does it matter if the US is less socially conservative?

[dank69]

A rich person can choose to do a lot of stupid things and it won't make them poor.



Is that why the rate of out of wedlock births was so high in the early 1900s?

Keep ignoring all other factors that don't support your world view. Just keep focusing on a narrow set of soundbites.

 

[Steeplerot]

The more conservatism you have in a country the shittier it is.

Freedoms we enjoy here were won fighting tooth and nail despite conservatives.

Conservatism is the corrupt status quo, always on the wrong side of history and what is good/inclusive about the USA.

 

[nehalem256]

We're one of the few species that participates in sex for the pleasure of doing so... not just because we want or need to procreate. If religions were still allowed to dominate and control our lives, we'd never explore that facet of ourselves. We'd remain in ignorance, forced on us by shaming from various religions out of fear and a need to control.

And conservatives fully allow sex for pleasure within the confines of marriage.

1/5 gay men is HIV positive in the US and >50% of new cases are to gay men. Maybe we shouldn't take advise about exploring our sexuality from someone in the gay community.

To move beyond the "that's the way we've always done it" and "that's the way it's always been".

And instead move to "we haven't done it that way lets do it that way just for the sake of doing it that way"?

 

[Atreus21]

We're one of the few species that participates in sex for the pleasure of doing so... not just because we want or need to procreate. If religions were still allowed to dominate and control our lives, we'd never explore that facet of ourselves. We'd remain in ignorance, forced on us by shaming from various religions out of fear and a need to control.

Religions only dominate and control our lives to the extent that atheists are paranoid about it. The tired caricature of the religious as mindless drones is nothing other than lazy slander.

The principal purpose of sex is procreation. That it's pleasurable is borne of a biological impulse and incentive to reproduce. You might as well say that eating is equally for pleasure as it is for nourishment.

The more I argue with you, the more I start to suspect that, to you, there is no activity that ever merits shame.

To move beyond the "that's the way we've always done it" and "that's the way it's always been".

"That's the way we've always done it" is no justification to change. Change for its own sake is dangerous if we're not changing for the better. We ought to seek change when we identify a wrong, not when we identify a tradition.

 

[zsdersw]

And conservatives fully allow sex for pleasure within the confines of marriage.

Thankfully, the rest of us are not bound by your stupid limitations. Social conservatives will never win that war in the US or the rest of the enlightened world. Keep fighting it, if you want, but you'll look like a fool.

1/5 gay men is HIV positive in the US and >50% of new cases are to gay men. Maybe we shouldn't take advise about exploring our sexuality from someone in the gay community.

The Bubonic plague and HIV are both instances in which we are better off as a species for having experienced them and learned to deal with them. The plague led to massive improvements in sanitation and HIV led to a huge increase in research in how our immune systems work... and how things like the CCR5 mutation offer natural genetic resistance to HIV.

The exploration of sexuality beyond the myopic confines of marriage/procreation has yielded more good than bad, I'd say.

If disease is your only or perceived strongest argument against exploring sexuality, your far more ignorant and stupid than I thought.

The human body is a remarkable product of evolution. Our immune systems, in particular, can learn to thwart a large array of infections and diseases. Do you think, honestly, that our body of medical knowledge and our own natural biological resistance to disease would be better off if HIV had never happened? If so, would you feel the same way about a serious disease that wasn't caused by "sex outside the confines of heterosexual marriage and sex"?

And instead move to "we haven't done it that way lets do it that way just for the sake of doing it that way"?

No, move to "let's keep looking for new ways to do it, discarding ones that don't work".

 

[shadow9d9]

Social conservatism is all about fear, control, and pushing one's religion.

 

[shadow9d9]

Religions only dominate and control our lives to the extent that atheists are paranoid about it. The tired caricature of the religious as mindless drones is nothing other than lazy slander.

The principal purpose of sex is procreation. That it's pleasurable is borne of a biological impulse and incentive to reproduce. You might as well say that eating is equally for pleasure as it is for nourishment.

The more I argue with you, the more I start to suspect that, to you, there is no activity that ever merits shame.



"That's the way we've always done it" is no justification to change. Change for its own sake is dangerous if we're not changing for the better. We ought to seek change when we identify a wrong, not when we identify a tradition.

Haha. Yeah, keep believing your own echo chamber...

 

[zsdersw]

Religions only dominate and control our lives to the extent that atheists are paranoid about it. The tired caricature of the religious as mindless drones is nothing other than lazy slander.

Religions do dominate and control the lives of many throughout the world, and Christianity used to dominate and control the lives of our European ancestors. Assuming I was talking only about the current state of religion in the US is lazy slander on your part.

The principal purpose of sex is procreation. That it's pleasurable is borne of a biological impulse and incentive to reproduce. You might as well say that eating is equally for pleasure as it is for nourishment.

That is, at best, an unknown until we know more about how our brain works.

The principal purpose of sex for most animals is procreation. For the human animal, however, (and some primates and dolphins [IIRC]) sex is often done only for pleasure and not for procreation.

The more I argue with you, the more I start to suspect that, to you, there is no activity that ever merits shame.

Make whatever assumptions you want. You have as much of a right to be wrong as anyone else.

"That's the way we've always done it" is no justification to change. Change for its own sake is dangerous if we're not changing for the better. We ought to seek change when we identify a wrong, not when we identify a tradition.

Change is never guaranteed to be for the better, but in every instance, whether the change is ultimately good or bad, we learn something... and learning is essential. We should seek change at all times, guided in those changes by changes already made.

 

[shadow9d9]

This is really it. Social conservatism changes over time. Liberals of the past are conservatives today. Liberals today will be conservative in the future.

Not true. You could be a liberal today and in the future as well... always looking towards the future...

 

[nehalem256]

The Bubonic plague and HIV are both instances in which we are better off as a species for having experienced them and learned to deal with them. The plague led to massive improvements in sanitation and HIV led to a huge increase in research in how our immune systems work... and how things like the CCR5 mutation offer natural genetic resistance to HIV.

The exploration of sexuality beyond the myopic confines of marriage/procreation has yielded more good than bad, I'd say.

HIV is a good thing huh... I wonder if you would be saying that if straight people weren't paying for the AIDS drugs for all your gay friends.

 

[nehalem256]

Change is never guaranteed to be for the better, but in every instance, whether the change is ultimately good or bad, we learn something... and learning more is essential. We should seek change at all times, guided in those changes by changes already made.

No. We should seek the best. This may or may not involve change.

 

[zsdersw]

HIV is a good thing huh... I wonder if you would be saying that if straight people weren't paying for the AIDS drugs for all your gay friends.

Hmm... everyone I know who has HIV/AIDS works, and contributes to their health insurance.

Maybe you shouldn't assume. You'd look like less of an ignorant piece of shit.

 

[zsdersw]

No. We should seek the best. This may or may not involve change.

Seeking the best always involves change.

"Good enough" or "that's the way we've always done it" is only the best if everything and everyone remains the same, and that never happens.

 

[nehalem256]

Hmm... everyone I know who has HIV/AIDS works, and contributes to their health insurance.

Maybe you shouldn't assume. You'd look like less of an ignorant piece of shit.

You do realize that AIDS drugs are going to be costing way more than they contribute to their health insurance right?

And so the lifestyle of those who engage in promiscuous gay sex is being subsidized by those who don't...

Seeking the best always involves change.

No it doesn't.

 

[shadow9d9]

You do realize that AIDS drugs are going to be costing way more than they contribute to their health insurance right?

And so the lifestyle of those who engage in promiscuous gay sex is being subsidized by those who don't...



No it doesn't.

Sigh. AIDS is not only contracted through gay sex you buffoon...

And there is no "lifestyle" involved.. gay people have gay sex and hetero people have hetero sex.

 

[zsdersw]

You do realize that AIDS drugs are going to be costing way more than they contribute to their health insurance right?

And so the lifestyle of those who engage in promiscuous gay sex is being subsidized by those who don't...

Gay men... who tend to be more physically fit than their average straight counterparts... subsidize the heart disease treatment and other health problems stemming from lack of exercise of all the fatties in the straight world.

Try again, dumbass.

No it doesn't.

Yes it does. "Good enough" or "that's the way we've always done it" is only the best if everything and everyone else remains the same, and that never happens.

 

[nehalem256]

Sigh. AIDS is not only contracted through gay sex you buffoon...

Sigh. You do realize a gay man is something like 50-100x more likely to contract AIDS?

I mean sure its possible to have your car stolen if you don't park it in the ghetto with the door ajar and the keys in the ignition. But that doesn't mean do so would be a good idea.

Seeking the best always involves change.

"Good enough" or "that's the way we've always done it" is only the best if everything and everyone remains the same, and that never happens.

So lets look at where the liberal seeking the best gets us.

STDs. Fatherless children. A vastly higher divorce rate. Women who are less happy.

:hmm:

 

[nehalem256]

Gay men... who tend to be more physically fit than their average straight counterparts... subsidize the heart disease treatment and other health problems stemming from lack of exercise of all the fatties in the straight world.

Do you have evidence that gay men are actually more fit than straight men of given age?

 

[zsdersw]

Do you have evidence that gay men are actually more fit than straight men of given age?

Yup. http://www.nbcnews.com/id/37557883/ns/health-behavior/

Also in the study: Gay men are more likely to be smokers and lesbian women are more likely to be heavier than straight women.

Gay men go to the gym and exercise more than straight men. It's not in the study, but it is a common-sense observation.

The bottom line, which is probably lost on you because you're an ignorant asshole who likes to make stupid arguments, is that everyone subsidizes everyone else's poor choices. It would be nice if no one subsidized the health consequences of anyone's behavior, but until that happens you're a monumental dumbass to pick out one subsidy to hold over someone.

 

[zsdersw]

So lets look at where the liberal seeking the best gets us.

STDs. Fatherless children. A vastly higher divorce rate. Women who are less happy.

:hmm:

All of these problems are opportunities for change... and not backward (which doesn't work in the long run), but forward.

 

[shadow9d9]

Sigh. You do realize a gay man is something like 50-100x more likely to contract AIDS?

I mean sure its possible to have your car stolen if you don't park it in the ghetto with the door ajar and the keys in the ignition. But that doesn't mean do so would be a good idea.



So lets look at where the liberal seeking the best gets us.

STDs. Fatherless children. A vastly higher divorce rate. Women who are less happy.

:hmm:

STDs have nothing to do with being liberal. Being fatherless only happens if fathers don't want to be involved in their children's lives. Higher divorce has to do with women no longer being prisoners to men. Women who are less happy? Huh?

 

[nehalem256]

Yup. http://www.nbcnews.com/id/37557883/ns/health-behavior/

Also in the study: Gay men are more likely to be smokers and lesbian women are more likely to be heavier than straight women.

Gay men go to the gym and exercise more than straight men. It's not in the study, but it is a common-sense observation.

The bottom line, which is probably lost on you because you're an ignorant asshole who likes to make stupid arguments, is that everyone subsidizes everyone else's poor choices. It would be nice if no one subsidized the health consequences of anyone's behavior, but until that happens you're a monumental dumbass to pick out one subsidy to hold over someone.

That would seem to put a giant hole in your gay men are less likely to have heart disease theory.

 

[Atreus21]

That is, at best, an unknown until we know more about how our brain works.

The principal purpose of sex for most animals is procreation. For the human animal, however, (and some primates and dolphins [IIRC]) sex is often done only for pleasure and not for procreation.

Again, that's kind of like saying we can't know the purpose of eating because it's pleasurable.

Make whatever assumptions you want. You have as much of a right to be wrong as anyone else.

...and so do you...? Dear God you've adopted an arrogant streak.

Change is never guaranteed to be for the better, but in every instance, whether the change is ultimately good or bad, we learn something... and learning is essential. We should seek change at all times, guided in those changes by changes already made.

That is ridiculous. We should not change something good for the sake of change. Should we change something good only to learn that we had it right the first time? Is that type of learning essential?

 

[zsdersw]

Again, that's kind of like saying we can't know the purpose of eating because it's pleasurable.

No it's not. Eating is driven by a biological need we cannot ignore. Sex is a biological need, but having the end result be procreation every time is not.

...and so do you...?

You assumed I was talking about only the present-day US.

That is ridiculous. We should not change something good for the sake of change. Should we change something good only to learn that we had it right the first time? Is that type of learning essential?

It's not ridiculous at all. Should Honda have stopped changing the Civic and Toyota stopped changing the Corolla back when they were vastly superior to every small American car?

We are all different and we all make different choices. There is no "right the first time" that remains "right all the time, now and forever" in a society as diverse as ours.

 

[nehalem256]

All of these problems are opportunities for change... and not backward (which doesn't work in the long run), but forward.

So liberals screwed up society lets listen to liberals about what to do :hmm:

STDs have nothing to do with being liberal.

Okay lets think about this. The conservative view is that sex outside of marriage is wrong. If you only screw virgins how exactly do you get an STD? :hmm:

Being fatherless only happens if fathers don't want to be involved in their children's lives.

Or fatherlessness is what happens when women choose to have a bastard child from a man who never had any interest in being a father. ie a one-night-stand.

Given that liberals worship the right of a woman to choose to be a mother or not. It would seem to be hypocritical not to extend the same courtesy to men.

Higher divorce has to do with women no longer being prisoners to men. Women who are less happy? Huh?

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/26/opinion/26douthat.html?_r=0

But all the achievements of the feminist era may have delivered women to greater unhappiness. In the 1960s, when Betty Friedan diagnosed her fellow wives and daughters as the victims of “the problem with no name,” American women reported themselves happier, on average, than did men. Today, that gender gap has reversed. Male happiness has inched up, and female happiness has dropped. In postfeminist America, men are happier than women.

So if Feminism didn't make women happy what do they want?

84% of working women told ForbesWoman and TheBump that staying home to raise children is a financial luxury they aspire to.

What’s more, more than one in three resent their partner for not earning enough to make that dream a reality.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/meghanc...out-the-new-american-dream-for-working-women/

:hmm: