That is the truth of the matter. I have wished for a different word to apply to parameters within the physical sciences because of the association in my mind of “conservative” = “bat-poop crazy advocate of deportation for gay citizens”. I might, might, be willing to consider accepting that equality is a common cause with some on the right if a different word was used, because I hear someone proclaim that they are “conservative” and I really have a hard time taking anything they say as anything but a veiled threat against my equality or existence.

The problem with the Libertarian argument that the government should “get out of marriage altogether” is that this is merely used as an excuse to avoid working on equality. No one saying that is actively putting in any work to dismantle opposite-sex marriages.

And besides, conservative appeals to “small government” are completely disingenuous.

TRiG.

“When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.”

So since you accuse me of short chaining people. How about I say it rudely. I am not going to give ownership of Liberty, Family, Marriage, and Equality to a random group of strangers who may or may not be anti-change (though from the current agreed upon point of view they seem anti-change) just so they might share a piece of the pie with me.

Gay Issues are not “Fundamentally Conservative” issues they are fundamentally human issues and I should not have to seceded my claim to them so “Conservatives” (not to disparage the rich history of the American Conservative movement by calling this particular group by the label they have chosen) can feel good about how they vote.

Because when I read a “Conservative” (once again I am making no attempt to disparage the rich history of the conservative movement by using this label which was self chosen) making arguments like the above article references, what I partially read is “Buddy up the “conservatives” (or whatever they may be called as to not disparage the rich history of american conservatism) and convince them that these ideas are old world values that actually belong to them so they can finally get around to doing the right thing and I no longer feel like an ass for teaming up with them.”

I’m certainly not one to be calling people out on their arrogance, so I’ll leave that one to Priya, and we may have been posting at the same time, so you might not have seen it, but, for what it’s worth, I did put a definition of conservatism out there that I did not pull from a dictionary.

And yet in your first post you were adamantly denying that. As Blake points out the definition of conservative (what most people think it means) has next to nothing to do with your long-winded “patting yourself on the back” self-importance and everyting to do with being averse to change. You’re wrong and no amount of long-winded navel gazing is going to change that.

Andrew, obviously quebec separation has nothing to do with this topic and for you to suggest that for that reason this discussion only applies to Americans is idiotic. Your vain attempt to sound worldly is rather sad given that if you had anything beyond a superficial knowledge of Canada you’d know the issue of seperation has nothing to do with liberalism or conservatism and hasn’t been an issue of any sort in Canada for many years.

Americans don’t own the concept of conservative or whether or not conservative issues are gay issues, that it was written by an American newspaper is no more relavant than if an american newspaper talks about birth control – it is not an American only issue.

I don’t feel superior, its obviously you that does and attitudes like yours that only American opinions matter are the reason why people like you are despised outside your borders and humble Americans prefer to wear Canadian flags on their backpacks when they travel the world. When you pompously appear here and declare “some folks here need an education.” and pretend you are the one to provide it you are demonstrating exactly the sort of arrogance that leads to the stereotype of the ugly Amercian.

You may have spent time outside of the borders of the U.S. but you obviously haven’t learned the simple lesson of having a little humility. Obviously going around the world and bragging about how great Americans are hasn’t opened your eyes to the world beyond your border.

It’s precisely the hijacking and morphing of the word that I was talking about previously – the word continues to mean different things over time – at least when it comes to American politics.

But thanks for tossing out an opinion but, rather than taking responsibility for it, citing a 3rd party reference that you think no one can argue with.

As for glass houses, I don’t think I’m putting words in Priya’s mouth. Nor did I put words in Kith’s (the resentful person I cited):

“I for one am sick of seceding my claim to Family and America and Liberty to the conservatives. They do not own them and just because I pursue it doesn’t mean I am suddenly a conservative.”

I’m sorry, was “sick of” and “resentful” qualitatively different? Please, consult your dictionary and get back to us.

Anyway, my dictionary defines “conservative” as 1. disposed to maintain the status quo or 2.cautious. Funny… No mention of Adam Smith.

I still think the consistent position, across time, of conservatives (however that word has related to a particular political party or movement) has been an aversion to the new. Be that new Economic ideas or new social ideas.