My argument is that extending marriage opportunities to same sex couples is pro-marriage and based on conservative values.

lexhamfox on December 13, 2012 at 10:59 PM

No it is not.

entagor on December 13, 2012 at 10:24 PM

We don’t have a biblical legal system or form of government. I can understand if a Christian sect decides not to recognize same sex marriage. That is their right. Various Christian and other religious sects are regularly obliged to subsidize public expenditure and policies they deem to be sinful and have their children taught things they don’t believe in school. Washington threw out the officer because he violated the military law of the Continental Army. Under current military rules that could still be the result today even if he was having anal sex with his wife. Religious folk of just about every kind have to deal with educators teaching things contrary to their faith.

My argument was not that Christians need to support this. My argument is that extending marriage opportunities to same sex couples is pro-marriage and based on conservative values.

No one?

astonerii on December 13, 2012 at 9:56 PM

Yes…President Obama of the “No One” party won 2012, among other things.

Good grief.

There is nothing conservative or pro-marriage about denying same sex couples the right to make that same promise and covenant.

lexhamfox on December 13, 2012 at 8:22 PM

There is one : The Holy Bible.

The problem comes not because gays want to make promises to each other, or covenants. The problem arises because they want the State to sanction such promises, and to legally equate them to marriage

The author uses this example:

In his letter to the Jews of Newport, R.I., George Washington reassured those people who had fled religious tyranny in Europe that life in our new nation would be different. That religious tolerance and liberty were inseparable. That our government would not interfere with individuals in matters of conscience and belief.

Geo Washington removed from the service a male officer engaging in sodomist behavior.

Christians understand and generally tolerate sinners, as long as they are not required to approve or subsidize the sin, or have their children taught the sin is good. When teacher shows a picture of teacher’s ‘spouse’ and tells the kids one day you too will decide if you want to marry a male, or a female, the parents have been usurped.

Schools in gay marriage states are beginning to require books normalizing same sex marriages for little kids like Heather has Two Mommies. This is intolerable, because it sanctions sin.

Christians should speak against it. Won’t win over those who support the behavior, but those people will have a big problem with the Bible anyway. No way around what the Bible says

lexhamfox on December 13, 2012 at 10:04 PM

How much of a moron are you?
Government does not discriminate? Are you freaking serious?

Making a single person pay higher taxes than a married person is discrimination.
Making a couple with no children is discrimination.
Making a person pay a higher tax bracket due to earning more money in an arbitrary period of time is discrimination.
Putting a murderer and not a Choir Boy in prison or death row is discrimination.
Giving subsidies to ethanol producers is discrimination.
In fact, there pretty much is NOTHING the government does that is NOT discriminatory.

Equal opportunity is the opportunity to marry someone of the opposite sex than yourself. Equal outcome is saying that just because you do not want to marry someone of the appropriate sex, we will go ahead and pay you off if you marry someone of the inappropriate sex as well. See the difference there.

Your argument boils down to: if the government offers a tax deduction for giving to charity for which you get nothing in return other than the good feelings of having helped another human being, then someone who wants to give himself a charitable big screen TV should also get the same tax break.

Your argument boils down to: If the government does not tax religious institutions which are not for profit, that someone who runs a business for profit should also not be taxed.

Your argument boils down to: If the United States of America enters into a treaty with one nation, that another nation who hates America when attacked should also be covered under the same treaty, even though they do not return in favor the same mutual defense agreement the other does.

Effectively, your argument is that nothing means what plain English translation dictates that it means. It is all just what ever each individual demands it be for their benefit.

My argument is that words have meanings, that social constructs which are beneficial should be preserved, and social constructs which are adverse should be purged.

In effect, you argue for a perpetually declining society where as I argue for one in which it is prosperous. My argument stands the test of time, your argument has only been tried in tiny little places for a little over a decade at most, and has shown a destructive ends.

If that is not conservative to you, then I will just start referring you to a dictionary and an encyclopedia.

Me, a person who actually lives conservative.
You, a person who argues progressive.
Who are we to believe knows and understands a conservative argument?

I know, I know! it is the lexhamfox who understands conservative. The one who wants regressive illiberal policies to thrive is the one who we should look to for intelligent conservative arguments.

Meaningless personal stuff again. Progressive, regressive, blah blah blah…

lexhamfox argues that marriage is a mutable thing and that we should mutate it, and that is the conservative argument. MAKE IT CHANGE!

The legal institution of marriage has undergone plenty of change already and it is still something we seek to have even in our modern culture.

Out goes equality of opportunity and in comes equality of outcome. Such an awesome conservative argument from lexhamfox, don’t we all agree?

I am arguing for freedom and equality of opportunity. You are arguing for limits, restrictions, and prohibitions in that respect.

Society does not care what two consenting adults want to do between themselves behind closed doors. What society does care about is what happens out in public and throughout society as a whole. Men can screw women night and day and have no need to stick with just one. Women, as Fluke proves are just as much in the game of screwing around. For that to go on, society does not need any construct.

When the natural outcome of such an encounter happens though, a child, society has reason to want to ensure that child is raised in the best possible conditions so that child will not disrupt or otherwise damage the society as a whole.

Society, specifically priests, of times long past were able to see where the best children on average came from and from whence came the worst of them. In order to promote more well raised children that made the society prosper, they created marriage, and in the eyes of the church and more importantly God, you were bound to one another for LIFE, so that your children would be certain to be raised in the most beneficial home possible.

No where in their views did a fudge packer on fudge packer relationship or a muff diver on muff diver relationship ever come to the point of acceptability, let alone CEREMONY! (now there is an insult for you just in case you missed the deeply subtle style of it). Gay relationships were always considered disgusting as they should be, and are immoral throughout. Allowing them the same standing as Marriage degrades the value of the institution.

And you still fail to make a conservative argument. Colorful but meaningless.

Yes, there is evidence that marriage is good for the economy and good for society. It’s also good for children. That is a reason to promote the legal institution of marriage. What extra meanings, rules, traditions, and ceremonies various religions want to ascribe to it is their business but they and others all still work within the framework of the civil legal institution of marriage. Religions are allowed to discriminate… government and legal institutions should not. As you yourself said, equal opportunity is a conservative value. Extending the opportunity and benefits of marriage to same sex couples is better for society and the economy. That is a conservative argument. It does not degrade heterosexual marriage in any way…. just as my identifying my position as being conservative does not degrade your position. You do that yourself.

and guess who’s winning.

MelonCollie on December 13, 2012 at 9:54 PM

No one?

1. America is becoming less conservative and more progressive.

2. Conservatives must become more progressive or become irrelevant.

?

Axe on December 13, 2012 at 9:48 PM

It’s a tricky balance, and I’m TRYING very hard not to insult the majority of SoCons who do use their heads for something besides hat racks.

What I’m trying to say is, to use an analogy, they’re spinning their wheels with a 50′s tour bus while the liberals are running around with a tank – and guess who’s winning.

First of all, as was pointed out pretty darn directly in another HA article, the older SoCons are simply going to vanish from our culture be either dying or being carted off to fogey farms.

Secondly, the obsessional SoCons (not all of them) are either going to have to face the reality that we are no longer a center-right, practicing Christian nation and change their game plan accordingly, or gradually become irrelevant. You simply can’t keep doing what USED to work decades ago and expect it to always work in a radically changed culture.

MelonCollie on December 13, 2012 at 9:28 PM

I’m not sure what you’re suggesting. Broadening it back out and exaggerating it to show you what it sounds like:

1. America is becoming less conservative and more progressive.

2. Conservatives must become more progressive or become irrelevant.

?

segasagez on December 13, 2012 at 7:53 PM

Your life has no purpose.

You should commit postpartum abortion.