Gay marriage opponents, listen up: I've got a secret to tell you

[Polycarp]

Yep. But this plays off the great play/movie about the Scopes trial too.

[Helen_s_Eidolon]

Okay, Heffalump and Roo, I’ll keep trying.

Here is a brief account of how Canada legalized same-sex marriage, and why.

A conservative argument for same-sex marriage.

This argument is a little old, but well laid-out.

Here’s what Keith Olbermann said.

[kaylasdad99]

@Polycarp

Yep. But this plays off the great play/movie about the Scopes trial too.

Oh, yeah, Inherit the Whirlwind. With Darren Stevens as John T. Scopes, right?

[ToeJam]

@Aji_de_Gallina

I’ll be more than happy to let the geometric discussions die here (and meaybe open a thread for that) if you agree that we’re talking about two things called triangles: the geometric abstraction and the analogous real-life objects.

Please do make a thread about this, as I’d really like to know more, but yeah, this is a hijack in here. So perhaps in GD- Is there a true Triangle in Nature sorta thing?

[Cisco]

@Aji_de_Gallina

Thanks a million to all the posters (sorry,** 5-4 figthing**, won’t multi-quote his time) who have been showing triangular objects and thinking they are triangles (in the Euclidean gemoetrical sense, which is what I was refering to in the first time). Your inability to see the difference between geometric triangles and objects which for shorthand/convenience/analogy are called triangles is exactly at the same level of recognizing the differences beween marriage and SSM (and I know the M in SSM is marriage).
So to all your non-geometric triangles: Are they 2d? No. Are they made of straight lines? No. Do they have only three angles? No. Do the angles add up to 180? In a few cases, by chance.

If I draw a cat and ask people, what’s this? most will answer “a cat” (a few will answer “a drawing of a cat”). All of those answering “a cat” no for sure that it is not a Felix domesticus, but since language is economical they say “cat” and they are not confused.
Analogous and metaphorical meanings allow communication to be quick and fluent.
It was mentioned that “cubes are bound by 2-dimesional shapes”. That is true but no one has shown me one single 2-d object. Cobalt lattices are still 3d.
I’ll be more than happy to let the geometric discussions die here (and meaybe open a thread for that) if you agree that we’re talking about two things called triangles: the geometric abstraction and the analogous real-life objects.

Sometimes it’s as silly as:
Are you in favour of gay marriage? Sure, the groom and the bride should be happy when they marry.

Of course you’d be more than happy to let the argument die. You’re wrong. Everyone who is wrong and doesn’t want to admit it is more than happy to let the argument die. I see that you didn’t address the shadows cast by 3d triangles, and I don’t see where you specified before hand that you were looking for “2D triangles in a Euclidean sense.” The term Euclidean has not been used at all in this thread until you used it in this post. In fact, why the fuck are you asking for 2D objects at all? You very specifically stated that you would concede the debate if you were show one solid natural tangible triangle. You have been shown many.

[Miller]

@Heffalump_and_Roo

You mentioned that you underestimated the seriousness of the threat, but in most things I’ve read, people weren’t expecting the win. Those two things are not compatible.

I don’t know what to tell you. In most things I’ve read, up until a month or two before the election, Prop 8 was getting solidly beaten in the polls. I’m not sure why it makes a difference one way or the other.

No such thing. People don’t control their reactions. It’s what people decide to do with their reaction that counts.

I don’t know what this means.

One thing that I would have liked to have seen was a website like President-elect Obama’s transition website with all the social networking sites linked. And then a website stating the issues in clear and concise terms with detailed information on next steps and how people can get involved (without protests).

What’s your issue with protests, exactly? I agree that there’s some question about how effective they really are, or what their goal should be, but you seem to be acting like a protest is an entirely negative thing.

That’s a poor argument. One heinous act is bad. The fact that there aren’t more doesn’t make it better.

Wait, what? If one gay guy gets angry and, say, throws a brick through the window of a church, that’s just as bad if a whole bunch of gay guys start burning down places of worship? That doesn’t make any kind of sense. Yes, it’s bad that anyone resorts to violence over this issue. The fact that it’s an extremely small number of fringe elements who do it is pretty plainly a lot better than if it were a wide-spread tactic among mainstream activists.

You need a protest for that? You could go to a 4th of July community event and get that. . .and liquor too.

Except that the purpose of a July 4th community event isn’t to promote gay rights.

What’s lost in that is the message that you seem to want to convey.

I’m not sure how thousands of people chanting “No on 8, no on hate,” isn’t communicating a message.

The message hasn’t gotten clearer, at least for me.

Here’s a radical idea: have you tried listening?

[The_Weird_One]

@Heffalump_and_Roo

@Antinor01

I acknowledged before and will again, protesting may not be the best way to do this. It may not help. For a lot of people though, it’s feeling like you’re doing SOMETHING and that is better than doing nothing.

It’s not that it may not help, it could potentially hurt and I would think that’s something the effort can’t afford at this point.

How could it hurt?

[Antinor01]

@The_Weird_One

How could it hurt?

There is always the possibility that people who would oppose us anyway would become even more mobilized to put things up for a vote that would be harmful to us. Or work harder to stop any effort to repeal this in '10 or '12, etc. Anything is possible.

[ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies]

@Antinor01

There is always the possibility that people who would oppose us anyway would become even more mobilized to put things up for a vote that would be harmful to us. Or work harder to stop any effort to repeal this in '10 or '12, etc. Anything is possible.

I am not afraid of that possibility, and I don’t understand that fear. The more those who oppose gay marriage say to justify their position, the broader our base becomes. It is circular reasoning, unless you add in the fact that this is discrimination, this is a civil rights issue, and this is a country capable of recognizing and rectifying such injustice.

[Antinor01]

@ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies

I am not afraid of that possibility, and I don’t understand that fear. The more those who oppose gay marriage say to justify their position, the broader our base becomes. It is circular reasoning, unless you add in the fact that this is discrimination, this is a civil rights issue, and this is a country capable of recognizing and rectifying such injustice.

Not afraid, just acknowledging possibilities.

[Aji_de_Gallina]

@Sampiro

That being said, what in the name of the chlamydia cloaked cloaca of Clay Aiken’s Cuculidæ does Roman politics or the abundance of or complete absence of your notion of a perfect triangle in nature have to do with whether or not the formal union of two people of the same sex should receive spousal benefits from the state and Federal governments of the United States of America in The Year of Our Lord 2008?

I have absolutely no idea how we got here. Maybe it’s because I’m a linguistics/math junkie you’all were enabling me.
So I agree to try to go back to the issue, but please don’t tempt me. Even knowing that Sampiro references were about mocking me it took greatselg-control not to try to answer at least one of them, if only as a joke. Only the spiritual fortitude provided by the Magic Guinea Pig* stopped my fingers.

This is a serious issue and I wish I could come up with a solution that could give SS couples what they wanted without compromising my beliefs (not that any of you should care about my feelings, I know, I’m only saying that the thread has helped me in trying to find common ground).

• Extremely obscure reference for Peru-based dopers

[Spice_Weasel]

@Sampiro

The Civil Rights marches were more than a generation ago before media was 24/7. They also involved black people, who were organized into family units and churches and communities- gays aren’t, in fact their families are often the least supportive of them. Stop marching. Express outrage through voting, through disseminating factual information, supporting the HRC and other gay lobbying organizations to propose anti-discrimination legislation, by learning the facts and how to argue them, gaining airtime for people and arguments who (to paraphrase Heinlein) appeal to the self interest and the logic of others rather than their better nature or pity. We are activists, not victims.
.

I completely agree with the notion that this is only going to be solved with rational, constructive dialog, responsible voting, lobbying, lawyering, and all that other good stuff that gets things done in this country.

However, I do take issue with the order to stop marching. I think marching is an important part of the civil rights process, and I think we CAN take lessons from the Civil Rights movement. Not all gay people are alienated from their families (most I know have strong relationships with their families.) Even those who were rejected by blood relatives have constructed strong families of their own through friendship with others. That is what disenfranchised people do in this country --we are survivors. We will find our own communities and carry on.

A HUGE and important part of this movement is plain and simply, visibility. We have to show them that there are multitudes of us, that our multitudes are growing, and that we are not going to go away. If bigots think that only those degenerate homosexuals and their dirty hippie friends support equality in marriage, what better way to confront that than with the thundering spectre of happily married straight couples, grandmothers, nieces, and cousins marching in unity with the LGTB crowd? How will they react when they read the countless signs that say:’‘CONSERVATIVE FOR MARRIAGE EQUALITY’’? How better to challenge a stereotype than with a physical reality they can’t deny?

The reality is that this is not just a gay issue–I am perfectly straight and extremely pissed off about Proposition 8. I know a ton of straight people who feel the same way. In my estimation, the media coverage can work in our favor as we build a popular movement for the civil liberties of gays and lesbians. Whether ya’ll are aware of it or not, there is a movement growing, and it’s not only composed of the LGBT crowd, it’s composed of thousands of decent, straight, freedom-loving American citizens on both sides of the political fence who believe it is better for everyone when minorities are protected from the tyranny of the majority. Gays are not the only people who care about equality, and they are not the only ones willing to get dirty to support the cause.

[Sampiro]

@olivesmarch4th

However, I do take issue with the order to stop marching.

While I’m appreciative of the compliment and confidence expressed, I fear you overestimate the civil authority behind my “orders”.

[ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies]

@Antinor01

Not afraid, just acknowledging possibilities.

Understood. I’m just acknowledging why I personally pay no heed to those possibilities, and I don’t think I’m alone in that regard.

[Polycarp]

@Sampiro

While I’m appreciative of the compliment and confidence expressed, I fear you overestimate the civil authority behind my “orders”.

Pshaw*! Everyone knows that librarians are the Secret Masters of All Lore.

• George Bernard, IIRC.

[Heffalump_and_Roo]

@ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies

I don’t really know what more you’re looking for. The message is on the signs everyone carries.

Here are some of the signs that were reported by an article covering one of the protests:

Marchers carried signs with a myriad of statements, including “Let Mary marry Mary” and “Has anyone seen my civil rights?” Others said: “Don’t make love a battleground”; “It’s not anarchy, it’s equality”; and “My happiness will not hurt you.”
…
One woman held a sign that read, “Together 26 years, married 6-20-2008. Support our marriage, repeal Prop. 8.” Another woman’s sign said, “I kissed a girl and my mom still loves me.”

The messages carry a common theme only if you’re very familiar with the issues.

@ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies

Your argument seems to be that because there are on occasion a few bad apples, that people shouldn’t protest. The bad apples are going to go out and pick fights whether or not there is a protest.

Without a protest, there wouldn’t be a forum. The bad apples’ activity would be attributed to the individual, not the cause they were protesting for.

@Helen_s_Eidolon

Okay, Heffalump and Roo, I’ll keep trying.

Here is a brief account of how Canada legalized same-sex marriage, and why.

A conservative argument for same-sex marriage.

This argument is a little old, but well laid-out.

Here’s what Keith Olbermann said.

Thanks for continuing to try. I found those interesting but not helpful. They were just other people’s opinions that share yours.

Frankly, I’ve found magellan01’s arguments to be persuasive. But perhaps that’s because I haven’t seen a decent counter-argument. I’ve seen just a couple that gave me pause, but I’m looking for something more substantial. I’m looking for a decent debate that gives both sides of the issue laid out with both sides in debate mode.

@Miller

What’s your issue with protests, exactly? I agree that there’s some question about how effective they really are, or what their goal should be, but you seem to be acting like a protest is an entirely negative thing.

I don’t have anything against protests. It just seems to me that there’s little enough time, talent and resources that doing something that takes these shouldn’t have questionable effectiveness.

@Miller

Wait, what? If one gay guy gets angry and, say, throws a brick through the window of a church, that’s just as bad if a whole bunch of gay guys start burning down places of worship? That doesn’t make any kind of sense. Yes, it’s bad that anyone resorts to violence over this issue. The fact that it’s an extremely small number of fringe elements who do it is pretty plainly a lot better than if it were a wide-spread tactic among mainstream activists.

Wait, what? Are you saying that one heinous act is not a bad thing? And more makes that one thing better?

One serial killer is bad. The fact that there aren’t 100 makes that one better? How?

You’re starting with the assumption that mainstream activists will do bad things, so if they only do a few, that’s better than if they did more. My assumption is that they shouldn’t do any.

@Miller

Except that the purpose of a July 4th community event isn’t to promote gay rights.

My exact point. Her comments were enumerating all the reasons people go to protests, but all the reasons she posted could also apply to any community event. None of them had to do with the promotion of gay rights.

@Miller

I’m not sure how thousands of people chanting “No on 8, no on hate,” isn’t communicating a message.

Perhaps it did. I didn’t see any of it, except for hearing about it here. Perhaps other people driving by were influenced.

@Miller

Here’s a radical idea: have you tried listening?

Listen to whom? Most of the vocal people in my community were talking about “Yes on 8”. I didn’t see a single “No on 8” sign until after the election. I certainly could listen to them; they’re very loud.

Instead though, I’ve been trying to learn more about it here. But frankly, you haven’t made it easy. In fact, you’ve made it very exasperating, frustrating and annoying.

I’ve read the two threads you’ve cited along with several others in GD going back to September or so.

@The_Weird_One

How could it hurt?

I think it hurts because it doesn’t help the PR and could potentially hurt it. I also think it wastes resources on something that doesn’t move the position forward, IMO.

[ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies]

So a protest is only effective, in your eyes, if all of the signs stick to the script?

[Revenant_Threshold]

@Heffalump_and_Roo

Frankly, I’ve found magellan01’s arguments to be persuasive. But perhaps that’s because I haven’t seen a decent counter-argument. I’ve seen just a couple that gave me pause, but I’m looking for something more substantial. I’m looking for a decent debate that gives both sides of the issue laid out with both sides in debate mode.

Well, might I ask which of magellan’s points you feel are well made? Are there any particular questions you have about the issue itself that you’d like answers on? Were I to have a go at answering them, is there a particular form you’d like me to take in answering (or, perhaps, avoid)?

I’d honestly like to persuade you we’re in the right. How may it be attempted in an effective way?

[Heffalump_and_Roo]

@olivesmarch4th

If bigots think that only those degenerate homosexuals and their dirty hippie friends support equality in marriage

Is this really who you think your audience is?

Prop. 8 is … . in California!

Did you mean the dirty hippie friends in the Haight or in Berkeley because those are some intelligent, wealthy, powerful, influential hippies, but I don’t know how your characterization applies to them.

@ComeToTheDarkSideWeHaveCookies

So a protest is only effective, in your eyes, if all of the signs stick to the script?

Well, yes. . . if you want to put it that way. I think that campaigns are more effective when people passing by know what you’re campaigning about. If the slogans are too random, it’s difficult to know what the issues are. Campaign slogans are unifying and I would think the same would go for protests.

@Revenant_Threshold

Well, might I ask which of magellan’s points you feel are well made? Are there any particular questions you have about the issue itself that you’d like answers on? Were I to have a go at answering them, is there a particular form you’d like me to take in answering (or, perhaps, avoid)?

I’d honestly like to persuade you we’re in the right. How may it be attempted in an effective way?

Thanks!
Your points are certainly one of the ones that gave me pause. I’m not certain of how to accomplish this because my opinions are not as well-formed so I couldn’t debate with you, but I do have questions, so that might work.
One of the things that was frustrating was that this was not Prop. 8 specific. Prop. 8 is in CA and I want some information on how this plays out specifically in that one state.
Here are the broad arguments as I see them:
magellan01

@magellan01

I’ve proposed on these boards before that the best thing to do is to demand all the legal benefits of a marriage, but leave the word alone. That’s a “rights” argument gays would win MUCH more easily. Some find it inadequate. I view that attitude as grossly unreasonable.

Revenant Threshold
Nametag

A few of my questions:

1. Do people with domestic partnership in CA have the same legal benefits as married people?
2. Since people have been allowed to marry in CA, has that changed anything. . .process and procedures to get married?
3. If gays were allowed to be married, could the laws or private agencies still discriminate against them, carving out an exception for gay marriage?
4. Why is it more likely that these benefits would be stripped away from gays if they had domestic partnerships than if they were married?

just for starters.

[cwthree]

@Heffalump_and_Roo

IA few of my questions:

1. Do people with domestic partnership in CA have the same legal benefits as married people?
2. Since people have been allowed to marry in CA, has that changed anything. . .process and procedures to get married?
   …
3. Why is it more likely that these benefits would be stripped away from gays if they had domestic partnerships than if they were married?

1. No. Couples who marry in CA can assume that their marriage will be recognized outside the state of CA. This is important if one or both members travels or moves outside of CA. Couples with a domestic partnership cannot assume that their partnership will be recognized outside of CA.
2. No, unless you consider the change of wording on the marriage license from “bride/groom” to “partner 1/partner 2” to be a significant change.
3. See my answer to question (1). Many existing laws refer specifically to “marriage.” People who are opposed to ANY legal recognition of same-sex partnerships can be expected to use this distinction to argue against extending those laws to cover couples in a domestic partnership.