Bill Whittle: Conservatives Don't Believe Their Own Message

[Bailey Guns]

He could be talking directly to many members here. Those people who believe conservatives should change or modify the very beliefs that make them conservative.


http://youtu.be/tLoYxr8gOP4

Seriously...if:


you believe abortion is OK or a conservative shouldn't talk about it, you might not be a conservative
you don't really believe in the free market, you might not be a conservative
you think same sex marriage is OK, you might not be a conservative
you think the "rich" don't pay enough in taxes, you might not be a conservative
you think somebody owes you something because of your race, you might not be a conservative
you think more government control is the answer to ANY problem, you might not be a conservative


Feel free to add to the list. But I'm really getting tired of people thinking the conservative message or philosophy should be changed because "it upsets others" or whatever the reason might be. It's called conservatism for a reason. Many here accuse republican politicians of being "democrat lite" but then approve of the very things that separate republicans/conservatives from democrats/liberals.

And for the record I agree with everything Whittle said about Mitt Romney. I think he would've been the greatest president since Reagan, at least. Not because he was the perfect conservative, but because he was about as close to perfect in terms of character as we've seen in a long time.

[merl]

/sigh
I am not a republican. I think they are dead wrong on quite a few issues and it is costing them elections, especially here in CO. Unfortunately they are the ones that I think are correct on more issues that directly affect me which means the party that I think is more wrong keeps winning.
Fighting a fight that is already lost may sound good and make you feel better but it is not going to actually get you anything.

[roberth]

I enjoyed the hell out of that, thank you for posting that up.

Guatemalan water snake....LOL

[ZERO THEORY]

Seriously...if:


you believe abortion is OK or a conservative shouldn't talk about it, you might not be a conservative
you think same sex marriage is OK, you might not be a conservative




I'm okay with not being a 'conservative'. I don't need to be pigeon-holed any further than I already am. Newsflash: not everyone on a party line is going to feel the exact same way about every single issue. Conservative is a broad term, so to try to assign the label to different paradigms who all typically vote under one umbrella (Republican) is laughable.

I believe in the absolute minimum in government involvement. That means drugs, marriage, abortion, guns, taxes, communications, you name it. I find it really funny how many 'conservatives' claim that they're dedicated to liberty and freedom for all Americans, complain about their rights being restricted, and then want to tell millions of other Americans that they can't exercise their own liberties. These people complain about Christianity being non-PC and oppressed, but want to lambast Islam. They want the right to raise their family their way, but want to ban gay marriage. They say it's a shame that a man can go to war, but can't drink a beer at 18, but want to make a relatively harmless, organic plant illegal.

Freedom is a two-way street. It doesn't stop at Paul Revere's Calvanist ideologues.

[Ridge]

Seriously...if:


you believe abortion is OK or a conservative shouldn't talk about it, you might not be a conservative
you think same sex marriage is OK, you might not be a conservative
you think more government control is the answer to ANY problem, you might not be a conservative including the two above?


You're right, I'm not. I believe in a person's right to decide for themselves what to do with their lives and their body.

[Bailey Guns]

Well, that's the term that gets thrown around. And no one said conservatives can't tolerate other opinions...it's not like conservatives go around and crucify gays or blacks or whatever. There's a big difference between believing something is morally wrong and telling someone they can't do that something. In my opinion conservatives are the truly tolerant where those who tend to lean left are just the opposite...my way or the highway types. And I also don't think it's wrong, for example, for a conservative to say (just for example), "Marriage is between a man and a woman. If two men or women want to live together, fine. They can have the same privileges as everyone else but they don't get married." I see no reason to weaken a tradition that's been in place for thousands of years just for the sake of change.

[Ridge]

Well, that's the term that gets thrown around. And no one said conservatives can't tolerate other opinions...it's not like conservatives go around and crucify gays or blacks or whatever. There's a big difference between believing something is morally wrong and telling someone they can't do that something. In my opinion conservatives are the truly tolerant where those who tend to lean left are just the opposite...my way or the highway types. And I also don't think it's wrong, for example, for a conservative to say (just for example), "Marriage is between a man and a woman. If two men or women want to live together, fine. They can have the same privileges as everyone else but they don't get married." I see no reason to weaken a tradition that's been in place for thousands of years just for the sake of change.

The tradition is plenty weakened by centuries of divorce. The problem might be in your marriage if it's so fragile as to not survive a different person's marriage desire.

[Bailey Guns]

The tradition is plenty weakened by centuries of divorce. The problem might be in your marriage if it's so fragile as to not survive a different person's marriage desire.

I don't think there has been a problem with divorce for centuries. I think that's more of a modern thing. It's a problem, I'll agree. As far as the second part of your statement, I'd say it was nonsense but I have no idea what it means.

[Bailey Guns]

Look, there's nothing wrong with not wanting to call yourself conservative. No one said that. The point is, many people throw that term around here on the forum with all these ideas that run counter to true conservative beliefs so I question if some people understand what it means. If you want to be a liberal or libertarian, fine. That's why I said "might" in the list.

[Aloha_Shooter]

And no one said conservatives can't tolerate other opinions...

To be completely accurate, Democrats say this all the time. Democrats have painted the GOP as a party of intolerance since at least the Reagan Administration (ironic given how Democrats were the mainstay of the KKK and how critical the GOP was for passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965). Democrats have advocated for people to lose their jobs, be thrown out of college, even tossed in jail for opposing or merely not accepting the Democrat party line but it's always conservatives who are painted as intolerant.

[cofi]

I don't think there has been a problem with divorce for centuries. I think that's more of a modern thing. It's a problem, I'll agree. As far as the second part of your statement, I'd say it was nonsense but I have no idea what it means.
Well it's because the laws were changed in the last 100 years or so to allow women to have a say in a divorce

i think we need to get hard core conservative bring back the rule of thumb the inquisition etc

[ZERO THEORY]

I see no reason to weaken a tradition that's been in place for thousands of years just for the sake of change.

There's been long-standing traditions of gay marriage, too. So what makes hetero marriage any more sanctimonious?

I'd also point out that the traditions of slavery, religious genocide, and human sacrifices have been in place for thousands of years. Why weaken them just for the sake of change?


The tradition is plenty weakened by centuries of divorce. The problem might be in your marriage if it's so fragile as to not survive a different person's marriage desire.

Bingo. Two gays getting married in no way, shape, or form does away with the legitimacy of hetero marriage. Nor does it degrade its value.

[Ridge]

Well it's because the laws were changed in the last 100 years or so to allow women to have a say in a divorce

i think we need to get hard core conservative bring back the rule of thumb the inquisition etc

Look at that. Ya cant do very much damage with that, can ya? Maybe it should've been rule of wrist?

[Bailey Guns]

There's been long-standing traditions of gay marriage, too. So what makes hetero marriage any more sanctimonious?

I don't think so. There may be long-standing traditions of homosexuality but not marriage. And certainly not in our society.


I'd also point out that the traditions of slavery, religious genocide, and human sacrifices have been in place for thousands of years. Why weaken them just for the sake of change?

Really? You want to try to argue traditional marriage relates to traditions of slavery and genocide? You go with that.


Bingo. Two gays getting married in no way, shape, or form does away with the legitimacy of hetero marriage. Nor does it degrade its value.

Maybe not on an individual level. I think it harms society as a whole in the long run.

But this isn't about gay marriage. It's about what constitutes conservative values and beliefs and that was just an example.

[Bailey Guns]

I have to say that's one thing I admire about liberals. They know what they believe in and they stick to it, facts be damned. On almost every issue important to the liberal agenda they unite. Getting rid of guns will save lives. We know it's total nonsense but they repeat that constantly and pretty soon otherwise rational people start believing it. You don't see the liberal agenda changing because it's not popular with some people like you do with conservatives, specifically republicans.

Republicans will give up on social issues they feel strongly about in a heartbeat because that belief isn't popular with some people, even though it is with their base. Same with illegal immigration. Republicans are always wanting to compromise, and compromise their values to win support from the other side just so the other side can stab a knife in their back. It's maddening because I'm a firm believer in the republican party platform...it would be refreshing to find republican politicians who would stick to the core principles without compromising.

[Ridge]

I don't think so. There may be long-standing traditions of homosexuality but not marriage. And certainly not in our society.

In who's society? And if we don't choose to advance society and only maintain the social norms of the past, we end up like this. (http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/pakistan-family-slits-throats-of-young-couple-over-love-marriage-1.2690694)


Really? You want to try to argue traditional marriage relates to traditions of slavery and genocide? You go with that.

Traditions is traditions. You can't pick and choose.


Maybe not on an individual level. I think it harms society as a whole in the long run.

Wouldn't gay marriage resolve itself in rather short time, due to the necessary organs required to create life?


But this isn't about gay marriage. It's about what constitutes conservative values and beliefs and that was just an example.

Which seem to flip flop depending on the argument.

[Ridge]

Republicans will give up on social issues they feel strongly about in a heartbeat because that belief isn't popular with some people, even though it is with their base.

Like gay marriage and abortion?

[Bailey Guns]

Like gay marriage and abortion?

Yes.

[Aloha_Shooter]

There's been long-standing traditions of gay marriage, too.

Citation please. There have been long standing traditions of polygamous marriage in cultures ranging from the Egyptians to Chinese to Polynesians to Jews and various tribes throughout Africa. I am unaware of a single culture with long-standing traditions of gay marriage but I'm not an anthropologist so perhaps in South America or Eastern Africa? I know the Hawaiians tolerated mahus but I don't recall anything about acknowledging mahu marriage.

BTW, as far as the claims of a tradition of divorce go, Freakonomics said the divorce rate climb that started in the 50s and 60s started dropping in the 80s and is now at or below historic norms. Divorce was so UNtraditional that Henry VIII's fears for royal succession precipitated a schism in the Roman Catholic Church and gave birth to the Church of England so he could get an annulment (not divorce) and marry a more fertile (he hoped) woman.

I apologize in advance to all the liberals or edgy self-styled libertarians for bringing actual facts and history into the discussion.

[Ridge]

The Greeks! They were famously gay!

[HBARleatherneck]

i didnt watch the video. I am pretty conservative. but. Reagan was no friend of mine. he brought us illegals and amnesty. which has put us where we are today. he was also the president when we had the last major gun US wide gun control. so fuck reagan as some kind of conservative. he was a piece of shit politician just like the rest. except he gave us the entertaining bonzo movies.


oh and i know some of you will say reagan said that he regretted amnesty later. too fucking bad. lost of murders regretted commiting murder after the fact.

[Clint45]

I have to say that's one thing I admire about liberals. They know what they believe in and they stick to it, facts be damned. On almost every issue important to the liberal agenda they unite. Getting rid of guns will save lives. We know it's total nonsense but they repeat that constantly and pretty soon otherwise rational people start believing it.

It might surprise you to learn that many liberals are pro-gun, and some are anti-immigration as well. Conversely, a lot of guys you might assume are republican voters are opposed to church based legislation opposing reproductive rights and gay rights.

But pro gun liberals and pro choice republicans are often shouted down and denounced by others on their side of the political fence. Left and Right are more divided now than any other time in history, and the majority of these people seem to agree with every point on their party's platform and look at those who disagree as "enemies." It is a hard time to identify as a moderate . . . both sides will hate you for it. I'm so pissed off about this I'd propose that two states secede from the union, so anyone who wants to live in a country where every other citizen has exactly the same political beliefs can move to one of those places and stop trying to force their ideologies on others.

[tmleadr03]

Look at that. Ya cant do very much damage with that, can ya? Maybe it should've been rule of wrist?

I read that in my head with an Irish accent.

To OP I am not a conservative by your definition.

[tmleadr03]

The Greeks! They were fabulously gay!

Fixt.

[Sharpienads]

I don't understand why some people who say "less government" want the government to pass laws telling people what they can do. Until the gay movement adopts a freedom mindset, I will not support gay marriage. I will never support elective abortion and just don't understand how people have no problem with it.

I get tired of these two specific topics being used as the benchmark for whether or not you support civil rights, human rights, freedom, whatever. If being able to kill your unborn child and successfully getting your government to give you the right to marry who you want to are your definitions of freedom, I feel sorry for you.

As for the OP's list, I think I've seen everyone of those items advocated for on this forum, except for the race entitlement.

[Bailey Guns]

Well, that's a lot better than I said it.

The whole "government giving you rights" thing pretty much sums it up.

[Great-Kazoo]

It might surprise you to learn that many liberals are pro-gun, and some are anti-immigration as well. Conversely, a lot of guys you might assume are republican voters are opposed to church based legislation opposing reproductive rights and gay rights.

But pro gun liberals and pro choice republicans are often shouted down and denounced by others on their side of the political fence. Left and Right are more divided now than any other time in history, and the majority of these people seem to agree with every point on their party's platform and look at those who disagree as "enemies." It is a hard time to identify as a moderate . . . both sides will hate you for it. I'm so pissed off about this I'd propose that two states secede from the union, so anyone who wants to live in a country where every other citizen has exactly the same political beliefs can move to one of those places and stop trying to force their ideologies on others.

Unfortunately PRO-GUN LIBERALS vote lock step for ANTI-GUN LIBERALS. Justifying a liberal stance because one owns a gun, doesn't change the voting record of liberals.

[Bailey Guns]

Yeah...there's no such thing as a "pro gun" liberal. If someone is voting for liberals or democrats, they aren't pro gun. At all. They may own guns, they may like guns...but they aren't pro gun in the political and/or constitutional sense and they aren't my friend if that's how they vote.

Anyone who votes for liberals/democrats is supporting a political party that wants to "fundamentally change America", works against almost everything I believe in and works for almost everything I don't believe in...and I am against that 100%.

[roberth]

He could be talking directly to many members here. Those people who believe conservatives should change or modify the very beliefs that make them conservative.

Seriously...if:


you think same sex marriage is OK, you might not be a conservative




I'm OK with homosexuality, the bible is wrong on it.

Why is the bible wrong? Because the bible was written by men and these men wrote their own prejudices/bigotry into the bible.

The vast majority of people are heterosexual, homosexuality is a more rare natural occurrence in humans, true red hair is rare too. Do you think that if God cared about homosexuality he would have allowed the homosexual dna strand to survive His creation? Life is a series of challenges to overcome. Did God create the homosexual dna strand because it was a sexual proclivity that the homosexual had to resist...maybe, maybe not.

[asmo]

It's called conservatism for a reason.

Yes, because it was originally meant to allude to FISCAL conservatism. All the other emotional and religious baggage just happened to carry on with it. Now people seem to glom on to the concept that is all about the religious issues and who the fuck cares about the fiscal side.

If you are going to tell others what they can or cannot do - based on some belief you have - then you need to be a Democrat, thats it. The Republican party needs to get back to is FISCAL conservative roots and drop all the other crap. Thats what many of us who keep saying "Let the gay marriage/abortion/slave ownership/stone people to death" crap go --- its so we can get back to what matters.

[roberth]

I don't understand why some people who say "less government" want the government to pass laws telling people what they can do. Until the gay movement adopts a freedom mindset, I will not support gay marriage. I will never support elective abortion and just don't understand how people have no problem with it.

I get tired of these two specific topics being used as the benchmark for whether or not you support civil rights, human rights, freedom, whatever. If being able to kill your unborn child and successfully getting your government to give you the right to marry who you want to are your definitions of freedom, I feel sorry for you.

As for the OP's list, I think I've seen everyone of those items advocated for on this forum, except for the race entitlement.

Very good, I like this alot.


Yeah...there's no such thing as a "pro gun" liberal. If someone is voting for liberals or democrats, they aren't pro gun. At all. They may own guns, they may like guns...but they aren't pro gun in the political and/or constitutional sense and they aren't my friend if that's how they vote.

Anyone who votes for liberals/democrats is supporting a political party that wants to "fundamentally change America", works against almost everything I believe in and works for almost everything I don't believe in...and I am against that 100%.

Agree 100%. A pro-gun liberal is his own enemy.

[DireWolf]

Anyone who votes for liberals/democrats is supporting a political party that wants to "fundamentally change America", works against almost everything I believe in and works for almost everything I don't believe in...and I am against that 100%.


This completely sums up how I feel, and I couldn't have stated it better (at least not nearly as politely, and without calling into question anyone's motives or sanity)...

[ZERO THEORY]

If being able to kill your unborn child and successfully getting your government to give you the right to marry who you want to are your definitions of freedom, I feel sorry for you.


http://www.miscupload.com/upload1/80040604194950450253820.gif


I laughed, I cried, I stared in disbelief. This thread is just...yeah.

[Bailey Guns]

Fiscal conservatism is included in the republican platform. It's not the idea, it's the way people implement it or don't implement. And it shouldn't be too hard to figure out I'm talking about the contemporary definition of conservatism. It's about a lot more than just fiscal policy.

And I don't have a problem with gays, either. I don't necessarily condone it, but I don't demonize it, either. I don't think being gay makes anyone special.

[Great-Kazoo]

Agree 100%. A pro-gun liberal is his own enemy.

A pro gun liberal is OUR worst enemy. How can you say you support Common Sense, then vote a progressive agenda.

Here's the LIBERAL / PROGRESSIVE AGENDA. It's not an influx of ILLEGALS , but an OPPORTUNITY. Might as well fuk me dry now.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/06/29/pelosi-calls-surge-illegal-immigrant-children-opportunity/

"This crisis that some call a crisis, we have to view as an opportunity," Pelosi said. "If you believe as we do that every child, every person has a spark of divinity in them, and is therefore worthy of respect -- what we saw in those rooms was [a] dazzling, sparkling, array of God's children, worthy of respect."


Fucking Please this ovarian septic system invokes GOD AND DIVINITY in the same sentence. So sad 50% of voters are right there with her. Awaiting the OPPORTUNITY to EMBRACE another ILLEGAL entry to OUR COUNTRY. One more reason to Vote Bob Beauprex in November.

[buffalobo]

i didnt watch the video. I am pretty conservative. but. Reagan was no friend of mine. he brought us illegals and amnesty. which has put us where we are today. he was also the president when we had the last major gun US wide gun control. so fuck reagan as some kind of conservative. he was a piece of shit politician just like the rest. except he gave us the entertaining bonzo movies.


oh and i know some of you will say reagan said that he regretted amnesty later. too fucking bad. lost of murders regretted commiting murder after the fact.


Yes, because it was originally meant to allude to FISCAL conservatism. All the other emotional and religious baggage just happened to carry on with it. Now people seem to glom on to the concept that is all about the religious issues and who the fuck cares about the fiscal side.

If you are going to tell others what they can or cannot do - based on some belief you have - then you need to be a Democrat, thats it. The Republican party needs to get back to is FISCAL conservative roots and drop all the other crap. Thats what many of us who keep saying "Let the gay marriage/abortion/slave ownership/stone people to death" crap go --- its so we can get back to what matters.

+1, thanks for saving me some typing.

[Aloha_Shooter]

Yes, because it was originally meant to allude to FISCAL conservatism. All the other emotional and religious baggage just happened to carry on with it. Now people seem to glom on to the concept that is all about the religious issues and who the fuck cares about the fiscal side.

Mmmm ... no. There are all kinds of conservatives and always have been. Social conservatives have just as much right to the title "conservative" as fiscal conservatives -- and the odd thing is that the positions being advocated by either are really moderate if you look at the big picture but we've allowed the Democrats to shift the frame of reference so what was merely liberal is now "moderate" while radical ideas are just "liberal" or "progressive" and true moderates are now "extreme conservatives."

Those of you who seem to insist "true" conservatives have some exact set of beliefs or who denigrate others as "RINOs" are just as much of a problem as the stupid Obamabots. Reagan pushed for the Big Tent because he realized the only way to win was to unite people who agreed with each other 70-90% of the time rather than let them focus on the 10-30% disagreements.

[spyder]

I am a Libertarian. Screw Romney also, most people don't even know he passed firearm ban legislature in his home state... I usually side with Bill on things, but Romney? Nope. That last election was about voting for the lesser evil, sadly, we got the greater evil, but still.. As far as the rest of the video, it was great!

[jhood001]

I'm a big fan of Bill Whittle. I find it humorous that you used a video of him in your post, BG, and still said things like:

Seriously...if:



you believe abortion is OK or a conservative shouldn't talk about it, you might not be a conservative
you think same sex marriage is OK, you might not be a conservative


He has an uncanny ability to hit the nail on the head and he does so in the following video by saying "you don't have a right not to be offended in this country". I think 'real' conservatives and the party they follow would be a lot more successful if they followed this view as much as they want their liberal and progressive counterparts to.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VAbzWiYPv6k

Bill Whittle believes that government should have nothing to do with any kind of marriage. And he is "personally opposed prochoice". Conservative does not equal evangelical and evangelical does not equal conservative although you can be both in this country and I have a sincere admiration for people that are. I just believe that the 'conservatives' you're talking about should start calling themselves the 'how it used to be'rs' at least in regards to their politics. It would be more honest... And it would put up a nice warning flag for younger 'conservatives' so that they can avoid being slowly cowed into someone else's dogma that originated in a point in time before theirs... and that will also ultimately end before their time is up.

I do agree that conservatives absolutely shouldn't change or modify their beliefs that they believe make them conservative. They just shouldn't try to turn those beliefs into legislation. Same goes for the the people on the left.

Bill Whittle for president. Amen.

[jhood001]

Those of you who seem to insist "true" conservatives have some exact set of beliefs or who denigrate others as "RINOs" are just as much of a problem as the stupid Obamabots. Reagan pushed for the Big Tent because he realized the only way to win was to unite people who agreed with each other 70-90% of the time rather than let them focus on the 10-30% disagreements.

I agree with you and your statement is smart, but it kind of blows the whole 'you can't be a pro 2A democrat' argument to shit.

[Bailey Guns]

Yeah, I agree the government shouldn't be in the marriage business, religious business, etc. But that's not the point. The point is, you can believe something like gay marriage is morally wrong and still legislate appropriately. You shouldn't have to apologize for your set of beliefs.

[Ridge]

Yeah...there's no such thing as a "pro gun" liberal.

At least 684 on this message board http://www.reddit.com/r/liberalgunowners/

[Bailey Guns]

Owning a gun and liking guns don't make you pro gun. Not if you support a political machine that's trying it's damnedest to restrict or even eliminate gun ownership in some cases. FFS, Diane Feinstein owns a gun.

[tmleadr03]

He could be talking directly to many members here. Those people who believe conservatives should change or modify the very beliefs that make them conservative.

Seriously...if:


you believe abortion is OK or a conservative shouldn't talk about it, you might not be a conservative Not really any business of mine or the government.
you don't really believe in the free market, you might not be a conservative I agree with free market (way more then every one of you price gougers on this forum) and feel the government is way outside it's reach on the markets.
you think same sex marriage is OK, you might not be a conservative Not really any business of mine or the government.
you think the "rich" don't pay enough in taxes, you might not be a conservative I think the really rich are currently buying the government to make it so they don't pay as much in taxes and make more money. The sudden rise of the "income inequality" has so much more to do with the US becoming a crony capitalistic society.
you think somebody owes you something because of your race, you might not be a conservative Race still effects many people in this country. But only if they want it to in my opinion. That said, I am a white boy. I have experiansed racism, but not anything like someone with a much better tan then I do. Do I think brown people are deserving of anything but true equal treatment? Nope.
you think more government control is the answer to ANY problem, you might not be a conservative And yet, you want the goverment to control peoples ability to chart their own course in life with whom they wish to. BIG GOVERNMENT IS THE PROBLEM FOR EVERYTHING EXCEPT WHAT I AGREE WITH!!!!


Feel free to add to the list. But I'm really getting tired of people thinking the conservative message or philosophy should be changed because "it upsets others" or whatever the reason might be. It's called conservatism for a reason. Many here accuse republican politicians of being "democrat lite" but then approve of the very things that separate republicans/conservatives from democrats/liberals.

And for the record I agree with everything Whittle said about Mitt Romney. I think he would've been the greatest president since Reagan, at least. Not because he was the perfect conservative, but because he was about as close to perfect in terms of character as we've seen in a long time.

Reagen was pretty liberal compared to your list. But on the bright side at least he didn't enact any major gun control bills.

[merl]

Yeah, I agree the government shouldn't be in the marriage business, religious business, etc. But that's not the point. The point is, you can believe something like gay marriage is morally wrong and still legislate appropriately. You shouldn't have to apologize for your set of beliefs.

The thing is we all know where that "morally wrong" is coming from. It is a way of saying "My religion forbids it. I follow with that religion so ban it."

I would like to hear one reason for banning same sex marriage that does not have it's root in "my religion says no."

[Bailey Guns]

If you haven't heard an objection other than a religious objection you haven't been listening or you're just uninformed. My guess is you've heard plenty of people give reasons other than religious, you just reject them as invalid.

I'm not a real religious person. I don't agree with same sex marriage for other than religious reasons. Specifically, legalizing same sex marriage forces the state to legitimize it...the state must promote it, teach it and punish those who reject it (for whatever reason). It will force people to accept something they may not be willing to accept for any number of reasons, some of which might be based on religious preferences. But so what. People of faith have a right to practice their faith and believe what it teaches. You don't get to be the one who says rejecting same sex marriage for religious reasons is wrong.

Like it's already been pointed out...government doesn't belong in the marriage business...same sex or otherwise. Marriage has also ALWAYS, until recently by the progressive movement, been defined as the union between a man and woman. I don't see the need to change that just to please an extremely small minority of people who happen to go against societal norms.

[hghclsswhitetrsh]

By the definitions of this thread and bill whittle I am not a conservative. I will not try to defend or convince you one way or another because that's not my place. I do want to ask a question and I'm not trying to start an argument, I just want to know your opinion.

First and foremost I must say I am personally against abortion for my family but not my place to tell others how to live their lives. The consensus amongst "real conservatives" is they are protecting the innocent, those that cannot speak for themselves etc. And that's the non religious reasoning. So my question is, would you be ok with punishing and restricting parents and or guardians from smoking cigarettes in their home and cars that have children? After all we want to protect the innocent. How about punishing a parent who has an obese child? How about implementing a program that stops all cellphone activities above 15 mph to limit texting and driving, and other distracted driving. To protect the innocent and those that cannot speak for themselves.

The common answer from "real conservatives" is ah no that's a slippery slope, they're gonna take our guns and rights away on that thought process. Be careful what you wish for.

[asmo]

Slave ownership has also ALWAYS, until recently by the progressive movement, been defined as the purchase of a man by another man. I don't see the need to change that just to please an extremely small minority of people who happen to go against societal norms.

Because times changes -- and freedom means freedom for EVERYONE.

[Bailey Guns]

I don't buy the analogy of slavery to same sex marriage. You'll have to do better.

Let's make something clear. I don't want to punish someone for believing same sex marriage, or abortion, or any other non-illegal activity (like smoking in front of your kids) is OK. I don't approve of same sex marriage or abortion under most circumstances. But I don't think someone who does approve of those things is a criminal that needs to be punished. I'm not a smoker and I can't stand to be around cigarette smoke but I believe the smoking bans are wrong. But I also don't believe in your false dilemma that those are the only two options for things which one believes are wrong (accept it or punish it).

[Rucker61]

Bill Whittle believes that government should have nothing to do with any kind of marriage. And he is "personally opposed prochoice".



These describe me positions on both issues.

[Rucker61]

I Marriage has also ALWAYS, until recently by the progressive movement, been defined as the union between a man and woman.

Actually, that turns out not to be the case. Polygynous marriage ( one man, multiple wives) was very common during the biblical era, practiced by many of the old testament figures, and sanctioned by god. The Roman Emporor issued a decree in 342 AD making same-sex marriages illegal, so evidently they were practiced enough up to that point to require a law from a Christian emperor to stop the practice.

[davsel]

My religious beliefs outweigh, and therefore strongly influence, my political choices.
My religious beliefs are not to be forced upon anyone. Unlike "Islam" (not a religion).
However, I will openly express my beliefs and openly share their origins with others.

God gave man free will. Man should do the same.

Government is a "necessary evil" that must be kept in check.
Personally, I believe that as with every government in the history of man, we have lost all control of ours.
I believe my time is better spent preparing for the catastrophic collapse than to concern myself with which political party should be pushing the throttle as we go over the cliff.

[Irving]

Does freedom of religion give people the freedom to not be religious, and therefore not be restricted by other's religion? Similar to how I am free to choose a religion that does not have restrictions on my dietary choices; is my right to choose to not be religious so as to not restrict my marriage choices given the same weight?

[davsel]

Does freedom of religion give people the freedom to not be religious, and therefore not be restricted by other's religion? Similar to how I am free to choose a religion that does not have restrictions on my dietary choices; is my right to choose to not be religious so as to not restrict my marriage choices given the same weight?

I believe it does.
I am with Whittle, in that I believe government should not be in the marriage business.

As far as "gay marriage," if a man enjoys poking his penis in the feces laden rectum of another man and wants to call it "sex," then it is no wonder that two men living together as husband and wife would want to call it "marriage."
Still doesn't make it so.

[Dave_L]

Being liberal is trendy and cool. Being conservative is "out-dated and barbaric".

That's the road we're on.

[ZERO THEORY]

I don't buy the analogy of slavery to same sex marriage. You'll have to do better.


Why not? They are two paradigms with deep roots in western society. Both offend some people, both are staples in some people's lives, and both are issues that some people are willing to die for.

[Great-Kazoo]

My religious beliefs outweigh, and therefore strongly influence, my political choices.
My religious beliefs are not to be forced upon anyone. Unlike "Islam" (not a religion).
However, I will openly express my beliefs and openly share their origins with others.

God gave man free will. Man should do the same.

Government is a "necessary evil" that must be kept in check.
Personally, I believe that as with every government in the history of man, we have lost all control of ours.
I believe my time is better spent preparing for the catastrophic collapse than to concern myself with which political party should be pushing the throttle as we go over the cliff.


Does freedom of religion give people the freedom to not be religious, and therefore not be restricted by other's religion? Similar to how I am free to choose a religion that does not have restrictions on my dietary choices; is my right to choose to not be religious so as to not restrict my marriage choices given the same weight?


I believe it does.
I am with Whittle, in that I believe government should not be in the marriage business.

As far as "gay marriage," if a man enjoys poking his penis in the feces laden rectum of another man and wants to call it "sex," then it is no wonder that two men living together as husband and wife would want to call it "marriage."
Still doesn't make it so.


Very interesting discussion.

We're spiritual , not religious. Or ones who are not practicing an "organized" religion

[MED]

Being conservative is about holding traditional attitudes and values. Although the real problem with this term is that it is not a political philosophy, but it is often treated as such. I am a Jeffersonian and I truly believe in the writings of John Locke and Thomas Hobbes as did those who built this country. I firmly believe there should be defined limits to government and the individual liberty of the people is the most important issue when governing. So much of what “conservative” means relates to social values. I think it is difficult for people who are “conservative” to adjust when the social norms of society change. I am a social conservative in my beliefs, but I also recognize that those beliefs are only protected when the law is applied equally to all people. Therefore, I will not always agree with others, but I will recognize their right to own their own beliefs and be treated justly under the law. I think this is often forgotten by “conservative” people when they get involved in politics.

The real problem happens when certain people and/or groups go after others who are not “conservative”. Guess what, we may not all share the same beliefs, but we can rally behind our hatred of socialism, because under socialist oppression we are not allowed to own our beliefs or retain our rights as an individual. It sounds as though two issues keep coming up time and time again. Gay marriage and coming out of the closet is part of pop culture and applying the law equally makes sense so I have no issue with a legal marriage.. I do draw a line when it comes to the church. I have no doubt that the gay and lesbian community will attack the church in a way similar to the bakery that was mentioned here recently. Freedom of religion and association is a protected right, but I doubt that will hold true going forward. People waste so much time bickering about abortion; this issue was decided by the Supreme Court. Any change will require a constitutional amendment, and electing politicians based on their beliefs makes no sense on this particular issue. Personally, I feel as though it is barbaric and nobody has the right to a choice that kills another; given all the ways to prevent pregnancy, I believe the choice was already made and killing another person to escape the responsibility of that choice is horrible; but since this is legal, people will have to deal with the consequences of that choice…end of story. Right now I am more concerned about a government that is morphing into a monster that will destroy our liberty. Our fight should be the growing movement toward socialism not the constant bickering among each other about the differences in our beliefs, because I think that everybody on this board can rally behind this fight.

[Irving]

Quick question, does anyone here equate ending an ectopic pregnancy with abortion?

[Bailey Guns]

Sure, it's abortion. But I'd say in that case it's a necessary medical procedure intended to save the mother's life only...not arbitrarily end the life of the baby. It's highly unlikely the baby would survive anyway.

[MED]

Quick question, does anyone here equate ending an ectopic pregnancy with abortion? I don't; something has to be done or both will be lost.

[Irving]

I don't; something has to be done or both will be lost.
We're currently finding that out first hand. That's a thread for another time though.

[MED]

Does freedom of religion give people the freedom to not be religious, and therefore not be restricted by other's religion? Similar to how I am free to choose a religion that does not have restrictions on my dietary choices; is my right to choose to not be religious so as to not restrict my marriage choices given the same weight?

Freedom of religion is freedom of religion. I think this can be answered from a different perspective. When the Bill of Rights was adopted, it meant freedom to choose your denomination of the Christian faith based on the social norms of the day as well as no official state church like the church of England. As social norms changed, it was expanded to mean all religions or no religion. However, this had to be the case, because the forcing of faith is not liberty nor is it faith for that matter. This is difficult for social conservatives because there is a true belief with regard to consequences for the path of the country in terms of favor with God. It is difficult to accept legalizing same sex marriage but it should clearly be allowed as long as those of faith are not forced to accept it. For those of us like me, I understand that if my government suppresses the beliefs of others, then mine will also be suppressed if I am in the minority. This is why clear boundaries should be set in any social contract.

[merl]

If you haven't heard an objection other than a religious objection you haven't been listening or you're just uninformed. My guess is you've heard plenty of people give reasons other than religious, you just reject them as invalid.

I'm not a real religious person. I don't agree with same sex marriage for other than religious reasons. Specifically, legalizing same sex marriage forces the state to legitimize it...the state must promote it, teach it and punish those who reject it (for whatever reason). It will force people to accept something they may not be willing to accept for any number of reasons, some of which might be based on religious preferences. But so what. People of faith have a right to practice their faith and believe what it teaches. You don't get to be the one who says rejecting same sex marriage for religious reasons is wrong.

Like it's already been pointed out...government doesn't belong in the marriage business...same sex or otherwise. Marriage has also ALWAYS, until recently by the progressive movement, been defined as the union between a man and woman. I don't see the need to change that just to please an extremely small minority of people who happen to go against societal norms.

So you have a objection other than religious means and then immediately jump into religion opposing it. Just a meta religious objection because it would force the religious to accept it (which it does not).

Legalizing same sex marriage does force the state to legitimize it, that's the very definition. The state has to honor that legal document that allows communal property, automatic custody of children, automatic caregiver status, etc. The state has to enforce in the narrow cases where that legal document applies. The state does not get to force a bakery to serve someone against their religious objections (and the USSC just reminded people of that today). That is a far cry from promoting and teaching.

Rejecting something personally on religious grounds is not the same thing as writing a law or ban on religious grounds. I do get to point out that difference.

The government is in the business of enforcing contracts freely entered by consenting adults. That is what puts them in the marriage business.

[davsel]

The government is in the business of enforcing contracts freely entered by consenting adults. That is what puts them in the marriage business.

What part of the constitution gives government this authority?

[Irving]

What part of the constitution gives government this authority?
The wording of the contract likely plays a part in giving that authority. No point in entering a contract without an authority to enforce the contract obligations.

[Bailey Guns]

So you have a objection other than religious means and then immediately jump into religion opposing it. Just a meta religious objection because it would force the religious to accept it (which it does not).

Legalizing same sex marriage does force the state to legitimize it, that's the very definition. The state has to honor that legal document that allows communal property, automatic custody of children, automatic caregiver status, etc. The state has to enforce in the narrow cases where that legal document applies. The state does not get to force a bakery to serve someone against their religious objections (and the USSC just reminded people of that today). That is a far cry from promoting and teaching.

Rejecting something personally on religious grounds is not the same thing as writing a law or ban on religious grounds. I do get to point out that difference.

The government is in the business of enforcing contracts freely entered by consenting adults. That is what puts them in the marriage business.

I gave you a perfectly good reason for rejecting it based on non-religious grounds. The religious objections I mentioned are in addition to the reason I gave you. Read it again.

[Rucker61]

I gave you a perfectly good reason for rejecting it based on non-religious grounds. The religious objections I mentioned are in addition to the reason I gave you. Read it again.

I'm not a real religious person. I don't agree with inter-racial marriage for other than religious reasons. Specifically, legalizing inter-racial marriage forces the state to legitimize it...the state must promote it, teach it and punish those who reject it (for whatever reason). It will force people to accept something they may not be willing to accept for any number of reasons, some of which might be based on religious preferences. But so what. People of faith have a right to practice their faith and believe what it teaches. You don't get to be the one who says rejecting inter-racial marriage for religious reasons is wrong.

[Bailey Guns]

The state does not get to force a bakery to serve someone against their religious objections (and the USSC just reminded people of that today). That is a far cry from promoting and teaching.

Rejecting something personally on religious grounds is not the same thing as writing a law or ban on religious grounds. I do get to point out that difference.

Well, you're wrong on that. The SCOTUS found in favor of Hobby Lobby in their fight over providing contraceptives through health insurance plans:


The Supreme Court ruled Monday that certain "closely held" for-profit businesses can cite religious objections in order to opt out of a requirement in ObamaCare to provide free contraceptive coverage for their employees.

The courts in Colorado told the bakery owner that he not only had to provide a cake to a gay couple despite his religious beliefs, but he has to undergo "sensitivity training" and provide periodic reports on his progress:


A family owned bakery has been ordered to make wedding cakes for gay couples and guarantee that its staff be given comprehensive training on Colorado’s anti-discrimination laws after the state’s Civil Rights Commission determined (http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_25865871/civil-rights-commission-says-lakewood-baker-discriminated-against)the Christian baker violated the law by refusing to bake a wedding cake for a same-sex couple.


Jack Phillips, the owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop, in Lakewood, Colorado was directed to change his store policies immediately and force his staff to attend the training sessions. For the next two years, Phillips will also be required to submit quarterly reports to the commission to confirm that he has not turned away customers based on their sexual orientation.


This is nothing more than legislating from the bench and I'll never agree with it. I do get to point out that difference.

[MED]

What part of the constitution gives government this authority?

Doesn't involve the feds or the constitution. The authority is granted (county in Colorado) when a marriage license is pulled, entered, and witnessed by two people. It becomes a legal binding contract subject to the courts when it is breached.

[davsel]

The wording of the contract likely plays a part in giving that authority. No point in entering a contract without an authority to enforce the contract obligations.

Fair enough.

Marriage, as originally designed by God, is a covenant between husband and wife before God.
The state stepped in along the way and felt the need to make it a legal contract.
These are two vastly different designs.

[MED]

The courts in Colorado told the bakery owner that he not only had to provide a cake to a gay couple despite his religious beliefs, but he has to undergo "sensitivity training" and provide periodic reports on his progress:

This is nothing more than legislating from the bench and I'll never agree with it. I do get to point out that difference.

I have real problem with this court decision, and I believe it is truly a violation of Jack Phillip's first amendment rights. This wasn't about rights for the couple; it was about attacking somebody with different beliefs. The couple could have easily got their wedding cake from somebody who didn't have a religious objection to same sex marriage, and the owner was willing to serve them on anything but what he considered in violation of his religious beliefs. The ordering of sensitivity training on a religious issue is nothing more then an example of government totalitarianism.

[Irving]

I don't understand the bakery decision in that I don't understand how the baker's religious decisions would not be equal to the couple's non-religious decision, except that the Baker was the one offering the product, on whose property the interaction took place, and whom stands to lose financially by not accepting the order.

[davsel]

I'll bet the Jack Philip's decision gets overturned based on the spirit of today's SCOTUS decision (not exactly the same argument, but close in spirit).
After reading the decision and looking up the "Religious Freedom Res (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-103hr1308eas/pdf/BILLS-103hr1308eas.pdf)toration Act of 1993 (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-103hr1308eas/pdf/BILLS-103hr1308eas.pdf)’’, I have trouble reconciling these two clauses:


US Constitution, Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the
free exercise thereof...




Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993

SEC. 3. FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION PROTECTED.

(a) IN GENERAL.—Government shall not substantially
burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden re-
sults from a rule of general applicability, except as provided
in subsection (b).

(b) EXCEPTION.—Government may substantially bur-
den a person’s exercise of religion only if it demonstrates
that application of the burden to the person—

(1) is in furtherance of a compelling govern-
mental interest; and

(2) is the least restrictive means of furthering
that compelling governmental interest.

[Bailey Guns]

Today's Hobby Lobby decision will certainly have to be looked at if the baker wants to appeal the decision. But, the damage has been done now.