A friend of mine from high school posted a link to this article on facebook. It's a conservative case for gay marriage, and is very well thought and written.
Oh, and God said... something about them in... uh... Spartacus... I mean Leviticus. You know, that part that tells us that shellfish is an abomination and stuff.
Been thinking about this all night.dervishspinJanuary 12 2010, 14:50:26 UTC
Until you get to the 3rd page it's really not realy a conservative case for gay marriage. It's the liberal case for gay marriage written by a conservativeI sometimes think that one of the key differences between a liberal and conservative mindset can be summed up by gaguing the individual's change tolerance. Is it possible that a liberal grasps new concepts and can project them immediately forward to their logical conclusion, accepts them and moves on. A conservative when presented with the same new concept balks at it *because it is a change* even if they can project outward to the same logical conclusion. Which is to say... Conservatives are conservative because they need much, much longer to get used to new ideas and the implications of all new ideas than liberals do
( ... )
Your comment has a liberal biasetherialJanuary 12 2010, 16:06:13 UTC
There are flaky liberals and knee-jerk conservatives that fit into this comment, but I feel you leave out both the well-rounded free thinking Liberals and the well-rounded free thinking Conservatives.
There's an article floating around that talks about there being five dimensions of morality, and that Liberals operate on three of these, being approximately Harm, Fairness, and Loyalty. Conservatives, however, have two added dimensions: Purity and Obedience. The article suggests that Liberals can understand Conservatives better by adding these dimensions to their worldview. But every well-rounded free thinking Liberal I've talked to came to the same conclusion: "We understand, but reject, the Purity and Obedience dimensions of Morality
( ... )
Re: Your comment has a liberal biasdervishspinJanuary 12 2010, 17:22:00 UTC
Of course my comment has a liberal bias. I am a liberal. That does not keep me from wanting to understand another's viewpoint and honor it. For the Bush Administration years, however, I found that viewpont absolutely confounding and as a result, although I tried really hard, but could not really honor it. I could find very few "well-rounded free thinking Conservatives" during that time. I think of myself as a well-rounded free thinking Liberal", but I am sure during those years no-one would identify me as such. I am hoping that can change.
But calling me a will-nilly pansy-assed liberal hippy won't help that dialogue, I don't think.
Re: Your comment has a liberal biasetherialJanuary 12 2010, 17:35:29 UTC
You have followthrough. I would never call you such. The Bush Administration is much easier to understand if you view it along demagogue/capitalist lines. They weren't conservatives at all. They were just out to make a buck, and conservatism was the easiest lie to pull off.
I've stated my position on same-sex marriage and specifically Prop 8 in This Piece. Please read it before you have a knee jerk reaction to anything I say below. I don't think you knew me then, though my mental timeline is quite broken.
It is, some have said, the last major civil-rights milestone yet to be surpassed in our two-century struggle to attain the goals we set for this nation at its formation.
This is kind of a stupid, close-minded comment. I'm sure the slaves thought the same thing when they were freed, women thought it when granted suffrage, etc etc. We'll come up with something else.
Other comments from the crazy Bible guy:
I understand, but reject, certain religious teachings that denounce homosexuality as morally wrong, illegitimate, or unnatural; and I take strong exception to those who argue that same-sex relationships should be discouraged by society and law. Science has taught us, even if history has not, that gays and lesbians do not choose to be homosexual any more than the rest of us choose to be
( ... )
If you take in the whole of the paragraph at the top of page 3, I think he was going for "I understand that a multitude of religions prohibit homosexuality, but that is not reason enough for civil law to". I agree with you and dervishspin that the last page is weak and probably was not proofread to the degree the first two pages were.
Actually, can you elucidate this statement? I think I know where you are going with this, but I don't want to assume:
"I feel like someone's right to be gay or straight, frankly, while usually a consequence of their nature, should not be excused based on their nature. Does this make sense?"
Comments 15
And it's "icky", thinking about sweaty male bodies pressed against each other in passionate... uh, I gotta go find an airport bathroom.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
There's an article floating around that talks about there being five dimensions of morality, and that Liberals operate on three of these, being approximately Harm, Fairness, and Loyalty. Conservatives, however, have two added dimensions: Purity and Obedience. The article suggests that Liberals can understand Conservatives better by adding these dimensions to their worldview. But every well-rounded free thinking Liberal I've talked to came to the same conclusion: "We understand, but reject, the Purity and Obedience dimensions of Morality ( ... )
Reply
That does not keep me from wanting to understand another's viewpoint and honor it. For the Bush Administration years, however, I found that viewpont absolutely confounding and as a result, although I tried really hard, but could not really honor it. I could find very few "well-rounded free thinking Conservatives" during that time. I think of myself as a well-rounded free thinking Liberal", but I am sure during those years no-one would identify me as such.
I am hoping that can change.
But calling me a will-nilly pansy-assed liberal hippy won't help that dialogue, I don't think.
Reply
Reply
It is, some have said, the last major civil-rights milestone yet to be surpassed in our two-century struggle to attain the goals we set for this nation at its formation.
This is kind of a stupid, close-minded comment. I'm sure the slaves thought the same thing when they were freed, women thought it when granted suffrage, etc etc. We'll come up with something else.
Other comments from the crazy Bible guy:
I understand, but reject, certain religious teachings that denounce homosexuality as morally wrong, illegitimate, or unnatural; and I take strong exception to those who argue that same-sex relationships should be discouraged by society and law. Science has taught us, even if history has not, that gays and lesbians do not choose to be homosexual any more than the rest of us choose to be ( ... )
Reply
Reply
"I feel like someone's right to be gay or straight, frankly, while usually a consequence of their nature, should not be excused based on their nature. Does this make sense?"
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment