-2 votes

So What Kind of Social Conservative Are You?

If you describe yourself as a "social conservative", what kind are you?

Do you think the government should be involved in discrimination or regulating people's private lives or do you think we should "live and let live" and JUST focus on Fiscal Issues?

Or.... do you side with Rob Portman and Rand Paul who are both Social Conservatives who have evolved on marriage equality. Rand Paul most recently said he wanted to “shake up the Republican position.”

“I’m an old-fashioned traditionalist. I believe in the historic and religious definition of marriage,” said Paul. “That being said, I’m not for eliminating contracts between adults. I think there are ways to make the tax code more neutral, so it doesn’t mention marriage. Then we don’t have to redefine what marriage is; we just don’t have marriage in the tax code.”


Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

You can "marry" whomever you want. Legal marriage = commerce.


What would the Founders do?

do you care to expound upon that

or are you just passing by?

I guess the poll got truncated.

However the remaining subject is compelling. We have a GOPer who proudly SWORE TO RESIST THIS SCOURGE OF HOMOSEXUALITY UNTIL IT EFFECTED HIM PERSONALLY.

Whereupon he's perfectly comfortable REVERSING HIS POSITION UNEQUIVOCALLY.

Well whatever, it's one more split in this old-guard GOP echo chamber that's had a strangle hold on conservativism for decades. And not like the chambers of house and senate are any strangers to perversity. Seems quite appropriate in fact.

Be brave, be brave, the Myan pilot needs no aeroplane.

OK with the pr0n post I read sex DOLL

Yeah that caught my eye. Hot DP Sex Doll. And I was like yup, here we go right off the deep end again. I mean I'm NOT even gonna share the visual imagery that came up but...

well of course I had to click then. I was prepared, for the millionth time, to be surprised by this movement. As it turns out I need glasses or a new brain or both.

Be brave, be brave, the Myan pilot needs no aeroplane.

most sex dolls are DP, some

most sex dolls are DP, some even TP

HEAVY TRUTH. Rand gets a whole cake for this one.

This is where it happens - we either stand with Rand's truth, or YOU stand with Rand, I stand with truth.
If God DEMANDED that only men love women and women love men, and ONLY this type of love were acceptable to make a lifelong partnership, then it would be impossible for it to happen. That is part of the "free will " package. If you believe it is morally wrong, I urge you NOT to have any form of "homosexual" relationship. But tell me, is a mother living with her daughter a "homosexual" relationship? No, there is no sex, so everyone is good with that. It is so not "liberty minded" to tell other people how they can have sex.
I'm not into it, I have a pretty good deal going with my husband of 30+ years. Want to hear the details? No, I don't want to tell either. And, I don't want o hear about your sex life.
Want to hear how much in love I am? It is a pretty amazing thing, to grow with someone through a lifetime of changes... and I'd love to hear your love story. Love is a great blessing, and the best expression of our Creator we can offer.
What does the gay community need to cede? The truth. There is a BIOLOGICAL unit, that involves procreation, that a homosexual union is not. Using a different word to describe these arrangements is not discrimination, it is discernment of the obvious. Where it becomes a problem all around is the insane desire from both sides to let the government define ANY OF IT.
Rand stood for a deep truth today. Today, I stand with Rand.

Love or fear? Choose again with every breath.

Yes, indeed..

There IS a biological factor that is not compatible between two people of the same sex. However, the pleasure and the love that exists between two people of the same sex can be equal to the opposite sex.

One of my greatest issues is the one in which the government starts defining words that it has no business defining. If you look at the etymology of words, many have changed drastically, bearing no resemblance to its previous meaning. The same process goes for the word marriage. Definitions are in the eye of the beholder, but you must state them for people to understand what you are saying.

-Matthew Good


The more I learn about you the better I like you! It would be a far better world if more people were like our fishyculture! I am not gay and have been with the same spouse for over 30 years. We have kids and some of their friends are gay. Their good "Christian" parents kicked them out at the ripe old age of 13-15 and the kids were left to live on the streets in Dallas. We took several in at different times and learned a lot about being gay. People that are down on gays and transgenders are really just too closed-minded and self-righteous to even TRY to put themselves in their place, OR they fear gays because some of those that are most against them are ATTRACTED to them and are afraid of that.


Massechusets vs. Washington

There's two ways to go about this:

1) Massachusetts: Don't redefine marriage, and instead just give civil unions the same legal rights as marriage. This method allows allows 2 gay people to join together, without redefining a word meant originally to define a specific religious ceremony between a Christian man and woman, and allow the 2 gay people to join and yet retain all the same legal recognition by the state.

2) Washington: Redefine the meaning of the word marriage, and piss off social conservatives.

One method is respectful of the religious practice of others, the other is not.

If you oppose the redefining of words in our modern lexicon, like, "income" which actually means "gains or earnings on some sort of corporate activity", and has nothing to do with hourly wages, which is the fruits of your labor and is your personal private property, (a tactic progressives have used for 100 years), then how can you justify redefining the meaning of the word "marriage"?

My view is that if you want to create acceptance of something new, create a new word, and define it how you want.

Full disclosure: 1) I live in Washington. 2) I don't care what 2 people do in the privacy of their own home. If 2 gay people want to join together, and have the state recognize them, fine, but is it necessary to do so in such a way as to inflame others by redefining a word for a specific religious ceremony? I don't believe this is necessary. I believe that gay people should be free to join together, (I do not wish to use the force of law to stop them, although I may not agree with their lifestyle choices). All I ask is they make up a new word to define their relationship, and not steal (act of theft) a word meant to define the joining of a man and woman before God.

That's my personal opinion. I didn't get it anywhere, but developed my opinion on my own. I believe there are some very libertarian principals inherent in my opinion others may like, and some will abhor. I believe that how Massachusetts did it could lead to more tolerance. I realize not all may agree with my opinion. Please, if you have a different opinion, tell me where you think I am wrong, but don't insult.

In closing, I think the best solution is to abolish all state recognition of marriage and civil unions. What right does the state have to interfere with the joining of 2 people who love each other? I know there are insurance things and death benefits, and stuff like that though. But still, government doesn't have a proper role in marriage. The last wedding I went to (7th Day Adventist) they omitted the whole "by the power invested in me by the state of Washington" crap. I liked that.

Thank you for reading.

I love you.

Where did the state get the right to define ANYTHING?

I take option C:

Love or fear? Choose again with every breath.

I agree, but..

..The other side will argue that it is state recognition of marriage that allows one to collect insurance benefits, social security, retirement, etc, when their spouse dies.

As a gay man who wants to get married to my partner

the words don't matter. civil union, marriage, I don't care what it's called at the end of the day...it's the equality that we want.

All of this will be taken care of though, when SCOTUS takes the DOMA, Prop 8 cases later this month.

Marriage was ruled a fundamental right in Loving v. Virginia back in the 1960's and is covered by the 14th amendment.

In June, I expect SCOTUS to strike down those discriminatory policies.

Better to strike down existing laws than create new ones.

While you may not care, others do. The idea I propose is intended to get you that same equality without riling up Christians and Social Conservatives, and actually possibly providing an avenue of tolerance.

Your idea regarding striking down existing laws over creating new ones is one I've talked about before here on the DP. I think that too is a better solution than creating new laws.

For the record though, Ron Paul co-sponsored DOMA.

These are some

Pretty intolerant people. Two consenting adults wish to enter into a contract: in what universe should a third partie's spiritual beliefs trump the will of the two individuals? If you want to go into your homophobic corner and complain that "gays are ruining everything for the rest of us," then fine, do that, say it all you want. Personally I find that kind of immoral thought process reprehensible. Aren't we here to promote Peace, Love and Tolerance?

I understand a lot of DPers are former social conservatives and neocons. People are gay and want to be free, deal with it.

sorry.. I do not tolerate

sorry.. I do not tolerate perversion. Never will tolerate perversion.
woe to he who calls evil good and good evil. So now go ahead and down vote me. Say I am not a Libertarian. 2 areas I will never retreat from. Abortion and perversion. There is a law against abortion because abortion is murder Period. as far as homosexual marriage goes, It is none of my business what 2 consenting adults do behind their bedroom doors, but do not force me to accept perversion.
Yes I am proud to be a homophobe. The only opinion of me that matters is what God thinks. I stand with God on this issue.

You say you will not tolerate...

So what are you doing about it? Are you voting against same-sex marriage? If you are, then you are no better than the people wanting to take your guns away because THEY will not tolerate you. If you are not voting against it, then yes, you can claim you are a libertarian for this issue.

If a church in your neighborhood wants to marry two individuals that happen to be of the same sex, would you try to stop it or would you tolerate it?

Woe to those that call neutral things evil. They will cause problems where no problems exist.

-Matthew Good

ain't nobody got time for that!

hhhmmm yet you clinked the link: HOT DP SEX POLL ???

everyone knows anyone who's homophobic has their own sexual issues! lol

Which words attracted you here the most? was is HOT POLL?

you can tell us, we won't judge YOU!

He probably read the title as

Hot pole

Question 2?

By labelling your sole question "Question 1" you are implying that it is but the first of a list of questions.

You are such a tease!

Nevertheless, I would not consider myself to be a "social conservative". Though I am very much literally conservative in MANY respects, I remain an iconoclast, a xenophile, and a neomaniac.

As for Rob Portman, my opinion is unchanged. He remains a gutless weasel. If I were to share his alleged theist convictions and considered homosexuality to be a sin (as is emphasized heavily and brutally in Leviticus, and echoed by The Risen Rabbi Himself) I would not be inclined to reverse myself even in the face of such a revelation by one of my spawn. I wouldn't disown my son or anything so uncivilized, but while continuing to love him, I would not condone his "sin." (Fortunately, I am an atheist and have no such quarrel with homosexuality.) Clearly Portman, craven poltroon that he is, has no actual convictions of his own, irrespective of his allegations.

dynamite anthrax supreme court white house tea party jihad
West of 89
a novel of another america

who you calling a tease? I never said it was a long poll! lol

just that it was hot haha

I can't imagine what it is

I can't imagine what it is like for Portman to learn his son is gay. I highly doubt it was some revelation for him, probably more of a meandering experience that culminated in his public change of position.

One of the true great things about being a libertarian is that we don't believe this is government turf.

Regardless, I'm no coward, I'll weigh in. I honestly believe that in our most intimate of relationships there is a fundamental point of meeting the "other." It's not just physical; it's metaphysical -- the intersection of other that flavors the rest of our human relationships -- someone who doesn't look, believe, or behave like we do. On a metaphysical level, the mash up of gender engenders the ability to seek outside of one's own boundaries. I would grieve for a child of mine who had sidestepped that fundamental experience. At the same time, I could not imagine a stronger relationship than to my child. It would be anathema to distance myself from him or her; intimate relations begin in families, between father and son. If my son told me he was gay, I would feel I'd done something wrong.

I think we should accept gay individuals. Compassion is not reserved for those who make us feel all comfy with ourselves -- even our own parenting skills.

Weird thing is, I've done plenty wrong and my son seems to be aggressively hetero. If I were a betting person, I'd say gayness is biological and scuffling about morals is something to be laid at the foot of God's genome creation. If I wanted to get even weirder, I'd ask why the Trinity is all male. Why God had to "use" a female to create a hybrid Jesus. But I'm not that weird. I just think gay people are probably missing out and we should cut them some slack.

Compassion rules.

Your post

seems to imply that gay people are incapable of love. If that's what you are getting at you're wrong. No one is missing out on the human experience because they choose type over the other.

Your words attempt to create a two tier society where straights enjoy a "normal" human experience while the gays have their own, but wrong in your eyes, human experience.

This thought process seems to put people into groups that is unnecessary and leads to discrimination and hate.

y would u feel like u had done something wrong if ur son was gay

You say it's probably biological so....

Come on!

I know there must be some sexy Liberty lovers on here! Come on ladies, MAKE LIBERTY SEXY! Show us what ya got.

Just for the Movement of course ;)


there are none....this is a giant sausage fest.... sucks! :P

"If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy." -- James Madison

Cyril's picture

LOL. Your bait worked.


Your bait worked.

Hmph! So what?!

I may come back to comment on your post with actually something to say (hopefully / if you're lucky / nothing guaranteed).

For now, I'm going to pout. ;)

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.


"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

Well, Are you a "social conservative"?

Well, Are you a "social conservative"?

Cyril's picture

I suspect I'd qualify by most of the WP page's criteria.

I suspect I'd qualify by most of the WP page's criteria.


What I like is the founding idea to love, defend, and protect the ideas we believe in as wise and sound, or to hate, despise, denounce, and reject the ideas that WE KNOW history has demonstrated to us as being WRONG or DOWNRIGHT DISASTROUS.

Man is a thinking animal with memory.

However, the older I get, the more I dislike and find meaningless the game of labels and annotations one lends him/herself to by discussing ideologies.

Consequently, I find less and less convenient to deal with ideas thru labels and jars into which we put them, such as "social conservatism" (although I probably agree with most in that one).

I wish we could one day free ourselves of the abstract games of ideologies and return to favoring the treatment of ideas as we recommend to do with people: individually, on a one-by-one basis, instead of labelled sets blurring everything out, and confusing everybody (because NOBODY usually agrees with all others on WHAT EXACTLY is or isn't in that set - i.e., whatever ideology or "-ism" is at hands).

This is endless. This is tiring. We lose sight of the VERY ideas, eventually. Language betrayal follows, then perverted laws, then tyranny, etc.

Sorry for this digression.

Here are my confessions of a hater where I posted about that ideological bias, anyway:


"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.


"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

Are you not a constitutionalist?

Anyway, Labels do have their limits but can still be very useful.

What I find hypocritical is that people that label themselves as this or that and then pretend they "don't do labels".

I'm looking at you granger!!

BTW what does WP stand for?