Do you think conservatives will ever accept h*mosexuality?

If you define 'accept homosexuality' as accepting it as something you have the right to do, then most conservatives already accept it. If you define 'accept homosexuality' as accepting it as being just as good as heterosexuality, then most conservatives will probably never accept it.

aransom

I'm conservative and I have absolutely no problem with homosexuality.

That's a pretty bad generalization to start with, that all conservatives are religious and hate homosexuals.

[QUOTE="aransom"]

If you define 'accept homosexuality' as accepting it as something you have the right to do, then most conservatives already accept it. If you define 'accept homosexuality' as accepting it as being just as good as heterosexuality, then most conservatives will probably never accept it.

Genetic_Code

@GabuEx:

Should comes from what the is is. Man is not God, so you cannot expect man to transcend scientific laws. However, you can look at the most successful of men and see how they perform and emulate their talent in all that you do. Man should strive to be at his least the very best.

Morality is subjective.

Pixel-Pirate

But why must be slaves to tradition?-Sun_Tzu-

For what reasons do you call homosexuality 'unnatural'?

chessmaster1989

@GabuEx:

Should comes from what the is is. Man is not God, so you cannot expect man to transcend scientific laws. However, you can look at the most successful of men and see how they perform and emulate their talent in all that you do. Man should strive to be at his least the very best.

Genetic_Code

Why should we desire to be like the most successful of all men?

How are we defining "successful"?

How are we defining "best"?

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

For what reasons do you call homosexuality 'unnatural'?

Genetic_Code

Which gets into a further question suddenly of how you are defining 'natural.' Most attempts I see do this end up in a circular definition where 'natural' is based in 'moral' and vice versa. And while genetics can cause a handicap, it does not seem to me that homosexuality provides any sort of handicap.

That's a pretty bad generalization to start with, that all conservatives are religious and hate homosexuals.

Suzy_Q_Kazoo

In my opening post, I specified religious conservatives as opposed to nonreligious conservatives. Nonreligious conservatives do exist. I am one of them. I said that they are the least likely to accept homosexuality but I did not specify why and that is because the Bible is against it and to them, the Bible cannot be questioned. I wouldn't be surprised if the Bible was reinterpreted in a way accepting of homosexuals, since after all, many other biblical statements are often disregarded.

So you think it's unnatural for a great ape to soar above the treetops at hundreds of miles per hour, but that males having sex is a perversion of nature? Which of those behaviours do you think you'd be more likely to see from chimps at a safari park? :lol:HAHAITHINKNOT

I think it's natural for a great ape to soar above the treetops. Man was conceived to achieve. It's in his nature. That's his only ways of valuating his survival. There is no reason for males to have sex with each other.

[QUOTE="Genetic_Code"]

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

For what reasons do you call homosexuality 'unnatural'?

chessmaster1989

Which gets into a further question suddenly of how you are defining 'natural.' Most attempts I see do this end up in a circular definition where 'natural' is based in 'moral' and vice versa. And while genetics can cause a handicap, it does not seem to me that homosexuality provides any sort of handicap.

There's also the issue that by any reasonable definition of "natural", genetic disorders are natural.

Well, I know many conservatives (such as my mom) who are completely accepting of homosexuality, but their right-wing sympathies typically have nothing to do with religion.

Why should we desire to be like the most successful of all men?

How are we defining "successful"?

How are we defining "best"?

GabuEx

There's also the issue that by any reasonable definition of "natural", genetic disorders are natural.

GabuEx

I didn't know being conservative meant you were Christian. Thats basically what the OP is implying.bbkkristian

What kind of Conservatives? Social Conservatives? Or fiscal Conservatives? :PManiacc1

Defining success is the measure of how someone performs intellectually, ethically, financially, physically, emotionally. You need an individual who strives to know all relevant information so that he can be properly informed on what he needs to do to achieve in life, who is able to respect everyone else's life and property as their own. who is able to generate income to provide for himself and his family, someone who strives to be in excellent physical shape, and someone whose mood does not swing, instead being consistent and logical. That is my definition. However, I see no point in trying to prove that to anyone because I personally cannot make you or anyone else accept that definition.Genetic_Code

Well since you're trying to assert "shoulds", as though others would be correct in agreeing with you, then it seems prudent to establish an objective means by which to show your assertion is correct, no? Otherwise it's simply your opinion, without any basis for its acceptance.

Good point. Thereby, invalidating what that link I posted said about homosexuality being unnatural. Perhaps the term I'm looking for is acceptable. It is not acceptable for someone to be born with a genetic disorder, but it's just apparent that some will be born like that.GabuEx

Then it seems to me that you will have to establish both what constitutes acceptability and why that ought to drive one's sense of rightness or correctness. Acceptability seems to me to be an awfully malleable concept throughout human history.

[QUOTE="bbkkristian"]I didn't know being conservative meant you were Christian. Thats basically what the OP is implying.Genetic_Code

Okay now i see what you were aiming at with the thread.

But I don't think so, and I am religious.

Well I'm a conservative Christian, and I'm accepting of homosexuality, but that could be because I'm gay though. :P

I didn't know being conservative meant you were Christian. Thats basically what the OP is implying.bbkkristian

The OP is a conservative atheist. So I doubt he is implying that.

However it is fact that christians are more likely to be social conservative than liberal.

[QUOTE="Suzy_Q_Kazoo"]

That's a pretty bad generalization to start with, that all conservatives are religious and hate homosexuals.

Genetic_Code

In my opening post, I specified religious conservatives as opposed to nonreligious conservatives. Nonreligious conservatives do exist. I am one of them. I said that they are the least likely to accept homosexuality but I did not specify why and that is because the Bible is against it and to them, the Bible cannot be questioned. I wouldn't be surprised if the Bible was reinterpreted in a way accepting of homosexuals, since after all, many other biblical statements are often disregarded.

I honestly just kind of skimmed that, sorry :?

I hope not.

They will. Give it 10-20 years. The right side is going to win on this issue.

It's the nature of social issues like this.

They will. Give it 10-20 years. The right side is going to win on this issue.

It's the nature of social issues like this.

SgtKevali

That depends on what your idea of the "right" side is.

[QUOTE="SgtKevali"]

They will. Give it 10-20 years. The right side is going to win on this issue.

It's the nature of social issues like this.

hartsickdiscipl

That depends on what your idea of the "right" side is.

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="SgtKevali"]

They will. Give it 10-20 years. The right side is going to win on this issue.

It's the nature of social issues like this.

EMOEVOLUTION

That depends on what your idea of the "right" side is.

The plumbing says otherwise. I'll leave it at that.

The most desirable case is that the entire (at least, most of it) United States population - not just Conservatives - wakes up and realizes that attacking/being against homosexuality on the legal front is a baseless, unjustified and illogical waste of time which doesn't really do anything but satisfy an equally irrational moral condition at the expense of the happiness/liberties of thousands of people. Conservatives are not inherently anti-gay, it's just that the Republican party at this point is a more attractive option to those who express homophobic beliefs.

This may or may not happen depending onhow silly that country gets in the future, but considering that we're undergoing a global trend of reduced homophobia (which is awesome) I think it's far more likely that the proportion of people in the U.S. who accept homosexuality is going to increase. This means that eventually, the same phenomenon is going to affect the Republican party and hence conservatives.

The plumbing says otherwise. I'll leave it at that.

hartsickdiscipl

Out of curiosity, what are your theories then regarding why stimulating the prostate results in a pleasurable experience?

And when conservative accept h*mosexuality. The question will change to "Do you think conservatives will ever accept "Beastilality"?

[QUOTE="SgtKevali"]

They will. Give it 10-20 years. The right side is going to win on this issue.

It's the nature of social issues like this.

hartsickdiscipl

That depends on what your idea of the "right" side is.

Obviously, but 20 years from now my side will be considered the right side in Western countries (speaking in terms of social consciousness and thinking).

I don' think it's fair to generalize conservatives like that...and please define "accept"..so i can say no in a more zealous crazed christian neoconservative fashion...

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

The plumbing says otherwise. I'll leave it at that.

GabuEx

Out of curiosity, what are your theories then regarding why stimulating the prostate results in a pleasurable experience?

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

The plumbing says otherwise. I'll leave it at that.

GabuEx

Out of curiosity, what are your theories then regarding why stimulating the prostate results in a pleasurable experience?

You know, some people think that tickling their feet results in a pleasurable experience. Some people get off on a foot massage. The fact is, one combination of the sexes can produce offspring naturally. That involves both sexes. Don't even try to say that the male and female forms weren't designed to work together. It works that way for a reason.

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

[QUOTE="SgtKevali"]

They will. Give it 10-20 years. The right side is going to win on this issue.

It's the nature of social issues like this.

SgtKevali

That depends on what your idea of the "right" side is.

Obviously, but 20 years from now my side will be considered the right side in Western countries (speaking in terms of social consciousness and thinking).

I seriously doubt that we'll get that far.

You know, some people think that tickling their feet results in a pleasurable experience. Some people get off on a foot massage. The fact is, one combination of the sexes can produce offspring naturally. That involves both sexes. Don't even try to say that the male and female forms weren't designed to work together. It works that way for a reason.

hartsickdiscipl

The key word there is "some". It's not just "some" people for whom stimulating the prostate results in a pleasurable experience. That's the case for everyone. And it's very much a physiological origin, not just mental. The prostate is basically the male equivalent of the g-spot. And the only way to stimulate the prostate is, well... you know.

So, again, the question: why do you think that stimulating the prostate results in a pleasurable experience? What possible purpose could that serve, other than...

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

You know, some people think that tickling their feet results in a pleasurable experience. Some people get off on a foot massage. The fact is, one combination of the sexes can produce offspring naturally. That involves both sexes. Don't even try to say that the male and female forms weren't designed to work together. It works that way for a reason.

GabuEx

The key word there is "some". It's not just "some" people for whom stimulating the prostate results in a pleasurable experience. That's the case for everyone. And it's very much a physiological origin, not just mental. The prostate is basically the male equivalent of the g-spot. And the only way to stimulate the prostate is, well... you know.

So, again, the question: why do you think that stimulating the prostate results in a pleasurable experience? What possible purpose could that serve, other than...

There are plenty of things that just happen to produce a certain sensation when stimulated. That doesn't mean that it's necessarily the "right" thing to do, or indicative of any useful function. It may just be by chance. Something creating a physiological response that may be pleasurable in no way justifies it in my mind. Now does it prove that it was by design.

Let's take a step back from this for a second. Are you an atheist? Do you believe that natural evolution created us, as we are?

There are plenty of things that just happen to produce a certain sensation when stimulated. That doesn't mean that it's necessarily the "right" thing to do, or indicative of any useful function. It may just be by chance. Something creating a physiological response that may be pleasurable in no way justifies it in my mind. Now does it prove that it was by design.

hartsickdiscipl

By chance? I thought you maintained that humans had been designed.

Let's take a step back from this for a second. Are you an atheist? Do you believe that natural evolution created us, as we are?

hartsickdiscipl

Am I atheist? No. Do I feel that evolution sufficiently accounts for the diversity and complexity of life on Earth? Yes.

This new generation where I live seem to accept more gays than ever and dress a little metro.

Of course not! All conservatives are a bunch of bible thumping bigots, there aren't any liberals like that though!!! :roll:

Of course not! All conservatives are a bunch of bible thumping bigots, there aren't any liberals like that though!!! :roll:

Espada12

Well to be fair, I don't think I've ever met a Bible-thumping liberal. :P

[QUOTE="SgtKevali"]

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

That depends on what your idea of the "right" side is.

hartsickdiscipl

Obviously, but 20 years from now my side will be considered the right side in Western countries (speaking in terms of social consciousness and thinking).

I seriously doubt that we'll get that far.

That's what some thought concerning race relations in the 20th century. They were wrong.

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

There are plenty of things that just happen to produce a certain sensation when stimulated. That doesn't mean that it's necessarily the "right" thing to do, or indicative of any useful function. It may just be by chance. Something creating a physiological response that may be pleasurable in no way justifies it in my mind. Now does it prove that it was by design.

GabuEx

By chance? I thought you maintained that humans had been designed.

Let's take a step back from this for a second. Are you an atheist? Do you believe that natural evolution created us, as we are?

hartsickdiscipl

Am I atheist? No. Do I feel that evolution sufficiently accounts for the diversity and complexity of life on Earth? Yes.

The sensitivity of the prostate to stimulation could simply be a coincidental "feature" that occurred during our creation (yes, I am a creationist of sorts). Even if we were intelligently designed and created (or engineered from apes, whatever the case may be), this could be just be happenstance. Not everything happens by design. As far as the psychological aspect goes, while I don't like things being inserted into my rectum, I think I could much more easily deal with a woman doing it than a man. Just saying. It would have a profoundly different physiological effect on me due to the fact that I'm attracted to women, and not men.

Another theory is that the sensitivity of the prostate may actually have been created that way on purpose, as a sort of auxillary relief system in case of emergencies. Like having 2 relief valves in a water loop in an HVAC system. It's a good redundant design. That says nothing for the morality of usefulness of having someone of the opposite sex stimulate it for pleasure. I'll leave that thought right there for now.

So, you do believe that humans came to be as we are as a result of natural selection? That evolution is responsible for our physical traits?

[QUOTE="Espada12"]

Of course not! All conservatives are a bunch of bible thumping bigots, there aren't any liberals like that though!!! :roll:

GabuEx

Well to be fair, I don't think I've ever met a Bible-thumping liberal. :P

You've never met my dad.

dont really care. :|