2020 US Presidential Election

[FGG]

This is typically how it works. Cry bias until you get better treatment, than still cry bias as even laxer treatment helps your cause or views be heard more. Cry bullying. Both sides can do it.

I also have a problem with "both siding" issues of fundamental rights. What reasonable argument is there against gay marriage for instance?

Otherwise, within reason (ie it doesn't endanger public welfare) arguments should be given equal weight.

Take a non-political issue like "should primates be kept as pets?" and imagine having to "both sides" that. It's not always reasonable/feasible politically either. But in general, there needs to be more of that.

 

[Zugzug]

What reasonable argument is there against gay marriage for instance?

It triggers Ben Shapiro's homophobia. That's it. That's the argument. And it's a sin, because why not use religion as an excuse for bigotry?

 

[aot]

because why not use religion as an excuse for bigotry?

Well, The Bible does explicitly condemn homosexuality, at least between men.

Not that it matters, because we have separation of church and state. So religion is totally irrelevant.

 

[FGG]

Well, The Bible does explicitly condemn homosexuality, at least between men.

Not that it matters, because we have separation of church and state. So religion is totally irrelevant.

I understand that there are stated reasons for opposing gay rights but I don't think they should be given the same weight in the interest of "both sides" because we are not a theocracy and if we were, we shouldn't be wearing Polyester blends (against the bible), eating pork or shellfish (against the bible), letting women teach ("women shall not instruct men..." Etc etc.

I sometimes wonder if homosexuality is harped on because it's the easiest "sin" not to do for straight people and they get to feel superior.

 

[all to gain]

What reasonable argument is there against gay marriage for instance?

I can think of a number actually.

The main ones being that it weakens society and goes against the role of reproduction, ie it weakens social cohesion. In doing this society becomes divided, which then becomes a problem both for the state and the people who live in it. The vast majority of people are not gay, and the vast majority of people enter a marriage will the aim of reproducing, ie the only known reason for us human beings existing. By default gay people in a union cannot reproduce, ie they need help to do this from outside of their union. Therefore, gay marriage is not able to fulfil the basic requirement of reproduction, which is the whole point of heterosexual marriage, ie the type of marriage that the overwhelming majority abide by. This has nothing to do with religion either, although religion tends to follow the above, but simply in essence marriage is associated with reproduction.

Societal cohesion is being further eroded all the time. This lack of cohesion may well lead to the fall of Western civilization. And this is where our perceived enemies will try to exploit us, ie they will try to divide us more.

Does this make someone homophobic then if they disagree with gay marriage? No, it doesn't. The two are not mutually exclusive.

 

[FGG]

I can think of a number actually.

The main ones being that it weakens society and goes against the role of reproduction, ie it weakens social cohesion. In doing this society becomes divided, which then becomes a problem both for the state and the people who live in it. The vast majority of people are not gay, and the vast majority of people enter a marriage will the aim of reproducing, ie the only known reason for us human beings existing. By default gay people in a union cannot reproduce, ie they need help to do this from outside of their union. Therefore, gay marriage is not able to fulfil the basic requirement of reproduction, which is the whole point of heterosexual marriage, ie the type of marriage that the overwhelming majority abide by. This has nothing to do with religion either, although religion tends to follow the above, but simply in essence marriage is associated with reproduction.

Societal cohesion is being further eroded all the time. This lack of cohesion may well lead to the fall of Western civilization. And this is where our perceived enemies will try to exploit us, ie they will try to divide us more.

Does this make someone homophobic then if they disagree with gay marriage? No, it doesn't. The two are not mutually exclusive.

Should infertile people not be allowed to marry by that rationale in that case?

 

[all to gain]

Should infertile people not be allowed to marry by that rationale in that case?

It's not the same.

They are unable to have children due to reasons beyond their control, and, maybe more importantly, whether they marry or not will not affect the social fabric of society in a big way.

I'm only giving examples to answer your original question. I'm not saying that these are my own views, but they are valid reasons that some people will bring up. I really don't care myself one way or the other what other people do. I'm looking at it more from how other people may view it.

It is all academic now anyway. Same sex marriage exists and is unlikely to disappear anytime soon. Who knows, it may end up making society stronger?

 

[FGG]

It's not the same.

They are unable to have children due to reasons beyond their control

Sexual orientation is beyond people's control, too.

Mormons tried to preach for years (they might still, I haven't followed up) that "homosexuality itself was not wrong but "homosexual behavior was" and used to encourage gay members just to marry straight members and keep their gay thoughts to themselves.

Most famously, there was Josh Weed who was tauted as a success for this method. For years (6?), he gave speaking tours, etc arguing that others should do the same. The Weeds were the poster children for this idea, which worked until it didn't.

Now Josh says that even though his wife was his best friend, they were living a lie that ultimately hurt them both (particularly her, he said it shattered her self esteem) and wasn't the loving family either of them needed or their children needed.

Here is more on them. It's an interesting and sad story:

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/daylightatheism/2018/01/strange-sad-story-josh-weed/

Anyway, since we are not barring old widows (let's use widows so we don't have to have a divorce argument) from getting re-married, it must not actually be the fertility argument (getting re-married as an old widow is a choice after all and one under the widow's control). So it must be the "re-shapes" society argument, but that same argument was used to try to prevent interracial marriage, too.

I realize you were giving a "devil's advocate" view and not necessarily your own but I have heard people try to give logical arguments to what really boils down to "I don't want to see that and I don't want my kids to either" which is actually homophobia whether they realize it or not.

 

[Zugzug]

I can think of a number actually.

The main ones being that it weakens society and goes against the role of reproduction, ie it weakens social cohesion. In doing this society becomes divided, which then becomes a problem both for the state and the people who live in it. The vast majority of people are not gay, and the vast majority of people enter a marriage will the aim of reproducing, ie the only known reason for us human beings existing. By default gay people in a union cannot reproduce, ie they need help to do this from outside of their union. Therefore, gay marriage is not able to fulfil the basic requirement of reproduction, which is the whole point of heterosexual marriage, ie the type of marriage that the overwhelming majority abide by. This has nothing to do with religion either, although religion tends to follow the above, but simply in essence marriage is associated with reproduction.

Societal cohesion is being further eroded all the time. This lack of cohesion may well lead to the fall of Western civilization. And this is where our perceived enemies will try to exploit us, ie they will try to divide us more.

Does this make someone homophobic then if they disagree with gay marriage? No, it doesn't. The two are not mutually exclusive.

Wow.

1) Tons of people marry and don't have kids.
2) Tons of people marry, have kids, and are super shitty parents.
3) Major studies show that having two parents of the same sex does not cause negative harm.
https://www.mother.ly/news/lesbian-parents-impact-kids-mental-health/particle-4
4) Would it be better for a mother to have an abortion than to put the kid up for adoption, to then be raised by a well-put-together gay couple?

Of course your argument above is homophobic lol. You are basically giving straight couples the full benefit of the doubt to progress society and implying that married gay people cannot do the same.

All I know is I have met more gay people that would make excellent parents than straight people. Some days I don't know why I try to be a both sides-er. Maybe religion is just irredeemably ignorant.

 

[all to gain]

Sexual orientation is beyond people's control, too.

Mormons tried to preach for years (they might still, I haven't followed up) that "homosexuality itself was not wrong but "homosexual behavior was" and used to encourage gay members just to marry straight members and keep their gay thoughts to themselves.

Most famously, there was Josh Weed who was tauted as a success for this method. For years (6?), he gave speaking tours, etc arguing that others should do the same. The Weeds were the poster children for this idea, which worked until it didn't.

Now Josh says that even though his wife was his best friend, they were living a lie that ultimately hurt them both (particularly her, he said it shattered her self esteem) and wasn't the loving family either of them needed or their children needed.

Here is more on them. It's an interesting and sad story:

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/daylightatheism/2018/01/strange-sad-story-josh-weed/

Anyway, since we are not barring old widows (let's use widows so we don't have to have a divorce argument) from getting re-married, it must not actually be the fertility argument (getting re-married as an old widow is a choice after all and one under the widow's control). So it must be the "re-shapes" society argument, but that same argument was used to try to prevent interracial marriage, too.

I realize you were giving a "devil's advocate" view and not necessarily your own but I have heard people try to give logical arguments to what really boils down to "I don't want to see that and I don't want my kids to either" which is actually homophobia whether they realize it or not.

I am playing devil's advocate. However, I can see how other people are looking at it.

My wife asked me what would I do if one of my son's had a black girlfriend. I answered that it would be non of my business and that if they got along and were happy then great, but I would make clear the possible problems they may face. However, there are lots of things that I would not be happy with if they did them, ie hard drugs, smoking and so on.

Just to make clear, they were not my views (and @Zugzug), but, for instance, come to where I live and those views are probably considered the norm. In fact, here they can't even deal with the fact that my sons have dual nationality, eg we have to register their other nationality, and they sit on a list of possible people that could be considered unpatriotic. Furthermore, many can't even take an Englishman, who has a goodlooking local wife, living amongst them. On numerous occasions I've had the local so-called hardnuts spitting in front of me in the hope that I step on their spit.

 

[Juan]

Putin did it again: Russia claims to have a vaccine for COVID-19!!!!

 

[Juan]

Sensitive to claims of bias, Facebook relaxed misinformation rules for conservative pages

''Facebook has allowed conservative news outlets and personalities to repeatedly spread false information without facing any of the company's stated penalties, according to leaked materials reviewed by NBC News.''

Link: https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-n...information-rules-conservative-pages-n1236182

I am surprised there are still people who use Facebook. It's such a useless website...

I am also shocked at how the Americans don't care at all about the privacy of their personal data.

 

[DaveN]

The purpose of a marriage is not reproduction. I find that statement more than a little ignorant and hurtful to those who cannot or choose not to have children.

 

[Carlos1]

I sometimes wonder if homosexuality is harped on because it's the easiest "sin" not to do for straight people and they get to feel superior.

@FGG "Feel Superior" Please that is the most ridiculous thing I've seen on this thread yet.

 

[FGG]

@FGG "Feel Superior" Please that is the most ridiculous thing I've seen on this thread yet.

I meant that in a more spiritual sense then general sense. They feel more "spiritually superior" because it's an easy "sin" for straight religious people to avoid.

To add, I was posing that as a possibility.

I can't seem to imagine with all the unfollowed rules in the bible (including eating pork, shellfish, working 7 days a week and wearing mixed fabrics. Not to mention we don't have Jubillee years) that homosexuality is the one that's harped on without their being *some* sort of reason whether it be psychological (as like i said in it being the easiest sin for straight people to avoid) or something like churches trying to encourage fertility.

If there is another reason, I'm all ears but the vast majority of the bible's rules are ignored but that one isn't by religious groups. I'm very curious as to why.

 

[Carlos1]

I meant that in a more spiritual sense then general sense. They feel more "spiritually superior" because it's an easy "sin" for straight religious people to avoid.

@FGG
I can only speak for myself but sin is sin, there is no easy sin.
We are all sinners.

 

[Zugzug]

Well. I didn't expect to see homophobic apologists on this thread. There is literally zero justification for being against gay marriage; this is not a nuanced topic. What a joke. Of all of the topics in politics that can have multiple angles, we pick the one about two human beings loving each other and harming no one. Maybe this thread is worthless.

 

[FGG]

Well. I didn't expect to see homophobic apologists on this thread. There is literally zero justification for being against gay marriage; this is not a nuanced topic. What a joke. Of all of the topics in politics that can have multiple angles, we pick the one about two human beings loving each other and harming no one. Maybe this thread is worthless.

I'm surprised, too, because I picked that issue precisely because some things (like love) can't be "two sided" and that's why presenting both sides in the media is usually desirable but there are exceptions (e.g.. Gay marriage, which is there no non discriminatory and/or homophobic argument against).

 

[Zugzug]

In my opinion, this is the real reason why religious homophobia exists:

I think it's less about hating gay people, and more about the fear that the religious text could easily just be a perfectly logical and expected historical book, written by man, and lacking in divinity. If we just think about ancient times, when children died young, and civilization required reproduction for more manpower in order to diversify survival risk for group populations, it makes sense that something that gets in the way of that would be deemed as inadmissible. I can easily picture a human being, wanting to mass populate a civilization, writing anti-gay things.

However, now that we live in 2020, we can see that since civilization has evolved, a benevolent god would value different things such as companionship, love, adoption (there's even a climate change argument here). There's a reason why now man is writing nice things about homosexuality.

It's because religious text was written by man reacting to the times. By admitting this, it calls to question what else in religious text is similar.

Sam Harris has entered the chat.

 

[FGG]

In my opinion, this is the real reason why religious homophobia exists:

I think it's less about hating gay people, and more about the fear that the religious text could easily just be a perfectly logical and expected historical book, written by man, and lacking in divinity. If we just think about ancient times, when children died young, and civilization required reproduction for more manpower in order to diversify survival risk for group populations, it makes sense that something that gets in the way of that would be deemed as inadmissible. I can easily picture a human being, wanting to mass populate a civilization, writing anti-gay things.

However, now that we live in 2020, we can see that since civilization has evolved, a benevolent god would value different things such as companionship, love, adoption (there's even a climate change argument here). There's a reason why now man is writing nice things about homosexuality.

It's because religious text was written by man reacting to the times. By admitting this, it calls to question what else in religious text is similar.

Sam Harris has entered the chat.

That's an interesting take and makes a lot of sense.

 

[Christiaan]

Oh no, WHY?????????

Biden picks Kamala Harris for VP

Link: https://edition.cnn.com/politics/live-news/2020-election-biden-vp-pick/index.html

 

[Zugzug]

Oh no, WHY?????????

Biden picks Kamala Harris for VP

Link: https://edition.cnn.com/politics/live-news/2020-election-biden-vp-pick/index.html

I'm not surprised though. Who would you have picked? I would have liked Warren, but from a strategy perspective, I don't think Kamala is so bad.

 

[WillBeNimble]

I'm not surprised though. Who would you have picked? I would have liked Warren, but from a strategy perspective, I don't think Kamala is so bad.

From a strategy viewpoint, it's a good idea for what they're going for. The progressive vote won't be happy, but they've already made it quite clear they don't want to appease them.

 

[Zugzug]

From a strategy viewpoint, it's a good idea for what they're going for. The progressive vote won't be happy, but they've already made it quite clear they don't want to appease them.

Yeah, I mean I know you are a progressive. I just think objectively, progressives lack leverage entirely. If Trump wins because of reduced voter turn out, it makes the movement look childish, IMO. Fair or unfair, two failed runs of Bernie hyping people up to later watch Trump win is not a good look. Not to mention the fact that Biden will help set up the progressive agenda much more than Trump will, even though he won't be that progressive. I think staying home is a miscalculation of leverage.

If you were to flip it, let's say Bernie won and he selected Nina Turner as his VP, and centrists were going to hold out to watch Trump win, everyone would (rightfully) say they were morons.

 

[WillBeNimble]

Yeah, I mean I know you are a progressive. I just think objectively, progressives lack leverage entirely. If Trump wins because of reduced voter turn out, it makes the movement look childish, IMO. Fair or unfair, two failed runs of Bernie hyping people up to later watch Trump win is not a good look. Not to mention the fact that Biden will help set up the progressive agenda much more than Trump will, even though he won't be that progressive. I think staying home is a miscalculation of leverage.

If you were to flip it, let's say Bernie won and he selected Nina Turner as his VP, and centrists were going to hold out to watch Trump win, everyone would (rightfully) say they were morons.

So, I'm voting for Biden, and any Bernie supporters who don't are vastly underestimating how terrible a second Trump run would be. I don't support them in that. However, the left will be blamed no matter if we stay home or not if the strategy doesn't win. More Bernie supporters voted Hillary than Hillary supporters voted Obama in 2008. It didn't matter though, it was the "Bernie Bros" fault. The same thing will happen this time if they lose. When, failing to get the vote from what should be your people shouldn't be seen as a failure on the electorate, but the candidate. I don't know why it isn't seen as such.

Even if all Bernie supporters showed up and voted for Joe, and there was somehow a loss, the Dems would still lay the blame squarely at the progressives feet. You can show them the statistics and exit polls all day, they would still blame us.

I just want the guy who's too comfortable with authoritarianism out.

 

[Zugzug]

So, I'm voting for Biden, and any Bernie supporters who don't are vastly underestimating how terrible a second Trump run would be. I don't support them in that. However, the left will be blamed no matter if we stay home or not if the strategy doesn't win. More Bernie supporters voted Hillary than Hillary supporters voted Obama in 2008. It didn't matter though, it was the "Bernie Bros" fault. The same thing will happen this time if they lose. When, failing to get the vote from what should be your people shouldn't be seen as a failure on the electorate, but the candidate. I don't know why it isn't seen as such.

Even if all Bernie supporters showed up and voted for Joe, and there was somehow a loss, the Dems would still lay the blame squarely at the progressives feet. You can show them the statistics and exit polls all day, they would still blame us.

I just want the guy who's too comfortable with authoritarianism out.

I agree and disagree with your assessment. I agree that Bernie supporters will get blamed no matter what this time around -- at least there will be some of that. Unless it's like 95% + Bernie to Biden vote.

Where I disagree is your assessment that it's clear they deserved none in 2016. I can concede that it's perhaps less than the media makes it out to be. But the 2008 comparison is apples to oranges since Trump was not on the other side. When you factor Trump in, the numbers were pretty bad.

To be fair, if Bernie lost to Trump in 2016, and the establishment numbers were similar, I would blame them and media. I just hate Trump lol.

 

[Tanni]

Well. I didn't expect to see homophobic apologists on this thread. There is literally zero justification for being against gay marriage; this is not a nuanced topic. What a joke. Of all of the topics in politics that can have multiple angles, we pick the one about two human beings loving each other and harming no one.

Zugzug, I've read a lot of your posts recently and I would like to know... when can I vote for you as president?

Seriously though, I couldn't have written the above better. 'I'm not homophobic but I'm against gay marriage. And also, I'm not racist but I think African Americans shouldn't be able to vote.' Come on... I would have more respect if people just said they were homophobic.

We can argue philosophically, intellectually and biblically until the cows come home, but there's only one right answer here.

 

[Zugzug]

Zugzug, I've read a lot of your posts recently and I would like to know... when can I vote for you as president?

If I was president, the country would crumble in minutes. I would pick a materialist to be VP and @Contrast would start a revolution.

 

[Christiaan]

I'm not surprised though. Who would you have picked? I would have liked Warren, but from a strategy perspective, I don't think Kamala is so bad.

 

[WillBeNimble]

Where I disagree is your assessment that it's clear they deserved none in 2016. I can concede that it's perhaps less than the media makes it out to be. But the 2008 comparison is apples to oranges since Trump was not on the other side. When you factor Trump in, the numbers were pretty bad.

I just don't think it's as Apples to Oranges as the media would put it out to be. McCain was slightly better than Trump, but the forces that are moving under Trump moved under the Bushes and Reagan as well. Further, the loss in my book lays in large part at the feet of the media. They had Hillary as a shoo-in. That depressed a lot of the democratic base, especially the progressives. Many saw it as "Well, if they don't need me to win, no reason to stick my neck out." Which, being in the future we can all say is foolish, but hindsight is 2020.

Regardless, we're here now. We need to move forward, and hope that Biden Kamala can get enough support to win. I really worry about the choice of Kamala, because it might be seen by some progressives as being too supportive of the police institutions we have currently, which do need to be demilitarized and have better oversight.