Sarah Palin and gays, and the RNC ticket

[Craig234]

There have been many Palin thread, and I'm starting another - because I think this issue is far more than big enough for a thread.

Simply put, IMO, gays are the last big civil rights issue our nation has yet to address, the last case where discriminating for no good reason still has very wide support.

We've stopped denying women the vote, enslaving blacks or having 'separate but equal' denial of equal access, and made partial progress on gay rights.

But gay rights are still where the other groups discriminated against many decades ago were then. The basic fact that generally people do not choose to be gay - putting aside the issue of the injustice of discrimination even if they did choose it - is still not recognized by a large part of the population, is a major situation of ignorance - and it cause a lot of side effects, from the smug discrimnation on marriage to a fringe who would criminalize it.

Just as we were right to say women have a right in the workplace and the ballot box, just as we were right to say that blacks cannot be enslaved and have the right to enjoy any public facility as others, we are right to recognize the nature of homosexuality as a natural condition affecting a small percent of people in all times and societies, harmless, leaving them with needs like anyone else for relationships, and dignity.

We need to recognize that all of the above, including gay marital discrimination, are *nothing* but bigotry, and immoral, and correct the laws.

The Republicans, after VP Cheney, with a gay daughter, did not agree with the amendment to ban gay marriage, are taking a step back (unbelievable as that is to do worse than Cheney), and have nominated an ultra right-wing extremist who denies the science on gays, lies about the nature of their homosexuality, and supports legal discrimination. This is no more unacceptable than going back on the rights for women, minorities, or others.

This is not one side of a reasonable difference, it is outrageous bigotry, like David Duke.

And McCain by appointing her, 'thoroughly vetted', silent on her position on this, is condoning her bigotry and empowering it.

It's completely despicable, immoral, and unacceptable for a Presidential ticket.

 

[DuffmanOhYeah]

Originally posted by: Craig234
we are right to recognize the nature of homosexuality as a natural condition affecting a small percent of people in all times and societies

You say it as though it is a disease, not a choice.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: DuffmanOhYeah

Originally posted by: Craig234
we are right to recognize the nature of homosexuality as a natural condition affecting a small percent of people in all times and societies

You say it as though it is a disease, not a choice.

It's neither a disease, nor a choice. While we aren't 100% sure of all the causes of homosexuality, the evidence points heavily towards it being a genetic condition.

 

[DuffmanOhYeah]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: DuffmanOhYeah

Originally posted by: Craig234
we are right to recognize the nature of homosexuality as a natural condition affecting a small percent of people in all times and societies

You say it as though it is a disease, not a choice.

It's neither a disease, nor a choice. While we aren't 100% sure of all the causes of homosexuality, the evidence points heavily towards it being a genetic condition.

Addictive tendencies, addiction to cocaine for instance, are also a genetic condition. (Dopamine chemistry) However, the manifestation of which is also illegal. Should we legalize and allow for the expression of these genetic tendencies?

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: DuffmanOhYeah

Originally posted by: Craig234
we are right to recognize the nature of homosexuality as a natural condition affecting a small percent of people in all times and societies

You say it as though it is a disease, not a choice.

It's neither a disease, nor a choice. While we aren't 100% sure of all the causes of homosexuality, the evidence points heavily towards it being a genetic condition.

Duffman: I say it as though it's a "natural condition", not a choice, which it generally is. Your point?

Eskimo: the evidence is very strong that there is a biological factor, at least - but also evidence that it's not *simply* a 'gay gene' type situation.

For example, one of the clearest indications is comparing genetic twins, and there is a huge correlation - nature not nurture - but it's not 100% - i.e., not a 'gay gene'.

While the science doesn't know the details, most gays indicate they had no choice; scientists have found they can predict homosexuality with high accuracy as early as 5 years old if not earlier; there is overwhelming evidence it is some sort of natural condition. Science has also found nurture to play a minor role at most, in the study of children brought up together similarly, genetic twins raised separately, etc.

 

[andy04]

Originally posted by: DuffmanOhYeah

Originally posted by: Craig234
we are right to recognize the nature of homosexuality as a natural condition affecting a small percent of people in all times and societies

You say it as though it is a disease, not a choice.

sadly thats exactly what it is...

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: DuffmanOhYeah

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: DuffmanOhYeah

Originally posted by: Craig234
we are right to recognize the nature of homosexuality as a natural condition affecting a small percent of people in all times and societies

You say it as though it is a disease, not a choice.

It's neither a disease, nor a choice. While we aren't 100% sure of all the causes of homosexuality, the evidence points heavily towards it being a genetic condition.

Addictive tendencies, addiction to cocaine for instance, are also a genetic condition. (Dopamine chemistry) However, the manifestation of which is also illegal. Should we legalize and allow for the expression of these genetic tendencies?

That's debatable, for discussion let's say "no".

Now, can you show why same-sex orientation needs to be criminalized?

Can you show why people with the homosexual orientation should receive any fewer rights than people with the heterosexual orientation?

Cocaine causes paranoia, increased likelihood of violence, and other harms. Homosexuality does not; for example, 'driving while homosexual' is relatively safe.

Make your case, or be responsible and end your bigotry.

 

[Pens1566]

Originally posted by: andy04

Originally posted by: DuffmanOhYeah

Originally posted by: Craig234
we are right to recognize the nature of homosexuality as a natural condition affecting a small percent of people in all times and societies

You say it as though it is a disease, not a choice.

sadly thats exactly what it is...

And you're here to "pray away teh gay", right?

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: andy04

Originally posted by: DuffmanOhYeah

Originally posted by: Craig234
we are right to recognize the nature of homosexuality as a natural condition affecting a small percent of people in all times and societies

You say it as though it is a disease, not a choice.

sadly thats exactly what it is...

You are ignorant of what disease is, and of what homosexualit is. You don't 'catch the gay', as the people who mock the ignorant idiot bigots say.

 

[andy04]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Simply put, IMO, gays are the last big civil rights issue our nation has yet to address, the last case where discriminating for no good reason still has very wide support.

YO sucks... Why is it last... dont you think human animal union could be next? or polygamy ?

 

[Pens1566]

Originally posted by: andy04

Originally posted by: Craig234

Simply put, IMO, gays are the last big civil rights issue our nation has yet to address, the last case where discriminating for no good reason still has very wide support.

YO sucks... Why is it last... dont you think human animal union could be next? or polygamy ?

You forgot child molestation from your "Junior Rick Santorum talking points playset".

 

[Corbett]

Let's see :

Black People - Born that way
Women - Born than way
Gays - Jury is still out (though I personally believe they are NOT born that way)

[/thread]

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: DuffmanOhYeah

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: DuffmanOhYeah

Originally posted by: Craig234
we are right to recognize the nature of homosexuality as a natural condition affecting a small percent of people in all times and societies

You say it as though it is a disease, not a choice.

It's neither a disease, nor a choice. While we aren't 100% sure of all the causes of homosexuality, the evidence points heavily towards it being a genetic condition.

Addictive tendencies, addiction to cocaine for instance, are also a genetic condition. (Dopamine chemistry) However, the manifestation of which is also illegal. Should we legalize and allow for the expression of these genetic tendencies?

Well you picked a bad example for me at least, as I think all drug use should be legal. That's not really important though, as my post was only responding to your false assertion that homosexuality is a choice when the vast majority of scientific evidence points the other way.

Anyways, people have genetic predispositions to do all sorts of things that aren't legal. We're violent by nature, but our genetic code telling us to fight and kill each other doesn't make it okay. The obvious means by which we should determine what is legal and what isn't is by the impact that the behavior has on society. If you're going to try and argue that people being gay is bad for society I'm just going to laugh at you.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: andy04

Originally posted by: Craig234

Simply put, IMO, gays are the last big civil rights issue our nation has yet to address, the last case where discriminating for no good reason still has very wide support.

YO sucks...

Explain this.

Why is it last... dont you think human animal union could be next? or polygamy ?

The point I was making is that it's the last big civil rights issue involving a group of people with a natural condition (gender, race, sexual orientation) with a history of legal discrimination. I'm distinguising that class of civil rights issue from others involving some amount of choice - the civil right of religion, of free speech (commies, neocons, etc.), of other 'choices', of polygamy, etc.

That's not to say there aren't other ciivl rights issues to look at, but that this is the last of the ones involving a natural condition like this, for which there's so much shame.

FWIW, not to derail this thread - start a new one for more discussion - I don't know whether pedophilia has a 'natural condition' component; if it does, it doesn't meet the 'for no good reason' part of my description, since it is harmful. For polygamy, there may well be a civil rights issue whether there's reason to discriminate, but I don't see any 'natural condition' involved the way there is on other issues, it's based on other things.

 

[yllus]

Originally posted by: andy04

Originally posted by: Craig234

Simply put, IMO, gays are the last big civil rights issue our nation has yet to address, the last case where discriminating for no good reason still has very wide support.

YO sucks... Why is it last... dont you think human animal union could be next? or polygamy ?

Can't say that I'd care very much if polygamy was legalized. As long as it's rational adults making the decision for themselves, who cares what they do? I feel for the guy who doesn't think one wife is enough misery.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Corbett
Let's see :

Black People - Born that way
Women - Born than way
Gays - Jury is still out (though I personally believe they are NOT born that way)

[/thread]

You can't make any more case that gays are not 'born that way' than you can for women and blacks, because you are quite ignorant of the science. You are behaving as a bigot.

 

[Corbett]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Corbett
Let's see :

Black People - Born that way
Women - Born than way
Gays - Jury is still out (though I personally believe they are NOT born that way)

[/thread]

You can't make any more case that gays are not 'born that way' than you can for women and blacks, because you are quite ignorant of the science. You are behaving as a bigot.

Are you blind? You can tell a black person was born that way just by looking at them (in most cases), just as you can tell a woman is is born that way (in most cases) just by looking at her. You cannot tell a person is gay (in most cases) just by looking at them.

And its nice to see you want to debate this issue by starting a thread, but then call anyone who disagrees with you a bigot.

 

[Corbett]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: andy04

Originally posted by: Craig234

Simply put, IMO, gays are the last big civil rights issue our nation has yet to address, the last case where discriminating for no good reason still has very wide support.

YO sucks...

Explain this.

Why is it last... dont you think human animal union could be next? or polygamy ?

The point I was making is that it's the last big civil rights issue involving a group of people with a natural condition (gender, race, sexual orientation) with a history of legal discrimination. I'm distinguising that class of civil rights issue from others involving some amount of choice - the civil right of religion, of free speech (commies, neocons, etc.), of other 'choices', of polygamy, etc.

That's not to say there aren't other ciivl rights issues to look at, but that this is the last of the ones involving a natural condition like this, for which there's so much shame.

FWIW, not to derail this thread - start a new one for more discussion - I don't know whether pedophilia has a 'natural condition' component; if it does, it doesn't meet the 'for no good reason' part of my description, since it is harmful. For polygamy, there may well be a civil rights issue whether there's reason to discriminate, but I don't see any 'natural condition' involved the way there is on other issues, it's based on other things.

You believe its a "natural condition", but that has yet to be a proven THEORY.

 

[hellokeith]

Religious and societal norms arguments aside, gay unions are a very touchy subject for any political party:

* equal protection issues from state to state
* further complication of child custody issues
* opens the door wide open for polygamy, which would create a nightmare of marital/inheritance law interpretation

Also, marriage is problematic in that it can be a religious ceremony which is then recognized by the state (and hence the state laws). This treads a narrow path near establishment of religion (i.e. separation of church and state).

While I am disappointed in the prospect, I would not be opposed to civil unions which have the same legal recognition as marriage, so long as marriage is kept separate and is solely defined as between one man and one woman. And states should retain the right to determine custody/adoption practices/limitations.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Corbett
Let's see :

Black People - Born that way
Women - Born than way
Gays - Jury is still out (though I personally believe they are NOT born that way)

[/thread]

You can't make any more case that gays are not 'born that way' than you can for women and blacks, because you are quite ignorant of the science. You are behaving as a bigot.

Are you blind? You can tell a black person was born that way just by looking at them (in most cases), just as you can tell a woman is is born that way (in most cases) just by looking at her. You cannot tell a person is gay (in most cases) just by looking at them.

Your reading comprehension isn't working too well. I didn't ask you about proving their status at birth, I asked you to prove gays are NOT gay at birth. You can't.

And its nice to see you want to debate this issue by starting a thread, but then call anyone who disagrees with you a bigot.

I'm not. The first person who makes an argument on the other side not based on bigotry, I won't say is a bigot. But there haven't been any in a very long time.

That's how bigotry works - most bigots IMO are not really aware of their own bigotry, their nose has to be rubbed in it for a long time, and some eventually recognize it.

Sadly, I somewhat speak from experience. My own view on gays has evolved, and I have some idea of the blindness of the anti-gay view.

You *cannot* back up your basis for the discrimination you advocate with any rational argument, and yet you insist on discrimination. And you can't see that's bigotry.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Corbett

You believe its a "natural condition", but that has yet to be a proven THEORY.

Right, it is only a theory. It is a theory supported by considerable evidence though. Significantly more evidence than the idea it is a choice I might add.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: andy04

Originally posted by: Craig234

Simply put, IMO, gays are the last big civil rights issue our nation has yet to address, the last case where discriminating for no good reason still has very wide support.

YO sucks...

Explain this.

Why is it last... dont you think human animal union could be next? or polygamy ?

The point I was making is that it's the last big civil rights issue involving a group of people with a natural condition (gender, race, sexual orientation) with a history of legal discrimination. I'm distinguising that class of civil rights issue from others involving some amount of choice - the civil right of religion, of free speech (commies, neocons, etc.), of other 'choices', of polygamy, etc.

That's not to say there aren't other ciivl rights issues to look at, but that this is the last of the ones involving a natural condition like this, for which there's so much shame.

FWIW, not to derail this thread - start a new one for more discussion - I don't know whether pedophilia has a 'natural condition' component; if it does, it doesn't meet the 'for no good reason' part of my description, since it is harmful. For polygamy, there may well be a civil rights issue whether there's reason to discriminate, but I don't see any 'natural condition' involved the way there is on other issues, it's based on other things.

You believe its a "natural condition", but that has yet to be a proven THEORY.

I'd say it's proven to any informed and reasnable person. You cannot make *any* rational case that there's even 1/100 of 1% reason to doubt the science on that.

Your position is based on bigotry, and so you will insist that it's not proven, while you refuse to get informed and have an opinion worth listening to.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: hellokeith
Religious and societal norms arguments aside, gay unions are a very touchy subject for any political party:

* equal protection issues from state to state
* further complication of child custody issues
* opens the door wide open for polygamy, which would create a nightmare of marital/inheritance law interpretation

Also, marriage is problematic in that it can be a religious ceremony which is then recognized by the state (and hence the state laws). This treads a narrow path near establishment of religion (i.e. separation of church and state).

While I am disappointed in the prospect, I would not be opposed to civil unions which have the same legal recognition as marriage, so long as marriage is kept separate and is solely defined as between one man and one woman. And states should retain the right to determine custody/adoption practices/limitations.

Your right to bigotry exists within your church. If you want a Catholic marriage, fine, get one. But gays have every right to *civil* marriage that you have.

While it's good that so much of the right - and I usually consider Keith far right - has arrived at the point of supporting gay unions, it's still wrong to dwar the line there.

 

[DuffmanOhYeah]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

That's not really important though, as my post was only responding to your false assertion that homosexuality is a choice when the vast majority of scientific evidence points the other way.

You've missed the argument.

I'll give you 100% deference as to whether someone being attracted to the same sex is genetic.

So, lets for the sake of this argument assume it is. What is not genetic is the commission of an act based upon that desire. Argue however you like about other things, but argue against commission of act being voluntary and you fail the argument immediately.

Now, my drug example was meant to set up a parallel where we currently have in place law restricting the commission of an act based upon a genetic condition. We do not punish the condition, we punish the commission of the act.

My contention is that society (in general I dislike that term, but for now it will suffice) may impose whatever restrictions it so chooses.

My guess is that you will say "that is barbaric" or more likely, "but if an act doesn't harm another, then it should be protected."

Fine, then I am going to go out, club to death all the polar bears, spotted owls and baby seals I can find (in fact, until they are all extinct), and then have intercourse with them on front yard, where everyone else can see.

In reality, this scenario causes you no harm, other than it may offend your moral sensibilities.

But wait! Maybe you actually have a preference set that economically values seeing a polar bear. Or even possibly just knowing one is alive even if you cannot see one. Maybe that is how it causes you harm.

There, now you have a justification for keeping me from doing that. That's the "negative impact on society" you are talking about.



Please then understand that others have different preference sets than you. Many people in fact feel the same way about homosexuality.

 

[Corbett]

Originally posted by: Craig234
Your reading comprehension isn't working too well. I didn't ask you about proving their status at birth, I asked you to prove gays are NOT gay at birth. You can't.

And you cant prove they ARE!