Kasich says that people are 'probably' born gay
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 10:17:43 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2016 U.S. Presidential Election
  Kasich says that people are 'probably' born gay
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2]
Author Topic: Kasich says that people are 'probably' born gay  (Read 2903 times)
wolfsblood07
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 656
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: April 30, 2016, 11:26:43 AM »
« edited: April 30, 2016, 11:39:57 AM by wolfsblood07 »

I don't really see how this is even a political question.

For a politician... when it comes to issues on sexuality, gender and access to rights and facilities, whether or not you believe that someone is inherently how they present themselves does matter.

Why does this matter though? Supposing that people could decide to be gay in a vacuum, why should that have any effect on their ability to access rights and facilities? It would still be discriminatory to allow firms to punish them for a lifestyle choice that is inconsequential and damages no one.
That's one way to look at it.  Another way would be even if they are "born that way", why should the rest of society be forced to accommodate their ways which go against our morality?  They should have the same rights as everybody else, including marriage to the opposite sex.

And black people should have the same rights as whites to marry others of their own race! Such logic, wow.

Do you understand how insulting and degrading this statement is to me and others like me? That you would compare your inconvenience at being forced to live alongside people who are born different from you to what gays have had to go through? Show a little empathy, man.
It isn't meant to be insulting or degrading.  It's a point of view that many good folks have.  People with gay friends, even.  Perhaps even some gays who are content with life, or hold conservative views, or are apolitical.
Logged
Mallow
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 737
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: April 30, 2016, 02:39:23 PM »

I don't really see how this is even a political question.

For a politician... when it comes to issues on sexuality, gender and access to rights and facilities, whether or not you believe that someone is inherently how they present themselves does matter.

Why does this matter though? Supposing that people could decide to be gay in a vacuum, why should that have any effect on their ability to access rights and facilities? It would still be discriminatory to allow firms to punish them for a lifestyle choice that is inconsequential and damages no one.
That's one way to look at it.  Another way would be even if they are "born that way", why should the rest of society be forced to accommodate their ways which go against our morality?  They should have the same rights as everybody else, including marriage to the opposite sex.

And black people should have the same rights as whites to marry others of their own race! Such logic, wow.

Do you understand how insulting and degrading this statement is to me and others like me? That you would compare your inconvenience at being forced to live alongside people who are born different from you to what gays have had to go through? Show a little empathy, man.
It isn't meant to be insulting or degrading.  It's a point of view that many good folks have.  People with gay friends, even.  Perhaps even some gays who are content with life, or hold conservative views, or are apolitical.

I wasn't addressing whether or not it was meant to be insulting or degrading. I fully understand that most people don't intend to be cruel or unfair to others. Even those who don't "believe in" interracial marriage think they are just doing what's best for everyone. But that doesn't make it okay. It is insulting, aggravating, and dehumanizing when you say to me that I should not be allowed to marry a single person I find attractive because it goes against your sense of morality, and to further assert that allowing me to marry is as harmful to you as not allowing me to marry would be to me. That is insulting and degrading, whether you intended it to be or not.
Logged
Doimper
Doctor Imperialism
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,030


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: April 30, 2016, 02:44:02 PM »

I don't really see how this is even a political question.

For a politician... when it comes to issues on sexuality, gender and access to rights and facilities, whether or not you believe that someone is inherently how they present themselves does matter.

Why does this matter though? Supposing that people could decide to be gay in a vacuum, why should that have any effect on their ability to access rights and facilities? It would still be discriminatory to allow firms to punish them for a lifestyle choice that is inconsequential and damages no one.
That's one way to look at it.  Another way would be even if they are "born that way", why should the rest of society be forced to accommodate their ways which go against our morality?  They should have the same rights as everybody else, including marriage to the opposite sex.

It's interesting that you've stepped up as the spokesperson for "our morality", when the majority of the country supports the right of same-sex marriage. What makes your morality better than theirs?
Logged
PeteB
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,874
Canada


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: April 30, 2016, 08:32:30 PM »

To get back to the original post, Kasich's statement is scientifically correct. Mainstream science has proven that genetics is the likely reason for homosexuality. Some scientific studies and empirical evidence also attribute homosexuality to environmental factors, but they are in a minority, and generally just talk about  reinforcing the genetical factors.

Whether it is politically opportune when running against Cruz and Trump is debatable, but that is why I like Kasich. He tells it like it is, unlike Cruz who tells it like he wants it to be or unlike Trump, who tells it like he thinks his audience wants to hear it!
Logged
Simfan34
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,744
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.90, S: 4.17

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: April 30, 2016, 09:04:17 PM »

Mainstream science has proven that genetics is the likely reason for homosexuality.

A "gay gene" has as of yet proved elusive. An increasing number of commentators are asking "what does it matter?" as to whether it's genetic or environmental. One might protest about misleading advertising, so to speak, but at this point it doesn't really matter. There probably isn't going to be a rollback of gay rights in a scenario where it's been determined that homosexuality isn't an innate characteristic. But in this case, science has not "proven" anything as of now.
Logged
RightBehind
AlwaysBernie
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,209


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: April 30, 2016, 09:51:35 PM »

Let's imagine someone asking a question like this at a political event in, let's say, 1860.  He would either be arrested or kicked out, or worse.  Not saying those days were better!  But still, just imagine.

Great point. While we're at it, let's travel back to Antebellum South America around 1857 and ask a politician if they think a black, slave or not, is a person and has rights.
Logged
RightBehind
AlwaysBernie
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,209


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: April 30, 2016, 09:55:03 PM »

What is with these self-righteous people who attend town halls of candidates they have no intention of voting for and ambushing them with gotcha questions in order to get 15 seconds of fame?

I don't know. Maybe there are things I'd like to hear from candidates I don't like and see how they justify asinine statements. That's how a free society works. If you ran/were elected, you wouldn't always get softball questions and people who didn't like you would call you out on something.

Shocking, I know.
Logged
SillyAmerican
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,052
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: May 01, 2016, 08:30:06 AM »

Let's imagine someone asking a question like this at a political event in, let's say, 1860.  He would either be arrested or kicked out, or worse.  Not saying those days were better!  But still, just imagine.

Yes. And remember that the population had a higher baseline education than what we have today. Not saying those days were better! (But not saying that those days were worse, either!)
Logged
mds32
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,090
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: May 01, 2016, 10:23:47 AM »

Honestly it is the remaking of the "Liberal" Republican in a way. Kasich is different than Trump in that he is openly being somewhat Liberal. Hence why he is doing well with that part of the GOP.
Logged
Sprouts Farmers Market ✘
Sprouts
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,752
Italy


Political Matrix
E: -4.90, S: 1.74

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #34 on: May 01, 2016, 10:48:31 AM »

Honestly it is the remaking of the "Liberal" Republican in a way. Kasich is different than Trump in that he is openly being somewhat Liberal. Hence why he is doing well with that part of the GOP.

Rofl, Trump has been FAR more liberal than Kasich hence why us northeasterns love him
Logged
Simfan34
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,744
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.90, S: 4.17

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #35 on: May 01, 2016, 12:18:40 PM »

Let's imagine someone asking a question like this at a political event in, let's say, 1860.  He would either be arrested or kicked out, or worse.  Not saying those days were better!  But still, just imagine.

Yes. And remember that the population had a higher baseline education than what we have today. Not saying those days were better! (But not saying that those days were worse, either!)

That exam is an interesting artifact, but I'm not sure it proves your point. I suspect most students either failed the exam or didn't take it at all-- the proportion who passed would, I imagine, be close to that would pass a broadly similar exam today. Do you think a bunch of farmers in Kansas could have defined "Monrovia, Odessa, or Orinoco", or list "nine rules for the use of Capital Letters"?

It reflects the teaching of the time-- focused on rules, facts, and rote memorization. Now, while I probably have a higher opinion of rote memorization than most others who have "thoughts" on the education system, the exam tests little in the way of critical thinking or analytical capacity and focuses  on the recitation of arcana. Now, I have since childhood been notorious for my ability to do exactly that (and am correspondingly ill-versed in things, like sports or contemporary culture, that would be of greater use in casual conversation), so the recitation of arcana has considerable personal appeal, but ultimately says nothing about the capacity of the students taking it.

Some of the questions just wouldn't fly today-- the "epochs of American history" are a matter for historiographical debate rather than memorization by middle schoolers, while "define and illustrate each case" is ambiguous-- does it refer to letter case or grammatical case (e.g. accusative, nominative, genitive, dative, etc.); the latter does not really exist in English and reflects the classics-heavy orientation of contemporary education.

An even more striking artifact of education priorities in Victorian America are university entrance examinations, this Harvard exam from 1899 asks essentially identical questions about grammar and composition as the Kansas exam, except for Latin and Greek instead of English (the Greek section is an interloper from the 1869 exam), and the history and geography is ancient history and classical geography rather than modern. The math questions are not dissimilar from what would be expected today, with the exception of the arithmetic section, which is comprised in its entirety of convoluted calculations, that demonstrate nothing but patience, that would today be done by calculator. Columbia's entrance exam in 1898, on the other hand, on top of everything included on the Harvard exam, required knowledge of Greek, Latin, French, and German, as well as the following texts:

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

While the readings seem doable for someone who has taken an AP-level literature course, the languages would probably require having been tutored in them since the nursery. But keep in mind that while 7 out of 8 takers passed the Harvard exam in 1898, there were only 210 takers, and they posted classifieds in the Times seeking applicants. But I digress.

Were people more educated in the 19th century? Almost certainly not.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.041 seconds with 13 queries.