posted
Like I said, a hammer being used on a delicate and sensitive issue. I don't think most people on either side of the vote are out to hurt others, but a yes/no vote takes away any ability to approach the issue gently. Bam! You vote yes. Bam! You vote no. No wonder everyone's reeling.
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you honestly viewed some action as extremely destructive to society and your children, wouldn't you do whatever you could to keep people from doing that action?
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
I'm not sure if voters would spring for a complete replacement of all instances of the word "marriage" with "domestic partnerships." I have little doubt this petition can get the necessary signatures.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"If you honestly viewed some action as extremely destructive to society and your children, wouldn't you do whatever you could to keep people from doing that action?"
Yup. And I'd be honest about it and say that I think people performing that action are performing evil. And I'd be honest, and say that people who perform evil actions are worse people than people who do not.
Trying to say "This behavior is so bad that if we condone it society will explode, but I don't think negative things about people who find that behavior to be a central part of their lives, their happiness, and their relationship with the world," doesn't work.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
I'm not sure it wouldn't be. I can't think of another piece of legislation that simply replaced wording across a whole constitution off the top of my head.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, I'm not asking about the state constitution. I'm asking about how that would work in terms of federal issues.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Well, it's an amendment, so the notion of being "unconstitutional" is sorta moot.
Not necessarily. The whole reason they had hearings about Prop 8 last week was because it was unclear whether Prop 8 was constitutional - whether it was passed through a constitutionally valid process for a change of its scope. It sounds like the answer will be "yes" this time around, but other amendments have failed on similar grounds in the past.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom, thanks for stepping in on my behalf there. This discussion is starting to feel like that Leto discussion on the same topic years ago, and though my opinions have probably changed in the intervening years (I don't remember quite where my head was at the time), my annoyance at the insistence of some people on making this about bigotry, rather than engaging in the discussion in an equitable way hasn't lessened in the slightest
Paul, I don't want to start going point-versus-point on this, so I'll try to keep my response simple.
You're being hypocritical in going after your opponents about "honesty". Your entire approach to the debate collapses if you fail to twist one opposing argument to fit your predefined mold ... and we're looking to you to define intellectual honesty for us?
Almost any statement on the subject can be made to fit your mold in the right context, and then when that context is removed, we're left a statement about the worth of individuals, with connotations of bigotry. It's like a machine that you can feed anything into and produce support for your position. And this is your example of intellectual honesty?
There's something deeply disingenuous about this approach:
"My opinion is X." "The only possible reason you could espouse X is if you had secret evil motivation Y." "I don't have that motivation, and it's beside the point." "Until you're honest about your secret evil motivation that we all know you have, there's no point in discussing this with you."
Really? Can you apply that to any other situation and not find it abhorrent?
The reason this tactic that you and many others use is so effective is specifically because many, if not most, of your opponents are not bigots, and hate bigotry for the same reasons you do. They back away from the debate, and let you run roughshod over them because not-being-a-bigot is incredibly important to them. Many of them are conflicted because of the tension between their desire to protect their traditions and preserve the system that they feel directly supports the prosperity of their children ... and their belief in the ideals of this country that promote cultural pluralism and tolerance. Framing the argument as "everyone on THIS side is a bigot" effectively removes these people from play, stigmatizes them, and strengthens your side without bothering to engage with any of these people's concerns — when with the right framing of the discussion, they could potnetially be your greatest allies in a compromise solution. And this is the example we have of intellectual "honesty"?
In general, you deliberately use the inflammatory phrase "Straights are better than gays" with all its bigoted connotations, rather than something like "The straight lifestyle has more benefits than the gay lifestyle" — a phrase that fits as many arguments in exactly the same way, and subtracts nothing important, but which reduces the number of imposed harmful connotations by not addressing the worth of individual people? This is intellectual "honesty"?
The fact that your side has chosen "you have hidden evil motivations!" as one of their primary attacks, while your opponents have not done so does imply an honesty gap to me ... but it's balanced in a direction opposite to the one you assert.
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:You're being hypocritical in going after your opponents about "honesty".
Fine. You're not a bigot and I've never called you one. I still see a lot of dishonesty on your side and the document you presented as evidence for the empirical validity of your position is a prime example. It's been presented to me multiple times by multiple people and each time criticism is answered with silence. Do you accept that this document is seriously flawed, or do you intent to continue to use it to provide the appearance of objectivity your position?
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wait ... which document? I was discussing this with Paul, and may have missed something else that was going on in the thread ...
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Wait ... which document? I was discussing this with Paul, and may have missed something else that was going on in the thread ...
I'm sorry, it was another poster on this thread. Cross-indignation.
Edit: I was annoyed at the claim of hypocricy for questioning honesty, when more people than Paul are making claims about honesty and ONLY Paul is making the argument about bigotry that you characterized as dishonest.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Whoah ... I just noticed something else that you said, Paul, that may help to explain your approach:
quote:"If you honestly viewed some action as extremely destructive to society and your children, wouldn't you do whatever you could to keep people from doing that action?"
Yup. And I'd be honest about it and say that I think people performing that action are performing evil. And I'd be honest, and say that people who perform evil actions are worse people than people who do not.
You think that people who make destructive choices are enacting "evil", across the board? Suddenly, your approach to your opponents makes sense. If they're all "evildoers" in your mind, then what harm is there in using some dishonest, disingenuous, stigmatizing tactics, as long as it drives them away?
The philosophy you're opposing actually contains the novel concept that good, well-meaning people can make destructive choices without bringing "evil" into the equation, or losing their value to society. Non-sinners are not "better than" sinners because (1) there is no such thing as the former, and (2) even if there were, the worth of a person is not defined by his or her adherence to any set of rules. Is that what you're missing here? The very idea that it is possible for good, valuable people to disagree and/or make mistakes?
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
Hahaha! Touché. I wasn't thinking specifically of him, but of a broad class of people who are closer to my position on the subject ... But maybe I shouldn't have made the last assertion about a "gap" Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Many of them are conflicted because of the tension between their desire to protect their traditions and preserve the system that they feel directly supports the prosperity of their children ... and their belief in the ideals of this country that promote cultural pluralism and tolerance.
That is not an argumment that is necessarily free of bigotry. "Wanting to protect [our] traditions" has been used as a motivation for everything from performances of "Chief Illiniwek" to keeping Jews out of country clubs to lynchings.
I appreciate that people are torn. They should be. Those two ideas are in conflict. And when it came to voting, people chose which was more important to them.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Honestly, it seems like mental gymnastics are required to simultaneously claim that same sex marriage and openness about homosexuality will be damaging to society AND that there's nothing better about heterosexuals than homosexuals. It seems like this belief has to be so laden with qualifications that it loses meaning.
From the LDS point of view:
Isn't a non-murderer a better person than a murderer, under nearly every circumstance?
Isn't a prophet of God better than a spirit who chose to follow Lucifer in the premortal war?
Isn't the celestial kingdom for better people than the telestial kingdom, or outer darkness?
I see plenty of room in the theology for calling some people better than others, so why shy away from it so much?
It seems like a way of avoiding the tension that Puppy mentioned.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sigh. You're separating "functional goodness" from "worth"? I think they can/should be considered in a combined fashion.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You specifically asked "From the LDS point of view". From the LDS point of view, they are not considered in a combined fashion.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Can you explain that? I grew up LDS, and it does not accord with my understanding. I do not remember any doctrinal point that said "people are all equally good." In fact, the word "evil" was not unused.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:That is not an argumment that is necessarily free of bigotry. "Wanting to protect [our] traditions" has been used as a motivation for everything from performances of "Chief Illiniwek" to keeping Jews out of country clubs to lynchings.
If tradition were really the only motivation for those things, then it wouldn't be bigotry. For instance, I want the Washington Redskins to keep the name "Redskins". This is not because I have any bigotry against Native Americans. It's just because I've been rooting for the Redskins since before I can remember; it's entirely about tradition.
My hunch is that keeping Jews out of Country Clubs, though, was about more than just tradition.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
"The worth of souls is great in the sight of God"? The story of the Prodigal Son? There's plenty of material both in LDS and traditional Christian theology to assert that a person's worth is independent of a person's choices.
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think I'm realizing why I visit Hatrack so infrequently these days. These debates occupy too much of my consciousness, and are emotionally exhausting, especially at stressful times in my life (like the one I'm in now, at the end of a project at work). I think I should bow out, in the interest of my sanity I'm not sure there's anything more I need to add to my arguments, beyond simply defending them from future volleys ... which, honestly, could go on forever. Have fun, everybody Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would think that is a pretty basic part of the teachings of Jesus - that God loves sinners and the lowly just as much as he loves the holy.
I'd also think the fundamental worth of human beings, independent of their actions, is something that could be derived from secular humanism too.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:That is not an argumment that is necessarily free of bigotry. "Wanting to protect [our] traditions" has been used as a motivation for everything from performances of "Chief Illiniwek" to keeping Jews out of country clubs to lynchings.
If tradition were really the only motivation for those things, then it wouldn't be bigotry. For instance, I want the Washington Redskins to keep the name "Redskins". This is not because I have any bigotry against Native Americans. It's just because I've been rooting for the Redskins since before I can remember; it's entirely about tradition.
My hunch is that keeping Jews out of Country Clubs, though, was about more than just tradition.
Your "hunch"? So when people say a Country Club has been traditionally for a certain type of people, you think that they, deep down, mean something different than people wanting to keep something the way it has been? Something that they are comfortable with?
Sometimes traditions are based on bigotry. In such cases, the desire to protect tradition is not free of bigotry.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:These debates occupy too much of my consciousness, and are emotionally exhausting...
Just for the record, I was very glad to see you posting again, and would be thrilled to hear from you more often -- even if you choose to avoid the contentious threads and just post in the fluffy ones. It's possible to avoid the debates and just interact, and I'm sure a number of us would be glad to see you interacting again. *grin*
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Your "hunch"? So when people say a Country Club has been traditionally for a certain type of people, you think that they, deep down, mean something different than people wanting to keep something the way it has been? Something that they are comfortable with?
I think that sometimes when people say they are doing something a certain way for tradition's sake, there is nothing more to it than exactly that. Other times when people say they are doing something a certain way for tradition's sake, that's just an excuse for some other reason they don't want to give. Without looking more closely at each individual's specific reasoning, you can't really assume one or the other - although to be charitable, I think it would be safer to assume the former, rather than always assume people have secret reasons behind their given reasons.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, stick around, Geoff. You've been missed.
In another (deceased) thread I said something that bears on the question here:
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson: *nod* The point is this: many behaviors to which people are genetically predisposed are illegal or socially unacceptable. This is not in all cases a bad thing; rather, it is perfectly justifiable if the behavior in question does harm.
So the question becomes: is homosexual behavior inherently harmful? If the answer is "yes," then whether or not homosexuality has a genetic component is absolutely irrelevant. If, like me, you believe the answer is "no," then legislating against homosexuality appears to be a form of bigotry.
But the important thing to keep in mind is that THIS is the core question. It's also worth noting that, even to many otherwise intelligent and reasonable people, this is still an open question. I believe quite strongly that history will prove me right on this one, but I am genuinely sorrowful for those people who, far from being drooling neanderthals, simply start from premises that have led them to reluctantly come down on the other -- wrong -- side of the issue.
Tom, I agree with you about the matter of principle here, but with one caveat that does justify deep moral criticism of people who are (even thoughtfully) anti-homosexuality. I don't think these people are bigoted, though.
Because while I don't think the core question is whether gayness is genetic, I also disagree that the core question is simply whether it's harmful. The core question is, before harm is taken into account: are consensual sex, love and marriage/partnership basic liberties that we should allow each other to pursue even if it's harmful.
I think these are basic liberties, and people who disagree with me about this have seriously warped values.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Again, when the tradition itself is based in bigotry the desire to preserve that tradition is itself based in bigotry.
We (rightly) see bigotry as a bad thing. I think we go too far though in thinking that being a bigot is about the worst thing ever. Minus some objective reason, the conviction that our way is the right way is bigoted. The urge to surround ourselves with the familiar and shun the "other" is a form of bigotry. People are, to an extent, designed to be bigoted. Fear is a survival instinct.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I hate to see Geoff bow out of this thread. He's been doing such a good job elucidating the positions I also share but am not clear-thinking enough to write out here.
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
Because while I don't think the core question is whether gayness is genetic, I also disagree that the core question is simply whether it's harmful. The core question is, before harm is taken into account: are consensual sex, love and marriage/partnership basic liberties that we should allow each other to pursue even if it's harmful.
I think these are basic liberties, and people who disagree with me about this have seriously warped values.
Some types of prostitution fall under the consensual sex category.
Posts: 644 | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
Because while I don't think the core question is whether gayness is genetic, I also disagree that the core question is simply whether it's harmful. The core question is, before harm is taken into account: are consensual sex, love and marriage/partnership basic liberties that we should allow each other to pursue even if it's harmful.
I think these are basic liberties, and people who disagree with me about this have seriously warped values.
Some types of prostitution fall under the consensual sex category.
When prostitution is truly consensual (no kids, no duress from pimps, customers freely chosen or declined) I see no difference between prostitution and marrying for money or dating a guy because he gives you expensive presents.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Again, when the tradition itself is based in bigotry the desire to preserve that tradition is itself based in bigotry.
No.... For all I know, the original naming of the "Redskins" may have been based in bigotry. There's probably a good chance it was. That doesn't mean my reasons for wanting to have the team keep the name are based in bigotry though. My reasons for keeping the name are purely for tradition's sake.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
Because while I don't think the core question is whether gayness is genetic, I also disagree that the core question is simply whether it's harmful. The core question is, before harm is taken into account: are consensual sex, love and marriage/partnership basic liberties that we should allow each other to pursue even if it's harmful.
I think these are basic liberties, and people who disagree with me about this have seriously warped values.
Some types of prostitution fall under the consensual sex category.
When prostitution is truly consensual (no kids, no duress from pimps, customers freely chosen or declined) I see no difference between prostitution and marrying for money or dating a guy because he gives you expensive presents.
I tend to agree. And, much like drugs, I suspect legalizing it would help with certain of the problems such as duress from pimps (prostitutes are reluctant to approach officers of the law in such situations). However, I think it is a thorny enough issue that one can be in favor of prostitution being illegal and not have warped values.
Posts: 644 | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Again, when the tradition itself is based in bigotry the desire to preserve that tradition is itself based in bigotry.
No.... For all I know, the original naming of the "Redskins" may have been based in bigotry. There's probably a good chance it was. That doesn't mean my reasons for wanting to have the team keep the name are based in bigotry though. My reasons for keeping the name are purely for tradition's sake.
This kind of argument can justify anything: e.g., person X buys a whites-only golf course and refuses to integrate it, not because of any animus to non-whites, but for tradition's sake.
Posts: 644 | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: When prostitution is truly consensual (no kids, no duress from pimps, customers freely chosen or declined) I see no difference between prostitution and marrying for money or dating a guy because he gives you expensive presents. [/QB]
I can't tell if you're defending such prostitution or damning marrying and dating like that.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"You're being hypocritical in going after your opponents about "honesty". Your entire approach to the debate collapses if you fail to twist one opposing argument to fit your predefined mold ... and we're looking to you to define intellectual honesty for us?"
I don't have to twist these statements, though.* That's the problem. All of the arguments so far presented** actually say within them "straights are better than gays.***
*The differentiation comes from the intrinsic vs non-intrinsic worth.
** again, aside from the "begetting children.
***And, again, noting how this phrase is used.
I'll write more if puppy or annie are still around and interested, otherwise its not really worth my time.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:No.... For all I know, the original naming of the "Redskins" may have been based in bigotry. There's probably a good chance it was. That doesn't mean my reasons for wanting to have the team keep the name are based in bigotry though. My reasons for keeping the name are purely for tradition's sake.
Which means that you must then defend the value of tradition for that argument to be successful. If tradition is your justification for keeping the name, then you have to show why tradition is better than changing the name itself. So my question is, how are you going to do that? How are you going to defend tradition against changing the name?
The same question can be asked about SSM, if the true justification for an argument against SSM is that tradition is better, then why is tradition better? I would bet that at this point in the thought process we would discover that the argument is not simply about tradition for some.
Posts: 457 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: When prostitution is truly consensual (no kids, no duress from pimps, customers freely chosen or declined) I see no difference between prostitution and marrying for money or dating a guy because he gives you expensive presents.
I can't tell if you're defending such prostitution or damning marrying and dating like that. [/QB]
All I'm doing is pointing out that I see no moral difference in the two. Neither appeals to me, but then I am not likely to strike it rich either way. Do you see a moral difference other than one is usually more honest about it.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't have to twist these statements, though.* That's the problem. All of the arguments so far presented** actually say within them "straights are better than gays.***
Paul, I'd have to say that the statements given to you have been internally consistent. I agree that many people espousing the "hate the sin, love the sinner" doctrine (possibly including people on this board) probably still harbor a prejudice against the sinner, similar to the "I'm not racist but..." style of prejudice.
I also think that banning gay marriage sends a clear MESSAGE that straights are better than gays regardless of intent, making the point kind of moot. But it's been made clear by people on both sides of the argument that the word "better" can be used in multiple contexts, and when you exaggerate the opposition's point with words like:
quote:Yup. And I'd be honest about it and say that I think people performing that action are performing evil. And I'd be honest, and say that people who perform evil actions are worse people than people who do not.
You are conflating the definitions of several different words, producing a straw man argument that's easy to knock down. If you are trying to show someone they're being hypocritical, exaggerating their words (nobody ever said evil, which is a word with very specific baggage), they are even less likely to be open to your position.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I do see moral differences, but that's not the point. It just struck me as funny that your words could be taken as either praising or damning.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
