Quote:
Originally posted by Chewbacca:
Well my poor attempt at humor was taking a slap at a psycological condition (Egoism) that typically manifests as the desire to control what other people do based on a sense of morality as well as creates faulty logic (like linking homosexuality to beastiality or pedifelia) rather than a political leaning. You would probably be suprised just how "conservative" I am on several issues, as much as I am "liberal" on others. [img]smile.gif[/img]
|
Maybe I'm blind, but I don't see egoism as playing a part here. Egoism is the idea that self-interest motivates all the decisions a person makes. Unless you're arguing that opponents of gay marriage are doing so because they feel gays will somehow reduce their own access to marriage benefits. I doubt you would argue that's a valid reason.
Niether does egoism have much to do with control, there's probably as many reasons for wanting to control as there are humans. I DO tend to think that radicalism makes people feel justified in attempting to control others, and that where you find radicals you'll find control freaks. Of course they don't hold a monopoly on it, just that they seem to have more than their share. In this case there's also inertia... the old guy sitting on the porch saying "well, we never did it THAT way before". Frankly I think it's important to have people that resist societal change, otherwise we'd be changing things to fit whatever the flavor of the moment social issue is. I'd be willing to bet that as many as half of the "flavor of the moment" social movements are just plain wrong, if only because people are behind them and we seem to be wrong darn near as often as we're right. It's the law of unintended consequences coming up to bite us, as the thread heading suggests. Prohibition seemed like a grand idea. Was it... nope. Isolationism was the way to be. Was it... nope. The Communist revolution will make an eden of the world. Will it... nope. Without people to go "WOH, this doesn't seem like such a hot idea", the gung ho among us would have us jumping from one hair brained scheme to another. So I'd say they're conservatives, and I'd say they're reluctant to change, often backward, pig headed, stubborn, and often just plain wrong. But in their own way they're trying to influence society in the same way the PC nazi's who try to shove their intolerant brand of tolerance down our throats do.
Linking homosexuality to beastiality or pedifelia... that too depends on your point of view. Many Conservatives would say they're all mental illnesses and there's the link, Liberals would say that Homosexuality is an act between two consenting adults therefore totally different than the other two. Heck, libertarians would probably say that other than pedifilia (or actions that hurt others, young or old) the government should keep it's nose out of WHATEVER a person want to do in private. I tend toward the libertarian on this one, but I see the other two points of view too.