Blacks overwhelmingly against gay marriage - Why such hypocrisy?

They are.

I’m pretty sure you still don’t understand what my claim even is, which is the only reason I can come up with for why you’d think it’s particularly remarkable. Or, for that matter, something that’s citable.

No, actually, it doesn’t rest on that at all. I have, in fact, explicitly stated multiple times that it’s a bad argument. (You might have picked up on that if you’d actually read any of my posts before responding to them.) My sole point is that it’s not a hypocritical argument.

I didn’t ask if you saw it, I asked if you’d read it.

Apparently, I have my answer.

I don’t entirely understand your sarcasm. I pointed out that the differences between gay domestic partnerships, as they currently exist in California, and gay marriage, as it existed in California the day before Proposition 8 was passed, weren’t that great. That’s distinct from what I think should happen, which is that gay marriage should be allowed by every state in the country and recognized by the federal government.

I read it.

Did you?

Because apparetnly you can’t understand aspects of your own argument, or explain them when asked to, denying that it is even relevant.

That is OK, I have my answer, that you made it up out of whole cloth even though it is not relevant.

Moving along now…

OK, but you said it was not that much, the difference. That is the judgment that drew the sarcasm.

Well, now, let’s be fair. There’s explaining my argument, and then there’s explaining my argument to you. I’m not ashamed to admit that one of those things is beyond my skills.

But the difference isn’t that much. Gays in California have much more protection for their relationships than gays in the rest of the country.

Miller, I just read this page, and my heart goes out to you. I think your excellent communication skills have met their match. I’m cracking up over here. not_alice’s inability/refusal to comprehend your position is both awesome and comical.

I suggest surrender, as a road to sanity.

Give it your best effort for the crowd as a whole :slight_smile: We are all about fighting ignorance here, after all, that is the main rule of the game on this board. Working to extend or maintain ignorance about your position seems , well, unseemly :slight_smile:

Then why are married couples not clamoring to give any of it up? Why is separate but (somewhat) equal appropriate at all?

OK, why don’t you point me back to the post where s/he answered my question about the common law basis for the claim s/he made?

In all fairness, I may have missed it, I apologize in advance of seeing it if that is true, and once I see it up there somewhere I will apologize again for missing it.

You may want to go back quite a ways and simply try to read—slowly—and comprehend what Miller’s position on things is. I guarantee you, you’re jumping the gun. Switch from debate mode to reading for comprehension mode. Really. I’d attempt to explain it for you, but I don’t see how I can be clearer than Miller has been.

That is all. As I must take the advice I offered Miller.

I never said it was. But at least you guys get domestic partnerships blessed by the state. We face a constitutional ban to even that.

“He.” And I never answered your questions about the common law basis of my claims, because the common law has absolutely nothing to do with any claims I’ve made in this thread. All I’ve done in this thread is argued over whether a particular position is or is not hypocritical. And so far as I’m aware, “hypocrisy” is not defined in the common law.

Now, I did compare restricting rights of criminals to restricting rights of homosexuals. What you’ve utterly failed to grasp is what the point of the comparison was. It was not to demonstrate that it is logically, morally, or legally proper to restrict the rights of homosexuals. The sole and entire point of the comparison was to demonstrate that a dedication to the concept of equal rights can still exclude groups that you feel, for one reason or another, are not deserving of equal rights. I at no point stated or implied that the reasons for restricting the rights of convicts were in any way similar to the reasons for restricting the rights of homosexuals. Nor did I ever say that the rights of homosexuals should be restricted. In fact, I repeatedly went to some pains to point out that restricting the rights of homosexuals is wrong, and something I’m deeply opposed to. Again, if you’d actually try reading other people’s posts, instead of scanning them for buzzwords and responding to them without regard for the context in which they were used, you would understand that.

Well, probably.

Maybe.

There’d be an outside chance, at the very least.

Ah, OK, a half glass looks good when yours is empty. May I ask where you are?

I assure you that here in CA, we are working on the big picture with equal fervor too. We are not leaving you out of our plans. Arguably we were caught off guard by out of state forces last time, but that sword cuts both ways. We aren’t stopping in Sacramento, and frankly it is better if we never have to get there in the first place. DC makes it so much faster, but it probably won’t happen that way in the immediate future. It might, but I wouldn’t get your hopes up. In the long run that is absolutely the final outcome, no doubt about it.

Yeah, because that is so on topic to the thread, that’s why I am not participating in that discussion over the meaning of hypocrisy. I don’t really care what the outcome is. Although the bit about cognitive dissonance I will be looking into more closely, esp. now that my gf, who is a psychologist is home from work.

Perhaps unlike you, my interest in this thread is because I am active in the campaign to fix the injustice of Prop 8. I deal with the cultural issues regarding persuading people to vote for civil rights increasingly every day now. I have a parallel thread I started on a very similar topic right now. You can see for yourself that my interest is in the so-called “rational” justifications for people to vote against their best interests regarding SSM, and the cultural underpinnings of them.

If you want to use a thread ostensibly on that topic to discuss the meaning of hypocrisy, be my guest. I am sure I have hijacked threads similarly in the past and probably will in the future too. So I will just ignore that part of your comments for now, and focus on your actual reasoning.

And in that reasoning, you said something that echoes a lot of what I hear in on-topic discussions: that there is a “traditional marriage” that is at risk somehow. People say it, they mean it, but they can never explain it despite claiming they are talking about civil not religious marriage. Where is this tradtion in law I ask, show me, our legal system dates back almost 1000 years, certainly long enough to evolve and maintain tradition.

When asked directly, there is never an answer forthcoming. This is telling to me.

Sometimes they come at it by analogy as you did. They say the laws surroudning “traditional marriage rights” are like the laws surrounding something else. IN your case you said something like the rights surrounding incarceration of convicted criminals. In those cases, it is easy to see the basis in English common law for the comparative claim, as it is in your case. So it ought to be easy to compare that to the marriage case. But that doesn’t make the marriage tradition appear out of thin air either.

So when you used an analogy like that in the support of your larger case about what is or isn’t hypocrisy, I couldn’t care less about the larger argument. But since you made it in a thread ostensibly about SSM and cultural values, I thought maybe incorrectly you hadn’t forgotten what you were ostensibly discussing, and that you had actually thought about what your analogy really conveyed, both for your hypocrisy argument, and the larger context that spawned the hypocrisy sub-thread itself.

But maybe I was wrong about that. Maybe you hadn’t given it any thought at all, and despite the collegial nature of the board where it is well known that any comment is likely to be challenged and support expected to be delivered or else judgment risked, you just attacked me for not paying attention, as though that somehow made your point more salient or your ability to describe what it was you were trying to say less necessary.

Well, phooey to that I say. I read what you said, I got what you said, and I asked you a fair on topic question. If you want to shout me down for asking for a clarification, that reflects on you, not me.

But, again, if I missed your explanation, or if you want to provide it now, I am all ears because I care more about how I and the people I work with are going to use that information to change 1000 votes a day on average, not because I give a rat’s ass about what you think is hypocritical or not.

But it is up to you - I am giving you a chance to answer what many have been asked and have at least tried before they failed before. If you don’t want to even try, that is fine, but it is also fair to say that it is starting to look like there is no good answer to the question, and that is valuable data in and of itself. of so, it wouldn’t reflect badly on you if you realize that and learn to not to use such flawed logic in the future. I’d consider that a great outcome if people are influenced to stop making that style of argument regarding SSM because it means they will be one step closer to voting the way I want them to next time.

So go ahead and don’t answer or squawk loudly that I even deigned ask, I don’t care, I only ask that quietly you consider if that is really the best most persuasive argument you have the next time it occurs to you to use it in any context. I can live with that right now.

And BTW, before you repeat foolishly again that you didn’t compare the reasons we incarcerate criminals and can limit their liberties with the reasons we can consider limiting the liberties of gays and conclude that they are not internally inconsistent (your term), I suggest you re-read your own post at 141, esp. the first paragraph.

That you say you don’t agree with it makes it even more curious to me that you would describe the logic as internally consistent, yet claim you don’t agree and fail to offer a reason why when asked about it.

But it doesn’t mean you didn’t say it, and it does mean I did read it and understand it, perhaps you didn’t write it as well as you wished you did, but it is right there for you to read, same as I did. I politely suggest you read it as a reader instead of as the author, and then decide how to proceed, if shouting me down some more is still such a good plan of persuasion.

…here is post 141 in full:

Here is what you quoted:

In summary:

  • Miller agrees with Rubystreaks interpretation of the DOI
  • “Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” are broad goals
  • Not applying this to Gay Rights does not automatically make you a hypocrite
  • Convicts have had their liberty curtailed: supporting locking them up does not make you a hypocrite
  • People who don’t support SSM are idiots, but not hypocrites
  • Being black and opposed to SSM does not make you a hypocrite.

To this arguement: you reply:

This is why you are being accused of not being able to read.

Miller’s arguement: it is not hypocritical to be black and against SSM.

Your interpertation of Miller’s arguement: there is a basis for anti-SSM in the same roots of our legal system that allow imprisonment of convicted criminals.

You have taken Miller’s quotes completely out of context: then proceeded to argue against the snippet you quoted. And as of your last post, you still haven’t proven that you have actually read and understood his arguements.

The fundemental premise of the OP is that Blacks are overwhelmingly against SSM: and that this is hypocritical. I disagree with this premise: as do many others including Miller. Miller has been entirely on topic throughout the whole debate. Our position is that the OP is wrong: and is entirely within the parameters of being absolutely on-topic. Your posts, however, are much closer to being off topic and hijacking this thread IMHO.

It is laughable to even consider that Miller’s posts have been in opposition to SSM.

Seriously: magellan01 and Miller argree in a thread about SSM! I honestly don’t know how Miller could be any clearer.

You obviously have strong opinions in regards to SSM. I would suggest you are letting this colour your perception of the posts you are reading and of the posters who are writing them: because you are attributing arguements to them that they have not made.

I suggest you simply quote relevant parts or link to posts, not quote them in full. It makes your own argument difficult to follow as that is not the generally used format here and does your own credibility no good.

That said, since you mentinoed (but failed to link or quote in full) the OP, I will go off and re-read it now…

OK, I just looked at the OP again, while Miller (and others) were drawn into a debate about the meaning of hypocrisy and if it is the right word for some situation or other, the OP’s question was in fact about seeking to identify the cultural basis of the statistical voting and polling pattern he mentioned.

I am sure the OP has a dictionary to look up “hypocrisy” if he needs it :slight_smile:

While I know the hijack went on forever, and may still be continuing, I refuse to join in, that doesn’t mean that a few snippets of the context of the hijack, meaning something germane to the OP might not slip in. Maybe if that is problematic, Miller can double check the purity of his posts in advance, but for now, I give him every benefit of the doubt of being interested in the actual topic of the OP, even if he only intends to use it as a framework for debating the definition of a word in the subject line of the OP.

And lo and behold, perhaps inadvertently, he did that, and I tried to bring it back in the broader context.

If Miller really doesn’t want to answer the question, that is fine, it is open for all really. Note that even in my own thread, I am asking people to address what other people have posited as supportive arguments for Prop 8, without holding the reporter to the argument.

That is the same here. If you don’t want to answer, don’t answer. If you were offended, sorry. If you didn’t understand, then sorry for not being clear enough, but not sorry for your choosing to attack instead of ask for clarification.

Fact is, you stumbled on an argument that is very closely related to that which I was discussing independent of your hijack, and which I then asked about in the context I was interested in. Sorry again if I don’t live in your head, but really, don’t answer if you don’t want to, or don’t know the answer, I don’t care.

Now can you please return to your regularly scheduled hijack about hypocrisy so that I can go to bed tonight hoping that someone else might not find the well so poisoned by your nonsense directed towards me that they will attempt an answer to my question about the legal basis for the claims of “traditional marriage”?

As for Miller, I don’t think I am familiar with his track record here, I don’t recall the SN (and for all I know he not mine, no biggie, but I will make a mental note of his touchiness when asked about the details of analogies he provides and try to use kid gloves if there is a next time.

…good lord!

There is a very good reason I quoted the posts in full: because the whole post was relevant. You quoted two sentences out of context and then proceeded to argue against those sentences. You are trying to debate an argument noone is making. You accuse me of jumping in on a conversation when it was you who jumped in and hijacked the thread.

A very simple question for you:

Reading the whole of Millers post: can you sum up in one sentence what his argument was?

I’ve been on these boards for nearly six years now and this is the first time anyone has ever questioned my credibility: so thanks for the laugh!