Well, I only have so much time. I generally feel a responsibility to keep participating in a thread once I post there. Particularly if I’m getting many questions, as I have in the two pit threads. and what you might not realize, that given that I’m bound to have a minority view here on these boards, I usually have to play tennis with 3-10 people at a time. That simply takes more time.
As far as your notion that I don’t participate in GD, a simple search should prove the nonsense of that. I’d say that over all, I probably have spent more time there than here in the pit. And I’ve discussed this very subject there quite a few times. I’ve posted in a few GD threads this very week, as well as a few other pit threads, and I feel bad that I’ve not been able to participate as fully as I’d like. Partially due to these two pit threads about SSM. Plus, I have a life. My schedule ebbs and flows as far as being busy, so there are times that I’m not able to post for a while, or post as much as I’d like. Like tomorrow, for instance.
But you’re not an honest poster. And you’ll just have to take my word on that, since self-examination is not your strongest suit. You like to slap back? No, you like to slap, period. And you’re not worth talking to, really, because you are in so much denial. It’s like arguing with an adolescent, right down to the swearing.
Nope, sorry buggy bear, the only thing I’m under the influence of is coffee, and your posts, which I have to admit, have a drug-like effect. “Does he really think like that? I feel dizzy.”
While I am loath to interrupt Magellan01’s exhibition of himself as a perfectly rational individual who just cannot understand why others might take offense that he decided to vote in favor of removing civil rights from a group in pursuit of an ideal he cannot or will not articulate, but which we’re to take his word is noble, and that what he really wants is equality under the law except in terminology, but that was not a ballot option, because he’s just a dude whose intentions are good, and please, Lord, don’t let him be misunderstood…
Despite all that, could I turn the attention of the collective Pitizenry to the subject of those who sincerely believe that their understanding of God’s will gives them license to vote away the rights of others? (Magellan, listen up to anyone discussing them; it might give you a sense of how you’re coming across to others – if you even care.) As several have noted, it’s not the gays’ fight any more – it’s everybody’s fight. How do we effectively combat it? What to do with the mass of citizens who believe in God but not necessarily in the batshit-insane god of fundamentalism? How win their hearts?
I didn’t say that you have never posted in GD. I asked why you were not contributing to the GD thread on civil unions.
Good grief, man - we know that reading for comprehension is a stretch for you. Is reading for words beyond your reach as well, or are you really just that lazy?
It was just a thought. It seemed to be something that Miller claimed was possible, and it could be done simultaneously with the stamp it “approved” part.
Of course I do. Everyone has an agenda or they wouldn’t act.
In regards to this topic, my agenda is to try to understand the issues involved in order to make better-informed decisions in the future. To do that, I’ve been trying to understand the issues by looking at both sides to see if I can tell which side makes the most sense to me, sometimes arguing on one side to see which one makes sense to me. As a corollary, I’ve been trying to find a well-reasoned opposition to magellan01’s position to help me to see if it makes sense or not. So far, I haven’t seen one.
No, actually I don’t care to speculate because it would be just that–speculation. And anything I say could/would just be countered with. . well, that wouldn’t really happen. And you might even note that my speculation of what could happen would make me a bigot because my generalization would be one based on a stereotype with which you disagree. How could we know which one of us is right? We’d both just be guessing about future behavior on a pretty complex dynamic.
But I’m not talking about harm to an individual marriage in a short period of time. My thoughts are more about how the structure would change, the expectations of the institution would change and how we view the institution might change. For any given person, this shift would happen so gradually, it probably wouldn’t be noticed.
But the reasons to me are inconclusive.
One of the reasons they give is:
Will that change in the future when gay marriage is more accepted? We can’t know. There are also some statistics of male vs. female gay divorce which are interesting. It’s also difficult to know if this trend will hold with such a short time frame.
That’s less than a generation. Please see my notes above. That’s not enough time to obtain information about the general trends in an institution like marriage.
What? We know the general trends of marriage. You straights fuck it up all the time. Why should you have concerns there might be some unquantifiable reason lesbian marriages might be more successful than your straight marriage?
Defensive?
It almost seems like you’re saying “gay marriages are more successful, so we really need to wonder if we should let them. Genuine marriage fail rates need to be maintained.”
But by voting Yes on Prop 8, you would be speculating: speculating that it would be a bad thing to allow gay marriage. And you’d rather speculate on the side of denying people their rights. But you won’t voice or articulate those speculations because you know we’ll say they’re bullshit. Interesting.
Hmmm, you admit that you have bigoted reasons based on stereotypes about gays. So then yes, I think I’d disagree with them. Thus, I’m so sorry that I have to pretty much write you off on this topic. Thanks for playing, though. You won’t be dissuaded from your prejudices by anything I say, nor by the positive marital stats from Denmark, or anything else.
Can you break down clearly and concisely what his position is? You act like you understand, but I can’t even separate the wheat from the chaff. Instead of a position it seems like a soup of half-positions.
A child of that marriage would be going on 20 years old now. What trends are you afraid we might see?
If this is what your problem is with SSM, why do you not also have a problem with childfree marriages? Or unstable marriages with children? Why do you feel that a man and a woman always have to be better at raising children than two people of the same sex?
And why is it that everything is about children these days? Oh sorry, wrong rant…
Wouldn’t you deal with them the same way you would on the abortion issue? There are many Christians on the pro-choice side of the issue despite the insistence from some religious groups that the Bible can only support the pro-life side. Why would this be different?
I’m not convinced that this issue is solely split on religious grounds. It’s hard to deny that the base support comes from religious interests, but the vote was so close that some people who aren’t religious but supported the proposition could have made the difference.
While I agree that conservative atheists who are pro-choice and pro-gay rights might not be the majority voting block, I also wonder how many people fit under this category.
Looking at the voting from Santa Clara county, not a very religious place in my experience, there were 290, 027 (44.2%) people voting yes and 365,535 (55.8%) people voting no on 8. While I couldn’t find any statistics, I don’t believe there are 44% of the population that is religious and certainly not fundamentalist religious.
In the same election, there were 460,128 (69.6%) people voting for Obama and 189,299 (28.7%) people voting for McCain from the same county.
It seems odd to me that with 70% of people voting democratic in the Presidential election, there would be only 56% of people voting no on 8. Could some, not insignificant number of those people, who voted yes on 8 in this election have been atheists who are pro-choice and pro-gay rights?
Does anyone have other explanations for this seeming discrepancy?
Can’t it be as simple as “people are homophobic”? Some religions actively preach homophobia from the pulpit, so they are the obvious targets here, but homophobia is part of secular American culture too. This is why vulnerable minorities should be protected from the bigoted tyranny of the majority, IMO. Just because you don’t like gay people or they make you feel uncomfortable should not be a basis for legislation.
For those who want a serious discussion without the vitriol, here’s an idea. I will dispense with the attacks and the slapping and the digs completely. In return, you dispense with the name calling, as well, e.g., bigot, homophobe, etc. It’s not that it gets me in a tizzy, it’s just that we simply wind up with “you are”, “I am not”, “you are too”, etc. If those labels are important for you to use, I suggest opening a thread that discusses whether or not it is possible for someone to oppose SSM and not be hateful, bigoted, homophobic, etc. Also, (and this should go for any thread) if you choose to accuse me of lying about something, please be able to support that accusation with specifics. And remember, not agreeing with you or not being correct about something does not equal lying.
How’s that sound.
Now since I am taking a bit of recourse off the table for myself, the only control I will have for those who insist on the ad hominems will be to ignore them. Which should be fine as they are not truly interested in the substance of this discussion and would probably find the thread (if started) mentioned above more interesting.
I choose to do this here rather than start a new thread, here or in GD, for two reasons: 1) much of the discussion has already occurred here, some of it good. And 2) I’d prefer YOU to have more latitude than GD would afford. The only insults I take off the table are the ones that go specifically to this issue, mentioned above.
Good idea? Let’s find out:
Well, since you’re talking about people like me, (I am a theist, just not a religionist) I’d offer to focus on the benefits (probably a better word than “rights” in this discussion, as it is less confusing) that marriage would afford. That is an argument you can win. It also simply appeals to a person’s sense of fairness. Why should a gay person be restricted from visiting a sick partner in the hospital? I don’t see how even someone who dislikes gays would want to deny someone sick or dying the comfort of the person they love. That also asks them to give up nothing. It’s similar with other benefits. That’s different than SSM itself. Granting that contorts, or at least dilutes the meaning of a word that people have a strong emotional attachment to—rightly or wrongly. That is a fact.
Come, now. Here is the rationale you offered:
That is an argument for me avoiding GD completely. I showed you that the entire notion you put forth was incorrect, both in the specific case (discussions about SSM) and more generally. As far as your subsequent insult regarding my reading comprehension, that doesn’t at all ring true. Nor does your claim about my vocabulary being limited. I think even some people who are my most ardent opponents on these boards would disabuse you of both of those idea.
What would be the point of opening that thread when I think that the words already in the lexicon (bigot, homophobe) do apply to you? Hateful, no, but the other two, yes. You don’t want those words used to apply to you, but without rancor or vitriol, I can honestly say that I do think they apply. Thus, I think we are at an impasse. I’m truly not trying to antagonize you and I didn’t have any preconceptions of you on this issue; I arrived at this conclusion based on your own words in this and the Prop 8 thread. This is my sincere opinion of you based on what you’ve said, and you haven’t said anything since to dissuade me, only gotten angry and called me names. Does that means this conversation is over? I think it does, because as you pointed out, all that’s left then is unkind words and rehashing old arguments that have been well covered here to no avail. And again, without nastiness, I do wish you’d think about why I feel these words describe you. But if you don’t want to, or want to find further insult in this message, then the conversation needs to be over. Which, let’s face it, it probably is.
Fair enough. Here’s my counter-proposal: if you’re going to oppose gay marriage, provide valid reasons. You can’t say “I vote to take away gay rights,” and then say “I’m for gay rights.” It doesn’t make sense.
As Sherlock Holmes would say, “eliminate all other factors, and the one which remains must be the truth.”
The reason you get called homophobic is because we’ve tried our best, but have nevertheless eliminated all the other factors, and arrived at what must be the truth, based on your reasons for voting to take away rights from gays.
The thread you need to start, would be “it’s possible I vote against gays because darn it, I’m homophobic, but it should be okay.”
It is possible to oppose gay marriage, but you’d have to come up with reasons that proved you aren’t homophobic, rather than just saying you’re not homophobic.
I could say I oppose gay marriage because I firmly believe marriage is out-dated, and no one should be married. I can argue my case and demonstrate by refusing to get married. But voting to TAKE AWAY someone else’s rights isn’t just arguing your case. It’s actually taking peoples’ rights away!
Agreed. I maintain that one can, in fact, be opposed to gay marriage and not be homophobic, bigoted, find gays ickey, dislike them, hate them, or anything like it, I am certain of my position because I embody it. I have not convinced you. Fine. I will admit being confused by this insistence that you know what in my heart, but perhaps I have communicated poorly. Perhaps because you have people who oppose SSM clumped together in a way that work for you. I have reviewed these two threads and the one in GD and have seen ample explanation that works for me. But that is not that bar that needs to be reached. So we’ll have to agree to disagree. I think we’re both tired of repeating ourselves in a back and forth. Thanks for ending this so gracefully.
You’ve participated in the two threads here and the one in GD. I have given reasons that make perfect sense—to me. As I mentioned in my previous post, perhaps the fault lays in me explaining myself, perhaps in the way you choose to view things, or need to view things. I intend no snark in that comment, we all come to the table with our own preconceptions and baggage. I would explain myself again, but as I mentioned to Rubystreak, I reviewed those threads and do not find my explanations wanting. I cannot master of the energy to do so yet again while not seeing what I could add that might make things clearer. The fact that one than one poster, I’m not sure if it was you or not, admitted that he/she can’t be rational on this subject is something I should have taken more to heart earlier.
I don’t expect you to do this, but if you’re sincerely confused how someone can be anti-SSM yet not be homophobic, etc., I suggest you reread the threads afresh—simply for your own benefit. There’s no need, or request, to respond to anything, but since you are so invested in this issue, it might be beneficial to understand your opponents. I do suggest you also couch them in that term, “opponents”, as opposed to enemy. Because while this issue may touch you more closely than your opponent, both of you are arguing for which policy will be more beneficial to society. If nothing else, understanding where they’re coming from might help you craft more effective arguments to present to them. Regardless of your opinion of my particular position, I think you’d have to agree that there are many, many, more people further from your position than I. And if what you put forth fails to sway me, it’s likely to have even less of an effect on more hardliners. Anyway, just a suggestion.
Again, no snark intended, but you may want to review the threads and see if in the heat of discussion you might have too readily discounted some points that didn’t fit your preconceptions. I do assure you that your accusations of me “lying” are incorrect. That I do hold the opinions I have put forth. I am against SSM. I am for gays enjoying all the benefits that would come through marriage. Try to accept both those statements as FACT, then craft a picture of your opponent that fits with it. Because I can tell you for certain that starting with the rules you have in your head and then claiming that I cannot hold those two opinions, and not be bigoted, homophobic, etc. is simply incorrect and will cause you to be spinning your wheels.
You could. But that is not my reason. A review of the threads I mention communicate my reasons. If you’re interested in them I suggest a review. If not, that’s fine, too, as I doubt that either of this is going to change each other’s minds.
I don’t know what you have in your heart. I know what you wrote about your reasons.
No, sorry, don’t put it back on me. I have no stake in nor need to believe any particular thing about you. I would be willing to believe you’re not a homophobe and indeed gave you the benefit of the doubt and asked for your reasoning, when you said things that made me believe otherwise. You do, however, apparently have a stake in believing you’re not a homophobe. Perhaps because you have an image of yourself wherein you have to believe that, and so you cannot see what others can see clearly from your words.
Of course you’re convincing to yourself, but rationalizations usually are. Convincing people who aren’t you, that’s the standard you want to hold yourself to. And it seems you’ve failed. It might be profitable for you to consider why, without turning it back around on the person who disagrees with you and making it some flaw of theirs that prevents them from seeing that you are not, after all, a homophobe.
I am tired of it, but I won’t accept from you this idea that I think you’re homophobic because I have some psychological need to see all opponents of SSM as homophobes. I was willing to be persuaded of your reasons but was not. That’s about it.