Dimwitted Social Conservatives

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Tue Aug 09, 2011 8:38 am

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

Betruger · Post by **Betruger** » Tue Aug 09, 2011 1:43 pm

Sounds more like corruption than dimwittedness. Unless you mean that twits in the electorate.

Skipjack · Post by **Skipjack** » Tue Aug 09, 2011 3:21 pm

Ahh Msimon, an excellent point, one where I am in total agreement with you!

Diogenes · Post by **Diogenes** » Tue Aug 09, 2011 6:52 pm

You all speak with the braggadocio of Vizzini from the "Princess Bride". You phoo phoo the knowledge acquired by the last several thousand years of Judeo-Christian experience as nonsense and castigate more sensible people for not being able to hold back the tide.

Vizzini: Let me put it this way. Have you ever heard of Plato, Aristotle, Socrates?
Man in Black: Yes.
Vizzini: Morons.

Please do go on...

KitemanSA · Post by **KitemanSA** » Tue Aug 09, 2011 7:17 pm

D,
I think that you may have misread M's intent.
He is not saying that the AGENDA is dimwitted, just the manner in which the GOP goes about trying to enact it.

I disagree with him.

ScottL · Post by **ScottL** » Tue Aug 09, 2011 9:39 pm

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

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Wed Aug 10, 2011 12:45 am

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

TDPerk · Post by **TDPerk** » Wed Aug 10, 2011 12:45 am

If I actually suspected, that the "gay marriage" proponents only wanted the legal obligations (and few advantages) of marriage, then I'd support civil unions.

I think what they really want is to further empower the state to define marriage, which is properly a condition defined in the conscience of the individual--a matter of faith--and not a matter for state law. They want a bludgeon to beat up on the right with, or they'd be happy with civil unions not called marriages.

So I'm opposed to "gay marriage" as long they aren't happy with civil unions.

In fact, I think states should get out of the "marriage" business altogether, and treat marriage as any other contract--simply adjudicate their enforcement and breach.

TDPerk · Post by **TDPerk** » Wed Aug 10, 2011 12:47 am

MSimon wrote: But I'm not opposed to war if it comes to that.

It certainly is quicker, if not always better.

MSimon · Post by **MSimon** » Wed Aug 10, 2011 12:48 am

TDPerk wrote:If I actually suspected, that the "gay marriage" proponents only wanted the legal obligations (and few advantages) of marriage, then I'd support civil unions.

I think what they really want is to further empower the state to define marriage, which is properly a condition defined in the conscience of the individual--a matter of faith--and not a matter for state law. They want a bludgeon to beat up on the right with, or they'd be happy with civil unions not called marriages.

So I'm opposed to "gay marriage" as long they aren't happy with civil unions.

In fact, I think states should get out of the "marriage" business altogether, and treat marriage as any other contract--simply adjudicate their enforcement and breach.

I don't think your analysis is entirely correct. You solution I'm in total accord with.

CaptainBeowulf · Post by **CaptainBeowulf** » Wed Aug 10, 2011 2:46 am

I agree with MSimon's analysis of what is destroying/already has destroyed traditional marriage.

Gay marriage is a sideshow and I don't really oppose it anyway.

Personally, I am mildly socially conservative, so part of me would like to see the incentives for divorced reduced and to see more people take marriage seriously. Politically, I tend to be slightly libertarian, and for minimal government involvement in people's lives. In this case, I'm not sure whether I want to see government less involved in marriage or not.

CaptainBeowulf · Post by **CaptainBeowulf** » Wed Aug 10, 2011 3:09 am

I think the website that MSimon links to overstates its case, but basically, yes, easy divorce and selfishness has eroded marriage. Within that context, each case is different, and you can't say it's always either men or women to blame (it's silly to be a mirror image of a radical feminist).

choff · Post by **choff** » Wed Aug 10, 2011 4:54 am

If current trends continue eventually a higher percentage of gays will get married than straights. Eventually marriage will be looked upon by straights as a gay institution that they avoid.

Ever since churches started performing gay marriages and ordaining gay priests large numbers of straight people have simply stopped attending, and they don't feel any guilt for staying home on Sunday, why should they.

In fact I've heard of one denomination where the Bishop has locked out the congregation from the church they financed and built for opposing gay marriage.

I've often felt that lesbian support for liberal divorce laws and womens rights was really driven by sexual jealousy. They want to drive straight couples apart so they can get the pick of the straight women.

Skipjack · Post by **Skipjack** » Wed Aug 10, 2011 1:28 pm

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.

Agreed.
I also think that there is to little incentive these days for people to form a family and have kids. It is the same problem here. The government has cut all benefits for married couples and has made divorces too attractive.
We used to have benefits for married couples a few years ago. They were removed without replacement. They also lowered child support and many of the benefits for families with children. All this has contributed to the extremely low birthrate in my country.
The socialists are destroyers of tradition and culture, simply because it contradicts their oh so progressive nature.

Diogenes · Post by **Diogenes** » Wed Aug 10, 2011 9:58 pm

ScottL wrote: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.