Santorum: Homosexuality 'Is a Behavioral Issue'
Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum said Sunday that gays in the military don't deserve to be integrated like blacks.
"That's very, very different," the candidate told Fox News' Chris Wallace. "We're talking about people who are simply different because of the color of their skin, not because of activities that would cause problems for people living in those close quarters. It's a very different thing -- behavior versus an a act."
"I know the whole gay community is trying to make this the new Civil Rights Act. It's not the same. You are black by the color of your skin. You are not, you know, homosexual necessarily by -- obviously -- by the color of your skin."
"It is a fact of your biology," Wallace noted.
"Look, the idea of somehow or another that this is the equivalent of being black and being gay is the same is simply not true. There are all sorts of studies out there that suggest just the contrary. There are people who were gay and lived the gay lifestyle and aren't anymore. I don't know if that's the similar situation -- I don't think that's the case with any anybody that's black. So, it's not the same. And I know people try to make it the same, but it is not."
"It is a behavioral issue as opposed to a color of the skin issue. And that makes it all the difference when it comes to serving in the military.
Santorum has said that if elected, he would work to reinstate the military's gay ban.
Bigotry and dumbshittery are behavioural issues. That's you on the projector, pal.
If homosexuality ISN'T nature then explain this.
Idiot.
me-oww!
moron should never have one single vote cast for him for POTUS.
But this statement brings out the number one reason:
He's plainly just too freakin' STUPID!!!!!
Something like 10% of all dolphins (mammals thought to be closely linked on an intellectual level with humans) are homosexual. They are not simply "acting" like they are gay. THEY ARE GAY.
Homosexuality has been with the human race since the beginning of recorded history.
I'm not sure who scares me more. Palin or Santorum. Well, at least she's not running for Pres. He should thank us for his 15 minutes of fame, take his single digit polling numbers and just go away....
"The US has an army of 90,000 soldiers in Afghanistan and is spending $100bn a year, but has still been unable to defeat 20,000-25,000 Taliban who receive no pay at all." - Patrick Cockburn
Elected as what? Homecoming Queen? He's nowhere near POTUS. He's a WATB.
me-oww!
Just imagine what kind of father and husband he must be.
Ick -- creepy Rick must be the kind of dad kids fear.
Wait till they grow up and write their own versions of "Daddy dearest."
First they ignore us..then they ridicule us..now they are feeding us chicken crap- sign my petition:
http://www.change.org/petitions/fda-stop-feed...
www.ickenittlepost.com
You're Not Kidding:
Everyone is equally entitled to the pursuit of happiness. Wasn't that once self evident?
"dumbshittery"
Good word.
I like it.
If I were a psychopath, I would join the republican party, and get in on the gravy train taking the Teabircher morons to the cleaners.
I have used this line of argumentation before, but it just bounces off their shielded heads. They will tell you that most all animals will engage in sex with a member of the SAME sex if members of the opposite sex are not available.
You'll play hell convincing them that same sex couples exist anywhere besides in human society. Homosexual animal sex is a product of sex deprivation, according to them -- not a sexual orientation.
The Philosopher in me has a difficult time with that, because there simply isn't the readily available sources to show the contrary position -- that these animals form homosexual relationships, rather than sexual outlets. And that they might prefer sex with a member of the same sex, even if sex with a fertile female is available.
If you know of any such studies, please link. I'll be sure to bookmark them.
Rick Santorum, you Kochsucker.
Didn't this guy get something like 39% of the vote in his home state of Pennsylvania when he ran for re-election last time?
I mean really, what is the point of an imbecile loser like this being trotted out every few day on the tube? Could it be to kill air time, ensuring that the liberal media doesn't get any actual liberals on t.v.? You know, people who are not batshit crazy and actually think anfd make sense?
If I were a psychopath, I would join the republican party, and get in on the gravy train taking the Teabircher morons to the cleaners.
In a two-party system, yes 39% is bad. In a true Democracy, 39% is overkill. 20% would be more likely for a guaranteed winner if you have more than half a dozen parties with candidates.
Santorum is not a loser because he got less than 50% of the vote. He's a loser because he says dumb shit like this.
Dear Dick Frothy,
If it's behaviorial then why are still bi-sexual? And how's that dog you hump doing?
Reader, suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself.
Anybody as anti-gay as Santorum has to be very confused about his own sexuality.
Obsess about gays, you're gay. I have gay friends and think no more about their sexuality than I do about anything that I have no interest in, like barbed wire collecting.
He is a closeted, self-loathing, repressed, angry gay man.
Gay, gay, gay, gay, gay, gay, gay, gay, gay, gay, gay, gay, gay, gay, gay, gay, gay, gay, gay, gay, gay, gay, gay, gay, gay, gay, gay, gay, gay, gay, gay, gay, gay, gay, gay, gay, gay, gay, gay, gay, gay, gay, gay, gay, gay, gay, gay, gay, gay, gay, gay, gay, gay, gay, gay, gay, gay, gay, gay, gay, gay, gay, GAY.
Hating one's self this much has GOT to hurt. He must be in great pain.
My gaydar went off before he opened his mouth and spewed out santorum.
He looks as straight as Larry Craig or Mark Foley to me.
If I were a psychopath, I would join the republican party, and get in on the gravy train taking the Teabircher morons to the cleaners.
Please, keep your mental illness confined to your own home. It is disgusting to find you parading it before the public as though delusion and ignorance were somehow acceptable.
Ignorance is parent to religion.
Religion is parent to Hate.
Remember Matthew Shepard:
http://vimeo.com/fuksnickityClam/matthew
Not only was Jesus tolerant of all, I tend to think maybe he was gay too.
After all, he was a super nice guy who ran around with a bunch of other super nice guys.
Please. Don't paint all Christians with the bigoted brain of Rick Santorum. He falsely uses Christ as an anti-gay tool. Christ was NOT anti-gay.
"The US has an army of 90,000 soldiers in Afghanistan and is spending $100bn a year, but has still been unable to defeat 20,000-25,000 Taliban who receive no pay at all." - Patrick Cockburn
and was so "tolerant" he sent those who disagreed to Hell.
(Super nice guy.)
Ed-words
But I have done my share of reading.
Can you point me to where Jesus did either of those things? Jesus. Not the individual authors of the various books.
but not slavery.
He also tells of a place where there is"weeping and gnashing of teeth"
(but no orthodontists) for the nonbelievers.
Ed-words
Again, looking for the specific quotes.
believe what you want a cult is a cult religion is for fools who cannot think for themselves Sorry bout your luck
The love you take is equal to the love you make. John Lennon Paul Mc Cartney
Let us know if teacher's wrong.
Ed-words
in my pants it explains my opinion, i would tell you where but i'm giving out assignments that allow for creativity.
That there are pro-gay rights Christians in the world cannot be denied.
But Sick Rantorum has his dogma about gay people; it appears to stem from his understanding of his religion; and it is his faith that keeps him going, hoping to make problems for the rest of us.
For the record, I condemn the tenor of the this thread's original post. I don't want people like Sick Rantorum to just shut up and keep their delusions at home. I want them speaking so that we can speak back, and all have a no-topic-barred rational discussion about all the things our society deems unhealthy and immoral.
Everyone is equally entitled to the pursuit of happiness. Wasn't that once self evident?
Unhappy self despising racists to their graves. Fucking republicans need to hate something to exist.
the fact that gay paper towels cannot be compared to black paper towels?
it's a behavioral issue. Kinda like toting your dead fetus home to bond with its siblings for a few days?
But, it's good that he keeps spouting these ridiculous, inane, totally false statements - which pretty much ensures that he will get few to no votes in the primaries and then he can go crawl back into his hole, wherever that is these days (Va?, PA? ), and leave the rest of us alone.
Buh-bye, Ricky.
"Egotism is the anesthetic that dulls the pain of Stupidity" - Frank Leahy
A seemingly apt description of his current presidential bid...
"Parachutes are allowed in checked or carry-on baggage, but may not be worn in flight."
---Southwest Airlines
"But it's gay people's fault they're gay. I haven't talked to any actual gay people about this, but - you know, c'mon ..."
i remember in high school and even middle school all the guys that were choosing to be gay like morality was some sort of popularity contest. i mean everyone wanted to be cool like them getting bullied and disrespected even when they weren't in the room. everyone was talking about those kids. as much as i wanted to be the recipient of bigoted slurs about every aspect of my life and have my young and fragile ego trampled upon by kids from well to do and working class homes alike i had morals. it was tough for me. i'd see that kid getting his face broken and think wow if only i could be like him. i just couldn't do it since i already had jesus deep inside me and there just wasn't room for other men. i'm fed up with all these gay guys getting all of the life's rewards for their unholy pact with the devil for fame and popularity. even as an adult i struggle with this. when i here about a gay man who was dragged out of those gay bars and then get to be beaten to death in the street it almost doesn't seem like i have a choice. but with jesus inside me i know i'll do the right thing.
Not to mention years of research by the APA.
(There are studies "out there" that can claim anything.)
Ed-words
or biology, or philosophy, evolution, addiction, contraception, discrimination, physical love. His brain is stuck in religion mode. He believes in God. Everything else is blasphemy.
"Someday somebody related to some of these sufferers, these victims, these collaterally damaged souls, may try to kill you. And I have to tell you, I think you’ll have it coming." - Christopher Cooper
Hey frothy! The only people who have a problem with gays in the military are you and your teabagger friends. Everybody else is worried about the economy. But, it's cool. There's actually an upside to you demonstrating how utterly out of touch you are.
If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders.
George Carlin
about "no sex in the military" was that there are not supposed to be sexual relationships between officers and enlisted personnel.
Navy's description: Personal relationships between officer and enlisted members that are unduly familiar and that do not respect differences in rank and grade are prohibited, and violate long-standing custom and tradition of the naval service.
http://usmilitary.about.com/od/navy/a/fratern...
Of course, having had no military service, combined with his fear of "Teh Gays", he just plain mangled it, but that's Ricky...
"Parachutes are allowed in checked or carry-on baggage, but may not be worn in flight."
---Southwest Airlines
relationships in the navy were ok as long as it was one or more men raping a woman.
Personal relationships between officer and enlisted members that are unduly familiar and that do not respect differences in rank and grade are prohibited
Maybe in Ye Olden Days captains kept a few toy boys for long journeys at sea..
far left loon >.<
You can't change "stupid." Oh my, Santorum was born this way. Holding onto beliefs that are totally illogical is just plain stupid.
If it's only a behavioral issue and that issue kept between consenting adults isn't hurting anyone, they why is it a problem. Seems once again Santorum doesn't make sense. Course when you say "Santorum doesn't make sense" you are adding a redundancy to the sentence.
JimmyPete
in his potential to to turn straight men gay and gay men straight.
"Parachutes are allowed in checked or carry-on baggage, but may not be worn in flight."
---Southwest Airlines
When is this douchbag gonna shut up? What is it going to take to make this reprehensible mouth breather wake up to the stupidity that is Rick Santorum?
Half-brained attempts to force people to "live straight" to please parents or other authority figures, that's a behavioral issue.
Santorum sadly does not understand logic and so uses some people's backwards culture as an example for why homosexuality is a behavioral malady.
i'm with bill hicks on this. "anyone, dumb enough, to want to serve in the military should be allowed in."
How'd you like to see this in your local newspaper? I wish some of you had added a comment. :>)
Read more: http://www.islandpacket.com/2011/09/21/179988...
i had access to hazmat suit, i would give this guy a full coverage of santorum. on second thought the hazmat suit would probably be easier to get than the santorum.
I'm grateful that Santorum is still out there doing a yeoman's job giving voice to a dying and outdated view. He speaks for a small but entrenched minority who, although forsaken by modernity, deserve to have their worldview expressed. There is no question that hidebound bigotry is a definitional component of this constituency; it is simply a droll and pleasant thing that we are witnesses to these last, tortured gasps of homophobia. It is healthy for society that Santorum has volunteered to be a target of derision, scorn and public shaming.
I think he really doesn't get it. It seems, in his mind, being gay is something like willful juvenile delinquency.
far left loon >.<
Sick Rantorum (to my eyes) believes that being gay is simply unhealthy, and corrosive to the well being of individual gay people and society at large.
He can talk about its being a "choice" or a "behavior" in order to impute culpability for being such an unhealthy and corrosive entity, thereby facilitating his prejudice, but it probably wouldn't matter to him if it were proven sufficiently even to his mind that gay people were hopelessly and helplessly gay. He would still consider the behavior immoral because in the back of his little head rests the impression that to be gay is to be unhealthy and to be corrosive to the health of others.
If this sounds abstract or difficult to empathize with, consider what I would guess is your own attitude toward kleptomaniacs. They may not be culpable for their thievery, but such thievery is hardly to be encouraged. They're unhealthy and corrosive to society.
What he really doesn't get is that he's simply empirically wrong. There is nothing unhealthy about merely being gay or being in a gay relationship, and neither threatens the health of society at large. Unfortunately, he has faith that it is, and will not relent on his dogma.
Everyone is equally entitled to the pursuit of happiness. Wasn't that once self evident?
to have someone you can love and trust..........and they love and trust you with their heart,great...love is real.
....the fools do not realize,a population that can ,..... not paticipate .............in the 'economy'...,can not keep it viable!..........."we are listening,.......and we're not blind.,......this is your life....this is your time."
Are people straight by choice? What about people who were gay, but change to a straight lifestyle? Or children who were molested and grew up with that lifestyle because of years of abuse? Were they born gay? How would they, or anybody else know?
Actually I believe there is more than one cause, and one important cause happens in the womb when a woman receives a dose of estrogen, or estrogen, chemical compound that mimics estrogen.
The real problem is if everybody is not born gay because of natural genetics, then the whole gay political argument falls apart.
No, it doesn't.
Whether being gay is a choice or involuntarily imposed on people has nothing to do with whether the behavior is morally wrong. Its being a naturally occurring phenomenon does not automatically make it something to be tolerated or encouraged. Tornadoes are natural, but we hesitate to call them good, especially when they're coming to knock down our unnatural buildings.
Frankly, unless you can demonstrate that homosexuality is, in fact, unhealthy and corrosive to individual gay people or society at large, all political arguments against gay rights fall apart.
Everyone is equally entitled to the pursuit of happiness. Wasn't that once self evident?
http://www.glsen.org/cgi-bin/iowa/all/news/re...
Massachusetts residents are four times more likely to kill themselves than die by homicide, far higher than the national trend, and gay high school students attempt suicide at a particularly high rate, according to the first analysis done of suicide in Massachusetts.
The Department of Public Health study, to be released in May
Broken down by sexual orientation, about 40 percent of gay and bisexual students attempted suicide, compared to about 10 percent of their heterosexual peers.
I would agree that suicidal tendencies are unhealthy. I would not agree that being gay itself causes people to be suicidal.
Sure, but is that because being gay itself directly leads to being suicidal? Or is it because being constantly hated, marginalized and shamed by one's community makes one suicidal?
If a society believed that liking the taste of blueberries was morally reprehensible, coming up with pejoratives like "Blueberry Fags" for anyone who professed to enjoy them, and shunned and shamed those people on a constant basis, it would not surprise me if that society's blueberry appreciators were more suicidal than their counterparts. And I don't think it would have anything to do with the blueberries themselves.
And, had you actually read the article to which you linked, you would have seen that it makes exactly that point:
In response to the suicidal tendencies, Massachusetts is apparently contemplating instituting suicide prevention programs for gay people. I suspect that's a much better way to address the problem than to try to keep them from being gay in the first place.
Everyone is equally entitled to the pursuit of happiness. Wasn't that once self evident?
Having studied "Argumentation: The study of effective reasoning" I know Correlation Does Not Equal Cause. Any more than rising global temperature means man is the cause!
What was your point in citing an article that correlated suicidal ideations with homosexuality?
I said you had to prove homosexuality was unhealthy for individuals and society in order for anti-gay rights arguments not to fall apart. You responded by pointing out that gay people were more likely to commit suicide.
In turn, I say gay people are not more likely to commit suicide by virtue of being gay, and you respond that you weren't implying that?
You've pretty much lost me.
Everyone is equally entitled to the pursuit of happiness. Wasn't that once self evident?
>> unless you can demonstrate that homosexuality is, in fact, unhealthy
>> and corrosive to individual gay people or society at large, all political
>> arguments against gay rights fall apart.
No, I was merely giving a correlation, and an example that the "Gay" lifestyle may not be all it's cracked up to be. Many of those people are terribly unhappy. Even as they are more accepted in western culture than they have been in many generations.
What question was that?
And unless they are unhappy by virtue of being gay, because of being gay, unless there is more than a correlation, you have no point.
Everyone is equally entitled to the pursuit of happiness. Wasn't that once self evident?
It's my body, and I'll do as I see fit, not what society tells me is fit?
I think we all value our own conscious well being. To claim that one does not value one's own conscious well being is to cease to be coherent.
Inside our minds, each of us exists on some continuum between abject misery and outright bliss. Pretty much by definition, we desire to travel toward the blissful end of the continuum, even if we don't know how, and even if we often helplessly amble in the other direction.
In understanding this, we must recognize that we are not always the best judges of our own well being. We don't know how much better or worse life could if we were somewhere else on that continuum than where we are right now.
We must also recognize that, as humans, our well being is irretrievably tethered to the well beings of others.
So, merely seeking to fulfill our own personal desires is not always a good thing. It is definitely not when we undermine other people's well beings or societal health in so doing.
To answer your question directly, it comes down neither to seeking to fulfill my own personal desires no matter what nor to simply surrendering to what society tells me.
It comes down to an honest appraisal of what behaviors really do advance or undermine our individual and collective well beings.
We purported in our Declaration of Independence to start from the notion that each mind is equally endowed with the right to pursue his or her own happiness. If my pursuit leads me to happiness and well being without undermining yours, there is no problem with my behavior. If it does undermine yours, we do have a problem to work out, and we must determine what behaviors must actually be encouraged or discouraged and how in order to maintain that equal pursuit of happiness. Moreover, there may be duties imposed upon me in order to maximize everyone's well being (the general welfare), a maximization from which I myself will necessarily benefit.
Everyone is equally entitled to the pursuit of happiness. Wasn't that once self evident?
The Declaration of Independence also speaks of a Creator as the source of our Rights. Do you also believe that?
In a word, no.
And while our founding document references some sort of deism, the Constitution explicitly does not, and we have amended it to apply the immunity from establishment and right of free exercise to the states.
Everyone is equally entitled to the pursuit of happiness. Wasn't that once self evident?
>> We purported in our Declaration of Independence to start
>> from the notion that each mind is equally endowed with the
>> right to pursue his or her own happiness.
Where do you get your rights? From a sheet of paper?, a government? What governments give, they can take away! If it can be taken away, is it a right?
Do you believe we have any absolute rights? If so where do they come from?
If there are such things as "absolute rights," they would likely come from the application of reason and observation to the nature of value, which seems by definition to be tied to conscious well being. There probably is only one basic right, the right to pursue well being.
Because it is the founding document of the United States, where I reside, and its tenets can guide our interpretation of our Constitution, and provides, to my mind, an excellent starting point for jurisprudence based on the pursuit of happiness.
I do not cite it because it is an inerrant source of our rights, the way some people cite the Bible.
Everyone is equally entitled to the pursuit of happiness. Wasn't that once self evident?
Get rid of the concept of a Creator, there is no universal law, and there are no rights! A government does not grant unalienable rights, because it can take away anything that it gives. Why?, because it has the power, the authority, and the guns.
I basically agree.
I fundamentally disagree.
First, it should be noted that even if you are correct about the nature of rights, in and of itself, it still does not prove there is a god. There may actually be no god, and thus no objective morality.
But more importantly, lack of an omniscient, sentient law giver does not render our laws moot. It just means they come from us. Our conscience, our moral sense and our overall capacity for sentiment has been hardwired into us by evolution. It's true that there is no "objective" morality in the sense that there is no mind-independent plane of moral truth. But we can understand all of the biological correlates to our values, apply reason to them, and discover how to build and live in a good world.
Everyone is equally entitled to the pursuit of happiness. Wasn't that once self evident?
Joseph Stalin and Adolf Hitler had similar values. One killed millions of Jews, and the other tens of millions of Christians. The Bolsheviks a majority Jewish party, and the Nazi's a majority Christian party. Why do you think the Nazi's have a terrible reputation, and the Bolsheviks were our allies?
Eisenhower ordered the shooting of thousands of disarmed Nazi POW's, but Nazi officers who did the same were hanged.
I'm still waiting for an American Stalin!, with our computerized, and digitized society, we can perfect socialism, and realize Lenin's dream, of a classless society!
Rights should not be granted, because they are used to dupe the dullards! Be it the Right to Life, Liberty, and Property, Gay Rights, Abortion, or even the right to Vote!
When we get a truly progressive government, only radicals will be talking about "their rights"
No it doesn't. YOU LIE!
Reader, suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself.
Who's lying? About what?
Everyone is equally entitled to the pursuit of happiness. Wasn't that once self evident?
dixie blood did not believe... that the Declaration of Independence speaks of a Creator as the source of our Rights.
The Declaration of Independence references "Nature's God," equal men endowed with rights by their "Creator" and a "firm reliance on Divine Providence."
This is not an explicitly Christian outlook. It's not necessarily even theistic, and could even be reasonably interpreted as some kind of Spinozan Pantheism, especially considering that "Nature's God" is a Jeffersonian concept, and Jefferson was influenced by philosophers like Spinoza.
But to say that the references to some kind of Deism are not even in the Declaration is simply not to know what one is talking about.
Everyone is equally entitled to the pursuit of happiness. Wasn't that once self evident?
It suggests that there is an authority that supersedes the government's authority! I said nothing about a "Christian" anything!, but you did.
My comments about the Declaration were in agreement with you, and I was responding to the "You lie!" comment when noting that it was not an explicitly Christian framework. As in, the Declaration does not reference Christianity, but does reference some vague form of Deism.
As for an authority that supersedes the government's, of course there is. Government does not have authority merely by virtue of being government. It derives its rightful power from somewhere else.
If we're going by the Declaration, that rightful power comes from the consent of the governed.
But even if you're not going by the Declaration, it would seem a strange argument to say that government derives its rightful powers from its own existence.
I do not believe it comes from a deity, though.
Everyone is equally entitled to the pursuit of happiness. Wasn't that once self evident?
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_De...
I fail to understand how such a "choice" could be made, insofar as feelings and desires merely arise, and reach their way into consciousness. We do not will them into existence. Saying that someone chooses to be gay is like saying someone chooses to like blueberries. One cannot choose to derive pleasure from the taste of blueberries. One can only discover that one derives pleasure from the taste of blueberries.
No.
There is little long-term evidence to suggest that people who purport to have done so have really excised their feelings. They may have learned to suppress them (generally by unpleasant means which undermine the well being of those who undergo them far more than being gay in the first place), but that suppression is usually only successful in the very short term.
To the extent that someone does suppress his or her feelings such that he or she manages not to act upon them, that's not much different from going on a diet to abstain from eating blueberries despite liking them. Whether one should go on such a diet depends not on the choice one had in liking blueberries, but whether eating blueberries is actually unhealthy.
Whatever the answer to the questions you pose here, it belies the notion that being gay is a choice. Becoming gay as the result of abuse (a causal relationship that is, at best, unproven) would certainly not be the choice of the gay person.
Okay. Still not the choice of the entity in the womb.
Everyone is equally entitled to the pursuit of happiness. Wasn't that once self evident?
If it's a choice, when do you choose? Infancy? Puberty? Adulthood?
And if it's a choice, is it a permanent, irrevocable choice? Or is what scares Rick Santorum the fact that he has to keep choosing, and part of him keeps thinking about men in the shower?
I see so many married women, some are married to my friends! Do I go for it today, or wait for another day! Everybody has their own weakness, for some it's food, or drink!
I think it's more about morality, and a common standard of behavior. How stable would a society be if some percentage of men found their neighbor's wives to be more attractive than their own, and demanded political recognition as normal?
Married women are much more fun than single, and a whole lot less demanding! ;)
Now, there we agree.
Heh, well, never having been a married man, I can only surmise and listen to other people's experiences, but I suspect that at some point, most of them do find their neighbors' wives more appealing than their own. Monogamy can get boring for many men, and they do covet their neighbors' wives.
It is normal behavior. And, there are honest and dishonest ways of relating to these feelings, and acting upon them. On the honest side, one could, for instance, own up to having fallen out of love with one's wife, having fallen in love with someone else's wife, have the wife acknowledge it too, initiate divorce proceedings, and go from there.
This is legal. This is normal. This has not destabilized our society. (Though I do admit that we are not particularly mature in our response to such situations, and do not deal with them healthily.)
A better question would be, how would it undermine society if we sought to condemn all of those feelings, and ensured that no one could ever get divorced ever. (We did live under those conditions at one point. I do not think we were maximizing societal health and well being.)
If you say so.
Everyone is equally entitled to the pursuit of happiness. Wasn't that once self evident?
You can't make feelings illegal, only actions!
Get caught with your pants down in the wrong bedroom, and see what happens!
Stable in what sense? And are they achieving societal health and well being? (If so, so be it.)
Says who? That is a tenet of American jurisprudence, but it's not universally shared.
I'm not suggesting that cheating on one's spouse is a moral action. It breaches the spouse's trust and likely causes him or her pain.
But your question was about whether it would destabilize society if cheaters were to seek political normalcy. I'm not sure of the answer to that. Sexual jealousy is rampant in our species, but I can't say for certain that we're maximizing health and well being by promoting the idea that marriage is a life-long monogamous commitment enforceable by law, and voidable only upon the agreement of a judge.
Perhaps sexual jealousy is something our species would be wise to overcome. Or perhaps not. Perhaps we'd be worse off without it.
Whatever the case, seeking the right to cheat on one's spouse and seeking the right to be in a gay relationship are not the same thing. So, again, how does being gay or recognizing gay relationships as healthy undermine society?
Everyone is equally entitled to the pursuit of happiness. Wasn't that once self evident?
The society defines what is moral, and what is immoral! Societies that lose sight what is best for the next generation. Do not last very long. When immorality is common, it is not in merely the sex lives, but throughout society!
From commerce to politics, not just within the family! If I sleep with my neighbors wife, will I not also steal from a different neighbor?
Rome is a good example!, they suffered from every form of corruption, their economy failed because they were using every device to cheat their neighbor of money, land, family, and lives!
First, you say that society defines what is moral and immoral.
Then you conclude that society can lose sight of what is moral or immoral.
These two things cannot be true at the same time.
As for my (ever-evolving) understanding of morality, see above.
By the way, thank you for the polite and engaging conversation. I appreciate our back and forth in this thread, and I hope you infer no animus, even when I state things bluntly like "You're contradicting yourself." This kind of discourse is essential for society to thrive.
Everyone is equally entitled to the pursuit of happiness. Wasn't that once self evident?
If society has decided that "murder" is wrong over the last 4,000 plus years, and a generation rises up and says "murder" is okay. The society at large is not fooled, and within a few generations or less reaffirm the prohibition against "murder". Why, do you think that is?
The Soviet's, and Nazi's are two recent examples. Wall Street is another, but the fat lady is still singing on that one.
You can exchange any long term cultural value for murder with the same effect.
Whatever the answer, you suggest that society is not what is defining what is right or wrong. You are suggesting that there is an objective morality society can either be in tune with or not be in tune with.
So, it still can't be true that society defines what morality is under your framework.
And if society can lose touch with morality, I would not be obliged to submit to society's laws when it does so.
Everyone is equally entitled to the pursuit of happiness. Wasn't that once self evident?
1. Morality is universally defined by ?, or
2. Government defines morality!
It's okay to kill this person, or take from that one. both in violation of the written law. For it's own purposes!
How's business these days?
far left loon >.<
I told my laborers to take the week off also. I have another civil suit working:) It seems somebody working in a popular fast food joint spit in my burger last month. Will make for a nice payday! The best part is it's tax free money!
If you think money won in a civil lawsuit is tax free, you might be in for a surprise.
Everyone is equally entitled to the pursuit of happiness. Wasn't that once self evident?
"The real problem is if everybody is not born gay because of natural genetics, then the whole gay political argument falls apart."
Why is that? What difference does it make. I don't believe being gay is completely determined by genetics. I'm not really sure because I think the science isn't conclusive yet. But for the sake of argument lets say its 100% determined by environment and something each person could turn on or off if they wanted to. (I don't believe that's true but for the sake of argument) Why should society have the right to discriminate against two consenting adults who choose to be gay? They aren't hurting anyone. It seems to me the essence of the Libertarian, small government philosophy that you don't want the government to be able to tell people how to live their lives except where their actions cause someone harm.
If you look at the junk of someone the same sex and think, yummy, chances are you're are a homo. If you don't, you're not. If you don't, I doubt you'd chow down by choice.
BTW gay people don't need straight people to explain anything to us. We already know.
far left loon >.<
"gay people don't need straight people to explain anything to us. We already know."
What does that mean exactly? If you aren't gay you can't comment on this?
What if it merely feels good?, or I want to make a quick $100 bucks? Perhaps I just want to feel more powerful, over somebody, or if as a child forced against my will, but came to terms with it for lack of a better term.
I do know some people who said they were gay, and some people who said they were straight, have changed sides so to speak. Others play both sides. Are they straight?, or Gay?
The people who "play both sides" are called "bisexuals." (I'm one of them.) It just means they're attracted to both sexes. There is also a whole transgendered universe out there, full of people who are not necessarily male or female, and people can be attracted to them as well.
As for people who've "changed sides," some are merely coming out of closets. Others may genuinely find that their orientation is fluid. I used to love sugary food when I was a child. Chocolate bars and other candy. Loved 'em. Not so much anymore as an adult.
Everyone is equally entitled to the pursuit of happiness. Wasn't that once self evident?
Too much time spent pulling the black crude from the ground and too little time at 'Dead shows, IMHO.
;)
"Parachutes are allowed in checked or carry-on baggage, but may not be worn in flight."
---Southwest Airlines
Or do you just go with the flow?
Oh, I rather vigorously fight to defend my sense of morality. I've been defending my morals in this conversation with you, for instance.
But I am also always open to the idea that I could be wrong. While I have strong moral intuitions, and defend them through reasoned discourse, it's not really discourse if I am not open to another person's arguments and willing to have my mind changed.
Everyone is equally entitled to the pursuit of happiness. Wasn't that once self evident?
You also attack others for defending their sense of morality? Cultures define their morality over hundreds or even thousands of years. Civilizations grow through expansions, and contract because of some crisis A civilization will reorganize, but seems different. It's vigor, and moral weakened. It becomes stabilized, and eventually stagnant. The United States has been through several such cycles. Each time growing larger, and fundamentally weaker.
Not my words but Carol Quigley. Bill Clinton's mentor Oxford University history professor. Our culture dates back to western Europe over a thousand years ago. I'd say American culture is about rotten to the core!
Our culture is divided more way than a smart man can count.
I also try to keep an open mind, and understand that I can be factually challenged on any subject, at any given moment in time;)
Attack? I don't think I've attacked you or anyone here.
If I disagree, I will say so. That's just part and parcel of defending one's sense of morality in the course of conversation. Isn't that what you're doing?
Everyone is equally entitled to the pursuit of happiness. Wasn't that once self evident?
Not me!, I wouldn't care even if you did, but perhaps a bit offended by Repug Rick Santorum's sense of morality?
Like most, you think it's all about the sex.
far left loon >.<
Okay, first, you mean behavior vs. an involuntary and immutable state of being. Behaviors and acts - pretty much the same stuff.
Secondly, your argument implies that if black people could have changed themselves into white people, there would be an argument for keeping black people out of the military. Don't go there, Sick.
Finally, even if you buy the (false) premise that homosexual orientation is not an involuntary and immutable state of being, its existence among some people living in close quarters only causes problems when others of those people feel threatened by it without any rational justification. In this way, it is exactly like racial desegregation. Having white and black troops live, work, fight and die together in close quarters was only a problem because white people felt unnecessarily threatened and uneasy and unsafe around black people. Society then woke up, and realized that integration was not only not a threat, but a benefit. In the long run proximity begets familiarity. Net result: a more cohesive army minus intra-troop hatred.
So, what kind of army would you like to have, Sick? One in which all kinds of American troops fight alongside all other kinds of American troops on, and for, the principle that all are equally endowed with life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, or one in which we restrict the right to fight for that principle to a privileged majority wary and fearful of perceived differences among even themselves?
No, scratch that; don't answer. You'll get it wrong. Just trust me, Sick, the troops you want to kick out of the military are the ones who do not understand the principles for which they are fighting. They're the ones who make our society less safe.
Everyone is equally entitled to the pursuit of happiness. Wasn't that once self evident?
Which ones asshole? Oral Roberts University crap? You have nothing Santorum.
I don't believe in God. Teach a man to be a good citizen and you have solved the problem of life.
-Andrew Carnegie
Santorum= the frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter that is often the result of anal sex
Rick= the act of orally sucking out the frothy Santorum
I don't understand why people on the left are so adamant that being gay isn't in some sense a choice. To me saying that it absolutely isn't a choice is the wrong argument. Saying that concedes that there is something wrong with being gay. As if you need to say "hey don't discriminate against me because I'm gay, I couldn't help it"
Even if it were 100% a choice (which I don't think it is) it still seems to me that society has no right to discriminate against someone because of the way they choose to have sex as long as its just between two consenting adults.
I think the real issue of if its a choice is complex. It gets into questions about free will that are really still open questions in the scientific and philosophical communities. I haven't extensively studied the issue but from things I've come across in other readings about genetics and psychology the science seems far from conclusive that being gay is all down to heredity. At a minimum I think that environment plays some role as well.
I do wince when people say 'Who would choose to be gay'? , as if being gay is a bad thing.
I was born gay, and if I wasn't gay, and if it was a choice, damn straight I'd choose to be gay
I don't see how you can be so certain you were born gay. Can you really remember having lusty feelings for the same sex baby in the next crib? Saying you were born gay means that being gay is entirely determined by genes. That's a scientific question and I don't think its been close to proven one way or the other. Until there is solid science the rational thing to do is to keep an open mind.
And I want to emphasize to me it absolutely doesn't matter. You have the same rights whether being gay is 100% biological 100% environmental (my guess neither of those is true) or some mixture of each.
I'm not sure that's accurate. One could, for instance, have the genes to be gay, but not have them "turned on" without something happening inside the womb. Thus, one's sexual orientation could be governed by an interaction between genes and environment, yet still be a trait with which one is born.
Frankly, I think the nature vs. nurture debate is all but useless at this point. We know that who we are is a product of interactions between genetics and environment, and I agree that pinpointing the genetic or environmental cause of any facet of one's personality has nothing to do with whether that facet is moral or immoral.
Everyone is equally entitled to the pursuit of happiness. Wasn't that once self evident?
Can you really remember having lusty feelings for the same sex baby in the next crib?
Were you lusting after other babies at age just-out-of-the=womb? (One hopes not.)
Oh, and like Tom, I am very happy being gay and would do it all again. (if it were choice)
far left loon >.<
"Were you lusting after other babies at age just-out-of-the=womb? (One hopes not.)"
No, I wasn't that was the whole point. The point is that for anyone to state with certainty that "I was born gay" (or straight or bi or whatever) is an emotional statement not a statement of fact. We can't remember our thoughts as a baby and most of us didn't start having thoughts about sex until we were several years old. So its impossible to say with certainty that you were really "born gay", its possible that things that happened in your childhood played a role in determining you orientation.
Gays started lusting at the same age you did.
far left loon >.<
Not sure why you thought I felt otherwise.
Do people like Santorum thinks it should be criminal if a woman gives a man a bj? (or if a man reciprocates)? I have a feeling Santorum thinks sex should be a woman on her back, legs spread, mouth shut, and no orgasms for the woman
Crankin' out the spawn to be home-skooled, of course. The most important part.
"Parachutes are allowed in checked or carry-on baggage, but may not be worn in flight."
---Southwest Airlines
Let him win the nomination, he'll be easy to crush in the election! Get that Uncle Tom Carpet Bagger Cain, and there might be real trouble for Obama!
Look religion is clearly a matter of choice and we still have laws on the books that make it a crime to discriminate because of one religious beliefs.
Rick, we can hear the toe-tapping from here.
Why does this man worry about what happens in the showers in the military?
Santorum is either in the closet, or he's hopelessly stuck at the mental age of a high schooler.
Or both.
Reader, suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself.
.
This repressed freak is clearly battling demons.
Its not about behaviour or color or science as to wether someone has a choice or is bilogically inclined towards how they CHOOSE to lead their life. Its about EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW! End of discussion. If you don't want to play with gays or jews or agnostics or athiests that is your CHOICE. But you do not have a choice to create laws that disciminate against a group of people simply because you don't like the way they happen to love each other.
stephen
This clown was a United States Senator from the state of Pennsylvania. Very Scarry indeed.
stephen
santorum is an asshole needing much working over,
he is anal that when he puckers his lips, you don't
know which of his ends is up.
To sum up: we're here, we're fabulous, and we aren't going anywhere. :)
far left loon >.<
Thought we'd share that in common, no?
;)
"Parachutes are allowed in checked or carry-on baggage, but may not be worn in flight."
---Southwest Airlines
Out of both holes at once.
Rick: Fix yourself up, you ignorant, hypocritical swine before you condemn others. Stop defining others solely by their sexuality and embrace the common thread of humanity we all have. This is impossible for you I assume because you are utterly bereft of any empathy or compassion. Check into rehab and clean up your shitty act.
And for God's sake stop fucking your pets, please.
"We will find fulfillment not in the goods that we have, but in the good we can do for each other."
Robert F. Kennedy
is the perfect example of the fundamentalist anti-science crowd. They have "beliefs" that are based on feelings and not facts, information or investigation. He is unlikely to believe in evolution, climate change, biology, or genetics. He longs for the Victorian Age when men ruled the world and it was enough to simply declare something to be true without evidence to support the declarations.
Santorum makes perfect sense.
Since homosexuality is a behavior and not an innate orientation or desire, the fact that his deep seated homophobia is a the result of his self-revulsion over his own desires to have sex with men, it means that he is NOT a homosexual, because he doesn't act on his desires ... except for his overcompensating homophobia.
Santorum logic: "I hate homosexuals, I hate my own sexual desire for men, I hate it so much that I refuse to act on those desires (as far as you know), therefore I am NOT a homosexual." See ... makes perfect sense.
he believes everyone else should work just as hard too.
He was a perennial candidate for president with NO hope of winning.
Was doing this stupid? No.
1. His message got an audience.
2. FREE publicity never hurt a pundit, lawyer, or businessman.
(It's spelled $$$$$.)
Ed-words
He should know huh?
roger allen
I am a born again Christian democrat - I dont hate gay people - believe me it makes me the enemy of your right wing church going christian ( most of who are good people just misguided and need to read the word instead of being told what it says) the right wing republican are in the grip of political death- it will all come to light- the differnce is I dont hate gays, the poor, women, children, or anyone else, neither did Jesus
so i am in good company - Matthew 25: 31-46 ( republicans should read this )
roger allen
Comments are closed on this entry