Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Conservatives confused on homosexuality

Conservatives confused on homosexuality
December 08, 2011, 03:40:27 PM
There are several facets of the conservative view, and they all get confused.

The first is that deviance from a standard, by itself, is disruptive. Unity works. Thus having "gay activists" and "gay rights" detracts from civilization as a whole.

The second, which our more biblical friends often endorse, is that homosexuality is sin, unclean or otherwise morally reprehensible. I think this is a confusion of the general need for chastity, which says that the happiest relations between the sexes occur through courtship and marriage, not promiscuity and perversity. Homosexuals are not as likely to bond for life, for various reasons I probably do not understand, but the lack of family-centricism through reproduction must be part of it. However, it's possibly a mistake to conflate homosexuality with sin on the basis that the anus and sex organs have a singular purpose.

Finally, there is disgust itself and its political implications. If you are a heterosexual, you are probably somewhat disgusted by homosexuality, if you search your feelings. Not just the sex act itself, but the thought that it is a reversal of part of your own purpose, which is a will toward (among other things) family. However, this can be fixed by disregarding PC, admitting the disgust, much as we should admit male homosexual disgust of women and lesbian hatred for men. Groups are incompatible.

Ultiimately, I think the solution to  homosexuality is as advocated by earlier writings on this site: no public special rights for homosexuals, a general DADT atmosphere and special communities for gay folk to be gay where heterosexual disgust is not considered valid. If only our mainstream conservatives would look along these lines.

NHA

Re: Conservatives confused on homosexuality
December 11, 2011, 03:37:41 PM
Certain homosexuals give off a weird vibe. I think it has to do with pattern dissonance and the juxtaposition of female micro-expressions over a masculine face.

The first half of Fellini Satyricon generates this vibe often and uses it to great effect in creating an alien atmosphere.


Re: Conservatives confused on homosexuality
December 12, 2011, 08:02:42 AM
Homosexuality is a sin because it assaults the concept of authority that is cemented by the natural realities of the vocation of mother and father. In a perfect state, a patriarchal monarchy, it is important to utilize the government as well as the culture and religion to ensure that the natural reality upon which this 'invisible' concept of authority is grounded upon. No son of Israel shall be a sodomite, and when I say Israel I mean the New Jerusalem of such luminous poets as William Blake.

'I will not cease from mental fight
Nor shall my sword sleep in my hand
Till we have built Jerusalem
In England's green and pleasant land'

Re: Conservatives confused on homosexuality
December 12, 2011, 08:11:22 AM
Homosexuality is a sin because it assaults the concept of authority that is cemented by the natural realities of the vocation of mother and father. In a perfect state, a patriarchal monarchy, it is important to utilize the government as well as the culture and religion to ensure that the natural reality upon which this 'invisible' concept of authority is grounded upon. No son of Israel shall be a sodomite, and when I say Israel I mean the New Jerusalem of such luminous poets as William Blake.

'I will not cease from mental fight
Nor shall my sword sleep in my hand
Till we have built Jerusalem
In England's green and pleasant land'

Such powers of reasoning! Run the line of thinking with slightly different content and feel your own eyes roll.

"Using culturally produced and nurted tools of reasoning like logic is a sin because it assults the concept of authority that is cemented by the natural realities of the vocation of the brain which include hindsight biases, framing, fundamnetal attribution error, confirmation bias, self-serving bias, belief bias, etc."

Re: Conservatives confused on homosexuality
December 12, 2011, 08:12:46 AM
You're making a mistake by assuming that logic and authority are essentially divorced in some way. However, I do support silencing any opposition to the divine authority of the monarchy.

Re: Conservatives confused on homosexuality
December 12, 2011, 08:17:28 AM
My point was that just becuase something is natural (reasoning biases) does not mean it is necessarily good.

Re: Conservatives confused on homosexuality
December 12, 2011, 08:19:32 AM
I would agree with you if you're framing the term natural in the sense that Rousseau did, but not if you frame the term natural in the sense that Bonald did.

Re: Conservatives confused on homosexuality
December 13, 2011, 07:19:50 AM
Homosexuality is a sin

Sorry, stopped reading there. The fuck is with this sudden influx of Christianity on here? Has the ANUS become HIV+? I don't want you to think I'm jumping to conclusions because I read a lot of what you posted in the other thread (concerning Christianity), and a lot of it was quite thought provoking while making a lot of sense, but I still can't take a statement like that above seriously. A sin, what a fucking laugh.

Homosexuality is a natural thing, but we should keep in mind that it is a fetish. MOST animals do not exhibit homosexual behavior, just as MOST humans do not. The whole should not have to adapt to the desires of the few. I am in the boat with Conservationist, except that I don't mind homosexuals living near me. But a neighborhood for them where they could practice their own customs and laws would be ideal, and would help to eliminate a lot of discrimination they face.

Re: Conservatives confused on homosexuality
December 13, 2011, 10:00:39 AM
My understanding is thus: That conservatism is distinguished from liberalism by its understanding of a moral significance of the aspects of society. Proceeding from this, we realize that every action either implicitly or explicitly affirms the moral order of a community and thus affects an individual's understanding of that order. This also has implications for the relationships between individuals, which I argue is the foundation of a community and thus society at large. Since to divorce moral significance from practical instantiations is to render that significance entirely abstract and thus impractical, it is import that we utilize naturally presented relationships as a foundation for asserting that moral significance. Keep in mind that when I use the term natural, I mean natural as in the sense of what a being is teleologically ordered towards; in other words, a human being is teleologically ordered towards a different nature than that of a rock or a cat. With human biological relationships there is a naturally suggested moral order for which the sexes can potentially aspire towards, and through this naturally suggested ordering we are able to, through the socially recognized understanding of the structure of the family, introduce children to the concept of this moral order and thus develop them to be able to participate within the moral sphere of the community. Through the collective affirmation of this moral order a society receives character, and I feel this is exemplified when you juxtapose the bland consumer-culture of today to the diversity of religiously oriented cultures of the past. The conclusion of this line of thinking, I believe, is that to frustrate or willfully reject the moral significance of any action is to threaten the constitution of a community.

When one engages in copulation, the moral significance of the act is obvious. To have sex with a woman without the use of contraceptives, within the bonds of indissoluble marriage, in a manner that most assures procreation, contains the moral signification that you choose that woman to be the wife of your child; to do otherwise is to imply the opposite. This is not only a practical concern of morality, it is a romantic concern, a concern of the ability of individuals to be able to understand the poetry or beauty of an act. Love is a product when it is realized, whether subconsciously or consciously, that it can be dissolved with great ease at the whim of either partner. Love is a romantic notion and the expression of the triumph of will when it is an act of complete self-donation. As a consequence, my objections to homosexuality are almost identical to my objections to premarital sex.

This doesn't mean that I think the person who engages in homosexual acts is condemnable in and of themselves, especially given our extenuating circumstances (those circumstances being the lack of moral significance in modern society). A person who engages in such acts, or in premarital sex, but feels they have betrayed a sense of holiness, understand the poetry of significance to a far greater degree than one who simply seeks to gratify themselves. I would even claim that they understand a higher plane of existence, considering that one who does not use this moral significance as a basis for their actions is blind to an entire layer of factors that affect the lives of human beings. Conservationist talks about this a lot when he mentions the pattern and structure of reality, and I've always thought that he was somewhat of a closet Platonist. I can see how he strongly associates Hinduism with this Platonic notion as well, as dharma is kind of a personal understanding of Platonic structuralism. I was really influenced by the same concept in my youth, I think my copy of the Bhagavad Gita is almost worn to tatters by now.

Re: Conservatives confused on homosexuality
December 13, 2011, 04:43:39 PM
This idea of separation that has been adapted not just to homosexuals but of races seems to be a bit misguided and not very well thought out. It assumes races, religions, and cultures all have well defined lines that identify them. And who exactly is going to map the separation of races, gay/non gay/ religious people? Even if we all agreed, that yes, I want to live in a community with people like me and my beliefs, culture and interests, where are the lines going to be drawn? You can't draw them even if you tried.

Read this example and tell me if separating every difference sounds a bit silly.

Even if you agree, Catholics should live with Catholics, Hindus with Hindus etc., what about gay catholics? Ok, give them a community within the catholic community separate from the non-gay catholics. Well races should be separate right? Ok, so we separate chinese gay catholics, into a community, Latino gay catholics into a community, black gay catholics into a community, and white gay catholics into a community. Then we have politics. So Libertarian gay black catholics have a community, Republican gay black catholics, democrat gay black catholics, green party gay black catholics, and then separate communities with the same breakdown for each race and religion after that.

Not to mention gay or straight transgenders and gay or straight cross dressers and straight people. They need a breakdown of their own communities too.

Who is going to decide where everybody should live? And if somebody decides that they no longer want to be straight, or no longer want to be athiest, or Republican, what's the process for transporting them to a different community?

Would these communities have any connection or communication with each other?

Lets start start thinking in terms of plan and action, and not this head up in the clouds/ass idealistic bullshit. My guess is that there won't/can't be any real answers to how this separation but equal bs would actually work. But I welcome any rebuttals or outlines for plans of action if any.

Re: Conservatives confused on homosexuality
December 13, 2011, 08:18:33 PM
Ironically, given your name, I agree, I disagree.

I got a good chuckle from my reply.

Re: Conservatives confused on homosexuality
December 13, 2011, 08:54:14 PM
Homosexuality is a sin

Sorry, stopped reading there. The fuck is with this sudden influx of Christianity on here? Has the ANUS become HIV+?
We're realists and understand that Christianity is the closest thing our (European and European derived) cultures have to a binding philosophy.

I can understand the objection to such an easily liberalized religion, but thats currently all we have to work with. Life gave us lemons so we're making lemonade.


Re: Conservatives confused on homosexuality
December 13, 2011, 09:11:14 PM
Homosexuality is a sin

Sorry, stopped reading there. The fuck is with this sudden influx of Christianity on here? Has the ANUS become HIV+?
We're realists and understand that Christianity is the closest thing our (European and European derived) cultures have to a binding philosophy.

I can understand the objection to such an easily liberalized religion, but thats currently all we have to work with. Life gave us lemons so we're making lemonade.

I understand the sentiment, and can agree with you, but I suppose my personal bias is still vehemently against Christianity because of what it has become, and what it still is (especially in the USA, which you live in as well I'm recalling).

Re: Conservatives confused on homosexuality
December 14, 2011, 09:23:07 AM
I don't believe the USA is distinctive in any way. All of its problems seem common to mixed-heritage nations with a high degree of internal competition. The USA is like the product of modernization taken to its logical extremes, without the mediating barriers of culture and tradition.

What ideology from this process of modernization is worth respecting?