Quote:I think this thread is kind of interesting. For the last 7 Years liberals have gotten just about everything that they could have ever dreamed of. We don't have a thread about the altruistic utopia that we are living in now, so they have to resort to this kind of stuff.
Traditional marriage isn't a conservative idea. Traditional Marriage has been the position of every president ever elected to office. It has so much Bipartisan support that even in blue states like California it couldn't be over turned through the democratic process.
1.) If you support Gay Marriage fine, but don't throw the totality of human history at the feat of conservatives to try and label them homophobic.
2.) Eric, this wasn't about getting the government out of anyone's life. It was about proliferating the idea that the government can sell indulgences, and grant the power to those who oppose traditional institutions to, in some cases, force them out of business.
No you are using government to protect government interest. I support ending all government interference in unions between consenting adults, at the same time I oppose ALL anti-discrinamtion laws. If two men want to get married, if ten women want to marry one man, if a women wants to get paid for sex none of that is governments business so long all the parties are consenting adults of legal age. At the same time if a baker or church or privately owned anything says we don't want to serve gays, pologomist, whites, blacks, women whatever again that's between them and their customer base.
What conservatives want is government to enforce their perceived morals, I want government to get the hell out of the morality business along with everything else. [BLEEP] I don't even want government building roads!
Edit: for the record not supporting government oversight isnt the same as supporting a lifestyle. I think prostitution is disgusting and find it morrally reprehensible but that doesnt mean I need to empower the state to snuff it out or make laws about what peole can pay for and can't. Besides how long has prostitution been illegal, did we end it yet? Does prohibition of anything ever work? All prohibition does is incrementally strip you of liberty and empower the state. Consider me the anti-state
Respectfully you are 100% wrong on this.
The conservative/libertarian stance on this is that in reality we shouldnt have to get approval from the state about any of our religious practices as long as ww dont involve. Minors. I dont want the government going into anyones bedroom to referee.
Thr statist position is that the state is the ultimate arbitor of morality. Its the statists that want the state to oversee and regulate our mating and reproduction. The ultimate sign of state approval is legal status in a corrupt and immoral regulatory tax system and the promise that the state will prosecute anyone who doesnt comply with statist morality.
This wasnt about personal freedom which already existed with the abolition of anti sodomy laws. This was about the baket down the street and forcing a carriculum on the next generation. I respect your commitment to libertarianism. Be not deceived.
Quote:Respectfully you are 100% wrong on this.
The conservative/libertarian stance on this is that in reality we shouldnt have to get approval from the state about any of our religious practices as long as ww dont involve. Minors. I dont want the government going into anyones bedroom to referee.
Thr statist position is that the state is the ultimate arbitor of morality. Its the statists that want the state to oversee and regulate our mating and reproduction. The ultimate sign of state approval is legal status in a corrupt and immoral regulatory tax system and the promise that the state will prosecute anyone who doesnt comply with statist morality.
This wasnt about personal freedom which already existed with the abolition of anti sodomy laws. This was about the baket down the street and forcing a carriculum on the next generation. I respect your commitment to libertarianism. Be not deceived.
We are in agreement that the state can not under any circumstance force individuals or private companies to serve gays for whatever reason. Sadly the Republican party is losing that point because they hammer down on "protecting traditional marriage" instead of focusing on ending all government interference in private unions.
I've said it in other threads how a problem is addressed is more important than anything. The problem was gays where not allowed under the law to be married and recognized as partners in the eyes of the state. Instead of saying you know what we shouldn't regulate anyone getting married the republicans said no we must protect one man and one women unions. So they lost the debate because it was a policy of exclusion and that's always a losing argument. Now the result is as you described a bigger state to enforce more selective morality.
Actually, it wasnt really a loosomg argument. It was a supreme court decision born out of wholcloth. This idea lost at the ballot box even so far as the far right state of california. The greater issue is the 10th amendment and the general concept of democracy. Whatever side of the issue you come down on or what you interpret as the role of government the judicial branch walking over the will of the people with no constitutional precedent is an afront to democracy not just limited government. This should have been the peoples decision.
Quote:Actually, it wasnt really a loosomg argument. It was a supreme court decision born out of wholcloth. This idea lost at the ballot box even so far as the far right state of california. The greater issue is the 10th amendment and the general concept of democracy. Whatever side of the issue you come down on or what you interpret as the role of government the judicial branch walking over the will of the people with no constitutional precedent is an afront to democracy not just limited government. This should have been the peoples decision.
Its a losing argument because it can be countered eaisly by current discrimination laws setting a precident that the feds have the authority to protect minorities from discrimination even if sponsored by the individual states. Anyway you shape asking government at any level to legilsate a morality is a losing argument it always ends the same. Instead republicans/conservative should have used this opportunity to end all federal oversight of marriage that would have been a winning argument with a better outcome for everyone.
Had it gone through the legislative process there would have been a real debate, but in this case you had judges using crayon with a 14th amendment logo.
This is 100% about the state legislating secular morality on the populace at gunpoint.
Now there is a law in ny that you can be fined close to 100k if you call a trans person by their original name. My wife has a service that can be marketed to weddings and she would be forced by the state to violate her religious beliefs or loose her abiity to practice her trade. Thats not america.
Rand paul talked about the deregulation of marriage ted cruz talks about the tenth amendment and its application. This kind of radical and frankly draconian change on a 5 4 decision was never intended by our framers.
This wasnt about freedom which existed. It wasnt about legal status that was offered. It is about social engineering, secularism, and the abolition of traditional norms.
Quote:That depends on whether or not you believe the government exists to maintain the culture. If so then traditional marriage is the culture and same sex marriage is a threat to that culture. So is divorce, abortion, welfare and any other infraction against the concept of lifelong heterosexual marriage; all then grounds for government action.
What culture? America is made up of many cultures. Unless you are referring to mainstream white culture.
Quote:What culture? America is made up of many cultures. Unless you are referring to mainstream white culture.
Yes, mainstream western European post-Enlightenment culture, the dominant culture of this country for its entire history. Commonly referred to as Christendom in the old days. That is what I was referring to.
Quote:Yes, mainstream western European post-Enlightenment culture, the dominant culture of this country for its entire history. Commonly referred to as Christendom in the old days. That is what I was referring to.
Ha! Wake up Mr. Gordon. Wake up and smell the ashes.
Quote:Ha! Wake up Mr. Gordon. Wake up and smell the ashes.
Perhaps you should try reading my words with some comprehension. I wasn't defending it, I was stating the position of those who do.