posted
Okay, here is a thought exercise, inspired by some of the discussions going on in the Gay Marriage threads.
Imagine, for a moment, that:
1. You have developed a belief that X, while not an evil act, violates some deep, eternal truth that you cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt to anyone else.
Now, I'll stop there, because many people reading this are immediately thinking, "Wait a minute. I don't believe anything that I can't verify or prove to someone else, and I think people that do so are stupid."
If you thought that, or something like it, then I think we've hit on the crux of the disagreement already. However, I don't believe that anyone is a 100% skeptical purist. Tom, for instance, while highly intellectually rigorous and skeptical in almost every aspect of his life, has developed a belief that abortion is wrong — an opinion that cannot be supported factually and proven to another person, but which is nevertheless very important to him. King of Men, as another example, has developed a belief that religion is harmful to society, an opinion which is highly controversial, and which depends very heavily on a personal definition of what constitutes harm, and how different harms and benefits weigh against one another.
I'm not saying that either of these people is the equivalent of your typical faithful adherent to a religion. But I am trying to point out cases that they, and others, might use to imagine another person's experience with faith, without taking as one of their assumptions, "Well, if I were really, really stupid and believed in God ..."
Anyway, let's pretend that you came up with some experience or opinion of yours that you cannot prove, but which is still very important to you, and that you feel you have proven sufficiently to yourself, for the time being, that you are willing to live and make choices as though it were true.
So we go back to the list:
1. You have developed a belief that X, while not an evil act, violates some deep, eternal truth that you cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt to anyone else. 2. For the first time, a strong subculture of people in your society is very vocal about wanting X to be incorporated into your society, and they seem to have a strong chance of success. 3. You know that your reasons for believing that X is inappropriate cannot be proven, and therefore, you cannot use them to convince anyone else that your position is even worth considering. 4. However, if X is incorporated into your society, you suspect that several things will happen: A. Whatever consequences you believe will result from X in the eternal scheme of things will be played out on a larger scale, to the detriment of many people. B. It will become more difficult for you to teach your beliefs to your children, and protect them from those consequences. The entire language of society will steer them toward viewing your beliefs as eccentric. C. Your own community will risk becoming social pariahs in the backlash against the former "bigotry" that prevented X from being adopted sooner. Your beliefs will mark you as an undesireable member of society, even though you know that you are not motivated by any sort of ill will towards anyone.
If you were in this situation, what would you do? You have a position that, while you cannot prove it, you trust it enough (for personal reasons) that you can't just abandon it as a wave of new opinions washes over your society. You know that any time you try to engage in a discussion, you will be shouted down, your reasons will be dismissed as invalid, and your intelligence will often be insulted, undeservedly.
What would you consider an appropriate response to this situation? (I'm hoping we can get past the "abandon your belief because it is obviously wrong" response, and get into a discussion that has some chance of establishing a common ground.)
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
For the first time in this society? I may have missed something, but I'm pretty sure this is America's first significant Gay Marriage movement. Am I wrong about that?
Either way, as you recognized, that wasn't a critical part of the point, so ... Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I suppose it depends how you define "this society." I also didn't realize that "first time" and "your society" were meant to be linked in quite that way.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Puppy: For the first time in this society? I may have missed something, but I'm pretty sure this is America's first significant Gay Marriage movement. Am I wrong about that?
Either way, as you recognized, that wasn't a critical part of the point, so ...
First time Gay marriage has been this big an issue, maybe. What about the churches that opposed interacial marriages?
Posts: 3134 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:You know that any time you try to engage in a discussion, you will be shouted down, your reasons will be dismissed as invalid, and your intelligence will often be insulted, undeservedly.
This isn't close to being true.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
We're slowly getting better about it around here. Back when I engaged directly in these debates, that's exactly how it was.
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
You're right. He should have put "In the place where you like to discuss things," in front of it.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would attempt to come up with (in order of priority) scientific studies, historical examples, or reasoned argument for why X is bad. If I can't prove it to other people, then it is completely unreasonable to expect them to act on it.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay, I'll take that as a correction, kat. There are definitely places where you can discuss this subject, and the shouting-down will go the other way. But among the people whose opinions matter personally to me, and whose opinions matter to establishing consensus on a solution, discussion of the subject can be very frustrating. Even when there is no shouting, the mischaracterization of arguments and motivations can get really hurtful.
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know what I'd do off-hand, but it seems to me that you're left with two options:
1) Compromise, while still teaching your children and your fellow believers that it is wrong and living accordingly, and pray that God will be merciful and understanding. 2) Ignore all the protestations and act as you see fit. In this case, your opponents are actually right, in that you will never treat their ideas as you want them to treat yours... But at the same time they'd be irrelevant. I see shade's of Abraham and Isaac in this option.
I think that these are the 2 main options because even if you can gain an "understanding" of the other side (as you and others are trying to ask others to attempt to get for your particular rationale), its not applicable as you've already received an overriding imperative. You aren't on a level playing field. There is an implicit sense of, not condescension, but a close cousin, in your understanding, not unlike Einstein's famous quip to a schoolchild that Einstein's own troubles with math were far greater than the child's simple issues with, say, multiplication.
Any other response, to me, seems to belie the sincerity of the assumptions of your hypothetical.
posted
Good response, King! But as a follow-up ... if your belief persists that X can be detrimental to individuals, whether or not your society at large recognizes your reasoning and can be persuaded, what would you do within the non-legislative realm? Like social circles? Would you keep your opinion private, like a dirty secret? Would you proselytize? Something else?
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:We're slowly getting better about it around here. Back when I engaged directly in these debates, that's exactly how it was.
That's not even close to being true. I was in those debates with you, like this one and that didn't occur.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bok, option 1 is the one I tend to lean towards, myself. That's why I typically side with Dagonee on civil unions. The tough part there is, once you've given something up (which can be a heart-wrenching process by itself), some opponents see it as an opportunity to push even harder and go for a complete, unconditional victory, rather than a compromise.
But yes, in general, I think that the best way to protect the interests of an idealogical minority is to establish a compromise quickly and effectively, so that the issue can be resolved on terms you can live with ... rather than risking an all-out defeat, which tends to be the end result for most conservative causes.
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Tom, for instance, while highly intellectually rigorous and skeptical in almost every aspect of his life, has developed a belief that abortion is wrong — an opinion that cannot be supported factually and proven to another person, but which is nevertheless very important to him.
Um.... While I agree with the general thrust of this argument, I think your specific example is bad. In my case, I specifically have come to believe that late-term abortion is the deliberate killing of a sentient being. My reasons for this can be demonstrated and "proven" to another person. Now, I freely admit that science cannot yet establish when sentience begins, so the value that I personally put on human life forces me to push what I consider an "acceptable" timeframe for abortions back considerably to an interval I consider the "minimum" for safety.
People can disagree with me on the established minimums and/or the relative value judgements, but the processes used to determine where those points are located are scientifically verifiable.
I can identify the core elements of my rationale. People who want to challenge my opposition to abortion need to attack specific items: the idea that human life has intrinsic value; the idea that self-awareness is the primary indicator of human life; the idea that self-awareness is impossible without brain function; that establishing an arbitrary zone of "minimum safety" is inherently flawed; and so forth. These are all points on which my argument can be attacked, perhaps successfully; I know people on this board who can quite sensibly argue to the contrary on any or all of these.
I don't think I could hold a belief that I couldn't argue, or that relied on logic that couldn't be articulated. My brain just doesn't work that way.
Now, as to the rest of your question: if my beliefs, however logical or illogical, were being challenged by a growing and hostile group, I would work against them -- for whatever reason. Presumably I have reasons for my beliefs, and I consider them satisfactory ones -- and while that group is certainly welcome to try to change my mind, their passion and determination won't be major factors in any likely change.
So if the question is "how can people who oppose SSM do it to Tom Davidson's satisfaction," I've got to admit that, by and large, you're already doing almost as well as you can. There are bigoted and unreasonable outliers, and the unprovable nature of your premises mean that you're never going to be able to convince people who don't already share your point of view.
But this is where one of my other beliefs -- the small government one -- kicks in. Since we do have an irreconcilable issue, here, I reckon it's not the government's place to rule on it unless there's provable harm. Marriage simply shouldn't be handled by governments at all, as far as I'm concerned. (By this logic, abortion is a stickier wicket; there's obvious harm if one central premise is granted, which would make it a government issue -- but since some parties don't even grant that premise, it's much harder to find a compromise.)
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
The thing with gay marriage is that, from what I can see, you are putting your emphasis in the wrong place. It's like the "solution" to divorce being making divorce illegal.
"Same Sex Marriage is wrong." isn't really the fundamental principle. Rather, it is a definition of marriage that is inconsistent with this (and in the LDS, this definition isn't just "between a man and a woman." You can teach your children about the LDS conception of eternal marriage, etc. and try to persuade other people to believe in this idea (which is not shared by most of the rest of society) without even mentioning gay marriage. And, basically, people who aren't Baptists or KoM-style atheists aren't going to have much trouble with this.
Very few people have a problem with you believing in a specific form of marriage. You aren't, in most cases, going to be mocked or dismissed or persecuted or whatever for this. Your children can receive these ideas from you without it being much more at odds with the surrounding culture than the current situation of most people not being sealed into eternal marriages in an LDS temple. And they can see for themselves whether the things you are teaching them make sense. If you teach about the male spirit and the female spirit coming together into an eternal bond, I don't even see how secularly allowing same sex couples to be wed even challenges this.
Most of the problems you are talking about, granting that they would actually come about, would come about because you were pushing the anti-gay marriage angle almost to the exclusion of the actual message. - This is one of the biggest problems I have with the whole "Defending Marriage" movement in the first place. - You aren't going to run into this huge amount of opposition by teaching your beliefs on this. Rather, you are going to run into this opposition when you try to force other people to live according to your beliefs.
posted
It's not the easiest option (neither seem particularly easy to me), and I can definitely see the worries, but like I said, assuming your hypothetical is sincere (otherwise there's no point to the exercise:)) those are the only realistic choices I can think of.
I guess you could completely reject the feeling you are getting as the work of whatever religious antagonist exists in your religion (which is moot at least for Mormons in the case of the specific issue at hand)... But that would seem to require a subtle change in your hypothetical.
I will say as someone on the other side of the debate, option 2 scares me (and also overawes me in a way).
posted
Puppy, I think your scenario doesn't work unless you accept several premises that may or may not apply to an individual person. A few assumptions I noticed.
1) The concept of eternal truth. 2) The concept of an eternal scheme. 3) The importance of your children believing what you believe. 4) Belonging to a community that shares your beliefs.
There are a few things that I think are deeply wrong (murder, slaverly, etc.). However I don't think you are talking about those things. Trying to put myself into this position just doesn't work because I don't hold the same assumptions you do. In order for me to imagine it, I suddenly become not myself. What I can do is respectfully listen to what you have to say and try to imagine what it's like for you.
I appreciate what you're trying to do. But I think you're asking me to empathize, when the situation is so different from my own life that all I can offer is compassion.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Puppy, many of your suppositions can be seen in the strength and endurance of the Vegan movement.
Here are people who truly believe that the harvesting of beef and pork and chicken etc is akin to murder. They believe that eating such protiens are bad for the body, and lead to all kinds of physical illnesses that our tax money pays to fix.
Now there are two types of Vegans. There are the obnoxious, dangerous, and self-deluded PETA people who go to extremes. Nobody, including other Vegans, like them or their tactics.
And there is the common every day Vegan, who strive to keep their kids Burger-Free and thier families safe from the horrors of the Pork industry.
They succeed, and I give them more credit for doing so than if they lived in a world of outlawed carnivorism.
They do not hide their beliefs or deny their Vegan diet in public for fear of being labeled as destructive as the PETA-nuts. And they spread their ideals calmly, through discussion and demonstration not through spin or false ministers who want to be politicians using their cause.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Puppy: We're slowly getting better about it around here. Back when I engaged directly in these debates, that's exactly how it was.
Well, to be fair, "back when", the debates just as often started out "What's with these gays screwing up society?" We luckily not terribly slowly got away from that, largely because Hatrack is full of good people and those voices where toned down or left. But it's disengenuous to portray "back when" as a time when one side was innocent and was called out for no reason. That's simply not true.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dang it all, I really didn't mean to get sidetracked into a discussion of who was or was not the "badguy" in long-past debates. When I look back to the last time I got seriously involved in the Gay Marriage debate, my opponents were John L and Lalo, and that went really, really badly. I've tried very hard not to get directly involved since then, because that experience was so painful.
Yes, there have been a lot of compassionate, well-reasoned discussions on both sides of this debate. But that doesn't change the fact that being vilified for your beliefs is incredibly unpleasant, and once it happens, fear of it happening again can color all of your future decisions (which is what my list was trying to convey).
(It also doesn't help that many of the media and personalities that I generally like and agree with consider my beliefs to be hilariously and hopelessly bigoted and stupid, and remind me of that fact all the time ... I'm trying very hard to establish common grounds and compromises, and it is very easy to get discouraged when you try to do something like that, and it seems like all anyone else wants to do is insult each other. THAT, I hope, is an experience that we can all sympathize with ...)
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:B. It will become more difficult for you to teach your beliefs to your children, and protect them from those consequences. The entire language of society will steer them toward viewing your beliefs as eccentric. C. Your own community will risk becoming social pariahs in the backlash against the former "bigotry" that prevented X from being adopted sooner. Your beliefs will mark you as an undesireable member of society, even though you know that you are not motivated by any sort of ill will towards anyone.
If you were in this situation, what would you do? You have a position that, while you cannot prove it, you trust it enough (for personal reasons) that you can't just abandon it as a wave of new opinions washes over your society. You know that any time you try to engage in a discussion, you will be shouted down, your reasons will be dismissed as invalid, and your intelligence will often be insulted, undeservedly.
Considering that "Everyone is going to mock and persecute you." is around two thirds of your results section, I think you may need to reformulate your point if you are abandoning that angle.
quote:I'm trying very hard to establish common grounds and compromises
To do this, I think you are really going to have to abandon spinning this victim angle.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Considering that "Everyone is going to mock and persecute you." is around two thirds of your results section, I think you may need to reformulate your point if you are abandoning that angle.
That's a result that hasn't happened yet, so it isn't demonstrably false. It's a concern, and a legitimate one.
"Bigot", in general, is about the worst thing you can call a person in America, and given that the zealots in favor of gay marriage use that word about as often as they breathe, if they manage to achieve an utter, total victory on every point, I don't think it is at all unreasonable to think that in forty years, being against gay marriage will earn you the same reactions that being a racist will today.
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:"Bigot", in general, is about the worst thing you can call a person in America, and given that the zealots in favor of gay marriage use that word about as often as they breathe
No, I don't. Nor does Karl, nor do a whole host of people here who feel really strongly about this.
Is this an attempt to acheive common ground, or just to insult a bunch of people?
edit: If you want to find some common ground, you should probably acknowledge that a great many people who strongly support gay marriage are pretty reasonable people.
quote:I don't think it is at all unreasonable to think that in forty years, being against gay marriage will earn you the same reactions that being a racist will today.
I sort of agree with this point. But, if you read my post from above, that's, to me, a symptom of approaching the problem incorrectly. In 40 years, I think most people are going to look back on the movement to keep gay people from getting married as akin to the people wo tried to prevent interracial marriages. However, you aren't going to have a problem with teaching an understanding of marriage that is inconsistent with the idea of same sex people marrying each other. If you put the focus on "We should force this from happening." you're going to get one result. If you posit a definition of marriage that is inconsistent with same sex marriage but isn't defined by this opposition, you're going to get a very different result.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: Dang it all, I really didn't mean to get sidetracked into a discussion of who was or was not the "badguy" in long-past debates. When I look back to the last time I got seriously involved in the Gay Marriage debate, my opponents were John L and Lalo, and that went really, really badly. I've tried very hard not to get directly involved since then, because that experience was so painful.
Yes, there have been a lot of compassionate, well-reasoned discussions on both sides of this debate. But that doesn't change the fact that being vilified for your beliefs is incredibly unpleasant, and once it happens, fear of it happening again can color all of your future decisions (which is what my list was trying to convey).
Puppy,
Also recognize that there is more than one religious viewpoint. There are almost as many religious viewpoints as there are religions.
When I started posting on Hatrack, really hateful things were being said about homosexuality. I can't believe Karl stuck around. I didn't for a long time. Things are better now - both ways. And I can understand the hesitancy to share your view for fear of ridicule.
Now imagine that instead of fearing ridicule on a forum, you faced condemnation, attempts to convert you, threats of physical violence, and legal discrimination in real life. These are people who have had to keep a significant part of their lives "a dirty secret" for fear of being vilified.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:To do this, I think you are really going to have to abandon playing the victim.
The whole point of this thread is to help opponents of religious objectors to gay marriage to understand what it feels like to be in that position. When KarlEd shares his experiences living as a gay man in America, would it be right to chide him for "playing the victim"? No, that would be really obnoxious. He has faced some real hardships that are not at all cool, and understanding that fact is the first step for one of his idealogical opponents to reach a compromise with him. It's an important step to go through.
I merely thought that it would be helpful to share with some of the opponents of religious objectors to gay marriage the fact that my beliefs place me squarely in the path of a lot of negative opinions that they would consider to be pretty bad. Do you like it when someone accuses you of having unfounded and stupid opinions? No? Then maybe telling you that I face that all the time, and can't really argue back to prove my innocence will help you understand what it's like to be in my position in this argument. Maybe asking yourself what you would do if an opinion of yours made you look stupid and credulous to many of the people you respect might help you realize why I bend over backwards so often to try and reach out to establish compromises with people and explain my point of view again and again.
Or maybe you're incapable of giving someone the benefit of the doubt and seeing their intent, and are content to pick them apart like a piece of carrion when they disagree with you. I don't know. I'm trying really hard to establish a common ground on my end, but I'm not getting a lot of help from you.
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hmm . . . I honestly don't think I could vote to prohibit behavior which I whole-heartedly believed was bad without having the data to back it up. I just don't have the right to do that. I could write about it, form a society or religion based on it, teach my children about it, etc. But if I don't have the data to back it up, it's not ok for me to impose my unsupported beliefs on others.
For that matter, there are many other things which ARE supported which I wouldn't vote on. If you want to feed your kid junk food, let them watch TV as infants and for several hours a day, positively reinforce whining and begging by giving them whatever they want, you get to do that. I think it constitutes child abuse and produces adults that can't contribute to society, and I've got the numbers to back my beliefs up, but I don't have the right to march into your living room and turn off the TV and take away the Twinkies. In the United States, as parents people get to raise their kids as they see fit, even including corporal punishment, as long as it doesn't cross certain lines.
If we want to improve marriages in the US, I suggest a required period of time between filing for a license and having a wedding and mandatory marriage counseling. It is constantly amazing to me that people get married whithout every talking about the itty bitty issues like expected income and monetary contributions and things like whether or not they want children. I swear, if people just filed for a marriage license and then each filled out a survey of the most common things people fight about in marriages and compared responses under the guidance of a trained counselor, we would be in SO much better shape as a society.
And I'd still like to see a stronger definition/recognition of the difference between a union recognized by the government for legal purposes, and one recognized by a specific religion as approved of by God. Again, the Mormon argument regarding the genders of spirits makes sense to me in the context of any gay couples attempting to get married and sealed in a Mormon temple, but I can't figure out what it has to do with those who are not Mormon, whether gay or not.
Posts: 471 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Now imagine that instead of fearing ridicule on a forum, you faced condemnation, attempts to convert you, threats of physical violence, and legal discrimination in real life. These are people who have had to keep a significant part of their lives "a dirty secret" for fear of being vilified.
I have imagined that. That's a big part of why I hold the moderate, compromise position I do today.
I just think that it will help this discussion immensely if compassion were allowed to flow both ways. Even though the bad experiences on both sides might not be equivalent, it is still important for both sides to try to understand one another.
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Puppy, I really do mean this nicely, but the "persecution" you experience - on a forum hosted by someone who shares those views - for having religious views does not compare to the persecution that most homosexuals face their whole lives.
quote:Good response, King! But as a follow-up ... if your belief persists that X can be detrimental to individuals, whether or not your society at large recognizes your reasoning and can be persuaded, what would you do within the non-legislative realm? Like social circles? Would you keep your opinion private, like a dirty secret? Would you proselytize? Something else?
I would flame people who didn't agree with me, and gain a reputation for trollishness and vicious argument.
As a completely incidental aside, do you mind abbreviating my nick as 'KoM' or 'KOM' rather than 'King'?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:No, I don't. Nor does Karl, nor do a whole host of people here who feel really strongly about this.
Is this an attempt to acheive common ground, or just to insult a bunch of people?
edit: If you want to find some common ground, you should probably acknowledge that a great many people who strongly support gay marriage are pretty reasonable people.
Squick, I am really having a hard time understanding why we're disagreeing here. I'm not making any specific accusations against you, KarlEd, or anyone. I'm saying that my beliefs expose me to ridicule from people whose opinions I respect. That is completely true. I'm not saying that you have ever called me a bigot, and KarlEd certainly hasn't — all our discussions about this have been completely civil and productive, as far as I can remember.
I'm trying to figure out why, when I talk about my experience with zealots and name-callers, you take offense like I've just accused you directly. I haven't. Honestly, I don't have any clear memories about our discussions on the subject at all.
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Yes, there have been a lot of compassionate, well-reasoned discussions on both sides of this debate. But that doesn't change the fact that being vilified for your beliefs is incredibly unpleasant, and once it happens, fear of it happening again can color all of your future decisions (which is what my list was trying to convey).
I agree, and I feel that I have just as much claim to having my beliefs vilified here, often and with varying degrees of vigorousness, yet I persist. I try not to give into the bait and return hate for hate or strife for strife or insult for insult. I don't often let a particularly egregious insult go by without calling people on it, but I try to do it in terms that help them understand why I feel insulted (if it isn't obvious) and that do not halt the dialog. Sometimes I feel depressed about this place, especially as firm impasses with people I love and respect come into clarity, but I do come back and try to make sure my side is represented clearly and as inoffensively as possible. And I believe that I have seen positive (to me) change in the general tone of the discussions and believe (perhaps naively) that I have influenced the opinions of a few Hatrackers I know -- and who knows how many lurkers (maybe none)-- for the good (again, to me). I don't like the tone of animosity any more than those of you who disagree with my side of any issue, when it creeps (or boldly jumps) in. I also try to point out when "my side" is being unfair or unreasoned.
I'm not posting this to toot my own horn, and maybe I have too high an opinion of myself, I don't know. But I think knee-jerkiness is unproductive on either side. I think a few vocal Christians on this board seem over-eager to jump at the smallest slight and cry persecution, and it doesn't help their side any more than me screaming "anti-gay bigot hate-monger" would every time someone suggests that maybe my life choices are damning me to hell.
I hate it when "my side" is intolerant. I appeal to those of you who have been told you are being offensive to take a step back and consider if maybe you are. I'm not asking you to give up any intellectual ground, just to see if maybe you can rephrase your rhetoric to be a little less abrasive and contentious. If you really are interested in dialogue and not just rhetorical masturbation then that shouldn't be viewed as an unreasonable request.
quote:I'm trying really hard to establish a common ground on my end, but I'm not getting a lot of help from you.
Is making out exchanges between us to be cases where this:
quote:You know that any time you try to engage in a discussion, you will be shouted down, your reasons will be dismissed as invalid, and your intelligence will often be insulted, undeservedly.
applies trying to find common ground?
How about saying, about me and other people who feel really strongly that:
quote:"Bigot", in general, is about the worst thing you can call a person in America, and given that the zealots in favor of gay marriage use that word about as often as they breathe
The thing is, I think you really are trying to find middle ground in your way. The problem is that you only want it on your terms, where whatever you assert about things is the truth. And, the thing I'm saying (and if you'll note, in this exchange as in most of the many, many others I've participated in, I am addressing points raised and offering complex perspectives on them), is that your perceptions are not necessarily correct.
It is not true that either in the past or in a reasonable conception of the future, any expression of an unfavorable opinion about the idea of same sex marriage is going to be shouted down with loud unreason. It is not true that your group is going to become pariahs in this 80% Christian country we live in. And, as I said, I don't see how allowing secular marriage between same sex couples is going to diminish your ability to teach your children about the LDS conception of eternal marriage.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:And, basically, people who aren't Baptists or KoM-style atheists aren't going to have much trouble with this.
Well, I may have said some things to the opposite effect, but actually I don't really mind if he teaches his children falsehoods. In the first place, they're false, so eventually humanity will get over it and get with the program. Perhaps not this generation, but the next. In the second place, since devoting mental energy to suppressing cognitive dissonance makes you less capable, people believing pervasive falsehoods is a competitive advantage for my children.
quote:I think for your original analogy to hold, you would have to have KoM voting to pass laws to prohibit the practice of religion.
And while I have no doubt he would do it, that's not the way most atheists are.
As a matter of pure tactics, it might be better not to make any martyrs by forbidding religion outright. Better to create a public atmosphere of ridicule for adults who believe in fairy tales. Most 'theists' don't actually believe all that strongly, anyway; we can live with a hard core of outcasts, much as we put up with communists and neo-nazis today.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: In the second place, since devoting mental energy to suppressing cognitive dissonance makes you less capable
Prove this. I happen to believe being comfortable with a little cognitive dissonance is extremely healthy.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:It is not true that either in the past or in a reasonable conception of the future, any expression of an unfavorable opinion about the idea of same sex marriage is going to be shouted down with loud unreason.
I have already qualified this assertion in my correction to kat.
quote:It is not true that your group is going to become pariahs in this 80% Christian country we live in.
Obviously, if 80% of this country is Christian, then Christian != Opposed to Gay Marriage. I'm not worried about Christians becoming pariahs. I'm worried that believing gay marriage to be inappropriate will become an intolerable opinion, even among Christians.
And I'm curious how someone who so vehemently demands documented, peer-reviewed proof of every statement from his opposition could so confidently assert a prediction of the future as "truth" I mean, at least, I described mine as a "fear" or a "likelihood" ...
quote:And, as I said, I don't see how allowing secular marriage between same sex couples is going to diminish your ability to teach your children about the LDS conception of eternal marriage.
Mormons will have an easier time of it than some religious groups, because we are different enough in so many ways that our children tend to grasp rather quickly that the universally-accepted opinion doesn't always apply to them. However, each generation that passes diminishes that separation (as you can see in the LDS divorce rate, which lagged for years, but eventually caught up to the general divorce rate of the country), and religious cultures that don't stand out as much from the mainstream will have a much harder time with this than I will.
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Geoff, In your post, you characterized a reasonable future as being one in which:
quote:You know that any time you try to engage in a discussion, you will be shouted down, your reasons will be dismissed as invalid, and your intelligence will often be insulted, undeservedly.
You also said that this characterized your past interactions on Hatrack on these issues.
quote:We're slowly getting better about it around here. Back when I engaged directly in these debates, that's exactly how it was.
Many of those interactions have been directly with me, as is the case in the most recent thread about gay marriage that I think you engaged in. How are you not talking about me?
I don't need much help understanding that people often construct scenarios in which they are unfairly victimized or if things they don't want to have happen happen, they will be victims. Victim fantasies and the stronger persecution complexes are a very common psychological phenomenon. Some times they are even justified.
I understand that you feel this way. However, one of the things I'm trying to point out is that your reasons for doing so are not terribly sound. Are people currently and in the future going to make unjustified attacks on you? Sure they are. That's part of life.
Is it true that any time you express an opinion that is not consistent with gays being married in any meaning of the word people are going to shout you down and heap unjustified attacks on you? No, of course not. That is an unreasonable belief.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Puppy: I'm worried that believing gay marriage to be inappropriate will become an intolerable opinion, even among Christians.
(And this is meant to be reassuring) See, I already think that and you are not significantly harmed by my thinking that. Whereas people who do believe that gay marriage is inappropriate, and vote that way, do significantly harm gay people who want to marry. How is my thinking that you have an intolerable opinion worse than you thinking that someone has an intolerable life?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:And I'm curious how someone who so vehemently demands documented, peer-reviewed proof of every statement from his opposition could so confidently assert a prediction of the future as "truth"
Is that a fair statement about me? I really don't think it is.
I'll ask again, is this really about finding common ground or just about insulting people?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: Puppy, I really do mean this nicely, but the "persecution" you experience - on a forum hosted by someone who shares those views - for having religious views does not compare to the persecution that most homosexuals face their whole lives
Yeah... I'll second this in spades. I hid my whole childhood, left my home for good and put up with people using "gay" as a swear word. And I've been called things much ruder than "bigot."
The idea that giving equal rights to gay people will make you outcasts leaves me pretty flabbergasted. I've been an outcast all my life and most of it came from christians.
Still, I support you practicing your faith the way you desire. Please don't use the weight of the law against my brothers and sisters.
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: In the second place, since devoting mental energy to suppressing cognitive dissonance makes you less capable
Prove this. I happen to believe being comfortable with a little cognitive dissonance is extremely healthy.
Just as a first cut, fundamentalists tend to be less wealthy than more liberal Christians. Assuming capability translates to wealth, and fundamentalists have more cognitive dissonance than others, well then.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Assuming capability translates to wealth, and fundamentalists have more cognitive dissonance than others, well then.
Ah. I didn't realize we were playing "who can make the most staggeringly nonsensical leaps of 'logic'."
Give me a minute. I'm sure I can come up with something almost as ridiculous.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
So, apart from being made by me, what logical problem do you see with my post? I grant you I haven't yet shown which way the causality runs, that's why I said it was only a first cut.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: So, apart from being made by me, what logical problem do you see with my post? I grant you I haven't yet shown which way the causality runs, that's why I said it was only a first cut.
1) IME, "fundamentalists" are among the least likely to deal with cognitive dissonance. 2) There are SO many possible variables affecting the wealth of two such disparate groups, I do not understand how you can remotely claim that it is evidence of much of anything.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Hail]](graemlins/hail.gif)
kmbboots
