Conservative And Liberal Dialogue Is Good

Oso And HPFor those of you that don’t know, shortly after the 2004 election, I was asked to be a guest on a liberal blog. The owner of the blog, Oso, was disappointed by the results of the election and felt more dialogue between the two sides was needed. The idea was to open up communication between liberals and conservatives, and hopefully help reduce the misunderstandings that are so common in liberal/conservative discussions.

The plan was simple, I was to give my side of a conservative belief, and in the comments section, answer any questions or disagreements any of his readers (mostly liberals) might have. Than, after that post died down a bit, Oso would present his side and give me a chance to address it. That way both sides are presented in their own words, and hopefully some agreement or at least understanding would follow.

I must admit, I have learned a lot from my participation there, and more importantly, I have made a lot of new friends. I comment so regularly on that blog now that I don’t consider myself to be the ‘Republican guest blogger‘ anymore but an accepted member of that blog community. In addition, because Oso lives in the same city as I do, we have been able to go out for drinks and have thoughtful discussions in person, as well as online (he also happened to be in Monterrey, Mexico when I visited, so we met up and he helped me (actually, he did all the work) upgrade my website while I was there).

So back to my main point, I wanted to give readers of my blog a chance to see how liberals react to conservative beliefs, and to see how conservatives (mostly myself, but there is the occasional conservative blogger as well) react to liberal beliefs. What better topic to do that on, than our (somewhat) recently finished discussion on gay marriage. If you’re interested, take a look at how (my version) of the conservative side against gay marriage was presented and defended, and his version of the liberal case for gay marriage was also presented and defended.

My Case Against Gay Marriage

The Liberal Response In Support Of Gay Marriage

In addition, if you are also interested, you might want to check out our previous topic, on abortion.

My Case Against Abortion

A Liberal Case For Choice

Oh yeah, one more thing, Oso has also written about minority conservatives that generated some interesting comments. You might want to check those out as well.

Understanding Minority Conservatives Part One, Two, Three, Four, and Five.

Enjoy!!

14 Responses to “Conservative And Liberal Dialogue Is Good”


  • Hey, I really enjoyed this discussion and the way it was presented. I want to read more and think more before saying more.

    One question – why do you say that allowing same sex marriages gives a “special” right to homosexuals? It gives the same right to hets, doesn’t it?

  • Hey MaxedOutMama,

    Glad you liked it. I’d appreciate your feedback, whatever that feedback may be.

    As far as homosexuals and equal rights, I’ve been meaning to blog on this more, but basically my argument is that everybody already has the same rights with regard to marriage. You, me, homosexuals, and heterosexuals all are legally allowed to marry any person of the opposite sex of our choice who is distant from us in terms of kinship and who is not already married. Homosexuals have that very same right.

    In other words, homosexuals as citizens of the United States have the same rights as I do. If a homosexual man wanted to marry a female who he is not related to, he can do so just as easily as I can.

    “But homosexuals are not allowed to marry the person they love”, you say. But that is the case with everyone. If I, as a male citizen of the United States fell in love with my sister, I would not be allowed to marry her. If I, as a male citizen of the United States fell in love with multiple women, I would be restricted to only marrying one. And just like homosexuals, if I, as a citizen of the United States fell in love with another man, I too would be restricted in marrying him. In other words, homosexuals, as citizens of the United States, have the same rights, and the same limitations, as everyone else.

    Where the special rights comes in is in the fact that they want the exception to be given to them and only them. They want marriage to be tweaked in their favor, and to create special circumstances for them. What about other groups of people that have also been wanting to be included in the marriage definition? What about people who fall in love with their siblings, should they be allowed to marry also? What about polygamists, should we now include marriage to include multiple wives? What about multiple husbands? Do these other groups not get ‘equal rights’ too? No, of course not, only homosexuals get them, and not these other groups. Hence, special rights.

    I hope this explains it better.

  • Yes, that does. I have noticed that you are a very logical person, so the seeming discrepancy puzzled me.

    I think the real danger of this whole debate boils down to which definition of marriage will be accepted legally. Those who are claiming it is a “right” feel that civil marriage is an institution formed for the private security and mutual gratification of the participants. Under this definition, it is logical to say that depriving individuals of public recognition of their relationships is depriving them of equal rights.

    The other definition of the public institution of marriage is that it is indeed a public institution, and that public recognition of private relationships is extended because the public recognizes as a whole that the general welfare is furthered by such relationships. Under this definition, the public as a whole has the right to distinguish between relationships that it considers worthy of recognition and those that it doesn’t.

    Under either definition you could make a case for extending marriage rights to same-sex relationships.

    However, if the first definition is the one that eventually prevails in the courts, I don’t think that there is any way that we can avoid recognizing the “right” of brothers and sisters to marry, or the “right” of participants in polygamous/polygynous relationships to receive the same recognition. Ginsburg is on record for both same-sex marriage and polygamy.

    So I am extremely uneasy about the characterization of marriage as a “right” because of the probable consequences. See Muth V Frank, under which Lawrence V. Texas was argued as invalidating Wisconsin’s incest law.

    As to same-sex marriage itself, if the public retains control of the definition of marriage legally, I think it would be much less threatening. But if the courts take over and mandate same-sex marriage, I think we will find ourselves in a world of trouble.

  • Yo bro, did you have to put up the picture where I look like an albino, ethiopian, pre-teen? After this Cuba nonsense, I think it’s time for us to continue the debates.

  • MaxedOutMama,

    Agreed!!

    Oso,

    So you’re the one that has been posting here under my name? I changed you to Oso, but that was confusing, were you marked as spam before? I have added your domain to the whitelist, so you should be able to post here under your name and domain without any further problems.

  • Oso,

    No offense dude, pero you didn’t look Ethiopian . . . more like Kervorkian. You look alot different than the other pics on your blog.

  • yeah, agreed. That’s a seriously fucked up picture.

  • Seriously fucked up? What about that exceedingly sexy Mexican guy next to you? :)

  • You and Oso blow me away man. You guys got a huge noggin’ up in la cabeza. I fuckin’ respect that so much. I feel kinda stupid making any opinions, but you guys are definately educating this chingon. :)

  • Thanks EMC!! Please though, don’t feel that way regarding your opinions, I would greatly appreciate any feedback you may have.

  • Bueno, pues, perhaps over some grub and a few beers. I don’t excercise my p.o.v.’s and beliefs much the way you do (which is why i’m intimidated by your writing and your stance), but I think I hvae much to learn from you, de veras. I can’t wait to meet up in Austin.

  • Me too, im looking forward to it. But be warned, when the beers and the tequila starts to kick in, politics is the last thing I will want to talk about. ;-)

  • but I think I hvae much to learn from you, de veras

    nah.

    jk.

  • Os:You be makin’ fun of my drunkard typing? I cut you foo, I cut you.

    HP: I’ve got opinions. Let’s talk and that’s cool after unas cuantas I’m the same way. Be warned though, I get very hungry too, then sleepy.

Leave a Reply