Ed Hudgins

Family Values Still Threaten GOP

Recommended Posts

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?

These are the right questions. It is quite interesting how some people have not come to a conclusion over how gay people arise across all human societies -- how sexual attraction is determined, how sexual orientation is self-perceived as having developed. If Darrell entertains your questions, even if not answering in detail, I would suggest he offers what evidence he knows that supports either side of the question he is posing to himself: what causes homosexual/heterosexual orientation/behaviour. For added fun in seeking evidence one way or the other, he might also consider homosexuality across the animal kingdom. Greg best look away from gay duck and killer whale relations lest his godhead explode.

I should note something about the Pew international findings cited a few times. Darrell gave the US numbers above:

"37% of Americans believe homosexuality is morally unacceptable, only 23% believe it is acceptable, and 35% don't think it is a moral issue."

I think the number to consider is the combined weight of the last two opinions. 58% of Americans do not find homosexuality morally unacceptable.

Fit those numbers into electoral calculations. How does a national campaign that stresses opposition to gay marriage overcome the built-in antipathy of the voters?

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.

You do well in probing and answering the reasonable and unreasonable assumptions that surround the issue. No apologies necessary!

The moralistic spluttering about gays will go on before, during and after the election here at OL. It's obviously a freakout emotional issue for Wolf and Greg, who seem unable yet to move past their personal revulsion to rationally consider the topic, discuss practical mechanics of winning an election.

Do they want a Republican on the ballot who fulminates as they do against gays and their evil ways, who rails against the tide of gay marriage -- if this means Hillary at 1600 Pennsylvania? What are their choices? What are their thoughts?

Crickets.

As the jostling intensifies for Republican primaries over the next eighteen months, the gay marriage issue will tend to dog any hopeful candidate who has opened his mouth on the issue (and they all have, as I documented above). How will these guys and the larger party play this issue through? The Democrats are alert to the issue, and are definitely not going to play nice or in any way give advantage to their foes. They will exploit the issue (as they exploited the so-called Republican War on Women in 2012) in any way they can, to peel away socially-liberal voters from the conservative coalition. That's reality.

Here's what Greg said about his 2012 bottom line:

A 100% ideologically pure candidate is an unattainable utopia.

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

Since this is the only thing that Greg has uttered on a similar electoral matter, I am sure his opinion still logically holds. So despite his anger and disgust I am sure he would agree that if stressing, thumping, gnashing and erupting on the anti-gay marriage issue compromises the chances of defeating the Democrats, then real-world considerations apply.

It looks like Greg's Tea Party values move sideways to accommodate political reality. If he would have voted for a Wiccan Mitt Romney in 2012, he would surely vote for a gay-positive Republican in 2016.

So, I can imagine Greg quite reasonably counselling his Tea Party colleagues that they will have to hold their noses along with him, put down their Gawd Sez No Queer Marriage! placards, and tone down the fulminating.

Edited by william.scherk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The moralistic spluttering about gays will go on before, during and after the election here at OL. It's obviously a freakout emotional issue for Wolf and Greg, who seem unable yet to move past their personal revulsion to rationally consider the topic, discuss practical mechanics of winning an election.

Do they want a Republican on the ballot who fulminates as they do against gays and their evil ways, who rails against the tide of gay marriage -- if this means Hillary at 1600 Pennsylvania? What are their choices? What are their thoughts?

Crickets.

As the jostling intensifies for Republican primaries over the next eighteen months, the gay marriage issue will tend to dog any hopeful candidate who has opened his mouth on the issue (and they all have, as I documented above). How will these guys and the larger party play this issue through? The Democrats are alert to the issue, and are definitely not going to play nice or in any way give advantage to their foes. They will exploit the issue (as they exploited the so-called Republican War on Women in 2012) in any way they can, to peel away socially-liberal voters from the conservative coalition. That's reality.

Here's what Greg said about his 2012 bottom line:

A 100% ideologically pure candidate is an unattainable utopia.

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

Since this is the only thing that Greg has uttered on a similar electoral matter, I am sure his opinion still logically holds. So despite his anger and disgust I am sure he would agree that if stressing, thumping, gnashing and erupting on the anti-gay marriage issue compromises the chances of defeating the Democrats, then real-world considerations apply.

It looks like Greg's Tea Party values move sideways to accommodate political reality. If he would have voted for a Wiccan Mitt Romney in 2012, he would surely vote for a gay-positive Republican in 2016.

So, I can imagine Greg quite reasonably counselling his Tea Party colleagues that they will have to hold their noses along with him, put down their Gawd Sez No Queer Marriage! placards, and tone down the fulminating.

I'm quite happy to inform you that I fall outside of your stereotype, because I'm not the least bit angry. It's common to cast anyone as a homophobe who regards militant leftist homosexual political "activism" as antithetical to American values. Heck, in that regard you're no different than the liberals who do that all the time! :laugh:

And my own actions demonstrate how wrong your assessment of me is. I both contributed to his campaign as well as voted for Kevin James for the Mayor of Los Angeles. (If you didn't know, he's homosexual) In fact the whole local Tea Party Patriots group did also, regardless of there being a lot of very fundamentally religious Americans in the group. He spoke in person to our group and received our full support. Why?

SHARED MORAL VALUES

This is what you don't understand about shared moral values:

I'd vote for ANY Conservative homosexual over ANY Liberal heterosexual ANY day...

...because I'm a behaviorist, not a dogmatist. :smile:

(...and can you explain how in the hell could I be a homophobe and yet freely choose to do construction work in a gay hotel for years?... )

Greg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Greg:

(...and can you explain how in the hell could I be a homophobe and yet freely choose to do construction work in a gay hotel for years?... )

_______________________

Curiosity?

Research?

Money?

Half the men were in drag and you thought it was a straight hotel for the first three years and after that you were shell shocked?

--Brant

you can always tell when I'm trying to be helpful :smile: :smile: :smile: :smile: :smile:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

william.scherk said:

"Wolf... seem unable yet to move past [his] personal revulsion to rationally consider the topic"

--------

Uh, no. I said it was a public health matter and gave reasons for thinking that's what it is. I also said it was foolish to boot Evangelical Protestants and Roman Catholics (social conservatives) out of the Republican Party. I said nothing about my personal experience with or my opinion of gay men. I worked in show business 25 years, lived in West Hollywood, San Francisco, London, Amsterdam, Philadelphia, New York and Sydney. Oodles of queers on the set, on my crews, in businesses and restaurants that I patronized, on the neighborhood streets and in nightclubs. I've worked for gays and hired talented gay men, lesbians, and transvestites. One of my first longform movies was gay themed. The show I'm best known for had numerous gays and blacks on screen.

Almost universally they were unhappy people, but capable of conducting themselves professionally and capably.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

These are the right questions. It is quite interesting how some people have not come to a conclusion over how gay people arise across all human societies -- how sexual attraction is determined, how sexual orientation is self-perceived as having developed. If Darrell entertains your questions, even if not answering in detail, I would suggest he offers what evidence he knows that supports either side of the question he is posing to himself: what causes homosexual/heterosexual orientation/behaviour. For added fun in seeking evidence one way or the other, he might also consider homosexuality across the animal kingdom. Greg best look away from gay duck and killer whale relations lest his godhead explode.

William,

I wasn't posing any question to myself. I was simply observing the manner in which homosexuality is a choice for humans.

The observation that some animals engage in homosexual behavior is really not very relevant to behavior of humans. Although humans have animalistic urges, such urges are only the starting point of behavior and don't explain the choices that people make. Moreover, most animals are not very closely related to humans. They may have very different anatomical structures and very different behaviors from humans.

I didn't explore the homosexual behavior of any of the animals on the Wikipedia page in depth, but I wonder if researchers are now seeing such behavior under every bush, given the popularity of homosexuality in academia, regardless of whether it is really there.

There was a picture of two male Mallard ducks rubbing necks. Is that homosexual behavior? I suppose the reasoning goes like this. Male and female ducks rub necks. Since male and female ducks have sex, rubbing necks must be a form of mating ritual. Therefore, if two male ducks are rubbing necks, they are also engaging in mating behavior which means that they are engaging in homosexual behavior. The Wikipedia page made it clear that they were using a broad definition of homosexual behavior that included affection and not just sexual intercourse.

So, lets see if we can extend that argument to humans. Men and women shake hands. Since men and women have sex, shaking hands must be a form of mating ritual. Therefore, if two men shake hands they are also engaging in a mating ritual which implies that they are engaging in homosexual behavior. OMG, we're all gay! After all, showing affection for someone of the same sex implies you're gay.

The fact that there are gay people in every society just shows that people are the same everywhere.

Perhaps you have some idea of how sexual attraction is determined. I don't think most heterosexual people are really consciously aware of how they came to favor individuals of the other sex. It probably started with them imitating their parents, playing "house," and imagining having a family some day.

Darrell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do they want a Republican on the ballot who fulminates as they do against gays and their evil ways, who rails against the tide of gay marriage -- if this means Hillary at 1600 Pennsylvania? What are their choices? What are their thoughts?

[...]

I can imagine Greg quite reasonably counselling his Tea Party colleagues that they will have to hold their noses along with him, put down their Gawd Sez No Queer Marriage! placards, and tone down the fulminating.

I both contributed to his campaign as well as voted for Kevin James for the Mayor of Los Angeles.

Glad to know you voted for a Republican who is firmly and publicly for Gay Marriage. It looks like you looked past the, what did you call it, "social decomposition ... societal degeneration" of gay marriage and forged a consensus that it Did Not Matter.

Which is Ed and my freaking point for consideration by Republicans who think a hardline against gay marriage will gain them a White House. You not only accept Ed's point, but you illustrate by your own actions that you already understood the point.

I'd vote for ANY Conservative homosexual over ANY Liberal heterosexual ANY day...

This is good stuff, Greg. You set aside any moralistic pleadings about gay marriage to make a political calculation. And all things considered it looks like you could agree that the Republican Party deprecate opposition to gay marriage in 2016.

Ed, we have a new convert!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Glad to know you voted for a Republican who is firmly and publicly for Gay Marriage. It looks like you looked past the, what did you call it, "social decomposition ... societal degeneration" of gay marriage and forged a consensus that it Did Not Matter.

Which is Ed and my freaking point for consideration by Republicans who think a hardline against gay marriage will gain them a White House. You not only accept Ed's point, but you illustrate by your own actions that you already understood the point.

It's just simple common sense, William. There are far more important moral issues in life than d**** and a****. :wink:

I'd vote for ANY Conservative homosexual over ANY Liberal heterosexual ANY day...

This is good stuff, Greg. You set aside any moralistic pleadings about gay marriage to make a political calculation. And all things considered it looks like you could agree that the Republican Party deprecate opposition to gay marriage in 2016.

Ed, we have a new convert!

You can quit flattering yourself now. I didn't convert because no one possesses the power to convince anyone else to change their view once they have chosen it. Only the reality of a genuine life threatening experience can change a view.

I've always been a pragmatist and not a dogmatist. There is no such thing as ideological purity in this world, and America will continue to degenerate "just as it was in the days of Noah".

It will just do it without me.

My ark is already built. :wink:

Greg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

b99282655z.1_20140602232538_000_ghg6fk16

I thind that steralizing them would be a decent middly ground.

Might even assign them to a male prison.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

b99282655z.1_20140602232538_000_ghg6fk16

I thind that steralizing them would be a decent middly ground.

Might even assign them to a male prison.

That's bound to happen sooner or later when parents have rotten values.

Greg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Greg:

(...and can you explain how in the hell could I be a homophobe and yet freely choose to do construction work in a gay hotel for years?... )

_______________________

Curiosity?

Research?

Money?

Half the men were in drag and you thought it was a straight hotel for the first three years and after that you were shell shocked?

--Brant

you can always tell when I'm trying to be helpful :smile: :smile: :smile: :smile: :smile:

Yeah, thanks Brant... I think! :laugh:

...but you missed on all counts.

The real reason is loyalty... the bond of trust in a 34 year old business relationship between American Capitalist producers. We have never drawn up a contract. Everything is on a handshake. This is the secret of why we have both prospered over the decades. :smile:

Greg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Greg:

(...and can you explain how in the hell could I be a homophobe and yet freely choose to do construction work in a gay hotel for years?... )

_______________________

Curiosity?

Research?

Money?

Half the men were in drag and you thought it was a straight hotel for the first three years and after that you were shell shocked?

--Brant

you can always tell when I'm trying to be helpful :smile: :smile: :smile: :smile: :smile:

Yeah, thanks Brant... I think! :laugh:

...but you missed on all counts.

The real reason is loyalty... the bond of trust in a 34 year old business relationship between American Capitalist producers. We have never drawn up a contract. Everything is on a handshake. This is the secret of why we have both prospered over the decades. :smile:

Greg

You're a homophobe? :sad:

--Brant :smile:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Darrell,

Clearly, there can be no agreement between us re: choice, as you believe that sexual orientation is only whim, while I believe sexual orientation is not only whim. I can no more choose my natural eye color than I can choose my natural sexual orientation. I can wear colored contacts to hide my natural eye color, but they will be blue regardless. We can agree to disagree on this.

As for the rest, I will say again that my original point was nothing more than an observation about the statistics you cited. Again, that observation is simply that it is probable that the shift towards support of gay marriage is not just about homosexuality. It's also about marriage. Again, I make no claims good, bad, or indifferent about that. You're arguing against points that I haven't made.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Greg:

(...and can you explain how in the hell could I be a homophobe and yet freely choose to do construction work in a gay hotel for years?... )

_______________________

Curiosity?

Research?

Money?

Half the men were in drag and you thought it was a straight hotel for the first three years and after that you were shell shocked?

--Brant

you can always tell when I'm trying to be helpful :smile: :smile: :smile: :smile: :smile:

Yeah, thanks Brant... I think! :laugh:

...but you missed on all counts.

The real reason is loyalty... the bond of trust in a 34 year old business relationship between American Capitalist producers. We have never drawn up a contract. Everything is on a handshake. This is the secret of why we have both prospered over the decades. :smile:

Greg

You're a homophobe? :sad:

--Brant :smile:

Brant:

Don't forget that the reason Greg doesn't need a contract is because he is a mind reader, and more than capable of reading the "moral values" of those he does business with. That is why he only does business with those who share his moral values, and with a mere handshake at that. In other threads, Greg has marshalled a veritable phalanx of winky faces and bold faced admonitions to prove this point.

So, in the case of the hotel in question, Greg clearly shares the moral values of the Gay Hotel Operator Folks. This means he is quite the opposite of a homophobe. He is not only not neutral on the question of the operation of gay hotels, he shares the moral values of those who operate such enterprises. No moving target, that Greg. Nope.

And, like the young man sitting and starving on a garbage heap in Haiti and his cancer-ridden Uncle Festus, Greg gets exactly, nay precisely, what he deserves. :wink::sad:

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

This is generally fallacious for it's all nature vs. nurture and you seem to be 100% nurture. When it comes to one or the other what we choose is mostly but not completely out of our genetically determined nature. There are a lot of homosexuals who want to be straight--I've never heard of the opposite problem--but there's no switch for them to throw and make it so. The species is supposed to reproduce, afterall, but their genes don't help them do that so that's that. Too much human variability but still billions of people. This does make homosexuality inferior to heterosexuality to some extent, but the latter helps out the former by marriage and family. Mom and Dad made Tad. If gays want to imitate striaghts with marriage, let them; they've got it tough enough. Underneath sexual choice and physical sex is the simple human desire for a partner--someone to be with and share one's life with. It is many straights who can't see or admit this hard-ass truth: they're much, much more like the queers than not, way down deep where it counts. They are so cowardly they run away to homophobia land where they sit and fester if not come out and assault the object of their fears--words and deeds. They refuse to see that accepting gays won't get them thrown out of the heterosexual tribe, for heterosexuals generally don't have this hangup, so they seek to avoid banishment thinking the type of people they surround themselves with are not a small minority--not a sub-tribe.

--Brant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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...

...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...

...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.

Darrell,

Clearly, there can be no agreement between us re: choice, as you believe that sexual orientation is only whim, while I believe sexual orientation is not only whim. I can no more choose my natural eye color than I can choose my natural sexual orientation. I can wear colored contacts to hide my natural eye color, but they will be blue regardless. We can agree to disagree on this.

As for the rest, I will say again that my original point was nothing more than an observation about the statistics you cited. Again, that observation is simply that it is probable that the shift towards support of gay marriage is not just about homosexuality. It's also about marriage. Again, I make no claims good, bad, or indifferent about that. You're arguing against points that I haven't made.

It seems that Darrell is basing his views, about homosexuality being a choice, solely on his own personal experiences or preferences. He seems to believe that what is true of him is therefore true of everyone, or of "most people."

But, contrary to Darrell's opinion, "most people" are not "capable of having erotic desires for people of either sex," but, rather, are revolted by the idea of engaging in sexual activity with the gender to which they are not naturally attracted (through no choice of their own). It appears that Darrell has not personally experienced that revulsion and therefore cannot believe that "most people" do experience it. He can't grasp that others don't have a choice.

J

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They are so cowardly they run away to homophobia land where they sit and fester if not come out and assault the object of their fears--words and deeds. They refuse to see that accepting gays won't get them thrown out of the heterosexual tribe, for heterosexuals generally don't have this hangup, so they seek to avoid banishment thinking the type of people they surround themselves with are not a small minority--not a sub-tribe.

--Brant

Just this little snippet is an enormous bundle of claims: (1) anyone opposed to gay marriage is a coward; (2) these cowards are fearful of gays; (3) the cowards attack gays because they fear them; (4) there is no difference between verbal and physical assaults; (5) cowards who refuse to accept homosexuals as moral and civil equals are fearful of losing their tribal status, which is stupid, because the Tribe no longer fears homosexuality; and (6) cowards who fear gays and fear tribal wrath surround themselves with other cowards.

Correct me if I interpreted some of that wrongly. I had a hard time following it.

Let us reason together. If a Tribe accepts homosexuality and homosexual marriage, how is defying tribal culture and laws cowardly? Is it courageous to accept uncritically whatever the tribe declares Tribally Correct? Who leads the Tribe and sets its criteria for banishment? -- or does the threat of tribal banishment exist only in the minds of cowards who sit and fester?

Forget the festering cowards for a minute. Who the hell are you to pronounce the existence of a Tribe? Or do you mean "The Law of the Land" that recently trumped U.S. tribal culture by quashing a California constitutional amendment, striking down DOMA, and overturning state laws defining marriage? If so, you're endorsing shaman-made law that rammed courage down the throats of a cowardly, fearful Tribe that predominately opposed (and still opposes) gay marriage. You can't have it both ways. Either the homosexual agenda is the triumph of an enlightened minority to kill cowardly tribal values -- or there is no such thing as one American tribe; just a raw political struggle for control of Tribal power to punish dissenters and to abolish the constitutional notion of Federalism, wherein civil law pertaining to marriage was a state jurisdictional subject matter.

For an Objectivist to talk in terms of tribal anything is wrong. To label those who dissent as cowardly is worse than wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They are so cowardly they run away to homophobia land where they sit and fester if not come out and assault the object of their fears--words and deeds. They refuse to see that accepting gays won't get them thrown out of the heterosexual tribe, for heterosexuals generally don't have this hangup, so they seek to avoid banishment thinking the type of people they surround themselves with are not a small minority--not a sub-tribe.

--Brant

Just this little snippet is an enormous bundle of claims: (1) anyone opposed to gay marriage is a coward; (2) these cowards are fearful of gays; (3) the cowards attack gays because they fear them; (4) there is no difference between verbal and physical assaults; (5) cowards who refuse to accept homosexuals as moral and civil equals are fearful of losing their tribal status, which is stupid, because the Tribe no longer fears homosexuality; and (6) cowards who fear gays and fear tribal wrath surround themselves with other cowards.

Correct me if I interpreted some of that wrongly. I had a hard time following it.

Let us reason together. If a Tribe accepts homosexuality and homosexual marriage, how is defying tribal culture and laws cowardly? Is it courageous to accept uncritically whatever the tribe declares Tribally Correct? Who leads the Tribe and sets its criteria for banishment? -- or does the threat of tribal banishment exist only in the minds of cowards who sit and fester?

Who the hell are you to pronounce the existence of a tribe? -- forget the festering cowards for a minute. Or do you mean "the Law of the Land" that recently trumped U.S. tribal culture by quashing a California constitutional amendment, striking down DOMA, and overturning state laws defining marriage? If so, you're endorsing shaman-made law that rammed courage down the throats of a cowardly, fearful Tribe that predominately opposed (and still opposes) gay marriage. You can't have it both ways. Either the homosexual agenda is the triumph of an enlightened minority to kill cowardly tribal values, or there is no such thing as one American tribe -- just a power struggle for control of its Federal laws to eradicate dissent and the quaint, old fashioned notion of Federalism, wherein civil law pertaining to marriage and child custody are state legislative matters.

For an Objectivist to talk in terms of tribal anything is wrong. To label those who dissent as cowardly is worse than wrong.

If you want to burn me quote the entirety of what I said and read it a little more closely. As for a detailed reply, I'll try to find the time this evening.

--Brant

philosophically I have wondered at the propriety of any state sanction of any marriage in the context of libertarianism--and I no longer claim to be an Objectivist as the application of that philosophy is commonly confused with the philosophy per se

For the record, I've been generally against anything that's been described as a "homosexual agenda"--that is, most militant, politically oriented homosexuals invariably come with leftest ideas and policies I'm against, but as long as heterosexuals can go before a judge and get married, let the homosexuals do the same--just wait until they find out what a divorce costs!

I said "many" straights, btw, not all, and also that that wasn't most straights--not by a long shot

my use of "tribe" is not just the primitive hunter-gatherer small grouping, but the way people consciously and subconsciously group themselves relative to other people using a variety of metrics, some that can turn on or off depending on where one is and what one is doing (a thief and a not a thief can both be fans of the same basketball team)--it's not all prejorative--and if one is of the tribe of no-tribe, good for you, but tribes are facts and there's no conflict between Objectivism and facts--right?

1) No; 2) not necessarily; 3) quite possibly, but not fearing them won't justify ad hominem attacking them as to this or that position of theirs; 4) that's a silly idea, for similarity doesn't exclude dis-similarity, not here, anyway; 5) some, but you got a little confused because I was referring to two different tribes of the same sexual orientation; 6) some

that's enough for now--I think you'll do better working off this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Darrell,

Clearly, there can be no agreement between us re: choice, as you believe that sexual orientation is only whim, while I believe sexual orientation is not only whim. I can no more choose my natural eye color than I can choose my natural sexual orientation. I can wear colored contacts to hide my natural eye color, but they will be blue regardless. We can agree to disagree on this.

As for the rest, I will say again that my original point was nothing more than an observation about the statistics you cited. Again, that observation is simply that it is probable that the shift towards support of gay marriage is not just about homosexuality. It's also about marriage. Again, I make no claims good, bad, or indifferent about that. You're arguing against points that I haven't made.

Deanna,

We can agree to disagree, but I can't sit idly by while my position is completely misrepresented. I never said that sexual orientation is only whim. I said exactly the opposite.

In post #50 I said,

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.

Changing one's sexual orientation could potentially require a profound change in values. But, that doesn't mean its not a choice.

I like to use analogies because they often make things easier to understand. So far, I haven't found a good analogy to changing sexual orientation that is somehow value neutral.

One possible analogy is giving up driving in favor of biking. It would be very difficult for me to give up driving. I need my car to get back and forth to work and go shopping. Driving is valuable to me. However, one could also argue that there is value in biking. Biking might be better for my health and cost me less money. Currently, there is no way I would give up driving for biking, but if my value system were to change, I could change my mind.

The problem with that analogy is that it is too utilitarian. People don't have a visceral response to the choice of whether to drive or bike.

So, for something more gut wrenching, consider forcing your daughter to have a cliterodectomy. I could never do it because it goes against my value system. Yet, in some parts of the world it is considered normal and parents make the choice to have their daughters circumcised all the time. Those people are not insane. It is simply a part of their culture which they choose to accept. They have made a choice and you have presumably made a different choice. The fact that you cannot imagine your choice being otherwise doesn't obviate the fact that it is a choice. It is a choice that necessarily follows from your value system.

Darrell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tribes are facts

in Africa, in football stadiums, in street gangs -- paragons of intellect and critical thinking

The reason that marriage is licensed and regulated by state law, not Federal law, is to prevent transmission of venereal disease, marriage by siblings or cousins, forced marriage, or marrying an underage child. A free society is not compelled to make itself incapable of public health measures or law enforcement in defense of "innocent liberty" as provided, for example, in The Freeman's Constitution.

The operative qualifier is innocent, which homosexuals statistically are not. This issue points emphatically at the virtue of competing jurisdictions, libertarian or otherwise. Those who want to waive all laws pertaining to marriage and public health can metaphorically go to hell on a path well trod by African tribes, thereby providing a practical lesson that will inspire other free societies to implement rational public health regulations and equitable injunction of public nuisances (gangs, football stadiums, air and water pollution).

The "laboratory" of states, as Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis explained it in New State Ice Co. v. Liebmann, was our uniquely American constitutional tradition that social liberals and leftists were eager to destroy -- and they succeeded time and time again, most recently by overturning state laws and forcing recognition of same-sex marriage and equal right of sexual predators to child custody.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

But legalizing gay marriage is not about forcing religious institutions to perform marriage ceremonies that contradict their religious beliefs. The real problem they have with gay marriage is that, if they don't grant them, then they are not an equal opportunity organization, and will therefore lose their tax-exempt status.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tribes are facts

in Africa, in football stadiums, in street gangs -- paragons of intellect and critical thinking

The reason that marriage is licensed and regulated by state law, not Federal law, is to prevent transmission of venereal disease, marriage by siblings or cousins, forced marriage, or marrying an underage child. A free society is not compelled to make itself incapable of public health measures or law enforcement in defense of "innocent liberty" as provided, for example, in The Freeman's Constitution.

The operative qualifier is innocent, which homosexuals statistically are not. This issue points emphatically at the virtue of competing jurisdictions, libertarian or otherwise. Those who want to waive all laws pertaining to marriage and public health can metaphorically go to hell on a path well trod by African tribes, thereby providing a practical lesson that will inspire other free societies to implement rational public health regulations and equitable injunction of public nuisances (gangs, football stadiums, air and water pollution).

The "laboratory" of states, as Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis explained it in New State Ice Co. v. Liebmann, was our uniquely American constitutional tradition that social liberals and leftists were eager to destroy -- and they succeeded time and time again, most recently by overturning state laws and forcing recognition of same-sex marriage and equal right of sexual predators to child custody.

Public health and marriage are two different things respecing law. I'm not interested in arguing whether they should be conflated, but I see some of your point. As for legal marriage, a contract defined by statute, I merely want to know how to reconcile it with the role of the state is protection of individual rights only. It's not a hot button issue for me. The biggest threat to society, aside from General Thermonuclear War, is the welfare state and the breakdown of the family since the Great Society got rolling in the mid-1960s. After that I'd throw in public education somewhere.

--Brant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

But legalizing gay marriage is not about forcing religious institutions to perform marriage ceremonies that contradict their religious beliefs. The real problem they have with gay marriage is that, if they don't grant them, then they are not an equal opportunity organization, and will therefore lose their tax-exempt status.

I didn't know about the equal opportunity angle, but same thing, no? The Lord G'ment granteth, and the Lord G'ment taketh away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

You've made so many eloquent points, Darrell... and this one stands out. Whenever behavior is involved, there is always a choice. This is our essence as uniquely moral beings, in that we are capable of freely choosing to act contrary to our thoughts and emotions.

Regarding homosexuality itself... there is another seldom mentioned factor, and that is the trauma of childhood sexual molestation and its ability to imprint the victim with the sexual identity of the perpetrator through the victim's own emotional reactions to being violated. It is the victim's own hatred is what makes the imprinting stick. And when that hatred is too ugly to face, it becomes covered over with a layer of false "love" of the imprinted identity similar to the Stockholm syndrome. This creates the angry militant leftist homosexual political activist who is determined to make the world believe that either homosexuality is normal... or that it is not a choice.

Childhood sexual molestation is the foundation upon which homosexuality rests.

Greg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As for legal marriage, a contract defined by statute, I merely want to know how to reconcile it with the role of the state is protection of individual rights only. It's not a hot button issue for me. The biggest threat to society... is the welfare state and the breakdown of the family since the Great Society got rolling in the mid-1960s. After that I'd throw in public education somewhere.

--Brant

There is a great deal we agree upon, General Thermonuclear War included.

FWIW in my view marriage is not a contract. As you probably know, contracts are defined by time, value, and consideration. That's why family law is a separate jurisdiction. I'm hopeful that we can build a free society without legislation (statutory or "positive" law). I don't regard judges, lawgivers, rule-makers or legislators as rightly possessed of sovereignty over natural men, women, and children. It's very difficult to explain briefly, but the source of law in a free society is the right to appoint an attorney and for attorneys to associate for the purpose of appointing judges. Those who practice family law in a free society will (I trust) argue and adjudicate a new body of case law concerning marriage, divorce, and child custody. The existing system of family law is arbitrary and highly politicized -- almost medieval -- with no presumption of innocence, no right to trial by jury, no effective defense to statutory inquisitors and state apparatchiks.

There is no path from the current state to a laissez faire society. Everything points to more of the same and worse, until and unless we establish a libertarian enclave, free of external government, which is an occasion for adopting a new system of law. Thermonuclear war might be the only hope of achieving it, but I think it slightly more probable that social collapse will come first, not unlike the scenario of Atlas Shrugged.

Perhaps I should reconsider my objection to Ed Hudgins' efforts to liberalize the Republican Party and thereby destroy it. One-party rule by welfare state looters and moochers would hasten social collapse and inspire more families to expatriate.

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...