Fair enough. From time to time people on the boards state that they have such-and-such qualifications, experience, jobs, educational background - whatever. And I guess many of us store that away in our little mental file for that person.
Given that we have to take so much on trust here (sex, age, location - well just about everything), any attempt to undermine another poster’s credibility and cast doubt on what he/she has stated by essentially attacking their creditworthiness(indeed, the use of the very word ‘claim’ is one such method to undermine credibility) is marked.
It’s not only a bit below the belt, but it also derives its power from its insidious and intangible nature, its drip-drip effect.
I don’t mean to attack you personally, poly, but I wanted to say this and this seemed like a good opportunity.
Bricker is known for being legalistic, so he would probably be the first to tell you that legally marriage is a government issue right now.
There is no debate. It’s the law. And Bricker knows that.
What can be debated is whether or not marriage should be a government issue. Like Bricker, I have no problem with replacing all marriages with civil unions. But I recognize that right now that is not the case.
And as long as that is not the case, it is wrong to discriminate against gays by disallowing them the benefits of marriage. I believe it is even unconstitutional.
Bricker does not believe it is unconstitutional, and supports the right to discriminate. He even supports the right to discriminate without offering any alternative. In some threads, he has celebrated that right, which is what has caused him to be viewed in a negative light.
That he would support eliminating all marriages in favor of civil unions is irrelevant. And again… Bricker should be the first to tell you that. Right now, marriages ARE a government issue, and as such religion should not be used to discriminate. AFTER Bricker’s plan to eliminate marriage is passed, I would not begrudge him his right to discriminate in any way in marriage.
But using that power now, before his plan is passed, and while marriage is still legally a government issue, is very wrong.
I stand corrected. Bricker actually stated that marriage should not be a government issue for either straights or gays. The government should be in the civil union business, not the marriage business. His stance is that heterosexual marriages should be changed to civil unions, of which a gay union should have equal rights under law, and whether or not it’s a marriage should be left up to the religion of the people in question.
People ought to treat the subject of same-sex marriage vs. civil unions calmly, fairly, and with due respect for the differing opinions of their opponents. They ought also to have some respect for the limits on government embodied in the Constitution.
I do respect the limits place on government power by the Constitution. I respect that judges have the power to declare laws unconstitutional. I do not respect bigotry. No one should.
I don’t want to get melodramatic here, but there is a story that I want to share. Some years ago, I had a friend who had been with his husband (having seen them together, I know no other term for their relationship) for close to 15 years. His husband had been disowned by his family because he was gay.
It came to pass that this man had a stroke. Because they were not married, the family was contacted and it was this same family that was granted the power to make health care choices for him (as he was unable to do so). One of those choices was to not allow this man’s husband to visit him. He died, and my friend never got to say goodbye.
Now I am sure that this is uncommon, but it is something that can happen the way that things are set up now. In the face of this kind of evil (again, I know no other word for what this family did) I fail to see where there is any more room for respect for my opponents on this issue. People are suffering under inequity right now. To be blunt, the people on the other side of this issue are not worthy of respect.
No, Left, if you refuse to support an assertion, you do *not * get to claim you’ve made an argument. Try again. You too, Bricker, or in fact anyone else taking the “let’s just call it civil unions” dodge.
Here it is, even more bluntly:
You claim to be in favor of allowing gay couples the same legal rights as straight ones. Why do you then balk at calling it marriage?
You claim other benefits might accrue to this proposed new institution you describe. Why could they not also accrue if it were called marriage?
Bricker, this is especially for you: I’ve already cited and quoted the MA SJC advisory ruling against a proposed “civil unions” bill (OK, Left, you can call that “serious” if you like, but it’s also dead), on the basis that it’s inherently discriminatory. In what way do you disagree?
Shodan, in an earlier era you no doubt would have demanded that supporters of Jim Crow laws be treated “calmly, fairly, and with due respect for their differing opinions”. That cuts no ice here, unfortunately for you. If you’re wrong, you have to be told you’re wrong, and why. If you can’t rebut it, then you have to accept that you’re wrong and change your ways. That’s how this business of fighting ignorance works, ya know.
The simple fact is, you people are such a bunch of hysterics that you are claiming that anyone who disagrees with you, even on wording, is a nasty bigot Nazi monster blah blah blah. Which is not how the fight against ignorance works. The fight against ignorance relies on rational discourse. Name-calling and similar silliness is generally perceived coming from those who are either unwilling or unable to reason clearly.
And don’t give me any of this nonsense about how it is “unfortunate for me” that you all are a bunch of screaming drama queens. It’s no skin off my nose if you clowns discredit yourselves with every fucking thing you post. You just make it all that simpler to dismiss the emotionally unstable among you as unworthy of consideration for the institution of marriage, which is and ought always to be reserved for adults.
Whereupon the discussion can continue among the rational minds, including but not limited to your emotional and intellectual superiors like Bricker and Scylla and some others.
If you really want to convince, you are going to have to do much, much better than this. Every damn time something like this comes up for a vote, the gay marriage/civil union side loses. And stamping your little feet and screaming “BigotbigotbigotIhateyouIhateyouIhateyouyoubigbrute” doesn’t inspire anyone to leap to your defence.
If you just want to vent, then have at it. I think I have already made it clear how much weight others are likely to give to your opinions, expressed as they largely have been.
Right here is where you are just not getting it. It is no longer about convincing. We have tried that. At this point, it is about taking what is right, and dragging everyone else into the 21st century. Sorry if that is unconfortable.
This assumes, unreasonably in my opinion, that you and people like you are capable of being convinced.
I think the answer to that is in the negative.
Reasonable people don’t try to convince Strmfrnt that black people are the same as white people. Reasonable people don’t try to convince confirmed wife-beaters that women don’t deserve to be physically assaulted. And reasonable people don’t try to convince disingenuous, homophobic, bigoted fundy loons that gay people deserve to be treated like full citizens of the United States, with all of the rights and privileges thereof.
With all do respect, that is what reasonable people do. Reasonable people… reason.
They stay calm, and make their point. The words may not sink in the first time, nor the second, but eventually, they tend to if they are backed up by the decency, lack of histrioniocs, and reasonableness of the person making the argument.
That’s what it means to be reasonable, Jayjay
Not exactly, Scylla.
Reasonable people do reason, but the result of that reasoning is not always a conclusion that staying calm and trying to change the views of people who hate you religiously is the best strategy.
For example, reasonable people would not choose to deal with terrorists by staying calm and explaining over and over again that they should probably stop murdering people.
At least, the calm explanations would not always come before the attack was stopped.
You wouldn’t, for example, calmly tell a wife-beater that women don’t deserve to be assaulted WHILE he is currently beating his wife.
I firmly believe that there are people who are never going to get it. Hell, there are people today who still believe that black people are inferior or even non-human! And it’s been over a century since the Constitution said otherwise.
You reason with reasonable people. You can’t reason with irrational people. And you can’t reason someone out of a belief they didn’t reason themselves into.
Scylla, you’re one of the best of the right-wingers on here as far as rationality and fairness go. But I have to disagree with you on this one.
You have no good alternative on a message board other than to be reasonable. Anything less simply reflects poorly on the person being nasty or unreasonable. I don’t think histrionics and namecalling are justified (though it sure does feel good, sometimes, I must admit.)
Bricker, I’m sure we can agree, is nothing if not reasonable. Losing one’s rationality and good nature simply because one fails to convince another of what they feel is obvious… or true simply appears to me to be petulant, or an indulgence.
I don’t like Bricker’s solution because it involves recharacterizing my marriage under law (it’s fine the way it is,) and because it consists of first denying gay people fair treatment and then lowering the bar to make it fair to everybody. It seems to me that if the bar needs lowering or changing that is entirely independant of making it fair
I, too also support the rule of law in this, even if it means things take longer. It is a slippery slope out there. We have our checks and balances for a reason. It also needs to be done once, and correctly. We don’t this thing repealed and fought over again and again.
I don’t really think these differences of opinion can reasonably be used to justify an attack against Bricker’s character as a person, or to call him a bigot, or what have you.
Even if you do feel that they are justified, and he is irredemable in his bigotry, it lessens a person to indulge in it.
The way I look at it, there’s a time for reasonable dialogue, and a time for standing firm and refusing to budge.
Reasonable dialogue would be better in public relations campaigns-get the word out, educate people. I don’t think anyone here is advocating, say, crashing heterosexual weddings and lobbing rotten tomatoes at the bride and groom, or TPing the homes of those opposed to SSM. (Although, I have to admit, it would be kinda fun). I don’t think anyone here is advocating ACT-UP, or what have you.
BUT…people should not have to be polite when standing up for themselves, all the time. People should be able to say, “I’m sorry you feel that way-but this is NOT right, and we are NOT going to accept it. Period.”
And they should be able to be aggressive about it.
We shouldn’t have to wait until people are “ready” for SSM, or whatever. If we had had to wait until people were “ready” for de-segregation, it would never have happened. We’d STILL have separate drinking fountains, blacks would have to move to the back of the bus, etc. If we had had to wait until people were “ready” for women’s suffrage, I don’t think I’d be geering up to vote for Kerry this November.
It’s not about what the people “want.” It’s about what is RIGHT!
A reasonable person would not conclude, based on the available evidence, that Bricker is a nasty bigot or a fundy lunatic who deserves to be lumped in with the sort of vile scum you refer to.
