The Problem With American Politics

College Confidential Community
1

<p>Yes, yes, I got sick of my other thread. </p>

<p>I feel like hot-button issues such as stem cell research and abortion have been massively distorted. I always say that I appreciate the diversity of opinions in this country, but what I can't stand is that some individuals feel they can tell everybody else what to do. </p>

<p>Personally, I do not like abortion. I wish there was no such thing. But, I do not have the right, and neither does my government, to decide whether a woman should have an abortion. Besides, it's her choice. Same thing with gay marriage. When will people learn, you can't shove something down everybody else's throats unless they truly believe it? The thing that amazes me with gay marriage is that homosexuals aren't just going to stop being homosexual just because they can't get married. Even if homosexual sexual acts were made illegal, many people would still keep on keepin' on. My opinion is, if they're going to do it anyway, why not just let them? Besides, who thinks they have the right to tell somebody else who to marry? Especially when it becomes a religious issue, that's just ridiculuous! I am not discounting that view, I do NOT think it any less legitimate than my own, BUT, it's when people start trying to legislate that into law that I get frustrated. </p>

<p>It's about an individual's choice, and gov't has no right, as far as I am concerned, to interfere with that unless directly threatens the state itself.</p>

2

<p>As a refugee from your other thread haha, I'll respond. </p>

<p>I agree that the allowance of opinion is essential to our democracy. We always need to discover what is best for our society through discourse. However, while economic and otherwise policies can be debated extensively, I think that these such "hot-button" issues are perhaps a little more cut and dry, although not entirely of course. </p>

<p>(note, these are VERY brief and shortened explanations)</p>

<p>Abortion: Murdering unborn children should kinda not be condoned, just as the murder of an adult isn't condoned. --> good of society (people shouldn't just die randomly)</p>

<p>Gay Marriage: Allowing homosexuals to marry only encourages this behavior. Once children see that it is ok, any one of them with any inclination toward homosexual behavior will act upon it. Setting aside moral debates, this leads to more STDs (this next statement will get me attacked) because of the greater amount of sex that homosexuals will have, or for that matter, anyone has with other people (other than their spouse) if they are not married. This also discourages people from marrying and having children which delays generational progression. (yes people may say that the world is overpopulated, but you cannot argue that people should simply stop having children for 20 years and then resume...) I suppose these are only a few of the things that apply to the issue. ----> good of society, children grow up in a better environment</p>

<p>Stem Cell Research: Easy, just like abortion, the killing of unborn fetuses, this time for the use of scientific research. Is one life with the killing of another? Further, are even thousands of lives worth the killing of one? I guess that's an open-ended opinion but still... ---->good of society, no killing of defenseless persons (as in genocide)</p>

<p>Basically, yes the individual's choice is important, as you said, because this is a free society, but if we allowed every individual's choice to be carried out, and trump government policies, our state would perhaps be even more threatened (take genocide, rape, pedophilia, tax evasion, theft for example). </p>

<p>With regard to homosexuals "not being homosexual" if they aren't allowed to marry, I would reply with this: I believe that certain people have a higher disposition toward certain behaviors (sexual, murderous, otherwise deviant) but not everybody acts on them. I think that this is substantiated by much research. Those who do act on these feelings are condemned (rapists, pedophiles, murderers). With laws and such against this, it prevents these such activities from being as commonplace as they would be if there were no laws against them. Thus, with a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, yes people would still act in this way and choose this lifestyle, but it would be discouraged and therefore occur less over time perhaps. Further, those with acute inclinations might not act on them at all, with such discouragement, and lead a completely heterosexual lifestyle (hopefully monogamous marriage and children).</p>

3

<p>The worst thing about politics is that it is conducted by human beings.</p>

4

<p>haha yea...we're pretty bad</p>

<p>p.s. here's to the dissolution of political parties ala George Washington</p>

5

<p>Hm. I see what you are saying, basically, that the most rigid of views can be made to fit my definition. </p>

<p>I, of course, have a completely opposite view of homosexuality. I think it is a natural and unsuppressable fact of life, which would be proven by centuries of history. Greek homosexual men regularly engaged in sexual intercouse with younger boys, just ONE example. However, a society's willingness to accept homosexuality WILL affect how apparent and commonplace homosexuality is. In a society that embraces sexuality as natural, probably one would see more homosexuals coming out. So, your argument is correct, but flawed, in that homosexuality would STILL be there, just not out in the open, per se, in a society that does not tolerate such individuals. However, I am of the belief that sexuality is not a choice, and entirely a private matter. Furthermore, your statement about children seeing homosexual behavior and then taking on such characteristics themselves, I think, is flawed because there is no sound evidence of this ever happening.</p>

6

<p>"I think it is a natural and unsuppressable fact of life, which would be proven by centuries of history. Greek homosexual men regularly engaged in sexual intercouse with younger boys, just ONE example."</p>

<p>I agree that it has been a part of human kind since the dawn of time. I mean why (gasp I'm referring to the Bible!! :) hahaha) would the Bible condemn it if it didn't exist? And yes, many cultures promoted homosexuality, such as the Greeks. The thing is though, today, such an homosexual relationship would not be confined to pederasty. Although the Greeks condoned this behavior, they also promoted marriage and family, et cetera. Today, if a young boy had a relationship like that, he would probably find it to be the norm and then, with the acceptance of society, continue in homosexual behavior until his death, which would be well...not so great. (see above post)</p>

<p>"However, a society's willingness to accept homosexuality WILL affect how apparent and commonplace homosexuality is."</p>

<p>Yes I agree, that's what I said too.</p>

<p>"In a society that embraces sexuality as natural, probably one would see more homosexuals coming out. So, your argument is correct, but flawed, in that homosexuality would STILL be there, just not out in the open, per se, in a society that does not tolerate such individuals."</p>

<p>I'm confused, your second sentence is exactly what I said. I think that we agree on this...</p>

<p>"Furthermore, your statement about children seeing homosexual behavior and then taking on such characteristics themselves, I think, is flawed because there is no sound evidence of this ever happening."</p>

<p>Just take the number of openly homosexual relationships nowadays and compare it with the number of 100 years ago. It's obviously astronomically higher. As we have agreed, these feelings are always there, BUT here we see that once condoned, they proliforate. That's what I mean when I say that children will take on this behavior openly and accept it as commonplace. And they certainly have over the last century. </p>

<p>As far as sexuality being a choice, ok we agree that the homosexual feelings are inherent in some right? Ok...so therefore they have been around forever. Obviously, an openly lifelong homosexual relationship that replaced a heterosexual one was unheard of at best, and condemned usually, before a little while ago. Before this, then, there were those who had these feelings, but they went on to marry the opposite sex and have children, in spite of these feelings. Thus, I feel that it is a choice if it can be repressed, controlled, et cetera.</p>

7

<p>
[quote]
That's what I mean when I say that children will take on this behavior openly and accept it as commonplace. And they certainly have over the last century.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Why do you think that children thinking it is commonplace is such a bad thing?</p>

<p>
[quote]
Before this, then, there were those who had these feelings, but they went on to marry the opposite sex and have children, in spite of these feelings. Thus, I feel that it is a choice if it can be repressed, controlled, et cetera.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I agree that it is a choice in that way, but you don't choose to have the feelings in the first place. You don't choose to have homosexual feelings, but you can choose whether or not to follow through with them. I guess we agree there, but I don't think the government should pressure a person into choosing the heterosexual lifestyle.</p>

8

<p>"Why do you think that children thinking it is commonplace is such a bad thing?"</p>

<p>I guess I would just have to restate my previous two posts. Then it leads to more of this kind of behavior, which has societal ramifications that I also mentioned previously. </p>

<p>"You don't choose to have homosexual feelings, but you can choose whether or not to follow through with them."</p>

<p>I couldn't agree more.</p>

<p>"but I don't think the government should pressure a person into choosing the heterosexual lifestyle."</p>

<p>We can agree to disagree however in the previous posts I laid out why they should put pressure on people, so to speak.</p>

9

<p>sametwochords-</p>

<p>I'm glad we agree on something. I'm sensing that you fear people will be homosexual just because a society accepts that; I see sexuality as something we born with, something we cannot choose to suppress or control, but something that is in our chemistry. I think that whether society accepts it or not, it will be there, and if society does accept it, it will still be there as it was before, just out in the open.</p>

<p>I think our point of disagreement is about whether society should embrace it or not. Actually, that was not the point I was trying to make. I was saying that no person has the right to define another's sexuality, even if one does believe it is sinful, because no one can really profess to know what God will ultimately decide.</p>

10

<p>I think the problem with the "pro choice" side of the abortion issue is that you guys do nothing but try villanize the "pro life" side. We're the bad guys because we "don't want to give women the right to abort a fetus," which is wrong. We don't support abortion because it kills an innocent life. Simple as that. It has nothing to do with a womens' rights.</p>

<p>The same applies to gay marriage. Homosexuality used to be considered (generations ago) as bad as pedophilia is considered today. If sex is no longer a barrier when it comes to marriage, then why should age be? Or species? I know people who love their dogs more than some people love their spouces. WHY SHOULD THE EVIL CONSERVATIVES DENY MIKE FROM MARRYING SPIKE? But once again, it has nothing to do with rights (of which people have an obscure view). </p>

<p>And of course, I speak for myself.</p>

11

<p>
[quote]
The same applies to gay marriage. Homosexuality used to be considered (generations ago) as bad as pedophilia is considered today

[/quote]
</p>

<p>That's not true. Look at ancient athens, it was common for older men to fall in love with young, usually adolescent boys. This was known as "paederasty, and did not in general interfere with marriage or other relationships.</p>

<p>
[quote]
I think the problem with the "pro choice" side of the abortion issue is that you guys do nothing but try villanize the "pro life" side.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>And the pro-lifers don't villainize the pro choicers? I can point to countless rallies where pro lifers hold signs calling pro choicers "Murders" "Serial Killers" and "Destined to burn in hell". So don't act as if it is only one side, there is equal (though unwarranted and unnecessary) hatred on both sides.</p>