Are gay rights, including gay marriage, evolving?

04/21/2009 01:08:31 AM · #2426

So I have to say I'm a bit disappointed about the responses I've gotten on tolerance. You know what I think? Tolerance is synonymous with "non-discrimination" and this concept is held as a Universal value. You are part of the club as long as you do not talk or act in any way that discriminates between two groups of people. If you do not hold the value of "non-discrimination" as ultimate then you are Wrong. Not Relative wrong. Wrong wrong.

I'm just calling it like I see it. Universal values rear their head after all.

Which of these two statements is Intolerant?

Miss California, was asked about gay marriage in her interview. On the spot she replied, "I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman," she said on the live broadcast. "No offense to anybody out there, but that's how I was raised."

"It's ugly," said Scott Ihrig, a gay man, who attended the pageant with his partner. "I think it's ridiculous that she got first runner-up. That is not the value of 95 percent of the people in this audience. Look around this audience and tell me how many gay men there are."

Using Shannon's definition that " It's an attitude that presupposes any alternative cannot possibly be as good as your own ideal" is it possible the second comment is more intolerant than the first?

Of course we could go for door number three where Perez Hilton, the gay judge who asked the question, blogged after the pageant that Prejean (Miss California) was a "dumb bitch". Now THAT'S mature. He probably just meant to call her a F***head...

Message edited by author 2009-04-21 01:15:51.

Melethia

Canon EOS-80D

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 28-300mm f3.5-5.6G ED VR

04/21/2009 02:22:22 AM · #2427

Both of the statements - Miss California's and Mr Ihrig's - are statements of opinion, and both holders are free to express those opinions. I'm not sure where tolerance comes into play. Civility and tact might be lacking in the second opinion, certainly in the blog of the judge.

I guess I'm still not clear what you're asking with respect to "tolerance". As I mentioned, I firmly support NOM's right to express their views. I'm not as tolerant, per se, about the large sums of money being spent to legislate those views when I don't personally believe there is a problem to be solved, but hey, it's their money.

And I still suck at debating. So I'm not a good person to answer your question, I guess.

NikonJeb

Nikon D850

04/21/2009 05:46:35 AM · #2428

Originally posted by Melethia:

I guess I'm still not clear what you're asking with respect to "tolerance". As I mentioned, I firmly support NOM's right to express their views. I'm not as tolerant, per se, about the large sums of money being spent to legislate those views when I don't personally believe there is a problem to be solved, but hey, it's their money.

I dunno......maybe I'm not particularly tolerant, but when a group spends a bunch of money to knowingly, and intentionally, skew the facts to put forth a wrong and hurtful message, I find it pretty despicable.

That wasn't a view, that was just garbage.

The way they presented their "view" was disgraceful.

If you want, I can calmly and reasonably take those points apart, but do I even have to?

Matthew

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Peleng 8mm f/3.5 Fisheye MC In M42 Mount

04/21/2009 07:37:29 AM · #2429

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

This is a complicated area to debate â�� apologies for a long post. It is a frequently made allegation â�� that anyone preaching tolerance is in fact being intolerant of contrary views. However, I think that is a false allegation.

IMO tolerance is essentially a willingness not to object to things that may not accord with oneâ��s own preference. It is characterised by permissiveness and the removal of restrictions.

There is no use in examining universal tolerance: â��I tolerate everything and anythingâ�� would mean being forced to tolerate contradictory stances (logically unhelpful) and the most grievous of crimes (practically unhelpful).

Tolerance is fundamentally relative: â��I am tolerant of more things than person Xâ�� makes sense. So a tolerant person is not a person who tolerates all things, but a person who tolerates more things or more controversial things than other people (who are by definition less tolerant).

There is a massive confusing factor: in assessing relative degrees of tolerance, we also need to quantify (i) the importance of the subject matter (tolerating racial equality is more important than tolerating philately) and (ii) its moral direction (being tolerant of genocide does not usually count). Both are highly subjective â�� but some objectivity can be found by (IMO â�� being quite utilitarian) taking into account the number of people affected and the degree to which they are affected either positively or negatively should the measure in question be implemented.

There is a risk that assessing relative tolerance will become a microcosm of the larger morality debate but I think that it can be useful in forcing people to acknowledge that it is possible to compare moral value: do we value more highly (i) the desires of gay people who suffer real injury and injustice in their everyday lives or (ii) the competing desires of religious people who wish to preserve the traditional meaning of a word and concept in society?

I would also argue that the modern political understanding of tolerance is to treat willingness to change the status quo to reflect demand (and in particular to improve equality and fix perceived injustices) as being more tolerant, and resistance to change in the same circumstances as being intolerant. I have some sympathies with your post in this regard.

I can say with certainty that I am more tolerant of gay rights than you are. I can say from a political perspective that I tend to be more supportive of equalising minority interests and be less resistant to change â�� and so think that I would be regarded in that context as more tolerant (in a generic sense).

04/21/2009 09:16:41 AM · #2430

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Tolerance is synonymous with "non-discrimination" and this concept is held as a Universal value.. If you do not hold the value of "non-discrimination" as ultimate then you are Wrong. Not Relative wrong. Wrong wrong.

Non-discrimination is a relative value, increasingly cherished in our Western society, but not in Iran or tribal Pakistan, Biblical Egypt or 1700's Virginia. If you do not value non-discrimination over hate, then you are intolerant (a relative moral wrong in our current time and culture).

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Which of these two statements is Intolerant?...

You're confusing intolerance in the general sense (not permitting) with intolerance in the social sense (discrimination). They are not the same thing. I will not tolerate (permit) my kids' use of racial slurs (discrimination). A 1940's German Jew will not tolerate (permit) his family to be gassed by Nazis (discrimination). Rosa Parks would not tolerate (permit) herself as an African American to be regulated to a back seat (discrimination). The examples you gave were of Ihrig and Hilton not tolerating (permitting) the idea that gay couples should be denied the right to declare their commitment to one another (discrimination). Likewise, if I can only handle 2 beers before getting drunk and you can handle 8, that would make me more intolerant of alcohol, but that's not the sort of intolerance we're talking about.

04/21/2009 10:47:50 AM · #2431

Thanks for the long reply Matthew.

Two thoughts:

* I have to say your description of tolerance logically boils down to "I support things I think are right and do not support things I think are wrong. There may also be things I don't care about and those I can leave alone." I have the exact same opinion, but the devil is in the details and we just disagree on what falls into what category.

* In yet another attempt to point out that "non-discrimination" may be held as a Universal value, look at the following totally generic argument:

I believe X is right.
I believe X is wrong.

When evaluating the above two statements you have two options:
A) I believe X is right/wrong because I believe principle Y applies to the situation. I understand other people or societies may not think principle Y applies to this situation and that is an equally valid opinion.
B) I believe X is right/wrong because I believe principle Y applies to the situation. I understand other people or societies do not think principle Y applies to this situation but their view is inferior to my own because it is incorrect.
C) Perhaps there is a third answer, but I'm not aware of one that can't logically be boiled down to A) or B), but I'm open.

If you answer A) you are applying Relativism. If you answer B) you are applying Universalism. Do note Universalism does not necessarily mean that principle Y applies in ALL situations, just that there is an objective truth to whether Y applies to the situation involving X.

So Shannon is incorrect to say "non-discrimination" is automatically Relative because not all societies hold it as important. Both Relativism and Universalism understand different societies can hold different views, but where Relativism says that the different views are neither superior nor inferior, Universalism would hold those values can be incorrect. (Of course I suppose it's possible YOUR society is the incorrect one and the other society's value is actually superior to your own, but for simplicity we'll assume our view is the correct one.)

Message edited by author 2009-04-21 10:54:58.

04/21/2009 10:54:58 AM · #2432

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

B) I believe X is right/wrong because I believe principle Y applies to the situation. I understand other people or societies do not think principle Y applies to this situation but their view is inferior to my own because it is incorrect.

If you answer B) you are applying Universalism. Do note Universalism does not necessarily mean that principle Y applies in ALL situations, just that there is an objective truth to whether Y applies to the situation involving X.

The simple fact that the other people or societies do not agree with you, and very likely believe the reverse, should make it obvious that the opinions are relative rather than objective truth (otherwise, they would agree with you).

04/21/2009 10:55:24 AM · #2433

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
B) I believe X is right/wrong because I believe principle Y applies to the situation. I understand other people or societies do not think principle Y applies to this situation but their view is inferior to my own because it is incorrect.

If you answer B) you are applying Universalism. Do note Universalism does not necessarily mean that principle Y applies in ALL situations, just that there is an objective truth to whether Y applies to the situation involving X.

The simple fact that the other people or societies do not agree with you, and very likely believe the reverse, should make it obvious that the opinions are relative rather than objective truth (otherwise, they would agree with you).

I was typing an edit while you were typing this. See my post above.

04/21/2009 10:57:02 AM · #2434

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

So Shannon is incorrect to say "non-discrimination" is automatically Relative because not all societies hold it as important.

THAT'S WHAT RELATIVE MEANS!!!

04/21/2009 11:00:05 AM · #2435

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
So Shannon is incorrect to say "non-discrimination" is automatically Relative because not all societies hold it as important.

THAT'S WHAT RELATIVE MEANS!!!

DUDE. What is important to Relativism and Universalism is how you VIEW the other position, not that multiple positions exist. Relativism views both positions as equally valid while Universalism would consider one position to be better than the other.

If you ultimately can't grasp this, then can I assume that you feel A) is the answer you identify with?

Message edited by author 2009-04-21 11:00:21.

04/21/2009 11:06:08 AM · #2436

If you are still confused on what I mean by Universalism, read the wiki on Moral Realism.

Melethia

Canon EOS-80D

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

04/21/2009 11:06:30 AM · #2437

I think I'm a relativist. Is there a church for that? :-)

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

04/21/2009 11:11:13 AM · #2438

Originally posted by Melethia:

I think I'm a relativist. Is there a church for that? :-)

Yup, it's called the Unitarian Universalist church. They're all about moral relativism, and coincidentally they're Jeb's church. They're quite big in New England, actually; you saw and admired one of their churches in our wanderings.

R.

Melethia

Canon EOS-80D

04/21/2009 11:13:24 AM · #2439

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by Melethia:
I think I'm a relativist. Is there a church for that? :-)

Yup, it's called the Unitarian Universalist church. They're all about moral relativism, and coincidentally they're Jeb's church. They're quite big in New England, actually; you saw and admired one of their churches in our wanderings.

R.

But... but... if I'm a relativist, how can a Univeralist church apply? Wouldn't a Universalist be the more likely attendee? It's all so confusing.... :-)

04/21/2009 11:13:46 AM · #2440

Originally posted by Melethia:

I think I'm a relativist. Is there a church for that? :-)

Hey Melethia, I forgot to respond to your comment. I guess what I'm saying is that I would hope toleration would also include civility and decorum, otherwise it's fairly useless. Some people may assume Perez Hilton is a tolerant person (all gay people are tolerant right?), but I would counter he's fairly useless as evidenced by his totally immature response of declaring someone who disagrees with him a "dumb bitch". Toleration, to me, goes beyond a simple "I'm OK, you're OK". To me, toleration is love. Whether we agree or disagree with a position is less important than how we treat each other in the process.

04/21/2009 11:14:52 AM · #2441

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Relativism views both positions as equally valid while Universalism would consider one position to be better than the other.

A position cannot be universally better than another unless all societies share that value. If "not all societies hold it as important," then it must be relative. Period. You're trying to suggest that a value can be considered "universally" true from the point of view of one society, which is a blatant contradiction.

04/21/2009 11:15:02 AM · #2442

Not to put Deb on the spot, but she did actually declare herself one way or the other (more guts than many). So, Deb, do you think statement A) sums up your position in a generic sense?

Message edited by author 2009-04-21 11:19:01.

04/21/2009 11:15:52 AM · #2443

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Relativism views both positions as equally valid while Universalism would consider one position to be better than the other.

A position cannot be universally better than another unless all societies share that value. If "not all societies hold it as important," then it must be relative. Period. You're trying to suggest that a value can be considered "universally" true from the point of view of one society, which is a blatant contradiction.

Read Moral Realism. I'll assume you are a Relativist though. So does statement A) sum up your position?

04/21/2009 11:27:57 AM · #2444

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Read Moral Realism.

I did, and I don't buy it.

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I'll assume you are a Relativist though. So does statement A) sum up your position?

No, it doesn't because you framed the position in black and white terms, which isn't relative.

D) I believe X is right/wrong from my point of view because I believe principle Y applies to the situation. I understand other people or societies may not think principle Y applies to this situation from their point of view. Translation: I can believe something is "universally" wrong, but it's still a belief relative to my point of view, and someone else may believe the opposite to be "universally" wrong from their point of view. The opinions are neither equally valid nor superior/inferior because there's no universal benchmark. It's entirely dependent upon the point of view.

Message edited by author 2009-04-21 11:28:12.

Gordon

RIM BlackBerry Curve

Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM

04/21/2009 11:28:20 AM · #2445

The idea of tolerance really seems to have come out of the initial notion of religious tolerance. It isn't really an ethical framework or principle, just a nicety, because of the potential for reciprocity, it is seen as a general benefit. For example, most fundamentalist religious views are tolerated by other religions and the non-religious, no matter what they might actually think of them. People put up with it, mostly quietly, because they expect to benefit in turn.

It has more recently extended to sexual practices, though many of the religious groups that originally gained from the rise of tolerance, don't seem quite so willing to reciprocate.

However, the notion that it is a blanket requirement, for example, the nonsense that gets trotted out about being tolerant of the intolerant, is just weak thinking. The obvious conclusions of that are self-harm. (cf Karl Popper et al)

We've been down this path before, with the same protagonists, so I can only assume bringing it up yet again is just another reason to avoid watching Miss California and her defense of opposite marriage.

04/21/2009 11:34:03 AM · #2446

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Read Moral Realism.

I did, and I don't buy it.

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I'll assume you are a Relativist though. So does statement A) sum up your position?

No, it doesn't because you framed the position in black and white terms, which isn't relative.

D) I believe X is right/wrong from my point of view because I believe principle Y applies to the situation. I understand other people or societies may not think principle Y applies to this situation from their point of view. Translation: I can believe something is "universally" wrong, but it's still a belief relative to my point of view, and someone else may believe the opposite to be "universally" wrong from their point of view. The opinions are neither equally valid nor superior/inferior because there's no universal benchmark. It's entirely dependent upon the point of view.

OK, I hear ya. So in terms of X=gay marriage and Y=discrimination I should have understood your disagreement with my position as just being your point of view. So I can evaluation what you say, decide whether I think it makes sense, and accept it or reject it and we all go on our way?

Message edited by author 2009-04-21 11:34:46.

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 28-300mm f3.5-5.6G ED VR

04/21/2009 11:35:36 AM · #2447

Originally posted by Gordon:

The idea of tolerance really seems to have come out of the initial notion of religious tolerance. ..It has more recently extended to sexual practices...

Don't forget racial, gender, cultural and other forms of tolerance. Cro Magnons tolerating Neanderthals (if they ever did) would pre-date even religious tolerance.

NikonJeb

Nikon D850

04/21/2009 11:41:42 AM · #2448

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by Melethia:

But... but... if I'm a relativist, how can a Univeralist church apply? Wouldn't a Universalist be the more likely attendee? It's all so confusing.... :-)

Heh, heh.....welcome to my world! LOL!!!

You know how you can tell when a UU extremist has visited your house?

They burned a question mark in your front yard!

You know why UUs sing hymns so badly?

'Cause they're reading ahead to see if they buy it!