criminallyinane said:
yes! Most traits are human, and societal expectations shouldn't be used as a barometer to test a man's "manliness" or a woman's "femininity," precisely because those are made up traits!
On one level I will agree with you. However, a lot of these traits really aren't as artificial as you would make them out to be. Some are, of course. It depends what you're talking about.
When are we going to stop making people feel badly about themselves in this country if they don't live up to societal standards?
A functional society MUST demand standards out of its citizens, and yes, that includes making people feel bad when they fail to meet these standards. What those standards must be varies from person to person. At the very heart of your argument is that people should respect people who live lifestyles they may see as harmful or disagreeable. You do realize that you are placing a standard of conduct on other people, don't you?
So what about the parents who don't feed their kids properly? Our society absolutely has a responsibility to make them feel bad. In fact, I think we should be making them feel worse about it when they do fail and reward those who do well all the moreso. Same thing with those who steal. It's in our society's best interest to make them feel terrible. And yes, while they have a right to do it, those who burn American flags should be frowned upon and scorned. You fly a flag these days in Great Britain and you have a bunch of pessimistic naysayers attacking you as a jingoist. Hard to unify a nation that way. Oh well...
The reason I dislike most conservatives is because they seem to be people who have this idea, that everyone must live up to a certain standard: their Christian, conservative, traditional ways.
And you have a standard that people must conform to your politically correct culture of tolerance of all sorts, no matter how despicable one might see the behavior. I'm really not seeing the tolerance, babe. You dislike them because they think differently.
How long is it before you start clamoring for the rights of NAMBLA (don't tell me that you don't think we shouldn't make them feel bad.)? Could NAMBLA have even existed 50 years ago? Of course not. It would have been decimated. But it's hanging around these days, in part thanks to liberals and liberal organizations like the ACLU. I just see it as a matter of time before it happens. What's occurring right now is that people of your "tolerant" persuasion are demonizing Christianity and Judaism and making a beacon out of behaviors our society (i.e. Western society) has deemed unacceptable for centuries.
My example here comes from gay marriage. Who does it hurt to allow gay people to marry? Does it make your marriage less worthy? Or does it just insult your sensibilities? If it offends your sensibilities, is that rooted in religious belief? If so, then although you have the right to feel how you feel, why should our country make laws removing other people's freedoms just because it's against your religion?
Oh, gays can marry. Our government just won't recognize that marriage. This discussion has come up over and over again, but why not once more?
Fact: every single time our society has attempted to alter traditional marriage, we have paid a price for it.
With the legalization of unilateral divorce, divorce rates shot through the ceiling. Divorce has been shown to have disastrous physical and psychological effects on all parties involved, most distincly on children.
When we argued that having children outside of marriage was something that should be tolerated in the name of the child, well, of course the number of children born outside of marriage sky-rocketed. From 2% of whites to 20%. From 25% of black to over 60%. Children born into broken homes are far more likely to become involved with crime and far less likely to graduate from high school and college. The disintegration of the black family is one of the primary reasons that blacks haven't been able to pull themselves out of the most impoverished sectors of society. It's a cycle that feeds itself, unfortunatley.
Now you want to redefine marriage to take away the child-bearing component completely from the definition of marriage. So what happens when Little Rosa grows up believing that marriage is just about finding someone to be happy with? Maybe she weds a boy and maybe chooses to have children. Or maybe she marries a woman and maybe she doesn't have children. It's just her preference. No pressure from society to have kids and marry. Just do what you want. Well, of course our birth-rate is going to decline, even if most of the Rosa's in this world do marry men. Children just weren't necessarily part of marriage, so fewer were had. And the population declined....
And you or someone else earlier on this thread claimed our population could never decline in any short amount of time, but are you aware that the US birthrate is already below replacement levels? Replacement=2.1 children per mother. We're at 2.07. Just witness Canada hanging around at about 1.4 children per mother and look for a disaster in the making. Same thing with Japan and pretty much all of Western Europe minus Ireland (hmmm, a traditional culture) and maybe Portugal (again, more traditional).
Conservatives strike me as people who are bent on conformity and don't accept diversity.
Same thing with liberals in my book. If you don't believe what a liberal believes, you're a racist, a bigot, or a homophobe or something terrible. Conservatives just tell you they think you're wrong. I'm sure you've already labelled me as a homophobe above when my argument had nothing to do with homosexuality and everything to do with traditional marriage and its merits.
Unfortunately, this country is going to sh_t. We're going back in time.
I'd agree. We're headed in the exact same direction Rome took.
I am no longer going to post on this thread because it frustrates me to go around in circles with people on the right side of the fence. I don't like it because it feels like banging my head against a brick wall that was constructed in the 1950's.
I thought you tolerated diversity? As is usually the case with self-described liberals, this does not include the diversity of ideas. See? You've just characterized conservatives as being something abominable: being backwards. I can deal with your type. I just say that I think you're wrong.
BTW,of course you're back.
😉 See what will probably be the most above mine.
They can't page one without the other coming!
