gays do not face the same plight as balcks did before civil rights - Edit 1
Before modification by random thoughts at 19/10/2010 03:53:50 PM
Because I don't think you can site any complying science to back up your opinion. Science shows that there is a genetic component but that that there is more to it then that. What the more to it is comes down to opinion.
I would rather have a senator I disagree with on why some is gay and evolution then one who I disagree with on spending and taxes. I don’t think government should try and regulate beliefs but I do need them to properly tax and spend. Public perception of social issues will change regardless of what congress does and that is where the real change is taking place. This is not like Civil Rights and public opinion is changing on its own. In the meantime I would like to not run the country into the ground with a bad fiscal policy.
I would rather have a senator I disagree with on why some is gay and evolution then one who I disagree with on spending and taxes. I don’t think government should try and regulate beliefs but I do need them to properly tax and spend. Public perception of social issues will change regardless of what congress does and that is where the real change is taking place. This is not like Civil Rights and public opinion is changing on its own. In the meantime I would like to not run the country into the ground with a bad fiscal policy.
Actually, this is EXACTLY like Civil Rights, because that's what it is. That's why what your politicians think about it matters. I know it's trendy to say we don't want government involved, but when that's a preamble to saying that's why you don't want activist judges "legislating from the bench" to throw out unconstitutional (but democratically approved!) bans on gay marriage we have a problem. Government's manifestly involved then, and the fact is government is already QUITE involved in marriage: That's the problem, that some people want to exclude gays from the resultant benefits of that involvement. Difficult as it is to grasp that government can be beneficial, when it comes to things like making sure your wife and kids get your assets when you die, it actually is.
That's why this has been a recurrent problem, because it's much easier to demonize people who made unpopular CHOICES (doing drugs, having abortions, having unprotected sex, voting Democrat, etc. ) than to demonize people for something fundamentally a part of who they ARE (having dark skin, a uterus or a soul. ) If it's UNCONTROLLABLE then even if it's universally agreed to be bad few will be willing to assign guilt and punishment, and most will question whether things so natural and common are really so universally bad (for those following along, this is where moral relativism screws us, because things neither common nor natural can appear so if developed unnoticed. ) Rightly or not, the research is part of WHY the debate has shifted.
The sad thing is, I know what he's trying and failing to say, and why he's failing: He wants to put gay sex in the context of all the other things that the Christian Church says are wrong but we don't make illegal, but he can't mention things like original sin or carnal flesh because he has to keep religion out of it. So instead of talking about the temptation to sin he talks about the addicts temptation to use. Unfortunately, not everyone is an addict (except to sin, of course) so the humble brotherhood aspect is lost and it sounds like you're talking down to people you consider beneath you. If you sound like you consider one group somehow lesser than you it immediately casts doubt on your commitment to their Civil Rights.