I've heard this argument, more than once. Granted, I hear it from ignorant high schoolers, (who are, unfortunately, my classmates,) but I still marvel at their stupidity.
My government teacher, informed person that he is, gave us the first day of class that since all of us would be able to vote in the presidential election, a very thought-provoking piece of advice. He said, "I don't want to you vote with your parents, and I don't want you to vote against them." This rang very true in my mind, because I always have been strongly influenced by my Conservative family's beliefs. We go to a conservative church, and even more influence comes from there. Just knowing my own beliefs, however, I probably will vote the same way that at least my mom votes. I believe a lot of the same things she does, but there are also things we disagree on. Not just politically, either. For example, she thinks that homosexuality is disgusting, while I have several friends who are gay, and I have no problem with it. But- we both don't agree with gay marriage. You can call me non-politically correct if you want, but I would advise you not to try and convince me otherwise, seeing as I've already pondered through all the reasons you could possibly give. (Ones that my gay friends themselves have given me.) To be exact, I myself neither qualify as a Coservative or Liberal. I fall quite neatly into the Moderate category, which should make deciding on who to vote for very interesting.
I think that basing your vote on whether a candidate is female or a certain nationality is stupid. Pardon the use of such a weak and juvenile word, but it is, and anyone with half a logical brain would realize this. If we put a candidate into office based on their physical characteristics, we could be in a whole lot of trouble. Obviously, the candidate we "like" the best may not be the best for the country. It makes me laugh to see how people like to make fun or George Bush's appearance or his accent, because it's not like half the people making fun look any better than he does, or don't have funny accents themselves. Or how they show moments in speeches or press conferences where he stutters or says something that doesn't make sense. I'd love to see those people get up in front of a large group of people with cameras and microphones in their faces and see how much they mess up. No one that is human is perfect, including the president, and we shouldn't make fun of his shortcomings.
So yes, let's vote for Hillary, or Barack, just because she is female or he is black. Never mind the issues; who pays attention to those anyway?
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
I am a democrat and do not support Hillary or Obama. I do not feel like they are what this country needs, more flip-flopping, greedy politicians. Unfortunately, as you said, people will choose to not even pay attention to the issues. My little sister said the same thing about Hillary, and she has no clue about the election, let alone what is going on in our country or the world.
*Smacks stupid people that vote uninformed* :P
There is a time to live, and a time to die. But now it the time to break it down!
Did you know that if you click the "reply" button under the comment you're responding to it will indent your comment under that one? (Like this.) Doing so makes it much easier to follow any conversations you have in comments.
"Some say what I want to do is impossible. I say it is necessary."
"Don't question authority. They don't know either."
"Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure."
- Marianne Williamson
Thank you!! I believe that a good majority of the people in my senior class are yearning to vote for Hilary Clinton for that reason alone. Anytime there is anything closely resembling a political discussion, the poking fun at George Bush begins. I really don't think they actually listen to anything. Issues? Are they even taken into consideration when voting anymore? We just want to vote for someone so it will be another interesting fact to write down and make a few headlines: First Woman President Elected Today!! Nevermind how she would actually run the country if she was given the power.
"We should vote for Hillary because she is a women! I've heard this argument, more than once. Granted, I hear it from ignorant high schoolers, (who are, unfortunately, my classmates,) but I still marvel at their stupidity."
I, too, marvel at the ignorance of young people who are given the right to vote but don't bother to formulate their opinions based on any sort of fact...
but I marvel more at grown adults who have been voting for years who claim the same thing:
I was listening to a local radio station not too long ago and one of the DJs who has a strong influence on young and old alike was was saying that women need to vote for Hilary just because she's a woman. He said we have no right as women to complain that there's never been a woman president if we're not willing to vote for her just for her gender.
I was extremely offended by that statement. I, as a woman, would never, ever vote for anyone based on whether they're male or female, black or white, young or old...
it is not a matter of what a person is, but who they are, and if we are not voting for the leader of our country based on who they are, there is going to be a serious problem in our future.
Voting is a right, yes, but ignorance is stripping us of this right.
Interesting points and I couldn't agree more...
but one point: if Bush had all the amenities of life and went to an Ivy League School, he should be able to speak half-way decently.
no, we shouldn't vote for someone just because of their race, but conversely, we shouldn't not vote because of his or her race or gender. yes, i am aware of the double negative, but it makes me point. it shouldnt matter whether or not the candidate is black or white or a woman or a man.
we make fun of bush and his inability to read is because he is not like you or i. he IS the president of the us, and we should expect him to be able to read. sorry. if he is not capable of this, he should not have gone for this position.
While I agree with most of what you wrote, I would like to get some more insight into your reasons for disapproving of gay marriage. I almost didn't comment, but I can't help but start this conversation with a young person who seems very intelligent, and whose opinion will matter to this country's future.
Are you also against civil unions? What do you think about gay couple adopting children? If you have no problem with these two issues, what is it about marriage that changes your position? (If you do have a problem with these two things, we will go from there). Notwishstanding that you seem to think I cannot change your mind, I would appreciate a conversation with you on this topic, so I can get some insight into what may be an argument against gay marriage I hadn't thought of, although, I've heard many over and over again, and I have yet to be impressed with one. I always leave room for the possibility that there's something I'm not aware of. Thanks.
John K.
My mom who is a lesbian and a Christian, says that she personally doesn't believe in "marriage" for homosexuals, but that homosexuals should have the rights of civil unions.
That's all well and good, and your mother is certainly entitled to her beliefs, except that I have a lot of trouble understanding how someone can logically hold such a position. It just seems inconsistent to me no matter what combinatino of other beliefs she holds.
For instance, does she consider homosexuality a sin, one which she is just willing to engage in? If so, why does she believe in civil unions and not marriage? They both sanction what she considers a sin. I would understand a position that says, "I'm a lesbian, and even though I'm going to continue to be a lesbian, I think it's a sin and I don't think society should sanction it. Therefore, no marriage and no civil unions, but if people want to have gay sex, that's fine." If she's going to compromise and allow civil unions because marriage is more associated with religion, then how does she feel about civil marriages, which are equal to religiously blessed marriages insomuch as they are referred to as "marriages," which are available to all (heterosexual) couples, even those who are staunch atheists and would not be caught dead in a church? If civil unions, why not civil marriage? No one is saying churches will or should be forced to bless a gay marriage that offends their beliefs, but state-sponsored marriage should not discriminate.
If she does not believe it is a sin, then I REALLY don't get the distinction between civil unions and civil marriage, as the only difference is religious in context and seems moot if you start from the position that homosexuality is not sinful in the first place.
The whole point here is that the only reason to be against gay marriage is if you think homosexuality is a sin, and if your mother is a Christian and believes homosexuality is a sin, they how can she still consider herself a lesbian, as if to espouse the belief that it is ok even though it's a sin? It's just inconsistent. The only way it makes any sense to me whatsoever is if, as I alluded to above, she believed her homosexuality was a sinful compulsion that she is just too weak to control, but believes nonetheless that it is sinful. Still, if that were the case, I would expect her to be acting more like Senator Craig in coping with her perceived compulsion to sin instead of being open about it, which it seems she is. Can you enlighten me a little bit more into her thought process here, because I'm obviously filling in a lot of blanks with presumptions.
Thanks.
John K.
Okay. I'm talking to my mom right now on the phone and I asked her why she supported civil unions over actual marriages and she said "I don't know." Lol.
Then she said that real marriages have already been messed up by straight people.
She says she doesn't know if homosexuality is a sin. I guess she always attributed "homophobia" in the Bible by being in a lustful way, not romantically. She knows she "ain't going to hell", she's going to heaven.
I have to agree with her on that point. In Sodom and Gemorrah, the story from the Bible, the cities weren't destroyed because of all the homos cavorting around. In my Intro to Biblical Lit. class in college, my professor said that it was because of a "lack of hospitality." And when the men outside Lot's door talked about "knowing" the man inside, it was due to gangrape. Not necessarily a "gay" thing, anyone picked could be gangraped.
By the way, she's forty. She's known for quite a while. She doesn't struggle with it anymore.
Yes, I have heard of that interpretation of Sodom and Gomorrah. I wish more people would subscribe to that interpretation. Note that there are also references later in the Bible to the sins of Sodom and Gomorrah, and I don't believe any of them refer to "men lying with men." They list about six or seven sins that were rampant in those cities, but homosexuality is not one of them.
So, I was thinking that when I said she was probably still struggling with it, I really meant that whether she was still struggling or not, she probably reached that compromise to reconcile the two. In any event, now it sounds like she might be saying that she doesn't believe in gay "marriage" because she thinks gays deserve better than that institution that has already been messed up by straight people. That is one position that I have heard before and can understand why a gay person might feel that way, although I personally don't.
Thanks for writing back.
John K.
(Duplicate comment deleted. I hit "enter" twice on the last one, lol. Sorry).
John K.
I just wanted to add, her position seems like she is someone who is just starting to accept herself as a lesbian, but is still struggling to reconcile homosexuality with Christianity. I think opposing marriage might in some way make her feel more comfortable accepting herself. I don't think it quite works logically, but it certainly makes sense psychologically.
Of course, I don't know your mom and I could be completely wrong here, which is why I would love to hear more.
John K.
I don't believe in gay marriage because I don't agree with being gay in the first place. I have gay friends, sure, but I'm not going to jump down their throats for it, you know? Just because I and my religion don't "accept" it doesn't mean I can't be tolerant of it, and luckily, my gay friends get that. Which is good, because I'm really close with a few of them. I guess me saying that I don't have a problem with it was not exactly true, but I'm not going to make it into a big issue. That's more like what I meant.
There is a time to live, and a time to die. But now it the time to break it down!
However, I would now ask you why you disagree with being gay in the first place? Is it just because the Bible says it's wrong a couple of times?
John K.
It says it more than a few times, and I've heard so many cases of being turning straight from being gay that makes me know that it is really not something you're born with- it's a choice, whether conscious or subconscious. One of my friends can't decide whether he's bi, gay, or straight, and there are many situations like that that I see. If God created men to love women and women to love men, and says so specifically, then why would He mess up his own plan and add in some gays? It doesn't make sense, theologically and just about every other way. It's a choice.
There is a time to live, and a time to die. But now it the time to break it down!
So, this opens up a whole realm of questions.
My first set of questions has to do with how much the Bible should inform public policy in the United States. What do you think about the government allowing divorce? Should divorce only be available from the government if one of the spouses cheats? That is the only circumstance where God allows for divorce in the Bible. If you don't think the government has a right to keep people married when they no longer wish to be married, even though the Bible says to do otherwise is sin, then why shouldn't the government allow gays to get married even though the Bible says they shouldn't? It comes down to having a public policy that recognizes that not everyone accepts the Bible as the authority for morality. Why do you believe your religious opinion should shape a policy that affects me when I don't accept the Bible? The same thing goes for contraception, interracial marriage (make no mistake, it was largely religoius arguments that were advanced against bi-racial couples, even though mainstream religion today rejects the idea that interracial marriage is bad), interreligious marriage, women's rights, and many more. If you accept the Bible as the authority for your life, don't you agree that you must accept it as a whole and not pick and choose which parts to follow? Leave aside the Old Testament restrictions on sex during menstruation, clothing made from more than one type of fabric, eating shellfish, etc., (which are conveniently considered overruled because of how ridiculous they are), Paul writes in 1 Timothy 2:11-13, "Let a woman learn in silence with all submissiveness. I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men. She is to keep silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve." If we are following the Bible, shouldn't you be writing that we specifically should vote AGAINST Hillary because she is a woman and women shouldn't have authority over men? I doubt you accept this part of the New Testament, as well you shouldn't. Why can we conveniently dismiss some commands but not others?
Second set of questions has to do with your assertion that being gay is a choice. My first questions in this area is simply, can you personally choose to be gay? Are you sufficiently attracted to women to be able to choose to have fulfilling sex with them if you wanted? This is a very complex area. People not knowing what to consider themselves does not prove anything. I'm sure many more people than are willing to admit it are attracted to both sexes, but I'm also sure that many are exclusively attracted to one of the other. Factor in that society demonizes gay people, and you will get a lot of people strongly attracted to the same sex and mildly attracted to the opposite sex unsure about what their orientation is, because perhaps they want to avoid society's condemnation by being straight, even though they'd rather be gay. Sure, obviously, choosing to have sex with any given person or type of person is a choice. But attraction is not chosen. People who are strongly attracted to the same sex can choose to pretend to be attracted to the opposite sex. In our society, they certainly have good reasons to. As far as your friend, sounds like he's bi to me. Now, he can choose not to have sex with one sex or the other, but if he's attracted enough to both to have a question about it, he's bi, simple as that. He may not want to identify that way, and that just has to do with our need to put labels on everything. Maybe he's struggling because he wants to be able to fit under one label (straight) or the other (gay), but it seems like that's just not the case. Anyway, that's all the guessing I will do with regard to your friend (sorry if it's a female friend, I just realized I was presuming, but I don't feel like going back and making everything gender-neutral, lol).
The last thing I will say in this post is that you are presuming that gay people "mess up" God's plan. Not everyone's gay. There are plenty of people to fulfill the part of God's plan that calls for procreation through male-female sex/marriage. God creates infertile people, but that doesn't "mess up" his plan. By your logic, infertility must be a choice too.
Ok, that was really long, and I'm sorry. But I have a whole lot more to say on this subject. I will end this post here though.
John K.
Paul was a biblical conservative Republican bible-thumper.
Well, I tend to agree. And to be clear, in no way, shape, or form to I subscribe to any of the discriminatory positions I cited as examples, including that women should not hold authority over men. My point simply was that society (and the individuals that form it) likes to select which commands from the Bible to follow based on other secular cultural norms. Anyone today who stood up in the public square and said that women shouldn't hold office would be ridiculed and considered a laughing stock by most people (not the case half a century ago). Can you imagine a Republican presidential candidate saying, "You know, aside from the fact that I think Hillary Clinton would be a terrible president regardless of her gender, the fact that she is a woman makes it much more likely that she will be a bad president, not to mention the Bible says women shouldn't hold positions of authority"? I wish, because that candidate would lose badly. However, the Bible seems to be as clear on that as it seems to be on homosexuality.
The difference is, homosexuality is still "disgusting" to a lot of people, aside from anything the Bible says about it. That makes it much easier to get away with using the Bible against it. Hopefully, indeed probably, half a century from now, someone who stands up and says gays should not get married will be considered a laughing stock.
John K.
I'm glad that you're so passionate about it. In my life and my church, gays are always ridiculed. This is going to sound crude, but I think a lot of people including Christians think of homosexuality as the ultimate sin. My pastor-teacher talks about homosexuality in the lot and everyone is always nodding their head, but my fatherinlaw is an alcoholic, and my mother in law is about a hundred pounds overweight. It's just a way for people to feel better about themselves. "At least I'm not a fag!" they've got that going for them.
I think you're exactly right. I think a lot of it has to do, like I was saying, with people being grossed out by it in the first place. It's easy to vilify people when you are personally disgusted by their behavior. Even assuming homosexuality is a sin, which I don't agree with, there are many sins people commit every day that don't seem to be a big problem (1) because they don't evoke a visceral disgust in people, and (2) because a lot more people engage in those behaviors (which aparently makes it ok). It's a matter of interpretting the Bible to fit one's own personal worldview. That's why I don't lend any weight to Biblical arguments about anything. Interpretations have been changed so many times over the years that as far as I'm concerned, the credibility of the Bible has been severely undermined. I require logical and practical arguments about these things to convince me.
John K.