Old School Conservatives v. Bush Conservatives

Boomerang- I am for strict separation of church and state. As such, I am opposed to ALL government sanctioned marriages. Before anyone screams, let me explain.

I have come to the conclusion that the government should not be in the marriage business. What they DO need to provide, to both gay and straight couples, is a civil contract, which enable them to have the rights that are enjoyed by married couples now. Then, if a couple is interested in having their union sanctioned by their church, they could opt to be married by the clergy.

Then, if some churches don't want to marry gay couples, they could decline, as is their right, (although I don't agree with that stand).

If the government would remove themselves from the concept of "marriage" then gay people could become couples with legal rights.

That sounds completely sensible to me, Phoenix!

At one time I posted a bit from my voter's guide about the 100 reasons that gay couples should be allowed to marry -- it was a list of 100 rights afforded to married couples that gays are denied.

My personal opinion, outside of my own experience, is that gay people should allowed to be married.

By the way, the Quaker church has been marrying gay couples for 25 years.

Problem is, that a religious union, without the sanction of the state, is really useless, in terms of benefits that married couples receive.

You are absolutely right again, Phoenix.

I point it out only because so many think that all Christian denominations oppose gay marriage and that is simply not true.

And while it might not confer legal status on the couples, it is still a bit of balm in an otherwise arid place.

I've advocated for exactly what Phoenix laid out for quite a while now.

But beyond that - I don't see why our laws should be based on marriages OR civil unions. Why should a spouse be granted specific legal priv. based soley on their status as a spouse?

I suppose at one point in time there was probably more justification for it but in todays world there isn't any reason why anyone can't have a legal document drawn up (and this could be as simple as filing out a form at the local town office) that specifies who you are covering as far as benefits and such based on your acceptance of responisbility.

If I am paying for a health insurance policy then I should be able to designate who is and who isn't covered under my policy.

If I earn wages then no one else should be able to claim SS benefits based on my wages with the possible exception of minors or disabled adults I designate - whether I am married or related to them or not.

There are a whole host of benefits that are confered on spouses and children automatically under existing laws. IMO, they should all go away.

<adjusting choir robe again>

I am so with you on this, Phoenix and fishin".

I said earlier that I was going to keep my personal stuff out of this if I could but sometimes the opening happens and it is irresitable. I'm going to try to stop though.

But yes, if I say "I'm responsible, I'll pay" I should be allowed to pay and benefit or suffer the consequences.

THAT should be the only criteria -- othewise they should all go away.

Sounds like you're advocating collective bargaining there fishin'

Yes, I do believe that it is appropriate for the government to provide for its most vulnerable citizens..................people who are profoundly disabled, people who are caught in an unforseeable tragedy, like Katrina, or even an individual tragedy, like someone whose house has caught on fire, and the person has lost everything. But except for the severely disabled, who, IMO should be cared for, for life, all these programs should be on a temporary basis, until the person gets back on his feet.

But I think that this business of taking care of "the poor" has gotten out of hand, and has created a society of generations of poor, who live off government programs. In earlier generations, families, private charities, and religious groups cared for people in need...........................and there were far less people in need. The government was not meant to be in the social service business.

Fishin'- I am unclear as to your stand on Bill Gates, and other extremely rich individuals.



I think that the word "either" threw me. I am unsure as to which side of the issue you are on. As for me, I would have preferred to have taken all the money that I had thrown into SS, and invested it privately. But, if the Bill Gates and Oprah Winfreys of the world are obliged to kick into social security, IMO it is only fair that they benefit from it. I don't believe that a person should be obliged to pay into a system, only to be deprived of benefits from it.

Boomer, First let me say I admire your willingness, drive and sacrifice to take a kid under your roof and fight to make him yours. This is an attitude that is sadly lacking in too many circles, including, I'm sad to say, many Christian circles.

However, I don't believe social conservatism is the root of the problem you've described. I suspect this law is based on the perceived precedence that biological parents should have over the guardian with respect to life and health decisions for their children.

I feel that gay marriage is wrong because it civilly and socially "endorses" gay behavior, a practice which falls on the "wrong side" of my moral spectrum. Children raised in that environment are influenced and will likely become equally misguided, from my point of view.

Your situation is different. Your family falls on the "right" side of my moral spectrum and consequently, I believe the law should somehow accommodate your situation. This should not be done by relaxing the law to accommodate immoral lifestyles.

Now, I bet that "misguided" (and probably the immoral lifestyle) statement will raise some hackles. But I would suggest that there are those whom you too feel are misguided or immoral...perhaps the 40-yr old marrying an 11-yr old would fall in that category (or perhaps the social conservative trying to move society to the right ).

There are those who will undoubtedly argue that my moral views have no more validity than theirs, so why should I impose my beliefs on them? All I'm trying to point out is that we all have different views of right and wrong, and unfortunately none of us will know if we are correct until we are placed under the ground. Therefore, while still above ground, we should fight our political battles to the best of our abilities and let majority rule with regard to where society falls on the moral spectrum.

First, empirical evidence does not support your theory that same-sex parents raise misguided children.

Second, equating an 11-year-old child with consenting adults is just silly.


Fortunately, the Founders did not agree with you, and did not set up an absolute democracy.

The thing is - laws that would "endorse" gay marriage would also endorse families like mine.

Trust me, the only thing exceptional about my situation is that I had the time to read Oregon law and the money to interview lawyers to find one willing to pursue the case under a little used (and nearly impossible to prove) law. Then I had to pay him. It's been expensive and we've barely scratched the surface.

Most people in my situation (and there are a lot of them) don't have those resources.

If we made laws that made it easier for families like mine, I think there would be more families like mine.

Maybe if we called them "family creation" laws instead of "gay marriage" laws people would get behind the idea.

When I hear people argue adoption not abortion I say the same thing --

Get off your* moral high horse and work to change the laws to make adoption easier and more affordable.

* I don't mean you specifically!

fishin', I'm curious too about why you think Bill Gates shouldn't collect social security.

I haven't seen any proof either that kids raised in gay families turn out "different" in any way.

Obviously, most gay adults were raised in heterosexual homes because test tube fertility has only been around for what? 30 years?

But thats all beside the point; those questions deserve a thread of their own.

I'm still trying to determine what the hallmarks of a social conservative are.

What goals are being sought by this faction?

Does social conservativism exist only within the bounds of some religous teaching?

Can an athiest be a social conservative?

If so, how would they express their beliefs politically?

Could the unibomber guy be considered a social conservative who didn't fall under the umbrella of religion?

The unibomber was a intelligent nut, not a religious one.

Yep. Luddite, but non-religious.

Drewdad, you missed my point...and I know this is going to sound bad, but by "misguided" I mean inculcated into a position on the moral spectrum equivalent to their parents (Adam and Steve)...a position which happens to conflict with mine.



I only mean to impress that we ALL have individual groups who fall beyond the pale of our moral code and to whom we would deny certain rights (including marriage). Its all relative and you can't say that I am not entitled to non-negotiable positions on my absolutes unless you are prepared to forego your own (and that way lays anarchy).



OK, if you want to argue semantics...we have a representative democracy which purports to represent the majority and with respect to gay marriage, it does represent the majority.

Here's where you lose me. As I see it, your situation involves a child being brought up by non-biological parents. Allowing gay marriage may result in more non-biological parents (even in similar situations), but I don't see how it resolves the issue that biological parents have precedence over non-biological.

I doubt it, because you and your husband have already created a family. Maybe I'm just dense today, but I still don't see the necessity for gay marriage to be allowed before your situation can be resolved.

here I agree 100%

You guys!

<sheesh>

I said the unibomber did NOT fall under religion. Do you think he was a social conservative?

Ah! You believe in moral relativism. OK.



My point, however, about "misguided" is that you define misguided as "tolerant of homosexuals." That's a tad different from how I would define "misguided."

If we define "misguided" as "more likely to become criminals, less likely to become productive members of society, etc." then, no, being raised by same-sex parents does not increase the risk the same way, say, having a single parent would.

I don't think it would be fair to try and characterize any of his beliefs as liberal or conservative.

He was a paranoid schizophrenic, wasn't he? Paranoids just don't reason the same way as other folks.