Dimwitted Social Conservatives

[Diogenes]

I have been writing on the topic extensively for the last two days. Check out my blog:

http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/

D,

The socons are fools because all the left has to do is say "gay marriage" and the socons are distracted. Allowing the left to continue with their destruction of traditional marriage.

There is nothing to continue. The fire was lit, it will consume until it runs out of fuel. Marriage as a majority institution is done until after the collapse. Bad times will make good people.

The socons see the cape. They miss the sword hidden by the cape.

They saw them both, but they could not close a door that others were blocking open.

It is rather amusing to watch. I'm not a big fan of marriage personally. But I see no reason why the laws should be tilted so much in favor of women. It allows unscrupulous women (there seems to be a lot of them) to bleed men dry and deny them access to their children.

Yes, the marriage laws are unfair to men, but on the other hand I suppose it depends on whether the bigger value in the game of life is your money or your offspring.

And D - you will be amused - the author of the article says Darwin will solve the problem. If it isn't fixed politically first. You ought to read it. What do I mean by Darwin? It seems that rural Righties are outproducing those who aren't having children. He has graphs. Of course I was saying that to you about six months or so back.

Sometimes I think you don't read what I write. I do have a tendency to write too much so I can sometimes understand, but I have been saying this exact same thing for quite awhile now, usually in the context that Abortion will be overturned one day because the opponents of it are outbreeding the supporters. Beyond that, I don't have much interest in an article that promotes the premise that some of the best and beneficial members of our society are fools.

Others suggest getting the State out of the marriage business. Something I have been saying for several years now.

The legal system is a necessary part of any society, and there are aspects of it which cannot be separated because it is too interrelated. Marriage and inheritance are examples thereof.

If we can survive the Left they will die off. Much kinder and gentler than having to go to war with them. But I'm not opposed to war if it comes to that.

While they have influence in bankrupting us all (a moral issue, not a financial one.) some sort of war is inevitable and unavoidable.

[AcesHigh]

You phoo phoo the knowledge acquired by the last several thousand years of Judeo-Christian experience as nonsense

there is plenty of knowledge in the judeo christian tradition/Bible that is utter nonsense. You disagree with that?

[AcesHigh]

What's sensible about denying people's rights to unions of marriage?

It has nothing to do with marriage, it has to do with forcing people to acknowledge and accept a practice regarded as deadly and perverse for the last several thousand years.

"Marriage" is just a tool intended to pry open the door more fully.

oh shit, social conservatives are really morons.

[ScottL]

It seems as though those against some form of civil union in the queer community are against such simply because they don't like it. Personally I suspect they will eventually get the right to said unions. You can look at the vote that went on (Prop in California, where 10 years ago it was 80-20 against vs. recent voting where it was like 55-45 against. At this rate, its going to happen and has already happened in several states.

Now if people are willing to pickup firearms to stop this, I find that disturbing. I find it hypocritical that they would cite religion (using Christianity in my example) which preaches compassion and understanding before violence to justify their viiolence.

[seedload]

It seems as though those against some form of civil union in the queer community are against such simply because they don't like it. Personally I suspect they will eventually get the right to said unions. You can look at the vote that went on (Prop in California, where 10 years ago it was 80-20 against vs. recent voting where it was like 55-45 against. At this rate, its going to happen and has already happened in several states.

Now if people are willing to pickup firearms to stop this, I find that disturbing. I find it hypocritical that they would cite religion (using Christianity in my example) which preaches compassion and understanding before violence to justify their viiolence.

"queers"? Sheesh. I guess only liberals like you are entitled to use that kind of derogatory language since you are so enlightened that it is obviously a joke. I know, I know, gays often use that term with each other, but that doesn't make your use of it any less ignorant.

Anyway, count one conservative that is not opposed to gay marriage or civil unions.

[Diogenes]

It seems as though those against some form of civil union in the queer community are against such simply because they don't like it. Personally I suspect they will eventually get the right to said unions. You can look at the vote that went on (Prop in California, where 10 years ago it was 80-20 against vs. recent voting where it was like 55-45 against. At this rate, its going to happen and has already happened in several states.

Now if people are willing to pickup firearms to stop this, I find that disturbing. I find it hypocritical that they would cite religion (using Christianity in my example) which preaches compassion and understanding before violence to justify their viiolence.

How do you feel about polygamy?

[Diogenes]

"queers"? Sheesh. I guess only liberals like you are entitled to use that kind of derogatory language since you are so enlightened that it is obviously a joke. I know, I know, gays often use that term with each other, but that doesn't make your use of it any less ignorant.

Anyway, count one conservative that is not opposed to gay marriage or civil unions.

Should beastiality be legalized?

[ScottL]

It seems as though those against some form of civil union in the queer community are against such simply because they don't like it. Personally I suspect they will eventually get the right to said unions. You can look at the vote that went on (Prop in California, where 10 years ago it was 80-20 against vs. recent voting where it was like 55-45 against. At this rate, its going to happen and has already happened in several states.

Now if people are willing to pickup firearms to stop this, I find that disturbing. I find it hypocritical that they would cite religion (using Christianity in my example) which preaches compassion and understanding before violence to justify their viiolence.

"queers"? Sheesh. I guess only liberals like you are entitled to use that kind of derogatory language since you are so enlightened that it is obviously a joke. I know, I know, gays often use that term with each other, but that doesn't make your use of it any less ignorant.

Anyway, count one conservative that is not opposed to gay marriage or civil unions.

Sorry seed, wasn't attempting to offend, but often times the PC term simply isn't known. Around here the groups either title them selves LGBT or without using the "Q" word again Q Community. The fact that they use it as part of a title leads one to assume one can use the term, but if I offended, I'm sorry.

[ScottL]

It seems as though those against some form of civil union in the queer community are against such simply because they don't like it. Personally I suspect they will eventually get the right to said unions. You can look at the vote that went on (Prop in California, where 10 years ago it was 80-20 against vs. recent voting where it was like 55-45 against. At this rate, its going to happen and has already happened in several states.

Now if people are willing to pickup firearms to stop this, I find that disturbing. I find it hypocritical that they would cite religion (using Christianity in my example) which preaches compassion and understanding before violence to justify their viiolence.

How do you feel about polygamy?

I'm not for it, but I don't judge those who commit to polygamist relationships.

[ScottL]

"queers"? Sheesh. I guess only liberals like you are entitled to use that kind of derogatory language since you are so enlightened that it is obviously a joke. I know, I know, gays often use that term with each other, but that doesn't make your use of it any less ignorant.

Anyway, count one conservative that is not opposed to gay marriage or civil unions.

Should beastiality be legalized?

Ahh there's always one that wants to jump to extremes in these arguments. Why are you personally against gay civil unions? What logical reasoning do you defer to in this instance?

[CaptainBeowulf]

As someone with conservative and libertarian leanings, here is how I view it: advances in medical research since the 1980s, especially in genetics, have demonstrated that some people are homosexual, bisexual, whatever, at a basic biological level. It's not a "disease" which can be "cured," as was often thought in the preceding decades - you can't make them straight. Now that we have that knowledge, I see no reason to not let them live as "normally" - if there is such a thing - as possible.

I admit that if we were having this discussion before the 1980s I would likely be taking a much more conservative approach.

Furthermore, in referenced to the suggestion that gay sex is "deadly" - that idea is usually associated with concerns about spread of disease. If gay people get married and stay in long term relationships, STDs are likely to be less of a problem for that community, just the same as STDs go down in any population which discourages promiscuity. Wouldn't that actually be better for society?

Gay people getting married doesn't really affect me. I'm more likely to be discouraged from getting married by the mess of convoluted laws that have been put in place around the institution.

[AcesHigh]

"queers"? Sheesh. I guess only liberals like you are entitled to use that kind of derogatory language since you are so enlightened that it is obviously a joke. I know, I know, gays often use that term with each other, but that doesn't make your use of it any less ignorant.

Anyway, count one conservative that is not opposed to gay marriage or civil unions.

Should beastiality be legalized?

do you have mental problems? Sex with animals are usually outlawed because animals cant give consent, because they are not intelligent. Its the same thing with children. Children are not considered to be able to take the decisions to have sex or not with adults.

gee, in fact if we strictly followed religious christian/judeo laws, we would probably still be able to have sex with girls after their first menstruation... of course, if we first married them (with their parent´s approval).


an homosexual couple, male or female, is composed of two human adults who can decide whats best for them. It doesnt not interferes at all with anybody else!


btw, speaking of animals, some homosexual animal behavior for you. Most interesting of it all is the bonobos, who are closer to us than chimps and are completely bisexual. (that is, IF you believe in evolution at all)
[youtube]8VSDVRuPydk[/youtube]

[choff]

A lot of gay bars don't like it if straight people, especially straight couples, try coming into the bar, in fact in one Austrailian gay bar straights were banned. Why, because it made the other patrons uncomfortable. Probably the same reason once gays start getting married and ordained in churches straights stop attending.

[seedload]

Anyway, count one conservative that is not opposed to gay marriage or civil unions.

Should beastiality be legalized?

No.

[vankirkc]

Lastly, the religious 'social conservatives' who continue their empty sermonizing about the 'sanctity of marriage' while doing absolutely nothing about the divorce-incentivizing turn that the laws have taken, have been exposed for their pseudo-moral posturing and willful blindness. What they claim to be of utmost importance to them has been destroyed right under their noses, and they still are too dimwitted to comprehend why. No other interest group in America has been such a total failure at their own stated mission. To be duped into believing that a side-issue like 'gay marriage' is a mortal threat to traditional marriage, yet miss the legal changes that correlate to a rise in divorce rates by creating incentives for divorce (divorce being what destroys marriage, rather than a tiny number of gays), is about as egregious an oversight as an astronomer failing to be aware of the existence of the Moon. Aren't conservatives the people who are supposed to grasp that incentives drive behavior? An article worthy of being written by The Onion could conceivably be titled 'Social conservatives carefully seek to maintain perfect 100% record of failure in advancing their agenda'.

The Futurist

Clearly whoever it is that you're quoting hasn't considered conservative fiscal policy contradictions.