True conservatism. Gay marriage.

[October]

Jeffrey, I actually started out the opposite of you. I was conservative the last time it was cool to be conservative, think William Buckley. Sounded right to me at the time but I knew there was a problem. I didn't feel right about many of the issues even tho they "sounded" right at the time. I was also a Christian and was a believer as long as I can remember. Pretty mainstream kind of a Christian back then too. I also felt some things didn't seem right what I was taught at Church. I began being honest to myself and realized I'm really not so conservative after all and I really started to evolve as soon as I freed myself from the chains of contemporary Christianity. I'm still very much a believer of God, consider myself Christian but do not conform to any man made creeds or doctrines. That point was a major break away for me as I also realized it was the main factor of tying me to conservative ideas.

These days I consider myself a Liberal but certainly not your typical liberal. I can resonate well with some Libertarian thoughts, and do not always agree with every thing the Democratic Party does or says. But for the most part feel more comfortable and at home on the left.

Looking forward to debating you tho we may actually agree on more then we disagree on.

 

[Seawytch]

Marriage is a states issue, take it up with your representative.

Then why did the Supreme Court rule that it was a fundamental right that could not be denied couples of different races or to incarcerated individuals?

 

[Oddball]

I'm a Republican and I am going to a gay wedding tomorrow. I have no problem with it. I believe people should all get tax breaks by filing joint returns. I believe in monogamy and faithfulness. I have never been harmed by a gay. My only complaint used to be that when you met the perfect guy, he was always gay.

There we go again, admitting that gay marriage is about the money, not the "love".

 

[GoneBezerk]

Bullshit, there are plenty of studies that show you homos are a problem for society.

Claiming a boy growing up without a father or mother or a girl growing up without a father or mother doesn't affect them shows you are nothing but an ignorant piece of shit.

Obamination is proof the single parent family produces dysfunctional idiots.

The "state" is interested in protecting marriage because it is in the state's best interest and society's interest to have stable hetero relationships that produce children that will repeat the cycle.

Having dysfunctional families like single parent families, lesbian and gay families isn't good in the end because many times the children from those situations end up with psychological issues not being raised by both a male and female.

Psychological and sociological studies have shown the male and female family model is superior to any single parent family or some female-female or male-male socalled family model. Taking the roles the father plays with children and the roles the mother plays with children out of the equation typically produces problem children i.e. many liberals.

Nonsense, the bolded in particular.

In Perry supporters of Proposition 8 failed to submit to the court any evidence that children raised by a same-sex couple suffered in any manner; indeed, all the evidence supported the fact that children raised in same-sex homes were just as well adjusted as those raised by opposite-sex couples.

http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/general/2012/02/07/1016696com.pdf

 

[Full-Auto]

Briefly. I am very conservative. I am a registered libertarian,(although i do not like Ron Paul because 1.he's a phony 2.I am not an isolationist. 3. he is a racist 4.his foreign policy can only be explained by the fact that he is an anti-semite) I got my conservatism honestly, I was raised by liberals and when i was young i was a registered democrat who voted for Bill Clinton twice. When i began debating politics online i did well, because i am very clever, but soon realized that because i didn't actually know anything i was either going to have to stop pretending i did, or go ahead and find out everything there was to know about the subject. I was sure this endeavor would only further solidify my liberal beliefs. I was wrong. I became a conservative as a side-effect of wanting to know the truth.

I am a lifelong atheist. I can not remember ever feeling any other way. I am no longer an anti-religious jerk, as in my youth(not coincidentally when i was also a lib )

Conservatives are WRONG about the issue of gay marriage. It is a departure from our commitment to the constitution and as such, it opens us up to the accusation of being less than genuine and only defending our precious constitution when it suits us. Just like the left does.

The "equal protection" clause of the fourteenth amendment is clear and has been interpreted (an "originalist" interpretation) to mean that all citizens are to be treated as equals in the eyes of the law(govt). As such, it is absolutely unconstitutional for the federal govt to deny two homosexuals the right to marry as long as it is granting that right to heterosexuals. That is all. It is clear and undeniable.

Why do you think gay marriage always wins in court? They can't ALL be activist judges, can they? And why do you think Republicans wanted to amend the constitution to define marriage as being between a man and a woman? Because, as written, the constitution supports gay marriage. That's why.

I will attempt to counter a few of the objections that are sure to be raised.
1.)slippery-slope. No. The equal protection clause would not support polygamy. If the federal govt wants to limit the number of spouses allowed, the constitution would not be violated. No one would be being denied their "civil rights" as the denial would not be based on any identifiable characteristic, they are not being denied based on gender, race, sexual orientation, ethnicity, etc. etc. Nor would it support bestiality or any of the other absurd slippery-slope arguments.

2.)The GLBT agenda. As i said, i am a conservative. I oppose this organization and work to counter their agenda on a daily basis, as do most conservatives.

3.)Special Rights. This is a rare case where the right they are seeking is not a "special right" but the exact same right as their fellow Americans enjoy. If the government was not in the business of sanctioning marriage, there would be no issue here. Which is probably the best answer in the end. However, since that is unlikely to happen, the constitution must be upheld and conservatives need to practice what I preach P) and have the courage and integrity to defend the principle of liberty in a case where it may be offensive to their own personal sensibilities. Do not tell me they can have civil unions with all the same legal rights. Unfortunately for you, they have every right to demand the same thing as heterosexuals have, even in name. They have every right to demand that it not only be the same thing, but also that it be called the same thing. Separate but equal is not equal.

4.)the Sanctity of marriage. that is a joke. I am 40, my wife is 38. We have been married 22 yrs. When my son was born she was 15 and i was 17, we have 3 children now and plan to be married till we die. I have lived my belief in the sanctity of marriage. So until some of you conservatives start suggesting criminal penalties for adultery, divorce, or maybe making separate checking accounts illegal, i don"t want to hear about the sanctity of marriage. Brittany Spears and Madonna have done more to damage the sanctity of marriage than homosexual could ever hope to. So in a world of underwater elvis weddings, this argument needs to be dropped.

Try to imagine the boost to the conservative movement this might bring. At some point, the religious conservatives, who i love and defend, are going to have to agree to let the constitution govern and leave their faith at home. The freedom of Religion is under assault. I will be there to defend it with you. But maybe you should consider our founding and the significance of how our founders handled it. When it came to the Declaration of Independence, a document that was very personal to the men who wrote and signed it, they paced their God prominently. We are a judeo-christian nation in founding. But when it came time for those same men(largely) to write a governing document for our nation, they left their God out. I will be there to dispel the myth of "separation" , to underscore the fact of "shall make no law", but on this matter i feel you religious conservatives are doing the movement a dis-service.


Jeffrey

Have another glass of Kool-Aid Jeff.......

For a libertarian you sure sound like the DNC. Remarks related to Ron only..........

Personally having a couple of Gay members in my family, what they do is there business, I have no interest. Just as I have no interest in your preferences.

For the record.......Later today The wife and I head down the coast to celebrate 34 years of marriage.

But I will leave you with this thought.

Many of this group dont mind discriminating against with taxes, So why should I give a damn if they receive the same treatment?

 

[AmyNation]

Are you sure you want to erase all differences between the sexes in the name of equal protection. How willing are you to allow your children and wife to go into unisex locker rooms and bath rooms? Thats just a couple of examples, marriage has always included a man and at least one women, if you want to change the recipe, you have to change the name of the dish, or you will open a can of worms that may wind up destroying our society as we know it.

^^drama llama

 

[AmyNation]

I'm a Republican and I am going to a gay wedding tomorrow. I have no problem with it. I believe people should all get tax breaks by filing joint returns. I believe in monogamy and faithfulness. I have never been harmed by a gay. My only complaint used to be that when you met the perfect guy, he was always gay.

There we go again, admitting that gay marriage is about the money, not the "love".

It can't be about both?

 

[xsited1]

...

I was raised by liberals

...

Good Gawd, man, that's horrible!

 

[Oddball]

I'm a Republican and I am going to a gay wedding tomorrow. I have no problem with it. I believe people should all get tax breaks by filing joint returns. I believe in monogamy and faithfulness. I have never been harmed by a gay. My only complaint used to be that when you met the perfect guy, he was always gay.

There we go again, admitting that gay marriage is about the money, not the "love".

It can't be about both?

It's all about the money and third-party benefits...Period.

That's why it's an irresistible issue to the leftists...They're all about entitlement.

 

[OKTexas]

Are you sure you want to erase all differences between the sexes in the name of equal protection. How willing are you to allow your children and wife to go into unisex locker rooms and bath rooms? Thats just a couple of examples, marriage has always included a man and at least one women, if you want to change the recipe, you have to change the name of the dish, or you will open a can of worms that may wind up destroying our society as we know it.

That has nothing to do with same sex marriage.

Actually it does, you just refuse to admit it because it doesn't support your arguement. We already have equal protection in that any man can marry any woman. When are you folks going to admit that this issue has nothing to do with moral outrage, it's all about money and the financial aspects of government benefits. I have yet to talk to a gay person that supports gay marriage who is not a radical political activist, that is bent on the destruction of traditional society.

You want to erase gender differences as defined by the society, you had better be prepared to go all the way, because this is just a step in the activist agenda.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Briefly. I am very conservative. I am a registered libertarian,(although i do not like Ron Paul because 1.he's a phony 2.I am not an isolationist. 3. he is a racist 4.his foreign policy can only be explained by the fact that he is an anti-semite) I got my conservatism honestly, I was raised by liberals and when i was young i was a registered democrat who voted for Bill Clinton twice. When i began debating politics online i did well, because i am very clever, but soon realized that because i didn't actually know anything i was either going to have to stop pretending i did, or go ahead and find out everything there was to know about the subject. I was sure this endeavor would only further solidify my liberal beliefs. I was wrong. I became a conservative as a side-effect of wanting to know the truth.

I am a lifelong atheist. I can not remember ever feeling any other way. I am no longer an anti-religious jerk, as in my youth(not coincidentally when i was also a lib )

Conservatives are WRONG about the issue of gay marriage. It is a departure from our commitment to the constitution and as such, it opens us up to the accusation of being less than genuine and only defending our precious constitution when it suits us. Just like the left does.

The "equal protection" clause of the fourteenth amendment is clear and has been interpreted (an "originalist" interpretation) to mean that all citizens are to be treated as equals in the eyes of the law(govt). As such, it is absolutely unconstitutional for the federal govt to deny two homosexuals the right to marry as long as it is granting that right to heterosexuals. That is all. It is clear and undeniable.

Why do you think gay marriage always wins in court? They can't ALL be activist judges, can they? And why do you think Republicans wanted to amend the constitution to define marriage as being between a man and a woman? Because, as written, the constitution supports gay marriage. That's why.

I will attempt to counter a few of the objections that are sure to be raised.
1.)slippery-slope. No. The equal protection clause would not support polygamy. If the federal govt wants to limit the number of spouses allowed, the constitution would not be violated. No one would be being denied their "civil rights" as the denial would not be based on any identifiable characteristic, they are not being denied based on gender, race, sexual orientation, ethnicity, etc. etc. Nor would it support bestiality or any of the other absurd slippery-slope arguments.

2.)The GLBT agenda. As i said, i am a conservative. I oppose this organization and work to counter their agenda on a daily basis, as do most conservatives.

3.)Special Rights. This is a rare case where the right they are seeking is not a "special right" but the exact same right as their fellow Americans enjoy. If the government was not in the business of sanctioning marriage, there would be no issue here. Which is probably the best answer in the end. However, since that is unlikely to happen, the constitution must be upheld and conservatives need to practice what I preach P) and have the courage and integrity to defend the principle of liberty in a case where it may be offensive to their own personal sensibilities. Do not tell me they can have civil unions with all the same legal rights. Unfortunately for you, they have every right to demand the same thing as heterosexuals have, even in name. They have every right to demand that it not only be the same thing, but also that it be called the same thing. Separate but equal is not equal.

4.)the Sanctity of marriage. that is a joke. I am 40, my wife is 38. We have been married 22 yrs. When my son was born she was 15 and i was 17, we have 3 children now and plan to be married till we die. I have lived my belief in the sanctity of marriage. So until some of you conservatives start suggesting criminal penalties for adultery, divorce, or maybe making separate checking accounts illegal, i don"t want to hear about the sanctity of marriage. Brittany Spears and Madonna have done more to damage the sanctity of marriage than homosexual could ever hope to. So in a world of underwater elvis weddings, this argument needs to be dropped.

Try to imagine the boost to the conservative movement this might bring. At some point, the religious conservatives, who i love and defend, are going to have to agree to let the constitution govern and leave their faith at home. The freedom of Religion is under assault. I will be there to defend it with you. But maybe you should consider our founding and the significance of how our founders handled it. When it came to the Declaration of Independence, a document that was very personal to the men who wrote and signed it, they paced their God prominently. We are a judeo-christian nation in founding. But when it came time for those same men(largely) to write a governing document for our nation, they left their God out. I will be there to dispel the myth of "separation" , to underscore the fact of "shall make no law", but on this matter i feel you religious conservatives are doing the movement a dis-service.


Jeffrey

People that go out of the way to declare themselves something almost always are exactly the opposite of what they claim. If you were really conservative you wouldn't need to prove it, you would just state your position on gay marriage and let it stand all on its own, not try to wrap it up in a pretty bow to sell it to others.

By the way, the proper term is same sex marriage.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Hello, J3ffr3y. Welcome to the board.

I, too, am a conservative, but not a convert. I am what is called a paleo-conservative. I have always been a conservative, long before it was cool to be a conservative. I have voted straight GOP my entire life, or not voted at all. Since 2006 it has been the latter since the party has been hijacked by loons.

To supplement the list in your opening post, may I recommend my own?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/222864-reasons-to-be-anti-gay-by-the-numbers.html

.

Meh....The state shouldn't be involved either way....That's the paleo answer.

But they are and it's VERY unlikely that they ever will be uninvolved.

The "state" certainly should not be able to discriminate this way.

That is the attitude that lets them get into a bunch of things that are not their business. Personally, I see hop in the fact that at least one prosecutor has decided not to prosecute bigamy cases where there is no intent to defraud or some type of abuse. Maybe people like me are starting to make a difference.

The Volokh Conspiracy » Prosecutor’s Policy: We Won’t Enforce Polygamy Ban, Because of a Concern About Religious Minority Group

 

[Quantum Windbag]

That you choose to give away your liberties doesn't mean that everyone else has to slouch to Gomorrah with you.

Wake the fuck up and recognize that you're trying to claim that going begging to a bureaucrat for a license is a "right".

Exactly. If you need to ask before you do it, it is not a right, even if the court says it is.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The "state" is interested in protecting marriage because it is in the state's best interest and society's interest to have stable hetero relationships that produce children that will repeat the cycle.

Having dysfunctional families like single parent families, lesbian and gay families isn't good in the end because many times the children from those situations end up with psychological issues not being raised by both a male and female.

Psychological and sociological studies have shown the male and female family model is superior to any single parent family or some female-female or male-male socalled family model. Taking the roles the father plays with children and the roles the mother plays with children out of the equation typically produces problem children i.e. many liberals.

Using that logic, explain the fact that AFDC is only available to single parents, and that married couples are forced to split up and/or outright lie in order to obtain benefits.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The SCOTUS has determined that legal, civil marriage (the license) is a fundamental right on no less than three occasions.

You sign your posts advertising that you are a fool? That's very self aware of you.

There is no right to a license...Ever....Period.

A license is permission granted by a second or third party.

You can find a copy of Black's Law Dictionary and look it up for yourself.

No one said anything about a ‘right’ to a license; there is, however, a right to equal protection of the law, in this case marriage law.

Because there is no rational basis to exclude same-sex couples from a given state’s marriage law, a marriage license is issued based on those criteria, not because the couple has a ‘right’ to a license.

Marriage low requires a license to gain access to all benefits.

Before you start blathering about common law marriage, those only exist in 16 states, 6 of which no longer recognize them as legal, and 1 only allows it for inheritance purposes.

That proves that marriage is not a right, the right is access to the licensing process.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The right wing:

Oh, we aren't racist.

Oh, we aren't homophobe.

The shock sounds rather "hollow".

The left wing.

He should go to college because he is black.

She should get paid more because she is female.

Whatever happened to the content of the character that was the clarion call of the civil rights movement?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I love the way you laid out your opinion, and its great to find a conservative who isn't bigoted!

You would find a lot more if you dropped your bigotry.

By the way, all he did was blather about other people being stupid, he didn't make a single point in defense of his position.

 

[Shelzin]

Briefly. I am very conservative. I am a registered libertarian,(although i do not like Ron Paul because 1.he's a phony 2.I am not an isolationist. 3. he is a racist 4.his foreign policy can only be explained by the fact that he is an anti-semite) I got my conservatism honestly, I was raised by liberals and when i was young i was a registered democrat who voted for Bill Clinton twice. When i began debating politics online i did well, because i am very clever, but soon realized that because i didn't actually know anything i was either going to have to stop pretending i did, or go ahead and find out everything there was to know about the subject. I was sure this endeavor would only further solidify my liberal beliefs. I was wrong. I became a conservative as a side-effect of wanting to know the truth.

I am a lifelong atheist. I can not remember ever feeling any other way. I am no longer an anti-religious jerk, as in my youth(not coincidentally when i was also a lib )

Conservatives are WRONG about the issue of gay marriage. It is a departure from our commitment to the constitution and as such, it opens us up to the accusation of being less than genuine and only defending our precious constitution when it suits us. Just like the left does.

The "equal protection" clause of the fourteenth amendment is clear and has been interpreted (an "originalist" interpretation) to mean that all citizens are to be treated as equals in the eyes of the law(govt). As such, it is absolutely unconstitutional for the federal govt to deny two homosexuals the right to marry as long as it is granting that right to heterosexuals. That is all. It is clear and undeniable.

Why do you think gay marriage always wins in court? They can't ALL be activist judges, can they? And why do you think Republicans wanted to amend the constitution to define marriage as being between a man and a woman? Because, as written, the constitution supports gay marriage. That's why.

I will attempt to counter a few of the objections that are sure to be raised.
1.)slippery-slope. No. The equal protection clause would not support polygamy. If the federal govt wants to limit the number of spouses allowed, the constitution would not be violated. No one would be being denied their "civil rights" as the denial would not be based on any identifiable characteristic, they are not being denied based on gender, race, sexual orientation, ethnicity, etc. etc. Nor would it support bestiality or any of the other absurd slippery-slope arguments.

2.)The GLBT agenda. As i said, i am a conservative. I oppose this organization and work to counter their agenda on a daily basis, as do most conservatives.

3.)Special Rights. This is a rare case where the right they are seeking is not a "special right" but the exact same right as their fellow Americans enjoy. If the government was not in the business of sanctioning marriage, there would be no issue here. Which is probably the best answer in the end. However, since that is unlikely to happen, the constitution must be upheld and conservatives need to practice what I preach P) and have the courage and integrity to defend the principle of liberty in a case where it may be offensive to their own personal sensibilities. Do not tell me they can have civil unions with all the same legal rights. Unfortunately for you, they have every right to demand the same thing as heterosexuals have, even in name. They have every right to demand that it not only be the same thing, but also that it be called the same thing. Separate but equal is not equal.

4.)the Sanctity of marriage. that is a joke. I am 40, my wife is 38. We have been married 22 yrs. When my son was born she was 15 and i was 17, we have 3 children now and plan to be married till we die. I have lived my belief in the sanctity of marriage. So until some of you conservatives start suggesting criminal penalties for adultery, divorce, or maybe making separate checking accounts illegal, i don"t want to hear about the sanctity of marriage. Brittany Spears and Madonna have done more to damage the sanctity of marriage than homosexual could ever hope to. So in a world of underwater elvis weddings, this argument needs to be dropped.

Try to imagine the boost to the conservative movement this might bring. At some point, the religious conservatives, who i love and defend, are going to have to agree to let the constitution govern and leave their faith at home. The freedom of Religion is under assault. I will be there to defend it with you. But maybe you should consider our founding and the significance of how our founders handled it. When it came to the Declaration of Independence, a document that was very personal to the men who wrote and signed it, they paced their God prominently. We are a judeo-christian nation in founding. But when it came time for those same men(largely) to write a governing document for our nation, they left their God out. I will be there to dispel the myth of "separation" , to underscore the fact of "shall make no law", but on this matter i feel you religious conservatives are doing the movement a dis-service.


Jeffrey

People that go out of the way to declare themselves something almost always are exactly the opposite of what they claim.

I agree.

That is because I am smarter than you, which is why I can make you look stupid and you have to wait until I actually say something stupid before I look stupid.

Point made.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Briefly. I am very conservative. I am a registered libertarian,(although i do not like Ron Paul because 1.he's a phony 2.I am not an isolationist. 3. he is a racist 4.his foreign policy can only be explained by the fact that he is an anti-semite) I got my conservatism honestly, I was raised by liberals and when i was young i was a registered democrat who voted for Bill Clinton twice. When i began debating politics online i did well, because i am very clever, but soon realized that because i didn't actually know anything i was either going to have to stop pretending i did, or go ahead and find out everything there was to know about the subject. I was sure this endeavor would only further solidify my liberal beliefs. I was wrong. I became a conservative as a side-effect of wanting to know the truth.

I have found that the truth has a very liberal bias. We don't argue opinions here. We argue facts. What is called conservatism today is dogma driven doctrinaire. It is better labeled narcissism.

We are all born conservative...self centered and fearful. It is only when we mature that we learn that other people matter and others are worthy of trust and love. The ones that never develop remain conservative.

I look forward to exposing your false assumptions with the truth.

Liberalism is trust of the people, tempered by prudence; conservatism, distrust of people, tempered by fear.
William E. Gladstone

That is rich.

You are the single most dogmatic poster on this board. Even William Joyce is more likely to use facts than you are, and he is an avowed racist.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Marriage is a states issue, take it up with your representative.

Then why did the Supreme Court rule that it was a fundamental right that could not be denied couples of different races or to incarcerated individuals?

If marriage is a fundamental right why did the Supreme Court rule in favor of the federal government of denying people the right to marry in Reynolds v United States?