Why does it need a separate name?
The costs of gay marriage
- Thread starter The Thriller
- Start date
Why does it need a separate name?
You're asking us to be compassionate and understanding for your intention to discriminate, and but you are not honest enough to admit that. I will offer you all the compassion and understanding I offer to members of Stormfront or Men's Rights Activists (MRAs); I will offer the hope that you can learn your prejudices do not belong in government policy or the public sphere.
You seem intent on boiling down a very complex situation about job searching down to an issue about race or gender, and apparently so do whoever was pushing this study.
It is nearly impossible to do a random study and come to any sort of conclusive results, and if you put in controls into the study to focus on the parts you want to you limit the results of the study and limit the true findings because they are tainted by your restraints. What were the positions being looked for. Were all of the candidates basically equal in their skill set? Were all of those hiring managers white, or were some black? Did the black managers hire more white or black candidates? Did those searching for jobs have skills that fit the requirements and needs of those jobs that were being interviewed for? Was this study only done in NY, or other places as well? Of the people with Bachelor degrees and Associate Degrees what degrees were they were they in line with what was desired for the jobs? If I had a Bachelors of Sociology but was applying for a position in the medical field, or business field vs someone that got their Associate degree, that is basically even footing and the other factors will come into play. It totally depends on what an employer needs and they always look to see if a person will fit in with their team so they can have a cohesive unit.
I know numerous "white males", myself included, that have been job searching and not finding positions that they were qualified. They were passed over for various reasons and most of them had to do with who the interviewer thought could do the job, would fit in to their culture, and would take some of the load off of them. I know for a fact at times women are passed over, not because of hatred towards women, but for financial reasons. More often than with men, women will get pregnant and take time off, which requires the hiring manager to scramble to find a temporary replacement or for others in the team to pull the extra weight until that person returns. More often than with men if their significant other gets a job somewhere else, they will quit their job to go.
It seems to me you and some people performing studies found something to do with their 104 days of summer vacation, which include painting a continent, and discovering something that doesn't exist.
Where's Perry?
I am telling you that you should should accept gay marriage in the same way that I would tell a member of Stormfront they need to accept interracial marriage. No more acceptance, no less.
margodydek
Well-Known Member
Thing is, people for thousands have years have advocated for freedom from slavery. The 1860s and the 50's and 60's weren't the first time someone came up with the idea that race doesn't matter and that slavery should be abolished. Yet among all these great men and women who labored for race equality, as well as all the great thinkers in history, none of them ever thought to reconsider the definition of marriage.
One Brow can step on my argument again if he wants, but I'll say it again: the corollary between race discrimation and preserving the defintion of marriage don't hold up. There is no difference between a black man and a white man. Meaning that race in our society should be obsolete. However, women and men are inherently different. They are not interchangeable parts.
Allowing individuals to associate with one another as they choose does not hinder your ability to do the same. It changes nothing about your relationship or potential relationships. It changes nothing about the integrity of your marriage because that is completely in the hands of the people in your marriage.
To me it's like a guy with an iPhone saying that if you call an HTO a smartphone it diminishes his iPhone because an HTO does not have the same smartphone capabilities. In the end the guy still has his iPhone and it still does all the things it did before.
Sorry, I can't get away from making bad analogies. It's a sickness.
I don't want to be a jerk about semantics, but not only does it do nothing in regard to gender roles outside the specific homeosexual relationships, it is not possible for gender to become obsolete. Gay people exist. They have existed. Gender hasn't gone anywhere.
So why do we restrict people's freedom to associate with one another as they choose if the issue is trivial? I would assume that if it wasn't a big deal we'd default to allowing people to live their lives as they see fit as long as they were not causing damage to anyone else.
I'm guessing you include me in that list, and I consider you "on the other side" of my argument, and that you think I therefore consider you "incompetent, ignorant, or just a flat-out bigot". Feel me to correct me if I am wrong on any of that.
If that is all true, let me ask you this: do you think I see myself any differently? Is your anger that I see you as thinking differently than I do, or the the same?
Because it is less than. Otherwise it wouldn't be an insult to the contemporary definition of marriage.
Gay marriage is a more radical change than election by popular vote, the creation of the corporation, ending slavery, the notion of personal liberty, etc.? If by 'western civilization" you mean the cultural offspring of Greece circa 2500 years, I doubt gay marriage even ranks in the top 10.
The gradual rendering of gender as obsolete in California over more than a century was one of the main arguments in Judge Walker's opinion on Proposition 8. Gay marriage is on the back part of that process.
This is a double standard, then, plain and simple. The difference between "sometimes" and "every time" is one of magnitude, not degree.
margodydek
Well-Known Member
This is a great question. I'll let you answer it. If it is trivial, then why did every single government and religion in history establish marriage as between a man and a woman? Why did no one ever think, you know what, let's change that? But now, because we are a society that is now so full of compassion and empathy, because no other society in history had as much compassion as us, we need to change this.
To be completely honest, I have no dog in this fight. I lean conservative, but I'm totally fine with same-sex marriages. The reason I chime in on this topic is I can't stand how people look at the conservatives and automatically assume that they are ignorant, incompetent, or just straight-up bigots. I have heard a lot of well thought out arguments on both sides, and I think the left likes to bully anyone who may hold a different opinion than them. Maybe instead I should just blame all the retards on the right who are incompetent, ignorant, or just straught up bigots, because I will fully admit that we have way too many of those.
margodydek
Well-Known Member
Were we the first ones to elect someone by popular vote? Were we the first ones to free slaves? Were we the first ones to believe in the notion of personal liberty? No. All these things were already done by people that came well before us. But the definition of what a family is (man/woman - husband/wife) has never been in doubt. No one has questioned it. Till now.
On that point I agree with you 100% I haven't called anyone a bigot, nor do I think holding to one's moral and religious teachings automatically makes them a bigot.
margodydek
Well-Known Member
I think that I've tried to toe the line on this issue, so I'm not really sure. I think anyone that when asked: "Do you support same-sex marriage?" responds with, "No." That unjustly the majority of the left will label that person as a bigot.
margodydek
Well-Known Member
My last words on this issue is that I think both sides can make some improvements on how the view and treat the other side. I think the Right needs to do a much better job of showing compassion and empathy to those affected. Realize we are talking about people and not just some form of legislation. On the other hand I think the Left can do a better job of at least letting those who have a different opinion on the matter to explain their thoughts before any judgement or labels are assigned.
And with that, I'm out. GO JAZZ!
And with that, I'm out. GO JAZZ!
If you are interested in analyzing these studies, would you like links? Your criticisms show you obviously have not read them. Or, were you more interested in discounting these studies than analyzing them?
The first study was solely in NY. The positions being sought were low-skill jobs in the restaurant industry. Upgrades/downgrades were based upon how restaurant workers typically classify the desirability of a job (waiter > busboy > dishwasher). As I mentioned, controls were implemented for things like background, appearance, etc.
Just out of curiosity, why would it matter if the managers were white or black? Does the skin color of a manager have some effect on an applicants ability to do his job, or the manager's ability to fairly evaluate talent?
The second study was more broadly based geographically and for higher-skill jobs.
The plural for "anecdote" is not "data".
Do you approve or disapprove of this phenomenon?
So, your intent is to discount, not analyze.
let's get this straight. I have my own hopes, which you call prejudice and seek to deny as beliefs which "do not belong in government policy or the public sphere". That is bigotry and hatred according to your recital of the meanings the dictionaries currently are giving. You deny certain ideas people do hold, either in your estimation of them or in what you propose as legal definitions of them, and want government policy to proscribe them and rout them out of politie society.
what you are offering me is second class status as citizen in your idealized state, which you believe is a superior or more enlightened "state" empowered to regulate human thinking and justified in having the active role of molding human human beings towards the purposes of said state.
I don't think that's a better "state" at all.
perhaps we could do a thread on the issue of Men's Rights Activists. I don't right off know about "Stormfront", but the MRA I've had contacting me when I ran for public office. I didn't get their endorsement but I sincerely believe there are men who are not treated very good in some legal proceedings and who are in fact unnecessarily denied their basic rights by lots of laws which are on the books.
I actually got an endorsement form a Utah gay rights group which does in fact seek to obtain better treatment in law and in society through a less divisive "outreach" to achieve a non combative line of social change. . . . people respecting people rather than trying to force people at law.
the point of divide between the two political groups active locally was the underlying idea of the role of government in protecting peoples' rights vs. defining and regulating peoples' lives. Some people get it, some don't. Less laws on the books, less tools for the "Superiors", and better community dialogue, and more respect and tolerance for people who may differ in their beliefs or ideas.
You speak of noninterchangeable parts (and even that is not technically true), but your position requires and relies on noninterchangeable functions, which is flatly false.
You're cheating by blurting out the truth. Ssshhhh!
The premise of your question is untrue. It has not been every single government and religion in history.