4 ms·

There's too much grey to make this black and white. What would you say to a closeted gay politician pushing anti-gay legislation? Would you not consider that pe

by rewind 16y ago

There's too much grey to make this black and white. What would you say to a closeted gay politician pushing anti-gay legislation? Would you not consider that person a fraud, just like someone saying their research is based on the universe being 13 billion years old when they don't really believe that?

endtime 16y ago
Honestly, I don't think the politician's sexuality, open or not, really matters there. Either the legislation is good or (in this case) it isn't.
- JabavuAdams 16y ago
  It is relevant because it speaks to their honesty and tolerance for hypocrisy. If I'm a person who habitually does certain things, but I publicly advocate denying those activities to others, that's very significant information.
kldavis4 16y ago
If that politician is truly representing his constituency, then he is not a fraud and is doing what he is paid to do.
- jbooth 16y ago
  Politicians are supposed to lead, not follow.
- JabavuAdams 16y ago
  So, because he does what he's told, that makes it alright? He has a choice not to represent that constituency. Let's take a different example. Suppose an American is being paid to do something that is actively bad for other Americans. Does "doing what you're paid to do" make it all right? There are no other considerations?
  - mseebach 16y ago
    Presumably he's not doing "what he's told", he's doing what he thinks is the right thing. Anyone pushing a policy they actually oppose is a fraud, gay or not.
yummyfajitas 16y ago
Why would that person be a fraud? He might honestly believe homosexuality is wrong, but simply be unwilling to control his urges. For a non-moralistic example of this behavior, consider a fat person who wishes to lose weight for the selfish purpose of attracting sexual partners, but is unwilling to put down the bacon. Is this person a fraud when they say people should lose weight?
- JacobAldridge 16y ago
  Great example, from a user named yummyfajitas
JabavuAdams 16y ago
Yes, of course.
nika 16y ago
I'm gay. If I were a politician, I would oppose laws (actually like Dawkins does here) that ban discrimination based on sexual orientation (as well as religion.) Would my thinking be suspect? Does that mean that I think that gay people shouldn't be hired or be able to get housing? From the common / popular "pro-gay" view my positions would be characterized as "anti-gay" and I would risk being demonized by GLAAD, etc. The problem here is that these terms "pro-gay" and "anti-gay" etc, are completely political and ignore all possibility of nuance. Let me put it another way. I think a gay person should be allowed to choose not to rent out a room in their house to a mormon who, when he came to see the room, went on and on about how evil gay people are. Clearly, this gay person is choosing to discriminate based on religion. Clearly, also, being forced to rent a room to someone you are not going to get along with is a recipe for trouble. But, specifically, it is a violation of your property rights in the room you're renting out, just as forcing you to rent it out, or preventing you from renting it to anybody, or dictating the price at which you can rent it is a violation of your right to use this property as you see fit. Further, freedom of association is the freedom to associate with whom you like and also not associate with people you don't get along with. Discriminating against people (based on sexuality or beliefs) is a bad idea when you're hiring because you'll exclude people who would be productive in preference to people who might be less productive. But discrimination is intrinsic in both property rights and freedom of association. (And freedom of association is simply another way of saying property rights in your own body.) So, while GLAAD and other political groups would call me an anti-gay politician in this hypothetical, would you really call me a fraud? I think in the end I'm agreeing with you that it is not black and white, you just hit on the political angle that I can speak directly to. I've been called "anti-gay" because I don't support "pro-gay" legislation, even though my position is based in a (stronger than my opponents, I believe) belief in human rights.
- ekanes 16y ago
  > Clearly, this gay person is choosing to discriminate based on religion. Not really. It's a subtle difference, but it's more like discriminating against someone for being a jerk. Or perhaps insensitive. a) If the person wasn't religious but said the same thing, one might discriminate the same way. (Therefore showing it wasn't because of religion) b) Alternatively, if someone was religious, but wasn't judgmental, presumably you wouldn't have a problem with them.

by rewind 16y ago

endtime 16y ago

Honestly, I don't think the politician's sexuality, open or not, really matters there. Either the legislation is good or (in this case) it isn't.

JabavuAdams 16y ago
It is relevant because it speaks to their honesty and tolerance for hypocrisy. If I'm a person who habitually does certain things, but I publicly advocate denying those activities to others, that's very significant information.

kldavis4 16y ago

If that politician is truly representing his constituency, then he is not a fraud and is doing what he is paid to do.

jbooth 16y ago
Politicians are supposed to lead, not follow.
JabavuAdams 16y ago
So, because he does what he's told, that makes it alright? He has a choice not to represent that constituency. Let's take a different example. Suppose an American is being paid to do something that is actively bad for other Americans. Does "doing what you're paid to do" make it all right? There are no other considerations?
- mseebach 16y ago
  Presumably he's not doing "what he's told", he's doing what he thinks is the right thing. Anyone pushing a policy they actually oppose is a fraud, gay or not.

yummyfajitas 16y ago

Why would that person be a fraud? He might honestly believe homosexuality is wrong, but simply be unwilling to control his urges. For a non-moralistic example of this behavior, consider a fat person who wishes to lose weight for the selfish purpose of attracting sexual partners, but is unwilling to put down the bacon. Is this person a fraud when they say people should lose weight?

JacobAldridge 16y ago
Great example, from a user named yummyfajitas

JabavuAdams 16y ago

Yes, of course.

nika 16y ago

I'm gay. If I were a politician, I would oppose laws (actually like Dawkins does here) that ban discrimination based on sexual orientation (as well as religion.) Would my thinking be suspect? Does that mean that I think that gay people shouldn't be hired or be able to get housing? From the common / popular "pro-gay" view my positions would be characterized as "anti-gay" and I would risk being demonized by GLAAD, etc. The problem here is that these terms "pro-gay" and "anti-gay" etc, are completely political and ignore all possibility of nuance. Let me put it another way. I think a gay person should be allowed to choose not to rent out a room in their house to a mormon who, when he came to see the room, went on and on about how evil gay people are. Clearly, this gay person is choosing to discriminate based on religion. Clearly, also, being forced to rent a room to someone you are not going to get along with is a recipe for trouble. But, specifically, it is a violation of your property rights in the room you're renting out, just as forcing you to rent it out, or preventing you from renting it to anybody, or dictating the price at which you can rent it is a violation of your right to use this property as you see fit. Further, freedom of association is the freedom to associate with whom you like and also not associate with people you don't get along with. Discriminating against people (based on sexuality or beliefs) is a bad idea when you're hiring because you'll exclude people who would be productive in preference to people who might be less productive. But discrimination is intrinsic in both property rights and freedom of association. (And freedom of association is simply another way of saying property rights in your own body.) So, while GLAAD and other political groups would call me an anti-gay politician in this hypothetical, would you really call me a fraud? I think in the end I'm agreeing with you that it is not black and white, you just hit on the political angle that I can speak directly to. I've been called "anti-gay" because I don't support "pro-gay" legislation, even though my position is based in a (stronger than my opponents, I believe) belief in human rights.

ekanes 16y ago
> Clearly, this gay person is choosing to discriminate based on religion. Not really. It's a subtle difference, but it's more like discriminating against someone for being a jerk. Or perhaps insensitive. a) If the person wasn't religious but said the same thing, one might discriminate the same way. (Therefore showing it wasn't because of religion) b) Alternatively, if someone was religious, but wasn't judgmental, presumably you wouldn't have a problem with them.