I don’t support Senator Santorum’s version of an amendment for the constitution. In addition to being wrong on its merits, it would arrogate to the federal government a question that really belongs with the states: the regulation of marriage should be a state issue.
Where someone opposes both same-sex marriage, and civil unions, AND even the attempts to create, by contract and private agreement, the effects of marriage, I think it’s fair to characterize the actions as bigoted. I think there are plenty of non-bigoted reasons to oppose same-sex marriage; I can’t imagine any non-bigoted reason to oppose SSM and civil unions and private contracts between individuals.
As you said earlier, most people hold contradictory views. If that’s all we’re debating, then what’s the big deal here with Santorum and his friend?
I have several gay friends and several gay co-workers. The subject has never come up between any of them and me. So, no, it needn’t have come up with Santorum either.
It can be helpful, but not if you think of it as sinful. Santorum and other religious folk think of homosexuality the way you and I might think of thievery. When did you make your choice to work for a living instead orf robbing banks? I don’t recall making that choice, but other people obvioiusly did (ie, the bank robbers).
Please. The word is “hypocrisy”, not smokescreen or disingenuousness. Hypocrisy. Yes, when this is exposed, continuation of the same beliefs and actions can be something else, but there is no basis to believe Santorum yet understands the extent or meaning of his own.
We’re talking proof instead of evidence or common sense? When did the trial start?
Generally yes, but we’re considering a specific example here.
All of the above. His bigotry seems to be based in an honest belief, and it is certainly at least convenient that it helps his career. He may well consider his election to office as endorsement of his honestly-held bigotry, and encouragement to continue a divinely-ordained crusade.
I do get tired of repeating myself. The “big deal” is his use of office to promote hatred. The lesser deal is his continued embrace of a hypocritical position after its exposure.
Yet you are aware of their orientations, and that subject does color your relationships. They inhibit you from considering gays as a “them”, something alien and dangerous, something to be contained. Yes, the subject has most certainly come up, and has never gone away, either.
False analogy. That choice is available to you. A choice of your sexuality is not. Understanding that point leads, or should lead, to consideration of your “thinking of it as sinful.”
What “subject” are we talking about? You mentioned “personal testimony of friends”, and I’m telling you that my gay friends have never given me any “personal testimony”. I have no reason to think that Santorum’s have either.
It’s only a false analogy because you and accept that sexual orientation is NOT a choice. But many (probably most) Americans don’t understand that. It’s only in the last 30 or so years that the medical profession has accepted that, too. So just telling someone “homosexuality is not a choice” is not the same as getting them to understand and believe it-- especially when their relgious leaders keep telling them that it is.
As I said in my original post to this thread, I’m not trying to justify Santorum’s position on homosexuality, I’m just trying to explain it. I’m not sure how you go about convincing someone like him that being gay isn’t a choice, at some level. Faith is a hard nut to crack, and sexual orientation isn’t in the realm of hard science, where we can point to a brain structure or a gene and say: “See, right here, this is what makes a person gay, and they were born that way”. Until we’re able to do that, the statement about sexuality not being a choice is going to be highly assailable. Sheesh, look at all the evidence we have for evolution and how many peopel don’t accept even that.
Come on now. The very examples of their own lives are testimony.
All one really has to do is answer the question honestly - when did *you * choose to be straight? You didn’t. You can’t. Yes, many people haven’t done that, and yes, it isn’t necessarily easy, but don’t imply that they can’t.
Maybe in somewhat the same way that earlier generations became convinced that blacks weren’t inferior, and that slavery was sinful. Exposure to counterexamples, and engagement in discussion, over enough time, the way flowing water carved the Grand Canyon.
Not definitively, yet anyway, but it can’t be debunked either. A search on “gay gene” turns up a lot of information underneath all the bombast.
In Cheney’s case, it’s just a case of “You dance with the man who brung you.” He’s Bush’s Vice President is expected to support the President’s positions in public, even if he thinks privately that those positions are batshit crazy.
The Vice President’s not. That’s why Johnson took the spot under Kennedy, a man he detested, and shrilled for the President, and why Bush Sr., after condemning supply side as “voodoo economics” in the primaries, pushed Reagan’s budget plans after he became veep. It goes with the vice presidency, because the vice president is the weakest of the elected officials…he’s got no way at all to push his agenda.
But is that to be seen as a virtue? John C. Calhoun and John Nance Garner resigned rather than support positions they thought were wrong. Which is more honorable?
It’s hard to say…there can be honor in both positions. There’s something honorable about taking a principled stand and resigning if something goes against your beliefs. But there’s also something honorable about loyalty…to the administration and to the party, about putting aside your own interests and subordinating your own opinions to the group.
There’s absolutely nothing honorable about subverting your own sense of morality or ethics in deference to a group. That’s just about the most reprehensible thing I can imagine that isn’t punishable by an extended jail sentence.
Or they may, in actuality, be involved in a gay love afair yawn. And I’m only half kidding.
I’m going to have to get on the “people are strange” bus. Especially older folks. We can’t tell gran my cousin’s gay, but she loves Freddy Mercury.
And who says a gay guy’s gotta look out for all homosexuals. Most people don’t care if the metro door’s closing as long as they got in okay. Just look at all the women’s groups that support the submission of wives to their husbands, or the women politicians against abortion rights.
This is true only in certain cases. One can disagree about the allocations of the government’s budget without being a Bad Person. One can disagree about whether or not invading Iraq was a good way to fight terrorism without being a Bad Person.
One cannot, however, deliberately make people into second-class citizens because they offend your sensibilities without being a Bad Person.
This is a foul slander of most “religious folk”, and I must ask you to withdraw it.
Actually, I can clearly recall when I thought up a crude version of Kant’s Categorical Imperative, realized that the world would work if everybody worked for a living but wouldn’t work if everybody robbed each other for a living, and concluded that the former made more sense than the latter.