Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Gay rights activists track 'extremist' bus tour against Iowa j

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

I just thought all of my lovely fellow Objectivists would like to see another splendid showcase of the latest in Republican barbarianism that is taking place in the Iowa, the state I currently reside in. This is in my University newspaper:

http://iowastatedaily.com/news/article_637add86-e07e-11df-9f47-001cc4c002e0.html

:dough:

for more background:

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20090403/NEWS/90403010/Unanimous-ruling-Iowa-marriage-no-longer-limited-to-one-man-one-woman

Edited by CapitalistSwine
Link to post
Share on other sites

Judicial activism seems to be a complaint, generally, made by people who oppose the particular ruling in question. Even if the judge in question was actually picked by someone who shares their ideology.

I bet there would not be such a shit-storm if a judicial activist ruled that kids should be allowed to pray in school (which, apparently, according to conservatives, isn't happening). They have no argument: that's why the resort to "Oh, the process was wrong" "Oh, the ruling was opinionated". "Oh, the judge was an activist".

When the rule of law is on your side, use the rule of law. When common sensibilities are on your side, appeal to the majority. This is a policy that people of all political ideologies have taken to heart

Link to post
Share on other sites

While obviously acting on principles is ideal I can see where many people who are against "progressivism" in general would start to swing more anti "gay rights".

With all the fear of Obamacare costs to business I can see why anyone who is pro business would be against gay marriage or even civil unions for that matter.

Say I have a gay employee.. soon I may be forced to buy them health insurance.

Well... I can calculate that cost. I can work it into my business plan.

Add marriage and civil unions to the mix.

That gay employee gets hitched. Ok.. I'm providing for two.

But wait! Under the new healthcare people are now "children" until they are 26 and must be provided with insurance until they are 26.

Lets say gay employee marries someone who has 3 children ages 4, 9 and 12.

For a smaller business or a low margin business we're talking going out of business here.

With teenage pregnancy in the mix what if the 12 year old has a kid in 3 years I have to buy insurance for?

Business owners really no longer have any way of calculating their costs in this.

Now, the argument may go that you'd have to provide the same for straight employees and you'd be correct. But staring down the barrel of all these costs I can see the logic in trying to find any reason to exclude any one you can.

While I have always been generally inclined to resent people who are against equal treatment for gays I have to see this issue from the other side.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you would have more of a point if the anti-(gay) rights people were making these arguments. But this is never what I hear them railing about. It's always about religion and "protecting the cheeldren" from those horrible queers.

You do make an excellent point generally about the shitty situation that all small businesses find themselves in and how government policies actually end up promoting discrimination based on nonessential characteristics. I also think this points to a problem with policies regarding marriage generally. Why should a husband or wife automatically be along for the ride on their spouse's benefits, especially in an age where more often than not both spouses work? It's one thing if the employee were paying for their own insurance, etc. but as you pointed out, they aren't.

While obviously acting on principles is ideal I can see where many people who are against "progressivism" in general would start to swing more anti "gay rights".

With all the fear of Obamacare costs to business I can see why anyone who is pro business would be against gay marriage or even civil unions for that matter.

Say I have a gay employee.. soon I may be forced to buy them health insurance.

Well... I can calculate that cost. I can work it into my business plan.

Add marriage and civil unions to the mix.

That gay employee gets hitched. Ok.. I'm providing for two.

But wait! Under the new healthcare people are now "children" until they are 26 and must be provided with insurance until they are 26.

Lets say gay employee marries someone who has 3 children ages 4, 9 and 12.

For a smaller business or a low margin business we're talking going out of business here.

With teenage pregnancy in the mix what if the 12 year old has a kid in 3 years I have to buy insurance for?

Business owners really no longer have any way of calculating their costs in this.

Now, the argument may go that you'd have to provide the same for straight employees and you'd be correct. But staring down the barrel of all these costs I can see the logic in trying to find any reason to exclude any one you can.

While I have always been generally inclined to resent people who are against equal treatment for gays I have to see this issue from the other side.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you would have more of a point if the anti-(gay) rights people were making these arguments. But this is never what I hear them railing about. It's always about religion and "protecting the cheeldren" from those horrible queers.

Louis CK sums up the conservative argument pretty damn well here:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Louis CK sums up the conservative argument pretty damn well here:

Oh come on now.

Most of my friends are conservatives and they could care less if someone is gay.

We all know that in any ideological battle it is the nutjobs that get the most attention.

But don't blame it all on conservatives or Republicans- there is a very large bloc of voters that are just as anti gay that are primarily Democrats- many of them Christian latinos and blacks.

I'm not claiming there isn't a large and vocal group that claims gays shouldn't have rights because it makes baby Jebus cry. Being gay I'm all too aware that there is a lot of that in play.

What I am saying is that this is the way people are manipulated into moral dilemmas they shouldn't have to face. My friends that are "pro-gay" for whatever that means are voting for anti-gay candidates because the anti gay candidates are (relatively) more pro-business.

If Obamacare stands and Democrats continue to hold large majorities I will with great regret be voting against gay marriage and civil unions if/when they come up in votes. And I resent the hell out of that.

The American voters have been put in the disgusting position of choosing between rights. If you pick on you lose the other.

I've been voting for a lot of anti-gay candidates of late and my wife is furious with me.

All I can do is point out to her that if there's no property rights inheritance rights are a moot point anyway.

That is at least my take as a gay business owner, I wish I could see it some other way.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh come on now.

Most of my friends are conservatives and they could care less if someone is gay.

The conservative argument against gay marriage. I agree that most conservatives aren't really bothered by gays, so this is only a parody of the vocal minority.

And yelling queer in a Boston accent is just funny, for some reason.

Edited by Jake_Ellison
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...