Hatrack River
Home   |   About Orson Scott Card   |   News & Reviews   |   OSC Library   |   Forums   |   Contact   |   Links
Research Area   |   Writing Lessons   |   Writers Workshops   |   OSC at SVU   |   Calendar   |   Store
E-mail this page
Hatrack River Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hatrack River Forum » Active Forums » Books, Films, Food and Culture » Iowa Supreme Court unanimously strikes down gay marriage ban (Page 7)

  This topic comprises 10 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10   
Author Topic: Iowa Supreme Court unanimously strikes down gay marriage ban
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Lalo, I think the truth is not that "nobody in your age group cares" its "nobody in your social group cares".
If my experience talking about this with him even in an online setting, even when I'm not opposed to equal rights for homosexuals is any indicator, I'd be amazed if he hasn't been selecting socially against that trait for a long time now.
Posts: 16394 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jhai
Member
Member # 5633

 - posted      Profile for Jhai   Email Jhai         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Yeah.

I don't like to hang out with people who would disapprove of my brother marrying someone he loves. Surprise there. I also don't hang out with people who disapprove of the races intermarrying - which sadly includes some of my relations (not family, as far as I'm concerned) - since, yahknow, I'm in an interracial marriage.

It's amazing how a person - like myself - doesn't like to hang out with others who hurts her family and friends, or hell, good, decent people who are strangers. Shocker, really.

Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Yeah, that's definitely shocking. Now that I read your well-intentioned, thought provoking post I realize that when I suggested I disapproved of Eddie selecting socially against that, or against anyone else electing not to associate with such people, I was completely and totally wrong. Probably bigoted in some way, too.

Thank you so much for enlightening me, Jhai! Everything is so clear now.

How about I create a user name here like _Rakeesh so that whenever you'd like to respond to something I post, you can just post what you want to respond to yourself, and then respond to it?

It'll remove a lot of the guesswork from the equation, don't you think? So far I'm having a very hard time guessing ahead of time what awful thing I was supposed to have said, and I'm even worse at actually saying it even when I do guess right.

Posts: 16394 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lalo
Member
Member # 3772

 - posted      Profile for Lalo   Email Lalo         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Jeff, you're obnoxious.
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I will overlook racism and discrimination towards homosexuals in older relatives. I also, though, tend to find I have little in common with people my own age who discrimate so I suppose I socially select as well.
Posts: 10608 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Jeff, you're obnoxious.
After about a half-dozen posts of you responding to very little I actually said, insinuating or outright stating that I said something I didn't say, and completely ignoring each time I called you on it, let's just say I'm feeling obnoxious. It's because I used to enjoy talking with you, but on this topic you're behaving like a jackass.
---------

quote:
I will overlook racism and discrimination towards homosexuals in older relatives. I also, though, tend to find I have little in common with people my own age who discrimate so I suppose I socially select as well.
It's pretty much the same thing with me. Not that I discuss politics much with my older relatives, but when the subject comes up I generally overlook what I feel are the more egregious stuff they say (only occasionally talking about it them, like once every few times it comes up).

But I don't for example hang out or socialize with anyone who feels, say, about Democrats the way my father does.

So I'll refrain, for my part at least, from saying, "NOBODY CARES!" on a controversial issue simply because no one I know cares. I don't know everyone, after all.

One can either take from my saying this that I only think people tend to associate with like-minded people, or that I am criticizing anyone who doesn't go out of their way to associate with people who hate them.

Posts: 16394 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lalo
Member
Member # 3772

 - posted      Profile for Lalo   Email Lalo         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by The Rabbit:
Lalo, I think the truth is not that "nobody in your age group cares" its "nobody in your social group cares". You are presuming that your social group is representative of society as a whole. Polls like the on Xap cites above indicate that it is not. Elections like the prop 8 election in California, indicate that your experience is not representative.

It's totally possible. My social group tends to be well educated and racially diverse. But I have plenty of friends in (conservative) frats and others who joined the workforce after high school, and I still can't find anyone who opposes it. I often hang out with a Christian group on campus, and while I've heard prayers for science to stop persecuting their beliefs (seriously), they're nice people and don't give a damn about discriminating against homosexuals.

There's a new Christian crop coming up that's way more focused on the environment and social justice than the traditional Religious Right scumbag issues. Again, this might just be my experience with college students, but I don't see them radically transforming into Jerry Falwells as they get older.

I think you might be ignoring the snowball effect. My mom had never even considered gay marriage until I became a passionate advocate as a teenager, and now she celebrates victories in Iowa and Vermont with champagne. There's a huge number of people out there who maintain religious traditions for no other reason than identification, and upon examination will realize how stupid they are. It's already happened with young people. All that needs to happen is a population of supporters large enough to act as a catalyst.

Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
There are many things that my friends and I can disagree on that don't bother me at all. Political issues, religious issues, artistic values. Lots of stuff. But discrimination against homosexuals personally hurts people for no reason that makes any sense to me.

"You can't have a family because I don't want the definition of marriage to be different." That has no more merit than people supporting Jim Crow laws because they were uncomfortable drinking out of the same water fountains as black people or who liked their privileged seats on the bus. Sure. Their lives did indeed get worse, they did have to do uncomfortable things and they did have to give up some things, but that was no justification for keeping Jim Crow.

Posts: 10608 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JennaDean
Member
Member # 8816

 - posted      Profile for JennaDean   Email JennaDean         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
His findings: by 2016, most states will have legalized gay marriage, with Mississippi alone holding on until 2024.
Mississippi? Not Utah? [Wink]
quote:
His analysis is loaded with caveats but, in light of the Iowa Supreme Court’s ruling against the state’s gay-marriage ban, raises an interesting question: is legal same-sex marriage inevitable?
I think it's just a matter of time.
Posts: 1522 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:

There's a new Christian crop coming up that's way more focused on the environment and social justice than the traditional Religious Right scumbag issues.

See, you can say things like this and wonder why anyone would doubt the political diversity of your social activities?

How would you even know if someone around you felt differently than you do on this subject? It's hardly as though you were open to a polite discussion on the topic.

Maybe you don't actually know what the people around you think as well as you think you do.

And before you begin (mis)quoting me, I'm not saying you shouldn't select (though I am saying you shouldn't select in such a rude and dishonest way) your social circles. I'm just saying that if you're a human being, you do it.

quote:
There's a huge number of people out there who maintain religious traditions for no other reason than identification, and upon examination will realize how stupid they are.
Yeah...I'm the obnoxious one:)
Posts: 16394 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
advice for robots
Member
Member # 2544

 - posted      Profile for advice for robots           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Lalo:

There's a huge number of people out there who maintain religious traditions for no other reason than identification, and upon examination will realize how stupid they are. It's already happened with young people. All that needs to happen is a population of supporters large enough to act as a catalyst.

You'll draw a lot of people into your snowball by telling them how stupid they are. Keep at it.
Posts: 5911 | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Don't talk to him like that. He's got lots of religious friends, so we know he's OK.
Posts: 16394 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jhai
Member
Member # 5633

 - posted      Profile for Jhai   Email Jhai         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The "they" in his sentence isn't clearly denoting the people - it could be the religious traditions that a person keeps despite the fact that they don't actually believe in them. That's the way I read it.

My MIL, for instance, won't sleep on white sheets (white is the color of mourning in Hinduism), despite the fact that she has a Masters in Philosophy and doesn't believe that there's anything wrong with white sheets, or that anything bad will happen. She admits that this is stupid behavior, but nonetheless continues to do it.

Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
The "they" in his sentence isn't clearly denoting the people - it could be the religious traditions that a person keeps despite the fact that they don't actually believe in them. That's the way I read it.
That's a very charitable way to read it, and completely out of step with other things he has to say on the matter, yes.
Posts: 16394 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
katharina
Member
Member # 827

 - posted      Profile for katharina   Email katharina         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Oh, now that you're calling just religion stupid, that proves you're totally unbigoted.
Posts: 26063 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
advice for robots
Member
Member # 2544

 - posted      Profile for advice for robots           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
No, I recognized the ambiguity of the pronoun. But you're not going to win people to your side any easier by calling their religious beliefs stupid as opposed to calling the people themselves stupid. All you're doing is exposing yourself as as ignorant as you're accusing them of being.

One example of white sheets doesn't justify calling religious beliefs stupid. Heck, you're not scoring any points with your MIL by calling her refusal to sleep on white sheets stupid, even if she herself admits it.

Posts: 5911 | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Rabbit
Member
Member # 671

 - posted      Profile for The Rabbit   Email The Rabbit         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Jhai, I never said (nor intended to imply) that there was anything wrong with socializing with people who share your values and your world view. It's perfectly normal.

My complaint was with people who conclude that the majority of people agree with them because the majority of their friends agree with them. In science, we call it selection bias. I think its important for people to recognize that their friends and associates are much more likely to agree with them than a random stranger.

My second observation was that unless people associate with people who disagree with them, they are prone to presume that their own gross characakture of those peoples beliefs are accurate. Its much easier to presume the opposition is either stupid or evil than it is to really understand them. People are unlikely to make a sincere and concerted effort to truly understand the opposition unless they have friends among the opposition. Many people avoid making friends among the opposition because it puts them in the uncomfortable position of having to understand those people which can cause a great deal of cognitive dissonance. Certainly it isn't necessary to socialize with people you disagree with to come to understand them, its just rare that people actually make the effort.

Posts: 12590 | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
SenojRetep
Member
Member # 8614

 - posted      Profile for SenojRetep   Email SenojRetep         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:
Polling guru Nate Silver has built a regression model, based on demographic and political trends, to forecast when a majority of the voting public in each of the 50 states might vote against a gay-marriage ban, or vote to repeal an existing one. His findings: by 2016, most states will have legalized gay marriage, with Mississippi alone holding on until 2024. His analysis is loaded with caveats but, in light of the Iowa Supreme Court’s ruling against the state’s gay-marriage ban, raises an interesting question: is legal same-sex marriage inevitable?
http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/09/is-legal-same-sex-marriage-inevitable/

2009+16 years gives 2025 which means I'm "off" by a year [Wink]

The "caveats" in the analysis are pretty significant. He uses a linear model of the rate at which marriage bans are losing ground, which is sort of the equivalent of trying to get to China by traveling in a straight line. It works pretty well for a few miles, but pretty soon the ground falls out from under your feet and your moving into outerspace.

Silver's great for populism of statistical inference, but in this case I think he let his (admitted) ideological bias effect the quality of his analysis.

Posts: 2831 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jhai
Member
Member # 5633

 - posted      Profile for Jhai   Email Jhai         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by advice for robots:
No, I recognized the ambiguity of the pronoun. But you're not going to win people to your side any easier by calling their religious beliefs stupid as opposed to calling the people themselves stupid. All you're doing is exposing yourself as as ignorant as you're accusing them of being.

One example of white sheets doesn't justify calling religious beliefs stupid. Heck, you're not scoring any points with your MIL by calling her refusal to sleep on white sheets stupid, even if she herself admits it.

I'm not saying anything on the topic of religious beliefs in general - I'm talking about religious beliefs that an individual follow that the individual doesn't even believe in are stupid. Because at that point it's just a superstition. And, uh, my relationship with my MIL is just fine, thanks.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jhai
Member
Member # 5633

 - posted      Profile for Jhai   Email Jhai         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by The Rabbit:
Jhai, I never said (nor intended to imply) that there was anything wrong with socializing with people who share your values and your world view. It's perfectly normal.

My complaint was with people who conclude that the majority of people agree with them because the majority of their friends agree with them. In science, we call it selection bias. I think its important for people to recognize that their friends and associates are much more likely to agree with them than a random stranger.

My second observation was that unless people associate with people who disagree with them, they are prone to presume that their own gross characakture of those peoples beliefs are accurate. Its much easier to presume the opposition is either stupid or evil than it is to really understand them. People are unlikely to make a sincere and concerted effort to truly understand the opposition unless they have friends among the opposition. Many people avoid making friends among the opposition because it puts them in the uncomfortable position of having to understand those people which can cause a great deal of cognitive dissonance. Certainly it isn't necessary to socialize with people you disagree with to come to understand them, its just rare that people actually make the effort.

Rabbit, just for clarification, I wasn't responding to your post. I was responding to Rakeesh's, which I thought was impolite in tone (not that some of Lalo's haven't been), and was, moreover, pointing out the incredibly obvious. I don't need to interact with anyone to know that they'll tend to hang around like-minded folk. It's a pretty fundamental part of human nature, as you describe.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Rabbit
Member
Member # 671

 - posted      Profile for The Rabbit   Email The Rabbit         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Rabbit, just for clarification, I wasn't responding to your post.
Gotcha.
Posts: 12590 | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Rabbit, just for clarification, I wasn't responding to your post. I was responding to Rakeesh's, which I thought was impolite in tone (not that some of Lalo's haven't been), and was, moreover, pointing out the incredibly obvious. I don't need to interact with anyone to know that they'll tend to hang around like-minded folk. It's a pretty fundamental part of human nature, as you describe.
Some things to consider.

Most of Lalo's responses to me have been at best impolite, and frequently dishonest as well. Most of the conversation has consisted of my saying something, him responding to something I didn't say, my pointing that out and asking him to show where I did say the bad thing, and him moving on.

Kind of like a malanthrop-lite on the liberal side in that respect.

On the basis of that experience I said I'd be surprised if he wasn't selecting for like-minded people, because as much as it's a common human trait, it's even more common amongst humans who can't hold an honest conversation.

From that interaction I got your hostile lecture.

Finally, if it's so obvious, why are you telling me? I was telling him what was obvious, but what he was simply refusing to see: that just because everyone he socializes with thinks similarly to him is hardly reason to think "No one thinks this" which is what he's said repeatedly.

So, you saying you were posting to respond to discourtesy and unnecessarily obvious posts...well, it doesn't really make much sense.

And that's not saying anything about your very impolite suggestion that I somehow disapprove of people not hanging out with those who are hateful to them and their loved ones.

Posts: 16394 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mucus
Member
Member # 9735

 - posted      Profile for Mucus           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by SenojRetep:
...
Silver's great for populism of statistical inference, but in this case I think he let his (admitted) ideological bias effect the quality of his analysis.

*shrug* Still better than nothing. But out of curiosity, how would you change his predictions to match the way you see things going?
Posts: 7452 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Amanecer
Member
Member # 4068

 - posted      Profile for Amanecer   Email Amanecer         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
There's a new Christian crop coming up that's way more focused on the environment and social justice than the traditional Religious Right scumbag issues.
You live in New York right? Because in Texas this is not my experience at all. The vast majority of people I know are very concerned with more traditional Religious Right issues (abortion, gay marriage, etc.) and think that environmental issues are mostly made up.
Posts: 1944 | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lalo
Member
Member # 3772

 - posted      Profile for Lalo   Email Lalo         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by katharina:
Oh, now that you're calling just religion stupid, that proves you're totally unbigoted.

This is one of the stranger things I've encountered. I hurt your feelings? Are you aware of the laws you've helped pass, and what they do to homosexuals? Are you aware of the discrimination, brutality, and humiliation suffered by homosexuals, all enabled by your attitude?

They're murdered. Regularly. And when they're not murdered, they're beaten. Raped. Humiliated. Alienated. Heroes like Alan Turing were chemically castrated. But what really matters here is that people don't suck up to you enough when they ask you to please repeal the discriminatory laws you so proudly maintain.

It's absolutely disgusting. As if homosexuals need to coddle and beg you to pretty please maybe be nice. It's their right to be treated as equal human beings. You don't get to simper about how your feelings were hurt because the homos aren't letting you discriminate against them anymore.

Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It's all dependent on where you live. Even in texas, the younger you are, the more likely you are to be okay with gays, have gay friends and not be weirded out by them or think that they are abominations before god or that they're destroying marriage by wanting equal rights to it. And when you have gay friends and like them, you quickly become disillusioned and frustrated with organized christianity's crusade* against them, and like so many of our younger people, you end up dropping out from affiliation or association with your church. Cultural battles like evolution and homosexuality, and the stands that churches have taken on them, have only stood to harm their place in society. And we're already seeing the results.

*loaded terminology, I know

Posts: 14055 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
natural_mystic
Member
Member # 11760

 - posted      Profile for natural_mystic           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by SenojRetep:
Because otherwise the new contract, whatever it may be called, will been (rightly) seen as simply a semantic cop out, as Rakeesh suggested.

Do you feel there's some reason we shouldn't extend the benefits of inheritence, social security, hospital visitation, etc. to life-long commited couples who aren't in sexual relationships? Say, permanent roommates? Or unmarried siblings who choose to live together? I feel if they are willing to be the first-line of support to each other for all domestic issues, they should receive the benefits that go along with that role, regardless of whether the relationship is sexual or not.

I started responding two days ago, but then was swamped with work.
--------------------------------------

If SSM were called a 'civil union' it would be a cop out only in the sense that the opportunity to forcefully state that the homosexual population was not second class was missed. As one of the popular arguments against SSM boils down to an objection to the meaning of marriage being changed (i.e. semantics), an appropriate response to this argument is to introduce a new term as it successfully evades the thrust of the argument.

As far as platonic couples goes:
1)is there a market for such contracts? If no one is asking for it and there is no reason to think anyone will ask for it in the future, it is probably overreach to implement it.
2)I think this would be a much bigger change than you realize. For example, friends and romantic partners are not typically mutually exclusive- at what stage in one's life do you think one would choose to "marry" a platonic friend and so put an impediment in the way of marrying a romantic interest?

Posts: 644 | Registered: Sep 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 7625

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Lalo, you're acting naughty. Quit associating all the opposition with the worst of the bigots. (I'm on your side but you're doing nobody any favors with that kind of misdirected attack.)
Posts: 3985 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lalo
Member
Member # 3772

 - posted      Profile for Lalo   Email Lalo         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by scifibum:
Lalo, you're acting naughty. Quit associating all the opposition with the worst of the bigots. (I'm on your side but you're doing nobody any favors with that kind of misdirected attack.)

You're misunderstanding me. I'm not saying KATHERINA is murdering and raping homosexuals, only that her attitude enables it to happen.

You don't see a lot of people jumping interracial couples anymore, mostly because society got over it and realized miscegeny isn't a shame or a sin or a crime. Once homosexuality's no longer fought in the legislature and the pulpit, the mouth-breathers who get their kicks out of beating on gays are going to have a much harder time justifying it.

Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
That's inflammatory, and I was about to call you on it, but ... eh, for the most part, it's true. It does enable it.

But one question though. Violence against homos, sure. But how does equipping homophobia encourage people to rape homosexuals?

Posts: 14055 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
katharina
Member
Member # 827

 - posted      Profile for katharina   Email katharina         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Why on earth did you drag me into this? Are you high?
Posts: 26063 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Well, at least you're not backing off from the 'religion is stupid' thing. So, Jhai, your interpretation was in fact incorrect.

quote:
Are you aware of the laws you've helped pass, and what they do to homosexuals? Are you aware of the discrimination, brutality, and humiliation suffered by homosexuals, all enabled by your attitude?
So, your argument is that she - and others who oppose SSM and believe homosexuality is a sin - must answer for the worst crimes perpetrated against homosexuals, throughout the nation and the world?

What, then, do you have to answer for? Are there not things done by people on the fringes of your various political beliefs that are heinous to you, that you would never countenance personally?

quote:

They're murdered. Regularly. And when they're not murdered, they're beaten. Raped. Humiliated. Alienated. Heroes like Alan Turing were chemically castrated. But what really matters here is that people don't suck up to you enough when they ask you to please repeal the discriminatory laws you so proudly maintain.

Of course if you only said 'religion is stupid' in response to this particular issue, you might have some credibility when you claim it's because of righteous anger over abuse of homosexuals. But you don't. Or has that changed?

quote:

It's absolutely disgusting. As if homosexuals need to coddle and beg you to pretty please maybe be nice. It's their right to be treated as equal human beings. You don't get to simper about how your feelings were hurt because the homos aren't letting you discriminate against them anymore.

That's not what she, at least, is doing.

And just for fun, please allow me to review some of the questions and statements you've completely ignored, and give you an opportunity to answer them after days of ignoring them-or at least demonstrate what bad faith you're having this conversation in.

quote:
No, it's a pointless legal distinction. Race is ALSO an important personal characteristic, but it's no basis for legal discrimination.
You were wrong about that, but somehow it just got dropped from the discussion. You were equally wrong about government making no legal distinctions ever on the basis of gender, and yet somehow that as well got sidelined and you dropped it.

And of course you were also wrong when you said repeatedly that 'no one cared' what people like JennaDean thought. You reluctantly qualified that nonsense statement.

And of course there was your completely ludicrous citing of a racist judge in Virginia ruling against miscegenation, which you then claimed was religion's word on the subject or something.

When asked repeatedly what exactly would be the legal argument against creating an institution under the law by which any consenting adult couples could 'marry', and having that be the only institution that would be recognized civilly, you had no response except to say 'it's an embarrassment'.

And of course you also said that there is no history or logic behind the notion that marriage is a heterosexual institution, which was also stupid. When asked to defend your argument there you cited India, China, and ancient Greece (from wikipedia, I might add), none of which were actually refutations at all of marriage being historically heterosexual.

Those are just a few examples of what a bad-faith participant you really are in this conversation. Your latests posts illustrate that even more effectively. You don't want to talk to people who disagree.

You want to rail and insult and demand change of the people who disagree. And you want to talk with people who agree with you about how awful the other sort are, and how great it'll be once change is forced down their throats.

All of which is fine. It makes me angry, too. It's why I've specifically voted against anti-homosexual discrimination in the past (unfortunately in Florida the issue has come up in a very clear-cut way), and why I'll continue to do so in the future. It's why when the issue comes up amongst friends or coworkers, I don't tolerate baseless and unAmerican arguments to go unopposed, such as, "America is a Christian nation," or, "Homosexuality is just wrong."

So believe me when I say it's fine that you get angry about it. But stop pretending you're looking for an honest dialogue on the subject.

Anyway, that's all I have to say on the subject with you. My memory is good enough to know that I have very little chance of this post actually getting you to answer for some of the things I've said above, and even less hope of your not making repeated bigoted remarks towards religious people. So I'll try and get off the merry-go-round, though I'm not always as good at that as I'd like to be. I still talk at malanthrop, too.

Posts: 16394 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
katharina
Member
Member # 827

 - posted      Profile for katharina   Email katharina         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
You MUST be high. I have posted nothing on this topic at all except that calling religion stupid makes someone a bigot.

Everything else you have made up wholesale. What the hell?

Stop mainlining crack and at least TRY to anchor yourself to a smidgeon of reality. If you are going to parade around like a vigilante self righteous inquisition, you're going to have to actually QUOTE people before accusing them of whatever baloney you're making up.

And Samp - honestly, you're a complete embarassment.

Posts: 26063 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Yes please raise the standard of dialogue vs. lalo by constantly suggesting he is on illegal substances, thanks kat.
Posts: 14055 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
natural_mystic
Member
Member # 11760

 - posted      Profile for natural_mystic           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
That's inflammatory, and I was about to call you on it, but ... eh, for the most part, it's true. It does enable it.

But one question though. Violence against homos, sure. But how does equipping homophobia encourage people to rape homosexuals?

I'm not weighing in on Lalo's thesis; however I did read a story recently about gang rape of lesbians occurring in South Africa justified as an attempt to 'set straight' the lesbians.
Posts: 644 | Registered: Sep 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
That's inflammatory, and I was about to call you on it, but ... eh, for the most part, it's true. It does enable it.
You should have called him on it, unless you think we're all answerable for what the fringes of our own political and religious groups do that we quite specifically disapprove of.

Eddie's example of Christianity is especially stupid, of course. In what way can Christianity be said to be enabling the violent abuse of homosexuals? The people doing that may cite Christianity, but they're also failing to cite the many more examples throughout the Bible of not treating people violently.

But instead people like Eddie say, "Christianity enables it!" instead of saying, "The people that do this are breaking faith with Christianity."

Even though it would be accurate to say that as well.

Posts: 16394 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
ew.
Posts: 14055 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
katharina
Member
Member # 827

 - posted      Profile for katharina   Email katharina         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
You are accusing me of murder on the basis of NOTHING. If it isn't crack, it is some sort of hallucinogen.

Considering the baloney you are making up against me, it is either crack, you have had a psychotic breakdown, or you are completely dishonest and so far gone you think it isn't obvious, which leads back to the first two choices.

Posts: 26063 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 7625

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Lalo:
quote:
Originally posted by scifibum:
Lalo, you're acting naughty. Quit associating all the opposition with the worst of the bigots. (I'm on your side but you're doing nobody any favors with that kind of misdirected attack.)

You're misunderstanding me. I'm not saying KATHERINA is murdering and raping homosexuals, only that her attitude enables it to happen.

You don't see a lot of people jumping interracial couples anymore, mostly because society got over it and realized miscegeny isn't a shame or a sin or a crime. Once homosexuality's no longer fought in the legislature and the pulpit, the mouth-breathers who get their kicks out of beating on gays are going to have a much harder time justifying it.

Your disgust is misplaced either way. Beating up, killing, bullying homosexuals is not inextricable from the question of legal same sex marriage. I tend to agree that until gay couples have access to the same legal institutions that opposite sex couples have, there will be attendant social impacts to the discrimination. But I don't think they necessarily rise to the level of hatred and violence that you were describing. I think the days of such violence are nearly behind us whether SSM is legal or not. (It's worth noting that such violence is not typically done by older people, it is typically done by relatively young men flush with testosterone [the very generation you were seemed to be claiming has little remaining trace of homophobia].)

The more important point is that a hostile tone, and vocal disgust, is a really bad way to persuade people.

When you associate their largely well-meaning (however misguided you feel it to be) political stance with violence and hatred, you are slamming the door shut.

It's just not that helpful, in other words. katharina pointed this out and you just upped the ante. I want you to know that as a SSM supporter I agree with katharina on this point, and it'd probably help to measure your words a bit more, assuming your goal is not just to fling poo.

Edit: Ok, i wrote this before katharina posted a few more times. She's over the top too. (I guess if nothing else it helps demonstrate the pointlessness of turning up the volume on these conversations.)

Posts: 3985 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lalo
Member
Member # 3772

 - posted      Profile for Lalo   Email Lalo         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I know personally two lesbians who've been raped for being gay, though one's now 35. It might have to do with the huge homosexual population of homosexuals in New York City, but these cases don't seem to be uncommon.

Keep in mind that often, people aren't attacking these people for being gay. It's that being gay, and thereby inferior, gives people license to treat them badly. If they're subhuman, then beating or raping them isn't really that bad. All of these infuriatingly stupid attempts to keep homosexuals as second-class citizens only prolongs their status as targets.

Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Kat, seriously. You honestly had a good shot at having a firm and mature grounding vs. lalo's claims, but you pretty much throw it all away when you do stuff like go SERIOUSLY ARE YOU MAINLINING CRACK, GET OFF THA DRUUUUUUUGS

It leaves you no room to lecture other people about their conduct, because you're being more hotheaded and less mature than them, and that's your greatest failing in conflicts like this.

Posts: 14055 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
katharina
Member
Member # 827

 - posted      Profile for katharina   Email katharina         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Refuting claims? Honestly - YOU ARE MAKING IT ALL UP.

I have posted ONCE in this thread and it had NOTHING to do with what you are talking about. YOU ARE COMPLETELY MAKING STUFF UP.

Not even twisting. There is nothing to twist. It is so dishonest that mainlaining crack would be an improvement on what actually happened, which is wholesale, willfull slander by a couple of amoral liars.

Posts: 26063 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Will you stop? Or at least step back and chill down, or something?
Posts: 14055 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
katharina
Member
Member # 827

 - posted      Profile for katharina   Email katharina         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Will you apologize for the willfull slander?

This is a new low, which is quite an accomplishment for a thread where you were licking the basement floor already.

Posts: 26063 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm not slandering you, sorry.

Besides, even if I were, you would have to find a better example than "amoral liars" and the whole "mainlining crack" thing.

You're in the wrong. Tap out, or take it to another thread afore you flame out. You can't delete this one.

Posts: 14055 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
katharina
Member
Member # 827

 - posted      Profile for katharina   Email katharina         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Lalo accused me of murder on the basis of NOTHING, you agreed with him, and you are definitely both either mainlaining crack or the two most dishonest people Hatrack has had the misfortune to meet.

It's shameful and you would both be writhing in shame if you had the brain power or morals to know what that is.

Posts: 26063 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lalo
Member
Member # 3772

 - posted      Profile for Lalo   Email Lalo         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by scifibum:
Your disgust is misplaced either way. Beating up, killing, bullying homosexuals is not inextricable from the question of legal same sex marriage. I tend to agree that until gay couples have access to the same legal institutions that opposite sex couples have, there will be attendant social impacts to the discrimination. But I don't think they necessarily rise to the level of hatred and violence that you were describing. I think the days of such violence are nearly behind us whether SSM is legal or not. (It's worth noting that such violence is not typically done by older people, it is typically done by relatively young men flush with testosterone [the very generation you were seemed to be claiming has little remaining trace of homophobia].)

The more important point is that a hostile tone, and vocal disgust, is a really bad way to persuade people.

When you associate their largely well-meaning (however misguided you feel it to be) political stance with violence and hatred, you are slamming the door shut.

It's a good point, but exactly how much should we coddle homophobia? It is stupid, and we both know it.

I honestly think it might be more disrespectful to pretend mincing semantical arguments are at all impressive, or that personal interpretations of confused religious dogma are somehow relevant to secular law. Let's give people some credit to learn from their mistakes.

Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Lalo accused me of murder on the basis of NOTHING, you agreed with him, and you are definitely both either mainlaining crack or the two most dishonest people Hatrack has had the misfortune to meet.

It's shameful and you would both be writhing in shame if you had the brain power or morals to know what that is.

I'm sorry, the last time you railed on me for a while about something I was assuredly, in your eyes, doing, I was able to clearly and plainly refute the notion that I was doing it. And you still refused to change your tune. You seem to 'stick' on these notions that I am doing something even when I am not doing it, like how here you are clearly asssured of the idea that I am agreeing that you are a murderer.

I'm not, but I don't hold much hope that I can get you to calm down and admit that you are wrong, because once you get high-strung and emotional, you don't back down. The best I can hope for you to do is to finally give your classic "I have no interest in conversing with you anymore" line since that would at least give me the hope that you'll quiet down and stop blintzing my thread.

So, how about it. Are you about ready to conclude I'm not worth talking to ever again for the fifth time or so?

Posts: 14055 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lalo
Member
Member # 3772

 - posted      Profile for Lalo   Email Lalo         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Kat, nobody accused you of murder. You're crazy and need to chill.
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Will you stop? Or at least step back and chill down, or something?
One wonders why you don't say this to the other guy who's in the wrong and spouting nonsense too, Samprimary.

It certainly does unfavorable things to your credibility on the subject. You're clearly not very interested in taking people to task when they've being immature and hot-headed, hence the, "You know, you're not so wrong, Lalo."

Posts: 16394 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 10 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Hatrack River Home Page

Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2