Author Topic: Are social conservatives always wrong?  (Read 25224 times)

ReadySetMillionaire

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1198
  • Location: The Buckeye State
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #150 on: June 26, 2019, 06:11:46 AM »
This is what I was getting at way earlier in the thread: "Republicans Don’t Understand Democrats—And Democrats Don’t Understand Republicans"

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/06/republicans-and-democrats-dont-understand-each-other/592324/

Quote
Unfortunately, the “Perception Gap” study suggests that neither the media nor the universities are likely to remedy Americans’ inability to hear one another: It found that the best educated and most politically interested Americans are more likely to vilify their political adversaries than their less educated, less tuned-in peers.

Rings quite true in this thread.
« Last Edit: June 26, 2019, 07:05:11 AM by ReadySetMillionaire »

DadJokes

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1051
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #151 on: June 26, 2019, 07:12:56 AM »
This is what I was getting at way earlier in the thread: "Republicans Don’t Understand Democrats—And Democrats Don’t Understand Republicans"

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/06/republicans-and-democrats-dont-understand-each-other/592324/

Quote
Unfortunately, the “Perception Gap” study suggests that neither the media nor the universities are likely to remedy Americans’ inability to hear one another: It found that the best educated and most politically interested Americans are more likely to vilify their political adversaries than their less educated, less tuned-in peers.

Rings quite true in this thread.

That is a fantastic article. I'm curious as to how they did the research, but the results mesh with what I've seen in life.

Samuel

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 362
  • Location: the slippery slope
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #152 on: June 26, 2019, 10:00:22 AM »
This is what I was getting at way earlier in the thread: "Republicans Don’t Understand Democrats—And Democrats Don’t Understand Republicans"

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/06/republicans-and-democrats-dont-understand-each-other/592324/

Quote
Unfortunately, the “Perception Gap” study suggests that neither the media nor the universities are likely to remedy Americans’ inability to hear one another: It found that the best educated and most politically interested Americans are more likely to vilify their political adversaries than their less educated, less tuned-in peers.

Rings quite true in this thread.

That is a fantastic article. I'm curious as to how they did the research, but the results mesh with what I've seen in life.

Yeah, good article and interesting study. I see this all the time. So few people actually seek out and engage with the best presented arguments from the opposing side, preferring instead to attack lazy caricatures they've collectively built up within their bubble then pat each other on the back for their noble righteousness.

I will say that this site is better than most in this regard, but definitely not immune.

ReadySetMillionaire

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1198
  • Location: The Buckeye State
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #153 on: June 26, 2019, 11:57:22 AM »
I will say that this site is better than most in this regard, but definitely not immune.
I would say the hardcore liberals in this thread are right up there in not being able to have a discussion or respect an opposing viewpoint.

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8493
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #154 on: June 26, 2019, 01:21:38 PM »
I would say the hardcore liberals in this thread are right up there in not being able to have a discussion or respect an opposing viewpoint.

That seems pretty rich.  Are you lobbing insults at the very people you accuse?  Isn't that a little hypocritical?

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 14337
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #155 on: June 26, 2019, 02:09:47 PM »
I will say that this site is better than most in this regard, but definitely not immune.
I would say the hardcore liberals in this thread are right up there in not being able to have a discussion or respect an opposing viewpoint.

Could you quote some of the posts where "hardcore liberals in this thread" are unable "to have a discussion or respect an opposing viewpoint" as example?

ReadySetMillionaire

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1198
  • Location: The Buckeye State
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #156 on: June 26, 2019, 03:04:04 PM »
I would say the hardcore liberals in this thread are right up there in not being able to have a discussion or respect an opposing viewpoint.

That seems pretty rich.  Are you lobbing insults at the very people you accuse?  Isn't that a little hypocritical?

What about my post is an insult? I think this thread has demonstrated that certain posters have a cartoon version of conservatives in their mind, as I've repeatedly stated, and that they will not engage in any serious dialogue or even remotely consider an opposing viewpoint.

I will say that this site is better than most in this regard, but definitely not immune.
I would say the hardcore liberals in this thread are right up there in not being able to have a discussion or respect an opposing viewpoint.

Could you quote some of the posts where "hardcore liberals in this thread" are unable "to have a discussion or respect an opposing viewpoint" as example?

This would take way too much time and I try not to come here for more than a couple minutes at a time. Take off your team's cap and go back and read this thread critically.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 14337
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #157 on: June 26, 2019, 06:31:20 PM »
I will say that this site is better than most in this regard, but definitely not immune.
I would say the hardcore liberals in this thread are right up there in not being able to have a discussion or respect an opposing viewpoint.

Could you quote some of the posts where "hardcore liberals in this thread" are unable "to have a discussion or respect an opposing viewpoint" as example?

This would take way too much time and I try not to come here for more than a couple minutes at a time. Take off your team's cap and go back and read this thread critically.

So, just to confirm . . . you're unwilling to take the time to discuss your own comments about those with an opposing viewpoint?

Kyle Schuant

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 867
  • Location: Melbourne, Australia
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #158 on: June 26, 2019, 06:43:49 PM »
My post is in response to the thread title "Are social conservatives always wrong." I offered examples in which, from my viewpoint, it would be incorrect to claim that "social conservatives are always wrong."

You can argue all you want if your goal in this thread is a special space to vent your personal diatribe against every detail of every policy supported by the people you label social conservatives, while excluding every good act or thought by conservatives on the ground that you don't want to include them as "social conservatives." That's not an argument I'm interested in having. I just feel that endless vituperative attacks on people who disagree is part of the problem our society has right now, and seeing the points where there is humanity on the other side is a useful path towards a healthier society. I have done my part to increase understanding. You can ignore it if you like.
BicycleB has spoken well, and said things more politely than I would say them.

ReadySetMillionaire

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1198
  • Location: The Buckeye State
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #159 on: June 27, 2019, 08:30:27 AM »
So, just to confirm . . . you're unwilling to take the time to discuss your own comments about those with an opposing viewpoint?

I spent a lot of time on my initial post in this thread only to have a not serious dialogue about what I brought up. So I'm hesitant to go down this rabbit hole, but I will do so just to show you why you're not getting many conservatives to bite in this thread. So, I'm going to dovetail just my first post, and basically why I didn't even respond to your response, which indicated to me you did not want to have any serious discussion about what I brought up.

In response to my pointing out that eugenics was a progressive movement (which it unquestionably was), you wrote:
Quote
"Which liberals exactly were supporting this idea?  My understanding was that eugenics was often an argument in favor of socially conservative values . . . such as separating the inferior races."
 
If you can't acknowledge eugenics was a progressive movement, we should just stop there, because it's a blatant dodge of uncontroverted fact.  This wasn't even worth responding to for me because it indicates you don't want to have a serious dialogue about this particular progressive failure, and how it might portend to other progressive failures.

***

In response to my pointing out that prohibition was a dovetail of both the religious orthodoxy AND the progressive movement (which it unquestionably was, watch "Prohibition" by Ken Burns),
Quote
"You believe that limiting access to drink is a predominantly socially liberal policy?  Can you point to any similar socially liberal policies today in a similar vein?"

Again, by failing to acknowledge that progressives also want to ban individual consumer behavior (see drink policies, sugar policies, etc. in major cities), what serious dialogue is there to have here?

I know, I know -- "There's a difference between complete prohibition and regulation!!!" Look, both conservatives and progressives want to regulate individual behavior in the way they see fit.  There are things conservatives want to regulate and/or completely prohibit, there are things liberals want to regulate and/or completely prohibit, and on and on. If you can't acknowledge that, there's no serious discussion to be had here.

***

In response to my pointing out the federal funding of student loans is by far the biggest issue behind the student loan crisis (and it unquestionably is), you wrote:

Quote
Here you appear to be conflating social liberalism with fiscal liberalism.  They are different.
 
If you will not acknowledge that some fiscal decisions are inescapably intertwined with social issues, then there's not really a discussion to be had here. Specifically here, and as Malkynn correctly noted, "I'm saying that you can't 100% separate the ideologies and the finances the way that's trying to be done in this thread. Student loans are a 100% fiscal policy? There was no social ideology behind it? I don't think so."

***

In response to my pointing out that the nationalization of certain constitutional doctrines has led to a warped country -- one that was never meant to be (i.e., Texas and Maine were never going to have the same marriage policies, or whatever), you wrote:

Quote
Again, social liberalism has little to do with empowering the federal government.  I believe you're confusing social with fiscal liberalism.

This is such a blatant dodge of the progressive movement's FEDERALIZING the Supreme Court and its powers under FDR.

You need to read Wickard v. Fillburn and other decisions of this era to understand how the power of the court and Congress completely changed. The Commerce Clause went from being a minimal doctrine allowing Congress to regulate roads, trains, transport, etc., to allowing Congress to effectively regulate anything and everything that even tangentially relates to the economy.

Do you know why Congress can regulate drugs? It goes back to Wickard.  Abortion? Wickard. Marriage? Wickard (as later used to support expanding the taxing power). Guns? Wickard. Environmental issues? Wickard. Healtchare? Wickard (generally, but this is more complicated).

These are all SOCIAL issues, and they are inescapably intertwined with the expansion of the federal government. And the bloating of the federal government was a progressive feature. It was intentional. It was purposeful. It was to NATIONALIZE social issues, which is probably "social conservatives" biggest gripe.

Joe Blow in Kansas is not going to have the same opinion about abortion as Joe Blow in Connecticut. Betty Bob in Texas probably thinks differently about guns than Betty Bob in Maine. But now, because of the progressive's nationalizing of everything, they are compelled to largely follow the same policies.

THAT is the social conservative's objection -- that all of this was nationalized by progressives. And if you want to label this a "oh that's fiscal conservatism," you're not willing to have as serious dialogue.

***

In response to my pointing out that you are taking a logically impossible position in the way you are defining "social conservatives," you wrote:
Quote
I'm specifically talking about social conservatism.  I've mentioned several times . . . fiscal conservatism seems to be grounded in reason, and while I don't always agree with the conclusions reached from it's logic, there is certainly value to it.

Several posters -- Malkynn, me, BicycleB, and many others, wrote at length about how this is a logically impossible position.  You simply cannot separate fiscal and social policies because they are completely intertwined.

Mortgage crisis -- a financial decision, yes, but the result of a social push to help everyone get a house.

Student loans -- a financial decision, yes, but the result of a social push to get more people into schools

Even immigration -- some view it as a financial decision (we can't pay for veterans healthcare for God's sake), so why are we going to take on even more of a burden? But immigration is obviously a social issue as well.

Even abortion -- probably the biggest social issue there is, yet a huge conservative objection is state funding of abortion.

***

That is just a response to my first post in this thread.  It is not worth my time to go through your constant mental gymnastics to make my point.

This thread is the biggest straw man on this forum right now -- YOU and only YOU get to decide what a social conservative is, and now that you've created this straw man, anything that doesn't look exactly like YOUR straw man is NOT a social conservative, so AH HAH, you win.

It's a complete waste of time.  I'll quote BicycleB again, because his post was well said, and I hope you read it:

You can argue all you want if your goal in this thread is a special space to vent your personal diatribe against every detail of every policy supported by the people you label social conservatives, while excluding every good act or thought by conservatives on the ground that you don't want to include them as "social conservatives." That's not an argument I'm interested in having. I just feel that endless vituperative attacks on people who disagree is part of the problem our society has right now, and seeing the points where there is humanity on the other side is a useful path towards a healthier society. I have done my part to increase understanding. You can ignore it if you like.
« Last Edit: June 27, 2019, 08:33:13 AM by ReadySetMillionaire »

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 14337
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #160 on: June 27, 2019, 09:26:04 AM »
So, just to confirm . . . you're unwilling to take the time to discuss your own comments about those with an opposing viewpoint?

I spent a lot of time on my initial post in this thread only to have a not serious dialogue about what I brought up. So I'm hesitant to go down this rabbit hole, but I will do so just to show you why you're not getting many conservatives to bite in this thread. So, I'm going to dovetail just my first post, and basically why I didn't even respond to your response, which indicated to me you did not want to have any serious discussion about what I brought up.

In response to my pointing out that eugenics was a progressive movement (which it unquestionably was), you wrote:
Quote
"Which liberals exactly were supporting this idea?  My understanding was that eugenics was often an argument in favor of socially conservative values . . . such as separating the inferior races."
 
If you can't acknowledge eugenics was a progressive movement, we should just stop there, because it's a blatant dodge of uncontroverted fact.  This wasn't even worth responding to for me because it indicates you don't want to have a serious dialogue about this particular progressive failure, and how it might portend to other progressive failures.

Perhaps you could include the quote in context:
This is an excellent argument that I'd like to look into further.

Which liberals exactly were supporting this idea?  My understanding was that eugenics was often an argument in favor of socially conservative values . . . such as separating the inferior races.

I didn't dismiss your argument, but thought it was a good one worthy of further investigation on my part.  I asked for more information because historical eugenics and law in an American context is not a topic I'm well versed in.

In Britian (for example) a number of influential conservative figures supported eugenics.  Including folks like Winston Churchill, and Arthur Balfour.  In Canada there was conservative support for eugenics (Helen MacMurchy was a conservative in charge of determining which 'feeble minded 'people should be sterilized).  These are the people I first thought of when you were saying that eugenics was a liberal issue and this would seem to belie the argument that eugenics is a "progressive movement" that is also "uncontroverted fact".

There's also the fact that modern day support of eugenics seems to be largely a social conservative thing:  https://www.aaihs.org/eugenics-and-the-modern-conservative-movement/

I agree with you though, in the US's history eugenics was generally supported by social liberals.  In fact, after researching into your comments further I wrote:

I've done a fair amount of reading into this case (ending up kinda concerned that it still stands today in the US and has not been overturned).  I think that it's a valid demonstration of a time in the past that social conservatives were in the right.  Justice Holms was a socially liberal judge.  The concept of using eugenics to control human breeding was a social change that was (and still is) clearly evil.


Which part of listening to what you said, researching it, and then agreeing with you is an example of being unable "to have a discussion or respect an opposing viewpoint"?





In response to my pointing out that prohibition was a dovetail of both the religious orthodoxy AND the progressive movement (which it unquestionably was, watch "Prohibition" by Ken Burns),
Quote
"You believe that limiting access to drink is a predominantly socially liberal policy?  Can you point to any similar socially liberal policies today in a similar vein?"

Again, by failing to acknowledge that progressives also want to ban individual consumer behavior (see drink policies, sugar policies, etc. in major cities), what serious dialogue is there to have here?

My intent was not to fail to acknowledge that there was some progressive support for the socially conservative idea of prohibition . . . it was to point out that today (100 years later) there doesn't appear to be any.

As far as the accusations of 'failing to acknowledge' an argument . . . if you care to take a gander a few lines up you'll see an example of you failing to acknowledge that there was conservative support for eugenics (going so far as to say that eugenics is a "progressive movement" that is also "uncontroverted fact".  If you feel the need for explicit confirmation of every point of argument that you're correct on from someone you disagree with, I think it's unreasonable to hold yourself to a different standard.


I know, I know -- "There's a difference between complete prohibition and regulation!!!" Look, both conservatives and progressives want to regulate individual behavior in the way they see fit.  There are things conservatives want to regulate and/or completely prohibit, there are things liberals want to regulate and/or completely prohibit, and on and on. If you can't acknowledge that, there's no serious discussion to be had here.

Which things do social liberals today want to completely prohibit that social conservatives want to allow?  Please note - I'm not failing to acknowledge your point, but asking for supporting evidence for your position.




In response to my pointing out the federal funding of student loans is by far the biggest issue behind the student loan crisis (and it unquestionably is), you wrote:

Quote
Here you appear to be conflating social liberalism with fiscal liberalism.  They are different.

If you will not acknowledge that some fiscal decisions are inescapably intertwined with social issues, then there's not really a discussion to be had here.

I did acknowledge that fiscal decisions are sometimes intertwined with social issues in this post:
It's certainly possible to be both socially and fiscally conservative.

It's also possible to be socially liberal and fiscally conservative.  Most libertarians (for example) tend to identify in this area.

Fiscal conservatism at it's core is about keeping government less funded and smaller.  As mentioned in your church tax break example, social conservative values often come in conflict with fiscal conservatism.

Therefore social conservatism is not inextricably linked to fiscal conservatism.

There are fiscal consequences of social conservative policies of course, but this is beside the point.


Saying that it's beside the point is because the goal of this thread was to discuss social conservatism.  While I don't always agree with fiscal conservative arguments, I often find them well reasoned and persuasive.  That's why I said so:

I have no issue with fiscal conservative because although I generally disagree with the theories I have had enough explained of it to see that there does exist a logical framework of reasoning behind it.  The same has never really happened for me with social conservatism.  It doesn't make sense to me, and what I see ends up seeming pretty distasteful most of the time.  Hence my question.

I was (am?) looking for a better explanation of the logic behind social conservative policies.  Fiscal consequences of social policies are rarely a driving force in the discussion about social conservatism.  (As an example - abortion is more cost effective than having a birth, there is no fiscal cost to allow a transgender person use the bathroom he or she wants to, etc.)



In response to my pointing out that the nationalization of certain constitutional doctrines has led to a warped country -- one that was never meant to be (i.e., Texas and Maine were never going to have the same marriage policies, or whatever), you wrote:

Quote
Again, social liberalism has little to do with empowering the federal government.  I believe you're confusing social with fiscal liberalism.

This is such a blatant dodge of the progressive movement's FEDERALIZING the Supreme Court and its powers under FDR.

You need to read Wickard v. Fillburn and other decisions of this era to understand how the power of the court and Congress completely changed. The Commerce Clause went from being a minimal doctrine allowing Congress to regulate roads, trains, transport, etc., to allowing Congress to effectively regulate anything and everything.

Do you know why Congress can regulate drugs? It goes back to Wickard.  Abortion? Wickard. Marriage? Wickard (as later used to support expanding the taxing power). Guns? Wickard. Environmental issues? Wickard.

These are all SOCIAL issues, and they are inescapably intertwined with the expansion of the federal government. And the bloating of the federal government was a progressive feature. It was intentional. It was purposeful. It was to NATIONALIZE social issues, which is probably "social conservatives" biggest gripe.

Joe Blow in Kansas is not going to have the same opinion about abortion as Joe Blow in Connecticut. Betty Bob in Texas probably thinks differently about guns than Betty Bob in Maine. But now, because of the progressive's nationalizing of everything, they are compelled to largely follow the same policies.

THAT is the social conservative's objection -- that all of this was nationalized by progressives. And if you want to label this a "oh that's fiscal conservatism," you're not willing to have as serious dialogue.

Well, again, it looks like I'll need to better educate myself about this issue in order to respond.



In response to my pointing out that you are taking a logically impossible position in the way you are defining "social conservatives," you wrote:
Quote
I'm specifically talking about social conservatism.  I've mentioned several times . . . fiscal conservatism seems to be grounded in reason, and while I don't always agree with the conclusions reached from it's logic, there is certainly value to it.

Several posters -- Malkynn, me, BicycleB, and many others, wrote at length about how this is a logically impossible position.  You simply cannot separate fiscal and social policies because they are completely intertwined.

Wrong.  See the post above.  There are some issues where social and fiscal conservatism are intertwined, and some where they are not intertwined at all (abortion, transgender wahroom choice, etc.)  The social conservative positions supported by fiscal conervatism often make sense to me . . . so I have much less issue with them.  The purely social conservative positions (including the ones opposed to fiscal conervatism) do not.  If this was not made clear earlier in the thread, I apologize.



This thread is the biggest straw man on this forum right now -- YOU and only YOU get to decide what a social conservative is, and now that you've created this straw man, anything that doesn't look exactly like YOUR straw man is NOT a social conservative, so AH HAH, you win.

That certainly was not my intent.  I've tried to further explain what my intent was in the above posts.  If you believe that the term 'social conervative' is incorrect when referring to policies that are purely socially conservative, I'd appreciate it if you could provide me with a different term that you would prefer we use.



It's a complete waste of time.

I'm sorry you feel that way.  I haven't intentionally tried to be dismissive of your comments or arguments, and have generally tried to listen to what you've been saying and respond politely.
« Last Edit: June 27, 2019, 09:46:20 AM by GuitarStv »

Wolfpack Mustachian

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 282
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #161 on: June 28, 2019, 10:50:40 AM »
GuitarStv, one issue with communication between you and others on this thread seems to be an underlying assumption linking social conservativism to politics. I know you pretty much stated it as that in the beginning, but it's enabling you to look down on social conservatism and invalidate perspectives because of some issues that can occur when the views are tied into the political spectrum. Let me give a couple of examples. People have talked about the 60's - yay drugs, sexual revolution, all that jazz. Then responses come in like social conservatives weren't big fans of this stuff and were right. The responses then are, well, the war on drugs is really bad. Ok, so that has validity, but that's people supporting political stances on the drug issues. Social conservatism views of drugs are bad versus progressive perspective at the time of let's give it a whirl, it's all good.....well, no, there are actually genuine problems and we all would pretty much be better off if we didn't do drugs, even marijuana (except when truly used as medicine), if we didn't drink, etc. The social conservative perspective wasn't proven wrong. While, as you say, progressives now probably aren't promoting hard core drug usage, it's hard to argue that the progressive ideas of the time weren't much more pro-drug than the social conservative ideas of the time, and if the average person had chosen in their own lives to not hit up LSD that often, they probably would have better outcomes. The political implications of regulating the things on a large scale weren't and haven't been very good, but for the conflict of perspectives, no, social conservatives aren't wrong. This line of thought was triggered off of a comment I believe you made on this thread (can't find it) that liberals don't want the government to make restrictions in people's bedrooms or something like that. Well, not all social conservatives want that from a governmental standpoint even if they disagree with the morality of certain issues. Case in point, I'm sure you can find many many Christians who don't believe in premarital sex genuinely in their belief system but don't want it made illegal. Social conservatives may believe that certain things are good ideas and not just for themselves but for others but still not want to force it on other people. A thread of anti-marriage sentiment has been pretty progressive for awhile, and yet as one of my conservative friends pointed out, the stereotypical liberal elites that in philosophical terms tend to talk about marriage as outdated and unnecessary tend to get married, remain married, and reap the financial benefits of a stable household that comes from that. Social conservative positions supporting marriage tend to have benefits overall. I know you'll say, only marriage in certain situations, and you can pick apart parts of the argument that way, but again, it's not something that you can just generically say, social conservatives are flat out wrong on. Stable marriages have benefits, social conservatives are not wrong on this.

I think if this distinction is acknowledged, then hopefully you can acknowledge that no, social conservatives are not always wrong (or always wrong with the one exception of eugenics that I guess you've admitted too...?) and realize that you may be singling out political enforcement of social conservative viewpoints to enable you to disregard social conservatives as a whole, who you seem to be strongly opposed to, to the point that liberals on here think you're not willing to see the other side.

ReadySetMillionaire

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1198
  • Location: The Buckeye State
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #162 on: June 28, 2019, 12:35:06 PM »
GuitarStv, one issue with communication between you and others on this thread seems to be an underlying assumption linking social conservativism to politics.

This is a great post.

I'll again weave this into a specific example, but my lawyer perspective is that, while many social conservatives may have a particular stance on an issue, what they loathe the absolute most is the nationalization of difficult social issues. And this is especially true for issues ultimately decided by judicial fiat at the Supreme Court.

I think a great case in point is gay marriage.  I know a lot of social conservatives who think it is immoral and unethical. But they don't really care what people do -- they care what the state does, and how the state does it.

If we are just going to say that, "Hey, two people can do whatever they want if they are in love," then okay, where is the line? What about a 30 year old and 13 year old that love each other? You may object, but why? What is your moral position? What is that based on? How did you come to that judgment? And if two gay people can get married, why can't they? Why should the state interfere?

The line drawing can go on forever.  What about polygamists?  If a gay couple has a constitutional right to gay marriage, why not polygamists if they are genuinely in love? Why can the federal government stop them? What's the moral judgment there?

I think it's fair to say that these types of questions are best left to the democractic process. If we decide in 30 years that polygamists can do whatever, great -- but don't tell me it has anything to do with the Fourteenth Amendment.

Justice Roberts' opinion in Obergefell (the gay marriage case) is incredibly on point (https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf)

Quote
This Court is not a legislature. Whether same-sex marriage is a good idea should be of no concern to us. Under the Constitution, judges have power to say what the law is, not what it should be. The people who ratified the Constitution authorized courts to exercise “neither
force nor will but merely judgment.” The Federalist No. 78, p. 465 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961) (A. Hamilton) (capitalization altered).

Although the policy arguments for extending marriage to same-sex couples may be compelling, the legal arguments for requiring such an extension are not. The fundamental right to marry does not include a right to make State change its definition of marriage. And a State’s decision to maintain the meaning of marriage that has persisted in every culture throughout human history can hardly be called irrational. In short, our Constitution does not enact any one theory of marriage. The people of a State are free to expand marriage to include same-sex couples, or to retain the historic definition.

Process matters, and the nationalization of these fundamental issues is utter crap.

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4592
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #163 on: June 28, 2019, 12:46:44 PM »
GuitarStv, one issue with communication between you and others on this thread seems to be an underlying assumption linking social conservativism to politics.

This is a great post.

I'll again weave this into a specific example, but my lawyer perspective is that, while many social conservatives may have a particular stance on an issue, what they loathe the absolute most is the nationalization of difficult social issues. And this is especially true for issues ultimately decided by judicial fiat at the Supreme Court.

I think a great case in point is gay marriage.  I know a lot of social conservatives who think it is immoral and unethical. But they don't really care what people do -- they care what the state does, and how the state does it.

If we are just going to say that, "Hey, two people can do whatever they want if they are in love," then okay, where is the line? What about a 30 year old and 13 year old that love each other? You may object, but why? What is your moral position? What is that based on? How did you come to that judgment? And if two gay people can get married, why can't they? Why should the state interfere?

The line drawing can go on forever.  What about polygamists?  If a gay couple has a constitutional right to gay marriage, why not polygamists if they are genuinely in love? Why can the federal government stop them? What's the moral judgment there?

I think it's fair to say that these types of questions are best left to the democractic process. If we decide in 30 years that polygamists can do whatever, great -- but don't tell me it has anything to do with the Fourteenth Amendment.

Justice Roberts' opinion in Obergefell (the gay marriage case) is incredibly on point (https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf)

Quote
This Court is not a legislature. Whether same-sex marriage is a good idea should be of no concern to us. Under the Constitution, judges have power to say what the law is, not what it should be. The people who ratified the Constitution authorized courts to exercise “neither
force nor will but merely judgment.” The Federalist No. 78, p. 465 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961) (A. Hamilton) (capitalization altered).

Although the policy arguments for extending marriage to same-sex couples may be compelling, the legal arguments for requiring such an extension are not. The fundamental right to marry does not include a right to make State change its definition of marriage. And a State’s decision to maintain the meaning of marriage that has persisted in every culture throughout human history can hardly be called irrational. In short, our Constitution does not enact any one theory of marriage. The people of a State are free to expand marriage to include same-sex couples, or to retain the historic definition.

Process matters, and the nationalization of these fundamental issues is utter crap.


Yes, many social conservatives think like that. I have heard many of them say it. But it's a logical fallacy.

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/162/Slippery-Slope

One person's "nationalization of fundamental issues" is another person's "recognizing that it is unconstitutional to deny the same rights to all."

Those same arguments were made against allowing blacks and whites to marry. There are still people who believe miscegenation is "immoral and unethical."

Would you also agree that the "nationalization" of that particular fundamental issue is "utter crap"? Would you be comfortable with leaving the democratic process to decide whether a black/white couple are allowed to be treated like any other couple? Even knowing that the democratic process in that case might be decided by hateful racists for a very, very long time? Even if it's possible that even today it might still not be legal in certain states for a black/white couple to be married?



GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 14337
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #164 on: June 28, 2019, 02:02:44 PM »
GuitarStv, one issue with communication between you and others on this thread seems to be an underlying assumption linking social conservativism to politics. I know you pretty much stated it as that in the beginning, but it's enabling you to look down on social conservatism and invalidate perspectives because of some issues that can occur when the views are tied into the political spectrum. Let me give a couple of examples. People have talked about the 60's - yay drugs, sexual revolution, all that jazz. Then responses come in like social conservatives weren't big fans of this stuff and were right. The responses then are, well, the war on drugs is really bad. Ok, so that has validity, but that's people supporting political stances on the drug issues. Social conservatism views of drugs are bad versus progressive perspective at the time of let's give it a whirl, it's all good.....well, no, there are actually genuine problems and we all would pretty much be better off if we didn't do drugs, even marijuana (except when truly used as medicine), if we didn't drink, etc. The social conservative perspective wasn't proven wrong. While, as you say, progressives now probably aren't promoting hard core drug usage, it's hard to argue that the progressive ideas of the time weren't much more pro-drug than the social conservative ideas of the time, and if the average person had chosen in their own lives to not hit up LSD that often, they probably would have better outcomes.

I'd argue that perspective doesn't matte as much as actions.  Making drugs illegal is a socially conservative reaction to a point of view.  But the point of view that drugs are generally bad for people, is that really socially conservative?

For example, I'm for legalization of marijuana even though I've never tried it and have no real plans to do so in the future.  As you said, drug use probably doesn't lead to better outcomes (at least that is my perspecive).  Does that mean that I'm socially conservative?


The political implications of regulating the things on a large scale weren't and haven't been very good, but for the conflict of perspectives, no, social conservatives aren't wrong. This line of thought was triggered off of a comment I believe you made on this thread (can't find it) that liberals don't want the government to make restrictions in people's bedrooms or something like that. Well, not all social conservatives want that from a governmental standpoint even if they disagree with the morality of certain issues. Case in point, I'm sure you can find many many Christians who don't believe in premarital sex genuinely in their belief system but don't want it made illegal. Social conservatives may believe that certain things are good ideas and not just for themselves but for others but still not want to force it on other people.

It's in the 'forcing it on other people' part that my concern lies with social conservatism.  I've got no issue with what you believe in your heart of hearts . . . it's only when you act upon it in a way that hurts others that we'll end up in a fight.


A thread of anti-marriage sentiment has been pretty progressive for awhile, and yet as one of my conservative friends pointed out, the stereotypical liberal elites that in philosophical terms tend to talk about marriage as outdated and unnecessary tend to get married, remain married, and reap the financial benefits of a stable household that comes from that. Social conservative positions supporting marriage tend to have benefits overall. I know you'll say, only marriage in certain situations, and you can pick apart parts of the argument that way, but again, it's not something that you can just generically say, social conservatives are flat out wrong on. Stable marriages have benefits, social conservatives are not wrong on this.

Marriage is an important institution, an oath between two people to love and care for each other above all others, and that there are significant benefits to being married.  But that's my belief.  I don't want to force my beliefs on others.  What's true for me is not necessarily true for everyone else.  Stable marriages have benefits - agreed (mine certainly does).  But bad, unstable marriages do not have those benefits (my parents certainly did not - which is why they eventually divorced).  The only people who can decide what is best in a relationship are the two people in the relationship.

My problem is not with the viewpoint that stable marriages have benefits!  Multiple opinions and viewpoints are great, and debate benefits us all by helping us to consider a problem from all angles.  It's when that idea becomes action, forced upon others that I have a problem.  The modern social conservative movement seems largely based around forceful enactment of these viewpoints.  Each of the social conservative issues I listed is one that is a problem because of the actions that social conservatives are supporting which force others to comply with their wishes.


I think if this distinction is acknowledged, then hopefully you can acknowledge that no, social conservatives are not always wrong (or always wrong with the one exception of eugenics that I guess you've admitted too...?) and realize that you may be singling out political enforcement of social conservative viewpoints to enable you to disregard social conservatives as a whole, who you seem to be strongly opposed to, to the point that liberals on here think you're not willing to see the other side.

Sure.  As mentioned, I personally share the 'socially conservative' viewpoints you've outlined here . . . I obviously don't think that they're wrong.

KBecks

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2023
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #165 on: June 28, 2019, 02:24:29 PM »
I was just posting on another thread today about the idea of not living together before marriage, because it saves a lot of heartache and makes breaking up less difficult if one realizes they need to get out.  I learned this from Dr. Laura's radio show, and I think it is generally good advice. It also ensures that two people can also stand on their own feet and are not needy for the other's support to survive and thrive.

Dr. Laura also said a lot about women not needing to be desperate for a man and to be choosy about finding a good man.  She emphasized to women that if a man ever hits you or your kids, to leave, and to let the man know that rule, that no violence is ever OK.  This is also good advice. 

She often said to women that you are not engaged to be married unless you have a ring and a date.  That was her standard of having a solid commitment, and it seemed to be out of the mindset of not letting women string themselves along with false hopes of a commitment that might not be there.

So, score a couple for the social conservatives on those two points. 

I believe there is research that shows that couples who live together before marriage are more likely to divorce.  So if you care about marriage outcomes, you might want to follow some best practices. An article in the Atlantic suggests that people who move in together without clear relationship goals and just wander into marriage are more likely to divorce than people who move in together with a clear plan and commitment that they will marry. Makes sense.

When my now husband suggested to me when we were dating that he could buy a condo, I could move in and pay him rent, I said **** no.  And my family would have also talked me out of it if I was considering. So, I am thankful for that advice.  People need to be clear on their relationships and if they are looking for a roommate a tenant, a roommate w/benefits, or a future spouse. A potential partner may take the easy path rather than the committed one if given the opportunity.

And I will share this advice with my sons.  You do not move in with a romantic partner to save money.  You move in when you are getting married and building a life with someone.  If your spouse or romantic partner ever hits you or your children, the relationship is instantly over.
« Last Edit: June 28, 2019, 02:34:39 PM by KBecks »

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 14337
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #166 on: June 28, 2019, 02:40:07 PM »
If we are just going to say that, "Hey, two people can do whatever they want if they are in love," then okay, where is the line? What about a 30 year old and 13 year old that love each other? You may object, but why?  What is your moral position? What is that based on? How did you come to that judgment? And if two gay people can get married, why can't they? Why should the state interfere?

Children are not mentally developed to the same degree as adults.  This is measurable in a variety of ways.  The question becomes whether or not a child is mentally fit to legally consent to have sexual relationships with a pedophile.  Morally, it is difficult to support a 'yes' to this question.  This is pretty starkly different than the consensual relationship between two men though.


The line drawing can go on forever.  What about polygamists?  If a gay couple has a constitutional right to gay marriage, why not polygamists if they are genuinely in love? Why can the federal government stop them? What's the moral judgment there?

Morally I don't really see there being a problem with polygamy it if all parties consent.  (Personally, I think it's a terrible idea for a variety of reasons.)  The tricky part of course, will be in the splitting up of such a marriage and dividing wealth in case of death/divorce/etc.  I would expect that to be significantly less straight forward than in a traditional marriage (which can already be complicated).  Is there a reason that the federal government should stop them?


I think it's fair to say that these types of questions are best left to the democractic process. If we decide in 30 years that polygamists can do whatever, great -- but don't tell me it has anything to do with the Fourteenth Amendment.

Generally I agree with you.

But there are notable failures of the democratic process.  Like when the democratic process allowed slavery.  Or when the democratic process allowed for the round up of all Japanese Americans into concentration camps and the confiscation of their property during the second world war.  Or how women are still not guaranteed the same rights as men under the constitution today.

What is your proposed solution for democratic process failures?


Justice Roberts' opinion in Obergefell (the gay marriage case) is incredibly on point (https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf)

Quote
This Court is not a legislature. Whether same-sex marriage is a good idea should be of no concern to us. Under the Constitution, judges have power to say what the law is, not what it should be. The people who ratified the Constitution authorized courts to exercise “neither
force nor will but merely judgment.” The Federalist No. 78, p. 465 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961) (A. Hamilton) (capitalization altered).

Although the policy arguments for extending marriage to same-sex couples may be compelling, the legal arguments for requiring such an extension are not. The fundamental right to marry does not include a right to make State change its definition of marriage. And a State’s decision to maintain the meaning of marriage that has persisted in every culture throughout human history can hardly be called irrational. In short, our Constitution does not enact any one theory of marriage. The people of a State are free to expand marriage to include same-sex couples, or to retain the historic definition.

Process matters, and the nationalization of these fundamental issues is utter crap.

I have some trouble with this argument because of it's notable failures in the past.

Until the late 60s and early 70s, a large number of states defined a white person marrying a black person as miscegenation and had laws preventing this.  Every word in that statement would apply to these laws as well.  States had historically defined marriage to be between a white man and woman.  Was expansion of the definition of marriage wrong in this case?

KBecks

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2023
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #167 on: June 28, 2019, 03:09:04 PM »


Marriage is an important institution, an oath between two people to love and care for each other above all others, and that there are significant benefits to being married.  But that's my belief.  I don't want to force my beliefs on others. 

Stable, healthy marriages are GREAT for kids. 

The big concern for divorce is that new boyfriends and step-dads, in particular, can be abusive and predatory. 


http://www.jennyraearmstrong.com/2012/04/27/more-statistics-on-child-abuse-or-why-single-moms-should-probably-stay-that-way/

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 14337
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #168 on: June 28, 2019, 04:03:34 PM »


Marriage is an important institution, an oath between two people to love and care for each other above all others, and that there are significant benefits to being married.  But that's my belief.  I don't want to force my beliefs on others. 

Stable, healthy marriages are GREAT for kids. 

The big concern for divorce is that new boyfriends and step-dads, in particular, can be abusive and predatory. 


http://www.jennyraearmstrong.com/2012/04/27/more-statistics-on-child-abuse-or-why-single-moms-should-probably-stay-that-way/

Having two gay parents in a stable, healthy marriage is great for kids too.

Why then do people protest this?  Or try to prevent kids in need of a family form being adopted by gay parents?

Telecaster

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1971
  • Location: Seattle, WA
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #169 on: June 28, 2019, 04:08:03 PM »
I'll again weave this into a specific example, but my lawyer perspective is that, while many social conservatives may have a particular stance on an issue, what they loathe the absolute most is the nationalization of difficult social issues. And this is especially true for issues ultimately decided by judicial fiat at the Supreme Court.

I think a great case in point is gay marriage.  I know a lot of social conservatives who think it is immoral and unethical. But they don't really care what people do -- they care what the state does, and how the state does it.

If we are just going to say that, "Hey, two people can do whatever they want if they are in love," then okay, where is the line? What about a 30 year old and 13 year old that love each other? You may object, but why? What is your moral position? What is that based on? How did you come to that judgment? And if two gay people can get married, why can't they? Why should the state interfere?

You are making it too hard.  Marriage is a civil law contract, that give the married couple certain rights and obligations under the law.  When you go to the county and fill out the marriage license form, they don't ask you if you are in love.  They ask you if you are over 18 (at least in my state).  You have to show ID, and you have to pay a fee.  They don't ask you if you intend to have kids, if you have kids, or even if you like kids.  They don't ask if you value the institution of marriage.  Pay the fee and show ID and you are good to go.

Since love and the family unit aren't requirements for straight people getting a marriage licence, why should love and the family unit exclude gay people from getting a marriage license?  If being gay means you can't enter into civil contracts then gay people can't get jobs, rent apartments, etc. 

The only argument against is the one you positied, the slippery slope.  That's not persuasive. 

KBecks

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2023
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #170 on: June 28, 2019, 04:29:21 PM »


Marriage is an important institution, an oath between two people to love and care for each other above all others, and that there are significant benefits to being married.  But that's my belief.  I don't want to force my beliefs on others. 

Stable, healthy marriages are GREAT for kids. 

The big concern for divorce is that new boyfriends and step-dads, in particular, can be abusive and predatory. 


http://www.jennyraearmstrong.com/2012/04/27/more-statistics-on-child-abuse-or-why-single-moms-should-probably-stay-that-way/

Having two gay parents in a stable, healthy marriage is great for kids too.

Why then do people protest this?  Or try to prevent kids in need of a family form being adopted by gay parents?

I think her philosophy on this was that gay couples who wanted to adopt was OK, but male-female marriages were preferable for kids. So, all other things being equal, she would prefer a male-female couple for adoption before a same-sex couple. And that likely makes sense for the kids, too.

Interesting article.  Note that birth mothers who choose to place their child for adoption often choose hetero couples over homosexual couples. And international adoption is often not friendly to homosexual couples either.
We can chalk this up to -- life's not fair.
https://hub.jhu.edu/magazine/2013/fall/gay-couple-adoption/
« Last Edit: June 28, 2019, 04:36:53 PM by KBecks »

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 14337
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #171 on: June 28, 2019, 04:51:35 PM »
Homophobia and bigotry both certainly result in unfair situations.  I don't believe that we should accept them as part of life though.

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8493
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #172 on: June 28, 2019, 05:19:26 PM »
The big concern for divorce is that new boyfriends and step-dads, in particular, can be abusive and predatory. 

You can fuck right off with that sexist bullshit.  Sometimes women leave their duly married husband because he is abusive and predatory, and those women should not be obligated to stay single forever, despite what the social conservatives believe.

And speaking as a step dad to kids who were abused by their new step mom, your particular brand of social conservativism is OFFENSIVELY sexist.  People like you should not speak in public places.  You can believe and endorse whatever flavor of archaic and ridiculous bigotry you like, in your own life, but if you're going to share that BS with the rest of us you can expect to be called out for it by people of conscience.

Next up, I look forward to your opinions on how wives should always do the dishes before meekly consenting to silent missionary. 


MOD NOTE: You can strongly disagree without being rude and undermining yourself in the process. Even if extremely offended. Please do so.
« Last Edit: June 30, 2019, 09:52:30 AM by arebelspy »

KBecks

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2023
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #173 on: June 28, 2019, 07:34:48 PM »
LOL. I believe there's research that backs it up, re: kids more likely to be abused by step-dads and boyfriends.  So it's about the data, not about opinion here. This is more reason why it's important that women do not become so desperate that any man will suffice, people have to screen the people who their kids are around.

Children living with their married biological parents had the lowest levels of abuse and neglect:

http://www.center4research.org/child-abuse-father-figures-kind-families-safest-grow/

Maybe you should walk back your whining?

« Last Edit: June 28, 2019, 07:50:22 PM by KBecks »

KBecks

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2023
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #174 on: June 28, 2019, 07:39:37 PM »
Homophobia and bigotry both certainly result in unfair situations.  I don't believe that we should accept them as part of life though.

But are you saying that a birth mom should have no say in who their child is adopted by?  That's just not how it works.  Most domestic newborn adoptions are open and the mother has a lot of say in choosing who the baby's new parents will be. It seems likely that more conservative and religious women choose not to abort and place a child for adoption, and that seems incongruent with choosing a homosexual couple, especially if an equally attractive heterosexual couple is also seeking to adopt. Liberal women seem more likely to abort their unwanted fetuses.

Homosexual couples are more likely to be able to adopt the "unwanted" older children in foster care who need parents, but that is not as picture perfect as adopting a newborn, and it's a much more challenging type of parenthood because many kids have had difficult situations.

I guess when *you* have a child to place for adoption, you can be as open-minded as you want to be about it.
« Last Edit: June 28, 2019, 07:52:15 PM by KBecks »

ReadySetMillionaire

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1198
  • Location: The Buckeye State
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #175 on: June 28, 2019, 07:53:33 PM »
GuitarStv, one issue with communication between you and others on this thread seems to be an underlying assumption linking social conservativism to politics.

This is a great post.

I'll again weave this into a specific example, but my lawyer perspective is that, while many social conservatives may have a particular stance on an issue, what they loathe the absolute most is the nationalization of difficult social issues. And this is especially true for issues ultimately decided by judicial fiat at the Supreme Court.

I think a great case in point is gay marriage.  I know a lot of social conservatives who think it is immoral and unethical. But they don't really care what people do -- they care what the state does, and how the state does it.

If we are just going to say that, "Hey, two people can do whatever they want if they are in love," then okay, where is the line? What about a 30 year old and 13 year old that love each other? You may object, but why? What is your moral position? What is that based on? How did you come to that judgment? And if two gay people can get married, why can't they? Why should the state interfere?

The line drawing can go on forever.  What about polygamists?  If a gay couple has a constitutional right to gay marriage, why not polygamists if they are genuinely in love? Why can the federal government stop them? What's the moral judgment there?

I think it's fair to say that these types of questions are best left to the democractic process. If we decide in 30 years that polygamists can do whatever, great -- but don't tell me it has anything to do with the Fourteenth Amendment.

Justice Roberts' opinion in Obergefell (the gay marriage case) is incredibly on point (https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf)

Quote
This Court is not a legislature. Whether same-sex marriage is a good idea should be of no concern to us. Under the Constitution, judges have power to say what the law is, not what it should be. The people who ratified the Constitution authorized courts to exercise “neither
force nor will but merely judgment.” The Federalist No. 78, p. 465 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961) (A. Hamilton) (capitalization altered).

Although the policy arguments for extending marriage to same-sex couples may be compelling, the legal arguments for requiring such an extension are not. The fundamental right to marry does not include a right to make State change its definition of marriage. And a State’s decision to maintain the meaning of marriage that has persisted in every culture throughout human history can hardly be called irrational. In short, our Constitution does not enact any one theory of marriage. The people of a State are free to expand marriage to include same-sex couples, or to retain the historic definition.

Process matters, and the nationalization of these fundamental issues is utter crap.


Yes, many social conservatives think like that. I have heard many of them say it. But it's a logical fallacy.

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/162/Slippery-Slope

One person's "nationalization of fundamental issues" is another person's "recognizing that it is unconstitutional to deny the same rights to all."

Those same arguments were made against allowing blacks and whites to marry. There are still people who believe miscegenation is "immoral and unethical."

Would you also agree that the "nationalization" of that particular fundamental issue is "utter crap"? Would you be comfortable with leaving the democratic process to decide whether a black/white couple are allowed to be treated like any other couple? Even knowing that the democratic process in that case might be decided by hateful racists for a very, very long time? Even if it's possible that even today it might still not be legal in certain states for a black/white couple to be married?

The prohibition of discrimination on the basis of race was decided via a constitutional amendment (through the Constitution’s amendment process). The 14A squarely prohibits such discrimination, and SCOTUS was only enforcing what was already democratically enacted law.

To compare that with the how same sex marriage was nationalized (via a slim 5-4 Court majority) is, yes, utter crap.

You don’t get to dodge my point by yelling “SLIPPERY SLOPE.”

Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4592
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #176 on: June 28, 2019, 08:15:43 PM »
GuitarStv, one issue with communication between you and others on this thread seems to be an underlying assumption linking social conservativism to politics.

This is a great post.

I'll again weave this into a specific example, but my lawyer perspective is that, while many social conservatives may have a particular stance on an issue, what they loathe the absolute most is the nationalization of difficult social issues. And this is especially true for issues ultimately decided by judicial fiat at the Supreme Court.

I think a great case in point is gay marriage.  I know a lot of social conservatives who think it is immoral and unethical. But they don't really care what people do -- they care what the state does, and how the state does it.

If we are just going to say that, "Hey, two people can do whatever they want if they are in love," then okay, where is the line? What about a 30 year old and 13 year old that love each other? You may object, but why? What is your moral position? What is that based on? How did you come to that judgment? And if two gay people can get married, why can't they? Why should the state interfere?

The line drawing can go on forever.  What about polygamists?  If a gay couple has a constitutional right to gay marriage, why not polygamists if they are genuinely in love? Why can the federal government stop them? What's the moral judgment there?

I think it's fair to say that these types of questions are best left to the democractic process. If we decide in 30 years that polygamists can do whatever, great -- but don't tell me it has anything to do with the Fourteenth Amendment.

Justice Roberts' opinion in Obergefell (the gay marriage case) is incredibly on point (https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf)

Quote
This Court is not a legislature. Whether same-sex marriage is a good idea should be of no concern to us. Under the Constitution, judges have power to say what the law is, not what it should be. The people who ratified the Constitution authorized courts to exercise “neither
force nor will but merely judgment.” The Federalist No. 78, p. 465 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961) (A. Hamilton) (capitalization altered).

Although the policy arguments for extending marriage to same-sex couples may be compelling, the legal arguments for requiring such an extension are not. The fundamental right to marry does not include a right to make State change its definition of marriage. And a State’s decision to maintain the meaning of marriage that has persisted in every culture throughout human history can hardly be called irrational. In short, our Constitution does not enact any one theory of marriage. The people of a State are free to expand marriage to include same-sex couples, or to retain the historic definition.

Process matters, and the nationalization of these fundamental issues is utter crap.


Yes, many social conservatives think like that. I have heard many of them say it. But it's a logical fallacy.

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/162/Slippery-Slope

One person's "nationalization of fundamental issues" is another person's "recognizing that it is unconstitutional to deny the same rights to all."

Those same arguments were made against allowing blacks and whites to marry. There are still people who believe miscegenation is "immoral and unethical."

Would you also agree that the "nationalization" of that particular fundamental issue is "utter crap"? Would you be comfortable with leaving the democratic process to decide whether a black/white couple are allowed to be treated like any other couple? Even knowing that the democratic process in that case might be decided by hateful racists for a very, very long time? Even if it's possible that even today it might still not be legal in certain states for a black/white couple to be married?

The prohibition of discrimination on the basis of race was decided via a constitutional amendment (through the Constitution’s amendment process). The 14A squarely prohibits such discrimination, and SCOTUS was only enforcing what was already democratically enacted law.

To compare that with the how same sex marriage was nationalized (via a slim 5-4 Court majority) is, yes, utter crap.

You don’t get to dodge my point by yelling “SLIPPERY SLOPE.”

How was I yelling?

marty998

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 6544
  • Location: Sydney, Oz
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #177 on: June 28, 2019, 08:24:05 PM »
LOL. I believe there's research that backs it up, re: kids more likely to be abused by step-dads and boyfriends.  So it's about the data, not about opinion here. This is more reason why it's important that women do not become so desperate that any man will suffice, people have to screen the people who their kids are around.

Children living with their married biological parents had the lowest levels of abuse and neglect:

http://www.center4research.org/child-abuse-father-figures-kind-families-safest-grow/

Maybe you should walk back your whining?

@KBecks, you should probably note the following paragraph in that article:

Quote
A limitation of this study is that the person doing the abusing or neglecting was not identified.  Therefore, in homes with a stepfather or boyfriend, it is unclear whether the mother or surrogate father was abusing or neglecting the child.

And then it goes on to say for a different study:

Quote
Biological Parents (and Not Just Single Mothers) Mistreat Their Children, Too
A 2010 analysis of the National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System (NCANDS) found that a majority (80%) of perpetrators—those responsible for the abuse and/or neglect of a child—in 2009 were parents.[4] Of these, 85% were the biological parents, 4% were stepparents, and 1% were adoptive parents.  Four percent of perpetrators were the unmarried partners of the biological parent.  Though the report did not gather data on whether the biological parent was the father or mother or whether the parent was a single head of household, the data do show that 45% of all perpetrators were male, while 54% were female (1% were unknown).

Now it doesn't tell us here what proportion of the original sample were bio parent, step parent or adoptive, so we can't tell whether any of categories of parent is out of proportion. Perhaps it is in the referenced papers, but I'm not going to follow it through (I shouldn't have to).

I understand the point you are trying to make, and I'm not going to tell you your feelings and experiences are wrong, they may indeed be well founded. But at the risk of jumping on silly culture bandwagons I'll just drop a #notallmen here and leave it at that.
« Last Edit: June 28, 2019, 08:25:36 PM by marty998 »

KBecks

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2023
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #178 on: June 28, 2019, 09:10:25 PM »
Of course not all men!  Duh.  Married two-parent bio families have the lowest odds for child abuse.

iris lily

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3402
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #179 on: June 28, 2019, 09:15:55 PM »
The big concern for divorce is that new boyfriends and step-dads, in particular, can be abusive and predatory. 

You can fuck right off with that sexist bullshit. ...

... People like you should not speak in public places. You can believe and endorse whatever flavor of archaic and ridiculous bigotry you like, in your own life, but if you're going to share that BS with the rest of us you can expect to be...


The quoted study says “...Compared to children living with married biological parents, those whose single parent had a live-in partner were at least 8 [times] more likely to be maltreated in one way or another. They were 10 times more likely to experience abuse and 8 times more likely to experience neglect...”

Ok, the study does not claim men are doing the  abusing. I think that is an inference many people have made over the years when hearing about this study.  I made it, too. Because kids with surrogate dads in their home are 8 to 10 times likely to come into abuse or neglect, Seems like something is up besides mommy just being mad at her boyfriend and taking it out on the kids.

 8 to 10 times —seems huge to me.

I guess I should  fuck right off, tho, for even thinking that somehow men in the home of non bio kids are to blame for any of it. I wonder if the authors of the study should not be speaking in public places, too.


« Last Edit: June 28, 2019, 09:21:55 PM by iris lily »

BicycleB

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1797
  • Location: Live Music Capital of the World
  • Older than the internet, but not wiser... yet
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #180 on: June 28, 2019, 11:17:39 PM »
The big concern for divorce is that new boyfriends and step-dads, in particular, can be abusive and predatory. 

You can fuck right off with that sexist bullshit. ...

... People like you should not speak in public places. You can believe and endorse whatever flavor of archaic and ridiculous bigotry you like, in your own life, but if you're going to share that BS with the rest of us you can expect to be...


The bolded appear to violate several rules of forum discussion:


1. Don't be a jerk.
2. Attack an argument, not a person. (arguably. @sol does sort of address the argument elsewhere in his post)
4. Be respectful of the site and other members.
6. Use good taste.  (obviously arguable, but...)

Try to stay towards the top of Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement:

(appears to be closer to layer 6, ad hominem attacks, near the bottom, than the other hierarchy layers)

I admit, reading the rest of the post, I sympathize with Sol's feelings. The data-based counterargument is a good example of why it's better to discuss than attack, though. The attack...probably not okay.

I particularly dislike the part about "people like you should not speak in public places." The shut-down-speech and you're-a-bad-person themes so common these days damage discourse. I am glad our forum mostly tries to avoid them.

innkeeper77

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 242
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #181 on: June 28, 2019, 11:24:18 PM »
I will say that this site is better than most in this regard, but definitely not immune.
I would say the hardcore liberals in this thread are right up there in not being able to have a discussion or respect an opposing viewpoint.

As a current hardcore liberal who used to be religious and on the right, but is finding it harder and harder to understand my former demographic, you might be right.

Note, I have honestly seen much less hate on the liberal side, even though an inability to comprehend the conservatives viewpoints does exist. Admittedly, this is my HIGHLY biased viewpoint.

(I'll be coming back to this thread later, I need rest to be able to read this properly)
« Last Edit: June 28, 2019, 11:27:20 PM by innkeeper77 »

Kyle Schuant

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 867
  • Location: Melbourne, Australia
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #182 on: June 29, 2019, 12:57:20 AM »
I figured that the general and baiting tone of the original post was bound to spiral into vitriolic arguments about some particular issue, I was just curious which.

BicycleB has still had the best post in this thread, noting that there was some good conservative policies here and there. This is one reason I like The Art of Manliness site and books: what they're trying to do is to take some of the good aspects of past ideas of masculinity while setting aside the bad aspects.

Now, obviously we can argue which are the good and which are the bad, but I don't think anyone can reasonably say there is nothing good about past ideas of masculinity, or religion, or whatever. That would be denying reality, which is ideological.

To illustrate this, here's a little test - they show you some government policy, and then you answer whether you think it would have a positive, negative or neutral effect. If you answer in a "progressive" voice each question, you'll be wrong; if you answer each in a "conservative" voice, you'll be wrong. The truth is more complex than ideology. But the characteristic of ideology is that it ignores results. Makes for snappier soundbites, though.
« Last Edit: June 29, 2019, 01:01:11 AM by Kyle Schuant »

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8493
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #183 on: June 29, 2019, 01:12:15 AM »
The bolded appear to violate several rules of forum discussion:

Yes, it totally does.  And I knew that when I posted it.

Quote
I particularly dislike the part about "people like you should not speak in public places." The shut-down-speech and you're-a-bad-person themes so common these days damage discourse.

That was not discourse, that was blatant sexism.  I'm going to tell people like that to STFU, especially when they insult me while pretending to hold the moral high ground.

So-called "social conservatives" merely echo the widely discredited ideas of the 1950s for which they have so much nostalgia.  News flash, the 1950s sucked balls.  Women who follow the advice kbecks gave would stay in abusive marriages, just like they did in the 50s.  And those views on blended families, regardless of the data, were presented wrong.  You don't look at African American student test scores and then go on the internet and say "black people are stupid, just look so the data!".  I'm not here to argue the data, I'm here to argue you are an ass for saying it.

You can officially consider me triggered.  I've dealt with more abuse of more types than I care to count, and to hear someone accuse me if being an abuse risk because I chose to marry a divorced mother is horrifying.  It disgusts me on multiple levels.

If the community finds my objections unacceptable, I will gladly accept moderation.  I will not, however, allow self righteous self identified social conservatives to disparage or denigrate me, my gender, my marriage, or the trauma my kids have endured at the hands of their abusers.  Not okay with me, kbecks.

Kyle Schuant

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 867
  • Location: Melbourne, Australia
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #184 on: June 29, 2019, 01:31:16 AM »

Quote from: Kbecks
Dr. Laura also said a lot about women not needing to be desperate for a man and to be choosy about finding a good man.  She emphasized to women that if a man ever hits you or your kids, to leave, and to let the man know that rule, that no violence is ever OK.  This is also good advice. 
Women who follow the advice kbecks gave would stay in abusive marriages, just like they did in the 50s.
I find it is usually more productive, though more difficult, to contend with what someone actually said, rather than some other stuff you made up. Many times in conversations, particularly online, I find that people aren't really arguing with what someone said, but with some vaguely similar stuff someone else said somewhere else years ago. They bolt together a Frankenstein's monster from a hodge-podge of various bits and pieces from many people over the years and use their lightning rage to imbue this simulacrum with some semblance of life. Again: yes, it is foolish to believe in some previous Golden Age, which invariably was never as "golden" as people imagine it, for whatever values of "golden" you arbitrarily decide.

As just one example, the assertion that women in 1950 stayed in abusive marriages: no doubt many did. But in Australia in the 1950s the crude divorce rate was 1 in 1,000, more or less; now it's 2 or so. There was a big jump in the late 1970s when no-fault divorce was introduced. Still, plenty of people were getting divorced in the 1950s. So there were a significant number of women who were just not putting up with that shit any more. I realise that this fits neither the progressive nor the conservative narratives; the progressive would like to believe that women in 1950 were imprisoned in chains, and the conservative would like to believe they were all happy and free and fulfilled.

The truth, of course, is something in between. While many stayed in unhappy or abusive marriages in 1950, it is just as true that many people leave relationships which are non-abusive but having difficulties, and which with some work could be made good. It is not good to stay in something shitty, but it is also not good to quit easily something which could be good.

While the "golden" age was never that golden, it is just as foolish to imagine that there was nothing good about it. The idea that we are on a linear progression in history, that everything new is simply by virtue of its newness good, and everything old awful simply by virtue of its being old, these things are demonstrably not correct.

I understand the sensitivity - taking my daughter to the toilet next to the playground I have been aggressively queried by a passing mother. "What are you doing with that girl? Why are you taking here in there?!" So I get it, Sol. But life and history are more complicated than this. I do not agree with everything she said, but I do not think Kbecks was calling you a child abuser, Sol.
« Last Edit: June 29, 2019, 01:39:32 AM by Kyle Schuant »

BicycleB

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1797
  • Location: Live Music Capital of the World
  • Older than the internet, but not wiser... yet
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #185 on: June 29, 2019, 02:46:15 AM »
The bolded appear to violate several rules of forum discussion:

Yes, it totally does.  And I knew that when I posted it.

Quote
I particularly dislike the part about "people like you should not speak in public places." The shut-down-speech and you're-a-bad-person themes so common these days damage discourse.

That was not discourse, that was blatant sexism.  I'm going to tell people like that to STFU, especially when they insult me while pretending to hold the moral high ground.

So-called "social conservatives" merely echo the widely discredited ideas of the 1950s for which they have so much nostalgia.  News flash, the 1950s sucked balls.  Women who follow the advice kbecks gave would stay in abusive marriages, just like they did in the 50s.  And those views on blended families, regardless of the data, were presented wrong.  You don't look at African American student test scores and then go on the internet and say "black people are stupid, just look so the data!".  I'm not here to argue the data, I'm here to argue you are an ass for saying it.

You can officially consider me triggered.  I've dealt with more abuse of more types than I care to count, and to hear someone accuse me if being an abuse risk because I chose to marry a divorced mother is horrifying.  It disgusts me on multiple levels.

If the community finds my objections unacceptable, I will gladly accept moderation.  I will not, however, allow self righteous self identified social conservatives to disparage or denigrate me, my gender, my marriage, or the trauma my kids have endured at the hands of their abusers.  Not okay with me, kbecks.

You may be triggered, but hopefully you won't stay that way.

Are you saying that when Kbecks wrote "The big concern for divorce is that new boyfriends and step-dads, in particular, can be abusive and predatory" it was so sexist that she should be told to STFU?

I continue to disagree on the basis that telling people to STFU closes off healthy discussion. In other words, I continue to support the forum rules, which I think are correct. There are plenty of counter arguments to her statement that you could make instead. Make them, and then you at least remain in contention for that high ground you speak of.

By the way, you don't have to think of the rules as some unfair construct preventing you from speaking the justified truth. You could think of them as an intellectual failsafe that prompts you to look for intelligent responses at moments when emotion or misunderstanding temporarily sidetracked you. (That's why I'm not reporting you. I think you can calm down instead. Not from a submit-and-conform basis, but an understand-and-revise basis. So, hopefully temporary.)

For example, you could say "Most new boyfriends, even step-dads, are not abusive and predatory." That doesn't contradict her statement directly, but if you thought she meant most step-dads were predatory, it would argue against the meaning that you perceived. If you backed that statement up with evidence, your argument would be powerful. I happen to think you'd be correct.

Personally, I know how it feels to think someone is or at least might be thinking you're bad when you're not. I'm not a stepdad, but I quietly and cautiously have participated in raising my former fiancee's teenage daughter. Who knows when I could be mistakenly accused of something bad? Separately, I know actual cases where people were falsely accused, authorities brought in, dire consequences threatened with the suddenness of a thunderbolt and huge possible harm at stake. Plus being accused probably feels reaaaally bad. So, I sympathize, even if I can't know how you feel personally.

Yet I don't think Kbecks insulted you. You may have felt insulted, I don't dispute your feelings, but from the outside, I don't think she did. A woman getting remarried or bringing a new boyfriend into her home should indeed consider the possibility that New Boyfriend could turn out to be a predator. Predators exist, and you don't always recognize them as being predators until it's too late. She should consider it carefully. Anyone who thinks she shouldn't be careful about is in my opinion being extremely unreasonable.

Did Kbecks say anywhere that men don't need to worry about women being abusive to stepchildren? Or did you impute that?

For what it's worth, the Jenny Rae Armstrong article that Kbecks linked is incredibly easy to argue against. It discusses people who were convicted of abuse; enumerates various percentages about the demography of the abusers (male, female, etc) and the types of abuse; cautions about reading the statistics incorrectly; and yet is titled with a conclusion that is not proven at all by any of the data. You could find data proving or suggesting that most step-dads are safe and non-predatory, thus trumping the article. You can make arguments like @marty998 did in his excellent reply (8/28/19, 8:24:05 pm).

There's no need to "shut people up" when you could just discuss using the upper levels of that discussion pyramid in the forum rules.


KBecks

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2023
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #186 on: June 29, 2019, 05:30:37 AM »
Getting back to Dr. Laura, who espouses socially conservative, traditional views (or at least she did in the late 90's when I was listening to her), the main message to women seems to be -- a) you need to be able to be an independent woman who does not NEED a man to survive, and b) women, you are the gatekeeper to yourself and any kids you may have -- you must be careful to select a man with the values and behaviors that you want for your family.

Looking back now this strikes me as Dave Ramsey-ish, as her rules seemed to be to help the people who were really struggling on the fringes of bad relationships and very difficult situations, and setting people up for basic success with their lives and families.

It was a long time ago when I listened, but she would absolutely point out the positive characteristics of good men, too.

I also remember clearly her saying that her #1 goal for raising children is for them to be GOOD people, who are kind to others, unselfish and non-criminal.  Everything else comes in second place.

Side note: 1) I am not the author of that blog I shared, and 2) I posted it quickly, so apologies if it was triggering for you Sol. Absolutely none of it is directed towards you or anybody here personally.

Note: There was definitely some bunk in the late 90's, just like there is likely some bunk out there today, too.  I recall reading Joshua Kennon's blog and how very deeply hurt he felt in the 90's when there was speculation (by an evangelist? I don't remember exacly who) about gay men and their (poor) relationships with their fathers being in play for homosexuality.  Kennon had a great relationship with his dad.
« Last Edit: June 29, 2019, 05:57:45 AM by KBecks »

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8493
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #187 on: June 29, 2019, 01:20:20 PM »
Are you saying that when Kbecks wrote "The big concern for divorce is that new boyfriends and step-dads, in particular, can be abusive and predatory" it was so sexist that she should be told to STFU?

This was an argument about defending traditional marriage by suggesting that divorce is problematic specifically because men who marry divorced mothers are more likely to abuse children.

You don't say that gay people shouldn't be allowed to marry because gay people are pedophiles.  You don't say white people shouldn't marry black people because black people are criminals.  And you don't say single mothers shouldn't remarry because new husbands are child abusers (unless you're kbecks).  It's just a terrible thing to say.  I absolutely can and will tell people like that to stfu, their bigotry is not welcome in polite society.  And if the forum moderators have a problem with it, they are free to speak up in defense of bigotry.

I'm all for healthy discussion, but that was not a discussion it all, it was strictly a disparaging comment about an entire subset of the population, based on sexist attitudes that appear to be common to self-identified "social conservatives".  I have no problem with discussing the root causes of child abuse, just like I have no problem discussing the root causes of pedophilia or crime in general.  I do not find it socially acceptable, however, to preface that discussion with a sweeping generalizations about an entire class of people you deem morally unfit because of your bigoted assumptions.  If you want to talk about sexual assault, you don't start out with "Mexicans are rapists."  If you want to talk about poverty you don't start out with "black people are lazy." 

This seems pretty common to conservatives in general, though.  They have been raised to endorse a very specific set of outdated beliefs, and they will argue and attack people based on that bigotry even while claiming to be the ones trying to improve society, and their hypocrisy is outrageously transparent.  If you really wanted children to be raised in loving and supportive families, you would support women who leave abusive marriages to find better relationships in which to raise their kids, not argue that women should avoid divorce at all costs.  And you certainly wouldn't disparage the men who voluntarily assume the burden of raising someone else's kids.  Saying "new boyfriends and step dads in particular can be abusive and predatory" is not any different than saying "single mothers and unwed mothers in particular are unfit to raise children."  It's just an ugly thing to say about someone involuntarily stuck with a bad situation, especially when you know that your audience includes many such people and you decide to insult them right to their faces anyway.  It's such jerk move that I can't believe I even have to argue that we should condemn it.
« Last Edit: June 29, 2019, 01:34:30 PM by sol »

partgypsy

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3535
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #188 on: June 29, 2019, 02:01:09 PM »
I don't even know if I should step into this, but there is more child abuse in situations when a mother is not with the father of her children. We can speculate on all the reasons why that may be true, but it doesn't change just because you are personally offended by it.

Most studies show that kids do best in two parent households. Doesn't mean all two parent households are good, or that single moms can't raise well-adjusted children, it is a statistic of what is more or less likely. 


I do think that one way that "liberals" versus "conservatives" try to uphold various values are different. For example if you think there should be less abortions, liberals will work to create situations that reduce the need for abortion such as sex education and birth control access. And if abortions are needed, to provide them in a safe, nonpunitive way. Conservatives don't seem to work to encourage the situations that they say they want, and they are punitive in punishing versus trying to reduce the occurrence. In the same way liberals may approach drug addiction as a public health problem and try to find ways to treat the addiction, while conservatives see it as a moral issue and use laws to punish rule breakers. Gross generalizations I know.

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8493
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #189 on: June 29, 2019, 02:39:56 PM »
I don't even know if I should step into this, but there is more child abuse in situations when a mother is not with the father of her children. We can speculate on all the reasons why that may be true, but it doesn't change just because you are personally offended by it.

I'm not arguing the stats, I'm arguing you're an ass if you use those stats to support bigotry.  It's easy to say ”most felons are black, therefore black people are criminals" but I think we all recognize that as textbook racism.  You don't disparage the entire population of black people like that.  You just don't.  And if you decide to do it anyway, you're probably going to get called out for it.

A disproportionate percentage of convicted pedophiles were homosexuals, back in the 70s and 80s, and the gay community spent years fighting for their right to raise children while social conservatives argued it would be endangering children to let them live in a home with same-sex parents.  You don't get away with saying "gays are pedos" anymore. But if you did say it, publicly for example in an internet forum, you might expect some well deserved push back.

If we want to talk about the factors that contribute to raising healthy happy kids, I'm all for it.  But if you start that conversation with the assertion that only hetero married biological parents are fit to be parents, then I don't think we're going to get very far because your "social conservativism" makes you sound like an ass.  We don't all get to choose to be hetero married biological parents, and we're all doing our best anyway.  Consider trying to accept and support the world as it is, rather than how your grandparents told you it should be.

In my extended family, there are occurrences of sexual abuse by a biological father, and physical abuse by a step mother.  There are also several step fathers, myself included, who are trying to pick up the pieces of that havoc while society casts a disproving eye upon their efforts to raise a family.  Kbecks piling on isn't helping.  Like many social conservatives, his/her efforts to improve society are instead tearing it apart.

In my city, we have a population of homeless gay youth.  Many of them were tossed out by their socially conservative parents, who refused to accept their sexuality and literally pushed their own kids into drug dealing and prostitution to survive.  That's the kind of inadvertent hypocrisy I see with social conservatives, trying to take a stand on these issues by making zero tolerance declarations that only make the problems worse instead of better.  If you support healthy families, you have to start by supporting your own kids.  If you oppose drugs and prostitution, don't yank your financial support away from people who have no other options to make money.  I think partgypsy's analysis above is pretty good; social conservatives are so stuck in the past that they cause some of the very problems they are trying to solve.  It's true with families, with crime, with sexism, with abortion, and apparently with basic ethical integrity, when it comes to presidential candidates.

« Last Edit: June 29, 2019, 02:41:48 PM by sol »

iris lily

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3402
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #190 on: June 29, 2019, 03:23:07 PM »
I don't even know if I should step into this, but there is more child abuse in situations when a mother is not with the father of her children. We can speculate on all the reasons why that may be true, but it doesn't change just because you are personally offended by it.

I'm not arguing the stats, I'm arguing you're an ass if you use those stats to support bigotry.  It's easy to say ”most felons are black, therefore black people are criminals" but I think we all recognize that as textbook racism.  You don't disparage the entire population of black people like that.  You just don't.  And if you decide to do it anyway, you're probably going to get called out for it.

A disproportionate percentage of convicted pedophiles were homosexuals, back in the 70s and 80s, and the gay community spent years fighting for their right to raise children while social conservatives argued it would be endangering children to let them live in a home with same-sex parents.  You don't get away with saying "gays are pedos" anymore. But if you did say it, publicly for example in an internet forum, you might expect some well deserved push back.

If we want to talk about the factors that contribute to raising healthy happy kids, I'm all for it.  But if you start that conversation with the assertion that only hetero married biological parents are fit to be parents, then I don't think we're going to get very far because your "social conservativism" makes you sound like an ass.  We don't all get to choose to be hetero married biological parents, and we're all doing our best anyway.  Consider trying to accept and support the world as it is, rather than how your grandparents told you it should be.

In my extended family, there are occurrences of sexual abuse by a biological father, and physical abuse by a step mother.  There are also several step fathers, myself included, who are trying to pick up the pieces of that havoc while society casts a disproving eye upon their efforts to raise a family.  Kbecks piling on isn't helping.  Like many social conservatives, his/her efforts to improve society are instead tearing it apart.

In my city, we have a population of homeless gay youth.  Many of them were tossed out by their socially conservative parents, who refused to accept their sexuality and literally pushed their own kids into drug dealing and prostitution to survive.  That's the kind of inadvertent hypocrisy I see with social conservatives, trying to take a stand on these issues by making zero tolerance declarations that only make the problems worse instead of better.  If you support healthy families, you have to start by supporting your own kids.  If you oppose drugs and prostitution, don't yank your financial support away from people who have no other options to make money.  I think partgypsy's analysis above is pretty good; social conservatives are so stuck in the past that they cause some of the very problems they are trying to solve.  It's true with families, with crime, with sexism, with abortion, and apparently with basic ethical integrity, when it comes to presidential candidates.

There is a whole lot of emo blather here. Your family anecdotes are data points, not research.

SOL, why do you think children with a surrogate father in their home are abused and neglected 8 to 10 times more often than children who live with two bio parents?

« Last Edit: June 29, 2019, 04:03:25 PM by iris lily »

sol

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8493
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #191 on: June 29, 2019, 04:26:07 PM »
SOL, why do you think children with a surrogate father in their home are abused and neglected 8 to 10 times more often than children who live with two bio parents?

That is not the question under discussion, whether your assertion is true or not and regardless of what that might mean.  The question is why so many people think it's okay to disparage an entire class of people, and then use that discriminatory opinion to set social policy.

Do you often drop "Mexicans are rapists and drug dealers, that's why we need the wall" into polite conversation?  Does it matter that a majority of the drugs being illegally smuggled into the country come through Mexican cartels?  Does that make it okay to disparage Mexicans, or to support "socially conservative" policies that discriminate against all Mexicans, including the ones fighting the cartels?  Because that's kind of racist. 

I don't see this discussion as any different.  You think it's okay to express sexist opinions on the internet, and I don't.  In this particular case, I'm a member of the subgroup being disparaged in an off-handed and almost dismissive fashion, and so I spoke up.    I'm patiently awaiting a determination about how long I will be banned for doing so.

KBecks

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2023
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #192 on: June 29, 2019, 04:48:54 PM »
I don't think I disparaged an entire class of people.  Perhaps I didn't phrase it in the best possible way but it seems that other forum members understood the main idea.

You extrapolated one comment to mean that I am pushing missionary position sex (completely off-topic) and a 1950's female-submissive lifestyle (I'm not). And it seems like if you ran the universe, you're ready to send me and my whole family to a re-education camp because you're feeling triggered.  Who cares about the facts of what I was trying to say, your feelings come above all.

Last but not least, you seem to feel that the rules should not apply to YOU. How very special.

Perhaps I can phrase these things better.  Some predators target and prey on single women with children. Some people who are dating people with children who are not theirs don't give a flying fig about the kids. And the main idea is that kids who are in families with non-bio parents are at greater risk for abuse.  Obviously, not everyone is a child abuser. I hope that makes it clearer, if you are willing to listen.  Also, I am sorry for hurting your feelings. 
« Last Edit: June 29, 2019, 05:01:32 PM by KBecks »

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 14337
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #193 on: June 29, 2019, 06:12:28 PM »
Homophobia and bigotry both certainly result in unfair situations.  I don't believe that we should accept them as part of life though.

But are you saying that a birth mom should have no say in who their child is adopted by?

No.


That's just not how it works.  Most domestic newborn adoptions are open and the mother has a lot of say in choosing who the baby's new parents will be. It seems likely that more conservative and religious women choose not to abort and place a child for adoption, and that seems incongruent with choosing a homosexual couple, especially if an equally attractive heterosexual couple is also seeking to adopt.

In your point of view, should a white supremacist mother be given free reign to refuse any parents who is Jewish, black, Hispanic, Asian, middle-eastern, and Indian because of race?


Liberal women seem more likely to abort their unwanted fetuses.

Can you provide the study or source material that you're using which supports your theory here?  My understanding is that the numbers of abortions are similar between conservative and liberal women.
« Last Edit: June 29, 2019, 06:31:05 PM by GuitarStv »

KBecks

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2023
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #194 on: June 29, 2019, 06:17:36 PM »
No evidence on that, just a supposition. I could be wrong. 

RE: a birth mother's choice.  I think it is always her choice. 

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 14337
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #195 on: June 29, 2019, 06:34:42 PM »
RE: a birth mother's choice.  I think it is always her choice.

I agree with you on that.  But it makes me feel kinda bad when I think about bigotry and hatred playing a role in that decision.

KBecks

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2023
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #196 on: June 29, 2019, 06:45:34 PM »
I tend to think that most people are not hateful bigots.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 14337
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #197 on: June 29, 2019, 06:49:26 PM »
I tend to think that most people are not hateful bigots.

You just said that conservative mothers are likely to be.

KBecks

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2023
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #198 on: June 29, 2019, 07:22:25 PM »
So a mother has to choose a homosexual couple to adopt their child in order not to be a hateful bigot?  Ridiculous.  There's no point in continuing any of these conversations.
« Last Edit: June 29, 2019, 07:25:00 PM by KBecks »

ReadySetMillionaire

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1198
  • Location: The Buckeye State
Re: Are social conservatives always wrong?
« Reply #199 on: June 29, 2019, 08:02:24 PM »
Are you saying that when Kbecks wrote "The big concern for divorce is that new boyfriends and step-dads, in particular, can be abusive and predatory" it was so sexist that she should be told to STFU?

This was an argument about defending traditional marriage by suggesting that divorce is problematic specifically because men who marry divorced mothers are more likely to abuse children.

You don't say that gay people shouldn't be allowed to marry because gay people are pedophiles.  You don't say white people shouldn't marry black people because black people are criminals.  And you don't say single mothers shouldn't remarry because new husbands are child abusers (unless you're kbecks).  It's just a terrible thing to say.  I absolutely can and will tell people like that to stfu, their bigotry is not welcome in polite society.  And if the forum moderators have a problem with it, they are free to speak up in defense of bigotry.

I'm all for healthy discussion, but that was not a discussion it all, it was strictly a disparaging comment about an entire subset of the population, based on sexist attitudes that appear to be common to self-identified "social conservatives".  I have no problem with discussing the root causes of child abuse, just like I have no problem discussing the root causes of pedophilia or crime in general.  I do not find it socially acceptable, however, to preface that discussion with a sweeping generalizations about an entire class of people you deem morally unfit because of your bigoted assumptions.  If you want to talk about sexual assault, you don't start out with "Mexicans are rapists."  If you want to talk about poverty you don't start out with "black people are lazy." 

This seems pretty common to conservatives in general, though.  They have been raised to endorse a very specific set of outdated beliefs, and they will argue and attack people based on that bigotry even while claiming to be the ones trying to improve society, and their hypocrisy is outrageously transparent.  If you really wanted children to be raised in loving and supportive families, you would support women who leave abusive marriages to find better relationships in which to raise their kids, not argue that women should avoid divorce at all costs.  And you certainly wouldn't disparage the men who voluntarily assume the burden of raising someone else's kids.  Saying "new boyfriends and step dads in particular can be abusive and predatory" is not any different than saying "single mothers and unwed mothers in particular are unfit to raise children."  It's just an ugly thing to say about someone involuntarily stuck with a bad situation, especially when you know that your audience includes many such people and you decide to insult them right to their faces anyway.  It's such jerk move that I can't believe I even have to argue that we should condemn it.

Demonize, beat up a straw man, rinse, repeat.