I knew it; Scylla and I are the same person. That explains a lot.
Just to clarify one little thing…as to those who queried my example of public support for gay marriage minus the legal benefits…
I believe in equality. There are two ways to bring a dominant and subjugated group into equality. One way is to extend benefits to the subjugated group, another is to eliminate surplus privileges of the dominant group. I believe the most efficient and expedient way to achieve a de-genderization of marriage is a mixture of the two.
Personally, I would eliminate the tax breaks and benefits system that is presently based on marital status. This would save alot of money for both government and the private sector. It would make the decision to allow gay marriage much less costly, and it would still be equal.
I would then allow certain benefits to continue in this new marriage system, benefits that protect civil liberties. I would continue with the ban on spousal testimony, continue domestic violcence law protections, and so forth.
Most importantly, the benefits and protections that should be extended should be exactly the same for heterosexual and homosexual marriage. If equality is your only concern, it shouldn’t matter whether this is done by throwing privilege at everyone or by eliminated unfair benefits currently enjoyed. It amounts to the same thing. If, however, monetary benefit for a particular group is your goal, I can see how you would object to this.
I would advocate elimination of the fiscal benefits of marriage regardless of whether homosexual marriage were ever recognized. The pertinance of my position to this issue is that I feel such a reform would lower the financial drain on both the public and private sectors, and so make recognition of homosexual marriage far more tenable to the population at large.
BTW, lissener, your analogy fails, and I would not endorse that position. Race is tied in very strongly these days to economic class, it’s a de facto situation, and it is hard to tell where racial oppression ends and economic disadvantage begins. As that is an entire different sort of issue than this, so I feel it only clouds the issue to bring it into this discussion.
Yeah, I’m sure heterosexuals are going to be just freaking thrilled when they’re told that all their marriage benefits are being taken away because gay people wanted a part in them too. It’s a great political sound bite too: “If we have to share, then nobody gets any!”
What fiscal benefits would you eliminate? The right of spouses to inherit intestate? The right to child support, the right to negotiate divorce settlements? Why not go through the list of all the 1049 laws associated with marriage and let us know which ones you think people can do without.
While you’re at it, explain why government doesn’t have an interest in endorsing marriage as one of the stabilizing building blocks of a society.
That’s an astonishingly elegant example of circular logic, RD; which came first, the chicken or the egg?
Why are you posting? I thought it was my turn to use the brain today.
RexDart says:
The Straight Dope slogan is:
Well, RexDart, it would seem that people on this message board believe that fighting ignorance works, as, last time I checked, that’s why this message board exists.
I have a question that may seem stupid to you, but who determines what ignorance is? The way I see it on this board, those who disagree with the majority are automatically put into the ignorant category. Hmmm, wouldn’t it be something if the ones who disagree with you turned out not to be the ignorant ones? In fighting ignorance you may find you have to fight yourself because you don’t know everything about everything like you think you do. :smack:
Try http://www.outminds.com/outspoken/perfectsinner_apr02.cfm?cid=161 among others.
Those who have facts to back up their opinions are not ignorant. Those who repeatedly ignore observable facts rather than re-evaluate their prejudices are ignorant.
Thank you for playing, good bye.
Please wait a moment, folks. What if that’s right? What if ignorance is anything but following the God of the Bible in its most literal form? Being condemnatory would still be ignorant, but what if there’s more truth to His4ever’s statement than we are giving her credit for this time? Who really does know what ignorance is?
Yep, this thread has made me think, all right.
Ignorance is simply not knowing. It could be that you know that you are ignorant in a certain matter, or that you do not know your own ignorance yet are willing to see the facts.
Stupidity, on the other hand, is having the facts available to you and ignoring them.
The most important difference between the two is that ignorance is something that can be faught and fixed, whereas stupidity is pretty much incurable by anyone other than the person the word applies to.
It is an admirable goal to be ignorant rather than stupid when one has a choice between the two.
The problem with this statement is that the posters of the SDMB are not ignorant of the Bible; they are simply not Christians.
In contrast, most of the anti-homosexual posts are, in my opinion, ignorant of what facts we have about homosexuality. That the Bible exists and what it includes are facts; that the beliefs of an ancient people should be carried over to determine sexual morality in the present day is an opinion.
On a final, personal (and somewhat irrelevant) note, your post reminds me very much of the time I used to post at very fundamentalist Christian bulletin boards. Your “wouldn’t it be something” line reminds me very much of the individuals who, rather than rationally debating or even defending their positions Biblically, posted public fantasies about the liberal and non-Christian (or not Christian “enough”) posters being thrown into Hell, and enjoying the looks on their hypothetical faces. Ugh. (While this anecdote is unpleasant, it does serve to remind me that things could certainly be worse here on the SDMB.)
Wouldn’t it be something, His4ever, if you applied this statement to yourself:
I’ve faced my Christian ‘demons’ and have gone to great lengths to examine my personal beliefs and my decision to leave Christianity. How examined are your beliefs?
His4Ever
I’ll also add that I’ve asked you some of the same questions I’ve asked myself in examining my faith, but never gotten an answer. Please. Read the thread over in MPSIMS about what gay-bashing is like, and consider the experiences described in light of your stated beliefs. Also, since you’re fond of quoting the Bible in general and Paul in particular, could you please give me your thoughts on this passage in relation to your statements on this board (Romans 14:10-13, The New English Bible translation because that’s what’s migrated from beside my bed to beside my computer thanks to you Dopers)
Also, something I noticed in today’s readings at church. Ecclesiasticus 27:30 says “Anger and wrath, these are also abominations.” I’ve read what appears to be you getting angry, as, I admit, have I, as have a lot of us on this board. Still, it seems the word “abomination” is reserved for homosexuals. Ecclesiasticus is in the Apocrypha, and it does contain one of the passages in the Bible which I object to most, but, in my branch of Christianity, it remains Biblical.
I don’t think I know everything. Some days, I’m not sure I know anything. I have questioned my faith and I have questioned God. Sometimes, I’ve even yelled at him. I acknowledge your stance on homosexuality, and I respect the depth of your faith. However, I must be just as firm in my strong disagreement with that stance. I arrived at my position by prayer, study, and thought. I will not change it just because you tell me it’s wrong.
Respectfully,
CJ
Actually, that’s an excellent question that genuinely cuts to the heart of what we are trying to accomplish here. To me, it seems that ignorance can most usefully be defined as a lack of information. Say that someone were debating the historical accuracy of the Bible, yet had never read the Bible–we would have to call that person ignorant because he did not have the necessary information to debate the matter.
Not so. You have been lambasted not for your opinions, but that you do not base your opinions on good information. Take the Mormon debate. You have read only one book on Mormons, and that only a strongly biased memoir. It’s OK to think that the Mormon scriptures are fiction–I think they’re fraudulent myself–but I think so because I have knowledge of Mesoamerican archeology and the inaccuracies of the Book of Mormon. I didn’t just say, “Well, the LDS church is false and I’m not going to listen to any other opinion.” I listen, I read, and I judge. If you’re going to disagree with the LDS, you need to get real knowledge of their beliefs from many sources. Getting your info from one strongly anti-Mormon source is as useless as getting your info from only one equally pro-Mormon source.
Not so. You have been pilloried not for your opinions, but because you cannot support your opinions with facts. Merely quoting Scripture is not good evidence–you have to come up with more pertinent evidence to back up what you say.
How so? It’s been shown that you have a shaky command of Biblical exegesis and apologetics, and there are many people here who can quote Scripture better than you. If you are hoping for the Rapture to act as a deus ex machina to resolve the plot in your favor, you’re living in fantasy. The Rapture may well happen, but it still won’t change the fact that you have an extremely slight knowledge of history, psychology, theology, and science.
Fear not, there’s nothing wrong with you that more time here and extensive visits to your local library can’t cure.
The ‘homosexuality debates’ are foolish at many levels.
*If you are gay, then you are gay. There is little to debate.
*If you don’t like the whole concept of homosexuality, then you don’t like the whole concept of homosexuality. There is little to debate.
One may as well argue with their cat that it should be a dog.
That’s an extremely simple-minded apologia for bigotry. You could just as easily say the same thing about blacks, Jews, or Presbyterians. Disliking an entire group because you think they are “icky” is prejudice; really, look it up. Prejudice is founded on a lack of knowledge, hence, it is ignorance. To quote that trio of foxy prophetesses, En Vogue:
Funny, I thought it had at least been established that there is something to debate with all these pit threads and GD threads … silly me.
Originallly this was posted while the lights were going out so it is sort of a response to a post that was ‘never made’ I still feel that it is relevant… so here goes…
Gee Ace,
Aren’t we flogging this horse a little hard considering how very definite the rigor mortis seems to be?
I’d say it goes back to what I said in your thread. To say ‘I think it is a sin to have same-sex sex’ is perhaps not consistent with a rational read of the Bible and thus ignorant drivel IMHO, but it is the prerogative of the stating party to harbor such absurd delusions. OTOH labeling homo/bisexuality as ‘an abomination’ is not acceptable since it is a condemnation, and begs for the question what the consequence should be, and transgresses into the area where the argument starts to infringe on human rights.
So now you might say that Jersey and Joe (what a couple BTW!) didn’t really say that it was an abomination. No? My read gave a different impression. In fact I have the impression that they only backed down partially after being torn into by, what did you call it? Ah yes… ‘The Gay Mafia[sup]TM[/sup]’ to which I guess that I belong as of these threads.
Let me transpose the argument to religion and ethnicity instead.
If I say that I think that the Jewish faith is sinful and does not lead to salvation I am barely asserting my religious belief. OTOH if I say that Jews are an abomination, well… need I say more? I guess that’s where we find His4ever and her cohorts.
J&J are a little smarter than to make such an incredibly obvious faux pas and instead present us with the equivalent of; ‘Not that I mind Jews per se, but nevertheless being Jewish is an abomination, in my opinion anyway (which I happen to share with God – for certain).’
Sorry, but I won’t take that standing up and alive. Not if it is about me, not if it is about anyone else. I think that you have read in other places what some of us have gone through just for being who we are. I think you also have enough grasp of history and current affairs to know that real life hardcore oppression could not live if it wasn’t for ‘silent’ supporters like J&J. They represent the middle class of bigotry, the seemingly docile apparent tolerance that only sternly, but humbly condemns the principle, not the person. In fact they are more dangerous than the gay bashers, whose acts are already illegal.
J&J represent the juror members who will possibly acquit the gay bashers based on the fact that the victim ‘obviously presents a sore – you can’t blame a man for being provoked when such an abomination is rubbed in his face.’ Been there and seen that! I had a whole courtroom examine my sexuality as valid grounds for someone else to beat the living shit out of me, and I didn’t feel too good about it. In fact I can’t really say which part was more humiliating, being beat up, or denied justice… I think the latter stings more, at least so many years later.
These debates have made me clearly see that that this silent ‘moral majority’ isn’t debatable, the only way I see to get through to them is shout them down and expose their foul game, before they do it again to someone else. In the case of J&J I am sure that it hasn’t worked, not yet anyway, but maybe those that witnessed the show and were on the fence saw how they finally where forced to come out and clearly state that they saw no right to infringe our rights, nor to condemn us.
That’s why.
Sparc
[hijack]
Please return to your regularly scheduled debate on whether there is a debate.
[/hijack] “Why?” you ask. The underlined portion, and I’ve been saving articles on my favorites menu while the SDMB was down.
Sparc,
I, flog a dead horse? Not during the autopsy! Good to see you back – I’m glad you reposted that, I found it most helpful.
In the end it amounts to a different reading of what J&J had to say, but I understand your logic. I’d hate to be called my existense an offense to god. And cripes! A trial to find out if I deserved my beating! Insult topping injury – I’m pissed for you; you deserve double my respect for going through that and still entertaining my removed thoughts.
As to the perception of whether they called Gays an ‘abomination,’ do you in truth see two interpretations, or just one?
I ask because:
The other possible interpretation would be they never condemned you, nor advocating infringing your rights, and in fact they said as much multiple times. Therefore, all you got them to do was restate what they were saying throughout, without changing your hypothetical jury pool, with the possible exception of those fence sitters who perceived an unfair witch-hunt. Or, as they used to call it from statistics, Type I error.
Sure, shouting someone down is a mighty censorious weapon, and it sure can be cathartic, but might it not be reserved for those who are guilty without possible interpretation? Otherwise you might only be successful in driving homophobes underground – just where you don’t want them, per your logic – and polarizing the middle ground, instead of owning it.
Warm Regards,
Ace