25 votes

Your Problem with Guns or Gays Is Not Political

Last month, I did something I’d done only once before: I went to a range and shot some guns. Lots of guns. All shapes, ages and sizes.

This is a very strange thing to do for a guy born British. Guns feature nowhere in British culture.

2014-07-09-IMG_3312.JPG

Accordingly, I was unsurprised by the reaction of my mother when I called home and told her that I’d had a great time learning about firearms and discovering I wasn’t a bad shot, even with a second-world-war Enfield. “That’s the last thing I’d ever imagine you’d enjoy doing,” she said to me. She wasn’t being judgmental: it was an expression of genuine surprise.

“That’s because you just can’t imagine why nice or normal people would enjoy guns … because you don’t know any… no Brits know any,” I replied.

Mom thoughtfully agreed.

Many decent people who have no interest in guns simply can’t imagine what it must be like to be someone who is passionate about something whose primary purpose is to kill people. Although the gun debate is waged using words, logic and fact (to different ends by both sides of course), the arguments constructed using these three tools are not what brings people to their pro or anti-gun position. Rather, most people are emotionally or intuitively committed to a position first, and deploy these tools retroactively in defense of their position. Despite what we like to think, we form most, if not all, of our political views this way. Studies show, time and time again, that David Hume was right, when he claimed,

And as reasoning is not the source, whence either disputant derives his tenets; it is in vain to expect that any logic, which speaks not to the affections, will ever engage him to embrace sounder principles.

What most anti-gun people are really feeling (rather than thinking) is that there has to be something strange about you if you like guns. I mean, why would you get turned on by something whose primary purpose is to kill people? If you do, you can’t be like me. You are sufficiently different that I am suspicious or your worldview or your motives or both. You are culturally “other”.

Productive engagement, and the pervasive acceptance of individual rights, involves bridging such cultural gaps. With the gun-rights issue, as with all others, the best way to do so is the same way all forms of cultural segregation (because that is what we are really talking about) have been permanently broken down over time: to get to know, and spend personal time with, those on the other side of the gap.

It works both ways. People who favor more gun regulation are not actually motivated by taking away your liberty. And people who favor robust 2nd amendment protections do not have a lower threshold for the acceptance of violence or aggression. You’ll know this when you have them as friends, and having such friends causes the all-or-nothing arguments that make such dramatic claims about the fundamental differences between you and the people on the other side of the issue to cease to be credible.

This mistaking of differences of cultural identity for political differences or, the erroneous idea that political differences drive different cultural identities, rather than the other way around, severely hobbles our ability to protect all of our liberties and empowers political partisans who have a vested interest in maintaining power by keeping us insolubly divided.

Just as gun-owners form a kind of (albeit highly porous) sub-culture, the LGBT community does so too. Some people who have been brought up in a socially conservative or religious sub-culture simply can’t imagine being able to do (let alone actually doing) the things that those in another (LBGT) do as a matter of course. Again, if I can’t even imagine your experience or desires, then we are deeply culturally separated. Just as gun-control advocates feel a twinge of disgust, or at least, condescension, toward the culture of gun-owners, some of our religious friends feel similarly about the LBGT sub-culture. “Disgust” is of course a very strong word, and most of us sublimate it deeply, but it captures the sense that the division among our “political” sub-cultures is more visceral than rational. Reason is applied later to justify in the conscious mind the position that the subconscious makes us emotionally comfortable with.

Now, I have a distinctly conservative streak when it comes to the raising of children, and I have an instinctive respect for any political position that is genuinely motivated by requiring adults to do the best by the children whom they create. I can understand, then, the real discomfort of those who sincerely believe that children benefit from having male and female role-models at home, and that society should be very wary of sanctioning anything that does not place the well-being of children above the proclivities of their parents.

However, two of my friends - and two of the kindest and most responsible people I know – happen to be gay partners who adopted a(n American-born) daughter. Phil and Michael are giving their adopted daughter a wonderful life. Their love for her is boundless. The security, values and richness of experience that they are providing her will set her up forever. And the gap between the life that Mia Joy has and that which she would otherwise have had makes the general question, “should gay couples should be able to adopt,” sound something between silly and faintly insulting when applied to this particular, inspiring case.

I am blessed with close gay friends with whom I identify as much as I do with many of my straight friends. So for me, the question of gay marriage and adoption, for example, is not so much a political argument that needs logically “deciding”; rather, the very intuition of the existence of some gay “other” on which the very argument depends, has disappeared. As that cultural gap is bridged through actual human relationship, the separateness of that “other group”, on which any suspicion I may have of their motivations depends, ceases to exist.

I’ve had many gay friends for many years. And now I am getting some gun-owning friends too. And because they are all good people (they’d not be my friends otherwise, would they?), I see both groups as doing essentially the same thing when they defend their rights - insisting on being allowed to be themselves, and defend the validity of the way they experience the world - as long as they harm no one else.

Of course, if you’re reading this and you don’t like guns, you’re thinking, “That’s wrong. Guns harm people.” Not in the hands of my friends, they don’t. And if you’re reading this and you don’t like gays, you’re thinking, “That’s wrong. Gay adoption is bad for the children.” Not by my friends, it isn’t.

If I were going to take a stand against gay adoption, I would have to imagine saying to Phil and Mike, “You should not be allowed to what you have done for Mia Joy, and I would use the force of law to stop you.” Even if I could make an abstract political argument against gay adoption, I cannot say that to them in good conscience. And if I were going to take a stand against my open-carrying friend, Rob, I’d have to imagine saying to him, “You should not be allowed to own that to protect your family – or to protect your country against a tyrannical state, should it ever come to that, and I would use the force of law to stop you”. Even if I could make an abstract political argument against private gun ownership, I could not say that to him in good conscience.

By becoming friends with Phil and Mike, and with Rob, their respective sub-cultures cease to be alien to me.

The truth is that, because I know Rob as a grounded, kind man, I also know that the rest of us are better off when people like him have a few of the guns – rather than their all being in the hands of our political masters. And because I know Phil and Michael as being rather like Rob in those respects, I simply know that the rest of us are better off when people like them have a few of America’s children.

And there’s not a political argument in sight.

You’ll appreciate my delight, then, when, during my day at the range with Rob, he told me that his local organization in defense of the second amendment accepted the open offer made by the organizers of his city’s annual gay pride event to support them by marching with them. The two groups have now formed an ongoing alliance, reflecting the fact, of course, that they are really doing the same thing: protecting the right of people to do anything they want for people they love as long as they harm no one else.

That’s when you know that you really care about liberty: the excitement of marching in support of someone who wants to protect and celebrate their freedom overcomes your “cultural discomfort” (should you have any) with what they want to do with it.

If we can challenge ourselves by focusing as much on nurturing our human connection with our political opponents by relating to them as people, we’d discover a wonderful paradox: we’d all feel, from our opposed initial positions, increased success in getting our opponents to see the world our way.

How is that possible?

It’s possible because collapsing the sub-cultural divides in our society through actual human relationship does something bigger and better than resolving our political differences: it dissolves them. It dissolves them because it reveals that much of what we thought were differences of political principle are really rationalizations of the suspicion we feel toward those whose experiences and pleasures we simply cannot imagine sharing.

As in history, so in psychology: culture precedes politics.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

I've never understood other

I've never understood other people's obsession with controlling other people whom they disagree with or disapprove of. Conservatives obsession with restricting gay folks has never held any logical basis, and seems strictly based on an animus towards gays and some belief that God is more concerned with gays than shellfish, liars, or adulterers. Most states llow gay people to adopt so why shouldn't those same states allow them to get married so they can setup a clear legal line of guardianship in case of someone's death. Due to this discrepancy in the law, some gay couples have adopted but then lost custody of the child when the main guardian died. Also note that most people don't have an animus towards gay woman which I find interesting. THe same bible beaters that talk about adam and steve sit at home watching two girls fool around on the computer.

By the way I find everything other than the missionary position immoral, can we get that on the ballot soon?

Whoa

You might be the smartest person on this site. This was some incredible writing.

Respect.

Eric Hoffer

What is smart about his

What is smart about his argument?
a. He does not present any numbers or statistics to back up his thesis.
b. His premise "your problem with gays" is incorrect. He should at least have written "your problem with homosexual marriage".
c. His whole argument on the gay part is based on his friendship to an amazingly superb gay couple that is really nice and a model example to society. He could have made the same argument for banning guns if he had met an incredible nice person who is an extraordinary citizen but who is opposed to guns.
d. He tries to link two unrelated topics.
dd. He does this to manipulate people since he knows everyone here is for gun rights. So he uses "gun rights topic" which nobody is against to push his agenda on "gay marriage". This is the same as when the MSM labels a person as a racist for criticing Obama.
e. His writing style is manipulative instead of leaving the readers to find their answers. If you want to inform the readers and let them reach their own conclusions give them the numbers, establish causalities write logically. A "my really good friend is gay and he is very nice and he is examplary and thus you should be in favor of gay marriage" will not suffice.

Even if you are on a different side of the argument you should be able to recognize solid and intelligent logic vs. feel good/MSM type of reporting.

egapele's picture

Extremely well said

It is not political, in my opinion it is a phobia

A phobia (from the Greek: φόβος phóbos,"aversion", "fear, morbid fear") is, when used in the context of clinical psychology, a type of anxiety disorder, usually defined as a persistent fear of an object or situation in which the sufferer commits to great lengths in avoiding, typically disproportional to the actual danger posed, often being recognized as irrational. In the event the phobia cannot be avoided entirely, the sufferer will endure the situation or object with marked distress and significant interference in social or occupational activities.[1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phobia

Memory Wipe

"Guns feature nowhere in British culture."

A Brief History of British Gun Control
(or, How to Disarm the Law Abiding Populace by Stealth)
by P.A. Luty

http://www.ncc-1776.org/tle2010/tle558-20100221-07.html

Thirty Days

Back in my treehugger actvist days I often observed that
the cultural assumptions and lack of empathy for those on
the opposing sides of an issue was such an impediment that
you couldn't even get to an actual discussion of issues where
there were generally at least some points of agreement.

The controllers love and thrive on this sort of division among the serfs
which is even more vitriolic now that a lot of this sort of interaction takes place online.

Notice that nothing much happened to Malcolm X until he started becoming
conciliatory toward white people (and suggesting that if they were oppressed that
they should revolt, too). Soon after that it was lights out.

In the case of the radical environmentalists, some of them got smart and
started doing outreach to loggers - pointing out that both they and the environment
were getting screwed by big corporations . The leading Earth First! activist pursuing
this was a woman named Judy Bari. Her car was blown up in Oakland by a
pipe bomb placed under the driver's seat. She survived but was arrested in the hospital for
illegally transporting explosives but the local DA declined to prosecute, Five years
after her death, in 2002, four Oakland PD and two FBI agents were found liable for
violating her and her companion's civil rights.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judy_Bari

Which gets around to Morgan Spurlock's "Thirty Days" series where people had
to go spend thirty days living with people of vastly different circumstances, values
and such. Urban meat eating party animals in a rural off the grid vegetarian commune,
pro-choice activist with Operation Rescue people and such.

Definitely some tense situations at times, and humorous ones as well - the steak-
loving urbanites work out a deal with the commune folks where they borrow an
air gun to hunt the rabbits that are eating the vegetable patch and can eat any that
they manage to kill - but they have to cook them themselves. outside...

Which gets to the guns and gays thing (finally) in which a young, straight (vet IIRC)
from small town midwest goes to live with a gay guy in the Castro district of San
Francisco. Can't really tell you about how the guns come into it - would be a spoiler -
but it's toward the end of the episode and happens in a good way...

http://www.tv.com/shows/30-days/straight-man-in-a-gay-world-...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/30_Days_(TV_series)

Man, I told you, you are

Man, I told you, you are good. You will be able to make a lot of money at the MSM. Some analysis of your writing strategy follows:
a. "Your problem"....... You start well with pointing a finger towards people who are not in the gay bandwagon. You know that in this site people are for guns, there is almost no disagreement. So, you use a point of solid agreement, guns, as the basis to point the finger to people who have a problem with your way of thinking.
b. You make a very nice exposition of how you know some really wonderful people that are really good friends of yours and that are gay parents. This has absolutely no substance, you do not present any statistics or counter-examples such as gay couples that have abused their children. I could also say, I have such a wonderful group of friends who are socialists and they are such an example.

Man, you remind me of my past when I used to watch CNN or ABC or....

You are right, doesn't matter

You are right, doesn't matter how many times people vote you down. This piece was 'innocence by association' the opposite of guilt by association. Just a duplicitous in my view. "Some generally nice people own guns, therefor guns are not bad" "some generally nice people sleep with the same sex, therefor it is not a sin and they will be great parents"

This has no bearing on the real issues, self defense is a God given right and a natural good. Same sex marriage? there is no such thing.

https://twitter.com/StonewallDP

Support these Liberty Candidates and find and add more !
http://www.dailypaul.com/287246/2014-liberty-candidate-thread

2016 Presidential Candidates Exposed!
http://www.dailypaul.com/307360/2016-potential-president

Just goes to show that everyone should take critical thinking

You point is well written Robin. Nicely done. It is a great way to bridge the gaps between groups of people by showing them that the individual is more important! You can't give the group what the individual has already! That being said, i'm going to get caught up in your examples. Here in the bay area; San Francisco, etc., Gays, Lesbians, Transvestites, bi's... They're all packing heat! In other words, the sub cultures ARE learning from each other, while keeping the media propaganda at bay, and protecting themselves against criminals!

Keep up the great work Robin!

When did common sense become a super power?

You can now work for the MSM.

You can now work for the MSM. You are putting together two totally unrelated themes, such as when homosexuals compare themselves to Jews in 2nd world war or to blacks during the slavery, and making a fake conclusiion.

Furthermore, you are coating the argument with a lot of nice feelings to make all parties feel good. You are good, really, get a job in CNN.

Beautiful

The story of collaboration between the LGBT and 2nd Amendment groups is inspiring.

adam t

" People who favor more gun

" People who favor more gun regulation are not actually motivated by taking away your liberty. "

Actually they are, they might not understand how or why, but they are by the very act of more regulation of other people's lives. It's the use of the government to make other people live like they do. That's statism. Right statism or Left statism, it's the same idea, use the government to force those other people to live the way we want them to.

I agree with part of your point

The leaders of the movement to restrict the right of self-defense are motivated by taking away our liberty. A large percentage of the people that vote for politicians that support these measures sincerely believe more laws will stop tragic deaths. They aren't thinking things through or are dismissing the other side based on prejudice.

hm...

I think the point made in the article is that those who would take away your liberty by restricting gun ownership usually aren't motivated by a specific desire for you to be 'less free' - these people don't even think on that level. They're motivated by a belief that guns are bad, and that anyone who appreciates guns lacks morality.

The importance of this article is that it shows us the value of people-to-people contact in fighting manufactured (and/or 'natural') social division.

adam t

Phxarcher87's picture

Both

good points.

"Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect" - Mark Twain

Michael Nystrom's picture

Good work Robin

Keep it up.

All art is only done by the individual. The individual is all you ever have, and all schools only serve to classify their members as failures. E.H.

Nicely done.

And a nice summary:
It’s possible because collapsing the sub-cultural divides in our society through actual human relationship does something bigger and better than resolving our political differences: it dissolves them.

This is what we were trying to get to on F4, how do we find common ground ?

It's by dissolving/collapsing the divides/differences with a desire for common Liberty and Freedom.

Here Robin is giving us an example of what I would have thought to have been an impossibility (because of my pre-determined thoughts) that gun rights advocates and gay rights advocates can march together to support each other's Liberties.

WAKE UP FOLKS - The squid is our enemy, not each other.

"I mean, why would you get

"I mean, why would you get turned on by something whose primary purpose is to kill people?"

It is a tool to hurl a chunk of lead. I think it's primary purpose depends on who's hand the gun is in. Meaning citizen or govenment. The government generally uses guns to kill humans. Very few citizens ever use a gun to kill another human we tend to stick to game for the table. Just my two cents on primary purpose.

While one could disagree with the "purpose" statement

It would be hard to disagree that the majority of efforts (money) to perfect guns are primarily driven by war, not hunting.

I originally bristled with the "purpose is to kill people" line, then I thought about it - and would have to agree that the loaded gun in the bedroom is exactly for that purpose. (and I hope its never used, other than practice)

Other guns in the house would be "purpose is to kill varmints"

Disagree...

The primary purpose of the gun next to my bed is to protect my family and I. I would hope I never have to kill anyone with it and while using it for the purpose of protection I would do everything in my power to not kill someone. If I must, killing the person would be the means to the end. Not the primary purpose or the end itself.

NOTE: I am not advocating violence in any way. The content of the post is for intellectual, theoretical, and philosophical discussion. FEDS, please don't come to my house.

Prevent assault and murder

The purpose of the bedside gun is to prevent assaults and murder.

In gun safe england there are home invasions, beatings, kidnappings and rape. Guns prevent that.

Good people with guns prevent crime.

The loaded gun in the

The loaded gun in the bedrooms purpose is to make folks sleep comfortable. 99% of bedroom guns will never do anything more than just that.

Exactly

When I get behind the wheel of a vehicle, I put on a seat belt. Not to protect me in an accident, but to aid in it. It will keep me behind the wheel and I may be able to better navigate the situation.

But I don't put it on hoping I get to use it.

A firearm does the same. If I'm in a situation where that tool is helpful, I want it with me. Since the situation where I would have to use a firearm means mine or others lives are in danger of ending, I want a tool that will possibly help.

I hope it never gets used for that.

Same with the seat belt.

This is my favourite part of this article.

"You’ll appreciate my delight, then, when, during my day at the range with Rob, he told me that his local organization in defense of the second amendment accepted the open offer made by the organizers of his city’s annual gay pride event to support them by marching with them. The two groups have now formed an ongoing alliance, reflecting the fact, of course, that they are really doing the same thing: protecting the right of people to do anything they want for people they love as long as they harm no one else."

bien

muy bien

Best part

"You’ll appreciate my delight, then, when, during my day at the range with Rob, he told me that his local organization in defense of the second amendment accepted the open offer made by the organizers of his city’s annual gay pride event to support them by marching with them. The two groups have now formed an ongoing alliance, reflecting the fact, of course, that they are really doing the same thing: protecting the right of people to do anything they want for people they love as long as they harm no one else."

So...I mean, you can look at

So...I mean, you can look at several studies and real-life examples...gun control doesn't work, and gay parents make great parents.

For me, that is the most convincing argument. Not principles or morality, but facts, research, and science.

Look, if you could prove to me that a complete ban of all assault rifles would reduce violent crime by 90% and end all school shootings...that would be something I would find very compelling. As much as I think we have the right to bear arms, in the face of saying "here are the consequences of bearing arms", I would support ending such rights.

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

yeah well, science can be bought and sold.

facts can easily be skewed, optical illusions exist (the human brain cannot be trusted), and science is based on the consensus of "the science community". you can deny this, that's fine... look up dayton miller, tesla and countless other scientists who were outted by the science community because they didn't suck the all mighty science shaft good enough.

do you know what has never changed?
morality.

it has never been right to harm another person outside of defense.
it has never been right to steal.
it has never been right to damage another person's property.
it has never been right to fraud people.
it has never been right to enslave a person.

on one hand i can go on and on all day about how "morality", itself, has NEVER really changed... people just choose to ignore it.

and on the other hand i can show you all day how facts have changed over and over with new evidence and consensus throughout history.

morality is a fine way to go for argument...
"morality" doesn't make guns bad or gays wrong... morality has nothing to do with either of those things.

if you meant politics, then say politics and not principles and morality.

I use Blue Wave, but don't expect one of THEIR silly taglines.

Denise B's picture

Sure to get the downvotes,

but that's never stopped me before from saying what I believe to be true. Your argument as to why homosexuals should be allowed to freely adopt children falls far short of convincing. In my opinion, it is akin to an unpopular president signing an unconstitutional law with the justification that even though he signed it "he would never use it", so that somehow made it okay, as if he were to be the only president ever who would have the opportunity to do so.

Although I am sure that your gay friends love their adopted child and are raising that child to the best of their ability, one tree does not a forest make. In my opinion, once you open the door for homosexuals to adopt children, there is NO way to stop two pedophiles from getting together and adopting one, two, three or more small children and forever destroying those precious lives! They will be legally put into a situation that they have no way of getting out of until permanent damage has already been done. In fact, I have little doubt that it has already occurred and will continue to occur as long as this practice allowed. If you disagree, please do tell me how such a thing can be prevented. (And please do not use the argument that heterosexual couples have the same opportunity because statistics show that more than 85% of pedophiles are in fact men.)

I also completely disagree that a child does not need both a mother and father because each has it's own unique qualities that only they can provide. That is the way God intended it to be and the "conservatives" that you reference who disagree with how wonderful homosexual adoption is, do so, not because they just decided it to be so, but because God Himself declared it to be so. That is what proponents of homosexual marriage just can't seem to understand. Most "conservatives" who are against this practice are against it because they believe God's Word to be true and that no man or woman has the right to override it. They can not support it without opposing what God has said, and no true "conservative" feels they have the right or authority to approve that which God has already disapproved. No matter how flatteringly the topic is presented to them.

Finally, comparing the right for homosexuals to adopt with the Constitutional Right to Keep and Bear Arms is disingenuous at best. Please show me where in the Constitution is states that two members of the same sex have the right to adopt children or marry? One can not be compared to the other in any way. There is another genuine right; however, that is certainly at risk in this whole issue of homosexual "rights" and that is the First Amendment itself. The one that state "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, nor PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF." If homosexuality is ever declared by the Supreme Court as a "civil right", that will open the door for homosexuals to then sue churches who refuse to marry them for "violating their civil rights" which will put Pastors in the unfortunate position of going against God's word or possibly losing their churches. But of course, for those who are astute enough to discern what is happening, that has been the end game all along.

So, no, no matter how nicely or flatteringly the homosexual "rights" argument is presented to me, (a "conservative") it will never, ever change my point of view on the topic, because that is dictated to me by God, not men.

Who is your god?

The Muslim god? Government? The Christian god? The sun?
I always wonder...

Denise B's picture

The one true God:

The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. The Creator of the universe and everything therein. The one who sent His only Son to die a horrible death to atone for the sins of the whole world (including yours). The author of truth, love and justice. That one.

I agree his argument is irrational. There may be a gay couple

somewhere who would make fine parents, he may be convinced he has found one though it is still too early to really say how it will turn out, but that does not mean that this is the norm. The "sorting costs" of finding the few gay couples who might raise a child as well as a traditional family are high. What the homosexual agenda is asking for is to be considered the equal of a natural family by law and by "right". The fact that there may be a few exceptions is not a rational basis to change the rule.

Just as claiming homosexual relationships are "equal" to natural marriage undermines the elevated status of natural marriage, so equating the homosexual "right" to use the power of the state to obtain access to other people's children with true natural rights such as the right to bear arms undermines the perceived legitimacy of those rights.

Localism is for people who can still sleep at night even though somebody they don't know in a city they have never been is doing things differently. ("Localism, A Philosophy of Government" on Amazon for Kindle or Barnes and Noble ebook websites)

Same

These same arguments are what CPS uses to take children from families.

"If we don't force them to go to public school, the family will be responsible for educating them, and they'll indoctrinate them."

Families are crazy now. It doesn't have to do with gays, it has to do with some weird social upheavals we've had in this country. Regardless, we're a pretty resilient species.

The government has no business telling us what a "natural family" is, and they seriously have no business saying who can raise a child. Lets remember, the bible had all sorts of weird marriage examples. The "nuclear family" is a pretty recent invention in human history.

Eric Hoffer

How is that the same argument? Are you responding to the right

post? It is those who want the state to facilitate adoption by homosexual families who are trying to get the state to tell us what a family is- because unnatural state-assisted families are the only kind they are able to produce. They have to get someone else in the picture and then get the state to try and force everyone to treat it as if the child was the result of a natural union between the two homosexuals. I write this without malice, it is just biological fact. And nuclear families have always been with us. They may have been sub-units of extended families in some places, but they have been with us for ages http://arkansaswatch.blogspot.com/2008/11/why-state-should-n...

Localism is for people who can still sleep at night even though somebody they don't know in a city they have never been is doing things differently. ("Localism, A Philosophy of Government" on Amazon for Kindle or Barnes and Noble ebook websites)

An homosexual couple in

An homosexual couple in Australia, which were the stars of the Australian BBC and heralded as a model couple was raping their son. Even worse, one of the guys went to Ukraine to get a foster mother to give birth to this son who would then be part of their "community".

This is statistically significant because of the following:
a. There are not that many gay adoptions so this cases have more weight as the sample population is smaller.
b. The guys were like the model BBC couple with lot's of money etc. Imagine the ones that are not "model"

+1.

+1.

Not sure why I am wasting my time here,

because as you said, "it will never, ever change my point of view on the topic." But anyway here goes...

First: I don't even know what you are trying to say about the president making laws and promising not to use it thing.

Second: "Once you open the door for homosexuals to adopt children, there is NO way to stop two pedophiles from getting together and adopting" Are you serious? Did you forget you were talking about homosexuals or do you think all homos are pedophiles? What does pedophilia have to do with homosexuality, beside the fact they are all sexual deviancy in the eyes of your God. Men are in straight relationships too, remember? Could this scenario not play out with straight parents the way things are now? Is a female gay couple OK as parents then?

Third: "Please show me where in the Constitution it states that two members of the same sex have the right to adopt children or marry? " The argument had nothing to do with the Constitution, the author was explaining the need for tolerance and understanding in two topics that are similar in the heated emotions of the opposing parties.

Finally: "because that is dictated to me by God, not men." Did God speak to you directly and tell you that it would be better for children to live in terrible circumstances than in a loving home with gay parents? If not, then it was likely dictated to you by men. I.e. A man 2000ish years ago wrote something down, it was translated multiple times, parts were left out and parts were added, and it reinterpreted many times as societies evolved, and was then told to you since you were a child by men. I consider this dictated to you by men, and is a wonderful example of why people need to make judgment calls using their own capacity for critical thinking rather than blindly following a mysterious rulebook with belligerent zeal.

Well said,

The whole God argument is specious and faith-based and, in my opinion, has no place in a discussion about rights.

In the American View Rights are the gift of God therefore

there is no place for a discussion of rights without the God argument. Read the Declaration of Independence "Endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights".

Localism is for people who can still sleep at night even though somebody they don't know in a city they have never been is doing things differently. ("Localism, A Philosophy of Government" on Amazon for Kindle or Barnes and Noble ebook websites)

wow.

You do realize that not all Christians live moral lives, and that many non-Christians live morally don't you? Religious dogma is not the mother of liberty, morality combined with logical deduction is. Religiousness is not a measure of morality, and morality does not necessarily spawn from religion. A quick look through history should demonstrate that one is not inextricably linked to the other. I could provide a million examples that prove my point just from our current time period.

The "American view"? When you use phrases like this it is instantly obvious that we are not on the same page from the get-go.

We are clearly not on the same page. I can't figure out where

you got all that. I just made a statement that the American view, that is, the one the Founders had when they formed this nation, was that rights were the gift of God, not a grant of the state. This is simple historical fact, not a matter of opinion. I don't know why you are going off on ' religious people are not always moral people 'and what have you. Your statements about that could be true without my statement being false. Apparently not only are we on different pages but you are reading and responding to one that I did not write!

Localism is for people who can still sleep at night even though somebody they don't know in a city they have never been is doing things differently. ("Localism, A Philosophy of Government" on Amazon for Kindle or Barnes and Noble ebook websites)

Weird

Not sure why you are getting down-voted. I guess the down-voters don't quite grasp Freedom and Liberty. Sad.

+1

Freedom and Liberty. I agree.
You don't get to decide other people's lives. If you think its ok to take away gay adoption, then its ok for them to take away your gun.

The point of this article is beautiful... we don't all have to be the same, and we should support each others Liberty.

True

Of course, this requires not being hermits, living on the internet. :)

I'm afraid I'm one who feels uncomfortable with gay couple adopting children, but it feels even worse for me to have the state intervene and say "that is illegal, and the force of law should be used to stop this." Culturally, I recognize that gay and lesbian couples raising children is an experiment, with no one really knowing what the long-term consequences are for the children or for society at large. But it's morally wrong to use the force of law against it. There are definitely worse fates for children out there (being raised by the state comes to mind), and with so many different parenting styles and childhood experiences out there, it'd be arbitrary and unjust to single out one experiment as unacceptable while other experiments get the go ahead.

Usually when I find myself disagreeing with a friend on a political subject (ex, guns being allowed in school parking lots), I more stick with explaining motives. For example, with the issue of guns being allowed in school parking lots and at football games, I just say that the guns-rights activists just love their children and want to be able to protect them (which is the same motivation that anti-gun activists have). Just try to help them understand that their "enemy" is really a lot more like them. Humanizing the "enemy" works better than winning the argument.

"Moderation in temper is always a virtue; but moderation in principle is always a vice." -- Thomas Paine

Ultimately, there should only

Ultimately, there should only be two separate divisions. Between aggression and non-aggression. If I can find anyone who's with me on non-aggression, then be damned all the rest of it. Right?

I always try to explain where I come from in my understanding of what's right. I'm not trying to be a prick, I just have my journey and my journey plays a large role in this issues I'm passionate about today. For better or worse.

What's my perspective? I was born gay, and raised in a fairly religious house. Being the inherently idealistic person that I am - I took the Bible very seriously. Probably more seriously than my own parents! It's rather funny saying that, but it illustrates the danger of forcing such weighty beliefs on young minds - they're not really ready to handle it. But the Bible's apparent condemnations against my same-sex attraction played an absurdly important role in my life at an early age and through my teen years. Combine this with the Bible, my parents and societies inconsistencies in morality - You have for a very messy young mind. I thought and believed things that to this day embarrass and shock me.

But the point is, as a result of this past, I have a tendency to judge very harshly fundamentalist Christians. But after thinking about it, I suppose, as long as they don't advocate for government force or aggression against individuals then we're still on the same side?

As I get older I'm constantly trying to challenge myself with how I interpret issues and see other people. I noticed, as I became more awakened I felt more isolated and alone because I was becoming outraged at what the average person believed or supported.

But you can't really reach people, gain friends or CHANGE anything if you HATE everyone because "they're so stupid". I see a lot of that going on in the movement and online in general - everyone seems to almost be turning into narcissists. And I'm trying my damnedest to stop that within me. Maybe we all should?

jrd3820's picture

Bravo

Written from the heart. Well done. Mia Joy sounds like a blessed little girl.

First rate

Hume's quote reminded me of this passage from Beyond Good and Evil (a book with no few barbs against the English):

That which causes philosophers to be regarded half-distrustfully and half-mockingly, is not the oft-repeated discovery how innocent they are—how often and easily they make mistakes and lose their way, in short, how childish and childlike they are,—but that there is not enough honest dealing with them, whereas they all raise a loud and virtuous outcry when the problem of truthfulness is even hinted at in the remotest manner. They all pose as though their real opinions had been discovered and attained through the self-evolving of a cold, pure, divinely indifferent dialectic (in contrast to all sorts of mystics, who, fairer and foolisher, talk of "inspiration"), whereas, in fact, a prejudiced proposition, idea, or "suggestion," which is generally their heart's desire abstracted and refined, is defended by them with arguments sought out after the event. They are all advocates who do not wish to be regarded as such, generally astute defenders, also, of their prejudices, which they dub "truths,"—and VERY far from having the conscience which bravely admits this to itself, very far from having the good taste of the courage which goes so far as to let this be understood, perhaps to warn friend or foe, or in cheerful confidence and self-ridicule. The spectacle of the Tartuffery of old Kant, equally stiff and decent, with which he entices us into the dialectic by-ways that lead (more correctly mislead) to his "categorical imperative"—makes us fastidious ones smile, we who find no small amusement in spying out the subtle tricks of old moralists and ethical preachers. Or, still more so, the hocus-pocus in mathematical form, by means of which Spinoza has, as it were, clad his philosophy in mail and mask—in fact, the "love of HIS wisdom," to translate the term fairly and squarely—in order thereby to strike terror at once into the heart of the assailant who should dare to cast a glance on that invincible maiden, that Pallas Athene:—how much of personal timidity and vulnerability does this masquerade of a sickly recluse betray!

6. It has gradually become clear to me what every great philosophy up till now has consisted of—namely, the confession of its originator, and a species of involuntary and unconscious auto-biography; and moreover that the moral (or immoral) purpose in every philosophy has constituted the true vital germ out of which the entire plant has always grown. Indeed, to understand how the abstrusest metaphysical assertions of a philosopher have been arrived at, it is always well (and wise) to first ask oneself: "What morality do they (or does he) aim at?" Accordingly, I do not believe that an "impulse to knowledge" is the father of philosophy; but that another impulse, here as elsewhere, has only made use of knowledge (and mistaken knowledge!) as an instrument. But whoever considers the fundamental impulses of man with a view to determining how far they may have here acted as INSPIRING GENII (or as demons and cobolds), will find that they have all practiced philosophy at one time or another, and that each one of them would have been only too glad to look upon itself as the ultimate end of existence and the legitimate LORD over all the other impulses. For every impulse is imperious, and as SUCH, attempts to philosophize.