The Future of Social Conservatism
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 08:00:54 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  U.S. General Discussion (Moderators: The Dowager Mod, Chancellor Tanterterg)
  The Future of Social Conservatism
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4
Author Topic: The Future of Social Conservatism  (Read 6390 times)
BigSkyBob
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,531


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #50 on: September 14, 2011, 09:28:59 PM »

Socially conservative societies will tend towards demographic growth, while socially liberal societies will tend towards demographic decline. As a result, over time, the pool of immigrants will be more socially conservative every generation. We are witnessing, more or less, demographic transformation occuring in Israel and Turkey right now as the more socially conservative religious elements reproduce faster than secular folk.

On life, the pro-life either win by winning, or win by losing. A research study in Australian demonstrated that genetics plays a role in shaping ones attitude towards abortion. Those with genes more favorable to abortion will, eventually, abort themselves out of the gene pool. As long as abortion is legal, the genetic propensity towards being pro-life will increase every generation.
Logged
TJ in Oregon
TJ in Cleve
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,952
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.13, S: 6.96

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #51 on: September 14, 2011, 10:37:28 PM »

Socially conservative societies will tend towards demographic growth, while socially liberal societies will tend towards demographic decline. As a result, over time, the pool of immigrants will be more socially conservative every generation. We are witnessing, more or less, demographic transformation occuring in Israel and Turkey right now as the more socially conservative religious elements reproduce faster than secular folk.

On life, the pro-life either win by winning, or win by losing. A research study in Australian demonstrated that genetics plays a role in shaping ones attitude towards abortion. Those with genes more favorable to abortion will, eventually, abort themselves out of the gene pool. As long as abortion is legal, the genetic propensity towards being pro-life will increase every generation.

This is mostly true (I'm not convinced on the genetic abortion thing), but many, many more people whose views change become more liberal in this regard to the very few who become more conservative. The conservatives, at least right now in the US, are losing the demographic battle.
Logged
tpfkaw
wormyguy
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,118
United States


Political Matrix
E: -0.58, S: 1.65

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #52 on: September 14, 2011, 11:56:40 PM »

Socially conservative societies will tend towards demographic growth, while socially liberal societies will tend towards demographic decline. As a result, over time, the pool of immigrants will be more socially conservative every generation. We are witnessing, more or less, demographic transformation occuring in Israel and Turkey right now as the more socially conservative religious elements reproduce faster than secular folk.

On life, the pro-life either win by winning, or win by losing. A research study in Australian demonstrated that genetics plays a role in shaping ones attitude towards abortion. Those with genes more favorable to abortion will, eventually, abort themselves out of the gene pool. As long as abortion is legal, the genetic propensity towards being pro-life will increase every generation.

Your hypothesis relies on Darwinian natural selection to be true, you know.
Logged
afleitch
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,837


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #53 on: September 15, 2011, 03:53:58 AM »

To me, the entire idea of social conservatism and social liberalism as we understand it today was mostly irrelevant before the 1960s and the sexual revolution.

As a social historian I would disagree with you strongly on that matter. If you look at societies where the sexual revolution really did not happen, particularly in the Arab world you have arguments as to whether you should be allowed to read a Bible, whether women should vote or drive a car or whether the Holocaust occured. In the west there were different social attitudes that were part of the political consciousness prior to the 1950's (which don't feature, that much today); women's suffrage, inter-racial marriage, prohibition, right to strike...

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Which is of course a revisionist. The language you use leads me to believe that you consider God to be the arbiter of morality which as an atheist I find absurd so I am naturally going to disagree with you on that. Humans are the arbiters of morality but this is strongly influenced by the environment, competition and survivalism. As you are a Catholic (I used to be) let's take slavery; the Church's opinion mirrored that of society. Papal bulls sanctioned slavery during the age of exploration. As late as 1866, after the Civil War, the office of Pius IX stated that subject to conditions it was not against the 'divine law' for a slave to be sold, bought or exchanged. It is strongly condemned now of course, but that makes no difference.

To touch briefly on the 'rationale for sex'; it demonstrates that you don't fully understand sex. In every animal who reproduces through procreation (that can be closely observed doing so) homosexual sexual behaviour has been demonstrated. It exists in animals so diverse thay are seperated by millions or hundreds of millions of years of evolution. It doesn't 'die out'; therefore homosexual behaviour is, to borrow your phrase an 'invariant' behaviour. Likewise sex takes place between infertile animals too. Sex, while reproductive is a social act. If it wasn't, then there would be no need for us to reproduced through procreation; we would have evolved to do so in a different manner.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Which makes you incredibly foolish. It makes you man who cannot reflect on what he believes, less that belief is challenged and you are conflicted. There is no reason for someone to form an opinion and remain unchanged in it despite who he meets, what he learns and what he understands. If that conflicts your entire belief system, then you should immediately question it.
Logged
Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.
jmfcst
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,212
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #54 on: September 15, 2011, 09:44:30 AM »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Which makes you incredibly foolish. It makes you man who cannot reflect on what he believes, less that belief is challenged and you are conflicted. There is no reason for someone to form an opinion and remain unchanged in it despite who he meets, what he learns and what he understands. If that conflicts your entire belief system, then you should immediately question it.

are you trying to say it is foolish for someone to espouse their belief in something (eg. Christianity) and also choose to follow those beliefs as they are prescribed by the definitive works (eg. Bible)?
Logged
afleitch
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,837


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #55 on: September 15, 2011, 09:59:40 AM »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Which makes you incredibly foolish. It makes you man who cannot reflect on what he believes, less that belief is challenged and you are conflicted. There is no reason for someone to form an opinion and remain unchanged in it despite who he meets, what he learns and what he understands. If that conflicts your entire belief system, then you should immediately question it.

are you trying to say it is foolish for someone to espouse their belief in something (eg. Christianity) and also choose to follow those beliefs as they are prescribed by the definitive works (eg. Bible)?


No. He appeared to be talking about a personal belief system, some of which are perhaps influenced by his faith.
Logged
Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.
jmfcst
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,212
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #56 on: September 15, 2011, 10:09:52 AM »

No. He appeared to be talking about a personal belief system, some of which are perhaps influenced by his faith.

ok, I'll take your word for it since you probably read his post and I didn't....but I'm not so sure I see the difference between my personal belief system and my faith.
Logged
Person Man
Angry_Weasel
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,681
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #57 on: September 15, 2011, 11:24:39 AM »

One big thing that this thread has mentioned in passing is the entire future of the Social Issues in regards to advances in technology. As people become more and more fearful of "the singularity", with such stuff as cloning, life extension, stem cells, robots, sex bots and AI in general, it really does much to redefine social conservatism (besides changing the way people live, it does relate quite a bit with abortion) as being the force that maintains the human existence in a way we currently understand it.

Many people have also rightfully compared social conservatism with some left-wing ideas like feminism and gun control. Another left-wing idea that you could consider "social conservative" (trying to perserve the human construct) would be fighting Global Warming. In fact, a lot of social conservatives have begun to make that connection with such notion as "creation care".

Further, I have come to the conclusion (especially as I have moved back to Wyoming) that though man-made global warming is real, there is no viable political will or method to deal with it in any other way than to adapt to it. This is evident as social conservatism is circling the drain, it appears that progressivism's final nail in the coffin will be the overruling of ObamaCare...thus turning the unpopular to the impossible. And even if this wasn't the case, other "Developing" countries don't care about Global Warming in their quest to modernize. The same thing with "Singularity Technologies". Even if there were the Right-Wing Political will to prevent the singularity in your State or Nation, other nations and states will condone it to the point where your resistance would be futile as not only your policies are ignored but you and your ideas and organization become a derilict on the waters of the world.

...and that's the problem with social conservatism- you simply cannot stop tommorow from coming.
Logged
Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.
jmfcst
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,212
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #58 on: September 15, 2011, 11:45:32 AM »

One big thing that this thread has mentioned in passing is the entire future of the Social Issues in regards to advances in technology. As people become more and more fearful of "the singularity", with such stuff as cloning, life extension, stem cells, robots, sex bots and AI in general, it really does much to redefine social conservatism (besides changing the way people live, it does relate quite a bit with abortion) as being the force that maintains the human existence in a way we currently understand it...

...and that's the problem with social conservatism- you simply cannot stop tomorrow from coming.

the future can not retroactively redefine basic morals, you only think it can because you're using strawmen examples like "social conservatives used to think the earth was the center or the universe" when in fact the bible never came close to saying such a thing, and even today, science doesn't know where the center of the universe is for it hasn't even been able to determine the boundaries of the universe or even if such boundaries exist.

to say that in the future, abortion will be accepted by anyone who accepts science, as if science can disconnect the universal connection between a mother and the baby within her womb, is extremely arrogant and unscientific and only demonstrates that your own conscience has be seared

Logged
BigSkyBob
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,531


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #59 on: September 15, 2011, 12:28:17 PM »

Socially conservative societies will tend towards demographic growth, while socially liberal societies will tend towards demographic decline. As a result, over time, the pool of immigrants will be more socially conservative every generation. We are witnessing, more or less, demographic transformation occuring in Israel and Turkey right now as the more socially conservative religious elements reproduce faster than secular folk.

On life, the pro-life either win by winning, or win by losing. A research study in Australian demonstrated that genetics plays a role in shaping ones attitude towards abortion. Those with genes more favorable to abortion will, eventually, abort themselves out of the gene pool. As long as abortion is legal, the genetic propensity towards being pro-life will increase every generation.

Your hypothesis relies on Darwinian natural selection to be true, you know.


No.
Logged
BigSkyBob
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,531


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #60 on: September 15, 2011, 12:47:16 PM »

To me, the entire idea of social conservatism and social liberalism as we understand it today was mostly irrelevant before the 1960s and the sexual revolution.

As a social historian I would disagree with you strongly on that matter. If you look at societies where the sexual revolution really did not happen, particularly in the Arab world you have arguments as to whether you should be allowed to read a Bible, whether women should vote or drive a car or whether the Holocaust occured. In the west there were different social attitudes that were part of the political consciousness prior to the 1950's (which don't feature, that much today); women's suffrage, inter-racial marriage, prohibition, right to strike...

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Which is of course a revisionist. The language you use leads me to believe that you consider God to be the arbiter of morality

I would offer the exact opposite analysis. TJ sounds distinctly Catholic.  Catholicism holds the exact opposite position. Natural law indicates what is moral. God, as a perfect being, is perfectly in line with Natural Law.

That means if you can demonstrate something is consistent with Natural Law, then you have shown it to be consistent with God's position.


Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

If you embrace the absurdity that the comparative morality of the actions of Mother Teresa, and Ted Bundy is merely an matter of individual taste. You seem to believe that canonizing Mother Teresa, or canonizing Ted Bundy is merely a matter of preference. That's you claim, isn't it?

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

As a Catholic, you should have been somewhat familiar with Natural Law theory, and its basis in Aristotle.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.


Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Which makes you incredibly foolish. It makes you man who cannot reflect on what he believes, less that belief is challenged and you are conflicted. There is no reason for someone to form an opinion and remain unchanged in it despite who he meets, what he learns and what he understands. If that conflicts your entire belief system, then you should immediately question it.

[/quote]
Logged
opebo
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 47,010


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #61 on: September 15, 2011, 01:02:17 PM »

...the rationale for sex being reproduction is largely invariant

Anyone who needs a 'rationale' for sex has my sympathies.  Whatever happened to you poor TJ?
Logged
Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.
jmfcst
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,212
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #62 on: September 15, 2011, 01:04:45 PM »

...the rationale for sex being reproduction is largely invariant

Anyone who needs a 'rationale' for sex has my sympathies.  Whatever happened to you poor TJ?

well, if there was never a need for a "rationale", then some of us wouldn't have to pay others to engage in it.
Logged
King
intermoderate
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,357
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #63 on: September 15, 2011, 01:05:52 PM »

Socially conservative societies will tend towards demographic growth, while socially liberal societies will tend towards demographic decline. As a result, over time, the pool of immigrants will be more socially conservative every generation. We are witnessing, more or less, demographic transformation occuring in Israel and Turkey right now as the more socially conservative religious elements reproduce faster than secular folk.

On life, the pro-life either win by winning, or win by losing. A research study in Australian demonstrated that genetics plays a role in shaping ones attitude towards abortion. Those with genes more favorable to abortion will, eventually, abort themselves out of the gene pool. As long as abortion is legal, the genetic propensity towards being pro-life will increase every generation.

Your hypothesis relies on Darwinian natural selection to be true, you know.


No.

Yes.  Yes.
Logged
opebo
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 47,010


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #64 on: September 15, 2011, 01:43:11 PM »

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.
Logged
World politics is up Schmitt creek
Nathan
Moderators
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 34,251


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #65 on: September 15, 2011, 01:44:30 PM »

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.)
Logged
TJ in Oregon
TJ in Cleve
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,952
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.13, S: 6.96

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #66 on: September 15, 2011, 04:00:43 PM »

Oh my, I seem to have opened up quite the can of worms here Tongue

A general note: This post deals primarily with my moral views rather than my political ones, though the two are related.

To me, the entire idea of social conservatism and social liberalism as we understand it today was mostly irrelevant before the 1960s and the sexual revolution.

As a social historian I would disagree with you strongly on that matter. If you look at societies where the sexual revolution really did not happen, particularly in the Arab world you have arguments as to whether you should be allowed to read a Bible, whether women should vote or drive a car or whether the Holocaust occured. In the west there were different social attitudes that were part of the political consciousness prior to the 1950's (which don't feature, that much today); women's suffrage, inter-racial marriage, prohibition, right to strike...

In general this is the point most of the thread is trying to make, that the views collectively known as "socially conservative" are not time-invariant. I was merely referring to the current set of issues.

The gist of the argument boils down to sex, drugs, and religion, and how they shape our laws. I believe in an absolute morality; that is to say that what is right is right and what is wrong is wrong regardless of my opinion. In my imperfection I am wrong, not misunderstood. The morality of an act can of course vary depending on the circumstances but is largely time-independent (with exception of how changed circumstances vary with time, ie. the need to capital punishment fits this and sex doesn’t because the rationale for sex being reproduction is largely invariant). Racial discrimination was wrong then and is wrong now because it is a sin against the virtue of charity and fails to love others as oneself. Many people were wrong about it back then, but they were truly wrong.

Which is of course a revisionist. The language you use leads me to believe that you consider God to be the arbiter of morality which as an atheist I find absurd so I am naturally going to disagree with you on that. Humans are the arbiters of morality but this is strongly influenced by the environment, competition and survivalism. As you are a Catholic (I used to be) let's take slavery; the Church's opinion mirrored that of society. Papal bulls sanctioned slavery during the age of exploration. As late as 1866, after the Civil War, the office of Pius IX stated that subject to conditions it was not against the 'divine law' for a slave to be sold, bought or exchanged. It is strongly condemned now of course, but that makes no difference.

To touch briefly on the 'rationale for sex'; it demonstrates that you don't fully understand sex. In every animal who reproduces through procreation (that can be closely observed doing so) homosexual sexual behaviour has been demonstrated. It exists in animals so diverse thay are seperated by millions or hundreds of millions of years of evolution. It doesn't 'die out'; therefore homosexual behaviour is, to borrow your phrase an 'invariant' behaviour. Likewise sex takes place between infertile animals too. Sex, while reproductive is a social act. If it wasn't, then there would be no need for us to reproduced through procreation; we would have evolved to do so in a different manner.


You are correct in assuming I believe God to be the arbiter of morality, which of course you disagree with entirely since you don't believe in God. I am arguing that while the human view of morality may change, the intrinsic value of that morality does not. It's the difference between perception and actual value. To give an analogy that I am certain will be horribly misfitting, if I go into the lab right now and pipette water into nine vials, measuring both the mass and volume in order to calculate the density, I'll come up with nine different values. But, since all are at the same conditions, there is only one density of water. The difference is entirely in my ability to perceive it. I see morality in the same fashion; different people have different ideas, but there is only one truth, one right answer that we all fall short of.

My very quick dismissal of slavery needs some more explanation as well. Slavery was around in Jesus's time and He taught respecting all people and helping the poor and downtrodden. Setting captives free (often the same as slaves) plays an important symbolic role in Church teachings right from the start. But, the history here is a long and complicated mess. Jesus stopped short of outrught forbidding slavery, rather he focussed on the dignity of all persons. Slavery itself evolved over time. In Christ's time slavery was not that awfully different than servitude, which is not intrinsically evil. However, once the empire-building nature of medieval Europe took command it became something else. The consistant teaching here is the respect for the dignity of a person, this has been applied differently at different times in different eras, and admittedly has been misused to justify horrific actions by several dubious popes. Infallibilty means that all ex cathedra decrees are accurate, not that the pope isn't going to burn in hell. For a more complete history of the Catholic Church and slavery, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_slavery. But that's not really what this thread is about; I believe there is an entire thread over on the religion board devoted to that topic.

Sex is a completely different matter. Jesus himself was celibate and the early Christians highly valued celibacy and viewed lust as something to be frowned upon as a violation of the virtue of chastity. Sex was accepted, obviously, to reproduce in accordance with it's primary function. However, the idea of sexual activities rooted not in the relationship between a married couple and excessive sexual activities even between married couples is contratry to this function and an unnecessary deviation away from chastity. This manifests itself in premarital sex, masturbation, etc. Modern circumstances have changed the nature of some sexual activities, such as masturbation to online porn that is now readily available. However, the virtue of chastity has not changed with circumstances, nor will it because it is not an application but rather the intrinsic value itself that we strive to attain. As for homosexuality, the issue is twofold: first it is by nature a violation of the virtue of chastity because it is a sexual act in a relationship that cannot possibly lead to procreation,and second because there are specific biblical prohibitions of it. Homosexual relationships do not have the ability to lead to procreation. This is also true of the infertile, but the infertile are often not aware of their condition and often find they aren't actually infertile. Two of my best friends and my own mother were conceived when their parents expected to be infertile. In the book of Romans, we are instructed "not to lie down with another man as one lies down with a woman." I don't really want to start a biblical fight, but I think the wording in the New Testiment is itself explicit enough. Since you are an atheist, you obviously don't care about this entire paragraph, but there is my rationale nevertheless.

Maybe I’m wrong about an issue or two, but if I am then my entire belief system is in conflict. I can’t last in such a contradictory state and something would have to give. I am an all-or-nothing man when it comes to beliefs. I always have been and I always will be.

Which makes you incredibly foolish. It makes you man who cannot reflect on what he believes, less that belief is challenged and you are conflicted. There is no reason for someone to form an opinion and remain unchanged in it despite who he meets, what he learns and what he understands. If that conflicts your entire belief system, then you should immediately question it.


I can reflect on my beliefs and do. I certainly wonder sometimes if I am just wasting my time with all this "God" stuff and really ought to go out and have a drink or fifteen like most of my friends do. My beliefs have changed over time regarding capital punishment because I found I really didn't understand it quite as well as I thought I did. I realized my belief system was in conflict with itself. But, it makes absolutely no sense to me to take pieces of a belief system one by one without viewing how they interact with each other. I don't understand the idea of being a Catholic but not following the rules to the best of my ability, etc. Certainly I am far from perfect and my flaws can and will be detected: my anger and pride and a whole list of other things.

As for 'who I meet' I don't really see why that should change what I believe. I tend to find that meeting people, whether they agree with me or not makes me believe more firmly in my current values.
Logged
Person Man
Angry_Weasel
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,681
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #67 on: September 15, 2011, 04:21:03 PM »
« Edited: September 15, 2011, 04:29:41 PM by Toby Queef »

One big thing that this thread has mentioned in passing is the entire future of the Social Issues in regards to advances in technology. As people become more and more fearful of "the singularity", with such stuff as cloning, life extension, stem cells, robots, sex bots and AI in general, it really does much to redefine social conservatism (besides changing the way people live, it does relate quite a bit with abortion) as being the force that maintains the human existence in a way we currently understand it...

...and that's the problem with social conservatism- you simply cannot stop tomorrow from coming.

 
the future can not retroactively redefine basic morals, you only think it can because you're using strawmen examples like "social conservatives used to think the earth was the center or the universe" when in fact the bible never came close to saying such a thing, and even today, science doesn't know where the center of the universe is for it hasn't even been able to determine the boundaries of the universe or even if such boundaries exist.

to say that in the future, abortion will be accepted by anyone who accepts science, as if science can disconnect the universal connection between a mother and the baby within her womb, is extremely arrogant and unscientific and only demonstrates that your own conscience has be seared



This post had nothing directly to do with abortion. I was just comparing opposition to AI, theraputic cloning/life extension and other singularity occurences to abortion in the way that these things disrupt our understanding of what it is to be living. Basically, opposition to AI or life extension could be considered part of the "Pro-Life" position in that respect.

I would actually go further and say that the entire social-political continium isn't about what we believe, our doctrine or theology but really a just a way to either believe ourselves or force the world to know who we are.

I also disagree that the future cannot retroactively define morals. The collective consciousness of mankind, like our individual consciousness is capable of learning new things. Even with faith in God, you can understand that simple faith will not allow you to answer every moral problem that arises. Perhaps that is a first and perhaps an essential step but you will never be morally perfect.  It is like knowing Calculus. You can know how to intergrate, differentiate, about the chain and power rules and perhaps a thing or two about partial differential equations or even multi-variable equations, but you will still not automatically know the answer to each problem.
Logged
afleitch
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,837


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #68 on: September 15, 2011, 04:29:16 PM »

As for homosexuality, the issue is twofold: first it is by nature a violation of the virtue of chastity because it is a sexual act in a relationship that cannot possibly lead to procreation,and second because there are specific biblical prohibitions of it. Homosexual relationships do not have the ability to lead to procreation. This is also true of the infertile, but the infertile are often not aware of their condition and often find they aren't actually infertile. Two of my best friends and my own mother were conceived when their parents expected to be infertile. In the book of Romans, we are instructed "not to lie down with another man as one lies down with a woman." I don't really want to start a biblical fight, but I think the wording in the New Testiment is itself explicit enough. Since you are an atheist, you obviously don't care about this entire paragraph, but there is my rationale nevertheless.

Doesn't really stack up though. Again, I put it to you that we, with all other mammals reproduce by procreation which is as much a social act as it is a sexual one. Homosexual behaviour exists in all such animals, and exists continually generation after generation after generation. It exists and is displayed for a purpose. Otherwise it wouldn't be there or would have gone. Christianity shows it's weakness by not fully understanding the nature of sex. Sex is an act entwined with but often seperate from procreation as sex does not always lead to insemination, nor do people who cannot conceive lack a drive for the emotional and social fulfillment that sex provides.

Which makes Romans (and it's worth pointing out the old adage that I don't actually 'lie with men as with women' as it involves a completely different set of plumbing and I can't lie 'as with women' as I have no sexual attraction to them so cannot make such a comparison) a bit odd and demonstrates a God that doesn't really know what he's doing; he sets in motion development which leads to millions of years of procreative reproductive sex including same sex acts and partnerships (and partnerships do exist in their base form in the animal kingdom) and then goes 'Whoops, scratch that, didn't mean it humans...' which makes it so obviously an artificial human ordained law as opposed to anything remotely theistic.
Logged
Person Man
Angry_Weasel
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,681
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #69 on: September 15, 2011, 04:33:20 PM »

As for homosexuality, the issue is twofold: first it is by nature a violation of the virtue of chastity because it is a sexual act in a relationship that cannot possibly lead to procreation,and second because there are specific biblical prohibitions of it. Homosexual relationships do not have the ability to lead to procreation. This is also true of the infertile, but the infertile are often not aware of their condition and often find they aren't actually infertile. Two of my best friends and my own mother were conceived when their parents expected to be infertile. In the book of Romans, we are instructed "not to lie down with another man as one lies down with a woman." I don't really want to start a biblical fight, but I think the wording in the New Testiment is itself explicit enough. Since you are an atheist, you obviously don't care about this entire paragraph, but there is my rationale nevertheless.

Doesn't really stack up though. Again, I put it to you that we, with all other mammals reproduce by procreation which is as much a social act as it is a sexual one. Homosexual behaviour exists in all such animals, and exists continually generation after generation after generation. It exists and is displayed for a purpose. Otherwise it wouldn't be there or would have gone. Christianity shows it's weakness by not fully understanding the nature of sex. Sex is an act entwined with but often seperate from procreation as sex does not always lead to insemination, nor do people who cannot conceive lack a drive for the emotional and social fulfillment that sex provides.

Which makes Romans (and it's worth pointing out the old adage that I don't actually 'lie with men as with women' as it involves a completely different set of plumbing and I can't lie 'as with women' as I have no sexual attraction to them so cannot make such a comparison) a bit odd and demonstrates a God that doesn't really know what he's doing; he sets in motion development which leads to millions of years of procreative reproductive sex including same sex acts and partnerships (and partnerships do exist in their base form in the animal kingdom) and then goes 'Whoops, scratch that, didn't mean it humans...' which makes it so obviously an artificial human ordained law as opposed to anything remotely theistic.

Which makes me believe that to lie with another man like you do a woman would be perhaps like a very sexual man that just has sex with anyone. You can't lie with a man like a woman if you cannot lie with a woman. I can see that Corinthians, Leviticus and Romans would condemn gay-for-pay or pedophilia, however...
Logged
Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.
jmfcst
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,212
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #70 on: September 15, 2011, 04:42:28 PM »

Which makes Romans (and it's worth pointing out the old adage that I don't actually 'lie with men as with women' as it involves a completely different set of plumbing and I can't lie 'as with women' as I have no sexual attraction to them so cannot make such a comparison) a bit odd and demonstrates a God that doesn't really know what he's doing; he sets in motion development which leads to millions of years of procreative reproductive sex including same sex acts and partnerships (and partnerships do exist in their base form in the animal kingdom) and then goes 'Whoops, scratch that, didn't mean it humans...' which makes it so obviously an artificial human ordained law as opposed to anything remotely theistic.

color me shocked!



Andrew, I owe you an apology, for I never thought you would be man enough to admit to what Romans was saying...but after 7 long years, hundreds of posts, scores of threads, and dozens of infractions... you finally proved me wrong about you...of course, you had me thrown into isolation for a month in the meantime, but hey...what is all of that between a couple of old chums...
Logged
BigSkyBob
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,531


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #71 on: September 15, 2011, 06:48:42 PM »

Socially conservative societies will tend towards demographic growth, while socially liberal societies will tend towards demographic decline. As a result, over time, the pool of immigrants will be more socially conservative every generation. We are witnessing, more or less, demographic transformation occuring in Israel and Turkey right now as the more socially conservative religious elements reproduce faster than secular folk.

On life, the pro-life either win by winning, or win by losing. A research study in Australian demonstrated that genetics plays a role in shaping ones attitude towards abortion. Those with genes more favorable to abortion will, eventually, abort themselves out of the gene pool. As long as abortion is legal, the genetic propensity towards being pro-life will increase every generation.

Your hypothesis relies on Darwinian natural selection to be true, you know.


No.

Yes.  Yes.

Your double assertion requires a double rejection.
Logged
NY Jew
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 538


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #72 on: September 16, 2011, 03:00:50 PM »

But seriously folks............

I was half way done with a very sarcastic post when I decided to just come out straight (no pun intended!) with my thoughts on this matter:

Like Lief said before me Social Conservatism doesn't ever really ever die it just evolves into different issues.  Issues that didn't matter before.  I mean yeah sure to a lot of people here you might immediately start joking "ha yeah the f***ing of baby horses isn't an issue that I thought about much before!".  But hear me out for a second:

In the early days of the republic, let us say sometime during the Articles of Confederation (in the 1780's) when our forefathers drank untold amounts of liquor that would probably be enough to kill off an entire college fraternity, how many people thought Prohibition would be an important issue for debate.....much less be made into a Constitutional Amendment?

How much concern did northern WASPs have about Catholic immigrants in the 1820's?  Would somebody, in 1828, who suggested barring non-protestants from running for office be given the same amount of attention as those who would in 1854.........or would they get criticized for ignoring those damned Masons?

In mostly rural and underpopulated 1804 America, which just made the Louisiana Purchase, was the argument for immigration restrictions as strong as it was in modernized urban 1924 America?

In 1938, how many people thought about declaring war on drugs?

In 1960 how many people, even the devoutly religious or black fearing southerners, worried about a "homosexual agenda"?

In 2011, how many people were worried about "clone rights"?  How about massive illegal immigration from Quebec?  Or how about the evils of Rastafarianism?  Or how about internet censorship as part of the "War on Anonymous"?

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
Logged
NY Jew
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 538


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #73 on: September 16, 2011, 03:03:49 PM »
« Edited: September 16, 2011, 03:07:33 PM by NY Jew »

Socially conservative societies will tend towards demographic growth, while socially liberal societies will tend towards demographic decline. As a result, over time, the pool of immigrants will be more socially conservative every generation. We are witnessing, more or less, demographic transformation occuring in Israel and Turkey right now as the more socially conservative religious elements reproduce faster than secular folk.

well that's the dirty little secret how NY9 happened Orthodox Jews have been the fastest growing natural demographic.  We have children and
Logged
World politics is up Schmitt creek
Nathan
Moderators
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 34,251


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #74 on: September 16, 2011, 03:51:05 PM »

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?
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.072 seconds with 12 queries.