For everyone over on the gay thread who thinks that SSM would harm them.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Has anyone opposed to SSM on that thread said that allowing SSM would harm them?
I'm beginning to think Pixiest was right; there's no discussing this subject, not even to try and disseminate one's own reasonings on it. There's too much capacity for aggressive misunderstanding.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
My... such a tolerant and understanding picture of Christians. The nightstick to beat comprehension into people is such a tried and true tactic of compassion and winning people over with kindness, almost as loving and inviting as Torquemada's ideas.
I guess you and Something Positive really showed us didn't you?
I do, however, remain in favor of giving some form of legal rights to gay couples... even ones who believe their opponents should be beaten into submission, whether literally or figuratively.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Scott R, I sadly came to that conclusion a while ago. There are a few glimmers of a respectful conversation, but it's drowned under the cacophony of deliberate misunderstanding.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Has anyone opposed to SSM on that thread said that allowing SSM would harm them?
I'm virtually positive that nobody has.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:Has anyone opposed to SSM on that thread said that allowing SSM would harm them?
Insofar as they consider themselves part of society and have claimed that it would be a detriment (i.e. harmful) to society, I think the answer is "yes".
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
LOL, if there's any ambiguity inherent in a phrase, I'm beginning to think you'll see Porter and me on oppposite sides of it. Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
En garde!
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Karl-- I understand that response. I took starLisa's italicizing of the word 'them' to mean 'them as individuals' rather than 'them as a part of society.'
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
If diplomacy is the vaseline of social intercourse, ambiguity is the annoying bits of grit it so often picks up.
Posted by Uprooted (Member # 8353) on :
That's, uh, quite a metaphor there, Karl!
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd: If diplomacy is the vaseline of social intercourse, ambiguity is the annoying bits of grit it so often picks up.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
You know, fictional Christians really are a nasty bunch.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Yeah. The easy-to-mock, dangerous zealots are worthy of our scorn, whereas the people who prayerfully and sorrowfully tell KarlEd that his relationship isn't worth the respect of the law and may in fact help to destroy the underpinnings of our society are just regular folks.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
In fairness, there are positive depictions of Christians in Something Positive. Faye and Fred MacIntire (Fred being the elderly guy referenced in this strip) are both Christians. Well, Faye was. She's dead now in the strip's continuity.
There was a note posted near the beginning of this storyline saying that it was inspired by an acutal haunted house that was engaging in these kind of tactics (assuming that I'm remembering the note correctly; I don't quite care enough to go and find it). I have no idea what kinds of liberties the author is taking in depicting said tactics, of course, but in any case I don't think it's fair to take this as a swipe at Christians in general.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
IIRC, Fred is no longer even a Christian in name only, having officially "quit" when his wife died.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Oh, did he? I didn't remember that. In any case, Fred has been a practicing Christian for most of the run of the strip.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Yeah, Lisa. Because we are all like that.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Karl-- I understand that response. I took starLisa's italicizing of the word 'them' to mean 'them as individuals' rather than 'them as a part of society.'
I don't believe there's such a thing as "society" as divorced from individuals. People don't serve something called society. Any society or group must serve the individuals which make it up.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Yeah. The easy-to-mock, dangerous zealots are worthy of our scorn, whereas the people who prayerfully and sorrowfully tell KarlEd that his relationship isn't worth the respect of the law and may in fact help to destroy the underpinnings of our society are just regular folks.
In a country where freedom of religious expression is one of the first things written into the law of the land, yes, they are just regular folks. For all the weeping and histrionics exerted in the name of civil discourse on this site, there is surprisingly little understanding of it. If someone is religiously opposed to gay marriage, just what in the hell are they supposed to do, Tom? Just shut up and go away? Are they not welcome here? Would you kick the host off his own site and hand it over, as some kind of punitive damages for his being Mormon, to people who want to tar and feather him?
No doubt the things that these people have to say, in fact, the very position they hold, offends homosexuals. The very best they can do is to say it sorrowfully and prayerfully, with no individual malice or aspersion. Many here have tried to accomplish that only to be slapped in the face and told that they need sense beaten into them by a policeman's night stick.
Whatever the root source for the cartoon, Star Lisa applied it here, to hatrackers who deserve neither the comparison nor the disdain.
And yet in the midst of all this, there sit Porter and Karl, on opposing sides, having a reasonable bit of fun conversation, giving the lie to all of us who are just out looking for a reason to be insulted.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
Kate, I think you're going out of your way to take offense just because it's me, and you have a chip on your shoulder. It should be more than obvious that I wasn't referring to SSM opponents who haven't made lame claims about how it would harm them, let alone people like you who have been fairly vocal about your support for SSM.
If you'd like me to attack you personally so that you can feel justified about taking offense, please let me know.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
So you limit your egregious, bigoted personal attacks to people with opinions different from yours? That's disgusting.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I don't want to get in the middle of this, but I think a better analogy might be that starLisa said something like "I hate stinkin' murderers!"
And when someone objected, she pointed out, "Hey, you aren't a murderer."
Whether or not opposing SSM makes you as bad as a "stinkin' murderer" is outside the realm of the analogy.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:If someone is religiously opposed to gay marriage, just what in the hell are they supposed to do, Tom? Just shut up and go away?
The whole POINT of the marriage ban amendment, Jim, is to tell homosexuals to shut up and go away. It says "we think you're getting above yourselves, here; go sit in the closet some more."
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
"egregious, bigoted personal attacks"?? Now, I won't argue that Lisa hasn't done this elsewhere, but in this thread? The cartoon she posted might have been flawed, but I think you'd have to work a bit to make it fit that accusation.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:The whole POINT of the marriage ban amendment, Jim, is to tell homosexuals to shut up and go away. It says "we think you're getting above yourselves, here; go sit in the closet some more."
Thanks, Captain Mind Reader.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I just don't feel that furthering stereotypical images of anybody is particularly helpful. I get tired of having to reiterate that it isn't "Christians against Gays". I get tired of having to say to both sides that I am hardly unique in being a Christian who supports gay rights. The vast majority of Christians I know support gay rights.
There are other religions with a tradition of prohibitions against homosexual acts.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: The whole POINT of the marriage ban amendment, Jim, is to tell homosexuals to shut up and go away. It says "we think you're getting above yourselves, here; go sit in the closet some more."
And I'm not entirely in disagreement with you on that, but if we're going to discuss it, rather than have a war over it, then we have to give the opposing argument creedence and respect. We have to try to understand it, or we can't talk about it at all.
quote:I must either reason with him as one man to another, or else run my sword through him as far as it will go. -St. Louis as quoted by GKC
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:The whole POINT of the marriage ban amendment, Jim, is to tell homosexuals to shut up and go away. It says "we think you're getting above yourselves, here; go sit in the closet some more."
If I had said something as similarly derogatory about judicial activism on the part of the pro-SSM movement-- how would you have responded, Tom?
Oh, screw it. It's not like I'm not used to being misrepresented by now. Good fodder for my Mormon martyr complex.
I should thank you.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I get tired of having to say to both sides that I am hardly unique in being a Christian who supports gay rights.
Kate, your support of gay rights, while certainly welcome, puts you into direct conflict with your pope. I understand why you find this sort of misunderstanding annoying, but it's probably going to keep happening as long as American Catholics continue to officially recognize papal authority.
---------
quote: If I had said something as similarly derogatory about judicial activism on the part of the pro-SSM movement-- how would you have responded, Tom?
Since it's been done, you can actually look at the threads in question to see my response. IIRC, I conceded that relying on judicial activism to enforce human rights was regrettable but, as has been the case in the past with issues of other rights abuses, probably necessary.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I'm just struggling to see where an opposition to SSM equates to a demand that homosexuals 'go away'.
Because, you know, it doesn't. The fact that many people who oppose it DO wish that, doesn't change that.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:then we have to give the opposing argument creedence and respect.
I'm not sure I agree with "credence" here, but certainly respect. I think it's bad approach to examining an arguement to grant credence at all. Credence has to be earned through rational construction and self consistency. (Not that religious arguements lack those. Some have those in spades, if you accept the premises.)
Added: And even then, I'm using credence in the sense of accepting as a valid arguement, not as in accepting the arguement as true.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Tom:
Do I get to put derogatory words in your mouth, so I can show how utterly morally vapid your point of view is?
Or do I have to continue stating and restating my positions in diplomatic terms so that, at the LEAST, the attentive people won't accuse me of being a bigoted, foaming-at-the-mouth, hellfire-and-brimstone, Phelps supporter?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Tom's first article of faith is that he knows best, in all situations, despite what the people how the people is judging know themselves.
Either that, or he makes up motivations as a conversational manipulation tactic.
Either way, the conversation is over.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Karl -- I'm not sure what you mean about granting credence.
Are you saying that, until we have reason to do otherwise, that we shouldn't believe what other people say about their beliefs and motivations?
I don't think you're saying that, but that's how it reads to me.
edit: Nevermind. I see now that you've clarified yourself.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Tom's first article of faith is that he knows best, in all situations, despite what the people how the people is judging know themselves.
It seems to me Tom is doing exactly what many religious people do. Except he isn't saying he knows better because it's the will of God.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
"credence" was poor word choice on my part...
apologies.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:The fact that many people who oppose it DO wish that, doesn't change that.
I'd be willing to argue this with you, although it should probably happen on another thread. But, yes, that's exactly what it means. Consider that all the opposition to homosexual relationships boils down to the assumption that the relationships themselves are harmful to society. God doesn't mind if you love each other, the most liberal of opponents say, but He does mind if you stick bits of your bodies into each other. And yeah, you can be chaste and live together your whole life without angering God, we guess, but you can't call it marriage -- even though chaste marriages exist -- because that'd force us to pretend that we find that concept even remotely acceptable. Which we don't, even if you don't stick things anywhere.
And since the courts seem to think that this opinion infringes on your rights as a human being, we've got to move fast to establish that you don't have those rights. We'd fight tooth and nail to defend our right to marry, though, and have steadfastly resisted any attempt to extract the government from the marriage business in our lives, so please don't realize that the subtext is that you aren't as entitled to our rights.
And that's what the liberal opponents say, the ones who aren't outright bigots. Those are the people who say they're opposed to SSM for better reasons than bigotry.
--------
Now, I recognize that there are many people out there who respectfully, prayerfully, and sorrowfully think homosexual relationships are damaging to society. For whatever reason, they don't see this as a bias against homosexuality, and are offended by the accusation.
They will, I am confident, someday realize that they're wrong. But until then, I think it's more than a little disingenuous of them to say "I not only dismiss your ability to love another human being in a healthy way but am seeking legal recourse to officially reject the possibility" and not expect to be considered insulting.
Any attempt to claim that this is not what they're demanding runs square into the fact that legal marriages in this country are already non-religious in nature -- so it comes down to an issue of homosexual acceptance, which is the real bugbear.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
The funny thing about Javert's statement is that it could be viewed as either a jab on religious people or on Tom.
Note that I am not saying anything about Tom.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Except he isn't saying he knows better because it's the will of God.
Given the choice between:
1) an omniscient, celestial being who has power over everything from quarks to universes, who proves his love to me every day, and who plays a FINE game of cribbage
and
2) A sys-admin in Wisconsin who writes a darn fine RPG, is a good poet, and a fairly generous human being (AFAIK)
I'm still going to take God's opinion over Tom's. Despite the 'good poet' thing. Omniscience, you know-- it's hard to debate against.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: But until then, I think it's more than a little disingenuous of them to say "I not only dismiss your ability to love another human being in a healthy way but am seeking legal recourse to officially reject the possibility" and not expect to be considered insulting.
It's not disingenuous at all on a forum thread discussing the topic.
As I tried to say earlier, if all you want to do is fight for what you think is right, you want a war, not a discussion.
Edit: to elaborate--
If someone wants to ban gay marriage, they can go forward without any attempt to understand their opponent.
If someone wants to establish gay marriage they can go forward without any attempt to understand their opponent.
If we are going to discuss, as a group, whether we should ban or establish those rights, we must try to understand both sets of people. Thinking you know your opponent's "true" motivation or comparing them to cartoon characters doesn't count for this.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Which is why the assumption that people talk to God is so dangerous, Scott, my goodness (or lack thereof) to one side.
I'm not saying that you have to necessarily accept my opinion, but it'd have to be one heck of a persuasive and compelling rationale that could talk you out of an opinion that you believed God wanted you to hold. Am I right?
----------
quote:It's not disingenuous at all on a forum thread discussing the topic.
But that's the thing. They want to be able to say "I'm a reasonable person. I just don't want to have to publicly admit that I find what you're doing acceptable" without offending someone. And that's an impossible expectation. They might be right -- I can't speak for any God, as I'll be the first to admit -- but that doesn't mean that it's any less offensive to the person being denied.
And the list of actual banned behaviors in our society is very small, so the issue would normally become one of provable harm -- except that marriage is a privilege, not just a behavior. It's a special status, and we don't hand it out to just anyone.
Or do we?
Marriage can't be a privilege granted only to people who can breed. It's not a privilege granted only to people who'd make good parents. It's certainly not a privilege granted only to people who love each other, or who make up a healthy couple, or whatever. No one religion can claim that their opinion of marriage determines our law on the matter. So our standard seems to be: "two consenting adults, one male and one female."
And what people are asking is "why the male and female thing?" It can't be just about babies, because otherwise that'd be your explicit standard. It can't be about God, or you wouldn't let us marry in courthouses. Is the idea that one person is male and the other person is female more important than checking that the people involved would make good parents, or would be a healthy couple, or any dozen other requirements that spring to mind?
Why, in other words, is the lowest common denominator the sex of the participants?
And the answer is "we're pretty sure society would fall apart if men married men." We can't stop two uneducated but heterosexual drug addicts from marrying because that would infringe on their rights, but society absolutely must be protected from same-sex marriages, to the extent that we'll change the Constitution if we can't get judges to side with our interpretation.
Yeah, I'm making this sound ludicrous. But it IS pretty ludicrous. It's laughable and unfortunate, and people who feel this way need to have this pointed out to them. And I think our society does itself a horrible, horrible disservice by pretending otherwise.
[ October 31, 2006, 11:52 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:Except he isn't saying he knows better because it's the will of God.
Given the choice between:
1) an omniscient, celestial being who has power over everything from quarks to universes, who proves his love to me every day, and who plays a FINE game of cribbage
and
2) A sys-admin in Wisconsin who writes a darn fine RPG, is a good poet, and a fairly generous human being (AFAIK)
I'm still going to take God's opinion over Tom's. Despite the 'good poet' thing. Omniscience, you know-- it's hard to debate against.
See, I would go with the sys-admin. Assuming you know the opinion of an omniscient being based on what other flawed human beings tell you seems a bit silly...but that's only my opinion.
(edited: changed "omnipotent" to "omniscient")
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
And you wonder why everyone who isn't a religious deontologist kind of raises an eyebrow when certain members claim that, oh, they question their faith, yes, sir!, can see both sides of the question and are totally impartial!
The last couple days have shot that barely believed illusion right to hell.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: Karl -- I'm not sure what you mean about granting credence.
Are you saying that, until we have reason to do otherwise, that we shouldn't believe what other people say about their beliefs and motivations?
I don't think you're saying that, but that's how it reads to me.
edit: Nevermind. I see now that you've clarified yourself.
Maybe to further clarify, I have no problem granting credence to the person arguing, but the argument itself has to earn credence. So, no I'm not saying we shouldn't accept people's own estimations of their sincerity in most cases.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by Storm Saxon: And you wonder why everyone who isn't a religious deontologist kind of raises an eyebrow when certain members claim that, oh, they question their faith, yes, sir!, can see both sides of the question and are totally impartial!
The last couple days have shot that barely believed illusion right to hell.
Storm, the question of whether something is authoritative can be dealt with on an idependent basis from recognizing its authority.
ScottR has decided that the Mormon church (correct me if I'm wrong, please, Scott) is authoritative. He can question that decision at any time and in any place, but, as long as he remains satisfied that it *is* authoritative, there's absolutely nothing remotely inconsistent with him continuing to abide by that authority in other matters.
[ October 31, 2006, 12:17 PM: Message edited by: Jim-Me ]
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
That makes perfect sense, Karl. Thanks.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: They want to be able to say "I'm a reasonable person. I just don't want to have to publicly admit that I find what you're doing acceptable" without offending someone. And that's an impossible expectation.
If you are just walking up to random people and saying it, it is. If I walk into a gay bar and say "I'm a reasonable person and, nothing personal, but I don't think what you are doing should be endorsed by society" I should expect to be thrown out... possibly violently.
But if we're on a forum and someone says "will someone please tell me why anyone would oppose this?" (not saying that's what happened in this specific case-- I couldn't even tell you which thread spawned this one) then absolutely someone should be able to come in and say "I am a reasonable person and, nothing personal, but I think what you are doing should not be endorsed by society." and expect to not be shellacked as a religious nut job kidnapping people "for their own good".
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
BTW, someone just pointed out to me in an email that we don't actually require participants to be consenting adults in some situations before entering into marriage. So there are exceptions to that one, too.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Assuming you know the opinion of an omniscient being based on what other flawed human beings tell you seems a bit silly
This is a good, solid example of misunderstanding.
Javert seems to think that religious people only claim to know what God wants of them through "other flawed human beings."
As Tom has pointed out, many religious people believe to have a personal connection with God. It is this connection which informs believers' decision making processes.
But because Javert thinks that believers follow only the words of other men, he/she misses out on this important fact. Depending on the depth that Javert is committed to his/her flawed idea, believers may be categorized as sheep, or pawns, or merely silly.
In my case, I don't believe that I know what I know about God because of the information given me by other flawed human beings; I believe God Himself gave me the information I have, and that the only intermediary between God and me is Jesus Christ.
So there. Bit o' learnin' for ye, Javert. Something to keep in mind the next time you have a conversation with me, or with other religious people.
Now this topic may digress into who has REALLY talked with God. (I'll give you a hint: it's me.)
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Scott: Next time could you get me an autograph? I've always wanted to meet him but he never returned my calls.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
How to respond when someone says, "My religion won't let me support SSM. My faith and my personal belief say that God is against it."
You say, "My religion insists I support SSM. My faith and my personal belief say that God is for love of all kinds--not Sex of all kinds, but Love. Marriage is more about demonstrating faithfulness, caring, commitment and love than it is about sex. So where do we go from here? Does your religion get to dictate what mine can do?"
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Dan: the answer from MPH and Scott would seem to be "Yes. If they have more votes."
It makes me want to fight back and side with the Michael Newdows(sp) of the world. Try to stamp out christianity where-ever I can. But that is just as wrong, in my opinion, as Scott and MPH's position.
So I guess I'll turn the other cheek.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Oh. Look who's on the high road. It's Pixiest!
Seriously. I thought you wanted discussion. This is a farce.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:I get tired of having to say to both sides that I am hardly unique in being a Christian who supports gay rights.
Kate, your support of gay rights, while certainly welcome, puts you into direct conflict with your pope. I understand why you find this sort of misunderstanding annoying, but it's probably going to keep happening as long as American Catholics continue to officially recognize papal authority.
Depends on your understanding (or misunderstanding) of Papal authority. Not really your fault, as the Vatican doesn't help to clear up that misunderstanding - or hasn't since the mid-sixties. For anyone with an understanding of the history of the Catholic Church, the fact that the laity is "ahead of the curve" on this issue should not be a surprise. I can tell you in all honesty that we "officially" pray for social justice and an end to discrimination based on sexual orientation.
We also can't ignore the progress made by Protestant churches, UCC, Methodist and Episcopal, for example, to change the way their denominations regard the issue.
Institutions change slowly - especially large, centuries old instituions- but they are changing. People of good will are changing them. Failure to recognize that, painting all Christians with the same brush, ignoring the complexities of change, will only slow progress and further threaten and entrench those people opposed to change.
Christians did not invent persecuting homosexuals or forbidding certain homosexual acts. We inherited that lovely tradition.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:Assuming you know the opinion of an omniscient being based on what other flawed human beings tell you seems a bit silly
This is a good, solid example of misunderstanding.
Javert seems to think that religious people only claim to know what God wants of them through "other flawed human beings."
As Tom has pointed out, many religious people believe to have a personal connection with God. It is this connection which informs believers' decision making processes.
But because Javert thinks that believers follow only the words of other men, he/she misses out on this important fact. Depending on the depth that Javert is committed to his/her flawed idea, believers may be categorized as sheep, or pawns, or merely silly.
In my case, I don't believe that I know what I know about God because of the information given me by other flawed human beings; I believe God Himself gave me the information I have, and that the only intermediary between God and me is Jesus Christ.
So there. Bit o' learnin' for ye, Javert. Something to keep in mind the next time you have a conversation with me, or with other religious people.
Now this topic may digress into who has REALLY talked with God. (I'll give you a hint: it's me.)
I'm a he. Just to keep the pronouns straight.
My response would be that you (both yourself and the more general "you") are also a flawed human being.
I, having never personally heard the voice of God (at least I don't think I have), live in a world in which many people believe they have. I have no way to tell if their experiences are real or imagined. All I can see is that the views that come from all these people differ so much, they can't all be the correct views. So I, being a humble human, believe that the opinion of God is forever beyond my scope.
Assuming I am not a horrible example of a human being, I extend my belief beyond myself and think that the opinion of God is beyond ANYONE's grasp.
My problem comes from the fact that when you think you know the opinion of an omniscient being, whether coming to that belief through personal means or secondhand ones, you eliminate the possibility of learning you may be in error.
Am I saying your beliefs are wrong? No. But there is a possibility that they are. When you are speaking of the opinion of God, however, you stop looking for that possibility. And that, in my opinion, is where all the trouble lays. (lies?...not sure which is grammatically correct)
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Scott: I defend christianity. Mock me all you like, I'm going to continue to do it. You have the right to practice your faith as you see fit.
I don't care that god's name is on the money or in the pledge. I think you should be able to pray in schools. I don't mind the 10 commandments being posted in public places.
I've stated these positions over and over, but I guess you never noticed.
Pix
PS: It seems kinda weird to most people (or maybe just to me, I dunno) when people claim they talk to god. Prayer, ya, but *actually* talk to god? weird.
(edit: grammar)
[ October 31, 2006, 01:39 PM: Message edited by: The Pixiest ]
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:How to respond when someone says, "My religion won't let me support SSM. My faith and my personal belief say that God is against it."
You say, "My religion insists I support SSM. My faith and my personal belief say that God is for love of all kinds--not Sex of all kinds, but Love. Marriage is more about demonstrating faithfulness, caring, commitment and love than it is about sex. So where do we go from here? Does your religion get to dictate what mine can do?"
I don't have any problem with religions teaching that homosexual couples are acceptable in the sight of God. I don't have a problem with churches marrying homosexual couples in religious ceremonies.
I have a problem with not standing up for what I believe is right when I'm specifically asked my opinion, when I am a part of and when I SERVE society. (Yep, starLisa-- you and I have a fundamental disagreement about MORE than God's view of homosexuality), and when that decision is going to affect society.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_raven: How to respond when someone says, "My religion won't let me support SSM. My faith and my personal belief say that God is against it."
You say, "My religion insists I support SSM. My faith and my personal belief say that God is for love of all kinds--not Sex of all kinds, but Love. Marriage is more about demonstrating faithfulness, caring, commitment and love than it is about sex. So where do we go from here? Does your religion get to dictate what mine can do?"
That is exactly what a lot of us do say.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Assuming I am not a horrible example of a human being, I extend my belief beyond myself and think that the opinion of God is beyond ANYONE's grasp.
All right-- I've never been able to grasp calculus. That means that all mathemeticians just made up their science. The theorums and postulates and evidences they've come up with to be internally consistent in their self-importance are as bogus as snake oil.
I'm glad you've opened my mind to this wondrous way of thinking.
quote:My problem comes from the fact that when you think you know the opinion of an omniscient being, whether coming to that belief through personal means or secondhand ones, you eliminate the possibility of learning you may be in error.
No. I pointed this phenomenon out to Tom in another thread-- knowing (or even thinking you know) God's voice does not tend to make one certain of oneself.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
KM --I know. I think its great. Its a shame that those voices of faith get trodden on by both sides in their desire to score points and prove who is the most rightest of them all.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:All right-- I've never been able to grasp calculus. That means that all mathemeticians just made up their science. The theorums and postulates and evidences they've come up with to be internally consistent in their self-importance are as bogus as snake oil.
He was saying that god is unknowable, I assumed meaning in the sense that no living person will ever fully understand him. Do you disagree with that?
Explain to me how calculus is like that and I'll grant your analogy.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I pointed this phenomenon out to Tom in another thread-- knowing (or even thinking you know) God's voice does not tend to make one certain of oneself.
So you grant the possibility that same-sex marriage is good for society?
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
To many people, Calculus is unknowable.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Sure, there's a possibility. I don't believe it, but there's a possibility. I believe there's a stronger possibility that it will not be, and so will act and vote accordingly.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: So you grant the possibility that same-sex marriage is good for society?
if he doesn't, on some level, then he wouldn't be talking, he'd be swinging a sword.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:To many people, Calculus is unknowable.
Maybe, but surely you get the difference between 'many' and 'all', right? So why bring it up?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:he'd be swinging a sword
In this context, I think a vote is a sword.
Katie, do you really think it's possible that the church is flat-out wrong about the wrongness of homosexuality? I thought the LDS church was pretty clear about their stance on the issue, to the extent that they've ruled "officially" on it and everything.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Assuming I am not a horrible example of a human being, I extend my belief beyond myself and think that the opinion of God is beyond ANYONE's grasp.
This is what I was responding to, JT. The belief that just because X person hasn't received X information from X source MUST mean no one has received it.
quote:So you grant the possibility that same-sex marriage is good for society?
Yes. But that's not my main concern. My main concern is if it's what God wants.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Sure. There's a possibility that my experience is wrong, that the Book of Mormon isn't scripture, that the Savior never lived, that prophecy doesn't exist, that the Lord never speaks to us, and that there isn't any Lord in the first place. It's possible that the first presidency is wrong about same-sex marriage.
I don't believe that, though. I believe that they are right. As per voting, I also believe that Iraq was a mistake, that standardized tests are good in terms of identifying problem schools but bad for determining teacher pay, and that farm subsidies are abused but should be reformed instead of done away with altogether. I'll attempt to make my voting reflect all of that.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:My main concern is if it's what God wants.
So your concern in this situation consists primarily of ascertaining God's will?
I'm not seeing where the self-doubt comes in, Scott.
You'll note that the "doubt" Katie grants revolves entirely around the concept that her church -- and, by extension, her personal faith -- is wrong. That "doubt," in other words, is inversely proportional to her belief in her own religion.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
deleted because the thread moved on and I forgot to refresh.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I doubt things all the time in terms of my religion. However, this is not the place to share that. *shrug* I suppose you'll have to take my word for it. Unless you wish to make up a motivation for me.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: In this context, I think a vote is a sword.
yes... and discussing it in a public forum *before* voting on it is, in this context, trying diplomacy. That StarLisa doesn't like diplomacy should come as a surprise to no one. That you, Tom, feel attempts at diplomacy warrant a slap in the face *is* a surprise.
Again, I think you are right. If all you want to do is fight for right, cast your vote and swing your sword... but it is *not* a good faith negotiation to say "I'm right and you, while possibly sincere, are silly and deserve the ridicule and ire being heaped upon you as much as those who wish no dialogue and no quarter."
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:Assuming I am not a horrible example of a human being, I extend my belief beyond myself and think that the opinion of God is beyond ANYONE's grasp.
This is what I was responding to, JT. The belief that just because X person hasn't received X information from X source MUST mean no one has received it.
I worded it wrong. My apologies. I don't think that God's opinion is ungraspable just because I can't grasp it. I think it is ungraspable because God is omniscient. I don't believe you can know, for certain, the opinion of an omniscient being unless you yourself are omniscient.
This even extends to your calculus analogy. The difference is that one can be taught calculus, while omniscience seems to be beyond humanty's grasp at the moment.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:This is what I was responding to, JT. The belief that just because X person hasn't received X information from X source MUST mean no one has received it.
Okay. That's certainly valid; just not how I read Javert's statement.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I doubt things all the time in terms of my religion.
But that's not what Scott's saying. He's saying that strong belief leads to self-doubt. In your case, however, your doubt (at least, as you described it) hinges on your disbelief; to the extent that you believe in the rightness of your church, you do not have doubt.
quote:That you, Tom, feel attempts at diplomacy warrant a slap in the face *is* a surprise.
There are times when someone is hysterical and flailing in fear or anger and likely to hurt themselves or others, and a sudden slap in that situation might bring them around. The marriage ban is intended to stop all "diplomacy" on this issue; an appeal to the Constitution is essentially the ultimate American "sword." And so -- and I'm speculating on someone else's motives again, here, so YMMV -- it's possible that people who fear that the marriage ban will pass believe that the situation is now dire enough to start slapping people "awake," despite the risk. I don't agree, but I don't think that merely being willing to engage in dialogue on a topic is the same thing as being reasonable or rational about it, either. We should be civil to each other because civility is a virtue, not because some of us choose to engage in conversation; otherwise, you would be saying that starLisa's insult is perfectly (and only) acceptable when directed at Christians who haven't posted on the SSM issue. I'd recognize her post as a gesture of exasperation and frustration; from her perspective, I'm sure it looks like the whole world is hemming her in -- and unlike Christians who feel this way, she doesn't have the advantage of a voting majority to assuage her fears.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
No, you still have it wrong. There's self-dobut all over the place. Matt calls it the Mormon Guilt and he's actually not a fan.
"hysterical"? "flailing in fear"? Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I figured I'd address the cartoon, though it had moved on from there. Places like that described in the cartoon have been springing up in the last few years. Give it a look. I'd suggest that before you get into a tizzy about an inaccurate protrayal of Christians, you make at least a little bit of effort to find out if this protrayal is actually inaccurate.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang:
quote:This is what I was responding to, JT. The belief that just because X person hasn't received X information from X source MUST mean no one has received it.
Okay. That's certainly valid; just not how I read Javert's statement.
Not how I meant it either.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:There's self-dobut all over the place. Matt calls it the Mormon Guilt and he's actually not a fan.
But as I understand the "Mormon Guilt" -- and "Catholic Guilt" and "Jewish Guilt" -- phenomena, the issue isn't one of "am I and my church wrong about this" but "my personal ethics conflict with my beliefs, and/or I have difficulty living up to the high standards of my professed church." (There are issues of Original Sin and other things wrapped up in there, but ultimately this guilt is a matter of perceived insufficiency, not "doubt.")
I've never heard the phrase "Mormon Guilt" applied to describe active disagreement with the church and its policies, or the conviction that a personal revelation received is almost certainly false. Is that how it's usually meant in your circle? If so, I'm going to have to look at some other statements in a new context.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: So you limit your egregious, bigoted personal attacks to people with opinions different from yours? That's disgusting.
No. I limit my attacks to people who make silly claims about hypothetical "harm" because they don't have the moral courage to admit that their position is purely a matter of their religious convictions.
It works like this. If you say that you oppose SSM out of religious convictions, my response is that I can respect that (and even agree with it, because I'm also against SSM in the context of my religion), but that this is the United States, and we don't limit the liberty of some because this or that religion says we should.
If you say that you oppose SSM out of reasons other than religious convictions, my response is to ask what possible reasons those can be. If you say that it's because you think it will harm society, or harm other people, I heap scorn on you. Because quite frankly, I think that's a load of crap. I think it's an utterly baseless position that people only use because we live in a culture where religion is so denigrated by so many people that it feels uncomfortable to simply own up to the fact that you have religious convictions and that they are important enough to you to act on them.
See, I like the fact that Scott has strong enough principles that he's willing to put them into practice. I wish to God that more Jews were willing to do the same. I just don't think he has the right to try and impose them on others.
And for the record, the idea that SSM somehow imposes something on Scott or other SSM opponents is as utterly ludicrous as the idea that SSM will somehow harm people or society. It's baseless. We've talked about the idea that my right to swing my fist ends where your nose starts. How seriously would you take someone who claimed that this rule/idea/concept is somehow a kind of imposition on people who like swinging their fists all over the place? That's crazy talk, and so is claiming that SSM imposes anything on anyone.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
What have you heard it called? I doubt your experience with Mormon anything.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Karl:
Hmm... on a certain level, you are correct. The scriptures were passed down through flawed human beings.
But the scriptures make up a very small part of what I know about God. Like love letters make up a small part of what I know about my wife.
Tom:
You're confusing self-doubt and doubt about God. The first I have aplenty. The second-- very little at all.
From the other SSM thread, page 2:
quote:5)As far as Mormonism knows currently, the only way for a man (or woman) to become like their Heavenly Parents is to marry someone of the opposite gender, and together be faithful to the laws that our Heavenly Parents honor.
It's possible we'll receive further knowledge contradicting what we "know" now. It's possible I really am a bigot, and the prejudice in my heart and in the heart of Mormons everywhere, is keeping God's children from benefitting the way He wants them to. (Not speaking of legal marriage here, but of eternal marriage-- which is what I'm concerned about)
However-- I *think* I am seeing this issue clearly. And I act as I think God wants.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:You're confusing self-doubt and doubt about God...
By "self-doubt," Scott, what do you mean?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Sure it is accurate of some Christians. Loud Christians. Not, by a long shot, most Christians. But they damn sure want to make people think that they represent all Christians. Do we really want to help them to do that?
You might have noted that one of the group members of the web site you linked is a Christian. That is an accurate portrayal, too.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:There are times when someone is hysterical and flailing in fear or anger and likely to hurt themselves or others, and a sudden slap in that situation might bring them around.
That's a folk remedy that only works in the movies, Tom.
Scott, sorry to have deleted the post to which you are referring. I thought I had caught it before it was seen.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:5)As far as Mormonism knows currently, the only way for a man (or woman) to become like their Heavenly Parents is to marry someone of the opposite gender, and together be faithful to the laws that our Heavenly Parents honor.
What about single people?
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: I'd suggest that before you get into a tizzy about an inaccurate protrayal of Christians, you make at least a little bit of effort to find out if this protrayal is actually inaccurate.
I lived in Dallas for 30 years and currently reside in Greenville, SC the home of Bob Jones University. I know more than enough evangelical and fundamentalist Christians to categorically state that the picture is an inaccurate depiction of even the majority of those fairly extreme examples, much less Christians as a whole.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:What about single people?
If it doesn't happen in this life, it will happen sometime later.
I think there will be a lot of sorting out later, considering not all married couples are equally desirous of the same outcome.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:5)As far as Mormonism knows currently, the only way for a man (or woman) to become like their Heavenly Parents is to marry someone of the opposite gender, and together be faithful to the laws that our Heavenly Parents honor.
What about single people?
Single people, in some cases, will be given the chance post-mortem, to be part of a couple. Those who refuse (in this life and/or the next) will at best be eternally incomplete according to the doctrine.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:How to respond when someone says, "My religion won't let me support SSM. My faith and my personal belief say that God is against it."
You say, "My religion insists I support SSM. My faith and my personal belief say that God is for love of all kinds--not Sex of all kinds, but Love. Marriage is more about demonstrating faithfulness, caring, commitment and love than it is about sex. So where do we go from here? Does your religion get to dictate what mine can do?"
I don't have any problem with religions teaching that homosexual couples are acceptable in the sight of God. I don't have a problem with churches marrying homosexual couples in religious ceremonies.
I have a problem with not standing up for what I believe is right when I'm specifically asked my opinion, when I am a part of and when I SERVE society. (Yep, starLisa-- you and I have a fundamental disagreement about MORE than God's view of homosexuality), and when that decision is going to affect society.
It's Lisa, Scott. Not starLisa.
And I don't have a problem with you serving society. I mean, I think it's a strange way to look at the world, but then, you're a Christian. And a Mormon. And there are any number of other groups of people in the world who look at things in a way that I think is strange.
My problem is when you try and make me serve. You may think that you're entitled to do so if you have a bigger mob than I do, and in fact, the law may actually allow you to do so if you have a bigger mob than I do. But I have zero respect for someone who is willing to subordinate other people, against their will, to some or other vision of society. That, in my view, leads to totalitarianism.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
FWIW, I agree that the comic is a distortion of even the extremist "Hell Houses." As much as I like Something Positive, the strip frequently rails against exaggerated straw men -- whether for comedic effect or for rhetorical advantage -- and that's one of its weaknesses.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:But I have zero respect for someone who is willing to subordinate other people, against their will, to some or other vision of society.
But you have a vision of society you're willing to subordinate others' vision to...
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:5)As far as Mormonism knows currently, the only way for a man (or woman) to become like their Heavenly Parents is to marry someone of the opposite gender, and together be faithful to the laws that our Heavenly Parents honor.
What about single people?
Single people, in some cases, will be given the chance post-mortem, to be part of a couple. Those who refuse (in this life and/or the next) will at best be eternally incomplete according to the doctrine.
Great. And I thought we non-breeders were considered second class citizens by Catholics! I feel a bit like those chosen last in gyn class. "Okay. I'll pick you but only after we're both dead." So are there even numbers of men and women of suitable age? What if one dies?
This is all very depressing....
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Sure it is accurate of some Christians. Loud Christians. Not, by a long shot, most Christians. But they damn sure want to make people think that they represent all Christians. Do we really want to help them to do that?
How do you arrive at that? Even in this arc it is made clear that these people don't represent the whole of Christianity. And that's not mentioning the portrayal of several favorable Christian characters and references to Christianity in some cases as a positive thing in the wider strip.
This was a portrayal of a single instance, based on things that actually happen. Turning it into an attack on the whole of Christianity seems a bit much to me.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
No, kat. I want people to leave other people the hell alone. Why is that so hard to understand?
You can't equate your willingness to force me to do things with my willingness to not force you to do things. That's an abuse of language.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Jim,
quote:I lived in Dallas for 30 years and currently reside in Greenville, SC the home of Bob Jones University. I know more than enough evangelical and fundamentalist Christians to categorically state that the picture is an inaccurate depiction of even the majority of those fairly extreme examples, much less Christians as a whole.
Are you saying that incidents like what are described (with obvious exagerations for comedic effect) in this comic don't and/or couldn't happen? Because, as far as I can tell, they most certainly do.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:Sure it is accurate of some Christians. Loud Christians. Not, by a long shot, most Christians. But they damn sure want to make people think that they represent all Christians. Do we really want to help them to do that?
How do you arrive at that? Even in this arc it is made clear that these people don't represent the whole of Christianity. And that's not mentioning the portrayal of several favorable Christian characters and references to Christianity in some cases as a positive thing in the wider strip.
This was a portrayal of a single instance, based on things that actually happen. Turning it into an attack on the whole of Christianity seems a bit much to me.
I don't really know about the wider strip. I don't have a problem with the strip itself (I may even start reading it). My problem was with posting it here in the context of this discussion as yet more fuel for the "Christians vs. Gays" fire.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:By "self-doubt," Scott, what do you mean?
"Did God really say that to me?"
"Am I really doing what God wants?"
"This is a really hard commandment for me to follow. It's breaking my heart. I don't think I can do this."
"I screwed up. I really, really, really screwed up."
In short:
quote:O wretched man that I am! Yea, my heart sorroweth because of my flesh; my soul grieveth because of mine iniquities. 18 I am encompassed about, because of the temptations and the sins which do so easily beset me. 19 And when I desire to rejoice, my heart groaneth because of my sins; nevertheless, I know in whom I have trusted.
Self-doubt.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Ah, I sort of avoided the current conversation so as to point out something about the original strip. My bad if I misinterpreted you as responding primarily to me.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: My problem was with posting it here in the context of this discussion as yet more fuel for the "Christians vs. Gays" fire.
Me, too, Squick, with the added bonus that it was targeted directly at people I like and who have done nothing to warrant such comparison.
I am not at all suggesting that people don't do stupid and coercive things in the name of religion... I'm Catholic, to a great extent, and very aware of my church's history on this matter.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I've actually been "trapped" in a similar situation. It was annoying. I didn't like it.
People are idiots.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
Not true. From what I can tell, Rivka is on board with y'all about this. It was an ecumenical jab.
My issue is that over on the other thread, I kept hearing people claiming that my ability to marry my partner would somehow impose something on them. That's dumb. And the nutty whiner at the end of the cartoon seemed to embody that kind of dumbness.
By all means, be against SSM. Be against interractial marriage. Think that Jews are Christ-killers who are going to burn in hell. Think that women should be owned by their husbands. I don't care. Think any wrong-headed thing you want. But (a) don't try and force your religion on me, and (b) don't whine that my saying "don't try and force your religion on me" is me trying to force something on you. That's a cheap rhetorical trick, and it's worthy of nothing but scorn and mockery.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I feel a bit like those chosen last in gyn class.
Is it terribly of me to be incredibly amused by this typo?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
sL: I deleted my comment because I realized it was not accurate. Sorry about that.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
If it is, I'm too. Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I feel a bit like those chosen last in gyn class.
Is it terribly of me to be incredibly amused by this typo?
Are you sure it was a typo?
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
Thanks, Porter.
[ October 31, 2006, 02:29 PM: Message edited by: starLisa ]
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
If you have a problem with that aspect of it, I'd suggest that you criticize that aspect, as opposed to the "inaccurateness" of a portrayal of things that actually happen. The concept of these "Hell Houses" is ludicrous, especially when they are deliberately disguished as Haunted Houses. This practice deserves to mocked. I'm not sure how it deserves you denying that it exists.
To me, you actually weaken your criticisms by making counter-factual claims to support people like this. But, if you were to say that this was inappropriately applied in this instance, I wouldn't have a problem with this.
Although, I do have to admit that the idea that oppression means that people in authority aren't doing what you want them to appears to be a pretty common one among many politically active Christian groups and will likely be on display as we enter into the "War On Christmas" propoganda season.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I feel a bit like those chosen last in gyn class.
Is it terribly of me to be incredibly amused by this typo?
Are you sure it was a typo?
Ah, the it's-not-a-bug-it's-a-feature defense.
Either way, I'm amused.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Mr. Squicky,
Are you talking to me there, or to Jim?
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: You can't equate your willingness to force me to do things with my willingness to not force you to do things. That's an abuse of language.
I agree with this 10000%.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I feel a bit like those chosen last in gyn class.
Is it terribly of me to be incredibly amused by this typo?
Are you sure it was a typo?
Ah, the it's-not-a-bug-it's-a-feature defense.
Either way, I'm amused.
Me, too. I crack myself up! Often by accident.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
boots, It was aimed at the people who were saying that this was an inaccurate portrayal.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
Mr. Squicky,
This is the entirety of my first post:
quote:Originally posted by Jim-Me: My... such a tolerant and understanding picture of Christians. The nightstick to beat comprehension into people is such a tried and true tactic of compassion and winning people over with kindness, almost as loving and inviting as Torquemada's ideas.
I guess you and Something Positive really showed us didn't you?
I do, however, remain in favor of giving some form of legal rights to gay couples... even ones who believe their opponents should be beaten into submission, whether literally or figuratively.
Where on earth did I imply that such things never happened? I merely pointed out the irony of suggesting that people who improperly complain of being persecuted be beaten into being understanding and tolerant of other's religious ideas.
I have gone on to say that it's unfair to paint Christians in this fashion and particularly Hatrack's Christians, who have been asked for their opinion on the matter of Gay Marriage.
Where am I wrong in that?
[ October 31, 2006, 02:43 PM: Message edited by: Jim-Me ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I figured I'd address the cartoon, though it had moved on from there. Places like that described in the cartoon have been springing up in the last few years. Give it a look. I'd suggest that before you get into a tizzy about an inaccurate protrayal of Christians, you make at least a little bit of effort to find out if this protrayal is actually inaccurate.
I missed the allegations of false imprisonment and unlawful detention levied at the houses on the religious tolerance page. Could you quote them for me so I can evaluate whether your assessment that places like that exist?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: boots, It was aimed at the people who were saying that this was an inaccurate portrayal.
I acknowledged that is was accurate of some Christians. I deny that it is either representational of Christians in general or helpful to the conversation on SSM.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: It was aimed at the people who were saying that this was an inaccurate portrayal.
So, because some arabs are terrorists, I should post a link to a cartoon depicting them as such and mocking them for it and say "hey, Twinky, here's what I think of you guys!"? Because Catholics perpetrated the inquisition I should invite Dagonee and kmbboots to a dialogue and then harangue them for being inquisitors? Because some teens are reckless and irresponsible behind the wheel of a car, I should come here and lecture them all, broadly, on the damage they are doing and suggest they be beaten by policemen when they violate the law?
You're saying you'd have no problem with any of that?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I don't think that anyone, even Lisa, tried to claim it was representative of Christians in general.
I'm saying that places like this (though granting that certain aspects were exaggerated) do exist and that they are very fit subjects for mockery.
Perhaps I read people wrong and no one was disputing any of these three things. If people, individually or as a whole, were not doing so, clearly my comments were not aimed at them.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
You know, there's really no point in people pondering what the intent of this thread was. I stated it very clearly in the initial post, and I see no reason to revise it:
For everyone over on the gay thread who thinks that SSM would harm them.
Anyone who wants to pretend that something was meant other than exactly what I said in that post is boring.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
Ooooo! She used the "b-word"! Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:I kept hearing people claiming that my ability to marry my partner would somehow impose something on them.
Just so we can be clear on this:
Here are the quotes (up to page 8) from the other thread regarding the affects that anti-SSM folks say SSM will have on society. Let me know if I've missed something.
quote: page 2: Silent E:
Religious people who are against gay marriage almost never base their reasons solely on the belief that "God said so". In most cases, they actually believe that damage to society (beyond mere punishment from God, or the presumed inherent damage in "getting further away from God") will result from legalizing gay marriage. It is true that this belief is informed by their religious beliefs, but I happen to think that when people genuinely believe they see damage to society impending, they have both the right and moral obligation to act in opposition to it.
Scott R:
I don't know that homosexual marriage WILL damage society. I think it will make sin more accessible.
Page 3:
Scott R: for the record: I am not personally saying that anything society wide WILL happen. Maybe it won't. I DO think, spiritually, from a Mormon POV, we'll be the poorer for it.
Page 3:
BlackBlade: I honestly believe that by encouraging homosexuality to gain more and more of a foothold in society I am harming others in that I am allowing them to become more and more entrenched in a way of life that is contrary to true happiness.
Page 5:
Scott R:
What does my objection stem from, then? If I'm not opposed to secular "rights" (shared health care, etc) why should I care about a civil union? [...] I don't believe homosexual unions pose a threat to individual marriages. I do believe that social approbation through legitimization of homosexual unions will make the sin of homosexual behavior more accessible; it will make it more difficult to support, justify, and teach the will of God for family life, because another option is being shown as just as acceptable in wider society.
Page 6:
MPH (quoting a statement by Mormon Leaders)
"Any other sexual relations, including those between persons of the same gender, undermine the divinely created institution of the family. The Church accordingly favors measures that define marriage as the union of a man and a woman and that do not confer legal status on any other sexual relationship."
Page 7:
BlackBlade:
Divorce might or might not go up in the long term if SSM are allowed. If SSM were shown to be 100% without divorce the gross divorce rate in every state could still go down based on completely unrelated factors.
Page 8:
BlackBlade:
Again I admit that I cannot accurately guess as to how SSM might harm society. But there ARE plenty of ways to gauge harm to society, thats all my post was attempting to list.
MPH (in response to question from Squicky): most of the objections I've heard that had a predictive element involved the affects it would have on children growing up in a society which, by its laws and social norms, says that a homosexual union is pretty much identical to a traditional marriage.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
As I said, I grew up in Dallas. I have seen hell houses since the early 90s and know several people who have been involved in them. I've never gone to one.
I do not deny they exist.
I do not suggest they are a good evangelization tool.
Lisa directly called out her fellow hatrackers in her original post. I categorically deny that people I have seen on hatrack taking the anti-SSM side of the argument are deserving of that comparison.
I don't read Something Positive. I don't know what the overall slant of the strip is. I don't really care. I do know that as a Christian and a hatracker I definitely felt included in Lisa's aspersions... and I don't oppose same sex marriage.
Edit: I never claimed I wasn't boring.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jim-Me: Lisa directly called out her fellow hatrackers in her original post. I categorically deny that people I have seen on hatrack taking the anti-SSM side of the argument are deserving of that comparison.
I specifically called out those who think that SSM would harm them. I claimed that those who claim to think such a thing are no different than the little weenie in the strip who said "Man, why do you have to be so intolerant of our faith?" to a cop who was giving him a hard time for trying to terrorize people into converting.
I stand by that claim. If you want to pretend that I was applying this strip to everyone who opposes SSM in the face of my stated intent, then there's no reasoning with you.
quote:Originally posted by Jim-Me: I don't read Something Positive. I don't know what the overall slant of the strip is. I don't really care. I do know that as a Christian and a hatracker I definitely felt included in Lisa's aspersions... and I don't oppose same sex marriage.
If you felt included in my criticism, you weren't paying attention. If I'd just posted the link, that'd be one thing. But I was clear in my initial post, and anyone who chooses to disregard what I wrote there is making themselves ridiculous.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
So was there anyone in that thread to whom your criteria apply?
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
Sure. Rakeesh, for certain. He made the claim several times. You played your usual lawyerly games and put the position in the mouths of hypothetical people (not even caring, as usual, that doing so was basically making the argument). Devil's advocate or not, injecting that nonsense into the thread counts. And it pissed me off.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
[imaginary link to a cartoon about a scout leader/priest/congressman behaving inappropriately with teenage boys]
to all those who think homosexuality can't hurt them.
find that offensive, Lisa? but I'm only talking about the gay people who molest teens! If you are offended, that's your problem!
Yes, I revved it up a notch, but your cartoon depicts Christians as engaging in illegal behavior (rather than the merely manipulative behavior which *is*, unfortunately, often exhibited). Furthermore, the policeman and his response imply that public authority and the use of force are warranted responses to the people you are ridiculing, whoever they may be.
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
I think today's comic just made the point many people on this thread have been trying to make.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Sure. Rakeesh, for certain. He made the claim several times.
So Rakeesh made the claim that a policy that he favors will actually hurt him? I'd love to see you quote that.
quote:You played your usual lawyerly games
Psychic Lisa, again. She's bad at it, but she keeps trying. If you think these are games you are badly mistaken. Further, if you actually think attempting to understand someone else's point of view is a negative,it makes your whole posting history spring into focus.
quote:and put the position in the mouths of hypothetical people
Quote where I did this.
quote: (not even caring, as usual, that doing so was basically making the argument)
There's that psychic ability again. Wrong as usual.
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
Shigosei, I was just coming here to post that. Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:Sure. Rakeesh, for certain. He made the claim several times.
So Rakeesh made the claim that a policy that he favors will actually hurt him? I'd love to see you quote that.
Psychic Lisa, again. She's bad at it, but she keeps trying. If you think these are games you are badly mistaken. Further, if you actually think attempting to understand someone else's point of view is a negative,it makes your whole posting history spring into focus.
You think it's reasonable, Dag, but it's not. Some views are odious enough that you don't have to try and see it from the other side's point of view. You clearly believe this yourself, after all. I haven't noticed you ever trying to get other people to understand the POV I and others like me hold on the middle east conflict.
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:and put the position in the mouths of hypothetical people
quote: (not even caring, as usual, that doing so was basically making the argument)
There's that psychic ability again. Wrong as usual.
Oh, so you do care that tossing the argument into the thread was basically making the argument? Or do you mean that you were blissfully unaware of what you were doing?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Furthermore, it is a matter of opinion (one which I share, mind you) that forcing-yes, forcing-this belief on them changes their life in a minute, oblique way.
I mean that both sides are, according to some on both sides, forcing a belief on others.
However, I maintain that there is force on both sides, for some people, of this issue.
Happy?
Well, no, because that doesn't say that Rakeesh thinks it hurts him.
quote:You think it's reasonable, Dag, but it's not. Some views are odious enough that you don't have to try and see it from the other side's point of view.
You do if you want to change their minds. It's pretty clear you're not happy with the state of civil marriage in this country. The people who will determine if your wishes on this subject are fulfilled don't agree with them.
You can 1) Call them odious and repeat libertarian premises that they don't accept, or 2) try to understand their reasons for not agreeing and try to find common ground or areas where their minds can be changed.
1) is not a viable option for effecting change. It's also not a viable option for discussing an issue on a discussion board.
quote:Many people think the burden should be on those desiring a change to demonstrate that its harms won't outweigh the benefits.
Is this necessary?
Apparently it is, because you've failed twice in a row to quote what I asked for.
Again, I wasn't referencing harms to them.
quote:You clearly believe this yourself, after all. I haven't noticed you ever trying to get other people to understand the POV I and others like me hold on the middle east conflict.
Good grief. Do you even care about being honest about other people? Or do you really view the world this way? I can't decide which is more frightening.
The reason you haven't noticed me doing that is because I don't understand it fully enough to do so. In your world, lack of ability might be a sign of how much someone cares. In mine, it's an acknowledgment of one's capabilities.
I'm trying to decide if you really think that my not trying to get someone to understand your views on the middle east makes it clear that I don't care about people understanding them, in which case I think you need to consider the possibility that the reason YOU don't do certain things is not the same reason everyone else has for not doing things.
quote:Oh, so you do care that tossing the argument into the thread was basically making the argument? Or do you mean that you were blissfully unaware of what you were doing?
I wasn't making the argument. More specifically, I wasn't making the argument you claimed both Rakeesh and I were making, as your failed attempts at quoting us show.
But more generally, I wasn't "making" any argument in support of the marriage amendment or any other policy preventing same sex civil marriage from occurring.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
For goodness' sake, starLisa: Rakeesh is in favor of civil unions. Look at your own links, for crying out loud!
I looked through that thread and quoted everything that the opponents of SSM said that could be construed reasonably as saying "SSM does harm to society."
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
At this point, I'm almost confused about what I believe regarding same-sex marriage. I didn't even know it was an issue.
So let me state it very, very clearly. Perhaps to quote myself at some later date, should I be quoted as somehow opposing equal rights for homosexuals in the future:
I believe that two legally adult, consenting homosexuals of the same gender should have the right to enter into a government-recognized contract, if it's called civil union, marriage, or brocolli, which has precisely the same rights, responsibilities, and privileges as does marriage in the United States today.
I'm in favor of making such an institution called 'civil marriage' which would apply to homo- and heterosexual couples (and polyamorous groups, in fact) within the United States, simply because I believe it is the most feasible route.
This is the second time in like a month where, apparently, unless I take very, very great care to explicitly state what exactly I believe frequently, I get criticized for supporting the thing I oppose.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: This is the second time in like a month where, apparently, unless I take very, very great care to explicitly state what exactly I believe frequently, I get criticized for supporting the thing I oppose.
Dude, I told you to wear the pins.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Pins don't help. You have to hire a minstrel to boldly declare your positions in all things you deign to speak of.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
That's so cool! I want a minstrel!! Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
That purple thing ISN'T a minstrel?
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
He dances . . . he doesn't sing or play the lute. :-\
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
Hear me, O Hatrack, now I sing With sweet melody and noble carriage, And may my words in this thread ring, As I speak my thoughts on same-sex marriage.
'Tis love, that dream within a dream, That we hold dear, or hope to find someday. 'Tis love that makes a pair, it seems. That's something we desire, straight or gay.
We all can benefit from those Who twine their lives together in a home, Of love and trust and sweet repose. It is not good that Man should be alone.
So let these unions now proceed! Together they shall own their house and home. Let them adopt a child in need, And visit one another in the hospital.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
You win.
-pH
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Icarus: He dances . . . he doesn't sing or play the lute. :-\
How can you tell?
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
quote:posted by Rakeesh: polyamorous
Kudos for teaching me a new word. Double and triple kudos if you made it up on the spot.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Definitely didn't make it up, and in fact I think I heard it here first.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: For goodness' sake, starLisa: Rakeesh is in favor of civil unions. Look at your own links, for crying out loud!
For goodness' sake, Scotty, I never said otherwise.
Lisa: For everyone over on the gay thread who thinks that SSM would harm them.
Rakeesh: Furthermore, it is a matter of opinion (one which I share, mind you) that forcing-yes, forcing-this belief on them changes their life in a minute, oblique way.
Is this really that difficult? I don't care if Rakeesh and Dagonee are for or against SSM. I care that they, for whatever lame rhetorical reasons they may have (in Rakeesh's case, he says specifically that it's because he believes it to be true), are championing the cause of "SSM hurts people". That's offensive. And that's the reason I started this thread.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:For goodness' sake, Scotty, I never said otherwise.
For someone who's so pissy over what people call them it certainly seems hypocritical to give Scott a condescending nickname.
Something to think about.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:I don't care if Rakeesh and Dagonee are for or against SSM. I care that they, for whatever lame rhetorical reasons they may have (in Rakeesh's case, he says specifically that it's because he believes it to be true), are championing the cause of "SSM hurts people". That's offensive. And that's the reason I started this thread.
I don't think your interpretation of Rakeesh's statements is valid, starLisa.
In fact, NO ONE on the thread has stated that societal harm will definitely come because of the legitimization of SSM; even BlackBlade's statements can't be construed that way. At the very worst, you could interpret my statements that SSM will make sin more accessible as saying there will be harm-- but you've got an uphill battle prooving that the ills I'm predicting signify harm to anyone who doesn't share my POV.
The short of it is this: you insulted a number of Jatraqueros for things they definitely didn't say. To reiterate my position, I don't object to SSM because I think it's going to damage society in quantifiable, recognizable wasy; I object to it because it is in opposition to the will of our Heavenly Father.
Please read more carefully next time.
EDITED for subject/verb agreement.
[ November 01, 2006, 08:42 AM: Message edited by: Scott R ]
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
JT: no, it's okay that starLisa calls me Scotty.
I don't mind. I kind of like it.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I don't care if Rakeesh and Dagonee are for or against SSM. I care that they, for whatever lame rhetorical reasons they may have (in Rakeesh's case, he says specifically that it's because he believes it to be true), are championing the cause of "SSM hurts people". That's offensive. And that's the reason I started this thread.
Neither one of us are doing that.
You've now specifically stated that I "think[] that SSM would harm [me]." This is untrue.
Please retract your erroneous statement. Should you persist with it, it will stop being mere error and will start being a lie.
Posted by dean (Member # 167) on :
I think that this post is, from beginning to end, right on.
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Which is why the assumption that people talk to God is so dangerous, Scott, my goodness (or lack thereof) to one side.
I'm not saying that you have to necessarily accept my opinion, but it'd have to be one heck of a persuasive and compelling rationale that could talk you out of an opinion that you believed God wanted you to hold. Am I right?
----------
quote:It's not disingenuous at all on a forum thread discussing the topic.
But that's the thing. They want to be able to say "I'm a reasonable person. I just don't want to have to publicly admit that I find what you're doing acceptable" without offending someone. And that's an impossible expectation. They might be right -- I can't speak for any God, as I'll be the first to admit -- but that doesn't mean that it's any less offensive to the person being denied.
And the list of actual banned behaviors in our society is very small, so the issue would normally become one of provable harm -- except that marriage is a privilege, not just a behavior. It's a special status, and we don't hand it out to just anyone.
Or do we?
Marriage can't be a privilege granted only to people who can breed. It's not a privilege granted only to people who'd make good parents. It's certainly not a privilege granted only to people who love each other, or who make up a healthy couple, or whatever. No one religion can claim that their opinion of marriage determines our law on the matter. So our standard seems to be: "two consenting adults, one male and one female."
And what people are asking is "why the male and female thing?" It can't be just about babies, because otherwise that'd be your explicit standard. It can't be about God, or you wouldn't let us marry in courthouses. Is the idea that one person is male and the other person is female more important than checking that the people involved would make good parents, or would be a healthy couple, or any dozen other requirements that spring to mind?
Why, in other words, is the lowest common denominator the sex of the participants?
And the answer is "we're pretty sure society would fall apart if men married men." We can't stop two uneducated but heterosexual drug addicts from marrying because that would infringe on their rights, but society absolutely must be protected from same-sex marriages, to the extent that we'll change the Constitution if we can't get judges to side with our interpretation.
Yeah, I'm making this sound ludicrous. But it IS pretty ludicrous. It's laughable and unfortunate, and people who feel this way need to have this pointed out to them. And I think our society does itself a horrible, horrible disservice by pretending otherwise.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by El JT de Spang:
quote:For goodness' sake, Scotty, I never said otherwise.
For someone who's so pissy over what people call them it certainly seems hypocritical to give Scott a condescending nickname.
Something to think about.
You miss the point, JT. I did it on purpose, because Scott refuses to stop calling me starLisa. Since it doesn't bother him, I'll have to find something else to use. Unless, of course, he decides to do the simple and courteous thing and call me Lisa, as I've asked him to.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I'd bet a lot of money that nothing you call Scott that's within the TOS will upset him.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
when did it become insulting to address someone by their screen name?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I did not say that I believe SSM would harm those opposed to it. I did say that it would bring minute, oblique change into their lives. Is that so freaking hard to understand?
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jim-Me: when did it become insulting to address someone by their screen name?
Immediately after I asked not to be called starLisa. Prior to that, it was not insulting. Subsequent to it, it was not only insulting, but deliberately so.
But hey, maybe Scott thinks that being rude is God's will, too.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Why did you pick it as a screenname if you consider being called it rude?
See, I think you pull out the "Call me Lisa" thing when you want to score points and manipulate whomever you're having a conversation with.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
Crap. I picked it because Lisa wasn't available. As I've pointed out in the past. And there's nothing manipulative about asking to be called by my name, rather than by my screen name. See, all that someone like Scott needs to do is to just type four characters fewer the next time he refers to me. Ignoring that request is obnoxious.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
You can always choose a new screenname that you don't find offensive.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I did not say that I believe SSM would harm those opposed to it. I did say that it would bring minute, oblique change into their lives. Is that so freaking hard to understand?
You characterized it as forcing something on others. And your pathetic caveat that you aren't saying it's force of the same magnitude doesn't change that.
SSM does not force anything on its opponents. Saying that it does is as wrongheaded as saying that laws against murder are forcing something on potential murderers. I can't begin to understand the kind of mind that works that way.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: You can always choose a new screenname that you don't find offensive.
I prefer to be called by my name.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Let's stay focused here, Lisa. You've asserted several times now that you chose the opening post wording carefully to convey your exact meaning. You reiterated it as:
quote:I specifically called out those who think that SSM would harm them.
You have then named both Rakeesh and myself as those being "called out."
There is nothing in that thread that indicates that I think SSM harms me. I have now stated explicitly that I do not. I have acknowledged that some people think that SSM will harm society - not individuals and specifically not me, either as the subject of "think" or the object of "harm."
Rakeesh has stated that he sees it as being forced on others, not himself, and, further, he does not consider the change that SSM would bring about to be harm.
Your stated criteria for being the target of your cartoon quite simply do not apply to either myself or Rakeesh. Rakeesh and myself are the only two named targets of the opening post. You have therefore stated that you believe the criteria for being the target apply to Rakeesh and myself.
Those criteria do not apply to either Rakeesh or myself. You have made a factual error concerning our views. You have an opportunity to acknowledge and correct that error now.
I'll use something you yourself said to make this point more clear to you:
quote:If you want to pretend that I was [saying that I think SSM will hurt anybody] in the face of my stated intent, then there's no reasoning with you.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Calling you starLisa was peevish of me; I apologize.
From now on, I'll only use it when my explicit purpose is to tick you off.
I'm curious how you justify your initial post, in light of the evidence that no one has stated that SSM harms society.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
There are many posters whose real names I know. Some seem to like to be called by their real names, and some don't (and I know it because I've communicated with them outside of Hatrack, for instance.) For myself, I like people who consider themselves my friend to call me by my first name, or Icky instead. Both calling me by name and calling me by an affectionate nickname seem to connote goodwill to me. But it doesn't bother me if they call me Icarus instead, because I don't expect them to keep each person's idiosyncratic preferences straight. Considering it actively rude to call someone by their screenname seems bizarre, to me.
I prefer people who do not consider themselves my friend to not call me Icky or by my first name, but I let people self-select whether they belong in that category or not.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Of course, Scotty seems to have rendered my post moot . . . consider it my random ramblings. I can't promise I'll remember to call you Lisa and not starLisa, but I doubt it will be deliberate when I call you by the wrong name,
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Differing from Icky and Scott R, I've solved the dilemma by never addressing you by name at all.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I prefer to be called by my name.
Lisa, so do I. That's why I'm "TomDavidson" here and almost everywhere else. When I first registered here, years ago, "Tom" was unavailable. I didn't want to be something like "Tom1976" or other obvious AOLisms, so I went with my last name.
If you honestly find "starLisa" offensive and would rather be called "Lisa," changing your username to "LisaL" or "Lisa3000" or "LisaTheGreatAndGood" or something like that is almost guaranteed to ensure that people will call you "Lisa" more often than anything else.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
Tom, honestly, I don't consider "starLisa" offensive. I just prefer Lisa, and I get irked when I mention that, and someone deliberately calls me starLisa afterwards.
I have a sister named Michelle. She prefers Micky. It's not that she finds "Michelle" offensive; it's just a preference. And she isn't going to get upset at someone calling her Michelle, generally speaking, because it's not something to get upset about.
But if someone who knows she doesn't like to be called Michelle calls her that, she's going to rightly take it as rude. She might first consider that it was an oversight, as I do. But sometimes it's fairly clear that it's being done on purpose.
Anyway, let's drop it and get back to fighting about the thread itself. <sigh>
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:You characterized it as forcing something on others. And your pathetic caveat that you aren't saying it's force of the same magnitude doesn't change that.
SSM does not force anything on its opponents. Saying that it does is as wrongheaded as saying that laws against murder are forcing something on potential murderers. I can't begin to understand the kind of mind that works that way.
It forces a major change on society on the people who do not wish it to be changed. Can you possibly not see that? Even if the people being forced are wrong, does not change the fact that there is force involved. Just like legislation resulting from the Civil Rights movement forced Americans to live in a more inclusive society, so too would legalizing SSM force Americans-whether they like it or not-to live in a more inclusive society.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
See, that's the kind of weird thinking I'm talking about.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Lord of Fools am I, to those who care To skip on ledges at Devil's Dare; Scott they call me in Hashem-On-Godi And add an R whene'er I'm naughty.
Dread Pirate, they sing on the wildling waves, King of Boneyards, and the Freest Slave; One name have I, ne'er to be told: Friend of flame, capricious, bold.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Hashem-On-Godi
*snicker* That was deliberate, wasn't it.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Oh, crap. No, it wasn't. I promise it wasn't. I needed something to rhyme with 'naughty' and Gotti Jr. has been in the news. And 'Hashem' was originally something like 'Hyrum,' but I wanted it to sound more exotic.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
*pat pat* That's all right. You can blame it on your subconscious if you like. Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I add the "R" at all times because 1) "Scott" is OSC, and 2) Scott R has stated his desire to remain apathetic and not chummy.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Oh, crap. No, it wasn't. I promise it wasn't. I needed something to rhyme with 'naughty' and Gotti Jr. has been in the news. And 'Hashem' was originally something like 'Hyrum,' but I wanted it to sound more exotic.
It could be Hashem like Mohammed's great-grandfather.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
In terms of amount of usage on this site, kat, I'm much more "Scott" than OSC will EVER be.
MUAHAAA! I AM THE USURPER! I HAVE STOLEN ORSON SCOTT CARD'S COMMON NAME OFF HIS OWN WEBSITE! FROM HIS OWN FANS!
But carry on! Far be it from me to deride your nominative preferences.
Ignore the edited note below. It's been placed there by the EEEEEvil Dr. Moose. Who wants to bite the toes of all your babies, and make them sing Barry Manilow songs.
[ November 01, 2006, 03:27 PM: Message edited by: Scott R ]
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote:Scott R has stated his desire to remain apathetic and not chummy.
I don't actually take him at face value, because I think he is far too nice for me to believe he doesn't want to be my friend. Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I take him at face value, otherwise the fandom of the poetry will seem weird.
*sniff* I just like to dream that I'm on first name basis with OSC.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:I'm curious how you justify your initial post, in light of the evidence that no one has stated that SSM harms society.
Just for...you know, GIGGLES, or something. I am interested in this.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I HAVE STOLEN ORSON SCOTT CARD'S FIRST NAME OFF HIS OWN WEBSITE!
Wouldn't your first name have to be Orson?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I have no idea what you're talking about, Tom.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:I'm curious how you justify your initial post, in light of the evidence that no one has stated that SSM harms society.
Just for...you know, GIGGLES, or something. I am interested in this.
Forcing something on society and harming society is different to you? I'm asking seriously.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Yes.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Just like legislation resulting from the Civil Rights movement forced Americans to live in a more inclusive society, so too would legalizing SSM force Americans-whether they like it or not-to live in a more inclusive society.
This, for example, would in the long run be a good thing rather than harm.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
Rakeesh says that "forced" Americans. I disagree.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
The question remains: are you retracting your assertion that Rakeesh and I meet the criteria you have repeatedly stated define those at whom you aimed this cartoon?
To reiterate, those criteria are:
1) being a person who participated in the curent gay thread. 2) thinking SSM harms oneself.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: It forces a major change on society on the people who do not wish it to be changed. Can you possibly not see that? Even if the people being forced are wrong, does not change the fact that there is force involved. Just like legislation resulting from the Civil Rights movement forced Americans to live in a more inclusive society, so too would legalizing SSM force Americans-whether they like it or not-to live in a more inclusive society.
Allowing SSM will potentially effect people who are against it in ways no one can really predict. Not allowing SSM will definitely effect homosexuals in a real and negative way.
I ask you, even though I think your answer will be different than mine, which one of those effects should we be more concerned about?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Javert, I'm not sure why you're asking that question. Rakeesh was trying to correct the record about what he said in another thread. He supports the same exact civil recognition for same sex couples that he does for heterosexual couples.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
Long day at work...sorry for accusing Rakeesh of something he didn't say. But the question stands for anyone who might agree with the statement.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:This, for example, would in the long run be a good thing rather than harm.
I agree.
quote:Rakeesh says that "forced" Americans. I disagree.
It certainly forced some Americans, in the same sense that we are forced to pay taxes, for example.
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
of me to be incredibly amused by this typo? ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
. . . consider it my random ramblings. I can't promise I'll remember to call you Lisa and not starLisa, but I doubt it will be deliberate when I call you by the wrong name,
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)