Wait... What?
Wait... What?
Not sure exactly what you are asking so I will break them down.
1. Obvious. I am for gay marriage
2. Just because someone has a differing opinion does not mean it is non sensical. Their opinions are no less valid than yours or mine.
3. I think that after gay marriage is made legal, as it should be, there will be lawsuits all over the place about anything that stands up to them. Private business, charities, religions. Such as Catholic adoption agencies and housing provided by religious entities.
lol I know everything you meant, I merely thought you were confused and thought I was against it.
And you're right, maybe I shouldn't have used the word "opinion." Let me reword it, gay marriage has no effect and doesn't hurt anyone.
As there should be. Can you imagine if an adoption agency turned away a black couple or an interracial couple that was looking to adopt? Married gay couples should have their rights protected just as much as everyone else.
If that adoption agency takes any public funding than they do business with everyone. If it is a private organization then I am fine with them turning away who ever they wish for whatever reason they wish. I support that for the same reason I support gay marriage.
Just as a gay private business owner should have the right now to do business with for any reason they want. I am against the government being so involved in private peoples lives. That goes for who I do or do not do business with, who I marry, who I decide to cover on insurance, what gun or gun accesory I wish to buy, where I wish to travel...
Actually, your criticisms show both, in part by asking questions clearly addressed in the study on race. Further, they show that you feel the need to questions methods you have no knowledge of. It's quite clear why you keep saying that other people see what they wish to. It's projection.
https://www.princeton.edu/~pager/race_at_work.pdf
https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/09/14/1211286109
Because the capabilities of the job applicants are being determined by the managers doing the hiring, not the other way around.
Matters for what? If skin color affects how one person judges the competence of another, then it will have a big effect on managers judging job applicants, but little on applicants since they are not judging managers.
There is no reliable method for analyzing anecdotes as if they were data. A datum is collected in a controlled fashion and designed to be analyzed with multiple other data. "An anecdote is something that stands alone, and is not easily combined with other anecdotes. So, I'm not making a category error.
What you think or feel doesn't change how your actions are perceived, it's internal. It can still affect how you choose your actions.
Good.
I'm not so irony-impaired that I have missed seeing it in your last two posts. I'm choosing to treat them seriously, anyhow, since you seem to think that your irony also contains some legitimate points or mirrors what I am saying in some fashion, and fails in that spectacularly.
I hear ya. I got yo back. What we all need to do is take a step back, understand, and consequently address the concerns of the opposing view. So lets go back to the article:
There are several question I have about the term "fundamental institution" and it's application of the term marriage. So the question ends up, where did marriage begin? Where does "marriage" fit into society? Seems like the earliest beginnings are found as a way to alleviate the male inadequacy of wondering whether a child is his. This isn't a problem anymore, as genetic paternity tests will tell us all we need to know.
Another possibility is possession.. oft enough through recorded history, a man binds a woman in marriage, and that woman is his, and only his. To do with as he pleases, and not to have to worry about another "doing unto her". With the adoption of women's rights, this doesn't seem right anymore either.
The next, and I think the only thing left, is religion. And, well, it doesn't add up. See, we have a freedom of religion in this country. You are more than welcome to practice any religion you wish. Since religious opinions on gay marriage vary(often wildly), sticking to "defend traditional marriage" at the government level simply can not exist. There are many laws separating church and state(although the line does gray in some states a bit), so why are you, armed only with your religion, trying to fight that? Within your religion you can do whatever the hell you want. You have that right. That right is broken at the point you are trying to push your value unto others.
I'm sorry, but the pressure to "do the right thing" isn't stopping anyone from getting a divorce. Perhaps had they a clear, non-judgmental upbringing, they'd understand better what they actually want instead of what they think society should want them to want. In my opinion, the answer shouldn't be to keep people together, unhappily forever.. but to get people to explore themselves and perspective partners before procreation. An ounce of prevention is worth a ton of cure.
TL;DR version;
If you don't want gay marriage, don't marry gay.
If you don't want to lose your spouse, get to know them better before you tie the knot.
Still hate gay marriage? You're welcome to. Just don't force that belief on anyone else.
This is merely a tu quoque designed to distract from my mentioning that your reaction is to deny rather than to examine. Mentioning my faults doesn't change yours.
Change won't happen if no one pushes for it. So, it's unlikely I'll stop pushing.
You're welcome. I am sure you will hear more of them in the future. As for your analysis of my reasoning skill and perspective, you should question them. I welcome it. You should also question your own, as I do mine. I think this conversation would be much more productive if you questioned your own reasoning skills and perspective in the same way I question mine.
At times, yes. I try to minimize those times.
I have no doubt that is your understanding, even though I have said multiple times in this thread, and every recent thread other on similar topics, that I struggle with the same cognitive shortcuts and prejudices as everyone else. Perhaps you can explain why, even though I have stated multiple times that I am no different in this regard, you think that I feel I am different?
You gave up trying to explain your position to me in the other thread without my making a single critical comment or pointed question (I asked a clarifying question). If I were to guess at your motivations, it would probably include among them that you realized you couldn't justify your position to someone who didn't share your religious belief, and therefore such criticism was inevitable. I agree this was likely, because you hold misogynistic beliefs that you rationalize through your religion. My statement that your beliefs are misogynistic is not a lack of understanding of your position, it comes from an understanding of your position. I can understand your position and still find it ugly.
What about my actions (I presume you mean posts) would be different, if I felt that understand your position is important, but still strongly disagreed with that position, versus my current posting? What about my actions would be different if I treated you as a reasonable adult who held an ugly belief, versus my current posts?
IN one sense, you are correct. I will keep posting against racism, sexism, etc., and in particular post debating people who defend it, trying to persuade them to not be racist, sexist, etc. I don't wish to railroad people, but I won't let wrongness go unchallenged in an effort to be pleasant or well-liked. In part, that's because there is never a way to challenge racism, sexism, etc. that is considered polite. No matter what you say or how you say it, the person with privilege will always accuse you of impoliteness. Always.
You confuse "dismiss" with "disagree". I never dismiss you. I will try to make more of an effort to make that clear.
The thing is, you were, and are, wrong about me being coy. Even in this very thread, when colton said my words were hateful, my response was to evaluate that and try to find a way to say what needed to be said in a less hateful way. Ten, or five, years ago I probably would have reacted differently. I still need to do better. However, I described how I have behaved in the past (at least, at times) and how I think I should behaved. Nothing coy about it. Frankly, I think it's unfortunate for you that you don't think that is the best approach. You blind yourself to many things by assuming everyone else is unreasonable.
I'm 90% sure you're joking here. However, for the other 10%, I'll treat it seriously.
I apologize that I used a poor word choice. While "kid" has no connection to childhood when used as a verb, I can see where in this discussion, you would have made that connection. I apologize for diminishing you in that fashion. I'll use other words from here on out, to make sure that I don't offer that impression again.
You are are correct, I would have decided that when I told my kid no. However, as a freethinker, I have also committed myself to reevaluating my decisions based upon new input. So, when I have new input that I have no reason to distrust, I reevaluate.
Why do you assume this about me? I guess you are telling me what you would do, and assuming that t I would do the same thing (I could be wrong, of course).
I never claimed I wouldn't say anything. IIRC, I claimed I might discuss it if I disagreed.
I had not thought about that. I agree we should be talking about the same thing, to the best degree possible. Could we start with one clarification? Are you saying you think there might be a difference in what we as racist/sexist/etc. actions, or are you saying that we disagree with the standard that makes those particular actions an act of bigotry, as opposed to, e.g., negligent or or ignorant (or both)?
Could you offer an example?
I'll keep trying to improve.
The whole point of using a child in your analogy was that the child themself would not have the rational capacity to decide for themself when to buy candy bars, so you, as the adult, have to decide for them, AFAICT. So, there's no insult to children when I say you should be comparing disadvantaged groups to children. it's avoiding the insult, one with a long and deep cultural history, of saying the disadvantaged groups don't know what's best for them.
You like being called a child? Or, you don't like it, but black people/women should?
The alternative is that you could go around offending people without intending to do so. My own thought is that you don't want to give offense, even unintentionally. I could be wrong.
You're welcome.
Language can be used to illuminate, but it can also be used to disguise. I agree many people (more than 80%, probably, less than 99.9999%) use bigot to describe a bad person, an Archie Bunker. However, even in the dictionary, that's not what it means. Further, that connotation is used by people with privilege to separate themselves from the "really bad" people who are "bigots". They use that to insulate themselves from the consequences of their own behavior, thinking that if they are not one of the "really bad" people, they don't need to change their behavior. I am trying to change the language to focus on the problem, not disguise it. Hence, a bigot is any person currently committing an act of bigotry. Everyone has done that at some point. Everyone can choose to try not to it in the future.
I have read many different words, in many different tones, by many different people trying to explain why an act is racist, sexist, etc. Almost always, unless that person has already accepted/understood their privilege, they are hurt by those words. I understand that, it's how I used to feel. I would love to be able to find a way to express this to you that would not hurt your feelings. I have genuine and deep respect for you in many areas. However, I don't think it's possible for me to say this in a way you don't find painful. I am sorry for that.
Biologically, in terms of sexual behavior, less than 5% of the activity, representing one particular act, performed by a heterosexual couple are not available to a homosexual couple (if you are doing it right). Homosexuals flirt, kiss, fondle, pet, etc. So, you are basing this need for a different word one the one missing act of p-in-v. Even then, you are not consistent about this. If a man was made a eunuch by a mine during a war, I am 99.9999% sure you would not demand a separate name for his union to his wife. You'd probably even say they could be married in a temple (although I am far less sure about that). If a woman was born without genitalia, I am 99.9999% sure that you would still call her union to a man a marriage. So, I honestly don't think you really believe your own argument. I think that, in this particular case, you are looking for a rationalization that will save you from simply stating "I think it's wrong, period."
Feel free to correct any error in my assumptions, though. I would don't want to misunderstand your position.
I just realized that you have nothing serious to say and no point to make. Your'e just messing with me.
I mean, if you were being serious, the point would have so ludicrously stupid and counter-factual that I would have suspected someone else stole your account.
If they are private, it won't be an issue. It's only an issue if they advertise themselves as being public. What's the bar? Just about everyone knows who the Boy Scouts are, but they are still a private club and free to discriminate. They don't ever claim to offer membership to the general public. I can't remember the last time I saw an ad on TV for them. You only want to photograph people you approve of? Stay private.
Agreed, with emphasis on private.
I think we are using different terms for private. I am using it as any person, business and/or organization not funded by the public or government thru tax money, subsidies, grants...