Although conservatism is often conflated with social conservatism, these days it leans a lot harder in the direction of fiscal restraint. Which is a-okay with me. I’m not a social conservative. Specifically, on the two big issues of social cons, gay marriage and abortion, my positions can be summed up as:
- If marriage is a sacred religious institution, and I believe it is, we should have civil unions entirely separate and apart from church marriage. We should get the government out of the sacrament business, as Ed Morrissey, a Catholic, once wrote. That said, legal protections need to be put in place to protect religious’ folks conscience and not require them to endorse homosexuality, which the bible clearly calls sin.
- Abortion takes a human life, it is evil, wrong, sinful, etc. However, I do not think that the ongoing fight to outlaw it legally is useful or effective. I think our focus is better turned to spreading technology (like free ultrasounds), using moral suasion, and providing better options to the practical problems experienced by pregnant women.
That said, there’s an excellent post with a good discussion at Hot Air by my fellow Green Room contributor Repurblican on CPAC, and how the right treats gays. Go check it out.
A major reason for gov’t to be involved in marriage is not because it’s a sacrament, but because it produces productive citizens. A culture that doesn’t promote its own reproduction dies out.
A stable male/female union has the highest rate of productive citizens with a minimum of gov’t input.
If we did manage to get gov’t out of marriage, we’d just be shoving every married couple into the same situation as single mothers when it comes to child support. Not a very good idea, given the laws in place– talk about a huge additional waste of money.
As for abortion… every example I can think of where there was disagreement as to the human rights of a group of humans was solved violently. I’d love for this to be the one example where folks smacked themselves upside the head and realized: we’re talking about chopping up humans. None of my rights, profits or desires are worth taking the life of someone who did me no wrong.
Not holding my breath, though.
.-= Foxfier´s last blog ..You’re Not The Majority Culture Anymore- =-.
I pretty much agree with Foxier. I’ve been meaning to post about a similar topic lately, and will attempt to do so soon. As far as I’m concerned, we ought to model our laws off those of Moses.
The case against SSM is strictly based on the welfare of children, and the case against abortion is strict analytical philosophy and biology. No “sacraments” are involved in the arguments whatsoever. Political pundits like Morrissey are sometimes not familiar with the state of these debates in academic literature.
.-= Wintery Knight´s last blog ..Mark Steyn writes on the West’s failure to contain Iran’s nuclear ambitions =-.
I think the world is about to end…. Drew and I are agreeing…… 0.o
.-= Foxfier´s last blog ..You’re Not The Majority Culture Anymore- =-.
Wonders will never cease.
I’m still not understanding why real conservatives would even consider the homosexual community as a political group; it’s completely retarded that someone should get extra consideration on any scale because of how they acheive orgasm. It’s especially worrisome that if anyone working as a government official would try to make this lifestyle seem “normal” and thus acceptable, allowing children to believe this. They are only making a path for rampant molestation when they give these perverts any credence.
Folks who happen to be homosexual: not a political group, anymore than folks of X ancestry or Y religion are a political group.
Those who define themselves by X or Y and the promotion of the same? Duh, they’re political groups.
Pretty much anything that motivates a group of folks has to be considered as a political group; nature of the beast.
Unless I’m misunderstanding and you mean considering it in terms of why they’re planning a way to tap the group?
.-= Foxfier´s last blog ..You’re Not The Majority Culture Anymore- =-.
lets review…
any group that can be categorized is a political group, because if they shout loud enough about issues they care about some politicians will try to cater to them to get their vote
I’m only 28 and my high school health education book had a section regarding how everyone is a certain percentage homo/heterosexual and that this is normal. Of course that was over 10 years ago. Hoping that it “isn’t viewed as normal” is over. We can try to slow the spread of that view.
We know from the Bible that the law is weak and thus we need grace. Frankly, I believe we failed as a Christian society to convince the minds of the minority that certain things are sinful and choice when the law backed the Christian view. Meanwhile, the minority has convinced society that things are “human nature” (which we as Christian’s know isn’t far from the truth) and genetic, thus, not a matter of choice.
I think for Christians to look to the law to legislate christian values (re: abortion, homosexuality, etc) is the lazy way out much like homosexuals making their fight for “equal rights” a civil rights issue comparable to that of the last century is the lazy way out.
In New Jersey for example, although there are Civil Unions, that’s not enough, instead of fighting for “equality” they rather fight to be “called” married. That’s like Martin Luther King leading a movement to have people refer to black people as white people to attain equal rights as whites.
On the other hand, I don’t think Christians should be as silent, divided and, thus, agreeable as we are when rights are taken away from us. Meanwhile we should be aware of the spiritual warfare going on and who ‘the enemy’ really is in the whole matter. On both sides of the issue I think the ‘political’ groups are fighting for the wrong things because it’s easier.