# 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:** 8
**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, 7:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/social-conservatism-explained/273133/141 "2004-11-07T19:08:01Z")
> [@Gorsnak](#): > > The people I know who oppose gay marriage oppose it either because homosexuality is sinful, as revealed by the Word of God, or because they are overtly homophobic bigots. The latter in my experience are, indeed, a minority, but the former aren’t attempting to protect a social institution, they are attempting to legislate their religious views on morality. This is the gaping hole in Sam Stone’s argument (in general, not just on the subject of gay rights). The issue that generates the friction isn’t “social conservatives” simply wanting to live their preferred way; it’s “social conservatives” wanting laws to insure that everybody lives their preferred way. ---
**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, 7:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/social-conservatism-explained/273133/142 "2004-11-07T19:25:09Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > 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!”). Perhaps you haven’t heard, but the Log Cabin Republicans voted _not_ to endorse Bush for president this year. They also spent several million dollars nationally on print and broadcast ads opposing the Federal Marriage Amendment. Perhaps you should check who they endorsed, and who they opposed, before posting. As Log Cabin Political Director Chris Barron said to the _New York Times_, “I plan on having the Gary Bauers and Pat Robertsons leave the (Republican) party before I do.” ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2004, 7:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/social-conservatism-explained/273133/143 "2004-11-07T19:28:45Z")
> [@](#): > > This is the gaping hole in Sam Stone’s argument (in general, not just on the subject of gay rights). The issue that generates the friction isn’t “social conservatives” simply wanting to live their preferred way; it’s “social conservatives” wanting laws to insure that everybody lives their preferred way. Really? You might be right, but do you think that if New York legalized gay marriage, you’d see marches in the street over it in Texas? And let’s not forget that all eleven states that had gay marriage bans on the ballot this year voted overwhelmingly for them, and not all of them were ‘red’ states. ---
**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, 7:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/social-conservatism-explained/273133/144 "2004-11-07T19:29:03Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > how many gay people publicly identify themselves to total strangers? How would that affect the ratio of gay Republicans to gay Democrats? Are you claiming that gay Republicans are _more_ likely to be identify themselves to pollsters, and that gay Democrats are _less_ likely? ---
**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, 7:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/social-conservatism-explained/273133/145 "2004-11-07T19:35:33Z")
> [@Sam Stone](#): > > The whole structure of big government is tailor-made to look after the interests of urban voters. Er, no it isn’t, if you look at the numbers. If the Democrats were smart, they’d agree to all the federal tax cuts Bush wants, so long as they are paid for by cutting red-state subsidies (farm welfare, road payments, electrification/phone lines, etc). Let the local Republican politicans explain to the rural voters that state taxes are going to have to go through the roof unless they want their kids to be driving on gravel to haul water from the well. ---
**Author:** ![Gorsnak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gorsnak/32/7587_2.png) [@Gorsnak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gorsnak)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2004, 7:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/social-conservatism-explained/273133/146 "2004-11-07T19:56:44Z")
> [@Steve MB](#): > > This is the gaping hole in Sam Stone’s argument (in general, not just on the subject of gay rights). The issue that generates the friction isn’t “social conservatives” simply wanting to live their preferred way; it’s “social conservatives” wanting laws to insure that everybody lives their preferred way. Well, it’s not nearly this simple, though. A few people have already pointed out that liberals want to legislate morality as well. It’s not _that_ simple, either. The truth lies somewhere inbetween - the nature of the moral views liberals want to legislate are more compatible with a pluralistic society, whereas the nature of the moral views conservatives want to legislate trend dangerously close to theocracy. A quick investigation of history turns up pretty decisive evidence for which approach is more desirable. However, there’s a lot of confusion and misconception on both sides of the issue, and things get obscured. I don’t think this is the gaping hole in Sam’s argument, actually. I think the gaping hole in Sam’s argument is that he’s advocating compromising with the Religious Right, but isn’t realizing that the Religious Right will not compromise in return. They won’t be satisfied with 2nd and 3rd trimester abortions banned. They won’t be satisfied with Creationism taught in a comparative religions course. They won’t be satisfied with gays being allowed civil unions but not marriage. These are people with “God said it. I believe it. That settles it.” bumperstickers, and they aren’t the compromising sort. ---
**Author:** ![asc165](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9fc348/32.png) [@asc165](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/asc165)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2004, 7:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/social-conservatism-explained/273133/147 "2004-11-07T19:57:16Z")
> [@Sam Stone](#): > > And let’s not forget that all eleven states that had gay marriage bans on the ballot this year voted overwhelmingly for them, and not all of them were ‘red’ states. Among those eleven states, Oregon presents an interesting dichotomy: gay marriage ban passes, openly gay judge is elected to Oregon Supreme Court. ---
**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, 7:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/social-conservatism-explained/273133/148 "2004-11-07T19:58:54Z")
[Log Cabin Republicans 2004 endorsements.](http://www.lcrga.com/archive/200410251559.shtml) ---
**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, 8:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/social-conservatism-explained/273133/149 "2004-11-07T20:47:32Z")
> [@Walloon](#): > > All laws legislate morality. Not at all. Many laws are pure administrivia devoid of moral content (e.g. it clearly isn’t any less moral to drive on the left side on the road than to drive on the right side, but everybody has to be consistent). ---
**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, 8:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/social-conservatism-explained/273133/150 "2004-11-07T20:53:02Z")
> [@Steve MB](#): > > (e.g. it clearly isn’t any less moral to drive on the left side on the road than to drive on the right side, but everybody has to be consistent). Oh sure. _You_ would say that. Obviously you are an amoral left-driving kitten killer. ---
**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 8, 2004, 12:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/social-conservatism-explained/273133/151 "2004-11-08T00:16:12Z")
**Sam** : > [@](#): > > As for the ‘fear of change’ - I suppose you can characterize it that way, but then I could say liberals live in ‘fear of stasis’ or ‘fear that conservatives will take away their choices’. I just don’t know that those kinds of characterizations are useful. I think calling your opponent a big fraidy cat is counterproductive. I’m not calling them fraidy cats, but I’m also not mincing words. Read over the OP and try to tell me that what you are describing is NOT fear. You say conservatives don’t want the things they value to be tampered with. Why is that? Because they are afraid of what will happen. It is not clear what that “what” will be, but they are uneasy just the same. Right? I hate to harp on history, but imagine with Conservative America felt when blacks starting doing crazy things like going to “their” schools and drinking out of “their” water faucets. Is it reasonable to say that fear of losing control was behind the opposition to integration? Would labeling it something other than fear really be a fair and accurate diagnosis of the condition that caused otherwise sane people to behave like rabid, spiteful animals? Attributing that kind of bigotry to fear is actually a whole lot nicer than attributing it to hate and evil, anyway. If words like “fear” are going to make discourse counterproductive, then we might as well give up talking right now. Neither side is going to understand each other if people do not use the words that most describe how they are feeling. Call a duck a duck, not a swan with a short neck. I have no problem with you saying that I, as a social liberal, fear that conservatives will take away my rights. It would be more accurate, though, to say that I fear the _government_ taking away my rights, because the essence of the fear is the same regardless of the reigning political party. There is nothing inherently irrational to being afraid of something. Most people hate the thing that they are afraid of. That’s why so many folks who hate Bush are not exaggerating when they say they are afraid right now. Hate and fear go hand in hand. ---
**Author:** ![Mirasawa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/77aa72/32.png) [@Mirasawa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mirasawa)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2004, 12:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/social-conservatism-explained/273133/152 "2004-11-08T00:16:15Z")
> [@you with the face](#): > > 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. ``` I wasn't talking about legislating morality, but rather that a straight-laced social conservative is characterized by never being intoxicated, never being promiscuous, never using foul language, etc. The free and easy liberal feels free to get hammered (at least every once in a while), score with as many willing men/women as possible in college, swear at the TV during a football game, etc. If a conservative did those things, he would feel bad about it afterwards. A fictional example would be Hank and Peggy Hill on the TV show "King of the Hill"... they take it to comical extremes, but they show how loveable and harmless social conservatives usually are. In real life no conservative follows the conservative way all the time, but there IS a standard which can be broken. Also, most liberals don't do all the free and easy things that complete social liberals (like rock stars) do. I think if you "liberals" first explore what socially conservative values you possess yourselves, you can start hating less the people who have more of them. ``` \_ \_ ---
**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 8, 2004, 12:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/social-conservatism-explained/273133/153 "2004-11-08T00:33:15Z")
> [@Mirasawa](#): > > I wasn’t talking about legislating morality, but rather that a straight-laced social conservative is characterized by never being intoxicated, never being promiscuous, never using foul language, etc. The free and easy liberal feels free to get hammered (at least every once in a while), score with as many willing men/women as possible in college, swear at the TV during a football game, etc. If a conservative did those things, he would feel bad about it afterwards. A fictional example would be Hank and Peggy Hill on the TV show “King of the Hill”… they take it to comical extremes, but they show how loveable and harmless social conservatives usually are. And I repeat: liberals and conservatives don’t necessarily behave differently. They just have different ideas about government’s place in the lives of the people. Take my mother, for instance. Never drinks, thinks smoking is a sin, hits me upside the head whenever I come close to cursing in front of her, and thinks Madonna is evil. But she doesn’t think the government has anything to do with what people do in the privacy of their own homes, hates the idea of an anti-SSM amendment, and believes in a clean separation between church and state. Even though she’s an ordained minister! ---
**Author:** ![Dr.Love](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e8c25b/32.png) [@Dr.Love](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dr.Love)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2004, 2:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/social-conservatism-explained/273133/154 "2004-11-08T02:05:29Z")
> [@Sam Stone](#): > > Could you explain which first amendment rights you’re talking about? But let me say that there is plenty of wrong-headed thinking on the cultural conservative side. There are also plenty of extremists, just as there are among liberal urban voters. I’m painting with a broad brush out of necessity because I’ve been talking about broad cultural themes, but once we start drilling into the minutae of policy we’ll find all kinds of reasons for people believing the things they believe. Some rational, some not. I was referring mostly to free speech issues. It seems that many of the social conservatives I’ve heard from really believe that opinions simply should not be allowed to be stated. I don’t notice many on the left (with the exception of the PC crowd) wanting similar limitations on speech. Many liberals, such as those here on the SDMB, are willing to protect speech they don’t agree with in the name of the greater good, but many cultural conservaties don’t seem to see it this way. Why is this? ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2004, 2:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/social-conservatism-explained/273133/155 "2004-11-08T02:39:56Z")
**you with the face** said: > [@](#): > > I’m not calling them fraidy cats, but I’m also not mincing words. Read over the OP and try to tell me that what you are describing is NOT fear. You say conservatives don’t want the things they value to be tampered with. Why is that? Because they are afraid of what will happen. It is not clear what that “what” will be, but they are uneasy just the same. Right? That definition of ‘fear’ can be applied to any disagreement between anyone. As such, it’s a useless definition. Liberals voted against Bush because they were afraid of what he’d do, right? So are both sides driven by ‘fear’? When you define something as loosely as you have, it just becomes a tool for smearing the other side. It’s meaningless as a differentiator between positions. **Dr. Love** said: > [@](#): > > I was referring mostly to free speech issues. It seems that many of the social conservatives I’ve heard from really believe that opinions simply should not be allowed to be stated. I don’t notice many on the left (with the exception of the PC crowd) wanting similar limitations on speech. Many liberals, such as those here on the SDMB, are willing to protect speech they don’t agree with in the name of the greater good, but many cultural conservaties don’t seem to see it this way. Why is this? I disagree vehemently. In Canada, you can be charged under ‘hate speech’ laws for simply voicing your opinion. These are a complete creation of the left. In my opinion, the left, when it goes too far, becomes just as intolerant as the right. Ask someone who put a ‘Bush Cheney’ bumpersticker on their car in San Franscisco how long it took to get keyed. ---
**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 8, 2004, 3:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/social-conservatism-explained/273133/156 "2004-11-08T03:48:29Z")
\*\* Sam:\*\* > [@](#): > > That definition of ‘fear’ can be applied to any disagreement between anyone. As such, it’s a useless definition. Liberals voted against Bush because they were afraid of what he’d do, right? So are both sides driven by ‘fear’? It’s not useless to say that conservatives fear things that go against a certain paradigm, just as it’s not useless to say that liberals fear losing civil liberities. It’s not a value judgement to say that. _It’s simply a short-hand way of saying the same thing you expressed in the OP._ Geeze, so what if both sides are driven by fear? They are afraid of different things. How is it to counterproductive to acknowledge the truth? Perhaps pointing out the obvious is just what we need to get to an understanding. We won’t understand _why_ we feel the way we do until we understand just _what_ we feel. Something tells me that at the root of your disapproval with the word “fear” is the macho idea that to be afraid of something means to be weak, wimpy, and hysterical. That is not true. ---
**Author:** ![Excalibre](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/898d66/32.png) [@Excalibre](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Excalibre)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2004, 8:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/social-conservatism-explained/273133/157 "2004-11-08T08:16:14Z")
> [@Sam Stone](#): > > Again, may I suggest to liberals that a winning formula does not include arbitrary attacks on cherished symbols that really don’t change a whole lot? Trying to remove ‘under god’ from a pledge strikes ME as intolerant, and I’m not religious. God damn do I agree with you. I mean, I’d probably be happy if the pledge didn’t include those words, but it’s such a non-issue that I hate to see my fellow liberals get their undies in a twist about it. It’s only in the barest sense an endorsement of religion, and there’s so much else to worry about. > [@Sam Stone](#): > > It’s always been there, why pick up that fight and alienate vast swaths of people? Why not compromise on school prayer and allow a moment of private silence? Fine by me. I sometimes think the secularization of society has gone too far, but I’m loathe to oppose it, because it sometimes seems like the Evangelical crowd wishes to impose a religion on the rest of us. > [@Sam Stone](#): > > Again, the problem is often that liberals go too far. I don’t want evolution taught as science. That’s a reasonable position that most Christians are willing to accept. You don’t? Really? I can’t wrap my head around opposition to the teaching of evolution. > [@Sam Stone](#): > > But when little Johnny gets kicked out of school because he mentioned God in a class project, it tends to make people paranoid. When Christian groups aren’t allowed to form after-school clubs, it sounds more like persecution than tolerance. The constitution says that there shall be no official state church. Liberals have broadened the scope of separation of church and state so much that Christians really do feel sometimes that they are under attack, and for good reason. This is interesting to me, because to my understanding, neither of those things should be permitted by law - in fact, I think the SOCAS crowd has fought in particular to ensure that religious extracurriculars are permitted, and they certainly existed at my high school. And a kid ought to be able to talk about God in his class projects; if little Johnny does get kicked out of school for such things, trust me to be just as pissed about it as you. But these examples interest me, because the law is on the side of the Evangelicals on this one. So it’s fascinating (if confusing and frightening) that this spectre of forced secularism seems to dominate the debate on SOCAS issues, even when organizations supporting the separation fight just as often to preserve these things as they do to create a generally secular society. > [@Sam Stone](#): > > Liberals DID win the big issues of equal rights, rights for women, and the other things you mentioned. But they won those 40 years ago. Since then, Liberals have stopped being a movement and have become a coalition of special interests - environmentalists, trade unionists, animal rights activists, socialists, communists, gays, etc. They don’t even agree amongst themselves. The union laborers in the Democratic party can’t stand the PETA types, and they sided with Bush on drilling in ANWR. God knows that this is true - we HAVE become a group of special interests, and it’s something that we need to work through. We need to find the common thread of “liberal thought” that unites all our constituencies, and learn to use that thought to make liberalism a coherent movement in the way that the GOP has. Anyway, thanks for continuing to be one of the few political posters of any flavor that offers something thoughtful and interesting. Would that the SDMB could get beyond tattletale threads and talk like this more often. Sorry to come across as your groupie, Sam Stone, but I really admire your contributions. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2004, 3:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/social-conservatism-explained/273133/158 "2004-11-08T15:07:47Z")
> [@](#): > > Quote: > Originally Posted by Sam Stone > Again, the problem is often that liberals go too far. I don’t want evolution taught as science. That’s a reasonable position that most Christians are willing to accept. > > You don’t? Really? I can’t wrap my head around opposition to the teaching of evolution. That was a screw-up on my part. I meant I don’t want creationism taught as science, of course. As for kids being kicked out of school - I didn’t mean that the way it sounds. More bad writing. I meant things like the valedictorian last year who was not allowed to give her speech because she mentioned God in it. And there have been schools that refused to allow bible study groups as extra-curricular activities on school grounds after school hours. There was also a case (can’t find it now) where a kid was flunked on a class project. He was supposed to do a project on something that was important to him, and he picked Jesus. He wasn’t allowed to give his talk, and flunked on the project. That kind of stuff just goes overboard. Keep the creationism out, absolutely. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2004, 3:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/social-conservatism-explained/273133/159 "2004-11-08T15:43:11Z")
> [@Zoe](#): > > But Christians should be aware that it also leaves the door open to other kinds of worship at school. This reminds me of my 11th grade history teacher, long since retired unfortunately. He was otherwise a very conservative WASP type, but when it came to the issue of school prayer, he would say – “I can’t wait until they bring back prayer in the schools, because the very next day, I’m getting some prayer rugs and we’re all going to be facing Mecca!” It’s the perfect response to the argument by conservative Christians that they don’t really want to force their religion on others and that all they want is the freedom to practice their own religion. I heard another example back when that Texas high school football prayer case was in the courts. An N.P.R. reporter was interviewing some students at the school who were supporting the pro-prayer position (it was something along the lines of – it’s just us students expressing ourselves – no one is making us do anything). When the reporter asked what they would think if a Muslim student wanted to add his Islamic prayer to the program, the response was swift – “No, we wouldn’t want that.” ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2004, 3:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/social-conservatism-explained/273133/160 "2004-11-08T15:46:11Z")
> [@Zoe](#): > > The problem that I _do_ see is that some employees might feel pressured to participate if it became a group thing. This was exactly the issue. Despite the outward expressions of – “oh, it’s optional” – DOJ employees felt enormous pressure to participate, especially when the attorney general invited them personally. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/social-conservatism-explained/273133.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/social-conservatism-explained/273133.md?page=9)