• 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!

For Republicans/Conservatives: Party Support and SSM

How would it affect your vote if the republican party did not oppose SSM?


  • Total voters
    32
I still don't think that will be the case. They'll hold their nose, take the plunge, pull the lever, and whimsically reminisce about an age gone by when life was so much simpler...

Yeah? How'd that work out for Republicans in southern Ohio - where they were depending on just that phenomena - this last election?
 
Yeah? How'd that work out for Republicans in Ohio this last election?


Ha! I'm not saying I support them in their delusional fancies, I'm just saying as of right now, there aren't any real viable options for them. You can say Dems but as I alluded, to avoid getting your feet wet you don't dive in head first. As for 3rd parties well, they'll show up to hear what they have to say, they'll wear the buttons, hold the signs, chant the slogans, but at the end of the day, they're gonna stick with the devil they know and love.
 
The older ones will probably do exactly that. But younger social conservatives will do what the young always do: seek alternatives.

That's the point I'm making, as of right now, there aren't any. Greens and Libertarians aren't going for that mumbo jumbo. Those two being the only two real (if you can even say that with a straight face) alternatives to the Dem/GOP.
 
Yes, you are right, anything can happen. We see that now. I suppose I'm letting my cynicism get the better of me, I'm sure there is still an electoral appetite for a Cotton Mather type...

Perhaps we're overdue for another great awakening. ;)
 
Coming or going to or from the U.S.?

We don't need exit visas in America yet, do we? Such degree of Sovietization would require heavier socialists (Ok, "statists", to avoid semantic brawls) than Bush Jr and Obama.
 
Ha! I'm not saying I support them in their delusional fancies, I'm just saying as of right now, there aren't any real viable options for them. You can say Dems but as I alluded, to avoid getting your feet wet you don't dive in head first. As for 3rd parties well, they'll show up to hear what they have to say, they'll wear the buttons, hold the signs, chant the slogans, but at the end of the day, they're gonna stick with the devil they know and love.

I'm not saying Dems and I'm not saying third parties. I am saying depressed voter base leading to lower social conservative turnout, which will hurt Republican prospects in the swing states.

A GOP that doesn't have an active social conservative base is a GOP that looks like this:

images


That's all :shrug:
 
We don't need exit visas in America yet, do we? Such degree of Sovietization would require heavier socialists (Ok, "statists", to avoid semantic brawls) than Bush Jr and Obama.

No, but I can see support for an "exit tax" on wealth over a certain portion arising. "You didn't build that, so why should we let you take it with you".
 
Social conservatives warn Priebus they could abandon GOP - First Read



In the week since this report came out, the RNC resolution committee passed a resolution reaffirming support for a constitutional amendment banning SSM. I should also mention for clarity that part of the letter dealt with abortion, but by reports the primary focus was on same sex marriage. I am not trying to misrepresent the letter, but focusing on the part that actually interests me.

Now, my question, for those who vote republican all or much of the time: would you withdraw your support from the republican party, voting for another party or not at all, if the republican party did not oppose same sex marriage? Please only vote in the poll if you vote republican at least regularly, say 1/3 of the time or more. Not getting votes from those who rarely vote republican is not a big thing.

There are many reasons why I won't vote (R) anymore. Gay marriage is not even on the first 40 pages of that list.
 
I'm not saying Dems and I'm not saying third parties. I am saying depressed voter base leading to lower social conservative turnout, which will hurt Republican prospects in the swing states.

A GOP that doesn't have an active social conservative base is a GOP that looks like this:

images



That's all :shrug:

Yeah, I can agree with you on apathy setting in, but for how long? A midterm? a term? Sooner or later they'll be back.
 
Yeah, I can agree with you on apathy setting in, but for how long? A midterm? a term? Sooner or later they'll be back.

:) Ah. It's okay if we lose several elections and set the US on a nigh-on-irreversible course, because when it's too late a certain portion of those voters may come back and help us be a permanent protest minority. That's a great plan. ;)
 
:) Ah. It's okay if we lose several elections and set the US on a nigh-on-irreversible course, because when it's too late a certain portion of those voters may come back and help us be a permanent protest minority. That's a great plan. ;)

Permanent protest minority status is more than likely the best social conservatives can hope for.

Times are changing. What needs to happen is social conservatives need to concentrate their efforts on religious liberty. Making sure that the Sep of Church and State keeps the State out of Church matters.
 
Social conservatives warn Priebus they could abandon GOP - First Read



In the week since this report came out, the RNC resolution committee passed a resolution reaffirming support for a constitutional amendment banning SSM. I should also mention for clarity that part of the letter dealt with abortion, but by reports the primary focus was on same sex marriage. I am not trying to misrepresent the letter, but focusing on the part that actually interests me.

Now, my question, for those who vote republican all or much of the time: would you withdraw your support from the republican party, voting for another party or not at all, if the republican party did not oppose same sex marriage? Please only vote in the poll if you vote republican at least regularly, say 1/3 of the time or more. Not getting votes from those who rarely vote republican is not a big thing.
I will vote for the conservative, be they Democrat or Republican, and ssm isn't on my radar. I'm simply unconcerned about ssm at all either way.
 
Permanent protest minority status is more than likely the best social conservatives can hope for.

Times are changing. What needs to happen is social conservatives need to concentrate their efforts on religious liberty. Making sure that the Sep of Church and State keeps the State out of Church matters.

I wouldn't disagree with the latter, but I see no reason to suppose the inevitability of the former.

Folks talk about how we are moving into the "21st Century" as though all of these mores and norms were new. They aren't. They are 3rd Century, 2nd Century. We've been here before.
 
I wouldn't disagree with the latter, but I see no reason to suppose the inevitability of the former.

Folks talk about how we are moving into the "21st Century" as though all of these mores and norms were new. They aren't. They are 3rd Century, 2nd Century. We've been here before.

Yes all that we have has been. However, what had been was new, we faced it, overcame it, conquered it and ourselves. Now we are in a state of regression. Once we lose that which we've had, we shall never be able to reclaim it again.
 
Yes all that we have has been. However, what had been was new, we faced it, overcame it, conquered it and ourselves. Now we are in a state of regression. Once we lose that which we've had, we shall never be able to reclaim it again.

Nah. even in a worst case scenario - suicidal societies.... well, disappear, and are replaced by non-suicidal societies. The same is true of sub-culture units.
 
Nah. even in a worst case scenario - suicidal societies.... well, disappear, and are replaced by non-suicidal societies. The same is true of sub-culture units.

disappear you say? like never to be reclaimed again?
:2razz:
 
disappear you say? like never to be reclaimed again?
:2razz:

:) and then i pointed out that the same is true of sub-culture units. so it seems that we will allow America to create for itself a permanent underclass of those who fail to pursue education, have children out of wedlock, and can't stay married. Alright. They will be ruled by my (broadly) children, who will pursue education and raise their children inside of marriages which last for a lifetime. Social Conservatives will win against the current forces of anarchy by the simple (ironic) rules of evolution. Weaker social models die and are replaced by stronger ones.
 
:) and then i pointed out that the same is true of sub-culture units. so it seems that we will allow America to create for itself a permanent underclass of those who fail to pursue education, have children out of wedlock, and can't stay married. Alright. They will be ruled by my (broadly) children, who will pursue education and raise their children inside of marriages which last for a lifetime. Social Conservatives will win against the current forces of anarchy by the simple (ironic) rules of evolution. Weaker social models die and are replaced by stronger ones.

Just to make the point: evolution does not work quite like that.

But carry on. This thread went nothing like I expected but it is a fascinating read. Thank you all for participating and please continue.
 
Just to make the point: evolution does not work quite like that.

:confused: Pretty sure it does. Populations less adapted to reality tend to be less survivable, and are replaced by those who are better adapted to reality. Disfunctional societies (thinking big) will slowly collapse and be replaced by functional societies.



More bluntly, those who tend to live socially conservative lives (wait until marriage for children, stay married, raise the children inside the marriage, work full time) tend to be successful while those who do not tend to.... not.... :shrug:


But carry on. This thread went nothing like I expected but it is a fascinating read.

:) It did kind of veer off. But I think it's a worthy point to make - this whole sexual libertine movement is nothing particularly "new" or "modern" or "21st Century". :shrug: It's actually quite old. With mankind, there is very little new under the sun.
 
Last edited:
:confused: Pretty sure it does. Populations less adapted to reality tend to be less survivable, and are replaced by those who are better adapted to reality. Disfunctional societies (thinking big) will slowly collapse and be replaced by functional societies.



More bluntly, those who tend to live socially conservative lives (wait until marriage for children, stay married, raise the children inside the marriage, work full time) tend to be successful while those who do not tend to.... not.... :shrug:

Success in terms of evolution is measured simply by passing genes onto the next generation. The unit of evolution is either the gene, or the organism(it's a point of debate), not societies. Since a "successful" society will absorb the unsuccessful one, the genes are not effected and it has no effect evolutionarily.

There is more(for example a lack of evolutionary pressures on humans due to controlling our environment and the effects of controlling our reproduction), but that would make this a painfully long, dry post.
 
:) It did kind of veer off. But I think it's a worthy point to make - this whole sexual libertine movement is nothing particularly "new" or "modern" or "21st Century". :shrug: It's actually quite old. With mankind, there is very little new under the sun.

Some of the best threads go in odd ways. I am an outsider as far as the republican party, so I am just sitting back and enjoying the discussion...and learning, always learning. I think it is important to understand how those who differ politically think, for a variety of reasons.
 
Success in terms of evolution is measured simply by passing genes onto the next generation. The unit of evolution is either the gene, or the organism(it's a point of debate), not societies. Since a "successful" society will absorb the unsuccessful one, the genes are not effected and it has no effect evolutionarily.

Yeah, I've seen the discussion of the Gene using organisms' as a host; it's interesting. However, I would disagree here - culture is passed on as well, and the laws of evolution apply to entities other than biological individuals. March Madness, for example, is designed as an evolutionary exercise, to weed out all of the weaker teams and produce a final game between the two strongest. Successful Societies will absorb the unsuccessful ones (let us hope!), altering the nature of that society to something other than it was before. It will change its' culture, and the society that was will have ceased to be.

There is more(for example a lack of evolutionary pressures on humans due to controlling our environment and the effects of controlling our reproduction), but that would make this a painfully long, dry post.

True. But I think that we can only support increasing numbers of net drains on the system for so long before the system collapses and we become Greece. That is a painful lesson that many first world nations will learn over the next 40 years. Single mothers are not (generally) socially advantageous units. Societies that are increasingly dominated by them, therefore, will become weaker and more vulnerable.

Some of the best threads go in odd ways. I am an outsider as far as the republican party, so I am just sitting back and enjoying the discussion...and learning, always learning. I think it is important to understand how those who differ politically think, for a variety of reasons.

:) well that makes you fairly unique. In my limited experience I have noticed that conservatives tend to be more interested in how liberals think, while there seems to be a stronger bias among liberals that conservatives do not think at all, but rather "feel".
 
Yeah, I've seen the discussion of the Gene using organisms' as a host; it's interesting. However, I would disagree here - culture is passed on as well, and the laws of evolution apply to entities other than biological individuals. March Madness, for example, is designed as an evolutionary exercise, to weed out all of the weaker teams and produce a final game between the two strongest. Successful Societies will absorb the unsuccessful ones (let us hope!), altering the nature of that society to something other than it was before. It will change its' culture, and the society that was will have ceased to be.

Well, no. Societies and organisms are two distinctly different things. Trying to apply the "rules" of evolution to societies will lead to mistaken ideas.

True. But I think that we can only support increasing numbers of net drains on the system for so long before the system collapses and we become Greece. That is a painful lesson that many first world nations will learn over the next 40 years. Single mothers are not (generally) socially advantageous units. Societies that are increasingly dominated by them, therefore, will become weaker and more vulnerable.

Thius is a perfect example of why trying to apply evolution to societies does not work. It is also not necessarily accurate as there are other factors at play in success of children, which would be why single mother are not generally socially advantageous. Trying to predict the future is an exorcize in futility. The world now is not only nothing like what any one predicted when I was a kid, it is nothing like what any one predicted when I was your age.

:) well that makes you fairly unique. In my limited experience I have noticed that conservatives tend to be more interested in how liberals think, while there seems to be a stronger bias among liberals that conservatives do not think at all, but rather "feel".

Not surprisingly, I find the opposite. Might be something in that difference in experience...
 
:confused: Pretty sure it does. Populations less adapted to reality tend to be less survivable, and are replaced by those who are better adapted to reality. Disfunctional societies (thinking big) will slowly collapse and be replaced by functional societies.

More bluntly, those who tend to live socially conservative lives (wait until marriage for children, stay married, raise the children inside the marriage, work full time) tend to be successful while those who do not tend to.... not.... :shrug:

<snip>
As Redress pointed out, you're not looking at evolution correctly. "Genes" in reference to society (as opposed to biological populations) are referred to as memes (and, yes, even that meme has evolved a lot since it was introduced in 1976). Memes are ideas, something readily changed/mutated, so meme evolution is very fast-paced compared to genetic evolution. What you're talking about between progressives and conservatives is a meme arms race. The conservative memes will change (who would have thought 20 years ago that any conservative would support or at least not care about SSM?!) as will the progressive memes. They will interact and adapt to each other over time. So, while you think your "children" might be the rulers of tomorrow, it's more likely they will be continuing in the never ending arms race between memes. What those future memes will look like we haven't a clue but we can be relatively sure that the social conservative memes of tomorrow, just like their progressive counterparts, will be much different than the ones we have today. Over time, beneficial progressive memes tend to become conservative memes as society as a whole accepts them. Neither conservatives nor progressives will die out - but their unsuccessful memes will parish.


PS
In the later part of your post you presented four memes; wait until marriage for children, stay married, raise the children inside the marriage, and work full time. Some of those are no doubt beneficial memes, while others are arguably neutral or possibly even detrimental in the future. For example, many couples stay together and have children but never get married. Many couples divorce but their children grow up very adaptable, possibly because they live in two families instead of just one. Most genes and memes have good and bad sides, some more bad than good and those will change or die out. The individuals with all four of those memes above who successfully pass them along unchanged to their progeny, and so on down a few (biological) generations, which represents a huge number of meme generations, will most likely not be well adapted to that future environment. The one clear thing we have learned from biology is that not adapting to a changing environment is almost always fatal to the individual and his genes/memes.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom