NationStates Jolt Archive

Well?

The reason I ask is because I cannot think of any reason other than religion.

I understand that there are plenty of secular arguments for conservative positions on specific issues.
But from what I've encountered, the people that consider themselves social conservatives are fairly religious and readily admit that this is the basis for their morality, and thus politics.

Is this an accurate portrayal?
Are there any secular social conservatives?

what do you mean by socially conservative?

what do you mean by socially conservative?

I think they mean people who prefer 'traditional' values over more secular ones, especially pertaining to sexuality, religion and anything that fits in a conformist mindset. Of course, I could be wrong.

what do you mean by socially conservative?

Generally, people who are pro-life, anti-stem cell research, pro-prohibition (drugs, prostitution), anti-gay rights...
but not necessarily all those positions.
I guess there is no litmus test, but from what I have encountered, they know who they are.

Well?

Hey .... just what are you implying?

Rarely are people socially conservative from a secular POV. It's not even all that common for religious people to be socially conservative... As most socially conservative position violate many social positions adopted by religious organizations. Social conservatism is almost exclusively limited to hardline evangelicals and fundamentalists, especially those adopting a post-millenial dominionist viewpoint (which makes up the bulk of hardline evangelicals). Many softer evangelicals would have modified viewpoints which may match a few, but nowhere near the bulk of social conservative positions.

Well?

The reason I ask is because I cannot think of any reason other than religion.

I understand that there are plenty of secular arguments for conservative positions on specific issues.
But from what I've encountered, the people that consider themselves social conservatives are fairly religious and readily admit that this is the basis for their morality, and thus politics.

Is this an accurate portrayal?
Are there any secular social conservatives?

Stalin was pretty socially conservative. And no big lover of teh god either.

how about because it fits your personality?

Stalin was pretty socially conservative. And no big lover of teh god either.

Interesting...
but is he the exception to the rule?

The reason for holding socially conservative viewpoints is the same as any other type of conservatism -- deference to tradition and convention. Social conservatives believe that the mores of a society have evolved over many generations in response to real-life problems and situations. Particularly religious conservatives may believe that as well, but to their justification they add an appeal to authority, namely God, as the rule maker and ultimate arbiter of human conduct.

Religious social conservatives tend to be the most immovable because their ultimate authority comes from outside humanity and its experience. Social conservatives without a particularly religious bent react more cautiously to social change than do liberals, who rely on reason to allow or prohibit behavior, but they can and do change in their overall views over time.

Interesting...
but is he the exception to the rule?

What rule? That you have to be religious to be socially conservative? Or that you have to be an authoritarian despot?

Shits and giggles?

What rule? That you have to be religious to be socially conservative? Or that you have to be an authoritarian despot?

The first one, though I'm trying to figure out if there actually is a "rule."

And isn't authoritarianism synonymous with social conservatism?

The first one, though I'm trying to figure out if there actually is a "rule."

And isn't authoritarianism synonymous with social conservatism?

Authoritarianism often breeds social conservatism, because holding to tradition makes a people easier to predict and control. But there are features of authoritarian, especially totalitarian societies that undermine traditional authority. For example, in Cambodia during the Khmer Rouge regime, children were often separated and sometimes forced to murder their own parents. Some of the nastiest offenses against human rights committed by authoritarian regimes have weakened religion and the family.

Conversely, there are socially conservative places, like Switzerland, southern Germany, or the USA, where social conservatism exists without authoritarianism.

because you are worried that other people won't like you any more when they find out that you'd really rather be blowing other dudes in public restrooms or paying hookers to dress you up in diapers or flirting with the high school boys

Conversely, there are socially conservative places, like Switzerland, southern Germany, or the USA, where social conservatism exists without authoritarianism.

i think you'll have a hard time arguing for the non-authoritarian nature of usian conservatives.

I'm "socially conservative" for thirteen reasons.

Benjamin Franklin's Thirteen Virtues for Moral Living
1. "TEMPERANCE. Eat not to dullness; drink not to elevation."
2. "SILENCE. Speak not but what may benefit others or yourself; avoid trifling conversation."
3. "ORDER. Let all your things have their places; let each part of your business have its time."
4. "RESOLUTION. Resolve to perform what you ought; perform without fail what you resolve."
5. "FRUGALITY. Make no expense but to do good to others or yourself; i.e., waste nothing."
6. "INDUSTRY. Lose no time; be always employed in something useful; cut off all unnecessary actions."
7. "SINCERITY. Use no hurtful deceit; think innocently and justly, and, if you speak, speak accordingly."
8. "JUSTICE. Wrong none by doing injuries, or omitting the benefits that are your duty."
9. "MODERATION. Avoid extremes; forbear resenting injuries so much as you think they deserve."
10. "CLEANLINESS. Tolerate no uncleanliness in body, clothing, or habitation."
11. "TRANQUILITY. Be not disturbed at trifles, or at accidents common or unavoidable."
12. "CHASTITY. Rarely use venery but for health or offspring, never to dullness, weakness, or the injury of your own or another's peace or reputation."
13. "HUMILITY. Imitate Jesus and Socrates."

Benjamin Franklin's Thirteen Virtues for Moral Living

None of which he actually followed ...

However, to answer the original question, social conservatives get more action in airport bathrooms.

i think you'll have a hard time arguing for the non-authoritarian nature of usian conservatives.

Many American conservatives are personally possessed of authoritarian character traits, but the government itself is not authoritarian. After all, the state governments might allow or "ban" gay marriage, but even in a state where a ban has been enacted, there is no legal penalty for a same-sex couple to refer to one another as spouses, the law just doesn't recognize it in their jurisdiction.

None of which he actually followed ...

However, to answer the original question, social conservatives get more action in airport bathrooms.

But which way does the causal river flow?

I'm "socially conservative" for thirteen reasons.

Benjamin Franklin's Thirteen Virtues for Moral Living
1. "TEMPERANCE. Eat not to dullness; drink not to elevation."
2. "SILENCE. Speak not but what may benefit others or yourself; avoid trifling conversation."
3. "ORDER. Let all your things have their places; let each part of your business have its time."
4. "RESOLUTION. Resolve to perform what you ought; perform without fail what you resolve."
5. "FRUGALITY. Make no expense but to do good to others or yourself; i.e., waste nothing."
6. "INDUSTRY. Lose no time; be always employed in something useful; cut off all unnecessary actions."
7. "SINCERITY. Use no hurtful deceit; think innocently and justly, and, if you speak, speak accordingly."
8. "JUSTICE. Wrong none by doing injuries, or omitting the benefits that are your duty."
9. "MODERATION. Avoid extremes; forbear resenting injuries so much as you think they deserve."
10. "CLEANLINESS. Tolerate no uncleanliness in body, clothing, or habitation."
11. "TRANQUILITY. Be not disturbed at trifles, or at accidents common or unavoidable."
12. "CHASTITY. Rarely use venery but for health or offspring, never to dullness, weakness, or the injury of your own or another's peace or reputation."
13. "HUMILITY. Imitate Jesus and Socrates."


You are joking yes?

I'm a genuine Tory boy, but good god that seems a formula for avoiding anything resembling fun.

If we're talking about people who personally have socially conservative viewpoints, there are all sorts of reasons. My husband is an atheist but still holds viewpoints that many would consider quite conservative. Religion is not a necessity for one to be personally conservative.

If we're talking about people who try and write their socially conservative viewpoints into law, the reason is control - plain and simple. They are not satisfied with living their lives as they see fit. They feel the need to force others to live lives that way as well. I think this is often because of a fear that they are wrong, and so they need validation and seek it by trying to make everyone else live the same way. Religion isn't a necessity, but I think it sometimes provides an excuse - if God says so, how can anyone resist?

i think you'll have a hard time arguing for the non-authoritarian nature of usian conservatives.

Yeah, even if they're not successfully operating a authoritarian regime, I know many of them aspire towards authoritarianism.

I think they mean people who prefer 'traditional' values over more secular ones, especially pertaining to sexuality, religion and anything that fits in a conformist mindset. Of course, I could be wrong.

I don't know if being socially conservative automatically means being of a conformist mindset. Certainly, if you're living in Alabama or another place where being socially conservative is the norm, your point might hold. But social liberals also tend to engage in the same type of groupthink, just on the opposite side.

It takes a lot of individuality to be socially conservative on the average college campus, or if you're living in New York City.

That being said, I think the answer to your question is that many people are, for both good reasons and bad, hesitant to give up certain values that have served them and their communities well for hundreds, if not thousands, of years. Take as an example Orthodox Jews- asking them to give up their values and accept prostitution, gay marriage, divorce etc. is asking them to not only violate their covenant with their god, but also to ditch a lifestly and values that have served as the basis of their community for millenia.

I don't really share their beliefs- I'm a fairly libertarian Deist/Agnostic, but they do have a point. Change for change's sake isn't something I support. Though there have certainly been some benefits in the changes that have occurred in Western societies over the last 40-50 years, such as the increase in liberty for women and minorities, there are also negatives, such as 40 or so million abortions, the breakup of the traditional family (especially among minorities in the US) and the rise of big government.

Generally, people who are pro-life, anti-stem cell research, pro-prohibition (drugs, prostitution), anti-gay rights...
but not necessarily all those positions.
I guess there is no litmus test, but from what I have encountered, they know who they are.

I live in a very self professed "liberal" town. All new-agey and non-religious. While no one will admit it, this is by far the most conservative town I've lived in. But instead of saying they are doing it as "God's will", instead it's "for your protection."

Anti-smoking, anti-sexuality, anti-drinking. Also very homophobic, but never admittedly so. That would be un PC.

Social conservatism is almost exclusively limited to hardline evangelicals and fundamentalists, especially those adopting a post-millenial dominionist viewpoint (which makes up the bulk of hardline evangelicals).

Spoken like a true , ignorant non-social conservative...

MOST evangelicals aren't Post-Millenial; they're PRE-Millenial. Social Conservatism isn't "almost exclusively limited" to "hardline evangelicals and fundamentalists"; Social Conservatism is not a "hardline" phenomenon. It's very common among Evangelicals, Catholics, and other Christian denominations.

HUMILITY

Pray tell what's humble about forcing YOUR belief onto law.

Now.

There's plenty of argument for "God said this, and Church says this, so it's how it has to be." However, there are plenty of other reasons for why people may oppose this or that.

Why would someone oppose, say...

Gay relationships? Well, it's about policing gender roles. Men shouldn't act like women, and women shouldn't act like men. It's creepy. And having defined gender roles makes it easy for people to try to group themselves, draw lines in the sand, and determine what is the "right" thing to do. Homosexuality breaches those gender lines, in that men "should" like women, but by liking men, they are behaving like women.

Drinking? It leads to bad behavior, sickness, and possible death.

Smoking? People are allergic, it kills, and it's a burden on the health care system. Oh yeah, and it's really unpleasant to breathe for the majority of the population that doesn't smoke. Perhaps it's majoritarianism rearing its somewhat-ugly head, but it does have its reasons.

Drugs? Look at what drugs lead people to do. People steal, rob, and kill because of drugs - or some people do, anyway.

Sex outside of marriage? Exposure to AIDS and other STDs, not to mention the glut of unwanted pregnancies.

Interracial relationships? Insert your own reason here.

Really, the list goes on and on, and there are plenty of non-religious reasons for wanting to strike down this vice or that vice. It's partially to be listened to, and it's partially the all-too-human reaction of "EEEEWWWWWW, you like to do THAT?"

Spoken like a true , ignorant non-social conservative...

MOST evangelicals aren't Post-Millenial; they're PRE-Millenial. Social Conservatism isn't "almost exclusively limited" to "hardline evangelicals and fundamentalists"; Social Conservatism is not a "hardline" phenomenon. It's very common among Evangelicals, Catholics, and other Christian denominations.

MOST evangelicals are either post-millenial or amillenial, though amillenialists are not usually all that hardline. Premillenialists are an extremely vocal MINORITY in Christendom.

Spoken like a true , ignorant non-social conservative...

MOST evangelicals aren't Post-Millenial; they're PRE-Millenial. Social Conservatism isn't "almost exclusively limited" to "hardline evangelicals and fundamentalists"; Social Conservatism is not a "hardline" phenomenon. It's very common among Evangelicals, Catholics, and other Christian denominations.

Is there something of an oxymoron in "ignorant non-social conservative"? To my mind, it is those fruit loops who subscribe to the anachronistic twaddle of social conservatism who are ignorant.

As for the distinctions, who cares? A turd is a turd, whether it is brown, slightly lighter brown or a disturbing green colour.

I'm "socially conservative" for thirteen reasons.

Benjamin Franklin's Thirteen Virtues for Moral Living
1. "TEMPERANCE. Eat not to dullness; drink not to elevation."
2. "SILENCE. Speak not but what may benefit others or yourself; avoid trifling conversation."
3. "ORDER. Let all your things have their places; let each part of your business have its time."
4. "RESOLUTION. Resolve to perform what you ought; perform without fail what you resolve."
5. "FRUGALITY. Make no expense but to do good to others or yourself; i.e., waste nothing."
6. "INDUSTRY. Lose no time; be always employed in something useful; cut off all unnecessary actions."
7. "SINCERITY. Use no hurtful deceit; think innocently and justly, and, if you speak, speak accordingly."
8. "JUSTICE. Wrong none by doing injuries, or omitting the benefits that are your duty."
9. "MODERATION. Avoid extremes; forbear resenting injuries so much as you think they deserve."
10. "CLEANLINESS. Tolerate no uncleanliness in body, clothing, or habitation."
11. "TRANQUILITY. Be not disturbed at trifles, or at accidents common or unavoidable."
12. "CHASTITY. Rarely use venery but for health or offspring, never to dullness, weakness, or the injury of your own or another's peace or reputation."
13. "HUMILITY. Imitate Jesus and Socrates."

You are joking yes?

I'm a genuine Tory boy, but good god that seems a formula for avoiding anything resembling fun.Your vocabulary needs work. That list could easily be corrupted, sorry, I mean interpreted in a personally beneficial way.

Imitate Jesus and Socrates? Well Jesus (was) hung out in his underwear, and Socrates wandered around the streets of Athens wearing a glorified towel. Sounds good to me.

If they were imitating Christ, I doubt they would be all that socially conservative.

Your vocabulary needs work. That list could easily be corrupted, sorry, I mean interpreted in a personally beneficial way.

Imitate Jesus and Socrates? Well Jesus (was) hung out in his underwear, and Socrates wandered around the streets of Athens wearing a glorified towel. Sounds good to me.

Why do I get quoted?:confused:

what do you mean by socially conservative?

To me a social conservative is against programs that would help those who are minorities, sick, poor, weak, the under class, those "different" in both image and beliefs. They are also against things that may question their past beliefs. (innovations in science)

I think a lot of social conservatism is a fear of their position in society. Example: Poor white trash are against aid to poor black trash because the only thing they have that keeps them one step up the ladder is their skin. But it extends beyond the poor to those climbing or wishing to climb the ladder at all levels. A middle class person who just got a job with health insurance doesn't want national health care since it would put those s/he just struggled above to be put on equal footing. Or the neuvo riche that suddenly finds that any aid to the middle class is beyond reason. "I got here they can too" "The government should not fund public schools, it should aid private schools".

I think this is why we see a great deal of social conservatism in the south and agricultural west. In the south, just a generation ago if you were white, at least you weren't at the bottom. This generation there is an influx from the north taking new industrial jobs and thereby putting further pressure on natives. And of course the new black middle class taking their children's jobs.

In the agricultural plains and mountains, the jobs are simply disappearing as farms and ranches get bigger and even their small industries are pushed into the city by a lack of transportation. They see their children leave and their lives totally changed by opening up opportunity to others.

If they were imitating Christ, I doubt they would be all that socially conservative.

I agree. It's really impossible to be a social conservative and a true Christian. Anybody who actually reads the NT will find that Jesus was a raving social liberal and he was killed by the social conservatives because they were scared of losing their position in society.

Why do I get quoted?:confused:Because you complained that such a set of rules would only lead to a boring life. I wanted to show you how it could be used to justify only wearing underwear in public.

And "Make no expense but to do good to others or yourself; i.e., waste nothing." Fun is good right? And you have fun when you get drunk? Ergo, spending money on getting drunk is frugal way of living.

*snip*

This sounds more like economic conservatives to me. I generally think of social conservatives as those who are opposed to abortion, drug use, "non-traditional" gender roles, "icky" sexual activities between consenting adults, etc.

People are socially conservative for the same reason people are socially liberal. They endorse politics that make sense to them. While to you their viewpoints make absolutely no sense at all (yes, even to the degree that you would question their intelligence), to them your views are a bunch of nonsense too.

Not all conservatives are authoritarian. There are authoritarian conservatives and authoritarian liberals, and the libertarian examples of both. Assuming that conservatives are universally authoritarian makes about as much sense as saying that all liberals are 'pinko commies'. (hehehe...)

Not all conservatives are religious. If you are religious, that doesn't mean you are conservative. Just because there is a positive correlation (and it is just that, a correlation, not a definition) between being religious and also being conservative doesn't necessarily make it a universal law of the universe.

And if Saint Benjamin Isles follows those morals, than why does anyone else care? Debating about whether or not they are realistic, valuable, or otherwise is a waste of time. Following those morals doesn't make him conservative or liberal, it just means that he follows those morals. Morals are not necessarily translated into politics, because personal morals (such as sobriety, for example) are unrealistic (and not to mention, domineering and restricting natural rights) when applied to government. Which is why Theocracy does not work very well.

I think we can all compromise: for example, instead of assuming because some fool was conservative and was a jackass means that all conservatives are jackasses, we assume that the fool was a jackass, and nothing more. Instead of assuming that someone is Christian and thus hates gay people and abortions and wants you to join their religion or they go to hell, we assume they are Christian and listen to their own viewpoints, reasons, and arguments. (This also applies to those who think liberals are ruining everything and atheists are godless bastards with no morals.) If we stopped making generalizations and accepted other peoples positions as their own and respect even if you disagree, than everyone would be happy.

I'm "socially conservative" for thirteen reasons.

Benjamin Franklin's Thirteen Virtues for Moral Living

You mean the guy who was a renouned womanizer?

Now don't get me wrong, Franklin was nothing short of a hero of the american revolution, but taking advice on how to live the conservative lifestyle from a guy who died of syphilis doesn't sound like a good idea to me.

To me a social conservative is against programs that would help those who are minorities, sick, poor, weak, the under class, those "different" in both image and beliefs. They are also against things that may question their past beliefs. (innovations in science)

I think a lot of social conservatism is a fear of their position in society. Example: Poor white trash are against aid to poor black trash because the only thing they have that keeps them one step up the ladder is their skin. But it extends beyond the poor to those climbing or wishing to climb the ladder at all levels. A middle class person who just got a job with health insurance doesn't want national health care since it would put those s/he just struggled above to be put on equal footing. Or the neuvo riche that suddenly finds that any aid to the middle class is beyond reason. "I got here they can too" "The government should not fund public schools, it should aid private schools".

I think this is why we see a great deal of social conservatism in the south and agricultural west. In the south, just a generation ago if you were white, at least you weren't at the bottom. This generation there is an influx from the north taking new industrial jobs and thereby putting further pressure on natives. And of course the new black middle class taking their children's jobs.

In the agricultural plains and mountains, the jobs are simply disappearing as farms and ranches get bigger and even their small industries are pushed into the city by a lack of transportation. They see their children leave and their lives totally changed by opening up opportunity to others.

that all sounds economic.

If someone is socially conservative, they support continuing the traditional way of life. Religion is a large part of the traditional way of life, and so it makes sense a social conservative would be religious.
Religion's not necessarily causal, though. Like other posters have said, Christ did some things socially liberal for the time, because the traditional way of life back then did not include Christianity. In another thousand years, social conservatism and atheism may be thought of as connected, if that becomes the traditional way of life between now and then.

Because you complained that such a set of rules would only lead to a boring life. I wanted to show you how it could be used to justify only wearing underwear in public.

And "Make no expense but to do good to others or yourself; i.e., waste nothing." Fun is good right? And you have fun when you get drunk? Ergo, spending money on getting drunk is frugal way of living.

Taken in their context, namely, provincialistic C18th American protestantism, they would lead to a boring life.

But point taken all the same; does that mean drugs are still ok?:D

To me a social conservative is against programs that would help those who are minorities, sick, poor, weak, the under class, those "different" in both image and beliefs. They are also against things that may question their past beliefs. (innovations in science)

Your definition isn't that great- though minorities tend to vote Democrat in the US, they also tend to hold sociallly conservative beliefs. For example, blacks in America tend to be more churchgoing than whites. Homosexuality is less accepted by black, hispanic and Asian Americans than by whites.

I think this is why we see a great deal of social conservatism in the south and agricultural west. In the south, just a generation ago if you were white, at least you weren't at the bottom. This generation there is an influx from the north taking new industrial jobs and thereby putting further pressure on natives. And of course the new black middle class taking their children's jobs. In the agricultural plains and mountains, the jobs are simply disappearing as farms and ranches get bigger and even their small industries are pushed into the city by a lack of transportation. They see their children leave and their lives totally changed by opening up opportunity to others.

The South and the inter-mountain West are areas where most of the US's job growth has happened in the last couple of decades. The reason people from the rust-belt are moving to these areas are because there are more jobs being created than can be filled by the locals. A generation ago, these areas were somewhat poor and backwards, but they are now the boom areas of the American economy. I don't think your theory works.

One reason might be that they liked being young. For some people it seems all the new technologies and political ideals are exciting when they're young and naive but when they grow older they long back to the good old days with the good old fashioned technology and ideals so they are skeptic towards weird new gadgets and crazy new ideals that they never needed before.
Religion isn't a necessity, but I think it sometimes provides an excuse - if God says so, how can anyone resist?
Now I'll have nightmares about borgs from Star Trek knocking on my door with bible, beards and everything to say "You will be assimilated or go to hell, so says the lord, resistance is futile." :(

People are socially conservative for the same reason people are socially liberal. They endorse politics that make sense to them. While to you their viewpoints make absolutely no sense at all (yes, even to the degree that you would question their intelligence), to them your views are a bunch of nonsense too.
You and your logic can just go to Hell! Anyone who doesn't agree with me is a crazy, idiot Neanderthal who is out of touch with the people.
Which people? The people who agree with me, that's which people.

Taken in their context, namely, provincialistic C18th American protestantism, they would lead to a boring life.

But point taken all the same; does that mean drugs are still ok?:DWell it says not to drink to elevation, so I guess you're supposed to get high on drugs first.

Well it says not to drink to elevation, so I guess you're supposed to get high on drugs first.

Fair enough. This Franklin chap sounds like a dude to be honest:p

Where social conservatives get the nerve to tell other people how to live their lives is far beyond me. The social conservative position seems to me like glorified bullying.

They don't like change, they don't like to see degenerate societies etc...

I'm socially conservative but I am not religious at all nor do I believe in the idea of religious values dictating daily life. I just believe in many of the principles of the more right area of the political spectrum.

One reason might be that they liked being young. For some people it seems all the new technologies and political ideals are exciting when they're young and naive but when they grow older they long back to the good old days with the good old fashioned technology and ideals so they are skeptic towards weird new gadgets and crazy new ideals that they never needed before.

Now I'll have nightmares about borgs from Star Trek knocking on my door with bible, beards and everything to say "You will be assimilated or go to hell, so says the lord, resistance is futile." :(
Nostalgia? That makes sense, but there are plenty of young social conservatives. Of course, that may be because they like the sound of the Golden Age described by their nostalgic parents.

MOST evangelicals are either post-millenial or amillenial, though amillenialists are not usually all that hardline. Premillenialists are an extremely vocal MINORITY in Christendom.

Baptists, Bible Churches, most Charismatics, and 7th Day Adventists, among others, are pre-mill. Presbyterians are post-mill. Lutherans, Anglicans are amillenial. In the US, there are more Baptists and Charismatics than Lutherans, Presbyterians, and probably Anglicans combined.

Why be socially conservative? Hmmm... Maybe because it really is my business what other people do in their own bedrooms. Because my marriage is so pitifully insecure, it couldn't stand the strain of some gay couple somewhere out there in the world being married. Maybe because all those sexual perversions are so appealing to me that I would start doing little boys and chickens if every tiniest sexual peccadillo wasn't strongly condemned by society. Maybe just because it makes me feel important to tell total strangers what to do in their own homes. Maybe because I'm a monomaniacal power freak. Who knows?

They don't like change, they don't like to see degenerate societies etc...

Actually they love change. They want to change the world to something that resembles their strange fantasies about a, "good old days," that never was. They fear freedom, more like.

that all sounds economic.

An economic conservative believes in paying one's own way and not spending much to do it.

Reagan, Bush1 and Bush2 would be considered a social conservative but are obviously economic liberals to the max. The debt and economic problems of today and for generations to come are based on this economic liberalism. At the same time, Clinton showed economic conservatism but is considered a social liberal.

Social conservative can be linked to economic conservative but lately has not. Social conservative is a defending of the status quo of social policy. If a person has any position in society and they want to defend that position against change that would allow others to gain a possible advantage they would be social conservative.

To a point this goes to economic in that it is a deciding as to where money is spent. If you have insurance and are against national health insurance because you "earned" the right to insurance, you can argue that your opinion is economic but is more likely a defense of your position against those who you feel haven't earned your position in life. The same is true of giving aid to minority groups that didn't earn the right to try for a position above yours. Or the giving of free public education when you have earned the right to private education. You feel if they are to spend money on education they you should get "vouchers" to defend your position to private education so that you can stay above those in public schools. If a person feels above a homosexual then a social conservative would be against anything that could raise the status and competitiveness of homosexuals. If you can eliminate anyone from competition, or keep someone socially below you, you are a social conservative.

It's really a "survival of the fittest". The social conservative feels better "fit" and adapted to the current rules and realizes if the environment changes they may no longer be as socially fit and may lose social position. This has always been interesting to me because many of these people don't believe in biological "survival of the fittest" but do believe strongly in social "survival of the fittest".

An economic conservative believes in paying one's own way and not spending much to do it.

Reagan, Bush1 and Bush2 would be considered a social conservative but are obviously economic liberals to the max. The debt and economic problems of today and for generations to come are based on this economic liberalism. At the same time, Clinton showed economic conservatism but is considered a social liberal.

Social conservative can be linked to economic conservative but lately has not. Social conservative is a defending of the status quo of social policy. If a person has any position in society and they want to defend that position against change that would allow others to gain a possible advantage they would be social conservative.

To a point this goes to economic in that it is a deciding as to where money is spent. If you have insurance and are against national health insurance because you "earned" the right to insurance, you can argue that your opinion is economic but is more likely a defense of your position against those who you feel haven't earned your position in life. The same is true of giving aid to minority groups that didn't earn the right to try for a position above yours. Or the giving of free public education when you have earned the right to private education. You feel if they are to spend money on education they you should get "vouchers" to defend your position to private education so that you can stay above those in public schools. If a person feels above a homosexual then a social conservative would be against anything that could raise the status and competitiveness of homosexuals. If you can eliminate anyone from competition, or keep someone socially below you, you are a social conservative.

It's really a "survival of the fittest". The social conservative feels better "fit" and adapted to the current rules and realizes if the environment changes they may no longer be as socially fit and may lose social position. This has always been interesting to me because many of these people don't believe in biological "survival of the fittest" but do believe strongly in social "survival of the fittest".

This highlights a problem with the terms: in the US, conservatives are usually economic liberals. Of course, socialism is also usually considered liberal, but in a different way. Altogether, the terms don't make a whole lot of sense.

I'm conservative in every way.

The South and the inter-mountain West are areas where most of the US's job growth has happened in the last couple of decades. The reason people from the rust-belt are moving to these areas are because there are more jobs being created than can be filled by the locals. A generation ago, these areas were somewhat poor and backwards, but they are now the boom areas of the American economy. I don't think your theory works.

Exactly why the natives have become more socially conservative. In the "old south" they had a known position in life. They knew who they were above and knew that with the old rules they would stay above those people. When the new people come in the rules change and their social status could change.

When Johnson signed the equal rights laws he said that the Democratic party would never again win the south. What the new law was doing was telling people that at least knew they were above the Black population, that the environment was changing and they could not automatically hold their old status. They moved to a party that offered them the old environment. (although they only talk that position and have not made an effort to make it legal)

Today it is easy to assume one is above those that are homosexual, or get an abortion, or have less health, or live in the slums, or don't go to the correct school, or don't drive the right car, or don't attend the right religion, or don't belong to the right club, or ......... Any change in social policy could challenge one's position on the ladder.

I'm conservative in every way.
Alas! you now have to conserve your physical position by sitting at your PC for eternity!

I think they mean people who prefer 'traditional' values over more secular ones, especially pertaining to sexuality, religion and anything that fits in a conformist mindset. Of course, I could be wrong.

Conformist mindset? You would actually say that - particularly in this forum?

Conformist implies majority. Would you say then that social conservatives are the majority - because here to conform to the majority would certainly not result in a social conservative.

Baptists, Bible Churches, most Charismatics, and 7th Day Adventists, among others, are pre-mill. Presbyterians are post-mill. Lutherans, Anglicans are amillenial. In the US, there are more Baptists and Charismatics than Lutherans, Presbyterians, and probably Anglicans combined.

Predominately amillenial denominations make up about 41.7% of the US population, whereas pre-milennial make up only about 30.4% of the population as of the 2001 census, that's assuming every non-affiliated person who responds merely as "Christian" or "Protestant" (about 11.5%) is included as pre-millenial....

Not all Baptists are pre-millenial either... bub.

Interesting...
but is he the exception to the rule?

COMMUNISM!The ol' hamma' 'n sickle,eh.

Well?

The reason I ask is because I cannot think of any reason other than religion.

I understand that there are plenty of secular arguments for conservative positions on specific issues.
But from what I've encountered, the people that consider themselves social conservatives are fairly religious and readily admit that this is the basis for their morality, and thus politics.

Is this an accurate portrayal?
Are there any secular social conservatives?

Religion has nothing to do with it. If you are Italian you may claim that you eat pizza, lasagna, and steak pizzaiola because it is the food you were raised with and you are proud of your heritage. But in reality, you eat those foods because they kick ass. How many Irish Americans do you know who eat blood pudding? Do you know anyone from New Guinea who still eats spiders and worms?

By the same token, you may claim that you oppose homosexuality because of Leviticus, but in truth you oppose homosexuality because you're an asshole. Just like the people who opposed mixed-race marriage because they said God wanted the races to be separate. Or people who did not want to allow women to vote because God made men the heads of the nation's families.

People believe dickish assholy things because they are dicks and assholes. Give a dick the "Holy Bible" and he will read to you from the Assholy Bible. And it will be the exact same book you gave him.

I might seem conservative to you (to the very liberal NSG) but in my conservative Catholic-majority country I am a liberal. I can argue my stances on non-religious grounds. So, no... not all social conservatives tend to be religious; nor being religious would make you socially conservative.

I am socially conservative as far as a family model ensures excellent population growth, apart from that nothing.

By the same token, you may claim that you oppose homosexuality because of Leviticus, but in truth you oppose homosexuality because you're an asshole. Just like the people who opposed mixed-race marriage because they said God wanted the races to be separate. Or people who did not want to allow women to vote because God made men the heads of the nation's families.

You're oversimplifying the reasons behind why people are opposed to homosexuality. And it's not really comparable to opposition to mixed-race marriage or women having the right to vote. There's nothing in the bible that really deals with those two issues, so any opposition to them on the part of social convervatives was really cultural.

On the other hand, religious Christians honestly do consider homosexuality to be an abomination, per the bible. To people who believe the bible, this is a pretty serious thing- the bible talks about how the Judeo-Christian god destroyed a city because its inhabitants practiced this particular sin.

Do I agree with them? No, but I understand where they are coming from- to them, the bible is the basis of morality. And, as a basis of morality, it has served the Christian world remarkably well for a couple of thousand years.

On the other hand, religious Christians honestly do consider homosexuality to be an abomination, per the bible. To people who believe the bible, this is a pretty serious thing...

"...they say while wearing clothing made of two different materials, sitting at the red lobster, and bitching about the mexicans working in the kitchen"

the bible talks about how the Judeo-Christian god destroyed a city because its inhabitants practiced this particular sin.

no it doesn't.

What fascinates me is how liberals always use the "I do what I want" as their ultimate truth. While the conservative pops out the bible and tradition, liberals pop out nothing but personal opinions.

What fascinates me is how liberals always use the "I do what I want" as their ultimate truth. While the conservative pops out the bible and tradition, liberals pop out nothing but personal opinions.

Hahahaha... Ooh, Nice strawman, "Freedom." While I can't speak for all liberals, I can speak for myself and for what appears to be the, "mainstream," view held by, if not a majority, then a plurality of liberals. Certainly the ones I know. "Do as thou wilt," is not, "the law of the land." However if a law is to be passed restricting my freedom of choice, there should be a rational reason for that restriction. In order to justify restricting a persons free choice there should be a rational, convincing argument showing how that choice can cause harm to others. In other words if I'm going to object to your acts, there should be a real reason why your act is any of my damn business. And. before you ask, no, "I'm so insecure in my sexuality that what you do in your bedroom might tempt me to suck dick and shove my cock into someones shithole," is not at all sufficient. Nor is, "My religious faith is so weak that it could be shaken when you say or do things inconsistent with it," a worthwhile argument.

Still, you tried. Keep working on it. Eventually you may be able to pull your head out of your ass and see the light.

Try to be happy till then, mate.

What fascinates me is how liberals always use the "I do what I want" as their ultimate truth. While the conservative pops out the bible and tradition, liberals pop out nothing but personal opinions.

Which is kind of my point here- religious social conservatives point out that their views on how society should be ordered are based on what they believe to be the word of god. Whether or not you agree that the bible is in fact the word of god, the fact of the matter is that the moral rules in the bible have served Western society incredibly well.

On the other hand, social liberals are proposing massive changes to morality and how society functions. Some of those changes are good- women, minorities and homosexuals are much more free than they were a century ago. On the other hand, these changes have led to 40 million abortions in the US since Roe v. Wade, the weakening of the family (and the collapse of the black family) and other negative consequences.

I'm not a social conservative, but I can see that what social liberals propose is not all sunshine and lollipops- there are negative consequences to any change, especially radical change.

I'm not a social conservative, but I can see that what social liberals propose is not all sunshine and lollipops- there are negative consequences to any change, especially radical change.

I don't see social liberals proposing that people change the way *they* live. The idea is that the individual should live by his own morals, unless he is harming others. A person who is politically socially liberal can be personally socially conservative and choose to live by "traditional" values.

If abortions and dysfunctional families are truly higher now than they were before, it isn't because somebody changed society. It is because the members of society aren't being forced to live by the ideals of others.

You're oversimplifying the reasons behind why people are opposed to homosexuality. And it's not really comparable to opposition to mixed-race marriage or women having the right to vote. There's nothing in the bible that really deals with those two issues, so any opposition to them on the part of social convervatives was really cultural.

On the other hand, religious Christians honestly do consider homosexuality to be an abomination, per the bible. To people who believe the bible, this is a pretty serious thing- the bible talks about how the Judeo-Christian god destroyed a city because its inhabitants practiced this particular sin.

Do I agree with them? No, but I understand where they are coming from- to them, the bible is the basis of morality. And, as a basis of morality, it has served the Christian world remarkably well for a couple of thousand years.

It amuses me to hear fundamentalist Christians oppose homosexuality and support prosperity gospel theology in the same breath. Read the bible and take notes. Compare the references to homosexuality to the references to worldly wealth and the wealthy. Especially in the New Testament, but really both books. You'll find lots of statements about the evils of great wealth and greed; it takes a lot more searching to find anything about homosexuality. The christian right is almost exactly opposite in their priorities, and when wealth comes up are almost perfectly opposed to Jesus and most OT prophets.

The Christian right is very particular about what parts of the Bible they read. By the way is it possible that Soddam and Gammoreh were destroyed because of all the rapists? There didn't seem to be much about consensual sex there. Either way.

The Christian right is very particular about what parts of the Bible they read. By the way is it possible that Soddam and Gammoreh were destroyed because of all the rapists? There didn't seem to be much about consensual sex there. Either way.

Actually, there is a passage which specifically states that they were destroyed because of inhospitality. But yeah, the whole, "Send your guests out here so we can rape them," seems more worthy of a condemnation on the city than, "Me and my boyfriend here like to have buttsex."

I am a social conservative because of my personal faith. However, this fact does not cause me to be a mindless automaton. Through reason, I have concluded that absolute truths exists. Ignoring these absolute truths leads to destruction of both individuals and nations. This is in fact demonstrated in world history. The once strong Roman Empire, collapsed with the growing moral decay of its people. As the leaders increasingly pandered to the baser instincts of its people, the society as a whole lost its collective focus. We can see that in the public opinion poll-driven politics here in America. What is popular is frequently wrong. While social liberals maintain that truth is relative to one's own personal experience and perspective, this approach is a self-centered exercise. The "what's-in-it-for-me" liberal system leads to chaos. There are many social conservatives of no defined religious faith who have adopted their political stance because they believe it is the best practice for all of humanity. My faith provides a framework for my own understanding of why these "self-evident" truths exist and work.

I am a social conservative because of my personal faith. However, this fact does not cause me to be a mindless automaton. Through reason, I have concluded that absolute truths exists. Ignoring these absolute truths leads to destruction of both individuals and nations. This is in fact demonstrated in world history. The once strong Roman Empire, collapsed with the growing moral decay of its people. As the leaders increasingly pandered to the baser instincts of its people, the society as a whole lost its collective focus. We can see that in the public opinion poll-driven politics here in America. What is popular is frequently wrong. While social liberals maintain that truth is relative to one's own personal experience and perspective, this approach is a self-centered exercise. The "what's-in-it-for-me" liberal system leads to chaos. There are many social conservatives of no defined religious faith who have adopted their political stance because they believe it is the best practice for all of humanity. My faith provides a framework for my own understanding of why these "self-evident" truths exist and work.

Okay, so we're still on the strawman, "what's-in-it-for-me," concept of liberalism. Actually, I don't mind people who are socially conservative and don't try to force their beliefs on me. My grandfather is like this, and I actively respect him for it. He lives his beliefs.

Many social conservatives try to force their beliefs on me on the basis of their religion and nothing else. That is what earns my contempt.

I believe in an objective morality. Things I do to harm others, including attempting to restrict their freedom unnecessarily, are objectively immoral.

I don't see social liberals proposing that people change the way *they* live. The idea is that the individual should live by his own morals, unless he is harming others. A person who is politically socially liberal can be personally socially conservative and choose to live by "traditional" values.

Social liberals are the ones pushing for the recognition of gay marriage in law (which would force Christian, Jewish and Muslim business owners, for example, to treat married gay employees the same way as straight married employees), the expansion of anti-discrimination laws to cover homsexuality (again, forcing people to rent to and hire homosexuals) and radical changes in school curricula (which would, of course, lead to children being taught socially liberal ideas and ideals). All of these things go beyond simply live and let live, and go further by actually changing laws.

If abortions and dysfunctional families are truly higher now than they were before, it isn't because somebody changed society. It is because the members of society aren't being forced to live by the ideals of others.

Perhaps. But my point is that by overturning abortion laws and instituting no-fault divorce, you end up with behavior that does affect everyone else in society- abortion has led to a labor shortage in this country, which is part of the reason behind the high number of illegal immigrants. Societal acceptance of divorce and illegitimacy has led to an increase in gvernment and taxes necessary to pay for the consequences of such behavior (higher crime, more single mothers requiring public assistance etc.)

Social liberals are the ones pushing for the recognition of gay marriage in law (which would force Christian, Jewish and Muslim business owners, for example, to treat married gay employees the same way as straight married employees), the expansion of anti-discrimination laws to cover homsexuality (again, forcing people to rent to and hire homosexuals) and radical changes in school curricula (which would, of course, lead to children being taught socially liberal ideas and ideals). All of these things go beyond simply live and let live, and go further by actually changing laws.



Perhaps. But my point is that by overturning abortion laws and instituting no-fault divorce, you end up with behavior that does affect everyone else in society- abortion has led to a labor shortage in this country, which is part of the reason behind the high number of illegal immigrants. Societal acceptance of divorce and illegitimacy has led to an increase in gvernment and taxes necessary to pay for the consequences of such behavior (higher crime, more single mothers requiring public assistance etc.)

I agree with you about no-fault divorce. The idea that one spouse can end a marriage without the consent of the other or showing a failure to uphold the agreement by the other reduces marriage to a status well below that of any contract. Stupid. The other shit there. Waahh, poor babies...

I'm against abortion because I'm against killing innocent people. Abortion causes labor shortage? Good god, that has got to be the stupidest argument I've ever heard. Maybe all of those computer programmers who were laid off for outsourcing should take jobs picking tomatoes. God damn, stupid shit. He must have been quoting Bush...

Social liberals are the ones pushing for the recognition of gay marriage in law (which would force Christian, Jewish and Muslim business owners, for example, to treat married gay employees the same way as straight married employees),

Oh noes! Equal treatment under the law!

This is exactly what I already said. Social liberals are working to keep certain groups from forcing their personal morality on others. They don't have to personally agree with the marriage or personally recognize it as valid, but the law shouldn't take their personal viewpoints and force them on others.

Catholic churches don't believe that two people who remarry after a divorce are truly married. Should the law fail to recognize it just because the church does?

the expansion of anti-discrimination laws to cover homsexuality (again, forcing people to rent to and hire homosexuals)

Oh noes once again! Equal protection under the law is teh ebil!

So your contention then, is that the law should treat people like second class citizens because some people believe that is what they are?

and radical changes in school curricula (which would, of course, lead to children being taught socially liberal ideas and ideals).

Actually, it is social conservatives who are generally pushing for radical changes in school curricula - expecting their religion to be taught in schools.

All of these things go beyond simply live and let live, and go further by actually changing laws.

Of course they are changing laws. Current law forces the religious views of some upon everyone, delineating those who do not agree with said views as second class citizens. The law does not equally protect all citizens, instead providing significantly less protection to homosexuals because of religious viewpoints. Those who insist on the status quo are, in fact, refusing to live and let live - instead forcing their own viewpoints upon others.

The idea that not allowing one group to oppress another is oppression of the first group is patently ridiculous.

Perhaps. But my point is that by overturning abortion laws and instituting no-fault divorce, you end up with behavior that does affect everyone else in society- abortion has led to a labor shortage in this country, which is part of the reason behind the high number of illegal immigrants. Societal acceptance of divorce and illegitimacy has led to an increase in gvernment and taxes necessary to pay for the consequences of such behavior (higher crime, more single mothers requiring public assistance etc.)

Actually, legal abortion seems to have reduced crime rates and social acceptance of divorce has, in some cases, led to much healthier families, but that is beside the point.

You don't end up with this behavior because it is legal. Choosing not to outlaw something doesn't force people to do it. You get this behavior because people believe it is the right choice for them. If you want to change it, convince people that these things are poor choices. Forcing it on them doesn't change society, it just punishes those who don't or can't fall in line

Abortion causes labor shortage? Good god, that has got to be the stupidest argument I've ever heard. Maybe all of those computer programmers who were laid off for outsourcing should take jobs picking tomatoes. God damn, stupid shit. He must have been quoting Bush...

If abortion was not legal, or greatly restricted, then a significant proportion (most?) of the 40 million or so abortions since Roe v. Wade would not have happened. Which means there would be X million more people in the labor pool. Therefore, less of a labor shortage.

Or do you disagree?

Well?

The reason I ask is because I cannot think of any reason other than religion.

I understand that there are plenty of secular arguments for conservative positions on specific issues.
But from what I've encountered, the people that consider themselves social conservatives are fairly religious and readily admit that this is the basis for their morality, and thus politics.

Is this an accurate portrayal?
Are there any secular social conservatives?
There are plenty of reasons why an individual would choose social conservativism.

For one thing, it's much simpler, due to the two cornerstones of social conservativism: Tradition, and Hierarchy.

Tradition means never having to try something new. Hooray! If your daddy did it this way, then dagnabbit so will you.

Hierarchy means that everybody knows their place, as well as the place of all others around them. These places are typically defined by very conspicuous features, like gender, skin color, or economic class. This way you don't have to actually know anything about a person in order to know exactly how they ought to behave (and how you ought to behave toward them). Hierarchy is also related to tradition, in that the hierarchy will remain As It Has Always Been.

In addition to the simplicity offered by social conservativism, there's some more individual perks depending on how Tradition and the Hierarchy treat you. For instance, if you are a white heterosexual male, conservativism will helpfully inform you that you're at the top of the food chain. You won't have to actually do anything to achieve this status within conservativism, aside from being born white, male, and heterosexually oriented. You will also be informed that you, as a white male heterosexual, are actually the most oppressed demographic there is. This is a handy justification to use when you don't get accepted for that job you wanted.

If you are a not-man (aka "woman"), conservativism will provide you with an extremely narrow set of rules which, if obeyed, will result in you having higher social status, more personal comforts, and greater protections than you would otherwise enjoy. The down side is that you will live your entire life as a second-class citizen, but, then again, you're going to live that way anyhow because you're female. If you're prepared to sell out (or "buy in") then you may be able to improve your individual lot in life.

If you are a not-white person, adopting socially conservative views may allow you to earn the coveted status of House Negro. By vocally and publicly denouncing not-men and not-heteros, you will be able to assert that your place in the hierarchy is definitely NOT at the bottom. Granted, you'll never be at the top, and you're going to be insulting and fighting the very people who are most dedicated to breaking down the hierarchy so that everybody has an equal shot, but those goals aren't going to be achieved for a long time. Probably not until long after you are dead. You will receive more personal gain by slurring other marginalized groups in the short term.

(For a historical perspective on this, read up on how the Irish of New England reacted to the idea of abolishing slavery. The Irish were, at the time, almost as bad off as the black slaves. You'd think they would band together against The Man, right? Wrong. The Irish were pissed because they knew that freed blacks would compete with them for the lowest paying jobs. Their already-shitty status would become even more shitty, so there were massive uprisings of protest against the abolition of slavery.)

The reason religion gets mixed up with social conservativism so much is because religion is also about Tradition and Hierarchy. But religion doesn't CREATE the moral system from which social conservativism springs. Rather, that moral system is what leads to both religiosity (of a particular flavor) and social conservativism.

Pray tell what's humble about forcing YOUR belief onto law.

Now.

Where did I say my belief should be law? That's right, no where.

I am a social conservative because of my personal faith. However, this fact does not cause me to be a mindless automaton. Through reason, I have concluded that absolute truths exists. Ignoring these absolute truths leads to destruction of both individuals and nations. This is in fact demonstrated in world history. The once strong Roman Empire, collapsed with the growing moral decay of its people. As the leaders increasingly pandered to the baser instincts of its people, the society as a whole lost its collective focus. We can see that in the public opinion poll-driven politics here in America. What is popular is frequently wrong. While social liberals maintain that truth is relative to one's own personal experience and perspective, this approach is a self-centered exercise. The "what's-in-it-for-me" liberal system leads to chaos. There are many social conservatives of no defined religious faith who have adopted their political stance because they believe it is the best practice for all of humanity. My faith provides a framework for my own understanding of why these "self-evident" truths exist and work.

can you prove that the once strong roman empire collapsed with the moral decay of it's people? I read trough these (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decline_of_the_Roman_Empire), and most of them give other reasons.
It's also obvious that "socially liberal" isn't popular everywhere. Could you for instance give an example of a socially liberal American president? I also fail to see how allowing gay couples to marry or abortions to happen will make society collapse, and how is this in any way a 'self-evident' truth? These things are all legal where I live and I don't really see society collapse, there probably never has been a better time to live here.

abortion has led to a labor shortage in this country, which is part of the reason behind the high number of illegal immigrants. Societal acceptance of divorce and illegitimacy has led to an increase in gvernment and taxes necessary to pay for the consequences of such behavior (higher crime, more single mothers requiring public assistance etc.)

So, you oppose abortion and want to reduce the number of single mothers - surely abortion does result in less single mothers?

If abortion was not legal, or greatly restricted, then a significant proportion (most?) of the 40 million or so abortions since Roe v. Wade would not have happened. Which means there would be X million more people in the labor pool. Therefore, less of a labor shortage.

Or do you disagree?

I think that a large number of those abortions would still have been performed if abortion was illegal. They would just be performed by untrained people using dirty makeshift equipment, resulting in death/injury to the woman undergoing it.

If abortion was not legal, or greatly restricted, then a significant proportion (most?) of the 40 million or so abortions since Roe v. Wade would not have happened. Which means there would be X million more people in the labor pool. Therefore, less of a labor shortage.

Or do you disagree?
Of course, the availability of effective contraception has contributed far, far more to the decrease in live births in the US during the last two generations.

The fact that women are more frequently choosing pursue careers and interests other than popping out babies also decreases the number of available laborers for The Fatherland...erm, I mean, for America.

And, lets not forget, that fertile women are legally permitted to decline sexual intercourse with a fertile male. This reduces the number of pregnancies, and thereby also contributes to lower birth rates.

I think that a large number of those abortions would still have been performed if abortion was illegal. They would just be performed by untrained people using dirty makeshift equipment, resulting in death/injury to the woman undergoing it.
And an injured/dead woman is going to be less able to contribute to the labor force.

Oh wait, I forgot. We aren't supposed to count female human beings as actual contributing members of society. Rather, they are non-human machines which can be used to produce actual people for the labor force.

Actually, I don't mind people who are socially conservative and don't try to force their beliefs on me.

sounds like an empty set to me

So, you oppose abortion and want to reduce the number of single mothers - surely abortion does result in less single mothers?

This isn't really a discussion on abortion or single mothers per se- The point I am trying to make is that social liberals aren't just in favor of laws that allow people to live and let live. Rather, they have supported changes in the law that require other people to pay for individuals' bad decisions.

Trying to paint social liberals as esposing some sort of libertarian approach to social issues doesn't hold water- libertarians say people should be free to make whatever stupid decisions they want, but the rest of us should not be required to pay for those decisions. Social liberals say that people should be free to make whatever stupid decisions they want, but social liberal policy is to have everyone else pay for those mistakes through tax-funded government programs.

Divorce and illegitimacy are a prime example- the loosening of divorce laws and the reduction in the stigma of being an unmarried mother went hand-in-hand with growth in government programs to try and pay for some of the consequences of these changes, whether through welfare to help single mothers make ends meet, or an expansion in law enforcement and imprisonment expenditures to deal with kids who grew up in broken families.

Divorce and illegitimacy are a prime example- the loosening of divorce laws and the reduction in the stigma of being an unmarried mother went hand-in-hand with...an expansion in law enforcement and imprisonment expenditures to deal with kids who grew up in broken families.

as opposed to the perfectly healthy and functioning families they would have grown up in had divorce not been an option...

you are aware that crime has been in a downward trend for years now, right?

edit: in fact, the crime spike started in the 60s/early 70s and peaked around 1990. crime is largely committed by people of approximately 20 years of age, which means that the crime spike is actually attributable to people born in the 1950s to mid 1970s. but the divorce rate and percentage of people born to single mothers was way higher in the 80s and 90s than it was in the 50s, 60s, and 70s, yet crime is headed down. your hypothesis seems to face a rather serious problem here...

sounds like an empty set to me

Not really. There are plenty of people who are personally socially conservative and don't push it on others. In a sense, it makes them politically more liberal, but they live their own lives by more conservative values.

Depending on who you compare us to, my husband and I might be seen as social conservatives on some topics. However, neither of us thinks that anything that doesn't harm or endanger others should be illegal. Thus, we tend to think that a lot of things that we would never engage in should nevertheless be legal.

I don't expect you to agree with me. But that's OK. Thankfully, freedom of speech is a socially conservative freedom we both enjoy.

Please read the "The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire." You can get a copy of the three volume set at Amazon.com. All serious students of history should read it. It is much better than Wikipedia.

As for socially liberal presidents I would name Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, and Lyndon Johnson. Their opinions differed in certain areas. Social liberalism like social conservatism is not monolithic.

Before going any further, let me state that I do not hate homosexuals. However, you raised this issue - not me. What I don't like is how homosexual behaviour (particularly militant) affects me, my family, and the people I love. I have family who are/were homosexuals. None of them were happy people, one has died of AIDS. I love them all.

Here are some self-evident truths that are associated with the issue you raised. 1. Sexually Transmitted Diseases are not spread to the general population when two hetero-sexual married people come to the marriage bed as virgins and never have sex with another person. 2. The consequences of ignoring self-evident truth #1, has particularly devastating effects on the male-homosexual community. 3. Because of social liberal denial of self-evident truths #1 & #2, many people die needlessly due to AIDS. 4. As a direct result of #1, #2, and #3 a portion of all of our personal federal income taxes fund medical research to stop the ravages of AIDS in a population that refuses to acknowledge the harmful effects on all of us. 5. They say this is none of our business but want all of us to to fund and find a cure for their recklessly free behavior.

None of these self-evident truths were derived as a result of my personal faith in Jesus Christ as the Savior of mankind. They are simply the result of cause and effect observation.

Trying to paint social liberals as esposing some sort of libertarian approach to social issues doesn't hold water- libertarians say people should be free to make whatever stupid decisions they want, but the rest of us should not be required to pay for those decisions. Social liberals say that people should be free to make whatever stupid decisions they want, but social liberal policy is to have everyone else pay for those mistakes through tax-funded government programs.


I know a lot of social liberals who are also economically very liberal. (classic European liberals for instance mostly support stuff like abortion etc but also want to reduce taxes.)

Not really. There are plenty of people who are personally socially conservative and don't push it on others. In a sense, it makes them politically more liberal, but they live their own lives by more conservative values.

that's what i mean. they might be characterized as personally conservative, but they clearly are enacting socially liberal values, thus must be described socially as not-conservative.

as opposed to the perfectly healthy and functioning families they would have grown up in had divorce not been an option...

One of the biggest indicators of whether a kid will be in trouble with the law during his life is whether he grew up in a family where his parents were married.

Look, I'm not in favor of going back to 1950's America. I'm just pointing out that the social revolution we have gone through in the last 40-50 years has had downsides. And one of these downsides is that people are forced, through higher taxes to pay for government programs, to subsidize the mistakes of others.

you are aware that crime has been in a downward trend for years now, right?

And there's a pretty simple reason for that- the US has one of the highest imprisonment rates in the world. We haven't fixed the underlying causes of crime, which is the breakdown of the family (especially in the black community), we're simply putting people in jail for a long time.

On the other hand, before this social revolution, the US had a low crime rate and a fairly low rate of imprisonment.

edit: in fact, the crime spike started in the 60s/early 70s and peaked around 1990. crime is largely committed by people of approximately 20 years of age, which means that the crime spike is actually attributable to people born in the 1950s to mid 1970s. but the divorce rate and percentage of people born to single mothers was way higher in the 80s and 90s than it was in the 50s, 60s, and 70s, yet crime is headed down. your hypothesis seems to face a rather serious problem here...

There are, of course, other factors figuring into the crime rate. The 60's and 70's saw liberal reforms to criminal justice- penalties were scaled back, there was more of an emphasis on rehabilitation etc. It was a criminal law experiment which, combined with the breakdown of the family, created a perfect storm of crime.

The pendulum swung back hard- the criminal law reforms have been abandoned and we are now back to a very strick enforcement and punishment approach. But it's a band-aid, long-term. We can keep crime down if we keep imprisonment rates up, but that doesn't address the causes of crime.

Interesting...
but is he the exception to the rule?

There's also Mao....now THERE'S a socially conservative (i.e., totalitarian) psycho. He swam in raw sewage and refused to brush his teeth because "the lion doesn't have to brush IT'S teeth." True, not like those hygiene-obsessed gazelles.

We haven't fixed the underlying causes of crime, which is the breakdown of the family (especially in the black community), we're simply putting people in jail for a long time. .

While both US crime rates and US imprisonment rates are high among industrialized nations, US divorce rates are somewhere in the middle.

US poverty rates, on the other hand....

that's what i mean. they might be characterized as personally conservative, but they clearly are enacting socially liberal values, thus must be described socially as not-conservative.

I think you're using the terms differently. When I say "social conservative", I mean "conservative on social issues." I use the terms "personal" and "political" to differentiate between those who apply such values only to their own lives and those who wish to apply those values to others.

You seem to be using "social conservative" to mean "conservatives who want to apply their values to all of society."

And there's a pretty simple reason for that- the US has one of the highest imprisonment rates in the world. We haven't fixed the underlying causes of crime, which is the breakdown of the family (especially in the black community), we're simply putting people in jail for a long time.

On the other hand, before this social revolution, the US had a low crime rate and a fairly low rate of imprisonment.

our high incarceration rate has fuck-all to do with real crime rates - it keeps going up even as property and violent crime drop off. it is essentially entirely attributable to the war on drugs (and it hasn't affected drug crime rates at all).

What is a socially conservative?

I am pro gay rights (marriage, adoption, etc...), pro environment (Kyoto protocol, etc...). I think abortion should be more strictly regulated while still being legal. And I'm conservative on immigration (immigration should be tightly controlled, no illegals). And I think Political Correctness is stupid. I also dont believe in any organised religion.

So what am I?

One of the biggest indicators of whether a kid will be in trouble with the law during his life is whether he grew up in a family where his parents were married.

Look, I'm not in favor of going back to 1950's America. I'm just pointing out that the social revolution we have gone through in the last 40-50 years has had downsides. And one of these downsides is that people are forced, through higher taxes to pay for government programs, to subsidize the mistakes of others.



And there's a pretty simple reason for that- the US has one of the highest imprisonment rates in the world. We haven't fixed the underlying causes of crime, which is the breakdown of the family (especially in the black community), we're simply putting people in jail for a long time.

On the other hand, before this social revolution, the US had a low crime rate and a fairly low rate of imprisonment.

There's nothing I can't stand more than someone turning a correlation into a cause. Even if it's a really OBVIOUS instance of "causality," such as "the EFFECT of throwing potassium in water is an explosion," we still can't say it is, without a doubt, a causal relationship. This is because we never observe the actual CAUSAL PROCESS; we just infer from the fact that, thus far, we've never seen potassium thrown in water WITHOUT an explosion that potassium+water=boom.

Sociology is even more problematic, since there are (a) many, many, many, many, many more factors to take into consideration, and (b) sociology isn't a base science like chemistry or physics; it is an---for lack of a better term---"estimative" science that can only tell us what is most probable in regards to the data we've observed. As you can see, this is a very poor foundation for establishing "cause," and not a really great for positing sensible correlations, either.

:gundge:

our high incarceration rate has fuck-all to do with real crime rates - it keeps going up even as property and violent crime drop off. it is essentially entirely attributable to the war on drugs (and it hasn't affected drug crime rates at all).

Your statement reminds me of the old New York Times headline: "Crime Rates Drop, Yet More People In Jail."

You put more criminals in jail for a longer time, and crime rates will tend to go down. Criminals in prison can't commit murders, or steal cars, or burglarize buildings.

I think you're using the terms differently. When I say "social conservative", I mean "conservative on social issues." I use the terms "personal" and "political" to differentiate between those who apply such values only to their own lives and those who wish to apply those values to others.

You seem to be using "social conservative" to mean "conservatives who want to apply their values to all of society."

part and parcel of conservatism is that it is something to be applied generally. 'conservatism' that genuinely doesn't care about what anybody else is doing is not conservative at all.

Your statement reminds me of the old New York Times headline: "Crime Rates Drop, Yet More People In Jail."

You put more criminals in jail for a longer time, and crime rates will tend to go down. Criminals in prison can't commit murders, or steal cars, or burglarize buildings.

no, what i mean is that we are locking more and more people up despite there being fewer and fewer real crimes for those people to have committed. if you look at the increase in prison population, you will find that it is almost entirely directly related to drugs and not nearly as much to anything else.

no, what i mean is that we are locking more and more people up despite there being fewer and fewer real crimes for those people to have committed. if you look at the increase in prison population, you will find that it is almost entirely directly related to drugs and not nearly as much to anything else.

Prison's not the only place.
Link (http://www.theonion.com/content/node/41447)

Hahahaha... Ooh, Nice strawman, "Freedom." While I can't speak for all liberals, I can speak for myself and for what appears to be the, "mainstream," view held by, if not a majority, then a plurality of liberals. Certainly the ones I know. "Do as thou wilt," is not, "the law of the land." However if a law is to be passed restricting my freedom of choice, there should be a rational reason for that restriction. In order to justify restricting a persons free choice there should be a rational, convincing argument showing how that choice can cause harm to others. In other words if I'm going to object to your acts, there should be a real reason why your act is any of my damn business. And. before you ask, no, "I'm so insecure in my sexuality that what you do in your bedroom might tempt me to suck dick and shove my cock into someones shithole," is not at all sufficient. Nor is, "My religious faith is so weak that it could be shaken when you say or do things inconsistent with it," a worthwhile argument.

Still, you tried. Keep working on it. Eventually you may be able to pull your head out of your ass and see the light.

Try to be happy till then, mate.

What makes you think I am a conservative to begin with?

See it's statements like this that proves my point, nothing but opinions. Liberals come in and tell you who you are like they know you or something. You don't even know my standpoint in gay rights nor do you know what religion I practice. But that doesn't stop you from throwing fabricated guesses from your head and take it as the truth.

The US is a democracy, and freedom of religion is one of the many rights people have here. Why you gotta butt into other people's religion with personal insults? People got a choice to believe what they want and talk about social and family values without having to put up with garbage. If you said "gay should be open to voice their opinion as much as any religion groups". That's fine, except they are already lawfully allow to do that. By attacking religion and promoting gay you are saying gays need to be open with their rainbow pride in the street but religion should only be practice in privacy. To follow your footsteps, please don't give me the "gay can do whatever they want in their bedroom" argument. They already got that right. There's no law that persecute gays. The whole issue of gay rights revolve around marriage; how you define a family and the importance of establishing a lawful bond. Consider that marriage itself is a cultural concept, why shouldn't people be allow to bring religion into the argument? Why shouldn't people be allow to voice about what family means for the state they live in?

For your information Christianity isn't even one group. It branches off and some of which are hardcore liberals who encourage helping the poor and human rights.

What makes you think I am a conservative to begin with?

See it's statements like this that proves my point, nothing but opinions. Liberals come in and tell you who you are like they know you or something. You don't even know my standpoint in gay rights nor do you know what religion I practice. But that doesn't stop you from throwing fabricated guesses from your head and take it as the truth.

The US is a democracy, and freedom of religion is one of the many rights people have here. Why you gotta butt into other people's religion with personal insults? People got a choice to believe what they want and talk about social and family values without having to put up with garbage. If you said "gay should be open to voice their opinion as much as any religion groups". That's fine, except they are already lawfully allow to do that. By attacking religion and promoting gay you are saying gays need to be open with their rainbow pride in the street but religion should only be practice in privacy. To follow your footsteps, please don't give me the "gay can do whatever they want in their bedroom" argument. They already got that right. There's no law that persecute gays. The whole issue of gay rights revolve around marriage; how you define a family and the importance of establishing a lawful bond. Consider that marriage itself is a cultural concept, why shouldn't people be allow to bring religion into the argument? Why shouldn't people be allow to voice about what family means for the state they live in?

For your information Christianity isn't even one group. It branches off and some of which are hardcore liberals who encourage helping the poor and human rights.

Actually several states do have laws in place regulating the activities in peoples bedrooms (oral sex, sodomy, "cohabitation", etc.) though those laws rarely hold up in appellate courts. The issue at hand is that we should not have laws regulating the private activities between two consenting adults, nor even the legal activities (marriage) between two consenting adults. Even being religious myself, I see no usefulness or right for law to be based upon my particular (or anyone elses for that matter) religious convictions.

Secondly, stemcell research, is a slippery slope. We already feel fetuses are less then human, how long before you jackals start saying there's nothing ethicaly wrong with cloning and harvesting thier cells from the cloning vats?


So, I'll assume you are also opposed to in-vitro fertilization?

There are plenty of reasons why an individual would choose social conservativism.

For one thing, it's much simpler, due to the two cornerstones of social conservativism: Tradition, and Hierarchy.

Tradition means never having to try something new. Hooray! If your daddy did it this way, then dagnabbit so will you.

Hierarchy means that everybody knows their place, as well as the place of all others around them. These places are typically defined by very conspicuous features, like gender, skin color, or economic class. This way you don't have to actually know anything about a person in order to know exactly how they ought to behave (and how you ought to behave toward them). Hierarchy is also related to tradition, in that the hierarchy will remain As It Has Always Been.
Sounds more like communism.

That really is a nice story. It was almost inspiring, how you were able to blend leftist propaganda and loony rantings, with reality, and yet do it in a way that made it almost not sound like complete ideological bile... congrats :)


You will also be informed that you, as a white male heterosexual, are actually the most oppressed demographic there is. This is a handy justification to use when you don't get accepted for that job you wanted.
ugh...just..wow..... The irony of this comment!


In addition to the simplicity offered by social conservativism, there's some more individual perks depending on how Tradition and the Hierarchy treat you. For instance, if you are a white heterosexual male, conservativism will helpfully inform you that you're at the top of the food chain. You won't have to actually do anything to achieve this status within conservativism, aside from being born white, male, and heterosexually oriented......


If you are a not-man (aka "woman"), conservativism will provide you with an extremely narrow set of rules which, if obeyed, will result in you having higher social status, more personal comforts, and greater protections than you would otherwise enjoy. The down side is that you will live your entire life as a second-class citizen, but, then again, you're going to live that way anyhow because you're female. If you're prepared to sell out (or "buy in") then you may be able to improve your individual lot in life.

If you are a not-white person, adopting socially conservative views may allow you to earn the coveted status of House Negro. By vocally and publicly denouncing not-men and not-heteros, you will be able to assert that your place in the hierarchy is definitely NOT at the bottom. Granted, you'll never be at the top, and you're going to be insulting and fighting the very people who are most dedicated to breaking down the hierarchy so that everybody has an equal shot, but those goals aren't going to be achieved for a long time. Probably not until long after you are dead. You will receive more personal gain by slurring other marginalized groups in the short term.

(For a historical perspective on this, read up on how the Irish of New England reacted to the idea of abolishing slavery. The Irish were, at the time, almost as bad off as the black slaves. You'd think they would band together against The Man, right? Wrong. The Irish were pissed because they knew that freed blacks would compete with them for the lowest paying jobs. Their already-shitty status would become even more shitty, so there were massive uprisings of protest against the abolition of slavery.)

The reason religion gets mixed up with social conservativism so much is because religion is also about Tradition and Hierarchy. But religion doesn't CREATE the moral system from which social conservativism springs. Rather, that moral system is what leads to both religiosity (of a particular flavor) and social conservativism.
Translation....


OMG!!1!
http://img515.imageshack.us/img515/5306/tinfoilhatvt9.jpg

What's that? Is that when they freeze the embreyo or something?

I'm not going to say I know alot about the subject, cause I don't, like when a newspaper explained to me how plan B works I didn't find anything ethicaly wrong with it.

If you can prove to be something doesn't innately kill something, then I probably wouldn't have a problem with it.


I bet everyone who is prochoice has never actually had to see something die. Especialy by thier own hands.

I have..
When I was five..
The moment I saw what real death looked like I started thinking "conservative".

It's where all the stem-cells come from in stem-cell research. Either directly or from cloning already existing stocks.... IVF involved extracting egg cells from the female ovaries, and then fertilizing them with sperm from the donor (either the husband, a specific donor on an anonymous one). The resultant embryos are then frozen to be implanted later in the female. embryos not used in the process can be stored for a period of time, then they are either destroyed or could be used to extract stem-cells. Either way, if you consider abortion murder, then IFV is mass murder. since typically hundreds of eggs are extracted and fertilized, but only 1-2 are used.

I'm a "secular conservative" and there are many of reasons i'm against the two former.

Abortion is coercion. It's force applied to the child, it's bad enough they didn't get to decide when they were conceived, but now they don't get to decide when they die. How dare anyone yell in my face choice when they never gave the fetus an oppurtunity to choose? These fascist bastards wouldn't know the first thing about freedom.

fetuses ain't children in a morally relevant sense. and i fail to see how it would necessarily be freedom to force people to carry them even if they were.

Secondly, stemcell research, is a slippery slope. We already feel fetuses are less then human, how long before you jackals start saying there's nothing ethicaly wrong with cloning and harvesting thier cells from the cloning vats?

what would be wrong with that?

Nothing is more detrimental to freedom then when personhood is questioned.

how does one avoid questioning personhood? does everything i allege to be a person get it? of course not. what you mean to say is that it is dangerous to adopt bad definitions of personhood, and we must make sure that our definition is a good one. but it then falls to us to figure out what a good one is. any suggestions?

Social conservatives generally dislike freedom. Now as a leftist, I feel freedom is best achieved from extreme social liberalism and moderate economic socialism. But I do understand why capitalist libertarians believe that their ideals are "free". I could not ever function on the same mindset of a social conservative.

Apparently communists lack common sense too. When we're killing our own kind, that's a bad definition of personhood.

Obviously a cow will never be a human
Obviously a crow will never be a human
But a fetus will, therefore it's endowed with a few more rights then a cow or a crow.

Now, to say the fetus has equal rights is ridicoules. But less then equal does not mean none.

Fetuses have a right to life. It's the most basic of rights. Humanhood and personhood are inseperable.

Some animals are sentient, fetuses are not.

A woman has a right to terminate until the fetus is viable outside of her body. I think the first trimester law is pretty much just right.

Ah, okay, well.. the fetus does not develop a brain till about three weeks,

if it's frozen, it obviously can't go into the process of becoming a human cause it doesn't have the brain yet.

However, I would still say the practice is unethical, but not as fiercely denied and shouted down as abortion in itself.

But see, that's my issue with the whole thing, alot of people who are anti embryonic stem-cell fully approve of IVF. (Look at Dubya, with twin daughters born because of IVF) Where to me, to hold such is a view is contradictory. Is it ok to kill the embryos, but bad to use them for a potentially life-saving purpose?

Some social conservative views I can understand. I can understand the rationale of a pro-lifer, even though I think they're wrong. But some things are so beyond common sense they do not deserve recognition.

Being against euthanasia and gay rights is absolutely moronic.

Abortion is coercion. It's force applied to the child, it's bad enough they didn't get to decide when they were conceived, but now they don't get to decide when they die. How dare anyone yell in my face choice when they never gave the fetus an oppurtunity to choose? These fascist bastards wouldn't know the first thing about freedom.


I would agree, but the problem with most social conservatives is they only want the child to be born. The h--- with it after it's born. They don't want to fund any social programs that would make sure the child has food, clothing, shelter, medicine, education, and all of the other basics for the next 18 years.

If you want to cut down on abortion you need to give the mother hope for the future beyond the birth. If the mother had hope she would consider other options.

This is the irony between social conservatives and social liberals. One cares about the child before it is born, the other cares about the child after it's born.

Not to denounce what you're saying as you do so very intelligently, but you just made me want to be more against IVF knowing the Bush twins were conceived that way LOL! Talk about Frankenstien's monster...

LOL, yeah... Anything to oppose his genetic material permeating the species!

I just hold an issue with most that oppose it, most don't even understand the source of the stem-cells used in research, thanks to many falsely connecting it with abortion. It's quite an annoyance to me.

I know as a communist math isn't your strong suit, so i'll explain.

A living being will commit multiple choices in one's lifetime.
As opposed to a woman's one choice of abortion.

Every human grants more possibilities, more socio-elements, more "choices" to the nation.

Abortion just permits mothers to kill thier children.

wait, are you honestly basing an argument on this bad of a misunderstanding? seriously? is there anyone anywhere that actually posits "increasing the total number of choices made" as a fundamental value?

Apparently communists lack common sense too. When we're killing our own kind, that's a bad definition of personhood.

demonstrate this

Obviously a cow will never be a human
Obviously a crow will never be a human
But a fetus will, therefore it's endowed with a few more rights then a cow or a crow.

Now, to say the fetus has equal rights is ridicoules. But less then equal does not mean none.

Fetuses have a right to life. It's the most basic of rights. Humanhood and personhood are inseperable.

you don't actually believe that blastocysts have a right to life. i can demonstrate if you'd like.

Well?

The reason I ask is because I cannot think of any reason other than religion.

I understand that there are plenty of secular arguments for conservative positions on specific issues.
But from what I've encountered, the people that consider themselves social conservatives are fairly religious and readily admit that this is the basis for their morality, and thus politics.

Is this an accurate portrayal?
Are there any secular social conservatives?

Because:
http://img215.imageshack.us/img215/9941/christianitysx6.jpg

How long before we start taking people from thier homes who commited mudane crimes and harvesting thier cells?

Nothing is more detrimental to freedom then when personhood is questioned. Liberals need to read a history book sometime...



This whole slipperey slope argument doesn't appeal to me much. I really don't care to explain why (and go ahead, attack me for giving you no good reason why) but I'm sure a lot of people out there aren't so convinced of the slippery slope either.

Of course, defining a person is a good question. Here are a list of options:
1. you, and everything around you does not exist, including other people
2. you and your family
3. you and your fellow party memebers
4. the proletariat
5. you and your constituents in your voting district
6. people of your ethnicity
7. people of your religion
8. white, male, land-owners
9. All those creatures of the species Homo sapiens

If you answered...
1. You are a solipsist and potentially a sadist and mass murderer. Your type would fit in well with no one.
2. You would probably fit in well with competing noble factions of the Medeival
Ages, and get involved in multiple blood feuds (and also become a murderer)
3. You would fit in well with Fascists and would probably murder whoever opposed yoru grand designs for the country.
4. You are a communist and probably take pleasure in murdering tzarists and the bourgeoisie.
5. You will probably get kicked out of your office when you probose that everyone who does not live within yoru district be stripped of their voting rigths or lobbyists will gather their money and assasinate you. If niether of the former happen, then you have a lot of murdering to do if you expect people to comply.
6. You are a racist and would probably participate in genocide or are marching in Luisiana in support or protest of the Jena 6 (obscure US joke here)
7. Have a high probability of goign to Hell or having no afterlife whatsoever. But if you murder a few billion people the statistics look much better!
8. You are a Jefforsonian Republican and would proabaly take pleasure in dueling (and subsequently murdering) your political oppenents. (once again, US reference, sorry rest of world... )
9. You are screwed anyways because humans are one f'd up species. I think there are better things to worry about than fetus murder...
Like social conservatives!:D

I would agree, but the problem with most social conservatives is they only want the child to be born. The h--- with it after it's born. They don't want to fund any social programs that would make sure the child has food, clothing, shelter, medicine, education, and all of the other basics for the next 18 years.

If you want to cut down on abortion you need to give the mother hope for the future beyond the birth. If the mother had hope she would consider other options.

This is the irony between social conservatives and social liberals. One cares about the child before it is born, the other cares about the child after it's born.

Very well said.

Those goddamn hypocrites should do more to help single mothers. My best friend is 18, and carrying a child she has decided to keep, and he's due in January. She is working her ass off just to have enough money to take care of her kid.

Single mothers deserve so much credit for what they go through. All mothers who are there for their kids do, but especially for women taking care of children whose worthless fucking fathers left them.

I would bet anything that if abortion was made illegal, the problem would worsen by 10 times.

Actually several states do have laws in place regulating the activities in peoples bedrooms (oral sex, sodomy, "cohabitation", etc.) though those laws rarely hold up in appellate courts. The issue at hand is that we should not have laws regulating the private activities between two consenting adults, nor even the legal activities (marriage) between two consenting adults. Even being religious myself, I see no usefulness or right for law to be based upon my particular (or anyone elses for that matter) religious convictions.

I stand corrected. What I meant to say was the states where liberals gather around and push for legalize gay marriage.

That being said, the several states that are against gays in their privacy might not necessary be ready to take this change. If a state is full of people who disagree with the idea, you can't just go in and slap a law that saids otherwise and expect things to work out. Laws like this will naturally go away with educations and new ideas. You can't force people to change their mind. As of right now I am against changes in laws in those few states, because I anticipate it will lead to more violence/hatred against gays which is counterproductive. We have to recognize that people have different cultural backgrounds and beliefs.

I am not against civil rights movements, or people who promotes gay rights. I just got problems with people who go around telling people what they should do, how they should think, and use personal insults as their own line of defense. There are only about 2 ways to promote change, either peacefully through cultural shift, or violently through suppression. Verbal abuse leads to neither.

I'd cutdown on public schools and replace it with vouchers, people still get education as a basic right, but now schools have to compete or lose jobs, being the incentive to actually teach our kids.


You're not really cutting public schools then, since voucher funds would simply come out of the existing taxes funding schools.

Most of the problem with schools I've seen, my wife being a public school teacher; is the tendency of hoarding funds and mismanagement by school boards. School board seats tend to represent the more affluent areas, and they tend to send the funds to the schools on "their side of town". I'd be all for vouchers, and I'd be all for mandating a "per head" funding for schools to base a particular school's funding based on the number of kids. Each kid, regardless of the area they are in (within a district) get X amount, no spending all the money on kids just in their area, and giving the other parts of the district less.

What's that? Is that when they freeze the embreyo or something?

I'm not going to say I know alot about the subject, cause I don't, like when a newspaper explained to me how plan B works I didn't find anything ethicaly wrong with it.

If you can prove to be something doesn't innately kill something, then I probably wouldn't have a problem with it.


I bet everyone who is prochoice has never actually had to see something die. Especialy by thier own hands.

I have..
When I was five..
The moment I saw what real death looked like I started thinking "conservative".

I've killed many animals. Some to euthanasias them. I've also seen humans die.

I am against abortion, but want it to be legal. I remember when it was illegal. The rich went to Europe, the poor went to back door butcher shops. Many died.

If you want to cut down on abortion the answer isn't law it's hope. Hope beyond the birth.

In vitro implants 5-7 fetus, then aborts all but two. The excess can be thrown away or used for stem cells to save the lives of others. That is the choice. Death to aid others or death to be thrown away. The other option would be to tell people that they could adopt, but for some reason people need "one of their own". I'll bet there are those on this forum who were born after the sacrifice of several sibling fetus.

I stand corrected. What I meant to say was the states where liberals gather around and push for legalize gay marriage.

That being said, the several states that are against gays in their privacy might not necessary be ready to take this change. If a state is full of people who disagree with the idea, you can't just go in and slap a law that saids otherwise and expect things to work out. Laws like this will naturally go away with educations and new ideas. You can't force people to change their mind. As of right now I am against changes in laws in those few states, because I anticipate it will lead to more violence/hatred against gays which is counterproductive. We have to recognize that people have different cultural backgrounds and beliefs.

I am not against civil rights movements, or people who promotes gay rights. I just got problems with people who go around telling people what they should do, how they should think, and use personal insults as their own line of defense. There are only about 2 ways to promote change, either peacefully through cultural shift, or violently through suppression. Verbal abuse leads to neither.

Alot of moral majority types though don't want to limit it to that, they want to handled nationally, regardless of locality; simply because, due to the full faith and credit clause, if it exists in one state, all other states have to honor those marriages if the people move.

For the sake of simplicity, I support gay mairrage. But in full detail, I don't support state mairrage at all. I think mairrage, regardless of sexuality, should be done privately, on the couple's own terms, without state involvement or registration at all.

You're oversimplifying the reasons behind why people are opposed to homosexuality. And it's not really comparable to opposition to mixed-race marriage or women having the right to vote. There's nothing in the bible that really deals with those two issues, so any opposition to them on the part of social convervatives was really cultural.

On the other hand, religious Christians honestly do consider homosexuality to be an abomination, per the bible. To people who believe the bible, this is a pretty serious thing- the bible talks about how the Judeo-Christian god destroyed a city because its inhabitants practiced this particular sin.

Do I agree with them? No, but I understand where they are coming from- to them, the bible is the basis of morality. And, as a basis of morality, it has served the Christian world remarkably well for a couple of thousand years.

The anti-miscegenationists believed that their views were based on the Bible, and they'd quote you passages that they believed backed up their claim.

And why don't they oppose eating shellfish and wearing poly-cotton blends with equal vehemence?

Because it's got nothing to do with the Bible. It has to do with feeling superior and the desire to control. I have met many devout Christians who have no problem with Christianity. Including a lesbian minister with a fairly large flock. What makes them so different from the devout Christians who believe that homosexuality damns one to hell? They're not arrogant hateful intolerant bigots.
Because it's not about following the Bible

BTW The razing of Soddom and Gomorrah was due to the lack of hospitality, the lack of which was the worst of sins in the Middle East for most of recorded history. Do you honestly think that the story was trying to say that it's a good thing to beg angry mobs to rape your daughters? Not to mention, angels are asexual, thus desiring sexual intercourse with them can't be gay. It's either bestiality or masturbation.

Which is kind of my point here- religious social conservatives point out that their views on how society should be ordered are based on what they believe to be the word of god. Whether or not you agree that the bible is in fact the word of god, the fact of the matter is that the moral rules in the bible have served Western society incredibly well.

On the other hand, social liberals are proposing massive changes to morality and how society functions. Some of those changes are good- women, minorities and homosexuals are much more free than they were a century ago. On the other hand, these changes have led to 40 million abortions in the US since Roe v. Wade, the weakening of the family (and the collapse of the black family) and other negative consequences.

I'm not a social conservative, but I can see that what social liberals propose is not all sunshine and lollipops- there are negative consequences to any change, especially radical change.

Now you're oversimplifying.

Christian morality did not serve Europe particularly well. It was what we had, and it was in charge, so it can claim credit for whatever happened, but in reality all the best stuff happened against the wishes, and sometimes over the dead bodies, of Christian moralists.

The Renaissance, Modern medicine, science, abolition, racial-integration, feminism.

What did Christian Conservatism get us? The fall of Rome, The Crusades, Dark Ages, the Inquisitions, the Salem Witch Trials, the suppression of Copernicus and Galileo, destruction of thousands of years of the European pharmacopoeia, slavery, Jim Crow, McCarthyism, PNAC, George W. Bush. Also, the disintegration of the family is a Christian invention. Not just the disintegration of the nuclear family. That's just the end stage of a process that's been going on since before the renaissance. Religious leaders in Europe promoted marriage based on love because arranged marriages let to powerful political alliances between families. By turning children against their parents bishops and Christian Kings weakened families to provide for their own security. Clans broke down into fairly unimportant lineages.

The modern stage of that is due to industrialization. Once upon a time a guy would have a couple of sons who would grow up helping him take care of the farm. The oldest one would inherit the farm and the younger ones would learn trades, but they had the support of the family. Then cities started offering jobs, so the younger sons would leave the farm to work in the city. They would be too far away to benefit form the support of the family, and felt little reason to offer support in return. Then when they were ready to marry, there was no homelife for them to recapture, and so divorce was not such a big loss if domestic strife became unbearable.

So it isn't liberalism that's destroying the family. It's Christianity (Luke 4:26 If any man cometh unto me, and hateth not his own father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.) and the free market economy that Christian Conservatives love so much (despite Jesus only ever really getting angry at the money lenders) that is destroying the family.

And FYI, Blacks are, on average, more religious than whites. Secular liberalism has nothing to do with the disintegration of their family structure.

And FYI, Blacks are, on average, more religious than whites. Secular liberalism has nothing to do with the disintegration of their family structure.

ooh, a new (wrong) hypothesis! religiosity causes single parenthood.

The Renaissance, Modern medicine, science, abolition, racial-integration, feminism.
Every single one of these, with the exception of medicine, was not only caused by Christians, but even influenced by the beliefs themselves.

What did Christian Conservatism get us? The fall of Rome, The Crusades, Dark Ages, the Inquisitions, the Salem Witch Trials, the suppression of Copernicus and Galileo, destruction of thousands of years of the European pharmacopoeia, slavery, Jim Crow, McCarthyism, PNAC, George W. Bush.

Because white people are inherently evil.
The above statement isn't true, but it uses the same logic you are using. People who are Christian did this, ergo, it is the fault of Christianity. You might has well rail against white men, it makes just as much sense an even more specific group.
Also, the disintegration of the family is a Christian invention. Not just the disintegration of the nuclear family. That's just the end stage of a process that's been going on since before the renaissance. Religious leaders in Europe promoted marriage based on love because arranged marriages let to powerful political alliances between families. By turning children against their parents bishops and Christian Kings weakened families to provide for their own security. Clans broke down into fairly unimportant lineages.
This is actually true, marriage for love is less politically stable. However, in bashing them for doing this, you seem to be supporting arranged marriages which are not for love. I don't know if you really believe this, but that's what it sounds like.


So it isn't liberalism that's destroying the family. It's Christianity (Luke 4:26 If any man cometh unto me, and hateth not his own father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.)
You kind of miss the point completely with this quote, but you're right that liberalism is no less pro-family than Christianity.
and the free market economy that Christian Conservatives love so much (despite Jesus only ever really getting angry at the money lenders) that is destroying the family.
That's not really a Christian Conservative thing, plenty of non-Christian Conservatives agree. And for all its failings, I don't see how a free market destroys the family.

BTW The razing of Soddom and Gomorrah was due to the lack of hospitality, the lack of which was the worst of sins in the Middle East for most of recorded history. Do you honestly think that the story was trying to say that it's a good thing to beg angry mobs to rape your daughters? Not to mention, angels are asexual, thus desiring sexual intercourse with them can't be gay. It's either bestiality or masturbation.

Gen 19:5 And they called to Lot and said to him, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may know them carnally.

19:8 See now, I have two daughters who have not known a man....

19:14 So Lot went out and spoke to hes sons-in-law who had married his daughters.....

NKJV

Angels may be asexual but they always appeared as men and the town assumed they were men. How many heterosexuals marry a woman and she remains a virgin?

To a point you are correct. Lot was such a good host he was protecting the men at the expense of his daughters. A little beyond what would be done today.

Of course if one continues to read, Lot "knocked up" his daughters later on. Claimed to be drunk.

Isn't it interesting that a social conservative will defend to the death what was considered a liberal idea and fought tooth and toe nail by the social conservatives of a generation before. Prime example: Social Security

Because white people are inherently evil.
The above statement isn't true, but it uses the same logic you are using. People who are Christian did this, ergo, it is the fault of Christianity. You might has well rail against white men, it makes just as much sense an even more specific group.


Sort of like "Muslims did this so Islam is evil". How many times have we heard that from social conservatives?

Seems like this thread has been side tracked into a general debate on political issues. The original question was why would you be a social conservative with the added note that religion is the only reason the thread starter could come up with for being a social conservative.

Maybe the reason to be a social conservative is because it is correct philosophically. Maybe you are a social conserative because you are insane. If religious people tend to be social conseravtives more often than those who are less religous, it is probably for one of two reasons.

1. Those who are focused on religion are focused on answering questions about human existence and are thus focused on how one should live more than the non-religious. Thus, they come up with different answers about what is best for society than the non-religious who have not seriously contemplated existence. It is worth noting that liberal atheist philosophers often take very different positions on social issues than other non-philosophical liberals. Peter Singer, Noam Chomsky, and Steve Pinker take much different positions on social issues then say Hillary Clinton or Barak Obama. This is because they are the true intellectual counterparts to most social conservatives.

2. Religious communities are very politically active anyway. There is no way around it. Religions tend to be rooted in tradition and this means that religion is inherently conservative reaction to the world.

Though for what it is worth, I have known religious people who were social liberals (pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, etc.) and I have known atheists who were social conservatives.

Some questions that are gonna leave you studdering like a retard. I didn't want to have to bring these out cause I'd hate to make you look like an idiot infront of everyone and get pwned by a newbie, but you left me no choice.

who are you talking to?

Arachnist, stop it. You've crossed the line. Some advice:

1. Read The One Stop Rules Shop (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=416023), particularly the section on flaming, trolling and flamebaiting.

2. Don't do any of them.

3. Expect to be banned if you do.

This is a friendly warning. The specific posts I'm referring to are:

This:

Some questions that are gonna leave you studdering like a retard. I didn't want to have to bring these out cause I'd hate to make you look like an idiot infront of everyone and get pwned by a newbie, but you left me no choice.
This:

They're lazy, autistic, bastards, and they deserve to be chopped up just like any libtard.

and calling other folk "jackals" and "liars" for no reason.

You're not asked to respect or agree with all the arguments that all the posters make. Same goes for their debating tactics. But you are expected to address your comments to the arguments, not to the posters. Abusing other posters is out.

Sounds more like communism.

Not necessarily, though it communism certainly can also be a result of such forces.


That really is a nice story. It was almost inspiring, how you were able to blend leftist propaganda and loony rantings, with reality, and yet do it in a way that made it almost not sound like complete ideological bile... congrats :)

Thanks! I know I've succeeded when a right-winger can generate no substantive critiques, and is reduced to tossing insults and accusations of "communism."


ugh...just..wow..... The irony of this comment!

Montoya Principle.

I bet everyone who is prochoice has never actually had to see something die. Especialy by thier own hands.

You lost the bet. Pay up.

I kill embryos every day. I've killed frogs, turtles, fish, mice, rats, mudpuppies (a sort of salamander), hatchling chickens, and any number of insects.

For the last 5 years or so, I've been killing things professionally.

Don't get me wrong, though, I fucking hate killing things. I do what I do because I believe it is for a greater good. But I hate killing things.

Nothing is more detrimental to freedom then when personhood is questioned. Liberals need to read a history book sometime...

Happily, there is absolutely no need to "question personhood" in order to support abortion. If you'd like, I'm willing to assume that a fetus is a full and equal person, with the same rights as all born human persons. In that case, I would support the right to choose every bit as strongly as I currently do.

The personhood of the fetus is irrelevant.

how about because it fits your personality?

That just means you're a bigot.

A: If you're personaly opposed to abortion, why would you propose it being legal? Would you propose rape being legal simply because it being illegal permits rapists to windup dead?

C: If abortions were the cause of so many supposed deaths, where are these stastics?

I support full drug legalisation, but I wouldn't use drugs (other than the legal ones I use at present that is). What I recognise is the rights of others. Just because I don't want to snort cocaine, marry another guy or eat fried eggs, doesn't mean I'm going to stop others from doing it.

Also: 20m illegal abortions carried out annually, leading to the deaths of 70,000 women (http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9196384).

The anti-miscegenationists believed that their views were based on the Bible, and they'd quote you passages that they believed backed up their claim.

Sure, but they were outside of the mainstream of Christianity, and they relied on a pretty tortured interpretation of certain bible passages. The bible's proscription against homosexuality is pretty clear "if a man shall lie with a man...." I personally don't subscribe to that viewpoint, but it seems pretty clear that homosexuality is a biblical no-no. Up until very recently, every Christian denomination agreed with this viewpoint.

And why don't they oppose eating shellfish and wearing poly-cotton blends with equal vehemence?

I think it has something to do with what happened in the New Testament- many of the rules from the Old Testament were no longer applicable because they weren't really moral rules, they were just rules that were required of the Jews in order to show their devotion to god. Under the New Testament, the only necessary sign of devotion is to accept Jesus as your savior. However, the moral rules, such as the proscription against homosexuality, remained in place.


BTW The razing of Soddom and Gomorrah was due to the lack of hospitality, the lack of which was the worst of sins in the Middle East for most of recorded history. Do you honestly think that the story was trying to say that it's a good thing to beg angry mobs to rape your daughters? Not to mention, angels are asexual, thus desiring sexual intercourse with them can't be gay. It's either bestiality or masturbation.

I know that's one interpretation, but I think it's pretty clear that the mainstream Christian interpretation is that Soddom was razed due to the homosexuality of its inhabitants.

Anyway, we can argue biblical interpretation all we want, but that's not really the point. The point is that conservative Christians interpret the bible a certain way, and that interpretation leads them to conclude that homosexuality is not only a sin, but an "abomination." To them it's simply a matter of biblical morality, which is their guiding moral principle.

ooh, a new (wrong) hypothesis! religiosity causes single parenthood.

Yeah. I'm kind of scratching my head at that one.

I know that's one interpretation, but I think it's pretty clear that the mainstream Christian interpretation is that Soddom was razed due to the homosexuality of its inhabitants.

yeah, though this probably just highlights the fact that most christian interpreters care nothing for either historical and cultural context or what the bible itself says on a subject.

for example, in ezekiel's allegory of unfaithful jerusalem (ezekiel 16) we find this:
49 " 'Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. 50 They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen.

and both matthew and luke have jesus talking hospitality and sodom.

matt 10:11-15
11"Whatever town or village you enter, search for some worthy person there and stay at his house until you leave. 12As you enter the home, give it your greeting. 13If the home is deserving, let your peace rest on it; if it is not, let your peace return to you. 14If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, shake the dust off your feet when you leave that home or town. 15I tell you the truth, it will be more bearable for Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town.

luke 10:8-12
8"When you enter a town and are welcomed, eat what is set before you. 9Heal the sick who are there and tell them, 'The kingdom of God is near you.' 10But when you enter a town and are not welcomed, go into its streets and say, 11'Even the dust of your town that sticks to our feet we wipe off against you. Yet be sure of this: The kingdom of God is near.' 12I tell you, it will be more bearable on that day for Sodom than for that town.


and, of course, one should also consider the parallel story found in judges 19 and 20.

Some questions that are gonna leave you studdering like a retard. I didn't want to have to bring these out cause I'd hate to make you look like an idiot infront of everyone and get pwned by a newbie, but you left me no choice.


A: If you're personaly opposed to abortion, why would you propose it being legal? Would you propose rape being legal simply because it being illegal permits rapists to windup dead?


B: If you do not think a fetus is a person, then why are you opposed to abortion?

C: If abortions were the cause of so many supposed deaths, where are these stastics?

D: How can we be ceartain illegalizing abortion would cause countless deaths? Are you psychic? Are you some kindof genious that can mathamaticaly predict how society will react?

E: What entitles a mother to these "rights"? Where in the constitution does it say a woman has a right to an abortion? Nay, where in the constitution does it even say a woman has a right to modify her body? Even if you could constituionaly grant the right to metabolic modification, it's a whole differant level applying it to when the modification would result in someone else'es death.

F: If you're personaly opposed to abortion, then why would you care if it was illegalized? You must not be very opposed to it if you're so eager to defend women's right to choose. So you're lieing to me.


I have no respect for liars
Especialy bad ones.

http://www.emedicinehealth.com/abortion/article_em.htm

In 1965, 265 deaths occurred in the US due to illegal abortions. Of all pregnancy–related complications in New York and California, 20% were due to abortions.

Illegal abortions are unsafe and account for 13% of all deaths of women world wide because of serious complications. Death from abortion is almost unknown in the United States or in other countries where abortion is legally available.




The fact is making abortion illegal doesn't work. It didn't work in the US and with 13% of women world wide dieing of illegal abortions it's not working anywhere.

Rape is illegal because it is not the decision of the woman and she has the decision making of her body.

If a person has no rights to his/her own body than why is it illegal for the government to test drugs without your permission? If you have a right to anything it would be the right to your own body.

If you want to limit abortion, the way to do it would be to think like a Christian. Help institute programs that would guarantee food, clothing, shelter, medicine, education and all of the essentials for that child for the next 18 years. (not just until it's born, then say the h--- with it) Most abortions are because the woman has no hope. A real Christian would start by giving hope to those that have no hope. Instead, the conservative "Christians?" add to the woes of women in desperate situations. When did Jesus add to the woes of women in desperate situations? Did not Jesus rather teach to give hope for the future?

Rarely are people socially conservative from a secular POV. It's not even all that common for religious people to be socially conservative... As most socially conservative position violate many social positions adopted by religious organizations. Social conservatism is almost exclusively limited to hardline evangelicals and fundamentalists, especially those adopting a post-millenial dominionist viewpoint (which makes up the bulk of hardline evangelicals). Many softer evangelicals would have modified viewpoints which may match a few, but nowhere near the bulk of social conservative positions.

post millenial dominionist??? vat is dat?

I do not think that abortion is necessarily a religious question so much as it is a question of when do human rights first attach.

I am a social conservative in that I believe that people should have the right to make their own reproductive decisions. I also think that people should be held accountable for the bad decisions that they make and not get bailed out by the government.

I am a religious man and I am sure that has an impact on my views of the homos. I also think I would be equally disgusted by them even if I was not religious.

I believe in free markets as the best way of allocating scarce resources. As a conserative I believe in conservation of natural resources. As a religious man, I believe that it is up to God to determine when a species should become instinct and that we should not destroy or pollute natural habitats that put us in the blasphemous position of master and conqueror of nature.

ooh, a new (wrong) hypothesis! religiosity causes single parenthood.

ooh, a made up (and wrong) argument. I never said that religiosity causes single parenthood. I said that the lack of it has nothing to do with single parenthood. Poverty is the biggest factor in the breakdown of family. That's why the highest divorce rates in the country are in the Bible Belt. It's also the poorest part of the coutntry.

Every single one of these, with the exception of medicine, was not only caused by Christians, but even influenced by the beliefs themselves.

By Christians yes. By Christianity, no. Christian authorities opposed the rise of all these things.

Because white people are inherently evil.
The above statement isn't true, but it uses the same logic you are using. People who are Christian did this, ergo, it is the fault of Christianity. You might has well rail against white men, it makes just as much sense an even more specific group.

But the difference is Christian philosophy was used to justify all of these things. Meaning that the philosophy that you say served us, simply because it was there as the Western world advanced, did no such thing. It was an obstacle. My car may be able to drive up a hill, but the hill did not propel it, it caused the progress to take more work for less payoff.

This is actually true, marriage for love is less politically stable. However, in bashing them for doing this, you seem to be supporting arranged marriages which are not for love. I don't know if you really believe this, but that's what it sounds like.

Well then you should stick to the arguments that are actually being made instead of making up arguments to disagree with. I believe in marriage for love, but of course, I grew up with that idea.

My point from the beginning was that religion is not the source of homophobia. Homophobic people look to their religion to support their intolerance. Just like racists find support for racism in the Bible. Republicans find support for the war in Iraq in it.

But these people don't believe these things because they're in the Bible. They believe them because that's their personality. They argue it from the Bible because that's the cultural background of their education.

The point I was making here, because it was the point being discussed, was that the breakdown of family has nothing to do with the rise of liberalism, secularism, or loss of social conservatism. It has to do with economics.

That's not really a Christian Conservative thing, plenty of non-Christian Conservatives agree. And for all its failings, I don't see how a free market destroys the family.

Because it makes the old family structure impractical. If the free market caused jobs to stay in one place it wouldn't be a problem, but it encourages migration.

Some problems for families created by a growing rich/poor economic divide:
Military families that are, for all intents and purposes, single-parent households with the added problem of lacking the opportunity for the single parent to find a new mate.

Increased crime rate that lands potential fathers in prison (they may have sired, but in prison they can't really be a parent).

Migrant work that leads to the same problems as military families.

The need for two-income households where the child either spends hours a day being raised by strangers, or doesn't get to spend any time with both parents because one, or both, is always working. Parents don't have the time to actually raise their kids.

There are a lot of things that make the free-market anti-family. It's not inherent, it's just the way it seems to be working out, because the goal of market forces is to maximize profit, not encourage cohesive family life. Hell, strongly cohesive families threaten the free market because they tend to reduce the labor pool by saving money to send kids to college who would otherwise be working and making it possible for elderly members to retire with family support instead of having to become walmart greeters.

ooh, a made up (and wrong) argument.

well obviously

post millenial dominionist??? vat is dat?

A segment of the eschatological theology (that is study of end-time prophesy) of post-millenialism operate with a dominionist standpoint, believing it is their duty to usher in Christ's kingdom by turning the government into a theocratic regime. Post-millenialism is one particular eschatology, others being Amillenial, Dispensational Premillenial and Historic Premillenial (Historicist can be either Mid or Post Tribulational.

I'm Amillenial, Amillenialists tend to take a completely metaphoric view of the end-times, seeing most prophesies as being already completed, they view the Church (of various dominations) being the representation of Christ's millenial kingdom, and that Christ will return at the end of days (whenever that may be) to judge everyone (This is represented primarily by the Reformed Churches in Europe, the PCUSA, PCA, Roman Catholic, Lutheran and Reformed Baptist churches [though some PCA members are Post Millenial], pretty much every sect of anabaptism [Mennonites, Amish etc.] and Puritans).

Post Millenialism tends to view the millenial reign as something future, but tribulation is something that is metaphorically represented both past/present/future. They see Christ returning AFTER the millenium. Dominionists in this eschatology believe that they can usher in this millenium by their own exercizes. (This is primary represented in some PCA members, the OPC,

Premillenialists believe all prophesies regarding Christ's return, the tribulation and millenial reign are future. Dispensationalists within this eschatology are pre-tribulational, believing that Christ will return just before the tribulation, "rapture" the church, then there will be a literal 7 year period of tribulation, after which Christ will return with those raptured at the beginning, defeat the Antichrist and create a kingdom that he will lead as king for a literal 1000 years. After which he will resurrect those dead in Christ and perform a judgement. (This is primary represented in normal typical Baptist churches, Primitive Baptists, Pentecostals and various other Charismatics [including word-faith movement], and Fundamentalists.

Historical Premillenialists, which are an extreme minority are either post or mid-tribulationalists, their view lines up with Dispensationalists, but differs in that the "rapture" of the church occurs either midway or at the END of the tribulation... Some independent baptist churches hold this view, but it is rare.

Rarely are people socially conservative from a secular POV.

I guess I'm an endangered species then? I believe in God but don't believe it belongs in official government business.

On the other hand, I'm an ebil, fascist, minority-hating, money-grubbing neo-con. Or at least that's what a lot of leftist pinko's say for lack of better things to do.

Sure, but they were outside of the mainstream of Christianity, and they relied on a pretty tortured interpretation of certain bible passages. The bible's proscription against homosexuality is pretty clear "if a man shall lie with a man...." I personally don't subscribe to that viewpoint, but it seems pretty clear that homosexuality is a biblical no-no. Up until very recently, every Christian denomination agreed with this viewpoint.

The anti-miscegenationists were the religious mainstream in the US for decades. Up until the 1960's it was still illegal for a black and a white person to marry. And a couple had to sue all the way up to the Supreme Court to get the law overturned. There were enough Christian Conservatives in Virginia to keep it illegal, making it the Christian Mainstream. And the arguments presented against mixed-race marriage were very much the same as those against homosexual marriage.

I think it has something to do with what happened in the New Testament- many of the rules from the Old Testament were no longer applicable because they weren't really moral rules, they were just rules that were required of the Jews in order to show their devotion to god. Under the New Testament, the only necessary sign of devotion is to accept Jesus as your savior. However, the moral rules, such as the proscription against homosexuality, remained in place.

Yes, I hear that line a lot. "Ceremonial law is overturned, moral law stands." Funny how ceremonial law always seems to be against the things they like and moral law always seems to be against the things they hate.

There was no ceremony of not planting peas and wheat in the same field. There was no ceremony of single-fabric weaving. There was no ceremony of shunning the shrimp. There is nothing to distinguish homosexuality as a moral issue from the rest of Leviticus as mere ceremonial issues.

I know that's one interpretation, but I think it's pretty clear that the mainstream Christian interpretation is that Soddom was razed due to the homosexuality of its inhabitants.

That's because it's about the only excuse they can come up with. Funny how no one ever seems to ask if it's a pro-child molestation argument.

Anyway, we can argue biblical interpretation all we want, but that's not really the point. The point is that conservative Christians interpret the bible a certain way, and that interpretation leads them to conclude that homosexuality is not only a sin, but an "abomination." To them it's simply a matter of biblical morality, which is their guiding moral principle.

And my point was that they don't believe it because of the Bible. They interpret the Bible that way because it's what they believe.

Rarely are people socially conservative from a secular POV.

That's because socially conservative beliefs are crazy. If you take Crazy and put it in a suit and give it a bible it becomes Religious Belief, and not subject to rational debate. If social conservatives had to defend their beliefs in secular terms everyone would laugh at them.