Ed Hudgins

Family Values Still Threaten GOP

Recommended Posts

I know of gay couples every bit as commited as many heteros. I know of two who've adopted abandoned black children who from all evidence are going to be as good as parents - well, as my own were - if such were measurable. The decisions I gather, were made with the utmost caring responsibility and forethought, which is more than can be said sometimes for hetero couples deciding on having children.

As admirable as your examples are, they have no bearing on the purely physical connection between immoral behavior and disease which is entirely a separate matter.

Greg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know of gay couples every bit as commited as many heteros. I know of two who've adopted abandoned black children who from all evidence are going to be as good as parents - well, as my own were - if such were measurable. The decisions I gather, were made with the utmost caring responsibility and forethought, which is more than can be said sometimes for hetero couples deciding on having children.

As admirable as your examples are, they have no bearing on the purely physical connection between immoral behavior and disease which is entirely a separate matter.

Greg

There isn't any because diseases don't(can't) care. Purposely engaging in behaviour that is known by an individual to be 'risky' would be immoral, but that does not equal the behaviour absent the presence of risk being immoral.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wolf,

If you are concerned about the welfare of your minor daughter in the event that she becomes orphaned, then why don't you just make provisions for that? If you don't have a will that names a guardian whom you are comfortable with raising her in your absence, then you should. Problem solved, and no homosexuals were harmed in the process.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know of gay couples every bit as commited as many heteros. I know of two who've adopted abandoned black children who from all evidence are going to be as good as parents - well, as my own were - if such were measurable. The decisions I gather, were made with the utmost caring responsibility and forethought, which is more than can be said sometimes for hetero couples deciding on having children.

As admirable as your examples are, they have no bearing on the purely physical connection between immoral behavior and disease which is entirely a separate matter.

Greg

Very different moral codes we have (and causal laws we observe).

If you can show me how a gay individual faithful to his (her) partner and vice-versa, can possibly contract an STD...while an innocent wife could quite easily contract it from her husband.

Promiscuity carries risks, whatever one's sexual proclivity. Disease is impartial, as Tad says.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know of gay couples every bit as commited as many heteros. I know of two who've adopted abandoned black children who from all evidence are going to be as good as parents - well, as my own were - if such were measurable. The decisions I gather, were made with the utmost caring responsibility and forethought, which is more than can be said sometimes for hetero couples deciding on having children.

As admirable as your examples are, they have no bearing on the purely physical connection between immoral behavior and disease which is entirely a separate matter.

Greg

There isn't any because diseases don't(can't) care.

Exactly.

Disease is utterly impersonal.

It's just opportunistic. And morality is simply behavior which is good for us. Take morality completely out of this and there would still be certain specific behaviors for which there is ample proof that they provide the opportunity for sexually transmitted diseases to spread. Even with all of the innovative compensations of medical technology attempting to remove consequences from behavior...

...America still remains infested with a whole host of sexually transmitted diseases.

This behavior is not good for us because it's immoral...

...it's immoral because it's not good for us.

Greg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oriental approaches to health, wellness and other similar concepts of the west are quite different.

Both have pluses.

Dis - ease is a state of not being well, healthy, etc.

Changes the paradigm for the better and blended with western medicine makes a sense.

A...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here are a bunch of random observations.

It is undoubtedly the case that some gay or lesbian couples make excellent parents. Some are probably terrible parents. Some heterosexual couples are undoubtedly terrible parents too while a lot are good parents. The public policy issues are whether each union can be judged on its own merits, whether there is a difference on average between gay or traditional parents, and whether public policy can be effective in protecting the interests of children.

Although it would seem fairest to take each relationship on its own merits, that may or may not be practical. It is very difficult for an adoption agency to determine the fitness of parents unless one or more of them have a criminal record. If adoption agencies are not allowed to take the nature of the relationship into account, i.e., whether homosexual or heterosexual, then the results of adoption are likely to follow the statistical averages for the groups in question.

The question of whether there are statistical differences between homosexual and heterosexual adoptive parents is probably still open. I haven't seen much data, though it is probably politically incorrect to collect such data in today's political climate. There is some anecdotal evidence, however. According to Wikipedia, 1 to 6% of the population have open marriages, but a New York Times article reports that something like 50% of gay men that are married have open marriages. Now, one could debate whether having an open marriage has negative consequences for children, but it would seem likely to be the case.

Another question is whether a gay couple would be more likely to sexually abuse an adopted child. Despite the small number of homosexual couples that have adopted, there is already a horrendous example of a couple that prostituted out their adopted son. At this point it is an isolated case and there are also cases of horrible abuse at the hands of heterosexual parents, but it will be interesting to see what the statistical results of allowing gay adoption will be going forward.

Personally, I don't trust men with children. Men are responsible for most child sexual abuse. So, you have to ask yourself, would I trust a single man with a child? And, if you wouldn't trust a single man, why would you trust a pair of men? Yes, women have been guilty of horrible crimes against children too, but just not as often as men despite the fact that women typically spend more time taking care of children.

The final question is whether public policy can effectively change the situation. Although it should be fairly easy to prevent gay male couples from adopting children, it is next to impossible to prevent Lesbians from having children. In this day and age, a woman can place an ad on the internet for a sperm donor and have a child, regardless of what the law says. The result is that thousands of Lesbian couples already have children. And, then of course, there are the tens of thousands of children that have been brought to same sex relationships from previous heterosexual relationships. For what its worth, here is a report on some of the demographics.

So, it appears as if the social experiment is a fait accompli. It is going on whether we like it or not.

Darrell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, still wondering if anyone outraged or disgusted by gay marriage will discuss the continuing softening of American attitudes to the issue. So far, those who find Ed's commentary preposterous have not grappled with the facts in hand. I find this curious -- and curiously irrational.

The data is clear -- the tide is moving towards acceptance of gay marriage. The pool of voters who are passionately against legalizing gay marriage is shrinking. Every demographic shows this change.

The most important and telling portion of the demographic is the youngest. These folks, sometimes referred to as Millennials, simply do not share the visceral antipathy of Christian evangelicals. Poll after poll shows these younger voters -- regardless of their party affiliation, are strongly in favour of marriage equality.

Ed says that if the Republican Party continues to cater to the oldest, most conservative, most religious part of their coalition -- and underlines this issue in official party policy -- then they will find it more difficult to accrue enough votes to take the White House in 2016. Is this a credible argument? I think so -- and so do some Republican strategists -- but these demographic arguments are entirely ignored in the moralistic sputtering so far.

Why is the fact-based argument on electoral strategy in light of changing mores so difficult to grapple with for some posters?

In other contexts, Greg has seen reality and adapted his electoral calculations accordingly:

A 100% ideologically pure candidate is an unattainable utopia.

Real world is the best guy with the best chance of defeating the Democrats.

Greg's limited appreciation for the real world might let him consider this:

Still, gay marriage is an issue that could easily make Republicans seem tone-deaf toward young voters. A whopping majority of 18- to 29-year-olds—81 percent—believe same-sex marriage should be legal, along with 61 percent of young Republicans.

So, let's look at possible Republican candidates, consider what the real world suggests will be their fate against Hillary Clinton, and also consider their various positions on gay marriage.

Ted Cruz**, anyone? Anyone suggesting that he stress his opposition to gay marriage in hopes of winning?

What about the other possible candidates? What do Greg, Mark and Wolf suggest these guys do with the issue of gay marriage in the campaign -- Huckabee1, Christie2, Ryan3, Rubio4, Bush5, Walker6, Perry7, Jindal8 -- what should these guys do with the issue if they want to win? Should they stress it, deprecate it, muffle it, de-fang the party platform or their official positions -- or should they campaign strongly against it, make it a cornerstone of their policies, promise action to prevent it spreading? (note that there is an emerging 'softness' among some former hardliners -- though not all)

No answers yet from the morally disgusted on practical ways the party can successfully use this issue to prevent a Democrat taking the presidency in 2016.

Maybe the angry and disgusted should listen to Rand Paul. He says that the Republican Party may have to 'agree to disagree' on the issue of gay marriage. "The Republican Party is not going to give up on having quite a few people who do believe in traditional marriage. But the Republican Party also has to find a place for young people and others who don’t want to be festooned by those issues."

I'd be interested in any views that suggest the Republican party can use this issue nationally to advance its electoral chances. Sputtering about immorality, personal disgust, anal sex, and so on does nothing to answer the reality of changing social mores.

What has anybody fetched up to support the notion that campaigning against gay marriage will do the Republicans any good in their quest to wrest the executive from the Democrats?

So far, to my eyes, nothing.

________________

** Cruz says, "If you look at other nations that have gone down the road towards gay marriage, that’s the next step where it gets enforced. It gets enforced against Christian pastors who decline to perform gay marriages." Which is absolute bullshit. Canada has had complete marriage equality since 2003. Not one pastor has been forced to perform gay marriage. The same obtains in Netherlands, Spain, South Africa, Belgium, France and the UK.

1. "“My immediate thoughts on the SCOTUS ruling that determined that same sex marriage is okay: ‘Jesus wept.’”

2. "Although the governor strongly disagrees with the court substituting its judgment for the constitutional process of the elected branches or a vote of the people, the court has now spoken clearly as to their view of the New Jersey Constitution and, therefore, same-sex marriage is the law,"

3. "The things you talk about like traditional marriage and family and entrepreneurship...these aren’t values that are indicative to any one person or race or creed or color ... These are American values, these are universal human values."

4. "In terms of the Bible’s interpretation of marriage, what our faith teaches is pretty straightforward. There’s not much debate about that. The debate is about what society should tolerate, and what society should allow our laws to be."

5. “I know for a fact that as it relates to gay marriage and other social issues there is growing divergence of opinion on this. When we talk about it, we ought to talk about it with a different tone — and we ought to talk about it recognizing that there is more than one point of view, and we should talk about it in a way that is not judgmental. If we can get to that point where people who have diverging points of view and express them in a civil way, the conservative coalition can stay intact.”

6. “Any federal judge has got to look at that law not only with respect to the state’s constitution but what it means in terms of the U.S. Constitution, as well. Again, I’m not going to pretend to tell a federal judge in that regard what he or she should do about it ... I don’t know what (allowing gay marriage) means. Voters don’t talk to me about that. They talk to me about the economy. They talk to me about their kids’ schools.”

7. "Texans spoke loud and clear by overwhelmingly voting to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman in our Constitution, and it is not the role of the federal government to overturn the will of our citizens. The 10th Amendment guarantees Texas voters the freedom to make these decisions, and this is yet another attempt to achieve via the courts what couldn't be achieved at the ballot box. We will continue to fight for the rights of Texans to self-determine the laws of our state."

8. "This law [illinois gay marriage] and others like it would require believers to essentially choose to break with their deeply held theological beliefs, or give up their daily activity of evangelism, retreat from public life, and sacrifice their property rights. Churches that do not host same sex unions would essentially be barred from participating fully in civil society.”

Edited by william.scherk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is the fact-based argument on electoral strategy in light of changing mores so difficult to grapple with for some posters?

My guess would be certain people's anger and irrationality about gays is an overreaction of their suppressing their own latent homosexuality.

J

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think I will get much traction arguing with Wolf on homosexuality as public health menace

In 2008, men who have sex with men accounted for 63% of primary and secondary syphilis cases in the United States. Men who have sex with men are 17 times more likely to develop anal cancer than heterosexual men. http://www.cdc.gov/msmhealth/STD.htm

2002%20DV%20Victim%20SO.gifhttp://www.ncavp.org/issues/DomesticViolence.aspx.... [Men Who Beat the Men Who Love Them: .....Battered Gay Men and Domestic Violence, Harrington Park Press, New York, 1991]. Among lesbians, a 1985 study by Gwat-Yong Lie and Sabrina Gentlewarrier reported that slightly more than half of 1,109 respondents had been abused by a woman partner in their lifetime ['Intimate Violence in Lesbian Relationships: Discussion of Survey Findings and Practice Implications', (1991) 15 Journal of Social Service Research 46]. Several smaller studies seem to support this finding. Coleman's 1990 study of 90 lesbians, for example, reported that 46.6% had experienced repeated acts of violence, and Ristock's 1994 survey of 113 lesbians reported that 41% been abused in at least one relationship with another woman ['And Justice for All?...The Social Context of Legal Responses to Abuse in Lesbian Relationships', (1994) 7 Canadian Journal of Women and the Law 420]. Studies of other populations in the LGBT community have documented even higher rates of abuse over respondents' lifetimes. The Portland, OR based Survivor Project's 1998 Gender, Violence, and Resource Access Survey of transgender and intersex individuals found that 50% of respondents had been raped or assaulted by a romantic partner ['Trans and Intersex Survivors of Domestic Violence: Defining Terms, Barriers, & Responsibilities', www.survivorproject.org/defbarresp.html]... LGBT survivors of domestic violence continue to exist in isolation, suffering long-term psychological, emotional and physical harm. Even in the best cases, providers frequently lack the skills necessary to respond appropriately to same-sex violence. Well-meaning and otherwise knowledgeable providers often fail to identify domestic violence in same-sex relationships and consequently do not respond appropriately. [NCAVP]

Ah the dirty little secret of the domestic violence agends.

I have to look for a study that we used in NY State regarding ex parte temporary orders of protection [TOP's].

If I remember correctly, the Sister from the mid-west College did some major bean counting regarding domestic incident reports [DIR's] wherein no one wanted to press charges.

She broke down the sex(s) of the persons involved and was astounded to find out that the percentages of same-sex couples who had domestic incidences/violence were virtual the same.

Her follow-ups with local precincts discovered that even when a same sex person came in to file charges, they did not find the path open.

A,,,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is the fact-based argument on electoral strategy in light of changing mores so difficult to grapple with for some posters?

My guess would be certain people's anger and irrationality about gays is an overreaction of their suppressing their own latent homosexuality.

J

Maybe. Research is suggestive, but nobody is about to strap on the penile plethysmograph to Greg to test your hypothesis. And it is by no means clear that Greg dreads the the nearness of homosexuals nor that he finds their company threatening or disturbing in the least (a more ferocious antipathy to gays is what is correlated with latent homosexuality in the extant literature). Given his plainly stated beliefs, I am reasonably certain that Greg takes the measure of a man or woman on their honesty, integrity, independence, and so on -- and so does not judge a person by where his or her genitals are lodged at night. We have lost Wolf and Mark, so we don't know how they treat gay folks in interpersonal dealings.

It may be that each of these guys has known and loved gay men and lesbians, and it also may be that their families contain a cherished gay or lesbian member. We have no idea if any of these folks would change their behaviour towards a particular person upon learning details of their private sexual lives ...

In any case, this emotive, religious, knee-jerk anti-gay gnashing of teeth has little to do with assessing what makes the Republicans more or less likely to take back the White House in two years. The freaking point of Ed's article.

Ultimately, given a choice between a hardline anti-gay candidate who would lose an election, and a soft-on-gay-marriage candidate who can win, those who want a Republican in the White House will make their calculations free from the shackles of ingrained prejudices.

As far as I know, Wolf doesn't vote -- so he may have no personal calculation to make come 2016.

Edited by william.scherk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

William,

I agree that gay marriage is a difficult issue from a political strategy perspective. It seems as if a majority of Americans and especially young voters are now in favor of gay marriage. However, I noticed from the Pew Research study that you linked that most people still don't believe that homosexuality is moral. According to the Pew results, 37% of Americans believe homosexuality is morally unacceptable, only 23% believe it is acceptable, and 35% don't think it is a moral issue. In fact, globally, there are only two countries in the survey in which a majority of people think that homosexuality is morally acceptable.

It is likely that a large percentage of the 35% of people that don't think that homosexuality is a moral issue also think that gay marriage should be legalized. They've been persuaded by a very clever and well run campaign that homosexuality is not a matter of choice --- that it is genetic --- similar to skin color. It is hard to say whether a counter campaign could convince those people that homosexuality is largely a matter of choice or which side of line they would come down on if they did believe it was a matter of choice.

The fact that California banned gay marriage before the courts overturned the ban tells me something. For one thing, blacks do not like equating homosexuality with skin color. Other minority groups --- traditional allies of the Democratic party --- also have serious misgivings about homosexuality. So, it isn't a slam dunk case for the pro gay marriage crowd. Of course, what we would need is a Republican candidate that is capable of speaking articulately about the issue, and recently many Republican candidates have been pretty inept at discussing social issues.

Darrell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right-wing conservatives promote family (and traditional) values, while left-wing progressives promote multi-cultural (and politically correct) values. Both moral codes are collectivist and self-sacrificial. What is needed are rational liberal or individualist values. Or else healthy and happy ones. Or even intelligent, insightful, and wise values. Maybe just true, correct, moral, good, and valuable values. The Right and Left seem to be in a competition where each says to the public, between the lines: "Hey, I'm standing up for everybody. I'm not here just promoting myself and my tribe!" But why aren't they? Ultimately, both of these failed philosophy groups guys have a secret, nasty, evil, social agenda. It involves a pseudo-utopianism which involves attacking and destroying the Holy Individual. And that means everybody.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah the dirty little secret of the domestic violence agends.

It's no secret to me, Adam...

I worked for six years on the renovation of a hotel that catered to homosexuals. So I saw the ugly reality of the "gay community"... and it's anything but gay. After the third murder, the owner finally gave up on the project and sold it off to someone who converted the whole building into a lucrative AIDS hospice. That's a growth industry.

Greg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, still wondering if anyone outraged or disgusted by gay marriage will discuss the continuing softening of American attitudes to the issue.

Understanding that the collective societal consensus on homosexual marriage in America reflects the natural process of social decomposition, it's neither outrageous or disgusting... it is what it is. When societal degeneration reaches critical mass... the toilet gets flushed. The trick is not to go down along with it.

Popular consensus is utterly powerless to effect the objective reality of what is objectively right and wrong, because it can never be more than just a subjective emotional reaction to it. So my approach is simply to not believe the shrill angry screams of the politically correct nazis about what's right and wrong... no matter how many, or how loud.

Never get your morality from an angry mob. :wink:

Greg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To Darrell's point, it's worth considering what exactly the young people who support gay marriage are actually supporting. The implication is that they support homosexuality and Darrell calls that into question. I believe they aren't making a statement about homosexuality at all. They are making a statement about marriage. Is it a contract between consenting adults who are agreeing to a long-term value exchange? Or is it a holy union that is being blessed by God? In the former, religion-based values have no place, and it is perfectly understandable how someone can be both morally against homosexuality and politically supportive of gay marriage.

In regards to choice, whether or not to live as a homosexual may be a choice. Whether or not to be a homosexual is not. Anyone who believes otherwise has never really known a homosexual.

Adoption is an entirely separate matter, a whole 'nother can of worms. Adoptive law and practices are problematic across the board for everyone, not just homosexuals.

To William's point(s), I think the Republican with the best strategy is whichever one has the courage to stop being a Republican and evolve into something else entirely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right-wing conservatives promote family (and traditional) values, while left-wing progressives promote multi-cultural (and politically correct) values. Both moral codes are collectivist and self-sacrificial. What is needed are rational liberal or individualist values. Or else healthy and happy ones. Or even intelligent, insightful, and wise values. Maybe just true, correct, moral, good, and valuable values. The Right and Left seem to be in a competition where each says to the public, between the lines: "Hey, I'm standing up for everybody. I'm not here just promoting myself and my tribe!" But why aren't they? Ultimately, both of these failed philosophy groups guys have a secret, nasty, evil, social agenda. It involves a pseudo-utopianism which involves attacking and destroying the Holy Individual. And that means everybody.

Good rational sense there. The prerequisite of a healthy and vibrant society can't be any other way I can see, then that "men are free from their brothers" - free, in order that they may then be able to respect and appreciate other people, one by one. Freedom does NOT presuppose that "groups" of others have the automatic right to your approval and acceptance, which is where progressivism leads us. You can think and feel what you want about e.g. gays, so long as you leave them alone (for instance I've some unease about gay adoption in general -although I've thought it worthy in the few cases I've observed - but to forbid it based on collective statistics or on one's feelings would be unjust).

Respect - or love, even- is granted by an individual to an individual, based upon a highly conscious, inviolable mind, one which can cross all 'barriers' of race, sexuality etc, etc.

Practised by enough people, I think that would nullify the polarising of society that generations of collectivism has brought.

For the religious, who very rightfully contend that gays have no right to demand marriage in churches, against the will of ministers involved and the doctrines of that religion (and most critically, individual/property rights) one can't raise much sympathy.

Once you open the door to State interference in your own favour -as Christians attempt or have attempted, through representation and the legislation of Christian morality into public life - you can hardly complain when the State comes through that same opened door to try enforce its own doctrines -or 'the will of the people'- on you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Precisely.

To Darrell's point, it's worth considering what exactly the young people who support gay marriage are actually supporting. The implication is that they support homosexuality and Darrell calls that into question. I believe they aren't making a statement about homosexuality at all. They are making a statement about marriage. Is it a contract between consenting adults who are agreeing to a long-term value exchange? Or is it a holy union that is being blessed by God? In the former, religion-based values have no place, and it is perfectly understandable how someone can be both morally against homosexuality and politically supportive of gay marriage.

There is a third path.

Ted Keer, who seriously offered a 3rd path, wherein one gay partner in the relationship would adopt the other partner, now that would indicate an exponential path on actual reality relationships at any time in the human genome in a present/future context.

For example, I have always been fascinated by Heinlein's concept of the "corporate family."

Why not?

A...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Precisely.

To Darrell's point, it's worth considering what exactly the young people who support gay marriage are actually supporting. The implication is that they support homosexuality and Darrell calls that into question. I believe they aren't making a statement about homosexuality at all. They are making a statement about marriage. Is it a contract between consenting adults who are agreeing to a long-term value exchange? Or is it a holy union that is being blessed by God? In the former, religion-based values have no place, and it is perfectly understandable how someone can be both morally against homosexuality and politically supportive of gay marriage.

There is a third path.

Ted Keer, who seriously offered a 3rd path, wherein one gay partner in the relationship would adopt the other partner, now that would indicate an exponential path on actual reality relationships at any time in the human genome in a present/future context.

For example, I have always been fascinated by Heinlein's concept of the "corporate family."

Why not?

A...

Adoption? That means a gay couple can't adopt a child because one gay adult adopting another adult introduces the romantic-sexual element notion and that doesn't travel. Muddling up the categories this way would mean making a rational discussion about such folk adopting a child impossible and re-enforces the notion of male homosexuals being pedophiles. Let's leave the category of "adoption" where it belongs.

The real issue is why does the state have a legitimate interest in marriage--any marriage? Why do Objectivists so easily keep falling into conventional categories of thinking instead of embracing something more rational and radical and in tune with their purported philosophy?

--Brant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The real issue is why does the state have a legitimate interest in marriage--any marriage?

Excellent question, Brant... and I can add another one coming from the opposite direction. Why are homosexuals so militant in demanding that the government sanction their lifestyle? Especially when many states already grant legal status to same sex unions, and yet the demand is that same sex unions be called "marriage" when they obviously aren't. Why the desperate need for "mommie's"approval?

I can offer one answer to that. When a person lacks the inner approval of their own Conscience for how they live... they will be driven to demand external approval. In this case it's the approval of the State.

Also note how the homosexual community's angry militant demands were first for their lifestyle to be tolerated... then to be accepted... and now they demand to be celebrated.

There is also a supressive element clamping down on language by the politically correct thought police. It's the tyranny of the perpetually emotionally offended. Legal retribution for hurt feelings. Just say one word not deemed to be proper speech by the leftist "Stasi" thought police, and your career will be destroyed.

I tell you.. leftist political correctness is the New Fascism.

Greg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To Darrell's point, it's worth considering what exactly the young people who support gay marriage are actually supporting. The implication is that they support homosexuality and Darrell calls that into question. I believe they aren't making a statement about homosexuality at all. They are making a statement about marriage. Is it a contract between consenting adults who are agreeing to a long-term value exchange? Or is it a holy union that is being blessed by God? In the former, religion-based values have no place, and it is perfectly understandable how someone can be both morally against homosexuality and politically supportive of gay marriage.

You are perfectly correct. However, I was simply observing that a Republican candidate could potentially appeal to religious voters without necessarily jeopardizing his chances of election, given the degree to which members of the public are uncomfortable with homosexuality.

In regards to choice, whether or not to live as a homosexual may be a choice. Whether or not to be a homosexual is not. Anyone who believes otherwise has never really known a homosexual.

You seem quite confident in your conclusion. However, it is not at all obvious to me. What does it mean to be a homosexual? Is any person that has an urge be homosexual or engage in homosexual acts a homosexual? Is any person that has an urge to be an auto mechanic or fix cars an auto mechanic? I just don't understand how you can separate being homosexual from making choices.

Adoption is an entirely separate matter, a whole 'nother can of worms. Adoptive law and practices are problematic across the board for everyone, not just homosexuals.

So, are the problems with adoption to be addressed by first ignoring the kind of relationship in which the parents are engaged?

To William's point(s), I think the Republican with the best strategy is whichever one has the courage to stop being a Republican and evolve into something else entirely.

In my view, there are several possibly valid reasons for opposing gay marriage. One is the way in which gay marriage changes the institution of marriage. If gay marriage is to be allowed, then there is no reason to oppose polygamy. If there is nothing special about the union of one man and one woman, then any union of consenting adults must be allowed. While that appeals to the libertarian in me, I've seen problems in practice. Polygamous societies or communities are almost invariably exploitative of young women. Since polygamous groups almost always involve men having multiple wives, in such groups there is a shortage of women which leads men to attempt to obtain girls at younger and younger ages for marriage which leads to their exploitation.

We've covered the issue of gay adoption.

In our society, which no longer defends individualism and property rights, there is no legal way for a person to refuse to do business with people he doesn't like. So, if a landlord --- even a man renting out a room in his house --- allows any married people to rent his property, he will undoubtedly be forced to allow all married people to rent his property. And, even if he has what society might term valid reasons for refusing to rent to a particular couple, he will be in legal jeopardy if and only if the couple is part of a protected class, e.g., homosexual.

The same thing applies to businesses. A business is never in legal jeopardy for refusing to hire a straight, white, Christian man, but could be legal jeopardy for refusing to hire a person that belongs to a protected class. Under Obamacare, virtually all businesses will be required to provide insurance for their employees. Imagine a guy with 7 wives and 37 children obtaining a job at a small business that would then have to provide a family health insurance policy for his brood.

Ok. You can say that none of these problems have anything to do with gay marriage. They should be addressed separately. But, why not fix the above problems first before changing the definition of marriage? In our entitlement society, creating more protected groups just creates more opportunities to take advantage of productive individuals.

As a side bar, I should note that homosexuals may be losing some of their benefits. Previously, many businesses offered partner benefits to gay people. However, there is a move underfoot to require gays to be married in order to receive benefits, just like opposite-sex couples. Gays were able to have their cake and eat it too. They were able to sign up their partners for benefits while not being legally tied to that person. Now, they may have to take the same risks and responsibilities as everyone else.

Darrell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've reconsidered the question of whether homosexuality is a public health question.

We have bigger public health problems than HIV and gay domestic violence, courtesy of Politically Correct "social liberals."

 

lashondawilliams.jpg

Following takeoff from Nashville Sunday afternoon, a United Airlines passenger warned a fellow flyer that, “I kill white people like you” when she was asked to turn off her cell phone, investigators allege. The disruption on Flight 4205, which was bound for Houston, resulted in the Embraer 135’s return to Nashville’s airport, where Lashonda Lee Williams was arrested for assault. The 43-year-old Williams, seen at right, was asked by another female passenger to “turn off her cell phone due to the aircraft being in flight,” according to a court affidavit. In reply, Williams allegedly said, “I kill white people like you.” Investigators noted that Williams told the other passenger, K. Colleen Coult, 50, that she would follow her upon reaching Houston and find out where she lived. The comments created fear in Coult for her safety, the affidavit notes. A United flight attendant told cops that Williams’s statements caused anxiety and fear throughout the cabin.


The problem isn't limited to murderous black people.

Charges detail Waukesha pre-teens' attempt to kill classmate [Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel]

Morgan E. Geyser was allowed to have two friends over each year for her birthday. This year, she'd celebrate on May 30. That is the day she and Anissa E. Weier would try to kill their friend during a sleepover. On Monday, the two Waukesha girls were charged in Waukesha County Circuit Court as adults with attempted first-degree intentional homicide, each facing up to 65 years in prison. Their victim, another 12-year-old from Waukesha, was stabbed 19 times by either Geyser or Weier or both, according to a criminal complaint. All three attend Horning Middle School in Waukesha.

b99282655z.1_20140602232538_000_ghg6fk16

Geyser and Weier are being held on $500,000 bail each. The pre-teens attempted murder, they told police, to pay homage to a fictional character who they believed was real after reading about him on a website devoted to horror stories. On Saturday, a bicyclist found the victim, lying on the sidewalk and covered in blood, with injuries to her arms, legs and torso. She had managed to crawl out of the woods, where the suspects had left her. She was rushed to a hospital, where she was in stable condition Monday evening, but fighting for her life.

A Waukesha County sheriff's deputy found Geyser and Weier hours later, walking near I-94 in Waukesha. A knife with a five-inch blade was in Weier's backpack. The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel normally does not name juveniles involved in crimes, but is naming the suspects because they are in adult court and because of the severity of the charges. A criminal complaint filed Monday detailed the allegations.

Both suspects explained the stabbing to police referencing their dedication to Slender Man, the character they discovered on a website called Creepypasta Wiki, which is devoted to horror stories. Weier told police that Slender Man is the "leader" of Creepypasta, and in the hierarchy of that world, one must kill to show dedication. Weier said that Geyser told her they should become "proxies" of Slender Man — a paranormal figure known for his ability to create tendrils from his fingers and back — and kill their friend to prove themselves worthy of him. Weier said she was surprised by Geyser's suggestion, but also excited to prove skeptics wrong and show that Slender Man really did exist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To Darrell's point, it's worth considering what exactly the young people who support gay marriage are actually supporting. The implication is that they support homosexuality and Darrell calls that into question. I believe they aren't making a statement about homosexuality at all. They are making a statement about marriage. Is it a contract between consenting adults who are agreeing to a long-term value exchange? Or is it a holy union that is being blessed by God? In the former, religion-based values have no place, and it is perfectly understandable how someone can be both morally against homosexuality and politically supportive of gay marriage.

You are perfectly correct. However, I was simply observing that a Republican candidate could potentially appeal to religious voters without necessarily jeopardizing his chances of election, given the degree to which members of the public are uncomfortable with homosexuality.

In regards to choice, whether or not to live as a homosexual may be a choice. Whether or not to be a homosexual is not. Anyone who believes otherwise has never really known a homosexual.

You seem quite confident in your conclusion. However, it is not at all obvious to me. What does it mean to be a homosexual? Is any person that has an urge be homosexual or engage in homosexual acts a homosexual? Is any person that has an urge to be an auto mechanic or fix cars an auto mechanic? I just don't understand how you can separate being homosexual from making choices.

Adoption is an entirely separate matter, a whole 'nother can of worms. Adoptive law and practices are problematic across the board for everyone, not just homosexuals.

So, are the problems with adoption to be addressed by first ignoring the kind of relationship in which the parents are engaged?

To William's point(s), I think the Republican with the best strategy is whichever one has the courage to stop being a Republican and evolve into something else entirely.

In my view, there are several possibly valid reasons for opposing gay marriage. One is the way in which gay marriage changes the institution of marriage. If gay marriage is to be allowed, then there is no reason to oppose polygamy. If there is nothing special about the union of one man and one woman, then any union of consenting adults must be allowed. While that appeals to the libertarian in me, I've seen problems in practice. Polygamous societies or communities are almost invariably exploitative of young women. Since polygamous groups almost always involve men having multiple wives, in such groups there is a shortage of women which leads men to attempt to obtain girls at younger and younger ages for marriage which leads to their exploitation.

We've covered the issue of gay adoption.

In our society, which no longer defends individualism and property rights, there is no legal way for a person to refuse to do business with people he doesn't like. So, if a landlord --- even a man renting out a room in his house --- allows any married people to rent his property, he will undoubtedly be forced to allow all married people to rent his property. And, even if he has what society might term valid reasons for refusing to rent to a particular couple, he will be in legal jeopardy if and only if the couple is part of a protected class, e.g., homosexual.

The same thing applies to businesses. A business is never in legal jeopardy for refusing to hire a straight, white, Christian man, but could be legal jeopardy for refusing to hire a person that belongs to a protected class. Under Obamacare, virtually all businesses will be required to provide insurance for their employees. Imagine a guy with 7 wives and 37 children obtaining a job at a small business that would then have to provide a family health insurance policy for his brood.

Ok. You can say that none of these problems have anything to do with gay marriage. They should be addressed separately. But, why not fix the above problems first before changing the definition of marriage? In our entitlement society, creating more protected groups just creates more opportunities to take advantage of productive individuals.

As a side bar, I should note that homosexuals may be losing some of their benefits. Previously, many businesses offered partner benefits to gay people. However, there is a move underfoot to require gays to be married in order to receive benefits, just like opposite-sex couples. Gays were able to have their cake and eat it too. They were able to sign up their partners for benefits while not being legally tied to that person. Now, they may have to take the same risks and responsibilities as everyone else.

Darrell

I don't understand how you can compare being an auto mechanic with being homosexual. I can separate homosexuality from choice in the same way that I can separate heterosexuality from choice. Did you choose to be heterosexual? Can you choose to not be heterosexual? And I don't mean can you choose to have sex with a man. Obviously, you could. I mean, can you choose to want to. If you can't choose to want to have sex with a man, then how can you argue that a homosexual man can choose to want to have sex with a woman?

As for changing the institution of marriage, that was precisely my point. I think that's part of the shift we are seeing. Yes, more people are tolerant and accepting of homosexuality, but also more people are changing their perspective on marriage itself. I'm not calling that good, bad, or indifferent. It's just how I interpreted the stats you cited.

I don't see how polygamy follows from that, unless when I said that marriage can be seen as a contract between consenting adults, you inferred that I meant more than two consenting adults. That's not what I meant.

Regarding adoption, no the problems are not to be addressed by ignoring the relationship of the adoptive parents. The relationship of all adoptive parents should be considered in any home study, as they already are. I did not suggest that this practice be stopped. I also didn't suggest anything at all about protected groups and who businesses should be required to insure.

We're off the actual topic of Ed's article despite William's valiant attempts to get everyone back on track. My apologies to Ed and William.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Good rational sense there. The prerequisite of a healthy and vibrant society can't be any other way I can see, then that "men are free from their brothers" - free, in order that they may then be able to respect and appreciate other people, one by one. Freedom does NOT presuppose that "groups" of others have the automatic right to your approval and acceptance, which is where progressivism leads us. You can think and feel what you want about e.g. gays, so long as you leave them alone (for instance I've some unease about gay adoption in general -although I've thought it worthy in the few cases I've observed - but to forbid it based on collective statistics or on one's feelings would be unjust).

Tony,

Although I would prefer to treat people as individuals, there may be no practical alternative to basing certain decisions on statistical analysis. One area in which it is almost universally agreed that people should be treated as members of groups is age-of-consent laws. Although one would ideally judge the sexual maturity of individuals, there is no practical way to do so from a legal standpoint, so we have statutory rape --- if a person above a certain age has sex with someone below that age and their ages are far enough apart, the older person is considered to be guilty of rape, regardless of whether the younger person consented or not and regardless of whether the younger person was capable of consent or not.

Another place where statistical analysis might play a role is immigration. It is a statistical fact that most immigrants vote for Democrats and for socialistic policies, so allowing immigration to occur too rapidly undermines individual rights. Restricting immigration might be unfair to people that want to enjoy the fruits of liberty in this country, but there is no practical way to protect the rights of the individuals already living here while allowing a large number of people to move here and become citizens.

Darrell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't understand how you can compare being an auto mechanic with being homosexual. I can separate homosexuality from choice in the same way that I can separate heterosexuality from choice. Did you choose to be heterosexual? Can you choose to not be heterosexual? And I don't mean can you choose to have sex with a man. Obviously, you could. I mean, can you choose to want to. If you can't choose to want to have sex with a man, then how can you argue that a homosexual man can choose to want to have sex with a woman?

You're confusing choice with whim. Could I choose on a whim to be homosexual? No. Did I choose to be heterosexual? Yes. My value system is such that the choice to be heterosexual is inescapable. It would have to change in order for me to make another choice. Perhaps, I would have to place more value on having and fulfilling homoerotic fantasies so that such fulfillment would become more important to me than my family life.

The process of choosing involves evaluating the possibilities and selecting the best one according to one's value system. A person can also modify his or her values by thinking about them. But, one cannot predict or control the outcome of a logical process. Logical conclusions are what they are. One can only evade the process of honest reasoning in order to reach a fore ordained conclusion. Or, one can fall into a logical trap and accept a conclusion based on a logical fallacy.

Many such traps have been set for people in the area of sexuality. One trap is the notion that people have homosexual urges are homosexual. This leads young people to believe that they are homosexual before they've had an opportunity to examine their lives and decide what kind of lives they want to live. A related trap is the notion that people can't choose what kind of person they will be. Urges have been elevated above reasons and values and the rational pursuit of happiness.

I've heard homosexuals ask why a person should suppress his sexual urges. But, people suppress their urges all the time. That is part of being human and part of being civilized. If I were a married man, I might suppress the urge to cheat on my wife. Why? Because my long term happiness trumps my immediate urge for gratification. If I were a student, I might suppress the urge to cheat on a test. Why? Not only might I be caught, cheating undermines my confidence in my own ability.

I actually knew a relatively smart guy in high school that regularly cheated. As a result, he was a nervous wreck. I told him he was a smart guy and he would do better if he quit cheating. So, he quit cheating and his grades and self confidence both improved.

The point is that the rational pursuit of happiness ought to trump one's urges. I think that most people are capable of having erotic desires for people of either sex. If it's just a matter of stimulating certain nerve endings, why does the sex of the other person matter? Which sex a person chooses to pursue depends upon his or her value system.

As for changing the institution of marriage, that was precisely my point. I think that's part of the shift we are seeing. Yes, more people are tolerant and accepting of homosexuality, but also more people are changing their perspective on marriage itself. I'm not calling that good, bad, or indifferent. It's just how I interpreted the stats you cited.

I don't see how polygamy follows from that, unless when I said that marriage can be seen as a contract between consenting adults, you inferred that I meant more than two consenting adults. That's not what I meant.

You're implicitly arguing that a union of exactly two people is superior to a union of more than two people and that it is the business of other people in society to make sure that only unions of exactly two people are recognized. But, playing the devil's advocate, what is the justification for that conclusion?

One argument that homosexuals and their apologists like to use is, rhetorically, "How does someone else's same sex marriage threaten your marriage?" Similarly, how does someone else's polygamous marriage threaten your marriage? If the first argument is valid then so is the second.

If marriage is just a "contract between consenting adults who are agreeing to a long-term value exchange," why should individuals that are members of groups consisting of more than two people be prevented from entering into such contracts?

What makes union of two individuals special and why is it anyone else's business if a person wants to join a union of more than two people?

The fact is that at least one judge has already ruled that polygamy must be allowed based on the same arguments that support allowing gay marriage.

Darrell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...