iNow Posted April 9, 2009 Posted April 9, 2009 Why are we doing this again with scrappy, and his crappy bigoted posts on homosexuality and same-sex marriage?
Sayonara Posted April 9, 2009 Posted April 9, 2009 Why are we doing this again with scrappy, and his crappy bigoted posts on homosexuality and same-sex marriage? If you are going to make posts like that iNow, it would behove you to explain why they are bigoted. Otherwise you are just going to be attracting infractions.
iNow Posted April 9, 2009 Posted April 9, 2009 Well, for one, he generalizes the entire gay and lesbian community as if they were one homogeneous group with no individual differences. For two, he continues to use harsh labels to describe homosexuals, as opposed to taking a more sterile and scientific label like the rest of us... "homosexuals." This speaks to his underlying motivations, intentions, and beliefs. For three, he continues to equate same sex marriage with polygamy, pedophilia, and all manner of other completely non-sequitur ridiculous associations. For four, I actually learned from the past thread which got locked that this is not a topic he can discuss like an adult and that he will keep everyone going around in circles no matter how long or how many times we correct him. For five, if he were saying the same things about a racial group, he'd have been banned long ago. For six, our posts aren't made in isolation or in a vacuum, so it's not like my suggestion of bigotry is limited to his posts in this one thread. For seven... You get the point.
padren Posted April 9, 2009 Posted April 9, 2009 Once the same-sexers get their full marriage rights they won’t want to share it with the polygamists. They’ll claim they don’t want the polygamists degrading the meaning of their marriages. Pure opinion. There are lots of people with an intense cross-section of beliefs, some religious heterosexuals believe atheists shouldn't be allowed to marry and some atheist heterosexuals believe homosexuals shouldn't be able to marry but any generalizations are pretty unfair. The phrase "degrading the meaning" should be wiped from our vocabularies in the manner that it's being used. Where will it end? This business of marriage is a very fluffy affair. (But the traditional marriage institution is already so badly self-screwed that I’d say all arguable value systems are up for grabs.) When phrases like "degrading the meaning" are wiped from our vocabularies. And actually, all arguable value systems have always been up for grabs as far as I can tell. Well, this matter of choice is asserted by the GLBT community, not by the heteros. They claim that nature made them gay, etc. I'm OK with that. I even suspect genetic origins to their sexual orientations. But I must point out that when gay-ness is completely understood there'll be remedies for reversing it, or switching it around any way you like, and that all sexuality, in the future, will be purely a matter of choice. 1) There is a huge amount of evidence that genetics and/or conditions in the womb set orientation for life. 2) The GLBT crowd is right in the sense that it would be as unpleasant for them to "choose" to be straight as it would be for you to "choose" to be homosexual. Technically you could, but you'd have to deal with some (generally large) degree of constant biological revulsion to maintain that choice.
Mokele Posted April 9, 2009 Posted April 9, 2009 Once the same-sexers get their full marriage rights they won’t want to share it with the polygamists. They’ll claim they don’t want the polygamists degrading the meaning of their marriages. So where's your basis for this sweeping generalization? But I must point out that when gay-ness is completely understood there'll be remedies for reversing it, or switching it around any way you like, and that all sexuality, in the future, will be purely a matter of choice. Not actually - genetic doesn't equal reversible. If you altered the genes associated with limb development in an adult human, there would be no effect - development already happened and locked in the original pattern. Sometimes, once something is built, that's the way it stays.
ecoli Posted April 9, 2009 Posted April 9, 2009 "The issue" being whether or not someone is having their constitutional rights violated. well of course. They want whoever will agree with their narrow worldview to decide the outcome.
scrappy Posted April 9, 2009 Author Posted April 9, 2009 I doubt they will be more inclined than dif-sexers will be. Do you think a homosexual couple MUST support polygamy? Why? For the same reason that heterosexual couples must now, in four states and DC, support "gay marriage." Don't you think polygamy brings about more legal mess than a couple? Yes, it probably would. But, in the name of fairness, civil liberties and whatever ya got, why should we care about adding to the legal mess? Why doesn't "gay marriage" add to the legal mess? Yay!! by then, we should all be blond and blue-eyed. ...and bisexual, too, because that means there will be twice as many people to love.
Sayonara Posted April 9, 2009 Posted April 9, 2009 For the same reason that heterosexual couples must now, in four states and DC, support "gay marriage." What?
scrappy Posted April 9, 2009 Author Posted April 9, 2009 Well, for one, he generalizes... For six, our posts aren't made in isolation or in a vacuum, so it's not like my suggestion of bigotry is limited to his posts in this one thread. As in earlier posts you're losing it again over this notion of bigotry. Anyone who disagrees with you and your opinions is a bigot, and all those who agree with you are saints, of course. I like your attitude; it's simple, convenient, and doesn't require much thinking.
Sayonara Posted April 9, 2009 Posted April 9, 2009 You know, a lot of people are disagreeing with iNow across the forums this week and you're the only one he's suggesting might be bigoted. So your assessment of his attitude might not be right. Anyway, to get back on topic: What?
scrappy Posted April 9, 2009 Author Posted April 9, 2009 For the same reason that heterosexual couples must now, in four states and DC, support "gay marriage." What? The same-sexers will want to close the door on the polygamists for the same reason the dif-sexers wanted to close the door on the same-sexers. And it will be all about protecting the meaning of marriage. Why? Because nothing has changed; it will all play out on the shifting and ambiguous landscape of public opinion. Question: When was the last time you heard a gay person speak out for the marriage rights of other minority groups, too, like the polygamists?
ParanoiA Posted April 9, 2009 Posted April 9, 2009 (edited) For the same reason that heterosexual couples must now, in four states and DC, support "gay marriage." In the same way as the gay couples have always, in 50 states, had to support heterosexual marriage. Yes, it probably would. But, in the name of fairness, civil liberties and whatever ya got, why should we care about adding to the legal mess? Why doesn't "gay marriage" add to the legal mess? I agree. I don't have much concern over the workload created. Look at our legal system and the inefficiency and legal mess created by presuming everyone is innocent at the outset. We don't use that as an excuse to cancel due process, so I don't think we should be too concerned over the legal mess of polygamy, or any other abstract commitment labels dreamed up by the public. The same-sexers will want to close the door on the polygamists for the same reason the dif-sexers wanted to close the door on the same-sexers. And it will be all about protecting the meaning of marriage. Why? Because nothing has changed; it will all play out on the shifting and ambiguous landscape of public opinion. Question: When was the last time you heard a gay person speak out for the marriage rights of other minority groups' date=' too, like the polygamists?[/quote'] I think your prediction is wrong. I don't think they're as proud, nor as traditionally invested in that institution in order to have a strong opinion as to what it truly represents. I could be wrong, and if so, it will be fascinating to watch them make excuses for themselves, while excluding everyone else. And if you think you can then remind them of this hypocrisy to their notice, then you're underestimating the power of the human mind to fool itself. I use the word "fascinating" for a reason. It's like watching god being born. Edited April 9, 2009 by ParanoiA
Sayonara Posted April 9, 2009 Posted April 9, 2009 The same-sexers will want to close the door on the polygamists for the same reason the dif-sexers wanted to close the door on the same-sexers. And it will be all about protecting the meaning of marriage. Why? Because nothing has changed; it will all play out on the shifting and ambiguous landscape of public opinion. What has that got to do with your claim that heterosexuals "must now in four states and DC support gay marriage"? That is what I am "What?"ing. Question: When was the last time you heard a gay person speak out for the marriage rights of other minority groups, too, like the polygamists? What a question. Not that anecdote is evidence in any sense, but in my case this would be never. Before you jump for joy, it is never only because I have not heard anyone speaking out on that issue (that I remember, at least). But what if I had? How am I supposed to record if that person is gay or straight? Assuming of course that I find this to be interesting or relevant in any way whatsoever, which I don't.
scrappy Posted April 9, 2009 Author Posted April 9, 2009 So where's your basis for this sweeping generalization? Human nature and ecological necessity. Not actually - genetic doesn't equal reversible. If you altered the genes associated with limb development in an adult human, there would be no effect - development already happened and locked in the original pattern. Sometimes, once something is built, that's the way it stays. I'm not ready to agree that sexual orientation happens like limb development, but it's OK with me if you are. Limb development arises first from hox genes. Nobody knows yet how sexual orientation develops, but, like you, I suspect it has genetic origins, too. (The X chromosome is a good bet, but the exact location and/or epigenetic influences are elusive.) Just passing it off as "developmental" doesn't go far enough for me
john5746 Posted April 9, 2009 Posted April 9, 2009 For the same reason that heterosexual couples must now, in four states and DC, support "gay marriage." legally, yes. But I was referring to opinion. Homosexual couples, fresh from a struggle for their rights might have more insight, but they are not required to support any other group more than hetero couples. Yes, it probably would. But, in the name of fairness, civil liberties and whatever ya got, why should we care about adding to the legal mess? Why doesn't "gay marriage" add to the legal mess? I am not a lawyer, but we have two parties essentially becoming one entity in certain situations. It looks the same to me. We do need to be concerned about the practical aspects of laws. 1000 people may want to be married, but it just wouldn't make any sense from a legal standpoint. Sure, they can have a spiritual union and have fun together, but legally it would be a mess to sort out disputes, etc.
scrappy Posted April 9, 2009 Author Posted April 9, 2009 What has that got to do with your claim that heterosexuals "must now in four states and DC support gay marriage"? That is what I am "What?"ing. If there are good folks in Iowa now who do not support "same-sex marriage"—per recent Iowa Supreme Court ruling—then they would be categorical bigots who are out to deny the same-sexers their constitutional rights. Therefore, they, those good folks in Iowa, are required by law to support SSM.
Sayonara Posted April 9, 2009 Posted April 9, 2009 We went over this exhaustively in the other thread. You are wrong. Not supporting the ruling is not the same as denying people their rights. They must act in accordance with the law (or fail to do so and expect the consequences), but this says nothing about what they must or must not "support".
scrappy Posted April 9, 2009 Author Posted April 9, 2009 We went over this exhaustively in the other thread. You are wrong. Not supporting the ruling is not the same as denying people their rights. They must act in accordance with the law (or fail to do so and expect the consequences), but this says nothing about what they must or must not "support". “Support” is a tricky word. How ‘bout: “adhere to the principles”? Many of the same-sexers have invoked the separate-but-equal-drinking-fountain metaphor (involving racial differentiation) to support their argument for SSM. Well, I don’t believe very many people want to go back to the days of separate-but-equal drinking fountains. But I do think many people in this country—including many of those of Iowa, Vermont, Massachusetts, and California—differentiate SSM from OSM (opposite-sex marriage) with a lot more prejudice than they differentiate drinking fountains. Maybe they're backwards. But if liberation is a forward-looking movement then I'd like to see the first member of the LGBT community—say, Ellen Degeneres—come out flamin' for polygamy in the name of freedom, liberty and justice for all. Or do they just want theirs and that's all—forget about the rest of the minorities that want liberation, too?
Sayonara Posted April 9, 2009 Posted April 9, 2009 I tend to agree that support is a tricky word; it's very broad in the possible meanings and connotations which can be attached to it. But my point really is that "not supporting" a stance is not the same as opposing it. To be hypocritical in the issue, one would need to support a set of rights for one group but oppose them for another, with the provision that the arguments are the same. If you support those rights for one group and neither support nor oppose them for another, with the arguments being the same, you are being apathetic with respect to the latter case, not hypocritical. My objection to "heterosexuals must now in four states and DC support gay marriage" stems from the errant assumption that heterosexuals are a single homogeneous entity with the same motives, desires, and reasoning. This is clearly not the case, just as it is not the case that all homosexuals actively seek to change (or 'reset' I suppose) the law with respect to same-sex marriage. With regards to championing the cause of polygamous marriages, the point of the current debate about same sex marriages is that there is an objection to the insertion into the law of the requirement for marriage to be between a man and a woman. There is no disagreement that I can see over the number of partners which the law stipulates will be involved. So in your possible scenario where homosexual people who championed same sex marriages meet with universal success, and the law adopts the position that marriage is a union between two people, those people would then need to somehow develop an objection to the union being between two people before they could support polygamous marriage. IOW the arguments are not the same. Perhaps there will be straight and/or gay people who champion polygamous marriage, and perhaps the numbers will increase if and when same sex marriage becomes more universally legally accessible. There are, after all, plenty of straight people who champion various gay rights issues without any obvious benefit to themselves. But there is an issue that must be kept in mind, and that is that "support" does not equate to chances of success. There are more obstacles to polygamy than there are to same sex marriage; we found it difficult in other threads to find rational objections to same sex marriage, yet there is no shortage of arguments against polygamous marriage in this thread. Keep in mind that people often elect not to take a side in battles which don't have a good prospect of being won.
scrappy Posted April 9, 2009 Author Posted April 9, 2009 Question: If a church in Iowa refused to marry gay/lesbian people would it be vulnerable to law suits claiming denial of their constitutional rights?
Mokele Posted April 9, 2009 Posted April 9, 2009 Human nature and ecological necessity. Don't be glib. You've made the sweeping generalization that gay couples will be equally or less likely to favor extending marriage to multiple partners. You have been asked to support this claim by no less than 4 posters, counting myself, and in return, have posted nothing but more vague, unsupported assumptions. Post empirical evidence to support your claim, or retract it. There is no third option.
john5746 Posted April 9, 2009 Posted April 9, 2009 Question: If a church in Iowa refused to marry gay/lesbian people would it be vulnerable to law suits claiming denial of their constitutional rights? That's a good question. I think churches do not have to marry people of other faiths or no faith. I think that is correct. If they didn't want to marry people of different races, then they would probably be open to some can of worms. I'm not sure what would be the case with homosexuals. Now, with adoption, I think they will run into some issues. But I wonder if a catholic church would allow adoption to atheist parents? Never really thought about it.
Sayonara Posted April 9, 2009 Posted April 9, 2009 Question: If a church in Iowa refused to marry gay/lesbian people would it be vulnerable to law suits claiming denial of their constitutional rights? Is this thrown open to everyone or is it some sort of slow-reveal reply to my preceding post? There is no third option. Unless you count PRCS...
scrappy Posted April 9, 2009 Author Posted April 9, 2009 Don't be glib. You've made the sweeping generalization that gay couples will be equally or less likely to favor extending marriage to multiple partners. You have been asked to support this claim by no less than 4 posters, counting myself, and in return, have posted nothing but more vague, unsupported assumptions. Post empirical evidence to support your claim, or retract it. There is no third option. If you know of a single case wherein the SSM crowd called for extending marriage rights to polygamists I'd liked learn about it. The fact is there isn't. I'm afraid in your case absence of evidence IS evidence of absence.
Sayonara Posted April 9, 2009 Posted April 9, 2009 If you know of a single case wherein the SSM crowd called for extending marriage rights to polygamists I'd liked learn about it. ... What is this hive-minded "crowd" you keep talking about?
Recommended Posts