That's because 'fire' and 'the wheel' are not considered Liberal concepts any more.

Those concepts got replaced by Gay marriage and appeasement / support of virtually every other fringe lunatic minority special intrest group.
rjp

Funny, that's the same thing you conservatives said about fire, the wheel, abolition, civil rights, women's suffrage...

Like Jeff said, it's a different kind of Liberal...

rjp

I don't think conservatives as a whole were ever against any of those causes. I have to believe that most of the leaders of those causes would probably be conservative in today's political climate.

Abortion and gay rights, for two of the most divisive examples, do not share the dignity afforded abolition, civil rights, women's suffrage, etc. Those were quite noble causes. I don't think liberals can claim them as their own, but that is altogether a different argument.

Liberals today have adopted some very dubious causes, and are attempting to lft them to the same level as those examples you cited. There is a fundemental difference between the choice made to abort, or the choice to be gay, and the lack of choice in being a woman, a minority, or any other formerly oppressed group. Most folks outside of, or on the fringes of liberalism recognize the difference.

I've said it before and I'll say it again; it's their (liberals') innability to understand this difference that has driven middle America away from the core of liberalism. Like Randy says, they have adopted every fringe lunatic minority special interest group there is.

Homosexuality is not a choice, it is the same as the choice to be a woman. Most people know this. But the myth of choice in this matter continues.

We view abolition and civil rights and women's suffrage as noble causes because liberals of past eras fought hard for them to be fully accepted by society. At the time they were considered subversive and likely damaging to society. That's not to say that every liberal pet cause would make society better. However, I think the liberal virtue of actually listening to and considering "fringe" causes is a positive one. When you shoot down an idea because it's divisive, you've done yourself a great disservice.

Growing older doesn't always mean growing wiser. Sometimes it means growing stubborn, curmudgeonly and narrow-minded.

I went from conservative to liberal. Kinda. Well, from right to left.

I'm still socially quite conservative, but ever so inclusive. What I've seen so far in life suggests that inclusiveness irritates the hell out of "proper" conservatives.

(edit) Just read the bit about gay rights and the "choice" to be homosexual. I don't believe its a choice. I'm against homosexual practices for religious reasons (I think its wrong), but I think it is just as wrong to discriminate against someone who does.

I'm not sure there is ever a permanent fix when applying either Liberal or Conservative policies to any given societal problem. I think Liberalism lends itself more to an evolutionary fix whereas Conservatism stays the course though.

the thing is, we need to take the best from each to keep our country going. Conservatism gives us responsibility and discipline. Liberalism gives us the vision of a brighter future where everyone shares in the fun. Unfortunately, basic human behavior puts these two at odds yet one without the other doesn't really work on its own.

I used to believe it was not a choice until I knew some homosexuals and talked about it. It becomes a real quandary if it is not a choice wrt to religious beliefs. How could a loving God make people like this and then have a church which says that it's OK to be it, but not to live it.

Sorry Steve, but I dissagree. No one "knows" this, other than in the way so many liberals "know" so many things. They very much want it to be true, so it is. To them. Isn't science still looking for a gene, or DNA code, or something that results in homosexuality? I don't believe they have found it, at least not anything that anyone outside of the gay support community recognizes.

To claim homosexuality is not any more of a choice than being a woman points straight at what has driven so many of us away from liberalism. It's no longer able to discern the difference between unnavoidable circumstances of birth and conscious choices. The rest of us can. As liberalism adopts more and more of these causes as its own, it will continue to lose support among those that understand these differences.

So is pedophelia not a choice then either? Some of those folks are unable to control their urges and act on them, but since pedophelia is not a choice, it's not their fault, right? This "man-boy love association" that I keep hearing about touts the rights of pedophiles. How long until mainstream liberalism adopts them? It is a deviant, unnatural sexual practice. So is homosexuality, no matter what its lunatic fringe supporters say.

to add to that, it's already illegal to discriminate against Homosexuals. The point of contention is whether or not they deserve to have the same taxable status and rights as a married couple.

rjp

Jeff,
I must presume you know no homosexuals personally. They did not chose to be that way, why would anyone choose such a life?

To mix pedophiles in a discussion on homosexuality is ridiculous.

You just "know" it is a choice? Conclusions without data are worthless. Go talk to some homosexuals.

If one believes it is a choice, then that person will never consider that they have any rights. It is a moot point.

Jeff, Do you really think that someone can just "choose" to be attracted to their own gender? Sorry, but that doesn't make any sense to me. I could no more change that part of my wiring than the color of my eyes.

I believe that homosexuality is an abberation, but a natural one. Just the fact that it exists makes it natural, I don't believe that anyone has a choice about sexual attraction/preference.

Pedophiles are both gay and straight. They don't descriminate.

Sherwood

So homosexuals are inferior then? By definition, abberant versions of a species are deviants from the normal course of nature.

I hear where your coming from Jeff... Coming from a VERY conservative background, I could substitute the word 'conservative' for 'liberal' in your paragraph above, and it would describe my point of view these days. IMO, both extreme positions are the roots of our seemingly dysfunctional political system.

I do know many gays, Steve. I do understand it is a very strong, maybe even irresistable urge to them to be attracted to their own sex. That does not make it "right".

Steve and Denis, I agree fully that it is a naturally occuring urge; leaning towards your term "aberation", Denis. That still does not make it acceptable. People repress all kinds of unnacceptable urges in our society. The only difference now is that gays have decided they don't want to anymore, and they are attempting to rally support. They are finding that support in liberalism, to the detriment of liberalism.

I realize, Steve, that pedophelia is a somewhat ridiculous comparrison for most people to make; that's why I threw it out there. It is, however, a naturally occuring aberation. Pedophiles cannot help it. Does anyone really believe they choose to have those uncontrollable urges? That they chose that behavior, knowing full well the social and legal ramifications of doing so? Geez Steve, you must not know any pedophiles. I take it you're not Catholic. (Sorry, low blow there...)

And yes, I believe gays have rights. Just like everybody else; no more, no less. They do not get special rights because they are gay. They do not get to re-define marriage. They can marry like anyone else; man to woman. No one denies them that right. It is only recently that they have tried to broaden their rights beyond the rest of our's, and that has decidedly turned out to be yet another nail in their liberal supporters' coffin.

You can argue pro-gay all you want; it serves to emphasise my point about my drift away from liberalism, or its drift away from me. These issues are driving away more people than they are attracting. The liberal stance on this, and so many other issues today, is just fundementally wrong to so many that would otherwise be liberals. Guys like me.

Interesting switch you’ve made here. First you say no one knows if this is a choice or not, and claim liberals want it to be true therefore it is. The rest of your post seems to be based on it actually being a choice. I think it might be you who wants very much for it to be a choice, therefore it is.

You totally seem to miss the point of what liberals are saying about homosexuality. It’s not about it being a choice or not, although this can be an issue for some. The bottom line about the choice issue is that it is probably a choice for some, but not for others. I would think that for most, it’s not a choice. The issue is more about homosexuality (between consenting adults) being their business and not mine, not how they became that way. Conservatives seem to make it their business.

Bush actually said something I agree with on this issue. He said “In my mind, a marriage is between a man and a woman.” I agree with this, especially the “in my mind” part. The thing is, someone else’s mind may have a different idea. A liberal will allow that other person to have their own mind, while a conservative, like Bush, will force their own mind on someone else. You could complete Bush’s sentence with “In my mind, a marriage is between a man and a woman, therefore we will implement legislation forcing what is in my mind on everyone else.”

And no, liberals will never support pedophiles. They harm children. See my comment on consenting adults above. The victim of a pedophile is hardly a consenting adult. To even suggest that liberals would support pedophiles shows the narrowness of your mind, the hatred you have towards liberals, and the un-acceptance of anyone who doesn’t agree with your thoughts and beliefs.