What do conservatives have to gain from being against gay marriage/rights?

 Pages 1 2 3 4 NEXT
 

I've been thinking about this for a while and I cant come up with a good reason that conservatives in power are so against gay marriage. What do they have to gain from their stance on the matter? Nothing that I can come up.

Please give any ideas you might have

UPDATE:Its time I posted in my own thread again. What I want to say is that I don't believe that so many republican higher ups (the ones pulling the strings of the party) actually care about the morality of gay marriage, I suspect that something else is at play. WHY? has gay marriage become such a huge issue that they have bothered to mobilized the entire party around it?

1-What is really at stake? What are they really trying to achieve?

2-WHY WHEN THERE ARE SO MANY other issues and laws in leviticus why do they cling to gay marriage so hard? (YES I've heard the argument this law was included because they were trying to build a nation as quickly as possible and same sex relations didn't lead to procreation) But why has this survived for so long? especially into nations that really have no need for mass procreating? There has to be another reason that its such a priority for them otherwise it doesn't make any sense.

Conservative are defined by opposition to change. Changing society so that gay marriage was allowed therefore is something they have to oppose.

More generally, nobody likes giving away their privileges, for any reason. It gives them something to feel special about.

(Mind you, a lot of the "conservatives" in power aren't, of course, they want to take society "back" to some idealised 50's Golden Age)

Friendly Lich:
I've been thinking about this for a while and I cant come up with a good reason that conservatives in power are so against gay marriage. What do they have to gain from their stance on the matter?

If you'll forgive the possible Godwin, conservatives gain from demonizing gay people what Nazis gained from demonizing Jews. People love to feel like they're morally superior in a fight, and when you make that fight so massive in scope that it becomes a battle for the soul of the nation, people get to feel like angels from on high serving a higher power and cloaked in righteousness, their every action beyond reproach. Now, I am not comparing conservatives to Nazis in the sense that I expect Rush Limbaugh to start gathering gay people up in trucks and shoveling them into pottery kilns; I think we can all agree that's ridiculous. I only mean they use the same tactic of inspiring loyalty to their cause: They create an enemy, so anyone who disagrees with their position is surrendering, which is something I think most people find repugnant. It's a manipulative strategy, but it works.

And Thaluikhain's nailed it in one. Conservatism is about conserving the good parts of society and not fixing what ain't broken, while fixing what is. Makes sense in theory but unfortunately a lot of conservative voters/parties seem to think that that means nothing should change and falls into nostalgia for 'the good old days when everything was great'.

Gay marriage restrictions are broken and is something that conservatives should be in favour of fixing, but their own prejudices mean they don't want to.

More practically there are 2 big groups of people who are (generally) anti-gay; the religious and the older generation. Both have their own concrete view on what marriage, and 2 gay people ain't it. By campaigning on an anti-gay platform you can get these groups riled up enough that they vote for you on an issue they feel strongly about. In a country like the US, with a massive religious vote, it's an easy way to bulk your voting pool.

Because marriage is their ball and they'll be damned if they let anyone else play with it

Voters? Frankly, because of their values. Conservative and/or religious values about interfering in private lives to uphold their particular notions of societal morality.

Politicians? Add "garnering voters" to it where applicable.

Luckily it looks like there are less of the former these days, so it's less profitable for the latter to try this tactic. The slow but steady shift in public opinion as people die and are replaced by a new generation ensures the ultimate outcome of this issue.

Personally, I don't think it's really about "gay marriage" for them, and I think once gay marriage passes most people who are currently squealing about it will mysteriously go quiet in relatively short order, because it really doesn't matter that much as an issue in and of itself.

I mean sure, there are a few lines in the Bible which may or may not refer to homosexuality, but then you don't see nationwide campaigns to end these terrible attempts to redefine the natural order by allowing married people to masturbate.

The issue is that homosexuality has become a cultural background which symbolizes a whole range of issues which still tend to rile social conservatives but on which the battle is generally lost already. Things like changing gender roles, after all it's quite difficult to believe that there's something special about heterosexual couples unless you also acknowledge (perhaps not consciously) some kind of "natural" role-complimentarity. Things like the wider sexual liberalization of society and the normalization of extramarital sex. Then there's wider concerns about the diversification of society and the fear that suddenly all these other minorities (which aren't quite as minor as socially powerful conservatives were able to believe in the past) exist and are actually playing a role in society and the political process, which when you're utterly committed to your own status as "normal" or representative of the common will probably leads to the incorrect assumption that you're being dictated to.

This is just the latest in a very long line of battles and sure, social conservatives lost every other round but for some reason this issue remains "controversial" enough that they can still believe they might have a chance of winning here. They won't though, because most of their arguments really don't make a whole lot of sense to people who have grown up in something approaching the modern world.

I thought there might be some underlying financial motivation because conservatives are very financially motivated but I dunno

evilthecat:
Personally, I don't think it's really about "gay marriage" for them, and I think once gay marriage passes most people who are currently squealing about it will mysteriously go quiet in relatively short order, because it really doesn't matter that much as an issue in and of itself.

I mean sure, there are a few lines in the Bible which may or may not refer to homosexuality, but then you don't see nationwide campaigns to end these terrible attempts to redefine the natural order by allowing married people to masturbate.

The issue is that homosexuality has become a cultural background which symbolizes a whole range of issues which still tend to rile social conservatives but on which the battle is generally lost already. Things like changing gender roles, after all it's quite difficult to believe that there's something special about heterosexual couples unless you also acknowledge (perhaps not consciously) some kind of "natural" role-complimentarity. Things like the wider sexual liberalization of society and the normalization of extramarital sex. Then there's wider concerns about the diversification of society and the fear that suddenly all these other minorities (which aren't quite as minor as socially powerful conservatives were able to believe in the past) exist and are actually playing a role in society and the political process, which when you're utterly committed to your own status as "normal" or representative of the common will probably leads to the incorrect assumption that you're being dictated to.

This is just the latest in a very long line of battles and sure, social conservatives lost every other round but for some reason this issue remains "controversial" enough that they can still believe they might have a chance of winning here. They won't though, because most of their arguments really don't make a whole lot of sense to people who have grown up in something approaching the modern world.

That sounds reasonable, yeah. Less extreme form of building your bunker and telling everyone how the UN is sending black helicopters after you personally because you don't like modern society, I suppose.

Friendly Lich:
I thought there might be some underlying financial motivation because conservatives are very financially motivated but I dunno

I'm not sure that they are. Finance concerns are a useful tool, that's all. Cutting funding from something you don't like, blaming someone for spending too much, throwing money at something you idolise...not financial matters as such, the money is a means to an existing end.

Answer to thread title: A constituency.

Some people here would paint me as a conservative, which is funny considering I was a protestor at GWB's 1st inauguration while many of them were likely still in grade school, but I'm not against gay marriage because I am not out there pandering for votes of people who are.

I will say I honestly don't care about it. Should they be able to marry? Sure, probably. Does it take precedence over teetering on the edge of a global economic meltdown? Not by a long shot. And so, for the first time ever in my life, I voted for an evil Republican over a feel-good populist liar who has accomplished nothing useful in the past 4 years. And people were mad at me- mad because Obama was for gay marriage, like I'm supposed to vote for some clown because he's promising little handouts to groups I have nothing to do with?

It was absolutely pathetic. Immigrant? Vote for me and I'll help your cousins become legal. Woman? Vote for me and I'll get your birth control covered. Gay? Vote for me and you can get married. I may not be a conservative, but I'll be damned if I let white male guilt make me vote for a guy who I know is going to leave the country worse off.

Anyway, a lot of people aren't against gay marriage. They just don't care or they're against Obama. No one is spraying gays down with fire hoses or telling them which drinking fountains they can drink from, it is simply not a huge injustice from where most people view civil rights in this country, and therefore not a priority.

xDarc:
It was absolutely pathetic. Immigrant? Vote for me and I'll help your cousins become legal. Woman? Vote for me and I'll get your birth control covered. Gay? Vote for me and you can get married. I may not be a conservative, but I'll be damned if I let white male guilt make me vote for a guy who I know is going to leave the country worse off.

Gays, immigrants and/or women are more than half of the people of the US. If Obama had been making things better for them, he would have been making things better for large parts of the country.

It falls down, of course, in that Obama's supporters like to equate "making things better" and "avoid actively making things worse for its own sake". Admittedly, Republican policy was about deliberately making things worse for various large groups, though.

Well, Conservatives tend to follow this train of thought when it comes to sex "if it don't produce life, don't do it." This is the ideology that sex exists to keep the human race going and to abuse it in a way that prevents life is morally wrong. This makes same sex marriage fall under that category. They view it as a thumbs up towards behavior that would abuse sex and prevent the creation of life. I am not a conservative nor do I claim to be an expert on their ideology but this is how I have hear it from people I know that are conservative.

xDarc:
Anyway, a lot of people aren't against gay marriage. They just don't care or they're against Obama. No one is spraying gays down with fire hoses or telling them which drinking fountains they can drink from, it is simply not a huge injustice from where most people view civil rights in this country, and therefore not a priority.

You think things like being forced to pay tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars of tax on your home because your spouse died, not being able to give your spouse access to your pension or healthcare through work, not being able to live with your spouse in the military or receive any other military benefits, not being considered the legal guardian of your spouse's child, having your spouse banned from getting a visa to live with you, not being able to legally change your last name to that of your spouse, etc. only because you're gay don't count as injustices?

It's not a priority for you but it is a priority for anyone who actually has to live being treated as inferior by the government to everyone else and I'm glad that a lot of people do see ending legal discrimination against gay families as important even if it doesn't affect them directly.

Why are there so many threads on this?

Anyway some people see marriage as an important social institution that they want to protect. It doesn't make them "wrong" or "bad people", conservatives are not "evil" either, it's just a different view point that you don't have to agree with, but one that is important to understand why the feel a particular way.

Also your question is a bit of a generalization, there are plenty of liberals that don't support gay marriage either. Many of them support civil unions but not gay marriage it's self such as Hilary Clinton and Joe Bidon.

thaluikhain:
Conservative are defined by opposition to change. Changing society so that gay marriage was allowed therefore is something they have to oppose.

More generally, nobody likes giving away their privileges, for any reason. It gives them something to feel special about.

(Mind you, a lot of the "conservatives" in power aren't, of course, they want to take society "back" to some idealised 50's Golden Age)

You don't seem to understand the meaning behind the term "conservative" when it comes to the US-political spectrum. You are correct in the sense that it is "opposition to change" but that isn't the correct word to use, more about protecting traditional values, and when it comes the US our traditional values are one's one small government (which being against gay marriage may or may not go against), lower taxes, strong business growth (which in turn can hire more people and drive more economic growth) etc....

The term "liberal" in this country is someone who believes in the opposite. They want to see bigger government so it can provide social programs, which in turn require higher taxes, which often slows or stops business growth.

I wish people would drop the labels and just look at issues on their own. Neither side is "evil" or "bad", I don't see why people like to paint it out to be like that.

TheLycanKing144:
Also your question is a bit of a generalization, there are plenty of liberals that don't support gay marriage either. Many of them support civil unions but not gay marriage it's self such as Hilary Clinton and Joe Bidon.

Joe Biden came out in support of gay marriage before Obama did. It was a massive story last year.

TheLycanKing144:
It doesn't make them "wrong" or "bad people;" conservatives are not "evil" either; it's just a different view point that you don't have to agree with, but one that is important to understand why the feel a particular way.

They are trying to restrict others' rights not in order to protect anything the conservatives have, nor to prevent gay people from doing anything to straight people, but in order to keep marriage a clubhouse with a No Gays Allowed sign hanging above its rope ladder. I have no qualms with describing that as wrong, bad, or even evil. I don't believe that harming people is inherently evil--as far as I'm concerned, if me hurting you prevents you hurting someone else, I say a moral good has been accomplished--but harming people for no reason other than disliking that they live a lifestyle you are not required to live...yeah, I think that's a perfectly acceptable definition of the word "evil."

TheLycanKing144:
You don't seem to understand the meaning behind the term "conservative" when it comes to the US-political spectrum. You are correct in the sense that it is "opposition to change" but that isn't the correct word to use, more about protecting traditional values, and when it comes the US our traditional values are one's one small government (which being against gay marriage may or may not go against), lower taxes, strong business growth (which in turn can hire more people and drive more economic growth) etc....

I disagree. "Traditional values" is a rationalisation for reactionary ideological change. Small government, for example, might be held up as an ideal, but this only applies to other people. The government shouldn't tell me what to do, but it should clamp down on the rights women, gays Muslims, etc.

There are so many reasons that people oppose gay marriage and I will attempt to outline them below (most have no "single" reason and would use a combination of the reasons I provide):

1) This is how it is done currently and any changes would cause problems in society (can apply to unforeseen consequences).

2) Gay marriage goes against my religious beliefs.

3) Hetero couples are the best way for raising children; while not always perfect anything else will automatically be a disadvantage to children.

4) I find homosexuality to be gross (psychologically people often equate disgust with immorality).

5) It doesn't impact me and so I can't conceive as to why it deserves such a fuss to be made about it.

6) We will literally be punished for accepting this.

These tend to be based on a lot of big assumptions about society, history, science and reality but those are the main reasons I think of (when boiled down to their specific components).

If people can think of more or think I am way off base - post away.

drnogood59:
Well, Conservatives tend to follow this train of thought when it comes to sex "if it don't produce life, don't do it." This is the ideology that sex exists to keep the human race going and to abuse it in a way that prevents life is morally wrong. This makes same sex marriage fall under that category. They view it as a thumbs up towards behavior that would abuse sex and prevent the creation of life. I am not a conservative nor do I claim to be an expert on their ideology but this is how I have hear it from people I know that are conservative.

Preeeetty much how I operate, and I'm conservative. I'm not so much against gay marriage as not for it, though. (Don't care either way). So...neutrality, woo.

ElectroJosh:
There are so many reasons that people oppose gay marriage and I will attempt to outline them below (most have no "single" reason and would use a combination of the reasons I provide):

1) This is how it is done currently and any changes would cause problems in society (can apply to unforeseen consequences).

2) Gay marriage goes against my religious beliefs.

3) Hetero couples are the best way for raising children; while not always perfect anything else will automatically be a disadvantage to children.

4) I find homosexuality to be gross (psychologically people often equate disgust with immorality).

5) It doesn't impact me and so I can't conceive as to why it deserves such a fuss to be made about it.

6) We will literally be punished for accepting this.

These tend to be based on a lot of big assumptions about society, history, science and reality but those are the main reasons I think of (when boiled down to their specific components).

If people can think of more or think I am way off base - post away.

Are these your beliefs?

Because government sanctioned marriage was designed as a ploy to make the Catholic Church seem less important. It was thought up by protestants during the protestant revolution who believed marriage was less of a religious institution, and they figured by secularizing the action, they could pull influence away from the vatican. Now it's getting rubbed in their face that they made a mistake.

ElectroJosh:
There are so many reasons that people oppose gay marriage and I will attempt to outline them below (most have no "single" reason and would use a combination of the reasons I provide):

1) This is how it is done currently and any changes would cause problems in society (can apply to unforeseen consequences).

The Netherlands have had SSM for almost 12 years and there aren't any noticeable problems caused by it.

2) Gay marriage goes against my religious beliefs.

Suck it up. Ever hear of the Establishment Clause? "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

3) Hetero couples are the best way for raising children; while not always perfect anything else will automatically be a disadvantage to children.

There are so many studies done on this that I can't begin to start. Just take a quick look at the citations here.

4) I find homosexuality to be gross (psychologically people often equate disgust with immorality).

I find straight sex (not the sexuality, I think it's important to make the distinction) to be disgusting, but I don't go around saying straight people shouldn't be married or calling them immoral.

Out of curiosity, do you think lesbians are gross or just gay men? Do you see where I'm going with this?

5) It doesn't impact me and so I can't conceive as to why it deserves such a fuss to be made about it.

It impacts the lives of a lot of other people.

6) We will literally be punished for accepting this.

You sound so sure. Can you tell me what the punishment will be and how you know about it?

xDarc:

It was absolutely pathetic. Immigrant? Vote for me and I'll help your cousins become legal. Woman? Vote for me and I'll get your birth control covered. Gay? Vote for me and you can get married.

And on the other side... Rich person? Vote for me and you will get moar money from lower taxes. Social conservative? Vote for me and gays won't be able to get married and women won't be able to get abortions. Christian? Vote for me and creationism will be taught in the classroom again. How exactly are those different from what you posted? How are those not handouts to select interest groups?

TheLycanKing144:
Anyway some people see marriage as an important social institution that they want to protect. It doesn't make them "wrong" or "bad people".

You can passionately defend something and still be wrong. You can understand why someone is defending something, and still call them out for being wrong, and you can be quite correct in doing so. The mere fact that someone believes something does not make it a reasonable thing to believe. Likewise, freedom of expression does not entitle you to freedom from judgement, particularly when your expression has meaningful political consequences for other people who have an investment in debate.

People who view "traditional" marriage as some timeless, idyllic institution which has always existed in the same form and must be defended to prevent social collapse are wrong, or at absolute best have no solid evidence for their claims, and yet you're saying we're not allowed to challenge them? Why not? Are we not giving their opinions the respect they totally haven't earned?

We have no obligation to respect or leave alone the opinions of someone who expresses them politically, expects them to be reflected in law but cannot adequately defend or substantiate them. To say that some people have the right to simply waltz through life imposing their opinions on others and yet any attempt to question the circular logic of those opinions is discrimination or unfair to those who believe it is somewhere between funny and sad, given the context.

TheLycanKing144:
The term "liberal" in this country is someone who believes in the opposite. They want to see bigger government so it can provide social programs, which in turn require higher taxes, which often slows or stops business growth.

Talk about needing to drop labels, dude. Don't buy into the "small versus big government"-nonsense; it's usually just a question of priorities, not one of an overall philosophy. Conservatives, especially Social Conservatives, are often the most intrusive, most gianormous government folks I can think of. This is little more than a talking point with no basis in reality.

xDarc:

I will say I honestly don't care about it. Should they be able to marry? Sure, probably. Does it take precedence over teetering on the edge of a global economic meltdown? Not by a long shot. And so, for the first time ever in my life, I voted for an evil Republican over a feel-good populist liar who has accomplished nothing useful in the past 4 years. And people were mad at me- mad because Obama was for gay marriage, like I'm supposed to vote for some clown because he's promising little handouts to groups I have nothing to do with?

It was absolutely pathetic. Immigrant? Vote for me and I'll help your cousins become legal. Woman? Vote for me and I'll get your birth control covered. Gay? Vote for me and you can get married. I may not be a conservative, but I'll be damned if I let white male guilt make me vote for a guy who I know is going to leave the country worse off.

Did you ever stop to consider that when it comes to the economy, people just can't make an informed decision on which party has the best plan for getting it back on its' feet? That when even schooled economists debate over which party has the best plan and can't reach a consensus, it is pretty much down to luck for the average voter?

Meanwhile, getting birth control as a young woman or being allowed to marry as a homosexual can be important, life altering decisions. As a poster above pointed out, immigrants and women make up more than half the US population so any changes affecting them affect a lot of people.

This stance you are taking, that Obama is "promising handouts" is really just Obama promising a lot of people that he'll begin to give them the same status in society as white, heterosexual men. I get why you don't care much for that (after all, you already have it all) but it certainly isn't people wanting handouts, it is people wanting recognition of the equal value they are already supposed to have but still haven't gotten.

Friendly Lich:

I thought there might be some underlying financial motivation because conservatives are very financially motivated but I dunno

ElectroJosh:

3) Hetero couples are the best way for raising children; while not always perfect anything else will automatically be a disadvantage to children.

6) We will literally be punished for accepting this.

Are these your beliefs?

While I believe that Electro is right in most of his points (I share no affiliation with any political party, nor share these beliefs. But some people do), his #3 and #6 points introduces Mr. Hammer to Ms. Nail. <.<

While it is ridiculous to think that two well-adjusted adults of the same gender can't raise a healthy child, the government has set aside certain "breaks" for hetero couples. Most, if not every country in the world, want hetero couples to marry and pro-create (to an extent, see China). It is an economical benefit to society. But any couple can tell you this because of said "breaks". What "breaks" Cross? Well tax breaks Friendly. Thousands of dollars per year, per family. Which leads me to the second point of Electro's that I quoted.

Now I will say that I have talked with a handful of conservatives (some I know fairly well and are good people), this is more of me speculating. DISCLAIMER: These are my words, not theirs. So...

Some conservatives want us to believe that we will be punished if gay marriage is allowed. Which isn't too far of a stretch from the truth. Hold up, bear with me. The belief is, that if we allow gay marriage, we will be putting another straw on the camel's back. That camel's back being the federal debt. This would cause taxes to rise, something conservatives hate. Not to mention healthcare and insurance companys would also have to now offer more affordable packages to married gay couples. This would in turn effect big businesses/employers because they too would have to follow suit. With the US being in a down economy/recession and our unemployment rate being up, this could be volatile at this point in time. Which is true. Sorta. That is since our government can't get shit done. The flip side to this reasoning is that it is all just a cash grab. If the legislation to allow gay marriage were to ever pass, money would be switching hands in a way in which conservatives would not prefer. So just throw out some big numbers to the people, cause a little paranoia, quote a few verses from the Bible.. and BAM!!! We have citizens fearful of being punished for allowing gay marriage. Conservatives keep their "Bible Belt" voters because they saved us all from going to Hell. The rich get richer. The End.

I could go on for days about how this could possibly fracture, if not destroy an already weak Republican party. Or how this attitude isn't just that of conservatives. Or how this is just a complete failure in governmental foresight, but that would just be too much politics for me in one day. Like I said, these are just my thoughts and speculations formed from talking to conservative officials. They never outright stated those words, but that's what I took away from our discussions. Also... Lobbyist.

TheLycanKing144:

thaluikhain:
Conservative are defined by opposition to change. Changing society so that gay marriage was allowed therefore is something they have to oppose.

More generally, nobody likes giving away their privileges, for any reason. It gives them something to feel special about.

(Mind you, a lot of the "conservatives" in power aren't, of course, they want to take society "back" to some idealised 50's Golden Age)

You don't seem to understand the meaning behind the term "conservative" when it comes to the US-political spectrum. You are correct in the sense that it is "opposition to change" but that isn't the correct word to use, more about protecting traditional values, and when it comes the US our traditional values are one's one small government (which being against gay marriage may or may not go against), lower taxes, strong business growth (which in turn can hire more people and drive more economic growth) etc....

The term "liberal" in this country is someone who believes in the opposite. They want to see bigger government so it can provide social programs, which in turn require higher taxes, which often slows or stops business growth.

You have an...interesting interpretation of reality to say the least.

"when it comes the US our traditional values are one's one small government"

Pretty much the biggest hypocracy of the Republican party today; they talk a big game of being small government, but their answer to anything unrelated to the economy is "throw laws at it." Gay marriage? Pass laws to define marriage as between a man and a woman. Illegal Immigration? Make stricter and stricter laws to deal with anyone who may or may not be an illegal. Abortion made legal by SC decision? Create as many laws as possible to make getting one as difficult as possible whilst not technically outlawing it. Religion not being taught alongside Science? Make laws to require that creationlism gets equal footing in teaching plans. Etc. etc. etc.

Face it, the biggest conservative party in America is all for big goverment in every area except the ones that would actually require it.

"lower taxes"

Technically true, although I shake my head at the TEA (Taxed Enough Already) party and all other Americans who bitch about taxes when they have the lowest taxes in the first world.

Anyway, nobody wants to pay taxes, but if you want decent services from your government you have to pay them. And how many conservative Americans are against higher taxes but want more and more money spent on the military? How many of them are on medicare, or benifit from the tax money spent on roads or law enforcement or fire fighters?

How did America ever afford to have such low taxes to begin with? Oh that's right, they stole land from the Native Americans to sell and made fortunes off of slave labour. Worked fine economically but nowadays I don't think having such low taxes is very feasable if you want a military, police, firefighters, paramedics, maintained roads, schools, medicare, keeping corporations from cutting corners and putting posionious materials in the food you eat and the water you drink, etc. etc. etc.

But of course, most conservatives do want lower taxes so what you said is at the end of the day true.

"strong business growth (which in turn can hire more people and drive more economic growth)"

Ah yes, Regean-nomics. Because that's worked so well every time it's been tried, it's only caused two recessions.

Believe it or not if you give businesses greater freedom to make money without restraining them from cutting corners on such things as minimum wage so your employees can work one job and be able to make ends meet, not being able to offer people a service (health care) then refuse to deliver on an unrelated issue (like stopping life-saving chemo because the man didn't disclose the kidney stones he didn't know he had and was unrelated to his cancer), outsource to India and China because it's cheaper, or if you can't do that hire illegal immigrants so you can pay them less, etc. etc. etc.

"The term "liberal" in this country is someone who believes in the opposite. They want to see bigger government so it can provide social programs, which in turn require higher taxes, which often slows or stops business growth."

Ha ha ha. Bullshit. The rest of the first world can pull it off and maintain a better living standard.

But I find it funny how you critisie people for using labels and stereotypes, but use labels and stereotypes yourself without a hint of irony.

Friendly Lich:
I've been thinking about this for a while and I cant come up with a good reason that conservatives in power are so against gay marriage.

What counts as a good reason to you does not necessarily equate to what a conservative thinker might consider a good reason. For instance, to myself a reason like "the Bible says such-and-such" is as meaningless as "because doing so will upset the guy I hired to paint my garage", but to someone who is genuinely religious it's a convincing, iron-clad argument.

Friendly Lich:
What do they have to gain from their stance on the matter? Nothing that I can come up.

Please give any ideas you might have

Votes. Lots and lots of votes.

TheLycanKing144:
You don't seem to understand the meaning behind the term "conservative" when it comes to the US-political spectrum. You are correct in the sense that it is "opposition to change" but that isn't the correct word to use, more about protecting traditional values

Which, lest we forget, are only "traditional" in the sense that you've used them in the recent past while forgetting every other "traditional" value which no longer seems politically acceptable.

It's basically a buffet which allows politicians to say "OK, so you don't like gays, cool. Traditional. Yeah, we'll plug that. How about institutional racism, are we...oh, you don't like that anymore? Fine, that's no longer a traditional value. Just tell us all the things you want, we'll label them as traditional values, and you can tell people you're voting for us so we'll restore America to her former glory from back when we had all those traditional values"

BreakfastMan:

xDarc:

It was absolutely pathetic. Immigrant? Vote for me and I'll help your cousins become legal. Woman? Vote for me and I'll get your birth control covered. Gay? Vote for me and you can get married.

And on the other side... Rich person? Vote for me and you will get moar money from lower taxes. Social conservative? Vote for me and gays won't be able to get married and women won't be able to get abortions. Christian? Vote for me and creationism will be taught in the classroom again. How exactly are those different from what you posted? How are those not handouts to select interest groups?

Because that's not what he actually ran on for one. He never gave speeches saying those things; and besides that's not exactly the kind of base you want to start with anyhow- it's too damn small. All those things you mention, that's social media flat out making stuff up- which "big community organizer" Barrack Obama, from Chicago where everyone is democrat and your goal is yell louder than the other democrats, was heavily involved in.

2012 was basically a facebook election and it was pretty damn sad.

P.S.
Even if a candidate had such a hidden agenda- how was he supposed to accomplish it? How was he suppose to turn back the clock as Obama said? He still has to go through the house and the senate to get anything done... and then oh hi, Supreme Court. My point is, the other candidate could have been a Chicken and I still would have picked the bird over Obama.

He is Jimmy Carter with better PR and social media to infect everyone's thoughts. He should of been a one-term do nothing loser, instead he trolls tirelessly on web to scare the shit out of everyone that the other guy is a fundamentalist whack-job. Bravo.

I'll be over here, waiting for a real recovery sometime in 2016.

You know what else I don't like? It's cheap and easy to vote on ideals when your a kid or a 20-something who lives with their parents with no responsibility and no job. But when you're finally an adult paying your own way and you realize how fucked up shit is and that you are way behind where your parents were at in terms of income at your age, gay marriage, free birth control, and legal immigration becomes small fucking potatoes.

Honestly, what good is being gay and married if you're broke? People are talking about gay marriage in here like it's about equality, but nobody is forcing them exactly to pick cotton.

xDarc:

You know what else I don't like? It's cheap and easy to vote on ideals when your a kid or a 20-something who lives with their parents with no responsibility and no job. But when you're finally an adult paying your own way and you realize how fucked up shit is and that you are way behind where your parents were at in terms of income at your age, gay marriage, free birth control, and legal immigration becomes small fucking potatoes.

Implying that everyone who has ideals is a loser who can't get a job and still lives with their parents is really classy. Keep up the strawmanning and ad hominems, I am sure they will make this discussion really productive.

Isn't it fun, though? I moved out when I was 19 and have had constant employment since and I am still voting after my ideals. What you are, still, missing is that for the heterosexual white male stuff like legalized birth control(because, let's be honest the debate is mostly about republicans trying to make it harder to practice pregnancy control through various means), gay marriage or legal immigration aren't big issues. But they are for a lot of people.

Legalized birth control allowed me and millions of women like me to have safe sexual experiences, to enjoy our own sexuality and explore it at our own behest without having to constantly fear getting pregnant. For a man that's a given, for a woman it isn't. Gay marriage will allow me and my fiancee to get married this year and be legally recognized as married with all the juridical and economical benefits that entails, to us it is a massive deal to not have to worry about things like inheritance rights in case one of us should pass away. For heterosexual couples this kind of safety is already a given and taken for granted.

You need to, seriously, take a step back and consider why these things are so important to people that aren't heterosexual white men. I already pointed out, in my earlier post aimed at you, that these are rights that heterosexual white men take for granted, but who many of us still don't have. Why shouldn't we have these rights too?

xDarc:

Honestly, what good is being gay and married if you're broke? People are talking about gay marriage in here like it's about equality, but nobody is forcing them exactly to pick cotton.

No, we are only forced to live as second class citizens denied some rights that most others have. We have these rights denied us only because our choice of romantic or life partner isn't within the confined of the hetero norm that exists within society. See the deal?

xDarc:
But when you're finally an adult paying your own way and you realize how fucked up shit is and that you are way behind where your parents were at in terms of income at your age, you stop voting for the people who favor regressive taxation, unrestricted income disparity and reduced labour rights.

Fixed that for you.

Even with our current economic crisis, we have to bear in mind that before that personal income per capita in the US grew continuously for 40 years. People overall are still earning approximately 10 times what they did in 1970 relative to the size of the population. Even with inflation, that's a massive increase in personal income.

So, if you genuinely are poorer than your parents were, why is that? Why aren't you seeing any of this money? I'll give you a clue, it's not because the big bad "gurvment" took all your money and spent it on smelly poor people. It's not because the "libruls" taxed all the so-called "job creators" too hard so they couldn't make a living. It's not even because of the current economic crisis, although that certainly doesn't help.

If you were silly enough to vote for a bunch of rich old homophobes and religious zealots who definately don't earn less than their parents on the pretext that they would magically make you richer, you were fucking bought. Heck, I hesitate to even call it that because you were bought for nothing. You were bought for a simple lie.

Friendly Lich:

Are these your beliefs?

No remotely - but they are views I have heard via politicians, religious leaders and some conservative family members.

finnugold:
Stuff arguing with what I said.

Don't worry - I don't agree with any of those points myself either and am a strong supporter of marriage equality in my own country. I was just trying to encapsulate, what I perceive to be, the rationale behind the anti-marriage equality crowd.

 Pages 1 2 3 4 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked