Have we discussed this mashup up yet? Basically it takes the addresses of people who contributed to "Yes on Prop 8" groups, and puts them on a google map - each pin shows the location (no specific address) of a supporter, along with his name, donation amount, and sometimes job title & employer.
Personally, I'm a bit torn about this use of technology. On the one hand, you should be willing to openly stand behind your principles and actions - especially in the political realm and more especially when you're actively working to influence our public policy. In a small community - similar to what was the norm 200+ years ago - your opinions on matters such as Prop 8 would be known by your neighbors, simply because policy would be debated in town halls and in churches and at other community functions. I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing.
On the other hand, I doubt that any of the people donating expected to be singled out in such a manner that their neighbors or coworkers could so easily find them out. And then there's the potential for retaliation. I really don't see true violence erupting out of something like this for Prop 8 - at most, it would be picketing, glares, fliers, and the like. And the argument could be made that if you're not ashamed of your donation, then there's no reason to care about others making it widely known. But what if this same technology is used for other purposes - say mapping people who work at abortion clinics? Or religious minorities?
Thoughts?
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
I don't mind mapping like this in aggregate forms - here's where the concentrations of donors tend to be, that sort of thing -- but I'm uneasy about such a specific mapping as being something that seems to serve mostly as a call to action to protesters and as a deterrent to political activism.
It's legal, it's easy to do, but I don't think it's right.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
Why do you think it deters political activism? Or perhaps better put, if the chance of having others find out about your political activism (via donations) stops you from making the donation, is that actually a loss? I'm not sure it is. If someone is only willing to be politically active if no one that person knows will find out about it, then I'm not sure if I want them to be part of the political process (besides voting, of course). Politics is inherently a community-based thing, and communities aren't formed out of anonymity.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Jhai, I personally know people who have had their houses teepeed, their cars egged, and their windows broken with rocks because their address is on that list. Is that right?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: I don't mind mapping like this in aggregate forms - here's where the concentrations of donors tend to be, that sort of thing -- but I'm uneasy about such a specific mapping as being something that seems to serve mostly as a call to action to protesters and as a deterrent to political activism.
It's legal, it's easy to do, but I don't think it's right.
Agreed 100%.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
I'm happy to see no one in my neighborhood donated.
Also, no one from my home town carpet-bagged a donation in either.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:I personally know people who have had their houses teepeed, their cars egged, and their windows broken with rocks because their address is on that list.
And you know this because the vandals left a note saying "we saw you on the list."?
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
(double post deleted)
[ January 28, 2009, 01:03 PM: Message edited by: The Pixiest ]
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP:
quote:I personally know people who have had their houses teepeed, their cars egged, and their windows broken with rocks because their address is on that list.
And you know this because the vandals left a note saying "we saw you on the list."?
In one case they left a note tied to the rock that said "You deserve to go to Hell for hating gays." In the other case (teepeed and egged) there was painted on the windshied of the car "Prop 8= H8."
Neither family went around telling people they supported/donated to Prop 8, so finding out that their addresses were published was an "aha" moment in figuring out how people decided to target them. (Other houses in their neighborhoods were also vandalized.)
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: I don't mind mapping like this in aggregate forms - here's where the concentrations of donors tend to be, that sort of thing -- but I'm uneasy about such a specific mapping as being something that seems to serve mostly as a call to action to protesters and as a deterrent to political activism.
It's legal, it's easy to do, but I don't think it's right.
Agreed 100%.
as they say elsewhere, this
--j_k
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Why are all the men "Mr." and the majority of the women have no titles?
EDIT: Nm.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
you got a bad sample. I clicked on 4 women's names and three of them had titles.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen:
quote:Originally posted by MattP:
quote:I personally know people who have had their houses teepeed, their cars egged, and their windows broken with rocks because their address is on that list.
And you know this because the vandals left a note saying "we saw you on the list."?
In one case they left a note tied to the rock that said "You deserve to go to Hell for hating gays." In the other case (teepeed and egged) there was painted on the windshied of the car "Prop 8= H8."
Neither family went around telling people they supported/donated to Prop 8, so finding out that their addresses were published was an "aha" moment in figuring out how people decided to target them. (Other houses in their neighborhoods were also vandalized.)
The irony there is just epic.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
I don't think it's a good idea to be linking to sites like this on Hatrack - this is pretty clearly a site whose purpose is to incite hatred or bad feelings against individual supporters of Proposition 8. The user agreement explicitly states that we are not to be linking to sites that promote hatred. (For comparison, I'd hope that if someone generated a map of people who had been married as a gay couple, so that those people could be discriminated against, nobody would be linking to it or promoting it here.) And given OSC's position on the gay marriage issue, I don't think he'd appreciate people who oppose gay marriage being singled out for attack like this.
It sounds reasonable to say people should stand behind their political opinions, and in a civil conversation that's completely true. But the problem is that this issue has produced behavior that goes well beyond anything that could be considered "civil". Egging someone's house or calling someone a bigot is in no way civil. Hating someone as a person because of the way they vote is not civil either. If that's what gay marriage opponents will encounter by making their opinions public, they have a very good reason to keep their political views secret.
Also, all legal questions aside, if someone finds a neighbor on this map and ends up committing acts of hatred against or otherwise becomes upset with them, I think it's fair to say the makers of this map are in part ethically responsible.
Posted by T:man (Member # 11614) on :
I think this is silly.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Looks like the Ku Klux Klan has some fans in California - if not of their reasons, then of their tactics.
But really, of their reasons: those who threaten political power must be made to fear for their physical safety in their own homes.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
kq, did anything I write suggest that I would think it okay for people or their property to be attacked? If not, then why the heck are you asking me? Stupid rhetorical point?
Tres, I don't agree that this is "clearly a site whose purpose is to incite hatred or bad feelings" - I found it quite interesting as a simple mapping where you could see where the concentration of "pro" donors were, and how much they were donating. I also think it would be very interesting to see a "Pro Prop 8" map. But, either way, my purpose in linking it was to discuss where the boundary in the political vs. private was, since this technology is clearly on the edge.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jhai: Tres, I don't agree that this is "clearly a site whose purpose is to incite hatred or bad feelings"
Even if that wasn't the site's purpose, the people who created the site almost definitely recognized it would be used that way and posted it anyway - or they're certifiable morons. An aggregate summation of this data would have been just as useful.
ETA: I really don't care if it's posted here, though.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
The specific locations of the donors is a call for action against specific donors. The creators can't play dumb that they didn't know people would use it to try and intimidate and scare people out of expressing their political opinions and support.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Jhai, you seemed to be waffling on whether it's okay to post the site or not. I was providing an anecdote of the possible end result of posting such a list (since it's happened in at least 2 cases I know of personally, and I've heard of more vandalism as well as discrimination at work based on this list.) The "Is that okay" was indeed a rhetorical, aimed at questioning whether the end result might negate some of the "benefits" you posted, although I don't think it was stupid.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
The specific location of the donors, with far more specificity (i.e. specific addresses) has been available and online for quite some time.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
I didn't even check which specific list this site is using, but there are at least 3 name and address lists I know of floating around the web.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Does anyone know out of curiosity what restrictions there were on international donations? I'm a little surprised that according to the map there were no international donations whatsoever, whether expats or true foreigners. I expected at least some in Alberta.
Also rather disappointed about the heavy number of Chinese or Asian donors in San Fransisco really. Of all the people that should be endorsing a popular vote on minority rights, oy.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Tres, I don't agree that this is "clearly a site whose purpose is to incite hatred or bad feelings" - I found it quite interesting as a simple mapping where you could see where the concentration of "pro" donors were, and how much they were donating.
That would be interesting data - but it definitely would not need the donors' names if that were the purpose.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax:
quote:Tres, I don't agree that this is "clearly a site whose purpose is to incite hatred or bad feelings" - I found it quite interesting as a simple mapping where you could see where the concentration of "pro" donors were, and how much they were donating.
That would be interesting data - but it definitely would not need the donors' names if that were the purpose.
There was a site done by one of the newspapers a while back that did this, shading the map for how much was donated, without individual names and addresses.
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen:
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax:
quote:Tres, I don't agree that this is "clearly a site whose purpose is to incite hatred or bad feelings" - I found it quite interesting as a simple mapping where you could see where the concentration of "pro" donors were, and how much they were donating.
That would be interesting data - but it definitely would not need the donors' names if that were the purpose.
There was a site done by one of the newspapers a while back that did this, shading the map for how much was donated, without individual names and addresses.
If the purpose was simply to show the concentration of pro-donors in various places, then this method is far more useful; especially since smaller donors tend to disappear when you zoom out.
--j_k
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Few in Brisbane donated. That's nice.
I would never even browse the list if anyone had. I don't really want to know if my neighbors are bigots.
For a metro area of a few million people, the total numbers are quite small anyway.
Posted by Elmer's Glue (Member # 9313) on :
I saw a lot of vandalism against Prop 8 supporters.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
It's an interesting proof of the geography of politics even within the bay area. While we as a group are overwhelmingly liberal, you can see the lower peninsula, south bay, and east bay, areas which contain the most per capita Catholics and Mormons, are the areas where the largest contributions came from.
Posted by DC Morphis (Member # 11929) on :
I have to agree with Tes, that the site was created to generate conflict. Very specific information was listed for donors, and the subject matter is incredibly controversial. the end result was way too close for this site not to be intended as cheap ammo for whatever cause. I suppose the site could be viewed negatively by either side, since its existence could support those proud of what they are standing for. The site would also bring out the extremists who would use vandalism and violence to support their cause. The extremists efforts could make their cause look like a desperate attempt or tantrum of sorts, yet scare those who might normally stand in favor of Prop 8 to stand down instead.
_______________________ Originally by Tresopax: Also, all legal questions aside, if someone finds a neighbor on this map and ends up committing acts of hatred against or otherwise becomes upset with them, I think it's fair to say the makers of this map are in part ethically responsible. ______________________
I think those who had a part in creating this particular digital mapping site should most definitely at least FEEL part ethically responsible for any damage that resulted. Along the same lines I made above, this topic is clearly controversial, and to have this mapping published on the Net would bring the controversy right to the front door of particular individuals and church communities who the majority of which more than likely wished to be silent donors.
Knowing this mapping is out there, and having seen and heard the horror stories could discourage those who would normally take a stand for something they believe in, no matter the subject.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Um....Is it still "taking a stand" if you're a silent donor?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Is directing vandals to harass people for their political speech "taking a stand"?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Tom, when a private citizen contributes to a campaign of any type, there is generally no expectation that their names, addresses, and workplace will be posted on a site hostile to the cause they support.
There is an expectation, I think, that their names and addresses be made public; but this effort attaches a specific agenda to the collection and disclosure of that information.
I don't know that there is a legal way to remove the site; there probably shouldn't be. It's important, IMO, that donations to political campaigns be absolutely public and transparent.
The question is, can it be said that the website is inciting illegal activities?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Is directing vandals to harass people for their political speech "taking a stand"?
Where is that direction? It is just a map. I agree, I would never create the map, and I don't like the fact that it was made, but it is not direction. The people who are listed are also, afaik, not anonymous donors.
I would like to know if these people had an opportunity to pledge silently, and if they chose not to. I would like to know if they were advised of the possible consequence of having their names published in this or any other way. To an extent, the mere existence of the map doesn't bother me IF the people explicitly acknowledged it as an outcome of their public donations. Ignorance is not a defense, if they were given reasonable warning. That being said, I don't know that they were given due warning, nor do I know that many of these people were actually equipped to understand this eventuality when they pledged. It's a safe bet they weren't, because if so, I don't imagine so many people would have made donations that were public.
OTOH, acts of vandalism and violence or intimidation are not defensible, nor are they prescribed by this map, which, I'll assume for now, is based on public or easily accessible information. The people who pledged in their own names should have been aware that they were making a statement which could be found out, and so I don't particularly pity them the enmity they have inspired in their neighbors.
I wouldn't create the map. I wouldn't pledge the money. I wouldn't bother anyone who did either of these things, and I think to an extent everyone involved in this, the mappers, the pledgers, the vandals, are all unsavory in my book. I certainly don't like that this has happened, but I do have an inkling of understanding about why it is happening. There is a place for public accountability on the part of Pro-8 supporters, especially if they donate money publicly. Making bigotry visible to the public is good, but this was not the best way- it was too much, way too soon.
quote: There is an expectation, I think, that their names and addresses be made public; but this effort attaches a specific agenda to the collection and disclosure of that information.
This is, however, not a reasonable expectation, at least under our current interpretation of the constitution. "Only talk about me in ways I like," is not a right we have as citizens.
As a *sort of* similar example, I have an expectation that when speeding on the freeway, I will not be ticketed, as long as I look out for cops. I consider myself safe in the assumption. However solid the expectation may be, it is not reasonable- I may be caught by a radar gun and an unmarked car, and I may be ticketed. These people didn't break the law, but they did something in public, with a possibly unreasonable expectation that the publicity about their actions was going to be favorable for them. But donating publicly to a cause is a statement. If the information is known to be public, then that statement is ill-advised if the person does not have the desire to be known publicly. That would be a defense from ignorance.
What makes this all more difficult, is that it is based on emerging technology, which would, in earlier days, have made such a backlash campaign totally unfeasible, from both the compilation and the distribution sides. That's not the world we live in today, and just because it may be 1975 in someone's living room- you don't get to choose the society you live in (unless you are prepared to move).
[ January 28, 2009, 10:12 AM: Message edited by: Orincoro ]
Posted by lobo (Member # 1761) on :
Why is it that the people who are against prop 8 are slinging all the mud?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Uh... they're not. Prop 8 won, so they now have nothing to fight for.
And where's the mud slinging? I see a map, and I see your interpretation of the map. What do you think we've been talking about?
Honestly, you pop into threads like a British police officer from the 19th century saying: "What's all this then?" and then walking off whistling while people try to figure out what the hell just happened, and what kind of time traveling bobby just strolled through the scene.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
The story from Ketchup Queen is not the only incident of harassment and intimidation techniques I've seen. Add the religious persecution to it, and several people/groups should be ashamed of themselves. The opposition to Proposition 8 has often not been classy.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
The existence of Proposition 8, frankly, is not classy. Edit: but that's neither here nor there. Unless you're discussing violence which is associated or caused by the map, I really don't see what it has to do with the map.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
How is this website any different than the websites that sprung up a few years ago simply stating doctors who performed abortions and their addresses?
The argument was that they were simply using free speech and posting readily available information without suggesting any specific call to action.
Now obviously in the linked case there was incendiary language, but for people reading this Prop 8 site it's doubtful they need written instructions. I don't think this should be illegal but it definitely seems immoral.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I am discussing the violence and harassment that has resulted from the map.
I feel the same way about the abortion doctor maps. However, there is a difference between contributing money to a cause and actually performing the procedure that some feel is murder. Putting the locations of both on a map to be released to people who will do dastardly things with it is wrong, but the people on the map are not equivelent.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
My feelings on the difference is that one is in the political sphere, and other is just people's jobs - which is part of their personal life. I don't think everyone in America has a right to know, for instance, that I get X number of packages delivered to my house each week, even though that's readily available information for anyone watching my front porch from the public road.
But action in the political sphere is, by its very nature, a community thing - you're trying to influence the laws or policy of the community. Why shouldn't the community have clear information about these actions?
(Note: I'm leaning towards this map not being a bad thing for the above reasons - except that people probably didn't realize it was a possibility - but I'm not convinced one way or another yet. That's why I brought it up on hatrack for discussion.)
Kat - how do you know that it was a result of this map? At MattP said, did someone leave a note after egging a house saying "we were led to your house via this cool mashup?" Since the information was already readily available on government sites, I suspect the type of people who would be interested in committing violence would also know about those lists, and not need the map to find out who had donated locally.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
The maps were created to facilitate such activity. That such activity then happened shouldn't be a surprise.
Jhai, what do you consider a "good" use of the map? Shunning? Sending letters to them? Sending letters to everyone they may do business with? Posting up signs on nearby telephone poles?
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
I would like to know if people in my community donated, because I would not want to associate with those people outside of polite impersonal or business relations. For instance, if I owned a small cafe, I would not want to co-host an event with another small business if the owner of that business donated to support Prop 8. If my neighbor was a donor, I would think less of him, and not make an active effort to socialize with him as I do with my other neighbors. You can call that shunning, if you like - I see it as not associating myself with people whose views and actions I strongly disapprove of. Edit: and I think I have a right to know these things (where I do not have a right to know their moral code or other such factoids that I might approve or disapprove of) because they're putting themselves out into the public sphere by engaging in political action.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: The story from Ketchup Queen is not the only incident of harassment and intimidation techniques I've seen. Add the religious persecution to it, and several people/groups should be ashamed of themselves. The opposition to Proposition 8 has often not been classy.
Both sides of a dirty coin.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
That seems like the least likely use of a list like that.
I suspect that if you wanted to associate with someone outside civil or business relations, then you'd probably know enough about them to make this a topic. Especially since it was so controversial - I know the general position of just about everyone I associate with outside of business, and I live on the other side of the country.
In other words, if you are in a position to be friends with someone, you wouldn't need the list to know what is important to them.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:However, there is a difference between contributing money to a cause and actually performing the procedure that some feel is murder.
Um....What, for the purposes of this discussion, is the substantive difference? If anything, isn't the latter situation more likely to provoke a violent response from people? In both cases, we have Group X, whose actual identification is quite irrelevant -- and Public Y, which contains some members that might misbehave given demographic information about Group X.
quote:The maps were created to facilitate such activity.
I actually suspect the maps were created for two reasons: 1) to play with the Maps Geolocation API; 2) to de-obfuscate public records, making it easier for people to refer to them.
What you're saying is that these maps make it too easy for people to obtain public information.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: I am discussing the violence and harassment that has resulted from the map.
I feel the same way about the abortion doctor maps. However, there is a difference between contributing money to a cause and actually performing the procedure that some feel is murder. Putting the locations of both on a map to be released to people who will do dastardly things with it is wrong, but the people on the map are not equivelent.
Yeah, I agree. The abortion doctors should have a right to privacy.
Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: What you're saying is that these maps make it too easy for people to obtain public information.
That's why bureaucracy exists! To prevent such easy access. Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
I'm a little hesitant about the use of the map down to the level of people. But for the foundations (like the Templeton Foundation) and for donations on behalf of companies, I fully support the ability for people to know what organisations are active in what areas and to know which companies to avoid.
Its bad enough that the corporate donations are probably tax-advantaged in some way, but its more important to avoid supporting companies would in turn contribute my consumer dollars to this kind of thing.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I'm a little hesitant about the use of the map down to the level of people.
I would be, but I think the expectation of privacy is pretty much dead. You'll notice I don't attempt to maintain any anonymity on the Internet; that's largely because I think such anonymity is a fiction. I think it's useful to understand that anything you do may become public knowledge and behave accordingly; to do otherwise is to invite disaster.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: That seems like the least likely use of a list like that.
I suspect that if you wanted to associate with someone outside civil or business relations, then you'd probably know enough about them to make this a topic. Especially since it was so controversial - I know the general position of just about everyone I associate with outside of business, and I live on the other side of the country.
In other words, if you are in a position to be friends with someone, you wouldn't need the list to know what is important to them.
Really? You discuss this with every small business owner you shop from, and all of your neighbors? You would know prior to, say, inviting over a few neighbors for a BBQ, whether they've donated to Prop 8 or not?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Political speech is protected by the constitutuion in a very big way. Performing medical procedures is not.
The purpose of such maps are clearly to draw unfavorable attention on people for their political speech. I wonder if the people who like these maps would also support maps of people who donate to, say, Muslim charities, or people who support abortion causes.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Jhai: It's a controversial issue. It is important enough to want to avoid accidentally being nice to someone who supports it, and it was important enough to them to give money for the cause. Yeah, if you have more than any kind of surface conversation with someone, then I'll bet it would come up.
If your point is that you don't want to risk for one second being nice to someone who believes differently than you, then you've really lost me.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
I really think a map that shows all the contributors against the prop should be made. After all, if the other side can do it, I don't see why it can't be done for the opposite.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: That seems like the least likely use of a list like that. ...
On the other hand, there's that old saying about politics and religion being two topics that one should avoid at the dinner table and this issue combines both.
In fact, wasn't there a thread recently on whether one should expose one's personal effects and and views at work, with some arguing that was unhealthy? It would seem that such a map would aid in determining whether to start a friendship with such people who wouldn't exactly volunteer this kind of information otherwise. (Not that I support using such criteria to determine whether to form friendships, but theoretically it seems quite possible)
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
What about map of all the places where people who got married in the window when it was legal live? Would you feel the same way about that map, Jhai? What would think of someon who would want such a map so they avoid all non-forced contact with the people on the list?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: I really think a map that shows all the contributors against the prop should be made. After all, if the other side can do it, I don't see why it can't be done for the opposite.
I would be happy to be on such a map - and will be if someone makes one.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
People who like them are irrelevant. People who believe they should be legal will tell you all of the same things- there's nothing for you to do in this situation but complain... and it looks like you're getting ready to sit down and do just that for a few pages. Have fun!
Actually, performing medical procedures IS protected by the constitution- in so far as our laws are based on the constitution, and medical procedures are regulated by the federal government. And, in fact, the confidentiality of medical procedures is ALSO protected in the constitution.
But the question was whether doctors should have the right to privacy in their living arrangements. I believe they should have that right if it is needed to keep them safe. I think we can agree that in certain cases, they do need that to keep themselves safe.
So Kat, it's okay for people to make political speech through public donations, but do you think it's not okay (as in SHOULD BE ILLEGAL) for people to make that information publicly accessible in new ways?
Ultimately, no matter how long this discussion goes on, and I think it will, you are arguing from the "get those kids off my lawn" perspective. This is something new. It is good when it does what you want it to, and bad when it does something you don't want it to. For the "good" cases, you recognize the disconnect between potentiality and action. In the "bad" cases, you don't.
You will accept no moral ambiguity- or if you will, you will allow yourself to show no understanding of moral ambiguity. I don't know why you do this. I am concerned that there are people like you in the world (possibly a lot of you), but I really don't know what to do about it. And anyway, I'm not entirely convinced that I don't share your tendencies myself, and just don't express them in the same ways, or because I don't hold the same opinions. (That's moral ambiguity, by the way, coming from the part of your brain that tells you that you actually have things to learn from others).
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: What about map of all the places where people who got married in the window when it was legal live? Would you feel the same way about that map, Jhai? What would think of someon who would want such a map so they avoid all non-forced contact with the people on the list?
Do you really not get the distinction between political actions and other actions? If I get married under a specific law that allows me to, I'm just going about my business. If I donate to a religious organization that supports sexism in the home, I'm still just going about my business. The moment I donate to a group that is trying to influence what laws our society follows, I've stepped out of "just going about my business" and into a public sphere where others have a right to know about my actions.
Edit: If the addresses of the married folk were part of open government information (i.e. this is data which is collected by the government, and made open to the public), then I wouldn't have any problem with it. I doubt it'd be easy to figure out which couples were homosexual and which weren't during the time period under question, unless the list of gov't information included genders. However, even if I were stridently against gay marriage, I would care far less about the people who got married while it was legal and far more about the people who donated to "No on Prop 8" groups. Again, because political action is different - and often more objectionable in my "live & let live" moral framework - than just having your own personal views about things.
[ January 28, 2009, 11:56 AM: Message edited by: Jhai ]
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:So Kat, it's okay for people to make political speech through public donations, but do you think it's not okay (as in SHOULD BE ILLEGAL) for people to make that information publicly accessible in new ways?
I have said nothing about being illegal or that it should be illegal. I don't know where you got that.
You are also wrong in summarizing my argument. I don't know who or what you are arguing against, but it isn't me or anything I said. Perhaps it was a different conversation you were in?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: What about map of all the places where people who got married in the window when it was legal live? Would you feel the same way about that map, Jhai? What would think of someon who would want such a map so they avoid all non-forced contact with the people on the list?
If the addresses of the people who got married were part of public record, then I would feel that the map is legal. I wouldn't make it, I wouldn't look at it, and I would do nothing about it if I saw it. I know you're not asking me, but there's an answer anyway.
Each time you bring up some other possibility, someone's personal feelings about the effect of that possibility *will* be different. There's no shame in that. We are complex people. And people will always be doing bad things. Your solution, to be honest, is the attitude that allows authoritarianism to seep into the politics of any given nation. From the position of "how would you FEEL" soon evolves, "what are we going to DO ABOUT IT!"
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Orincoro, I think you are in the wrong conversation. You are not talking about anything I said or am talking about.
If you are predicting my next comment, then shake the 8-ball again: it's wrong.
---
Jhai: Anything that gets public funding is part of the state. Getting legally married involves the state. All of those things involve the state just as much as politics does, just at different points in the process. Also, all are publically available records. They are all candidates for a map like that to be created. What would you think of people creating maps like that of groups of people they don't like in order to guide who they will and will not be nice if they run into them in the neighborhood?
Does your answer mean that you would think poorly of someone who used a map of people who got married in that window in order to guide their choices of who and who not to be polite to?
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
Sorry - I addressed that bit in an edit to my comment above, kat - we must have crossposted.
It is pretty hilarious that your next post is pretty much spot on as to what Orincoro's model of you would suggest.
Edit: you'll also note that I never said anything about being impolite to the people who donated to "Yes on Prop 8". In fact, I specifically mentioned I'd have polite impersonal or business interactions with people who donated. I don't think there's anything to be gained by being impolite to anyone who is behaving in a civil manner.
Edit the second: I also don't get why you're bringing up actions that involve "the state". Pretty much anything we do involves the state in some way or other - every item we own, every person we meet, etc, unless we're somehow living "off the grid." Political action is not the same thing as the state.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
?? Are there missing posts? Is someone passing around a halucinogen?
--
I disagree that it is okay to single out political views as okay to shun someone about while all other choices are personal and therefore not okay to shun someone about.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: I disagree that it is okay to single out political views as okay to shun someone about while all other choices are personal and therefore not okay to shun someone about.
Political views are different from political action. My husband has a political view about Prop 8, but has taken absolutely no action, other than discussing his view with people he interacts with daily. I have taken political action on Prop 8 by phoning California voters & through donation - and my action was brought about because of my strong political views.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
So you are saying that if someon takes a political action stemming from a political view that you disagree with, then it is okay to shun that person.
That taking political action carries with it the automatic agreement that your political actions will be provided to those who will hate for it to do as they want to.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Orincoro, I think you are in the wrong conversation. You are not talking about anything I said or am talking about.
If you are predicting my next comment, then shake the 8-ball again: it's wrong.
At the extreme risk of hoisting myself on my own petard, you've done this so many times, it's easy to predict what you'll say.
There's absolutely no way for me to prove my point (Schrodinger's cat and all that) but every time someone anticipates or interprets any portion of your position, you tell them you haven't said that, and they're wrong, and here's why. The only reason I think this, is because you have never once acknowledge something someone else has said, and seemed to actually think about it.
When I'm making an argument, I try to think a few steps ahead, and acknowledge the likely responses I'll get depending on the person I'm talking to. Now, if this is done right (and it is only sometimes done right) the person will engage with my point by shading their position based on what I've said (and which they have acknowledged) so that I get a better picture of what they really think. They understand what it is in my argument that is suppositional, and they respond when I am wrong. Now with you, the approach is totally different.
I find myself sitting here thinking: "gosh, if I say this about her position, she'll deny it fiercely, but if I don't say it, she'll reveal what I'm going to say about her anyway, and then I will have not said it." So short of writing down my predictions and mailing them to myself, there is no way to prove I actually know what you're going to say, and how what I say affects that.
Like right now, you're going to say something about how I have no right to play armchair psychology, and anyway I must think so highly of myself for being so damn smart, and predicting everything you are going to say, when really I don't know you, and I couldn't possibly understand anything about you to begin with. That's when I double back and answer that argument by saying that your positions are revealed in everything you've said up to this point, and you'll come back and say that THEY HAVE NOT! And I just don't understand your position. And I'll respond that you obviously haven't made your position clear, and then the thread will go into its 7th page, and you'll declare nuclear war on Hatrack, and Blayne will be sacrificed as a martyr to Communist China.
Now you won't say that. You'll say something else.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I can't believe that technique actually works for you. Do you get good results from it? How do you define good results?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Political speech is protected by the constitutuion in a very big way. Performing medical procedures is not.
The purpose of such maps are clearly to draw unfavorable attention on people for their political speech.
But this doesn't matter, because it's perfectly constitutional to focus unfavorable attention on people for their political speech.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Sure. Lots of things that are tacky and gauche are constitutional.
Depends on the nature of the unfavorable attention, of course. Sometimes it does (and has, for this issue) crossed the line from unfavorable attention to crimincal acts.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: So you are saying that if someon takes a political action stemming from a political view that you disagree with, then it is okay to shun that person.
That taking political action carries with it the automatic agreement that your political actions will be provided to those who will hate for it to do as they want to.
I suppose the first part depends on your definition of "shun." If I regularly take part in political protest aimed at denying rights to black people, will I still get invited to your BBQ?
As far as the second part, I think that if you take a political action that will be recorded by the government and made open to the public, you shouldn't be surprised if the information is open to the public.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I don't see where this is difficult. Public information is public. Criminal action based on public information is criminal. Enforce the law and have done.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I am not saying I am surprised. I just wonder if we really want to make political action such a risky activity that only people with nothing to lose take part in it, because it has become acceptable to actively shun people for it.
I only invite people I like very much and know well enough to know that I do to do things, so I seriously suspect that someone who engaged in that kind of political activity would bring it up before I invited them to a barbeque.
And, actually, if I did and it turned out that they did, it wouldn't be the end of the world. Opposing political views are not cooties, and I would hope I would never regret being friendly to someone because of something that held no danger to me.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
Shunning people because they donate money to a given political cause should generally be considered as unacceptable as shunning someone just because they are gay. I don't, for instance, consider it reasonable to refuse to do business with people who had "Vote for McCain" signs in their yards. I don't see supporting or opposing Prop 8 as any different than that.
That's because knowing that somebody gave money toward Prop 8 tells you very very little about who they actually are as a person. It doesn't tell you WHY they donated the money. It doesn't prove they are bigot. And it certainly doesn't give you much insight into their personality.
I'd say get to know people instead of shunning them; people are more complicated than a set of votes or a set of political opinions, and shouldn't be treated as such. You might find your favorite person in the world disagrees with you on some important issue. It'd be foolish to shun them just for that.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"That's because knowing that somebody gave money toward Prop 8 tells you very very little about who they actually are as a person. "
Actually, it tells you quite a lot. It tells you they actively support making a bigoted measure part of the constitution.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
That you think so says more about your views of the issue than the views of other people on the issue.
The issue is not cut and dried nor black and white.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
I don't get this (edit: whole "shunning" concept); it's perfectly okay to boycott organizations or groups that engage in things that you don't approve of, but when you don't want to chill in your home with people who engage in things you don't approve of, somehow it's "shunning" & wrong?
I disagree with lots of opinions my husband holds. However, if he donated money to a cause that was, say promoting racist legislation (obviously racist, like "put blacks back in slavery"), I would seriously reconsider spending the rest of my life with him. Is that "shunning"?
Is it wrong if I refuse to associate with people or organizations who disapprove of racially-mixed marriages - given that I am in one? Should I welcome people into my home who are politically active in pushing to disallow racially-mixed marriages? Should I spend money in their stores? If I deliberately don't do that, is it shunning?
Edit: kat, there is no reason you can present to me that would make me think it is morally acceptable to willingly donate to "Yes on Prop 8". None. If you disagree on this particular issue, then choose another one - I don't particularly care about this specific issue, but the broader principles behind the discussion of this case.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Opposing political views are not cooties, and I would hope I would never regret being friendly to someone because of something that held no danger to me.
Ah, yes, quite so. How about danger to other people? There is a poem, little known outside Norway, but quite apt; the most famous lines in it are "You shall not endure so remarkably well / the injustice that has no sting for yourself". (My translation, and it loses a lot. But I trust the point is clear.) Are you actually reading your own words here?
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: Shunning people because they donate money to a given political cause should generally be considered as unacceptable as shunning someone just because they are gay. I don't, for instance, consider it reasonable to refuse to do business with people who had "Vote for McCain" signs in their yards. I don't see supporting or opposing Prop 8 as any different than that.
Political causes don't occur in a vacuum. And something like Prop. 8 was tangible and immediate to a group of people in a way that most laws are not. It is very obvious why the homosexual population would take this very personally.
To the more general question of shunning based on political donations: if you found out someone donated to, say, the Aryan Nation, would you look askance of them?
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: That you think so says more about your views of the issue than the views of other people on the issue.
The issue is not cut and dried nor black and white.
The only reason this appears to be an issue of which reasonable people can disagree is that there are a lot of pro-prop 8ers. I bet in 50 years conventional wisdom will have moved on and people who are anti-gay marriage will be a viewed in the same light as segregationists.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
King of Men: Indeed. There's a famous poem that ends "And then ... they came for me ... And by that time there was no one left to speak up." Which is essentially what I was getting at with the disappointing number of Chinese donors.
Given that we're still only one lifetime away from measures such as the Chinese Exclusion Act, the head tax, and the internment of Japanese citizens during WWII, I would have hoped that we would at least be specially sensitive to disturbing idea of having people vote on who should have rights given that that particular sword is one that could so easily be wielded against us in the future.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Sadly, it often seems that the people who were most recently discriminated against are the ones most likely to discriminate against others. It is a way to establish your "in-ness". And when your own status is shaky, it is riskier to take a stand on someone else's status.
The rung on the social ladder that is fought over the hardest is not the top; it is the rung second from the bottom.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
I am not sure how I would have voted on prop 8. Long term, I think there is a good chance prop 8 will be the case that grants federal, nationwide marriage rights to any 2 adults. Prop 8 is absurd. A state can not say, ok, you are married right now, but we took it to a vote and we decided you are not now. You still want to be married- oh well. There is no way 9 rational human being will support that. And someone surely will take this to the supreme court. Winning marriage rights in one swoop through a supreme court case seems a lot easier then fighting state by state. Of course, I am making the huge assumption that the supreme court is full of rational people. But I have high hopes that in the future, people will look back and say prop 8 was the reason for national SSM.
As far as shunning, if I never knew from interactions, I would not change the relationships. Mostly because I would never go looking up a map to check up on my friends and neighbors. The closest real life example is that I have friends who I invite over to my house on a regular basis who have very negative views of my religion. I know they think anyone with my religion is stupid, but, our friendship was based on playing games and religion is not part of that.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Of course, I am making the huge assumption that the supreme court is full of rational people.
I think we have ample evidence that it is not.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
One interesting thing I noticed about the map was how many of the donors were retired. It reinforces how I feel about the SSM marriage debate. It's only a matter of time. And by the margins involved in the passing of Prop 8, not a lot of time at all. At least in California.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
If I use Google Maps to create a page that shows the addresses of all the people who voted for leash laws, and called it "Leash Law Supporters;" if the leash laws were a hot button topic; if I let the opposition to the Leash Law know that there was a map showing all the people who supported it; and if one of those folks uses my map to systematically vandalize homes, what is my liability?
Should I have liability at all?
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
I don't think that you can get that information, given that voting records are not open to the public.
Posted by MattB (Member # 1116) on :
I've gone back and forth on jumping in here, but here goes.
1) Comparing the civil rights movement to the gay marriage movement strikes me as somewhat facile. The country is a different place, and one of the things that has made it different is the legacy of the civil rights movement itself. The biggest difference, I think, is that while the civil rights movement was rooted in the churches, the gay rights movement is in many ways defining itself in opposition to the churches. And that, as I argue below, is a deep mistake.
2) And therein lies the problem. Homophobia is real, certainly, and undoubtedly accounts for some percentage of the vote on Prop 8. However, it is unfair and politically unwise to cast all opposition to gay marriage as the result of simple homophobia or ignorance, or to castigate religious opponents of gay marriage as such. Part of Martin Luther King's genius was that he knew this: you do not treat your political opponents as enemies to be jeered at or as bigots or destroyed. That way lies only more conflict, not peace. Instead you make common cause with them; you demonstrate how your ideals and theirs converge.
About the map, the question is not whether it is legal, but whether it is a good idea. And it undeniably, despite Andrew Sullivan's protests, has the look of a list of targets. Look - ever since Stonewall, protests and public actions have been key to the strategy of the gay rights movement. They have accomplished a great deal through such tactics. Visibility is foundational; for those who see homosexuality as something alien and to be feared, realizing the simple humanity of homosexuals can be profoundly important.
But the problem has changed.
3) The great fear of most Christian churches who supported Prop 8 was of a slippery slope, at the bottom of which they are forced to solemnize gay marriages. Legally speaking, this fear is probably nebulous, but that does not change its sincerity. Therefore, the task of the gay rights movement now is to convince the churches that this is not the case; that civil same-sex marriage will not infringe upon religious liberty.
The way to do that is not to hold public protests, to picket Mormon temples and Catholic churches, or toyell at believers. All that does is further reinforce the perception that gay people hate religion. And that only hurts, rather than furthers, the cause of same-sex marriage; it increases, rather than decreases the image of homosexuals as a alien and hostile group that the past thirty years have begun to remove.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jhai: I don't think that you can get that information, given that voting records are not open to the public.
Who said vote? I said 'support.'
And anyway, don't dodge the question.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: If I use Google Maps to create a page that shows the addresses of all the people who voted for leash laws, and called it "Leash Law Supporters;" if the leash laws were a hot button topic; if I let the opposition to the Leash Law know that there was a map showing all the people who supported it; and if one of those folks uses my map to systematically vandalize homes, what is my liability?
Should I have liability at all?
I'm not a lawyer, so I can't answer what your liability might or might not be.
I don't think you should have any liability, if this information was available publicly. That's like blaming regular ol' google maps if criminals use it to easily find all of the jewelry stores in a given location so that they can plan the best route to hit them up.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Sadly, it often seems that the people who were most recently discriminated against are the ones most likely to discriminate against others. It is a way to establish your "in-ness". And when your own status is shaky, it is riskier to take a stand on someone else's status. ...
That would be a reasonable guess, but I wouldn't make any real conclusions based on me randomly clicking around the mashup.
In reality, further investigation shows that Chinese voters were most opposed to the measure among Asians at 60% against and it appears that the strongest factor that explains voting among that demographic is religion (more than 75% of Chinese who never attend religious ceremonies opposed the measure while only about 25% of those who regularly attend religious ceremonies oppose it).
quote: “Consistent with the recently released analysis from the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, which found that religiosity was one of the most determinative factors in supporting Prop 8, today’s data also shows that more than ethnicity or even age, religion is key to influencing how Asian Americans voted on marriage equality,” said Jonipher Kwong, Interfaith Organizer for California Faith for Equality.
And thats putting it diplomatically from an interfaith organizer. I would have been substantially less diplomatic.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: If I use Google Maps to create a page that shows the addresses of all the people who voted for leash laws, and called it "Leash Law Supporters;" if the leash laws were a hot button topic; if I let the opposition to the Leash Law know that there was a map showing all the people who supported it; and if one of those folks uses my map to systematically vandalize homes, what is my liability?
Should I have liability at all?
I don't see how you can be or should be liable for making publicly accessible information available in a different format.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Mucus,
My statement wasn't a conclusion based on the mashup. It was based on history and general rather than specifically about Prop 8.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Ok, but in this case, your general statement doesn't seem to apply to my comments when we look at the statistics.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: I don't see how you can be or should be liable for making publicly accessible information available in a different format.
yup.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
I don't think the creators of the map should be held liable for the actions of anyone using the map, not at all. What they have done is perfectly legal and well within public records rights and the easy use of the technology.
Still don't like it, and would not do it or recommend it myself. I can't see it as anything other than needlessly provocative, a way of saying "You know all those people who pissed you off? Here's where they live, man!"
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: I can't believe that technique actually works for you. Do you get good results from it? How do you define good results?
I have no idea whether it works or not. My brain just does it. Really, there would be no way of telling if it *did* work.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
By work, I mean does it advance your conversation goals? Do you have better discussions? Reach greater understanding? "Win" more arguments? How do you define winning?
Posted by maui babe (Member # 1894) on :
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: I don't think the creators of the map should be held liable for the actions of anyone using the map, not at all. What they have done is perfectly legal and well within public records rights and the easy use of the technology.
Still don't like it, and would not do it or recommend it myself. I can't see it as anything other than needlessly provocative, a way of saying "You know all those people who pissed you off? Here's where they live, man!"
I agree. It strikes me as very high schoolish.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: By work, I mean does it advance your conversation goals? Do you have better discussions? Reach greater understanding? "Win" more arguments? How do you define winning?
I don't. It's Schrodinger's cat. How do you know you've ever won an argument if you're never sure if you've actually changed the other person's mind? Maybe it was going to change anyway, or maybe it hasn't changed, or maybe they always agreed with you. So winning an argument is kind of a non-existent goal, because the aim is to actually agree with the other person in the end, not just outlast them in your reiterations of your own beliefs with compelling evidence for their prescience. So, winning remains forever undefined.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: It's Schrodinger's cat. How do you know you've ever won an argument if you're never sure if you've actually changed the other person's mind?
It seems to me that if you respond to what you think someone will say four posts away, then it is less likely that you are responding to what they are saying now.
In practical terms, it made me look over my shoulder to see who you were actually talking to.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:"That's because knowing that somebody gave money toward Prop 8 tells you very very little about who they actually are as a person. "
Actually, it tells you quite a lot. It tells you they actively support making a bigoted measure part of the constitution.
Despite the rhetoric from the pro gay marriage side, bigotry is not inherent in Proposition 8. Bigotry is one possible reason for favoring Prop 8, but it is certainly not the only reason to favor it. Thus, because you don't know WHY they favor voting for it, you can draw very few assumptions about the person just based on the fact that they gave money toward it as a cause.
This is comparable to complaints by the folks who want the Washington Redskins to change their name because they consider it a slur against Native Americans. One could say that anyone who supports keeping the old name is a bigot who hates Native Americans. One could SAY that - but it wouldn't be true. Plenty of (if not most) people support keeping the original name simply for traditions' sake, and hold no bad feelings towards Native Americans. Similarly, I suspect there are plenty of people who supported Prop 8 because they simply wanted to keep the status quo or felt it was important to preserve a tradition of marriage between a man and a women. And there are probably others who did it out of bigotry. You can't assume one or the other. Well, I suppose you can assume it if you want, but it would likely lead you to hate or shun perfectly good and reasonable people.
I'm inclined to think casually hating/shunning people without an extremely compelling reason is an unwise thing to do if you want to live a happy life.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
I'm not the one you're responding to, Tres, but I have (nearly) as much contempt for those who were pro on Prop 8 because of "tradtion" as I do towards those who dislike gays. As I said before, I don't believe that there's one morally good reason to support Prop 8, and I don't think I could be friends with or a customer of anyone who supported it. If you want to call that shunning, fine - that's completely determined by your definition. It's not hatred, though.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Wow, Jhai, you don't like a whole lot of Hatrack.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
There's a difference between "not be friends with" and not like. I can like people who I'm unwilling to be friends with - but if there's too much of a disconnect between the way they think and the way I think, we'd never make good friends. For instance, I like my mom plenty, but I'd never be friends with her - and it's not just the generational gap.
Maybe what we each consider a friend is different.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:I have (nearly) as much contempt for those who were pro on Prop 8 because of "tradtion" as I do towards those who dislike gays. As I said before, I don't believe that there's one morally good reason to support Prop 8, and I don't think I could be friends with or a customer of anyone who supported it.
Why? What good does that do?
Posted by HollowEarth (Member # 2586) on :
Jhai, your description back on page one is an operative definition of shunning. I'm not sure anyone has called it hatred, though.
I think that this thread has focused rather narrowly on this particular story about prop 8. This isn't a new problem by any means. This just happens to be a more egregious and recent demonstration.
Modern tools make the cost of collecting, distributing and working with large amounts of data much less than it once was even relatively recently.
In this particular case this is a effective change in what public means. Where as before, yes the data was available but the number of people who were interested enough to request it and then deal with it was much smaller, since this represented at the very least a cost in time. I suspect that all most people ever saw was the shaded newspaper map discussed earlier. Using some free or essentially free tools one person can now make the same data available to all, in an easy to use form, which means my cost to look for my neighbors in this data is essentially zero, and so I'm much more likely to do so for good, bad or out of mere curiosity.
As has been pointed out the data should be public but public doesn't mean cost free (explicitly I'm referring to more than just cash here.)
This same issue comes up with red light cameras, cell phone tracking, super market shopper's card, library records, surveillance cameras and on and on. Essentially anywhere that long term records are kept.
Since we now have these capabilities, they will be used in ways we don't necessarily like simply due to wide availability and relatively (and generally decreasing) costs. Unfortunately I've yet to hear anything effective that you can do about it.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax:
quote:I have (nearly) as much contempt for those who were pro on Prop 8 because of "tradtion" as I do towards those who dislike gays. As I said before, I don't believe that there's one morally good reason to support Prop 8, and I don't think I could be friends with or a customer of anyone who supported it.
Why? What good does that do?
Because I don't like to hang around people who promote things I strongly dislike - do you? And I don't like to support business that promote things I strongly dislike - do you? I'm just being upfront about it. It's not about "doing good". It's just about my personal preferences. I have a limited amount of time & money, and I don't wish to waste either on things that I don't like. I don't think this is a surprising or unique facet of my personality - most (if not all) people don't like to spend resources on things they don't like. Shocker, I know.
HollowEarth, the wikipeida article on shunning seems to suggest that it's different than what I do. But, like I said, I don't really give a crap what you call it - in the end it's all definitional bickering. I don't think anything I'm doing is less than morally neutral.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Actually, I am quite good friends with some people who promote things I strongly dislike.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
That's fine - it's your choice. I don't desire to spend what little free time I have that way.
Posted by HollowEarth (Member # 2586) on :
We must read different wikipedias then.
quote:link I see it as not associating myself with people whose views and actions I strongly disapprove of.
quote:Wikipedia Shunning is the act of deliberately avoiding association with, and habitually keeping away from an individual or group.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
That's fine too. I just wanted to let you know that some of us don't have a problem with that, and are able to be friends without politics or religious differences interfering.
Actually, I kind of feel sad for people who have a problem with that. But it makes some things make much more sense...
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
Actually, I have friends of pretty much every religion practiced, and all sorts of political types. Obviously you don't understand the distinction I'm making. I guess I feel kind of sad for people who have a problem with that.
Edit: HallowEarth, try reading a bit deeper into the article than that. There's more to something than a one sentence blurb, you know. To be more specific, that exact same sentence could be the definition of "avoidance." Or "disassociation". Unless you think all of these words have the exact same meaning, there's more to shunning than just that.
[ January 29, 2009, 12:34 AM: Message edited by: Jhai ]
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Because I don't like to hang around people who promote things I strongly dislike - do you? And I don't like to support business that promote things I strongly dislike - do you? I'm just being upfront about it. It's not about "doing good". It's just about my personal preferences. I have a limited amount of time & money, and I don't wish to waste either on things that I don't like. I don't think this is a surprising or unique facet of my personality - most (if not all) people don't like to spend resources on things they don't like. Shocker, I know.
I actually think that everyone I hang around with supports something or another that I strongly dislike. At least I can't think of anyone in particular who doesn't. And I think this is not unusual for most people - because it is possible to like someone, as a person, despite the fact that they support something you don't like.
I'd think that if you limit yourself to liking only people who support only things you support, you are probably really missing out on a lot of excellent and fantastic people. And they're missing out on you.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
I didn't say that I only like "people who support only things I support." Man, you guys are really having difficulty parsing language tonight. And I strongly dislike very few things in this world, so I've found myself at no loss of excellent friends.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jhai: There's a difference between "not be friends with" and not like. I can like people who I'm unwilling to be friends with - but if there's too much of a disconnect between the way they think and the way I think, we'd never make good friends. For instance, I like my mom plenty, but I'd never be friends with her - and it's not just the generational gap.
Maybe what we each consider a friend is different.
I think you are changing definitions on me.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
I'm sorry you feel that way.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
I'm getting the feeling you don't like me. And that makes me sad because I like you, a lot.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
I don't dislike you, kq. I think you've been a bit snide on this page, but so have I. I think if we met in person I'd like you - I certainly enjoy reading your blog & most of your posts here on Hatrack. Edit: and now I'm for bed. If I don't respond, it's because I live on the East Coast now (sadly).
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
I haven't meant to be snide. I'm reading my remarks and I don't know what you read as "snide" but I assure you it was not intended that way.
Posted by Starsnuffer (Member # 8116) on :
I, at least, get what you're saying Jhai, but I don't know if I agree exactly. I have some friends who are relatively religious, and I find that silly, but that doesn't mean I can't be friends with them. It just means I can't agree with them about things regarding religion. In a case similar to this my friend was planning to vote against the proposal in michigan to allow excess in vitro fertilization eggs to be used for stem cell research. I told him that I respect his right to vote his mind but that he should be well-informed about his vote, and understand my thoughts on the matter.
Anyway, I'm just saying that it's fine to say you hate things people do/feel/believe and not hate the person, but I also recognize that sometimes hating/shunning/avoiding the person is the best solution.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: I'm inclined to think casually hating/shunning people without an extremely compelling reason is an unwise thing to do if you want to live a happy life.
It's quotes like this that make my head pop when people talk about how it's not cool to judge people just because they want to deny rights to a whole group of people. Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: It's Schrodinger's cat. How do you know you've ever won an argument if you're never sure if you've actually changed the other person's mind?
I know the the thought experiment, and it does. If you've read my previous post, you know why.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen: Actually, I am quite good friends with some people who promote things I strongly dislike.
I understand. I had a good friend who loved Eliot Carter and hated Steve Reich. :Shudder:
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
You may not believe it but I am actually quite good friends with a family who buys Hunts and not just because it is cheaper-- they prefer it to Heinz.
They also like Miracle Whip and say that Best Foods/Hellmans "doesn't taste right" in their tuna salad. Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
For a minute there, I thought you meant me. But while Miracle Whip is usable for some things, tuna is NOT one of them.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen: You may not believe it but I am actually quite good friends with a family who buys Hunts and not just because it is cheaper-- they prefer it to Heinz.
They also like Miracle Whip and say that Best Foods/Hellmans "doesn't taste right" in their tuna salad.
I realize that this is a joke, but I do think it's somewhat telling about the weight some people seem to give the same-sex marriage issue, as though deciding whether or not gay people are allowed to get married is just a matter of personal taste.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
I was responding in kind to Orincoro. Give me a break.
Posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan (Member # 5626) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: For a minute there, I thought you meant me. But while Miracle Whip is usable for some things, tuna is NOT one of them.
While I, on the other hand, think that tuna is one of the few things Miracle Whip is usable for.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen:
I was responding in kind to Orincoro. Give me a break.
Fair enough, break given.
Just ask yourself how a similar quote would sound.
"I know some people who donated money to get an amendment added to the Constitution to prevent black people from being able to be President, but then I have friends who don't like bacon too."
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
This is ridiculous. And I don't intend to indulge it any more. Have fun.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Unfortunately I've yet to hear anything effective that you can do about it.
Why do we think it's unfortunate? What value is there in obfuscation?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: I know the the thought experiment, and it does. If you've read my previous post, you know why. [/QB]
I did read your previous post; I still don't think you've used the idea correctly.
But it doesn't matter.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
In defense of the cat (and Scott), the experiment is not about whether you know whether the cat is alive or dead, but the fact that -- if you don't assume the cat to be a valid "observer" -- the cat is simultaneously both.
Not being sure that you've actually convinced somebody of something is, as far as I can tell, nothing like knowing that the person is simultaneously convinced and skeptical.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"Despite the rhetoric from the pro gay marriage side, bigotry is not inherent in Proposition 8. Bigotry is one possible reason for favoring Prop 8, but it is certainly not the only reason to favor it. "
While I do not know that everyone who supported proposition 8 is a bigot, the proposition itself was prejudicial without valid reason (that is, there is no reason I've yet seen that I accept as valid for defining marriage between a man and woman within the legal framework of marriage that currently exists), which is essentially the definition of bigotry. Therefore, while someone might vote for proposition 8 without being bigoted against gay people, they voted so as to enact a bigoted constitutional amendment.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
That is your view. It is not black and white, like you think.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
So offer a valid reason to ban same sex marriage within the current framework of civil marriage. Try to convince me I'm wrong. A lot of people have done so, and all their reasons have boiled down to either been "tradition," or "gay people aren't as good as straight people." Which leaves me with the conclusion that it is indeed a black and white issue.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Wow, with that graceful, open-minded invitation to a respectful debate, I can't imagine why I wouldn't want to engage in the debate. Besides, you're assuming I have a certain stance on it. You don't know that.
I do know that the world is not as black and white as you think it is.
You're an adult. You should have gotten past being able to see things only from your own perspective and demonizing all those who think differently.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Kat, I'm with Paul on this one. I have never seen an argument against gay marriage that hasn't boiled down to those two, plus "I believe God doesn't want it."
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
I tried looking at the issue from other people's perspective. I didn't like the pile of turd that they pointed to as to where I would have to stand in order to see the issue the way they did.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
How can someone offer a "valid" reason when what they consider valid is not valid to you? The reason you vote for or against something is because you find the reasons valid. I find for "traditions sake" and the "slippery slope to other kinds of marriage" and "religious reasons" perfectly valid. That you don't has no bearing on the way I would vote for the measure.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:"I believe God doesn't want it."
Even if what you say is true, that in itself proves Paul's thesis wrong. You may (and probably do) disagree with it, but it is a motivation other than the one he claims.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
In response to edits kat made:
"Besides, you're assuming I have a certain stance on it"
That assumption isn't there. If you know a reason why someone supports banning gay marriage that doesn't boil down to the positions I offered (plus tom's), you'd be able to explain it, even if you didn't hold the position.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
So, a belief that God has declared that all black people are inferior is not bigotry? I just want to be clear about this.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
Frankly, I believe "god doesn't want it," is in the category of "tradition." If you don't, then fine. I'm willing to go with those three categories.
"I find for "traditions sake" and the "slippery slope to other kinds of marriage" and "religious reasons" perfectly valid. That you don't has no bearing on the way I would vote for the measure. "
And I find all of these reasons to be large turd piles:
a) Tradition is bigoted against gay people. Enforcing that tradition continues to be bigoted against gay people.
b) Don't hurt gay people because something else might come along later. Its not their fault some people are idiots and would justify pedophile marriages using gay marriage
c) "god tells me to kill all the people who say god doesn't want gay people to get married" would HAVE to be accepted as valid if we accept "god doesn't want gay people to get married," as valid.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen: This is ridiculous. And I don't intend to indulge it any more. Have fun.
I know you don't intend on "indulging" it, but I must admit I was wondering what awful thing your friends did (yet were forgiven for) that was comparable to advocating for the removal of the existence of your marriage (or your right to marry as it may be).
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Unfortunately I've yet to hear anything effective that you can do about it.
Why do we think it's unfortunate? What value is there in obfuscation?
Kinda goes back to the other discussion, no? Why do people use anonymous member names on Slashdot or nicknames on forums such as this? Why do people limit access to different sorts of information on Facebook to friends rather than the Internet at large. Its obvious that a really determined hacker could really get to those vacation photos, facebook security or not, but there obviously is some *perceived* value.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
YOUR position is clear on the issue, Paul.
However, you have not clarified anyone else's position.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
I accept C as perfectly valid for those who believe that. Not saying I see that as acceptable, just valid. I find "its a bigoted law" argument to be a large turd pile. So what?
"So, a belief that God has declared that all black people are inferior is not bigotry?"
No more than Jesus saying you shouldn't teach the Gentiles the gospel. No more than saying Republicans are evil as you implied in another place.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Again, in Paul's defense, he has asked for people to clarify their positions, and has said only that he has never heard an argument which didn't fall into those categories. As I never have, either, I know that I would be profoundly interested in hearing such an argument.
--------
quote:No more than Jesus saying you shouldn't teach the Gentiles the gospel. No more than saying Republicans are evil as you implied in another place.
So we're agreed that it IS bigotry, but is justified bigotry?
Because I think that's really the question: not whether Prop-8 supporters are bigots, but whether their reasons for bigotry are good ones.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
My intent isn't to clarify other people's positions. If they wish to clarify for themselves, my posting what I've posted does not prevent them from doing so.
However, you haven't clarified anyone's position beyond "No its not!" which, frankly, is not much clarity at all.
*shrug* People keep telling me its possible to support proposition 8 without being a bigot. I wish someone would SHOW me how its possible to support proposition 8 without being a bigot, or accepting someone else's bigotry as strong enough reason to vote with them.
But that hasn't happened yet.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
I haven't heard any arguments that don't fall into those categories. The difference is that he doesn't find them valid and I do. Frankly, I haven't heard any other argument from the other side that doesn't fall into the "its a bigoted law" argument. That isn't valid for me because all laws are bigoted toward someone.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
If it's justified, is it bigotry?
Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
"bigot: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices ; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance"
I'm not sure what definition you're using, Occasional, but by the one found in the Merriam-Webster dictionary it's hard to say that laws are usually bigoted.
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
Ever heard of hate the sin, but love the sinner? Chances are that is something that you don't believe can exist and therefore it isn't surprising you don't understand how someone can support a measure like Prop 8 without "hate" or "bigotry." The law is not anti-gay, but anti-gay marriage. That those who are against Prop 8 can't see the difference is there own problem.
Are laws against smoking, for instance, bigotry toward smokers? I never saw them riot and attack non-smokers.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:I wish someone would SHOW me how its possible to support proposition 8 without being a bigot
Do you accept the definition of bigotry as defined in Corwin's link above?
Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
So lung cancer is the lawmakers' "opinion" or "prejudice" against smokers? Or is it grounded in studies about facts? A law against drivers who ignore red lights is not there because lawmakers hate drivers who ignore red lights, it's there because ignoring red lights can result in accidents which can result in harm done to other people.
No matter how hard I try I can't find the equivalent demonstrable harm in gay marriages. Without it the law is based on simply personal opinion, hence qualifying it as bigotry seems appropriate.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:No matter how hard I try I can't find the equivalent demonstrable harm in gay marriages.
That would be the key issue, I think.
A lot of things count as bigotry. But when bigotry is justified, we tend to overlook or excuse it. What people are saying here is that the arguments put forward here are not suitable justifications for the bigotry that unquestionably exists.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:the arguments put forward here are not suitable justifications for the bigotry that unquestionably exists.
Unquestionably? It's very questionable, IMO, whether support for Prop 8 constitutes bigotry.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Kat, I'm with Paul on this one. I have never seen an argument against gay marriage that hasn't boiled down to those two, plus "I believe God doesn't want it."
Me, too. And I have yet to see the God argument stand up to much scrutiny.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:I have yet to see the God argument stand up to much scrutiny.
Can you clarify this statement, kmboots? It seems to me that if someone's reasons for opposing SSM are strictly, "Because God said so," unless they also claim to belong to your particular religion, there's not too much about which you can argue.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Scott,
Depends on how wide your definition of "particular religion" goes. For Catholics using the authority of the Church - well you've already heard my arguments about that.
For most other Christians, we are operating on the same turf and the arguments they give are scripture based and pretty refutable. And fairly inconsistent as their application of scripture is usually also inconsistant. (Paul wrote a lot of things we are able to put into context.)
For "personal revelations" they would have to answer why their personal revelation is more valid than my personal revelation.
Otherwise, you are right. To argue with some religious viewpoints on gay marriage, I would have to argue with them about the basic premise of their religion. Which is certainly doable, but not nice and certainly not allowed here.
And none of those things are likely to really change most people's minds anyway. They just refuse to continue the conversation.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:While I do not know that everyone who supported proposition 8 is a bigot, the proposition itself was prejudicial without valid reason (that is, there is no reason I've yet seen that I accept as valid for defining marriage between a man and woman within the legal framework of marriage that currently exists), which is essentially the definition of bigotry.
You could call almost ANY law "bigotry" in the exact same way, if that were the definition of bigotry. For instance, if one thought there was no valid reason why 18 year olds can't drink, that'd be a law based on bigotry under the way you are using the word. If one thought there was no valid reason why abortion shouldn't be legal, that could be considered a law based on bigotry against women under your definition. If one thought there's no reason to limit gun enthusiasts from owning all sorts of weapons, one could call gun laws a form of bigotry against gun enthusiasts by your definition above. In other words, you're making "bigotry" so broad that it almost has no meaning.
That's not what bigotry is. Bigotry is an attitude. It is disliking or distrusting a group of people based solely on some characteristic of that group, rather than looking at them as individual people.
Laws have no attitudes so laws can't be bigots. Laws can reflect the bigoted attitudes of those who made those laws, but that doesn't mean we can assume that, in this case, ALL the people voting for Prop 8 did so out of bigotry.
quote: lot of people have done so, and all their reasons have boiled down to either been "tradition," or "gay people aren't as good as straight people." Which leaves me with the conclusion that it is indeed a black and white issue.
One of the main arguments I've heard used is along the lines of "homosexual behavior is a wrongful behavior, and allowing gay marriage will increase that behavior." The underlying idea is: hate the sin and enact laws to encourage the people tempted to sin to not sin. I find both the major assumptions underlying that line of argument to be very suspect, but it is a line of argument does not boil down to either of the two you listed above.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:For most other Christians, we are operating on the same turf and the arguments they give are scripture based and pretty refutable.
I would say that the arguments are refutable if you accept the premises on which the opposition is basing its arguments.
Otherwise, no.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Okay, could you clarify that? What premises would insist on a literal reading of one of Paul's letters (for example) and a contextual or metaphorical reading of another?
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:One of the main arguments I've heard used is along the lines of "homosexual behavior is a wrongful behavior, and allowing gay marriage will increase that behavior." ...it is a line of argument does not boil down to either of the two you listed above.
It does, because the premise of "homosexual behavior is a wrongful behavior" doesn't stand up to scrutiny unless you believe its wrongful behavior because "God doesn't like it".
Some arguments don't appear to belong to those categories until you deconstruct them a bit, but I've been a participant in just about every gay marriage debate on hatrack in the last 8 years, and it all comes down to one of those three.
Posted by MattB (Member # 1116) on :
RE: Paul and Tom's arguments: what do you think of Megan McArdle's long musing on the topic? While certainly you might disagree with her conclusions, it strikes me that her concerns are entirely logical. And the woman is hardly a homophobe.
I sympathize with your moral outrage, but I'm not sure how exactly it helps us resolve the problem. More constructive, I think, would be to actually address the concerns of your opponents, as I outlined in my earlier post that apparently nobody read.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
MattB,
Thanks for the link. I'll read it and let you know.
I don't know that the concerns of my opponents can be addressed. It is they that are fueling the fears you mentioned. For example, even though the New Jersey pavillion issue has been addressed many, many times, just the other night a man on former Gov. Huckabee's programs used it as an example of how churches would be required to perform gay marriage. While bad behaviour on the part of SSM supporters is unhelpful - as well as being bad, I don't think that reasonable behaviour is going to gain them much.
I am placing my bets on time.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Okay, could you clarify that? What premises would insist on a literal reading of one of Paul's letters (for example) and a contextual or metaphorical reading of another?
It kind of depends on the religion, doesn't it?
I mean, the interpretation of Revelations as literal/metaphorical varies from church to church; I imagine that similar happens with other difficult parts of the Bible.
In any case, that wasn't what I was talking about. You claim that "the arguments they give are scripture based and pretty refutable. And fairly inconsistent as their application of scripture is usually also inconsistant." I don't find that this is true-- quite the opposite.
The arguments I've read stating that the Bible supports (or at least doesn't condemn) homosexual relationships always strike me as having a rather studied and selective view of the text.
How do you determine which parts of the Bible are metaphorical and which are literal? The fact that context is important in understanding why Paul had a hair-fetish may not mitigate the idea that God wants women to cover their heads.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Her claim here -- that things often have unimaginable effects -- is indeed a powerful argument against change of all kind.
The question is whether this particular change -- the open removal of the gendered component of marriage -- is one that will be harmful to society. She argues correctly that it is best to look at the marginal cases, here.
And my question is: who are these marginal cases, who would otherwise marry someone of the same sex but now cannot? Are there many of them who, when married, will harm society in some way?
From the other end, who are the marginal cases who are now married, but would not get married if marriage were not a gendered institution? Is their marriage currently valuable to society?
I can't identify the harm in these propositions.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
I read your post Matt, and tried to write a response for it, and abandoned it for not being clear and my efforts to clarify weren't helping. I figured someone else would give it a better response.
The basic component of that post was that the gay rights movement had no choice in treating organized religion as the enemy, since many of the leadership in Christian churches preach that their lifestyle is evil, and that gays themselves are an abomination before God. Until a church stops preaching this, their really can't be a reasonable dialog between that church and gay rights activists. Some churches are less extreme than this, but still preach that homosexuality should be discouraged and certainly would not support laws that could be perceived as endorsing the lifestyle.
The Christian churches that do not actively oppose gay marriage could be brought on as allies (as I'm sure some already have). But if a church opposes gay rights, they are inherently an enemy of the gay rights movement, whether we wanted them as an enemy or not.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: In defense of the cat (and Scott), the experiment is not about whether you know whether the cat is alive or dead, but the fact that -- if you don't assume the cat to be a valid "observer" -- the cat is simultaneously both.
Not being sure that you've actually convinced somebody of something is, as far as I can tell, nothing like knowing that the person is simultaneously convinced and skeptical.
I'm conflating the concepts of the Heisenberg Principle and Schrödinger's Cat. While the response of the person I argue against is unobservable until my post is made, I can also not observe a person's argument until they have posted in response to me. So, the act of arguing collapses the field in which an infinite number of responses exist, leaving us with one. Given that as an assumption, one attempts to predict the likelihood of any given response, and interfere with that response before it is formed, or at least before it is *wholly* formed (because certain elements of a response form as the other person reads your argument). This is the essence of persuasive writing- at least in the very best argumentative essays I've read. Your responses are shaped by the text, until eventually the author gains trust with the reader, and can win him/her over.
This line of thinking sort of branches off from a lecture I attended when I was in school in England, about Moby Dick. The professor argued that Moby Dick's genius was essentially the pursuit of total credibility. He connected the motivation to Emerson (which is obvious from other factors, like the fact that they knew each other), and the idea that the truth of a statement, or a character, or a story, was in its total application to any individual. Melville's working theory was that a world that was totally real and lifelike in complexity would offer the most profound experience of human knowledge. One problem with this was that he ended up writing a book that was practically an encyclopedia of banal things... but the impulse has been strong in our culture ever since.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
MattB,
At first read (and I will read it again) it seems to be the "society is better when everyone fits into their proper molds so we had better not encourage people who don't fit" argument.
I find that argument to be the most obnoxious of all. Society may work better when everyone "fits" for those who fit; it pretty much sucks for people who don't.
Marriage has not always been as it is today. It has been many things - not a few of which regarded women as property. Society may have functioned better when women had no say when women were property or had no options except to get married or had no escape from a bad marriage. It worked great for (most)men. It worked just fine for women who wanted nothing more than to be wives and mothers and who got lucky enough to have the life they wanted. It didn't work for a lot of other women.
I am offended by the idea that society should be geared to work only for those who "fit" certain "ideals" of gender.
ETA: I read it again and I have the same response. I am reminded (not to belabour the race/orientation thing, but it will keep offering obvious parallels) of those who defended slavery because to abolish it would destroy antebellum society. They were right; it did. I am okay with that.
[ January 29, 2009, 12:21 PM: Message edited by: kmbboots ]
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Xavier: The basic component of that post was that the gay rights movement had no choice in treating organized religion as the enemy ...
Alternatively, statistically religion was the strongest factor affecting the vote after party identification and ideology (conservative vs. liberal). Statistically, organized religion is the enemy of gay marriage.
quote: Figure 1 displays the relative size of the impact of each variable on the vote. The lengths of the bars in Figure 1 correspond to the percentage of votes affected by each variable. As shown in this figure, party identification and ideology had substantial impacts on the ultimate result: the two variables each affected an estimated 15 percent of the vote, a contribution about three times the size of race and gender. Religiosity (which affected the votes of 12 percent of Californians) and age (9 percent) also had substantial effects. Despite the intense attention placed on race and ethnicity as factors in determining the vote on Proposition 8, this variable only affected about six percent of the total vote.
Interesting, this relates to the tangent on race.
quote: As shown in Figure 4, African Americans are more religious (as measured by frequency of attendance at religious services) than any other racial or ethnic group of California voters. As a whole, 43 percent of Californians attend religious services at least once per week. The share of African Americans attending services with this frequency is much higher: 57 percent. This difference in frequency of attendance between African Americans and the rest of the population is statistically significant. As shown in Figure 5, controlling for frequency of religious attendance helps explain why African Americans supported Proposition 8 at higher levels than the population as a whole. Among Californians who attend worship at least weekly, support for Proposition 8 was nearly uniform across all racial and ethnic groups. Among those who attend worship less than weekly, majorities of every racial and ethnic group voted “no” on Proposition 8. The differences that remain among groups are not statistically significant at the 95% level of confidence.
quote:I'm conflating the concepts of the Heisenberg Principle and Schrödinger's Cat.
Next time, go with philosophy and not physics. Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
My impression of the linked page is that it quite clearly fits the "tradition" category.
We've done things a certain way for a while, and we shouldn't change the way things work because we aren't sure of the consequences. Its a view that's been argued repeatedly here, and has led to some good discussions.
The standard argument against it comes down to it being a terrible shame to maintain a bigoted tradition because we are afraid that we might have unintended negative results.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:
quote: One of the main arguments I've heard used is along the lines of "homosexual behavior is a wrongful behavior, and allowing gay marriage will increase that behavior." ...it is a line of argument does not boil down to either of the two you listed above.
It does, because the premise of "homosexual behavior is a wrongful behavior" doesn't stand up to scrutiny unless you believe its wrongful behavior because "God doesn't like it".
There are other lines of reasoning that don't involve God under which homosexual behavior could be considered wrong. The main one that I've heard is that it stems from a more general argument that sex is a fundamentally sacred thing that should not be done for the wrong reasons. The idea behind that view is that it should be reserved for procreation and not done just for pleasure.
But more generally, there are plenty of people who believe that some behaviors are simply wrong period, regardless of whatever utilitarian value those behaviors might hold.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Marriage has not always been as it is today.
This is true. However, until very recently, same gendered marriage has not been on the table in most societies where the marital relationship has been the means of determining inheritance, spousal care, and raising of children.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"But more generally, there are plenty of people who believe that some behaviors are simply wrong period, regardless of whatever utilitarian value those behaviors might hold. "
Depending on the specific moral phrasing of the person in question, this falls either under the "tradition," "I'm a bigot," or "god," category.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Depending on the specific moral phrasing of the person in question, this falls either under the "tradition," "I'm a bigot," or "god," category.
No, it doesn't.
For instance, if someone believes there is simply a universal rule that it is always wrong to lie, that moral belief does not boil down to any of those three.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:The main one that I've heard is that it stems from a more general argument that sex is a fundamentally sacred thing that should not be done for the wrong reasons. The idea behind that view is that it should be reserved for procreation and not done just for pleasure.
A belief that I've only ever encountered from people who believe this because God says this. Again, it comes down to God not approving.
A) I don't approve of homosexual marriage because I believe homosexuality to be a wrong action and predict that homosexual marriage will increase incidence of homosexual activities. B) I believe homosexuality is a wrong action because sex should be reserved for procreation and not done just for pleasure. C) I believe sex should be reserved for procreation and not done just for pleasure because God says so.
This argument, deconstructed, still comes down to God not liking it.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:Marriage has not always been as it is today.
This is true. However, until very recently, same gendered marriage has not been on the table in most societies where the marital relationship has been the means of determining inheritance, spousal care, and raising of children.
And now it is on the table. So? Selling your daughters is now (mostly) off the table. Thank God we can change what is on the table.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:At first read (and I will read it again) it seems to be the "society is better when everyone fits into their proper molds so we had better not encourage people who don't fit" argument.
I think you had better read it again. That is not the argument made at all. The argument is rather, "When you say 'I do not see how X will have a bad effect'", you are making a statement about the limits of your own imagination, not about X.
The best response, I think, would be to point out that the US has no need to use its imagination; Europe has very kindly done the experiment, without any of the effects comrade McArdle mentions in her three examples.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:A belief that I've only ever encountered from people who believe this because God says this. Again, it comes down to God not approving.
Just because you've only encountered it coming from people who base their morality on God, doesn't mean it is impossible to offer such an argument without God. That'd be like saying that if every moral person you encountered believes in God then you need to believe in God in order to be moral.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:Just because you've only encountered it coming from people who base their morality on God, doesn't mean it is impossible to offer such an argument without God.
So the best we can come up with for an argument against homosexual marriage that doesn't reflect one of those three categories is a hypothetical person who believes that sex is only to be done for procreation, but doesn't base this belief on his religion.
Wow, that's impressive! Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Just because you've only encountered it coming from people who base their morality on God, doesn't mean it is impossible to offer such an argument without God.
That's fine, but it's still indistinguishable from "God said so." It just turns into "I said so." In either case, it's not a reasoned position which can be rationally argued.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
Tres, saying something is wrong, regardless of utilitarian outcome, is saying "I hate this." Once you remove utility, all you're left with is personal preference (whether that preference is justified by god, one's emotions, or past tradition, or something that eventually fits into one of those three categories).
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax:
quote:A belief that I've only ever encountered from people who believe this because God says this. Again, it comes down to God not approving.
Just because you've only encountered it coming from people who base their morality on God, doesn't mean it is impossible to offer such an argument without God. That'd be like saying that if every moral person you encountered believes in God then you need to believe in God in order to be moral.
One can 'derive' a moral system based on primitive, (relatively) uncontroversial axioms like 'it's bad to hurt people'. What axioms, without recourse to God, would you use to derive that gay marriage is wrong?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: ... The best response, I think, would be to point out that the US has no need to use its imagination; Europe has very kindly done the experiment, without any of the effects comrade McArdle mentions in her three examples.
Or Canada for that matter if you want to pick a society that is more similar to the US, for better or for worse, especially Alberta.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Tres, saying something is wrong, regardless of utilitarian outcome, is saying "I hate this." Once you remove utility, all you're left with is personal preference (whether that preference is justified by god, one's emotions, or past tradition, or something that eventually fits into one of those three categories).
1.I don't agree that the only two possible moral systems are utilitarianism or personal prefernce. There are plenty of moral systems out there that rely on moral absolutes other than "the greatest utility" and which don't amount to "do whatever you personal preference is".
2. Please note the difference between saying "I hate this" and "I hate THEM".
quote:One can 'derive' a moral system based on primitive, (relatively) uncontroversial axioms like 'it's bad to hurt people'. What axioms, without recourse to God, would you use to derive that gay marriage is wrong?
Not all moral systems are based solely on uncontroversial axioms. Some have very controversial axioms - like "the ends justify the means".
It's possible to have a moral system where one of the fundamental axioms is "Sex is a sacred thing to be done between a man and a woman only for the purpose of having children."
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
My argument wasn't to show that society won't change. The argument I was making is that sometimes society should change.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"1.I don't agree that the only two possible moral systems are utilitarianism or personal prefernce. There are plenty of moral systems out there that rely on moral absolutes other than "the greatest utility" and which don't amount to "do whatever you personal preference is". "
The moral system doesn't say "do whatever your personal preference is," but all moral codes that are not based on some measurable good are arbitrary. Whether the arbitrainess comes from god, tradition, or internal processes, its still arbitrary.
"2. Please note the difference between saying "I hate this" and "I hate THEM". "
The distinction is meaningless in the context of an action that a person engages in as a central part of their life.
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: 1.I don't agree that the only two possible moral systems are utilitarianism or personal prefernce. There are plenty of moral systems out there that rely on moral absolutes other than "the greatest utility" and which don't amount to "do whatever you personal preference is".
There are- but the axiomatic base of any reasonable moral system does not contain complex propositions like 'gay marriage is wrong'. So suggest reasonable axioms that would lead to this conclusion.
Edit: sorry didn't see that you had responded to my earlier post.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:The moral system doesn't say "do whatever your personal preference is," but all moral codes that are not based on some measurable good are arbitrary. Whether the arbitrainess comes from god, tradition, or internal processes, its still arbitrary.
I don't think moral rules are any more arbitrary than 1+1=2 is arbitrary.
But, if you DO think they are arbitrary, you've got to at least admit that utility is arbitrary too. After all, there's no such thing as "measurable good" until you have a moral system to tell you what "good" is.
quote:"2. Please note the difference between saying "I hate this" and "I hate THEM". "
The distinction is meaningless in the context of an action that a person engages in as a central part of their life.
Well, I disagree on that too. I think the difference is absolutely essential to issues of right and wrong, and I try to live my life accordingly so my experience backs up that belief. (But perhaps that is just a Christian perspective.)
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
From this Christian's perspective, "I don't hate them, but I am going to legislate against them anyway" rings a bit hollow.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:There are- but the axiomatic base of any reasonable moral system does not contain complex propositions like 'gay marriage is wrong'. So suggest reasonable axioms that would lead to this conclusion.
I'd think a moral system could include any axioms, whether complicated or not. Weren't most of the oldest moral systems just a list of things you couldn't do?
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"But, if you DO think they are arbitrary, you've got to at least admit that utility is arbitrary too. After all, there's no such thing as "measurable good" until you have a moral system to tell you what "good" is. "
Sure, utility is arbitrary. But we can at least find out whether something promotes utility, and adjust our actions accordingly. The arbitrariness can put itself into a "reality" context.
On the other hand, "God told me so," or "It seperates us from our soul," or "there's a universal dictum against it," can be used to justify ANY action, and there's no possible argument against the statement.
Posted by Seatarsprayan (Member # 7634) on :
quote:Tres, saying something is wrong, regardless of utilitarian outcome, is saying "I hate this."
Nonsense. There are things I think that are wrong that I actually quite like. Wrong of me to like them, true, but I do, and they are. I can think something is wrong without hating it. You've just decided to redefine the word "wrong" for your own uses and think we all have to use it that way. Hmm, that sounds like a familiar strategy, actually.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"Well, I disagree on that too. I think the difference is absolutely essential to issues of right and wrong, and I try to live my life accordingly so my experience backs up that belief. (But perhaps that is just a Christian perspective.) "
The statements "I hate teachers," and "I hate the act of teaching," have no difference to people who find that they must teach to be happy. The statements "I hate cops," and "I hate the action of enforcing laws," are meaningless to people who see themselves as serving a great good by becoming police officers.
There's a lot of room between "I hate the action," and "I hate the person performing the action," but the distance becomes infintisimally small when we're talking about an action that someone needs/wants as a major component of their life.
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: Not all moral systems are based solely on uncontroversial axioms. Some have very controversial axioms - like "the ends justify the means".
It's possible to have a moral system where one of the fundamental axioms is "Sex is a sacred thing to be done between a man and a woman only for the purpose of having children."
What moral system are you thinking of where 'the ends justify the means' is an axiom?
You can choose whatever axioms you like, but it is pretty obvious why complex, specific axioms like "sex is a sacred thing to be done between a man and a woman only for the purpose of having children" don't make good axioms.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"Nonsense. There are things I think that are wrong that I actually quite like. Wrong of me to like them, true, but I do, and they are. I can think something is wrong without hating it."
You've misunderstood me. Simply allow for different layers of importance, and hopefully you'll see what I mean. I happen to agree with you in that there are things I would LIKE to do, but don't, because I think they are wrong. When I analyze why I think they are wrong, it comes down to either producing a bad outcome, or irrational prejudice. But if the prejudice is deep enough, it still stops me from engaging in the activities, because I'll still think its "wrong."
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: Weren't most of the oldest moral systems just a list of things you couldn't do? [/QB]
Can you give an example?
Are you thinking of the Ten Commandments? At most you could say that there content reflects an underlying moral system. In any case, their legitimacy was derived from the fact that they (allegedly) came from God, not the reasonableness of the underlying axioms.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax:
1.I don't agree that the only two possible moral systems are utilitarianism or personal prefernce. There are plenty of moral systems out there that rely on moral absolutes other than "the greatest utility" and which don't amount to "do whatever you personal preference is". [/QUOTE]
Ok, so give us an example of a moral system, actually held by a real human being, which bases opposition to gay marriage on something other than these two.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by natural_mystic:
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: Weren't most of the oldest moral systems just a list of things you couldn't do?
Can you give an example?
Are you thinking of the Ten Commandments? At most you could say that there content reflects an underlying moral system. In any case, their legitimacy was derived from the fact that they (allegedly) came from God, not the reasonableness of the underlying axioms.
I suspect he actually means Hamurabi.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Sure, utility is arbitrary. But we can at least find out whether something promotes utility, and adjust our actions accordingly. The arbitrariness can put itself into a "reality" context.
On the other hand, "God told me so," or "It seperates us from our soul," or "there's a universal dictum against it," can be used to justify ANY action, and there's no possible argument against the statement.
I agree that arguing over it is impossible - but that doesn't mean it's arbitrary. I think the fundamentals of morality are something you must observe for yourself, through introspection, not something that can be proven to you through argument.
It's sort of like trying to convince someone that the sky is blue, when that person claims that the sky is brown. You can argue all you want, but if that person continues to insist that he sees a brown sky, there is no way you can prove he is wrong. He needs to see the blueness for himself - which is different from saying the color of the sky is arbitrary.
quote:The statements "I hate teachers," and "I hate the act of teaching," have no difference to people who find that they must teach to be happy. The statements "I hate cops," and "I hate the action of enforcing laws," are meaningless to people who see themselves as serving a great good by becoming police officers.
There's a lot of room between "I hate the action," and "I hate the person performing the action," but the distance becomes infintisimally small when we're talking about an action that someone needs/wants as a major component of their life.
There is a difference: If you hate teaching but not the teacher, then you would act to help the teacher become something other than a teacher, to better their life. If you hate the teacher, then you would probably prefer if the teacher simply vanished from the face of the earth. A more realistic example might be hating alcoholism vs. hating an alcoholic. If you hate the alcoholic, you'd probably be fine just throwing him in jail to keep him away from you. If you hate alcoholism but not the alcoholic, you'd want to help the alcoholic get better or at least avoid drinking.
Hating the sin but not the sinner is a kind way to act (because the ultimate goal is to protect the sinner from the sin), whereas hating the sinner is unkind.
quote:Can you give an example?
Rivka answered quicker than me... Yes, something along the lines of Hammurabi - or other lists of moral rules that were held in societies that existed without a belief in the Judeo-Christian God.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
My Buddhist inlaws believed strongly that marriage is for continuing the family line. The things we have chosen to never ever mention to them are all tied to that. For example, I had surgery for endometriosis a week before visiting them. Despite the fact that I was still recovering, we kept that quiet (and they probably thought I was a spoiled brat since my husband got me anything I needed so I didn't have to move and was super attentive). Another of my in laws has not mentioned that he took his wife's name on marriage. A gay in law hasn't mentioned it either and has said he would ask a bf to not come with him when visiting them (family is all in the same state so the bf would be invited to all the other activities). These in laws are fine with having fun on the side, as long as the wife has legitimate babies. One relative cheated on his wife, then left her and the big condemnation I hear is that he didn't have a baby by the wife (she wanted one, he didn't). I disagree with them, but clearly they are people who believe strongly in family is for breeding (and would say infertility is a reason for divorce as well). I have a hard time seeing them as hate filled bigots, even if they vote for prop8.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: Hating the sin but not the sinner is a kind way to act (because the ultimate goal is to protect the sinner from the sin), whereas hating the sinner is unkind.
With such kindnesses, who needs hate?
quote:Rivka answered quicker than me... Yes, something along the lines of Hammurabi - or other lists of moral rules that were held in societies that existed without a belief in the Judeo-Christian God.
Piffle. Hammurabi's laws are explicitly utilitarian, in that they all have the form "If A harms B by doing X, he shall pay restitution Y". What's more, they are not held as a moral code by any living human being, and have no word to say about gay marriage. Let me remind you of my suggestion:
quote:Ok, so give us an example of a moral system, actually held by a real human being, which bases opposition to gay marriage on something other than these two. [Referring to your "utilitarianism or personal preference", and noting that the 'personal' here also includes laws claimed to be divine in origin.]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Another point: Hammurabi's authority to make those rules stemmed from his status as a god.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
God? King.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Right. God-king. The incarnation of Marduk on Earth.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
Man - back to gay marriage arguments. I guess I should have expected not less, although I was hoping to have a discussion on privacy and political statements and the like.
kq, if you're still reading, I appreciate that you weren't being snide. Sorry to have thought that you were. And I apologize for being snide.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Ok, so give us an example of a moral system, actually held by a real human being, which bases opposition to gay marriage on something other than these two. [Referring to your "utilitarianism or personal preference", and noting that the 'personal' here also includes laws claimed to be divine in origin.]
I think that all of the arguments I've given already on this thread are held by real human beings. I think that if you'd ask most people who consider homosexuality to be wrong, they'd say its because they think there is either (1) a divine moral rule against it, or (2) a natural moral rule against it. Neither (1) nor (2) fit into the categories of utilitarianism or personal preference.
And moral laws that are divine in origin are definitely not the same as personal preference. When a moral law is based in personal preference, you can change it simply by preferring something different - which can't be done if a law is made by God or any other divine being.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:And moral laws that are divine in origin are definitely not the same as personal preference. When a moral law is based in personal preference, you can change it simply by preferring something different - which can't be done if a law is made by God or any other divine being.
You most certainly can; have you noticed that the blacks have the priesthood now? More generally, you simply say "I misunderstood God's will, it really wants Y, not X". Or you change your church, which comes to the same thing. Let me remind you of the original quote you were responding to:
quote:Once you remove utility, all you're left with is personal preference (whether that preference is justified by god, one's emotions, or past tradition, or something that eventually fits into one of those three categories).
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
I'm just not sure how people can rationally hold any serious arguments against gay marriage any more. Gay people ARE married. It already happened.
People are not now pushing to have human/animal marriages legalized. So it's clear that the slippery slope is invalid.
Society has not fallen apart. Gay couples are not recruiting youth to turn gay. Straight families are not falling apart. Churches are not required to teach that God Loves Gays.
I think a lot of us knew that those arguments were pure BS from the start, but now we can actually say for certain that they are BS.
Really, the ONLY justification I can still see that holds any water is, "God really thinks those gay people suck." And if you want to think God hates gay people, or Jews, or Muslims, or Brown people, or atheists, or dog catchers, that's between you and your conscience.
We're not a theocracy, so if the only real reason to prevent same-sex marriage is because God doesn't like it, we cannot make that a law.
Posted by Week-Dead Possum (Member # 11917) on :
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: People are not now pushing to have human/animal marriages legalized. So it's clear that the slippery slope is invalid.
TRAVESTY! The Possum Nation will NEVER quit our quest for marriage to Hot Human Chicks! NEVER!
DOWN WITH BELGIUM! UP WITH GAY/POSSUM MARRIAGE!
I want to marry a hot human chick, with all the Possum Circumstance.
-The Awesome Possum
quote: "God really thinks those gay people suck."
:giggle:
POSSUM PUN SMASH!
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:have you noticed that the blacks have the priesthood now?
Just a note-- as far as I know, Tresopax isn't Mormon. So this specific argument may not be useful when discussing things with him.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I know, but it is a recent and well-known example of 'divine law' changing.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
Except the divine law didn't change. As you said yourself, what changed was that particular church's understanding of divine law.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
Wow.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
Posted by Seatarsprayan (Member # 7634) on :
quote:People are not now pushing to have human/animal marriages legalized. So it's clear that the slippery slope is invalid.
But they are pushing for polygamy to be legal, so it's clear it was valid after all.
Personally, I am disappointed more people aren't up in arms about the bigoted anti-polygamy and anti-incest laws still on the books. I mean, if not letting people get married is bigoted, then pretty much everyone is a bigot, they are just bigoted about different things.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:But they are pushing for polygamy to be legal, so it's clear it was valid after all.
They've been pushing for that since long before SSM was on the radar.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
Although I don't agree with a map of donors like this, I do think it is a way for people who are in favor of same sex message to talk to people who aren't. I have found that if you have a same sex couple who wish to get married, and it does need to be the right couple because occasionally there is some hostility to overcome, sit down and talk with people who are against same sex marriage you truly can change a lot of minds.
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP:
quote:But they are pushing for polygamy to be legal, so it's clear it was valid after all.
They've been pushing for that since long before SSM was on the radar.
The slippery slope argument is a complete red herring. There is no logical necessity between allowing SSM and allowing polygamy. Each case should be decided on their own merits independently.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"Except the divine law didn't change. As you said yourself, what changed was that particular church's understanding of divine law. "
Get lost in your own argument much?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Seatarsprayan: Personally, I am disappointed more people aren't up in arms about the bigoted anti-polygamy and anti-incest laws still on the books. I mean, if not letting people get married is bigoted, then pretty much everyone is a bigot, they are just bigoted about different things.
Are you trying to be a parody? Seriously.
1. Polygamists are not a well defined group of people, nor is there a large religious group in the US that still supports polygamy. Add to that the sheer complication of our laws that legal polygamy would introduce (which are not comparable to changes in the system if gay marriage is allowed), and you can easily see why the question is different. Gays are a group of people defined by their genes- they are deserving of society's tolerance, and the accommodation of their unique needs and rights.
2. Incest is demonstrably a danger to society. Not only is incest a danger to the gene pool, and a cruel fate for children with genetic diseases (in some cases) but it is an observable fact that societies who commonly practiced incest in the past suffered deeply negative social consequences. Gay marriage is not any of these things- it is not a danger to children, nor a source of victimization, nor a danger to greater society or the gene pool.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
To be a bit more constructive, what Paul said. The question was "Can a law justified as coming from divine revelation change according to personal whim?", and the answer is, such laws have changed many times.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
<I'm deleting a comment I just wrote, because I don't have the time, nor inclination to get in a silly fight today. Sorry in advance to anyone who's furiously responding right now and won't see this edit until it's too late.>
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:To be a bit more constructive, what Paul said. The question was "Can a law justified as coming from divine revelation change according to personal whim?", and the answer is, such laws have changed many times.
Imagine a boy believes that all objects fall to the ground when he lets them go from his hand. Then he tries it with a balloon and the balloon goes into the air, so he changes his conclusions - he now believes only SOME objects fall to the ground when he lets them go. Would it be correct to say the laws of physics changed in that situation? No, the laws of physics stayed the same - his understanding of the laws is the only thing that changed.
The same is true with morality.
Posted by Mike (Member # 55) on :
Assuming, of course, that there is an unchanging morality to be discovered.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Tres, it is clear that you do not understand the premises I'm arguing from. I do not demand that you agree with those premises, but until you show some sign of understanding that they differ from yours, we will be talking past each other. Try again.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: Would it be correct to say the laws of physics changed in that situation? No, the laws of physics stayed the same - his understanding of the laws is the only thing that changed.
The same is true with morality.
Which is why many of us are trying to make the point that preventing same-sex marriage is immoral. Once enough people figure that out, then their understanding that it was always immoral and God has actually always loved same-sex marriages will come to light.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
Orincoro- Slate's science writer has written a few times about the increased chance of disease with incest (assuming a population such as the US- so not like double cousins for many generations) and compared it to the risk if parents are older. Since the risk of serious problems is much worse with older parents, do you think that they too should be forbidden from having children? If not, how would you justify forbidding the lower risk group when the higher risk group is still allowed to breed? That isn't meant as an attack, it is just a curiosity, interest question.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
I believe a general prohibition against incest could easily be made on psychological grounds - it's almost never the case that a parent-child relationship can transform into a sexual relationship without some serious psychological issues, given the authority figure issues of being in a romantic relationship with someone who raised you. I'd be perfectly willing to grant exceptions to this prohibition where it's clear that the situation warrants it - for instance, I believe there has been at least one case of a sperm donor accidentally almost marrying his daughter before they checked DNA (this might be an urban story).
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow:
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: Would it be correct to say the laws of physics changed in that situation? No, the laws of physics stayed the same - his understanding of the laws is the only thing that changed.
The same is true with morality.
Which is why many of us are trying to make the point that preventing same-sex marriage is immoral. Once enough people figure that out, then their understanding that it was always immoral and God has actually always loved same-sex marriages will come to light.
Soon I hope. Bearing in mind that, for some of us, that has already been made clear.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
In the US, incest would also include cousins. Amongst cousins of the same age, what would be the argument?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: In the US, incest would also include cousins. Amongst cousins of the same age, what would be the argument?
That is not true for all states. I'm not even sure it is true for most states. Illinois allows first cousins if they are too old or otherwise cannot have children.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I have no difficulty allowing cousin marriages, which indeed are permitted by many legal codes.
Posted by Seatarsprayan (Member # 7634) on :
quote:Not only is incest a danger to the gene pool
Not for same-sex sibling marriage, it isn't, because there is no possibility of procreation.
quote:It is an observable fact that societies who commonly practiced incest in the past suffered deeply negative social consequences.
Please cite examples of societies that allowed same-sex sibling marriage and what the negative consequences were, and how you know they stemmed from that allowance.
quote:it's almost never the case that a parent-child relationship can transform into a sexual relationship without some serious psychological issues
If parent/child incest is bad, does it follow that sibling incest must also be bad, because it shares the same word?
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
I'd have to more think about sibling incest. Obviously there's a "squickiness factor", but both economics & philosophy have taught me that base intuitions are not reliable indicators of fact.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: In the US, incest would also include cousins. Amongst cousins of the same age, what would be the argument?
That is not true for all states. I'm not even sure it is true for most states. Illinois allows first cousins if they are too old or otherwise cannot have children.
But why not allow fertile cousins to marry? Old people who have kids have a greater risk of disability then cousins.
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
quote:Originally posted by scholarette:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: In the US, incest would also include cousins. Amongst cousins of the same age, what would be the argument?
That is not true for all states. I'm not even sure it is true for most states. Illinois allows first cousins if they are too old or otherwise cannot have children.
But why not allow fertile cousins to marry? Old people who have kids have a greater risk of disability then cousins.
I have to assume that the population of aging couples trying to have kids is far higher than that of fertile cousins who wish to marry and have kids. It would take some real political bravery to pass such an unpopular measure. I agree, though, that it seems unfair.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
This has been going on for a time that I was away, so I can mostly just offer my own two cents.
I don't approve of the map. I don't approve of it for supporters of proposition 8 (though I opposed it), and I equally oppose it for supporters of other political causes, abortion providers, or members of any sexual preference or religious group.
That such information may be public doesn't necessarily mean that it should be. For people with views that may be unpopular to be afraid to express them invites tyranny. Whether they feel threatened by their fellow citizens for opposing gay marriage or by their government for criticizing it, the net effect is significantly similar. Information in this form invites abuse and discourages discussion.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:That such information may be public doesn't necessarily mean that it should be.
Why not? Is the issue that it makes it too convenient to know things you might want to know?
Making it more convenient to know things is basically the point of modernity.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Seatarsprayan:
quote:It is an observable fact that societies who commonly practiced incest in the past suffered deeply negative social consequences.
Please cite examples of societies that allowed same-sex sibling marriage and what the negative consequences were, and how you know they stemmed from that allowance.
Please site your own ass. I'm sick of people like you.
What in my comments led you to believe I was talking about same sex sibling marriages in the first place, I have no idea. I wasn't. I have zero opinions on that. It doesn't factor into my worldview at all, because it's a bugbear invented by morons not unlike you who believe that the way to convince people to keep things just the way they are is to scare them about how things could be if we ever allowed anything to change.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:That such information may be public doesn't necessarily mean that it should be.
Why not? Is the issue that it makes it too convenient to know things you might want to know?
Making it more convenient to know things is basically the point of modernity.
Mm, how do I put this...
Is "wanting to know" always reason enough to know? And is it really true that there's no difference between information on a single individual, information on the mass in aggregate, and individual information on a mass of people? Is there some information that, by the way it is collected, implies a specific use in mind?
I'm perfectly willing to believe that there are people who look at a map of Prop 8 supporters and don't think a whole lot more than, "hmm, that's interesting". But I also think that most of those same people would be about as well served in their interest by something that simply showed, say, the density of contributions in a given square mile.
And it may also be that someone wants to know if a given business contributed to Prop 8, and thus knowing, choose to cease giving said business their own financial support. I can't really object to that, though I don't necessarily think it's out of the question to require such identifications to take a few minutes work.
But private individuals' addresses? Over large areas? It's really hard for me to imagine that specific information in that specific form not leading to targetting for harrassment or worse.
There's a difference, to my mind, in Googling "uses of nitrogen in modern industry" and "how could I use nitrogen fertilizer to blow up a building of 'x' dimensions". And between "is there a synagogue in my neighborhood" and "show me a local map of addresses of Jewish families, overlain with local gun-shops that have been sited for not following waiting-period and background-check laws."
Now, it may well be that the genie is out of the bottle. I'm not saying I have an easy solution for distinguishing one type of information gathering from another, nor that one exists that doesn't have serious privacy issues of its own.
But I definitely don't find this form of information gathering to be an unalloyed good.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:There's a difference, to my mind, in Googling "uses of nitrogen in modern industry" and "how could I use nitrogen fertilizer to blow up a building of 'x' dimensions".
Whereas I think both uses of Google are perfectly legitimate. In a thread on another forum, on another topic, I made the point that obfuscation is not security. It can make target selection a little more difficult, but that's not the same thing as making the targets harder to hit.
The problem isn't having access to this info; it's wanting to commit violence. To my mind, blaming information technology for violence is rather like blaming the steam engine for railway collisions.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sterling: This has been going on for a time that I was away, so I can mostly just offer my own two cents.
I don't approve of the map. I don't approve of it for supporters of proposition 8 (though I opposed it), and I equally oppose it for supporters of other political causes, abortion providers, or members of any sexual preference or religious group.
That such information may be public doesn't necessarily mean that it should be. For people with views that may be unpopular to be afraid to express them invites tyranny. Whether they feel threatened by their fellow citizens for opposing gay marriage or by their government for criticizing it, the net effect is significantly similar. Information in this form invites abuse and discourages discussion.
It sounds to me that you don't approve of the law that makes information about people who donate to political causes public. Why not? I can think of a lot of bad outcomes from shrouding donations and other political action by individuals in secrecy, and no bad outcomes that don't already require the intent to be violent from that information being public.
Hypothetical: if you could make it so that no one who had physically violent impulses towards Prop 8 supporters were swayed one way or another by the existence of the map (i.e. if they do violence, they would have done the exact same thing if the map didn't exist), would you still disagree with its existence?
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
The information isn't responsible for the violence of its perpetrators, in the same way that the availability of guns isn't responsible for the violence they are used for. One can certainly make the argument that the responsibility for violence ultimately rests with the individual.
But at the same time, I don't think one can claim with certainty that if one had two very large fields of individuals there wouldn't be more violence in group A if said group has easy access to guns and ready knowledge of the people they would be most likely to believe carry beliefs are harmful to the group than group B, which has access neither to guns nor said information. Indeed, I think you could make a strong argument to the contrary.
I believe it is optimistic (and I use that term without pejorative intent) to believe that violence- or more petty forms of harrassment- are such an act of will that they are carried out only by people with such a strong intent to perform them that they will overcome any obstacles in order to do so. I suspect many such acts are carried out not merely because their perpetrators wished to do so, but because they felt that doing so was easy- or at least, the satisfaction to be gained by doing such deeds significantly overcame any inconvenience or risk to be overcome in the performance.
On my way back into the U.S., I lost a tube of toothpaste to airport security that my wife had packed in a carry-on bag. It was stupid. I know that my toothpaste wasn't a threat to anyone on the plane, and I equally know that I could probably come up with a way to get more dangerous or illegal things onto the plane. There are holes in airport security- I have absolutely no doubt about that. But I also recognize that there probably would be more terrorist acts if getting weapons onto an airplane was easy.
It's also been noted by the military that there's less hesitation to push a button to activate a machine that will kill someone from far away than there is to fire a gun at someone.
To throw a question back: why is it necessarily such a bad thing that it take five minutes to look up the address of a political contributor (a address) rather than being able to look up everyone who contributed to a cause by address at once?
A little inconvenience might be a good thing.
I suppose part of my qualm with the map as it's offered is that it isn't true transparency. The people who have made contributions to the success of Proposition 8 are therein exposed to an unknown number of possibly hostile eyes. Its existence makes them feel vulnerable, even if no one uses it to target them in any way. Indeed, I'm not certain that isn't, to some extent, the intent. True transparency would allow the targetted individuals to know who was observing them- how many hits the page had, who had looked at their address specifically. And give them equal knowledge of those who looked at them.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Tres, it is clear that you do not understand the premises I'm arguing from. I do not demand that you agree with those premises, but until you show some sign of understanding that they differ from yours, we will be talking past each other. Try again.
The premises you are arguing from involve the idea that religious people are irrational and think they get their morals from God when actually they make up their own morality at their own whim or the whim of their churches. Under those premises, it doesn't even make sense to talk about divine moral law; divine moral laws only exist if God or something divine exists. So, if we are approaching this from your premises, I don't see why we'd be even arguing about divine law at all.
But the question is not about what we can conclude based on your premises. The question is, do these people who are anti-gay marriage have a valid reason for their belief under THEIR OWN premises.
quote:Which is why many of us are trying to make the point that preventing same-sex marriage is immoral. Once enough people figure that out, then their understanding that it was always immoral and God has actually always loved same-sex marriages will come to light.
That's a reasonable thing to do. I don't think publishing a map of those who oppose same-sex marriage so those people can be harassed is going to be an effective method of convincing people same-sex marriage is moral though. I don't think refusing to do business with or be friends with opponents of same-sex marriage is going to change their minds either. We'd need much more effective methods than that.
quote:Hypothetical: if you could make it so that no one who had physically violent impulses towards Prop 8 supporters were swayed one way or another by the existence of the map (i.e. if they do violence, they would have done the exact same thing if the map didn't exist), would you still disagree with its existence?
I think the only actual problems with the map are (1) it might incite hatred, violence, or angry feelings towards individuals, and (2) I think it was intended to incite hatred, violence, or angry feelings towards individuals. If these weren't true then, no, I don't think there'd be a problem with it.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
Sterling, I'd appreciate it if you could answer my hypothetical at some time.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:True transparency would allow the targetted individuals to know who was observing them- how many hits the page had, who had looked at their address specifically.
This is an excellent idea. Prop-8 supporters should code up just such a version of the map.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jhai: Sterling, I'd appreciate it if you could answer my hypothetical at some time.
I'm sorry, it's a little "out there" for me. I can't imagine how one would make it so that people inclined to violence wouldn't be more inclined to do so by ready knowledge of those they'd be inclined to target, any more than I can off the top of my head come up with a perfect law such that information would be widely available for benevolent purposes but withheld from those who would use it for malevolent ones.
I think what you're really asking is do I have a problem with the availability of the information, beyond the possibility that it be used for violence and/or intimidation; the answer is no.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sterling:
quote:Originally posted by Jhai: Sterling, I'd appreciate it if you could answer my hypothetical at some time.
I'm sorry, it's a little "out there" for me. I can't imagine how one would make it so that people inclined to violence wouldn't be more inclined to do so by ready knowledge of those they'd be inclined to target, any more than I can off the top of my head come up with a perfect law such that information would be widely available for benevolent purposes but withheld from those who would use it for malevolent ones.
I think what you're really asking is do I have a problem with the availability of the information, beyond the possibility that it be used for violence and/or intimidation; the answer is no.
That's why it's called a hypothetical - it doesn't have to be plausible or even possible. It's meant to test the limits of your theory without little constraints like reality.
Thanks for the answer - but what do you consider intimidation? Would someone at work mentioning it be intimidation? A customer coming up to an owner and telling them they'd no longer be shopping at his store because of his donation? A neighbor making a point to put up a gay pride flag while glaring at you?
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jhai: That's why it's called a hypothetical - it doesn't have to be plausible or even possible. It's meant to test the limits of your theory without little constraints like reality.
Yes, I'm aware of that. I'm just not sure that, as a hypothetical, it's terribly useful as a means of examining the situation. The persons in the discussion, perhaps.
From my point of view, I'd much rather have some practical ideas on how to minimize what seem to me rather obvious negatives to someone publishing information in this form.
quote: Thanks for the answer - but what do you consider intimidation? Would someone at work mentioning it be intimidation? A customer coming up to an owner and telling them they'd no longer be shopping at his store because of his donation? A neighbor making a point to put up a gay pride flag while glaring at you?
I'm tempted to say it's intimidation when the subject feels threatened, but that's terribly vague. From a practical standpoint, I would say it's intimidation when it increases the likelihood of violence (or appearance thereof) toward the subject, their loved ones, or their property as a result of the subject's activity (with an eye towards punishing said activity or preventing them from engaging in same in the future.)
When someone who is not by choice a public figure is made to feel threatened and vulnerable for engaging in legal activities, that concerns me.
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: This is an excellent idea. Prop-8 supporters should code up just such a version of the map.
And it would be used as frequently as the one without transparency, because the people who would use it would agree that one shouldn't engage in any kind of public activity or participate in the internet with an anticipation of anonymity or privacy, right...?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
That's a good question. It's entirely possible that people might place some value on their privacy, so the creators of the new map would have to offer some incentive. Maybe Facebook-like features allowing you to "poke" people who donated to the wrong cause?
But, seriously, we require public notification of political donations precisely because we do not believe these things should be private. The expectation of privacy here is nonsensical.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
I have to assume that our opinions about this are far enough apart that you simply don't perceive why this bothers me. Yes, donations are public, Yes, those names and addresses are and should be easily accessible. Yes, technology allows us to make a nice, easy map that points directly at those donors and even provides directions. I don't question any of that, and would not change it.
And I'm still uneasy about that map.
There's something about presenting that information in such an incredibly user-friendly, "here-they-are-over-here-right-here!" format that bothers me. My first thought, upon seeing it, is that it's a call to action. If it could be set so that you couldn't zoom down to street levels I'd feel better about it. I'm sure I'll get more used to it as such things become more prevalent.
Put it this way. It is possible to learn a great deal about me from my public postings online. I'm fully aware of this and I choose to post what I do anyway. Yet if someone were to create a site that mapped out my daily routine, including my phone numbers, driving route, friends and family, and buying habits, I'd be creeped the hell out. I would see that as threatening. Intellectually I would know that I have absolutely no right to complain, but it would still be intimidating. Not because I was expecting privacy, but because someone bothered to assemble it.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
What if someone didn't bother to assemble it about you in particular, but assembled such a site about everyone? It wouldn't be that much harder.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
If it was about everyone, not so much. My point is that someone collecting such info about specifically me apparently has an agenda, a goal in mind when they collected and presented that information. The people making the anti-Prop-8 map seem to me to have an intention, and I can't see where making it easier to track down opponents in such a contentious situation is for a good cause.
Again, not saying it isn't legal. Just saying it makes me uneasy. I really don't think you're going to somehow logic me out of my uneasiness. It doesn't stem from a logical source.
Posted by Seatarsprayan (Member # 7634) on :
From Robert A. Heinlein's "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress." This is what I thought of immediately upon seeing that map.
quote:Let me mention those fink spies out of order. Wyoh had been fiercely ready to eliminate them but when we got around to them she had lost stomach. I expected Prof to agree. But he shook head. "No, dear Wyoh, much as I deplore violence, there are only two things to do with an enemy: Kill him. Or make a friend of him. Anything in between piles up trouble for the future. A man who finks on his friends once will do it again and we have a long period ahead in which a fink can be dangerous; they must go. And publicly, to cause others to be thoughtful."
Wyoh said, "Professor, you once said that if you condemned a man, you would eliminate him personally. Is that what you are going to do?"
"Yes, dear lady, and no. Their blood shall be on my hands; I accept responsibility. But I have in mind a way more likely to discourage other finks."
So Adam Selene announced that these persons had been employed by Juan Alvarez, late Security Chief for former Authority, as undercover spies--and gave names and addresses. Adam did not suggest that anything be done.
One man remained on dodge for seven months by changing warrens and name. Then early in '77 his body was found outside Novylen's lock. But most of them lasted no more than hours.
Orinoco wrote:
quote:Please site your own ass.
I believe you mean "cite."
quote:I'm sick of people like you.
Good.
quote:What in my comments led you to believe I was talking about same sex sibling marriages in the first place, I have no idea.
Why were you replying to my comments about incest then if you didn't bother reading them? I'm the one that brought up incestuous marriage in this thread, I believe, and I specifically named same-sex sibling incestuous marriage as an example. You were replying to me. Please pay attention.
If you have no opinion, then you don't have to post. But you really should have an opinion, because all the arguments for same-sex marriage can be used to support same-sex sibling incestuous marriage, so either the arguments are invalid or one really ought to support both.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote:all the arguments for same-sex marriage can be used to support same-sex sibling incestuous marriage, so either the arguments are invalid or one really ought to support both.
Come on now. You're missing an obvious argument against same sex sibling marriage that doesn't apply to same sex marriage in general.
Siblings might have lifelong abusive relationships with each other. This can interfere with with the consent necessary for marriage. (This kind of close familial relationship can facilitate coercion that is infeasible in most other situations.)
I would not be against specific cases of sibling marriage under two conditions:
1) Siblings were raised separately (due to adoption or whatever). This addresses the abuse/coercion aspect.
AND
2) Reproduction is ruled out (because of same sex or because of permanent sterility).
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:I would not be against specific cases of sibling marriage under two conditions:
1) Siblings were raised separately (due to adoption or whatever). This addresses the abuse/coercion aspect.
AND
2) Reproduction is ruled out (because of same sex or because of permanent sterility).
I completely agree.
Anyone who has an in-principle moral problem with incest should go watch "Lone Star."
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Or read "Speaker for the Dead," for that matter. Am I the only guy who read that book and thought, why didn't Miro just get a vasectomy and marry Ouanda?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Because they were Catholics, who believe in objective sin quite apart from whether anyone is actually harmed.
As a side note, permanent sterility seems a little harsh. Wouldn't it be simpler to screen the children for harmful recessives? We should have the technology for that any year now. No abortion required, just have impregnation be by IVF only, and ensure the right sperm-egg combinations are used.
Posted by swbarnes2 (Member # 10225) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: As a side note, permanent sterility seems a little harsh. Wouldn't it be simpler to screen the children for harmful recessives? We should have the technology for that any year now. No abortion required, just have impregnation be by IVF only, and ensure the right sperm-egg combinations are used.
It's going to be a little while yet...
The problem is that a brother-sister mating will have homozygous for alleles that are only found in that family, so it will be very hard to predict what the outcome will be.
You could predict stops, and and amino acid changes in proteins, but promotors, small RNAs, enhancers, methylation, we just don't know enough about sequence features like that to be able to predict what mutations there are tolerable, and which ones aren't. Heck, we don't even know where all such sites are in the genome...prices for sequencing the whole genome are coming down, but being able to predict whether a kid homozygous for this or that mutation will develop properly...it's going to be a long while before we work that out.
I do agree with you that sterility is harsh. We don't keep people with known genetic problems from mating, brother-sister pairs will likely have more problems, and unpredictable ones, but I don't know that it's a difference of kind, just degree. I think such a pairing should require genetic counseling...they need to know that the odds of having unhealthy children is quite high, but I don't think they should have to undergo sterility treatment. They might be okay with the risk.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
Darn you, Chris, and your "saying things I want to say better than I'd say them."
I agree on an intellectual level that political contributions are and should be public information. If money's going to talk, we need to know who's making it do the talking.
But as I've said before, I almost wish that it took five minutes to find a single address, rather than someone being able to quickly and easily find people they might consider a target for harrassment in their neighborhood. I feel that, on some level, the greater the investment of time and mental energy, the less likely it is that someone is doing something stupid with the information.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
Personally, I feel that if someone has violent impulses towards these people - truly violent, rather than "shaming" or things of that nature - then they'll look up the information whether it's in an easy-to-reach format or not. And until someone presents actual evidence one way or the other, I feel like the burden of proof should lie with those who want to restrict information.
And, of course, if the cause is important enough that you donated to Prop 8, I really don't see how others "shaming" you or protesting in front of your house or deciding not to do business should matter. Either you stand up for your principles in the face of (non-violent) opposition, or they're not really values - they're hobbies.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
Then I guess the question is: what would you accept as "proof", and what are you willing to do if proof does indeed prove you wrong?
And I don't really think we accomplish anything by forcing people who make political contributions to make their causes take center-stage in their lives whether they like it or not. Is it really for us to judge whether other people care "enough" about their causes to support them?
Also- I don't know how the law stands- if this becomes the tactic of the future, aren't we just encouraging people to use loopholes to obfuscate their involvement? "Oh, I support 'Families First', but it's because of their adoption work, not because of their anti-gay marriage stance- that my contribution happened to come in just before their major campaign is a coincidence."
If we encourage people to find ways to keep their contributions in shadow for fear of reprisal, I think everyone loses.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
I would accept a scientific study done on this topic, or one similar enough to it that the analogy would hold.
quote:And I don't really think we accomplish anything by forcing people who make political contributions to make their causes take center-stage in their lives whether they like it or not. Is it really for us to judge whether other people care "enough" about their causes to support them?
Prop 8 takes center stage in the lives of the ones it affects - i.e. homosexuals in California, some of whom are wondering if their perfectly legal marriages will be invalidated because of the supporters of Prop 8. Frankly, I disagree with your stance on this matter - actually, I don't have any sympathy with it at all. If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. And I'm not judging if people care "enough" - I'm just saying that if you're going to express your opinion in the community, you should not be surprised if others disagree with you, potentially in ways that make your life tougher. Suck it up and take personal responsibility for your actions.
The law says that this is publicly available information. Information that is open to the public can, of course, be used by the public. I don't see how your supposed "loophole" is a loophole - you donate to Families First, you'll be known as a donor to them, and others can draw conclusions as they like regarding that donation. If you don't want them to draw certain conclusions, consider your decisions carefully. And I don't agree that the end result from something like this will be some weird shadowy "donation world" where donations are hidden away. You have to present some evidence to believe this, or else this is just a slippery slope.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
The volcanic irony of this entire situation is so delicious I can hardly stand it. Every time I read this thread, I imagine whole communities huddled under their covers thinking, "Oh Sweet Jesus, please protect me from the gays!"
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
Do gays eat brains?
Isn't there a survival guide for exactly this sort of situation?
"Wood is not a good material for a barricade, because they will be flaming."
"Do not hide in the closet."
[ February 03, 2009, 01:52 AM: Message edited by: advice for robots ]
Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
quote:Originally posted by advice for robots: "Do not hide in the closet."
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. And I'm not judging if people care "enough" - I'm just saying that if you're going to express your opinion in the community, you should not be surprised if others disagree with you, potentially in ways that make your life tougher. Suck it up and take personal responsibility for your actions.
There's a difference between participating in the legal system and wanting to express your opinion in the community. For instance, if you voted for Obama, that doesn't necessarily mean you want to broadcast to the world that you voted for Obama. It probably just means you want Obama to win. Similarly, donating money to Prop 8 doesn't necessarily mean that you want to broadcast to the world that you support Prop 8. It more likely just means you want Prop 8 to pass.
In a world where people are always judged fairly in spite of the controversial opinions they may hold, it would make sense to always own up 100% to whatever you believe in. But on this particular issue, there exist at least some people who are likely to unfairly assume that anyone who votes for Prop 8 is a bigot. Some people have already expressed an opinion like that on this thread. The direct consequence of making sweeping judgements like that is that people are afraid to tell you what they believe, because they are afraid you'll judge them unfairly. I don't think you can blame them too much that fear.
So, it is fair to demand people to own up to their political beliefs, but only if it is also fair for them to expect us not to draw sweeping negative conclusions about them based on their beliefs.
That is, for instance, why it was wrong for Jews to be forced to wear stars in Germany so as to identify their religious beliefs. Admitting your religion by itself is not inherently dangerous - but admitting it to people who hate anyone with your religion is.
quote:The law says that this is publicly available information. Information that is open to the public can, of course, be used by the public.
Just because you can build a weapon with everyday, legally available materials doesn't mean you should build such a weapon.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
That's a good comparison. Creating this map and drawing attention to is a lot like forcing Jews to wear stars to identify themselves.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: That's a good comparison. Creating this map and drawing attention to is a lot like forcing Jews to wear stars to identify themselves.
Actually, it's nothing like it. Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Those of you who favor this use of the information, would you feel the same if it were a map of people who voted for and against the proposition. Would you favor legislation that made information about how individuals voted generally available to the public? If that information was available, would you think this was an ethical way to use that data?
If not, what do you see as the salient ethical difference between voting for a proposition and donating money to the campaign?
And before there is any mistake, I know that even keeping a record of the names and addresses of everyone who voted for or against the proposition is against the law and would violate a centuries old tradition that protects the secrecy of the ballot. My question isn't about what "is", its about what should be.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Just because you can build a weapon with everyday, legally available materials doesn't mean you should build such a weapon.
This is absolutely true. What you are saying, however, is that it should not be legal to assemble such a weapon out of freely available materials. What we are saying is that it should not be legal to fire such a weapon with the intent to harm someone.
And unlike a gun, which can only be used to threaten or inflict harm, these maps can in fact be used for constructive purposes. In other words, there's a considerably stronger argument for the existence of these maps than for the legality of gun ownership.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
It's almost exactly like it, Jhai, condescending and dismissive-eyerolly to the contrary.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
No, it's not. It's a ridiculous analogy, from my point of view. Could you explain why you think there's a similarity?
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: There's a difference between participating in the legal system and wanting to express your opinion in the community. For instance, if you voted for Obama, that doesn't necessarily mean you want to broadcast to the world that you voted for Obama. It probably just means you want Obama to win. Similarly, donating money to Prop 8 doesn't necessarily mean that you want to broadcast to the world that you support Prop 8. It more likely just means you want Prop 8 to pass.
First, you're conflating voting with donations, when they aren't at all the same thing. Second, this isn't about what people want - it's about what's right, both ethically and for a functioning democracy. Personally, I want a unicorn to take me to the polls every November.
quote: In a world where people are always judged fairly in spite of the controversial opinions they may hold, it would make sense to always own up 100% to whatever you believe in. But on this particular issue, there exist at least some people who are likely to unfairly assume that anyone who votes for Prop 8 is a bigot. Some people have already expressed an opinion like that on this thread. The direct consequence of making sweeping judgements like that is that people are afraid to tell you what they believe, because they are afraid you'll judge them unfairly. I don't think you can blame them too much that fear.
So, it is fair to demand people to own up to their political beliefs, but only if it is also fair for them to expect us not to draw sweeping negative conclusions about them based on their beliefs.
I'm not blaming them for their fear - although I do think it's silly, I'm simply saying that it shouldn't be a free ride. Yes, expressing an opinion publicly through donation or free speech may mean that people are mean to you, or judge you unfairly. That's life. Adults are willing to accept the consequences of their actions, which includes the consequences of speaking up when you have a minority opinion. If you aren't willing to speak up, that's fine - but don't expect others to grant you anonymity when you try to influence politics beyond your vote just because you'll be hurt when people are mean to you.
quote: That is, for instance, why it was wrong for Jews to be forced to wear stars in Germany so as to identify their religious beliefs. Admitting your religion by itself is not inherently dangerous - but admitting it to people who hate anyone with your religion is.
This is nothing like the Jews being forced to wear stars, and it's pretty pathetic that you tried to stretch that far. But, really, I wouldn't expect anything less from you.
quote:Just because you can build a weapon with everyday, legally available materials doesn't mean you should build such a weapon.
I'm not sure why you're bringing weapons into the picture, as, um, no one has said in this thread that violence is okay. However, if someone wants to make, say, a gun at home just to challenge themselves mentally, or for the craftsmanship of it - and have no plans to use it against people, and do have plans on how to store it safely (and the technical expertise to actually do it), I have no problem with it.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Jhai, you would be more convincing as an orator if you eliminated the personal insults and comments when someone disagreed with you.
Honestly.
--
Tresopax did a lovely explanation of how they are the same.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Those of you who favor this use of the information, would you feel the same if it were a map of people who voted for and against the proposition. Would you favor legislation that made information about how individuals voted generally available to the public? If that information was available, would you think this was an ethical way to use that data?
If not, what do you see as the salient ethical difference between voting for a proposition and donating money to the campaign?
And before there is any mistake, I know that even keeping a record of the names and addresses of everyone who voted for or against the proposition is against the law and would violate a centuries old tradition that protects the secrecy of the ballot. My question isn't about what "is", its about what should be.
One is giving your opinion in the voting box as to your beliefs regarding the best options for our country. The other is trying to influence other's beliefs about the best option. Not at all the same thing, and I don't think you should be able to do the second while hiding your face, which is essentially what those who want donations to be anonymous are requesting.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:This is nothing like the Jews being forced to wear stars...
I've been trying to think of ways it might be similar, and I came up with this argument:
If people in this country were required to make their religion and race a matter of public record, and these public records were available to be collected into a map, and there were a massive media blitz coordinated with federal disincentives intended to discredit and slander members of a specific religion, and there were moreover a substantial number of people somehow able to correlate the map information in real-time, thus making it impossible for someone to conceal his membership in that religion while in public (and perhaps even a crime to try) -- well, then it would be a fair analogy.
I don't see that this particular situation meets even half of those criteria, and think Godwin's Law as a consequence would advise against that particular sort of analogy. But YMMV.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
kat, see, I don't really care to convince either you or Tresopax. And I don't know how
quote:That is, for instance, why it was wrong for Jews to be forced to wear stars in Germany so as to identify their religious beliefs. Admitting your religion by itself is not inherently dangerous - but admitting it to people who hate anyone with your religion is.
can possibly considered a "lovely explanation". Maybe it could count as a claim...
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
The thing is, having people know you were a Jew was the least harmful part of the whole "stars" bit. The problem wasn't that Jews were identifiable; the problem was that the government was actively restricting the rights of Jews while fomenting unrest against them, and further humiliating them by forcing them to identify themselves had the dual benefit of publicly differentiating them from the community and making it harder for them to pass as non-Jews.
This map, as far as I can tell, does none of those things.
It is more directly analogous to producing a "Map of the Stars' Homes." The stars might not want to be on the map; at the very least, stalkers might find the map to be a time-saving measure.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Tom,
For your analogy, you would have to add the choice factor. People can chose whether or not to donate to a political cause; people could not chose whether or not to be Jews. Even non-religious Jews had to wear stars.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
The other major difference I see is that it's really no one's business what religion you are - but it is people's business when you're trying to influence the laws of the nation we all live in. Politics is not, and should not, be private information (note - "politics =! political opinions).
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Jhai,
Voting is definitely politics. Do you believe that voting records should be public?
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
Maybe we're just defining politics differently. To my mind, "politics" or being "political" is taking action in the political sphere, which is social by nature - i.e. talking about policies, donating, lobbying, writing letters, protesting, calling people, going to a rally, etc, etc. Voting is just participating in our democracy - there's no social aspect to it, other than the social choice mechanism that inputs the votes and outputs the decision. If you want to call it politics, that's cool - but know that I'm talking about the social sphere of politics, where you're directly or indirectly interacting with others. Political opinions are not necessarily social in that sense, since you can hold them without anyone ever knowing what you believe.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:I'm not sure why you're bringing weapons into the picture, as, um, no one has said in this thread that violence is okay.
Something doesn't have to cause physical violence to be a weapon. It just has to harm people.
quote:First, you're conflating voting with donations, when they aren't at all the same thing. Second, this isn't about what people want - it's about what's right, both ethically and for a functioning democracy. Personally, I want a unicorn to take me to the polls every November.
Neither voting nor donating are things that necessarily imply the person doing the voting or the donating is doing so in order to express their opinion to the community. I think most people who donate assume, even though the records are public, that most of their friends and neighbors will never know they donated. That may be a bad assumption, but you still can't say that by donating their primary intention was to declare to the world that they support Prop 8.
quote:This is nothing like the Jews being forced to wear stars, and it's pretty pathetic that you tried to stretch that far. But, really, I wouldn't expect anything less from you.
1. As I said, the example of the Jews being forced to wear stars illustrates the way in which the degree to which it is reasonable to publicly profess one's beliefs is dependent on the degree to which the public is going to unfairly persecute or harass you based on those beliefs.
2. What do you mean that you wouldn't expect anything less from me? What have I done?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
It strikes me as odd that people would be willing to donate money in order to sway other people to their opinion and yet be unwilling to publicly acknowledge that opinion.
I'm not saying that Prop 8 supporters do that* - as far as I know, they aren't complaining about being public.
*though, anecdotally, many of the people I know who voted for Prop 8 seem less than happy about it.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
quote:Something doesn't have to cause physical violence to be a weapon. It just has to harm people.
But mostly I don't think we should care (as a society) about harms other than physical violence or extreme emotional harm. For instance, there exist people who are really upset by the fact that I've married someone who's not of my race - I know 'cause they told me so. But I don't really give a flip about their being upset, and I don't think society should either. The fact that their lives are a little less better off (from the dis-utility of being upset) because of my marriage shouldn't factor into our calculations about whether or not we should allow interracial marriage. So first you need to prove that we should have a reason to care about any particular harm. Physical violence is an obvious one. Whatever harm you're positing here isn't.
quote:Neither voting nor donating are things that necessarily imply the person doing the voting or the donating is doing so in order to express their opinion to the community. I think most people who donate assume, even though the records are public, that most of their friends and neighbors will never know they donated. That may be a bad assumption, but you still can't say that by donating their primary intention was to declare to the world that they support Prop 8.
By donating the person is trying to influence the votes of others. That is, in the end their primary purpose. And those sorts of actions should not be private information in a democracy. And I never said that "by donating their primary intention was to declare to the world that they support Prop 8".
quote:1. As I said, the example of the Jews being forced to wear stars illustrates the way in which the degree to which it is reasonable to publicly profess one's beliefs is dependent on the degree to which the public is going to unfairly persecute or harass you based on those beliefs.
2. What do you mean that you wouldn't expect anything less from me? What have I done?
1. The analogy is pretty horrible, for the many reasons Tom & I wrote above. 2. You have a history of making bad analogies here on Hatrack.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
It seems odd to me that people who are happy to applaud "outing" those who exercise their political speech are unhappy about "outing" those who actually voted to bring Proposition 8 to pass.
Speaking about the vote is NOT "more" political than actually voting. Why is voting sacred? According to your lights, there should be no expectation of privacy when it comes to politcal action. Voting is the ultimate political action.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I'm not saying that Prop 8 supporters do that* - as far as I know, they aren't complaining about being public.
*though, anecdotally, many of the people I know who voted for Prop 8 seem less than happy about it.
Actually, kmboots, from what I've read googling, some of the groups that that were pro-Prop 8 filed with the California courts to have the donation records sealed before this map was ever made, because of some of the threats that have been made against supporters. Most legal experts say that they will not win the case. I do think that the gay community in California should step up to condemn the threats and physical harassment (they may have done this - not living in California, I don't hear much of the news there) - physical violence is never cool.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Speaking about the vote is NOT "more" political than actually voting.
I would argue that it is. One is referendum; the other is advocacy. Historically, Americans have argued that the latter should not be done in private, while the former should be. Whether you agree or not, the distinction has been made for far longer than we've been alive.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jhai: I do think that the gay community in California should step up to condemn the threats and physical harassment (they may have done this - not living in California, I don't hear much of the news there) - physical violence is never cool.
Agreed.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: It seems odd to me that people who are happy to applaud "outing" those who exercise their political speech are unhappy about "outing" those who actually voted to bring Proposition 8 to pass.
Speaking about the vote is NOT "more" political than actually voting. Why is voting sacred? According to your lights, there should be no expectation of privacy when it comes to politcal action. Voting is the ultimate political action.
Okay... If you want to call voting the ultimate political action, that's fine. My problem is with making actions which are meant to influence the votes of others anonymous. Group those actions under whatever header you want, and call them whatever you want. I don't care about names.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Speaking about the vote is NOT "more" political than actually voting. Why is voting sacred? According to your lights, there should be no expectation of privacy when it comes to politcal action. Voting is the ultimate political action.
Jhai already explained what she meant by political action and voting wasn't included. There's no reason to argue semantics at this point.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I think she is crafting her definition deliberately to leave out voting because she recognizes that there is a strong gut feeling that voting should be secret.
Her definition is flawed. Voting is absolutely meant to influence the behavior of others. It is the actual vote that caused the law to be changed. It is completely political.
However, we all know that making voting public is a crappy thing to do. So is that map.
And really, I can't believe that opponents to Proposition 8 are defending their stance with "this is how it has been done historically." The irony and hypocrisy is a little too rich.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
Voting influences laws not how other people vote. I don't see how you're failing to get this distinction. Do you really think that the way I vote in my polling place mystically affects how you end up voting in your polling place? Is it through telepathy? Gravitational force?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I do get the distinction. I reject it as a facile and false one created ad hoc for the convenience of your argument.
Voting is absolutely a political action. So far your only defense of why it should be secret has been 1)it's voting, and 2) it always has been.
Both explanations fail.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
If we had to choose between making all political action public including voting, and allowing all political action - including campaign contributions, political ads, lobbying, and so forth - to be anonymous, I think that I would chose the former. I am generally for more transparency in politics rather than less.
Fortunately, we don't have to make that choice. As private citizens, we can have a private vote. Our politics only become public when we hold a position strongly enough to try to change the votes of other people. This seems a good balance.
[ February 03, 2009, 12:51 PM: Message edited by: kmbboots ]
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
Wow.
Edit: in response to this.
quote:I do get the distinction. I reject it as a facile and false one created ad hoc for the convenience of your argument.
Voting is absolutely a political action. So far your only defense of why it should be secret has been 1)it's voting, and 2) it always has been.
Both explanations fail.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
Voting is completely democratic - every individual has the exact same influence in the exercise of their right to vote.
Political advocacy in the form of donations is a completely different beast. It's an attempt to influence the behavior of other people by leveraging resources which are not available to all. The inequity of this is offset, somewhat, by the caveat that resources used in this manner must be publicly disclosed so that people can try to evaluate the motives of those who are attempting to influence elections on a scale beyond their own individual vote.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:However, we all know that making voting public is a crappy thing to do.
Is it your position, then, that all political speech -- including donations -- should also be private?
quote:And really, I can't believe that opponents to Proposition 8 are defending their stance with "this is how it has been done historically."
Um.... First off, I haven't spoken about the merits of the Proposition; nothing I've said here is about Prop 8 at all.
Secondly, I'm not seeking to defend the existence of the map by saying "it's what has always been done," but am rather pointing out that YOUR assertion -- that there is no difference between voting and political speech -- is one that has not historically been considered valid.
You can argue that this should not be the case, and that we should not make a distinction between political speech and voting, but it's silly to argue that this is the status quo.
Do you understand now?
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
katharina, you *seem* to be arguing that political donations ought not to be public. I think it could be really problematic, though, if they weren't. "Following the money" is one of the most important ways to guard against corruption and fraud.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I am not arguing that, scibum.
I do think that this kind of map is a hostile act that while I don't wish it to be illegal, it should be recognized as the hostile, sketchy, tacky act that it was.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
oh OK. Well, I expect the Internet will never fail to enable people to do things that are legal, but tacky, hostile, and sketchy.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jhai: Prop 8 takes center stage in the lives of the ones it affects - i.e. homosexuals in California, some of whom are wondering if their perfectly legal marriages will be invalidated because of the supporters of Prop 8. Frankly, I disagree with your stance on this matter - actually, I don't have any sympathy with it at all. If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. And I'm not judging if people care "enough" - I'm just saying that if you're going to express your opinion in the community, you should not be surprised if others disagree with you, potentially in ways that make your life tougher. Suck it up and take personal responsibility for your actions.
The law says that this is publicly available information. Information that is open to the public can, of course, be used by the public. I don't see how your supposed "loophole" is a loophole - you donate to Families First, you'll be known as a donor to them, and others can draw conclusions as they like regarding that donation. If you don't want them to draw certain conclusions, consider your decisions carefully. And I don't agree that the end result from something like this will be some weird shadowy "donation world" where donations are hidden away. You have to present some evidence to believe this, or else this is just a slippery slope.
...I'm really beginning to think you may be a bit too emotionally invested in this particular issue to see things objectively. I understand, it's an emotional issue. But if you take some of what you're saying outside the realm of contributors to Proposition 8, there are real, negative consequences that shouldn't be blithely dismissed because you think supporters of Proposition 8 deserve whatever they have coming.
That's what's coming across to me, anyway; I'm not a mind reader, and I acknowledge that, so please try not to blow a gasket.
I don't have an immediate study to cite, because I don't have a research foundation at my beck and call, and honestly, I'm somewhat baffled as to what search terms I could use that would even begin to offer acceptable results without a huge field of static.
But I don't really think my, ahem, hypothetical future of organization obfuscation is really all that far out there. Consider the birth of 527 organizations in the wake of campaign finance reform. If there are unwelcome negative consequences to contributing to a particular cause, people will find a way around them- and I shouldn't have to cite a study to make such an inference. Frankly, it seems less of a stretch than the envisioned violent people who are as willing to commit to serious detective work as they are to an internet search. Likewise, the information-to-static ratio becomes much higher if to examine people who supported a particular proposition you instead have to offer all the "maybes"- the proposition-8-and-pro-life group, the proposition-8-and-publically-funded-religious-education group, the proposition-8-and-anti-divorce group, and so on.
I also can't help but note that the kind of information which is now widely available about political contributors is not unlike the kind of information that used to be available only to intelligence agencies with regard to so-called "dissident groups"- civil rights groups, peace activists, and the like. And the history of said agencies' interactions with said groups is anything but pretty.
So, there's a map that has people who have made contributions to the propositon-8 campaign. How many people do you suppose compiled the data to make that map? What if there was a map of those people? Can you equally presume there is no ill intent if a web site showcases only five people?
What if it's only one?
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:But mostly I don't think we should care (as a society) about harms other than physical violence or extreme emotional harm.
So, does that mean we shouldn't care about the harm caused by preventing a gay couple from being legally declared married?
quote:1. The analogy is pretty horrible, for the many reasons Tom & I wrote above. 2. You have a history of making bad analogies here on Hatrack.
Well, I'd argue it would be more accurate to say I have a history of making good analogies here on Hatrack that people often claim are bad because they don't want to agree with the conclusion. This happens to pretty much anyone who makes analogies on Hatrack.
Or, to put it differently, it is like a mouse telling a cat that its unethical to harass smaller animals, and using the example of dogs chasing cats as an example. Then a fish jumps into the conversation and says how that is an apt analogy, but the cat responds that dogs chasing cats are nothing like cats chasing mice, pointing out that cats are smart and big while mice are little, fury, and tasty - making them totally different. But the mouse, while agreeing the two species are different in most ways, argues that the act of chasing each is similar in a few significant respects. The cat disagrees again and declares the mouse plainly wrong, but then a moose comes in and tells all the animals to stop fighting. Or... eh... something like that.
....
Edit: I should add that I did not make an analogy regarding the Jewish stars. My example regarding the Nazi behavior was not that it was analogous to anything. I brought it up because it illustrates a point: that you can't expect people to want to admit their beliefs to the public if the public is going to mistreat them unfairly based on those beliefs.
[ February 03, 2009, 01:40 PM: Message edited by: Tresopax ]
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
Sterling,
I'm actually not particularly "emotive" about this issue. I disagree with your assumptions on the unknown/unseen effects, you disagree with mine, and unless you can come up with some evidence, that's where we're going to stand. You're suggesting a change from the status quo, so I think that the burden of proof is on your end.
The intelligence agencies analogy is an invalid one, because in one case we have private entities without much organization (I'm talking about private entities that would plan & commit violence with these maps), and in the other case we have a government organization with plenty of firepower. They aren't analogous in a fundamental way, so you can't reason by analogy here.
Depending on how the data on donations is made available, it could just be one person with some good programming skills. I'm not sure if I'd call what the programmer doing "political activity" anymore than I would say that the writers and editors of wikipedia articles on political events and people are engaging in "political activity". Defining it so widely seems to make the term lose some of its value as a differentiator ("everything you do is political action" stuff). And right now, all I'm arguing about is political activity (or whatever kat wants to call it) - I'd have to think a fair bit more before starting a discussion of how much of our general lives belong in the public sphere.
Tres,
I never said that our society should only consider harm (in its simplest sense) in considerations of what our law should be like. In fact, I'd probably call such a system incredibly unjust.
On the second point, we'll just have to agree to disagree, I guess. And in your analogy the cat is obviously wrong. Duh.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:that you can't expect people to want to admit their beliefs to the public if the public is going to mistreat them unfairly based on those beliefs
I'll go even broader than that: you can't expect people to want to admit their beliefs or deeds to the public if the public is going to mistreat them based on those beliefs or deeds.
People, in general, will go to some lengths to avoid being mistreated.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
Yes, also true.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
I'll see that, Tom, and raise it to:
"You can't expect people to do stuff that will cause them to be mistreated."
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Or even, "you can't always expect people to admit to their beliefs".
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jhai: I'll see that, Tom, and raise it to:
"You can't expect people to do stuff that will cause them to be mistreated."
The irony of this statement appearing in a thread about same sex marriage is so thick you could cut it with a knife.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
You can't expect them to do so. Luckily, people defy cynic's expectations all the time.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
I haven't followed all of this thread and so I may be mistaken when I say that I seem to be the only one who both opposed proposition 8 and finds this website to be ethically suspect.
I ask myself thiis question, what if the sides were reversed? What if this vote had taken place in the deep south or Utah and lost? What if a website had posted the names of all the people who had donated to the opposition campaign? What if the people who donated to the opposition campaign had become the target for hatred, vandalism and other forms of violence? What if people were claiming everyone who donated to the opposition was homosexual? What if there was evidence that people were using the data on the website to target and attack opponents of proposition 8?
If those things were true, I'd think that the website was ethically suspect and complicit in the crimes committed. I'd be asking the owners of the website to take it down since the information was being used to fuel hatred and violence.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I have not taken a stand on Proposition 8.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: (1) I ask myself this question, what if the sides were reversed? (2) What if this vote had taken place in the deep south or Utah and lost? (3) What if a website had posted the names of all the people who had donated to the opposition campaign? (4) What if the people who donated to the opposition campaign had become the target for hatred, vandalism and other forms of violence? (5) What if people were claiming everyone who donated to the opposition was homosexual? (6) What if there was evidence that people were using the data on the website to target and attack opponents of proposition 8?
If those things were true, I'd think that the website was ethically suspect and complicit in the crimes committed. I'd be asking the owners of the website to take it down since the information was being used to fuel hatred and violence.
Note: numbering added by me.
The first three what-if's seem to be just setting the stage, so I'll just act as if they're setting the stage for what I'd do if I were in this hypothetical situation.
4. I'd ignore the haters, and contact the police about violence to me or my property. I would also likely take steps to help keep me & my things safe, such as keeping my dog in the downstairs portion of my house (she's a very good watchdog), putting up sensor lights, carrying my cell phone & a deterrent spray with me when I left the house, etc. If I had children, I'd do a repeat lesson on self-protection, but I doubt the situation you're describing is such that it would escalate to targeting children.
5. I'd, uh, laugh at them or ignore them. Idiots who don't know me aren't worth my mental or emotional attention.
6. I think it would be near impossible to find this sort of evidence (and there certainly isn't any evidence to suggest this in the actual case in California). If I came across evidence, I'd report it to the police and the website administrators & let them and the law figure it out.
My response would likely differ if this was taking place in another era or another nation, but it's not. Hate-crimes where there's actual violence against people (not property) on the basis of political action are now so relatively rare in the US that there's not much point in worrying about it beyond taking reasonable precautions. It makes far more sense to worry about your driving & road conditions than things like this, frankly.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Jhai, it looks like you're all about plausiable deniability. It's okay if the map provokes and aids criminal activity as long as it can't be proven.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
No, I've never said that. I was just pointing out that the evidence would be very difficult to find, and so far I've not seen anyone put forth any sort of evidence to the contrary - statistical evidence, or at least analogous historical examples, not just-so stories. If you have evidence other than "well, I think it could", I'd be very interested in hearing it.
That being said, I'm really not that torn up if it "aids" criminal activity. Once you've decided that you're going to do violence, you'll get the information needed one way or another. The information is already relatively easily accessible. As I said earlier, it's like blaming google maps for making it really easy to plot a series of thefts at local jewelry stores - if google maps wasn't there the criminals would just need to go to the yellow pages and then look at a local paper map. I don't blame google maps for that - or GPS systems - or what have you - I blame the person doing the violence.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Once you've decided that you're going to do violence, you'll get the information needed one way or another.
I find this assertion highly suspect and an indication of a very poor understanding of violence and human nature. Most violent acts, particularly hate crimes, are not coldly premeditated and planned in a calculated fashion. The far more likely situation reads something like this.
A group of friends get together after work for "happy hour", but they aren't happy they are disappointed and angry about X. so they start talking about it. The more they talk the angrier they get. The angrier they get, the more they will be looking for a convenient scapegoat to hate. Eventually some one says, we should do something about it, and by "do something about it" they don't mean circulate a petition or organize a general strike -- they mean attack the scapegoat. And at that particular moment when every one is riled up (and probably drunk as well) if they can easily locate their scapegoat, violence is very likely.
But if its a matter of waiting until tomorrow morning and going to some government office or library and spending an hour searching through the records to locate the appropriate scapegoat, chances are good that calmer heads will prevail.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
Right. And can you find me any cases of these sorts of hate crimes being committed in the past couple of decades on the basis of the political action of the victim and nothing else?
Obviously there's a context here - my stance would change significantly if we were talking about other sorts of information. The type of situation you describe is one that we might see with religion or, more often, race. If I was living in your hypothetical situation I would still be far more worried about my husband & I being attacked for being out together as a mixed race couple than I would be for my political stances.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jhai: You're suggesting a change from the status quo, so I think that the burden of proof is on your end.
Actually, I think I've been rather clear that I don't know how I would change the status quo, having acknowledged that there are real and valuable reasons for information about political contributions to be made available. I just find that presenting the information in this form is morally questionable and potentially harmful in a variety of ways.
quote:The intelligence agencies analogy is an invalid one, because in one case we have private entities without much organization (I'm talking about private entities that would plan & commit violence with these maps), and in the other case we have a government organization with plenty of firepower. They aren't analogous in a fundamental way, so you can't reason by analogy here.
Or rather, you'd prefer not to accept reason by analogy. But there are certainly parallels. A large part of what made the actions like those of COINTELPRO possible was the array of information available to them; the ability to gather and organize said information was part of what required a large organization "with plenty of firepower" in the first place. Here and now, that information is much more readily available without the need of an extended organization to massage data.
Now what smaller, more loosely organized groups and individuals are not likely to do that larger government groups have done is infiltrate the groups they oppose in order to discredit them. But there remain plenty of legal, quasi-legal, and illegal activities that groups and individuals can do with some simple information- in relative safety and anonymity- that could make the legal act of a political contribution seem to be more harshly punished than many actual illegal actions.
Anecdotally, I say this as someone who has colleagues who have been shot at, friends who have been stalked, and intercepted a call intended for his father from an irate student trying to imply his mother had had an affair.
But more to the point, the actions of intelligence agencies more obviously point to the fact the power to harrass or harm those viewed as "enemies"- even by groups and individuals who are not inherently set to that task- is likely, sooner or later, to be used.
Or to put it another way, sometimes-often!- malicious action doesn't require an indomitable will to do harm, a clever mind, and a brilliant plan; it just requires the object of one's ire, a clear line of sight, and a rock- and as little time to think about the consequences of one's actions as possible. This seems so obvious to me that I'm truly bemused any aspect of it seems to still be on the table. Arguably, this map provides the line of sight and reduces the thinking time.
quote:Depending on how the data on donations is made available, it could just be one person with some good programming skills. I'm not sure if I'd call what the programmer doing "political activity" anymore than I would say that the writers and editors of wikipedia articles on political events and people are engaging in "political activity". Defining it so widely seems to make the term lose some of its value as a differentiator ("everything you do is political action" stuff). And right now, all I'm arguing about is political activity (or whatever kat wants to call it) - I'd have to think a fair bit more before starting a discussion of how much of our general lives belong in the public sphere.
If the person(s) responsible are employed in Information Technology, one could (and I'm sure some will) make the claim that the time they invested in this project amounted to a monetarally quantifiable contribution to a political cause.
Once the tiger is out of the cage, one doesn't get as much control of whom it bites.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
If the person you're arguing with doesn't accept that the set of core features of the items being compared are similar enough for an argument dealing with that set of core features to succeed, then reasoning by analogy doesn't get you very far in a discussion. That's why it's not a very fruitful method, by and large.
I think there are enough differences between private citizens and government organizations with a mission to maintain the peace (or whatever justification they used for the actions you describe) that it's pretty silly to argue that they'll do the same sort of thing when presented with information in the same manner (and this second claim is rather dubious, given that the information each group is getting is almost certainly different in both delivery and content).
.... What political cause - specifically - would you account this person's work to? I'm confused why you think someone will make this claim, anyway...
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:That being said, I'm really not that torn up if it "aids" criminal activity.
That's the key, isn't it? You think the people on the map deserve what is coming to them, so you don't care if people who wish them to do violence are pointed in their direction.
That's despicable. You're the same Lisa.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
Believe what you will, kat. Your inability to understand a point that is explained to you by six different posters makes me rather weary at the thought of arguing with you. It'd be like arguing with my office plant - pointless, and others would probably think less of me for engaging.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Jhai, you're taking kind of an outrageous line here.
I hate Prop 8, and think little of the people who backed it. I'm glad information about political donations is publicly available. But putting together a hit list like this is mean-spirited and asking for trouble.
There is something to the idea that people deserve what they get in this regard. I wouldn't cry many tears for white supremacists who had their houses egged because their addresses were public knowledge, and the same goes for gay-bashers. There are worse things that happen in the world than a few people being harrassed for holding contemptible ideals. But that doesn't make it OK.
And it's possible something worse than harrassment might happen. I certainly wouldn't want that on my head.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
Destineer, you've clearly read nothing I've written here, if you think I'm condoning violence towards people or property. I simply don't think that saying "this thing makes it easier to commit violence" is a reason to ban a thing, or even condemn it as a "bad" thing. Cars make it easier to commit violence by running people over. Google maps make it easier to rob stores by plotting routes and giving store details like hours of operation. I don't think that this map of donators is a "hit list" of donators any more than google maps is a "hit list" of stores to rob.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:I don't think that this map of donators is a "hit list" of donators any more than google maps is a "hit list" of stores to rob.
I think it's slightly more of a hitlist than that. Google maps is a general purpose tool that includes everyone and everything. This map includes only individuals and businesses that have taken a specific political action. I think it's also fair to assume that most of these people were unaware that this information would be public and would probably prefer that it not be while most businesses *want* their location to be public.
Not that I see it as much of a hitlist. I think most people will use it the way I did - to make a note of whether there was anyone that I knew or that lived close to me that supported the measure, purely out of curiosity. I already know most of my neighbors are opposed to gay marriage.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
So, what is a legitimate use for this kind of detailed map?
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: So, what is a legitimate use for this kind of detailed map?
What is a legitimate use of the ward map of non-members that is handed out to missionaries?
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
Well, seriously. How else are pro-gay marriage missionaries going to find the right doors to knock on?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Jhai,
That you can't understand that your sniggering approval of the publication of a hit list is contemptible is your problem.
Posted by Achilles (Member # 7741) on :
Now first off, I don't think that this should have happened. (That's merely my opinion.)
But, I should think that this information could influence local consumers who do, or do not wish, to support those businesses listed. A loss or gain in business could result, without any violent consequences.
By the way, I am not surprised by some of the individuals listed.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
kat: What about MattP's suggestion that it could be a list of potential converts?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP: ... I think it's also fair to assume that most of these people were unaware that this information would be public ...
Surely the decision that donation records were to be public was made quite a while before the actual campaign, no?
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
Personally, I would use the list to avoid doing business with those who had donated, except that there aren't any people who have donated in my area. I hardly think that's a "hit-list" use of the map. In fact, I can see no difference between using it this way and using a website that lists all the companies that have donated to X cause to avoid doing business with them.
edit: Mucus, this is a standing law for all donations, at least in California.
[ February 04, 2009, 03:16 PM: Message edited by: Jhai ]
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Surely the decision that donation records were to be public was made quite a while before the actual campaign, no?
Sure, but I'm not discussing legality or what people *should* know. I was responding to the comparison with a listing of businesses on the regular Google maps application.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: I am not arguing that, scibum.
I do think that this kind of map is a hostile act that while I don't wish it to be illegal, it should be recognized as the hostile, sketchy, tacky act that it was.
I think that donating hundreds or thousands of dollars to make sure gay people can't get married is hostile, sketchy, and tacky act and I think the people who did so should have to own up to doing so.
Shame has historically been a strong, non-violent way for society to attempt to correct undesirable behavior.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP:
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: So, what is a legitimate use for this kind of detailed map?
What is a legitimate use of the ward map of non-members that is handed out to missionaries?
Do they have such maps? I mean obviously in Taiwan such a map would be impracticable, but does anyone know of any mission where maps of that kind are distributed?
Mightycow:
quote:Shame has historically been a strong, non-violent way for society to attempt to correct undesirable behavior.
Sorta like religious households who shame their homosexual children into running away, committing suicide, or generally hating themselves?
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
I've seen such a map before in our ward. I don't think I've been in a ward where a ward map wasn't readily available and it seems like the obvious way to point out to the missionaries who they might want to talk to.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Sorta like religious households who shame their homosexual children into running away, committing suicide, or generally hating themselves?
Sure. You can point the gun at an enemy soldier or at your own child.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
That's nice rhetoric, Mighty Cow, but it doesn't mean anything and since you chose to express it with my words, it looks juvenile. It's the equivelent of "I'm rubber, you're glue."
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Sorta like religious households who shame their homosexual children into running away, committing suicide, or generally hating themselves?
There have always been people who abuse means of coercion, that doesn't mean it's impossible to use it in a positive way.
People verbally abuse their children, but that doesn't make it abuse when a parent yells at her child not to run into traffic.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
Also, there's a bit of a difference in how we treat children versus how we treat adults. Poor analogy overall.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: That's nice rhetoric, Mighty Cow, but it doesn't mean anything and since you chose to express it with my words, it looks juvenile. It's the equivelent of "I'm rubber, you're glue."
Actually, the reason I used your words is because I'm directly arguing against what you're saying, and making the point that your logic applies equally well to your opposition.
If it doesn't mean anything, it follows that your original statement doesn't mean anything either.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
MattP: That is interesting.
MightyCow: You are right there are certainly positive ways to coerce. I've found shame to be one of last resort and only useful in influencing those who know better but chose to ignore what they know to be true.
Jhai: I'd ask you how an opponent of homosexuality could positively shame a stranger into changing, (assuming same-sex marriages are in fact incorrect) but it seems to me that you have already sanctioned courses of action that I think are not correct.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: MightyCow: You are right there are certainly positive ways to coerce. I've found shame to be one of last resort and only useful in influencing those who know better but chose to ignore what they know to be true.
I would suggest that shame works most effectively to change behavior, but probably not well to change thoughts or attitudes.
If people are ashamed to donate money to anti-gay movements, they probably won't actually stop believing that it's wrong for gay people to get married, but if they keep those thoughts to themselves, and let the gay people live their lives as they choose, the shame has worked.
The reason shame doesn't work to "make a gay kid straight" is that all the shame can do is make the person stop performing public actions where the shaming can take place. The shame doesn't stop the thoughts or the desires, which is actually what the parents are trying to change.
Shame doesn't change the person, it just makes certain public actions undesirable. If you simply want to change the public actions, it's an effective tool. If you want to change the person's motivations, thoughts, or feelings, it's not effective at all.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
quote:Jhai: I'd ask you how an opponent of homosexuality could positively shame a stranger into changing, (assuming same-sex marriages are in fact incorrect) but it seems to me that you have already sanctioned courses of action that I think are not correct.
Could I ask what that is, exactly, that you think is not correct? As I (thought I) made clear near the start of this thread, my interest in knowing who around me donates has little to nothing to do with shaming (as I define it). I just have limited resources - and no desire to spend money in businesses which donate to Prop 8, and no desire to go out of my way to spend time with individuals who donate to Prop 8. It's not about making them change their minds or their ways. Others in this thread have called this action "shaming" - *shrug*. I don't care much about names.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
MightyCow:
quote:If people are ashamed to donate money to anti-gay movements, they probably won't actually stop believing that it's wrong for gay people to get married, but if they keep those thoughts to themselves, and let the gay people live their lives as they choose, the shame has worked.
In that sense perhaps it has worked. When they leave town and start condensing into separate areas that start to adopt a persecuted minority sentiment real problems can occur.
quote:Shame doesn't change the person, it just makes certain public actions undesirable. If you simply want to change the public actions, it's an effective tool. If you want to change the person's motivations, thoughts, or feelings, it's not effective at all.
I doubt that if you successfully made it really embarrassing to vote a certain way that you would in any meaningful way solve the core problem, even if I grant you that those voting against for Proposition 8 have a problem.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:I doubt that if you successfully made it really embarrassing to vote a certain way that you would in any meaningful way solve the core problem, even if I grant you that those voting against for Proposition 8 have a problem.
Not voting, donating - attempting to amplify one's influence beyond an individual vote. The vote in California was swayed from a status quo support for SSM by a well-funded public campaign.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
BlackBlade:
I'm not sure who you are proposing will become a persecuted minority, the same-sex married couples, or those who paid to make sure they couldn't get married. Either way, it's a slippery slope. I don't see either happening any time soon.
You can't make people think anything. You can prevent them from taking harmful actions. I don't expect anyone who thinks same-sex marriage is a sin to change any time soon, but if I can ignore them, I'm happy enough.
I'm sure that gay couples would love it if everyone realized that they're individuals, who should be appreciated or not on their individual merits, and that their love for their partner isn't wrong or evil.
At the same time, if they are simply left alone to live their lives, most of them don't give a rat's behind what a handful of people somewhere else feel about them.
A lot of people in America think all black people are ignorant and violent and lazy, but we've still got a black president. If gay people can get married to their partners, the people who think that's wrong can go on thinking it's wrong in their homes and churches all they want.
Live and let live.
Posted by lobo (Member # 1761) on :
"Not voting, donating - attempting to amplify one's influence beyond an individual vote. The vote in California was swayed from a status quo support for SSM by a well-funded public campaign."
That "swaying" went both ways my friend...
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:That "swaying" went both ways my friend...
No it didn't. Prior to campaigning by either side the status quo was support for SSM. It swayed in one direction - to the other side. That doesn't mean both sides didn't spend money, but it does mean that campaigning (money!) is what changed things.
Less money to the pro-8 side would have weakened their campaign, regardless of how (in)effectively the anti-8 campaign was run.
Posted by lobo (Member # 1761) on :
"No it didn't. Prior to campaigning by either side the status quo was support for SSM."
Oh please. If the status quo was support for SSm, then why has EVERY vote by the people gone against it?
By the way, the against money was quite a bit more than the for money.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Oh please. If the status quo was support for SSm, then why has EVERY vote by the people gone against it?
Polling soon after the Supreme Court ruling showed double-digit support for SSM. Over the course of the campaign the margin declined in polling to a near dead heat by the time of the election.
quote:By the way, the against money was quite a bit more than the for money.
Irrelevant to my point. As I said:
quote:Less money to the pro-8 side would have weakened their campaign, regardless of how (in)effectively the anti-8 campaign was run.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jhai: If the person you're arguing with doesn't accept that the set of core features of the items being compared are similar enough for an argument dealing with that set of core features to succeed, then reasoning by analogy doesn't get you very far in a discussion. That's why it's not a very fruitful method, by and large.
That's assuming I'm only presenting the argument to you, who does not accept the analogy, and not to others who may accept the analogy as a) a case for my argument and/or b) a refutation of your own.
quote:I think there are enough differences between private citizens and government organizations with a mission to maintain the peace (or whatever justification they used for the actions you describe) that it's pretty silly to argue that they'll do the same sort of thing when presented with information in the same manner (and this second claim is rather dubious, given that the information each group is getting is almost certainly different in both delivery and content).
According to Wikipedia, the COINTELPRO activities were performed with a stated mission of "protecting national security, preventing violence, and maintaining the existing social and political order". Despite that seemingly benign motivation, an agency created for and supposedly accountable to the public went on to engage in a number of activities that many would agree were outside of their purview and downright despicable.
I suggest that with similar means at their disposal, it is unlikely that there will not be a similar result in groups and individuals with less accountability and oversight.
quote:What political cause - specifically - would you account this person's work to? I'm confused why you think someone will make this claim, anyway...
Presumably, if the donors can be accounted to a "Yes on 8" campaign of some sort, the progammer's could be similarly accounted to a "No on 8" campaign.
I'm not saying I would make such a claim. But if it came under legal scrutiny, others might, and I'm not sure such a claim would be readily dismissed.
I don't think that's a comparable example, as there's perfect clarity as to which side a radio talk show guy is taking when he says he's for or against something. The creator of this map could say he simply did it to make information more accessible to the public, or as a test of his programming abilities, or even to let the donors to the pro-Prop 8 groups band together and know each other more. There's really no clear indication into the motives of the programmer - and I also fail to see how he could be donating his time to a cause that has already ended before he made the map. Proposition 8 has been decided.
I realize you aren't making that claim, but it'd be silly one for anyone to make.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Mighty Cow:
quote:I'm not sure who you are proposing will become a persecuted minority, the same-sex married couples, or those who paid to make sure they couldn't get married. Either way, it's a slippery slope. I don't see either happening any time soon.
I think that neither should be put in a place of shame.
quote:Live and let live.
I completely agree, though perhaps our definition of "living" may disagree.
It just seems that sometimes you rejoice at the prospect of your opposition being harangued. Perhaps you don't mean to, if so, so much the better.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:When they leave town and start condensing into separate areas that start to adopt a persecuted minority sentiment real problems can occur.
Like, um, the situation that ultimately produced the state of Utah?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:When they leave town and start condensing into separate areas that start to adopt a persecuted minority sentiment real problems can occur.
Like, um, the situation that ultimately produced the state of Utah?
I believe that certain aspects of Utah are definitely draw backs. Personally I think Utah was a place Mormons were forced to go, not a place that was the best possible outcome for the people.
edit: Have you ever been to Utah Tom?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP:
quote:That "swaying" went both ways my friend...
No it didn't. Prior to campaigning by either side the status quo was support for SSM. It swayed in one direction - to the other side. That doesn't mean both sides didn't spend money, but it does mean that campaigning (money!) is what changed things.
Less money to the pro-8 side would have weakened their campaign, regardless of how (in)effectively the anti-8 campaign was run.
You are making a logical leap you haven't justified. The fact that polling before the Prop 8 campaign began was pro SSM, does not prove that money spent on the pro Prop 8 campaign is what made the difference. It does suggest that something happened during the campaign to shift the balance, but it does not indicate what that something was.
For example, its possible that the anti-prop 8 campaign backfired causing more people to oppose SSM (Sort of like the Sarah Palin campaign). Or its possible that an outside factor not directly related to the prop 8 campaign is what made the difference. For example, the Obama campaign inspired record numbers of black voters to come to the polls and those black voters voted overwhelmingly against prop 8.
It's entirely possible that the difference between the post court decision polls on SSM and the election night results did not actually reflect any swaying of popular opinion but reflected only difference in voter turnout that were not directly related to prop 8.
And its also possible that the money donated to the pro Prop 8 campaign is what made the difference.
My point is, that it is that evidence that a shift occurred is not proof of what caused the shift.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
Another possible explanation- people lie to pollsters. Initial polling, people didn't want to express the non-PC answer, but as the campaign went on, they felt less ashamed to tell the truth about how they were voting.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jhai: I don't think that's a comparable example, as there's perfect clarity as to which side a radio talk show guy is taking when he says he's for or against something. The creator of this map could say he simply did it to make information more accessible to the public, or as a test of his programming abilities, or even to let the donors to the pro-Prop 8 groups band together and know each other more. There's really no clear indication into the motives of the programmer - and I also fail to see how he could be donating his time to a cause that has already ended before he made the map. Proposition 8 has been decided.
I realize you aren't making that claim, but it'd be silly one for anyone to make.
I realized that, post-posting; I probably should have said something like "Repeal Proposition 8", if such a thing exists.
I think if it were intended for organizational purposes, a list of phone numbers or e-mail addresses would be more helpful. Most causes only need addresses if they're sending out physical mailings or planning a gathering or party.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: Since California voters passed a ban on gay marriage, some supporters of the measure have found themselves squarely in the bull's-eye of angry gay rights activists.
It's no secret who gave money for and against the controversial amendment to the state's constitution, known as Proposition 8. California's secretary of state publicized the lists of contributors, which were picked up by local media and Web sites.
quote: Richard Raddon, director of the Los Angeles Film Festival, and Scott Eckern, director of the California Musical Theater in Sacramento, are devout Mormons. Both made contributions to Yes on 8, and both got demands for their resignations from gay rights protestors. They quit so their organizations wouldn't face further controversy. Ironically, the film festival has been instrumental in introducing works by gay and lesbian filmmakers to a broader audience — and the musical theater included works by gay playwrights and composers.
As expected, the people who gave money are being targeted and I do believe that some of the harsher protesters are going to turn more people against SSM.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
So you're saying that your pre-existing biases have been confirmed by your interpretation of some data?
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
He didn't say anything about biases. He's saying that his previous belief that the people who gave money will be targeted has been confirmed by the data. And given the data includes people who were made to resign over their donations, that interpretation of the data is correct for at least some cases.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
I will admit to being a bit puzzled that DarkKnight even brought this up. That people who gave money to pro-Prop 8 groups have had negative reactions from others because of their donations is not a fact under question - before the map had ever been created this was happening.
I'm a bit surprised that this is even unexpected - when you position yourself firmly on one side of a hotly contested issue, you shouldn't be surprised if there are consequences for your actions. We can discuss whether the consequences are just or acceptable, but that's not what DarkKnight is doing.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
There's nothing new in this report at all. All of the events reported occured soon after the election. It was broadcast on NPR yesterday, presumably to beef up coverage around the hearings, but it's not really news.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
TD, you always have to try so hard at attempting to sound so clever. I am saying what I believed would happen did in fact actually happen. I had hoped that instead of lashing out against people who supported Prop 8, gay activists could have used the data to present themselves as normal people who want the same things their opponents want. Many times getting to know the other side on a personal side can sway opinion. Not all the time or in every situation but this is one instance where I believe talk is much more productive than hate or protests. Jhai, I brought this up because of the unintended consequences the backlash has. Specifically the one about the devout Mormon couple who were forced to resign. I thought it would be a point of interest here at Hatrack. I could be mistaken.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I am saying what I believed would happen did in fact actually happen.
Well, for one thing, the incidents you specifically mentioned predate this thread, and in fact were mentioned elsewhere on this board. You've managed to successfully predict the past. (Congratulations.) For another, you've cherry-picked your incidents: for all you know, many gay activists did use the data to present themselves as normal people who want the same things their opponents want, but weren't reported in the news sources you read. I believe that this is a symptom of a phenomenon that's been extensively discussed of late, and featured in a book (called True Enough) which I strongly recommend to you: basically, people are predisposed to find facts that do nothing but confirm what they already believe, making the value of those facts in isolation useless as proof except to themselves.
[ March 06, 2009, 01:54 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight: As expected, the people who gave money are being targeted and I do believe that some of the harsher protesters are going to turn more people against SSM.
An incidence of something happening that was already happening verifies your conclusions about the whole?
Sure thing, mr. pre-emptive bias. But don't go kidding yourself and think that support for same sex marriage is going to go down in the upcoming years. No amount of cherrypicking is gonna help you on that one.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Y'all here about the ruling in Montana that will affect this issue? I think the Ninth Circuit Court ruled that it was unlawful to publicize the names of church members who had contributed to a certain cause because the inidivual amounts were to small to have swayed the election and doing so has a chilling effect on civil activism.
Which prompted another lawsuit about this issue.
Yay for them! Sorry no link - I'm lazy. But it happened within the last two weeks.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
It's been the case in the past (I believe - don't know where I read it, so take it with a grain of salt), that on specific issues, the Courts have ruled that the chance of extreme violence is too high to allow for the names of donators to a cause to be made public.
Depending on the circumstances surrounding how these rulings are made, I'm okay with the idea of a case-by-case ruling on this.
However, kat, do you think it should be a general rule for all donations to not be public? For donations below a certain amount? Or for donations by private individuals?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Donations below a certain amount, on all issues.
This does NOT apply to candidates. Donations to individual condidates and parties should be public. But to issues, like this? The chilling and undemocratic effect of being held up as targets for the opposition is much greater than the danger. Absolutely, no question.
It did not rest on whether or not violence was threatened. Just the exposure had a chilling effect on participating in public activism, and that was bad. Go goole for the article - it's out there.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Go goole for the article - it's out there.
Tried. Failed. If you can dig up a link, I'd like to see it.
Posted by ladyday (Member # 1069) on :
Is this right?
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:I believe that this is a symptom of a phenomenon that's been extensively discussed of late, and featured in a book (called True Enough) which I strongly recommend to you: basically, people are predisposed to find facts that do nothing but confirm what they already believe, making the value of those facts in isolation useless as proof except to themselves.
But then you could say your post was a symptom of the same phenomenon. Are you predisposed to interpret DarkKnight's posts in such a way as to confirm your preexisting belief that people just cherry pick facts to back up their own preexisting beliefs?
I'd say a more accurate interpretation of his post is that he previously asserted that people who gave money would be targeted, then he discovered this news story (which he may not have known about before), and concluded correctly that it demonstrates that at least some people have been targeted. Yes, it did match his earlier prediction, but it's not cherry picking unless there are a bunch of other news stories out there that he's knowingly ignoring which contradict this data point.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: Sure thing, mr. pre-emptive bias. But don't go kidding yourself and think that support for same sex marriage is going to go down in the upcoming years. No amount of cherrypicking is gonna help you on that one.
This sounds like you think I am against SSM which I am not, mr. jump to conclusions
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
It could be that DarkKnight didn't know that he was reading old news.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Weird that you would think that, because my quote does not suppose that you are individually for or against SSM!
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
I too would be interested in the article or any other sort of citation, but have not had luck googling. I'm particularly interested in what the court meant by "chilling effect", which isn't clear. It might mean that the courts felt that there would be a "chilling effect" because of the potential of violence, whether or not threats had actually been issued.
I've seen enough of the media's ability to botch the explanations of social science studies to be doubtful of their reporting on a nuanced issue.
Edit: thanks for the link, ladyday. I still want to read the actual court's ruling before coming to any conclusion, but initially I think that the case sounds very, very different from what's happening in California.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote:Well, for one thing, the incidents you specifically mentioned predate this thread, and in fact were mentioned elsewhere on this board.
My insincere apologies for not reading every post on every thread on this board. I heard the story, thought it was interesting, remembered this thread and made a post. I will be sure to check in with you to make we only post one subject one time.
quote: You've managed to successfully predict the past. (Congratulations.) For another, you've cherry-picked your incidents: for all you know, many gay activists did use the data to present themselves as normal people who want the same things their opponents want, but weren't reported in the news sources you read.
So I made a post and a comment on the article and the information in the article. The source I read and listened to is NPR. Last time I checked NPR is hardly a right wing conspiracy outlet. Oh, wait, I forgot to add that where I obtain my sources was in fact mentioned elsewhere on this board so you probably shouldn't have mentioned that because we covered it elsewhere.
quote: I believe that this is a symptom of a phenomenon that's been extensively discussed of late, and featured in a book (called True Enough) which I strongly recommend to you: basically, people are predisposed to find facts that do nothing but confirm what they already believe, making the value of those facts in isolation useless as proof except to themselves.
Which accurately describes your attempts, and Samprimary, to paint me as something I am not. I am well aware of the book and of the predispostion. I would have hoped NPR presented a different side to the arguement but they did not. You and Samprimary lash out quickly with your predispostion as to what you believe I have said. Tresopax had a much better response and seems to have understood my post. I am getting the feeling that you think I am against SSM? I believe in marriage, or at least in marriage as I define it which is a legal and emotional contract between two loving adults. The legal part is easier because you can define many aspects of the 'bond' between two adults. The emotional part is much more difficult because love is very hard to define. I love my wife, she loves me, and we love being married to each other. If two people of any sex, race, religon, whatever, love each like we do then they should be able to share that love in marriage with all the happiness and hardships that may come. If someone else expressed that sentiment elsewhere I apologize for posting it again.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: It could be that DarkKnight didn't know that he was reading old news.
The news may be old but it is recent on NPR. From the start of the article...
quote: Morning Edition, March 5, 2009 · Since California voters passed a ban on gay marriage, some supporters of the measure have found themselves squarely in the bull's-eye of angry gay rights activists.
March 5, 2009 was the date so to me is recent news
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Sorry, DarkKnight. What I should have said is that you might not know that NPR was reporting old news. Not that you weren't paying attention or that you were getting your news from an old source.
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
That is true, kmb, I did not know they were reporting old news
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Which accurately describes your attempts, and Samprimary, to paint me as something I am not.
Be a champ and tell me exactly what you think I'm trying to paint you as.
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
Hypothetical situation:
Several high profile California businessmen donated money to fight against Proposition 8. Their names are published, and activist groups who disagree with them throw a fit and shame them into resigning. How would the public perceive that? Hate mongering? Discrimination? You can bet the courts would be hearing about the rights of people who donated to campaigns to remain anonymous.
Personally, I'm a little bummed out - I donated 100 dollars to the Yes on 8 campaign and my name didn't show up on any of the lists I saw published. Dang - I wanted to stand up and be counted with what I supported.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I'm sure you did. Pat yourself on the back.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Unsurprisingly, many of the people who support SSM are accustomed to discrimination and hate mongering. A little extra would likely go unnoticed.
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
quote:A little extra would likely go unnoticed.
I kind of doubt that. No matter who we're talking about.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
quote:Unsurprisingly, many of the people who support SSM are accustomed to discrimination and hate mongering. A little extra would likely go unnoticed.
Really? I know that practitioners of same-sex marriage are often victims of discrimination. But supporters, from what I've seen, are much more frequently lauded for their tolerance and forward-thinking. The criticisms they endure in political debates aren't particularly more vitriolic than what they administer themselves to the other side.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Many (you will note that I wrote "many" not "all") of the supporters of SSM are gay. Most of them suffer discrimination and hate-mongering as a matter of course. Often (again not always) from some (again not all) of the people who are now whining about being the target of discrimination and hate-mongering.
Discrimination and hate-mongering are never good. That people are upset at being discriminated against because they are discriminating against others, however, inspires very little sympathy.
"Oh, those mean gay people! They are being nasty about being kept second-class citizens."
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
Then what you're saying is the gay people suffer from discrimination — which I doubt anyone will dispute — not that supporters of same-sex marriage suffer from discrimination. All right. Nothing new there.
I don't have a huge problem with people getting upset at one another in a debate like this. It's kind of to be expected when such dearly-held beliefs and desires are at issue, and both sides need to have a thicker skin than they often do.
In this particular case, though, I think it would do everyone a lot of good if people could cool down a little bit. Not everyone among your political opponents is a moral cretin who justly deserves any punishment you can dole out. Treating them as such only makes them angrier, and makes them feel more justified in opposing you, because you are "obviously" (to them) a moral cretin yourself.
A little more understanding, and a little less "Their opinion is so terrible that nothing could ever redeem them!" would go a long way.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
So perhaps you could squeeze out a little understanding as to why people might be fed up enough to discriminate against the people who are discriminating against them?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Not everyone among your political opponents is a moral cretin who justly deserves any punishment you can dole out.
Not any punishment, sure. But I think they pretty clearly deserve my stern disapproval.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Many (you will note that I wrote "many" not "all") of the supporters of SSM are gay. Most of them suffer discrimination and hate-mongering as a matter of course. Often (again not always) from some (again not all) of the people who are now whining about being the target of discrimination and hate-mongering.
Actually, it seems to me that gays must be a minority even within the subset supporters of gay marriage. The percentage of people who support SSM is somewhere in the region of forty or fifty percent; the percentage that's gay is somewhere around 5%. So if all gays support SSM, a reasonable assumption, then they account for about 10-12% of such supporters.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
I generally don't think celebrity activists are anything special, but Sean Penn made a fine point at the Oscars.
Same Sex Marriage is coming. It WILL happen in the next 20 years. All the people who are the most vocal against it now really need to think about how their kids and grand kids are going to see them.
Some people in our generation, maybe some of us, are embarrassed to say that our grandparents were really racist. Do you want your grand kids to have to apologize about you to their friends?
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
The issue with marriage is that everyone gets to have their own ideas of who's really married. Government recognized marriage is just one piece of that puzzle.
As always, I wish government would just stop pretending that their fancy piece of paper had anything to do with who's forming a family. I'd rather they just called it a civil union and considered it a binding conract between two people willing to take on certain responsibilities for each other in exchange for certain benefits.
It'd be a lot easier in the long run with a lot less baggage, in my opinion.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: I generally don't think celebrity activists are anything special, but Sean Penn made a fine point at the Oscars.
Same Sex Marriage is coming. It WILL happen in the next 20 years. All the people who are the most vocal against it now really need to think about how their kids and grand kids are going to see them.
Some people in our generation, maybe some of us, are embarrassed to say that our grandparents were really racist. Do you want your grand kids to have to apologize about you to their friends?
I'm sorry but I'm not going to live my life based on how my unborn grandchildren may believe. I fully expect my grand kids to believe firmly in the wisdom of the day, and in some things I may be an old coot who just won't see the light. I hope we won't be too guilty of either of those sins.
There's something to be said about doing something for your posterity that you yourself will never benefit from, but there's another thing to be said for those who see the waves of inevitability, and say, "I've made my voice heard, my conviction remains."
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
quote:Some people in our generation, maybe some of us, are embarrassed to say that our grandparents were really racist. Do you want your grand kids to have to apologize about you to their friends?
I'm sorry, but I think just about all of us who are opposed to same sex marriage (I can only speak for my friends and family and acquaintances, of course) would define the reasons for our beliefs as being related to our view of what the social institution of marriage means and not as being directed by hate of any particular set of people. Just because you decide that my beliefs are hateful and discriminatory does not mean that that's what they're actually motivated by. Comparing objections to same sex marriage to racism is false and misleading. California blacks were largely supportive of Proposition 8 - among black women, 75% voted for the measure. Is it really fair to draw a comparison to racism?
I personally believe that my grandchildren would be ashamed if they knew that I had turned against the gospel of Christ and the teachings of the living Prophet that I intend to teach them are true.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I think just about all of us who are opposed to same sex marriage (I can only speak for my friends and family and acquaintances, of course) would define the reasons for our beliefs as being related to our view of what the social institution of marriage means...
Yes. It's quite well-rehearsed.
quote:California blacks were largely supportive of Proposition 8 - among black women, 75% voted for the measure. Is it really fair to draw a comparison to racism?
Why not?
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
Racism is thinking one group of people is superior to another based on external, physical characteristics. Being opposed to same-sex mariage generally rests on a disagreement over the definition of the word marriage.
While the results may be similar (denial of civil rights sometimes crossing into physical violence), the reasoning is completely different.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Racism had plenty of "reasoning" that went into it as well. In both cases, I don't think it has anything to do with reasoning or definitions. You can come up with arguments to support the belief but I think it's rooted in the same fear of the Other.
If people really cared about what the Bible calls an abomination, they'd be trying to ban shellfish as well. If people cared about sticking to the traditional definition of marriage, they'd argue for women that are essentially property and men being able to have multiple wives.
If I meet someone who campaigns for the above, I'll respect them for their consistency and honesty (even if I also think they're a menace to society). Until then, I have a hard time taking the anti-gay-marriage movement seriously as anything other than a gut reaction to something that's icky.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"Racism is thinking one group of people is superior to another based on external, physical characteristics. Being opposed to same-sex mariage generally rests on a disagreement over the definition of the word marriage."
And if you dig into why the state shouldn't alter its understanding of who may have a legally recognized marriage, you find that the reasoning is usually "straights are better than gays."
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
For LDS, opposition to gay marriage is not actually connected to the Bible.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
You're right. Its opposition based on what you believe god says about marriage. And, since what you believe god says is subject to change if a certain person says so, its opposition based on whim.
I'm not sure how that can be considered better,than basing opposition on the bible. It seems to me to be quite a bit worse, actually.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Ah. What is it based on then? (I know there are plenty of religions out there other than traditional Christianity that still are opposed to gay marriage. I think most Americans opposed to gay marriage use the "static definition of marriage" argument, and I think the flaws with that are still relevant to Mormons.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:I generally don't think celebrity activists are anything special, but Sean Penn made a fine point at the Oscars.
Same Sex Marriage is coming. It WILL happen in the next 20 years. All the people who are the most vocal against it now really need to think about how their kids and grand kids are going to see them.
This is not a very good argument though, for the simple reason that there's not really any solid reason to assume SSM is coming.
I'd think a more likely outcome for the issue, if it gets resolved in the next 20 years, is a general agreement on the establishment of "civil unions" as equivalent to marriages. If that happens, my guess is our kids and grandkids will wonder why our generation made such a big fuss over the issue.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
" for the simple reason that there's not really any solid reason to assume SSM is coming."
Across all groups, acceptance of equitable marriage strongly correlates to age.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Saying it is opposition based on whim displays either a fundamental misunderstanding or else a fundamental disdain for religion.
Neither makes you worth listening to.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Saying it is opposition based on whim displays either a fundamental misunderstanding or else a fundamental disdain for religion.
Or simple disagreement with the source of your prophets' inspirations.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
It actually displays a fundamental belief that there is no god. That leads me to hold in disdain bad behavior that is justified by dictates from god.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
Here's the thing. Everyone's the referee in their own minds; they get to make all the calls. Everyone gets to decide what they believe about other people. Rail against it all you want, blame logical inconsistancy, but we all do it.
Right now, the government thinks it gets to set the standard for who's married and who isn't. As long as it does that, everyone who wants to make other people fall in line with their version of reality will be lobbying the government to use their definition. It's not really about agenda; it's about personality.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
kmbboots:
quote:So perhaps you could squeeze out a little understanding as to why people might be fed up enough to discriminate against the people who are discriminating against them?
I wasn't aware that I had failed to show such understanding. In fact, I specifically said that I understand why people get upset, but behaving this way is counterproductive, and hurts the process more than it helps the cause.
The fact that you feel a certain way does not mean that expressing yourself that way is right or productive. Sometimes it is, but this is a case where I think it is not.
This insistence on painting the entire opposing camp with a single dastardly brush is the most lastingly harmful part of this entire debate. Like others have said, same-sex marriage is very likely an inevitability. We can get there through peaceful persuasion, or by demonizing half the country and leaving permanent scars. I don't think either strategy is faster than the other at achieving the goals of the movement. The latter is more emotionally satisfying, and also more irresponsible, in an adolescent-shouting-"I-hate-you-dad!" sort of way.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
Paul, do you have disdain for good behavior that was taught to a person via the concept of God? I'm not asking about your opinion of the teaching process — I'm wondering if you have disdain for the actual behavior itself, long after the teaching process is complete?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Puppy, I agree that hate mongering is not helpful nor is it right. You might note in a careful reading of my posts that I said so.
I still can't summon up sympathy for the people whining about it.
Paul, saying that opposition to SSM is based on whim does not, in all cases, display a fundamental belief that there is no God though it may in your case. In some cases, it displays a belief that some people are simply wrong about what God wants.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
I hold in disdain the justification of "god said so," and I seperately hold in disdain bad behavior. When the two are combined, the level of disdain is compounded.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
Raymond, LDS believe in a current prophet. The belief does still boil down to a "God said so" reason, but it comes from modern revelation. Most LDS will cite the Proclamation of the Family as their reason for general opposition to ssm, not any Biblical source. There are also some statements directly regarding prop8 from the current prophet. However, there are numerous LDS (including myself) who can justify why those modern prophecies still allow them to vote the other way.
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
quote:And if you dig into why the state shouldn't alter its understanding of who may have a legally recognized marriage, you find that the reasoning is usually "straights are better than gays."
Maybe some people see it this way. I don't. And I certainly don't think it's "usually" the case. Here are some reasons I can think of that are very real motivations for people to oppose SSM:
They believe that gays being legally "married" will cause their religious organizations to be nailed with anti-discrimination policies for continuing to practice and teach what they've practiced and taught for years.
They believe that adoption agencies will be forced to place children with gay families. They have a corollary belief that being raised without a father and a mother is psychologically damaging to children.
They believe that public schools will teach their children that homosexual lifestyles are acceptable and that people who teach them otherwise (even their own parents) are hateful bigots.
They believe that homosexual behavior is sinful and that people are not happy when they are living sinful lives. Therefore, it should not be the state's place to condone it.
They believe that making marriage a "civil right" opens the door to other controversial, and in their view harmful, forms of marriage being legalized.
.....
I'm not saying that you have to agree with any of these reasons. I'm just saying that these are reasons I've frequently heard from people I know who are opposed to same sex marriage. I realize that some people are very vocal and nasty about it - the type of people who have rallies holding signs that say "God hates fags." I'm telling you that these people are a very extreme minority and that even among people who are generally very socially conservative (I live in a predominantly Mormon state) there is a VERY real and constant struggle between the desire to do what's right according to religious teachings and a desire to make sure one is being compassionate and understanding of people who disagree.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: Raymond, LDS believe in a current prophet. The belief does still boil down to a "God said so" reason, but it comes from modern revelation.
In other words, "God said so recently.
Annie your list of reasons comes down to a list of fears. If you want to live in fear of people who live differently from you, that's fine. My objection is when you are proud of denying people the right to have families based on your fears.
Posted by Humean316 (Member # 8175) on :
quote:I hold in disdain the justification of "god said so," and I seperately hold in disdain bad behavior. When the two are combined, the level of disdain is compounded.
I don't think anyone should disdain a justification or a belief. Disagreement is perfectly acceptable and in fact useful, but disdain is an emotional reaction to something inherently logical and that never ends well.
That being said, I do agree that Divine Command Theory and morality combine problematically, at best. In this country, I think you need a reason to make something illegal and not to make it legal, and thus far, I have not heard a logical or sound argument for making SSM illegal.
[ March 08, 2009, 07:53 PM: Message edited by: Humean316 ]
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
quote: Maybe some people see it this way. I don't. And I certainly don't think it's "usually" the case. Here are some reasons I can think of that are very real motivations for people to oppose SSM:
They believe that gays being legally "married" will cause their religious organizations to be nailed with anti-discrimination policies for continuing to practice and teach what they've practiced and taught for years.
They believe that adoption agencies will be forced to place children with gay families. They have a corollary belief that being raised without a father and a mother is psychologically damaging to children.
They believe that public schools will teach their children that homosexual lifestyles are acceptable and that people who teach them otherwise (even their own parents) are hateful bigots.
They believe that homosexual behavior is sinful and that people are not happy when they are living sinful lives. Therefore, it should not be the state's place to condone it.
They believe that making marriage a "civil right" opens the door to other controversial, and in their view harmful, forms of marriage being legalized.
If you look at the starting points for these arguments, they come down to "straights are better then gays." Or, alternatively, "Its my right to teach my kids that straights are better then gays, and I don't want to lose that right."
Maybe you could find arguments that don't so neatly make my point for me?
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"I don't think anyone should disdain a justification or a belief. Disagreement is perfectly acceptable and in fact useful, but disdain is an emotional reaction to something inherently logical and that never ends well. "
I think MANY justifications and beliefs should be disdained. A lot of justifications and beliefs short circuit actual thought. Disdain, incidentally, as a verb, does not carry as a necessary component "emotional reaction."
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Or, alternatively, "Its my right to teach my kids that straights are better then gays, and I don't want to lose that right."
In all fairness, I would be absolutely fine with language that specifically protected any church that refused to perform a same-sex marriage. I have no sympathy for the other common argument, though, regarding clerks and other public officials who would not be able to in good conscience refer to these unions as marriages; the way I look at it, that's one of the things you give up when you choose to work for the public.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"In all fairness, I would be absolutely fine with language that specifically protected any church that refused to perform a same-sex marriage."
Oh, so would I. Though, honestly, I think that's already written into the first amendment. But I have no problem making that particular effect of the first amendment explicit.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
There is a difference between thinking that "X is better than Y" and thinking that "X should be sponsored by government, and Y should not". It's not always a question of "better" or "worse", but of specific differences between X and Y that warrant different responses.
Are all the things that you think should be regulated or supported by government "better" than all the things that you do not think should be regulated or supported by government?
It's not intended (or at least, it's not ALWAYS intended) as a slight that many advocates against same-sex marriage think that the differences between straight and gay marriage warrant different government responses. For instance, one of them, on the broad scale, is a gigantic baby factory, and the other is not. That's an easy point to argue against (eg, why not allow marriage between couples who have absolute control over when and how children are introduced into their relationship?) but the point stands that proposing different government responses based on the actual differences between situations isn't automatically a judgment of which is "better" than the other.
Actually, I wonder ... [undirected speculation to follow] ... what would be the ideal social order if 100% of the population were gay? Would it be traditional marriage, or something else entirely? I tend to think of traditional marriage as having been founded in the need to prepare for the inevitable flood of children that results from widespread heterosexual coupling. Society needs to know, without doubt, which children are whose responsibility, and to ensure that the majority of children arrive in households that are already stable and prepared for them. Because children crop up frequently and unexpectedly in heterosexual relationships, those relationships need to be solemnized, and made into households ready to receive children well in advance; ideally, before the couple begins mating. (At least, that's the standard in old-fashioned communities like mine.)
If we had a situation where the arrival of children wasn't frequent and unexpected, but was always the result of deliberate preparation and choice (as it is for homosexuals), would we have approached marriage in an entirely different way from the beginning of the practice? Would people apply for "household licenses" in advance of having children, but until that point, have no government involvement at all?
I have no idea if this has any relevance to the discussion at hand, but I thought of it, so I typed it
I think it might be significant, though, reading back, that the communities that oppose gay marriage tend also to promote abstinence before marriage. IE, within their communities, they are using marriage much the way I described above, as a means of regulating who is mating and who is generating children, and providing for those children's needs. To them, the idea of gay marriage is much more foreign to their existing purposes for the practice than it is for mainstream, largely-secular Americans, for whom marriage is much more about the couple and their love for each other than it is about social order and childrearing.
Anyway, forgive the tangent. I don't think these last few paragraphs lead to any particular solution, so I'm not advocating with them. We don't live in a hypothetical universe where 100% of anybody do anything, so hypotheticals are only useful for trying to understand each others' thought processes and approaches to things like marriage, and not for defining real-world policies.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:It's not intended (or at least, it's not ALWAYS intended) as a slight that many advocates against same-sex marriage think that the differences between straight and gay marriage warrant different government responses.
I say this in all sincerity: I have never in my life met someone who perceived a necessity for a different government response for these two sorts of marriages who felt that same-sex marriage was superior.
That said, I agree that those communities most opposed to same-sex marriage are those who believe that marriage is primarily for the purpose of childrearing. I certainly have no problem with people who choose to believe that. I only have a problem when they believe that no one else should be permitted to engage in any form of marriage that they don't find personally valuable.
Posted by Humean316 (Member # 8175) on :
quote:A lot of justifications and beliefs short circuit actual thought.
So does disdain.
But more to the point, what use is it to disdain a belief? Sure, it may provide a sense of intellectual superiority and it might even make you feel better, but it doesn't defeat arguments or progress a train of thought and it most certainly does not provide a better alternative for bad beliefs. I think it is much more difficult to do what is useful and far easier to fall back on tired dismissals of arguments.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
What do you propose would be a better alternative for someone's "bad" beliefs, when their beliefs in this case happen to be their religion?
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"but the point stands that proposing different government responses based on the actual differences between situations isn't automatically a judgment of which is "better" than the other."
And if we had actual legislative differences that reflected actual differences in the relationships, and lumped them all under the category of "marriage" then I'd be fine with that.
The problem , and the reason this always ends up back at a "better than" place, is that "marriage," is, aside from being a legal institution, a social institution. And its probably the most highly regarded, highly sought after, and highly idealized institution we've got. A major purpose of life, from the perspective of the western canon, is "to get married and live happily ever after."
If you allow legal access to that status to one group of people, but not to another, you are conveying that one group of people is better then the other.
That problem is unavoidable as long as marriage is legally recognized.
Posted by Humean316 (Member # 8175) on :
quote:What do you propose would be a better alternative for someone's "bad" beliefs, when their beliefs in this case happen to be their religion?
Well, I don't think a belief in a religion is as bad as you do, but I will say this. Some of the most rational and intelligent philosophical discussions I have ever had were with a preacher who was a part time instructor. I think people are much more intelligent and much more rational than we give them credit for, and if we trust that, then we will be better for it.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
And which beliefs did you propose as alternatives for that preacher's beliefs? Assuming you found his beliefs unsatisfactory, what other options did you give him?
Posted by Humean316 (Member # 8175) on :
quote:And which beliefs did you propose as alternatives for that preacher's beliefs? Assuming you found his beliefs unsatisfactory, what other options did you give him?
Our discussions about religion centered on three arguments: the ontological argument, whether faith was epistemically justifiable, and the inductive problem of evil. I believe the onotological argument is not sound, that faith is not epistemically justifiable, and that the inductive problem of evil proves the non-existence of a Western God. Let's just say he disagreed.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Annie: They believe that adoption agencies will be forced to place children with gay families. They have a corollary belief that being raised without a father and a mother is psychologically damaging to children.
Sounds familiar, and remains still unsubstantiated.
quote:They believe that homosexual behavior is sinful and that people are not happy when they are living sinful lives. Therefore, it should not be the state's place to condone it.
Christianity holds that being an atheist or being a member of another religion, like Islam or Buddhism is living in sin. So saying this and making this rationale is like saying that it 'should not be the state's place to condone' the ability to choose religions that are not Christianity.
No, sorry.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
You're wrong about Christianity, Samp. You have not summarized the beliefs accurately.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:" for the simple reason that there's not really any solid reason to assume SSM is coming."
Across all groups, acceptance of equitable marriage strongly correlates to age.
I'd expect acceptance of "equitable marriage" is already extremely high among all ages. The question is about SSM though.
Having said that, greater acceptance of something by young people doesn't indicate that it will be acceptable by everyone in the future. If that were the case, people in the 60's could have expected drug use to be legal by now.
quote:
quote:They believe that homosexual behavior is sinful and that people are not happy when they are living sinful lives. Therefore, it should not be the state's place to condone it.
Christianity holds that being an atheist or being a member of another religion, like Islam or Buddhism is living in sin. So saying this and making this rationale is like saying that it 'should not be the state's place to condone' the ability to choose religions that are not Christianity.
But that's why the Constitution forbids the government from regulating our ability to choose religions. That's the difference.
The Constitution does not forbid the government from defining the legal institution of marriage though. And defining marriage a certain way is definitely not equivalent to saying "you must believe in Christianity".
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"I'd expect acceptance of "equitable marriage" is already extremely high among all ages. "
Not really. Older voters vote to ban gays from getting married at a much higher rate then younger voters, and younger voters are well over 50% voting in favor of allowing gays to get married. On the other hand, I'm not sure that there was any age cohort that was more then 50% in favor of drug legalization in the 60's.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: "In all fairness, I would be absolutely fine with language that specifically protected any church that refused to perform a same-sex marriage."
Oh, so would I. Though, honestly, I think that's already written into the first amendment. But I have no problem making that particular effect of the first amendment explicit.
I've mentioned this here before, but the federal Canadian same-sex marriage statute does exactly this:
quote:3. It is recognized that officials of religious groups are free to refuse to perform marriages that are not in accordance with their religious beliefs.
3.1 For greater certainty, no person or organization shall be deprived of any benefit, or be subject to any obligation or sanction, under any law of the Parliament of Canada solely by reason of their exercise, in respect of marriage between persons of the same sex, of the freedom of conscience and religion guaranteed under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms or the expression of their beliefs in respect of marriage as the union of a man and woman to the exclusion of all others based on that guaranteed freedom.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
What are the reasons for denying SSM?
As stated in this thread.
1) It is against the faith of some why believe that the bible considers sexual relations between two of the same sex as a sin.
I am not of that faith so that does not convince me. My faith asserts that Love of each other is the most Christ-like of motivations one can have, and that such Love should be recognized. According to my faith such marriages, if conceived in love, built on trust, and strengthened with the sweat and tears of those in love, should not only be recognized as equal with the average marriage, but should be demonstrated as an example to us all.
2) It is against the teachings of the LDS Prophets.
Again, not my faith so that won't convince me.
3) They believe that gays being legally "married" will cause their religious organizations to be nailed with anti-discrimination policies for continuing to practice and teach what they've practiced and taught for years.
Fear mongering at its worst. I am not Catholic. My wife wanted to be married at a local Catholic church. They refused to do so unless I converted. There was no option of me suing the church for discrimination. If its a tenant of your belief that Homosexuality is a sin then why would you think that your church would be sued for not performing a homosexual wedding?
It does not convince me.
4) They believe that adoption agencies will be forced to place children with gay families.
And the problem with this is? Sure, if its a religious based orphanage I think that could fall under the Separation of Church and State clause, but otherwise why shouldn't stable same-sex couples raise kids?
4b) They have a corollary belief that being raised without a father and a mother is psychologically damaging to children.
So should we then force all single parents to surrender their children to the nearest married couple ASAP?
Being raised without a father and a mother may not be considered by some as the best option, but being raised in an abusive situation is the worst, and being raised in the bureaucratic nightmare that is our foster care system is almost as bad. What is the problem?
4c) Could it be that there is a bigger fear, that all homosexual couples are also pedophiles, and that children placed in there lecherous hands automatically will become victims?
There is no proof of this either, just terrible anecdotes that can be met with equally chilling heterosexual anecdotes starting with fairy tale evil step-mothers.
Not convinced.
5) They believe that public schools will teach their children that homosexual lifestyles are acceptable and that people who teach them otherwise (even their own parents) are hateful bigots.
Irrelevant. Smoke screen.
The first part, where schools will teach that Homosexual Lifestyles are acceptable will be taught in schools no matter the status of Gay Marriages.
The alternative, to teach nothing, or to promote the idea that Homosexual Lifestyles are Evil, Ugly, Wrong, Shameful, and Diseased will result in increased suicides from those children who are homosexual. It will result in increased violence to those suspected of such tendencies, and from those trying to hide such tendencies.
The second part is just bad teaching. I have no sympathy for a teacher losing their job for saying something so foul.
6) They believe that homosexual behavior is sinful and that people are not happy when they are living sinful lives. Therefore, it should not be the state's place to condone it.
There are other things that are considered sins by groups that the state condones. Working on the Sabbath (Jewish/Christian), Eating Pork(Jewish/Muslim), Eating Beef (Hindu).
I don't see any work on removing government subsidies for those sins.
I know a gay couple that are a lot happier since they found each other than when they were trying to pass as straight, so the happiness argument comes across as flat and uninformed.
It also comes across as a bit egotistical..."I know what will make you happy, be just like me."
7) They believe that making marriage a "civil right" opens the door to other controversial, and in their view harmful, forms of marriage being legalized.
Slippery slope argument--today two guys, next week, three girls and a pig.
Nope. Not convinced. If there are other types of marriage that are consensual then let them make their case on their own. Don't punish homosexuals for what others may do.
It is funny how so many of these arguments were the same arguments made by the white authorities during the 50's and 60's, and made by men during the 60's and 70's.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
I think that list leaves out the simplest argument against it though, which comes in two variants:
8a) SSM just isn't what marriage IS, in the same way that a circle isn't what a square is.
8b) SSM is inconsistent with the tradition of marriage, and traditions are valuable simply for tradition's sake.
Of course, the first one depends on the idea that we aren't free to redefine things like marriage, and the second one relies on the assumption that traditions are more important than making gay couples happy.
------
But more important to this thread is the fact that, even though you may not agree with any of these reasons, some people DO agree with them - and not all of them are based on bigotry. Many of the reasons are not the sort of reasoning that would justify hating on those who reason in such a way.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: I think that list leaves out the simplest argument against it though, which comes in two variants:
8a) SSM just isn't what marriage IS, in the same way that a circle isn't what a square is.
8b) SSM is inconsistent with the tradition of marriage, and traditions are valuable simply for tradition's sake.
Of course, the first one depends on the idea that we aren't free to redefine things like marriage, and the second one relies on the assumption that traditions are more important than making gay couples happy.
------
But more important to this thread is the fact that, even though you may not agree with any of these reasons, some people DO agree with them - and not all of them are based on bigotry. Many of the reasons are not the sort of reasoning that would justify hating on those who reason in such a way.
And yet no one puts forth a reason why one particular definition of marriage - out of all the many variations that have been or are - should be engraved in stone.
The reasons may not all be worthy of hatred, but the impact that the actions, whatever the reason, have on people's lives and families is certainly worthy of passionate opposition. That SSM opponents might believe that they have benevolent motives for messing with other people's families does not exempt them from responsibility.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"Many of the reasons are not the sort of reasoning that would justify hating on those who reason in such a way. "
No one has put forth one on this thread yet.
Your 8a and 8b, incidentally, usually lead back to "straights are better then gays." They are conclusions, not premises.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Your 8a and 8b, incidentally, usually lead back to "straights are better then gays." They are conclusions, not premises.
There doesn't need to be a reason why a circle can't be redefined to include squares. That's just not what circles are.
[ March 09, 2009, 12:03 PM: Message edited by: Tresopax ]
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:"Many of the reasons are not the sort of reasoning that would justify hating on those who reason in such a way. "
No one has put forth one on this thread yet.
Reasons 1, 2, 3, 4, 4b, 5, 6, 7, 8a, and 8b all do not rely on bigotry. Only 4c seems to be based on the idea that gay people are by nature worse than staight people.
Reasons 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6 all require "hate the sin, love the sinner" reasoning. The other reasons don't even require hating the sin.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Darth_Mauve: Just a few chinks I'd like to point out in an otherwise solid piece of summation.
quote:The second part is just bad teaching. I have no sympathy for a teacher losing their job for saying something so foul.
And yet, how could we possibly legislate against this? I don't think we can, and so it will inevitably be said in classrooms. If there was a way to keep idiocy out of the classroom we'd probably live in a perfect society. To some then the best way is to force the context on the teachers by defining "marriage" as the heterosexual union and "civil-unions" as the homosexual union. Making them different but with no need to state rank order just as we don't really say if an apple and an orange are better than each other however they are both fruit. I can appreciate that many opponents of SSM marriage are simply feeling rather than thinking, but I can also see that opponents of SSM are being labeled hateful things, while those throwing the labels hide behind the victimhood of homosexuality. I think this new trend and the one of hate that preceded it are both terrible things.
quote:I know a gay couple that are a lot happier since they found each other than when they were trying to pass as straight, so the happiness argument comes across as flat and uninformed.
It also comes across as a bit egotistical..."I know what will make you happy, be just like me."
I think Dan that the extremely fragmented state of Christianity indicates that at least Christians recognize that there is not a specific model that works for every person. Christianity certainly provides a more specific road map to happiness than many other philosophies, but none of it's adherents say, "Be exactly like me and you will be happy." Only Jesus seems to have been able to get away with that statement, but even he was probably not saying, "All of you become carpenters."
quote:7) They believe that making marriage a "civil right" opens the door to other controversial, and in their view harmful, forms of marriage being legalized.
Slippery slope argument--today two guys, next week, three girls and a pig.
Nope. Not convinced. If there are other types of marriage that are consensual then let them make their case on their own. Don't punish homosexuals for what others may do.
Dan it's a bit more like this, "Yesterday a guy and several girls was stopped, today we debate two guys or two girls, tomorrow I'm not sure what we'll see.
To recognize the validity of SSMs means that we must allow that when people desire to form a union and raise children that gender is no longer a fundamental part of that conversation. If our laws are built on precedent SSM establishes a strong new direction.
We can certainly say, "Let them win their battles on their own," but we've already got the fruits of battles lost on the law books. Polygamy made its' case over a hundred years ago, and yet it remains illegal, with those practicing it thrown in jail and fined. By comparison SS couples are not at risk of being thrown into jail.
I'm not saying I necessarily think we need to go full steam ahead with polygamy since SSMs are on the table, but I think both sides have the exact same arguments, and I fail to see why SSM should be permissible while polygamy should not.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"There doesn't need to be a reason why a circle can't be redefined to include squares. That's just not what circles are. "
You need to match a definition with a thing before they are paired. Explaining why the definition does not include same sex couples is a necessary step before saying the definition of marriage does not include same sex couples. When the definition is under scrutiny, citing the definition is circular reasoning.
"Reasons 1, 2, 3, 4, 4b, 5, 6, 7, 8a, and 8b all do not rely on bigotry."
Not necessarily bigotry, but "straights are better then gays," yes, they all do. At least, they do if you examine the actual arguments rather then the statements as made. And, in many cases, the statements as made actually include "straights are better then gays," reasoning.
And, in order to head off more of the "hate the sin love the sinner" reasoning, take two identical people with identical sins. Now make one of them gay. You now have two non-identical people, one of which has a heavier burden of sin. You know have a "straights are better the gays," line of reasoning contained within "hate the sin, not the sinner" reasoning.
And just because you don't think of it that way (to head off any responses along that line) doesn't remove it from "straights are better then gays," reasoning. I'm using that as a fairly broad phrase here.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Darth_Mauve: There are other things that are considered sins by groups that the state condones. Working on the Sabbath (Jewish/Christian), Eating Pork(Jewish/Muslim)
You are misstating the Jewish position rather drastically.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: You're wrong about Christianity, Samp. You have not summarized the beliefs accurately.
So under the tenets of Christianity, worshiping false gods or denying God is not living in sin?
Good to know?
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:So under the tenets of Christianity, worshiping false gods or denying God is not living in sin?
It depends on the flavor of Christianity. Some believe intent is a mitigating factor, others do not.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Darth_Mauve: There are other things that are considered sins by groups that the state condones. Working on the Sabbath (Jewish/Christian), Eating Pork(Jewish/Muslim)
You are misstating the Jewish position rather drastically.
And the Hindu one. But either way, I think it's pretty safe to say that most religions have rules that they say no human ought to break, according to that religion, but that we all agree should not be the law in a secular society. Which is basically the point being made by DM.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:But either way, I think it's pretty safe to say that most religions have rules that they say no human ought to break, according to that religion, but that we all agree should not be the law in a secular society.
It is not safe at all to say that we all agree on that.
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
It's a little bit ridiculous for you to reduce my arguments to what they "actually mean" and then claim they support your viewpoint when that's not what they mean at all, Paul. I do not think that straights are better than gays - nor do the vast majority of the people who opposed legalizing gay marriage. We do think that heterosexual behavior is acceptable (within the bounds of marriage) but that homosexual behavior is a sin. You can't automatically reduce that down and tell us how we feel.
I might as well claim that all of your well-articulated arguments mean that you hate religious people. And see? Your arguments are supporting my claims now. Wasn't that an easy way for me to dismiss you and your legitimate concerns?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP:
quote:So under the tenets of Christianity, worshiping false gods or denying God is not living in sin?
It depends on the flavor of Christianity. Some believe intent is a mitigating factor, others do not.
Sure, and my statement remains true regarding Christianity on the whole!
Worshiping false gods or denying god = sin
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:But either way, I think it's pretty safe to say that most religions have rules that they say no human ought to break, according to that religion, but that we all agree should not be the law in a secular society.
It is not safe at all to say that we all agree on that.
I agree with Porter.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:But either way, I think it's pretty safe to say that most religions have rules that they say no human ought to break, according to that religion, but that we all agree should not be the law in a secular society.
It is not safe at all to say that we all agree on that.
I meant everyone on this thread. For example, as far as I know, all three Abrahamic religions require that all humans recognize their god as the one true god. Does anyone disagree with my understanding of this rule of these religions or feel that this rule should be a law in a secular society?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:But either way, I think it's pretty safe to say that most religions have rules that they say no human ought to break, according to that religion, but that we all agree should not be the law in a secular society.
It is not safe at all to say that we all agree on that.
I think to disagree with that one would have to say that the religious laws of all religions should be law. I think that is pretty safe.
Posted by swbarnes2 (Member # 10225) on :
quote:Originally posted by Annie: It's a little bit ridiculous for you to reduce my arguments to what they "actually mean" and then claim they support your viewpoint when that's not what they mean at all, Paul. I do not think that straights are better than gays - nor do the vast majority of the people who opposed legalizing gay marriage. We do think that heterosexual behavior is acceptable (within the bounds of marriage) but that homosexual behavior is a sin. You can't automatically reduce that down and tell us how we feel.
So, if two paraplegic lesbians wanted to marry each other legally, you would not oppose that, because there's no homosexual behavior going on there?
Or is the mere fact of two gay people living together as a loving couple "homosexual behavior"?
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"It's a little bit ridiculous for you to reduce my arguments to what they "actually mean" and then claim they support your viewpoint when that's not what they mean at all, Paul."
I'm sorry, its EXACTLY what they mean.
Lets look at them more closely, shall we?
"They believe that gays being legally "married" will cause their religious organizations to be nailed with anti-discrimination policies for continuing to practice and teach what they've practiced and taught for years."
This isn't actually a reason to exclude gays from being married... its a RESULT of excluding gays from being married. That is, the reason to exclude gays from marriage came prior to the possible anti-discrimination lawsuits. As I said about tresopax' arguments later, it is a conclusion, not a premise. To this person I would ask "So why did your church decide not to marry gays in the first place?" And then we might get into the actual reasons for preventing gays from getting married.
"They believe that adoption agencies will be forced to place children with gay families. They have a corollary belief that being raised without a father and a mother is psychologically damaging to children."
This is EXPLICITLY "straights are better than gays." There's more to the sentence, of course, but it reads "at not screwing up children." You don't to claim that this argument is not "straights are better than gays."
"They believe that public schools will teach their children that homosexual lifestyles are acceptable and that people who teach them otherwise (even their own parents) are hateful bigots."
And why should they have a problem with schools teaching their children that homosexual lifestyles are acceptable? Unless they think that straights are better than gays? Again, this is pretty explicit.
"They believe that homosexual behavior is sinful and that people are not happy when they are living sinful lives. Therefore, it should not be the state's place to condone it."
Again, "straights are better than gays," and fairly explicitly so. Take two people. Absolutely identical. Now make one alteration so that one person performs a sin as a regular part of his life, that he is unrepentant of, and there is NO WAY that you can't be saying "The less sinful person is better then the more sinful person," in any meaningful way. Sin is a negative thing, after all.
"They believe that making marriage a "civil right" opens the door to other controversial, and in their view harmful, forms of marriage being legalized."
Again, assuming that a couple of the same sex being married is one of those controversial harmful forms of marriage, there's no way to parse this that isn't "straights are better than gays."
I'm trying to be clear about this, but perhaps I haven't been. I'm using that phrase broadly.
Not necessarily as "having more inherent worth," (though I think you get to that point in escapably if you chase the rabbit down the hole of these arugments), but as also including "better at doing important things without causing harm," or "more socially acceptable" or "more christlike," or "less sinful." And probably a lot of other comparative forms where something good is associated with straights and less so with gays.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
If person A and person B are arguing about what person A means, person A is going to win every time.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
Paul, if you want to convey a broad meaning you should use a phrase suited for it. As it is, you've chosen a particularly incendiary and narrow phrase that, taken at face value, is self-evidently false. You're arguing we should endow your phraseology with a depth of meaning it doesn't inherently support. It would be better to adopt a phrase that exhibited the breadth of meaning you're trying to convey, rather than attempting to shoehorn the breadth of meaning into a phrase that is unsuited to it.
To quote Inigo Montoya, "I don't think it means what you think it means." And if lots of people don't think it means what you think it means, the phrase's expository value is limited. It's rhetorical value, on the other hand, cannot be denied. Like calling Vietnam-bound soldiers "baby killers." Great to score cheap rhetorical points, lousy for informed discussion.
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
quote:Originally posted by Annie: It's a little bit ridiculous for you to reduce my arguments to what they "actually mean" and then claim they support your viewpoint when that's not what they mean at all, Paul. I do not think that straights are better than gays - nor do the vast majority of the people who opposed legalizing gay marriage. We do think that heterosexual behavior is acceptable (within the bounds of marriage) but that homosexual behavior is a sin. You can't automatically reduce that down and tell us how we feel.
I might as well claim that all of your well-articulated arguments mean that you hate religious people. And see? Your arguments are supporting my claims now. Wasn't that an easy way for me to dismiss you and your legitimate concerns?
Out of curiosity - why do you think God regards homosexual behavior as a sin?
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: If person A and person B are arguing about what person A means, person A is going to win every time.
I don't know if this is true. I'd believe that person B has little chance of convincing person A of anything, but I think person B has a good chance of demonstrating a meaning - an implication - of A's words that A was not fully conscious of.
That being said - re: the Annie/Paul disagreement here: It generally bugs the crap out of me when people insist on precision in the terms used in discussion, because generally it's very clear what people mean, but I think some more precision might help here.
quote:"They believe that adoption agencies will be forced to place children with gay families. They have a corollary belief that being raised without a father and a mother is psychologically damaging to children."
This is EXPLICITLY "straights are better than gays." There's more to the sentence, of course, but it reads "at not screwing up children." You don't to claim that this argument is not "straights are better than gays."
(first paragraph above is Annie, second is Paul) Paul, you're talking about same sex COUPLES, not gay individuals. Annie might think that a gay person makes an equally good parent as part of an opposite sex team. (In fact, some people - I don't know about Annie - do seem to think that the "right" thing for gay people to do is suck it up and act straight.)
quote:"They believe that homosexual behavior is sinful and that people are not happy when they are living sinful lives. Therefore, it should not be the state's place to condone it."
Again, "straights are better than gays," and fairly explicitly so. Take two people. Absolutely identical. Now make one alteration so that one person performs a sin as a regular part of his life, that he is unrepentant of, and there is NO WAY that you can't be saying "The less sinful person is better then the more sinful person," in any meaningful way. Sin is a negative thing, after all.
(again, 1st para Annie, 2nd Paul) Here Annie might argue that SIN does differentiate the goodness of people, but that being gay isn't a sin by itself. (You might find this a fairly useless distinction, as I do, but it might be there in her mind nonetheless.)
Reducing these down to "straights are better than gays" might give too little credit for nuance in the beliefs.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
To clarify:
On the "Pork/Beef" thing. Yes it was a bit broad and not defined correctly.
Actually, the Jewish rules are designed for Jews only. Only they need to eat Kosher, not everyone else. Actually, the Jewish religion gets lots of extra points for stating that only those of their faith must follow their rules, and never trying to force them on others.
Now lets look at:
8a) SSM just isn't what marriage IS, in the same way that a circle isn't what a square is.
Speaking of circles--this is circular argument. A is not B because we will define A as Not B. We define A as Not B because the definition of A is not the definition of B.
SSM is about two people in love promising to "love, honor, and cherish" each other till death they do part. Its about two people promising to share their lives burdens, joys, and trials together, to cling to each other when all else have failed them, and by working together, to bring a happy, productive family into this world.
To me that's what marriage is all about.
I speak from experience, as I am celebrating my 20th anniversary with my wife in just over a month.
8b) SSM is inconsistent with the tradition of marriage, and traditions are valuable simply for tradition's sake.
Some traditions are valuable for traditions sake. Some are not. Most bigotry was considered a tradition for a long time. A husband's right to beat his wife and children was considered a tradition.
However, we must even question what is "traditional" in the "traditional marriage." Prior to the 20th century most marriages were arranged affairs. Many of my contemporaries have grand parents that never met until their wedding nights. Tradition affords that the family of the bride should have a nice dowry to entice the good husband to wed.
Then there are the centuries of traditional multi-wife marriages.
I think the "traditional" marriage that is so hyped about is not eternal or universal, but it is what I call Memory Eternal. As long as any living person remembers, that was the way it was.
However, that memory is ok.
Posted by swbarnes2 (Member # 10225) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: If person A and person B are arguing about what person A means, person A is going to win every time.
I'm not so sure. If I say that I believe X, but I constantly do actions A,B and C, which totally contradict X, I think you could make a fair argument that I don't really believe X.
For instance if I say that I'm pro-life because I believe that having a full set of human chromosomes, and only having that full, complete set, means that a life form a full human being, but I also respect the humanity of people with missing chromosomes and Robertsonian translocations, and I deny that tissue culture samples, cancers and wild Hela cells with full complements of human chromosomes are human beings, then I think you could make a fair argument that I really don't believe what I said about a full complement of human chromosomes being the one and only criterion for human beings.
Or, if I argues that I disapproved of gay marriage because the bible says that being gay is a sin, but I have no problem with all kinds of other Biblical abominations being legally respected, then I think it's fair to argue that it being a Biblical sin isn't really my motivation for disapproving at all.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Darth_Mauve: Actually, the Jewish religion gets lots of extra points for stating that only those of their faith must follow their rules, and never trying to force them on others.
Closer, but still no.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
That's wrong, swbarnes. In the first case, you are not referring to only the meaning of stated words. In the second case, you are imposing your opinion of Bible doctrine onto someone else's, and it is stuff that has nothing to do with the original issue.
In neither case have you actually demonstrated a greater access to the meaning of A's words than A is capable of providing.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Yup. You've only demonstrated that if you were the one saying those things, that's what they'd mean.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Darth_Mauve: [Marriage] is about two people in love promising to "love, honor, and cherish" each other till death they do part. Its about two people promising to share their lives burdens, joys, and trials together, to cling to each other when all else have failed them, and by working together, to bring a happy, productive family into this world.
This definition of marriage wonder how you feel about the Chuck and Larry (or, to be ever-so-slightly more high brow, Denny Crane and Alan Shore) issue?
If two people are willing to commit to each other, to share burdens, joys, etc. but aren't romantically/sexually interested in each other, is it "alright" for them to marry? Does the state have an interest in whether a relationship is romantic/sexual? Or do you think that such commitment is impossible absent romantic inclination? <edit>To be clear, I'm wondering why a state definition of marriage should require that two people be "in love"</edit>
Personally, I don't understand the logical support for SSM. I can see a valid state interest in regulating heterosexual behavior, inasmuch as it can generate new members of the state. As such, I can understand the state recognizing marriage (and laws prohibiting heterosexuality external to marriage) in order to regulate the production of new citizenry.
I can understand the state regulating the sort of committed relationships Dan's talking about, if we assume there's no romantic/sexual requirement. So if, say, a devoted grandson and his grandmother wanted to form a social unit, where each would be responsible for the other, would promise to stay with them, protect them, share their burdens, etc. and in response the state granted certain privileges; that I can understand. In this case, I think the relationship should be more appropriately named, since I think most people's definitions of marriage include romantic/sexual implications, and for the government to use such a title to apply to this contract would be to suppress (explicitly in the case of near relatives, implicitly in the case of non-sexual friends who wouldn't want to be mistaken for lovers) entrance into the contract by those that the state has no interest in excluding.
What I can't understand is the mangling of the two represented by the current push for SSM. It's unclear, from the pro-arguments I've seen, whether what is at issue is the right to enter into a particular government sanctioned contract (in which case I think their aims are prohibitively narrow, and misguided in the use of the term "marriage") or enforced social acceptance through state-enforced redefinition of a social construct (in which case I think the attempts run counter to liberal statism).
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote:Personally, I don't understand the logical support for SSM. I can see a valid state interest in regulating heterosexual behavior, inasmuch as it can generate new members of the state. As such, I can understand the state recognizing marriage (and laws prohibiting heterosexuality external to marriage) in order to regulate the production of new citizenry.
Same sex couples are pair bonding and raising families.
Glad I could clear that up for you.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: Same sex couples are pair bonding and raising families.
Glad I could clear that up for you.
Snide comments aside, that doesn't clear anything up for me. Thanks, though.
<edit>To be less abrupt, why should two people raising kids who don't want the baggage of "marriage" not be able to receive the benefits of joint parents? Why should two people who have "pair bonded" but aren't married be required by the state to enter into a marriage in order to receive the benefits the state recognizes for "pair bonders"?</edit>
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Snide comments aside, that doesn't clear anything up for me. Thanks, though.
I don't see any state interest for OSM that wouldn't apply to SSM unless you want to start discriminating against OSM in cases where reproduction cannot occur absent technological assistence.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Maybe this will help. Lesbians are able to 'generate new members of the state' through options like resorting to sperm banks. Homosexual couples of either sex are able to create positive environments for raising children, and raise children in them, in the same way many heterosexual couples do (particularly ones who with fertility problems).
edit: also, perhaps you are misunderstanding typical pro-SSM positions. It isn't, "the benefits of marriage should be expanded to SSM, but no further", it is, "there are very good reasons, including benefits not related to children as well as those related to children, to expand such benefits to SSM". So any attempt at a counterargument that depends on the idea that SSM supporters don't want such benefits extended to other sorts of pairings fails.
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep:
Personally, I don't understand the logical support for SSM. I can see a valid state interest in regulating heterosexual behavior, inasmuch as it can generate new members of the state. As such, I can understand the state recognizing marriage (and laws prohibiting heterosexuality external to marriage) in order to regulate the production of new citizenry.
Marriage is already permitted beyond the scope of simple generation of new members (e.g., no fertility testing prior to permitting the marriage, octogenarians allowed to marry etc.). Given this why not enlarge the scope further in such a way that a significant portion of society is not precluded from receiving the benefits?
quote: I can understand the state regulating the sort of committed relationships Dan's talking about, if we assume there's no romantic/sexual requirement. So if, say, a devoted grandson and his grandmother wanted to form a social unit, where each would be responsible for the other, would promise to stay with them, protect them, share their burdens, etc. and in response the state granted certain privileges; that I can understand.
These sorts of scenarios are just side-shows. Is there a movement for inclusion of such relationships? In principle I am open to considering any type of relationship; however to do so in the context of SSM discussions is just distracting.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep:
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: Same sex couples are pair bonding and raising families.
Glad I could clear that up for you.
Snide comments aside, that doesn't clear anything up for me. Thanks, though.
<edit>To be less abrupt, why should two people raising kids who don't want the baggage of "marriage" not be able to receive the benefits of joint parents? Why should two people who have "pair bonded" but aren't married be required by the state to enter into a marriage in order to receive the benefits the state recognizes for "pair bonders"?</edit>
Could you be a bit more explicit in what you're asking here? I don't see how it follows from what came before.
My point is the state should take an interest in protecting children whether it is the result of "heterosexual activity" or not.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
If the state interest is in regulating the generation of citizenry, OSM is an imperfect vehicle. But enhancing it to include SSM makes an even less perfect vehicle.
If the state interest is the promotion of socially stable units, the right thing to do would be to exclude "marriage" as a whole from the discussion, and talk about "pairings" or "partnerships" or something that isn't burdened with sexual and romantic connotations. Unless we assume such pairings only happen when there are sexual/romantic desires.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: also, perhaps you are misunderstanding typical pro-SSM positions. It isn't, "the benefits of marriage should be expanded to SSM, but no further", it is, "there are very good reasons, including benefits not related to children as well as those related to children, to expand such benefits to SSM". So any attempt at a counterargument that depends on the idea that SSM supporters don't want such benefits extended to other sorts of pairings fails.
But my point is that by fighting over the word "marriage" amounts to cutting off that future avenue for a group of people who should be qualified for those benefits. If it's the first step in moving to a state that views socially stable pairings in equal light, it's a wrong step that will lead to institutionalization that will perpetuate an inequitable situation.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
quote:But enhancing it to include SSM makes an even less perfect vehicle.
Why? It creates more stable families able to raise healthy children. Many of those stable families are able to bear children directly, and children will enter many of the others through adoption, previous relationships, and the like. Why is it harming the ability of the state to support children to create more situations better equipped to raise healthy children?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
How on earth does expanding the definition of marriage cut off further expansion in the future?
And many supporters of SSM are fine with the gov't calling everything civil unions and having done. This is being fought over marriage because that's what the law calls it right now.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: How on earth does expanding the definition of marriage cut off further expansion in the future?
Because it institutionalizes "marriages" as being equivalent with "socially stable pairings." So people who have a socially stable pairing but don't want a marriage will have to fight against a greater institutional inertia.
quote:And many supporters of SSM are fine with the gov't calling everything civil unions and having done. This is being fought over marriage because that's what the law calls it right now.
If they're fine with that, they should start advocating for that. I think they would garner significant support if they expanded the scope of who was allowed to form such unions. A good first step would be to retract the restrictions against near-relative unions that are present in the VT, CA and NJ union rules.
<edit>And, the union laws in VT, CA and NJ should be expanded to allow both opposite gender and same gender unions. I think this is a good policy step above and beyond its logical perferability. You'll get heterosexual supporters of "equitable" marriage essentially voting with their feet, by choosing the "version" of marriage open to everyone, over the one that isn't (although I personally reject the idea of "unions" as a "version" of "marriage").</edit>
[ March 09, 2009, 05:38 PM: Message edited by: SenojRetep ]
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP:
quote:Snide comments aside, that doesn't clear anything up for me. Thanks, though.
I don't see any state interest for OSM that wouldn't apply to SSM unless you want to start discriminating against OSM in cases where reproduction cannot occur absent technological assistence.
It's why a number of the arguments crafted against SSM are either artificially selective, or necessarily discriminatory against sterile couples.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
quote:Because it institutionalizes "marriages" as being equivalent with "socially stable pairings."
I don't think it does anything of the sort. I see nothing about expanding marriage to include SSM that would prevent other socially stable pairings from gaining benefits (as, I should note, in many places same sex couples are able to do to a limited extent without marriage) any more than they are prevented right now. After all, a number of states have passed laws preventing the extension of marriage-like benefits to same sex couples. I don't see how it would be any worse.
And you haven't answered the question in my first of the two posts above yours.
Posted by swbarnes2 (Member # 10225) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: That's wrong, swbarnes. In the first case, you are not referring to only the meaning of stated words. In the second case, you are imposing your opinion of Bible doctrine onto someone else's, and it is stuff that has nothing to do with the original issue.
I wasn't stating anyone's argument, I was making a hypothetical.
But you are taking my words too literally.
If person A makes an argument, and person B can show a bunch of places where A's other arguments and actions contradict that argument or its implications as it's stated, then I think it's fair for person B to argue that person A isn't really expressing their beliefs accurately.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by swbarnes2: If person A makes an argument, and person B can show a bunch of places where A's other arguments and actions contradict that argument or its implications as it's stated, then I think it's fair for person B to argue that person A isn't really expressing their beliefs accurately.
Which is both understandable and likely when their beliefs are ugly when stated plainly.
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
It is arrogant to assume that one can "state plainly" the beliefs and worldview of a sweepingly large and diverse group of people like "religious people" when one has devoted very little time and energy to studying and understanding those worldviews.
That is why so many of the Christians and Jews are having to step into this conversation and say "No, you've misrepresented us - that's not what we believe." We have spent our lives living and learning our religions, and we understand well the nuances of belief that we use to inform our worldview. Having read some cursory explanations of our beliefs, many of them written by our enemies, does not qualify you to re-state and clarify our position.
You can argue your own beliefs as much as you like and as long as they are your beliefs, I can respect that. You cannot, however, tell me what my beliefs are. I speak for myself. I have read the teachings of my church and our holy scripture countless times; I've taught it to others; I've spent years of my life as a volunteer full-time missionary. I do NOT believe that straight people are inherently better than gay people. I am not afraid of gay people. I am allowed to disagree with certain actions without being painted as a bigot. Civil discourse is about being civil, and an inherent part of that is respecting the humanity of those who disagree with you.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Annie: Civil discourse is about being civil, and an inherent part of that is respecting the humanity of those who disagree with you.
And you respect the humanity of gay people as long as you don't have to recognize their families.
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
I respect their humanity. I disagree that they're allowed to change the definition of the word "family."
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
What's the definition of "family"?
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
quote:Originally posted by Annie: I respect their humanity. I disagree that they're allowed to change the definition of the word "family."
They're going to have "families" whether you give your permission or not.
quote:I'm not going to take that bait.
I will refer you, though, to my church's view on the importance of the family.
Odd that you consider that to be "bait" since you introduced the notion that someone was trying (but should not be allowed) to change the definition of "family".
It's even odder that you refer to your church's position on the family. Is your opinion that your church has defined family in a way that same sex marriage supporters should not be allowed to contravene?
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
" I do NOT believe that straight people are inherently better than gay people. "
No one said you did. You ARE presenting arguments, though, that straight people are better than gay people. Maybe not inherently, but functionally.
I'm not sure why you should be allowed to say that, without be called on the floor for it.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13:
quote:Because it institutionalizes "marriages" as being equivalent with "socially stable pairings."
I don't think it does anything of the sort. I see nothing about expanding marriage to include SSM that would prevent other socially stable pairings from gaining benefits
It wouldn't preclude it, but it would (IMO) make it substantially more difficult. So supporting SSM for these ends (which I see as justifiable) is irrational, in my perspective. The pro-SSM community could generate more support (I believe) by abandoning marriage as a goal, and instead focusing on equitable unions that divorce the benefits from the sexual connotations. This is more than just pursuing unions as defined in VT, CA and other states; it means recognizing that there are lots of partnerships, unions or pairings that are even more obviously NOT marriages but that shouldn't be barred from teh benefits.
quote:And you haven't answered the question in my first of the two posts above yours.
I know. I tried twice, but felt both times that my response was incomplete or tonally incorrect. I was also balancing making dinner, watching the kids, and posting on Hatrack, which made crafting a reply more difficult. And now I'm off for family home evening, and the kids bedtime, and then probably some homework, so I doubt I'll write a sufficient reply before tomorrow. But I will try to do so then.
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
If you're going to keep insisting that I be called on the floor for believing what I don't, in fact, believe, I don't see much use in continuing this conversation.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
You presented certain arguments as reasons why some people oppose SSM.
If you don't want to tell me how my analysis of those arguments are wrong, that's fine. That's your right.
But since, in several places, those arguments EXPLICITLY assert the superiority of straights over gays, or the abilities of straights over gays, or of a straight lifestyle over a homosexual lifestyle, or straight activity over gay activity...
Well, I think you're just hiding from the reality of what you said.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
(Edited because I made a pretty significant typo)
Annie, I do understand where you're coming from. I also understand where Paul is coming from and I think he's wording his argument poorly.
I realize that your argument isn't about any group of people being superior. However, regardless of what your own motivations and beliefs might be, it's impossible to separate a message of gay-inferiority from a ban on same sex marriage.
Our culture is inundated with messages about how important marriage is. As soon as we are old enough to understand anything at all, we are told stories about finding true love and living happily ever after. Getting married is quintessential to the American Dream.
Yes, there are some people for whom homosexuality is just a period of experimentation in college (or whenever). But there are other people for whom it is not a choice. Yes, you can teach them to repress their desires and marry someone of the opposite sex because that's what they're "supposed to do," but those people will often end up either cheating on their spouse or committing suicide because they seriously, honest to God cannot be happy living with your particular definition of family.
To tell millions of citizens that they cannot participate in the most potent dream our country shares is to tell them that they are Unamerican at best and subhuman at worst. No matter what your arguments or beliefs are, nothing can change that.
The definition of marriage and family have been changing for thousands of years. I understand why your definition is important to you, but people across the world use a thousand different definitions. If you think your definition will eventually lead to a better world, you are free to teach people about it. But it is not the government's place to enforce such a definition.
[ March 09, 2009, 08:10 PM: Message edited by: Raymond Arnold ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I'm just sorry to learn that at least two of the people on this board don't actually have families, despite having parents who love them.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:But since, in several places, those arguments EXPLICITLY assert the superiority of straights over gay
You keep using that word...
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I'm just sorry to learn that at least two of the people on this board don't actually have families, despite having parents who love them.
Eh, those people can't have turned out as stable, normal human beings, so who cares?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
(Edit: to Porter) In fairness to Paul, you did cut off the rest of his sentence. And when you include the rest of his sentence, I have to admit that I haven't seen an argument against gay marriage that didn't fall into one of those categories.
[ March 09, 2009, 09:08 PM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
One (irrational) fear I have also noticed is the tendency to assume that homosexuals do not understand age appropriate. For example, most people who talk about teaching kindergartners about gay marriage seem to assume that it would be more then some people have two mommies. The seem to think that there is no way to explain that without going into sexually explicit details. I think this is crazy and stupid since explaining some people have a mommy and daddy doesn't require explaining sex, but I definitely get that impression from some people. I don't know how to get people to understand that gay people can be age appropriate (and I have tried), but I think that is one issue that needs tackling.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"You keep using that word... "
I've been expanding upon what I mean. Have you been reading the thread, or are you just trying to muddy the waters?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Actually, it was more a response to the first instance in the previous page where you capitalized the word and used it exactly wrong. When I saw you use it again, in what appeared at first glance to be the exact same error, I posted without paying enough attention to the rest of your post where you did expand.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13:
quote:But enhancing it to include SSM makes an even less perfect vehicle.
Why? It creates more stable families able to raise healthy children. Many of those stable families are able to bear children directly, and children will enter many of the others through adoption, previous relationships, and the like. Why is it harming the ability of the state to support children to create more situations better equipped to raise healthy children?
My statement related to restricting marriage as a way to regulate creation of new citizens. Homosexual unions can't produce new citizens without a third party involved, a relationship which, if the government is interested in regulating the creation of new citizens, can be regulated. So if the purpose of state-recognized marriage is to regulate citizen creation, extending to include gay unions simply confuses the purpose of the vehicle, making it less effective.
If, instead, the interest is in creating stable environments for raising children, I think the focus should be on some relationship other than "marriage." As a theoretical, I know two women who, to some degree, share duties as caretakers of two special needs children (one of the women adopted them; the other is a close friend who is a primary support). If caretaker laws here in MA provided equal footing for all forms of socially-stable pairings for the purpose of raising children, I imagine they would consider taking advantage of such benefits. But because of the sexual/romantic implications of "marriage" they would not enter into such a contract, because they don't want the baggage. Or you could simply call it the Marilla and Matthew Cuthbert quandry; there are lots of people raising children who may desire the benefits in order to create a more stable environment for them and the children they are raising, but for social or legal reasons may not be "married."
If the state interest is in begetting children, extending the definition is unnecessary, confuses the issue, and diverts resources that should more appropriately be applied to regulating IVF (and turkey basters).
If the state interest is in the raising of children, or the creation of socially stable units in general, by focusing on "marriage" the goal is not only side-tracked unnecessarily, it loses valuable support, and it reinforces the (incorrect) idea that only certain types of couples (specifically those with a romantic or sexual implication) can form socially-stable unions worthy of being recognized for the purpose of providing benefits.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
If the state interest is in regulating the begetting children, then we need to get rid of about 99% of marriage law. Since we HAVE that 99% of marriage law that mostly deals with pair bonding, distribution of resources, and child rearing, its pretty clear that, if there is a state interest in child-begetting involved in marriage, its very clearly an extremely minor state interest.
And porter: A failure to communicate with you is my fault, insofar as I don't explain where the confusion lies. Its your fault insofar as you don't attempt to understand the terms as I'm using them. I'ma go out on a limb and say that you haven't been attempting to understand how I'm using terms.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
quote:If the state interest is in regulating the begetting children, then we need to get rid of about 99% of marriage law. Since we HAVE that 99% of marriage law that mostly deals with pair bonding, distribution of resources, and child rearing, its pretty clear that, if there is a state interest in child-begetting involved in marriage, its very clearly an extremely minor state interest.
I think we focus too much, sometimes, on the intentions of societal practices, rather than on their value.
It's like natural selection. When a scientist observes that all mammals have wombs, does he seek to explain it by asking about the intent behind the womb? No — from a scientific perspective, there was no "intent". Instead, he asks what survival value the womb has that causes it to persist and improve across generations and species.
Similarly, when looking at something like marriage, it is far less valuable to explore what humans intend by it (eg, "It was originally just a way to control women!" or "The government only cares about certain aspects of it!") than it is to explore what survival value it has, which causes it to persist across generations and permeate so many societies.
If marriage has survival value tied to the prosperity of children, then precisely how the government describes and regulates it is irrelevant, so long as their efforts do not hinder marriage's value to children, and do not cause fewer beneficial marriages to occur. In fact, I'd imagine that a government which provides incentives to couples that marry will consequently have more marriages, and therefore (if my initial assertion is correct) have more prosperous children.
(Unfortunately, our society has been trending towards separating marriage from children more and more as time goes on, and I suspect that at some point, much of the survival value of marriage will have been lost.)
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
A good friend of my girlfriend is pretty adamant about marriages only being valid if the couple raises at least one child. He doesn't care whether the couple is hetero or homosexual, and doesn't care whether the child is biologically related to the couple or adopted, but in his eyes childless marriages aren't "valid". I think (though I could be wrong) that he'd like to see the tax benefits of marriage only kick in once the couple has a child.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
Paul, there is something that really bugs me about your "straights are better than gays!" reduction of people's arguments, and I'm having trouble putting my finger on it. Let me try.
Maybe it's because the actual phrase "straights are better than gays!" carries with it connotations, on its own, that are not always connotated by the arguments from which you're producing this phrase.
For instance, if I were to say, in an argument about the stocking of dairy farms, "Cows produce milk which is valuable for human consumption. Tractors do not. Therefore, we should not replace cows with tractors," you could reduce it to "Cows are better than tractors!" and sort of be right, within the narrow context of an argument about what you need to have on a dairy farm.
However, the phrase "Cows are better than tractors!" when divorced from my argument, seems to assert that cows are superior in EVERY WAY, and that every cow is better than every tractor, which is absurd. How can you even say that one thing is universally better than another, when there are so many different contexts in which things can be compared?
Similarly, a person could say, "Straight couplings can often produce children. Gay couplings cannot." This statement is simple and factually true, and should carry no connotations of bigotry or prejudice. It's just the reality we're all living in.
However, if you reduce it to, "Straights are better than gays!" within some context where the "value" of something is determined by its ability to produce children, and THEN remove the statement from its context, it's suddenly filled with connotations of bigotry, even though the original statement had no such connotations.
I feel like that's what you're doing in this thread, and it bothers me, because this tactic removes the discussion from the merits of each argument, and instead encourages the participants to reject arguments out of hand because of the connotations of your reduction of them. It's a really bad way to have a discussion if you value anything besides simply "winning" the argument. You might persuade people to stop arguing with you because they're afraid of having their words turned around on them, but you won't change any minds.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I agree with you, Geoff. But the problem is that there isn't actually any data which suggests that children really are better off with both a mother and a father as opposed to two or more parents of any sex. What this means is that arguments against same-sex parenting ultimately have to retreat from data, and instead assert simply that traditional parenting "just is" better for some reason. And it's really hard to make that latter argument without treading in the "gay people and their relationships aren't as good as straight people and their relationships."
I mean, at the end of the day, the arguments which explain why homosexuals should not be entitled to the marriage contract are all about why homosexual relationships are not as valuable to society as heterosexual relationships. I don't think it's unfair to cast the implicit value judgement there into an explicit one, instead.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:And, in order to head off more of the "hate the sin love the sinner" reasoning, take two identical people with identical sins. Now make one of them gay. You now have two non-identical people, one of which has a heavier burden of sin. You know have a "straights are better the gays," line of reasoning contained within "hate the sin, not the sinner" reasoning.
And just because you don't think of it that way (to head off any responses along that line) doesn't remove it from "straights are better then gays," reasoning. I'm using that as a fairly broad phrase here.
This is simply false. "Hate the sin, love the sinner" is more or less a cornerstone of Christianity, and it means in part that having fewer sins does NOT make you better than those who've committed more sins. The means if you have two identical people, but one has a ton of sins and the other has few sins, each is just as much a child of God as the other - meaning both are equally good.
Later on you distinguish between "inherently good" and "functionally good". "Functional goodness" is simply shorthand for "commits more good acts and fewer bad acts", so obviously whoever commits more sins would be considered less functionally good. But most people, particularly Christians, do not measure people by their functionality - we do not approach people as we do cars or toasters. Accordingly, "functional goodness" is not the right way to measure the worth of a person. That is an idea inherent in the "hate the sin, love the sinner" reasoning; the sinner is loved not because of the function he serves or the actions he commits, but simply because he is a person. That's the whole point of it.
You may disagree with this. But the question is not what you think. The question is what the people who are presenting the arguments agaisnt SSM think. You can't claim that they are hating gays, when the hatred stems from assumptions you are making which they do not hold. If they are truly bigots, they must actually believe gays to be inferior people, based on their own assumptions and beliefs.
It's sort of like if you asked someone who the best college basketball player in the country was and they said Tyler Hansbrough. If you hold the assumption that having the best player makes a team the best team, then you could then infer that UNC is the best team. But if the person you are asking does not share the assumption that having the best player makes a team the best team, then you'd be wrong to claim that person is saying that UNC is the best team. It's entirely possible that under their own assumptions, they believe UNC has the best player, but has a terrible team.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:But most people, particularly Christians, do not measure people by their functionality...
How are you defining "Christians" here? Because I haven't observed anything resembling a meaningful difference between people calling themselves Christians and, well, everyone else in this regard.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
Christians = people who attempt to follow Christ's teachings?
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
Puppy-
What Tom said. All of the arguments (except for begetting children, which really has nothing to do with american marriage) presented here place significantly more value on straights or straight relationships then gays or gay relationships. As I said in a previous post, this isn't necessarily inherent value, but it is value nonetheless. And we're not talking about simple differences in functionality such as with your tractor vs cow argument, but valuations of differences in functionality.
I mean, look at Annie's arguments. Gays shouldn't be allowed to marry because kids would be raised by gay parents. Excuse me? This isn't saying "straights are better than gays?" In what fantasyland? That people are afraid that schools will teach homosexual lifestyles are acceptable? Again, what fantasyland do you have to live in to say this is not "straights are better than gays?" Or that gays aren't happy and so the state shouldn't condone the lifestyle? Again. This is simply saying "The straight lifestyle is better than the gay lifestyle."
The arguments that are made in opposition to equitable marriage are nasty. But they are dressed up in polite language in the hopes of hiding the nastiness either from the audience, or from the speaker.
I feel like having this discussion without talking about what the arguments actually mean would be like debating the jim crow laws without actually asking why blacks shouldn't have the same right to vote as whites.
Confronting the arguments in terms of the valuation going on forces people on the edges of the debate to ask whether they really think gay people are lesser people than straights. And very few people are willing to admit that anywhere other then in the deep dark places of their conscience.
I tend to rethink my behavior or positions (when they are important to me) only when the behavior or position has been morally challenged, or when my emotions are hot. If an argument is cool calm and collected, I'm unlikely to entertain the idea that I was wrong about something important to me. There's no reason to, after the debate. There's no personal investment to do so.
From what I understand, this is true for a lot of people.
So, realistically, I see my approach as being the best way of changing the minds both of people who are not overly invested in the issue, or who haven't made up their minds, or who are just listening, as well as being the best way of changing the minds of people like Annie... who is now, it appears, upset about how her arguments are being understood, which is fertile grounds for starting to change her arguments or her position.
After all, what we really are debating is whether we treat gays as equal citizens, or not. And that demands we ask if there are reasonable grounds for not treating them as equal citizens. Which demands we ask if believe that gays are not equal citizens.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: ... If they are truly bigots, they must actually believe gays to be inferior people, based on their own assumptions and beliefs.
I find this dubious, at least in other bigot-related fields. For example, I rarely find that modern racists claim to be racists based on their own assumptions and beliefs. Thats pretty much why we have the classical "I'm not a racist, but ..." opening.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
You can definitely be a bigot without admitting it. You can be a bigot without knowing it.
But you're not a bigot just because someone else (Al Sharpton perhaps?) interprets something you say in a way different than you actually meant when they are approaching your statement under different assumptions than you are.
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
quote:But the problem is that there isn't actually any data which suggests that children really are better off with both a mother and a father as opposed to two or more parents of any sex.
But there is. I quoted the bibliography from an article I cited in the Octomom thread, which listed many studies that showed just that.
Since it was a biliography of all of the sources cited in the article, though, the first of which were showing the opposition's case, some of the participants in the thread read the abstract of the first article on the list and laughed me to scorn for "proving their point."
Below is that list again, and let me link you again to the original article it comes from. You'll note that the first few citations are the articles about which the authors say: "Those current studies that appear to indicate neutral to favorable results from homosexual parenting have critical flaws such as non-longitudinal design, inadequate sample size, biased sample selection, lack of proper controls, and failure to account for confounding variables.2,3,4 "
quote:ENDNOTES
1 American Academy of Pediatrics, “Co parent or Second-Parent Adoption by Same-Sex Parents,” Pediatrics. 109(2002): 339-340.
2 Robert Lerner, Ph.D., Althea Nagai, Ph.D. No Basis: What the Studies Don't Tell Us About Same Sex Parenting, Washington DC; Marriage Law Project/Ethics and Public Policy Center, 2001.
3 P. Morgan, Children as Trophies? Examining the Evidence on Same-sex Parenting, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK; Christian Institute, 2002.
4 J. Paul Guiliani and Dwight G. Duncan, "Brief of Amici Curiae Massachusetts Family Institute and National Association for the Research and Therapy of Homosexuality," Appeal to the Supreme Court of Vermont, Docket No. S1009-97CnC.
5 Sara McLanahan and Gary Sandfeur, Growing Up with a Single Parent: What Hurts, What Helps (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1994), p. 45
6 Sotirios Sarantakos, "Children in Three Contexts: Family, Education, and Social Development," Children Australia, vol. 21 (1996): 23-31.
7 Jeanne M. Hilton and Esther L. Devall, "Comparison of Parenting and Children’s Behavior in Single-Mother, Single-Father, and Intact Families," Journal of Divorce and Remarriage 29 (1998): 23-54.
8 Elizabeth Thomson et al., "Family Structure and Child Well-Being: Economic Resources vs. Parental Behaviors," Social Forces 73 (1994): 221-42.
9 David Popenoe, Life Without Father (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1996), pp. 144, 146.
10 Gwat Yong Lie and Sabrina Gentlewarrier, "Intimate Violence in Lesbian Relationships: Discussion of Survey Findings and Practice Implications," Journal of Social Service Research 15 (1991): 41-59.
11 D. Island and P. Letellier, Men Who Beat the Men Who Love Them: Battered Gay Men and Domestic Violence (New York: Haworth Press, 1991), p. 14.
12 Lettie L. Lockhart et al., "Letting out the Secret: Violence in Lesbian Relationships," Journal of Interpersonal Violence 9 (1994): 469-492.
13 "Violence Between Intimates," Bureau of Justice Statistics Selected Findings, November 1994, p. 2.
14 Health Implications Associated With Homosexuality (Austin: The Medical Institute for Sexual Health, 1999), p. 79.
15 David P. McWhirter and Andrew M. Mattison, The Male Couple: How Relationships Develop (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1984), pp. 252, 253.
16 M. Saghir and E. Robins, Male and Female Homosexuality (Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins, 1973), p. 225; L. A. Peplau and H. Amaro, "Understanding Lesbian Relationships," in Homosexuality: Social, Psychological, and Biological Issues, ed. J. Weinrich and W. Paul (Beverly Hills: Sage, 1982).
17 M. Pollak, "Male Homosexuality," in Western Sexuality: Practice and Precept in Past and Present Times, ed. P. Aries and A. Bejin, translated by Anthony Forster (New York, NY: B. Blackwell, 1985), pp. 40-61, cited by Joseph Nicolosi in Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality (Northvale, New Jersey: Jason Aronson Inc., 1991), pp. 124, 125.
18 A. P. Bell and M. S. Weinberg, Homosexualities: A Study of Diversity Among Men and Women (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1978), pp. 308, 309; See also A. P. Bell, M. S. Weinberg, and S. K. Hammersmith, Sexual Preference (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1981).
19 Paul Van de Ven et al., "A Comparative Demographic and Sexual Profile of Older Homosexually Active Men," Journal of Sex Research 34 (1997): 354.
20 A. A. Deenen, "Intimacy and Sexuality in Gay Male Couples," Archives of Sexual Behavior, 23 (1994): 421-431.
21 "Sex Survey Results," Genre (October 1996), quoted in "Survey Finds 40 percent of Gay Men Have Had More Than 40 Sex Partners," Lambda Report, January 1998, p. 20.
22 Maria Xiridoui, et al., “The Contribution of Steady and Casual Partnerships to the Incidence of HIV Infection among Homosexual Men in Amsterdam,” AIDS 17 (2003): 1029-1038. [Note: one of the findings of this recent study is that those classified as being in “steady relationships” reported an average of 8 casual partners a year in addition to their partner (p. 1032)]
23 J. Bradford et al., "National Lesbian Health Care Survey: Implications for Mental Health Care," Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 62 (1994): 239, cited in Health Implications Associated with Homosexuality, p. 81.
24 Theo G. M. Sandfort, et al., "Same-sex Sexual Behavior and Psychiatric Disorders," Archives of General Psychiatry 58 (January 2001): 85-91.
25 Bailey, J.M. Commentary: Homosexuality and mental illness. Arch. Gen. Psychiatry. 56 (1999): 876-880. Author states, "These studies contain arguably the best published data on the association between homosexuality and psychopathology, and both converge on the same unhappy conclusion: homosexual people are at substantially higher risk for some forms of emotional problems, including suicidality, major depression, and anxiety disorder, conduct disorder, and nicotine dependence...."
26 Joanne Hall, "Lesbians Recovering from Alcoholic Problems: An Ethnographic Study of Health Care Expectations," Nursing Research 43 (1994): 238-244
27 R. Herrell et al., "Sexual Orientation and Suicidality, Co-twin Study in Adult Men," Archives of General Psychiatry 56 (1999): 867-874.
28 Vickie M. Mays, et al., "Risk of Psychiatric Disorders among Individuals Reporting Same-sex Sexual Partners in the National Comorbidity Survey," American Journal of Public Health, vol. 91 (June 2001): 933-939.
29 Robert S. Hogg et al., "Modeling the Impact of HIV Disease on Mortality in Gay and Bisexual Men," International Journal of Epidemiology 26 (1997): 657.
30 Sandfort, T.G.M.; de Graaf, R.; Bijl, R.V.; Schnabel. Same-sex sexual behavior and psychiatric disorders. Arch. Gen. Psychiatry. 58 (2001): 85-91.
31 F. Tasker and S. Golombok, "Adults Raised as Children in Lesbian Families," American Journal of Orthopsychiatric Association, 65 (1995): 213.
32 J. Michael Bailey et al., "Sexual Orientation of Adult Sons of Gay Fathers," Developmental Psychology 31 (1995): 124-129
33 Ibid., pp. 127, 128.
34 F. Tasker and S. Golombok, "Do Parents Influence the Sexual Orientation of Their Children?" Developmental Psychology 32 (1996): 7.
35 Judith Stacey and Timothy J. Biblarz, "(How) Does the Sexual Orientation of Parents Matter," American Sociological Review 66 (2001): 174, 179.
36 D. Fergusson et al., "Is Sexual Orientation Related to Mental Health Problems and Suicidality in Young People?" Archives of General Psychiatry 56 (October 1999).
If you go on to look at the articles they cite in favor of their hypothesis (numbers 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and as corollaries 10 through 36) you'll see that even though you may disagree with the authors, they're not flaming idiots who cite articles to mean the exact opposite of what they have to say.
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
And Paul, you say
quote:Again. This is simply saying "The straight lifestyle is better than the gay lifestyle."
Exactly. And what we're saying is that does not equal "Straights are better than gays."
Would you claim that a non-religious lifestyle is better than a religious lifestyle? Would you claim that supporting gay marriage is better than opposing gay marriage? Then aren't you making the same kind of value judgments that we are?
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
Paul, I agree that some arguments against same-sex marriage DO have unprovable assumptions about the superiority of the "straight" arrangement at their core. But not all arguments — and not even all individuals making the arguments you're citing. The problem with using a "These arguments all really mean this!" approach is that you paint with a broad brush and make a lot of people feel slighted and defensive, without persuading them.
(Some pro-gay-marriage advocates have less-than-admirable motivations as well, mixed in among the altruistic ones. But I think it's counterproductive to point them out in an attempt to color perceptions of the movement as a whole.)
Hurting people's feelings isn't always avoidable, of course, but as this thread already has a general atmosphere of "people with X opinion are rotten to their core, and are worthy of all manner of scorn, to be heaped upon them in shovelfuls", it would be nice if someone were a bit more conciliatory about this stuff
For some people in the camp favoring traditional marriage, it's simply a matter of trying to protect a system that, whatever its perceived flaws, has a value that extends beyond its immediate and obvious benefits to individuals in the moment. To these people, it's not about disdain for gays, or some need to see gays punished for their desires — to them, the system is more important than any one person or group. These are people who have, in many cases, personally sacrificed their own desires to uphold a system they believe in, and want their sacrifice to mean something. They see traditional marriage, and marriage as a child-focused institution, as a foundational part of a prosperous society, and see losing it (by whatever means) as a potential step towards ruin.
To them, it isn't about this specific change, or any opinion they might have of the people it would benefit. In past generations, they also opposed the proliferation of divorce, birth control, promiscuity, and other practices that had nothing to do with any "prejudice", but that had implications for the meaning and future of marriage and family.
To them, this is not about prejudice at all. It's about protecting something they care about — a system that they have sacrificed to uphold, and that they see as the source of much of the good in their and others' lives. They feel that humanity lacks the knowledge or the authority to decide how the system ought to work — that we are merely its beneficiaries, and that if we make changes without a certain knowledge of their long-term implications, the results could be terrible, and our generation will be responsible for much sorrow in the future.
I, myself, am speaking in the third person about this because I haven't fully decided where I sit in this argument. But whatever my hesitations, I have a great deal of compassion for the people I'm describing here. They are good people, on the whole — at least as good as any arbitrarily-chosen group from the other side. And their intentions are pure. They come at their conclusions from a completely different place than you do, so they end up with a different opinion. But it tortures them that their opinions are viewed as the product of bigotry, and that they might be viewed that way throughout history, and that they cannot persuade anyone to understand what truly motivates them.
This is my attempt. I still think that there must be a way to compromise on this issue, and that is the solution I favor — whatever that compromise ends up being. But we will never get there if we insist on demonizing each other, and if we refuse to see the good in any but our own camps.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Annie, any study which says that homosexuals make worse parents because they are more prone to mental illness, and then winkingly says that they aren't sure whether this is due to societal disapproval or not, is precisely an example of the "homosexuals are bad people" phenomenon Paul and I are talking about.
If you control for the obvious factors, which the studies listed above that I've bothered to look at do not, homosexual parents do no worse than heterosexuals. Saying "we shouldn't let this population raise children because social stigma has driven a slightly larger percentage of them to drugs, all else but social stigma being held equal" is the statistical equivalent of begging the question.
Which is why the link you've provided twice now is to a group that was forced to strike out on its own once their original parent organization called 'em on their intellectual dishonesty.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
quote:And Paul, you say
quote:Again. This is simply saying "The straight lifestyle is better than the gay lifestyle."
Exactly. And what we're saying is that does not equal "Straights are better than gays."
Would you claim that a non-religious lifestyle is better than a religious lifestyle? Would you claim that supporting gay marriage is better than opposing gay marriage? Then aren't you making the same kind of value judgments that we are?
Yes, I would claim that a non-religious lifestyle is better than a religious lifestyle. I would claim that supporting equitable marriage is better than opposing gay marriage. And I would also claim that, holding all else equal, a non-religious person is better then a religious person, and that a person supporting equitable marriage is better than a person opposing equitable marriage. (Of course, in such a discussion, I'd also offer my explanations why I think this, and caveats where the belief would no longer apply).
Here's the difference, though: I'm not hiding from my position. You and puppy and tresopax are trying to say that "A person who doesn't want his children taught that homosexual lifestyles are acceptable," isn't saying "a person living a homosexual lifestyle is not as a good a person as a person living a heterosexual life style, all else held equal."
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: You can definitely be a bigot without admitting it. You can be a bigot without knowing it.
But you're not a bigot just because someone else (Al Sharpton perhaps?) interprets something you say in a way different than you actually meant when they are approaching your statement under different assumptions than you are.
Exactly.
So the question as to who falls on which side of the line is a matter of debate. One where "their own assumptions and beliefs" are only one piece of the debate and not a necessary condition.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"Paul, I agree that some arguments against same-sex marriage DO have unprovable assumptions about the superiority of the "straight" arrangement at their core. "
I didn't say anything about unprovable or not. If you can prove it (and not, as tom points out, by circular reasoning), then we've got something real to talk about. But even then, what has to be acknowledged is that we're talking about treating a class of people differently based on the class, not the individuals.
"But not all arguments — and not even all individuals making the arguments you're citing. "
See, this is where I disagree. I think every argument that has been offered on this thread (again, with the exception of "begetting children,") has within it "straights are better than gays," as a central premise. I GET that you and Annie don't think so. I think its pretty funny that you can say that after reading Annie's list of arguments, all of which are pretty unambiguous in saying "Straights are better than gays," (again, with the notes above in effect on that statement).
"(Some pro-gay-marriage advocates have less-than-admirable motivations as well, mixed in among the altruistic ones. But I think it's counterproductive to point them out in an attempt to color perceptions of the movement as a whole.)"
Yup. And the people who are out to destroy marriage, or screw religions, are jerks. At least most of those people are honest about what they are saying, though.
"Hurting people's feelings isn't always avoidable, of course, but as this thread already has a general atmosphere of "people with X opinion are rotten to their core, and are worthy of all manner of scorn, to be heaped upon them in shovelfuls", it would be nice if someone were a bit more conciliatory about this stuff [Smile]"
Well, frankly, I think that people against equitable marriage are being just as much jerks as the people out to destroy marriage or screw the religious, and for more or less the same reasons. My problem is that THIS group of people aren't mostly honest about what they're doing. And that they're being jerks.
"For some people in the camp favoring traditional marriage, it's simply a matter of trying to protect a system that, whatever its perceived flaws, has a value that extends beyond its immediate and obvious benefits to individuals in the moment. To these people, it's not about disdain for gays, or some need to see gays punished for their desires — to them, the system is more important than any one person or group. These are people who have, in many cases, personally sacrificed their own desires to uphold a system they believe in, and want their sacrifice to mean something. They see traditional marriage, and marriage as a child-focused institution, as a foundational part of a prosperous society, and see losing it (by whatever means) as a potential step towards ruin."
And, again, I'll note that this contains several premises, one of which is that marriage would not be a child focused institution if gays are allowed to get married, and another of which is that "straights are better than gays".
"To them, this is not about prejudice at all"
And some of them might honestly believe that. But the thing is, they still rely on arguments that say "straights are better than gays."
"It's about protecting something they care about — a system that they have sacrificed to uphold, and that they see as the source of much of the good in their and others' lives"
Right. And not letting other people partake! Not letting other people access that happiness, that goodness, that system for which they are willing to sacrifice.
"They feel that humanity lacks the knowledge or the authority to decide how the system ought to work — that we are merely its beneficiaries, and that if we make changes without a certain knowledge of their long-term implications, the results could be terrible, and our generation will be responsible for much sorrow in the future."
Right. Again, "straights are better than gays."
I'm sorry, but if you try to dig into that, its where you end up. I mean, letting gays marry could result in terrible long term problems? Seriously, thats not "straights are better than gays?" In what fantasyland?
"But whatever my hesitations, I have a great deal of compassion for the people I'm describing here. They are good people, on the whole — at least as good as any arbitrarily-chosen group from the other side."
I disagree. These are people who are unwilling to share something that brings into their lives a lot of happiness and goodness, that they are willing to sacrifice for, that they believe brings them closer to god and holiness. They don't want a group of people to be able to access that.
Its not worthy of respect from any moral system that I recognize as promoting goodness. None. Its, from my view, an astoundingly selfish and evil thing to do.
" But it tortures them that their opinions are viewed as the product of bigotry, and that they might be viewed that way throughout history,"
It should. It IS the product of bigotry. denying the bigotry against gays that has come down through the milennia in their religious tradition is denying the blindingly obvious. They might have prettied up the justifications so that the bigotry is hidden even from themselves... but the LDS view on marriage is informed by 2 millenia of christian attitudes towards gays, and trying to deny that this has happened, or that these attitudes are overwhelmingly violently negative, is simply hiding yourself from the truth.
"and that they cannot persuade anyone to understand what truly motivates them."
Well, its hard, when the arguments are all about how bad gays or their lifestyle is.
" I still think that there must be a way to compromise on this issue"
There are several compromises out there, but one that will never work over the long term is legal marriage for straights, but not for gays. You can make everything legally a civil union, that would work. You could have different categories of marriage, and depending on how you set it up, that would work. (e.g. marriage with children, marriage without. Or just different forms, some with "husband, wife," terminology, and some with "partner" terminology). I have no problem making explicit protections for churches who do not perform same sex marriages. Etc.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:22 Maria Xiridoui, et al., “The Contribution of Steady and Casual Partnerships to the Incidence of HIV Infection among Homosexual Men in Amsterdam,” AIDS 17 (2003): 1029-1038. [Note: one of the findings of this recent study is that those classified as being in “steady relationships” reported an average of 8 casual partners a year in addition to their partner (p. 1032)]
Any article that cites this study in this way is complete and utter BS. This was a study of promiscuous gay men with HIV. Any man who was over 30, was in a monogomous relationship, or did not have HIV was excluded from the study unless they had an HIV-positive partner. Their definition of "steady relationship" was broad enough to apply to any one that had been going out for a few weeks.
These are well known facts about this study and the authors of the article you cite are surely aware of it, but as long as people like you are taken in by the "sciency" presentation and continue to pass on the lies, their job is done.
I hope that now that you are aware of these issues, that you'll stop providing this article to buttress your position.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I mean, letting gays marry could result in terrible long term problems? Seriously, thats not "straights are better than gays?"
In Geoff's defense, Paul, he's right about this. Letting non-doctors perform operations could result in terrible long-term problems, too, but that doesn't mean that doctors are better than non-doctors at anything besides doctoring.
The problem, from my perspective, is that most -- but, admittedly, not all -- of the projected "long-term problems" depend upon the assumption that homosexuals are inferior. But, again, not all. Imagine that you believe that God, for whatever reason, will withdraw His protection from our country if we decide to permit homosexuals to marry. You might personally have no problem with homosexuality; you might even be homosexual. But if this is what you believe, you'll still fight to prevent same-sex marriage for the sake of God's protection.
I'm hard-pressed to call that direct bigotry. The belief itself is steeped deeply in traditions of bigotry that have been backed up with generations of myth, but the individual believing that belief isn't necessarily a bigot himself.
Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
Tom, to me, the most important evidence is the studies that show that children suffer psychologically without a parent of each gender. That's what I base my case on. I don't think that homosexuals are less capable of loving children - I admire the ones who do well. But I do think that each and every child deserves a mom and a dad. I am a girl who lost her dad to his own decisions, and it tore me apart. As many good, loving women as I've had in my life, I always suffered for not having any good, trustworthy men. I don't want to wish that on any child.
I also don't want the state to force adoption agencies to place children with families without a parent of each gender against their conscience. These are very real, very compelling reasons for me, and while I respect anyone's right to disagree, it hurts me to be misunderstood.
All else being held equal, Paul, I do think that a homosexual is as good a person as a heterosexual. I think that my heterosexual friends who live promiscuous lives are as good a person as me, who does not. I have sins of my own. (I have a particularly hard time putting in an honest day's work for my money, because I'm so easily tempted to waste time on sidetracks, for example) I see the pain that comes to my friends, though, from the choices they make, and I know that I believe the teachings of my church that tell me that repenting of sin makes you happier. I'm not hiding from anything, and it makes me sad that people assume that just because my opinions are different than theirs, I must be couching some secrete malice or nastiness.
The lives of good religious people speak for themselves. Come to my church on any given Sunday. While you won't find a room full of perfect human beings, you'll find a positive, helpful atmosphere. We don't preach hellfire and damnation to any who dare oppose. We teach self-improvement, charity, consideration for others, patience and love. The people there are happy. The people there are kind and helpful. There is not a secret agenda and there is no hate being inculcated in our children. You may disagree with us all you want, but don't try to "reveal" our motives to the world when you don't know us and you certainly don't understand where we're coming from.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I think part of the problem here is that the word "better" is getting tossed around in a few different contexts, some of which aren't very useful contexts.
As a vaguely secular-humanist-ish (I'm not sure if I understand that belief system well enough to claim to represent it) I wouldn't say "hate the sin, love the sinner" because I don't believe in sin, per se. However, I still believe that all humans are created equal, that no one is "better" than anyone else, that if someone is a criminal or a racist or whatever, that's a problem that needs to be addressed as opposed to something you should punish the person for. It was either inherent in their genetics (which isn't their fault) or part of their upbringing/environment (also not their fault).
That doesn't change the fact that, when dealing with people on a practical level, I don't sort them out in my head. On a practical level, all things being equal, non-racists are better than racists, non-theives are better than thieves, etc.
I don't believe a religious lifestyle is inherently worse than a non-religious lifestyle (I think religion plays an important role for many people) but I would say that people who advocate policies that are detrimental to the human condition are - all other things being equal - worse for society than people who don't.
Those are two different definitions of the word "better" though, and I don't believe for a second that the vast majority of people who proclaim "hate the sin, love the sinner" don't privately use those two definitions of the word better as well, in their respective contexts.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Tom, to me, the most important evidence is the studies that show that children suffer psychologically without a parent of each gender.
Can you point out any such studies that aren't comparing single-parent households to two-parent housholds, because these studies (of which there are many) aren't really saying anything about gender makeup.
quote:I also don't want the state to force adoption agencies to place children with families without a parent of each gender against their conscience. These are very real, very compelling reasons for me, and while I respect anyone's right to disagree, it hurts me to be misunderstood.
This is a separate issue from SSM. California, for instance, already prevents discrimination against gays in adoption and had such a policy in place prior to the supreme court ruling that legalized SSM.
Many of the anti-SSM campaign talking points were of this nature. "If you allow SSM, then <bad thing> will happen." when <bad thing> was something that already happened when SSM was not legal.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Tom, to me, the most important evidence is the studies that show that children suffer psychologically without a parent of each gender.
I have never managed to find a study that confirms this claim while still managing to control for factors I'd consider significant. But this is certainly one of the arguments I consider most sympathetic.
quote:As many good, loving women as I've had in my life, I always suffered for not having any good, trustworthy men.
Having bad men in your life is not the same thing as not having good men.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
quote: But, again, not all. Imagine that you believe that God, for whatever reason, will withdraw His protection from our country if we decide to permit homosexuals to marry. You might personally have no problem with homosexuality; you might even be homosexual. But if this is what you believe, you'll still fight to prevent same-sex marriage for the sake of God's protection.
I'm hard-pressed to call that direct bigotry. The belief itself is steeped deeply in traditions of bigotry that have been backed up with generations of myth, but the individual believing that belief isn't necessarily a bigot himself.
I'm not saying this person is necessarily a bigot. But the person is promoting bigotry. I mean, this line of argument essentially comes down to "Gays are so bad god will withdraw his protection if we let them get married."
As I said in my last post, the bigotry of the position, of the history leading to the position, might be prettied up so they don't recognize it themselves.
But that bigotry is still there. Its a strong informer of the argument presented.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Annie: could you point me to some studies showing two parents of opposite genders lead to better outcomes than two parents of the same gender? All the studies I'm aware of about the benefits of parents of opposite genders are really comparing to single parents, or to children without role models in both genders (and found that even children of single parents in good situations frequently alleviated the effect by establishing non-parent role models).
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Here's the difference, though: I'm not hiding from my position. You and puppy and tresopax are trying to say that "A person who doesn't want his children taught that homosexual lifestyles are acceptable," isn't saying "a person living a homosexual lifestyle is not as a good a person as a person living a heterosexual life style, all else held equal."
Well, that is a good summary of my position. I don't understand what reason you have to be confident it is hiding an alternative secret position though. Won't you agree that it is at least possible that some people believe that one's goodness as a person is not determined based on one's actions and lifestyle?
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
quote: Won't you agree that it is at least possible that some people believe that one's goodness as a person is not determined based on one's actions and lifestyle?
This isn't directed at me, but I think I answered it 5 posts up. I'm pretty confident that if we were talking about murderers or some other group that everyone could agree on as "bad," you'd have no qualms about using "he's a bad person" as shorthand for "he's not really a 'bad person' but I think his lifestyle choices are detrimental to society."
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
I would separate a person's value or worth from whether that person is "good" or "bad." Some people have gone pretty far down the "bad" road to where their actions are predominantly bad and harmful ones. That doesn't change their value, but it certainly changes their relationship to others and their ability to make further choices. Calling someone a bad person is usually shorthand for saying the person does bad things, but it also, maybe unintentionally, characterizes them in their entirety and degrades their basic value as a person. I don't agree with calling anyone bad, or even better or worse than anyone else.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
quote:Calling someone a bad person is usually shorthand for saying the person does bad things, but it also, maybe unintentionally, characterizes them in their entirety and degrades their basic value as a person. I don't agree with calling anyone bad, or even better or worse than anyone else.
I do agree with this. When I am thinking rationally, I make an effort not to get angry at or call people "bad," (although when I have been personally wronged I sometimes I may have a hard time thinking rationally about it).
But even when you make an effort to say "you are a good person, but your lifestyle is detrimental to society," you might as well be telling the person "you're a bad person who deserves to be treated as a second class citizen" when you say they can't participate in one of the most fundamental human experiences. (yeah, I know they have the "right" to marry, definition of marriage, etc, but that's a pretty useless right when they can only marry people that they don't love)
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:This isn't directed at me, but I think I answered it 5 posts up. I'm pretty confident that if we were talking about murderers or some other group that everyone could agree on as "bad," you'd have no qualms about using "he's a bad person" as shorthand for "he's not really a 'bad person' but I think his lifestyle choices are detrimental to society."
I'd definitely have qualms about mixing up "he commits murder" with "he's a bad person." I've said in the past, for instance, that I don't think terrorists are fundamentally bad people, even though they commit monsterous crimes.
Of course, murdering does suggest flaws in a person's more general judgement that other lifestyle choices do not.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Okay, that's consistent (and I agree with you, for the record) but I don't think most people who claim they only "hate the sin" have really internalized that teaching. Also, I think my slightly previous post (made at the same time you were posting your latest, above) is still relevant here though.
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
quote:I don't agree with calling anyone bad, or even better or worse than anyone else.
Without a frame of reference it's not clear what words like bad/better/worse mean. I don't, for example, have a problem saying that Federer is better than me [at tennis].
That being said, if I buy the premise that an objective morality exists, I don't see why an objective system of attaching value to human lives cannot also exist. However, I would have a hard time believing that actions themselves don't factor into this assignment (as against merely being symptoms of the 'underlying/real person'.)
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
...and we have another thread about Objective Morality. Huzzah!
There are definitely people that I consider "better" than me in the sense that they are more valuable to the human race than I am.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Tell them what they've won Raymond!
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:that children suffer psychologically without a parent of each gender.
I started out believing that. I've since changed my belief because the studies don't show this. They show the opposite.
If you want to say that they are not comprehensive enough, that's one thing, but what you are claiming isn't so.
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: ...and we have another thread about Objective Morality. Huzzah!
That's just how fundamental objective morality is.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold:
quote:Calling someone a bad person is usually shorthand for saying the person does bad things, but it also, maybe unintentionally, characterizes them in their entirety and degrades their basic value as a person. I don't agree with calling anyone bad, or even better or worse than anyone else.
I do agree with this. When I am thinking rationally, I make an effort not to get angry at or call people "bad," (although when I have been personally wronged I sometimes I may have a hard time thinking rationally about it).
But even when you make an effort to say "you are a good person, but your lifestyle is detrimental to society," you might as well be telling the person "you're a bad person who deserves to be treated as a second class citizen" when you say they can't participate in one of the most fundamental human experiences. (yeah, I know they have the "right" to marry, definition of marriage, etc, but that's a pretty useless right when they can only marry people that they don't love)
The problem with a yes or no vote is that it doesn't give anyone a lot of room to express the breadth of, and thoughts and motives behind, their feelings. Yet once the vote is cast we become characterized and simplified down to "yes" or "no," with entire sets of motives assigned to each by the other side. I think the whole Prop8 thing was like taking a hammer to a delicate and sensitive issue. It forced a lot of people to choose one side or another, and the hammer is now used to bash away at their reasons for the way they leaned, until those reasons are broken up into compartmentalizeable shards.
I neither voted for nor supported Prop8 either way, and I have quite a range of thoughts and feelings on the subject, but how I think is already assumed, with arguments against it set like landmines should I ever jump out of the trench.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
At some point, the nuances of why someone voted no don't really matter. Regardless of their reasoning, they have contributed to a great harm to people. What their motives are does not make that harm less. I don't care if people feel bad because other people misunderstand them or think they are bigots. I want them to feel bad because they a hurting people.
Even if they think that they have the best reasons in the world and that it is for some greater good, they still need to take responsibility for the hurt they have done and are doing.
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
Yea, like when a judge makes a murderer feel bad bcause he sent him to jail, the judge should feel real bad too. And he should have the decency to say sorry. Mean ole' judge.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I think I'll let someone else handle that one.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I think that there should be a certain amount of sorrow when sentencing someone to prison or worse.
I think it is even more appropriate when sentencing people who have done no harm as there isn't even justice to mitigate it.
[ March 10, 2009, 05:40 PM: Message edited by: kmbboots ]
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
Hey, they're trying to look after our ever-lasting souls. I may not agree with them, but at least I have the decency to thank them for being so considerate.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
"It's for their own good" just adds an obnoxious level of arrogance when talking about adults.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
Like I said, a hammer being used on a delicate and sensitive issue. I don't think most people on either side of the vote are out to hurt others, but a yes/no vote takes away any ability to approach the issue gently. Bam! You vote yes. Bam! You vote no. No wonder everyone's reeling.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
If you honestly viewed some action as extremely destructive to society and your children, wouldn't you do whatever you could to keep people from doing that action?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I'm not sure if voters would spring for a complete replacement of all instances of the word "marriage" with "domestic partnerships." I have little doubt this petition can get the necessary signatures.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"If you honestly viewed some action as extremely destructive to society and your children, wouldn't you do whatever you could to keep people from doing that action?"
Yup. And I'd be honest about it and say that I think people performing that action are performing evil. And I'd be honest, and say that people who perform evil actions are worse people than people who do not.
Trying to say "This behavior is so bad that if we condone it society will explode, but I don't think negative things about people who find that behavior to be a central part of their lives, their happiness, and their relationship with the world," doesn't work.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I'm not sure it wouldn't be. I can't think of another piece of legislation that simply replaced wording across a whole constitution off the top of my head.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
No, I'm not asking about the state constitution. I'm asking about how that would work in terms of federal issues.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Well, it's an amendment, so the notion of being "unconstitutional" is sorta moot.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:"It's for their own good" just adds an obnoxious level of arrogance when talking about adults.
It's probably worth being perceived as arrogant if you think it will help someone.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Well, it's an amendment, so the notion of being "unconstitutional" is sorta moot.
Not necessarily. The whole reason they had hearings about Prop 8 last week was because it was unclear whether Prop 8 was constitutional - whether it was passed through a constitutionally valid process for a change of its scope. It sounds like the answer will be "yes" this time around, but other amendments have failed on similar grounds in the past.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
Tom, thanks for stepping in on my behalf there. This discussion is starting to feel like that Leto discussion on the same topic years ago, and though my opinions have probably changed in the intervening years (I don't remember quite where my head was at the time), my annoyance at the insistence of some people on making this about bigotry, rather than engaging in the discussion in an equitable way hasn't lessened in the slightest
Paul, I don't want to start going point-versus-point on this, so I'll try to keep my response simple.
You're being hypocritical in going after your opponents about "honesty". Your entire approach to the debate collapses if you fail to twist one opposing argument to fit your predefined mold ... and we're looking to you to define intellectual honesty for us?
Almost any statement on the subject can be made to fit your mold in the right context, and then when that context is removed, we're left a statement about the worth of individuals, with connotations of bigotry. It's like a machine that you can feed anything into and produce support for your position. And this is your example of intellectual honesty?
There's something deeply disingenuous about this approach:
"My opinion is X." "The only possible reason you could espouse X is if you had secret evil motivation Y." "I don't have that motivation, and it's beside the point." "Until you're honest about your secret evil motivation that we all know you have, there's no point in discussing this with you."
Really? Can you apply that to any other situation and not find it abhorrent?
The reason this tactic that you and many others use is so effective is specifically because many, if not most, of your opponents are not bigots, and hate bigotry for the same reasons you do. They back away from the debate, and let you run roughshod over them because not-being-a-bigot is incredibly important to them. Many of them are conflicted because of the tension between their desire to protect their traditions and preserve the system that they feel directly supports the prosperity of their children ... and their belief in the ideals of this country that promote cultural pluralism and tolerance. Framing the argument as "everyone on THIS side is a bigot" effectively removes these people from play, stigmatizes them, and strengthens your side without bothering to engage with any of these people's concerns — when with the right framing of the discussion, they could potnetially be your greatest allies in a compromise solution. And this is the example we have of intellectual "honesty"?
In general, you deliberately use the inflammatory phrase "Straights are better than gays" with all its bigoted connotations, rather than something like "The straight lifestyle has more benefits than the gay lifestyle" — a phrase that fits as many arguments in exactly the same way, and subtracts nothing important, but which reduces the number of imposed harmful connotations by not addressing the worth of individual people? This is intellectual "honesty"?
The fact that your side has chosen "you have hidden evil motivations!" as one of their primary attacks, while your opponents have not done so does imply an honesty gap to me ... but it's balanced in a direction opposite to the one you assert.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:You're being hypocritical in going after your opponents about "honesty".
Fine. You're not a bigot and I've never called you one. I still see a lot of dishonesty on your side and the document you presented as evidence for the empirical validity of your position is a prime example. It's been presented to me multiple times by multiple people and each time criticism is answered with silence. Do you accept that this document is seriously flawed, or do you intent to continue to use it to provide the appearance of objectivity your position?
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
Wait ... which document? I was discussing this with Paul, and may have missed something else that was going on in the thread ...
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Was Geoff talking to MattP or Paul Goldner, it seems to me to be the latter based on what both have said on this topic.
Or are they the same person? Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:The fact that your side has chosen "you have hidden evil motivations!" as one of their primary attacks, while your opponents have not done so...
Well, um, your dad has. *ducks*
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Wait ... which document? I was discussing this with Paul, and may have missed something else that was going on in the thread ...
I'm sorry, it was another poster on this thread. Cross-indignation.
Edit: I was annoyed at the claim of hypocricy for questioning honesty, when more people than Paul are making claims about honesty and ONLY Paul is making the argument about bigotry that you characterized as dishonest.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
Whoah ... I just noticed something else that you said, Paul, that may help to explain your approach:
quote:"If you honestly viewed some action as extremely destructive to society and your children, wouldn't you do whatever you could to keep people from doing that action?"
Yup. And I'd be honest about it and say that I think people performing that action are performing evil. And I'd be honest, and say that people who perform evil actions are worse people than people who do not.
You think that people who make destructive choices are enacting "evil", across the board? Suddenly, your approach to your opponents makes sense. If they're all "evildoers" in your mind, then what harm is there in using some dishonest, disingenuous, stigmatizing tactics, as long as it drives them away?
The philosophy you're opposing actually contains the novel concept that good, well-meaning people can make destructive choices without bringing "evil" into the equation, or losing their value to society. Non-sinners are not "better than" sinners because (1) there is no such thing as the former, and (2) even if there were, the worth of a person is not defined by his or her adherence to any set of rules. Is that what you're missing here? The very idea that it is possible for good, valuable people to disagree and/or make mistakes?
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
quote:Well, um, your dad has. *ducks*
Hahaha! Touché. I wasn't thinking specifically of him, but of a broad class of people who are closer to my position on the subject ... But maybe I shouldn't have made the last assertion about a "gap" Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Puppy,
quote: Many of them are conflicted because of the tension between their desire to protect their traditions and preserve the system that they feel directly supports the prosperity of their children ... and their belief in the ideals of this country that promote cultural pluralism and tolerance.
That is not an argumment that is necessarily free of bigotry. "Wanting to protect [our] traditions" has been used as a motivation for everything from performances of "Chief Illiniwek" to keeping Jews out of country clubs to lynchings.
I appreciate that people are torn. They should be. Those two ideas are in conflict. And when it came to voting, people chose which was more important to them.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
Honestly, it seems like mental gymnastics are required to simultaneously claim that same sex marriage and openness about homosexuality will be damaging to society AND that there's nothing better about heterosexuals than homosexuals. It seems like this belief has to be so laden with qualifications that it loses meaning.
From the LDS point of view:
Isn't a non-murderer a better person than a murderer, under nearly every circumstance?
Isn't a prophet of God better than a spirit who chose to follow Lucifer in the premortal war?
Isn't the celestial kingdom for better people than the telestial kingdom, or outer darkness?
I see plenty of room in the theology for calling some people better than others, so why shy away from it so much?
It seems like a way of avoiding the tension that Puppy mentioned.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:From the LDS point of view:
Isn't a non-murderer a better person than a murderer, under nearly every circumstance?
Nope.
Not murdering is better than murdering. But that's not the same thing.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
Sigh. You're separating "functional goodness" from "worth"? I think they can/should be considered in a combined fashion.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
You specifically asked "From the LDS point of view". From the LDS point of view, they are not considered in a combined fashion.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
Can you explain that? I grew up LDS, and it does not accord with my understanding. I do not remember any doctrinal point that said "people are all equally good." In fact, the word "evil" was not unused.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:That is not an argumment that is necessarily free of bigotry. "Wanting to protect [our] traditions" has been used as a motivation for everything from performances of "Chief Illiniwek" to keeping Jews out of country clubs to lynchings.
If tradition were really the only motivation for those things, then it wouldn't be bigotry. For instance, I want the Washington Redskins to keep the name "Redskins". This is not because I have any bigotry against Native Americans. It's just because I've been rooting for the Redskins since before I can remember; it's entirely about tradition.
My hunch is that keeping Jews out of Country Clubs, though, was about more than just tradition.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
"The worth of souls is great in the sight of God"? The story of the Prodigal Son? There's plenty of material both in LDS and traditional Christian theology to assert that a person's worth is independent of a person's choices.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
I think I'm realizing why I visit Hatrack so infrequently these days. These debates occupy too much of my consciousness, and are emotionally exhausting, especially at stressful times in my life (like the one I'm in now, at the end of a project at work). I think I should bow out, in the interest of my sanity I'm not sure there's anything more I need to add to my arguments, beyond simply defending them from future volleys ... which, honestly, could go on forever. Have fun, everybody Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
I would think that is a pretty basic part of the teachings of Jesus - that God loves sinners and the lowly just as much as he loves the holy.
I'd also think the fundamental worth of human beings, independent of their actions, is something that could be derived from secular humanism too.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax:
quote:That is not an argumment that is necessarily free of bigotry. "Wanting to protect [our] traditions" has been used as a motivation for everything from performances of "Chief Illiniwek" to keeping Jews out of country clubs to lynchings.
If tradition were really the only motivation for those things, then it wouldn't be bigotry. For instance, I want the Washington Redskins to keep the name "Redskins". This is not because I have any bigotry against Native Americans. It's just because I've been rooting for the Redskins since before I can remember; it's entirely about tradition.
My hunch is that keeping Jews out of Country Clubs, though, was about more than just tradition.
Your "hunch"? So when people say a Country Club has been traditionally for a certain type of people, you think that they, deep down, mean something different than people wanting to keep something the way it has been? Something that they are comfortable with?
Sometimes traditions are based on bigotry. In such cases, the desire to protect tradition is not free of bigotry.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:These debates occupy too much of my consciousness, and are emotionally exhausting...
Just for the record, I was very glad to see you posting again, and would be thrilled to hear from you more often -- even if you choose to avoid the contentious threads and just post in the fluffy ones. It's possible to avoid the debates and just interact, and I'm sure a number of us would be glad to see you interacting again. *grin*
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Your "hunch"? So when people say a Country Club has been traditionally for a certain type of people, you think that they, deep down, mean something different than people wanting to keep something the way it has been? Something that they are comfortable with?
I think that sometimes when people say they are doing something a certain way for tradition's sake, there is nothing more to it than exactly that. Other times when people say they are doing something a certain way for tradition's sake, that's just an excuse for some other reason they don't want to give. Without looking more closely at each individual's specific reasoning, you can't really assume one or the other - although to be charitable, I think it would be safer to assume the former, rather than always assume people have secret reasons behind their given reasons.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Yeah, stick around, Geoff. You've been missed.
In another (deceased) thread I said something that bears on the question here:
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson: *nod* The point is this: many behaviors to which people are genetically predisposed are illegal or socially unacceptable. This is not in all cases a bad thing; rather, it is perfectly justifiable if the behavior in question does harm.
So the question becomes: is homosexual behavior inherently harmful? If the answer is "yes," then whether or not homosexuality has a genetic component is absolutely irrelevant. If, like me, you believe the answer is "no," then legislating against homosexuality appears to be a form of bigotry.
But the important thing to keep in mind is that THIS is the core question. It's also worth noting that, even to many otherwise intelligent and reasonable people, this is still an open question. I believe quite strongly that history will prove me right on this one, but I am genuinely sorrowful for those people who, far from being drooling neanderthals, simply start from premises that have led them to reluctantly come down on the other -- wrong -- side of the issue.
Tom, I agree with you about the matter of principle here, but with one caveat that does justify deep moral criticism of people who are (even thoughtfully) anti-homosexuality. I don't think these people are bigoted, though.
Because while I don't think the core question is whether gayness is genetic, I also disagree that the core question is simply whether it's harmful. The core question is, before harm is taken into account: are consensual sex, love and marriage/partnership basic liberties that we should allow each other to pursue even if it's harmful.
I think these are basic liberties, and people who disagree with me about this have seriously warped values.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Again, when the tradition itself is based in bigotry the desire to preserve that tradition is itself based in bigotry.
We (rightly) see bigotry as a bad thing. I think we go too far though in thinking that being a bigot is about the worst thing ever. Minus some objective reason, the conviction that our way is the right way is bigoted. The urge to surround ourselves with the familiar and shun the "other" is a form of bigotry. People are, to an extent, designed to be bigoted. Fear is a survival instinct.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: Yeah, stick around, Geoff. You've been missed.
Thirded.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
I hate to see Geoff bow out of this thread. He's been doing such a good job elucidating the positions I also share but am not clear-thinking enough to write out here.
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
quote:Originally posted by Destineer:
Because while I don't think the core question is whether gayness is genetic, I also disagree that the core question is simply whether it's harmful. The core question is, before harm is taken into account: are consensual sex, love and marriage/partnership basic liberties that we should allow each other to pursue even if it's harmful.
I think these are basic liberties, and people who disagree with me about this have seriously warped values.
Some types of prostitution fall under the consensual sex category.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:people who disagree with me about this have seriously warped values.
But of course.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by natural_mystic:
quote:Originally posted by Destineer:
Because while I don't think the core question is whether gayness is genetic, I also disagree that the core question is simply whether it's harmful. The core question is, before harm is taken into account: are consensual sex, love and marriage/partnership basic liberties that we should allow each other to pursue even if it's harmful.
I think these are basic liberties, and people who disagree with me about this have seriously warped values.
Some types of prostitution fall under the consensual sex category.
When prostitution is truly consensual (no kids, no duress from pimps, customers freely chosen or declined) I see no difference between prostitution and marrying for money or dating a guy because he gives you expensive presents.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Again, when the tradition itself is based in bigotry the desire to preserve that tradition is itself based in bigotry.
No.... For all I know, the original naming of the "Redskins" may have been based in bigotry. There's probably a good chance it was. That doesn't mean my reasons for wanting to have the team keep the name are based in bigotry though. My reasons for keeping the name are purely for tradition's sake.
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by natural_mystic:
quote:Originally posted by Destineer:
Because while I don't think the core question is whether gayness is genetic, I also disagree that the core question is simply whether it's harmful. The core question is, before harm is taken into account: are consensual sex, love and marriage/partnership basic liberties that we should allow each other to pursue even if it's harmful.
I think these are basic liberties, and people who disagree with me about this have seriously warped values.
Some types of prostitution fall under the consensual sex category.
When prostitution is truly consensual (no kids, no duress from pimps, customers freely chosen or declined) I see no difference between prostitution and marrying for money or dating a guy because he gives you expensive presents.
I tend to agree. And, much like drugs, I suspect legalizing it would help with certain of the problems such as duress from pimps (prostitutes are reluctant to approach officers of the law in such situations). However, I think it is a thorny enough issue that one can be in favor of prostitution being illegal and not have warped values.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Tresopx, bigotry does not have to be racial.
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax:
quote:Again, when the tradition itself is based in bigotry the desire to preserve that tradition is itself based in bigotry.
No.... For all I know, the original naming of the "Redskins" may have been based in bigotry. There's probably a good chance it was. That doesn't mean my reasons for wanting to have the team keep the name are based in bigotry though. My reasons for keeping the name are purely for tradition's sake.
This kind of argument can justify anything: e.g., person X buys a whites-only golf course and refuses to integrate it, not because of any animus to non-whites, but for tradition's sake.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: When prostitution is truly consensual (no kids, no duress from pimps, customers freely chosen or declined) I see no difference between prostitution and marrying for money or dating a guy because he gives you expensive presents. [/QB]
I can't tell if you're defending such prostitution or damning marrying and dating like that.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
Maybe neither.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"You're being hypocritical in going after your opponents about "honesty". Your entire approach to the debate collapses if you fail to twist one opposing argument to fit your predefined mold ... and we're looking to you to define intellectual honesty for us?"
I don't have to twist these statements, though.* That's the problem. All of the arguments so far presented** actually say within them "straights are better than gays.***
*The differentiation comes from the intrinsic vs non-intrinsic worth.
** again, aside from the "begetting children.
***And, again, noting how this phrase is used.
I'll write more if puppy or annie are still around and interested, otherwise its not really worth my time.
Posted by Humean316 (Member # 8175) on :
quote:No.... For all I know, the original naming of the "Redskins" may have been based in bigotry. There's probably a good chance it was. That doesn't mean my reasons for wanting to have the team keep the name are based in bigotry though. My reasons for keeping the name are purely for tradition's sake.
Which means that you must then defend the value of tradition for that argument to be successful. If tradition is your justification for keeping the name, then you have to show why tradition is better than changing the name itself. So my question is, how are you going to do that? How are you going to defend tradition against changing the name?
The same question can be asked about SSM, if the true justification for an argument against SSM is that tradition is better, then why is tradition better? I would bet that at this point in the thought process we would discover that the argument is not simply about tradition for some.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: When prostitution is truly consensual (no kids, no duress from pimps, customers freely chosen or declined) I see no difference between prostitution and marrying for money or dating a guy because he gives you expensive presents.
I can't tell if you're defending such prostitution or damning marrying and dating like that. [/QB]
All I'm doing is pointing out that I see no moral difference in the two. Neither appeals to me, but then I am not likely to strike it rich either way. Do you see a moral difference other than one is usually more honest about it.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
quote:I don't have to twist these statements, though.* That's the problem. All of the arguments so far presented** actually say within them "straights are better than gays.***
Paul, I'd have to say that the statements given to you have been internally consistent. I agree that many people espousing the "hate the sin, love the sinner" doctrine (possibly including people on this board) probably still harbor a prejudice against the sinner, similar to the "I'm not racist but..." style of prejudice.
I also think that banning gay marriage sends a clear MESSAGE that straights are better than gays regardless of intent, making the point kind of moot. But it's been made clear by people on both sides of the argument that the word "better" can be used in multiple contexts, and when you exaggerate the opposition's point with words like:
quote:Yup. And I'd be honest about it and say that I think people performing that action are performing evil. And I'd be honest, and say that people who perform evil actions are worse people than people who do not.
You are conflating the definitions of several different words, producing a straw man argument that's easy to knock down. If you are trying to show someone they're being hypocritical, exaggerating their words (nobody ever said evil, which is a word with very specific baggage), they are even less likely to be open to your position.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I do see moral differences, but that's not the point. It just struck me as funny that your words could be taken as either praising or damning.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I would be interested in hearing what those are.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"Paul, I'd have to say that the statements given to you have been internally consistent"
They are. But they also say "straights are better than gays."* They become internally inconsistent when people try to say that those statements do not make that claim.
*Again, with the caveats.
I also explained the motivations on my word choice a page or two ago, if you'd like to go back and check those out to see why I'm using language the way I am.
As another note on what I'm saying, I really do think that there's no possible way to take these arguments that does not include "straights are better than gays," using that phrase the way I've been clear (I think) in saying how I mean it. I'm not making this up to score rhetorical points, I am using the phrase to score rhetorical points (as previously explained, and again I think that explanation was fairly clear).
And, again, I think that "hate the sin love the sinner," is a fairly reasonable philosophy. I tend to buy into it. What I DON'T believe is possible is an internally consistent philosophy that says "Action X is bad, but person Y who does action X isn't any worse than person Z who is identical to person Y except for not doing X." If you want to make that argument, then you end up with either action X not being bad, or doing bad not meaning anything.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
But LDS try very hard not to judge people- actions but not people. Also, there are no people who are identical except for one does X. Person Y may be a great humanitarian or something else, while Person Z commits no sins but does no good works. So, it is too complicated to judge who is better. If you made the statement into the straight lifestyle is better then the gay lifestyle people would argue less.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"But LDS try very hard not to judge people- actions but not people."
Sure. But the thing is, its people who do actions. Judging the action necessarily casts judgement back on the person doing the action, even if that judgement is simply "you have chosen...unwisely."
"Also, there are no people who are identical except for one does X."
Agreed. Doesn't really matter for my purposes, though.
" If you made the statement into the straight lifestyle is better then the gay lifestyle people would argue less. "
I know. But, you know what? That's, on a practical level, indistinguishable from "straights are better than gays."
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Paul, I think the problem is that you simplify their argument one step further than it can actually be simplified. "Better for society" is not the same as "better." And "Worse for society" does not = evil.
I don't think this makes their arguments any better - it's not very reassuring to be considered "good" if everyone's "good" by definition.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: " If you made the statement into the straight lifestyle is better then the gay lifestyle people would argue less. "
I know. But, you know what? That's, on a practical level, indistinguishable from "straights are better than gays."
Only if you believe that being straight or being gay is all that defines a person.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
""Better for society" is not the same as "better." And "Worse for society" does not = evil. "
Again, see caveats on phraseology, and see post on my language choice and reasons for.
"Only if you believe that being straight or being gay is all that defines a person. "
Nope. Also if you believe that doing something bad has meaning.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
quote:Again, see caveats on phraseology, and see post on my language choice and reasons for.
I tried looking for a post clarifying this, but the only one I found didn't really address the issue.
quote:Only if you believe that being straight or being gay is all that defines a person.
The thing is, love and marriage are such fundamental parts of the human experience that even though a person may not (and in my opinion probably should not) make being straight or gay the core of their identity, denying them to someone cannot help but imply a degree of sub-humanity.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:This kind of argument can justify anything: e.g., person X buys a whites-only golf course and refuses to integrate it, not because of any animus to non-whites, but for tradition's sake.
It couldn't justify person X buying a whites-only golf course and refusing to integrate it if his reason is because he hates non-whites.
quote:If tradition is your justification for keeping the name, then you have to show why tradition is better than changing the name itself. So my question is, how are you going to do that? How are you going to defend tradition against changing the name?
Well, I'd argue that the name shouldn't be changed because the tradition has a lot of value to a lot of fans - and outweighs any benefit to changing it.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:What I DON'T believe is possible is an internally consistent philosophy that says "Action X is bad, but person Y who does action X isn't any worse than person Z who is identical to person Y except for not doing X." If you want to make that argument, then you end up with either action X not being bad, or doing bad not meaning anything.
No, it simply means that "doing bad" doesn't mean "being worse". You can say that's mistaken, but nevertheless there's definitely people out there, including myself, who hold such a philosophy.
Posted by Humean316 (Member # 8175) on :
quote:Well, I'd argue that the name shouldn't be changed because the tradition has a lot of value to a lot of fans - and outweighs any benefit to changing it.
So would it be fair to argue this: in your opinion, the argument from tradition about SSM claims that the definition of marriage shouldn't be changed because the tradition has a lot of value to fans - and outweighs any benefit to changing it?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:You can say that's mistaken, but nevertheless there's definitely people out there, including myself, who hold such a philosophy.
Hm. I've been largely staying out of this part of the discussion, but I would say that while there are a fair number of people who struggle to live as if they did not believe that intentionally doing bad was synonymous with being bad, in reality those people behave no differently from people who believe that intentionally doing bad is the definition of being bad.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:So would it be fair to argue this: in your opinion, the argument from tradition about SSM claims that the definition of marriage shouldn't be changed because the tradition has a lot of value to fans - and outweighs any benefit to changing it?
That'd be my argument against changing the name of the Redskins. If you want to know what value the tradition of different-gender marriage has to those against SSM, you'll have to ask them.
quote:Hm. I've been largely staying out of this part of the discussion, but I would say that while there are a fair number of people who struggle to live as if they did not believe that intentionally doing bad was synonymous with being bad, in reality those people behave no differently from people who believe that intentionally doing bad is the definition of being bad.
Perhaps there are a fair number who struggle. But I think there are also a fair number who actually do believe that doing bad is not synonymous with being bad, and in my experience those people act noticably different from people who believe doing bad and being bad are the same thing. They tend to be more forgiving, for one thing - or at least they don't tend to seek justice in the same way when they're wronged. They also tend to be, from what I've seen, happier.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Tresopax, if instead of saying that SSM opponents arguments boil down to "straight people are better than gay people", Paul had said that the arguments boil down to "being straight is better than being gay" would you have the same issue with it?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:in my experience those people act noticably different from people who believe doing bad and being bad are the same thing
I suppose that I've just never met one.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Tresopax, if instead of saying that SSM opponents arguments boil down to "straight people are better than gay people", Paul had said that the arguments boil down to "being straight is better than being gay" would you have the same issue with it?
To me, those are quite different statements.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Right. That is why I am asking.
How about, "Being a straight person is better than being a gay person"?
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
Hey religious people, in terms of sin are acts of paedophilia as bad as homosexual acts?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
You want to define "religious people"? Not all of us think that homosexual acts are "bad". Paedophilia hurts children so that would be bad.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Tresopax, if instead of saying that SSM opponents arguments boil down to "straight people are better than gay people", Paul had said that the arguments boil down to "being straight is better than being gay" would you have the same issue with it?
Well, my real dispute is with the idea that there's anything that you can boil down all arguments against SSM to. I think the arguments against it vary a lot, from person to person, and there's no single secret hidden argument that underlies them all. That's why it doesn't make sense to make judgements about people simply because they vote against or donate money to oppose SSM; you need to know WHY they oppose it before you can draw conclusions. So, no, I'd still have the same issue with trying to boil all arguments down to "being straight is better than being gay".
Having said that, I'd add that I also don't think "being straight is better than being gay" is an accurate way of putting it either. I think most non-bigoted opponents of SSM who oppose it because of an opposition to homosexuality in general accept that some people are gay, or at least have gay feelings. I think it is acting on those feelings that they take issue with. I might be misunderstanding their position, but I think many are suggesting that people who are gay are supposed to either remain unmarried or marry someone of the opposite gender... in the same sense that they might expect someone who loves two women to only marry one, or in the sense that they might expect someone who loves their sibling in a romantic way to never act on that love. So the crux of the argument is less about being gay than actions.
quote:
quote:in my experience those people act noticably different from people who believe doing bad and being bad are the same thing
I suppose that I've just never met one.
Oh, I bet you have... the topic of "doing bad" vs. "being bad" probably just didn't come up. Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Just as I am less concerned about whether homosexuality is biological or chosen than I am about whether or not it does harm, I am less concerned about whether the opponents of SSM are driven by bigotry or just ordinary fear than I am about the harm they are doing.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Just as I am less concerned about whether homosexuality is biological or chosen than I am about whether or not it does harm, I am less concerned about whether the opponents of SSM are driven by bigotry or just ordinary fear than I am about the harm they are doing.
But if you want to actually convince someone to change their opinions, having an accurate idea of why they oppose you is often helpful.
Posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer (Member # 10416) on :
How many times have these discussions led to a change in opinion?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Scholarette, possibly. But I don't think that many minds will be changed by logic. I do think that not being allowed to use your motivation to escape the responsibility to at least acknowledge the harm you do might change hearts. I would like Prop 8 supporters to at least face up to the way they hurt people - even if they have the purest of reasons.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote:Originally posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer: How many times have these discussions led to a change in opinion?
*Raises hand*
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
"Me too!"
I switched from anti-ssm to pro-ssm via online discussion of the subject.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
I think participants in a debate are far less likely to change positions in mid-debate than lurkers are to be converted to a position by reading the discussion.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
And having been in a debate, people might change their mind later. Probably not DURING. But later.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I would like Prop 8 supporters to at least face up to the way they hurt people - even if they have the purest of reasons.
I feel the same way about Prop 8 opposers. Usually they brush off concerns with statements like "I don't feel much sympathy when discriminators get discriminated against."
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I would like Prop 8 supporters to at least face up to the way they hurt people - even if they have the purest of reasons.
I feel the same way about Prop 8 opposers. Usually they brush off concerns with statements like "I don't feel much sympathy when discriminators get discriminated against."
True story.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I feel the same way about Prop 8 opposers.
That seems kind of silly. Supporting same-sex marriage has never hurt anyone, ever.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
No kidding. And you might note that I have written more than once, that discrimination and hate-mongering is wrong.
But people crying about being victims of discrimination when they are being discriminated against because they discriminate against others in much more damaging ways (and are proud of doing it!) is just too much irony for me to take.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:I feel the same way about Prop 8 opposers.
That seems kind of silly. Supporting same-sex marriage has never hurt anyone, ever.
Actually, isn't that what the argument is about- people who oppose ssm believe it will do great harm to society. So, those in favor are hurting people according to those who oppose ssm. OF course, I am not really sure exactly how ssm is going to harm society (hence why I vote in favor of it) but anti-ssm are very adamant on this argument.
ETA- I am going out of town for spring break so I probably won't be responding for a bit.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: No kidding. And you might note that I have written more than once, that discrimination and hate-mongering is wrong.
But people crying about being victims of discrimination when they are being discriminated against because they discriminate against others in much more damaging ways (and are proud of doing it!) is just too much irony for me to take.
Then the irony of people discriminating against people (proudly) because they (in their eyes) discriminate against others escapes you?
edit - And I just gotta ask. How exactly does Prop 8 *harm* anyone? Please. Outline it. I bet there isn't one way that they are being harmed that would outright require extending marriage as a right.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:How exactly does Prop 8 *harm* anyone? Please. Outline it.
For one thing, it comes out and says "you are second-class citizens and we don't value your monogamous relationships."
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:How exactly does Prop 8 *harm* anyone? Please. Outline it.
For one thing, it comes out and says "you are second-class citizens and we don't value your monogamous relationships."
Oh cry me a river. If homosexual couples need public validation there's a deeper problem.
Maybe we should start extending the actual *rights* to all people including straight couples that don't want to get married. Cause if this is about boosting the self esteem of people who have chosen to live a specific lifestyle, then let me tell you that's not what the damn constitution is for.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
So you're perfectly okay with eliminating the rights of straight couples to get married?
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
Sorry, I'm still trying to figure out how that question makes any sense whatsoever...
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Because they shouldn't need any validation for their feelings, and the constitution isn't there to protect people who have chosen to live a specific lifestyle.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
Thanks for illustrating my point, Tom and Kate.
I have been harmed by the creation of SSM; I've been brought into conflict with my daughter's school, due to curriculum introduced as a result of the creation of SSM. My daughter's been harmed because she's receiving conflicting messages from teachers and parents at an age when a child shouldn't be forced to deal with authority figures disagreeing with each other. My friends have been materially harmed as a result of their vocal opposition to SSM, through threats and property destruction. Others have been harmed by the incivility that Kate dismisses so easily with lip service about "hate mongering" and a shrug of her shoulders.
You may not find these harms meaningful, but I do. I hate feeling compelled to teach my five year old daughter about homosexuality in order to counteract the messaging she'll be getting at school. I hate the conflict I've been brought into as a result of the new statute, socially and politically within my town. I fear for how this liberalization will effect our society in the future, harms that you find unlikely but I don't particularly.
If you are unable to conceive of any harms done by prop 8 opposition, it's because you're not thinking very hard. I don't expect you to value them as I do (just as I'm sure you wouldn't expect me to value the harms done by prop 8 support at the same levels you do) but a failure to recognize they exist and are meaningful to me and to others in your communities is incredibly arrogant.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: Because they shouldn't need any validation for their feelings, and the constitution isn't there to protect people who have chosen to live a specific lifestyle.
Ya ever notice that the constitution makes no statements on marriage whatsoever? Cause it's not actually a right. Did you know that?
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
quote:And I just gotta ask. How exactly does Prop 8 *harm* anyone? Please. Outline it. I bet there isn't one way that they are being harmed that would outright require extending marriage as a right.
quote:$100,000 to spouse of any public safety officer killed in the line of duty
I used to work the night shift in a coffee shop and I got to know quite a few officers while I was there, several of whom were gay. I can't think of any compelling reason why their partners should not receive this benefit, in the event of a tragedy.
So even IF there is no "right to marriage," the point is pretty irrelevant as far as I'm concerned. My government is offering rights and benefits in a way that I judge to be both harmful and discriminatory. That's the part I care about.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
SenojRetep,
Yes, you, like many other parents, have to discuss with your children that not everyone agrees with your views. Can you for a moment imagine the conversations that SS couple have to have with their children?
Have they taken away your legal right to have a family?
And to return to my original point, do you really think that the "incivility" that people have suffered (and, again, I wish that were not so) has come anywhere near the "incivility" shown to homosexuals? Really?
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
quote:Ya ever notice that the constitution makes no statements on marriage whatsoever? Cause it's not actually a right. Did you know that?
That's fine. So you're okay with that privilege being revoked for straight couples then? (This actually isn't that hypothetical a question. There's a movement underway to replace all marriages with the phrase "domestic partnerships" that are available to gay and straight couples. I'm actually in favor of it, since it puts everyone on even footing, lets marriage be determined by individual churches and cultures and probably will help with some other problems as well)
quote:My daughter's been harmed because she's receiving conflicting messages from teachers and parents at an age when a child shouldn't be forced to deal with authority figures disagreeing with each other.
By that logic, any given activity can be considered "harmful" to people who don't like it and don't want to have to teach their kids about it. I'm sure parents who opposed de-segregation of schools were frustrated for the same reason.
That being said, I don't see why gay marriage has to be part of the school curriculum.
quote: My friends have been materially harmed as a result of their vocal opposition to SSM,
This is certainly wrong, for the same reasons it's wrong to inflict harm on anyone for believing anything. People on both sides of the argument have been victims of attacks. Neither of which has anything to do with the validity of the arguments themselves.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
Kate-
Asking opponents of SSM to "face up to the way they hurt people" while glibly refusing to do the same is hypocritical. Shrug your shoulders and define my harms away using your ideological biases all you want; it doesn't change the fact that these policies harm many people in meaningful ways, and your inability to recognize that stunts any meaningful conversation.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
You can't see my shoulders. And you haven't been reading my posts with any kind of comprehension.
And you are copping out on the question.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
Senoj,
quote: My daughter's been harmed because she's receiving conflicting messages from teachers and parents at an age when a child shouldn't be forced to deal with authority figures disagreeing with each other.
You are still completely within your rights to raise your children in a cave. That way they will never be told anything that you do not want them to hear.
And that goes for people on either side who view having to explain things to their children as 'harm'.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
Javert-
If we're defining harm as only those bad things you can't avoid, then I don't believe there are any harms at all. Anyone "harmed" by Prop 8 opposition is completely within their rights to leave the state to get those benefits elsewhere.
Kate-
I'm copping out? Pot, meet kettle. How about you list the ways you've hurt people with your well intentioned support for SSM.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: I hate feeling compelled to teach my five year old daughter about homosexuality in order to counteract the messaging she'll be getting at school.
See, you think of this as harm. I think of it as you taking your medicine. It might not taste good, but it's better for you. I mean, seriously, having to discuss important things with your children is a downside? Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:I would like Prop 8 supporters to at least face up to the way they hurt people - even if they have the purest of reasons.
quote:
quote:I feel the same way about Prop 8 opposers.
That seems kind of silly. Supporting same-sex marriage has never hurt anyone, ever.
Both sides think supporting the opposing position is harmful. So, I'd say it's pretty silly to ask either side to declare their position more harmful to people. You might as well say "I'd expect opponents/supporters of SSM to at least face up to how wrong they are."
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Both sides think supporting the opposing position is harmful.
Except there's an order of difference. Reinforcing the second-class nature of homosexual relationships is directly and immediately harmful. Allowing homosexual relationships to be recognized by society is a hypothetical future harm, and does no direct harm to anyone opposed to the concept.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I mean, seriously, having to discuss important things with your children is a downside?
No, but being compelled to discuss them when I don't feel my children are prepared for them is.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:No, but being compelled to talk to them when I don't feel my children are prepared for them is.
Gay people exist regardless of the existence of SSM, they form (state recognized in many cases) relationships regardless of SSM, and they even marry in other states and countries regardless of whether they are permitted to do so in yours.
It's something that will come up at some point. Even living in a conservative part of Utah my children are aware of homosexuality. We've discussed the topic and it wasn't particularly hard to do. "Instead of a Mommy and a Daddy, they have two Mommies." It's not rocket science.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Yes, a moderately increased likelihood of a difficult conversation with your children is definitely a reason to oppose extending protections that will enable a substantial portion of the population to have stronger families, see and make decisions for each other in the hospital during emergencies without complicated legal maneuvering, and other things that if taken away in the least part would lead to a revolt by people who have been able to enjoy the benefits of the legal institution of marriage.
You know those times when you can substitute interracial marriage for SSM and the argument looks ridiculous? This is especially one of those times. Can you imagine how you would look down on someone who said interracial marriage would harm him because legalizing it would mean he had to talk about the existence of such relationships with his children?
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Except there's an order of difference. Reinforcing the second-class nature of homosexual relationships is directly and immediately harmful. Allowing homosexual relationships to be recognized by society is a hypothetical future harm, and does no direct harm to anyone opposed to the concept.
Reinforcing the second-class nature of homosexual relationships is mostly only directly and immediately harmful according to SSM advocates. Similarly, undermining the second-class nature of homosexual relationships is directly and immediately harmful according to many SSM opponents (for various reasons, including because it encourages people to engage in supposedly sinful relationships which would directly harm them morally, because it would supposedly teach children the wrong lessons, because it would supposedly damamge traditions, etc.) There is no order of difference between the directness of either harm.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: Javert-
If we're defining harm as only those bad things you can't avoid, then I don't believe there are any harms at all. Anyone "harmed" by Prop 8 opposition is completely within their rights to leave the state to get those benefits elsewhere.
Kate-
I'm copping out? Pot, meet kettle. How about you list the ways you've hurt people with your well intentioned support for SSM.
Sure. Here's my list:
1. I've told people on the internet what I think of them.
2. Nope. Just the one.
Now will you answer my questions? As a remiinder:
quote: Yes, you, like many other parents, have to discuss with your children that not everyone agrees with your views. Can you for a moment imagine the conversations that SS couple have to have with their children?
Have they taken away your legal right to have a family?
And to return to my original point, do you really think that the "incivility" that people have suffered (and, again, I wish that were not so) has come anywhere near the "incivility" shown to homosexuals? Really?
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"Reinforcing the second-class nature of homosexual relationships is only directly and immediately harmful according to SSM advocates."
Well, and scientific research that seems to indicates that gays are at a much higher risk of mental health disorders, suicide, et al, in large part because of lack of social acceptance.
On the other hand, there's no evidence coming from places that HAVE equitable marriage that there's any measurable harm that results.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:encourages people to engage in supposedly sinful relationships which would directly harm them morally, because it would supposedly teach children the wrong lessons, because it would supposedly damamge traditions
These are all great examples of indirect harm. None of them are direct harms, however.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:These are all great examples of indirect harm. None of them are direct harms, however.
They are exactly as direct/indirect as your example of "hurting people by re-inforcing the second class nature of homosexual realtionships."
quote:On the other hand, there's no evidence coming from places that HAVE equitable marriage that there's any measurable harm that results.
The Bible is one piece of evidence that many SSM opponents accept as very very strong. Not to mention the word of people who have supposedly communicated with God.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"Ya ever notice that the constitution makes no statements on marriage whatsoever? Cause it's not actually a right. Did you know that? "
Actually, its been recognized as a fundamental right for over 50 years. Constitution doesn't list all the rights we have, it actually says so right in the document.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:They are exactly as direct/indirect as your example of "hurting people by re-inforcing the second class nature of homosexual realtionships."
Not at all. "re-inforcing the second class nature of homosexual realtionships" refers to a broad range of specific and direct harms, which range from practical legal matters such as probate law, medical power of attorney, and child custody to mental health problems and workplace discrimination due to prejudicial behavior.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Actually, its been recognized as a fundamental right for over 50 years. Constitution doesn't list all the rights we have, it actually says so right in the document.
And aside from that, equality under the law is generally considered to be a right so any law that gives benefit to one group while not providing it to a similarly situated group violates that right. So while the government might not be obligated to recognize any marriage, if it recognizes any it should recognize all.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"The Bible is one piece of evidence that many SSM opponents accept as very very strong. Not to mention the word of people who have supposedly communicated with God. "
I'm sorry, I was talking about evidence for measurable harms. Maybe I wasn't clear on that?
You can believe anything you want is a harm, but unless you can show how its a harm, and measure that harm some way, and of course communicate that harm without resorting to your religion, the thing you believe is a harm really has no business in a serious discussion, especially on a policy matter.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Not at all. "re-inforcing the second class nature of homosexual realtionships" refers to a broad range of specific and direct harms, which range from practical legal matters such as probate law, medical power of attorney, and child custody to mental health problems and workplace discrimination due to prejudicial behavior.
And "undermining the second class nature of homosexual relationships" also refers to a broad range of specific and direct harms.
For instance, to a SSM advocate, it might be harmful to gay couples if they don't get tax breaks that other married couples do. To SSM opponents, it might be harmful to citizens if they have to pay for tax breaks going to gay couples that gay couples (in their view) shouldn't get. You can call this direct or indirect harm, but it can go both ways depending on what you consider helpful and harmful.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Tresopax, your "direct harm" are a lot like the "harms" inflicted upon white people when they had to share water fountains and didn't always get the good seats on the bus.
Rectifying an injustice does cause some kind of harm to the people who were unjustly benefiting from the injustice.
So what?
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:You can believe anything you want is a harm, but unless you can show how its a harm, and measure that harm some way, and of course communicate that harm using rational pieces of "evidence," the thing you believe is a harm really has no business in a serious discussion, especially on a policy matter.
So says you. But we're talking about the idea that SSM opponents should "face up" to the "harm" their viewpoint is causing. If some of them believe the Bible to be the most definitive piece of evidence available, it's downright ridiculous to expect them to ignore it when trying to figure out what is harmful.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:For instance, to a SSM advocate, it might be harmful to gay couples if they don't get tax breaks that other married couples do. To SSM opponents, it might be harmful to citizens if they have to pay for tax breaks going to gay couples that gay couples (in their view) shouldn't get. You can call this direct or indirect harm, but it can go both ways depending on what you consider helpful and harmful.
These harms are not invoked by most people that oppose SSM. I'm sure you can produce a hypothetical SSM opponent who is directly harmed by a (marginally) increased tax burdon, but all of the harms claimed prior to this discussion of the lack of direct harms were indirect and hypothetical.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:You can believe anything you want is a harm, but unless you can show how its a harm, and measure that harm some way, and of course communicate that harm without resorting to your religion, the thing you believe is a harm really has no business in a serious discussion, especially on a policy matter.
(Emphasis added.)
Of course, many people disagree with the basic assumptions in this statement, which is one of the reasons why so many discussions on this topic are never fruitful.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Tresopax, your "direct harm" are a lot like the "harms" inflicted upon white people when they had to share water fountains and didn't always get the good seats on the bus.
Rectifying an injustice does cause some kind of harm to the people who were unjustly benefiting from the injustice.
So what?
That's completely correct.
The point is that whether or not there is overall harm being caused by laws against SSM depends on whether or not you consider it an injustice.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
How is it not an injustice when the government grants rights to some people that it doesn't grant to others?
The question is whether that injustice is justified.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:How is it not an injustice when the government grants rights to some people that it doesn't grant to others?
Yet again, this question depends on assumptions that are not necessarily shared with those you're asking the question of.
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
quote:
quote:You can believe anything you want is a harm, but unless you can show how its a harm, and measure that harm some way, and of course communicate that harm without resorting to your religion, the thing you believe is a harm really has no business in a serious discussion, especially on a policy matter.
(Emphasis added.)
Of course, many people disagree with the basic assumptions in this statement, which is one of the reasons why so many discussions on this topic are never fruitful.
If I was trying to convince someone that SSM was wrong then of course Paul is right: that, assuming he doesn't share my religious convictions, resorting to religious arguments is completely ineffectual. However, my reading of this thread is that though these things have swung side to side, the last several pages have been an attempt to "show", so to speak, that opponents of SSM legalization are causing harm to others and thus should stop. This being the case, I would find it just as ineffectual to announce that all SSM opponents would need to revoke the influence of religion in determining harm caused by their actions. One of the most important things my religion does inform is my basic beliefs about what harm really is. Insisting that any public debate remove the effects of religion is calling for a castration of religion entirely. What should religion inform if not my opinion on general life goals? Shouldn't the belief in an after-life, and especially the ways to find success (or however we choose to phrase) in the eternities impact my view of what is and is not right in this life? Aren't others doing the same even when the belief they have is a lack of the after life? I'm not trying to start a "science=religion" argument here, I'm just pointing out that we all have ideas about what the point of life is and what we're trying to get out of it. The real separation of view points in terms of how to deal with moral issues like SSM stems from differences in those goals. To insist that people disregard their religion and thus remove their "purpose of life" statements and make them fall in line with your own is basically demanding at the outset of the argument that you will win. Which, of course, is neither likely nor helpful.
Hobbes Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Mph, Do you want to make a case for why those assumptions are wrong or do you just want to throw that in there?
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Yet again, this question depends on assumptions that are not necessarily shared with those you're asking the question of.
True. If people honestly believe that blacks are inferior to whites and are cursed by God to be an subserviant race, then slavery is not an injustice.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: ... The Bible is one piece of evidence that many SSM opponents accept as very very strong. Not to mention the word of people who have supposedly communicated with God.
By all means tie the Bible and God closer to SSM opposition. While that may play well in the US in the present, it sure makes the case *for* SSM easier to make internationally (plus the added bonus of providing fodder for atheists in the future).
It will also be interesting to see how the various sects react as they plow ahead despite facing more acceptance within their ranks (ala contraception in the Catholic Church) or claim that it was just a mis-interpretation/change in revelation or whatever the Mormons do in regard to blacks or simply splinter (as the Anglicans seem to be doing over this issue).
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Hobbes, it is quite right that your religious convictions should determine your life goals and purpose of life.
It is wrong that your religious convictions should determine the life goals and purpose of life for other people who don't share your particular religious convictions.
Would you like your life goals and purpose of life determined by my religious convictions?
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
Oh please. Let me determine your life goals and purpose of life based on my convictions about religion *grin*
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
I was very careful to make my statement just about what MPH said and the role of religion in discussion, if you felt that I stated that my religious convictions should be used to determine other's goals I suggest you re-read my post. I've read the thread but stayed out until now because I knew that like Geoff, I'd burn-out out but faster and undoubtedly having added less well informed discussion. I tried to keep from getting directly into the argument itself and just address one of the tangents that sprang up. A far more interesting discussion than if religion should be used in discussion (which is what I felt Paul was saying should not happen) would be if opposing SSM marriage is the same as determining life goals and purposes for others. Though both would be more effective than attacking me because I've already decided to cut and run when the going gets tough.
Hobbes Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Boots -- whether the assumptions are wrong or not, you know that they are not shared by a large percentage of the people in the conversation, which makes such questions mainly useful for scoring rhetorical points, not constructive dialog.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Hobbes, that wasn't an attack. Assuming that your religious convictions are informing your decision about who you marry and aren't urging you to support laws about who other people marry, you and I have no argument. You are perfectly free to believe that SSM is bad and to never marry someone of the same sex.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:How is it not an injustice when the government grants rights to some people that it doesn't grant to others?
I pay taxes and some people don't. You can vote and certain other people can't. Obama can run for president but Arnold can't. And so on... Rights often come with restrictions that make the rights only applicable or more useful to certain groups.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: Boots -- whether the assumptions are wrong or not, you know that they are not shared by a large percentage of the people in the conversation, which makes such questions mainly useful for scoring rhetorical points, not constructive dialog.
So argue those assumptions.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax:
quote:How is it not an injustice when the government grants rights to some people that it doesn't grant to others?
I pay taxes and some people don't. You can vote and certain other people can't. Obama can run for president but Arnold can't. And so on... Rights often come with restrictions that make the rights only applicable or more useful to certain groups.
Yup. Like I wrote, the question is whether or not those injustices are justified.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
The thing is, hobbes, when you cast a vote, based on your religious convictions, then you are using your religions convictions to determine how other people should live, and thus what their life goals should be, in this case by voting to remove a possible life goal.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:So argue those assumptions.
Don't ask loaded questions based on unshared assumptions.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Why not? If you aren't going to argue those assumption? Or even bother to identify them?
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Hobbes, that wasn't an attack. Assuming that your religious convictions are informing your decision about who you marry and aren't urging you to support laws about who other people marry, you and I have no argument. You are perfectly free to believe that SSM is bad and to never marry someone of the same sex.
Religion should definitely be a factor in what laws you vote for, if your views on ethics are based in religion. Otherwise you'd be voting for things that you consider wrong, which is itself wrong. That doesn't mean it's wise to try and have the government do the church's job, but it does mean individuals need to take their religious moral views into account when making political decisions.
That is not equivalent to determining someone else's life goals for them. The government has no say in what I choose as my life goals, and couldn't even if every voter wanted it to.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: The thing is, hobbes, when you cast a vote, based on your religious convictions, then you are using your religions convictions to determine how other people should live, and thus what their life goals should be, in this case by voting to remove a possible life goal.
And when you vote without any thought to a particular organized religion you are instead placing yourself in the role of head of your own religion, as far as your own decisions are concerned. You let stupid people vote carelessly all the time, and I let religious people vote even when they are just voting for what their leaders tell them too. The stupid person and the religious one are both making mistakes, but I don't see how we can effectively stop either.
If by keeping this status quo we continue to allow smart people to vote, and those who may have actually been told by God to vote a certain way to also vote I think we have maximized the good that can reasonably be accomplished in this way.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
How is it not determining someone's life goal if someone's goal is to marry someone they love and have a family?
Tresopax, would you feel the same way if the majority of voters had religious beliefs that were abhorant to you? What if, hypothetically, a majority of people shared a religious belief that included ritual sex with their children. Should our laws change to permit that? Or are there some things that should not be decided my majority religious beliefs?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Why not? Because you you've been in enough of these conversations that you know that those assumptions are not shared with your audience, you know that it's a loaded question, and you know that while it's great for rhetoric, it's unlikely to to lead to useful communication.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Tresopax, would you feel the same way if the majority of voters had religious beliefs that were abhorant to you?
If that were the case, I'd think they should get a better religion.
And I'd think there should exist certain Constitutional rights that can't be easily changed for any reason, religious or nonreligious. If the majority passes some abhorant law, it really doesn't matter if their reasons are religious or nonreligious; it's abhorant either way.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
BB- I'm not making an argument that religious people shouldn't be allowed to vote. It seems like you interpreted my statement in that way.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:How is it not determining someone's life goal if someone's goal is to marry someone they love and have a family?
They can still have that goal - it will just be harder to achieve it. I suppose you could say it is discouraging them to have such a life goal though.
But that's the role of government in a democracy. It passes laws that restrict people's lives as the majority deem necessary, within the limits given to it. That does mean it is often in the business of influencing life goals, in a sense.
But it definitely can't say "Your goal in life is to marry someone of the opposite sex" or "Your goal in life is to buy fancy cars" or whatever. It can encourage or discourage options, but it doesn't get to make my choice for me.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"If that were the case, I'd think they should get a better religion. "
Get a better religion. The one you have is making you believe that abhorrent voting patterns are acceptable.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
My religion does not make any claims about what voting patterns are acceptable....
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: BB- I'm not making an argument that religious people shouldn't be allowed to vote. It seems like you interpreted my statement in that way.
No, but it seems that you are of the opinion that adding religion to the thought process is always to reasons' detriment.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: BB- I'm not making an argument that religious people shouldn't be allowed to vote. It seems like you interpreted my statement in that way.
No, but it seems that you are of the opinion that adding religion to the thought process is always to reasons' detriment.
Isn't this pretty much what every atheist thinks? If you're starting from false premises, you can never reach a logically valid conclusion.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"My religion does not make any claims about what voting patterns are acceptable.... "
I didn't say it did. I said that your religion is leading you to believe that the voting practice of banning gays from the institution of marriage is not abhorrent.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"No, but it seems that you are of the opinion that adding religion to the thought process is always to reasons' detriment. "
Yes. Using un-reason in a reasoning process is always to the detriment of reason.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:I didn't say it did. I said that your religion is leading you to believe that the voting practice of banning gays from the institution of marriage is not abhorrent.
But again, it's not my religion that's leading me to believe that.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
So, on which non-religious grounds do you think that how we treat gays is not abhorrent?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:It seems that you are of the opinion that adding religion to the thought process is always to reasons' detriment.
Yes. Absolutely! This actually sums it up better than I could, myself.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jhai:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: BB- I'm not making an argument that religious people shouldn't be allowed to vote. It seems like you interpreted my statement in that way.
No, but it seems that you are of the opinion that adding religion to the thought process is always to reasons' detriment.
Isn't this pretty much what every atheist thinks? If you're starting from false premises, you can never reach a logically valid conclusion.
Good luck always starting from a completely sound premise then. Also the assumption that every religion in inherently false is probably a bolder statement than anything a SSM opponent has said in this thread.
---- Paul:
quote:Yes. Using un-reason in a reasoning process is always to the detriment of reason.
Until you can find a way out of "religion = unreasonable" you will be doomed to be religion's opponent. I can acknowledge that religions often ask strange things of its' followers and I do not believe all of them are good things, but even if I rejected Mormonism I would not be ready to say that all religions are fundamentally wrong, I just wouldn't know enough to say that. You could spend a lifetime and not know all religions that have ever existed. I can accept the idea, "I have simply not been exposed to a religion that impressed me as more reasonable than not" but it strikes me as unwise to say, "All religions make their followers less capable of reason."
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Also the assumption that every religion in inherently false is probably a bolder statement than anything a SSM opponent has said in this thread.
That's a non sequitur. Rather, the assertion is that using an argument which relies on non-rational (i.e. religious) premises is always less rational than using an argument that does not.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:It seems that you are of the opinion that adding religion to the thought process is always to reasons' detriment.
Yes. Absolutely! This actually sums it up better than I could, myself.
Think of how much more clever I'd be as an atheist then Tom. I'd express everything for you. Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:Also the assumption that every religion in inherently false is probably a bolder statement than anything a SSM opponent has said in this thread.
The assumption is not that all are false, but that none can be demonstrated to be true.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:Also the assumption that every religion in inherently false is probably a bolder statement than anything a SSM opponent has said in this thread.
That's a non sequitur. Rather, the assertion is that using an argument which relies on non-rational (i.e. religious) premises is always less rational than using an argument that does not.
Again you are making the assumption that religion is irrational, which to me is still a bolder statement than anything said by a SSM opponent.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"but even if I rejected Mormonism I would not be ready to say that all religions are fundamentally wrong,"
See, I am. ( Because there are two premises in all religions that is necessary for them to not be fundamentally wrong, and that is "God exists," and "God speaks to us."
Since I think the first premise is not true, I'm pretty comfortable saying that all religions are fundamentally wrong. (Granted, I could be wrong about god existing. I think thats a pretty slim possibility, though).
"but it strikes me as unwise to say, "All religions make their followers less capable of reason.""
I didn't say this. What I am saying is "Using religious reasoning means you are using a less reasoned process than if you excluded the religious reasoning," and by "religious reasoning," here I mean, more or less, "assuming that you have knowledge from god."
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Of course religion is irrational. That's how you can distinguish it from philosophy.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Paul: But to say simply "are" instead of "I believe are" is still quite a stretch. How can you pronounce a judgment over something as vast as religion when you yourself are not even mostly acquainted with it?
Tom: I don't quite follow what you are saying. Religion is irrational so that we can conveniently call something else philosophy?
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
Eh. I tend to classify religions as "Things which formalize the relationship with the divine, whatever the divine might be." I'm ok with my statement applying only to those belief structures that have a divine, and limiting it that way.
Edit: The above was to mucus, who seems to have deleted his post.
BB- Well, when something shows up that could reasonably be construed to be god, then I'll re-evaluate. But since there's nothing that we've found that exists that could reasonably construed to be god, I'm ok with my statement.
But in order to not just throw religion out as meaningless, the first thing we need to do is actually have a god.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Religion is irrational so that we can conveniently call something else philosophy?
No. Rather, religion is irrational for other reasons. It is those reasons which distinguish religion from philosophy. Note, by the way, that "irrational" is not synonymous with "wrong."
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
(I deleted my post because I thought I was parsing PG's post improperly, but I think he might have answered before I deleted with the response on the divine. Sorry for any confusion)
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:I said that your religion is leading you to believe that the voting practice of banning gays from the institution of marriage is not abhorrent.
quote:So, on which non-religious grounds do you think that how we treat gays is not abhorrent?
You are changing your question. Are you asking about whether "the voting practice of banning gays from the institution of marriage" is abhorant? Or are you asking whether "how we treat gays" is not abhorrent?
In regards to voting practices, my view is based in philosophy and a fundamental belief in democracy. I'll give a very general outline of why: I think democracy functions best if people are well-informed and then vote for what they consider to be best, within rules defined by a constitution. "What they consider to be best" is something that factors in all sources of evidence according to their personal judgement. This is how democracies have always worked in modern times, for the most part, and I think they are generally successful. So, that means if someone thinks that banning gays from the institution of marriage is truly better for the country, they should vote for it, regardless of what kinds of evidence (religious or nonreligious) lead them to that conclusion. The rules of the constitution then exist to help protect the minority from any abhorrent foolishness on the part of the majority. My view is that history has shown this form of government to be effective - and I think that logic/philosophy seems to back it up.
In regards to whether "how we treat gays" is not abhorrent, I never said that. If you are talking specifically about the fact that gays can't get their marriages formally recognized by the government, I don't find that abhorrent because my personal observations have been that the harm caused by it doesn't rise to the level of "abhorrent". I'd reserve that word for more extreme things along the lines of murder, rape, lynchings, etc. I think not being able to legally marry poses a dilemma for gay couples, but I don't think it ruins their lives or prevents them from having a worthwhile relationship.
Regardless, neither of these has much to do with my religion. I can't remember homosexuality as a topic ever coming up at church, and I frankly don't see why it should be considered a significant issue in the Bible. Also, the Bible, my church, and Christianity has little-to-nothing to say about what form of government is best or how we should vote, as far as I'm concerned. If I were to attempt to form an opinion based entirely on my religion, and nothing else, I'd probably assume that Jesus would want gay couples to be married and would state that they are just as worthy as anyone else in the eyes of God.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP:
quote:Also the assumption that every religion in inherently false is probably a bolder statement than anything a SSM opponent has said in this thread.
The assumption is not that all are false, but that none can be demonstrated to be true.
Right. So to use whatever religion to guide your own life, great. There should be a demonstration of why when you encode something into law and impose your beliefs on others.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:That's a non sequitur. Rather, the assertion is that using an argument which relies on non-rational (i.e. religious) premises is always less rational than using an argument that does not.
There's no such thing as non-rational premises. There's wrong premises and right premises, but rational applies to lines of reasoning, not to the premises that you start from.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Yes, yes, we all know what I'm talking about. Are you of all people going to start caring about syntax? Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
Tres- You don't think treating a class of people as second class citizens, in such a way that these people have higher suicide rates and higher rates of mental illness than the rest of the population, is abhorrent? What word would you use to classify it?
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:You don't think treating a class of people as second class citizens, in such a way that these people have higher suicide rates and higher rates of mental illness than the rest of the population, is abhorrent?
I do think that's abhorrent (unless there's a good reason for it.) I don't think that failing to recognize SSM necessarily makes gay people into second class citizens though. Gay people are often treated as second class citizens in other ways in our society that rise to the level of abhorrent, though.
------
Incidently, I'd like to add that if I were to take religion entirely out of the equation, I'd probably feel considerably less concerned about the treatment of gay couples in our country. My religion entails the idea that we are supposed to help those who are treated poorly. That leads me to want to support measures that help gay couples not suffer. If I were to take that religious view entirely out of the equation, as some are suggesting, I'd probably be left with a much more apathetic view toward the suffering that minorities undergo. It's much easier to justify not caring about or hating a group of people from a secular viewpoint than from the viewpoint of how I'd interpret Christianity.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:If I were to take that religious view entirely out of the equation, as some are suggesting, I'd probably be left with a much more apathetic view toward the suffering that minorities undergo.
Really? Why? Do you really think you wouldn't care about strangers unless God told you to? I don't believe that.
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
Are there any hatrackers who are both 1)atheist/agnostic, and 2)against SSM ?
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Really? Why? Do you really think you wouldn't care about strangers unless God told you to? I don't believe that.
I didn't say I definitely wouldn't care about strangers; I just think it would be easier to justify not caring about strangers. In my view of Christianity, "care about strangers" is basically written in bold at the top of page #1 on the list of things to do. That makes it tough to ignore. From a secular viewpoint, there's not really any list given, and there's no scientific evidence telling us we always should care about people. I assume I'd still care, if only because it'd feel like the right thing to do, and because I suspect one could logically derive it with a bit of introspection. But if I wanted to rationalize not caring about someone, I'd think it'd be easier since it would just require altering a few assumptions of my moral calculus.
I'm generally amazed at Christians who say things like "God hates gays" because in my view, it seems to require basically ignoring the whole focus of the religion.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: I'm copping out? Pot, meet kettle. How about you list the ways you've hurt people with your well intentioned support for SSM.
Sure. Here's my list:
1. I've told people on the internet what I think of them.
2. Nope. Just the one.
Now will you answer my questions? As a remiinder:
quote: Yes, you, like many other parents, have to discuss with your children that not everyone agrees with your views. Can you for a moment imagine the conversations that SS couple have to have with their children?
Have they taken away your legal right to have a family?
And to return to my original point, do you really think that the "incivility" that people have suffered (and, again, I wish that were not so) has come anywhere near the "incivility" shown to homosexuals? Really?
Yes. No. Yes. Yes.
If you want to answer my question more thoughtfully I will be glad to do the same for yours.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Do you have any statistics on the number of people brutally killed for opposing SSM? I can give you some for people who have been brutally killed for being homosexual. I think that's a pretty high level of incivility.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
I'm not sure how opposition to Prop 8 gets transformed into brutal killing.
Lots of Mormons were brutally killed in the 1830s. I wouldn't lay those crimes at the feet of people who opposed polygamy politically.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
quote:And to return to my original point, do you really think that the "incivility" that people have suffered (and, again, I wish that were not so) has come anywhere near the "incivility" shown to homosexuals? Really?
(where 'people' in this context is the same as the people hurt by support for SSM).
You answered Yes and Yes.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: Do you have any statistics on the number of people brutally killed for opposing SSM? I can give you some for people who have been brutally killed for being homosexual. I think that's a pretty high level of incivility.
Here are some statistics:
The FBI reported 7,722 incidents of hate crimes in 2006, of which 16 percent were because of their sexual orientation.
In 2007 the FBI reported 7,624 hate crime incidents (involving 9006 offences). 16.6% were motivated from a sexual orientation basis.
A partial list of people murdered in the US last year because of their sexual orientation - or suspected orientation:
Duanna Johnson Lawrence King (15) Steven Parrish (180 Tony Hunter (27) Lateisha Green Romel Sucuzhanya, (31) – not gay, just suspected of being gay Durval Martin (35) Avery Elzy and Michael Hunt (along with their dog)
(edit - one of them - Michael Causer was not in the US)
[ March 13, 2009, 02:57 PM: Message edited by: kmbboots ]
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
I am saddened that people have been murdered. I know it would be a better world if murders didn't occur. But I don't recognize how these murders can substantively be argued to be a result of opposition to the legalization of SSM.
Mormons were murdered by people. The people who murdered Mormons probably supported efforts to outlaw polygamy. But to say that support for outlawing polygamy created the harm of Mormons being killed is incorrect.
Similarly, homosexuals have (among other things) been murdered. People who have murdered homosexuals probably also oppose legalizing SSM. However I don't see how the political effort to prevent the legalization of SSM can be shown in any meaningful way to lead to the harms suggested.
Glenn's example of suicide is much stronger, but I still reject it (inasmuch as "social approval" consists of much more than the recognition by the state of your sexual relationship).
Posted by Humean316 (Member # 8175) on :
quote:No. Rather, religion is irrational for other reasons.
And those reasons are?
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
quote:I didn't say I definitely wouldn't care about strangers; I just think it would be easier to justify not caring about strangers. In my view of Christianity, "care about strangers" is basically written in bold at the top of page #1 on the list of things to do. That makes it tough to ignore. From a secular viewpoint, there's not really any list given, and there's no scientific evidence telling us we always should care about people. I assume I'd still care, if only because it'd feel like the right thing to do, and because I suspect one could logically derive it with a bit of introspection. But if I wanted to rationalize not caring about someone, I'd think it'd be easier since it would just require altering a few assumptions of my moral calculus.
quote:When the Nazis came for the communists, I remained silent; I was not a communist.
When they locked up the social democrats, I remained silent; I was not a social democrat.
When they came for the trade unionists, I did not speak out; I was not a trade unionist.
When they came for the Jews, I remained silent; I was not a Jew.
When they came for me, there was no one left to speak out.
I was first read this in elementary school. While I've done a lot of introspection and study of objective morality since then, I don't think I'd ever need anything more than that poem to tell me to care about other people.
Humanity's in this together. I don't need God to tell me that.
Not to mention Exhibit B:
quote:I'm generally amazed at Christians who say things like "God hates gays" because in my view, it seems to require basically ignoring the whole focus of the religion.
I have not seen any indication that religion by itself makes anyone more moral. There will always be people ignoring the truths found in religion and secular ethics and the "First they came" poem (which I realize was written by a pastor, but does not rely on you having any religious background to understand). Those people are capable of mangling religious definitions just as well as they are at avoiding secular ethical thought.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
quote:But I don't recognize how these murders can substantively be argued to be a result of opposition to the legalization of SSM.
Because opposition to SSM is one facet of discrimination towards gays. It's an implicit societal nod to the idea that gays are "other" and "other" people are the ones that get murdered.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
To expand on what Matt said - legalizing gay marriage will not end all hate crimes against gays and eliminate all suicides, but it would certainly help.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
You weren't asked if opposition and support for SSM had generated similar levels of incivility, you were asked if incivility to people opposed to SSM and incivility to homosexual people were of similar levels. Was your response a misunderstanding over what the question was?
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:I have not seen any indication that religion by itself makes anyone more moral. There will always be people ignoring the truths found in religion and secular ethics and the "First they came" poem (which I realize was written by a pastor, but does not rely on you having any religious background to understand). Those people are capable of mangling religious definitions just as well as they are at avoiding secular ethical thought.
quote:Gallup Polls conducted in more than 140 countries worldwide between 2006 and 2008 show that those whose responses identify them as highly religious are more likely than less religious respondents to report that they have engaged in each of three "helping behaviors" in the past month. In all four major global regions, for example, highly religious people are more likely than those who report being less religious to report having donated money to a charity in that time.
The pattern is similar when Gallup asked respondents whether they had volunteered their time to an organization in the month prior to being surveyed. Though the overall numbers are lower here in all regions except Africa, highly religious respondents are again more likely to say "yes" than those who are less religious.
One question these findings raise is the degree to which highly religious people reserve their charitable activities for members of their own religious communities. After all, many religions encourage -- or even require -- members to donate their time or money to their local faith-based organizations. Are highly religious people also more likely than those who are less religious to say they've helped a stranger in the past month? The answer is yes -- though the differences are smaller in this case.
The "religion effects" we see in these questions are consistent not only across the major global regions, but also consistent across the world's largest faith traditions, including Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, and Judaism. Among respondents who identified with each of these major religions, those who fall into the highly religious category are more likely than those who are less religious to say they've engaged in all three helping behaviors, with differences for helping a stranger ranging from 7 percentage points among Buddhists to 15 points among Jews.
This does not show that religions make people more moral, but it does suggest that religion correlates to caring about others.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
<edit>In response to fugu</edit>
I parsed the question that way first, but then assumed she meant incivility generated as a result of the measure. If what she means is incivility in general then I don't understand the question's relevance.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: This does not show that religions make people more moral, but it does suggest that religion correlates to caring about others.
Actually, it suggests that being a highly motivated member of a religious group correlates to working with that religious group. Not exactly surprising.
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
Doesn't donating to one's church count as a charitable donation? Likewise volunteering at a church function presumably counts as volunteering time to an organization.
It's not surprising that people who have elected to join a particular community are active in the community. Unfortunately, I can't count money donated to my rec league soccer team as a charitable donation.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
Note the third paragraph: "One question these findings raise is the degree to which highly religious people reserve their charitable activities for members of their own religious communities. After all, many religions encourage -- or even require -- members to donate their time or money to their local faith-based organizations. Are highly religious people also more likely than those who are less religious to say they've helped a stranger in the past month? The answer is yes -- though the differences are smaller in this case."
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Okay. Fair enough. (That's certainly more evidence than I was aware of)
However, a major qualm I have with this is that it separates "high motivated religion" from everything else. I think "highly motivated community group" would give you roughly the same numbers. (I do suspect that there's more community groups based around religion than secular ones, mostly because religion as a driving force has more inertia).
It also limits the choices to a few specific ways of being a "good person." I maintain a vegetarian lifestyle and conserve energy as much as I can, which I consider to be extremely important. This probably wouldn't count for purposes of that poll, but I'd consider that a form of "donating" to the environment. (I suppose I could justify it as "helping a random stranger," although I did do that recently)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Party]](graemlins/party.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Taunt]](graemlins/taunt.gif)