posted
I think that this post is, from beginning to end, right on.
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Which is why the assumption that people talk to God is so dangerous, Scott, my goodness (or lack thereof) to one side.
I'm not saying that you have to necessarily accept my opinion, but it'd have to be one heck of a persuasive and compelling rationale that could talk you out of an opinion that you believed God wanted you to hold. Am I right?
----------
quote:It's not disingenuous at all on a forum thread discussing the topic.
But that's the thing. They want to be able to say "I'm a reasonable person. I just don't want to have to publicly admit that I find what you're doing acceptable" without offending someone. And that's an impossible expectation. They might be right -- I can't speak for any God, as I'll be the first to admit -- but that doesn't mean that it's any less offensive to the person being denied.
And the list of actual banned behaviors in our society is very small, so the issue would normally become one of provable harm -- except that marriage is a privilege, not just a behavior. It's a special status, and we don't hand it out to just anyone.
Or do we?
Marriage can't be a privilege granted only to people who can breed. It's not a privilege granted only to people who'd make good parents. It's certainly not a privilege granted only to people who love each other, or who make up a healthy couple, or whatever. No one religion can claim that their opinion of marriage determines our law on the matter. So our standard seems to be: "two consenting adults, one male and one female."
And what people are asking is "why the male and female thing?" It can't be just about babies, because otherwise that'd be your explicit standard. It can't be about God, or you wouldn't let us marry in courthouses. Is the idea that one person is male and the other person is female more important than checking that the people involved would make good parents, or would be a healthy couple, or any dozen other requirements that spring to mind?
Why, in other words, is the lowest common denominator the sex of the participants?
And the answer is "we're pretty sure society would fall apart if men married men." We can't stop two uneducated but heterosexual drug addicts from marrying because that would infringe on their rights, but society absolutely must be protected from same-sex marriages, to the extent that we'll change the Constitution if we can't get judges to side with our interpretation.
Yeah, I'm making this sound ludicrous. But it IS pretty ludicrous. It's laughable and unfortunate, and people who feel this way need to have this pointed out to them. And I think our society does itself a horrible, horrible disservice by pretending otherwise.
quote:For goodness' sake, Scotty, I never said otherwise.
For someone who's so pissy over what people call them it certainly seems hypocritical to give Scott a condescending nickname.
Something to think about.
You miss the point, JT. I did it on purpose, because Scott refuses to stop calling me starLisa. Since it doesn't bother him, I'll have to find something else to use. Unless, of course, he decides to do the simple and courteous thing and call me Lisa, as I've asked him to.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I did not say that I believe SSM would harm those opposed to it. I did say that it would bring minute, oblique change into their lives. Is that so freaking hard to understand?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jim-Me: when did it become insulting to address someone by their screen name?
Immediately after I asked not to be called starLisa. Prior to that, it was not insulting. Subsequent to it, it was not only insulting, but deliberately so.
But hey, maybe Scott thinks that being rude is God's will, too.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why did you pick it as a screenname if you consider being called it rude?
See, I think you pull out the "Call me Lisa" thing when you want to score points and manipulate whomever you're having a conversation with.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Crap. I picked it because Lisa wasn't available. As I've pointed out in the past. And there's nothing manipulative about asking to be called by my name, rather than by my screen name. See, all that someone like Scott needs to do is to just type four characters fewer the next time he refers to me. Ignoring that request is obnoxious.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I did not say that I believe SSM would harm those opposed to it. I did say that it would bring minute, oblique change into their lives. Is that so freaking hard to understand?
You characterized it as forcing something on others. And your pathetic caveat that you aren't saying it's force of the same magnitude doesn't change that.
SSM does not force anything on its opponents. Saying that it does is as wrongheaded as saying that laws against murder are forcing something on potential murderers. I can't begin to understand the kind of mind that works that way.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Let's stay focused here, Lisa. You've asserted several times now that you chose the opening post wording carefully to convey your exact meaning. You reiterated it as:
quote:I specifically called out those who think that SSM would harm them.
You have then named both Rakeesh and myself as those being "called out."
There is nothing in that thread that indicates that I think SSM harms me. I have now stated explicitly that I do not. I have acknowledged that some people think that SSM will harm society - not individuals and specifically not me, either as the subject of "think" or the object of "harm."
Rakeesh has stated that he sees it as being forced on others, not himself, and, further, he does not consider the change that SSM would bring about to be harm.
Your stated criteria for being the target of your cartoon quite simply do not apply to either myself or Rakeesh. Rakeesh and myself are the only two named targets of the opening post. You have therefore stated that you believe the criteria for being the target apply to Rakeesh and myself.
Those criteria do not apply to either Rakeesh or myself. You have made a factual error concerning our views. You have an opportunity to acknowledge and correct that error now.
I'll use something you yourself said to make this point more clear to you:
quote:If you want to pretend that I was [saying that I think SSM will hurt anybody] in the face of my stated intent, then there's no reasoning with you.
posted
Calling you starLisa was peevish of me; I apologize.
From now on, I'll only use it when my explicit purpose is to tick you off.
I'm curious how you justify your initial post, in light of the evidence that no one has stated that SSM harms society.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
There are many posters whose real names I know. Some seem to like to be called by their real names, and some don't (and I know it because I've communicated with them outside of Hatrack, for instance.) For myself, I like people who consider themselves my friend to call me by my first name, or Icky instead. Both calling me by name and calling me by an affectionate nickname seem to connote goodwill to me. But it doesn't bother me if they call me Icarus instead, because I don't expect them to keep each person's idiosyncratic preferences straight. Considering it actively rude to call someone by their screenname seems bizarre, to me.
I prefer people who do not consider themselves my friend to not call me Icky or by my first name, but I let people self-select whether they belong in that category or not.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Of course, Scotty seems to have rendered my post moot . . . consider it my random ramblings. I can't promise I'll remember to call you Lisa and not starLisa, but I doubt it will be deliberate when I call you by the wrong name,
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Differing from Icky and Scott R, I've solved the dilemma by never addressing you by name at all.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
Lisa, so do I. That's why I'm "TomDavidson" here and almost everywhere else. When I first registered here, years ago, "Tom" was unavailable. I didn't want to be something like "Tom1976" or other obvious AOLisms, so I went with my last name.
If you honestly find "starLisa" offensive and would rather be called "Lisa," changing your username to "LisaL" or "Lisa3000" or "LisaTheGreatAndGood" or something like that is almost guaranteed to ensure that people will call you "Lisa" more often than anything else.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom, honestly, I don't consider "starLisa" offensive. I just prefer Lisa, and I get irked when I mention that, and someone deliberately calls me starLisa afterwards.
I have a sister named Michelle. She prefers Micky. It's not that she finds "Michelle" offensive; it's just a preference. And she isn't going to get upset at someone calling her Michelle, generally speaking, because it's not something to get upset about.
But if someone who knows she doesn't like to be called Michelle calls her that, she's going to rightly take it as rude. She might first consider that it was an oversight, as I do. But sometimes it's fairly clear that it's being done on purpose.
Anyway, let's drop it and get back to fighting about the thread itself. <sigh>
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:You characterized it as forcing something on others. And your pathetic caveat that you aren't saying it's force of the same magnitude doesn't change that.
SSM does not force anything on its opponents. Saying that it does is as wrongheaded as saying that laws against murder are forcing something on potential murderers. I can't begin to understand the kind of mind that works that way.
It forces a major change on society on the people who do not wish it to be changed. Can you possibly not see that? Even if the people being forced are wrong, does not change the fact that there is force involved. Just like legislation resulting from the Civil Rights movement forced Americans to live in a more inclusive society, so too would legalizing SSM force Americans-whether they like it or not-to live in a more inclusive society.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lord of Fools am I, to those who care To skip on ledges at Devil's Dare; Scott they call me in Hashem-On-Godi And add an R whene'er I'm naughty.
Dread Pirate, they sing on the wildling waves, King of Boneyards, and the Freest Slave; One name have I, ne'er to be told: Friend of flame, capricious, bold.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, crap. No, it wasn't. I promise it wasn't. I needed something to rhyme with 'naughty' and Gotti Jr. has been in the news. And 'Hashem' was originally something like 'Hyrum,' but I wanted it to sound more exotic.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I add the "R" at all times because 1) "Scott" is OSC, and 2) Scott R has stated his desire to remain apathetic and not chummy.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Oh, crap. No, it wasn't. I promise it wasn't. I needed something to rhyme with 'naughty' and Gotti Jr. has been in the news. And 'Hashem' was originally something like 'Hyrum,' but I wanted it to sound more exotic.
It could be Hashem like Mohammed's great-grandfather.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
In terms of amount of usage on this site, kat, I'm much more "Scott" than OSC will EVER be.
MUAHAAA! I AM THE USURPER! I HAVE STOLEN ORSON SCOTT CARD'S COMMON NAME OFF HIS OWN WEBSITE! FROM HIS OWN FANS!
But carry on! Far be it from me to deride your nominative preferences.
Ignore the edited note below. It's been placed there by the EEEEEvil Dr. Moose. Who wants to bite the toes of all your babies, and make them sing Barry Manilow songs.
[ November 01, 2006, 03:27 PM: Message edited by: Scott R ]
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Scott R has stated his desire to remain apathetic and not chummy.
I don't actually take him at face value, because I think he is far too nice for me to believe he doesn't want to be my friend. Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Just like legislation resulting from the Civil Rights movement forced Americans to live in a more inclusive society, so too would legalizing SSM force Americans-whether they like it or not-to live in a more inclusive society.
This, for example, would in the long run be a good thing rather than harm.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The question remains: are you retracting your assertion that Rakeesh and I meet the criteria you have repeatedly stated define those at whom you aimed this cartoon?
To reiterate, those criteria are:
1) being a person who participated in the curent gay thread. 2) thinking SSM harms oneself.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: It forces a major change on society on the people who do not wish it to be changed. Can you possibly not see that? Even if the people being forced are wrong, does not change the fact that there is force involved. Just like legislation resulting from the Civil Rights movement forced Americans to live in a more inclusive society, so too would legalizing SSM force Americans-whether they like it or not-to live in a more inclusive society.
Allowing SSM will potentially effect people who are against it in ways no one can really predict. Not allowing SSM will definitely effect homosexuals in a real and negative way.
I ask you, even though I think your answer will be different than mine, which one of those effects should we be more concerned about?
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Javert, I'm not sure why you're asking that question. Rakeesh was trying to correct the record about what he said in another thread. He supports the same exact civil recognition for same sex couples that he does for heterosexual couples.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Long day at work...sorry for accusing Rakeesh of something he didn't say. But the question stands for anyone who might agree with the statement.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
. . . consider it my random ramblings. I can't promise I'll remember to call you Lisa and not starLisa, but I doubt it will be deliberate when I call you by the wrong name,
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
