Thank you - I do prefer to live in reality.
Back to the OP, I am a Conservative, I don’t care who has sex with who, Bill and Monica or Adam and Steve. Obviously it should be consensual.
Oh no. Someone is going to laugh when this blows over, but not me.
My first comment was just about the language problem. Two men having sex is not gay. Two men having sex with each other is almost certainly gay. The words “with each other” make a big difference.
See, a language issue.
I think conservatives are obsessed with rules and rule-making. Conservatives value rules, and they value exclusion and categorization. Those who can comply with the rules are “good,” and those who can’t are unfit for acceptance. Within these parameters, there are probably degrees. Conservatives are usually obsessed with quantitative metrics, reducing performance into quotients which are then used to assign people into their respective categories.
In my experience, conservatives believe that there are rules to live by, principles that comprise a culture and enable it to succeed. Violate these rules, and the social fabric comes undone; therefore, it is important to make sure that the fibers, the rules that govern people’s conduct are strong and easy to discern.
I think you said that well. (Rules, not necessarily laws). In the East, society rules are paramount. Laws don’t mean much. Laws are flexible and generalized. The people in power decide when laws apply and when they don’t, because according to the societal rules, they are in charge.
Monica was over 18 and physically able to walk out of room, ergo consenting adult. Dazzled by the aura of celebrity power perhaps, but consenting adult. I would suggest immature and short sighted also. I am not blaming the victim here-she was a victim but of media and voyeurism. I would throw Victorianism in there too.
I would be one of those you would probably call a right wing extremist but I’m interracially married have gay people I’m proud to call friends. So I could care less about the marriage part. What I have a problem with is that government is involved in marriage and giving benefits to any of us straight or gay so for that reason I was against it because it grew government power. Government was only supposed to be involved in marriage in a limited way to protect us in disputes, when one person died and property rights were taken care of, etc. All of this everyone should have equal rights otherwise government needs to stay out of marriage.
How the hell is that supposed to work?
Brilliant logic.
How is what supposed to work? Having government involved in marriage with benefits is fairly new thing. Their only involvement should be protecting your property and who is involved in medical stuff, etc when there is a separation or someone is sick or dies. That way it cuts government out and all this dispute ends overnight when you aren’t getting your license from the government.
Contradiction detected. Who is giving the license then?
That may or may not be the case, but I think it is unwise to make that argument. It reduces important philosophical distinctions to “our candidate has been married fewer times than your candidate.” And frankly, scummy harassers come in all political stripes - Harvey Weinstein and Louis CK hardly represented the pinnacle of conservative thought, did they?
I’d hope we focus on the idiocy of puddleglum’s assertion that gay marriage is responsible for horrors like child molestation, a claim that is patently untrue regardless of whether there have been prominent Democrats who fell short of our moral ideals.
Since there will always be scumbags of varying pursuasions, I’d rather hope that progressive strive to be less hypocritical than conservatives. Me, I wouldn’t care (much) if solid progressive candidate had been married three times, as long as there were no allegations of abuse or dishonesty involved. OTOH, I hope I’ll have the strength to disown a character who agrees with me politically if s/he is shown to be a harasser or rapist.
No one, it was started to control interracial marriages and became a great revenue stream for government and then finally votes for both sides to make promises. Otherwise it was done by the church in front of your god. No reason why this can’t happen again in a church in front of family if you don’t believe have it certified by witness and done. No government involvement and all this left, right anger ends tomorrow.
Please provide cites for these claims. Thank you.
I’m here to discuss with what I know not be someone’s google finder when you can type history of marriage. If you don’t like it or don’t believe me I’m fine with that.
I’d be interesting in hearing how much money the government is making issuing marriage licenses and certificates. If the fees cover the costs, I’d be surprised.
As I said in the other thread, welcome to the Straight Dope!
That’s not how we do things in this particular forum (or Great Debates). If you’re going to make a claim such as marriages were established to control interracial pairings, you could provide a cite. It’s not at all obvious to me – in fact, I’ve never seen that claim before. Similarly, the claim that it’s for the revenue stream is also new to me.
So, please cite those claims or retract them. Thanks!
I think it’s close to a 100 in Florida. I mean why do we need government mixed up in this? This gay marriage thing would not even be a issue for anyone and we can all find something else to be angry and triggered about.
While it is true that Liberals liberals weren’t always as strongly in favor of gay rights as they are today, they have been consistently several steps ahead of conservatives. When Clinton signed don’t ask don’t tell, it wasn’t a perfect solution but it was a damned sight better than do ask and kick out, which was what the conservatives were wanting. Similarly, back when liberals weren’t up to fully advocating for same sex marriage, conservatives were pushing to have it taught in schools that gays were abnormal, wrong, unnatural and perverse .
Seems somewhat similar to the argument that some Slave owners treated their slaves reasonably well (for slaves) while others treated their them much worse and thought of them as sub-human. So I guess the “nice” slave owners were morally superior.