posted
I just finished reading OSC's essay on gay marriage and I must say I'm a bit disturbed that he'd go to such lengths to define a concept as belonging to certain people when he's made a carreer of bending concepts to suit a story. Now don't get me wrong, I don't think the guy's infallable, he lost my faith in his judgement when he called Clinton a criminal for attacking Afghanistan unprovoked yet supported the war in Iraq. Anyway I'll get to my point, I wrote a bit of satire for another forum that I think explains the situation wonderfully, and I wish to share it.
There is one reason and one reason alone why you shouldn't support a constitutional ban on gay marriage; once that precedent is set then who's next?
Christian marriage under siege Bizzaro Land Gazzete, Sept. 5 2004
Increasing efforts by liberal politicians and lobbying groups in recent months have solidified plans to ammend the constitution to ban christian marriage. A senior white house staff member tells BLG that "There's a long standing tradition of homosexual couplings in this country. In recent decades we've seen an increasing number of religious extremists and activist priests who think they can marry any two people as long as one has a penis and the other has a vagina. To protect the sanctity of marriage we need to put an end to this."
A recent BG poll suggests that the public supports such a ban, with 67% in favor of it. One young hairdresser told us "I don't have anything against christians but they shouldn't be allowed to marry, it's just unnatural." A female lumberjack, when asked if she supported the ban, responded "...and what's next? If we allow them to marry then will come the polygamists, and then the pedophiles. By the end of the year people will be marrying their dogs, and the last thing this country needs is a bunch of pedophilic, beast loving christians flaunting themselves in the streets."
On the other hand many christians we interviewed seemed confused over the entire issue. A prominent youth minister who asked to remain nameless told us "Well, it took me ten years just to tell my fathers that I believed in Jesus. They didn't take it well at first but after a while they became accustomed to my lifestyle. Just being comfortable with my beliefs was difficult enough without actual laws to discourage them, but what kind of message are we sending to our kids if they're told that getting married is going to hurt others somehow? Is christian marriage really so dangerous that we need to ban it?"
President Gore, who had remained quiet on the issue until recently, has been quoted as saying "...people need to realize the dangers that come with christianity. Some would have you believe that anyone should be able to marry anyone else. But I know differently. I know that to keep gay marriage safe from these extremists we need to take their right to marry and stick it in a lockbox, hidden under the bed of the american taxpayer. If justice prevails in the end we'll be able to stop the forward march of the christian menace with one, final solution."
Gore's unusually excited stance on this issue has motivated gays across the country to get involved. Most simply donate money to lobbyists or protest at christian gatherings but some have taken it to a dangerous extreme. The Bizarro Gazzete was able to get a few fleeting comments from anti-christian activist Michelle Phleps. "Do you realize what these people want to do? If they have it their way there would be a church on every corner and a bible in your child's desk. We need to take these heathenistic n'er do wells and put them through a reprogramming session to cleanse them of their unnatural tendancies. Give me a jesus lover and I'll have him prancing around, singing showtunes by the end of the day--and he'll thank me for it."
Whatever your stance on the christian marriage issue most agree that this will be an important concept in the comming election. The anti x-tian activists do have one notable critic however. The increasingly unpopular aclu has threatened lawsuits against the federal government, saying that not only is this a blatant attempt to corrupt the constitution, it's an attempt to draw attention from the "more important" issue of the war in North Korea. An aclu spokesman tells us: "Here we are sending our youth to another country to fight a war that may not be necesarry and everyone's up in arms about christian marriage. I mean, it's not like people will be forced to marry christians, they'd only have to tolerate other people marrying christians, which in no way diminishes the 'sanctity of marriage'."
One way or another society could drastically change in the coming years. As activism on both sides of the issue increases so will attention to the issue itself. And neither side seems to think that's a bad thing.
posted
Yes he did. The article, which was no doubt intended to be funny (at least, it's what I assumed), incited painful groans in me, instead of laughter. Therefore I expressed my groaning reaction. A "point" I did not see. Perhaps someone would want to "point" it out to me...? Posts: 1996 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
My point? gee, I guess I wasn't clear enough when i stated "There is one reason and one reason alone why you shouldn't support a constitutional ban on gay marriage; once that precedent is set then who's next?"
Posts: 58 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's funny dagonee cuz I've been told exactly the opposite by many, many people. I'll take the time to ezplain my point further since you don't seem to want to understand it.
You see how silly the whole thing is? See how ludicrous all those concepts are? The whole thing is just a conglomeration of extremist views and nasty stereotypes. Well, it's not a straightforward cautionary tale, obviously I don't actually believe something like this could take place (with the people involved anyway). The reason it's effective is because this is how the actual situation looks to me and many others.
When it comes down to it the whole concept of 'protecting the sanctity of marriage' is comprised of a skewed view of humanity and just cause. It doesn't matter what marriage was or is, because peoples' rights come before the rights of a concept (which don't exist as far as I know). Example: if I think bananas are inherently evil and a majority of people agree with me, is it okay for us to enact laws banning the use of bananas? "no" you say? Well if it just so happens that someday anti-banana activists gain enough power they'll be able to ban their use in the constitution because the anti-gay people set a precedent of restricting peoples' rights for the sake of a concept. Get it??
Posts: 58 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I see what you intended to do. The fact you failed to accomplish it isn't my fault.
See, this may be how it looks to you and many others. But it's not how it looks to people who adovcate heterosexual-only civil marriage.
Now, if your goal is to make a funny little joke that people who already agree with you think is funny, then have at it. If you are attempting to inject ideas into the debate through the use of humor, you'd do much better to understand how things look to your opponents first. They're the ones you need to convince.
posted
You're better off disproving the existence of God, I'm afraid. Because as long as these opponents think they know what their god wants, they aren't going to listen to you.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think you're going to have to convince yourself, because I get the feeling that's the only way you'll change your mind about this.
How about this? I challenge you to explain to me exactly why heterosexual marriage deserves better rights than homosexual people. If you can't do that then your counterpoint to my article has failed (because I and I alone say so).
Posts: 58 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
Except that you don't seem to know my position on this topic. Did you really not think it possible for someone to agree with equal civil homosexual marriage rights but not like your piece?
Loved the post! And I got it, too! But, then again, I'm Jewish. Ever since even before Christ, we've been against Christian marriages.
Here's the counterpoint:
What if it doesn't stop with gays? What if polygamists want to make their marriages legal? One man with multiple wives? One woman with multiple husands? Multiple husbands and multiple wives? Men sleeping with boys? Ministers sleeping with boys? Women with boys? Women with girls? Women with women? In jail! like on www.womeninjail.com !?! Boy and boys? Boys and girls? Children with ferrets?!
It just gets worse and worse! When will it ever end!?!?!
Other than that, I support you completely. Except for the part about eating the Christian babies.
Posts: 1862 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dagonee, I don't care if you go out and march in gay pride parades--If you think marriage (which is not a person) deserves protection above homosexuals (actual people) then I can't take your opinion seriously, as such a point of view shows an inherent lack of empathy in my opinion.
ssywak, I'm going to assume that was mostly sarcasm since I don't know you well enough figure that post out (one way or another it was funny)
Posts: 58 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Dagonee, I don't care if you go out and march in gay pride parades--If you think marriage (which is not a person) deserves protection above homosexuals (actual people) then I can't take your opinion seriously, as such a point of view shows an inherent lack of empathy in my opinion.
Learn to read. Where did I say "marriage deserves protection above homosexuals"? My opinion is well known on this board. I've given no indication of it in this thread, since it's irrelvant to literary criticsim, but you've jumped to an incredibly wrong-headed assumption.
See, I've demonstrated the ability to understand and empathize with the opinions of people I disagree with in this thread (namely, the targets of your satire). You haven't.
If you're just trying to get laughs from people that agree with you then you've succeeded. As a device to change hearts and minds it is not effective advocacy.
posted
Okay, your opinion on gay marriage aside, who are you to judge whether or not it's doing what I intended it to? Have you personally spoken to every person that's read it? If I did change someone's mind what's the chance they'll actually say so? Chances are that any people I've influenced weren't too eager to admit it. You seem very sure about something that's a moot point as no one can prove it's effectiveness either way.
By the way, if there's any one goal of my article it's to get people to discuss the subjects contained therein. Seems a rousing success to me.
Posts: 58 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Who am I? I'm a member of this discussion board, to which you posted this work so it could be discussed.
If you don't want to take my critique into account, then don't. I really don't care. I'm sorry you thought you were only entitled to pats on the back and cheers of encouragement.
Plus, your instant defensiveness and assumption about my opinion on the subject doesn't speak well to your empathy for other opinions.
posted
See? you're still confusing concepts with people. I don't need to empathize with peoples' opinions because opinions aren't people. And my defensiveness can't speak for me as it's an abstract concept, not a thinking human being.
Semantic bickering aside my defensiveness is reasonable as I believe your critique was not. You claimed from the beginning that my article was a 'failure' despite a lack of useable criteria to judge it, and against the positive comment of others. You can't know how succesfully I got my point across without a huge amount of work outside the bounds of reasonable conversation therefore your point has no credibility. It's like a child claiming they won a game of basketball when no one set forth the criteria for victory ahead of time--
Child 1: "no no, you see, since you didn't dribble the ball at least two times per second on your way to the basket your winning point is nullified."
Child 2: "but we never agreed to that rule"
Child 1: "it doesn't matter, those are the rules cuz i say so and you failed according to them."
Posts: 58 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:As a persuader, it's fairly ineffective because you've cherry-picked the extremists arguments and ignored the more moderate ones.
I cherry picked nothing, I was altering a cross section of actual quotes I've come across so if anyone was cherry picking it was the journalists who've covered the story thus far, I was actually trying not to leave much out, what more reasonable arguments against gay marriage did i exclude, might i ask?
quote:As comedy, it's not funny both for the reason above and the failure to use really mimic the diction of the people being parodied.
Again, I was altering actual quotes so I'd say I got the 'diction of the people being parodied' down quite well. And the humor factor is a matter of opinion, if you're to be taken seriously so is my point that a vast majority of responses have been positive.
And you missed the point of my basketball analogy, yes you set forth criteria but those are your criteria, not some predisposed rules of objective thought (or whatever you think of them as).
Okay, I'll play by the same rules as you now.
Your critique was lacking in credibility because you failed to persuade people that I don't know and haven't spoken to, nor did you make them laugh. Even worse is the fact that the Hamburlger didn't find it persuasive, as he is the penultimate authority on gay marriage (because I say so).
Posts: 58 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Perhaps the people quoted in the media sound like that, but we've had our fair share of debates around here and both sides are more tolerant and less extremist than the positions you've been quoting. So while you might get a good laugh out of the choir you're preaching to, a lot of people at Hatrack aren't going to appreciate your piece because it is not representative of the views of anyone here. Or at least not representative of the views that anyone has shared.
Posts: 3546 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
What wasn't mature about it? I thought I tore down your critique quite well. The fact that you couldn't respond in kind to my critisisms shows a lack of maturity on your part. Well I won't be one to ignore a challenge to my credibility. I'll try a more lowest common denominator aproach. Give me a day to put together a new article (it probably won't take that long but i hate to limit myself too much) and I'll see if I can't fix these 'problems'.
The only problem with that is I'll have to focus on argument rather than satire, which takes a lot of the fun out of it.
Posts: 58 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
When confronted with criticism one can either:
1) Realize that at least one reader had the reaction described in the critique. This allows the author to either modify his work to take that reaction into account or to decide to leave the work as is, but at least the decision is made with the additional knowledge provided by the critic.
2) Attack the critic.
The thing is, my criticism can't be wrong. It describes my reaction, no one else's. There's no one else in the entire world qualified to state my opinion on this piece. Other people may react differently. They're criticisms describing their reactions would be just as accurate, even if they differ from mine.
posted
But your response wasn't that specific, you didn't start out with "I didn't find it persuasive or funny". You stated that it wasn't persuasive or funny, suggesting that it wouldn't persuade anyone or make them laugh. If what you're saying is true objective critisism should focus on a singular opinion not a generalization and you didn't do that.
Posts: 58 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
But you accepted the people who said it was "very interesting" and "beautiful" without qualifying that those were individual opinions. You accepted their comments in the obvious context they were intended - as opinions. But my comment requires a disclaimer? Please.
Not to mention that implication that anyone who didn't find it funny must not have gotten it.
posted
Listen, you're getting into the territory of insults and I'm not going there. My skin is plenty thick and I didn't say you need a disclaimer, I only mentioned it at all in response to your points. You be more objective (speak for yourself) and I'll be more accepting of critisism.
Posts: 58 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
You're the one who said, "since you don't seem to want to understand it" in your very first response to me. If you could handle criticism gracefully we wouldn't be having this conversation.
quote: If you think marriage (which is not a person) deserves protection above homosexuals (actual people) then I can't take your opinion seriously, as such a point of view shows an inherent lack of empathy in my opinion.
In other words, if you someone doesn't agree with you, then they aren't worth listening to.
Well, at least you will never have to think with that attitude.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mr. PH, I think the response is less "if someone doesn't agree with you" and more "if someone is operating on a completely different set of values and rules. (and I'm only assuming here, please ignore me if i'm being stupid).
example: If a building is burning down, and you decide to save your DVD collection rather than the child crying down the hall, then your system of thinking is so different than mine I can't even imagine how the world looks to you, and therefore can't take anything you say without second guessing. (Have you read the Achilles-narrated parts of the Shadow series?)
And, just for clarification so no one accuses me of personal attacks, the "you" and "I" in the example above are hypothetical pronouns. They represent NO ONE in particular.
Posts: 866 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: There is one reason and one reason alone why you shouldn't support a constitutional ban on gay marriage; once that precedent is set then who's next?
This is your main point, so I am assuming this is what you want addressed.
My thought is that if we allow men to marry men and women to marry women, why do we forbid one man to marry two women or one women to marry two men? What are your thoughts on that? I don't extend this example to children, animals, or inanimate objects because they are not capable of giving consent.
The constitutional amendment is for making marriage between one man and one woman. This is how marriage has been practiced in our culture for a pretty long time. (I was recently made aware that there have been some cultures that have practiced gay marriage.) Polygamy-practicing LDS gave up their religiously-based practice in order to follow the law of the land: One man and one woman.
The question of allowing marriage between same-sex has only recently come up. So the question isn't so much "Should we ban gay marriage?" as "Should we allow gay marriage?" The difference is subtle, but it is a difference. The question is, should we change the way we have been doing things in this particular culture for a pretty long time?
I bring these things up because they effect your point. So a counter-point could be, "Should we support gay marriage? Once that precedent is set, what is next?"
And since you are new here, I will give you a some insider info on myself: I am internally torn on the issue of gay marriage myself for my own reasons and allowing polygamy doesn't really bother me much.
quote:Mr. PH, I think the response is less "if someone doesn't agree with you" and more "if someone is operating on a completely different set of values and rules. (and I'm only assuming here, please ignore me if i'm being stupid).
Here's the problem with that theory - it alleviates one of trying to understand those who disagree. This is bad enough in general society. For someone attempting to change other people's minds, it's an almost insurmountable flaw.
posted
At least my mentallity is benign in the sense that it doesn't ultimately effect others.
Who's worse? Someone who wishes to restrict the rights of others or the person who doesn't listen to him?
Ultimately the argument comes down to which deserves to be preserved; the traditional perception of marriage or the rights of people to do what they want with themselves. There's no way around it, this is the crux of the argument (if you disagree please explain in detail why because this is the most reasonable, non-exaggerated form i could put it in).
I find it interesting that no one has even come close to contridicting any of my points, only saying they failed in a subjective sense. If you guys really think you're right and that my article is a 'failure' why don't you explain why in detail instead of repeating how unfunny and innefective it is? Oh, that's right, you can't, so you'll continue to pick on it like a bunch of elementary school bullies.
Let me be even more clear. If you can't tell me why it's a failure your point can't be properly considered (in other words it can't be taken seriously). If the article only contains extremist views then tell me some that I should have used that aren't. If it's not funny tell me how it could have been. But if you can't provide an alternative my article remains as a prime example of my (and others') views which many have found poignant and entertaining.
quote: I find it interesting that no one has even come close to contridicting any of my points, only saying they failed in a subjective sense. If you guys really think you're right and that my article is a 'failure' why don't you explain why in detail instead of repeating how unfunny and innefective it is? Oh, that's right, you can't, so you'll continue to pick on it like a bunch of elementary school bullies.
So because no one has taken time to point out where they think you're wrong, that must mean that you're right? beverly raised an interesting point that I haven't seen you respond to so that must mean you can't.
Posts: 4625 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: There's no way around it, this is the crux of the argument (if you disagree please explain in detail why because this is the most reasonable, non-exaggerated form i could put it in).
Since you already told Dag that he isn't worth listening to because his view differs from yours, I don't see why I should bother trying to explain mine to you.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
(one way or another it was funny)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
