"When you are accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression." <-- the quote that perfectly summarizes the conservative persecution complex.
What slippery slope?
11,360 Views |
244 Replies |
Last: 1 yr ago by BusterAg
In their defense, it seems like over the past few years more and more of them have gotten quite comfortable outright saying the latter, when 10+ years ago, I don't think anyone but the most far-flung crazies ever would have. Now you have otherwise fairly reasonable people saying it as a regular matter of course. In a sick way it's actually kind of refreshing seeing them take a non-hypocritical stance for once.Quote:
What I would like is for the Christians that oppose legal rights for LGBTQ to either admit that they are huge hypocrites or that they favor Christian theocracy in the US.
Poverty leads to crime sure, except where it doesn't. West Virginia is one of the poorest states in the nation yet is smack dab in the middle of the pack when it comes to violent crime. The UAE has an extremely poor immigrant class mainly composed of Southeast Asians who commit virtually no crime.Aggrad08 said:
Limit it to violent crime and we are still worse than most the first world. And you get some pretty big populations included there like France Japan or Germany.
The idea that this is just because we have more laws is false. But it's also a good argument against those laws since these societies don't punish petty vices and are better functioning when it comes to violence and homelessness. So what's the argument in favor of punishing people for smoking weed?
And now you are changing your argument, it's not about a society being conservative it's about a society being homogeneous I think this also fails. As there are plenty of small homogeneous and heavily religious nations where crime is most rampant.
Poverty rates are one of the most consistent markers of crime, and it's the one you've yet to mention it-doesn't fit the narrative though.
And there is a stark outlier in black Americans and a modest outlier in Hispanics, even using just white Americans we still score lower than many other nations even when not limiting those same nations to their own non minority population:
https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2021/05/21/how-america-compares-to-the-world-when-split-by-race
American exceptionalism does apply in some metrics. Crime simply isn't one of them any way you slice it.
Look at the murder rates from the link you posted; Singapore, Bahrain, UAE, Qatar, Oman. At first glance these countries seem to have one thing in common: wealth, but that's inflated by the huge amounts of money paid to the nationals and the abject poverty the non-citizen immigrant class lives in. What else do they have in common?
Sure, that's conservatism everywhere, not just in America.larry culpepper said:Right.Silian Rail said:
I would just like to point out that "you do you and I'll do me" is quintessential liberalism and has nothing to do with conservatism.
The confusion stems from the fact that the only societies able to actually practice liberalism are conservative ones where people voluntarily practice righteousness without having to be forced into it by law. We mistake the cause for the effect, as if being out of jail is what makes a person good, not that good people don't need to be jailed
Conservatism is "I'll do me, and you can do you so long as I agree with it. If I don't agree with it then it should be illegal." Conservatism in America is authoritarian.
My argument isn't that one group should have say over another.
My argument is that you don't need to incentivize or elevate the status of couples or groups of people who (a) want to have sex and (b) a lifelong companionship. Those things are natural desires.
What takes a lot of sacrifice is bearing and raising children -- from the pregnancy and birth process itself to the day in and day out grind of having to raise the little ones to be functioning adults in society.
It is in society's best interest to promote heterosexual monogamous pairing that will result in the procreation and raising of productive members of society. That's it, it's simple.
My argument is that you don't need to incentivize or elevate the status of couples or groups of people who (a) want to have sex and (b) a lifelong companionship. Those things are natural desires.
What takes a lot of sacrifice is bearing and raising children -- from the pregnancy and birth process itself to the day in and day out grind of having to raise the little ones to be functioning adults in society.
It is in society's best interest to promote heterosexual monogamous pairing that will result in the procreation and raising of productive members of society. That's it, it's simple.
Also, I don't view this as a Christian vs secular issue. If anything gay marriage as a concept comes from liberal Protestantism. It's not from secular China or Japan, or Hindu India.
Modern social liberalism in American and Western Europe is the current iteration of liberal Protestantism.
This belief system takes a well-meaning emphasis on compassion for others and then proceeds from there. So you look at a nice gay couple and wonder why they shouldn't be elevated to the same legal and cultural status as a heterosexual couple. I get it, it makes sense.
The problem is that it's a very 2D view of how things work; this leads to unintended second-order consequences for society and the introduction of tons of ambiguity into what a basic foundational social construct.
We've now opened Pandora's box and the question of what marriage even is will continue.
Modern social liberalism in American and Western Europe is the current iteration of liberal Protestantism.
This belief system takes a well-meaning emphasis on compassion for others and then proceeds from there. So you look at a nice gay couple and wonder why they shouldn't be elevated to the same legal and cultural status as a heterosexual couple. I get it, it makes sense.
The problem is that it's a very 2D view of how things work; this leads to unintended second-order consequences for society and the introduction of tons of ambiguity into what a basic foundational social construct.
We've now opened Pandora's box and the question of what marriage even is will continue.
Your observations are correct. The overton window has shifted quite a bit and now it's become normalized to openly promote Christian nationalism. While I hate it and am disturbed by this trend, I at least appreciate that these folks are being honest about their intentions. The First Amendment is nothing more than a nonbinding suggestion at this point.Beer Baron said:In their defense, it seems like over the past few years more and more of them have gotten quite comfortable outright saying the latter, when 10+ years ago, I don't think anyone but the most far-flung crazies ever would have. Now you have otherwise fairly reasonable people saying it as a regular matter of course. In a sick way it's actually kind of refreshing seeing them take a non-hypocritical stance for once.Quote:
What I would like is for the Christians that oppose legal rights for LGBTQ to either admit that they are huge hypocrites or that they favor Christian theocracy in the US.
Wut?larry culpepper said:Right.Silian Rail said:
I would just like to point out that "you do you and I'll do me" is quintessential liberalism and has nothing to do with conservatism.
The confusion stems from the fact that the only societies able to actually practice liberalism are conservative ones where people voluntarily practice righteousness without having to be forced into it by law. We mistake the cause for the effect, as if being out of jail is what makes a person good, not that good people don't need to be jailed
Conservatism is "I'll do me, and you can do you so long as I agree with it. If I don't agree with it then it should be illegal." Conservatism in America is authoritarian.
If favoring heterosexual marriage = Christian nationalism then the US was a Christian nationalist country in 2015 and all of Asia is Christian nationalist.larry culpepper said:Your observations are correct. The overton window has shifted quite a bit and now it's become normalized to openly promote Christian nationalism. While I hate it and am disturbed by this trend, I at least appreciate that these folks are being honest about their intentions. The First Amendment is nothing more than a nonbinding suggestion at this point.Beer Baron said:In their defense, it seems like over the past few years more and more of them have gotten quite comfortable outright saying the latter, when 10+ years ago, I don't think anyone but the most far-flung crazies ever would have. Now you have otherwise fairly reasonable people saying it as a regular matter of course. In a sick way it's actually kind of refreshing seeing them take a non-hypocritical stance for once.Quote:
What I would like is for the Christians that oppose legal rights for LGBTQ to either admit that they are huge hypocrites or that they favor Christian theocracy in the US.
Does that make sense?
larry culpepper said:Your observations are correct. The overton window has shifted quite a bit and now it's become normalized to openly promote Christian nationalism. While I hate it and am disturbed by this trend, I at least appreciate that these folks are being honest about their intentions. The First Amendment is nothing more than a nonbinding suggestion at this point.Beer Baron said:In their defense, it seems like over the past few years more and more of them have gotten quite comfortable outright saying the latter, when 10+ years ago, I don't think anyone but the most far-flung crazies ever would have. Now you have otherwise fairly reasonable people saying it as a regular matter of course. In a sick way it's actually kind of refreshing seeing them take a non-hypocritical stance for once.Quote:
What I would like is for the Christians that oppose legal rights for LGBTQ to either admit that they are huge hypocrites or that they favor Christian theocracy in the US.
You just don't understand the first amendment, it was never carte blanche for license. Thomas Jefferson prescribed castration for sodomites in the colonies, and that was liberalizing the death sentence on the books.
I'm not only talking about marriage. And I don't care what your personal preference is. We've reached a point where SSM is the norm, people are reaping the benefits from it, and any efforts to reverse that are based out of an effort to enforce Christian doctrine on the country.
Asian countries are by and large much more authoritarian than western countries. I think the more free countries like Japan and Korea will get with the times in the near future.
Asian countries are by and large much more authoritarian than western countries. I think the more free countries like Japan and Korea will get with the times in the near future.
I understand it pretty well. And Thomas Jefferson was wrong for that. The founding fathers were not right about everything.Silian Rail said:larry culpepper said:Your observations are correct. The overton window has shifted quite a bit and now it's become normalized to openly promote Christian nationalism. While I hate it and am disturbed by this trend, I at least appreciate that these folks are being honest about their intentions. The First Amendment is nothing more than a nonbinding suggestion at this point.Beer Baron said:In their defense, it seems like over the past few years more and more of them have gotten quite comfortable outright saying the latter, when 10+ years ago, I don't think anyone but the most far-flung crazies ever would have. Now you have otherwise fairly reasonable people saying it as a regular matter of course. In a sick way it's actually kind of refreshing seeing them take a non-hypocritical stance for once.Quote:
What I would like is for the Christians that oppose legal rights for LGBTQ to either admit that they are huge hypocrites or that they favor Christian theocracy in the US.
You just don't understand the first amendment, it was never carte blanche for license. Thomas Jefferson prescribed castration for sodomites in the colonies, and that was liberalizing the death sentence on the books.
Bob Lee said:
Christian values should be given preference because they don't try to flout natural law. A pervasive gay culture in society is hugely detrimental, and Christian marriage and the product of which is hugely valuable to it. So why should we not act in our interest? And if society is acting in its interest, how can it be authoritarian? Is the imposition of an objective standard just Christian authoritarianism in your view? We have to be allowed to frustrate our intended purpose, or we aren't free. We have to be allowed to pursue pleasure without any constraints, or we're the subject of authoritarian rule.
Society's interest is not and has not ever been a monolith. A government authority that determines what society's interests should be and forces them is . . . yes, authoritarianism. You have basically listed the definition of authoritarianism and then asked why is that authoritarianism.
If I'm wrong, how should I read your post above? What should be the role of an authority like our government? You say it is to determine what natural moral laws are and impose them on people? You are comfortable with a government determining who is permitted to marry? You are comfortable with government imposing religious belief? And a person whose interests or values or beliefs are out of line with your standard are to be given fewer rights and treated less than equal.
Even though I very much oppose it, I can applaud you for at least admitting that you believe that your religious views should be forced on others.
No, but you think they'd have a better insight into what the first amendment covers and what it doesn't.larry culpepper said:I understand it pretty well. And Thomas Jefferson was wrong for that. The founding fathers were not right about everything.Silian Rail said:larry culpepper said:Your observations are correct. The overton window has shifted quite a bit and now it's become normalized to openly promote Christian nationalism. While I hate it and am disturbed by this trend, I at least appreciate that these folks are being honest about their intentions. The First Amendment is nothing more than a nonbinding suggestion at this point.Beer Baron said:In their defense, it seems like over the past few years more and more of them have gotten quite comfortable outright saying the latter, when 10+ years ago, I don't think anyone but the most far-flung crazies ever would have. Now you have otherwise fairly reasonable people saying it as a regular matter of course. In a sick way it's actually kind of refreshing seeing them take a non-hypocritical stance for once.Quote:
What I would like is for the Christians that oppose legal rights for LGBTQ to either admit that they are huge hypocrites or that they favor Christian theocracy in the US.
You just don't understand the first amendment, it was never carte blanche for license. Thomas Jefferson prescribed castration for sodomites in the colonies, and that was liberalizing the death sentence on the books.
Poverty is not a perfect indicator there aren't any. But it dramatically better than the two you've proposed, social conservatism and homogeneity. Again, your statement on correcting for whites simply isn't so.Silian Rail said:
Poverty leads to crime sure, except where it doesn't. West Virginia is one of the poorest states in the nation yet is smack dab in the middle of the pack when it comes to violent crime. The UAE has an extremely poor immigrant class mainly composed of Southeast Asians who commit virtually no crime.
Look at the murder rates from the link you posted; Singapore, Bahrain, UAE, Qatar, Oman. At first glance these countries seem to have one thing in common: wealth, but that's inflated by the huge amounts of money paid to the nationals and the abject poverty the non-citizen immigrant class lives in. What else do they have in common?
Serotonin said:
It is in society's best interest to promote heterosexual monogamous pairing that will result in the procreation and raising of productive members of society. That's it, it's simple.
Then, by all means, go and promote that as an individual. Is it the federal government's job to promote a certain sexual orientation? Or monogamy? No one is stopping you personally from promoting what you want. No one is stopping you from a heterosexual monogamous pairing with procreation and children an future productive offspring.
You are the one that is claiming entitlement to force others to serve the interests you determine to be best. It is that simple.
Government determines society's best interests and enforces laws around that in thousands of ways, from speed limits to drug restrictions to oversight of financial transactions. These are meant to promote the well-being and stability of society. Is that authoritarian?Quote:
A government authority that determines what society's interests should be and forces them is . . . yes, authoritarianism.
...
You are comfortable with a government determining who is permitted to marry?
Also government currently determines who can marry. Is that authoritarian? Isn't the only alternative to abolish marriage or push it into the private sphere as something not recognized by law?
Silian Rail said:No, but you think they'd have a better insight into what the first amendment covers and what it doesn't.larry culpepper said:I understand it pretty well. And Thomas Jefferson was wrong for that. The founding fathers were not right about everything.Silian Rail said:larry culpepper said:Your observations are correct. The overton window has shifted quite a bit and now it's become normalized to openly promote Christian nationalism. While I hate it and am disturbed by this trend, I at least appreciate that these folks are being honest about their intentions. The First Amendment is nothing more than a nonbinding suggestion at this point.Beer Baron said:In their defense, it seems like over the past few years more and more of them have gotten quite comfortable outright saying the latter, when 10+ years ago, I don't think anyone but the most far-flung crazies ever would have. Now you have otherwise fairly reasonable people saying it as a regular matter of course. In a sick way it's actually kind of refreshing seeing them take a non-hypocritical stance for once.Quote:
What I would like is for the Christians that oppose legal rights for LGBTQ to either admit that they are huge hypocrites or that they favor Christian theocracy in the US.
You just don't understand the first amendment, it was never carte blanche for license. Thomas Jefferson prescribed castration for sodomites in the colonies, and that was liberalizing the death sentence on the books.
Cough* Alien and Sedition Act *Cough
I do love how penumbras are read into the Constitution when it matters for conservatives but are anathema when it comes to liberalizing individual rights.
Everything you mentioned has a rational secular purpose. The problem the social conservatives get into is they veer into areas where they are unable to make a rational secular argument as it doesn't exist, their entire reasoning was religious and there isn't a concurrent secular purpose to lean on.
larry culpepper said:
"When you are accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression." <-- the quote that perfectly summarizes the conservative persecution complex.
"Conservatism is the belief that there are out groups whom the law binds but does not protect, and in groups whom the law protects but does not bind."
That is absolutely ludicrous. If the U.S had the demographics of Western Europe its murder rate would be less than half of what it is today; and we'd be on par with Malaysia and Estonia rather than Zimbabwe and Nicaragua. Would it still be higher than most countries in Western Europe? Yes, but nowhere near the drastic extent it is today.Aggrad08 said:Poverty is not a perfect indicator there aren't any. But it dramatically better than the two you've proposed, social conservatism and homogeneity. Again, your statement on correcting for whites simply isn't so.Silian Rail said:
Poverty leads to crime sure, except where it doesn't. West Virginia is one of the poorest states in the nation yet is smack dab in the middle of the pack when it comes to violent crime. The UAE has an extremely poor immigrant class mainly composed of Southeast Asians who commit virtually no crime.
Look at the murder rates from the link you posted; Singapore, Bahrain, UAE, Qatar, Oman. At first glance these countries seem to have one thing in common: wealth, but that's inflated by the huge amounts of money paid to the nationals and the abject poverty the non-citizen immigrant class lives in. What else do they have in common?
And I'll ask again: what do Singapore, Bahrain, UAE, Oman and Qatar have in common?
Serotonin said:Government determines society's best interests and enforces laws around that in thousands of ways, from speed limits to drug restrictions to oversight of financial transactions. These are meant to promote the well-being and stability of society. Is that authoritarian?Quote:
A government authority that determines what society's interests should be and forces them is . . . yes, authoritarianism.
...
You are comfortable with a government determining who is permitted to marry?
Also government currently determines who can marry. Is that authoritarian? Isn't the only alternative to abolish marriage or push it into the private sphere as something not recognized by law?
Fine, poorly worded on my part. The concern is with a government determining our religious interests or writing marriage laws based on religious test.
You'll have to explain how the Alien and sedition acts show the founding fathers for being the mainstream liberals Culpepper seems to think they are.Sapper Redux said:Silian Rail said:No, but you think they'd have a better insight into what the first amendment covers and what it doesn't.larry culpepper said:I understand it pretty well. And Thomas Jefferson was wrong for that. The founding fathers were not right about everything.Silian Rail said:larry culpepper said:Your observations are correct. The overton window has shifted quite a bit and now it's become normalized to openly promote Christian nationalism. While I hate it and am disturbed by this trend, I at least appreciate that these folks are being honest about their intentions. The First Amendment is nothing more than a nonbinding suggestion at this point.Beer Baron said:In their defense, it seems like over the past few years more and more of them have gotten quite comfortable outright saying the latter, when 10+ years ago, I don't think anyone but the most far-flung crazies ever would have. Now you have otherwise fairly reasonable people saying it as a regular matter of course. In a sick way it's actually kind of refreshing seeing them take a non-hypocritical stance for once.Quote:
What I would like is for the Christians that oppose legal rights for LGBTQ to either admit that they are huge hypocrites or that they favor Christian theocracy in the US.
You just don't understand the first amendment, it was never carte blanche for license. Thomas Jefferson prescribed castration for sodomites in the colonies, and that was liberalizing the death sentence on the books.
Cough* Alien and Sedition Act *Cough
I do love how penumbras are read into the Constitution when it matters for conservatives but are anathema when it comes to liberalizing individual rights.
So how does a secular country like China have heterosexual marriage as the norm for marriage? Where does that come from? Why don't they have gay marriage there?Aggrad08 said:
Everything you mentioned has a rational secular purpose. The problem the social conservatives get into is they veer into areas where they are unable to make a rational secular argument as it doesn't exist, their entire reasoning was religious and there isn't a concurrent secular purpose to lean on.
Such as?Aggrad08 said:
Everything you mentioned has a rational secular purpose. The problem the social conservatives get into is they veer into areas where they are unable to make a rational secular argument as it doesn't exist, their entire reasoning was religious and there isn't a concurrent secular purpose to lean on.
Where is this nascent theocracy operating wholly outside of the constitution today, without any oversight from the courts/legal system?
Malaysia and Estonia....that's kind of making my point isn't it? I granted that black americans are a major outlier, you premise is that we look good without it, we dont', we look like...Malaysia and Estonia not most countries in western Europe. My statement was that american exceptionalism doesn't apply to crime rates any way you slice it. That's not absolutely ludicrous its absolutely true. I'm not even sure what you are hoping to argue here?Silian Rail said:That is absolutely ludicrous. If the U.S had the demographics of Western Europe its murder rate would be less than half of what it is today; and we'd be on par with Malaysia and Estonia rather than Zimbabwe and Nicaragua. Would it still be higher than most countries in Western Europe? Yes, but nowhere near the drastic extent it is today.Aggrad08 said:Poverty is not a perfect indicator there aren't any. But it dramatically better than the two you've proposed, social conservatism and homogeneity. Again, your statement on correcting for whites simply isn't so.Silian Rail said:
Poverty leads to crime sure, except where it doesn't. West Virginia is one of the poorest states in the nation yet is smack dab in the middle of the pack when it comes to violent crime. The UAE has an extremely poor immigrant class mainly composed of Southeast Asians who commit virtually no crime.
Look at the murder rates from the link you posted; Singapore, Bahrain, UAE, Qatar, Oman. At first glance these countries seem to have one thing in common: wealth, but that's inflated by the huge amounts of money paid to the nationals and the abject poverty the non-citizen immigrant class lives in. What else do they have in common?
And I'll ask again: what do Singapore, Bahrain, UAE, Oman and Qatar have in common?
Those countries have a number of things in common, very strict punishments, wealth, high muslim population, high income inequality, hot as ****...what point are you getting at that tries to substantiate your claims on US crime rates or that social conservatism
I'll also point out that most people that the "theocracy" pushed by most of the "christian nationalists" resembles more closely the America of 1997 than it does the America of the Salem Witch Trials.
Yes, and if we exclude young adult african Americans and suicides we have essentially no 'gun violence' problem at all (much as is the case in West Virginia, Vermont, and Wyoming, for instance).Silian Rail said:That is absolutely ludicrous. If the U.S had the demographics of Western Europe its murder rate would be less than half of what it is today; and we'd be on par with Malaysia and Estonia rather than Zimbabwe and Nicaragua. Would it still be higher than most countries in Western Europe? Yes, but nowhere near the drastic extent it is today.Aggrad08 said:Poverty is not a perfect indicator there aren't any. But it dramatically better than the two you've proposed, social conservatism and homogeneity. Again, your statement on correcting for whites simply isn't so.Silian Rail said:
Poverty leads to crime sure, except where it doesn't. West Virginia is one of the poorest states in the nation yet is smack dab in the middle of the pack when it comes to violent crime. The UAE has an extremely poor immigrant class mainly composed of Southeast Asians who commit virtually no crime.
Look at the murder rates from the link you posted; Singapore, Bahrain, UAE, Qatar, Oman. At first glance these countries seem to have one thing in common: wealth, but that's inflated by the huge amounts of money paid to the nationals and the abject poverty the non-citizen immigrant class lives in. What else do they have in common?
And I'll ask again: what do Singapore, Bahrain, UAE, Oman and Qatar have in common?
Who said there was no oversight from the legal system? Where are you getting that. The oversight from the legal system is the only reason we can enforce the rational secular argument standard.nortex97 said:Such as?Aggrad08 said:
Everything you mentioned has a rational secular purpose. The problem the social conservatives get into is they veer into areas where they are unable to make a rational secular argument as it doesn't exist, their entire reasoning was religious and there isn't a concurrent secular purpose to lean on.
Where is this nascent theocracy operating wholly outside of the constitution today, without any oversight from the courts/legal system?
A simple "such as" is gay marriage or sodomy laws.
Opposition to gay marriage is not always rooted in religion, though that is more commonly the reason in western countries. Allowing SSM (among other things) has become a common trait of western, liberal democracies. It's a sign of progress in many places. China is not that. China is oppressive and authoritarian. This is probably oversimplifying it but I think the reason China does not allow it is based on old prejudices that have not gone away.Serotonin said:So how does a secular country like China have heterosexual marriage as the norm for marriage? Where does that come from? Why don't they have gay marriage there?Aggrad08 said:
Everything you mentioned has a rational secular purpose. The problem the social conservatives get into is they veer into areas where they are unable to make a rational secular argument as it doesn't exist, their entire reasoning was religious and there isn't a concurrent secular purpose to lean on.
This is true for a number of Asian countries. But remember that in a country like China, you will receive severe punishment for speaking out against the government or getting caught with drugs. They have strict, harsh rules you must abide by.
nm
Yes but this is a very deep and complicated issue that is much more than just race. I think the biggest factors that affect crime rates are poverty, poor education, and an overly punitive criminal justice system. It's rare for well-educated wealthy people to commit crimes (at least, other than white collar crimes). Most people commit crimes from a place of desperation.nortex97 said:Yes, and if we exclude young adult african Americans and suicides we have essentially no 'gun violence' problem at all (much as is the case in West Virginia, Vermont, and Wyoming, for instance).Silian Rail said:That is absolutely ludicrous. If the U.S had the demographics of Western Europe its murder rate would be less than half of what it is today; and we'd be on par with Malaysia and Estonia rather than Zimbabwe and Nicaragua. Would it still be higher than most countries in Western Europe? Yes, but nowhere near the drastic extent it is today.Aggrad08 said:Poverty is not a perfect indicator there aren't any. But it dramatically better than the two you've proposed, social conservatism and homogeneity. Again, your statement on correcting for whites simply isn't so.Silian Rail said:
Poverty leads to crime sure, except where it doesn't. West Virginia is one of the poorest states in the nation yet is smack dab in the middle of the pack when it comes to violent crime. The UAE has an extremely poor immigrant class mainly composed of Southeast Asians who commit virtually no crime.
Look at the murder rates from the link you posted; Singapore, Bahrain, UAE, Qatar, Oman. At first glance these countries seem to have one thing in common: wealth, but that's inflated by the huge amounts of money paid to the nationals and the abject poverty the non-citizen immigrant class lives in. What else do they have in common?
And I'll ask again: what do Singapore, Bahrain, UAE, Oman and Qatar have in common?
In America our solution is to harshly punish them and throw them in jail. That hasn't worked very well because it doesn't address the root problems that lead people to commit crimes in the first place.
China actually didn't have much of an antigay stance until later westernization efforts in the 19-20th centuries. This is more an adopted thing and has begun to soften. China lags behind in most human rights areas hardly someone to point to.Serotonin said:So how does a secular country like China have heterosexual marriage as the norm for marriage? Where does that come from? Why don't they have gay marriage there?Aggrad08 said:
Everything you mentioned has a rational secular purpose. The problem the social conservatives get into is they veer into areas where they are unable to make a rational secular argument as it doesn't exist, their entire reasoning was religious and there isn't a concurrent secular purpose to lean on.
So what's your rational secular purpose?
Silian Rail said:You'll have to explain how the Alien and sedition acts show the founding fathers for being the mainstream liberals Culpepper seems to think they are.Sapper Redux said:Silian Rail said:No, but you think they'd have a better insight into what the first amendment covers and what it doesn't.larry culpepper said:I understand it pretty well. And Thomas Jefferson was wrong for that. The founding fathers were not right about everything.Silian Rail said:larry culpepper said:Your observations are correct. The overton window has shifted quite a bit and now it's become normalized to openly promote Christian nationalism. While I hate it and am disturbed by this trend, I at least appreciate that these folks are being honest about their intentions. The First Amendment is nothing more than a nonbinding suggestion at this point.Beer Baron said:In their defense, it seems like over the past few years more and more of them have gotten quite comfortable outright saying the latter, when 10+ years ago, I don't think anyone but the most far-flung crazies ever would have. Now you have otherwise fairly reasonable people saying it as a regular matter of course. In a sick way it's actually kind of refreshing seeing them take a non-hypocritical stance for once.Quote:
What I would like is for the Christians that oppose legal rights for LGBTQ to either admit that they are huge hypocrites or that they favor Christian theocracy in the US.
You just don't understand the first amendment, it was never carte blanche for license. Thomas Jefferson prescribed castration for sodomites in the colonies, and that was liberalizing the death sentence on the books.
Cough* Alien and Sedition Act *Cough
I do love how penumbras are read into the Constitution when it matters for conservatives but are anathema when it comes to liberalizing individual rights.
You'll have to explain how the entire furor over the acts and their blatantly political purpose point to any kind of universal agreement during the early republic as to what any of the articles of the Constitution meant at some deep philosophical level.
A reason I often hear for this is that society should "encourage" hetero marriage for procreation and child rearing, because kids good, nuclear family good, mom and dad good.Aggrad08 said:China actually didn't have much of an antigay stance until later westernization efforts in the 19-20th centuries. This is more an adopted thing and has begun to soften. China lags behind in most human rights areas hardly someone to point to.Serotonin said:So how does a secular country like China have heterosexual marriage as the norm for marriage? Where does that come from? Why don't they have gay marriage there?Aggrad08 said:
Everything you mentioned has a rational secular purpose. The problem the social conservatives get into is they veer into areas where they are unable to make a rational secular argument as it doesn't exist, their entire reasoning was religious and there isn't a concurrent secular purpose to lean on.
So what's your rational secular purpose?
I agree all these things are good. But they are all happening anyway. People are having kids, nuclear families are common, and lots of (not sure if most) kids do live with their mom and dad.
Legalization of SSM didn't stop any of that. It just allowed certain couples to gain legal recognition of marriage and the rights that come with that. Some people think it's not good for kids to grow up with gay parents. You're entitled to your opinion obviously, but it's wrong for the government to discriminate against these couples simply based on their sex. Especially when you look at how many kids need to be adopted and how many kids are in broken homes. At least adoptive gay parents want the kids they adopt.
Aggball2010
Was the final pitcher in game 3 Using an illegal substance?
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
21
AeroAg2012
Was the final pitcher in game 3 Using an illegal substance?
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
21
Angry Beaver
Was the final pitcher in game 3 Using an illegal substance?
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
19
AggieBucksJB
Was the final pitcher in game 3 Using an illegal substance?
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
17
AgEngr12
Was the final pitcher in game 3 Using an illegal substance?
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
11
missinAggieland
Was the final pitcher in game 3 Using an illegal substance?
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
10
sealyag
Was the final pitcher in game 3 Using an illegal substance?
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
10
Harry Stone
we just won 4 straight series against 4 ranked opponents.
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
10
AggieBucksJB
Was the final pitcher in game 3 Using an illegal substance?
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
9
country
we just won 4 straight series against 4 ranked opponents.
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
8
Bruce Almighty
Was the final pitcher in game 3 Using an illegal substance?
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
7
TDAggie
You guys ever notice how many baseball players wear necklaces?
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
7
BBYD09
You guys ever notice how many baseball players wear necklaces?
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
7