A question for all you conservatives out there

It’s been roughly three days since the U.S. Supreme Court’s refusal to hear appeals on same-sex marriage in Wisconsin and four other states, and here’s a question I’m hoping our conservative readers can answer.

How many “traditional marriages” do you know that have broken down since same-sex marriage became legal in Wisconsin?

After all, didn’t conservatives warn us that the advent of same-sex marriages in Wisconsin – and elsewhere, for that matter – would lead to a breakdown in traditional marriage?


Related Articles

23 thoughts on “A question for all you conservatives out there

  1. To your question Zach, none. However, my concern/opposition to the redefinition was never about that. Firstly, the redefinition of marriage undermines any argument against further redefinitions. Yes, it is a slippery slope argument but I see no reason why bisexuals should not also be able to marry more than one person, and so on…. Also, the redefinition also will result in further attacks on those with strongly held belief in traditional marriage, such as those who might not like to participate in gay union celebrations, ie the baker who doesn’t want to bake a cake for the gay union celebration. I am glad you asked the question Zach and I hope my answer helps you understand that there are multiple well reasoned arguments not to redefine marriage.

    1. Yes, it is a slippery slope argument but I see no reason why bisexuals should not also be able to marry more than one person, and so on.

      Bisexuals are not polygamous. They can be, but that also can apply to everyone else on the sexual spectrum.

      1. The point is T that surely there are people who claim to love more than one person and a subset of those people may wish to get “married.” If that is not allowed, they will have been discriminated upon. And marriage discriminated against gays, hence the change. There now exists no rational argument to stop any other marriage redefinitions. Thanks for sharing your knowledge about bisexuality, but I am hoping you will address my concerns about future marriage redefinitions.

        1. Unmistakeably WRONG. Marriage didn’t discriminate against anyone, people discriminated against other people because certain people couldn’t wrap their pea-brains around the FACT that LOVE and CARING super-ceded religious beliefs and actual gender preferences that have existed since modern humanity left east Africa and spread across the globe.

          To reiterate, when marriage (see my last sentence @12:12 AM) has NOT been redefined, your using that as a premise to argue a contrived possibility of polygamist marriage, besides ignoring the original question posed, you are creating a straw argument that doesn’t even address Zach’s question about the supposed negative situation certain bigots claimed would happen because of, “same-sex marriage.”

          In this whole thread so far the only thing that you have successfully confirmed is that you consider yourself a conservative, simply because of the fact you responded to Zach’s reaching out for conservative views, twice.

        2. The only amendments I think we need to do in the future in terms of marriage is making sure other gender identities outside of female and male get recognized. We have been focusing a lot on the LGB portion but not so much the T part. In a sense we focus on the sexual orientations, but not so much recognizing the gender identities.

          I don’t think polygamy will be a thing to be honest legally considering not even Utah (legally) allows it even if I read recently there was a ruling by a judge about the ban being unconstitutional? And most of the polygamists mostly exist within the western United States.

          As long as they are of legal age, not incestuous, and it’s consensual (so before anyone brings in bestiality or children, neither can consent.) they should be allowed to marry.

          1. Thank you T for your response. May I ask, how could we amend marriage to accommodate the T’s? Are there some genders or gender identities beyond male or female that we should accommodate?

            Time will prove one of us wrong, but I suspect we will see a push for polygamous marriage as well as other permutations.

            Re your third paragraph, you don’t mention polygamy. Should it be allowed among consenting non relatives over the age of 18?

            1. I think we put the marriage into a law we do it similar to how Minnesota written theirs, thus we won’t need to add gender identities because by the way it’s written, it’s already acknowledging them in the future. I have to find out the exact wording but I thought it was smartly written because it took note of the transgender community and those outside of the gender binary.

              I’m up in the air about polygamy, but if it does come to pass? It will have to be done in a way you have to have everyone in full knowledge about the marriage and the qualifications I stated before. (Example: the first wife has to know about the second wife and also sign the legal documents, because otherwise it would be considered cheating. No secret marriages behind the others back or anything like that.)

              1. I confess T (Is it Mr. T? – ok just kidding) not to be well versed in whatever lies “outside of the gender binary” but is there something in WI law that would prevent them for marrying? Suppose someone self identifies as a non gendered person for example. Is said individual prevented from marrying another individual within or outside of the gender binary? Or to put it another way, do we really need to change the law to accommodate the T’s or others outside of the gb?

                If polygamy or other permutations of marriage does come to pass, we will have to of course need to deal with dissolving said arrangements. “Normal” divorces are difficult enough on kids. Does the birth mother get priority over the other mother and perhaps the father or do they get 1/3 time with the kids? I could list all sorts of such problems not currently covered by existing law. The fact is we will have to make this stuff up as we go along and it will be messy.

                1. I apologize, I was suffering from a horrendous ear infection so I wasn’t able to reply yesterday.

                  There’s nothing currently in the law, but I will not be surprised if there will be another situation of the gay marriage ban only applied to gender identities. This is why I think we should still put the law through and write it like Minnesota’s just so no nonsense like this can happen in the future in the state.

                  But as said before I think it might be a while before we get to Polygamy but I imagine it could lead to complications if there are divorces/separations. I found the article about the ruling of the ban on it. In Utah, it is now decriminalized.

    2. My wife and I live out in the boonies and we’ve had hordes of gay people banging on our door trying to attack our marriage. It’s worse than the Walking Dead. We’ve decided to lay mines in the driveway and hang bunches of garlic cloves in the windows, and we erected a large cross dipped in holy water on our rooftop, but they just keep coming. I can only imagine what it must be like in the city.

      1. Zounds, knackered after work last night and didn’t realize the obvious Steve, that same-sex marriage has obviously strengthened the bond between you and your spouse. That appears to be contrary to the point of the post question.

    3. Ah yes, keep an eye out for those Mormons secretly clinging to traditional family structure. Too many wives to trust there.

      Traditional marriage breakdowns, isn’t the figure something like 55% of all marriages ending in divorce? LGBT married couples might improve the outcomes and positively change that statistic.

      Marriage is a legally binding contract conferring defined benefits and obligations onto the consenting adults freely entering into the agreement. We can only hope that reality is NOT actually redefined.

    4. Oh, and perhaps you’ll share the secret to at least one of those, “multiple well reasoned arguments,” that you’ve alluded to. Really looking forward to a fuller understanding of the conservative mind.

  2. Notice Zach that the “troll” answered your question, noting two reasons to object to marriage redefinitions other than the one you offered. Honestly I have never known any conservative to actually offer the argument that you suggested was conservative. It appears as though BB readers would prefer to deal with conservative caricatures than actual conservatives, so I will give them what they want.

    Damn gays are ruining my marriage. Because bible.

    1. Wow, pot calling out the kettle here? You address Zach while you ignore directly responding to three out of four comments directed to your first comment, and define one commentator as a troll, thus failing to indicate which “two reasons,” you are referring to as objections to marriage, which I will state for the third time here, has not been redefined. You then proceed to disparage BB readers insinuating we are ALL somehow bigoted in our views of conservatives while offering not a spec of evidence.

      Interesting that you claim that gays are ruining YOUR marriage, because bible. To put that politely, WTF?

      Important OT: Do you hang out at BB because no other blog, not even conservative ones, will have you?

  3. Non, perhaps this response will help you understand why I don’t always respond to your attacks. I noted to Zach that the responses here suggest a preference for confronting conservative caricatures rather than actual conservatives, so I offered that caricature by saying that gays were ruining my marriage etc… and you simply don’t get it. It was a joke. You obviously have no sense of humor, nor an irony detector, coupled with a serious reading comprehension problem. This would also explain why so much of your writing makes so little sense. I am sorry I had to spell it out for you, but you seem genuinely confused as to why I don’t always respond to you or some of the others. If you want me to respond in the future, start by understanding what it is that I write in plain English, then respond with concise responses again in plain English. Tone down on the putdowns as well. We know you are good at them, but try to demonstrate other forms of argument than the ad hominem. Thanks.

  4. OFF the TOPIC of same sex marriage: @8:40 AM is said, a) your statements or claims are wrong and b) that marriage has not been redefined. I followed with a reasoned explanation and a reference to another comment of mine which was a definition of marriage.

    So you are claiming now that simply disagreeing with your statements in the course of a supposed “discussion,” is automatically making you the VICTIM of a personal put-down?

    You’ve still not responded or defended valid challenges (disagreements) to your statements which i’ve just alluded to, but you have definitely hurled personal insults at me, NOT at anything I’ve SAID during the course of a supposed discussion here, on this topic. Show me anywhere above that I’ve attacked you personally, and not simply disagreed with a statement or claim you were making. Blockquote it or give a time stamp, please.

    You’ve accused me in writing of attacking you personally here, which is the definition of what an ad hominem is.

    1. I will give you one example of ad hominem and move on non. To be honest, you bore me most of the time. Yes, it is an ad hominem as well. You do tend to drag me towards the gutter – another reason to avoid you. Anyway, your suggestion (9:01) that no other blog would have me is an ad hominem. Your welcome.

      1. (Still in OT) In plain English as you have demanded, that (9:01) is clearly a question that could not ever qualify as an ad hominem as it makes no pretense to claim any certainty and could be answered yes or no and elaborated upon or not. I also clearly marked it as an OT to the same-sex marriage thread.

        Therefore, you have yet to produce an example of what you have accused me of. I just debunked your supposed proof of your accusation of your alleged victim-hood here at BB, and I did it without insulting you personally in any manner.

        How about you pointing to something relating to the thread topic of same-sex marriage instead of an OT question. You are not avoiding me, you are only avoiding discussion of the topic which is clearly a horse of a different color (popular culture credit to: Lyman Frank Baum, so that I am not accused of plagiarism in addition to rendering scurrilous personal attacks).

        So to repeat, are readers to conclude then that any disagreement with your statements on a forum is what now allegedly drags you toward the gutter and forces you to hurl personal insults at other commentators rather than even attempting to defend your statements, remarks and/or conclusions?

        If there were learned individuals actually judging this discussion in terms of a debate, I have a feeling that you would be hearing from them that it is time for you to “put up or voluntarily shut up.” They, theoretically might be saying that, but of course, not me. But rave on, I’ve made my point here.

        Fair Warning: The following link contains extended metaphors, analogies, and humorous lyrical subtext.

        1. If you want to know what a discussion, possible debate, looks like non, look above to my conversation with T. I hope he continues.

  5. As a Conservative I have never objected to same sex couples uniting under a legal relationship. I simply think words mean something Marriage is one male and one female. Call a same sex relationship whatever you want. Gayrraige, Civil Union’s or whatever. I will aslo say as a Conservative I don’t have a lot of passion about this topic. In fact most of my close GOP friends posted on FB last week that they were glad to see the issue off the table.
    I will add this comment. I have thought the BEST way to address this issue was to get the GOVT out of the business of “Licensing” Marriages ENTIRELY. The way to do that is to ELIMINATE the income tax completely. (The only place the State and Fed Govt ACTUALLY treat people differently based upon marital status). If we replace the IC Tax with a broad based Sales tax..then we tax EVERYONE the same, regardless off income, race, wealth, sexual preference, or marital status.

    THAT position, I believe is the most “Conservative” stance available. “Conservatives” want the least amount of GOVT interference. Any 2 people (or more) can enter into a “contract” without having to go to state for permission. In the event one party feels jilted or cheated and/or wants to dissolve the contract..only then is it necessary to engage the Govt. The same should apply with consensual adult relationships. Up to and including LGBT and P&I.

Comments are closed.