posted
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.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
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".
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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. Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.'
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
If diplomacy is the vaseline of social intercourse, ambiguity is the annoying bits of grit it so often picks up.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
IIRC, Fred is no longer even a Christian in name only, having officially "quit" when his wife died.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
So you limit your egregious, bigoted personal attacks to people with opinions different from yours? That's disgusting.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
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."
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
"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.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
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
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.
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.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
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")
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
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.
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".
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
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.)
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
