A WARPED VIEW OF CONSERVATIVES --Is this a unique perspective? Let's Hope So!

The following is a new comment by an anonymous Toledo-area blogger who goes by "mud-rake."

I cannot imagine how the 'conservative' message attracts young people today. I'm quite sure that the median age of today's true conservative has to be at least in the 60's, although I have no data on that.

The other point about what is called 'conservatism' is that it is poorly defined and widely usurped.

Take this young person [I have my doubts of his age] who calls himself Yankee Doodle. He claims to be a hard-ass conservative when he is really an anti-abortionist.

It's a great cloak for an array of radicals with specific agendas they wish to promote.

That is why, Steve, your comment about 'wanting to improve things' doesn't set well with these agenda-driven people.

I'd hate to use 'cloaking' as in the costumes of the KKK, but that is how these people operate: disguised as 'conservatives.'

Here's an oddity: we both know the non-political meaning of 'conservation:' to maintain the current status. So when these anti-abortionists hide under the cloak of conservatism, they are calling for the status-quo which, according to the Supreme Court, is abortion rights.

To that last statement, I can't resist saying, DUH! OF COURSE pro-lifers are calling for the status-quo --prior to 1973. They don't suddenly become liberals wanting change --just because abortion is legal now. Not even the author of the above piece would call pro-lifers liberals because they want change in the NEW status quo --new since 1973. We are wanting to preserve the status quo of thousands of years of civilized people who didn't approve killing their young in the womb.

It would be interesting if the median age of conservatives is 60 as he guesses --since they would have been young during the hippie years. A C-Span program yesterday featured conservatives talking to youth. There are several conservative activist groups in college today. The conservative movement, usually pro-traditional values, is alive and well among young people --even if they are possibly outnumbered.

I find it BIZARRE that the author sees pro-lifers as "cloaking" themselves as conservatives. HUH??? Social conservatives by definition ARE pro-life and pro-family values --traditional family values. Many of us want constitutional amendments that spell out the "right to life" in the constitution to protect the rights of the very young, the elderly and disabled --and also an amendment to define marriage --because who would have thought at the Constitutional Congress in the 18th Century that this great nation-to-be would legalize abortion and gay marriage??? Not in their wildest dreams did our constitution's framers think that needed to be spelled out. If they could've seen into the future, even the Deists among them would've thought today's people wanting gay marriage and abortion had lost their minds or become terribly foolish or wicked.

The majority of those who call themselves "conservatives" are social, economic, and political conservatives on most issues --but, of course, there is diversity within that group. We certainly expect the GOP to represent our views on all three --or we'd have to form a new party. Abortion and sexuality are BOTH important to God, therefore they are of primary importance to those who believe in Him. But we are hardly guilty of deception, "cloaking" our pro-family views with a broader label of "conservative."

"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible

To the Blockheads of Mudville --porn studies DON'T prove genetic cause of HS

A THREAD FROM POLITICS IN MUDVILLE --HIS POST FOLLOWS WITH COMMENTS BY UPTHEFLAG AND LIBERAL DEMOCRAT. Mine is last and probably will not be printed by him on his blog because he censors out facts on the topic homosexuality.

LiberalDemocrat says: Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) knows what's best for Americans. Just ask them. They'll be happy to tell you everything that there is to know about morality. In Jesus' time, they were called Pharisees.

The Washington Spectator has a primer on the ADF. Seems they've got their righteous nose into the bedrooms of America. But, of course,they are right; just ask them.

If you've never heard of the ADF, read the Spectator's article, "ARMY OF GOD: The Legal Muscle Leading the Fight to End the Separation of Church and State"
posted by liberal_dem at 11:06 PM on Apr 7, 2007

uptheflag said... The included article discussed homosexuality and the religious fundamentalists. This is my reaction to it.

If one wishes to get the religious fundamentalists upset, all you need to do is push the homosexuali
ty button(HS). Then their rage can be raised by suggesting that scientific evidence points to a genetic causation for HS. They believe HS is a choice. It just has to be. What is interesting is that it's men who get the most up
set about gaydom. They protest so vehemently that they are suppress
ing HS desires themselves. Indeed, in the mid-1990s the Univ of GA Psychology Department researc
hed this theory. They had a study group of homophobic men and non-hom
ophobic men. All subjects were white, and none had engaged in a homosexual act. The men were hooked up to a device that could scientifically measure male erction
It was called the "peter-meter. The questionnaire had been prepared
at BGSU, www.bgsu.ed/downloads/sa/file 14259.pdf The men were shown three
types of x-rated movies: one hetero
sexual, one lesbian, and one HS.All
were graphic. Both study groups registered the same reaction to the heterosexual and lesbian movies
When shown the third movie, they didn't have the same reaction. The homophobic men became much more excited than the non-homophobic. 54% of the homophobic men showed strong excitement, and another 26% had moderate arousal. Do the math,
80% oh homophobic men displayed gayness. 66% of the non-homophobic men showed nothing. The results of
the study demonstarted that most homophobic men have REPRESSED homosexual desires(there are many more of these studies). The reason open-minded people are attacked so viciously is because closed-minded biblical literalist don't like to be reminded of their SUPPRESSED urges. Scientific evidence points to HS being a matter of genetics. HS is a sin of free-will and is sodomy.In other words, HM is NOT a choice.
the fundamentalist right will never accept a genetic basis for HS
They claim it is a complete choice.
("Choice" is okay here, but not okay for the health of women, inter
esting?). They refuse to accept all the evidence to the contrary. Just do a google search and see study after study that shows HS is not a chosen sexual orientation. Look at it this way: at what point in our heterosexual development did we decide we were going to be hetero? We would know when we made that decision. It is a decision whether or not we would have child
ren or not. Is the day that we chose heterosexuality burned into our memory? What was our decision making process? Golly, I think I will be a heterosexual! Did we agonize over it? Thinking about it for weeks? Thought about the ridicule, pointed at, attacked and beaten, murdered? Yep, I am going to be straight! We all remember doing that? We chose our hetero-
sexuality. Yep, that's it! If we don't support the fundamentalist right then we are accused of being atheists, secularists, or liberals.
So, if a hetero goes through that thought process, a gay person does to. He will know why he chose gay lifestyle. He wanted to be discrim
inated against by his church, on the job, in the family, beaten, condemned, and murdered for freely making a decision of choice. A decision that forever calls him a child molester. Where is my nonsense stamp pad? Gay sex is perfectly normal for homosexuals, just as hetero is for heteros. Who doesn't remember former PA Senator Rick Santorum and his stupid remarks. Once he said, "gay is okay, just so long as you don't have sex." Bless his pointed head!
So, it's okay to be gay just so long as you keep it in your pants.
Let's suppose that heterosexuality is okay as long as they don't have sex. The problem is not HS, it's the people who spew their hate and poison in a campaign, a war, aginst
them. As people begin to under
stand the GA study and the plethora
of other scientific studies, the denyers won't be able to stay in the closet much longer. As we know, this past week and today marks the Christian holy season. During this week 2000 years ago, Peter denied his leader three times. Yet, he came out of the closet.

9:31 AM EDT

liberal_dem said... UTF, you cite 'scientific studies.' Do you not know that science is anathema to a fundamentalist?

All the science that they need to know is between the covers of that ancient Hebrew diary.

9:41 AM EDT

uptheflag said...
I always hope they will be converted some day. I was a good
boy this season. I filled my mission box to the top and now I can give to ransom these poor lost souls.......

9:55 AM EDT
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

BARB SAYS: What's the use --you guys are so blockheaded ignorant about the genetic data. i've posted some --you don't get it. You won't even post the facts, LD--that's how bull-headed you are on the topic.

It DOES make me angry, uptheflag, that you and LD IGNORE the evidence that homosexuality is NOT genetic. Your study here doesn't prove it is.

You compare opposition to homosexual acts --to racism --when the former are behaviors, chosen but influenced by external factors and by inner temptations to do things we ought not --

whereas the other (race) is a genetic inevitability, a state of being and not a chosen behavior.

You think if you keep repeating the lie of genetic cause for homosex that people will believe it --and you are right. Look at poor Up the Flag here --benighted on this topic and no one to enlighten him on this thread because you, LD, censor out opposing views.

Now just imagine that all these men in utf's study--non homophobes and homophobes --would act on their repressed temptations --where would we be? No kids? Or the vast majority of married men running around all hours of the night doing each other while the wives raise the kids themselves --and wait at home for dads to bring home HIV, hepatitis, venereal warts, and what else. IN FACT, BY THE STUDY, ALMOST ALL MEN ARE REPRESSED GAYS.

I think a man wearing a "peter-meter" as you called it --would be likely to get stimulated in the presence of any kind of porn. I'm surprised if the petermeter itself doesn't arouse. Erotic arousal in the presence of gay porn doesn't prove he goes around wallowing in homosexual lust at all--if he represses temptation of any kind, good for him! If it makes him mad that the gay world is out to get him into their world or claim him, no wonder. I've heard them on tv talk shows (not lately --they've changed tactics) saying they can make any man gay. I have a teacher friend who said a military officer tried to put the moves on him. They don't distinguish between straight or gay when they pursue someone. My daughter was pursued by a lesbian. My daughter is not lesbian --she is attractive to anyone.

Well, any man may get aroused given forbidden pornographic stimulation of any kind--that doesn't make him a repressed homosexual. It means erotic and sexual images arouse him --and the homophobes --the ones opposed to homosexuals waving their flags in public --probably don't want to be solicited by prostitutes and seducers/molesters/temptors of any orientation --and rightly so. So you call them homophobes.

Righteous men don't want to go to prostitutes or indulge in porn --but if you put a peter meter on him and he sees the porn --he'll probably respond unless he's playing some mental tricks to keep from thinking about what he's seeing ("they" say--maybe women say-- a man can't be aroused as easily if the woman asks him questions that make him think about something other than sex.)

If my math is correct, UTF's data says 62% of all the men in their study responded positively to gay porn though they had never had gay sex. How many men in the study in each group any way? and so 80 percent of the one group and 44 percent of the other group responded to gay porn --and almost twice as many in the group most opposed to homosex.

It may be that the so-called homophobes understand more than anyone else that it IS a choice --they understand that erotic images of anykind can elicit response from them and thus sucker in their sons --or yes, push their buttons and arouse them --and they do not want it to happen.

If HS is NOT a choice --then why did the homophobic men respond the same to female and lesbian porn as the other group? It would seem that all the men in the study responde to porn of women. Therefore, if they responded to the other ALSO--and call themselves heterosexual --then it IS A CHOICE! YOU MAKE OUR CASE!

In any case, the peter meter reader has told us NOTHING about genetic cause for homosexuality. There is no evidence here of genetic tendency.

Boy you guys would make SOME scientists!! As does the whole pscych dep't of these schools if they came to the conclusions as you interpret them here.