True, but its pretty hard for the gay community to fuck up marrage worse then we did.
case in point...
Obergefell discussion
- Thread starter Abhorsen
- Start date
True, but its pretty hard for the gay community to fuck up marrage worse then we did.
case in point...
True, but its pretty hard for the gay community to fuck up marrage worse then we did.
case in point...
Interestingly enough, the "gay guy" who made this video is now a straight trans woman:
Threadban 2F Derailing - This has nothing to do with the topic, and this isn't the first time you've been warned
bintananth
behind a desk
Considering the kinds of issues unmarried couples (straight or otherwise) face when it comes to things like medical decisions, joint property ownership, inheritance sans a will, taxes, &c ... getting married makes the risk of a messy divorce "totally worth it" for a lot of couples.
This is also precisely the reason why I do think the government should be involved in marriages.
LordsFire
Internet Wizard
The problem conservatives have with gay 'marriage' is twofold.
First, marriage definitionally is between a man and a woman. For conservatives, the conflict wasn't about 'civil rights for homosexuals,' it was (and is) about 'homosexual activists are trying to make us call a relationship something that it is not.' It wasn't just a conflict over whether or not Christian morality was an acceptable basis for laws, it was also (yet another) fight against political leftists taking upon themselves the power to try to redefine reality, by redefining words, then forcing everyone else to live with their redefinition. If you want to try to claim 'that's just Christians being butthurt over no longer getting to dictate acceptable public morality,' can you name any other culture or society in history, even those that considered homosexuality acceptable, that would call a relationship between two men or two women a marriage?
(Of note, there was a point where I might have supported civil unions, but the left's demonstrated policy of taking a mile when you give an inch has killed any willingness for this on my part.)
Second, the entire mess of issues wrapped up in what is probably most easily called the 'slippery slope.' Given how the turn to legally persecuting people who don't believe in gay 'marriage' was basically instantaneous, and the LGBT activist lobby switching to 'trans rights' and child-grooming only took a few months, this concern, so often laughed at through the 90's and 2000's, has been more than adequately proven justified.
First, marriage definitionally is between a man and a woman. For conservatives, the conflict wasn't about 'civil rights for homosexuals,' it was (and is) about 'homosexual activists are trying to make us call a relationship something that it is not.' It wasn't just a conflict over whether or not Christian morality was an acceptable basis for laws, it was also (yet another) fight against political leftists taking upon themselves the power to try to redefine reality, by redefining words, then forcing everyone else to live with their redefinition. If you want to try to claim 'that's just Christians being butthurt over no longer getting to dictate acceptable public morality,' can you name any other culture or society in history, even those that considered homosexuality acceptable, that would call a relationship between two men or two women a marriage?
(Of note, there was a point where I might have supported civil unions, but the left's demonstrated policy of taking a mile when you give an inch has killed any willingness for this on my part.)
Second, the entire mess of issues wrapped up in what is probably most easily called the 'slippery slope.' Given how the turn to legally persecuting people who don't believe in gay 'marriage' was basically instantaneous, and the LGBT activist lobby switching to 'trans rights' and child-grooming only took a few months, this concern, so often laughed at through the 90's and 2000's, has been more than adequately proven justified.
Last edited:
You mean the problems 'trad-cons' have with same sex marriage; do not lump all people on the Right in with the zealot fringe.
Edit: This is a battle trad-cons lost years ago now, and not one that the public wants to waste time refighting. So cope and seethe on this topic, because it's all trad-cons like you can do.
King Arts
Well-known member
If the government does not have to recognize marriage then it's not a right.
Ok, you are using the constitution. I don't really give a fuck about that for this argument. You are using the American constitution like it's some sort of Bible, or authority on the natural world. I started this whole thing to argue that it is possible for someone to make an argument against same sex marriage that is not based on religion. Also religion should not be brought up in an American thing if you are advocating it from an American perspective because trying to force religion down people's throats is getting close to violating the establishment clause.
Also equal protection under the law is to prevent people from dividing people into diffrent classes when the government does not have a legitimate objective. The government does have a legitimate objective to keep the population up, so under certain conditions it could give rewards to those who have more kids. Is it practically realistic? No because America does not need to make more Americans like Japan does. So for America as long as the people are willing to adopt kids and raise them good then for now they should have the bennefits of marriage. HOWEVER if in the future the population went way down the government could have a very real legitimate desire to entice people to have more kids, and it's better than forcing people to do so at gun point.
I don't believe in any rights truthfully, but again that is just the judiciary just making up things on the fly and through precedent society just accepted it. The only things I see that are constitutional rights are things that are explicitely spelled out in the constitution. There could be a negative right to marriage under the 1st ammendment. By that I mean people are allowed under free expression to make whatever rituals they want and call that marriage and the government can't stop them. But the government does not have to give any rewards to people who go through that, also the government can have it's own classification for a group of people who make a contract to have kids together, in exchange for certain bennefits and the government can call that whatever it wants, marriage, union, eternal partnership, business fuckbuddies, reproduction contract, etc.
I'm sorry but I don't understand this paragraph at all it reads as nonsense to me. There is nothing at all in these arguments about religion. You read the establishment clause way to broad because everything could be based on someone's religious bias. As long as they can make a logical argument that does not touch religion the courts should just read it at face value.
Cherico no it doesn't improve conservatism, unless you think conservatism is just the democrats of 10 years ago.
Also gay marriage and interacial marriage are diffrent. Since again one can produce offspring the other can't. The U.S. can't do this because of stupid readings of the constitution. But it would have saved alot of division. A nation that is not homogenous can lead to conflict, diversity is not a strength so then the government could do a diffrent style of discrimination, they could provide incentives for mixed race marriages, if people from diffrent races marry each other they pay 50% less in taxes, that would mix and meld ethnicities together and hopefully create alliances and break up ethnic divide and hatred. Many past great conqurers when they took over a new kingdom tried to convince their soldiers to take local wives, Alexander the Great did, I think Genghis Khan and the Mongols. It is the best way to make an empire more united to create something new.
LordsFire
Internet Wizard
Given your general ignorance about American conservativism, much less 'trad-cons,' you really aren't in a place to speak about what is or is not a 'zealot fringe' of the right.
I'll remind you that California had a ballot proposition that defined marriage as 'one man one woman' before a lefty judge struck it down, and this was post-2000, not in the 60's or some earlier era.
It would also be one of the best and most efficient and opaque ways to commit tax legal fraud ever conceived of.
...Honestly, that's not a bad thing Taxation isn't just theft, given who runs our government its currently an act of treason by the IRS perpetrated against the American citizen.
Money laundering potential when you have 9 spouses though...that's kinda scary and something extremely pervasive in societies that allow polygamy.
King Arts
Well-known member
It'd be easier to just take a 10% from all people on income they make and then just leave it at that, much less harder to dodge that.
It's not ignorance of 'American Conservatism', it's contempt for it, when defined by people like you.
Also, that Cali case was before many other state's legalized same-sex marriage, and when that happened interstate rules about recognizing legal marriages from other states for things like hospital visits, insurance payouts, divorce settlements, and the other functions like that.
Constitutional protections related to interstate commerce and equal protection under the law between states are a large part of why same-sex marriage ended up in SCOTUS, and the kind of 'conservatism' that has problems with same-sex marriage is also the sort that seems hell-bent on undoing a lot of the tent-building Trump and the populists are trying to create in the Right.
However, at the end of the day, same-sex marriage is here to stay regardless of what some socially and culturally fossilized trad-cons think or desire. So keep on coping and seething.
King Arts
Well-known member
First it seems like you are the one who is in need of coping and dilating since you seem to be mad about it.
Second gay marriage was not brought it by popular vote, but by the supreme court imposing it.
Third no gay marriage should not have been legalized because of stupid shit like equal protection. It should have been made legal because of the full faith and credit clause. And that should not force states to make gay marriage available in their state, it should only force them to acknowledge and accept gay marriages that were performed in other states, and then those people came to the new state.
It's not some big imposition, if you really love this person and want to spend the rest of your life with them, getting on a plane ticket and getting married shows commitment and is somewhat respectable.
LordsFire
Internet Wizard
It's not as I define it. It's as people like Will Rogers, Ronald Reagan, and Rush Limbaugh defined it.
Small government. Judeo-Christian morality. Low taxes.
God, Family, Country.
You seem to think that you can just come in and redefine 'conservatism' to mean 'leftist as of ten years ago.' That's not what the movement was, that's not what the movement is, and that's not what the movement is going to be.
Conservatives accept allies who have common cause, mostly libertarians, but if you believe in big government, wealth redistribution, and a libertine social morality (not libertarian, libertine), then you are not a conservative, because you are not trying to conserve the founding values of our nation, and you disagree with us on the core planks of the conservative platform.
Ah yes, the old 'Tradcons still think they are in charge of the Right' bullshit you honestly believe still is the way things work.
Hint, there are more Independents than either Dems or Reps; you win by appealing to the middle, not the hardcore base or either side. Trying to split hairs about liberal vs libertarian vs libertine is just trying to pretend classical liberalism doesn't still have massive pull in the US, even among the Right.
I'm not attempting to redefine conservatism, I'm just pointing out 'traditional conservatism' has less and less pull or play in the US electorate. Populist conservatism, libertarian liberalism, and classical liberalism are complementary ideologies that work together against the Far-left these days, at least when tradcons and their purity spiral bullshit doesn't get in the way.
There is more to the Right and it's future that what Reagan, Limbaugh, and Rogers thought it should be, and the populist Right will not be held back by tradcons. You are not getting the old Right back, and learn to accept tradcons are no longer in the driver seat of the modern Right.
Simonbob
Well-known member
Until the Islamics take over and murder them, I guess.
That's why you don't let them in in the first place--or at least shouldn't. Well, not the nuts, at least.
LordsFire
Internet Wizard
You can keep telling yourself that; it doesn't make it true.
That you think the tradcons were ever in charge of the right, you also show that you don't understand the history of the political right and the Republican Party. Establishment GOP have been embarrassed by tradcons and considered them to be 'hurting the coalition' at a minimum since the 90's. 'TradCon' influence has waxed and waned over the years, but it has never 'lead' the party; at peak it might have been 'tied for largest influence' with the business lobby.
We're still here, whereas the Tea Party started, and now the MAGA movement is broadly effecting, kicking the old establishment GOP out.
And for your information, the Christian right is more compatible with the rest of the new 'populist coalition' than 2010 leftists like you. You see, we can actually tolerate sexual practices that are immoral, so long as they are between adults, we just will never affirm them.
On the other hand, last I recalled, you support a lot of big-government, redistributionist government policies, which are not compatible with the right at all. Because that can't be turned over to the 'we got government out of this, now you can argue about it socially and culturally,' that is government policy.
Oh yes, because caring about the environment and not just kneejerk dismissing anything the Left says about it, means I support big-gov and 'redistributionist policies'.
This is where you show why trad-cons keep screwing things up for the rest of the Right.
Edit: I mean you are one of the idiots who wants to refight the fucking evolution issue, so not surprised you don't actually understand how much of a loadstone trad-cons are to the Right
Trad-cons are a huge part of the right. They always will be. Hence why I'm not trying to be on the right, because I disagree with things they believe in. It's really that simple.