Got Any Conservative Friends Against Gay Marriage?

  • metta

    Posts: 39090

    Aug 11, 2010 7:02 AM GMT

    Send them this:

    My Fellow Conservatives, Think Carefully About Your Opposition to Gay Marriage

    http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/08/09/margaret-hoover-prop-gay-rights-marriage-conservatives-civil-rights/
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 11, 2010 3:21 PM GMT
    Yes me lol I favor Civil Unions
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19119

    Aug 11, 2010 3:26 PM GMT
    All my conservative friends are pro-gay and pro-gay marriage...Go figure
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 11, 2010 3:39 PM GMT
    WickedRyan saidYes me lol I favor Civil Unions


    Yes I too favor civil unions - but here's the/(a) libertarian argument for gay marriage though - http://jeffreymiron.com/2010/06/conservatives-and-gay-marriage/:
    "If the government supplies and enforces a particular legal contract – marriage – it must do so equally for same- and opposite-sex couples unless it has compelling evidence that same-sex marriage harms an innocent third party (e.g., children). No such evidence exists.

    Libertarians can reasonably argue, of course, that government should not be in the marriage business at all; that would be fine with me. But until this happens, same-sex marriage should legal.

    My view was like yours until very recently - mostly because of this argument. The issue of rights should trump tradition. That being said, marriage should not be sanctioned by government. I do believe that the term "marriage" has religious connotations which is a barrier for acceptance by many - that it is better for this acceptance to come from states versus federal. The fight by social conservatives should not therefore be to ban gay marriage but to remove government sanction of "marriage". Government should simply provide the legal structure/contract - ie "civil unions" for all.

    There's also this - http://jeffreyellis.org/blog/?p=2879, quoting the (by some considered to be) supposedly ultra conservative Cato Institute: "No compelling reason has been proffered for sanctioning heterosexual but not homosexual marriages. Nor is a ban on gay marriage a close fit for attaining the goals cited by proponents of such bans. If the goal, for example, is to strengthen the institution of marriage, a more effective step might be to bar no-fault divorce and premarital cohabitation. If the goal is to ensure procreation, then infertile and aged couples should be precluded from marriage."

    (Edit - that being said - I disagree with the OP - whose link comes across across more as a threat which eclipses their principled reasoned argument. At least for most of my (social) conservative friends, it's usually the dispassionate reasoned arguments that get through and even then, none of my social conservative friends are the intolerant hicks as popularly portrayed by the media)
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 11, 2010 3:45 PM GMT
    Thankfully not.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 11, 2010 3:59 PM GMT
    riddler78 said
    WickedRyan saidYes me lol I favor Civil Unions


    Yes I too favor civil unions - but here's the/(a) libertarian argument for gay marriage though - http://jeffreymiron.com/2010/06/conservatives-and-gay-marriage/:
    "If the government supplies and enforces a particular legal contract – marriage – it must do so equally for same- and opposite-sex couples unless it has compelling evidence that same-sex marriage harms an innocent third party (e.g., children). No such evidence exists.

    Libertarians can reasonably argue, of course, that government should not be in the marriage business at all; that would be fine with me. But until this happens, same-sex marriage should legal.

    My view was like yours until very recently - mostly because of this argument. The issue of rights should trump tradition. That being said, marriage should not be sanctioned by government. I do believe that the term "marriage" has religious connotations which is a barrier for acceptance by many - that it is better for this acceptance to come from states versus federal. The fight by social conservatives should not therefore be to ban gay marriage but to remove government sanction of "marriage". Government should simply provide the legal structure/contract - ie "civil unions" for all.

    There's also this - http://jeffreyellis.org/blog/?p=2879, quoting the (by some considered to be) supposedly ultra conservative Cato Institute: "No compelling reason has been proffered for sanctioning heterosexual but not homosexual marriages. Nor is a ban on gay marriage a close fit for attaining the goals cited by proponents of such bans. If the goal, for example, is to strengthen the institution of marriage, a more effective step might be to bar no-fault divorce and premarital cohabitation. If the goal is to ensure procreation, then infertile and aged couples should be precluded from marriage."

    (Edit - that being said - I disagree with the OP - whose link comes across across more as a threat which eclipses their principled reasoned argument. At least for most of my (social) conservative friends, it's usually the dispassionate reasoned arguments that get through and even then, none of my social conservative friends are the intolerant hicks as popularly portrayed by the media)


    **Yes, marriage IS purely a religious term. Which is why my atheist aunt and uncle aren't really married... and they haven't been married for 40 years. Justices of the Peace really don't preform marriages either--it's an open secret within the court system but few laymen know about it**

    icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 11, 2010 4:11 PM GMT
    riddler78 said
    WickedRyan saidYes me lol I favor Civil Unions


    Yes I too favor civil unions - but here's the/(a) libertarian argument for gay marriage though - http://jeffreymiron.com/2010/06/conservatives-and-gay-marriage/:
    "If the government supplies and enforces a particular legal contract – marriage – it must do so equally for same- and opposite-sex couples unless it has compelling evidence that same-sex marriage harms an innocent third party (e.g., children). No such evidence exists.

    Libertarians can reasonably argue, of course, that government should not be in the marriage business at all; that would be fine with me. But until this happens, same-sex marriage should legal.

    My view was like yours until very recently - mostly because of this argument. The issue of rights should trump tradition. That being said, marriage should not be sanctioned by government. I do believe that the term "marriage" has religious connotations which is a barrier for acceptance by many - that it is better for this acceptance to come from states versus federal. The fight by social conservatives should not therefore be to ban gay marriage but to remove government sanction of "marriage". Government should simply provide the legal structure/contract - ie "civil unions" for all.

    There's also this - http://jeffreyellis.org/blog/?p=2879, quoting the (by some considered to be) supposedly ultra conservative Cato Institute: "No compelling reason has been proffered for sanctioning heterosexual but not homosexual marriages. Nor is a ban on gay marriage a close fit for attaining the goals cited by proponents of such bans. If the goal, for example, is to strengthen the institution of marriage, a more effective step might be to bar no-fault divorce and premarital cohabitation. If the goal is to ensure procreation, then infertile and aged couples should be precluded from marriage."

    (Edit - that being said - I disagree with the OP - whose link comes across across more as a threat which eclipses their principled reasoned argument. At least for most of my (social) conservative friends, it's usually the dispassionate reasoned arguments that get through and even then, none of my social conservative friends are the intolerant hicks as popularly portrayed by the media)


    Riddler, you live in Canada where there is full and complete equal rights for gays federally. You can move Province to Province and still remain married. It's a little tacky to say that our US cousins shouldn't be able to have it in federal law, considering that civil unions in the US are a horror show of patchwork rights and non-rights.

    Government already does this, " Government should simply provide the legal structure/contract - ie "civil unions" for all."

    ...it's called a marriage license. There is nothing religious about that document. If it's strictly State decided, then you get the mess of travelling across the US where you are married and un-married, married, then un-married as you travel from State to State. Ugh.

    -Doug
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 11, 2010 4:29 PM GMT
    meninlove said
    riddler78 said
    WickedRyan saidYes me lol I favor Civil Unions


    Yes I too favor civil unions - but here's the/(a) libertarian argument for gay marriage though - http://jeffreymiron.com/2010/06/conservatives-and-gay-marriage/:
    "If the government supplies and enforces a particular legal contract – marriage – it must do so equally for same- and opposite-sex couples unless it has compelling evidence that same-sex marriage harms an innocent third party (e.g., children). No such evidence exists.

    Libertarians can reasonably argue, of course, that government should not be in the marriage business at all; that would be fine with me. But until this happens, same-sex marriage should legal.

    My view was like yours until very recently - mostly because of this argument. The issue of rights should trump tradition. That being said, marriage should not be sanctioned by government. I do believe that the term "marriage" has religious connotations which is a barrier for acceptance by many - that it is better for this acceptance to come from states versus federal. The fight by social conservatives should not therefore be to ban gay marriage but to remove government sanction of "marriage". Government should simply provide the legal structure/contract - ie "civil unions" for all.

    There's also this - http://jeffreyellis.org/blog/?p=2879, quoting the (by some considered to be) supposedly ultra conservative Cato Institute: "No compelling reason has been proffered for sanctioning heterosexual but not homosexual marriages. Nor is a ban on gay marriage a close fit for attaining the goals cited by proponents of such bans. If the goal, for example, is to strengthen the institution of marriage, a more effective step might be to bar no-fault divorce and premarital cohabitation. If the goal is to ensure procreation, then infertile and aged couples should be precluded from marriage."

    (Edit - that being said - I disagree with the OP - whose link comes across across more as a threat which eclipses their principled reasoned argument. At least for most of my (social) conservative friends, it's usually the dispassionate reasoned arguments that get through and even then, none of my social conservative friends are the intolerant hicks as popularly portrayed by the media)


    Riddler, you live in Canada where there is full and complete equal rights for gays federally. You can move Province to Province and still remain married. It's a little tacky to say that our US cousins shouldn't be able to have it in federal law, considering that civil unions in the US are a horror show of patchwork rights and non-rights.

    Government already does this, " Government should simply provide the legal structure/contract - ie "civil unions" for all."

    ...it's called a marriage license. There is nothing religious about that document. If it's strictly State decided, then you get the mess of travelling across the US where you are married and un-married, married, then un-married as you travel from State to State. Ugh.

    -Doug


    It's tackier to get all self righteous about someone's argument when in principle you're in agreement. Next time try reading what I wrote. I was arguing for legalization of gay marriage even if I disagree with the idea, the problem is not with gay marriage but government sanctioned "marriage" - a term that is immersed both in religion and tradition which makes it controversial. In the absence of the change in language and a license available to any couple (including those who are related), gay marriage should be legal.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 11, 2010 4:34 PM GMT
    icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 11, 2010 4:40 PM GMT
    Got Any Conservative Friends Against Gay Marriage?

    Not anymore.
  • Joeyphx444

    Posts: 2382

    Aug 11, 2010 4:40 PM GMT
    This issue is honestly annoying. I don't CARE!!! It's not gonna change the fact that we have illegal aliens coming in, women are getting abortions, obesity is on the rise in children!! Afghanistan, Iraq, Mexico, Drugs, violence, etc

    I think both sides are getting ridiculous with their arguments. Anyone who talks about this sooo much obviously needs to get their priorities straight. Just cuz I am gay doesn't mean this is my number one only issue
  • metta

    Posts: 39090

    Aug 11, 2010 6:05 PM GMT
    Jmuscle33 saidThis issue is honestly annoying. I don't CARE!!! It's not gonna change the fact that we have illegal aliens coming in, women are getting abortions, obesity is on the rise in children!! Afghanistan, Iraq, Mexico, Drugs, violence, etc

    I think both sides are getting ridiculous with their arguments. Anyone who talks about this sooo much obviously needs to get their priorities straight. Just cuz I am gay doesn't mean this is my number one only issue


    You know, you can tell from the title what the topic is about. If it does not interest you....don't click on it. Move along....
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 11, 2010 6:20 PM GMT
    Yes, and they are gay too. Their arguments range from "I don't feel like I'm being deprived or discriminated against or oppressed, therefore nobody else should" to "government shouldn't stick its nose in this". When I counter the later argument with citing that the official republican party platform is against gay marriage and everyone from Sarah Palin, to McCain are against it, all I get back is "Typical fag, only thinking of yourself, not the well being of the country." So they think government shouldn't intrude unless it's a candidate/party they like suggesting the intruding. Because that's different. fucking us over and pandering to the religious right is a tiny price to pay for lower taxes and complete and total financial deregulation. icon_lol.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 11, 2010 6:26 PM GMT
    riddler78 said
    WickedRyan saidYes me lol I favor Civil Unions


    Yes I too favor civil unions - but here's the/(a) libertarian argument for gay marriage though - http://jeffreymiron.com/2010/06/conservatives-and-gay-marriage/:
    "If the government supplies and enforces a particular legal contract – marriage – it must do so equally for same- and opposite-sex couples unless it has compelling evidence that same-sex marriage harms an innocent third party (e.g., children). No such evidence exists.

    Libertarians can reasonably argue, of course, that government should not be in the marriage business at all; that would be fine with me. But until this happens, same-sex marriage should legal.

    My view was like yours until very recently - mostly because of this argument. The issue of rights should trump tradition. That being said, marriage should not be sanctioned by government. I do believe that the term "marriage" has religious connotations which is a barrier for acceptance by many - that it is better for this acceptance to come from states versus federal. The fight by social conservatives should not therefore be to ban gay marriage but to remove government sanction of "marriage". Government should simply provide the legal structure/contract - ie "civil unions" for all.

    There's also this - http://jeffreyellis.org/blog/?p=2879, quoting the (by some considered to be) supposedly ultra conservative Cato Institute: "No compelling reason has been proffered for sanctioning heterosexual but not homosexual marriages. Nor is a ban on gay marriage a close fit for attaining the goals cited by proponents of such bans. If the goal, for example, is to strengthen the institution of marriage, a more effective step might be to bar no-fault divorce and premarital cohabitation. If the goal is to ensure procreation, then infertile and aged couples should be precluded from marriage."

    (Edit - that being said - I disagree with the OP - whose link comes across across more as a threat which eclipses their principled reasoned argument. At least for most of my (social) conservative friends, it's usually the dispassionate reasoned arguments that get through and even then, none of my social conservative friends are the intolerant hicks as popularly portrayed by the media)


    I agree with the notion that extending the same rights to gays is necessary providing the government is going to intrude to begin with.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 11, 2010 6:50 PM GMT
    Nope, because I really don't know any conservatives I'd term friends. A few conservative acquaintances I sometimes run across, mostly through others, but gay marriage is never discussed.

    I suppose the closest person to me would be my "sister-in-law" (partner's sister), who calls herself a Republican but almost all her own friends are Dems, and I don't think she's really very conservative. I've never asked her opinion on gay marriage because politics can be divisive in families, and I like her too much to want there to be tension between us. But of course she knows her brother & I are lovers, and sleep in the same bed, which she's seen, and we're all great friends.

    But a little story, perhaps a bit off-topic, except to show a Republican who can be accepting of gays, if not necessarily about marriage. When this same sister was soliciting sponsor ads for a music program, for the choral group she directs, we bought a page to help her out. But we didn't know what to write, so we just told her to make it whatever she wanted, with the usual "Congratulations on Your Continued Success" and all that other happy crap you always read in programs.

    Well, she totally shocked us by having the ad read "From Your Brothers, Cxxx and Bob, etc, etc..." Her brothers, plural??? ME TOO? I was so touched by that. I don't know if she'd want me to ever legally marry into the male side of her family, but she has no problem calling me her brother, and I can be satisfied with that.
  • BIG_N_TALL

    Posts: 2190

    Aug 11, 2010 7:05 PM GMT
    Fortunately, I don't...
  • KepaArg

    Posts: 1721

    Aug 11, 2010 8:36 PM GMT
    Jmuscle33 saidThis issue is honestly annoying. I don't CARE!!! It's not gonna change the fact that we have illegal aliens coming in, women are getting abortions, obesity is on the rise in children!! Afghanistan, Iraq, Mexico, Drugs, violence, etc

    I think both sides are getting ridiculous with their arguments. Anyone who talks about this sooo much obviously needs to get their priorities straight. Just cuz I am gay doesn't mean this is my number one only issue


    It's just an issue of having the same rights as a straight people. At least my country while catholic, pushed religion aside and focused on the issue at hand.

    I don't think women getting abortions is any of your business, it's their bodies and that's their choice to make. Just like it's your choice to be a minion to that idiot Sarah Palin

    While obesity is a problem, I don't see how it's mine? That's the parents responsibilty to instill good eating habits in their kids and try to get them active and interested in sports and clubs- just as I would when I adopt.

    I do agree with you on immigration to an extent, while different here I wish we could limit the amount the of Bolivians and Paraguayans who come here. But, that too is give and take while they may increase crime and some burden on society, they do the work the average American (here Argentine) wouldn't even touch and they get exploited. Almost any Middle to Upper class Argentine has maids and nannies and they all come from poorer bordering countries.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 11, 2010 8:51 PM GMT
    It's never really talked about, but I would say most would know it's something I have little interest in, as it would change nothing, but we can officiate our relasionship anyway with out the word marriage even being used, and neither of us have any interest in doing that either; after 20 years why bother. It won't pay off the mortgage that is just about done anyway, make us live any longer, pay the bills, make us happy.

    But I have a mixed group of friends from diffrent walks of life. Christians, non christians, people with family and with out.

    Having a Birthday BBQ very soon, and going by the mix of people who will be here, Christians, non =christians, people bringing their rug rats, no-one really cares it's into the home of two men living together. I would say if it was possible to get married, we would have a full house on the day of supports.

    But it's never talked about as neither of us play the poor me card. It's just not an issue for us.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 11, 2010 11:18 PM GMT
    I have Conservative friends who are against gay marriage, mostly for religous reasons and I accept that, just as they accept me for being gay and for being a Non Believer thats what makes them friends.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 11, 2010 11:26 PM GMT
    riddler78 said, the problem is not with gay marriage but government sanctioned "marriage" - a term that is immersed both in religion and tradition which makes it controversial.


    Actually this is not true and is religious-right propaganda. It's like saying we're a xtian nation because "one nation under god" is in the pledge of allegiance

    The definition of marriage has changed over the centuries, and in different cultures; there are (suppressed) religious ceremonies for a joining of two men; and the church came to marriage late in the game in order to extract more money and control.

    So this "union of one man and one woman" bullshit is just that.
  • Joeyphx444

    Posts: 2382

    Aug 12, 2010 6:08 PM GMT
    KepaArg said
    Jmuscle33 saidThis issue is honestly annoying. I don't CARE!!! It's not gonna change the fact that we have illegal aliens coming in, women are getting abortions, obesity is on the rise in children!! Afghanistan, Iraq, Mexico, Drugs, violence, etc

    I think both sides are getting ridiculous with their arguments. Anyone who talks about this sooo much obviously needs to get their priorities straight. Just cuz I am gay doesn't mean this is my number one only issue


    It's just an issue of having the same rights as a straight people. At least my country while catholic, pushed religion aside and focused on the issue at hand.

    I don't think women getting abortions is any of your business, it's their bodies and that's their choice to make. Just like it's your choice to be a minion to that idiot Sarah Palin

    While obesity is a problem, I don't see how it's mine? That's the parents responsibilty to instill good eating habits in their kids and try to get them active and interested in sports and clubs- just as I would when I adopt.

    I do agree with you on immigration to an extent, while different here I wish we could limit the amount the of Bolivians and Paraguayans who come here. But, that too is give and take while they may increase crime and some burden on society, they do the work the average American (here Argentine) wouldn't even touch and they get exploited. Almost any Middle to Upper class Argentine has maids and nannies and they all come from poorer bordering countries.



    Wow I don't even know how to react to this post!!

    First off, marriage is not a right, it's a privilege

    Secondly, abortion is a human issue, not a woman's issue. You know, it does take a MAN and a woman to make the child?? So I say that men have a voice just as much as women do about the LIVING THING inside her

    Thirdly, obesity is everyone's problem here because the more fat people there are, the more health the problems, the more health care they use, the more we have to pay for all that, etc, etc

    After all this, you are in Argentina, so why do you care? Why comment on our issues, when your country clearly has its own. I would love to go to Argentina, but if there are people like you there, maybe not

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 12, 2010 6:22 PM GMT
    CuriousJockAZ saidAll my conservative friends are pro-gay and pro-gay marriage...Go figure


    Mostly because you're an awesome dude and set a really good example, as do a lot of other guys on here I've gotten to know, they know who they are. icon_smile.gif

    I have liberal, and conservative friends who also have positive views towards gays as well.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 12, 2010 6:24 PM GMT
    Actually JMuscle33,

    "Thirdly, obesity is everyone's problem here because the more fat people there are, the more health the problems, the more health care they use, the more we have to pay for all that, etc, etc"

    Obesity is a huge money maker and guaranteed profit maker for your for-profit-charge-what-the-market-will-bear health industry. icon_wink.gif The more sick people, the richer the industry gets.

    Any straight person will tell you marriage is their right. Any atheist will tell you the same thing if you dare mention religion.


    and this last, "After all this, you are in Argentina, so why do you care?"

    Because, good man, empathy and compassion know no border.

    -Doug
  • KepaArg

    Posts: 1721

    Aug 12, 2010 6:26 PM GMT
    Jmuscle33 said
    KepaArg said
    Jmuscle33 saidThis issue is honestly annoying. I don't CARE!!! It's not gonna change the fact that we have illegal aliens coming in, women are getting abortions, obesity is on the rise in children!! Afghanistan, Iraq, Mexico, Drugs, violence, etc

    I think both sides are getting ridiculous with their arguments. Anyone who talks about this sooo much obviously needs to get their priorities straight. Just cuz I am gay doesn't mean this is my number one only issue


    It's just an issue of having the same rights as a straight people. At least my country while catholic, pushed religion aside and focused on the issue at hand.

    I don't think women getting abortions is any of your business, it's their bodies and that's their choice to make. Just like it's your choice to be a minion to that idiot Sarah Palin

    While obesity is a problem, I don't see how it's mine? That's the parents responsibilty to instill good eating habits in their kids and try to get them active and interested in sports and clubs- just as I would when I adopt.

    I do agree with you on immigration to an extent, while different here I wish we could limit the amount the of Bolivians and Paraguayans who come here. But, that too is give and take while they may increase crime and some burden on society, they do the work the average American (here Argentine) wouldn't even touch and they get exploited. Almost any Middle to Upper class Argentine has maids and nannies and they all come from poorer bordering countries.



    Wow I don't even know how to react to this post!!

    First off, marriage is not a right, it's a privilege

    Secondly, abortion is a human issue, not a woman's issue. You know, it does take a MAN and a woman to make the child?? So I say that men have a voice just as much as women do about the LIVING THING inside here

    Thirdly, obesity is everyone's problem here because the more fat people there are, the more health the problems, the more health care they use, the more we have to pay for all that, etc, etc

    After all this, you are in Argentina, so why do you care? Why comment on our issues, when your country clearly has its own. I would love to go to Argentina, but if there are people like you there, maybe not



    icon_smile.gif Feeling is mutual!

    Marriage isn't a privilege- it is a right as their are laws and ''privileges'' only granted to those who are married- that all couples should have access too.

    Yes, sure the man can have a say in it. But, I don't think people like you, or religious zealots have any right to tell another person what they can and can't do with their body. At the end of the day it's a personal choice for a woman to decide whether or not she wants.

    MMm....again it's the parents job to make sure THEIR kids eat well, and learn what a balanced meal is. Common sense aside, I don't know in the states, but we actually have a health and nutrition course in school where we learn this.

    America likes to be involved in other countries affairs and have a say, and I like to be informed myself, and I have the right to comment and contribute my thoughts to the topic even if it doesn't involve my country. Yes, I know my country has it's own problems, and your point is?

    You probably wouldn't be welcome here anyway with your views and Bush-Palin-Tea Bagging-Holier then though-But lacking a fucking brain attitude.

    So save your money and stay where you are! Gracias!
  • KepaArg

    Posts: 1721

    Aug 12, 2010 6:29 PM GMT
    meninlove said Actually JMuscle33,

    "Thirdly, obesity is everyone's problem here because the more fat people there are, the more health the problems, the more health care they use, the more we have to pay for all that, etc, etc"

    Obesity is a huge money maker and guaranteed profit maker for your for-profit-charge-what-the-market-will-bear health industry. icon_wink.gif The more sick people, the richer the industry gets.

    Any straight person will tell you marriage is their right. Any atheist will tell you the same thing if you dare mention religion.


    and this last, "After all this, you are in Argentina, so why do you care?"

    Because, good man, empathy and compassion know no border.

    -Doug


    This is why I voted for you! icon_smile.gif