So, this issue has been occupying my mind for a while now. I've also been dabbling in centre-right ideology recently.

According to the Encyclopedia Britannica, "Conservatism, political doctrine that emphasizes the value of traditional institutions and practices. Conservatism is a preference for the historically inherited rather than the abstract and ideal. This preference has traditionally rested on an organic conception of society—that is, on the belief that society is not merely a loose collection of individuals but a living organism comprising closely connected, interdependent members."

Without quoting ad verbatim, conservatism doesn't oppose change, but supports organic and gradual change. Whilst conservatism early on in its development was about protecting the ruling class and their interests (High Toryism) it evolved not only in response to the French Revolution but in response to 'radical' ideologies such as liberalism (radical here meaning advocating for change - progress). Thus, conservatism adopted a defensive position, and let the Liberals use political initiative. , which explains why many conservative governments didn't adopt reforms or progressive policies.

Conservatism underwent significant changes in its ideology during the 19th Century when liberal/radical ideas were sweeping Europe. Eventually, conservatives adopted many liberal tenets, in my view mainly as a way to prevent extreme revolution that they witnessed in the France. Bismark in Germany, for example, passed much social legislation, as a way to appease the radical left. In Britain, the conservatives adopted liberal tenets because they knew that it was inevitable.

Of course, the other side of conservatism, which ties in with its support for organic and gradual change is the fact that conservatives value traditional institutions such as: the church, the family and the community. In modern times, I would say that the conservative particularly values the family, which leads to another question: "which should society prioritize: the family or the individual?" There seems to be a conflict between the freedom of the individual and the stability of the family.

If we agree that the family is the bedrock of society and is the best teacher and nurturer of children, then should we jeopardize this in favour of extreme individual liberty? For example, was same-sex marriage more about the family, or more about the individual? Is gender fluidity beneficial to the family or to the individual?

Which has more social utility? The individual or the family? I believe that the family has more socially utility and society should prioritize the family over the individual.

Thoughts??

AugCaesarustus

Not sure what it means in terms of politics but in general Australians in many ways are conservative and progressive in many ways ...... the biggest group are centrists.

In many ways the ALP are very conservative and often regressive like many things in life its not a binary thing but a grey scale thing.

For most people I meet they really don't think about the political spectrum much at all. Typically Australians don't know what they want but they know what they hate.

In modern politics I really don't see the binary difference in political parties, even in the US you have one right wing party up against another right wing. In Australia we have one party right of centre the other left of centre...... under Rudd they pretended to be small l Liberal or Howard lite ..... so its an argument of shades of grey. Both the LNP and ALP overlap on each others polices often as a political strategy.

Based on actual performance the current LNP is conservative and the ALP looks regressive to me with BS Shorten at the helm.

I would prefer a progressive party governs to change what needs to be changed .... its a hard call given how the electorate punishes parties that push to far from the centre .... this applies to both the LNP and ALP.

Auggie wrote on Feb 17^th, 2018 at 2:22pm:


I agree ... family.

Now progressives will argue "what constitutes" a family?

Well their theory can get buried where it belongs... in the back of their tiny minds a good depth underground.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Feb 17^th, 2018 at 8:25pm:


The individual comes from Descartes, Kant and Hume, spanning continental philosophy and impericism. If this is liberal theory, you must think all modern thought is liberal.

The concept of the nuclear family is Victorian - very recent.

Thatcher was influenced by Friedrich Hayek, an economist/theorist often described as a conservative anarchist, but probably more influenced by the liberal ideal of the individual Mistie mentions - a radical libertarian in the mould of John Stuart Mill.

Conservative "family" values were only really formulated in the 1950s - a phenomenon of the post-war era. While she rallied behind the family, no one did more to dismantle its economic foundations than Thatcher and the zeitgeist she worked within.

Categorising these theories definitively and ideologically is always stupid. They merge and blend with their opponents and rivals. Their stated aims often have completely unintended consequences. There is beauty - and horror - in all social/political theory. All want to make the world better, and all have the potential for tyranny.

Mattyfisk wrote on Feb 17^th, 2018 at 9:05pm:


You seem confused. What part of my post are you replying to?

Anyway, by liberal theory İ take the common understanding of it, which places the individual as of the utmost importance and also places constraints on the power of government and other people.

For the record, liberalism has its roots in Luther and the Protestants. They helped break the control of the Catholic Church, in the North anyway, and started the trend of a personal relationship with God, rather than it being interpreted through priests and the Monarchs. Later, religion is removed but the concept of the individual remains. Kant and Hume (not sure about Descartes) are (obviously) riding on the back of the ideas begun by the Protestants.

Quote:


And?
Families go back, well, forever.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Feb 18^th, 2018 at 4:31am:



'Feminists' are delusional - while lambasting the 'family' as some kind of oppressive mechanism, they perpetually seek to enjoy all the benefits of family according to their own desires... more of the individual nonsense.

If they truly refused benefit of family, they would oppose women receiving support for children outside marriage, and being supported after tearing the family apart, and would, at the very base of it, not have children at all.

They should also refuse the trappings of family inherent in childcare subsidies, government benefits for children including tax concessions, and time off for family etc, since these are the State replacing the family.

Having children automatically creates a 'family' - and no one person involved in the creation of that family has or should have absolute right and control over it, and put simply, these 'feminists' could not survive in society without the continued trappings of family that they continue to receive in many ways.

A true feminist would absolutely go it alone without any assistance from anyone, but they will never do that, since they want all the cream of society and none of the dregs.

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Feb 17^th, 2018 at 9:12pm:


I agree with your assessment of the recent ballot measure. The family is the bedrock of society and should be prioritized over the individual, in my view.

Here's a question:

Should the conservatives in Australia fight to repeal same-sex marriage?

I think a consevative government could campaign for a plebiscite  on SSM given that the postal survey only garnered a 'yes' vote of 49% of all eligible voters. Priorities insist it being something for a few years in the future.

Mr Hammer wrote on Feb 18^th, 2018 at 11:42am:


Should the government disregard the opinion of the majority on this issue and vote to repeal it notwithstanding?

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Feb 18^th, 2018 at 12:07pm:


Ok, so would you support a repeal to same-sex marriage notwithstanding that the majority were in favour of it?

Auggie wrote on Feb 18^th, 2018 at 12:02pm:



Yup, people should be allowed to form a family however they want.

Have you ever heard how  M/F friends joke about how if they find themselves single and running down their reproductive clock they'll have a kid together? I know two people who actually did that. They were friends since uni, they hit their early 40s and said hey remember that pact we had?

They had a few roots and popped out a kid. In some respects, I'm just a tad jealous of his lifestyle

Having said that, I believe having a married mother and father living together in one house is the best way to structure a family and because it's so obviously such, the overwhelming vast majority of people wanting a family will strive for this, so no need to make laws to convince people of it.

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Feb 18^th, 2018 at 12:10pm:


Ok, but if a binding vote took place, would you support same-sex marriage or would you still support its repeal notwithstanding the binding vote?

Gordon wrote on Feb 18^th, 2018 at 12:26pm:


I know this is a strawman argument; but then why not legally recognize plural marriages? If a group of people want to a have a plural family, why not legally recognize it?

Auggie wrote on Feb 18^th, 2018 at 11:29am:


Yes, but would you endure bad kings to preserve a monarchy?

Take Egypt - should they have avoided a military coup to keep a useless and unpopular constitutionally elected president? Take America - should they keep giving Trump chances?

On gay marriage, it doesn't threaten mother-father families. With the exception of royal bloodlines, when has the role of the state been to preserve any sort of family at all?

Conservatism isn't about promoting values from the pulpit, it's about cultivating an enduring model of government - a stronger one that doesn't tinker with fads and trivialities.

Homosexuality has become so powerful that gay marriage naysayers were being seen as faddish and trivial - and hysterical. The French aristocracy couldn't get past this, nor could the Romanovs. The paradigm shift had already happened.

When it comes to this tipping point, the system itself has effectively changed without a law being written.

Both sides of government, their respective media apparatchiks and many big corporations threw their weight behind SSM. Still, the 'yes' vote only comprised 49% of all eligible voters. Should that constitute a natural, evolutionary, tipping point?

Auggie wrote on Feb 18^th, 2018 at 12:24pm:


A good question - even if it were a binding vote, I personally do not believe it is marriage as such to create artificial combinations of up to 126 (63 x 2) artificially created 'genders', when there are only two.

Therefore - as I've pointed out before, and in keeping with the ages long approach of the Catholic Church (of which I am not part, nor of any other), I would tolerate it, while still not beleiving it to be a valid marriage. 

They should have gone with 'separate but equal' and had civil unions with the same rights.

Mr Hammer wrote on Feb 18^th, 2018 at 2:09pm:


I sort of agree with me, too, but I remain a little conflicted over my humanitarian and egalitarian side, as opposed to the closet dictator within us all.....

Auggie wrote on Feb 18^th, 2018 at 6:03pm:


You're missing the point. SSM means nothing because of previous laws, such as no-fault divorce, the sole-parenting payment, de-facto marriage, equal rights for gay partnerships.

The gay marriage thing was all about symbolism. It meant nothing, just as it would mean nothing today if we changed our head of state's title to president.

Abbott learned from one referendum to bring on his stalling plebiscite tactic. It worked for Howard, it didn't for Abbott.

Neither of them mean anything structurally.

Mattyfisk wrote on Feb 18^th, 2018 at 9:00pm:

Whitlam wept.

Why agitate so strongly for something so meaningless? The leftly commissars in labor, greens, socialist presented ssm as essential for equality.

Now its meanigless.

You bastards are lying every time you utter.

Auggie wrote on Feb 18^th, 2018 at 9:24pm:


The fact that you can repeal it is hardly a conservative issue. Burkean conservatism is predominantly constitutional.

If the marriage act, prior to Howard repealing it, was so enduring, then how could it be repealed at all?

Auggie wrote on Feb 18^th, 2018 at 9:43pm:


No, it was left to the states, who run births, death and marriage under the constitution.

The ACT had just changed its marriage act, which Howard gazzumped with his federal law.

State's rights, you see - a conservative stalwart in our country. Cunning, no?

Frank wrote on Feb 18^th, 2018 at 10:30pm:


You should read 'The Forever War', by Joe Haldeman... in the third segment, as a survivor of the first two as a private and then a sergeant, he is a Captain of Infantry aboard a star ship, and has a problem with gays.  At that point gay/lesbian is the norm, and he is viewed as a pervert for being hetero.... that situation nearly causes disaster for the mission....

Anyway - just saying... some people are very prescient....

"Should've thrown 'em out of the airlock the first time they caused trouble...... now it's too late...."

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Feb 19^th, 2018 at 12:55am:




Well he's a major and its more a point about how the vietnam vets came back to a country that changed and they hadn't.

Mattyfisk wrote on Feb 18^th, 2018 at 9:57pm:


Yes and no. Marriage is a power conferred to the Commonwealth under section 51 so in that sense yes. But, he could've abolished federal marriage laws entirely and left the states to have their own.

Frank wrote on Feb 19^th, 2018 at 7:33pm:


Don't you think though that we're living in a post-family society anyway have been for so long now that same-sex marriage doesn't really mean anything???

Do you think we should repeal no-fault divorce or jail fathers who abandon their children?

Frank wrote on Feb 19^th, 2018 at 8:01pm:


I see your point, but in order to implement your suggestions it would involve more government intervention and intrusion.

Mattyfisk wrote on Feb 19^th, 2018 at 8:18pm:

We? You are a paki arse bandit.

I have no tab. I am a net payer, arse bandit.

I carry your perversions through my taxes. I earn too much so my sons get nothing in support while they are at uni or school. And i think this is right. We earn enought not to put our hands out.

Thats the kind of migrant you would want, you idiotic arse burglar.

But unfortunately I am  blonde and blue eyed  so it's  bad and oppressive and slave tradie. Get some tinted swarthie welfare dependants in here, otherwise it would be wacist.

goldkam wrote on Feb 19^th, 2018 at 8:59pm:


One view is that same-sex marriage is prioritizing the individual over the family. Now, this is a question as to what type of society we want: do we want individuals are more valued or where families are more valued? As it is, we live in a post-family society, so why should we erode the family even more by de-prioritizing marriage?

Another view is that marriage is about the union of man and woman, the two genders in harmony, which if you think about it, is quite egalitarian. Should we recognise a same-sex relationship over a relationship which represents both genders, both man and woman?

Frank wrote on Feb 19^th, 2018 at 8:35pm:


And not only that, but you add so much to our marvellous political discourse, no? Here's a few:

Correlation not causation.

Dirty little invert.

Paki Bastard.

Unflushable tjurd.

Coont.

Tinted.

Whatever would we do without you?

Auggie wrote on Feb 20^th, 2018 at 11:50am:


To your first point. It appears you are suggesting that gay marriage promotes individuality, when for some it does not. In 2016 12% of same sex couples had children, thus how is this diminishing social unity of families when in fact this represents a family. A family of the 21st century that people are going to have to respect and accept, but not necessarily agree with. In relation to two married same sex individuals, they are no different to two heterosexual individuals who are married, apart from the gender. But why is gender becoming an issue when defining a 'family'. So a single father or mother with a child is not part of a family because it lacks gender balance. However on that note, I do agree with you that family is an important value within society however individualism too is also extremely important as a societal structure as shown through womans rights, right to free speech etc..

To your second point. Its original intention was altered by a government of older liberal conservatives, hardly the voice of society as a whole.

To your third point. I never denied it was not egalitarian, rather heterosexual marriage does promote egalitarian principles. However so too does same sex marriage. All are entitled to feel a sense of love and union in unison with counterparts who are currently doing so. Not some dulled down version in what is called a civil union.

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Feb 18^th, 2018 at 9:26am:


Bravo

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Feb 21^st, 2018 at 7:34am:


Spot on .... whilst the Intelligentsia wax lyrical.

philperth2010 wrote on Feb 21^st, 2018 at 9:22am:


Still only Gay/Same Sex/Any Two Out Of Sixty Three Genders Marriage though... not the real thing.....

That's the problem.... the emotive sound bite sounds good.. but the reality is that deep in their hearts most do not believe it is a real marriage at all... all this does is show how people can be lead by the nose.... throw around a few emotive words like 'equality', define that to suit (add spin and shake well) .. and away you go.... people will believe it's all about equality instead of a special dispensation on a long-established norm and is thus special treatment of the few who do not wish to conform to that norm....

Why the significance of SSM for the BLT community, then?

Technically, no. Only 49% of eligible voters voted 'yes'.

Mr Hammer wrote on Feb 21^st, 2018 at 11:29am:


What percentage of eligible voters voted no?

Mr Hammer wrote on Feb 21^st, 2018 at 12:59pm:


It wasn't a vote. It was a pointless, unnecessary survey, what do you expect?

Mind you, imagine if we got rid of mandatory voting. We'd be able to come up with this argument all the time.

Mr Hammer wrote on Feb 21^st, 2018 at 1:16pm:


Not on this issue. It was a conscience vote. It wasn't decided on party lines.

Sam Morris wrote on Feb 21^st, 2018 at 5:16pm:


Really?  Why do you bother, Agnes?

Mr Hammer wrote on Feb 21^st, 2018 at 5:46pm:


Strange. You never said this about the erection of Donald J Trump.

Good of you to bring this up, Homo. I'd never considered that.

Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Feb 21^st, 2018 at 7:34am:




I actually disagree with that statement. A gay man can donate his sperm and 'have' a child through surrogacy, or in-vitro fertilisation. Same as a lesbian woman can donate her eggs to be fertilised or pass through surrogacy, thus they too can have children. This process is just frowned upon by some as an unnatural process or as not having a place in our society.

I pose this point to you......if a heterosexual couple are unable to conceive a child and have to go through surrogacy. Thus the father donates his sperm and passes it on to a surrogate mother. Does this then mean that they, as a heterosexual couple, cannot have children??? They are still conceiving a child that has some genetical material of their own, through an alternative method.

I am unsure of that happening within Australian society, I am sure it does however I have never read about. Have you got a news article or statistics on those happenings?

In that case their is nothing "equal" or "independent" regarding that. However that is not a justification to completely ban or go against same sex marriage. If a father in a heterosexual relationship leaves his wife alone with two children, it does not pose the question that heterosexual marriage should not continue to be allowed or demonised in any way.

goldkam wrote on Feb 21^st, 2018 at 8:50pm:


Nonsense. Only married couples can raise families, as every schoolboy - as Augie - knows.

Mr Hammer wrote on Feb 21^st, 2018 at 9:02pm:


Are you deliberately trying to say nothing?

Oh Homo, I think you've got it.

Mr Hammer wrote on Feb 21^st, 2018 at 9:19pm:


No, let's settle on the fact that a multi-million dollar national survey to stall a parliamentary ballot on a completely useless piece of legislation is what modern politics is all about.

It is a jolly world, no?

Mr Hammer wrote on Feb 21^st, 2018 at 9:35pm:


Sodomy? Yes, let's.

Paneer jalfreezi's been covered to death.

Mattyfisk wrote on Feb 21^st, 2018 at 8:56pm:


Now now Karnal, be nice.

My point is that the heterosexual couple is the best form of family there is.

Mattyfisk wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2018 at 12:02pm:


Yes, social models, but those social models didn't say anything about alternative families outside of a husband and wife, did they? The 'natural' family was just considered common-sense, and has been for since the rise of Christianity.

Mattyfisk wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2018 at 12:02pm:


Of course it was heterosexual; I don't know any historical homosexual families that existed. The fact that breastfeeding was shared by different mothers indicate the man/woman family structure. Men can't breastfeed, can they?

I like your Marxist analogy: internalizing the economic model we're structured in. That's very insightful. What I would say is that the development of the nuclear family no longer included grandparents, aunts, uncles etc. The economic structure of post-WW2 capitalism meant that more and more families were confined to 2 parents and their children, rather than including other members of the family. These economic changes didn't change the fundamental structure of the heterosexual family, did it?

Mattyfisk wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2018 at 12:02pm:


Those example you gave were cults: of course they didn't work as intended because it was premised on power and exploitation, rather than having the purpose of raising a family. That's why we've outlawed polygamy because it is exploitative in nature.

Mattyfisk wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2018 at 12:02pm:


Again, the nuclear family wasn't about the creation of a heterosexual family, it was about the exclusion of other family members such as grandparents, aunts, uncles etc.

@Karnal,

Do you agree that the constant in al those equations was the heterosexual family?

Mattyfisk wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2018 at 2:50pm:


No, I’m talking about the fact that marriage was deemed to be exclusively between a man and a woman because of its social utility in raising and nurturing children. Even if they belonged to the state, there were responsibilities on the family.

Aristotle wouldn’t have valued homosexual marriages or the legal recognition thereof because there was value to the state. Right?

Mattyfisk wrote on Feb 22^nd, 2018 at 8:17pm:


Sure, most people support same-sex marriage, but that's because a lot of people, such as yourself, don't believe that there's really any difference in a post-family society. They're putting the individual over the family unit.

My belief is that the natural family (with a mother and father) has more social utility than other types of families or family structures. Sure, a gay couple can raise children as well as a heterosexual couple but we all know that milk directly from the breast is better for the child than bottled milk.

As a policy measure, I think what we should think about is the idea of 'privatizing' marriage. This doesn't mean abolishing marriage completely. What it means is that we remove the legal definition of marriage and replace it with 'civil unions for all', regardless of sexual orientation. A civil union confers the same legal benefits as marriage, but it's just not called 'marriage'. Marriage should be left to religious institutions or authorized celebrants, who can confer additional status as 'married' if the person so chooses.

This makes sense in a 'post-family' society where marriage has largely become transient and transactional.