- Joined
- Jul 22, 2003
- Messages
- 1,973
- Reaction score
- 854
This might have something to do with your fears of being accused of "hate speech."
I'm hardly representative of conservatives. But even mainstream conservatives don't speak out--something as innocuous as contesting the ridiculous charge that George W. Bush was a Nazi can get you branded as some kind of radical right-wing extremist who can't be trusted. And I never hear anyone in the hospital interjecting gratuitous comments about President Barack Hussein Obama or Nancy Pelosi into unrelated, serious discussions about patients.
Being "open about one's sexuality" weakens traditional sexual morality, which makes people think they can do whatever they want sexually, which leads to broken families, fatherless children, more social chaos and less social cohesion. The acceptance of homosexuality isn't the only, nor the primary, cause of these things, but it is a part of them. But I think it's a cause celebre in our society because open homosexuaity is so aggressively contradictory to traditional Western sexual morality, and the latter is what liberals like yourself revile the most, because it represents the supposed repression and constraint on individual self-expression of the traditional West.But homosexuals are part of society as well. How is being open about ones sexuality going to cause damage to society? Who are you to say what is a perfectly normal life?
The political landscape in the US is "dominated" by arguments about the open expression of homosexuality? I wish. Name one Republican politician who has said "homosexuality should remain in the closet." Heck, in the past year we witness the homosexualization of our armed forces, with nary a peep out of mainstream conservatives. "Conservatives" in the US are about one nanometer to the right of liberals like yourself, but because they are to the right of you at all, you think they're radical right-wing fundamentalist extremist wackos.I find it odd that the political landscape (rather the republican primaries really) in the US seems to be dominated by arguements about issues that have largely been settled in the rest of the developed world. Your kind of thinking has more in common with the Taliban than anything else but that is an aside although it does rather beg the question as to what sort of values you think are being defended in Afganistan. Maybe the Westboro Babtist church has more followers than I thought.
And you think opposition to homosexuality has "more in common with the Taliban than anything else?" So you think a representative American from, say, 1960, has more in common with the Taliban than he does with a representative American of today? The Chrisitan Crusaders who fought Muslims in the Middle Ages were fighting over no difference at all? Liberals claim conservatives engage in "black and white" thinking, but there's no thinking more black and white than this. To you, everything boils down to the idea that equality and nondiscrimination are the greatest goods, and inequality and discrimination the greatest evils. Therefore, the vast gulf of differences between the traditional West and the Taliban on politics, culture, philosophy, art, music, literature, science, and countless other dimensions of civilization is meaningless. The traditional West and the Taliban both feature inequality and discrimination; therefore, to you, they're the same.
It's not like homosexuals were executed in pre-1960's America. They had an underground subculture, much as they do today, and lived all kinds of interesting lives. They were simply prohibited from publically manifesting their homosexuality.We like to think all is forward and upward. And maybe in our educated circles of science and medicine where wingnuts can be roundly laughed at as here, this is the case. But the collision with the type of ideas Tri is talking about is the question of our age. He feels utterly comfortable thinking of sexual preference in terms of sin and damnation.