for sodomy existed in many places until the mid-19th century. Some sodomy laws existed as late as 2003 (though by that time the penalty had been reduced). This is another example of something you can research.
    One who makes himself a worm cannot complain when tread upon.

Page 13 of 13 FirstFirst ... 3111213

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •