(repost from craigslist - my apologies if it's been posted before)
01) Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.
02) Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.
03) Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.
04) Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all; women are still property, blacks still can't marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.
05) Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of Britany Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.
06) Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn't be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren't full yet, and the world needs more children.
07) Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.
08) Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have only one religion in America.
09) Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.
10) Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven't adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.
Posted by Evie3217 (Member # 5426) on :
I love it!
Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
Posted by Treason (Member # 7587) on :
ROFLMAO
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
Posted by firebird (Member # 1971) on :
Thank you!
Posted by Nato (Member # 1448) on :
This is pretty clever, thanks for posting it.
It seems like the list's overall effect is highlighting the revelation that the opposition's argument pretty much just adds up to a slippery slope appeal.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Clever?
Interesting. I found it sort of churlish and misrepresentative. It doesn't advance the discussion of gay marriage-- it just makes fun of its opponents by setting up sarcastic straw men.
If that's the way that the matter is to be discussed, no wonder no headway is being made.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
Hmmmm,
Isn't your reply "If that's the way the matter is to be discussed. . ." exactly the same kind of misrepresentation you find in the original post?
I thought it was pretty clear that it wasn't even an attempt at a reasoned, balanced arguement, but an attempt to be funny. Like most jokes, its funny to some people and not to others. I thought it was funny. Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
It's always easy to see the error in arguments you write yourself, for positions nobody holds.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Actually, I've heard people use the "people will be able to marry their dogs" argument proposed in all seriousness here on this website.
Having said that, I'm so tired of Top Ten lists that I just don't find any of them funny.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
You might be right, Karl.
So, you wouldn't mind a '10 ten reasons why Gay Marriage Should Be Legal' in the same vein as the initial post?
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Well, I'm intimidated. Or see the light. Or something.
Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
quote: Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of Britany Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.
I know this is a joke and everything, but I've gotta be honest, that kind of flippant Vegas marriage, or the idea that I keep seeing put forth of the benefits of a "practice marriage" (getting married fairly young for a couple of years and making all the mistakes so that you can do better in your "real marriage") really pisses me off. Marriage should be truly sacred and respected. I respect and love my wife very much, and she and I have no intention of dropping out like it's a crappy semester at college and you feel like changing your major. I'm a little sick of seeing marriage pissed on left and right.
Edit: Yeah, the above was worded rather clumsily, but I'm in class now and dont have time to change it. Hugs and Kisses, Uncle Dave
Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
quote: "people will be able to marry their dogs"
Where's the problem? Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: Actually, I've heard people use the "people will be able to marry their dogs" argument proposed in all seriousness here on this website.
It happens pretty much every time the subject comes up. That and polygamy.
I have to say, though, that this particular list didn't make me laugh. Too... hm, I'm not sure what the word I want is.
Posted by Anna (Member # 2582) on :
odsouls : It's funny, because I really live my marriage as something sacred, but it doesn't annoy me at all that it's not the case for everyone. Hubby and I built the sanctity of our marriage ourselves, we don't need anyone else's opinion for that.
Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
youre right. i got miffed over nothing. just irks me sometimes, that's all. I guess it's more that damned article i read about the benefits of having a "practice marriage" that put me in the red, and that britney spears thing just reminded me of it.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: You might be right, Karl.
So, you wouldn't mind a '10 ten reasons why Gay Marriage Should Be Legal' in the same vein as the initial post?
I'd have to read it to know for sure. Maybe I would mind. Maybe I'd find it offensive. Maybe I'd even write a point-for-point reply as to why it was misleading and untrue, depending on whether I thought the mistruths were widely and/or seriously held.
What I wouldn't do is act as if it were a serious attempt at dialog, or imply that it was the best defense of its apparent "side" of the arguement. Posted by JannieJ (Member # 8683) on :
quote:Originally posted by odouls268:
quote: "people will be able to marry their dogs"
Where's the problem?
What about equal opportunity for cats?
In all honesty, I never think Letterman-style "10 reasons why" lists are meant to be serious discussions of anything.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
"Did you hear about the (pick one: ethnic person/college alum/homosexual/redneck/priest/political figure)?
He was very stupid... hahaha!"
it is to be understood that those belonging to the group you are calling morons might take offense... and it's about as helpful to your cause (edit: which, BTW, I essentially support) as Howard Cosell's "little Monkey" comment was to his career. I think that's all Scott is saying. Or, at least, that's what I'd be saying if I were him.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I guess my point is this:
I need to give this particular topic some space.
Alas, saying, in essence, "It's just a joke," does nothing for me. I defer to twinky and Bob-- next time, I'll just say, "Huh. I didn't find it funny."
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: Like most jokes, its funny to some people and not to others. I thought it was funny.
It's not just unfunny to some. It is mocking of a pretty large group of people.
This joke is pretty clearly laughing at the group, not with them.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Funny...I saw it as making fun of some of the "logic" presented in their arguments.
Notice it didn't tackle a lot of the reasons people have for opposing it, like religious arguments...
I took it as what it was...satire.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:It's not just unfunny to some. It is mocking of a pretty large group of people.
This joke is pretty clearly laughing at the group, not with them.
Fair enough. Does it violate TOS for the site? If so, have PapaJ remove it.
I find it funny because there is some ring of truth to it. Most rational opponents of SSM would reject the arguements it pretends to make, yes, but on the other hand most of the arguements it makes have been implied, if not outright stated many times over by some opponents of SSM.
Was it hilarious? No. Was in particularly clever? Not to me. Did I chuckle when I read it? Yes. Does that make me a bad person? I don't think so. Did I think "Take that ScottR! (or MPH or anyone in particular)"? No. Is it laughing at a group? I don't know that it is. It is certainly laughing at a certain mentality. <shrug>
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:I find it funny because there is some ring of truth to it.
Now there's a good justification for racist jokes.
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
quote:It's not just unfunny to some. It is mocking of a pretty large group of people.
This joke is pretty clearly laughing at the group, not with them.
If you can't take being laughed at now and then, then I suggest you lock yourself up in a room with no windows for the rest of your life, it'll be safer that way.
If you think it's a ridiculous list then laugh right back at the author. You'll come out on top and you won't sound like a whiney cry baby.
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
quote:Now there's a good justification for racist jokes.
Nice trying to associate this with racism..
The difference is that this is attacking a belief, not a people.
Posted by Treason (Member # 7587) on :
Everyone chill! It's just a joke. Sarcastic and amusing to me, anyway.
And yes, I can also take a joke going the other way. I play World of Warcraft too much not to hear all the "you're so gay" jokes. They make me chuckle all the time. So does Eminem.
I am one of those people who is not easily offended by anything though, I'm sure that helps.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
It's not even attacking a belief, it's attacking a bunch of dumb, easily refutable statements. It's mocking statements that, to me, deserve to be mocked, but it doesn't mock a group of people or even a belief. I don't see the basis for making that claim.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina:
quote:I find it funny because there is some ring of truth to it.
Now there's a good justification for racist jokes.
Making fun of a group of people who share an opinion is not the same as making racist jokes.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Fair enough. Does it violate TOS for the site? If so, have PapaJ remove it.
quote:If you can't take being laughed at now and then, then I suggest you lock yourself up in a room with no windows for the rest of your life, it'll be safer that way.
Wow.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina:
quote:I find it funny because there is some ring of truth to it.
Now there's a good justification for racist jokes.
Perhaps I'm reading too much into this, katharina, but you generally seem to know very well what you are implying when you post, so I have to respond to the logical implication.
Was there a point to your post other than to subtly call me a bigot?
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: Funny...I saw it as making fun of some of the "logic" presented in their arguments.
I've noticed that this seems to be a definite divide for a lot of people who disagree with me, and me.
If you make fun of my thoughts, I take that much more personally than if you make fun of my race, sex, or even family. Those things do not define me. The thoughts I have and the beliefs I hold are much more a reflection of me than any of those things and, hence, it hits a lot closer to home when you make fun of them.
I have seem many people here for whom this doesn't seem to be true... but I know nothing bugs the heck out of me than the implication that I must be an idiot or a bigot or whatever because I hold certain beliefs.
Which is why I have a lot of sympathy for Scott R here.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: It's not even attacking a belief, it's attacking a bunch of dumb, easily refutable statements. It's mocking statements that, to me, deserve to be mocked, but it doesn't mock a group of people or even a belief. I don't see the basis for making that claim.
It is not mocking easily refutable statments -- it is mocking people with a certain belief by putting those dumb, easily refutable statments in their mouths.
Posted by Treason (Member # 7587) on :
quote: quote: Originally posted by katharina: quote: I find it funny because there is some ring of truth to it. Now there's a good justification for racist jokes. Perhaps I'm reading too much into this, katharina, but you generally seem to know very well what you are implying when you post, so I have to respond to the logical implication.
Was there a point to your post other than to subtly call me a bigot?
Or do you really find that there's a ring of truth to racist jokes? I can't think of any at the moment that have a ring of truth to them. Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd:
quote:Originally posted by katharina:
quote:I find it funny because there is some ring of truth to it.
Now there's a good justification for racist jokes.
Perhaps I'm reading too much into this, katharina, but you generally seem to know very well what you are implying when you post, so I have to respond to the logical implication.
Was there a point to your post other than to subtly call me a bigot?
I didn't see it that way at all, Karl.
I saw it as this:
If the fact that there is a "grain of truth" to it is a justification for an offensive/mocking/mean-spirited/etc. joke, then that justification surely can be applied to racist jokes. But since we presumably don't think that racist jokes are OK, perhaps that's not a good justification.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Jim, But you're just restating the "You have to respect my opinions." argument, which I think is a really poor one. I don't consider saying that you can't show how someone's statements are invalid and even laughably so because it would hurt their feelings to be a legitimate statement. I don't think it's responsible or productive to relinquish quality in order to make sure people don't feel bad.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:If the fact that there is a "grain of truth" to it is a justification for an offensive/mocking/mean-spirited/etc. joke, then that justification surely can be applied to racist jokes. But since we presumably don't think that racist jokes are OK, perhaps that's not a good justification.
This is it exactly.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
porter, I've seen close approximations of all of those statements except the one about gay people having gay children made here at Hatrack by people who expected to be tatken seriously and in many cases were. I've seen all of them made outside of Hatrack.
I don't see the "putting words in people's mouths" here.
edit: Actually #9 is more strongly worded than I've seen here. So, that one too.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I thought the list was funny.
However, let's not kid ourselves. Just as there are among the whole population of people who oppose legalizing SSM those who think that they're sinners, G-d hates em, all sorts of horrible names...
So to is there the assumption among many who support legalizing SSM that those who oppose it are ignorant, stupid, backwater, bigoted, superstitious rednecks. It's there, on both sides. I've had conversations with people who hold both viewpoints.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I'm dissapointed with the ten people at the top who apparently lost all their sense of Funny.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jim-Me:
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: Funny...I saw it as making fun of some of the "logic" presented in their arguments.
I've noticed that this seems to be a definite divide for a lot of people who disagree with me, and me.
If you make fun of my thoughts, I take that much more personally than if you make fun of my race, sex, or even family. Those things do not define me. The thoughts I have and the beliefs I hold are much more a reflection of me than any of those things and, hence, it hits a lot closer to home when you make fun of them.
I have seem many people here for whom this doesn't seem to be true... but I know nothing bugs the heck out of me than the implication that I must be an idiot or a bigot or whatever because I hold certain beliefs.
Which is why I have a lot of sympathy for Scott R here.
That's interesting, Jim. To a certain extent I don't think that's true of me. I certainly laugh right along with people who call me a bleeding heart liberal pinko commie (or some variation on this theme), and indeed have been known to use such labels in a self-deprecating manner. I am very liberal, I skew toward the authoritarian side to the libertarian-authoritarian axis, and I'm an atheist... but I don't mind being made fun of for these things.
I'm sensitive on the subject of race, however, particularly given the growing anti-Arab sentiment in the Western world. I freely admit that I feel uncomfortable crossing the Canada-U.S. border, particularly in airports, because of my name and background... even though I look like a full-blooded caucasian. Disparaging remarks about race aren't something I'm willing to tolerate, and I don't give people who make them the benefit of the doubt as I do with people who disparage my beliefs.
On the other hand, there's a difference between good-natured humor and put-downs, and I don't find this particular list funny because I think it's the latter rather than the former.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I don't see the "putting words in people's mouths" here.
Of course those stupid views represented in the top-ten have been said before. The list, however, presents the assumption that they're commonplace.
It suggests the idea that all reasons opposing gay marriage are equally stupid and bigoted, and thus so are the people who oppose gay marriage.
This is a topic as sensitive as abortion, really. Any such lists satirizing either side are going to be received just as poorly by the people being satirized.
Posted by firebird (Member # 1971) on :
MPH ..
No one said those dumb easily refutable statements were made by Right Wing Christian Purists.
PS. What do you call Right Wing Christian Purisist in the USA? I can't think of your term?
PPS. Right Wing Christian Purists is not meant to be an insult in any way
I get the feeling a number of people who subscribe to a particular belief are feeling that they are being mocked because others are laughing at some particularly bad logic that hasn't been ascribed to the first group in any way.
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:If you can't take being laughed at now and then, then I suggest you lock yourself up in a room with no windows for the rest of your life, it'll be safer that way.
Wow.
I don't know why you're so shocked, did I sound too severe in my response?
Posted by JaimeBenlevy (Member # 6222) on :
I don't know, to me the whole list seemed kind of sarcastic...like they weren't really giving reasons why gay marriage should be illegal Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
quote: Or do you really find that there's a ring of truth to racist jokes? I can't think of any at the moment that have a ring of truth to them.
I'm about to step into the middle of this big-time, so without further delay:
My best friends wife is half black and half Puerto Rican. She personally finds it extremely funny that her fathers family (black) loves fried chicken and watermelon, and will choose to eat thoese two items every chance they get. She doesn't consider this a racist observation because it's a cultural identifier to her. The fact that what is touted as a stero-type applies so evenly to a large section of her family amuses her to no end.
And I can't even repeat some of her riffs on her mothers family...
But my point is that a joke that touches on cultural sterotypes is just that, a joke. Will some jokes offend people? Of course they will, because in the end, a joke involves a group of people laughing at someone else. Even the most pc of jokes involving situational humour could indirectly offend people who may have found themselves in that situation before.
As long as the jokes aren't full of openly vitriolic hate, then my advice would be to laugh at what you find funny, and ignore what you don't.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina:
quote:If the fact that there is a "grain of truth" to it is a justification for an offensive/mocking/mean-spirited/etc. joke, then that justification surely can be applied to racist jokes. But since we presumably don't think that racist jokes are OK, perhaps that's not a good justification.
This is it exactly.
Ok, I can understand that. On the other hand what I said was justification for why I found it funny, not justification for the joke itself.
Truth be told, it probably is a justification for why some people laugh at racist jokes even though they abhor racism. Not that they think racist jokes are OK, but humor is elusive and sometimes we laugh at things we shouldn't.
That said, I don't think there is any correlation between the joke at the top of this thread and a racist joke. Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina:
quote:If the fact that there is a "grain of truth" to it is a justification for an offensive/mocking/mean-spirited/etc. joke, then that justification surely can be applied to racist jokes. But since we presumably don't think that racist jokes are OK, perhaps that's not a good justification.
This is it exactly.
But that justification can't "surely be applied to racist jokes." The analogy doesn't work.
I also have to agree with Squick on the point that most, if not all, of these arguments have been made earnestly on this forum. Here is the list with the sniping removed:
quote:01) Being gay is not natural.
02) Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay.
03) Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior.
04) Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all.
05) Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed.
06) Straight marriages are valid because they produce children.
07) Gay parents will raise gay children.
08) Gay marriage is not supported by religion.
09) Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home.
10) Gay marriage will change the foundation of society.
They're still hyperbolic, but all of these arguments have been put forward. As far as that part of it goes, the thrust of each argument isn't being put into anyone's mouth; rather, actual arguments that are still in use in this "debate" are being mocked in a put-down manner.
None of this changes the fact that I didn't think it was funny, though.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:But that justification can't "surely be applied to racist jokes."
Why not?
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Jim, But you're just restating the "You have to respect my opinions." argument, which I think is a really poor one. I don't consider saying that you can't show how someone's statements are invalid and even laughably so because it would hurt their feelings to be a legitimate statement. I don't think it's responsible or productive to relinquish quality in order to make sure people don't feel bad.
Neither do I, Squicky, but you can do this without mocking and you can also do it with real arguments instead of making up parodies of what people are saying.
If you want to accomplish anymore than sneering, you *do* have to respect people's opinions.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:I don't know why you're so shocked, did I sound too severe in my response?
It seemed like you were telling me to either shut up and enjoy it or go away.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina:
quote:But that justification can't "surely be applied to racist jokes."
Why not?
"Ideas" and "physical traits" are not remotely close to being the same thing.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Most rascist jokes are focused on culture.
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
quote:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by MrSquicky: It's not even attacking a belief, it's attacking a bunch of dumb, easily refutable statements. It's mocking statements that, to me, deserve to be mocked, but it doesn't mock a group of people or even a belief. I don't see the basis for making that claim. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is not mocking easily refutable statments -- it is mocking people with a certain belief by putting those dumb, easily refutable statments in their mouths.
I have to agree with MrSquicky's quote. I also agree with Porter... except I don't think mocking people who keep me and other gay folk down is a bad thing. You keep me down, prepare to be insulted. Nothing personal. Just the reaction to be expected. It was until very recently a death sentence to be out of the closet. Should I be happy at the progress? Sure thing! But I'm still angry at the remaining bigotry and how it affects the laws against me. It's not best way to keep a rational discussion going, but I like to see a joke like this every now and then. Makes me smile.
Posted by firebird (Member # 1971) on :
If anyone presented any of those 10 arguments as serious reasons why SSM should not be considered for legalisation in a secular society, then my respect for them would plummet.
I have heard arguments against SSM that have not had that effect.
If those opposed to SSM want to have any chance of success in preventing legalisation of SSM then I suggest that stay clear of all those 10 points.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Most rascist jokes are focused on culture.
When your target is an ethnic group, the situation is completely different from when your target is a group sharing an idea.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote: I don't think mocking people who keep me and other gay folk down is a bad thing. You keep me down, prepare to be insulted. Nothing personal.
Baloney. Sorry, Telpy. This isn't civil disobedience. However you percieve yourself to be hurt, it doesn't justify hurting others.
That's a little dramatic. Let me put it this way: if you mock people, it makes you the kind of person who mocks people. There's no way around that.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:When your target is an ethnic group, the situation is completely different from when your target is a group sharing an idea.
Most racsist jokes are based on a culture. Many ideas are prominent in certain cultures. Mocking those who hold ideas strikes very close to mocking everyone in that culture. It isn't nearly as far apart as you'd like to think.
There's no good reason to stop respecting people because you disagree with them.
To clarify, I don't think that you personally did that.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I don't know, Kat...personally I cannot criticize someone for thinking that being hurt is a very good reason to hurt others, or insult others.
It's natural. Were I gay, I'd probably find the list even funnier. And hope maybe it pissed off some people who opposed SSM. Even while realizing that satires like that probably set back the cause.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I'm not saying I haven't done it - I have done it, although not usually to crowds. I don't think it's okay, but that my desire to be a lady is occaionally supplanted by fury.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Just on the basis of a disagreement, I think that's no reason to stop respecting someone. That's just vanity, to disrespect someone because they disagree wtih you.
But depending on the nature of the disagreement, well, I might no longer respect them as much.
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
You know, I had come to the conclusion that I would abstain if legalizing same sex marriage came up for a vote in my state. Mainly because my main arguments against it are personal judgements on sexual behavior that I don't think should be legislated. And my lesser arguments against it are fairly weak, especially in the face of the prevalence of divorce.
But to read a list like that gets my back up, and makes me want to defend a view I really am willing to let go of.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Hmm...I think I meant respect as a verb relating to how one treats people, not just what one thinks of them.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Most racsist jokes are based on a culture. Many ideas are prominent in certain cultures. Mocking those who hold ideas strikes very close to mocking everyone in that culture. It isn't nearly as far apart as you'd like to think.
I completely disagree. The mere fact that racist jokes may be based on cultural stereotypes doesn't change the fact that the target of a racist joke is an ethnic group. We have established, legally -- in both your country and mine -- that targeting ethnic groups with derisive speech is not okay. It's called "hate speech" in egregious cases. We have most certainly not established that targeting an ideological group with derisive speech (particularly one as ethnically diverse as same-sex marriage opponents) isn't okay.
I don't understand why you don't see the difference. One of these two things takes us down the road to hate crime; the other does not.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:We have established, legally -- in both your country and mine -- that targeting ethnic groups with derisive speech is not okay. It's called "hate speech" in egregious cases.
What??
I agree that it's not okay, but it is still legal.
I also despise classifying things as hate crimes: it is penalizing for supposed motives instead of actions, and it makes some victims more equal than others. It is a form of thought policing. Very 1984.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
Well, sneering happens, we all do it (I sure do) and we all gain and lose respect for people... this is the way of things. I can name several people whose respect I have lost in just the last few years... there are almost certainly more that I don't know about.
Telpy, I think it's ok to have your fun... I don't object to people having a good laugh at other's expenses... but I do object to telling people that they have to take their medicine or be told they don't have a sense of humor.
To expect to be able to sneer and not have people react... that is, IMO, to be overly sensitive to other people's reactions.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
So we're condemning all satire?
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
quote:quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I don't know why you're so shocked, did I sound too severe in my response? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It seemed like you were telling me to either shut up and enjoy it or go away.
I'm saying this isn't the last time you will find something that offends you. You can either continue to let these things offend you or you can learn to deal with them.
Just for the record, the list wasn't particularly funny. It lacked that oh so important ingredient to humour: subtlety.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
Saw this on LJ several times (for some reason, my flist is very left-wing ) Didn't find it all that amusing. It's never a good idea to build your opponent's straw men for them, then knock them down.
Of course, I've never heard an argument against SSM that wasn't either unsupportable in a secular society or an end-run around religious beliefs, trying to form a supportable argument out of questionable statistics. Those arguments made without reference to religion usually come from religious people trying to work logically backwards from a preconcieved religious belief.
It's a moot point, though. There will either be legal SSM marriage in my lifetime, or the term 'marriage' will become as obsolete as the term 'quadroon.' The wheels of culture are moving that way, or so it seems to me.
In any case, I was nott terribly amused by this listt, though I was very curious what Hatrack would make of it. Thanks, Troubs!
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
quote: So we're condemning all satire?
Only if it might offend someone, somewhere, at some point...then yes, we're condeming all satire, unless that offends you...
EDIT: Edited for spelling, lest it offend you.
Posted by firebird (Member # 1971) on :
I'm offended ....
What happened to my rights to enjoy satire?
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
sat·ire (săt'īr') n. A literary work in which human vice or folly is attacked through irony, derision, or wit. Irony, sarcasm, or caustic wit used to attack or expose folly, vice, or stupidity.
Obviously if you don't consider your opinions stupid you may be offended at a satirical version of them. And I agree that lists such as this are hardly the best way to discuss the issue with people who hold such beliefs. But satire is good at exposing fallacies to otherwise undecided people. Also, it can be hilarious.
Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
quote: Everyone chill! It's just a joke
Second.
Consent.
Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
And yes, I know I got grumpy about one of them, but not for what was contained therein, i.e., not the joke itself, but what the example cited in the joke made me think of.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
Chris,
I'm suggesting that when you are bitterly satirical about people's deeply held opinions, you shouldn't be surprised when people get offended.
Also that it cost you support. It's no different than arguing a point on a forum-- getting snarky pisses people off and costs you points in the argument. Doesn't mean you can't or even that you shouldn't do it... just don't blame people for reacting to it.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
quote:I'm suggesting that when you are bitterly satirical about people's deeply held opinions, you shouldn't be surprised when people get offended.
I agree, Jim-Me, which is whyy I didn't post this here, even though I was truly curious about what people here would say about it. That, and I remember an essay of OSC's that made the dog argument (sort of) and I wouldn't want to offend him.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: But satire is good at exposing fallacies to otherwise undecided people.
Chris, I disagree with this point and this point only... I think, in fact, that you are fortunate if it doesn't muddle the issue.
Example-- Jay Leno joked that then VP Quayle wanted to go to Mars to explore the canals there as a possible fresh water supply or something to that effect. I know *republicans* who later thought this was Quayle's actual stated position on space exploration.
It can be very funny, but never underestimate the power of "I heard that..."
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
How about "satire can be good at exposing fallacies..."?
It can also be a way to see what other people may think of your well-reasoned arguments.
I'm not saying anyone shouldn't be offended, or that poorly done satire can't cause more harm than help. But I'm also one of the people who will make jokes about anything, even things I personally hold dear. Especially things I personally hold dear. There may be inappropriate times to make jokes about certain subjects, but I don't think there's anything that can't be, shouldn't be mocked.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I think that it's an extremely rare satire that manages to do that more than it manages to turn conversations into arguments.
edit: Of course, I'm talking about satire concerning such issues, not something like a satire of a TV show.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:But satire is good at exposing fallacies to otherwise undecided people.
But this list did not actually do that. It did refer to some fallacious statements, but it used some very weak arguments to counter them, which I did not find to be very convincing.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:I don't know why you're so shocked, did I sound too severe in my response?
It seemed like you were telling me to either shut up and enjoy it or go away.
I was really confused as to why you paired my quote with the other one. If this is why, let me say I wasn't telling you to enjoy it or go away. I was basically saying that if you really feel the joke was making undue fun of a group then maybe it's a TOS violation. I, personally don't think you think is is a TOS violation, (do you?), so my statement was an albeit ineffective attempt to put the issue in perspective. Sorry if I was too callous. Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Satire also serves as a release valve for people who have been making reasoned arguments for some time and are, frankly, getting fed up with what they perceive as unreasonable responses. Satire such as this serves as an injoke, a way to laugh among themselves.
I really doubt this list was ever intended to change minds or be considered as a useful argument in the gay marriage discussion (although the writer probably wouldn't mind if that happened) any more than David Letterman's top 10 lists are intended to cause social change. I would imagine it was written for fun, and posted here for the same reason.
However, if we are now limited to only serious, meaningful statements from this point forward on all social topics I may as well bow out.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
OK, Karl, let me explain why your post bothered me:
Of course the post wasn't a violation of the TOS, and I didn't think that you thought that I thought it was.*
It seemed that you were telling me that if something didn't cross the TOS line, then I didn't have anything to complain about or critizice.
Of course, now that I know that you thought that perhaps I might think it was against the TOS, that statement no longer seems mean-spirited and shocking (coming from you).
*Therefore, I clearly cannot choose the wine in front of you.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
Chris, I think part of the problem is something you identified in passing-- poorly done satire.
Good satire has a certain reverence for the thing satired... it's subtle and hard to grasp, but it's there. You have to understand it truly to make fun of it truly... in Ender parlance, you have to love the thing you mock (and I would say it's far more important to satire than to combat).
The best example I can think of is the difference between older George Carlin, which often mocked Catholicism, and newer Carlin, which simply spews vitriol at it. Somewhere along the line, he went from poking loving fun, to poking hateful jabs, or, as someone put it so well earlier, from "laughing with" to "laughing at" a group of people.
I couldn't tell you what makes the difference, but it is tangible when it's there.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Fair enough, and I recognize the distinction (and agree with the example; Carlin's one of my favorite comedians and I can't listen to a couple of his albums because of the anger). This list didn't go anywhere near that level of bile, at least not to me.
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
quote:Baloney. Sorry, Telpy. This isn't civil disobedience. However you percieve yourself to be hurt, it doesn't justify hurting others.
That's a little dramatic. Let me put it this way: if you mock people, it makes you the kind of person who mocks people. There's no way around that.
Point. But, I think the joke is pointing to the sillyness of some of the arguments used against gay marriage, not at straight folk or married folk. I don't think good people should take offense at that.
quote: Telpy, I think it's ok to have your fun... I don't object to people having a good laugh at other's expenses... but I do object to telling people that they have to take their medicine or be told they don't have a sense of humor.
Not exactly fun...just slightly amusing. And like I said in response to Kat, I don't see the joke as insulting people, just the hypocrisy in some of the arguments used against gay folk.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:I don't think good people should take offense at that.
*raises eyebrow* Ouch.
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
No no! I didn't mean that as an insult!
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
(edit: redundant comment)
Chris, I agree that the list isn't at the level of Carlin's recent work.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Telp: *hugs* I know you didn't. I don't mean what I said as an insult either. Is it okay?
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
What do I mean then... what I ment was that the joke was not ment to insult YOU. You are a good person.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by Telperion the Silver: What do I mean then... what I ment was that the joke was not ment to insult YOU.
I disagree with this. The message I get from the joke is "People that are against SSM sure are stupid! See?"
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Telpy, you're darling. And you don't have to say that - I know you weren't insulting me.
I think communication is a tricky thing, and is based on trust. Maybe that's why I so dislike satire as a rhetorical technique? It's giving up on communication and playing for the audience. Maybe that's why I think it's a little offensive here - it's a great, big "Talk to the hand."
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
Whereas the message I see is, "These arguments against SSM are kind of stupid. See?"
Whether you believe these are the actual arguments being made is another thing altogether, though.
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
*hugs for Kat*
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
There we go Megan... nail on the head.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by Megan: Whereas the message I see is, "These arguments against SSM are kind of stupid. See?"
To me, the reason that it isn't just saying that is that it explicitly says that these are the best arguments against SSM.
Posted by KPhysicsGeek (Member # 8655) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: You might be right, Karl.
So, you wouldn't mind a '10 ten reasons why Gay Marriage Should Be Legal' in the same vein as the initial post?
I for one would love to see a post like that. I really want to know the non-religious reasons (the religious ones don't apply to me since my religion believes God smiles down on gay marriages as much as straight ones) against Gay Marriage other than the (what seems to me) scare tactic "It will ruin the sanctity of marriage."
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:Originally posted by Megan: Whereas the message I see is, "These arguments against SSM are kind of stupid. See?"
To me, the reason that it isn't just saying that is that it explicitly says that these are the best arguments against SSM.
Where are you seeing that? I'm looking and I'm not finding that. I'm not trying to be combative, honestly; I just don't see that, either in the first post or in the title.
Maybe posters after that have said that, but I don't think it's inherent in the joke (It would be if the title was actually "Top Ten," but here, at least, it doesn't seem to be.)
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Huh. I was wrong. The word "top" isn't there.
My mind must have added that itself 'cuz it's in the "Top 10" format.
Posted by UofUlawguy (Member # 5492) on :
1. I am against SSM. 2. I take the above position quite seriously. 3. I STILL thought the original list was kind of funny, and not offensive at all. That's because I recognize that there are a lot of morons on "my" side in this debate.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
now that things have kinda been talked through, may I just say that I'm VERY tired of the "yeah, 'cause the world needs more children" bit of sarcasm...
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Katie, you're right -- in the U.S., the First Amendment trumps even incitement to genocide. Here in Canada, incitement to genocide is a prison-worthy crime. It's Section 318 of the Canadian Criminal Code:
quote: 318. (1) Every one who advocates or promotes genocide is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.
(2) In this section, "genocide" means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy in whole or in part any identifiable group, namely,
(a) killing members of the group; or
(b) deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction.
(3) No proceeding for an offence under this section shall be instituted without the consent of the Attorney General.
(4) In this section, "identifiable group" means any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation.
While reading about this, I discovered, among other things, that many neo-Nazi web sites are hosted in the U.S. rather than elsewhere for this very reason. I'm sure you can guess what my view of this is, but then, my country's motto is "Peace, Order, and Good Government" rather than "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness."
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I love the First Amendment. I'm all for it, and for people's right to speak without checking that it fits the government-approved list first. *waves flag*
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
If only we had a twinkling smiley. Something that says "I am half-mocking both you and myself, because I love us both." I'd use the tongue smiley, but I think twinky doesn't like it much.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by twinky:(4) In this section, "identifiable group" means any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation.
Twinky, just wanted to point out to you that this particular thing is a group of people being singled out for intellectual assent to certain ideas... something you distinctly argued was different than race, but which both of our constitutions identify as equally protected. Perhaps you and I are not so far apart as we might seem .
Posted by Ophelia (Member # 653) on :
I wish Canada weren't so cold.
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
Keeps big nasty bugs away. Yay snow!
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
I have no problem with the tongue smiley; it's rivka who doesn't like it, IIRC.
I honestly believe that the First Amendment goes too far. I don't think that that particular right is inalienable, and I certainly don't think it is granted by some sort of creator. I absolutely believe that incitement to genocide is something you should go to jail for, regardless of whether 1) any violence ensued, or 2) you participated in any violence that did ensue. Note, however, that the Code states that the incitement has to be likely to lead to violence.
Jim, I don't think we're all that far apart. I haven't argued that ideas aren't deserving of protection; rather, I've argued that persecution on racial grounds is "worse" than persecution on ideological grounds. i.e., it's worse to make a joke about someone's race than it is to make a joke about someone's religion, or ideology, philosophy, or preference in soft drinks. Look at it this way: consider the instances of ethnic cleansing in world history as against the instances of "ideological" cleansing. I think we can agree that while both are abhorrent and happen with disturbing frequency, ethnic cleansing is both more common and historically larger in scale. This makes it a more sensitive topic and one that should be handled with additional care.
However, don't take that to mean that I'm not absolutely in favour of "religion" being on that list along with "colour, race, ethnic group, and sexual orientation." I am. I do think, though, that Katie's comparison between the opening post of this thread and a racist joke is unwarranted, and belittles the importance of combating racism.
Edit: Cleaned up the last sentence. Too many "Howevers!"
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
04) Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all; women are still property, blacks still can't marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.
And look at how much divorce has improved life for children. Isn't it great?
05) Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of Britany Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.
Exactly. So we should have more people doing it, right?
09) Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.
Of course, the statistics totally support how much better it is for children to be raised by a single parent. We should definitely encourage it!
10) Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven't adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.
Or easy divorce, which has been so good for society. And abortion, which has also been excellent. I'm so glad we've adapted to these social reformations so well. Those silly people who thought it might be damaging to society. Bet they're eating crow now!
Posted by firebird (Member # 1971) on :
Jeni
Actually ..
The statistics for single parent families after having been corrected by regression analysis for socio-economic back ground, level of eduction etc show that single parents do no worse for their childen than two parent.
The data on abortion and crime has shown that crime rates plummet when poor, uneducated, single mother's (the majority) have the choice to abort rather than to keep them or put them up for adoption. I know it is a horrible idea ... but that *is* the data.
I've yet to see an opponent of gay marriage on Hatrack provide reasons that didn't come down to "My interpretation of God says it's wrong" that were substantially more tenable than the ones on that list, despite repeatedly asking for them. People keep claiming that they exist, but no one in the anti-gay mariage camp seems to be willing to produce them.
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
quote: And abortion, which has also been excellent. I'm
Somehow, inexplicably, it always ends up with a discussion about abortion.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:The statistics for single parent families after having been corrected by regression analysis for socio-economic back ground, level of eduction etc show that single parents do no worse for their childen than two parent.
I'm curious as to what sources you have for this. I've read many, many things on it and none of them support this view. From all the things I've read, intra-SES comparisons show large significant differences in the physical and psychological welfare of single parented versus two parented children, with the two parented children having much better results.
Posted by JannieJ (Member # 8683) on :
My guess (as a single and childless female) would be that two parent happy homes are better than one parent happy homes - but two parent miserable homes would not be. It seems like it's much more complex than simply one parent versus two parents.
Posted by firebird (Member # 1971) on :
If I remember correctly ... and it is possible that I haven't ... then it was in the same book as posted on the arbotion article by the same economist.
I would look it up this evening but can't as I have lent the book to someone.
Freakonomics was in fact a fantastic read. He loses his objectivity only about twice. I, of course, haven't actually seen the statistics or checked his methodology ... but given his qualifications I am willing to accept a lot of what he has written.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: I do think, though, that Katie's comparison between the opening post of this thread and a racist joke is unwarranted
Her point was that just because there is some truth to a joke doesn't mean that the joke is OK. I think it was a good point and it needed to be made.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
But another point, which I believe is equally valid, is that no matter how a joke is phrased there is some way someone can take offense to it.
This is why a sense of humor is so crucial. Without it, we'd all have a stroke or die at knifepoint by our 20th birthdays.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote: I do think, though, that Katie's comparison between the opening post of this thread and a racist joke is unwarranted
Her point was that just because there is some truth to a joke doesn't mean that the joke is OK. I think it was a good point and it needed to be made.
Even if I were to grant that the point needed to be made, it doesn't change my view of the analogy.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:I've yet to see an opponent of gay marriage on Hatrack provide reasons that didn't come down to "My interpretation of God says it's wrong" that were substantially more tenable than the ones on that list, despite repeatedly asking for them. People keep claiming that they exist, but no one in the anti-gay mariage camp seems to be willing to produce them.
You've either seen them or haven't been looking... I've seen many (if not most) opponents of gay marriage justify their position using arguments based upon the negative impacts they argue gay marriage will have on society.
This is not to even mention the argument I gave - that gay marriage simply does not fit the definition of a marriage, no matter whether it would be nice of it to or not. A doughnut is not a bagel, whether we'd like to define it that way or not. The same is true for the meaning of marriage.
So, reasons do exist - whether you agree with them or not is another question.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
You don't see the problem with telling people that if they dislike mocking jokes made at their expense, it is their fault?
I agree that a sense of humor is necessary, but how much does it suck that people pride themselves on being the person other people need to just walk away from.
quote:Even if I were to grant that the point needed to be made, it doesn't change my view of the analogy.
That's fine. I never said they were equal. My point was exactly as Porter says - "It has some truth in it." is a bad justification for a joke.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Why is that, twinky? Do you think that racism should never be used as an analogy when discussing something else?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Tres, No I've seen people assert that gay marriage will hurt society, but I've yet to see them offer a tenable reason for how or why it will hurt society.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:That's fine. I never said they were equal.
No, but that implication could easily be drawn -- and was drawn, as page two of this thread attests -- from what you did say. Either you weren't clear or you meant it. Evidently it's the former, which is good news.
(See? I like the tongue guy just fine.)
That's a big part of why I think it was unwarranted, Porter -- Karl thought she was calling him a bigot. In point of fact, I thought so too, and I couldn't think of any other reason for posting such a thing and phrasing it that way. I certainly didn't "get her point."
I think racism should not be equated to things it is not equal to, because doing so belittles it.
Posted by Papa Moose (Member # 1992) on :
quote:Originally posted by jebus202: Just for the record, the list wasn't particularly funny. It lacked that oh so important ingredient to humour: subtlety.
Just for the record, this is the only thing in the thread that I found funny. (Well, that and mph's Princess Bride reference, but Jebus was funnier.)
--Pop
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
They are similar - they are not equal. Grouping people together and then mocking them has a disturbingly familiar resonance to it. However, since there is not the baggage of centuries of abuse of power behind it, it is not equal.
I probably should have been more clear - I was never attempting to say that Karl was a bigot.
On the other hand, Porter understood me perfectly and recapped it even better than I would have myself. Must not have been that obscure.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Except, again, this did not group people together and mock them, but rather mocked a bunch of bad arguments.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Splitting hairs. Even if what you said was true.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
But the thing with jokes is this: they are always going to highlight something less than flattering. Whether it's sexist, racist, classist, or ageist really depends on the interpretation. When it's an especially tender subject like racism or same sex marriage, it's going to ruffle some feathers. When it's obvious that something is intended as a joke, I've found it makes life a lot easier on me if I take it as a joke.
Whether or not it's in poor taste is largely a factor of the audience. A racist joke, while never a great idea, is a very bad idea when in the company of the race in question. When none that the joke targets are there, it's the same joke but the execution is much more tasteful. Not to say that it's tasteful, because it's not. But every joke has a butt. Unfortunately.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
How in the world is that splitting hairs? In one case, someone took a bunch of bad arguments and pointed out (not particualrly funnily in my opinion) that they were bad arguments. In the other, they would have said something like, those people are so dumb. And then gone on to make derogatory mocking statements about them. I see those as remarkably different situations.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Read the thread again if you still can't understand. Many people have explained why.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
And another thing - people who are against gay marriage and claim the reason is because of the damage it'll do to society are just rationalizing. They don't like it for religious reasons, or because it makes them uncomfortable and bucks the status quo. But no rational person jumps right to the "good of society" argument. It's the argument I respect the least in this whole debacle and those who hold it up like it's the trump card kind of piss me off. Be honest with yourself.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:people who are against gay marriage and claim the reason is because of the damage it'll do to society are just rationalizing. They don't like it for religious reasons
How lovely that you are qualified to read their hearts.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I think he's qualified to read their statements though, where they've yet to give a reason that doesn't rely on religion that holds up to any critical analysis.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: But every joke has a butt. Unfortunately.
This is not true.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: I think he's qualified to read their statements though, where they've yet to give a reason that doesn't sound like a barely veiled attempt to disguise their religious prejudice.
There is no argument for anything that cannot be interpreted to be a veiled attempt to disguise prejudice.
Just because all you can see is prejudice doesn't mean that's all there is.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: They are similar - they are not equal. Grouping people together and then mocking them has a disturbingly familiar resonance to it.
I still think that there's a world of difference between mocking someone's ideas and mocking someone's racial characteristics.
quote:Originally posted by katharina: On the other hand, Porter understood me perfectly and recapped it even better than I would have myself. Must not have been that obscure.
You and Porter are both Mormons. Karl and I are both atheists. It must be a religious schism!
Less flippantly, I think that's because you and Porter oppose same-sex marriage and the "joke" was "aimed at you," so to speak. It can be hard to tell how your words might be taken by "the other side" sometimes.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
Example?
Granted, I didn't have time to catalogue and cross-reference every joke in existence, but every one I could think of had a target.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Porter, Yeah, I changed it immediately to a less debatable statement.
edit: And again, I offer an open invitation for people to provide these good arguments against same sex marriage that don't rely on "My God says it's wrong."
Posted by firebird (Member # 1971) on :
I have no issue with people who would be opposed to SSM for:
Religious Reason Emotive reasons (It feels just plain wrong)
What I do have issue with is emotive reasons being portrayed as rational arguments with no evidence or even thought experiments to back it up.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote: that holds up to any critical analysis.
Your intepretation, as always. You are not persuaded, so the reasons don't exist.
Added: Why am I continuing this? Never mind.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang: Granted, I didn't have time to catalogue and cross-reference every joke in existence, but every one I could think of had a target.
What about the joke about peanuts being "a salted?" I'm not sure that it's offensive to the admittedly delicate sensibilities of peanuts.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
twinky:
quote:I still think that there's a world of difference between mocking someone's ideas and mocking someone's racial characteristics.
Why, actually? I'm not debating a point here - I think we've established that we don't agree with this. The reason I disagree is that I think someone's ideas can be as central to a person's identity as their skin color, so there isn't much difference between attacks on the two - you are still striking at the core of someone's identity.
Why do you think they are different?
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
I don't think I've heard that one.
Maybe I should amend my statement to say "funny jokes". Some people get a kick out of telling jokes they get off of Laffy Taffy wrappers, but those elicit more groans than laughs.
Although, George Washington Carver probably wouldn't like that peanut joke, and he's black, so it's a racist joke.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Because ideas are open to critical analysis in which their quality relative to certain standards can be evaluated. We can say whether an idea, relative to some standard, is good, bad, or not even worthy of being taken seriously. THe same can not be said for skin color.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
A pirate walks into a bar with a steering wheel in his pants. The bartend asks about it and he says "Arrr, it's driving me nuts."
Although... the point could be made that the listener is the butt of every single pun.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:I still think that there's a world of difference between mocking someone's ideas and mocking someone's racial characteristics.
I guess I don't really see the difference in mocking someone's gender/religion/sexuality/beliefs and mocking someone's racial characteristics.
Is the primary difference "ethnic cleansing is both more common and historically larger in scale. This makes it a more sensitive topic and one that should be handled with additional care."
Because I could argue that gender persecution is much more common, widespread, and socially accepted.
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
twinky...I'm sure that someone who has been assaulted could take offense to your joke...
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:Although... the point could be made that the listener is the butt of every single pun.
I certainly feel like that. But then, I don't have the appreciation for puns that some here do.
I find the sexual content in that joke offensive, BTW.
EDIT: Gahh. New Page. Must add substance to my post.
Kat, The difference between core ideas and skin color is that one is voluntary and changeable, and one is not. That's why it's different to criticize someone's skin color. They didn't choose it, and they're powerless to change it (apologies to Michael Jackson).
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
one could argue that the peanuts joke belittles those that have actually been asaulted.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:In one case, someone took a bunch of bad arguments and pointed out (not particualrly funnily in my opinion) that they were bad arguments
No, they took a bunch of arguments, changed them in ways that removed all nuance, explanation, or context, and then added pithy ironic statements that in many cases don't even refute the strawmanized argument put forth.
It's bad satire, but worse than that, it's dishonest satire.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Dag, Actually, I inclined to agree more with your description, except for the implication that there is quality to be found in the analogs of the arguments that were presented if they are given a less partial treatment. I don't think that this list was either particularly funny or well presented.
But that still doesn't make it into collecting people into a group and mocking them.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
No, it makes it collecting people into a group and lying about what they say. There's no denying that the intent of this list is to attack the views of those who oppose equal civil marriage rights for same sex couples and that it implies that these are what their views really amount to.
It's one step below the "you care more about a condemned murderer's life than an innocent child's life"/"how can you be pro-life and support capital punishment?" chestnuts.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Katie, Squicky and JT more or less just said what I was going to say in response to your question.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
That something can be changed does not mean that it is okay to mock it.
Someone can change their friends and their spouse as well. Does that mean it is okay to mock them? Someone can change their nationality - is it okay to mock that?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Except that it's not collecting people into a group. There was in fact no group collection. No group was singled out. Arguments were presented.
And I don't see how this list would constitute lying. Could you explain that classification?
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
I don't think anyone's saying it's OK to mock anyone, for any reason. But I think there deserves to be a line drawn between Things You Can Change and Things You Cannot Change.
You compared ideals to skin color, and I think that there is a fairly important distinction between the two. I actually think a person's ideals might be more central to their identity than skin color. This does not imply that I think one deserves ridicule and one does not.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
I think the line is between things you have a right to and things you don't... hence religion's inclusion on the protected list.
And I'm saying it's ok to mock anyone for any reason, just don;t get huffy when they don't like being mocked...
and Squick, you don't think people can be grouped by their point of view? and you honestly believe this list did not mock a particular group of people?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Jim, I believe that the group of people being talked about are the people who make those arguments. And what's being said about them is that some of the arguments that these people make are foolish.
edit: If you want to extend it a little, you could say that he people being talked about are people opposed to gay marriage and that what's being said is that these arguments are representative of the content and quality of their arguments. It's a stretch, but I could see it. Of course, that also happens to be, from my perspective, more true than not.
edit 2: For me, saying that someone's arguments are wrong or foolish is an attack on the arguments, not the person who made them.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Again with the "what JT said" thing, though I would change "fairly" to "very."
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I know you think they are different. I don't understand why. What is the difference between Cannot Be Changed and Cannot Be Changed Without Great Personal Pain and Loss Of One's Identity that makes the first one so much more sacred?
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
firebird:
quote:The statistics for single parent families after having been corrected by regression analysis for socio-economic back ground, level of eduction etc show that single parents do no worse for their childen than two parent.
Please back that up with some hard evidence. Links, if you please.
Perhaps you're thinking of studies that have shown that remarried couples that form a step family do, after a number of years together, tend to reverse many of the effects of divorce. 'Course, the statistics weigh strongly against remarriages remaining together long enough for that to happen. But if you can beat that statistic, apparently there's a better one on the way. Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
hmmm...maybe kat thinks that we can say that skin color is good or bad.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
My question is completely sincere.
However, I question Squicky's ability to distinguish between the finer points of civilization (as evidenced by his latest post), and so will not give credence to any of his comments.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:And I don't see how this list would constitute lying. Could you explain that classification?
There is an implication that these arguments are actually being made and the ones that are superficially similar to the distorted version are equivalent.
Simply put, the person who made this list supports (thanks, twinky) gay marriage. He put this out as if these are the arguments being made (minus the ironic support which are actually refutations).
Straw man arguing is lying, because it contains the implicit message that someone is actually making the straw man argument.
Edit: And I should clarify, this is lying because it's intentional. The point is to say, "See, this is all my opposition's arguments amount to." Unintentionally misinterpreting is not lying.
[ October 19, 2005, 05:35 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
I don't think being for or against gay marriage is particularly essential to one's identity, honestly.
I can see how one's religious beliefs or sexual orientation might be essential to one's identity, but not one's beliefs on gay marriage.
-pH
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Errr...those arguments are pretty much being made, close enough to fit in the bounds of satire anyway and certainly within your "superficially similar to the distorted version". And even if this wasn't true, you're claiming that these people definitely know that what they are saying is not at all true, which I don't see how you could know.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
Some people cling to ideals like lifelines. Some change them like socks. It depends on the person, but choice is, for me, the key component.
Say I'm a Native American. Say I also am strongly opposed to abortion.* I might be reasonably expected to defend my views on abortion. No matter how well thought out they are there's no denying that there are two sides to every ideal. Not the case with skin color. There's no choice, and therefore no one right position to take.
*Neither of these claims are true, nor are they related to one another in any way.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Um, Dagonee? Every one of those sentiments has been made in this forum. Every one. And in close to those terms, minus the snarky additions. Head to some of the more virulent anti-gay websites and you can see even more generalized, hateful messages being presented as facts.
Many people, here and otherwise, have reasons not to acept gay marriage that are reasoned and justifiable, and to them this list is a mockery. But there are indeed people who believe such generalized, noncontextual statements. I offer Rev Phelps as an extreme example, and I can sadly point to quite a few people I know as lesser versions.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Katie:
One is a physical property of a human being, the other is not.
One can be changed, the other can't -- regardless of how fundamental a given belief might be. That is the difference, Katie. Add the weight of history and it simply boggles my mind that we're even having this discussion. Then again, it also boggles my mind that there's any debate over whether or not same-sex marriage should be legal.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Errr...those arguments are pretty much being made, close enough to fit in the bounds of satire anyway and certainly within your "superficially similar to the distorted version". And even if this wasn't true, you're claiming that these people definitely know that what they are saying is not at all true, which I don't see how you could know.
So you'll use this standard from now on when judging OSC's columns?
quote:Um, Dagonee? Every one of those sentiments has been made in this forum. Every one. And in close to those terms, minus the snarky additions.
Please tell me you can see the difference. Please.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Dagonee, didn't you mean to say "Simply put, the person who made this list supports gay marriage?" Or am I going insane?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Yes, twinky. I was changing to "supports gay marriage" from "opposes limiting marriage to male-female couples" and apparently only made half the change.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Granted, the people who have expressed such blunt opinions to me would have read this list and not realized it was supposed to be funny...
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
This thread boggles my mind.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Dag, No, we really can't see the difference. These arguments have been made here. They are made with greater frequency and volume elsewhere.
quote:So you'll use this standard from now on when judging OSC's columns?
So you're admitting that you don't follow these standards when you don't want to?
I don't believe I've ever called OSC a liar. When I take his writings in a certain way, I show what led me to that conclusion based both on his column and his past writing (and now his behavior on this forum).
This is you saying, "These guys are liars." without supporting this assertion in any way when not only are the things they are saying not untrue but considering they come across murky perceptual boundaries likely to be seen as true even if they were not.
I don't hold that you can't divine motive from what people say. That's you...though apparently this is limited to when you're talking about me.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:So you're admitting that you don't follow these standards when you don't want to?
No. This is a different, and stricter, standard than the one I argue about with you when we discuss OSC's columns. If you followed the standard your attempting to hold me to now, you would automatically exclude much of what you say about OSC.
You really are bad at this snarky questioning thing as a rhetorical tactic.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:No, we really can't see the difference. These arguments have been made here. They are made with greater frequency and volume elsewhere.
I'm well aware of the fact that you can't see the difference.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
I have no trouble separating a statementfrom a person.
Lots of really smart people say very stupid things, occassionally. Just like very stupid people sometimes say something profound. Personally, I like to think of myself as belonging in both categories. Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
How is this stricter? You called these guys liars based on...well nothing really. I do follow the standard I'm trying to hold you to now. I would never call OSC, or anyone else for that matter, a liar without some pretty clear proof to that fact. I honestly don't see how you think doing so is no big deal.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: Many people, here and otherwise, have reasons not to acept gay marriage that are reasoned and justifiable, and to them this list is a mockery. But there are indeed people who believe such generalized, noncontextual statements. I offer Rev Phelps as an extreme example, and I can sadly point to quite a few people I know as lesser versions.
I think it's precisely the point of this list to characterize those who are against SSM as being like Fred Phelps and I think that it's precisely what people are offended at. I've been wrong before...
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
That makes sense to me, Jim.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Fred Phelps is, as Chris pointed out, an extreme example. But arguments similar to these in content and quality seem, at least to many of us, to be the mainstay of the secular arguments against gay marriage.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:How is this stricter? You called these guys liars based on...well nothing really. I do follow the standard I'm trying to hold you to now. I would never call OSC, or anyone else for that matter, a liar without some pretty clear proof to that fact. I honestly don't see how you think doing so is no big deal.
Do you deny that this person supports gay marriage and does not believe the "arguments" he's putting forth?
Do you deny that his intent is to mock the opponents of gay marriage?
I know you deny that the representations of the arguments are inaccurate, but I'm not going to debate that with you.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:I think it's precisely the point of this list to characterize those who are against SSM as being like Fred Phelps and I think that it's precisely what people are offended at.
To be clear, he looks a the correlation between high school test scores and a number of statements about their background.
Understanding that high school test scores are a limited measure of 'successful' parenting, that emotional development is also important, but that to do well in school you usually do have to be somewhat disciplined, adjusted, stable home etc so it is not a BAD measure. And it is one we have that is objective.
Statements of backgroud that he looks at to correlate are: Family is intact There are many books in the house English is the first language in the home Low birthweight Mother stayed at home until the child was over 5 Mother waited until over 30 to have children Parents read to the child regularly Parents take their kids to museums often Parents are educated to college level Parents are involved in the PTA The family have moved to a better neighbourhood recently
The following correlate with test scores: There are many books in the house English is the first language in the home Low birthweight (negative correlation) Mother waited until over 30 to have children Parents are educated to college level Parents are involved in the PTA
The following do not correlate with test scores: Family is intact Mother stayed at home until the child was over 5 Parents read to the child regularly Parents take their kids to museums often The family have moved to a better neighbourhood recently
You'll either have to read the book for more detail or find the authors papers.
Hope that helps.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Dag,
quote:Do you deny that this person supports gay marriage and does not believe the "arguments" he's putting forth?
Nope. I'm not sure how this constitutes them lying. Satire is a pretty well-understood thing. You've even agreed that this is what they are doing.
quote:Do you deny that his intent is to mock the opponents of gay marriage?
Yes, I do. As I've said, this list mocks arguments made by opponents of gay marriage. There is nothing in it that mocks the opponents themselves.
I don't see how either of these supports your ability to call whoever made this list a liar. You said:
quote:He put this out as if these are the arguments being made (minus the ironic support which are actually refutations).
Straw man arguing is lying, because it contains the implicit message that someone is actually making the straw man argument.
Edit: And I should clarify, this is lying because it's intentional. The point is to say, "See, this is all my opposition's arguments amount to." Unintentionally misinterpreting is not lying.
How is either of these relevant to that?
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
I'll take a shot at a somewhat less snarky list. Let's see...
01) Being gay is not natural, aside from some perverted penguins, and some swans, and the occasional monkey but you know what they're like. Oh, and this dog I once had.
02) Acceptance of gay marriage will legitimize gayness and implicitly encourage normal, moral, innocent people who totter on the very brink of sexual experimentation, to try gay sex. Sweet, sweet, gay sex.
03) If we allow gays to marry it will start us sliding on the slippery slope that zooms past polyandry and polygamy, dips sharply into incest, and lands us directly into the pit of bestiality where we can buy tickets and go do it again but with our arms up this time.
04) The concept of gay marriage violates the very definition of marriage itself, a definition that has existed since man joined together with woman. Or with several women. Or with the widow of a man the first man slayed in combat. Or with a woman attached to a valuable piece of property. Oh, and they have to be the same color and/or tribe, did I mention that?
05) Expanding the definition of marriage will devalue marriage itself, because encouraging more people to commit to one person instead of screwing around just isn't the sort of thing our country stands for.
06) The central purpose of marriage is to raise productive children, obviously something gay people simply cannot do unless they adopt, inseminate themselves, or have children from a previous straight marriage. And then it's still wrong. Seriously.
07) Children growing up in a gay household are sure to become gay what with all the, you know, gayness lying around.
08) Gay marriage is specifically denied by my religion and that law, unlike all the other scriptural laws which we have since abandoned in the face of scientific discoveries, social changes, and even just other scriptural laws made later on that kinda contradict the first laws but not really, must be strictly enforced.
09) Children need strong male and female role models to grow up healthy. So not only can't gays marry, but some of you straight people better get on the gender-stereotype bandwagon. You! Sissy boy! Get a football, you want your kid to grow up weak?
10) Gay marriage will change the foundation of society. Ha! Deny that one!
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Before things get terribly over the top here, could I ask each person to examine their feelings to determine to what extent they are deliberately taking personal offense for things said by others that they know are not intended in that vein. Likewise, could I ask people to refrain from escalating the snarkiness of interpersonal discourse?
I think it's worth treading lightly in areas that DO touch on people's sense of self, whether that be self-identification, or their morality. We can choose to clash on this, or we can choose to discuss the points at which our arguments are talking past each other rather than addressing real concerns held to be important by the other side.
Sorry to be such a killjoy, but lately I feel like one of the kids wondering why the adults are always screaming at each other all the time, and worrying that my happy home is breaking up.
I'll refrain from saying "can't we all just get along" and say rather that I think the bigger picture is being missed here because of entrenchment and a feeling that to defend or not defend some lame joke has greater implications about ones self.
And if we're attacking each other's rhetorical style, we aren't discussing anything or getting anywhere good, IMHO.
Unless this thread has morphed to be all about debating tactics, in which case, I'll go sit in the corner banging my head on the floor until it's over.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
And Chris, I'm sorry, I didn't intend to post that right after your wonderful attempt to bring a more measured discourse to the topic.
I should've waited.
Posted by firebird (Member # 1971) on :
Chris ... you are a genius!
(Now I'm worried that you don't think what you wrote is funny and I don't want to offend you .... argh ...what should I do.)
Posted by Art Vandelay (Member # 8690) on :
Chris wins the thread.
(I know we don't do that here, but still)
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
Yeah, Chris has my vote for Thread President. His list was less offensive, and therefore, much funnier. Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
quote:03) If we allow gays to marry it will start us sliding on the slippery slope that zooms past polyandry and polygamy, dips sharply into incest, and lands us directly into the pit of bestiality where we can buy tickets and go do it again but with our arms up this time.
And you owe me a new keyboard for that one!
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Squick, both those are evidence of straw-man arguing, and I've explained why straw-man arguing is lying. I have not contended that either question alone is proof, so your piecemeal refutations are not relevant to the use to which I put them.
And your caveat about what he's mocking doesn't matter. Either way, his intent is to mock, and he's lying about his opponent's arguments to do so. So if I accept your contention that he is not trying to associate gay marriage opposition with Fred Phelps, it doesn't change one iota the credence it lends to the author attempting to use straw men to mock.
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
Chris wins. That was very funny.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
Chris, I hope it's okay, but... I'm already spamming people on LJ with your list. WITH credit to C.A. Bridges. Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Olivet! I must have you on my LJ friends list because I really don't think you're there already.
Mine is "yourprecious."
What's yours?
-pH
Posted by Narnia (Member # 1071) on :
quote:09) Children need strong male and female role models to grow up healthy. So not only can't gays marry, but some of you straight people better get on the gender-stereotype bandwagon. You! Sissy boy! Get a football, you want your kid to grow up weak?
There was definitely some audible laughter with this one.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
But Dagonee, my intention is not to argue the point. I can do that without snarkiness, as I believe you know. What I was doing was trying to be funny without being as snarky as the one posted, and it's a matter of opinion whether I managed it.
Olivet - feel free, just mention I'm doing it as a counteroffer to the one posted, I don't want anyone thinking I'm plagiarizing them.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
Chris Bridges --> <-- Tante Shvester
I'm sure you all know exactly how I feel on this topic, so I'm not saying anything else, and you can all laugh along with me, throw rotten tomatoes at me, or propose marriage to me, depending on your agreement with my stance.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
Chris, I think you managed it... since you are the professional humor writer, can you tell us what you did to make it less offensive... other than making it much funnier?
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Analyzing comedy is a tough thing to do, especially when you really don't know what you're doing, but...
I tried to make the speaker sound misguided or oblivious instead of scornful, mostly. The original apparently expects the reader to either agree already or, if the reader opposes gay marriage, to suddenly slap his or her forehead and go "Ah! Caught in my own hypocrisy! Of course I see the light now!"
My version doesn't expect anything. I just went for the funny, with enough actual arguments and counterarguments among the straw men to have some bite.
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
The original made me smile slightly. Chris's made me chuckle. Whole-heartedly.
I do think Bob has a point - it seems some people are really seeing personal slights were non are intended. And, I have to say, it seems that the people doing this all fall in the anti-gay marriage camp.
I wonder if it's because gay marriage is such a hot button issue, so when it's brought up, the defences automatically rise. And rise. And then snap, perhaps where no snappiness was warranted.
Posted by Treason (Member # 7587) on :
Chris, I love you now.
That was a much funnier list, you rule!
Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
10 Reasons Why Chris Bridges is Teh Funniest!
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
Imogen, as I stated earlier, I support the ideas of some sort of union for gays... not sure I'd go so far as to call it marriage, but I definitely upport homosexuals having legal unions of some sort...
And I thought the first list was definitely offensive... whereas Chris's list nearly made me lose my dinner from laughing. There's definitely something about the tone of the first which struck me, as I said earlier, like George Carlin's more recent "comedy".
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
Actually, Jim-Me, you weren't one of the people I was thinking about.
Either way, what people do/do not support is really besides the point. I was just making the observation.
I think *everyone* can benefit from making sure they are not taking personal offence gratuitously.
Also, I think there's a difference between finding something offensive (or just not funny ) and viewing that something as a *personal attack* on your beliefs.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
Here's my problem with all of the complaints here about the list. Every single one of the ten items, either as stated or very close to as stated, has been used by those arguing against same-sex marriage.
What seems to be bugging some people here is the flippant way in which those arguments are being tossed aside. There's no respect here for the "gay marriage will lead to interspecies marriage" argument, for example. No one is calmly and dispassionately explaining why that's a lame-oid argument. Instead, it's being treated as an argument which is patently worthless on the face of it. The response to such a silly argument is mockery.
Now... if you want, I will dig into the search function of this board, and I will pull up examples of people on this board (or on the other side) who have used that argument, and who have demanded that it be taken seriously when challenged.
I don't think it needs to be. I think it's utterly without value, and that those who use it should be ashamed of themselves. They may have reasons to oppose same-sex marriage that are worthy of respect, even if I think they're wrong, but that doesn't legitimize the foolish arguments.
Now. Let's go through these one at a time:
quote:01) Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.
Is there anyone here who would like to deny that the "being gay is not natural" argument has been used widely as an excuse for opposing same-sex marriage?
List item #1 mocks that by pointing out that "unnatural" has never been used as a reason to oppose anything. "Unnatural" does not mean "bad". My glasses are unnatural. So I should walk around bumping into things?
quote:02) Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.
Is there anyone here who would like to deny that the "gay marriage will encourage young people to be gay" argument has been used widely as an excuse for opposing same-sex marriage?
List item #2 mocks this by pointing out how ridiculous is to imagine gayness as something communicable or contagious like cooties.
And yes, I've heard the more in-depth version of the argument, which says that legitimizing homosexuality in any way is liable to make youngsters more inclined to "try it out". Personally, I think that's already the case, and that same-sex marriage won't have any effect on it whatsoever, but whatever. Still, the bare-bones argument that there are homosexuals trying to suck the unwary into our depraved lifestyle is so ridiculous that it really does deserve to be mocked.
quote:03) Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.
Is there anyone here who would like to deny that the "gay marriage will lead to interspecies marriage" argument has been used widely as an excuse for opposing same-sex marriage?
This one has to be mocked. Come on, it's utterly dumb to make such a slippery slope argument, and yet same-sex marriage opponents do it all the time. Sane opponents of same-sex marriage should be up in arms against those people, if they don't want to be made to look bad.
quote:04) Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all; women are still property, blacks still can't marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.
Is there anyone here who would like to deny that the "marriage is an ancient institution with a definition that cannot be changed" argument has been used widely as an excuse for opposing same-sex marriage?
This points out very correctly that the definition has accomodated different things at different times. I don't see anything wrong with that. This isn't even a case of mockery.
[QUOTE]05) Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of Britany Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.
Is there anyone here who would like to deny that the "gay marriage will trivialize straight marriage" argument has been used widely as an excuse for opposing same-sex marriage?
quote:06) Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn't be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren't full yet, and the world needs more children.
Is there anyone here who would like to deny that the "gay marriage can't result in procreation without scientific intervention" argument has been used widely as an excuse for opposing same-sex marriage?
quote:07) Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.
Is there anyone here who would like to deny that the "children of gay parents will be more likely to be gay" argument has been used widely as an excuse for opposing same-sex marriage?
quote:08) Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have only one religion in America.
Is there anyone here who would like to deny that the "my religion says it's wrong" argument has been used widely as an excuse for opposing same-sex marriage?
quote:09) Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.
Is there anyone here who would like to deny that the "children need a male and a female role model" argument has been used widely as an excuse for opposing same-sex marriage?
quote:10) Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven't adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.
Is there anyone here who would like to deny that the "gay marriage will upset current social norms" argument has been used widely as an excuse for opposing same-sex marriage?
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Tres, No I've seen people assert that gay marriage will hurt society, but I've yet to see them offer a tenable reason for how or why it will hurt society.
"Tenable" - there's the key word. What reasons are "tenable" to you and what are not is a matter of your judgement. In other words, you HAVE seen reasons to think gay marriage is wrong that don't invoke God. You just don't believe them.
Now, keep in mind what follows from the suggestion that giving a reason that one doesn't believe is equivalent to giving no reason at all. It means that anybody who believes anything you disagree with, necessarily does so with NO reason to justify it. Are you suggesting this is true?
If not, then don't claim all their reasons rely on religion, because it's pretty much blatantly false to say so. It's only true that you happen to disagree with the reasons they give that don't rely on religion.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:If you make fun of my thoughts, I take that much more personally than if you make fun of my race, sex, or even family.
That's it though, Jim...these aren't your thoughts on the subject, are they? I have heard a lot of your thoughts (on many subjects) and I know better. You have sincere beliefs about this topic, I know, and I respect those thoughts, even if I disagree with some of them.
However, I have heard more than a few of those supposed "strawman" arguments (a concept that is undeservedly overworked here at Hatrack) mentioned in serious conversations, at Hatrack and other places, and I am always amazed at how ignorant the people making these statements sound. There is a specific segmant of the population that ARE that ignorant, and they deserve to be made fun of, IMO.
The scary part is that they really believe what they are saying.
This list made fun of a specific mentality that opposes SSM. It was done sarcastically, as satire, and unless you hold one or more of those specific arguments (and I know you don't) as a main reason for opposing SSM then that list wasn't directed at you specifically.
Even if you feel it might have been.
Sorry, but I still found it clever, to a point, and funny.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
>> There is a specific segmant of the population that ARE that ignorant, and they deserve to be made fun of, IMO.
They deserve to be educated.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: >> There is a specific segmant of the population that ARE that ignorant, and they deserve to be made fun of, IMO.
They deserve to be educated.
Excellent comeback, Scott.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
I didn't find the first list amusing, but I've got to say that Chris has a flair for the funny. Number seven in particular cracked me up. "All the, you know, gayness lying around..." Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
Chris Bridges!!
Chris your version of the list was excellently funny. #3 was LOL funny and got me way too much attention from co-workers this morning. Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:And, I have to say, it seems that the people doing this all fall in the anti-gay marriage camp.
Of course - you're on the other side, so the slights towards that side are real.
I must also say that the worst experiences I have ever had on this board, in which I was called the worst things, were all on this topic. It's the only topic that's made me come close to quitting out of sheer disgust, and it's also the topic that brings out the qualities in people for which I have the least respect.
Sorry. You can blame Lalo.
Clearly people don't like being mocked. What you do with that is up to you.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:What you do with that is up to you.
:dances on it:
:cavorts on it:
:gambols on it:
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:One is a physical property of a human being, the other is not.
One can be changed, the other can't -- regardless of how fundamental a given belief might be.
Twink, this still doesn't really answer why one is more sacred than the other, it just repeats that it is. I know it is an axiom with you that they are different, and it's hard to explain the reasoning for our axioms, but it isn't one of mine. I think those things which are central to a person's identity and to change them would change a person's identity are all in the same category, where the only difference is occasionally in degree.
You don't. That's fine. You insist very firmly that they are different, but you haven't said why, only that you're shocked not everyone thinks that. You may be right, but your faith that you are is not convincing on its own.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: :gambols on it:
Perhaps you have a gamboling problem?
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
Twink-
I understand the point of view that it's painful for someone to make fun of something you can't do anything about, like skin color or gender. If they make fun of beliefs or choices, you're free to change them so they won't be made fun of anymore. But it's mean spirited to mock something someone can't do anything about anyway.
But you can turn it around. I have no control over whether I'm a man, or black, or short. So if someone tells a joke about short people it's not really about me, because I didn't decide to be short. But when a joke is made about something I've chosen, like my religious beliefs or political opinion, it's an attack on me, on how I choose to be. Who we are is more about our choices than our genetics.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Katie, you keep using words like "sacred," and from your posts it's evident that you view a person's religion -- in particular, your own -- as having such centrality to your existence that it is equivalent to physical characteristics you were born with. You consider them equivalent becase you believe in god. You believe in souls/spirits. I believe that these are ideas having no existence in the Platonic Form sense of the term. That's why we differ. You're grouping things by their centrality to a person's identity; I'm grouping things by their existence. Since we differ on that last point (existence), we differ in the larger discussion.
However, that's why I draw a distinction between a physical characteristic you're born with (race) and a set of ideas that you develop as you mature (ideology). One of these things exists in the physical world and can be described in physical terms. In the specific case of ethnicity, you have it for life, start to finish. You might become an atheist later in life, but your skin will still be the same colour.
Essentially, I don't care how central or peripheral your ethnicity is to your identity, because I'm not talking about it as an identity-defining trait -- merely as a physical trait. From this perspective, "attacking somone for ideas -> attacking someone for physical traits" is an apples-to-anvils comparison. They might both start with the letter "A," but there's no meaningful basis for comparing the two.
From a pragmatic perspective, when it comes to respectful dialogue, I've already said that I think the comparison is inappropriate because of history. It's obviously prone to misinterpretation, too. On a more topical note, I also make a great many of my arguments (my arguments for same-sex marriage in Canada, for instance) from a pragmatic perspective. There's a world of difference between debating whether same-sex marriage is right or wrong and debating whether same-sex marriage should be legal. The two are often conflated in threads like these.
Added: SR, does my post sufficiently address your point as well, in terms of explaining my position?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Twinky, I'm not just talking about religion. I use the word sacred because you seem to hold physical traits as so beyond mockable that they are sacrosanct. It's the best word I found for it - do you have another one.
What is it about physical traits that make it more important than other identity-defining traits? I know - it can't be changed. Neither can many of the other things without changing a person fundamentally. Other things central to a person can be changed, but then they would be someone else. "If you chose to be someone else, then it wouldn't bother you."
I don't believe that. I don't think the fundamental definition of person is limited to their physical traits. I'm not even talking about religion here, because that would add another layer.
We are is more than our physical descriptions. "Twinky" is more than a bare physical description of you. If you had an identitical twin that looked alike in every way, he would still not be Twinky. In that case, what other things mark you as twinky and no one else? They are all identifiers, and they are all in the same category.
*points* Note that at no point did I mention a soul. Don't use my religion as an excuse to ignore what I'm saying - I'm not basing it on my religion.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:I don't think the fundamental definition of person is limited to their physical traits.
I don't either. As I said, I don't care how central to your identity your physical traits are. I'm not interested in the question of identity as far as this discussion is concerned. It is simply in poorer taste to mock a person's race than it is to mock their religion. Both may be in poor taste, but mocking race is worse. That doesn't imply -- nor have I said -- that race is more fundamental to identity than religion.
We're talking about two entirely different things.
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
Doesn't it come back to what Squick said? You can weigh the merits of an idea, discuss it, and come to conclusion about which idea is best (best for everyone, best for you, whatever), which you cannot do for skin colour, gender, etc.
So when you slander something that intrinsic you're essentially dehumanising them. We cannot assign value to all skin colour, except your skin colour, and your skin colour is worse.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Right.
Added: Physical characteristic != idea. Both may be central to identity, but that does not make them the same.
Added 2: And the "centrality to identity" point is the one I don't care about in this thread. The "not sameness" is the important point for the purposes of this discussion.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:So when you slander something that intrinsic you're essentially dehumanising them.
Maybe the conflict here is "intrinsic." I think if something is in the category of This Defines Me, then it is intrinsic. How much it is is a matter of degree.
quote:The "not sameness" is the important point for the purposes of this discussion
I already agreed they are not the same, because the degree is different. That makes them different degrees in the same category. If I understand what you are saying, you don't believe they are in the same category.
Are you not putting them in the same category on the theory that doing so would start a slippery slope? I agree that Rasicst Jokes are Very, Very Bad, but they can be Very, Very Bad while mocking jokes at someone's ideology's expense are Bad.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Tangentially: Ideas are not intrinsic. You were not born with your religion.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
You believe that only the things we are born with are intrinsic?
Everything that is Twinky was there when you were born?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Intrinsic has both meanings Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
I think you kind of missed the point. Maybe not, and maybe we'll just have to agree to disagree, but let me just flesh that out a little more.
The reason I'm using intrinsic here is because these are basic human characteristics, you are born into them, you cannot change them, and everyone must have them. This is not true with ideas, you can get through life never having thought about the things that are so important to another person's way of life. Because of this we can say that all people have a skin colour, they all have a country of origin, etc. We cannot say that they all have a particular moral code, or stance on political position "x".
So we agree that these things are basic aspects of humanity. And if we're all people and all equal (and we all want to be treated equally) than all these things must be equal as well. As soon as you say they're not you have, essentially, denied the person the basic humanity that his peers share. The only way that this person's skin colour may not be the equal of his peers is if, in fact, this person is not human.
The same simply cannot be said for ideas. There was a thought process that led you to them. One might say that the thought process is, in my use of the term, intrinsic. And that all humans, by nature of being human, must have ideas, but the specifics of these ideas are not so rigidly defined. So if you say that idea 'x' is stupid, you may be rude, you may be very hurtful, but you don't deny them humanity.
Yes? No? Back to this agree to disagree thing?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Oh, that makes sense. Okay.
I still put mocking someone's ideology on the list of things that gentlemen do not do, but I understand what you mean by saying they are different. Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:I already agreed they are not the same, because the degree is different. That makes them different degrees in the same category. If I understand what you are saying, you don't believe they are in the same category.
I don't believe that they are in the same category for the purposes of this discussion.
quote:Are you not putting them in the same category on the theory that doing so would start a slippery slope?
In a practical sense, yes, and history supports my view.
quote:You believe that only the things we are born are the things that are intrinsic?
Everything that is Twinky was there when you were born?
Insofar as "intrinsic" is synonymous with "inherent," then I believe the first sentence but not the second. The things you are born with are the things that you start life with. Everything else is added later. This does not mean that the things that get added later are not fundamental to your identity!
However, the second sentence in no way follows from the first. I don't agree with the second sentence.
Added: Well, then. BtL said it way better. Never mind. Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
Psh, you're behind the times, twinky. She's already on board.
*yawn* I'll call you if I need my drink refilled or summin'. Now go do... whatever it is you do. Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Putter around in my office and wait for the Ministry of the Environment to call me?
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
That sounds fine. Actually the Minister of the Environment is sitting next to me. He says you're a putz.
Sorry, just telling it like it is.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Well, after that flare incident this morning...
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
And, to be fair:
10 Reasons Why Gay Marriage Should Be Legal
01) Sexual preference is genetic, not chosen, and people should not be penalized over it. The Xq28 region of my own genetic code, for example, determined at my birth that I would be attracted to wiry, blond, left-handed, piano-playing, Red Sox fans that are no good for me and may even be married to other people, and the legislature and the American people must accept that.
02) A representative government should always be ready and willing to change from the bottom up to reflect the social fads of tiny, vocal minorities.
03) Marriage isn't just about raising children, it's also about commitment and love and those tasty tax breaks and getting my parents off my back to go out and get married, already.
04) Marriage must change to serve the needs of society as determined by whichever element of society "wants it more."
05) Straight marriages often result in abuse and divorce, and gay marriage should only have to clear the lowest possible bar. Gays can have just as many abusive relationships as straight people any day. More, even.
06) Judging gay people solely by their sexuality is discriminatory and wrong. The men in the parade walking down Main Street wearing only tight leather chaps and waggling large rubber devices at the crowds as they tongue-kiss each other should be judged on their worth as human beings.
07) Laws banning gay marriage violate the separation of church and state which is specifically mentioned in the Constitution in section... um... hang on, it's here somewhere, I remember it... Well, the state can't formally recognize a religion, and that's close enough.
08) When God said no gay sex, He just meant those guys in the desert that one time and, truth to tell, they were out of line. And isn't that whole religion thing old-fashioned anyway?
09) All other things being equal, children raised by gay parents are every bit as capable and healthy as children raised by straight parents according to our sponsored surveys of three carefully chosen families published in an obscure journal you never heard of.
10) Gay marriage is a civil rights issue and should be afforded the same respect as rights for blacks or women, because sexual urges are every bit as important as gender and racial equality.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
Thanks, Chris; I was hoping we'd get the top ten from the other side. I even tried writing them last night, but unfortunately I've found I have no talent for it.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
Hmmm, that was an interesting exercise on a couple of levels. I didn't find it funny (big surprise, right), even though I was determined to try as I read it. Did any of you anti-SSM folk find it funny? Was it even nearly as funny as Chris's first 10?
Chris, do you think it is as funny? (I'm not trying to pin you down on political leanings here, I'm seriously asking your opinion of your two works.)
That said, I did smile at #8. I wonder if that is because my patience tends to run thin with people who expect a religion to change for them.
Posted by Straw Man (Member # 8754) on :
3 reasons why SSM should be legal:
A. There are no valid reasons to be against it. Shut up, you bigot.
B. There is no "sanctity" of marriage to destory. You don't believe me? Brittney Spears. 'Nuff said.
C. Allowing SSM will result in a positive change for marriage. We know this because we are able to precisely engineer the social consequences of our actions, which has enabled us to eliminate poverty, racism, and war.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
I don't think Chris's second list is as funny as his first, but still funnier and less offensive than the original list... for those who want my opinion. Straw Man's list sounds a lot closer in tone to the original list, to me.
Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
quote: You! Sissy boy! Get a football, you want your kid to grow up weak? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There was definitely some audible laughter with this one.
I don't think that concept is as wholly laughable as some people might. i believe there is some merit to the idea that it would do some people some good to toughen up a little. And the effects of being a certain way (too tough or too weak) would definitely trickle down to one's children.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
This one was a great deal tougher to do, for a couple of reasons.
First, I wanted it to sound funny to people who find bans on gay marriage self-evident just as the original list (and my first one) was aimed at people who find acceptance of gay marriage self-evident. I'm in favor of gay marriage and the quirks of the more extreme anti arguments came more easily to me.
And I wanted to avoid the more hateful arguments in this direction and, frankly, that didn't leave too many that were easy to mock in a quick capsule form.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by twinky: I have no problem with the tongue smiley; it's rivka who doesn't like it, IIRC.
WHAT?! It's a darned lie, I tell you! Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
I didn't find it *as* funny, but I chuckled at #6 - #9.
Doesn't change what I think about SSM, but I certainly don't feel personally attacked in any way.
Actually, I think #9 does have quite a bit of truth to it, and that's why it is funny. People use dumb surveys and dumb statistics on both sides of this debate - I don't think it's the kind of thing that should be decided by data.
***
Katie:
quote: quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- And, I have to say, it seems that the people doing this all fall in the anti-gay marriage camp. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course - you're on the other side, so the slights towards that side are real.
Nope. Not what I said.
And I don't see anyone "on the other side" feeling personally attacked by Chris's second list.
Not thinking the list is funny != feeling personally attacked.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: >> There is a specific segment of the population that ARE that ignorant, and they deserve to be made fun of, IMO.
They deserve to be educated.
That's the problem, Scott....they refuse to become "educated" and you can't teach someone who doesn't want to learn. Also, then you have the problem of who determines what a proper level of education is...
Are they only educated when they agree with you? Or is it possible to be educated on the issue and have opposing viewpoints?
I know a lot of people, here and other places, who claim that anyone who doesn't agree with them about (insert a subject here) is ignorant, because if they knew ANYTHING about the topic they would have to agree that (insert any argument here) is completely true.
I don't believe this to be true, but I still say you can't teach someone who isn't willing to listen and learn.
You can make sure that everyone else knows how ignorant their arguments are to other, rational people though, and satire is one way of doing that.
(also, I want to be clear here...this argument was NOT directed at Dag, or Jim, or mph... or anyone else who disagrees with the ideas behind this list, or this argument. While I don't agree with them, I do respect their views, and their right to hold their own opinions It is directed at people who take those arguments particular seriously.)
Posted by Treason (Member # 7587) on :
Obviously, I found the first list Chris posted funnier (wonder why) but this one made me laugh too. Especially : "The men in the parade walking down Main Street wearing only tight leather chaps and waggling large rubber devices at the crowds as they tongue-kiss each other should be judged on their worth as human beings."
OMG! Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
I laughed at both lists, although more at the first one. Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
#3 and #7 are funny in an objective sense, I think. I think it's probably true that there's more material to work with in the other direction because people arguing AGAINST something like gay marriage cut across a broader swath of the population and thus are likely provide a broader range of ideas that could be lampooned (along with a mix of things that aren't easily lampooned, of course).
I was sitting here trying to come up with some other funnies, and it was tough. I might, for instance, have thrown in a:
#) Because we want it.
But, you know, it's just not all that funny. I mean, I know that there are homosexual couples who simply assert the bald-faced "we should be allowed to be married, period" argument, and, to an extent I agree with them. I see the fairness issue inherent in this. But it's tough to lampoon it.
I thought of maybe trying to improve on some of Chris' ideas, and I really couldn't come up with anything better. In part because Chris IS funny already. But also because even the ones I didn't find all that funny are funnier than the things I thought of as changes.
Then there are the types of things I think Chris was avoiding, and many people probably wouldn't have.
Like:
#) I'd look fabulous in a tiara.
I mean, it's silly and I've heard gay men say things like this in jest, but it's not really an argument that one hears a lot in favor of homosexual marriage. Plus it's more a wedding joke, not a marriage joke.
Oh well. At some point, it just gets analyzed into dust.
I have to face it, there are at least several things at play here:
1) Top ten lists are inherently not that funny 2) It's not as easy lampooning ideas one has sympathy with 3) There's more material to work with from the "anti" side of practically ANY issue, but especially ones involving morality in the US, but that could just be because it's the majority viewpoint and thus has a broader spectrum of ideas from which to pick (from the sublime to the utterly whacky).
Thanks Chris! That was pretty interesting!
Posted by andi330 (Member # 8572) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: It's not even attacking a belief, it's attacking a bunch of dumb, easily refutable statements. It's mocking statements that, to me, deserve to be mocked, but it doesn't mock a group of people or even a belief. I don't see the basis for making that claim.
It is not mocking easily refutable statments -- it is mocking people with a certain belief by putting those dumb, easily refutable statments in their mouths.
Considering I've heard those same dumb, easily refutable statments come out of innumberable peoples mouths...
That's probably why I found it more sad than amusing; because people around here (meaning South Carolina) make those same statments, or statements very similar to them all the time.
It did still garner a chuckle. Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
I haven't read the whole thread, nor even past the first page. But I have to say this. People were responding to the total destruction of those arguments as if they were personally insulted. I saw someone mention that to insult someones believes is far worse than insulting anything physical.
Look at the arguments being refuted. If you actually believe those, if you actually feel insulted by that then maybe you need to SERIOUSLY reconsider your beliefs. LOOK at the points its making. If your belief closely enough matches one of those arguments that you feel insulted then you should seriously consider the fact that your belief makes no sense which is what that little thing is pointing out.
I've seen it time and time again and always just sort of chuckled at it. It isn't really making fun of anyone or anything. Its taking some arguments are that commonely used to try and provide support for why gay marrige should be illegal and pointing out in a sarcastic and humorous way that they make no sense.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:I still say you can't teach someone who isn't willing to listen and learn.
Exactly. And a great way to make sure that they won't listen to you is to mock and belittle them.
edit: It doesn't do any good to claim "but I wasn't mocking them -- I was mocking their beliefs." If people feel like they've been mocked, the chance of them listening to you is almost zero.
[ October 21, 2005, 01:30 AM: Message edited by: mr_porteiro_head ]
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
Alcon (and to lesser extent, Kwea),
It's not that I have those beliefs, I'm not even on that side of the argument...
it's in the way those beliefs were portrayed... when you put words in someone else's mouth, you are on dangerous ground and doing it in such a manner as to make your opponent seem malicious is near guaranteed to provoke. Chris said he was going for "oblivious" rather than "mean", and I think that did a lot to make his lists less objectionable. His lists come off like someone saying "you goofball!", the original list comes off as someone saying "you b@$t@rd!".
Galileo probably would not have seen one bit of persecution if he hadn't published a play wherein the Pope's character was named "fool." Sarcasm is only useful for scoring points with the choir and closing the minds of everyone else.
Edit: I'm suddenly taken with the idea that it was a series of political cartoons, rather than a play... details escaping... mind going...
[ October 21, 2005, 09:34 AM: Message edited by: Jim-Me ]
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
Honestly? Chris's second list did make me feel uncomfortable in parts. Because there are things in it that I don't support, and which embarrass the heck out of me when I hear about them.
So I can understand why some people felt uncomfortable with the original list and Chris's first list.
The difference is that I'm vocal about rejecting the things in Chris's list that I find gross. Whereas I've seen people on this forum actually making many of the arguments that were mocked in the first two lists.
And... I mean, what about this:
quote:Originally posted by odouls268:
quote: You! Sissy boy! Get a football, you want your kid to grow up weak? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There was definitely some audible laughter with this one.
I don't think that concept is as wholly laughable as some people might. i believe there is some merit to the idea that it would do some people some good to toughen up a little. And the effects of being a certain way (too tough or too weak) would definitely trickle down to one's children.
Is there some way to respond to this without just laughing? I'm sorry if that offends you, odouls268, but you need to get over the gender stereotypes you find comfortable. People are people, and it's the tough men who've waged almost all the wars in history. We need more of that like we need herpes.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:it's the tough men who've waged almost all the wars in history. We need more of that like we need herpes.
Wow. That's one of the most offensive things I've seen said here in ages. Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
That presupposes that war is never necessary. It was also tough guys who fought against conquerers and despots to defend their loved ones and their countries.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
it also takes a tough guy to turn the other cheek
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
And to pick me up and spin me around.
Wait, was that out loud?
Posted by Shmuel (Member # 7586) on :
And to make a tender chicken.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Beg to differ. No tough guy am I, and I make a wonderfully tender chicken. Plan on cooking a couple later today, in fact.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote: when you put words in someone else's mouth, you are on dangerous ground and doing it in such a manner as to make your opponent seem malicious is near guaranteed to provoke.
One more time....these aren't straw men, and no one else put these into idiots mouths. They ARE being used as arguments against SSM, I have even heard politicians use the "marry your dog" argument on national TV, for Christ's sake!
My point was that people like that aren't seriously considering the issue, and will not be swayed by logical discussions of the issue.
I know Jim-me, Dag, mph, and others have serious issues with SSM, and I even understand some of the problems they have with it, because I use to feel the same way myself. That doesn't mean that I ever agreed with any of the arguments posted in that list though, so I was not offended by it at all.
quote:edit: It doesn't do any good to claim "but I wasn't mocking them -- I was mocking their beliefs." If people feel like they've been mocked, the chance of them listening to you is almost zero.
I don't care about that segment of the population, or what they think, to be honest. I don't believe that they are open to any discussion of the issue, for the most part.
I do think that it is interesting that people keep claiming that these arguments are made up arguments though, considering how often they actually come up in this type of conversation, though. I have not seen anyone claim that they were the ONLY arguments against it, or that sarcasm is the only refutation of them...
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I know Jim-me, Dag, mph, and others have serious issues with SSM
For the record, I support equal civil marriage rights for homosexual couples, although I prefer the whole thing be renamed "civil union" for both mixed and same sex couples. But my support for the former is not conditioned on the latter.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:
quote: It doesn't do any good to claim "but I wasn't mocking them -- I was mocking their beliefs." If people feel like they've been mocked, the chance of them listening to you is almost zero.
I don't care about that segment of the population, or what they think, to be honest. I don't believe that they are open to any discussion of the issue, for the most part.
Are you saying that people that felt that the first list was mocking them (as I did -- I think the purpose of it is to mock all people who are aginast SSM) are people that you don't care about, because we are not open to any discussion of the issue?
Posted by Treason (Member # 7587) on :
I think what Kwea meant was the portion of the population who actually believe those particular arguments and use them. Not everyone against SSM.
(I'm prettty sure that's right, Kwea?)
edit: to clarify
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by camus: it also takes a tough guy to turn the other cheek
I'm not talking about tough in the sense of strong moral fiber (not that I think turning the other cheek is a positive thing, but just for the sake of argument). I'm talking about macho men who encourage their kids to play with guns and fight and be one more in a chain of macho nightmares.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
Dag, that's a good way of stating my opinion, too, I think. Assuming I understood you correctly .
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
*hands each of my kids a loaded .357*
go be macho nightmares, kids!
I'll be blunt here... my issue with starlisa's comments, as well as with the first list, is that they are prejudiced and stereotypical. Now, several people have defended the list as not being prejudiced because people are really like that... but my whole point is that the list exists to cast all people against SSM as being like that. This is just as prejudicial as lisa's statement above or as characterizing abortion opponents as clinic bombers who are out to chain all women to their stoves, barefoot and pregnant.
You may be able to find people like that, but berating them in a public arena is very likely to offend those who might have been ready to listen to you.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: For the record, I support equal civil marriage rights for homosexual couples, although I prefer the whole thing be renamed "civil union" for both mixed and same sex couples. But my support for the former is not conditioned on the latter.
Yeah, we've discussed this before, and I'd have no problem with removing the word "marriage" from laws -- indeed, unless my hypothetical future fiancee has strong feelings otherwise, I would prefer to be married by a Justice of the Peace in a place that is not a church. The trouble is that there is so much social inertia behind the use of the term "marriage" in the civil context that if the word were removed people with civil unions would still call themselves "married." If there was a convenient, non-cumbersome alternate term, that might be workable, but there isn't one. Couples who make this committment are used to calling it a marriage.
I know you know that, because you've said so yourself in the past [added: and that's why I think it's a good idea not to make support for same-sex marriage conditional on that particular change] -- I guess I'm just talking to no one in particular. Postcount++ or something.
Added: I think the LDS have a good way of making that distinction -- "married" versus "sealed."
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Couples who make this committment are used to calling it a marriage.
I have no problem with couples calling themselves married. What I want is the idea of marriage to become totally self-defined in a legal sense, while civil unions adopt the requirements, benefits, and obligations of legal marriage now.
of course, in a social sense, self-definition will probably group together by religious and philosophical views. That's great.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
I'm not quite sure I fully understand your second sentence. Are you saying that people should be free to call their relationship what they want (self-define) but that it should have a specific name that is not "marriage" for the purposes of drafting legal documents?
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
What should couples in a civil union call themselves, if not married? Civilly unionized?
-pH
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Are you saying that people should be free to call their relationship what they want (self-define) but that it should have a specific name that is not "marriage" for the purposes of drafting legal documents?
Yes. Exactly. No legal document drafted after this point would contain the words "married" or "marriage" or any derivatives.
quote:What should couples in a civil union call themselves, if not married?
I think they would call themselves married.
In the other thread we've been discussing feedback from the legal definition to the cultural definition. I'd like to attempt to sever that link by removing the word from the legal domain.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
This makes sense to me. The state should not be in the business of distributing sacraments.
Posted by KPhysicsGeek (Member # 8655) on :
Amen kmbboots.
Of course removing marriage from the legal sense would probably make few on either side happy so is probably a very good compromise.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
mph, not at all! I thought I had gone out of my way to specifically mention some people I didn't lump in with the other group, you in specific...
I am saying that the list was aimed at the segment of the population who really uses those particular arguments as a valid basis for refuting SSM. Other people, yourself included, may have felt it was mocking them as well, but I didn't see that....what I saw was a list that make fun of those specific arguments, and those that believe them and use them in their decision-making process.
Dag, I thought you were in favor for something like that, but I wasn't sure....I stand corrected. I just remembered that you didn't want it called marriage....a position that I completely understand myself.
As long as it has all the same benefits and drawbacks as marriage, I think that is the best solution, IMO.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I have often suggested here completely replacing marriages with civil unions, for precisely this reason. Oddly, the people who are loudest about the defense of marriage still oppose this, so I've come to the conclusion that what they're really opposing is not the use of the term "marriage" in legal documents but the potential acceptance of monogamous, long-term homosexual relationships.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Okay. Thanks, Dagonee.
I'm not sure how that would affect my hypothetical Justice of the Peace wedding; the Justice wouldn't be able to say "Okay, you two are married now." Alternative phrasings could be found, but removing "marriage" from law does make it more awkward for couples who want to get "married" civilly.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
They don't say "You two are married now" anyway, they say "I now pronounce you man and wife." Then there's usually something about kissin'. Anyway, not an issue.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Well, "I now pronounce you man and wife" is what ministers traditionally say when presiding over religious marriages. I think it would be at least somewhat awkward to have a secular wedding without mentioning the word "marriage." Could the presiding authority even refer to the ceremony as a "wedding?"
This is part of why my actual position is different from Dagonee's: I think that if someone's going to give up the word "marriage" and use something else, it should be the religious institutions, since I think their claim to exclusivity over it is less legitimate than the government's. Since neither has a strong claim for exclusivity, though I'm not terribly hung up on this point... which is why I said I'd be fine with marriageless laws.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:mph, not at all! I thought I had gone out of my way to specifically mention some people I didn't lump in with the other group, you in specific...
I am saying that the list was aimed at the segment of the population who really uses those particular arguments as a valid basis for refuting SSM. Other people, yourself included, may have felt it was mocking them as well, but I didn't see that....what I saw was a list that make fun of those specific arguments, and those that believe them and use them in their decision-making process.
Thanks for clarifying.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
That's actually the phrase used in all secular weddings I've been to. And they are referred to as weddings. And it's the phrase I've used in the three weddings I've performed as a licensed officiant in the State of Minnesota.
("By the power vested in me by the State of Minnesota I now pronounce you man and wife, you may now kiss the groom." as opposed to "By the power vested in me by the State of Minnesota, and the insert religious institution here, I now. . ." The people I have married are legally married only, not religiously married, as I do not have the endorsement of any church to perform religious sacraments.)
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Since neither has a strong claim for exclusivity, though I'm not terribly hung up on this point... which is why I said I'd be fine with marriageless laws.
That's pretty much how I feel, just reverse. I do not make my support for equal civil marriage rights contingent on removing the word "marriage" - it's just a preference. And I prefer keeping "marriage" for both than having "civil union" for one and "marriage" for the other.
Of course, I disagree with you about who has the stronger claim, but we're getting along so nicely right now we can let it slide. Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Hm. I've only been to one wedding, and it was secular. However, I was maybe sixteen or seventeen at the time, and have no recollection of the phrase the Justice of the Peace used. Under Dagonee's system, the presiding authority wouldn't be allowed to say "marriage," but everyone else would.
Edit: Dagonee just posted. Yes, our positions are quite similar except for that one reversal.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
I don't think that's true. The "marriage" certificate would no longer be called a marriage certificate, but the presiding authority could still say pretty much whatever they/the couple wanted. Here, at least, in order for a marriage to be legal there are two questions that have to be answered in the affirmative by both parties in front of witnesses, and then the witnesses and the officiant sign the certificate. All the rest is window dressing, and doesn't have to be phrased in any particular way. You don't even have to say the pronouncement part, it's just tradition. That's why people can write their own vows. . . the substance of that doesn't matter, they just have to say yes twice. So it could still be called marriage in the ceremony, even if legally it was a civil union for religious and secular ceremonies. Just the certificate would say "Certificate of Civil Union" or some such instead of 'Certificate of Marriage." 'Cause the government would be out of the marriage business.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Whereas in all the weddings I've officiated I've said:
"Now that [Name] and [Name] have given themselves to each other by solemn vows, with the joining of hands, and the giving and receiving of rings, I announce to you that they are husband and wife; in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit."
So I agree that the "pronounce" thing is not primarily a religious formula. Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
Twinky, You've only been to one wedding?
How'd you manage that?! I've been to 5-6 in the last 4 months!
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
At the secular wedding I attended, I didn't see anyone sign a certificate. Maybe they did it before or after the wedding, or spirited the Justice away sometime during the ceremony, but the wedding wasn't anything like going down to the marriage office and signing the relevant document. It was a lot like the traditional conception of a church wedding, except without religion. I think they did this because the bride came from a mixed-religion home (Christian mother, Muslim father).
quote:Originally posted by ElJay: So it could still be called marriage in the ceremony, even if legally it was a civil union for religious and secular ceremonies.
This really doesn't make sense to me, which is why my ideal outcome is what happened here in Canada -- the gender specificity was removed from the legal definition of "marriage." What you're saying is indeed what would happen in practice if "marriage" were removed from laws, but from (as usual) a pragmatic standpoint it makes a lot more sense to stick with the word everyone's already using.
quote:Originally posted by dkw: So I agree that the "pronounce" thing is not primarily a religious formula.
Well, it certainly comes from Christian tradition, and I imagine it's still used in plenty of religious marriages. Whether it's "standard" in both religious and secular marriages I have no idea. So I suppose it depends on how you mean "primarily" (common usage, or descent).
quote:Originally posted by JT: You've only been to one wedding?
Yup. For a while I thought I'd never been to a wedding at all, but then I remembered that one. As to why I haven't been to more... I'm an only child, and don't have much extended family on this continent. None of my close friends are married. In my wider circle of friends, none are married but some are engaged.
*shrug*
I never thought much of it, really, but people seem surprised when the subject comes up. Then again, I don't think about marriage much, except in the context of discussions like this one.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
I'd rather be in your shoes than mine. Weddings are fun and all, but I only have one suit and I'm starting to learn all the waitstaff's names at the local reception site.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
You would very rarely see the certificate as a guest at a church wedding either. It's usually signed either right before or right after the ceremony.
Either that or you get a panicky call at your hotel from your father who is also the minister telling you not to go upstairs because he forgot to have you sign the certificate and you're not really married. That happened to a friend of mine.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Yep. You say "I do" and/or "I will" during the ceremony, and then do the signings sometime between the wedding and the reception. In Minnesota, the people getting married don't even sign the certificate, just the witnesses and the person performing the wedding. But I know that's different in other states.
(I think we should stick with the word "marriage," too. Just saying if the legal word became something else, that would not stop the word being used in weddings of either sort.)
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
FYI, not all wedding ceremonies contain the words "I do," "I will" or even "Yes."
In fact, not all are conducted in English.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Yep. You say "I do" and/or "I will" during the ceremony, and then do the signings sometime between the wedding and the reception. In Minnesota, the people getting married don't even sign the certificate, just the witnesses and the person performing the wedding. But I know that's different in other states.
We signed before the wedding day, gave it to the priest, and he signed it after the wedding and mailed it in for us.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
True, rivka. I should have said, in Minnesota, the couple must each answer in the affirmative to two seperate questions of intent. Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Um, you're missing my point. In a Jewish ceremony, there are no affirmative responses (not verbal ones, at least). In fact, the bride doesn't speak at all. (And I am pretty sure such a ceremony is still legal in Minnesota.)
I believe there are other religions/cultures in this country that also have marriage ceremonies that do not involve "affirmative responses."
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
It doesn't matter what the presiding official doing the ceremony calls it, or how the law defines it. The couple and everyone else is going to call it 'married'.
"Yeah, Stan and I just got civilly-unioned."
I don't think so. Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: In fact, the bride doesn't speak at all.
How do they verify that the bride does in fact wish to marry?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
As I said, no verbal affirmation. But if she doesn't extend her hand to accept the ring, or if she were to refuse to accept the ketubah (marriage contract), the wedding would stop immediately (and not be valid).
quote:Originally posted by Storm Saxon: It doesn't matter what the presiding official doing the ceremony calls it, or how the law defines it. The couple and everyone else is going to call it 'married'.
"Yeah, Stan and I just got civilly-unioned."
I don't think so.
Actually, I know a lot of gay people who refer to it as a "commitment ceremony" as in committing to spend a lifetime with one partner. They often refer to it as such both before and after the fact.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
'Stan and I just got commtted!'
Yes, that says true love.
I believe you, andi, but I've only known gay couples who got married in church. They refer to themselves as married, honestly, what do the couples you know who've gone through ceremonies refer to their state as?
I'm not trying to reignite the flames of controversy here. It just seems odd to me to refer to the ceremony you go through wherein you pledge your fidelity, etc, to them for the rest of your life as anything other than what it obviously is to me--marriage. It also sounds right, has the right connotations for me. I wouldn't know what someone meant of they referred to the state of their attachment as 'committed'. That would honestly be confusing.
[ October 22, 2005, 01:09 AM: Message edited by: Storm Saxon ]
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
What would you call it when two people swear to love and protect each other for as long as they both shall live? If its legally called a Civil Union, I'd suggest we call it getting Civil-ized.
Posted by Princess Leah (Member # 6026) on :
So I could say that my brother is unCivil-ized and back it up with cold, hard, undisputable facts!
edit:spelling
Posted by JenniK (Member # 3939) on :
Ahh....this is Kwea again. I HATE it when she forgets to log off, and then I forget that she hasn't...
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:mph, not at all! I thought I had gone out of my way to specifically mention some people I didn't lump in with the other group, you in specific...
I am saying that the list was aimed at the segment of the population who really uses those particular arguments as a valid basis for refuting SSM. Other people, yourself included, may have felt it was mocking them as well, but I didn't see that....what I saw was a list that make fun of those specific arguments, and those that believe them and use them in their decision-making process.
Thanks for clarifying.
No problem...this is a touchy subject, on both sides of the issues, so it never hurts to be very, very clear....even if it takes 14 posts to do so. Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by andi330:
quote:Originally posted by Storm Saxon: It doesn't matter what the presiding official doing the ceremony calls it, or how the law defines it. The couple and everyone else is going to call it 'married'.
"Yeah, Stan and I just got civilly-unioned."
I don't think so.
Actually, I know a lot of gay people who refer to it as a "commitment ceremony" as in committing to spend a lifetime with one partner. They often refer to it as such both before and after the fact.
Not only did my partner and I call ours a commitment ceremony, we went out of our way, both verbally and in the text of the booklet we made for the occasion, to emphasize that it was not a wedding.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
While I appreciate you giving support to the whole commitment ceremony idea, I'm really more interested in the 'why', when if it quacks like a duck, farts like a duck, and craps like a duck--by jingo, it's a freaking duck. Like, if you were on Jeopardy, and Alex Trebek stated "The name of a ceremony wherein two people in love pledge to spend the rest of their life together.", what is the answer that everyone will understand without jumping through hoops? Why use a word that no one knows what the heck you're talking about when there's a perfectly satisfactory one right there? What's the difference between the state you and your partner are in, the ideal you've committed yourself to, and the heterosexual state of marriage that a different word needs to be used?
Now, don't get me wrong. I am totally with you that the state needs to get out of the marriage business. But that doesn't mean that the idea of marriage can't be used by the private individual.
Edited in shame
[ October 23, 2005, 04:52 AM: Message edited by: Storm Saxon ]
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
On Jeopardy, the contestants ask the questions. Trebek makes statements.
Sheesh!
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I'm really more interested in the 'why', when if it quacks like a duck, farts like a duck, and craps like a duck--by jingo, it's a freaking duck.
Because, Storm, the entire controversy is about whether it does quack, fart, crap, or taste like a duck.
If one thing should be clear, it's that many people attach a particular, religious interpretation to what marriage is.
From what starLisa has posted, my impression is that she believes that, according to Jewish law or tradition (I'm not sure which word is really appropriate), a marriage is between a man and a woman, but that a relationship such as hers is not against Jewish law. In that case, she is being true to her beliefs in not calling it a marriage.
Your entire question attempts to circumvent the entire disputed issue.
Posted by esl (Member # 3143) on :
disclaimer: I don't know anyone in this situation, so I'm speculating here.
I get the feeling that it's called a committment ceremony because the law doesn't recognize it. The fact that they don't say marriage reminds them that the government is treating gay couples unfairly. So if they were married in the eyes of the government, they would call it a wedding instead of a committment ceremony.
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
Hey Dag, I was wondering, if I decide some random word is part of my religion, will you back me up when I want to dictate what the word means?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Hey jebus, I was wondering, did you bother reading the previous page of the thread?
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: Your entire question attempts to circumvent the entire disputed issue.
Do ya think? Can we get a no shite, sherlock, in the house?
I know how you and others against gay marriage feel, in general. I just don't know how Lisa feels about her marriage, specifically. If she's posted her thoughts on the matter elsewhere, I missed it. That's why my question was directed at Lisa and wasn't stated as a general argument aimed at those who don't want to call gay marriage 'marriage'. It wasn't really an attempt at building a pro-gay marriage argument so much as honest puzzlement over why she and other gay people would call it something else when, as far as *I* can see, it clearly is, and calling it something else is confusing as heck to me. I am still unclear as to what she and most other gay couples who go through a committment ceremony would call their relationship because, all sarcasm aside, I think 'committed' is really inadequately descriptive, not least because no one knows what the heck it really means without elaborate explanation.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
What the fock?
"If one thing should be clear, it's that many people attach a particular, religious interpretation to what marriage is."
Is this somehow not relevant to your question? Did you just skip it so you could pull one sentence out of context and be a jerk about it?
starLisa is very religious. Did you somehow think that the fact that she is gay made it impossible for her to still hold a religious belief about marriage that doesn't include female-female relationships within it?
It's apparently not as obvious as no "shite, sherlock" would suggest because in neither the original question nor your little lecture to me did you bother to acknowledge that this might be relevant to starLisa's thinking.
I wasn't telling you what I thought about gay marriage. If you have honest puzzlement over why she and other people would call it something different, it's an indication that, to you, the idea of a religious definition of marriage mattering to a gay person is not "no shite, sherlock" obvious.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Sigh. Just move on. The point is that I'm asking Lisa a question. Not you.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
I guess, actually, that can be amended to any other gay people who've gone through ceremonies. Love to hear from you, too. What do you call, or plan to call, your relationship after ceremonies where you pledge lifetime committment to your partner?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Sigh. Just move on. The point is that I'm asking Lisa a question. Not you.
Huh. Seems to me you could have just said that. I mean, if you were going to ignore what I said, it's possible to do that without trying to trivialize it.
Nice touch with the "sigh," though. You're so put upon.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
And further, you weren't just asking a question. You were making an assertion, namely, that "it quacks like a duck, farts like a duck, and craps like a duck."
When you put an opinion out there on a gay marriage thread, expect it to be challenged. If you're interested in asking somebody's opinion, ask for it.
And if you happen to do both in the same post, don't get pissy when someone doesn't make the separation you should have.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Storm Saxon: While I appreciate you giving support to the whole commitment ceremony idea, I'm really more interested in the 'why', when if it quacks like a duck, farts like a duck, and craps like a duck--by jingo, it's a freaking duck.
Maybe. But in Judaism, there's no such single thing as "marriage" the way you might think of it. Rather, there are two ceremonies / procedures / rituals, which together constitute pretty much what you'd call marriage.
Kiddushin, or Erusin, is the first part. In this ceremony, the man gives the woman a ring (in principle, it doesn't have to be a ring, but really anything above a certain value), and says a line in Hebrew that creates the status of Kiddushin.
Once the couple has finished this part, they are married in the sense that they need a get (writ of divorce) in order to no longer be married. The woman may not have sex with any man, including her husband. All of the various laws which pertain to a woman who is married now pertain to her.
Once upon a time, this ceremony used to be separated from the second ceremony for as much as a year. Nowadays, we continue straight into the second part, which is called Chuppah, or Nisuin.
Only after Nisuin are the couple permitted to have marital relations. And no, back when the two ceremonies were separated, they were not expected to live together celibately. The woman remained living in her parents' home in the interim.
Now, the reason I've bored you with the details is that these ceremonies, Kiddushin and Nisuin, have rules just like all of our ritual acts have rules. You can't say kiddush over a watermelon. You can't have a 5 year old lead services. You can't write a Torah scroll with a crayon. And you can't do Kiddushin or Nisuin without one male Jew and one unmarried female Jew. It just doesn't apply.
Judaism is very gender differentiated. Right now, we're in the middle of the festival of Sukkot. We eat our meals (weather allowing) in booths that we build outside of our homes. In principle, we sleep in them as well. Again, weather allowing. But men are obligated to do so, and women aren't. Men are obligated to pray three times a day, and women are just obligated to pray daily. Men are obligated to wear tefillin (phylacteries), and women are not. And the list goes on and on and on.
Judaism is built on a structure of differences. We never do anything to try and blur them. There are statuses of Kohen, Levi, Yisrael, Mamzer, Gerushah, Chalal, Ger/Giyoret, etc. When Shabbat ends, we do a thing called havdalah, which actually means "distinction". During havdalah, we speak of God as having differentiated between sacred and profane, between light and dark, between Jews and non-Jews, and between the seventh day (Shabbat) and the six days of creation.
A Kohen can't go into a cemetary (except to bury a parent, a child, a sibling or a spouse) or marry a divorcee or a convert. A mamzer can only marry another mamzer or a convert. A Torah scroll can only be written by a male Jew. A woman can't testify (except in certain exceptional circumstances) in a rabbinic court.
This is Judaism. This is the Torah. This is what God told us to do.
But anything that isn't required, we don't have to do. And anything that isn't forbidden, we can do. For example, when a Jewish boy turns 13 years and a day, he is a Bar Mitzvah, obligated in all the commandments. When a Jewish girl turns 12 years and a day, she is a Bat Mitzvah, obligated in all her commandments as well. No ceremony is necessary for this to happen. It's automatic.
It's been very common throughout most of our history to celebrate a boy's Bar Mitzvah. It was relatively rare, but not unknown to celebrate a girl's Bat Mitzvah. But these days, it's quite common to do so, and that's because we like celebrating happy things. We certainly mourn enough for unhappy things; why not have a good time when we can.
A Bat Mitzvah celebration has no significance in Jewish law. You can do it when the girl is 10, and it just doesn't mean anything. You can do it when she's 45, and it similarly doesn't change anything. But if you have a 45 year old woman who never had any kind of Jewish education, and she decides to learn and have a Bat Mitzvah celebration at that age, it certainly means a lot to her. And to her friends and loved ones. Even if it has no actual religious significance.
It was in that spirit that we had our commitment ceremony. We wanted to share our love and our commitment for one another with friends and family. We wanted to celebrate a very happy thing. But it has no religious significance.
When you say that if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck... well, you know, in different languages, concepts are formed differently. To use a classic example, an object with a flat surface and four legs positioned at the corners is a table. Such a thing used to serve food is a dining room or kitchen table. Such a thing positioned in front of a sofa is a coffee table. Use it to do work on, and it's a desk. It's no longer a subset of "table"; it's something different in basic character.
Ah, but in Hebrew, what we call a desk is called something that translates as "writing table". In Hebrew, and in the minds of Hebrew speakers, a desk is a subset of "table" in a way that it isn't in English.
This works for cultures as well as for languages (and for the same reasons). What constitutes relevant similarities is subjective. Remember the "one of these things is not like the other" game on Sesame Street? Well, suppose the four pictures are of a cow, a sheep, a horse and a tomato. I imagine most Americans would select the tomato as the one that doesn't belong. Fine, but I'd select the horse. It's the one that isn't kosher.
I fully understand that the eyes that see the tomato as the odd thing out would also see our commitment ceremony as a wedding and our relationship as marital. But to the eyes that see the horse as the thing that's different, there's a world of difference between what we did and getting married.
quote:Originally posted by Storm Saxon: Like, if you were on Jeopardy, and Alex Trebek stated "The name of a ceremony wherein two people in love pledge to spend the rest of their life together.", what is the answer that everyone will understand without jumping through hoops? Why use a word that no one knows what the heck you're talking about when there's a perfectly satisfactory one right there? What's the difference between the state you and your partner are in, the ideal you've committed yourself to, and the heterosexual state of marriage that a different word needs to be used?
In secular law, there isn't. I don't think so, anyway. I'm in favor of whatever it's called being equally accessible (or inaccessible) to opposite-sex couples and same-sex couples. Right now, it's marriage, so my partner and I should be able to get married. We should be able to file our taxes jointly, just like any other married couple. We should be able to hold title in our home as a married couple. We'd just do it before a judge, and not do some kind of fakey "Jewish same-sex marriage". I don't believe in that.
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
quote:Hey jebus, I was wondering, did you bother reading the previous page of the thread?
Of course I did... Well most of it... The important bits... I definitly read the bit about trick-or-treating and spare clothes, that ketchupqueen is a riot, isn't she?
Anyway, so are you saying that you won't help me dictate the word in question's use but you will help me remove it from any kind of official usage so that everyone is happy?
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Thanks for your wonderful reply, Lisa. Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
But, it's still unclear to me what you call yourselves so that your committed life status with your...SO? wife?...see, it's confusing:)...is accurately described. As for that, what do you call your 'wife' when people ask?
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
We generally use "partner". I often use "boss", at least when she's not in the room. <grin>
"Partner" has become common enough that it's even used by some married couples. And by many common-law married folks. I think that's a shame, because it reflects the way in which marriage as an institution has declined, but "wife" tends to push buttons.
Of course, when I feel like pushing buttons... <grin>
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
It's really not confusing, Storm Saxon. Just because we are uninformed about a particular subject-in this case, the particulars of starLisa's living arrangements and love life-do not make it 'confusing' (implying that the issue needs to be 'clarified'), it means we're uninformed.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
O.K., Lisa. Thanks for clarification.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Kiss]](graemlins/kiss.gif)
<-- Tante Shvester![[Hail]](graemlins/hail.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
Wow. That's one of the most offensive things I've seen said here in ages.