Sarah Palin and gays, and the RNC ticket

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Originally posted by: hellokeith
Originally posted by: Craig234
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.

What is your opposition to civil unions if they are equivalent to marriage under the law?

By "crusading" the point to redefine marriage, which is both deeply historical and religious in nature in this country, you only create enemies to civil unions that would grant parity. You are encouraging a group of people to go to the polls against civil unions who would otherwise likely just stay home and not vote on the issue of civil unions either way.

Here's my view. On the substantive issue, the dividing line is that the religious part of marriage is protected in the church. Catholics don't have to have gay marriages.

On the civil side of marriage, that's part of equality, and gays need full equality, period, and the politics of 'but bigots will concede some things if you compromise' is not enough.

The issue IMO is symbolic - it's the bigots recognizing they have no leg to stand on to defend denying civil union equal rights, but they really would like to keep something that says, however symbolically, that they're still better than gays, still superior to them, and that gays still don't get full equality with them, and that something is the word marriage.

I used to actually have the same opinion you express, that the important thing was the material equality, and that if we could get that for gays, who cares about a word - but I came to realize that's the point, if it's 'who cares about a word', then why deny the word to gays, and why shouldn't the opponents of gay marriage be the ones to have to say 'it's just a word' and not make an issue of it? I realized that it's nothing but a symbol of bigotry to deny the equality on the word marriage as well.

And so, I think that has to be done, too, not to have that linger as second-clas treatment.

A big part of what marriage 'means' in society is for couples to be publically recognized.

To make gays have a second-class relationship status is unjustified discrimination.

Now you tell me, why *shouldn't* gays get the word marriage for civil marriages, other than the threat of people to vote against even more justice if they can't block some?
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
73,237
6,338
126
Originally posted by: 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.

Homophobia is a genetic disease. You may be as homophobic as you like. It's when you act out your homophobia by choice that we will have to put you down.
 

sportage

Lifer
Feb 1, 2008
11,492
3,161
136
Homosexuality has been around since trees, rocks and cavemen.
What is more natural/normal than that?
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
How about we have black people get the right to what will be called "black marriage". Others will still get just "marriage".

They'll have all the same rights, but just the certificate and public records will say "black marriage" instead of "marriage". OK? Why would anyone get hung up over a word?
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,529
3
0
Originally posted by: OneOfTheseDays
I don't get the hold up over the term marriage either.

The government needs to define all "unions" as civil unions. Let the churches decide what marriages are.
There are churches that sanction same sex marriages.

 

Double Trouble

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
9,270
103
106
OP:

Blah blah blah <personal diatribe on gay rights> blah blah

That's your opinion, you are entitled to it, that doesn't mean the rest of us have to agree.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Originally posted by: Double Trouble
OP:

Blah blah blah <personal diatribe on gay rights> blah blah

That's your opinion, you are entitled to it, that doesn't mean the rest of us have to agree.

I guess you could say the same thing in response to Paine or Locke arguing for democracy, MLK on equal rights, Lincoln on slavery. You add zero with your post.

Or to put it in words you can understand to describe your post:

blah blah (nothing else) blah blah.
 

ebaycj

Diamond Member
Mar 9, 2002
5,418
0
0
Originally posted by: RocksteadyDotNet
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
They should be given the same civil-rights as everyone else. With the exception of 'marriage' because a marriage is religious in nature.

Then of cource marriage should have no legal bearing right? Because it's a religious thing.

Exactly.

"marriage" in a civil / legal sense should really be called "legal/civil union", all "married" couples should have to get one of these (to share benefits / hospital visitation / inheritance / etc..), regardless if they are gay or straight. The "legal/civil union" should be the only thing that matters outside of church.

Then everyone is on an equal playing field. If churchy people want to go to their church and get "married" / go through a "marriage" ceremony, then that is up to them, and will be between the couple / their church / their god(s) (or lack thereof).
 

RocksteadyDotNet

Diamond Member
Jul 29, 2008
3,152
1
0
Originally posted by: ebaycj
Originally posted by: RocksteadyDotNet
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
They should be given the same civil-rights as everyone else. With the exception of 'marriage' because a marriage is religious in nature.

Then of cource marriage should have no legal bearing right? Because it's a religious thing.

Exactly.

"marriage" in a civil / legal sense should really be called "legal/civil union", all "married" couples should have to get one of these (to share benefits / hospital visitation / inheritance / etc..), regardless if they are gay or straight. The "legal/civil union" should be the only thing that matters outside of church.

Then everyone is on an equal playing field. If churchy people want to go to their church and get "married" / go through a "marriage" ceremony, then that is up to them, and will be between the couple / their church / their god(s) (or lack thereof).


Yeah, I wasn't being sarcastic. I was saying "marriage" shouldn't be a legal thing. :)
 

TechBoyJK

Lifer
Oct 17, 2002
16,699
60
91
wow, it sounds like a couple people are excited they learned a new word (bigot) and are trigger happy to use it.

cliff notes on this thread

1. Being gay is natural!
2. Men have penises, women have vagines. Being gay is not our design.
3. Your a bigot!
4. No YOU are a bigot!
5. Clearly you don't understand what a bigot is.
6. NO you don't understand what a bigot is.

I personally think homosexuality is an unnatural thing. "Natural" gayness is a THEORY that is very close to being proveable. However, it is not yet proven. I tend to think it's pyschological, caused by a chemical imbalance in the head (much like depression). This coupled with "nurture" factors (no mom in the house, boy always cuddling with dad), can lead a man to find his home in the arms of another man.

I don't think its right, it's something we shoudl attempt to steer people away from and help them out of.

HOWEVER, its just my opinion, and I don't think the gay sickness is something that should cause oppression or discrimination. Gay men naturally creep me out, BUT my lawyer is gay. I didn't let him being gay become a factor in my choice of a lawyer.
 

351Cleveland

Golden Member
Apr 14, 2001
1,381
6
81
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
They should be given the same civil-rights as everyone else. With the exception of 'marriage' because a marriage is religious in nature.

+1

I dont agree on the government LICENSING marraige. They should be LICENSING legal unions, all with the same rights. Marraige is not a government institution, it is a religious one. I disagree with homosexuality and would counsel those who practice it, I would not discriminate against them.



 

TechBoyJK

Lifer
Oct 17, 2002
16,699
60
91
Originally posted by: 351Cleveland
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
They should be given the same civil-rights as everyone else. With the exception of 'marriage' because a marriage is religious in nature.

+1

I dont agree on the government LICENSING marraige. They should be LICENSING legal unions, all with the same rights. Marraige is not a government institution, it is a religious one. I disagree with homosexuality and would counsel those who practice it, I would not discriminate against them.

I agree with this.

Some societies take their disgust for homosexuality to the extreme (go to hell, hang, death)

I just think its a sickness and wish there was a way to help those that were afflicted with it.

But I don't think it's like a pyscho sickness or anything. Like I said, I have some serious stuff going on, and I'm trusting it all with a gay lawyer. I even joke with that one day, I'm going to slip him a "straight" pill (like a roofie) and he's going to wake up with his boyfriends sister.
 

Atreus21

Lifer
Aug 21, 2007
12,001
571
126
Dude, gay people turn straight all the time, and straight people turn gay all the time. That sounds to me like a choice.

Race and sex aren't choices. Sexual preference is a choice. The word preference is indicative of a choice or selection.

Now.

I think some gays might be born into it. I don't honestly know. I don't see how one can prove this, apart from a brain examination by science I can't even begin to comprehend.

 

RightIsWrong

Diamond Member
Apr 29, 2005
5,649
0
0
Originally posted by: DuffmanOhYeah


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.

I would argue that the act of heterosexual coitus is not a genetic condition either.

Originally posted by: DuffmanOhYeah

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.

Your act here would cause a disruption in the natural food chain which could cause harm to everyone else. Who knows what the effect of having the natural prey of polar bears or seals growing exponentially would have on the ecosystem? (If others want to play the slippery slope "Poligomy/beastiality" card, I get to play this one)

I could also argue that heterosexual intercourse (cause I think that you or someone else will try to counter with HIV/AIDS) carries the risk of multiple STDs that can result in death and therefore should be as illegal as homosexual intercourse/relationships. If you really want to use extremes as the starting point, you have to use BOTH extremes, not just the one that is convenient for your argument.

Originally posted by: Butterbean

There is not s shred of evidence homosexuality is genetic. There is lots of evidence of homosexuality and childhood sexual abuse and family problems . Its not pc to discuss such evidence so its been ignored while the APA is only interested in "safe" studies it will know the outcome of.

You're an idiot. You have shown yourself to be very bigoted and make inflammatory remarks either out of complete ignorance, stupidity or just to get a reaction. But if the above is truly your honest opinion on the subject...I have a fairly strong opinion on which of the three options best fits you.

Tell me exactly at what point you "decided" that you wanted to be a heterosexual and made the choice that women were who you were attracted to and that you would not be attracted to men in any way.

Originally posted by: Corbett

And no, my opinion isn't based on bigotry, it's based on the Bible, which says homosexuality is a sin.?

Do you really want to base your entire belief system on a book that also states that it is ok to keep others in slavery, condones incest and teaches that women are not equal to men?

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
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.
Actually that group would be Christian conservatives and southerners.

How often do you see someone post a bigoted comment about a gay on this board?
Compare that to how often you see a bigoted or insulting comments about Christians or southerners.

Choosing to be a Christian or to live in the south are choices. You could be a Muslim, agnostic, atheist, Catholic, Jew, etc and you can certainly move. You can't stop being gay. Ask Ted Haggard.

Originally posted by: Corbett
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
They should be given the same civil-rights as everyone else. With the exception of 'marriage' because a marriage is religious in nature.

:thumbsup:

Once the government began issuing licenses and granting benefits based on it, it no longer remained the religious right of the church (any church) but a state mandated contractual agreement.

Originally posted by: TechBoyJK

I personally think homosexuality is an unnatural thing. "Natural" gayness is a THEORY that is very close to being proveable. However, it is not yet proven. I tend to think it's pyschological, caused by a chemical imbalance in the head (much like depression).

You will have to define "Natural". Do you mean, occurring naturally in humans and other animal species? After all, many different animal species have been observed performing in and maintaining homosexual relationships.
 

Atreus21

Lifer
Aug 21, 2007
12,001
571
126
Originally posted by: Craig234

Yes, I'm bigoted against bigots, and I'll defend that bigotry. You can't defend yours.

Wait, you're bigoted against yourself?

Ever heard of the law of non-contradiction?
 

Atreus21

Lifer
Aug 21, 2007
12,001
571
126
Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Choosing to be a Christian or to live in the south are choices. You could be a Muslim, agnostic, atheist, Catholic, Jew, etc and you can certainly move. You can't stop being gay. Ask Ted Haggard.

C'mon man. You've never seen or heard of a gay person turning straight? I can quote all kinds of anecdotal evidence. I'm pretty sure there's even been a study a few years ago indicating something like this.
 

OneOfTheseDays

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2000
7,052
0
0
Can anyone on this forum honestly say that they don't think gays will receive full equality in our society in the next two or three decades? If you can't see the trend, you're blind. We're moving towards acceptance of gays, it's only a matter of time.

 

TechBoyJK

Lifer
Oct 17, 2002
16,699
60
91
Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Originally posted by: DuffmanOhYeah


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.

I would argue that the act of heterosexual coitus is not a genetic condition either.

Originally posted by: DuffmanOhYeah

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.

Your act here would cause a disruption in the natural food chain which could cause harm to everyone else. Who knows what the effect of having the natural prey of polar bears or seals growing exponentially would have on the ecosystem? (If others want to play the slippery slope "Poligomy/beastiality" card, I get to play this one)

I could also argue that heterosexual intercourse (cause I think that you or someone else will try to counter with HIV/AIDS) carries the risk of multiple STDs that can result in death and therefore should be as illegal as homosexual intercourse/relationships. If you really want to use extremes as the starting point, you have to use BOTH extremes, not just the one that is convenient for your argument.

Originally posted by: Butterbean

There is not s shred of evidence homosexuality is genetic. There is lots of evidence of homosexuality and childhood sexual abuse and family problems . Its not pc to discuss such evidence so its been ignored while the APA is only interested in "safe" studies it will know the outcome of.

You're an idiot. You have shown yourself to be very bigoted and make inflammatory remarks either out of complete ignorance, stupidity or just to get a reaction. But if the above is truly your honest opinion on the subject...I have a fairly strong opinion on which of the three options best fits you.

Tell me exactly at what point you "decided" that you wanted to be a heterosexual and made the choice that women were who you were attracted to and that you would not be attracted to men in any way.

Originally posted by: Corbett

And no, my opinion isn't based on bigotry, it's based on the Bible, which says homosexuality is a sin.?

Do you really want to base your entire belief system on a book that also states that it is ok to keep others in slavery, condones incest and teaches that women are not equal to men?

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
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.
Actually that group would be Christian conservatives and southerners.

How often do you see someone post a bigoted comment about a gay on this board?
Compare that to how often you see a bigoted or insulting comments about Christians or southerners.

Choosing to be a Christian or to live in the south are choices. You could be a Muslim, agnostic, atheist, Catholic, Jew, etc and you can certainly move. You can't stop being gay. Ask Ted Haggard.

Originally posted by: Corbett
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
They should be given the same civil-rights as everyone else. With the exception of 'marriage' because a marriage is religious in nature.

:thumbsup:

Once the government began issuing licenses and granting benefits based on it, it no longer remained the religious right of the church (any church) but a state mandated contractual agreement.

Originally posted by: TechBoyJK

I personally think homosexuality is an unnatural thing. "Natural" gayness is a THEORY that is very close to being proveable. However, it is not yet proven. I tend to think it's pyschological, caused by a chemical imbalance in the head (much like depression).

You will have to define "Natural". Do you mean, occurring naturally in humans and other animal species? After all, many different animal species have been observed performing in and maintaining homosexual relationships.

I understand the argument that animals were similary designed as male/female counterparts, and in an evolutionary sense, it's obvious the design is that the male and female mate to procreate. And the argument is that even animals which are similary designed in that sense are also observed engaging in homosexual activities. (male dogs humping other male dogs, etc)

However! I'd like to think that humans are different. We have more ability to reason, etc. And I think that this would help us realize our "natural" design. The design of man and woman are obviously complimentary to each other (i put my penis in your vagina and it feels really good, naturally, with no lube, and no shit on my dick). I don't see how men were designed to be with men, nor how they evolved to be with men. (the design/evolved argument is for another thread).

To me, man on man, woman on woman (in regards to loving and fulfilling relationships, family, etc) is completely unnatural, and it just tells me that if a man kind find what he needs in a woman and has to go to another man, its a sure tell sign he has "issues" and was either abused, or something traumatic like that. SOMETHING happened along the way..

I mean, I hear gay guys give the best head. I LOVE getting head. I could see myself getting so drunk that I might let a guy blow me. But, probably not. And if I did, I'd never feel the need to kiss him, hug him, or screw him. I'd still want to go home and cuddle with a woman, take care of a woman, and get my love and sex from her.

MY point is that I'd have to be drunk and out of my mind to deviate from what I feel is a natural action as a man and that's the attraction to a woman for all things necessary. No way in my right mind would I let another man go down on me, or would I consider anything else. I'd have to be sick.


 

Vette73

Lifer
Jul 5, 2000
21,503
8
0
Originally posted by: Atreus21
Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Choosing to be a Christian or to live in the south are choices. You could be a Muslim, agnostic, atheist, Catholic, Jew, etc and you can certainly move. You can't stop being gay. Ask Ted Haggard.

C'mon man. You've never seen or heard of a gay person turning straight? I can quote all kinds of anecdotal evidence. I'm pretty sure there's even been a study a few years ago indicating something like this.

Oh really, lets see it.

So I guess you had to choose who to be atracted to?
Sorry, but for me I saw women and think sex. I see a guy and don't. No one told me that that is just how I was born.
 

TechBoyJK

Lifer
Oct 17, 2002
16,699
60
91
Originally posted by: Atreus21
Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Choosing to be a Christian or to live in the south are choices. You could be a Muslim, agnostic, atheist, Catholic, Jew, etc and you can certainly move. You can't stop being gay. Ask Ted Haggard.

C'mon man. You've never seen or heard of a gay person turning straight? I can quote all kinds of anecdotal evidence. I'm pretty sure there's even been a study a few years ago indicating something like this.

I think rightiswrong is not correct. Gay people do turn straight. It happens all the time. I know people that have done it, and the most often used excuse is "I was confused"
 

RightIsWrong

Diamond Member
Apr 29, 2005
5,649
0
0
Originally posted by: TechBoyJK
Originally posted by: Atreus21
Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Choosing to be a Christian or to live in the south are choices. You could be a Muslim, agnostic, atheist, Catholic, Jew, etc and you can certainly move. You can't stop being gay. Ask Ted Haggard.

C'mon man. You've never seen or heard of a gay person turning straight? I can quote all kinds of anecdotal evidence. I'm pretty sure there's even been a study a few years ago indicating something like this.

I think rightiswrong is not correct. Gay people do turn straight. It happens all the time. I know people that have done it, and the most often used excuse is "I was confused"

Or...they are so insecure that they are unable to handle the pressures being placed on them by their family and/or friends, church, whatever that they thought it would be easier in the long run to deny themselves their natural feelings of attraction.

Oh, and for every case of "someone turning straight", there are just as many cases of others saying that they were "living a lie" and "turning gay". A choice I'm sure that we all will have to make one day, right?
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
47,997
37,169
136
Originally posted by: TechBoyJK
Originally posted by: Atreus21
Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Choosing to be a Christian or to live in the south are choices. You could be a Muslim, agnostic, atheist, Catholic, Jew, etc and you can certainly move. You can't stop being gay. Ask Ted Haggard.

C'mon man. You've never seen or heard of a gay person turning straight? I can quote all kinds of anecdotal evidence. I'm pretty sure there's even been a study a few years ago indicating something like this.

I think rightiswrong is not correct. Gay people do turn straight. It happens all the time. I know people that have done it, and the most often used excuse is "I was confused"

And "straight" people turn gay, but they were all along.

The binary distinction between gay and straight leaves a lot of people standing at various points in the middle. The Kinsey scale which suggests sexuality is falls on a continuum is the best attempt I've seen to describe the reality of the situation. The programs that claim to successfully re-orient gay people to straight are pretty much religious horseshit. All they do is make these people bury their desires even deeper and they'll certainly re-emerge at a later date and do even more harm.

You also can't disregard the various social pressures to be totally straight. I know a number of men that married, fathered multiple children, then divorced and came out later in life acknowledging that they were never straight and slept with men on the side during their marriages.

 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
20
81
While this should almost always be a winning issue for Democrats, I feel bringing it up always reveals the hypocrisy inherent in their position. Dem pols feel gays shouldn't be discriminated against, but they doublespeak their way into arguing against gay marriage because they know it's a losing political issue outside of liberal states, which is the overwhelming majority of them.

The gay issue highlights the negative stereotype of Dems as the cowards who lack the courage of their convictions.

Dems whine about discrimination against gays, yet pioneer "don't ask, don't tell," and are against gay marriage.

All the gay issue does is illustrate how the Dems are "less bigoted overall" than the Reps, who want to actively discriminate, pass Constitutional amendments against gays, prevent equal benefits to lifelong partners, etc. I don't think being "less racist" is something to brag about, and neither is "less homophobic."
 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
20
81
Originally posted by: TechBoyJK
I think rightiswrong is not correct. Gay people do turn straight. It happens all the time. I know people that have done it, and the most often used excuse is "I was confused"

You are a lying turdblossom. You don't know anyone who was gay who "turned" straight. In fact I doubt you know any gay people at all. Only someone as ignorant as you could say something like "gay people turn straight all the time."

And where's Butterbean? This thread is missing his high level of intellectual discourse on the subject.
 

Dari

Lifer
Oct 25, 2002
17,133
38
91
Originally posted by: TechBoyJK
Originally posted by: Atreus21
Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Choosing to be a Christian or to live in the south are choices. You could be a Muslim, agnostic, atheist, Catholic, Jew, etc and you can certainly move. You can't stop being gay. Ask Ted Haggard.

C'mon man. You've never seen or heard of a gay person turning straight? I can quote all kinds of anecdotal evidence. I'm pretty sure there's even been a study a few years ago indicating something like this.

I think rightiswrong is not correct. Gay people do turn straight. It happens all the time. I know people that have done it, and the most often used excuse is "I was confused"

:laugh: