the conservative case for same sex marriage - Page 2 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 01-12-2010, 03:13 PM   #16
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 12:01 AM
This issue illustrates two things:

Religious discrimination is a two day street.

Pious dogma isn't confined to religion.
__________________

__________________
INDY500 is offline  
Old 01-12-2010, 03:29 PM   #17
Blue Crack Addict
 
Dalton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Little hand says it's time to rock and roll.
Posts: 15,147
Local Time: 02:01 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
what's to dispute?
Go groom your mustache, Steve.
__________________

__________________
Dalton is offline  
Old 01-12-2010, 03:31 PM   #18
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,492
Local Time: 01:01 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
This issue illustrates two things:

Religious discrimination is a two day street.

Pious dogma isn't confined to religion.


so the legalization of same-sex marriage is tantamount to religious discrimination?

please, challenge the dogma.



i feel in semi-retirement from FYM, but i am going to keep posting on this issue for a few reasons:

1. it is, obviously, deeply personal to me, and the further along in our relationship Memphis and i progress, the more i realize just how powerful the institution of marriage actually is.

2. one can't find a better example of the scapegoating and the baseless fear-mongering -- i.e., if the gays get married, straight families will self destruct -- in this century. it's amazing how history replicates itself and how, once again, a "passable" minority group is being assumed to pose some sort of ill-defined menace to the majority, and to society as a whole

3. i can't think of anything else that will help gay people -- easily the most despised minority group in the world -- more than access to an institution that will tell them, yes, you are worthy, you are good enough, you are not an error or a mistake or defective.




they say this case probably won't make it to the SCOTUS until the fall of 2011. i still fear losing, because the court is clearly conservative, and i think the justices fear upsetting social norms too much. still, i think that airing out these arguments is a good thing, because we realize just how little the other side has. fear and prejudice and the oft-talked about "ick factor" might still prove to powerful.
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 01-12-2010, 03:31 PM   #19
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,492
Local Time: 01:01 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dalton View Post
Go groom your mustache, Steve.


Adam has the clippers, Bruce, and no, you can't watch tonight.




(brilliant response, though, Dalton)
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 01-12-2010, 03:37 PM   #20
Blue Crack Addict
 
Dalton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Little hand says it's time to rock and roll.
Posts: 15,147
Local Time: 02:01 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
Irvine, your comment, "let's be honest: there's no actual argument against same-sex marriage beyond straight-up, in-your-face animus and hostility towards gay people," makes it clear you don't think debate is possible on this subject. Besides, neither you nor I probably have anything new to say on the issue apart from commenting on developments of the day such as which state voted down same-sex marriage or which courts decided to make law this time.

Your shtick is the Progressive shtick.

There is no intellectual argument to be made against same-sex marriage, or any other part of the Progressive or liberal agenda, because none exists. That's the whole condescending premise of the book 'What's The Matter With Kansas.' There is Progressive Thought and than there are the Red State rubes who can't be trusted to act or make decisions in their own best interest. In summary, dissent from Progressive Thought can only be based on fear or ignorance and democratic self-determination and traditions must be in harmony with the Progressive Worldview to be legitimate.

Nor are there any political or legal arguments to make as Progressives always frame their agenda in the language of "rights." Every worker has a right to a living wage. Abortion is a right. Health care is a right. And same-sex marriage is a right and opposition to it is no different than opposition to mixed marriages 50 years ago. "Rights," of course, aren't up for vote or debate.

As I've said several times, I don't bemoan your attempts to move society in a direction that you see as forward. That IS your right. I've tried to understand your point of view when you've argued intelligently and I've excused the occasional pejorative when you've argued out of passion or frustration.

What I do regret is that you and your FYM supporters have come to the conclusion that decent people in a country as large and diverse as ours can't simply disagree on the issue. Call me wrong, not hateful. Until that changes I see no reason to waste my time.
That's a really good post. You might want to move it to a different forum. I think someone else already posted something decent in FYM this year.
__________________
Dalton is offline  
Old 01-12-2010, 03:46 PM   #21
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,290
Local Time: 01:01 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by deep View Post
As long as we are going to have religion, we are going to have 'guilt free' discrimination.
Bears repeating.
__________________
anitram is offline  
Old 01-12-2010, 03:48 PM   #22
Blue Crack Addict
 
Dalton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Little hand says it's time to rock and roll.
Posts: 15,147
Local Time: 02:01 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by deep View Post
As long as we are going to have religion tradition families ideology, we are going to have 'guilt free' discrimination.
fixed
__________________
Dalton is offline  
Old 01-12-2010, 04:04 PM   #23
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,492
Local Time: 01:01 AM
the second INDY wants to offer up an argument that's more than "because i said so," i'll be willing to rescind my conviction that opposition to SSM is rooted in something more than basic bigotry.

also, would modern day white supremacists advocating for, say, a return to racially segregated schools be accorded the same amount of legitimacy and respect that we give to people who are against marriage equality?
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 01-12-2010, 08:09 PM   #24
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Strong Badia
Posts: 3,429
Local Time: 06:01 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by VintagePunk View Post
I made a well thought out response to some of Nathan's posts regarding this topic in the previous thread, that held some undeniable truths in it, and was genuinely curious as to how Nathan would respond. Alas, there was no response.

Nathan, if you see this, not a slam on you at all. Maybe you were busy and didn't have time to respond. I was just curious as to your reaction to my points, but you sort of dropped out of the conversation after that. I was a little disappointed by that.
Sorry I disappointed you, VP. My posts tend to come with alarming irregularity in FYM. I don't recall if I read your last posts, so don't take it as a slight for me not responding. With the new year, a whole pile of new projects have landed on my plate, and FYM is the first thing to go.

I also think that we're just going to wind up talking past each other, so after a while it feels like an exercise in futility. I'm happy to posts when I can, but it's not as often as I'd like. Still, I appreciate your graciousness.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511
and let's just be honest, Nathan: your positions are anti-family and anti-child. you are presenting, as ever, a fundamentally bigoted argument that harms the fabric of society by imagining a perceived threat presented by some minority group, and then you're arguing that this menace needs to be sanctioned.
I don't remember presenting a bigoted argument, Irvine. I remember you saying, after posting a piece by a conservative, "that settles THAT." So I merely posted, in response, a commentary by a self-avowed liberal Democrat, simply to show that that does not, in fact, settle that. His views aren't necessarily mine -- in fact, I've previously espoused a solution along the lines of what he and Rauch propose. But I thought it was still germaine to the "even conservatives support gay marriage" train of thought.

And you'd probably be surprised to know that my positions are more nuanced than you think. I'm not a fan of radicalism in any form, and the often-posted attitudes in FYM -- "gender doesn't matter! why do we have to think of the children? biology isn't important! kids don't need fathers!" -- often require a dissenting voice, if only to keep the conversation interesting.

The posted article ends with a statement that nicely sums up my perspective, I feel:

"In all sharp moral disagreements, maximalism is the constant temptation. People dig in, positions harden and we tend to convince ourselves that our opponents are not only wrong-headed but also malicious and acting in bad faith. In such conflicts, it can seem not only difficult, but also wrong, to compromise on a core belief.

"But clinging to extremes can also be quite dangerous. In the case of gay marriage, a scorched-earth debate, pitting what some regard as nonnegotiable religious freedom against what others regard as a nonnegotiable human right, would do great harm to our civil society. When a reasonable accommodation on a tough issue seems possible, both sides should have the courage to explore it."
__________________
nathan1977 is offline  
Old 01-12-2010, 08:20 PM   #25
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 01:01 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
This issue illustrates two things:

Religious discrimination is a two day street.

Pious dogma isn't confined to religion.
Actually, this issue does demonstrate one thing:

The best the Right can do with this issue is resort to cutesy one-liners and unsubstantiated self-victimization. Tolerance of intolerance goes very much against the classical liberal/modern conservative tradition, so I have little sympathy for bullies who wish to blame their targets for standing up for themselves!
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 01-12-2010, 08:30 PM   #26
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 01:01 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
Your shtick is the Progressive shtick.

There is no intellectual argument to be made against same-sex marriage, or any other part of the Progressive or liberal agenda, because none exists. That's the whole condescending premise of the book 'What's The Matter With Kansas.' There is Progressive Thought and than there are the Red State rubes who can't be trusted to act or make decisions in their own best interest. In summary, dissent from Progressive Thought can only be based on fear or ignorance and democratic self-determination and traditions must be in harmony with the Progressive Worldview to be legitimate.
This is a strawman non-argument.

What you've effectively been advocating by your lack of argument is that the Left abandon centuries of established logic and reason necessary to formulate coherent debate, and to just let the Right make up whatever they want along the way that we must respect by some kind of ideological entitlement. That is, while the Left must produce objective data to back up their arguments, all the Right has to do is say anything at all and demand that it be taken as "Truth" without challenge; otherwise, of course, there's some sinister "leftist agenda" out there.

I'm very, very sorry, but it's logic, reason, and coherent argumentation that separates Western Civilization from arbitrary barbarism. There's no "leftist cabal" that's holding conservatism back; it's the incoherent babble coming from the mouths of conservatives themselves that's holding them back. Western tradition and the First Amendment certainly guarantee that you can babble ad infinitum to your heart's content, but there is no way in hell I have to accept that nonsense.

If you want the "Conservative Worldview" to be legitimate, then--for the love of God--start making sense.
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 01-12-2010, 08:37 PM   #27
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,492
Local Time: 01:01 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by nathan1977 View Post
I don't remember presenting a bigoted argument, Irvine.

i'm doing my best to help you to see how bigoted your arguments are.


Quote:
I remember you saying, after posting a piece by a conservative, "that settles THAT." So I merely posted, in response, a commentary by a self-avowed liberal Democrat, simply to show that that does not, in fact, settle that. His views aren't necessarily mine -- in fact, I've previously espoused a solution along the lines of what he and Rauch propose. But I thought it was still germaine to the "even conservatives support gay marriage" train of thought.

you've posted it before, and it's been debunked before. the article, as we've demonstrated, is incredibly poor. it has nothing to do with SSM, unless you're willing to make natural procreation a legal requirement of marriage. not even you are willing to go that far, so the article has no merit, not then, not now, and even the author himself appears to have advanced his arguments in the second piece i posted.



Quote:
And you'd probably be surprised to know that my positions are more nuanced than you think. I'm not a fan of radicalism in any form, and the often-posted attitudes in FYM -- "gender doesn't matter! why do we have to think of the children? biology isn't important! kids don't need fathers!" -- often require a dissenting voice, if only to keep the conversation interesting.

it's not "why do we have to think of the children," nathan, as you invent strawman arguments, it's that we are thinking of the children. we are thinking of how gay people getting married poses no harm to children whatsoever. we are thinking of the children of gay couples who would greatly benefit from the protections and rights of marriage.

you keep trying to insist that a family can only be just so ... when how real life is lived doesn't support your romantic dream of life that doesn't have nearly the "5,000 years" of history you imagine it to have.

the "natural procreation only is the only family worthy of protection" argument is absolute bunk. so why continue, if only to dress up deeply held prejudices? if you want to argue against gay adoption, go ahead and do so. but let's at least separate that from SSM.

as ever, Nathan, please tell me why children need to be protected from myself and Memphis and exactly how preventing us from getting married will provide said protection.




Quote:
"But clinging to extremes can also be quite dangerous. In the case of gay marriage, a scorched-earth debate, pitting what some regard as nonnegotiable religious freedom against what others regard as a nonnegotiable human right, would do great harm to our civil society. When a reasonable accommodation on a tough issue seems possible, both sides should have the courage to explore it."


i see no reason to accommodate either, 1) religious bigotry, or 2) invented "threats" to families and children that requires punitive legal action against a clearly targeted minority. it's the second argument that Olson is, so far, deftly arguing. objecting to these two things is hardly "extreme" -- and i don't think you'd accept it at all, nathan, if you weren't allowed to marry your wife.

how would you feel?
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 01-12-2010, 08:39 PM   #28
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,492
Local Time: 01:01 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by melon View Post
Western tradition and the First Amendment certainly guarantee that you can babble ad infinitum to your heart's content, but there is no way in hell I have to accept that nonsense.


if you don't accept non-arguments, then you aren't being fair and balanced.
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 01-12-2010, 09:30 PM   #29
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: The American Resistance
Posts: 4,754
Local Time: 12:01 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by melon View Post
Actually, this issue does demonstrate one thing:

The best the Right can do with this issue is resort to cutesy one-liners
We have our cutesy one-liners and you have your "Racist, Sexist, Anti-Gay, Born-Again Bigot Go Away" chants.
Call it even.
Quote:
and unsubstantiated self-victimization.
You mean like the "Gay is the new black" argument for same-sex marriage which, as you know, is largely rejected by African-Americans.

Quote:
Tolerance of intolerance goes very much against the classical liberal/modern conservative tradition, so I have little sympathy for bullies who wish to blame their targets for standing up for themselves!
Tolerance doesn't mean checking one's beliefs at the door and condoning every practice, idea, trend, style
or new "right" that germinates in a free society. It does sometimes mean finding a compromise -- coexisting as it were. I have tried to do that.

And if cutesy one-liners is seen as bullying then what are you gonna call the Right when we are forced to unveil our Shock&awe/logic&reason/can't-be-disputed/final-word/checkmate/rip-your-heart-out-and-show-it-to-you/pickup-your-toys-and-go-home Conservative Argument Against Same-Sex Marriage?
__________________
INDY500 is offline  
Old 01-12-2010, 09:57 PM   #30
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Strong Badia
Posts: 3,429
Local Time: 06:01 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
i'm doing my best to help you to see how bigoted your arguments are.
My post contained not a single argument of my own, Irvine. Period. It was a cut and pasted article in response to a cut and pasted article.

Quote:
it's not "why do we have to think of the children," nathan, as you invent strawman arguments
Martha posted that comment in one of the other multiple threads. It's not an invented strawman. (Which seems to be this thread's Word of the Day, by the way. Cue the balloons.)

Quote:
it's that we are thinking of the children. we are thinking of how gay people getting married poses no harm to children whatsoever.
And some of us are thinking about kids deprived of a mother or a father. *shrug*

We can go around and around on this issue, Irvine, and it only points out my earlier point -- we are talking past each other. Which makes continued talking pointless.

Quote:
you keep trying to insist that a family can only be just so
That's not accurate either. I've said there are optimal family situations, and have backed it up with numerous facts and statistics from a variety of different sources. I've also made allowances for other family structures, while pointing out that laws govern the rule, not the exception.

Quote:
as ever, Nathan, please tell me why children need to be protected from myself and Memphis and exactly how preventing us from getting married will provide said protection.
I'm also pretty sure I've never said that. I don't think kids need to be protected from you.

There are a lot of people out there convinced that same sex marriage is the ultimate bogeyman. I'm not one of them. I'm far more concerned with the damage of no-fault divorce, and more annoyed that the same people who are so quick to demonize gay marriage so easily turn a blind eye to matters of far more significance.

If you're going to ask my perspective on all of this, and if I'm going to be honest, I think most people these days shouldn't get married. And they sure as hell shouldn't procreate. I don't believe that marriage is a right for any/everyone -- the past fifty years of the history of marriage in this country proves how quickly a (real or, in this case, perceived) right can be abused -- and for straight people to claim some sense of entitlement to the institution is the epitome of hypocrisy, given the ways the institution has been dumbed-down and abused over the past century. Marriage doesn't complete you, nor does it make you a better person, nor does it guarantee a happily ever after. It's work -- at times soul-searingly so. It's not to be entered into lightly by anyone, and it's high time we recognized that and treated it as such.

I further think that, if the federal government is really going to take this whole issue of marriage seriously -- and I think it should, since we would all agree that healthy marriages and families are the bedrock for society -- we should remove any discrimination against same sex couples, while at the same time making it much, much more difficult for people to get married, regardless of their sexual orientation. Whether straight or gay, marriage is an institution that requires a license, and like any other licensed right or privilege -- operating a car or heavy machinery, owning a gun -- there should (at the very least) be a mandatory three month waiting period. Want the (perceived) financial benefits of marriage? Want property rights, etc.? Take on the responsibility. There should be mandatory training on crucial issues like conflict resolution, family planning, what to do in abusive situations, parenting, financial planning, etc. -- in exactly the same way that we require licensed drivers to be trained to use an automobile, or screened before letting them buy a handgun. And a fractured marriage can cause much, much more irreparable harm than either.

This is where I break with my conservative and libertarian brethren -- if the government is going to get into the marriage business, the government should work with its citizens -- all its citizens -- to help them stay married.

With that, I bid you all adieu.
__________________

__________________
nathan1977 is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Proposition 8 discussion continued yolland Free Your Mind 797 03-03-2009 02:09 PM
SPLIT--> California's Proposition 8 on Same-Sex Marriage phillyfan26 Free Your Mind Archive 1002 11-08-2008 03:23 PM
Rate my album collection. shart1780 Lemonade Stand Archive 75 02-14-2008 12:07 AM
Go Home Human Shields, You U.S. Wankers... Iraqi Citizens topple main Saddam Statue Headache in a Suitcase Free Your Mind Archive 130 04-15-2003 08:48 PM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:01 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com