posted                  

quote:

---

The essay is out there and everybody is free to agree with it or not. And I think it was about time somebody said something like that, without being afraid of being politically incorrect.

---

Posts: 779 | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                  

quote:

---

The essay is out there and everybody is free to agree with it or not. And I think it was about time somebody said something like that, without being afraid of being politically incorrect.

---

If this is the first time you've heard someone say 'something like that', then you obviously haven't heard some of Pat Robertson, Oral Roberts, Falwell, Hal Lindsey, etc. They've been on this train for years. I don't know whether the fact that none of what OSC said is particularly new to me reflects poorly on me, rather than saying anything about you, though.

edit: changed for clarity...

[ February 26, 2004, 12:09 PM: Message edited by: Storm Saxon ]

Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                  

quote:

---

Wow, you really are dedicated to seeing the other side, aren't you John?

---

And gee, you don't think that applies to you, or any of the other bigots? I know the "other side," as I'm a conservative who normally argues a pretty conservative line. In fact, the only thing that usually has me not following typical conservative rhetoric is the issue of civil rights and liberties. This happens to be such a case.

You see, the conservative outlook—which in this case is heavily influenced by religion—is that something that they consider a lifestyle should not be allowed to enter into what they wish to call a marriage. Further, a conservative is under the mistaken impression that marriage is a term that has some kind of sanctity outside of the law. It is true that someone who holds a religious view of marriage can consider it in accordance to their faith, but that their faith has no bearing on its meaning by law. Because of this mistaken impression, however, the typical conservative view is that marriage is somehow being "attacked," even though all gays want is to be afforded the same privileges and rights as heterosexuals. The typical conservative view is to deny these things—it's always easy to deny others something you already have.


Marriage isn't being attacked by homosexuals. It's being utterly ruined by heterosexuals. The ~50% divorce rate isn't the fault of homosexuals, because heterosexuals are the ones cheating, fighting, and breaking the "sanctity" of marriage in each case. The idea of "my baby momma" and "my baby daddy" isn't something that comes from the homosexual community—it's an idea that marriage isn't necessary to have kids, so why bother? In fact, the only real "attack" on marriage can be percieved by the religious take on it. Guess what: religion has no place in deciding whether a group of people deserve rights or not. And if you don't think the privileges afforded married couples are rights, then don't be hypocrites and offer them freely to homosexual couples.

Just like with the issue of racism, it's easy to claim moral superiority over the issue when you have the advantage and the majority. In fact, when you have those two things, you can keep your perceived "enemy" without the same privileges for a long time and justify it almost any way you please. That type of self-deception only lasts for so long, though, and while it may sound convincing to those who have no problem considering homosexuals second-class in terms of deserving to have privileges, it makes it no less bigoted than the segregationalist laws of the South after the 14th and 15th Amendments.

You (conservatives) say homosexuals are trying to destroy the institution of marriage—white men said black men only wanted equality to take their white women. Both accusations have no proof.

You (conservatives) often say that you might not have a problem with a "civil union" that was not the same as or called marriage—Jim Crow laws allowed blacks to have some of the same rights as whites, as long as those rights were not the same as the rights of whites. Separate but "equal." Uh huh... that doesn't sound different at all.

What boggles my mind is how someone can consider these types of thinking not bigoted. They say the same thing as the racist policies of the past, just using qualifiers that aren't ethnicity based. I understand the opposing arguments, I just don't accept the excuses for why people wish to consider them any different than the racist policies of a hundred years ago.

Posts: 779 | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                  

quote:

---

And gee, you don't think that applies to you, or any of the other bigots?

---

Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                  

quote:

---

Marriage isn't being attacked by homosexuals. It's being utterly ruined by heterosexuals.

---

Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                  

quote:

---

You missed out on half a dozen threads of people at each others' throats only to whip out your sword after all the fun was over.

---

Posts: 779 | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                  

quote:

---

years ago it was OSC's essays that drove dean off

---

Really? That was the reason dean left Hatrack?

Posts: 5771 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                  

quote:

---

Really? That was the reason dean left Hatrack?

---

quote:

---

Seems a silly reason to leave, frankly. *shrug*

---

Actually, I've been thinking I should leave for a while now. I've never considered OSC that great of a writer and I seriously dislike most of his War Watch stuff. With this last column, it's pretty clear to me that he is, in a lot of ways, not a good person. At this point, I think it reflects badly on me to associate with OSC. So, I think it's pretty hypcritical of me to be on his site.

I don't want to get into a debate about whether or not OSC is a good person. I'm sure in person he is a swell guy. I just don't get it from his war watch stuff. It's my personal opinion. I know many of you don't share it. The main reason I stay here is because this side of the forum has nothing to do with OSC. He doesn't post here and I don't have to talk to him. I get a lot from interacting with most of you, as I hope you do with me. Though, I know most of you, or a lot of you, anyway, would not care if I left or stayed. Some of you would say good riddance.

The main point of writing this is to, one, add my voice to those on this forum who say that OSC has crossed a line. His latest column is very offensive to me. I think those who were offended by his column on this site have been pretty low key in voicing their disappointment in it and I just wanted to throw my own voice out there in support of those who have made mention of it. Two, I kind of wanted feedback on the way I'm feeling. Is it appropriate that I stay here? Would any of the Mormons on this site continue to post on a site where they were constantly put down and trashed by the site host? Icarus, I don't know what group you feel a kinship with. Would you stay on a site where teachers or hispanics were constantly trashed by the host? I thought your post was a little dismissive and I wanted to point out to you that, to some of us, he is very offensive.

Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                  

quote:

---

On more than one thread recently I've found myself snapping at my children when they asked me something while I was reading and posting. That's why I left the thread about the essay. That's why I didn't even open this one until just now, and I'm pleased to see the responses from people like KarlEd and Ela. mack, if I hang in here, you must too.

---

Posts: 5771 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                  

quote:

---

Yeah Ela, I'm the same way. I almost always disagree with OSC's WarWatch essays, but honestly, I'm not here because of OSC. It was a search for sites about him that led me here, back in '99, but it's because of the people here that I come back, and that Hatrack is the first thing I check after my mail (and occasionally sakeriver) every morning.

---

Posts: 5771 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | 

posted                  

That's funny, Pop; I always figured it was my presence on Hatrack that drove all these cool people away. All of these cool people were posting when I arived, and many have since left, so . . .

-o-

quote:

---

Icarus, I don't know what group you feel a kinship with. Would you stay on a site where teachers or hispanics were constantly trashed by the host?

---

Hmm . . .

Well, first of all, I apologize for sounding dismissive.

Where I stand on the issue: I believe homosexuals should have the right to marry any unmarried adult they want to, and have their marriage receive all of the same legal recognition that man-woman marriages receive. I do not think this would devalue marriages or the institution of marriage in the least. But the crux of this current issue is, I think, not where you stand on homosexual marriage, but where you stand on the opposition to it. I was uncomfortable with it when Bob first stated that people who opposed gay unions were bigots, but I had a hard time coming up with a reason why he was wrong. I think reading the posts of Belle and others here has finally helped me formulate why I believe Bob was wrong on that count.*

If you believe that homosexual sex is sinful but still think that they should still have marriage rights, then I don't have any issue with that. I can respect that people tend to agree with their religion. I thought the "homophobia" charges that were leveled against OSC years ago were ridiculous. If you believe that homosexials should not be allowed to marry people of the same gender, that was something I was having a harder time with. First of all, I think that many people on that side of the issue are losing sight of the separation of Church and State, and the fact that we should not legislate against actions when no nonreligious reason can be found to do so. I'm coming to understand, though, that those opposed to legalizing gay marriage don't see it the way I do. They don't see marriage to the person you love as a right, and so they don't see the denial of that privilege as an infringement of that right. If I'm oversimplifying, I apologize, but it's impossible to empathize too perfectly with a view I don't hold. This argument doesn't sway me, because I still don't see the why of it, but it helps me see that the people who I know and love and respect on the other side of this issue are not bigoted or evil. Just wrong.

I can see why people found OSC's essay offensive: he doesn't extend to those who disagree with him the recognition that they disagree not because they are evil or his enemies, but because they have analyzed the situation and come to a different conclusion. Many (most?) of his recent columns are filled with rhetoric about the "liberal elite" which paints them as monsters who hate God and families. And I can understand it . . . there truly have been abuses on that side of the political spectrum. Heck, I went to college. There are hateful aberrations on both sides of the political spectrum. But most if not all of the people I know are not trying to destroy families or religion, nor are they trying to step on poor people and take away everyone's freedoms. And since the only evidence I can possibly have about the population at large is my own small sample, I believe that this holds for most people in the world. Most people want, with their beliefs if not their actions, to make the world a better place. Seeing enemies where there are simply people who disagree makes it easy to unconsciously turn up the rhetoric to the point where it becomes offensive, and I think OSC has gotten to this point.

It makes me sad that saying this will possibly move me into the perceived enemy camp, because I think highly of OSC, I agree with some of his beliefs, and I don't see myself as his enemy or him as mine.

None of which answers your question, so let's try again . . .

When I joined Hatrack, I know that OSC was socially more conservative than I am, but I did not consider him rabidly so. Heck, I had also heard and read him say uncomplimentary things about teachers, but I didn't perceive them as a direct insult. If he was rabidly anti-teacher or anti-latino, I likely never would have joined in the first place. But now that I have joined, I don't see this as the OSC fan club. I see this as a community of people, many of whom I have a great deal of respect and affection for. If OSC suddenly started publishing essays rabidly prejudiced against Latinos, I don't think I would leave. Because, heck, he doesn't post here and my presence here doesn't give him anything. Maybe as a member of the community I could effectively argue against such essays. But now, I'm here for the people who are here and for the conversations we have.

I don't post as much as I used to, and I feel less well-known now than I was a year or so ago, but I still enjoy this forum a lot. Leaving it over a political disagreement with the guy who owns it seems rather like cutting off my nose to spite my face.

And, for what it's worth, I personally would miss you if you left. And I think I've expressed to you before that I value your presence here. I consider you to be the perfect debater . . . when I disagree with you, I find that you listen to what I say, and treat me with every courtesy.

-o-

*And this is what Hatrack is all about. Every once in a while, somebody says, "What's the point? Nobody ever changes their mind?" I don't enter these discussions to change people's minds (how presumptious of me if I did!) Clearly, I don't come here to have my own mind changed either. I enter these discussions to better understand those who disagree with me. Since I am, of course, always right, I am baffled when somebody fails to see the logic in everything I say. So, when somebody doesn't see things that way, my first instinct is, naturally, that they are idiots or evil people. But I am always astonished by how many people turn out to be idiots or evil people. So I engage in these discussions to better understand those who disagree with me, because it is unreasonable to think that so many people are idiots or evil. I challenge their beliefs as a way of probing, and understanding. Not because I believe that I can put my thoughts in such a way that they will say, "You know, you're right Joe. I don't know why I didn't see it that way before. From now on, I will favor legalization of homosexual marriages." Rather, I am makig the objections that make me believe as I do, to understand how they deal with them. As an added benefit, I get questioned and challenged too, and find that, while I might not make drastic changes in my beliefs--that was never a goal, remember?--I do refine some points I had never thought out before. I guess dialogue softens the edges.

For instance, while I still would not leave this forum over something OSC said, I can better understand those who would, now.

Posts: 1112 | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged |