Ye Olde Republican Safe House (5)

[RealDealNeverstop]

"economic" conservatism is a short changed term and one can be both an economic and social conservative at the same time but one cannot be a political and social conservative simultaneously without explosive contradictions.

So, if I understand y'all correctly, Social Conservatives can find themselves at loggerheads with Economic conservatives. Social conservatives want government to have a bigger say in teaching and health care (abortions, family planning) and Economic conservatives want smaller government and less government intervention into our lives.

 

[RealDealNeverstop]

"values" is a very subjective system so if you want the government to maintain your values without respecting others have an equal right to their values then you are, by default, seeking a liberal government and want it to be as big as necessary to maintain your "values."

As a social conservative, I do NOT want the gov't to have a bigger say. It's about maintaining values

 

[RealDealNeverstop]

Saying someone who wants abortion to be illegal is for bigger government is exactly like saying someone who wants lynching black men to be illegal is for bigger government. It's maddening to see people who are bright enough to figure out which button is the power button still confuse this.

Making abortion illegal is making a bigger government by virtue of forcing it between womyn's legs and telling them what to do with their bodies. Doesn't the government imprison people who invade the privacy of womyn's legs and take control of their bodies?

"Conservative" used colloquially means "for liberty." To have liberty you need a rule of law and to have that law enforced equally and blindly. You need to be protected from people who would break that law to harm you, foreign or domestic.

To want the government to intrude in personal lives is not conservative. The government has co-opted marriage and made it a government institution, so an expansion of marriage is not conservative, it expands the government. Protectionism and isolationism could be conservative in most cases, but reaching out and smacking the tar out of a would-be invader is also conservative given that the proper role of government is to protect us.

There's no difference between social and economic conservatives. There's conservatives and there's confused.

I have spoken.

That's a huge contradiction. If the laws are to be applied "equally and blindly" how can it be implied being against gay marriage is conservative? Where is the equality in giving rights to one pair of consenting adult citizens while denying those same rights to another pair? We know the answer is based on gender so where is the blindness of trying to justify inequality by looking at gender?

The government should not be in marriage at all. But since it is, shouldn't it apply the marriage laws equally and blindly without discriminating based on gender? That's why being against gay marriage is a liberal position. A politically conservative view says to apply the laws equally while the socially conservative view wants to use the government to force it's morality onto others.

It's also not expanding the government to allow gay marriage. Why? The point of expansion happened when the government got in the business of marriage. After that it's simply about applying the law equally. It didn't expand the government when womyn were given the right to vote...it simply applied the voting laws equally and blindly.

Now I have spoken.

 

[DieHappy]

Making abortion illegal is making a bigger government by virtue of forcing it between womyn's legs and telling them what to do with their bodies. Doesn't the government imprison people who invade the privacy of womyn's legs and take control of their bodies?

You're assuming the rights rest with the mother and not the child. You're assuming wrong.

That's a huge contradiction. If the laws are to be applied "equally and blindly" how can it be implied being against gay marriage is conservative? Where is the equality in giving rights to one pair of consenting adult citizens while denying those same rights to another pair? We know the answer is based on gender so where is the blindness of trying to justify inequality by looking at gender?

The government should not be in marriage at all. But since it is, shouldn't it apply the marriage laws equally and blindly without discriminating based on gender? That's why being against gay marriage is a liberal position. A politically conservative view says to apply the laws equally while the socially conservative view wants to use the government to force it's morality onto others.

It's also not expanding the government to allow gay marriage. Why? The point of expansion happened when the government got in the business of marriage. After that it's simply about applying the law equally. It didn't expand the government when womyn were given the right to vote...it simply applied the voting laws equally and blindly.

Now I have spoken.

It is applied equally. According to the world wide definition of marriage for over a thousand years, 2 consenting opposite sex adults can marry. You want to include gays, that requires changing the definition of marriage. If a church wants to do that and the government can stay out of the way, fine. But the government won't stay out of the way, which means an expansion of government by expanding the accepted definition of marriage.

 

[Panzerkamfwagen]

Sir Robert Peel is spinning in his grave at a velocity approaching c

 

[RealDealNeverstop]

You're assuming the rights rest with the mother and not the child. You're assuming wrong.

The mother is the only recognized Citizen in the equation. Why is it okay to force the government between womyn's legs? If it is not okay for a sleeze on the street to do the same actions why is it okay for the government?

It is applied equally. According to the world wide definition of marriage for over a thousand years, 2 consenting opposite sex adults can marry. You want to include gays, that requires changing the definition of marriage. If a church wants to do that and the government can stay out of the way, fine. But the government won't stay out of the way, which means an expansion of government by expanding the accepted definition of marriage.

Geez that's some convenient rewriting.

In America today it is legal for a 50 year old dude to marry a 14 year old so that right there proves your definition is way wrong. Want to tackle the different definitions of marriage in the other 189 nations on earth?

Good thing for you is we don't need to do that. If the law gives rights to two adults in a union it needs to be applied equally and blindly as you stated. Once you inject gender into the equation you are no longer applying the law equally nor blindly.

 

[oldbetang]

The mother is the only recognized Citizen in the equation. Why is it okay to force the government between womyn's legs? If it is not okay for a sleeze on the street to do the same actions why is it okay for the government?

I nominate that one for the "worst analogy of the year" award.

 

[Panzerkamfwagen]

In America today it is legal for a 50 year old dude to marry a 14 year old so that right there proves your definition is way wrong. Want to tackle the different definitions of marriage in the other 189 nations on earth?

Yeah, and what parent is going to let a teenager marry a dirty old man? Probably not a good one.

Good thing for you is we don't need to do that. If the law gives rights to two adults in a union it needs to be applied equally and blindly as you stated. Once you inject gender into the equation you are no longer applying the law equally nor blindly.

You mean like it is now, when anyone can marry any other person of the opposite sex?

 

[RealDealNeverstop]

I nominate that one for the "worst analogy of the year" award.

The analogy is dead on. Iam guessing the charge of a bad analogy is based (at least partly) on the idea rape cannot be compared to forcing womyn to give birth. If so, it's not surprising to be unable to see just how true of comparison the analogy produces.

Want an example of abusive comparisons? Keep an eye out for when peeps try to cite Ecc. 10:2 as evidence those on the left are fools.

 

[RealDealNeverstop]

Yeah, and what parent is going to let a teenager marry a dirty old man? Probably not a good one.

May I have your permission to cite this response as an example of a non-sequitur in future dialogues?

(we aren't discussing parental action evaluations. The law permits marriage to minors which is simply legalized pedophilia. That is the relevant point.)

You mean like it is now, when anyone can marry any other person of the opposite sex?

Thank you for pointing out the laws discriminate against people of the same sex. Using gender as a necessary rule for legal marriage means the laws are not applied equally. When womyn couldn't vote would you have said the Voting laws were equal?

 

[DieHappy]

The mother is the only recognized Citizen in the equation. Why is it okay to force the government between womyn's legs? If it is not okay for a sleeze on the street to do the same actions why is it okay for the government?

Ahh, so I can abuse, enslave, and even kill non-citizens? Sweet. And I know you'll be ok with that, because it would be an unconscionable unconservative thing for the government to force itself into my business on the behalf of non-citzens. I'm sure 150 years ago, to be consitent, you would be just fine with the government practicing true conservatism by refusing to meddle in the slleping rooms of the plantation owners as well.

Geez that's some convenient rewriting.

In America today it is legal for a 50 year old dude to marry a 14 year old so that right there proves your definition is way wrong. Want to tackle the different definitions of marriage in the other 189 nations on earth?

You missed the word "adult" in my post.

Good thing for you is we don't need to do that. If the law gives rights to two adults in a union it needs to be applied equally and blindly as you stated. Once you inject gender into the equation you are no longer applying the law equally nor blindly.

Once the government forces a change in the definition you are no longer being conservative.

 

[dia_liom]

As I posted elsewhere, I'd almost be willing to get the government completely out of even recognizing marriage, and letting churches, mosques, synagogues and even the local justice of the peace decide whether they'd perform the ceremony.

 

[RealDealNeverstop]

Ahh, so I can abuse, enslave, and even kill non-citizens? Sweet. And I know you'll be ok with that, because it would be an unconscionable unconservative thing for the government to force itself into my business on the behalf of non-citzens. I'm sure 150 years ago, to be consitent, you would be just fine with the government practicing true conservatism by refusing to meddle in the slleping rooms of the plantation owners as well.

Please look at the "...in this equation" part of my statement because that was specifically stated to preempt this red herring. Do you not see the difference between forcing laws between womyn's legs and forcing plantation owners to stop owning people?

It's also ridiculous to say iam being inconsistent if I would have supported government stopping slavery 150 years ago. You're trying to equate conservatism with extreme libertarianism. The government has a duty to enforce the Constitution for all Citizens.

You missed the word "adult" in my post.

How did I miss it when I used it to show your claim is utterly false? Marriage has never had a singular definition in the US or the rest of the world so why ignore that obvious fact?

Once the government forces a change in the definition you are no longer being conservative.

Forces a change on whom? Making gay marriage legal would not make your marriage illegal. The government should not be in the middle of our personal lives but since it is regarding marriage, it needs to be consistent and give the same rights to all.

These two issues really help show how social conservatism is a misnomer. The objections to gay marriage and legal abortion are based firmly in moral views which means the positions are not grounded in principles. It's a very liberal use of government to want it impregnated so deeply in our personal lives.

 

[RealDealNeverstop]

As I posted elsewhere, I'd almost be willing to get the government completely out of even recognizing marriage, and letting churches, mosques, synagogues and even the local justice of the peace decide whether they'd perform the ceremony.

How is a justice of the peace not part of the government?

 

[DieHappy]

Please look at the "...in this equation" part of my statement because that was specifically stated to preempt this red herring. Do you not see the difference between forcing laws between womyn's legs and forcing plantation owners to stop owning people?

No. In fact we both have supreme court arguments on our side showing that what's in a uterus and what resides in a plantation owners boarding house are not persons under the law.

It's also ridiculous to say iam being inconsistent if I would have supported government stopping slavery 150 years ago. You're trying to equate conservatism with extreme libertarianism. The government has a duty to enforce the Constitution for all Citizens.

And they weren't citizens then.

Forces a change on whom? Making gay marriage legal would not make your marriage illegal. The government should not be in the middle of our personal lives but since it is regarding marriage, it needs to be consistent and give the same rights to all.

It does give the same rights to all. Just because a gay guy doesn't want to marry a chick doesn't mean he doesn't have that right. I have a right to proceed on a public highway, but I can't do it if I choose a tricycle instead of choosing a motor vehicle. Are my rights being infringed because I can't make that choice?

These two issues really help show how social conservatism is a misnomer. The objections to gay marriage and legal abortion are based firmly in moral views which means the positions are not grounded in principles. It's a very liberal use of government to want it impregnated so deeply in our personal lives.

Untrue.
The objections are based on the conservative role of government. Stay out of personal lives (stop regulating marriage and don't try to expand that regulation) and protect all human life equally. If you don't believe the fetus is a human life worthy of legal protection, then not only are dreadfully, scientifically, morally, and cognitively wrong, you're also not applying conservative principles to the federal government.

 

[Conservativation]

The fastest way to stop the entire debate about same sex marriage, is to make marriage itself less disposable. Its so corrupt now that anyone can divorce anyone for no reason, and be rewarded for it potentially. Its throwaway, not really much more than going steady with a class ring.

If marriage was harder to get out of, not impossible, just a bit harder, gays may like the idea of domestic partnerships and such. Marriage now is a trinket you can marry, divorce marry divorce, keep all the photos on the coffee table, oh that was so special.
If we Christians werent hypocrits about divorce, that'd be a start.

Nothing is as blatant as Christians ranting about same sex marriage (which impact, what...5% of the overall population), then later telling a friend who is divorcing to "follow their heart.

Lets get ourslelves sorted before we claim standing on marriage. right now, even if I oppose same sex marriage, I, as a Christian, lack standing.

 

[DieHappy]

That was a real dumb comparison.

What is happening here is a bunch of people with their steering wheel on the right side of the car wants to drive on the public highway....and people like you are trying to tell them no because of your selfish beliefs. Get the hell off of their backs and let them be what they want to be....

It's generally against the law to drive on the highway with the steering wheel on the right side of the car. So they want to perform an illegal act and somehow I'm the one that's selfish? We have to change the law, regardless of safety concerns, to avoid the perception of persecuting people who made a decision about the automobile they purchased?

And who says I want to change them? I'll get off their backs and let them be just as soon as they stop trying to force the government to further intrude in my life by expanding institutions.

And, you might want to take a breather, man. You're a little wound up.

 

[JustOneWay]

It's generally against the law to drive on the highway with the steering wheel on the right side of the car.

lol....

I dont believe your statement....

So they want to perform an illegal act and somehow I'm the one that's selfish? We have to change the law, regardless of safety concerns, to avoid the perception of persecuting people who made a decision about the automobile they purchased?

lol again....

And who says I want to change them? I'll get off their backs and let them be just as soon as they stop trying to force the government to further intrude in my life by expanding institutions.

there is that selfishness again. You got yours but they cant get theirs.

And, you might want to take a breather, man. You're a little wound up.

no....fed up.

 

[RealDealNeverstop]

No. In fact we both have supreme court arguments on our side showing that what's in a uterus and what resides in a plantation owners boarding house are not persons under the law.

Slaves were ruled as persons when? Why not cite Leviticus to point out a fashion faux pas?

But I see you ignored the question and your position objectifies womyn by removing their personhood and reducing them to being no different than some rotted wood and rusty nails on a plantation.

And they weren't citizens then.

So what?

It does give the same rights to all. Just because a gay guy doesn't want to marry a chick doesn't mean he doesn't have that right. I have a right to proceed on a public highway, but I can't do it if I choose a tricycle instead of choosing a motor vehicle. Are my rights being infringed because I can't make that choice?

This is sooooooo stale and moldy. When blacks couldn't vote white racists made the exact same argument........think about that before being so purposefully obtuse. Marriage laws benefiting only heteros is inherent discrimination.

The highway/tricycle example only helps reveal the hypocrisy of denying gays rights. Preventing you from riding a tricycle on the road is no where near the same thing because you are not being discriminated against at all. It is not your age, weight, sexual orientation, etc that prevents the tricycle. By your example you just showed heteros can ride the tricycle (given marriage rights) but gays cannot ride the same tricycle (denied marriage rights) simply because of gender.

Untrue.
The objections are based on the conservative role of government. Stay out of personal lives (stop regulating marriage and don't try to expand that regulation) and protect all human life equally. If you don't believe the fetus is a human life worthy of legal protection, then not only are dreadfully, scientifically, morally, and cognitively wrong, you're also not applying conservative principles to the federal government.

Lol. C'mon! How can you not choke on the obvious self contradictions?

Stay out of our personal lives (but enforce MY MY MY AND MINE ONLY.....definition of marriage onto every one else!)

Stay out of our personal lives (but I want the government to rape womyn with laws)

 

[RealDealNeverstop]

It's generally against the law to drive on the highway with the steering wheel on the right side of the car. So they want to perform an illegal act and somehow I'm the one that's selfish? We have to change the law, regardless of safety concerns, to avoid the perception of persecuting people who made a decision about the automobile they purchased?

And who says I want to change them? I'll get off their backs and let them be just as soon as they stop trying to force the government to further intrude in my life by expanding institutions.

And, you might want to take a breather, man. You're a little wound up.

By all means please state the "intrusion" caused by giving equal rights? All crap aside man, how do gay marriages "intrude" on your life?