jump to last post 1-1 of 1 discussions (17 posts)

A Modern Analogy

  1. profile image0
    Sooner28posted 5 years ago

    Same-sex marriage is going to become legal sooner, rather than later.  The tide of history is upon us, and there is no reversing course.

    As a liberal, I am very happy about this development.  It means my homosexual brother and homosexual friends, and homosexuals I don't know will be treated more equally by American society.

    However, there are still forces fighting against marriage equality; these forces will never stop defending institutional discrimination.

    The arguments against same-sex marriage are similar to those who were against interracial marriage; it's unnatural; it's bad for the family.  The claims are simply recycled from the past and applied to gay marriage instead of interracial.

    I would venture to assert that, if Romney were to openly declare he was against interracial marriage, this would cause some of his Republican supporters to sit out the election, be more likely to vote for a third party, or vote for Obama, simply because Romney's position would be so egregious, and there were legitimate alternatives to him.

    Since opposition to same-sex marriage is just as egregious as opposition to interracial marriage, and Romney has openly declared he is against same-sex marriage, my question is why his support has not dwindled further?

    Whether Obama is playing politics or not, he has openly declared he is in favor of gay marriage, and so have Jill Stein and Gary Johnson.  There should be a "red line" that a candidate cannot cross in American politics.  I think Romney has crossed it, and has lost his right to even be a serious consider for the presidency.

    Your thoughts?

    1. Shadesbreath profile image86
      Shadesbreathposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      While I am with you in wanting equality for all American's, I am not for egregious red herring arguments like the one you are making to support the cause. Horrifically constructed arguments like the one you put up there can be taken by the proponents of discrimination and used as evidence for how empty the case being made for equality is.

      I know you mean well, but you are helping the haters with posts like this. Just so you know.

      1. profile image0
        Sooner28posted 5 years agoin reply to this

        Red herring?  How so?

      2. GA Anderson profile image82
        GA Andersonposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        Are you stating that someone who does not support same-sex marriage is a hater?

        Or that your morals are the only correct ones?

        If I do not feel homosexuality is a "normal" behavior - am I a hater?

        By your logic, should I also accept Namba's agenda as "normal" - just not yet recognized as such?

        If your lifestyle does not affect my lifestyle - it does not matter to me what yours is. But that does not mean I have to alter my morals to match yours.

        And yes, obviously, I am an old close-minded primitive that still thinks the definition of marriage is a man and women pairing.

        But then again, with enough support perhaps you can convince me that black really is white because that's the way you see it.

        ps. Do you really not care if Obama is sincere, or not - as long as he espouses what you want to hear?

        GA

        1. profile image0
          Sooner28posted 5 years agoin reply to this

          Someday you will realize how ridiculous it is to compare homosexuality to NAMBLA. 

          Two adults in a loving relationship compared to pedophiles...

          In what ways are they alike?

          1. GA Anderson profile image82
            GA Andersonposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            Not ridiculous at all - if you had made the correct comparison

            I was not comparing the actions of the two - I was comparing the expectation of both that the rest of society accept their view of the world as the correct/normal one.

            But, since you mention it... it is probably close to accurate to say - 50 years ago homosexuality was viewed by society in a similar way as pedophilia is today - will another 50 years change that too?

            Since my responses are apparently easy to be interpreted as anti-gay - I suppose I should mention that I am not.

            GA

            1. profile image0
              Sooner28posted 5 years agoin reply to this

              I'll respond to a few points.

              If I do not feel homosexuality is a "normal" behavior - am I a hater?

              The first thing is that you are completely inaccurate, because homosexuality is very normal in the animal kingdom, and has been found consistently throughout history.  It's been around longer than the concept of private property.

              By your logic, should I also accept Namba's agenda as "normal" - just not yet recognized as such?

              If your lifestyle does not affect my lifestyle - it does not matter to me what yours is. But that does not mean I have to alter my morals to match yours.


              There is no way to read that except that you are equating homosexuality with pedophilia.  You are claiming they are both equally morally abhorrent.

              As to the second part of your statement, are you in favor of discrimination or not?

              But, since you mention it... it is probably close to accurate to say - 50 years ago homosexuality was viewed by society in a similar way as pedophilia is today - will another 50 years change that too?

              You're correct.  It was viewed that way, due to small minded bigots being charge of the psychological profession.

              Are you claiming that pedophilia's immorality is a time and culturally dependent belief?

              1. GA Anderson profile image82
                GA Andersonposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                Now you are really spinning things, I will try to speak more slowly....



                Geez.... the old "Animal Kingdom" rational - Of course, you must be right. But does that mean the ones that eat their young are "normal" too?

                Double geez... I... already....explained...twice....I .... was... not.... comparing.... the.... behaviors.... just.... their.... expectation... that.... the... rest... of... us... accept... their.... definition.... of.... normal


                Nope. Well maybe a little, I do think chuckleheads should be treated differently



                hmmmm.... isn't that what you are claiming about homosexuality? That it's time society evolved/grew-up, and stopped discriminating? It's just that your cause is different.

                GA

                1. profile image0
                  Sooner28posted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  I did not claim everything in the animal kingdom should be adopted.  Clearly that would be absurd.  All I did was claim that homosexuality is very NORMAL, contrary to those who claim it is abnormal.  That isn't an argument in favor of homosexuality per se, it's just a counter to those who claim it is some sort of new phenomenon.

                  Society should grow up and recognize it is immoral to discriminate against a minority for no sufficient reason.  There is nothing immoral about homosexuality. 

                  I'll ask again for clarification purposes: are you in favor of same-sex marriage or against it?

                  1. GA Anderson profile image82
                    GA Andersonposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                    ================================================
                    Geez Louise... Soone28, you are so ready to restate your point - that you are apparently not reading what you are supposedly replying to.

                    First, and again...
                    I did not claim it was new - just that it is/was not viewed as a societal norm - even now, though it appears more "open-minded" people are coming to their senses and considering that it might be ok if it is the new "normal"

                    as for your "...nothing immoral about homosexuality...." belief,  - why must everyone else believe as you do?

                    Do you have some revelation to reveal that proves your belief is the correct one?

                    Or, since you brought a morality judgement into the argument - should we go back to Namba parallels... after all, that's what they say about their behavior. ."..it's not immoral - it's the closed-minded bigots in society that are wrong"

                    again, and again... believe what you want, but I still have the choice of agreeing or disagreeing.. until you show me that revelation of course.

                    and once more, again... as already stated,
                    "No, I do not believe in gay marriage!"

                    Gay unions - sure, gay mergers - sure, any kind of coupling descriptor you want. And I'm even for equal gay-spousal rights. and gay couple familial rights, and gay adoption rights, and I think that gay couples should have every right, opportunity, and legal remedy that a married couple has....

                    except the term marriage, and my acceptance that it is normal.

                    But, and here's the kicker... those are just my opinions and thoughts, and I will not impress them on anyone. (Who knows, I could be wrong. It happened once before back in '78. I thought I was wrong - but I was mistaken) - but you did ask...

                    GA

        2. Josak profile image59
          Josakposted 5 years agoin reply to this

          Yes equality under the law is the only ethical moral stance on the issue, anything else is discrimination. End of story.

          1. GA Anderson profile image82
            GA Andersonposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            Whew... thanks for ending the story. I was afraid you were going to define ethical morals for me. Now I can go look them up for myself. But should I focus on past, present, or future? Or does it matter?

            GA

            1. Josak profile image59
              Josakposted 5 years agoin reply to this

              You are welcome tongue , Being short is how I hide my revulsion, I am sure that in a few decades the opposition to homosexuality will be seen in the same way as racism is now... I am there already, the issue of course is you have no idea how much harm you do through your bigotry, no idea of the suicides, humiliation and suffering the backwardness causes, it cost me a good friend once, for what? Because it's not "normal" because it's not traditional? It does no one harm and as such you are well beyond any ethical footing when you support restricting the freedoms and liberties of others so forgive me if you talking ethics and morality makes me laugh.

              1. GA Anderson profile image82
                GA Andersonposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                Well, in a like-minded vein, perhaps I should also keep it short and just refer you to my responses to Sooner28, but...

                It appears you also only wish to make a statement, not a conversation, because....

                My responses were regarding the designation of homosexuality as a "normal" behavior - I do not believe by today's societal norms that it is. You may wish it otherwise, even think it obvious that it should be otherwise, but I do not think that you can honestly declare it to be otherwise.

                If it is your view that I am a bigot because my societal beliefs do not see it as "normal" then so be it. But I do not think I am a bigot. I see myself as fairly open-minded about most matters.

                I won't make fun of your sarcasm relative to "...makes me laugh," because you are so far off base it is apparently useless to even try.

                I see you as the misguided one - believing that yours are the only correct and righteous understandings of what's ethical and moral for the rest of us "non-believers." And for believing that anyone that does not think as you do is a bigot.

                I don't think that of you or sooner28 - I just disagree with you.

                Contrary to your perspective, I do not feel qualified to pass definitive judgement on others. I will judge them for myself. I will compare their ethics and morals to what I believe are right. And I will form opinions based on those judgements -  But that is only the formation of my own opinions - not a condemnation, or approval of their correctness.

                Although it appears you have no problem doing so.

                GA

    2. Josak profile image59
      Josakposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      In my opinion you are correct, any politician who feels it's OK to discriminate against others based on race, sex, sexual preference etc. is clearly not qualified to lead a country where "all men are created equal".

      1. GA Anderson profile image82
        GA Andersonposted 5 years agoin reply to this

        Let me guess - the pun was intended....
        GA

 
working