NationStates Jolt Archive

I had a thought today, one of many in fact, but this one stood out. Are conservatives (with a small c, i.e. those that are right-winged) wrong about society? Now we can debate for hours and hours about the pros and cons of being conservative when it comes to the economy, but on a social scale are right wingers wrong?

Think about it. Most conservatives, definitely the majority of them, are against gay marriage. Now that boggles my mind, it really does. You can have your own opinion about gays and marrying gays. Hell, I believe that a church has every right to reject gay marriage if they want to. But trying to force a law like this nationally? My main question is, why? Homosexuals WILL get the right to marry, if they haven't already in the country where they live. It's inevitable. But why are conservatives trying to stop this? I thought we were past the issue of gay rights. I thought they we were all equals now. To quote the words of Fred Willard, "Wha' Happened?"

This issue (and I'm sure there are others) led me to question if being socially conservative is just plain wrong. When you think about it, aren't they just slowing down progress of society? Look at the Catholic Church, they were very conservative during the Middle Ages and when they ruled without question during the Dark Ages intellectual growth in society came to a halt.

Is believing in traditional values wrong? Does it hurt society as whole? Or to even start another sub-topic debate, is society progress right? (right as in opposed to wrong, that is;)

Now I know some of you might reply with, 'well it's their opinion and their entitled to it' and I agree. You are entitled to your opinion, but opinions can be wrong. For example, if I were to say Darwin never existed, I'd be wrong. But it'd still be my opinion that Darwin was never a real person, just some mythical figure (I don't actually believe that, but you know what I'm getting at).

And so, let the debates begin. I'm really interested to see what you guys think about this. I know I'm not the first person to pose this question. Benjamin Disraeli once said "A conservative government is an organized hypocrisy." So I'll stop typing and create a poll and see what you guys think.

I had a thought today, one of many in fact, but this one stood out. Are conservatives (with a small c, i.e. those that are right-winged) wrong about society? Now we can debate for hours and hours about the pros and cons of being conservative when it comes to the economy, but on a social scale are right wingers wrong?

Think about it. Most conservatives, definitely the majority of them, are against gay marriage. Now that boggles my mind, it really does. You can have your own opinion about gays and marrying gays. Hell, I believe that a church has every right to reject gay marriage if they want to. But trying to force a law like this nationally? My main question is, why? Homosexuals WILL get the right to marry, if they haven't already in the country where they live. It's inevitable. But why are conservatives trying to stop this? I thought we were past the issue of gay rights. I thought they we were all equals now. To quote the words of Fred Willard, "Wha' Happened?"

This issue (and I'm sure there are others) led me to question if being socially conservative is just plain wrong. When you think about it, aren't they just slowing down progress of society? Look at the Catholic Church, they were very conservative during the Middle Ages and when they ruled without question during the Dark Ages intellectual growth in society came to a halt.

Is believing in traditional values wrong? Does it hurt society as whole? Or to even start another sub-topic debate, is society progress right? (right as in opposed to wrong, that is;)

Now I know some of you might reply with, 'well it's their opinion and their entitled to it' and I agree. You are entitled to your opinion, but opinions can be wrong. For example, if I were to say Darwin never existed, I'd be wrong. But it'd still be my opinion that Darwin was never a real person, just some mythical figure (I don't actually believe that, but you know what I'm getting at).

And so, let the debates begin. I'm really interested to see what you guys think about this. I know I'm not the first person to pose this question. Benjamin Disraeli once said "A conservative government is an organized hypocrisy." So I'll stop typing and create a poll and see what you guys think.

Do conservatives necessarily believe that gay is wrong or bad?

I'll be sure to send your answer to the Log Cabin Republicans.

Having traditional values doesn't hurt society. It's forcing them on others that does.

Having traditional values doesn't hurt society. It's forcing them on others that does.

so is a conservative government wrong?

Tradition and progress need to be properly balanced; the problem is finding the right place. Tradition should not harm people, but progress should not leave people without an identity. So, should gay marriage be a problem because of "tradition?" No. On the other hand, should be religion be totally overthrown to keep people thinking about this earth? No.

I usually come out in a nasty rash when I have discussions whith conservatives(especially ultra cons)Yeah-some traditions are worth preserving but I dont think conservatism chooses which traditions are worth keeping or discarding-its all -there must be no change.There needs to be room for progress and new ideas.Also most cons I speak to are homophoblic(especially)or ultra religious(you must accept jesus christ as your personal lord and saviour-doesnt matter if you give all your money to charity or feed the poor or heal people-if tyou dont believein jesus you will GO TO HELL)and that drives me nuts.
This is not to all call conservatives are like this-just the great majority ive spoken to

so is a conservative government wrong?

About some things.

Tradition and progress need to be properly balanced; the problem is finding the right place. Tradition should not harm people, but progress should not leave people without an identity. So, should gay marriage be a problem because of "tradition?" No. On the other hand, should be religion be totally overthrown to keep people thinking about this earth? No.
Sort of what I think too. As for economics, I will say not only are Conservatives not wrong, they are in fact correct.

Sort of what I think too. As for economics, I will say not only are Conservatives not wrong, they are in fact correct.

Yeah. I agree with quite a bit of Conservative economics, although certain things I don't... but that's mainly because there's another way to achieve the same goal that also is more earth-friendly or human-friendly.

Yeah. I agree with quite a bit of Conservative economics, although certain things I don't... but that's mainly because there's another way to achieve the same goal that also is more earth-friendly or human-friendly.
Look up the book Natural Capitalism. ;)

Look up the book Natural Capitalism. ;)

Ooooh, this does sound quite nice...

I had a thought today, one of many in fact, but this one stood out. Are conservatives (with a small c, i.e. those that are right-winged) wrong about society? Now we can debate for hours and hours about the pros and cons of being conservative when it comes to the economy, but on a social scale are right wingers wrong?

Think about it. Most conservatives, definitely the majority of them, are against gay marriage. Now that boggles my mind, it really does. You can have your own opinion about gays and marrying gays. Hell, I believe that a church has every right to reject gay marriage if they want to. But trying to force a law like this nationally? My main question is, why? Homosexuals WILL get the right to marry, if they haven't already in the country where they live. It's inevitable. But why are conservatives trying to stop this? I thought we were past the issue of gay rights. I thought they we were all equals now. To quote the words of Fred Willard, "Wha' Happened?"

This issue (and I'm sure there are others) led me to question if being socially conservative is just plain wrong. When you think about it, aren't they just slowing down progress of society? Look at the Catholic Church, they were very conservative during the Middle Ages and when they ruled without question during the Dark Ages intellectual growth in society came to a halt.

Is believing in traditional values wrong? Does it hurt society as whole? Or to even start another sub-topic debate, is society progress right? (right as in opposed to wrong, that is;)

Now I know some of you might reply with, 'well it's their opinion and their entitled to it' and I agree. You are entitled to your opinion, but opinions can be wrong. For example, if I were to say Darwin never existed, I'd be wrong. But it'd still be my opinion that Darwin was never a real person, just some mythical figure (I don't actually believe that, but you know what I'm getting at).
It sounds like what you're talking about is the religious right. Those people have their own agenda which has little if anything to do with either reality or religion, and everything to do with horror that the world doesn't run exactly the way they believe it "should" be run. They were raised on a steady diet of outrage, small-mindedness, and lies about what the Bible actually teaches. Their grip on reality is highly tenuous at best, and they will always reject proven scientific fact which conflicts in any way with their beliefs ( thus, "creation science," an oxymoron if ever there was one ).

They are not "conservatives," they are religious zelots.

Are conservatives wrong? Yes.
Will I justify that statement? No.

Conservatives are, in fact, wrong about everything. Everything.

Unless you can provide scientific proof otherwise, I'll stand on my statement.

Conservatives are, in fact, wrong about everything. Everything.

Unless you can provide scientific proof otherwise, I'll stand on my statement.

Liberals are, in fact, wrong about everything. Everything.

Unless you can provide scientific proof otherwise, I'll stand on my statement.

But then, I consider both sides wrong.

Conservatives are, in fact, wrong about everything. Everything.

Unless you can provide scientific proof otherwise, I'll stand on my statement.

Liberals are, in fact, complete idiots about everything. Everything.

Unless you can provide "scientific" proof otherwise, I stand by my statement.

Liberals are, in fact, wrong about everything. Everything.

Unless you can provide scientific proof otherwise, I'll stand on my statement.


Hooray!

Their only wrong about forced-moralism and Welfare...Their views on economics and foreign policy are largely correct. I count myself as a Centrist. I have Moderate Capitalistic views on the economy, a hawkish view on defence, a Moderate Liberal view on welfare, and i'm pretty Liberal about Civil Rights.

Please don't confuse the religious right and the neocons with conservatives. You do them a disservice.

Hooray!

Yer cheering? Erm, why?

I'm a left-anarchist, so I tend to think conservatives are wrong on pretty much everything.

Please don't confuse the religious right and the neocons with conservatives. You do them a disservice.

Wait ... who are we doing a disservice ... the religious right, the neocons, or the consevratives?

Any way we slice it:

1] Why do the religious right think they are right? Why do they want to take away my right to be Buddhist?

2] Why are the Neocons right? Why do they want to take away my right to *not* stand for the Pledge of Allegiance?

3] Why are the conservatives right? Why do they think that inheriting a house with 20 acres of land and having an Uncle who "cuts them in" on the family business makes them so much better than everyone else?

Oops ... we're all socialist ... life sucks. Deal with it.

Having traditional values doesn't hurt society. It's forcing them on others that does.

Yeah. The way that gays keep forcing their values of not forcing your values on the rest of society onto conservative Americans whose values of forcing your values onto the rest of society are being put in jeopardy by those same gays who are trying to force conservatives not to force gays to live a straight lifestyle.

Disgusting! :D

Please don't confuse the religious right and the neocons with conservatives. You do them a disservice.

Well, since conservatives keep voting for the religous right and the neocons then it's not really a disservice on the part of the left. The disservice is coming from the right.

Oops ... we're all socialist ... life sucks. Deal with it.

Not all of us.

Not all of us.
Most definitely not all of us.

Not all of us.
vast majority then. To get back on topic, conservatives scare me, they really do. I think they are insane too.

vast majority then. To get back on topic, conservatives scare me, they really do. I think they are insane too.
Majority, perhaps. And that is on NS, not in the real world.

Majority, perhaps. And that is on NS, not in the real world.
True. In the real world I think capitalists have a good size advantage. I personally like a capitalist system with large welfare programs.I dont know if that sounds right, but I think you know what Im trying to get at.

There is nothing wrong with having what are considered "traditional" values, so long as there is a reason for holding those values.

The American "conservative" movement is typically associated with a bunch of Bible-thumping old (or older) men who insist on trying to keep things the same as they've "always been".
The problem? Most of said men who call upon religious philosophy have never read the Bible. The ideas that they call "established" were, many times, considered "liberal" in the days these men were young.
Frankly, these men are, and should be, looked upon as fools by everyone else.
So, yes. They're wrong.

I feel that just as much of a problem, though, is the American "liberal" movement.
Why?
Because it appears to be diametrically opposed to the Bible-thumping old men.
Why? Because they're Bible-thumping old men.
Simply put, it seems to me that the steretypical "liberals" are simply anti-conservative, and don't give a thought as to what they believe, so long as it goes against what the conservatives believe.
I find this as foolish as the ignorant old men.
So yes, the liberals are wrong, too.

So what's right?
I'm not going to say moderation, because that's wrong, too. You can't mediate between foolishness and foolishness.
Instead, I offer an alternative to the standard continuum: intelligent choice-making.
I believe that the greatest approach to politics is to have an open mind, guarded by a knowledge of where an individuals values lie. And these values can lie anywhere on the liberal/conservative spectrum, so long as there is a valid rationale behind the positioning.
Call it, "liberal-minded with progressive values" or somesuch.

Me? I tend toward the conservative side, but that's because of my religion. The conservative movement sticks with Christianity, because that's what the Establishment used to be. But unlike the Bible-thumpers, I actually have read the book, and can quote it when I need to, and I know what applies and what doesn't.
But I'm willing to change my views toward the better, if I can find something better.

I realize that this doesn't quite fit, but I like these expressions, so I'm posting them.

"A conservative is someone who has closed up their mid so much that their brain has shriveled up and died."
"A liberal is someone who has opened their mind up so much that their brain has fallen out."

EDIT: No, this is not my first post on these forums. I just forgot to log back into my normal Nation.

True. In the real world I think capitalists have a good size advantage. I personally like a capitalist system with large welfare programs.I dont know if that sounds right, but I think you know what Im trying to get at.
You're a welfare capitalist, then. I'm far more of a minarchist. Anyways, back on topic.

ironically enough, a purely economic conservative would most likely support gay marriage, since that'd mean more options for business (family/insurance support, etc.), wherease a purely moral conservative would (obviously) greatly oppose gay marriage.

as a government proffessor of mine once said (paraphrased as close to he said as possible), "Republicans are made up of two factions that often times are indifferent or directly opposed to each other, whereas Democrats are anyone else that didn't want to be a Republican." :p

ironically enough, a purely economic conservative would most likely support gay marriage, since that'd mean more options for business (family/insurance support, etc.), wherease a purely moral conservative would (obviously) greatly oppose gay marriage.

Exactly. Although, nowadays, most Conservatives of that brand are Libertarians, like myself. We have a far more laissez-faire attitude in both social and economic spheres.

As long as we don't mistake Republicans for Conservatives, then yes, of course Conservatives are right. Anyone who promotes smaller government and personal responsibility can't be wrong.

As long as we don't mistake Republicans for Conservatives, then yes, of course Conservatives are right. Anyone who promotes smaller government and personal responsibility can't be wrong.
yeah, i know the two aren't analagous by most accurate means. personally, my parents are most likely conservative/republican, but myself, i'm what i like to call "hard-core moderate" - every time i've taken the political compass test from http://politicalcompass.jpagel.net/index.php,
i got within .5 of 0 on both scales :D

yeah, i know the two aren't analagous by most accurate means. personally, my parents are most likely conservative/republican, but myself, i'm what i like to call "hard-core moderate" - every time i've taken the political compass test from http://politicalcompass.jpagel.net/index.php,
i got within .5 of 0 on both scales :D
I like the LP quiz better. Short and sweet.
http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html
I'm a hard core Libertarian, with 100/100 scores.

I like the LP quiz better. Short and sweet.
http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html
I'm a hard core Libertarian, with 100/100 scores.
90/100 here. ^^

90/100 here. ^^
it's a one-scale only test? sure, the PC test takes longer, but it makes a very good point in that hitler and stalin would agree on certian key issues, but violently disagree on others (subject control and comercial freedom, respectively, for example).

to each his own though, of course

**EDIT** ah... took it, and realized it's a two-scale test as well :rolleyes: **/EDIT**

it's a one-scale only test? sure, the PC test takes longer, but it makes a very good point in that hitler and stalin would agree on certian key issues, but violently disagree on others (subject control and comercial freedom, respectively, for example).

to each his own though, of course
Oh, I've taken that test. There is a much more complex Libertarian test (the Austrian one) at www.mises.org, but I have yet to take it. I am Libertarian through and through either way. Even my PC tests confirm it.

Edit: Yes, it is bi-scalar.

Call it, "liberal-minded with progressive values" or somesuch.

Sounds like me! XD

I hope all conservatives burn in hell. Let the damn homosexuals get married and live a life! Let a teenage girl get an abortion so as to not let both people suffer! GO LIBERALS!!!

*snip

I cut this for taking up too much space, but I agree wholeheartedly

90/100 here. ^^

70/50 here - centrist who would fall directly between liberal and libertarian, which sounds about right - I'm probably going to be voting for mostly green and libertarian party candidates...

Conservatives are right about a lot of things. They just give the wrong solutions to the problems that are happening. Legislating morality never works. Creating a society where people act morally does work.

I had a thought today, one of many in fact, but this one stood out. Are conservatives (with a small c, i.e. those that are right-winged) wrong about society? Now we can debate for hours and hours about the pros and cons of being conservative when it comes to the economy, but on a social scale are right wingers wrong?

Think about it. Most conservatives, definitely the majority of them, are against gay marriage. Now that boggles my mind, it really does. You can have your own opinion about gays and marrying gays. Hell, I believe that a church has every right to reject gay marriage if they want to. But trying to force a law like this nationally? My main question is, why? Homosexuals WILL get the right to marry, if they haven't already in the country where they live. It's inevitable. But why are conservatives trying to stop this? I thought we were past the issue of gay rights. I thought they we were all equals now. To quote the words of Fred Willard, "Wha' Happened?"

This issue (and I'm sure there are others) led me to question if being socially conservative is just plain wrong. When you think about it, aren't they just slowing down progress of society? Look at the Catholic Church, they were very conservative during the Middle Ages and when they ruled without question during the Dark Ages intellectual growth in society came to a halt.

Is believing in traditional values wrong? Does it hurt society as whole? Or to even start another sub-topic debate, is society progress right? (right as in opposed to wrong, that is;)

Now I know some of you might reply with, 'well it's their opinion and their entitled to it' and I agree. You are entitled to your opinion, but opinions can be wrong. For example, if I were to say Darwin never existed, I'd be wrong. But it'd still be my opinion that Darwin was never a real person, just some mythical figure (I don't actually believe that, but you know what I'm getting at).

And so, let the debates begin. I'm really interested to see what you guys think about this. I know I'm not the first person to pose this question. Benjamin Disraeli once said "A conservative government is an organized hypocrisy." So I'll stop typing and create a poll and see what you guys think.

The reason I don’t believe in gay marriage is everything that I have read in the bible contradicts the idea of it. No the bible does not say gays shalt not marry, but the bible says that homosexuality is an abomination towards God. Now Christianity acts a moral compass for the majority of American citizens, however; there are other people who have good morals who are not Christians. This nation was founded primarily by people who were Christians, with the exception of a few. I believe that we must protect the sanctity of marriage to be between a man and a woman, because of what the bible teaches. There are a lot of things I would like to do, but the bible prohibits them. The bible often times speaks in parables, but when the bible spoke of homosexuality it was very clear. The catholic church in England was not following the bible when it was burning people to the stake. No where in the bible does it say to do something like that. The problem then was that all the bibles were in Latin, and the common person could not read Latin. So if the pastor told them to give 50% of what they made to the church or they would go to hell, they would do it. After Martin Luther that all changed. I don’t believe that traditional conservative values are hurting people, because they stem from Christian values. That’s my two cents.

That all depends. Libertarianism is the best way to go, so I'll call myself moderate.

This has the kind of poll that has liberal choices that appear very calm, and cool, and makes anyone who picks the conservative choices crazy.

The reason I don’t believe in gay marriage is everything that I have read in the bible contradicts the idea of it. No the bible does not say gays shalt not marry, but the bible says that homosexuality is an abomination towards God. Now Christianity acts a moral compass for the majority of American citizens, however; there are other people who have good morals who are not Christians. This nation was founded primarily by people who were Christians, with the exception of a few. I believe that we must protect the sanctity of marriage to be between a man and a woman, because of what the bible teaches. There are a lot of things I would like to do, but the bible prohibits them. The bible often times speaks in parables, but when the bible spoke of homosexuality it was very clear. The catholic church in England was not following the bible when it was burning people to the stake. No where in the bible does it say to do something like that. The problem then was that all the bibles were in Latin, and the common person could not read Latin. So if the pastor told them to give 50% of what they made to the church or they would go to hell, they would do it. After Martin Luther that all changed. I don’t believe that traditional conservative values are hurting people, because they stem from Christian values. That’s my two cents.

Since when are Christian values inherently not harming anyone?
Since when are enough people Christian that they should be forced to follow Christian beliefs?
And since when did God actually say all that? I have a Jewish friend who informs me that all of that stuff in our OT is not actually in the Torah... and since I know that during the copying of Bibles, monks were allowed to change stuff, I'm going to hazard a guess that that part was not the way it originally was. The way I understand it, in the Torah, it's said that the actual ACT of sleeping with another man in that way is "unclean" in the same way that a woman's period is unclean. However, if there is a Jew here who is now going "what? since when does the Torah say that?" please post, as it could just be that friend....

In the bible, marriage between two men or women never happens because it is inconceivable for the people to accept it. You are right sleeping with another man if you are a man is an unclean act, it is not quote, "an abomination" in the literal sense of a modern evangelist, this however does make it completely unacceptable for christians and jews. Sodom after all was burned with fire for the Sodomites acts.

To say that all Americans are guided by christianity, it is kind of like if you are Italian saying all Italians believe in Catholicism, it is a misguided and noble idea. Most Americans don't understand what is written in the bible and really haven't read it thoroughly. They are christians because they understand it is how they were raised. There is a significant population which regularly attends church and believes deeply, but this is a minority in our age.

Since when are Christian values inherently not harming anyone?
Since when are enough people Christian that they should be forced to follow Christian beliefs?
And since when did God actually say all that? I have a Jewish friend who informs me that all of that stuff in our OT is not actually in the Torah... and since I know that during the copying of Bibles, monks were allowed to change stuff, I'm going to hazard a guess that that part was not the way it originally was. The way I understand it, in the Torah, it's said that the actual ACT of sleeping with another man in that way is "unclean" in the same way that a woman's period is unclean. However, if there is a Jew here who is now going "what? since when does the Torah say that?" please post, as it could just be that friend....

The Torah is just the first five books of the bible. God's law is a perfect law. It is man who has distored it. God's law is the ten commandments. If you give a perfect law to imperfect people, then of course they are not going to follow it exactly right. God’s law is the ten commandments. The bible speaks against homosexuality in Leviticus 18-22, 20-13, and Romans 1:26-27.

God's law is a perfect law.

Prove it.

"But somehow, it all gets twisted around and, next thing you know, somebody's spouting off some nonsense about, 'God says I have to kill this guy, God wants me to kill that guy, it's God's will,'" God continued. "It's not God's will, all right? News flash: 'God's will' equals 'Don't murder people.'"

Worse yet, many of the worst violators claim that their actions are justified by passages in the Bible, Torah, and Qur'an.

"To be honest, there's some contradictory stuff in there, okay?" God said. "So I can see how it could be pretty misleading. I admit it—My bad. I did My best to inspire them, but a lot of imperfect human agents have misinterpreted My message over the millennia. Frankly, much of the material that got in there is dogmatic, doctrinal bullshit. I turn My head for a second and, suddenly, all this stuff about homosexuality gets into Leviticus, and everybody thinks it's God's will to kill gays. It absolutely drives Me up the wall."

--Excerpt from God's press conference--

Are conservatives wrong?

*snip*

Yes, yes they are.

Ok. First off, I am not a bible nut. Yes, I am a Christian, but if you are not that's your choice. Religion should not be forced on anyone. However there are some basic rules of humanity that should be fostered. Integrity, love, self-respect, faithfulness and the like should be valued by all. In regards to gay marriage, marriage is between a man and a woman. I see no problem with a civil union that is recognized by the governemnt. Marriage is a religious institution. I do not agree that the federal government should change the constitition to define marriage. By the way, Im not a homophobe. Some of my best friends are gay. On the subject of Darwin and creationism, I strongly belive that intelligent design should be taught in schools. The christian version of creation does not need to be taught but it should be known that evolution does not explain the appearence of life on earth. When I say this to my ultra-liberal freinds they look at me like I am crazy and tell me that I am ignoring the facts. I then ask them questions that they have no, or a weak, response to. We have found many, many bones since Darwin's time, but still have no common ancestor for humans and apes. There is also the problem of the Cambrian Explosion. Look it up. There is no explination for it in Darwin's theory. Ok. Off to a parade.

Underlying conservatism is fear of change. Unworldly, uneducated people fear change. Their lack of experience in social matters and their lack of understanding bolster their fears. The Republican party is based on fear and their politics reflect that.

Underlying liberalism is an interest in opportunity and the lack of fear of change. Liberals are willing to live through social experiments, tend to view money as a means rather than an end, and are more trusting of there fellow man. The Democratic party is based on trust and their politics reflect that.

In the middle you have moderates who are not too fearful nor too trusting. They tend to have a wait and see attitude, to sample the enchilada before their order it.

I don't think it's very fair to call someone "wrong" for having different political views than you.

The reason I don’t believe in gay marriage is everything that I have read in the bible ...

See there. You lost me. I am not interested in any thing you have to say past that word.

By the way, Im not a homophobe. Some of my best friends are gay.

OMG. I can't believe you just said that. Takes me back to my childhood when white men you to say, "I'm not racist. Some of my best friends are black." to make themselves feel better. It was a lie of course, and not a very good one. I sooo cannot believe you said that.

People who are conversatives were spoilt brats when they were younger with 'Daddy' getting everything for them.

People who are conversatives were spoilt brats when they were younger with 'Daddy' getting everything for them.
And I suppose all leftists are pot smoking hippies with no jobs that smell bad, right?

:rolleyes:

The reason I don’t believe in gay marriage is everything that I have read in the bible contradicts the idea of it. No the bible does not say gays shalt not marry, but the bible says that homosexuality is an abomination towards God. Now Christianity acts a moral compass for the majority of American citizens, however; there are other people who have good morals who are not Christians. This nation was founded primarily by people who were Christians, with the exception of a few. I believe that we must protect the sanctity of marriage to be between a man and a woman, because of what the bible teaches. There are a lot of things I would like to do, but the bible prohibits them. The bible often times speaks in parables, but when the bible spoke of homosexuality it was very clear. The catholic church in England was not following the bible when it was burning people to the stake. No where in the bible does it say to do something like that. The problem then was that all the bibles were in Latin, and the common person could not read Latin. So if the pastor told them to give 50% of what they made to the church or they would go to hell, they would do it. After Martin Luther that all changed. I don’t believe that traditional conservative values are hurting people, because they stem from Christian values. That’s my two cents.

Well, I guess we got our money's worth. Now, give us a reasonable argument, that is, one that doesn't reference the bible or god or abominations or sanctity or Christian "values", and we'll pay a little more.

I don't think it's very fair to call someone "wrong" for having different political views than you.
everybody has opinions and values he stand for. thus, he believe his opinions are the right opinions and other are wrong (it doesn't mean they are bad or stupid people, it just mean they wrong).
as long as they don't killing,jailing or discriminante against other people with different opinions, this is healthy situation. however, even "wrong" opinions should get the legitimacy of the "right" ones. after all noone has monopoly on the truth, the justice or the right way.




by the way, I personnaly don't give that legitimacy to anyone who don't give legitimacy to other classes, races, nations, or just different minded people. democratic rights belong only to those who aren't deny them from others.

Oh, I've taken that test. There is a much more complex Libertarian test (the Austrian one) at www.mises.org, but I have yet to take it. I am Libertarian through and through either way. Even my PC tests confirm it.

Edit: Yes, it is bi-scalar.

56/100 Pretty good test. And bascially 90% of my answers were the chicago schools view. Interesting.

Some of my best friends are gay.

I totally understand why Jews and blacks get offended when Gentiles and whites say "some of my best friends are Jewish / black", but still don't want Jews / blacks to join their family. Likewise, the test of whether you're a homophobe is not whether "some of your best friends are gay", it's whether you'd let your son or daughter marry one.

“evolution does not explain ...”

Evolution is a rock solid theory right up there with "the sun revolves around the earth" and "gravity pulls stuff downwards" and somewhat ahead of “there was an American revolution”.

The problem with asking it to explain the tiny number of exceptions you can find like "the human eye" of the Cambrian explosion" is that it is a bit like asking gravity to explain a mountain.

Besides, evolution takes a MASSIVE amount of evidence and puts it in a framework - rather like history teachers do with the American revolution - except there is a hell of a lot more evidence for evolution (literally billions of pieces).

I totally understand why Jews and blacks get offended when Gentiles and whites say "some of my best friends are Jewish / black", but still don't want Jews / blacks to join their family. Likewise, the test of whether you're a homophobe is not whether "some of your best friends are gay", it's whether you'd let your son or daughter marry one.

I enjoy attending the occasional circus but do I have a phobia of clowns since I would be agains't my son/daughter becoming one?

People who are conversatives were spoilt brats when they were younger with 'Daddy' getting everything for them.
I would substitute the word 'liberal' for 'conservative' and make the same generalization. Conservatives have a good idea what money and time are worth, as opposed to someone that has had everything given to them.

I totally understand why Jews and blacks get offended when Gentiles and whites say "some of my best friends are Jewish / black", but still don't want Jews / blacks to join their family. Likewise, the test of whether you're a homophobe is not whether "some of your best friends are gay", it's whether you'd let your son or daughter marry one.
I've noticed that some of the most selective groups, when talking about marriage, are blacks and Jews. Actually, the most selective and exclusive group are the Japanese. Just try and marry into a traditional Japanese family and see how you are accepted.

Are conservatives wrong?

Question superflue.

Penis.

Conservatives are usually wrong about everything, but they are right when it comes to preserving national cultural identity. (I come from a small country so almost everyone right and left supports this.)

Do conservatives necessarily believe that gay is wrong or bad?

I'll be sure to send your answer to the Log Cabin Republicans.
The majority do, and I don't think that a small, marginalised faction of the Republican party is going to change that.

As long as we don't mistake Republicans for Conservatives, then yes, of course Conservatives are right.
If discussing American politics, then yes we can "mistake" them. Conservatives in America by vast majority support the Republicans, not just reluctantly, but enthusiastically.

Anyone who promotes smaller government and personal responsibility can't be wrong.
Smaller government is not always a good idea. It depends on the issue. Sometimes the government needs to be increased, sometimes it must be reduced.

If I'm not mistaken Milton Friedman and his ilk think that the police and military should be privatised. Does that sound like a good shrinking of government to you? Conservative it may be, but it's a terrible idea.

They think they are doing whats best for everyone, and that is nice :)

...
but stupid.


Christian and Religious conservatives especially annoy me, because if they impose there values on us, then there is no choice and that eliminates "Gods" design.

Atheist Conservatives are generally either blind to social issues and simply like low taxes and the economy, or are blind to welfare and simply dislike gays.

I would substitute the word 'liberal' for 'conservative' and make the same generalization. Conservatives have a good idea what money and time are worth, as opposed to someone that has had everything given to them.
I assume you are only talking about the blue collar conservatives who have been busting their ass for years and who are conservative because that's just the way things are and what a good Christian should be and really don't know too much about details.

Conservatives are wrong about a lot of things.
But then, so are liberals.

I assume you are only talking about the blue collar conservatives who have been busting their ass for years and who are conservative because that's just the way things are and what a good Christian should be and really don't know too much about details.
The naive, though mistaken, voice of youth is heard from again.

Liberals are, in fact, wrong about everything. Everything.

Unless you can provide scientific proof otherwise, I'll stand on my statement.

But then, I consider both sides wrong.

I'm with this guy. As a Libertarian that leans toward Anarcho-Capitalism, I hate both sides.

I would substitute the word 'liberal' for 'conservative' and make the same generalization. Conservatives have a good idea what money and time are worth, as opposed to someone that has had everything given to them.
If this theory was correct, then rich people would generally vote to the left, and poor people would generally vote to the right. Which doesn't happen in real life.

*snip for length*
I believe that "traditional family values" are extremely harmful, particularly the artificial gender roles that are imposed. These roles serve to further entrench unequal, unjust systems and concentrate power in the hands of a minority (wealthy heterosexual white male Christians) at the expense of all others. I also believe they are a factor that directly contributes to the high rates of domestic violence, rape, and child abuse in Western culture.

The argument of traditional values being right is simply argumentum ad antiquem. Just because something has been going on for a long time doesn't make it right. If it's right, it's right wether someone thought of it 3000 years ago or five minutes ago.

Yes, in both an economic view point & a social view point.

Let's keep in mind that nobody is right or wrong. Different ideologies simply disagree on how a society should exist, be governed and maintained plus the consequent implementation of those very ideas.

They're so wrong, they'll turn back the clocks fifty years to prove their point.

Depends. Euro-style conservatives are wrong. American-style conservatives are the spawn of satan, they've taken "wrong" to a whole new level of wrongness.

Yes, in both an economic view point & a social view point.

Let's keep in mind that nobody is right or wrong. Different ideologies simply disagree on how a society should exist, be governed and maintained plus the consequent implementation of those very ideas.

Oh boy, I was waiting for one of you moral relativists to show up.

I thank you very much Canada to know that my economics are nearly flawless, debate me and find out. Now on to other matters.

Since there is no right and wrong, then do you think there are no absolutes in life?

definitely the majority of them, are against gay marriage.

I do not know how you define a "conservative". If a conservative, is a person, that voted for Bush for example think about this.


[/QUOTE]If you are so deluded as to think that Bush only won because of Bible-reading fundamentalists, then explain these quite respectable figures from the exit polls (also here) (and remember the exit polls may underestimate Bush's support):
31 percent of atheists voted for Bush.
23 percent of gays voted for Bush. [/QUOTE]
http://markhumphrys.com/election.04.html#stats

http://gaypatriot.org/ Representing the over 1.000.000 homosexuals and lesbiens that voted for Bush

One more thing>
The myth about role of "moral values" being the most important thing in the last presdential election in US is funny.

22% of voters thought "moral values" (gay marriage etc) were the most important issue, 78% thought that other issues were more important.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A44082-2004Nov11_2.html

Oh boy, I was waiting for one of you moral relativists to show up.

I thank you very much Canada to know that my economics are nearly flawless, debate me and find out. Now on to other matters.

Since there is no right and wrong, then do you think there are no absolutes in life?
I've been misunderstood. I'm not a relativist. Right and wrong do exist. It's difficult but it is possible to define what is right and wrong.

However when speaking of political ideologies... they simply consist of people's beliefs and definition of
A: What kind of society do we want.
B: And how do we go about building it.

A political ideology contains so many vast ideas and points of view (leaving some ambiguous enough that discord may exist even within an ideology) that it cannot possibly ever be classified as entirely or absolutely wrong or right.

Of course this doesn't mean we can't disagree with an ideology. I disagree with conservatism very much.

Yes, in both an economic view point & a social view point.

Let's keep in mind that nobody is right or wrong. Different ideologies simply disagree on how a society should exist, be governed and maintained plus the consequent implementation of those very ideas.
Accursed relativism! Conservatives = suffering. Suffering = bad. Thus, that which causes suffering = evil/wrong.

that which causes suffering = evil/wrong.
/me High-Fives another Epicurean! :cool:

Accursed relativism! Conservatives = suffering. Suffering = bad. Thus, that which causes suffering = evil/wrong.
In that case, then Liberals are evil as well. They continue programs and policies that keep the poor as dependant on them as possible. Rather than work to lift them up they need to keep them poor... because without the poor, the liberals have no "base" to keep them in power.

Prove it.

Can you prove God's law is not perfect?

See there. You lost me. I am not interested in any thing you have to say past that word.

The bible has predicted the future so specifically that if a man were to try to predict as many things that revelation has and even got half of the right the odds against would be astronomical. There has been no other book or individual that has managed to ever even come close to the predictions that revelations has and come true. Science has not been able to do such a thing and neither has man. Only God has been able to do this.

[QUOTE=Acquicic]Well, I guess we got our money's worth. Now, give us a reasonable argument, that is, one that doesn't reference the bible or god or abominations or sanctity or Christian "values", and we'll pay a little more.[/QUOT

Without morals or values how can you say anything is right or wrong? If you have no morals or values what is to say that murder is not wrong or stealing. The bible is not the only form of a moral compass out there, but it is the best one. Even if you just abided by the law day in and day out, then the law is your morals. So unless you sitting in jail right now for not abiding by the law then you have some sort of moral guideline, whatever that may be. What moral guideline are you following?

Can you prove God's law is not perfect?
You made the claim. The onus to provide proof is on you, my friend.


The bible has predicted the future so specifically that if a man were to try to predict as many things that revelation has and even got half of the right the odds against would be astronomical. There has been no other book or individual that has managed to ever even come close to the predictions that revelations has and come true. Science has not been able to do such a thing and neither has man. Only God has been able to do this.
Yeah, or they just edited the stories to make it fit.

You made the claim. The onus to provide proof is on you, my friend.

I made a statement. Can you disprove that God’s law is perfect. If you follow God’s law exactly right, then it is perfect.

Yeah, or they just edited the stories to make it fit.

Okay now how would they do that hundreds of years ago when the book was wrote by John, inspired by God? This book has states that the words within it shall not be added or taken away. God has had his hand on this book for centuries.

I made a statement. Can you disprove that God’s law is perfect. If you follow God’s law exactly right, then it is perfect.
Then I just followed it perfectly. That in no way proves it is perfect. Once again you say it's perfect, you provide proof.


Okay now how would they do that hundreds of years ago when the book was wrote by John, inspired by God? This book has states that the words within it shall not be added or taken away. God has had his hand on this book for centuries.
This book was written by a man. The fact that he writes nothing shall be added or taken away proves nothing. It's still just a man who has written a book.

Then I just followed it perfectly. That in no way proves it is perfect. Once again you say it's perfect, you provide proof.

No man can follow God's law perfectly. God is a perfect being, and man is not. So there is no way for man to follow God's law perfectly. You have faith in something, it is just a question of what.

This book was written by a man. The fact that he writes nothing shall be added or taken away proves nothing. It's still just a man who has written a book.

No man alone can write a book will predictions as accurate as those wrote in revelations. No man has ever come close, and they never will. As a Christian it is not my job to prove to you that God exists, or that God’s law exists. You have to make up your own mind. It is not a question of faith, because if you are arguing a point then you have faith in something. I have faith in God, his law and his book. What do you have faith in?

I had a thought today, one of many in fact, but this one stood out. Are conservatives (with a small c, i.e. those that are right-winged) wrong about society? Now we can debate for hours and hours about the pros and cons of being conservative when it comes to the economy, but on a social scale are right wingers wrong?

Think about it. Most conservatives, definitely the majority of them, are against gay marriage. Now that boggles my mind, it really does. You can have your own opinion about gays and marrying gays. Hell, I believe that a church has every right to reject gay marriage if they want to. But trying to force a law like this nationally? My main question is, why? Homosexuals WILL get the right to marry, if they haven't already in the country where they live. It's inevitable. But why are conservatives trying to stop this? I thought we were past the issue of gay rights. I thought they we were all equals now. To quote the words of Fred Willard, "Wha' Happened?"

This issue (and I'm sure there are others) led me to question if being socially conservative is just plain wrong. When you think about it, aren't they just slowing down progress of society? Look at the Catholic Church, they were very conservative during the Middle Ages and when they ruled without question during the Dark Ages intellectual growth in society came to a halt.

Is believing in traditional values wrong? Does it hurt society as whole? Or to even start another sub-topic debate, is society progress right? (right as in opposed to wrong, that is;)

Now I know some of you might reply with, 'well it's their opinion and their entitled to it' and I agree. You are entitled to your opinion, but opinions can be wrong. For example, if I were to say Darwin never existed, I'd be wrong. But it'd still be my opinion that Darwin was never a real person, just some mythical figure (I don't actually believe that, but you know what I'm getting at).

And so, let the debates begin. I'm really interested to see what you guys think about this. I know I'm not the first person to pose this question. Benjamin Disraeli once said "A conservative government is an organized hypocrisy." So I'll stop typing and create a poll and see what you guys think.

I am a conservative, and I want to let you all know about this from a conservative point of view.

A conservative's view on society is based on recieving merit or failure based on what you accomplish in life. What a liberal wants to do, is punnish someone who is successful in life, by taking away what they have rightfully earned (i.e.. income from a job for example). What is fair to a liberal, is to take hard earned money from someone who actually earned it, and give it to someone who did not. Now I know that some say "what if they were born into poverty or failure"? That's not the case. That money earned by a person still goes to people who drop out of school, or who only want to get by with doing the least amount of work as possible. Here's a question. If you earned $50 for mowing your neighbor's front yard, and I only helped unload the mower from the trailer and wanted 50% of that money. What would you tell me? I only did the minimum, but at least you didn't unload it by yourself. Apply that to a doctor making $250,000 a year, to see his hard earned money go to some pot head loser. That is just wrong!

Now about gay mirrage. I, as a conservative, have no problem with what you do in your house with the door locked and curtains closed, but keep it the hell away from me. When I see guys walking hand in hand in public, I want to puke. Now about 98% of Americans belong to some form of religion. None of them however support gay mirrage, especially the Catholic Church, which today is pretty liberal. (Now if you are going to tie the Catholic Church with today's issues, please try to make sure that your examples that apply to society today. Anything other than that is a moot point (i.e.. using the Catholic Church 800 years ago for an example is not a valid argument).) So wouldn't a liberal who supports gay mirrage who attends a church that does not support gay mirrage be just a little bit hypocritical? Could be.

Now for traditional values. Society can progress very well with them. Those values in no way interferre with social progress. Our own founding fathers were men of traditional values. Now while I'm not arguing that homosexuality didn't exist in the 18th century, or that the traditional family existed 100% of the time, anyone who did marry someone of the same sex would be cast out from society. These are the morals of the God-fearing men who founded our country. And even if you did not believe in God in the 18th century, your behavior was no different in society from those who did believe in God.

Now we could argue all day on if Conservatism is better or not, and our opinions will probably never change, but when I see nearly naked people on television, or shows about openly gay people on television that children have unlimited access to, I wish I lived in a more "CONSERVATIVE" era, where my family or I was not subjugated to that CRAP!

A conservative's view on society is based on recieving merit or failure based on what you accomplish in life.Non sequitur. Liberals wants equal opportunity. Conservatives like you, are apprently content not to allow people equal opportunity. The socialist redistribution system is simply a weak solution to the problems created by the lack of equal opportunity.

True, you might want dedication & talent to make a small difference, but in truth, you rather wish to preserve an oppressive class society.Now about gay mirrage. I, as a conservative, have no problem with what you do in your house with the door locked and curtains closed, but keep it the hell away from me. When I see guys walking hand in hand in public, I want to puke.You live in a secular society. Laws aren't & shouldn't be based on religious doctrine. Incidentially, when I hear US-style conservatives spew their shit in public, I want to puke. Does this mean we should limit your freedom of speech?So wouldn't a liberal who supports gay mirrage who attends a church that does not support gay mirrage be just a little bit hypocritical? Could be.Or perhaps the individual is simply trying to move the church with the times.Now we could argue all day on if Conservatism is better or not, and our opinions will probably never change, but when I see nearly naked people on television, or shows about openly gay people on television that children have unlimited access to, I wish I lived in a more "CONSERVATIVE" era, where my family or I was subjugated to that CRAP!So you wish to limit other people's freedom of expression for your convenience...
*Tsk* Yes, I guess raising children is too demanding on US-Conservative parents. Wouldn't want them to take an interest in what their offspring is up to, or limit their behaviour, after all.

"I want people to be responsible for themselves! I can't be arsed to be responsible for me & my family, so everyone else has to do things my way!". Your parents must be so proud...

In that case, then Liberals are evil as well. They continue programs and policies that keep the poor as dependant on them as possible. Rather than work to lift them up they need to keep them poor... because without the poor, the liberals have no "base" to keep them in power.
What are you talking about? In the West, even the poor are ten times better off now than they were in the 19th century, when pure ideological conservatism was the order of the day.

A conservative's view on society is based on recieving merit or failure based on what you accomplish in life. What a liberal wants to do, is punnish someone who is successful in life, by taking away what they have rightfully earned (i.e.. income from a job for example).

Now about gay mirrage. I, as a conservative, have no problem with what you do in your house with the door locked and curtains closed, but keep it the hell away from me. When I see guys walking hand in hand in public, I want to puke.
You politics are based on emotion, not reason. You're also very small-minded. Has your brain shrivelled up and died yet? I've seen all the crap arguments that you're presenting a million times before and I can't be bothered to refute them again.

You no longer see moderate canidates these days. The ones that are more supportative the middle class. Both Conservatives and Liberals are guilty of throwing the most extreme canidate out there. You got the Liberals throwing the Party of Michael Moore beliefs, and the Conservatives throwing the fundamentalist out there. This only widens the divide between these two parties. We get more partisan politics, and nothing is going to get done. When is it going to stop?

You no longer see moderate canidates these days. The ones that are more supportative the middle class. Both Conservatives and Liberals are guilty of throwing the most extreme canidate out there. You got the Liberals throwing the Party of Michael Moore beliefs, and the Conservatives throwing the fundamentalist out there. This only widens the divide between these two parties. We get more partisan politics, and nothing is going to get done. When is it going to stop?

It will stop for you, when you move to a different country.

Or when you'll just have a one-party system, such as "ultraconservative vs. superconservative".

No, they are not wrong. Some of them might be wrong about some thing sometimes, but I believe the basic idea of conservatism is fine.
After all, if you consider the status quo to be a good thing, why would you want to change it?

You no longer see moderate canidates these days. The ones that are more supportative the middle class. Both Conservatives and Liberals are guilty of throwing the most extreme canidate out there. You got the Liberals throwing the Party of Michael Moore beliefs, and the Conservatives throwing the fundamentalist out there. This only widens the divide between these two parties. We get more partisan politics, and nothing is going to get done. When is it going to stop?
Michael Moore is not extreme, and furthermore he is not a political candidate. Fundamentalists are extreme by the standards of the western world.

If this theory was correct, then rich people would generally vote to the left, and poor people would generally vote to the right. Which doesn't happen in real life.

It does in Kansas!

Read: "What is wrong with Kansas?"

It does in Kansas!

Read: "What is wrong with Kansas?"
I suppose Kansas does have to differ from everywhere else in the world, doesn't it??

What are you talking about? In the West, even the poor are ten times better off now than they were in the 19th century, when pure ideological conservatism was the order of the day.Doesn't mean s/he was completely wrong.

Both right & fanatic-right in the US have made it policy to keep the poor poor (you don't have a functional leftwing). The very minir difference is that the right seems to feel slightly guilty about their actions & offer a few breadcrumbs as compensation, while the fanatic right just don't give a toss.

I'm guessing the reason it's become policy to keep the poor poor, is because it makes sense economically to do it. There's no economic incentive to create greater social equality, upwards mobility & economic equality. On the contrary, it would be an added expense.

Since the wellbeing of corporates is the goal of our societies (as opposed to the wellbeing of us humans), this shouldn't be a surprise to anyone.

That our capitalist democrazies are utterly pointless, is another matter entirely.

For my part, I think any attempt to forcibly hold back progress-- where progress in this case is defined as society adapting its standards and policies to accomodate greater equality between people (insofar as those people are not doing objective, provable harm to other people)-- is unenlightened. Because ultimately, the desire to hold other people back reflects a 'morality' based on insecurity, jealousy, selfishness, spite, ignorance and cruelty, and those are not the values that I want to inform the society that I live in. People are meant to move forward. Our eyes are in the front of our heads, and we're naturally curious as a species-- that suggests to me that we shouldn't be hiding from the unknown or from change. We ought always to be receptive to the possibility of finding a better way to live and treat each other, based on a *growing* body of knowledge. Not regressing to "I'm better than you because I have the bigger stick/most followers/better supernatural deity." The moral value of a society should be judged by how attuned it is to observable, objective, commonly shared reality; whether it facilitates the society's accumulation of knowledge and understanding of reality; whether it consistently applies a reasonable standard-- informed by the most relevant, comtemporary knowledge available-- to its definition of 'ethics,' and whether the society is one in which the most vulnerable members are not subjected to undue hardship. In many of the social conservatives that I see at work, trying to shape society nowadays, they don't seem to satisfy any of those principles. They have some romanticised nostalgic vision of 'the good old days' (which really weren't that great) that they think everyone should have to revert to because it represents a time when they personally were most comfortable, because they had greater privelages (or more "special rights"). They don't trust 'progress' because it keeps changing things, and in the process their pedastal keeps getting shortened out from under them and they end up having to stand eye to eye with those who were 'traditionally' below them. Like I say: those aren't the kind of people that I want guiding my community.

Traditions are "the way things have been done in the past." That doesn't make them good, or right, or better-- it just makes them the way things were done in the past. Sometimes they stay relevant and useful and valid. But sometimes-- perhaps a lot of the time, as a result of their having been informed by ignorance and petty, unmeritorious biases-- they become obsolete and deserve (or need) to be replaced. I worry that too many 'conservatives' don't make that distinction; they just want to preserve 'tradition for tradition's sake,' discounting the validity of change because change in general makes them personally uncomfortable.

My main question is, why? Homosexuals WILL get the right to marry, if they haven't already in the country where they live. It's inevitable. But why are conservatives trying to stop this?
That's really what I don't get, either.

I think we all have realized that gay marriage is going to happen, and it's going to happen soon. People who oppose gay marriage now are in the same boat as people who opposed inter-racial marriage during the 1960s. They're going to lose, and they're going to look damn stupid in hindsight. Schoolkids are going to be reading books about how one upon a time our country was ignorant and backward enough to deny rights to certain people just because of their sexual orientation, and they're going to feel the same way about that as we currently feel about the people who denied black citizens rights, or about the people who didn't want women to be allowed to vote.

So really, why are these people wasting their time? They've lost. The demographic of 16-25 year olds are overwhelmingly comfortable with the idea of gay marriage. The next generation of voters doesn't give a shit about "traditional values" like fag-bashing. Legislated homophobia is on its way out. The only question is when the last lingering homophobes will stop clinging to it and whimpering like spoilt children.

I had a thought today, one of many in fact, but this one stood out. Are conservatives (with a small c, i.e. those that are right-winged) wrong about society? Now we can debate for hours and hours about the pros and cons of being conservative when it comes to the economy, but on a social scale are right wingers wrong?

Think about it. Most conservatives, definitely the majority of them, are against gay marriage. Now that boggles my mind, it really does. You can have your own opinion about gays and marrying gays. Hell, I believe that a church has every right to reject gay marriage if they want to. But trying to force a law like this nationally? My main question is, why? Homosexuals WILL get the right to marry, if they haven't already in the country where they live. It's inevitable. But why are conservatives trying to stop this? I thought we were past the issue of gay rights. I thought they we were all equals now. To quote the words of Fred Willard, "Wha' Happened?"

This issue (and I'm sure there are others) led me to question if being socially conservative is just plain wrong. When you think about it, aren't they just slowing down progress of society? Look at the Catholic Church, they were very conservative during the Middle Ages and when they ruled without question during the Dark Ages intellectual growth in society came to a halt.

Is believing in traditional values wrong? Does it hurt society as whole? Or to even start another sub-topic debate, is society progress right? (right as in opposed to wrong, that is;)

Now I know some of you might reply with, 'well it's their opinion and their entitled to it' and I agree. You are entitled to your opinion, but opinions can be wrong. For example, if I were to say Darwin never existed, I'd be wrong. But it'd still be my opinion that Darwin was never a real person, just some mythical figure (I don't actually believe that, but you know what I'm getting at).

And so, let the debates begin. I'm really interested to see what you guys think about this. I know I'm not the first person to pose this question. Benjamin Disraeli once said "A conservative government is an organized hypocrisy." So I'll stop typing and create a poll and see what you guys think.

If the Libbies ( the US Libbies, that is ) don't get over their obsession with burdened minorities, and get focussed on being a proper party ( and not a collection of action groups for the perennially whiny ), I'll flipflop once again,
and start supporting the GOP once Dubya leaves.

I am a conservative, and I want to let you all know about this from a conservative point of view.

A conservative's view on society is based on recieving merit or failure based on what you accomplish in life. What a liberal wants to do, is punnish someone who is successful in life, by taking away what they have rightfully earned (i.e.. income from a job for example). What is fair to a liberal, is to take hard earned money from someone who actually earned it, and give it to someone who did not. Now I know that some say "what if they were born into poverty or failure"? That's not the case. That money earned by a person still goes to people who drop out of school, or who only want to get by with doing the least amount of work as possible. Here's a question. If you earned $50 for mowing your neighbor's front yard, and I only helped unload the mower from the trailer and wanted 50% of that money. What would you tell me? I only did the minimum, but at least you didn't unload it by yourself. Apply that to a doctor making $250,000 a year, to see his hard earned money go to some pot head loser. That is just wrong!

Now about gay mirrage. I, as a conservative, have no problem with what you do in your house with the door locked and curtains closed, but keep it the hell away from me. When I see guys walking hand in hand in public, I want to puke. Now about 98% of Americans belong to some form of religion. None of them however support gay mirrage, especially the Catholic Church, which today is pretty liberal. (Now if you are going to tie the Catholic Church with today's issues, please try to make sure that your examples that apply to society today. Anything other than that is a moot point (i.e.. using the Catholic Church 800 years ago for an example is not a valid argument).) So wouldn't a liberal who supports gay mirrage who attends a church that does not support gay mirrage be just a little bit hypocritical? Could be.

Now for traditional values. Society can progress very well with them. Those values in no way interferre with social progress. Our own founding fathers were men of traditional values. Now while I'm not arguing that homosexuality didn't exist in the 18th century, or that the traditional family existed 100% of the time, anyone who did marry someone of the same sex would be cast out from society. These are the morals of the God-fearing men who founded our country. And even if you did not believe in God in the 18th century, your behavior was no different in society from those who did believe in God.

Now we could argue all day on if Conservatism is better or not, and our opinions will probably never change, but when I see nearly naked people on television, or shows about openly gay people on television that children have unlimited access to, I wish I lived in a more "CONSERVATIVE" era, where my family or I was subjugated to that CRAP!

Firstly: you consider it punishment to be compelled to help elevate your fellow human beings out of squalor and misery, to alleviate starvation and homelessness? Aren't mercy and charity a couple of the biggest values espoused by a certain spiritual figure that a lot of conservatives claim to hold in high esteem? And despite claiming to worship and follow said figure's teachings, if left to their own devices-- and not compelled to help provide for the needs of their fellow human beings-- how many do you think actually would? Be honest now. How many? And how much would they give? Didn't he take a rather dim view of greed and covetousness and hoarding riches?

As for your taking such terrible offense at nasty queers holding hands in public, how the hell do you think we feel at all the straight people who do that and more? Not only do it, but *totally* take for granted that they can do it without being spit on, verbally harassed, or even beaten and left for dead in some ditch by some insecure bigot that feels their precious, superior sensitivities have been offended? How dare you presume to deny two other people who love one another the same small, simple freedoms that you have. How is that compassion? How is that charity or good will towards your fellow man? And as for people appearing naked on TV; hate to break it to ya but you're naked under your clothes, and so are your kids, and so is everybody. What makes the human body so offensive to you, so deserving of disgust and shame-- and is that what you want to pass along to your kids? You'd prefer them to be embarrassed and awkward and ignorant about their bodies, only doing it with the light out through a bedsheet? And you're upset by gay people on television? Again, sorry to burst your bubble, but you could *very well* have a gay kid-- straight parents have them all the time-- and all you'd be accomplishing by protesting about visibility of gay people is to make that child of yours feel alienated and unloved by one of the only people in this world who ought to love them unconditionally. Think about it-- the more obvious your disdain for gay people, the less likely you would ever be to know if someone close to you was, because they would never trust you to accept them, it would always be a wedge that you drove between you and them. A few offhand remarks about 'fags on the TV' could keep a son from ever trusting or confiding in his father, and that would be your legacy. One of the biggest crises for gay kids growing up has always been the scarcity of positive role-models to give them a sense that they can still be happy and productive and loved while still being gay, and that isn't because such role-models don't exist.

You politics are based on emotion, not reason. You're also very small-minded. Has your brain shrivelled up and died yet? I've seen all the crap arguments that you're presenting a million times before and I can't be bothered to refute them again.[/QUOTE]

Here's a novel idea. Instead of continuing to insult every conservative you meet, why don't you ask yourself 'what do I really believe, does the majority agree with me'? You sound like an individual who watches nothing but CNN, and reads the New York Times all day (both very liberal). If so, you are the small-minded one. I am only 18, but I read every conservative and liberal form of media that is provided. It is because of that, I am able to construct my opinions and argue them. Why don't you try watching FOX News, or listen to conservative talk radio for once in your life. You never know, you might come up with your own opinion as opposed to letting the liberal media come up with if for you. Also, give an opinion in your responses, instead of just saying 'i've heard this crap before' it makes you sound very ignorant.

[QUOTE=Similization]Non sequitur. Liberals wants equal opportunity. Conservatives like you, are apprently content not to allow people equal opportunity. The socialist redistribution system is simply a weak solution to the problems created by the lack of equal opportunity.

True, you might want dedication & talent to make a small difference, but in truth, you rather wish to preserve an oppressive class society.
QUOTE]

Here is where you are wrong. Everyone has an equal opportunity in this country. It's called free public education (through 12th grade). Why don't you try it. Maybe if you apply yourself, you might get into a good college. Second of all, no one wants an oppressive class. And if you feel oppressed, try and change the system. Don't just sit on your ass and complain about it the rest of your life. <<< another example of equal oppertunity. Everyone has the right to challange the system if they think it doesn't work or if it "oppressive". That is something called liberty.

'what do I really believe, does the majority agree with me'? .

The majority of the people doing something means nothing, be it racism, religion or communism.

Everyone has an equal opportunity in this country. It's called free public education (through 12th grade). Why don't you try it. Maybe if you apply yourself, you might get into a good college. Second of all, no one wants an oppressive class. And if you feel oppressed, try and change the system. Don't just sit on your ass and complain about it the rest of your life. <<< another example of equal oppertunity. Everyone has the right to challange the system if they think it doesn't work or if it "oppressive". That is something called liberty.
.

Everyone has some opportunity yes, to throw the word equal around is simply wrong. Private education provides better opportunity to get into better universities, money from your parents provide you with a better opportunity on getting onto the property ladder etc..
People should be careful how they use that word, because really in essence. Its short term communism with all the negative effects of capitalism. If truely applied.

Here's a novel idea. Instead of continuing to insult every conservative you meet, why don't you ask yourself 'what do I really believe, does the majority agree with me'? You sound like an individual who watches nothing but CNN, and reads the New York Times all day (both very liberal). If so, you are the small-minded one. I am only 18, but I read every conservative and liberal form of media that is provided. It is because of that, I am able to construct my opinions and argue them. Why don't you try watching FOX News, or listen to conservative talk radio for once in your life. You never know, you might come up with your own opinion as opposed to letting the liberal media come up with if for you. Also, give an opinion in your responses, instead of just saying 'i've heard this crap before' it makes you sound very ignorant.

While I disagree with some of the policies that Czechoslovakia and other conservatives advocate, he's exactly right for pointing out that you should never rely completely on one side for your sources. I myself, at one point or another, used to be a hard-line social conservative and a communist. But my views evolved over time as I heard arguments from both sides. While this does not simply make me a centrist, it did reinforce some of my old views while discrediting others. Walk in another person's shoes for a while. We say it all the time, but we seldom listen.

I am a conservative, and I want to let you all know about this from a conservative point of view.

A conservative's view on society is based on recieving merit or failure based on what you accomplish in life. What a liberal wants to do, is punnish someone who is successful in life, by taking away what they have rightfully earned (i.e.. income from a job for example).


Been listening to the con "information" sources have we.

A liberal punishes :rolleyes:

Actually what is attempted is to take a little from everybody so that a "safetynet" may be achieved. Sure there are people that abuse it but you find any abusers in any program.

Cons only talk about "welfare queens" and what net and gloss over the many that are helped and don't abuse the system.

You yourself overlooked that fact that the liberals are "punishing reward" when they in fact are "punishing" themselves as well.

Unless of course you think Liberals really don't have jobs. :rolleyes:

What is fair to a liberal, is to take hard earned money from someone who actually earned it,
They take money from themselves as well.

and give it to someone who did not.
Damn those money sucking old peole. Damn those divorsed women with children! They should take responcibility for themselves! :rolleyes:

Now I know that some say "what if they were born into poverty or failure"? That's not the case. That money earned by a person still goes to people who drop out of school, or who only want to get by with doing the least amount of work as possible.

You have a rather misguided view of the system. The people that need assistence are far far greater then those that abuse the system.


Here's a question. If you earned $50 for mowing your neighbor's front yard, and I only helped unload the mower from the trailer and wanted 50% of that money. What would you tell me? I only did the minimum, but at least you didn't unload it by yourself. Apply that to a doctor making $250,000 a year, to see his hard earned money go to some pot head loser. That is just wrong!


:rolleyes:


Now about gay mirrage. I, as a conservative, have no problem with what you do in your house with the door locked and curtains closed, but keep it the hell away from me.


Why the gay cooties might rub off and make you gay?

You seem to be full of hate. What is that?

When I see guys walking hand in hand in public, I want to puke.

Ahhh a compasionate conservative. :rolleyes:

Now about 98% of Americans belong to some form of religion. None of them however support gay mirrage, especially the Catholic Church, which today is pretty liberal.

You might want to do some research on that. The Episcapols are talking about it right now.

The Catholic Church is NOT liberal.


(Now if you are going to tie the Catholic Church with today's issues, please try to make sure that your examples that apply to society today. Anything other than that is a moot point (i.e.. using the Catholic Church 800 years ago for an example is not a valid argument).)


The Catholic Church lost it's ability to talk about Morals with their program of moving pedo priests around.


So wouldn't a liberal who supports gay mirrage who attends a church that does not support gay mirrage be just a little bit hypocritical? Could be.

Not really. The Church is run by men. They are not perfect.


Now for traditional values. Society can progress very well with them. Those values in no way interferre with social progress.

Societies advance without Christian values just fine.

Our own founding fathers were men of traditional values.
Yes many were diests. So what's your point?

Now while I'm not arguing that homosexuality didn't exist in the 18th century, or that the traditional family existed 100% of the time, anyone who did marry someone of the same sex would be cast out from society.

Actually far worst. The good christians would torture if not kill.

In time of the pilgrims, you were tossed from society for simply challenging an elder.

So your measurement has no value.


These are the morals of the God-fearing men who founded our country. And even if you did not believe in God in the 18th century, your behavior was no different in society from those who did believe in God.


Moral systems are not purely defined by monolithic religions. Every society has a moral code and even the few Indiginous socities(almost gone) have a moral system that was not defined by religion.

Many of the founders were Diests. So your "Christian" argument fails.


Now we could argue all day on if Conservatism is better or not, and our opinions will probably never change,


That's true. Your type of conservatives will never change their mind no matter who wrong they can be.

but when I see nearly naked people on television, or shows about openly gay people on television that children have unlimited access to, I wish I lived in a more "CONSERVATIVE" era, where my family or I was not subjugated to that CRAP!

Wow you are a bad parent if you let young children stay up that late and watch that stuff. Even the anti-christ known as Howard Stern won't let his children listen to his show......

Build a time machine and go back to that "beautiful" decade know as the 50s.

McCarthy would love to have you around.

Firstly: you consider it punishment to be compelled to help elevate your fellow human beings out of squalor and misery, to alleviate starvation and homelessness.

I would assert that fiscal coersion of this sort actually causes squalor and misery, and exacerbates starvation and homelessness.

By creating a disincentive to produce, you're reducing the number of jobs available for the poor. You're depressing wages by making the economy less competitive. And you're creating a cycle of dependency among those who receive benefits.

Eastern Canada has been badly served by these policies.

I would assert that fiscal coersion of this sort actually causes squalor and misery, and exacerbates starvation and homelessness.

Where exactly?


By creating a disincentive to produce, you're reducing the number of jobs available for the poor.

So everybody is the US and Canada(since you are there ;) ) should have the same wage as in China?

The problem with that logic is the fact that COLA matches the average wage in China.

Try existing with a Chinese wage in the US.


You're depressing wages by making the economy less competitive. And you're creating a cycle of dependency among those who receive benefits.

Eastern Canada has been badly served by these policies.

So what are we adovcating? Abolishment of the middle class(speaking for the US) and return to they days were we simply had rich and poor?

At least they have jobs right?

So what are we adovcating? Abolishment of the middle class(speaking for the US) and return to they days were we simply had rich and poor?

At least they have jobs right?

What counts as poor to you? If you're employed and can cover your necessary expenses, you're not poor.

And freer economies sport higher wages. http://www.freetheworld.com/

What counts as poor to you? If you're employed and can cover your necessary expenses, you're not poor.

And freer economies sport higher wages. http://www.freetheworld.com/

The wages that the corporations want would not work here. They export jobs overseas and argue competitiveness. It's better because it's cheaper and it creates new jobs.

I keep asking what these new jobs are but nobody can really point them out to me. For the very simple logic of the matter. You send 1000 Software engineer jobs to India/China/etc. Why would you create "overpaid" positions here? Take my company. We created 72 positions (and climbing) in India and we created 2 here. Those were for departures.

Even know the venture capitalists will not talk to you unless your plan includes jobs overseas.

So what is the message here?

Don't work hard, don't improve because you might price yourself out of work?

Be patient. Economics is not one of my interests.

I just have my little world view and as I see high speed networks getting in place and with applications such as webex, I no longer advise younger people to look into the world of IT anymore. It's getting so they only need a button pusher because you can find the knowledge elsewhere for much less.

The wages that the corporations want would not work here. They export jobs overseas and argue competitiveness. It's better because it's cheaper and it creates new jobs.

I keep asking what these new jobs are but nobody can really point them out to me. For the very simple logic of the matter. You send 1000 Software engineer jobs to India/China/etc. Why would you create "overpaid" positions here? Take my company. We created 72 positions (and climbing) in India and we created 2 here. Those were for departures.

Even know the venture capitalists will not talk to you unless your plan includes jobs overseas.

So what is the message here?

Don't work hard, don't improve because you might price yourself out of work?

Be patient. Economics is not one of my interests.

I just have my little world view and as I see high speed networks getting in place and with applications such as webex, I no longer advise younger people to look into the world of IT anymore. It's getting so they only need a button pusher because you can find the knowledge elsewhere for much less.

Well, naturally. If the work can be done elsewhere cheaper, it will be. That lowers the price of the product for consumers.

Well, naturally. If the work can be done elsewhere cheaper, it will be. That lowers the price of the product for consumers.

But if the consumers are out of work or working for much less, sales decline....

Well, naturally. If the work can be done elsewhere cheaper, it will be. That lowers the price of the product for consumers.

And as I think of it.

Can you point out any noticeable price drops?

My support contracts keep going up as before and the support is now in India. My people are on the tele 1/2 hour longer now as well......

Here's a novel idea. Instead of continuing to insult every conservative you meet, why don't you ask yourself 'what do I really believe, does the majority agree with me'? You sound like an individual who watches nothing but CNN, and reads the New York Times all day (both very liberal). If so, you are the small-minded one. I am only 18, but I read every conservative and liberal form of media that is provided.
Bullshit man! "Gays make me feel sick, this is the basis of my politics" is not an intelligent argument. I don't get info from NY Times or CNN because I'm not American.

You read every newspaper and watch every news source? Why don't you get a damn job?

Here is where you are wrong. Everyone has an equal opportunity in this country. It's called free public education (through 12th grade).
And you have the Left to thank for that. But there's not enough. University education should also be free as it is in my country, in order to help people get enough education to get good jobs and work their way up the class ladder.

There are many worthy government programmes, and without taxes where is the money going to come from?

I would assert that fiscal coersion of this sort actually causes squalor and misery, and exacerbates starvation and homelessness.

I agree that once taxes are pushed too high, there are such bad effects, but to claim that all taxes cause such results is to ignore reality.

Can you point out any noticeable price drops?

They're pretty obvious in manufacturing.

If the quality of service has declined, why are you not losing customers?

They're pretty obvious in manufacturing.

If the quality of service has declined, why are you not losing customers?

It's not me it's my vendors. We have contracts. We eat the loss if we change. We will probably change but they won't care. They made a ton of money.....

The US is one of the few places where you can have a completely F'd up company that can make tons of money.

And you have the Left to thank for that. But there's not enough.

I actually oppose public education. Without it, private education would fill the low-cost education niche, and the open competition would provide better education outcomes.

Jurisdictions with competitive schools produce better students. There's plenty of data on that.

There are many worthy government programmes, and without taxes where is the money going to come from?

There are very few worthy government programs. I'm hard-pressed to name any beyond law enforcement and the military.

I agree that once taxes are pushed too high, there are such bad effects, but to claim that all taxes cause such results is to ignore reality.

And what is the threshhold?

If it matters, measure it. Hey look. They did. http://www.freetheworld.com

They're pretty obvious in manufacturing.


Missed that comment.

Ok it is probably cheaper to make but again can you point out the price drops? I haven't noticed anything to make me go "whoa"

If it matters, measure it. Hey look. They did. http://www.freetheworld.com

Who are their backers?

Data can be manipulated to suit any cause.....

I would assert that fiscal coersion of this sort actually causes squalor and misery, and exacerbates starvation and homelessness.

By creating a disincentive to produce, you're reducing the number of jobs available for the poor. You're depressing wages by making the economy less competitive. And you're creating a cycle of dependency among those who receive benefits.

Eastern Canada has been badly served by these policies.

So, you're saying that any socialisation of the economy (ie. as in Canada) hurts the economy? Because Canada's economy's doing pretty well for itself at the moment-- our dollar's been performing remarkably well, unemployment is getting smaller and smaller, minimum wages continue to rise at a decent page, our federal budget has been balanced year after year with surpluses to boot (and those were liberal budgets that got us out of the ditch Mulroney's social-policy-slashing Conservatives drove us into). The biggest blows to eastern Canada's working people lately have been the closing of industries like lumbermills, which isn't so different from the difficulties faced by the rest of Canada and the US.

You might want to look for a better example to make your point.

I actually oppose public education. Without it, private education would fill the low-cost education niche, and the open competition would provide better education outcomes.
It wasn't like that when there were no public schools.

There are very few worthy government programs. I'm hard-pressed to name any beyond law enforcement and the military.
Roads, public transport, education and healthcare. All of them complement the private sector to improve the economy.

And what is the threshhold?
Depends on when and where.

By bringing up socialized nations such as Canada and Denmark, which, although they have their share of problems, are usually said to have higher standards of living than the United States, is the toughest argument for me to counter as a libertarian and free market advocate. It's easy for us to counter anarchists, communists and other statists, but socialism/mixed economy is a sticky issue, partly because it is the norm in today's world. Sometimes it makes you wonder, what are we fighting about? Why not just stick with our present systems without dreaming of utopias?

So together with the left, I pose that question to my fellow libertarians and conservative economists.

dreaming of utopias?


It's a fool's errand to look for a utopia. The general nature of man will not allow it.

The only way you will achieve it is to kill everybody else and then clone yourself. ;)

It's a fool's errand to look for a utopia. The general nature of man will not allow it.

The only way you will achieve it is to kill everybody else and then clone yourself. ;)

And honestly, our economies will probably ALWAYS be mixed in the future. I doubt the extreme left, right, statist or libertarian lobbies will ever be able to inspire the masses to believe in their ideals enough to make the sweeping changes needed.

[QUOTE=Tremerica]I had a thought today, one of many in fact, but this one stood out. Are conservatives (with a small c, i.e. those that are right-winged) wrong about society? Now we can debate for hours and hours about the pros and cons of being conservative when it comes to the economy, but on a social scale are right wingers wrong?

Think about it. Most conservatives, definitely the majority of them, are against gay marriage. Now that boggles my mind, it really does. You can have your own opinion about gays and marrying gays. Hell, I believe that a church has every right to reject gay marriage if they want to. But trying to force a law like this nationally? My main question is, why? Homosexuals WILL get the right to marry, if they haven't already in the country where they live. It's inevitable. But why are conservatives trying to stop this? I thought we were past the issue of gay rights. I thought they we were all equals now. To quote the words of Fred Willard, "Wha' Happened?"

the poll could have used more options,you know like...conservatives are right if you believe in homophobia and rascism...oh never mind thats how it was put out there.
maybe i missunderstood,just worked 14 hours in the blazing heat.
but it was worded(to me that their was no options to agree with certain points of consevatives,and just typically made them into homophopbes)

i like some conservative ideas,especially true conservative ideals(small gov,fiscal responsibility,personal freedom,economics aside....i dislike nanny states,and true conservatives in america..are pro individual choice)

i am socially consevative(in the true context..which makes me a libertarian i suppose nowadays)when i compare the original ideals to democrats ideals.

not everyone that is conservative is as you imply..anti gay...etc.

as a matter of fact,most of my friends and family are conservative,in the true sense,i/we are pro choice for women,i could care less about gay marriage,i am not overly religous,and i certainly dont think my opinion of religion or faith applies to anyone but myself(even my kids have a choice)
i think that if you want to marry your dog..whatever..not my biz...
that s were i digress severely with the so called open minded left,
on one hand,they want everyone to have choice(gays,women) yet legislate slews of laws,or attempt to,curtail rights of others that dont think like them..so i guess if your a single issue person that might appeal,but it is hypocracy of the highest if you ask me,some one says...how dare you say a gay cant get married..we will legislate it if we have too(no prob here)then turn around and say..how dare you feel different from me..we will legislate against you...complete and utter hypocracy.

i am at the point i despise government completely.

that is why,if forced,i am a conservative...because i feel the gov has NO BIZ in my bedroom or in my gunlocker or anywhere in my life,up to the point were i am hurting another.

government should be about protecting people and administering justice,and national defence/trade

not preemptively forcing their fears or prejudices on me,for things i may do in the future.

thats why i hate the neocons..they destroyed what is great about this country as badly as the do gooder liberals,they both think they no what is best for me,and i say..no you dont,and how dare you think you know what is better for me..then me!

By bringing up socialized nations such as Canada and Denmark, which, although they have their share of problems, are usually said to have higher standards of living than the United States, is the toughest argument for me to counter as a libertarian and free market advocate. It's easy for us to counter anarchists, communists and other statists, but socialism/mixed economy is a sticky issue, partly because it is the norm in today's world. Sometimes it makes you wonder, what are we fighting about? Why not just stick with our present systems without dreaming of utopias?

So together with the left, I pose that question to my fellow libertarians and conservative economists.

While many people might claim that Canada has a higher standard of living than the United States, the data don't support that. Outside of Alberta (which sports a staggering $66,000 GDP per capita), Canadians have something like 40% less buying power than Americans.

But comparing Canadian provinces to each other, it's the one with the most open market, and the lowest minimum wage, and the fewest government services that grew the fastest. Alberta. Neighbouring Saskatchewan, with even more natural resource wealth, has lagged behind badly.

Depends on when and where.

But you must have some standards - some universal maxims by which you determine that threshhold. Otherwise, how do you know?

Ok it is probably cheaper to make but again can you point out the price drops? I haven't noticed anything to make me go "whoa"

Automobiles. Computing technology.

Data can be manipulated to suit any cause.....

Is your reaction to that to learn more about the data, or just distrust all evidence and make your decisions from a position of total ignorance?

I recommend learning more about the data. The Economic Freedom folks are pretty open about their methodology. As for backers, I know that The Fraser Institute (that big logo in the corner) is a registered charity in both Canada and the US.

Do conservatives necessarily believe that gay is wrong or bad?

I'll be sure to send your answer to the Log Cabin Republicans.

Republican =/= Conservative

This poll is too biased and narrow in options so I won't give you my opinion.

[QUOTE=Francis Street]

And you have the Left to thank for that. But there's not enough. University education should also be free as it is in my country, in order to help people get enough education to get good jobs and work their way up the class ladder.

There are many worthy government programmes, and without taxes where is the money going to come from?QUOTE]

If you don't charge for college, how do you fund things such as new books, computers, and better libraries. It's not the governments job to fund all of that. There are no government run Universities in the United States, and that is something that both liberals and conservatives agree should remain the same. And if you don't live here, how can you form accurate opinions on American Government? I am a political science major, and I'm pretty sure they don't teach American History or Government outside of the United States, or correct me if I'm wrong. I really don't think your in a position to assess any American policies, because you sound like you have a hostile and biased view of the United States.

Firstly: you consider it punishment to be compelled to help elevate your fellow human beings out of squalor and misery, to alleviate starvation and homelessness? Aren't mercy and charity a couple of the biggest values espoused by a certain spiritual figure that a lot of conservatives claim to hold in high esteem? And despite claiming to worship and follow said figure's teachings, if left to their own devices-- and not compelled to help provide for the needs of their fellow human beings-- how many do you think actually would? Be honest now. How many? And how much would they give? Didn't he take a rather dim view of greed and covetousness and hoarding riches?

As for your taking such terrible offense at nasty queers holding hands in public, how the hell do you think we feel at all the straight people who do that and more? Not only do it, but *totally* take for granted that they can do it without being spit on, verbally harassed, or even beaten and left for dead in some ditch by some insecure bigot that feels their precious, superior sensitivities have been offended? How dare you presume to deny two other people who love one another the same small, simple freedoms that you have. How is that compassion? How is that charity or good will towards your fellow man? And as for people appearing naked on TV; hate to break it to ya but you're naked under your clothes, and so are your kids, and so is everybody. What makes the human body so offensive to you, so deserving of disgust and shame-- and is that what you want to pass along to your kids? You'd prefer them to be embarrassed and awkward and ignorant about their bodies, only doing it with the light out through a bedsheet? And you're upset by gay people on television? Again, sorry to burst your bubble, but you could *very well* have a gay kid-- straight parents have them all the time-- and all you'd be accomplishing by protesting about visibility of gay people is to make that child of yours feel alienated and unloved by one of the only people in this world who ought to love them unconditionally. Think about it-- the more obvious your disdain for gay people, the less likely you would ever be to know if someone close to you was, because they would never trust you to accept them, it would always be a wedge that you drove between you and them. A few offhand remarks about 'fags on the TV' could keep a son from ever trusting or confiding in his father, and that would be your legacy. One of the biggest crises for gay kids growing up has always been the scarcity of positive role-models to give them a sense that they can still be happy and productive and loved while still being gay, and that isn't because such role-models don't exist.

I never said that I am embarrassed with the human body. Why don't you go stand outside, and tell the first mother with her child that you see that her son/daughter has the right to view naked people on television. What would she say? Also, loving your son has nothing to do with the way I view homosexuality. If I have a son that turns out to be gay, I will have to accept it, not "spit on" him, "verbally abuse him", or "leave him in a ditch" after I have beaten him. You have to realize that just because I don't agree with homosexuality, doesn't mean that I want every one of them dead. You are stereotyping. And I don't use the word 'fag'. I may be conservative about this issue, but I'm not inhuman.

I never said that I am embarrassed with the human body. Why don't you go stand outside, and tell the first mother with her child that you see that her son/daughter has the right to view naked people on television. What would she say? Also, loving your son has nothing to do with the way I view homosexuality. If I have a son that turns out to be gay, I will have to accept it, not "spit on" him, "verbally abuse him", or "leave him in a ditch" after I have beaten him. You have to realize that just because I don't agree with homosexuality, doesn't mean that I want every one of them dead. You are stereotyping. And I don't use the word 'fag'. I may be conservative about this issue, but I'm not inhuman.
He has to portray you as inhuman, otherwise he might not be able to convince himself and others that you are the evil conservative homophobic assshole that he thinks you are.

Such knowledge helps him sleep at night, I guess.