• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

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

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.

Is your contention that same gender couples cannot maintain a monogamous relationship without approval of society? If you need societal approval, no matter who you are, to maintain a monogamous relationship you are lacking in morals.
 
Re: When will social conservatives reorient to focus on integrating gays into familie

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

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.

Exactly how do you propose such "cracking down on things like promiscuity" be implemented? Shall we go back to laws against adultery?

It is beyond boring the constant and continuing presumption that only "Social Conservatives" have issues with same gender marriage. I keep waiting for a definition of a "Social Conservative". Every little pea brain group accuses "Social Conservatives" of every malfeasance in existence. I DO NOT believe every individual agrees with every stance in current defined political spheres.

A few weeks ago, inadvertently, I was thrown onto a survey to determine what I am politically. The survey proved what many have said about me. I am a schizoid. I fit NO party at all! My ballot at election time is a nightmare for those tallying.

As a boring personal note, NO ONE on this site could be more "conservative" on issues such as manners, apparel, language and the written word.

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

: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.

That's just who Americans are. You would think that some folks--I won't say who--would have figured that out by now, were it not for the fact that they are so out of touch with what being an American really is.
 
Re: When will social conservatives reorient to focus on integrating gays into familie

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.

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

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

Sounds like you got a problem of bigotry of your own.

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

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.

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

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

I had no choice, absolutely none. I called my neighbors two doors up. I gave them the website and forum. I said read and call me with your thoughts. They; both Catholic, gay, together ten years, state with legal same gender marriage, came back with a lovely phrase. They said, "over talked, hurting the perception and pseudo intellectual garbage." As I know them well, respect them greatly and they have a better perspective of this subject then myself, I will go with their thoughts.
 
Re: When will social conservatives reorient to focus on integrating gays into familie

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.

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

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.

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

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.

Really, if you can't waste anymore time with me than don't. You insist on responding. BTW this is another loss for you.
 
Re: When will social conservatives reorient to focus on integrating gays into familie

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.

No. Disliking bigotry is not being judgmental. It's a proper distinction. And I still point to MLK and his Letter From a Birmingham Jail. It it explains the problem with your thinking.
 
Re: When will social conservatives reorient to focus on integrating gays into familie

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.


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

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.

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?

No doubt. Our objective should be towards the better outcome long term.

No, our objective should be to become better people. Better outcomes can be obtained in horrible ways.

You will have to point out where I have gone to the opposite extreme and claim all ideas of the past are untouchable.

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 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.

Fair enough, I don't know you.

Well, I leave you to prove that point or leave it unproven. Perhaps one good example, since you brought it up, will do.

Sure. Which point specifically?
 
Re: When will social conservatives reorient to focus on integrating gays into familie

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?

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.



No, our objective should be to become better people. Better outcomes can be obtained in horrible ways.
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.



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



Sure. Which point specifically?
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.
 
Re: When will social conservatives reorient to focus on integrating gays into familie

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.

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

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

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?


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.

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.


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.

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.


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.

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.


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.

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.

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

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

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.
 
Back
Top Bottom