Will the Homosexual Agenda become an important issue in 2012?

[Simfan34]

51% of Republicans support recognition of same-sex unions... considering only three candidates support recognition, it would be in the best interests of everyone else not to make it an issue.

[Simfan34]

What on earth is "the Homosexual Agenda", anyways?

[Simfan34]

What on earth is "the Homosexual Agenda", anyways?

Well the agenda of this homosexual for tomorrow is:

1) Take a shower
2) Find a birthday present for my best friend
3) Accomplish something at work
4) Make a delicious dinner
5) Flirt with a gay co-worker of mine
6) Only if I have time: Destroy Western civilazation and force straight Conservative Americans to marry men.

I see. Any chance of leftovers to share?

[Simfan34]

People are beginning to accept the reality of homosexuality.

Homophobia is anti-family. I have faced gay-bashing, and I came to the realization that such behavior could hurt or kill someone that other family members could miss. In that case it would have been I who got hurt or killed. I related the situation to two people who are very right-wing, one an elderly entrepreneur who found the violence abominable and inexcusable. Another was a Religious Right type who was still convinced that homosexuality was a great sin but that nobody was going to become straight because of the threat of a beating -- and that the would-be gay-basher needed to turn to Jesus! 

Gays and lesbians are everywhere. You might be surprised at who they are, as some scrupulously give no signals. But even if they do, I find that I can get along with gays so long as we both keep our zippers closed and our pants up.

Of male suicides between ages 16 and 21, fully a third are by homosexuals. Something is terribly wrong. Family problems can spur suicides by people who would never otherwise do suicide. Families, no matter how conservative, are going to need to accept someone who for no apparent reason or cause is gay or lesbian.

Homophobia is anti-family no matter how conservative and Christian that family may be.     

True, very, very true.

CJK:

The only reason we are "losing" is because a) the Homosexual Agenda dominates the media and b) we don't have an articulate person out there explaining the nature of the Agenda's threat or even that there is an Agenda at all.

I completely agree with you on (a) that the main political endgame here is recognition that homosexual relationships are morally equal to heterosexual relationships. But, it’s pretty obvious that this is the goal and revealing it doesn’t really help a whole lot (at least not in intellectual-ish circles like this).

Part (b) really is the crux of our political problem, coming up with an articulate explanation of how homosexuality is bad for society without bringing up morality and/or religion is rather hard. The reason why morality/religion are not satisfactory for an argument is that most people who think homosexuality is a sin either already oppose gay marriage or don’t believe that morality should be a consideration in making laws. In order to do this, we really need a powerful utilitarian argument about how homosexuality hurts society and it is in our best interests not to recognize same-sex marriages. To be honest, I’m still searching for a coherent argument that makes sense to people who don’t believe homosexual acts are morally wrong and would love to hear one.

I think the closest anyone on this board has come is Millhouse when he was posting about declining birth rates and the economic effects. It is completely correct that population changes can cause economic booms and busts. Look up “Contraceptives and the Celtic Tiger” if you want some proof of this. Our country does have a declining birth rate, now below the replacement rate and that probably will hurt us economically in 10-20 years if we aren’t saved from demographic doom by immigration. But this is a bit of a stretch to argue against gay marriage from. It’s really suited to argue for banning contraceptives, but that’s political suicide. I’m not sure this argument will convince anyone who doesn’t already oppose gay marriage.

We also need to find a way to talk with gay people without looking like @$$holes. We’ll have to find some way of respectfully saying no to all the LBGT(and sometimes Q) people in this country. As someone else already said beating up gay people won’t make them decided to go straight.

It would take an exceptionally skilled politician to pull all this off. I have never seen nor met such a person with this capability, though maybe he or she is out there somewhere…

We just have people muttering about "traditional marriage" without explaining why it is important.
 

This is a great point. I haven’t heard anyone on the Republican side ever really explain this. Maybe somewhere in here lies the elusive answer I can’t find

I'm far more worried about the rise in divorce rates than any effect gay marriage may have upon "traditional marriage".

The problem with arguing against homosexuality is that homosexuals will be homosexuals. You can't change that unless you decided to have the government undertake massive ex-gay programs. Gay people make no more than 2% of the population. They have no significant effect upon population growth.

I'm pro population growth (the idea of an United States with a billion people tickles the cockles of my heart). If fast growth is your desire, then there are millions of qualified people with degrees and experience who want nothing more to come to this country. If you happen to be someone who dislikes "brown people" (not saying anyone here does), a great chunk of those millions are from Europe. I think the WSJ had a poll the other day saying that something like 60 percent of Chinese millionaires were thinking about leaving the country... think of all the capital they could bring. Immigrants drive economic and population growth, and its sad that that kind of immigration is often forgotten.

I really can't find a valid secular argument against same sex marriage, and while I'm religious, I need secular answers for politics.

[Simfan34]

Gays are 2% of the population? cite?

Its worth pointing out that even if that statistic were accurate (and no statistics on this issue ever will be), then that would still mean that the number in the U.S would be counted in millions.

Source

Another 2% is bisexual... and yes it's in the millions, but it's still in single digits, not the 1-10 Kinsey touted and certainly not the 1 in 4 people think it is.

[Simfan34]

Gays are 2% of the population? cite?

Its worth pointing out that even if that statistic were accurate (and no statistics on this issue ever will be), then that would still mean that the number in the U.S would be counted in millions.

Source

Another 2% is bisexual... and yes it's in the millions, but it's still in single digits, not the 1-10 Kinsey touted and certainly not the 1 in 4 people think it is.

20% of Americans not believing Obama was born in America /= 20% Obama was not born in America.

Stats don't always tell the truth.

Of course, which is why 25% of Americans aren't gay. But this wasn't a survey of opinions, it was a study, which is very different. Of course, it's certainly no authority, but it's what I've found to be the percentages in studies like this... and it's from a study done by a guy at UCLA and posted at the Huffington Post, so I doubt there's a conservative bias.

Be sure to read the second part of my prior post, lest anyone think I have something against gay marriage.

[Simfan34]

People lie about this issue.  Bisexuals I would imagine especially so round themselves up to hetero.

True. True. Let's say 5% for both bisexual and gay.

[Simfan34]

Mahmoud Amhadjenad could parrot him as an enlightened American.

[Simfan34]

Serious question: This is actually the first time I've ever heard people wring their hands over a decline in U.S. population. How big of a problem would a decline in U.S. population be? Or, even, a decline in world population? How many people are we supposed to cram on this planet?

I'm far from the type to insist that we need to control birth rates or anything like that, but my god, look at this trend:



I've had trouble finding solid estimates of the maximum sustainable human population for Earth. I've seen 40 billion and 150 billion thrown about, but have also seen estimates as low as 1 billion. (One billion, as in, this current rate of growth and even this current level of population is unsustainable long-term.)

I frequently find people talking about a need to curb the world's population or find a better way to manage the boom in areas where starvation is a real issue. But this talk that we have an evolutionary imperative to stuff even more people on this planet of all is fairly new to me (and, at first glance, counter productive).

Is a tiny percentage of the population not crapping out babies like rabbits really that bad a thing? Do conservatives really want to live in hyperdense urban areas out of necessity?

I certainly believe that Earth can handle many more people than it currently has, and the higher the population growth, the better. I remember reading that Ethiopia alone could feed most of Europe (or half of Africa). So food, if Africa reaches it's potential, shouldn't really be a problem. If the whole renewable movement is lasting and not a fad, it may reduce our consumption even further, combined with New Urbanism and sustainable living patterns, will make populations in the tens of billions feasible.

But like I said, a billion Americans would be nice!

[Simfan34]

But like I said, a billion Americans would be nice!

... why? Is it just to compete on a numerical basis with China and India for the title of most populated country?

In a way, yes, then no one could touch our GDP!

[Simfan34]

But like I said, a billion Americans would be nice!

... why? Is it just to compete on a numerical basis with China and India for the title of most populated country?

In a way, yes, then no one could touch our GDP!

All of a sudden, I envisioned this for the MBTA:

I'd think this:



or this:



Would be more likely. I bet you that if the US did not exist, we'd be saying 150 million people was the limit for a rich country... there is no reason that our standard of living should be lowered if the population rose.  Europe consumes less than we do, and their standard of living is just about equal with ours.

[Simfan34]

And, of course, countries like Japan and South Korea have all of those nice trains and cities because they are overpopulated and not because their government invests in quality infrastructure.

They're Chinese. Point is that densely populated countries need not be like India.

[Simfan34]

And, of course, countries like Japan and South Korea have all of those nice trains and cities because they are overpopulated and not because their government invests in quality infrastructure.

They're Chinese. Point is that densely populated countries need not be like India.

And, yes, China also has a notoriously small government, too.

The United States is not set up to handle a billion people.  It could be, but it would go against our current cultural and political norms.  We're not a country of cheap labor or great infrastructure investment.  Our economy is actually built on the fact that our natural resources exceed the needs of the population.

A 300 million person nation with our unemployment rate is bad enough.  Multiple those people by three and we'll eat each other.

I have a nagging feeling that the same was said in 1911.

It was.