Conservatives, raise your hands...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm not sure I consider myself to be conservative, but I know that most of DCUM would consider me conservative.

I read the message threads through recent topics and post in political periodically.

However I'm turned off by a lot of the name calling and stupid stuff people put in the political threads (ie. smell, mittens, etc).

I'm mainly libertarian, not conservative, but I vote Republican most...not all...but most of the time. I'll be voting for Romney. I think that an extreme reduction in government regulation would be a terrific thing for the country.

I'm pro-life. I believe that the baby in utero is a human being and should be treated like a human being. I'm pro-birth control...I think it should be encouraged as a way to prevent unwanted pregnancies and abortions. But I'm opposed to forcing people who are opposed to birth control to have to pay for it for others.

I'm pro-gay marriage for as long as the government is doing marriages. I actually think that the government should stop being involved in marriage all together. But as long as they are doing so, I think that all people, straight or gay, should have the same rights to that government process.

Wow, I could have written this post (well, almost) and I think there are a TON of Republicans that feel the same way you do. I don't think I'm libertarian, more conservative.

The only other difference is gay marriage - While I also think all people, straight or gay, should have the same rights to the government process, I think everyone should have to have a civil union to get that - and then, those religious folks that want to get married in their church or synogoug (spell??) can do so in addition to the civil union that would be required under the government laws. In other words, we all had to go to the court house to get a marriage license and have our marriage recorded. I think that process should be a stand alone process that gets you "married" (or civilly unioned) whether you're gay or straight. Then, each religion decides on its own whether they permit two people to get married in their establishment.

To answer the OPs question - I sometimes read through some political posts that catch my attention, but never respond because it always ends up in a cat-fight. Even when Republicans bring respectful posts, you have a host of Dems chomping at the bit to argue. The bottom line is that each side has some valid points and some crappy ones. Each side believes their party's position will be better for the country - arguing that one side or the other put forth a bill here or there that is outrageous doesn't really help because I do believe that we all want our country to get better - I just think that we all think our way is the better way to get that done.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
To answer the OPs question - I sometimes read through some political posts that catch my attention, but never respond because it always ends up in a cat-fight. Even when Republicans bring respectful posts, you have a host of Dems chomping at the bit to argue.

That's exactly it. But they will tell you that you're imagining things. It's frustrating and so I stay away.

[Anonymous]

Do you mean a true "conservative"?

Or the radical fringe right wing freakazoid American Taliban fruitcakes that have co-opted that label and pissed all over the fundamental tenets underlying American society and the Constitution?

BIG difference. I am the former and am disgusted by the latter.

You'd get a lot more voters if you could get rid of these people. Thank you for the great description!!

[Anonymous]

I'm libertarian and don't post here because I don't like to argue. Specifically, I don't like the hateful comments.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The only other difference is gay marriage - While I also think all people, straight or gay, should have the same rights to the government process, I think everyone should have to have a civil union to get that - and then, those religious folks that want to get married in their church or synogoug (spell??) can do so in addition to the civil union that would be required under the government laws. In other words, we all had to go to the court house to get a marriage license and have our marriage recorded. I think that process should be a stand alone process that gets you "married" (or civilly unioned) whether you're gay or straight. Then, each religion decides on its own whether they permit two people to get married in their establishment.

Isn't that how it works now? You just object to the court part being called "marriage" right?

[Anonymous]

No, it's not how it works. To be "married" you have to get the license, then have it signed by either your religious person or a judge - who then records it with the court. I think that middle step (judge/religious person) should be taken out of the requirement to be married - and I think it should be called a civil union for all of us - heteros and gays - because that's what it is - it's giving you some legal distinctions from single adults. I think "married" should stay away from the government all together - we should all get a civil union. And then those of us that want to add another religious service on top of that (marriage) can do so without any government involvement.

Likewise, if there are those of us that want to get "married" in a church and forego the civil union part (polygamists come to mind) they can do that as well - and not get the benefits that the government would bestow on those of us that have a civil union.

I think it's a pretty simple and clear solution (and don't understand why my Republican bretheren don't fight for this) - the government shouldn't get in my religious or personal business - my religious marriage should be completely separate from any legal benefits I get from the government. To get those I - and everyone - should have to get a civil union.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:(and don't understand why my Republican bretheren don't fight for this) - the government shouldn't get in my religious or personal business - my religious marriage should be completely separate from any legal benefits I get from the government. To get those I - and everyone - should have to get a civil union.

No, because centuries and centuries of one semantic convention should not have to be changed. Man/woman = marriage. Gay = civil union. All legal rights equal. Semantically different. When "separate but equal" came about, no one entertained the possibility that gays would/could ever be married so that's a moot point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
No, because centuries and centuries of one semantic convention should not have to be changed.

But things do change. Our language changes to reflect that (unless you're French, I suppose).

For most of us, when we "roll up" the window in our cars, it involves a button, not a handle we actually turn. When I was a kid, "looking up [a piece of information]" involved printed books. For my daughter, that phrase is more likely to involve the computer. Heck "cut and paste" used to actually mean cutting and pasting, not simply a series of keystrokes. The meaning of words and phrases changes constantly in an evolving culture.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:(and don't understand why my Republican bretheren don't fight for this) - the government shouldn't get in my religious or personal business - my religious marriage should be completely separate from any legal benefits I get from the government. To get those I - and everyone - should have to get a civil union.

No, because centuries and centuries of one semantic convention should not have to be changed. Man/woman = marriage. Gay = civil union. All legal rights equal. Semantically different. When "separate but equal" came about, no one entertained the possibility that gays would/could ever be married so that's a moot point.

Semantics is about the worst possible reason for denying someone their civil liberties.

The alternative is a separate, but equal status under the law, ie civil union. We tried that in many states, and it failed. Why? No civil union law gave equivalent rights to marriage. And that's why states with civil unions also pursued marriage laws later.

On top of that, the conservatives who oppose gay marriage will not lift a finger to make civil unions more robust under the law. So clearly they are not even for separate but equal. They are for "unequal". So screw them for paying lip service to civil unions. They caused the battle to move to marriage.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:(and don't understand why my Republican bretheren don't fight for this) - the government shouldn't get in my religious or personal business - my religious marriage should be completely separate from any legal benefits I get from the government. To get those I - and everyone - should have to get a civil union.

No, because centuries and centuries of one semantic convention should not have to be changed. Man/woman = marriage. Gay = civil union. All legal rights equal. Semantically different. When "separate but equal" came about, no one entertained the possibility that gays would/could ever be married so that's a moot point.

Not the pp, but I think what she is saying is that man/woman=civil union gay=civil union. No government recognition of marriage at all.

Very different from what you are saying.

[Anonymous]

I find it helpful to hear conservative view points, because then I go out and research what they say and realize, once again, that they are full of shit. It's very validating. Thank you for being here!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
To answer the OPs question - I sometimes read through some political posts that catch my attention, but never respond because it always ends up in a cat-fight. Even when Republicans bring respectful posts, you have a host of Dems chomping at the bit to argue.

That's exactly it. But they will tell you that you're imagining things. It's frustrating and so I stay away.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I find it helpful to hear conservative view points, because then I go out and research what they say and realize, once again, that they are full of shit. It's very validating. Thank you for being here!

And thank you for validating my point that even when republicans have thoughtful and respectful discussions about their issues, they are bashed on here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No, it's not how it works. To be "married" you have to get the license, then have it signed by either your religious person or a judge - who then records it with the court. I think that middle step (judge/religious person) should be taken out of the requirement to be married - and I think it should be called a civil union for all of us - heteros and gays - because that's what it is - it's giving you some legal distinctions from single adults. I think "married" should stay away from the government all together - we should all get a civil union. And then those of us that want to add another religious service on top of that (marriage) can do so without any government involvement.

Likewise, if there are those of us that want to get "married" in a church and forego the civil union part (polygamists come to mind) they can do that as well - and not get the benefits that the government would bestow on those of us that have a civil union.

I think it's a pretty simple and clear solution (and don't understand why my Republican bretheren don't fight for this) - the government shouldn't get in my religious or personal business - my religious marriage should be completely separate from any legal benefits I get from the government. To get those I - and everyone - should have to get a civil union.

I like your out of the box thinking. I might add that we should just call the religious union something other than marriage, and then we won't have to worry about "gay marriage" at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:(and don't understand why my Republican bretheren don't fight for this) - the government shouldn't get in my religious or personal business - my religious marriage should be completely separate from any legal benefits I get from the government. To get those I - and everyone - should have to get a civil union.

No, because centuries and centuries of one semantic convention should not have to be changed. Man/woman = marriage. Gay = civil union. All legal rights equal. Semantically different. When "separate but equal" came about, no one entertained the possibility that gays would/could ever be married so that's a moot point.

Semantics is about the worst possible reason for denying someone their civil liberties.

The alternative is a separate, but equal status under the law, ie civil union. We tried that in many states, and it failed. Why? No civil union law gave equivalent rights to marriage. And that's why states with civil unions also pursued marriage laws later.

What part of this are you not understanding? We create civil unions with all the benefits as marriage. We call it a "civil union." Only difference is the wording. But no. Feet are stomped about that, hissy fits are thrown.

You don't want equal rights. You want a big stink made, that's all.