2008 Political debate thread

[Beelzebub]

I will keep my answer to myself on that one. I don't want a barrage of post-modernist drivel and name-calling sent my way.

But, outside of the simple issue of my morals, allowing gay marriage will then allow all marriages, including polygamy, to have grounds for legalization. And before long we'll have pedophiles clammoring for marriage to little kids. NAMBLA are already jumping on the path paved by validation of homosexuality by fighting in the Courts to decriminalize their behaviors.

I'm actually interested in your personal opinion because it definitely has to do with the discussion at hand, and I don't think it's right for you to not only assume right off the bat that you're going to be flamed into oblivion (posters here know better than that plus it would result in bans and this thread being locked), but to dismiss any rebuttal (without it being said yet!) as post-modernist drivel because you disagree with it. Kind of rude.

Anyway, if you don't like gay marriage, then the solution is simple: don't get one. Polygamy, bestiality, marrying trees, whatever is out of the question because polygamy is often a question of women's rights and there exist enough women's interest groups to keep it from happening. What do I personally think of multiple husbands or wives? I have the same mindset when it comes to conventional marriage in that it really doesn't bother me as long as no one is being forced into it. I have an issue when it's done with underage girls or incestuously of course, but if it's an adult relationship people are consciously entering without any reticence, then I really have no business saying it's not right when no one is at risk of abuse and everyone is aware of what they're doing. The whole "sanctity of marriage" argument has been destroyed by the likes of Ted Haggard with his meth addicted boyfriend and Strom Thurmond with his mistress and Larry Craig in airport bathrooms.

Oh, please also explain how homosexuality leads to pedophilia in a case that doesn't involve the Catholic church.

 

[Kenneth R.]

The ONLY argument in my opinion against homosexuality is "if everybody does it, we go extinct."

A very reasonable claim. However, two massive issues arise:
1. Overpopulation problem
2. Statistically, there is a very low probability that everyone will ever be homosexual. Furthermore, call this 2b: statistically, there are a lot more probable ways we can make our species extinct.

 

[Swabs]

And now, a message from Matt Damon.

 

[ABQShredHead]

That's my main question. What reason is there to make a choice to be gay? Given our society, it's still not really accepted overall, you are basically ostracized and as Cross pointed out, you're just opening yourself up to ridicule and violence against you. Who wants that? I'm not at all saying that you need to accept it or be ok with it, but it's not a choice. That's just silly to even suggest.

I don't see how genetics comes into play at all. I do see plenty of the nurture though. There are two crucial points in the development of self in each individual. Around 5-7 is a socialization development, and in early teen years is a development of sexuality. When something is off kilter at these points, development goes awry.

Men have a considerable amount at stake in the development of their sons. A wrong message at these points in time can create worlds of hurt in the latter development of the son.

I'll leave it to Sy Rogers to explain better - if you're interested in hearing from a formerly gay man, who still sounds absolutely flaming, go hear one of his talks. That might entail going into a church though, which appears as though 80% of the contributors here will never hear that message.

 

[ABQShredHead]

Oh, please also explain how homosexuality leads to pedophilia in a case that doesn't involve the Catholic church.

I did not imply homosexuality leads to pedophilia. I implied precedence of Court decisions.

 

[symphonyXjapan]

I don't know why I'm chiming in I hate these threads...

Again I am not religous at all and I hold no real affliation to any party, but these statements always get me... what is so scary about Sarah Palin. That she's a Christian? Oooooooo very scary indeed... So is every president we've ever had. Because she doesn't believe in abortion? That's a very debatable issue (I'm basically for choice but late term abortions are not a pretty thing). Because she said that she hopes the troops are doing gods work and wants to pray for them? I'm sorry but for me, not scary... (that's just a christian being a christian), for me, trumped up petty bullshit. Her not having much foreign experience, that's food for concern. But there's concern about Obama's experience there too. Now then, Obama stating he wants to create a National police force that's equal in size to the US army... Now that's something that makes me think.

I just explained it in the post you quoted me on. Did you not read it?

There have been plenty of presidents in the white house that have done their job without bringing their religious beliefs into the picture. These presidents have been wise enough to understand that their personal religious practices have no place for America as a WHOLE. Like the link someone on the forums gave to the article where she was talking to a congregation of youth at her church. She was telling them something along the lines of god telling her America must win the war. She either was abusing these young peoples' blind devotion to the christian church to rally troops, personally thought of the war as a religious war (christians vs muslims), or both. I truly think it was both.

I also would like to note that EVERYTIME I have seen her speak about "issues" she just seems to be so incompetent. All she talks about is how "we must protect this country" no matter what issue is being talked about. She has no political intelligence whatsoever it seems, and is just along for the ride. McCain is using her only for what he intended....to kick life back into his campaign (because an old boring guy doesn't keep most people's attention), and to sway distraught women voters who mostly supported Hilary.

 

[symphonyXjapan]

I also don't see how legalizing gay marriage would cause a slippery slope towards pedophiles marrying children. As was stated by someone else there are already age laws in place; however, there are also basic morals shared among the hefty majority of people regardless of religous beliefs. It would be hard for pedophiles to argue against the fact that children are incapable of making such a decision at such a young age. I so very badly wanted to be a school bus driver when I grew up back when I was just a child. Once I got older and remembered what I thought I couldn't believe I would ever think that!

I have to admit the polygamy example made me think a little because I sure as hell could never imagine sharing my girlfriend with one or more other people. I am a firm believer of giving all of yourself to your partner, which cannot be done if a relationship is between more than two people. I find myself sounding quite conservative here but like I said, I believe most people have traits from both sides as even I have some conservative beliefs.

I commend you on your polygamy example; however, you have to admit the pedophilia example was a little farfetched?

 

[Phanto]

And now, a message from Matt Damon.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anxkrm9uEJk

That was pretty cool. While I hate celebrities endorsing candidates and stuff like that (because... it actually affects some peoples decisions), I really think he makes a good point.

 

[ABQShredHead]

Yes, far-fetched, but also possible. If we open the gates to one, we must open them to all. What worries me most is the ACLU has picked up the cause of NAMBLA. To me, that is out-of-control, over-reaching application of "liberty"; but, at the same time, where do you draw the line to say one group can have something but another group cannot, regardless of the moralities involved? Looking down the line, we may find ourselves in a society devoid of any moralism on the edge of anarchy. Yes, an extreme example, but at the same time very plausible.

 

[Kenneth R.]

I don't see how genetics comes into play at all. I do see plenty of the nurture though. There are two crucial points in the development of self in each individual. Around 5-7 is a socialization development, and in early teen years is a development of sexuality. When something is off kilter at these points, development goes awry.

Men have a considerable amount at stake in the development of their sons. A wrong message at these points in time can create worlds of hurt in the latter development of the son.

I'll leave it to Sy Rogers to explain better - if you're interested in hearing from a formerly gay man, who still sounds absolutely flaming, go hear one of his talks. That might entail going into a church though, which appears as though 80% of the contributors here will never hear that message.

Ah, the sticking point here is your jumping to the conclusion of it being a 'wrong' decision. I understand that it coincides with your beliefs, and also mine, but I'm not going to judge or persecute them for their own choices.

 

[symphonyXjapan]

The more I think about it now the more I can see that even the polygamy thing doesn't sway me too much. That is because there is a factor of choice in it. Even in a not very likely scenario that polygamy is legalized, I am sure that the law would be that when you get married you state whether you are starting a polygamy type of marriage or a traditional two person marriage. Its not like some man and woman get married and later on down the road out of nowhere the man can suddenly decide to marry more women.

 

[DoomsdayZach]

I do see plenty of the nurture though. There are two crucial points in the development of self in each individual. Around 5-7 is a socialization development, and in early teen years is a development of sexuality. When something is off kilter at these points, development goes awry.

Men have a considerable amount at stake in the development of their sons. A wrong message at these points in time can create worlds of hurt in the latter development of the son.

So it isn't a choice then? Or more accurately, it is the choice of the parent? Regardless of nature or nurture, I'm still not convinced in any way that it's a choice.

I'll leave it to Sy Rogers to explain better - if you're interested in hearing from a formerly gay man, who still sounds absolutely flaming, go hear one of his talks. That might entail going into a church though, which appears as though 80% of the contributors here will never hear that message.

I checked out his website fairly thoroughly and found very little useful information (aside from an outline of his career, very little about his message), and even then it was pretty generic "Form a relationship with God" stuff. However, he's got a shit-ton of stuff for sale. I don't know, I take him as another self-help guru who's found a niche market. That's not to say his experiences are invalid in the least bit, but i still have a hard time believing that he is 100% for real. But that's my own skepticism. I'll look into it more later.

I have to admit the polygamy example made me think a little because I sure as hell could never imagine sharing my girlfriend with one or more other people. I am a firm believer of giving all of yourself to your partner, which cannot be done if a relationship is between more than two people. I find myself sounding quite conservative here but like I said, I believe most people have traits from both sides as even I have some conservative beliefs.

Again, i don't think that would come to fruition, but if it did, what of it? I'm not going to make the choice to have 2 or more wives or enter into a relationship of that sort. I don't think you would either. But that's not being brought up and that's a bridge that can be crossed when we as a society encounter it.

Yes, far-fetched, but also possible. If we open the gates to one, we must open them to all. What worries me most is the ACLU has picked up the cause of NAMBLA. To me, that is out-of-control, over-reaching application of "liberty"; but, at the same time, where do you draw the line to say one group can have something but another group cannot, regardless of the moralities involved? Looking down the line, we may find ourselves in a society devoid of any moralism on the edge of anarchy. Yes, an extreme example, but at the same time very plausible.

The ACLU has picked up a lot of causes. That doesn't mean much. Just because they get behind something doesn't make it morally right on any level, nor does it make it law. It makes it annoying. And I think any reasonable human being would look at it and say "Consenting relations between two adult males or two adult females is in absolutely no way comparable to a relationship between a grown man and a young boy." There are so many factors that make it different, not least of all the fact that young kids can't make a reasonable decision. It's legal for a man and woman to get married, yet it's still illegal for a grown man and an underage woman to have any form of sexual relationship. Hell, it's illegal for a grown hot teacher and an underage student to have consensual sex, and as Adam Carolla put it, the only problems that will cause the kid is arthritis of the elbow from all the high fives he'll be giving in the halls. I don't see any of that being overturned in our society by the vocal minority, and it is the vast, vast minority who would be in favor of such laws.

 

[DoomsdayZach]

By the way, I don't endorse polygamy in the least bit, but there are people who live swinger lifestyles and make it work. Whatever, good for them. I think it's silly.

 

[squidfetish]

It would appear that a lot of the overtly religious people in the world spend a disproportionate amount of time getting upset about what other people get up to in their bedrooms. I find that a bit weird. Are people's sexual preferences and actions that big a deal? In the grand scheme of things, is what 2 people get up to in the comfort of their home enough to elicit divine wrath? Surely there are more pressing matters to get angry about. Or are there a lot of religious people who are afflicted by the haunting fear that someone somewhere is having a better time than they are?
Hmmm....

 

[ABQShredHead]

Ah, the sticking point here is your jumping to the conclusion of it being a 'wrong' decision. I understand that it coincides with your beliefs, and also mine, but I'm not going to judge or persecute them for their own choices.

I cannot judge the individuals, just the behaviors. I'm learning to do a much better job of that.

So it isn't a choice then? Or more accurately, it is the choice of the parent? Regardless of nature or nurture, I'm still not convinced in any way that it's a choice.

I wouldn't put any of it to choice, really. More along the lines of development issues that lead one to choose the lifestyle.

I checked out his website fairly thoroughly and found very little useful information (aside from an outline of his career, very little about his message), and even then it was pretty generic "Form a relationship with God" stuff. However, he's got a shit-ton of stuff for sale. I don't know, I take him as another self-help guru who's found a niche market. That's not to say his experiences are invalid in the least bit, but i still have a hard time believing that he is 100% for real. But that's my own skepticism. I'll look into it more later.

He's definitely making a living from his message. I saw him speak on the topic, and his real-life examples reinforced my beliefs that it is a development issue and not at all a genetic issue. My initial beliefs formed from my life experiences - I have not met a single gay person who has not had some instance of abuse in their life that can be attributed to their lifestyle choice. His own story opened my eyes to the stages of development in children that require proper care and nurturing from the parents.

Like I said, though, his message would best be heard at one of his speaking engagements.

The ACLU has picked up a lot of causes. That doesn't mean much. Just because they get behind something doesn't make it morally right on any level, nor does it make it law. It makes it annoying. And I think any reasonable human being would look at it and say "Consenting relations between two adult males or two adult females is in absolutely no way comparable to a relationship between a grown man and a young boy." There are so many factors that make it different, not least of all the fact that young kids can't make a reasonable decision. It's legal for a man and woman to get married, yet it's still illegal for a grown man and an underage woman to have any form of sexual relationship. Hell, it's illegal for a grown hot teacher and an underage student to have consensual sex, and as Adam Carolla put it, the only problems that will cause the kid is arthritis of the elbow from all the high fives he'll be giving in the halls. I don't see any of that being overturned in our society by the vocal minority, and it is the vast, vast minority who would be in favor of such laws.

Actually, there's a book called The War on Christmas with interesting insights into some "damage" the ACLU has done in our public school systems. Because the ACLU has deep pockets and do not hesitate taking issues to court, school systems around the nation have backed down on issues brought forth by the ACLU because the schools do not have the money to fight the ACLU in court. It's a strong-arm tactic. Where that would go on other issues is always a crap shoot, but I'd just prefer to cut them off before going down that road at all.

It would appear that a lot of the overtly religious people in the world spend a disproportionate amount of time getting upset about what other people get up to in their bedrooms. I find that a bit weird. Are people's sexual preferences and actions that big a deal? In the grand scheme of things, is what 2 people get up to in the comfort of their home enough to elicit divine wrath? Surely there are more pressing matters to get angry about. Or are there a lot of religious people who are afflicted by the haunting fear that someone somewhere is having a better time than they are?
Hmmm....

I really don't care what goes on in somebody's bedroom; however, I do care when they feel the need to plaster their antics all over the public. Gay or straight - I don't want to hear about it.

I've talked about a book previously regarding the tolerance message promulgated by post-modernist thinkers. My wife recommended it to me. When she first told me about it and the issues it covers, I thought it to be alarmist and religious. After reading it, I then found myself seeing the behaviors the book describes, and the message from the book has been completely validated in my experiences. From this, I start to look at how other shapings of our society will begin to turn away from what I believe this country to be founded upon, and that makes me feel ill at times.

A common Christian belief is that people who do not have God in their lives are looking for something to fill the void left from an absent God. This void is argued to lead people down the path of self destruction. Being that I come from this road myself, my life experiences have led me toward Christianity. I was raised Catholic, rebelled through college, and in turn did some pretty screwed-up stuff. Once I found a church that I felt comfortable in, I gave up my screwed-up behaviors. I'm by no means a saint, don't get me wrong there, but I do feel there is fulfillment in "finding God". And, yes, Sy Rogers sharing his void message clicked with this belief.

 

[Meedleyx10]

Two things-

-If you've never met a person whose homosexuality isn't the result of "abuse", I advise you to socialize more. Furthermore, I'm going to venture to say that the "abuse" you're describing is something you yourself have labelled and not something they came out and said. I've never heard anyone say, "Hi, I'm *insert name of choice homosexual* and I'm gay because daddy didn't play catch with me!". I dig brunnettes moreso than blondes....care to explain what abuse or otherwise negative and/or positive treatment might have caused that?
-Your last paragraph....it's funny how quickly/easily that could be turned around. I could just as easily say that belief in God is a way for people to fill a void left by a lack of being able to create their own fulfillment in life and seek that solace to help with their own insecurities. This is just a side-note if you will...I just think that argument is, for lack of a better word, "interesting".

 

[ABQShredHead]

Take it as you will, Drew. Anything can be turned around. I see many "Christians" who fit your desciption to a T, and I can even turn that statement around. I say "statement" since I did not use it as an argument and probably should have separated it from my post into its own.

My experiences with "abuse" in homosexuality was from the instances I heard through autobiographical admissions of highly visible persons coming out of the closet. Granted, that's a small sample size, but it did lead toward my views of homosexuality resulting from their own experiences rather than their genetic make up. No, I've never met a homosexual who said, "...I'm gay becuase daddy didn't play catch with me!".

 

[Achtland]

Alaska is the U.S. Nazi National Socialist command center.

 

[DoomsdayZach]

I have not met a single gay person who has not had some instance of abuse in their life that can be attributed to their lifestyle choice. His own story opened my eyes to the stages of development in children that require proper care and nurturing from the parents.

I completely agree that kids need proper upbringing and a proper environment to grow up in. And to be 100% honest, I'd rather have kids be brought up by loving gay parents than some of the horrific straight parents that are out there (and there are a LOT of them). As long as good moral values are in place, be it religious or otherwise, and the kid is able to function as a rational human being, I see no problem with it. In the end, we just don't see eye to eye on that issue, and that doesn't bother me one bit. Debate = always a good thing.
About Sy, I actually would be interested in hearing him speak. I doubt it would change my mind, but hearing what people have to say is key in understanding, which I feel is critical. Maybe I've been watching too much Star Trek lately, but I honestly feel that show has a lot more validity to life than most anything on tv today, even outside comic book conventions.

Actually, there's a book called The War on Christmas with interesting insights into some "damage" the ACLU has done in our public school systems. Because the ACLU has deep pockets and do not hesitate taking issues to court, school systems around the nation have backed down on issues brought forth by the ACLU because the schools do not have the money to fight the ACLU in court. It's a strong-arm tactic. Where that would go on other issues is always a crap shoot, but I'd just prefer to cut them off before going down that road at all.

Actually, you bring up a good point. hell, it wasn't too many years ago that I was in elementary school and we always did christmas shit. I mean, sure we learned about other religions, the jewish kids in the class had a chance to tell us about what their families did around the holidays (which I found interesting and it was cool to kind of get some perspective. Plus the jewish chick in the class was a hot redhead...), but there wasn't this huge freak out about the word "christmas" being used, as well there shouldn't be. Hell, I don't come from an overly religious family (oh, no shit?) but we still celebrate christmas, even if only for the material goodies that come with it. And while i think religion should not play a large part in the public education process at all, I don't see any problem with the words "under god" being recited in the pledge (if you don't like it, don't say it. Jesus, not like kids fully grasp the whole meaning and the implications of the pledge anyway) or a poster with the manger scene on it. If i were a parent (god forbid!) and I was raising a child right now, i would have no problem if that were to go on in school. Hell, I love christmas even still. It's the one time of year where most everyone is happy and decent to each other for no good reason, and I love that.

I don't think creationism should be taught in science classes because it's simply not a science where as evolution has basis in science (not to speak to anyone in particular's beliefs, just making a point). However, teaching kids to be good to one another, even if it is taught as a christian value, has no harm.

Still, the ACLU would have a much harder fought battle with the NAMBLA thing because the public opinion on christmas in schools is like night and day to the public opinion on if their 8 year old kid should be fucking. though to be honest, i think everyone (both sides of the issue) have more important things to worry about. Just stop having sex with little boys and everything will be ok

I've talked about a book previously regarding the tolerance message promulgated by post-modernist thinkers. My wife recommended it to me. When she first told me about it and the issues it covers, I thought it to be alarmist and religious. After reading it, I then found myself seeing the behaviors the book describes, and the message from the book has been completely validated in my experiences. From this, I start to look at how other shapings of our society will begin to turn away from what I believe this country to be founded upon, and that makes me feel ill at times.

Yes and no... and I will echo the sentiments of a South Park episode to address it. I believe that tolerance is a good thing in society because it means people aren't always at odds and fighting over petty bullshit. That's tolerance, not acceptance, and the two words have been confused and used interchangeably, which is wrong. And that's what South Park was saying. To paraphrase Mr. Garrison, when you are tolerating something, you're just putting up with it. It doesn't mean that you do (or should) accept it beyond that. Perfect example is the new Metallica album. I cannot accept the fact that people call it a legitimate release, but I tolerate it because what the fuck else am I going to do? I think that's the point. Learning to co-exist with shit that you completely disagree with.

A common Christian belief is that people who do not have God in their lives are looking for something to fill the void left from an absent God. This void is argued to lead people down the path of self destruction. Being that I come from this road myself, my life experiences have led me toward Christianity. I was raised Catholic, rebelled through college, and in turn did some pretty screwed-up stuff. Once I found a church that I felt comfortable in, I gave up my screwed-up behaviors. I'm by no means a saint, don't get me wrong there, but I do feel there is fulfillment in "finding God". And, yes, Sy Rogers sharing his void message clicked with this belief.

In the end, I think having faith in something (be it religion or other) is important. There has to be a reason why your living this life or else it's ultimately pointless to be here. It can be trivial or deep. It really doesn't matter. What does matter is that your beliefs (and I'm not singling you out Mark, this is simply a generic statement) don't become a weapon. That's where my problem with a lot of religions come in is the exploitation factor of both people within and outside. I'm tired of rambling. The end.

 

[ABQShredHead]

I think this fits right in, Zach. Being that I've seen the slow desensitizing of society to formerly non-accepted practices, I see this little bit as the start. We are now being introduced to the sexualization of children. It has to stop.