Take words seriously? Is this Wittgenstein? There is no singular color that is "conservative". I believe he comes out of the British Tory tradition. I come from a NW conservative perspective (think Tom McCall). I suspect both are very different from yours. To the extent that you support foreign intervention, open markets, increased growth, or involving religion with politics, you wouldn't qualify as a NW conservative. What of it? There are many traditions (and not all American) that qualify as conservative. Trying to define it down to your own flavor is silly and counterproductive.
Obama is plenty liberal economically. He's completely too conservative socially.
I must admit that I don't look to Sullivan for insight. He's pretty much a news portal for me. The blogs on my daily round are Sullivan, RCP, this site and sometimes Douglas Todds, though he usually doesn't produce enough for a daily read. Which sites do a better job?
Claiming that Sullivan isn't conservative is silly. He might not be your brand but neither am I.
Well, you had C11 which certainly has helped the blogosphere in the long run, including this site. I'm not sure if I ever found your personal writings as entertaining, thought provoking, or informative as I usually find Sully.
Well, I am rather an odd duck in most of these debates. To the point. It's not that I want anyone's marriage turned into something they don't want but an alternative that people could choose if they wished. I think France is an interesting example of where alternatives to "marriage" are given that include both gay and hets. I believe that many young hets are choosing the non marriage option.
Unfortunately North, from my perspective things are reversed. While I support SSM, I'd much rather have civil unions and an alternative institution for all. I want the government out of the marriage/morality business. Unfortunately, once SSM comes to pass there will be little support for a broader definition.
I'm in favor of civil unions for all. As far as I'm concerned, the Klan-sympathizers can keep "marriage". It's when they won't allow for an alternative, or when they judge their leaders on the ability to piss off the other side that I get my panties in a twist and want to give them all the rope they need to wrap around their necks.
These are all true. Even the scientific reasons against incest are rather weak. There's usually a difference between our reasons and our justifications. Our reasons rarely get beyond, "it seems icky". The only good reasons to be against polygamy are that I might have to divide up the communal assets with a disgruntled mate or that many straight boys would never, ever get laid.
Apart from the small chance that your kid will have a big forehead, if your breed, the best reason against incest is that you it would be difficult to ensure consent (even at a meta level). Every thing else boils down to "It seems squicky and I want to control what other people can do".
Hmmm interesting. Of course polygamy is one of the most traditional forms of marriage. But incest? Let's see, we can infer that there was a good bit of this immediately after Adam and Eve and Noah of course. Secular society would probably condone this as well. (If you were the only woman on Earth would you sleep with a man?) Then there's Lot and daughters, but they were just having a fling. No marriage that I'm aware of. What are the other cases I'm missing?
There are often conflicts when it comes to freedom. In this case is sexual tolerance more important than the religious freedom to be bigoted. It won't do to pretend religious freedom trumps all others. This leads to anti-blasphemy laws. Naw, religion is one freedom amongst many. There is very little to suggest that it should be given preference over others in a secular society.
You are right. However, at least in the news pieces that I initially read on this, credit the Church for bringing this up. It had the air of coercion to it. Perhaps it was the initial reporting that's at fault here and the Church is more than happy to quietly move its resources to states that have regulations that are consistent with the Church's teachings.
When bars (Bacchus), brothels (Aphrodite and Pan), and tea-houses (Rastafarians and First Nations) have the same tax exemption as other religions, I'll be all on board.
My tax dollars are used for all sorts of things that I don't agree with. These same taxes are used for the death penalty and poorly thought out wars. Why the huff over SSM. Aren't there even more abhorrent uses of our money from a religious perspective? Perhaps not.
Infallibility of the Pope? OK, we're back to square one. If a Catholic politician must ascribe to all of Rome's decrees, they should not be trusted in secular governance, period.
If religion is informative of political decisions, religions should be open to political opposition.
Individuals should be allowed to purchase the insurance they want without interference. If I choose a policy that allows for breast implants, or naturopathy, so be it. It's a wonder that the Catholics have been so easy on their members that accept employee insurance that covers abortion. Shouldn't good Catholics refrain from taking benefits that might be used to end life?
It's important to provide services. It's more important for individuals to be allowed to choose their service and for the political arena to be secular rather than religiously dictated. If Catholics don't want an abortion, more power to them, don't get one. Don't require that that option be off the table for everyone else.
On “quote for the day II”
Take words seriously? Is this Wittgenstein? There is no singular color that is "conservative". I believe he comes out of the British Tory tradition. I come from a NW conservative perspective (think Tom McCall). I suspect both are very different from yours. To the extent that you support foreign intervention, open markets, increased growth, or involving religion with politics, you wouldn't qualify as a NW conservative. What of it? There are many traditions (and not all American) that qualify as conservative. Trying to define it down to your own flavor is silly and counterproductive.
Obama is plenty liberal economically. He's completely too conservative socially.
"
I must admit that I don't look to Sullivan for insight. He's pretty much a news portal for me. The blogs on my daily round are Sullivan, RCP, this site and sometimes Douglas Todds, though he usually doesn't produce enough for a daily read. Which sites do a better job?
Claiming that Sullivan isn't conservative is silly. He might not be your brand but neither am I.
"
Well, you had C11 which certainly has helped the blogosphere in the long run, including this site. I'm not sure if I ever found your personal writings as entertaining, thought provoking, or informative as I usually find Sully.
On “One more post on marriage-equality and religious liberty.”
Well, I am rather an odd duck in most of these debates. To the point. It's not that I want anyone's marriage turned into something they don't want but an alternative that people could choose if they wished. I think France is an interesting example of where alternatives to "marriage" are given that include both gay and hets. I believe that many young hets are choosing the non marriage option.
"
Unfortunately North, from my perspective things are reversed. While I support SSM, I'd much rather have civil unions and an alternative institution for all. I want the government out of the marriage/morality business. Unfortunately, once SSM comes to pass there will be little support for a broader definition.
"
I've spent too much time with a view of the amen-pew to discount the desire to control others.
"
I'm in favor of civil unions for all. As far as I'm concerned, the Klan-sympathizers can keep "marriage". It's when they won't allow for an alternative, or when they judge their leaders on the ability to piss off the other side that I get my panties in a twist and want to give them all the rope they need to wrap around their necks.
"
I see plenty of places where Jesus rails against Pharisees but where does he devote his venom to gays? GOD the father was a bit of wanker.
"
These are all true. Even the scientific reasons against incest are rather weak. There's usually a difference between our reasons and our justifications. Our reasons rarely get beyond, "it seems icky". The only good reasons to be against polygamy are that I might have to divide up the communal assets with a disgruntled mate or that many straight boys would never, ever get laid.
Apart from the small chance that your kid will have a big forehead, if your breed, the best reason against incest is that you it would be difficult to ensure consent (even at a meta level). Every thing else boils down to "It seems squicky and I want to control what other people can do".
On “someday”
Dang, missed my cue. TROLL, TROLL. Urgh, I'll try again next time.
On “One more post on marriage-equality and religious liberty.”
Wait, the Church doesn't allow cousins to marry anymore? On a quick Google it looks like it's legal in most places.
You say "whore" like it's a bad thing. Goddess forgive you ;)
"
Hmmm interesting. Of course polygamy is one of the most traditional forms of marriage. But incest? Let's see, we can infer that there was a good bit of this immediately after Adam and Eve and Noah of course. Secular society would probably condone this as well. (If you were the only woman on Earth would you sleep with a man?) Then there's Lot and daughters, but they were just having a fling. No marriage that I'm aware of. What are the other cases I'm missing?
"
There are often conflicts when it comes to freedom. In this case is sexual tolerance more important than the religious freedom to be bigoted. It won't do to pretend religious freedom trumps all others. This leads to anti-blasphemy laws. Naw, religion is one freedom amongst many. There is very little to suggest that it should be given preference over others in a secular society.
On “Gay marriage in D.C. ctd.”
Perhaps, they aren't trying to roll back anything. Perhaps, they're just getting out of the secular service business. I'm ok with the latter.
On “Gay Marriage in D.C.”
Far be it from me to keep the joys of political discourse away from them.
"
I don't know about keeping all Muslims out of the military, though it seems we can confiscate some of their mosques and office buildings.
On “Double standards”
You are right. However, at least in the news pieces that I initially read on this, credit the Church for bringing this up. It had the air of coercion to it. Perhaps it was the initial reporting that's at fault here and the Church is more than happy to quietly move its resources to states that have regulations that are consistent with the Church's teachings.
On “Gay Marriage in D.C.”
When bars (Bacchus), brothels (Aphrodite and Pan), and tea-houses (Rastafarians and First Nations) have the same tax exemption as other religions, I'll be all on board.
On “Double standards”
My tax dollars are used for all sorts of things that I don't agree with. These same taxes are used for the death penalty and poorly thought out wars. Why the huff over SSM. Aren't there even more abhorrent uses of our money from a religious perspective? Perhaps not.
On “Gay Marriage in D.C.”
Infallibility of the Pope? OK, we're back to square one. If a Catholic politician must ascribe to all of Rome's decrees, they should not be trusted in secular governance, period.
If religion is informative of political decisions, religions should be open to political opposition.
On “Double standards”
Individuals should be allowed to purchase the insurance they want without interference. If I choose a policy that allows for breast implants, or naturopathy, so be it. It's a wonder that the Catholics have been so easy on their members that accept employee insurance that covers abortion. Shouldn't good Catholics refrain from taking benefits that might be used to end life?
It's important to provide services. It's more important for individuals to be allowed to choose their service and for the political arena to be secular rather than religiously dictated. If Catholics don't want an abortion, more power to them, don't get one. Don't require that that option be off the table for everyone else.
On “Gay Marriage in D.C.”
"They’re probably cannibals as well."
Or worse: vegan Pastafarians.
"
I felt lucky to leave without a pair of concrete slippers.
"
Ramen.
"
JB: I once had the discomforting pleasure of meeting the head of the AFL-CIO. It felt like I was in the Godfather.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.