Are conservatives really for family values?

[brewmama]

Um, the first 2 really aren't partisan related if you go through American history. Southern democrats were originally the proponents of racism early on and then republicans took that over. Look what areas of the U.S. went from blue to red.

Please show me where Republicans took over racism. The biggest racists in the political arena by far are Democrats, eg Robert Byrd, Ernest Hollings, Gore's father, Clinton's mentor what's his name (Arkansas senator), etc. Condaleeza Rice is a Republican because it was Republicans that registered her father to vote in Alabama when she was little.
A greater majority of Republicans than Democrats voted for the Civil rights bill. So, your reasoning is...?

Otherwise I agree with you.

 

[Spawn]

God I love when family values are argued AGAINST based on moral relativism as if that negates the proven VALUE of the traditional family. Oh we have to accommodate this or that abnormality and give it sanction. *sigh*

 

[enlightenment]

Please show me where Republicans took over racism. The biggest racists in the political arena by far are Democrats, eg Robert Byrd, Ernest Hollings, Gore's father, Clinton's mentor what's his name (Arkansas senator), etc. Condaleeza Rice is a Republican because it was Republicans that registered her father to vote in Alabama when she was little.
A greater majority of Republicans than Democrats voted for the Civil rights bill. So, your reasoning is...?

Otherwise I agree with you.

Trent Lott...Bill Frist...many modern Republicans...

Back then everyone shared in racist views. The ones who still do to some degree or another are not Democrats--they're Dixicrats.

 

[Vylo]

God I love when family values are argued AGAINST based on moral relativism as if that negates the proven VALUE of the traditional family.

Other families also have value. The traditional family isn't the only version that works if you allow it to.

 

[enlightenment]

God I love when family values are argued AGAINST based on moral relativism as if that negates the proven VALUE of the traditional family. Oh we have to accommodate this or that abnormality and give it sanction. *sigh*

This view is hypocritical. You already, to some extenct, have bought into moral relativism and progressivism. You condone women voting and getting an education and working, and yet you support traditional family values. Letting women get educated and participate in government, when their traditional place was in the home, was the first step in leaving behind traditional family values. While it was happening back in the 1800s and early 1900s, those who supported traditional family values didn't want women to vote, didn't want women to participate in government, didn't want women to become independent of men.

So, when we say "traditional family values," just how traditional are we talking? Because you've already rejected some traditional family values. Maybe you embrace 1950s traditional family values. 1920? 1800? Take your pick.

My overall point is that letting women get an education that they can put to use in real life, to allow them to vote (just these two things alone) is moral relativism.

 

[Vylo]

You already, to some extenct, have bought into moral relativism and progressivism.

Yep. The "traditional family" wasn't so traditional when it emerged. It is a pretty recent family structure.

 

[Maynard Keenan]

You know conservatives seem to put the 50's on a pedastol as the time to go back to but htings weren't all "Leave it to Beaver." We had plenty of problems, not the least of which were extreme racial and gender inequality.

Democrats were once the party of slavery. 1960-present they became the party of civil rights equality and all those southern democrats became republicans. The states Bush won in this election are the states democrats won 50+ years ago. There was a major political reversal in the middle of the last century. Democrats are not the party they used to be and Republicans are certainly not the party they used to be. Lincoln and Eisenhower would NOT fit in today's republican party.

*edited to be less imflammatory.

 

[Spawn]

This view is hypocritical. You already, to some extenct, have bought into moral relativism and progressivism. You condone women voting and getting an education and working, and yet you support traditional family values.

You assume MUCH.

Letting women get educated and participate in government, when their traditional place was in the home, was the first step in leaving behind traditional family values.

huh? Don't link education and suffrage. Women have always had the right to an education in the traditional family. Suffrage on the other hand - Chesterton had the right of.

While it was happening back in the 1800s and early 1900s, those who supported traditional family values didn't want women to vote, didn't want women to participate in government, didn't want women to become independent of men.

It was NOT about women being independent from men - it was about women sullying themselves. What you fail to realize is that prior to the Victorian age, women were seen as lower and baser than men - a woman was a temptress and a seductress. But the Victorian’s changed that. They elevated women to a revered status. They was women as the paragons of virtue and right - above the squabble and dirtiness of politics.

My overall point is that letting women get an education that they can put to use in real life, to allow them to vote (just these two things alone) is moral relativism.

NOW - having answered your statements - I reject your premise. There is nothing either moral or immoral in education - NOR is there anything moral or immoral in the right to vote. The immorality is in the why, hows, and wherefores of both.

 

[Spawn]

Yep. The "traditional family" wasn't so traditional when it emerged. It is a pretty recent family structure.

REALLY? Are you saying that a family consisting of both biological parents along with thier children and any extended family they wish to include is a NEW construct?

 

[Vylo]

REALLY? Are you saying that a family consisting of both biological parents along with thier children and any extended family they wish to include is a NEW construct?

Relatively, yes. Polygamy was much more common in the past. Marriages were also not about love, many men found that in mistresses. Marriage was mainly a financial institution.

 

[utdbear]

Lincoln and Eisenhower would NOT fit in today's republican party.

The same can be said for many Democrats, including JFK, Martin Luther King(although he was not a President). Lincoln and Eisenhower certainly would not line up with the Democratic party today either.

 

[Spawn]

[/color]

Relatively, yes. Polygamy was much more common in the past. Marriages were also not about love, many men found that in mistresses.

SO lets look back at rome and examine the family structure . . . . I don't see many examples of polygamy in rome or in western culture from rome until the present day . . . hummmm. I guess the traditional family is not all that unusual after all. OH and as for the whole mistress thing - just because some did, does not mean all DO.

Marriage was mainly a financial institution.

Mainly? I will agree that finances did play a part - but it was hardly a financial insitution - it was a social and religious institution for the stablity of culture and the continuation of the species.

 

[Spawn]

why do marxists always make everything about money? They have a real fixation problem. sheesh

 

[Spawn]

It seems to me conservatives look back to the good old days of the 50's when women and minorities were in thier place and white men controlled things. Its better that way, you know? Things are just better when white men run things. </sarcasm>

Democrats were once the party of slavery. 1960-present they became the party of civil rights equality and all those southern democrats became republicans. The states Bush won in this election are the states democrats won 50+ years ago. There was a major political reversal in the middle of the last century. Democrats are not the party they used to be and Republicans are certainly not the party they used to be. Lincoln and Eisenhower would NOT fit in today's republican party.

The republican party has ALWAYS been the party of civil rights. It was the republicans who champianed abolition - womens sufferage - AND civil rights.

http://www.ccrgop.org/Civil Rights.htm

 

[Vylo]

SO lets look back at rome and examine the family structure . . . . I don't see many examples of polygamy in rome or in western culture from rome until the present day . . . hummmm. I guess the traditional family is not all that unusual after all. OH and as for the whole mistress thing - just because some did, does not mean all DO.

Rome wasn't the only civilization around during that time period........and mistresses were very common.

Mainly? I will agree that finances did play a part - but it was hardly a financial insitution - it was a social and religious institution for the stablity of culture and the continuation of the species.

Not true, marriage wasn't fully recognized as such until 1518, I will try to dig up the article on that soon.

More on this later, I've been coming down with a cold or something of equal malice, so I will probably be passed out for several hours if I manage to sleep between hacking.

 

[Spawn]

[/color]

Rome wasn't the only civilization around during that time period........and mistresses were very common.

Rome is one of the roots of our civilization - and mistresses were only common among the rich.

[/color]

Not true, marriage wasn't fully recognized as such until 1518, I will try to dig up the article on that soon.

Marriage has always been the root of civil order - it was so in rome - and has been viewed as religious institution since the beginning of the church.

More on this later, I've been coming down with a cold or something of equal malice, so I will probably be passed out for several hours if I manage to sleep between hacking.

sleep sitting up it will help with the cough.

 

[tollytee]

[/color]
Marriage has always been the root of civil order - it was so in rome - and has been viewed as religious institution since the beginning of the church.

Marriage has been a civil and religious institution since Moses's time.

 

[brewmama]

Trent Lott...Bill Frist...many modern Republicans...

Back then everyone shared in racist views. The ones who still do to some degree or another are not Democrats--they're Dixicrats.

What did Trent Lott and Bill Frist do that was racist? And no, Byrd and Hollings are most definitely Democrats.

 

[brewmama]

Lincoln and Eisenhower would NOT fit in today's republican party.

How so?? You certainly assume much without offering any kind of evidence or reasoning. On the other hand, JFK's policies would be anathema to today's Democrats. (Tax cuts, military actions, without UN approval no less, inspiring people to give to their country rather than see what it will give them.)

 

[Iron Sun 254]

Well, we do know that people who identify themselves as born again christians have a higher divorce rate (27%) than atheists (21%).

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_dira.htm

But with correlational data, it's hard to figure out what causes what. For example, its also true that the South has a higher rate (27%) than the Northeast (19%). However, its possible that more people who live in the South are economically struggling, which can lead to more stress and higher rates of divorce....

This is a meaningless statistic unless one takes into account the numbers of the various groups who have been married. Take the South vs Northeast statistics for example. Perhaps for a group of 1000 from the South, 900 of them are or have been married while only 500 out of 1000 from the Northeast are or have been married. This would mean that 30% of marriages in the South end in Divorce while 38% of Northeast marriages have ended in divorce. It would also mean that 63% of Southerners have successful marriages while only 41% of those in the Northeast do. Granted, I just pulled these numbers out of thin air, but my point is that the original statistics don't prove anything.