posted
It's not a matter of contrary opinions it's more. I don't really understand that point of view at all. I don't understand thinking that homosexuality is immoral. I genuinely do not get some people's points of view. Racism comes to mind. I think I chalk that up to autism and certain things just NOT making sense at all.
Plus, no, the stories didn't change. It's just we realized the stories we were being told were bull and questioned them which is a healthy thing to do if you ask me. It's like folks don't even NOTICE how unhealthy some of this stuff is even if it's staring them in the face. People do not make any sense. I think I'll get into just what is wrong with this article later because I should not be on the internet but it keeps me from falling into a black out sleep.
Also, we wouldn't be questioning the stories if they really were good and strong stories as I point out what started this topic in the first place.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Here he reminds me of my relative age and lack of certain experiences by falsely noting my worldliness, as if I am a constant braggart about my travels.
Thank you for your thoughtful reply. I can not speak with authority to Scott's intentions, but I can say that what little I know of your travels impressed me. And further it doesn't strike me as any huge admission to acknowledge the possibility in a discussion that someone else might know something that you yourself do not.
While I acknowledge that not everyone is gong to be honest all the time, I wonder, what do you gain by not taking them at their word? If they are indeed sincere, much is lost. If they are not, you may have made it clear to others that it is a possibility of their duality, but since it is unprovable and rather rude it still detracts from the conversation and since it is only a possibility and not a certainty, it reflects poorly on you (at least by my standards).
I say this not as an accusation nor a damnation, but only as a question and an observation. The question being, "What do you gain by assuming a lack of sincerity?"
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:"I don't understand thinking that homosexuality is immoral."
That position is hardly difficult to understand. Some people have faith in certain religions, and those religions in turn told them that homosexuality is immoral, therefore these people must also believe that homosexuality is immoral.
In some few cases opposition to homosexuality is instead because of "cultural" or "traditional" reasons, instead of explicitly religious ones. These people just confuse what is *normal* with what is *moral*.
What of the above do you fail to understand; tell me and I'll explain it further to you.
Failure of understanding is something that can be fixed.
Posts: 676 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:"I don't understand thinking that homosexuality is immoral."
That position is hardly difficult to understand. Some people have faith in certain religions, and those religions in turn told them that homosexuality is immoral, therefore these people must also believe that homosexuality is immoral.
In some few cases opposition to homosexuality is instead because of "cultural" or "traditional" reasons, instead of explicitly religious ones. These people just confuse what is *normal* with what is *moral*.
What of the above do you fail to understand; tell me and I'll explain it further to you.
Failure of understanding is something that can be fixed.
I reckon. I grew up thinking it was wrong and thought, WHY though? So i didn't believe it was wrong anymore. Especially when you think on the list of things that are horrible and hurt people, being gay or gay sex is no where on that list, at least to me.
Also some swans are gay. I don't understand believing something because it's traditional when if i think hard enough, I wonder why it's wrong in the first place. It doesn't help that I'm bi too.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
Uh.... How exactly is homosexuality immoral anyway?
Since I'm sure you know why people consider homosexuality immoral, I presume this is a rhetorical questions. As such its begging the question (i.e. you start off by declaring that homosexuality is OBVIOUSLY NOT immoral when in fact that is the central question under debate). The idea that "morality" constitutes adherence to a set of rules dictated by a benevolent God is hardly something new and radical. It's been widely accepted for thousands of years. That doesn't make it right. It just makes it pathetic to pretend it doesn't exist and can't even be imagined.
Morality isn't something that can be measured objectively, there are as dozens of moral theories. In a multicultural society where people are granted freedoms of conscience, you have to expect that there will be a lots of different perspectives on moral living. If you want to enjoy those freedoms yourself, it behooves you to learn to tolerate moral views that differ from your own. If you get outraged every time you read an opinion on what's moral that differs from your own, you are setting yourself up for misery.
quote:There are places where gays can get KILLED for being gay. Is that actually more moral than being gay?
There are so many logical fallacies in this statement its hard to know where to start.
It constitutes an appeal to consequences. The fact that gays are sometimes killed because of their sexual orientation has no relevance on whether or not homosexuality is or is not moral. Neo-Nazi's are also sometimes beaten up for their political beliefs. Does that make it moral to be a white supremacist?
It constitutes a false dichotomy. It's possible that both killing gays and being gay are immoral. The fact the A is worse than B does not imply that B is good.
It's a strawman argument. Neither OSC nor anyone on this site has argued that killing gays is OK. No one has even argued that its an acceptable consquence justified by the importance of teaching people that homosexuality is a sin.
It's a red herring and an appeal to emotion. It's horrifying when Gays get brutally beaten and killed. But its also basically irrelevant to the discussion of whether or not homosexuality is immoral, a heterosexual monogamous marriage is the best route to true happiness or OSC is a homophobe. Its basically equivalent to pointing to pedophilia or as evidence that homosexuality needs to be suppressed. Pedophilia is pretty horrifying (to most people), but that's completely irrelevant to the discussion of whether or not homosexual relations between consenting adults is moral.
It's a fallacy of cause. It presumes that religious beliefs that homosexuality are a sin are a direct cause of attacks on homosexuals. I am unaware of any reliable studies that have found a causal relationship between religiosity and assaulting gays. If you want to make that kind of claim, you need to back it up with evidence.
[ September 14, 2011, 12:09 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
I'm sorry to tell you, but I'm not a caricature. I'm not a fake person, created to troll the internet and stir up trouble. And even though you may disagree with my opinions, I'm not crazy, bigoted, or any other pejorative you might want to throw at me.
This whole discussion basically boils down to one fundamental, crucial idea: some people believe that homosexuality is a moral issue while others don't.
If you believe that the issue is not an absolute - or a moral issue at all, for that matter - then it is likely impossible for you to understand the other side. "He thinks it is wrong, so he must either be stupid or uninformed. An intelligent person cannot possibly believe that."
I completely understand how and why you would feel that way. To someone on that side of the argument, the issue is no different than race, age, sex, or any other descriptive term used to group humans together. You can't see how someone can call another person's behavior "wrong" - especially if they have no choice in the matter (i.e. they are born that way).
If, however, this issue is a moral one to you, then the framing necessarily changes. If I believe *any* behavior is wrong (or immoral), then it is wrong. Period.
Let's say, for example, that I think lying is immoral (I do). Does that make me a bigot? Am I unfairly prejudiced against people who lie? If I refuse to lie to other people, and if I teach my children not to lie, does that mean I am oppressing people who lie? Not at all! I am just living out my own belief system. It won't affect you, because I am not trying to tell you *you* can't lie, I'm just making that choice for myself.
For those of us who approach this from a moral standpoint, the issue is analogous. I really don't expect you to follow the rules I follow in life. I have my own understanding of religion and God and it's not my place to tell you that you're wrong or you're going to burn in hell (as some religious people are wont to do on the web). In fact, my personal belief is that we're not supposed to judge other people (unless they go to the same church as us, in which case they are held to judgment by church leadership - another topic for another day).
To put it another way: I don't care if you're gay, straight, black, white, young, old, male or female. All humans deserve the same respect and love. I wish you genuine happiness and I'll do what I can in my daily life to help you out.
What I DO have a problem with is when society - be it the media, the schools, or whatever - insists upon teaching my children that something I consider a moral issue isn't really one at all. "There's nothing wrong with it and if your parents think there is, they're just old fashioned. You're smarter and progressive and if they can't accept you, they are bigots." Once you try to indoctrinate my family with an idea I consider immoral, then I've got a dog in the fight.
One last thing: I do things almost every day that I consider immoral. Part of the human condition is trying to stop doing things that are selfish, prideful, and harmful to others. I don't have time to worry about what *you* are doing in your personal life because I'm so busy trying to keep myself from doing things I shouldn't do - or cleaning up from mistakes I've made.
Posts: 298 | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:I grew up thinking it was wrong and thought, WHY though?
And you've heard nobody ever explain to you that the answer is supposed to be: "Because God says so, and God knows best." ?
quote:I don't understand believing something because it's traditional when if i think hard enough, I wonder why it's wrong in the first place.
Think *harder* and figure that out too. It's a very typical cognitive bias to privilege the status quo, to fear change, etc, etc.
I don't like your rhetorical tactics because they seem to try to present ignorance "I don't understand how" as evidence for the ridiculousness of other people's positions.
But it's *not*: Failure to understand something is not evidence for its ridiculousness, it's evidence for an incapacity to properly evaluate its ridiculousness or lack thereof either way.
Posts: 676 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by DustinDopps: If society - as a majority - decides that homosexual marriage is illegal, then it ISN'T bigoted. It is reality. ... I, for one, voted against it in Oregon. Oregon is very liberal (in some parts) but if FAILED here.
quote:Originally posted by DustinDopps: ... I really don't expect you to follow the rules I follow in life. I have my own understanding of religion and God and it's not my place to tell you that you're wrong ...
posted
Of course homosexuality and gay rights are a moral issue. And, DustinDoggs, your position on this (and Card's) is immoral.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:But it's *not*: Failure to understand something is not evidence for its ridiculousness, it's evidence for an incapacity to properly evaluate its ridiculousness or lack thereof either way.
It's pretty common to use the phrase "I can't understand it" to mean "its ridiculous". Interpreted as such, it constitutes another common logical fallacy: the appeal to ridicule.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
How about if it genuinely doesn't make sense to me anymore than judging people on skin colour? It really does not make sense.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
So are you now dropping your insistence that an opinion cannot be bigoted if it's the majority opinion?
quote:...I'm not crazy, bigoted, or any other pejorative you might want to throw at me.
I'm not saying you are, but someone reassuring other people they're not crazy or bigoted...well, isn't really very persuasive. Those aren't things that are judged by someone saying they are or aren't. And anyway, what bigot self-labels as a bigot?
quote:This whole discussion basically boils down to one fundamental, crucial idea: some people believe that homosexuality is a moral issue while others don't.
Well, you may call it that all you like, but that doesn't make it true. The relevant issue to this discussion is that, here in this secular representative government, we're supposed to need more than 'it's just morally wrong' to say 'ya can't do it', The only reason that's been good enough to prohibit gay marriage in the past, and keep the homosexuals deeply closeted, is because not enough people realized, "Hey, wait a second, I'm not supposed to care what kind of sex two consenting adults have with each other!" That's changing, though-as it has for other issues such as race, gender, and religion. This one will change as well, your smug triumph in Oregon's decision notwithstanding, and then in four or five generations we'll look back and say, "We wouldn't let homosexuals marry? Really? How on Earth did we reconcile that with American ideals of freedom and minimum government interference?" I can say that with quite a lot of certainty because, hey, how likely was it that Oregon would've voted on such a thing twenty years ago?
quote:If you believe that the issue is not an absolute - or a moral issue at all, for that matter - then it is likely impossible for you to understand the other side. "He thinks it is wrong, so he must either be stupid or uninformed. An intelligent person cannot possibly believe that."
Oh, no, it's not impossible at all. It's actually very easy to understand. "It's morally wrong, so the government shouldn't let people do it and/or endorse it." Pretty straightforward. It's not an impassible divide of thought. What I suspect many people on my side of the argument have trouble understanding is what comes next: "OK, so it's morally wrong...why does that mean government needs to step in and prohibit?"
Anti-SSM advocates never have a good answer to this question. This being a secular society, any invocation of God-as far as deciding what our laws should be-simply doesn't cut it. In fact it's quite unAmerican, to impose one's religious views at the ballot box for that reason alone, however popular it may be at a given time. And when such advocates attempt to make secular, sociological or scientific arguments...well, they're lackluster at best or downright ridiculous at worst.
quote:Let's say, for example, that I think lying is immoral (I do). Does that make me a bigot? Am I unfairly prejudiced against people who lie? If I refuse to lie to other people, and if I teach my children not to lie, does that mean I am oppressing people who lie? Not at all! I am just living out my own belief system. It won't affect you, because I am not trying to tell you *you* can't lie, I'm just making that choice for myself.
This is an invalid comparison. Lying has direct, observable consequences that we can notice with our own senses here in the physical world. Homosexuality doesn't. Anyway, according to the strict definition of the word 'bigot', well, if you're utterly intolerant of lying then you might be considered bigoted towards lying. But in any case, I think you know that's not how the word is generally used: it's used to describe irrational intolerance. Intolerance of lying isn't irrational. Intolerance of homosexuality is.
quote:For those of us who approach this from a moral standpoint, the issue is analogous. I really don't expect you to follow the rules I follow in life. I have my own understanding of religion and God and it's not my place to tell you that you're wrong or you're going to burn in hell (as some religious people are wont to do on the web). In fact, my personal belief is that we're not supposed to judge other people (unless they go to the same church as us, in which case they are held to judgment by church leadership - another topic for another day).
Well, yeah you do. If they're gay, you expect them to live certain parts of their life as you say and not as they'd like. Your statement that you don't expect other people to follow your life rules is simply untrue, by your own words. It's just...OK to have that contradiction somehow, in this case, because it's about homosexuals and God hates them (or is it God hates homosexuality?).
quote:To put it another way: I don't care if you're gay, straight, black, white, young, old, male or female. All humans deserve the same respect and love. I wish you genuine happiness and I'll do what I can in my daily life to help you out.
But you don't feel that gays deserve the same respect and happiness as other people. Do you think a homosexual feels respected as a citizen of his/her country, when they're told they cannot settle down with their partner and have it afforded the same recognitions and responsibilities their straight co-citizens have? Do you think homosexuals don't want marriage, or something?
quote:What I DO have a problem with is when society - be it the media, the schools, or whatever - insists upon teaching my children that something I consider a moral issue isn't really one at all. "There's nothing wrong with it and if your parents think there is, they're just old fashioned. You're smarter and progressive and if they can't accept you, they are bigots." Once you try to indoctrinate my family with an idea I consider immoral, then I've got a dog in the fight.
That has nothing whatsoever to do with the question of marriage at hand, first of all. Second, when this kind of things happens, yeah, it's regrettable. Happens frequently at places all over the country, it's true. Where you're just flat-out wrong, though, is your suggestion that somehow the 'gay agenda' (or liberal agenda, or whatever) is somehow dominant. That's always seemed a strange idea for people to cling to, to me, because of the demographic background of our country. We've been majority white Christians in the USA for, well, our entire history. You'll be lucky to get to federal office if you're an open Muslim, and we're not so far removed from times when it was pretty damn tough if you were Jewish or Catholic. But somehow, all of us millions of white Christians were asleep at the switch, and some perfidious liberals got in control of our kids.
quote:One last thing: I do things almost every day that I consider immoral. Part of the human condition is trying to stop doing things that are selfish, prideful, and harmful to others. I don't have time to worry about what *you* are doing in your personal life because I'm so busy trying to keep myself from doing things I shouldn't do - or cleaning up from mistakes I've made.
But you do have time in your personal life to worry about what harm other people are doing in theirs. You've said so. You took the time to vote that way-you specifically went out of your way to say to other people, "Nope! Not gonna have it in your lives."
I didn't think you were a false alt before, but with the two or three rather glaring contradictions in this post I have to admit-I'm wondering. It's just very strange.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: How about if it genuinely doesn't make sense to me anymore than judging people on skin colour? It really does not make sense.
Of course it doesn't make sense. And I get your outrage. But people often don't make sense and believe outrageous things. We have to balance our response to this in a way that keeps out motivation to fight against it without overwhelming us. Not always easy!
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rakeesh - I can say this: you seem a lot more rational and tolerant on this issue than many people I've dealt with. I appreciate the respectful back-and-forth and I did read every comment you made.
And you have good points.
I'd love to go point-by-point and discuss each topic, but I don't have time currently. Hopefully this evening I can.
The reason I say "out of the gate" that I'm not a bigot is because that's the easiest form of response from your side of the aisle. "You're a bigot" seems to be the same as "your opinion is invalid" so I was trying to be pre-emptive.
If you read the definition of bigotry, it is an irrational animosity toward an idea. There are a lot of wackos who simply hate gay people, but most of the conservatives I know aren't like that. They are rational and definitely not antagonistic; they just disagree with the basic idea. Thus they aren't bigots, they just have a different opinion than you. Honestly, if you are so adamant that your side is correct, you are also bigoted toward my point of view. But that is socially acceptable, so you get a free pass.
posted
DustinDopps, it is an imperfect analogy but just as an intellectual exercise, try replacing homosexual with black or Jewish in any of your posts. Just to get a feel of how others might be perceiving your "I'm not bigoted" statements.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: How about if it genuinely doesn't make sense to me anymore than judging people on skin colour? It really does not make sense.
Appeal to ridicule is still a logical fallacy. The fact that you find it ridiculous, is not an argument against it. It doesn't matter how genuine you are about finding it ridiculous.
Consider the following:
"How could any one seriously propose that CO2 is a pollutant, we exhale CO2?" Is that a legitimate argument against the greenhouse effect.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:They are rational and definitely not antagonistic...
If they're voting like you are, I'm afraid they are antagonistic. There's simply no other word for it: they're antagonistic towards the idea of homosexuals being accepted as fully recognized, equal citizens able to make a go at monogamous long-term relationships with the same safeguards and responsibilities as heterosexuals. You are as well. It cannot be said that people who oppose SSM are not antagonistic towards homosexuals, unless we're somehow going to divorce (no pun intended) the issue of gay rights from gays themselves.
If someone were to say, "White male Oregon married men who are conservative shouldn't be allowed to have tax breaks according to marriage anymore," I suspect you wouldn't say those people weren't antagonistic towards you.
And anyway, I'm not bigoted towards your point of view-I accept that you have a right to have it, but I don't accept-and vote and speak accordingly-you have the (moral) right to enforce it at the ballot box. The only reason I don't suggest you shouldn't be allowed to do that-vote your morality, make your moral rules binding for other people-is that, well, it can get pretty problematic for a democracy when that kind of thing starts happening.
Thinking something is wrong isn't the same as being bigoted against it. And anyway, my opposition to your stance on homosexuality isn't irrational. Your opposition to homosexuality, however, is. I'm not saying you shouldn't be opposed to it because it's irrational. I'm saying that 'because God says so' is only a reason if both people believe in the same God and think He said the same thing.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:It seems some people just dislike the word "homophobe" while fully and freely admitting to every single characteristic which we consider part of that category.
Gee, Let's take a term that originally referred to people with a serious underlying anxiety disorder and start using as an epithet to insult anyone whose attitude toward homosexuality is less liberal than ours. Why would anyone take offense at that?
I have yet to see a case, outside clinical psychiatry, where the term "homophobe" wasn't intended as a slur.
You might as well be asking "Why would anyone who's openly homosexual object to being called a faggot?" Why would anyone who's Jewish object to being called a kyke. Why would anyone wearing a kafia object to being called a raghead?
Calling someone a "homophobe" implies that their political or moral opinion on homosexuality is motivated by a serious underlying psychological disorder. That's why its consider a slur by both those who use it and those who hear it.
If you are seeking a society where all kinds of people are tolerated and respected, starting out with the assumption that anyone who disagrees with you must be either psychologically disturbed or just plain mean, is not productive.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: If you are seeking a society where all kinds of people are tolerated and respected, starting out with the assumption that anyone who disagrees with you must be either psychologically disturbed or just plain mean, is not productive.
Assumption 1) People seek a society in which all kinds of people are respected.
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: If you are seeking a society where all kinds of people are tolerated and respected, starting out with the assumption that anyone who disagrees with you must be either psychologically disturbed or just plain mean, is not productive.
Assumption 1) People seek a society in which all kinds of people are respected.
I wasn't assuming, I was hoping.
quote:Assumption 2) OSC and DustinDoops => anyone [/QB]
The quote I was responding to wasn't referring to OSC or DustinDoops but to "some people" which from the context implied anyone who held opinions regarding homosexuality contrary to those of the poster and yet didn't like being called a "homophobe".
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Gee, Let's take a term that originally referred to people with a serious underlying anxiety disorder
If you're referring just to the suffix "phobe" and "phobia", the words "xenophobic" and "xenophobia" have long been used not to describe anxiety disorders but attitudes towards foreigners.
But if you still don't like it, you just need to offer a different term for the people who fear and/or hate homosexuality, one more to your liking. "Homosexuality-fearers-and-haters" is too long for us.
quote:I have yet to see a case, outside clinical psychiatry, where the term "homophobe" wasn't intended as a slur.
What term do you prefer to describe people who hate and fear homosexuality? Give me an alternative here.
quote:You might as well be asking "Why would anyone who's openly homosexual object to being called a faggot?" Why would anyone who's Jewish object to being called a kyke? Why would anyone wearing a kafia object to being called a raghead?
"Faggots" currently prefer being called "gay". Jewish people prefer being called "Jewish people". And I don't know what kafia is, but I suspect those people also prefer being called something else.
How do people who fear-and-hate-homosexuality prefer to be called? If they don't have an alternative, they ought stop whining about the terms other people use for them.
quote:Calling someone a "homophobe" implies that their political or moral opinion on homosexuality is motivated by a serious underlying psychological disorder.
No it doesn't, same way that Islamophobic, Europhobic, or Xenophobic doesn't imply anything about serious underlying psychological conditions.
quote: That's why its consider a slur by both those who use it and those who hear it.
As I said, give me a non-slur word to use.
Posts: 676 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Generally those who are, even incorrectly, referred to as "homophobic" are not those who "seek a society in which all kinds of people are respected". In other words, if they are truly seeking that kind of society, they are unlikely to be doing or writing things that would prompt the use of the word.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: I wasn't assuming, I was hoping.
Ok, I'm just pointing out that there's certainly a vigorous debate about whether one should "tolerate the intolerant" when it comes to Christian extremists, so prefacing your post with this wish in an "if" clause potentially makes the whole thing irrelevant.
quote:The quote I was responding to wasn't referring to OSC or DustinDoops but to "some people" which from the context implied anyone who held opinions regarding homosexuality contrary to those of the poster and yet didn't like being called a "homophobe".
The quote is "It seems some people just dislike the word "homophobe" while fully and freely admitting to every single characteristic which we consider part of that category" and is a response to a reply to DustinDoops.
This reads to me that there are many people who would never admit to the characteristics of being a homophobe nor would they necessarily match every characteristic.
However, there are a special extremist few that do match them all and proudly display that fact (to the extent that they may be confused with satire or a fake poster). We just happen to be discussing them.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Wow. What do you know about the "traditional family" odouls? Because I've studied sociology, anthropology, and history,
quote: Don't call what I have to say uninformed. I am very well informed on the man's character. I ought to be, I've studied him enough. I've corresponded with him almost as much as you have.
Orincoro,
I love it when someone summarizes their academic resume' as a preamble to their posts. It's totally bolsters their credibility. And it definitely doesn't make them seem hopelessly insecure or desperate for approval at all
Eh, Really? Who hasn't studied these topics? They're required in virtually every university in the first year. And everyone here has studied OSC, right? Claiming special knowledge about either topic is foolish in this context. Besides, if I actually summarized my academic resume, these subjects would not appear in the highlights. I'm a specialist, just not that kind of specialist.
And that's a piss-poor appeal to authority. I would have come up with something better if I was actually trying to establish authority. And I could too- but that wasn't the objective.
If you knew more about me, you'd know where my vanity is concentrated. A basic knowledge of history just doesn't make me feel like a god among men. Granted, though, it does make me better informed than you are. But who isn't?
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Let me reiterate -- since for me it's the *meaning* that counts, I just need be given a kinder word with the same meaning, and I'm quite willing to change to using that one instead.
But I've not heard of one.
Posts: 676 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I meant I've not heard of one being used by the anti-gay people to describe themselves. I don't remember OSC (or in this thread DustinDopps) calling himself anti-gay.
But if the formerly-named-homophobes prefer the term "anti-gay", I promise to use it whereever I might have used the word "homophobe" or "homophobic" instead.
Posts: 676 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
They would call themselves "pro-family," however, this is obfuscation around the negativist nature of most "pro-family" movements and individual proponents. They are not as much "for" things as "against" other things, but they would rather portray themselves in support of some set of traditional values, even if those can only be defined by what they do *not* include.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Pro-family is too imprecise, a mere propaganda term; we need a term for those people who may find absolutely nothing wrong with divorcing or cheating their wives, but nonetheless might serious-faced claim that Hurricane Irene is a punishment from God for New York's homosexual ways. A word for the Westboro Baptist Church. Or the people like Ahmadinejad that argue that there are no gays in Iran; but would kill them if they found any.
Rabbit, do you prefer (if I can't use "homophobic" for those people) that I use the label "anti-gay" or the label "pro-family" for these?
Posts: 676 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Pro-traditional gender roles maybe although "traditional" is mushy. Where do we decide "traditional" lives? 1950? 1850? 50? Not all of them want to go back to when women were chattel.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Orincoro: People who call themselves "pro-family" often *are* operating under the assumption that ultimately that is what they feel they are accomplishing. They don't want to identify by the things they are opposed to, they want to stick with the things they are attempting to accomplish.
When same-sex marriage supporters are called, "anti-traditional values" or "anti-religion" it stings, and it's a terrible device. And you could just as often snidely make the case they are still accurate even if they do hurt.
"I'm sorry I'm not going to shy away from calling you whatever name I think fits." is rarely said with any sort of real authority, or true desire for telling the truth, even when it hurts.
People who are "blunt" aren't generally also "disciples of honesty".
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: When same-sex marriage supporters are called, "anti-traditional values" or "anti-religion" it stings, and it's a terrible device.
. . . but I am anti-traditional values, or at least a decent subset of them when it comes to marriage and family. I think they're wrong and harmful, and I will freely own that label.
Posts: 650 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I must say, I'm pretty happy to be called "anti-traditional values" or "anti-religion", and I'm not even all that invested in supporting same-sex marriage Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
While I can totally see where you are coming from BB, I have to say that "anti-gay" still fits really well and is still way better then "homophobe" or "bigot".
There is a difference between what we call ourselves (seeing our best intentions) and what our opponents call us.
For a word for opponents to use in conversation that isn't automatically a slur, "anti-gay" seems to fit the bill.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:When same-sex marriage supporters are called, "anti-traditional values" or "anti-religion" it stings, and it's a terrible device.
I *am* anti-religion, Black Blade, and I don't mind you calling me such when you need a word to group together all those people who oppose religion (even if that includes bad people like Stalin).
So it doesn't always sting.
Posts: 676 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am pro-religion and pro certain traditional values and because of those things pro-gay rights. So anti-religion won't work either.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Orincoro: People who call themselves "pro-family" often *are* operating under the assumption that ultimately that is what they feel they are accomplishing. They don't want to identify by the things they are opposed to, they want to stick with the things they are attempting to accomplish.
Of course they operate under that assumption. But their actually values related to that goal are far more exclusionary than inclusionary. You can only really define the "traditional family values" set as an exclusive set, because it is not constructed out of whole cloth- it is reactionary. Reactionary movements only exist because there is something *not* to be. There never was a traditional family in any way similar to the "traditional family values" family, but you can construct one out of the exclusion of various negatively cast elements.
The reason I say this is that the "traditional family values" set exists only as a model to defend against any negatively viewed incursion, which is deemed aberrant. That the "traditional family," existed in a time of social injustice and racial injustice is immaterial. That the traditional family was constructed as it was *because* of the times in which it existed is also, apparently, immaterial. For a positivist approach to these "tradional values" to actually work, you would have to argue that they worked and were just in the time in which you claim or believe that they existed- because clearly you believe that at one time, they did. But the fact that they existed or were followed in times of injustice, and by injust people, shatters the notion that the traditional family is a haven of moral and ethical righteousness. So, the traditional family has to be divorced from history completely to make any sense. It has to react *against* development, and not be seen *as* a development itself.
That's why in the 60's "traditional family values." included the prohibition of interracial marriage, and today, when that element of family values is nearly universally accepted, it includes the prohibition of same-sex marriage- once a non-issue because it was not a serious social development. Now that it is, it can be reacted *against.* The family can be defined as *not* being that.
Tell me, do you think there is anything about "pro-family" that is based on positivist attitudes? I don't see it.
quote:When same-sex marriage supporters are called, "anti-traditional values" or "anti-religion" it stings, and it's a terrible device.
I *am* anti-religion, Black Blade, and I don't mind you calling me such when you need a word to group together all those people who oppose religion (even if that includes bad people like Stalin).
So it doesn't always sting.
I am also anti-religion, but not afraid of religious people. So phobia wouldn't fit me either. Anti is more appropriate.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: When same-sex marriage supporters are called, "anti-traditional values" or "anti-religion" it stings, and it's a terrible device.
. . . but I am anti-traditional values, or at least a decent subset of them when it comes to marriage and family. I think they're wrong and harmful, and I will freely own that label.
If you aren't against every single traditional value, then you can't very well be properly "anti-traditional values". It's an absolute term, just like homophobe apparently is used to describe anybody who oppose a single aspect of same sex agendas. The term anti-traditional values is so broad it could be used to describe somebody who thinks society is an evil concept as well as somebody who disagrees that same sex couples are inferior parents. It's not a label anybody can "own" unless you are freely agreeing that you hate every idea that has been current for a long enough time to be labeled traditional.
----- Mucus:
quote:I must say, I'm pretty happy to be called "anti-traditional values" or "anti-religion", and I'm not even all that invested in supporting same-sex marriage
. That's unfortunate. I never figured you for either.
----
quote:I *am* anti-religion, Black Blade, and I don't mind you calling me such when you need a word to group together all those people who oppose religion (even if that includes bad people like Stalin).
So it doesn't always sting.
Anti-religion doesn't seem to be the right word then. Do you feel religion in all its varieties needs to be blocked and erradicated, so long as it's done ethically?
I've certainly fought against atheism insofar as I have spent copious amounts of time convincing others to believe in God, but I would not self identify as "anti-atheist". I don't agree with atheism, but that does not mean I feel an impetus to arm myself and contend with them in anyway, so long as they are affording me the same courtesy.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay, how about this: I frequently refer to myself as anti-traditional values and am very happy to have others refer to me in the same way. It doesn't sting in the slightest. I don't understand why you think it should? I mean, of course it's a shorthand, in the same way that when I say I'm pro-choice I mean I'm in favor of a woman's right to decide to end her own pregnancy and not, say, in favor of someone's right to choose to shoot their wife in the head. In context, the subset of choice I'm talking about is understood--and so is the subset of traditional values.
Posts: 650 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:"Do you feel religion in all its varieties needs to be blocked and erradicated, so long as it's done ethically?"
Not sure I understand the question. It doesn't 'need' to be done. If, however, people were to become smart enough to voluntarily turn away from religion, and other forms of superstition and cached mysterious answers, then I would certainly consider it a net positive thing.
quote: I don't agree with atheism, but that does not mean I feel an impetus to arm myself and contend with them in anyway,
Well, no, I don't have such an impetus either -- same way that I don't have an impetus to contend with people who believe in homeopathy, or astrology, or the prophecies of Nostradamus, or any other silliness. Anti-religion isn't my chief *priority*, if that's what you mean.
Posts: 676 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: But the fact that they existed or were followed in times of injustice, and by injust people, shatters the notion that the traditional family is a haven of moral and ethical righteousness
It does? For that to be true you would first have to prove that "traditional family" norms prevailed to such an extent that abberations from that norm were rare. I don't think that has ever been true in any history book generally accepted to be accurate.
I'm with you insofar as I do believe that "One father, one mother, dad at work, mom at home, kids out at 18 forever, causes problems, serious ones.
But that model still has some positive elements to it. Commitment to each other is an essential ingredient for family units, and by extension society to survive. Further, we do in fact need men and women to have sex so as to ensure our species continues to exist. So we then need to foster practices and instutions that ensure that when men and women reproduce that their offspring are protected.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:But that model still has some positive elements to it.
So does the 'multiculturalism is a failed experiment' model; doesn't make it a good thing, or something we shouldn't rally specifically against.
They also bear similarities in the sense that their premises (and desired laws) have an unignorable disconnect from the supposed conclusions, and when you follow the logic of the model out, the holes are large enough to sink it.
By the by, the word that most comes up as a potential replacement to homophobe is 'heterosexist,' but it's not really catching on because of the often prevailing true mentalities of people who put a significant amount of effort into trying to keep homosexuals as second-class people.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
ambyr: It hurts me when I vote against marriage definition ammendments, after agonizing over the decision, and trying so hard to remain true to myself and to God, even when a flury of voices from every side are telling me I'm wrong. It hurts even more when one side calls you an apostate, and the other calls you a homophobe.
I, like many human beings, have a need to belong. People who I care about matter to me, and when they cut themselves off from me it hurts, especially if it was preventable.
I'm quite capable of maintaining friendships with people who don't believe in certain things I do. If those disagreements extend to such a point that either of us seriously feel the other is morally bankrupt, or insane, then of course that relationship falls apart.
This to a lesser extend applies to conversation. It's fine if one side thinks religion is all bogus, but if they keep trying to press the point that religion is all bogus and therefore adherents are themselves fools or liars or both, well then how can we converse?
I don't like lables like anti-this or pro-that. I feel that generally they are simplistic and incorrect. And it's too easy to get hungup on trying to clarify all those incorrect assumptions implicit in the label.
"I'm Pro-life!" "Well I'm pro-choice!" "Ah so you think killing babies is just fine!" "Ah so you think forcing rape victims to suffer trama is fine!" "NO I don't!" "Yes you do!" No I don't, but you do!" So on ad nauseum.
Usually the terms are used as a simplisitc way to dismiss or ostracize others who don't agree. "I should have expected such idiocy from a gay-lover."
The majority of my family are Republicans, and often they sound off on political issues, I generally keep my peace and politely shut up, because I can't stand people always looking to get into arguments. Further I doubt most of them are really looking to change their minds, they just want to gripe and make noise. But guess what, they all know I don't tow their party line, and often I'm called out in some way like, "Oh but BlackBlade over there voted for Obama, so he probably thinks stealing from the talented and giving it to the lazy is OK! He's just like all those Democrats, who are anti-American and pro-apologizing."
One it's idiocy because there are leaders of my church who are Democrats, who I doubt they would ever in their wildest dreams say those things to. Further, Christians absolutely believe in repenting and forgiveness and so saying that one is pro-apologizing and saying that is a negative, is just stupid. But there you have it.
Labels are a lazy person's way of conversing. This isn't to say they are completely useless. I very often say, "In many ways I'm pro-religion." or "I have pro-life and pro-choice leanings." I might without reservation say, "I am pro-virtue!" But generally speaking, I just don't find labels useful, they distort as much as they clarify.
----
Aris:
quote:Not sure I understand the question. It doesn't 'need' to be done. If, however, people were to become smart enough to voluntarily turn away from religion, and other forms of superstition and cached mysterious answers, then I would certainly consider it a net positive thing.
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: While I can totally see where you are coming from BB, I have to say that "anti-gay" still fits really well and is still way better then "homophobe" or "bigot".
I think "anti-homosexuality" would preferable since it refers to a behavior/proclivity rather than to people. I recognize that distinction seems meaningless to a lot of gays, but it is very meaningful to lots of those who are think homosexuality is immoral.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Not sure I understand the question. It doesn't 'need' to be done. If, however, people were to become smart enough to voluntarily turn away from religion, and other forms of superstition and cached mysterious answers, then I would certainly consider it a net positive thing.
What gives you the right to presume that people are religious because they aren't "smart enough". Have you considered that people might be plenty smart enough yet their differing life experiences have lead them to a different conclusion than you have? Your unwarranted arrogance and condescension sicken me.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Aris Katsaris: Pro-family is too imprecise, a mere propaganda term; we need a term for those people who may find absolutely nothing wrong with divorcing or cheating their wives, but nonetheless might serious-faced claim that Hurricane Irene is a punishment from God for New York's homosexual ways. A word for the Westboro Baptist Church. Or the people like Ahmadinejad that argue that there are no gays in Iran; but would kill them if they found any.
Rabbit, do you prefer (if I can't use "homophobic" for those people) that I use the label "anti-gay" or the label "pro-family" for these?
Nobody's gonna call this out? People in this thread object to being called homophobes, and Aris essentially compares them to Fred Phelps and/or Ahmadinejad? Really?
I'm on your side in this discussion, Aris, and I still think that went so far over the line you need a telescope to even see the line. And not a cheap telescope, either. A nice one.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Topic Closed
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
