NationStates Jolt Archive

Yes, we do "exist" although we are small in number and are neither fully accepted by either side. Our reasoning is simply, people are the way they are and we shant worry about others too much, it makes it look our lives have some shit in them that we need to worry about others who are different. So, are there any others out there that meet this description or an I the lone one. If I am, meh, if I'm not, meh.

You sound like a libertarian to me. Unless you're socially authoritarian on other issues besides same-sex marriage.

You sound like a libertarian to me. Unless you're socially authoritarian on other issues besides same-sex marriage.



Depends which ones.

Depends which ones.
What about on things such as drug use and the death penalty?

What about on things such as drug use and the death penalty?



I'm back and forth on the death penalty, it depends on the crime or magnitude of it. As for drug use, there have been people I've known who have really messed their lives up with drugs, so I see no need for them, unless medicinal.

Contradiction...

Contradiction...



In what way?

In what way?
Homosexual "marriage" is anti-thetical to true conservatism.

Homosexual "marriage" is anti-thetical to true conservatism.



There are more moderate conservatives, which are almost closer to Liberalism than "true" conservatism. There are socialists against same sex marriage, is that a contradiction?

Homosexual "marriage" is anti-thetical to true conservatism.

Howso? Perhaps they believe in following the US constitution, not too much goverment intervention in private life, and creating a better world for all of us?

and creating a better world for all of us?

Now you know why they can't be conservatives.

(Sorry! I couldn't resist)

Homosexual "marriage" is anti-thetical to true conservatism.

Nope. It all depends on what you call "conservative".
When I use the word, I mean the (mainly British) tradition of Classial Liberalism
non-interference by government in private affairs (such as marriage).
Banning any form of consensual non-coercive, non-violent contaract is anathema to the real conservative tradition.
You belong to either the hard core reactionaries, facists, or neo-conservatives (authoritarian-religious socialists).

Homosexual "marriage" is anti-thetical to true conservatism.

Would you call unmarried straight people conservative?

Personally, I think marriage is conservative no matter who it is. It's making laws based on religion that is not conservative. Making laws based solely on religion is extremist in my book.

I don't really care either way, it's not a big deal to me. Although I'd much rather them set up their own union, I don't hate gays, I don't bash them. God made them the way they are for a reason, and we just have to accept it.

Then again, I'm not all that conservative.

I say do away with state interference with marriage. Let every marriage be as legally binding as the next - that is, not at all legally binding - and leave marriage as just a token gesture for those of faith.

And for the record, I'm what you might call "conservative" (in the sense that I ascribe to small government and few laws)