(12-17-2013 08:24 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(12-16-2013 10:47 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(12-16-2013 10:41 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  

(12-16-2013 10:34 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(12-16-2013 09:14 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  I think what Owl means is that it is "conservative" to say that the government has no ability to tell consenting adults whether or not they can cohabitate which is exactly what the Utah law did.

See what you did?. Never attempt to explain Conservatism to anyone that claims to be a Conservative.

I quite enjoy the fact that conservatism has fragmented and that all those fragments seem to dislike each other.

First you better figure out what conservatism is before you start preaching to conservatives. We are not a new brand or a different variety. You simply have your ideologies crossed.

Libertarians are not conservatives. They never were.

They still haven't come up with a solitary issue to back up the claim that the GOP has moved "to the right". They use left wing arguments to justify strict libertarianism. I don't think most of these people are for real. I liken them to all those people that flooded every message board in 2004 claiming they were 2000 Bush voters that were now 100% in the tank with Kerry. Didn't happen, they were all leftists to begin with.

This makes perfect sense.

(12-17-2013 09:48 AM)EverRespect Wrote:  

(12-17-2013 09:44 AM)Motown Bronco Wrote:  When these types of social issues come up, I tend to pass it through the following set of two questions: Is there a use of force involving the participants? Is it harming anyone else beyond the participants?

If both answers are "no," then I'm more susceptible to favoring it being allowed. There are many things that could harm my family whether economically or physically. Gay marriages and those engaging in polygamy around the world (as well as 'open/swinger' marriages) do not harm me, even if it's not my chosen path.

And that first question (Is there a use of force involving the participants?) bears repeating, because it should fend off any misguided comparisons to "relationships" involving children or animals, neither of which have any ability to maturally consent and accept.

Not all man/boy relationships involve the use of force and they can consent. Maybe not legally, but that is just one law that can be changed. Many on here are already arguing to lower the age of consent to 14.

But maturely consent? A little kid doesn't understand the full ramifications of agreeing to perform sexual acts, in which case it can be construed as a form of force. I'll leave it to the psychologists and those more in-the-know to determine what that ideal minimum age of consent should be.

Just to explain my 'social liberalism' a bit more:

I don't like stress. I just want to chill. And the things that can and could cause me stress are career stability, my day to day job, sickness and disease, icy roads, violent criminals, predators and kidnappers that might prey on my kid, the national debt, terrorists, and whatnot.

It's not like I'm saying, "woohoo polygamy!" or "yay weed!", but these kinds of things are very, very low on the list of things that would negatively impact my personal, individual life and lifestyle. There's enough real crapola on our plates on a daily basis. If some dude in Utah wants a lifestyle involving multiple adult partners while smoking a doobie while gambling online... none of this is my thing, but I just can't find the extra energy to get worked up about it.

(12-17-2013 09:25 AM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(12-16-2013 11:08 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(12-16-2013 10:57 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(12-16-2013 10:51 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  Well, if you want to stand for traditional marriage, this is about as traditional as you can get.

Not in America.

It's been around with at least one group for more than 150 years. They're conservatives.

Using an separatist group as an example doesn't make it mainstream.

It doesn't have to be mainstream to be traditional.

(12-17-2013 12:08 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  I'm missing the part of the ruling that referenced same sex marriage in the decision. Perhaps you can find it in the ruling because apparently its NOT THERE. The ruling does reference Lawrence v Texas, but only as it refers to privacy, which isn't a Gay issue.

The only thing the Utah case did was to make unmarried cohabitation between multiple adults legal in Utah. Like it was in 49 other states before the ruling and 50 states now.

But don't let the facts get in the way of your attempts to Gay bash.

Only problem is that "unmarried cohabitation" in many States is basically Common Law Marriage.

(12-17-2013 12:34 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(12-17-2013 09:25 AM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(12-16-2013 11:08 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(12-16-2013 10:57 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(12-16-2013 10:51 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  Well, if you want to stand for traditional marriage, this is about as traditional as you can get.

Not in America.

It's been around with at least one group for more than 150 years. They're conservatives.

Using an separatist group as an example doesn't make it mainstream.

It doesn't have to be mainstream to be traditional.

It is if you are using it to describe mainstream conservatism. Polygamy was never "real conservatism."

(12-17-2013 01:01 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(12-17-2013 12:34 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(12-17-2013 09:25 AM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(12-16-2013 11:08 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(12-16-2013 10:57 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  Not in America.

It's been around with at least one group for more than 150 years. They're conservatives.

Using an separatist group as an example doesn't make it mainstream.

It doesn't have to be mainstream to be traditional.

It is if you are using it to describe mainstream conservatism. Polygamy was never "real conservatism."

But these people are conservatives are they not? It isn't a very left-wing thing to want.

(12-17-2013 01:04 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(12-17-2013 01:01 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(12-17-2013 12:34 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(12-17-2013 09:25 AM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(12-16-2013 11:08 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  It's been around with at least one group for more than 150 years. They're conservatives.

Using an separatist group as an example doesn't make it mainstream.

It doesn't have to be mainstream to be traditional.

It is if you are using it to describe mainstream conservatism. Polygamy was never "real conservatism."

But these people are conservatives are they not? It isn't a very left-wing thing to want.

That's not what you stated. You said something like it was "real conservatism." As if it is what conservatism was about before it became what it is today. Mormons do tend to be conservative in many ways, but polygamy is part of their religious doctrine - not political ideology.

Liberals enjoy tearing down traditional boundaries - even if that means allowing a minority group to practice something against the mainstream.

(12-17-2013 01:30 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(12-17-2013 01:04 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(12-17-2013 01:01 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(12-17-2013 12:34 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(12-17-2013 09:25 AM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  Using an separatist group as an example doesn't make it mainstream.

It doesn't have to be mainstream to be traditional.

It is if you are using it to describe mainstream conservatism. Polygamy was never "real conservatism."

But these people are conservatives are they not? It isn't a very left-wing thing to want.

That's not what you stated. You said something like it was "real conservatism." As if it is what conservatism was about before it became what it is today. Mormons do tend to be conservative in many ways, but polygamy is part of their religious doctrine - not political ideology.

Liberals enjoy tearing down traditional boundaries - even if that means allowing a minority group to practice something against the mainstream.

I've never said that it was "real conservatism" and I was being tongue-in-cheek.

I also don't think that it's practicing something "against" the mainstream. It's pretty parallel at best and worst.