This site uses cookies. If you continue to browse the site, we shall assume that you accept the use of cookies.
Big Brother and online Hunger games.

Ask a Conservative About....

Nov 9, 2012 by Stearns
OK, so if you're wondering why a conservative holds certain positions, here's your chance to ask away.

I'll take the most interesting questions, and follow up in new posts.

#conservative #politics


Homosexual marriage is a complicated issue.  I'm going to answer you in two parts.  One part is about how I see it.  Another part is how I see why conservatives in general oppose it.

FIRST, I agree, homosexuality is natural.  It's an emotion, and emotions are physically derived from our genetics, hormones, and neurology when stimulated by our environments.  The problem with marriage, however, deals with why marriage exists - to ensure duty of care towards children.  The fact of the matter is homosexuals are technologically dependent if they want to have children, but we don't live in technology.  We live in society.   Society is composed of males and females, it takes males and females to reproduce, and children can be male or female.  Therefore, children are entitled to dimorphic expertise. 

If we define marriage outside of childbearing, that's insulting on two grounds.  First, it insults unmarried couples in love as if their love doesn't count.  Second, it insults sensitive people who don't consent to observe public displays of affection. 

Additionally, marriage can be traced back to paleolithic times even long before the Christian tradition was around.  This was used in order to make sure that future generations were taken care of, and so fellow tribesmen and clansmen weren't cuckolded into taking care of children which weren't theirs.  The idea of homosexuality just doesn't make sense in this regard.

Again, this isn't to say there's a problem with homosexual relationships.  It's just it doesn't make sense to communicate them getting married, and considering that communication is the foundation of community by which people unite in common, it's vital to preserve marriage's definition.

SECOND, many conservatives struggle with how homosexuals identify with being "gay".  "Gayness" is actually a condition in itself, and some would compare it to social anxiety disorder or histrionic personality disorder. It's actually a little offensive to people with these conditions that they're presumed to be homosexual despite how they're not, so it would be a good idea for the "gay" community to consider not embracing the label so eagerly.

Regardless, conservatives observe how homosexuals who are ashamed of their condition behave in a socially anxious/histrionic manner, and many conservatives (and non-conservatives) believe in rugged individualism where social anxiety and histrionics are self-imposed from cowardice.  In other words, when conservatives believe that homosexuality is chosen, they believe it's because people aren't willing to face their fears of approaching the opposite sex.

Additionally, women have been shown to be more bisexual and homosexually inclined than men, so sometimes, conservatives oppose homosexuality in cases of sexual frustration when the women around seem to be excessively introspective.  This is especially due to how conservatism is a methodologically individualist ideology which sometimes leads to conservatives having overanalyzing personalities.  When people analyze too much, it's difficult to be funny, so it's difficult to court the opposite sex. 

That said, sometimes, conservatives overanalyze things because of having traumatizing childhoods.  They're told to be introspective in being well-behaved, and the implication is they lose their sense of humor.  It isn't something they want to have happened, but when people are traumatized, it's embarrassing to admit they're hurt.  Furthermore, if people admit being hurt, they come off as "gay", so they call others "gay" derogatorily to feel good about themselves, especially when they appear to be cowards.  The implication is those who are called "gay" appear to be choosing to be non-confrontational, and therefore, homosexual.

I hope this helps.  It's a lot, but it's the best I could do.


This was what I responded to from tomhartnell:
Sent by Stearns,Nov 9, 2012
I guess we should ban infertile women from marrying, then.
Sent by Drench,Nov 9, 2012
Sent by lassidoggy,Nov 9, 2012
I will let you know Stearns the Ancient Greeks, The Romans, and the Pagans did perform same sex marriage, and same sex relationships were part of the pansexual norms of the time...
Sent by tomhartnell,Nov 9, 2012
Drench, there is always a possibility of women being fertile.  Just because it's unlikely that they'll conceive doesn't mean it's impossible.

Also, the key here is dimorphic expertise.  For example, there's nothing wrong with heterosexual couples adopting kids because kids will definitely have male and female role models to emulate.
Sent by Stearns,Nov 9, 2012
lassidoggy Thanks.  :-)
Sent by Stearns,Nov 9, 2012
Stearns Too bad independent studies have found no harm in homosexual parents. But I digress.
Sent by Drench,Nov 9, 2012
tomhartnell, do you believe modern society should revert back to Ancient Greece?  Just because they did something doesn't mean they did things right.  We shouldn't oversimplify things just because they preceded us.

As for Pagans, there's a moral reason to oppose their faith system.  Paganism is naturalist which means its based on beauty rather abstract reason which discriminates against those with weird taste.  It's also polytheist which means it doesn't unite everyone in common, but rather allows for moral relativism.  This is a problem when people are trying to interact, and don't know in advance what the rules of engagement are.  When different people have different standards, that means people can be violated on accident, and weirdos become condemned as not deserving to be treated with respect.

Therefore, I'm not sure why we should be acknowledging Pagans as an example of reliable civilization.
Sent by Stearns,Nov 9, 2012
Drench, I've read those studies, and that's not what I've seen.  What I have seen is this:

If you go to page 21, you'll see that it admits how boys of lesbian parents are more sensitive than others, and struggle to socialize because of having thin skins.
Sent by Stearns,Nov 9, 2012
have found the sons of lesbian women in their samples to be more self-aware, more adept at
communicating their feelings, more sensitive to others, more thoughtful and measured, less physically
aggressive, less ‘sex-typed’ in their choice of toys and games, and to exhibit more empathy for people
than the comparative groups of sons of heterosexual parents"

I don't see "struggle to socialize" in there, and being "more sensitive" is not a bad thing. In fact, to suggest that borders on misogyny. What this report does say on page 21 is exactly what's quoted: boys raised by lesbian parents are less sex-typed, instead having characteristics from both genders in a more equal spread. I'm curious to know if you see that as a bad thing.
Sent by Drench,Nov 9, 2012
Drench, would you mind if I fucked your brain?
Sent by zimdelinvasor,Nov 9, 2012
well it would hurt so yes zimdelinvasor
Sent by Drench,Nov 9, 2012
Sent by zimdelinvasor,Nov 9, 2012
Also, I'd like to hear Stearns comment on that last comment of yours
Sent by zimdelinvasor,Nov 9, 2012
Drench, as I mentioned above, social anxiety disorder is something to consider.  When children are made more sensitive, that isn't necessarily a good thing, especially if they're already sensitive.  Oversensitive children can take offense easily, and become traumatized when interacting with others.  They can also provoke others and get others in trouble who are interacting on an innocent basis.

In any case, I tried to do you a favor.  Do you have any independent research studies you want to offer?
Sent by Stearns,Nov 9, 2012
Stearns 1 you're ignorant
2, the pagans did have a very respectful society, and so did the Greeks and the Romans and the Egyptians and the Mayans and the Aztec and the list continues... So yeah what they were doing was right, they had a civilized society that is just as civil as our society is...
Your argument stated that because it is polytheistic that it doesn't unite people...

Tell me, Are we any more united today than people were than? You stating something like that is 100% Stating your belief that the 1st ammendment is wrong and that we shouldn't have freedom of Religion, because in this nation there are more religions and more religious sects (especially in the Christian faith) than there were gods of any polytheistic society before...

I think you honestly need to educate yourself on history and how things are run today, because you come off as an uneducated, ignorant wingnut idiot... and honestly I believe you are...

Educate yourself on the history of this world, it isn't hard, you just have to put effort into it... it may be hard for people like you though, because you are studying something that doesn't effect only you.
Sent by tomhartnell,Nov 10, 2012
tomhartnell, the Greeks were divided and had many internal wars not to mention they collapsed from being unable to unite against external predators.  The Romans eventually converted to Catholicism, and the Mayans and Aztecs likewise had internal bouts which lead to them being unable to deal with the Spanish.  Even other Pagan societies such as the Goths, Mongols, Huns, Vikings, and Celts failed to technologically and culturally advance, remaining warmongering barbarians.

I think today's society is very divided because people insist on diversity being valuable in its own right.  This is a problem because it leads to stubbornness where people aren't willing to ask about why things are valuable, but simply insist on things being valuable, and expecting the other side to come up with a reason.

I support the first amendment, but the first amendment is not merely about freedom of speech and religion.  It's also about freedom of assembly, and this means making sure we conduct ourselves with discourse ethics.  When people insist on diversity for diversity's sake, that means they tear communication apart just to be different, and that makes peaceful discussion of complicated circumstances difficult.
Sent by Stearns,Nov 10, 2012

Leave a comment