The costs of gay marriage

[Stoked]

You're cheating by blurting out the truth. Ssshhhh!

Except when you tried that trick on me and it didn't work. You suggested changing the name of religious cermonies from marriage to something else and I was fine with it.

 

[One Brow]

Since you had previously reference "western civilization", I'm assuming that's what you mean by "we".

Were we the first ones to elect someone by popular vote?

I think so.

Were we the first ones to free slaves?

You mean, make slavery illegal? IIRC Japan was first near 1100, but I don't think the Finns in the 1300s were aware of it.

Were we the first ones to believe in the notion of personal liberty?

Again, I think so.

No. All these things were already done by people that came well before us.

I believe most of them were innovations by us, even if we were not chronologically first.

But the definition of what a family is (man/woman - husband/wife) has never been in doubt. No one has questioned it. Till now.

Historically inaccurate.

 

[One Brow]

Except when you tried that trick on me and it didn't work. You suggested changing the name of religious cermonies from marriage to something else and I was fine with it.

From what I recall, you are not opposed to gay marriage. So, the "trick" wasn't designed for you.

 

[One Brow]

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.

If the moral and religious teachings themselves teach bigotry, how can you avoid being a bigot when holding to them?

 

[One Brow]

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.

I am still waiting to hear an argument against same-sex marriage that does not rely on bigotry/intolerance in some fashion. When I come across such an argument, I will be glad to so acknowledge.

 

[Stoked]

From what I recall, you are not opposed to gay marriage. So, the "trick" wasn't designed for you.

So you admit to trying to catch people with word games and trip them up? If you didn't play such games than clearly you would have just stated so instead of saying the trick was not designed for me.

 

[Stoked]

I am still waiting to hear an argument against same-sex marriage that does not rely on bigotry/intolerance in some fashion. When I come across such an argument, I will be glad to so acknowledge.

Round and round the mulberry bush..

 

[One Brow]

what you are offering me is second class status as citizen in your idealized state, ...

I am offering you the same level of citizenship that I possess, and the only one to which I aspire. I am offering the you same restrictions on you, for your dislike of same-sex marriage, that an atheist might have for a religious assembly, a Baptist for a Mormon assembly, a white-supremacist for an interracial marriage, a young person for an older worker (and vice-versa), etc. If you want to call your imability to force other people to live by your own standards, even when they do not harm to you or others, as "second-class citizenship", then I will proudly take my second-class citizenship, and strive to make sure there are no people who achieve the first-class citizenship you so long for.

 

[Zombie]

yah I deleted the post. yah I still think you're 19, maybe. based on your arguments and style, which old dudes usually drift away from after a while. maybe.

I'm nobody's victim. I see you reaching deep to come up with some kind of psychobabble dismissive or marginalizing framework for misconstruing my comments. And hell yeah. Nobody's got the Superiority edge on today's crop of progressives.hi

I think you'd have to re-think your own comments if you actually re-read mine.

Maybe I will. Oh wait you deleted them, I wonder why...
How are my arguments and style indicative of someone younger and less wise than yourself? Or is it simply that you can't argue them successfully and so resort to belittling?
Psychobabble? Where did I use anything even approaching psychobabble?

 

[One Brow]

So you admit to trying to catch people with word games and trip them up? If you didn't play such games than clearly you would have just stated so instead of saying the trick was not designed for me.

Good joke.

 

[Stoked]

Good joke.

Yeah it made me smile.

 

[colton]

If you can't tell the difference between a behavior that expresses hatred, and one that does not, then you are treating someone with hatred.

Some examples from recent studies:

After controlling for dress, background, speech patterns, etc., black and white men went to various locations in New York looking for employment. For every group, people without a criminal record were hired/upgraded at a much higher rate than those with a criminal record. However, white men with a criminal record were hired/upgraded at about the same rate as as black men without a criminal record. You will find very few employers in New York that say they hate black people, but in their hiring, they treat black people as if they were criminals. How is that different from treating them with hatred? Do you think that it matters to a black applicant whether the employer feels hatred, if he typically will be treated like a criminal regardless?

After controlling for other background issues, resumes examined by employers typically rated applicants with typically female names as similarly qualified to applicants with typically male names who were a full degree status lower (that is, women with bachelors were rated as about the same as men with associates, women with masters as about the same as men with bachelors). There was little difference in this effect between male and female employers, and very few of the employers would say they hate women. Yet, how is this evaluation pattern different from those who say they hate women? Does it really matter to women applicants is the evaluator feels hatred, when they will be treated as less worthy of a job regardless?

OK, I see what you're talking about.

Back to the immediate situation... I personally think your behavior in this thread has been expressing hatred for people who are in favor of traditional marriage. Does that make you a bigot?

 

[Darkwing Duck]

people who are in favor of traditional marriage

Do those people who favor "traditional marriage" favor subservient women, because "traditional marriage" doesn't equate to equal partnership. Traditional marriag-ists also must champion the requirement of proof of infidelity to allow for divorce, since that's the only time tradition allows for it. Please link me the proposition that various states are compiling for the traditional marriage enthusiasts.

Fact of the matter is that you're not championing "traditional marriage," Colton. You're promoting what you believe is an idealistic form of marriage, which ends up being exclusionary. In the 40's, married women broke tradition (out of necessity) by going to the workforce. Many lamented the loss of "traditional marriage" when women were reluctant to return to that traditional wife mold. I think the US turned out okay in that scenario.

 

[Stoked]

Do those people who favor "traditional marriage" favor subservient women, because "traditional marriage" doesn't equate to equal partnership. Traditional marriag-ists also must champion the requirement of proof of infidelity to allow for divorce, since that's the only time tradition allows for it. Please link me the proposition that various states are compiling for the traditional marriage enthusiasts.

Fact of the matter is that you're not championing "traditional marriage," Colton. You're promoting what you believe is an idealistic form of marriage, which ends up being exclusionary. In the 40's, married women broke tradition (out of necessity) by going to the workforce. Many lamented the loss of "traditional marriage" when women were reluctant to return to that traditional wife mold. I think the US turned out okay in that scenario.

Take that Colton!


Oh wait...what do you mean you haven't talked about women in the workforce and women being subservient in here? Enough of your excuses! Off with your head!

 

[Darkwing Duck]

S
A careful reading of my posts here will show someone who's willing to think about it, that what I am opposing is not equality under the law, but the loss of personal prerogatives.

Again, if that personal prerogative is based on exclusion when going against the opposite prerogative that wants to include, it's going to lose. This is very much an American custom.

To continue, from a legal standpoint, there's no comment on "promotion" or not. I sense a bit of "if it's legal, than the guvment supports it, thus forcing me to accept it." This becomes a useless argument because switch it around and the same exact argument can be made from the other side, "if it's illegal, than the guvment doesn't support it, thus forcing me to accept it." And then we're back to the exclusionist v inclusionist paradigm, which I've made mention of in every single one of my posts in this thread.

 

[Darkwing Duck]

Take that Colton!


Oh wait...what do you mean you haven't talked about women in the workforce and women being subservient in here? Enough of your excuses! Off with your head!

What is traditional marriage? How do you define said thing when some traditions have been dumped and some kept? One of those "traditions" is subservient wives. And since marriage and the definition of the social structure of it has been in flux since...well...mankind, the attempt to pigeonhole it into a set and define it on some principles that were indeed based on some form of tradition, yet conveniently drop some traditions that don't fit one's standard of the institution is doomed to failure. Just call it "ideal marriage" instead of "traditional marriage" and it becomes much more accurate.

 

[One Brow]

OK, I see what you're talking about.

Back to the immediate situation... I personally think your behavior in this thread has been expressing hatred for people who are in favor of traditional marriage. Does that make you a bigot?

Are you being serious?

I think of you as a reasonable person. If you really think I'm being hateful, I'd like to take a look at some examples of that. I do get carried away sometimes, or not realize that I'm stepping on toes. I'll try not to do it again.

 

[colton]

I think of you as a reasonable person. If you really think I'm being hateful, I'd like to take a look at some examples of that. I do get carried away sometimes, or not realize that I'm stepping on toes. I'll try not to do it again.

You called me a bigot, OB. How is that NOT hateful?

Edit: to make things more clear--I don't think you had hate as your motivation, just as those who hired white men over black didn't have hate as their motivation in the example you provided. But if the actions can be hateful without the motivations being hateful, then yes, I do think your behavior in this thread has been hateful towards those who are in favor of traditional marriage.

 

[Jazz Spazz]

Maybe one day, you'll get to the point where you assume other people can be reasonable when they are pointing out behaviors, instead of assuming they are being unreasonable, and treat it like a problem to be fixed instead of a crime.

Maybe one day you will get to the point where you stop looking for problems in other people and pointing them for them to fix, and pushing and pushing when they politely disagree with your assessment.

I have heard your points, and politely disagree wholeheartedly with your reasoning skills and perspective. Thank you for your input.

I live in a world where where it's important to me to understand other people, my effect upon them, and treat them like they are reasonable adults. Why do you think that is negative?

According to your definition you are a bigot. According to my understanding of what you think about bigotry, you see me as a bigot and yet fail to see yourself in your mirror as a bigot as well.

From my perspective I have not seen much in the way of understanding my perspective other than the token... yea go ahead and say your piece so we can get to the part where I start attacking it. Your actions have in no way shown me that understanding other people is important to you, nor your effect on them, and I fail to see you treating people as reasonable adults I see you as playing with words an pushing your position. I get the feeling you have on your facade of politeness and fairness but that's all it seems to be because your actions don't back it up.

I see you as Buffy the Bigot slayer, and you will stop at nothing until you have killed all of the people you think are bigots and railroad anyone in your way. You have done or said nothing to prove otherwise to me.

Funny, that's just the type of thing my wife says (except, she'll use a milder word than "abuse", but that's a difference of magnitude, not type).
There wasn't anything coy about my answer. You were just surprised at my standard. As I said, I think you are a typically reasonable person. I think that if you feel a particular behavior is child abuse (even if it is refusing to buy a candy bar), than at least I should consider why you might think so. I might ultimately reject your reasoning, but if I think you are generally reasonable, then it in my own best interest to hear you out first.
What do you think it says about you that you seem to have presumed my reaction would be to immediately dismiss such a claim?

As to your last line, you have dismissed everything I have said to you and about you so why would you not immediately dismiss such a claim? Does a leopard change his spots?
As to the being coy, oh yes you were. I was not “surprised at your standard”, but knew you were intentionally avoiding the point again.

Who are you trying to kid? We're in the middle of a discussion about how people interpret words and actions towards disadvantages groups, you come up with an analogy of someone interpreting words and actions towards children, and then claim the analogy has nothing to do with the topic under discussion? I believe you when you says you did not intended to compare disadvantaged people to children. You still did.

We are in the middle of a discussion about how you screw around with words to try to gain an advantage in an argument, and you throw in a line about my "trying to kid" in a negative way? I trust you did not intend to compare my negatively perceived actions to a child, but you did. I did not ask you to bring children into your attack on my character, but you did. It came from you. Own up to it. Ask yourself why your reaction was to equate my negatively perceived actions to a child as opposed to something else.

I didn't ask you to create an analogy. I certainly didn't ask you to use children in it. That came from you. Own up to it. Ask yourself why your reaction was to equate people in disadvantaged groups with children, as opposed to some other type of people.

Seriously dude... grow up. (like the child reference) Drop your lame attempt at a smokescreen. You know you would have already decided before you told your child no to the candy bar that it is not abuse in your eyes. If somebody accused you of it you would state your reasons why it is not abuse in your opinion, which is a defense of your actions. The main point of the example is in your natural defense of something you feel is right when being attacked on that point. You can stop the horse manure act that you would never defend your words or actions and would simply think about it, accept or reject it, then move on without saying anything if you rejected it.

Actually, he is lumping all comments that express misogyny and racism, and saying that if you are told that your expressing racism and misogyny, you should deal with why your comments came across that way.

And yet again you incorrectly assume you understand what I am saying, or intentionally change your focus. The question is not about if the bigot label comes and goes as the actions seen as bigot actions come and go. The question and point is what you see as actions that make someone a bigot, I see differently. The line actions cross to define them as bigotry, is in a much different place for me versus where you have them, and I don’t know from the blog where Ian has his line. So if you actually read what I was saying you would realize he did not define his line enough to clearly see which actions qualify as bigotry for him and which ones do not.

Cromwell does not define or label people in this fashion to begin with, as the post made clear. There is no such thing as a "true racist" or 'true misogynist" that is completely separate from non-racists and non-misogynists. That's dodge that people who entertain infrequent or mild racist/misogynistic thoughts use to separate themselves from the problem, instead of admitting that, sometimes, they are part of the problem.

If only Cromwell had devoted some time in that post to making clear what he means by therm. Maybe it would have read something like this:
So, seriously, what do you find so confusing about that definition? I mean, it's fairly plain English. One might almost think that, as you read it, you did not even seriously consider the meaning of the sentences, that you don't really tolerate words being used in a way you're not used to, that your refusal to take this passage as written borders on being obstinate. I only wish there was a good word in the English language for that sort of devotion to one's own opinions.

Read above. Could have saved yourself some time if you took the time to understand what I was saying.

Sure. It's not that you hold them in contempt, you just naturally equate them to your children when you make analogies about them in your mind. Honestly, who needs you to admit, or even be aware of, to hatred or contempt in such circumstances?

What’s wrong with children? Do you have some sort of fear/hatred/contempt of children to view this in a negative light? I actually hold my children in very high regard, so you would think this would be one of the highest compliments.

Who you hate, or acknowledge hating, isn't even relevant to anyone but you.

So who I truly hate does not matter, all that really matters is that you claim I am showing hatred for someone or something. My perspective does not matter, it is only yours that is important. Got it.

I've said many times that I think you are by disposition kind, fair and compassionate. That's why I think you are worth all this discussion.

Thank you?

 

[Stoked]

You called me a bigot, OB. How is that NOT hateful?

Edit: to make things more clear--I don't think you had hate as your motivation, just as those who hired white men over black didn't have hate as their motivation in the example you provided. But if the actions can be hateful without the motivations being hateful, then yes, I do think your behavior in this thread has been hateful towards those who are in favor of traditional marriage.

Lol, he has you there One Brow. Nailed you with your own arguement.