I didn’t wish to debate the issues, but to point out how I was surprised concerning what seemed to be the dominant opinion towards them (here I am speaking mainly about the paranormal questions).
Here’s one dog-liberal. Any others? Can’t stand cats.
I don’t know what this has to do with liberal or conservative. I believe that all food service establishments should be required to make “Nutrition Facts” and ingredients available and then let the customers decide. (And they should face penalties for lying or running misleading commercials.)
I suppose you meant “left” here instead of “right.” I don’t see any constituional issue here. Under separation of powers doctrine, shouldn’t state governments have this power? In any case, your perception seems to be closer to my own liberalism. I think smoking should be banned wherever the public is invited and wherever employees might be exposed to smoke. If you work by yourself or have a personal, closed office with a window, then I see no problem.
Speaking as a liberal, I agree with you. I would add that I also believe that employers, public accommodations, and government agencies and services should not be allowed to discriminate against anyone regardless of their personal moral beliefs. And such should apply to any institution accepting government funding, including churches and private schools.
I’ll skip the abortion and environmental questions for the sake of convenience and brevity.
Sounds like sound liberal principles to me. (Isn’t it “leeches”?)
While I don’t necessarily see what you’re getting at, I don’t see anything to disagree with here. There are plenty of liberals who would say exactly the same thing.
I think you might be making some shaky assumptions about what other people believe. I agree with some of what you say, and I disagree with other things you say. I don’t see any bright lines.
I can understand that position. I believe that what he is trying to point out would be along this line: as a heterosexual male it is a biological fact that I am sexually attracted to women. But, it would be morally wrong for me to have sex with as many women as I could, as I am married. Now the source of my morals may be disagreeable to some, but there it is.
I equate how one acts upon his sexuality with morality.
I also subscribe to the belief that one “sin” is no worse than any other.
I also, find homosexuality morally wrong, but I do not hate, fear or despise those who live that lifestyle. Just as I find men living with their girlfriends morally wrong, but I do not hate, fear or despise them.
[QUOTE]
Oops, I missed that bolded part. I can’t agree here. Yeah, you have the right to have an opinon, but that opinion very well may be bigoted whether or not you think it’s justified.
And, I’d like to add, paranormalists have had centuries to make a case and have come up with nada. It’s fine to say that no reasearch has been done, but given hundreds of years of history, one would think that if there is anything to it, then someone, somewhere could have come up with a practical, verifiable, repeatable application for paranormal phenomena. At this point, I just don’t think it’s worth a second thought, far less any funding for “research.”
And me.
See, for me that analogy doesn’t work. I can see how cheating (as betrayal of trust and promise) is morally wrong. Homosexuality doesn’t fit into any moral framework that I can see. I mean, seriously, I cannot for the life of me find the moral quandry in homosexuality. The best I could come up with is that it’s icky for some people. Then again, some people would say anal sex and oral sex is immoral, yet another view I cannot understand. What does that have to do with morality?
I define under 30 as young. Heck, under 35. And anyone who makes “old people noises” sitting down or getting up, is old. the rest of us are in the middle. I’ll stick to my claims that the young are more liberal than the old, again. It was not true for a while, but from what I’ve seen, it is again.
First disclaimer, I do not believe homosexuality is wrong. I’m very much a “Hey, if it doesn’t hurt someone, go right ahead” libertarian.
Your attitude is precisely why left and right always seem to talk past each other. I know there are those on the right who can not see that homosexuality is wrong. My understanding of the ancient Athenians is that an older man and a younger man was to be encouraged, a young man with a boy was to be encouraged, but two guys of the same age was wrong. The fact is, people are amazingly good (and plastic) at constructing moral orders. The Amish have splintered over the appropriate number of buttons on a shirt, for god sakes, and you can’t understand why someone things sexual issues can be moral issues?
Ooops, typo. I meant to say that “I know there are people on the right who can see how someone can not see that homosexuality is wrong.”
I’ll add, I’ve never seen the usefulness of assuming everyone falls somewhere on a line on the political spectrum. We have three very conservative managers here. One definitely believes homosexuality is wrong, and has gone on the occassional rant. His boss, and mine, is even more conservative on almost every single issue. Except that one. He doesn’t understand why beliefs on homosexuality have become yet another litmus test of being conservative.
I agree that conservatives take property rights more seriously. That is, their right to do what they want with their land. Your right not to sell so that they can develop it, not so much. Where I grew up, their favorite trick was to condemn the land of the farmer who wouldn’t sell, and put the sewage treatment facilities on that land. Neither party gives a damn for property rights if they want to put a road or a parking garage on your land.
Actually, I have to retract my opinion about being labeled a bigot for my beliefs on homosexuality. In fact, I think it is fine for people to believe that someone is bigoted for such a perspective. What I oppose (and fear) is the codification of such perspectives into law such that stating opposition to homosexuality on moral grounds is considered a crime. Again the point of stating the above “opinions” was not to argue that they are correct, but rather to emphasize how so called “superficial” political leanings can (and I would argue generally do) have profound ramifications into many facets of one’s life. Someone had basically said “why even bother pontificating about this subject since political perspectives are merely superficial.”
In addition, it is hard to reply to many of these posts without getting into great debates territory (and God only knows that visiting any forums besides this one and General Questions would probably cause me to go into a seizure). However, keeping in mind the above caveat my perspective is that morals “for me” are defined by the Christian Bible. That is not to say that I don’t respect those who derive their moral perspectives from other sources be they the Hindu Veda’s or the declaration of the rights of man (note I can respect their position without agreeing with it). In the same way I respect the right of gays/lesbians to believe that their lifestyle is equal (or even superior) to those of heterosexuals. I am simply saying that I would hope that they would have equal respect for my perspective (wrong as it may or may not be) that homosexuality is not the optimal lifestyle. The other non biblical argument that I have for my opinion on this matter is involves the whole concept that sexual attraction should even be the basis upon which we define ourselves.
I love my wife not because I find her sexually attractive (although I now very much do, I really didn’t when we met ) but because of the great person which she is (especially as a mother to my son). Indeed, I am somewhat offended at the very concept that raw emotions such as sex drive even influence my opinions (even as a child of about eight I can remember getting really angry when my mother used to tease me that I would soon become “girl crazy” I remember swearing to myself that I would rather die than allow this to occur). For me it is the fact that homosexuals base their identity in large part on their sex drive that causes me to dissent. If penises and vaginas didn’t exist (and kids could somehow grow on trees) I would still want to be the same person that I am. To me the sexual act is little different from eating, drinking, or micturating it is simply another biological function that we engage in (and in the end it’s just more electrons moving around) it doesn’t define my spirit.
Roland Deschain: To address your OP, you’re certainly not alone. Heck, I’m probably even more of an outcast that you on the SDMB:
- My political philosophy is “conservative/libertarian.”
- I believe liberals are misguided fools.
- I believe homosexuality is (for the most part) a choice. My wife and I teach our children that homosexuality is morally wrong.
- I believe sex outside of marriage is wrong.
- I believe most welfare recipients are lazy.
- I do not believe we should have a government-subsidized health care system.
- I believe 80% of the federal government should be dissolved.
- I believe the top tax bracket should be 5%.
- I’m very fond of guns (especially battle rifles), and am an active member of a citizen’s militia unit.
Understanding that sexual issues can be moral issues across cultures is different from understanding why. I certainly can see a social and genetic evolutionary difference in prudery versus not realy caring, but it doesn’t translate into an advantage for me.
If you mean that “Homosexuality doesn’t fit into any moral framework that I agree with” (to paraphrase) then I can see your point.
I take it that you are aware that there are moral frameworks that exist that specifically mention homosexuality, the Christian Bible for example.
A great deal of many a moral framework’s makeup seems to involve sexuality.
Rationally? Not really. I definitely fall in the liberal/libertarian camp, and I cannot rationally understand a proscription against certain sexual practices. Homosexuality, S&M, etc, do not have a bearing on a person’s moral character. Who is more moral? A monogamous homosexual couple or an unfaithful heterosexual couple? To me, sexuality in this sort of context is a red herring. Breaking trust I can see as a moral issue. One’s preference in partner I cannot.
Ludovic, the closest I can come to understanding why you can’t understand why, is on evolution. I understand that the bible doesn’t mention evolution, but I don’t understand why some Christians and Muslims consider acceptance of evolution a moral issue. The bible doesn’t mention quantum mechanics, galaxies, a round earth, or evenChina, yet all existed and continue to exist.
However, the bible does explicitly mention homosexuality. Even outside of the Judeo-Christian-Islamic heritage, homosexuality has been a moral issue. Ancient greece is the only place/culture I can recall that considered homosexual pedaphilia a good thing (the older providing wisdom and learning, the younger youth and beauty), but there have been plenty that accepted homosexuality and plenty that rejected it. I’m trying to think of a society that did not at least consider the morality of sexual acts (such as those you mention), and I’m drawing a blank. I can’t think of one. Perhaps ancient Sumer? Gilgamesh explicitly mentions blow jobs, and the relationship between Gilgamesh and Enkidu has strong homosexual overtones to the modern listener, but the morality of their relationship and of blow jobs is not discussed. (Other than a goddess offer to Gilgamesh.)
I will say this board reacts very negatively to the idea that homosexuality is not genetic. This is curious, since there is as, yet, no scientificic evidence that it is genetic. If a cat’s coloring is not genetic (remember the pictures of the first cat clones - all had different patterns from the mom), how can something as complicated as a person’s sexuality be purely genetic? At any rate, homosexuality rates amongst siblings and twins do not support the concept. Now, it might be epigenetic, it might be that resistence to becoming homosexual is genetic, it might be environmental factors in the womb, or afterwards, it might be a choice, it might be learned behavior (there is no positive re-enforcement like sex, after all), it might be a number of different factors for each and every individual. Who knows?
I seem to be rare in that I don’t care, aside from intellectual curiosity. For me, it is along the lines of “why do girls tend to marry their father?” Could be all the same set of factors, or it could even not be true. But why, when someone stated that they believe it is not genetic, did in the “what do you believe thread”, did someone immediately post a rolleyes?
I don’t even know whether I should hedge with the disclaimer “I agree with.”
I grew up Christian, totally heterosexual, but nobody has ever been able to explain to me why your preference in sexual partner is a moral issue. I fail to see how it fits into a moral framework period.
Did you sleep through Sunday school? 
Do you have a definition of “moral framework”? Maybe if we heard yours we could achieve a greater understanding of where you’re coming from.
It seems to me that if you want to frame homosexuality as a political issue you would have to demonstrate that it is in some way beneficial or detrimental to society as a whole. If you determine that it is detrimental you would then need to demonstrate that it is possible for a government to exercise any meaningful control over homosexuality by legislation, education, repression or even just censure.
To my way of thinking morality legislation is in contradiction with the idea of limited government, and not really a coherent position for a conservative to hold.
This is interesting, I assume you’re classifying aura-seeing crystal-healing, demagnetizing, homeopathic, chakra-aligning types as being predominantly liberals, which is probably valid. The only thing I can come up with to explain why this might be so is to suggest that paranormal beliefs amongst conservatives are more likely to manifest as Christianity or other mainstream religions, where paranormal beliefs amongst liberals are more diverse and ‘experimental’. The traditional Left are godless atheist commies of course.
'Nother liberal dog person. I like most critters, but dogs…well, what can I tell you? There’s just something about the beasts.