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.
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.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
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.
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.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.
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.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 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?
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.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."
Same-sex marriage is not a matter of better outcomes, its about being fair as people, thus becoming better people.I think same sex marriage is one of these attempts, misguided, at better outcomes attainment in horrible ways, however.
Good.Hardly against all change, I am glad to be riding my car instead of a horse... or walking.
What is the history of marriage laws in United States? What purpose did they serve?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.
- 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.
You just want to throw up your hands and let anything go, that is anarchy.
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.
Get there firstest with the mostest. Trust, but verify. When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle.
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.
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?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.
Or they'll have children out of wedlock, or those who wish to divorce but can't will act as though they have.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.
Actually Government will continue to exist. Crazy, I know.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?
All of that is true. It's matter of a silly restriction in place, not some right to marriage which does not exist.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.
Alright, you do that.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.
You don't need a law for that, though.
Now you're starting to sound like a pro-choice advocate.Its not fair to their kids,
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.
Generally, in a free society, people's private lives are their business.its a very self absorbed desire without much thought to anyone else.
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 society to have to change for the few,
Well, that went out the window with interracial marriage.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, 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.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.
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?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.
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.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.
One who makes himself a worm cannot complain when tread upon.