| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/15/2009 03:15:09 PM · #2201 |
Originally posted by Mousie:
If you weren't just trying to throw up another intellectual dike, you would readily understand that if each person is making their own judgements based on their own experiences (as is the case, I'd posit) this is the essence of relativism. You can't GET any more relative. Personal situation is the center-most ring of social, cultural, and historical relativism. Why you've felt the need to abuse semantics so thoroughly to make the feeblest of non-responses is beyond me.
|
OK, I'm a Relativist now. Now what? |
|
|
|
04/15/2009 03:15:16 PM · #2202 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Mousie:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
And here's where I feel the flaw lies. Sure I can reconcile it for myself, but where from there? At this point I have reconciled that the precepts of Christianity outweigh the precepts of Americanism and in my reconciliation that goes against homosexuality. It seems that's the end of the story in the conversation. |
Ah, but you and your kind take it one step farther. Believe anything you like. But you are not content with that. You must control how I live, for you carry with you a zero-sum game of a worldview.
You have to heap shame, disgrace, pain, and misery on me and my kind. All I want to do is share in everyone else's rights equally. And not being the default target of roving packs of drunken jocks would be nice, too. |
"My kind"? Wow. If there were a Christian epithet, would you have used it there? |
Since there are numerous Christian epithets, and I did not use one, is the answer not already clear?
Are you as horrified by my use of 'my kind' as well?
Does categorization offend you?
How about your ilk? Your ken? Better?
Message edited by author 2009-04-15 15:17:41. |
|
|
|
04/15/2009 03:17:54 PM · #2203 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Discrimination is not a comfortable position for those being oppressed, so the struggle would simply carry on as it did for women and and blacks until the Archie Bunkers of the world are outnumbered. |
That doesn't seem to speak to the validity. And doesn't it mean that eventually those who view gay marriage as wrong will eventually be the ones discriminated against and won't they then simply carry on the struggle until the Richard Simmons (sorry, no good anti-Archie name comes to mind) of the world are outnumbered? It seems like a never ending oscillation. |
As has been pointed out, the difference between a person or group of people being discriminated against, and a viewpoint being discriminated against, is a vast and incomparable difference.
I can have the opinion that digital art doesn't belong on DPC, but if one day it becomes popular and challenges using such techniques are run regularly, alongside the usual and commonplace challenges, my viewpoint will become a minority and pretty much disregarded. However, I won't be discriminated against. I'll merely be a minority voice. Nothing will have been taken from me. I will not suddenly be stopped from entering other challenges, and nobody will be trying to stop me from doing anything on the site.
Your strange desire to be a dissenting voice above all else is kind of commendable, in a way, but man, sometimes you go way off on strange tangents. |
|
|
|
04/15/2009 03:24:43 PM · #2204 |
Originally posted by Mousie:
Does categorization offend you? |
Mousie, I have been nothing if not civil in 2300 posts. I am expressing an opinion and debating people. I have NEVER used a derogatory word toward you or personalized an attack. In two lines you accused me of "heaping shame, disgrace, pain, and misery on you". I have NEVER voted against gay marraige. I am not a "drunken jock". Last month I saw a new three-year old patient who had "two dads". I was no different than I was treating any other patient. I smiled, laughed, and did my best by that little boy.
I am now pissed off. Have you walked a day in MY shoes? Shall I list all the words that have been thrown out about Christians on this list? Apparently I am nothing but a backwater boob who feels that blacks and whites shouldn't marry and I have a cane in my hand ready to beat the next negro that doesn't do my bidding. For someone who has bemoaned repeated that he has been abused and despised because of who he is I am surprised to suddenly see the spark of hatred kindle in your eyes.
I think I'm done here.
Message edited by author 2009-04-15 15:25:56. |
|
|
|
04/15/2009 03:33:09 PM · #2205 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Mousie:
Does categorization offend you? |
Mousie, I have been nothing if not civil in 2300 posts. I am expressing an opinion and debating people. I have NEVER used a derogatory word toward you or personalized an attack. In two lines you accused me of "heaping shame, disgrace, pain, and misery on you". I have NEVER voted against gay marraige. I am not a "drunken jock". Last month I saw a new three-year old patient who had "two dads". I was no different than I was treating any other patient. I smiled, laughed, and did my best by that little boy.
I am now pissed off. Have you walked a day in MY shoes? Shall I list all the words that have been thrown out about Christians on this list? Apparently I am nothing but a backwater boob who feels that blacks and whites shouldn't marry and I have a cane in my hand ready to beat the next negro that doesn't do my bidding. For someone who has bemoaned repeated that he has been abused and despised because of who he is I am surprised to suddenly see the spark of hatred kindle in your eyes.
I think I'm done here. |
You know. To me you are MORE of an enigma than a "backwater boob". You are smart, and educated and yet still hold onto views that are frankly, outdated. The point is that you AREN'T against interracial marriage, that is why it keeps getting brought up. And the fact that you seem to completely disregard the parallels is frustrating. Same with the repeated mention of slavery. To me, we are crying out going "Don't you SEE the Christians have been caught in this problem before? Why is THIS time different?" |
|
|
|
04/15/2009 05:19:41 PM · #2206 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
So, while your question "So Christianity is unAmerican?" makes a good snappy rejoinder, it doesn't really say anything IMO...
R. |
Of course it doesn't. Just like 'Americanism' doesn't really say anything. Mind you, 'Christianity' isn't exactly a one-size fits all term, either. |
|
|
|
04/15/2009 07:34:20 PM · #2207 |
Keep in mind folks this debate is pretty much Jason vs everyone else so I think it's only natural if he was at times a bit defensive and or evasive in his debating strategies. Despite having to defend multiple fronts and at times (from what I've read) the hint of personal attacks, he has managed to keep a level head and remain civil. He is after all only trying to explain his beliefs within the contexts of these discussions and why he believes them, which should be valued if for no other reason than to better understand where people with his beliefs are coming from. I've always been of the mindset that any information is good information. It's what you do with it that makes all the difference. Speaking of which Jason, when can I expect that information to arrive about the outside of that bloody boxcar. :P
Message edited by author 2009-04-15 19:36:03.
|
|
|
|
04/15/2009 08:18:43 PM · #2208 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Keep in mind folks this debate is pretty much Jason vs everyone else so I think it's only natural if he was at times a bit defensive and or evasive in his debating strategies. |
You're pretty much right, but I'd like to think I've been at least covering his back as best I can :-)
R.
|
|
|
|
04/15/2009 08:20:03 PM · #2209 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I think I'm done here. |
Feel free to walk away from insults if they displease you, but don't you dare try to heap them at my feet. I challenge you to locate where I've ever called you a backwater boob, racist, idiot, or even drunken jock. This thread, that thread, anywhere. The pickings will be slim, I assure you.
Frankly, I see this as yet another way to avoid specifically addressing my points. First I get a facile agreement that you must be a relativist, but with no rationale attached, and then I get outrage over the use of 'your kind', instead of a rebuttal of my assertion that conservatives take their morality beyond simple belief and put it into action against homosexuals.
(As an aside, I did a search on the internet for 'your kind', 'your kind' insult, and 'your kind' epithet. That came up remarkably dry as well.)
You can not be the self-appointed speaker for those against equal rights, claim to accept many of their moral arguments as legitimate, and avoid being subject to the consequences of that association. I most recently claimed that 'your kind' (the conservative Christian) heaps shame/misery on 'my kind' (the homosexual). This is an incontrovertible fact. Do you not follow the links I post, like the national ads casting me as a corrupter of society, destroyer of families... the dark storm on the horizon?
You yourself make it a point to come here to tell me I am immoral based on your worldview... you've said you're practically forced to drop by and be the opposing voice. Is this not the way it is? Do you NOT come here to make the case that I am less worthy of equal rights because I am immoral according to your God, and thereby cause me distress? Just because (supposedly) your God said it does not absolve you from culpability when you repeat it. Your entire outlook in this regard is based on biblical/cultural prohibitions against homosexuality as wrong and shameful. You would not even be here fighting against my rights if you felt I were truly an equal citizen. That you're against me at all causes me pain... because there's apparently nothing I can do to change your mind. God trumps human justice.
Trust me, if there were fewer people in the world saying the things you say, my life would be much, much safer.
The irony is that if you don't like gay marriage, you simply don't have a gay wedding. You are under no personal obligation to stem the tide. Yet it is your zeal to do so in the face of overwhelming social change that others find so hurtful. If nobody said squat against my right to marry the man I love, this wouldn't even be an issue. But it is NOT good enough for the religious to live and let live.
I also claimed that you play a zero-sum game, for this very reason. With your outlook, my win is your loss. You believe that somehow my marriage takes away from the sacredness of yours. This characterization is completely reasonable! Conversely, from my point of view, my marriage can only strengthen the institution. This was no Vegas wedding. Win/win, not zero-sum.
Perhaps it's not easy for you to understand the pain and insult the words that you use and the position that you hold can cause, and resent the implication. But to deny that it DOES happen is beyond belief. You are regularly called out on it, right here in these threads.
If you can't bear to be associated with what I feel are the legitimate criticisms I've made, perhaps you need a new social circle that you won't find so gosh darn upsetting whenever its failings are pointed out.
|
|
|
|
04/15/2009 08:25:40 PM · #2210 |
Aww, c'mon, Mousie. He ain't all THAT. He's a conservative with a conscience, trying to work all this out in his own mind. He ain't as extreme as you've painted him. He hasn't insulted anyone face-to-face, he's been up-front about his own issues, this is a freaking debate for heaven's sake... And he seems to be close to having his worldview altered, too. Sp why are you piling on him NOW?
R.
|
|
|
|
04/15/2009 08:28:40 PM · #2211 |
I'd also like to note that even the most toxic of beliefs can be presented civilly.
Civility in presentation is orthogonal to the pain a statement or belief can cause.
|
|
|
|
04/15/2009 08:55:37 PM · #2212 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Aww, c'mon, Mousie. He ain't all THAT. He's a conservative with a conscience, trying to work all this out in his own mind. He ain't as extreme as you've painted him. He hasn't insulted anyone face-to-face, he's been up-front about his own issues, this is a freaking debate for heaven's sake... And he seems to be close to having his worldview altered, too. Sp why are you piling on him NOW?
R. |
I though it would be pretty clear from the post itself.
I'm piling on him now because I take pains to present my arguments without resorting to the politics of personal destruction. I challenge his ideas, not his person, and resent the implication that I'm tied to those who would merely insult.
I also take issue with his repeated refusal to address my points, instead taking the time to spin faulty logical traps, ask presumptive questions of which he knows the answers (to imply I would do worse if I could), and become so offended at the innocuous use of 'your kind' as to take his leave... this from the man who's supposedly weathered countless actual insults over the course of 2300 posts.
Basically, I'm calling bullshit, and I don't feel much sympathy for him. Also, I did note that I've lost my patience, a few posts back.
Bear, to be clear... what part of all THAT do you take issue with? What have I accused him of that I can't back up with a reasonable rationale or references? I'm not asking this flippantly. I'm really curious. I just don't see it. What is the THAT in all THAT?
The worst my post gets is: The positions he holds cause people pain. I stand by this. It certainly causes me pain, and it's only through my upbringing, self-confidence, and will that it does not cause me shame. I could tell you all about internalized homophobia, you should see some of my friends. |
|
|
|
04/15/2009 09:19:05 PM · #2213 |
Originally posted by Mousie:
I'd also like to note that even the most toxic of beliefs can be presented civilly.
Civility in presentation is orthogonal to the pain a statement or belief can cause. |
Yes, this is what I keep feeling as well. Someone saying "Go F* yourself" With a smile and a wave as opposed to screaming it is still expressing the same idea.
I think that is why I kept getting upset and taking things personally that might not have seemed so personal to other people. Just because there was no obvious name calling doesn't mean there weren't insults being handed out. Like the repeated insistence that my point is less valid because I don't stand on one side of the line or the other. |
|
|
|
04/15/2009 09:31:35 PM · #2214 |
To be fair, Jason has acted as an ambassador in this thread, presenting the case of the religious right. Without his input, there wouldn't be any intelligent debate to be had here. While we may not agree with or like what he has presented, I think he's done his best to present that side without resorting to emotional responses. To characterize him as equivalent to the most hateful elements in the group he is representing through his arguments is painting with far too broad a brush. Through all of these threads, I have always found him to be very sensitive and caring once you get beyond the debating gamesmanship, and I honestly believe he would want nothing but happiness for you, Mousie, even if it may not be in the way you would like from him.
That said, Jason, you really do need to understand that the position you are holding in this forum does cause real pain to others. I know that you treat the rants much like a game, or at least an exercise in debate. If Mousie's comments have caused you to become so upset, think about how your entire argument must make him feel. The unfortunate reality is that this debate is not a game -- real people are struggling in the real world with these problems.
It would be nice if we could have these conversations in a way where real understanding could be shared across sides. If that can't happen here, how can we have any hope of it happing outside of these forums? |
|
|
|
04/15/2009 09:42:03 PM · #2215 |
I've known Jason for a long time. I would not call him a member of the religious right. I know his politics are of that ilk at all.
He is a vigorous debater, even sometimes taking the "other" side just for the sake of a healthy debate.
How can you argue that his views cause you pain and at the same time argue that gay marriage has no effect on him?
His views can't hurt you anymore than your marriage can hurt him. Smacks of hypocrisy to me. |
|
|
|
04/15/2009 09:57:21 PM · #2216 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
You fail to grasp the mind-set of the colonial powers ... it's even written into the US Constitution that African slaves counted as "3/5 of a human" for the purpose of determining population. (Article I, Section 2, Clause 2)
Clearly this had a political purpose, but also clearly indicates the belief in an inherent inequality, despite the "self-evident" truths spoken to in another document ... |
It's not that I fail to grasp it, I refuse to accept the abhorrent rationale that is used by one group of people to justify the abuse of another group, be they white and black in the 18th century, ot gay and straight in the 21st.
|
|
|
|
04/15/2009 09:59:35 PM · #2217 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
A pair of gay neighbors who decided to commit to each other wouldn't affect my own marriage in any way. |
Gee, that's strange!
Don't you know that if they got married, the entire institution of marriage would implode!
|
|
|
|
04/15/2009 10:52:53 PM · #2218 |
Originally posted by scarbrd:
How can you argue that his views cause you pain and at the same time argue that gay marriage has no effect on him?
His views can't hurt you anymore than your marriage can hurt him. Smacks of hypocrisy to me. |
Scalvert and others have recently addressed this. His position removes my ability to marry. My position removes his ability to stop me from marrying, but doesn't remove his ability to marry. You don't see the difference?
Granting me the right to marry is no more of a threat to his religious liberty than allowing Jews or atheists to marry.
How about this: My very existence challenges his morality, let alone my marriage. If homosexuality is so damaging, why isn't it okay for religious conservatives to make me act straight, by law (as in many third-world countries), just like they try to keep me unmarried? After all, seeing my hand in my husband's 'educates' kids about the gays... it's an endorsement of homosexuality! That's why open gays weren't allowed to teach in the good old days, you know... seeing a homosexual proves that they exist, and that's 'bad' for kids. It 'recruits' them! God forbid they see one that's a decent role model! But as the times have changed and it has become less acceptable to directly attack homosexuals as individuals, conservatives have had to start going after any official recognition of homosexuality, instead.
And here we are! |
|
|
|
04/15/2009 11:06:38 PM · #2219 |
And again, because nobody's done so yet...
It would really be useful to point out specific examples of exactly how 'extreme' I've painted DrAchoo, instead of just claiming I have.
Or stop claiming it.
The most damning criticism I made, that his views hurt people like me, has been supported by others. The secondary criticism is that he comes here to present his case although he does not have to, which plants him firmly in the camp of those vocal about their opposition to my rights, actively causing people like me pain. Furthermore, he doesn't just present the case that I'm immoral and should not be allowed to marry, he believes it, and has made that clear. I've specifically questioned him if he's playing devil's advocate, with his insistence that he isn't. So where did I cross the line, exactly?
|
|
|
|
04/15/2009 11:08:27 PM · #2220 |
| While i don't agree with the Doc's position on gay marriage, I'm pretty sure he has openly stated that gays should be afforded civil unions that allow the same rights has hetero couples. I don't get him as this intolerant rights stomping monster, just someone who holds a religious view that "marriage" is something between two people of the opposite sex, but also believing you should have equal rights under the law as long as it's named something different. Again, i disagree with him, but don't think he is intolerant, jmo. |
|
|
|
04/15/2009 11:15:19 PM · #2221 |
Originally posted by trevytrev:
While i don't agree with the Doc's position on gay marriage, I'm pretty sure he has openly stated that gays should be afforded civil unions that allow the same rights has hetero couples. I don't get him as this intolerant rights stomping monster, just someone who holds a religious view that "marriage" is something between two people of the opposite sex, but also believing you should have equal rights under the law as long as it's named something different. Again, i disagree with him, but don't think he is intolerant, jmo. |
As we've learned in the past, separate but "equal" doesn't really pan out... |
|
|
|
04/15/2009 11:48:24 PM · #2222 |
Originally posted by trevytrev:
...you should have equal rights under the law as long as it's named something different. |
It's already been pointed out that marriage has only been a religious ceremony among Christians since 1545 (the man and woman part was added 21 years after that). Maybe Christian unions should be called something else to avoid defiling the general term with God's commandment (among others) to continue having sex with your slave wife after marrying another wife since most people would find that practice abhorrent on a number of levels. |
|
|
|
04/16/2009 03:43:51 AM · #2223 |
Assuming I am as a gay-hater. (just for this post guys, not seriously).
If i had two neighbours who are gays. And they decide to get 'married'.
As a gay-hater would i feel sad that they got married
or
just be happy that instead of two houses (before) now only one house has 'problems'.
Is this case of glass half full.
---------
Note: Its just a joke. |
|
|
|
04/16/2009 05:51:32 AM · #2224 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Aww, c'mon, Mousie. He ain't all THAT. He's a conservative with a conscience, trying to work all this out in his own mind. He ain't as extreme as you've painted him. He hasn't insulted anyone face-to-face, he's been up-front about his own issues, this is a freaking debate for heaven's sake... And he seems to be close to having his worldview altered, too. So why are you piling on him NOW? |
Wait a minute! Just because he isn't extreme doesn't mean he doesn't support the discrimination and believe that Mousie's immoral.
And just because he's a fine citizen, except for the silly little peccadillo that he feels that gays marrying will destroy the sanctity of marriage, doesn't excuse the fact that he's against equal rights by this stance.
There have been repeated requests for anyone to come up with ONE reason why same sex marriage will cause anyone else grief, yet the position still stands.
Until the stance is either validated, or recognized as ludicrous and dropped, there will be a problem.
If you feel that Doc's being picked on, then validate his stance for discrimination.
Yes, we've been trying to do this civilly, but every now and then, someone has to go somewhere that is completely reprehensible, then gets pissed off when they get stomped on for it.
It will be a better world when people stop telling other that the way they see things is the only way and if their opinion isn't shared, then they're immoral.
ESPECIALLY when you're cherry-picking what suits you out of a 2000 year old text.
|
|
|
|
04/16/2009 05:59:39 AM · #2225 |
Originally posted by eqsite:
To be fair, Jason has acted as an ambassador in this thread, presenting the case of the religious right. Without his input, there wouldn't be any intelligent debate to be had here. |
Except for that niggling little point where some of us have to wonder what's intelligent about "his kind" wanting to discriminate against gays on the basis of their judgement of them, and again.....that little thing about ONE answer about how gay marriage will destroy the institution.
It's like Doc's little story about the kid he saw in the office. I don't care that you were a good do-bee in a situation like that. It's akin to the old adage "I can't possibly be prejudiced....I have a black friend.".
Will you open your heart and your home to a gay couple because they are good and decent people of character and love them for who they are? In a truly good Christian manner as your brother children of God?
Message edited by author 2009-04-16 06:24:12.
|
|
