Repeat the Line said:
It never was about two same-sex individuals simply entering into matrimony and receiving the accompanying rights of a civil union.
It's also the basis of the Spanish Inquisition.Silian Rail said:Ag_of_08 said:
Conservatism does mean small govt. Liberal authoritarianism cloaked in Christianity and reactionary policy doesn't make it not liberalism
Authoritarianism gilded by Christianity is the basis of western civ
lol no one is scared of the new right /pol/ incels meeting up in holiday inn conference rooms to meme trad values into the mainstream so they can maybe get laid some dayBAP Enthusiast said:
Good, you should fear us.
Looky-looky ... demagogue in training.Kunkle for Congress TX-34 said:
100% Agree. Democrats are aiming at monogamous heterosexual marriage and will not stop until equality, equity, whatever is achieved. Now is the time to show how quickly "love is love" has changed into sexual indoctrination of children at public schools.
The Democratic Partywillis trying to take downmarriagethe nuclear family, and we must go with preemptive strike. Luckily, the Democratic Party has provided us will all of the ammo we will ever need.
i can't speak specifically to obergfell because i haven't read the text of the opinion. it may be good law it may not. i won't form an opinion on it without reading it.Silian Rail said:You're arguing both sides against the middle. You can't say I trust the government as far as I can throw it, and then call for it to expand its purview over a new domain. Obergfell expanded federal power; it didn't limit it.BlackGoldAg2011 said:yes and you made it. The government should either have a system that allows two consenting adults to enter into a contract of shared responsibility under which there is a certain set of specific laws such as tax treatment and estate transfers, and beyond that have no say as to who can use this contract, or they get out all together. Because in the conservative, traditional view of those who ratified the 1st and10th amendments, i trust the federal government as far as i can throw it, and don't want to give it the power to dictate who can and cannot do what, with the conservative value being limiting the federal government to the bounds the constitution sets.Silian Rail said:Can you make a single argument in which supporting the legalization of gay marriage is a conservative opinion? The only argument you can possibly make is saying that the government should not be in the business of granting marriage licenses, but that would call for a repeal of straight marriage instead of doubling down on a negative, or would call for the repeal of Obergfell with the issue left to the states. No way, no how do we get to an affirmation of gay marriage from a conservative argument.BlackGoldAg2011 said:no, i'm saying because some one disagrees with you on one point doesn't mean you get to disqualify them from being called a conservative. unless conservatism is a codified set of beliefs, or we have a designated arbiter of who/what is or is not conservative, you don't get to claim, "no true conservative believes this".Silian Rail said:Yes, because the word conservative should mean something. If someone says they're a vegan and they eat meat, you should be able to point at them and say "no you're not a vegan"; that's not a "no true scotsman argument".BlackGoldAg2011 said:its not "Hur dur muh fallacy"RebelE Infantry said:BlackGoldAg2011 said:just out of curiosity, when did i miss the election making you the arbiter of what does and doesn't define "conservatives"? because its been a long time since i've seen this great of an example of no true scotsmanSilian Rail said:No Spin Ag said:
To see so many conservatives support gay marriage is a good sight to see. Things were so much different when i started posting here a couple of decades ago.
Plus, there's way more important issues that need to be dealt with, and it's good to know this issue is done with. Now on to things that actually matter.
The same number of conservatives support gay marriage: none. All that has changed is that some liberals are now calling themselves conservatives.
Hur dur muh fallacy
He's just stating what every conservative has believed until a couple years ago.
he comes on here and says all republicans should believe this and any who don't aren't true conservatives. receives a lot of feedback that says "i'm a conservative and I disagree with you". then the retort I quoted essentially says, but no true conservative believes this, only liberals in disguise.
that is the literal textbook definition of the fallacy. further, "conservativism" isn't exactly a canonized, universally accepted, homogenous set of views. so to be able to define it as absolutely as he is trying, someone would need to be in charge of it as arbiter. i'm asking, as someone who considers himself a conservative who also disagrees with him, who put him in charge where he could tell me i'm not a conservative because of a single viewpoint i hold?
also the bolded point is entirely unverifiable so lets not pretend like its settled fact.
You're making the same argument as the loony left who claims not to know what a woman is, you know what the word "conservatism" mean, you know what it entails, in both its use as verb "to conserve" and as a political philosophy.
and you're right, I do know what the word means, and because of that i know it is not an absolute and definable set of beliefs. it is a general position in which the individual supporters can have a wide array of beliefs. i'm not arguing that supporting gay marriage is a conservative position, i'm saying that supporting gay marriage from a government/legal perspective does not by itself disqualify a person from calling themselves a conservative.
and besides, thats not the argument i was making. that argument was that you can't say no conservative supports this position, because there are lots that do. that doesn't make it a conservative position, but one non-conservative position doesn't disqualify them from being called a conservative unless "conservatism" is a codified set of beliefs.
Under your explanation there is a conservative argument for incestuous marriage provided that both parties are of age, no?
Would you allow someone who held the view that a father can marry his adult son, and that right needs to be protected by the government a conservative?
Quote:
You see we shouldn't fix any societal problems at all and should ignore all social issues because pushing back against them means we might lose elections.
Agreed. Would be a terrible position for Republicans to take. Not to mention, who cares if they get married? I don't. Just tired of hearing about it so damn much.93MarineHorn said:
100% disagree. Primarily because I'm pro-liberty and gays getting married doesn't impact my life at all. Secondarily, fighting gay marriage is a political LOSER! That wasn't the case 15 years ago when every major Dem candidate was against it. But times have changed dramatically. DO NOT give the Dems a lifeline here.
I know of at least 3 of us on this thread whose combined age is less than 100 and have 10 kids.Old McDonald said:lol no one is scared of the new right /pol/ incels meeting up in holiday inn conference rooms to meme trad values into the mainstream so they can maybe get laid some dayBAP Enthusiast said:
Good, you should fear us.
Silian Rail said:I know of at least 3 of us on this thread whose combined age is less than 100 and have 10 kids.Old McDonald said:lol no one is scared of the new right /pol/ incels meeting up in holiday inn conference rooms to meme trad values into the mainstream so they can maybe get laid some dayBAP Enthusiast said:
Good, you should fear us.
Silian Rail said:I know of at least 3 of us on this thread whose combined age is less than 100 and have 10 kids.Old McDonald said:lol no one is scared of the new right /pol/ incels meeting up in holiday inn conference rooms to meme trad values into the mainstream so they can maybe get laid some dayBAP Enthusiast said:
Good, you should fear us.
All sins are equal only in that they are harmful and can be forgiven by Christ. Proverbs itself lists 7 sins which are especially hated by God; I don't think you know the Bible very well.Camo said:
Silian you are the definition of hypocrisy, it's unfathomable you do not notice this
Mention time was better before women's suffrage, probably say the same about the civil rights movement
Also, STOP equating gay/lesbian people to all the bat sheet crazy 'indoctrination' happening in schools and drag shows, books, w/e.
Equating gay/lesbian with transsexuals' and pedophiles is the same as saying all white people are racist. When in fact, most gay/lesbian folks despise what is happening in schools and this push of LBGTQ+ BS. They hate being lumped in with the trannies and pedos. You are segmenting and entire group, educate your dumbass
Gays been doing gay things since before the holy book. You probably dont believe dinosaurs exist because it aint the Bible.
Lastly, bible says all sins are equal. No doubt, you have sinned in your life, you are no better than 'gay/lesbian' you despise
You need a solid reality check
No Spin Ag said:Silian Rail said:I know of at least 3 of us on this thread whose combined age is less than 100 and have 10 kids.Old McDonald said:lol no one is scared of the new right /pol/ incels meeting up in holiday inn conference rooms to meme trad values into the mainstream so they can maybe get laid some dayBAP Enthusiast said:
Good, you should fear us.
The 3 of you equals 1 young immigrant family, and that includes the kids. Good luck with that.
BAP Enthusiast said:No Spin Ag said:Silian Rail said:I know of at least 3 of us on this thread whose combined age is less than 100 and have 10 kids.Old McDonald said:lol no one is scared of the new right /pol/ incels meeting up in holiday inn conference rooms to meme trad values into the mainstream so they can maybe get laid some dayBAP Enthusiast said:
Good, you should fear us.
The 3 of you equals 1 young immigrant family, and that includes the kids. Good luck with that.
The highest birth rate in the US is from the religious conservative right and specifically from whites and it's growing every year. You are wrong.
Why do we need to call that marriage? Why do we need to honor incest with the term marriage? Why can't they form a partnership, or a company as has been done forever?BlackGoldAg2011 said:i can't speak specifically to obergfell because i haven't read the text of the opinion. it may be good law it may not. i won't form an opinion on it without reading it.Silian Rail said:You're arguing both sides against the middle. You can't say I trust the government as far as I can throw it, and then call for it to expand its purview over a new domain. Obergfell expanded federal power; it didn't limit it.BlackGoldAg2011 said:yes and you made it. The government should either have a system that allows two consenting adults to enter into a contract of shared responsibility under which there is a certain set of specific laws such as tax treatment and estate transfers, and beyond that have no say as to who can use this contract, or they get out all together. Because in the conservative, traditional view of those who ratified the 1st and10th amendments, i trust the federal government as far as i can throw it, and don't want to give it the power to dictate who can and cannot do what, with the conservative value being limiting the federal government to the bounds the constitution sets.Silian Rail said:Can you make a single argument in which supporting the legalization of gay marriage is a conservative opinion? The only argument you can possibly make is saying that the government should not be in the business of granting marriage licenses, but that would call for a repeal of straight marriage instead of doubling down on a negative, or would call for the repeal of Obergfell with the issue left to the states. No way, no how do we get to an affirmation of gay marriage from a conservative argument.BlackGoldAg2011 said:no, i'm saying because some one disagrees with you on one point doesn't mean you get to disqualify them from being called a conservative. unless conservatism is a codified set of beliefs, or we have a designated arbiter of who/what is or is not conservative, you don't get to claim, "no true conservative believes this".Silian Rail said:Yes, because the word conservative should mean something. If someone says they're a vegan and they eat meat, you should be able to point at them and say "no you're not a vegan"; that's not a "no true scotsman argument".BlackGoldAg2011 said:its not "Hur dur muh fallacy"RebelE Infantry said:BlackGoldAg2011 said:just out of curiosity, when did i miss the election making you the arbiter of what does and doesn't define "conservatives"? because its been a long time since i've seen this great of an example of no true scotsmanSilian Rail said:No Spin Ag said:
To see so many conservatives support gay marriage is a good sight to see. Things were so much different when i started posting here a couple of decades ago.
Plus, there's way more important issues that need to be dealt with, and it's good to know this issue is done with. Now on to things that actually matter.
The same number of conservatives support gay marriage: none. All that has changed is that some liberals are now calling themselves conservatives.
Hur dur muh fallacy
He's just stating what every conservative has believed until a couple years ago.
he comes on here and says all republicans should believe this and any who don't aren't true conservatives. receives a lot of feedback that says "i'm a conservative and I disagree with you". then the retort I quoted essentially says, but no true conservative believes this, only liberals in disguise.
that is the literal textbook definition of the fallacy. further, "conservativism" isn't exactly a canonized, universally accepted, homogenous set of views. so to be able to define it as absolutely as he is trying, someone would need to be in charge of it as arbiter. i'm asking, as someone who considers himself a conservative who also disagrees with him, who put him in charge where he could tell me i'm not a conservative because of a single viewpoint i hold?
also the bolded point is entirely unverifiable so lets not pretend like its settled fact.
You're making the same argument as the loony left who claims not to know what a woman is, you know what the word "conservatism" mean, you know what it entails, in both its use as verb "to conserve" and as a political philosophy.
and you're right, I do know what the word means, and because of that i know it is not an absolute and definable set of beliefs. it is a general position in which the individual supporters can have a wide array of beliefs. i'm not arguing that supporting gay marriage is a conservative position, i'm saying that supporting gay marriage from a government/legal perspective does not by itself disqualify a person from calling themselves a conservative.
and besides, thats not the argument i was making. that argument was that you can't say no conservative supports this position, because there are lots that do. that doesn't make it a conservative position, but one non-conservative position doesn't disqualify them from being called a conservative unless "conservatism" is a codified set of beliefs.
Under your explanation there is a conservative argument for incestuous marriage provided that both parties are of age, no?
Would you allow someone who held the view that a father can marry his adult son, and that right needs to be protected by the government a conservative?
as for me specifically, i will concede that it is possible my views on this issue may not fully reside the the realm of conservatism (meaning the historically held viewpoint), but would still consider myself conservative due to the totality of my beliefs.
that said, i would argue that yes, if both parties are of age the government should butt out, period. if a father and adult son want to enter into a legal marriage with all of the defined tax benefits, who am I to say no. The government side of marriage has nothing to do with sleeping together and everything to do with tax benefits. if a father and son, or a brother and sister want to join together as a household who am i to deny the tax benefits afforded to a household. maybe they want to do it because one is a widow/widower and they want to work together to raise the kids, why should they not receive the same tax advantages of a traditional husband and wife doing the same thing. my point is not that i support homosexual relationships, as I personally believe the bible is clear on that being wrong, but I don't trust my government to be in the business of telling adults how to live their lives. So they either make it available to all adults, or none. that's my stance anyway. also they shouldn't force any private establishment to recognize or be involved with these unions. if a company wants to provide certain benefits to married couples, let them decide what those benefits are and who they offer them to. in general my position is the government needs to get its hands out of people lives so long as they aren't harming another non-consenting party (a minor can't consent to harm hence needing some protections).
I sure hope you don't have a ton of assets and/or progeny, because a Texas probate court will likely disagree with your take when it comes to all of those "wives" showing up again after you're gone.Yellerjacket said:I don't have to file for divorce if the State was never involved in the first place. If they don't know I'm married, they don't need to know I'm no longer married. If I want to re-marry later, I can do that without the State's assistance.HTownAg98 said:The government does need to be involved, but only minimally, because they get to tax assets, and need to know what to do with your property when you're dead. Plus, if what you're doing is a common law marriage, and doing this in Texas, you can't just leave each other and say you're not married anymore; you have to file for divorce. I am not an attorney, and I am definitely not your attorney, and take this advice for what it's worth, but this is a very, very bad idea.Yellerjacket said:Exactly. My wife and I don't even have any kind of contract. We just said we are married and that was that. If we ever decide we don't want to be married anymore, we just won't be. No need to get the government involved.biles90 said:
A better question is why do consenting adults have to get government approval to enter into a contractural relationship (marriage)? I don't have to get government approval to enter into a personal services contract or other (real estate, employment, etc...) contracts.
Back to the OP, if gay/lesbian couples want to be married, they should be able to be as miserable as everyone else.
Silian Rail said:I know of at least 3 of us on this thread whose combined age is less than 100 and have 10 kids.Old McDonald said:lol no one is scared of the new right /pol/ incels meeting up in holiday inn conference rooms to meme trad values into the mainstream so they can maybe get laid some dayBAP Enthusiast said:
Good, you should fear us.
BAP Enthusiast said:No Spin Ag said:Silian Rail said:I know of at least 3 of us on this thread whose combined age is less than 100 and have 10 kids.Old McDonald said:lol no one is scared of the new right /pol/ incels meeting up in holiday inn conference rooms to meme trad values into the mainstream so they can maybe get laid some dayBAP Enthusiast said:
Good, you should fear us.
The 3 of you equals 1 young immigrant family, and that includes the kids. Good luck with that.
The highest birth rate in the US is from the religious conservative right and specifically from whites and it's growing every year. You are wrong.
No Spin Ag said:BAP Enthusiast said:No Spin Ag said:Silian Rail said:I know of at least 3 of us on this thread whose combined age is less than 100 and have 10 kids.Old McDonald said:lol no one is scared of the new right /pol/ incels meeting up in holiday inn conference rooms to meme trad values into the mainstream so they can maybe get laid some dayBAP Enthusiast said:
Good, you should fear us.
The 3 of you equals 1 young immigrant family, and that includes the kids. Good luck with that.
The highest birth rate in the US is from the religious conservative right and specifically from whites and it's growing every year. You are wrong.
Again, good luck with thinking this country will ever go back to whatever "good old days" are missed. Those days are gone and dead. Now to see how we can make the country better with the way it is now.
aggietony2010 said:BAP Enthusiast said:No Spin Ag said:Silian Rail said:I know of at least 3 of us on this thread whose combined age is less than 100 and have 10 kids.Old McDonald said:lol no one is scared of the new right /pol/ incels meeting up in holiday inn conference rooms to meme trad values into the mainstream so they can maybe get laid some dayBAP Enthusiast said:
Good, you should fear us.
The 3 of you equals 1 young immigrant family, and that includes the kids. Good luck with that.
The highest birth rate in the US is from the religious conservative right and specifically from whites and it's growing every year. You are wrong.
Yep, I am part of a men's group at my parish where these "radical right" views are commonplace. I'd say the group averages around 5 kids per family, most of them still open to having more children. There are at least 20 regular attendees.
we don't but that's collectively been called for long enough that it will be tough to change in the lexicon. i'm all for the government offering to recognize "civil unions" and not calling anything marriage. because i agree that a "marriage" is a holy union before God and therefor don't want the government to have a hand in that at all. but if that's what the government wants to call it, can we not also accept that sometimes words have more than one definition depending on the context and recognize that when the government says "marriage" and when the church says "marriage" it is not talking about the same thing? i can get "married" in the sight of God out in the boonies by a missionary and have it be a holy union that is also wholly unrecognized by the government, just like I can get married by a judge and claim to be married on my tax return and have that marriage wholly unrecognized by God and the church.Silian Rail said:Why do we need to call that marriage? Why do we need to honor incest with the term marriage? Why can't they form a partnership, or a company as has been done forever?BlackGoldAg2011 said:i can't speak specifically to obergfell because i haven't read the text of the opinion. it may be good law it may not. i won't form an opinion on it without reading it.Silian Rail said:You're arguing both sides against the middle. You can't say I trust the government as far as I can throw it, and then call for it to expand its purview over a new domain. Obergfell expanded federal power; it didn't limit it.BlackGoldAg2011 said:yes and you made it. The government should either have a system that allows two consenting adults to enter into a contract of shared responsibility under which there is a certain set of specific laws such as tax treatment and estate transfers, and beyond that have no say as to who can use this contract, or they get out all together. Because in the conservative, traditional view of those who ratified the 1st and10th amendments, i trust the federal government as far as i can throw it, and don't want to give it the power to dictate who can and cannot do what, with the conservative value being limiting the federal government to the bounds the constitution sets.Silian Rail said:Can you make a single argument in which supporting the legalization of gay marriage is a conservative opinion? The only argument you can possibly make is saying that the government should not be in the business of granting marriage licenses, but that would call for a repeal of straight marriage instead of doubling down on a negative, or would call for the repeal of Obergfell with the issue left to the states. No way, no how do we get to an affirmation of gay marriage from a conservative argument.BlackGoldAg2011 said:no, i'm saying because some one disagrees with you on one point doesn't mean you get to disqualify them from being called a conservative. unless conservatism is a codified set of beliefs, or we have a designated arbiter of who/what is or is not conservative, you don't get to claim, "no true conservative believes this".Silian Rail said:Yes, because the word conservative should mean something. If someone says they're a vegan and they eat meat, you should be able to point at them and say "no you're not a vegan"; that's not a "no true scotsman argument".BlackGoldAg2011 said:its not "Hur dur muh fallacy"RebelE Infantry said:BlackGoldAg2011 said:just out of curiosity, when did i miss the election making you the arbiter of what does and doesn't define "conservatives"? because its been a long time since i've seen this great of an example of no true scotsmanSilian Rail said:No Spin Ag said:
To see so many conservatives support gay marriage is a good sight to see. Things were so much different when i started posting here a couple of decades ago.
Plus, there's way more important issues that need to be dealt with, and it's good to know this issue is done with. Now on to things that actually matter.
The same number of conservatives support gay marriage: none. All that has changed is that some liberals are now calling themselves conservatives.
Hur dur muh fallacy
He's just stating what every conservative has believed until a couple years ago.
he comes on here and says all republicans should believe this and any who don't aren't true conservatives. receives a lot of feedback that says "i'm a conservative and I disagree with you". then the retort I quoted essentially says, but no true conservative believes this, only liberals in disguise.
that is the literal textbook definition of the fallacy. further, "conservativism" isn't exactly a canonized, universally accepted, homogenous set of views. so to be able to define it as absolutely as he is trying, someone would need to be in charge of it as arbiter. i'm asking, as someone who considers himself a conservative who also disagrees with him, who put him in charge where he could tell me i'm not a conservative because of a single viewpoint i hold?
also the bolded point is entirely unverifiable so lets not pretend like its settled fact.
You're making the same argument as the loony left who claims not to know what a woman is, you know what the word "conservatism" mean, you know what it entails, in both its use as verb "to conserve" and as a political philosophy.
and you're right, I do know what the word means, and because of that i know it is not an absolute and definable set of beliefs. it is a general position in which the individual supporters can have a wide array of beliefs. i'm not arguing that supporting gay marriage is a conservative position, i'm saying that supporting gay marriage from a government/legal perspective does not by itself disqualify a person from calling themselves a conservative.
and besides, thats not the argument i was making. that argument was that you can't say no conservative supports this position, because there are lots that do. that doesn't make it a conservative position, but one non-conservative position doesn't disqualify them from being called a conservative unless "conservatism" is a codified set of beliefs.
Under your explanation there is a conservative argument for incestuous marriage provided that both parties are of age, no?
Would you allow someone who held the view that a father can marry his adult son, and that right needs to be protected by the government a conservative?
as for me specifically, i will concede that it is possible my views on this issue may not fully reside the the realm of conservatism (meaning the historically held viewpoint), but would still consider myself conservative due to the totality of my beliefs.
that said, i would argue that yes, if both parties are of age the government should butt out, period. if a father and adult son want to enter into a legal marriage with all of the defined tax benefits, who am I to say no. The government side of marriage has nothing to do with sleeping together and everything to do with tax benefits. if a father and son, or a brother and sister want to join together as a household who am i to deny the tax benefits afforded to a household. maybe they want to do it because one is a widow/widower and they want to work together to raise the kids, why should they not receive the same tax advantages of a traditional husband and wife doing the same thing. my point is not that i support homosexual relationships, as I personally believe the bible is clear on that being wrong, but I don't trust my government to be in the business of telling adults how to live their lives. So they either make it available to all adults, or none. that's my stance anyway. also they shouldn't force any private establishment to recognize or be involved with these unions. if a company wants to provide certain benefits to married couples, let them decide what those benefits are and who they offer them to. in general my position is the government needs to get its hands out of people lives so long as they aren't harming another non-consenting party (a minor can't consent to harm hence needing some protections).
Marriage is a specific institution predicated upon the family establishing rights and protections therein. That's why it exists. The bare minimum is complementarity of the spouses, and that they weren't related. Again, the government side of marriage verified birth certificates (they didn't verify that the two people in love) so it wasn't just about tax benefits, tax benefits were a benefit to incentivize complementary marriage for the good it did to society.
BAP Enthusiast said:No Spin Ag said:BAP Enthusiast said:No Spin Ag said:Silian Rail said:I know of at least 3 of us on this thread whose combined age is less than 100 and have 10 kids.Old McDonald said:lol no one is scared of the new right /pol/ incels meeting up in holiday inn conference rooms to meme trad values into the mainstream so they can maybe get laid some dayBAP Enthusiast said:
Good, you should fear us.
The 3 of you equals 1 young immigrant family, and that includes the kids. Good luck with that.
The highest birth rate in the US is from the religious conservative right and specifically from whites and it's growing every year. You are wrong.
Again, good luck with thinking this country will ever go back to whatever "good old days" are missed. Those days are gone and dead. Now to see how we can make the country better with the way it is now.
No one else is having kids, so all we need to do is continue having kids and it will all work out in the end. We know you know this, which is why you all want to corrupt our kids so badly. It's the only way you will ever reproduce.
No Spin Ag said:BAP Enthusiast said:No Spin Ag said:BAP Enthusiast said:No Spin Ag said:Silian Rail said:I know of at least 3 of us on this thread whose combined age is less than 100 and have 10 kids.Old McDonald said:lol no one is scared of the new right /pol/ incels meeting up in holiday inn conference rooms to meme trad values into the mainstream so they can maybe get laid some dayBAP Enthusiast said:
Good, you should fear us.
The 3 of you equals 1 young immigrant family, and that includes the kids. Good luck with that.
The highest birth rate in the US is from the religious conservative right and specifically from whites and it's growing every year. You are wrong.
Again, good luck with thinking this country will ever go back to whatever "good old days" are missed. Those days are gone and dead. Now to see how we can make the country better with the way it is now.
No one else is having kids, so all we need to do is continue having kids and it will all work out in the end. We know you know this, which is why you all want to corrupt our kids so badly. It's the only way you will ever reproduce.
Again, good luck with that. I have no worry whatsoever that this country will ever be turned back in time socially.
The sooner social issues like gay marriage are put in the rear view mirror, the easier it will be for conservatives to win elections at all levels because without these (social) wedge issues, all that's left are fiscal things and at the end of the day, everyone likes having more money.
No, we cannot accept that, just as I cannot accept that a bearded duded with a wig on is a woman; to accept that is to accept that truth is subjective and beholden to public whim. The Government did not make a marriage, the government merely recognized what marriage was; and incentivized it, because of the benefits that the arrangement had for society.BlackGoldAg2011 said:we don't but that's collectively been called for long enough that it will be tough to change in the lexicon. i'm all for the government offering to recognize "civil unions" and not calling anything marriage. because i agree that a "marriage" is a holy union before God and therefor don't want the government to have a hand in that at all. but if that's what the government wants to call it, can we not also accept that sometimes words have more than one definition depending on the context and recognize that when the government says "marriage" and when the church says "marriage" it is not talking about the same thing? i can get "married" in the sight of God out in the boonies by a missionary and have it be a holy union that is also wholly unrecognized by the government, just like I can get married by a judge and claim to be married on my tax return and have that marriage wholly unrecognized by God and the church.Silian Rail said:Why do we need to call that marriage? Why do we need to honor incest with the term marriage? Why can't they form a partnership, or a company as has been done forever?BlackGoldAg2011 said:i can't speak specifically to obergfell because i haven't read the text of the opinion. it may be good law it may not. i won't form an opinion on it without reading it.Silian Rail said:You're arguing both sides against the middle. You can't say I trust the government as far as I can throw it, and then call for it to expand its purview over a new domain. Obergfell expanded federal power; it didn't limit it.BlackGoldAg2011 said:yes and you made it. The government should either have a system that allows two consenting adults to enter into a contract of shared responsibility under which there is a certain set of specific laws such as tax treatment and estate transfers, and beyond that have no say as to who can use this contract, or they get out all together. Because in the conservative, traditional view of those who ratified the 1st and10th amendments, i trust the federal government as far as i can throw it, and don't want to give it the power to dictate who can and cannot do what, with the conservative value being limiting the federal government to the bounds the constitution sets.Silian Rail said:Can you make a single argument in which supporting the legalization of gay marriage is a conservative opinion? The only argument you can possibly make is saying that the government should not be in the business of granting marriage licenses, but that would call for a repeal of straight marriage instead of doubling down on a negative, or would call for the repeal of Obergfell with the issue left to the states. No way, no how do we get to an affirmation of gay marriage from a conservative argument.BlackGoldAg2011 said:no, i'm saying because some one disagrees with you on one point doesn't mean you get to disqualify them from being called a conservative. unless conservatism is a codified set of beliefs, or we have a designated arbiter of who/what is or is not conservative, you don't get to claim, "no true conservative believes this".Silian Rail said:Yes, because the word conservative should mean something. If someone says they're a vegan and they eat meat, you should be able to point at them and say "no you're not a vegan"; that's not a "no true scotsman argument".BlackGoldAg2011 said:its not "Hur dur muh fallacy"RebelE Infantry said:BlackGoldAg2011 said:just out of curiosity, when did i miss the election making you the arbiter of what does and doesn't define "conservatives"? because its been a long time since i've seen this great of an example of no true scotsmanSilian Rail said:No Spin Ag said:
To see so many conservatives support gay marriage is a good sight to see. Things were so much different when i started posting here a couple of decades ago.
Plus, there's way more important issues that need to be dealt with, and it's good to know this issue is done with. Now on to things that actually matter.
The same number of conservatives support gay marriage: none. All that has changed is that some liberals are now calling themselves conservatives.
Hur dur muh fallacy
He's just stating what every conservative has believed until a couple years ago.
he comes on here and says all republicans should believe this and any who don't aren't true conservatives. receives a lot of feedback that says "i'm a conservative and I disagree with you". then the retort I quoted essentially says, but no true conservative believes this, only liberals in disguise.
that is the literal textbook definition of the fallacy. further, "conservativism" isn't exactly a canonized, universally accepted, homogenous set of views. so to be able to define it as absolutely as he is trying, someone would need to be in charge of it as arbiter. i'm asking, as someone who considers himself a conservative who also disagrees with him, who put him in charge where he could tell me i'm not a conservative because of a single viewpoint i hold?
also the bolded point is entirely unverifiable so lets not pretend like its settled fact.
You're making the same argument as the loony left who claims not to know what a woman is, you know what the word "conservatism" mean, you know what it entails, in both its use as verb "to conserve" and as a political philosophy.
and you're right, I do know what the word means, and because of that i know it is not an absolute and definable set of beliefs. it is a general position in which the individual supporters can have a wide array of beliefs. i'm not arguing that supporting gay marriage is a conservative position, i'm saying that supporting gay marriage from a government/legal perspective does not by itself disqualify a person from calling themselves a conservative.
and besides, thats not the argument i was making. that argument was that you can't say no conservative supports this position, because there are lots that do. that doesn't make it a conservative position, but one non-conservative position doesn't disqualify them from being called a conservative unless "conservatism" is a codified set of beliefs.
Under your explanation there is a conservative argument for incestuous marriage provided that both parties are of age, no?
Would you allow someone who held the view that a father can marry his adult son, and that right needs to be protected by the government a conservative?
as for me specifically, i will concede that it is possible my views on this issue may not fully reside the the realm of conservatism (meaning the historically held viewpoint), but would still consider myself conservative due to the totality of my beliefs.
that said, i would argue that yes, if both parties are of age the government should butt out, period. if a father and adult son want to enter into a legal marriage with all of the defined tax benefits, who am I to say no. The government side of marriage has nothing to do with sleeping together and everything to do with tax benefits. if a father and son, or a brother and sister want to join together as a household who am i to deny the tax benefits afforded to a household. maybe they want to do it because one is a widow/widower and they want to work together to raise the kids, why should they not receive the same tax advantages of a traditional husband and wife doing the same thing. my point is not that i support homosexual relationships, as I personally believe the bible is clear on that being wrong, but I don't trust my government to be in the business of telling adults how to live their lives. So they either make it available to all adults, or none. that's my stance anyway. also they shouldn't force any private establishment to recognize or be involved with these unions. if a company wants to provide certain benefits to married couples, let them decide what those benefits are and who they offer them to. in general my position is the government needs to get its hands out of people lives so long as they aren't harming another non-consenting party (a minor can't consent to harm hence needing some protections).
Marriage is a specific institution predicated upon the family establishing rights and protections therein. That's why it exists. The bare minimum is complementarity of the spouses, and that they weren't related. Again, the government side of marriage verified birth certificates (they didn't verify that the two people in love) so it wasn't just about tax benefits, tax benefits were a benefit to incentivize complementary marriage for the good it did to society.
All you're saying is that, as soon as we have a choice between Liberals and Liberals with lower taxes it will be easy for the liberals with lower taxes to win elections.No Spin Ag said:BAP Enthusiast said:No Spin Ag said:BAP Enthusiast said:No Spin Ag said:Silian Rail said:I know of at least 3 of us on this thread whose combined age is less than 100 and have 10 kids.Old McDonald said:lol no one is scared of the new right /pol/ incels meeting up in holiday inn conference rooms to meme trad values into the mainstream so they can maybe get laid some dayBAP Enthusiast said:
Good, you should fear us.
The 3 of you equals 1 young immigrant family, and that includes the kids. Good luck with that.
The highest birth rate in the US is from the religious conservative right and specifically from whites and it's growing every year. You are wrong.
Again, good luck with thinking this country will ever go back to whatever "good old days" are missed. Those days are gone and dead. Now to see how we can make the country better with the way it is now.
No one else is having kids, so all we need to do is continue having kids and it will all work out in the end. We know you know this, which is why you all want to corrupt our kids so badly. It's the only way you will ever reproduce.
Again, good luck with that. I have no worry whatsoever that this country will ever be turned back in time socially.
The sooner social issues like gay marriage are put in the rear view mirror, the easier it will be for conservatives to win elections at all levels because without these (social) wedge issues, all that's left are fiscal things and at the end of the day, everyone likes having more money.
BAP Enthusiast said:No Spin Ag said:BAP Enthusiast said:No Spin Ag said:BAP Enthusiast said:No Spin Ag said:Silian Rail said:I know of at least 3 of us on this thread whose combined age is less than 100 and have 10 kids.Old McDonald said:lol no one is scared of the new right /pol/ incels meeting up in holiday inn conference rooms to meme trad values into the mainstream so they can maybe get laid some dayBAP Enthusiast said:
Good, you should fear us.
The 3 of you equals 1 young immigrant family, and that includes the kids. Good luck with that.
The highest birth rate in the US is from the religious conservative right and specifically from whites and it's growing every year. You are wrong.
Again, good luck with thinking this country will ever go back to whatever "good old days" are missed. Those days are gone and dead. Now to see how we can make the country better with the way it is now.
No one else is having kids, so all we need to do is continue having kids and it will all work out in the end. We know you know this, which is why you all want to corrupt our kids so badly. It's the only way you will ever reproduce.
Again, good luck with that. I have no worry whatsoever that this country will ever be turned back in time socially.
The sooner social issues like gay marriage are put in the rear view mirror, the easier it will be for conservatives to win elections at all levels because without these (social) wedge issues, all that's left are fiscal things and at the end of the day, everyone likes having more money.
You will have to destroy Christianity (and Islam for that matter) to do that. Of course we both know you want to do that so good luck. This is is not a fight right wing Christians will ever back down from.
Quote:
Social issues are more pressing than fiscal ones.
you can't accept that sometimes words have more than one meaning depending on context? are you denying the existence of homonyms? i'm not asking you to accept that truth is subjective or that all words have multiple meanings (like your example that a trans-woman is a woman).Silian Rail said:No, we cannot accept that, just as I cannot accept that a bearded duded with a wig on is a woman; to accept that is to accept that truth is subjective and beholden to public whim. The Government did not make a marriage, the government merely recognized what marriage was; and incentivized it, because of the benefits that the arrangement had for society.BlackGoldAg2011 said:we don't but that's collectively been called for long enough that it will be tough to change in the lexicon. i'm all for the government offering to recognize "civil unions" and not calling anything marriage. because i agree that a "marriage" is a holy union before God and therefor don't want the government to have a hand in that at all. but if that's what the government wants to call it, can we not also accept that sometimes words have more than one definition depending on the context and recognize that when the government says "marriage" and when the church says "marriage" it is not talking about the same thing? i can get "married" in the sight of God out in the boonies by a missionary and have it be a holy union that is also wholly unrecognized by the government, just like I can get married by a judge and claim to be married on my tax return and have that marriage wholly unrecognized by God and the church.Silian Rail said:Why do we need to call that marriage? Why do we need to honor incest with the term marriage? Why can't they form a partnership, or a company as has been done forever?BlackGoldAg2011 said:i can't speak specifically to obergfell because i haven't read the text of the opinion. it may be good law it may not. i won't form an opinion on it without reading it.Silian Rail said:You're arguing both sides against the middle. You can't say I trust the government as far as I can throw it, and then call for it to expand its purview over a new domain. Obergfell expanded federal power; it didn't limit it.BlackGoldAg2011 said:yes and you made it. The government should either have a system that allows two consenting adults to enter into a contract of shared responsibility under which there is a certain set of specific laws such as tax treatment and estate transfers, and beyond that have no say as to who can use this contract, or they get out all together. Because in the conservative, traditional view of those who ratified the 1st and10th amendments, i trust the federal government as far as i can throw it, and don't want to give it the power to dictate who can and cannot do what, with the conservative value being limiting the federal government to the bounds the constitution sets.Silian Rail said:Can you make a single argument in which supporting the legalization of gay marriage is a conservative opinion? The only argument you can possibly make is saying that the government should not be in the business of granting marriage licenses, but that would call for a repeal of straight marriage instead of doubling down on a negative, or would call for the repeal of Obergfell with the issue left to the states. No way, no how do we get to an affirmation of gay marriage from a conservative argument.BlackGoldAg2011 said:no, i'm saying because some one disagrees with you on one point doesn't mean you get to disqualify them from being called a conservative. unless conservatism is a codified set of beliefs, or we have a designated arbiter of who/what is or is not conservative, you don't get to claim, "no true conservative believes this".Silian Rail said:Yes, because the word conservative should mean something. If someone says they're a vegan and they eat meat, you should be able to point at them and say "no you're not a vegan"; that's not a "no true scotsman argument".BlackGoldAg2011 said:its not "Hur dur muh fallacy"RebelE Infantry said:BlackGoldAg2011 said:just out of curiosity, when did i miss the election making you the arbiter of what does and doesn't define "conservatives"? because its been a long time since i've seen this great of an example of no true scotsmanSilian Rail said:No Spin Ag said:
To see so many conservatives support gay marriage is a good sight to see. Things were so much different when i started posting here a couple of decades ago.
Plus, there's way more important issues that need to be dealt with, and it's good to know this issue is done with. Now on to things that actually matter.
The same number of conservatives support gay marriage: none. All that has changed is that some liberals are now calling themselves conservatives.
Hur dur muh fallacy
He's just stating what every conservative has believed until a couple years ago.
he comes on here and says all republicans should believe this and any who don't aren't true conservatives. receives a lot of feedback that says "i'm a conservative and I disagree with you". then the retort I quoted essentially says, but no true conservative believes this, only liberals in disguise.
that is the literal textbook definition of the fallacy. further, "conservativism" isn't exactly a canonized, universally accepted, homogenous set of views. so to be able to define it as absolutely as he is trying, someone would need to be in charge of it as arbiter. i'm asking, as someone who considers himself a conservative who also disagrees with him, who put him in charge where he could tell me i'm not a conservative because of a single viewpoint i hold?
also the bolded point is entirely unverifiable so lets not pretend like its settled fact.
You're making the same argument as the loony left who claims not to know what a woman is, you know what the word "conservatism" mean, you know what it entails, in both its use as verb "to conserve" and as a political philosophy.
and you're right, I do know what the word means, and because of that i know it is not an absolute and definable set of beliefs. it is a general position in which the individual supporters can have a wide array of beliefs. i'm not arguing that supporting gay marriage is a conservative position, i'm saying that supporting gay marriage from a government/legal perspective does not by itself disqualify a person from calling themselves a conservative.
and besides, thats not the argument i was making. that argument was that you can't say no conservative supports this position, because there are lots that do. that doesn't make it a conservative position, but one non-conservative position doesn't disqualify them from being called a conservative unless "conservatism" is a codified set of beliefs.
Under your explanation there is a conservative argument for incestuous marriage provided that both parties are of age, no?
Would you allow someone who held the view that a father can marry his adult son, and that right needs to be protected by the government a conservative?
as for me specifically, i will concede that it is possible my views on this issue may not fully reside the the realm of conservatism (meaning the historically held viewpoint), but would still consider myself conservative due to the totality of my beliefs.
that said, i would argue that yes, if both parties are of age the government should butt out, period. if a father and adult son want to enter into a legal marriage with all of the defined tax benefits, who am I to say no. The government side of marriage has nothing to do with sleeping together and everything to do with tax benefits. if a father and son, or a brother and sister want to join together as a household who am i to deny the tax benefits afforded to a household. maybe they want to do it because one is a widow/widower and they want to work together to raise the kids, why should they not receive the same tax advantages of a traditional husband and wife doing the same thing. my point is not that i support homosexual relationships, as I personally believe the bible is clear on that being wrong, but I don't trust my government to be in the business of telling adults how to live their lives. So they either make it available to all adults, or none. that's my stance anyway. also they shouldn't force any private establishment to recognize or be involved with these unions. if a company wants to provide certain benefits to married couples, let them decide what those benefits are and who they offer them to. in general my position is the government needs to get its hands out of people lives so long as they aren't harming another non-consenting party (a minor can't consent to harm hence needing some protections).
Marriage is a specific institution predicated upon the family establishing rights and protections therein. That's why it exists. The bare minimum is complementarity of the spouses, and that they weren't related. Again, the government side of marriage verified birth certificates (they didn't verify that the two people in love) so it wasn't just about tax benefits, tax benefits were a benefit to incentivize complementary marriage for the good it did to society.
Capitalism is nothing but economic freedom as I've said time and time again. It says nothing about what is demanded, only that demand will be filled efficiently; whether its for a cheeseburger, a hitman or a child prostitute.CDUB98 said:Quote:
Social issues are more pressing than fiscal ones.
Simply put, no.
It's why Friedman titled his book Capitalism and Freedom.
Sure sometimes words have multiple meanings, but in this context it's meaningless. The idea is the concept that is explained crudely by the word, this is the basis for all language. The problem is they're trying to hijack the concept by using the word. That's the whole reason they do it, they want to change your entire pattern of thinking by linking it to something you already know and have strong feelings about.BlackGoldAg2011 said:you can't accept that sometimes words have more than one meaning depending on context? are you denying the existence of homonyms? i'm not asking you to accept that truth is subjective or that all words have multiple meanings (like your example that a trans-woman is a woman).Silian Rail said:No, we cannot accept that, just as I cannot accept that a bearded duded with a wig on is a woman; to accept that is to accept that truth is subjective and beholden to public whim. The Government did not make a marriage, the government merely recognized what marriage was; and incentivized it, because of the benefits that the arrangement had for society.BlackGoldAg2011 said:we don't but that's collectively been called for long enough that it will be tough to change in the lexicon. i'm all for the government offering to recognize "civil unions" and not calling anything marriage. because i agree that a "marriage" is a holy union before God and therefor don't want the government to have a hand in that at all. but if that's what the government wants to call it, can we not also accept that sometimes words have more than one definition depending on the context and recognize that when the government says "marriage" and when the church says "marriage" it is not talking about the same thing? i can get "married" in the sight of God out in the boonies by a missionary and have it be a holy union that is also wholly unrecognized by the government, just like I can get married by a judge and claim to be married on my tax return and have that marriage wholly unrecognized by God and the church.Silian Rail said:Why do we need to call that marriage? Why do we need to honor incest with the term marriage? Why can't they form a partnership, or a company as has been done forever?BlackGoldAg2011 said:i can't speak specifically to obergfell because i haven't read the text of the opinion. it may be good law it may not. i won't form an opinion on it without reading it.Silian Rail said:You're arguing both sides against the middle. You can't say I trust the government as far as I can throw it, and then call for it to expand its purview over a new domain. Obergfell expanded federal power; it didn't limit it.BlackGoldAg2011 said:yes and you made it. The government should either have a system that allows two consenting adults to enter into a contract of shared responsibility under which there is a certain set of specific laws such as tax treatment and estate transfers, and beyond that have no say as to who can use this contract, or they get out all together. Because in the conservative, traditional view of those who ratified the 1st and10th amendments, i trust the federal government as far as i can throw it, and don't want to give it the power to dictate who can and cannot do what, with the conservative value being limiting the federal government to the bounds the constitution sets.Silian Rail said:Can you make a single argument in which supporting the legalization of gay marriage is a conservative opinion? The only argument you can possibly make is saying that the government should not be in the business of granting marriage licenses, but that would call for a repeal of straight marriage instead of doubling down on a negative, or would call for the repeal of Obergfell with the issue left to the states. No way, no how do we get to an affirmation of gay marriage from a conservative argument.BlackGoldAg2011 said:no, i'm saying because some one disagrees with you on one point doesn't mean you get to disqualify them from being called a conservative. unless conservatism is a codified set of beliefs, or we have a designated arbiter of who/what is or is not conservative, you don't get to claim, "no true conservative believes this".Silian Rail said:Yes, because the word conservative should mean something. If someone says they're a vegan and they eat meat, you should be able to point at them and say "no you're not a vegan"; that's not a "no true scotsman argument".BlackGoldAg2011 said:its not "Hur dur muh fallacy"RebelE Infantry said:BlackGoldAg2011 said:just out of curiosity, when did i miss the election making you the arbiter of what does and doesn't define "conservatives"? because its been a long time since i've seen this great of an example of no true scotsmanSilian Rail said:No Spin Ag said:
To see so many conservatives support gay marriage is a good sight to see. Things were so much different when i started posting here a couple of decades ago.
Plus, there's way more important issues that need to be dealt with, and it's good to know this issue is done with. Now on to things that actually matter.
The same number of conservatives support gay marriage: none. All that has changed is that some liberals are now calling themselves conservatives.
Hur dur muh fallacy
He's just stating what every conservative has believed until a couple years ago.
he comes on here and says all republicans should believe this and any who don't aren't true conservatives. receives a lot of feedback that says "i'm a conservative and I disagree with you". then the retort I quoted essentially says, but no true conservative believes this, only liberals in disguise.
that is the literal textbook definition of the fallacy. further, "conservativism" isn't exactly a canonized, universally accepted, homogenous set of views. so to be able to define it as absolutely as he is trying, someone would need to be in charge of it as arbiter. i'm asking, as someone who considers himself a conservative who also disagrees with him, who put him in charge where he could tell me i'm not a conservative because of a single viewpoint i hold?
also the bolded point is entirely unverifiable so lets not pretend like its settled fact.
You're making the same argument as the loony left who claims not to know what a woman is, you know what the word "conservatism" mean, you know what it entails, in both its use as verb "to conserve" and as a political philosophy.
and you're right, I do know what the word means, and because of that i know it is not an absolute and definable set of beliefs. it is a general position in which the individual supporters can have a wide array of beliefs. i'm not arguing that supporting gay marriage is a conservative position, i'm saying that supporting gay marriage from a government/legal perspective does not by itself disqualify a person from calling themselves a conservative.
and besides, thats not the argument i was making. that argument was that you can't say no conservative supports this position, because there are lots that do. that doesn't make it a conservative position, but one non-conservative position doesn't disqualify them from being called a conservative unless "conservatism" is a codified set of beliefs.
Under your explanation there is a conservative argument for incestuous marriage provided that both parties are of age, no?
Would you allow someone who held the view that a father can marry his adult son, and that right needs to be protected by the government a conservative?
as for me specifically, i will concede that it is possible my views on this issue may not fully reside the the realm of conservatism (meaning the historically held viewpoint), but would still consider myself conservative due to the totality of my beliefs.
that said, i would argue that yes, if both parties are of age the government should butt out, period. if a father and adult son want to enter into a legal marriage with all of the defined tax benefits, who am I to say no. The government side of marriage has nothing to do with sleeping together and everything to do with tax benefits. if a father and son, or a brother and sister want to join together as a household who am i to deny the tax benefits afforded to a household. maybe they want to do it because one is a widow/widower and they want to work together to raise the kids, why should they not receive the same tax advantages of a traditional husband and wife doing the same thing. my point is not that i support homosexual relationships, as I personally believe the bible is clear on that being wrong, but I don't trust my government to be in the business of telling adults how to live their lives. So they either make it available to all adults, or none. that's my stance anyway. also they shouldn't force any private establishment to recognize or be involved with these unions. if a company wants to provide certain benefits to married couples, let them decide what those benefits are and who they offer them to. in general my position is the government needs to get its hands out of people lives so long as they aren't harming another non-consenting party (a minor can't consent to harm hence needing some protections).
Marriage is a specific institution predicated upon the family establishing rights and protections therein. That's why it exists. The bare minimum is complementarity of the spouses, and that they weren't related. Again, the government side of marriage verified birth certificates (they didn't verify that the two people in love) so it wasn't just about tax benefits, tax benefits were a benefit to incentivize complementary marriage for the good it did to society.
even words that aren't technically homonyms sometimes mean different things depending on context. If i have a case of the flu that i describe to a buddy as being pretty severe because i had bad aches and had to stay home for 3 days, that means something different than if a course of illness is described in a clinical context as severe. same word, different meaning depending on context.
CDUB98 said:Quote:
Social issues are more pressing than fiscal ones.
Simply put, no.
It's why Friedman titled his book Capitalism and Freedom.
That actually makes some sense. In time, as you get older, you will learn what you can control, and what you cannot. As well as what you SHOULD not.Silian Rail said:I know of at least 3 of us on this thread whose combined age is less than 100 and have 10 kids.Old McDonald said:lol no one is scared of the new right /pol/ incels meeting up in holiday inn conference rooms to meme trad values into the mainstream so they can maybe get laid some dayBAP Enthusiast said:
Good, you should fear us.
