Oh, no, I meant you seemed like you were either telling the SDMB to kiss off, or about to be banned.
Based on my # of posts (121) you can see I’m new around here. I thought I had an idea of how to play the game, I chose the Pit as it seems to be more difficult to be banned from the Board and allows more expressive discussions, plus my OP was provocative.
I don’t know how it seemed I was telling the SMBD to kiss off, was it because I didn’t respond rapidly? It wasn’t my intent. Interspersed among the insults (some good ones too) have been interesting comments I have reflected upon and to work on defending my position.
My post above yours’ was an attempt to show my thought process, however I spent too much time on it trying to get it just right.
I have learned that this is a tough crowd (meant in a good way) and that in the future to stay out of the deep end until I am better prepared to respond more rapidly.
With all due respect, your “thought process” is actually an *unthinking *regurgitation of “that’s the way it’s always been, must be that way for a reason”, and “well, they’re just different, and kind of icky”.
Your post is an overlong statement of “Marriage is between a man and a woman. I know it because it feels truthy, dammit.”
Well Fred, after reading your posts your view seems to be “we’ve always done it this way” and I think, you’re part of the problem.
But you’re no jerk, and this rates well as informative and civil Pit thread.
Hmm. I can accept that as something to reflect upon. And I admire your pithy style of writing.
Yes, overlong can be a fault of mine but I don’t feel it was unthinking. I had been asked why I made the voting decision I did and I was trying to provide all the factors/ideas/experiences which came into play in making my decision.
I did state the pro-SSM didn’t persuade me to change the status quo.
I ask you, sincerely, what other information I should have considered relevant in making my decision.
Not germane perhaps but I don’t see how you could have gotten “icky” from any of my posts. My vote wasn’t about gay sex or gay people, the vote was on amending AZ’s constitution the definition of gay marriage.
IMO this stems partially from cultural evolution and partially from the intense, sometimes nonevolutionary, normalization drive of humans.
The first part is obvious: cultures that promote only hetero marriage tend to have more children. Leaving aside the principles of individual liberty the US was founded on, today this would not be as much of an advantage, the problem if any being overpopulation.
The second part concerns the sometimes knee-jerk reaction to take a moral stance on things that just happen to be more common, especially w/r/t gender roles. e.g. women are weaker so it is IMMORAL for them to be head of household, warriors; men tend to be more stoic so they should never let their feelings show.
This turns mere tendencies into a cultural imperative, i.e. 90% + of people are heterosexual so the others are EVIL. What started as the natural human tendency of cultural conservatism, which works well when you need to remember what mushrooms are poisonous or which areas are full of man eating tigers, ends up perpetuated not because it is morally or genetically advantageous, but because it is culturally engrained and not genetically disadvantageous.
That the status quo is unjustifiably discriminatory. What else could you possibly *need *to consider?
See my answers bolded next to your statements.
Looking at it logically from my perspective as a gay man and seeing what you’re taking away from me or preventing me from doing, how are you not discriminating when you think/act that way? BTW, I’m black also. Would that help in reviewing the logic the diminution of rights you’ve codified in AZ? For instance, in regards to your statement that you’ve never assaulted a non-heterosexual person, are you also saying that a racist must be dues-paying and robe-wearing membe of the KKK in order to truly act in ways that are discriminatory to a black person; anything short of that is alright?
It is possible to be mistaken without being prejudiced.
Is it possible to be mistaken that gays are inferior parents without being prejudiced? I’m going with “no” on that one.
Lots of people have pointed out that the argument is bigoted, which I tend to agree with but raises a question for me.
Bigot, according to Merriam-Webster is:
one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance
So if I say kids shouldn’t be raised by drug abusers would that be considered bigotry?
I’m asking this in all seriousness. It seems that once you get beyond talking about an individual and specific family situation, you are are automatically talking about bigotry.
If one believes that corporal punishment for kids is wrong and thinks that parents who do so should be punished, is that bigotry? After all it is showing an intolerance towards members of a specific group.
My friend is one of the nicest, most intelligent people I know. Obviously he and I see quite differently on these types of topics, but he has taught me that things which are flat out obvious to me are obvious to him in a very different way. I don’t agree with him on these things, but it is nice to be able to have open and polite discussions with someone from the other side. You just have to realize that they are starting from a completely different place. He firmly believes that kids don’t belong in a homosexual household, which is as obvious to him as me saying kids don’t belong in a household of a child abuser. We don’t agree at all on the original premise (a country is defined by its language, borders and culture), but knowing he does helps a great deal in understanding how some of these other things might follow.
Our culture is not perfect and never will be. We all agree certain features of the culture of our founding fathers were flat out wrong (slavery). Others, I think, we all agree are part of the very basis of who we are (freedom of religion, inalienable rights). Whether or not SSM is the former or the latter is open to debate. Again, what is obvious to you and me is not to everyone else.
I used to get very frustrated when I’d hear arguments against SSM because the viewpoint never made any sense to me at all. I could never grasp how otherwise intelligent and sensible people could come to their position. But now I know. I don’t agree with it, but at least I can understand the thought process that got them there. And, I hope, perhaps now my friend can understand how people on my side could get to where we are.
I’m sorry for the long reply. Perhaps I should take this to another thread?
I think are no more or less likely to be bad parents than anyone else. But it’s possible to have an ERROR IN YOUR THINKING without being prejudiced. A person could have, for instance, read a study concluding that children require two parents of differing genders to learn proper sex roles and been convinced by it, not realizing that the methodology of the study was flawed. That person might then have decided that, while there is no reason to deny gays the vast majority civil rights, they should not be permitted to adopt children. This conclusion would be erroneous, but not bigoted.
And in the memory of recent right-wing commentators on the current POTUS, I will give you reciprocal fair-minded treatment:
“If you don’t support Obama, you’re a traitor.”
“If you’re not with us, you’re against us.”
“If you don’t support the President 100%, then move out of the country.”
Sauce for the goose.
A group is defined by its common feature, not its common behavior. It’s bigotry against gays because they’re naturally gay; they don’t have a choice. It’s not bigotry (though it may still be wrong) if you discriminate against corporal punishment advocates, because they do have a choice.
I gather you were cheering so loudly during President-elect Obama’s victory speech that you didn’t actually hear any of it. A deluge is coming; perhaps it would be wiser to build bridges rather than burn them.
Yeah, I was listening. I’m reminding the Unconscious Objector of the first six years of the Bush presidency, in case he gets the idea that it was eeeeeevul libruls who were solely to blame for the “he’s not my President” thing. If he truly wants reciprocal treatment he can have it — but he probably doesn’t remember what it was.
This is sort of what I was trying to get across earlier in the thread. Thanks for the clarification.
To the point of the discussion, I think the term “gay marriage” is misleading and, frankly, poorly laid out as a platform on which to discuss what the desired end actually is.
If the end result is legal protection under the law, then build your foundation on civil unions and work up from there. The pro-gay marriage movement is trying to force feed a jittery, dumb, panicky populace something that they will never completely understand and that, even if the estimates are correct effects 10% of the population and in reality, likely effects more like 6-7% (among gays who wish to be married, in my narrow experience as a friend of the family).
I know, it’s not EQUAL, in fact, it’s separate but equal and that sucks, but honestly, what’s better, half a sandwich or no food at all?
There isn’t really a compelling LOGICAL reason to prevent the recognition of gay marriage. There is, however, a compelling SPIRITUAL reason, according to some (in fact according to a majority in the states where this came to the ballot). Now to many, this makes no sense, in fact to me, it makes no sense, but we’re not looking at this issue for what it is, rather, we’re looking at it how it SHOULD be. That will doom it to failure every time it’s brought up. This will, as was previously said, happen in our lifetimes. It didn’t happen today, it won’t happen tomorrow, and I would caution anyone who thinks that trying to shove the “marriage” thing down the throats of the people is going to work, to think again.
Sell it first as a legal item, then sell it as marriage. Personally, I think all “marriages” should be civil unions under the law and if you choose to have a church ceremony, that it would be just that, a ceremony that has only the religious overtones and that the government, as it stands, should have nothing more than the civil union on which to rule and/or make rules.
I’ll send you a bill. Wait, this is the Pit, and I’m me, so I’m supposed to be evil. I’ll send somebody over to steal your wallet and whichever of your kidneys is stronger.
:: snark off ::
I would be happiest if the word “marriage” no longer had any legal meaning. There would only be civil unions, which could be between any group of consenting adults and leave issues of sexuality out entirely. Should the parties wish, unions could be solemnized in churches or any other means they prefer, including reencting the drama of Leda & the Swan, complete with costumes. If you wish legal recognition of your relationship, you can sign contracts designating another person as your primary heir and life partner. Said contracts would include mechanisms for revoking them (i.e., pre-nups would be the norm), and the courts would only become involved in the event of child custody or undue influence of one party upon another in agreeing to the original contract.
I would also like a unicorn.
Is it bigotry to discriminate against religious groups?
Where does this mistake originate, precisely?