Social Conservatism

[PureX]

I am a social conservative in the sense that I oppose abortion, mass migration, gay marriage, strip clubs etc. There are so many labels for things these days.

You oppose those things based on what? If it's not to protect the elitist righteousness of your religion, and it's not to protect the elitist idea of your own moral superiority, then on what basis do you presume to oppose the freedoms, desires, and moral choices of others?

 

[Rival]

You oppose those things based on what? If it's not to protect the elitist righteousness of your religion, and it's not to protect the elitist idea of your own moral superiority, then on what basis do you presume to oppose the freedoms, desires, and moral choices of others?

I can't really be bothered with this argument anymore. I'm just against these things end of story. It's mostly based on moral and practical principles.

 

[columbus]

I am a social conservative in the sense that I oppose abortion, mass migration, gay marriage, strip clubs etc. There are so many labels for things these days.

Let me ask a question that matters to me, quite personally.
Why do you object to the government recognition of my relationship with Doug, of 25 years? We're married.
I see the Conservative view of that as "The government should get out of the business of competent adults" I want to be permanently in a relationship with him and I don't care what anybody else thinks. To me, marriage equality is the Conservative position.
If conservative doesn't mean anything but "do things the way ancient people did", as opposed to having principles, then I don't want the label applied to me.
Conservative sometimes means adhering to principles and sometimes means thoughtless repetition of old ways. I'm all about the former but not the latter. So tell me why you're against gay marriage.
Maybe that would help explain why you've so many problems.
Tom

 

[Rival]

Why do you object to the government recognition of my relationship with Doug, of 25 years? We're married.

G-d doesn't recognise it. Marriage is between a man and a woman and the end goal is children. This was the first mitzvah given to Adam and Eve.

I see the Conservative view of that as "The government should get out of the business of competent adults" I want to be permanently in a relationship with him and I don't care what anybody else thinks. To me, marriage equality is the Conservative position.

No, it is your position.

If conservative doesn't mean anything but "do things the way ancient people did", as opposed to having principles, then I don't want the label applied to me.

Then don't apply it to yourself.

Conservative sometimes means adhering to principles and sometimes means thoughtless repetition of old ways. I'm all about the former but not the latter. So tell me why you're against gay marriage.

It is forbidden by G-d. Males and females are clearly biologically made for each other

 

[Milton Platt]

This might just be something I experience on RF and the people local to me, but I'm going to put this out there anyway.

Sometimes, to me, it feels as though social conservatism is not even part of political discourse anymore. It's either, you're liberal or a little less liberal and those are your options. Note I speak from the UK, where our resident 'conservative' party allowed gay marriage to pass and continues to approve mass immigration into this country, neither of which are conservative social policies. The left, it seems, have come up with 1,001 buzzwords to call people like me. Homophobe (for opposition to gay marriage), racist (for opposition to unbridled mass migration) and a whole slew of other slurs. In my experience, and of course it may just be mine, social conservatives were long ago kicked off our own platform and now our views are widely regarded as evil, morally backwards, whatever. It is frustrating that I feel I can't even engage in political conversation without being called this or that by people who seem to consider themselves morally superior.

Please note, I'm not looking for a debate about gay marriage, abortion etc. I am seeking opinions on how social conservatives are generally treated and if we have a voice. I understand that in the US such beliefs may still be commonplace and so I am looking more for the UK/Euro view.

@Laika @illykitty

Thanks.

Yes, there are no clear delineations between conservative, progressive, liberal, etc. I tend to be liberal socially, but somewhat conservative fiscally.

 

[Stevicus]

I am a social conservative in the sense that I oppose abortion, mass migration, gay marriage, strip clubs etc. There are so many labels for things these days.

I think the key thing to consider is whether you advocate for laws banning these things - or whether you just oppose them on principle without making any specific legal proposals.

For example, some people may be opposed to cigarette smoking, but that doesn't mean they would propose any laws to ban it. They might simply oppose it in their own home or on their property, without necessarily imposing their view on others.

 

[Rival]

I think the key thing to consider is whether you advocate for laws banning these things - or whether you just oppose them on principle without making any specific legal proposals.

For example, some people may be opposed to cigarette smoking, but that doesn't mean they would propose any laws to ban it. They might simply oppose it in their own home or on their property, without necessarily imposing their view on others.

I do support banning these things. Incidentally, I would also support a complete smoking ban, or at least increase the price of tobacco tenfold.

 

[Laika]

I do support banning these things. Incidentally, I would also support a complete smoking ban, or at least increase the price of tobacco tenfold.

I realise you're going to get seven shades of for saying that and I know that's going to be pretty horrible given how difficult it is to hold an unpopular view. that's especially true on RF where the liberal left have a virtual monopoly.

I am puzzled as to how you would come to the conclusion that you would ban abortion given that it is something you may need one day (to state the obvious ). As a man I do have some sympathy for the view that a fetus is "human" before birth and that there is something arbitrary about whether someone has rights before or after birth. That being said, I've never felt comfortable in wanting that to take precedence over a women's rights to her own bodily autonomy because it is so subjective. A libertarian would say it is the essence of slavery in that a women's body has become the property of the state and is treated as a state sponsored incubator. I'm not a libertarian, but I get the point. As I'm not religious, I couldn't really appeal to a "higher power" beyond the ability of the state to coerce others into making decisions they don't want to make. it would be a very naked display of force and renders the whole issue of my own moral sentiments rather mute as it feels like banning abortion would be the greater wrong here. I couldn't tell you abortion is "right", only that it might be necessary. I've been "pro-choice" more by default than by conviction and I've only ever heard snippets of the other side of the argument (or heard it treated derogatorily as religious "zealotry" and "bigotry").

Is it to do with the sanctity of human life and the rights of the fetus? or is it more to do with procreation and promoting population growth? Would you say such a ban on abortion should have exemptions as in the case of rape and if women were at risk of dying from complications during pregnancy?

 

[Rival]

Is it to do with the sanctity of human life and the rights of the fetus? or is it more to do with procreation and promoting population growth? Would you say such a ban on abortion should have exemptions as in the case of rape and if women were at risk of dying from complications during pregnancy?

Yes, it has to do with the sanctity of life. In the event of rape I err...because I still can't blame the child and why is life any less sacred for that reason? I would support state sponsored therapy for the victim, but as for abortion *Rival flips open-palm hand side to side*. If a woman were to die that would be different, yes.

 

[Laika]

In the event of rape I err...because I still can't blame the child and why is life any less sacred for that reason? I would support state sponsored therapy for the victim, but as for abortion *Rival flips open-palm hand side to side*.

Put in those terms, yeah, I can see why that would be difficult.

thankfully I'm not a doctor, so I have the luxury of having an opinion without having to act on it.

 

[Curious George]

I do support banning these things. Incidentally, I would also support a complete smoking ban, or at least increase the price of tobacco tenfold.

But the majority of these you would seem to ban on religion. This is fine, but because religion is not a good argument in a secular society.
If G-d doesn't want to recognize gayarriage that is its buisness. If G-d thinks abortion is murder, that is its business. If G-d doesn't like strip clubs thats its business. And, if G-d doesn't like smoking that is its business. If we are going to talk about our business, we can do it separate from any god.

And, as far as the name slinging, lest you think that social conservatives are unique. Plenty comes towards us lib tard, cry-baby, entitled snowflakes. People attack the other side. It is truly unfortunate. That this takes such a place in discussions. I am not sure if it was ever truly different. However, if we make a concentrated effort to use reason and logic, at least aome people will be having rational conversations instead of mud-slinging.

 

[Rival]

But the majority of these you would seem to ban on religion. This is fine, but because religion is not a good argument in a secular society.
If G-d doesn't want to recognize gayarriage that is its buisness. If G-d thinks abortion is murder, that is its business. If G-d doesn't like strip clubs thats its business. And, if G-d doesn't like smoking that is its business. If we are going to talk about our business, we can do it separate from any god.

And, as far as the name slinging, lest you think that social conservatives are unique. Plenty comes towards us lib tard, cry-baby, entitled snowflakes. People attack the other side. It is truly unfortunate. That this takes such a place in discussions. I am not sure if it was ever truly different. However, if we make a concentrated effort to use reason and logic, at least aome people will be having rational conversations instead of mud-slinging.

I don't want to ban them only because of my religion. As I said, I held these views when I was an atheist. However, I do believe that G-d gave laws to all humanity and they are definitely our business. I hold humanity to a high and virtuous standard but it cannot seem to reach this standard without a higher Authority. Give humans free reign and they just seen to dive straight into all sorts of debauchery.

 

[Curious George]

I don't want to ban them only because of my religion. As I said, I held these views when I was an atheist. However, I do believe that G-d gave laws to all humanity and they are definitely our business. I hold humanity to a high and virtuous standard but it cannot seem to reach this standard without a higher Authority. Give humans free reign and they just seen to dive straight into all sorts of debauchery.

If you have secular arguments for all of these then that is indeed a part of our business. If it religious views that support these then we must first discuss whether we should live in a religious society or a secular society. The current agreement is secular. While religious arguments are wonderful emotional appeals that bring to one's side many people, they are not reaonable for deciding laws in a secular society.

 

[Stevicus]

And, as far as the name slinging, lest you think that social conservatives are unique. Plenty comes towards us lib tard, cry-baby, entitled snowflakes. People attack the other side. It is truly unfortunate. That this takes such a place in discussions. I am not sure if it was ever truly different. However, if we make a concentrated effort to use reason and logic, at least aome people will be having rational conversations instead of mud-slinging.

I think you're correct in that both sides throw around labels and names, but it's also a question of accuracy. Just because someone is against gay marriage does not (or should not) make them the worst person in the world (or a "deplorable," as some might say). There are some people who might advocate more extreme policies against gays, even to the point of advocating for their execution. That's far worse than someone who is merely against gay marriage, yet terms like "homophobe" lump them all together in the same category. It's tantamount to an accusation of murder.

Similarly, many conservatives called Obama and Clinton "communists," which is also tantamount to an accusation of murder - a thinly-veiled claim that they advocate gulags, show trials, mass executions, etc.

Other kinds of name-calling, where people are merely called "jerks" or "poopy-heads," those don't carry any veiled or implied accusation of wrong-doing, so there's a difference that should be noted.

Bottom line: If someone is going to paint someone as a murderer, then they should have more to back it up than just their own opinion (even if they try to pass it off as fact).

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I don't want to ban them only because of my religion. As I said, I held these views when I was an atheist. However, I do believe that G-d gave laws to all humanity and they are definitely our business.

This flows both ways: if you try to impose your religious beliefs on others, then your religion is fair game for criticism by anyone.

I hold humanity to a high and virtuous standard but it cannot seem to reach this standard without a higher Authority.

What's virtuous about your standard?

Give humans free reign and they just seen to dive straight into all sorts of debauchery.

... like autocracy?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Just because someone is against gay marriage does not (or should not) make them the worst person in the world (or a "deplorable," as some might say). There are some people who might advocate more extreme policies against gays, even to the point of advocating for their execution. That's far worse than someone who is merely against gay marriage, yet terms like "homophobe" lump them all together in the same category. It's tantamount to an accusation of murder.

The same-sex marriage issue can cost lives (e.g. if a person dies of a treatable illness because they were denied spousal coverage on their spouse's health insurance plan). The differences between different types of homophobic acts are really:

- magnitude: all else being equal, hurting more people is worse than hurting fewer, and killing someone is worse than just injuring them, etc.

- who gets their hands dirty: some people think that the harm they're responsible for is somehow less of a big deal if they get the state to do it on their behalf than if they do it directly. Generally, I'm not one of those people.

If someone conspired to kidnap a same-sex couple's child and deliver her to an anti-gay relative, we would rightly say that this person was part of a violent act. I don't see how it's any less morally culpable for someone to get the law changed to create the same outcome.

IMO, people who brush off anti-same-sex marriage positions as not inherently violent haven't done a lot of deep thinking about what the rights of marriage are and how they're used.

 

[PureX]

I can't really be bothered with this argument anymore. I'm just against these things end of story. It's mostly based on moral and practical principles.

But why should your moral practices and principals be imposed on everyone else? I ask because you asked about why people despise conservatives, and this is exactly why they do. It's because conservatives are constantly trying to maintain and advance the laws, social mores, and ideals that have given them an unfair and elitist advantage: economic, political, religious, moral, or whatever, and have done so at the expense of everyone else. It's this "at the expense of everyone else" part that drives everyone else to despise conservatives. Can you understand this?

 

[Stevicus]

The same-sex marriage issue can cost lives (e.g. if a person dies of a treatable illness because they were denied spousal coverage on their spouse's health insurance plan). The differences between different types of homophobic acts are really:

- magnitude: all else being equal, hurting more people is worse than hurting fewer, and killing someone is worse than just injuring them, etc.

- who gets their hands dirty: some people think that the harm they're responsible for is somehow less of a big deal if they get the state to do it on their behalf than if they do it directly. Generally, I'm not one of those people.

If someone conspired to kidnap a same-sex couple's child and deliver her to an anti-gay relative, we would rightly say that this person was part of a violent act. I don't see how it's any less morally culpable for someone to get the law changed to create the same outcome.

IMO, people who brush off anti-same-sex marriage positions as not inherently violent haven't done a lot of deep thinking about what the rights of marriage are and how they're used.

Regarding your first example about health insurance, that's an issue which would be more productively dealt with by advocating for socialized medicine - a complete nationalization of all healthcare industries. If your complaint is about policies that cost lives, then this could be just as easily laid at the feet of anyone and everyone who refuses to support socialized medicine - and that includes the myriad of Democrats who gushed over Obamacare and thought it was such a great thing.

As for your second example regarding the hypothetical kidnapping of a same sex couple's child, that would still be kidnapping, and it could just as easily happen to a couple which is legally married. Those who oppose gay marriage are not advocating kidnapping anyone, so I don't see how you can charge them with that.

A lot of the main arguments would have also been dealt with by allowing civil unions, which is something that conservatives were willing to support. It would have entailed all the legal benefits of marriage without actually calling it a "marriage," which was the main thing that bothered the conservatives. That seemed a reasonable compromise, but even that was not enough.

As far as thinking deeply enough about the issue, it depends on how "deep" down the slippery slope you want to get.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

It is forbidden by G-d. Males and females are clearly biologically made for each other

OK. But then why should the state cater to this religious view?

Males and females are clearly biologically made for each other

That seems to be strictly only regarding reproduction. Men can please men, women can please women. And sometimes men get no pleasure from women and women get no pleasure from men. You just don't have to have a penis penetrating a vagina for it to be sex. There are so many ways to go about it, that this idea of men and women being made exclusively just for each other does not match what our biology and psychology tells us.

I do support banning these things.

When has banning something ever worked?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Regarding your first example about health insurance, that's an issue which would be more productively dealt with by advocating for socialized medicine - a complete nationalization of all healthcare industries.

I'm taking as given how things are. You're talking about a separate issue.

If your complaint is about policies that cost lives, then this could be just as easily laid at the feet of anyone and everyone who refuses to support socialized medicine - and that includes the myriad of Democrats who gushed over Obamacare and thought it was such a great thing.

That's right.

As for your second example regarding the hypothetical kidnapping of a same sex couple's child, that would still be kidnapping, and it could just as easily happen to a couple which is legally married. Those who oppose gay marriage are not advocating kidnapping anyone, so I don't see how you can charge them with that.

The rights of marriage include protections for spouses who aren't blood relations of their kids (e.g. where one parent in a same-sex couple is the biological parent of a child who they raise as a couple). If the biological parent dies, custody generally goes to the spouse.

However, if the marriage isn't recognized by the state, then custody generally goes to a close blood relative.

In many cases, this has resulted in the child of a same-sex couple going to an anti-gay relative who denies the surviving parent access to the child they raised.

A lot of the main arguments would have also been dealt with by allowing civil unions, which is something that conservatives were willing to support. It would have entailed all the legal benefits of marriage without actually calling it a "marriage," which was the main thing that bothered the conservatives.

Enough conservatives disagreed with this approach that prohibitions on giving "the benefits of marriage" to unmarried couples. In the case of Ohio (I think it was Ohio), the crime of spousal abuse was deemed to be a "benefit of marriage", resulting in hundreds of spousal abuse charges against people in common-law relationships being dismissed. Apparently, civil unions were so odious to some conservatives that letting a bunch of wife-beaters off scot free was considered the better option.

And in any case, there is no civil union arrangement that gives all the rights and benefits of marriage.

That seemed a reasonable compromise, but even that was not enough.

"Separate but equal" is never a reasonable compromise (or actually equal).

As far as thinking deeply enough about the issue, it depends on how "deep" down the slippery slope you want to get.

There's no slippery slope. Just think about what the rights of marriage are and how they're used. Saying that you want to ban same-sex marriage is effectively saying "in the circumstances where those rights will matter to you, I want to make sure you don't have them." Understand what rights you're trying to ban and what the impactsof your actions will be on real people and real families.