quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: I think as much as some people would hate to admit it and battles still rage, the war has already been won. Just like there were Japanese soldiers living in caves never knowing or accepting the end of WWII, people will still try and make homosexuals into second class citizens, but as a culture, acceptance of gays is over the hump, no pun intended.
The true litmus for the hump, i think is not the level of acceptance among the general public, but the level of intolerance for holdouts, or for tacit disapproval. That is: it is becoming politically unacceptable to *not* positively affirm gay rights- which is one reason why Obama's line on this issue has changed. There is a vast social and political pressure being applied across all levels of society, and remaining on the fence on this issue is becoming a serious liability.
Anybody with a decent amount of sense and perspective sees where this is going, which is not backwards. And so the last rats are fleeing the neutral ship, so to speak. And I'm happy to see those with hatred in their hearts sinking their political ambitions in the meantime. As I said, this has always been different from racism- social commentators centuries ago had pinpointed the ideologically fatal flaws of segregation, but racism is an indemic social disease that never really goes away. But we've gone from not recognizing homosexuality as an inherent human characteristic, to having positive affirmation of it as a political imperative in 4 decades. That's an easy demonstration of why this issue is not as tough as racism is. Unbound from class, language and history, homosexuality is a thing we can learn to see differently. it's a thing that can be accessible, as a concept, to anyone. That's why in 50 years, the industrial world won't *have* a gay rights debate, but racism will still be a major issue.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
If it's true, and time will tell but it looks like they're throwing a good bit of paper at the thing that looks pretty bad, then it's doubly nasty behavior since given she does have a kid to support, it's not as though she was in a position to say, "Boss, why don't you go *#%+ yourself?" when he begins to ask such unnecessary, intrusive, private-life related questions. In workplace appropriate language, of course, though if he said that he hardly merits it.
Conscience time for CFA lately. Clearly their religious morality dictates they should say things like 'gays shouldn't marry' and dip their oars into the culture war. It is also in alignment with their beliefs that women *should* be home raising children.
Now that more national heat is on, though, causing them time and trouble and money to stick up for such beliefs...well I have the craziest idea that those ideas will fade quietly into the sunset as far as sticking up publicly for them is concerned.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
I drove past a CFA on my way to and from Costco during my lunch today. Traffic was backed up going into the parking lot. At 11:40 AM there was a line out the door on one side of the building. At 12:45 the line was halfway around the building. I can't even imagine what it will be like at dinner time. I know at least a couple of the churches in town were encouraging people to go there today.
Posts: 399 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ugh. So, my niece is either lesbian or bi - I haven't asked, because it doesn't make a substantive difference to me - and her father's brother has been posting CFA rah rah stuff on Facebook. he doesn't go to church. He's a drug addict, or was when I met him. He's ultraconservative but has no problem accepting his own food stamps or whatever. It's all, "My life sucks, but at least I'm not a fag!"
I don't care what CFA does with its money. But I kind of want to kick this particular man in the groin.
posted
I just can't stress how surreal it is; we have executives who openly politicized a chicken sammich place (and reminded us that they really are a bigoted institution, one which legitimately gives money to organizations classified as hate groups by the CPLC) and the end result is a bunch of chunky middle-merica' types lining up for butter-fried fast food cause they hate gay marriage and want to show it.
Could anything be more american. How can you not love our new 'traditional values' zeitgeist. This is felony level violation of poe's law.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is an article that I discovered during the general facebook uproar on my feed, caused by the unique intersection of nice bigots and pro-gay people.
I enjoyed it immensely, and offer it here for multiple reasons. Somebody earlier made a comment about loving gays, but being on the fence about gay marriage. And also, I wonder how this informs the dialogue of CFA, given that so many nice bigots think they are being persecuted for saying things just like everybody else.
I apologize if I repeated a post, or if this is ridiculously out of context.
Posts: 196 | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Emreecheek: This is an article that I discovered during the general facebook uproar on my feed, caused by the unique intersection of nice bigots and pro-gay people.
I enjoyed it immensely, and offer it here for multiple reasons. Somebody earlier made a comment about loving gays, but being on the fence about gay marriage. And also, I wonder how this informs the dialogue of CFA, given that so many nice bigots think they are being persecuted for saying things just like everybody else.
I apologize if I repeated a post, or if this is ridiculously out of context.
Thanks for posting this. I will go so far as to quote a bit.
quote: Look, here’s the deal: It doesn’t matter if you think you’re a nice person. And it doesn’t matter if your tone, attitude, sentiments and facial expressions are all very sweet, kindly and sympathetic-seeming. If you’re opposing legal equality, then you don’t get to be nice. Opposing legal equality is not nice and it cannot be done nicely.
Nice is different than good, but opposing legal equality for others is neither. It’s simply unfair.
So be fair.
It’s probably best to be fair and also kind, but fairness is the important part. As long as you’re fair, no one else will really care whether or not you’re particularly kindly about it. But if you’re not fair, then kindness isn’t even a possibility.
It’d be terrific if Scott’s heartfelt plea for “a hermeneutic of grace” toward Christians who oppose legal equality had also thought to include such a presumption of grace toward the human beings whose legal equality those Christians continue to deny.
But you know what? Forget about all that. Forget about grace and graciousness. Forget about niceness. Forget about kindness, civility and charity.
It’d be great if those could come along later, but they’ll have to wait. None of those matters a bit right now because none of those is what’s missing right now.
What’s missing right now is the bare minimum, the essential first-step starting point of simple legal equality — simple human equality. I don’t care if Scott grants it churlishly, spitefully or reluctantly, but until she grants that then all her talk of graciousness, kindness and civility is empty talk and clanging cymbals.
Scott wants to carve out a space in which she can be unfair, but still kind. Such a space does not exist and cannot exist.
posted
Dan Cathy, CEO Chick-Filet, 2012. "I pray God’s mercy on our generation that has such a prideful, arrogant attitude to think that we have the audacity to define what marriage is about”
Nathaniel Green, Chicago Ward Rep, 1902. "I pray God’s mercy on our generation that has such a prideful, arrogant attitude to think that we have the audacity to redefine what a woman's place should be, to allow that fragile and emotional woman an independent vote, and thereby granting her such unnatural power.”
Reverend Thadeus Pike, Minister, Salem N.C 1858. "I pray God’s mercy on our generation that has such a prideful, arrogant attitude to think that we have the audacity to demean the traditional institution of Slavery as upheld and protected in the Bible.”
Johnathon Williams, Councilman 1778. "I pray God’s mercy on our generation that has such a prideful, arrogant attitude to think that we have the audacity to define what God ordained governance should be and to ever question his authority as bequeathed to our King.”
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kate: Awesome. My support for equality is so right, I don't have time for petty 'niceties'. Sounds just like the rhetoric used to silence dissidents during war. "There's no time for civil behavior, we're at war! Get in line, or you will be removed."
Edit: Anybody that's telling me to put off charity until later is peddling poison, I don't care what belief they are espousing.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think you missed the point of the article, BB: namely, that even people who oppose same-sex marriage politely are not being nice or charitable. When you deny rights to someone, it does not help that you smile sadly and kindly when you do it.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I think you missed the point of the article, BB: namely, that even people who oppose same-sex marriage politely are not being nice or charitable. When you deny rights to someone, it does not help that you smile sadly and kindly when you do it.
I understand that completely. But people who are being genuinely kind can be reasoned with. It's a desirable trait. People who are right but militant have a sort of scorched earth, "I'm building a better world I will never get to see because I became the neccessary monster the world needed me to become."
It's misguided and self serving. Like early Christians looking to get martyred so they antagonized their neighbors. I'm sure the author thinks it's clever to craft these friendly bigots and rail against them, but guess what, they are playing fair. They are discussing.
If you can't prove you are right, you can portray your opposition as wrong and incapable of seeing that wrongness so you need to just step over them for everyone's including their good.
The more thngs change the more they remain the same. It's a different cause but the same rhetoric.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:If you can't prove you are right, you can portray your opposition as wrong...
Isn't that EXACTLY what the religious anti-SSM argument does, in fact, by insisting that the divine arbiter of universal rightness has told them that they're right?
To my mind, the only way to combat this is to make them realize that it's not actually a religious issue at all -- and this does sometimes require some rudeness.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
For people who find themselves on the more-privileged side in any particular interaction, they are often interacting with people who are having a distinct and clear social wrong forced on them by people intent on promoting or furthering prejudiced behavior and attitudes. They have had their personhood maligned and their perspective erased. They have been told what "they" are according to a religious view that should have jack to do with civil rights but which they expressly state is and has to be the foundation of our laws. Including laws which expressly discriminate against them.
They have the right to be angry about this. They have the right to be hostile to a worldview that dehumanizes and attempts to socially stigmatize them in clear and obvious ways. These are people who not only have the right to be confrontational and pissed off about assaults on their rights and their personhood, but who often are needing to be confrontational in order to speak to privilege and mainstream attitudes and have anything register about the fact that this is not an academic difference or a "live and let live" situation.
Often, people who have the privilege of being listened to and taken seriously level accusations of "incivility" as a silencing tactic, and label as "incivil" any speech or behavior that questions their privilege.
To anyone who basically says "We would listen to you if you said it more nicely" the only response is thus: If you tread on someone's toes, and they tell you to get off, then get off their toes. Don't tell them to "ask nicely."
- a heavily appropriated Tone Argument 101 Lesson
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
BB, Tom is correct. You have the argument backwards. I am not encouraging uncivil bahaviour; I am pointing out that whatever their tone or motivation, people who oppose SSM are already behaving uncivility.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom: And did you like it when the religious did it? You are welcome to try and help them see the areligious nature of this issue as you say. You are not welcome to tell them their beliefs are invalid so their conscience is some sort of second rate conscience that our Constitution disenfranchised in favor of the correct first rate conscience possessers.
I tell my fellow believers all the time this is a secular issue, and that their religion allows and even requires they get out of the way. But the moment we turn them into lesser beings with all the changes in our behavior that that allows, we lose.
It's "tutsi cockroaches" it's "heretics" it's "heathens" it's "lesser races" it's "foreigners". It may not go to the same extreme but it's on the same damnable road.
Sam: There are precious few times when anger is needed, but there are many times when we are right to be angry, that when we tear up that voucher we become better people.
Be passionate, be firm, be unyielding in what's right. But if you throw away the keys and try to kick in the door the other side can do the same thing. You may lose, and if you win, it's an empty victory. How can you cluck about tolerance as you sit on the body of a man you broke?
There comes a time where both sides are pointing their guns and one side has to make the decision to not fire and lower their weapon while the other remains poised for the kill.
I'm not speaking from a position of privelege. My religion is still not free to follow its precepts. I understand it's freaking hard to be oppressed and be told to keep it civil. I'm not advocating people who support SSM keep silence or not advocate, or even not try to defeat laws that oppress them. But always keep the moral high ground by showing that they won't become what their opponents have become. Intolerant foot soldiers who hear the call 'no quarter!' and obey.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kate: That's just a convenient pretext for justifying uncivil behavior.
What's more it's not even true much of the time. A person against abortion may feel human beings with all the rights that come with that are being murdered. Are they justified in saying those who permit it are smiling baby killers that aren't really nice?
You can't frame your opponents position for them then hand it to them and expect them to see their opinions drawn out the way they see them. They could just as easily (and they do) say that those marching for gay rights are for all their good intentions agents of the devil trying to win one more victory on the battlefield of God being a part of this country.
Laugh all you want but many of them feel compelled to oppose gay marriage because it's what God expects them to do and they absolutely believe he expects that of them and that if they don't they are not loving him as they should. In that mindset they cannot always hear you at first, but if you throw out the niceties, then they feel confirmation they really are fighting for God because here comes God's enemies.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
If someone really, for genuine non-meaning-to-be-hateful religious reasons, marched against the right to interracial marriages or women's suffrage, how concerned would we as a society be with not ruffling their feathers-either because it would simply be wrong to do so, or inefficient, or what have you?
Or would we, instead, chastise those who say cursed them in screams in the street, but not those who firmly tell them, in spite of their denials, "I realize you don't agree, but marching against interracial marriage is a shameful thing, and frankly I've too much respect for the truth, myself, and incidentally you as a fellow human not to tell you as much to your face, even and perhaps especially if it upsets you. If you've the right to upset interracial couples by insisting they shouldn't be allowed to legally marry, and be considered a respectful and decent person, then I certainly have the right to tell you that belief is terrible, and also be considered a respectful and decent person."
You can't have it both ways, BB. If someone marching against SSM, for example, may also be a decent and respectful person, telling them to their face, even angrily, is also potentially decent and respectful.
--------
On a semi-related note, I am so freakin' go*%#€ned tired of having to walk on eggshells for the sake of the feelings of people who think 'God says so' is just cause to set laws that govern *my* life. I furthermore think that much of this 'be respectful' business is, frankly, mere rooting for the home team. We aren't required for civil discussion to look with respect and restraint on a culture which demands its women be not much more than slaves to their husbands, and there are more than a few right this minute which do. We're almost entirely united with an upright, outturned open palm of the hand to that hateful nonsense, and are quite prepared to tell advocates that the hand will become a fist if necessary. Even though the justification-'God says so'-is exactly the same, except that it's over there in a culture alien to us.
That isn't to equate opposition to SSM to support for women as chattel. On obviously the latter is much worse. It's to compare the justifications, and our willingness to regard such beliefs and practices with open contempt. It's far, far past time to have another serious discussion about tone: that they will not be allowed to claim to be treated badly when they're in the minority when they thought nothing of treating badly when in the majority.
That's not a call for 'shoe's on the other foot now, get ready for it!' either. It's a simple reminder, "We remember how you behaved when you knew you could have things your own way, and we won't permit you to pretend to have behaved differently."
Clearly, given all this, I feel differently about the potential usefulness of anger, and believe that you couldn't scratch a worthwhile social movement that didn't, even when respectable to a saintly degree, arouse outrage and bitter hurt feelings on the part of the privileged, or a movement which wasn't motivated substantially by angry outrage over injustice.
Don't personally insult, shout at, much less threaten someone who wishes to legislate religious intolerance. But tell them to their face, "This is a terrible thing you're advocating, and we will stop you through the law if we can, and we're not going to permit you to claim love for homosexuals and put a period on that sentence."
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
BB, can you show me the practical difference between a nice, apologetic vote against SSM and a hateful one?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
"Effing queers! How dare they try and besmirch our normal traditions with their faggyness!"
"I don't mind if the gays have civil unions with the same legal power as marriage, but I believe strongly that marriage should only be between a man and a woman in the eyes of God."
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, using my super powers. Those who cast hateful votes will be visited by the Nut Kicking Fairy.
Votes are binary, they always simplify things into Yay or Nay, Heckle or Jeckle...which is one of my major problems with the system, because difficult, morally complex problems rarely if ever are solved with black and white solutions.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
So you understand that your answer was incorrect.
A "nice" apologetic, "I only vote this way because god says so" vote does exactly as much damage to the rights of gay people and their families as the clearly hateful ones.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
If your argument is that morality can be determined by result alone without taking into consideration circumstances then I'm afraid you are in for an up hill battle.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:A "nice" apologetic, "I only vote this way because god says so" vote does exactly as much damage to the rights of gay people and their families as the clearly hateful ones.
It's perhaps even dehumanizing to LGBT folks in another way as well: few would think there was a 'nice' way for example tell a woman she shouldn't be allowed to vote, or a Jew not be allowed to live in certain neighborhoods, so on and so forth. But with SSM, there is an assumption that this same sort of thing can be done nicely-as though the supposedly kind-hearted intent behind it can be totally divorced from the action itself.
We wouldn't think twice of frank skepticism of such a proposition in those other cases, and I see no reason why this one would be any different.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:If someone really, for genuine non-meaning-to-be-hateful religious reasons, marched against the right to interracial marriages or women's suffrage, how concerned would we as a society be with not ruffling their feathers-either because it would simply be wrong to do so, or inefficient, or what have you?
Being civil does *not* mean "not ruffling their feathers".
What you are failing to realize is that by always being civil, always treating your opponents humanely will only infuriate those who are blinded by hate, and their behavior will chase those who can be converted over to you. Those who are infuriated will also eventually calm down and realize what they are becoming, and some of them will feel the sting of their consciences again.
If somebody is marching against SSM, I can march in support of it. I can shout slogans and cheer with those who are with me. I can passionately defend my beliefs, I can tell them just how damaging I feel their beliefs are. But I do not have to give into the pride that carries that conviction into resentment and hate.
I never heard a word spoken in hate or anger from Gandhi, and he helped free his country from a nation that often responded with deadly force.
My Lord who I have sworn to emulate, allowed himself to be taken, beaten, and crucified, without uttering one word of contempt.
Yes he wrathfully cleared the temple of money changers, I have not said that anger is always wrong. But I am convinced that it be used in isolated instances, and never as a general motivating factor. I also think that it is possibly the easiest emotion to misuse, and it has been misused to horrifying effect.
Kate: Why should the vote itself matter? What matters is winning hearts and minds so that they then stop voting for the wrong effect. Not shouting them into their houses where they feel they can no longer participate in society, so they need to form isolated cabals.
Posts: 1194 | Registered: Jun 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Those who are infuriated will also eventually calm down and realize what they are becoming, and some of them will feel the sting of their consciences again...
I used to think this happened, but I've come to believe that consciences are more easily purchased than stung.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I think you missed the point of the article, BB: namely, that even people who oppose same-sex marriage politely are not being nice or charitable. When you deny rights to someone, it does not help that you smile sadly and kindly when you do it.
This has been the line for the "compassionate" bigots for the past little while now. Almost more pernicious, as it is a frank attemt to disguise political motivations behind personal niceties. Also, it's a way of recruiting political support from those genuinely uncomfortable with bigotry. Those with the conscience to regret homophobic views can stand behind a wall of "toleration," that demands that one's political actions not be questioned in light of one's interpersonal behaviors.
I also think there's an interesting correlation to be seen between the "pro-life" and "Traditional Marriage" campaigns that hasn't been much discussed. I've seen posts on Facebook that encourage likes for "traditional marriage." It occurs to me that this concept was created along the same lines as "pro-life" as a political viewpoint, with the major difference that "pro-life," ie, anti-abortion, is a genuine appeal to a former legal status quo, whereas the notion of "traditional marriage," is a more or less whole cloth historical fabrication meant to stand in for a status quo that is actually: "no gays allowed." But this approach, while fallacious for a variety of reasons, has the advantage of appealing to the same reasoning that pro-life appeals to: there existed a status quo that nature ordained: abortion was at one time not possible- and there can be little argument that abortion is not natural to the human condition (though contraception may very well be). So those supporting "traditional marriage," can view their advocacy of a status quo paradigm to be in support of a naturally occurring order, similar to "pro-life." That traditional marriage concepts are a fabrication is difficult to explain, and even harder to convince people of. That gay pair-bonding is in fact a naturally occurring phenomenon and indemic to the human condition is not something society has yet fully accepted. So people can be "compassionate," and yet still feel that their arguments are based in sound reasoning, rather than the denial of natural rights.
quote:What you are failing to realize is that by always being civil, always treating your opponents humanely will only infuriate those who are blinded by hate, and their behavior will chase those who can be converted over to you. Those who are infuriated will also eventually calm down and realize what they are becoming, and some of them will feel the sting of their consciences again.
No, I realize it happens, I just think you're overstating its effect here. As it is right now, there are tons of examples of frothing hateful anti-SSM agitators in this country, but comparatively few stories of folks being so repelled by them that they change their own personal beliefs. Generally, the frothing fringe is safely ignored as 'other' by moderates, and when it's not, they take what they like and approve of that, and wag their fingers at what they don't.
As for the drawbacks of what you call civility but could also be called meekness, passivity, timidity, and reluctance: it doesn't get your point of view out there nearly as well, so to speak. Be firm, be forceful, don't personally insult with anything except the truth-but don't be afraid to go loud, either.
quote:If somebody is marching against SSM, I can march in support of it. I can shout slogans and cheer with those who are with me. I can passionately defend my beliefs, I can tell them just how damaging I feel their beliefs are. But I do not have to give into the pride that carries that conviction into resentment and hate.
Largely I agree with this, but I take issue with the criticism implied...well, actually outright stated in the last bit. 'Resentment' is to be avoided because it comes from 'pride'? Nonsense. I cannot disagree with that strongly enough. Among those who take a proper view of human rights and what should be the laws of our country-no second class citizenship for non-harmful adults, no 'God says so' laws-it is appropriate to resent it. It is in fact natural. Those things are a violation of rights, and we should feel what, a reluctant stoic sadness and resolve? No. I think you'll also find that your example Gandhi was hardly free from resentment himself, neither personally nor in his rhetoric, if you look.
quote:I never heard a word spoken in hate or anger from Gandhi, and he helped free his country from a nation that often responded with deadly force.
My Lord who I have sworn to emulate, allowed himself to be taken, beaten, and crucified, without uttering one word of contempt.
I don't understand how anyone could claim never to have heard a word spoken by Gandhi in anger. Speaking for himself, it doesn't seem he would deny it:
quote:I have learned through bitter experience the one supreme lesson to conserve my anger, and as heat conserved is transmuted into energy, even so our anger controlled can be transmuted into a power that can move the world. – Mahatma Gandhi
But as for Gandhi, you are aware of his answer to a question about how he felt Nazi Germany ought to be opposed too, yes? I don't offer this as a condemnation of all he said and did, but as a cautionary tale that he cannot simply be ingested whole-you have to pick and choose.
As for Jesus, well, considering his supposed status as ruler of the Universe and utter certainty in his own resurrection and eternal life, his martydom...wasn't, actually. For the rest of us humans, it's not 'dead' if you come back and live again, because nobody ever, ever does that. Plenty of Christians will claim it will happen, in a constantly fluctuating 'End Times', or that it has happened in a dim and distant and poorly reported past, but never that it is happening.
Within the confines of that particular story, I respect the idea of the ruler of the universe being willing to suffer indignity and torment for his children, but I don't respect it in the way I would if an actual human being underwent that same suffering for humanity-but with only ordinary human hope death wouldn't be forever, instead of certainty it wouldn't.
But in any event, Jesus isn't a motivating figure for me, and I won't get into the potential pitfalls of emulating him as a model of civil rights agitation. That's a different discussion.
quote:Kate: Why should the vote itself matter? What matters is winning hearts and minds so that they then stop voting for the wrong effect. Not shouting them into their houses where they feel they can no longer participate in society, so they need to form isolated cabals.
Now, hold on. The answer here is simple: the votes matter because they matter. 'Hearts and minds' have never, in all the millenia of human history, accomplished a single thing. Returning to Gandhi, it's safe to say tens of millions of Indian hearts and minds were bitterly opposed to British rule without changing the fact of that rule. And because 'hearts and minds' alone don't actually do anything, if the actual participation in government does accomplish something, and it's bad, having one's heart and mind free from hate and contempt is only a partial excuse at best.
A vote against SSM isn't just a belief. A coworker of mine refused to acknowledge that, after he made the mistake of asking how I felt about CFA. It was a mistake because I wasn't going to let him, in conversation, escape the fact that beliefs are fine, but they stay between one's ears, and I had no problem with his belief except to think it wrong-and since he was sure I would writhe in hellfire forever, he was hardly in a position to be upset about that. But when his belief motivates an action, I will criticize his action if I feel it's bad. That's another thing that's been claimed and in my opinion twisted by anti-SSM folks: the sanctity of belief. In our tradition, we have a lot to say about respecting people's beliefs, meaning don't criticize someone's beliefs if they're just their own personal beliefs.
Which is fine. But when you (general 'you', BB) vote on something, your belief has migrated out from between your ears and becomes a fair target to be challenged, and if it then moves into my life and dictates what I can and cannot do in my own personal life out of your personal sight and without impacting you, then no, I'm not going to respect your beliefs. You don't get to ask for respect if you're unwilling to give it.
This particular guy was an idiot, though. Reasons why we shouldn't permit SSM: our country wasn't founded that way (as a black man, a profoundly stupid argument), a society that was 100% homosexual couldn't survive, and if we allow SSM, homosexuality will sharply increase in future generations. After the usual decisive counter-arguments to those silly claims, he retreated to 'I respect your beliefs, you should respect mine', even after I asked, "But you vote on this belief, yes? And if I voted on a belief that interracial couples shouldn't be allowed to marry, would that just be a 'belief'?"
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
BB, you're still missing the point of the article.
It's not about whether proponents of SSM should be nice.
It's about whether polite opponents of SSM are being nice.
The argument about whether proponents should be polite or confrontational is a separate issue, and not relevant to the point the article was making.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: There are precious few times when anger is needed, but there are many times when we are right to be angry, that when we tear up that voucher we become better people.
Be passionate, be firm, be unyielding in what's right. But if you throw away the keys and try to kick in the door the other side can do the same thing. You may lose, and if you win, it's an empty victory. How can you cluck about tolerance as you sit on the body of a man you broke?
The door analogy does not work.
Whether unintentionally or not, 'I might listen to you if only you were nicer to us about concerted intent to discriminate against you' is one of the most patronizing and useless things to tell gay people, likewise as it has been for women and for racial minorities.
Warning them about how they ought to be nicer to people fighting to discriminate and deperson them — because you want to protect them from being bitter — is really not that far behind. And I say that knowing that you really honestly (and as an all together too rare example in this world) only mean the best and have good intentions, BB.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Be passionate, be firm, be unyielding in what's right. But if you throw away the keys and try to kick in the door the other side can do the same thing. You may lose, and if you win, it's an empty victory. How can you cluck about tolerance as you sit on the body of a man you broke?
If I didn't know you, BB, and trust as Samprimary says to your genuine good intent, this paragraph above would perhaps make me wonder. Proponents of SSM aren't just fighting for a utopian society of equals where prejudice and bigotry have no place. They're struggling, in short-term, to put paid to state sanctioned prejudice and second-class citizenship. If they achieve that, but hurt too many feelings by being too mean, it will still be a victory. Your paragraph would make me question just what you feel their priority ought to be: achieving equal rights for themselves, or achieving equal rights and making sure they do so while remaining kind and nice to their opponents?
But even if they take no thought for the dignity of their opponents, those opponents when they lose still won't be 'broken'. Their rights will still be completely intact. They will not have been materially harmed in even the slightest way. The only way they will have been harmed, if proponents are too contentious, is by having their feelings hurt.
Since they're totally willing and even eager to do that or see it done already to proponents of SSM, much less to gays themselves, their feelings and sensibilities frankly matter less. They still matter, sure, but frankly as a secondary concern. It's decades too late for them to be complaining about being treated meanly, or for moderates on their side of the fence to insist on a right to be spoken to with respect.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:It's not about whether proponents of SSM should be nice.
It's about whether polite opponents of SSM are being nice.
If there exist people who really honestly think that God has banned homosexuality, and who believe homosexual acts will lead people to hell, and might believe God sends typhoons against cities supportive of homosexuality, then these people are indeed being very *nice* when they try to prevent homosexuality from becoming culturally accepted. To not oppose SSM, would be in those circumstances a deriliction of duty.
Stupid but indeed nice. They try to save people from hell. And from typhoons, too, I guess.
quote:If I didn't know you, BB, and trust as Samprimary says to your genuine good intent, this paragraph above would perhaps make me wonder.
Well, sure. Politics is the mindkiller: To say anything even remotely *nice* or even just *lenient* about the opposition, makes the primal mind want to associate such statements with the devil itself.
Yeah, SSM is about ensuring the acceptance of homosexuality and preventing gay people from being treated as second-class citizens. At the same time, universal healthcare is about ensuring poor people's health. And gun control may be about making the streets safe for our children (or perhaps gun availability will make our streets safe, one of the two). And certainly the invasion of Iraq would prevent or cause lots and lots of misery. And environmental issues are about the future of mankind. And economics ensure that people don't die of starvation. And the police/judicial system is about safekeeping the lives and properties of people.
Yes, same-sex marriage matters. SO DOES EVERY OTHER POLITICAL ISSUE. To treat it as if someone holding a different belief is beyond the pale, just because this one issue really really matters, effectively means that every political opposition on any issue whatsoever is beyond the pale.
Because all politics matter a lot.
And if you start with the attitude that your opponent is the devil, just because they disagree with you on an issue that really REALLY matters the end result is that you prevent any discussion of politics whatsoever. Which is the effective end of democracy, as happens in any nation where an issue cannot be discussed because it's beyond the pale to hold an opposite opinion.
Posts: 676 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
When one claims that any disagreement on a particular subject makes the other person wrong or evil that you have declared yourself unreasonable.
Should homosexuals be able to marry? I feel quite strongly they should, but am unwilling to arbitrarily assign the opposition negative motivations simply because they disagree.
Morality needs to be able to be discussed and compared without condemnation if we are to grow as a society.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: When one claims that any disagreement on a particular subject makes the other person wrong or evil that you have declared yourself unreasonable.
Wrong in so many ways.
I call someone wrong for disagreeing with me that the earth is round. Have I declared myself unreasonable?
I call someone evil for wanting to repeat the holocaust in the name of racial purity. Have I declared myself unreasonable?
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Stone_Wolf, you write as if "reasonable people can disagree" is an absolute. It is not. Nor does it mean that both sides are right and we can leave it at that. It is an empty phrase used by peopke who are in the wrong.
Reasonable people cannot disagree about whether the Holocaust was a good thing. Reasonable people cannot disagree that slavery was right. Once, they in ignorance, did argue those things but they were wrong and the world is better for knowing they were wrong and shunning those arguments.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
