Why are "small government" conservatives so obsessed with the gays?

[Mr. Jew]

Relevant question considering that Raygun worshipper Ted Rafael Lyin Cruz forced an anti gay plank onto this year's platform well past the point where it was still a relevant issue.  I mean for all his talk about standing up to party elites and the establishment he seems to be a pretty big whore for the Religious Reich, who are just a few automatic assault rifles and IEDs away from being terrorists.

[Nyvin]

Because using government to force communities to accept the government's definition and terms of marriage is the only way to have "small government".

[Southern Delegate matthew27]

They're not small government...Just government that agrees with their view on the world.

If they were small government they'd allow people to marry who they please and end the war on drugs.

[Redban]

They're not small government...Just government that agrees with their view on the world.

If they were small government they'd allow people to marry who they please and end the war on drugs.

The bolded is a straw man.

Advocates for "small government" have never said that government should be idle (i.e. "small") in all public policy areas. Mostly, conservatives speak of "small government" in the context of economic matters, such as decreased regulation, fewer entitlements, less spending, and lower taxes. That part of the ideology is implicit in the phrase, "Small government."

In matters of security, on the hand, conservatives believe that government should be active (i.e. big).

Unless you faithfully represent the position of "small government" advocates, then you can't truly have a discussion about "small government" advocates.

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

They're not small government...Just government that agrees with their view on the world.

If they were small government they'd allow people to marry who they please and end the war on drugs.

The bolded is a straw man.

Advocates for "small government" have never said that government should be idle (i.e. "small") in all public policy areas. Mostly, conservatives speak of "small government" in the context of economic matters, such as decreased regulation, fewer entitlements, less spending, and lower taxes. That part of the ideology is implicit in the phrase, "Small government."

In matters of security, on the hand, conservatives believe that government should be active (i.e. big).

Unless you faithfully represent the position of "small government" advocates, then you can't truly have a discussion about "small government" advocates.

then y'alls should pick a name that accurately reflects that.

[Nyvin]

They're not small government...Just government that agrees with their view on the world.

If they were small government they'd allow people to marry who they please and end the war on drugs.

The bolded is a straw man.

Advocates for "small government" have never said that government should be idle (i.e. "small") in all public policy areas. Mostly, conservatives speak of "small government" in the context of economic matters, such as decreased regulation, fewer entitlements, less spending, and lower taxes. That part of the ideology is implicit in the phrase, "Small government."

In matters of security, on the hand, conservatives believe that government should be active (i.e. big).

Unless you faithfully represent the position of "small government" advocates, then you can't truly have a discussion about "small government" advocates.

Then just call yourselves the party of big business...since "small government" is a very general term that frankly doesn't match up with the majority of Republican policy.

Namely their policy on abortion, gay marriage, criminal justice, military spending, war on drugs, voting rights, fossil fuel subsidies, and religion in schools.

[Alcon]

Marriage is a government benefit meant to incentivize and/or endorse something we consider socially desirable.  

Social conservatives do not see gay marriage as a social good, because they see it as immoral behavior and/or causing undesirable outcomes.

Because of that, they see gay marriage as an imposition because it uses shared government resources/institutions to incentivize/endorse something they think is wrong or undesirable.  They see that as expanding government (and...they're not wrong in the technical sense) for an objectionable reason, so they're against it.

I'm not endorsing this view.  I vehemently disagree with it, in fact.  But it's not that hard to understand.

[Wisconsin+17]

I can give the small government answer to this. The concept is that the family should be able to look after itself and it's own members and not the state. Homosexual 'marriage' doesn't do anything that Families in general do - it's not self sustaining, you don't have a second generation - so you end up with two older people without younger folks willing to help in. Who do they turn to? The state.

And that doesn't even get into all the assorted health issues - the fact that 80 percent of gonorrhea cases are 2 percent of the population. It makes even less sense to clamp down on smoking but support homosexuality.

[ProudModerate2]

I can give the small government answer to this. The concept is that the family should be able to look after itself and it's own members and not the state. Homosexual 'marriage' doesn't do anything that Families in general do - it's not self sustaining, you don't have a second generation - so you end up with two older people without younger folks willing to help in. Who do they turn to? The state.

And that doesn't even get into all the assorted health issues - the fact that 80 percent of gonorrhea cases are 2 percent of the population. It makes even less sense to clamp down on smoking but support homosexuality.

Neanderthal thinking.

[Alcon]

I can give the small government answer to this. The concept is that the family should be able to look after itself and it's own members and not the state. Homosexual 'marriage' doesn't do anything that Families in general do - it's not self sustaining, you don't have a second generation - so you end up with two older people without younger folks willing to help in. Who do they turn to? The state.

And that doesn't even get into all the assorted health issues - the fact that 80 percent of gonorrhea cases are 2 percent of the population. It makes even less sense to clamp down on smoking but support homosexuality.

your argument is that gay marriage encourages gays who would otherwise marry to cohabitate with other gays, and that gay cohabitation has a higher net cost to social services than closeted gay people having children?  wow okay then

Also, I'm pretty sure your gonorrhea statistic is completely wrong.  Did you read the Conservapedia article and mistakenly think that a 3.7x higher rate among gay men means 3.7x as many cases among gay men as straights (~80%)?  Because, no, math that again.

[SUSAN CRUSHBONE]

I can give the small government answer to this. The concept is that the family should be able to look after itself and it's own members and not the state. Homosexual 'marriage' doesn't do anything that Families in general do - it's not self sustaining, you don't have a second generation - so you end up with two older people without younger folks willing to help in. Who do they turn to? The state.

you know that there are roundabout half a million unadopted children in foster care in america, right?

[MK]

Its the one issue i wish the republicans would evolve on.   I never understood why the conservative platform couldn't apply to gays as well.   Then again, the religious wing(who can't win elections anymore) still has sway.   I guess thats the main issue of why the gop is still trying to stone gays into the ground.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It doesn't help when you're shutting down Catholic adoption agencies.

[Mallow]

Marriage is a government benefit meant to incentivize and/or endorse something we consider socially desirable.  

Social conservatives do not see gay marriage as a social good, because they see it as immoral behavior and/or causing undesirable outcomes.

Because of that, they see gay marriage as an imposition because it uses shared government resources/institutions to incentivize/endorse something they think is wrong or undesirable.  They see that as expanding government (and...they're not wrong in the technical sense) for an objectionable reason, so they're against it.

I'm not endorsing this view.  I vehemently disagree with it, in fact.  But it's not that hard to understand.

But using that logic, anything that the majority feels is "wrong" or "undesirable" (when no actual, demonstrable harm is done) is subject to separate government treatment. It's the same logic that allowed illegal interracial marriage, segregation, "separate but equal", Jim Crow, etc. So yes, it is hard for me to understand how a person would endorse that kind of position when historically it has always ended up making the supporters look like foolish bigots.

Again, these are the same people who talk about gun control using the language "Don't like it? Don't get a gun." And yet when they don't like something, banning it is perfectly reasonable?

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, my argument is that gonorrhea is 80 percent homosexual men. That's a health crisis. That you are arguing against my point indicates your lack of familiarity with the point.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The median site-specific gonorrhea prevalence was 16.9% (range by site: 10.4%–28.1%).

Over the entire population, the rate is about 100 per 100k, meaning that about 1 in 1000 have gonorrhea.

Since the prevalence, according to CDC is now 17 percent on average, that means that the risk is about 170x. And you wonder why small government advocates see an issue?

17 percent of two percent of the population gives us 34 percent. If were' looking at 4 percent, that gets doubled to 68 percent. If it's 5 percent, then you get my 85 percent number.

[ProudModerate2]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It doesn't help when you're shutting down Catholic adoption agencies.

It also doesn't help if you disallow gays to adopt.
As long as an adult gives the child LOVE and support is what we need.
Straight, gay, black, white, even single parents.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Stupid question.

[ProudModerate2]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, my argument is that gonorrhea is 80 percent homosexual men. That's a health crisis. That you are arguing against my point indicates your lack of familiarity with the point.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The median site-specific gonorrhea prevalence was 16.9% (range by site: 10.4%–28.1%).
Over the entire population, the rate is about 100 per 100k, meaning that about 1 in 1000 have gonorrhea.
Since the prevalence, according to CDC is now 17 percent on average, that means that the risk is about 170x. And you wonder why small government advocates see an issue?
17 percent of two percent of the population gives us 34 percent. If were' looking at 4 percent, that gets doubled to 68 percent. If it's 5 percent, then you get my 85 percent number.

You have an unusual obsession with gonorrhea.
Other than it is prevalent within the male gay community, and a "health crisis," what is your point ? What exactly are you proposing or advocating ?

[Goldwater]

I can give the small government answer to this. The concept is that the family should be able to look after itself and it's own members and not the state. Homosexual 'marriage' doesn't do anything that Families in general do - it's not self sustaining, you don't have a second generation - so you end up with two older people without younger folks willing to help in. Who do they turn to? The state.

And that doesn't even get into all the assorted health issues - the fact that 80 percent of gonorrhea cases are 2 percent of the population. It makes even less sense to clamp down on smoking but support homosexuality.

So, infertile people shouldn't be allowed to marry, or people who just flat out don't want to have kids?

[Mallow]

I can give the small government answer to this. The concept is that the family should be able to look after itself and it's own members and not the state. Homosexual 'marriage' doesn't do anything that Families in general do - it's not self sustaining, you don't have a second generation - so you end up with two older people without younger folks willing to help in. Who do they turn to? The state.

And that doesn't even get into all the assorted health issues - the fact that 80 percent of gonorrhea cases are 2 percent of the population. It makes even less sense to clamp down on smoking but support homosexuality.

So, infertile people shouldn't be allowed to marry, or people who just flat out don't want to have kids?

Let's not inject logic into this discussion, now.

[OSR stands with Israel]

I'm a small government conservative and I don't obsess about gays , I believe government should get out of marriage entirely

[Torie]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, my argument is that gonorrhea is 80 percent homosexual men. That's a health crisis. That you are arguing against my point indicates your lack of familiarity with the point.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The median site-specific gonorrhea prevalence was 16.9% (range by site: 10.4%–28.1%).

Over the entire population, the rate is about 100 per 100k, meaning that about 1 in 1000 have gonorrhea.

Since the prevalence, according to CDC is now 17 percent on average, that means that the risk is about 170x. And you wonder why small government advocates see an issue?

17 percent of two percent of the population gives us 34 percent. If were' looking at 4 percent, that gets doubled to 68 percent. If it's 5 percent, then you get my 85 percent number.

But Big Pharma has  some up with all these fabulous drugs that deal with all of this. Absent the drugs, there would be a health crisis. But the drugs are here, and under Obamacare, generally just about free to the patient, including ones that are quite expensive. Gonorrhea gets knocked down with just one big dose of an antibiotic cocktail. Andrew Sullivan wrote an almost elegiac ode once about just how much he loved Big Pharma. I do too. Life is beautiful. I just put folks who want to traduce what I think are my just rights as a human being on ignore. They have lost next to all power to hurt me now, and my community. Thank you.

[Alcon]

Marriage is a government benefit meant to incentivize and/or endorse something we consider socially desirable.  

Social conservatives do not see gay marriage as a social good, because they see it as immoral behavior and/or causing undesirable outcomes.

Because of that, they see gay marriage as an imposition because it uses shared government resources/institutions to incentivize/endorse something they think is wrong or undesirable.  They see that as expanding government (and...they're not wrong in the technical sense) for an objectionable reason, so they're against it.

I'm not endorsing this view.  I vehemently disagree with it, in fact.  But it's not that hard to understand.

But using that logic, anything that the majority feels is "wrong" or "undesirable" (when no actual, demonstrable harm is done) is subject to separate government treatment. It's the same logic that allowed illegal interracial marriage, segregation, "separate but equal", Jim Crow, etc. So yes, it is hard for me to understand how a person would endorse that kind of position when historically it has always ended up making the supporters look like foolish bigots.

Again, these are the same people who talk about gun control using the language "Don't like it? Don't get a gun." And yet when they don't like something, banning it is perfectly reasonable?

I mean, two things.  First, you're presuming that "no actual, demonstrable harm is done," which most social conservatives would contest.  Second, you seem to be arguing an equal protection argument.  I totally agree the equal protection argument is strong here, because I don't think there is demonstrable harm, but there are plenty of places where disparate treatment is given for policy reasons.  We prohibit marriage between family members for policy reasons.  Affirmative action is obviously very literally disparate treatment for some policy goal.  Maybe you disagree with those for internal consistency, but I don't think you'd argue either of those have "historically made supporters look like foolish bigots."

As far as your gun thing, there is a distinction between banning something and not expanding government recognition.  I don't think it's a compelling distinction in this case, but hey, I doubt conservatives see meaning in the distinctions drawn to make affirmative action OK for someone who otherwise embraces equal protection.

[Alcon]

No, my argument is that gonorrhea is 80 percent homosexual men. That's a health crisis. That you are arguing against my point indicates your lack of familiarity with the point.

If your only argument was about gonorrhea, what was this paragraph about?  Or are you just giving an argument you reject on behalf of small-government people (that's fine)?

I can give the small government answer to this. The concept is that the family should be able to look after itself and it's own members and not the state. Homosexual 'marriage' doesn't do anything that Families in general do - it's not self sustaining, you don't have a second generation - so you end up with two older people without younger folks willing to help in. Who do they turn to? The state.

The median site-specific gonorrhea prevalence was 16.9% (range by site: 10.4%–28.1%).

Over the entire population, the rate is about 100 per 100k, meaning that about 1 in 1000 have gonorrhea.

Since the prevalence, according to CDC is now 17 percent on average, that means that the risk is about 170x. And you wonder why small government advocates see an issue?

17 percent of two percent of the population gives us 34 percent. If were' looking at 4 percent, that gets doubled to 68 percent. If it's 5 percent, then you get my 85 percent number.

You're making a glaring error.  Several, actually (one is that you're comparing gay men to a population that includes women, for some inexplicable reason.)

More importantly, you're comparing an estimate of the entire population for heterosexuals, to the proportion of men-who-have-sex-with-men who seek STD testing.  Obviously, those who seek STD testing are going to be more likely to have STDs.  Fortunately, since you were ridiculously squirrely about statistics the last two times we argued, gonorrhea is a "notifiable" disease for CDC purposes and we have exact tracking statistics.  Scroll down to page 24 of this report.  Only in San Francisco does the % of cases among gay men approach 85%.  In every other jurisdiction listed, it's well under 50%.  As you can tell from the next page, the rate among MSM is more like 3-4x the MSW population, not 170x.  Considering that the number of MSW is way more than 3-4x the MSM population, it's obvious that MSW are the easy majority of gonorrhea cases and your 85% number is nonsense.

We can argue about whether discouraging homosexuality is going to help those numbers, and whether it's worth whatever countervailing costs there might be.  But you're totally, completely wrong on the numbers.

[TDAS04]

Social conservatives do believe in small government.  They believe government should stay where it belongs; in the bedroom, bathroom, and womb.