Points of View

Colleges & Universities A-Z University of Chicago ✅
21

<p>I disagree with your views on abortion, but I understand and respect them. However, I believe that the debate has more to do with whether a fetus is a person than whether a fetus is alive.</p>

<p>As for gay rights... You are right that gays are "perfectly free to marry whomever they wish, provided they are a member of the opposite sex." And Henry Ford once said that his customers could get his car in whatever color they wanted, as long as it was black. As soon as you say "as long as" or "provided," you negate the "perfectly free" part. Until the 1960s, in most states people were "perfectly free" to marry whomever they wanted to, as long as they were of the same race. Was that fair?</p>

<p>Your argument of homosexuality being immoral and unhealthy is unconvincing, at best. AIDS does not discriminate. The fastest growing HIV-positive group in the United States is young, black, straight females. Should young, black, heterosexual females not be allowed to marry? Yet when you see a young black female, I doubt you immediately thinks of AIDS. When many people simply hear the word "gay," AIDS is the first word on their mind. Furthermore, lesbians have a lower rate of AIDS than the general population.</p>

<p>But none of that really matters. We allow HIV-positive people to marry, we allow criminals to marry (in jail, even), and I'm not saying that we shouldn't. But what do immorality and disease have to do with the right to marry? I have objected to individual marriages for personal reasons (one example: my cousin married a complete idiot and divorced her soon after). I did not agree with my cousin's choice, but I was not hurt by it. I am glad that he had the right to marry that woman, although I wish he hadn't exercised it.</p>

<p>There's also a difference between saying that something is a choice and that something is inherent at birth. I happen to belive that sexual orientation is decided before birth, and not by the individual. Many scientists and psychologists agree. I have yet to hear a convincing argument that homosexuality is a choice.</p>

22

<p>I believe the burden of proof is on YOU to tell me how sexual orientation IS decided before birth. Don't give me the whole "gay gene' argument. Umong those without the so-called "gay gene", 2 out of 100 are gay. Umong those with the gay gene? 3 out of a hundred. That is not causation, and it's barely correlation.</p>

<p>If it is do to hormones, then those people have a hormonal imbalance. With hormone therapy, that is a problem that can be fixed.</p>

<p>My view that homosexuality is immoral doesn't have anything to do with my position on gay marriage, I guess I just stated it as a sidenote.</p>

<p>And quite technically, the law forbidding interracial marriage WAS incredibly fair, it "discriminated" against everyone equally, so there wasn't really discrimintation at all. That does not mean that I am in favor of the banning of interracial marriages, but the laws were in fact quite fair, especially when compared to the other racial legislation prevalent in the South at that time.</p>

<p>Your argument about "as long as" and "provided" statements is ridiculous. In the Constitution, we have many "provided" statements. The word perfectly in the context of my statement was meant to point out that there are no barriers to homosexuals to prevent them from exercising the same rights as others. We have no rights whatsoever that fit your "perfectly free" pipedream. We have freedom of the press, PROVIDED that it is not abused by slanderous uses. We have the freedom of speech, PROVIDED that the speech does not harm others or cause the potential to harm others in any way. We have freedom of choice, PROVIDED that choice does not infringe upon other's rights. There are no "perfectly free" provisions in our government (or anyone else's for that matter) and there never will be. End of story.</p>

23

<p>Luckily we don't establish rules about what Christians think in this country, so gays should be free to marry. The problem will only get bigger if gay marriage is recognized by the government - the PROBLEM is government is involved in marriage in the first place. It shouldn't happen. Gays should be able to draw up a contract just like straights. Any amending of the Constitution to forbid gay marriage is not in fact CONSERVATIVE, it is liberal - statism and increasing government is always to the left, and that is why these "conservatives" are a joke.</p>

24

<p>It's not exactly a "gay gene", but a spillover in chromosomes that alters hormone release. So, that's why some guys "feel" like females and some females "feel" like men. I agree, some people are in it for the fashion, but for most people, it's genetic. </p>

<p>And banning abortion would be a bad idea. Sorry guys, but if you want to know what America would be like without abortion, look at Romania. There's a reason everyone gives Romanians crap for their orphanages. And women would find other ways to abort their unwanted children -- ie, Mr. Hanger. My mother lost a few friends that way. And crime rates would rise. (Thank you, Steven Levitt.) It's the mother's choice whether or not she can take care of the child. If she can't, she shouldn't have it. We have plenty of miserable people on this earth -- why bring one more in? </p>

<p>And conservatives are not a joke. We need variety in the government in order to keep it balanced. And if we didn't have conservatives, who would we debate with?</p>

<p>We'll see what happens with Barack. He's still young and idealistic. I figure a few years in the senate will harden him, and he'll be a perfect candidiate for president in the next few election years. Running a republican black candidate just because he's black would be a bad idea too -- think Alan Keyes. Haha, Alan Keyes...</p>

25

<p>Saying that something "discriminates against everyone equally" is like supporting Plessy v. Ferguson where everyone was "seperate but equal." Neither of those can be true because anything that is seperate or "discrimiated" cannot be equal. There are institutional policies in laws and people's prejudices that prevent that from happening. There is absolutely no such thing as fair discrimination as evidenced throughout the 20th century.</p>

<p>And seriously, why are you guys trying to control other's beliefs? I thought conservatives were infavor of less government intervention. Thus, people should be able to marry whomever they please. It doesn't kill people or harm them or their adopted kids. Actually the kids who have gay parents seem to function just as well in the normal world. I believe that there are more problems with kids who grow up with only one parent than those who have gay parents.</p>

26

<p>My take is that we should let people marry whoever they want (same sex, pets, cows, w/e), but NO tax/health benifits for ANY MARRIAGE (Hows that for Libertarian!)</p>

27

<p>Tax and health benefits are good for marriage because marriage breeds stable family environments, lower crime rates, etc. Plessy v. Ferguson is not applicable at all to a debate over interracial marriage or gay marriage. In no way, under interracial marriage laws, are the races seperate. But they ARE equal, you have no shread of proof to demonstrate otherwise. Just as one cannot marry a toaster, a donkey, or their sister, one cannot marry someone of the same sex (in most states). Since the state laws do not say "only homosexuals cannot marry those of the same sex", the policy is non-discriminatory, whether you like it or not. </p>

<p>And you could make an argument that an amendment banning gay marriage would be LESS government, because it would eliminate the cost and what not of issuing marriage licenses to homosexual couples, and the associated extra bureaucracy to handle their new benefits and tax issues.</p>

<p>Meestaci: "why are you guys trying to control other's beliefs?" We are not, never have, never will. Conservatives have a stated position, no different then the way you have a position. You believe that unborn children are not alive, or persons, or whatever. Why are YOU imposing that belief on me? If I believe in killing, why does the law IMPOSE OTHER'S BELIEFS on me. "Controlling other's beliefs" is just a silly argument.</p>

<p>And personally, gay marriage boils down to a legal question, such that I believe it is obvious that defining marriage is a state right (which is why opponents of it push for a Constitutional amendment, not a federal law). So in other words, you quit b*<strong><em>ing about the 40 or so states that ban it, and I'll quit b</em></strong>*ing about the one that allows it. Because the only other legal way to change the current policy is a constitutional amendment, we might as well not debate about it, because an amendment either way simply will not happen for a long, long, time.</p>

28

<p>I've got to say, I'm a little excited to enter the fray:
First, claiming that homosexuality is immoral because it fosters the spread of diseases such as AIDS is ridiculous. Sexual orientation does not affect the transfer of AIDS- promiscuity and unsafe sex do. If you're worried about AIDS transfer, than what should worry you are the policies of the religious right with regards to the fight against AIDS in Africa- namely cutting funding to a hugely underfunded program in order to impose our own "moral" stance. This means that, should a program so much as mention abortion (even in cases, and there are MANY in such impoverished countries, when the woman's life is at risk), their funding is cut. How can you justify this as an attempt to protect human life (ie. the fetus) when COUNTLESS life's are destroyed, and villages are ravaged in the process.
As far as gay marriage is concerned- the issue at hand are civil unions. While marriage is a religious issue, the state governments should provide homosexual couples with the same rights as heterosexuals and allow them to procure a civil union (as GB a country we generally consider morally similar allows). I honestly can't think of any reasonable arguments against this. Whether or not you believe homosexuality to be moral, you can't deny that regardless of your orientation you deserve equal protection under the law. Also, if you are worried about the spread of disease, then why not support two people making a lifelong commitment to each other?
Ok, I have a question for you all now. I have always thought that one of the objections to abortion by religious groups was the idea that in aborting a pregnancy we were wrongly "playing god". Does that influence your opinion at all? And if so, how can you justify support of the death penalty, when you also "playing god" to a great extent? This is a question that has always puzzled me- I know that the vatican opposes both, but this is not the same case with many others. I myself completely oppose the death penalyt but I'm still undecided on the abortion issue (I understand that abortions will happen whether or not it's legal, and I support a woman's control over her own body BUT it just feels wrong to me, and I can't help but be dissapointed when I hear someone has chosen that option)</p>

29

<p>I agree gambadent, the whole pro-death penalty but antiabortion thing smacks of hypocrisy. In one case you are pro-death, in the other pro-life. Make up your mind already. You can't have it both ways! In addition, drummerdude, there is no proof for homosexuality being a choice. Genetic factors are considered a possible cause, but also the way a child is raised can have some effect (nature vs. nurture). It is ignorant and small-minded to assume that homosexuality is a choice, and consider it a moral deficiency.</p>

<p>Now to myself, as you might have already guessed, I'm a New York Jewish liberal, although I am not blindly so. I am not very religious, but it is a part of my life and culture. I am pro-choice, although I am mixed about late-term abortions. I am in support of equal rights for gays, including gay marriage. I am strongly against the idea of teaching intelligent design (how did such a stupid thing come to exist?). Economically, I am in favor of welfare and controlled deficit spending on assistance for schools, the poor, etc. Not tax cuts for the wealthy!</p>

30

<p>w1cked: Government should not recognize marriage - just CONTRACTS. A person should not be able to enter into a contract for marriage (or anything else) with a cow, because cows do not have the presence of mind to contract.</p>

<p>Andi: I'm conservative. I said that the people who call themselves conservative but want to make gay marriage, abortion, drugs, etc. illegal are statists and not conservative at all. Making the government bigger is always to the left.</p>

<p>Lemonjello: How did intelligent design come to exist? Creationism lost a while back and they decided to dress it up and see if it would fly.</p>

31

<p>"Gays have the EXACT same rights as everyone else...gays do deserve the same rights as everyone else, and to a large extent in today's American society I believe they do."</p>

<p>drummerdude_07, I see the point you are trying to make. However, I this really gets down to the whole de jure vs de facto thing. Yes, theoretically, homosexuals have exactly the same rights as everyone else...except, it's not that simple, and in many cases, they really don't. In my state as well as in many others, they have no protection whatsoever. They can be fired simply for being gay. I, personally, do not consider that as having equal rights. There is a teacher at my school who is gay, and he has to basically watch his every move because if he takes any "wrong" step, he could be fired, regardless of whether it is actually wrong. Luckily, we live in a pretty liberal area where people are somewhat accepting of this, but that still doesn't mean it couldn't happen. All i know is that we have a long way to go before homosexuals truly do have equal rights.</p>

32

<p>In regard to being opposed to modern feminism, modern being the key word, I don’t believe that the government can do anything to change views towards women or gender equality. That comes with societal change.
Modern feminists have made the women’s crusade so that any girl who decides she would rather get married and have children is looked down upon. Why is there such a push specifically towards women to go into the sciences and mathematics? So what if 95% of a math department is male? America is supposed to be about freedom: let women choose what they want to do with their lives.</p>

<p>In Huntsville, Alabama, about half of my stances are still more conservative than the majority of the population, but I have different backing (I don’t use “Because the Bible says…”, although if anyone else believes that and has a legitimate argument, I’ll listen and not just roll my eyes.).</p>

<p>Why should drugs be legalized? Or at least de-criminalized? Look at it this way: Drugs laws are not working. As we spend time and money voting for tougher drug laws, more and more people are getting addicted to drugs. There has got to be a better alternative. Big drug traffickers do not use drugs themselves. They simply sell drugs to other users and sellers. If we legalize drugs, we not only minimize the violence and danger in these dealings, we also lower the prices, getting rid of the one incentive that drug traffickers have to sell drugs: money. Once drugs are legalized, the government can legally oversee who is using drugs and try to help those groups of people. Also, the government can put the “Surgeon’s Warning” that are on packs of cigarettes and alcohol on packs of drugs.</p>

<p>About Libertarian views not carrying over to abortion…Abortion is murder and I don’t think murder even has to be labeled as a moral principle, it’s just plain illegal by universal standards.
Also, saying that abortion should be legal by using orphanages in Romania as an example is like saying, “Look at those poor people on the street…they’d be better off dead.”
I have no true stance on the death penalty. However, being pro-life and pro-death penalty makes sense. Pro-lifers believe that you are killing an innocent human being, while being pro-death penalty means that you believe that some people have done such heinous crimes, they deserve death, and/or being giving a mass murderer the death penalty, you are preventing more innocent lives being killed (using punishment as example).</p>

<p>Personally, I don’t have a stance on gay rights (I don’t know much about the technical legality of stuff), but rather on gay tolerance.
How can homosexuality be a choice? Such a large proportion of the population isn’t going to entirely go against their natural sexual instincts and decide to act attracted to a gender that they are not.
Religiously, I see the point in having no actively gay leaders in churches. But that doesn’t mean that churches shouldn’t invite gays to their services: Isn’t the whole point of churches to convert people, to take them away from the temptations of sin? Many Christians believe that homosexuality is sin (just as they say they believe lying, cheating, and drinking is sin), so shouldn’t they want to invite homosexuals into their churches to help them resist their temptation to sin?</p>

33

<p>Drugs should be legal because we saw what happened when alcohol wasn't - gang violence would drop to almost 0 overnight if drugs were legalized.</p>

34

<p>"We have freedom of the press, PROVIDED that it is not abused by slanderous uses. We have the freedom of speech, PROVIDED that the speech does not harm others or cause the potential to harm others in any way. We have freedom of choice, PROVIDED that choice does not infringe upon other's rights. "</p>

<p>"Article I: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abrdigin the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."</p>

<p>I don't see the word "provided" anywhere. Rights are given, and only when abused, are taken away. </p>

<p>Moving on, you have not yet given any argument against gay marriage. You've given (poor) arguments against homosexuality, but nothing against allowing homosexuals to marry. As you said, "My view that homosexuality is immoral doesn't have anything to do with my position on gay marriage, I guess I just stated it as a sidenote." So what does have to do with your position on gay marriage?</p>

<p>I find your statement of homosexuality as a "problem that can be fixed" to be offensive. What do the gay and lesbian friends you say you have think of that? As for my proof that homosexuality is a choice, I've never heard anyone say they've chosen to be gay (or straight, for that matter). Yes, there is a choice to act on homosexual thoughts, but not to be homosexual. </p>

<p>That's besides the point anyway. It doesn't really matter whether or not homosexuality is a choice. You are right- interracial marriage laws were fair because they treated everyone equally, but that doesn't mean that they were good. Hammurabi's Code was fair and a huge step towards modern society, but I wouldn't recommend following it today. Despite your comment about interracial marriage, I'm assuming that you feel it should be legal. So if I have the choice to marry any man I want, but I want to marry a black man, shouldn't I be allowed to even if I have the opportunity and choice to marry a white man? Why should I have to marry a white man just because I'm white? THAT is imposing beliefs on to others.</p>

<p>Btw, I like your explanation for intelligent design, neverborn.</p>

<p>As for the whole durgs thing, I completely agree. I'm sick of hearing about rapists being released from jail to make room for drug dealers. Gang violence and drug related deaths are terrible. However, most of the people killed (most, not all) are somehow involved. Very few innocent bystanders are killed by drug dealers and gangs.</p>

<p>Still, I don't think drugs should be legalized. I think drug related crimes should go basically unpunished. Over time, things will calm down and drugs can be legalized. New York only prosecutes major offenses. Things have calmed down a lot since they started doing that. Legalizing drugs overnight would be a bad idea.</p>

35

<p>christine123, although I don't agree with your stance on abortion, I understand where you're coming from. However, in cases of rape or incest, how can you forbid somebody to get an abortion?</p>

36

<p>Neverborn, the conservative comment wasn't towards you. Sorry if it looked like that! I wish we had a more conspicuous quoting option, heh. And I completely agree about intelligent design. It barely passes for a theory, and Darwin himself said that his word was not set in stone. So, what's the point of creating an entire "theory" that actively refutes it based on technicalities? It's just silly. </p>

<p>Some illegal drugs are completely ridiculous -- like p0t? Come on now. Alcoh0l and cigarettes will kill you faster. Other drugs, like c0caine and her0in should not be legalized because those can really mess you up. We just need to get away from the glamour of drugs. Legalizing less dangerous drugs will do that, and supervising the distribution of these drugs will cut down on things like p0t laced with X dangerous drug. Nowadays, you really don't know what you're getting when you buy from a dealer. Some of my friends found this out the hard way.</p>

<p>As far as abortion being like playing god -- believe me, we play god in worse ways. I don't really think it's weird.</p>

37

<p>Intelligent Design:</p>

<p>Science is defined as “The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena” (The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language). Basically, science is explanation with backing. For some people, religion is explanation with backing (observable, identifiable, describable, explainable). For others, Darwin (by the way, his theory is of adaptability, not the evolution theory we think of today) is explanation with backing. Transitive property? Science equals explanation equals religion, which can-or-cannot-equal Darwinism. For some people, evolution isn’t fact. For others, God isn’t fact. I’m willing to bet that neither can be definitely proved in the classroom.</p>

<p>What IF God created everything in 6 days? Wouldn’t that make Creationism science? We shouldn’t be closed-minded. Now, I’m not saying that we should try to prove intelligent design or try to teach intelligent design in the classroom. I’m just saying that we shouldn’t say that intelligent design should stay as far away from the science classroom as possible, because, quite honestly, we have too many different, conflicting and not-so-conflicting theories about our origins to be able to say that one is the truth. We, in general, know very little about our origins. Closing off any explanation from the classroom altogether is too risky—the Einstein of biological origins may be brainwashed to believe a certain way is fact. Without being presented with all possibilities and then being more able to prove and disprove different theories, this Einstein may not be able to reach the truth, whether through process of elimination or reevaluation of a generally-discarded-scorned-upon-theory.</p>

<p>The supernatural is defined as the unexplainable. It is NOT always a religiously motivated attack on science. What if, scientists study and study and study again and again and again and come up with the solution that the universe IS in fact too complex to have been made without a supernatural being…also known as an unexplainable occurrence? It’s still science. They used fact to prove it. It’s a theory.</p>

<p>I’m trying to say that intelligent design is not religious, but scientific. Yes, in a way, it advocates fundamentalist Christian beliefs. However, it’s just saying that there had to be an unexplainable, interchangeable with the word “supernatural”, occurrence. Maybe someday we can figure out the unexplainable occurrence—maybe the answer to the question of the origins of life is down that path rather than following evolution’s path. As of right now, we can’t decide which path is a dead end.</p>

<p>Maybe aliens with laser beams is that “unexplainable occurrence”. I doubt it, but closing off the science of intelligent design might be closing off a theory about how a “supernatural force”, such as another life form from another planet, somehow contributed to the beginning of life on Earth.</p>

<p>That’s my two cents. My own school stays away from any discussion of our origins.</p>

38

<p>Abortion is a conscious choice. Would you rather have a kid brought in and be living on the streets or in a home? That destroys the person mentally... In some circumstances, I think abortion should be allowed, rape especially. The child would be a constant reminder of that pain and the parent would seperate themselves, totally destroying the child's psyche. Nonetheless, abortion rates ARE down. Less people are turning to that alternative, so why don't we just leave it where it is. We've got move important things to worry about IMO, like the war in Iraq, the Katrina victims, we're overextending ourselves in the world, the whole Rubber Band Theory. We're gonna snap ourselves soon. I'm not doubting the importance of teh decision about abortion, but seriously, there are bigger things we shoudl worry about. </p>

<p>Drugs were here and will always be here. We make make them legal or illegal, whatever we do people are going to get them if they really need them. it's like underage drinking. We all know it happens, even though its illegal. </p>

<p>I'm all for the evolution theory. It's not perfect but it gives me a better explanation than "intelligent" design which is just another name for the creation theory religion is trying to shove down our throats. As my Humanitites teacher once said, religion was created by man as a form of social control to provide mental punishment.</p>

39

<p>SweetMisery, you make a good point. I am pro-choice, but I want abortion rates to go down. Abortion is not a perfect solution. If I became pregnant at this point in my life, I would probably get an abortion, whether that would be legal or not. However, that would not be an easy choice. An abortion is the end of something, whether it's a life, a baby, a fetus, or just a collection of cells, and it's not a decision that should be made lightly. I think abortion is the best solution to an unsolvable problem. But if the government stopped wasting its money on abstinence-only sex ed, maybe the whole abortion debate would be unnecessary.</p>

40

<p>Ria: You have to look at the relevant Supreme Court cases that specify very clearly the applications of the first amendment, using many such "provided" statements". For example, your freedom of speech is not protected under the first amendment when you yell "FIRE" in a crowded theater, because it puts others at risk.</p>

<p>"Drugs should be legal because we saw what happened when alcohol wasn't - gang violence would drop to almost 0 overnight if drugs were legalized."</p>

<p>I'm sorry, but that statement is just a joke. A total joke.</p>

<p>Neverborn, if you believe in abortion, legalized drugs, etc., you are not a conservative, you are a Libertarian. The difference lies, as I have already explained, in the conservatives beliefs in moral values.</p>

<p>Whoever was talking about "the religious right's policy on aids in Africa" is off their rocker. "The religious right", as I see most liberals define it, basically means most everyone who attends religious services on a regular basis. "The religious right", ie Christians, are throwing massive amounts of money into Africa via their own charities. But foreign aid to Africa needs some reform. We have dumped millions and millions and millions of dollars into Africa the last few decades, with basically NO improvement. Now why would ANYONE believe the solution to that problem is more money? It takes more than money, it takes economic reform, it takes the establishment of uncorrupted governments, and those types of aid will accomplish far more than righting blank checks. </p>

<p>Pretty much everyone that considers themselves pro-life believes in the three exceptions. Rape, incest, and danger to the mother's life. Left-wingers talk those up as if they were actually opposing anyone, when in reality pretty much everyone agrees on those 3 cases where an abortion is permissible.</p>

<p>Speaking as a pro-lifer and church goer, I have never heard the "playing god" argument made about abortion. It doesn't fit and doesn't make sense. The "playing god" argument is used in application mostly to cloning and EMBRYONIC (not adult) stell cell research.</p>

<p>As for intelligent design, it does seem crazy on the outset. I'm a very scientific person, and when I started to read a book on intelligent design, I was like "***! Darwin wasn't wrong!". But upon further study, a lot of the points make a lot of sense. I do not agree completely with intelligent design, nor do I advocate it's teaching in public schools. What DOES need to be taught in schools are the flaws in evolutionary theory. Everytime we start learning about a theory in chemistry, my chem teacher will say something like "ok, remember that this doesn't perfectly describe everything, because it's just a theory. But it is the closest thing we have to reality." and then when he reaches a point where the theory or law or whatever breaks down, he says "this equation or whatever doesn't work perfectly in this instance because the theory is not complete and errorless". Now why can't we have that with Darwinism? Why are people so afraid to say "we don't really know for sure yet" and "we're not sure why". Because evolution does breakdown, or behaves unexpectedly in many instances. In the other sciences kids are frequently told that the jury is still out on such and such a theory, why is biology different? The kids don't have to be told "god did this", but they definitely should be told "evolution as we know it COULDN'T have done this, and we don't yet know what did". </p>

<p>Also Ria: Under the logic of your defense of marriage, it would be imposing my beliefs on you to prevent you from marrying a pencil. Some may believe in pencil marriage, I do not. But nevertheless the argument over gay marriage is irrelevant to me on a national level, because at this point, constitutionally, it is a state right. And because of the cultural/sectional differences in this country, I think that's where the decision should remain.</p>