If you are against Gay Marriage or Civil Unions, why?

[Torie]

Alcon, I think I know the path to fashioning a reasonably plausible (not winning really, but at least something other than just running  on empty, or reverting to the Bible) case against gay marriage. Maybe I will reveal it, and maybe I will not.

[memphis]

First of all, you can disregard the whole first part of my statement because it applies to you.  That is like eliminating terrorists supporting Israel when talking to me because I am not a member of al-Qaeda.  The fact remains, the issue of liberals pushing the line to far is a real one whether you want to accept that fact or not.  Just because not every supporter of gay marriage falls into this camp, that does not make the issue go away.

Right, but you're not judging an idea on its supporters, since that's a logical fallacy called poisoning the well.

You're not so petty as to commit an immoral act because it gives you the emotional satisfaction of defeating a group you don't like.  Or are you?  After all, that would be immoral in itself -- your own personal thrill vs. the right thing to do.  So, nothing you're said so far is relevant to your argument.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

As far as being immoral, this is a personal conviction of mine.  I do not believe that God intended for a man to marry another man.  The idea bothers me, but again this is not why I believe gay marriage should be banned as I do not want my personal convictions placed on others if no one is being harmed by what they are doing.  My stances on drugs and prostitution certainly highlight that is the way I think.  But I do think that the line has gotten incredibly out of control.  I fear marriage between a man and woman is abused enough, the abuse in homosexual marriage would be even greater.  For example, just marrying your best friend to be able to handle finances easier.  I do not want the line pushed any further back, American is immoral enough, its time people with values stand up and say enough is enough.

There's a lot of cruft here, but basically, you're saying:  My religious beliefs are against it, but they don't reflect on my political beliefs, so that's irrelevant.  No idea why you keep mentioning irrelevant things.

I'm now going to re-post your paragraph, with the stuff you've admitted as being irrelevant stricken (feel free to contest this):

First of all, you can disregard the whole first part of my statement because it applies to you.  That is like eliminating terrorists supporting Israel when talking to me because I am not a member of al-Qaeda.  The fact remains, the issue of liberals pushing the line to far is a real one whether you want to accept that fact or not.  Just because not every supporter of gay marriage falls into this camp, that does not make the issue go away.

As far as being immoral, this is a personal conviction of mine.  I do not believe that God intended for a man to marry another man.  The idea bothers me, but again this is not why I believe gay marriage should be banned as I do not want my personal convictions placed on others if no one is being harmed by what they are doing.  My stances on drugs and prostitution certainly highlight that is the way I think.  But I do think that the line has gotten incredibly out of control.  I fear marriage between a man and woman is abused enough, the abuse in homosexual marriage would be even greater.  For example, just marrying your best friend to be able to handle finances easier.  I do not want the line pushed any further back, American is immoral enough, its time people with values stand up and say enough is enough.

So, we have basically one issue you present:  the fear that marriage benefits will be abused for economic gain, at a level greater than your (possibly arbitrary and definitely unspecified) comfort, because there are fewer gay couples than straight couples.  That, apparently, you see as immoral (because it is the only argument you have presented without striking its relevance, directly or logically.)

This is a potentially fair claim.  However, how does that make your opposition "hippie BS"?  Perhaps they place greater interest in social equality than you, and less important on the likelihood of abuse.  Perhaps they think abuse levels would be lower.  Either way, it's a matter of interpretation and subjective preference.

In this case, you have failed to provide any evidence of same-sex marriages being extensively abused for economic benefits.  You also haven't recognized that opposite-sex marriages have a potential for abuse, and you need to realize that the distinction you're making (one is acceptable abuse, the other is "hippie BS") is arbitrary and subjective.  It does not make your belief invalid.  It makes it unsupported and unclear.

In other words, your opinion is based on only one logical grounds (the likelihood of abuse), to which you have provided no evidence, no concrete "litmus test" for an unacceptable level of abuse, and then defend with a bunch of vague statements about morality.  On the other hand, you reject the moral arguments of your opposition as "hippie BS."  Is your belief on such shaky ground that you have to do that, or is it just reactionary?  (No need to respond to that false dichotomy )

Summary:  Your conviction is unsupported, seemingly arbitrary, technical/subjective and not established in concrete philosophy, and apparently necessitates bringing in arguments you admittedly see as irrelevant to provide "meat."  In other words, from what you've presented, it's not nearly as strong and concrete as you seem to think it is.  Off yer high horse, bud.

Congrats to you, Alcon. This is no exaggeration: Best ownage in Forum history!

[A18]

Alcon, I think I know the path to fashioning a reasonably plausible (not winning really, but at least something other than just running  on empty, or reverting to the Bible) case against gay marriage. Maybe I will reveal it, and maybe I will not.

There is a perfectly "plausible" argument against it; namely, that homosexuality is immoral, and that accordingly the state ought not condone it.

[DownWithTheLeft]

1. If your sole logical argument is "it's ripe for abuse": Where is your evidence of this occurring, and what level of real use vs. abuse would be acceptable?  How do you arrive at this "litmus test"?

The difference here seems to be agreement over what "logical argument" is.  To me, the fact that the left has pushed the line too far and its time for conservatives to push back is a logical argument.  You may not agree with it, but I fail to see why its illogical.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I have not taken theology off the table, religion is my main grounds for opposing it.  I also that it is just plain sick, but that religious convictions conquers that.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Defeating the left is doing the right thing, one of the main goals of the collective left is to destroy moral values and religion and replace them with an immoral secular culture.

[John Dibble]

Defeating the left is doing the right thing, one of the main goals of the collective left is to destroy moral values and religion and replace them with an immoral secular culture.

Dude, that's paranoia to a delusional level. Something like 85-90% of this country is religious to some degree or another. So even if every secular person was a leftist (which we know from this very forum is not the case) the majority of what could be considered the left in the country would still not be secular.

[Alcon]

The difference here seems to be agreement over what "logical argument" is.  To me, the fact that the left has pushed the line too far and its time for conservatives to push back is a logical argument.  You may not agree with it, but I fail to see why its illogical.

Because it rests on the base that it is "too far," which is begging the question.  If your premise that it was "too far" was conclusively proven, there would be no debate here.  The problem is, you haven't made any attempt to prove it, outside that gay marriage could be abused.  As I've covered, that's a complaint you've failed to support, and a standard you've failed to define.

I have not taken theology off the table, religion is my main grounds for opposing it.  I also that it is just plain sick, but that religious convictions conquers that.

Um:

"The idea bothers me, but again this is not why I believe gay marriage should be banned as I do not want my personal convictions placed on others if no one is being harmed by what they are doing."

Lol?

Defeating the left is doing the right thing, one of the main goals of the collective left is to destroy moral values and religion and replace them with an immoral secular culture.

In other words, this is one big slippery slope argument?

So, how would this not apply to interracial marriage?  Or are you opposed to that, too?  Pretty much any measure associated with social progressivism would be "off-limits" with you, just in order to spite the secular left.  When does the collateral damage in your ideological war become too great?

As a secular person who considers morality very important, whether I live up to it or not, I think that your means-to-the-ends approach to immorality is exactly the cause of the things you claim to hate.

Hopefully, in a generation or so when gay marriage loses its controversy (which I assume it probably will), you'll accept it like the other causes (interracial marriage, equal rights for women, etc.) that your philosophy would have demanded you argued against were you of a different age.  Then, you can move onto whatever new knee-jerk position is out there for you.  Hopefully, this time, you'll be right, not just think you're with the right people.

[Ban my account ffs!]

The difference here seems to be agreement over what "logical argument" is.  To me, the fact that the left has pushed the line too far and its time for conservatives to push back is a logical argument.  You may not agree with it, but I fail to see why its illogical.

Because it rests on the base that it is "too far," which is begging the question.  If your premise that it was "too far" was conclusively proven, there would be no debate here.  The problem is, you haven't made any attempt to prove it, outside that gay marriage could be abused.  As I've covered, that's a complaint you've failed to support, and a standard you've failed to define.

I have not taken theology off the table, religion is my main grounds for opposing it.  I also that it is just plain sick, but that religious convictions conquers that.

Um:

"The idea bothers me, but again this is not why I believe gay marriage should be banned as I do not want my personal convictions placed on others if no one is being harmed by what they are doing."

Lol?

Defeating the left is doing the right thing, one of the main goals of the collective left is to destroy moral values and religion and replace them with an immoral secular culture.

In other words, this is one big slippery slope argument?

So, how would this not apply to interracial marriage?  Or are you opposed to that, too?  Pretty much any measure associated with social progressivism would be "off-limits" with you, just in order to spite the secular left.  When does the collateral damage in your ideological war become too great?

As a secular person who considers morality very important, whether I live up to it or not, I think that your means-to-the-ends approach to immorality is exactly the cause of the things you claim to hate.

Hopefully, in a generation or so when gay marriage loses its controversy (which I assume it probably will), you'll accept it like the other causes (interracial marriage, equal rights for women, etc.) that your philosophy would have demanded you argued against were you of a different age.  Then, you can move onto whatever new knee-jerk position is out there for you.  Hopefully, this time, you'll be right, not just think you're with the right people.

*applause*

[Frodo]

I am against it because it's icky... 


Just give me time to get used to the idea of seeing two men or two women wedded in holy matrimony, and I might start changing my mind.  As of now...ugh. 

[Scam of God]

I am against it because it's icky... 

If more conservatives were honest with themselves, this would be their answer; either this, or the basic fact that they really secretly hate individualism and want to see the man subsumed into the (socio-religious) collective, like a theocratic Borg.

[Associate Justice PiT]

I am against it because it's icky... 

If more conservatives were honest with themselves, this would be their answer; either this, or the basic fact that they really secretly hate individualism and want to see the man subsumed into the (socio-religious) collective, like a theocratic Borg.

     Once in current events class, we were discussing a spate of political issues, one of which was gay marriage.

     Anyway, the teacher at one point told us that they were discussing it in another class, where one kid indeed said that gay marriage should be illegal because it is disgusting. The teacher then asked him if he would support outlawing a food that he found disgusting. His response to that was also yes.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I am against it because it's icky... 

If more conservatives were honest with themselves, this would be their answer; either this, or the basic fact that they really secretly hate individualism and want to see the man subsumed into the (socio-religious) collective, like a theocratic Borg.

     Once in current events class, we were discussing a spate of political issues, one of which was gay marriage.

     Anyway, the teacher at one point told us that they were discussing it in another class, where one kid indeed said that gay marriage should be illegal because it is disgusting. The teacher then asked him if he would support outlawing a food that he found disgusting. His response to that was also yes.

Disgusting kids like him should be outlawed.

[Phony Moderate]

I am aganist same-sex marriage because religion knows what's right and what's wrong and it should dictate other people's lives and hurt people if needed. Traditional values should always be protected no matter what, and anyone who disagrees with me is an anti-American far-left liberal elitist.

[the artist formerly known as catmusic]

I don't know why some people are against it. Marry whoever you want, spend time with who you want.

Goodbye for now.

[Alcon]

I am against it because it's icky... 


Just give me time to get used to the idea of seeing two men or two women wedded in holy matrimony, and I might start changing my mind.  As of now...ugh. 

Before I go all "moral outrage" on you, two questions:  Is this a serious ethical argument, and do you like broccoli?

[Frodo]

I am against it because it's icky... 


Just give me time to get used to the idea of seeing two men or two women wedded in holy matrimony, and I might start changing my mind.  As of now...ugh. 

Before I go all "moral outrage" on you, two questions:  Is this a serious ethical argument, and do you like broccoli?

I should have used past-tense, since I no longer see the point in actively opposing it.. 

Actually it was an honest answer delivered tongue-in-cheek -hardly an 'argument' worth the name.  The more I delved into how and why I felt about the issue, the more I came to feel that that was the real reason behind why I originally opposed gay marriage -primarily personal disgust and discomfort at the very concept of marriage outside the norm of man and woman wedded in holy matrimony, as well as the imagery it inspired in my mind.  That was pretty much it.  I can't use religion to oppose it -I don't go to church, and I'm not even baptized.  And nor do I have any personal animus against the GLBT community. 

And yes, I do like broccoli -sort of.  It's better than brussel sprouts...   

[pogo stick]

It's a tradition that must be upheld. It's not a right given by the Constitution.

[Associate Justice PiT]

It's a tradition that must be upheld. It's not a right given by the Constitution.

     Why must it be upheld, though? Must all traditions be upheld?

[Scam of God]

It's a tradition that must be upheld. It's not a right given by the Constitution.

Individual liberty is also a tradition - more specifically, an American tradition. Do American traditions fall when pitted against your peculiar religious traditions?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The truth of the matter is and some will see this a confessional is that Conservatism inheretanly is mistrustful of the common people and who must either be held in placed by social customs or by a strong central Gov't. This was the view taken by Conservatives such as John Adams, Alexander Hamilton, and Edmund Burke. And since American Conservativism has tossed aside the Strong Central Gov't in order to appeal to libertarians then you see the reason they place emphasis on Traditional Marriage.

Indeed this Pre-Reagan or Pre-Goldwater Conservatism has always held a certain amount of sway in the GOP stretching back to its start in 1854 when it brought in the old Federalists in the form of the Northern whigs and Later in the 1850's when it brought in the Know-nothings. To say this is caused by recent Southern influence is completely false. It actually has its roots in the Puritanical and paternalistic views of old time New England Conservatives. Whats changed is that this now only appeals to Southern voters and is completely unacceptable in the New England and the Northeast in general where it used to thrive. To say its racist is also incorrect cause this is the same movement that in fact ended Slavery. It has however gotten attacked as racist due to its support for Prohibition which had a negative effect on Irish and German Immigrants. Of course those that were denizens of the Know-Nothings and there political decendents were and are racist. The differences however are so subtle that its hard to tell who is and who isn't truly a racist in this form of Conservatism. The last politician to really espouse this type of Conservatism was probably Robert Taft who was definately not a racist but some people who followed him were like those that comprise the modern Constitutionalist party.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

It's a tradition that must be upheld. It's not a right given by the Constitution.

Individual liberty is also a tradition - more specifically, an American tradition. Do American traditions fall when pitted against your peculiar religious traditions?

Liberty is a tradition as long as it is responsible. Peculiar or not as long as it serves the purpose of keeping people contained and avoiding Anarchy, thats all Conservatives care about. Thus the true definition of Conservative is freedom in a controlled and orderly fashion, whereas Liberatianism is essentially freedom from consequences or rather Anarchy and chaos.

[Scam of God]

The truth of the matter is and some will see this a confessional is that Conservatism inheretanly is mistrustful of the common people and who must either be held in placed by social customs or by a strong central Gov't. This was the view taken by Conservatives such as John Adams, Alexander Hamilton, and Edmund Burke. And since American Conservativism has tossed aside the Strong Central Gov't in order to appeal to libertarians then you see the reason they place emphasis on Traditional Marriage.

Which is exactly why the misbegotten 'fusionist' marriage between libertarians and conservatives was ill-thought out, and why it cannot last. For the libertarian trusts the individual, as a fundamentally rational creature - man is, after all, the "thinking animal" - to attain his own happiness through the utilization of his own powers of reasoning in the pursuit of his goals. He does not believe, as the Christian does, that man is inherently flawed or fallen 'by nature'; indeed, I myself reject altogether the concept of 'human nature', at least one that can be boiled down to his being either "innately good" or "innately evil". Man is a multifaceted, contradictory creature, and the conservative philosophy is useless in its simplicity.

As I see it, there is no fundamental difference in the way conservatives and liberals approach humanity. Both insist that the individual man must make sacrifices "for the good of the collective", and neither trusts the individual man to use his own prowess, to the best of his abilities, for his own good: both are therefore philosophies of suspicion. And we most suspect others of being what we ourselves are guilty of, but can never admit. Hence the world-famous hypocrisy with which conservatives usually operate: by holding men to an unattainable standard, they set themselves up for the fall.

[Scam of God]

It's a tradition that must be upheld. It's not a right given by the Constitution.

Individual liberty is also a tradition - more specifically, an American tradition. Do American traditions fall when pitted against your peculiar religious traditions?

Liberty is a tradition as long as it is responsible. Peculiar or not as long as it serves the purpose of keeping people contained and avoiding Anarchy, thats all Conservatives care about. Thus the true definition of Conservative is freedom in a controlled and orderly fashion, whereas Liberatianism is essentially freedom from consequences or rather Anarchy and chaos.

Men need a little chaos in their lives: because only chaos is capable of destroying an order that is obsolete or outdated, opening up means for new creation - "You must have chaos within you to give birth to a dancing star."

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The truth of the matter is and some will see this a confessional is that Conservatism inheretanly is mistrustful of the common people and who must either be held in placed by social customs or by a strong central Gov't. This was the view taken by Conservatives such as John Adams, Alexander Hamilton, and Edmund Burke. And since American Conservativism has tossed aside the Strong Central Gov't in order to appeal to libertarians then you see the reason they place emphasis on Traditional Marriage.

Which is exactly why the misbegotten 'fusionist' marriage between libertarians and conservatives was ill-thought out, and why it cannot last. For the libertarian trusts the individual, as a fundamentally rational creature - man is, after all, the "thinking animal" - to attain his own happiness through the utilization of his own powers of reasoning in the pursuit of his goals. He does not believe, as the Christian does, that man is inherently flawed or fallen 'by nature'; indeed, I myself reject altogether the concept of 'human nature', at least one that can be boiled down to his being either "innately good" or "innately evil". Man is a multifaceted, contradictory creature, and the conservative philosophy is useless in its simplicity.

As I see it, there is no fundamental difference in the way conservatives and liberals approach humanity. Both insist that the individual man must make sacrifices "for the good of the collective", and neither trusts the individual man to use his own prowess, to the best of his abilities, for his own good: both are therefore philosophies of suspicion. And we most suspect others of being what we ourselves are guilty of, but can never admit. Hence the world-famous hypocrisy with which conservatives usually operate: by holding men to an unattainable standard, they set themselves up for the fall.

The only difference is that Conservatives do however belief that Private individuals are better at making economic decisions then the Gov't. However they do value the Corporation over the individual in this regard hence again, you are right only the form of collectivism is different. Its ironic but if you are right then the Parties are going to be exactly aligned on these things as they were in 1790's. Hence the new problem and that is the growth in the belief that the Gov't can secure ones economic status through increasing its size. This didn't exist back then and it forms a problem for your perfect world. If the Dems do become the party of Libertarianism the GOP would still be the party of Big Business. And the populists you say are going to take over the GOP would be far to uncomfortable with that. As will the Liberals that are currently in the Democratic party. Hence why you theory still doesn't work.

It's a tradition that must be upheld. It's not a right given by the Constitution.

Individual liberty is also a tradition - more specifically, an American tradition. Do American traditions fall when pitted against your peculiar religious traditions?

Liberty is a tradition as long as it is responsible. Peculiar or not as long as it serves the purpose of keeping people contained and avoiding Anarchy, thats all Conservatives care about. Thus the true definition of Conservative is freedom in a controlled and orderly fashion, whereas Liberatianism is essentially freedom from consequences or rather Anarchy and chaos.

Men need a little chaos in their lives: because only chaos is capable of destroying an order that is obsolete or outdated, opening up means for new creation - "You must have chaos within you to give birth to a dancing star."

Yes but after you Libertarians traumatiziation is done, the Middle class will always choose stabililty insuring the electoral viabililty of a Conservative Republican Party. 

[Scam of God]

The truth of the matter is and some will see this a confessional is that Conservatism inheretanly is mistrustful of the common people and who must either be held in placed by social customs or by a strong central Gov't. This was the view taken by Conservatives such as John Adams, Alexander Hamilton, and Edmund Burke. And since American Conservativism has tossed aside the Strong Central Gov't in order to appeal to libertarians then you see the reason they place emphasis on Traditional Marriage.

Which is exactly why the misbegotten 'fusionist' marriage between libertarians and conservatives was ill-thought out, and why it cannot last. For the libertarian trusts the individual, as a fundamentally rational creature - man is, after all, the "thinking animal" - to attain his own happiness through the utilization of his own powers of reasoning in the pursuit of his goals. He does not believe, as the Christian does, that man is inherently flawed or fallen 'by nature'; indeed, I myself reject altogether the concept of 'human nature', at least one that can be boiled down to his being either "innately good" or "innately evil". Man is a multifaceted, contradictory creature, and the conservative philosophy is useless in its simplicity.

As I see it, there is no fundamental difference in the way conservatives and liberals approach humanity. Both insist that the individual man must make sacrifices "for the good of the collective", and neither trusts the individual man to use his own prowess, to the best of his abilities, for his own good: both are therefore philosophies of suspicion. And we most suspect others of being what we ourselves are guilty of, but can never admit. Hence the world-famous hypocrisy with which conservatives usually operate: by holding men to an unattainable standard, they set themselves up for the fall.

The only difference is that Conservatives do however belief that Private individuals are better at making economic decisions then the Gov't. However they do value the Corporation over the individual in this regard hence again, you are right only the form of collectivism is different. Its ironic but if you are right then the Parties are going to be exactly aligned on these things as they were in 1790's. Hence the new problem and that is the growth in the belief that the Gov't can secure ones economic status through increasing its size. This didn't exist back then and it forms a problem for your perfect world. If the Dems do become the party of Libertarianism the GOP would still be the party of Big Business. And the populists you say are going to take over the GOP would be far to uncomfortable with that. As will the Liberals that are currently in the Democratic party. Hence why you theory still doesn't work.

Libertarians most emphatically do not "support big business". We support capitalism - and when businesses become a threat to capitalism (for instance, by using lobbyists to pressure the government into propping up their businesses with bailouts), we will most emphatically oppose it. For example, many businesses actually profited, as Rothbard correctly points out, from Vietnam, by supplying the government with the tools of the trade: which any libertarian worth the title would have opposed, both because of the immorality of the war itself and because war-profiteering perverts the structure of capitalism. Conservatives have no such qualms.

Conservatives support Big Business, but are neutral on the overall question of capitalism. Libertarians support capitalism, but understand that there are times when the interests of business undermine the continued functioning of the order. 

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The truth of the matter is and some will see this a confessional is that Conservatism inheretanly is mistrustful of the common people and who must either be held in placed by social customs or by a strong central Gov't. This was the view taken by Conservatives such as John Adams, Alexander Hamilton, and Edmund Burke. And since American Conservativism has tossed aside the Strong Central Gov't in order to appeal to libertarians then you see the reason they place emphasis on Traditional Marriage.

Which is exactly why the misbegotten 'fusionist' marriage between libertarians and conservatives was ill-thought out, and why it cannot last. For the libertarian trusts the individual, as a fundamentally rational creature - man is, after all, the "thinking animal" - to attain his own happiness through the utilization of his own powers of reasoning in the pursuit of his goals. He does not believe, as the Christian does, that man is inherently flawed or fallen 'by nature'; indeed, I myself reject altogether the concept of 'human nature', at least one that can be boiled down to his being either "innately good" or "innately evil". Man is a multifaceted, contradictory creature, and the conservative philosophy is useless in its simplicity.

As I see it, there is no fundamental difference in the way conservatives and liberals approach humanity. Both insist that the individual man must make sacrifices "for the good of the collective", and neither trusts the individual man to use his own prowess, to the best of his abilities, for his own good: both are therefore philosophies of suspicion. And we most suspect others of being what we ourselves are guilty of, but can never admit. Hence the world-famous hypocrisy with which conservatives usually operate: by holding men to an unattainable standard, they set themselves up for the fall.

The only difference is that Conservatives do however belief that Private individuals are better at making economic decisions then the Gov't. However they do value the Corporation over the individual in this regard hence again, you are right only the form of collectivism is different. Its ironic but if you are right then the Parties are going to be exactly aligned on these things as they were in 1790's. Hence the new problem and that is the growth in the belief that the Gov't can secure ones economic status through increasing its size. This didn't exist back then and it forms a problem for your perfect world. If the Dems do become the party of Libertarianism the GOP would still be the party of Big Business. And the populists you say are going to take over the GOP would be far to uncomfortable with that. As will the Liberals that are currently in the Democratic party. Hence why you theory still doesn't work.

Libertarians most emphatically do not "support big business". We support capitalism - and when businesses become a threat to capitalism (for instance, by using lobbyists to pressure the government into propping up their businesses with bailouts), we will most emphatically oppose it. For example, many businesses actually profited, as Rothbard correctly points out, from Vietnam, by supplying the government with the tools of the trade: which any libertarian worth the title would have opposed, both because of the immorality of the war itself and because war-profiteering perverts the structure of capitalism. Conservatives have no such qualms.

Conservatives support Big Business, but are neutral on the overall question of capitalism. Libertarians support capitalism, but understand that there are times when the interests of business undermine the continued functioning of the order. 

Partly yes. Republicans and Conservatives modified there support of Big Business into Support for Limited Gov't. However I disagree about Conservatives not supporting Capitalism. They however believe that Gov't lacks the means with which to deal with those problems(such as Corporations getting in the way of Capitalism) so they rely on the consumers to boycott and such. Libertarians I would argue oppose captialism in that they have roots going all the way back to Jefferson and Jackson and this legacy opposition to business and commercial development is one major inherent flaw that Libertarians will never shake. However you failed to answer the question as to how were you propose Populists and Liberals will end up in your new world. They aren't going away though I wish they both would.

As to the war issue this branch contains a significant anti-war element that comes from the isolationism of the both the federalist under Washington and of the Know-nothings. Big Business actually opposed the civil war and to some degree the Spanish American War(but by then it had for the most pary shifted.) But if you look at the War of 1812, the Mexican American War, and the Civil War were all opposed by Big Business cause of the destabilization cause by War. However the Spanish American War proved Business could profit off a war that was started by the US and the necessity of restoring World Peace in WW1 cause of the destablisization of trade it had caused. This is the cause of the divorce of big business and Isolationism, and at the same time they realised they could profit off free trade so the divorce of big business and Protectionism began at the same time as well.

Notice also that even the isolationist conservatives supported a stronger military going all the way back to the days of Adams who created the Navy Dept. Pro-Military Isolationism as I like to call it. So the claims that the Republican support for a strong military started in the 1950's is also false. Chester Arthur another prime example modernised the Navy in the 1880's. It's not some takover by the military industrial complex, instead it is an inherent characteristic of Conservativism to favor a strong military whether they were isolationist or interventionist with a few famous exceptions.