Consistent Conservatism

[LightHorseman]

Ridiculous.

Sure, changeing the spelling of a word for ideological reasons is ridiculous. But then, so is citing Genesis as literal history.

 

[RealDealNeverstop]

So there's ten pages I skimmed but I've just got to respond to most of these points. Hope life finds you well, I just met a painter this morning and his high end business is struggling.

Hope all is well with you. Strictly by the Grace of God not only am I not struggling, my business is actually growing. I took a lot of criticism from other painters and other companies in how I was doing things but now iam helping employ their guys because they are struggling from one job to the next. Hourly I probably don't make as much as I could right now but the pay off is starting to show itself because iam already booked through May and have jobs in addition to those on a carte blanche schedule. Some painters make the mistake of believing you should (and are auto-entitled) to start out making $100,000/year but in this economy the last thing wealthy clients have patience for is arrogance in the people they hire. So, I do the Zig Zigler thing and keep in mind it is not I who is doing them a favor and remove any and all pressure from making decisions about colors/patterns. (The weirdest thing...color samples from the paint store are $5 each and I've seen some clients actually limit samples because they felt like they would be wasting $15 to look at a few more colors. So I fixed that by paying for the samples myself and that extra $20 or so I am spending gets a return of 20x in revenue and referrals.) Okay, 'nuff babbling!

Stop. You assume that your version of conservatism is correct when it disagrees with most self described conservatives here. Not saying you're wrong in your beliefs, but there's a little hubris (at least to my overly sensitive eyes) in you calling it "consistent."

Not necessarily...what I said was "Consistent Conservatism." It doesn't mean "my version is correct" but only that it's consistent. As for pointing out my version may not be accepted by some others on a message board...so what? It's not like most have been able to defend their self descriptions of being a Conservative. Calling others a Rino and prancing away to get behind some regions safe from response isn't really a defense. Furthermore, my claims are in line with some of the most prominent US Conservatives so iam not insecure about my political identity and anyone is more than welcome at any time to invite me to a formal debate on the matter. I'll even bring the beer, grill, and sparklers!

It's a liberal use of government to further regulate a church function.

Where did I say anything about regulating Churches? If the Federal government tomorrow said Gay Marriage is legal it wouldn't have one effect on Churches because gay marriage being legal doesn't mean Churches have to marry gays. Churches have always had the Right to decide whom they marry so what is this response of Church regulation based upon?

Why are most gays against the idea of state sanctioned partnerships? Because they want to intrude on church business. Everything the gays say they want, from hospital rights to next of kin rights to insurance carry-over rights are all things the government added to the definition of marriage.

Gays are against it because it will only lead to more problems in litigation. Why? Lawyers will argue X Law does not apply to B Couple because X Law is specifically a "Marriage Law" and B Couple are not "Married."
Gay marriage has been legal in MA for a while now...could we see some links that show gays trying to force churches to marry them? I haven't heard of a single case so that's why iam asking.

Consistent conservatism doesn't ask the government to further intrude upon the rules of church, it asks the government to step away.

Where in my position does it say or imply anything about intruding on churches? Gay marriage does not mean churches have to marry anyone; churches would still retain the Right to not marry a gay couple.

Marriage should be church business and if the government wants to set up some sort of voluntary partnership to it can.

The major problem with that claim is implying marriage is endemic to Churches. Atheist married couple exist so how did they get married?

Abortion takes a human life. There is no debate on this. The debate is about whether that life is worth protecting. To ask the government to protect a life through law is not an expansion of government control, indeed it is simply an equal protection of all.

Only half of my position is being addressed. I didn't say it was only an expansion but an inappropriate intrusion:

"It is inappropriate for the government to make such a private decision involving womyn's bodies, thus Roe v Wade was a correct decision. It is a Liberal use of government both by expansion and intrusion."


If the government forces pregnancies to become births then the government is responsible for that person. This would require a socialist State.

Even in times of slavery when they were considered property one could not simply kill a slave (sure it was done and often times the law looked the other way, but it was not legal to do it). There is no expansion of government to ask for equal protection, and, indeed, many conservatives would be happy to see it simply reverted back to the states for consideration.

The comparison to slaves is out of bounds because slaves were not inside another human's body. The analogy is trying to ignored the very contention of this issue. Much more importantly, slaves could be legally killed since they were deemed as property and not persons. (Dred Scott case)

Corporations are accountable to the shareholders. Every one of us who owns stock is at fault for letting the managers take huge salaries and run the company into the ground. I agree that welfare to corporations is wrong. If a company needs a tax break to be incentivized to do business in your town, then taxes are too high for everyone, not just the big guys.

So when the big 3 auto companies went to DC did they ask for money from the Fed government or shareholders?

Then property taxes need to be charged on head count rather than on property value. I have no problem with that.

Why?

You can argue for government aid for the children, and maybe you'll have a good argument, but you can't argue for increased government in a post about "consistent" conservatism.

An increase in government doesn't automatically mean it's not Conservative. I highlighted that at the top of the OP.

I agree, but what we need is to strip power from the legislators so that businesses and individuals don't bother with bribery and corruption. That means electing only true small government conservatives.




eh, we've got votes to get rid of them. The problem isn't too many terms, it's too much apathy from voters. The republicans lost a half dozen good quality reps because they took a term limit pledge and kept it.




another "eh". I don't care much either way on this one.

True consistent conservatism is simply looking at every issue through the lens of personal liberty and responsibility. Am I asking someone else to care for me by asking for vitamins to be covered by insurance or am I willing to take my own future in my hands? Am I asking someone else to protect me by outlawing guns, or am I willing to take steps to protect myself? Am I asking someone else to care for the child who has no insurance, or am I willing to give out of the goodness of my heart to either care for him or pay someone else to care for that child?

How have my examples not been centered around personaly liberty and responsibility? Saying this is not consistent just because some positions are not agreed on means nobody is a true conservative because no two people are exactly the same.

 

[RealDealNeverstop]

As is much that is pushed by the people who invented the term in question.

The term isn't in question since it has long been in existence. One major piece of evidence that it isn't ridiculous are the responses to the spelling. If the term meant nothing and did not matter then nobody would care and not complain about it.

 

[Dogbean]

The term isn't in question since it has long been in existence. One major piece of evidence that it isn't ridiculous are the responses to the spelling. If the term meant nothing and did not matter then nobody would care and not complain about it.

Sure it means something. You're flagging yourself as a feminist. Why, may I ask? I'm 33 years old and this is only the second time in my whole life I have seen someone use this word. What is it you object to about the way things are? I'm asking for two reasons: debate, and knowledge. I'm interested in what makes people tick.

 

[HerbieHeadley]

Consistent conservatism doesn't ask the government to further intrude upon the rules of church, it asks the government to step away.

Yes Sir! I want government outta my life. Oh, and I would like to keep more of what I earn.

 

[LightHorseman]

Yes Sir! I want government outta my life. Oh, and I would like to keep more of what I earn.

So you'd like less taxation and less government interference in your life (is there much now?) but are you willing to forgo public roads, police, fire and sanitation services, public education, the military etc etc? How do you feel about government intrusion into OTHER peoples' lives I wonder? Gay mariage springs to mind...

 

[DieHappy]

Hope all is well with you. Strictly by the Grace of God not only am I not struggling, my business is actually growing. I took a lot of criticism from other painters and other companies in how I was doing things but now iam helping employ their guys because they are struggling from one job to the next. Hourly I probably don't make as much as I could right now but the pay off is starting to show itself because iam already booked through May and have jobs in addition to those on a carte blanche schedule. Some painters make the mistake of believing you should (and are auto-entitled) to start out making $100,000/year but in this economy the last thing wealthy clients have patience for is arrogance in the people they hire. So, I do the Zig Zigler thing and keep in mind it is not I who is doing them a favor and remove any and all pressure from making decisions about colors/patterns. (The weirdest thing...color samples from the paint store are $5 each and I've seen some clients actually limit samples because they felt like they would be wasting $15 to look at a few more colors. So I fixed that by paying for the samples myself and that extra $20 or so I am spending gets a return of 20x in revenue and referrals.) Okay, 'nuff babbling!

Good to hear. I was up 10% in 08 from 05, 06, and 07, which were all within 2% of each other. That's good news, I suppose, but it was easily our toughest year, financially, which means I haven't controlled expenses. Which is very poor of me. So far 09 looks even better than 08. Hope!

Not necessarily...what I said was "Consistent Conservatism." It doesn't mean "my version is correct" but only that it's consistent. As for pointing out my version may not be accepted by some others on a message board...so what? It's not like most have been able to defend their self descriptions of being a Conservative. Calling others a Rino and prancing away to get behind some regions safe from response isn't really a defense. Furthermore, my claims are in line with some of the most prominent US Conservatives so iam not insecure about my political identity and anyone is more than welcome at any time to invite me to a formal debate on the matter. I'll even bring the beer, grill, and sparklers!

Yeah, I was too tough with that. Of course it's your opinion, that's why we're here. Sorry.

Where did I say anything about regulating Churches? If the Federal government tomorrow said Gay Marriage is legal it wouldn't have one effect on Churches because gay marriage being legal doesn't mean Churches have to marry gays. Churches have always had the Right to decide whom they marry so what is this response of Church regulation based upon?

Gays are against it because it will only lead to more problems in litigation. Why? Lawyers will argue X Law does not apply to B Couple because X Law is specifically a "Marriage Law" and B Couple are not "Married."
Gay marriage has been legal in MA for a while now...could we see some links that show gays trying to force churches to marry them? I haven't heard of a single case so that's why iam asking.

Where in my position does it say or imply anything about intruding on churches? Gay marriage does not mean churches have to marry anyone; churches would still retain the Right to not marry a gay couple.

The major problem with that claim is implying marriage is endemic to Churches. Atheist married couple exist so how did they get married?

Marriage is a religious institution. Any marriage not conducted in a church by a religious leader and according to the bylaws and customs of that church is not a marriage. It is a state sanctioned partnership. That's my point. To talk about equal rights and how everyone should be allowed to marry doesn't go back to the root of the problem, that government started caring about marriage and treating married couples differently than unmarried couples living together. I ask why an atheist couple or a gay couple or any couple wants to get married. If it's for any other reason than "God tells us to commit to each other for life, wholly and exclusively" then they are thinking how the government screwed it all up by being intrusive. You can't sign hospital papers for your girlfriend, but I can for my wife. Why? Congress. Not allowing gays to marry is not some homophobic plot by christians to deny them anything, it's the simple fact that they want a bastardized version of marriage and the church would like to deliver the real thing. Something the gays reject.

Only half of my position is being addressed. I didn't say it was only an expansion but an inappropriate intrusion:

"It is inappropriate for the government to make such a private decision involving womyn's bodies, thus Roe v Wade was a correct decision. It is a Liberal use of government both by expansion and intrusion."

If the government forces pregnancies to become births then the government is responsible for that person. This would require a socialist State.

The comparison to slaves is out of bounds because slaves were not inside another human's body. The analogy is trying to ignored the very contention of this issue. Much more importantly, slaves could be legally killed since they were deemed as property and not persons. (Dred Scott case)

The inside the body thing is so specious because, as previously argued by something purple, it is a separate and distinct living human being. Dred Scott wasn't about killing a slave, it was about a slave who made it north suing to be free. A slave owner could not, legally, kill his slave.

And the government is not responsible for the child simply because the law protects the child. The law protects a 2 day old, even from Obama's extra bonus kill your kid day, and they are as dependent on the parents as they were at 39 weeks in utero. The law needs to provide protection for human life, slave or free, citizen or foreigner, born or unborn. That is the way to be consistent.

You can't go kill an illegal alien, can you? So the idea of government providing for and allowing suffrage for everyone it protects from murder is not logical.

So when the big 3 auto companies went to DC did they ask for money from the Fed government or shareholders?

From the fed, of course, because the shareholders let them think short term and make concessions to the union and basically sat back and hoped the quarterlies would look good. We were lazy while they were greedy. We could have stopped it, but none of us did. And it caused more federal intrusion. Car Czar my rear.

Why?

If you want schools to get money based on head count, why should the collection of the money be based on home valuation?

An increase in government doesn't automatically mean it's not Conservative. I highlighted that at the top of the OP.





How have my examples not been centered around personaly liberty and responsibility? Saying this is not consistent just because some positions are not agreed on means nobody is a true conservative because no two people are exactly the same.

I never said you weren't conservative. I said you aren't consistent, asking for more government where it suits you (gay marriage) and making the mistake that women's voting was more government, therefore akin to gay marriage, when it wasn't. The women's suffrage was less government because it took away government mandated restrictions on how to treat different people, just like outlawing abortion would be less government because it would finally treat all human beings as equal.

 

[RealDealNeverstop]

Sure, changeing the spelling of a word for ideological reasons is ridiculous. But then, so is citing Genesis as literal history.

It's not ridiculous by the empirical evidence it gets people thinking about our patriarchal structure.

 

[RealDealNeverstop]

Sure it means something. You're flagging yourself as a feminist. Why, may I ask? I'm 33 years old and this is only the second time in my whole life I have seen someone use this word. What is it you object to about the way things are? I'm asking for two reasons: debate, and knowledge. I'm interested in what makes people tick.

Our patriarchal structure creates a culture of hate towards womyn and anyone who does not support the institution. Homophobia exists not because of same sex relations but because it undermines our system of subjugating womyn. The constant sexual-objectification of womyn leads directly to them being beaten and raped and an industry of porn that reduces them to mere flesh-slaves. Remember when Palin was running? Notice how Larry Flynt immediately made a porn movie with a Palin look-a-like? Why? Because treating womyn as pure sex toys is the ultimate insult and a patriarchal structure is responsible. Also, Jesus was the first Christian Feminist so it may not be a bad idea to follow his example.

 

[RealDealNeverstop]

Good to hear. I was up 10% in 08 from 05, 06, and 07, which were all within 2% of each other. That's good news, I suppose, but it was easily our toughest year, financially, which means I haven't controlled expenses. Which is very poor of me. So far 09 looks even better than 08. Hope!

Awesome! Here's hoping to 09'! Iam sure it will be great. (Controlling expenses is a pain...just when I think I don't have to buy any new equipment, something else comes up.

Yeah, I was too tough with that. Of course it's your opinion, that's why we're here. Sorry.

Not just my opinion, but the correct opinion! (Lol...couldn't help it)

Marriage is a religious institution. Any marriage not conducted in a church by a religious leader and according to the bylaws and customs of that church is not a marriage. It is a state sanctioned partnership. That's my point.

Layers of problems here. The premise marriage is strictly a religious institution has not been supported. You may have that opinion but there is too much evidence to the contrary. Also, could something else be clarified...what kind of church? Are muslims married in a mosque married? Do Church of Satan marriages count? Church of Mormons?

To talk about equal rights and how everyone should be allowed to marry doesn't go back to the root of the problem, that government started caring about marriage and treating married couples differently than unmarried couples living together. I ask why an atheist couple or a gay couple or any couple wants to get married. If it's for any other reason than "God tells us to commit to each other for life, wholly and exclusively" then they are thinking how the government screwed it all up by being intrusive. You can't sign hospital papers for your girlfriend, but I can for my wife. Why? Congress. Not allowing gays to marry is not some homophobic plot by christians to deny them anything, it's the simple fact that they want a bastardized version of marriage and the church would like to deliver the real thing. Something the gays reject.

Here the summary of that position:


"I don't like the government in the business of marriage but if it's going to intrude I will exploit the government to force my, and only my, definition of marriage as formed by my theology."

Basically, you're trying to expand the goverment into a theocracy of your personal persuasion. How is that conservative?

But this helps reveal a misunderstanding of my position. It doesn't matter what your, mine, or anyone else's definition of marriage may be. Iam saying IF the government is going to intrude then it must provide equality under the law. I would rather the government get out of marriage and not on the premise it's religious, but because it's a very personal institution and it's inappropriate for government to be in the middle of such intimacy.

The claim legalazing gay marriage would force churches to marry gays is wholly incorrect. Not a single church in MA has been forced to perform a marriage for a gay couple and IF anyone tried to force churches to marry any group I would vehemently oppose such a law.

The inside the body thing is so specious because, as previously argued by something purple, it is a separate and distinct living human being. Dred Scott wasn't about killing a slave, it was about a slave who made it north suing to be free. A slave owner could not, legally, kill his slave.

Dred Scott ruled slaves as property and as such, it was legal to kill them so your argument that it was illegal is both false and a bad analogy because it's skipping over an important contention of the debate itself. A fetus is not a person or a human, it is the beginning of that development. If I gave you a car key and four tires would you say I gave you a car?

And the government is not responsible for the child simply because the law protects the child. The law protects a 2 day old, even from Obama's extra bonus kill your kid day, and they are as dependent on the parents as they were at 39 weeks in utero. The law needs to provide protection for human life, slave or free, citizen or foreigner, born or unborn. That is the way to be consistent.

No, a two day old can be cared for by anyone because at the point of birth it became an entity separate from its mother so no, it is not just as dependent on its mother for survival. This is inconsistency on your part by wanting government to intrude between womyn's legs but then abandoning all implied responsibility for doing so.

You can't go kill an illegal alien, can you? So the idea of government providing for and allowing suffrage for everyone it protects from murder is not logical.

Incomparable again just like the slave example because an illegal alien is a person.

From the fed, of course, because the shareholders let them think short term and make concessions to the union and basically sat back and hoped the quarterlies would look good. We were lazy while they were greedy. We could have stopped it, but none of us did. And it caused more federal intrusion. Car Czar my rear.

My point was those companies are not held accountable. If they were they couldn't get free $$. What if you or I needed bail out money for our businesses...can we go to DC and get some $$$? Heck, I would even take a Greyhound bus instead of a private jet.

If you want schools to get money based on head count, why should the collection of the money be based on home valuation?

Real estate operates on property values, not head count.

I never said you weren't conservative. I said you aren't consistent, asking for more government where it suits you (gay marriage) and making the mistake that women's voting was more government, therefore akin to gay marriage, when it wasn't. The women's suffrage was less government because it took away government mandated restrictions on how to treat different people, just like outlawing abortion would be less government because it would finally treat all human beings as equal.

How does advocating for gay marriage suit me? It provides no benefit to me at all.

Iam going to pull out one line to demonstrate why womyn voting is exactly like gay marriage:

"[Gay marriage would be] less government because it [takes] away government mandated restrictions on how to treat different people."

If it was wrong to prevent womyn from voting based on gender it is also wrong to give laws to one group that are denied to another group...based...on...gender. That helps show my consistency because iam saying government should not discriminate based on gender and proscribing gay marriage based on gender is unequivocally gender discrimination.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Genotype was cited as proof the baby is a separate entity from the mother so I was only pointing out two peeps can have the same genotype and be different persons because someone who didn't know that would have seen your genotype example as stating every single person on earth has a unique genotype when that is not accurate.

Distinct genotype was cited as proof to illustrate a simple point - that the fetus retains a genetic and phenotypic identity distinct from that of the mother, indicating its individuality as being distinguished from and not part of that of the mother. The implication of this is that the mother is not only dealing with her own body, but the body of another individual living human organism.

One end of an umbilical chord is attached to the fetus. What is the other end attached to?

The mother. However that does not make the fetus unless less an individual organism.

If you take away the umbilical chord does the fetus still exist?

Yes. It still exists as an individual organism. However, it's status as a living organism will not endure much longer. Regardless of which, it is still an individual human organism.

The point of mitochondrial was to show it is passed only from mother to child. We don't simply "retain" it, our mothers pass it on to every single person who is born and it does not come from the father. That is a unique quality which helps show part projection.

It does not show part projection at all. Because than not even the mother's mtDNA belongs to the mother - it belongs to her mother, and then her mother and her mother's mother's mother and so on ad infinitum. And the point still stands - we all retain mtDNA from our mother's just as we attain chromosomal DNA from our mother and father. Since birth does not magically change this fact, does that make us all 'part projections' and non-individuals who must subjugate our most basic rights to our mother who must then subjugate her most basic rights to her mother and on and on?

You claimed it has been established that the fetus is an individual...that has not been established.

The problem with the claim the fetus is "an individual" is it is not an individual. Can the fetus survive without the mother's body?

You assume that to qualify as an individual organism one must be able to survive outside the body of a host. This is inaccurate. Certain forms of bacteria that live within the human body are totally dependent on the host's body for survival. However, despite this inability to survive otherwise, each individual bacterium is still an individual organism. The level of dependency of any thing is a precarious measurement for conferring individuality as it disregards biological information to the contrary.

And yes, the individuality of the fetus has already been established. You yourself have assisted in this demonstration by indicating that we must consider that individuals' may retain the same genotype and yet possess a relatively different phenotype and still remain individuals. Regardless of even this, the fetus retains a genotypic and phenotypic identity that is distinct from the mother, as well as retaining its own biological systems and physiological structures that operate at different levels in comparison to that of that mother. Furthermore, the fetus performs the processes of life for its own self and not for another, indicating that its systems are operating for the purpose of sustaining that self - an individual distinct from the mother. Energy enters this system and leaves this system but is ultimately utilized for the purpose of sustaining that system, not the maternal system.

We must also consider the stages of the human lifespan and the important fact that you are an individual human being throughout every age and stage of development throughout that lifespan. Not surprising, the first stage of the lifespan is not after birth, but instead incorporates every phase of pre-natal development. Pre-natal development is considered by many in this field to be the most crucial stage of the development of an individual, and any harm caused during this stage is likely to have some effect upon the individual throughout the rest of their lifespan. (Source: A Global Perspective on Health and Human Development) If the fetus were not an individual, then how does it explain how its individual pre-natal experiences influence its continual development after birth? If the fetus were not an individual, having an individual experience prior to birth, then would we not essentially all be born equal? No infants would be born with diseases caused by poor pre-natal nutrition simply because no individual existed in that stage to experience such a thing.

The Law, which confers individuality upon birth, is simply not up to date with our present cultivated awareness of the nature of self and other as it relates to human pre-nates, and thus must be transformed to conform to such an awareness, as opposed to ignorantly disregarding it.

 

[RealDealNeverstop]

Distinct genotype was cited as proof to illustrate a simple point - that the fetus retains a genetic and phenotypic identity distinct from that of the mother, indicating its individuality as being distinguished from and not part of that of the mother. The implication of this is that the mother is not only dealing with her own body, but the body of another individual living human organism.



The mother. However that does not make the fetus unless less an individual organism.



Yes. It still exists as an individual organism. However, it's status as a living organism will not endure much longer. Regardless of which, it is still an individual human organism.



It does not show part projection at all. Because than not even the mother's mtDNA belongs to the mother - it belongs to her mother, and then her mother and her mother's mother's mother and so on ad infinitum. And the point still stands - we all retain mtDNA from our mother's just as we attain chromosomal DNA from our mother and father. Since birth does not magically change this fact, does that make us all 'part projections' and non-individuals who must subjugate our most basic rights to our mother who must then subjugate her most basic rights to her mother and on and on?



You assume that to qualify as an individual organism one must be able to survive outside the body of a host. This is inaccurate. Certain forms of bacteria that live within the human body are totally dependent on the host's body for survival. However, despite this inability to survive otherwise, each individual bacterium is still an individual organism. The level of dependency of any thing is a precarious measurement for conferring individuality as it disregards biological information to the contrary.

And yes, the individuality of the fetus has already been established. You yourself have assisted in this demonstration by indicating that we must consider that individuals' may retain the same genotype and yet possess a relatively different phenotype and still remain individuals. Regardless of even this, the fetus retains a genotypic and phenotypic identity that is distinct from the mother, as well as retaining its own biological systems and physiological structures that operate at different levels in comparison to that of that mother. Furthermore, the fetus performs the processes of life for its own self and not for another, indicating that its systems are operating for the purpose of sustaining that self - an individual distinct from the mother. Energy enters this system and leaves this system but is ultimately utilized for the purpose of sustaining that system, not the maternal system.

We must also consider the stages of the human lifespan and the important fact that you are an individual human being throughout every age and stage of development throughout that lifespan. Not surprising, the first stage of the lifespan is not after birth, but instead incorporates every phase of pre-natal development. Pre-natal development is considered by many in this field to be the most crucial stage of the development of an individual, and any harm caused during this stage is likely to have some effect upon the individual throughout the rest of their lifespan. (Source: A Global Perspective on Health and Human Development) If the fetus were not an individual, then how does it explain how its individual pre-natal experiences influence its continual development after birth? If the fetus were not an individual, having an individual experience prior to birth, then would we not essentially all be born equal? No infants would be born with diseases caused by poor pre-natal nutrition simply because no individual existed in that stage to experience such a thing.

The Law, which confers individuality upon birth, is simply not up to date with our present cultivated awareness of the nature of self and other as it relates to human pre-nates, and thus must be transformed to conform to such an awareness, as opposed to ignorantly disregarding it.

Do you consider your abortion position to be politically liberal, moderate, or conservative?

 

[jamesrwright3]

I like the womyn in the new issue of Sports Illustrated

 

[DieHappy]

Layers of problems here. The premise marriage is strictly a religious institution has not been supported. You may have that opinion but there is too much evidence to the contrary. Also, could something else be clarified...what kind of church? Are muslims married in a mosque married? Do Church of Satan marriages count? Church of Mormons?

Here the summary of that position:

"I don't like the government in the business of marriage but if it's going to intrude I will exploit the government to force my, and only my, definition of marriage as formed by my theology."

Basically, you're trying to expand the goverment into a theocracy of your personal persuasion. How is that conservative?

But this helps reveal a misunderstanding of my position. It doesn't matter what your, mine, or anyone else's definition of marriage may be. Iam saying IF the government is going to intrude then it must provide equality under the law. I would rather the government get out of marriage and not on the premise it's religious, but because it's a very personal institution and it's inappropriate for government to be in the middle of such intimacy.

Bolded for emphasis. See? We agree. The government should provide equity, and the best way to provide for equity in the marriage debate is to leave it alone. Let the church set whatever rules the church wants to set and let marriage be a church institution. If the government wants there to some sort of legalized partnership for the sake of next of kin rights and insurance benefits, it can create one and allow gays access to it. That is the conservative position - allowing the insitution of marriage, created by the church and solely managed by the church for thousands of years, to continue uninterfered with. They screwed it up by inserting themselves and rather than advocate turning back the clock, you're advocating further screwing with it in the name of fairness. You're advocating the liberal position.

The claim legalazing gay marriage would force churches to marry gays is wholly incorrect. Not a single church in MA has been forced to perform a marriage for a gay couple and IF anyone tried to force churches to marry any group I would vehemently oppose such a law.

I didn't say that it would force churches to marry them, I said that it would change the definition of marriage that has been set out by the church.

Dred Scott ruled slaves as property and as such, it was legal to kill them so your argument that it was illegal is both false and a bad analogy because it's skipping over an important contention of the debate itself. A fetus is not a person or a human, it is the beginning of that development. If I gave you a car key and four tires would you say I gave you a car?

No, a two day old can be cared for by anyone because at the point of birth it became an entity separate from its mother so no, it is not just as dependent on its mother for survival. This is inconsistency on your part by wanting government to intrude between womyn's legs but then abandoning all implied responsibility for doing so.

A 39 week fetus can be cared for by anyone as well. Why is it ok to kill it?

You think you're being a feminist supporter by standing up for their rights, but you're actually advocating the most selfish and short sighted position a woman can take. For the pro-abortion crowd, as evidenced by the sheer numbers who oppose born alive protection, it's all about whether the child is wanted. Nothing else matters, personhood is given those who are wanted, it is denied to those who aren't. The handicapped, the ones without dads, the ones that will interfere with friday night parties, they are disposable.

Incomparable again just like the slave example because an illegal alien is a person.

So you say. What's your proof?

My point was those companies are not held accountable. If they were they couldn't get free $$. What if you or I needed bail out money for our businesses...can we go to DC and get some $$$? Heck, I would even take a Greyhound bus instead of a private jet.

Uhh, I think we're in agreement about the bailout. In fact, I'm not sure what your point about the bailout was. Mine is that personal responsibility could have prevented the need for it.

Real estate operates on property values, not head count.

Then why can't school funding operate on property values?

How does advocating for gay marriage suit me? It provides no benefit to me at all.

Iam going to pull out one line to demonstrate why womyn voting is exactly like gay marriage:

"[Gay marriage would be] less government because it [takes] away government mandated restrictions on how to treat different people."

If it was wrong to prevent womyn from voting based on gender it is also wrong to give laws to one group that are denied to another group...based...on...gender. That helps show my consistency because iam saying government should not discriminate based on gender and proscribing gay marriage based on gender is unequivocally gender discrimination.

Your quoted and changed sentance is simply wrong, though. There are no government mandated restrictions to treat gays differently in the area of marriage. They simply haven't changed the definition of marriage to suit gays yet. A wholly different thing, and advocating the government doing so may be right in your eyes, but it's not conservative.

 

[Ringo84]

Yes Sir! I want government outta my life. Oh, and I would like to keep more of what I earn.

Great! Then you should be one of the biggest supporters of the Separation of Church and State, which keeps the government from interfering with church beliefs.
Ringo

 

[RealDealNeverstop]

Bolded for emphasis. See? We agree. The government should provide equity, and the best way to provide for equity in the marriage debate is to leave it alone. Let the church set whatever rules the church wants to set and let marriage be a church institution.

1.Churches already set their own rules on whom they will marry. (Provided they don't violate existing laws.)


2. This position of claiming that marriage is wholly restricted to "Church" is completely bogus but it's the only string that can be clung to in order to avoid admitting the laws are divisive and discriminatory.

For the last time, please demonstrate where legalizing gay marriage would force a single church to marry them. Repeatedly ignoring this is frustrating and shows an attempt at avoiding obviously false claims such as:

"It's a liberal use of government to further regulate a church function.,"

"Why are most gays against the idea of state sanctioned partnerships? Because they want to intrude on church business."

"Consistent conservatism doesn't ask the government to further intrude upon the rules of church, it asks the government to step away.,"


"Marriage should be church business and if the government wants to set up some sort of voluntary partnership to it can.,"


Legalizing gay marriage wouldn't force a single church to change how it performs marriage nor whom they marry so this bogus claim that the government would be regulating the Church is completely false.

If the government wants there to some sort of legalized partnership for the sake of next of kin rights and insurance benefits, it can create one and allow gays access to it. That is the conservative position - allowing the insitution of marriage, created by the church and solely managed by the church for thousands of years, to continue uninterfered with. They screwed it up by inserting themselves and rather than advocate turning back the clock, you're advocating further screwing with it in the name of fairness. You're advocating the liberal position.

I clearly asked if muslims married in a mosque would be married...if those married in the...you know exactly what I asked but completely ignored it. Not cool.

I didn't say that it would force churches to marry them, I said that it would change the definition of marriage that has been set out by the church.

Really?


"It's a liberal use of government to further regulate a church function.,"

"Why are most gays against the idea of state sanctioned partnerships? Because they want to intrude on church business."

"Consistent conservatism doesn't ask the government to further intrude upon the rules of church, it asks the government to step away.,"


"Marriage should be church business and if the government wants to set up some sort of voluntary partnership to it can.,"

A 39 week fetus can be cared for by anyone as well. Why is it ok to kill it?

"Fetus: The unborn offspring from the end of the 8th week after conception (when the major structures have formed) until birth. Up until the eighth week, the developing offspring is called an embryo."
http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=3424

It is a fetus until it is born.

You think you're being a feminist supporter by standing up for their rights, but you're actually advocating the most selfish and short sighted position a woman can take. For the pro-abortion crowd, as evidenced by the sheer numbers who oppose born alive protection, it's all about whether the child is wanted. Nothing else matters, personhood is given those who are wanted, it is denied to those who aren't. The handicapped, the ones without dads, the ones that will interfere with friday night parties, they are disposable.

Iam not advocating abortion and personally detest that it happens. Freedom isn't about defining a world of what one morally approves of. The only real test of Freedom is giving people the choice to do something that you find abhorrent. Forcing the government between womyn's legs is legal administrative rape, period.

So you say. What's your proof?

Proof of what? The illegal alien is a person?

Then why can't school funding operate on property values?

Because it perpetuates segregation and affirmative action for those who need it the least. Why should kids be deprived of an equal playing field for education? Punish them because their parents are as wealthy as other parents?

Your quoted and changed sentance is simply wrong, though. There are no government mandated restrictions to treat gays differently in the area of marriage. They simply haven't changed the definition of marriage to suit gays yet. A wholly different thing, and advocating the government doing so may be right in your eyes, but it's not conservative.

Marriage has never held a single universal definition in the US and to say my changed sentence is simply wrong is simply a cop-out. Giving over 1,000 laws to heteros that are denied to gays based on gender is no different or less wrong than when the government gave white men the laws that allowed them to vote while denying it to others.

 

[JustOneWay]

*

 

[DaisyDay]

I saw people defend Clinton till they were bush in the face,...

Freudian slip?

... even after Clinton admitted the sexual activity.

Sexual activity isn't illegal; it's that he lied about it under oath. But even that doesn't compare to a pre-emptive war and kidnapping & torturing foreign citizens.

We also see the same thing with Obama. The man has people loving him exactly as the Bush Campaign had peeps hooked on Dubya. Time will tell if the shoe fits on the other foot.

There are mindless Obama fans, but a lot of people are only defending him because the attacks are so blatantly partisan and politically motivated.

 

[RealDealNeverstop]

Freudian slip?

Nope, quite intentional ad lib, and not a bad one either!

Sexual activity isn't illegal; it's that he lied about it under oath. But even that doesn't compare to a pre-emptive war and kidnapping & torturing foreign citizens.

Thought it was pretty obvious what was meant. Didn't know I should have said "...sexual activity with an intern."

There are mindless Obama fans, but a lot of people are only defending him because the attacks are so blatantly partisan and politically motivated.

I've defended Obama countless times on the stupid slams but that is obviously wasn't what I was referencing.

 

[oldbetang]

Great! Then you should be one of the biggest supporters of the Separation of Church and State, which keeps the government from interfering with church beliefs.
Ringo

Hmmm, apparently someone hasn't informed the Government in New Mexico about that.

How “Human Rights” Commissions Erode Religious Freedom