posted
I used to at one time have a religion, so I cannot completely shake a certain... core of morality even though I eat pork, drink very seldom and curse outloud in time sof extreme angry. But I can't really think of any X that would completely hurt society or the individual other than irresponsible gambling or drinking. I don't really agree with abortion, personally, if placed in that position I doubt I would get one... As for Homosexuality, at one point I did believe what I was taught, that it was wrong. (remembers reaction to finding out the Indigo Girls were lesbian.) But, since I had began to experience certain feelings I began to question what I was taught. I think if a vocal majority said disgreed with me I would question myself to ask why and maybe consider that perhaps I didn't know the complete story. I know when I was in Jr high school and high school I read all sorts of books that changed my perspective and made me feel for gay people and what they go through.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: So, apart from being made by me, what logical problem do you see with my post? I grant you I haven't yet shown which way the causality runs, that's why I said it was only a first cut.
1) IME, "fundamentalists" are among the least likely to deal with cognitive dissonance. 2) There are SO many possible variables affecting the wealth of two such disparate groups, I do not understand how you can remotely claim that it is evidence of much of anything.
1. Possibly we have different understandings of what cognitive dissonance is? I was referring to the need to consciously suppress examination of evidence - particularly, evidence against a young earth. 2. First cut, remember? I take it we are agreed that fundamentalists actually are poorer than other religious groups. Then there are three possibilities : Fundamentalist beliefs cause poverty, poverty causes fundamentalist beliefs, or both are caused by something else. Now, only one of these supports my thesis; but it still forms a basis for discussion.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:1. Possibly we have different understandings of what cognitive dissonance is? I was referring to the need to consciously suppress examination of evidence - particularly, evidence against a young earth.
That's not cognitive dissonance. That's denial, or lack of acceptance.
quote: I take it we are agreed that fundamentalists actually are poorer than other religious groups.
Nope. And given that this is how you wish to play with meaningless statistics, I'm done.
Get back to me when you understand the difference between correlation in the physical sciences and the social sciences. Lots more confounding factors in the latter than the former. Unless and until you can understand that, this conversation is useless.
Shame on me for not realizing that from the beginning.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:1. You have developed a belief that X, while not an evil act, violates some deep, eternal truth that you cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt to anyone else.
When I do this, they call it OCD, and I'd never try to force other people to live by my rules.
Now, I know you're going to probably bring up that my avoidance of X is clearly irrational and based on a feeling. Deep down, religion is really based on faith, which is pretty much a feeling. A lot of religious rituals and whatnot don't have a secular, rational basis. Which means that they're rational within the religion. That doesn't make them rational to outsiders. Heck, fear of germs is about things that actually do physically exist and CAN be proven.
No, I'm not saying that religious people have mental problems. But I'm saying that the mentality of avoiding X can be similar in that it's often something that other people don't see/understand/think is a big deal, and you can't really prove to them that it is. Which is why it frustrates me that so many can't see the usefulness of being a little more hands-off when it comes to their beliefs and other people who do not share these beliefs.
quote:1. Possibly we have different understandings of what cognitive dissonance is? I was referring to the need to consciously suppress examination of evidence - particularly, evidence against a young earth.
That's not cognitive dissonance. That's denial, or lack of acceptance.
If you like. At any rate, this is the process to which I was referring.
quote:
quote: I take it we are agreed that fundamentalists actually are poorer than other religious groups.
Nope. And given that this is how you wish to play with meaningless statistics, I'm done.
Ok; as you wish. I do not see what I did to cause such offense. If you think I'm wrong about the factual basis of my argument, fine, say so and we can look up the statistics. But what's this of going off in a huff merely because I said something you think is wrong?
quote:Get back to me when you understand the difference between correlation in the physical sciences and the social sciences. Lots more confounding factors in the latter than the former. Unless and until you can understand that, this conversation is useless.
Ho hum. Speaking of personal attacks. For all my reputation hereabouts, I don't think I've ever asserted that anyone is so incompetent as to make discussion with them absolutely worthless.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well then, just what is your problem? What is it you would have me do, or not do? If you feel that my argument is utterly wrong, surely going off in a huff is a rather counter-productive action. Why not just point out the mistake I'm making, for the benefit of the lurkers if nobody else? A mere assertion of 'You are incompetent' does not exactly make a good impression for your side; it looks rather like an ad hom.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:How is my thinking that you have an intolerable opinion worse than you thinking that someone has an intolerable life?
I'm wondering what your basis is for thinking that Puppy thinks anyone has an intolerable life.
Puppy's concern seemed to be that people who think the way that he does will be looked down on for thinking that way - like we look down on bigots and racists.
quote: "Bigot", in general, is about the worst thing you can call a person in America, and given that the zealots in favor of gay marriage use that word about as often as they breathe, if they manage to achieve an utter, total victory on every point, I don't think it is at all unreasonable to think that in forty years, being against gay marriage will earn you the same reactions that being a racist will today.
I hope that Puppy's prediction is right. I wish that his assessment of "the worst thing you can call a person" was. I believe that gay people are called much worse.
quote: I'm worried that believing gay marriage to be inappropriate will become an intolerable opinion, even among Christians.
The fact is that we do tolerate racists and bigots - we just think that they are wrong and want society to reflect that. Similarly, opponents of SSM think that homosexuality is wrong and want society to reflect that.
What I am hearing from Puppy is a gentle, kindly, sincere voice saying, "I don't want society to judge me wrong for the way I think because I think homosexuals are wrong for the way they live."
quote:I believe that gay people are called much worse.
While that is probably true elsewhere, I've never seen it happen here on Hatrack, where people who oppose SSM are repeated called bigots. I saw it happen just yesterday.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I believe that gay people are called much worse.
While that is probably true elsewhere, I've never seen it happen here on Hatrack, while people who oppose SSM are repeated called bigots here. I saw it happen just yesterday.
Hatrack isn't the world. Part of my point is that having your opinion threatened on a forum is less harmful and less significant than having your lifestyle threatened in the real world.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
mph: No, we're just told to stay in our place, that we're reprobated (That's worse than being a bigot) and that we don't deserve the same rights as everyone else.
How about this, you let gays get married, then call them bigots. Sound good? Wanna trade?
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree with Porter. Whatever happens elsewhere, name-calling is not cricket here. Defending it by saying name-calling happens elsewhere is lame.
So is the above "exchange."
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Puppy: Okay, here is a thought exercise, inspired by some of the discussions going on in the Gay Marriage threads.
Imagine, for a moment, that:
1. You have developed a belief that X, while not an evil act, violates some deep, eternal truth that you cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt to anyone else.
Now, I'll stop there, because many people reading this are immediately thinking, "Wait a minute. I don't believe anything that I can't verify or prove to someone else, and I think people that do so are stupid."
If you thought that, or something like it, then I think we've hit on the crux of the disagreement already.
I actually did not go with, "But I never think things I can't prove," my first response was, "If I can't prove it and I don't think it's actually evil, I wouldn't believe in making laws to enforce that belief on other people."
Further down in the post, you say that the vocal minority's winning will have consequences. In this situation, I would take a wait and see stance to the consequences. Either A) the consequences will be bad, and other people will notice and society will backpedal or B) there will be negligable consequences and maybe I'll be proven wrong.
That's the stance I tried to take when I found out that Bush was re-elected. Either it will be bad and we'll deal with it, or it won't be bad, and there will be nothing to deal with.
Posts: 1751 | Registered: Jun 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: 3. You know that your reasons for believing that X is inappropriate cannot be proven, and therefore, you cannot use them to convince anyone else that your position is even worth considering. 4. However, if X is incorporated into your society, you suspect that several things will happen:
The above points are the ones that are used most often on Hatrack and Ornery to rationalize being against gay marriage, but I just want to point out that point number four isn't an argument against gay marriage so much as it is, I think, a straw man. That is, objectively there could be absolutely nothing wrong with gay marriage in and of itself, but even if that were so, society might still punish those who have, subjectively, the wrong opinion about gay marriage.
It seems to me, then, that we should rail against the problem of social bigotry and work to solve that, rather than the problem of gay marriage which, assuming for the sake of argument point number 4 is true, has nothing to do with the actual problem, and is just a symptom of the disease.
Of course, if it is argued that point 4 makes it so that point 3 must not be allowed to happen, then isn't the converse true? Doesn't prejudice against gay marriage result? Sure. Therefore, it seems to me that there is a kind of better you than me flavor to that argument and, again, it might be better for everyone just to work for and practice social tolerance so that as little discrimination happens as possible.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:I've never seen it happen here on Hatrack, where people who oppose SSM are repeated called bigots. I saw it happen just yesterday.
The founder of our site has said that we should have anti-gay laws on the books so that we can apply them when gay people need to be sent a message that they aren't welcome in our society.
Where did this happen yesterday? I'd like to see the context.
Nearly all the people I know on this site won't call people bigots merely for opposing SSM, but that doesn't mean that we won't point out that there are many bigots in the anti-SSN camp.
--- edit: Look, Geoff started off this thread with the assumption that the majority of people who support gay marriage are just fine with unjustifiably attacking and shouting people down. He then specifically included the people on Hatrack in this and hasn't withdrawn that even though I linked what I think was his most recent exchange - with me - on this issue where none of this happened. I think Geoff's characterization of the pro-SSM people is at least as insulting and unjustified as saying all the anti-SSN people are bigots.
Are there irresponsible and extreme people out there? You bet there are. We even get them on Hatrack, but they are generally fringe people. And even they appear to me to be modulating their tone and accusations.
quote:Originally posted by MPH: While that is probably true elsewhere, I've never seen it happen here on Hatrack, where people who oppose SSM are repeated called bigots. I saw it happen just yesterday.
I've seen it happen here. As Kate noted:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: When I started posting on Hatrack, really hateful things were being said about homosexuality. I can't believe Karl stuck around.
It isn't clear from her new screen name, but she started posting on Hatrack before I registered.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Upon checking my facts, it turns out that I was incorrect. It did not happen yesterday. My mistake.
It has happened many times over the last three years, though, while I've never seen the described attacks on homosexuals during that time.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've seen hateful names and things directed at gays here. I've seen unjustified accusations of bigotry aimed at anti-SSM people as well. Also, I've been accused many, many times of saying all anti-SSM people were bigots when I said nothing of the sort.
Without context, I don't think these accusations have much substance to them. Geoff leveled an accusation against the posters of Hatrack that I know and demonstrated wasn't true. porter's accusation appears to be false in at least one of its aspects.
edit: And, ultimately, I think individual cases are somewhat irrelevant. There are going to be extreme examples of irresponsible behavior on pretty much any issue, especially on an internet forum. Some of the same people who are levying accusations here were making the same point about not judging a whole group by its irresponsible extremists here. If there is a general case for persecution to be made, that is different, but finding an example of a fringe poster behaving poorly is hardly this.[/edit]
I get that people genuinely believe that they are victims or that current trends will turn them into victims, but I don't think that these fears are particularly rational. For one thing, they turn a large section of people, myself included, into victimizers. And, I'm pretty sure that a very large number of us are not.
posted
On other forums and in other contexts, I have voiced my opinion on ssm and homosexuality. I am pro-ssm, but I do believe homosexuality is a sin. However, if we tried to legislate or judge people based on what I believe is a sin, everyone would be screwed. So, I don't tell my gay friends they are wrong, just like I don't tell my straight friends who are engaging in premarital sex they are wrong. If they ask, I will say so, but otherwise, I keep out of it. For this belief, I have been called a bigot. I have been told I support beating up gays for fun, that the world would be better off if people like me were killed and all sorts of other hateful things. Never on this forum, which is why I am still around, but there is definetely persecution out there going both ways. And having had a friend stabbed for being gay, I would definetely say gays have it worse. But bad stuff happens on both sides.
Posts: 1001 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:I get that people genuinely believe that they are victims or that current trends will turn them into victims, but I don't think that these fears are particularly rational.
An example of a rational fear: that churches will be forbidden tax-free status if they refuse to conduct same-sex marriages.
Another rational fear: that society will eventually come to think less of people who believe homosexuality is unwholesomely aberrant.
These are perfectly rational fears. They may or may not be reasonable fears, but I won't think less of anyone for being leery of these potential consequences.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: You know that any time you try to engage in a discussion, you will be shouted down, your reasons will be dismissed as invalid, and your intelligence will often be insulted, undeservedly.
MrSquicky:
quote: This isn't close to being true.
Geoff:
quote:We're slowly getting better about it around here. Back when I engaged directly in these debates, that's exactly how it was.
MrSquicky:
quote:That's not even close to being true. I was in those debates with you, like this one and that didn't occur.
On page 2 of the thread that MrSquicky linked:
quote:It's not because "God" hates gay folk... it's because religion is afraid of low numbers.
quote:I read somewhere that an excellent indicator of juvenile delinquency is family size. That says something to me about the REAL effects of Mormons, Catholics, other religious groups with large families, etc.
Page 3:
quote:It turns out scientists recently altered a gene in a female fly that caused it to act as a male to attract a mate. Hmm. And there was a finding last year that the brains of homosexuals had an area that was larger than the same area in heterosexuals. Hmm. It'll be interesting to hear what the queer-haters will come up with when the proof becomes empirical that being homosexual is no more of a choice than it is being heterosexual.
quote:The anti-homosexual bigots already denied gays the ability to adopt children in Texas based on terrible research done by a man who was censored and thrown out of the APA and ASA because he just couldn't stop lying and making things up.
That's as far as I've gotten. Do you need more? (The last quote was from Mr. Squicky-- I don't think I've fouled anything by quoting it out of context, but I'll let him explain it.)
EDIT:
In any case, I don't really see the benefit to this discussion in Squicky's literal take on Geoff's claims. Can you explain why it's so important to you, Squicky?
[ November 01, 2006, 01:56 PM: Message edited by: Scott R ]
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:That's as far as I've gotten. Do you need more?
You may want to explain why any of that fits in with Geoff's accusation that:
quote: You know that any time you try to engage in a discussion, you will be shouted down, your reasons will be dismissed as invalid, and your intelligence will often be insulted, undeservedly.
You may want to realize that acknowledging that there are many anti-gay biots out there in no way constitutes any of the things that Geoff said or is in fact inaccurate or irresponsible.
---
edit: And it's important for the reasons I've already laid out in this thread. It is very difficult to come to a compromise with someone who's position is that you and most of the people like you are going to do things like undeservedly shout you down, dismiss your reasons, and insult your intelligence. It is much the same as if I started a thread by asserting "Nearly all of the people who are against gay marriage are really just bigots." and then saying I'm looking for common ground. Asserting an unreasonable reality where your opponents are mostly irresponsible and malicious doesn't seem to me to be a correct thing to do in this case.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Geoff said that religious people are often shouted down, have their intelligence ridiculed, and are called bigots in discussions on SSM.
You said that's not true.
You posted a link to show it's not true.
I showed where, in your link, religious people were ridiculed. I also showed an example of where people opposed to SSM were called bigots and queer haters.
Will you please (at least) retract your statement that the thread you linked to represents a civil discourse on the subject?
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
No. You are completely wrong. Your description of what happened is definitely off at least in my case. People saying that there are anti-gay bigots fit none of these criteria. Denying this fact or attacking people for asserting it may though.
And none of the things you posted established what Geoff claimed, a part of which was that these things were done to him or other posters.
If you look, there is no shouting down of anyone in that thread. In fact, I'd venture to say that at least near half of the posts come from people opposed to gay marriage or Dag. Most of the rest come from me.
As for undeservedly having their arguments dismissed and intelligence and character insulted, well, that happend to me in that thread. I didn't really see it happening to any other poster, though I may have missed it.
edit: Also, I never claimed that these threads were completely civil discourses. That's a much higher standard than we're talking about. Or perhaps I did. Perhaps you can demonstrate where I did so, Scott?
posted
No-- that's okay. I think I understand. Mr. Squicky let me know exactly what I needed to know.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Squick -- are you saying that you consider the thread you linked to an example of civil discourse?
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Could someone point out to me where I made any claim to it being civil discourse? I was unaware of making any such claim. As far as I can tell, those words don't appear on this thread until Scott said this:
quote:Will you please (at least) retract your statement that the thread you linked to represents a civil discourse on the subject?
talking about statments I'm not aware of ever making.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:The anti-homosexual bigots already denied gays the ability to adopt children in Texas based on terrible research done by a man who was censored and thrown out of the APA and ASA because he just couldn't stop lying and making things up.
as even incivil, let alone all those things Scott and Geoff are accusing me of being?
If so, could you identify the offensive components of it?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Parts of it were, parts of it weren't. For example, when someone described being gay as a sickening perversion, that was clearly uncivil. Civility is often not well adhered to by at least some of the people in nearly all contentious threads.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Do you feel I was treated civily in that thread?
edit: I'm really not interested in playing your game, porter. If you want to answer my earlier questions or address the thread in question in regards to how Geoff described it, I'll let you try to trap me with your questions. Other than that, why not just do what Scott and kat did?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Read it, then we can talk. As I said, I'm not really interested in playing your game, especially in light of how disrespectfully I've been treated in this thread so far.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was civil in that thread. In fact, I defy anyone to find a single post by me in that thread in which I was not a shining beacon of virtue.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
The assertion is that you treated Geoff somewhat disrespectfully in that thread, which you held up as an example of civility. I agree with this.
I also agree that anti-SSM advocates are not treated all that badly on this board or out in society as a whole, whether in recent history or over the last few decades.
The reason I don't like the "people will be rude to us if we vote this way" is the same reason I don't use "people will beat up homosexuals until it's more acceptable;" I don't like using the extremes of fringe behavior to justify ethical decisions. There's harm on both fringes; while people are of course entitled to be concerned about the fringe harm that's most likely to affect them, I hope they keep in mind that we shouldn't be using fringe concerns to shape broad policy.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
1. You have developed a belief that X, while not an evil act, violates some deep, eternal truth that you cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt to anyone else. 2. For the first time, a strong subculture of people in your society is very vocal about wanting X to be incorporated into your society, and they seem to have a strong chance of success. 3. You know that your reasons for believing that X is inappropriate cannot be proven, and therefore, you cannot use them to convince anyone else that your position is even worth considering. 4. However, if X is incorporated into your society, you suspect that several things will happen: A. Whatever consequences you believe will result from X in the eternal scheme of things will be played out on a larger scale, to the detriment of many people. B. It will become more difficult for you to teach your beliefs to your children, and protect them from those consequences. The entire language of society will steer them toward viewing your beliefs as eccentric. C. Your own community will risk becoming social pariahs in the backlash against the former "bigotry" that prevented X from being adopted sooner. Your beliefs will mark you as an undesireable member of society, even though you know that you are not motivated by any sort of ill will towards anyone.
If you were in this situation, what would you do? You have a position that, while you cannot prove it, you trust it enough (for personal reasons) that you can't just abandon it as a wave of new opinions washes over your society. "
What would I do? I'd try to find some actual evidence that my belief is true before trying to force other people to live by it, or arguing that people should live by my beliefs.
Asking someone to live by a belief that is not a shared belief, and can't demonstrate though evidence gathered in a shared epistomology to be a true belief, when they aren't involving anyone who doesn't want to be involved, is acceptable. We all do it.
But going beyond that is not. Its simply not ok to demand people live by a code that you can't demonstrate to them is wrong, and that they aren't involving unwilling participants in, or doing physical damage by engaging in.
Dagonee I think made some comment in the last couple days about engaging in that conclusion, because its not a self-evident conclusion (that its not ok to demand people live by a moral code they don't share), so if you want to argue that with me, fine...
but the answer to the question "What would I do?" is "not vote to enforce my belief."
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
1. To state that anti-SSM advocates undergo verbal abuse and discrimination, and to ask that the more rash and outspoken supporters of SSM consider the religious POV before they shout.
2. To find a "middle ground", so that everyone can undergo the minimum amount of ideological change, and therefore avoid discomfort.
As for the first point, this is true. Many opponents of SSM are called 'bigots'. I don't know how much this is the case on Hatrack (I'm an occasional lurker). KoM yes, does tend to be abrasive, but the worst I've seen him do is be sarcastic or cynical. The other end of the spectrum is Karl's view, which doesn't compromise his ideals, but smooths the transition towards them. This is a matter of style and etiquette. Do you want change American style, or British style...
The whole situation is complicated by the fact that we can't pin responsibility on religious or social groups as a whole. We all know that Geoff hasn't verbally abused a homosexual. So in his lifetime, he has been on the receiving end of most of the verbal abuse, because public opinion has swung away from the LDS position on this issue.
So some SSM supporters are impolite. Others aren't, as Karl rightly asserts.
But what about homosexuals themselves? Even if you haven't said or done anything to them personally, supporting LDS or any other anti-SSM camp on this issue is robbing them of a very important social institution in a very real way. This is not to say that it is right for homosexuals to be married because they have suffered discrimination in the past, but because the beliefs of a heterosexual majority are taking away from them a degree of happiness.
quote:Originally posted by Puppy: 1. You have developed a belief that X, while not an evil act, violates some deep, eternal truth that you cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt to anyone else. ... 3. You know that your reasons for believing that X is inappropriate cannot be proven, and therefore, you cannot use them to convince anyone else that your position is even worth considering. 4. However, if X is incorporated into your society, you suspect that several things will happen: A. Whatever consequences you believe will result from X in the eternal scheme of things will be played out on a larger scale, to the detriment of many people.
If it's something you can't prove or argue rationally, then I don't think legislators should consider it. Reason has had a better track record for determining truth than hunches have. Besides, those hunches are usually assumptions one has inherited from one's parents. In that sense, they're arbitrary.
I support SSM because the legal system in my country (and yours) is based on the premise that all men and women are equal before the law, that they are entitled to certain rights and freedoms which allow them to live the lifestyle which suites them. I can't see any rational argument for homosexuality being immoral, and the fact of the matter is, people don't choose to be homosexual. They are.
I have similar reasons for all my beliefs. For example, I'm pro-choice because unwanted children can ruin the life of a mother (and a father, if he sticks around), and statistics show that when abortion is not a legal option, women will go to unregistered doctors and get abortions from them. In many cases, they bleed to death.
---
As for reaching a "middle ground", why should SSM supporters budge, if we believe so strongly that we are correct? It's valid to ask that we be polite in discussion, but to consciously grope for a middle ground is to abandon the premise that we are basing arguments on truth. Because so far, the only argument you have given against SSM in this thread, is that opponents of SSM have been called bigots.
But more to the point of what you were asking -
quote:Originally posted by Puppy: If you were in this situation, what would you do? You have a position that, while you cannot prove it, you trust it enough (for personal reasons) that you can't just abandon it as a wave of new opinions washes over your society. You know that any time you try to engage in a discussion, you will be shouted down, your reasons will be dismissed as invalid, and your intelligence will often be insulted, undeservedly.
I think the best answer so far has been:
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: I would attempt to come up with (in order of priority) scientific studies, historical examples, or reasoned argument for why X is bad. If I can't prove it to other people, then it is completely unreasonable to expect them to act on it.
Except I would put 'reasoned argument' as the first priority. What could be more important than that? If it anticipates and has a successful rebuttal to any counter-argument, a reasoned argument is infallible.
We all have beliefs we hold but can not successfully debate in favour of. And often, we have to act on them.
But we should strive to make this a temporary state of affairs, and the more influential a belief becomes in your life, the more you should rationally examine it. Until you have a way of convincing other people with reasons, you can not get other people to act on it, except by throwing your social capitol around, or by using force.
Consciously adjusting your beliefs to reach a compromise with the majority in order to avoid the pain of change and disillusionment are a forfeiture of your ability to think things through rationally. And rationally is the only way we can determine truth.
posted
How does the government not sanctioning ssm actually force a homosexual person to live by a different code than what they choose? The gay people I know still are gay. They have wedding ceremonies, refer to their spouses as their spouses, etc. They just don't have legal sanctioning. I know heterosexual people that have similar situations (in the news right now Anna Nicole and her unofficial wedding). Now, if you have the government allow ssm, then people are forced to recognize the union. So, if I have a company and was only paying spousal benefits for my heterosexual married people, when ssm is allowed, I now have to pay spousal benefits for the gay people too. This cuts into my profit margins. If making money is my main priority (as opposed to fairness and stuff), this sucks for me. I am being forced to pay more benefits. Likewise, if their is a tax benefit to being married, if the government allows more types of marriage, then they have to give that tax cut to more people, which means tax cuts and therefore less money.
Posts: 1001 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
How odd . . . you see that giving benefits affects companies and governments, and yet you don't see that not receiving those benefits affects homosexuals? Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:How does the government not sanctioning ssm actually force a homosexual person to live by a different code than what they choose?
Wow. In all seriousness, maybe you ought to read the previous three years of discussion threads on this issue.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Because the government recognising heterosexual unions but not homosexual ones is based on the premise that homosexual unions are inferior or frivolous.
Sure, some homosexuals are comfortable with unofficial unions, but others want legal recognition and the implication behind it - which is that they are equal to heterosexuals.
quote:Originally posted by scholar: ... If making money is my main priority (as opposed to fairness and stuff), this sucks for me. I am being forced to pay more benefits. Likewise, if their is a tax benefit to being married, if the government allows more types of marriage, then they have to give that tax cut to more people, which means tax cuts and therefore less money.
Money-making is important. But what if fairness and stuff are my criteria?
Posts: 1762 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
