[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
You’ve shown me what it means to be a conservative beyond the idiots that make up the christian coalition, and allowed me to come to terms with being much less liberal than my peers. So… thanks.)
TB’s heroes are all in military uniform. That is not a conservative trait – just so you don’t confuse yourself into thinking it is.
Also don’t trap yourself into the idea that change is bad – hence conservatism. The real essence of liberalism is that change is necessary for survival and that people need to be free in order to choose how it should be brought about for themselves.[/quote]
That is true.
We want to conserve what allows us to change.
It is the difference between passing on the torch vs praying to the ashes.
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Like I said, it’s a zero-sum game. If she has more kids b/c of this gene, but some don’t reproduce, she’s no more “fit” from an evolutionary standpoint that those without the gene.[/quote]
She’s more “fit” from an evolutionary perspective because she carries the “gay gene” (for lack of a better term). That’s the whole point. Nature perpetuates the gene by increasing her fertility, since obviously it can’t generally perpetuate the gene through the gay child.
It is the consensus of the scientific community based on decades of research on the issue.
Whether or not gays suffer consequences from existing in a discriminatory culture is a different question. Research has shown that gays attempting to change their orientation through therapy have double the risk of suicidal thoughts, anxiety, depression, and drug/alcohol abuse.
Thanks, forlife - you bring your usual focus on a well crafted argument, use of proper and referenced sources and a fair attempt to understand (and respectfully counter) your opponents’ arguments. You’re a credit to T-Nation.
[quote]makkun wrote:
Thanks, forlife - you bring your usual focus on a well crafted argument, use of proper and referenced sources and a fair attempt to understand (and respectfully counter) your opponents’ arguments. You’re a credit to T-Nation.
Like I said, the research that removed homosexuality from the DSM-IV found that gays were no more prone to OTHER psychological disorders than heterosexuals. But there was also significant activism by the gay community in the 70s against its inclusion in the DSM-IV. Now, we’re finding that homosexuals are MORE prone to psychological disorders.
[quote]Whether or not gays suffer consequences from existing in a discriminatory culture is a different question. Research has shown that gays attempting to change their orientation through therapy have double the risk of suicidal thoughts, anxiety, depression, and drug/alcohol abuse.
You need to differentiate cause from effect. [/quote]
Yes, we do. Perhaps those with an agenda on both sides should just stay the hell out of the research. That means gays shouldn’t picket every time there’s a finding that contradicts their own view, and there have been several so far.
I’ll tell you what. Everyone lives in a “discriminatory culture”. That’s how life is. Perhaps the psychopathology on the homosexual side correlates positively with the amount of activism they do.
Uh oh, if makkun is supporting you it can’t be good.
Seriously, it could be genetic, or not, but I do believe it is biological. The twin studies you mentioned support that.
But it must be mentioned that if everyone who was gay was that way because of biology, then the twin studies should be 100%, or close to it. Not just a statistically significant increase.
I believe that a third are truely biologically gay, and 2 thirds are psychologically gay. (I have nothing to support the numbers.)
But in the scheme of things, I really do not think that matters.
The arguments I am hearing for gay marriage are not really about gay marriage. It is an argument for stuff. “I want stuff.”
That stuff does not matter. When I got married, we did not put socialist security into our vows. Marriage is not about stuff, it is about caring for one another.
A person who marries someone else for stuff is nothing but a whore.
Marriage is about two people making a commitment to each other, and nothing more. It is not about “stuff”.
[quote]The Mage wrote:
Marriage is about two people making a commitment to each other, and nothing more. It is not about “stuff”.[/quote]
Well worded. And might I add the modern concept of marriage is not what it was 100 or even 50 years ago. People got married because it was prudent. Now they get married because they can and want to. Getting married for love is an almost completely new idea.
Completely understandable. In fact, I feel the same way about plenty of things. Good post, TB, as usual.
(Oh, by the by, I’m currently at Cornell U, and they have a “progressive” paper here that makes me throw up a little in my mouth when I read it. You guys have almost entirely converted me to conservatism, and I owe most of that to your intelligent defense of the right.
You’ve shown me what it means to be a conservative beyond the idiots that make up the christian coalition, and allowed me to come to terms with being much less liberal than my peers. So… thanks.)[/quote]
You’re welcome, and glad to see you are getting some good intellectual nourishment around here.
As for your “conversion”, I’d say this - continue to read widely, including “unconservative” material. Read the “progressive” paper, etc.
You’ll find that no matter where you wind up on the political spectrum, having your ideas challenged will be of benefit to you - and you won’t turn into a hyper-narrow ideologue who can’t argue their way out of a paper sack, and you’ll also find that people who disagree with you politically aren’t “mortal enemies”, which will make for a broader range of friends.
But back to the point - good to see that you have seen the light! ;>
TB’s heroes are all in military uniform. That is not a conservative trait – just so you don’t confuse yourself into thinking it is.[/quote]
David Hume isn’t in military uniform. Nor is Adam Smith. Nor is Robert Jackson. Nor is Cicero. Or Aristotle. And so forth.
You’d need to know me better before making that assumption, but then, we’ve seen before that knowing nothing about a topic doesn’t stop you from opining on it.
And, appreciation for martial valor is not anathema to conservatism, particularly since conservatives are well-aware that the society of ordered liberty must be defended vigorously against the Scylla of anarchy and the Charybdis of tyranny.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
conservatives are well-aware that the society of ordered liberty must be defended vigorously[/quote]
Fine enough for me to accept as long as it isn’t government doing the ordering. I still think it is silly for grown men to worship martial prowess – that is the stuff of little boys.
Also, none need to defend against anarchy because anarchy doesn’t aggress against people – but rather it is always people backed by government authority who do the aggressing. Government is nothing but legalized gang thuggery on a mass scale.
I will take my chances with a robber who makes no pretense about stealing my money for my own good. At least a robber is honest about it.
The point I raise with that example is this - you can think something silly, frivolous, stupid, downright objectionable, and not want it around as a social matter, but still think that the government has no business outlawing it.[/quote]
This sums up my feelings/thoughts on this matter. Yet I’ve been repeatedly called a homophobe. The Left in this country is simply looney.
[quote]makkun wrote:
Thanks, forlife - you bring your usual focus on a well crafted argument, use of proper and referenced sources and a fair attempt to understand (and respectfully counter) your opponents’ arguments. You’re a credit to T-Nation.
Makkun[/quote]
We certainly spend a lot of time discussing ‘gay’ stuff around here.
Let’s summarize: being gay is Nature’s way of weeding out those who should NOT reproduce, for whatever reason. While no one has the right to interfere with the HUMAN rights of gays, gays do NOT have any special rights over and above other people. Gays do NOT have a right to force others to recognize them, they only have the right to be left alone, by government and others, but only insofar as the basic right of all people to be left alone.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
We certainly spend a lot of time discussing ‘gay’ stuff around here.
Let’s summarize: being gay is Nature’s way of weeding out those who should NOT reproduce, for whatever reason. While no one has the right to interfere with the HUMAN rights of gays, gays do NOT have any special rights over and above other people. Gays do NOT have a right to force others to recognize them, they only have the right to be left alone, by government and others, but only insofar as the basic right of all people to be left alone.[/quote]
So you think gene spreading is a linear process, and occurs only on a biological level, with no social interactions whatsoever?
This sums up my feelings/thoughts on this matter. Yet I’ve been repeatedly called a homophobe. The Left in this country is simply looney.[/quote]
“Homophobia” and “bigot!” are popular, therapeutic distractions. But amazingly, without provocation, the debate always ends up there.
Homosexuals deserve the benefit of negative rights - the argument is over whether they should receive positive rights. So far the case has been thin, amounting mostly to faddish sentimentalism - which has forced the “gay agenda” into a “rights” discussion, hoping to have the positive rights forced down society’s throat from the top down.
Others promoting the “gay agenda” continue a historical fiction, that homosexuality and comprehensive acceptance of a package of positive rights existed in a utopian paradise of tolerance until mean old Christians came in with their backwater mores and pulled the plug on the party.
It’s false, but that doesn’t mean the myth will stop.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
We certainly spend a lot of time discussing ‘gay’ stuff around here.
Let’s summarize: being gay is Nature’s way of weeding out those who should NOT reproduce, for whatever reason. While no one has the right to interfere with the HUMAN rights of gays, gays do NOT have any special rights over and above other people. Gays do NOT have a right to force others to recognize them, they only have the right to be left alone, by government and others, but only insofar as the basic right of all people to be left alone.
So you think gene spreading is a linear process, and occurs only on a biological level, with no social interactions whatsoever?[/quote]
I believe in guided chaos, intelligent design, if you will. God, or Nature for atheists like Pookie, is very deliberate. I don’t know what the ‘end’ or purpose is, though my deep Irish mystic roots (many Irish have strong mystical bents) think that, in a couple of billion years, the earth itself will be pure consciousness — but that’s just me.
So, yes, being gay is God’s way of eliminating those who don’t serve some ultimate purpose, like converting the earth into pure logos.