Group B
Group C
Which group can actually be joined together and conduct electricity?
Posted on 05/29/2015 8:55:35 AM PDT by EveningStar
In less than two years, transgender rights have gone from a non-issue to non-negotiable in the Democratic Party.
Rather than dismiss this change as a politically irrelevant story that belongs in the tabloids, Republicans should view it as a case study in the political power of principle. For it was principle, not a political campaign, that has advanced transgender rights so far so fast.
If Republicans would likewise put principle before policy, they would not only have the power to win elections but also the power to bring America back into fidelity with our country’s founding vision.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsweek.com ...
If you are in bed in private I assume you don’t have a partner, so what you do is a bit, ah, restricted?
lol.
good catch
“If Republicans would likewise put principle before policy, they would not only have the power to win elections”
In other words sell out our beliefs just to achieve political office.
And we’re winning elections anyways, so no thank you.
The former as politicos who reflect a fading type of GOP.
The later, the faces of a new emerging conservative movement to “take back” the GOP.
Fieler apparently doesn’t know what principle is. If he thinks that Dems support gay rights as a matter of principle, he couldn’t be farther from the truth. It is all politics and has nothing to do with principle.
Group B
Group C
Which group can actually be joined together and conduct electricity?
Per a TED talk I recently saw from 2008, there are five main dimensions of morality: purity, in group loyalty or respect for authority, harm and fairness.
Conservatives care all about some of them, such as harm and fairness, but much more on purity, loyalty and authority obedience.
For liberals, sexual freedom is a challenge to purity standards of morality, hence the fixation on anything that tears down traditional sexual mores. The cry to “question authority” is a challenge to obedience to authority being a source of morality. “Diversity” is a challenge to in group loyalty as a social more. That makes it an assault on many people’s views. By demanding more and more “diversity”, it also suggests the current population just isn’t good enough for the views of those making the decision.
Liberals also make the mistake that adding people of different ethnic and social groups automatically improves society. They want more variety in life without needing to travel, but ignore the costs of English classes, refugee services, unskilled immigrants undercutting local wages.
Emphasizing social diversity even of groups within a nation decrease social ties and trust, while creating the stereotypes diversity advocates want to fight; think of the black kids beaten up for acting white, because they got good grades, or black Republicans attacked as not really black. And looking for diversity of ethnicitiy in hiring tends to end up discriminating against those who don’t meet the preferred check boxes. Ask the Asians who are denied at far higher rates than any other ethnic group at Ivy League schools, where merit is irrelevant to meeting the desired ethnic quotas considered ideal by administrators.
Sexual freedom is a challenge to purity, and anything that attacks the traditional sexual mores of chastity, faithfulness in marriage, the definition of marriage, value of marriage is acceptable to those who want to tear down sexual purity / restraint as a definition of morality.
Liberals don’t care that a man not committed to his kids via marriage to the mother have worse life outcomes (on average) from drug abuse to mental illness to poverty; her sexual freedom is more important as a measure of quality of life. They don’t care that someone’s freedom is eroded by saying you must participate in a same-sex union’s celebration; they see their sexual freedom as more important than your old-fashioned sexual restraints.
Liberals really don’t care about a man in a dress saying he’s a woman, except that it is a basis for eroding female only areas as a protection of women’s “privacy” and chastity. Likewise, men who have surgery to become women are simply a basis for saying there is no difference between men and women, so restrictions on homosexual relations have to go (though no feminist says women need to be drafted for combat and sent to the front lines unless they want to go).
The end result is that sexual freedom is the only freedom liberals care about with a religious fervor, and they will fight for it as much as the Muhajadeen for Islam, because it is a big hammer to attack the conservative religious with. And they can link it to “diversity” and push the in-group loyalty morality metric as well, by saying you have to stand up for the rights of the sexually extreme.
This is why we have to stand up against “sexual freedom”. If we don’t, we can’t condemn adultery, people having five kids by five dads with demands we the people pay for it, say that a homosexual boy who decides he’s transgendered is mentally ill or refuse to participate in a same sex wedding because the state backs the left’s sexual freedom rights more than anyone else’s freedom of belief and association.
Fieler really nails it here: The entire LGBT movement, which has enjoyed astonishing "political success" over the past dozen years or so, rests entirely on a principle, albeit a profoundly distorted one — i.e., that one's objective, physical biology is optional once a human can "create himself" by reimagining himself in any way he wants to. Darwin is completely irrelevant. And creator God does not exist. And yet,
Americans still believe that a man, even a man who thinks he is a woman, is still a man. A principled argument would not only reiterate this obvious point but would also point out the shared principle of biological irrelevance that stretches across all the LGBT constituents.... Having already repeatedly affirmed that our rights come from God, not the state, Republicans are starting in the right place. They need only add the logical corollary that if we recast ourselves in a way that denies either our human nature or our Creator, we undermine the very basis of the rights we cherish and defend.Well, I just have to agree with that. And I don't think the subject matter is at all irrelevant. In fact, it is extremely relevant in my family life; for my sister is gay, and has a long-time partner, J.
Recently, I managed to offend J by simply observing the difficulty I have in understanding how a person can come up with a self-image/self-concept that is totally at odds with the facts of that person's biology. To me, this was simply an unadorned statement of fact. But I grievously offended J. Instantly, I wrote to her to apologize, lamely stating that I had always regarded her essentially, as a person, not as a member of a group.
If anyone out there thinks this subject matter is just about politics, I beg to differ. This is about the state of American culture, which always precedes American politics....
It seems to me American culture increasingly is losing its grip on Reality. If "your sexual desire, not your biology, constitutes your identity," certain curious effects logically flow from such a premise. For one thing, under this understanding, it appears that there is a soul-like entity that can activate itself without reference to a physical body. But this idea does not comport well with either materialist doctrine or Darwinian evolution. For another, if one is free to define oneself as a person on the gratuitous basis of one's sexual longings, then I don't see any limit on human capriciousness — certainly there is no basis for universal moral sanction under such conditions.
Thanks for the great post, EveningStar!
Yes. A few. ;)
why focus on a group that will NEVER VOTE republican...
i read on here thatONLY 25% OF CHRISTIANS VOTE...
if that is true ...that is the group to address
it is a sorry azz state of affairs when repubs control both houses AND ARE ACCOMPLISHING NOT AN EFFIN THING
you asy well obumbler will VETO the laws... I SAY SHOVE IT UP HIS SORRY AZZ AND MAKE HIM VETO AND THEM MAKE DEMS TAKE A VISIBLE STAND ON ISSUES THAT AMERICANS ARE CONCERNED ABOUT....
not sodomy and sodomy marriage .... things like obamacare and open borders... with secure borders THERE ARE NO ILLEGALS COMIG IN.... for the ones that are here, there are laws to be enforced... LAWS CAN STOP OBUMBLER IN HIS TRACKS....START PASSIN THEM
GROINists.. is an ideological concept..
Many think with their GROIN... or somebody Else’s..
When speaking of LOVE.. many minds go directly to the groin..
Like; dogs smelling behinds..
Can’t tell by looking at someone either.. they could be a Groinist..
OK sometimes you can tell like with gays.. if you know their gay..
Gay, straight, man, woman, kid, adult.. pretty, ugly.. in-between..
No doubt everyone knows a few Groinists.. maybe they are one themselves..
What do they identify with in the groin?... {TILT to much information}
That will probably have to include Julius Streicher therapy for at least some of them.
The current Liberal (nee Progressive) prevailing notion is that politics can change (therefore mandate) culture attitudes. A great deal of upheaval, possibly the death of Western Civilization, will need occur before this gross error is recognized.
Thanks for keeping me in the loop. Much appreciated.
Yeah. The Left Progressives ("Liberal" is virtually an empty category these days) SAY a whole lot of things. But I notice they are very shy about sharing the evidence that backs up what they say.
We do know that, when you boil it all down, all LPs share the presupposition that human beings can transform actual Reality by changing the way they think about it. In such a way, they seek to ape the Logos of the Beginning....
But they are still "apes," relatively speaking, for all the ways they manage to self-glorify their self-regarded "genius" and fitness to dominate other men.
Reality is both cultural and physical. The physical part is pretty stubborn. So these would-be builders of new worlds have mainly the cultural part to work on. And they are critiquing that culture from within it. At the end of the day, they seek to totally invert it on any and every point that human beings have struggled to understand over millennia of human experience and history.
And for why??? The Left Progressive "dreams of systems so perfect that no one will need to be good" . And they think they are just the egophantic geniuses to transform such dreams into Reality. But first, they must destroy the current moral order of things: The LPs are fundamentally systematic anarchists.
But of course this project entails the complete rejection of God, Creation, and finally, Man. It requires the total eclipse of Western Civilization, and the total denial of Judeo-Christianity, not to mention the great insights of the classical philosophers....
I am mindful of the primeval rebellion against God's order:
Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology, and history (and who is to know where mythology leaves off and history begins—or which is which), the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom—Lucifer.So sayest the great prophet of anarchism, Saul Alinsky, in his Rules for Radicals. Not to put too fine a point on it, but these "rules" are the fundamental texts of community organizing. Which is definitely targeted at shaping and changing the culture.
Put anarchists into the universities, and those universities will likely graduate cultural ignoramuses with "attitudes." Certainly such students will not have received any proper grounding in American and world history, nor in American constitutional studies. [Unless they attended Hillsdale College or Liberty University or some other such bastion of Christianity and Western civilization.]
It's so easy to manipulate such ignoramuses, and to harness them to the political cause du jour!
It may very well be that you are right, my dear brother in Christ, that a "great deal of upheaval, possibly the death of Western Civilization, will need occur before this gross error is recognized."
The error is: There is no human progress in making people stupid as a matter of policy....
Thank you ever so much for writing, dear YHAOS. It's always good to hear from you.
She is trying to make the anti-Rovian, anti-Machiavellian argument that, as Ronald Reagan proved, ideas matter.
Your statement above exactly sums up the rebellion that infects a small, but very loud and obnoxious, segment of our society.
Thanks for your participation in an important dialog. Much appreciated.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.