The Importance of Social Conservatism as it Relates to the GOP

Truth Detector said:
I don’t have to marry someone gay, but I am forced to change an age old definition of what constitutes marriage. Which I also believe is one of the wedge issues destroying this nation’s children and our moral compass which will lead to the decay and rot of a decadent immoral society.

And for what; so that a tiny minority of odd people can feel normal? Why and how is being gay a normal act?



Yes, I don’t have to have an abortion; but I am forced to pay for certain abortions and accept them as legal by an activist Federal Government outside of its Constitutional authority. Abortion is not a Federal issue; it is a States rights issue and States have the right to accept it or reject it without interference from the Feds.

This one issue that was forced unconstitutionally on our citizens by an activist Judiciary is the single most divisive issue in the nation; our forefathers knew of the consequences of such activism and sought to ensure that it would not occur.



Yes, but you deflect and avoid my question and your strawman claim that Republicans are FORCING their beliefs on others; where do they do this?



Wrong again; Obamacare forces Americans to buy something they would choose NOT to buy otherwise; thus the unconstitutionality of it. It is not a tax and before it was declared a tax, the idiots who semi-wrote this train wreck legislation claimed it was NOT an additional tax.

I know, you are confused and are merely attempting to play devil’s advocate and have it both ways; but your arguments are weak and ineffectual.
Click to expand...

I didnt say Republicans were forcing anything on people, I said that social conservatives kept trying to. And taxes are not the same as imposing your values or social mores on others or having them imposed on you.

We dont necessarily agree with a lot of things the govt spends our money on....stem cell research, NASA, wars, crappy public school educations. That is a different issue.

And too bad if you dont like the re-definition of a word...if that threatens your marriage, then it's not much of a marriage. It's about personal freedom. Not your feelings. There's no right to not be offended. Your definition of marriage means EXACTLY the same thing to gays. So it's not really a redefinition of the underpinnings of the institution. just the genders involved. Oh well. People said the same thing about interracial marriage. We now see those people as ignorant and use the excuse, 'they just didnt know any better.' I dont want to be part of the era where they say that about me.
 
Truth Detector said:
Obamacare forces Americans to buy something they would choose NOT to buy otherwise; thus the unconstitutionality of it. It is not a tax and before it was declared a tax, the idiots who semi-wrote this train wreck legislation claimed it was NOT an additional tax.
Click to expand...

How is Obamacare any different than my having to pay for public schools when I dont have kids and think most are doing a crappy job? When I do not support alot of things they teach or how they handle student social/discipline issues?

(I'm not denying it's a train wreck, but that is a different issue IMO)
 
Last edited:
Truth Detector said:
What socially conservative beliefs are being forced on others by Conservatives
Click to expand...

Richard (Tricky Dick) Nixon’s unconstitutional, aggressive, violent Drug War. Prohibition of agreeable adult marriage contracts for some people.

But of course those are not true conservative agendas, they’re BIG government neo-con agendas. True conservatives promote the conservation of the Bill Of Rights and in particular, in this case Amendment 9. “The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” The people have every right they choose for themselves as long as they don’t infringe on any right of others. Who’s rights are infringed by agreeable adult gay marriage contracts? Who’s rights are infringed by the people deciding for themselves what they shall; and shall not put into their OWN bodies?
 
Lorca said:
How is Obamacare any different than my having to pay for public schools when I dont have kids and think most are doing a crappy job? When I do not support alot of things they teach or how they handle student social/discipline issues?
Click to expand...

When both are instituted by the federal government there’s no difference both are unconstitutional. There is no constitutional authority for the federal government to institute programs in education or healthcare.

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution or prohibited by it to the States are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”(Amendment 10, United States Constitution)
 
what a fucking lair you are.


this has already been decided by the American people and the SCOTUS you ass wipe.


you saying "its unconstitutional" amounts to crazy mans rantings
 
evince said:
what a fucking lair you are.


this has already been decided by the American people and the SCOTUS you ass wipe.


you saying "its unconstitutional" amounts to crazy mans rantings
Click to expand...

But the courts are stashed with partisan ideologues with agendas unrelated to the Constitution just like you Fatty Shitty Panties.

I’ll wait for you to produce the Article or Amendment in the Constitution that authorizes the federal government to operate education or healthcare programs or any socialist program.

Meanwhile, I’ll leave your stupid ass with this,

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution nor prohibited by it to the States are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” (Amendment 10, United States Constitution)
 
Lorca said:
How is Obamacare any different than my having to pay for public schools when I dont have kids and think most are doing a crappy job? When I do not support alot of things they teach or how they handle student social/discipline issues?

(I'm not denying it's a train wreck, but that is a different issue IMO)
Click to expand...

The main difference is that you are being forced by the State to enroll your kids in public schools; it is not the Constiturional authority of the Feds. But the last time I looked, you still can self teach your children or enroll them in private schools. I was not aware they were being FORCED into attending public schools. You are, however, forced to pay for public schools regardless of where you send your kids; but that is a State issue and unrelated to the Federal issue we are debating.

Obamacare is an unconstitutional power grab usurping individual choice and liberties and States rights be FORCING citizens to buy a service or product against their wishes. Where is it stated in the Constitution that our Federal legislators can force us to buy something? To argue it is merely a tax is not only bizzarre, but incredibly stupid.
 
Lorca said:
I didnt say Republicans were forcing anything on people, I said that social conservatives kept trying to.
Click to expand...

So these were not your words???

It's when Republicans try to FORCE their socially conservative *beliefs* on others that I see a problem.

http://www.justplainpolitics.com/sh...s-it-Relates-to-the-GOP&p=1331385#post1331385

Lorca said:
And taxes are not the same as imposing your values or social mores on others or having them imposed on you.
Click to expand...

What do taxes have to do with this debate?

Lorca said:
We dont necessarily agree with a lot of things the govt spends our money on....stem cell research, NASA, wars, crappy public school educations. That is a different issue.
Click to expand...

What does this have to do with this debate?

Lorca said:
And too bad if you dont like the re-definition of a word...if that threatens your marriage, then it's not much of a marriage.
Click to expand...

I have been married for 32 years to the woman I took to her High School prom. I doubt my marriage is threatened any more than time will do to a marriage.

Lorca said:
It's about personal freedom. Not your feelings. There's no right to not be offended. Your definition of marriage means EXACTLY the same thing to gays.
So it's not really a redefinition of the underpinnings of the institution. just the genders involved. Oh well. People said the same thing about interracial marriage. We now see those people as ignorant and use the excuse, 'they just didnt know any better.' I dont want to be part of the era where they say that about me.
Click to expand...

This is categorically incorrect; marriage is defined as the union of a man and a woman in the eyes of God and witnesses for the express purpose of procreating. There is no other reason for it other than the bastardized version we are seeing bantered about by Social leftist Progressives.

It does not mean the same thing to gays; because it can’t.

This is another reason why the founders were brilliant in trying to limit Government and keep it out of our personal lives; it should never sanction marriage or give couples tax advantages. When you usurp the Constitutional duties of the Fed, you get this type of divisive unintended consequence.

You want a Gay Union to legalize it under the eyes of the LAW, I am all for it. The same can be done for hetero couples.
 
evince said:
yeah chose not to BUY but use the system anyway is fucking cheating don't you think?
Click to expand...

Dear moron; please learn how to use the "reply with quote" function and stop spamming the thread with your typical ignorance.

Thank you in advance.
 
Classic Liberal said:
Richard (Tricky Dick) Nixon’s unconstitutional, aggressive, violent Drug War. Prohibition of agreeable adult marriage contracts for some people.
Click to expand...

If you think that Richard Nixon invented the drug war; you just might be poorly informed.

No one is trying to prohibit adults from marriage contracts; we are trying to preserve the meaning and intent of marriage. The Government should not be in the business of sanctioning marriage nor providing tax benefits just because you get marriage. Read my previous response to Lorca.

Classic Liberal said:
But of course those are not true conservative agendas, they’re BIG government neo-con agendas. True conservatives promote the conservation of the Bill Of Rights and in particular, in this case Amendment 9. “The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” The people have every right they choose for themselves as long as they don’t infringe on any right of others.
Click to expand...

No disagreement here. However, civilized societies do have zoning laws and laws to protect citizen’s rights of quiet enjoyment. You may not be hurting me by parking your junky cars on your lawn and letting the weeds grow the size of trees; but you are definitely hurting my property values.

You may not be hurting me by injecting heroine into your veins, but it would be difficult to argue that there is not a cost to everyone for such behavior and the impact it has trying to admonish children you are raising to not use drugs when adults condone its use.
Your narrow minded myopic views are noted however.

Classic Liberal said:
Who’s rights are infringed by agreeable adult gay marriage contracts?
Click to expand...

No one has made such arguments; got strawmen?

Classic Liberal said:
Who’s rights are infringed by the people deciding for themselves what they shall; and shall not put into their OWN bodies?
Click to expand...

No one has made such arguments; got strawmen? See above.
 
evince said:
what a fucking lair you are.


this has already been decided by the American people and the SCOTUS you ass wipe.


you saying "its unconstitutional" amounts to crazy mans rantings
Click to expand...

Dear moron; please learn to use the "reply with quote" function and stop spamming the thread with your blatant ignorance.
 
Truth Detector said:
So these were not your words???

It's when Republicans try to FORCE their socially conservative *beliefs* on others that I see a problem.

http://www.justplainpolitics.com/sh...s-it-Relates-to-the-GOP&p=1331385#post1331385



What do taxes have to do with this debate?



What does this have to do with this debate?



I have been married for 32 years to the woman I took to her High School prom. I doubt my marriage is threatened any more than time will do to a marriage.



This is categorically incorrect; marriage is defined as the union of a man and a woman in the eyes of God and witnesses for the express purpose of procreating. There is no other reason for it other than the bastardized version we are seeing bantered about by Social leftist Progressives.

It does not mean the same thing to gays; because it can’t.

This is another reason why the founders were brilliant in trying to limit Government and keep it out of our personal lives; it should never sanction marriage or give couples tax advantages. When you usurp the Constitutional duties of the Fed, you get this type of divisive unintended consequence.

You want a Gay Union to legalize it under the eyes of the LAW, I am all for it. The same can be done for hetero couples.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I try not to lump all Republicans in with social conservatives but sometimes I'm in a hurry. Sad that you dont have any stronger points in your argument that you have to bring that up.

And when YOU introduced Obamacare into the argument, you introduced something completely outside of social and religious agendas which we were discussing in the context of social conservatives. Obamacare is about taxes or fines. Dont like it? Dont derail the topic with your pet peeve.

And you have given me the BEST possible example of why social conservatives should not have any govt control in this country. You happily choose to force your religious belief on all couples who wish to marry...and are happy to have the govt support this. You would deprive gays of marriage...and this because of your religious beliefs. "Separate but equal' is still discrimination so you wanting the govt to call it something different MAKES it different.

Thanks!


The govt should have no involvement in marriage at all IMO....we agree on that... but if they do, it should be without discrimination.
 
Truth Detector said:
If you think that Richard Nixon invented the drug war; you just might be poorly informed.
Click to expand...

Correct me if I’m wrong, but wasn’t it Tricky Dick that declared war on drugs and instituted the DEA?

No one is trying to prohibit adults from marriage contracts; we are trying to preserve the meaning and intent of marriage.
Click to expand...

On the contrary, most States even today prohibit a State sanctioning of gay marriage contracts. Evidently, somebody is ”prohibiting” some adults from making agreeable contract with one another. How far-fetched is it to claim the prohibition is promoted and enforced by neo-con Republicans?

The Government should not be in the business of sanctioning marriage nor providing tax benefits just because you get marriage. Read my previous response to Lorca.
Click to expand...

True! But the fact remains that government does sanction marriage contracts for legality purposes. As long as they do, the 14th Amendment’s “equal protection of the law” clause must be honored.



No disagreement here. However, civilized societies do have zoning laws and laws to protect citizen’s rights of quiet enjoyment. You may not be hurting me by parking your junky cars on your lawn and letting the weeds grow the size of trees; but you are definitely hurting my property values.
Click to expand...

So if a gay married couple lives next door, it’s the same as “parking your junky cars on your lawn and letting the weeds grow the size of trees” and devaluing your property value?

You may not be hurting me by injecting heroine into your veins, but it would be difficult to argue that there is not a cost to everyone for such behavior and the impact it has trying to admonish children you are raising to not use drugs when adults condone its use.
Your narrow minded myopic views are noted however.
Click to expand...

Are you attempting here an indictment of social programs or of drug usage?

Can you tell me how the violent aggressive unconstitutional Drug War is positively impacting children?

How about I suggest to you that Nixon’s Drug War simply creates a huge profit, tax free market for criminal types and terrorist, corrupts law enforcement and politicians, clogs up our judicial and penal system, adds an even more violent element to street gangs, incarcerates thousands of non-violent folks and causes extensive violence in our streets. Are you willing to trade off your personal responsibility to raise your own children for that?
 
Classic Liberal said:
When both are instituted by the federal government there’s no difference both are unconstitutional. There is no constitutional authority for the federal government to institute programs in education or healthcare.

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution or prohibited by it to the States are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”(Amendment 10, United States Constitution)
Click to expand...

I never said I supported Obamacare. The other person introduced it to the argument.

I agree completely that it's unConstitutional. That's not the discussion here tho...well I guess it could be but it's not what I was focusing on.
 
Lorca said:
I never said I supported Obamacare. The other person introduced it to the argument.

I agree completely that it's unConstitutional. That's not the discussion here tho...well I guess it could be but it's not what I was focusing on.
Click to expand...

Lol, and yet, the Supreme Court said it isn't. I guess you better straighten them out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top