• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

What Does Conservatism Offer?

The conservative Republican mantra seems to be "government, get out of my pocket!" This seems to be what they profess and what attracts the people to the party. However, as has been noted previously, they rarely, if ever, achieve this and usually wind up spending more (ie. taking more from your pocket) when they are done.
 
I think it is telling that conservatives haven't made much of an effort to defend their ideology thus far.
 
I consider myself a conservative, however I always ground that definition within economic terms and not social terms, I guess I would be more what you call a Libertarian, however that said, I take issue with the remark that some social conservative opinions are not based in tradition:

Dessi said:
- Gay rights and marriage: underlying opposition has nothing to do with "tradition", but rather a belief that homosexuality is immoral and gay marriage tacitly validates homosexuality.

- Civil rights for women and racial minorities: opposition to both issues is ostensibly rooted in racisim and sexism.

- Abortion: its been a part of American culture for 30 years, opposition to abortion is a large break with the past to save society.
Click to expand...

I do oppose Gay marriage, as do many folks I know accross the Economic spectrum, however I do not believe myself that it is due to opposition to homosexuality, because I see no wrong in homosexuality per se, and do not really see it as a choice in most cases. My opposition is because it erases the common definition of marriage as between the sexes, and thus I wholeheartedly support Civil Unions. My viewpoint is then grounded more in the Traditional Definition than in anything else. I do believe that most Evangelical types however are opposed because of religious grounded opposition to homosexuality.

I do not oppose civil rights for women and racial minorities, but those that do are drawing on very ancient traditions, that thankfully society is finally shaking off.

I am undecided on abortion, however most opposition from conservatives (or at least Catholics) is grounded on traditional notions of when life begins and is thus grounded in an ethical dedication to the preservation of life. Where it gets tricky for them is thus in allowing cases of Rape and Incense, where a value weighing has to be performed between Quality of Life for the individual vs. Right to Life for the unborn.
 
LSSBB said:
Oops, Incest I mean and not Incense, sorry for my fragrant malapropism.
Click to expand...

You can edit your posts after you submit them. Just look for the little button on the button right of the post you created.
 
LSSBB said:
That would be the Webster's definition before they changed it to add same-sex.
Click to expand...

So, an arbitrary point in time from an arbitrary source, then? What makes that point so special over other points in time? Can we not agree that there have been many definitions of marriage throughout history and picking one over the others as the "traditional definition" has no real distinction? There is always, as it were, an older tradition.

Ideas should be judged on their merits, not for how long they may, or may not, have been around. Is there a rational reason to choose that definition of marriage over others? And if not, you should ask yourself why you cling to that particular one.


Eta: This last applies to any argument from tradition, not just same-sex marriage.
 
Last edited:
Upchurch said:
So, an arbitrary point in time from an arbitrary source, then? What makes that point so special over other points in time? Can we not agree that there have been many definitions of marriage throughout history and picking one over the others as the "traditional definition" has no real distinction? There is always, as it were, an older tradition.

Ideas should be judged on their merits, not for how long they may, or may not, have been around. Is there a rational reason to choose that definition of marriage over others? And if not, you should ask yourself why you cling to that particular one.


Eta: This last applies to any argument from tradition, not just same-sex marriage.
Click to expand...

I only choose the position because I feel that it allows for a clear definition of a union between the sexes, and I feel that to merge the definitions blurs meanings. It is based on a commonly held if not necessarily universal tradition, but it is the tradition I grew up with. Being "Conservative" per the OP, I do like to hold to those traditions as a foundation for my life, unless I see a valid reason not to. So far, I have yet to see a compelling need to abandon my position on this particular point. I have abandoned it on others, and in some cases I have returned to the "conservative" positions after having more "liberal" ones that I felt were not in alignment with my experiences.
 
LSSBB said:
I only choose the position because I feel that it allows for a clear definition of a union between the sexes, and I feel that to merge the definitions blurs meanings.
Click to expand...
I still don't understand. How is "Marriage is a union between two consenting adults" less clear than "Marriage is a union between one consenting man and one consenting woman"? It is a different definition, I'll grant you, but it is no less clear.

LSSBB said:
Being "Conservative" per the OP, I do like to hold to those traditions as a foundation for my life, unless I see a valid reason not to. So far, I have yet to see a compelling need to abandon my position on this particular point.
Click to expand...
Really? You see cannot see any compelling reason?

What about the 14th Amendment which, together with the 5th Amendment, guarantees equal protection under the law at a federal level? How about the lessons we've learned in the past about oppressing a portion of our population based on accidents of birth (such as race or gender) always ending badly? Why not a simple appeal to what is fair?

For that matter, why not even a simpler question of can you see any compelling reason why not? Allowing gays to marriage neither diminishes your own marriage (if you are married), cost you money, nor effect you in any way.

Appeals to tradition, without some other underlying merit, will always fail. In fact, it is recognized as a logical fallacy. It is not a valid reason for anything, but merely an excuse. For what, I don't know.
 
Upchurch said:
Appeals to tradition, without some other underlying merit, will always fail. In fact, it is recognized as a logical fallacy. It is not a valid reason for anything, but merely an excuse. For what, I don't know.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the Appeal to Tradition education.

In retrospect, I guess my basis for the belief is more from the standpoint of a desire to maintain social continuity for some time in order to minimize the impact change has on myself and possibly others. I do not believe necessarily that the tradition I have been defending is in anyway better than the alternative.
 
LSSBB said:
Thanks for the Appeal to Tradition education.

In retrospect, I guess my basis for the belief is more from the standpoint of a desire to maintain social continuity for some time in order to minimize the impact change has on myself and possibly others. I do not believe necessarily that the tradition I have been defending is in anyway better than the alternative.
Click to expand...

But what impact?
 
LSSBB said:
The impact would be in terms of psychological stress mainly (theorizing now - have to do some research myself to bear it out). Drivers could be from confusion from changing social roles, meanings in language, visual discontinuity from expectations, maybe others.
Click to expand...
:eye-poppi

"[Your]self and possibly others" must be remarkably fragile people, emotionally.

I can barely fathom how you wrote the above with any kind of seriousness. Are you really going to argue that you would rather deny a swath of American citizens the same rights as other American citizens because some people are uncomfortable with and confused by change? Would you consider this incredible point of view typical among conservatives?
 
It is amazing that there is anybody but rich white guys left with all those dastardly conservatives running around oppressing everyone and trying to stuff them in prison camps :rolleyes:
 
LSSBB said:
The impact would be in terms of psychological stress mainly (theorizing now - have to do some research myself to bear it out). Drivers could be from confusion from changing social roles, meanings in language, visual discontinuity from expectations, maybe others.
Click to expand...

Nothing compared to the stress gays will feel when they find out what marriage is like. Are you sure your aim isn't to protect them from the hell that heterosexuals have known for ages?
 
respect said:
It is amazing that there is anybody but rich white guys left with all those dastardly conservatives running around oppressing everyone and trying to stuff them in prison camps :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Is that sarcastic strawman directed at me? Can you find a single sensible argument in what LSSBB wrote? I appreciate his/her civil attitude, but nothing s/he wrote is reasonable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom