Are gay rights, including gay marriage, evolving?

04/20/2009 09:20:02 PM · #2401

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
maybe I'm not arguing that anymore...

Then make that clear: concede the point. Don't make us beg.

R.

Haha. Conceding and not arguing are two different things. Frankly, in 47 states Mousie's union isn't a marriage by anything other than opinion.

I think what I'm saying is perhaps I was going down the wrong path by wholeheartedly defending what I think marriage isn't. It is probably more positive to state what I think, in a perfect world, marriage ought to be. Ultimately I can also see how legislating such a concept carries difficulties, but having a conversation doesn't and that's what we're all doing. Nobody has been voting on anything.

You can't have it both ways, Jason... Do you really want us to perceive your apparent flexibility as a rhetorical device? "Nobody has been voting on anything", indeed. I don;t know about you, but sure as hell have been.

R.

04/20/2009 09:20:39 PM · #2402

Originally posted by scalvert:

Probably zero, and the bolded generalization is indicative of the reason. The opinions you've expressed demonstrate intolerant attitudes, whether you openly act upon them or not. By those words, you are very much "more guilty" of intolerance than some others. Not the worst offender, to be sure, and you've recently shown signs of a softening stance which is encouraging.

So give me a bit of how you view tolerance? I think your first paragraph probably spoke to it some, but expand. Can tolerance accomodate firmly held beliefs?

04/20/2009 09:21:18 PM · #2403

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by K10DGuy:
YOU yourself I just don't understand much at all. ;D

Well, THAT I can respect.

But let me ask you this. Leaving aside any sort of legislation, how do you view toleration playing out when two people meet who fundamentally disagree about something? and the follow-up is to ask if this thread has played out in-line with your view or not?

I view toleration as ending with an agreeance to disagree AS LONG AS said disagreeance isn't leading to a direct danger to anyone involved. (And I wish I didn't have to qualify that by danger I mean something truly dangerous, like physical danger, not simply hurt feelings).

No, this thread hasn't really played out in-line with my view, but in this case, we're looking at a situation where people really are being repressed, being considered lesser people, and having lives and bodies put in danger because of the fundamental disagreement.

That kind of fight is never one that should just be left at agreeing to disagree. It's not like we're arguing over what the better Key Lime Pie recipe is here. The christian fundamental idea leads to oppression, fear, ignorance, and in extreme cases, physical danger and death for gays, and a sense of entitlement, pride, arrogance, and smugness for christians. All christians lose with the same-sex marriage idea is that negativity, in the end, eventually. There is nothing else, fundamentally, they lose, except for perhaps a realization that their beliefs have been shaken a bit, but that's not always wrong, as history has shown.

04/20/2009 09:25:47 PM · #2404

Originally posted by K10DGuy:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by K10DGuy:
YOU yourself I just don't understand much at all. ;D

Well, THAT I can respect.

But let me ask you this. Leaving aside any sort of legislation, how do you view toleration playing out when two people meet who fundamentally disagree about something? and the follow-up is to ask if this thread has played out in-line with your view or not?

I view toleration as ending with an agreeance to disagree AS LONG AS said disagreeance isn't leading to a direct danger to anyone involved. (And I wish I didn't have to qualify that by danger I mean something truly dangerous, like physical danger, not simply hurt feelings).

No, this thread hasn't really played out in-line with my view, but in this case, we're looking at a situation where people really are being repressed, being considered lesser people, and having lives and bodies put in danger because of the fundamental disagreement.

That kind of fight is never one that should just be left at agreeing to disagree. It's not like we're arguing over what the better Key Lime Pie recipe is here. The christian fundamental idea leads to oppression, fear, ignorance, and in extreme cases, physical danger and death for gays, and a sense of entitlement, pride, arrogance, and smugness for christians. All christians lose with the same-sex marriage idea is that negativity, in the end, eventually. There is nothing else, fundamentally, they lose, except for perhaps a realization that their beliefs have been shaken a bit, but that's not always wrong, as history has shown.

But certainly nobody here has been put in danger and I would argue nobody has been made a lesser person (unless it goes both ways). Lots and lots and lots of positions have had bad things happen as a result. We can't just single this one out and call it bad because of it.

04/20/2009 09:30:14 PM · #2405

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by K10DGuy:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by K10DGuy:
YOU yourself I just don't understand much at all. ;D

Well, THAT I can respect.

But let me ask you this. Leaving aside any sort of legislation, how do you view toleration playing out when two people meet who fundamentally disagree about something? and the follow-up is to ask if this thread has played out in-line with your view or not?

I view toleration as ending with an agreeance to disagree AS LONG AS said disagreeance isn't leading to a direct danger to anyone involved. (And I wish I didn't have to qualify that by danger I mean something truly dangerous, like physical danger, not simply hurt feelings).

No, this thread hasn't really played out in-line with my view, but in this case, we're looking at a situation where people really are being repressed, being considered lesser people, and having lives and bodies put in danger because of the fundamental disagreement.

That kind of fight is never one that should just be left at agreeing to disagree. It's not like we're arguing over what the better Key Lime Pie recipe is here. The christian fundamental idea leads to oppression, fear, ignorance, and in extreme cases, physical danger and death for gays, and a sense of entitlement, pride, arrogance, and smugness for christians. All christians lose with the same-sex marriage idea is that negativity, in the end, eventually. There is nothing else, fundamentally, they lose, except for perhaps a realization that their beliefs have been shaken a bit, but that's not always wrong, as history has shown.

But certainly nobody here has been put in danger and I would argue nobody has been made a lesser person (unless it goes both ways). Lots and lots and lots of positions have had bad things happen as a result. We can't just single this one out and call it bad because of it.

What?

This discussion isn't what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the real world problem that this discussion is supposed to be addressing. I can't let it rest with simply disagreeing with you, Jason, because you insist on taking the side of the religious right in this discussion, a side that I see as fundamentally dangerous. A side that has been shown, in real world examples, to be fundamentally dangerous.

As long as you wish to argue that side, whatever personal beliefs you hold are irrelevant.

04/20/2009 09:31:39 PM · #2406

Originally posted by K10DGuy:

This discussion isn't what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the real world problem that this discussion is supposed to be addressing. I can't let it rest with simply disagreeing with you, Jason, because you insist on taking the side of the religious right in this discussion, a side that I see as fundamentally dangerous. A side that has been shown, in real world examples, to be fundamentally dangerous.

As long as you wish to argue that side, whatever personal beliefs you hold are irrelevant.

Well, I was asking how you thought THIS conversation had played out (sorry, I mean here in Rant and not "this" generically).

Just to show that danger and beliefs are not necessarily hand in hand, wouldn't the Black Panthers be evidence then that equality for blacks is fundamentally dangerous? That's ridiculous, of course.

Message edited by author 2009-04-20 21:33:05.

04/20/2009 09:34:50 PM · #2407

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by K10DGuy:
This discussion isn't what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the real world problem that this discussion is supposed to be addressing. I can't let it rest with simply disagreeing with you, Jason, because you insist on taking the side of the religious right in this discussion, a side that I see as fundamentally dangerous. A side that has been shown, in real world examples, to be fundamentally dangerous.

As long as you wish to argue that side, whatever personal beliefs you hold are irrelevant.

Well, I was asking how you thought THIS conversation had played out (sorry, I mean here in Rant and not "this" generically).

This conversation has played out like all online conversations tend to. A bunch of noise with no real advancement.

04/20/2009 09:35:30 PM · #2408

OK, I'm going for a long run. I'm really more interested in the tolerance conversation. I'd also like to hear Shannon let me know whether he considers himself to be a tolerant person and if this is reflected in his conversations involving God and religion especially considering his statement, "It's an attitude that presupposes any alternative cannot possibly be as good as your own ideal, literally judging people you don't even know by stereotypes and misconceptions. It is the very definition of prejudice..."

I dunno, maybe he admits to intolerance.

04/20/2009 09:38:15 PM · #2409

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Just to show that danger and beliefs are not necessarily hand in hand, wouldn't the Black Panthers be evidence then that equality for blacks is fundamentally dangerous? That's ridiculous, of course.

Oh, c'mon Jason... I haven't seen any gays in here arguing that people who disagree with them should be "burned, baby, burned!" Fellow human beings are asking to be recognized as such.

R.

04/20/2009 09:40:50 PM · #2410

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I didn't say they were hand in hand, but there was far more danger for blacks under segregation, slavery, and oppression than one extremist group on that side ever represented for whites. Danger that lives on today because of those things, but thank pete we didn't let those things go on simply because a group felt it was their right to do them.

04/20/2009 09:42:10 PM · #2411

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Please. Being a tolerant person doesn't mean having to be tolerant of everything, always. You know better than that.

scalvert

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

04/20/2009 10:28:39 PM · #2412

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

So give me a bit of how you view tolerance?

Similar to what

K10DGuy said: tolerance is a matter of respecting the rights of others to live by their own ideals, even if they conflict with yours, as long as no actual harm is done.

Regarding your last post, you're apparently missing the point. I may not believe we need gods to live as decent humans, but I also don't think that necessarily makes me MORE decent than someone who finds comfort and hope in that belief. In fact, I don't assume anything about someone's fitness to be a decent person simply because he's a Christian. See, that's where the biased judgement comes in: you apparently feel that someone must fit a particular model (man and woman) in order to be a "model" family, whereas I think a model family demonstrating love, support and decent values can come from all sorts of backgrounds. Several people here have expressed the opinion that morality must come from a particular source (religious "teaching"), with the resulting implication that an atheist or other outsider cannot be moral. I think it's fairly obvious that moral and immoral people can come from any background, and likewise don't automatically assign people as better or worse simply because they don't share my views. Tolerance doesn't mean I have to agree with your opinion. It's more that I shouldn't prejudge your fitness in other roles on that basis alone (should "those people" really be allowed to...).

04/20/2009 10:50:58 PM · #2413

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

It is important, however, to remember that very few Christians are responsible for putting such initiatives on the ballot (or before congress).

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Who the heck do you think has been? This seems the most naive (or disingenuous) statement I've ever heard you make.

Unless you're going to get into that whole sectarian divide of denying that the LDS (and many other organizations) aren't "Christians" ...

Therein lies a serious issue.

I have a tremendous amount of respect for Jason now that I've gotten around to reaslly thinking about what he's been saying about where he comes from and how he arrives at some of his conclusions.

ASll you have to do is watch that NOM video, or read about the latest behaviors of the Westboro people to know that there's one immense difference in Christians.

I really like my boss, and he's one of the most decent people I've ever met, and ceratainly the most decent Christian, and the thing that most impresses me is that he's willing to share himself with me on any level that I ask of him when it comes to my grilling him with the myriad of questions and posits that I fling at him on an almost daily basis.

Yet he knows that I'm not going to be easily swayed, nor that I'm a likely convert. He also seems to be doing a pretty good job of trying to understand my weirdball belief system, and he respects what must seem to him to be a dead end road. I know he'd love to see me find my way, but he would never impose his ideals on me.....he is only willing to share as I ask.

That's the most decent, thoughtful, considerate, kind approach anyone has ever made to me, and his care for my salvation is humbling indeed.

Though he hasn't made a big deal out of it, I do know that he's opposed to SSM in belief, and principle as he understands it, but I also know that he believes that God will stand in judgement, not he.

It's funny, but my understanding of Jesus was that he taught with love, understanding, and by example, and I'm finally starting to meet some of those rare Christians who seem to emulate the style. And they seem to be very kind and peaceful.

What amazing people.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

04/20/2009 11:02:17 PM · #2414

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Two, as far as "optimal" goes, I'd love to see you try to convinve Mousire, or Tooz, that your version os "sexuality" is optimum for them...

R.

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I hear you loud and clear. I'm not necessarily trying to. I'm expression my own opinion. The whole issue is even more complicated when you believe that the heterosexual version is "optimal", but you also understand many/most gays did not make an active decision on how they are. I'm not advocating that they necessarily need to fit into a hetero marriage.

You also have to take what you can get as it happens, and it's not going to change overnight.

People ARE getting more accepting, and more people are doing the right thing by standing up for equal rights.

We are dealing with the complete upset of a lot of years of closed thinking, and I know I'm certainly a lot more concerned about the NOM than I am about Jason.

It's the extremists that are creating the problems, not the people in the general population that are learning responsibly, becoming more cognizant of the inequities, and speaking out against discrimination.

Ten years ago, it never occurred to me that it was a problem because none of my gay friends said anything about it....I just took it for granted that everybody had equal rights.....this is America, right?

So now, I'm better informed, I know to stand up as a straight man and speak out against the discrimination against my gay friends because it makes an impression for someone who doesn't have an agenda to believe in fixing the problem. And if I go along clueless of the issue at this point, I do my friends a disservice.

So the people that really haven't become aware of it because of their friends, civic organizations, or the media aren't going to be as easily eductaed as others.

I'm not excusing that, but there will always be people who don't want to get involved....they may feel it doesn't affect them, or that they cannot make a difference, or there may be fear of their own peer group.

It's not going to change overnight, anbd there will always be extremes, but equality will win out eventually.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

04/20/2009 11:04:49 PM · #2415

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
It is important, however, to remember that very few Christians are responsible for putting such initiatives on the ballot (or before congress).

Who the heck do you think has been? This seems the most naive (or disingenuous) statement I've ever heard you make.

Unless you're going to get into that whole sectarian divide of denying that the LDS (and many other organizations) aren't "Christians" ...

You misunderstand me Paul. Of all the Christians in the country, how many were responsible for putting an initiative on a ballot somewhere? 2%? 1%? 10%? Whatever it is, most have had nothing to do with it.

From the California Secretary of State's office (emphasis added):

Initiative Constitutional Amendment: Petitions proposing initiative constitutional amendments must be signed by registered voters. The number of signatures must be equal to at least 8% of the total votes cast for Governor at the last gubernatorial election. (Cal. Const., art. II, Section 8(b); Section 9035) The total number of signatures required for such petitions is 694,354
==============
So, to put Prop 8 on the ballot required nearly 3/4 million registered voters to take an affirmative action (sic) to deny equal rights to other citizens. Since the only reasons to sign that petition are religiously-based or rooted in homophobic bigotry (and we know there aren't any more such bigots left, right?), I'm going out on a limb and saying the vast majority of signers would describe themselves at "Christians."

So maybe only 5% of Christians signed on, but perhaps 95% of those who did were Christians ... and several millions participated by voting.

Message edited by author 2009-04-20 23:21:12.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

04/20/2009 11:09:10 PM · #2416

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Am I guilty of this any more than Oz or Mousie or anybody else? I'm curious why you think I am. I haven't voted for anything. I'm just having a conversation about where I'm coming from, yet I suspect you don't think it's valid I do so.

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

"Semantics aside", you have attempted to make a case for your "marriage" being more valid than Mousie's... But Mousie isn't trying to argue that your union is not a "marriage"...

R.

But he's being honest about it, and he's obviously been trying to learn, and understand why some of us feel the way we do about it.

It's a no-brainer to figure out where Mousie or Monica stands, but how about a couple who is living the fundamentally traditional life with a belief system, a typical man/woman marriage, with children, yet who have gay friends who they love as much as their hetero friends and in the same vein because they love them as PEOPLE, not gay or straight.

Part of the reason I was so clueless about much of the gay specific issues is because my gay friends have been FRIENDS, not GAY friends.

Nothing much has changed in our relationships except my awareness of some of their struggles.....and it sure speaks well of them that they never really said much to us about them.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

04/20/2009 11:17:46 PM · #2417

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I dunno, maybe he admits to intolerance.

"I know there are people who do not love their fellow man and I HATE people like that."

--Tom Lehrer, (from the introduction to National Brotherhood Week, c. 1965)

04/20/2009 11:19:57 PM · #2418

Originally posted by K10DGuy:

The ~~christian~~elite fundamental idea leads to oppression, fear, ignorance, and in extreme cases, physical danger and death for ~~gays~~ non-WASP, people of poor bloodline, and a sense of entitlement, pride, arrogance, and smugness for ~~christians~~ those with proper breeding.

I know this is about gays, but if you change just the slightest wording above, you have a basic tenet that my father looked me straight in the eye and delivered with complete honesty and belief in what he was saying. I shudder to think what his attitudes might be about gays since he didn't want me to attend schools with Jews, Catholics, or common people.

Change a few of thge same words around and you have all the basics for all genocidal and racist organizations......and yet somehow, various parts of these crimes against humanity were somehow acceptable at various times throughout history.

It's that fervid, fundamental attitude that's scary.....and in most cases, it's perpetrated, and perpetuated by ignorance and fear.

Educate people, and get them to realize they have nothing to fear, and we'll get somewhere.

Let's not fight, let's educate.

04/20/2009 11:22:38 PM · #2419

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

But he's being honest about it, and he's obviously been trying to learn, and understand why some of us feel the way we do about it.

I wasn't the "you" he was referring to. We've had some discussions about this in chat. We understand each other, and I respect that he's honestly questioning, as I think my posts have shown.

R.

04/20/2009 11:24:33 PM · #2420

Originally posted by K10DGuy:

This conversation has played out like all online conversations tend to. A bunch of noise with no real advancement.

You really think that?

That's a shame.

04/20/2009 11:29:50 PM · #2421

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

But he's being honest about it, and he's obviously been trying to learn, and understand why some of us feel the way we do about it.

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

I wasn't the "you" he was referring to. We've had some discussions about this in chat. We understand each other, and I respect that he's honestly questioning, as I think my posts have shown.

R.

Mine was a general rather than specific comment as well.

I think that Jason has been putting forth reasonable effort to try and work some of what he understands intellectually into his bnelief system.....and that has to be difficult.

It's not really part of the framework that he's from to honestly care for a gay person and truly want to understand and know them on a personal basis.

Yeah, he's damn hard to argue with, but he's hung in there for many passes through the gauntlet, and he's still here with us.

At this point, I really admire him greatly for the efforts he's made, and is making, to become what WE would consider to be more reasonable.

04/20/2009 11:34:05 PM · #2422

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

Originally posted by K10DGuy:
This conversation has played out like all online conversations tend to. A bunch of noise with no real advancement.

You really think that?

That's a shame.

Advancement in the conversation, which is still where it was 30 pages ago.

I wasn't touching upon how it may have changed people's views and ideas outside of the conversation. If you can, however, point out anything that's being said by any side right now that wasn't said pages and pages and pages ago, be my guest.

04/20/2009 11:39:13 PM · #2423

Originally posted by K10DGuy:

Where's to advance TO, though? There are two sides, the issues have been discussed, fine lines have been drawn, some individuals have started to yield, people are coming closer, that's "advancement" in my book.

BTW, I'm almost done with the onerous task you've set me :-)

R.

04/20/2009 11:41:08 PM · #2424

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by K10DGuy:
Advancement in the conversation, which is still where it was 30 pages ago.

I wasn't touching upon how it may have changed people's views and ideas outside of the conversation. If you can, however, point out anything that's being said by any side right now that wasn't said pages and pages and pages ago, be my guest.

Where's to advance TO, though? There are two sides, the issues have been discussed, fine lines have been drawn, some individuals have started to yield, people are coming closer, that's "advancement" in my book.

BTW, I'm almost done with the onerous task you've set me :-)

R.

Oh please, that task wasn't onerous ;)

(what's onerous will be having to manipulate Dreamweaver after all these years trying to get the results into the template I was sent ;))

Message edited by author 2009-04-20 23:42:57.