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.)
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Puppy: 2. For the first time . . .
Not that it really matters, but I don't think this part is accurate.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
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 ... Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
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.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
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?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
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.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
We're slowly getting better about it around here. Back when I engaged directly in these debates, that's exactly how it was.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
You're right. He should have put "In the place where you like to discuss things," in front of it.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
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.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
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.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
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.
-Bok
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
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?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
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.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
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.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
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.)
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
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.
edited extensively, but finished now
[ October 31, 2006, 04:53 PM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
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).
-Bok
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
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.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
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.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Puppy, 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.
Pix
(ps: Yes, I'm a bad and lazy pixie, I didn't read the rest of the thread.)
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
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.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
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 ...)
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Geoff,
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.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
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.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
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.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
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.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
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.
Posted by Samarkand (Member # 8379) on :
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.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
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.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
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.
edit: whoops! cross posted.
[ October 31, 2006, 05:45 PM: Message edited by: kmbboots ]
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
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'?
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
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.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
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.
[/soapbox /self indugence /hatrack (for tonight anyway)]
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
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.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
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.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
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.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
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.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
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.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
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?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
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?
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
kmbboots
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:How is my thinking that you have an intolerable opinion worse than you thinking that someone has an intolerable life?
I'm wondering what your basis is for thinking that Puppy thinks anyone has an intolerable life.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
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.
Pix
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
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.
That is a very good point.
I like how Puppy is getting 2-way communication about very personal issues.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
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.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
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.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
rivka, dear, please be careful when you do so you don't splash damage people who like you when you hit KoM.
Pix
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
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.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Good point, Pix.
On second thought, that nonsense doesn't deserve to be continued.
I await actual proof, rather than insulting nonsense. Whenever is convenient will be fine, oh King.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
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.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I used to at one time have a religion, so I cannot completely shake a certain... core of morality even though I eat pork, drink very seldom and curse outloud in time sof extreme angry. But I can't really think of any X that would completely hurt society or the individual other than irresponsible gambling or drinking. I don't really agree with abortion, personally, if placed in that position I doubt I would get one... As for Homosexuality, at one point I did believe what I was taught, that it was wrong. (remembers reaction to finding out the Indigo Girls were lesbian.) But, since I had began to experience certain feelings I began to question what I was taught. I think if a vocal majority said disgreed with me I would question myself to ask why and maybe consider that perhaps I didn't know the complete story. I know when I was in Jr high school and high school I read all sorts of books that changed my perspective and made me feel for gay people and what they go through.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
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.
1. Possibly we have different understandings of what cognitive dissonance is? I was referring to the need to consciously suppress examination of evidence - particularly, evidence against a young earth. 2. First cut, remember? I take it we are agreed that fundamentalists actually are poorer than other religious groups. Then there are three possibilities : Fundamentalist beliefs cause poverty, poverty causes fundamentalist beliefs, or both are caused by something else. Now, only one of these supports my thesis; but it still forms a basis for discussion.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:1. Possibly we have different understandings of what cognitive dissonance is? I was referring to the need to consciously suppress examination of evidence - particularly, evidence against a young earth.
That's not cognitive dissonance. That's denial, or lack of acceptance.
quote: I take it we are agreed that fundamentalists actually are poorer than other religious groups.
Nope. And given that this is how you wish to play with meaningless statistics, I'm done.
Get back to me when you understand the difference between correlation in the physical sciences and the social sciences. Lots more confounding factors in the latter than the former. Unless and until you can understand that, this conversation is useless.
Shame on me for not realizing that from the beginning.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Just to go back to the first point...
quote: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.
When I do this, they call it OCD, and I'd never try to force other people to live by my rules.
Now, I know you're going to probably bring up that my avoidance of X is clearly irrational and based on a feeling. Deep down, religion is really based on faith, which is pretty much a feeling. A lot of religious rituals and whatnot don't have a secular, rational basis. Which means that they're rational within the religion. That doesn't make them rational to outsiders. Heck, fear of germs is about things that actually do physically exist and CAN be proven.
No, I'm not saying that religious people have mental problems. But I'm saying that the mentality of avoiding X can be similar in that it's often something that other people don't see/understand/think is a big deal, and you can't really prove to them that it is. Which is why it frustrates me that so many can't see the usefulness of being a little more hands-off when it comes to their beliefs and other people who do not share these beliefs.
-pH
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:1. Possibly we have different understandings of what cognitive dissonance is? I was referring to the need to consciously suppress examination of evidence - particularly, evidence against a young earth.
That's not cognitive dissonance. That's denial, or lack of acceptance.
If you like. At any rate, this is the process to which I was referring.
quote:
quote: I take it we are agreed that fundamentalists actually are poorer than other religious groups.
Nope. And given that this is how you wish to play with meaningless statistics, I'm done.
Ok; as you wish. I do not see what I did to cause such offense. If you think I'm wrong about the factual basis of my argument, fine, say so and we can look up the statistics. But what's this of going off in a huff merely because I said something you think is wrong?
quote:Get back to me when you understand the difference between correlation in the physical sciences and the social sciences. Lots more confounding factors in the latter than the former. Unless and until you can understand that, this conversation is useless.
Ho hum. Speaking of personal attacks. For all my reputation hereabouts, I don't think I've ever asserted that anyone is so incompetent as to make discussion with them absolutely worthless.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Not offended. That would imply that I give your opinions far more weight than I do.
And I didn't say that any conversation with you is worthless. I have no problem discussing physics, math, and various other things with you.
Just that social science is no longer on that list.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Well then, just what is your problem? What is it you would have me do, or not do? If you feel that my argument is utterly wrong, surely going off in a huff is a rather counter-productive action. Why not just point out the mistake I'm making, for the benefit of the lurkers if nobody else? A mere assertion of 'You are incompetent' does not exactly make a good impression for your side; it looks rather like an ad hom.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I have. Twice.
That's enough for me.
And it's not a "huff." I merely choose to spend my energies where they will be more productive.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:How is my thinking that you have an intolerable opinion worse than you thinking that someone has an intolerable life?
I'm wondering what your basis is for thinking that Puppy thinks anyone has an intolerable life.
Puppy's concern seemed to be that people who think the way that he does will be looked down on for thinking that way - like we look down on bigots and racists.
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, 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.
I hope that Puppy's prediction is right. I wish that his assessment of "the worst thing you can call a person" was. I believe that gay people are called much worse.
quote: I'm worried that believing gay marriage to be inappropriate will become an intolerable opinion, even among Christians.
The fact is that we do tolerate racists and bigots - we just think that they are wrong and want society to reflect that. Similarly, opponents of SSM think that homosexuality is wrong and want society to reflect that.
What I am hearing from Puppy is a gentle, kindly, sincere voice saying, "I don't want society to judge me wrong for the way I think because I think homosexuals are wrong for the way they live."
edited to fix gender. (Sorry, Puppy)
[ November 01, 2006, 11:29 AM: Message edited by: kmbboots ]
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:I believe that gay people are called much worse.
While that is probably true elsewhere, I've never seen it happen here on Hatrack, where people who oppose SSM are repeated called bigots. I saw it happen just yesterday.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:I believe that gay people are called much worse.
While that is probably true elsewhere, I've never seen it happen here on Hatrack, while people who oppose SSM are repeated called bigots here. I saw it happen just yesterday.
Hatrack isn't the world. Part of my point is that having your opinion threatened on a forum is less harmful and less significant than having your lifestyle threatened in the real world.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
mph: No, we're just told to stay in our place, that we're reprobated (That's worse than being a bigot) and that we don't deserve the same rights as everyone else.
How about this, you let gays get married, then call them bigots. Sound good? Wanna trade?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I agree with Porter. Whatever happens elsewhere, name-calling is not cricket here. Defending it by saying name-calling happens elsewhere is lame.
So is the above "exchange."
Posted by dean (Member # 167) on :
quote:Originally posted by Puppy: 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.
I actually did not go with, "But I never think things I can't prove," my first response was, "If I can't prove it and I don't think it's actually evil, I wouldn't believe in making laws to enforce that belief on other people."
Further down in the post, you say that the vocal minority's winning will have consequences. In this situation, I would take a wait and see stance to the consequences. Either A) the consequences will be bad, and other people will notice and society will backpedal or B) there will be negligable consequences and maybe I'll be proven wrong.
That's the stance I tried to take when I found out that Bush was re-elected. Either it will be bad and we'll deal with it, or it won't be bad, and there will be nothing to deal with.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: 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:
The above points are the ones that are used most often on Hatrack and Ornery to rationalize being against gay marriage, but I just want to point out that point number four isn't an argument against gay marriage so much as it is, I think, a straw man. That is, objectively there could be absolutely nothing wrong with gay marriage in and of itself, but even if that were so, society might still punish those who have, subjectively, the wrong opinion about gay marriage.
It seems to me, then, that we should rail against the problem of social bigotry and work to solve that, rather than the problem of gay marriage which, assuming for the sake of argument point number 4 is true, has nothing to do with the actual problem, and is just a symptom of the disease.
Of course, if it is argued that point 4 makes it so that point 3 must not be allowed to happen, then isn't the converse true? Doesn't prejudice against gay marriage result? Sure. Therefore, it seems to me that there is a kind of better you than me flavor to that argument and, again, it might be better for everyone just to work for and practice social tolerance so that as little discrimination happens as possible.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:I've never seen it happen here on Hatrack, where people who oppose SSM are repeated called bigots. I saw it happen just yesterday.
The founder of our site has said that we should have anti-gay laws on the books so that we can apply them when gay people need to be sent a message that they aren't welcome in our society.
Where did this happen yesterday? I'd like to see the context.
Nearly all the people I know on this site won't call people bigots merely for opposing SSM, but that doesn't mean that we won't point out that there are many bigots in the anti-SSN camp.
--- edit: Look, Geoff started off this thread with the assumption that the majority of people who support gay marriage are just fine with unjustifiably attacking and shouting people down. He then specifically included the people on Hatrack in this and hasn't withdrawn that even though I linked what I think was his most recent exchange - with me - on this issue where none of this happened. I think Geoff's characterization of the pro-SSM people is at least as insulting and unjustified as saying all the anti-SSN people are bigots.
Are there irresponsible and extreme people out there? You bet there are. We even get them on Hatrack, but they are generally fringe people. And even they appear to me to be modulating their tone and accusations.
[ November 01, 2006, 12:17 PM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by MPH: While that is probably true elsewhere, I've never seen it happen here on Hatrack, where people who oppose SSM are repeated called bigots. I saw it happen just yesterday.
I've seen it happen here. As Kate noted:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: When I started posting on Hatrack, really hateful things were being said about homosexuality. I can't believe Karl stuck around.
It isn't clear from her new screen name, but she started posting on Hatrack before I registered.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
So, over five years ago?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Upon checking my facts, it turns out that I was incorrect. It did not happen yesterday. My mistake.
It has happened many times over the last three years, though, while I've never seen the described attacks on homosexuals during that time.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I've seen hateful names and things directed at gays here. I've seen unjustified accusations of bigotry aimed at anti-SSM people as well. Also, I've been accused many, many times of saying all anti-SSM people were bigots when I said nothing of the sort.
Without context, I don't think these accusations have much substance to them. Geoff leveled an accusation against the posters of Hatrack that I know and demonstrated wasn't true. porter's accusation appears to be false in at least one of its aspects.
edit: And, ultimately, I think individual cases are somewhat irrelevant. There are going to be extreme examples of irresponsible behavior on pretty much any issue, especially on an internet forum. Some of the same people who are levying accusations here were making the same point about not judging a whole group by its irresponsible extremists here. If there is a general case for persecution to be made, that is different, but finding an example of a fringe poster behaving poorly is hardly this.[/edit]
I get that people genuinely believe that they are victims or that current trends will turn them into victims, but I don't think that these fears are particularly rational. For one thing, they turn a large section of people, myself included, into victimizers. And, I'm pretty sure that a very large number of us are not.
[ November 01, 2006, 01:07 PM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by scholar (Member # 9232) on :
On other forums and in other contexts, I have voiced my opinion on ssm and homosexuality. I am pro-ssm, but I do believe homosexuality is a sin. However, if we tried to legislate or judge people based on what I believe is a sin, everyone would be screwed. So, I don't tell my gay friends they are wrong, just like I don't tell my straight friends who are engaging in premarital sex they are wrong. If they ask, I will say so, but otherwise, I keep out of it. For this belief, I have been called a bigot. I have been told I support beating up gays for fun, that the world would be better off if people like me were killed and all sorts of other hateful things. Never on this forum, which is why I am still around, but there is definetely persecution out there going both ways. And having had a friend stabbed for being gay, I would definetely say gays have it worse. But bad stuff happens on both sides.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: So, over five years ago?
You say that as though it's a refutation.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I get that people genuinely believe that they are victims or that current trends will turn them into victims, but I don't think that these fears are particularly rational.
An example of a rational fear: that churches will be forbidden tax-free status if they refuse to conduct same-sex marriages.
Another rational fear: that society will eventually come to think less of people who believe homosexuality is unwholesomely aberrant.
These are perfectly rational fears. They may or may not be reasonable fears, but I won't think less of anyone for being leery of these potential consequences.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
I agree.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Yes, you're right, I should have used reasonable instead of rational.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Geoff:
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.
MrSquicky:
quote: This isn't close to being true.
Geoff:
quote:We're slowly getting better about it around here. Back when I engaged directly in these debates, that's exactly how it was.
MrSquicky:
quote:That's not even close to being true. I was in those debates with you, like this one and that didn't occur.
On page 2 of the thread that MrSquicky linked:
quote:It's not because "God" hates gay folk... it's because religion is afraid of low numbers.
quote:I read somewhere that an excellent indicator of juvenile delinquency is family size. That says something to me about the REAL effects of Mormons, Catholics, other religious groups with large families, etc.
Page 3:
quote:It turns out scientists recently altered a gene in a female fly that caused it to act as a male to attract a mate. Hmm. And there was a finding last year that the brains of homosexuals had an area that was larger than the same area in heterosexuals. Hmm. It'll be interesting to hear what the queer-haters will come up with when the proof becomes empirical that being homosexual is no more of a choice than it is being heterosexual.
quote:The anti-homosexual bigots already denied gays the ability to adopt children in Texas based on terrible research done by a man who was censored and thrown out of the APA and ASA because he just couldn't stop lying and making things up.
That's as far as I've gotten. Do you need more? (The last quote was from Mr. Squicky-- I don't think I've fouled anything by quoting it out of context, but I'll let him explain it.)
EDIT:
In any case, I don't really see the benefit to this discussion in Squicky's literal take on Geoff's claims. Can you explain why it's so important to you, Squicky?
[ November 01, 2006, 01:56 PM: Message edited by: Scott R ]
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:That's as far as I've gotten. Do you need more?
You may want to explain why any of that fits in with Geoff's accusation that:
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 may want to realize that acknowledging that there are many anti-gay biots out there in no way constitutes any of the things that Geoff said or is in fact inaccurate or irresponsible.
---
edit: And it's important for the reasons I've already laid out in this thread. It is very difficult to come to a compromise with someone who's position is that you and most of the people like you are going to do things like undeservedly shout you down, dismiss your reasons, and insult your intelligence. It is much the same as if I started a thread by asserting "Nearly all of the people who are against gay marriage are really just bigots." and then saying I'm looking for common ground. Asserting an unreasonable reality where your opponents are mostly irresponsible and malicious doesn't seem to me to be a correct thing to do in this case.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Geoff said that religious people are often shouted down, have their intelligence ridiculed, and are called bigots in discussions on SSM.
You said that's not true.
You posted a link to show it's not true.
I showed where, in your link, religious people were ridiculed. I also showed an example of where people opposed to SSM were called bigots and queer haters.
Will you please (at least) retract your statement that the thread you linked to represents a civil discourse on the subject?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
No. You are completely wrong. Your description of what happened is definitely off at least in my case. People saying that there are anti-gay bigots fit none of these criteria. Denying this fact or attacking people for asserting it may though.
And none of the things you posted established what Geoff claimed, a part of which was that these things were done to him or other posters.
If you look, there is no shouting down of anyone in that thread. In fact, I'd venture to say that at least near half of the posts come from people opposed to gay marriage or Dag. Most of the rest come from me.
As for undeservedly having their arguments dismissed and intelligence and character insulted, well, that happend to me in that thread. I didn't really see it happening to any other poster, though I may have missed it.
edit: Also, I never claimed that these threads were completely civil discourses. That's a much higher standard than we're talking about. Or perhaps I did. Perhaps you can demonstrate where I did so, Scott?
[ November 01, 2006, 03:53 PM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
He isn't wrong. Even your example of a civil discourse isn't one.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
No-- that's okay. I think I understand. Mr. Squicky let me know exactly what I needed to know.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Ah, there's the old undeserved insults and dismissal of arguments.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Squick -- are you saying that you consider the thread you linked to an example of civil discourse?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Could someone point out to me where I made any claim to it being civil discourse? I was unaware of making any such claim. As far as I can tell, those words don't appear on this thread until Scott said this:
quote:Will you please (at least) retract your statement that the thread you linked to represents a civil discourse on the subject?
talking about statments I'm not aware of ever making.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Also, do people really find this:
quote:The anti-homosexual bigots already denied gays the ability to adopt children in Texas based on terrible research done by a man who was censored and thrown out of the APA and ASA because he just couldn't stop lying and making things up.
as even incivil, let alone all those things Scott and Geoff are accusing me of being?
If so, could you identify the offensive components of it?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Do you then agree that it wasn't civil discourse?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Parts of it were, parts of it weren't. For example, when someone described being gay as a sickening perversion, that was clearly uncivil. Civility is often not well adhered to by at least some of the people in nearly all contentious threads.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Do you feel that you were civil in that thread?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Do you feel I was treated civily in that thread?
edit: I'm really not interested in playing your game, porter. If you want to answer my earlier questions or address the thread in question in regards to how Geoff described it, I'll let you try to trap me with your questions. Other than that, why not just do what Scott and kat did?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I haven't read it.
Let me repeat -- do you feel that you were civil in that thread?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Read it, then we can talk. As I said, I'm not really interested in playing your game, especially in light of how disrespectfully I've been treated in this thread so far.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
I was civil in that thread. In fact, I defy anyone to find a single post by me in that thread in which I was not a shining beacon of virtue.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Squicky, let me sum up:
The assertion is that you treated Geoff somewhat disrespectfully in that thread, which you held up as an example of civility. I agree with this.
I also agree that anti-SSM advocates are not treated all that badly on this board or out in society as a whole, whether in recent history or over the last few decades.
The reason I don't like the "people will be rude to us if we vote this way" is the same reason I don't use "people will beat up homosexuals until it's more acceptable;" I don't like using the extremes of fringe behavior to justify ethical decisions. There's harm on both fringes; while people are of course entitled to be concerned about the fringe harm that's most likely to affect them, I hope they keep in mind that we shouldn't be using fringe concerns to shape broad policy.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"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. "
What would I do? I'd try to find some actual evidence that my belief is true before trying to force other people to live by it, or arguing that people should live by my beliefs.
Asking someone to live by a belief that is not a shared belief, and can't demonstrate though evidence gathered in a shared epistomology to be a true belief, when they aren't involving anyone who doesn't want to be involved, is acceptable. We all do it.
But going beyond that is not. Its simply not ok to demand people live by a code that you can't demonstrate to them is wrong, and that they aren't involving unwilling participants in, or doing physical damage by engaging in.
Dagonee I think made some comment in the last couple days about engaging in that conclusion, because its not a self-evident conclusion (that its not ok to demand people live by a moral code they don't share), so if you want to argue that with me, fine...
but the answer to the question "What would I do?" is "not vote to enforce my belief."
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Good answer, imho.
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
I think this thread has two key purposes.
1. To state that anti-SSM advocates undergo verbal abuse and discrimination, and to ask that the more rash and outspoken supporters of SSM consider the religious POV before they shout.
2. To find a "middle ground", so that everyone can undergo the minimum amount of ideological change, and therefore avoid discomfort.
As for the first point, this is true. Many opponents of SSM are called 'bigots'. I don't know how much this is the case on Hatrack (I'm an occasional lurker). KoM yes, does tend to be abrasive, but the worst I've seen him do is be sarcastic or cynical. The other end of the spectrum is Karl's view, which doesn't compromise his ideals, but smooths the transition towards them. This is a matter of style and etiquette. Do you want change American style, or British style...
The whole situation is complicated by the fact that we can't pin responsibility on religious or social groups as a whole. We all know that Geoff hasn't verbally abused a homosexual. So in his lifetime, he has been on the receiving end of most of the verbal abuse, because public opinion has swung away from the LDS position on this issue.
So some SSM supporters are impolite. Others aren't, as Karl rightly asserts.
But what about homosexuals themselves? Even if you haven't said or done anything to them personally, supporting LDS or any other anti-SSM camp on this issue is robbing them of a very important social institution in a very real way. This is not to say that it is right for homosexuals to be married because they have suffered discrimination in the past, but because the beliefs of a heterosexual majority are taking away from them a degree of happiness.
quote:Originally posted by Puppy: 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. ... 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.
If it's something you can't prove or argue rationally, then I don't think legislators should consider it. Reason has had a better track record for determining truth than hunches have. Besides, those hunches are usually assumptions one has inherited from one's parents. In that sense, they're arbitrary.
I support SSM because the legal system in my country (and yours) is based on the premise that all men and women are equal before the law, that they are entitled to certain rights and freedoms which allow them to live the lifestyle which suites them. I can't see any rational argument for homosexuality being immoral, and the fact of the matter is, people don't choose to be homosexual. They are.
I have similar reasons for all my beliefs. For example, I'm pro-choice because unwanted children can ruin the life of a mother (and a father, if he sticks around), and statistics show that when abortion is not a legal option, women will go to unregistered doctors and get abortions from them. In many cases, they bleed to death.
---
As for reaching a "middle ground", why should SSM supporters budge, if we believe so strongly that we are correct? It's valid to ask that we be polite in discussion, but to consciously grope for a middle ground is to abandon the premise that we are basing arguments on truth. Because so far, the only argument you have given against SSM in this thread, is that opponents of SSM have been called bigots.
But more to the point of what you were asking -
quote:Originally posted by Puppy: 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.
I think the best answer so far has been:
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: 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.
Except I would put 'reasoned argument' as the first priority. What could be more important than that? If it anticipates and has a successful rebuttal to any counter-argument, a reasoned argument is infallible.
We all have beliefs we hold but can not successfully debate in favour of. And often, we have to act on them.
But we should strive to make this a temporary state of affairs, and the more influential a belief becomes in your life, the more you should rationally examine it. Until you have a way of convincing other people with reasons, you can not get other people to act on it, except by throwing your social capitol around, or by using force.
Consciously adjusting your beliefs to reach a compromise with the majority in order to avoid the pain of change and disillusionment are a forfeiture of your ability to think things through rationally. And rationally is the only way we can determine truth.
Edit: Minor correction
[ November 01, 2006, 08:19 PM: Message edited by: Euripides ]
Posted by scholar (Member # 9232) on :
How does the government not sanctioning ssm actually force a homosexual person to live by a different code than what they choose? The gay people I know still are gay. They have wedding ceremonies, refer to their spouses as their spouses, etc. They just don't have legal sanctioning. I know heterosexual people that have similar situations (in the news right now Anna Nicole and her unofficial wedding). Now, if you have the government allow ssm, then people are forced to recognize the union. So, if I have a company and was only paying spousal benefits for my heterosexual married people, when ssm is allowed, I now have to pay spousal benefits for the gay people too. This cuts into my profit margins. If making money is my main priority (as opposed to fairness and stuff), this sucks for me. I am being forced to pay more benefits. Likewise, if their is a tax benefit to being married, if the government allows more types of marriage, then they have to give that tax cut to more people, which means tax cuts and therefore less money.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
How odd . . . you see that giving benefits affects companies and governments, and yet you don't see that not receiving those benefits affects homosexuals? Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:How does the government not sanctioning ssm actually force a homosexual person to live by a different code than what they choose?
Wow. In all seriousness, maybe you ought to read the previous three years of discussion threads on this issue.
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
Because the government recognising heterosexual unions but not homosexual ones is based on the premise that homosexual unions are inferior or frivolous.
Sure, some homosexuals are comfortable with unofficial unions, but others want legal recognition and the implication behind it - which is that they are equal to heterosexuals.
quote:Originally posted by scholar: ... If making money is my main priority (as opposed to fairness and stuff), this sucks for me. I am being forced to pay more benefits. Likewise, if their is a tax benefit to being married, if the government allows more types of marriage, then they have to give that tax cut to more people, which means tax cuts and therefore less money.
Money-making is important. But what if fairness and stuff are my criteria?
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
Yeah, what Icarus and Tom said.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Euripides: Reason has had a better track record for determining truth than hunches have. Besides, those hunches are usually assumptions one has inherited from one's parents. In that sense, they're arbitrary.
1) Using the words "hunch" and (to a lesser degree) "arbitrary" show a serious lack of trying to understand the (imagining there were just one for a second) religious position. Actually, it seems from your post that any understanding of the religious position was for the sole purpose of dismissing it as invalid or insufficient.
Especially since you are advocating that Puppy do what he already does.
2) Prove that "reason has a better track record for determining truth" than religion does. Without being self-referential. That is, you may not use reason to support your case.
You state is as axiomatic, but it simply is not. Not unless someone shares certain unstated assumptions with you.
[ November 01, 2006, 09:18 PM: Message edited by: rivka ]
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Actually, it seems from your post that any understanding of the religious position was for the sole purpose of dismissing it as invalid or insufficient.
Yes, I disagree with the religious position. So if I discuss my understanding of that position, of course I will try to discredit it.
I used the words 'hunch' and 'arbitrary' to express the fact that they are culturally transmitted ideas which most people don't spend time reasoning through. I used to be Protestant because my father was a Protestant. My friend thinks like a Catholic because his father does. My other friend is Muslim because he comes from Indonesia. And so on.
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Especially since you are advocating that Puppy do what he already does.
Sorry, what do you mean?
quote:Originally posted by rivka: 2) Prove that "reason has a better track record for determining truth" than religion does. Without being self-referential. That is, you may not use reason to support your case.
I can't, and neither can you. My point was that you and I both live and breathe reason. You lock your car when you get to work because somewhat might steal it. You boil water because it's a necessary step in making coffee. You do X because you rationally determine that X will yield better results than Y. You even feel happy because you received a promotion, or depressed because you broke up with your girlfriend.
Some causes are more complicated than others. Some are so complex we can't explain them at length, so we call it luck. But we know that the winner of a lottery received his money because that numbered ball hit that numbered ball, which hit the other numbered ball which rolled down the tube... And so on.
So why make an exception for religion?
Edit: formatting correction
Posted by scholar (Member # 9232) on :
I think not allowing ssm denies homosexuals happiness and benefits that we freely give to heterosexuals without question. But I don't think it forces gay people to live by others values, even though others values are the excuse for denying them these benefits. I am really just arguing semantics and I will admit that. And I don't know if my prior statement made any sense at this point (need a nap). Also, my inclusion of the statement if you care about fairness and stuff was meant to indicate that I did not actually think that was an argument I would ever actually support. When its 7:30 pm and I am still at work, my posts are not the best or reflective of my opinion (kinda just arguing to argue).
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
I hear you.
I found out the hard way that writing e-mails at 3am = a bad idea.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Look, Geoff started off this thread with the assumption that the majority of people who support gay marriage are just fine with unjustifiably attacking and shouting people down.
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.
Can we get to the part where these two quotes match up, please? Because I'd really love to see some explanation on that. Or does it take a majority to shout someone down, and I just missed it? That's certainly good news!
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Oh, and furthermore I'd just love to see something approaching concrete evidence of Puppy equivocating 'shouting down' and 'homophobic violent hate crimes' as anything except both being examples of intolerance.
If not, we can kindly disembark from that particular train of hysterical outrage too.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Assigning to others your own motivations is rarely a good idea, Euripedes. Your inability to do otherwise says to me that there is no purpose in continuing this conversation.
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
Are you talking about the first part of my post, where I talked about inheriting cultural assumptions?
The vast majority of the time, it's true that you absorb your ideas from your environment. Religion is no different. It's less common for people to go out of their way and decide to convert, unless there is a significant shift of values in their culture.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
As I look more closely at the laws our government does pass, and the policies and procedures that arise from those laws, I have come to the conclusion that MOST laws should have an escape clause in them.
Something like: "we pass this law hoping for X to happen, and for Y to NOT happen. If, within ___ years X does not occur, or Y does occur, then this law is automatically nul and void unless Congress acts to keep it intact."
In my field of Traffic Safety, I urged (unsuccessfully) the Iowa legislature to consider such a conditional "sunset" provision on their recent law increasing the speed limit on interstates. They hoped that commerce would improve and that the highway crash and death toll would not increase. I asked them (via letter to my representatives) to sunset the law automatically if highway-related fatalities increased by x% after the law passed. Sadly, they didn't do that. The highway fatalities have gone up. It is directly related to the increased speeds on the highways. And we're stuck with it.
Oh...by the way, the legislators who supported this bill claimed that they would fund increases in the Highway Patrol, and that there would be NO INCREASE in highway deaths. They had plenty of data showing that this wasn't true, but they went with it anyway. And the law is intact, and we're killing more people in Iowa as a result.
Now...it's a little trickier with something like a social issue, but would it be possible to frame a SSM law such that an automatic sunsetting of the law would happen if certain worst-case scenarios occurred?
Could we name the specific fears or concerns that people would care to put in as sunsetting provisions? (And no fair saying "sunset the law if homosexuals actually marry -- that's what I fear most.") These provisions would have to be something like "the rate of homosexuality among teens increases by x%" or "churches get sued for refusing to perform the ceremonies" or something like that...
I think such an approach has merit for a number of reasons. First off, it is worthwhile trying to allay at least some fears that people have about this change in our society. Waiting for data and studies to answer all of the fears is going to take longer than I would want to wait were I gay and hoping to marry. This way we could try the law out and see what happens, but not be committed to it even if it turns out to be an unmitigated disaster and the worst fears of religious people are realized.
Now, before you just attack the notion because it is impractical, you should know that I realize this will never happen. But I submit it as still something worth thinking about for all sides.
What conditions would religious people want in a law that would make for the triggers to automatic repeal? Remember it has to be measurable and (one assumes) reasonably short time frame. What things would pro-SSM people want to see as guarantees or limits in the ways that the law could sunset?
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
Maybe rises in divorce rates? That is if the primary worry for the religious camp is the devaluing of marriage as a social institution.
Posted by scholar (Member # 9232) on :
I like the not suing a religious organization if they refuse to perform a ceremony. But, what about a judge refusing to perform it or to issue a marriage lisence? Let's say the judge is a devout X and strongly believes it is his immortal soul on the line if he marries the couple and refuses, should he still be allowed to be a judge?
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
quote:Originally posted by scholar: I like the not suing a religious organization if they refuse to perform a ceremony. But, what about a judge refusing to perform it or to issue a marriage lisence? Let's say the judge is a devout X and strongly believes it is his immortal soul on the line if he marries the couple and refuses, should he still be allowed to be a judge?
If we're assuming that an SSM law is on the books at this point, then yes, it would be the judge's responsibility to issue the marriage license, just as a Catholic pharmacy worker would be obligated to provide contraceptives to a customer if requested, even if the pharmacist believes that contraceptive use is immoral.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Judges don't issue marriage licenses, at least not in Minnesota. County clerks do, and then whoever's officiating at the ceremony fills it out and sends it in. So you go down, apply for your license, and come back 5 days later to pick it up. (We have a waiting period.)
Officiants, which include justices of the peace, can accept or decline to do weddings for any particular reasons they want to now, and I see no reason for that to change. There are plenty of people who would be willing to perform a SSM ceremony, I can't imagine why anyone would want to force someone to take part in their wedding who believed it was wrong.
Posted by dean (Member # 167) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tarrsk:
quote:Originally posted by scholar: I like the not suing a religious organization if they refuse to perform a ceremony. But, what about a judge refusing to perform it or to issue a marriage lisence? Let's say the judge is a devout X and strongly believes it is his immortal soul on the line if he marries the couple and refuses, should he still be allowed to be a judge?
If we're assuming that an SSM law is on the books at this point, then yes, it would be the judge's responsibility to issue the marriage license, just as a Catholic pharmacy worker would be obligated to provide contraceptives to a customer if requested, even if the pharmacist believes that contraceptive use is immoral.
Actually, lots of pharmacists and doctors are suing for the right to not have to prescribe medications that they think are wrong or which they consider to be against their religion. Several states have exceptions that allow pharmacists to not give you your prescription if it conflicts with their morals.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Churches don't have to marry people NOW, if they don't think they should. A lot of times, they have hoops to jump through. A friend of mine is Catholic and marrying an athiest. They have made the two of them go through all kinds of stuff. And now, although they can be married, they are not permitted to have an outdoor wedding if they want to have a Catholic ceremony.
I don't see anyone suing churches now.
-pH
Posted by kojabu (Member # 8042) on :
dean: what states and are we talking about only things like contraceptives or are there other prescriptions as well?
Posted by dean (Member # 167) on :
As of 2004, Mississippi, Arkansas and South Dakota had "conscience clauses" which allowed pharmacists to refuse to fill any perscription that they opposed on moral grounds-- this is mainly the morning after pill, but in some cases, this clause was used on any form of birth control or anything that the pharmacist believes could be used for assisted suicide. Also in 2004, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Ohio, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington and Wisconsin were considering similar bills.
quote:Four States (Arkansas, Georgia, Mississippi, and South Dakota) have passed laws allowing a pharmacist to refuse to dispense emergency contraception drugs. Illinois passed an emergency rule that requires a pharmacist to dispense FDA approved contraception. Colorado, Florida, Maine and Tennesee have broad refusal clauses that do not specifically mention pharmacists.
California pharmacists have a duty to dispense prescriptions and can only refuse to dispense a prescription, including contraceptives, when their employer approves the refusal and the woman can still access her prescription in a timely manner.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
It's a weird clause to sunset a SSM law if the divorce rate goes up afterwards. I mean, it's already been mentioned that at least some groups with historically low reported divorce rates have seen an increase recently anyway...so it'd be sort of odd to blame increases on the SSM law per se.
Also, what if the divorce rate climbed because people who were really homosexual but were in bad heterosexual relationships decided that society was finally ready to accept them?
Is that a problem with any new law?
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
I like your idea, Bob, insofar as it gets people to actually verbalize their specific fears. I disagree with most of the "escape clauses" listed so far.
1. I imagine a rise in recorded teen homosexuality is going to happen with our without SSM, and I'll even accept that it might be even more of an increase directly because of the acceptance of SSM. I don't think this is a bad thing for a few reasons. First and foremost, citing it as a negative assumes that homosexuality is inherently a bad, undesirable thing. I'm not saying it's good, or desirable, either. I think it, in and of itself, is morally neutral. Second, such an increase, in large part, is naturally going to be because the segment of gay teens who go "unrecorded" now do so in part because they're terrified of coming out. I'd like to see a comparison done 10 years after SSM is accepted nationally. I wouldn't be surprised to see an increase in "teen homosexuality" (whatever that means) and just as likely, a decrease in teen suicide.
2. As you've already noted, there is an increase in the divorce rate among certain groups already. You can't blame that on SSM at this point so I'm pretty sure it would be a mistake to base SSM's validity on whether or not the increase continued or even excellerated after acceptance.
3. Lawsuits against churches shouldn't be a factor. We live in such a litigious (sp?) society already that it's only a matter of time before someone tries to sue a church for this. If it is decided that such suits are a bad thing, then it seems the most logical step would be to pass legislation to protect churches in this area, not to shove a whole class of people back in the closet to stop lawsuits.
But yeah, I'd love to see some more fears actually expressed. I can address the specified. I can't be expected to defend myself against fears of a nebulous set of "things bad for society".
[ November 02, 2006, 09:09 AM: Message edited by: KarlEd ]
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
Bob, you're right about that. As in, divorce rates would not be a good indication of SSM's harm towards the Christian conception of the marriage contract. Considering the complaints of the religious camp, it was the best I could come up with.
As Karl says, it would be interesting to hear more responses to your hypothetical. Coming up with an answer compels you to articulate the anti-SSM side of the argument, which is yet to be clearly articulated in this thread.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Yes, I disagree with the religious position. So if I discuss my understanding of that position, of course I will try to discredit it.
As an ancillary issue: I think this is one of the major reasons people can get offended in this sort of discussion. It's too easy to spin a straw man when doing this sort of thing, and people perceive just enough of the truth in your straw man to recognize your distortion of their actual position. It's very easy and guilt-free to do this, since the kernel of truth in the description is what you see, but the people who're being "accused" of the rest of the position see only the exaggerations and obvious distortions. In fact, the trap you can fall into if you do this often enough is to eventually forget that your distortion is NOT their position.
I get accused of asking leading questions all the time. One of the reasons I DO that, though, is so that I can use people's own words and descriptions for their own positions. This doesn't insulate me from criticism, since I simultaneously attempt to demonstrate perceived discrepancies between what people say and what they actually think or practice (which is pretty inherently offensive), but it does mean that I'm not usually guilty of manufacturing a false position in order to rail against it.
Your followup -- that you'd like to hear more of the anti-SSM argument -- is solid, and is really the way this sort of thing should go. But I'll warn you that many anti-SSM people won't answer, either because they're tired of answering so often due to the frequency of this discussion (which is no fault of yours), or because they're afraid to have their positions spin around and used against them (which, while a valid concern of theirs, is still not so much a fault of yours as a reminder to try -- as I so often fail -- to be circumspect in your responses and appreciative of their participation.)
------
In defense of hunches, BTW, I have to say this:
I believe they exist. In fact, there's strong evidence that they do exist, and are in fact far, far more reliable than "reason" in certain specific scenarios. Specifically, we have reason to believe that people who are experts in a given field, when faced with a complicated problem with many variables that they have to solve in a limited amount of time, will come up with a superior answer through a "hunch" than through a more rigorous approach to the problem; the idea is that the brain filters its responses through past experience at a subconscious level faster than it does at a conscious level.
But if people aren't already experts in a given field, or if people are given time to think about an issue, or if the issue is one that's really quite simple, the statistical advantage of hunches disappears; it's the combination of complexity, time pressure, and subconscious experience that makes them worthwhile.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
As an eclipse clause, it's fraught with the exact same problems as divorce rates, but a lowering of the (heterosexual) marriage rate could also be considered indicitave of a weakening of the traditional marriage as a social structure in our society.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I'm going to vent now.
In the most recent SSM thread, statements made by opponents to SSM were misunderstood or mischaracterized at an inordinate rate.
This may be solely a problem with the people doing the misunderstanding-- however, it's happened often enough to make me wonder if it's endemic to the discussion. (PIX noted the same thing)
Even when that misunderstanding was clarified, some people insisted on continuing in their misinterpretation of what the opponents of SSM said. Seriously: what am I supposed to discuss when I say "I said X," and someone else says, "No, no: you said Y." And when no amount of evidence to the point that I really did say X convinces them of that... where's the conversation?
What it feels like is exactly what Geoff described: a ban on expression of thought through aggressive misunderstanding and misinterpretation. It seemed like some people were ANXIOUS to misinterpret things opponents to SSM said. And when they got called on it, even their apology was qualified-- like it was somehow someone else's fault for their aggression.
In this atmosphere of hostility, it's tempting to give in to the attitude that Pixiest and Lisa so often ascribe to opponents of SSM: that of majority might. I feel like some of those who disagree with my point of view willfully distort my statements in order to prove how terrible I really am-- so at times I want to shout, "Screw discussion. Let's just cut to the polls."
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:This may be solely a problem with the people doing the misunderstanding-- however, it's happened often enough to make me wonder if it's endemic to the discussion.
I think it almost has to be, since the differences start even with the definition of terms. Consider a premise: "marriage is a fundamental human right."
Some people may disagree with that and thus oppose SSM. Some people may agree with that and still oppose SSM, because their definition of "marriage" doesn't include partners of the same sex. Until they agree until use a hypothetical version of the word "marriage" that does include same-sex partners, there will be "willful" misunderstanding every time that premise is discussed.
I'm not sure how to get around this. It's like the whole "are fetuses sentient human beings" question, which is a definition on which the debate hinges.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I disagree. I *think* none of the misinterpretations were based on dissimilar definitions.
Now, misunderstandings in the religion thread-- yeah, lots of terminology differences there.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
quote: but a lowering of the (heterosexual) marriage rate could also be considered indicitave of a weakening of the traditional marriage as a social structure in our society.
I have a problem with assuming "traditional" marriage is a necessary social structure in society. I guess I'm more philisophically feminist than I realized. I view it as an economic structure that ends up dictating social mores in various directions throughout history.
I think that in today's society that marriage has already been devalued. I think the real common ground that the SSM crowd can find with the "traditional marriage" crowd, is that they agree that marriage has value to society. The real danger is the increasing numbers of people, (including myself) that are generally apathetic to marriage as a social or economic construct. I don't think the lowering of the marriage rate has anything whatsoever to do with SSM. If anything legalizing SSM could cause a temporary statistical blip of upswings in marriages.
AJ
Addendum: I realize divorce is legal. However marriage still, to me, has an implicit "for life" about it. While I've been with Steve for 7 years, and can imagine growing old with him, for some reason the locked in "for life" of it all gives me heebie jeebies (there's a nice rationally undefinable term for you) I think that locked in aspect of it is a deterrent to others also.
Is it a fear of commitment. I guess. I'm not afraid of a long term and/or indefinite commitment, but a lifetime commitment is a lot. I would feel so trapped by the future commitment that I couldn't enjoy the present.
AJ
[ November 02, 2006, 11:40 AM: Message edited by: BannaOj ]
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Euripides: [QUOTE]I used to be Protestant because my father was a Protestant. My friend thinks like a Catholic because his father does. My other friend is Muslim because he comes from Indonesia. And so on.
And I am Catholic - despite not being raised Catholic - because I spent 25 years thinking about my faith and trying different religions and studying them, then went through a year long course of study in order to be received into the Catholic Church.
I am not unique. Just because you don't give your faith a lot of thought, don't assume that is true for everyone else.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
aj: It's the "for life" aspect that makes marriage so important. That's what gives it the stablizing affect on families, both gay and straight. (In addition to all the other benefits)
It's a legally binding promise that both people will stick around. One that you can build plans for the future around. Buy a home, have or adopt children, plan for retirement... knowing your partner can't wake up one morning, say you're through and be out of your life forever.
Every time I look at my left hand I'm reminded of the promise my husband and I gave eachother. And that's what I want for the rest of us. Regardless of the sex of the person we end up with.
Pix
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
kmb, you may not be unique, but you may be in the minority. I don't have the data in front of me, but I believe in general, culturally, Euripides may have the right of it about religious "inheritance" as it were.
AJ
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Pixiest, if the "for life" thing is indeed the most important of it all, then that is the genuine area where both sides of the marriage controversy should be converging.
Because I believe that there are increasing number of "for life" commitmentphobes throughout society. There is scientific evidence emerging that the original human pattern was serial monogamy, and in fact it often still is today. So why fight it?
AJ
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Then the serial monogomists can skip marriage and those of us who want to be "for life" can get married.
There's no conflict here.
Though I do see serial monogomy as lonely =(
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Scott, In this very thread, you've transparently misrepresented what I said and, when caught out neither apologized nor even acknowledged that your accusation was false. In the thread you linked, I was called a liar for saying things that were true for no other reason than it disagreed with BB uniformed opinions. Of course, he at least acknowledged that his accusation was incorrect even if there was no apology. Geoff started this thread with an accusation (which you've continued) that seems to me to be on par, both in deservedness and insulting nature, with that of "Nearly all people who are against same sex marriage are bigots." but not only don't most peopel not seem upset with this, but I'm apparently supposed to accept this as the starting ground for a dialogue on the situation. In the thread I linked I had to put up with disrespect and constant mischaracterization for Geoff, when he wasn't just ignoring what I had to say, to say nothing of the obloquy I got from other sources. Through all of this, I continued returning complex, rational arguments, which, in many cases - such as this thread - go basically ignored or at the ery least unanswered.
I don't deserve these things. I don't deserve Geoff's characterization. I don't deserve to be called a liar or without integrity or not caring about marriage or any of the other things that have been levelled at me.. I think I deserve to have the fact that I offer up arguments and discussion that are complex and not based on demonizing the side I'm arguing against at least acknowledged.
I'm not popular, so I can't expect other people to stick up for me and it doesn't seem things like calling me a liar for no good reason really affect people's opinion of the person doing so. So the best I can do is try to make people defend their often vague attacks on me. Can you support any of the things that you or Geoff have said about me in this thread? Can you demonstrate why I deserve to be disrespected, ignored, and insulted?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:I used to be Protestant because my father was a Protestant. My friend thinks like a Catholic because his father does. My other friend is Muslim because he comes from Indonesia. And so on.
You may be right about this, to a certain extent.
But please don't make the mistake of thinking someone is merely religious because of the environment in which they were raised. People who consider themselves religious also consider their beliefs well-pondered.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Paraphrased from above: There is evidence that an original human behavior was X, and in fact it often still is today. So why fight it?
Let me point out that there are many values for X for which someone could say the above, and there are some which virtually everybody would agree are things we should fight.
Murdering people from other "tribes" is one example.
My point is that there can be very good reasons to work against natural tendences.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
quote: Murdering people from other "tribes" is one example.
Last time I checked wars are still being fought in the modern era.
However, I was not bringing the serial monogomy issue up to "prove a point", persay, but to illustrate an apathetic mindset on the topic of marriage.
Rather than apatheism, call it apanupitalism.
AJ
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Last time I checked wars are still being fought in the modern era.
Exactly. As I said, "and in fact it often still is today."
War is a natural human condition.
It's also a pretty lousy one, and one that we should try to eliminate.
That is all.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
See, although perhaps a noble goal, I don't think eliminating war is actually possible, any more than expecting on heterosexual married monogamy in an entire society is. I think the U.S. society is actually better at lessening the impact of wars overall, than they are at strengthening the value of any marriage, same sex or otherwise.
I think people need more convincing that marriage is still valuable in this day and age more than they need instructions on which sex to marry.
I believe that all of this same sex marriage and defense of marriage stuff, going back and forth is jading younger generations on marriage entirely, just by the boring repetition of it all.
AJ
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
About the wider issue, you are going to lose. Gay Marriage is going to become legal. It will take longer in some places than others, but it's going to happen. Think about it, the states where divorce is lowest are the ones who have allowed it or are moving towards it. It's the high divorce states that are most strong in fighting it.
You're going to lose for a very simple reason. It's the same reason that I, who used to be a moderately strong anti-gay bigot, am now strongly on the pro-gay side. That is, gay people, once you get to know them, are basically like other people. As more and more people are encountering gay people and having extended experience and relationships with them, the idea of treating them as second-class citizens or of them or them getting married as some sort of threat fades away, often in direct proportion to how strongly outside people are pushing these things. The extreme accusations and positions taken by many of the anti-gay rights crowd are actually speeding up this process.
And consider the state of the anti-gay rights movement right now. While I'll never suggest that they are all bigots and have chided others on this site for even suggesting that, there are a lot of people in this movement that are bigots and many segments of it are pretty comfortable and supportive of this. Also, the basic idea that underlie many of the efforts is "We should get to force our religion on others." I mean, Scott was very clear in the other thread that he is more about his religion and presumably trying to legislate it in some cases than about the spirit of America.
But that only works as long as you have to force to pull it off. And, as I've said, this force, at least in terms of popular support, is eroding daily.
Consider, both of those aspects make these groups both less than admirable and more dangerous, especially as their support wanes. And, while I and many others would be strongly against sanctions (social or possibly things like revoking tax-exempt status) against groups and religions merely because they consider their version of marriage as only between a man and a woman, I'm not sure I have a problem with them for these aspects.
Also, as I've said mulitple times on this thread, anti-gay marriage is the wrong place to focus on. If you are teaching and trying to convince people of a conception of marriage that is inconsistent with gay marriage, but is not defined by this opposition, you are both going to likely be more successful and to draw much less disapproval. Very, very few people have a problem with you doing this.
This is a fight you are going to lose. It's pretty much up to you if you're going to come out the bad guys or not. Ultimately, I'm pretty sure the conservative religious people are going to follow historical precedent and make the wrong choices, but I'm always open to pleasant suprises.
---
On a related note, there are serious problems affecting our culture's approach to marriage and sexuality. These things, which I and many others on my side are very concerned about, appear to suffer because people are unjustifiably linking them to gay people and gay marriage. To me, it would be of much greater benefit to your values, marriage, and the state of society if the effort focused on opposing gay rights, especially SSM, were turned towards these things. But, then the cynical side of me says that the support for the movement, both in terms of political support and the rank and file membership, would experience a sharp down-turn.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:See, although perhaps a noble goal, I don't think eliminating war is actually possible...
My point was that there can be good reasons to fight against the natural human condition, depending on what natural condition we're talking about.
You seem to agree with me.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
There are indications that serial monogamy appears to be, in many ways, a much less optimal social arrangement than "for life" marriages, at least in our social context. But, don't quote me on that, because I really don't have a any but a barely passing familiarity with the literature on this.
---
I think it's important to note that there are several indications that among a certain segment of the population, i.e. college-educated people in their 20s and early 30s living in east coast big cities, that there has recently been a significant decrease in short term divorces. Empirically, I know several children of divorce who have gotten married and are determined to do it right and not screw up like their parents did. None of the 15 or so marriages in my cirle of close acquantences has broken up. I look on this as a potentially big source of hope.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:I think people need more convincing that marriage is still valuable in this day and age more than they need instructions on which sex to marry.
I agree.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:My point was that there can be good reasons to fight against the natural human condition, depending on what natural condition we're talking about.
If there's a better characerization of human advancement than struggling against aspects of the human condition that you are almost definitely not going to overcome, I don't know what it is.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Scott agreed:
quote: quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I think people need more convincing that marriage is still valuable in this day and age more than they need instructions on which sex to marry. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree.
We agree on something! Even if it's only ONE thing in the entire world, we AGREE!
I'd like to bite your nose off, too, SS.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
quote: My point was that there can be good reasons to fight against the natural human condition, depending on what natural condition we're talking about.
You seem to agree with me.
I will agree with this caviat:
quote: there can be good reasons to fight against the natural human condition and there can be bad reasons to fight against the natural human condition, depending on what natural condition we're talking about.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
quote:posted by Puppy: 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.
Sorry to jump in the thread so late, but I only just noticed it. First of all, thank you, Puppy, for laying out your concerns in such a clear fashion. I'd like to respond specifically to the effects you suspect would occur in society, and I think the rise of atheism provide an interesting case study to evaluate your concerns.
Atheists and homosexuals have both been around for a long, long time but only in the last century or so (to my knowledge) has it begun to be tolerated for either to publicly declare themselves so. That covers #2 in your reasoning, and I think points 1, 2, and 3 are clear in their application to my analogy. If anyone disagrees, I'm all for discussing it.
On to the points you address: A) I can't say I'm overly familiar with LDS teachings, but I think I'm safe in assuming that a public acceptance (or even merely tolerance) of atheism constitutes being to the detriment of many people. I also think it would be difficult or impossible to prove any concrete damage by either atheism or SSM, as others have already written.
B) I view exposing children to different ways of life as beneficial to them, not detrimental. OSC wrote somewhere that belief without opposing viewpoints isn't true belief (I know he's your father, Puppy, and I'm not trying to put his words in your mouth or anything; I just think he makes a good point). In any case, the rise of atheism surely has the effect of making it more difficult to transfer religious beliefs.
As an interesting aside, I worry about how I'll be able to raise my kids (when I have some) in a proper, atheistic household. Especially with all this 700 club nonsense, not to mention right-wingers railing against "the secularists." Though I decided early on in my life that this God stuff wasn't really for me (lost interest before I was 10), I still have irrational fears of Hell from time to time. I hope I'll be able to protect my kids from that.
C) Here, I think, is your most valid concern, and one point where my analogy diverges. In the atheistic sub-culture, theists are already the social pariah, as you're well aware. And if that predictive only makes you more cautious in regards to SSM, then I can't blame you. Yes, anti-SSM proponents WILL be made into social pariahs to some extent (more than atheists or homosexuals are now? I don't know).
But what if the LDS church announced tomorrow that, though it still felt that partaking in homosexual acts was wrong and would still actively encourage people to enter heterosexual relationships, it would support civil unions for homosexuals in the name of religious tolerance? I think most SSM supporters would respect that, and remember it in the future.
I guess my main point, though it got lost a bit along the way (sorry 'bout that), is that the "X" in your argument could be many many things. It could be Islam (or Mormonism) to some people. Fortunately, our constitution protects those things in a very strong manner. I think the spirit of that law also provides for SSM (or civil unions, if you prefer) though the letter may or may not be lacking. I also think that putting that spirit into the letter more clearly will strengthen the right of religious people to believe as they will.
If the reasonable people on both sides of the debate could work together to call the crazies on their BS, that'd be pretty awesome too.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I wouldn't call your addition a caveat as much as an expansion of what I said, but I agree with it as much as I agree with what I said.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
for mph AJ
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
btw this is a really interesting source. (I'm not making "good" or "bad" value judgements, just that the information seems well researched and footnoted.) I'd be interested in what others think of it.
quote:Yes, I disagree with the religious position. So if I discuss my understanding of that position, of course I will try to discredit it.
As an ancillary issue: I think this is one of the major reasons people can get offended in this sort of discussion. It's too easy to spin a straw man when doing this sort of thing, and people perceive just enough of the truth in your straw man to recognize your distortion of their actual position.
Thanks for pointing this out Tom. I'll avoid doing this from now on, and I apologise to anyone I've offended (sorry rivka).
I suppose it is true that denouncing religion as false because it is not rational is a bit of a circular argument, since in most cases, it's meant to transcend this world and be beyond reason; and that is the only tool which an atheist such as myself has at hand.
But in many cases the religious selectively use reason, but backed up with premises not based on reason. And my question is, if thinking rationally is the only way we can survive, build airplanes, heal the sick or conduct psychoanalysis, why is there an exception for religion?
But that question is worded to accept only a rational answer.
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: In defense of hunches, BTW, I have to say this:
I believe they exist. In fact, there's strong evidence that they do exist, and are in fact far, far more reliable than "reason" in certain specific scenarios.
That's probably a valid point for religion. Like a complex physics problem to which a physicist has a theoretical unproven solution, it may be that the hunch is correct. But the thing with a physicist's hunch is, he works hard to find the equations to support his hypothesis, and until then his ideas are only theory. And as you point out later in that post, there can be a scalability issue with hunches - for example, when that hunch includes a very detailed and elaborate story explaining how the universe was created and how we should lead our lives. Also, Christianity doesn't have a better claim to being a true hunch than Islam does; because as far as I know, the only way to determine whether this or that hunch is better grounded is yes, through reason.
And in most cases, it's only a matter of time before we discover that the counter-intuitive hunch was right for a rational reason, and find that there was a gap in our prior observation or a flaw in our reasoning.
quote:Originally posted by BannaOj: ... heebie jeebies (there's a nice rationally undefinable term for you) ...
n. a sense of nervousness, panic or anxiety, sometimes used in reference to fears which are unknown or unclear.
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: And I am Catholic - despite not being raised Catholic - because I spent 25 years thinking about my faith and trying different religions and studying them, then went through a year long course of study in order to be received into the Catholic Church.
I am not unique. Just because you don't give your faith a lot of thought, don't assume that is true for everyone else.
I apologise sincerely for the crude generalisation and I salute you for being so rigorous in your pursuit of truth.
But when I consider these facts: Most of the white colonists who came to America were Christian. Today, the US is 78% Christian (including Mormons). Similar comparisons can be made in other countries. Yet religions claim to be universal.
To me they seem to support the theory that typically, one's religion is determined by a mixture of one's culture (or sub-culture, e.g. for Mormons or other minority religions) and the values you inherit from your parents. Sadly, as Banna has said, I think you may be in the minority.
I have thought long and hard about my faith; only I came to a different conclusion to you, which is atheism. Please don't accuse me of being frivolous or apathetic about something that is very important to me. I can't say I've spent 25 years thinking about it, but that's only because I'm 18.
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: But please don't make the mistake of thinking someone is merely religious because of the environment in which they were raised. People who consider themselves religious also consider their beliefs well-pondered.
I haven't leaped to that conclusion, though the environment certainly has a lot to do with devotedness, like it does with any aspect of psychology. In Japan, Buddhism and Shintoism (in which very few people sincerely believe) are an integrated part of our culture, which we treat more as an aspect of our lifestyle. When my grandfather tells me that kamisama or god is like this or will do that, I know he's not being completely serious. You'd be hard pressed to find many devout Buddhists in Tokyo. But come to Australia, people invest much more faith in their religion. When my school chaplain preached, I knew he was being entirely serious.
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: About the wider issue, you are going to lose. Gay Marriage is going to become legal. It will take longer in some places than others, but it's going to happen. Think about it, the states where divorce is lowest are the ones who have allowed it or are moving towards it. It's the high divorce states that are most strong in fighting it.
I didn't know that (about the relationship between divorce rates and SSM). Do you have a link?
Not sure what the relationship between the two is in Australia either - I should look for some statistics...
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Also, as I've said mulitple times on this thread, anti-gay marriage is the wrong place to focus on. If you are teaching and trying to convince people of a conception of marriage that is inconsistent with gay marriage, but is not defined by this opposition, you are both going to likely be more successful and to draw much less disapproval. Very, very few people have a problem with you doing this.
Amen.
[ November 02, 2006, 08:33 PM: Message edited by: Euripides ]
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
I come from a very Protestant family. But at the same time, we're not too attached to any one denomination (as long as it isn't Catholic ). For me, there wasn't really pressure to stay in a certain religion (having spent a lot of time at a Southern Baptist church, I tend to separate Christian denominations more than others would, I think).
But my real point was that now that I'm in New Orleans, I see a definite separation between being culturally X faith, and actually BEING X faith. kmbboots is Catholic. Most of the people of New Orleans are culturally Catholic. Which isn't the same as simply adopting the faith. I see it more as the way that some people consider themselves culturally Jewish, but don't actually follow the Jewish faith. Granted, it's not exactly the same, but it's the closest comparison I can make. So the people who, say, are Catholic because their parents are Catholic are more likely culturally Catholic and not (for lack of a better term) Catholic-Catholic.
I don't think any of that made sense.
-pH
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
I think it makes sense. That's exactly the issue I was referring to when I said that most people don't take the time to examine their faith. They just absorb it as part of the culture, values and falsehoods and all.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
No, the values aren't always absorbed. The specific rules and such aren't always absorbed. That's the difference. My boyfriend, if you ask him, will say he's Catholic. But then he'll say that he's "spiritual." He doesn't go to mass or confession, he has no problem with birth control, but he won't eat meat on Fridays during Lent. That's a huge, huge difference from accepting all of the rules, rituals, and whatever else comes with being a certain religion.
Edit to add: And I also think there's a huge difference between not following the rules and simply accepting the culture vs. carefully considering the rules, sa kmbboots does, and disagreeing with some of them (as I think she also does, correct me if I'm wrong).
-pH
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
Point taken.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd: I like your idea, Bob, insofar as it gets people to actually verbalize their specific fears. I disagree with most of the "escape clauses" listed so far.
1. I imagine a rise in recorded teen homosexuality is going to happen with our without SSM, and I'll even accept that it might be even more of an increase directly because of the acceptance of SSM. I don't think this is a bad thing for a few reasons. First and foremost, citing it as a negative assumes that homosexuality is inherently a bad, undesirable thing. I'm not saying it's good, or desirable, either. I think it, in and of itself, is morally neutral. Second, such an increase, in large part, is naturally going to be because the segment of gay teens who go "unrecorded" now do so in part because they're terrified of coming out. I'd like to see a comparison done 10 years after SSM is accepted nationally. I wouldn't be surprised to see an increase in "teen homosexuality" (whatever that means) and just as likely, a decrease in teen suicide.
2. As you've already noted, there is an increase in the divorce rate among certain groups already. You can't blame that on SSM at this point so I'm pretty sure it would be a mistake to base SSM's validity on whether or not the increase continued or even excellerated after acceptance.
3. Lawsuits against churches shouldn't be a factor. We live in such a litigious (sp?) society already that it's only a matter of time before someone tries to sue a church for this. If it is decided that such suits are a bad thing, then it seems the most logical step would be to pass legislation to protect churches in this area, not to shove a whole class of people back in the closet to stop lawsuits.
But yeah, I'd love to see some more fears actually expressed. I can address the specified. I can't be expected to defend myself against fears of a nebulous set of "things bad for society".
I'm sorry I missed responding to this earlier.
You are absolutely right, and especially in the last paragraph -- and that's what I dislike about all of the anti-SSM things I have ever heard. It's not that some (or even most) of it comes from a religious point of view. It's that it's all nebulous and can't be explained.
I am a person of faith (or whatever catch-phrase one wishes to use). But I dislike it when reasons of faith over-ride what (to me) are clearly issues of social justice. As a Christian, I get VERY worried when Christianity is cited as a reason for denying someone fair treatment under the law. And I see the disparity between official treatment of heterosexual and homosexual couples as a social justice issue, first and foremost.
I think we should have concrete reasons for denying a group of people rights and privileges that our society freely extends to some of its members. If we have trouble articulating the reasons for such denial, then I think we need to have good reasons like the democratic principles of our country to serve as a guide to what we should be doing.
[ November 03, 2006, 08:12 AM: Message edited by: Bob_Scopatz ]
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote: I dislike it when reasons of faith over-ride what (to me) are clearly issues of social justice.
quote:If we have trouble articulating the reasons for such denial, then I think we need to have good reasons like the democratic principles of our country to serve as a guide to what we should be doing.
Hmmm... Is this a variation of 'Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's?'
While I understand what you're saying, Bob, it's not something I'm going to agree with. If I were to try to adopt your philosophy then I'd be forced to recognize that I'm putting human ideas of social justice ahead of what I believe is God's will for the human family.
quote:It's that it's all nebulous and can't be explained.
I don't think I've been nebulous at all in my explanation of my opposition to homosexual unions. Obviously, I can't speak of your discussion with other religious people...
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
I'm disturbed any time Christian ideals are at odds with social justice. I think that when that happens it's the human application of Christian ideals that is flawed.
Scott, I think you have been nebulous in describing any fears of what might happen if SSM were legal. I think it's impossible not to be nebulous in describing those fears.
edit to add: However, if you feel that you have been clear, maybe you could articulate a set of clauses you would think appropriate in a law that provisionally allowed SSM? Those things that, were they to happen in society, you would want us to conclude that SSM was bad afterall.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:I think you have been nebulous in describing any fears of what might happen if SSM were legal. I think it's impossible not to be nebulous in describing those fears.
I said:
quote:I don't know that homosexual marriage WILL damage society. I think it will make sin more accessible.
I differentiate between discernible, widely recognized 'damage,' and sin.
And:
quote: Social approbation of homosexuality and homosexual unions can be a hinderance to the plan of our Heavenly Parents by influencing us to participate in a lifestyle and form habits and characterizations that are not beneficial to our eternal goal.
Now:
quote:I'm disturbed any time Christian ideals are at odds with social justice. I think that when that happens it's the human application of Christian ideals that is flawed.
To me, this still puts man's ideals of social justice ahead of God's ideals of human destiny.
quote:maybe you could articulate a set of clauses you would think appropriate in a law that provisionally allowed SSM?
Honestly, I'm really uncomfortable with your idea of a sunset clause for marriage rights laws. How in the world do you say to someone, "Eh...we were wrong. So sorry, but we're going to strip away your marital privileges now."
When SSM is approved, I expect it to stay around.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:If I were to try to adopt your philosophy then I'd be forced to recognize that I'm putting human ideas of social justice ahead of what I believe is God's will for the human family.
Why can't you do that? Seriously, aren't many of our laws already non-optimal from a Mormon point of view, but reflect compromises among groups which do not necessarily share points of view?
Law is really the lowest common denominator, isn't it?
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
Bob only asked about a sunset clause as a hypothetical, to encourage people to articulate the anti-SSM argument. Of course, sin can't be scientifically measured, so that's why the question doesn't seem to be much use at the moment.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Tom:
Which? Co-mingle Bob's philosophy and mine? Put human ideas ahead of my religious beliefs?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Put human ideas ahead of my religious beliefs?
Specifically, put human ideas of social justice ahead of your religious beliefs, at least when dealing with human legislation.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:I'm disturbed any time Christian ideals are at odds with social justice. I think that when that happens it's the human application of Christian ideals that is flawed.
Like Scott, I am not comfortable adopting such an attitude. To me, it would be saying that man's current ideas of social justice are superior to God's knowledge.
Or at the least, that I place more confidence in man's current ideas of social justice more than in man's ability to know God's will.
I couldn't agree with either one.
I'm reminded of a related argument I observed between two classmates in high school. One said something along the lines of "God says it's a sin." The other one said "Then God is wrong."
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:aren't many of our laws already non-optimal from a Mormon point of view, but reflect compromises among groups which do not necessarily share points of view?
Law is really the lowest common denominator, isn't it?
I'm not sure what that has to do with my objections, Tom.
Laws that are in place-- abortion, laws permitting the consumption of alcohol, etc-- are much more difficult to fight after they actually become law. I imagine that legal struggles by Mormons against SSM will drop off sharply after measures institutionalizing it.
At that point, society (or activist judges, or whomever) has made the choice, and Mormons have stood up for what they believed. This all I believe God requires of Mo's, in a general sense.
quote:put human ideas of social justice ahead of your religious beliefs, at least when dealing with human legislation.
Because I don't believe that doing so would be right.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:At that point, society (or activist judges, or whomever) has made the choice, and Mormons have stood up for what they believed.
But let's be clear about that: what Mormons then believe, by that logic, is that no one, no matter whether they're a Mormon or not, no matter whether they're religious in any way, should be able to marry someone of the same sex.
There are very few laws which deny that sort of freedom to people regardless of ethical code. Those that do exist are either a) outmoded and largely ignored relics, like Blue Laws; or b) intended to protect individuals and societies from instances of clearly demonstrable harm.
The thing is, Mormons -- and other SSM advocates -- are saying, "Believe us! There's harm! We just can't prove it!"
I'm not saying they don't have the right to do this, but it's pretty indescribably rude and presumptive -- especially to, say, those churches which already perform same-sex marriages.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:The thing is, Mormons -- and other SSM advocates -- are saying, "Believe us! There's harm! We just can't prove it!"
I haven't said this... but I understand your point.
quote:it's pretty indescribably rude and presumptive -- especially to, say, those churches which already perform same-sex marriages.
Those other churches aren't asking me for my opinion when they perform those ceremonies. I think it'd be rude of me to storm in, unasked, and shout it.
But when it's asked of me, in a poll, in a general-vote-your-conscience-type-referendum? Well, you've already got my answer.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:But when it's asked of me, in a poll, in a general-vote-your-conscience-type-referendum?
Are you resentful, then, of the fact that it's now been asked of you in what may wind up a legally-binding referendum? Or are you grateful that conservatives have forced this issue on you, thus giving you no choice but to be rude?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Are you resentful, then, of the fact that it's now been asked of you in what may wind up a legally-binding referendum? Or are you grateful that conservatives have forced this issue on you, thus giving you no choice but to be rude?
I am resentful of the GOP's manipulation of this issue. I haven't decided whether or not to vote for or against Virginia's FOURTH marriage amendment; it seems like overkill, to me.
I don't mind being considered rude, Tom. Heck, IIRC, I didn't even object when Leto called everyone opposed to SSM a bigot. I understand the sentiment.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: But I dislike it when reasons of faith over-ride what (to me) are clearly issues of social justice.
This (and the reiterations of this in subsequent posts) made me smile because social justice is such a central tenet of Christianity for me that it is like looking at an Escher print.
"I dislike it when reasons of faith override reasons of faith override reasons of faith..."
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:The thing is, Mormons -- and other SSM advocates -- are saying, "Believe us! There's harm! We just can't prove it!"
I haven't said this... but I understand your point.
But you did say that, right in the opening post of this thread.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:The thing is, Mormons -- and other SSM advocates -- are saying, "Believe us! There's harm! We just can't prove it!"
I'm not saying they don't have the right to do this, but it's pretty indescribably rude and presumptive -- especially to, say, those churches which already perform same-sex marriages.
It may be rude and presumptive, but it also may be completely necessary. Parents tell their kids the same sort of thing all the time - don't do X even though you don't understand why X is wrong. Parents do this because it is necessary to protect their children; the consequences of doing X are worse than the presumptiveness needed to speak out against it.
I think this is one of the most fundamental common mistaken assumptions within liberal poltical thinking: the idea that we should do whatever we can rationally deduce is best. The reason this assumption is mistaken is because human beings, especially the average person in a democracy, are not good at rationally deducing what is best. Sometimes it ends up better to follow traditional rules.
The trouble is... many people get offended when one person tries to tell another their judgement is poor and that they should follow some religious rule instead. People find it rude to be treated like children, even if doing so might ultimately be for the greater good.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: But I dislike it when reasons of faith over-ride what (to me) are clearly issues of social justice.
This (and the reiterations of this in subsequent posts) made me smile because social justice is such a central tenet of Christianity for me that it is like looking at an Escher print.
"I dislike it when reasons of faith override reasons of faith override reasons of faith..."
Yep.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:you did say that, right in the opening post of this thread.
Err... Puppy was the thread starter.
I know it's hard to keep us Mo's straight. We all look so much alike.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
My lil bro looks mormon.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
When I was in high school, our US History teacher questioned my Mo friend and I if we were REALLY REALLY TRULY Christians. He looked at her and said, "Yeah, but we're in the closet."
I wrote a number of truly terrible stories called the 'Closet Christian Chronicles' that got me into a great deal of trouble with my bishop and young men's leader.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Scott: actually, after hearing more of what Mormon's believe I'm torn.
I've always been adamant "YES, Mormons are REAL CHRISTIANS!" Heck, my father's side of the family were Mormons.
But a lot of what I've heard lately has been... well... Blasphemy. Undercutting some basic principles of Christianity like an omnipotent god.
I'm not sure what I think anymore. And I don't exactly want to put an asterisk beside "christians" when talking about Mormons...
Pix
PS: Pops, if this violates the TOS I'll remove it.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:The reason this assumption is mistaken is because human beings, especially the average person in a democracy, are not good at rationally deducing what is best. Sometimes it ends up better to follow traditional rules.
Can you provide some evidence for this?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
An omnipotent god is not a basic Christian principle.
It shouldn't be a shock that there is some difference in doctrine. What does it take to be Christian? If you want to list things that don't have to do with Christ, then you'll find all sorts of people suddenly don't fit.
It means there's something wrong with your definition.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:I've always been adamant "YES, Mormons are REAL CHRISTIANS!" Heck, my father's side of the family were Mormons.
But a lot of what I've heard lately has been... well... Blasphemy. Undercutting some basic principles of Christianity like an omnipotent god.
As a Mormon, I call myself Christian because I believe that it's only through Jesus Christ's suffering and death that we can return and be with God.
I also recognize that there are some pretty big gaps between what Mormons believe and what other Christians believe.
I also don't think it matters so much what other people call us...
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I'm not sure what I think anymore. And I don't exactly want to put an asterisk beside "christians" when talking about Mormons...
If I'm using the word "Christian," typically I'm using it with a meaning that does not include Mormons - not as an explicit part of the definition, but rather my definition includes beliefs that Mormons just don't hold. "One in Being with the Father..." for example.
There's a broader meaning of "Christian" that does include Mormons (and several other groups), and I will use that meaning sometimes.
Just like "Church" has two different meanings, one of my faith and one of common usage, I recognize both as valid uses of the word. Just as I don't tell someone "you didn't go to church on sunday," I don't tell Mormons "you aren't Christian."
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Dag: I wouldn't typically, but it came up in conversation and it's something that's been bugging me for a few days.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I was basically agreeing with you, Pix, both about acknowledging the differences and generally referring to Mormons as Christians.
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: It may be rude and presumptive, but it also may be completely necessary. Parents tell their kids the same sort of thing all the time - don't do X even though you don't understand why X is wrong. Parents do this because it is necessary to protect their children; the consequences of doing X are worse than the presumptiveness needed to speak out against it.
I think this is one of the most fundamental common mistaken assumptions within liberal poltical thinking: the idea that we should do whatever we can rationally deduce is best. The reason this assumption is mistaken is because human beings, especially the average person in a democracy, are not good at rationally deducing what is best. Sometimes it ends up better to follow traditional rules.
I'll take my chances with democracy, thanks.
Also, the paternal analogy is cliched and flawed. Parents tell their children not to do 'X' because there's a rational reason not to do it, and often they explain it to their children (because 'Y' will happen. You don't want 'Y' to happen, do you?). The rule forbidding 'X' may seem counter-intuitive, but the parent forces it on the child because the child's ability to reason through what they are about to do and weigh the consequences is not sufficiently developed. Even if the child is capable of doing these things, its still the parents prerogative to exercise their jurisdiction over their children (until they are 18).
The jurisdiction of a parent over a child is incomparable with the jurisdiction of the government over its people.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
I made a grievous error in my earlier post and since I don't visit Hatrack during the workday, I didn't realize it until I saw the reactions and kmbboots' excellent (and correct) objection.
Here's what (I think) it should have said:
quote:When claims are made that Christian principles are at odds with things that I believe are obvious social justice issues, I begin to question the speaker's understanding of what God wants. In my experience, it's usually the speaker who got it wrong, not God.
I obviously left something out in my earlier post and made it sound like I don't believe in God's primacy in these matters. I do.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Hail]](graemlins/hail.gif)
kmbboots
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Party]](graemlins/party.gif)
![[The Wave]](graemlins/thewave.gif)
![[Group Hug]](graemlins/grouphug.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
). For me, there wasn't really pressure to stay in a certain religion (having spent a lot of time at a Southern Baptist church, I tend to separate Christian denominations more than others would, I think).