The Future of Social Conservatism

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

well, if there was never a need for a "rationale", then some of us wouldn't have to pay others to engage in it.

Dude, I was speaking among we men - after all this is a gentlemen's club.  Certainly the mercenary sex almost always has a rationale for it.

As well they should. We should all be so lucky.

(It needs to be said: My heavy ambivalence towards sexuality in general doesn't really take gender into account, which is why I support gay marriage.)

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

in the 60's no one ever thought that homosexual agenda would lead to what it has become if they would have realized that they would have destroyed it before it started.  as opposed to all your other ones

And how, exactly, do you think this would have been accomplished?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Different issues are different; gay marriage and (to a lesser extent) marijuana legalization are probably inevitable (which is a good thing in my book), but support for gun rights has increased, and support for unrestricted abortion has fluctuated and is currently in decline (I like these trends as well).  I don't think Roe v. Wade will last forever (personal stance aside, its just too problematic to hold up as a Constitutional interpretation without overwhelming public support).  That is not to say that abortion will be illegal in most states, but legislation will in most states likely reflect the general European stance (legal only for the first 2-3 months, and other restrictions).

Anyways, the issues that attempt to restrain human behavior which does not directly affect others are unlikely to withstand dedicated opposition unless an objective case can be made for its detrimental impact on society, particularly in countries with 'libertarian' foundations such as ours.  In some cases (like gay marriage), people are gradually coming to the conclusion that the negative externalities, if any, are insufficient to justify legal restrictions.  Other socially 'conservative' issues will not necessarily meet the same fate, particularly if they serve an objectively vital function for healthy societies.

Not only that, but some "social conservatives" may have very different attitudes on certain issues than others. Plenty of blue collar whites around MA/RI are pro casinos for example, but basically mainline social conservatives on everything else. Same with a lot of black voters: look at their stances on "law and order" type issues (drug war or death penalty) and then compare it to their views on say, something like homosexuality or religion in society. The problem in discussing "social conservatism" that a lot of people have is that they assume all social conservatism = white protestant voters trying to impose their value system on everyone else, which isn't entirely true.

Exactly. This is actually something I've been trying to say to various people for a long time, though in my area (western Mass) there's an oddly common (not extremely so, but more present than you might think) phenomenon among white-ethnic blue-collar Catholics wherein they are at least open to LGBT issues, due to either having gay relatives or simply the experience of living in places like Holyoke or Chicopee that are in relatively close proximity to the gay enclaves in the Pioneer Valley, but straight-down-the-line believers in Catholic social teachings on pretty much everything else. My family, for instance, is pretty much all at least somewhat pro-gay, but I have some very anti-abortion and anti-euthanasia, sometimes even anti-contraception, relatives, particularly in the older generations.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

That's very likely, since Massachusetts Catholics actually tend to have a reasonably good attendance rate. That combined with ghost_white's analysis applied to the social and political dynamics of the state in general I think explains it pretty well.