Why are conservative arguments so often irrational?

Adjectives (aka opinions) in red.

The need to justify your position laced with such descriptions, adjectives and opinions illustrates your irrationality. It's clear you are not interested in an honest conversation.

The only one you mentioned that isn't laced with opinion is #1, which incidentally directly addresses your stated objective of reducing the deficit. So you list #1 is a negative item although it fundamentally addresses the very problem you aim to fix. That's called irrationality.

 

um, actually, in some states of America you can.

Not that that was related to gay marriage, rational, or a reason.

 

thadeus, I'm probably considered fairly conservative and I'd be happy to help aid the discussion here, but maybe with a little more direction. I certainly don't think any of my positions and their arguments are irrational and I don't want to just provide a massive brain dump of all my positions on every issue in this thread.

 

How about 13 years old?

 

Similarly, as a libertarian I am curious as to why liberals and conservatives (and all statists, really) are so irrational. Any input on why you are all so irrational - or why I am not - would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.

Spoiler

I have seen many theoretical objections to democracy, and sometimes urge them with such heat that it probably goes beyond the bound of sound taste, but I am thoroughly convinced, nonetheless, that the democratic nations are happier than any other. The United States today, indeed, is probably the happiest the world has ever seen. Taxes are high, but they are still well within the means of the taxpayer: he could pay twice as much and still survive. The laws are innumerable and idiotic, but only prisoners in the penitentiaries and persons under religious vows ever obey them. The country is governed by rogues, but there is no general dislike of rogues: on the contrary, they are esteemed and envied. Best of all, the people have the pleasant feeling that they can make improvements at any time they want to— . . . in other words, they are happy. Democrats are always happy. Democracy is a sort of laughing gas. It will not cure anything, perhaps, but it unquestionably stops the pain.

H.L. Mencken, 1925

 

In many places you can - with written parental consent or if the bride is pregnant.

http://www.usmarriagelaws.com/search/united_states/teen_marriage_laws/index.shtml

So the age limits for marriage clearly indicate that one of the primary concerns with extending the right to marriage is whether both parties are capable of informed consent. There is no evidence that indicate homosexuals of legal age are incapable of informed consent.

A rather poor strawman, no?

Addressing the original question, it seems to me that people who rely on broad ideas and sources to shape and give meaning to their lives often struggle more when those ideas/sources are shown to fallible. We're living in a time when many of the key conservative ideas - biblical infallibility, American exceptionalism, capitalism as a cure-all - are being proven wrong (or maybe to be more accurate, not right all the time).

For example, science has pretty much demolished the possibility of creation as told in the Bible (if you treat the Bible's words as 100% accurate) and the rise of secularism has shown that tolerance for those condemned in the Bible won't bring down the sulfur and fire from the heavens. For someone whose life is built around the idea of biblical infallibility, this essentially leaves them in a philosophical wilderness. To accept that one part (however insignificant) of the Bible is wrong would mean that the person can no longer rely on it 100%. This thus requires a major reexamination of their belief system - something that would be mentally challenging, exhausting and even frightening for any person. It is far easier to defend existing beliefs than to reformulate new ones (especially as we get older). Hence, the irrational arguments.

 

You believe in an economic frame of thinking that was discredited a century ago, and that has not kept up with the best century of prosperity humankind has seen.

as for libertarian social views, cool coolcoolcool.

 

Informed reasoned consent is how these legal matters are settled Texxx, if you think a 13 year old can reason well enough for consent, argue it in front of a court. It's your right.

Can you prove how this is related to homosexual marriages that are informed and consensual---from what I can see your thread of thinking is quite reinforcing the premise of this thread.

 

Wrong. I, like the OP, have already defined my positions as rational, thereby making all other positions irrational by definition. So I raise the question again: why are you so irrational?

 

not so fond of the premise of this thread, but it's not stopping one or two individuals from jumping in and confirming some aspects OP was arguing.

 

So you have a subjective definition of who can provide consent, and therefore who can marry whom. Similarly, you have a subjective opinion that it's OK for a gay to marry his manpanion based on his sexual preference.

 

yes, it's quite subjective, and not an established matter of law. Excellent logic Texxx---are you going to be arguing for individual voting age and drinking age limits as well? Go argue them Texxx. You can marry as many 13 year olds as you want if you get that established.

Again, your rationale fails---at rationality, reasoning, and for one more r, reductio ad absurdum---where you are attempting to say gay marriage must be wrong because if it was right, marrying 13 year olds would be right. At least I assume that's what you are trying to do. Otherwise, your thread of logic actually doesn't address the issue at all, which is the peak of irrationality.

As for rational reasons for gay marriage, I'll trade you two for your non-existent one---equal protection of the laws, economic benefits. voila. wasn't that hard.

 

So you admit that your positon is subjective. Thanks. bye

 

Apparently, among your numerous logical fallacies is also nestled an inability to detect sarcasm, and an inability to arrive at any rational, coherent point to defend this position.

Set ages of consent are a very objective measure.

i.e >=16 cool, coolcoolcool.
<16 OH NO DANGER ZONE

Even if there were subjective criterion for allowing gay marriages, what precludes there from being objective criterion---criterion I have cited for allowing them, and you haven't for not allowing them.

 

I guess to better conform to the thread, the question must be asked---

Texxx, why do you think the way you think on these issues? I can guess based on your background that you took a bachelor's degree in Finance at a reasonably good university. It boggles my mind that someone conditioned to think in such a rational frame of mind can have such an irrational view of things.

I can coach it for you. Gay marriage is a positive NPV project (literally).

 

Minors aren't allowed to marry to protect them as they are less able to make rational decisions than adults.

This is a perfect example of conservative craziness. You drag 13 year olds into a discussion about the marriage of adults to try to create this sham argument. It's a joke.

 

Maybe so...but given the spending that the liberals want to do, it appears the liberal gene affects the ability to do basic math.

 

Marrying somebody of the same sex simply is not the same as marrying a child. Nice red herring though.

 

I think what's irrational is assuming that 320 million people have sufficiently aligned interests, values and priorities to hold the same political views. Stop treating politics like sports or religion: believing your side is always right, believing your team always has to win and only showing up when there's a crowd.

 

How so?

Liberals will tax and spend, conservatives will spend and spend.

while I hesitate to attribute macroeconomic trends to the presidency entirely (this explosion of debt being the afterhang of a "conservative" led folly towards unrestricted free markets being an example) the evidence seems to point to greater growth and in actuality, less deficit spending during Democratic administrations.