Has Socila Liberalism been trumped by Social Engineering?

This an initial thought and not a given by any stretch.

The question basically is do the Social Liberals almost invariably get trumped by the Social Engineering crowd.( I'm not even sure such a crowd exists, yet if it squats like a duck...)

Take the "gay issue". As a conservative, it's unlikely I will be throwing any gay parties in my house any time soon.

Yet a conservative prides himself on his pragmatism and, as such,I recognize the gay phenomena isn't going away.( I reconciled this with an acceptance of 'civil unions' and equal rights between marriage and cilvil unions seems reasonable) The recent rulings on gay marriage have pushed my "deal with it" bin to the limit. Just saying...

What started in the day with "The gov't has no business in the bedrooms of the nation" has gone a bit farther than that...

What has been often described as the 'slippery slope' seems to me to be more like Social Engineering. Deliberate rather than a momentum issue.

Now enforcement comes into play-not a liberal concept at all- where one is forced into performing a service even if conflicts with one's belief system such as the 'wedding cake issue'. Comply or face fine/imprisonment.

10 years ago, gays were Hollywood's issue. Now? Trans-genders.

One Gay California couple is giving their child drugs which suppress hormonal development of a specific sex so the child can choose his 'gender' him/herself. More telling is the support given by groups to that couple.

The latest is the father and daughter whon are moving to N.J. as there are no incest laws in that State and intend to marry. When asked her reasoning, (paraphrased) She said there was too much hate in the world and more love was a good thing, etc. an almost verbatim reasoning given by the gay supporter not so long ago.

There are more eg,s , but this communicates where I'm going with this.

Now add that issue to the many others and a broader picture comes to light.

Hate crimes morph into a thought-police mentality.

Gender free bathrooms in schools.

An almost desegregation-like immigration policy that instead of desegregating along racial lines, it is now applied to national lines. I.E. there is no difference between legal-illegal immigration, no difference between citizenry of the U.S. and citizens of other countries.

An ongoing revamping of educational priorities, common core being an example.

A series of dramatic changes in our military and how it conducts business.

Environmental, religious, the alteration of traditional moral codes, Justice priorities altered,

Gov't financial standards completely revamped. deficit spending, etc.

I could go on, but I suspect you get the drift. Key is enforcement and, in most cases, without consulting the citizenry.

Liberalism? Slippery slope? Or Social engineering?

There's probably points I've missed/errors in this. Then again, that's why I ask your thoughts on this....

a reply to: nwtrucker

One Gay California couple is giving their child drugs which suppress hormonal development of a specific sex so the child can choose his 'gender' him/herself. More telling is the support given by groups to that couple.

Can you provide a source for this? Sounds like BS. As you describe it, it's not only child abuse but unethical on the part of the prescribing physician.

The latest is the father and daughter whon are moving to N.J. as there are no incest laws in that State and intend to marry. When asked her reasoning, (paraphrased) She said there was too much hate in the world and more love was a good thing, etc. an almost verbatim reasoning given by the gay supporter not so long ago.

You're equating homosexuality and incest? It bears mention that the incestual relationship is a heterosexual one. Setting that aside, what does one instance of incest say about society as a whole? There are 320 million people in this country, there's bound to be a few people doing just about anything you could imagine. That doesn't mean that society has become permissive of those peoples' activities.

Now enforcement comes into play-not a liberal concept at all- where one is forced into performing a service even if conflicts with one's belief system such as the 'wedding cake issue'. Comply or face fine/imprisonment.

Nobody is forcing anyone to perform a service. The baker can choose to not bake cakes. The baker can choose to not bake cakes of a certain style. What the baker cannot do is run a business that is open to the public and then discriminate against members of the public based on inherent traits. Imagine that tomorrow every business in the US could discriminate against you based on something about yourself that you could not change. How much liberty is there without equality?

I could go on, but I suspect you get the drift

Seems to me that what you've really done is expose how out of control identity politics had led to a situation where totally unrelated issues are perceived as being connected because that's what political propagandists want.

Well you bring up points that have me thinking about how abolition of the death penalty came about without much social discussion. Everyone knew that there had been 'iffy' cases, but not how many of them. Yet the abolition came about and in the past few years we see people tried and convicted for murder and serving long jail terms, those same convicts who were recently found innocent thanks to DNA testing. So it's taken roughly about thirty-forty years for us to realize they certainly had a point.

Many changes do smack of social engineering. If we have all had tolerance and equality shoved at us, we who thought we were plenty tolerant to begin with, I think it will take some time for wisdom and common sense to be able to perceive our own personal foibles and in the end just how biased we have been, until the day we no longer even give it a thought.

I was aghast at first at the thought of same sex marriage, but I came a long way into recognizing that all of us do not share the exact same make up, needs, or wants or beliefs. I no longer think about it. It's just a live and let live situation, as I personally could not imagine myself falling for another woman, for instance. C'est la vie!

I do think that there needs to be limits for us all to discuss, such as the father marrying his own daughter though.

a reply to: theantediluvian

Google "controversial therapy for pre-teen transgender patient." Those eg.s are 'extremes', at least for now. Yet they may also be the tip of the spear, so to speak. I recall in the day many restaurants that posted signs reading "management reserves the right to refuse service to anyone." Having lived long enough to see amazing changes on our culture, good or bad, I have seen the so-called extreme become the norm quite quickly.

I'm not equating the two whatsoever, what I am pointing out is the similar logic applied to both and the redefining of marriage as defined and accepted traditionally. (For the purposes of the thread, I have pointed out my views on it, but haven't positioned my view above or beyond anyone elses. In other words, no value judgment to stress the mechanism of possible social engineering.

On your last point what you call dis-related issues, I suggest the possibility of a commonality being social engineering, for want of a better term.

Hey, I invited your input on this and heed it.

P.S. in the case of the 'baker', would you guess that the general public would have voted for that? Liberalism, at least from my understanding of it, doesn't include enforcement. It seems contradictory.

Perhaps liberalism has evolved past any laissez-faire attitude?

" Has Socila Liberalism been trumped by Social Engineering? "

With many failures on both fronts, I would say a merger is in order.

Shattered ideals need each other.

a reply to: aboutface

You raise good points. Your trust factor of those that "know better" and implement them is higher than mine.

On capital punishment, I see a balance point. If the evidence is beyond refute, credible witnesses, so on, then execution is merited, IMO. The example I would site is the Psychiatrist who shot multiple fellow soldiers at Ft. Hood. No question, no delays.

The view of banning capital punishment has 'evolved'(?) to the point that, apparently, the Mexican Supreme court has ruled that life imprisonment without the possibility of parole is 'inhumane' and refused to extradite a suspect back to the U.S..

There is a balance coming into play in that arena, from what I can see.

a reply to: xuenchen

I suspect that merger is already in progress....

a reply to: nwtrucker

Oh my. Sorry if I conveyed an impression of trust of TPTB or that I was fully content with the abolition of the death penalty. To a certain degree, I feel they make decisions that they themselves think valuable and worthy. However, I trust my fellow countrymen wayyyyy more than I do partisan politicians any day. I have participated in lots of public and special consultations and advocated for changes, some of which happily came about. I do know that if laws are unjust, people do and will speak up. And when government changes after an election, perhaps some of those things they implemented are repealed. However, as I am not in the loop at present, some of the changes seem more difficult for me to accept.

I do agree with you that the ideal solution is to find balance and to keep striving for it.

a reply to: aboutface

When was the death penalty abolished?

a reply to: Kali74

Canada abolished it in 1976.

a reply to: aboutface

Ohhh Canada... sorry for my American egoism lol.

a reply to: Kali74

Haha you say sorry like a Canadian, lol.

a reply to: aboutface

I know apparently it's unpatriotic to apologize.