That's fine. But those deep-seated cultural ideas are not homogenous. There are hundreds of different marriage traditions. Marriage has always varied from culture to culture. What right does anybody have to complain about the word being connected to an idea of marriage that is different from theirs? Moreover, why should the government be involved in sanctioning one culture's definition of marriage and not another's?mhosea wrote:The point is that the word is connected to some deep-seated cultural ideas, not actually religious in nature, rather historically condoned and reinforced by religions.
As the election gets near...
Moderator: Available
Okay, good point. Poor choice of words on my part. I didn't mean they should just shut up and keep quiet. Yes, they have every right to complain about this or anything else they want.IJ wrote:Justin, thoughts appreciated, but I think Mike is explaining more than endorsing here. Further, people have EVERY right to complain. It is their right to INSIST that is limited
Indeed, I am not endorsing anything of the sort. Except for being a pro-lifer, I am a social liberal, and I certainly can't find anybody whose inalienable rights need protecting from gay marriage. I suppose I am, however, encouraging a non-judgmental sociological view of what just happened. Courts are supposed to be rational. It would be naive to think of a plebiscite as tapping into some great, rational brain representing us all. For the most part, the vote will be a superposition of many, often inconsistent views after they have been passed through the information-losing filter of precisely what is being voted upon. We might agree, here, that a person should consider each thing objectively and vote according to the best interests of society and in the best interests of fairness and justice for all. This approach will place a limitation on the influence of ones own culture on how one votes. However, I suspect that most voters simply listen to their instincts, their feelings. While perhaps not to be admired, it is natural. The good news is that cultures and the feelings they foster do change over time.
Mike
-
Jason Rees
- Site Admin
- Posts: 1754
- Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2007 11:06 am
- Location: USA
I'm with you in condemning them, Jason, but a more accurate title would have been Liberal Extremist Tolerance. These handfuls of wackos are several standard deviations off the mean and they're no more instructive to the debate than a link to "Rev" Fred Phelps church page.
The good news is I've seen reports on / been to protests with literally tens of thousands of people now and they're all described as orderly. There was one sign with profanity on it but I wasn't able to make it over to ask the owner to take it down. Oh well; exceptions prove the rule.
The good news is I've seen reports on / been to protests with literally tens of thousands of people now and they're all described as orderly. There was one sign with profanity on it but I wasn't able to make it over to ask the owner to take it down. Oh well; exceptions prove the rule.
--Ian
IJ
I'd ask if you could possible pull in the hyperbole just a bit......but since I know for a fact you can't........
First off......if you'll forgive the religious reference your essentially preaching to the choir here on the issue of gay marriage........I think gays should have the same right to as happy or misrable in their marriges as stright people.
Just trying to help you grasp why the Yes on 8 folks won this round.
"Nobody is listening to the 8 people......absurd"
See, your wanting to look at the denotative meaning of the word "listening" and claim that your correct because they "recieve tons of press"....when the implication of my posit was more conotative.....perhaps I should have said "some respect for their views."
Spinning the issue as "they still have all their relgion, association etc" not only frames the issue incorrectly but fails to deal with my essential points.
Try it like this---the Left wails and bemoans and rants and outrages at the smallest bit of preceived intolerence toward the relgion of the terrosists locked up in Gitmo.....mere reports of someone handleing a Koran in a disrespecful fashion send the Left into fits of rage.
And lets not not forget that many of these people are violent people that belive that gays shold be killed for the supposed crime of being gay.......among other murderous POV's.
With that in mind I turn on the TV last night and I watch gay protestors tear a cross out of the hands of a little old lady and then the mob took turns stomping all over it.
It seems that embracing tolernce and treating relgious people with some degree of respect for their beliefs does not apply to ones fellow citizens. People that live next door, people that work hard the same way we do.
Mass murdering terrorist?..........You deserve total respect and any disrespect to your beliefs and relgion--no matter how much we disagree with some of its tenets, we must defend you to the upmost....indeed the Left often pontificates about trating such people with all respect and legal protection is the hallmark of our civilization.
Yet we don't seen to want to extend anywhere close to the same level of tolerence to fellow citizens...the people that live next door.
I'm sure that you want to argue this....feel free...just trying to frame the issue in a manner you can understand.
"Ok, so I shouldn't ask for claims that marriage should be equal unless I tolerate the view that my rights should be restricted."
Nope, that is not what I suggested at all........I'm saying you can't fight intolerence with more intolerence.
Relgious people (and I am not one BTW) feel that they are under attack from all sides......just off the top of my head:
-Bill Mahr just made a feature length movie mocking relgious people---and he mocks them every night on his show.
You think you could get a similar movie made or shown in theaters that mocked gays?
You think you could mock gays nightly on HBO and still keep your job?
-People disrupt Mass
-Get grants to dunk images of Christ in Urine and call it "art"..........Dunk a Koran in urine at Gitmo and see what happens.
-People make images of Mary out of feces and call it "art"
-Just last night people were assaulting little old ladies and stomping on crosses.
And you wonder why the 8 People won???........Seriously????
Spin as you like here IJ.........as usual I'm right here......but also as usual you would prefer to argue with me than take a hard look at the game plan and make some much needed changes.
If the same sort of argumenative people such as yourself would have listened to people just trying to help....like me....the vote would have gone much differently.[/i]
I'd ask if you could possible pull in the hyperbole just a bit......but since I know for a fact you can't........
First off......if you'll forgive the religious reference
your essentially preaching to the choir here on the issue of gay marriage........I think gays should have the same right to as happy or misrable in their marriges as stright people.Just trying to help you grasp why the Yes on 8 folks won this round.
"Nobody is listening to the 8 people......absurd"
See, your wanting to look at the denotative meaning of the word "listening" and claim that your correct because they "recieve tons of press"....when the implication of my posit was more conotative.....perhaps I should have said "some respect for their views."
Spinning the issue as "they still have all their relgion, association etc" not only frames the issue incorrectly but fails to deal with my essential points.
Try it like this---the Left wails and bemoans and rants and outrages at the smallest bit of preceived intolerence toward the relgion of the terrosists locked up in Gitmo.....mere reports of someone handleing a Koran in a disrespecful fashion send the Left into fits of rage.
And lets not not forget that many of these people are violent people that belive that gays shold be killed for the supposed crime of being gay.......among other murderous POV's.
With that in mind I turn on the TV last night and I watch gay protestors tear a cross out of the hands of a little old lady and then the mob took turns stomping all over it.
It seems that embracing tolernce and treating relgious people with some degree of respect for their beliefs does not apply to ones fellow citizens. People that live next door, people that work hard the same way we do.
Mass murdering terrorist?..........You deserve total respect and any disrespect to your beliefs and relgion--no matter how much we disagree with some of its tenets, we must defend you to the upmost....indeed the Left often pontificates about trating such people with all respect and legal protection is the hallmark of our civilization.
Yet we don't seen to want to extend anywhere close to the same level of tolerence to fellow citizens...the people that live next door.
I'm sure that you want to argue this....feel free...just trying to frame the issue in a manner you can understand.
"Ok, so I shouldn't ask for claims that marriage should be equal unless I tolerate the view that my rights should be restricted."
Nope, that is not what I suggested at all........I'm saying you can't fight intolerence with more intolerence.
Relgious people (and I am not one BTW) feel that they are under attack from all sides......just off the top of my head:
-Bill Mahr just made a feature length movie mocking relgious people---and he mocks them every night on his show.
You think you could get a similar movie made or shown in theaters that mocked gays?
You think you could mock gays nightly on HBO and still keep your job?
-People disrupt Mass
-Get grants to dunk images of Christ in Urine and call it "art"..........Dunk a Koran in urine at Gitmo and see what happens.
-People make images of Mary out of feces and call it "art"
-Just last night people were assaulting little old ladies and stomping on crosses.
And you wonder why the 8 People won???........Seriously????
Spin as you like here IJ.........as usual I'm right here......but also as usual
you would prefer to argue with me than take a hard look at the game plan and make some much needed changes.If the same sort of argumenative people such as yourself would have listened to people just trying to help....like me....the vote would have gone much differently.[/i]
Forget #6, you are now serving nonsense.
HH
HH
Your post was a lengthy theory on why 8 won. I actually don't need any education on why 8 won. Voting for something like 8 is the standard model; that's how almost everyone used to feel and how the majority feels. 8 won because the swing to support from opposition has not yet reached 50% in California. It's that simple.
Interestingly, I have not heard a single mention of the "piss christ" art, the poop mary, or the contrasting outrage about koran defamation at Gitmo in any of the dozens of newspaper articles or interviews I have seen on the matter. Neither has it come up in hundreds and hundreds of pages on local newspaper forums about Prop 8 related stories. I therefore think you are really overestimating the impact these isolated and increasingly remote events ("Piss Christ" was from 1989!) had on anyone. You are working from a theory, however, that religious people (and I would say people with conservative social upbringing who don't base their objections in religion or do so only loosely, as well) feel that their values and culture are under attack and that they must retaliate to prevent them from being overrun. THAT'S hardly debatable... that is the fundamental purpose of reclaiming the word marriage and was the message of a campaign which said that tolerance of same sex unions is contrary to family, children, and key social values in general (as defined by them).
While I'm not saying YOU were endorsing the equivalence of the cross defamation and the koran defamation, and while others DO find such an apparent contradiction upsetting, it's worth noting the difference between having a government desecrate a religious symbol for the purposes of playing with detainees' minds, and a citizen desecrating a symbol in an act of protected speech. The USA ought to permit the desecration of the Koran in "art" and critiques of the religion, and have a consistent policy about the treatment of prisoner's religions, eg, if a Christian terrorist was the "victim" in question.
It's an interesting point you make about a feature length movie attacking gay people... certainly there's no ban on one, but I'm sure it would catch a lot of flack if it came to the theatres. Probably there would be protests from people who caught a showing of "Religilous" at the same theatre, and probably they wouldn't even understand their error. If it makes you feel better, *I* am always happy to take on the excesses of the LGBT community, and I can refer you to films that mock gay people. Sadly they're made by gay people and display the worst aspects of "gay" "culture" that are out there... I saw one last night and the acting and the premises were so horrible I would have turned it off if a friend of a friend didn't have a role in creating it. Now I just have to think of truthful but not overly critical things to say about it...
Interestingly, I have not heard a single mention of the "piss christ" art, the poop mary, or the contrasting outrage about koran defamation at Gitmo in any of the dozens of newspaper articles or interviews I have seen on the matter. Neither has it come up in hundreds and hundreds of pages on local newspaper forums about Prop 8 related stories. I therefore think you are really overestimating the impact these isolated and increasingly remote events ("Piss Christ" was from 1989!) had on anyone. You are working from a theory, however, that religious people (and I would say people with conservative social upbringing who don't base their objections in religion or do so only loosely, as well) feel that their values and culture are under attack and that they must retaliate to prevent them from being overrun. THAT'S hardly debatable... that is the fundamental purpose of reclaiming the word marriage and was the message of a campaign which said that tolerance of same sex unions is contrary to family, children, and key social values in general (as defined by them).
While I'm not saying YOU were endorsing the equivalence of the cross defamation and the koran defamation, and while others DO find such an apparent contradiction upsetting, it's worth noting the difference between having a government desecrate a religious symbol for the purposes of playing with detainees' minds, and a citizen desecrating a symbol in an act of protected speech. The USA ought to permit the desecration of the Koran in "art" and critiques of the religion, and have a consistent policy about the treatment of prisoner's religions, eg, if a Christian terrorist was the "victim" in question.
It's an interesting point you make about a feature length movie attacking gay people... certainly there's no ban on one, but I'm sure it would catch a lot of flack if it came to the theatres. Probably there would be protests from people who caught a showing of "Religilous" at the same theatre, and probably they wouldn't even understand their error. If it makes you feel better, *I* am always happy to take on the excesses of the LGBT community, and I can refer you to films that mock gay people. Sadly they're made by gay people and display the worst aspects of "gay" "culture" that are out there... I saw one last night and the acting and the premises were so horrible I would have turned it off if a friend of a friend didn't have a role in creating it. Now I just have to think of truthful but not overly critical things to say about it...
--Ian
IJ
So are you saying you never heard of them before or just that you heard nobody you know talking about them now?
Kinda of big difference there.
Besides I was merely trying to help you grasp that your not the only folks that can feel persecuted...........and unless and until you do grasp that....its just going to get worse.
And again rather than even trying to understand the possible feelings of others you'd rather argue and parse and spin with me.
Its not really a logical matter on their part....... its a feeling.
Just like its not logical to you either----but of course you care nothing for the feelings of anyone else.
"there is a difference between having a government desecrate a symbol and a civilian desecracting a symbol in a act of protected speech"
True......but that is pure spin and framed incorrectly with the context of the point.
Nobody is talking about the legality of the desecration....the question in context is the feelings of the people whose sacred relgious symbols are being desecated.
Its really not a case of parsed logic or debate trickery here IJ........its how people feel.
If you can't or won't understand that----there is little I can do for you.
"would catch a lot of flack"
Nope such a gay bashing film would never be made this day and age (and thank god for that) ---certainly not with a guy like Mahr fronting it and it would never be shown in normal movie channels as was Mahr's anti relgious mock fest.
Stuff like that is, IMO, a main driver for why it failed-----lots of people feel persecuted these days........the No8 folks should have been spending their time buliding bridges and standing up for their fellow citizens who belive they are being persecuted------if they are silent or even worse supportive while others feel they are being attacked---then how can they expect others to help when they are feeling attacked?
Case in point---take you and me.......don't know how many times I have to say that I'm on your side on this issue...I think gays should have the same right to be happy or unhappy in their marriages as any stright folks.
I seriously don't think its a matter for the Courts-----but I'm on your side here.......and yet you deal with me in a nasty tone and insult me......and I'm on your side.....I may be a real SOB, but I would never hold your attitude towards me against others.......but many people would....and quite resonably too.
Our little go arounds here are a really, really, really, really, really, really, really, small screen version of why No8 failed----many other reasons of course.......but this kind of thing couldn't be helping.
Just like all the people that allowed that little old lady to be assaulted and her cross ripped from her hands and then stomped on......what should have been done was a group of gays defending her, helping pick her up, giving her back her cross---then telling the media that nobody should be attacked for their beliefs--including her.
Instead you get horrible press and a clip that is going to run each and every time this issue comes up----and the relgious folks are not going to forget it either.
Nor are they going to forget the Morman Church that was vandalized and the Book of Morman that was set on fire.
Intolerence comes in many forms.
So are you saying you never heard of them before or just that you heard nobody you know talking about them now?
Kinda of big difference there.
Besides I was merely trying to help you grasp that your not the only folks that can feel persecuted...........and unless and until you do grasp that....its just going to get worse.
And again rather than even trying to understand the possible feelings of others you'd rather argue and parse and spin with me.
Its not really a logical matter on their part....... its a feeling.
Just like its not logical to you either----but of course you care nothing for the feelings of anyone else.
"there is a difference between having a government desecrate a symbol and a civilian desecracting a symbol in a act of protected speech"
True......but that is pure spin and framed incorrectly with the context of the point.
Nobody is talking about the legality of the desecration....the question in context is the feelings of the people whose sacred relgious symbols are being desecated.
Its really not a case of parsed logic or debate trickery here IJ........its how people feel.
If you can't or won't understand that----there is little I can do for you.
"would catch a lot of flack"
Nope such a gay bashing film would never be made this day and age (and thank god for that) ---certainly not with a guy like Mahr fronting it and it would never be shown in normal movie channels as was Mahr's anti relgious mock fest.
Stuff like that is, IMO, a main driver for why it failed-----lots of people feel persecuted these days........the No8 folks should have been spending their time buliding bridges and standing up for their fellow citizens who belive they are being persecuted------if they are silent or even worse supportive while others feel they are being attacked---then how can they expect others to help when they are feeling attacked?
Case in point---take you and me.......don't know how many times I have to say that I'm on your side on this issue...I think gays should have the same right to be happy or unhappy in their marriages as any stright folks.
I seriously don't think its a matter for the Courts-----but I'm on your side here.......and yet you deal with me in a nasty tone and insult me......and I'm on your side.....I may be a real SOB, but I would never hold your attitude towards me against others.......but many people would....and quite resonably too.
Our little go arounds here are a really, really, really, really, really, really, really, small screen version of why No8 failed----many other reasons of course.......but this kind of thing couldn't be helping.
Just like all the people that allowed that little old lady to be assaulted and her cross ripped from her hands and then stomped on......what should have been done was a group of gays defending her, helping pick her up, giving her back her cross---then telling the media that nobody should be attacked for their beliefs--including her.
Instead you get horrible press and a clip that is going to run each and every time this issue comes up----and the relgious folks are not going to forget it either.
Nor are they going to forget the Morman Church that was vandalized and the Book of Morman that was set on fire.
Intolerence comes in many forms.
Forget #6, you are now serving nonsense.
HH
HH
"So are you saying you never heard of them before or just that you heard nobody you know talking about them now?"
I'm saying what I said--they're remote events and there is no evidence they're on anyone's minds. I didn't say just people " know " (personally), I also made it clear that I was referring to all the news (articles, posters, forum comments and quotes on TV, etc) on the matter. People aren't worried about Piss Christ right now. I think it would get a "1" on Family Feud or something.
"Besides I was merely trying to help you grasp that your [sic] not the only folks that can feel persecuted...........and unless and until you do grasp that....its just going to get worse. And again rather than even trying to understand the possible feelings of others you'd rather argue and parse and spin with me."
I think you just need to argue a bit. No worries, I've been there too. I think I was pretty clear that I don't buy that Piss Christ and those other anecdotes are on the minds of the Yeson8 people. That's with good reason--they're remote, some are only tangentially related, and they simply have not been mentioned by individuals who had plenty of chances. Then I said I do understand that they feel that their values are threatened. I even said it was "hardly debatable." I agreed with your thesis, so, not sure what else you need here... all the while, I've been grasping how the Yes side feels, but arguing that this is about rights and legitimate government motives not feelings or supporting a religion's view. This doesn't mean I "care nothing for the feelings of anyone else." That's an just an unture and unfounded personal dig--yawn. And it's not going to "get worse;" it's continually getting better. I've explained how in several posts.
As for the difference between government desecrating religious symbols, and individuals doing the same as a matter of speech, that's hardly "spin." Rules like the Geneva convention (I am personally unaware if they comment on desecrating symbols--anyone know?) govern how we hold prisoners and treat them, while citizens are free to argue we shouldn't abuse religious symbols for interrogation purposes because they think its wrong and because it engenders ill will toward the USA; the Constitution limits interference with speech. If bringing those issues up is "spin" to you, well, I suggest never watching c-span or reading a court opinion. As I said before, I'm well aware that people "feel" a certain way about this, but what would you like me to do about that? I understand (regardless of your protestations) people may "feel" that it's wrong for the same people to protest interrogative religious symbol abuse and permit or celebrate the freedom to do so in the course of art/speech. But.... too bad, if they don't understand the issues at play. That's what debates are, people taking turns giving their opinions about issues, and here, logic says those feelings are wrong. If we all just capitulate to those feelings, I don't see progress, and if we don't capitulate to those feelings, they're going to feel wronged--some people will feel wronged if the policy doesn't come out in line with their views, no matter what--those will be the eggs broken in the making of this omelette.
"Nope such a gay bashing film would never be made this day and age (and thank god for that) ---certainly not with a guy like Mahr fronting it and it would never be shown in normal movie channels as was Mahr's anti relgious mock fest."
Well, I'm not afraid of speech. If someone can put together a movie full of gay people making themselves look foolish, that's protected speech, and probably well-deserved commentary. As I've said many a time, there ARE plenty of current, relevant, fair critiques of some aspects of "gay culture." Maher's movie was like gay marriage--those who didn't want one (to see it) don't have to get one (go see it). I thought he DID expose real flaws in religious thinking (on many fronts--Jewish, Christian, Muslim, and other). I wouldn't want to live in a country where those points were squashed. It did also occur to me that the Maher movie was about IDEAS not PEOPLE. Gay people are people, no matter what they do or say, and that identity is far more immutable than religious affiliation. A movie critiquing certain modes of gay thought or their culture would be far more appropriate than one attacking gay PEOPLE--because of who they are, not what they think, do, or say.
You think the Noon8 people should have stuck up for people who felt their religions were under attack, and that maybe 8 would have failed if we did. I agree in part. Being offensive and oppositional isn't the way to go. BUT I cannot convince some Yeson8 supporters that I stand with them against attacks on their religions when the primary reason they feel attacked is the existence of gay marriage! Either we're for gay marriage or we're not. And since I'm not aware of any situations in which those religious people need my vote or support (eg, any props or bills under consideration that take away their rights) all I can do to support the middle ground is criticize the excesses of some LGBs, support the position that the state should get out of marriages entirely so churches don't feel cramped by the state, and stick up for freedom of speech and religion--which I've done, consistently.
On 11/4 I ran into bunches of 8 supporters, and I was exceedingly nice to all of them. I was polite and restrained with everyone, dressed neatly in a shirt and tie, and didn't scream any slogans about gays and lesbians. I told people I would appreciate their vote for equality, that 8 eliminates rights, that our republican govenor and Obama opposed 8, and answers questions honestly and politely. What else would you like me to do? I ran into one Catholic lady who told me she was conflicted--I didn't tell her she was bad or her church was wrong, I told her Catholic Spain was doing well with same sex marriage and suggested 8 was like using the Constitution to ban birthcontrol; voting no on 8 wasn't endorsing gay marriages, just leaving it up to individuals. She thanked me and said she felt much better about voting NO. Don't assume that because WE argue I'm abrasive to everyone I meet; no one else tells me they know more about gay activism than gay activists and more medical ethics than medical ethicists.
"What should have been done was a group of gays defending her, helping pick her up, giving her back her cross---then telling the media that nobody should be attacked for their beliefs."
And I've been saying THAT kind of stuff since our solar system was a whirling cloud of hydrogen and dust 5 billion years ago. So, hooray? We agree?
I'm saying what I said--they're remote events and there is no evidence they're on anyone's minds. I didn't say just people " know " (personally), I also made it clear that I was referring to all the news (articles, posters, forum comments and quotes on TV, etc) on the matter. People aren't worried about Piss Christ right now. I think it would get a "1" on Family Feud or something.
"Besides I was merely trying to help you grasp that your [sic] not the only folks that can feel persecuted...........and unless and until you do grasp that....its just going to get worse. And again rather than even trying to understand the possible feelings of others you'd rather argue and parse and spin with me."
I think you just need to argue a bit. No worries, I've been there too. I think I was pretty clear that I don't buy that Piss Christ and those other anecdotes are on the minds of the Yeson8 people. That's with good reason--they're remote, some are only tangentially related, and they simply have not been mentioned by individuals who had plenty of chances. Then I said I do understand that they feel that their values are threatened. I even said it was "hardly debatable." I agreed with your thesis, so, not sure what else you need here... all the while, I've been grasping how the Yes side feels, but arguing that this is about rights and legitimate government motives not feelings or supporting a religion's view. This doesn't mean I "care nothing for the feelings of anyone else." That's an just an unture and unfounded personal dig--yawn. And it's not going to "get worse;" it's continually getting better. I've explained how in several posts.
As for the difference between government desecrating religious symbols, and individuals doing the same as a matter of speech, that's hardly "spin." Rules like the Geneva convention (I am personally unaware if they comment on desecrating symbols--anyone know?) govern how we hold prisoners and treat them, while citizens are free to argue we shouldn't abuse religious symbols for interrogation purposes because they think its wrong and because it engenders ill will toward the USA; the Constitution limits interference with speech. If bringing those issues up is "spin" to you, well, I suggest never watching c-span or reading a court opinion. As I said before, I'm well aware that people "feel" a certain way about this, but what would you like me to do about that? I understand (regardless of your protestations) people may "feel" that it's wrong for the same people to protest interrogative religious symbol abuse and permit or celebrate the freedom to do so in the course of art/speech. But.... too bad, if they don't understand the issues at play. That's what debates are, people taking turns giving their opinions about issues, and here, logic says those feelings are wrong. If we all just capitulate to those feelings, I don't see progress, and if we don't capitulate to those feelings, they're going to feel wronged--some people will feel wronged if the policy doesn't come out in line with their views, no matter what--those will be the eggs broken in the making of this omelette.
"Nope such a gay bashing film would never be made this day and age (and thank god for that) ---certainly not with a guy like Mahr fronting it and it would never be shown in normal movie channels as was Mahr's anti relgious mock fest."
Well, I'm not afraid of speech. If someone can put together a movie full of gay people making themselves look foolish, that's protected speech, and probably well-deserved commentary. As I've said many a time, there ARE plenty of current, relevant, fair critiques of some aspects of "gay culture." Maher's movie was like gay marriage--those who didn't want one (to see it) don't have to get one (go see it). I thought he DID expose real flaws in religious thinking (on many fronts--Jewish, Christian, Muslim, and other). I wouldn't want to live in a country where those points were squashed. It did also occur to me that the Maher movie was about IDEAS not PEOPLE. Gay people are people, no matter what they do or say, and that identity is far more immutable than religious affiliation. A movie critiquing certain modes of gay thought or their culture would be far more appropriate than one attacking gay PEOPLE--because of who they are, not what they think, do, or say.
You think the Noon8 people should have stuck up for people who felt their religions were under attack, and that maybe 8 would have failed if we did. I agree in part. Being offensive and oppositional isn't the way to go. BUT I cannot convince some Yeson8 supporters that I stand with them against attacks on their religions when the primary reason they feel attacked is the existence of gay marriage! Either we're for gay marriage or we're not. And since I'm not aware of any situations in which those religious people need my vote or support (eg, any props or bills under consideration that take away their rights) all I can do to support the middle ground is criticize the excesses of some LGBs, support the position that the state should get out of marriages entirely so churches don't feel cramped by the state, and stick up for freedom of speech and religion--which I've done, consistently.
On 11/4 I ran into bunches of 8 supporters, and I was exceedingly nice to all of them. I was polite and restrained with everyone, dressed neatly in a shirt and tie, and didn't scream any slogans about gays and lesbians. I told people I would appreciate their vote for equality, that 8 eliminates rights, that our republican govenor and Obama opposed 8, and answers questions honestly and politely. What else would you like me to do? I ran into one Catholic lady who told me she was conflicted--I didn't tell her she was bad or her church was wrong, I told her Catholic Spain was doing well with same sex marriage and suggested 8 was like using the Constitution to ban birthcontrol; voting no on 8 wasn't endorsing gay marriages, just leaving it up to individuals. She thanked me and said she felt much better about voting NO. Don't assume that because WE argue I'm abrasive to everyone I meet; no one else tells me they know more about gay activism than gay activists and more medical ethics than medical ethicists.
"What should have been done was a group of gays defending her, helping pick her up, giving her back her cross---then telling the media that nobody should be attacked for their beliefs."
And I've been saying THAT kind of stuff since our solar system was a whirling cloud of hydrogen and dust 5 billion years ago. So, hooray? We agree?
--Ian
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metr ... march.html
20-25,000 protestors marched peacefully through the city. One person was arrested for inciting a fight--I'm pleased to report it was a Prop 8 supporter.
20-25,000 protestors marched peacefully through the city. One person was arrested for inciting a fight--I'm pleased to report it was a Prop 8 supporter.
--Ian
-
Jason Rees
- Site Admin
- Posts: 1754
- Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2007 11:06 am
- Location: USA
-
Bill Glasheen
- Posts: 17299
- Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
- Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY
Ian
I have to say that cxt makes a point about the hipocracy of liberal thinkers. Bill Maher indeed is the poster child of this kind of activity, and he gets lots of support for his show, his "art", and his points of view.
Does anyone remember the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy? Do you think Bill Maher would have the balls similarly to defame Muhammad in his movie? And yet he'd be the first to be all over the detention of non-combattants at Gitmo, and how we insulted them by desecrating their Korans.
It's like this, Ian. When you raise your hands around a dog that's been beaten, it cowers. Sure, sure, YOU didn't beat the dog. And yet it still cowers when you matter-of-factly raise your hands.
So why should anyone be surprised that Christians and Mormons are organizing against something that they perceive is an attack on "their" institution? Intolerance begats intolerance. That's the way I see it.
- Bill
I have to say that cxt makes a point about the hipocracy of liberal thinkers. Bill Maher indeed is the poster child of this kind of activity, and he gets lots of support for his show, his "art", and his points of view.
- Bill MaherI'd like to tip off law enforcement to an even larger child-abusing religious cult. Its leader also has a compound, and this guy not only operates outside the bounds of the law, but he used to be a Nazi and he wears funny hats. That's right, the Pope is coming to America this week and, ladies, he's single."
Does anyone remember the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy? Do you think Bill Maher would have the balls similarly to defame Muhammad in his movie? And yet he'd be the first to be all over the detention of non-combattants at Gitmo, and how we insulted them by desecrating their Korans.
It's like this, Ian. When you raise your hands around a dog that's been beaten, it cowers. Sure, sure, YOU didn't beat the dog. And yet it still cowers when you matter-of-factly raise your hands.
So why should anyone be surprised that Christians and Mormons are organizing against something that they perceive is an attack on "their" institution? Intolerance begats intolerance. That's the way I see it.
- Bill
-
Jason Rees
- Site Admin
- Posts: 1754
- Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2007 11:06 am
- Location: USA
IJ
"there is no evidence they was on anyones minds"
Sure IJ, just ignore the cultural context because nobody specificially pointed to it and said that is why they voted
Besides, what do you know about what was being talked about and discussed in CA Churchs?...Or Churchs in general?
"people arent worried about Piss Christ right now"
Well, that certainly clears that up.....good thing you can authoritativly speak for 100,000's of Christains in CA and be able to tell me what all those people care about.
"I don't buy it (Piss Christ etc)....they're remote"
"Remote" to you---which is part and parcel of the problem here.....you refuse to even consider other peoples feelings......so did the No8 groups and look how that turned out.
Of course its "spin".......your changeing the framing of it AGAIN the statement was not to the legality of various acts........it was not to if the governmen tor private citizens committed the desecration of sacred relgious objects etc.....the point was on how people FELT about said desacrations.
NOBODY was talking about the government...I was trying to help you understand peoples feelings.
Try it like this....there is little substantive difference between a State sanctioned "marriege" and the rights, duties, privlages obtainable thu a CU/DP---yet I serously doubt that invoking that logic is going to change how you feel on this issue. ........same for the relgious people that feel that they too are under attack.
"I'm not afraid of speech"
Wonderful.......me neither....but that is besides the point making movies mocking gays would likely be preceived as hate speech in this nation---making movies mocking Christains.....and the public mockery of Christains in general is largely accepted.
"Don't assume that because we argue"
I didn't......I was making a larger point....but again, you take what was pretty good advice and turn it into an argument.
"I have been saying that kind of stuff.........(etc)
Wonderful-----did you perhaps get it on the evening news like the gays that assaulted that old lady and took terns stamping on her cross?
Or like the gays that rushed the podium of church in MI that was live shooting their weekly broadcast?
The message that is getting out their IJ is one of intolerence towards Christians----and as long as that is the cultural context....there are going to be problems.
"no one else tells me they know......more"
Of course not---you seemingly live in an echo chamber where you seldom if ever hear any conflicting views or opinions other than your own ideological rants.
And its not really that I "know more"......its that most ideological driven arguements are often poorly reasoned and poorly constructed----they really only work if you buy into the underlying POV/ideology....since I'm objective to a fault, I don't have that problem, so its much easier for me to see the fundemental problems
"there is no evidence they was on anyones minds"
Sure IJ, just ignore the cultural context because nobody specificially pointed to it and said that is why they voted
Besides, what do you know about what was being talked about and discussed in CA Churchs?...Or Churchs in general?
"people arent worried about Piss Christ right now"
Well, that certainly clears that up.....good thing you can authoritativly speak for 100,000's of Christains in CA and be able to tell me what all those people care about.
"I don't buy it (Piss Christ etc)....they're remote"
"Remote" to you---which is part and parcel of the problem here.....you refuse to even consider other peoples feelings......so did the No8 groups and look how that turned out.
Of course its "spin".......your changeing the framing of it AGAIN the statement was not to the legality of various acts........it was not to if the governmen tor private citizens committed the desecration of sacred relgious objects etc.....the point was on how people FELT about said desacrations.
NOBODY was talking about the government...I was trying to help you understand peoples feelings.
Try it like this....there is little substantive difference between a State sanctioned "marriege" and the rights, duties, privlages obtainable thu a CU/DP---yet I serously doubt that invoking that logic is going to change how you feel on this issue.
........same for the relgious people that feel that they too are under attack."I'm not afraid of speech"
Wonderful.......me neither....but that is besides the point making movies mocking gays would likely be preceived as hate speech in this nation---making movies mocking Christains.....and the public mockery of Christains in general is largely accepted.
"Don't assume that because we argue"
I didn't......I was making a larger point....but again, you take what was pretty good advice and turn it into an argument.
"I have been saying that kind of stuff.........(etc)
Wonderful-----did you perhaps get it on the evening news like the gays that assaulted that old lady and took terns stamping on her cross?
Or like the gays that rushed the podium of church in MI that was live shooting their weekly broadcast?
The message that is getting out their IJ is one of intolerence towards Christians----and as long as that is the cultural context....there are going to be problems.
"no one else tells me they know......more"
Of course not---you seemingly live in an echo chamber where you seldom if ever hear any conflicting views or opinions other than your own ideological rants.
And its not really that I "know more"......its that most ideological driven arguements are often poorly reasoned and poorly constructed----they really only work if you buy into the underlying POV/ideology....since I'm objective to a fault, I don't have that problem, so its much easier for me to see the fundemental problems
Forget #6, you are now serving nonsense.
HH
HH
