Thoughts on gay rights?

Other discussions not related to the Permanent Portfolio

Moderator: Global Moderator

Libertarian666
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 5995
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 1969 6:00 pm

Re: Thoughts on gay rights?

Post by Libertarian666 » Tue Mar 01, 2016 11:50 pm

TennPaGa wrote:
Mountaineer wrote:
TennPaGa wrote: IMO, asking "what if everyone did that" is not very useful for determining whether a behavior is helpful or harmful.  The only thing it is useful for is determining if it is indeed helpful or harmful if everyone did it.

For example:

"What if everyone had a full time job and worked 40 hours per week?"

This would be awful.  Infants and children would be subjected to conditions that were likely unsafe for them and beyond their capability.  The same for the elderly.  By your rule, I would be forced to include that having a full time job working 40 hours per week is a bad thing.
That depends on how one defines job.  I prefer the term vocation.  An infants vocation is to learn to love its parents, assure its needs are met so it can flourish and grow up (e.g. cry when hungry, crappy, hurting, etc.).  An elderly person's vocation is to nurture grandchildren, be a great role model, help their kids as appropriate, and the like.  My vocations include: father, husband, grandfather, great-grandfather, neighbor, church leader, congregational member, etc.  In other words, peoples' "jobs" are far more than working 40 hours a week for a pay check.  My opinion. 
FWIW, I definitely agree with you. 

However, your refining *my* question is consistent with my broader point, which is that using a single criteria ("what if everyone did that") to assess the suitability of a broad range of options doesn't really help.
Of course the obvious next question is "What if everyone used a single criterion to assess the suitability of a broad range of options?".
Michellebell
Senior Member
Senior Member
Posts: 126
Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2016 12:27 pm

Re: Thoughts on gay rights?

Post by Michellebell » Wed Mar 02, 2016 2:16 pm

Mountaineer wrote:
TennPaGa wrote:
Michellebell wrote: I'm reminded of the book Conversations with God here, which I'm sure is controversial within Christian circles for being so open and forgiving, but one of the things that was discussed was the notion that one can determine how helpful vs harmful a behavior is by asking the question, "what if everyone did that?"  So this works in a lot of scenarios.  What if everyone recycled and reused instead of being wasteful?  That would be good.  What if everyone married and had 2.1 children?  That would be good and fine for sustaining life (assuming we had a population that we wanted to preserve- actually a limit of two kids would probably do some third world countries some good).  What if everyone became gay?  Umm, humanity would end pretty soon and the kids raised by opposite gender parents wouldn't have the right role models.
IMO, asking "what if everyone did that" is not very useful for determining whether a behavior is helpful or harmful.  The only thing it is useful for is determining if it is indeed helpful or harmful if everyone did it.

For example:

"What if everyone had a full time job and worked 40 hours per week?"

This would be awful.  Infants and children would be subjected to conditions that were likely unsafe for them and beyond their capability.  The same for the elderly.  By your rule, I would be forced to include that having a full time job working 40 hours per week is a bad thing.
That depends on how one defines job.  I prefer the term vocation.  An infants vocation is to learn to love its parents, assure its needs are met so it can flourish and grow up (e.g. cry when hungry, crappy, hurting, etc.).  An elderly person's vocation is to nurture grandchildren, be a great role model, help their kids as appropriate, and the like.  My vocations include: father, husband, grandfather, great-grandfather, neighbor, church leader, congregational member, etc.  In other words, peoples' "jobs" are far more than working 40 hours a week for a pay check.  My opinion. 

... M
By everyone, I mean the majority of adults.  I'm not talking about children, who don't behave sexually yet and can't have kids.  Anyway I know my point is moot as I'm not worried about everyone becoming gay, although it does seem like it's becoming a lot more common to me these days.  I know I'm amongst a minority here but I think a lot of them choose it for themselves and could go either way.  A lot of gay people have biological kids so obviously they're straight enough to have heterosexual sex.  I wonder if the gay percentages will increase because of the whole gay agenda.

Also I have to say I'm a bit surprised several people here believe that gay parents are just as good as straight parents.  Do you think divorced parents or cohabiting parents are as good too?  As long as they love their kids?  I think married heterosexual parents provide the most stable environment for kids, as long as you compare equally competent individuals.
User avatar
jafs
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 817
Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2015 10:23 am

Re: Thoughts on gay rights?

Post by jafs » Wed Mar 02, 2016 2:29 pm

If you're not worried about everybody becoming gay, then the whole argument that we have to deny them equal rights because the species needs to procreate evaporates.

I assume I'm one of those people that surprise you - my answer is that the sexual preference and/or marital state of a couple are not the deciding factors in whether or not they're good parents.  There are plenty of straight married couples who are lousy parents, and a number of other varieties of couples who are good parents.

And, stability isn't desirable if other parts of the situation are bad, for example, with an abusive household.  In that case, I would imagine that the kids would be better off if the parents divorced, and they weren't in the abusive situation anymore.

It's only by idealizing the straight nuclear family that one can make it look, well, ideal.  If we look at the reality, it's far from ideal.
User avatar
Mountaineer
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 4304
Joined: Tue Feb 07, 2012 10:54 am

Re: Thoughts on gay rights?

Post by Mountaineer » Wed Mar 02, 2016 3:57 pm

Michellebell wrote:
Mountaineer wrote:
TennPaGa wrote: IMO, asking "what if everyone did that" is not very useful for determining whether a behavior is helpful or harmful.  The only thing it is useful for is determining if it is indeed helpful or harmful if everyone did it.

For example:

"What if everyone had a full time job and worked 40 hours per week?"

This would be awful.  Infants and children would be subjected to conditions that were likely unsafe for them and beyond their capability.  The same for the elderly.  By your rule, I would be forced to include that having a full time job working 40 hours per week is a bad thing.
That depends on how one defines job.  I prefer the term vocation.  An infants vocation is to learn to love its parents, assure its needs are met so it can flourish and grow up (e.g. cry when hungry, crappy, hurting, etc.).  An elderly person's vocation is to nurture grandchildren, be a great role model, help their kids as appropriate, and the like.  My vocations include: father, husband, grandfather, great-grandfather, neighbor, church leader, congregational member, etc.  In other words, peoples' "jobs" are far more than working 40 hours a week for a pay check.  My opinion. 

... M
By everyone, I mean the majority of adults.  I'm not talking about children, who don't behave sexually yet and can't have kids.  Anyway I know my point is moot as I'm not worried about everyone becoming gay, although it does seem like it's becoming a lot more common to me these days.  I know I'm amongst a minority here but I think a lot of them choose it for themselves and could go either way.  A lot of gay people have biological kids so obviously they're straight enough to have heterosexual sex.  I wonder if the gay percentages will increase because of the whole gay agenda.

Also I have to say I'm a bit surprised several people here believe that gay parents are just as good as straight parents.  Do you think divorced parents or cohabiting parents are as good too?  As long as they love their kids?  I think married heterosexual parents provide the most stable environment for kids, as long as you compare equally competent individuals.
1. No, not based on common sense and my experience with my grandkids (I have a divorced daughter and a granddaughter that cohabited and had a child); I have seen the pain, anger, confusion, hurt, and self-doubts that result among all parties concerned.  I just pray they eventually come out of it alright and do not pass it along in their marriages or to their children.

2. Agree.

... M
“He who denies the existence of God, has some reason for wishing that God did not exist.” — Augustine Of Hippo
Post Reply