Gays can now marry in California

[danb]

Originally Posted by doc_spartan

I can relate to this, being an upper middle class white guy....hey if we all decide to move back to the 1950s morality I'm good with that.

But I wonder if I was a racial minority, or woman, if I would really want that "social order" that conservatives wish for restored.

As a conservative and avid student of conservatism, I embrace the notions of prescription, presumption, and prejudice. However, prejudice in this sense does not mean the racial prejudice. There was a time when in conventional use, the term prejudice was not a perjorative, and not associated with racial discrimination. Today the terms are almost interchangeable.

I think you would find very few true conservatives wanting to go back to racial discrimination, against blacks or anybody else. I think making that assumption about what we want to conserve is a mistake. Wanting to preserve traditional social order is not about discrimination, however it does recognize that we are only equal in the eyes of god and in the jurisdiction of the court. People have different abilities and talents, and equal outcomes for all regardless of ability are not somethig we support. Again this is not about race. There are many black and brown conservatives.

I think the same can be said about discrimination against women. I think another thing conservatives (both mean and women) wish to preserve is the role that the mother and wife play in the family, which is in the context of the family as an institution, and again, as a bedrock of our civilization. We feel society is best served by the traditional nuclear family of husband and wife and children, and that people have a duty to society to procreate. That hardly means conservatives wish to make women barefoot, pregnant and uneducated.

The gay marriage issue is a whole different thing because we view it as an attack on the institution of marriage, the family, the roles of the husband and wife, and procreation, and we feel those institutions are the bedrock of western civilization, and they are worth preserving and promoting in their traditional form, because they have served us so well for so long, and any and all attempts to replace them have been futile.

[Vagabond]

Originally Posted by danb

The gay marriage issue is a whole different thing because we view it as an attack on the institution of marriage, the family, the roles of the husband and wife, and procreation, and we feel those institutions are the bedrock of western civilization, and they are worth preserving and promoting in their traditional form, because they have served us so well for so long, and any and all attempts to replace them have been futile.

So why not outlaw divorce? It is hard to argue that the existence or non-existence of gay marriage can have the same impact that divorce has had on the traditional family structure.

[danb]

Originally Posted by haveacigar535

Change for the sake of change is obviously no more compelling than tradition for the sake of tradition, and no more correct. Both ideas should be out of the equation.

But the idea that we can't do certain things because of a "slippery slope" is pretty ridiculous. I support gay marriage because I believe homosexual partnerships should be entitled to the same sorts of legal protections, health benefits, tax regulations etc. etc. that goes with a hetero marriage. If the word "marriage" upsets you, then I guess we could use "civil unions" or whatever else. As long as the equal protection is there, there's no discrimination and I don't have a problem with whatever you want to call it.

However, I don't support polygamy, **********, and pedophilia for a lot of reasons that have nothing to do with gays or gay marriage. Any connection that would be made between those things and gay marriage, is pretty offensive to me. Why are we putting all of these things on some sort of pathway? Why can't we just judge gay marriage on its own merits?

I think the existence of the slippery slope is obvious, and cited a few examples of how we have gone down it to our detriment. I am against homosexual marriage because I think it threatens the institutions of marriage, family, and the traditional role of the husband and wife in procreation, and I think socitey as a whole and civilization as a whole suffers for it. I am not upset by any use of any word. That just trivializes things. Granting certain legal standing to homosexual partnerships is just a dodge. As to your final question, I, for one, am doing exactly that. I think my discussion is obviously clear on that.

[Enrico Palazzo]

Originally Posted by danb

The gay marriage issue is a whole different thing because we view it as an attack on the institution of marriage, the family, the roles of the husband and wife, and procreation, and we feel those institutions are the bedrock of western civilization, and they are worth preserving and promoting in their traditional form, because they have served us so well for so long, and any and all attempts to replace them have been futile.

way to regurgitate the right wing talking points, taken straight from the arguments of VA in Loving. You and your side were wrong then, you are wrong now. That argument is bull**** and you know it.

BTW, slavery served society well for so long too, so why replace that? Oh wait, you cons do appreciate enslaving illegal immigrants to do household chores....

[Vagabond]

Originally Posted by danb

One can perform a similar thought experiment with adultery, polygamy, pedophilia, and beastiality. Perhaps the day will come when social mores shift to accept any sexual activity whatsoever.

Well there are public policy reasons that exist for not allowing pedophilia and ********** that do not exist for gay marriage, namely the fact that both animals and children lack the ability to consent. As for adultery and polygamy I don't see any reason why either of those should be illegal. In fact since when is adultery not de facto legal?

Would you like to try another "thought" experiment?

[danb]

Originally Posted by Vagabond

So why not outlaw divorce? It is hard to argue that the existence or non-existence of gay marriage can have the same impact that divorce has had on the traditional family structure.

I am not a fan of divorce, and of no fault divorce, and of how the use of it and status of it in the eyes of the law have made a mockery of marriage. I am not naive to the point of realizing that it would be impossible criminalize it, but I look at it as a behavioral flaw.

[danb]

Originally Posted by haveacigar535

The whole reason the Judiciary even exists is for judges to counteract the will of the people whenever they find it unconstitutional. You might want to read the Federalist Papers, Madison kinda explains the reason why things are actually in the constitution. A lot of it talks about how democracies like to **** on minorities because they can, and that the role of the judiciary is to preserve minority rights amidst majority rule. So that's what's going on here.

Yeah, I guess what you described could happen. But usually morons looking to knock off SUVs and Talk Radio don't really become Supreme Court justice. I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that Supreme Court justices are usually pretty bright fellows.

I have read the federalist papers, thank you. I think there is a difference between interpreting the constitution, and recreating it to serve a personal politicla ideology. I think the later is what's happened to the judiciary. The whole living breathing constitution thing. Judicial tyranny, judicial fiat, are real things, and the products of misguided left wing judges. (for the most part).

[danb]

vagabond -

I need to quit posting right now, but I will respond to your post when I get back. I'm not putting you off.

[Vagabond]

Originally Posted by danb

I am not a fan of divorce, and of no fault divorce, and of how the use of it and status of it in the eyes of the law have made a mockery of marriage. I am not naive to the point of realizing that it would be impossible criminalize it, but I look at it as a behavioral flaw.

So why is gay marriage such a big deal? Divorce has an enormous impact upon families that can actually be quantified. Do you think that the mere existence of gay marriage will cause the divorce rate to climb higher? Will people suddenly "decide" to be homosexual now that marriage is an option?

[doc_spartan]

and that people have a duty to society to procreate

Really?...we owe it to society to breed? The idea that it's our civic duty to procreate seems somewhat out of touch with the reality of the number of people already on the planet.

I'm curious...how many children do I owe society...just one to replace me when I'm dead or should I have more?

Should people fufill this civic duty even when they are not particularly interested in having children?

Should people fufill this civic duty even when they cannot really afford to raise the children?

In my opinion it is your civic duty to raise any chlidren you choose to have, it is not your civic duty to have children.

['86]

Originally Posted by Vagabond

How does giving someone instructions on how to do something not condone it? If I were to tell a child how to shoplift then how could one argue that I was not condoning the activity?

The bible could have condemned the practice of slavery but instead it was influenced by the politics of the day and condoned it instead.

Just be honest with the evidence presented so far, the scriptures both you and I posted. The Bible doesn't teach anyone how to capture or control slaves, and it doesn't teach any social or economic advantages to slavery, at least the New Testament. What does it teach? In those societies where slavery exists, it teaches individuals how to act. The slave owner is told to be kind, to treat his slaves well. The slave is taught to serve his master well, not out of fear, bitterness or hatred. The slave owner has a master, Christ, and the slave is free, a child of God.

Slavery has been an institutionalized economic and social order in history. It's not dissimilar to a modern economy where some people can't imagine anything but working for a paycheck and entrepreneurs would never be hourly wage earners. Yeah, slavery is cruel and primitive, and the Bible doesn't endorse it. The Bible isn't imposing modern moral sensibilities on ancient cultures the way critics of the Bible would like it to, either. The Bible is speaking to INDIVIDUALS immersed in the prevailing social and economic orders of their countries and their day. All of the scriptures we've quoted so far expressly address individuals in those systems, none is a wholesale prescription for society. Not one.

[Cym Jim]

The only "societal order" that the conservatives I know want to preserve is the order of the poor being poor and the rich being rich, and they have no qualms about saying so. Let's face it, that's why most supported racial segregation 50 years ago, and are happy with the current state of affairs because they were able to make sure that integration didn't upset the apple cart too much. A black president though, that might be pushing it, especially if he knows people who act all black and that. Anyway, these conservatives didn't sign up to be swept along in a movement driven by a few evangelical nutjobs in Colorado Springs. They understand evolution, they see the economic sense in environmental conservation, support stem cell research, and see no threat to their societal order by gays getting married. As long as there are plenty of poor people around to make money from, they're happy.

But then again, I don't associate with the NASCAR brand of conservative, so I'm probably quite blinkered.

[doc_spartan]

The Bible isn't imposing modern moral sensibilities on ancient cultures the way critics of the Bible would like it to, either. The Bible is speaking to INDIVIDUALS immersed in the prevailing social and economic orders of their countries and their day.

I agree with this statement.

Of course it has an obvious extension to fifty years from now when homosexual marriage is widely accepted.

['86]

I believe homosexuality was a capital offense in the ancient Jewish theocracy, it's listed in there right between bestialiy and adultery- for real. I know of only one New Testament reference to homosexuality and of course, nothing on homosexual marriage. The Bible will have no more to say about homosexual marriage 50 or 500 years from now than it does today.

I think most of the arguments against homosexual marriage are bunk. Procreation is not exactly a pressing problem in 2008. The fact is, people like myself who oppose homosexual marriage regard homosexuality as a disorder and we disagree with the movement of social opinion about homosexuality over the years from sin to disorder to acceptable to chic. I think the truth is, people who oppose homosexual marriage think it never should have been eliminated from it's official classification as a mental disorder back in 1973. That's the bottom line in all of this, whether anyone will admit it or not.

[danb]

Originally Posted by Vagabond

Well there are public policy reasons that exist for not allowing pedophilia and ********** that do not exist for gay marriage, namely the fact that both animals and children lack the ability to consent. As for adultery and polygamy I don't see any reason why either of those should be illegal. In fact since when is adultery not de facto legal?

Would you like to try another "thought" experiment?

Whether or not someone consents to perverse sexual activity does not affect the immorality of the act, or the dterimental impact it has on society as a whole. I think your admission of acceptance of adultery and polygamy speaks to the slippery slope our society is on. I'm not aware of adultery being a criminal offense anywhere in the US.

Your last question just seems to be puerile emotional outburst.

[John Deere]

Originally Posted by '86

I believe homosexuality was a capital offense in the ancient Jewish theocracy, it's listed in there right between bestialiy and adultery- for real. I know of only one New Testament reference to homosexuality and of course, nothing on homosexual marriage. The Bible will have no more to say about homosexual marriage 50 or 500 years from now than it does today.

I think most of the arguments against homosexual marriage are bunk. Procreation is not exactly a pressing problem in 2008. The fact is, people like myself who oppose homosexual marriage regard homosexuality as a disorder and we disagree with the movement of social opinion about homosexuality over the years from sin to disorder to acceptable to chic. I think the truth is, people who oppose homosexual marriage think it never should have been eliminated from it's official classification as a mental disorder back in 1973. That's the bottom line in all of this, whether anyone will admit it or not.

That's a pretty deep message.

Most people that oppose gay marriage support traditional marriage and don't want to see alternate messages accepted as "normal". Nothing in today's society is slowing down the acceptance of adultery (straight or gay) or alternative forms of "fantasies".

I wish the advocates of everything in the privacy of a bedroom (or closet, or whereever) should be okay would just, uh, keep it private.

[danb]

'86: I'd like to respnd to a couple great points you've made in your last few posts.

First, on slavery in the bible. The true meaning of the passages you cite, which I think you have tried to express (and successfully at least to me), requires more than a passing familiarity with the bible to comprehend, and an intellectually honest approach to trying to understand it. I think many people who criticize the bible, religion, and christians are unable to bring these qualities to bear when they attack us. For me, studying the bible and searching for the meaning of my faith has been and continues to be mentally exhausting at times. People who think they "know it all" when it comes to christianity, the bible, religion, and the relationship between reason and faith, with only a superficial understanding of these things gained from the popular press or some humanities professor are only fooling themselves and other like minded individuals who don't need convincing of their arguments.

Thus they mistakenly conclude that the bible condones slavery.

Second is homosexuality as a mental disorder. I have read some things in the past about the history of how it came to pass that homosexuality was not deemed to be a mental disorder. It was steeped in politics, and reminds me of how the scientific community has handled global warming issue. It was quite shocking how science took a back seat to progressive ideology. I would cite the sources I read but I can't remember them right now.

Finally, although I don't agree 100% with you on everything, I really appreciate what you bring to this message board.

['86]

Originally Posted by danb

'86: I'd like to respnd to a couple great points you've made in your last few posts.

First, on slavery in the bible. The true meaning of the passages you cite, which I think you have tried to express (and successfully at least to me), requires more than a passing familiarity with the bible to comprehend, and an intellectually honest approach to trying to understand it. I think many people who criticize the bible, religion, and christians are unable to bring these qualities to bear when they attack us. For me, studying the bible and searching for the meaning of my faith has been and continues to be mentally exhausting at times. People who think they "know it all" when it comes to christianity, the bible, religion, and the relationship between reason and faith, with only a superficial understanding of these things gained from the popular press or some humanities professor are only fooling themselves and other like minded individuals who don't need convincing of their arguments.

Thus they mistakenly conclude that the bible condones slavery.

Second is homosexuality as a mental disorder. I have read some things in the past about the history of how it came to pass that homosexuality was not deemed to be a mental disorder. It was steeped in politics, and reminds me of how the scientific community has handled global warming issue. It was quite shocking how science took a back seat to progressive ideology. I would cite the sources I read but I can't remember them right now.

Finally, although I don't agree 100% with you on everything, I really appreciate what you bring to this message board.

We could hang, danb. Are you also a new incarnation like one of my favorite posters, Donnyrotten (that's just a great name!)



You weren't on the board when I was posting a lot. Technically, my self-imposed hiatus doesn't end until July. If we have any differences they're probably 'charismatic' Christianity, which I personally find to be Biblical, and the issue of God's chosen- how races and nations interrelate.

We don't always have to run headlong into our differences, though. Sometimes it's better to search out and enjoy fellowship on common ground.

[danb]

I've been danb, and only danb, since I joined the board years ago. (Someone recently thought I was a schtick of LWS )

Frankly, I'd have to go back and search out your posts to find the things on which we disagree. Can't think of any off hand, but I know there are a few.

['86]

Originally Posted by danb

I've been danb, and only danb, since I joined the board years ago. (Someone recently thought I was a schtick of LWS )

Frankly, I'd have to go back and search out your posts to find the things on which we disagree. Can't think of any off hand, but I know there are a few.

I knew you weren't Lonefishhead. Maybe you had a lull in you Wells Hall posts for awhile.