Social Conservatism

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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.

And apparently, God hasn't been enforcing his command to your satisfaction so far, so you see the need to step in and do it for him?

 

[icehorse]

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.

I think it was Steven Pinker who recently coined the phrase "the left pole". For people who occupy the left pole, everyone else is to the "right" and therefore wrong.

I think that we need some new labels / categories, the ones we have now aren't working very well. Depending on the topic I'm sometimes conservative, sometimes a centrist, and sometimes to the left. Occupiers of the left pole would brand me evil for any of my non-left positions.

So I guess maybe the answer to your question is: "welcome to the club" of thoughtful people.

 

[Rival]

And apparently, God hasn't been enforcing his command to your satisfaction so far, so you see the need to step in and do it for him?

Yes, G-d gave us the law so that we might arbitrate for ourselves.

 

[Stevicus]

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

True, but when you address something that "costs lives," let's be perfectly clear about exactly what it is that's actually costing lives.

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.

When you say "generally," does that mean that there's no specific rule written in stone? Are we talking about cases where it's generally up to the judge who is deciding the case, who would have some latitude and discretion? I've heard some men's rights advocates speak of family courts and some of the egregiously horrible decisions they've made, so this may be an area of society which is in bad need of reform.

I would point out that the same thing could happen (and does happen) to heterosexual couples where one is not the biological parent of the child.

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.

I didn't know this. This seems horrible, although in what bizarro universe is spousal abuse considered a "benefit of marriage"? I never heard of this before. I realize Ohio is a strange state overall, but still...

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

Why not? Marriage is really just a contract, and any two people can sign a contract.

Of course, I say this as an unmarried person who doesn't get all those rights and benefits.

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

Who is being separated? Since I've heard a lot of people use the phrase "false equivalence" lately, I think it should be pointed out that this is an example of such right here.

Comparisons to the Civil Rights movement aren't really analogous, since African-Americans and other people of color were fighting for equality and acceptance in society. The courts correctly pointed out that "separate but equal" was, in fact, not equal. So, you're correct in that it was not a reasonable compromise and was done away with. Good riddance.

But there is also a difference here. If we're going to continue with the same analogy, then the central idea was that minorities should be given the same treatment as "white" people and be considered equal before the law, with all the rights and privileges afforded to other US citizens. But that didn't necessarily change who they were and how they identified themselves. Many of them found a sense of pride in embracing their heritage and culture. No one was expected to look a black person and say that he's "white."

Equal treatment and equal rights as human beings entitled to dignity and with scrupulous regard for their rights. But the Civil Rights was never about advancing the idea that "black is white" or anything Orwellian like that. Or at least, I don't think it was supposed to be like that. The central idea was to promote unity, love, cooperation, and brotherhood - that sort of thing. (That part sort of fizzled out, but it was a noble effort just the same.)

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.

I'm still not clear as to why the rights of marriage could not be included in a civil union.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

True, but when you address something that "costs lives," let's be perfectly clear about exactly what it is that's actually costing lives.

This is a red herring. If the question is about same-sex marriage or not, then we hold everything else static. Otherwise, you get an apples-to-oranges comparison. Nobody is offering "banning same-sex marriage plus universal health care" as a package deal.

When you say "generally," does that mean that there's no specific rule written in stone?

No, I mean that this happens in enough cases that it describes the typical outcome.

Are we talking about cases where it's generally up to the judge who is deciding the case, who would have some latitude and discretion? I've heard some men's rights advocates speak of family courts and some of the egregiously horrible decisions they've made, so this may be an area of society which is in bad need of reform.

Irrelevant to my point: that the courts have been used in the past to harm same-sex families in ways that would be criminal in slightly different contexts.

I didn't know this.

Well, now you do.

This seems horrible, although in what bizarro universe is spousal abuse considered a "benefit of marriage"? I never heard of this before. I realize Ohio is a strange state overall, but still...

Spousal abuse wasn't the benefit; protection from the "spousal abuse" statute was the benefit.

Why not? Marriage is really just a contract, and any two people can sign a contract.

Do you think that all of the rights of marriage can be granted by contract?

Rights and responsibilities of marriages in the United States - Wikipedia

A person can sponsor their spouse for immigration purposes. Tell me how a person can do this with just a contract.

It's a crime to threaten spouses of certain federal employees. Please tell me what sort of contract an unmarried couple could sign to get this protection.

Of course, I say this as an unmarried person who doesn't get all those rights and benefits.

Apparently.

Who is being separated? Since I've heard a lot of people use the phrase "false equivalence" lately, I think it should be pointed out that this is an example of such right here.

You described a hypothetical civil union that has rights equal to those of a marriage. Separate but equal.

Comparisons to the Civil Rights movement aren't really analogous, since African-Americans and other people of color were fighting for equality and acceptance in society. The courts correctly pointed out that "separate but equal" was, in fact, not equal. So, you're correct in that it was not a reasonable compromise and was done away with. Good riddance.

So why are you arguing for this now?

I'm still not clear as to why the rights of marriage could not be included in a civil union.

- In practice, they haven't been anywhere civil unions were implemented. Civil unions are used in order to not give same-sex couples the full rights of marriage.

- Many countries recognize foreign marriages but not foreign civil unions. You can't change another country's laws.

- Keeping "marriage" and "civil union" as distinct things will always leave the potential to diminish the rights of a civil union in the future.

 

[Rival]

Nobody is offering "banning same-sex marriage plus universal health care" as a package deal.

Do you refer to a hypothetical scenario where gay marriage is banned and universal healthcare is the state healthcare system? Because that is exactly my position. If this is not what you meant, just ignore this.

 

[Stevicus]

This is a red herring. If the question is about same-sex marriage or not, then we hold everything else static. Otherwise, you get an apples-to-oranges comparison. Nobody is offering "banning same-sex marriage plus universal health care" as a package deal.

You said it "costs lives." What, exactly, "costs lives"? Be very clear about this.

No, I mean that this happens in enough cases that it describes the typical outcome.

How many cases? Cites?

Do you think that all of the rights of marriage can be granted by contract?

I'm asking why they can't. Apparently, you don't know either.

Rights and responsibilities of marriages in the United States - Wikipedia

A person can sponsor their spouse for immigration purposes. Tell me how a person can do this with just a contract.

Why can't they? Besides, you chided me for bringing up a separate issue, yet now you're bringing up immigration.

It's a crime to threaten spouses of certain federal employees. Please tell me what sort of contract an unmarried couple could sign to get this protection.

It's a crime to threaten anyone. End of story.

You described a hypothetical civil union that has rights equal to those of a marriage. Separate but equal.

No, it's not. There's no separation that I can see.

So why are you arguing for this now?

I'm not. I'm arguing against your contention that "black is white," which is clearly not true.

- In practice, they haven't been anywhere civil unions were implemented. Civil unions are used in order to not give same-sex couples the full rights of marriage.

But why not? Can't they write the law in such a way so that all of the same rights and benefits exist in a civil union? I really don't see what your point of contention is here.

- Many countries recognize foreign marriages but not foreign civil unions. You can't change another country's laws.

This is off the subject.

- Keeping "marriage" and "civil union" as distinct things will always leave the potential to diminish the rights of a civil union in the future.

This is speculation. In any case, it doesn't support your view that gays are separated from the rest of society. This is clearly not the case. Show me an actual "separation" here. All you're giving me are abstractions and symbolism, not reality.

Besides, earlier you said that it was the conservatives who objected to civil unions, but now, you're objecting to it.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Do you refer to a hypothetical scenario where gay marriage is banned and universal healthcare is the state healthcare system? Because that is exactly my position. If this is not what you meant, just ignore this.

I'm referring to Stevicus's excuses for the harm of banning same-sex marriage: effectively "if people couldn't lose health care by losing recognition of their marriage, then this wouldn't be an issue."

Well, as they say, if a frog had wings, it wouldn't bump its *** a-hoppin'. Stevicus's - or your - wishes about how you want the world to be do nothing to mitigate actual harm to actual people in the real world.

 

[Curious George]

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).

I think that you are arguing over degree not accuracy. It also sounds like an attempt to rationalize name slinging.

Deplorable means deserving strong condemnation. This does not mean that calling someone or their ideas such is calling them a murderer. But it does not mean that it is ok. The hole you are trying to carve allows for name calling in the place of rational argument. Further it allows one side to claim victimhood because the names they are using are 'innocuous' or 'accurate' while the others' are not. I would hope that we could agree to let them go, in favor of rational discourse.

 

[Mister Silver]

At least the majority in the UK are attempting to better the country.

 

[Rival]

At least the majority in the UK are attempting to better the country.

In your opinion

 

[Curious George]

I'm asking why they can't. Apparently, you don't know either.
.

When states implemented civil unions, despite the language there was still some trouble because of how laws were interpreted, and also recognition in instances where other law, than that granting equal protection to civil unions and marriage, was ruling law. But in theory you could devise a way, whether that would be constitytional or not is a different argument, but there could be a way. The question that we should ask, if we are saying that there is no reason to deny the union but we just don't want to call it marriage, what secular reason do we have to not call it marriage?

 

[Stevicus]

I think that you are arguing over degree not accuracy. It also sounds like an attempt to rationalize name slinging.

No, just the opposite.

Deplorable means deserving strong condemnation. This does not mean that calling someone or their ideas such is calling them a murderer.

No, but I said that it's tantamount to calling someone a murderer. Only the worst kind of people deserve strong condemnation, so if someone is going to do that, I would expect that they'd be able to demonstrate just how horrible these "deplorables" are. If not, then I would say that they're just blowing smoke.

But it does not mean that it is ok. The hole you are trying to carve allows for name calling in the place of rational argument. Further it allows one side to claim victimhood because the names they are using are 'innocuous' or 'accurate' while the others' are not. I would hope that we could agree to let them go, in favor of rational discourse.

I do agree that name calling should be abandoned in favor of rational discourse. It's not that I'm advocating that everyone "get along" and "play nice." But name-calling is an appeal to emotion and demonstrates someone prone to an overemotional attitude. I believe that people should have a clear head when discussing such matters, rather than giving in to emotionalism.

Many years ago, I used to help moderate a forum which had a political section. For a while, I thought I was trying to be helpful to some of the more "obnoxious" posters by not deleting their offensive posts entirely, but editing out the name-calling, ad hominems, and other such unnecessary irrelevancies and only left in their actual argument. Hoo boy, did some of those guys get mad at me. They were incensed that I removed the insults and only left in the actual argument. They said that they would have preferred that I delete the entire post rather than "gut it" as I did. They didn't feel their post had enough "sting" to it, as they felt it was soooo important that they include all that irrelevant information about their opponent's mother. There was something calculating about their attitude; it wasn't like they were just unintentionally blurting something out in the heat of argument. That can happen from time to time.

But there are some people who just use it as a tactic - part of a general presentation of smoke and mirrors designed more to obfuscate and misdirect a discussion. It's just a lot of unnecessary melodrama.

 

[Stevicus]

I'm referring to Stevicus's excuses for the harm of banning same-sex marriage: effectively "if people couldn't lose health care by losing recognition of their marriage, then this wouldn't be an issue."

Well, as they say, if a frog had wings, it wouldn't bump its *** a-hoppin'. Stevicus's - or your - wishes about how you want the world to be do nothing to mitigate actual harm to actual people in the real world.

I didn't say that I was in favor of banning same-sex marriages. All I was saying that there were other legal solutions to the problem you were citing (regarding health insurance). You seemed to be suggesting that same-sex marriage was the only solution to the problem you were addressing, but I don't think that's the case.

At this point, the entire argument is moot, since same-sex marriage is legal. I just think there was an inordinate amount of media and political attention placed on the issue, when much of it could have been avoided if there was more of a willingness to compromise.

 

[Stevicus]

When states implemented civil unions, despite the language there was still some trouble because of how laws were interpreted, and also recognition in instances where other law, than that granting equal protection to civil unions and marriage, was ruling law. But in theory you could devise a way, whether that would be constitytional or not is a different argument, but there could be a way. The question that we should ask, if we are saying that there is no reason to deny the union but we just don't want to call it marriage, what secular reason do we have to not call it marriage?

To be honest, I can't even think of a secular reason to even have a marriage. It's the church that makes it out to be such a big deal, some sort of "holy" thing. But whether to call it a civil union or a marriage - that's just semantics. We can call it whatever we want. Heck, we can call every such pairing registered by the state as a "civil union," whether it's a same-sex couple or a hetero couple.

 

[Curious George]

To be honest, I can't even think of a secular reason to even have a marriage. It's the church that makes it out to be such a big deal, some sort of "holy" thing. But whether to call it a civil union or a marriage - that's just semantics. We can call it whatever we want. Heck, we can call every such pairing registered by the state as a "civil union," whether it's a same-sex couple or a hetero couple.

Exactly my point. But if you are going to have "marriage" by law then that should include same sex marriage.

 

[Curious George]

No, just the opposite.



No, but I said that it's tantamount to calling someone a murderer. Only the worst kind of people deserve strong condemnation, so if someone is going to do that, I would expect that they'd be able to demonstrate just how horrible these "deplorables" are. If not, then I would say that they're just blowing smoke.



I do agree that name calling should be abandoned in favor of rational discourse. It's not that I'm advocating that everyone "get along" and "play nice." But name-calling is an appeal to emotion and demonstrates someone prone to an overemotional attitude. I believe that people should have a clear head when discussing such matters, rather than giving in to emotionalism.

Many years ago, I used to help moderate a forum which had a political section. For a while, I thought I was trying to be helpful to some of the more "obnoxious" posters by not deleting their offensive posts entirely, but editing out the name-calling, ad hominems, and other such unnecessary irrelevancies and only left in their actual argument. Hoo boy, did some of those guys get mad at me. They were incensed that I removed the insults and only left in the actual argument. They said that they would have preferred that I delete the entire post rather than "gut it" as I did. They didn't feel their post had enough "sting" to it, as they felt it was soooo important that they include all that irrelevant information about their opponent's mother. There was something calculating about their attitude; it wasn't like they were just unintentionally blurting something out in the heat of argument. That can happen from time to time.

But there are some people who just use it as a tactic - part of a general presentation of smoke and mirrors designed more to obfuscate and misdirect a discussion. It's just a lot of unnecessary melodrama.

Calling someone a jerk is not necessarily more or less accurate than calling someone a murderer, hence I think you are arguing over degree not accuracy.

There is a logical leap. Just because A and B both deserve strong condemnation does not mean that A and B are equal or even tantamount to each other. That would assume that one does not deserve stronger condemnation. Your argument is a non sequitur.

I think that we are in agreement about name calling in general. I do not think that the elimination of name calling is advocating for everyone to play nice. I am not really bothered by it. What strikes me as comment worthy is the idea that implication that one side is being called names and the other is doing the name calling. It is simply not true. I would think that this is one of those things where awareness of reality could be easily brought to light.

 

[illykitty]

Well, I wouldn't personally insult you, as a person... Heck I wouldn't insult even your ideas. But I do have a right to critique them and disagree.

And I think one reason why anyone might have a problem with this, is due to the imposition of your beliefs on everyone. Don't you see how that would **** people off? I'm sure at some point in your life you have felt the frustration of someone else's will being imposed on you, or some rule you disagreed with... If not, then try to imagine how that feels. No matter how sure you are of your morals, others don't see it that way. I know I don't. I don't see any evidence of what you propose having a positive effect.

And yeah, I really can't get behind banning gay marriage or anything like that. If two consenting adults want to marry each other because they love each other... I don't see how anyone would oppose that. It's literally opposing love. If biology is the only thing that matters, then people who can't bear children (women/men who aren't fertile) shouldn't marry either or have sex... And I shouldn't have the right of sex and love either, I'd be condemn to be unloved, because I don't want to have children, and neither does my husband. *Shrug*

I still like you though @Rival. No hard feelings from me.