So I was reading some comments on rotten tomatoes and I came accross somebody claiming that OSC donates money to these organizations in Africa who are responsible for killing gay people. I've looked and looked but I can't find ANY information from ANY reputable sources to confirm this---just more comments on message boards. Does anyone actually know if this is even true? If so, what's the full story? I seriously doubt that OSC would knowingly give money to a group that was killing people, but I guess stranger things have happened.
Posted by Heisenberg (Member # 13004) on :
I'm not a big OSC fan but I have seriously big doubts about this.
He's hyper religious and while part of his religious view might be that gays need to be shoved in the closet and gagged, there's also a pretty big thing in his religion about not killing people. And while christians throughout the ages have thrown that out the window whenever they felt like it, he lives in a modern civilized country and he's never shown a propensity to get out his gay hunting shotgun. So I'm definitely going to give him the benefit of the doubt on this one.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
I don't think it's true. A few american activists spoke in Uganda and may have influenced the legislation there that included the death penalty for gays, but they've said they didn't want it to be so "harsh", I believe. OSC had nothing to do with those guys, except for being on the same side of the SSM issue.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
If Mr. Card was donating to such a group there's a very good chance he would not be able to remain a member in good standing of the LDS church.
The LDS church certainly does not (I would be willing to say it abhors that idea) support the death penalty for homosexuals in any country. A member publicly donating to such groups would be supporting groups that are in opposition to the teachings of the church.
Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
Heisenberg, show the primary sources, proof of OSC gay bashing.
"We do not believe that homosexuals, by entering into a marriage, are personally hurting anybody. Where the law makes such a thing available, even temporarily, those who marry are not our enemies. We believe the law is wrong and the marriage is not, in any meaningful way, what we mean by marriage.
But my family and I are perfectly able to deal with such couples socially and keep them as friends, as long as they show the same respect and understanding for our customs and beliefs as we show for theirs.
Only when a gay friend demanded that I agree with his or her point of view or cease to be friends has the friendship ended. What is odd is that in every case they call me intolerant. They misunderstood the meaning of "tolerance."
Tolerance implies disagreement - it means that even though we don't agree with or approve of each other's beliefs or actions, we can still live together amicably. When we agree, we aren't being tolerant, we are being uniform.
It makes me sad when people are so intolerant that they cannot bear to be friends with anyone who disapproves of some action or opinion of theirs. But I believe that if we could only be friends with people who never disapprove of something we do, we will end up with "friends" who either don't know us very well, or don't care about us very much."
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
At worst, I suspect that money from NOM may have found its way to groups like Invisible Children and from there to Ugandan anti-gay groups. But I don't think any of that attaches to Card.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
this is probably most likely totally bull
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Amka: Tolerance implies disagreement - it means that even though we don't agree with or approve of each other's beliefs or actions, we can still live together amicably.
It makes me sad when people are so intolerant that they cannot bear to be friends with anyone who disapproves of some action or opinion of theirs.
Gay people are under no obligation to tolerate people who hold beliefs and act on those beliefs in a way which furthers discrimination against them. You're just basically saying that it makes you sad that nobody's obligated to be nice to people who hold dehumanizing views about them. Views which further discrimination and othering. Well, too bad.
It's actually supremely insulting to lecture on tolerance in this fashion — it's effectively saying that there is any sort of onus is on an oppressed party to be nice to their oppressors in the name of "tolerance." And that's an incredibly dirtbag thing to do.
Being gay is not an "action or opinion" — it's not something a gay person chose for themselves that they can decide to change their mind on, like an opinion. Being gay isn't something that only exists as long as you are actively doing it, like an action. It is not these things, not any more so than you could change your race by having someone change your mind about it. So talking about tolerance with regard to other people's 'actions or opinions' is, at best, completely unrelated to the issue of responding to people's actions furthering discrimination against your sexuality.
You might as well call a black person "intolerant" for not wanting to be friends with someone who doesn't want to let interracial marriage be allowed by law. Tut-tut and lecture them about how we should all just be friends and respect each other despite differences of opinion. Tut-tut, minorities. Tut-tut.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I'll put it even more bluntly: what is so objectionable about a particular person being leery of, disliking, or even just *not speaking kindly about*, another person or group who works and votes and preaches so that it's more difficult, socially, legally, and economically, to live a life romantically attached and publicly to the person they choose, who also chooses them?
How quick would you be to be friendly with someone who lobbies a compulsory divorce for you or tries to bar you from future marriage? How baffled would you be, how offended, if when you expressed your sadness by not being friendly and amiable towards your opponent, they treated you as though you were rude or lacking in civility for doing so?
People may insist all they like that homosexuals ought not be allowed to marry. They may even try and force their religious beliefs and practices on them through the ballot box. Insisting that homosexuals ought to eat that up with a smile and still be pals, though, might just be asking too much.
Or put still another way: intolerance of intolerance isn't actually the clever, damning paradox it's claimed (usually by people defending their efforts to condemn the behavior f others) to be.
Posted by stilesbn (Member # 11809) on :
Did I miss where Amka mentioned voting against gay marriage? OSC said it in the quote but I can't tell from Amka's post what his/her position there is.
To be considered tolerant do you not only have to vote for marriage rights but also approve of the lifestyle and not consider gay sexual relations a sin?
Posted by Marlozhan (Member # 2422) on :
Tolerance doesn't mean you need to approve of someone else's views or change your definition of sin. It does mean, however, not doing anything that infringes on the rights of others, even in spite of different views.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
I don't agree with OSC on a lot of issues, but I know he believe that all life is sacred, so I highly doubt that he would donate to such groups. More than likely it is just someone who thinks he knows what OSC's views are bashing him.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Originally posted by stilesbn: Did I miss where Amka mentioned voting against gay marriage? OSC said it in the quote but I can't tell from Amka's post what his/her position there is.
To be considered tolerant do you not only have to vote for marriage rights but also approve of the lifestyle and not consider gay sexual relations a sin?
This is what may opponents of SSM like to claim as a straw man argument, but it's not what I was getting at. I as referring specifically to the idea that a homosexual person is somehow being intolerant or rude or unnecessarily antagonistic if they're not friendly and speak kindly of those who want to stop them from marrying.
You don't get to do that to people, and the criticize them for not thinking kindly of those who did it.
Posted by stilesbn (Member # 11809) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:Originally posted by stilesbn: Did I miss where Amka mentioned voting against gay marriage? OSC said it in the quote but I can't tell from Amka's post what his/her position there is.
To be considered tolerant do you not only have to vote for marriage rights but also approve of the lifestyle and not consider gay sexual relations a sin?
This is what may opponents of SSM like to claim as a straw man argument, but it's not what I was getting at. I as referring specifically to the idea that a homosexual person is somehow being intolerant or rude or unnecessarily antagonistic if they're not friendly and speak kindly of those who want to stop them from marrying.
You don't get to do that to people, and the criticize them for not thinking kindly of those who did it.
OK it seemed like you were going beyond marriage rights so I was a little confused.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:But my family and I are perfectly able to deal with such couples socially and keep them as friends, as long as they show the same respect and understanding for our customs and beliefs as we show for theirs.
Which is to say...little to none?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:But my family and I are perfectly able to deal with such couples socially and keep them as friends, as long as they show the same respect and understanding for our customs and beliefs as we show for theirs.
Which is to say...little to none?
I doubt that this is so. Janis Ian scored Mr. Card's Ender's Game Alive, and I doubt she would do that if she felt Mr. Card had no respect whatsoever for her beliefs. Or was actively oppressive towards gay people.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
So the perspective of a single person speaks for the entire community and the broader truth of another man's opinions? Because I'm sure I can find, quite easily, contrary individual examples with exactly as much weight and in greater numbers.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
You are welcome to tell me why you think Janis Ian is either in denial, or unwilling to confront Mr. Card about his views. Or you can just ignore actual evidence that what Mr. Card said that you quoted is true.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
BB, you offered up a single person's experience as an example of why it cannot be that Card has little if any respect for the 'customs and beliefs' of homosexuals. If that's not what you meant then I misunderstood, and would be grateful if you explained it again.
If that *is* what you meant then I fail to see why my questioning of the notion that a single person's perspective should count as some sort of blanket immunity for the question of whether they respect an entire group's customs and beliefs. I'm not suggesting Card has no respect for homosexuals at all, or that any opponent of SSM must also feel no respect for hem as people. But I cannot understand how someone who says 'homosexual behavior is sinful, homosexual marriage isn't a real marriage, and thus society must not recognize homosexual couples on an equally valid footing with heterosexual couples' can be said to be respecting the 'customs and beliefs' of homosexuals. I'm not talking about, I dunno, a given homosexual's custom of celebrating the Fourth of July or even a given homosexual's custom of fidelity to their partner. But what does Janis's friendship (which is often held forth in these discussions, as though this friendship spoke for all) have to say about Card's respect for the customs and beliefs of those homosexuals who wish to cohabit an share their lives together in the eyes of society with society's respect and the dignity that affords? Does the friendship of Janis mean Card respects that?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Anther question: why is it unfair to charge someone who has lent their time, pen, and name to the cause of banning SSM as 'oppressive' towards homosexuals? Serious question-I don't understand how it can be claimed it's not. Is it simply the connotation of injustice that prevents the word from being used?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Rakeesh: We are not talking about whether Mr. Card has said or done things that homosexuals could take legitimate grievance with. We are talking about whether Mr. Card is able to be respectful to gay friends.
I have indicated through one well known friendship that yes he can. You said that he shows little to no respect at all. I think I am right.
Unless you know about some gay former friend of Mr. Card that hates his guts now because he wasn't respectful, it's all we have to go on.
Look I know the "I'm not racist, I have black friends" is a tired trope, but only because lots of people don't know that racism is actually a state of mind, not the inability to make friends with a different race.
But appealing to the way you actually treat people, is a fair indicator of your actual mind set.
I'm not sure it's worth debating again whether a person can vote against gay marriage and not hate nor disrespect gay people. I think it's possible, I think that you do not. That's fine. But it's an extremely dangerous road when those who do not vote as you must all be bad people believing bad things.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Janis Ian is Mr. Card's Jamaican neighbor.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote: Rakeesh: We are not talking about whether Mr. Card has said or done things that homosexuals could take legitimate grievance with. We are talking about whether Mr. Card is able to be respectful to gay friends.
I have indicated through one well known friendship that yes he can. You said that he shows little to no respect at all. I think I am right.
Then we are in fact having different discussions, which explains some of the dispute. My contention isn't, and wasn't meant to be, that Card cannot have a friendship with any given homosexuals. It was simply that it is, at the very best, incomplete to say that Card respects the 'customs and beliefs' of homosexuals. Among heterosexuals, it's a pretty important custom and belief that if a consenting people love each other and wish to marry, cohabit, have sex, or some blend of all of these it needs to be their business.
Card doesn't respect the custom and belief of those homosexuals who wish the same. It seems fair to me to describe that as a pretty important, central 'custom and belief' of most adult human beings period, homosexuals not excepted. It seems fair to me to say Card has little if any respect for this custom and belief. Now that it's clear I'm not addressing Card's ability to have individual homosexual friends, could you address which part of my reasoning is invalid in the question of respect?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I'm not sure it's worth debating again whether a person can vote against gay marriage and not hate nor disrespect gay people. I think it's possible, I think that you do not. That's fine. But it's an extremely dangerous road when those who do not vote as you must all be bad people believing bad things.
I'm not talking about whether it's a bad thing, though of course I think it is. I'm asking how much respect someone can be said to have for a custom they wish to ban. And...dude. People wishing to ban SSM *start* the chain by believing-and legislating!-that homosexuals who wish to marry are believing and doing bad things. If it's objectionable or intolerant for someone, in response to that, say say 'that's not right and I don't like it!', why on Earth ain't it also intolerant or objectionable to be the one working to ban?
quote:But appealing to the way you actually treat people, is a fair indicator of your actual mind set.
Why is Card's self-publicized political activity exempted from the 'way he actually treats people' category?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
It isn't.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
It appears to be in the way you're applying Ian's thoughts on the matter. His friendship with this particular homosexual, and behavior in that friendship, was stated by you to be the real indicator to their 'actual mind set'.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Um. It is.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I doubt that this is so. Janis Ian scored Mr. Card's Ender's Game Alive, and I doubt she would do that if she felt Mr. Card had no respect whatsoever for her beliefs. Or was actively oppressive towards gay people.
Yeah, I don't think you're getting the issue with harping on 'tolerance' and attempting to enforce some sort of obsequious tone on the part of gays, lest they not also be 'tolerant' to people who don't want them to be allowed to get married.
It's entirely a person's choice to be friends with a person who acts in a way which furthers social and institutional oppression against their race, gender, sexuality, etc. But if they choose not to be friends with their oppressors over these issues, it is a breathtakingly dickish thing to police them on that decision and whine about how it shows that they are not being 'tolerant.'
And when Amka (or for that matter, OSC) struck that very chord, that deserves to be called out for what it is.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Sam: Our society only functions because we tolerate people who while they are doing things we think damage society, are acting in a way that is moral.
It's why abortions are allowed to happen even though a segment of our population thinks it's murder. Something far worse than not being told you can not get married.
The very definition of tolerance is that you fellowship people who believe contrary to you, even if you think those beliefs are not just incorrect, but egregiously so.
It means understanding what motivates those people. Actually understanding why they might make that choice. Instead of reducing it all to ignorance or evil.
There are people here who would vote to keep polygamy illegal in the United States. Should I call them all bigots and say I can't be friends with intolerant people? Regardless of their motives for doing so?
There are actually people who for honorable reasons feel it is important that gay marriage not be placed alongside heterosexual marriage.
If those people vote those convictions, but are not doing it because they seek to harm or don't care about gay people, what does it say about us if we tell everyone that those people are evil, and we should be kicked out of polite society? It means we are intolerant.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Sam: Our society only functions because we tolerate people who while they are doing things we think damage society, are acting in a way that is moral.
I don't understand this. Would you tell a gay person this in response to their decision to not be polite or not associate with people who do not support and/or vote against their ability to marry?
When someone is actively oppressing you, when someone is bigoted against you, the question of whether or not they personally think they are being moral when they are oppressing you should not at all be held as relevant to your right to not be "tolerant" (read: be polite to your oppressors) to them.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Sam: What do you mean by tolerance when you refuse to be polite to or associate with people when they do not support and vote against same sex marriage?
Sorry if this is answering a question with a question, but I honestly don't know what tolerance means if you do neither of those things.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
I don't think you are obliged to extend tolerance to people that are actively causing (or intending to cause) harm, regardless of their opinion of their own actions.
To take this to an absurd degree - Should we tolerate an invading army? What about people that advocate for an invasion?
Tolerance should be applied to a diversity of opinion, but shouldn't be an obstacle to criticizing and countering actual harm and the agents of that harm. I can tolerate country music and anime. I can't tolerate racists - even if they really believe in their heart of hearts that black people are stupid and lazy.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
MattP:
quote:I don't think you are obliged to extend tolerance to people that are actively causing (or intending to cause) harm, regardless of their opinion of their own actions.
So should pro-life folks refuse to engage with those who think abortions should be legal? They believe abortion is murder, an absurdly worse offense than not allowing a marriage to take place. You can easily find harm in what your opponents believe. If you think taxes should be lower for business, then you support worker exploitation, and even hate school children who need tax revenues for schools to remain open.
quote:To take this to an absurd degree - Should we tolerate an invading army? What about people that advocate for an invasion?
That's not actually that absurd. I'm reminded of during the Civil War where a union officer and confederate soldier both happened on each other at a stream in between major engagements. They both drank, exchanged pleasantries, inquired as to each other's families, and allowed each other to walk away without so much as an insult.
If I believe gay marriage should be permitted in society (and I do) because it's the right thing to do, I am voting against what other people in my community want. I've been rankled by intolerant family members who think I am out of touch with God, my church, and morality. Is it really OK for me to return the favor because I happen to be right?
I can't imagine a society where that is how things go. Being right does not give one license to just marginalize, dismiss, and be rude to those who also believe they are right, but happen to be wrong in that.
quote:Tolerance should be applied to a diversity of opinion, but shouldn't be an obstacle to criticizing and countering actual harm and the agents of that harm. I can tolerate country music and anime. I can't tolerate racists - even if they really believe in their heart of hearts that black people are stupid and lazy.
So what if one of these racists wanted to be your friend? What if their beliefs are based on actual events they feel are valid and applicable? What if in fact every single black person they have known was lazy and stupid? What if they are a Mormon from the 70s who doesn't hate black people, but they just can't permit them to hold the priesthood because institutionally they are not the ones to make that call?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Sam: What do you mean by tolerance when you refuse to be polite to or associate with people when they do not support and vote against same sex marriage?
Sorry if this is answering a question with a question, but I honestly don't know what tolerance means if you do neither of those things.
It comes down to what this 'virtue' of tolerance is, and contrasting that against what is being intentionally or unintentionally advocated here.
To be perfectly straightforward about it: the type of tolerance you right now SEEM* to be suggesting people should have for their oppressors turns tolerance into tone policing for marginalized people, and that kind of 'tolerance' is not a virtue of society, it's a tool of oppression. It's not something that 'our society can only function with,' it's unnecessary, bad, and something we're better off without.
*and I'm completely open to having this be clarified completely
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Sam: So explain to me in your interactions with around 40+% of the country that in polls indicate they don't support same-sex marriage how you demonstrate "tolerance" to them?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I don't attempt to legislate away their ability to be in a marriage and have a spouse and have spousal benefits. I don't denigrate their sexuality by comparing it to a choice or an opinion. I don't say that their being married to someone of the opposite sex is wrong or bad. I don't elect people who have — as a major party platform — an agenda to keep them from having the legal right to get married or legislate it away where it already exists. That's already more tolerance than they show the gays, which makes it riotously absurd and insulting when people like OSC claim that they are the true face of tolerance because the pro gay marriage side doesn't stay polite about their views. They want any more "tolerance?" They going to call people intolerant when their feelings get hurt and a polite reception of their views is not guaranteed? Too bad.
But, then again, I'm not gay. I'm not a marginalized party in this equation. So my "tolerance" is a different issue than what we are talking about — and what I'm directly criticizing — when people are upset that gay people won't be "tolerant" of the people who marginalize them, and when they set the standard for 'tolerance' as having to be polite to people who are bigoted against them, or they're 'intolerant'
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
That's what it amounts to for me as well. It's not simply 'both sides disagree equally with one another, therefore it's fair to expect mutual amiability'. One side tries-successfully!-to control behavior and lives. The other wishes to mind their own affairs and live their own lives to the same extent their opposition does-but they don't attempt to stop their rivals from doing so.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: ... If those people vote those convictions, but are not doing it because they seek to harm or don't care about gay people, what does it say about us if we tell everyone that those people are evil, and we should be kicked out of polite society? It means we are intolerant.
I don't think many people have that thought process about people that would vote for bans on interracial marriage. We don't waste a lot of time dicking around wondering if we would be "intolerant" of racists as a result. We also don't spend a lot of time caring about whether their intentions were noble, if they were trying to protect people from inbreeding or whatever, understanding their choice and deeming their reasons for voting "honourable."
At some point, we just collectively say "screw em'" and that time for people that would vote for bans on same-sex marriage is probably (hopefully?) sooner rather than later.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: I can't imagine a society where that is how things go. Being right does not give one license to just marginalize, dismiss, and be rude to those who also believe they are right, but happen to be wrong in that.
I'm hoping that this is hyperbole and not a real failure of imagination. Imagine a society, were for example, one marginalizes, dismisses, and is rude to those that would advocate slavery but believe that they are right. You may find that pretty familiar.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: I don't attempt to legislate away their ability to be in a marriage and have a spouse and have spousal benefits. I don't denigrate their sexuality by comparing it to a choice or an opinion. I don't say that their being married to someone of the opposite sex is wrong or bad. I don't elect people who have — as a major party platform — an agenda to keep them from having the legal right to get married or legislate it away where it already exists. That's already more tolerance than they show the gays, which makes it riotously absurd and insulting when people like OSC claim that they are the true face of tolerance because the pro gay marriage side doesn't stay polite about their views. They want any more "tolerance?" They going to call people intolerant when their feelings get hurt and a polite reception of their views is not guaranteed? Too bad.
You aren't telling me what you do to demonstrate tolerance. You are telling me what you don't do. That's only half an answer.
---------
Rakeesh:
quote:That's what it amounts to for me as well. It's not simply 'both sides disagree equally with one another, therefore it's fair to expect mutual amiability'. One side tries-successfully!-to control behavior and lives. The other wishes to mind their own affairs and live their own lives to the same extent their opposition does-but they don't attempt to stop their rivals from doing so.
It's really not that simple. Look at Guido Barilla the pasta owner. All he did was indicate that he would not feature gay people in a pasta advertisement, as he thinks the traditional family is crucial for society, but that he has no beef with homosexuals living their lives just as he does. That was immediately turned into a boycott effort. Tolerance sounds more and more like, just shut up unless you are promoting gay rights. Which is exactly what our society used to be like but in the other direction. If you so much as sympathized with homosexuality you hated America's Christian values.
--------
Mucus:
quote:I don't think many people have that thought process about people that would vote for bans on interracial marriage. We don't waste a lot of time dicking around wondering if we would be "intolerant" of racists as a result. We also don't spend a lot of time caring about whether their intentions were noble, if they were trying to protect people from inbreeding or whatever, understanding their choice and deeming their reasons for voting "honourable."
At some point, we just collectively say "screw em'" and that time for people that would vote for bans on same-sex marriage is probably (hopefully?) sooner rather than later.
I've never said ever that people who support same-sex marriage should hold off on actively pushing for those efforts, engaging in debates, voting, challenging intolerance.
But you don't get to take the lazy shortcut of prejudging people for their beliefs rather than who they are as people. That's intolerance. It's no different than Christians who predetermine homosexuality is evil, so everybody is homosexual is evil, and should be suppressed.
quote:I'm hoping that this is hyperbole and not a real failure of imagination. Imagine a society, were for example, one marginalizes, dismisses, and is rude to those that would advocate slavery but believe that they are right. You may find that pretty familiar.
You are calling my statements hyperbole, and then go on to compare those who believe same-sex marriage is bad for the country to slave owners.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
BB,
quote:But you don't get to take the lazy shortcut of prejudging people for their beliefs rather than who they are as people. That's intolerance. It's no different than Christians who predetermine homosexuality is evil, so everybody is homosexual is evil, and should be suppressed.
Even if we take your larger argument as a given, it's still not be same thing. One side attempts to use legal force to suppress-the other does not.
As for Barilla, I'm not sure what the problem is. Their president stated that in the opinion of his company, homosexuals couldn't form 'classic' families, and that the company intended to focus their efforts towards these classic families. Then he invited those who didn't agree with this message to buy pasta elsewhere.
So where is the transgression against tolerance?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: That's intolerance. It's no different than Christians who predetermine homosexuality is evil, so everybody is homosexual is evil, and should be suppressed.
BlackBlade, that would only be true if both beliefs were equally false and equally harmful. No one is saying that it is impossible to be kind to people who oppose SSM, or to care for them, or to befriend them. They can even be otherwise lovely people. But tolerating their actions when they are harmful and their beliefs when they are false is harmful and false as well.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
quote:BlackBlade, that would only be true if both beliefs were equally false and equally harmful. No one is saying that it is impossible to be kind to people who oppose SSM, or to care for them, or to befriend them.
That sounds a lot like "We're not intolerant because we're right". I hope you see the problem with that line of reasoning. Additionally, my reading of this thread is that some people are saying precisely that "it is impossible to be kind to people who oppose SSM, or to care for them, or to befriend them."
Hobbes Posted by millernumber1 (Member # 9894) on :
I have been fascinated to find that tolerance is apparently the same as "shut up or agree with us."
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:You aren't telling me what you do to demonstrate tolerance. You are telling me what you don't do. That's only half an answer.
So if I describe that I'm not discriminating against people, not using legal force to suppress them in society and legal standing, not being bigoted against them, not attempting to hold back their relationship or denigrate it and call it unnatural and unholy .. but I'm not making an outward show of how pleasantly we can discuss their views, I'm not going far enough, that's not 'demonstrating tolerance,' I need to demonstrate it to them.
.. but if I were to discriminate against them, try to keep them second-class citizens and be bigoted against them, but smile and engage in pleasantries and be sure to stress I'm only doing what I think as moral so why can't we all just not resort to name-calling or being mean to each other, I'm 'demonstrating tolerance'
...
yeah, the way you describe 'demonstrating tolerance' makes 'tolerance' a wholly worthless thing. It just basically means "if you're not polite back to me about my oppressing and demeaning you, you're not tolerant"
and that kind of "tolerance" — which goes inside the quote marks a mile high — can die in a fire. It's crude tone policing. It's not central to a decent civilization. It's only central to protecting the feelings of people who oppress marginalized folk and still expect that they deserve polite reception of their views.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Hobbes:
quote:BlackBlade, that would only be true if both beliefs were equally false and equally harmful. No one is saying that it is impossible to be kind to people who oppose SSM, or to care for them, or to befriend them.
That sounds a lot like "We're not intolerant because we're right". I hope you see the problem with that line of reasoning.
Not unless you think that all beliefs are equal. In other words, yes, I do think that right and benevolent beliefs should be treated differently than wrong and harmful ones.
quote: Additionally, my reading of this thread is that some people are saying precisely that "it is impossible to be kind to people who oppose SSM, or to care for them, or to befriend them."
Hobbes
I am not reading that at all. It is possible to be and do all those things while still making it clear that you disapprove of the beliefs of bigots.
Posted by millernumber1 (Member # 9894) on :
So, what do you consider "kind behavior" towards people you consider bigots?
Additionally, I think stridently claiming that your beliefs are right and using that rightness to justify treating other people with contradictory beliefs "differently" sidesteps the question I think BlackBlade is asking.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
The same things I would consider kind behaviour in general, I suppose. Depends on the relationship. Being kind doesn't have to mean approving of their beliefs or even being quiet about them but discussions about their bigotry don't have to be the whole of your relationship.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:I'm hoping that this is hyperbole and not a real failure of imagination. Imagine a society, were for example, one marginalizes, dismisses, and is rude to those that would advocate slavery but believe that they are right. You may find that pretty familiar.
You are calling my statements hyperbole, and then go on to compare those who believe same-sex marriage is bad for the country to slave owners.
I think you're reacting emotionally rather than thinking through the logic of the matter. The comparison is not on a moral level (e.g. "these people are as bad as slave owners!") but on a logical level.
In those times, people that approved of slavery were a good rough half of the voting population. People that disapprove of same-sex marriage used to, at least in the recent past, also comprise half of the population. However, when people that approved of slavery come up, you don't spend time understanding their "honourable reasons." By your strange definition of tolerance, you're "intolerant" of them. You dismiss them out of hand and in fact it seems that you find a comparison with them emotionally offensive.
You're fine with and support a society that "marginalizes, dismisses, and is rude to" them.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I don't think that is fair to say about BlackBlade. He, rather bravely considering his circumstances, does argue for and support SSM. He just tries to be "nice" while doing it which isn't always easy. It can be tough trying to walk that line. I have it easy. Most of my friends and associates are pro-ssm or just don't think about it.
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
SSM doesn't really bother or affect me. If I had to go out and vote on it (I honestly have never voted on anything), I'd support it. If a gay guy wants to go and marry another gay guy, why shouldn't he? The only arguments I've seen are either 1) religious or 2) procreation, and neither of them hold up. Why? Because non-religious people are allowed to marry, and women/men who can have kids are allowed to marry. So what's the problem?
It just seems to me that a lot of people are so held back by what their dusty old tome says that they are convinced it's the one that's right. Our country is supposed to be all about freedom and all about tolerance, and yet here we are debating about what's intolerant and what's not. While we should be celebrating our differences, instead we're focusing on them so much that we can barely even see straight.
I hope we're not still doing this in a hundred years.
Posted by DustinDopps (Member # 12640) on :
Jeff C. -
I think for a lot of religious people it comes down to a simple question: can they, with a clear conscience, vote to support something they believe is a sin?
They don't want to oppress anyone. They don't want gay people to die and go to hell. They have friends and co-workers and family members who are gay and they respect and love them. They just can't vote in favor of something God is against. God trumps any human relationships or concerns.
It doesn't matter if non-religious people can marry. What matters is this: if they are standing in the ballot box and have to choose to change the definition of marriage to include XYZ, can they do so with the belief that God approves? For many Christians - maybe most - the answer is no.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Wrong religious beliefs aren't any better than wrong any-other-kind of beliefs. Religion doesn't give us a pass. People had religious reasons for supporting slavery, too. And war. And all sorts of nasty things. Believing God says so is not an excuse. We are still responsible for our beliefs.
You don't like that? Believe in a God who doesn't want bad things.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:I think for a lot of religious people it comes down to a simple question: can they, with a clear conscience, vote to support something they believe is a sin?
But we do that all the time. Very few things that are *only* a sin - as opposed to a tangible harm - are actually legislated. This why people with a religious objection to SSM strain so hard to find non-religious arguments - however tenuous - when arguing for these laws.
Take the Ten Commandments - most of them would make for unconstitutional laws, and yet violating any of them is a sin.
Should we outlaw blasphemy? That's a pretty serious sin. Yet freedom of religion is an express protection of blasphemy as your beliefs are almost certainly blasphemous to someone else's God.
It's not about voting against sin, it's about voting against an expression of agency and recognition of rights that you don't approve of.
Posted by DustinDopps (Member # 12640) on :
And there's that "But our side is RIGHT" smugness.
If Christians are correct and God did make the world, and he does want humans to obey Him, then the people supporting SSM are wrong. And, sadly, they will not share in the rewards of heaven. (They might not want to, of course, because who would want to support a bad God, right?)
It can be your *opinion* that Christians are wrong and religion is an excuse to be bigoted, but that's just what it is: your opinion. It is the conclusion you have reached based on your life experiences. But it's not the same conclusion millions of other people have reached.
This issue isn't black-and-white where one side is virtuous and the other is evil. In fact, both sides condemn the other side and it's horrible.
Posted by DustinDopps (Member # 12640) on :
MattP: you're talking about Old Testament law. The Bible makes it clear that the Old Testament had some laws related to holiness, others related to maintaining a community, and others related to health and well-being. But those laws were all fulfilled when Christ dies, making them moot.
That's why people who say "The Bible says don't eat shellfish! It says don't wear cloth made from two materials!" are automatically discounted. They don't understand the Bible, they are cherry picking (just like many Christians do).
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:If Christians are correct and God did make the world, and he does want humans to obey Him, then the people supporting SSM are wrong.
Well sure. And then our whole pluralistic Constitutional Republic is an obstacle to a proper theocratic government. But instead there's a pretense that equality and freedom of religion are sacrosanct right up to this one particular line. I can worship satan and sacrifice goats at a golden alter while drinking blood of a calf in its mother's milk, but somehow allowing two people of the same gender to become legally recognized as married is bridge too far.
And this is the position of people that, generally speaking, are OK with gays having all of the legal rights of marriage. So the sin in this case is allowing these rights to be granted under an existing legal structure which happens to be labeled according to a modern English word of human origin which has previously been used to describe only opposite-gender pairings.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by DustinDopps: If Christians are correct and God did make the world, and he does want humans to obey Him, then the people supporting SSM are wrong. And, sadly, they will not share in the rewards of heaven. (They might not want to, of course, because who would want to support a bad God, right?)
It can be your *opinion* that Christians are wrong and religion is an excuse to be bigoted, but that's just what it is: your opinion. It is the conclusion you have reached based on your life experiences. But it's not the same conclusion millions of other people have reached.
This issue isn't black-and-white where one side is virtuous and the other is evil. In fact, both sides condemn the other side and it's horrible.
Please stop talking as if all Christians are opposed to SSM. Many Christians support it. many for religious reasons. I believe that God does want us to obey "Him" and that the people opposing SSM are wrong. Saying so may be "condemning you" but I am not using the law to oppress you.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:you're talking about Old Testament law
Are you referring to the Ten Commandments here? I don't think many people put them in the category of "fulfilled law of the Old Testament that no longer applies."
ETA: Many people still believe OT law is valid today, so it's only a red herring if I'm speaking to a specific religion's doctrine vs religious opinion in general.
[ October 24, 2013, 06:09 PM: Message edited by: MattP ]
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Please stop talking as if all Christians are opposed to SSM. Many Christians support it.
Another point I was going to get to. There are several Christian and non-Christian denominations that solemnize gay marriages. An SSM ban is a restriction on their religious liberty while legal SSM is no imposition on anyone else's.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
I've tried and failed over the past day to articulate what tolerance for anti-SSM activists would or should look like in a post-SSM world. I don't have a very complete answer. I think mostly anti-SSM views will be met with disapproval and activism will be met with opposing activism. Not much else. And this is a simple, balanced, natural result of having opposing views in a society that embraces free speech. I don't think it's anything to complain about.
Luckily, being against SSM is not a centrally defining characteristic for most people. They most likely don't need to fear for their employment, or being denied housing. They won't lose any rights they have now. It shouldn't be hard for them to go about their lives.
For people like OSC that are at least somewhat vulnerable to a personal boycott, they could see some financial harm as a result of their actions. I don't quite think that "tolerance" as an ideal demands that this be avoided or prevented, though. People have the right to speak and spend as they wish, and if they find it distasteful to support Card with either their words or their dollars, I don't think that is "intolerant" in a way that rises to an important problem. It's not as if someone else's financial interests trump our own comfort with how we invest our time and resources. (We have the government to coerce a certain amount of paying-for-things-we-don't-want-to-pay-for, but the government isn't in charge of what movies we pay to see.)
However, neither do I think there's necessarily anything wrong with the conscience of anyone who doesn't boycott Card. I don't have a problem with the attitude that he's still deserving of rewards for his talents and efforts in other areas. *Edit: or more simply, the attitude that his products are worth paying for.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by DustinDopps: MattP: you're talking about Old Testament law. The Bible makes it clear that the Old Testament had some laws related to holiness, others related to maintaining a community, and others related to health and well-being. But those laws were all fulfilled when Christ dies, making them moot.
That's why people who say "The Bible says don't eat shellfish! It says don't wear cloth made from two materials!" are automatically discounted. They don't understand the Bible, they are cherry picking (just like many Christians do).
So shall I assume that you are basing your Biblical objections to SSM on the Pauline letters? In which case, I would suggest that you are failing to take context into account as much as the shellfish objectors. I recommend "The Good Book" by Peter Gomes. After all, taken out of context, Paul could be said to advocate slavery as well. And has.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Sam:
quote:So if I describe that I'm not discriminating against people, not using legal force to suppress them in society and legal standing, not being bigoted against them, not attempting to hold back their relationship or denigrate it and call it unnatural and unholy .. but I'm not making an outward show of how pleasantly we can discuss their views, I'm not going far enough, that's not 'demonstrating tolerance,' I need to demonstrate it to them.
.. but if I were to discriminate against them, try to keep them second-class citizens and be bigoted against them, but smile and engage in pleasantries and be sure to stress I'm only doing what I think as moral so why can't we all just not resort to name-calling or being mean to each other, I'm 'demonstrating tolerance'
If I simply don't do things that are actively harmful I'm no more tolerant than Emily Dickinson staying at home and refusing to go outside and engage with humanity was.
And I'd say a person who is voting their conscience, but holds no ill will towards gay people. Who welcomes them into their life. Who engages them intellectually, and tries to work out why they haven't reached the same conclusion. But only when both sides want to. Who reaches an impasse, and recognizes that, but does not hold it against the other side. Who stands up to those who are abusing gay people. Who accepts that just as he voted his conscience, others vote theirs, and in a democracy that means rule of law changes. They don't necessarily agree with it, or like it, but they sustain the law.
A person who fits much of that, if not all, can be described as tolerant. That to me is what tolerance is. You can't reach an agreement, but where a person reaches that conclusion honorably, and willingly shares what goes into that belief, and listens, that is tolerance.
----------
Mucus:
quote:I think you're reacting emotionally rather than thinking through the logic of the matter. The comparison is not on a moral level (e.g. "these people are as bad as slave owners!") but on a logical level.
I have gotten emotional about this topic, but I would not say I am right now.
quote:In those times, people that approved of slavery were a good rough half of the voting population. People that disapprove of same-sex marriage used to, at least in the recent past, also comprise half of the population. However, when people that approved of slavery come up, you don't spend time understanding their "honourable reasons." By your strange definition of tolerance, you're "intolerant" of them. You dismiss them out of hand and in fact it seems that you find a comparison with them emotionally offensive.
I shouldn't dismiss anybody out of hand. That I have less patience for those who believe for example slavery was good for black people is a failing on my part, even if the greater sin lies within them.
Even abolitionism was much more complicated than racists vs non-racists. There were people in the North who were horribly racist, but hated slavery. Even in Liberal Massachusetts they were the last baseball team to sign a black man for example. There were people in the South who hated slavery, but could not see a viable alternative for their economy. It's like hating capitalism today, you still can't do anything with it. If you don't, do you hate poor people?
------------
Rakeesh:
quote:As for Barilla, I'm not sure what the problem is. Their president stated that in the opinion of his company, homosexuals couldn't form 'classic' families, and that the company intended to focus their efforts towards these classic families. Then he invited those who didn't agree with this message to buy pasta elsewhere.
This is what the president said,
"I would not do a commercial with a homosexual family, not for lack of respect toward homosexuals—who have the right to do whatever they want without disturbing others—but because I don’t agree with them and I think we want to talk to traditional families."
and
"If gays like our pasta and our advertising, they will eat our pasta; if they don’t like that, they will eat someone else’s pasta."
He has since gone on to say,
"I respect everyone who does what they want to do without bothering others."
and,
"As a father of multiple children, I believe it's very hard to raise kids in a same-sex couple."
That seems like the most unoffensive way one could state their beliefs. He has since apologized for his comments and agreed to meet with gay groups to discuss how families have evolved and become educated.
Hasn't slowed down people's calls for boycotts one bit.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Also, let's clear up this 'we can't support legalized breaking of God's law' business. When SSM proponents as a group work to criminalize blasphemy, other religions, adultery, excessive drinking, dancing, working on Sundays, covetous behavior, the list goes on because so do the variations of religion, then perhaps ill credit this suppose high-minded objection to flouting God's word.
But opponents of SSM don't seem much troubled with the fact of legal blasphemy, for example. I don't hear much talk about divorce being banned or restricted. The list here goes on too. So no, I'm sorry Dustin, but this explanation for opposition to SSM simply doesn't wash. I don't especially care that in their minds they believe it's the true reason, either-the circle still doesn't square.
And as for 'we can discount what those people say about the Bible, because they don't know it'...nonsense. There are as many ways to 'properly know it' as there are Christian sects, at least if we are to believe various Christians. Until you all can decide which interpretation is the proper one of the moral codes of Bronze Age shepards, though...no, it's not going to receive the sort of awed deference you're expecting. At least not once you cannot force the kssue.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Hasn't slowed down people's calls for boycotts one bit.
It hasn't? Like most of these sort of incidents, there's a bunch of noise at first and then it tapers off. Sure, some people have probably decided to never buy Barilla again, but I don't see a lot of ongoing agitation for boycott.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: If I simply don't do things that are actively harmful I'm no more tolerant than Emily Dickinson staying at home and refusing to go outside and engage with humanity was.
And I'd say a person who is voting their conscience, but holds no ill will towards gay people. Who welcomes them into their life. Who engages them intellectually, and tries to work out why they haven't reached the same conclusion. But only when both sides want to. Who reaches an impasse, and recognizes that, but does not hold it against the other side. Who stands up to those who are abusing gay people. Who accepts that just as he voted his conscience, others vote theirs, and in a democracy that means rule of law changes. They don't necessarily agree with it, or like it, but they sustain the law.
A person who fits much of that, if not all, can be described as tolerant. That to me is what tolerance is. You can't reach an agreement, but where a person reaches that conclusion honorably, and willingly shares what goes into that belief, and listens, that is tolerance.
And yet, polite about as they may be, they are using the law to keep them from having families. How is that better than someone who smiles at black people but advocates against them going to "white" schools - or marrying white people? Lots of honorable people reach dishonorable conclusions - even with the best of intentions. They are still wrong and still causing harm.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
MattP: I don't have statistics, but I read that Harvard yesterday indicated they were going to stop selling their pasta in their cafeteria.
kmbboots:
quote:And yet, polite about as they may be, they are using the law to keep them from having families. How is that better than someone who smiles at black people but advocates against them going to "white" schools - or marrying white people? Lots of honorable people reach dishonorable conclusions - even with the best of intentions. They are still wrong and still causing harm.
Smiles at black people, but advocates segregation is *not* at all what I described in my paragraph. Simply smiling at somebody means almost nothing when it comes to tolerance.
Tolerance doesn't just boil down to the positions you take. As I've said, you can advocate for all the best things, and still be intolerant. Tolerance actually means accepting that people are going to believe and do things, that while harmful don't warrant our condemning them and shunning them. We do stuff they find equally harmful. It's impossible to have a society where everybody insists on this level of accountability.
If we did things that way, you could find a reason not to tolerate anybody.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
The problem, BB, is that there are multiple contradictions in his statements. He respects gay people, but finds their coupling inferior. He has no problem with those who do no harm to others, but supports a restriction of rights to exactly such people. So on and so forth. Now don't get me wrong , it's not enormous spat-in-face disrespect...but it's not exactly respect.
As for standing up to those who abuse gay people, again there are degrees. What do you imagine a happily committed loving homosexual couple thinks an effort to use the force of law to document their inferiority and prevent them from accessing wider legal and economic rights and responsibilities...seems a bit abusive to me, whatever the intentions.
I get that you're in a bind here, living so close to those who strongly disagree. It's tough for me to imagine how straining that can be. But I think you've gone over quite a bit too far into the importance of intent here-because in your examples and arguments, intent always seems to be the only or at least the most important thing.
Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
Dustin Dopps made a very good point, coming from a Christian point of view.
It illustrates where the comparison to racism against black people, and believing SSM is a sin, are not analogous.
Black people are human and in no control at all over being black. The fact that they are black has no impact on whether or not they can "go to heaven".
Homosexuals, like all people, have control over their behavior, including their sexual behavior. It is the behavior, not the state of being homosexual, that many Christians and most Mormons believe is a sin.
This has been said before, but it bears repeating. Mormons believe that gender is eternal. No matter how it bears itself out on this world, in this mortality, gender is a characteristic that was part of us before we were born and will be part of us after we die. This life is but a tiny fraction of that.
The eternal sealing of two individual souls of a different gender, of a man and a woman, is necessary to return to God's presence.
We understand that two same gender people can have deep love for each other. But letting them develop a relationship that will fall apart upon death and cannot be reconciled with the eternal reality is to us, one of the ultimate pains and tragedies. Better to have not been married than to have experienced that.
Most Mormons believe they are causing harm by saying SSM is just fine. Not just a little harm, but great harm. Most of them recognize this as a religious difference, but still find it difficult to let the law say otherwise. The family is central to our religion and lasts beyond the grave.
Let's also recall that even among those who would have had no religious reasons to oppose SS attraction or SSM, and do not oppose it now, felt that homosexual people were obscene and perverse just a few short decades ago. Something to be shunned and made fun of.
It was an unchristlike attitude, and continues to be.
But Mormons have been part of that culture as a whole, so some of them find it difficult to not act in unchristlike ways towards homosexual individuals, especially in conjunction with believing that the behavior is a sin. Many Mormons still have difficulty separating the state of being from the behavior.
This is why the church had to put up the mormonsandgays website. To educate us about being loving, and serving, and compassionate no matter what the differences are. To accept these different friends and family members into your life even if they make lifestyle choices that we believe are wrong.
You can say, all you want, that a religious belief is no excuse for bigotry. But we aren't being bigoted. It's a fear for the soul of another person.
You can't say this is the same as people having religious reasons to be racist against blacks. Because they were rationalizing hatred and slavery.
This is why, believing homosexual behavior is a sin doesn't mean that a person hates homosexuals or believes they are subhuman or anything like that.
Mormons believe that any behavior which is rude, hateful, violent (and words can be violent), dishonest (and people have been dishonest about Card) is sinful and bad behavior. We believe in helping everyone, no matter what.
Therefore, when people say they have every right to act in that manner towards a person because they disagree with the person, or because they have a prior history of intolerance directed at them by someone else, we call that intolerant behavior that breaks down the civility of our society.
You may disagree with us. Fine. Good! But to act in a hateful manner towards a person because you think you are right makes you intolerant. Not powerfully trying to secure your rights. Other people being intolerant towards you in the past, or even groups in the now, doesn't make make your anger or rudness toward them any better, nor does it make your intolerance not destructive to society.
When you want Mormons to change their doctrine to conform to society, you're telling them that they must literally destroy their church and beliefs. You're telling them that they must change their definition of God. That's not tolerance, as Card said before, that's requiring uniformity.
And requiring uniformity in the past has generally not lead to good results.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Amka,
quote:It illustrates where the comparison to racism against black people, and believing SSM is a sin, are not analogous.
I'm afraid it is entirely analagous to the extent homosexuality is a choice, or a behavior built into one's genes. Furthermore I'm afraid Christianity in general, Mormonism not excepted, goes further than simply prohibiting homosexual actions. Thoughts are also condemned. But anyway, that's only somewhat relevant. All of this focuses on how very important it is for the folks being second-classed to be kind and friendly to those relegating them to legal inferiority. When you consider as well that it's all well and good to practice turning th other cheek yourself, insisting that others do so while you slap them-even when you insist and truly believe the slap is medicinal-is something else entirely.
quote:This has been said before, but it bears repeating. Mormons believe that gender is eternal. No matter how it bears itself out on this world, in this mortality, gender is a characteristic that was part of us before we were born and will be part of us after we die. This life is but a tiny fraction of that.
All well and good. Don't be a practicing homosexual and Mormon at the same time. Why, though, should this matter one whit to someone who isn't of your religious tribe? Should for example Muslims someday become a majority in this country, or a disproportionately powerful minority, would you be as eager to empathize when they tried to point out, legally, how important it was everyone able make pilgrimage? Or would you then discover the reasons why it's bad for religion to dictate secular law?
quote:We understand that two same gender people can have deep love for each other. But letting them develop a relationship that will fall apart upon death and cannot be reconciled with the eternal reality is to us, one of the ultimate pains and tragedies. Better to have not been married than to have experienced that.
Even accepting your religious statements as fact for the sake of argument, this is your choice to make...why? What other behaviors and beliefs do we need to stop or compel free-willed adults from doing or not doing because it would hurt them spiritually?
quote:Let's also recall that even among those who would have had no religious reasons to oppose SS attraction or SSM, and do not oppose it now, felt that homosexual people were obscene and perverse just a few short decades ago. Something to be shunned and made fun of.
I'd be eager to hear which people arrived at homophobic behavior absent religious influence.
quote:This is why, believing homosexual behavior is a sin doesn't mean that a person hates homosexuals or believes they are subhuman or anything like that.
I do agree, hatred of homosexuals isn't a necessary component of opposition to SSM. But again the question I offer is, "So what?" Why does this lack of hatred (on the part of many, at least) deserve some special credit? Why are homosexuals expected to less unkind to those attempting-succeeding, actually-to interfere in their own lives and loves, just because it can't be taken as a given that they don't hate them?
quote:Therefore, when people say they have every right to act in that manner towards a person because they disagree with the person, or because they have a prior history of intolerance directed at them by someone else, we call that intolerant behavior that breaks down the civility of our society.
What you're really insisting here is that those you are second-classing, they must take as given all of your own self-stated motives and goals for your behavior. It comes as no surprise, being human, that your explanations are the loftiest of high-minded. Far from legalizing intolerance and bigotry, you're helping them out of love! All well and good. Why then are they intolerant when they use exactly the same standard? When they say 'this is how your behavior effects us, this is what it means to us, it hurts us badly and doesn't help at all and even if we did, we didn't ask for the help!' But no. If they do that, they're being intolerant. I suppose it works because you've god on your side...but haven't we heard that being right doesn't make intolerance OK? It really seems that being the right kind of right-the unassailably religious kind of right-is all that's needed.
quote:When you want Mormons to change their doctrine to conform to society, you're telling them that they must literally destroy their church and beliefs. You're telling them that they must change their definition of God. That's not tolerance, as Card said before, that's requiring uniformity.
I'm skeptical you'll even recognize the contradiction here, but here goes: it's intolerant to ask the religious (opponents, anyway, who it seems speak for the entire group according to them) to 'destroy their beliefs' by permitting SSM. Not forcing it on them, but permitting other people to engage in SSM. But it's not intolerant to control the behavior of others, to say 'you can't do this because God says so, but we're going to decide which thing God disallows will remain legal and you don't get to pick, and it doesn't matter if you're one of us or not.'
Samprimary is right. This is tone-policing. Opponents of SSM are finally losing this fight, and as they've begun to acknowledge that, they're setting up for how the victors will be able to speak about them. Don't like that analysis? Don't criticize, or else you'll be intolerant-I arrived at in without wishing to hurt anyone, and in fact I've seriously considered it and determined its true and beneficial.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: The problem, BB, is that there are multiple contradictions in his statements. He respects gay people, but finds their coupling inferior. He has no problem with those who do no harm to others, but supports a restriction of rights to exactly such people. So on and so forth. Now don't get me wrong , it's not enormous spat-in-face disrespect...but it's not exactly respect.
Contradictions would be him not acting in accordance with his convictions. If you believe in something that is offensive to others, you are going to offend them both with your thoughts, and more so with your actions that are the natural result of genuine belief.
edit: Doesn't mean you say, "Welp offenses are coming anyway, I might as well stop caring." That's like a surgeon saying, "I've got to damage the skin with this incision anyway, so I might as well not worry about injuring the patient at all."
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Contradictions would be him not acting in accordance with his convictions. If you believe in something that is offensive to others, you are going to offend them both with your thoughts, and more so with your actions that are the natural result of genuine belief.
I don't see how him acting in accordance with his convictions is mutually exclusive with him sincerely offering statements with contradictions. I mean, I feel I've laid a pretty plain solid case for how he spoke some contradictions-unless you think someone can consistently say-logically, not consistent with their own beliefs-that they respect homosexuals but also feel that their desires and loves are fundamentally inferior to heterosexuals, and should be legally restricted. If you've explained how this isn't a contradiction then I missed it, but I don't see how him honestly speaking his opinion has any bearing on whether there might be a contradiction.
As for the article, well actually I agree with the author's respect for vigorous, continuous, unfettered debate where the right to free speech isn't just important for people to e able to speak their minds, but because it's also really important that people are exposed to ideas that will offend them. Orwell made that point as well a others but I heard it best expressed by him.
That said, I'm not going to shed a tear or criticize boycott efforts much at all because of how unfair and absurd it seems to me to insist that SSM advocated must be held to such a higher standard than their opponents, or be found lacking. Card, NOM, and others threw the first stone when homosexuals as a political group in terms of power were all but a whipped dog. Instead of people complaining how wrong it is to boycott, perhaps they ought to marvel at SSM proponents' comparative restraint.
Posted by Marlozhan (Member # 2422) on :
I like that article that BB linked.
As an LDS person who has had to reconcile sincere spiritual beliefs with my responsibility as a citizen whose job it is to defend my rights and the rights of others, I have not been able to identify any legitimate right that I have to deny other people the right to marry based on sexual orientation. To be clear, I don't want to have that right, either. I really am not interested in defining what others should and shouldn't do, as long as it doesn't violate rights.
I do firmly believe that gender is an eternal characteristic of our spirits. I do believe that there will be no such thing as same-sex marriage in heaven. I certainly don't want to see anyone split up in heaven who loved one another here. The God I have had personal experiences with is not someone who will do anything to make anyone unhappy in the end. That's enough for me to know. I have personally experienced the love of God for me and by extension, felt it for others. It is enough for me to know that God loves everyone.
I don't need to force my beliefs on anyone. I find it very peaceful to allow others to have their beliefs.
There is only one factor of this argument that has held any weight as a potential argument on the opponents of same-sex marriage, and it is this: that changing the definition of marriage for the benefit of one population forces a change on the definition of marriage on another part of the population. To be clear, I am not stating that this is an argument I believe. It is an argument I haven't entirely wrapped my brain around from a legal standpoint. In fact, I don't think I have explained it very clearly.
I would be interested in more discussion on the topic of changing the definitions of state-sanctioned entities and their effects of minority and majority populations... I hope what I just said makes sense.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:In those times, people that approved of slavery were a good rough half of the voting population. People that disapprove of same-sex marriage used to, at least in the recent past, also comprise half of the population. However, when people that approved of slavery come up, you don't spend time understanding their "honourable reasons." By your strange definition of tolerance, you're "intolerant" of them. You dismiss them out of hand and in fact it seems that you find a comparison with them emotionally offensive.
I shouldn't dismiss anybody out of hand. That I have less patience for those who believe for example slavery was good for black people is a failing on my part, even if the greater sin lies within them.
Honestly, I'm surprised by the idea that not having tolerance for slavers is a personal failing. Well, actually, you switched to the word patience there, how do you actually feel about tolerance?
And if slavery is not sufficient, how serious would a crime need to be for you to comfortable with targeting them with the kind of rejection from polite society that posters have been proposing in this thread for anti-SSM advocates?
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Amka,
quote:It illustrates where the comparison to racism against black people, and believing SSM is a sin, are not analogous.
I'm afraid it is entirely analagous to the extent homosexuality is a choice, or a behavior built into one's genes.
Oh come on man. No it's not.
It's possible to identify as gay and celibate. Having sex, having relationships, those are choices. Whether you think homosexuality is a choice or not.
Lots of Christians say being gay isn't a sin, having gay sex/gay relationships is a sin. This is a super common stance. I know you've seen it.
If you think it's sleazy for Christians to say that gay people ought to be celibate, fine. But then say that. This objection is nonsense.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Except this 'decision' to be celibate-and I object to what seem a rather casual suggestion that it's possible*-only applies to the homosexuals. Celibacy isn't something expected of heterosexuals, although there was plenty in early Christianity that said celibacy was the proper way of behaving. No surprise, as a able the religion got over this little hurdle and relegated that view, where it remains, to be the objective of very few.
*i know none and have heard of very few people who are voluntarily celibate on the lifetime span. Even among those groups who are supposedly committed to it, stories and scandals crop up. When you add in that Christianity doesn't just forbid adulterous behavior but adulterous thought, and when you consider that this magic 'we condemn a behavior, not a state of being!' applies only to this small group who experiences urges the condemners won't ever be forbidden...
Yeah, I've officially run out of patience with that line of thinking. Especially, too, when it's never that long before you're heading about and pray the gay away therapy or camp or minister being as much about 'you actually want to be heterosexual!!' Overall in suppose I'm sick of having to listen to reasons why I should think homophobic politics and religion should be treated as anything but what it is-intolerant. Especially when, with just a little digging, those making such complaints have so little respect for tolerance themselves.
I'm sick of people who use 'God says so' as a reason why I or anyone should do or shouldn't do anything and then, when they start to lose that argument, lecture about the virtue they didn't give a fig for before they had to worry about losing.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Rakeesh:
quote:That said, I'm not going to shed a tear or criticize boycott efforts much at all because of how unfair and absurd it seems to me to insist that SSM advocated must be held to such a higher standard than their opponents, or be found lacking. Card, NOM, and others threw the first stone when homosexuals as a political group in terms of power were all but a whipped dog. Instead of people complaining how wrong it is to boycott, perhaps they ought to marvel at SSM proponents' comparative restraint.
Come on dude. Who is saying only one side needs to work on tolerance? Seriously who? We are only talking about tolerance coming from same-sex marriage advocates because I was under the impression we both take it as a given that those voting against same-sex marriage are in large part intolerant.
We are parting ways in two places.
1: Many same-sex marriage advocates are not being tolerant.
2: All same-sex opponents are intolerant.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Also, for the record I *do* think the 'it's ok to be gay, just don't screw' to be sleazy, even though I recognize well-meaning people can think that way. But I'd like to note the Orwellian knots this nonsense thinking twists us into: 'it's not forbidden to *be* gay, just don't *do* anything gay-that's forbidden and sinful. And as a sign of how to do this, you can be gay and remain celibate for your life and that's ok-we don't have a promos with you being gay in *that* way. But heterosexual don't have to do this-they don't need to remain celibate, just until they marry...which we won't let gays do. But remember, it's ok to be gay.'
That's not at all a torturous back-winding path of contradiction and nonsense that doesn't almost at once show how *not* ok it is to 'be' gay. In order for this line of thinking to make any sense and not be immediately hypocritical, special categories of lifelong behavior have to be created. Different, much more difficult and indeed psychologically dangerous patterns of behavior have to be upheld for the class of people that we are assured are 'ok'...except for the part where they're inferior on a spiritual, legal, physical, and ethical level from the wider group.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
BB,
I didn't in fact take it as a given that we *did* believe that in large part they're being intolerant. Perhaps I'm blending yours, Amka's, and Dustin's replies, at least outwardly. I'll try to be more clear about who exactly I'm replying to.
Posted by Marlozhan (Member # 2422) on :
I agree that any hypocrisy between who celibacy outside of marriage applies to, based on sexual orientation, is ridiculous. However, my particular faith happens to be alive and well in the expectation that sex be only within the bonds of marriage. There is no hypocrisy within the doctrine that allows more leeway for heterosexuals to be celibate outside of marriage. The latest LDS General Conference was still very clear that God intends sex to be only within marriage, period. There has been no backsliding on this point.
Now, I realize that this is not a fair comparison, given that the doctrine allows heterosexuals to be sexual within marriage and homosexuals not ever.
But as far as the LDS expectations of lifelong celibacy for never-marrieds vs. homosexuals, it is the same. If someone within the church has sex outside of marriage because they are 70 years old and they say, "But I wanted to try it just once and I never got a chance to be married!" it will be called a sin just as much (assuming a non-bigoted person is the responder) as a homosexual who decides to be sexual because they don't want to be celibate forever, either.
Again, talking about LDS doctrine, not LDS culture.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Amka: It illustrates where the comparison to racism against black people, and believing SSM is a sin, are not analogous.
Personally, if it resolves your objection on the basis of nurture/nature, I wouldn't really mind shifting the comparison over to objections to interracial marriage as a better comparison to objections to same-sex marriage.
It's not as though society in general has a much better view of people that would ban interracial marriage than those that are racist against black people.
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: That's not at all a torturous back-winding path of contradiction and nonsense that doesn't almost at once show how *not* ok it is to 'be' gay. In order for this line of thinking to make any sense and not be immediately hypocritical, special categories of lifelong behavior have to be created.
In fairness, they probably would have created the jobs of priest and senator one way or another Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:It's not as though society in general has a much better view of people that would ban interracial marriage than those that are racist against black people.
At the time that laws against interracial marriage existed, they were defended using some of the same arguments currently used against SSM. Even some LDS church leaders expressed notoriously extreme public opinions on the vileness of such relationships. The church leadership actually has a softer public stance on SSM now than they once had on mixed-race marriages.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: If I simply don't do things that are actively harmful I'm no more tolerant than Emily Dickinson staying at home and refusing to go outside and engage with humanity was.
Emily Dickinson staying at home and not interfering with the lives of gay people doesn't 'express tolerance.'
Emily Dickinson acting against gay people in a bigoted fashion, speaking out against their marriages openly, and voting for representatives who will keep the law in accordance with her beliefs that gay people can't marry, but who will smile and invent her gay friends to dinner and use this to show that she 'doesn't have anything against gays' and that she 'respects them as people' and is 'willing to reach out to them' is 'expressing tolerance.'
And if a gay person does not want to put up with bigoted people in their life and feel that they have the right to say "I want nothing to do with you, bigot" to bigoted Emily Dickinson, as part of whatever they're doing, as a marginalized class of people, to get by in life with people actively trying to keep them a second-class citizen, that gay person is 'intolerant.'
Again, that's the whole point. Your idea of 'tolerance' is useless, because all it is is tone policing for marginalized people. It boils down to "tolerance is if a bigoted person thinks they're being nice to a person they're oppressing, the person who is being oppressed by the bigoted person should be polite about the issue to the bigoted person, because if they express anger or even just refuse to be polite or associate with bigots, that's intolerant.'
I'll say it again — that kind of 'tolerance' can die in a fire.
quote:And I'd say a person who is voting their conscience, but holds no ill will towards gay people. Who welcomes them into their life. Who engages them intellectually, and tries to work out why they haven't reached the same conclusion. But only when both sides want to. Who reaches an impasse, and recognizes that, but does not hold it against the other side. Who stands up to those who are abusing gay people. Who accepts that just as he voted his conscience, others vote theirs, and in a democracy that means rule of law changes. They don't necessarily agree with it, or like it, but they sustain the law.
A person who fits much of that, if not all, can be described as tolerant. That to me is what tolerance is.
That's because you're trying to make this about intent rather than impact, even when the intent is bigoted and actively causes harm.
The slavery comparisons keep coming up about this because they are being used to demonstrate how completely ridiculous this is. If I live in a country where slavery is a big issue or there's a party with slavery as a major active platform, whether or not a person has "good intent" or are "acting in a way they think is moral" when they espouse slavery, fight against anti-slavery, and vote in legislators to keep slavery on the books, really directly involves whether or not that person is a tolerant person. "good intent" is such a relatively worthless thing in these matters.
And, most importantly, "good intent" is no reason to tell an oppressed person that they are intolerant if they are nice to their oppressors.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Amka,
quote:It illustrates where the comparison to racism against black people, and believing SSM is a sin, are not analogous.
I'm afraid it is entirely analagous to the extent homosexuality is a choice, or a behavior built into one's genes.
Oh come on man. No it's not.
It's possible to identify as gay and celibate. Having sex, having relationships, those are choices. Whether you think homosexuality is a choice or not.
Lots of Christians say being gay isn't a sin, having gay sex/gay relationships is a sin. This is a super common stance. I know you've seen it.
If you think it's sleazy for Christians to say that gay people ought to be celibate, fine. But then say that. This objection is nonsense.
It goes right back down to that a person is born in a way which makes it so that they can't marry someone they have sexual interest in, and are called sinners if they do. They are in a different situation with regard to their romantic and sexual attractions, not by choice. Homosexuality, not as a matter of choice, makes that an issue and makes it discrimination when people are trying to enforce marriage as one particular thing based on a religious belief, or tell you to be celibate or be a sinner.
Gay people should not be asked to be celibate. You agree and you think the idea that they should is nonsense, right?
Posted by happymann (Member # 9559) on :
My own position on homosexuality and SSM has certainly evolved over time. I am a faithful and practicing LDS so my beliefs are highly influenced by that doctrine.
I believe for me currently the battle is semantic in nature (I am definitely not speaking on behalf of any one person, group of people, or organization when I say "for me"). To be honest, I haven't always believed this and have certainly rode the wagon of intolerance in the past. But currently as it stands I believe that, if we were to live in a more ideal and tolerant world, then the government should get out of the marriage game altogether. Because I believe that the definition of the word "marriage" is a binding of a man and a woman (for a family, etc.). Under this definition I would be perfectly fine with the government allowing for legal purposes to perform "civil unions" (or whatever you want to call it) to whomever would like it (heterosexual, homosexual, etc.) so that they have legal documentation for legal reasons. But the definition of the word "marriage", I believe, should stay as a heterosexual word.
I understand that in our imperfect society that my desires to keep "marriage" as a heterosexual word (if I were allowed to have my way) could in turn continue to have bigoted people still oppress homosexuals because they are not technically "married" but only have a "civil union".
So, knowing that we are not in a closed society with only a few variables (but in fact live in a society with so many variables and second, third, fourth, etc. orders of effect that we simply can't measure) I have come to realize that I have lost my own personal battle over the definition of the word "marriage". I am okay with it.
What I think should happen, where the LDS church is concerned, is that the church should continue to preach love and tolerance (it hasn't seemed to always do that but I think the church has done a lot of introspection since the backlash of Prop 8). Elder Dallin H. Oaks said an interesting statement on the Mormons and Gays website and I think it's particularly interesting specifically how he worded it. He said, "[H]ow can we help members of the church who struggle with same-gender attractions, but want to remain active and fully engaged in the church?" I have spent a lot of time thinking about what I would do if I found out that a child of mine was homosexual. I have come to the conclusion that I would try and teach them as much as I possibly can about the doctrine of my own beliefs and also teach them as much about the love and tolerance of Jesus Christ as I can and then ultimately give them the choice whether they "want to remain active and fully engaged in the church" and being okay with it if they don't because I understand that it is asking a lot from them. If they choose not to stay in the church, I would not be able to blame them.
Also I think, since I like to define words (I studied linguistics in college), that the church should move away from the word "marriage" by itself and start to define its own marriages as something else (like "sealings" since it's a word that already exists in our church lexicon). But that decision is out of my hands.
This has kind of turned into quite a rambling train of thought. Let me see if I can add one more thing into the mix.
I believe the word "marriage" should be a heterosexual word. I don't think ANY couple should be denied legal support and protection. I know that I've probably lost the battle on the definition of the word "marriage".
I am anti-SSM. Am I intolerant? Do my ramblings make sense?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Here's a question, happyman. Also I did appreciate your post, me get a bit the difficulty and complexity of where you're coming from. Anyway, my question: why is it so important that 'marriage' remain a heterosexual word? I ask this because I'm unaware of any legal push to keep the word respectable and authentic with respect to the spiritual importance you're attaching to it. I'm unaware of any efforts to restrict people from having Las Vegas marriages, for example. I'm not familiar with any effort to intervene in couples that are regularly, flagrantly unfaithful and give them a different word for their marriage. Or even an effort to get involved in marriages rife with violence and forcibly break it up and at least give it a different name.
Why is it so important to keep faithful, committed, loving homosexuals from the word 'marriage'-but not important to keep faithless, adulterous, unloving and even violent heterosexuals from the same word?
A secondary question: when did conservative religious people take ownership of the word 'marriage'?
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Amka,
quote:It illustrates where the comparison to racism against black people, and believing SSM is a sin, are not analogous.
I'm afraid it is entirely analagous to the extent homosexuality is a choice, or a behavior built into one's genes.
Oh come on man. No it's not.
It's possible to identify as gay and celibate. Having sex, having relationships, those are choices. Whether you think homosexuality is a choice or not.
Lots of Christians say being gay isn't a sin, having gay sex/gay relationships is a sin. This is a super common stance. I know you've seen it.
If you think it's sleazy for Christians to say that gay people ought to be celibate, fine. But then say that. This objection is nonsense.
It goes right back down to that a person is born in a way which makes it so that they can't marry someone they have sexual interest in, and are called sinners if they do. They are in a different situation with regard to their romantic and sexual attractions, not by choice. Homosexuality, not as a matter of choice, makes that an issue and makes it discrimination when people are trying to enforce marriage as one particular thing based on a religious belief, or tell you to be celibate or be a sinner.
Gay people should not be asked to be celibate. You agree and you think the idea that they should is nonsense, right?
I think the whole "is it a choice" argument is pretty stupid. I'm not remotely convinced that sexual orientation is genetic or that it's immutable.
That said, it's also not a "choice" the way most Christians mean it either. And of course I think asking gays to be celibate is stupid.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Tertiary question(edit: for happyman): in your ideal linguistic world, what word is used by religions who accept and solemnize same-sex marriages? A civil union is the government's recognition of the legal aspects of the partnership, what is the word for the religious aspects that other religions recognize but yours doesn't?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: I think the whole "is it a choice" argument is pretty stupid. I'm not remotely convinced that sexual orientation is genetic or that it's immutable.
That said, it's also not a "choice" the way most Christians mean it either.
It's not choice, period. Your sexuality doesn't come down to something you chose for yourself, or anything you could 'take back' if you wanted. People don't choose to be gay any more than they choose to be straight.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
People who are naturally bi can choose to act as one or the other. I suspect that's the reality for many of the people, self-identified gay or straight, who believe it's a choice.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Sigh. Probably not the thread for me to jump into that discussion.
I already clarified what I think of the idea that gays should be celibate. Guess I'll leave it at that.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I'm interested in that discussion, though I can see why you might be wary given the thread context. But my question would be, for that discussion, is that it's surely theoretically possible for a human being to choose to be celibate. But I look around at how many (almost none anywhere) actually make that choice voluntarily, and then I look at those groups where it is supposed to be the norm (priests, monks, divorcees, unmarried adults) and when I look at these groupings, I *still* see quite a bit of sexual exploration. It even exists among groups that self-select for celibacy such as monks and priests.
All of this, to me, calls into question just how authentic celibacy is on a lifetime level for human beings. A person can certainly choose to be celibate for a given instant, or a day, or a week, or a month, but a lifetime? That has an uncertain success rate even for people who isolate themselves in monasteries! How many deserted islands are there in the world for homosexuals to make lifetime celibacy a real option? What are your thoughts on that, Dan? All of this is setting aside that Christians don't, in fact, simply say 'if you don't do it, you're OK'-they're also instructed that it's sinful-extra sinful in the case of homosexual-to *think* adulterously.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw: People who are naturally bi can choose to act as one or the other. I suspect that's the reality for many of the people, self-identified gay or straight, who believe it's a choice.
Probably. I know a few people who at one point assumed sexuality is a choice based on their own personal experience as bisexual, because from their own perspective they were 'choosing' and presuming that it was a model for how other people's non-bisexual sexuality worked.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Janis Ian is Mr. Card's Jamaican neighbor.
This made me laugh so loudly I had a coworker walk over and ask me what was so funny. I could not, of course, explain it why.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
the worst/best part about that is that three days ago I found out my neighbors are actually Jamaican, and I accidentally laughed out loud
Posted by happymann (Member # 9559) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Here's a question, happyman. Also I did appreciate your post, me get a bit the difficulty and complexity of where you're coming from. Anyway, my question: why is it so important that 'marriage' remain a heterosexual word? I ask this because I'm unaware of any legal push to keep the word respectable and authentic with respect to the spiritual importance you're attaching to it. I'm unaware of any efforts to restrict people from having Las Vegas marriages, for example. I'm not familiar with any effort to intervene in couples that are regularly, flagrantly unfaithful and give them a different word for their marriage. Or even an effort to get involved in marriages rife with violence and forcibly break it up and at least give it a different name.
Why is it so important to keep faithful, committed, loving homosexuals from the word 'marriage'-but not important to keep faithless, adulterous, unloving and even violent heterosexuals from the same word?
A secondary question: when did conservative religious people take ownership of the word 'marriage'?
The statement about really awful people being in heterosexual marriages is one of the arguments that led me towards making the leap to recognizing the need for legal recognition of all types of couples (two committed and loving homosexuals wanting to share a life together can contribute more healthily to a society than awful heterosexual couples. Orders of magnitude better I would wager).
Your questions are really good and they're questions I don't really have concrete answers to and I've been asking them of myself for a while, which is why I feel that this "battle" is "lost" where the word "marriage" is concerned. I can't think of adequate answers to your questions.
quote:Originally posted by dkw: Tertiary question(edit: for happyman): in your ideal linguistic world, what word is used by religions who accept and solemnize same-sex marriages? A civil union is the government's recognition of the legal aspects of the partnership, what is the word for the religious aspects that other religions recognize but yours doesn't?
This is another brilliant question. "Sealing" is a term that is pretty specific in Mormon theology. I would be open to a word possibly present in the religions you reference (ones open to same-sex marriages). So, I guess that's another question I don't know the answer to. Good discussion.
edited for minor stuff.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Marlozhan: I agree that any hypocrisy between who celibacy outside of marriage applies to, based on sexual orientation, is ridiculous. However, my particular faith happens to be alive and well in the expectation that sex be only within the bonds of marriage. There is no hypocrisy within the doctrine that allows more leeway for heterosexuals to be celibate outside of marriage. The latest LDS General Conference was still very clear that God intends sex to be only within marriage, period. There has been no backsliding on this point.
Now, I realize that this is not a fair comparison, given that the doctrine allows heterosexuals to be sexual within marriage and homosexuals not ever.
Well that is a good first step. And so?
quote:
But as far as the LDS expectations of lifelong celibacy for never-marrieds vs. homosexuals, it is the same. If someone within the church has sex outside of marriage because they are 70 years old and they say, "But I wanted to try it just once and I never got a chance to be married!" it will be called a sin just as much (assuming a non-bigoted person is the responder) as a homosexual who decides to be sexual because they don't want to be celibate forever, either.
Again, talking about LDS doctrine, not LDS culture.
Okay. This attitude toward celibacy is just a tad offensive. Please bear in mind that sex between two people of the same gender is not just sex for them any more or less than it is for straight people. It is not just a physical urge or "something they wanted to try". By demanding celibacy we are not merely denying arousal and orgasm. We are denying them the comfort of being held at night, the quick kiss on the way out the door in the morning, the ease of being comfortable in your skin with someone who cherishes every inch of that skin, of knowing that your lover thinks you are beautiful (even when you don't), slow dancing with your partner, sleeping in spoons and having someone to chase away the nightmares, of laughing at things that are only funny in bed. Physical love is not just physical between people who love each other. It is intimacy. This is just as true for gay people as it is for straight ones. When you demand they give up sex, you are stripping away the possibility of finding that kind of intimacy.
Likewise, marriage is not just legal protections - though God knows those are important. It is about families. Not just children, but also in-laws and cousins and friends. About sharing responsibility for a home and a life. About deciding where to go for Thanksgiving because you are not going alone. It is about being the next-of-kin because you have made a family. And, someday, about being acknowledged as being the bereaved and receiving comfort rather than being consigned to a back pew at a funeral. It is belonging to each other.
When you so blithely decide that people can just be celibate, really acknowledge what that means. What you are deciding they can do without. If you claim to be compassionate, how can you not weep to be so cruel?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Emotional appeals aside (though you make a compelling case for some of the associated realities of lifelong celibacy), people can often without much difficulty be cruel to an 'other', of course-especially when they can be persuaded it's for their own good. Especially when that 'other" is secretly (or at least originally, traditionally) reviled. But then when you throw in a dash of 'God says so', it doesn't seem surprising at all.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I know. But I want them to darn well acknowledge it.
Posted by Marlozhan (Member # 2422) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by Marlozhan: I agree that any hypocrisy between who celibacy outside of marriage applies to, based on sexual orientation, is ridiculous. However, my particular faith happens to be alive and well in the expectation that sex be only within the bonds of marriage. There is no hypocrisy within the doctrine that allows more leeway for heterosexuals to be celibate outside of marriage. The latest LDS General Conference was still very clear that God intends sex to be only within marriage, period. There has been no backsliding on this point.
Now, I realize that this is not a fair comparison, given that the doctrine allows heterosexuals to be sexual within marriage and homosexuals not ever.
Well that is a good first step. And so?
quote:
But as far as the LDS expectations of lifelong celibacy for never-marrieds vs. homosexuals, it is the same. If someone within the church has sex outside of marriage because they are 70 years old and they say, "But I wanted to try it just once and I never got a chance to be married!" it will be called a sin just as much (assuming a non-bigoted person is the responder) as a homosexual who decides to be sexual because they don't want to be celibate forever, either.
Again, talking about LDS doctrine, not LDS culture.
Okay. This attitude toward celibacy is just a tad offensive. Please bear in mind that sex between two people of the same gender is not just sex for them any more or less than it is for straight people. It is not just a physical urge or "something they wanted to try". By demanding celibacy we are not merely denying arousal and orgasm. We are denying them the comfort of being held at night, the quick kiss on the way out the door in the morning, the ease of being comfortable in your skin with someone who cherishes every inch of that skin, of knowing that your lover thinks you are beautiful (even when you don't), slow dancing with your partner, sleeping in spoons and having someone to chase away the nightmares, of laughing at things that are only funny in bed. Physical love is not just physical between people who love each other. It is intimacy. This is just as true for gay people as it is for straight ones. When you demand they give up sex, you are stripping away the possibility of finding that kind of intimacy.
Likewise, marriage is not just legal protections - though God knows those are important. It is about families. Not just children, but also in-laws and cousins and friends. About sharing responsibility for a home and a life. About deciding where to go for Thanksgiving because you are not going alone. It is about being the next-of-kin because you have made a family. And, someday, about being acknowledged as being the bereaved and receiving comfort rather than being consigned to a back pew at a funeral. It is belonging to each other.
When you so blithely decide that people can just be celibate, really acknowledge what that means. What you are deciding they can do without. If you claim to be compassionate, how can you not weep to be so cruel?
Perhaps I should clarify. I am not the one blithely deciding who should and shouldn't be celibate. I do not want to decide that for someone else. I was responding to someone else's claim that Christian religions are hypocritical on the specific point of saying it is kind of okay for heterosexuals to have sex outside of marriage but never okay for homosexuals to have sex outside of marriage. I was pointing out that the LDS church, on that specific point, is still strong in expecting celibacy of non-married heterosexuals. That's all I was saying. I was not stating my opinion at all.
I will state my opinion and personal beliefs to clarify. I have a strong belief that spirits have an eternal gender that does not change and that there will be no coupling of same-gendered people in heaven. I have no problem with others believing otherwise.
I also have no desire to take my belief and start making judgments of others who are gay and the lifestyles they choose. I will not expect celibacy of my gay friends and I will not expect it of non-married heterosexual friends. It is simply not my place to judge or expect.
For SSM couples, all I want for them in the end is to be happy and I will leave that matter in God's hands. If my belief is true, that spirits have eternal gender, then I have no idea how it will be worked out when two loving gay people, that were married in this life, arrive in heaven. I only believe that God will work things out for the happiness of everyone. And I hope this doesn't sound like a cop-out. It is not. It comes from having no need to judge another's behavior as sinful or not, again, as long as they don't violate my rights or others' rights.
If I were gay, I do not believe I could lead a celibate life my entire life. I might be able to. But I doubt it. As a heterosexual with certain spiritual beliefs about the sacred nature of sex, I have made mistakes that go against my own values. I have also had to revise my values. In essence, I am a human being who doesn't know the answers to everything, including my own sexuality and especially the eternal nature of things. And I extend that same respect to have other beliefs, or simply 'not know', to other people as well.
I feel happy for gay couples who are happily together. Because they are God's children and I want people to be happy. Do I wonder how things will work out for them in the next life? Yes, but not in a "I will pray for your soul" kind of hypocritical way. I just wonder. That's it. Because I don't know and I am at peace with that. I also happen to not know what will happen to myself in various ways, or to my various heterosexual friends who have been married or sealed multiple times.
What I don't know I leave in God's hands, and what I do know for myself, I don't have a need to thrust that knowledge upon someone else. I am LDS because there are certain things I have experienced for myself that I cannot deny. But there are things about the LDS church that I don't agree with.
If two of my friends were gay and wanted to be married and I was invited, I would go. I would support them like any other couple. Because I am respecting their decision. I respect that it is not mine. I have no need for it to be mine.
And if you put me in the ballot box right now, I would vote to support SSM, because my values demand it based on everything I have learned about being a decent human being and respecting others' rights. If by some chance God wanted me to vote otherwise, then I will have that conversation with him in the next life and he will understand my motives and explain to me a very good reason why he wanted it that way. That is the kind of God I have a relationship with. Not one who is going to thrust me to hell for such a vote.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Thanks, Marlozhan. I appreciate your response. As you can probably tell, you were not the first person to mention celibacy as a workable solution. I am glad to know that you weren't actually suggesting it.
I am especially glad for your last paragraph. As I have noted before, I may be wrong. I may be hauled up before the throne of a condemning God. But I choose to stake my eternal life on a God who rejoices in love.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by happymann: My own position on homosexuality and SSM has certainly evolved over time. I am a faithful and practicing LDS so my beliefs are highly influenced by that doctrine.
I believe for me currently the battle is semantic in nature (I am definitely not speaking on behalf of any one person, group of people, or organization when I say "for me"). To be honest, I haven't always believed this and have certainly rode the wagon of intolerance in the past. But currently as it stands I believe that, if we were to live in a more ideal and tolerant world, then the government should get out of the marriage game altogether. Because I believe that the definition of the word "marriage" is a binding of a man and a woman (for a family, etc.). Under this definition I would be perfectly fine with the government allowing for legal purposes to perform "civil unions" (or whatever you want to call it) to whomever would like it (heterosexual, homosexual, etc.) so that they have legal documentation for legal reasons. But the definition of the word "marriage", I believe, should stay as a heterosexual word.
I understand that in our imperfect society that my desires to keep "marriage" as a heterosexual word (if I were allowed to have my way) could in turn continue to have bigoted people still oppress homosexuals because they are not technically "married" but only have a "civil union".
So, knowing that we are not in a closed society with only a few variables (but in fact live in a society with so many variables and second, third, fourth, etc. orders of effect that we simply can't measure) I have come to realize that I have lost my own personal battle over the definition of the word "marriage". I am okay with it.
What I think should happen, where the LDS church is concerned, is that the church should continue to preach love and tolerance (it hasn't seemed to always do that but I think the church has done a lot of introspection since the backlash of Prop 8). Elder Dallin H. Oaks said an interesting statement on the Mormons and Gays website and I think it's particularly interesting specifically how he worded it. He said, "[H]ow can we help members of the church who struggle with same-gender attractions, but want to remain active and fully engaged in the church?" I have spent a lot of time thinking about what I would do if I found out that a child of mine was homosexual. I have come to the conclusion that I would try and teach them as much as I possibly can about the doctrine of my own beliefs and also teach them as much about the love and tolerance of Jesus Christ as I can and then ultimately give them the choice whether they "want to remain active and fully engaged in the church" and being okay with it if they don't because I understand that it is asking a lot from them. If they choose not to stay in the church, I would not be able to blame them.
Also I think, since I like to define words (I studied linguistics in college), that the church should move away from the word "marriage" by itself and start to define its own marriages as something else (like "sealings" since it's a word that already exists in our church lexicon). But that decision is out of my hands.
This has kind of turned into quite a rambling train of thought. Let me see if I can add one more thing into the mix.
I believe the word "marriage" should be a heterosexual word. I don't think ANY couple should be denied legal support and protection. I know that I've probably lost the battle on the definition of the word "marriage".
I am anti-SSM. Am I intolerant? Do my ramblings make sense?
lest I be too much of a harp, i should note this is a good post and as far as i can see a better venture into the question of 'how do I analyze my tolerance in effect instead of intent'
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
There is a bigger problem here that is overlooked.
It was mentioned in passing above..."Gender is considered eternal."
For most pro-SSM people, SSM debate is about rights of homosexuals.
For many conservative thinkers, its about gender issues, gender roles, and really about the dominance of man over woman.
If you believe that Man were made in God's image to be masters over women, then you believe that there are natural, divinely ordained roles for men and for woman.
In the past 50-100 years those roles have been slowly blending. Women are doing "mens" work, demanding respect, taking places of power, and not being submissive to the man in any way.
Now, even in the marriage bed, men are taking the place of women and women are taking the place of men.
Chaos.
How can a man expect to keep his wife quiet and respectful if the roles of men and women are being legally erased?
They argue that allowing SSM will lead on a slippery slope to bestiality, child abuse, and worse.
It could be argued that denying SSM will lead to unequal pay for equal work, sexism, and the Burkah.
Posted by Marlozhan (Member # 2422) on :
quote:Originally posted by Darth_Mauve: There is a bigger problem here that is overlooked.
It was mentioned in passing above..."Gender is considered eternal."
For most pro-SSM people, SSM debate is about rights of homosexuals.
For many conservative thinkers, its about gender issues, gender roles, and really about the dominance of man over woman.
If you believe that Man were made in God's image to be masters over women, then you believe that there are natural, divinely ordained roles for men and for woman.
In the past 50-100 years those roles have been slowly blending. Women are doing "mens" work, demanding respect, taking places of power, and not being submissive to the man in any way.
Now, even in the marriage bed, men are taking the place of women and women are taking the place of men.
Chaos.
How can a man expect to keep his wife quiet and respectful if the roles of men and women are being legally erased?
They argue that allowing SSM will lead on a slippery slope to bestiality, child abuse, and worse.
It could be argued that denying SSM will lead to unequal pay for equal work, sexism, and the Burkah.
And while this can and is the case for many people, saying that gender is eternal does not inherently lead to these things. It is possible for the genders to have inherent differences without either being dominant over the other. It is possible for these differences to be a dualistic union that creates a unified whole out of differences.
An example of the type of dynamic I am talking about is some of the premises of chaos theory. Much of chaos theory is built on the idea that opposing forces work together to bring form to the universe. Democrat vs. Republican, gravity vs. other forces, chaos vs. order, masculine vs. feminine, structure vs. creativity. Man and woman together are meant to form the perfect union, under LDS doctrine.
If you believe that there is no God, then it is easy to blame the problems of religion on the fact that there is no God.
But if you do believe in God, then all of the flaws, prejudices, inequality, and abuses of religion are the result of a fallen world where people continue to misquote, misunderstand, and misrepresent the character of God. And if you are LDS, you understand (if you know your religion) why there is such limited communication from God. We are meant to fumble in the dark, so to speak (which leads into the discussion of why there is suffering and ambiguity, which is in another thread, which I am not going to repeat).
In short, I don't agree with those conservative thinkers who are masking inequality under the guise of eternal gender. As a matter of fact, humans will use whatever they can get their hands on to justify oppression, shame, inequality, and prejudice. They will and have used religion, God, politics, science, culture, and popularity to justify these things.
A tool used incorrectly does not make the tool bad. It is the user, or the method being used, that is wrong. I don't think it is good to blame religious or non-religious people. It is good to blame people who use religion a bad way or to blame people who use their lack of religious belief in a bad way.
I believe in building a society where the strength and positives of religion can thrive without all of the prejudices and abuses that have often accompanied it. This society must also allow the non-religious to thrive. At this point, someone might argue that these problems are inherent in religion, but I disagree. I believe the problem is inherent in human nature anytime you get together large groups of people into any organization. Shame and prejudice are the problems, not the things that they infect.
I think I may have gone off on a tangent, I am not sure Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
My problem with the speculation that there are inherent, eternal categorical differences based on gender is that there are too many obvious counterexamples to any particular traits that we can pick out as candidates. e.g. men that are more nurturing than the average woman, or women that are better breadwinners than the average man.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Samprimary:
quote:Emily Dickinson acting against gay people in a bigoted fashion.
Is there a non-bigoted fashion? I suspect for you there is not, and from there everything else flows I think.
quote:Again, that's the whole point. Your idea of 'tolerance' is useless, because all it is is tone policing for marginalized people. It boils down to "tolerance is if a bigoted person thinks they're being nice to a person they're oppressing, the person who is being oppressed by the bigoted person should be polite about the issue to the bigoted person, because if they express anger or even just refuse to be polite or associate with bigots, that's intolerant.'
You keep acting like my idea of tolerance is only directed at the minority side. It isn't. And just for emphasis here's bold and italics tolerating each other, IT ISN'T.
I still am not satisfied that you've proactively described tolerance. It's still basically, "You don't do this."
quote:The slavery comparisons keep coming up about this because they are being used to demonstrate how completely ridiculous this is. If I live in a country where slavery is a big issue or there's a party with slavery as a major active platform, whether or not a person has "good intent" or are "acting in a way they think is moral" when they espouse slavery, fight against anti-slavery, and vote in legislators to keep slavery on the books, really directly involves whether or not that person is a tolerant person. "good intent" is such a relatively worthless thing in these matters.
In that instance tolerance would be a function of why they believe as they do, and are they honestly willing to consider it. If not, they aren't being tolerant. But neither was John Brown.
I can't see how impact has anything to do with tolerance. I try to conceptualize a sliding scale of results and I just don't see any point where intolerance becomes tolerance. Your motivations and rationale behind your actions to me signals much more whether the individual is tolerant or not.
I need to get a shot. I'm physically too scared of needles to consciously allow one to puncture my skin. No psychological treatment exists that can cure me of my fear. Nor is there another way to accomplish the effects of the shot. My doctor is ethically required to give me a shot, he has the authority to restrain me and give me one. If he does this I will do everything I can including killing him in self-defense.
If the doctor doesn't want to bother working out a solution with me, because he can't allow me not to have a shot, tricks me into taking a sedative, and gives me the shot. He is intolerant.
If the doctor believes there is no persuading me, but can't allow me not to have the shot, and tricks me into taking a sedative, then gives me the shot. He is intolerant.
If the doctor believes there is no persuading me, says so, suggests kindly that we sedate me so he can give me a shot. I might consent, I might not. In either case he has demonstrated tolerance.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
Thanks for your most recent posts, Marlozhan and BB.
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
Emily Dickenson was against gays?
What other noteworthy writers or whatever were against it? I'd be interested to see a list.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jeff C.: Emily Dickenson was against gays?
What other noteworthy writers or whatever were against it? I'd be interested to see a list.
Dickinson wasn't against gays, at least if she was nobody here has indicated that she was.
What I was originally saying is that Dickenson, a well known recluse, was not infringing on anybody's civil rights, but not out of tolerance, she just didn't like people, and was a bit unhinged.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:You keep acting like my idea of tolerance is only directed at the minority side. It isn't. And just for emphasis here's bold and italics tolerating each other, IT ISN'T.
I still am not satisfied that you've proactively described tolerance. It's still basically, "You don't do this."
Well in response to your claim about Samprimary's kind of tolerance, I have to say that it appears to me your definition of tolerance is a basic 'do these things' list (speak respectfully-in person, maintain some relationships, invite to one's home) and then almost nothing will suffice to be considered intolerant.
If it's not what you meant I've misunderstood you, but in Card's case it seems that so long as he doesn't endorse or practice anti-gay vigilantism, then so long as he's friends with at least one homosexual it's unreasonable to suggest he's intolerant. So I guess my question is, given this one friendship we're referencing, at what point does his writing and political activity begin to drift into intolerancd? *Is* there a point?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Rakeesh:
quote:Well in response to your claim about Samprimary's kind of tolerance, I have to say that it appears to me your definition of tolerance is a basic 'do these things' list (speak respectfully-in person, maintain some relationships, invite to one's home) and then almost nothing will suffice to be considered intolerant.
I would not say what I provided was an exhaustive comprehensive list. I tried to give a general framework. Nobody else seems to have endeavored to do so. And again, you are ignoring motivation.
Chapman had gained notoriety for yelling a constant stream of racially charged trash talk whenever Robinson was at bat. After that horrible game, Robinson returned to play a home game in Philadelphia, and the hotel the team was staying at would not accommodate him. Baseball's commissioner could see how bad this was looking and put pressure on Chapman and the club owner to make things right.
Chapman asked a reluctant Robinson to take a photo with him, to show that things were fine.
I don't think (and I can't read Chapman's mind) that this was anything other than a publicity stunt rather than a true act of tolerance on Chapman's part. He wanted to be a racist, with all the laughs and support it generated without paying a racist's dues. My opinion would not have changed if Chapman had also invited Robinson over for dinner, or shook hands in the picture rather than holding a bat together. His motivations were the problem. Had Chapman freed the slaves, if it was done for say political reasons, he would still be an intolerant racist.
quote:If it's not what you meant I've misunderstood you, but in Card's case it seems that so long as he doesn't endorse or practice anti-gay vigilantism, then so long as he's friends with at least one homosexual it's unreasonable to suggest he's intolerant. So I guess my question is, given this one friendship we're referencing, at what point does his writing and political activity begin to drift into intolerancd? *Is* there a point?
I've never said that Mr. Card need only maintain friendship with one gay person, and thus he is immune to accusations of intolerance. I said that it was telling that a gay person who is more acquainted with Mr. Card than any of his vocal critics (that I am aware of) continues to work with him, and has not denounced him.
Either she's willing to overlook his intolerance, or she finds Mr. Card on the balance to not be intolerant.
Is Mr. Card gracious and willing to engage with gay people who want to have an open-minded conversation about what he's doing? I believe he is. Is Mr. Card intellectually honest in his views? I think he is. Are Mr. Card's views predicated squarely an unwillingness to change his mind, or because he is unwilling to accept the consequences of doing so? I don't think so.
Do I think Mr. Card has made some incorrect conclusions? Yes. So I believe he is wrong, but not intolerant.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Marlozhan: If you believe that there is no God, then it is easy to blame the problems of religion on the fact that there is no God.
Tangentially, I believe that there are no gods, and I don't think that the problems of religion aren't particularly well encapsulated by the fact that there is no god. Going one way, religions with no god share many of the problems that religions with a god have. Going the other way, learning that the Christian god exists as advertised, would in many ways be more horrifying than simply having a bunch of people believing wrongly.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
BB,
quote:I would not say what I provided was an exhaustive comprehensive list. I tried to give a general framework. Nobody else seems to have endeavored to do so. And again, you are ignoring motivation.
I think perhaps the two of you are approaching things from different angles to describe the same state of mind-Samprimary has certainly described a general framework of things which if done might merit the label 'intolerant', for example. Serious question: how is that different from what you're doing, just in a different style? As in an algebra problem, for example.
quote:I don't think (and I can't read Chapman's mind) that this was anything other than a publicity stunt rather than a true act of tolerance on Chapman's part. He wanted to be a racist, with all the laughs and support it generated without paying a racist's dues. My opinion would not have changed if Chapman had also invited Robinson over for dinner, or shook hands in the picture rather than holding a bat together. His motivations were the problem. Had Chapman freed the slaves, if it was done for say political reasons, he would still be an intolerant racist.
A little preface to my response to this: obviously I'm trying to advance an argument, but I'm not trying to zing you-too much respect for that. That said I have to point out you just stated that it was Chapman's intentions which mattered. If intentions are enough to be an indicator of insincerity and thus intolerance, then it seems safe to say that-as you appear to be arguing-good, sincere intentions are to serve as indicators for tolerance. Actions seem to be secondary. But then it's a strange example for this point, since if Chapman had taken steps to demonstrate tolerance and had been sincere in doing so, well, he would've been tolerant and non-racist, end of story, right?
But it seems that in Card's case, he doesn't even have to execute the publicity stunt to show his good intentions. He can lobby (vigorously) for years for an intolerant political stance-in the Chapman example, he can be hurling abuse and lobbying for baseball not to integrate. But he doesn't have to act out the publicity stunt (which in that case was half the battle if not more)-to show, or pretend to show, he's willing to play professional baseball with all racial groups.
To stick with the Chapman example, has Card ever been a participant or even a guest in some sort of lifelong commitment ceremony for homosexuals? Since the question here is marriage and not professional athletics, that would seem to be the sort of action required to be a true comparison to the Chapman-Robinson situation. I don't really know the answer. Looking her up, it appears she's married to a woman with a stepdaughter-I'm not sure if her stepdaughter predated the marriage or not. Anyway, since the question in this case is marriage, it seems to me that for what you're saying to be applicable, it wouldn't be enough for Card to carry on a personal friendship with Ian and a professional relationship with her-and for the record, I'm in no position to judge how authentic either of those are, obviously. I'm simply discussing the broader point using a specific example (as Card has never been reluctant to do in this matter).
So-on the question of marriage-has Card's personal behavior with respect to homosexual let's say civil union been what one would expect of a tolerant person? Or is it again simply Card's intentions which matter?
quote:I've never said that Mr. Card need only maintain friendship with one gay person, and thus he is immune to accusations of intolerance. I said that it was telling that a gay person who is more acquainted with Mr. Card than any of his vocal critics (that I am aware of) continues to work with him, and has not denounced him.
You've never explicitly stated 'this is all that's required', I agree. But I have to point out: that was the point you made-Janis Ian's friendship and lack of denunciation validate Card's tolerance, his political activity not relevant.
quote:Is Mr. Card gracious and willing to engage with gay people who want to have an open-minded conversation about what he's doing? I believe he is. Is Mr. Card intellectually honest in his views? I think he is. Are Mr. Card's views predicated squarely an unwillingness to change his mind, or because he is unwilling to accept the consequences of doing so? I don't think so.
I have to point out that in the press, politically speaking Card is certainly not willing to have an open-minded conversation with gay people about what he's doing. I can point to any number of columns to illustrate if you'd like. As for his intellectual honesty, I fail to see how that has any impact on his tolerance-the foulest, most overt bigot may very well be intellectually honest, that being a very ambiguous term. Finally, I'm not sure where you get the idea that Card might be willing to change his mind-though I will agree* he's not worried about the consequences.
quote:Do I think Mr. Card has made some incorrect conclusions? Yes. So I believe he is wrong, but not intolerant.
I'm not sure how to respond to this. His conclusions are wrong, but not intolerant-even though his conclusions lead him to lobby vigorously for an inferior status for entire groups of people?
*Actually I have to qualify this. Card tends to get pretty dissatisfied when people start talking about boycotts, or complaining about homosexuals not being accepted publicly, and goodness knows he's quick to call the people he's calling inferior intolerant when they challenge him in some inappropriate way.
Which brings us back around to tone-policing.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
BlackBlade, I think that the way you are using "tolerant" might be confusing. It is not a synonym for "polite" or "kind" or "nice". Tolerance is not an absolute good. There are things that should not be tolerated. The word "intolerant" carries a lot of baggage these days that it should not.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: BlackBlade, I think that the way you are using "tolerant" might be confusing. It is not a synonym for "polite" or "kind" or "nice". Tolerance is not an absolute good. There are things that should not be tolerated. The word "intolerant" carries a lot of baggage these days that it should not.
I think the way y'all use it is confusing too. But nor would I say being polite is an absolute good either. Drastically lacking, and undervalued yes, but not appropriate in every situation.
I'd be happy to hear what baggage you are referring to.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I wouldn't say that being polite is an absolute good either.
I think that tolerance has become sort of a buzzword for embracing diversity and that isn't quite right.
I am still not sure how wanting to keep homosexual acts illegal and vigorously working against civil rights for LBGT+ folks can be called tolerating those things. Even if one is polite while doing it and means it kindly.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Well, to be fair, the Bible does recommend killing homosexuals. So it's tolerant-ish. Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
You have a point there, Tom.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Kate: So what would you describe tolerance as? What is it?
If we go by willingness to let others have things their way, then I guess you are right. People who are blocking SSM by voting that way are not tolerating same-sex marriage. Nor are advocates tolerating religious people voting what their consciences dictate. So I guess we all just decide what kind of intolerance is justified?
It just doesn't sit right with me.
-----
Tom: Please.
Posted by stilesbn (Member # 11809) on :
It seems we have discussions about definitions like this that come up fairly often (re: homophobe). In general it goes like this:
1. Use a buzzword. i.e. intolerant = back-country racist homophobic person who is unwilling to consider any views other than his/her own.
2. When someone takes issue with you calling them/someone else that disassociates the definition of the word from it's commonly accepted buzzword definition. i.e. intolerant = doesn't vote for marriage rights (possible synonym: homophobe).
3. Convince others that the definition is your watered down version.
4. Continue using the buzzword as it was originally defined with the ability to deny that you meant it that way.
It's like a get out of jail free card.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Kate: So what would you describe tolerance as? What is it?
If we go by willingness to let others have things their way, then I guess you are right. People who are blocking SSM by voting that way are not tolerating same-sex marriage. Nor are advocates tolerating religious people voting what their consciences dictate. So I guess we all just decide what kind of intolerance is justified?
It just doesn't sit right with me.
-----
Tom: Please.
Yes. We all decide what should be tolerated. We should not, for example, be tolerant of kicking puppies. We should be tolerant of people celebrate different holidays. Unless it is a holiday celebrating puppy-kicking.
Tolerance pretty much means allowing the existence, occurrence, or practice of (something that one does not necessarily like or agree with) without interference. People who work against the rights of LBGTQ+ folks are not tolerant unless you are using Tom's scale.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
BB,
quote:If we go by willingness to let others have things their way, then I guess you are right. People who are blocking SSM by voting that way are not tolerating same-sex marriage. Nor are advocates tolerating religious people voting what their consciences dictate. So I guess we all just decide what kind of intolerance is justified?
It just doesn't sit right with me.
Again I have to point out that this isn't a valid comparison. Anti-SSM folks are actually stopping homosexuals from marrying, or even civil union-ing in many cases. Disapproval of purely-religious motives for laws and voting is just that-disapproval. Unless there's a widespread effort out there I'm unaware of, in which folks who disapprove of that attempt to somehow make it illegal to do so.
------
quote:4. Continue using the buzzword as it was originally defined with the ability to deny that you meant it that way.
You're the person complaining that other folks are misrepresenting an opponent's point of view, right? So you're...offering an ironic example of exactly that type of behavior then? Or perhaps I don't get it.
Because over here in the discussion that's actually happening, if you take a look you'll see multiple quite specific rejections of the 'backwoods drooling racist' version of 'intolerant' by the very people you're claiming are using a 'get out of jail free card'.
I think BlackBlade is tone-policing, but not in any intended way-it simply amounts to that as a consequence of his larger argument. You, on the other hand, you appear to want to make sure folks can't call anti-SSM an intolerant position by insisting that the backwoods drooling racist position is the default definition of 'intolerant', and they must mean it entirely from the start and doesn't that show what jerks they are?
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
For me tolerance is best summarized by "live and let live" or the Wiccan Rede - "An' it harm none, do what ye will."
So merely having or privately expressing an objectionable opinion - definitely a live and let live situation. There are no significant harmful consequences of this. This is tolerable.
Acting on such an opinion to a degree that plausibly causes tangible harm to myself or others - not so much. Such an act is itself intolerance and should be answered in kind. And yes, you can believe you aren't actually causing harm or that the harm is less severe than the consequences of inaction, but tolerance is about the experience of those harmed (what can be expected of them), not about your intentions.
[ October 28, 2013, 12:52 PM: Message edited by: MattP ]
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by stilesbn: ... i.e. intolerant = doesn't vote for marriage rights (possible synonym: homophobe)
Technically, if one doesn't want to vote "for" minority marriage rights (in so far as voting to not ban something could be interpreted as being "for" something), one could also abstain.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Acting on such an opinion to a degree that plausibly causes tangible harm to myself or others - not so much. Such an act is itself intolerance and should be answered in kind. And yes, you can believe you aren't actually causing harm or that the harm is less severe the consequences of inaction, but tolerance is about the experience of those harmed (what can be expected of them), not about your intentions.
This. One can legitimately, honestly feel they aren't being intolerant but are in fact being exactly that.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: It just doesn't sit right with me.
Why? The alternative you are offering makes 'tolerance' unrelated to virtue, and necessarily related to tone policing marginalized people.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
It's not complicated. Intolerance is generally considered a moral failing and one can* without any intention of harming anyone, indeed while sincerely believing they're helping, take actions to restrict SSM. Those kinds of motives aren't generally associated with moral failure-quite the opposite. In fact in many cases we would consider that if a bad outcome occurred as a result of those sort of motives, it would often be considered accidental or understandable-something to be pardoned and forgiven.
*The larger problem, of course, is the one Tom alludes to. The only possible path for opposition to SSM not being an expression of intolerance, and this path still requires a lot of argument to be considered valid, is if we accept 'God says so' as an acceptable motive. But that's a different though still related discussion.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Intolerance should not always be considered a moral failing depending on what one is being asked to tolerate.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Well yes, there are many things that no one should tolerate.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:If we go by willingness to let others have things their way, then I guess you are right. People who are blocking SSM by voting that way are not tolerating same-sex marriage. Nor are advocates tolerating religious people voting what their consciences dictate. So I guess we all just decide what kind of intolerance is justified?
It just doesn't sit right with me.
I thought we had gotten past the idea that wanting to use force to make other people live according to your religion is the same as not wanting people to use force to make you live according to their religion.
Why does that not sit right with you?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Kate: So what would you describe tolerance as? What is it?
If we go by willingness to let others have things their way, then I guess you are right. People who are blocking SSM by voting that way are not tolerating same-sex marriage. Nor are advocates tolerating religious people voting what their consciences dictate. So I guess we all just decide what kind of intolerance is justified?
It just doesn't sit right with me.
-----
Tom: Please.
Yes. We all decide what should be tolerated. We should not, for example, be tolerant of kicking puppies. We should be tolerant of people celebrate different holidays. Unless it is a holiday celebrating puppy-kicking.
Tolerance pretty much means allowing the existence, occurrence, or practice of (something that one does not necessarily like or agree with) without interference. People who work against the rights of LBGTQ+ folks are not tolerant unless you are using Tom's scale.
OK. For the sake of argument let's say I grant that. And I do see some things in what you are saying that make sense. Intolerance is not necessarily a vice, but the devil is in the details it seems.
So would we then say that in the example of Barilla Pasta, those calling for a boycott are intolerant?
-----------
Samprimary:
quote:Why? The alternative you are offering makes 'tolerance' unrelated to virtue, and necessarily related to tone policing marginalized people.
I don't see why tone policing is in of itself wrong. It sounds to me like if you believe you are marginalized, you can get away with more poor behavior.
-----------
MrSquicky:
quote:I thought we had gotten past the idea that wanting to use force to make other people live according to your religion is the same as not wanting people to use force to make you live according to their religion.
Force? As in physically restraining a person or inflicting harm to their person? Most people fighting against gay marriage do not believe marriage is a right, rather it is an institution setup by God as an expression of his will that men and women should form unions and reproduce. They don't want that institution altered and then that alteration given state sanction with their tax dollars supporting it.
Personally, I think there must be an equal standard or none at all. I think what SSM opponents actually want is to not be supporting SSM via their government. They get that if our government stops determining who can be married. They just don't realize that in large part because they are too tied up in the history of marriage in this country. And they are used to religious marriage being married (no pun intended) to government definitions of marriage. I think if we excised government from the institution, then marriage would move into the realm of religion and personal secular belief, where it belongs.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
BlackBlade,
quote: So would we then say that in the example of Barilla Pasta, those calling for a boycott are intolerant?
Depends. How loudly are they calling? Are they just deciding not to buy it themselves? That would be tolerant, just not supportive. Are they trying to get laws passed to keep bigots from making pasta? That would be intolerant. Somewhere in between?
Here's one for you. An acquaintance makes lewd comments about every woman he sees. You tell him that you don't want to hang out with him unless he stops. Intolerant? I would say so but I would also say that it is a good intolerance and that you were right not to tolerate it.
quote: Most people fighting against gay marriage do not believe marriage is a right, rather it is an institution setup by God as an expression of his will that men and women should form unions and reproduce.
Doesn't matter why they do the harm they do. If I believed that God wanted me to kick puppies, I still wouldn't be right to do it.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Force? As in physically restraining a person or inflicting harm to their person? Most people fighting against gay marriage do not believe marriage is a right, rather it is an institution setup by God as an expression of his will that men and women should form unions and reproduce. They don't want that institution altered and then that alteration given state sanction with their tax dollars supporting it.
But we're not talking about just gay marriage, at least as far as I can tell. Amka and Dustin are talking about laws keeping the gay people from having sex, and you are standing up for OSC, who wanted at one time to throw gay people in jail for the purpose - which he is still committed to - of making it clear that gay people do not belong as full members of society*.
* I have no idea how this translates to tolerance in your mind. To me, it seems like the dictionary definition of intolerance.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
I wish this discussion was less muddled.
For one thing, BB is not defending what he agrees is intolerant behavior on the behalf of those who want to marginalize and discriminate against gay people. A lot of the interlocutors seem to miss this. MrSquicky is the most recent.
For another thing, people are using different definitions for "intolerance" and "tolerance" - but at least this has come up already.
When OSC pleads for "tolerance" at this point, I think he's hoping people don't punish him for his anti-SSM activism and other related activity. When BB says that he thinks OSC deserves tolerance, I think he means that we should be generally nice and polite to him. I don't think he means that we should ignore and excuse statements and activities that we disagree with or that we think are harmful.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
I don't think that word means what he thinks it means.
Phobic has a definition. Its Latin for Fear. So calling someone "homophobic" was literally wrong--unless they were afraid of getting hurt by a big bad gay posse.
"ist" is the usual hate filled suffix we add to words to describe those who are cruel and mean to another group. You can be Race-ist, or sex-ist. That doesn't fit with this conversation because we are being prejudiced based on sexual preference, and sexist is already taken.
I have suggested "Hetero Supremacist" as the term--for someone who believes that heterosexuals are superior to homosexuals. (Kind of like that weird guy in the camo over there isn't a racist. He's a white supremacist. He doesn't hate people of different races. He just wishes they would realize that whites are better than them and quit complaining.)
Instead people have settled for the term "Intolerant".
Note there is a hierarchy of feeling for people of different sexual orientation.
you can LOVE all homosexuals and think they are just marvelously superior.
you can Like Homosexuals, and in an oddly romantic way, fight for their rights against the forces of tyranny and injustice.
you can be Neutral about Homosexuals--which should be the goal. You realize that people are not Homosexuals. They are people who happen to be homosexual--its just one side of a many faceted personality. Some are good. Some are terrible.
you can be Tolerant of homosexuals. This means that you disagree with what they do, but not what they are. You want to change their actions, but not punish them for being different. You tolerate their existence, but disagree with their choices.
you can be Intolerant of Homosexuals. This means that you want them hidden, silent, forgotten, and ashamed. You think what they do is so sinful it must be punished in order to stop others from sinning in the same way.
you can Hate homosexuals. This means that you want them gone--destroyed, mocked, forgotten, removed from your life. They are the cause of what is wrong with the world, and their destruction is the most important thing.
A similar spectrum can be made about Christians, or any group. The difference is that some Christians are upset if you don't Like or Love them. To them, Neutral is terrible.
I fall in the Neutral to Like part of the spectrum.
OSC seems to fall into the Intolerant part of the spectrum. He does not come close to the Hate part.
People who use their faith as a reason to vote against SSM are also falling into the intolerant part of the spectrum. Those who wish they wouldn't fall into the tolerant part. Their is a difference. They don't like what you are doing, and wish you wouldn't, but aren't actively trying to force you to stop.
They don't want people punished for voting Christian.
Those Faithful who are using the Christian faith to vote against SSM are punishing people for being homosexual.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: So would we then say that in the example of Barilla Pasta, those calling for a boycott are intolerant?
For me, the concept of tolerance/intolerance doesn't map well to consumer behaviour. The default for a business isn't me giving them money. The default for a business is me not giving them money and them attempting to earn my business. There are a lot more companies that I don't give my money to than those that I do.
This is contrasted with a government where everyone more or less has to follow the same laws unless they move to a different country.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
BlackBlade,
quote:OK. For the sake of argument let's say I grant that. And I do see some things in what you are saying that make sense. Intolerance is not necessarily a vice, but the devil is in the details it seems.
So would we then say that in the example of Barilla Pasta, those calling for a boycott are intolerant?
Speaking for myself, I'd certainly say so. But then I never did see much of a wounding paradox in the 'intolerant of intolerance' angle.
quote:I don't see why tone policing is in of itself wrong. It sounds to me like if you believe you are marginalized, you can get away with more poor behavior.
To be candid, it sounds to me like you believe that so long as your intentions are good, a behavior (in this case, voting and political activity) can only ever be qualified as neutral, mistaken, or good.
quote:Force? As in physically restraining a person or inflicting harm to their person? Most people fighting against gay marriage do not believe marriage is a right, rather it is an institution setup by God as an expression of his will that men and women should form unions and reproduce. They don't want that institution altered and then that alteration given state sanction with their tax dollars supporting it.
I think we're all aware that the only motives against SSM spring from religious sources, but I don't see why that matters to the question of whether doing so is intolerant. 'God says so' doesn't seem to preclude intolerance-and historically we can easily find examples that everyone would agree on. But to take it a step further, you've suggested that 'it's not intolerance if you're right' isn't a good reason to be critical and/or unkind of SSM opponents...but it appears that you're arguing exactly the same thing. Anti-SSM isn't intolerance because they feel they're right.
quote:Personally, I think there must be an equal standard or none at all. I think what SSM opponents actually want is to not be supporting SSM via their government. They get that if our government stops determining who can be married. They just don't realize that in large part because they are too tied up in the history of marriage in this country. And they are used to religious marriage being married (no pun intended) to government definitions of marriage. I think if we excised government from the institution, then marriage would move into the realm of religion and personal secular belief, where it belongs.
I don't mean to overreduce or repeat myself, but doesn't this again amount to 'they don't see how it's wrong, they mean well, so it's not intolerance?'
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:Force? As in physically restraining a person or inflicting harm to their person? Most people fighting against gay marriage do not believe marriage is a right, rather it is an institution setup by God as an expression of his will that men and women should form unions and reproduce. They don't want that institution altered and then that alteration given state sanction with their tax dollars supporting it.
But we're not talking about just gay marriage, at least as far as I can tell. Amka and Dustin are talking about laws keeping the gay people from having sex, and you are standing up for OSC, who wanted at one time to throw gay people in jail for the purpose - which he is still committed to - of making it clear that gay people do not belong as full members of society*.
Mr. Card never advocated for throwing gay people in jail. If you are referring to his statement that anti-homosexual legislation be kept on the books, here is his commentary on that quote.
quote:The Supreme Court had declared in 1986 (Bowers vs. Hardwick) that a Georgia law prohibiting sodomy even in the privacy of one's own home was constitutional. OSC wrote an essay in 1990 (23 years ago) to a conservative Mormon audience that, at the time, would have felt no interest in decriminalizing homosexual acts. In that context, his call to "leave the laws on the books" was simply recognizing the law at the time. In the same article he called for them not to be enforced. Within that context this was the liberal and tolerant view - for which OSC was criticized in conservation Mormon circles as being "pro-gay." The law was not overturned by the Supreme Court until 2003. Now that the law has changed, OSC has no interest in criminalizing homosexual acts and would never call for such a thing, any more than he wanted such laws enforced back when they were still on the books.
You might also consider his words from a very recent interview.
quote: And in fact my main opposition to gay marriage isn’t with gay marriage itself, it’s that they’re going to try to enforce propaganda for it in schools, and that’s going to run up against religious freedom, and that’s where the real, bloody conflict is going to come. And the result I fear is going to be a massive takeover of our country by the extreme right wing. Because while I have had plenty of opportunity to see the left at its ugliest, having been under attack by the Taliban of the left, I am also deeply acquainted with the Taliban of the right. I fear for my country when they take over. We haven’t had such divisive rhetoric in our country, such absolute hatred expressed by both sides, since just before the Civil War.
Take from that what you will, but I don't think you can argue that Mr. Card wants gay people locked up, or mistreated. He does seem to believe that with this extension of rights, that the next step will be to require schools to present same-sex marriage is exactly identical to heterosexual marriage. But for many Christians, including many Mormons marriage as a sacrament is distinct from a common law marriage. They don't want schools contradicting what they believe, and are worried that children who don't parrot what schools present will be treated poorly.
This is why I think it's best if the government has no position on marriage. Even if we allow for gay marriage, we are still discriminating against polygamists, who largely come at marriage with the same justifications homosexuals do. It's consenting adults, and it's their business, and they aren't harming anybody.
And what scifibum says is correct. I am not trying to suggest that all those who voted against same-sex marriage are tolerant. Only that they cannot all be rightly described as intolerant bigots. Many of them could be described that way. But at the same time, I do feel that many advocates of same-sex marriage are blinded by the virtue (as they suppose) of their cause, and that it justifies any action that chips away and silences their opposition. To me it's no different than opponents of SSM who say it is better to be obedient to God's law than man's, so more leeway for action is permitted. We all justify our bad behavior with the cloak of virtue.
I am perfectly comfortable with people criticizing votes against same-sex marriage. It is essential that we never fail to describe the damage that is done to homosexuals by our failure to provide them equal protection under the law. But there are allies who would change their minds by a careful appeal to reason. By an appeal to their humanity. We've seen that after Prop 8 was passed. There are plenty more where they came from. There are others who will not see. They will fight tooth and nail, and we don't have to get out of their way. But there are also others, who for rational and honorable reasons will not see eye to eye with us. They vote, they discuss, they can be talked to. Those people deserve the same respect we demand for ourselves.
It's far too easy to look at results and use that as a means to condemn advocates for anything. Hundreds of thousands of people were killed in Iraq. Were Christopher Hitchens still alive, should we call for a boycott of all his writings? What about all the people suffering under the effects of our economic system? Should those advocating for less government regulation and intervention be similarly chased out of polite society? I voted for Obama, twice, the second time knowing he wasn't closing Guantanamo Bay. Am I morally responsible for our absolute failure to give those prisoners their basic human rights?
This calling for boycotts for people ideas, even on artistic offerings that do not reflect those ideas is an inconsistent and misguided effort. It's been tried before when Communists were blacklisted from working in Hollywood. Though the funny thing then was that there *were* Communists trying to integrate into all levels of society, steal secrets and information, and give it to their Russian contacts. It was still wrong, even with the real threat that existed.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I wish this discussion was less muddled.
For one thing, BB is not defending what he agrees is intolerant behavior on the behalf of those who want to marginalize and discriminate against gay people. A lot of the interlocutors seem to miss this. MrSquicky is the most recent.
For another thing, people are using different definitions for "intolerance" and "tolerance" - but at least this has come up already.
When OSC pleads for "tolerance" at this point, I think he's hoping people don't punish him for his anti-SSM activism and other related activity. When BB says that he thinks OSC deserves tolerance, I think he means that we should be generally nice and polite to him. I don't think he means that we should ignore and excuse statements and activities that we disagree with or that we think are harmful.
I definitely agree-I think you make a good point, scifibum. Tolerance is a murky word and it's pretty clear there are several equally murky definitions being used here.
Broadly speaking, when I say I tolerate something I'm usually speaking of a thought or behavior I disagree with. I don't know how general that is, but I don't 'tolerate' things I agree with-that's not how I describe things to myself. But there are many things I tolerate that I disagree with. Some of them are pretty mild-I tolerate my grandmother fretting about food poisoning from a medium-cooked steak and will cook it up further or request that it be done, even though I know health-wise it's not an issue and my personal taste is different.
Politically speaking, though, I think I usually use the word in more narrow ways. I tolerate a whole host of behaviors and ideas that I disagree with, sometimes even bitterly disagree with, and will even say so. Someone lobbying or voting for a law based entirely or even primarily on their own religion, for example. I strongly disagree with that and am not shy about saying so, but I tolerate it-by that I mean I won't make any effort even if I could to compel them not to make that attempt, and I won't sit quietly if someone else does so either.
So I suppose tolerate for me has much less to do with whether or not I'll witness something said or done I disagree with and remain silent, than with whether or not when that happens I'll attempt to stop it by anything other than persuasion. That's tolerance to me. I'll tolerate someone saying that we need to have the 10 Commandments everywhere, I'll tolerate someone saying we need to have armed guards at all schools, I'll tolerate someone saying we need to send all people of x, y, z, or any religion to reeducation camps-I just won't do it quietly.
To me, everyone has a right to expect-demand, even-that kind of tolerance from me but nobody has the right to expect much less demand that I tolerate something I disagree with quietly-and that flows from as well as to me.
ETA: I think if Hitch were alive, he would welcome any effort at a boycott for a variety of reasons.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Rakeesh:
quote:To be candid, it sounds to me like you believe that so long as your intentions are good, a behavior (in this case, voting and political activity) can only ever be qualified as neutral, mistaken, or good.
So long as your intentions are good, and you are willing to discuss and consider them honestly. Both parts must be there.
quote:I don't mean to overreduce or repeat myself, but doesn't this again amount to 'they don't see how it's wrong, they mean well, so it's not intolerance?'
I am arguing against the framework of, "It's always intolerant, therefore reprehensible, and worthy of being treated as such."
I don't believe that is the case with all same-sex marriage opponents. When they go to the polls to vote against gay marriage because "It's just gross" or "God says so." or "It's an abomination" and that's it, then absolutely they are acting intolerant, and should be told so, though I think that telling should be done charitably with the intent to change minds, not feel good about ones self by discomfiting them.
And as I've said before, not all opponents of same-sex marriage do so because they just don't care about the rights of homosexuals. Where that is true, they should be given more benefit of the doubt, and more patience.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Even though they are causing the same harm? The ballot box doesn't care about your reason. The money you donate spends the same.
If you are suggesting that it is more useful to persuade rather than shame, that is possible in some cases. I think that different methods of changing behavior work for different people.
When you write, "It's always intolerant, therefore reprehensible, and worthy of being treated as such." are you referring to the behavior or the person? Those are different things. One specific kind of bad behavior or belief does not make up the whole of a person.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Rakeesh:
quote:ETA: I think if Hitch were alive, he would welcome any effort at a boycott for a variety of reasons.
This still has zero import as to whether the boycott itself would be justified or morally right.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:I don't see why tone policing is in of itself wrong. It sounds to me like if you believe you are marginalized, you can get away with more poor behavior.
Wow, ok. This is one of the few times that responses back to me or about my point are all fundamentally answered by posts I have already made.
But while I'm trying to figure out a way to restate with more emphasis what I think should be clear, I'm just amazed at the implications of what's being described here.
As described you could literally have a "tolerant" KKK member who sincerely believes that blacks should be removed from the continent systematically by a relocation program, but so long as they individually think that their "intentions are good" and will be friendly to a black person in terms of surface formality or will invite them to discuss segregationist plans for the lesser races such as they, they're "tolerant" and if a black person doesn't want to associate with them at all and wants KKK members to 'stay the hell away from me, asshole' and simply wants to find a way to live with dignity without the 'polite' oeuvre of this person's 'tolerance' — you'd call that "intolerant"
.. actually, it's gotten kind of worse than that; it's not just judged as 'intolerant' and inferior to the goodly sincerity and Good Intentions of the KKK member. It's now worse. You've insinuated that, say, if the black person did that, it's 'poor behavior' and if they hold the opinion that they don't have an obligation to afford their oppressors a reciprocation of surface politeness, they're using their race to get away with more' poor behavior'
i should not, i should absolutely and sincerely not have to explain the troubling nature of those connotations.
i should not have to explain how much like with workplace sexual harassment and discrimination arbitration, it is impact and not intent which is analyzed. that there's insanely good reasoning behind that.
i should not have to explain that taking an issue of people who engage in continued social and legal marginalization of people and moving it away from the issue of actions that marginalize human beings by placing any interest in tone policing said marginalized people to not use their societal marginalization to 'excuse more poor behavior' is a function of privileged reframing and distracting it with concerns about the behavior of the marginalized to their actual oppressors, and concerns about people's feelings when people they marginalize (for some inexplicable reason) don't feel compelled to be polite back to people who marginalize them.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Samprimary: You are getting hung up on implications for positions I haven't taken.
quote:As described you could literally have a "tolerant" KKK member who sincerely believes that blacks should be removed from the continent systematically by a relocation program, but so long as they individually think that their "intentions are good" and will be friendly to a black person in terms of surface formality or will invite them to discuss segregationist plans for the lesser races such as they, they're "tolerant"
No. The KKK does not just talk about friendly relocation programs. It practices violent behaviors at community and institutional levels. A person who pledges membership there must respond to that. Further, "surface" formality? You are reducing the outline I made. I grew up in Asia where they will smile and lie to your face, and it's not even rude to do it. Tolerance would mean our weird KKK member not only is kind to black people, he empathizes with their side of things. He recognizes the draw backs to his proposal, but he makes a rational reasoned argument as to why he still believes as he does.
quote: and if a black person doesn't want to associate with them at all and wants KKK members to 'stay the hell away from me, asshole' and simply wants to find a way to live with dignity without the 'polite' oeuvre of this person's 'tolerance' — you'd call that "intolerant"
If it's polite "oeuvre" than it means very little. But if our black person thinks white people should just shut up and get out of the way, then yes, there is intolerance. I don't see how you could argue they are tolerant at all, only that it seems like all you care about is excusing intolerance, not finding a reason to be tolerant.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Once more, there is no virtue in being tolerant of bad things. Quite the opposite.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Once more, there is no virtue in being tolerant of bad things. Quite the opposite.
If by tolerance you mean something like what Sam means--not forcing people to behave in ways you approve of, unless their behavior would otherwise harm you--then I think it can be virtuous. For example, it's good that KKK members have 1st Amendment rights.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Once more, there is no virtue in being tolerant of bad things. Quite the opposite.
I agree with you that one is not morally required to tolerate all bad things. But even Christianity requires a person to turn the other cheek when struck. What is that other than tolerance?
In Mormonism we have a scripture where God says,
"For I the Lord God cannot look upon sin with the least degree of allowance."
Nevertheless, he that repents and does the commandments of the Lord shall be forgiven."
God can't allow our sins to follow us into heaven, but he doesn't expect us to be heaven ready immediately. I would not say we tolerate sin, but we must tolerate mistakes and the actions of misguided people in order to function in society. We also must accept that there is a chance that it is *us* that might have a beam in our eye, so we cannot see clearly the mote in our neighbor's.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Destineer, the harm part is important.
BlackBlade, it is pretty bad form for the person doing the striking to keep demanding fresh cheeks from the person being struck.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Destineer, the harm part is important.
BlackBlade, it is pretty bad form for the person doing the striking to keep demanding fresh cheeks from the person being struck.
And that is where we part ways. I don't believe that everybody who votes against SSM is sinning, and should be treated like they apathetically struck somebody.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
They are certainly causing harm to them at least when they win those votes. I don't know what "apathetically" has to do with anything. Many of them are quite passionate about it.
[ October 29, 2013, 11:20 PM: Message edited by: kmbboots ]
Posted by Marlozhan (Member # 2422) on :
Turning the other cheek is a virtue that can never be demanded of someone else. It is a decision you must make for yourself based on wisdom. Demanding that others turn the cheek is the equivalent of demanding that others donate to charity: once it is demanded, it is no longer a donation...it is an obligation.
To me tolerance means never forgetting the humanity of every single person, regardless of their beliefs or actions. It means remembering that they have a right to believe differently. It means remembering that they have a right to act differently. It means recognizing their human dignity.
Tolerance does NOT mean excusing people from the consequences of their acts. We must tolerate their right to act, but still hold them accountable. Tolerance does not mean tolerating bad behaviors. You can be tolerant and still adamantly defend yourself against wrongs done against you directly or indirectly.
In essence, I believe tolerance should be directed toward the human being, but is kind of irrelevant when it comes to human acts.
Now, the world 'tolerate' seems to have a different connotation than tolerance. Tolerate means to allow something to happen and is generally separate from how you feel about it. I can tolerate you calling me names because I decide it is a battle not worth fighting. But I am not going to like it one iota. I am not going to respect the behavior one iota. My deciding to tolerate your behavior really has nothing to do with tolerance. The tolerance is separate. I can have tolerance toward you as a human being. I can respect your right to call me names. I can respect your humanity.
Or, I could decide to not tolerate your name-calling behavior and inform you that I won't tolerate it. I can do this and still have tolerance toward you as a person. Thus, I can refuse to tolerate while still exercising tolerance.
Gotta' love semantics.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: They are certainly causing harm to them at least when they win those votes. I don't know what apathetically has to do with anything. Many of them are quite passionate about it.
I meant being apathetic towards the people they are affecting.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Turning the other cheek is a virtue that can never be demanded of someone else. It is a decision you must make for yourself based on wisdom. Demanding that others turn the cheek is the equivalent of demanding that others donate to charity: once it is demanded, it is no longer a donation...it is an obligation.
Charity *is* an obligation. You can't compel it, but you can certainly require it.
I can't get to the rest of your thoughtful post Marlozhan.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: They are certainly causing harm to them at least when they win those votes. I don't know what apathetically has to do with anything. Many of them are quite passionate about it.
I meant being apathetic towards the people they are affecting.
I still don't know how it matters. How does it make the harm less?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: They are certainly causing harm to them at least when they win those votes. I don't know what apathetically has to do with anything. Many of them are quite passionate about it.
I meant being apathetic towards the people they are affecting.
I still don't know how it matters. How does it make the harm less?
It doesn't. But do you have a universal reaction to people who harm you? Do you treat a person person who is harming you who feels they are justified, but can still be talked to the same way as somebody who without regard for you abuses you?
I don't know about you, but it seems like learning to love all men was one of the hardest things for Jesus to get across to people because folks were so obsessed with who the biggest sinners were.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
How many times must I say that I am talking about tolerance for actions, not for people? One can care for people without giving them a pass on actions that harm you.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Seems to me like he could have saved us all a lot of time if he was simply more specific about the limits of men loving all men.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: How many times must I say that I am talking about tolerance for actions, not for people? One can care for people without giving them a pass on actions that harm you.
What does that mean in the context of same-sex marriage opponents and proponents both voting for that agenda?
You can't tolerate people voting for things you find harmful?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: Seems to me like he could have saved us all a lot of time if he was simply more specific about the limits of men loving all men.
Touche.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Just checking: if someone held a KKK-ish set of beliefs on race and politics, but kept it strictly political and condemned violence even in support of their own particular goals-such a person shouldn't be labeled intolerant if they are 'honestly' arriving at this outlook, are willing to speak courteously even to the inferior spawn of lesser races, and don't verbally abuse them?
If that's not what you meant I'll need a correction, but if it is-I don't see how this sort of thing can fit at all with your earlier repeated statements about intent not being so much more important in your measurement of intolerance.
There are those who believe God commands them not to allow people to practice other religions-that it's best for thee other people, and God's followers, if the force of the state be used to prevent them from being heathens or heretics. Such a person could certainly meet at the qualification you set earlier for honest self-evaluation, critical thinking, and outward courtesy but I think-I hope-you wouldn't insist they not be labelled intolerant.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Rakeesh:
quote:Just checking: if someone held a KKK-ish set of beliefs on race and politics, but kept it strictly political and condemned violence even in support of their own particular goals-such a person shouldn't be labeled intolerant if they are 'honestly' arriving at this outlook, are willing to speak courteously even to the inferior spawn of lesser races, and don't verbally abuse them?
Would they be intolerant if they were in fact right?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Of course. If they were right, non-whites would fall into the broad category 'things that are bad that nobody is expected to tolerate'-which in this case non-whites would be because they would do most of the other things in that category at much higher rates, and would make whites progressively worse by contact.
As for SSM, if the 'God disapproves of homosexuality' crowd is right...then God is intolerant of homosexuality and seeking to emulate God, so are God's followers. Whether it's a case of 'God disapproves because it's bad for them' or 'it's bad for them because God disapproves' doesn't really matte, it's all similarly irrelevant to outsiders, much less the actual subjects of the disapproval.
Posted by Heisenberg (Member # 13004) on :
Blackblade
You seem to be a proponent of polygamy, and think that it is no more inherently harmful to society then one to one homosexual and heterosexual marriage. I disagree, but perhaps you could answer a couple questions I have and enlighten me.
So in a normal society, a man who takes four or five wives for himself of necessity leaves three or four men without sexual and life partners. Now, of course some people choose not to marry, and there are homosexuals, but those subsets tend to cancel each other out. One man taking several wives in a population of roughly equal genders would not be the same, would you agree?
If we look at every past society that has practiced polygamy, they all had ways of taking care of the problem that a large population of undersexed young males represented. They could either start a war with another tribe, in order to both get some of the excess males killed and "win" more females, or they lived very close to non polygamist societies with which they could import females and export males.
The United States could not easily solve that problem in those ways, and that's why I think it's a different issue. Unlike homosexual marriage, there is an actual danger to societal cohesion if polygamy became widespread. Unless you don't think incubating a population of angry young men would be a problem?
I suppose you could say that not everyone would choose polygamy, but I'm assuming that it's your religion that inclines you to that. LDS want to spread their religion, peacefully, to everyone. So, eventually...
I probably shouldn't assume that you'd marry your secretary tomorrow if it were legal, but only because your church forbids it. Why do you think they did? What other assumptions of mine do you think are incorrect so that widespread polygamy wouldn't cause problems?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Rakeesh:
quote:Just checking: if someone held a KKK-ish set of beliefs on race and politics, but kept it strictly political and condemned violence even in support of their own particular goals-such a person shouldn't be labeled intolerant if they are 'honestly' arriving at this outlook, are willing to speak courteously even to the inferior spawn of lesser races, and don't verbally abuse them?
Would they be intolerant if they were in fact right?
Sure. But since they are not right, we would be wrong to be tolerant of their political actions and we should oppose them and condemn such beliefs.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Heisenberg: Blackblade
You seem to be a proponent of polygamy, and think that it is no more inherently harmful to society then one to one homosexual and heterosexual marriage.
This thread might not be the place to have an extensive discussion of polygamy. I myself do not practice polygamy, nor do I think I would were it legal.
quote: So in a normal society, a man who takes four or five wives for himself of necessity leaves three or four men without sexual and life partners. Now, of course some people choose not to marry, and there are homosexuals, but those subsets tend to cancel each other out. One man taking several wives in a population of roughly equal genders would not be the same, would you agree?
No, I wouldn't. There would also be women who would prefer multiple husbands.
quote: If we look at every past society that has practiced polygamy, they all had ways of taking care of the problem that a large population of undersexed young males represented. They could either start a war with another tribe, in order to both get some of the excess males killed and "win" more females, or they lived very close to non polygamist societies with which they could import females and export males.
Again, only a problem if only males are permitted to be in polygamist relationships.
quote: The United States could not easily solve that problem in those ways, and that's why I think it's a different issue. Unlike homosexual marriage, there is an actual danger to societal cohesion if polygamy became widespread. Unless you don't think incubating a population of angry young men would be a problem?
There are already people who live their entire lives without finding a companion. They are not threats to our country. There are already people who innately prefer the format of having multiple partners but instead try to conform to societal norms of just one, and then have to ask for an open marriage, often with spouses that don't want that.
quote: I suppose you could say that not everyone would choose polygamy, but I'm assuming that it's your religion that inclines you to that. LDS want to spread their religion, peacefully, to everyone. So, eventually...
As I said, no it doesn't incline me towards it. Mormons are actually pretty staunchly monogamist right now. And now not everybody would choose polygamy, even at its prime, a small percentage of Mormons elected to live that way.
quote: I probably shouldn't assume that you'd marry your secretary tomorrow if it were legal, but only because your church forbids it. Why do you think they did? What other assumptions of mine do you think are incorrect so that widespread polygamy wouldn't cause problems?
The church has openly stated why it does not permit polygamy. Because the United States government has passed laws that forbid it, and have aggressively enforced them in times past, the church has elected to discontinue the practice for now.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
If it's polite "oeuvre" than it means very little. But if our black person thinks white people should just shut up and get out of the way, then yes, there is intolerance. I don't see how you could argue they are tolerant at all, only that it seems like all you care about is excusing intolerance, not finding a reason to be tolerant. [/QUOTE]
Alright, I think I know how to proceed.
First: this hypothetical person is not having his hypothetical position described back by you. Replace "wants white people to shut up and get out of the way" with "wants to purposefully not associate with KKK members or have to respond to their proposals to 'politely' discuss the idea of white supremacy with them"
Still 'intolerant?' where the KKK member is 'tolerant?'
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Samprimary: I think it would be more useful for our purposes if our hypothetical relocation advocate was not a member of a group that by definition does not wish to tolerate the existence of black people.
As for our hypothetical black person, "wants to purposefully not associate with KKK members or have to respond to their proposals to 'politely' discuss the idea of white supremacy with them""
Again, the KKK muddles this because he would have a reasonable belief that KKK members would harm him, and even if they didn't they have unashamedly inherited a violent past and have not disassociated themselves or apologized for those acts.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
but the KKK is working with good intentions! They legitimately think the appropriate course for humanity is separation of the races. They don't want to actively cause harm to blacks, they want to remove blacks to other countries specifically for blacks and have this one be for whites.
They're usually very religious and they have communed with God on this point and they sincerely believe that this is a benevolent task and God's will!
And this KKK member (as many KKK members do) completely disavow any calls to violence, so it's unfair of you to state on their behalf that they can't tolerate the existence of black people.
Remember: his intentions are, to him, good.
quote:even if they didn't they have unashamedly inherited a violent past and have not disassociated themselves or apologized for those acts.
Again: the KKK has officially disavowed violent acts.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Samprimary:
quote:but the KKK is working with good intentions! They legitimately think the appropriate course for humanity is separation of the races. They don't want to actively cause harm to blacks, they want to remove blacks to other countries specifically for blacks and have this one be for whites.
So our hypothetical KKK has denounced all immoral acts committed in the past, staunchly condemns any unequal treatment of black people here, maintains that black people would be happier if they were assisted in relocating to a hypothetical place that is reasonably attractive as a place to live, but would not compel black people by force to relocate?
edit: And they acknowledge and have reasonable arguments for the criticisms their opponents make?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Correct, they only want to change the law so that eventually the country would move towards being only for people of the white race. No violence, just adjustment of the law to segregate the races as God's will mandates.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Hold up. Eventually they only want white people in the United States?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Of course. They've communed with God and know in their heart that this is what God requires of the races, and that there will be plenty of better places for the blacks to live over the course of relocation.
They're perfectly willing to come to the table and politely discuss it, too!
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I know this is getting beyond the usefulness of a hypothetical, but how on earth do you sort out who is white?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
It'll be easy enough to mandate it through kinship records along with phenotypical assessment. Where necessary it's very easy to get a full genetic history, and since separation of the races is God's will, it would be very easy to have an inspired understanding of who is white, if needed.
Posted by Emreecheek (Member # 12082) on :
This. I think kindness as discussed in this blog post is something roughly akin to what BB wants tolerance to mean.
I will say, as somebody who is gay, it is irksome to me to see somebody deciding what respect for me is or isn't. Not that I suspect it matters much.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Anyway, as we are progressing, what's the status on the kkk member being 'tolerant' or the black person being 'intolerant'
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Hold up. Eventually they only want white people in the United States?
I can't help but wonder: why is this(if I'm reading you right) apparently a sticking point for some standard of tolerant lobbying for discrimination under the law, but 'they want the US to be a 'hetero-only' marriage country' isn't also a disqualifier?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I'll get to that later, right now i'm sussing out the boundaries of 'tolerance' and what voids anything being considered 'intolerant'
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Anyway, as we are progressing, what's the status on the kkk member being 'tolerant' or the black person being 'intolerant'
Honestly, I'm still mulling it over. I'm not exactly practiced at identifying tolerance in the KKK, even hypothetically.
-----------
Emreecheek: I'm sorry if I am being irksome, I certainly don't want that to be the case. I'm not trying to decide for you what respect entails, only what I personally think tolerance means. Nobody appointed me definer of respect. We all of course have to establish for ourselves what a concept like respect or tolerance means, and determine whether that definition is useful in greater society.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I can appreciate that, BlackBlade, but I'm also trying to imagine which heterosexuals I know that would hear something like 'I feel who you're attracted to, who you lust after and romantically love, and some of your most profound, important relationships (dating, marriage, family-that-we-make) is fundamentally inferior to mine, both here and eternally, and needs to be legally restricted for your own good and that of my children'...
Who hears that-which is, and I mean this literally, a nicer shading of anti-SSM positions-and feels they are respected and tolerated?
Or am I wrong? Are there people out there who are anti-SSM *without* thinking that way? Without thinking that who homosexuals want to love is perverse or at *best* inferior, wrong?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Rakeesh: Polygamy is wrong because it is an inferior system. It creates a situation where a male can't find a suitable partner, and can lead to the exploitation of women, particularly underaged women.
Does that sound at least in spirit akin to Christians who indicate that homosexuals cannot have children, and their unions lead to a situation where children are without one sex in the home, and everything that sex brings to a family?
Look, honestly, I'm getting kind of burned out on being the only person who argues against pigeon-holing all 40+% of the country that votes against same-sex unions as intolerant bigots. Or that it's not actually in our best interests to practice a scorched earth policy even if ultimately it neutralizes more racists and does so faster than any other strategy. I think it simply drives racism deeper, where it waits for nourishment, and that nourishment comes in the form of actual mistreatment from so cold "tolerant progressives" and copious amounts of martyr syndrome.
-----------
Samprimary: I'm not ready to call our KKK member tolerant, I feel like there's too many other things swirling in the mix. I don't feel like your black person is practicing tolerance either.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
So then, that's the question. WHY is the KKK member intolerant.
Let's take a look at what he is fulfilling:
- disavows violent acts, wants to act purely in terms of legal policy using our democratic system of lawmaking
- acts gracious and willing to engage with black people who want to have an open-minded conversation about what he's doing
- is acting sincerely, feels genuinely that he has good intentions and that he is doing good
- feels he is logically and intellectually honest and consistent about it, insofar as this is compatible with his faith, which he has consulted and sincerely believes in
Every single "good intention" and willingness to be genial and gracious and communicative in person is there. He has a steadfast belief in his own good intentions.
So what, given your previous system for assessing and addressing the issue of tolerance, makes it so that you're not ready to call him tolerant? What other things are swirling in the mix? How do they overrule his politeness and good intentions? Why does he not deserve to be acknowledged as tolerant, under your definition?
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
The KKK analogy fails (as do most analogies under the strictest logical scrutiny) because racial intolerance does not equate to intolerance for differing sexual orientation. SSM ought to be debated on its own terms. In this regard, until this society has made up its mind, polite tolerance for opposing viewpoints should be standard practice. This is true of any controversial issue that still exists; such as abortion, socialized medicine, global warming or what have you. Until the issue of slavery was settled once and for all (and thank God it has been) tolerance for the opposing viewpoint ought to have then been observed. Had that been the case, the controversy just might have been resolved without resorting to war.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
ETA: put more simply, your basic position is 'the analogy fails because they're unequal'. You skipped the part where you actually make that case. ----- I see an utter chasm in one key phrase: slaver and its advocates should never, anywhere have been tolerated, regardless of what the contemporary consensus view on the subject was. Unless you mean that in a simple political pragmatist fashion, in which case I've misread you, I fail to see why in terms of morality and justice the broader social consensus ought to have any bearing on how polite and tolerant a good person ought to be with respect to anything-much less certain practices.
As for the failure in analogizing sexual preference to race, well, that's the question, isn't it? If it is true that this is gentically determined, or largely so, then I fail to see hy it's not very much like race, unless we revisit the old 'they can choose celibacy for life' argument. But whether it's a question of genetics, choice, upbringing, or a blend of these and more even then that has little bearing on when one is being intolerant, and your argument that the comparison is invalid because race is fixed and sexuality (apparently?) isn't needs, well, an actual argument.
If a behavior towards a fixed trait is intolerant, such as the KKK member's, why does it suddenly become tolerant kf the trait isn't fixed, as with for example a member of NOM? Saying or suggesting it's because it's a question of choice isn't actually an argument, it's just a pointing out of the (claimed, but also un-argued) difference between two traits.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Also, I'm just going to remark on the situation that while the question of slavery might be settled, the problem isn't.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
Good point, which is why moral people everywhere can get behind the eradication of slavery by nearly any means necessary. But there was a time when it was still debatable in this country and I find it unfortunate that it took a horrific civil war to settle things. The right side would have won out eventually, I imagine. Slaves would have remained enslaved in the interim though, so there's that...
The questions involving origins (genetic, environment, choice, demonic possession or whatever the f***) are exactly the point: there are fundamental questions to which we have no definitive answers. Therefore, an honest and respectful debate is the least we can ask of those engaged on either side, and for the sake of us watching from the sidelines, so to speak. Extremists on both sides will go to war, and "are you with us or against us" drags everyone else into the fray.
Oh yeah, I did not actually make the case that there is in fact a distinction between racism and "Homophobia" (in quotations because I don't use the term myself; it is designed to imply mental illness and therefore inferiority amongst those on one side of the debate) because the differences are self-evident. How about this: imagine yourself asking a veteran of the Civil Rights movement how his struggle compares to that of the SSM movement. Do you think you're going to encounter an attitude of parity?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
That reasoning also doesn't make sense. Saying the argument is self-evident doesn't actually constitute an argument.
As for parity, I don't understand your reasoning. So because one group was treated one way roughly three and more generations ago than one in the present, that's going to mean the groups they struggle *for* don't have anything in common? This is also not an argument-I imagine Harriet Tubman might not feel, were she fast forwarded through time, that there was much parity between what she risked and sacrificed when compared to, say, a Freedom Rider, but somehow I doubt she wouldn't recognize their common ground even though they faced radically different challenges.
quote:The questions involving origins (genetic, environment, choice, demonic possession or whatever the f***) are exactly the point: there are fundamental questions to which we have no definitive answers. Therefore, an honest and respectful debate is the least we can ask of those engaged on either side, and for the sake of us watching from the sidelines, so to speak. Extremists on both sides will go to war, and "are you with us or against us" drags everyone else into the fray.
The point is popular consensus has no bearing on what he actual truth is. If sexual preference is hard genetics, comparisons to race equality are very valid, full stop, regardless if what Jesus Patriot Liberty U might think. If it's a matter of sinful debauchery, the likeness vanishes.
As for honest respect, for a long time I've felt that the only opponents who were honest were those who admitted 'it's against my religion'. I can respect that, even as I point out their disrespect for the idea of freedom of religion. It isn't extremist to point out someone is being intolerant, especially kf they actually are. Or if it is, why don't we also say it's 'extremist' to wish to sustain a religious law in our society for religious reasons? Or in this peculiarly slanted style of tolerance, is that disrespectful? If someone attempts to run roughshod over someone, how rude and 'extremist' is it of them to complain with the tread of the tire drawn on their back?
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:How about this: imagine yourself asking a veteran of the Civil Rights movement how his struggle compares to that of the SSM movement. Do you think you're going to encounter an attitude of parity?
Well there's this:
quote:“Surrounded as I am now by wonderful children and grandchildren, not a day goes by that I don't think of Richard and our love, our right to marry, and how much it meant to me to have that freedom to marry the person precious to me, even if others thought he was the "wrong kind of person" for me to marry. I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry. Government has no business imposing some people's religious beliefs over others. Especially if it denies people's civil rights."
"I am still not a political person, but I am proud that Richard's and my name is on a court case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness, and the family that so many people, black or white, young or old, gay or straight seek in life. I support the freedom to marry for all. That's what Loving, and loving, are all about."
That's written by Mildred Loving of Loving v. Virginia, the landmark case that overturned anti-miscegenation laws across the country, establishing a direct equivalence between her fight for mixed-race marriage and the present fight for SSM.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Heh, I suppose that example doesn't count for some reason.
Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
Everyone is equal, and everyone should support everyone else's rights so long as said rights do not inhibit others ability to engage in harmless self-expression.
Not supporting the rights of others is implied intolerance. Any moral Human Being should make it a priority to advocate for other Human Beings. Would any moral person disagree with this?
However, others may call our own self-important tolerance "intolerance", in as much as we are advocating something that they believe to be morally wrong.
Basically, I suppose we all should respect everyone's views as being equally valid to our own; if we don't share their opinions or viewpoints, we should at least respect them, as there is always someone who can call us "intolerant" for finding their harmless self-expression to be morally repugnant, so often based solely on upbringing or differing societal mores.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
We should respect people even if we disagree with their views and we should remember that their right to hold those views is equal to our right to our views.
That doesn't mean we have to believe all views are equally valid.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: The KKK analogy fails (as do most analogies under the strictest logical scrutiny) because racial intolerance does not equate to intolerance for differing sexual orientation. SSM ought to be debated on its own terms.
So you're claiming on BlackBlade's behalf that the threshold for being 'tolerant' and 'intolerant' changes based on the subject being discussed in a way which permits someone to be tolerant even while refusing to deal with a KKK member who's trying to be genial and polite about the issue of racial segregation, but intolerant when it comes to a gay person dealing with their rights?
I somehow doubt this is going to pass muster.
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw: We should respect people even if we disagree with their views and we should remember that their right to hold those views is equal to our right to our views.
That doesn't mean we have to believe all views are equally valid.
I completely agree with that.
---
Samp: I don't really know what to do with our KKK member. I still have him under consideration, but it just doesn't lead to any conclusions.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
I should clarify that by "respect" there I mean treat with regard for basic human dignity, not necessarily look up to or admire. The word is a little ambiguous.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Yes. It seems to be often used here in a sense of 'drawing room courtesy'.
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
I don't know what drawing room courtesy is. But again, I agree with dkw, even after her clarification.
Posted by Reshpeckobiggle (Member # 8947) on :
Rakeesh, that example doesn't count since it is probably negated ten ttimes over by Civil rights activists who are insulted by modern comparisons to SSM activists. The point being, anecdotal evidence can always be countered with another anecdote.
Also, if something is truly self-evident, then by definition it doesn't need any further argument to support it. Ones refusal to see something as self-evident doesn't make it any less so. It usually just highlights the refuser's willful blindness. This is a common occurrence in modern political debate as a progressive will not admit that 2+2=4 if 4 does not promote the leftist agenda.
ANYWAY, Sam, I am not arguing anything on B&B's behalf, I'm just pointing out that equality for all races is not so similar to equality for homosexuals that any argument for one can be seamlessly transposed into an argument for the other. I say the differences between the two are self-evident, but naturally this is not true for progressives so I'm just going to step away now and go back to watching the world burn.
Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
Do people really still bicker over race? Shouldn't we just see one another as Human Beings rather than colors?
As for our KKK member, considering that it is an organization built on hate and the supposition that all Human Beings are no inherently equal, why even consider hateful things?
What is the value of thinking hateful things?
As for equally valid view points: Can you observe things outside of your consciousness? If not, then how do you know that other's viewpoints are not equally valid to your own?
Posted by exhiled (Member # 13085) on :
I spent a year in Africa and they are beautiful hard working people. Africans aren't tainted by race baiters and embittered by a slave history like the African American. The Habashas I spent time with found the ghetto attitude soldiers to be distasteful and ugly. In Amharic, they said "escayami"....or ugly.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
shut up and go away, stop desperately trying to obtusely cram in your worldly "noble" experiences in the hopes that we won't desperately pity you
because this is the most embarrasingly pitiable behavior I've seen in a long time from an ostensibly adult person.
we're not here to change your nappy and validate your shortcomings and persecution complex
go away
stop posting
go away
Posted by exhiled (Member # 13085) on :
If my account gets shut down, I will not return. It's ironic that this very thread was an attack on the character of OSC, the person this site was based on. I'm not trying to be "noble" but I'm absolutely certain my life experiences far exceed yours. I'm sorry that you are so close minded that sharing them offends your paradigm.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
You don't have to wait to have your account closed. You've been told that you are banned and asked not to post here. Be a grown up.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
1.
quote:but I'm absolutely certain my life experiences far exceed yours.
even if that were true (it isn't, sorry bro) it's such a damn shame that all those life experiences resulted in such an incoherent needy dunning-krugerite coming back to the forum and trying to sling out his life experiences to validate a most pathetic attempt to fit in a "I told you so" to people who manifestly have no reason to suspect vindication re: real world events
step away from the keyboard (possibly also the hooch) and do something less pathetic with your life at the moment than trying to fill us with the arrogant narrative of "yeah I don't blame you for banning me, after all, look at how right I totally was about everything. also I'm not a racist, my wife looks "exotic" but I don't see race hur whee dee derr dee derr."
also be sure to abstrusely mention racism three or four times again because the spot just won't come off your hand and ladies must doth protest too much or something.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
2.
quote:If my account gets shut down, I will not return.
Because you can't be a grownup and just leave when asked to by the moderator, you have to regurgitate this tired point with two (2) subsequent alts.
Swear it on a bible and actually follow through with it this time, liar.
Posted by exhiled (Member # 13085) on :
And it's against the law to enter the US illegally but only racists use the term "illegal alien". Unlike the illegal alien, sorry undocumented worker, I've re-registered with my actual information and was accepted. Malanthrop was banned but Exhiled was welcomed. I have made no attempt to hide who I actually am.
Posted by Sean Monahan (Member # 9334) on :
Speaking of which, are cannolis considered cookies?
Posted by exhiled (Member # 13085) on :
No way can a connoli be considered a cookie unless we embrace the concept of a tubular oreo.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: Rakeesh, that example doesn't count since it is probably negated ten ttimes over by Civil rights activists who are insulted by modern comparisons to SSM activists. The point being, anecdotal evidence can always be countered with another anecdote.
Also, if something is truly self-evident, then by definition it doesn't need any further argument to support it. Ones refusal to see something as self-evident doesn't make it any less so. It usually just highlights the refuser's willful blindness. This is a common occurrence in modern political debate as a progressive will not admit that 2+2=4 if 4 does not promote the leftist agenda.
ANYWAY, Sam, I am not arguing anything on B&B's behalf, I'm just pointing out that equality for all races is not so similar to equality for homosexuals that any argument for one can be seamlessly transposed into an argument for the other. I say the differences between the two are self-evident, but naturally this is not true for progressives so I'm just going to step away now and go back to watching the world burn.
Just so I understand, that example doesn't count? You're familiar with that case and the couple's role in it (that is, their central role!) I hope? It 'doesn't count' because (supposedly) there are more examples in the other direction? If anecdotes shouldn't be used...why were you the one to begin using them by referencing (or actually not referencing, merely stating that it was the case) the anecdotal statements of supposed Civil Rights activists from the past?
Doesn't count...man. I admit I find your casual hand-waving dismissal frustrating and irritating.
quote:Also, if something is truly self-evident, then by definition it doesn't need any further argument to support it. Ones refusal to see something as self-evident doesn't make it any less so. It usually just highlights the refuser's willful blindness. This is a common occurrence in modern political debate as a progressive will not admit that 2+2=4 if 4 does not promote the leftist agenda.
Well it didn't take long to expose your rather blatant conservative agenda in spite of your earlier high-minded rhetoric. In fact your example of arithmetic is a very poor one for your broader point for a self-evident statement, because in fact you can demonstrate that 2+2=4 (for the purposes of arithmetic) very easily, and in fact this very demonstration is exactly how people learn it in the first place. Children aren't just told, "2+2=4, now don't ask questions," they're told that and then instructed, "Now hold up your index and your middle finger, then your ring finger and your pinky, and how many fingers do you have?" or something along those lines.
So no. Your repeated non-arguments that you've *termed* arguments don't wash. I'm not saying you're not allowed to believe there is no equivalence or something silly like that, I'm simply pointing out-very thoroughly, and repeatedly at this point-that you haven't made that case. Stating that 'it's obvious' isn't an argument. Stating 'it's obvious, and I don't have to explain it, and boy those stubborn willfully blind progressives...' is unfortunately amusing at your expense.
quote:ANYWAY, Sam, I am not arguing anything on B&B's behalf, I'm just pointing out that equality for all races is not so similar to equality for homosexuals that any argument for one can be seamlessly transposed into an argument for the other. I say the differences between the two are self-evident, but naturally this is not true for progressives so I'm just going to step away now and go back to watching the world burn.
At least now you're making a fair statement. Yes, you say the differences are self-evident. Fine. Feel free to leave if you like, to 'watch the world burn' (God, I get tired of hearing religious conservatives talk about that as though things are just so much better when they're calling the shots), but I'll still point out you haven't actually made an argument for your supposedly very obvious case to this point, and leave it at that. I suppose I'll be one of the people lighting matches while you watch, though, advocating for homosexuals to destroy humanity by marrying and stuff.
If we're both still alive when gay marriage has been widespread and ongoing long enough to demonstrate how absurd your fears are, you'll owe an apology but I suspect it would be long in coming.
(If you object to the tone of this post, Emrecheek, chalk it up to the 'it doesn't count' and your repeatewd reliance on 'it is too an argument, and it's obvious, and I'm done' tactic.)
-------
At this point I wonder how many jobs and places malanthrop has had and been! A skeptical observer might begin to think it odd that a person who so often relies on personal anecdote always has a story or experience to relate that absolutely trumps the perspective of everyone else, is so powerful in fact it serves as its own argument. This same observer might think it strange that a person who has the kind of heroic, self-sacrificing, edifying life of meaning would lower themselves to sneering squabbles and would stake so much of their dignity on winning Internet arguments when it would seem that person would be in a position that those arguments would be a lark.
Weird.
Anyway, it's clear you're not going anywhere, whether or not you're allowed here. The moderator has asked you repeatedly to hold to your long-standing ban, and more than once you've stated you won't be, and here you are. OK, so you're an unwelcome liar, but this is hardly news, malanthrop.
I don't think cannolis can count as cookies, no.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Originally posted by exhiled: No way can a connoli be considered a cookie unless we embrace the concept of a tubular oreo.
Just for the record, if you had come back and dipped your toe in the water like this instead of continued a vain effort at crowing about how you're up on the cross, without attempting to exonerate your reputation and stick a needle in your opponents, I can almost guarantee the problems with your return would be much smaller.
It's not actually too late, technically speaking. I'd be shocked if you did anything but more of the same, though.
Posted by exhiled (Member # 13085) on :
You should all boycott Hatrack because OSC might be an intolerant Christian. I bet he eats Chick-fil-a.......nuff said.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by exhiled: And it's against the law to enter the US illegally but only racists use the term "illegal alien". Unlike the illegal alien, sorry undocumented worker, I've re-registered with my actual information and was accepted. Malanthrop was banned but Exhiled was welcomed. I have made no attempt to hide who I actually am.
this is the gooniest thing i have ever read. you've just literally tried to extrapolate the issue of your auto-registration to the issue of racism against undocumented workers. (ps you're a racist)
again: even though you're really just demonstrating a lack of self control, swear on a bible that if your current third alt account gets blocked, you will never again return. "If my account gets shut down, I will not return."
Yes, swear it. Swear on it, give us a sincere promise.
Do it, now.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sean Monahan: Speaking of which, are cannolis considered cookies?
no, but a hamburger is a sandwich
Posted by Reticulum (Member # 8776) on :
You should try accentuating the degree to which your valuation of the precept of kindness guides your interactions in dealing with others.
When you are unkind, you reveal the empathy that you withhold from yourself.
Posted by JDickins87 (Member # 13086) on :
A late comer to this thread, but if I may say something... This thread demonstrates one thing to me: Some individuals simply can not be tolerant of those with views oppositional to their own.
No matter the subject matter, you will never find two people whom agree on everything. All that we should ask of one another is that we remain tolerant of those who disagree with us. Mind you, I say tolerance. Not agreeance.
Tolerance (noun): the ability or willingness to tolerate something, in particular the existence of opinions or behavior that one does not necessarily agree with.
Agreeance (noun): A state whereby two parties share a view or opinion; agreement.
While it is clear we will never agree with anyone on every single thing, can't we be tolerant of someone whom disagrees with us about something? Or are you just intolerant?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
*shudder* I hate the word "agreeance." Let it stay dead. It's been dead for around 500 years, except inexplicably in the American Southwest.
The word is "agreement." We don't need two of them.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
J, your remark isn't very illuminating-you haven't defined what it means to tolerate something which is, yknow, vital to your entire point.
Posted by JDickins87 (Member # 13086) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: *shudder* I hate the word "agreeance." Let it stay dead. It's been dead for around 500 years, except inexplicably in the American Southwest.
The word is "agreement." We don't need two of them.
Lol. True it is not commonly used in this century, but it's still a word. I used it for comparison due to its suffix ['chalk it up' to poetic license (or is 'chalk it up' too antiquated now that we use whiteboards far more often now?)].
Funnily enough this reminds me of the discussion between John Paul, Theresa, and Peter in Chapter 16 of Shadow Puppets (over Peter's use of the term 'lackwit').
quote:“Mom,” said Peter, “nobody thinks you’re a Lackwit, if that’s what you’re worried about.”
“Lackwit? In what musty drawer of some dead English professor’s dust-covered desk did you find that word? I assure you that never in my worst nightmares did I ever suppose that I was a Lackwit.”
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Heh. I remember that exchange as well.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by JDickins87: No matter the subject matter, you will never find two people whom agree on everything. All that we should ask of one another is that we remain tolerant of those who disagree with us.
No! Don't ask this. Like as has been used as a demonstration many times already in this thread, there's plenty that makes it so that it is non-virtuous to tolerate people who do it or believe in it.
I wouldn't tolerate someone who believed in slavery, for instance. I would be perfectly and justly intolerant of them, given the current definitions of tolerance we're working with.
Posted by julianperez27 (Member # 13087) on :
I don't know why I writing this post because everything about this subject is repetitive. And, as OSC said, the battle is lost: the generalized marriage will be the law of the land. Perhaps Obamacare will be repealed some day because a lot of people are already realizing that it was not that good, but this will not be repealed as neither Roe vs Wade was repealed (even when "Roe" changed her mind and became a pro-life advocate)
Let's start with an statement: unlike OSC, I don't think an homosexual behavior is "wrong". OSC doesn't hate homosexuals, he is not "homophobic" but he clearly thinks that it is a wrong behavior. It's not my case. I have known enough gay people, and have enough gay friends, to know that a lot of them (not all) are born with such orientation and fighting against it only leads to considerable suffering.
However, I don't think the redefinition of marriage is a good idea for society and I'm constantly hearing that such opinion is being "homophobic" (like opposing to Obama politics is being "racist") Such repetition made me lost lose part of my sympathy for the gay cause: it's becoming a political cause.
Being my parents divorced when I was 2 years old I was raised by three women. I know by my own experience that the ideal environment for raising children is a man and a woman. Children need both influences. My mother and my aunts did their best and I grew surrounded with love but that is not enough. There are still flaws in my personality that I have not being able to fix (for example, I have a trend to passive aggressivity). The situation of the black community, a big percent of them raised in mono-parental houses is another example of that. And a couple of same genre parents is emotional equivalent to mono-parenting: it's sort of an emotional incest, and we know that brothers don't produce genetically healthy children.
Let's give gays access to health security plans, common declaration for the IRS and other benefices with another kind of union not called "marriage". Unlike a rose, marriage, with other name, doesn't smell the same. Why that? Because calling it "marriage" removes the base of the institution, that is not "love" but the breeding of the offspring and makes all marriages equivalent for adoption. And they are not. Children are better with gay couples (and even with singles) than in institutions but different genre couples must have preference.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
julianperez: Thank you for posting your thoughts, your background is quite fascinating in that it's unusual. But might I ask do you think a male presence would have solved everything? There are for example plenty of passive-aggressive males. That trait isn't really tied to sex so much as tied to traditional gender roles, i.e women shouldn't speak their minds.
I don't think women or men are innately more likely to be passive-aggressive, either sex can be programed to be that way to some extent.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Being my parents divorced when I was 2 years old I was raised by three women. I know by my own experience that the ideal environment for raising children is a man and a woman.
quote:And a couple of same genre parents is emotional equivalent to mono-parenting: it's sort of an emotional incest, and we know that brothers don't produce genetically healthy children.
This has been studied quite significantly and has never borne true. There's actually, by now, a preponderance of evidence pointing to the fact that there's no significant positive element of a mixed-gender couple that is essential and unreproducible by same-gender couples that makes it so that mixed-gender couples should have preference, or inherently makes them better parents in a way that same-sex couples can't be.
The American Journal of Orthopsychiatry even did a meta-study and declared: "There is no scientific basis to discriminate against gay and lesbian parents."
quote:Children are better with gay couples (and even with singles) than in institutions but different genre couples must have preference.
Again, this is made up. And it is actually homophobic discrimination, very straightforwardly.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I'm just wondering how on Earth 'I was raised by three women' equates to some sort of fact 'one man one woman parents are universally best'. No one can avoid this sort of anecdotal bias entirely, but it's something to hear that advanced as a plank in what is meant to be an argument relying strictly on reason.
Posted by julianperez27 (Member # 13087) on :
>>But might I ask do you think a male presence would have solved everything?
Of course not! Each particular case is a world. I'm thinking in trends. There are a lot of dysfunctional families and a lot of a cases where the presence of the father makes the situation worst. And there are abusive teachers and even pedophile teachers. That doesn't mean that the majority is neither that is better not to send the children to schools.
My point is that it's better not to give the same name to things that are different in essence. Same genre couples join for love, not for having offspring (they can do that by adoption or insemination, but not in a natural way) And I don't think the main purpose of the institution of marriage is to make loving couples live together. They don't need to get married to do that. IMHO the main purpose of marriage is to create an appropriate environment for the perpetuation of the specie. Of course, I could be wrong. It's only a personal opinion, not something that you read in the books of history.
About a man an a female being the optimal environment (in general, not in particular cases). I'm not thinking only in my case but, of course, personal experience is always important (all opinions is first based in personal experience: it's the first source of knowledge). Consider the situation of the black community in USA: the percent of them in jail is much bigger than the percent in the general population. And there is a high percent of mono-parental black families. Are these two facts unrelated? It could be, but I don't think so.
I think that the effect of mono-parental families (ore one-genre families) is not completely known. Recently I read an interesting theory: the percent of black players in the MBL decreases but the percent in the NBL doesn't. Why? The theory of the author was that baseball traditionally is taught from father to son, but basket is taught peer to peer and that was another result of the lack of fathers. Could be true or not, but it makes sense.
But I'm amazed that even an opinion about a man and a woman being better for children, even when it's also said that it's OK that gay couples adopt and raise children is attacked. Something is very wrong when such things happens. Don't blame me if I consider it intolerance.
Posted by julianperez27 (Member # 13087) on :
>>But might I ask do you think a male presence would have solved everything?
Sorry. I didn't answer exactly the question. In my case, yes. I'm sure of that. Not "everything" (nothing solves everything) but a lot of things.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Julian,
quote:My point is that it's better not to give the same name to things that are different in essence. Same genre couples join for love, not for having offspring (they can do that by adoption or insemination, but not in a natural way) And I don't think the main purpose of the institution of marriage is to make loving couples live together. They don't need to get married to do that. IMHO the main purpose of marriage is to create an appropriate environment for the perpetuation of the specie. Of course, I could be wrong. It's only a personal opinion, not something that you read in the books of history.
A few questions, then. Shall the very elderly who get married, men and women that is, should society get out of the business of labeling that 'marriage'? No procreation possible there, after all. Or younger couples who have no intention of procreation, or for whom procreation is biologically impossible without those artificial methods? Furthermore, why does your perception of that the 'primary' purpose of marriage has historically been need to be the universal legal idea-in terms of the species I think you're right, of course, but are you seriously arguing that's the basis on which we acknowledge marriage? And why cannot this definition change, as it has repeatedly throughout history?
quote:About a man an a female being the optimal environment (in general, not in particular cases). I'm not thinking only in my case but, of course, personal experience is always important (all opinions is first based in personal experience: it's the first source of knowledge). Consider the situation of the black community in USA: the percent of them in jail is much bigger than the percent in the general population. And there is a high percent of mono-parental black families. Are these two facts unrelated? It could be, but I don't think so.
You're skipping over quite a few things here. Is it possible that various sociological problems in African-American communities can be attributed to a lack of fathers? Well sure. But does this point as strongly to the idea that the 'mother-father' parenting setup is so important, and so superior to 'f-f' or 'm-m'? Or does it point to ideas such as 'when one parent is missing because of crime', or 'when one parent is missing with a major loss of income', etc.? Those seem to be strong contenders for the causes of the problems you're describing, but you appear to have skipped straight to the explanation which suits you best.
quote:I think that the effect of mono-parental families (ore one-genre families) is not completely known. Recently I read an interesting theory: the percent of black players in the MBL decreases but the percent in the NBL doesn't. Why? The theory of the author was that baseball traditionally is taught from father to son, but basket is taught peer to peer and that was another result of the lack of fathers. Could be true or not, but it makes sense.
Seems pretty thin basis to legislate some people's inferiority on the basis of sexual preference.
quote:But I'm amazed that even an opinion about a man and a woman being better for children, even when it's also said that it's OK that gay couples adopt and raise children is attacked. Something is very wrong when such things happens. Don't blame me if I consider it intolerance.
That's not actually what happened.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:But I'm amazed that even an opinion about a man and a woman being better for children, even when it's also said that it's OK that gay couples adopt and raise children is attacked. Something is very wrong when such things happens. Don't blame me if I consider it intolerance.
You said it was OK that gay couples adopt and raise children ... and then you said that straight couples must have preference. That's wrong.
That's like saying that it's okay if mixed race couples adopt and raise children, but same race couples must have preference. Either one is a clear discriminatory policy, neither has any legitimate grounding, neither should have any presence in law. None. Zero. Especially when what's mustered as some sort of anecdotal base on which to base such discrimination is something like calling it 'emotional incest.'
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:And I don't think the main purpose of the institution of marriage is to make loving couples live together.
I disagree with you. And here's the problem: your entire argument is predicated on this belief. The idea that it is necessary to have gendered marriage in order to promote "traditional" family arrangements is not one that's backed by any kind of research or logic; it's just an open-ended appeal to "common sense," where common sense is really just traditionalism coupled with a vague dislike of "ickiness."
Posted by julianperez27 (Member # 13087) on :
About some men being passive aggressive... Yes, I know that's true: Unfortunately I'm one of them.
>>straight couples must have preference. That's wrong.
Perhaps it's wrong, I don't know, but I don't think it's discriminatory. In this case the point is not the interest of the couple but the interest of the children.
After divorce, judges give the custody of children more frequently to mothers than to fathers. Is that discriminatory with men? I don't think so. It's just trying to do what they think is best for the interest of children. They think that single mothers are better for children than single fathers (and I must say that I agree with that). That doesn't mean that in particular cases is not better to give custody to the father. Such cases exist and are not rare.
My point is that, in the general case, not in particular cases, the best environment for children would be with a man and a women because they receive different influences and a richer environment. And, if that is true, calling marriage to a different kind of union, gives it equal range for the adoption and that is not a good idea.
But I repeat: it's only my opinion. Do you think that an opinion is "wrong" just for being different? Do you think that everybody must have the same opinion and think the same? Well, I was born in Cuba, I lived that several years and it still makes me sad. Then you are saying that those that say homosexuality is "wrong" just for being different are right?
Probably that's the the human nature. People that received hate because of what they are start hating those that have different opinions as soon as they reach an upper position. But it's sad.
[ November 10, 2013, 11:56 PM: Message edited by: julianperez27 ]
Posted by julianperez27 (Member # 13087) on :
But well, I give up. I don't know why I wrote that first post. I knew what was going to happen. And nobody is going to change their mind here, so it's useless. Thanks for the conversation. This will be my last post.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Perhaps it's wrong, I don't know, but I don't think it's discriminatory.
No, it is. It is very, simply, straightforwardly, as clear as you can get on this issue, discriminatory. It discriminates against same-sex adopters by preferencing a mixed-gender adopter over them. If you don't understand how that's discriminatory, that's less about any sort of nuance in the situation you're describing, it's that you don't understand that things which are discriminatory don't cease to be discriminatory when they happen to gay people.
quote:My point is that, in the general case, not in particular cases, the best environment for children would be with a man and a women because they receive different influences and a richer environment.
Thus your point is invalidated by a preponderance of evidence in studies that have shown that this is not the case and that same-sex couples do just as good as parents and are not lacking any sort of essential component of having both sexes represented that irreproducibly makes their parenting better. What do you want, cited studies? I can provide them. Journaled consensus? Meta-study in orthopsychology? Pediatrics? Layman-friendly sciam articles?
quote:Do you think that an opinion is "wrong" just for being different? Do yo think that everybody must have the same opinion and think the same?
If you review our posts, this is straightforwardly irrelevant to the points we are actually making and do not resemble what's being said here at all.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
also when we combine these two parts
quote:My point is that it's better not to give the same name to things that are different in essence. Same genre couples join for love, not for having offspring (they can do that by adoption or insemination, but not in a natural way) And I don't think the main purpose of the institution of marriage is to make loving couples live together. They don't need to get married to do that. IMHO the main purpose of marriage is to create an appropriate environment for the perpetuation of the specie
with this
quote:Let's give gays access to health security plans, common declaration for the IRS and other benefices with another kind of union not called "marriage". Unlike a rose, marriage, with other name, doesn't smell the same. Why that? Because calling it "marriage" removes the base of the institution, that is not "love" but the breeding of the offspring and makes all marriages equivalent for adoption. And they are not.
it traduces down to saying that 'gay coupling should not be allowed to use the word marriage because that takes it away from the core of the institution, which should be reserved for procreational function'
which means that under this system, infertile couples should not have access to couplings called 'marriages' because 'marriage' is reserved for those naturally capable of the purported point and base of the institution of marriage.
would we have to re-term marriages after the woman in them hits menopause? or are they essentially grandfathered in because they got married while still fertile?
yeah, the whole tying marriage to procreation thing doesn't fly, essentially.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Dismantling racism with tolerance.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
It's certainly an interesting story, but I don't think it really serves as much of an exemplar for your broader argument, BB (not necessarily that you intended it to).
The Klan had been worn down by decades and generations of less...courteous non-violent resistance, and in any case it's just one man.
Posted by JanitorBlade (Member # 12343) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: It's certainly an interesting story, but I don't think it really serves as much of an exemplar for your broader argument, BB (not necessarily that you intended it to).
The Klan had been worn down by decades and generations of less...courteous non-violent resistance, and in any case it's just one man.
I respectfully disagree. The KKK may not be the major player it used to be, but white supremacy isn't on the way out. I had a lot in common with that guy in the article. He too was raised overseas, and had to be explained to while in the US that things were different. But having had experiences with kids from numerous countries at school (again like me) it was obvious to him that when people interact, they work out differences, even when there are deep cultural or philosophical differences.
He has proof of changed minds. How many people who only shame others can quantify their results?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Can point to an individual who acknowledges having changed their mind? That's a tough question. It would've involve someone willing to admit-to an antagonistic rival, no less!-that they were wrong and had changed their minds. Tough sell.
Not that that's the point of working to see that virulent racism or other prejudice is considered shameful. It serves other purposes as well-such as not giving it the same respect as respectable ideas. Furthermore, you speak as though anyone has advocated a 'shame only, shame always, shame excessively' approach when to my knowledge they haven't. That's certainly not what your opponents in this discussion have suggested ought to be done.
All of that said, though-how many dead or injured people do you suppose happened for this lone African-American man who encounters a member of the KKK and directly challenges him, BlackBlade? You seem to be examining the approaches on unequal grounds.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Can point to an individual who acknowledges having changed their mind? That's a tough question. It would've involve someone willing to admit-to an antagonistic rival, no less!-that they were wrong and had changed their minds. Tough sell.
Not that that's the point of working to see that virulent racism or other prejudice is considered shameful. It serves other purposes as well-such as not giving it the same respect as respectable ideas. Furthermore, you speak as though anyone has advocated a 'shame only, shame always, shame excessively' approach when to my knowledge they haven't. That's certainly not what your opponents in this discussion have suggested ought to be done.
All of that said, though-how many dead or injured people do you suppose happened for this lone African-American man who encounters a member of the KKK and directly challenges him, BlackBlade? You seem to be examining the approaches on unequal grounds.
Some in the opposition have posited that to be respectful of people with abhorrent views, is to allow innocent people to be hurt and even killed, so shaming is a faster track to the ideal where an abhorrent idea is no longer current. Overall suffering is minimized, and better yet (to them) most of the suffering happens to people who don't deserve any sympathy.
And he has encountered many members of the KKK, not just one. Further, it doesn't sound like he tolerates bad ideas, he explains just how stupid the idea that black people have a gene for criminality is. But it is in the context of actually caring about the person he is conversing with. Wanting to understand what makes them believe as they do. And for many of them, they eventually came to see that they had been brainwashed. So many of us are to some extent or another.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:How many people who only shame others can quantify their results?
This strikes me as an inaccurate portrayal of the discussion. From what I can see, no one is advocating everyone only shaming others. Rather, it seems to me that you are objecting to anyone ever attempting to shame others (I see this as calling them out on their perceived bad behavior) or visiting them with social consequences for that behavior.
---
As to changing people's minds through shaming those persecuting gays, that was the cornerstone of two of the most significant advances in gay rights.
First, as we discussed in this thread, was the impolite, intolerant protesting and hijacking American Psychological Association's national conferences in the early 70s. To borrow a phrase, polite members of a small, oppressed minority rarely make history. As a result of getting in the faces of and disrupting the workings of a powerful groups that was promoting oppression and bigotry against them, gay activists exposed the emptiness and perniciousness the APA's classification of being gay as a mental disorder. This led to the APA removing this classification in 1973, blowing massive holes in the case against gay rights.
As an aside, as I went into greater detail about in the linked thread, this also was a major cause in what I consider the most beneficial revolution in thinking in the study of psychology and had incalculable benefits to the study and treatment of mental disorders and society as a whole.
But yeah, they were really intolerant of people saying they were sick, incapable of living a healthy life, a threat to the public, and deserving of being involuntarily committed or locked up in jail, based on little more than poorly supported theories and outright bigotry.
to be continued...
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:This strikes me as an inaccurate portrayal of the discussion. From what I can see, no one is advocating everyone only shaming others.
We aren't talking about only shaming. We are talking about the relative value of shaming compared to tolerance. I don't think this thread contains the relevant comments, but we've covered this ground in other threads. If I have time tomorrow morning I'll look at quoting.
And which has been typical of this thread, we seem to be talking about tolerance differently. That said, I would have to listen to the episode linked in that thread. At first blush I wouldn't call protesting intolerance, even if done angrily. I wouldn't call doctors pushing for a definition of normal being hashed out and then bouncing homosexuality off it to demonstrate it couldn't be an abnormality.
quote:But yeah, they were really intolerant of people saying they were sick, incapable of living a healthy life, a threat to the public, and deserving of being involuntarily committed or locked up in jail, based on little more than poorly supported theories and outright bigotry.
Yeah, you are only demonstrating just how horrible intolerance is in all its forms. Why would anybody want to buy even a little bit into the spirit that drove people to commit, lock up, and otherwise molest people they did not understand?
Posted by CT (Member # 8342) on :
As a side note, I am related to John Fryer, MD, aka "Dr. H Anonymous," the late psychiatrist who testified about his homosexuality (under masked disguise) to his peers in 1972.
He changed many minds. He was an extraordinary man.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
You've got great blood in you CT. Posted by CT (Member # 8342) on :
His sister married into our family, but I accept that compliment with no small amount of pride.
She has been an extraordinary woman in her own right, and she was a second mother to me.
Posted by CT (Member # 8342) on :
BB, I love the story you linked, by the way. Thank you.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Yeah, you are only demonstrating just how horrible intolerance is in all its forms. Why would anybody want to buy even a little bit into the spirit that drove people to commit, lock up, and otherwise molest people they did not understand?
I realize you're pursuing a point in a debate, but surely you don't mean to suggest that all forms of intolerance are to be utterly rejected, lest one fall in line with the 'spirit' of its worst examples?
It's been awhile so perhaps this ground has been covered before, and you'll correct me if I'm wrong but are you suggesting that this is the case? That if I were for example to be openly antagonistic and hostile to, say, a proponent of compulsory birth control to lower human population growth and spat at my pregnant sister's feet in public (I was straining to avoid the Nazi example)...then I am in keeping, in a small way, with the 'spirit' of intolerance?
Because if so, I cannot say I agree that these are two similar things. I'm very capable of being openly and with hostility opposed to a given idea or practice, but recoil with disgust at the idea of locking its thinkers or practicioners up, or commit them, or harass them (aside from meeting their ideas with my own).
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:Yeah, you are only demonstrating just how horrible intolerance is in all its forms. Why would anybody want to buy even a little bit into the spirit that drove people to commit, lock up, and otherwise molest people they did not understand?
I realize you're pursuing a point in a debate, but surely you don't mean to suggest that all forms of intolerance are to be utterly rejected, lest one fall in line with the 'spirit' of its worst examples?
Nope, I'm not saying that. But I am warming up to the following ideas.
1: People (Western Civilizations) are not actually very good at tolerance, and as a general rule need to work on it.
2: People are far more likely to use shame inappropriately as a means to scorn people, rather than as a tool, by which people, who at some level know they are doing wrong, are forced to look in that mirror and see who they are.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: We are talking about the relative value of shaming compared to tolerance. I don't think this thread contains the relevant comments, but we've covered this ground in other threads.
We have indeed. We've had it so often that I've boiled it down into revisions of prior posts:
1. when you make the issue of respect for repressive, discriminatory beliefs an argument of utility in a battle for hearts and minds over the issue, your version of "tolerance" loses. In terms of the competing effectiveness of various strategies in terms of combating bigoted discrimination in society, there's excruciatingly minimal benefit in trying to respectfully court older generations away from the entrenched bigotry of their era, and excruciatingly profound benefit in choking the life out of the generational impressibility of these views by treating them with shame.
2. The way you have defined "tolerance" makes "tolerance" into something which has no inherent virtue and actually is markedly flawed in that it suggests that a person who suffers discrimination is taking a less virtuous path if they elect not to be polite to their oppressors.
3. You ask victims of oppression to judge their oppressors as "good people" based on that they believe that their oppression is a good thing.
4. You frequently make an argument that boils down to "when you insult these people's beliefs, you get them to dig in and become harder to convert" — and this is fatally flawed, per #1. Bigots are not going to be converted by the respect of society, they're going to have their ideas emboldened and preserved by the respect of society. This really isn't an issue of fence-sitters in the way that it was presented. It is an issue of the entrenched ignorance of a bygone era and the degree to which it is permitted to infect new generations.
Posted by ambyr (Member # 7616) on :
quote:Originally posted by CT: As a side note, I am related to John Fryer, MD, aka "Dr. H Anonymous," the late psychiatrist who testified about his homosexuality (under masked disguise) to his peers in 1972.
He changed many minds. He was an extraordinary man.
Thanks for the link, CT! I wasn't familiar with him and enjoyed reading it.
Posted by CT (Member # 8342) on :
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
Instead of unworkable definitions, I'd like to see an example of how two people with divergent views show tolerance for one another.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Part 2 of 4
I conceived of these posts as a whole, so I'm going to avoid reading the following posts until I finished getting them out. I thought I'd have more time today, but my son decided he didn't want to nap at all today.
---
The second major shift in gay rights had a much longer time brewing. The APA was a small, focused change among experts. Over the last two decades or so, there's been a massive revolution in public perception of gay people. There are obviously many reasons for this, but the overwhelming most significant is pretty simple: people were meeting gay people are realizing that they're pretty much just like anyone else.
As I said, this relied on outspoken intolerance of bigotry against gay people, of shaming those who engaged in it. I can unpack this, but the simplified version is small sections of safe spaces were established that were supportive and protective of gay people and thus where people expressing anti-gay views were unwelcome and would be attacked (generally with words). This spurred people to come out as gay, to live publicly as they were. This spread the safe spaces as more and more people got to know people who were publicly gay.
A friend of mine put it to me this sort of like this. Coming out was a little like standing up to a bully. It was a lot less scary knowing that so many people had your back.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)