"Conservative" Freedom?

[widebody911]

Originally posted by Nathans_Dad
How about child pornographers? Child Molesters? People who engage in bestiality? What about people who like to have sex with corpses?

Geeze, why are you so down on Catholic priests today?

[MichiganMat]

Originally posted by Nathans_Dad
How about child pornographers? Child Molesters? People who engage in bestiality? What about people who like to have sex with corpses?

Just wondering where your tolerance stops...

Not me. I say we hunt them down and burn them at the stake. If their evil, they won't burn, seems obvious to me. I say we start with Rick Santorum and go on from there!

[Nathans_Dad]

No, no, no.

Does a witch sink or float in water??

[Superman]

Originally posted by Jeff Higgins


So their (liberals') strategy has shifted from "accept our values" to "don't force your values upon us".

Again, my point exactly. "Conservative" is being identified with "accept our values." The word itself ("conservative") means this. "Liberal" means "allow everyone's values, whatever they may be," which is consitent with both the word's origins and the political thinking behind the libs.

[Jeff Higgins]

I think you missed my point. Your distinction between conservatives maintaining the status quo, and liberals altering it by "allow(ing) everyone's values, whatever they may be" only works if that last statement is followed. Unfortunately, the values the liberals seek to introduce are not in addition to existing conservative values, they are instead of. Many facets of the older conservative value system and the newer liberal value system are mutually exclusive. On many specific points it boils down to one or the other. I don't think liberals see that as clearly as conservatives.

[Superman]

Originally posted by Jeff Higgins
Here we have another myth espoused by the Left in the hopes of denigrating the Right. The belief structure of the Right in no more or less "narrow" than that of the Left; it is simply different.

I continue to have a strong desire to buy you a beer Jeff, but we'll probably no agree on this one. My opening post says:

1) The term "conservative" suggests narrowness and the term "liberal" suggest width, and....

2) That seems to be how it works. Conservatives very much appear to be a bit monochromatic. It is a BRUTE FACT that there is more racial diversity among liberals. And religious diversity also. Liberals think that every belief system should be welcome. Including behaviors we find distateful. It is the conservative party and its justices who are pursuing a visible agenda to narrow freedoms so that Americans' behavior is more palatable.

Someone suggested that fiscal conservatives are very different from social conservatives, or something of that sort. Blah blah blah. My beliefs are suffering from a bad reputation due to people right here on the Board assuming that liberals all believe the same things. I am a practising Catholic. I believe homosexuality is a sin. And I am a liberal.......BECAUSE I BELIEVE THOSE PEOPLE SHOULD HAVE THE FREEDOM TO FUK WHOEVER THEY WANT. Now, your party is going to get a reputation for being fringe. Just like we freedom-worshippers have gotten a reputation for being fringe.

Another example, again, is the danger the Dems have from "Independent" candidates. They don't scare the Republican party. And the reason is that there is no disagreement in their party. Thought processes are very similar. Narrow. The Democratic party has always and will always have this danger.... because it is packed with people comprising a WIDE range of beliefs.

[Superman]

Originally posted by SoCal911SC
There is so much wrong with the basic premises/assumptions of the argument, as framed, that no rational discussion can be had.

And anyone who tries arguing it, while accepting the false basic premises/assumptions, has been duped.

I'm laughing my a$$ off. Dismissing this discussion rather than engaging in it......is your best move.

[kang]

Wow, another fast moving thread.

What I haven’t seen is a definition of “morality” and precisely what aspects of it the government should legislate.

Take murder. I think we all agree this is immoral and the government should legislate against it.

Now take homosexuality. Some of us think it is immoral and some don’t. Some think the government should legislate against it, while others don’t.

What’s the difference? The big difference is that murder hurts the victims. Two homosexuals, as long as they are consenting adults, don’t hurt anyone. This is where the moral principle of reciprocity comes into play. Treat others as you would treat yourself. You don’t want to be killed, so you can see how the government should legislate against it. But you also don’t want someone to tell you what you can or cannot do in the bedroom, so you should not, nor should the government, legislate that. You don’t want the government to tell you who you can or cannot marry, either.

Liberals will allow homosexuals to do what they want in the bedroom because they don’t want someone to tell them what they can or cannot do in the bedroom. Many conservatives want the government to legislate against homosexual sex. The only reason they can’t is because of a Supreme Court case that said what people do in their own bedroom is none of the governments business.

So where do we draw the line? What is the government’s business and what is not? I say if it hurts someone, then the government should get involved to protect the victims. If it does not hurt someone, the government should stay out.

The problem is some issues are not black and white, like murder or sex. Prayer in school, does this hurt anyone? Well, you could argue that it puts peer pressure on atheists to believe, to conform. The same argument applies to “under god” in the pledge. Not having prayer in school doesn’t hurt the believer, because they can pray in their head all they want, and it protects the atheist from undue pressure. Conservatives would have you believe that homosexual marriage hurts the community somehow (although there is no evidence of this whatsoever), while liberals say allowing two people who love each other to commit to this in marriage strengthens marriage. I think these are two issues that the government should stay out of.

[Superman]

Murder is the most severe and permanent method of infringing on someone else's freedom. There is no gray area here. And I think we all agree that laws are needed to prevent certain peoples' decisions from hurting or limiting the freedom of others'.

But again, and I just wish at least the smart conservatives here would concede this since it is a brute fact:

If a judge rules that anal sex is illegal......nobody is going to think that is a "liberal" judge or decision.

it is a brute fact that social conservatism is all about legislating morality. Limiting freedom.

Now, maybe some of you people call your selves "conservatives" when in reality you are just vigorous freedom-lovers......and you have been sold some horror stories about "liberals". Think for yourself. That's what liberals do. And freedom is our main issue. If you are for freedom in a very vigorous way and think you are a Republican......look carefully.

[fastpat]

Originally posted by onewhippedpuppy
Learn something new every day. Further reason why you shouldn't believe everything you read online. Google informs me that the Pledge also wasn't introduced until 1892.

The pledge was an anti-South diatribe written by a socialist minister.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo54.html
http://history.vineyard.net/pledge.htm
http://www.crf-usa.org/Foundation_docs/Foundation_lesson_pledge
http://www.freedomforum.org/templates/document.asp?documentID=16480

[Nathans_Dad]

Originally posted by kang
Many conservatives want the government to legislate against homosexual sex.

Really? Which conservatives are those? Not this conservative. I have no desire to control someone's homosexual life inside their house. I just don't think that the government should subsidize said life.

Government gives special consideration to heterosexual marriage because that arrangement has classically been in the best interests of the nation, i.e. it can (and usually does) produce offspring.

Now then, the homosexual crowd also wants all the fringe benefits of marriage, which I actually have no problem with at all. Give them all the same tax breaks and rights as a heterosexual married couple.

I just don't want them to use the term "marriage". They can be a civil union, whatever. In fact, I think that there should be two groups of people. One is people who choose to undertake a legal coupling which is then called a union or whatever. You can be gay, straight, bisexual, trisexual, transgender, I don't care. Marriage would be reserved for the church and those people that choose to undertake marriage before God.

[nostatic]

Originally posted by Nathans_Dad
Marriage would be reserved for the church and those people that choose to undertake marriage before God.

So an athiest can't get married?

ok, your counter will be that they can get a "civil union."

And that civil union has *all* of the same tax and other advantages as religious "marriage."

I'll wager you're about the only conservative that will back that. Gay marriage isn't about the sex. It is about certain groups seeing this as the last bastion of civilization. Once you let the gays "marry", then it is the last straw in the end of the world as we (religious right) know it. And differentiation by name alone will not be enough to assuage the religious right. Just my guess...

[IROC]

Originally posted by nostatic
So an athiest can't get married?

People get married in courthouses everyday with no "religious" ceremony at all...

Mike

[IROC]

An excellent example of attempts to legislate morality is the back and forth battle in this state (Alabama) to ban sex toys. I think the current laws make it illegal to sell them (unless they've lost that battle again). How insanely stupid is that?

Purely an example of the religious right trying to push their morals onto the society at large.

Mike

[nostatic]

Look for the victim. If there is one, no. If there isn't one, yes.

OK...next problem?

[kang]

Really? Which conservatives are those? Not this conservative. I have no desire to control someone's homosexual life inside their house. I just don't think that the government should subsidize said life.

That would be the conservatives that enacted sodomy laws in 13 states. The supreme court struck them down in Lawrence v. Texas:


On June 26, 2003 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5 to 3 with Justice O’Connor concurring with the majority that Texas’s “Homosexual Conduct” law is unconstitutional. Justice Kennedy wrote the majority opinion. The ruling effectively strikes down the sodomy laws in every state that still had them – 13 in all.

Government gives special consideration to heterosexual marriage because that arrangement has classically been in the best interests of the nation, i.e. it can (and usually does) produce offspring.

This argument against heterosexual marriage fails. You don’t have to have a child if you are married, nor do you have to be married to have a child. And homosexuals won’t have children whether or not they are married, so how does it harm you (or the nation) if they get married?

I just don't want them to use the term "marriage".

Why not? How does it harm you if they use the term marriage?

They can be a civil union, whatever. In fact, I think that there should be two groups of people. One is people who choose to undertake a legal coupling which is then called a union or whatever. You can be gay, straight, bisexual, trisexual, transgender, I don't care. Marriage would be reserved for the church and those people that choose to undertake marriage before God.

That’d be a good solution, if it could be implemented. The “legal” aspect of a union is done via a “marriage” certificate, but called a “union” certificate. This gives you all the legal rights that are currently assigned to marriage. If you went to a church, a priest or whatever could call you “married,” but it would have no governmental recognition. The only thing the government would recognize is the certificate that you got at the local courthouse.

However, as long as two heterosexual people can go to the courthouse and get a marriage certificate, homosexuals should be entitled to the same thing. The government should not make a distinction.

[RPKESQ]

I love how when you discuss gay marriage, the religious ones jump to bestiality, child pornography, etc. How come we can't discuss this in a rational manner? Why do we have to sink to the lowest class of fear mongering?

Morals are made by man and can be changed by man. There are NO morals that are universal throughout history. Not murder, rape, incest, etc., societies make them and break them. This nation was founded on the idea to accept diversity. Get with the program. If you belief differently, great, just don't have me follow them. Nor should your private morals become our public policies.
If we read the posts by the Christians, they are full of the normal Christian hypocrisy.
Just what do you fear about schools teaching that homosexuality is alright, that really upsets you? Are you not secure in your sexuality? Do you know anything about being gay? Do you think your children will turn out gay?

And please, “marriage” was practiced for thousands of years before Christianity, by all different societies, with various morals. Marriage is not exclusive to Christians, you can follow any standards you wish, but why should the public be forced to follow it?
Homosexuality is common among many different species, it is not rare. It is natural. That doesn’t mean it is the majority. It means that besides those biblical writings, there is nothing you can bring forward to argue against it. So, again, your private beliefs are yours, they (invariably) should not be public.

Try this exercise. Read all the ***** written about homosexuality and replace the words homos, gays, queers, etc. with blacks, n*ggers, coons, etc. and you will see that they are the same messages in the postings, articles and speeches of the racist bigots who hide behind Christianity for centuries, justifying slavery.
On PPOT I have heard the most bizarre notions about homosexuals discussed without rebuttal. Really how many “experts” are out there?


Funny how the "Christian founded nation" nonsense dropped out of the discussion, when the cold light of truth is directed at that tripe.

[Jeff Higgins]

I'm starting to understand that my views of conservatism differ radically from a liberal's views of conservatism. I see conservatives as being for the lowest level of government interference in their lives that is possible. In anybody's lives. Abe Lincoln's adage that "I'm free to swing my arms as wide as I like, but that freedom stops at another man's nose" sums my views up quite well. I could care less how others lead their lives until it affects mine. Then we need to talk and work something out that is mutually agreeable.

Apparently, the liberal perspective on this is that conservatives want to force their values on an unwilling society through legislation and court action. Funny, that is precisely how I percieve liberals. Trying to cram their version of (im)morality down an unwilling public's throat with the force of law, unrelenting social activism, demonstration, and even violence at times. They are the ones who appear to me to be the less tolerant of views outside of their paradigm.

So why is this? Why do conservatives view liberals as trying to legislate morality from their end, and vice versa? Certainly that is happening in our country, but does either side enjoy the popular support to pull it off? In this day and age? I think the average Joe on either side is far closer to his counterpart on the other side than the pundits, politicians, and movers and shakers would like us to believe. The sensational radicals on both sides get all of the attention. They attempt to rally their respective troops with dire warnings of the demise of society as we know it if the other side wins. Well folks, neither side is in any danger of "winning" any time soon. They are far outnumbered by us. The guys in the middle. Just a shade left or right, but none-the-less far too central to let the yahoos on either side prevail.

[FrayAdjacent911]

I think too many people confuse 'conservative' with 'religious', and vice versa.

I'm pretty conservative, I think. I think less government is better. I think less bureaucracy is better. Less taxes. Less laws. Less regulation.

But dang, that sounds kinda like what people are trying to pass off here as liberal.

Fact is, everything has varying degrees and aspects that can be perceived regarding both political leanings. Fingers can be pointed either way in almost every subject.

Wanting to shove their beliefs on other people is not something the right has a monopoly on. Tolerance is something the left certainly has mixed views about. I could go on and on...

[Nathans_Dad]

Yay, took only two pages to get to the racial card...

I'll ignore the racial bait and move to the discussion at hand.

Why can I point out things like beastiality, incest, etc? Because they are all sexual deviations, like homosexuality is a sexual deviation. Once you start saying one sexual deviation is ok and should be promoted by society, where do you stop? I guarantee you that the members of NAMBLA (the North American Man-Boy Love Association...yes it really exists) will tell you with a straight face that they are consenting individuals to the act and no one is hurt. How do you tell them that their sexual desire is wrong but being gay is ok?

I think some of the folks on this thread are confusing the ideas of acceptance and indoctrination. I accept that some people are gay, I accept that is their right. I just don't think that the public schools should be in the business of promoting the gay lifestyle.

Kang: When was that Texas sodomy law enacted? I'll help you. 1973. I dunno about you, but I was about one year old then.

Nostatic: I think a lot more conservatives would support my solution than you think...