Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Things we'd be talking about if the forum wasn't deadFollow

#452 Mar 18 2015 at 7:46 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,957 posts
gbaji wrote:
A conservative's position on SSM, therefore, is less about rights than about how he feels about promoting particular types of relationships
Which begs the question "How is their relationship any of your business?"
____________________________
remorajunbao wrote:
One day I'm going to fly to Canada and open the curtains in your office.

#453 Mar 18 2015 at 9:14 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
I think it's usually some mixture of apathy for others, unwillingness to take any sort of a hit so someone else can benefit, racism, sexism, xenophobia, nationalism. jingoism, entitlement, elitism, fear of change, religion, tradition or just listening to others who suffer from the above and coming up with convoluted reasons why their ideas aren't really based on those things.


This is precisely what I'm talking about. You'd rather believe that we're lying about our reasoning and that we suffer from a whole freaking list of social impairments than to even entertain the possibility that maybe our positions and reasons for those positions have some merit. When you toss out that list of negative labels, it screams dismissal.

Those "convoluted reasons" are the actual reasons Joph. We don't make them up.

Quote:
I mean, sure, someone can come up with some "liberty!" based reason for denying two people the right to marry...


And this shows just how much of a mental block you have on this. I just posted how Liberals view benefits (like marriage benefits) as a right while conservatives don't, and this is how you respond. I suppose you're doing a great job proving my point. The issue isn't that I want to deny people rights while you want to give them to them, but that you and I disagree over what rights are.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#454 Mar 18 2015 at 9:34 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
A conservative's position on SSM, therefore, is less about rights than about how he feels about promoting particular types of relationships
Which begs the question "How is their relationship any of your business?"


It isn't. Hence why I'm advocating against having a government status that rewards gay couples if their relationships met certain conditions (which is a way of regulating/controlling the relationship).


Seriously. Step back from the issue for a second and consider what we're really talking about. If I told you that I wanted to influence the behavior of a group of people in society, so I'm going to create a legal status that they can qualify for, and which provides them a whole list of benefits, but only if they change their behavior to match what I want them to do (and enter into a legal contract regulating their behavior), would you say what I'm doing is making that group more or less free? Am I fighting for their rights? Or fighting against them? I'm certainly creating a cost to them for *not* doing what I want them to do, right?


What do you think the marriage status does? It's not about allowing two people to live together as a couple. They can do that already. It's not about allowing them to love each other. They can do that already. It's not about allowing them to give each other permission to make medical/legal decisions for each other. They can do that already too. It's not even about allowing them to enter into a binding marriage contract that requires shared property and responsibility for each other and mandates paternity of one partner if the other becomes pregnant. They could also do that if they chose to (and could even chose to define that contract any way they want to). It is entirely about requiring them to enter into that one government defined binding marriage contract. Now, if you were going to choose to do so already, then there's no cost, but then there's also no need for the status, is there? The requirements for the status exist because not everyone would choose to enter into that kind of binding and legally enforceable marriage contract if they had the choice. So by creating it, we're trying to influence that choice. Period.


I'll say again. It's not my business. I have no vested interest one way or the other as to the nature of same sex couple's relationship. That's exactly why I oppose applying our current marriage status to them. I guess the big difference is that liberals seem to view the marriage status with its attendant benefits as a "right", while I view it as a means of coercion. Surely you can see how I find it ridiculous when someone argues I'm violating someone's rights in this situation. That's not remotely how I view the marriage status.

Edited, Mar 18th 2015 8:38pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#455 Mar 18 2015 at 10:01 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Oh. It occurs to me that I only addressed half of your question.

Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
A conservative's position on SSM, therefore, is less about rights than about how he feels about promoting particular types of relationships
Which begs the question "How is their relationship any of your business?"


To answer why a conservative might support applying marriage status to gay couples (SSM in this context), you need to add back in the second part of the sentence I wrote:

Quote:
A conservative's position on SSM, therefore, is less about rights than about how he feels about promoting particular types of relationships, and frankly how devoted he is to the small government idea (there is a reasonable range in this area).


The reason why some conservatives are ok with SSM isn't about liking or disliking homosexuals, but that they aren't super strong small government proponents. Not every conservative is as firm on this issue. Republicans, for instance, are far less strict on this than Libertarians. A Libertarian would address the issue of SSM by saying "Let's just get the government out of all marriage and the problem goes away". They still aren't "for" SSM at all, nor is their position contradictory with other conservatives. They just place the dividing line between things they're ok with government doing and things they aren't a bit farther on the "not" side. Republicans get in trouble on this issue because we're actually pretty moderate on the small government scale, and thus we are ok with using the government to do things like provide K-12 education for our nations children, and making sure that buildings meet standards, and the foods we eat and medicines we take are safe, and yes... we're also ok with a legal status aimed at encouraging heterosexual couples to marry under the belief that this will reduce the number of children raised by single mothers and thus at a disadvantage. Libertarians would just say that if women weren't smart enough to make sure to get a proper marriage contract before marrying that man, she should suffer the uphill legal battle if he dumps her and her children and moves across state lines to avoid his responsibility.

So yeah. We are willing to use government power to deal with the most clear cases where said use can create a positive social/economic outcome and this opens us up to criticism by liberals who want government to do more, with the oft repeated "but if you're ok with this, then why not <insert new thing here>" argument. I get it. But you have to create a line somewhere. And no, it's not "because they're gay" in the case of SSM. It's because we justify exempting the marriage status from our usual opposition to big government specifically on the grounds that it has a positive net effect with regards to making sure biological fathers care for their children. That exception simply does not apply to same sex couples. It really is that simple.

Edited, Mar 18th 2015 9:03pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#456 Mar 18 2015 at 10:49 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Those "convoluted reasons" are the actual reasons Joph. We don't make them up.

Yawn. I've listened to your arguments (about SSM in this instance). They're just not good. I've laid out why they're not good. I don't expect you to agree with me that they're not good and I'm sure you'll maintain your seven+ year delusion that I've never actually addressed your arguments but they just don't wash.

If you haven't been able to make a decent argument in that time, it's probably not everyone else's fault.
Quote:
you and I disagree over what rights are.

Sure, we've been over that as well. Again, your arguments weren't especially convincing. At the very least, if you believe that you have this grand and unique (at least for this forum) understanding of how everyone else sees rights, you should be able to frame your arguments in a way that appeals to their perception rather than giving lengthy lectures on "what rights REALLY are" and then throwing a snit when people don't agree with you.

That said, when people ramble on about "It's Adam & Eve, not Adam & Steve" or "Those guys are illegals just like axe murderers and rapists" or "How much birth control does one slut need?" or "Well, those ghetto people have refrigerators so they're not REALLY poor" or "How dare those Muslims want to build a mosque on the land they own" it's probably not because of their deeply held and intellectually honed beliefs on liberty. Probably more about the stuff I listed. Then when people want their votes, they develop platforms to appeal to these people. Then other people who affiliate with the party modify their beliefs to still reflect the party because it's easier than saying "This guy from my group is wrong" and instead come up with tortured reasons why opposing two people getting married is really about "liberty" and not about homophobic idiot voters.

Edited, Mar 19th 2015 9:20am by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#457 Mar 19 2015 at 7:47 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
gbaji wrote:
And yet, I voted for the openly *** Republican, [...] My soul is perfectly fine Joph.
You'd get more absolution from the first five words of the Hail Mary prayer than doing what you were going to do regardless of the details.

Me, I prefer karma over absolution. I sleep quite well knowing that all the people I treated badly deserved it.
gbaji wrote:
When you toss out that list of negative labels, it screams dismissal.
It's like watching someone scream at a mirror.

Edited, Mar 19th 2015 10:44am by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#459 Mar 19 2015 at 9:29 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
pdiddy420 wrote:
KISS

Smiley: inlove Thank you, Man-Seeking-Man...
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#460 Mar 19 2015 at 9:32 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
That was quick.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#461 Mar 19 2015 at 9:35 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
The mods just banned 30% of today's forum traffic!
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#462 Mar 19 2015 at 9:40 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
FFXI Zam is dieing.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#463 Mar 19 2015 at 10:35 AM Rating: Excellent
*****
10,601 posts
I'll post today to make up for it instead of just reading.
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#464 Mar 19 2015 at 10:44 AM Rating: Good
***
1,159 posts
Not with a ban but with a whimper.

With apologies to Eliot.
____________________________
Timelordwho wrote:
I'm not quite sure that scheming is an emotion.
#465 Mar 19 2015 at 10:51 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Sir Xsarus wrote:
I'll post today to make up for it instead of just reading.

Doesn't count unless you post something racist.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#466 Mar 19 2015 at 10:55 AM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
17,302 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Sir Xsarus wrote:
I'll post today to make up for it instead of just reading.

Doesn't count unless you post something racist.

With undertones of closeted homosexuality.
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#467 Mar 19 2015 at 11:16 AM Rating: Excellent
*****
10,601 posts
Just read into my posts more.
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#468 Mar 19 2015 at 11:18 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
Sir Xsarus wrote:
Just read into my posts more.
Oh, into now is it? (Whateverispopulartoday)phobe.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#469 Mar 19 2015 at 11:21 AM Rating: Excellent
*****
10,601 posts
This is consensual posting.
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#470 Mar 19 2015 at 11:34 AM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts
You can't possibly really believe that half of the population are evil mustache twirling bad guys who do evil just because they like to make people suffer. Can you?

OF course not. They just are ordinary people who want to feel superior to someone. It's not a mystery. It's the whole foundation of the GOP philosophy, find the majority group, demonize the minority group, give people something to feel good about themselves that requires absolutely nothing form them. 'Identity Politics" yadda. Not revolutionary. What's the majority religion? That one's great. All others are ****, and should have no voice. What's the majority race? That race is the best, all other races are inferior. What's the majority sexual orientation? All others are just devalued versions of that one and require no special consideration. Etc. This is why you you hate gays and blacks and Muslims. Because you aren't those things and someone told you that you are great. Even though you've done nothing to earn that.

Yay!

The philosophy of the Democratic party is "we're going to try and compensate for the massive inequalities that exist". Democrats don't want to think they're great and everyone else sucks, they just want things to be fair.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#471 Mar 19 2015 at 11:56 AM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,643 posts
gbaji wrote:
Debalic wrote:
Really it looks to me like the Democrats are showingassume that a *** Republican is actually working against his own best interests and that *** voters would be doing the same in supporting him.


Let me make a small adjustment to what you said. The point, which is raised by a number of *** conservatives (if you actually bother to read what they write/say about rather than what other people write/say about them), is that on the Right side of politics we don't place the same weight on identity as the Left does. We don't assume that if you are ***, that "*** issues" are the number one thing you care about. We don't assume that if you are a woman, that "women's issues" are the number one thing you care about. Same for being black, latino, jewish, catholic, etc, etc, etc.


Right. So if you're a gay Republican, you don't care about rights for gays. Sounds pretty hypocritical to me.

Quote:
The problem is that the Left does place great weight on identity. Also, the Left has a habit of assuming that their position on a given issue regarding identity is synonymous with that identity's "rights". So being pro-SSM is being "for *** rights" (and by extension anyone opposed to SSM is "against *** rights". This leaves them in a distinct quandary when a *** person chooses to be conservative, much less run for office as a Republican since it flies in the face of the assumptions they start with. How can someone who is *** oppose *** rights? Well, they don't. They just don't place the same weight on "***", nor make the same assumption that any given position is equivalent for being for/against "*** rights" in general.

Remember also (as I have mentioned many many times) that conservatives do not define rights the same way liberals do. Liberals tend to equate rights with benefits provided, while conservatives only define them as the absence of restrictions. So SSM does not qualify as a "right" to conservatives. Period. A conservative's position on SSM, therefore, is less about rights than about how he feels about promoting particular types of relationships, and frankly how devoted he is to the small government idea (there is a reasonable range in this area). Main point being that it's not contradictory for a *** person to be conservative, nor a Republican. It does not mean he works against his best interests (because he defines his best interests in a broader scope than "what's good for me as a *** person").

So he's Republican before he's gay. Which means that the good of the party is more important than the good of the people. Got it.

Quote:
I've said many times that the mistake liberals make is assuming that conservatives believe the same things as liberals, but just choose to take the opposite positions. That's not true at all. We really do place different weights on things, and view things differently. When we arrive at different positions, it's not because we think doing X is the right thing to do, but are evil nasty people who do the opposite out of spite. And frankly, I think it's somewhat silly when some liberals present arguments that rest on this assumption. You can't possibly really believe that half of the population are evil mustache twirling bad guys who do evil just because they like to make people suffer. Can you?

Obviously conservatives don't believe the same things as liberals. Conservatives believe in accumulating wealth and power for themselves and suppressing everybody else. Liberals believe in allowing people to live the lives they want and helping out when things go bad.

Quote:
And if you can accept that we don't take our positions out of some unexplainable malice, then maybe open your mind to the sorts of explanations for our positions that we freely give whenever asked instead of just rejecting them out of hand. Just a thought.

Not unexplainable malice. It's quite easily explained - when not malicious, just disinterested.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#472 Mar 20 2015 at 3:35 AM Rating: Good
Citizen's Arrest!
******
29,527 posts
Japan. Why? I really hope that's a premature April Fool's joke.

#473 Mar 20 2015 at 6:53 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Quote:
Japan. Why?

I agree. Who needs it?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#474 Mar 20 2015 at 9:57 AM Rating: Good
Citizen's Arrest!
******
29,527 posts
Okay, Japan. I've changed my mind. We can be friends again. Mildly NSFW.
#475 Mar 20 2015 at 10:01 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Not me. I'm still on board with getting rid of Japan. All they do there is murder whales and eat schoolgirl panties.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#476 Mar 20 2015 at 10:08 AM Rating: Excellent
*****
10,601 posts
Smiley: disappointed
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 295 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (295)