Talking Gay Marriage with Stephen Gutowski

Posted on February 22, 2012 by Sonoran Supposition

Throughout the day on February 17th, 2012, I had a Twitter conversation with Stephen Gutowski. He goes by @collegepolitico on Twitter. Our discussion started out with culture in general and switched over to gay marriage. The exchange is a bit disjointed and pretty hobbled (damn you, 140 characters!), but I think we both said what we wanted to say and ended it cordially (a rare thing on Twitter).

Here we go:

CP: The left has always been the aggresor in the culture war because they want to transform America into something it isn’t & never was

SS: @collegepolitico What aggressive culture things are we doing, in your opinion?

CP: @SSupposition mandating religious institutions pay for things they find morally objectionable would be a starting point

SS: @collegepolitico We can discuss that further if you want, but really quick… what are some other examples? I’m curious.

CP: @SSupposition The left, perhaps not every liberal but the left generally, pushes for different attitudes on religious, sex, & culture.

CP: @SSupposition Liberalism is about moving us to a very different place from where we are now as a society, no?

CP: @SSupposition gotta go now but that’s the general idea I’m talking about. Conservatives want to conserve. Liberals want to change.

SS: @collegepolitico That’s pretty vague. When do you think our culture was at a good place? The 50s? 60s? 40s?

SS: @collegepolitico Wow. That’s a really horrible world view. Change is bad? You’re really fitting into the college Republican stereotype well.

CP: @SSupposition The change liberals want is bad, yes. Conservatives want to conserve traditional American principles & values.

CP: @SSupposition Liberals want something radically different

SS: @collegepolitico Are you opposed to gay marriage?

CP: @SSupposition Yes but not for the reasons you’d probably assume

SS: @collegepolitico I don’t like assuming. Why are you opposed?

SS: @collegepolitico I’m curious as to how you feel about this article by the MRC: http://t.co/HJGs3Am7

CP: @SSupposition What about it?

SS: @collegepolitico Do agree with the premise of the article? Basically… homosexuality is bad.

CP: @SSupposition On gay marriage I believe the aspect involving gov is the tax status which is intended to encourage long term relationships

CP: @SSupposition I can see an argument for why heterosexual marriage should be encouraged by the state but not gay marriage

CP: @SSupposition That is where I personally fall on the public policy side of the issue

CP: @SSupposition The premise of the article is that attacking the bible and promoting homosexuality to teens is not appropriate

SS: @collegepolitico So, you’re opposed to homosexuality?

CP: @SSupposition on what level?

SS: @collegepolitico Well… how do you feel about homosexuality? Do you think people are born gay? Why should kids be protected from it?

CP: @SSupposition Be very specific in what you’re asking me please…

CP: @SSupposition I honestly don’t really want to dive deep into my personal opinions on homosexuality in ways that don’t relate to policy

CP: @SSupposition I would say that all people are sinners and all people are loved by God

SS: @collegepolitico Oh. You’re Christian. Didn’t know that. So do you think being gay is morally wrong?

CP: @SSupposition I would say that the way Glee attacks the bible in order to promote their view of homosexuality is what is wrong there

CP: @SSupposition I am Christian but what you’re asking about is a personal view that doesn’t deal with public policy

CP: @SSupposition So I’d prefer not to get into it on a public forum like twitter, ya know?

SS: @collegepolitico I’m sorry, man, but that’s pretty weak. Are you afraid to say that you think being gay is morally wrong?

CP: @SSupposition How about it’s none of your business. Why are you prying? Why do you care so much where I personally stand of sexual morality?

SS: @collegepolitico Cuz it’s who you are and it does guide your public policy decisions. Should Obama not be asked about his personal beliefs?

SS: @collegepolitico Also, homosexuality is not just sexual. It’s also about love. It’s a way of life.

CP: @SSupposition I told you why I oppose gay marriage as public policy. The conversation is over.

At this point, I was pretty disappointed, but I didn’t want to let it go. So, I backed off his personal views of homosexuality and questioned his (in my opinion) bizarre reasoning for being opposed to gay marriage.

SS: @collegepolitico Still don’t get your reasoning: “intended to encourage long term relationships”. Gays don’t have long term relationships?

CP: @SSupposition what interest does the state have in encouraging long term gay relationships? I don’t see one.

SS: @collegepolitico The same as straight couples. Gay couples can have kids and buy houses… what’s the difference?

CP: @SSupposition gay couples can’t procreate…

SS: @collegepolitico What’s the difference between procreation and adopting or using a surrogate?

CP: @SSupposition the only reasoning I see for gov to be in marriage is to encourage the best possible environment for raising kids

SS: @collegepolitico Ah. And now you’re saying that being raised by a gay couple is worse than being raised by a straight couple?

CP: @SSupposition so that the kids can grow up stable and become productive members of society to perpetuate the state’s existence

Obviously, pretty pissed off at this point.

SS: @collegepolitico Gay parents = unstable, unproductive kids?

CP: @SSupposition I’m saying that having a male & female influence is best for the child. Having that be their birth parents is ideal.

CP: @SSupposition not necessarily but the ideal is a home with both biological parents, no?

SS: @collegepolitico Nope. My wife used to work for CPS. I promise you that is not the case.

CP: @SSupposition That is the ideal situation. The marriage policy deals with trying to encourage the ideal on a broad scale.

CP: @SSupposition it isn’t about whether it works perfectly in all situations but what is the general ideal

SS: @collegepolitico That sounds a lot like social engineering. I’m curious though… what harm would come of making gay marriage legal?

CP: @SSupposition it’s a form of social engineering but at least there is a viable state interest involved. I dont see the same for gay marriage

SS: @collegepolitico Viable state interest in low income families not having 10 kids. Costs taxpayers a lot! Why not make that illegal?

CP: @SSupposition personally I don’t support it because I don’t see a state interest in tax breaks that encourage long term gay relationships

CP: @SSupposition that’s a different issue involving the welfare state

CP: @SSupposition Anyway I think you’ve got a pretty clear idea of where I personally stand on public policy aspect of this.

CP: @SSupposition Clearly you don’t agree but this has been a good conversation

SS: @collegepolitico I do disagree with your reasoning, but I appreciate your high level of discourse. I’ll stop pestering you… for now!

CP: @SSupposition lol

Here’s my take on this. He obviously thinks that kids raised by gay couples are worse off than kids raised by straight couples. The only reason that is even slightly true is because of bigotry towards gay couples. The worst part about being raised by two men or two women is the attacks on them by intolerant bigots. If that ended, there would be zero difference. His convoluted reasoning for his personal opposition to gay marriage is not something I have ever heard before which leads me to believe it is just his way of opposing marriage equality on religious grounds, but not having to say that directly. I find it quite weak that he can’t just come out and say that he thinks being gay is wrong and that gay couples do not deserve the same rights as straight couples because of his own personal religious beliefs.

He said “Conservatives want to conserve traditional American principles & values.” What does that even mean? Traditional at what time? Before the Civil War when slavery was legal. Or maybe when women couldn’t vote. Was that traditional? Or how about when black people only counted as three fifths of a person? That was in the freaking constitution, for Pete’s sake, but we changed that. What Stephen doesn’t want to accept is that he is on the wrong side of history. Gay marriage is coming. Change is coming, and it’s a good thing! Gay marriage will be legal and the United State of America will look back at this sad time and hang its head the same way it does when it looks back at the 50s and and its many “whites only” signs and institutional segregation.

Why I Have Not Posted Recently

Posted on November 28, 2011 by Sonoran Supposition

Hello, again. I’ve been gone for a while, and I will continue to be gone for an even longer while, but I thought I’d post a quick update.

I am not done with politics. I’m just sick of them. I’m taking a break.

Here’s just one reason why I can’t stand the current state of affairs.

In case you’ve been living under a rock and you’re not sure what’s so very wrong about that ad, I’ll let PolitiFact explain it to you:

We certainly think it’s fair for Romney to attack Obama for his response to the economy. And the Romney camp can argue that Obama’s situation in 2011 is ironic considering the comments he made in 2008. But those points could have been made without distorting Obama’s words, which have been taken out of context in a ridiculously misleading way. We rate the Romney ad’s portrayal of Obama’s 2008 comments Pants on Fire.

So yeah. A dishonest lie. There is NO disputing that. It’s immoral and, frankly, un-American. I hate that phrase, but isn’t America supposed to stand for honest, courage, morality, etc? This ad betrays all of those important ideals. That being said… how did Mitt Romney’s campaign respond when asked about the ad? Slate has the answer:

“We want to engage the president,” explained Romney spokesman Eric Fehrnstrom in the spin room. “We look at him as our rival. It’s all deliberate; it was all very intentional.”

Romney adviser Ron Kaufman, an RNC committee member and longtime operative, simply said that the ad “worked.”

Fuck that. I’m out. These people are evil and not worth my time.

Two More Examples of Childish Behavior on Display at Fox Nation

Posted on September 22, 2011 by Sonoran Supposition

I don’t think that any rational person would dispute the fact that Fox Nation is a right-wing, conservative news website just like The Huffington Post is a left-wing, liberal news website. There are both liberal news websites and there are conservative news websites. Whatever. It’s a good thing. What’s not good is when these websites cross the line into that horrible blind, passionate partisanship that always leads to irrational, untrue, and unhelpful nonsense. What kind of nonsense? This kind of nonsense:

1a. “Peace is Hard”

Take a quick look at the Fox Nation page below…

No, there was nothing wrong with my browser… that’s the entire “article”. Yikes. How can there be so much wrong with so little. Right off the bat… mocking the president? Classy, Fox. Real classy. What were they mocking him about? A cherry-picked, three word sentence that actually makes a whole lot of sense and actually is deep in its original context. But no… anything is okay for an idiotic cheap shot at Barack Obama. I wouldn’t be as upset if they actually linked to the text of his speech or even wrote a little defense below on why his sentiments on the middle east weren’t actually deep. But no… that would be too intelligent and reasonable for Fox Nation.

1b. Attack of the Living Commenters!

Speaking of intelligent and reasonable, let’s have a look at some of my absolute favorite comments from this article:

Same clown; same teleprompters; same BS; same lies; same stupidity; same incompetence; Now the media is telling us he is deep! Bias media BS

“Peace is hard…lying is easy”…to paraphrase the ‘turd’ in our White House!

‘Peace is hard but forging a 1961 Hawaii birth certificate is harder still’ – Barack Obama, aka Barry Soetoro

Obama is hard …. when Ahmadinejad walks into the room.

He should have said Right is Wrong and Up is Down too, because that’s how this P O S sees the world.

I think Barack keeps a couple cupcakes in his pocket to keep Moochelle happy and well trained…I have heard it’s very difficult to keep a Sasquatch in captivity…It’s most likely his only achievement..

When has Obama ever been Presidential or Statesmen Like. Answer is Never

I would never say that all Fox Nation readers are dumb, but these people sure are. Honestly though, I bet the kind of people that think like this are a small percentage of Fox Nation’s readership. I’m not one to demonize an entire group of people like many of my fellow liberals, but I do believe there is a frightening contingent of unstable zealots who are targeted by posts like this.

2a. “Anti-Capitalist Loon”

Our next example of absolute partisanship is presented below:

Don’t you just get a schoolyard-bully feel from that headline? I mean… loon? Really? Is Fox Nation a respectable news and opinion site or just a goofy tabloid rag? Because, based on that horribly biased headline, I would say it’s the latter. I mean… even The Blaze released the story in a relatively objective matter. That’s right… Glenn Beck’s own website looks completely rational when compared to Fox Nation. Here’s the headline at The Blaze: DID THE NYPD ROUGH UP ‘DAYS OF RAGE’ WALL STREET PROTESTORS? HERE’S THE VIDEO. When you compare the two, there’s no contest.

2b. Yay for Police Brutality!

Again… sit back, relax, and enjoy the madness of the comments section:

Too bad he wasn’t being tossed around on the 50th floor of one of the buildings. I’m sure one of the cops must have butter fingers.

The cops should have just tazed the guy. You never know what kinds of diseases dirty libturds carry.

More peaceful libs.. just like Loughner

the cops should of put a few boots up his a. s. s. but being a liberal,he`d probably enjoy it.

The Democraps forcing banks to make loans to poor and minorities who had no intention of paying it back caused the meltdown.

Professional welfare recipients at their worst. They contribute nothing, are worth nothing, represent nothing. They deserve whatever the police see fit to do.

I hope they didn’t drop him on his head – might have done permanent damage – on second tought probably wouldn’t be able to tell the difference – still be a ‘commie idiot’.

Here’s my opinion on that video. Both sides did things wrong. The cops were too violent and not clear enough with what they were doing and why they were doing it while the protesters were breaking the law by constructing those tarp structures.

3. In my humble opinion…

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again… I’m not looking for Fox News, Fox Nation, the Drudge Report, or whatever to stop being conservative… I’m looking for them to stop being irrationally partisan. Of course, we’re all human. I say things that are stupid because I do get caught up in my emotions a bit too much when discussing issues I’m passionate about. But the difference is, when I look back at what I’ve said or written, I will correct it and learn from it. It doesn’t appear that these bozos are doing this. All they care about is keeping their readership ignorant and frothing at the mouth for the end of “socialism” and Obama. It’s sad. Treat your readers with more respect. They do deserve it. I may not always agree with their ideals, but I do believe that every person deserves respect and to be treated like an adult.

Republican Debate Crowd Cheers for Death Once Again

Posted on September 15, 2011 by Sonoran Supposition

By now, I’m sure you’ve seen the video of the audience at the CNN Tea Party / Republican debate cheering for the death of a hypothetical, uninsured sick man. For those of you who haven’t, here it is (unedited, of course):

Of course, not everyone found their reaction as ghoulish as I did:

Uncouth? Give me a break. Cheering for death is not uncouth. It is evil and morally wrong. It is also anti-human and anti-life. Dan… I don’t care how much those people in the audience donated to charity, if they are able to cheer for death, they are monsters. Period.

I’m fairly certain that I’m not in the minority when I say that watching that clip makes me sick to my stomach. And, for me, it’s not just the bloodthirsty audience. Ron Paul’s response was absolutely terrifying. What he said was heartless, selfish, irrational, and unrealistic. The United States of America is the ONLY developed nation that does not have universal healthcare. Not only does it make sense morally to implement universal healthcare, it also makes sense fiscally to implement it as well. Just look at the difference in per capita spending on healthcare between America and any other developed nation (who all happen to have universal healthcare).

This is why I stopped being a libertarian. This is why I stopped believing in Austrian, laissez-faire economic policies. They are unrealistic and immoral. No, Ron Paul, churches and charities can not and should not have to take care of people’s health. That should be the job of the government as it can do it more efficiently and humanely than the current system, the not-very-clear system Republicans are pushing for, or your backwards system. The thing is, Austrian economics sound great on paper or in all of those free market best sellers, but they don’t actually align with reality. All people make bad decisions. Your models are based on assumptions about society that are completely and utterly untrue. If all the people in the world acted like those Objectivist business-people in Ayn Rand’s Galt’s Gulch, then you’d have a damn good point. The thing is, very few people actually act that way. And most of them are sociopaths! I think Ezra Klein sums up my feelings pretty well in his post, Why Libertarianism Fails in Health Care:

“We are a decent society, and we do not want to look in people’s pockets for an insurance card when they fall to the floor with chest pains. If we’re not going to look in their pockets, however, we need some answer for who pays when they wake up — or, God forbid, after they stop breathing — in the hospital. And though it sounds nice to say that charities will pick up the slack, any hospital system in America will tell you that even with Medicare and Medicaid assuming much of the burden for the most intractable and expensive cases, charities are not capable of or interested in fully compensating the medical system for the services needed by the un- or underinsured.”

America… let’s take a step out of the dark ages and into the age of enlightenment. We need universal healthcare. Obamacare is not enough. It’s a start, but it’s nowhere near as life changing as anything in Europe. Progressives, we are the true defenders of life. We can do this. We were close until the Tea Party showed up. They rose to prominence because there was a power void in the political arena due to our complacency. Obama won and we got lazy. We’re the ones defending human rights. We’re defending those who need help. They are defending millionaires. Our passion should crush that of the Tea Party. We can bring about true equality. True human decency. We can fight the selfish ways of the right. If we don’t, the lower rungs of our great society will continue to be ignored and crushed even further down. Let’s not let that happen.

This is Why All Progressives Should Ignore @Shoq on Twitter

Posted on September 10, 2011 by Sonoran Supposition

I unfollowed Twitter user @Shoq just a few days after I started following him. Why? Well… this reprehensible Tweet should give you a pretty damn good idea:

This is not liberal or progressive or even rational. It’s immoral, disgusting, vile, and irrational. Not to mention just plain mean. Many people think that this man (?) represents the left. Well… he doesn’t represent me. Come on, liberals… why haven’t we all denounced this unstable fool? He’s doing nothing but hurting us… making us look ridiculous. He gives conservatives ammunition to use against us every single day. He needs to be ostracized for the good of our honorable movement. Please.

Jim Hoft Proud of Debate Crowd Cheering the Death Penalty

Posted on September 8, 2011 by Sonoran Supposition

During last night’s GOP debate at the Reagan Library, a question about the death penalty prompted a response by the audience that, literally, shook me to my core (I normally hate that phrase, but it truly is applicable in this instance). The moderator brought it up when questioning Rick Perry about the record number of executions that have taken place since he became the governor of Texas. Have a look:

Being in favor of the death penalty is not something I would attack someone for as I’ve not fully formed my opinion on that particular issue as of yet, but cheering for death is beyond repulsive. It’s bloodlust, pure and simple. Disgusting. I never thought something like that could be possible. Someone actually whistled! As if killing is somehow equivalent to a touchdown or something. Check out the Tweet Jim Hoft sent out shortly after the debate:

Look. Even if you are 100% in favor of the death penalty, having someone killed should not be something worth cheering over. It is a somber event. If your reason for favoring capital punishment is pure bloodlust, your might want to have a long hard look at your morals. Disheartening is a word I’ve used a lot lately, but this embodies the word much more than anything else I’ve seen recently.