I'm shocked that, 56 comments in, Bladerunner hasn't been mentioned.
So wait, they combat patriarchal and misogynistic behavior by taking their tops off?
GET BACK IN THE KITCHEN AND MAKE ME A SANDWICH!!!!
Connecticut is a collection of the worst traits from Boston and New York mixed into one easily forgettable state with an overrated college basketball team.
Is that a bug or a feature? · 1 hour ago
Find me a waiter, bartender, bellhop, caddy, shoe shine, stripper, delivery man, handyman, drug dealer, etc. who doesn't under our current system.
Hagel's budget calls for an increase in special operation troops which seems appropriate considering the realities of modern warfare (I'm certainly no expert).
Your analysis seemed very reasonable to me. Count me among those who think this budget is workable.
James Of England
Would you make the argument that any of those benefits negatively impact the general welfare of our country? Are promiscuous homosexuals preferable to committed, monogamous ones? Married households are statistically less likely to live below the poverty line which means, presumably, they use less public welfare. I'm not sure that is solely an individual benefit. ·
I don't know if your suggestion that we focus on the impact on gay couples (and through them the general population) is an intentional resistance to WC's focus on the institution of marriage, if you're simply putting her argument to one side to make a separate point, or if you missed it. If it was the last, I'd recommend perusing the post again. · 2 hours ago
I was responding to Klaatu's assertion that I was conflating the individual benefits of marriage with the general benefits of marriage. For the record, I was. I don't believe there is a distinct line between individual and general benefits. Individual benefits have a societal effect.
It surprises me how SSM supporters either don't see this coming, or think the benefits to gay couples are worth it. · 0 minutes ago
Oh, I do see it coming, but it has less to do with SSM specifically and more to do with a general disdain of Christian values by the left. It is not lost on me thatourvalues are under assault. I am in complete agreement that schools are shaming our culture and it's deplorable, but SSM and banning home schooling are separate and distinct issues. I genuinely understand your frustration with the heavy-handed and contemptible way in which SSM has been pushed through via judicial activism and educational bureaucracy, but that is, again, a separate issue from the merits of SSM on their own.
Klaatu: Bob Laing,
I believe you are conflating individual benefits (increased household income, monogamy, fidelity, efficient asset transfer post mortem, etc...) with the general benefit marriage is intended to foster in society. Marriage does not exist as a civil institution to benefit those who marry but to promote the general welfare. · 39 minutes ago
Would you make the argument that any of those benefits negatively impact the general welfare of our country? Are promiscuous homosexuals preferable to committed, monogamous ones? Married households are statistically less likely to live below the poverty line which means, presumably, they use less public welfare. I'm not sure that is solely an individual benefit.
I haven't seen your legal arguments; are they based on a belief that SSM ought to have been legal in the 18th century, or are they based on a living constitution/ evolving natural law argument? · 22 minutes ago
I don't know how you would classify the origins of my position, but in a world where homosexuals can adopt, use IVF or surrogates, or other means to create dependents, we cannot ignore that marriage does provide certain benefits. Whether or not we agree that homosexuals should be creating children in the first place is a separate argument, but since they already are, we should address it. Married households are less likely to live below the poverty line, marriage does promote fidelity....these are all good things and things we might as well encourage if people are going to cohabitate anyway. Would a child be better off being raised by unmarried gay men, or married gay men? I'd suggest the latter is preferable. I guess that's an evolving natural law argument?
con't from #43.....
I do not believe that the state must play a role in shielding your children from prevailing culture. Taking positions that are unpopular and/or under attack is a choice and a burden we must all accept regardless of the specific issue. What the government must do (and what is has failed to do recently) is protect your ability to practice your faith unimpeded by government intervention.
This is one of the more lucid and easily readable traditional marriage posts I've read on Ricochet. On a personal level, I agree with almost everything you've written. As I've noted elsewhere, I disagree with you from a legal standpoint.
Traditional marriage is a net good for society, there's no denying that. Whether or not SSM really impacts marriage as a whole remains to be seen. I don't think we've had the benefit of observing the true impact yet. Whether you agree with gay marriage or not, I think marriage in the gay community promotes monogamy and fidelity, reduced disease transmission, higher household incomes, less reliance on government subsidies, lower tax burdens, efficient asset transfer post mortem, etc. So whether or not there are negative externalities associated with gay marriage, it would be foolish to pretend there aren't some positive ones as well.
The King Prawn
Though I agree with that statement I still hold that those who disagree and do not vaccinate their children because of whatever belief system (religious or bat guano crazy naturalist) have the liberty under our system to refuse vaccines. · 11 minutes ago
Vaccinations are one a very select group of public health issues where I do not mind the government's involvement. Diseases that were largely eradicated are returning because of a select few.
In a perfect libertarian world, we would be able to identify those who get everyone sick by not getting their children vaccinated and they could be sued/forced to remunerate their victims. This risk of financial/legal harm would influence people to vaccinate lest they cause harm to others. Because this isn't feasible, we need another way to compel people to behave responsibly. That is why I'm not opposed to the government being involved in vaccinating children.
These parents deserve the blame and appropriate punishment that comes with neglecting (and passively killing) two of their children, but how far of a logical leap is it from this case to outlawing circumcision?
I'm not proposing anybody be excluded. There's nothing to stop the libertarian types from making their own proposals. I'm not calling for the libertarians to be curbed. I'm calling for the leadership in Washington to stop fighting the base. · 1 hour ago
But I think that it has already happened. Today's Tea Party is not the Tea Party of 4 years ago. I was a member, but now I'm not. Unleashing the Tea Party to impeach the president is going to push me farther away, not bring me closer. And like it or not, today's Tea Party and non-Tea party Republicans need each other. Neither can win on their own.
Our message should be simple: The only thing we care about right now is reducing the size and scope of government.
That's not the only thing some of us care about.
So, suppose some of us want to emphasize the importance of protecting marriage ...
Are they going to start calling us extremists?
Suppose some of us think that it's Congress's duty to impeach Obama for gross abuse of power. Are we the problem now? · 1 hour ago
Again, it isn't just the leadership you'd be fighting on SSM. The establishment (leadership) and libertarians are in no way synonymous. Neither SoCons nor libertarians can really win without a coalition and that might requiring prioritizing certain issues above others. I am in no way saying you shouldn't continue to fight for what you believe, but from my perspective, the road to GOP victory will not be built on the preservation of traditional marriage.
And RE: impeachment. I think it's a terrible idea and would make our party look like fools without any chance of success. So I guess, my answer is yes. Doing that would make you a problem.
Republican leadership needs to narrow their focus. The party cannot be all things to all people. Whether we like it or not, the Tea Party, the SoCons, the libertarians need to find common ground. There is significant overlap among these group and that is where the focus must be. That is how you build a Republican coalition, rather than unleashing one faction within the party.
As I and others have noted, the Tea Party lost it's message of reducing the role of government in the lives of citizens and became a larger social movement that excludes the more libertarian sect.
Become a Member to enjoy the full benefits of Ricochet:
Ricochet: The Right People, The Right Tone, The Right Place. Join today!
Already a Member? Sign In