posted
"Paul, I'd have to say that the statements given to you have been internally consistent"
They are. But they also say "straights are better than gays."* They become internally inconsistent when people try to say that those statements do not make that claim.
*Again, with the caveats.
I also explained the motivations on my word choice a page or two ago, if you'd like to go back and check those out to see why I'm using language the way I am.
As another note on what I'm saying, I really do think that there's no possible way to take these arguments that does not include "straights are better than gays," using that phrase the way I've been clear (I think) in saying how I mean it. I'm not making this up to score rhetorical points, I am using the phrase to score rhetorical points (as previously explained, and again I think that explanation was fairly clear).
And, again, I think that "hate the sin love the sinner," is a fairly reasonable philosophy. I tend to buy into it. What I DON'T believe is possible is an internally consistent philosophy that says "Action X is bad, but person Y who does action X isn't any worse than person Z who is identical to person Y except for not doing X." If you want to make that argument, then you end up with either action X not being bad, or doing bad not meaning anything.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
But LDS try very hard not to judge people- actions but not people. Also, there are no people who are identical except for one does X. Person Y may be a great humanitarian or something else, while Person Z commits no sins but does no good works. So, it is too complicated to judge who is better. If you made the statement into the straight lifestyle is better then the gay lifestyle people would argue less.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
"But LDS try very hard not to judge people- actions but not people."
Sure. But the thing is, its people who do actions. Judging the action necessarily casts judgement back on the person doing the action, even if that judgement is simply "you have chosen...unwisely."
"Also, there are no people who are identical except for one does X."
Agreed. Doesn't really matter for my purposes, though.
" If you made the statement into the straight lifestyle is better then the gay lifestyle people would argue less. "
I know. But, you know what? That's, on a practical level, indistinguishable from "straights are better than gays."
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Paul, I think the problem is that you simplify their argument one step further than it can actually be simplified. "Better for society" is not the same as "better." And "Worse for society" does not = evil.
I don't think this makes their arguments any better - it's not very reassuring to be considered "good" if everyone's "good" by definition.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: " If you made the statement into the straight lifestyle is better then the gay lifestyle people would argue less. "
I know. But, you know what? That's, on a practical level, indistinguishable from "straights are better than gays."
Only if you believe that being straight or being gay is all that defines a person.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Again, see caveats on phraseology, and see post on my language choice and reasons for.
I tried looking for a post clarifying this, but the only one I found didn't really address the issue.
quote:Only if you believe that being straight or being gay is all that defines a person.
The thing is, love and marriage are such fundamental parts of the human experience that even though a person may not (and in my opinion probably should not) make being straight or gay the core of their identity, denying them to someone cannot help but imply a degree of sub-humanity.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote: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.
It couldn't justify person X buying a whites-only golf course and refusing to integrate it if his reason is because he hates non-whites.
quote: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?
Well, I'd argue that the name shouldn't be changed because the tradition has a lot of value to a lot of fans - and outweighs any benefit to changing it.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:What I DON'T believe is possible is an internally consistent philosophy that says "Action X is bad, but person Y who does action X isn't any worse than person Z who is identical to person Y except for not doing X." If you want to make that argument, then you end up with either action X not being bad, or doing bad not meaning anything.
No, it simply means that "doing bad" doesn't mean "being worse". You can say that's mistaken, but nevertheless there's definitely people out there, including myself, who hold such a philosophy.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Well, I'd argue that the name shouldn't be changed because the tradition has a lot of value to a lot of fans - and outweighs any benefit to changing it.
So would it be fair to argue this: in your opinion, the argument from tradition about SSM claims that the definition of marriage shouldn't be changed because the tradition has a lot of value to fans - and outweighs any benefit to changing it?
Posts: 457 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:You can say that's mistaken, but nevertheless there's definitely people out there, including myself, who hold such a philosophy.
Hm. I've been largely staying out of this part of the discussion, but I would say that while there are a fair number of people who struggle to live as if they did not believe that intentionally doing bad was synonymous with being bad, in reality those people behave no differently from people who believe that intentionally doing bad is the definition of being bad.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:So would it be fair to argue this: in your opinion, the argument from tradition about SSM claims that the definition of marriage shouldn't be changed because the tradition has a lot of value to fans - and outweighs any benefit to changing it?
That'd be my argument against changing the name of the Redskins. If you want to know what value the tradition of different-gender marriage has to those against SSM, you'll have to ask them.
quote:Hm. I've been largely staying out of this part of the discussion, but I would say that while there are a fair number of people who struggle to live as if they did not believe that intentionally doing bad was synonymous with being bad, in reality those people behave no differently from people who believe that intentionally doing bad is the definition of being bad.
Perhaps there are a fair number who struggle. But I think there are also a fair number who actually do believe that doing bad is not synonymous with being bad, and in my experience those people act noticably different from people who believe doing bad and being bad are the same thing. They tend to be more forgiving, for one thing - or at least they don't tend to seek justice in the same way when they're wronged. They also tend to be, from what I've seen, happier.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tresopax, if instead of saying that SSM opponents arguments boil down to "straight people are better than gay people", Paul had said that the arguments boil down to "being straight is better than being gay" would you have the same issue with it?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Tresopax, if instead of saying that SSM opponents arguments boil down to "straight people are better than gay people", Paul had said that the arguments boil down to "being straight is better than being gay" would you have the same issue with it?
To me, those are quite different statements.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
You want to define "religious people"? Not all of us think that homosexual acts are "bad". Paedophilia hurts children so that would be bad.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Tresopax, if instead of saying that SSM opponents arguments boil down to "straight people are better than gay people", Paul had said that the arguments boil down to "being straight is better than being gay" would you have the same issue with it?
Well, my real dispute is with the idea that there's anything that you can boil down all arguments against SSM to. I think the arguments against it vary a lot, from person to person, and there's no single secret hidden argument that underlies them all. That's why it doesn't make sense to make judgements about people simply because they vote against or donate money to oppose SSM; you need to know WHY they oppose it before you can draw conclusions. So, no, I'd still have the same issue with trying to boil all arguments down to "being straight is better than being gay".
Having said that, I'd add that I also don't think "being straight is better than being gay" is an accurate way of putting it either. I think most non-bigoted opponents of SSM who oppose it because of an opposition to homosexuality in general accept that some people are gay, or at least have gay feelings. I think it is acting on those feelings that they take issue with. I might be misunderstanding their position, but I think many are suggesting that people who are gay are supposed to either remain unmarried or marry someone of the opposite gender... in the same sense that they might expect someone who loves two women to only marry one, or in the sense that they might expect someone who loves their sibling in a romantic way to never act on that love. So the crux of the argument is less about being gay than actions.
quote:
quote:in my experience those people act noticably different from people who believe doing bad and being bad are the same thing
I suppose that I've just never met one.
Oh, I bet you have... the topic of "doing bad" vs. "being bad" probably just didn't come up. Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just as I am less concerned about whether homosexuality is biological or chosen than I am about whether or not it does harm, I am less concerned about whether the opponents of SSM are driven by bigotry or just ordinary fear than I am about the harm they are doing.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Just as I am less concerned about whether homosexuality is biological or chosen than I am about whether or not it does harm, I am less concerned about whether the opponents of SSM are driven by bigotry or just ordinary fear than I am about the harm they are doing.
But if you want to actually convince someone to change their opinions, having an accurate idea of why they oppose you is often helpful.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Scholarette, possibly. But I don't think that many minds will be changed by logic. I do think that not being allowed to use your motivation to escape the responsibility to at least acknowledge the harm you do might change hearts. I would like Prop 8 supporters to at least face up to the way they hurt people - even if they have the purest of reasons.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think participants in a debate are far less likely to change positions in mid-debate than lurkers are to be converted to a position by reading the discussion.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
And having been in a debate, people might change their mind later. Probably not DURING. But later.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I would like Prop 8 supporters to at least face up to the way they hurt people - even if they have the purest of reasons.
I feel the same way about Prop 8 opposers. Usually they brush off concerns with statements like "I don't feel much sympathy when discriminators get discriminated against."
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I would like Prop 8 supporters to at least face up to the way they hurt people - even if they have the purest of reasons.
I feel the same way about Prop 8 opposers. Usually they brush off concerns with statements like "I don't feel much sympathy when discriminators get discriminated against."
posted
No kidding. And you might note that I have written more than once, that discrimination and hate-mongering is wrong.
But people crying about being victims of discrimination when they are being discriminated against because they discriminate against others in much more damaging ways (and are proud of doing it!) is just too much irony for me to take.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
That seems kind of silly. Supporting same-sex marriage has never hurt anyone, ever.
Actually, isn't that what the argument is about- people who oppose ssm believe it will do great harm to society. So, those in favor are hurting people according to those who oppose ssm. OF course, I am not really sure exactly how ssm is going to harm society (hence why I vote in favor of it) but anti-ssm are very adamant on this argument.
ETA- I am going out of town for spring break so I probably won't be responding for a bit.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: No kidding. And you might note that I have written more than once, that discrimination and hate-mongering is wrong.
But people crying about being victims of discrimination when they are being discriminated against because they discriminate against others in much more damaging ways (and are proud of doing it!) is just too much irony for me to take.
Then the irony of people discriminating against people (proudly) because they (in their eyes) discriminate against others escapes you?
edit - And I just gotta ask. How exactly does Prop 8 *harm* anyone? Please. Outline it. I bet there isn't one way that they are being harmed that would outright require extending marriage as a right.
Posts: 3003 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:How exactly does Prop 8 *harm* anyone? Please. Outline it.
For one thing, it comes out and says "you are second-class citizens and we don't value your monogamous relationships."
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:How exactly does Prop 8 *harm* anyone? Please. Outline it.
For one thing, it comes out and says "you are second-class citizens and we don't value your monogamous relationships."
Oh cry me a river. If homosexual couples need public validation there's a deeper problem.
Maybe we should start extending the actual *rights* to all people including straight couples that don't want to get married. Cause if this is about boosting the self esteem of people who have chosen to live a specific lifestyle, then let me tell you that's not what the damn constitution is for.
Posts: 3003 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Because they shouldn't need any validation for their feelings, and the constitution isn't there to protect people who have chosen to live a specific lifestyle.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thanks for illustrating my point, Tom and Kate.
I have been harmed by the creation of SSM; I've been brought into conflict with my daughter's school, due to curriculum introduced as a result of the creation of SSM. My daughter's been harmed because she's receiving conflicting messages from teachers and parents at an age when a child shouldn't be forced to deal with authority figures disagreeing with each other. My friends have been materially harmed as a result of their vocal opposition to SSM, through threats and property destruction. Others have been harmed by the incivility that Kate dismisses so easily with lip service about "hate mongering" and a shrug of her shoulders.
You may not find these harms meaningful, but I do. I hate feeling compelled to teach my five year old daughter about homosexuality in order to counteract the messaging she'll be getting at school. I hate the conflict I've been brought into as a result of the new statute, socially and politically within my town. I fear for how this liberalization will effect our society in the future, harms that you find unlikely but I don't particularly.
If you are unable to conceive of any harms done by prop 8 opposition, it's because you're not thinking very hard. I don't expect you to value them as I do (just as I'm sure you wouldn't expect me to value the harms done by prop 8 support at the same levels you do) but a failure to recognize they exist and are meaningful to me and to others in your communities is incredibly arrogant.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: Because they shouldn't need any validation for their feelings, and the constitution isn't there to protect people who have chosen to live a specific lifestyle.
Ya ever notice that the constitution makes no statements on marriage whatsoever? Cause it's not actually a right. Did you know that?
Posts: 3003 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:And I just gotta ask. How exactly does Prop 8 *harm* anyone? Please. Outline it. I bet there isn't one way that they are being harmed that would outright require extending marriage as a right.
quote:$100,000 to spouse of any public safety officer killed in the line of duty
I used to work the night shift in a coffee shop and I got to know quite a few officers while I was there, several of whom were gay. I can't think of any compelling reason why their partners should not receive this benefit, in the event of a tragedy.
So even IF there is no "right to marriage," the point is pretty irrelevant as far as I'm concerned. My government is offering rights and benefits in a way that I judge to be both harmful and discriminatory. That's the part I care about.
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
Yes, you, like many other parents, have to discuss with your children that not everyone agrees with your views. Can you for a moment imagine the conversations that SS couple have to have with their children?
Have they taken away your legal right to have a family?
And to return to my original point, do you really think that the "incivility" that people have suffered (and, again, I wish that were not so) has come anywhere near the "incivility" shown to homosexuals? Really?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Ya ever notice that the constitution makes no statements on marriage whatsoever? Cause it's not actually a right. Did you know that?
That's fine. So you're okay with that privilege being revoked for straight couples then? (This actually isn't that hypothetical a question. There's a movement underway to replace all marriages with the phrase "domestic partnerships" that are available to gay and straight couples. I'm actually in favor of it, since it puts everyone on even footing, lets marriage be determined by individual churches and cultures and probably will help with some other problems as well)
quote:My daughter's been harmed because she's receiving conflicting messages from teachers and parents at an age when a child shouldn't be forced to deal with authority figures disagreeing with each other.
By that logic, any given activity can be considered "harmful" to people who don't like it and don't want to have to teach their kids about it. I'm sure parents who opposed de-segregation of schools were frustrated for the same reason.
That being said, I don't see why gay marriage has to be part of the school curriculum.
quote: My friends have been materially harmed as a result of their vocal opposition to SSM,
This is certainly wrong, for the same reasons it's wrong to inflict harm on anyone for believing anything. People on both sides of the argument have been victims of attacks. Neither of which has anything to do with the validity of the arguments themselves.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
Asking opponents of SSM to "face up to the way they hurt people" while glibly refusing to do the same is hypocritical. Shrug your shoulders and define my harms away using your ideological biases all you want; it doesn't change the fact that these policies harm many people in meaningful ways, and your inability to recognize that stunts any meaningful conversation.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: My daughter's been harmed because she's receiving conflicting messages from teachers and parents at an age when a child shouldn't be forced to deal with authority figures disagreeing with each other.
You are still completely within your rights to raise your children in a cave. That way they will never be told anything that you do not want them to hear.
And that goes for people on either side who view having to explain things to their children as 'harm'.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
If we're defining harm as only those bad things you can't avoid, then I don't believe there are any harms at all. Anyone "harmed" by Prop 8 opposition is completely within their rights to leave the state to get those benefits elsewhere.
Kate-
I'm copping out? Pot, meet kettle. How about you list the ways you've hurt people with your well intentioned support for SSM.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: I hate feeling compelled to teach my five year old daughter about homosexuality in order to counteract the messaging she'll be getting at school.
See, you think of this as harm. I think of it as you taking your medicine. It might not taste good, but it's better for you. I mean, seriously, having to discuss important things with your children is a downside?Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:I would like Prop 8 supporters to at least face up to the way they hurt people - even if they have the purest of reasons.
quote:
quote:I feel the same way about Prop 8 opposers.
That seems kind of silly. Supporting same-sex marriage has never hurt anyone, ever.
Both sides think supporting the opposing position is harmful. So, I'd say it's pretty silly to ask either side to declare their position more harmful to people. You might as well say "I'd expect opponents/supporters of SSM to at least face up to how wrong they are."
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Both sides think supporting the opposing position is harmful.
Except there's an order of difference. Reinforcing the second-class nature of homosexual relationships is directly and immediately harmful. Allowing homosexual relationships to be recognized by society is a hypothetical future harm, and does no direct harm to anyone opposed to the concept.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
