> I'm really curious what conservative viewpoints people espouse that they feel they've been discriminated against for.
I think this is a far more useful inquiry (i.e. what specific points) than generalized ideologies.
What viewpoints, indeed?
Many of the ones I hear from my self-described conservative friends and the public personalities they follow fall into these categories (my word choice, not them, I'm paraphrasing heavily):
1. "I'm afraid the government will take away my right to own
guns, which is enshrined in the second amendment to allow
citizens to overthrow an unjust government."
2. "I'm worried that the current political correct climate will
infringe upon my right to free speech, enshrined in the
first amendment."
3. "I don't want my church, which is against homosexuality, to
be forced to marry gay couples."
4. "I don't want 'confused men' to be in the same restroom as
my underage daughters."
These are just the most recent examples I can think of.
Generally, I find that most of what I hear these days falls into two categories: Fear, and thinly-veiled contempt for people who are different.
If there are other conservative viewpoints that I'm not hearing, I'm happy to correct my ignorance.
That being said, I find the very idea that the entire spectrum of human imagination can be compressed to 1 bit of information (left or right wing) is deeply insulting and, if true, one hell of an indictment of our species.
Very few people are able to put together a fact- and logic-based argument for why questions of morality like that should be questions of legality. E.g. why it's more like murder or theft or assault and less like lying or adultery. It's perfectly possible to think homosexuality is a sin and not think it should be illegal, and to treat homosexuals as perfectly decent humans who you would interact with in all the same ways you would anyone else. To a Christian, after all, everyone is a sinner.
That significantly undermines those causes to secular listeners. Without being able to do so, it usually sounds simply fear- or dislike- based. Much more like prejudice than like a sound basis for policy.
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B003EO8ER0 for more, from the inside, on the withdrawal by the American evangelical community from intellectual sphere. The right's "PC" instincts - shout down and kick out the heretics - has crippled their ability to convince those who don't already agree. The left is in danger of getting to the same place, but it's hilariously ironic how evangelicals don't recognize the mote in their own eye on this one.
You are talking the legality of same-sex marriage.
Point #3 is not talking about the legality of same-sex marriage. It is an opposition to compelling people to be complicit in same-sex marriage. Churches may still have some protection against being compelled to marry gay couples, but bakers sure as hell don't have any protection against having to make cakes for gay weddings, so it is reasonable to worry that the protections for churches may crumble soon.
Why is being "complicit" in same sex marriage any worse than being "complicit" in a marriage for someone who has sinned, possibly grievously, in other ways? The difference is only in the obviousness, and it's not clear to me that that's a good reason.
It appears internally inconsistent in a way I've never heard a sufficient explanation for. And as someone who no longer believes, who does support the explicit non-theocratic nature of American government, I think that's a reasonable bar to hold others to. The major emphasis in Christianity as it was taught to me was never on "enabling," it was on one's own beliefs and fruit.
And to the sibling about "legality should reflect morality": I take a much more conservative stance on that. There you would have to do much more work to convince me that legality should merely reflect a particular snapshot of a particular group's morality, as the American founders - with very good reason based on their experience in Europe - explicitly rejected that. So I think you'll need to develop that thesis a lot before it convinces me to break with American tradition, there. I favor a view that enough concrete harm has to be demonstrated to justify more restrictions, more police, etc.
tldr: many religious Republican views like these are not actually all that conservative ;)
> Why is being "complicit" in same sex marriage any worse than being "complicit" in a marriage for someone who has sinned, possibly grievously, in other ways?
It isn't worse. I know pastors who would refuse to marry a couple that included someone how was divorced or a couple that was having pre-marital sex. They cannot get in legal trouble for refusing that but they might get in legal trouble for refusing to marry two women.
> that legality should merely reflect a particular snapshot of a particular group's morality
Part of the Christian push back is that same-sex marriage was a none issue until around 2000. It was still unpopular enough in 2008 that Proposition 8 passed, in California! We are just saying that what has been considered immoral and illegal should stay that way.
At a meta-level: the discussion in this thread is one that I would hope would be welcomed anywhere that encouraged discussions of religion/politics in the workplace (I also understand workplaces that just don't want any of that).
But sadly, civility is not something I'm widely accustomed to in these debates, so I understand the general defensiveness that accompanies most comments on homosexuality. Which is why I'd favor workplaces not to encourage that sort of discussion at all. Though even then you'd expect a certain amount of prevailing winds, which is why I brought up Mark Noll - the dominant forms of Christianity in the US have largely retreated from making intellectual arguments, so in most intellectual circles you don't many. My answer to "why are universities so liberal" is "because religion went off and built a parallel education system because it didn't respond well to the challenges of evolution and other modern science."
> We are just saying that what has been considered immoral and illegal should stay that way.
But that doesn't seem like a reliable guiding principle on its own, e.g. mixed race marriage.
This is one of those things where there is no compromise that satisfies both sides, so from a least-harm perspective, it seems better to, as far as the state goes, pick the people who probably don't have a choice in the matter (I'm inclined to believe that homosexuality is primarily an innate thing, because I never chose to be straight, and can't imagine choosing to be homosexual) versus the beliefs of certain religious groups.
And the history of racial discrimination in the US points the way towards the reasoning behind equal-service type requirements for businesses. Any problems caused seem much smaller than the (proven!) potential for abuse if the laws weren't there.
> This is one of those things where there is no compromise that satisfies both sides
Agree completely on that point.
As much as I don't like the outcome, I think you are right on what the legal outcome should be based on the cultural viewpoint that homosexuality is innate.
A) Interracial Marriage is immoral.
B) Homosexual Marriage is immoral.
C) Remarriage (after divorce) is immoral.
Part of my disagreement is that I see B and C as related while you (and most of America) see A and B related. Alas, it seems like there is no way to convince the country of my viewpoint so I am stuck putting up with it.
> Why is being "complicit" in same sex marriage any worse than being "complicit" in a marriage for someone who has sinned, possibly grievously, in other ways?
If you subscribe to the view that same-sex marriage is a sin against a higher power, then your involvement in the marriage makes you actively involved in the sin.
If sinners get married, the marriage itself is not a sin. This is very straightforward in my mind.
Additionally, some churches have interviews with the bride and groom before marriages and if the pastor feels that they are unworthy of getting married will not marry them.
FYI I personally am not opposed to the legality same-sex marriage.
> tldr: many religious Republican views like these are not actually all that conservative ;)
> If you subscribe to the view that same-sex marriage is a sin against a higher power,
This is a newer one to me, off the top of my head I'm not aware of from where the marriage act would be considered the sin vs the homosexuality itself. What's the doctrinal reasoning here? Just curious, here, since I'm A-OK with churches being able to individually choose who to marry.
Businesses, on the other hand, are subject to a very different set of laws for very clear historical reasons.
Many religions view marriage as a sacred sacrament, instituted by God to join men and women. Under this view, same-sex marriage is easily viewed as mocking God and debasing the sacrament.
> This is a newer one to me, off the top of my head I'm not aware of from where the marriage act would be considered the sin vs the homosexuality itself.
Sin is normally considered at its core an offence to God because He is the only perfect one thus He is the only one with legal/moral standing to take offence. This is often highlighted as the reason that Joseph, when his master's wife wanted to sleep with him responded "How then can I do this great wickedness and sin against God?"
I think that in general morality should reflect legality. That is to say, the things that are moral should be legal, then things that are immoral should illegal and vis versa.
Is that a sufficient logic-based argument on why questions of morality should be questions of legality?
I think this is a far more useful inquiry (i.e. what specific points) than generalized ideologies.
What viewpoints, indeed?
Many of the ones I hear from my self-described conservative friends and the public personalities they follow fall into these categories (my word choice, not them, I'm paraphrasing heavily):
These are just the most recent examples I can think of.Generally, I find that most of what I hear these days falls into two categories: Fear, and thinly-veiled contempt for people who are different.
If there are other conservative viewpoints that I'm not hearing, I'm happy to correct my ignorance.
That being said, I find the very idea that the entire spectrum of human imagination can be compressed to 1 bit of information (left or right wing) is deeply insulting and, if true, one hell of an indictment of our species.