No, we don’t owe magellan an apology. He vociferously cries he’s all for equal rights, but when pressed, resorts to his favorite and revealing analogies:
Gays are like necrophiliacs and pedophiles and we don’t give them equal rights, now do we? To him, gays are a sexual “flavor,” that society has no obligation to tolerate.
But then he’ll jump right back in with more “I fully support equal rights! Just don’t steal my word, and corrupt my children!”
I’m convinced he clings to this one word issue because he can. It’s about the only bigoted thing he’s got left.
If he could get a law passed saying blacks can’t call themselves democrats, he would. His reasoning would be the same. Only whites can be democrats. That’s the way it’s always been. Check your history books. Only whites were democrats. You can believe what you want, vote how you want, but “democrat” is only for whites. I think I’ll pass a law making it illegal for blacks to be democrats. I am not racist! I just want my children to grow up in a world where they know being a democrat is only for whites!
Well, that’s unfortunate. As a meaningful discussion on a sensitive issue need be truthful. If one cannot control their emotions in such a discussion, they should simply stay out of it. It’s really that simple. The alternative is to just have a discussion where everyone agrees. Perhaps we need a new forum entitled “Circle Jerk”.
Aside from contorting my words and cherry picking phrases and intentionally omitting others, how is it possible that at this point in the discussion that you don’t even know what my position is. That would take either extreme dishonesty or stupendous imbecility.
But surely, if the issue causes strong emotions, then to hide them is equally untruthful? I agree that insults don’t help matters, but it is very much to be desired that all sides understand the worth that the other places in the issue, and that includes the emotional responses. If all people on the pro-gay-marriage side tomorrow spoke on the issue entirely politely, stuck to neutral language and monotone of voice, then society as a whole would conclude they just weren’t all that bothered about getting what they wanted.
Besides, the rightness of an argument doesn’t depend on the ability of the proposer to sell it. Just because the opposing side are jerkish doesn’t mean their points are without merit.
I didn’t cherry pick anything. Those are your words. Now you’ll come back and call me a liar and the stupidest poster eeeeeever! Oh, wait. You did.
You know what? I want you to be the one to tell little kids their parents aren’t married. I can see the future conversation:
Mag: “Hello little girl. What’s your name?”
Little girl: “Sally.”
“Where’s your mom and dad, Sally?”
“Those are my dads there.”
“Oh, I’m sorry Sally. You can’t call them that. Those are your same-sex-provider-units. We got that law passed in 2012.” Little girl starts crying.
“But, but, they’re my dads! They’re married!”
“Shut your mouth little girl! They are not married! You have two civil unionized provider units. Now you just learn your place!”
“Waaaaaah.”
Look, I have a pretty thick skin, but one can be both passionate and polite. Or how about just civil. And it’s one thing to get angry with language, it’s another to push the debate aside in order to attack the poster. Never mind the fallacy involved. And still another to lie and to accuse someone of not holding the position he holds. It boggles the mind.
I find your last paragraph more than a little humorous. I wonder the degree to which my opponents would grant that.
Well, I’ll grant it. Though perhaps it’s a moot point coming from me, since I haven’t felt you’ve been jerkish to me. (Though, to others…)
Anyway, though you probably answered it before and I just haven’t seen it, I was wondering: re: those countries which have legalized same-sex marriage, what ill effects could you point to their experiencing as a result? That is, can you bring concrete evidence to bear on the position that this will cause problems of some sort?
I’ll back magellan up on this point, at least. The “God made gays, too,” argument is inherently weak, in that God, as the creator of everything, is responsible for the creation of all things good and evil. Simply being the product of God isn’t evidence of worthiness or equality, because even the foulest and most despicable things in the world are his. Pointing out this flaw isn’t the same as calling gays foul and despicable, though, and that’s all magellan did in that post.
That said:
The reason you’re getting the reaction you are is that the position you’re taking is inherently uncivil. It is, by it’s nature, insulting and demeaning to gays. I know it’s not your intent or you goal to be either of those things to us, but it is an inseparable part of the position you’re taking. I think it would be more productive if posters here did not allow the tone of their posts to mirror the content of your own, but I can’t blame them for getting angry with you when you’ve voted them an insult far more grave and damaging than any they can possibly offer you in writing.
If you care to look, I think you’ll see that I’ve “been a jerk” only in retaliation to similar behavior.
I have not addressed that, except to point out that it is a relatively new phenomenon. I don’t know enough about those societies in general, never mind the specific effects of SSM to offer an opinion one way or another. I have stated that my concern here is not the effect it would have the day it passed or the year, but for the future. Don’t you think this metric of immediate concrete harm done to society is a bit inappropriate for something which I claim will change society, to its detriment, over time.
Also, more than one person has brought up “concrete or material harm”. Are you of the opinion that any harm must be concrete and material? Not to mention easily identified? I don’t agree with that. Welfare, well intentioned as it was, helped destroy the black family. Yet, it’s effects wouldn’t be seen for a long time.
Thank you for the first part. As far as the second, can you tell me, specifically, what is so insulting about my position? The way I see it, if gays had ALL the rights sans “marriage” they could live happy lives with the person they love, grow old together, adopt children and raise them, visit each other in the hospital, and an enjoy the same stuff married people do. I’ve been asked repeatedly about the “material and concrete harm” SSM would cause. What "material and grave harm would be caused by living in a world with all the things I just described? And know that you didn’t raise that point, so it might be unfair to turn it back on you. But if you could answer it I’d appreciate it. Because I just don’t see it.
It’s not just that post. When he draws an analogy, he draws a negative analogy. “We don’t grant equal rights to blond-haired people, so why should we with gays?” Except we do grant equal rights to blond-haired people. “We don’t grant equal rights to pedophiles, why should we with gays?” You don’t see his pattern? His thought process? It wasn’t just one post where he “deftly” exposed a logical fallacy.
ETA: Oh, and I want him to describe to everyone here how he is going to explain to a little kid why he or she can’t call his or her parents married. I want to hear it in his words.
Oh, please. You just see words that are icky and want even the mention of the words to be off the table. You spot those words and then grab your skirt and start hopping around yelling “Ew, ew, a mouse.” in attempt to close that avenue of discussion. Give it a rest. There are no Tonys given out here.
Where’s the insult in your position? magellan, there’s nothing in your position except insult. There’s no rationale to your argument. You don’t believe we’re different because we’re sinners, or because we’re perverts, or because we’re mentally ill. You just believe we’re different, full stop, and that difference needs to have the force of law behind it to make sure we never forget that we’re not the same as you. You want us to be second class citizens, and you don’t even have a reason for it. And that’s insulting. In some ways, it’s more insulting than the god-botherers and gay bashers. At least they have an excuse for their discrimination, however flawed it may be.
This thread rapidly got too long for me to catch up on, so I don’t know if this point has been raised already, but…
Ignoring for a moment the fact that some anti-SSM laws specifically prohibit any civil union for gays that resembles marriage, civil unions will still have to have every benefit that automatically accrues to marriage spelled out. Gays in civil unions will have to fight for recognition of any right not included in the original bill, will probably never get to file joint tax returns, never get their status respected in other states, and in many ways, in any scenario, will need to fight many more battles before their “separate but equal” unions are truly equal to marriage.
Even same-sex marriages will not be truly equal – the benefits of marriage accrue at different levels of government, and thanks to the federal DOMA, SSM will have to fight for recognition at that level, and in every state – but at least marriage is well-defined. The road to SSM is steep and rocky, but the road to separate-but-equal civil unions isn’t even a road, it’s an assumption – that there’s a way from here to there, even though “there” is on the other side of a swamp.
Why should gays settle for that, when fighting just as hard will get them the real thing?
Other societies around the world and historically have had gay marriage. I’ve cited several of them. But the bottom line here is that you cannot articulate what harm might be done by SSM. You don’t know. You’ve got this free-floating anxiety, this concern, that something bad MIGHT result , but you can’t name it. This is the upshot. You say it will change society to its detriment, but since you cannot point to what this detriment will be, is it possible you’re wrong? Is it possible that maybe society will be improved by expanding the rights given to gays? When in doubt, wouldn’t you rather err on the side of giving rights than taking them away?
Welfare did not destroy the black family, and again, what an oversimplified and absurd analogy that you clearly did not think through before posting. You say the harm you fear is neither concrete, material, nor even identifiable, but it’s more important that the concrete, material, and easily identified good of allowing gay people to marry in the future, remain married if they already are, and have all the rights and privileges therein? And you don’t see why we find that offensive?
Magellan, I have spoken up for you, so I presume you won’t immediately take this as an attack. But I’d like to see the answer to four questions:
What rational ground other than a desire to continue past custom do you see for denying a gay couple the right to the term ‘marriage’? I respect tradition; I don’t believe that indiscriminate discarding of that which is common knowledge and usage is necessarily good. (E.g., though I respect the insights of cladistics, I think the discarding of taxonomic categories such as genus, family, and order in deference to ‘clades’ with no clear referent of relative relationship lost something useful and valuable.) But sometimes change is good. Yes, Loving v. Virginia worked a substantive change in American society. And I suspect you could easily find people in all 50 states who would aver that we’re the better for it. Miranda v. Arizona likewise made a sea change in criminal investigations and prosecutions. And again we’re the better for it. And this is another significant change – but one for the better, IMO. It gives social blessing to families – couples joined together in loving committed relationships, with any children that they may become parents to, by act of biology or of law.
In what way may we distinguish your motivations from that of a pedophile’s? Now that you’ve taken umbrage at that question, or come up with a calm and logical answer to it, considering how demeaning it was to you to be put in a situation where you were obliged to answer it.
How would you feel if the 20 or so people who participated in the previous pile-on all demanded of you the answer to question #2, and refused to accept yourr calm and rational distinction as factual? That’s the position most gay people who debate this sort of thing publicly tend to end up in. Put yourself in their shoes, and answer honestly the emotional reaction you would probably feel, whether or not you’d give vent to it in writing after calmly reviewing your initial reaction.
Can you grasp how the typical gay couple must feel when told that their relationship is unworthy of legal recognition, even though things which make mockery of the concept like 55-hour annulled “marriages” by Hollywood starlets are? Can you grasp how repeated comparisons to child molesters must make them feel? Can you understand why someone might take the language you have used in this very thread and see you as behaving no differently from the bigots who do these things?
