The Future of Social Conservatism

[Person Man]

One big thing that this thread has mentioned in passing is the entire future of the Social Issues in regards to advances in technology. As people become more and more fearful of "the singularity", with such stuff as cloning, life extension, stem cells, robots, sex bots and AI in general, it really does much to redefine social conservatism (besides changing the way people live, it does relate quite a bit with abortion) as being the force that maintains the human existence in a way we currently understand it.

Many people have also rightfully compared social conservatism with some left-wing ideas like feminism and gun control. Another left-wing idea that you could consider "social conservative" (trying to perserve the human construct) would be fighting Global Warming. In fact, a lot of social conservatives have begun to make that connection with such notion as "creation care".

Further, I have come to the conclusion (especially as I have moved back to Wyoming) that though man-made global warming is real, there is no viable political will or method to deal with it in any other way than to adapt to it. This is evident as social conservatism is circling the drain, it appears that progressivism's final nail in the coffin will be the overruling of ObamaCare...thus turning the unpopular to the impossible. And even if this wasn't the case, other "Developing" countries don't care about Global Warming in their quest to modernize. The same thing with "Singularity Technologies". Even if there were the Right-Wing Political will to prevent the singularity in your State or Nation, other nations and states will condone it to the point where your resistance would be futile as not only your policies are ignored but you and your ideas and organization become a derilict on the waters of the world.

...and that's the problem with social conservatism- you simply cannot stop tommorow from coming.

[Person Man]

One big thing that this thread has mentioned in passing is the entire future of the Social Issues in regards to advances in technology. As people become more and more fearful of "the singularity", with such stuff as cloning, life extension, stem cells, robots, sex bots and AI in general, it really does much to redefine social conservatism (besides changing the way people live, it does relate quite a bit with abortion) as being the force that maintains the human existence in a way we currently understand it...

...and that's the problem with social conservatism- you simply cannot stop tomorrow from coming.

 
the future can not retroactively redefine basic morals, you only think it can because you're using strawmen examples like "social conservatives used to think the earth was the center or the universe" when in fact the bible never came close to saying such a thing, and even today, science doesn't know where the center of the universe is for it hasn't even been able to determine the boundaries of the universe or even if such boundaries exist.

to say that in the future, abortion will be accepted by anyone who accepts science, as if science can disconnect the universal connection between a mother and the baby within her womb, is extremely arrogant and unscientific and only demonstrates that your own conscience has be seared

This post had nothing directly to do with abortion. I was just comparing opposition to AI, theraputic cloning/life extension and other singularity occurences to abortion in the way that these things disrupt our understanding of what it is to be living. Basically, opposition to AI or life extension could be considered part of the "Pro-Life" position in that respect.

I would actually go further and say that the entire social-political continium isn't about what we believe, our doctrine or theology but really a just a way to either believe ourselves or force the world to know who we are.

I also disagree that the future cannot retroactively define morals. The collective consciousness of mankind, like our individual consciousness is capable of learning new things. Even with faith in God, you can understand that simple faith will not allow you to answer every moral problem that arises. Perhaps that is a first and perhaps an essential step but you will never be morally perfect.  It is like knowing Calculus. You can know how to intergrate, differentiate, about the chain and power rules and perhaps a thing or two about partial differential equations or even multi-variable equations, but you will still not automatically know the answer to each problem.

[Person Man]

As for homosexuality, the issue is twofold: first it is by nature a violation of the virtue of chastity because it is a sexual act in a relationship that cannot possibly lead to procreation,and second because there are specific biblical prohibitions of it. Homosexual relationships do not have the ability to lead to procreation. This is also true of the infertile, but the infertile are often not aware of their condition and often find they aren't actually infertile. Two of my best friends and my own mother were conceived when their parents expected to be infertile. In the book of Romans, we are instructed "not to lie down with another man as one lies down with a woman." I don't really want to start a biblical fight, but I think the wording in the New Testiment is itself explicit enough. Since you are an atheist, you obviously don't care about this entire paragraph, but there is my rationale nevertheless.

Doesn't really stack up though. Again, I put it to you that we, with all other mammals reproduce by procreation which is as much a social act as it is a sexual one. Homosexual behaviour exists in all such animals, and exists continually generation after generation after generation. It exists and is displayed for a purpose. Otherwise it wouldn't be there or would have gone. Christianity shows it's weakness by not fully understanding the nature of sex. Sex is an act entwined with but often seperate from procreation as sex does not always lead to insemination, nor do people who cannot conceive lack a drive for the emotional and social fulfillment that sex provides.

Which makes Romans (and it's worth pointing out the old adage that I don't actually 'lie with men as with women' as it involves a completely different set of plumbing and I can't lie 'as with women' as I have no sexual attraction to them so cannot make such a comparison) a bit odd and demonstrates a God that doesn't really know what he's doing; he sets in motion development which leads to millions of years of procreative reproductive sex including same sex acts and partnerships (and partnerships do exist in their base form in the animal kingdom) and then goes 'Whoops, scratch that, didn't mean it humans...' which makes it so obviously an artificial human ordained law as opposed to anything remotely theistic.

Which makes me believe that to lie with another man like you do a woman would be perhaps like a very sexual man that just has sex with anyone. You can't lie with a man like a woman if you cannot lie with a woman. I can see that Corinthians, Leviticus and Romans would condemn gay-for-pay or pedophilia, however...

[Person Man]

...and if I am not mistaken, as some immigrants' children and grandchildren assimilate into US culture, some of the socially conservative ideas water down to around the national median.