Waiting For The "Conservatives" To Die

[gryphon]

Once the older generations in America die, so will social conservatism

The biggest threat to conservatives right now is President Barack Obama, but the long-term threat to conservatism is an internal threat– young republicans. The RNC is doing everything in its power to prevent them from gaining power, but will it work?

If you were to talk to any reporter covering this year’s election they’ll tell you that most of the attendees at GOP events are over 40 years old. You can’t help but ask yourself “where are the young people?” Well, they’re busy organizing a libertarian take-over of the GOP.

Young republicans aren’t on board with social conservatism, instead we’re seeing an unprecedented level of enthusiasm for libertarianism...

[TheQ]

She's 100% correct. Ppl like me are working diligently to take over the party. The Liberty movement has already taken back Iowa in the name of:

* Personal Freedom
* Smaller government
* no empire building wars

There is also huge progress in NH where my wife and I plan to move in 2018 to join the "Free State Project".

While ppl like me take some traditional social conservative values like pro-gun (and rabidly so) we differ from most Republicans on many "social" issues.

On gay marriage I believe government should be out if the marriage game (period).

[bagz013]

On gay marriage I believe government should be out if the marriage game (period).

Well that brings up a very fine line Mr. Q.

If the Gov stays out of marriage, homosexual or otherwise, we need to remove all religious symbols, sayings, thoughts, and paraphilia from our county.

The fact of the matter is that this county was founded by God-fearing Christian conservatives and our Gov is encapsulated with God everywhere.

We can not pick and choose where we want to allow the Bible to be used as a moral compass. It clearly states that homosexual marriage and relationships are sins. Just like murder, adultry, lying, stealing, and so on.

If we want to Gov not to adopt the Bible's definition of what marriage is, between a man and a woman, should we then also choose not to adopt what the Bible has to say about murder, lying, cheating, stealing, and other punishable crimes?

[TheQ]

Well that brings up a very fine line Mr. Q.

If the Gov stays out of marriage, homosexual or otherwise, we need to remove all religious symbols, sayings, thoughts, and paraphilia from our county.

The fact of the matter is that this county was founded by God-fearing Christian conservatives and our Gov is encapsulated with God everywhere.

We can not pick and choose where we want to allow the Bible to be used as a moral compass. It clearly states that homosexual marriage and relationships are sins. Just like murder, adultry, lying, stealing, and so on.

If we want to Gov not to adopt the Bible's definition of what marriage is, between a man and a woman, should we then also choose not to adopt what the Bible has to say about murder, lying, cheating, stealing, and other punishable crimes?

I didn't say we can't have marriage in this country.  If you're trying to say I did, you're putting words in my mouth.

What I said is the State and Federal Government (all government for that matter) needs to stay out of the business of marriage.

I recently made this argument on MGO, I'll make it here again.

Marriage is basically a ritual/institution that involves 3 components:

1. A contract.  We don't need the state involved here because we only need the state involved in a contract if there is a dispute over it or a need to dissolve it (IE: divorce).  But when forming any other contract, the state isn't needed.  Think if you have a neighborhood guy mow your lawn.  You agree to pay him $20 for his service.  This is in essence a contract.  Do you need to register this contract with the State in order to enforce it in Court?  Absolutely not.  In fact, since it's under $600 the Statute of Frauds says the contract needn't even be in writing, just a good ole fashion handshake will work (a neutral witness will help).
2. Romantic.  The State has no business in saying who can love who and for what reason.  Even if you argued they did (essentially saying it should be a crime to be gay or lead a homosexual lifestyle), you have no way to practically enforce this unless you plan to install cameras in people's homes.  I hope you're not for that...?
3. Religion.  Marriage, in the Christian Marriage sense, involves a ceremony often in a church, often performed by an ordained minister, the ceremony typically includes sacraments and or scripture readings.  The state has no business prescribing or "establishing" religious matters.

What I am perfectly okay with: a Christian Youth Group using a public school classroom after school hours to hold their meeting assuming this same opportunity is open to other secular groups.  Gather around the flag pole at recess and say a prayer.  Heck, the teacher can even meet with the kids before school starts and have a prayer as long as it isn't a requirement for class.

Please note: I was raised a Lutheran and presently consider myself a non-practicing Christian.  At the very least I could be considered a "theist".

The simple fact of the matter is the state has no business being in marriage.  You can have people make a contract, live together in love, and have a religious institution (call it whatever you like, you could call it "Marriage" or "Boondogel" *shrugs*) WITHOUT ANY INVOLVEMENT FROM THE GOVERNMENT.

I've defended my position with logic and reason, I'd challenge you to do the same.

Please note: I am a minarchist libertarian.  If you are a so-called neo-conservative or a member of the "religious right", I wouldn't expect you to understand my position no matter how much we talk because those positions aren't typically supported by logic and reason but rather religious traditions that endorse the use of government initiated force.  Let me ask, were Abraham and Sarah married by the government?  If so, which one? (I don't think there was a government then).  Were Adam and Eve married by a government?  NO NO NO!  Yet their marriage was just as sacred in the eyes of God even though it wasn't "blessed" by man via the issuance of a piece of paper.

[CV67PAT]

Many of us old guys don't identify with the Liberal Republican Party either.

I don't trust Republicans. There are a pack of liars. They say they are pro2A but don't actually support it in legislation. George Bush import ban on "assault rifles". Reagan and NFA. Richardville and SB59.

The vast majority of them are no longer conservative. Perfect example... Romney. (Anti-gun, pro-socialist programs.)

Teabaggers are out of touch with reality. Wanting to implement a "fair tax" that will replace the unconstitutional tax, instead of exposing the unconstitutional tax.

Over run by the self righteous hypocritical religious right, they have been waving the "abortion flag" way too long. "The dems are pro-death and anti-life." You've got to be kidding me!!!

[TheQ]

Over run by the self righteous hypocritical religious right, they have been waving the "abortion flag" way too long. "The dems are pro-death and anti-life." You've got to be kidding me!!!

So are the Republicans -- pro death that is.  I am pro-life.  I say if you're going to be pro-life you need to be consistent! That means...

1. Anti-Death Penalty (most Republicans are for it)
2. Anti-War (most Republicans are pro-war)

If you say you are pro-life then you must value life.

[CV67PAT]

So are the Republicans -- pro death that is.  I am pro-life.  I say if you're going to be pro-life you need to be consistent! That means...

1. Anti-Death Penalty (most Republicans are for it)
2. Anti-War (most Republicans are pro-war)

If you say you are pro-life then you must value life.

That line that "the dems are anti-life and pro-death" was thrown out at me during the Monroe diner by one of the Repugnicans in attendance.

[gryphon]

  If you are a so-called neo-conservative or a member of the "religious right", I wouldn't expect you to understand my position no matter how much we talk

Hold on there.  I consider myself a member of the religious right and I agree with your statements 100%.

As regards being pro-life, I am but I have no problem with killing in self-defense, some wars (but not all), or the state executing somebody.  If someone wants to argue about execution mistakes, I understand that argument and could go along with permanent prison, no chance of parole.

[TheQ]

Killing in self-defense is done to prevent another killing. I support this.

Killing for a criminal sentence is killing for a punishment, not to save a life.

I say give the convicted a choice: life w/ no parole or death (some may just rather die).

Or we could do it the Batman way: Death or Exile!

[gryphon]

Killing for a criminal sentence is killing for a punishment, not to save a life.

As I said, I could go along with life, no parole.  But my reasoning is the innocent have done nothing to deserve death, whereas the guilty have, and I do believe in punishment.  Governments have the responsibility of the administration of justice.  I read that somewhere.   

[gryphon]

I was raised a Lutheran and presently consider myself a non-practicing Christian.

WWGD?

[wayne]

I support the death penalty, but not as a matter to be taken lightly or handed down without extreme attention to detail and guilt proved beyond any doubt (notice I did not say reasonable doubt).  I'm not sure how you can argue that execution does not save lives, because I could just as easily argue it does.  It serves as a deterrent to others who think they can get away with murder.  I am not in any way saying we should promote execution AS a deterrent but that the deterrent factor is a by product of the application of justice.

[TheQ]

I support the death penalty, but not as a matter to be taken lightly or handed down without extreme attention to detail and guilt proved beyond any doubt (notice I did not say reasonable doubt).  I'm not sure how you can argue that execution does not save lives, because I could just as easily argue it does.  It serves as a deterrent to others who think they can get away with murder.  I am not in any way saying we should promote execution AS a deterrent but that the deterrent factor is a by product of the application of justice.

Go google: does capital punishment deter crime

Let me know what you find.

[bigt8261]

One thing that I didn't see in the article is that the makeup of the GOP is nothing new. Churchill once said "Show me a young Conservative and I'll show you someone with no heart. Show me an old Liberal and I'll show you someone with no brains.” People tend to flock to the GOP in their later years. Some never do. I don't think older conservatives dying off is in and of itself a problem.

Just to be clear, I do agree libertarians are taking over the GOP and I support this. Interesting to see how liberal and conservative mean the opposite of what they did 100 years ago.

My view of being pro-life is recognizing there is a right to life. That right, just like any other right (2A), can be taken away through due process.

[TheQ]

Just to be clear, I do agree libertarians are taking over the GOP and I support this. Interesting to see how liberal and conservative mean the opposite of what they did 100 years ago.

I consider myself a liberal, a "Classical Liberal" (go look it up on Wikipedia).

Never confuse me with a modern progressive liberal (socialist) -- you'll be showing your ignorance

[Super Trucker]

The death penalty might be a deterrent if:

Convicted of child rape, we have a cure for that. Pick any public fountain, the molester stands in a metal bucket in the fountain with a fork lift battery hooked via jumper cables to his pecker. All this should be televised via pay per view so other scumbags actually see what happens to their type and we pay the national debt off in about a week.

Murder somebody your organs are harvested in the town square while you are still alive. This would make the waiting list for organ transplants very short.

[bagz013]

I didn't say we can't have marriage in this country.  If you're trying to say I did, you're putting words in my mouth.
I never once insinuated that you had said something but rather that your statements bring up a point I wanted to address
1. A contract.  We don't need the state involved here because we only need the state involved in a contract if there is a dispute over it or a need to dissolve it (IE: divorce).  But when forming any other contract, the state isn't needed.  Think if you have a neighborhood guy mow your lawn.  You agree to pay him $20 for his service.  This is in essence a contract.  Do you need to register this contract with the State in order to enforce it in Court?  Absolutely not.  In fact, since it's under $600 the Statute of Frauds says the contract needn't even be in writing, just a good ole fashion handshake will work (a neutral witness will help).
So we don't need the State until we need the State? My whole point is proven right here in your example. If we are to have a set of bylaws on how to act towards each other(murder, lying, cheating, stealing, etc) we then can not pick and choose which ones we want to involve from the begining. If we want to have the Gov/State invoved in divorce(dispute) then why can we not have it involved in the establishment of what they consider a valid contract in the first place??
2. Romantic.  The State has no business in saying who can love who and for what reason.  Even if you argued they did (essentially saying it should be a crime to be gay or lead a homosexual lifestyle), you have no way to practically enforce this unless you plan to install cameras in people's homes.  I hope you're not for that...?
I could care less about who is in love with who.
3. Religion.  Marriage, in the Christian Marriage sense, involves a ceremony often in a church, often performed by an ordained minister, the ceremony typically includes sacraments and or scripture readings.  The state has no business prescribing or "establishing" religious matters.
It's not about establishing religious matters. It's about setting a precedent for rulings in matters of dispute(divorce)

What I am perfectly okay with: a Christian Youth Group using a public school classroom after school hours to hold their meeting assuming this same opportunity is open to other secular groups.  Gather around the flag pole at recess and say a prayer.  Heck, the teacher can even meet with the kids before school starts and have a prayer as long as it isn't a requirement for class.

Please note: I was raised a Lutheran and presently consider myself a non-practicing Christian.  At the very least I could be considered a "theist".

The simple fact of the matter is the state has no business being in marriage.  You can have people make a contract, live together in love, and have a religious institution (call it whatever you like, you could call it "Marriage" or "Boondogel" *shrugs*) WITHOUT ANY INVOLVEMENT FROM THE GOVERNMENT.Until there is a problem and then they should get involved?
I've defended my position with logic and reason, I'd challenge you to do the same.

Please note: I am a minarchist libertarian.  If you are a so-called neo-conservative or a member of the "religious right", I wouldn't expect you to understand my position no matter how much we talk because those positions aren't typically supported by logic and reason but rather religious traditions that endorse the use of government initiated force. I made no reference or assumption as to your person and beliefs and I would appreciate the same respect. Let me ask, were Abraham and Sarah married by the government?  If so, which one? (I don't think there was a government then).  Were Adam and Eve married by a government?  NO NO NO!  Yet their marriage was just as sacred in the eyes of God even though it wasn't "blessed" by man via the issuance of a piece of paper.You are correct. They were blessed in the eyes of God. Much like Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed for not finding favor in the eyes of God.

[TheQ]

My point being, in every other contract in existence (except this special one called "marriage") we don't involve the government when forming it. We don't need to involve the government in dissolving it if we don't want to either...we could include an arbitration clause.

Why should marriage be different than any other contract?

[bagz013]

My point being, in every other contract in existence (except this special one called "marriage") we don't involve the government when forming it. We don't need to involve the government in dissolving it if we don't want to either...we could include an arbitration clause.

Why should marriage be different than any other contract?

You are correct. We don't involve the Gov.....UNTIL there is a problem and we run crying to them(judge, lawyers, jurors) to fix it for us.
Arbitration clauses would be great. However, how many people have them? Usually they're called Pre-Nups and these are usually legal documents that get authority from a recognized form established by precedence set forth in our Gov, i.e. legal system.

I think you theory of not involving the Gov for other contracts is somewhat shortsighted. How are contracts enforced? Why do people abide by them? Just cause they're "good people"?
People abide by contracts because if they don't they could face legal action. This legal action is determined by the gravity of the situation. Civil or Criminal courts. These courts are oversee by employees of the Gov. These Gov employees use past cases as examples of how to rule on the present cases.

Therefore, when entering into a contract, for whatever the reason, we are remined that the Gov does have an involvement whether we like it or not. We do not live in the Old West where if someone was in breach of contract we could hunt them down and "make em pay." Our only recourse is to take the contract to the courts(Gov) and let them decide based on what they found in previous cases.

[TheQ]

I'm talking about the establishment...making...signing of any contract (except marriage) doesn't involve the government.

So I will ask you again, since you didn't answer last time: why do we need government involved to establish a marriage contract when they aren't involved in other contracts between two private natural persons?

ETA: my wife and I do have a pre-nup, because we don't think the government (to the extent possible) should interpret how to enforce or dissolve our contract we call "marriage".

[bagz013]

So I will ask you again, since you didn't answer last time: why do we need government involved to establish a marriage contract when they aren't involved in other contracts between two private natural persons?

ETA: my wife and I do have a pre-nup, because we don't think the government (to the extent possible) should interpret how to enforce or dissolve our contract we call "marriage".

I'm sorry but I thought I addressed that when I gave examples of the Gov being involved from the begining of a contract being formed whether we consciously understand it or not.

My point is this. We don't involve the Gov in the establishment of contracts but when they fail we expect the Gov to decern what is meant by the contract.
Marriage is a contract. When there are children involved and a man/woman go through a divorce, unless the woman is an inept as a mother, 95% of the time the children will go with the woman.

Man/man have a child. Marriage ends. Who gets the kid? Why does the court have to decide what to do when they were never consulted in the begining??

I don't want the Gov involved in as little of our everyday lives as possible. I don't like the idea of having to get the Gov approval for me to love someone.

However, our country was founded on morals/principles that our fathers took from the Bible. Homosexual marriage and relationships are strictly forbidden in the Bible. Therefore, if we want to turn a blind eye to homosexual marriage, should be then turn a blind eye to the rest of the moral/principles we get from the Bible?
That was the point of my first post.

[gryphon]

Man/man have a child. Marriage ends. Who gets the kid?

That's easy.  The man does.   

[bagz013]

That's easy.  The man does.   

Hahahahaa....good catch. I knew somebody would make a joke about it.

Which man? The slightly more effeminate one??

[TheQ]

What's more, If you choose to follow the Bible for yourself that is fine and dandy. You have absolutely no right to force your religious views on to me and my life though. You have no right to use the government (an agency whose only tool is force) to support or endorse your beliefs or your way of life.

[backenj]

What's more, If you choose to follow the Bible for yourself that is fine and dandy. You have absolutely no right to force your religious views on to me and my life though. You have no right to use the government (an agency whose only tool is force) to support or endorse your beliefs or your way of life.

 +1 with infinite zeros

[CV67PAT]

Hahahahaa....good catch. I knew somebody would make a joke about it.

Which man? The slightly more effeminate one??

The one with the better lawyer.

[bagz013]

What's more, If you choose to follow the Bible for yourself that is fine and dandy. You have absolutely no right to force your religious views on to me and my life though. You have no right to use the government (an agency whose only tool is force) to support or endorse your beliefs or your way of life.

And I 100% agree with that.

My question was, where do we drawn the line of allowing the Bible and religious beliefs to influence our Gov?

That is one question that no one has answered yet.......

[gryphon]

Bible thumping should be done on a street corner atop a platform. Not on a gun forum.

It's Q's fault. He started talking about gay marriage.   

[CV67PAT]

It's Q's fault. He started talking about gay marriage.   

Oh yeah. And he's the "Super duper moderator" too.

[gryphon]

Oh yeah. And he's the "Super duper moderator" too.

Power corrupts.