• 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!

Ted Olson: Same-sex marriage is a conservative value

Tradition? Roman emperors have married men. Same sex marriage has occurred in the past.

And for the record, it was your side that was forcing a definition of marriage on everyone. You used the law to force your perceived traditionalist perspective of marriage on us. Prop 8 was designed to define marriage under law to exclude same sex couples from marrying and to imbue gender discrimination into the law. We didn't pass any laws in California saying people had to accept same sex marriage, you guys passed laws saying same sex couples couldn't be allowed to marry. You were the ones who forced a definition of marriage on us that we did not agree with.

So has child sacrifice, marriage of 9 year olds, and the what not. Your point is rather moot. Note I pushed the bar to the birth of the USA...


Majority of society opposes Gay Marriage.

It's failed at EVERY BALLOT it's been tried at.

I suppose you support NAMBLA. What, you don't?? You're forcing your views of morality on these people!!!! (we can do this all day if you want, you are on the losing side here buddy)
 
So has child sacrifice, marriage of 9 year olds, and the what not. Your point is rather moot. Note I pushed the bar to the birth of the USA...


Majority of society opposes Gay Marriage.

It's failed at EVERY BALLOT it's been tried at.

I suppose you support NAMBLA. What, you don't?? You're forcing your views of morality on these people!!!! (we can do this all day if you want, you are on the losing side here buddy)

Nice try at building a straw man. NAMBLA members abuse children, who are unable to understand consent. Gay marriage is between consenting ADULTS. DUH!!
 
So has child sacrifice, marriage of 9 year olds, and the what not. Your point is rather moot. Note I pushed the bar to the birth of the USA...


Majority of society opposes Gay Marriage.

It's failed at EVERY BALLOT it's been tried at.

I suppose you support NAMBLA. What, you don't?? You're forcing your views of morality on these people!!!! (we can do this all day if you want, you are on the losing side here buddy)

Well let's consider the rational you are using. First off, tradition makes things right? Well I guess you can justify slavery then because it existed for hundreds of years. You could justify denying women the right to vote because that was tradition for even longer than slavery. You could probably justify segregation and bans on interracial marriage on the basis that those were fairly traditional. No. Tradition does not make things right. Just because you don't accept a definition of marriage that includes same sex couples doesn't mean that you are justified to impose your definition on us. Especially since it arguably violates our Constitutional rights.

Now how about the rational of the majority. If a majority argues something then that makes it right? Well if that is the case, we should definitely bring back interracial marriage bans since at one time 40 states had laws prohibiting it. No, I believe you know better than that. We do not put Constitutional rights to a vote in this country. We would not put freedom of religion or the right to bear arms to a vote of the majority, so why should we allow states to imbue their Constitutions with gender discrimination and to force a definition of marriage that excludes same sex couples on others?
 
Nice try at building a straw man. NAMBLA members abuse children, who are unable to understand consent. Gay marriage is between consenting ADULTS. DUH!!

He got pissed because he knew I was right and so he was trying to use a red herring to flame bait me into arguing with him. His position is based on his emotional feelings about marriage, not on any degree of reason.
 
Tucker, Dan...

If someone believes something is Right, in this case Traditional Marriage being between a man and a woman; What sort of person are they if they don't stand up against those trying to CHANGE what a marriage is?

I guess I don't see how anyone can change what marriage is.

Like it or not, an individual marriage is defined by the people within said marriage, not by society, not by the laws.

I could no more prevent two men from claiming that they are married than I can prevent two divorced people from claiming they are "re"married to each other.

I instead keep my own marriage defined in the traditional sense: One man and one woman joined for life.

If the government decided tommorow that it did not want to recognize my marriage to my wife, the fact that she and I are married would be unchanged. It would still be a lifelong bond between one man and one woman for the purposes of raising a family together.


I have a word for those people, craven. Or unprincipled, either works to be honest. "I believe in this... but I won't stand up for it cause well... it's really none of my business..."

I guess it depends on perspective then.

I tend to look at things with a worldview similar to that espoused by Jonathan Swift in his satire commonly referred to as "The Battle of the Books".

In that story, Swift describes the battle between the moderns and the classics where the moderns sought to tear down the classics in order to be considered on teh saem plane. Swift's tretise was that the moderns should instead seek to elevate themselves to teh level of the classics.

That one achieves equal consideration by bringing oneself up to the level of greatness, instead of tearing others down to give the appearance of equality.

Conversely, one maintains their elevated status in a similar way. Instead of seeking to hold others down to avoid being seen on a equal level, one simply continues to elevate oneself, or allows the other to reach the saem plane without any fear of losing status.

I look at the marriage debate in the same way.

In this case, same-sex couples are actually doing as Swift intended. They are not attacking the foundations of traditional marriage in order to tear it down. Instead they are seeking to elevate their alternative marriages to an equal plane of recognition.

As a person who is involved in a traditional marriage, and values it greatly, I do not feel threatened by their attempts. I'm secure enough in the intrinsic value of traditional marriage so that I do not feel that their attempts threaten it in any way.

In truth, there is nothing at all to fdight or defend, becaus ethere is nothign being done to degrade traditional marriage in this case.

If they were actually trying to tear down traditional marriage, I would be far more inclined to fight such a change.

But traditional marriage is a valuable enough aspect of society it is not at all threatened by non-traditional marriages.

I don't think there is any need to defend traditional marriage because of this lack of a threat.

Instead, I promote traditional marriage every single day through my actions. I love my wife, and I tell her that everyday and she does the same for me.

We work through the hard times and support each other in all ways.

Neither of us considers divorce an option, because our vows were for life.

We are now trying to start a family together.

So while you may think I'm not taking a stand in my beliefs, I consider the exact opposite to be true. I live the traditional marriage in every way. My stand is to preserve it and cherish it.

Nobody is trying to change my marriage because nobody can change it.
 
It'd be easier to take you seriously, if you didn't post like a 13 year old child trying to sound tough with big words he learned in English class last week.

"Thugs, Punks, ******s, Jackbootism"

You have this UNHOLY hate towards police, and I'm sorry Chevy, but a country with no police would be far worse then the simply IMAGINARY police-state Gov't Thug ruled world you seem think exists today.

The average Police officer, TSA worker, FBI agent are just good honest people that want to protect society and the people they love. You cast them as Nazi SS Goons, mindless thugs out to destroy all that oppose them. It's... comical reading your hate. Hell you sound like a KKK'r from the 30's only about Police instead of blacks!

YES, there are stupid laws, is that the fault of those entrusted with enforcing them?

YES, there are BAD COPS that screw up, make mistakes or are corrupt. Guess what, that's a side effect of this thing called "Life".

You waste so much energy, so much emotion, so much misguided hate... that one wonders if it's just an act or do you really think this way?

I AGREE with 90% of the things you post, but on this... you are no better then the people that call members of the Armed Forces "Baby Killers". And I cannot respect someone like that, and I bet'cha I ain't the only that holds you in such... a manner. The difference between me and some others is, I'll tell you straight up, and believe you can step away from this destructive behavior, cause you are RIGHT more often then not on a lot of things.

<Thunderous applause.>

Finally, MrV. You are on the right side of right. See, anyone can be right and any one can be wrong.

You didn't do too good on the gay marriage issue and, well, pretty much got owned by all debating you, but it was interesting and honest and fun to follow. I respect how you feel even if you happen to be on the wrong side of right in that regard. That's a tough position to defend. But you fought the good fight. Can't win 'em all.
 
Last edited:
Nice try at building a straw man. NAMBLA members abuse children, who are unable to understand consent. Gay marriage is between consenting ADULTS. DUH!!

Who says they abuse children? That's just your MORALITY being forced on them, you values.

How about Polygamy Dan? Eh? You haven't answered that one, it's coming next and everyone knows it.
 
He got pissed because he knew I was right and so he was trying to use a red herring to flame bait me into arguing with him. His position is based on his emotional feelings about marriage, not on any degree of reason.

I have plenty of reason! I was just taking ya'lls stance and running with it. I'm not blown out... after all, the President down to the average voters reject ya'lls... stance.
 
<Thunderous applause.>

Finally, MrV. You are on the right side of right. See, anyone can be right and any one can be wrong.

You didn't do too good on the gay marriage issue and, well, pretty much got owned by all debating you, but it was interesting and honest and fun to follow. I respect how you feel even if you happen to be on the wrong side of right in that regard. That's a tough position to defend. But you fought the good fight. Can't win 'em all.

(The funniest part is, I am FOR Gay Marriage, just not right now, but no one acknowledges that) ;)
 
It's really not that hard CC.

Traditional Social Values like opposing "Gay Marriage" isn't using Big Government to push a moral value. That's a fallacious logical argument started by Progressive to undermine Conservatives in the political arena.

Look at it like this, Conservatives believe in say, traditional marriage. A group, Lib/Prog comes along and wants to CHANGE that to encompass homosexuals. This can ONLY be done by having the Gov't issue "Marriage Licences". What are Conservatives to do? NOT push to keep Gov't, the entity that issues and thus ultimately legal acknowledges the legitimacy of such unions, from doing so?

What recourse have they? The bumper sticker logic of "You're not a real conservative cause you want Gov't in people's lives" is patently dishonest, intellectually dishonest.

My personal view on the matter is slightly more liberal on the matter, but I both UNDERSTAND why Conservatives feel the way they do, and support their methods. I fight Gay Marriage on principles. Get the people to accept it, not the courts, not force it through that way, in the mean time many on the right would support Civil Unions. I know it's stupid, same thing, different names, but to the right, the NAME DOES MATTER. SO why can't we as a society compromise here?

Ok... so what you are saying is there is no conflict. Since conservatives believe in traditional social values, when those values are attacked, using government to keep those values intact is NOT supporting government intrusion into an individual's lives. It supports the traditional values. Would this be correct?
 
Who says they abuse children? That's just your MORALITY being forced on them, you values.

How about Polygamy Dan? Eh? You haven't answered that one, it's coming next and everyone knows it.

1) Again, as in many times already, my point has flown way over your head. Children do not have the capacity nor the ability to consent. Therefore it IS child abuse.

2) I have given my position on polygamy time and time again in this thread, and in other threads. My position is clear. If you are too lazy to read my response, that is your own responsibility, not mine.
 
Last edited:
Actually, I DO have social values. However, I recognize that it is not my place to force those values on others, nor is it the duty of the government to do the same. It is something that is in God's hands alone. What we have here is a group of people that wants to legislate morality. They are the ones pointing out the motes in other people's eyes, while ignoring the beam in their own eye. They are also the ones Christ was referring to when he said that there was a special place in hell, reserved just for the hypocrites.

Dan... you sound a bit more like a Goldwater conservative. In today's world, that would be closer to the libertarian position, wouldn't it?
 
I don't think there is a conflict, cap.

Personally, I feel that believing in traditional social values does not mean the same thing as campaigning for traditional social values to be enforced throughout society.

For me, the first rule of conservative ideology is that when one seeks to promote a certain type of belief system, they do so through personal action and strict adherence to their own value system.

I have no doubt that many people here would say I'm a "social liberal", but I feel that I embody traditional social values in my everyday life. I just don't believe it is the government's job to enforce these values, nor is it my job to demonize those who do not live by these values.

Dan put it nicely below Cap, but I'll try to explain things as I see them. I'm a conservative who has a specific moral code that I follow, but I am a true conservative or rather classic liberal. No matter what I personally feel I follow the constitution first and foremost and that trumps any other agendas(well, it should anyway). That being said I don't see any compelling interest in government regulation of marriage on the religious level since that is a recognized right within our founding document, if we're being honest any civil unions including secular marriage would have to fall under equal protections so government technically still wouldn't have the right to discriminate. All of that trumps any religious views I may have as I believe that standing up for something I don't believe in protects my own rights(I'm neutral on gay marriage).

I think that a lot of people including some conservatives have a narrow view of conservatism and much of that has to do with the religious right taking over the movement and the RINOs as well. Conservatism is relatively flexible and has a very broad spectrum of views with one being more predominantly presented and unfortunately the most rigid one is the one most see.

Nailed it!

The two of you, also sound more like libertarians. I was never a fan of Goldwater. Would you say that your views are similar to his?
 
Dan... you sound a bit more like a Goldwater conservative. In today's world, that would be closer to the libertarian position, wouldn't it?

I grew up a Goldwater Conservative. I actually met him once, when I was young, and got to shake his hand. I would say that had a definite influence on my political beliefs.

To answer your question, I would call myself a Conservative with some Libertarian leanings. Not a complete Libertarian, though.
 
And just as an aside... I am recusing myself from any GM debate on this thread. I've done this dance quite a bit, lately. I'm more interested in hearing different perspectives on conservatism.
 
I grew up a Goldwater Conservative. I actually met him once, when I was young, and got to shake his hand. I would say that had a definite influence on my political beliefs.

To answer your question, I would call myself a Conservative with some Libertarian leanings. Not a complete Libertarian, though.

What do you see as the differences in your ideology?
 
The Conservative I believe in is much more fundamental to what this country was founded on; conserving freedom. I see Libertarians as they only real Conservative political party right now (although that is changing with other parties also).

People who believe they have a right to any control over other people who are causing them no harm, and call themselves Conservative, are selfish hypocrites. They are not concerned about the values of this country, they only want to feel superior to anyone else they can. We saw it with the oppression of women, then blacks, then Indians, now gays, and to some extent Latinos. Like all of those groups, what is right will eventually win and gays will have their freedoms.
 
Ok... so what you are saying is there is no conflict. Since conservatives believe in traditional social values, when those values are attacked, using government to keep those values intact is NOT supporting government intrusion into an individual's lives. It supports the traditional values. Would this be correct?

In a sense, when it's GOV'T that must... regulate the behavior. In this case, legal marriages. See what I mean? Now if there was a push to outlaw homosexuality, I'd be 110% in the streets against that.

Also, I'd like to point out, what recourse do those that believe Marriage is between a man and a woman, when others want that changed? Just do nothing as Dan suggests? That's awfully silly.
 
What do you see as the differences in your ideology?

I believe strongly in a strict interpretation of the Constitution. That has always been the traditional definition of Conservatism. That some people today, who call themselves Conservative, are attempting to blur that line doesn't change it, nor does it make them Conservative.
 
In a sense, when it's GOV'T that must... regulate the behavior. In this case, legal marriages. See what I mean? Now if there was a push to outlaw homosexuality, I'd be 110% in the streets against that.

Also, I'd like to point out, what recourse do those that believe Marriage is between a man and a woman, when others want that changed? Just do nothing as Dan suggests? That's awfully silly.

OK... I can understand that. And that seems to be a difference between your brand of conservatism and the brand I hear from libertarians. Your brand seems to be more active. Would you say that is correct?
 
I believe strongly in a strict interpretation of the Constitution. That has always been the traditional definition of Conservatism. That some people today, who call themselves Conservative, are attempting to blur that line doesn't change it, nor does it make them Conservative.

Seems to me, that your view of conservatism differs from MrV's in this sense: MrV would be more active in having his positions supported, as he sees these positions as affecting more than the individual, and he sees the opposing positions as affecting him. Your position would be to NOT be active in pushing these positions, as you do not see your positions as affecting others... if the Constitution is strictly followed, and you do not see opposing positions as affecting you. Does that make sense?
 
Seems to me, that your view of conservatism differs from MrV's in this sense: MrV would be more active in having his positions supported, as he sees these positions as affecting more than the individual, and he sees the opposing positions as affecting him. Your position would be to NOT be active in pushing these positions, as you do not see your positions as affecting others... if the Constitution is strictly followed, and you do not see opposing positions as affecting you. Does that make sense?

Pretty much so. There are many issues where Mr. V and I agree. The 2nd Amendment, for one. Bush's pick for judges. Reckless spending by the government. But we differ on issues where I would consider him to be authoritarian, such as gay marriage and abortion.

If a Constitutional amendment were passed that outlawed gay marriage, I would believe it to be wrong, and would argue the opposition, but to me, that would be Constitutional, and I would accept it. On abortion, I am in favor of overturning Roe v. Wade. So is Mr. V. However, my reasoning is that the 10th Amendment gives the power whether or not to have abortion to the states. I believe that Mr. V would be in favor of a law outlawing abortion in all 50 states, which I believe would be unconstitutional. I could be wrong about Mr. V on this though, so I will let him speak for himself.
 
OK... I can understand that. And that seems to be a difference between your brand of conservatism and the brand I hear from libertarians. Your brand seems to be more active. Would you say that is correct?

Yes, more... active would be appropriate.
 
Pretty much so. There are many issues where Mr. V and I agree. The 2nd Amendment, for one. Bush's pick for judges. Reckless spending by the government. But we differ on issues where I would consider him to be authoritarian, such as gay marriage and abortion.

If a Constitutional amendment were passed that outlawed gay marriage, I would believe it to be wrong, and would argue the opposition, but to me, that would be Constitutional, and I would accept it. On abortion, I am in favor of overturning Roe v. Wade. So is Mr. V. However, my reasoning is that the 10th Amendment gives the power whether or not to have abortion to the states. I believe that Mr. V would be in favor of a law outlawing abortion in all 50 states, which I believe would be unconstitutional. I could be wrong about Mr. V on this though, so I will let him speak for himself.

I've stated I am not AGAINST Gay Marriage, just against it right now. On principle.

And I stated I am 100% in agreement with you on Roe Vs. Wade, it's a STATES issue. I've always had that stance.
 
Back
Top Bottom