• 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!

Gay marriage issue now linked to Ohio senator

Declan said:
Depends. Grilling them will reduce your chances of choking to death on one. Some brands do not grill as well as others IMHO.
Click to expand...

Gotta go raw. More vitamins.
 
Deuce said:
"Individual liberty is an indefensible position" - a conservative.
Click to expand...

"Any Limitation Is Bigotry Except Those I Approve Of" - A liberal.
 
cpwill said:
"Any Limitation Is Bigotry Except Those I Approve Of" - A liberal.
Click to expand...

I approve of limitations on individual liberty when such actions would cause harm to others.

How dastardly of me.
 
cpwill said:
The Pro-Life are growing to outweigh the Pro-Choice in this country, and are capturing more and more of the young (who are otherwise generally more socially liberal). Plessy v Ferguson was on the books for decades, too, until we recognized it as the injustice that it was.



The problem being that they all too often fail to realize that social conservatism is a necessary precondition to fiscal conservatism. Women and children require a support model. That model will either be "husbands" or it will be "big government". Those who cannot work for themselves require a support model as well. That model will either be "family, savings, and society" or it will be "big government". So long as we live in a world in which non-optimal family structure are encouraged or enabled, you will have demand for big, expensive government to make up the gaps.



This is a claim that begs the assumption. If an unborn child is indeed a human child (as the pro-life hold), then it is no more "statist" for a government to restrict abortion than it is Statist for that government to restrict any other killing of one person by another.



If that were honestly the policy alternative. Instead it is is libertarians (generally) supporting positions to change what government decides about to whom it shall issue a marriage license rather than deciding not to do so. I still think that the first is a deeply problematic position (society has a host of reasons why it is good policy to encourage successful marriages), but it isn't what is actually being de facto supported.



So you would indeed maintain a role for government in marriage, meaning that you are not "libertarian" on the issue, but merely socially liberal. Polygamy comes additionally with a host of issues - polygamous societies are less stable, for example.



I don't recall the government aggressively pursuing a law that states "If you are married to one woman, you cannot live with and sleep with a second as well". The government isn't in the bedroom relegating action, it is simply having limits placed on it by the populace (namely, the limits defining when it will or will not issue a marriage license) - and that is a function that you would keep, only adjusting the particulars a bit.



Well, given the past few elections, the answer to that is plain - Social Conservatives are the base, if you don't bring them out, you lose. Those who are A) socially liberal B) fiscally conservative and C) likely to either sit out a vote or vote Democrat aren't a big enough proportion of the populace to justify losing the base to.

Generally speaking, it's also a shrinking portion of the populace - the American people are becoming more ideologically uniform within the camps - we are more likely to be both socially and fiscally liberal or both socially and fiscally conservative than in the past.
Click to expand...

I never heard anything on the young being more and more pro-life. Time will tell if you are right. It is possible and I always believe in possibilities. Perhaps when it comes social conservatism I do not that that is a precondition to fiscal responsibility. To me being fiscal responsible is not spending more than one takes in. Having 18 trillion and rising in debt is very fiscal irresponsible. Now yes, I would rather have the families of the 1950's when out of wedlock birth was looked down on and was a disgrace. A Father Knows Best or Ozzie and Harriet type family for one and all.

But that is impossible today. How or why society moved away from that I do not know. Perhaps it was the hippies and free love of the 60's. There is nothing wrong in letting a woman decide her own fate. I still look upon it as more as an individual freedom than having the state dictate she must give birth. Then who is going to take care of all these unwanted babies? The state? Would each pro-life family open their homes to these babies?

A government role in marriage, no. Although it will be very hard if nearly impossible to get government out of marriage. The IRS code is full of deductions and taxes based on marriage and there is government benefits and the like. But should there be and is it necessary? This government never kept track who was married until some states began the practice after the civil war. If memory serves me right, Kentucky became the last state to finally keep records on marriages around 1911. But there was no income tax back then.

Polygamy doesn't fit into western society but quite nicely in other societies. But then again with governments involvement in marriage and other things dealing with the repercussions of marriage a ton of laws would have to be changed.

Now I agree this nations is divided, it has become much more polarized one way or the other. I think ideally for me, I would like the government to be fiscal responsible by not spending more than it takes in and not be involved in things that do no harm to others. So as to the direction of the country, we will see, time will tell.
 
vesper said:
I guess where we differ Perotista is I don't see it so cut and dried as you do. Just because someone is socially conservative doesn't mean they are not fiscally conservative too. Many are. In fact for the socially conservative they see personal responsibility paramount to what their religions teach them. They have become big advocates for constitutional civil liberties since they have seen their own violated in current days. They don't much like having government define marriage for them. They now see it as a state issue. Same with guns. Most social and fiscal conservatives believe in a strong defense. More and more social conservatives are beginning to see the need to the return to federalism because of failed policies they once supported. Many have changed abortion rules in their own states significantly. Don't paint them with such a broad brush Pero.
Click to expand...

I realize there are a lot of people who are fiscal conservatives and social conservatives, most of them are Republicans. The reverse is true for Democrats or the new Liberals/progressives, but not the Classic Liberal. I too believe in personal responsibility, this trying to say one is not responsible for their actions and decision they make in their life is due to their environment, their parents, everything but them is destroying this country. One does not have to be religious to believe in personal responsibility. When it comes to welfare and the safety net, I also believe in the principal of the hand up vs. the hand out which is so popular with the progressives. So I would never make a good Democrat today.

Classic Liberals and Traditional conservatives were big believers in civil liberties. It is the stance of today’s neo-conservatives and progressives that I find hard to understand. Is government defining marriage or is it people defining marriage? Who should be married? Should that be decided by the government? Marriage is not listed in section 8 Article I as a power for government to decide nor is it prohibited to the states in section 10 Article I. So what may or may not apply is the 14th amendment. But the 14th does not apply if one goes by original intent, it only applies if one throws out the original intent and then in my mind it is questionable. But apparently not in the SCOTUS.

I suppose what I am saying is let love decide who marries or not. But if government is to define marriage which I think they should not, it should be at the state level. Let the social conservative define marriage as they wish, churches too. They can either recognize gay marriages or not which is up to them. But they should push their definition on others. Gays can be married in their mind and according to the law, if they are not in the minds of some of the religious folks, so be it. I can live with that. They should be able too.

With dealing with guns I believe in the second amendment where it say shall not be infringed upon means exactly that. A strong defense, that is a no brainier considering my background. But being for a strong defense does not mean I am for all of our around the world escapades or the way they are being handled. I do not think we should be the policeman of the world.
 
Perotista said:
I realize there are a lot of people who are fiscal conservatives and social conservatives, most of them are Republicans. The reverse is true for Democrats or the new Liberals/progressives, but not the Classic Liberal. I too believe in personal responsibility, this trying to say one is not responsible for their actions and decision they make in their life is due to their environment, their parents, everything but them is destroying this country. One does not have to be religious to believe in personal responsibility. When it comes to welfare and the safety net, I also believe in the principal of the hand up vs. the hand out which is so popular with the progressives. So I would never make a good Democrat today.

Classic Liberals and Traditional conservatives were big believers in civil liberties. It is the stance of today’s neo-conservatives and progressives that I find hard to understand. Is government defining marriage or is it people defining marriage? Who should be married? Should that be decided by the government? Marriage is not listed in section 8 Article I as a power for government to decide nor is it prohibited to the states in section 10 Article I. So what may or may not apply is the 14th amendment. But the 14th does not apply if one goes by original intent, it only applies if one throws out the original intent and then in my mind it is questionable. But apparently not in the SCOTUS.

I suppose what I am saying is let love decide who marries or not. But if government is to define marriage which I think they should not, it should be at the state level. Let the social conservative define marriage as they wish, churches too. They can either recognize gay marriages or not which is up to them. But they should push their definition on others. Gays can be married in their mind and according to the law, if they are not in the minds of some of the religious folks, so be it. I can live with that. They should be able too.

With dealing with guns I believe in the second amendment where it say shall not be infringed upon means exactly that. A strong defense, that is a no brainier considering my background. But being for a strong defense does not mean I am for all of our around the world escapades or the way they are being handled. I do not think we should be the policeman of the world.
Click to expand...

Greetings, Pero. :2wave:

Just because we can do something doesn't mean we always should. How are we helping in the ME? Those religious zealots have been killing each other for 1300 years and we are not going to stop them, IMO. They resent us for even trying, Forcrissakes, and laugh at us! That's the appreciation we get for our efforts? Those that are being beheaded should not have been there as targets for those depraved thugs, even though some were only trying to provide humanitarian aid. That's a reason to kill them? We are not dealing with rational people, and that both scares and disgusts me. So why are we there?

Off topic, but I hope I chose the correct deity to look after your wife today. She seemed so right for the job!
 
Perotista said:
I never heard anything on the young being more and more pro-life. Time will tell if you are right. It is possible and I always believe in possibilities.
Click to expand...

Yup. They are also more pro gay marriage. If that's the trade, it's one I'm happy, frankly, to make.

Perhaps when it comes social conservatism I do not that that is a precondition to fiscal responsibility. To me being fiscal responsible is not spending more than one takes in. Having 18 trillion and rising in debt is very fiscal irresponsible. Now yes, I would rather have the families of the 1950's when out of wedlock birth was looked down on and was a disgrace. A Father Knows Best or Ozzie and Harriet type family for one and all.

But that is impossible today. How or why society moved away from that I do not know. Perhaps it was the hippies and free love of the 60's.
Click to expand...

I would bet that a host of government incentives that punish marriage and reward single-parenthood financially also have something to do with it.

However, if you want to not run a deficit, then you have to reduce social spending. If you want to reduce social spending, then you have to increase social strength. If you want to increase social strength, then you've got to look for ways to enable all of those structures that government is trying (and failing) to take the place of.

There is nothing wrong in letting a woman decide her own fate. I still look upon it as more as an individual freedom than having the state dictate she must give birth. Then who is going to take care of all these unwanted babies? The state? Would each pro-life family open their homes to these babies?
Click to expand...

I don't know - what do you think should be done with (say) an unwanted three month old? Should the child be thrown off a cliff a'la the Spartans?

A government role in marriage, no.
Click to expand...

If you are merely expanding the definition of marriage to include homosexual and polygamous relationships, then you are keeping a government role in marriage, and simply modifying the relationships that they involve themselves in.

Although it will be very hard if nearly impossible to get government out of marriage.
Click to expand...

That is because families are (generally) joint economic ventures.

The IRS code is full of deductions and taxes based on marriage and there is government benefits and the like. But should there be and is it necessary?
Click to expand...

Yes there should be - however, it shouldn't be as it is, where low-income workers are punished for getting married. Stable marriages form the basis for a stable society. Lose the one, and you'll watch the second degrade. They additionally make the best environment for the raising of children, whom society has additional vested interests in protecting.

This government never kept track who was married until some states began the practice after the civil war. If memory serves me right, Kentucky became the last state to finally keep records on marriages around 1911. But there was no income tax back then.
Click to expand...

There was also precious little divorce back then. Poverty kept us together.

Polygamy doesn't fit into western society but quite nicely in other societies.
Click to expand...

That is unfortunately not true. Societies that broadly practice polygamy face higher rates of crime, violence, and instability as a result. The main internal problem facing societies is how to civilize and integrate the energies of young males (women, it seems, are less likely to getting into small groups and deciding it might be fun to shoot up a crowd). Pairing them with a woman via marriage is the single best-known methodology for doing that. Polygamy removes that possibility for a portion of the young male populace by soaking up the supply of available females. That is why polygamous societies also tend to be more warlike - you've got to direct the aggressive tendencies of young males outwards and (hopefully) kill enough of them off that the competition over women doesn't threaten social stability. Polygamy tends to damage the societies that feature it.

But then again with governments involvement in marriage and other things dealing with the repercussions of marriage a ton of laws would have to be changed.
Click to expand...

And much to the worse. What is going to happen when suddenly you lack a basis for buying a car for your wife without having to pay gift tax, or a widow finds herself having to pay gift tax in order to access her financial assets in the event of the death of her husband?

Now I agree this nations is divided, it has become much more polarized one way or the other. I think ideally for me, I would like the government to be fiscal responsible by not spending more than it takes in and not be involved in things that do no harm to others. So as to the direction of the country, we will see, time will tell.
Click to expand...

Sure. But if we want to do that, we have to provide alternatives to problem-solving for the gaps that would be created by a shrinking government. And that is why you have to start with social conservatism before you can get to fiscal conservatism.
 
Deuce said:
I approve of limitations on individual liberty when such actions would cause harm to others.
Click to expand...

Liberty is freedom of action. What actions are being limited through government issuance of a marriage license?
 
cpwill said:
Liberty is freedom of action. What actions are being limited through government issuance of a marriage license?
Click to expand...

Selective issuance of a marriage license limits the choice in whom a private citizen can enter a private contract with.
 
Deuce said:
Selective issuance of a marriage license limits the choice in whom a private citizen can enter a private contract with.
Click to expand...

No it doesn't, it only limits the government (in the degree to which it issues). Any issuance of a license requires selective issuance of the license. As a single example, everyone (well, most folk) agrees it shouldn't be issued to those whom we have judged are incapable of making fully informed decisions.
 
polgara said:
Greetings, Pero. :2wave:

Just because we can do something doesn't mean we always should. How are we helping in the ME? Those religious zealots have been killing each other for 1300 years and we are not going to stop them, IMO. They resent us for even trying, Forcrissakes, and laugh at us! That's the appreciation we get for our efforts? Those that are being beheaded should not have been there as targets for those depraved thugs, even though some were only trying to provide humanitarian aid. That's a reason to kill them? We are not dealing with rational people, and that both scares and disgusts me. So why are we there?

Off topic, but I hope I chose the correct deity to look after your wife today. She seemed so right for the job!
Click to expand...

You did just fine. Let's face it, zealots are not rational regardless of religion. Christians had the inquisition and witch trials. But those were a long time ago and one could say they were not rational either. Today it is the jihadist who are not rational. I don't know, I guess the world is one crazy place.
 
cpwill said:
Yeah. We tried the "let's pick a moderate Republican candidate who isn't strong on social conservatism but who is good on fiscal issues" in 2008 and 2012. It turns out, when you don't do a good job of turning out your base, you loose elections.
Click to expand...

2008 was doomed regardless of who the GOP ran.

2012 picked a slimy candidate who would say anything to anyone to get their vote. Is Romney a moderate? We have no idea because he makes Clinton look like a principled rock. Romney changed beliefs like he changed underwear.
 
cpwill said:
No it doesn't, it only limits the government (in the degree to which it issues). Any issuance of a license requires selective issuance of the license. As a single example, everyone (well, most folk) agrees it shouldn't be issued to those whom we have judged are incapable of making fully informed decisions.
Click to expand...

Yes. As allowing such can cause harm to those who aren't capable of making that decision.
 
Deuce said:
Yes. As allowing such can cause harm to those who aren't capable of making that decision.
Click to expand...

So you already are placing limitations - many others (for example) remain in favor of banning brother-sister or parent-child pairings - it's all the same; either society has the right to impose restrictions on its government in the issuance of said licenses, or they don't.
 
cpwill said:
Yup. They are also more pro gay marriage. If that's the trade, it's one I'm happy, frankly, to make.



I would bet that a host of government incentives that punish marriage and reward single-parenthood financially also have something to do with it.

However, if you want to not run a deficit, then you have to reduce social spending. If you want to reduce social spending, then you have to increase social strength. If you want to increase social strength, then you've got to look for ways to enable all of those structures that government is trying (and failing) to take the place of.



I don't know - what do you think should be done with (say) an unwanted three month old? Should the child be thrown off a cliff a'la the Spartans?



If you are merely expanding the definition of marriage to include homosexual and polygamous relationships, then you are keeping a government role in marriage, and simply modifying the relationships that they involve themselves in.



That is because families are (generally) joint economic ventures.



Yes there should be - however, it shouldn't be as it is, where low-income workers are punished for getting married. Stable marriages form the basis for a stable society. Lose the one, and you'll watch the second degrade. They additionally make the best environment for the raising of children, whom society has additional vested interests in protecting.



There was also precious little divorce back then. Poverty kept us together.



That is unfortunately not true. Societies that broadly practice polygamy face higher rates of crime, violence, and instability as a result. The main internal problem facing societies is how to civilize and integrate the energies of young males (women, it seems, are less likely to getting into small groups and deciding it might be fun to shoot up a crowd). Pairing them with a woman via marriage is the single best-known methodology for doing that. Polygamy removes that possibility for a portion of the young male populace by soaking up the supply of available females. That is why polygamous societies also tend to be more warlike - you've got to direct the aggressive tendencies of young males outwards and (hopefully) kill enough of them off that the competition over women doesn't threaten social stability. Polygamy tends to damage the societies that feature it.



And much to the worse. What is going to happen when suddenly you lack a basis for buying a car for your wife without having to pay gift tax, or a widow finds herself having to pay gift tax in order to access her financial assets in the event of the death of her husband?



Sure. But if we want to do that, we have to provide alternatives to problem-solving for the gaps that would be created by a shrinking government. And that is why you have to start with social conservatism before you can get to fiscal conservatism.
Click to expand...

I never thought about the financial incentives for single parents, makes sense. I don't think as you put expanding the definition of marriage if that is what it is is expanding government's role. I think it is more like getting government out of saying who can marry and who can not. Before government got involved common law marriages were common and recognized, but this was before state licences and other stuff to include government keeping records.

Yeah, taxes, used to reward the behavior it wants from its citizens (deductions etc.) and punish the behavior it doesn't. Government has stepped in where people, family, neighbors, communities, charities churches etc. use to take care of others. I grew up in an era where basically the only safety net was social security, no medicare, welfare, etc. But people and other organizations stepped in to help with their time, energy and money those in need. At least where I grew up. Then slowly government stepped in and took that responsibility away if it was a responsibility.

Wife says get to bed, perhaps we can take this up tomorrow
 
cpwill said:
So you already are placing limitations - many others (for example) remain in favor of banning brother-sister or parent-child pairings - it's all the same; either society has the right to impose restrictions on its government in the issuance of said licenses, or they don't.
Click to expand...

Similarly, the government can either completely ban gun ownership, or they cannot make any restriction on any weapon ownership, thus rendering privately-owned nuclear weapons legal. The world really is just black and white!! :roll:

Children cannot sign legal contracts, and a compelling state interest exists in barring such: protecting those children from abuse. If you can't identify the harm, I don't know what to tell you.
 
cpwill said:
Yup. He thought of it from a new perspective. And what was that perspective?

That of a dad who loves his son a lot. :shrug:

Sure. But if you change your position on something like this not because of your principles but because it was something you wanted to do in order to validate and enable your child (which is a natural desire for a parent), then that means that it is likely that either A) your original position wasn't built on principles or B) your principles are weaker than your emotions.
Click to expand...

Being against same sex marriage is a pretty weak stance unless you want votes from those who also feel that way, most of whom would rather put gays in jail or conversion therapy.

It's funny how so many on the anti ssm side are saying "think of the children", but when someone on that side does do just that, thinks of his child, then he is enabling and his position is weak and unprincipled.
 
cpwill said:
As a social conservative I have no problem identifying that neither of them ran on anything except the "moderate GOP" brand. George W ran on Social Conservatism/Fiscal Moderation, and he won two elections. McCain and Romney flipped that, and lost two elections.

And the reason McCain lost was because of the meltdown and the relative outturn in base. The reason Romney lost was straight up the relative outturn in base.
Click to expand...

Neither McCain nor Romney were for same sex marriage. Yet this guy has this one social issue that he is in disagreement with GOP with, his stance being that of the younger generation, while he is pretty hardcore Republican on pretty much every other issue, including the social ones.
 
Declan said:
Depends. Grilling them will reduce your chances of choking to death on one. Some brands do not grill as well as others IMHO.
Click to expand...

Simply adding something else to the peanut butter, such as jelly or bananas, reduces the chance of choking.
 
Last edited:
Perotista said:
I never heard anything on the young being more and more pro-life. Time will tell if you are right. It is possible and I always believe in possibilities. Perhaps when it comes social conservatism I do not that that is a precondition to fiscal responsibility. To me being fiscal responsible is not spending more than one takes in. Having 18 trillion and rising in debt is very fiscal irresponsible. Now yes, I would rather have the families of the 1950's when out of wedlock birth was looked down on and was a disgrace. A Father Knows Best or Ozzie and Harriet type family for one and all.

But that is impossible today. How or why society moved away from that I do not know. Perhaps it was the hippies and free love of the 60's. There is nothing wrong in letting a woman decide her own fate. I still look upon it as more as an individual freedom than having the state dictate she must give birth. Then who is going to take care of all these unwanted babies? The state? Would each pro-life family open their homes to these babies?

A government role in marriage, no. Although it will be very hard if nearly impossible to get government out of marriage. The IRS code is full of deductions and taxes based on marriage and there is government benefits and the like. But should there be and is it necessary? This government never kept track who was married until some states began the practice after the civil war. If memory serves me right, Kentucky became the last state to finally keep records on marriages around 1911. But there was no income tax back then.

Polygamy doesn't fit into western society but quite nicely in other societies. But then again with governments involvement in marriage and other things dealing with the repercussions of marriage a ton of laws would have to be changed.

Now I agree this nations is divided, it has become much more polarized one way or the other. I think ideally for me, I would like the government to be fiscal responsible by not spending more than it takes in and not be involved in things that do no harm to others. So as to the direction of the country, we will see, time will tell.
Click to expand...

The government didn't track births for a long time either, til around the 1900s, and we now have people who are having problems proving who they are because they don't have a birth certificate. Times change.
 
cpwill said:
No it doesn't, it only limits the government (in the degree to which it issues). Any issuance of a license requires selective issuance of the license. As a single example, everyone (well, most folk) agrees it shouldn't be issued to those whom we have judged are incapable of making fully informed decisions.
Click to expand...

Selective issuance not based on a legitimate state interest when it comes to issuing a license limits individual freedoms and legally recognized relationships without legitimate cause.

You could not limit drivers licenses to only married people, white people, or men unless you are able to show how any of these limitations further at least a legitimate state interest, something not likely to happen. While we still do have limitations on drivers licenses based on age or even disabilities due to being able to show how these further a legutimate state interest.
 
Hatuey said:
Gay marriage issue now linked to Ohio senator



I like him. He's pro-gay marriage and isn't afraid to show it. Can't say the same for a lot of other liberal Republicans...
Click to expand...

Good for him to finally see the light, educate himself and support equal rights because of his son.
I find it sad that a person needed somebody that close to them to finally understand thier selfishness BUT the understanding part is whats important and late is better than never. GOOD JOB!
 
AGENT J said:
Good for him to finally see the light, educate himself and support equal rights because of his son.
I find it sad that a person needed somebody that close to them to finally understand thier selfishness BUT the understanding part is whats important and late is better than never. GOOD JOB!
Click to expand...

Why do you think it's "sad"?
 
tres borrachos said:
Why do you think it's "sad"?
Click to expand...

because the understanding, respect and want for equal rights of your fellow americans (especial from a politician) should come before a family member needs them.

Its sad that it took a personal experience like that to turn on the common sense logic that ALL americans deserve equal rights. But like I said better late than never. The ability to learn is better than pure ignorance and denial.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom