Forum Settings
       
« Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
Reply To Thread

The Conservative Case for Gay MarriageFollow

#1 Jan 15 2010 at 8:19 AM Rating: Excellent
Nexa
*****
12,065 posts
I like making new threads when other threads get unruly.

Quote:
The Conservative Case for Gay Marriage

Why same-sex marriage is an American value.
By Theodore B. Olson | NEWSWEEK


Some choice quotes:

Quote:
How could a politically active, lifelong Republican, a veteran of the Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush administrations, challenge the "traditional" definition of marriage and press for an "activist" interpretation of the Constitution to create another "new" constitutional right?

My answer to this seeming conundrum rests on a lifetime of exposure to persons of different backgrounds, histories, viewpoints, and intrinsic characteristics, and on my rejection of what I see as superficially appealing but ultimately false perceptions about our Constitution and its protection of equality and fundamental rights.


Quote:
Legalizing same-sex marriage would also be a recognition of basic American principles, and would represent the culmination of our nation's commitment to equal rights. It is, some have said, the last major civil-rights milestone yet to be surpassed in our two-century struggle to attain the goals we set for this nation at its formation.


Quote:
The very idea of marriage is basic to recognition as equals in our society; any status short of that is inferior, unjust, and unconstitutional.


Quote:
When we refuse to accord this status to gays and lesbians, we discourage them from forming the same relationships we encourage for others. And we are also telling them, those who love them, and society as a whole that their relationships are less worthy, less legitimate, less permanent, and less valued. We demean their relationships and we demean them as individuals. I cannot imagine how we benefit as a society by doing so.


Quote:
Americans who believe in the words of the Declaration of Independence, in Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, in the 14th Amendment, and in the Constitution's guarantees of equal protection and equal dignity before the law cannot sit by while this wrong continues. This is not a conservative or liberal issue; it is an American one, and it is time that we, as Americans, embraced it.


On one hand, I guess if several couples I know can't get married, I get out of buying presents...of course, I don't get cake either. hrmph.

Nexa

____________________________
“It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes. But a half-wit remains a half-wit, and the emperor remains an emperor.”
― Neil Gaiman, The Sandman, Vol. 9: The Kindly Ones
#2 Jan 15 2010 at 8:23 AM Rating: Good
Prodigal Son
******
20,643 posts
Bad conservative! Bad!
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#3 Jan 15 2010 at 8:24 AM Rating: Good
Vagina Dentata,
what a wonderful phrase
******
30,106 posts
How are the efforts going in Maine after the referendum? I'm disappointed but not surprised, particularly b/c I grew up in Aroostook.
____________________________
Turin wrote:
Seriously, what the f*ck nature?
#4 Jan 15 2010 at 8:40 AM Rating: Good
***
3,829 posts
Very interesting read. I've always thought that Conservative resistance to gay marriage was a little puzzling, then I remember the way Karl Rove demonized the issue in order to flog voters to the polls in 2004, and it makes a bit more sense.
#5 Jan 15 2010 at 8:45 AM Rating: Excellent
Nexa
*****
12,065 posts
Annabella of Future Fabulous! wrote:
How are the efforts going in Maine after the referendum? I'm disappointed but not surprised, particularly b/c I grew up in Aroostook.


We're regrouping :)

Nexa
____________________________
“It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes. But a half-wit remains a half-wit, and the emperor remains an emperor.”
― Neil Gaiman, The Sandman, Vol. 9: The Kindly Ones
#6REDACTED, Posted: Jan 15 2010 at 9:07 AM, Rating: Unrated, (Expand Post) Ambrya,
#7 Jan 15 2010 at 9:07 AM Rating: Good
***
2,813 posts
Andrew Sullivan's been making that exact same case for years, and mainstream Republicans basically just shoved him aside. It's good to see someone else (a straight male Republican, no less) reinforcing the argument that gay marriage is something that's in line with conservative values and not contrary to them.
#8REDACTED, Posted: Jan 15 2010 at 9:09 AM, Rating: Unrated, (Expand Post) Nexa,
#9 Jan 15 2010 at 9:10 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
13,007 posts
publiusvarus wrote:
Nexa,

Quote:
We're regrouping :)


And so are the people who can't mind their own business.
#10REDACTED, Posted: Jan 15 2010 at 9:10 AM, Rating: Unrated, (Expand Post) Kylen,
#11 Jan 15 2010 at 9:13 AM Rating: Excellent
*****
10,601 posts
publiusvarus wrote:
Quote:
we discourage them from forming the same relationships we encourage for others. And we are also telling them, those who love them, and society as a whole that their relationships are less worthy, less legitimate, less permanent, and less valued. We demean their relationships and we demean them as individuals. I cannot imagine how we benefit as a society by doing so.


This is such bs. If two people love each other that's between them. They shouldn't need govn validation to carry on a happy meaningful relationship. Saying that homosexuals relationships will have more value if the govn only does such and such is a copout.
It's not about giving relationships more value varrus. It's about how not recognizing the relationships as valid sends the message that they are less worthy, less legitimate, less permanent, and less valued. Relationships don't need government sanction, absolutely, but that doesn't excuse the messages that are being sent, and it certainly does not benefit society.

This is what I really don't get about Gbaji's argument. Even if you agree with his logic, that doesn't eliminate positives from gay marriage. Seeing as the cost is extremely low, it seems like a logical thing to do, as it does get rid of a bunch of problems. For someone who puts so much weight with the founding fathers, you'd think this would be a large benefit.

Quote:
Maybe conservative values but certainly not Christian ones.

After all Jesus didn't tell Mary Magdalene that prostitution was her choice and send her on her way.
Christians aren't called to regulate society.

Edited, Jan 15th 2010 9:22am by Xsarus
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#12 Jan 15 2010 at 9:16 AM Rating: Excellent
*****
18,463 posts
publiusvarus wrote:


After all Jesus didn't tell Mary Magdalene that prostitution was her choice and send her on her way.

Asshat-nowhere in the Bible does it state Mary Magdalene was a prostitute. You better checkety-check yosself.
#13 Jan 15 2010 at 9:19 AM Rating: Excellent
*****
10,601 posts
Atomicflea wrote:
publiusvarus wrote:


After all Jesus didn't tell Mary Magdalene that prostitution was her choice and send her on her way.

Asshat-nowhere in the Bible does it state Mary Magdalene was a prostitute. You better checkety-check yosself.
It doesn't matter anyway, Varus has absolutely no platform to speak about the bible. Convenient belief isn't.

Edited, Jan 15th 2010 9:27am by Xsarus
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#14 Jan 15 2010 at 9:23 AM Rating: Excellent
*****
18,463 posts
As to the rest of the article, which one of my FB friends linked and I really appreciate, I can't help but question its effectiveness. About a year or so ago you started this thread, Nexa, where I wasted precious fingertip cells trying to get G-Boogie to admit that the conservative anti-gay stance is in essence, about fear.

Gay marriage doesn't affect hetero marriages in any way except emotionally, and their adherence to their beliefs that it would are based in fear. I don't know that rational reasoning has a chance in hell of appealing to people so vehemently unwilling to listen and to understand that there but for the grace of God go they.
#15 Jan 15 2010 at 9:35 AM Rating: Excellent
***
3,829 posts
So lemme see if I got this:

Virus believes in small government, but still wants the government to be large and powerful enough to reach into the bedrooms (not to mention uteri) of private citizens and dictate their private actions and medical decisions. The government is supposed to respect the rights of individuals with respect to their money and property, and yet still legislate what they can and can't do with their own bodies.

...am I the only one seeing the total logical disconnect here?
#16 Jan 15 2010 at 9:38 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
Social conservatives are RINOs. They want more government control of individuals.

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#17 Jan 15 2010 at 9:46 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Atomicflea wrote:
publiusvarus wrote:
After all Jesus didn't tell Mary Magdalene that prostitution was her choice and send her on her way.
Asshat-nowhere in the Bible does it state Mary Magdalene was a prostitute. You better checkety-check yosself.

Was she a lesbian prostitute? 'Cause that'd be hot. And at least somewhat topical.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#18 Jan 15 2010 at 9:53 AM Rating: Excellent
*****
12,049 posts
Ambrya wrote:
So lemme see if I got this:

Virus believes in small government, but still wants the government to be large and powerful enough to reach into the bedrooms (not to mention uteri) of private citizens and dictate their private actions and medical decisions. The government is supposed to respect the rights of individuals with respect to their money and property, and yet still legislate what they can and can't do with their own bodies.

...am I the only one seeing the total logical disconnect here?


It's obvious to me. When Varus says he's a "conservative" he usually means a social conservative, not a fiscal conservative. Even that's not correct though; social conservatives do not need to be Christians, but that's what Varus acts like he bases his views upon. Even THAT is not correct, however; his views clash with many different sects of Christianity.

In the end, Varus is Varus, and not in touch with any group. Who would want him?
#19 Jan 15 2010 at 9:55 AM Rating: Excellent
*****
18,463 posts
LockeColeMA wrote:
Who would want him?
Very true. Too creepy for a straight gal, too ugly for a gay dude. You might have shed light on something here....
#20 Jan 15 2010 at 9:57 AM Rating: Excellent
*****
12,049 posts
I think this article read our topic:
Quote:
The second argument I often hear is that traditional marriage furthers the state's interest in procreation—and that opening marriage to same-sex couples would dilute, diminish, and devalue this goal. But that is plainly not the case. Preventing lesbians and gays from marrying does not cause more heterosexuals to marry and conceive more children. Likewise, allowing gays and lesbians to marry someone of the same sex will not discourage heterosexuals from marrying a person of the opposite sex. How, then, would allowing same-sex marriages reduce the number of children that heterosexual couples conceive?

This procreation argument cannot be taken seriously. We do not inquire whether heterosexual couples intend to bear children, or have the capacity to have children, before we allow them to marry. We permit marriage by the elderly, by prison inmates, and by persons who have no intention of having children. What's more, it is pernicious to think marriage should be limited to heterosexuals because of the state's desire to promote procreation. We would surely not accept as constitutional a ban on marriage if a state were to decide, as China has done, to discourage procreation.
#21 Jan 15 2010 at 10:40 AM Rating: Good
***
2,813 posts
Quote:
Kylen,

Quote:
Quote:
reinforcing the argument that gay marriage is something that's in line with conservative values and not contrary to them.



Maybe conservative values

Good! Glad to see that we agree.
#22 Jan 15 2010 at 11:15 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
LockeColeMA wrote:
I think this article read our topic

For what it's worth, that's not really Gbaji's argument (that the state needs us to make babies). His argument is that the benefits of being in a legal marriage (namely the fiscal ones) exist primarily as an incentive for heterosexual couples to marry before they procreate so they won't be an additional welfare burden upon the state and society.

I find this argument to be severely flawed enough on multiple levels to discount it as a legitimate argument against homosexual marriage, however misstating it only gives Gbaji an excuse to get on the cross and begin pontificating on how his position is being mislabeled.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#23REDACTED, Posted: Jan 15 2010 at 11:41 AM, Rating: Unrated, (Expand Post) Flea,
#24 Jan 15 2010 at 11:44 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
Quote:
Homosexuality is not a behaviour a good Christian condones.


Neither is fornication. Neither is judging your neighbor. Etc.

Quote:
Not true in the least. We want a financially and socially responsible govn. Whereas liberals seem more concerned with what someone else thinks we pride ourselves on doing what's right both financially and sociallly.


********* You're wiling to spend any amount of money to control other peoples' behavior when it does not affect you in the least.

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#25 Jan 15 2010 at 11:52 AM Rating: Excellent
*****
10,601 posts
Quote:
Being a Christian nation, which we are
Yeah, sorry, this isn't true.
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#26REDACTED, Posted: Jan 15 2010 at 12:18 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Samy,
« Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 142 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (142)