quote:09) Children need strong male and female role models to grow up healthy. So not only can't gays marry, but some of you straight people better get on the gender-stereotype bandwagon. You! Sissy boy! Get a football, you want your kid to grow up weak?
There was definitely some audible laughter with this one.
Posts: 6415 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
But Dagonee, my intention is not to argue the point. I can do that without snarkiness, as I believe you know. What I was doing was trying to be funny without being as snarky as the one posted, and it's a matter of opinion whether I managed it.
Olivet - feel free, just mention I'm doing it as a counteroffer to the one posted, I don't want anyone thinking I'm plagiarizing them.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
I'm sure you all know exactly how I feel on this topic, so I'm not saying anything else, and you can all laugh along with me, throw rotten tomatoes at me, or propose marriage to me, depending on your agreement with my stance.
Posts: 10397 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Chris, I think you managed it... since you are the professional humor writer, can you tell us what you did to make it less offensive... other than making it much funnier?
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Analyzing comedy is a tough thing to do, especially when you really don't know what you're doing, but...
I tried to make the speaker sound misguided or oblivious instead of scornful, mostly. The original apparently expects the reader to either agree already or, if the reader opposes gay marriage, to suddenly slap his or her forehead and go "Ah! Caught in my own hypocrisy! Of course I see the light now!"
My version doesn't expect anything. I just went for the funny, with enough actual arguments and counterarguments among the straw men to have some bite.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
The original made me smile slightly. Chris's made me chuckle. Whole-heartedly.
I do think Bob has a point - it seems some people are really seeing personal slights were non are intended. And, I have to say, it seems that the people doing this all fall in the anti-gay marriage camp.
I wonder if it's because gay marriage is such a hot button issue, so when it's brought up, the defences automatically rise. And rise. And then snap, perhaps where no snappiness was warranted.
Posts: 4393 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Imogen, as I stated earlier, I support the ideas of some sort of union for gays... not sure I'd go so far as to call it marriage, but I definitely upport homosexuals having legal unions of some sort...
And I thought the first list was definitely offensive... whereas Chris's list nearly made me lose my dinner from laughing. There's definitely something about the tone of the first which struck me, as I said earlier, like George Carlin's more recent "comedy".
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, Jim-Me, you weren't one of the people I was thinking about.
Either way, what people do/do not support is really besides the point. I was just making the observation.
I think *everyone* can benefit from making sure they are not taking personal offence gratuitously.
Also, I think there's a difference between finding something offensive (or just not funny ) and viewing that something as a *personal attack* on your beliefs.
Posts: 4393 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here's my problem with all of the complaints here about the list. Every single one of the ten items, either as stated or very close to as stated, has been used by those arguing against same-sex marriage.
What seems to be bugging some people here is the flippant way in which those arguments are being tossed aside. There's no respect here for the "gay marriage will lead to interspecies marriage" argument, for example. No one is calmly and dispassionately explaining why that's a lame-oid argument. Instead, it's being treated as an argument which is patently worthless on the face of it. The response to such a silly argument is mockery.
Now... if you want, I will dig into the search function of this board, and I will pull up examples of people on this board (or on the other side) who have used that argument, and who have demanded that it be taken seriously when challenged.
I don't think it needs to be. I think it's utterly without value, and that those who use it should be ashamed of themselves. They may have reasons to oppose same-sex marriage that are worthy of respect, even if I think they're wrong, but that doesn't legitimize the foolish arguments.
Now. Let's go through these one at a time:
quote:01) Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.
Is there anyone here who would like to deny that the "being gay is not natural" argument has been used widely as an excuse for opposing same-sex marriage?
List item #1 mocks that by pointing out that "unnatural" has never been used as a reason to oppose anything. "Unnatural" does not mean "bad". My glasses are unnatural. So I should walk around bumping into things?
quote:02) Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.
Is there anyone here who would like to deny that the "gay marriage will encourage young people to be gay" argument has been used widely as an excuse for opposing same-sex marriage?
List item #2 mocks this by pointing out how ridiculous is to imagine gayness as something communicable or contagious like cooties.
And yes, I've heard the more in-depth version of the argument, which says that legitimizing homosexuality in any way is liable to make youngsters more inclined to "try it out". Personally, I think that's already the case, and that same-sex marriage won't have any effect on it whatsoever, but whatever. Still, the bare-bones argument that there are homosexuals trying to suck the unwary into our depraved lifestyle is so ridiculous that it really does deserve to be mocked.
quote:03) Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.
Is there anyone here who would like to deny that the "gay marriage will lead to interspecies marriage" argument has been used widely as an excuse for opposing same-sex marriage?
This one has to be mocked. Come on, it's utterly dumb to make such a slippery slope argument, and yet same-sex marriage opponents do it all the time. Sane opponents of same-sex marriage should be up in arms against those people, if they don't want to be made to look bad.
quote:04) Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all; women are still property, blacks still can't marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.
Is there anyone here who would like to deny that the "marriage is an ancient institution with a definition that cannot be changed" argument has been used widely as an excuse for opposing same-sex marriage?
This points out very correctly that the definition has accomodated different things at different times. I don't see anything wrong with that. This isn't even a case of mockery.
[QUOTE]05) Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of Britany Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.
Is there anyone here who would like to deny that the "gay marriage will trivialize straight marriage" argument has been used widely as an excuse for opposing same-sex marriage?
quote:06) Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn't be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren't full yet, and the world needs more children.
Is there anyone here who would like to deny that the "gay marriage can't result in procreation without scientific intervention" argument has been used widely as an excuse for opposing same-sex marriage?
quote:07) Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.
Is there anyone here who would like to deny that the "children of gay parents will be more likely to be gay" argument has been used widely as an excuse for opposing same-sex marriage?
quote:08) Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have only one religion in America.
Is there anyone here who would like to deny that the "my religion says it's wrong" argument has been used widely as an excuse for opposing same-sex marriage?
quote:09) Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.
Is there anyone here who would like to deny that the "children need a male and a female role model" argument has been used widely as an excuse for opposing same-sex marriage?
quote:10) Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven't adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.
Is there anyone here who would like to deny that the "gay marriage will upset current social norms" argument has been used widely as an excuse for opposing same-sex marriage?
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Tres, No I've seen people assert that gay marriage will hurt society, but I've yet to see them offer a tenable reason for how or why it will hurt society.
"Tenable" - there's the key word. What reasons are "tenable" to you and what are not is a matter of your judgement. In other words, you HAVE seen reasons to think gay marriage is wrong that don't invoke God. You just don't believe them.
Now, keep in mind what follows from the suggestion that giving a reason that one doesn't believe is equivalent to giving no reason at all. It means that anybody who believes anything you disagree with, necessarily does so with NO reason to justify it. Are you suggesting this is true?
If not, then don't claim all their reasons rely on religion, because it's pretty much blatantly false to say so. It's only true that you happen to disagree with the reasons they give that don't rely on religion.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:If you make fun of my thoughts, I take that much more personally than if you make fun of my race, sex, or even family.
That's it though, Jim...these aren't your thoughts on the subject, are they? I have heard a lot of your thoughts (on many subjects) and I know better. You have sincere beliefs about this topic, I know, and I respect those thoughts, even if I disagree with some of them.
However, I have heard more than a few of those supposed "strawman" arguments (a concept that is undeservedly overworked here at Hatrack) mentioned in serious conversations, at Hatrack and other places, and I am always amazed at how ignorant the people making these statements sound. There is a specific segmant of the population that ARE that ignorant, and they deserve to be made fun of, IMO.
The scary part is that they really believe what they are saying.
This list made fun of a specific mentality that opposes SSM. It was done sarcastically, as satire, and unless you hold one or more of those specific arguments (and I know you don't) as a main reason for opposing SSM then that list wasn't directed at you specifically.
Even if you feel it might have been.
Sorry, but I still found it clever, to a point, and funny.
posted
I didn't find the first list amusing, but I've got to say that Chris has a flair for the funny. Number seven in particular cracked me up. "All the, you know, gayness lying around..." Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
Chris your version of the list was excellently funny. #3 was LOL funny and got me way too much attention from co-workers this morning. Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:And, I have to say, it seems that the people doing this all fall in the anti-gay marriage camp.
Of course - you're on the other side, so the slights towards that side are real.
I must also say that the worst experiences I have ever had on this board, in which I was called the worst things, were all on this topic. It's the only topic that's made me come close to quitting out of sheer disgust, and it's also the topic that brings out the qualities in people for which I have the least respect.
Sorry. You can blame Lalo.
Clearly people don't like being mocked. What you do with that is up to you.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:One is a physical property of a human being, the other is not.
One can be changed, the other can't -- regardless of how fundamental a given belief might be.
Twink, this still doesn't really answer why one is more sacred than the other, it just repeats that it is. I know it is an axiom with you that they are different, and it's hard to explain the reasoning for our axioms, but it isn't one of mine. I think those things which are central to a person's identity and to change them would change a person's identity are all in the same category, where the only difference is occasionally in degree.
You don't. That's fine. You insist very firmly that they are different, but you haven't said why, only that you're shocked not everyone thinks that. You may be right, but your faith that you are is not convincing on its own.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
I understand the point of view that it's painful for someone to make fun of something you can't do anything about, like skin color or gender. If they make fun of beliefs or choices, you're free to change them so they won't be made fun of anymore. But it's mean spirited to mock something someone can't do anything about anyway.
But you can turn it around. I have no control over whether I'm a man, or black, or short. So if someone tells a joke about short people it's not really about me, because I didn't decide to be short. But when a joke is made about something I've chosen, like my religious beliefs or political opinion, it's an attack on me, on how I choose to be. Who we are is more about our choices than our genetics.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Katie, you keep using words like "sacred," and from your posts it's evident that you view a person's religion -- in particular, your own -- as having such centrality to your existence that it is equivalent to physical characteristics you were born with. You consider them equivalent becase you believe in god. You believe in souls/spirits. I believe that these are ideas having no existence in the Platonic Form sense of the term. That's why we differ. You're grouping things by their centrality to a person's identity; I'm grouping things by their existence. Since we differ on that last point (existence), we differ in the larger discussion.
However, that's why I draw a distinction between a physical characteristic you're born with (race) and a set of ideas that you develop as you mature (ideology). One of these things exists in the physical world and can be described in physical terms. In the specific case of ethnicity, you have it for life, start to finish. You might become an atheist later in life, but your skin will still be the same colour.
Essentially, I don't care how central or peripheral your ethnicity is to your identity, because I'm not talking about it as an identity-defining trait -- merely as a physical trait. From this perspective, "attacking somone for ideas -> attacking someone for physical traits" is an apples-to-anvils comparison. They might both start with the letter "A," but there's no meaningful basis for comparing the two.
From a pragmatic perspective, when it comes to respectful dialogue, I've already said that I think the comparison is inappropriate because of history. It's obviously prone to misinterpretation, too. On a more topical note, I also make a great many of my arguments (my arguments for same-sex marriage in Canada, for instance) from a pragmatic perspective. There's a world of difference between debating whether same-sex marriage is right or wrong and debating whether same-sex marriage should be legal. The two are often conflated in threads like these.
Added: SR, does my post sufficiently address your point as well, in terms of explaining my position?
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Twinky, I'm not just talking about religion. I use the word sacred because you seem to hold physical traits as so beyond mockable that they are sacrosanct. It's the best word I found for it - do you have another one.
What is it about physical traits that make it more important than other identity-defining traits? I know - it can't be changed. Neither can many of the other things without changing a person fundamentally. Other things central to a person can be changed, but then they would be someone else. "If you chose to be someone else, then it wouldn't bother you."
I don't believe that. I don't think the fundamental definition of person is limited to their physical traits. I'm not even talking about religion here, because that would add another layer.
We are is more than our physical descriptions. "Twinky" is more than a bare physical description of you. If you had an identitical twin that looked alike in every way, he would still not be Twinky. In that case, what other things mark you as twinky and no one else? They are all identifiers, and they are all in the same category.
*points* Note that at no point did I mention a soul. Don't use my religion as an excuse to ignore what I'm saying - I'm not basing it on my religion.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't think the fundamental definition of person is limited to their physical traits.
I don't either. As I said, I don't care how central to your identity your physical traits are. I'm not interested in the question of identity as far as this discussion is concerned. It is simply in poorer taste to mock a person's race than it is to mock their religion. Both may be in poor taste, but mocking race is worse. That doesn't imply -- nor have I said -- that race is more fundamental to identity than religion.
We're talking about two entirely different things.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Doesn't it come back to what Squick said? You can weigh the merits of an idea, discuss it, and come to conclusion about which idea is best (best for everyone, best for you, whatever), which you cannot do for skin colour, gender, etc.
So when you slander something that intrinsic you're essentially dehumanising them. We cannot assign value to all skin colour, except your skin colour, and your skin colour is worse.
Posts: 3243 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
Added: Physical characteristic != idea. Both may be central to identity, but that does not make them the same.
Added 2: And the "centrality to identity" point is the one I don't care about in this thread. The "not sameness" is the important point for the purposes of this discussion.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:So when you slander something that intrinsic you're essentially dehumanising them.
Maybe the conflict here is "intrinsic." I think if something is in the category of This Defines Me, then it is intrinsic. How much it is is a matter of degree.
quote:The "not sameness" is the important point for the purposes of this discussion
I already agreed they are not the same, because the degree is different. That makes them different degrees in the same category. If I understand what you are saying, you don't believe they are in the same category.
Are you not putting them in the same category on the theory that doing so would start a slippery slope? I agree that Rasicst Jokes are Very, Very Bad, but they can be Very, Very Bad while mocking jokes at someone's ideology's expense are Bad.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think you kind of missed the point. Maybe not, and maybe we'll just have to agree to disagree, but let me just flesh that out a little more.
The reason I'm using intrinsic here is because these are basic human characteristics, you are born into them, you cannot change them, and everyone must have them. This is not true with ideas, you can get through life never having thought about the things that are so important to another person's way of life. Because of this we can say that all people have a skin colour, they all have a country of origin, etc. We cannot say that they all have a particular moral code, or stance on political position "x".
So we agree that these things are basic aspects of humanity. And if we're all people and all equal (and we all want to be treated equally) than all these things must be equal as well. As soon as you say they're not you have, essentially, denied the person the basic humanity that his peers share. The only way that this person's skin colour may not be the equal of his peers is if, in fact, this person is not human.
The same simply cannot be said for ideas. There was a thought process that led you to them. One might say that the thought process is, in my use of the term, intrinsic. And that all humans, by nature of being human, must have ideas, but the specifics of these ideas are not so rigidly defined. So if you say that idea 'x' is stupid, you may be rude, you may be very hurtful, but you don't deny them humanity.
Yes? No? Back to this agree to disagree thing?
Posts: 3243 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
I still put mocking someone's ideology on the list of things that gentlemen do not do, but I understand what you mean by saying they are different. Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I already agreed they are not the same, because the degree is different. That makes them different degrees in the same category. If I understand what you are saying, you don't believe they are in the same category.
I don't believe that they are in the same category for the purposes of this discussion.
quote:Are you not putting them in the same category on the theory that doing so would start a slippery slope?
In a practical sense, yes, and history supports my view.
quote:You believe that only the things we are born are the things that are intrinsic?
Everything that is Twinky was there when you were born?
Insofar as "intrinsic" is synonymous with "inherent," then I believe the first sentence but not the second. The things you are born with are the things that you start life with. Everything else is added later. This does not mean that the things that get added later are not fundamental to your identity!
However, the second sentence in no way follows from the first. I don't agree with the second sentence.
Added: Well, then. BtL said it way better. Never mind. Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
01) Sexual preference is genetic, not chosen, and people should not be penalized over it. The Xq28 region of my own genetic code, for example, determined at my birth that I would be attracted to wiry, blond, left-handed, piano-playing, Red Sox fans that are no good for me and may even be married to other people, and the legislature and the American people must accept that.
02) A representative government should always be ready and willing to change from the bottom up to reflect the social fads of tiny, vocal minorities.
03) Marriage isn't just about raising children, it's also about commitment and love and those tasty tax breaks and getting my parents off my back to go out and get married, already.
04) Marriage must change to serve the needs of society as determined by whichever element of society "wants it more."
05) Straight marriages often result in abuse and divorce, and gay marriage should only have to clear the lowest possible bar. Gays can have just as many abusive relationships as straight people any day. More, even.
06) Judging gay people solely by their sexuality is discriminatory and wrong. The men in the parade walking down Main Street wearing only tight leather chaps and waggling large rubber devices at the crowds as they tongue-kiss each other should be judged on their worth as human beings.
07) Laws banning gay marriage violate the separation of church and state which is specifically mentioned in the Constitution in section... um... hang on, it's here somewhere, I remember it... Well, the state can't formally recognize a religion, and that's close enough.
08) When God said no gay sex, He just meant those guys in the desert that one time and, truth to tell, they were out of line. And isn't that whole religion thing old-fashioned anyway?
09) All other things being equal, children raised by gay parents are every bit as capable and healthy as children raised by straight parents according to our sponsored surveys of three carefully chosen families published in an obscure journal you never heard of.
10) Gay marriage is a civil rights issue and should be afforded the same respect as rights for blacks or women, because sexual urges are every bit as important as gender and racial equality.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thanks, Chris; I was hoping we'd get the top ten from the other side. I even tried writing them last night, but unfortunately I've found I have no talent for it.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hmmm, that was an interesting exercise on a couple of levels. I didn't find it funny (big surprise, right), even though I was determined to try as I read it. Did any of you anti-SSM folk find it funny? Was it even nearly as funny as Chris's first 10?
Chris, do you think it is as funny? (I'm not trying to pin you down on political leanings here, I'm seriously asking your opinion of your two works.)
That said, I did smile at #8. I wonder if that is because my patience tends to run thin with people who expect a religion to change for them.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
A. There are no valid reasons to be against it. Shut up, you bigot.
B. There is no "sanctity" of marriage to destory. You don't believe me? Brittney Spears. 'Nuff said.
C. Allowing SSM will result in a positive change for marriage. We know this because we are able to precisely engineer the social consequences of our actions, which has enabled us to eliminate poverty, racism, and war.
Posts: 1 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think Chris's second list is as funny as his first, but still funnier and less offensive than the original list... for those who want my opinion. Straw Man's list sounds a lot closer in tone to the original list, to me.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: You! Sissy boy! Get a football, you want your kid to grow up weak? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There was definitely some audible laughter with this one.
I don't think that concept is as wholly laughable as some people might. i believe there is some merit to the idea that it would do some people some good to toughen up a little. And the effects of being a certain way (too tough or too weak) would definitely trickle down to one's children.
Posts: 2532 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
This one was a great deal tougher to do, for a couple of reasons.
First, I wanted it to sound funny to people who find bans on gay marriage self-evident just as the original list (and my first one) was aimed at people who find acceptance of gay marriage self-evident. I'm in favor of gay marriage and the quirks of the more extreme anti arguments came more easily to me.
And I wanted to avoid the more hateful arguments in this direction and, frankly, that didn't leave too many that were easy to mock in a quick capsule form.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I didn't find it *as* funny, but I chuckled at #6 - #9.
Doesn't change what I think about SSM, but I certainly don't feel personally attacked in any way.
Actually, I think #9 does have quite a bit of truth to it, and that's why it is funny. People use dumb surveys and dumb statistics on both sides of this debate - I don't think it's the kind of thing that should be decided by data.
***
Katie:
quote: quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- And, I have to say, it seems that the people doing this all fall in the anti-gay marriage camp. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course - you're on the other side, so the slights towards that side are real.
Nope. Not what I said.
And I don't see anyone "on the other side" feeling personally attacked by Chris's second list.
Not thinking the list is funny != feeling personally attacked.
Posts: 4393 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: >> There is a specific segment of the population that ARE that ignorant, and they deserve to be made fun of, IMO.
They deserve to be educated.
That's the problem, Scott....they refuse to become "educated" and you can't teach someone who doesn't want to learn. Also, then you have the problem of who determines what a proper level of education is...
Are they only educated when they agree with you? Or is it possible to be educated on the issue and have opposing viewpoints?
I know a lot of people, here and other places, who claim that anyone who doesn't agree with them about (insert a subject here) is ignorant, because if they knew ANYTHING about the topic they would have to agree that (insert any argument here) is completely true.
I don't believe this to be true, but I still say you can't teach someone who isn't willing to listen and learn.
You can make sure that everyone else knows how ignorant their arguments are to other, rational people though, and satire is one way of doing that.
(also, I want to be clear here...this argument was NOT directed at Dag, or Jim, or mph... or anyone else who disagrees with the ideas behind this list, or this argument. While I don't agree with them, I do respect their views, and their right to hold their own opinions It is directed at people who take those arguments particular seriously.)
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Obviously, I found the first list Chris posted funnier (wonder why) but this one made me laugh too. Especially : "The men in the parade walking down Main Street wearing only tight leather chaps and waggling large rubber devices at the crowds as they tongue-kiss each other should be judged on their worth as human beings."
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
There was definitely some audible laughter with this one.
![[Kiss]](graemlins/kiss.gif)
<-- Tante Shvester![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Hail]](graemlins/hail.gif)
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
