Future Clash (A 'South Park conservative'/libertarian counterculture emerges)

The Arkansas Democrat-Gazette ^ | June 23, 2005 | Bradley R. Gitz

[Mulch]

You don't need an advanced degree in physiology to understand that the human body is not designed for the homosexual sex act.

[Dead Dog]

The author misses a point and get's another wrong. South Park Conservatives are not socially liberal. Social Liberals seek authoritarian control for themselves and others, they worship elitism. These are the very targets of the SPCs.

The author is wrong because he misses the central point, that conservative vs. liberal is Spiritualism vs. Materialism. Liberals/Commies/Socialists are materialists, and depend on atheists who will accept the replacement of God or gods with state. Conservatives believe man's existence is primarily spiritual, and that social organization should be oriented for the advancement of the audiovisual. ie Teach them to fish so they prosper and achieve their God given potential (only through independence). Liberals want to give them the fish so they will be physically dependent.

SPCs are therefor socially and fiscally conservative.

[frithguild]

Now, its just a matter of whose version of morality the government will enforce. Quite frankly, I don't think we want a society where homosexuals are determining right and wrong for the rest of society.

[bobhoskins]

You don't need an advanced degree in physiology to understand that the human body is not designed for the homosexual sex act.

Um, did I say I disagreed? I was just asking for a link to back up your unique definition of homosexuality. It's a pet peeve of mine when people try to state the definition of something and then make something up.

You should have plenty of other arguments to use, please don't weaken your own arguments by making up definitions.

[bassmaner]

A third party with a strong South Park streak could end up sucking up the fiscally conservative Dems and the socially liberal/moderate Republicans.

Such a party already exists. If they would get on board with a strong national defense, support the war effort in Iraq and Afghanistan, and change their tune on border security, they'd be a force to be reckoned with.

[bobhoskins]

Such a party already exists. If they would get on board with a strong national defense, support the war effort in Iraq and Afghanistan, and change their tune on border security, they'd be a force to be reckoned with.

I was 50/50 on whether that would be a link to the Libertarians or to the Republicans. :)

[Mulch]

Definitions, as you've requested,
Heterosexual: Sex between a man and a woman.
Homosexual: Sex between two people of same sex.

[antiRepublicrat]

In that vein, states should get out of the business of issuing marriage licenses and instead issue a document showing legality of the "contract" Let the churches issue the marriage papers.

Finally, another sensible person. The states getting out of the marriage business would put an end to all of this.

[Dominic Harr]

Please add me to the South Park Ping list!

[lugsoul]

I'm not sure you are getting the counter-argument. Since some contend that their faith requires them to fight tooth-and-nail against all things homosexual or otherwise 'evil,' by refusing to use the government to help them with their fight you are 'discriminating' against them.

How dare you restrict their freedom to infringe on the freedom of others.

[lugsoul]

"If you don't think the homosexual act is perverted then by definition you're a homosexual."

Can you get me a cite for that definition? Strange, I never realized that one could be a homosexual without ever engaging in a same-sex act or even having the slightest inkling of desire to do so. Seems things are a little different in your dictionary, so I'd like to know what your 'definition' says.

[lugsoul]

Which part of that definition applies to those who don't have sex with persons of the same-sex, but also don't view it as 'perverted'?

Bonus question: Is the human body "designed" for masturbation and, if not, is that "perverted"?

[brivette]

Your point being???

[bobhoskins]

Definitions, as you've requested, Heterosexual: Sex between a man and a woman. Homosexual: Sex between two people of same sex.

Okay, I asked for a link, but we'll work with this. You've stated the definition of homosexual as "Sex between two people of the same sex." ... I'll give you the benfit of the doubt that this is shorthand for "SOMEONE WHO HAS sex with someone of the same sex".

It still doesn't support your statement from before:

If you don't think the homosexual act is perverted then by definition you're a homosexual.

As I stated previously, you might want to back that up with a major dictionary, or revise your statement to something along the lines of "If you don't think the homosexual act is perverted then WHILE NOT BY DEFINITION A HOMOSEXUAL, you are by the rules of logic saying the homosexual act is NOT perverted, thereby accepting the homosexual act."

Otherwise, by making up definitions, you become easily ignored by your opponents as a "nut", and don't even get the change to put forth your position.

Of course, if you can LINK to a definition that states what you said ... not infers or anything, as your statement did not say "then by INFERRENCE you are a homosexual", keep that link handy to back up your argument!

And, for everyone else watching, I'm not trying to flame or berate or support or deny anything here ... I'd just like to understand the arguments on both sides, and if there IS a definition somewhere in the dictionary supporting what was said (I know mnay words have a variety of definitions), I be curious to see it.

[USAFJeeper]

Unfortunately this gets me labeled both as a homphobe and a leftist weenie!

I am of the conservative branch that wants less government intrusion. I have a sneaky suspicion I might be more libertarian then conservative...

[LizardQueen]

There's too many fruitcakes in the LP right now for it to be a viable party. I don't know if this will shake out with the SP Repubs taking over the LP or creating a completely new party. A new party would probably be more credible than the existing LP.

LQ

[Tailgunner Joe]

Conservative on matters of economy and foreign policy but socially liberal

That says it all. Socially liberal. They are on the wrong side of the culture war.

[KevinDavis]

I think a whole new party would be better...

[Drew68]

Would you rather have Christian conservatives in your party or Liberal crosser dressers? You only get two choices.

The liberal cross dresser would likely mind his own business and not interfere with my pursuit of happiness. The Christian conservative would sermonize, pontificate and generally try to outlaw as being "sinful" things that I enjoy.

Do you still want this question answered?