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.
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less
Why liberal elites promote gay marriage
Collapse
X
-
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
-
Originally posted by Darth Executor View PostActually 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.
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
-
Originally posted by Starlight View PostIt's possible I'm confusing him with a modern-day conservative, but they're basically the same thing right?
Comment
-
Originally posted by Starlight View PostIt 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 DENOUNCE DONALD J. TRUMP AND ALL HIS IMMORAL ACTS.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Starlight View PostIt 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?
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?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
-
Originally posted by Darth Executor View PostLiberal/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.
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.
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 PostWe know Jesus wasn't a conservative, because he wasn't a sexist, racist, homophobic, poor-hating bigot. Q.E.D.
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.
"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 PostQuite, Jesus wasn't a modern-day conservative. But of course, modern-day conservatives are Liberals.
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
-
Originally posted by Starlight View PostYes.
In the NT, the uncontroversial staunch defenders of existing institutions are the Sadducees and the Pharisees. The radical reformers are Jesus and Paul.
"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.
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."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
-
Originally posted by Starlight View PostEquality 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."
Equality is a myth, so I see no reason to call it good.
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by seer, Yesterday, 01:12 PM
|
4 responses
72 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Sparko
Yesterday, 02:38 PM
|
||
Started by rogue06, 04-17-2024, 09:33 AM
|
45 responses
410 views
1 like
|
Last Post
by Starlight
Yesterday, 05:05 PM
|
||
Started by whag, 04-16-2024, 10:43 PM
|
60 responses
390 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by seanD
Yesterday, 03:09 PM
|
||
Started by rogue06, 04-16-2024, 09:38 AM
|
0 responses
27 views
1 like
|
Last Post
by rogue06
04-16-2024, 09:38 AM
|
||
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 04-16-2024, 06:47 AM
|
100 responses
454 views
0 likes
|
Last Post Today, 03:52 AM |
Comment