Progressives: The Anti-Liberals

[Dr.Who]

How is it, then, that the same people who claim to be in favor of limited government, i.e., "conservative", also want the government to control social issues such as abortion and gay marriage? Isn't that a contradictory position if you look at the issue as a one dimensional, right to left continuum? Logically, the limited government philosophy would leave "social" issues up to the individual, would be in favor of leaving such decisions as drug of choice and gun ownership up to the individual as well. Interestingly enough, the above issues get labeled as "right" or "left" in a kind of random pattern:

Abortion is only a social issue in the minds of those who want to control social issues. to conservatives it is merely protecting the rights of unborn living humans to stay alive. it is no more a social issue than stopping murder is a social issue.

Gay marriage is a social issue and should be taken out of control of the gov. However, it does have a long history as an issue of protecting the rights of women and children. so once it was not just a social issue.

But I think your illustration proves very well that all economic issues become social and vice versa (Gen just said that).

The only solution is to have clear limits on what powers gov can have and competing parties that will check each other.

Right now the clear limits have been increasingly unclear (abuse of the gen wel clause) and the competing parties have such lopsided power that we are due for some (more) serious consequences soon.

 

[GenSeneca]

How is it, then, that the same people who claim to be in favor of limited government, i.e., "conservative", also want the government to control social issues such as abortion and gay marriage?....

The good Dr. is entirely correct on abortion... Its a matter of individual rights vs. property rights. The Left made the same argument to keep blacks in slavery, blacks were considered property, not people:

Dred Scott v. Sandford,[1] 60 U.S. (How. 19) 393 (1857), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court that ruled that people of African descent imported into the United States and held as slaves, or their descendants[2]—whether or not they were slaves—were not legal persons and could never be citizens of the United States. It also held that the United States Congress had no authority to prohibit slavery in federal territories. The Court also ruled that because slaves were not citizens, they could not sue in court. Lastly, the Court ruled that slaves—as chattel or private property—could not be taken away from their owners without due process.

As for gay marriage, the primary complaint from every conservative I talk to is about the actual word "marriage" being re-defined to include same sex couples.

They don't have a problem with gay's having all the same legal benefits as straight couples through a civil union or other ceremony.

It's not consistent until you do look at issues on a three dimensional scale.

I don't think you fully grasp the concept and effects of Progressive policies in government. The Progressives on the Right gave us prohibition... social puritans that they were used the power of government to force their social agenda on everyone else. I have said repeatedly that such elements still exist on the political right.

It doesn't matter whether its on the Right or the Left, the Progressives are the statists in both parties. They are the ones looking to use the power of government to force their will on others.

Is a "Y" 3 dimensional? Because the bottom of the Y is Anarchy, the two forks are the left and right, and both forks end at the top which is 100% government. The point where the 3 lines intersect is minimal government. With the two parties moving up on each side, the "Centrists" are on the same X axis but well above the point of minimum government... which means even the "centrists" are moving toward 100% government.

Viewed from the side, a Y look like a line and the opposite ends still mean the same thing.

 

[GenSeneca]

Frankly, I think the states are a bad idea. States, and the electoral college, are anti-democratic institutions. The US is the only major demcracy in the world which still retains such an idea. State boundaries should be redrawn as necessary to conform with the one-person one-vote ideal.

The US is not a democracy, we are a Republic with democratically elected representatives. The electoral college protects the rights of the minority, as do many other safeguards that are part of being a Republic.

American republicanism was founded and first practiced by the Founding Fathers in the 18th century. This system was based on early Roman and English models and ideas. It formed the basis for the American Revolution and the consequential Declaration of Independence (1776) and the Constitution (1787), as well as the Gettysburg Address. It is not the same as democracy, for republicanism asserts that people have inalienable rights that cannot be voted away by a majority of voters.

Democracy is nothing more than a tyranny of the majority. Because those with wants and needs will always outnumber those with means and ability, democracy is a shortcut to socialism. Socialism is slavery. Those with the ability are enslaved by those with the needs: To each according to his needs, from each according to his abilities.

 

[PLC1]

The good Dr. is entirely correct on abortion... Its a matter of individual rights vs. property rights. The Left made the same argument to keep blacks in slavery, blacks were considered property, not people:

I'm not sure I understand that argument. Is it that a fetus is "property", or is the woman's body her property?

As for gay marriage, the primary complaint from every conservative I talk to is about the actual word "marriage" being re-defined to include same sex couples.

They don't have a problem with gay's having all the same legal benefits as straight couples through a civil union or other ceremony.

That is what they say, that a gay marriage redefines the term "marriage", and is therefore a change. It seems to be the change that they are against. I'm not so sure that argument holds water, as words change meanings all of the time. The English language is a living language, after all, and is therefore constantly changing.

Nevertheless, it is hard to fathom just what the difference would be to give gay couples the same rights as straights, allow them to have a wedding ceremony, and call their union anything but marriage. Such a lot of fuss over one little word.

I don't think you fully grasp the concept and effects of Progressive policies in government. The Progressives on the Right gave us prohibition... social puritans that they were used the power of government to force their social agenda on everyone else. I have said repeatedly that such elements still exist on the political right.

It doesn't matter whether its on the Right or the Left, the Progressives are the statists in both parties. They are the ones looking to use the power of government to force their will on others.

OK, that makes sense. If the progressives are the statist in both parties, as you say, then it follows that a majority of both parties are really progressives, whether they admit it or not, and it is the progressives who are a danger to liberty.

Like "marriage", terms like progressive, liberal, conservative, and ad infinitim have different meanings to different people. The concept of a big daddy government running our lives is the problem, regardless of the terms used to describe it.

Is a "Y" 3 dimensional? Because the bottom of the Y is Anarchy, the two forks are the left and right, and both forks end at the top which is 100% government. The point where the 3 lines intersect is minimal government. With the two parties moving up on each side, the "Centrists" are on the same X axis but well above the point of minimum government... which means even the "centrists" are moving toward 100% government.

Viewed from the side, a Y look like a line and the opposite ends still mean the same thing.

To make the model three dimensional requires a Z axis as well. In my political model, there are three continuums: There is the X axis that is the traditional limited government to big government, with fiscal conservatives on one end, fiscal liberals on the other. The Y axis is libertarian to authoritarian, one end being in favor of the government controlling such as abortion, firearms, drugs, and just about everything else, while the other would be against government control of those things. People on the libertarian end would oppose any limit to freedom that doesn't impinge on the freedom of anyone else. The Z axis is ideologue vs pragmatist, with one end favoring what works regardless of ideology, while the other end is against anything that conflicts with their position on the X and Y axes.

Actually, I think maybe a fourth dimension is in order. We do, after all, live in a four dimensional world, at least according to Einstein. That one would be strictly foreign policy, with one end being isolationist, the other neoconservative.

When issues get lumped together as "liberal" or "conservative", often there are conflicts, as some issues fit in an authoritarian/conservative/ideologue segment, others in a libertarian/conservative/pragmatist segment.

The world is not one dimensional, black and white, but four dimensional (at least) and multi colored. It is a much more interesting world than the one inhabited by those who dismiss anyone who disagrees with their point of view as "liberal", "conservative", or anything else.

 

[GenSeneca]

You might check out this political test:

http://www.politicalcompass.org/test

On which I was:

Economic Left/Right: -7.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.79

That's a horribly slanted and flawed "test" of ones political standing...

Anyone interested in finding their "political compass" would be better served reading the many different political ideologies and deciding which one, or ones, they found most compatible to their own beliefs.

Capitalism is an economic system in which wealth, and the means of producing wealth, are privately owned.[1][2] Through capitalism, the land, labor, and capital are owned, operated, and traded for the purpose of generating profits, without force or fraud, by private individuals either singly or jointly,[3][4] and investments, distribution, income, production, pricing and supply of goods, commodities and services are determined by voluntary private decision in a market economy.[5] A distinguishing feature of capitalism is that each person owns his or her own labor and therefore is allowed to sell the use of it to employers.[3][6] In a "capitalist state", private rights and property relations are protected by the rule of law of a limited regulatory framework.[7][8] In the modern capitalist state, legislative action is confined to defining and enforcing the basic rules of the market,[7][8] though the state may provide some public goods and infrastructure.[9]

Now that's about the perfect ideology right there... just toss in a little Libertarian respect for individual rights and the Conservatives respect for the constitution and founding principles and CaLiCo is just a little bit better than perfect.

 

[GenSeneca]

I'm not sure I understand that argument. Is it that a fetus is "property", or is the woman's body her property?

Typically, the fetus (which is a living individual) is said to be "just a clump of non-viable cells" and therefore nothing more than property to be disposed of or kept at the whim of the woman.

That is what they say, that a gay marriage redefines the term "marriage", and is therefore a change.

Marriage has been between a man and a woman for centuries... Once its between two non-gender-specific people, what's to stop it from being between 3 or more? While that may sound like a stretch, I see how quickly we cater to the Muslim religion and understand that its only a matter of time before they make the case that its religious persecution to disallow them the ability to have multiple wives.

I'm not so sure that argument holds water, as words change meanings all of the time.

Such as?

The English language is a living language, after all, and is therefore constantly changing.

I hear this argument made most often about our own constitution and the same counter-argument applies: If its meaning is constantly changing, then it means anything and nothing at the same time.

Such a lot of fuss over one little word.

Yes it is... It should be a big deal... I'm a believer in Individual rights, if the collectivists ever tried to change the meaning of individual to mean anything other than what it does, I'd have a real problem with that.

OK, that makes sense. If the progressives are the statist in both parties, as you say, then it follows that a majority of both parties are really progressives, whether they admit it or not, and it is the progressives who are a danger to liberty.

Progressives in both parties are the clear MINORITY but they've so demonized the other side that non-statists in their own party go along with the progressive agenda... "They're gonna force God down your throat, we'll protect you!" The other side: "They're gonna force Gays down your throat, we'll protect you!" Nobody is saying what needs to be said: "They're both going to use the power of government to force their views down your throat, we need to dismantle the governments power to force the views of whoever is in power on the rest."

Like "marriage", terms like progressive, liberal, conservative, and ad infinitim have different meanings to different people.

We've reached that point because people like you thought people like me were making a big deal over a little word.

The world is not one dimensional, black and white, but four dimensional (at least) and multi colored. It is a much more interesting world than the one inhabited by those who dismiss anyone who disagrees with their point of view as "liberal", "conservative", or anything else.

That's all well and good but the Congress, who makes our laws, is two dimensional.... well... one dimensional since both are moving toward unsustainable big government policies.

 

[samsara15]

A long time ago, I read Candide, by Voltaire. This world falls a long way short of what it could be.

I'm trying to get my wife, who does not drive, a simple ID from MVA. Do you know how much trouble they make this simple task? All the forms of ID and bills required? How easily it is for the real ID thiefs to get this sort of documents, and how much trouble it is for law abiding citizens who don't keep all this stuff on hand? Simple, out of control, beaureauacrocy? Who's going to control this?

 

[GenSeneca]

A long time ago, I read Candide, by Voltaire. This world falls a long way short of what it could be.

I'm trying to get my wife, who does not drive, a simple ID from MVA. Do you know how much trouble they make this simple task? All the forms of ID and bills required? How easily it is for the real ID thiefs to get this sort of documents, and how much trouble it is for law abiding citizens who don't keep all this stuff on hand? Simple, out of control, beaureauacrocy? Who's going to control this?

I'm not sure what prompted this particular response from you Sam but it seems you've always been one to champion the idea of greater bureaucracy and more government control, not less...

 

[PLC1]

Typically, the fetus (which is a living individual) is said to be "just a clump of non-viable cells" and therefore nothing more than property to be disposed of or kept at the whim of the woman.

If someone else believes that a fetus is not, in fact, an individual just yet, who are you to dictate your moral values and impose them by force of law? You just lost five libertarian points for that point of view, and have joined the right wing in trying to force their values on the rest of society.

Further, if you can't see that outlawing something, including abortion, doesn't end it but merely forces it underground, I may start doubting your libertarian credentials altogether.

Marriage has been between a man and a woman for centuries... Once its between two non-gender-specific people, what's to stop it from being between 3 or more? While that may sound like a stretch, I see how quickly we cater to the Muslim religion and understand that its only a matter of time before they make the case that its religious persecution to disallow them the ability to have multiple wives.

Your paragraph is self contradictory. Which is it: Marriage has been between a man and a woman for centuries, or

We'll wind up catering to the Muslims and allow multiple wives?

Some cultures, including but not limited to Muslims, believe in polygamy. That is not a marriage between a man and a woman.

Further, even if it had been so always, does that mean it always has to be that way? That sort of argument could be, and often is, used against any sort of changes.

Such as?

liberal, conservative, socialist, and progressive are four.

Marriage has been between a man and a woman for centuriesI hear this argument made most often about our own constitution and the same counter-argument applies: If its meaning is constantly changing, then it means anything and nothing at the same time.

Any living language is changing. Words have multiple meanings, and have different meanings to different people.

Yes it is... It should be a big deal... I'm a believer in Individual rights, if the collectivists ever tried to change the meaning of individual to mean anything other than what it does, I'd have a real problem with that.

Yes, I would too. OK, so if the big deal is the word, then let's invent a new one. The government does that all of the time, after all.

Progressives in both parties are the clear MINORITY but they've so demonized the other side that non-statists in their own party go along with the progressive agenda... "They're gonna force God down your throat, we'll protect you!" The other side: "They're gonna force Gays down your throat, we'll protect you!" Nobody is saying what needs to be said: "They're both going to use the power of government to force their views down your throat, we need to dismantle the governments power to force the views of whoever is in power on the rest."

If they're a clear minority, then how is it that they are so successful at increasing government power? Yes, they are both trying to use the power of government to force their own views down the throats of the rest of us, while at the same time accusing the other side of doing so. So far, the strategy seems to be working.

And yes, we need to dismantle the government's power to force the views of whoever is in power on the rest.

That's all well and good but the Congress, who makes our laws, is two dimensional.... well... one dimensional since both are moving toward unsustainable big government policies.

I don't believe that. Congressmen have a variety of views on a variety of issues. Seldom are they all "right" or all "left" on every issue.

 

[GenSeneca]

If someone else believes that a fetus is not, in fact, an individual just yet, who are you to dictate your moral values and impose them by force of law?

Based on DNA, at conception, a unique, living individual is formed. That's just not arguable. If you want to argue, again, that such a determination does not account for concepts such as the soul, then I must ask again why such the soul is not taken into account for a determination of ones death.

You just lost five libertarian points for that point of view, and have joined the right wing in trying to force their values on the rest of society.

I suppose you would have the same complaint about those trying to end slavery as well... after all, those who were arguing that blacks were people, not property, were trying to force their moral values on others.

Further, if you can't see that outlawing something, including abortion, doesn't end it but merely forces it underground, I may start doubting your libertarian credentials altogether.

Doubt away... I'm not here to impress you or anyone else... and if you think a single issue dispute over the application of individual rights disqualifies someone from being a Libertarian... Then don't expect new crowds of disenfranchised voters to start flocking to the Libertarian Party.

Also, you should stop jumping to conclusions about my methodology. Did I say I wanted abortion outlawed altogether? No I did not, you jumped to that conclusion rather than asking how I would approach the problem.

Your paragraph is self contradictory. Which is it: Marriage has been between a man and a woman for centuries, or

We'll wind up catering to the Muslims and allow multiple wives?

Marriage has traditionally been between a man and a woman, and if we change the actual definition to accommodate the gays, then the Muslims, and other polygamists, will demand we further change it to accommodate them... otherwise they will cry discrimination. I don't see any contradictions there, merely extrapolations.

Do you ever ask gay's why its so important they get "married" rather than have a civil union? If you think we're hung up on a word... why don't you ask the gays why they are also so hung up on the same word and ask why they won't settle for civil unions with the exact same legal status?

Some cultures, including but not limited to Muslims, believe in polygamy. That is not a marriage between a man and a woman.

I mentioned the Muslims because we bend over backwards to accommodate them. I don't think its a stretch to say they would use the same tactic of crying discrimination in order to get their way. If it were only Mormons, or other Christians, who wanted Polygamy... They wouldn't stand a chance because its totally cool to discriminate and poke fun at Christians, especially Mormons.

Further, even if it had been so always, does that mean it always has to be that way?

That entirely depends on the specifics. Can we change the definition of the word "Identical" to include things that are exact opposites?

That sort of argument could be, and often is, used against any sort of changes.

Not all changes are bad but just because its "change" doesn't mean its for the better.

liberal, conservative, socialist, and progressive are four.

Those are all political ideologies, marriage is not. Do you have a different word, one that's non political, that you can point to where the definition has been changed?

Furthermore, a Conservative in America does not believe the same things as a Conservative in other countries.

Lastly, the words themselves did not have their definitions changed, the meanings are simply being ignored and therefore misapplied. I can call an orange an apple, but even if enough people do that, the orange is no more an apple than before... the word is just being misapplied.

Any living language is changing. Words have multiple meanings, and have different meanings to different people.

Well, that's just smurftastic. What do you say we smurf on down to the corner smurf and get some smurf for the weekend? We could invite over some smurfs, then all smurf ourselves silly and get all smurfed up.

A rock cannot be a rock and a leaf at the same time. A lightbulb cannot be both turned on, and off, at the same time. We need words to have specific meaning and we can't cater to morons who misapply the definitions of words. If you think our nation has been dumbed down now... continue with that "living language" garbage and we'll end up in an Idiocracy sooner than you think.

Yes, I would too. OK, so if the big deal is the word, then let's invent a new one. The government does that all of the time, after all.

That would be just fine with me.

If they're a clear minority, then how is it that they are so successful at increasing government power?

Because of what you said after this... Both parties are excellent at using fear and the promise of rewards in order to keep the sheeple in line.

Yes, they are both trying to use the power of government to force their own views down the throats of the rest of us, while at the same time accusing the other side of doing so. So far, the strategy seems to be working.

The Leftists around here like to point out that only 21% identify themselves as Republicans... What they are not telling you is that only 32% identify themselves as Democrats... Both Democrats and Republicans are on the decline in this regard... The fastest growing is that of "Independent". Hopefully that's because Americans are beginning to recognize both parties as nothing more than different sides of the same coin.

And yes, we need to dismantle the government's power to force the views of whoever is in power on the rest.

The federal government should be limited to protecting individuals from force and fraud. If individual states want to create a welfare state and have mandates on economic and social behavior, then let them do so with the expressed understanding that they don't get bailed out by the other states when they fail.

I don't believe that. Congressmen have a variety of views on a variety of issues. Seldom are they all "right" or all "left" on every issue.

But for all intents and purposes, there are only 2 parties in Washington. You have option A or option B to vote with... There is no C, D, E or F to also choose from.

 

[PLC1]

Based on DNA, at conception, a unique, living individual is formed. That's just not arguable. If you want to argue, again, that such a determination does not account for concepts such as the soul, then I must ask again why such the soul is not taken into account for a determination of ones death.


I suppose you would have the same complaint about those trying to end slavery as well... after all, those who were arguing that blacks were people, not property, were trying to force their moral values on others.


Doubt away... I'm not here to impress you or anyone else... and if you think a single issue dispute over the application of individual rights disqualifies someone from being a Libertarian... Then don't expect new crowds of disenfranchised voters to start flocking to the Libertarian Party.

Also, you should stop jumping to conclusions about my methodology. Did I say I wanted abortion outlawed altogether? No I did not, you jumped to that conclusion rather than asking how I would approach the problem.

Guilty as charged. I did jump to the conclusion that, since you are arguing that life begins at conception, you would apply that opinion to the issue of outlawing abortion.

Actually, I agree that abortion is a serious step, not to be undertaken lightly for a variety of reasons. It is appalling how many pregnancies actually do end that way.

That said, just how would you approach the problem?

Marriage has traditionally been between a man and a woman, and if we change the actual definition to accommodate the gays, then the Muslims, and other polygamists, will demand we further change it to accommodate them... otherwise they will cry discrimination. I don't see any contradictions there, merely extrapolations.

That could happen. What would be so wrong with polygamy? What's wrong with polygamy among consenting adults?

The Mormons were run out of the country, quite literally, mostly due to the practice of polygamy, then, when the US caught up with them in Utah, abandoned the practice. Why should they have to do that? How is polygamy, again involving consenting adults, no child brides, impinging on the freedom of the rest of us? If the term "marriage" is a problem, let's just call it something else.

Do you ever ask gay's why its so important they get "married" rather than have a civil union? If you think we're hung up on a word... why don't you ask the gays why they are also so hung up on the same word and ask why they won't settle for civil unions with the exact same legal status?

Actually, I don't know any gays, at least not openly gay people. How about it, readers? Any gays out there who could answer GenSeneca's question? Personally, I don't see why one word should create such a hangup.

I mentioned the Muslims because we bend over backwards to accommodate them. I don't think its a stretch to say they would use the same tactic of crying discrimination in order to get their way. If it were only Mormons, or other Christians, who wanted Polygamy... They wouldn't stand a chance because its totally cool to discriminate and poke fun at Christians, especially Mormons.

I'm not so sure. Is it cool to discriminate against Christians? I don't think discrimination is cool, regardless of the target.

Of course, if Christians want to impose Christianity on everyone, making a case that the US is a "Christian Nation" and so on, then someone needs to tell them that they're wrong.

That entirely depends on the specifics. Can we change the definition of the word "Identical" to include things that are exact opposites?

Sure, if everyone agrees that is what the words mean, then the meaning has changed. Language is very democratic.

Not all changes are bad but just because its "change" doesn't mean its for the better.

Nor does it necessarily mean it is for the worse.

Those are all political ideologies, marriage is not. Do you have a different word, one that's non political, that you can point to where the definition has been changed?

How about gay? Blowing someone off? Those terms have radically different meanings today from what I remember as a youth. Surfing has taken on a secondary meaning.

That's just off the top of my head. There must be thousands of words that have changed in meaning, not to mention how many have several meanings.

Furthermore, a Conservative in America does not believe the same things as a Conservative in other countries.

No, it doesn't, nor does it mean the same thing it did fifty years ago.

Lastly, the words themselves did not have their definitions changed, the meanings are simply being ignored and therefore misapplied. I can call an orange an apple, but even if enough people do that, the orange is no more an apple than before... the word is just being misapplied.


Well, that's just smurftastic. What do you say we smurf on down to the corner smurf and get some smurf for the weekend? We could invite over some smurfs, then all smurf ourselves silly and get all smurfed up.

A rock cannot be a rock and a leaf at the same time. A lightbulb cannot be both turned on, and off, at the same time. We need words to have specific meaning and we can't cater to morons who misapply the definitions of words. If you think our nation has been dumbed down now... continue with that "living language" garbage and we'll end up in an Idiocracy sooner than you think.

Perhaps.

What does "up" mean?

That would be just fine with me.

Me too. We agree

Because of what you said after this... Both parties are excellent at using fear and the promise of rewards in order to keep the sheeple in line.


The Leftists around here like to point out that only 21% identify themselves as Republicans... What they are not telling you is that only 32% identify themselves as Democrats... Both Democrats and Republicans are on the decline in this regard... The fastest growing is that of "Independent". Hopefully that's because Americans are beginning to recognize both parties as nothing more than different sides of the same coin.

Hopefully so.

The federal government should be limited to protecting individuals from force and fraud. If individual states want to create a welfare state and have mandates on economic and social behavior, then let them do so with the expressed understanding that they don't get bailed out by the other states when they fail.

Should be. I don't see that happening any time soon, though, do you?

But for all intents and purposes, there are only 2 parties in Washington. You have option A or option B to vote with... There is no C, D, E or F to also choose from.

There may be only two parties, but there are many issues, and there is less and less difference between those two parties. As you wrote above, "Both parties as nothing more than different sides of the same coin."

Since it is the one word, marriage, that you're so against changing, how about this:

Union between one man and one woman: marriage.
Union between two men: Doubledad
Union between two women: Momnmom
Union between one man and two or more women: Haramocracy
Union between one woman and two or more men: Doubler

All of the above with the same rights and responsibilities, of course.

That way, we could see an announcement like this:

Bob and Joe celebrated their nuptials at a lavish wedding yesterday. Their doubledad ceremony was the major social event of the season. We wish them a long and happy doubledad.

How's that? We've saved the word, and given everyone the right to follow their own heart.

Or, you can come up with your own words if you don't like mine.

 

[GenSeneca]

Guilty as charged.

Would you have considered the argument against slavery to go against Libertarian dogma?

Actually, I agree that abortion is a serious step, not to be undertaken lightly for a variety of reasons. It is appalling how many pregnancies actually do end that way.

95% of abortions are done as a form of birth control. That should be totally unacceptable to society.

That said, just how would you approach the problem?

Primarily... Education. We need to teach both abstinence and safe sex, not just one or the other.

Secondarily... A shift in how the debate is waged. I'd argue from the position of science and Individual Rights and leave religion and morality out of the equation completely.

I have other ideas for the topic as well.

That could happen. What would be so wrong with polygamy? What's wrong with polygamy among consenting adults?

Nothing per se.. but its polygamy, not marriage. No need to redefine marriage because polygamy is already the same thing but with multiple spouses.

The Mormons were run out of the country, quite literally, mostly due to the practice of polygamy, then, when the US caught up with them in Utah, abandoned the practice. Why should they have to do that? How is polygamy, again involving consenting adults, no child brides, impinging on the freedom of the rest of us?

I'd have a harem if it were legal.

Actually, I don't know any gays, at least not openly gay people. How about it, readers? Any gays out there who could answer GenSeneca's question? Personally, I don't see why one word should create such a hangup.

I've only ever run into gays on the internet that complain about the marriage issue. If gays pushed for Civil Unions that were strengthened to have the same advantages/disadvantages of a heterosexual marriage, they would have overwhelming support but that's not what their doing. They're demanding it be called marriage and thereby creating a highly polarized and politicized issue of the topic. After 10 or 20 years of civil unions and calling themselves married, the definition of marriage would probably change to reflect the accepted use of the term.

I'm not so sure. Is it cool to discriminate against Christians? I don't think discrimination is cool, regardless of the target.

Putting a cross in a jar of urine counts as "art" and is subsidized by government grants but a featureless stick figure with the name "Muhammad" is censored as hate speech. There is a clear double standard when it comes to the two religions.

Of course, if Christians want to impose Christianity on everyone, making a case that the US is a "Christian Nation" and so on, then someone needs to tell them that they're wrong.

Name one here on the forum that wants that... Do you know any personally, or have you fallen for the progressivist trick that convinces the non-Christians that the Christians are out to impose their religious views on you?

As for the "Christian" nation... Christians are a majority in our nation, and by that same standard we judge Muslim nations to be Muslim, Hindu nations to Hindu and so on. I think that's another out of context term that the progressives use to "prove" their case for a Christian boogeyman.

Sure, if everyone agrees that is what the words mean, then the meaning has changed. Language is very democratic.

No, the accepted definitions of words change as a result of slang terminology and it happens over time. Ain't still aint a word. We don't all go out and vote (as would be the case in gay marriage) then change the definition.

How about gay? Blowing someone off? Those terms have radically different meanings today from what I remember as a youth. Surfing has taken on a secondary meaning.

Blowing someone off is a term, not a single word. The changes in the definitions of Surfing, Gay (and even blowing someone off) are a result of slang and did not happen overnight.

That's just off the top of my head. There must be thousands of words that have changed in meaning, not to mention how many have several meanings.

How many of those changes took place over night as the result of a ballot initiative?

Should be. I don't see that happening any time soon, though, do you?

It took a long time to get where we are, I'm not looking to return to limited government overnight, just to see movement in that direction would be fantastic.

There may be only two parties, but there are many issues,

I think you miss the point. While there are many issues, there are only two possible positions a congressman can take on any given issue, that of the Republicans or the Democrats. He can take a third position but its doomed to failure.

Since it is the one word, marriage, that you're so against changing, how about this:

What's wrong with civil union? The definition of civil union is precisely what would replace the current definition of marriage.

A marriage is a marriage, a civil union would be a civil union and polygamy is polygamy.

 

[samsara15]

Sam Adams and Tom Paine were also founding fathers, and equalizers. Too liberal, perhaps, even now, for modern Conservatives.

 

[samsara15]

And where do you include Rousseau in your definition of classical liberals and conservatives, Rousseau, the precursor to Marx? Your definition is too narrow, even for the American Revolution, and ignores many threads of thought that were current at that time.

BTW, all those ID requirements at the MVA are a result of the Patriot Act, a Conservative law that creates more government. That is why I cited them. You people talk no goverment, but each time you hold office, you give us more government, usually in the name of 'security'.

 

[GenSeneca]

Sam Adams and Tom Paine were also founding fathers, and equalizers. Too liberal, perhaps, even now, for modern Conservatives.

Give an example of how they would be too liberal.