Gay Marriage.

Post Reply New Topic

there was a poll done about a month ago that said 48% of the people polled would not vote a qualified atheist for president.


42% said no to the qualified gay person.

40% said no to someone aged 72.

10% said no to women or hispanics.

5% said no to blacks, jews, or catholics.

Last edited by skafather84 on 04 Apr 2007, 7:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Wow. But I do agree, as a female, that a woman should NOT become president.

Well, a lot of people go by the philosophy that religious faith is an important quality of leadership. It's a silly tradition, but people are a bit attached to it. It's not really an antipathy toward atheists, so much, and I've really never run into any ill will over being an atheist.

I have no problem with a woman becoming President, it would depend on what woman.



I don't have a strongly developed opinion on this. There is no doubt, in my eyes, that an Atheist has every right to be President as anyone else. But I don't see why an atheist would make a better President then anyone else by default. To be honest, atheists generally seem to skew left of center not just socially but economically as well. While this does not does not apply in every case (of course) this, at least in my biased opinion, does not have the makings of a great President.

To be honest, religious belief (except for the most extreme beliefs) are not something I think about when I cast a ballot. If one surveys the Presidents one will find that we have both successes and failures that were devout and successes and failures that were less so (there has never, of course, been an atheist President, although there have been some Deists, traditional Unitarians, and non-denominational Christians)



I tend to agree, although I don't see that happening any time too. While I would not object on a personal level to having a homosexual President, there are some pragmatic problems having to do with foreign policy that could hold me back from casting my vote for an otherwise ideal candidate.



I agree.



I don't think it would be accurate that there are that there are two/three preferences: Hetro/Homo/Bi-sexual. People, I believe, are not that much set into stone. This is not to say that there are men and women who are honestly not attracted to the opposite sex (even the Catechism of the Catholic Church acknowledges this, although there are some disagreements on the far-right). It's just that throughout history there have been many people who are today classified as homosexual that married and had families despite lack of comfort in lovemaking. It seems unlikely that heterosexuals, in the past, would have been able to engage in such relations. This, of course, has much to do with homosexuals minority status as well as general persecution of them as a group.

It is important (again) to note that I am not implying that every homosexual can or should engage in, what critics often refer to simply as a living a "lie."

...

Moving back and not in reverse order...



This is the viewpoints of those campaigning for gay adoption. Of course, it should be noted that men and women are different and have traditionally had different roles, while any differences between races/ethnic groups are so small to be unimportant in regards to such matters. The anti-abortion movement on occasion adopts the abolition of slavery as an comparison to their own movement. Just to note that this sort of thing goes both ways.

By saying "the whole issue is similar to views on early children being raised by interracial couples" you are essentially calling those opposed to gay adoption (which I generally am) as the equivalent of racists, which considering your later condemnation of name calling is somewhat ironic.



Let me agree with you DejaQ that character attacks and not an appropriate method of debate. However, the use of yourself as a reference in an emotional appeal, while often used rather effectively, is of questionable ethics. Let me apply a demonstration in my own case:

My mother committed suicide, so who are you*, a person who has not been presented with such a situation, to debate whether doctor-assisted suicide or euthansia policy should be reformed?



I happen to agree that in such cases that a stable two parent mother father household is not available, a stable same-sex couple is the best alternative. I think they should be put ahead of a single parent as well.

*not necessarily DejaQ, or anyone else in particular in this case.



You are right to critique the use of the word "fags." Although I think the use of character insults was unnecessary.

EDITED: Grammar

Last edited by jimservo on 05 Apr 2007, 4:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.

WHY???

-SpaceCase

PS. Your gay friend sounds awesome. Please remember to tell him about my proposal.

What's wrong with 'fag'? I've only ever heard used it as slang for a cigarette.

Nice try, but no cigar. An adoptive child belongs in the home that is most likely to suit his or her needs, which is affected by numerous criteria besides sexual orientation. Even if parents of the same sex had poorer average performance, the only sane and moral way to evaluate this criterion would be in exactly the same way as anything else. As it is, we actually seem to score quite well, so there is no basis for your concerns.

If there were no heterosexuality, the trait would develop within a few generations, or some other trait or social custom would render the same result. As other societies died out, stronger populations would take their place. A population of six billion is a large enough sample to render extinction statistically impossible, under such circumstances.

Multiculturalism is a way of simulating the advantages of a homogeneous society in an environment in which it isn't feasible without invasions upon human rights. Most of those who advocate legalizing drugs also argue that criminalization renders addicts unlikely to seek treatment and effects similar to those caused by Prohibition, and they don't necessarily support the use of harmful drugs; they disagree with your strategy, not your goals. "Hugging hoodies" seems to be an unfairly derogatory term for efforts to engage young people who have gotten involved in delinquency in efforts at social rehabilitation, and those who actually advocate it sincerely feel that their way is ultimately more effective, even if you disagree with them. These "spoilt bohemians," as you call them, are very nice, decent people, and they may be more willing to give your ideas a fair hearing if you wouldn't call them things like "spoilt bohemians."

You know, I'm as quick to slam conservatives as the next guy, but, on meditation, this political divisiveness really seems a bit unnecessary. It's a bit stupid, actually.

Yeah, and it doesn't even make a whole lot of sense. Now, if we were called "smokers," it would be a different story.

If you want to assume the moral high ground, could you be less vague? I haven't attacked the character of any posters in this thread. I was simply making an observation about the members of the liberal elite who weald so much power in our society. It's an observation many have made before me - that often the people who are the most liberal are the people who can afford to be liberal.

Making such an observation does not compare with the standard leftist trick of questioning their opponents' mental health, or shutting down debate with cries of "bigot", "racist" and "homophobe".

Oh, yeah. The myth of the latte-liberal. It's been debunked numerous times. If it had any basis, the Hummer would have tanked in its first year of production.

And here, my dear friend, is a standard conservative trick: blatant, shameless namecalling.

No one questioned your mental health, though I seriously suggest taking a deep, deep breath before continuing.

No one called you a bigot, though I think that the language you've directed at liberals qualifies as bigotry.

No one called you a racist. It's curious, however, that this is such a sore spot that you mention it.

No one called you a homophobe, although you seem to have an irrational fear of putting kids in the care of homosexual couples.

First, I'm going to apologize for some of the harsher words in my original post. I think you're right, and there was some generalization about conservative attitudes. Also, I reread your posts, and you don't seem quite as hateful as I pictured you initially, so I'm sorry if I accused you of homophobia as well.

I wasn't really going for emotion (well, maybe subconsciously ), but try looking at it more as "Does your opinion negate my skills?" Sincerely, I wasn't trying to attack you, just trying to give you a different perspective. Would you judge me without knowing me?



D'oh! I meant to say there's no doubt homosexuality could not exist without heterosexuality. I don't expect homosexuality to live on while humans reproduce in tubes. Sue me - I'm only human (at least that's what I want people to think ). Think of what I said, though, about it "complimenting" heterosexuality.



You're right. I guess I was kind of generalizing there. Past experience has taught me to equate conservatism with homophobia. As a libertarian, I respect your right to say whatever the hell you want, but I'm going to fight you if you try to impede on liberty.

The way I see it is that conservatism fights against some movement every generation, be it women's rights or race rights, and eventually it becomes accepted by society and becomes a non-issue.

Sorry again for being rude (or if I still sounded rude in this post ).

I was intially going to attempt to defend my position but because honesty is more important then ideology:



Is obvious a reference to the general rather then specific. Hence even if I wouldn't have used that type of reference, my complaint was thus indeed vague and out of place.



The ability to acknowledge error in such a way to a philosophical foe speaks greatly to your humility. You have earned my respect.

Well done for prefacing your response with a condescending cliché. I wish I had the wit to waste space belittling people before actually making any points.



I think most pro-gay-marriage arguments proceed from the premise that there is something completely arbitrary about the way our society defines marriage as being between a man and a woman. But it’s not arbitrary. It takes a man and a woman to produce a child. It is simply human nature for people to care for their own biological children – children who contain half their own genes. Marriage then cements that bond under the law. The laws of the land, which say (or once said) that the ideal is a man and a woman looking after their own biological child accord with the laws of nature.

I think my views on this are actually pretty mild. There have always been, and will always be, children born out of wedlock (and the stigma that was once attached to them was unfair). But even so, for the good of society, single-parenthood should not be given the same legal status. Similarly, there’s nothing stopping a gay person conceiving a child and raising them while living with their gay partner. I just don’t think people living under such arrangements should be given the same benefits under law as people living in a heterosexual marriage.

If people start from the premise that the idea of the institution of marriage as being between a man and a woman is totally arbitrary and illegitimate, then where do you stop? The idea of marriage as being between two people can also be declared arbitrary. The Netherlands have recently made polygamy legal in all but name.

If people deny the physical bonds that exist between a “conventional” family, and declare that “all you need is love”, then why don’t we just breed a generation of children in test tubes and distribute them at random according to a shortlist of suitable couples (or threesomes)?

And I’m not being facetious here. For some reason the Left don’t much like the idea of using reproductive technology to produce “better humans”, but they seem to be fine with using it to pursue their egalitarian ideals.

And I admit here I am interested in what you might call the evolution of society. But I find the modern Left seem desperate to destroy institutions that have served our society well for centuries, all in the name of ideals of “equality” that are demonstrably false.



I will have to explain this for a third time. You seem to be saying if there were no heterosexuality for a bit, heterosexuality would soon re-emerge. What I am asking people to imagine is the hypothetical situation of there being, among human beings, no heterosexuality ever again. Imagine that, from tomorrow. Imagine if from tomorrow no human sperm ever fertilised a human egg ever again. The human race would die out.

I’m saying this to make the point that, as far as the human race (and its survival) are concerned, homosexuality and heterosexuality are qualitatively different. This should actually be obvious.

Ah. I was not previously aware of DejaQ's posts on this matter. I should be more mindful to read these threads thoroughly.

However, something that I hit upon raises an interesting thought:

After it has been demonstrated to a certain extent that our kids are every bit equal to their own, there certainly isn't a rational reason for them to have concerns over our capability as child-rearers. Once all rational reasons have been eliminated, all that remains is the irrational. Isn't it so, then, that a person who, having seen evidence to the contrary, remains resistant to same-sex adoption has an irrational discomfort with placing children in our care? Is there any reason to consider this terribly different from having such discomfort with us teaching in public schools, donating blood, or, to be blunt, being put in any position of trust at all, whether personal or professional? I submit that opposition to gay adoption is the last bastion of overt, socially condoned homophobia. It is a completely irrational and unjustified discomfort with the idea of gay men or lesbian women acting as adoptive parents, and I believe that this is based upon the continuing perception on the part of those opposed to us having adoption rights that gay or lesbian parents are morally inferior or would in some way upset the possibility of a stable home. Perhaps terms like "bigotry" and "homophobia" are justified.

Where’s it been debunked?

In fact, what point are you talking about debunking? I admit I didn’t make my point (or points) very clear.

Let me put things another way.
I am coming at things from a British perspective. I observe that almost everyone with power and influence in Britain is a liberal. I understand that Britain in the 21st century is a far more liberal society than was the Britain of the 1950s, and yet the crime rate is ten times higher. It is my belief that these two things are related. My question then is why so few of the liberal elite in Britain question their liberal assumptions in the face of this (and other) evidence? I observe that crime affects the poor more than the rich. I observe that people with power and influence often have lots of money, and so they get to live in nice neighbourhoods. I argue then that these people persist with their liberalism because they don’t experience its ill-effects.

Examples from the liberal elite in Britain? David Cameron, he of the ‘hug a hoodie’ speech, went to Eton School and is distantly related to the Queen. Billy Bragg, anti-racist crusader, moved from his native multicultural Barking to white Dorset. Margaret Hodge, the daughter of a millionnaire steel trader, belittles her working-class constituents’ concern about Third World immigration, because she knows better. I could think of some more.

I’m not sure I understand your joke about the Hummer, but let me just say that my argument about why rich people can persist with their liberal beliefs doesn’t preclude the existence of several other rich people who don’t hold liberal beliefs.



Where’s the namecalling? “Leftist”? Even the sort of people whose views differ the most from mine usually identify their views as leftist. How can I argue against a political worldview if I can’t even acknowledge its existence?

By your reasoning, I could just as easily quote the words “standard conservative trick” from your post and accuse you of namecalling. Then we could go on ad infinitum.

Or we could look at how things are in the real world, and ask, when political “debate” is reduced to namecalling, who benefits?

Again, I am coming from a British perspsective, where the answer is clearly the Left. The Left in Britain can close down any politic debate in Britain with a well-timed accusation of “racism”, “hate”, “homophobia” or “bigotry”. The Right (such as it exists) don’t indulge in such tactics, and don’t have the power to make it succeed anyway. Sure, you might hear talk of “liberals” and “Guardianistas”. That’s just a convenient shorthand for describing a worldview and the people who subscribe to it. Does anyone seriously expect the big bad Right to start campaigning to outlaw the expression of liberal opinions the way the Left have made the expression of non-liberal opinions punishable under "hate crime" law?

That’s why I don’t indulge in the sort of namecalling the Left revels in, no matter how much mileage people want to try to get out of the “… bohemians” brouhaha. I identified a worldview and tried to explain both why it was so persistent and why I disagreed with it.

It’s interesting how you have nothing to say about the following piece of sophistry:



Anyway ...



Again, congratulations for prefacing your response with more condescension. I wish I could be like you.




Xuincherguixe said that disagreeing with gay marriage was homophobic. I said that “homophobe” belongs in the same file of ad-hominem attacks as “bigot” and “racist”. Then people make a big song and dance about a comment I make about modern bohemians, while saying nothing about Xuincherguixe’s piece of sophistry, which (just like most accusations of bigotry and racism) was more totalitarian in nature than anything I’ve said in this thread.

So there I was complaining about the use of certain words as ad-hominem attacks to shut down debate, and you respond by insinuating that those words could apply to me.