Are you a “fiscal conservative” but couldn’t care less about moral issues like abortion, same sex marriage, the homosecual agenda, promiscuity, and the like?
Well, fiscal conservatives have good reason to be concerned about the impact of social liberalism on federal budgets. And “social conservatives” have good fiscal reason to bring their “fiscal” brethren on board. There is a direct linkage between the fiscal and the social for the US government and its out of control budget.
I recently asked a friend about whether immorality tends to be inherited (i.e. genetic) or does it tend to be picked up through socialization. He took the untenable position that immorality tends to be learned behavior while at the same time he believes that homosexulaity is genetic and is a predisposition that should not be stifled. He’s wanting it both ways. To defend his position he presented a synopsis of a scientific study that relates homosexual tendencies to inherited hormonal levels.
What do you want to bet that that study was funded in whole or in part by the federal government?
What’s wrong with the federal government funding such studies, you ask? First, we (yes, WE are the federal government) cannot afford it. We never could. We just pretended we could. Second, most such studies are bogus. How do I have the audacity to say that? Two reasons: Because in one or two years subsequent studies usually crop up that discredit earlier studies. And because such studies with a hot button amoral topic are typically sponsored or promoted by those with an agenda that would be advanced by the proposed outcome of the study – a fox in the hen house study.
Here is how this might work from the bestialicists perspective:
What he needs to do is get his bestiality buddies around the nation to fund a few studies conducted by like-minded folks. He may wonder if his parent's hormonal or other genetics will help. He can then find a few Congressional bestiality sympathizers (who doesn’t like animals, anyway?) to adopt legislation to criminalize anti-bestiality behaviors. Sweet! Now he doesn’t have to be responsible for THAT nagging predisposition to do his cat while he worries what his neighbors might think. He is now confident that his neighbors will be slapped with a hate crime suit if they file a claim the cat was not consenting.
But Mr. Beast-lover may not be the only one taking advanatage of the new science of behavioral excuse-making. How about pedophilia. Here is their advocacy group: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Man/Boy_Love_Association
Have you noticed that over the last couple of decades there is a new psychological term and special interest advocacy group created for just about every deviant, anti-social, and even criminal behavior that legitimizes and defends deviance as just another illness passed on to the likes of Chuckie Manson's kids.
As in our recent global warming experience, I am convinced that given enough fans, enough time, and enough studies, as questionable as they might be, just about anything can be slathered with the appearance of legitimacy, even immorality.
It is likely that the great majority of these studies are conducted with our tax dollars at work through our public university system and federal grant system. Yes! - a connection between immorality and fiscal irresponsibility.
At birth we all have different sorts of propensities to do all sorts of things that our millenia of moral standards taught us are immoral. They have been declared as such for a reason, mostly related to health and reproduction of our species.
Some folks have propensities to act like wild animals. Does that mean they should be encouraged, condoned, or even allowed to act that way?
Some are born with a propensity to drink themselves silly. Does that mean that behavior should be enabled and respected by the rest of us?
Others have a propensity to have same-sex sex. Does that mean that behvior should be enabled and respected by the rest of us? Unfortunately that is now the law of the land. It is only a matter of time before other perversions have similar legal status.
We are not the most monogomous creatures on earth. But the most civilized nations make polygamy illegal - based on what? Judeo-Christian scripture. Or maybe that is outmoded and Mormons (had) and Muslims have it right. Perhaps the prohibition of polygamy is just another useless tradition that ought to be finally ignored. That is the inevitable direction of social liberals.
The trend is clear: We are making every sort of excuse we can imagine to eliminate the need for encouraging self control in our society.
How about we direct our increasingly scarce tax dollars into things that are moral and not into trying to prove that what has been considered immoral for centuries is suddenly not only moral, but worthy of our respect. We must be insane spending our tax dollars on these studies that are ultimately destructive to our society. Fiscal conservatives who tolerate social liberalism are shooting themsleves in the foot.