Read the whole thing:

http://catholicexchange.com/2010/08/12/133233/

As rickl noted, people who want the general American process to be followed tend to vote conservatively. People who want to find ways around that tend to vote for liberals. That is not a hard-and-fast rule, but a tendency. It also does not mean that the one is always correct and the other always leads to injustice. But it’s a good default position.

I would go Harold’s list one better and advocate not only that structural changes be instituted to prevent liberal advantage, but that we earnestly try and remove any unfair government advantage to conservatives as well. The entire edifice needs to be pared back, so that the basic principles of self-determination, liberty, and rule of law can flow as freely as possible. If under that system, as rickl noted, conservatives don’t always “get their way,” we must be willing to be okay with that. The best team doesn’t always win, but if the rules are followed, we’ll take our chances.

I will suggest that simplification of government/rules/process/regulation tends to promote continuity of values and cultural transmission, while complications of rules tend to fragment shared culture. Bureaucratism, then, while it is not inherently liberal, does tend to undermine the organic culture of a people and transfer cultural preservation to the state. As a practical matter, this empowers those who wish change a culture by fiat.

You haven’t reflected well enough what humanity is or what my statement was. Hiumanity is not earth, nor earth humanity. And in any case, if there is a being in the Universe more powerful than Jupiter, it is the human being.

You did not go off topic. You stayed exactly on topic. You just didn’t realize it and that is one contributing reason why so many people even think there might be such a thing as “gay marriage”.

It more factual than freaking Jupiter, since Jupiter could disappear and humanity could still be a going concern

Here I go off topic again…

Jupiter, being the most massive object in the Solar System apart from the Sun, is thought to herd stray comets and asteroids into the main asteroid belt. Also, its large mass attracts those objects to itself, rather than let them careen around the inner solar system.

Take away Jupiter, and Earth would likely get hit more often by rather sizable objects, which means that humanity wouldn’t be a going concern for long.

You’ve hit upon the point I was making earlier: does this proposal promote the long-term health of society, or does it not?

We can tolerate a certain proportion of shirtlifters, animal lovers, and every other sort of pervert, just as we can tolerate a certain proportion of drug addicts and welfare parasites. They’re like warts on the body politic. We tolerate them, but is it possible to build a long-lived society based upon them? Is it possible to have a body composed of a wart?

No. It is not possible. These people and their choices are therefore to be deprecated. Not exterminated, not picked upon, but not encouraged or validated either. Tolerated, but deprecated, and otherwise ignored.

Some things aren’t really funny.

The basic argument against same-sex marriage is that there is no such thing.

“Marriage” is the very term that we use to refer to the man/woma/child/family/socialhistorical thing that is part and parcel of the nature of being human and having a thing called humanity.

Period.

Take away marriage and there is no such thing as humanity. That’s an absolute fact. It more factual than gfreaking Jupiter, since Jupiter could disappear and humanity could still be a going concern; but marriage could not disappear without humanity itself disappearing.

Every six year old knows this. It takes a special kind of education (called fascist brainwashing thuggery) to make adults doubt the obvious.

A sexual or even committed relatinship (whatever that means) between two men, or two women, or even a woman and a man is not a “marriage”. The day some judge says it is, is the day we get a new name for “marriage”.

We would say, that same sexes are married…but not like the man and woman are. They are married in a different way.

We live in Alice in Wonderland. I suppose if a judge solemnly declared the existence of unicorns, then horses could try all day but they’d never grow the single horn.

In addition, concerning people who aren’t going to other sources of information, they do not know they are being lied to, and willingly choose to believe the lie. Believe me, I know many, many, many of these people. You may think they are negligent in not paying more attention and reading other sources and all of that, and you might be right. But that is quite different from rottenness.

And making the sort of moral distinctions Geoffrey Britain is suggesting does not take away the need to fight the left, or make the struggle less intense.

Points taken. But I still say that in this day and age there is a responsibility to know. One even surely must know (really) at this point, that the MSM is the propaganda wing of the Dem Party. There can be no one, except for the truly sad cases, who does not know they are being lied to.

The overwhelming majority of Dems know they are being lied to, and they willingly choose to believe the lie. The reasons vary but I am sure that is the case.

The excuses made for them only go so far. I am saying that they have run out and that the best thing to do, even the kindest, is to call them out and tell them they are rotten, rotten, rotten.

Which, I contend, they are.

Can’t comment on the rest, but the notion that claims on behalf of homosexuals can only be ruled on by heterosexuals is offensive.

Good point. Claims that criminal cases can only be judged by non-criminals is offensive too. All rise! Judge Charles Manson now presiding…

Congratulations on making the stupidest argument on the internet, overcoming some very tough competition.

I can’t find anyone making the argument (that the judge should recuse himself because of his orientation) here either, though I’ve heard it in other conservative circles.

I’ll make precisely that argument. Here’s why: the judge is a party at interest in the outcome of this case. In principle, he could rule on the case, and then hotfoot down to the registrar’s office to “marry” his boyfriend. Is there just a teeny-weeny scintilla of conflict of interest buried in there?

And the overarching principle is that a judge must not only be impartial, but be seen to be impartial. Walker flunked on both counts. Big time.

Evidently I expressed myself unskillfully. I was trying to say that sexual orientation ‘per se’ has nothing to do with objective impartiality. If the Judge abandons those standards in favor of an agenda, whatever their sexual orientation and whatever the agenda, they are supporting the view that the ends sought, justify whatever the means necessary for the achievement of those ends. When a judge engages in malfeasance, they have disqualified themselves from the office they hold.

I do read the news and many people do know. The majority however do not, getting their news and views from the MSM, with generations raised to believe the left’s lies and distortions.

After all, who seriously entertains the views of greedy capitalist racists? The average liberal believes they’re the good guys and, that we wear the black hats…
“There is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof [are] the ways of death.”

There is a difference between ‘the left”s elite’ and their millions of gullible, ignorant “useful idiots”. Those liberals would balk at throwing political prisoners into gulags for merely publicly disagreeing in a peaceful way.

There is a great struggle between the light and the dark and many ignorantly support that darkness but “they truly know not what they do” or do you maintain that what was true in Christ’s time is no longer true?

There is a difference between the ‘banality of evil’ to which you refer and the knowing embrace of evil. There was a difference between the typical German soldier and the SS stormtroopers. That difference is illustrated by a simple example; the SS would never hesitate to slam a baby against a wall, bashing its brains out, simply because it was Jewish. The German soldier knew that was stepping over the line and couldn’t do it. The SS knew this and so settled for the soldier herding the Jews into the cattle cars and preventing escape. Obviously the soldier participated in the slaughter and facilitated it but unless all the German people deserve execution, refraining from being the one to slam the oven door has to count for something.

There is a difference between those who ignorantly raised their hands in salute and those who experimented on living human beings, who witnessed the starvation and brutality up close.

For if there’s not, then we all are lost and none deserve salvation, which means that none may enter the gates of heaven because all stand condemned. And who then, other than God may stand in judgment of whom may enter?

Not you or I.