Christian conservatives discuss strategy for fighting war against gays

I would be labelled anti-Christian and devil worshipper by religious fundamentalists whether or not I was gay...

 

Makes me wonder if they're aware that any phrase with the word 'sex' in it will be met with more disapproval that a synonymous phrase without that word.

 

Gotta love stupidity.

 

Ryan Sorba is the biggest QUEEN of them all.

besides, republicans are anti-christian. the message of jesus christ is the contradiction of the politics of the republican party: therefore, republican=anti-christian.

 

I thought the worst "unnatural vice" in Christianity was being horrible to each other, but they don't have any problem doing that.

 

Lol @ war.

 

us gays win by default, we have 'bunker busters', 'missles', and 'the intellegence to comprehend complexity' <according to a new scientific study that shows liberal brains have higher compacity for intelligence, and conservative brains forgo that for a higher compacity for abusing fear.

 

That which we call a gay by any other name would be as sexy.

 

Not trying to derail.... but this intrigues me.

Is the trend over the last thousand years or so of increasing social liberty and justice a function of a swing in that balance? I mean, are we to conclude that there were more conservatively minded people in the past, when xenophobia was more the default position (look at parents in sparta leaving deformed/unusual babies out in the wilderness to die)? Speaking of xenophobia, what's the connection between morality and this balance? Are we merely vicariously standing on the shoulders of some of our more morally evolved ancestors who laid the intellectual foundations for our current morals? If all of this is connected and all this conservative thinking starts exerting a negative force en masse (i hate to name names {sarah palin} but there seem to be far more social conservatives out there with ignorant and xenophobic principles than social liberals), will the more simplicity-inclined and difference-shunning folk fuck it up for the rest of us, given enough time?

Maybe this should all be in a new thread... =P

 

If someone calls me a "sodomite", I will punch them in the face.

 

judging by their use of 'sodomite', you might want to punch them between the buttcheeks, to keep them 'honest'.

 

One of the most frequent biases of the human race is our tendency to view from within us as opposed to from above us.

An example already provided in this thread is of course when conservatives see liberals as morally depraved, while liberals see conservatives as bigots.

We often have the tendency to think that the change that we implemented 'made sense' and is 'better'. Hence, naturally, when our minds look to the past, we tend to see a 'progression'.

However, to the 'losing' party, whose ideologies are being displaced, they see it as a 'regression'. When society moved from paganism to Christianity, they too perceived that we were moving towards a more 'civilised' nation. However, if you look from the perspective of a pagan, you'd see that we were moving towards a more 'socially conservative and restrictive' society. Similarly, the liberals tend to see that we are moving towards a society of 'justice'. Whereas the conservatives see that we are moving towards a society of 'moral decadance'.

My point is that there will always be a displacing and displaced ideology. And the displacing ideology will always think that the 'now' is better than the 'before'. I guess you would be right to say that this is a swing in balance. Indeed, the winning ideology in the 1200s, is now a losing ideology and I personally believe that what we consider today as 'social liberal' is a winning ideology in the 21st century.

Though, one day, such an ideology might be on the losing side too. And the winning side would probably look at it and say "Social liberalism?! Disgusting!"

 

Well, there is a clear question of right and wrong. Is it right for a society that claims to be a society that is built on the idea that all are created equal, to deny a whole group within that society equality simply because (yes, they are) bigotts get their underpants in knots?

Homophobia, islamophobia, anti-semitisem, sexisem, racisem, xenophobia... those are all forms of bigottry. They also are for the most part squarely rooted in one side of the political spectrum over the other, which more openly and actively reject such behavior.

Morality is easily changable, and is never a constant. What people call traditional family today, for example, was deemed just 150 years ago a sin against nature, and what those people called traditional family 300 years ago was a sin again nature.

Common Sense on the other hand isn't, and there is no common sense in bigottry.

 

It is funny how it was just old people listening.

 

You'd be surprised. Common Sense today can be very different from common sense 300 years ago. "The clear question of right and wrong" that you speak of is what people sometimes refer to as "common sense morality" - morality unsubstantiated with objective logic and framework.

And, you'd find that the 'question of right and wrong', which many believe to be very clear, when undergone proper analysis and debate (philosophical branch of normative ethics), is utterly and completely ambiguous and unclear.

We have the tendency to believe that we are right, and others wrong. (Even as I say this, I am too bound to that bias).

Oh well, I guess my hope of society challenging this tendency might not be as realistic. I guess the conservatives and the liberals will just have to war it out and the losing party will just gradually dissipate I suppose. Either that or it'll be a very very long battle.....

And to me.... it is a war.... a war of ideology to determine what tomorrow's 'common sense' would be like.

 

common sense is active.

morality is inactive and prescriptive.

if you distill morality choices away from common sense, common sense still exists.

if you distill common sense from morality, on the other hand, you are left with the empty shell of morality.

Saying from a morality stand point "you should not kill others, because you will go to hell for commiting the sin of murder" doesnt really qualify as a common sense statement, because it roots itself in a unknowable and unproveable element.

but you can make a common sense judgement on why you should not kill a person, such as taking another person's life is robbing them of their future, which is by its very nature, detrimental to the victims family, putting them through potential greif and hardship. It also puts you at risk, because if you get caught, you would be facing jail time.

all of those are quantifiable, reasoned, logically sound elements of common sense. Morality doesnt root itself in the reality of what you know will happen as consequences of your action, but in the intangelible belief of something no one can even prove exists.

we need more common sense in todays society, but for that to happen, we have to seperate the intolerences of religious conservatives from the reasoned, logical conclusions of common sense.

It is how LGBT groups are starting to win the war. most americans (except the extremes at either end of the political spectrum) respond to reasoned arguements. Christian conservatives, and far right-wing whackadoodles do not use reasoned arguements and common sense, and reject those notions, supplanting in their place a warpped and contradictory docterine, that both contradicts itself, and contradicts the source upon which these people claim to follow.

it may not be soley black and white, but there is far less grey area to be found between them.