What you're asking, in the original post, is really two questions: do I agree with those old values, and do I wish society embodied them?
Here's what you listed:
The role of women in society was incredibly limited.
I like the way things are now. Nothing destructive seems to have happened, and a lot of good has come about.
However, that comes with some caveats. In a lot of the communities I participate in--engineering, gaming, computer programming--truly great women are rare. Truly legendary gamers, programmers, engineers are, almost without exception, all men. Even if roughly half the mediocre ones are women.
I don't think that's accidental. Whether genetic or psychological, I think men and women have different tendencies and capabilities--and I don't just mean when it comes to weight-lifting. No one should bar truly great women from doing what they are good at, but at the same time, no one should treat it like a problem when they don't commonly emerge.
And what I find really damaging in the whole affair is that saying such a thing is tantamount to blasphemy. I recieve some minor protection for being a woman, which I find all the more monstrously unfair. Speech restrictions are never productive. Truth can fend for itself, and when it wins, its victory is complete. Lies must be transmitted by force, and transmitting truth by force only makes it ripe for rebellion in the next generation.
The question is on my mind a lot due to my marriage. Lothar and I reverse the usual roles--I work, he cooks. That's not by design. It's just how it's been for a couple years. I'm not sure I like it, but it doesn't seem to do us any damage. It does draw funny looks, though. Whenever Tom says he's unemployed, it's universally treated as a dire problem; when I was, it wasn't.
Do I wish society would enforce roles for men and women? Yes and no. I think we would benefit from an expectation of what healthy men and women look like. But I like the freedom we presently enjoy. I would like to supplement it with the freedom to say what we think on the topic, and the freedom for women to become mothers and homemakers without being considered backwards and inferior.
Roid wrote:People had less qualms about sentancing ppl to death.
Oh, I'm all over that. Today we show mercy to the criminal at the moral expense of the victim, far too much. I think death should be the expected punishment for murder; anything less insults the value of the victim's life.
Roid wrote:People didn't give a **** about the environment.
I don't think that's true. Wanton destruction has been a vice in any era. I think in the past we were just poorly educated about the consequences of our actions.
On the whole, I view taking care of the environment as somewhat important--roughly as important as keeping the streets clean. Where it is scientifically sound, sensible, and the people think it's worth the cost, do it.
But here we've definitely swung too far away. Environmentalist politics aren't about sensibly keeping the rivers clean--they're about making political issues out of poor science and fear. I think that's very destructive, and the less we do of it the better.
Roid wrote:Decades ago Homosexuality was illegal.
Do I think homosexuality is wrong? Yes, I do. I think it's destructive and sinful.
Do I think it should be illegal? Not in the present environment. I don't think it's wrong that it was in the past, though.
Moral laws are justified in a democratic society when they carry common consent. We all consent to noise regulations and forced philanthropy through taxes and speeding laws. Not that individuals don't take exception, but we as a society think these things are moral and not under the individual's control. On the other hand, statistically speaking, we believe Jesus is the one true way to heaven--but as a society, we value freedom of religion more. While we may agree to the value, laws enforcing Christianity would disagree with the moral direction of society, and so would be unjust however good or bad their consequences.
We as a society don't believe homosexuality is wrong, destructive, or in any way inferior to heterosexuality. I think society's just plain wrong on those points, but I have confidence that truth will win in the end. So the value doesn't have common consent--so a law would be monstrously immoral. However, even if the value
did have common consent, I think we value freedom more. Like with speech or religion, we believe sexual expression is up to the individual.
Under that set of beliefs, neither homosexuality, nor bestiality, nor polygamy, nor polyandry, nor prostitution, nor necrophilia, nor public orgies (for certain values of public) should be illegal. No sexual practice should be illegal so long as it doesn't run afoul of other values we hold--not harming others without their consent, keeping public spaces decent, and so forth. Given that that's what society believes, that's what the laws should say.
I do think we're headed that way and the books are just catching up.
Do I think that's for the best? Well, I think it's good. There are pros and cons either way.
Moral laws have the effect of making good decisions for people at the cost of not allowing them to make good decisions for themselves. Drug laws are a good example. We universally consider doing drugs to be self-destructive, and so force people to make what we consider a good decision for them. It has the benefit that a lot of folks who lack wisdom or self control have the decision made for them. It has the drawback that a lot of folks who really
do know what they're doing or really
would like to do drugs with full understanding of the consequences and implications and full ability to absorb the costs . . . can't. On that topic, we think that tradeoff is worth making.
I don't think the laws are really a moral question. It's more of a question of what sort of society you want to build. Do you want to allow literally all comments on your blog? Do you want to ban the obvious spams and off-topic comments and allow everything else? Or do you want to restrict things only to the well-researched and excellent? It isn't a moral question; it's just a question of what kind of place you want it to be.
What kind of place do I want this to be? I prefer freedom where we can get it, even when the cost to ourselves and to society is high. I do want to permit freedom of speech, even at the cost of cults, widespread racism, or (sigh) liberals. I do want to permit freedom of religion, even at the cost of periodic bombings, televangelists, and cultural shifts away from my personal values. I do want to permit freedom of experience, even at the cost of injury from extreme sports, apathy from extreme drugs, and death in extreme wilderness stunts (though I do think the more dangerous activities should be regulated to protect the most foolish of us). I do want to permit freedom of self defense, even at the cost of some easier murders and accidental deaths.
Everything's a cost/benefit analysis, but to my way of thinking, freedom's worth a lot. It's worth many tens of thousands of young men dying in wars, and it's worth an awful lot of pain and suffering at home. And I think sexual freedom--as destructive as some folks are with it--is definitely worth the cost. So make it legal.
Kilarin wrote:roid wrote:
the rest of what you wrote was TL;DR, do you mind?
This seems incredibly odd to me. You specifically said you wanted to know what conservatives thought, then when a "conservative" gives you a detailed answer you aren't interested? What ARE you looking for?
Indeed. Roid, from the way you've phrased your questions, it sounds like you're looking to confront the moral neanderthals you hate. Your repeated claims are that there are "God hates fags" types out there, and that they're common and just hiding behind a veil of civility. Your questions seem designed to draw them out.
Expect to be disappointed. I think you make the mistake of misunderstanding your enemy.
I assume you've heard the expression, "Love the sinner, hate the sin"? Be careful: in my experience, the secular liberal doesn't understand this. He hates the racist as much as he hates the racism; he hates the creationist as much as he hates the creationism; he personally hates war's author as much as he hates the war. His hatred for his opponents spills over and colors his understanding of their beliefs: they cease to be men of different ideas and means, and become men of different motives. They
hate science, they
don't care about the environment, they
hate gays, they want to
exploit the poor.
Be careful. These beliefs don't come from experience, but from vanity. It is nice to believe you're right, but arguments are rarely so simple that one side is good and one is evil.
Know your opponent. Begin with these assumptions, for they're generally true: He is rational, he is moral, and he is human.
.
.