Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Why liberal elites promote gay marriage

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Exhibits #1521, #1522 and #1523 of what happens when pman has nothing of substance to say, but can't keep his mouth shut:

    Originally posted by pancreasman View Post
    Luckily, I don't have to post anything here to refute the OP.
    Originally posted by pancreasman View Post
    Drone, drone.
    Originally posted by pancreasman View Post
    Pharisees were liberals? Tell Seer.

    Comment


    • #17
      Nothing substantive. gigo

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by pancreasman View Post
        Nothing substantive. gigo
        This time you have surpassed yourself.

        Comment


        • #19
          Thank you.

          Comment


          • #20
            To answer the OP, not that it deserves it:

            Yes, of course equality is good: In general, it's great for people to have more freedom and for there to be less oppression. It's great to "set the oppressed free" as Jesus put it. I value freedom and I value freedom for others. I think people dominating others and taking away the freedom of others is immoral and evil. So I oppose slavery, and I oppose the subjugation of black people, and I oppose the subjugation of women. A society in which there is freedom for all, where every individual has freedom and none is oppressed by any other, is a better society than one that involves subjugation, oppression, and severe restrictions on freedoms of choice.

            Historically, in many cultures, women were property to be bought and sold by men. Usually uneducated and illiterate, they had little to no freedom in their lives, and were expected to do as men told them. By giving freedom to women, 50% of our population, we have doubled the amount of freedom in our society, and that is a good thing.

            There are, of course, some small-minded men who resent this and crave power over others and the ability to dominate others. They feel that "might makes right" and that just because women are physically weaker, that this should mean that the man is morally right to oppress, dominate, and restrict the freedom of the weaker party. Such men strike me as no better than animals, not rising above very base desires to seize power over others and dominate them. They apparently lack any sense of moral compass or concern for the well-being of others.

            Physical differences in strength shouldn't, of course, be particularly relevant in loving relationships. If you are physically assaulting each other, or using physical force to control the other person's actions, something is going very, very, wrong in your relationship! However, straight relationships do sometimes slip into a pattern of male dominance where the woman agrees to the man's every wish and the man never lets the woman have her way. The historical origins of this culture of behavior probably do lie in the underlying physical strength differences. So in straight relationships it can be necessary for the couple to make a conscious effort from time to time to make sure they are maintaining equality and ensure that the woman's freedom is not being reduced.

            Same-sex relationships have the intrinsic virtue of being more equal (on average) in terms of physical strength, as compared to opposite sex relationships. So they do not have such a big problem with inequality, and so are less likely to need either party to make an active effort to maintain equality. Of course, it might happen that one person has a dominant personality, in which case making an effort would still be necessary. But on the whole, same-sex relationships intrinsically neutralize a background threat to the loss of freedom of one party in the relationship. This makes it easier to maximize the freedom of the two individuals, which in my books is a Good Thing. Greater equality will lead to less oppressive marriages, on average. This is probably a contributing factor to why gay couples are happier on average than straight couples.

            The OP is, of course, in Cuckoo land when it claims that this is why anyone promotes gay marriage. This is an incidental side-benefit of gay marriages that makes them mildly superior to straight marriages in one sense of promoting better relationship dynamics. It is obviously not the motivation of anyone who is campaigning for recognition of same-sex marriages.

            People support gay marriage because of freedom. Again: It's great for people to have more freedom and less oppression. Marriage is one of the most fundamental choices we make in life, and a loving couple having the freedom to marry each other is one of the basic freedoms. Courts have called the freedom to marry "a fundamental right". Preventing gay couples from marrying decreases their freedom for no rational purpose. Restricting freedoms for no purpose is just plain dumb and a sign of a barbaric society... maybe we should just randomly lock people in cages on the side of the road, does that sound good? Maybe we could ban Jews from marrying each other? Banning gay people from marrying each other is an equally ridiculous and arbitrary restriction on freedom. Freedom is one of several goods that us liberals would like to see maximized in society. Therefore we support the legalization of same-sex marriage, because we support freedom.
            Last edited by Starlight; 02-02-2015, 06:04 AM.
            "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
            "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
            "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Darth Executor View Post
              Actually the pharisees had replaced the teachings of God (the old) with the "traditions of men" (the new) so it would be more accurate to call them the ruling liberal elites of His day.
              It absolutely cracks me up that some conservatives seem to actually believe that Jesus was a conservative and not a liberal (and Paul for that matter). The amount of fact-rewriting mental distortion you'd have to do to pull that one off just defies belief. Although I guess mental distortion and ignorance of facts is what defines a conservative in the first place, so meh.

              The wild imaginations of conservatives seems to be a very weird and fact-rewriting place though, especially where Jesus is concerned: Jesus was white. I've heard he was a neoliberal free market capitalist too. I'm pretty sure I remember he taught that money and greed are the roots of all good, that the rich are morally superior and should be commended for storing up wealth for themselves, that free health care shouldn't be given to those that can't afford it, and I'm pretty sure he gave lengthy sermons on the merits of oppressing the gays, women, and black people. It's possible I'm confusing him with a modern-day conservative, but they're basically the same thing right?
              "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
              "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
              "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Starlight View Post
                It's possible I'm confusing him with a modern-day conservative, but they're basically the same thing right?
                Quite, Jesus wasn't a modern-day conservative. But of course, modern-day conservatives are Liberals.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Starlight View Post
                  It absolutely cracks me up that some conservatives seem to actually believe that Jesus was a conservative and not a liberal (and Paul for that matter). The amount of fact-rewriting mental distortion you'd have to do to pull that one off just defies belief. Although I guess mental distortion and ignorance of facts is what defines a conservative in the first place, so meh.

                  The wild imaginations of conservatives seems to be a very weird and fact-rewriting place though, especially where Jesus is concerned: Jesus was white. I've heard he was a neoliberal free market capitalist too. I'm pretty sure I remember he taught that money and greed are the roots of all good, that the rich are morally superior and should be commended for storing up wealth for themselves, that free health care shouldn't be given to those that can't afford it, and I'm pretty sure he gave lengthy sermons on the merits of oppressing the gays, women, and black people. It's possible I'm confusing him with a modern-day conservative, but they're basically the same thing right?
                  We know Jesus wasn't a conservative, because he wasn't a sexist, racist, homophobic, poor-hating bigot. Q.E.D.
                  I DENOUNCE DONALD J. TRUMP AND ALL HIS IMMORAL ACTS.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Starlight View Post
                    It absolutely cracks me up that some conservatives seem to actually believe that Jesus was a conservative and not a liberal (and Paul for that matter). The amount of fact-rewriting mental distortion you'd have to do to pull that one off just defies belief. Although I guess mental distortion and ignorance of facts is what defines a conservative in the first place, so meh.

                    The wild imaginations of conservatives seems to be a very weird and fact-rewriting place though, especially where Jesus is concerned: Jesus was white. I've heard he was a neoliberal free market capitalist too. I'm pretty sure I remember he taught that money and greed are the roots of all good, that the rich are morally superior and should be commended for storing up wealth for themselves, that free health care shouldn't be given to those that can't afford it, and I'm pretty sure he gave lengthy sermons on the merits of oppressing the gays, women, and black people. It's possible I'm confusing him with a modern-day conservative, but they're basically the same thing right?
                    I'm not using conservative in the modern American political sense, idiot. You're a mediocre thinker, so you probably didn't understand the substance of kiwimac's dishonest equivocation or my reply. Liberal/conservative predate modern American politics and have other meanings distinct from them. For example:

                    conservative
                    [kuh n-sur-vuh-tiv]
                    Spell Syllables
                    Examples Word Origin
                    adjective
                    1.disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change.

                    liberal
                    [lib-er-uh l, lib-ruh l]
                    Spell Syllables
                    Synonyms Word Origin
                    adjective
                    1.favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.

                    As for oppressing gays and women, by endorsing the Old Testament He certainly did oppress both under a modern Liberal paradigm.

                    In fact:

                    https://robertnielsen21.wordpress.co...part-5-racism/

                    Strangely I have heard Christians use this story to claim Jesus was not racist. Apparently the fact he healed a Canaanite was proof of his tolerance. In fact I remember being told this story as a child, except I was told the disciples wanted to send her away but Jesus overruled them. However he initially refuses to even speak to her merely because she is different. He then declares that he only cares about Israelis, only they will be saved. He then compares her to a dog. All this vicious and disgusting racism coming from our saviour, the son of God. It is only after she is forced to beg, grovel and compare herself to a dog eating crumbs that Jesus decides to help her. If that’s not racist then I don’t know what is.(Mark 7:25-30 tells the same story except the woman is Greek according to him.)
                    The sexism begins at the very beginning of the Bible where man is crated first (the implication being as he’s more important). Woman on the other hand is created from a small part of man’s body (his rib) as “a help” for man (Genesis 2:18). The standard argument to justify sexism for centuries quoted Genesis claiming God himself intended women to solely attend the needs of men. Just to make it clear when Adam and Eve are banished from Eden (note how in the story Eve is the guilty one while Adam is innocent, further justification for sexism) as punishment god declares that Adam “shall rule over thee”. (Genesis 3:16) This we have the beginning of the justification for the second class treatment of women.
                    ...
                    (Just in case some try to argue that women were treated badly in the past but then Jesus made this right, most of these quotes are from the New Testament)
                    Religion has always been the harshest critic of homosexuality. This is appalling as you cannot choose who you do or do not love; therefore homosexuals are condemned for something they cannot control. Even still I was surprised at the harshness with which homosexuality is condemned in the Bible, especially as a reason is never given.

                    The Bible is (unfortunately) rife with maltreatment of homosexuals which supposedly is justified by God. They are regularly referred to as dogs. God tells the Israelites to exclude whores, gays and dogs from their camp and their temple (Deuteronomy 23:17-8). So not only are gays ostracized but they are not even allowed live with the rest of the community. The entire city of Sodom (from which we get the word sodomy) is destroyed because its people “sinned”. Some people believe the sin in question was homosexuality. Though this begs the question, if God hates gays why has he not destroyed San Francisco?
                    Jesus the liberal.
                    Last edited by Darth Executor; 02-02-2015, 01:21 PM.
                    "As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths." Isaiah 3:12

                    There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Starlight View Post
                      Yes, of course equality is good:
                      Why?

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Darth Executor View Post
                        Liberal/conservative predate modern American politics and have other meanings distinct from them. For example:

                        conservative
                        [kuh n-sur-vuh-tiv]
                        Spell Syllables
                        Examples Word Origin
                        adjective
                        1.disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change.

                        liberal
                        [lib-er-uh l, lib-ruh l]
                        Spell Syllables
                        Synonyms Word Origin
                        adjective
                        1.favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.
                        Yes.

                        In the NT, the uncontroversial staunch defenders of existing institutions are the Sadducees and the Pharisees. The radical reformers are Jesus and Paul.

                        As for oppressing gays and women, by endorsing the Old Testament He certainly did oppress both under a modern Liberal paradigm.
                        He probably spoke tirades about women knowing their place and gays destroying society if they got married. None of it made it into the bible, but we can imagine it.

                        Yes the bible has terrible and immoral bits. That's a significant part of the reason I'm an atheist. Great own-goal.

                        I'm not saying Jesus was perfect, I'm just saying he was liberal compared to the standards of his day and that he was pushing for change in the right direction.

                        Originally posted by Zymologist View Post
                        We know Jesus wasn't a conservative, because he wasn't a sexist, racist, homophobic, poor-hating bigot. Q.E.D.
                        Yes.

                        Also he was strongly pro-change and pro-reform and pro-equality and vigorously attacked the conservative elites of his day. He clearly saw himself as a major agent of reform and change, as he quotes various prophecies about setting the oppressed free etc.

                        Originally posted by Meta Knight View Post
                        Originally posted by Starlight View Post
                        Yes, of course equality is good:
                        Why?
                        Equality maximizes freedom. If you'd read the other half of the sentence you quoted, and you'll find the answer:
                        "Yes, of course equality is good: In general, it's great for people to have more freedom and for there to be less oppression."

                        Originally posted by Paprika View Post
                        Quite, Jesus wasn't a modern-day conservative. But of course, modern-day conservatives are Liberals.
                        Well what modern day conservatives are varies slightly. Usually "conservative" largely means trying to preserve the traditions and institutions that one grew up with and fighting against any changes to them, as opposed to "liberals" who are generally focused on improvement rather than preservation.

                        However in recent years, "conservatives" have come to stand for some very strange things that are not part of defending their childhood institutions and preventing change:

                        (1) "Free market conservatives" zealously advocated for completely new ideas of neo-liberal economics and then brought major changes to our financial system and launched us into a new era of economics based on unevidenced ideological ideas. This had a lot to do with trying to favor the rich and diminish the poor, but nothing to do with the preservation of existing institutions.

                        (2) In the US, political conservatives have departed from the traditional conservatism of trying to preserve their childhood institutions. Instead they've become an anti-intellectual pro-rich fact-free anti-abortion group that has been made into a political tool by the mega-rich who lead them by the nose. The free market conservatives in the US have quite successfully used propaganda to brainwash the under-educated masses who now largely vote against their own interests. It's quite a strange phenomena really - in the rest of the world poorer demographics vote for policies that favor the poor, whereas in the US the poorer states all vote for policies that favor the rich, because they've been so thoroughly brainwashed.

                        It kindof goes without saying that Jesus & Paul weren't conservatives by any of these measures.
                        "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
                        "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
                        "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          I wasn't sure if that post would get a response, but I definitely didn't expect it to get an Amen.
                          I DENOUNCE DONALD J. TRUMP AND ALL HIS IMMORAL ACTS.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Starlight View Post
                            Yes.

                            In the NT, the uncontroversial staunch defenders of existing institutions are the Sadducees and the Pharisees. The radical reformers are Jesus and Paul.
                            Not true, the Sadducees and the Pharisees are the establishment liberals who discarded the laws of God in favor of their own traditions (sound familiar?). Jesus and Paul are the restorers of the true original faith.

                            "For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do."

                            Jesus is criticizing them for the progress they made.

                            He probably spoke tirades about women knowing their place and gays destroying society if they got married. None of it made it into the bible, but we can imagine it.
                            That's why I offered you a nice link, to show that it did, and in many places is "worse" than what you claim.

                            Yes the bible has terrible and immoral bits. That's a significant part of the reason I'm an atheist. Great own-goal.
                            It's not an own goal because I don't acknowledge liberal opinion on what is terrible and immoral to be valid. Rather, it shows that the bible in general, Jesus and Paul in particular, etc. are all sexist, racist and homophobic by liberal standards, while you insisted they actually agree with you on these issues.

                            I'm not saying Jesus was perfect, I'm just saying he was liberal compared to the standards of his day and that he was pushing for change in the right direction.
                            He was pushing for a reversal of course. This is conservative. Reactionary even.
                            "As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths." Isaiah 3:12

                            There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              tumblr_mk31vklp5O1s9n4cro1_500.gif
                              That's what
                              - She

                              Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
                              - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

                              I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
                              - Stephen R. Donaldson

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Starlight View Post
                                Equality maximizes freedom. If you'd read the other half of the sentence you quoted, and you'll find the answer:
                                "Yes, of course equality is good: In general, it's great for people to have more freedom and for there to be less oppression."
                                I did read the whole sentence. A does not lead to B, nor do you provide any reason why the things you say are good are good.

                                Equality is a myth, so I see no reason to call it good.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, Yesterday, 04:19 PM
                                16 responses
                                117 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post One Bad Pig  
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                53 responses
                                319 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Mountain Man  
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                25 responses
                                111 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                33 responses
                                196 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Roy
                                by Roy
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                84 responses
                                360 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post JimL
                                by JimL
                                 
                                Working...
                                X