| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/24/2008 08:30:16 PM · #1426 |
Originally posted by JMart:
OK everybody, Doc's gone. Quick, overturn prop 8 before before he gets back! :P |
Originally posted by yanko:
LOL. But that's not enough. Lets get another prop passed but this one bans the practice of Christianity. It'll be amusing to see Doc do a 180 in all of his arguments. :P |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Dontcha mean a 180 there smart guy?
HAHA! I saw it say 360! I saw it before you changed it! |
Not that you'd EVER go in a circle, right Doc?......8>)
|
|
|
|
11/24/2008 10:10:30 PM · #1427 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
OK, you heard him people. I've been declared the winner. All posts after this point will be considered part of the Postgame show. Good night everybody! Game over! Drive home safely! ;P |
That would be a lot easier to read...
...if my existing marriage were not up for legal debate, outcome unclear.
I suppose a previous gentle reminder that this isn't over was simply not ENOUGH, was it?
|
|
|
|
11/24/2008 10:12:19 PM · #1428 |
Mousie, happily married* since October 17th!
*unless some jackasses think I don't deserve to keep it |
|
|
|
11/25/2008 12:22:24 AM · #1429 |
| Sorry, Mousie. The support party is getting drunk on its own words. This is e-world. |
|
|
|
11/25/2008 09:11:35 AM · #1430 |
The latest news from Afghanistan is about some girls who were sprayed with acid because they dared to go to school. I guess the people filling waterguns with acid are very high on the purity and authority scales.
Personally, axes or no axes, I think it all comes down to empathy. It's easy for most Americans to empathize with the suffering of those girls. However, half or so of the people of this country are unable to empathize with homosexuals who can't get married. There are generally two reasons for a lack of empathy:
1. you don't understand the feelings involved
2. you don't think the people involved are truly "people"
Guys who spray girls with acid are probably using reason #2. Women are not really people. Infidels are not really people.
The coalition against homosexual marriage are a mix of reasons 1 and 2. Someone who drags a homosexual behind his truck is well inside reason #2. He will vote for Prop 8 every time.
But reason #1 is profound, and should not be underestimated. Gender roles are critical to some people's identity, their sense of worth. In other words, it's very important to some men to feel manly. The sight of a man kissing another man causes him to identify, to step into the shoes (lips?) of one of those men. That's just how the brain works. This identification causes a profound revulsion. The natural order is threatened. It's akin to seeing towers burning, or moslem girls walking to school.
I remember seeing the Color Purple. I thought I was a liberal, freethinking sort. But then there was this scene where I could tell that Whoopie Goldberg was about to kiss... a woman! I silently begged for the scene to end. Spielberg obliged me. He's not really one for crossing boundaries. Not my proudest moment, but I'll tell you what. I forced myself to face that fear (not by participating but by observing, listening and empathizing) and I got past it. And a huge part of it is gender definition. I know that most homosexuals are not gender-benders, but it was by accepting gender-bending that I was able to viscerally accept homosexuality.
Sorry, but I suddenly found my digression more interesting than my original point.
My original point is this: empathy is the key. Let's tear down what blocks empathy: stereotypes, fear, ignorance. If someone truly empathizes with Mousie, one does not vote for Proposition 8. Period. This does not mean I'm not empathizing with Christian purity voters. I know them well. I can empathize with them quite easily. Gay marriage could do a lot to help both groups.
More about axes:
Implicit in the five axis structure is that liberals are less moral than conservatives. After all, conservatives are moral on all five axes. The trouble is that loyalty and purity hide certain assumptions: loyal to what group? pure according to what standards? A "nation" is just one of many communities. There are families and villages. There are clubs and professions. There is also the global community. Conservatives tend to prioritize country and/or religion. I think loyalty and purity are very important. But I think "countries" are both too big and too small to have strong feelings about. My most important loyalties are to very small and very big communities. As to purity, I think courtesy is a wonderful thing, but whenever possible I take into account the culture of the person involved. I worry about the precipitous denial of one's own culture. I don't like disregard of spelling and language rules: it's a form of crippling one's own expression. |
|
|
|
11/25/2008 10:33:04 AM · #1431 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
Implicit in the five axis structure is that liberals are less moral than conservatives. |
I think you are reading that wrong. If you had a 2-channel equalizer hooked up and then hook up a 5-channel equalizer, is "more" music coming out of the speaker? No. |
|
|
|
11/25/2008 10:47:07 AM · #1432 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
Gender roles are critical to some people's identity, their sense of worth. |
I agree. My wife has a college friend that she, at the time, hadn't seen in almost 20 years. She had always suspected her of being gay, and now she lives quite openly gay.
Anyway, her and her life partner came to stay at our house for a couple days. Now, both my wife and I concider ourselves to be quite open, but my wife said to me "so, who do you think is the man in their relationship?". I replied "neither, they are both still women". I was actually quite shocked that she even asked me that question. |
|
|
|
11/25/2008 11:01:58 AM · #1433 |
Yours was a beautiful post,  posthumous.
You are a wise man. |
|
|
|
11/25/2008 11:27:13 AM · #1434 |
Originally posted by david1707:
Originally posted by posthumous:
Gender roles are critical to some people's identity, their sense of worth. |
I agree. My wife has a college friend that she, at the time, hadn't seen in almost 20 years. She had always suspected her of being gay, and now she lives quite openly gay.
Anyway, her and her life partner came to stay at our house for a couple days. Now, both my wife and I concider ourselves to be quite open, but my wife said to me "so, who do you think is the man in their relationship?". I replied "neither, they are both still women". I was actually quite shocked that she even asked me that question. |
Was it tongue in cheek? I joke around like that all the time. Louis, the merciless prankster. |
|
|
|
11/25/2008 11:37:33 AM · #1435 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Reynolds vs. United States seems to be a case that could be claimed by both sides as evidence in their support. What was your thinking on it? (if you had an opinion). |
My thinking is that the US Government has no problem legislating morality based on the beliefs of one religion. Check this out Edmunds-Tucker Act. Its fascinating to read some of the history of the Mormon people in the US, even in its wiki-ized version. And while I am not too fond of LDS as a religion, they got pretty crapped on by other christian groups in charge of the government.
My thinking, with regard to Mormons and Prop. 8 is that, as the recipients of hate and animosity for their beliefs and practices, one would think they might be more tolerant of those in the same position. Guess not. Some people like to forget the past... |
|
|
|
11/25/2008 12:03:34 PM · #1436 |
Originally posted by dahkota:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Reynolds vs. United States seems to be a case that could be claimed by both sides as evidence in their support. What was your thinking on it? (if you had an opinion). |
My thinking is that the US Government has no problem legislating morality based on the beliefs of one religion. Check this out Edmunds-Tucker Act. Its fascinating to read some of the history of the Mormon people in the US, even in its wiki-ized version. And while I am not too fond of LDS as a religion, they got pretty crapped on by other christian groups in charge of the government.
My thinking, with regard to Mormons and Prop. 8 is that, as the recipients of hate and animosity for their beliefs and practices, one would think they might be more tolerant of those in the same position. Guess not. Some people like to forget the past... |
The articles that keep blaming the Mormons for the Prop 8 outcome are missing the boat and a bit desengenuous in my view. Yes they had an ad campiagn and yes they were/are against supporting gay marriage. But 70% of black voters voted against supporting gay marriage and I do not believe they make up a large portion of the Mormon base. Typically (at least in my area) they are more likely to be associated with Southern Baptist. Yet I read no critique of black voters and their predjudice and the plain fact that had they turned out in past numbers this election, then gay marriage would have passed in California. It matters not to me if you or others want to blame the Mormons - but the root cause of the failed proposition was not Mormonism but the Democratic candidate who brought out throngs of voters who otherwise would have stayed home. Those are the voters who defeated gay marriage at least in my view.
2 solutions -
a). Educate blacks to accept gay lifestyles
b). Place it back on the ballot when fewer blacks will be voting
I seem to recall that 52% of white voters were/are in favor of gay marriage with something like 60%-70% not haveing any particular feeling for or against. That only leaves 30% of the religious right and that is about all that remains of the conservative Republican base. Not enough to stop anything. Not congressional spending, not gay marriage, not even stricter gun laws. I understand the frustration, but it really is a short lived event. Unless those in favor of gay marriage wake up the sleeping giant by demonstrating in the most radical of fashions and thus garner negative views from those who didn't have an opinion in the first place. |
|
|
|
11/25/2008 12:12:22 PM · #1437 |
Originally posted by Flash:
The articles that keep blaming the Mormons for the Prop 8 outcome are missing the boat and a bit desengenuous in my view. Yes they had an ad campiagn and yes they were/are against supporting gay marriage. But 70% of black voters voted against supporting gay marriage and I do not believe they make up a large portion of the Mormon base. Typically (at least in my area) they are more likely to be associated with Southern Baptist. Yet I read no critique of black voters and their predjudice and the plain fact that had they turned out in past numbers this election, then gay marriage would have passed in California. It matters not to me if you or others want to blame the Mormons - but the root cause of the failed proposition was not Mormonism but the Democratic candidate who brought out throngs of voters who otherwise would have stayed home. Those are the voters who defeated gay marriage at least in my view.
|
I only referred to Mormons based on the discussion of Reynolds v. US and polygamy. I know that LDS groups funded much of the anti-Prop 8 campaign, regardless of whom voted for it, which is why I felt it pertinent. Their history, it would seem to me, would make them at least a little hesitant to do the same to others. I was wrong. I did not blame the Mormons for the outcome of Prop 8, only noted their part in it and my surprise at their part. |
|
|
|
11/25/2008 12:19:43 PM · #1438 |
Originally posted by Flash:
But 70% of black voters voted against supporting gay marriage... the root cause of the failed proposition was not Mormonism but the Democratic candidate who brought out throngs of voters who otherwise would have stayed home. Those are the voters who defeated gay marriage at least in my view. |
Then your view is wrong. 49% of black voters supported the ban vs. 43% opposed, and Obama supporters were overwhelmingly against it. Look at the demographics and see who passed that measure: less educated, rural, older, protestant conservatives. In other words, Archie Bunker.
Message edited by author 2008-11-25 12:44:45. |
|
|
|
11/25/2008 12:28:23 PM · #1439 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
Gender roles are critical to some people's identity, their sense of worth. |
That's kind of a shame, because it really doesn't mean much and it creates a lot of confusion for people, especially when growing up.
My 13 year old daughter is a very comfortable-in-her-own-skin young woman who doesn't need any stereotypical boundaries to conform to because she sees the difference between my wife and I as they apply to the "typical" standards.
She sees how happily and smoothly we work together in our non-traditional roles and that we support her no matter what she wants to think and do regardless of whether her tastes are typical girl......or typical guy.
She's all girl, a fashion diva, a drummer both rock n' roll and marching band, has designs on becoming a doctor, and comes from a home where Mommy is finance minister and maker of big family decisions; Daddy is Kitchen Goddess, fashion consultant, artist, yet all 'round fix-it person, lifter of heavy objects and clown. With no social stigmas enforced, or even typified in our house, our daughter doesn't have any restrictions on whether or not something that interests her isn't "girl" enough, or too butch.
We finally got around to seeing Brokeback Mountain 'cause we were all curious about it, and I noticed that gender identity struggle was a real issue for Heath Ledger's character and caused him great angst. I can certainly see where the film may have upset many guys who may have struggled with the same thought who didn't want to think about it. Brave film. Very sad.
I think one thing that's a terrible struggle is the one that many boys go through and that's the natural questioning and curiosity surrounding their own personal sexuality. I think if more boys and men were honest with themselves and comfortable with it, they'd accept and understand bisexuality and homosexuality if they didn't associate a negative stigma with it.
IMNSHO, a lot of acceptance, and understanding, needs to be done at a personal and social level about homosexuality before a real evolution behavior will be commonplace.
We're getting there......slowly....
|
|
|
|
11/25/2008 12:58:21 PM · #1440 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Flash:
But 70% of black voters voted against supporting gay marriage... the root cause of the failed proposition was not Mormonism but the Democratic candidate who brought out throngs of voters who otherwise would have stayed home. Those are the voters who defeated gay marriage at least in my view. |
Then your view is wrong. 49% of black voters supported the ban vs. 43% opposed, and Obama supporters were overwhelmingly against it. Look at the demographics and see who passed that measure: less educated, rural, older, protestant conservatives. In other words, Archie Bunker. |
Thta is one source.
Here are some other commentaries for your review. Also included is an SF article with offensive language (at least to me).
[url=//www.sacbee.com/walters/story/1387029.html ]Article 1[/url]
Article 2
Article 3
Article 4
"Yet, Alas by African American community in essence was a major factor in supporting Prop 8 with a 70% vote and a huge African American/Black turnout. The number of pro Prop 8 votes increased because of the turnout. "
Article 5 - offensive language in article
The 70% number is clearly part of the discussion as is the turnout factor. There is nothing to argue with you about. |
|
|
|
11/25/2008 01:06:13 PM · #1441 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Flash:
But 70% of black voters voted against supporting gay marriage... the root cause of the failed proposition was not Mormonism but the Democratic candidate who brought out throngs of voters who otherwise would have stayed home. Those are the voters who defeated gay marriage at least in my view. |
Then your view is wrong. 49% of black voters supported the ban vs. 43% opposed, and Obama supporters were overwhelmingly against it. Look at the demographics and see who passed that measure: less educated, rural, older, protestant conservatives. In other words, Archie Bunker. |
Does anybody see anything wrong with that poll?
White non-Hispanic 44 50
Latino 46 48
African-American 49 43
Asian-American 41 51
The first number is % yes (for Prop 8). The second number is % no (against Prop 8). Given those numbers, how did it pass? Looks like the poll had some unintended bias or methodological problems. |
|
|
|
11/25/2008 01:12:57 PM · #1442 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by posthumous:
Implicit in the five axis structure is that liberals are less moral than conservatives. |
I think you are reading that wrong. If you had a 2-channel equalizer hooked up and then hook up a 5-channel equalizer, is "more" music coming out of the speaker? No. |
I hate analogies that are more confusing than the original topic! :P I have no idea what happens when you hook up a 2-channel equalizer to a 5-channel equalizer.
But surely, a 5-channel equalizer allows for *better* sound, if not more sound.
And, btw, I'm talking purely about perception here. The total bar size is not equivalent for liberals and conservatives, and therefore implies something, at least visually. |
|
|
|
11/25/2008 01:15:22 PM · #1443 |
Yes, posthumous's post is to the point. Empathy. Mentioned earlier by NikonJeb and one or two others. The ability to understand the feelings of another, or even to recognize that they have feelings you are might be unaware of or which you may not understand. Implicit in Don's narrative is also the importance of recognizing one's own feelings. Getting to know someone else is an important part of either process.
(I would love to make a stronger connexion between lingual correctness and empathy, but already it is beginning to sound too radical). |
|
|
|
11/25/2008 01:19:15 PM · #1444 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by posthumous:
Implicit in the five axis structure is that liberals are less moral than conservatives. |
I think you are reading that wrong. If you had a 2-channel equalizer hooked up and then hook up a 5-channel equalizer, is "more" music coming out of the speaker? No. |
I hate analogies that are more confusing than the original topic! :P I have no idea what happens when you hook up a 2-channel equalizer to a 5-channel equalizer.
But surely, a 5-channel equalizer allows for *better* sound, if not more sound.
And, btw, I'm talking purely about perception here. The total bar size is not equivalent for liberals and conservatives, and therefore implies something, at least visually. |
Well, at the very least don't think I'm walking around thinking that. I doubt Haidt thinks it either unless he considers himself to be "inferior" to others. It's fairly clear from his writing that he is "liberal" in his thinking.
I'd tell you a 5-channel equalizer allows for both "better" sound and "worse" sound. If you just crank the tweeter and slam down the rest, it's gonna sound pretty crummy.
Message edited by author 2008-11-25 13:19:40. |
|
|
|
11/25/2008 01:20:51 PM · #1445 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Here are some other commentaries for your review... |
What is the source of the figures in the articles you linked? Many appear to be based on a CNN exit poll of 2240 people that lists "N/A" for most of the questions on African Americans. Hmmm... |
|
|
|
11/25/2008 01:23:32 PM · #1446 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Flash:
Here are some other commentaries for your review... |
What is the source of the figures in the articles you linked? Many appear to be based on a CNN exit poll of 2240 people that lists "N/A" for most of the questions on African Americans. Hmmm... |
objectively, I'd think an exit poll might be more accurate than the poll you cited which was done 2-3 weeks before the vote. Certainly there are still biases possible and exit polls are notoriously inaccurate, but Flash's point is probably valid. The "N/A" probably comes from lack of statistical numbers. Note N/A is always associated with a subgroup that is listed as less than 5% of the total.
Message edited by author 2008-11-25 13:24:45. |
|
|
|
11/25/2008 01:49:09 PM · #1447 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
objectively, I'd think an exit poll might be more accurate than the poll you cited which was done 2-3 weeks before the vote. |
That's true- I hadn't noticed that the field poll was conducted before the vote, however the wild discrepancy in African American attitudes between those two polls should certainly cast doubt on the validity of the claim, especially with such a small sample size in the exit poll. For example, if a significant percentage of the 200 or so black respondents sampled were strongly conservative/Republican or polled in rural areas, you'd get skewed results that don't really reflect a racial attitude. |
|
|
|
11/25/2008 02:26:25 PM · #1448 |
|
|
|
11/25/2008 05:10:36 PM · #1449 |
I knew I'd read a pretty good analysis of the vote recently.
Called Trends beyond black vote in play on Prop 8 it's a long article, but carefully written and worth reading.
Some opening words:
For many black gays and lesbians, the result has been a reminder that even with the stereotype-shattering election of a black president, caricatures of black people continue to flourish.
"African Americans get demonized when it comes to topics of sexuality," said the Rev. D. Mark Wilson, a black, gay, American Baptist minister who grew up in Oakland and worked on the No on 8 campaign.
|
|
|
|
11/25/2008 05:55:42 PM · #1450 |
Back to the theme of evolution! I just read this amazing peek into how the anti-gay political forces' methods have evolved over time, as society has moved from outright claims that gays are broken degenerates to a more 'reasonable' claim that gays are decent people too, but we just can't abide how they have sex, so we have to reserve some small things (full equality, marriage) for people who have sex the right way.
Pat Buchanan in his own words, 1977
Chock full of gems like:
"Parents have a right to not have their kids taught in a public school by some homosexual who is a walking, talking advertisement for a "lifestyle" those parents correctly consider to be sordid and sick."
"One not need a Ph.D. to know that when some 40-year old male paints his face with rogue and lipstick, and prances around in women's clothes, he ain't playing with a full deck."
"As for putting practicing homosexuals in prison, as some state laws mandate, that is like throwing B'rer Rabbit into the briar patch."
Putting homos in prison is just like tossing them into the bushes, where everyone knows those dirty fags have their public sex orgies! It's a meat market in there! Anyway, gays love getting raped every day by a big angry dude in orange! It's a dream come true! Oh NOOOOO officer, don't put me in the handcuffs!
It is QUITE obvious Pat did not see gays like me as being actually human, or was trying to suggest we aren't.
Pardon my skepticism when I hear the same sentiment underlying those statements justified in much more polite terms these days. It's the same damn sentiment, from the same people. No matter how many lesbians Pat might pal around with today, no matter what the current conservative justification is for repressing homosexuality, it's the same pernicious bigotry wrapped in a tactical political correctness.
Why do I say that? Let me give you my favorite quote... and it's a doozy. Why shouldn't gays be a protected class, allowed to teach, or considered equal in housing and the workplace?
"If gay behavior is recognized as a legitimate alternative, upon what basis do we deny homosexuals the right to marry, adopt children and raise them in their own 'sexual preferences'?"
And the analysis of the article quoting Mr. Buchanan's words...
"It shows that the 1977 version of Pat knew that his stances, in a world where gays are largely viewed as equal, are fallible. But even more than that, this quip gives great insight into the current anti-gay strategy of framing every single issue in terms of something other than the matter at hand (i.e. "marriage protection," "child protection," "religious freedom," "special rights"). By admitting that non-accpetance of his virulent '77 views would eliminate the reasons for denying gays in arenas like marriage and adoption, disco era Pat shows us why the "pro-family" (itself a bullshit word) movement has had to create these straw men arguments: Because they needed something to replace the outright virulent views that have fallen out of favor in decent society!"
As disgusting as it is hearing that he thought gays just want kids to breed an army of little homos, that comment was very, very candid in the way it exposed the conservatives' own worries about the shaky foundation of today's (specious) arguments against equal rights.
Frankly I don't care how nuanced or complex someone's negative opinions are on the matter today, that's just a mechanism for distancing themselves from simple truths by obscuring them, in my opinion. Inequality is un-American, even when you don't like your peers.
Bigotry. I know the history, I know the traditions, and I know the culture. I know where it comes from. It's all around me.
And it isn't pretty.
Knowing I was the hapless target of such deep, irrational ire is a burden I've had to live with my whole life. I read this kind of crap while growing up! Imagine how that feels, when you haven't even had sex yet! It's really made me bitter about orthodoxy over the years, with all its hypocracy and failing, just as much if not more than what I've seen in other populations... what the heck is the point of it all? That they also focus on my kind to vilify us is doubly aggrieving... because it all seems so unnecessary!
In any case, it's really interesting to see how conservatives have had to change their rhetoric as society's impression of what it means to be gay has evolved.
They're still the same meddling jerks, though. Only the message has changed.
|
|
