Joe the Plumber: I wouldn’t have gays near my kids
In the last month, same-sex marriage has become legal in Iowa and Vermont. What do you think about same-sex marriage at a state level?
At a state level, it’s up to them. I don’t want it to be a federal thing. I personally still think it’s wrong. People don’t understand the dictionary—it’s called queer. Queer means strange and unusual. It’s not like a slur, like you would call a white person a honky or something like that. You know, God is pretty explicit in what we’re supposed to do—what man and woman are for. Now, at the same time, we’re supposed to love everybody and accept people, and preach against the sins. I’ve had some friends that are actually homosexual. And, I mean, they know where I stand, and they know that I wouldn’t have them anywhere near my children. But at the same time, they’re people, and they’re going to do their thing.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 … 10 11 12 13 Next »
Actually, it is. We are all born utterly depraved, including our mind, affections, and subsequent inclination as compared to a holy God and creator. We inherited our selfish, prideful, narcissistic nature from birth. So, yeah, I was born with the same inclinations to sin as a homosexual, if it is indeed an “inborn” trait.
But, that raises an interesting question: if it is, in fact, inborn…and it runs counter to the natural function of human biology and, in fact, carries certain risk factors…why EMBRACE IT? Add to that the clear prohibitions in scripture and you have a admonition as strong as any to abstain from homosexual behavior.
I feel badly for those with homosexual tendencies. I know my own sinful predilections and my past is littered with them. There is NONE righteous but Christ…and in accepting Him, one can experience a certain level of freedom from much sin in this life. Not ALL sin or struggle, but MUCH. And, then, in eternity, we can experience the total eradication of it all. That will be soooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo great.
Mommypundit on May 5, 2009 at 10:43 AM
Maybe you were.
I was fine until we got the internet. Ever since? Satan flosses his teeth with my soul.
MadisonConservative on May 5, 2009 at 10:46 AM
Obviously, a population that is 100% homosexual would go extinct after one generation; that is not what happens. Obviously, also, it produces less offspring. What evolution selects for is not the maximal amount of offspring, but the maximal likelihood of the survival of a species’ genetic code. The strategy that was selected for in the case of lemmings is a maximal amount of offspring; whales employ an entirely different strategy.
Another common fallacy about evolution is the idea that every trait possessed by a species must be there because it confers a reproductive benefit, but that is simply not the case. Some selected-for traits are reproductively-injurious side-effects of other, advantageous traits. Other reproductively-injurious traits persist merely because they have not been selected against, and still others persist because they further the proliferation of a species at the expense of the individual possessing them. Depending on the species in question, homosexual behavior may fit any one of those three categories.
In humans, one indicator of homosexuality is birth order. A second male child is more likely to be homosexual than a firstborn, a third male child is more likely than the second, etc. This could be viewed as conferring a survival advantage to homo sapiens in that it prevents one very large family from dominating the gene pool. It could also be viewed as an evolutionary accident. In either event, it is outside of the control of the child who, upon reaching adolescence, discovers that he is gay.
hicsuget on May 5, 2009 at 10:46 AM
Wrap you’re bigotry in you’re god all you want, it’s still pathetic. Tie the GOP to it and your ship will sink in a generation.
jonknee on May 5, 2009 at 10:47 AM
You’ve never heard of Original Sin, have you? It’s allegedly a sin to be born human.
hicsuget on May 5, 2009 at 10:47 AM
Most kids are pretty oblivious about sexual orientation of others until they are teenagers, unless it is totally thrown in their faces. I personally believe that in nearly all cases, active homosexuality is a choice, but I have not “taught” this to my kids as it was not taught to me, just a viewpoint that I have developed over many years and many close relationships with “gay” men and women.
I have a close relative who is living a gay lifestyle, and it has made me uncomfortable at times to have him and his partner around my kids, but I don’t think it has damaged them in any way. I teach my kids not to judge anyone. I’ve talked to them about it matter-of-factly and have confidence that they will make the right judgments about people in their own lives. My son is already a ladies’ man at 15 and my daughter at 12 is a marriage fan who wants to be married at 20 and have 10 kids. So I don’t think being around a homosexual or two is going to anything to them.
rockmom on May 5, 2009 at 10:49 AM
Those are great subsequent arguments…and should be used. But, aberrations in nature are replete. We have always acknowledged them. But, we have also maintained the reasonable understanding of normative behavior and function. Basically, “common sense.” It’s no small argument.
Mommypundit on May 5, 2009 at 10:50 AM
There is probably something important buried in that. Regardless of one’s religions stance, humans are not born civilized — we have to be taught. I think that was well known to the originators of Christianity, but it seems to have been lost in resent years, with people embracing primal urges in disruptive ways. Of course, homosexual behavior is only the most obvious symptom, and probably not nearly as disruptive as the analogous heterosexual behavior.
Count to 10 on May 5, 2009 at 10:50 AM
Not quite. The sin is what we commit after we’re born. That we’re born only means that we will sin, but it’s still our own actions that constitute a sin.
But then there are different theology debates on that, with Catholics believing children need to be Baptized and others believing that should be a personal choice.
Esthier on May 5, 2009 at 10:52 AM
haha. Just meaning the doctrine of total depravity. Not that we all equally will do heinous sin, all-Dahmer and stuff…but that all areas of our lives and biology are subject to “sin” or death. It doesn’t always seem apparent. We “wink” at a lot of kid’s behavior, tending to think they will grow out of it, largely. Some of it they will due to the common grace of society. But, anyone with eyes to see can detect pride and selfishness in children. While they have empathy sometimes, they also are fairly ruthless. It’s interesting.
Mommypundit on May 5, 2009 at 10:54 AM
Resolve that with capitalism, and self-interest.
MadisonConservative on May 5, 2009 at 10:56 AM
A lot of it has roots in psychology, particularly Maslow.
Mommypundit on May 5, 2009 at 10:56 AM
Actually, I think part of the problem is the the very idea of “discovers that he is gay”. This mem tells a person that if he is at all aroused by his own sex, then he should just give up on the standard heterosexual behaviors “because he’s gay”. We are pushing people into destructive lifestyles by perpetuating this construct.
Count to 10 on May 5, 2009 at 10:57 AM
That is complete and utter nonsense.
So do you do background checks on all of your friends’ sexual tendencies before you let them near your children?
WisCon on May 5, 2009 at 10:59 AM
Capitalism can only exist where people know and follow the rules. Though capitalism causes self organization, it, in its self, is not self organizing — the rule of law is a prerequisite.
Count to 10 on May 5, 2009 at 11:00 AM
Not at all. Just the results of decades of observation and consideration. All other possibilities lead to logical contradiction.
Count to 10 on May 5, 2009 at 11:03 AM
Then I’m sure you have a number of studies at hand to support that.
WisCon on May 5, 2009 at 11:04 AM
Well, I could be an Ayn Rand capitalist or a Christian capitalist.
I do know that christians have a solid understanding of the value of work and productivity.
Christians (with a solid biblical worldview) understand that there is a mandate to build cultures and create society and families. That is Genesis and was not revoked after the fall. Work is a GOOD given to us by God based on His own creative attributes. God is also not a God of disorder, as we see in all his created order and within the Trinity and hierarchical structure. So far we have creativity, work, order. So we understand that work is good.
We also understand that stealing is wrong, admonitions about loose lending or cosigning as unwise…these are ethical considerations as well as self protection. There is also a ton to be said about debt. This infers a sense of self interest, though, perhaps not the kind i was referring to.
What the bible tells christians is not so much a communistic living, as the left so likes to espouse and/or enforce. But, rather, a giving from the wellspring of your heart to those in need.
There is healthy, good wisdom in protecting yourself and business…and there is corrupt, cut throat business deals. I do not think any Christian capitalist should be living that way in the first place.
Anyway…long answer and not my best.
Mommypundit on May 5, 2009 at 11:06 AM
A child does not discover any sort of sexual tendencies until he becomes an adolescent–that is the very difference between a child and an adolescent. Young children are not straight–they are sexless.
Nobody is suggesting that any straight person abandon heterosexuality, or pushing anybody into being gay. All we are suggesting is that homosexuals should not be pushed into being straight—it is, for them, no different than it would be if somebody were actually to push you into trying to be gay and trying to like it.
hicsuget on May 5, 2009 at 11:09 AM
Some things don’t call for studies, but personal experience.
Count to 10 on May 5, 2009 at 11:10 AM
My next door neighbors are gay. They are nice guys. I’ve never worried about their proximity to my son. Gay does not mean pedophile.
Having said that, Joe has the right to raise his children as he sees fit. That is his responsibility, just as I explained to my son that although I didn’t agree with the lifestyle choice our neighbors made, it was their private business as to what they did in their own home.
ladyingray on May 5, 2009 at 11:11 AM
Your worse answers are still pretty good. I’ll be rolling around your response in my head for a while. Thanks.
MadisonConservative on May 5, 2009 at 11:14 AM
I generally know a lot about people before they enter into the “friendship” realm. Do you not? I am first friendly to everyone, regardless who they are, where they live, what they do. IF it requires that we meet more than on occasion, I determine there what type of individuals I prefer to allow around my own family.
I am assuming you have no preference in friends. No barrier to babysitters who would watch your kids…no litmus at all, just unfettered interaction? See, this is dishonest on many levels. You know everyone makes decisions large and small when it comes to friends and/or family interaction. Everyone lives and imposes their “morality” on everyone and we’ve been “tolerating” it for quite some time now. What the left, and, by extension you, want is approval.
Mommypundit on May 5, 2009 at 11:14 AM
Do you have studies on this? I’ve read studies, specifically on women that rejected the idea that our sexuality is tied to our ability to procreate. The problem with believing that is obviously that our sexuality doesn’t end after 50. Of course it’s also true on the opposite end that it doesn’t begin at 12 either.
Esthier on May 5, 2009 at 11:14 AM
I’ve long felt the two are not mutually exclusive. I know she thought so, but I don’t believe she quite understood Christianity anyway, as evidenced by the speech she has Francisco give about money being the root of all evil. She corrects him to include love of money and then goes on to explain how even that is OK, but yet, she never had a single character live as though they loved money.
Not a single one of them cared about all the money they had, and making money was never their goal. Being the best, yes, which tended to make them lots of money, but not just money for money’s sake, which to me was the whole point about loving money.
The people who love money were the ones trying to steal the businesses away from people like Dagney, all while still needing her to keep the business afloat.
Esthier on May 5, 2009 at 11:18 AM
Preferably, I’d enjoy talking this over dinner with good wine or a decent import (or few…heh) or even coffee. It’s something that requires thought. I don’t say these things lightly nor take people’s feelings lightly, although it might seem that way online. I know these topics are LOADED.
I appreciate your comment!
Mommypundit on May 5, 2009 at 11:18 AM
Yes you are. Merely by claiming that there is such a thing as a “homosexual”, as if it was a separate race of human, we push people into that behavior.
We have lost sight of the fact that relationships are about more than living masturbatory aids. So what if you get aroused by images of your own sex? That is no more a problem that being aroused by images of opposite sex movie stars. So what if you haven’t figured out how to be maximally aroused by images of the opposite sex? Not everyone has learned to be most aroused by their spouse as it is.
We have settled for the short and easy path, culturally, and often personally.
Count to 10 on May 5, 2009 at 11:19 AM
Really great synopsis. I agree, too.
People constantly misquote the bible on money. It was the LOVE of it…not itself.
Mommypundit on May 5, 2009 at 11:23 AM
So you have detailed knowledge of what your friends do in the bedroom? What if they are doing “unnatural” things?
I’m not a Leftist at all, and of course I make choices based on behavior I can see about who my friends are. I’m not gay and can care less about approval. What I am worried about is the stereotyping that is going on.
Oh, good, because that’s very scientific.
WisCon on May 5, 2009 at 11:23 AM
Somehow this strikes me as abusive.
Mommypundit on May 5, 2009 at 11:25 AM
Most of the physical mechanisms are in place at all ages (children can become aroused and experience sexual stimulation), but it is not pronounced until puberty, and we don’t normally attach ourselves mentally to sexual constructs until then.
Count to 10 on May 5, 2009 at 11:25 AM
The question needs to be framed in an approximately correct manner before one has any hope of applying science to a subject. On the topic of sex, we have yet to reach that point.
Count to 10 on May 5, 2009 at 11:28 AM
I’m speechless, but that’s okay, because no response is necessary.
hicsuget on May 5, 2009 at 11:29 AM
Let me try to clarify.
What I thought was clear was my general decision making process in making close friends. Normally, I do not talk about sexual relationships. We talk about like interests, are you married, do you have kids, oh, you’re a christian? what church? Normally, at this point, if they are a family and share like interests, we might invite them over. We might do churchy things with them. We might cook out. We might have play dates. Sometimes these fizzle out, sometimes not. Generally, a christian family is not going to be engaging in homosexual behavior, getting hammered, doing drugs, cursing, cheating on spouses, um, yeah. So, barring those overt things, all other sins are those which naturally come out in time and we deal with them as they come and bear each other’s burdens.
You might have your own decision making process or qualities you look for. Right?
Mommypundit on May 5, 2009 at 11:31 AM
You need to be more open minded.
Count to 10 on May 5, 2009 at 11:32 AM
Wow… what have I missed? LOL
This is one of those times I wish I could actually talk to you guys – especially those so vehemently opposed to gays – and explain a few things, i.e. the whole “choice” theory, etc. I don’t begrudge Joe for not wanting his kids near gay people and I totally understand why some people would find gays (and gay relations) so repulsive. I don’t expect everyone to find gay attraction, tendencies, etc. as natural — I tend to think that in the grand scheme of things, they aren’t. It’s patently obvious that nature supports the coupling of opposites, male and female — look at the miracle of life — it can only come about from the union of a man and woman. But it doesn’t make gay attraction any less real or a “choice.” You may call it evil — while I think that certain practices “celebrated” at gay pride parades and in the popular gay culture are sick, I conversely believe that God would never punish me for loving someone. Just sayin’…
D2Boston on May 5, 2009 at 11:34 AM
Look, the truth is that we have no science to definitively say one way or another that someone is born with an attraction to their own sex.
We do have proof that people are influenced greatly by outside factors in determining what is and what is not attractive. Years ago, more “plump” women were considered beautiful. Now, it’s the really skinny girls with artificially large breasts.
And homosexuality is treated differently these days than it was in ancient Greek times when men were homosexual but only as a phase of some kind, eventually settling down with a woman and children.
That doesn’t prove Count is correct, of course. It’s just something else to think about.
Esthier on May 5, 2009 at 11:35 AM
I much prefer to be active-minded, thank you very much.
hicsuget on May 5, 2009 at 11:38 AM
And yet, David was severely punished for loving Bathsheba.
It can be love and still be wrong. For instance, you can “love” your sister. That’s still a sin, or rather, acting on that love is a sin.
But then I believe sin is simply disobeying God. A Christian knows when he has done that, and no legalism is necessary to tell him. Either he’s sinned, or he hasn’t.
Esthier on May 5, 2009 at 11:42 AM
Don’t forget that shaved legs and armpits are a relatively new fad, too.
Actually, the Greeks often fitted homosexual sex acts into their standard framework of heterosexual families. I think it was the Romans who just went (destructively) nuts with it, which is why it is a big deal to Christians.
And I will maintain that the lack of scientific results on the “born homosexual” question is because it poses fundamentally the wrong question.
Count to 10 on May 5, 2009 at 11:42 AM
Then you should try harder.
Count to 10 on May 5, 2009 at 11:43 AM
While I don’t disagree with the gist of your comments, I am curious as to how you would interact with a gay couple if they moved in next door to you, as well as what you would tell your children.
Please don’t take offense because I mean none; I’m just curious because that is what happened to me.
ladyingray on May 5, 2009 at 11:44 AM
You would think with 500+ posts, Allah would kick this thread over into the main section before it gets bumped out of headlines.
Or maybe he just doesn’t like us.
Count to 10 on May 5, 2009 at 11:45 AM
But the men didn’t “settle down” with a woman. They had a wife for procreation purposes; they kept their men for pleasure.
ladyingray on May 5, 2009 at 11:46 AM
What would you consider the right question?
Esthier on May 5, 2009 at 11:48 AM
Or boys. Plato’s “Symposium” suggests an edging into borderline pedophilia.
Count to 10 on May 5, 2009 at 11:49 AM
True.
ladyingray on May 5, 2009 at 11:51 AM
I don’t think I know exactly, but I am sure it lies more toward the direction of “what is the link between perception, imagination, and arousal?”
The social issues are actually pretty easy to work out already, with the drive to us the romantic idea of pairing as a cover for irresponsible personal gratification. There are probably more heterosexuals doing this than homosexuals, its just that it is easier to identify in homosexuals. We really should be rallying against the the whole of the concept of romance, rather than just the homosexuals trying to catch a ride on it.
Count to 10 on May 5, 2009 at 11:56 AM
And there it goes. No main post, dead thread.
Count to 10 on May 5, 2009 at 12:00 PM
What about life experience affecting the choice? My husband had a cousin who was sexually abused when he was 11 -12 years old. His older brother would taunt him that he was gay (but he wasn’t that kind in his vocabulary).
I read sometime ago that of children who are abused, many of the girls grow up to be lesbians (as protection against men) and the boys grow up to be gay (because they feel they must be gay if a man wanted them). Don’t ask for a link or reference as I read this YEARS ago. I also don’t affirm the conclusion.
I do think you are right that the “right question” has to include more than just DNA.
ladyingray on May 5, 2009 at 12:04 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 … 10 11 12 13 Next »