What I don't get....

Post Reply New Topic

I'm pro-life. I feel that all people should be respected and have a chance in life. I don't have a problem with people choosing to prevent pregnancy and don't feel that all people should be forced into parenthood, but feel that once one has made those choices one should not take it out on an innocent bystander. There are extreme cases (rape, incest, cancer) where I'm not comfortable with it but can understand the choice.

I also support gay-marriage. I'm not gay, but I don't see why any citizen shouldn't have the right to marry any other consenting adult they choose. I think that if a particular religious group or individual does not support gay marriage they should have the right not to perform those weddings but that a Justice of the Peace should marry any consenting adults who so choose. It seems silly that religious people who support gay marriage can not perform those ceremonies legally, except in a few states. They can do a commitment ceremony but that isn't a legal marriage. Along the same lines I don't see why polygamy isn't legal among consenting adults. I personally don't think it's a very good idea and would not participate in such a marriage, but I don't see why it isn't the right of consenting adults. I do not approve of child marriage, not in the western context anyway.

To me, both ideas come out of the same underlying principal. Everybody deserves the right to be themselves and pursue happiness in a way that does not hurt people or infringe on the rights of others. I don't understand why so many pro-lifers are anti-gay. I've got a degree in Biblical Studies and can't find anything solid outlawing it in my religion. There are some passages but if you look objectively at context they are more easily interpreted in other ways (like giveing women better rights in one case).

Most of the people I know who support gay marriage are not pro-life.

I realize my ideas are unusual, but I don't see why. To me the regular views make little sense. There, I've gotten it off my chest.

The conjunction between antiabortion stances and antigay stances comes primarily from the doctrines of various churches, not from decisions of lots of individuals.

Now think about the issue from the churches' points of view. A church that's successful over time needs to have a positive growth rate, not a negative growth rate. One of the main factors in a church's growth is children who are born into the church. Restricting marriage to heterosexual couples who are likely to have children helps to maximize the number of childbearing couples. Prohibiting abortion helps to maximize the number of those children.

Note that I'm not saying that's necessarily how church officials reach those decisions. It's just that that is how things work out. That's why the Shakers, who didn't procreate, have dwindled, while the Catholic church, which prohibits birth control as well as abortion, is still going strong.

You bring up a good point though I do not think that in today's western societies those taboos are not going to make any kind of significant difference in church membership. People have so many more options today anybody can be a parent or choose not to be. Many gay couples have children and have a wide variety of options in how they bring children into their family and people also have a wide variety of options for avoiding becoming parents without needing abortion.

People do have underlying fears that may not always be completely logical in context. That is probably where this idea of gay marriage somehow destroying heterosexual marriage comes from. With heterosexual divorce rates as high as they are it seems gays couldn't possibly be more dangerous to the institution than heterosexuals are. If heterosexuals haven't killed marriage I think the institution can withstand anything.

What I don't understand is why the logic I see isn't more obvious to more people. I think you understand what I'm saying and I like the point you bring up. I'm still baffled by the prevalent attitudes.

Because their religion says so and people will parrot whatever their religious leaders say without thinking. Organised religions are most often political - conservative religious groups tend to mirror the political views of the conservative parties in the state, and the same for liberal groups. In the case of gay rights/abortion - both threaten the patriarchal structure of religions (bodily autonomy for women and the lack of a master-servant marriage in the case of gays) and after centuries of persecuting gay people they aren't very eager to change. As for polygamy - there are some practical reasons in the case of divorce/child custody/inheritance - if you think a normal divorce is complicated, add a few spouses and a lot of kids.

Some peoples' logic may lead them to a different conclusion - my conclusions are slightly different from yours, for example - but I don't think that's the main explanation for what you're seeing.

Rather, the explanation is that most people don't draw their beliefs from logic. Most people draw their beliefs from family or religion - or, these days, for those who are irreligious, from their political party.

Irrational, you say? It certainly is. Rationality is not that common among humans; even among aspies and auties, it's not universal.

PH

Yes, I think you see my quandry. It's not about those issues but that they seem to follow opposite logic and nobody seems to notice it. For me the underlying principle is that eople deserve a chance to live and be themselves. I'd expect that pro-lifers would tend to be pro-gay marriage rights, and people who are opposed to one would be opposed to both, not always but usually. It in fact rarely seems to work this way.

Celoneth,

I think you're saying about the same thing that PH said, just with different examples. It doesn't make sense that in todays world where people can get in and out of marriage at will and have many options to control having or not having babies those old feelings would be so widely clung to. You're right. People aren't logical, I'm justp surprised that they are so completely opposite to logical. I'd expect there to be a fairly general tendancy toward logicl with big gaping exceptions, when in fact logical thinking seems to be a rare exception.

I don't think that modern people are as controlled by their religion, at least not in the western countries. Even living in the Bible Belt of the USA I'm seeing more people who only participate in their religion in the most marginal ways than who actually take it seriously.

You both bring up good points, but it still makes no sense to me. I supposed it's my fault for wanting sense out of people.

I'm not an aspie or an autie myself (to the best of my knowledge) and did very poorly in logic in school, but this stuff bothers me. I'm not loosing sleep but I know it's something I can't bring up in polite society because if they are conservative I'm going to offend them for being pro-gay marriage rights and if they are liberal they will not like my pro-life stance. I find myself biting my tongue not to mention my ideas a lot and appreciate your taking the time to read and respond reguardless of your own ideas on those issues. People are awfully strange creatures.

I find it amusing that you think the only explanation for someone disagreeing with your political views is that they must be illogical.

Not at all. I think there are many different reasons, I just find the degree of the lack of logic surprising. I don't expect all people to be logical and consistant but I am surprised that there aren't more who are, and consistant either way. I also do not assume that people who feel differently than I do about either of these issues are "bad." My best friend agrees with me about gay marriage but is not pro-life. She's not a very logical person so this doesn't surprise me.

There are also many logical ways to come up with a different set of views on these issues than I do. I'd love to hear more ideas and explainations for it.

I don't think they are controlled as much by religion, I think a lot use the views of their religious/political organisations on issues they don't really care about and it's the leaders of political and religious institutions that end up setting the agenda for them. For example gay rights doesn't affect the (probably) straight guy in the Bible belt, therefore if his minister says gay marriage is evil, then he might accept that without really thinking about it because it doesn't affect him. Regular divorce, on the other hand, is something that may affect him a lot, therefore he's more likely to think that issue through more thoroughly. Same thing with abortion, lots of people are anti-abortion, then they or their family member gets pregnant and abortion is ok but only in that case, and then they go back to being anti-abortion. When people don't want to take the time to actually analyse an issue then a lot of times they'll just adopt the "party line" which is why we have things like talking points - so people can argue on issues they have no idea about.

Very true Celoneth. Sometimes it's intellectual laziness and sometimes it's just other priorities. They may be so busy coaching foorball, or whatever it is they are involved in, that they haven't really spared the brain cells to consider those things. (I use football as an example as its a very powerful force here). Maybe if they had a gay family member they would think more about it and come up with a position that lined up more consistently with their other ideas, yay or nay. It's easier to unthinkingly assume other people's beliefs if they are thoughtfully in agreement with them on issues they have made a priority. That does make sense.

Generally people who are pro-life are religious and think homosexuality is a sin. It basically boils down to that.

Pregnancy and childbirth carries not insignificant health risks for the mother, not to mention considerable economic expense.

Having sex is a perfectly natural and normal thing for humans to do, and though there are many safe and effective methods of birth control available not one of them is foolproof. Where abortions are illegal, women still have them and many are botched.

Personally, I believe we should keep abortion safe and legal while ensuring people have ready access to affordable birth control. I value the rights of the individual woman more than I value the rights of an as-yet unborn individual fetus that may or may not be viable. Life is hard enough without starting off as a baby born to an unwilling woman who isn't ready and willing to take on the role of mother.

But that's just me.

What has not yet been said, and needs to be expressed, is a respectful nod to Kiley's ability to arrive at independent, rational perspectives on these issues.

I have my own firmly held views on these topics, but I am also a liberal in the classical sense and would never presume that my view is the appropriate one for other people.

What I find so disturbing about many people engaged in passionate arguments on these topics is the degree to which they are prepared to impose their views upon others.

I like to think that I respect the beliefs of others, even those beliefs that I personally find silly, irrational or unreasoned, but I become very disappointed when others seem not to do the same.

Here's the thing: You need to keep on doing what you're doing and make up your OWN mind--which it seems like you're good at doing.

Something we all seem to overlook is that there really is no such thing as a real consensus. I'm a conservative Christian, pro-FAMILY, and so on. I'm active in my church, and I believe that baptism by immersion is, while not requisite for salvation, the best method of practice if one is to be obedient to Christ through the act of baptism.

My wife comes from a Methodist family (two of 'em), and I also have friends who have changed denomination by joining our church. My wife chose "believer's baptism" because she felt it was the right thing to do. Some of my other friends have very quietly refused to take part in it. It doesn't really make them less Christian, though we disagree on certain things.

I also know at least one older lesbian couple within my church. They aren't exactly "wide open" about it, but it's not like they really hide it, either. Seriously, just because I oppose homosexuality, does that mean I HAVE to preach to these women that they are wrong? Exactly how does that make me more Christ-like? I don't have to approve of it, but if they aren't likely to change anything I should at least respect them as fellow human beings. Others, though I haven't heard one word said about it, might disagree and say that I ought to be "in-your-face" about it and that the congregation shouldn't even allow them through the doors.

Politically, you do have, say, Republicans who are gay and Democrats who are anti-abortion. Within neither party is there TOTAL agreement. But they HAVE to agree with their constituents or they risk losing elections. The ability to disagree is a grand freedom, and it has made the USA quite progressive. I'd rather live here than anywhere else in the world. Considering all the foreign students who come here to study and eventually work, apparently much of the rest of the world seems to agree. There is a diversity of thought, even among conservative Christians, that ought to also be recognized.

Don't fall for the whole ALL Conservative Evangelicals do THIS or ALL liberal Democrats do THAT. It's simply not true.

My opinion is a lot of what we see is fed to us through mass commercial media. I'm sure there really is a great deal of political polarization between conservatives and liberals. But it seems all you EVER hear about is the Republicans are the "Party of 'No'" standing unified in opposition to Democratic policies. It also seems Democrats are likewise unified. If such were exactly true, you wouldn't have people like "Benedict Arlen" Spector switching sides only to have his @$$ handed to him in the primaries. Apply that across the board. Just because you are an evangelical Christian or a STRIDENT liberal, bleeding-heart, atheist femi-Nazi, baby-killing tree hugger doesn't mean you have to surrender ALL your convictions.

Make up your OWN mind, and stop worrying about who you're going to offend.

Well see Kiley, that's because you're using logic and reason to reach your conclusions.

A lot of others either don't want to think about these things and have someone else decide it for them (God? Bible or the Pundit maybe?) or think with their feelings on these things instead (Gee, Homosexuality just feels wrong to me so gay marriage should be illegal).

Logic and reason are surprisingly not that common among the general populace.