conservative majority? more like progressive majority

[roid]

Decades ago Homosexuality was illegal. The role of women in society was incredibly limited. People had less qualms about sentancing ppl to death. People didn't give a ★■◆● about the environment.

All of these things over the past decades have shifted towards progressive values, and away from conservative values.

How do you feel about this?

Do you think these shifts are good? Or do you wish they would go back to how they were?

[Duper]

interesting and loaded choice of words roid.


We now live in a time where people are afraid of their own shadow and are pressured to keep quite when it's not popular.

We lock our doors and we don't give rides to strangers and \"good\" is considered distasteful.

P.S. in contrast, I don't believe in \"the good ol' days\".

[TIGERassault]

These shifts are good, and I don't think they'll be shifting back again.
You also have to remember that these values are now the conservative values, while the others only used to be.

Well, they're good except for the extra ones in America. They seem to be \"live in fear of terrorists\" \"hate between people of different races for a different reason is much worse than normal\".
Oh, and I really hate the worldwide one, \"sex is really good, and a great way to show your love\". But that's because I'm a teenager, so I can tell how much bad that shift has done already!

[Nightshade]

Under islam, everything will be back to those \"bad old days\" and worse Roid. They will be shifting back and already are in europe Tiger.

[roid]

These shifts are good, and I don't think they'll be shifting back again.
You also have to remember that these values are now the conservative values, while the others only used to be.

geeze, Conservatives are such flip-floppers, they sound like Progressives.

Where have the conservatives gone?

edit: thx Thunderbunny, you have opened my eyes that Islam are the true conservatives. If only America was an Islamic state decades ago our values may not have swayed towards terrible Progressive values.
God does not approve of any of these progressive changes. Homosexuality, and these Uppity women - some even conducting sermons! I tell you it's immoral, God will smite them with his prophet Bush's hand.

[woodchip]

Decades ago Homosexuality was illegal. The role of women in society was incredibly limited. People had less qualms about sentancing ppl to death. People didn't give a ***** about the environment.
Do you think these shifts are good? Or do you wish they would go back to how they were?

Decades ago kids were not going into school and shooting their classmates. Decades ago people were not wanting a fence built on their southern boarder. Decades ago the term "Islamnofascist" was not in our lexicon.

[Kyouryuu]

\"Progressive\" is such a stupid term. It is a none-to-subtle implication that the believers of one side will progress things forward while the other side prefer the status quo.

What would be truly \"progressive\" is shunning off the asinine and detrimental notion of \"sides\" in the first place.

[Kilarin]

God does not approve of any of these progressive changes. Homosexuality, and these Uppity women - some even conducting sermons! I tell you it's immoral, God will smite them with his prophet Bush's hand.

Please note that it is quite possible to believe that homosexuality is wrong, and still think the government shouldn't have anything to do with it. MY freedom to believe as I choose, just so long as I don't harm anyone else, is dependent upon everyone ELSES freedom to do as THEY choose, just so long as they don't harm anyone else. I MUST protect the rights of those I disagree with if I expect to maintain those same rights myself.

Do you think these shifts are good? Or do you wish they would go back to how they were?

We have made a lot of progress in some areas, unfortunately, it's been matched by collapses in others. For example, I think it's very GOOD that homosexuals are no longer forced to under go "treatment" or even imprisonment because of sexual behavior that happens between consenting adults. At the same time, the current hate speech laws in Canada have actually resulted in Christian ministers being put in jail for preaching sermons that said homosexuality was wrong. The USA is passing laws that are moving it in the same direction. This is BAD.

It's a very mixed bag of nuts.

[roid]

"Progressive" is such a stupid term. It is a none-to-subtle implication that the believers of one side will progress things forward while the other side prefer the status quo.

What would be truly "progressive" is shunning off the asinine and detrimental notion of "sides" in the first place.

The other "side" is called Conservative, so Progressive makes sense no?
I do suppose it implies moving FORWARD which is what we all want, it could also move backwards (this would be bad)... the point is it's moving - changing.

I thought Conservatives "maintaining the status quo" was an accurate label. Conserve the NOW, resist change. All of the things i listed were Conservative arguing points, and although i think they were stupid - there are many who wish we'd go back.

There is STILL a visible force who think a Women's place is at home supporting her man.
There is STILL a visible force who think homosexuality is bad.
There is STILL a visible force who want to Nuke every country who looks at you sideways.
There is STILL a visible force who don't give a ★■◆● about the environment.

[Kilarin]

There is STILL a visible force who think a Women's place is at home supporting her man.
There is STILL a visible force who think homosexuality is bad.
There is STILL a visible force who want to Nuke every country who looks at you sideways.
There is STILL a visible force who don't give a ***** about the environment.

I could make an equally disturbing (to me) list of things liberals believe.

You see, what bothers me most about this list is the first two entries. The second two are, admittedly, public policy issues that have serious affects on your life, but the first two illustrate exactly what I think is wrong with both the conservatives AND the liberals. Both sides want to control how I THINK. Neither side can seem to tolerate the concept of staying out of other peoples business. Many conservatives want the government to prosecute homosexuals, and many liberals want "Hate Speech" laws so that it is illegal for someone to "think homosexuality is bad".

Libertarians want the best of both worlds. A world in which you are free to make your own choices. A world where you are not only free to be a practicing homosexual if you so choose, without fear of being put in jail or injected with hormones or having rocks thrown at you. But ALSO a world where you are free to stand up and say you think homosexuality is WRONG, if you so choose, without fear of being fined or arrested for exercising your right of free speech.

Neither the Republicans nor the Democrats really support the idea of freedom. Both parties just differ on exactly how they want to control me.

[TIGERassault]

...but the first two illustrate exactly what I think is wrong with both the conservatives AND the liberals. Both sides want to control how I THINK.

Utter baloney! There are absolutely NO laws or arguments forbidding you from thinking how you want! There are only laws forbidding how you act.

Neither side can seem to tolerate the concept of staying out of other peoples business.

Oh wait, I've heard a term for something like this. I think they're calling it "Law and Order" nowadays. It's the kinda stuff that's stopped your neighbours from stabbing you 17 times in the back and stealing all your possessions.

But ALSO a world where you are free to stand up and say you think homosexuality is WRONG, if you so choose, without fear of being fined or arrested for exercising your right of free speech.

Yes, you have a right to free speech. However, you also have a responsibility not to be insulting gay people!
Rights and Responsibilities always come in a pair: if you want rights, then you must also accept the responsilibilities that come with it! That's why you can't just go listing off your rights and automatically presume that you should be allowed to follow through with that right no matter what.

[Kilarin]

There are absolutely NO laws or arguments forbidding you from thinking how you want!

How would you describe the hate crime laws? These are laws that specifically make the penalties for crimes worse based on certain motives. what you were THINKING counts the most, not what you DID.

If Joe Redneck beats a homosexual to death because he's homophobic, it's a hate crime and he gets a stiffer penalty. But if Jake Psycho murders his next door neighbor because he hates his guts, that's NOT a hate crime and get's a lesser penalty.

Thank goodness several minority groups have recognized that this entire "hate crime" movement is actually working AGAINST the idea of equality under the law. Someone who kills a homosexual, or a black man, or a Jew, should be prosecuted for murder under the exact SAME laws as any other murder, because everyone should have EQUAL protection under the law. That is the goal we are striving for.

Neither side can seem to tolerate the concept of staying out of other peoples business.

Oh wait, I've heard a term for something like this. I think they're calling it "Law and Order" nowadays. It's the kinda stuff that's stopped your neighbors from stabbing you 17 times in the back and stealing all your possessions.

The Republicans have actively fought removing sodomy laws from the books. They want to regulate sexual activity between consenting adults (both homosexual and heterosexual) behind closed doors. And yes, I have SPOKEN with Republicans who were VERY angry when the supreme court overturned various sodomy laws.

Democrats want to make it illegal to even say you disapprove of homosexual behavior. Witness your own remark that I have a "responsibility" not to be insulting to homosexuals. Excuse me? Then, do I have a "responsibility" not to be insulting to Democrats and Republicans? Do I have a "responsibility" not to be insulting to rednecks?

So long as I do not commit slander, I have the RIGHT to say that ANYONE's behavior is wrong. Just like Dawkins has the RIGHT to say that Religious people are all horrible and PETA has the right to say that hunting is wrong. We should ALL have the rights to our own opinions, and the rights to express those opinions, just so long as we don't try to LEGISLATE based on them.

[roid]

There is STILL a visible force who think a Women's place is at home supporting her man.
There is STILL a visible force who think homosexuality is bad.
There is STILL a visible force who want to Nuke every country who looks at you sideways.
There is STILL a visible force who don't give a ***** about the environment.

I could make an equally disturbing (to me) list of things liberals believe.

You see, what bothers me most about this list is the first two entries. The second two are, admittedly, public policy issues that have serious affects on your life, but the first two illustrate exactly what I think is wrong with both the conservatives AND the liberals. Both sides want to control how I THINK. Neither side can seem to tolerate the concept of staying out of other peoples business. Many conservatives want the government to prosecute homosexuals, and many liberals want "Hate Speech" laws so that it is illegal for someone to "think homosexuality is bad".

Libertarians want the best of both worlds. A world in which you are free to make your own choices. A world where you are not only free to be a practicing homosexual if you so choose, without fear of being put in jail or injected with hormones or having rocks thrown at you. But ALSO a world where you are free to stand up and say you think homosexuality is WRONG, if you so choose, without fear of being fined or arrested for exercising your right of free speech.

Neither the Republicans nor the Democrats really support the idea of freedom. Both parties just differ on exactly how they want to control me.

are liberals really for that? I'm not particularly familiar with how hate crime laws work.

Anyway, what i was getting at, if i may tie this back with the OP, was that although we have come a long way, there are those who wish to go back. LOTS of them. it's ★■◆●ing frightening to me because i know what fuels these views.

I wanted such people to come out and admit it. If that's what they believe then they should be shown to embrace it. Come-on, go all "god hates fags" on it.

I know there are people here who wish we'd go back. There are people everywhere. They have such a majority in USA that they were able to elect Bush. So there's no bull★■◆●ing, we know you're there.

So if you're in such a majority, you should speak up. I want to see these backward people, coz atm i can only smell them. I know deep down you guys don't like Political Correctness, so speak your mind. I've seen what happens behind the scenes, when you're with like minded-people, friends. In private, that's where the God-Hates-Fags opinions come out.

Political Correctness is all that's holding you back from saying what you really think. All you're doing is hiding your true nature.

I think hate speech legislation will only make this worse - it'll drive the primal urges of biggots deeper into the psyche where they can't be challenged, and there these neurosis' will fester and feed the core beliefs of such people. It'll slow down progress.
Much like alcohol prohibition made alcohol awesome. Hate speech legislation will solidify and bring together biggots, where they will become militant and eventually strike back in self-defence of being suddenly obliterated (basically, it never works).
Without hate speech legislation though, this kindof thing can be persecuted slowly and naturally* via popular culture without them knowing they are dying.

*It is the natural nature of societys to progress forwards, as illustrated in my OP, and as illustrated by the collection of known history.

[Lothar]

although we have come a long way, there are those who wish to go back.... They have such a majority in USA that they were able to elect Bush.

There were lots of reasons to elect Bush. I suspect the "God hates fags" people were as minor of contributors as the "Christians should die" people on the other side. Bigots are out there, on both sides, but they're not the bulk of the population.

People voted for Bush hoping for many things:
- smaller government (oops!)
- Supreme Court justices who actually respect the law and the system (see my Roe v Wade post and followup -- the USSC is supposed to interpret laws, not invent them)
- laws regarding certain moral situations (including gay marriage, but not limited to it.) So yeah, some of the "God hates fags" people probably voted for Bush.
- (the second election) aggressive foreign policy in the Middle East, specifically, a commitment to keep fighting against the jihadis in Iraq

It's simply not reasonable to assume that, because Bush won 2 elections, everyone who voted for him must be of the "God hates fags" mold.

Consider this: if Rudy gets the next nomination, he's likely to capture almost as much of the vote as Bush, despite being very different on the social issues. Are you going to have a theory about how 60 million "God hates fags" types vaporized if/when such a thing happens?

I've seen what happens behind the scenes.... the God-Hates-Fags opinions come out.

Do you have anybody particular in mind when you say this? Are you trying to make an actual accusation about what specific people here think but are afraid to say?

I certainly hope you don't think I'm being held back by political correctness. And I hope, if you have a problem with something I believe, you're mature enough to discuss it with me instead of making generalized dismissive, insulting, and overblown remarks.

-----

I believe family and community are important things. In that sense, I'm very much conservative -- I believe we should treat family with respect, and we should encourage people to form families and discourage them from breaking up families. I think homosexuality is deviant, but I think it's far less of a problem than divorce and abuse. And I think people's reactions to homosexuality are far more harmful to families than homosexuality itself. God doesn't hate fags; God wants to redeem them, just like He wants to redeem everyone else. Those who hate gays are acting against God.

I also believe life is important, and in that sense, I'm conservative (which doesn't always mean "Republican") -- I believe we should encourage people to treat other human beings with respect, and not to discard others lightly.

I believe the government should allow people to make their own decisions as to how to live their lives, so long as their decisions don't harm others. In that sense, I'm liberal -- I don't believe the government should tell people "live this way" or "don't do that to your body".

As a corrollary to this, I believe the government should NOT be involved in providing health care -- if the government can't tell people not to harm themselves, it shouldn't use our tax dollars to pay the associated costs. (There are, of course, those of us who are willing to personally put our own resources into caring for those who make harmful decisions and helping them get back on their feet... it just doesn't make sense for the government to do it. If the gov't has a financial stake in the behavior, the gov't has a right to regulate it, and since I don't think they should regulate it, I don't think they should pay for it either.)

I believe the natural world is important, and we should treat it with respect. I have no problem with eating animals or using resources, but I do have a problem with wholesale destruction of the environment. (I was reading the Bible this afternoon and came across an interesting passage, where God is speaking against Babylon in Habakkuk: "terrifying judgment will come upon you because of the way you destroyed the wild animals living [in Lebanon]." God has a serious problem with people who treat creation with disrespect!)

All told, I think I best fit as a capitalist-libertarian hybrid -- I believe the government should stay out of economics as much as possible (aside from laws regarding fraud, truth in advertising, etc.) and should only involve itself in social issues insofar as to encourage people to treat one another well and to form and stay in families. At present, I'm far more likely to vote Republican than Democrat because I think the Dems are far more likely to do long-term, serious damage to that vision (through abortion, much larger government, treating sex casually and without consideration of the quality of the relationship, etc.) than Republicans (through stupid social laws).

[roid]

although we have come a long way, there are those who wish to go back.... They have such a majority in USA that they were able to elect Bush.

There were lots of reasons to elect Bush. I suspect the "God hates fags" people were as minor of contributors as the "Christians should die" people on the other side. Bigots are out there, on both sides, but they're not the bulk of the population.

People voted for Bush hoping for many things:
- smaller government (oops!)
- Supreme Court justices who actually respect the law and the system (see my Roe v Wade post and followup -- the USSC is supposed to interpret laws, not invent them)
- laws regarding certain moral situations (including gay marriage, but not limited to it.) So yeah, some of the "God hates fags" people probably voted for Bush.
- (the second election) aggressive foreign policy in the Middle East, specifically, a commitment to keep fighting against the jihadis in Iraq

It's simply not reasonable to assume that, because Bush won 2 elections, everyone who voted for him must be of the "God hates fags" mold.

No.
The core of anti-homosexuality sentiment in your nation votes only for Bush.
Bush's voting base are the Christian right. The Christian right is the core of anti-homosexuality in your nation.
Also mine.

Consider this: if Rudy gets the next nomination, he's likely to capture almost as much of the vote as Bush, despite being very different on the social issues. Are you going to have a theory about how 60 million "God hates fags" types vaporized if/when such a thing happens?

I've seen what happens behind the scenes.... the God-Hates-Fags opinions come out.

Do you have anybody particular in mind when you say this? Are you trying to make an actual accusation about what specific people here think but are afraid to say?

I certainly hope you don't think I'm being held back by political correctness. And I hope, if you have a problem with something I believe, you're mature enough to discuss it with me instead of making generalized dismissive, insulting, and overblown remarks.

no, this has nothing to do with you.
the rest of what you wrote was TL;DR, do you mind?

[Lothar]

The core of anti-homosexuality sentiment in your nation votes only for Bush.

Which is different from saying "the core of people who vote for Bush are anti-homosexuality".

People vastly overestimate the power of the "Christian Right". People also have this bad habit of thinking everyone who is both Christian and on the Right is right there with Fred Phelps, wanting to kill gays for the good of mankind. Among the circles I'm in, there's a general sentiment that homosexual behavior is sinful, but that doesn't put homosexuals in any worse of a place than the rest of humanity. I know there are people out there who "hate fags", but pretty much everyone on "my side" considers them bigots.

the rest of what you wrote was TL;DR, do you mind?

If it's tl, then just dr and quit your whining ;)

Seriously though... if you're talking about "conservative" and "progressive" majorities, I think it helps to see how people do and don't fit into those molds. IMO the majority of people are conservative in some ways and progressive in others, which is why we have slow change in some areas and fast change in others.

[Kilarin]

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?

It is the natural nature of societys to progress forwards, as illustrated in my OP, and as illustrated by the collection of known history

You might want to take a closer look at history.

[roid]

The core of anti-homosexuality sentiment in your nation votes only for Bush.

Which is different from saying "the core of people who vote for Bush are anti-homosexuality".

Oh? what is Bush's biggest core voting demographic? answer: the Christian Right.
And how do they think about homosexuality? answer: it's totally fabulous.

...

People vastly overestimate the power of the "Christian Right". People also have this bad habit of thinking everyone who is both Christian and on the Right is right there with Fred Phelps, wanting to kill gays for the good of mankind. Among the circles I'm in, there's a general sentiment that homosexual behavior is sinful, but that doesn't put homosexuals in any worse of a place than the rest of humanity. I know there are people out there who "hate fags", but pretty much everyone on "my side" considers them bigots.

Fred Phelps is just one vote.
A core demographic is made of a lot of votes, all voting predictably.
We know what way they vote. Everyone knows what way they vote.

How would they answer the OP? But how would they answer in private amongst friends - discussing how they really feel about the past and what we've left behind. Did we really leave it behind for the better? Wouldn't it be great if we could turn back the clock, wouldn't it be great:

Decades ago Homosexuality was illegal. The role of women in society was incredibly limited. People had less qualms about sentancing ppl to death. People didn't give a ***** about the environment.

All of these things over the past decades have shifted towards progressive values, and away from conservative values.

How do you feel about this?

Do you think these shifts are good? Or do you wish they would go back to how they were?

[roid]

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?

oops, you're right. .

...ok it seems Lothar didn't answer the OP questions anyway.

It is the natural nature of societys to progress forwards, as illustrated in my OP, and as illustrated by the collection of known history

You might want to take a closer look at history.

Never before have we been more technologically advanced, communicatively advanced, and had such a collected sum of human knowledge and literature. Our Culture and Society is the richest in recorded history.

What would a past culture do better? I suppose they could be better at being Nieve, and i suppose they were more compact - back when Darwin and mother nature ruled eugenics .

[Kilarin]

It is the natural nature of societys to progress forwards, as illustrated in my OP, and as illustrated by the collection of known history

You might want to take a closer look at history.

Never before have we been more technologically advanced, communicatively advanced, and had such a collected sum of human knowledge and literature. Our Culture and Society is the richest in recorded history.

The point is that cultures don't always progress, they usually climb to a peak, and then decline, and often decline hard. Take a look at the history of the Aztecs, the Incas, the Romans, the Asyrians, the Babylonians, etc. I agree that we are in a better place right now on some issues than we were in the past. I disagree with the statement that "It is the natural nature of society's to progress forwards"

[Duper]

Decades ago Homosexuality was illegal....

just wanted to add something of perspective here. Decades ago, it was illegal in some places. In specific communities perhaps, but never on a Federal level. It was MORE illegal in MOST places -decades ago- to spit on the side walks. (check the books, you will find laws banning spitting on sidewalks in most communities levied around the turn of the last century.)
Decades ago, homosexuality was considered by most to be unthinkable; not because a law forced this thought on them. The behavior genuinely disgusted them. That was how society felt about it. I'm sure the argument will be made that: "well that's how Christians taught everyone that homosexuality was wrong then so of course they thought that way." Might I say that the in inverse is true in our schools today in current curriculum's. They are quite literally being force to accept homosexuality. Here in Beaverton where my daughter attended school, we were given sillibus's for the kids for the next 6 years. It was rather alarming. Talk about social terra-forming. So who's right and who's truly wrong here? Sounds like the pot is calling the kettle black here.

With nearly 2 decades of the homosexual political elite crying fowl, it's easy to loose sight of this and blame Christians for "decades of injustice".

(sorry this isn't polished, rushing off to work)

[Kilarin]

Decades ago, it was illegal in some places. In specific communities perhaps, but never on a Federal level.

Very true that it was not a consistent thing, but it was certainly illegal at top government levels in many places:

To point out one of the abuses: Alan Turing is now understood to have possibly been the most important person in defeating Hitler in WWII. His secret (and BRILLIANT) work on cracking the German codes was incredibly important. He practically invented the computer just to do so, and because of his (and other cryptographers) work, the allies knew most of what Germany's war plans and battle orders were.

But, of course, all of his work and discoveries were classified, so no one knew about them for years and years. And during that time, it was discovered that Alan was a homosexual, which was in violation of England's Criminal Law Amendment Act of 1885. He was given a choice between jail, and some rather terrible hormonal treatments. Britain then took one of their greatest war heroes (and most brilliant minds) and pumped him full of hormones that made him fat, caused him to grow breasts, and resulted in serious depression. Turing died in 1954 of cyanide poisoning, a presumed suicide. We, as a people, should ALL be ashamed of how he was treated.

On the other side of the issue, in Ancient Greece, homosexuality was not only accepted, but expected. And sexual relationships between older men and young boys was the norm.

Progress is NOT a steady path in one direction, but more like Brownian motion.

[Lothar]

what is Bush's biggest core voting demographic? answer: the Christian Right.
And how do they think about homosexuality?

I don't know anybody on the "Christian Right" who, even in private, says "I hate gays". I know lots who say "I think it's gross" or "I think it's sinful", but none who want them killed or jailed or anything of the sort.

it seems Lothar didn't answer the OP questions anyway

You should be able to derive my responses to those specific questions from the more general answers I gave. IMO, my answers are more useful than what you were asking for -- they're not a simple "yes, progress is good" or "no, progress is bad", but rather, a description of what I think is important. From that, it should be obvious what shifts -- what types of progress -- are good IMO, and what types are bad.

Most people aren't really "conservative" or "progressive"; most people have a set of values, and if they agree with society they'll be considered conservative, while if they desire change from society they'll be considered progressive.

[Foil]

what is Bush's biggest core voting demographic? answer: the Christian Right.
And how do they think about homosexuality?

I don't know anybody on the "Christian Right" who, even in private, says "I hate gays". I know lots who say "I think it's gross" or "I think it's sinful", but none who want them killed or jailed or anything of the sort.

I can confirm this. I have met one or two Christians who have a hateful attitude toward homosexuals, but by far the majority of the Christian people (including the super-conservative ones) I know aren't like that, even if they believe it's a sin.

From my perspective, the main issue among Conservative Christians is the sheer amount of mis-information out there. "Homosexuals will rape your children!", "The government wants to force churches to have homosexual pastors!" are just a couple of examples of the things I've heard well-meaning Christians repeat (or more often, forward to their friends via e-mail).

[TIGERassault]

Well, from what I've noticed recently, the God-hates-gays thing seems to have reduced more than normal recently. But I think that's just because it was replaced by the God-hates-Muslims thing. *sigh*

From my perspective, the main issue among Conservative Christians is the sheer amount of mis-information out there. "Homosexuals will rape your children!", "The government wants to force churches to have homosexual pastors!" are just a couple of examples of the things I've heard well-meaning Christians repeat (or more often, forward to their friends via e-mail).

That's sorta the same for Paedophiles, in my experience.

[woodchip]

\"How would they answer the OP? But how would they answer in private amongst friends - discussing how they really feel about the past and what we've left behind. Did we really leave it behind for the better? Wouldn't it be great if we could turn back the clock, wouldn't it be great:\" Roid

Instead of tacking to the lee and discussing christianity, lets get back to Roids assumptive proclamation that progressive values are somehow the superior frame of mind over staid, old fashioned conservative values. Conservative values are core beliefs that have been found to work for humanity over the millenia. The whole religious matrix was a form of glue that dictated how a population functioned togeather and thus survived. The fear of the unknown (death, weather, disease etc) was the pot that mankind was genie'd in and priest were the only ones who could rub the lamp to let you out. This holds true today but with fewer people (secular progressives) who believe this true.

The problem with progressive values supplanting societal religious values is the idea of entering uncharted waters of how society will function. Will the vast oceanic body of anti-secularity dilute the moral glue that binds us togeather? Has the knowledge richness available to us become the new synthetic resin that will keep us togeather? Or will we in the west become such navel gazers that one day we will wake up kneeling to mecca 3 times a day?

Society is far more than thinking gays are good or bad. The whole gay issue is a miniscule problem when measured against political fervor, economics, break down of family and terrorism. Whenever there is strife in the world, mankind tends to fall back to the tried and true. The progressive experiment does not fit that category.

[Foil]

...Conservative values are core beliefs that have been found to work for humanity over the millenia. ...

...Whenever there is strife in the world, mankind tends to fall back to the tried and true. The progressive experiment does not fit that category.

Eh, certainly "tried", but I'm not so sure about "true". Conservativism has been around longer, but it's debatable whether it has always "been found to work".

I would tend to think that mankind tends to fall back to authority/power structures, rather than to a set of values. Whether it's a good thing or not is determined by the power structure (i.e. dictatorship,democracy, etc.).

[roid]

It is the natural nature of societys to progress forwards, as illustrated in my OP, and as illustrated by the collection of known history

You might want to take a closer look at history.

Never before have we been more technologically advanced, communicatively advanced, and had such a collected sum of human knowledge and literature. Our Culture and Society is the richest in recorded history.

The point is that cultures don't always progress, they usually climb to a peak, and then decline, and often decline hard. Take a look at the history of the Aztecs, the Incas, the Romans, the Asyrians, the Babylonians, etc. I agree that we are in a better place right now on some issues than we were in the past. I disagree with the statement that "It is the natural nature of society's to progress forwards"

Human Society continues to progress. Societys come and go, the next societys build on the last. The world keeps turning. Christianity for example is hanging on by it's fingernails, yet the world progresses on regardless. Collective lessons are learnt and are integrated into the public psyche, progress continues.

In today's densely packed interconnected world (thx progress), global culture changes so fast that society's are barely noticable. We now have a global culture, a global society, of which old segments change fast and are instantly replaced with new - there's no void. Global communications and super-fast cultural exchange are making the global culture more homogenous.

Decades ago Homosexuality was illegal....

just wanted to add something of perspective here. Decades ago, it was illegal in some places. In specific communities perhaps, but never on a Federal level. It was MORE illegal in MOST places -decades ago- to spit on the side walks. (check the books, you will find laws banning spitting on sidewalks in most communities levied around the turn of the last century.)
Decades ago, homosexuality was considered by most to be unthinkable; not because a law forced this thought on them. The behavior genuinely disgusted them. That was how society felt about it. I'm sure the argument will be made that: "well that's how Christians taught everyone that homosexuality was wrong then so of course they thought that way." Might I say that the in inverse is true in our schools today in current curriculum's. They are quite literally being force to accept homosexuality. Here in Beaverton where my daughter attended school, we were given sillibus's for the kids for the next 6 years. It was rather alarming. Talk about social terra-forming. So who's right and who's truly wrong here? Sounds like the pot is calling the kettle black here.

With nearly 2 decades of the homosexual political elite crying fowl, it's easy to loose sight of this and blame Christians for "decades of injustice".

(sorry this isn't polished, rushing off to work)

Isn't forcing someone to accept homosexuality like forcing a Nazi to accept Jews? i think it's a good thing. Why should you teach your children to hate something that they are going to be confronted with more and more in the world? I think it would be a disservice to a child.
Homosexuality may have been considered unthinkable by many because they had never been exposed to it. Because it was so persecuted - it was safer to keep it secret. Society in denial. Do you wish we could go back to these days? This is nature of questions in the OP.

Instead of tacking to the lee and discussing christianity, lets get back to Roids assumptive proclamation that progressive values are somehow the superior frame of mind over staid, old fashioned conservative values. Conservative values are core beliefs that have been found to work for humanity over the millenia. The whole religious matrix was a form of glue that dictated how a population functioned togeather and thus survived. The fear of the unknown (death, weather, disease etc) was the pot that mankind was genie'd in and priest were the only ones who could rub the lamp to let you out. This holds true today but with fewer people (secular progressives) who believe this true.

The problem with progressive values supplanting societal religious values is the idea of entering uncharted waters of how society will function. Will the vast oceanic body of anti-secularity dilute the moral glue that binds us togeather? Has the knowledge richness available to us become the new synthetic resin that will keep us togeather? Or will we in the west become such navel gazers that one day we will wake up kneeling to mecca 3 times a day?

Society is far more than thinking gays are good or bad. The whole gay issue is a miniscule problem when measured against political fervor, economics, break down of family and terrorism. Whenever there is strife in the world, mankind tends to fall back to the tried and true. The progressive experiment does not fit that category.

Humanity has always progressed forwards.
Have the Conservatives of old been replaced with new Conservatives with more progressive values? Where have the old Conservatives gone?
Where are the old Conservatives who are against the changes mentioned in the OP? Did these Conservatives become Progressive? Are they hiding?

[Drakona]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[woodchip]

Drakona for President. I find it refreshing to read from someone who has exceptional clarity of thought. Good post Drakona.

[Duper]

Drakona for President. I find it refreshing to read from someone who has exceptional clarity of thought. Good post Drakona.

X2

[roid]

haha, i'm not done yet gentlemen .


Drac:

So you yearn for the good ol days when most people hated homosexuality (the act, lol) just like you. You liked to see homosexuals being persecuted under the law. Effectively you cheer along with whatever persecution you can get away with at the time, when the mob stops you stop.
This doesn't sound very nice to me, so please clarify what i got wrong there.

Your illustration to drug laws and how most people consider them self-destructive is the same. In the future we will look back at these laws in shame. Well, except for some people who were fond of seeing drug users persecuted under the law.

Early on you say that Homosexuality is wrong and you think truth will win in the end.
Then later on you say it's good that Society is on the path to allow more and more Homosexuality.
The only way these 2 points go together is that you are betting that more and more homosexuality will be disasterous and in the end we'll be forced to either repent or die. Yes? You have some theorys, don't know exactly which it will be, but you have faith that something will happen and then we'll be sorry (or punished/die/goto hell whichever's in fashion). You'd like us to hurry up and get there quickly, so we can get it all outof our system and settle back into hating homosexuality en-mass like the good ol days.

[woodchip]

Roid, your fixation on homosexuality leads one to wonder if you are gay. It's alright if you are but doing a closet defense act is, well...gay.

[Gekko71]

Drakona for President. I find it refreshing to read from someone who has exceptional clarity of thought. Good post Drakona.

X2

X3 - although I do have one question.

Drakona: I agree with the substance of your original post (and frankly find it amazing that you hold such views but don't consider yourself "liberal" - but I'm Australian and admittedly know little of US politics, so I may be missing a key distinction or two )

However, I was curious to read that you consider Homosexuality to be "destructive". Would you mind clarifying (again, only out of curiosity) in what context you find it destructive?

[DCrazy]

woodchip: so straight people aren't allowed to care about the rights of gay people?

[Jeff250]

Roid, your fixation on homosexuality leads one to wonder if you are gay. It's alright if you are but doing a closet defense act is, well...gay.

"Gay" is not a synonym for "stupid" or whatever other demeaning thing you meant by it.

[Bet51987]

Drakona.... I would not vote for you because IMO your ideology reveals a kind of place I don't want this to be. Never mind your real views on homosexuality but to allow freedom, at the cost of widespread racism, is disturbing and that alone causes society to be self destructive.

I agree with Roid....

Bee

[Duper]

Drakona.... ...Never mind your real views on homosexuality but to allow freedom, at the cost of widespread racism, is disturbing and that alone causes society to be self destructive.

But Bet, this is the world we live in NOW. Drak never elected to impose her views, she merely stated her views. As in "this is how I think on the matter, but this is the reality in our society".go back through and read the entire post again.

Where as Woodchip's and my whole "Drak for Pres" sillyness, is showing our appreciation for he eloquence and thoroughness.

[CUDA]

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.

Edit: never mind its not worth it

[Bet51987]

But Bet, this is the world we live in NOW. Drak never elected to impose her views, she merely stated her views. As in "this is how I think on the matter, but this is the reality in our society".go back through and read the entire post again.

I did and I still have the same feeling.

Bee