Replies

"But why go after things that may not affect you directly? I think (notice not feel haha) thats my biggest problem with the right...why does it matter in a negative way to conservatives that homosexuals get married?"

If individuals (i.e. the possessors of liberty)are the individual threads of a society, nation and culture, families, villages, towns, cities, etc., are the fabric into which they are organized. Some towns and cities are well-governed, organized and provide generally healthy and safe environs for their members, and others are simply dysfunctional. The same can be said for families. Families, by virtue of being the lowest level of social organization hold a special place as the basic building block for larger societies. Certainly there are examples of exceptionally dysfunctional heterosexual families, and we as a society have increasingly redefined the conventional family (largely owing to the no fault divorce concept which was largely pushed by trial lawyers for their own benefit, but that's another discussion for another day). Simply because we have begun to expand the definition of a traditional family does not mean that doing so is healthy. I concur that divorce is sometimes a necessary process, especially in cases of the classic three "A's" (Adultery, Addiction, Abuse). However, the no fault concept as employed in an increasingly secular society has undermined the sanctity of the simple oath/vow. If those terms are felt to be somehow too 'religious,' think of it as the failure to honor a contract. Back to the fabric analogy, think of it as a warped, flawed, or less than ideal piece of fabric because the individual threads have not been properly woven together, misaligned, twisted, etc., undermining the strength of the whole. Homosexual marriage is simply an effort to further expand, redefine, and otherwise make a less than ideal situation acceptable or even a cause celebre. Likewise, the logic behind "consenting adults", when taken to its extreme, would mandate the inclusion of group marriages and other distortions of the traditional family that would indeed undermine the strength of society. I do think sodomy laws are overbearing, and likewise, if people want to have their orgies or swinger parties, I personally don't think they should fear arrest for doing so...but by that same token, their relationships should not be honored by the state. Indeed, one of the most vocal proponents of gay marriage are divorce lawyers...not because they expect gay marriages to flourish and thrive, but because they expect them to be unstable and fall apart.

...just teaching the idea of evolution is immoral..."

You're talking about an extreme, small group of nut jobs (admit you've got them on the left, too). Most conservatives I know do not oppose the teaching of evolutionary theory, they are just intellectually honest enough to insist that it be taught as just that....theory, and not established, observable fact. Likewise, most Intelligent Design folks simply ask that their views be taught in the same light. If nothing else, this is just one small aspect of a much greater issue, and that is government funding of schools...Get government influence out of the schools and let parents pick (i.e. exercise freedom) to send their children to the kind of school they choose. Indeed, the strict, atheistic, pure Darwinian theorists have been the ones guilty of blind faith and have pushed dissenters to the fringes. You may wish to see the soon to be released Ben Stein documentary. I've heard some interviews with the parties. I think you'll find it eye opening.

"...and its wrong for women to be feminists?"

Early feminists had some valid arguments, but they have long outlived their usefulness. I would certainly have no problem voting for a woman for president, given the right woman (Hillary's not her). Radical egalitarianism was extremely well satirized in Kurt Vonnegut's Harrison Bergeron, which points out the absurdity of leveling the playing field for every person. Conservatism recognizes individual merit, and rewards achievement...it truly is the philosophical bent for any person who believes that all people should have an equal opportunity, but not by taking away from, or holding back those who succeed, but to the contrary, inspiring and demanding the best from those who aren't there yet. By requiring quotas and special favors for women or races or other minority groups du jour, liberalism is actually far more sexist and racist for labeling people in these groups as incapable of achieving anything without special help from the anointed few in big government.

"You can go ahead and keep bashing me or you can honestly help me with understanding the more conservative side of politics and help me out."

I hope that wasn't directed at me personally, as I really don't see anything I've written that would constitute "bashing." In fact, I salute your intellectual curiosity and would welcome any further discussion.