The Conservative Case for Gay Marriage

My mom posted this on my facebook. It is a good read. Some of you might be shocked to read this, but if the conservitive party (like this guy) start changing a little more, I will likely concider myself a conservitive in a few years.
 
It won't load on my browser.

Any other links to this...?

Nevermind, I finally got it to load...
 
Last edited:
IndigoSensor said:
My mom posted this on my facebook. It is a good read. Some of you might be shocked to read this, but if the conservitive party (like this guy) start changing a little more, I will likely concider myself a conservitive in a few years.
Click to expand...

It is indeed scary. If the conservative party divorces itself from the religious right, then even I would struggle with my political orientation.
 
What we might see is the rise of new political parties in the U.S. so that we have more than two parties. I hope that happens.

The big conflict on this issue is that much of religion, especially the Catholic church, is uncompromising on its views of gay marriage. So there will be a split between the religious faction and the non-religious faction. Issues like these could be a way for the Libertarians to gain support. At the moment, the Republican party is not united, and if caribou barbie gets into any position of power in a future Republican administration, you can bet that it will cause problems.

I can also see the Greens siphoning off dissatisfied Democrats in the future when people realize that the interests of the environment and the interests of business are mutually exclusive.

I also think that in so many years, all of us will become conservatives. That is because the new liberals, who have yet to come into existence, are likely to be so radical that we cannot accept them. The big issue, I think, will be on technology.
 
Hmm. Good points, still disagree with it-- though it's well known my stance on Gay Marriage.

I thought that the reason Conservatives didn't like gay marriage is that they are usually heavily affiliated with churches and that Christian religions in America have become oddly homophobic, even though in other countries they are not at all. I thought that conservatives case is built around family and the fact that homosexual couples break the mold. I don't understand how this argument is still considered conservative- is it the stress that's put on how it would be economically better for our society, which is supposedly a Conservative view since they typically are more concerned about money and corporations, or....?

It seems very liberal to me, considering that it was the religious people mainly who opposing black persons and encouraged racism, especially in mormonism when in the 19th century they used biblical references against those descending from african-american backgrounds and chose not to let them be part of the church or any mormon-run institutions, regardless of their affiliation with the church.

I suppose hypothetically this may be a twisted interpretation of what it means to be a conservative in this day and age but I believe my perception might be skewed. It just seems like a lot of conservatives' motives are backed by the bible, and this argument doesn't really seem like it is.
 
slant said:
Hmm. Good points, still disagree with it-- though it's well known my stance on Gay Marriage.

I thought that the reason Conservatives didn't like gay marriage is that they are usually heavily affiliated with churches and that Christian religions in America have become oddly homophobic, even though in other countries they are not at all. I thought that conservatives case is built around family and the fact that homosexual couples break the mold. I don't understand how this argument is still considered conservative- is it the stress that's put on how it would be economically better for our society, which is supposedly a Conservative view since they typically are more concerned about money and corporations, or....?

It seems very liberal to me, considering that it was the religious people mainly who opposing black persons and encouraged racism, especially in mormonism when in the 19th century they used biblical references against those descending from african-american backgrounds and chose not to let them be part of the church or any mormon-run institutions, regardless of their affiliation with the church.

I suppose hypothetically this may be a twisted interpretation of what it means to be a conservative in this day and age but I believe my perception might be skewed. It just seems like a lot of conservatives' motives are backed by the bible, and this argument doesn't really seem like it is.
Click to expand...

There are numerous forms of conservatism. The one you seem to be discussing is religious conservatisim in which people try to apply their religious beliefs to their political ideologies. In America this is referred to as the "religious right" or for the more radical minded person, "the Christian Taliban". The one that Ted Olson is adovcating is called social conservatism and it advocates for order and social stability. Generally people for this form of conservatism apply the belief that marriage and the family are the basic building blocks of society. Olson argues, contrary to what most people on the religious right would believe, that granting same sex couples the right to marry would benefit society by establishing greater stability and order.

What is your stance on gay marriage?
 
Last edited:
Gay marriage should not be legal; marriage should have nothing to do with legalizations. Church should be separated from law.

Then, marriage will remain a religious practice (which is what it is) and the government will not be forcing priests and such to marry gays, blacks, or whatever if it is against their will. Essentially I think the government should grant rights to any two or more parties of the legal age who consent by way of signing a contract that would grant the same rights of current-day marriage, but this way religious institutions would have no reason to dictate who gets these rights.

I am not talking about civil union either. Civil union is a good step towards this but everything needs to be redrawn and regraphed so that law and religion are further separated. I think this would end quarrels over polygamy as well as gay marriage.
 
Last edited:
slant said:
Gay marriage should not be legal; marriage should have nothing to do with legalizations. Church should be separated from law.

Then, marriage will remain a religious practice (which is what it is) and the government will not be forcing priests and such to marry gays, blacks, or whatever if it is against their will. Essentially I think the government should grant rights to any two or more parties of the legal age who consent by way of signing a contract that would grant the same rights of current-day marriage, but this way religious institutions would have no reason to dictate who gets these rights.

I am not talking about civil union either. Civil union is a good step towards this but everything needs to be redrawn and regraphed so that law and religion are further separated. I think this would end quarrels over polygamy as well as gay marriage.
Click to expand...

That is a fine position, but do you hold 14th amendment advocacy? In other words, as long as there is civil marriage for heterosexual couples, would you advocate for civil marriage for same sex couples? It's fine to argue that there should be no civil marriage, but as long as it exists, should it be equal for everyone?

If you are arguing that civil marriage should not exist, but as long as it does, it should only exist for heterosexual couples, then you really aren't any different than anti gay marriage proponents.
 
Last edited:
Satya said:
That is a fine position, but do you hold 14th amendment advocacy? In other words, as long as there is civil marriage for heterosexual couples, would you advocate for civil marriage for same sex couples? It's fine to argue that there should be no civil marriage, but as long as it exists, should it be equal for everyone?

If you are arguing that civil marriage should not exist, but as long as it does, it should only exist for heterosexual couples, then you really aren't any different than anti gay marriage proponents.
Click to expand...

I don't think that it's progress to work to have even MORE people be able to be wed in a really corrupt system. I believe marriage is corrupt and shouldn't exist, so why would I want more people to suffer through this discriminate, entirely religious process?

I think it's kind of ridiculous that homosexuals want to get married in a religious institution that detests their existence. I understand that religion is not inherently against homosexuals but it is a very big part of American culture's version of religion, so at this point in time homosexuals are actually fighting to be wed into the very system that protests them, and I find that highly ironic.
 
slant said:
I don't think that it's progress to work to have even MORE people be able to be wed in a really corrupt system. I believe marriage is corrupt and shouldn't exist, so why would I want more people to suffer through this discriminate, entirely religious process?
Click to expand...

I'm not really sure on what grounds you are arguing that marriage is entirely religious. Cultures which don't even have a prominent religion still have marriage. In our society, thousands of civil rights are associated with marriage. Calling it "entirely religious" is a misnomer.

I think it's kind of ridiculous that homosexuals want to get married in a religious institution that detests their existence. I understand that religion is not inherently against homosexuals but it is a very big part of American culture's version of religion, so at this point in time homosexuals are actually fighting to be wed into the very system that protests them, and I find that highly ironic.
Click to expand...

Civil marriage is a contract. Priests have no ability to grant people a marriage license, only the state does. I think you might be a bit misinformed on the true nature of marriage.
 
That's possible. But that's really all I developed on that opinion...soo....

If I have anything else to add after thinking about that for a while I'll letcha know.


Man...my career debating Satya did not last long. Good job, Sayta for crushing my hopes, dreams, and aspirations with one post.
 
Last edited:
slant said:
Man...my career debating Satya did not last long. Good job, Sayta for crushing my hopes, dreams, and aspirations with one post.
Click to expand...

You can still argue for the abolition of civil marriage if you want. It is a rational argument as long as it is applied to everyone and no two consenting adults are denied civil marriage while it exists.
 
I thought I did just argue for the abolition of civil marriage and you countered that because my argument was entirely based on the notion that religious ties were the purpose and creation of marriage and it was a partial and mainly moot point that isn't realistically depicting society. That also shattered the debate about the reason I don't think gays should be granted it as well, and I don't understand why one would have to argue that no two parties should be denied a civil union as it exists seeing as...discrimination? Because the fact that 2 parties are only allowed to marry is also pretty discriminative.
 
YOU NEVER GOT BACK TO ME [MENTION=20]Satya[/MENTION] !!!
 
oh lord, they've gotten to the conservatives now as well.



*waits for the de reps from the posters who can't fathom the ability of sarcasm on the internet.*



---

Serious post now:

There have been many gay friendly conservatives, called Log Cabin Republicans I believe. I've not looked much into their party platform, but I've know they've been around for a while.
 
NOW IS NOT THE TIME SARA, I REQUIRE A RESPONSE FROM SATYA PROMPTLY, I HAVE WAITED NEARLY ONE YEAR FOR THIS
 
oh woops, I totally thought this was a recent topic. I was suprised that Satya was posting, haha.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top