The costs of gay marriage

[7StraightIsGreat]

No one can say for sure if any "hurt" would result from changing the definition of marriage. However, same-sex marriage would be the most radical change in the history of western civilization in terms of a social institution. It would in essence render genders obsolete. Some people still believe that there are differences between males and females, and that rendering future generations' genders meaningless may bring about unforseen consequences.

A lot of people think that conservatives fear an impending apocalypse as soon as the definition of marriage is changed. Far from the truth. To be honest, I would think if both sides took a step back they'd see this is quite a trivial matter considering the other problems our society is currently facing.

I made the comparisons about 20 pages ago but your argument is almost identicle to the arguments made in the past about slavery. In fact, it's so close it's scary. Those who remained pro slavery were very adamant about the fact that there were differences between blacks and whites and that freeing the blacks would have unforseen consequences for future generations. They were afraid of things that ended up being trivial and small-minded when looked back upon.

The legalization of same sex marriage is on the horizon and I think we'll certainly see it in our lifetime. When it does happen, society will not start to crumble immediately or in the future because of it.

 

[One Brow]

More often, or just the times you care about so it makes more of an impression on you? link?

I've got you, right here, as an example (more detail on that below). If you are looking for a scientific study, I don't think you can scientifically record people's intentions with any accuracy, so while there may be such a study, I wouldn't put much stock in it.

Also are we to the point that we assume guilty first and force a person accused of something to try to defend themselves with that label attached?

Maybe one day, you'll get to the point where you assume other people can be reasonable when they are pointing out behaviors, instead of assuming they are being unreasonable, and treat it like a problem to be fixed instead of a crime.

What ever happened to innocent until proven guilty, or giving people the benefit of the doubt until they prove you wrong? Is that the negative world you live in?

I live in a world where where it's important to me to understand other people, my effect upon them, and treat them like they are reasonable adults. Why do you think that is negative?

Because hatred is active, I'm pretty sure every person that is actually bigoted knows who/what they hate and don't need it pointed out to them.

You seemedo focused on hatred, so let me remind you of what bigot/bigoted actually means:

McMilland: https://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/american/bigoted

someone who is bigoted has opinions that most people think are unreasonable, especially about politics, race, or religion, and refuses to consider other people’s opinions

American Heritage: https://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/bigot

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

Webster: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bigot

a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance

You'll not only Webster's mentions hate, and even then only as an extreme version of bigotry. Bigots can be very polite, compassionate people who are nonetheless so convinced of the rightness of their position that they cant even listen/read/think about/comprehend to other people's opinions. Archie Bunker is not a prototypical bigot, he's a stereotypical bigot.

Let me clarify, as you seem intent to be coy.
I have labeled you as a child abuser because your daughter wanted a candy bar from the store and you told her no.... in public... in front of witnesses! You cur!

Funny, that's just the type of thing my wife says (except, she'll use a milder word than "abuse", but that's a difference of magnitude, not type).

There wasn't anything coy about my answer. You were just surprised at my standard. As I said, I think you are a typically reasonable person. I think that if you feel a particular behavior is child abuse (even if it is refusing to buy a candy bar), than at least I should consider why you might think so. I might ultimately reject your reasoning, but if I think you are generally reasonable, then it in my own best interest to hear you out first.

What do you think it says about you that you seem to have presumed my reaction would be to immediately dismiss such a claim?

You are the one comparing them, ...

Who are you trying to kid? We're in the middle of a discussion about how people interpret words and actions towards disadvantages groups, you come up with an analogy of someone interpreting words and actions towards children, and then claim the analogy has nothing to do with the topic under discussion? I believe you when you says you did not intended to compare disadvantaged people to children. You still did.

You take an analogy and see what you want to see Shelob. One might say you try to spin your webs and catch people in them purposefully.

I didn't ask you to create an analogy. I certainly didn't ask you to use children in it. That came from you. Own up to it. Ask yourself why your reaction was to equate people in disadvantaged groups with children, as opposed to some other type of people.

Is this your definition of what you are doing? Are you asking for my validation?

Not sure if you are serious. I was referencing my previous comment in a rhetorical question.

I don't think its a huge misinterpretation of the blog's contents at all. He is lumping all people accused of being racists and misogynists and saying they just have to deal with it because it is the truth. (with few exceptions)

Actually, he is lumping all comments that express misogyny and racism, and saying that if you are told that your expressing racism and misogyny, you should deal with why your comments came across that way.

That is only true of people that are truly racists and misogynists.

Cromwell does not define or label people in this fashion to begin with, as the post made clear. There is no such thing as a "true racist" or 'true misogynist" that is completely separate from non-racists and non-misogynists. That's dodge that people who entertain infrequent or mild racist/misogynistic thoughts use to separate themselves from the problem, instead of admitting that, sometimes, they are part of the problem.

I don't know what Ian's definition of those words is and who he thinks fit in those categories,

If only Cromwell had devoted some time in that post to making clear what he means by therm. Maybe it would have read something like this:

As I’ve said countless times before, the phrase “a racist” is meaningless, as is “a misogynist”. There is no standard, not even a colloquial one, by which someone goes from being “not a racist” to being “a racist”. In the moment that you are doing something racist, you are “a racist”; in the moment that you are doing something misogynistic, you are “a misogynist”. That moment ends the moment your behaviour ends; the alternative is that everyone who has ever said or done anything racist is “a racist” forever, which would include roughly 100% of the population, thus making the phrase useless as a descriptor.

So, seriously, what do you find so confusing about that definition? I mean, it's fairly plain English. One might almost think that, as you read it, you did not even seriously consider the meaning of the sentences, that you don't really tolerate words being used in a way you're not used to, that your refusal to take this passage as written borders on being obstinate. I only wish there was a good word in the English language for that sort of devotion to one's own opinions.

If I hated women and/or held them in contempt in any way I would know about it.

Sure. It's not that you hold them in contempt, you just naturally equate them to your children when you make analogies about them in your mind. Honestly, who needs you to admit, or even be aware of, to hatred or contempt in such circumstances?

I disagree with plenty of things I don't hate.

Who you hate, or acknowledge hating, isn't even relevant to anyone but you.

I don't go out of my way to harm or hurt anyone on the other side of these disagreements in any way. I speak my peace as respectfully as I can, and go from there.

I've said many times that I think you are by disposition kind, fair and compassionate. That's why I think you are worth all this discussion.

 

[One Brow]

You're right. He was talking specifically about intercourse between the two individuals producing valid offspring. My bad. I do still find that distinction beyond pointless as it pertains to whether or not their family ought to be legitimate in the eyes of the state.

Furthermore, my suspicion is that colton would not make such a distinction for heterosexual couples. That's why it strikes me as a rationalization, not an argument.

 

[One Brow]

In my statement the clause "while degrading the meaning of marriage" refers to a centuries-old meaning that has,

Do you think a person word choice reflects their opinions? In this situation, you could have referred to "evolving the meaning of marriage" or "altering the meaning of marriage". Instead, you chose "degrading". While "evolving" (outside of biology) typically involves the connotation of improving and "altering" has a more neutral connotation, the "degrading" of something has the connotation (perhaps denotation) to that thing being broken down, put into disrepair, made useless.

If gays are allowed to marry, marriage will still be joining of two committed, independent adults into a single family. There will be no degradation. It is bigotry to indicate that there will be.

 

[One Brow]

I would suggest a name for it: "household partners" and I wouldn't dream of saying anyone actually has to be sexually-involved to be able to be recognized as a legal, financial, and/or caregiving team.

Why does it need a separate name?

 

[One Brow]

You're not the nice guys who are actually compassionate and understanding, but you are not self-aware or honest enough to admit it.

You're asking us to be compassionate and understanding for your intention to discriminate, and but you are not honest enough to admit that. I will offer you all the compassion and understanding I offer to members of Stormfront or Men's Rights Activists (MRAs); I will offer the hope that you can learn your prejudices do not belong in government policy or the public sphere.

 

[Jazz Spazz]

If you can't tell the difference between a behavior that expresses hatred, and one that does not, then you are treating someone with hatred.

Some examples from recent studies:

After controlling for dress, background, speech patterns, etc., black and white men went to various locations in New York looking for employment. For every group, people without a criminal record were hired/upgraded at a much higher rate than those with a criminal record. However, white men with a criminal record were hired/upgraded at about the same rate as as black men without a criminal record. You will find very few employers in New York that say they hate black people, but in their hiring, they treat black people as if they were criminals. How is that different from treating them with hatred? Do you think that it matters to a black applicant whether the employer feels hatred, if he typically will be treated like a criminal regardless?

After controlling for other background issues, resumes examined by employers typically rated applicants with typically female names as similarly qualified to applicants with typically male names who were a full degree status lower (that is, women with bachelors were rated as about the same as men with associates, women with masters as about the same as men with bachelors). There was little difference in this effect between male and female employers, and very few of the employers would say they hate women. Yet, how is this evaluation pattern different from those who say they hate women? Does it really matter to women applicants is the evaluator feels hatred, when they will be treated as less worthy of a job regardless?

You seem intent on boiling down a very complex situation about job searching down to an issue about race or gender, and apparently so do whoever was pushing this study.

It is nearly impossible to do a random study and come to any sort of conclusive results, and if you put in controls into the study to focus on the parts you want to you limit the results of the study and limit the true findings because they are tainted by your restraints. What were the positions being looked for. Were all of the candidates basically equal in their skill set? Were all of those hiring managers white, or were some black? Did the black managers hire more white or black candidates? Did those searching for jobs have skills that fit the requirements and needs of those jobs that were being interviewed for? Was this study only done in NY, or other places as well? Of the people with Bachelor degrees and Associate Degrees what degrees were they were they in line with what was desired for the jobs? If I had a Bachelors of Sociology but was applying for a position in the medical field, or business field vs someone that got their Associate degree, that is basically even footing and the other factors will come into play. It totally depends on what an employer needs and they always look to see if a person will fit in with their team so they can have a cohesive unit.

I know numerous "white males", myself included, that have been job searching and not finding positions that they were qualified. They were passed over for various reasons and most of them had to do with who the interviewer thought could do the job, would fit in to their culture, and would take some of the load off of them. I know for a fact at times women are passed over, not because of hatred towards women, but for financial reasons. More often than with men, women will get pregnant and take time off, which requires the hiring manager to scramble to find a temporary replacement or for others in the team to pull the extra weight until that person returns. More often than with men if their significant other gets a job somewhere else, they will quit their job to go.

It seems to me you and some people performing studies found something to do with their 104 days of summer vacation, which include painting a continent, and discovering something that doesn't exist.

Where's Perry?

 

[One Brow]

... since people in support of gay marriage are telling other people what they should accept.

I am telling you that you should should accept gay marriage in the same way that I would tell a member of Stormfront they need to accept interracial marriage. No more acceptance, no less.

 

[margodydek]

I made the comparisons about 20 pages ago but your argument is almost identicle to the arguments made in the past about slavery. In fact, it's so close it's scary. Those who remained pro slavery were very adamant about the fact that there were differences between blacks and whites and that freeing the blacks would have unforseen consequences for future generations. They were afraid of things that ended up being trivial and small-minded when looked back upon.

The legalization of same sex marriage is on the horizon and I think we'll certainly see it in our lifetime. When it does happen, society will not start to crumble immediately or in the future because of it.

Thing is, people for thousands have years have advocated for freedom from slavery. The 1860s and the 50's and 60's weren't the first time someone came up with the idea that race doesn't matter and that slavery should be abolished. Yet among all these great men and women who labored for race equality, as well as all the great thinkers in history, none of them ever thought to reconsider the definition of marriage.

One Brow can step on my argument again if he wants, but I'll say it again: the corollary between race discrimation and preserving the defintion of marriage don't hold up. There is no difference between a black man and a white man. Meaning that race in our society should be obsolete. However, women and men are inherently different. They are not interchangeable parts.

 

[Gameface]

...same-sex marriage would be the most radical change in the history of western civilization in terms of a social institution.

Allowing individuals to associate with one another as they choose does not hinder your ability to do the same. It changes nothing about your relationship or potential relationships. It changes nothing about the integrity of your marriage because that is completely in the hands of the people in your marriage.

To me it's like a guy with an iPhone saying that if you call an HTO a smartphone it diminishes his iPhone because an HTO does not have the same smartphone capabilities. In the end the guy still has his iPhone and it still does all the things it did before.

Sorry, I can't get away from making bad analogies. It's a sickness.

It would in essence render genders obsolete.

I don't want to be a jerk about semantics, but not only does it do nothing in regard to gender roles outside the specific homeosexual relationships, it is not possible for gender to become obsolete. Gay people exist. They have existed. Gender hasn't gone anywhere.

A lot of people think that conservatives fear an impending apocalypse as soon as the definition of marriage is changed. Far from the truth. To be honest, I would think if both sides took a step back they'd see this is quite a trivial matter considering the other problems our society is currently facing.

So why do we restrict people's freedom to associate with one another as they choose if the issue is trivial? I would assume that if it wasn't a big deal we'd default to allowing people to live their lives as they see fit as long as they were not causing damage to anyone else.

 

[One Brow]

I like how they assume that anyone on the other side of the argument is either incompetent, ignorant, or just a flat-out bigot.

I'm guessing you include me in that list, and I consider you "on the other side" of my argument, and that you think I therefore consider you "incompetent, ignorant, or just a flat-out bigot". Feel me to correct me if I am wrong on any of that.

If that is all true, let me ask you this: do you think I see myself any differently? Is your anger that I see you as thinking differently than I do, or the the same?

 

[Gameface]

Why does it need a separate name?

Because it is less than. Otherwise it wouldn't be an insult to the contemporary definition of marriage.