# Social Conservatism Explained **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 5, 2004, 4:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/social-conservatism-explained/273133 "2004-11-05T04:26:59Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![John\_Corrado](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/a88e4f/32.png) [@John\_Corrado](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Corrado)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2004, 1:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/social-conservatism-explained/273133/121 "2004-11-07T01:55:45Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > I seriously doubt that seeing a “head-shrinker” these days would be considered such a sign of vulnerability in a political opponent). Eh… don’t be too sure. Remember that Bush 41 got a lot of mileage in pointing out that Dukakis had gone to a psychiatrist for treatment of depression. I think any Presidential candidate even today who had been found to have gone to a psychiatrist would be in serious trouble… either they had a minor problem that they should have just ‘toughed out’ or a major problem which seriously casts doubts on their ability to function in office. Not that I agree, but that would be the impression. ---
**Author:** ![Hyperelastic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/a3d4f5/32.png) [@Hyperelastic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hyperelastic)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2004, 2:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/social-conservatism-explained/273133/122 "2004-11-07T14:46:12Z")
> [@rjung](#): > > How about evidence that divorces occur **more** often in Bush-voting “red states”? Check out [these figures:](http://www.divorcereform.org/94staterates.html) > > ```auto > > Rank State Pop. Divorces per 1000 > 1 Massachusetts 14,530 2.4 > 2 Connecticut 9,095 2.8 > 3 New Jersey 23,899 3.0 > 4 Rhode Island 3,231 3.2 > 5 New York 59,195 3.3 > Pennsylvania 40,040 3.3 > 7 Wisconsin 17,478 3.4 > North Dakota 2,201 3.4 > 9 Maryland 17,439 3.5 > 10 Minnesota 16,217 3.6 > Louisiana *** 3.6 > > ``` > > ```auto > > Rank State Pop. Divorces per 1000 > 40 Kentucky 22,211 5.8 > Arizona 23,725 5.8 > 42 Florida 82,963 5.9 > 43 New Mexico 9,882 6.0 > 44 Idaho 7,075 6.2 > Alabama 26,116 6.2 > 46 Indiana *** 6.4 > 47 Wyoming 3,071 6.5 > 48 Tennessee 34,167 6.6 > 49 Oklahoma 21,855 6.7 > 50 Arkansas 17,458 7.1 > 51 Nevada 13,061 9.0 > > ``` > > Moral of the story? If you want family values, you should move to a blue state. Specifically, Senator Kerry’s own Massachusetts. 😉 That’s what I figured. What’s that Bible verse about motes and beams? By the way, **John Corrado** , Dukakis never actually suffered from depression. Bush 41 made that one up. Hypocrisy and lies - twin pillars of the new conservative majority. ---
**Author:** ![Mirasawa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/77aa72/32.png) [@Mirasawa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mirasawa)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2004, 3:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/social-conservatism-explained/273133/123 "2004-11-07T15:52:29Z")
> [@Hyperelastic](#): > > That’s what I figured. What’s that Bible verse about motes and beams? > > By the way, **John Corrado** , Dukakis never actually suffered from depression. Bush 41 made that one up. > > Hypocrisy and lies - twin pillars of the new conservative majority. Let’s try to keep this thread civil, please. I don’t have time to look it up today, but I read somewhere that red states also have a higher rate of people getting married young (as in “before they are 20”). I believe this happens because the culture esteems getting married and raising a family so much. The problem is that getting married so young increases the risk of divorce. So it’s less a problem of hypocrisy and more of “heart’s in the right place” but poor execution of what’s usually a good thing. (At least, to a social conservative.) \_ \_ ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2004, 4:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/social-conservatism-explained/273133/124 "2004-11-07T16:20:40Z")
> [@Mirasawa](#): > > I don’t have time to look it up today, but I read somewhere that red states also have a higher rate of people getting married young (as in “before they are 20”). I believe this happens because the culture esteems getting married and raising a family so much. The problem is that getting married so young increases the risk of divorce. > > So it’s less a problem of hypocrisy and more of “heart’s in the right place” but poor execution of what’s usually a good thing. (At least, to a social conservative.) And yet there are cultures in which people get married very young and don’t divorce, for example the Amish and, I believe, Orthodox Jews (I’m fairly certain the divorce rate amongst all Jews is fairly low, and amongst Orthodox Jews it is, I believe, even lower. I can’t speak for marriage age. Perhaps one of our Jewish dopers might have some insights). That demonstrates that getting a divorce or not getting a divorce is a cultural decision as well as a personal one. (Note: I don’t care if people get divorced. But if someone is going to say that there are threats to marriage, I expect them to acknowledge the major one.) ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2004, 5:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/social-conservatism-explained/273133/125 "2004-11-07T17:08:14Z")
**Mirasawa:** \*I read somewhere that red states also have a higher rate of people getting married young (as in “before they are 20”). I believe this happens because the culture esteems getting married and raising a family so much. \* It may also be the default response to unintended pregnancy, in conservative cultures that disapprove of birth control (for the unmarried) and abortion. ---
**Author:** ![you\_with\_the\_face](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/ecccb3/32.png) [@you\_with\_the\_face](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/you_with_the_face)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2004, 5:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/social-conservatism-explained/273133/126 "2004-11-07T17:10:18Z")
> [@Mirasawa](#): > > Plus there’s far less defensible liberal behavior which social conservatives don’t think should be tolerated… like intoxication, promiscuity, obscene language, public sexual displays… you know, the stuff that gets you labelled as cool in high school. 🙂 You would be wrong if you thought only social conservatives have a problem with things like “intoxication, promiscuity, obscene language, etc”. The problem doesn’t come in until people start trying to legislate against these things. We can not legislate morality, but a lot of social conservatives don’t get that. Too many conservatives think the Bill of Rights only applies to things they care about, when in actuality our civil liberties are intended to protect those things that are \* not\* sugar and spice and everything nice. It’s the cost of living in a free country. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2004, 5:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/social-conservatism-explained/273133/127 "2004-11-07T17:15:58Z")
Yeah, Republican frat boys never drink or swear or have sex. ---
**Author:** ![Walloon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/fbc32d/32.png) [@Walloon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Walloon)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2004, 5:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/social-conservatism-explained/273133/128 "2004-11-07T17:24:07Z")
> [@erislover](#): > > I’m not asking this to be confrontational. I’m asking you how they justify these things that they would not give up. Apart from the Amish, even rural people have access to such amenities, and yet, were it not for the city folk, they’d still be living like the Amish. There wouldn’t even be cars to rust on their lawns, or surely none they could afford, at any rate. You make sneers and insults like that, yet you claim, “I’m not asking this to be confrontational.” ---
**Author:** ![Walloon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/fbc32d/32.png) [@Walloon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Walloon)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2004, 6:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/social-conservatism-explained/273133/129 "2004-11-07T18:19:06Z")
> [@DanBlather](#): > > When I was a child in a pre-dominantly Roman Catholic area the teacher led us in reciting the RC version of the Lord’s Prayer out loud. I was a very religious Protestant and this made me very uncomfortable. 😕 As far as I can tell, the only [difference](http://www.spiritrestoration.org/Church/Worship%20Resources/Lord's%20Prayer.htm) between the Catholic and the Protestant version is that the Protestant version includes the closing doxology, “For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory forever.” ---
**Author:** ![Walloon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/fbc32d/32.png) [@Walloon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Walloon)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2004, 6:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/social-conservatism-explained/273133/130 "2004-11-07T18:21:40Z")
> [@you with the face](#): > > We can not legislate morality, but a lot of social conservatives don’t get that. All laws legislate morality. All laws arise from the opinion that _this_ is wrong, and should be punished if done. ---
**Author:** ![Walloon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/fbc32d/32.png) [@Walloon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Walloon)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2004, 6:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/social-conservatism-explained/273133/131 "2004-11-07T18:24:04Z")
> [@John Corrado](#): > > Remember that Bush 41 got a lot of mileage in pointing out that Dukakis had gone to a psychiatrist for treatment of depression. Cite, please? ---
**Author:** ![AHunter3](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ahunter3/32/368_2.png) [@AHunter3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AHunter3)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2004, 6:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/social-conservatism-explained/273133/132 "2004-11-07T18:33:14Z")
> [@Walloon](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > Originally Posted by **DanBlather** > > > > When I was a child in a pre-dominantly Roman Catholic area the teacher led us in reciting the RC version of the Lord’s Prayer out loud. I was a very religious Protestant and this made me very uncomfortable. > > 😕 As far as I can tell, the only difference between the Catholic and the Protestant version is that the Protestant version includes the closing doxology, “For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory forever.” IANAC, of the Protestant or Catholic variety, but IIRC these are the two separate versions, the first, I think, being the Catholic: Our father, which art in heaven hallowed be thy name; thy kindgom come, thy will be done, on earth as it in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread and forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors; and lead us not into temptation but deliver us from evil. [optional, not common: For thine is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever] Our father, who art in heaven, hallowed be thy name; thy kingdom come, thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread and forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us; lead us not into temptation but deliver us from evil for thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever and ever, Amen. ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2004, 6:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/social-conservatism-explained/273133/133 "2004-11-07T18:35:39Z")
> [@AHunter3](#): > > Our father, who art in heaven, hallowed be thy name; thy kingdom come, thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread and forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us; lead us not into temptation but deliver us from evil. Amen. I combined both to make it the way we said it at Catholic mass back in the day. ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2004, 6:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/social-conservatism-explained/273133/134 "2004-11-07T18:37:04Z")
> [@jsgoddess](#): > > I combined both to make it the way we said it at Catholic mass back in the day. I meant to comment that the priest then says, “Deliver us, Lord, from all our evil and grant us peace in our day” and then the congregation replies with the doxology. ---
**Author:** ![AHunter3](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ahunter3/32/368_2.png) [@AHunter3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AHunter3)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2004, 6:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/social-conservatism-explained/273133/135 "2004-11-07T18:37:49Z")
> [@Walloon](#): > > Originally Posted by **you with the face** > > > [@](#): > > > > We can not legislate morality, but a lot of social conservatives don’t get that. > > All laws legislate morality. All laws arise from the opinion that . I am not a social conservative, but I agree with that. The problem with social conservatism is not that it attempts to reflect moral values in legal constructs, but that they are an ungodly evil immoral bunch of coercion-centric free-though-destroying book-worshipping dark-age reactionaries from hell, whose laws would bring down horrible unjustices and wickednesses upon people. ---
**Author:** ![Walloon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/fbc32d/32.png) [@Walloon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Walloon)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2004, 6:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/social-conservatism-explained/273133/136 "2004-11-07T18:40:10Z")
> [@AHunter3](#): > > IANAC, of the Protestant or Catholic variety, but IIRC these are the two separate versions, the first, I think, being the Catholic: > > Our father, which art in heaven hallowed be thy name; thy kindgom come, thy will be done, on earth as it in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread and forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors; and lead us not into temptation but deliver us from evil. [optional, not common: For thine is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever] That’s not the version we recited at the three different Catholic schools I attended in the 1960s and 1970s. It was “who art in heaven” and “forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us”. In other words, virtually the same as the Protestant version except without the closing doxology. ---
**Author:** ![Walloon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/fbc32d/32.png) [@Walloon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Walloon)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2004, 6:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/social-conservatism-explained/273133/137 "2004-11-07T18:50:27Z")
> [@edwino](#): > > There are tons of divorced Republicans, but fewer and fewer gay Republicans. Cite, please? Because according to the _New York Times Magazine_ (April 11, 2004), the gay Log Cabin Republicans have never had a higher membership than they do now. And the percentage of gay votes for Bush in 2004 (23%) is nearly the [same](http://www.washblade.com/blog/index.cfm?blog_id=155), and within the margin of error, as it was in 2000 (25%). ---
**Author:** ![Walloon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/fbc32d/32.png) [@Walloon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Walloon)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2004, 6:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/social-conservatism-explained/273133/138 "2004-11-07T18:52:01Z")
Correction, 24% for Bush in 2000, making it even closer to the 2004 vote. ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2004, 7:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/social-conservatism-explained/273133/139 "2004-11-07T19:02:54Z")
> [@Sam Stone](#): > > Guns: Focus your efforts on keeping guns out of the hands of criminals. Work for training requirements. Training requirements for guns are unacceptable for the same reason literacy requirements for voting are (i.e. while both would be good ideas in a theoretical perfect world, in the real world where we actually live they have indelible records as schemes to cheat people out of their rights). ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2004, 7:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/social-conservatism-explained/273133/140 "2004-11-07T19:04:41Z")
Where in the _hell_ do they get those statistics? Aside from the Log Cabin Pubbies (“Hey! We like people who hate our guts! 'Cause they’re right! We know, we hate our own guts!”), how many gay people publicly identify themselves to total strangers? That said, if it were not for the unfortunate alignment of the Pubbies with Babbit values, I would expect the political stance of gay people to break pretty much exactly the same as with non-gays, that is to say, sexual orientation should be entirely irrelevant. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/social-conservatism-explained/273133.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/social-conservatism-explained/273133.md?page=8)