Do social conservatives hate individuality?

So you're basically saying that women are better than men once they have equal rights? You rail against misandry and yet you just said you have no problem with it.

 

"... big advocates for traditional gender roles, the nuclear family, defining marriage between one man and one woman, and of course, Christianity. These aren't inherently bad values."

Taxcutter says:
Values that work, and have been proven over the course of milennia. Values that reduce the chance of poverty. If taxpayers were not asked to carry those who try other values and fail, maybe there would be more tolerance for those other values.

 

Androgynous - Being neither distinguishably masculine nor feminine, as in dress, appearance, or behavior.

Isn't a pee-pee (or the absence of one) a distinguishing factor? It certainly was a 'distinguishing factor' in the opinion of the person's DNA.

 

Androgyny mostly has to do with the person's gender, not biological sex. I most certainly have a penis, but I'm far from a traditional male in the way I dress, act, and present myself.

 

YES! Equality in value does not mean sameness in makeup. This is what political correctness refuses to accept. Nature designed two very distinctly different genders for two equally vital complimentary purposes. Both are essential for the survival and replication of the species. If they were equally capable of the same functions, nature would have weeded one out by now or merged the two into one asexual gender.

What's interesting is that it's leftist feminism that insists that femininity is shameful for women to embrace. Feminists look down on women who embrace their natural feminine role and reject external social pressure to make themselves more masculine. So who's the real misogynist here? According to feminists, women aren't good enough the way nature made them. They have to be more like men to have any value. How's that for some irony?

 

You understand nothing of social conservativism...

...and it's hardly any wonder, seeing you think with your anger.

The distinction is a contrivance intended to deprive those who have internal conflicts along these lines of any hope of recovery, and to create yet another class of victims who can be employed to lay guilt trips on the commonsensically inclined.

 

What kind of recovery?

 

I don't understand the question.

 

You talked about hope of recovery in your previous post.

 

The question makes no sense. How many "kinds" of recovery are there from any mental illness?

 

But why would a person need a recovery from something that's not a mental illness?

 

We're not talking about anything like that, so again the question is nonsensical.

 

Well, then let's go back to what you said in post #31. What did you mean?

 

What I meant is what I said. What part of it isn't clear?

 

Your entire reply to me in post #31. The way it's written makes the meaning hard to determine.

 

Social conservatives have a legitimate reason to be afraid. The majority of black children in America today are in single parent families, and whites are trying to catch up. It's a really big problem. These people are becoming the face of poverty.

Liberals should be working with social conservatives to resolve the deteriorating institution of family. This problem is linked with our high inequality, and it needs to be addressed.

 

Mitt Romney lost because he demonized libertarians. He spent the entire primary period bashing Ron Paul and Libertarianism and all of the Libertarian Republicans chose to write in Ron Paul, as did I, instead of voting for Romney. Paul lost the primaries by less votes than Romney lost the election. If he had not push away Libertarians, and they voted for him, he would be president.

 

I think social conservatives see a certain traditional kind of person losing their ability to feel relevant or important. Other groups are being portrayed as more important, not specifically because of their contributions, but simply because they are different.

There is a perceived unfairness in this displacement. The unspoken message that you are "bad" simply because you are white or male or christian or heterosexual comes in loud and clear to them when other ethnic/social groups are acclaimed for arbitrary reasons.

There is also the fear that most of the positive aspects of traditional values will disappear as some monolithic politically correct perversion of traditional morals and values takes over.

So, they overreact and often contradict their own value system in order to combat this perceived threat. Really though we have a lot to learn from the values our country was built on, and if we concentrate only in portraying them as myths built by angry bigots, we risk losing our way.

 

I'm pretty sure that is the exact opposite of the truth, and that you're hoping I will elaborate in such a way that what I said will become less clear.

 

No Mitt Rmney lost because he wasn't trusted by social conservatives, who if they turned out at all, largely didn't vote for anyone for president. Mitt Romney lost because he distanced himself from the Tea party and they simply didn't trust him either. In short Mitt Romney lost because he was the country club candidate. The Country club set still dominates the nomination process but they are an increasingly dwindling minority within the Republican party.

 

I have nothing to say in response. I just wanted to repeat this so that the true agenda of social conservatives is exposed to the light of day. They are what is wrong with America in 2013 and until their influence ceases, or better yet, all who think such nonsense are extinct, need to be fought tooth and nail at every turn.

 

Oh sure, what could be more representative of social conservativism than a remark from a random poster who is probably just trolling to begin with.

 

Distancing himself from the tea party was the smartest move Romney made. The tea party has gone from a group of people complaining about overspending with no new revneue to lessen the burden on taxpayers to a group of morons who say "I don't want to pay any taxes at all, but I still want to gubbermint to pay for everything that I want"

 

It cost him the election and your interpreatation of the tea party is at best self serving as well as grossly flawed.

 

While anecdotal cases can never be used to stereotype any group the only use of the word "hate" that I've noticed on Political Forum has been in the context of "I hate liberals" or "I hate African-Americans (or blacks)" or "I hate Mexicans (or Hispanics)" which is indicative of "member" opinions and not "social conservative" opnions but these statement certainly weren't coming from the "left" and that's for sure. Perhaps someone from the "left" has used the term "hate" in the context that they "hate something" but I've not personally read it.