posted
Ah, I sort of avoided the current conversation so as to point out something about the original strip. My bad if I misinterpreted you as responding primarily to me.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: My problem was with posting it here in the context of this discussion as yet more fuel for the "Christians vs. Gays" fire.
Me, too, Squick, with the added bonus that it was targeted directly at people I like and who have done nothing to warrant such comparison.
I am not at all suggesting that people don't do stupid and coercive things in the name of religion... I'm Catholic, to a great extent, and very aware of my church's history on this matter.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not true. From what I can tell, Rivka is on board with y'all about this. It was an ecumenical jab.
My issue is that over on the other thread, I kept hearing people claiming that my ability to marry my partner would somehow impose something on them. That's dumb. And the nutty whiner at the end of the cartoon seemed to embody that kind of dumbness.
By all means, be against SSM. Be against interractial marriage. Think that Jews are Christ-killers who are going to burn in hell. Think that women should be owned by their husbands. I don't care. Think any wrong-headed thing you want. But (a) don't try and force your religion on me, and (b) don't whine that my saying "don't try and force your religion on me" is me trying to force something on you. That's a cheap rhetorical trick, and it's worthy of nothing but scorn and mockery.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you have a problem with that aspect of it, I'd suggest that you criticize that aspect, as opposed to the "inaccurateness" of a portrayal of things that actually happen. The concept of these "Hell Houses" is ludicrous, especially when they are deliberately disguished as Haunted Houses. This practice deserves to mocked. I'm not sure how it deserves you denying that it exists.
To me, you actually weaken your criticisms by making counter-factual claims to support people like this. But, if you were to say that this was inappropriately applied in this instance, I wouldn't have a problem with this.
Although, I do have to admit that the idea that oppression means that people in authority aren't doing what you want them to appears to be a pretty common one among many politically active Christian groups and will likely be on display as we enter into the "War On Christmas" propoganda season.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jim-Me: My... such a tolerant and understanding picture of Christians. The nightstick to beat comprehension into people is such a tried and true tactic of compassion and winning people over with kindness, almost as loving and inviting as Torquemada's ideas.
I guess you and Something Positive really showed us didn't you?
I do, however, remain in favor of giving some form of legal rights to gay couples... even ones who believe their opponents should be beaten into submission, whether literally or figuratively.
Where on earth did I imply that such things never happened? I merely pointed out the irony of suggesting that people who improperly complain of being persecuted be beaten into being understanding and tolerant of other's religious ideas.
I have gone on to say that it's unfair to paint Christians in this fashion and particularly Hatrack's Christians, who have been asked for their opinion on the matter of Gay Marriage.
quote:I figured I'd address the cartoon, though it had moved on from there. Places like that described in the cartoon have been springing up in the last few years. Give it a look. I'd suggest that before you get into a tizzy about an inaccurate protrayal of Christians, you make at least a little bit of effort to find out if this protrayal is actually inaccurate.
I missed the allegations of false imprisonment and unlawful detention levied at the houses on the religious tolerance page. Could you quote them for me so I can evaluate whether your assessment that places like that exist?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: boots, It was aimed at the people who were saying that this was an inaccurate portrayal.
I acknowledged that is was accurate of some Christians. I deny that it is either representational of Christians in general or helpful to the conversation on SSM.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: It was aimed at the people who were saying that this was an inaccurate portrayal.
So, because some arabs are terrorists, I should post a link to a cartoon depicting them as such and mocking them for it and say "hey, Twinky, here's what I think of you guys!"? Because Catholics perpetrated the inquisition I should invite Dagonee and kmbboots to a dialogue and then harangue them for being inquisitors? Because some teens are reckless and irresponsible behind the wheel of a car, I should come here and lecture them all, broadly, on the damage they are doing and suggest they be beaten by policemen when they violate the law?
You're saying you'd have no problem with any of that?
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think that anyone, even Lisa, tried to claim it was representative of Christians in general.
I'm saying that places like this (though granting that certain aspects were exaggerated) do exist and that they are very fit subjects for mockery.
Perhaps I read people wrong and no one was disputing any of these three things. If people, individually or as a whole, were not doing so, clearly my comments were not aimed at them.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
You know, there's really no point in people pondering what the intent of this thread was. I stated it very clearly in the initial post, and I see no reason to revise it:
For everyone over on the gay thread who thinks that SSM would harm them.
Anyone who wants to pretend that something was meant other than exactly what I said in that post is boring.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I kept hearing people claiming that my ability to marry my partner would somehow impose something on them.
Just so we can be clear on this:
Here are the quotes (up to page 8) from the other thread regarding the affects that anti-SSM folks say SSM will have on society. Let me know if I've missed something.
quote: page 2: Silent E:
Religious people who are against gay marriage almost never base their reasons solely on the belief that "God said so". In most cases, they actually believe that damage to society (beyond mere punishment from God, or the presumed inherent damage in "getting further away from God") will result from legalizing gay marriage. It is true that this belief is informed by their religious beliefs, but I happen to think that when people genuinely believe they see damage to society impending, they have both the right and moral obligation to act in opposition to it.
Scott R:
I don't know that homosexual marriage WILL damage society. I think it will make sin more accessible.
Page 3:
Scott R: for the record: I am not personally saying that anything society wide WILL happen. Maybe it won't. I DO think, spiritually, from a Mormon POV, we'll be the poorer for it.
Page 3:
BlackBlade: I honestly believe that by encouraging homosexuality to gain more and more of a foothold in society I am harming others in that I am allowing them to become more and more entrenched in a way of life that is contrary to true happiness.
Page 5:
Scott R:
What does my objection stem from, then? If I'm not opposed to secular "rights" (shared health care, etc) why should I care about a civil union? [...] I don't believe homosexual unions pose a threat to individual marriages. I do believe that social approbation through legitimization of homosexual unions will make the sin of homosexual behavior more accessible; it will make it more difficult to support, justify, and teach the will of God for family life, because another option is being shown as just as acceptable in wider society.
Page 6:
MPH (quoting a statement by Mormon Leaders)
"Any other sexual relations, including those between persons of the same gender, undermine the divinely created institution of the family. The Church accordingly favors measures that define marriage as the union of a man and a woman and that do not confer legal status on any other sexual relationship."
Page 7:
BlackBlade:
Divorce might or might not go up in the long term if SSM are allowed. If SSM were shown to be 100% without divorce the gross divorce rate in every state could still go down based on completely unrelated factors.
Page 8:
BlackBlade:
Again I admit that I cannot accurately guess as to how SSM might harm society. But there ARE plenty of ways to gauge harm to society, thats all my post was attempting to list.
MPH (in response to question from Squicky): most of the objections I've heard that had a predictive element involved the affects it would have on children growing up in a society which, by its laws and social norms, says that a homosexual union is pretty much identical to a traditional marriage.
posted
As I said, I grew up in Dallas. I have seen hell houses since the early 90s and know several people who have been involved in them. I've never gone to one.
I do not deny they exist.
I do not suggest they are a good evangelization tool.
Lisa directly called out her fellow hatrackers in her original post. I categorically deny that people I have seen on hatrack taking the anti-SSM side of the argument are deserving of that comparison.
I don't read Something Positive. I don't know what the overall slant of the strip is. I don't really care. I do know that as a Christian and a hatracker I definitely felt included in Lisa's aspersions... and I don't oppose same sex marriage.
Edit: I never claimed I wasn't boring.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jim-Me: Lisa directly called out her fellow hatrackers in her original post. I categorically deny that people I have seen on hatrack taking the anti-SSM side of the argument are deserving of that comparison.
I specifically called out those who think that SSM would harm them. I claimed that those who claim to think such a thing are no different than the little weenie in the strip who said "Man, why do you have to be so intolerant of our faith?" to a cop who was giving him a hard time for trying to terrorize people into converting.
I stand by that claim. If you want to pretend that I was applying this strip to everyone who opposes SSM in the face of my stated intent, then there's no reasoning with you.
quote:Originally posted by Jim-Me: I don't read Something Positive. I don't know what the overall slant of the strip is. I don't really care. I do know that as a Christian and a hatracker I definitely felt included in Lisa's aspersions... and I don't oppose same sex marriage.
If you felt included in my criticism, you weren't paying attention. If I'd just posted the link, that'd be one thing. But I was clear in my initial post, and anyone who chooses to disregard what I wrote there is making themselves ridiculous.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sure. Rakeesh, for certain. He made the claim several times. You played your usual lawyerly games and put the position in the mouths of hypothetical people (not even caring, as usual, that doing so was basically making the argument). Devil's advocate or not, injecting that nonsense into the thread counts. And it pissed me off.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
[imaginary link to a cartoon about a scout leader/priest/congressman behaving inappropriately with teenage boys]
to all those who think homosexuality can't hurt them.
find that offensive, Lisa? but I'm only talking about the gay people who molest teens! If you are offended, that's your problem!
Yes, I revved it up a notch, but your cartoon depicts Christians as engaging in illegal behavior (rather than the merely manipulative behavior which *is*, unfortunately, often exhibited). Furthermore, the policeman and his response imply that public authority and the use of force are warranted responses to the people you are ridiculing, whoever they may be.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think today's comic just made the point many people on this thread have been trying to make.
Posts: 3546 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Sure. Rakeesh, for certain. He made the claim several times.
So Rakeesh made the claim that a policy that he favors will actually hurt him? I'd love to see you quote that.
quote:You played your usual lawyerly games
Psychic Lisa, again. She's bad at it, but she keeps trying. If you think these are games you are badly mistaken. Further, if you actually think attempting to understand someone else's point of view is a negative,it makes your whole posting history spring into focus.
quote:and put the position in the mouths of hypothetical people
Quote where I did this.
quote: (not even caring, as usual, that doing so was basically making the argument)
There's that psychic ability again. Wrong as usual.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Psychic Lisa, again. She's bad at it, but she keeps trying. If you think these are games you are badly mistaken. Further, if you actually think attempting to understand someone else's point of view is a negative,it makes your whole posting history spring into focus.
You think it's reasonable, Dag, but it's not. Some views are odious enough that you don't have to try and see it from the other side's point of view. You clearly believe this yourself, after all. I haven't noticed you ever trying to get other people to understand the POV I and others like me hold on the middle east conflict.
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:and put the position in the mouths of hypothetical people
quote: (not even caring, as usual, that doing so was basically making the argument)
There's that psychic ability again. Wrong as usual.
Oh, so you do care that tossing the argument into the thread was basically making the argument? Or do you mean that you were blissfully unaware of what you were doing?
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Furthermore, it is a matter of opinion (one which I share, mind you) that forcing-yes, forcing-this belief on them changes their life in a minute, oblique way.
I mean that both sides are, according to some on both sides, forcing a belief on others.
However, I maintain that there is force on both sides, for some people, of this issue.
Happy?
Well, no, because that doesn't say that Rakeesh thinks it hurts him.
quote:You think it's reasonable, Dag, but it's not. Some views are odious enough that you don't have to try and see it from the other side's point of view.
You do if you want to change their minds. It's pretty clear you're not happy with the state of civil marriage in this country. The people who will determine if your wishes on this subject are fulfilled don't agree with them.
You can 1) Call them odious and repeat libertarian premises that they don't accept, or 2) try to understand their reasons for not agreeing and try to find common ground or areas where their minds can be changed.
1) is not a viable option for effecting change. It's also not a viable option for discussing an issue on a discussion board.
quote:Many people think the burden should be on those desiring a change to demonstrate that its harms won't outweigh the benefits.
Is this necessary?
Apparently it is, because you've failed twice in a row to quote what I asked for.
Again, I wasn't referencing harms to them.
quote:You clearly believe this yourself, after all. I haven't noticed you ever trying to get other people to understand the POV I and others like me hold on the middle east conflict.
Good grief. Do you even care about being honest about other people? Or do you really view the world this way? I can't decide which is more frightening.
The reason you haven't noticed me doing that is because I don't understand it fully enough to do so. In your world, lack of ability might be a sign of how much someone cares. In mine, it's an acknowledgment of one's capabilities.
I'm trying to decide if you really think that my not trying to get someone to understand your views on the middle east makes it clear that I don't care about people understanding them, in which case I think you need to consider the possibility that the reason YOU don't do certain things is not the same reason everyone else has for not doing things.
quote:Oh, so you do care that tossing the argument into the thread was basically making the argument? Or do you mean that you were blissfully unaware of what you were doing?
I wasn't making the argument. More specifically, I wasn't making the argument you claimed both Rakeesh and I were making, as your failed attempts at quoting us show.
But more generally, I wasn't "making" any argument in support of the marriage amendment or any other policy preventing same sex civil marriage from occurring.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
For goodness' sake, starLisa: Rakeesh is in favor of civil unions. Look at your own links, for crying out loud!
I looked through that thread and quoted everything that the opponents of SSM said that could be construed reasonably as saying "SSM does harm to society."
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
At this point, I'm almost confused about what I believe regarding same-sex marriage. I didn't even know it was an issue.
So let me state it very, very clearly. Perhaps to quote myself at some later date, should I be quoted as somehow opposing equal rights for homosexuals in the future:
I believe that two legally adult, consenting homosexuals of the same gender should have the right to enter into a government-recognized contract, if it's called civil union, marriage, or brocolli, which has precisely the same rights, responsibilities, and privileges as does marriage in the United States today.
I'm in favor of making such an institution called 'civil marriage' which would apply to homo- and heterosexual couples (and polyamorous groups, in fact) within the United States, simply because I believe it is the most feasible route.
This is the second time in like a month where, apparently, unless I take very, very great care to explicitly state what exactly I believe frequently, I get criticized for supporting the thing I oppose.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: This is the second time in like a month where, apparently, unless I take very, very great care to explicitly state what exactly I believe frequently, I get criticized for supporting the thing I oppose.
Dude, I told you to wear the pins.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Pins don't help. You have to hire a minstrel to boldly declare your positions in all things you deign to speak of.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hear me, O Hatrack, now I sing With sweet melody and noble carriage, And may my words in this thread ring, As I speak my thoughts on same-sex marriage.
'Tis love, that dream within a dream, That we hold dear, or hope to find someday. 'Tis love that makes a pair, it seems. That's something we desire, straight or gay.
We all can benefit from those Who twine their lives together in a home, Of love and trust and sweet repose. It is not good that Man should be alone.
So let these unions now proceed! Together they shall own their house and home. Let them adopt a child in need, And visit one another in the hospital.
Posts: 3546 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: For goodness' sake, starLisa: Rakeesh is in favor of civil unions. Look at your own links, for crying out loud!
For goodness' sake, Scotty, I never said otherwise.
Lisa: For everyone over on the gay thread who thinks that SSM would harm them.
Rakeesh: Furthermore, it is a matter of opinion (one which I share, mind you) that forcing-yes, forcing-this belief on them changes their life in a minute, oblique way.
Is this really that difficult? I don't care if Rakeesh and Dagonee are for or against SSM. I care that they, for whatever lame rhetorical reasons they may have (in Rakeesh's case, he says specifically that it's because he believes it to be true), are championing the cause of "SSM hurts people". That's offensive. And that's the reason I started this thread.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't care if Rakeesh and Dagonee are for or against SSM. I care that they, for whatever lame rhetorical reasons they may have (in Rakeesh's case, he says specifically that it's because he believes it to be true), are championing the cause of "SSM hurts people". That's offensive. And that's the reason I started this thread.
I don't think your interpretation of Rakeesh's statements is valid, starLisa.
In fact, NO ONE on the thread has stated that societal harm will definitely come because of the legitimization of SSM; even BlackBlade's statements can't be construed that way. At the very worst, you could interpret my statements that SSM will make sin more accessible as saying there will be harm-- but you've got an uphill battle prooving that the ills I'm predicting signify harm to anyone who doesn't share my POV.
The short of it is this: you insulted a number of Jatraqueros for things they definitely didn't say. To reiterate my position, I don't object to SSM because I think it's going to damage society in quantifiable, recognizable wasy; I object to it because it is in opposition to the will of our Heavenly Father.
Please read more carefully next time.
EDITED for subject/verb agreement.
[ November 01, 2006, 08:42 AM: Message edited by: Scott R ]
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't care if Rakeesh and Dagonee are for or against SSM. I care that they, for whatever lame rhetorical reasons they may have (in Rakeesh's case, he says specifically that it's because he believes it to be true), are championing the cause of "SSM hurts people". That's offensive. And that's the reason I started this thread.
Neither one of us are doing that.
You've now specifically stated that I "think[] that SSM would harm [me]." This is untrue.
Please retract your erroneous statement. Should you persist with it, it will stop being mere error and will start being a lie.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
of me to be incredibly amused by this typo?
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
