On-Topic New book -- "Why Conservatives should support Gay Rights"

[Stardreamer]

First of all, there are plenty of conservatives that aren't social conservatives. The very existence of the book in question proves that point. Second, I'm not convinced that the social conservatives are as monolithic as you seem to imply. Third, the young people are usually open to persuasion regardless of their views. Huh? I'm not following you here. Convincing people to more to the left, it seems, requires convincing people not on the left to begin with. Presumably moderates and conservatives. How is this different from convincing conservatives?

But anyway. Sure, convincing people to move to the left is great, I'm all in favor. But how does that happen? I haven't read any literature on the subject, but I suspect such changes in political orientation don't happen in one fell swoop. There are probably one or two "foot in the door" issues that cause initial doubts that, eventually, cause someone to doubt their entire ideological position. If gay rights constitute that foot in the door, and this book is the catalyst, great. It was certainly not my intention to misconstrue your positions. But I really don't see how I have. Let me know how.

I am finding your position here a breath of fresh air in these discussions and agree wholeheartedly. Personally the US vs Them attitudes that dominate so much of our political debate of late drives me insane. Republicans are misguided, not demons and any dialogue that can reach out to them is worthwhile. Sure there are some who will never change but that doesn't mean conservatives as a whole are monolithic in their thinking anymore than liberals are. Not all conservatives are social conservatives either, if you can reach out to even a few center right libertarian leaning conservatives and show them that gay marriage is a freedom issue the impact on the party would be enormous. This is already happening slowly as the numbers show, this book if encouraged could speed up that process.

 

[evanrick]

I think it's useful for liberals to know how to "speak Republican" if they want convince conservative people on the fence, to support gay rights & same-sex marriage.

Some of us have family members, neighbors, etc. who are very conservative. Knowing how to discuss & advocate for gay rights issues, such as same-sex marriage, using conservative arguments may be helpful to win support from more politically conservative people.

You mean "dumb it down"?

 

[Rolyo85]

I agree that conservative thinking people are neither irredeemable, nor incapable of changing their minds. However, in this generation ins purely wishful thinking to hope that SOCIAL conservatives would change their minds in a number that would show up in polls. Truth is, the talibamgelical movement is too brainwashed and the younger ones who change their minds are few and far between. To me the fight should be not to change minds but to marginalized and extract the tea party talibangelicals from the GOP.

 

[Stardreamer]

I agree that conservative thinking people are neither irredeemable, nor incapable of changing their minds. However, in this generation ins purely wishful thinking to hope that SOCIAL conservatives would change their minds in a number that would show up in polls. Truth is, the talibamgelical movement is too brainwashed and the younger ones who change their minds are few and far between. To me the fight should be not to change minds but to marginalized and extract the tea party talibangelicals from the GOP.

Perhaps but social conservatives do not make up the whole party, they only had an overly large influence in the party in the late 80s and 90s. An influence I think from watching the party that is in decline, though nowhere near fast enough. Center right conservatives like myself with a libertarian leaning can be convinced.

 

[Kulindahr]

I agree that conservative thinking people are neither irredeemable, nor incapable of changing their minds. However, in this generation ins purely wishful thinking to hope that SOCIAL conservatives would change their minds in a number that would show up in polls. Truth is, the talibamgelical movement is too brainwashed and the younger ones who change their minds are few and far between. To me the fight should be not to change minds but to marginalized and extract the tea party talibangelicals from the GOP.

Young 'evangelicals' are leaving their churches at what the talibangelical leaders consider an alarming rate, especially among those who go to college. They're not leaving Christianity, but they're refusing to accept that hateful behavior is acceptable to Jesus or that He commanded them to go out and change laws, because none of that is in the Gospels.

And there are 'evangelical' church which are changing their view, too, the same as above -- recognizing the hate in the anti-gay agenda and that Jesus didn't come to establish laws and punishments.

My bet is that within ten years, the talibangelicals won't have a prayer of getting anything anti-gay passed except perhaps in the four or five 'reddest' states.

 

[Kulindahr]

I've gone over this a thousand times. I know there are other kinds of conservatives. But my posts are regarding social conservatives. It's why I mentioned "social conservatives". I'm talking about them. And personally, I don't really care about other conservatives and the fantasies they believe in.

You mean those fantasies like fiscal responsibility including balanced budgets and paying down the debt, increasing the savings rate, and individual liberty?

 

[Kulindahr]

Changes don't happen in one full swoop, nor did I claim it does. IT's a process, and conservatism is overall bad for society. It's not just about social conservatism, but rather all of it that I have a problem with (and for a variety of reasons).

And you did a very good job misconstruing my position and making misstatements. I've already corrected you on several issues.

The problem in talking about things like this with you is that haven't got a clue what conservatism is. Here are some conservative elements of society:

the U.S. Constitution
judicial restraint
police
the military
a sound currency (incl. low inflation)


now, just how are those "overall bad for society"?

 

[Kulindahr]

^
As I said, you have no clue what conservative means or what conservatism is.

 

[Kulindahr]

^ Once again you verge on being a troll.

 

[Stardreamer]

Small government, individual liberty, freedom plus all of the various benefits to society that marriage brings to heterosexual relationships (nuclear structure of society, monogamous relationships, stable households, economic stability, inheritance, etc.); all of these things clearly make gay marriage an idea that conservatives should embrace as a conservative social value. Same sex marriage IS a conservative value if we can just break through the IMHO non-conservative issues the social conservatives have muddied the waters with. Morality and tradition is important but they should never alone be the basis of trampling civil rights and equality.

 

[Zingerific]

Same sex marriage is not a conservative value

Well, why not? The whole point of this thread is to discuss whether or not a conservative case for same sex marriage can be made. I'd ask your opinion, but as you refuse to actually read the book in question (or, presumably, other conservative writers who support same sex marriage), that would be pointless. As I said before, I think marriage, whatever the sex of the partners, is a conservative institution. Apparently you disagree.

Have you ever actually read any conservative thinkers? It sounds like your knowledge of conservatism comes from what the left says about conservatives rather than from what the conservatives say themselves.

Freedom and liberty is not copyrighted by conservatives.

That's certainly true. But why do you have such a problem with pointing out to conservatives that opposition to same sex marriage runs counter to their own advocacy of freedom and liberty? It's like you're more interested in being pissed off at conservatives and preaching to the choir than, you know, actually persuading people.

 

[Zingerific]

It sounds like you are more interested pestering me.

Touche. Believe it or not, I'm not trying to pester you.

I haven't seen you post in any other thread regarding other issues.

It's true that I haven't been around a lot lately, but I posted pretty frequently during the 2008 election. I was just passing through a couple of days ago and this thread caught my interest.

As to why marriage is a conservative institution, well, I think I covered that in my original post in this thread. Perhaps I wasn't clear that my use of the term "conservative" is more broad than the strictly political. It seems that the great benefits to society marriage is supposed to provide ultimately boil down to stability, which as values goes is about as conservative as it gets.

Contrast the same sex marriage movement of today with the Gay Liberation movement of the 70s. Gay Lib was pretty separatist, while today the same sex marriage movement is frankly assimilationist. Today the gay rights movement doesn't want to change society so much as it wants to join it. I realize now that my use of conservative is a little more broad than the usual political discussion. What I am saying is that advocating for same sex marriage is not compatible with a broad radical critique of western civilization; rather, it buys into traditional western values and seeks to extend them, not overturn them. That is to say, it's reform, not revolution.

Seems like we have another right wing jubber here lecturing others on what conservatism is

Oh dear. What makes you think I'm right wing? Our disagreement is on tactics, not ideology. My argument has been that every possible tool should be used to advance the cause, including arguments that appeal to conservatives. You apparently don't share that view:

I don't care about the "conservative case for gay marriage". It's irrelevant to the struggle for equality as a whole.

This is the crux of our argument. Now, when New York legalized same sex marriage, there were a hand full of Republican votes that were needed to pass the legislation (and this will be the case in future battles as well). Had you been in charge, would you have gotten those votes? I have to doubt it, since apparently for you it's a point of pride to not know anything about what might convince those types of voters.

 

[Rolyo85]

Lol of course marriage is a conservative thing. It's a unit of stability with the goal of maintaining a status quo. I don't get why one would even argue with that. "Conservative" is not a dirty word. Things are not black or white here and all normal people believe in things both conservative and liberal. Btw in my country those words have NO political coloring whatsoever.

 

[Stardreamer]

Same sex marriage is not a conservative value. Stop trying to monopolize things. Freedom and liberty is not copyrighted by conservatives.

The institution of marriage itself is a conservative value. You say that we respect and want the values that marriage bring to society and us as individuals but then want to claim that our marriages are different from your marriages, you undermine the whole purpose for fighting for it.

 

[Kulindahr]

Well, why not? The whole point of this thread is to discuss whether or not a conservative case for same sex marriage can be made. I'd ask your opinion, but as you refuse to actually read the book in question (or, presumably, other conservative writers who support same sex marriage), that would be pointless. As I said before, I think marriage, whatever the sex of the partners, is a conservative institution. Apparently you disagree.

Have you ever actually read any conservative thinkers? It sounds like your knowledge of conservatism comes from what the left says about conservatives rather than from what the conservatives say themselves. That's certainly true. But why do you have such a problem with pointing out to conservatives that opposition to same sex marriage runs counter to their own advocacy of freedom and liberty? It's like you're more interested in being pissed off at conservatives and preaching to the choir than, you know, actually persuading people.

It sounds like having taken a position, he isn't interested in listening to anything else, and gets emotional when someone suggests he should. He especially doesn't want to actually understand the positions he says he's studied and abandoned -- he made that assertion about libertarianism , yet it's become plain he doesn't understand it at all. Similarly he refuses to acknowledge any possible virtue of conservatism, characterizing it all as "fantasies" but without any information provided to indicate why.

It sounds like you are more interested pestering me. I haven't seen you post in any other thread regarding other issues. I have a laundry list of problems with conservatism.

You seem to try time and time again to undermine my own position... and you keep falling short. Have you read the book in question? Most likely not. My knowledge of conservatism comes from my own research. Not from what the left says. Seems like we have another right wing jubber here lecturing others on what conservatism is. Didn't realize this was such a sensitive topic.

I don't care about the "conservative case for gay marriage". It's irrelevant to the struggle for equality as a whole.

A "sensitive topic"? -- well, when you consistently post wild generalizations about something while showing you don't understand it much at all, that will strike sensitive spots. Some don't like having their views derided by derogatory phraseology; some of us just don't like seeing ignorance advanced as understanding through use of insulting terminology without having established any basis for the claims. I just on people misrepresenting what is conservative, what is libertarian, what is liberal, even what is communist -- I may have even had to defend the correct definition of fascism on here, but that may have been elsewhere. There are good values in all those -- more in some than others, obviously -- and a refusal to acknowledge anything good in them shows irrationality.

 

[Stardreamer]

Well, why not? The whole point of this thread is to discuss whether or not a conservative case for same sex marriage can be made. I'd ask your opinion, but as you refuse to actually read the book in question (or, presumably, other conservative writers who support same sex marriage), that would be pointless. As I said before, I think marriage, whatever the sex of the partners, is a conservative institution. Apparently you disagree.

Have you ever actually read any conservative thinkers? It sounds like your knowledge of conservatism comes from what the left says about conservatives rather than from what the conservatives say themselves. That's certainly true. But why do you have such a problem with pointing out to conservatives that opposition to same sex marriage runs counter to their own advocacy of freedom and liberty? It's like you're more interested in being pissed off at conservatives and preaching to the choir than, you know, actually persuading people.

Don't worry about it too much Zingerific, he gets this way and once he sets his mind on a point its a steel trap and any attempt to discuss it further just nets you accusations about how your picking on him and distorting what he says.



The highlighted part above is of course the real issue with conservatives and same sex marriage. Bringing that point home to the conservative thinkers would not only illustrate that same sex marriage is a conservative value that should be supported but would also highlight the very NON-conservative anti-freedom values that are implicit in the religious right agendas. If we can get the majority of conservatives to understand the significance of that point we could see the Republican party returning to sanity.

 

[Kulindahr]

As to why marriage is a conservative institution, well, I think I covered that in my original post in this thread. Perhaps I wasn't clear that my use of the term "conservative" is more broad than the strictly political. It seems that the great benefits to society marriage is supposed to provide ultimately boil down to stability, which as values goes is about as conservative as it gets.

Quite conservative. Contrary to the foolish "traditional marriage" idiocy, marriage has existed continuously for millennia -- and has changed continuously throughout that time. Each adjustment has been conservative in nature, serving to cement some new aspect into the traditional matrix of stability -- generally, succeeding rather well. Even polygamy, for those cultures which practice it, has undergone change, generally paralleling those in monogamous marriage. The most recent change with which most of us would be familiar is mixed skin-color marriage.

In that change we get a lesson: the move was both radical and conservative; radical, in that it went utterly against some entrenched bigoted values, but conservative because it avoided cultural some other website by including something new in the established framework of stability. That's a concept few grasp, that something can be radical (or liberal) and conservative at the same time.

Just as with marriage between persons of different skin color, so same-sex marriage is both radical and conservative: it will include a discordant element into a major traditional structure for societal stability.

Contrast the same sex marriage movement of today with the Gay Liberation movement of the 70s. Gay Lib was pretty separatist, while today the same sex marriage movement is frankly assimilationist. Today the gay rights movement doesn't want to change society so much as it wants to join it. I realize now that my use of conservative is a little more broad than the usual political discussion. What I am saying is that advocating for same sex marriage is not compatible with a broad radical critique of western civilization; rather, it buys into traditional western values and seeks to extend them, not overturn them. That is to say, it's reform, not revolution. Oh dear. What makes you think I'm right wing? Our disagreement is on tactics, not ideology. My argument has been that every possible tool should be used to advance the cause, including arguments that appeal to conservatives. You apparently don't share that view: This is the crux of our argument. Now, when New York legalized same sex marriage, there were a hand full of Republican votes that were needed to pass the legislation (and this will be the case in future battles as well). Had you been in charge, would you have gotten those votes? I have to doubt it, since apparently for you it's a point of pride to not know anything about what might convince those types of voters.

Definitely. The gay rights movement has become much more conservative. And some have learned to reach out to conservatives, and therein lies out best hope. I doubt the Log Cabins Republicans are going to have much effect from within. The effects will be on the fringes, where liberals who understand what conservatism really is manage to appeal to true conservatives, and we win a vote here, and a vote there. As the results of those votes show the world isn't going to end, there will be more. If certain historical patterns are followed, at some point the Republican party will embrace the LC Republicans who have steadfastly remained Republican -- and the world will change... because some of the rest of us managed to understand conservative values, and bridged the gap.

 

[Stardreamer]

Pot calling the kettle black.

(giggles) You are black.

‘It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.’

— Aristotle

‘We all operate in two contrasting modes, which might be called open and closed. The open mode is more relaxed, more receptive, more exploratory, more democratic, more playful and more humorous. The closed mode is the tighter, more rigid, more hierarchical, more tunnel-visioned. Most people, unfortunately spend most of their time in the closed mode.’

— John Cleese

‘Presumption must be quenched even more than a fire.’

— Heraclitus

‘Now there’s a man with an open mind—you can feel the breeze from here!’

— Groucho Marx

‘The trouble with having an open mind, of course, is that people will insist on coming along and trying to put things in it.’

— Terry Pratchett

‘We are at times too ready to believe that the present is the only possible state of things.’

— Marcel Proust

Who is right, who is wrong, logic, reason, ideology; all are meaningless when debated with a brick wall.

- Stardreamer

 

[Kulindahr]

I'm not convinced. Marriage in its religious sense would be considered conservative, but marriage has changed in the last century. So by that definition it simply isn't conservative.

You show again you have no clue what being conservative is about, or what conservatism is about. Marriage is, and always has been conservative.

And here is another point: Why on earth should I bother trying to convince people who are deadset on thinking I'm going to hell? Why would I waste my energy? I'm going to talk to those who are best to convince, being moderates. I am not going to waste my energy arguing against a brick wall.

Why are you burning your energy helping them? The hatred you show constantly is just right to drive people willing to think openly back into the enemy camp. Millions of young evangelicals are troubled by the stance their leaders hold. One of the things that keeps them from defecting is the obvious hatred from gays.

On behalf of Tony Perkins -- thanks for helping the cause.

 

[Stardreamer]

Here we go again. My statement is exactly true. You seem to have a big problem even entertaining other ideas, stradreamer.

There you go again

- Ronald Regan

The one thing I can say about your debating style, its very conservative (giggles)

But I will relieve both our sufferings and not respond to you anymore, there no point to it anyway since we both think the other is a brick wall.