SPLIT--> California's Proposition 8 on Same-Sex Marriage

[maycocksean]

That only works if you believe that coddling these people and allowing special leeway for their religious bigotry is going to magically transform them. I don't believe that is the case, so we may as well call a spade a spade.

I'm not arguing for coddling or allowing special leeway for anyone's bigotry. There is a big, and I believe, important, difference between calling someone's ideas bad and calling the person bad. What you're suggesting is that some people's minds can't be changed--and I think that is true--but there are many whose minds CAN be changed and calling them bigots won't help.

Look, I used to have what I would now classify as bigoted ideas about homosexuality. I changed. It wasn't because someone called a spade a spade. It was because of some personal experiences with people I care for deeply who are gay, because I realized that intellectually what I believed just wasn't adding up with what I was experiencing, and not least because Melon (someone who has been very clear about his impatience with homophobia in our society) took the time to understand my viewpoint as theologically conservative Christian and showed how someone like me could rectify an unbigoted view of homosexuality with scripture. Call it coddling if you want, but it worked.

 

[anitram]

Good for you, Sean. I'm happy that you have moved forward and feel better about your positions today. But do you think that when you had bigoted ideas, you would have donated your money, time and encouraged your church to participate in aggressive action to codify this bigotry?

A couple of years ago, I went to a talk given by the lawyer who basically got gay marriage legalized in Canada. It is a woman who worked on this for over 2 decades, and said that she quickly realized that change doesn't come overnight. So they basically eroded the bigotry by targeting smaller, individual issues like health insurance, employment standards, custody issues, and so on until such a point where there was pretty much no difference left and then gay marriage was passed by the courts. So that may support what you are saying here. But I also remember her saying that she quickly realized that working with the die-hard right which was pouring immense amounts of time, money and personnel in fighting this was a complete and utter waste of time. These people were not going to change and the only real thing that you could do was to completely marginalize them and then frankly politely wait for them to die out. And guess what? It happened. They are now such a fringe that the Conservative government has declared the issue closed and muzzles all MPs running in an election, preventing them from even bringing this topic up. And time, a friend of ours, has changed the polling completely.

So what you are talking about may be true for some "soft" bigotry in the middle, but this kind of devotion shown by diamond, shown by the Mormon Church and whatever other Church organizations are doing it, that can't be overcome and history shows it.

 

[maycocksean]

Good for you, Sean. I'm happy that you have moved forward and feel better about your positions today. But do you think that when you had bigoted ideas, you would have donated your money, time and encouraged your church to participate in aggressive action to codify this bigotry?

A couple of years ago, I went to a talk given by the lawyer who basically got gay marriage legalized in Canada. It is a woman who worked on this for over 2 decades, and said that she quickly realized that change doesn't come overnight. So they basically eroded the bigotry by targeting smaller, individual issues like health insurance, employment standards, custody issues, and so on until such a point where there was pretty much no difference left and then gay marriage was passed by the courts. So that may support what you are saying here. But I also remember her saying that she quickly realized that working with the die-hard right which was pouring immense amounts of time, money and personnel in fighting this was a complete and utter waste of time. These people were not going to change and the only real thing that you could do was to completely marginalize them and then frankly politely wait for them to die out. And guess what? It happened. They are now such a fringe that the Conservative government has declared the issue closed and muzzles all MPs running in an election, preventing them from even bringing this topic up. And time, a friend of ours, has changed the polling completely.

So what you are talking about may be true for some "soft" bigotry in the middle, but this kind of devotion shown by diamond, shown by the Mormon Church and whatever other Church organizations are doing it, that can't be overcome and history shows it.

Sorry it's taking me so long to reply. Its hard to post with a baby in your arms. Can you hold him for me?

. . .okay I put him down. He'll be crying in seconds so I'll make this quick.

You're right I wouldn't have time and money or encouraged aggressive action on the issue. But then my church generally avoids involvement in politics period. I might have voted yes on Prop 8.

I think your points are good ones. I would not suggest trying to change the hard-core idealogues. What I'm saying is that these people are not the majority. They motivate the majority. They manipulate the majority. But I think most people are not actual hard core idealogues and they CAN change.

 

[anitram]

I'd babysit that lovely offspring of yours for free anytime! When you get back on the mainland, we'll be close enough to facilitate such things.

 

[yolland]

But I also remember her saying that she quickly realized that working with the die-hard right which was pouring immense amounts of time, money and personnel in fighting this was a complete and utter waste of time. These people were not going to change and the only real thing that you could do was to completely marginalize them and then frankly politely wait for them to die out.

I agree with this, but you do have to be wary of fallout from prematurely marginalizing people when there's still strong popular inclination to agree with whatever measure(s) they're specifically supporting at the time. It's much easier to get people to reject those who seem overtly and viciously contemptuous, who freely use slurs and wax hysterical and seem hungry to demonize and persecute, than it is to get them to reject those who present themselves as humbly committed to an ideal.

 

[deep]

Look, I used to have what I would now classify as bigoted ideas about homosexuality. I changed. It wasn't because someone called a spade a spade. It was because of some personal experiences with people I care for deeply who are gay, because I realized that intellectually what I believed just wasn't adding up with what I was experiencing, and not least because Melon (someone who has been very clear about his impatience with homophobia in our society) took the time to understand my viewpoint as theologically conservative Christian and showed how someone like me could rectify an unbigoted view of homosexuality with scripture. Call it coddling if you want, but it worked.

I was raised in an environment with bias or bigoted thinking.

And like you,
it was through my associations with some of these "others" that caused me to throw out much of my bias thinking.

We all have bias thinking.
It is only when we can identify it that we are able to discard some of it.

 

[deep]

I would not suggest trying to change the hard-core idealogues. What I'm saying is that these people are not the majority. They motivate the majority. They manipulate the majority. But I think most people are not actual hard core idealogues and they CAN change.

How do you think these people will ever change their wrong thinking?


It is my opinion that one can have a civil discussion with them showing common courtesy and even respect.


Through these conversations, one is able to cause the wrong thinking person to at least consider another point of view.


And that is how it begins.

A bigoted Sean has a conversation with a respectful, clear thinking Melon.

End result, bigoted Sean discards wrong thinking.

and at this point,
Sean (and deep) wonders what other bad thinking may need to be discarded.

 

[maycocksean]

How do you think these people will ever change their wrong thinking?


It is my opinion that one can have a civil discussion with them showing common courtesy and even respect.


Through these conversations, one is able to cause the wrong thinking person to at least consider another point of view.

Exactly my point.

and at this point,
Sean (and deep) wonders what other bad thinking may need to be discarded.

Nope, actually, I think that pretty much cleared it up for me...

 

[deep]

Nope, actually, I think that pretty much cleared it up for me...

yes,

but before you discarded anti-gay thinking
you most likely thought you were on sound ground "loving the sinner and hating the sin"

I often times ask myself why I believe what I believe

'conventional wisdom'
'group associations that require group thinking'
'traditional thinking'


there is correct and wrong thinking


assuming it is correct because of where it originated is very dangerous.

 

[Irvine511]

those who present themselves as humbly committed to an ideal.

i think some use this as a tactic.

 

[yolland]

Sure, it can be, but it's a pretty effective one.

 

[maycocksean]

yes,

but before you discarded anti-gay thinking
you most likely thought you were on sound ground "loving the sinner and hating the sin"

QUOTE]

Actually, I don't think I thought about it much--didn't have to, as a kid, since even as recently as that homosexuality was still very much in the closet, and I certainly don't recall ever "hating" any sins. Like a lot of people I probably based my views on not a lot of thought and very little experience. Furthermore, I wouldn't say I woke up one day and "discarded" anti-gay thinking. I certainly never thought of myself as "anti-gay" and I'll go even further and say I don't think I WAS anti-gay. My views were based mostly on lack of exposure and assumptions, and the change was a gradual one over time. Again, I didn't wake up one day, slap my head, and say, "Well, dangit. . all these years I've been a hate-filled bigot and didn't even know it."

By the time I got married, I recall thinking about a good friend of my wife's who attended the wedding that I hoped he never asked my views on the morality of homosexuality as I would never want to hurt him.

Several years ago my wife's best friend revealed that she was gay and that changed things yet again. Also, we got to be good friends with a lesbian couple here in Saipan. Change yet again. I had several gay students over the years, change again. And then just before the summer where Melon and I had that fateful exchange of ideas, a student of mine who I'd long believed was gay wrote for his final essay a composition essay that broke my heart--it was really a letter to me, I think more than anything. One of the things that really moved me was this young man's expressed conviction that even if no one else accepted him, he knew that God did--which really blew my mind as he'd never seemed particularly interested in spirituality. By that time, the structure of my old worldview was teetering, and Melon's arguments were a mere breeze that blew the whole thing over.

 

[A_Wanderer]

I feel that offending bigots is a valuable tool, in terms of winning hearts and minds perhaps driving reactionaries to expose their stupidity can sway more clear headed undecided individuals than moderate and considered arguments which are frankly wasted on haters.

 

[melon]

As an aside, I haven't paid attention to the poll numbers on this thing probably because I'm not in California, so there's nothing I can do about it; but, frankly, I think I'm too afraid to find out. California doesn't seem to have a great track record when it comes to voting down embarrassing ballot initiatives.

 

[Varitek]

ballot initiative 4 in CA is pretty crappy too.

Although I'm getting a little calmer about the presidential election results, I'm really jittery about some of these ballot initiatives out there.

 

[martha]

Can you hold him for me?

Ok!

 

[martha]

Although I'm getting a little calmer about the presidential election results, I'm really jittery about some of these ballot initiatives out there.

It can be a paradise out here, and then sometimes not.

 

[INDY500]

bigot: One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

Why doesn't that standard apply to both sides?

Why is "tolerance" a one-way street on this issue?

What makes anti-Christian bigotry acceptable if anti-gay bigotry is not?

Calling someone a bigot who IS a bigot is merely stating a fact.

And sometimes it's just name calling. Not embracing and condoning EVERY behavior, belief or worldview that comes along does not make one a bigot or a hater.

 

[INDY500]

But 99.9% of us aren't trying to codify our bigotry in statute.

That's how, no doubt, prop 8 would poll here in FYM, but I'm guessing the actual California vote will be slightly less lopsided.

 

[toscano]

Why doesn't that standard apply to both sides?

Why is "tolerance" a one-way street on this issue?

What makes anti-Christian bigotry acceptable if anti-gay bigotry is not?

Is someone trying to generate some laws which deny rights to Christians which others already have ?

And sometimes it's just name calling. Not embracing and condoning EVERY behavior, belief or worldview that comes along does not make one a bigot or a hater.

Denying someone a right you have because they're different to you in some way makes you a bigot.

 

[INDY500]

Is someone trying to generate some laws which deny rights to Christians which others already have ?

That's funny, prop 8 only exists because the California Supreme Court decided to "generate some laws."

Denying someone a right you have because they're different to you in some way makes you a bigot.

[Phone] (ring, ring)
It's Dearborn, Michigan on the line. They want to know if you're a bigot?

 

[toscano]

That's funny, prop 8 only exists because the California Supreme Court decided to "generate some laws."

Oh wow, you mean judges did their job and determined if something was legal ? Where WILL the insanity stop ?????

[Phone] (ring, ring)
It's Dearborn, Michigan on the line. They want to know if you're a bigot?

I'd better ask myself : "Would I deny someone a right I already have because that person is different to me in some way ? "

Hmm, if I answer 'yes' that DOES make me a bigot......

 

[anitram]

What makes anti-Christian bigotry acceptable if anti-gay bigotry is not?

I'd strip half the churches of their tax exempt status immediately, and frankly I wouldn't mind stripping the other half either.

But that's the difference between us, I just think they're freeloading while preaching bigotry, I am not trying to change the tax code.

 

[INDY500]

Oh wow, you mean judges did their job and determined if something was legal.

All laws being legal by definition, supreme court judges rule on their constitutionality. Theoretically using the constitution as their guide rather than personal political agendas. Theoretically.

Where WILL the insanity stop ?????

One can hope at the borders of CA, MA and CT.

I'd better ask myself : "Would I deny someone a right I already have because that person is different to me in some way ? "

Hmm, if I answer 'yes' that DOES make me a bigot......

I'll leave the epithet throwing to those so inclined.

 

[toscano]

All laws being legal by definition, supreme court judges rule on their constitutionality. Theoretically using the constitution as their guide rather than personal political agendas. Theoretically.

One can hope at the borders of CA, MA and CT.



I'll leave the epithet throwing to those so inclined.

That would be the non-bigots then ?

 

[anitram]

All laws being legal by definition, supreme court judges rule on their constitutionality. Theoretically using the constitution as their guide rather than personal political agendas. Theoretically.

Just because you disagree with a legal opinion doesn't make it incorrect nor does it by definition make it exclusively political.

Shocking concept, I know.

 

[martha]

That's funny, prop 8 only exists because the California Supreme Court decided to "generate some laws."

No. They applied the California Constitution to the law, and it didn't quite fit with the Equal Protection clause we have.

What makes anti-Christian bigotry acceptable if anti-gay bigotry is not?

It isn't. If Prop 8 prohibited marriage between Christians, there would still be a No on 8 sign in my front yard.

 

[Irvine511]

And sometimes it's just name calling. Not embracing and condoning EVERY behavior, belief or worldview that comes along does not make one a bigot or a hater.

being gay isn't any one of these things.

 

[INDY500]

being gay isn't any one of these things.

Same-sex marriage most certainly is.

But then again, relatively speaking, so are liberal democracies.

Civil unions (equivalent to marriage in all but name) seems to me a reasonable compromise between religion values and postmodernism -- tradition and individual rights.

 

[martha]

Civil unions (equivalent to marriage in all but name) seems to me a reasonable compromise between religion values and postmodernism -- tradition and individual rights.

Separate but equal was ruled unconstitutional. You never seem to understand that.