EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on May 11, 2012 12:32:13 GMT -5
There you go again. Anyone who disagrees with you on this issue is a bigot. Because you disagree with me and others on the subject of religion, does that make you a bigot?
|
|
|
|
Post by Problem of Dog on May 11, 2012 12:56:41 GMT -5
There you go again. Anyone who disagrees with you on this issue is a bigot. Because you disagree with me and others on the subject of religion, does that make you a bigot? Does it not seem bigoted to you? Has the history of this nation not shown that people who are on the wrong side of issues of civil rights, particularly as they evolve through time, end up looking like bigots? Whether you like it or not, as these kids get older, the measures to make gay marriage legal pass and the people so fervently against these measures die off, you will be remembered as a bigot. |
|
Elvado
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,080
|
Post by Elvado on May 11, 2012 13:09:52 GMT -5
There you go again. Anyone who disagrees with you on this issue is a bigot. Because you disagree with me and others on the subject of religion, does that make you a bigot? Does it not seem bigoted to you? Has the history of this nation not shown that people who are on the wrong side of issues of civil rights, particularly as they evolve through time, end up looking like bigots? Whether you like it or not, as these kids get older, the measures to make gay marriage legal pass and the people so fervently against these measures die off, you will be remembered as a bigot. I think bigot is a bit harsh. It leaves out the possibility that one can make a principled stand which turns out to be against the later developments of history. Here, where one is dealing with an issue with such religious overtones, it is a bit risky to describe those with an opposite view as bigots. It is a something like a pro-lifer calling a pro-choice person a "baby killer". |
|
hoyaLS05
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,652
|
Post by hoyaLS05 on May 11, 2012 13:31:51 GMT -5
But all the same arguments in favor of allowing two people in love to get married apply to three people in love getting married. The # of people in the relationship is irrelevant. The problem is that polygamy tends not to be consensual. It's actually a pretty good proxy for a non-consensual marriage. Just like arranged marriages. Polygamy is like communism--it works in theory. If polygamy tended to be as consensual as gay marriage is, I wouldn't have a problem with the state recognizing it. This, of course, assumes we aren't going to force churches to recognize marriages they feel go against their beliefs. I hesitate to further respond to the "if gay marriage, why not polygamy" argument because I find it to be inane and probably disrespectful, but the other response I have heard, in addition to TBird's, is that the desire to have multiple spouses does not arise out of a biological attraction, whereas, though I bet someone is going to make the argument that being gay is simply a decision one makes one day, there is sound science to suggest that the desire to have a spouse of the same sex does arise out of a biological attraction. I cannot personally vouch for said science, but that is a compelling argument I have heard to knock down the polygamy comparison. |
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,480
|
Post by TC on May 11, 2012 13:49:21 GMT -5
I think bigot is a bit harsh. It leaves out the possibility that one can make a principled stand which turns out to be against the later developments of history. Like what, George Wallace? History isn't kind to losers. A lot of people (like for instance, Bill Clinton for DOMA and DADT) are going to be looked on unkindly in this area when all is said and done, even if they were not bigots. |
|
DFW HOYA
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,911
|
Post by DFW HOYA on May 11, 2012 13:57:20 GMT -5
I think bigot is a bit harsh. It leaves out the possibility that one can make a principled stand which turns out to be against the later developments of history. Agreed. A quick example: "[This] was supported by many prominent persons, including: its president Leonard Darwin, the son of Charles Darwin; honorary vice-president Winston Churchill, then First Lord of the Admiralty and future Prime Minister of the United Kingdom; Auguste Forel, famous Swiss pathologist; Alexander Graham Bell, the inventor of the telephone; among other prominent people." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics |
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on May 11, 2012 14:28:54 GMT -5
The problem is that polygamy tends not to be consensual. It's actually a pretty good proxy for a non-consensual marriage. Just like arranged marriages. Polygamy is like communism--it works in theory. If polygamy tended to be as consensual as gay marriage is, I wouldn't have a problem with the state recognizing it. This, of course, assumes we aren't going to force churches to recognize marriages they feel go against their beliefs. I hesitate to further respond to the "if gay marriage, why not polygamy" argument because I find it to be inane and probably disrespectful, but the other response I have heard, in addition to TBird's, is that the desire to have multiple spouses does not arise out of a biological attraction, whereas, though I bet someone is going to make the argument that being gay is simply a decision one makes one day, there is sound science to suggest that the desire to have a spouse of the same sex does arise out of a biological attraction. I cannot personally vouch for said science, but that is a compelling argument I have heard to knock down the polygamy comparison. So you're saying that everyone who ever gotten married does so solely because of a biological attraction? That would be news to a lot of people. |
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on May 11, 2012 14:33:23 GMT -5
Does it not dawn on any of the anti-marriage peeps that one day their kids and grandkids are going to look on them like many of us look at our biggotted grandparents as regards race? When the writing is on the wall, man-up and re-evaluate whether supporting the imposition of liberty restrictions on people who you will never meet and whose actions will not impact you at all is worth looking so ignorant to anyone with a college degree. Jump on the winning team here. You don't look valiant going down with the ship, you just look like a mouth breather. One of the problems in using arguments like this is the idea that your side is more "civilized" or more "educated" on issues. Relying on the "we are more enlightened than they are" fallacy is a historically weak branch to stand upon and subject to some scrutiny. Don't take away thebin's go-to move. If you don't let him used the holier-than-thou, I'm smarter and more elightened than you car, then he won't have anything left to post. |
|
thebin
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,869
|
Post by thebin on May 11, 2012 15:03:59 GMT -5
I think bigot is a bit harsh. It leaves out the possibility that one can make a principled stand which turns out to be against the later developments of history. Agreed. A quick example: "[This] was supported by many prominent persons, including: its president Leonard Darwin, the son of Charles Darwin; honorary vice-president Winston Churchill, then First Lord of the Admiralty and future Prime Minister of the United Kingdom; Auguste Forel, famous Swiss pathologist; Alexander Graham Bell, the inventor of the telephone; among other prominent people." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EugenicsThat's exactly my point DFW. People get tarnished by the prejudices of their time even if they are otherwise great and even if those prejudices were at the time widely held as reasonable. The real trick is to try to always fight off as many of these prejudices as possible- rather than cling to them with spurious logic when shedding that prejudice is no longer a rare or brave thing to do. I haven't always felt about gay marriage as I do today, like you I used to reflectively think it was absurd. But the pillars of that position haven't held up under any real scrutiny as I have come to know gay friends. It just doesn't hold water so...time to evolve. To see the writing on the wall and to understand when the old justifications for maintaining that prejudice no longer seem credible to a fast-growing population where the trend is irreversibly against you. I think it is about high noon on that score re: gay marriage. You don't have to be brave to call for it anymore, but I'm afraid the excuses for maintaining that prejudice are going to start to get less and less credible among educated people. I'm sorry if you all hate the word "bigot" but it is objectively speaking an accurate term I think when you want to deny a class of citizens a right which you yourselves enjoy even though it doesn't actually affect you in the least if they also exercise that right. All of the biblical justifications in the world for maintaining those prejudices will be no more compelling to me than that same fictional book's justifications for slavery. |
|
thebin
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,869
|
Post by thebin on May 11, 2012 15:16:41 GMT -5
There you go again. Anyone who disagrees with you on this issue is a bigot. Because you disagree with me and others on the subject of religion, does that make you a bigot? I guess it kind of depends on what you mean by bigotry. To me the important distinction is I don't actually want to restrict a single right of yours. I disagree with you very strongly on this issue.....but -and it is a considerable but- I don't actually think you should be prevented from doing something that others can legally do. I think you have exactly the same rights as I do or our gay friends do. Can you say the same re: gay Americans and marriage? |
|
hoyaLS05
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,652
|
Post by hoyaLS05 on May 11, 2012 16:16:26 GMT -5
I hesitate to further respond to the "if gay marriage, why not polygamy" argument because I find it to be inane and probably disrespectful, but the other response I have heard, in addition to TBird's, is that the desire to have multiple spouses does not arise out of a biological attraction, whereas, though I bet someone is going to make the argument that being gay is simply a decision one makes one day, there is sound science to suggest that the desire to have a spouse of the same sex does arise out of a biological attraction. I cannot personally vouch for said science, but that is a compelling argument I have heard to knock down the polygamy comparison. So you're saying that everyone who ever gotten married does so solely because of a biological attraction? That would be news to a lot of people. No. But I was suggesting that people who do get married select their spouse's gender based upon a biological attraction. But, people who choose to, or try to, marry multiple people do not do so because of a similar biological attraction to multiples. |
|
|
|
Post by Problem of Dog on May 11, 2012 16:48:19 GMT -5
One of the problems in using arguments like this is the idea that your side is more "civilized" or more "educated" on issues. Relying on the "we are more enlightened than they are" fallacy is a historically weak branch to stand upon and subject to some scrutiny. Don't take away thebin's go-to move. If you don't let him used the holier-than-thou, I'm smarter and more elightened than you car, then he won't have anything left to post. Funny that you're making fun of someone else having a shtick, while you yourself are all about trolling and never about taking an actual stance on anything. It's a lot easier to cut down other people's arguments and parse their sentences than to make your own arguments, eh? |
|
hoyainspirit
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
When life puts that voodoo on me, music is my gris-gris.
Posts: 8,398 
|
Post by hoyainspirit on May 11, 2012 21:54:01 GMT -5
Don't take away kc's go-to move. If you don't let him used the holier-than-thou, I'm snarkier and more elightened than you car, then he won't have anything left to post. But give him his props. He can be hilariously biting, though.
|
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on May 12, 2012 12:21:58 GMT -5
A useful contribution to the debate: “Call me cynical, but I didn’t think his views on marriage could get any gayer."
- Senator* Rand Paul (R-KY)
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on May 12, 2012 13:44:53 GMT -5
Don't take away thebin's go-to move. If you don't let him used the holier-than-thou, I'm smarter and more elightened than you car, then he won't have anything left to post. Funny that you're making fun of someone else having a shtick, while you yourself are all about trolling and never about taking an actual stance on anything. It's a lot easier to cut down other people's arguments and parse their sentences than to make your own arguments, eh? Original. Do you use some form of the word "troll" in every post, or just on days that end in y? |
|
|
|
Post by Problem of Dog on May 12, 2012 17:14:47 GMT -5
Funny that you're making fun of someone else having a shtick, while you yourself are all about trolling and never about taking an actual stance on anything. It's a lot easier to cut down other people's arguments and parse their sentences than to make your own arguments, eh? Original. Do you use some form of the word "troll" in every post, or just on days that end in y? Once again, your shtick isn't new to anyone. It's called trolling. I use it when I respond to you, because it fits every single post you make. You'd be a great HoyaTalk poster in 2004 or so. |
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on May 12, 2012 23:16:16 GMT -5
Original. Do you use some form of the word "troll" in every post, or just on days that end in y? Once again, your shtick isn't new to anyone. It's called trolling. I use it when I respond to you, because it fits every single post you make. You'd be a great HoyaTalk poster in 2004 or so. Did we have Hoyatalk in 2004? |
|
SirSaxa
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 747
|
Post by SirSaxa on May 13, 2012 10:23:37 GMT -5
One of the problems in using arguments like this is the idea that your side is more "civilized" or more "educated" on issues. Relying on the "we are more enlightened than they are" fallacy is a historically weak branch to stand upon and subject to some scrutiny. You mean like claiming one's party is the "values" party? |
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on May 13, 2012 19:18:57 GMT -5
bin - I agree with you more when you talk about rights and how certain groups want to retain rights at the expense of other groups. Does it mean something that only "married" people can claim the marital deduction? Absolutely. Does it mean something that "marriage" is something that only their churches will endorse? Absolutely. Does it mean something that certain benefits are only available to them? Absolutely.
I don't think (wisely) most people tie the issue to the Catholic Church or some other current/recent event. I think there's a simple reason for this - most people cannot tie that tragedy to their personal experience and would not tie it to their politics on a seemingly unrelated issue. More likely is that things like DOMA lent themselves to a yes/no kind of response. People in good faith looked at those and voted them up or down, but in the process, "no" became a legitimate position for the pro-rights crowd (particularly in light of the Rovian nature of DOMA).
Lost in some of this discussion is just how cynical Amendment 1 is in NC (let alone the state DOMAs). Forget heterosexual civil unions too - the government and our political leaders will tell you or endorse what is socially acceptable in your own home even if you are heterosexual. A better definition of big government need not be found, but since it is big state government, it is all kosher.
|
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on May 13, 2012 20:19:35 GMT -5
One of the problems in using arguments like this is the idea that your side is more "civilized" or more "educated" on issues. Relying on the "we are more enlightened than they are" fallacy is a historically weak branch to stand upon and subject to some scrutiny. You mean like claiming one's party is the "values" party? In fairness, I don't think people who say that the Republican Party is one of values hold themselves out as educated or civilized necessarily. Perhaps that is a tough argument to make in certain circles.  |
|
