You seem to be overly defensive about the notion that you may come to the discussion with some preconceptions and/or baggage. I’m willing to grant that I probably do. I think we all do. I didn’t think that this proposition would be new to you, or controversial. I also admitted that I may have simply failed in communicating my reasons well. So I don’t think it fair for you to now characterize my last post to you as putting it “back on you” to the degree that you did.
So, we have what you think my motivations are and what I know them to be. So, I’m going to have to go with my estimation of what’s in my own mind and heart rather than yours. You, of course, are free to believe what you wish.
I just scrolled back to find something and found this instead. I think it points to a reason we will never agree on this. You’re attributing guilt to me by association. There is a group that voted the way I did that are homophobic/bigoted, etc. and since I voted the way they did, I too must be homophobic/bigoted, etc. I don’t think that that logic holds up, yet it is at the base of much of our disagreement.
It appears we are done. And probably should have been then.
What worked with my daily-Mass Mom was pointing out that, same as she didn’t choose to be heterosexual and have a fondness for Jimmy Stewart lookalikes, gay people don’t choose to be attracted to their own gender. Spain has separation of Civil and Religious marriage; the law affects Civil marriage only; so what’s the duties and benefits of Civil marriage in Spain?
You can be single-partner, or not.
You can live together, or not.
You can share finances, or not.
If one spouse works, and the other doesn’t, the one who doesn’t work can be added as a dependant of the one who does. If both work, each gets his or her own social benefits.
They get to be each other’s first responsible person for medical decisions, if the one who’s ill can’t make the decisions.
They get to be responsible for any children acquired during the marriage, by birth or adoption.
Often, people who are gay have been disowned by parents who were more worried about the scandal than attentive to “love is the first commandment.” So, why should parents who’ve kicked someone out have more right to make decisions over that someone’s life and death, or inherit that someone’s kids, than a person who’s been living with that someone for years?
Mind you, thinking of her own parental units making any medical decisions about her is enough to bring Mom to the brink of a heart attack. That probably helped.
Huh? I’m not defensive. I have my opinions about gay marriage and they are pretty well-formed. I don’t have preconceptions about people who are against gay marriage, per se, and I didn’t have any preconceptions about you.
You did. You refuse to accept that your words in this thread are what made me think you’re a homophobe. Rather, it must be MY preconceptions, MY inability to see distinctions, MY inability to understand your POV. It’s not me. It’s you.
I don’t particularly wish to believe anything about you. I’m not trying to tell you what’s in your heart. I am trying to tell you what’s in your words.
No, it’s not at ALL the base of much of our disagreement. And now I have to think that you haven’t really heard anything I’ve said. The basis of our disagreement is that you believe gay people are deviant and not normal, and that their use of the word marriage constitutes a dilution of marriage that would be harmful to children and society, because marriage is supposed to be between a man and a woman for the purpose of procreation. Have I got it right? I think I have. And I think these are bigoted views tinged with homophobia. Somehow, for reasons of your own, you do not think these views are bigoted or homophobic. Thus, we are at an impasse. But it’s not because of any quality that I possess except the desire to call things what they are.
Yes, we are done, but not for the reasons you think.
Oh yay! I was just about to challenge magellan01 myself since no one was trying to set forth those points. Yours are the points I’d try to challenge, but I don’t know how effective I’d be, so I’m glad you came back to reiterate them.
Here’s how I’d answer your objections: (these are my own answers; I’m not speaking for magellan01 who probably has his own ideas)
In speaking of the ideal, marriage could just be defined as a man, a woman and children (if any)–basically the basis of a nuclear family now.
In that way, the definition wouldn’t include two adults of the same gender.
As to rights, the meaning would be more consistent with benefits. So any benefit that derives from traditional marriage such as financial incentives or contractual rights could be conferred on gay couples.
Under that definition, 2 and 3 are consistent.
I’m not sure that one needs to endanger the foundation of society to find it undesirable.
How would polygamy endanger the foundation of society?
It may look ridiculous now; it probably didn’t then. And I’m certain that some things that people defend automatically without thinking now will seem outrageous in the future.
Given that, I thought this post by Miller in a thread in GD was very interesting:
How do we determine which traditions are positive and unifying and which ones are divisive? I’m thinking that I might be seeing those traditions in the opposite ways in which he sees them.
*if you want to see his comments in context, just hit the arrow next to his name and that should take you back to the thread.
By producing large numbers of desperate men who have no access to women. Not that I’m really convinced that the risk of that is justification enough.
I rather suspect that it looked ridiculous to the women in question. Because it was.
What is more divisive than bigotry ? This is not a subtle or confusing ethical problem; this is a situation where there is a pro-SSM good side, and an anti-SSM evil side. Bigots, against those who oppose bigotry. There is no good excuse for outlawing SSM, including the alleged will of God. If you claim that God is a bigot, that doesn’t justify being a bigot as well.
Could means nothing. The only way you could convince me you weren’t conspiring with the religious right to take away gay rights every chance you get would be if you had ENSURED AND ALREADY PASSED this “could” you propose. Where is it?
The RR boycotts companies that provide SS benefits. You honestly think they’re not going to fight this “could” you’re only impotently proposing?
If you willingly and knowingly aid and abet the religious right’s hateful agenda, you can’t complain when you get charged with aiding and abetting.
Dude, this completely cracked me up. Your imagination must be very vivid. It’s like you went to another planet, thought this up and then came back to write this down.
I’m thinking that since there would still be nuclear unit families (or whatever you want to call them with one man and one woman) as well as gay couples along with the polygamists, I don’t think there would be more desperate men than there already are. And wait, why couldn’t polygamy be one woman with multiple men? That was hugely sexist of you, wasn’t it? You’re not a bigot, are you? :dubious:
Or was there another reason for the desperate men?
I rather suspect you’re right as to the time right before the law changed. Much before that though, many women didn’t know how to read and write so they may not have considered it.
It depends on what you mean by bigotry.
Well, it sounds so simple when you put it like that. It was so helpful of you to point out the good and evil side in case I wasn’t sure.*
(*sarcasm with a capital S in case anyone misinterprets this)
Could you parse this? I don’t think it’s even a sentence.
Well, since I don’t have the red phone to God, you’ll just have to ask him yourself.
Because very few women are interested. Even in cultures that practice one woman with multiple husbands, it’s for economic reasons; the people involved don’t like it, but just put up with it according to them. Historically, given a choice, women tend to prefer part of a rich man to an exclusive relationship with a poor man; monogamy is fundamentally designed to cater to men. I’m simply saying things could go back to what they were like when polygamy was legal and accepted.
Acknowledging real differences or history is neither bigoted nor sexist.
What has that to do with anything ?
Hating and mistreating a group for no rational reason is clearly bigotry.
It is that simple; this is a black and white situation of good versus evil. Like the fight against segregation, or for getting women the vote. One side is right, and the other is wrong; there’s no grey area.
It’s not complicated. The opponents of SSM are, without exception and by definition, bigots; those who support it are therefore fighting bigotry.
I reconcile that by saying that gays and straights should be afforded the same benefits under the law. In that regard they should be equal in every way. A marriage, between a man and a woman, is entitled to X. A “civil union”, between two people of the same sex, is entitled to the exact same X.
I dilutes the meaning by having it refer to a relationship other than that which heretofore have understood it to be. The fear is that heterosexual couples (which are the ones that will continue to be the source of our next generations) will begin to cease viewing the institution as a special one that they should aspire to enter into with the person they love. The fewer marriages we have, the fewer children being brought up in ideal situations.
This line of argument seeks to abolish all tradition. It attempts to ignore the composite wisdom of centuries of generations. So, anything that we’d like to hold on to can consequently by shown to by ridiculous because it comes from the past. You know, the unenlightened past where they believed all that silly stuff and did all those horrible and ignorant things. I think this argument (not just from you) is really meant to shut down the debate about the actual issue. We should be able to look at any issue in isolation and decide if it’s worth holding on to or not—on it’s own merits. We can then decide which specific things we’d like to hold on to and which we’d like to abandoned. But to come to an intelligent decision about whatever the issue it, it needs to be examined in seclusion.
I see a conflict between the first sentence here and the first half of the second. More to the point, your “preconceptions” was only one line in my post, one that pointed to one explanation as to our inability to agree (or to truly understand) where the other is coming from. I also offered other reasons that had nothing to do with you. Yet, you focused on the one. That was my point. I thought the “degree” to which you did so created an unfair representation of my post.
No, it’s not me. It’s you. Does this really get us any place?
But what is your point here? That you have no preconceptions? That’s nonsense. You’ve admitted that your opinions about gay marriage are “pretty well formed”. Well, in order to form these opinions, didn’t you have to come to some internal consensus as the words like “equality”, “rights”, “marriage”, “hate”, “homophobia”, “fairness”, mean? I take it that you think I’m accusing of something untoward. I’m not. We all come to a discussion with preconception, with baggage too, with “stuff”.
No, you’re telling me what my words mean to YOU, based on you definitions and preconceptions. Take “homophobia”. I doubt if we came to this discussion agreeing on what it means. I’m sure you’re definition is, conveniently, much broader.
My sentiments exactly. Really.
Kinda, but I’m using those terms more clinically. Take “normal”. In what world is homosexuality characteristic of the norm? I do think it is natural, as in naturally occurring, but, “characteristic of the norm”? I don’t see how you can say that. And I’m using “deviant” the same way. I try to avoid it for this very reason: it is an emotional word and someone will jump on it and focus on the negative connotations the word has and ignore the primary definition of the word.
It appears I’ve improved. Now I’m only tinged with homophobia. That’s progress, I guess. Except in my eyes I am not homophobic or bigoted. The worst you’d be able to accurately say about me would be that I discriminate. But even then I use the word in the sense of “discerning”, in that I acknowledge that there is a difference between gays and heteros. The fact that there are different words to describe each shows that I am not alone in being able to discriminate between the two.
Wait. So if this already existed and someone advocated that position that would be okay. But before it could possibly be law that would be okay, wouldn’t someone first have to advocate it? Or am I not understanding your point?
Maybe they wouldn’t do so if they felt SSM was off the table and it was simply a matter of rights. Or, probably more accurately, perhaps they wouldn’t be able to muster effective support if SSM was off the table. I think that is definitely the case.
But you’re equating voting the same way on a particular issue with aiding and abetting a group with a much larger agenda. And people vote for things for different reason. Do you really think that everyone who voted for Obama, Bush, Clinton, etc., did so for the exact same reasons?
No, not at all what I said. I don’t have any preconception that all SSM opponents are bigoted. Nor any about who you were before we spoke. Thus, I arrived at my conclusion about you based on what you said and not due to any of my preconceptions.
My definition is “conveniently” much broader? How about your definition is “conveniently” too narrow to cover you? You said, in the post right above this:
You are afraid that gays are going to ruin marriage for straight people. You can’t see how totally ridiculous that idea is, and that there’s no evidence whatsoever that gays would have such an effect on marriage or on children. You can’t offer any proof that this fear isn’t anything other than homophobia: irrational fear of gays. Can you?
In my world, and in the world of a lot of other people posting to this thread. Homosexuality is normal. Upwards of 10% of the population is gay. How is that not normal? In the minority, but then, so are left handed people, and I don’t see you calling them deviant. I don’t see how you can say it’s not normal, or claim that this sentiment isn’t homophobic.
The primary definition of the word “deviant” is something that departs markedly from the norm. I don’t think gays qualify.
In my eyes, and in the eyes of a lot of others who’ve read your contribution to this thread, you are. I’ll say it again-- maybe you should think about why we have that impression, and not keep saying it’s because we don’t understand you or we have preconceptions that don’t allow us to see you as you see yourself.
The difference between gays and heteros is in which gender they choose to love romantically/sexually. It doesn’t require much discrimination to see that. Other than that, they’re not different from you or me. But it does take bigotry and homophobia to extrapolate that difference into not allowing them to marry.
Rubystreak, thank you for another thoughtful (and civil!) post. I have only one quibble, which is that no one chooses who they love. We humans may choose the partners with whom we have sex (and those to whom we say, “in your dreams!”), but we generally can’t control whether or not we feel an erotic or affectionate attraction to a particular individual.
I totally agree with you. I should not have stated it that way. It would be more accurate to say, “which gender they feel compelled to love romantically/sexual.” Because it’s no more a choice than it is for straight people. My apologies if my phrasing muddied the waters.
I guess you don’t. SSM exists in other countries, a couple US states, and in California until you took it away. People do advocate for domestic partnership and civil union and they get fought, every step of the way, line by line. Your imaginary “could” has been advocated for, and fought with tooth and nail.
See above.
You’re drawing analogies. Let me draw your attention to your own words:
So I guess you’re changing the rules, and analogies are no longer accepted.
So let’s now examine SSM without ANY analogies or historical precedence. It needs to be examined in seclusion. Fair?
Gay marriage exists in other countries and within the US. No provable harm has occurred.
I just have a few minutes, but I peeked in and saw this and wanted to comment on it quickly.
So has SSM. And it’s not doing very well. I also predict that the resistance to it is nascent. Previously you had hardliners, people don’t want gays acknowledged in the law at all. SSM was not thought to be a possibility. It was whether gays would receive some rights. But now that SSM seems more of a possibility, I think many people who never actively fought against gays now will. And do you have a cite for gays fighting tooth and nail for what I have proposed?
No. You’ve gone and conflated two very distinct and different ideas. There is 1) the idea of the analogy, a device that seeks to shed light on an issue by looking at something where the relationships between parts of that issue are proportionate to the relationships of a different issue. It simply seeks to clarify. On the other hand you have 2) a fallacy of association—ad hominem flavor:
Bad people vote for Law X
Person A vote for Law X
Therefore Person A is a bad person
Drug dealers vote for an elimination of 3-strikes laws
Ruth voted for the elimination of 3-strikes laws
Therefore Ruth is a drug dealer
People who dislike gays (homophobes) vote for Law X
magellan01 voted for Law X
Therefore magellan01 is a homophobe
The above arguments are ALL fallacious. and that is what you are doing with your “aiding and abetting” charge. Can you not see how Ruth may be Ruth Bader Ginsberg? That there is more than one reason why a person might vote for a particular law? Something tells me that you, and Rubystreak, know this.
So, it is perfectly reasonable that one (I) might employ an analogy in order to shed light on something, while also wanting to avoid LilShieste’s fallacy of association:
There was an old thinking that prevented women from voting
We concluded that that thinking was unfair/ridiculous and changed the law
Not wanting gays to marry is old thinking
Therefore, we should abandon the old thinking and allow gays to marry
See the problem? She’s simply bring the two laws together under the umbrella of “old laws that excluded a right” and forcing a conclusion that ALL such laws be resolved the same way. That doesn’t allow a PARTICULAR law to be argued on the merits.
I’m afraid not. First, SSM has not been around very long. Second, whatever happens in those other countries may or may not translate to the U.S. Third, you assume that the harm must be “provable” and must have already occurred. I don’t see why. My argument has never been that harm “has” (past tense) occurred, so your asking me to allow as a criterion a premise I’ve NOT put forth. As far as “provable”, it think it falls to you to convince me, not the other way around. You’re the one who wants to make the change. SSM has not been part of our society, or those that led to ours. Even if it did exist in isolated instances in the past, it didn’t last. It failed to be embraced and become part of the culture. That doesn’t speak well of its merits. So if you want me to accept this new idea (or one that has failed in the past), convince me why I should want to put our own culture at risk? Especially when it is 1000% reasonable to believe that a child is best raised by a mother and a father.
levdrakon, you’re not going to convince him. He’s a brick wall on this subject. I suggest simply ignoring his arguments from here on and resolving to march right up his back if he continues to stand in the way. He’s nothing and no one, and hasn’t got an actual argument on the subject. You are NOT teaching that pig to sing.
Your imagination must be very vivid. It’s like you went to another planet, thought this up and then came back to write this down.