Why are conservatives so interested in controlling other people's sexuality?

[kaylasdad99]

@DavidwithanR

To me, it looks as if there’s an answer: “Because that used to be the right answer, and it used to be the right answer because everyone’s survival used to depend on the fact that every individual belonged to a traditional family and every individual would be the parent of enough children to both work the fields and take care of the old people; anyone who didn’t or couldn’t meet these requirements (i.e. they were single or they were married without children) was a burden to everyone else.”

Think of the tradition explained in the Bible, that a father would not allow his younger daughter to be married until his older daughter was married first. It would be because if he had a daughter who never got married, he would become an irresponsible member of his community - he would be allowing the older daughter to become a burden.

To me it appears that most modern conservatives do, without necessarily saying it, still really regard some people as a burden for precisely the same reason. (not, mind, that they’re saying the person’s needs are or aren’t a burden, but that they’re saying the person themselves is of overall negative value because of their sexual status.)

@DavidwithanR

… which (the stuff in my last post) I think might be a highly anti-libertarian point of view, as well as obviously being an anti-liberal one.

Also, it’s misleading to call the mindset “conservative;” a more accurate and precise word would be “reactionary.”

[Budget_Player_Cadet]

@Clothahump

One of the biggest differences between conservatives and liberals is that liberals are all about change for change’s sake. Conservatives aren’t. We have nothing against change, but we think change should occur as part of a thought-out process, not just a whim.

Hey Clothy, quick question. You see this statement here:

@Johnny_Ace

It’s rooted in the basic suspicion that somebody else might be having fun.

Does that sound like you? Does that sound even remotely like something you might say, or like it describes your thought process? It’s not even close, right? In fact, if I had to guess, I’d say it sounds more like a poorly-thought-out insult than any actual description of your position. Am I on the money so far?

Okay, now look at your post. Do you honestly believe that that’s what liberals are about? Because that’s the same level of “failing to understand your opposition” as Johnny Ace’s post.

[SailorHG]

I think whoever coined the phrase “Old Testament Christian” upthread was on the right track. The God of the Old Testament was always punishing the entire nation of Israel whenever a single person broke the law.

For example, Kind David taking a census of the kingdom resulted in a plague that killed thousands (thirty percent, if I remember correctly) of the people. There was also the story of that dude who was gathering sticks on the sabbath, as well as whole battles that were lost because of the sinfulness of a single individual.

In our day, it seems like every time we have a natural disaster, there is some religious wack-o up there saying it is God’s punishment for the country embracing whatever pet immorality he cares to set up as an example. So to the conservative Christian, passing laws to prevent this stuff is their way of making sure they don’t fall victim to the Wrath that would otherwise come. They view the rest of us as being too stupid/sinful to see it is for our own good, or something.

[DavidwithanR]

@kaylasdad99

Also, it’s misleading to call the mindset “conservative;” a more accurate and precise word would be “reactionary.”

A reactionary is (in its normal meaning) a conservative who takes conservatism too far.

[DavidwithanR]

(Therefore it’s not misleading in the slightest to call a reactionary point of view conservative - though it could be embarrassing for a more moderate conservative to be reminded of. In addition, though the particular viewpoint being discussed may sound like reactionary drivel, in the US it’s currently part of mainstream Republican Party policy, and calling it reactionary is perhaps a striking demonstration of how much that party has been pushed in the reactionary direction.)

[begbert2]

@Clothahump

Wow. You are so far wrong in that, you’re not even in the same zip code with correct.

One of the biggest differences between conservatives and liberals is that liberals are all about change for change’s sake. Conservatives aren’t. We have nothing against change, but we think change should occur as part of a thought-out process, not just a whim.

Translation: “I’m going to pretend that other people don’t have reasons for the things they do, because if I accepted they had reasons for the things they do I wouldn’t be able to dismiss them so cavalierly.”

[kaylasdad99]

@kaylasdad99

Also, it’s misleading to call the mindset “conservative;” a more accurate and precise word would be “reactionary.”

@DavidwithanR

A reactionary is (in its normal meaning) a conservative who takes conservatism too far.

@DavidwithanR

(Therefore it’s not misleading in the slightest to call a reactionary point of view conservative - though it could be embarrassing for a more moderate conservative to be reminded of.

It’s pretty much the definition of misleading, when the degree to which self-proclaimed “conservatives” display reactionary tendencies is accurately characterized as “extreme.”* That takes it into radicalism, which is wholly incompatible with conservatism.

*and the fact is that the current political environment in the US is the epitome of such a set of conditions. Disagreement with this fact is not an indication that it is not a fact; it is merely an indication that the person who disagrees is wrong.

In addition, though the particular viewpoint being discussed may sound like reactionary drivel, in the US it’s currently part of mainstream Republican Party policy, and calling it reactionary is perhaps a striking demonstration of how much that party has been pushed in the reactionary direction.)

Ya THINK?

[Johnny_Ace]

@Budget_Player_Cadet

Hey Clothy, quick question. You see this statement here:

Does that sound like you? Does that sound even remotely like something you might say, or like it describes your thought process? It’s not even close, right? In fact, if I had to guess, I’d say it sounds more like a poorly-thought-out insult than any actual description of your position. Am I on the money so far?

Okay, now look at your post. Do you honestly believe that that’s what liberals are about? Because that’s the same level of “failing to understand your opposition” as Johnny Ace’s post.

1. You might want to ‘understand’ that I am not a liberal. Feel free not to lump me where you apparently have no idea I am.

2. As for Clothy’s elitist bullshit, would that we all could be as wise and intelligent as conservatives. :rolleyes: I wouldn’t trust a single one of them as far as I could see them, certainly none in power right now. They live down to every expectation of mine.