Defending the Truth

Please strike my earlier comment about gay/lesbians taking away my rights to vote who I choose for people in higher offices. I apologise for that comment as it was out of hand.

It is but there seems to be a pattern in Republican voting, not saying you, your probably not old enough to have put some of these in.

http://web.archive.org/web/200210221.../cheating.html

Scandal? What Scandal?

If an American doesn't want to vote for the fudge packer or the dildo wearer then they don't have to. The truth is that a lot of Americans don't care what you want to stick up your ass or lick, that's your business. We, however, do have the right to not vote for you if we don't like your life style. Too bad. Live and let live. You can't force people to think your normal when we know you aint.

pot to kettle "your black"

Okay, let me make this as clear as I can: No one is saying that you shouldn't have the right to vote for the person you want to.

Foundit is saying only that it is morally wrong to vote against someone because he is gay.

Personally, I find it rather foolish to vote against someone because of his sexual orientation. Imagine: candidate A agrees with you on the issues, but is gay. Candidate B disagrees with you on the issues but is straight. Do you vote for candidate B?

Presumably you believe in each issue because it is in the best interest of the people of our nation. So voting against the candidate with the right stance on the issues, simply because that candidate is gay, is a vote against the best interest of the people of our nation. Or more simply: you vote for the person who will harm our nation simply because you don't want a gay person to hold office.

As I said, it is foolish. Vote based on the candidate's stance on the issues.

To go even further, the definition of bigotry is intolerance of people different than yourself in some fashion. Not wanting a gay person in office is indeed bigotry against homosexuals. I am a bigot against some people too. For example, I think we're all bigots against murderers. Remember that "bigot" is only a word. It is not a rational argument in support of gay rights.

How is it "morally wrong" to vote against somebody because he's gay, if you believe homosexuality is morally wrong? And is it possible that, believing homosexuality is morally wrong, it would actually be morally consistent to vote against that person?

This is no different than voting against a pro-abortionist because you believe abortion is morally reprehensible and wrong. People do it all the time.

Would you vote against a 40-year old man who was married to a 15-year old girl, because of the fact that he was married to the 15-year old? And if so, how is that any less bigotted than voting against a person who is homosexual?


SOMEBODY "sets the moral standards". Who is that? And if said "somebody" says homosexuality is morally fine, then somebody else has the right to say being married to a 15-year old girl is morally fine as well.

But you don't do that, do you? You draw your lines of morality where YOU want to draw them - at a place and in a way that is comfortable for YOU, in your particular world-view and belief system.

It is morally wrong because your vote decides which laws will be passed. If you vote against someone because that person is gay, you are not voting bassed on who will create the most fair laws; you are voting based on your desire to punish gay people. This may result in people being subject to unfair laws simply because you desire to punish gay people.

Because your vote affects the laws we must all live by, it is only moral to vote for the person who will create the best laws. It is not moral to force us all to live by a poor set of laws, simply because of a desire to punish homosexuals.

This is voting based on an issue. In this case, the person who opposes abortion votes against the pro-abortion candidate out of the desire to get the best set of laws.

I would not necessarily vote against such a candidate. I would vote based on each candidate's stance on the issues. That stance on the issues may include each candidate's stance on marrying minors, so if the man married to a 15-year-old girl supported marriage to minors, I may vote against him for that reason.

In a similar fashion, I disagree with Clinton's affair, and I think it was an incredibly horrible thing to do. But I would still vote for him over any candidate who has a worse stance on the issues.


I do not understand what you are talking about. No one sets any universal moral standard. Our government is based on freedom, where people are free to live by their own beliefs and their own moral standard, so long as they don't hurt anybody else.

I draw the lines of morality where where my reasoning leads me to find them. Everyone does. I find homosexuality totally moral, and I find opposition to homosexuality to be one of the worst sins. I didn't choose to hold this belief: it is logic which has led me here.

But yeah, we each hold different beliefs about morality. So what? Our government shouldn't give preference to my beliefs, and it shouldn't give preference to yours. Just let me live according to my beliefs, and I'll let you live according to yours.

There you have it. Your argument is far too shallow and ill-thought out.

Jaxian: "Foundit is saying only that it is morally wrong to vote against someone because he is gay".

I think it is morally wrong for a gay person to be running for office and be in positions of authority over people who have their heads screwed on straight. If they choose to be actors, writers, dancers, hair dressers, interior decorators, hey, that's fine with me. I don't, however, wish to vote them into office to make decisions that will affect my security. That isn't bigotry. If it is bigotry in your mind then so be it. I aint out to change minds.

Yes, I say it is morally wrong. I explained that if we don't vote based on the issues, someone with the wrong stance on the issues may be elected. This affects others negatively. Affecting others negatively is immoral.

If this is not the reason, then what is the reason?

I believe almost every person opposed to abortion is concerned with saving the lives of unborn children. I do not see where you are going with this.

It can only be said if they are voting based on the candidate's stance on the issue of same-sex marriage. It cannot be said if they are voting based on the candidate's sexual orientation.

If a candidate supported legalizing marriage between adults and minors, I would judge that candidate's stance on the issues to be the wrong one, and I would vote against that candidate. This would not have anything to do with that candidate's own marriage.

I do not understand where you get this idea. I vote for Republicans occasionally, and I am very likely to vote for Independant, Libertarian and Green party candidates. It depends on the candidate's stance on the issues, as I stated.

This is a good point, and under different circumstances, I might take it into consideration. But because I can understand why this lie was told, and because I do not believe this lie caused any harm, I do not find it evidence that Clinton would lie about more important information.

You are right, but the more a government legislates morality, the more tyrannical it is. Good government decides as little morality as possible, assuming that nothing should be banned unless it harms someone else.

I understand what you are saying. I like to say "freedom, so long as that freedom doesn't harm someone else."

This is the most important thing you have said, for it actually talks about why you find homosexuality immoral.

In response, I say that whether an action is self-sustaining and reproducing has nothing to do with its morality. For example, playing football is not self-sustaining or reproducing, yet it is still moral. Typing on my keyboard is not self-sustaining or reproducing, yet it is still moral. Watching cartoons is not self-sustaining or reproducing, yet it is still moral. Sacrificing my life to save someone else's actually prevents me from ever reproducing, yet it is still moral.

On the other hand, rape is reproducing and self-sustaining, yet it is not moral. Having sex with minors is reproducing and self-sustaining, yet it is not moral. Having loads of sex before marriage is reproducing and self-sustaining, yet it is not moral.

My conclusion is that whether something is self-sustaining and reproducing has nothing to do with whether it is moral. Instead, morality is based on helping make others happy.

I should also mention that homosexuality, due to the nature of love, may encourage some people to have and raise children through one of a variety of methods, such as adoption, surrogate parenting, or artificial insemination. Because of this, homosexuality can be considered at least a method of encouraging reproduction.

"Let live" is really the most important part of "Live and Let Live." Don't interfere negatively in someone else's life, and that includes not killing them.