It must be difficult to be a conservative today.

[Lagboltz]

Trickle down economics is how economies work. It has nothing to do with deficits or federal spending. If you earn $25K/yr and spend $35K, you will be $10K in the hole. If you get a new job and the next year you earn $45K and spend $65K, you'll be $20K in the hole.

What's the point? You can't blame the new job for the massive deficit. What control does your pay rate have on your spending habits? Zero. What control does a taxation method have on government spending? Zero. This is basic logic 101.

Further... and this is where ignorance reigns... trickle down economics is not a method of taxation. As the name implies, it's an economic model. Specifically it's the model of economics that all economies follow.

The basic premise is this... nearly all jobs are created by the wealthy, and thus all economic activity trickles down from the top. My job was created by a very wealthy man. As were most jobs on the face of the earth. Even the self employed farmer... who built the equipment he uses? Wealthy people. Who made the fertilizer he uses? Wealthy people. Who made the pesticides he uses? Wealthy people. Who made the trucks and provided the transport of his crops to market? Wealthy people. Who made the stores his produce is sold in? Wealthy people.

This is how all economies work. Claiming trickle down doesn't work is like claiming oceans are not wet. Dave Thomas got backing by wealthy people to open his own resturant, and used that to hire people. When he had enough money from his investment, he opened up new burger stands that employed more people. Trickle down to Dave, to his employees, to new stores, to their employees and so on.

Trickle down is a near universal truth, unless your talking about a 3rd world country with some sort of quasi-feudal system, or if you are a leftist who values political points over truth.

Trickle down theory is a near universal falsehood. It is in disfavor by many noted economists. Here is one study from Alesina, Alberto and Dani Rodrick. “Distribution, Political Conflict and Economic Growth, in The Political Economy of Business Cycles and Growth, M.I.T. Press, Cambridge, MA, 1992.

The authors looked at a sample of 65 industrial nations and gleaned from data from the World Bank and the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development.

They found lower growth rates in countries where higher shares of national income went to the top 5 percent and the top 20 percent of earners. In contrast, larger shares for poor and middle-income groups were associated with higher growth rates. Again and again, the observed pattern is the opposite of the one predicted by trickle-down theory.

 

[PLC1]

Conservatives are generally for less government, and less government hand outs. Stem cell funding is unnecessary. That's all.

Stem cell funding by the government may be unnecessary, but why fund stem cell research using only certain kinds of stem cells? Isn't that a form of social engineering?

Cutting taxes always has a positive effect. It has nothing directly to do with social issues.

Here, we can agree. Cutting taxes does have a positive effect, so long as the government cuts spending also, and it has nothing to do with social issues. The latter is the point I've been making all along.

The ability to redefine marriage is a right a limited government does not have. These are not opposed. It is a view that government should be limited, that suggest it can't simply redefine marriage. Nor should a limited government enforce it's view of marriage on the population.

Exactly what I've been saying all along. A limited government should not be imposing its views of marriage on the population.

Conservatives are for limited government, yet are for determining who may and may not marry. That is a basic conflict of ideology.

The right to murder in order to avoid responsibility for getting pregnant, is opposed to individual responsibility. Further, the rule of law, that murder is, or should be, illegal in all situation, is enforcing personal responsibility for ones actions.

True, and the right to say that abortion is murder, and try to outlaw it, is another thing that a limited government has no business doing. Just because you and I think abortion is immoral, we have no right to impose those views on the rest of society. A limited government would mean that individuals have the right to choose, regardless of what some of us might think. Using the force of government to impose one's views on the rest of society is diametrically opposed to the philosophy of limited government.

Until personal choice, exempts one from murder laws, it is not a regulation of "personal choice" to prevent murder anymore than it is a regulation of personal choice to stop someone from going on a shooting spree through a local mall. The difference being the people in the mall may have done something wrong in their lives, where as the baby never had the chance.

Abortion is murder only in the view of some. Not everyone agrees, and there is no way to determine when a soul enters the human body. To brand it murder and prosecute it as such is imposing your views on the rest of society through the force of government.

 

[Andy]

Stem cell funding by the government may be unnecessary, but why fund stem cell research using only certain kinds of stem cells? Isn't that a form of social engineering?

Ah, you are referring creation of babies for the purposes of destroying them, like how they bred slaves in 3rd world muslim countries, to chop them up for organ harvesting. Well once again, I am against murder. If it's human, and alive, and done nothing deserving of death, "for the sake of medical research" is not a justifiable excuse to me for murder.

If enforcing murder laws is an example of "social engineering", that that's one example I'm in favor of.

Here, we can agree. Cutting taxes does have a positive effect, so long as the government cuts spending also, and it has nothing to do with social issues. The latter is the point I've been making all along.

Taxation is a form of stealing, which is a moral wrong. Murder is a moral wrong. That's about the only connection between fiscal views and social views.

Exactly what I've been saying all along. A limited government should not be imposing its views of marriage on the population.

Exactly, which is why I reject them imposing their views of marriage on us. Marriage should remain exactly what it is. One man and woman, as it has always been, and always should be. A limited view of government prevents them from changing this.

Conservatives are for limited government, yet are for determining who may and may not marry. That is a basic conflict of ideology.

No, I'm against an expansive government changing what marriage is. Marriage is, what it is is. Government, by leaving it alone to be exactly what it is, isn't an intrusive government. Government changing it to mean something that it does not, is an intrusive government.

True, and the right to say that abortion is murder, and try to outlaw it, is another thing that a limited government has no business doing. Just because you and I think abortion is immoral, we have no right to impose those views on the rest of society. A limited government would mean that individuals have the right to choose, regardless of what some of us might think. Using the force of government to impose one's views on the rest of society is diametrically opposed to the philosophy of limited government.

No, abortion is murder no matter what government says. Government doesn't change reality with law. Reality is that abortion is murder.

Now, government, which has the duty of enforcing the law, must therefore ban what is murder. If not, then why can't I run around and shoot people?

Abortion is murder only in the view of some. Not everyone agrees, and there is no way to determine when a soul enters the human body. To brand it murder and prosecute it as such is imposing your views on the rest of society through the force of government.

Murder is not an opinion based theory. If it is a human (√), and it's alive (√), and it had not committed any crime worthy of death (√), then... it's murder.

You know, if we were to interview a bunch of Nazis in Germany, or Stalinist in Russia, most of their opinions would be that show trials, gulags, Jew slaughtering, all were not murder. Does that make their actions not murder?

Most of the people in jail today, would likely say what they did wasn't murder. Does that make it not murder?

Does reality change to fit an opinion poll?

No, it does not. Murder is murder. It doesn't change because a group of people have a differing opinion.

 

[Andy]

Trickle down theory is a near universal falsehood. It is in disfavor by many noted economists. Here is one study from Alesina, Alberto and Dani Rodrick. “Distribution, Political Conflict and Economic Growth, in The Political Economy of Business Cycles and Growth, M.I.T. Press, Cambridge, MA, 1992.

The authors looked at a sample of 65 industrial nations and gleaned from data from the World Bank and the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development.

They found lower growth rates in countries where higher shares of national income went to the top 5 percent and the top 20 percent of earners. In contrast, larger shares for poor and middle-income groups were associated with higher growth rates. Again and again, the observed pattern is the opposite of the one predicted by trickle-down theory.

This doesn't even address the core of trickle-down theory. That being that all people get their jobs from rich people.

Further, the results are completely consistent with trickle down theory.

In highly socialized countries, the top 5 percent will gain the vast majority of national income, while the rest will receive very little. Under the pre-'78 Chi-coms, heads of the government run enterprises were given typical massive government salaries, while 66% of the population lived under the poverty level. That is completely consistent with your reports data. However, this does not change that all the jobs were due to the rich people running the companies.

Under a capitalist system in China, where supply and demand determined the wages under a competition for workers, less than 3% of the population is under the poverty level, and the balance of national income is more even than before, although it will never be even, and nor should it. But that still doesn't change that all jobs were due to rich people.

In short, the Trickle-down theory, is still and always will be, the way all economies work. The only reason is works better in one area over another, is simply due to socialism vs capitalism.

Under socialism in China, rich people were unable to use their vast incomes to produce more jobs. Under capitalism in China, they were.

The only way to disprove trickle down economics, is to show an example where trickle up worked. You need to show me someone who has a job from a homeless bum. That would be trickle up.

 

[Lagboltz]

The only way to disprove trickle down economics, is to show an example where trickle up worked. You need to show me someone who has a job from a homeless bum. That would be trickle up.

That is not "Trickleup" theory. An accurate example is, give a bum $10 and he will spend it, and the whole economy will benefit.

Trickledown may have a chance of validity in a closed society, but not in the way the global economy is working today. 50 years ago 1/3 of the US population worked in manufacturing. Since then we have lost many thriving industries such as steel, electronics, clothing, and appliances. We are now are in danger of losing what little of the computer and auto industries we have.

As manufacturing jobs move offshore, the US post-industrial economy now focuses on service industries. Since 1960, 2 out of 3 factory jobs have been lost due to outsourcing. 80% of our jobs are now in service industries, and of that about 50% are involved in retailing or consumerism.

What is happening is that trickledown is trickling our wealth to offshore manufacturing and service jobs; and what's left is trickling to American employment in the consumerism industries. Much of today's consumerism is in products with elastic demands. During a recession, people can do without a new house, car, dish washer, TV, phone, or latest fashion in cloths. They will let their older purchase wear longer. Then small businesses and large retail franchises will increasingly fail, and the large employment sector in retailing and related service sectors will further drop.

As people lose buying power through lower wages and job loss, how can giving the wealthy and large corporations tax breaks improve the economy? What will the new service jobs be? There certainly won't be much more manufacturing jobs unless we reduce wages enough to compete with outsourcing. Then the buying power of the middle class will erode even further, and invalidate the reason for creating manufacturing jobs.

Progressive taxes as we had a few decades ago will favor the 90% of Americans that have a lot of buying power. That will have a chance of keeping our capitalist economy more stable. Whereas with outsourcing, giving tax breaks to the wealthiest people and industries will not really induce them to promote further employment at home.

I am not promoting Socialism. I am promoting Capitalism with more long-term stability. I am surprised conservatives don't feel the same way.

I am not saying foreign outsourcing is bad. I am saying that trickledown theory looses validity with the amount of outsourcing we do.

With the global economy as it is, US capitalism is having a very difficult time competing with the economy of foreign socialists states. People may call progressive taxes "Socialism" but they are too hung up on labels and not the realities of capitalism.

 

[PLC1]

Ah, you are referring creation of babies for the purposes of destroying them, like how they bred slaves in 3rd world muslim countries, to chop them up for organ harvesting. Well once again, I am against murder. If it's human, and alive, and done nothing deserving of death, "for the sake of medical research" is not a justifiable excuse to me for murder.

No, I'm referring to the use of zygotes created for in vitrio fertilization, and thrown away after the successful implantation of one of them.

And, I'm certainly not talking about breeding human beings for organs for transplantation.

If enforcing murder laws is an example of "social engineering", that that's one example I'm in favor of.

It's only murder in the opinion of some.

Taxation is a form of stealing, which is a moral wrong. Murder is a moral wrong. That's about the only connection between fiscal views and social views.

If taxation is stealing, then let's put the people who run the IRS in jail, and do away with taxes altogether.

Taxation without representation may be stealing, but taxes are still a necessary evil in a representative democracy.

Exactly, which is why I reject them imposing their views of marriage on us. Marriage should remain exactly what it is. One man and woman, as it has always been, and always should be. A limited view of government prevents them from changing this.

But, you're willing to impose your views of marriage on the rest of society? Liberals, by which I mean those who favor big government having power over the individual, can wish to impose their beliefs on the rest of society, and, reprehensible though that might be, it is still consistent with their philosophy. Conservatives, by which I mean those who favor limited government and individual choices and responsibility, can try to impose their views of marriage on the rest of society also, but that is not consistent with their philosophy. The conservative philosophy would have the government stay out of the marriage business, and let the churches control who may and may not marry.

Of course, even a conservative might want to compromise his ideology to protect children, but that could be justified from the standpoint of children not being able to make informed choices.

No, abortion is murder no matter what government says. Government doesn't change reality with law. Reality is that abortion is murder.

Now, government, which has the duty of enforcing the law, must therefore ban what is murder. If not, then why can't I run around and shoot people?



Murder is not an opinion based theory. If it is a human (√), and it's alive (√), and it had not committed any crime worthy of death (√), then... it's murder.

Abortion is murder only in the eyes of some, and that some doesn't have the right to impose their views on the rest. Not only that, but is it really murder when the zygote is simply a collection of a few dozen cells? Is it murder if the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest? If it endangers the life of the mother? If it is murder, then anyone performing an abortion for any reason and at any stage of pregnancy would have to be prosecuted for that crime. Is that really what you're advocating?

Most of the people in jail today, would likely say what they did wasn't murder. Does that make it not murder?

Does reality change to fit an opinion poll?

No, it does not. Murder is murder. It doesn't change because a group of people have a differing opinion.

Most people in jail today will tell you that they're innocent, but that doesn't make it so.

Who gets to decide, then, what is murder and what isn't? Do you or I have that right? Is what we decide to be the law of the land?

 

[Andy]

No, I'm referring to the use of zygotes created for in vitrio fertilization, and thrown away after the successful implantation of one of them.

And, I'm certainly not talking about breeding human beings for organs for transplantation.

One is killed early, and one is killed later.

It's only murder in the opinion of some.

So Jews in Russia and Germany were not murders either? It's only our opinion?

If taxation is stealing, then let's put the people who run the IRS in jail, and do away with taxes altogether.

I'd vote for that! Sadly, I have to conclude that the IRS is only doing what the government mandates. Instead lets put the politicians on trial!

Taxation without representation may be stealing, but taxes are still a necessary evil in a representative democracy.

Agreed. But this is why conservatives support the lowest possible taxes, and the smallest government possible.

But, you're willing to impose your views of marriage on the rest of society? Liberals, by which I mean those who favor big government having power over the individual, can wish to impose their beliefs on the rest of society, and, reprehensible though that might be, it is still consistent with their philosophy. Conservatives, by which I mean those who favor limited government and individual choices and responsibility, can try to impose their views of marriage on the rest of society also, but that is not consistent with their philosophy. The conservative philosophy would have the government stay out of the marriage business, and let the churches control who may and may not marry.

No, liberals are trying to impose their view of marriage on the rest of society. I just don't want "marriage" to change. Leave things the way they are. One man, one woman, is what marriage is.

What you are claiming is that we are imposing our views, on people, when our views is what already is.

If I start running around saying red means stop, and green means go. "GAH! You are imposing your views on society!"... no... red has always meant stop and green always meant go. I'm not imposing anything, just supporting the current meaning.

Now you come along and say purple means stop and white means go, and claiming that I am the one trying to impose my view. Sorry, that doesn't work.

I'm saying one man, one woman, is what marriage is, because that's what marriage is. I'm imposing nothing because it's always been that way. You are claiming to change it to mean something else. YOU are the one imposing a view on society. Not me.

Abortion is murder only in the eyes of some, and that some doesn't have the right to impose their views on the rest. Not only that, but is it really murder when the zygote is simply a collection of a few dozen cells? Is it murder if the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest? If it endangers the life of the mother? If it is murder, then anyone performing an abortion for any reason and at any stage of pregnancy would have to be prosecuted for that crime. Is that really what you're advocating?

This seems a sad commentary on the progress of society. You realize that not even 100 years ago, that mothers actually would want to give their lives for the child? There was a time in America when mothers thought it their highest calling to risk death for their child. Now, in a selfish ruled society, the mother is far more important. If she doesn't want the child, kill it. If it might endanger her, kill it. If it might cramp her style, or ruin her social life, kill it.

I'm not going to argue with the 'collection of cells' crap, because anyone who studies abortion knows that by the time you can abort a baby, it has it's own heart, arms and legs, and can feel pain.

I was adopted, and perhaps my biological mother was raped. Is it ok to kill me? If not, why then a child at any other level of development?

A doctor that performed this under this law, did so under the current law. It should be changed to reflect it being murder that it is. Thus under the new law, yes doctors should be prosecuted.

Most people in jail today will tell you that they're innocent, but that doesn't make it so.

The court says that murdering a child isn't murder. That doesn't make it so.

Who gets to decide, then, what is murder and what isn't? Do you or I have that right? Is what we decide to be the law of the land?

Well I simply define murder. What is murder? If it is a human (√), and it's alive (√), and it had not committed any crime worthy of death (√), then... it's murder.

Do you have an alternative to the text book version of murder? Or are you asking why murder is wrong?

 

[PLC1]

I'd vote for that! Sadly, I have to conclude that the IRS is only doing what the government mandates. Instead lets put the politicians on trial!



Agreed. But this is why conservatives support the lowest possible taxes, and the smallest government possible.

Yes, conservatives do support the lowest possible taxes, and smallest government possible. There are very few conservatives left in Washington, but that's another story altogether.

No, liberals are trying to impose their view of marriage on the rest of society. I just don't want "marriage" to change. Leave things the way they are. One man, one woman, is what marriage is.

What you are claiming is that we are imposing our views, on people, when our views is what already is.

If I start running around saying red means stop, and green means go. "GAH! You are imposing your views on society!"... no... red has always meant stop and green always meant go. I'm not imposing anything, just supporting the current meaning.

Now you come along and say purple means stop and white means go, and claiming that I am the one trying to impose my view. Sorry, that doesn't work.

I'm saying one man, one woman, is what marriage is, because that's what marriage is. I'm imposing nothing because it's always been that way. You are claiming to change it to mean something else. YOU are the one imposing a view on society. Not me.



This seems a sad commentary on the progress of society. You realize that not even 100 years ago, that mothers actually would want to give their lives for the child? There was a time in America when mothers thought it their highest calling to risk death for their child. Now, in a selfish ruled society, the mother is far more important. If she doesn't want the child, kill it. If it might endanger her, kill it. If it might cramp her style, or ruin her social life, kill it.

I'm not going to argue with the 'collection of cells' crap, because anyone who studies abortion knows that by the time you can abort a baby, it has it's own heart, arms and legs, and can feel pain.

I was adopted, and perhaps my biological mother was raped. Is it ok to kill me? If not, why then a child at any other level of development?

A doctor that performed this under this law, did so under the current law. It should be changed to reflect it being murder that it is. Thus under the new law, yes doctors should be prosecuted.



The court says that murdering a child isn't murder. That doesn't make it so.



Well I simply define murder. What is murder? If it is a human (√), and it's alive (√), and it had not committed any crime worthy of death (√), then... it's murder.

Do you have an alternative to the text book version of murder? Or are you asking why murder is wrong?

And, along with the conservative view that the government should be the smallest possible, and taxes lowest possible, is the opposing view that government should impose an absolutist policy on abortion, and should make decisions about marriage that are not within its purview. That is the conflict of values I've been talking about.

 

[Andy]

And, along with the conservative view that the government should be the smallest possible, and taxes lowest possible, is the opposing view that government should impose an absolutist policy on abortion, and should make decisions about marriage that are not within its purview. That is the conflict of values I've been talking about.

Again, marriage is what it is. Government doesn't have to impose anything because marriage is one man and one woman. That's simply what it is. For government to "impose" nothing, is to leave it one man and one woman.

Only if government were to impose it being one man and one man, could it be imposing something. It's like imposing day be morning till night. That's not imposing anything. That's simply what day is. Only if government imposes that day also includes night till morning could it be imposing something on the populous by changing what is, to what isn't.

Aborting falls under enforcing the law. Namely the protection of life. This should be an absolute policy unless you claim that there are non-legal reasons for your life to be taken from you. Is that what you wish to claim? If not, then why should have have other situations where someone else's life should be taken from them unjustifiably? This hypocritical and a double standard. So let's have murder be murder, and be uniformly illegal.

 

[PLC1]

Again, marriage is what it is. Government doesn't have to impose anything because marriage is one man and one woman. That's simply what it is. For government to "impose" nothing, is to leave it one man and one woman.

Only if government were to impose it being one man and one man, could it be imposing something. It's like imposing day be morning till night. That's not imposing anything. That's simply what day is. Only if government imposes that day also includes night till morning could it be imposing something on the populous by changing what is, to what isn't.

Who says that marriage is what it is? Is it the duty of government to maintain tradition? Is it the view of the government that marriage is what it is? of the writers of dictionaries? of the churches? Of a consensus among citizens? Who has decided what marriage is?

How is that decision in the purview of the federal government?

Things change with time. Words change meaning, mores, values, goals, ideals, all change with time. It is not up to the government to decide what may and may not change.

Aborting falls under enforcing the law. Namely the protection of life. This should be an absolute policy unless you claim that there are non-legal reasons for your life to be taken from you. Is that what you wish to claim? If not, then why should have have other situations where someone else's life should be taken from them unjustifiably? This hypocritical and a double standard. So let's have murder be murder, and be uniformly illegal.

If the law doesn't say that abortion is illegal, how is outlawing it enforcing the law?

As for instances when abortion is OK, even according to most "conservatives", there is rape, incest, or life threatening medical complications. Are we to allow the government, or the individual to decide when such instances are justified?

The conservative philosophy would leave that difficult decision up to the individual, wouldn't it? I can see a controlling, powerful government deciding who must continue a pregnancy, but certainly not a limited, conservative one.

 

[Andy]

Who says that marriage is what it is?

Who to say it isn't what it is? Why do homosexuals have the right to dictate to everyone else, what it is?

Is it the duty of government to maintain tradition?

Is it the duty of government to change tradition? I wasn't aware the constitution granted that right to the federal government.

Is it the view of the government that marriage is what it is?

Government shouldn't change what marriage is to begin with, and thus it's view is irrelevant.

of the writers of dictionaries? of the churches? Of a consensus among citizens? Who has decided what marriage is?

I'd add in history and nature. How about you tell me who created 'marriage'. Who created the very first marriage?

How is that decision in the purview of the federal government?

It's not, which is why it should remain unchanged.

Things change with time. Words change meaning, mores, values, goals, ideals, all change with time. It is not up to the government to decide what may and may not change.

It's not up to government to decide...

Good, then it shouldn't decide to change it.

If the law doesn't say that abortion is illegal, how is outlawing it enforcing the law?

Does legalizing one type of murder mean murder is legal? Abortion being legal, and murder being illegal, is a legal contradiction.

All speeding is illegal... unless your in a Hummer, in which case, since you'll be safe, it's not illegal. Granted it might harm others if you speed, but since you won't be harmed, then laws against speeding do not apply to you. That would be a legal contradiction.

Same is true of the constitution and slavery. The constitution and our declaration of independence, both agreed that all men are created equal, and our nation was based on equality under the law. Yet we had legal slavery, which was a legal contradiction at the time. One that was rectified by the abolishment of slavery.

Legal Abortion and murder being illegal, is a legal contradiction that should be rectified.

As for instances when abortion is OK, even according to most "conservatives", there is rape, incest, or life threatening medical complications. Are we to allow the government, or the individual to decide when such instances are justified?

Funny how many animals will die to protect their young, and us brilliant sophisticated humans, with our cheezy pride and selfishness, can come up with so many lame excuses for murdering out young.

I disagree with all murder. Rape, Incest, and just plain being selfish, are not valid reasons for murder. Further, if you've done any real research into women in those situations who commit infanticed, their research and personal testimonies show that instead of feeling better about it, they feel much worse. Now not only were their horrendously been taken advantage of, but now they are not innocent over the babies life. Abortion does not help these people. In fact, it has long term harm to their physiological well being.

As far as life threatening medical complications, that's such a tiny fraction of a fraction of a fraction, that most question if there is any validity to the point at all. Some of the largest hospitals in the US have not been able to report a single instance. As best I can remember, Abdominal pregnancy happens one in roughly 10,000, and only one in two hundred or so of those is actually life threatening. Life threatening being that it could threaten the life of the mother, not that it would.

That said, life threatening pregnancies are clearly identifiable, and thus, if you wished to make that case, I would be more willing to make that exception since we can't justify murdering the mother to protect a baby that would likely die anyway.

The conservative philosophy would leave that difficult decision up to the individual, wouldn't it? I can see a controlling, powerful government deciding who must continue a pregnancy, but certainly not a limited, conservative one.

So your suggestion is... we should allow whether murder is justified, to be determined by the individual. Why yes, I'm sure that will play very well in prison populations across the country. If only you had sent that up to Timothy McVeigh's lawyers before he was executed.

Perhaps we should have left slavery up to the individuals as well. We can redefine a person to be 3/5ths while we're at it.

 

[PLC1]

I sense that we're going around in circles, so, in order to avoid bringing up the same points over and over, I'll shorten my response to...

Is it the duty of government to change tradition? I wasn't aware the constitution granted that right to the federal government.

It doesn't, of course, neither does it grant the government the right to change tradition. Government should stay out of it altogether, IMO, and I think that's the conservative opinion as well.

Government shouldn't change what marriage is to begin with, and thus it's view is irrelevant.

Absolutely, its view is irrelevant. That's what I've been saying all along.

I'd add in history and nature. How about you tell me who created 'marriage'. Who created the very first marriage?

Probably Og, the medicine man. Whenever and whoever it was, it was no doubt before humans invented writing, so we can only speculate.

It's not up to government to decide...

Once again, we're in agreement.


...then add one more of the contradictions I pointed out in the OP, to wit:

A true conservative must dismiss scientific research in the age of the internet and space travel in order to believe that global climate change is not real and that evolution is a flawed theory.