Five Ft. Three

“A society that puts equality before freedom will get neither. A society that puts freedom before equality will get a high degree of both.” ― Milton Friedman

Should social issues be a part of the presidential election discussions?

on February 10, 2012

Not surprisingly, I say they should. I know some think that social issues should not be a factor in deciding who is president, I do.

For one thing, this election has already been going on, what? Twenty months? Okay, I exaggerate, but it seems like it has been going on forever! There have been literally dozens of debates, too. So in all that time, you don’t think there is time to discuss the candidates’ thoughts on social issues? You betcha there has been more than enough time to discuss social issues as well as economic, domestic and foreign relations issues, and then some!

We are becoming a more social society, just look at how social media has changed our lives and how we connect! Social issues define what kind of society we want to live in.

Personally, I know if someone calls themselves “pro-choice” (which I consider pro-abortion) then I don’t think very highly of them. For others, I would guess they feel exactly the opposite on that, but I cannot for the life of me understand how my fighting for the unborn makes me a bad person. (like, hey I don’t want mothers to be allowed to chop up their own kids, oh what an evil thing to say!)

But there are other social issues, such as gay marriage, and how come only straights get the benefits of marriage? Well first of all, if the “benefits” of marriage are why you want to be together, that isn’t much of a marriage to begin with, but I digress. Why were benefits given to married people in the first place? They were designed to benefit the families that come from married folks, and we all know that two people of the same gender cannot have a child together.

Can gay people be together without marriage? Of course they can, that is not for me or anyone else to say what they can and cannot do. But to give them the status of marriage, which is where families come and society continues, is ridiculous.

Social issues do define us, I believe, and they also show how we feel about them within the context of our Constitution. Therefore, I feel strongly that they should be a part of our election process.

37 responses to “Should social issues be a part of the presidential election discussions?

  1. soapster says:

    ‘When fascism comes to this country, it will be wrapped in the flag carrying a cross.’ – Sinclair Lewis

  2. BB-Idaho says:

    A good thoughtful post. Social issues are important to us all.As you note, they should be PARTof our consideration; when they become the sole, or overridingissue, it is problematic.

  3. So extrapolating from this, I could safely assume that you believe that straight couples who for whatever reason cannot have children also should not be allowed to marry, since marriage and the benefits associated are for those who can have children.Of course, couples, both straight and gay, are free to adopt, so I'm not sure how that all fits in.Maybe you could explain in greater detail.

  4. Beth says:

    Ironically on Friday's radio program, Glenn Beck said we shouldn't make this election all about social issues when there are other issues such as the economy that we need to focus on, but my feelings echo BB's here that social issues shouldn't be the only factor we look at, but I do feel that it is an important factor to consider.

  5. Beth says:

    Saty, couples without children don't need the same benefits as those with children, so what is your point?

  6. Beth says:

    Soapie, you've lost me.

  7. The point is that if straight couples who cannot for biological reasons have children are allowed to marry, why can't gay couples who cannot for biological reasons also be allowed to marry?That's my point.

  8. Beth says:

    My point is that childless couples are not in need of the same benefits that families with children do, ask Soapie why he isn't married to his live-in girlfriend.

  9. Your point was that since gay couples can't have children, they shouldn't get married.Therefore using that logic, straight couples who can't have children shouldn't get married.Childless couples don't get the same benefits as those with children. So why shouldn't gay folks get married? If they don't adopt children they won't get all these benefits, will they? They'll be on the same level as every other married couple without children.My husband and I have been married twenty years this year and the only child we have is a four-legged pit/chow rescue named Bree, currently fourteen years old and getting mighty deaf. We have never gotten any of these benefits you talk about, because we have no children.I fail to see how it would be different for a gay couple to be married.

  10. But to give them the status of marriage, which is where families come and society continues, is ridiculous.This is what you posted regarding gay marriage.I continue to fail to see how, according to the logic above, you can say that straight childless couples can be given 'the status of marriage' when gay childless couples can't.

  11. Beth says:

    You yourself said you don't need the benefits that married with children do, so then gays also do not need them either, thank you for proving my point.

  12. soapster says:

    Sometimes people can't seem to see the forest for the trees. Less Glenn Beck is in store.

  13. soapster says:

    Benefits for some at the expense of another. What sort of immoral individual would advocate for such a thing? Soapster isn't married because he doesn't need a sanction and blessing from the state. The state would like very much for Soapster to be married and file jointly. The state can get bent.

  14. Beth says:

    So if filing jointly is not a good thing, then why are gays wanting so badly to have that option? I thought there were all these benefits we get that gays who cannot marry get?!?

  15. Beth for Chrissake, what is the DIFFERENCE between a straight childless couple being married and a GAY childless couple being married???!NOTHING!You just have an issue with gay people getting married.Why not just admit it instead of all this silliness?

  16. Beth says:

    If my explanations do not make sense to you, then I cannot help you.

  17. soapster says:

    ^^Copout answer.Admit it Beth. You want government to impose you morality; a morality which holds that only heterosexual men and women should be permitted by the state to enter into marriage.

  18. soapster says:

    "So if filing jointly is not a good thing, then why are gays wanting so badly to have that option?"I don't see them desiring so much the ability to file their tax returns jointly in so much as I see them wanting equal rights.

  19. Beth says:

    Honestly, I am spending way too much time on gay marriage because all things considered, it is between two consenting adults, unlike abortion which is one person taking the life of another, so it isn't that big a priority to me.

  20. Beth says:

    Benefits for some at the expense of another. What sort of immoral individual would advocate for such a thing?btw, Soapie, do you own your home? If you do, on principle, do you not take the deduction for mortgage interest and real estate taxes paid, because you consider it immortal for a homeowner to get that benefit while renters do not?

  21. soapster says:

    I have long advocated for eliminating the ability for one to deduct their mortgage interest.Regardless however, I don't think your analogy is a very good one.Any renter who becomes a homeowner is eligible for said deductions.Homeownership is not discriminatory. Anyone can become a homeowner provided they have the financial means to acquire a mortgage.Marriage on the other hand is discriminatory and so are the tax and financial benefits ascribed therein.

  22. Beth says:

    I figured you did take the deduction, why practice what you preach! But you forget that a gay man is allowed to marry a woman if he chooses, and vice versatile for a lesbian.

  23. Beth, You said referring to gay couples: But to give them the status of marriage, which is where families come and society continues, is ridiculous.Your argument for this is that gay couples can't (biologically at least) produce children.When confronted with the fact that many straight married couples also cannot biologically produce children (hence nullifying your 'can't produce children' argument), you turn it into some kind of benefits thing.Plain and simple, Beth, you don't want gay people to get married because it somehow interferes or imposes on your personal belief system, and therefore you want to get laws to back up your personal belief system and comfort zone, in which gay people stay securely in the 'OTHER' category.Let's think about this rationally. What possibly could be the outcome of gay marriage?-lots of money being spent on the wedding and honeymoon/tourism sector-lots of money being spent on seriously great looking home decor-homeowners with impeccable front yards and squeaky clean cars-happy, loving couples being treated equally and fairlyTwo of the doctors I work with are lesbians who are married to their respective spouses. So far I haven't felt that my marriage, my value system, my nursing practice or any other facet of my life has been adversely affected by these two marriages. One of the couples has an adopted daughter, who is getting ready to start premed on a full scholarship.The world hasn't imploded, no buildings have collapsed and Satan hasn't manifested in the middle of the nurses station.You basically have no rational argument here, Beth. All this business of biologically producing children was a bad choice of argument, because if you followed that (il)logic then the next premise would be that straight childless couples shouldn't be given 'the status of marriage' either.Best to just be honest about it, and say that you have personal issues with gay folks getting married. Don't try to turn it into something it's not, because it was far too easy to blow holes in it and reveal it for what it is: bigotry and bullshit with a big pretty moralistic bow on it.

  24. soapster says:

    Returning more of my money to me is not a subsidy Beth. Having a childless straight or gay couple pay property taxes and the like to subsidize the education of your children is quite a different matter.

  25. Beth says:

    Seriously, Saty, did you see where I said I really don't care about gay marriage, I just like getting you all worked up, so thanks for indulging me!

  26. Beth says:

    Soapie, then rent if you don't like it!

  27. soapster says:

    That's a hell of an arguement and a poor one at that. The building owner still pays property taxes that are undoubtedly rolled into the cost of the rent I'd pay.

  28. Beth says:

    Your opinion, I think you are a hypocrite though.

  29. We have a mortgage on the lil ol farmhouse (and the surrounding acreage) and I can assure you that we deduct the interest.We also pay property taxes, some of the highest gasoline taxes in the nation and a new tax increase to pay for education.And as far as writing about gay marriage just to get me worked up, it was you who devoted two entire paragraphs of your 'social issues' thing, and you who still can't admit that your viewpoint on it has no logic whatsoever.

  30. Beth says:

    Well we paid off our mortgage so it's not fair that I can't deduct it anymore, waaaaa!Keep on getting your pantries in knots, Saty, it's like icing on the cake that you go on and on about it, lol.

  31. I'd have SO much more respect for you if you could just admit when your argument gets blown to bits.But instead you do all this and just make yourself look worse.Anyway, I thought you were done fighting for the unborn because they were better off not being born anyway.Another flip flop?

  32. Beth says:

    I knew you'd throw sprinkles on top of the icing, want to add a cherry, too, please?

  33. soapster says:

    This cat fight needs plows and lingerie.

  34. Beth says:

    Sorry, Soapie, you'll have to get your jollies elsewhere.

  35. Plows would have been funnier.I could kick some serious ass with a Massey Ferguson and a 10 foot disker.

Thanks for joining in on the discussion!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s