Prop. 8 Federally Overturned

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
jakovasaur
Posts: 678
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2009 7:43 am UTC

Re: Prop. 8 Federally Overturned

Postby jakovasaur » Wed Aug 11, 2010 5:49 am UTC

netcrusher88 wrote:
guenther wrote:I agree they're different. And honestly I don't know how much compassion and empathy are shared across the divide towards the gays who are unable to marry. But I suspect it's the political wedge that most hurts empathy, not an intolerance of homosexuality. In fact, I've heard more anger against "Liberals supporting the gay agenda" rather than against gays.

So people pushing for equality bear the brunt of the blame for the continued existence of inequality. Only with more words and more steps so it looks less like victim-blaming until you actually think about it. This has been a theme of your posts in this thread. A theme of Christian apologists in general, on this issue. "Well, people wouldn't be so adamantly against it if you didn't tell them they were wrong to be against it! weren't such a chode about it."

Even if you disagree with guenther, and think that anyone opposing gay marriage is evil/bigoted/bad/deserving of scorn/whatever, I still don't get why you can't understand that creating this good/evil dichotomy is unpractical. Who cares if you're right, if your methods are an impediment to changing minds?

User avatar
netcrusher88
Posts: 2166
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 4:35 pm UTC
Location: Seattle

Re: Prop. 8 Federally Overturned

Postby netcrusher88 » Wed Aug 11, 2010 6:03 am UTC

Rigid adherence to the idea that gays are bad because the bible says god says so is an impediment to changing minds. Organizations that exist for the sole purpose of spreading libel under the the guise of religious freedom are an impediment to changing minds. Rejection of overwhelming evidence that families headed by gay couples are equal in benefit to children and the state in favor of that libel that you continue to spread because it must be true cos that guy is a minister is an impediment to changing minds. Churches that engage in organized crime in the form of electioneering to strip others of their rights are an impediment to changing minds.

I'm not trying to change anyone's mind in this thread, not on the subject of gay marriage. I'm not attacking the Christian argument against gay marriage. I don't need to - it's so thoroughly done (with facts, not scorn) that if anyone holds it, it is out of hate or ignorance. I am attacking gunther's apologism, his claim that maybe if people would just be nice and say that it's okay to hold homophobic views then maybe that would... something. It's not really clear. The claim, at least, that people trying to change people's minds away from a bigoted viewpoint is harmful to the not-bigoted viewpoint.
Sexothermic
I have only ever made one prayer to God, a very short one: "O Lord, make my enemies ridiculous." And God granted it. -Voltaire
They said we would never have a black president until Swine Flu. -Gears

guenther
Posts: 1840
Joined: Sat May 17, 2008 6:15 am UTC

Re: Prop. 8 Federally Overturned

Postby guenther » Wed Aug 11, 2010 8:41 am UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:But where does this moral rightness come from?

How about a sincere belief based upon their interpretation of the Bible along with a prerogative to enshrine that into law. Is it a good reason? Well that's subjective. I'm not going to argue for that position since I don't share it. But I don't believe it's from fear, hate, paternalism.

In general I don't like to question people's motives unless there's clear evidence to do so. And if you care about actions, not intent, why do you feel a need to paint their motivations as something bad?

netcrusher88 wrote:So people pushing for equality bear the brunt of the blame for the continued existence of inequality. Only with more words and more steps so it looks less like victim-blaming until you actually think about it. This has been a theme of your posts in this thread. A theme of Christian apologists in general, on this issue. "Well, people wouldn't be so adamantly against it if you didn't tell them they were wrong to be against it!"

I have no idea where you're getting this from. Can you cite where I am doing what you're saying?

netcrusher88 wrote:I am attacking gunther's apologism, his claim that maybe if people would just be nice and say that it's okay to hold homophobic views then maybe that would... something. It's not really clear. The claim, at least, that people trying to change people's minds away from a bigoted viewpoint is harmful to the not-bigoted viewpoint.

I feel like all my efforts to spell out my position are a waste. While I like it when people are nice, I don't think I've asked anyone to do that. And I explicitly said that my case is not that we should all be OK with the belief that homosexuality is wrong. I don't know how to say things any clearer.
A gentle answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger.

User avatar
Kulantan
Posts: 999
Joined: Mon May 04, 2009 9:24 pm UTC
Location: Somewhere witty

Re: Prop. 8 Federally Overturned

Postby Kulantan » Wed Aug 11, 2010 9:20 am UTC

guenther wrote:
The Great Hippo wrote:But where does this moral rightness come from?

How about a sincere belief based upon their interpretation of the Bible along with a prerogative to enshrine that into law. Is it a good reason? Well that's subjective. I'm not going to argue for that position since I don't share it. But I don't believe it's from fear, hate, paternalism.

I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion. The idea that it is for the everyone's own good to have this right never given to people/stripped from them seems to fit well with the definition of paternalism. Specifically this one seems to sum it up well:
the treatment of people in a fatherly manner, especially by caring for them but not allowing them to have rights or responsibilities


guenther wrote:I feel like all my efforts to spell out my position are a waste. While I like it when people are nice, I don't think I've asked anyone to do that. And I explicitly said that my case is not that we should all be OK with the belief that homosexuality is wrong. I don't know how to say things any clearer.

As far as I understand it your taking a stand against people saying that those who are pro prop 8 are morally inferior. However that argument makes absolute no sense so I can see why people have been giving you the benefit of the doubt. If I'm not doing something that I think is morally superior to other options then why would I try and convert people to my views or oppose the views of others? If I don't think that supporting the rights of anybody consenting to get married is morally superior to opposing that right then WHY HELL WOULD I ARGUE FOR IT? It makes no sense. Moreover your position seems to be saying it it morally superior not to hold anyone as morally inferior and hence by inference not hold your own views as morally superior (and if you don't hold this view why are you arguing for it). Once again making no sense, this time because of a paradox in the basic logic ofholding that position rather than any other.

Given that you've said that Net has misunderstood your views it is not beyond the realms of possibility that I have as well. If I am misrepresenting your view please say.
TEAM SHIVAHN
Pretty much the best team ever

phlip wrote:(Scholars believe it is lost to time exactly which search engine Columbus preferred... though they are reasonably sure that he was an avid user of Apple Maps.)

Blog.

User avatar
Malice
Posts: 3894
Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2007 5:37 am UTC
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Contact:

Re: Prop. 8 Federally Overturned

Postby Malice » Wed Aug 11, 2010 10:00 am UTC

guenther wrote:
The Great Hippo wrote:But where does this moral rightness come from?

How about a sincere belief based upon their interpretation of the Bible along with a prerogative to enshrine that into law. Is it a good reason? Well that's subjective. I'm not going to argue for that position since I don't share it. But I don't believe it's from fear, hate, paternalism.


That just removes the same motivations a step further back. The question becomes "Why do they interpret the Bible such that they want laws against gay marriage but not, say, laws that require you to stone any woman who isn't a virgin on her wedding night, or laws against eating shellfish?"

The answer is that they hate and fear gays, so they hide behind the Bible in order to smack the gays down with laws preventing them from becoming normal and accepted.
Image

guenther
Posts: 1840
Joined: Sat May 17, 2008 6:15 am UTC

Re: Prop. 8 Federally Overturned

Postby guenther » Wed Aug 11, 2010 2:09 pm UTC

Kulantan wrote:I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion. The idea that it is for the everyone's own good to have this right never given to people/stripped from them seems to fit well with the definition of paternalism.

The pro-Prop. 8 voters may not see their relationship to the gay community as a mother or father helping them make choices. If that's the case, then I can't understand how paternalism is valid. I mean, with your argument, it seems like we could say that every law that removes freedom and takes us away from pure anarchy is because of paternalism. Which means if you don't support pure anarchy then you support paternalism. But then it's a pretty meaningless descriptor.

Kulantan wrote:As far as I understand it your taking a stand against people saying that those who are pro prop 8 are morally inferior. However that argument makes absolute no sense so I can see why people have been giving you the benefit of the doubt. If I'm not doing something that I think is morally superior to other options then why would I try and convert people to my views or oppose the views of others? If I don't think that supporting the rights of anybody consenting to get married is morally superior to opposing that right then WHY HELL WOULD I ARGUE FOR IT? It makes no sense. Moreover your position seems to be saying it it morally superior not to hold anyone as morally inferior and hence by inference not hold your own views as morally superior (and if you don't hold this view why are you arguing for it). Once again making no sense, this time because of a paradox in the basic logic ofholding that position rather than any other.

First, you're conflating "You are morally inferior" with "You're belief in what's right is morally inferior to mine". I have taken a stance against the first one, but it's really a part of my stance that we shouldn't hate, and regarding people as inferior is, in my opinion, two many steps towards an attitude of hate.

Second, some people may use their belief that their position is morally superior to argue that they are morally superior, but that's completely anti-Christian. That's why I said that I could point to the Bible to prove them wrong. The Bible is very clear which moral position is superior to all other positions (excepting for gray ares of interpretation), but it's also clear that we are all equally and woefully too morally inferior to be redeemed by our own deeds. So there's never cause to say one person is morally better than another (except when comparing to Jesus).

Third, that stuff all came up in a brief tangent with Jesse and is not my main case. My main case is that we should not use words that describe intent if we are really arguing about impact. I'm surprised I've found so little support for this statement. Anyone that values rational debate should jump on board. It's simply logically wrong to do this. The second part of my point is that for people that really do want to make intent as part of their case, they should have solid evidence to support it. I believe the Us vs. Them dichotomy biases each side to see the other side as bad people. So when people make the argument unsupported, I wonder if it's not really the irrational influence of politics that makes that sound appealing. And it won't ever convince me without evidence.

Malice wrote:That just removes the same motivations a step further back. The question becomes "Why do they interpret the Bible such that they want laws against gay marriage but not, say, laws that require you to stone any woman who isn't a virgin on her wedding night, or laws against eating shellfish?"

The answer is that they hate and fear gays, so they hide behind the Bible in order to smack the gays down with laws preventing them from becoming normal and accepted.

You are filled with such certainty for a question that's very hard to answer. This is an example of why I say in religious debates that faith-like belief won't go away if people abandon faith as valuable. Sometimes it's very hard to say I don't know.


I will be away for a bit, so I don't know when I'll respond to the thread again.
A gentle answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger.

User avatar
Jessica
Jessica, you're a ...
Posts: 8337
Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2007 8:57 pm UTC
Location: Soviet Canuckistan

Re: Prop. 8 Federally Overturned

Postby Jessica » Wed Aug 11, 2010 2:31 pm UTC

Intent. It's fucking magic.
doogly wrote:On a scale of Mr Rogers to Fascism, how mean do you think we're being?
Belial wrote:My goal is to be the best brain infection any of you have ever had.

User avatar
Kulantan
Posts: 999
Joined: Mon May 04, 2009 9:24 pm UTC
Location: Somewhere witty

Re: Prop. 8 Federally Overturned

Postby Kulantan » Wed Aug 11, 2010 3:08 pm UTC

guenther wrote:The pro-Prop. 8 voters may not see their relationship to the gay community as a mother or father helping them make choices. If that's the case, then I can't understand how paternalism is valid. I mean, with your argument, it seems like we could say that every law that removes freedom and takes us away from pure anarchy is because of paternalism. Which means if you don't support pure anarchy then you support paternalism. But then it's a pretty meaningless descriptor.

First, that not a very strong argument given the qualifiers strewn about. Secondly, yes my previous argument needs more "without taking into account the feelings of party affected" which is why paternalism doesn't apply to all laws.
guenther wrote:First, you're conflating "You are morally inferior" with "You're belief in what's right is morally inferior to mine".

Not so much. It isn't conflating if I say "your ability at baseball is inferior to mine therefore your an inferior baseball player relative to me". Same applies here. Person and action/ability/belief aren't entirely separate when describing/thinking about them. This is because people are morally responsible for their moral positions.
guenther wrote:Second, some people may use their belief that their position is morally superior to argue that they are morally superior, but that's completely anti-Christian. That's why I said that I could point to the Bible to prove them wrong. The Bible is very clear which moral position is superior to all other positions (excepting for gray ares of interpretation), but it's also clear that we are all equally and woefully too morally inferior to be redeemed by our own deeds. So there's never cause to say one person is morally better than another (except when comparing to Jesus).

Anti-Christian? Really? The idea that there can be no moral comparison between anyone (except Jesus vs. Everybody) seems to be undermined by the idea of saints and the like. Even though Christ's morally purity can be measured in gigaboyscouts that doesn't mean that no moral comparison can be made between Joseph Kony (-400 boyscouts) and Mother Theresa (400 boyscouts). Furthermore, if the was truly anti-Christian then why are many Christians saying things like "those immoral gays/whores/trrrists/people who hate people/target at the time"? Poor theological education?
guenther wrote:Third, that stuff all came up in a brief tangent with Jesse and is not my main case. My main case is that we should not use words that describe intent if we are really arguing about impact. I'm surprised I've found so little support for this statement. Anyone that values rational debate should jump on board. It's simply logically wrong to do this.

I'll endorse that statement. However we aren't just decrying impact in this thread so a mix of language is acceptable in my view.
guenther wrote:The second part of my point is that for people that really do want to make intent as part of their case, they should have solid evidence to support it.

For me intent is part of it because they don't support gay marriage intentionally. Since opposing gay marriage is wrong inherently (unless they can show an actual logical argument against it in which case I'd reconsider), they're doing wrong and intending to do so. Its also an inherently hateful thing to do (just because no hate is intended doesn't mean that no hate occurs) so the same agreement applies to they are doing hate intentionally.
guenther wrote:I believe the Us vs. Them dichotomy biases each side to see the other side as bad people. So when people make the argument unsupported, I wonder if it's not really the irrational influence of politics that makes that sound appealing. And it won't ever convince me without evidence.

guenther, the thing is, the other side are bad people. Even if they do shit gumdrops and smell of unicorn on every other issue there are Doing It Wrong on gay marriage. I'm allowed to call them on that and say that their actions and moral stance is bad, hence they are bad people because they are morally responsible for this as I covered earlier.
guenther wrote:I will be away for a bit, so I don't know when I'll respond to the thread again.

Hope you're going somewhere nice, have fun :)
TEAM SHIVAHN
Pretty much the best team ever

phlip wrote:(Scholars believe it is lost to time exactly which search engine Columbus preferred... though they are reasonably sure that he was an avid user of Apple Maps.)

Blog.

User avatar
Oregonaut
Posts: 6511
Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2010 9:58 pm UTC
Location: Oregon

Re: Prop. 8 Federally Overturned

Postby Oregonaut » Wed Aug 11, 2010 3:09 pm UTC

How is that hard to answer? Honestly, it isn't like there's some sort of calculus involved here. Society has moved beyond the point that we need a mystical playbook telling us how to feel and think about every issue beyond "corn or wheat". We don't require blind obedience to the state, we don't require blind obedience to our liege lord, we don't require blind obedience to the man in the imposing building shouting at us for being stupid humans once a week. We've taken the whole "free will" thing to heart, and we've run with it.

So either they are voting their conscience, which is informed by a religion that is actively interested in promoting discrimination against homosexuals, or they are voting their bigotry, which is informed by their misplaced fear that if Proposition 8 becomes law they will be subject to random anal probing by the newly impowered legion of super-soldier gay men with 12 inch barbed-wire dicks.

I'm honestly not seeing much in the way of, "I voted for Proposition 8 because marriage is something that only churches can do", since that argument is bupkis since we allow judges to marry people as well.
- Ochigo the Earth-Stomper

The EGE wrote:
Mumpy wrote:And to this day, librarians revile Oregonaut as the Antichrist.

False! We sacrifice our card catalogues to him in the name of Job Security!

Osha
Posts: 727
Joined: Wed Dec 03, 2008 3:24 am UTC
Location: Boise, Idaho, USA

Re: Prop. 8 Federally Overturned

Postby Osha » Wed Aug 11, 2010 3:43 pm UTC

I've actually seen the religious discrimination (ie "marriage is something that only churches can do") argument thrown around a fair amount by a surprising number of people.
Which yeah, is BS because not all marriages are religious like you said, seperation of church and state, and the fact that there are several religions whose organizations *want* to be able to marry gay people and it's at least as much religious discrimination to tell them they can't.

User avatar
Dangermouse
Posts: 151
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 8:32 am UTC

Re: Prop. 8 Federally Overturned

Postby Dangermouse » Wed Aug 11, 2010 3:51 pm UTC

Hey guys

The state does not rule on matters of religion or morality. It functions within the realm of secular law. After 11 pages of debate I've yet to see a clearly articulated jurisprudential reason why marriages between homosexual couples should not be granted by the state.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7368
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Prop. 8 Federally Overturned

Postby The Great Hippo » Wed Aug 11, 2010 5:05 pm UTC

guenther wrote:How about a sincere belief based upon their interpretation of the Bible along with a prerogative to enshrine that into law. Is it a good reason? Well that's subjective. I'm not going to argue for that position since I don't share it. But I don't believe it's from fear, hate, paternalism.
Again, why are they cherry-picking? There are lots of things the Bible prohibits. Why focus on homosexuality? Why not get angry about the whole prohibition on shellfish thing, or people working on the Sabbath? Just throwing up our arms and saying "I don't know!" doesn't cut it for me; not when there are very compelling answers right in front of our nose.

Something about homosexuality must make it more relevant than eating shellfish. Well, what are the differences between homosexuality and the consumption of shellfish? One challenges our view of human sexuality, one doesn't. Doesn't this seem like an incredibly reasonable explanation, especially in light of the propaganda?

I realize you probably don't want to rally behind the claim that the Prop 8 supporters are motivated by something based in fear and hate, but--I don't think that this makes them evil. I think many of them are simply misguided, and unaware of these base emotions.
guenther wrote:In general I don't like to question people's motives unless there's clear evidence to do so. And if you care about actions, not intent, why do you feel a need to paint their motivations as something bad?
Because while I think a person's intent is ultimately irrelevant, it bothers me deeply when people lie about it--either consciously or unconsciously. I respect those who disagree with me but remain honest to themselves about the why--I have little respect for those who disagree with me based on a lie that covers up their true motivation.

All the evidence I see leads me to believe that the desire to help gays--to pursue religious dogma--are merely expressions of an underlying fear of homosexuality. The shape of the propaganda, the shape of the rhetoric, the particular focus on homosexuality as being a sin of paramount importance--these all lead me to believe that the majority of Prop 8 supporters are lying. To us, and more relevantly, to themselves.

User avatar
Telchar
That's Admiral 'The Hulk' Ackbar, to you sir
Posts: 1937
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2008 9:06 pm UTC
Location: Cynicistia

Re: Prop. 8 Federally Overturned

Postby Telchar » Wed Aug 11, 2010 6:28 pm UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:Something about homosexuality must make it more relevant than eating shellfish. Well, what are the differences between homosexuality and the consumption of shellfish? One challenges our view of human sexuality, one doesn't.


Until we find gay lobsters.
Zamfir wrote:Yeah, that's a good point. Everyone is all about presumption of innocence in rape threads. But when Mexican drug lords build APCs to carry their henchmen around, we immediately jump to criminal conclusions without hard evidence.

The Reaper
Posts: 4008
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2007 5:37 am UTC
Location: San Antonio, Tx
Contact:

Re: Prop. 8 Federally Overturned

Postby The Reaper » Wed Aug 11, 2010 6:31 pm UTC

Telchar wrote:
The Great Hippo wrote:Something about homosexuality must make it more relevant than eating shellfish. Well, what are the differences between homosexuality and the consumption of shellfish? One challenges our view of human sexuality, one doesn't.


Until we find gay lobsters.

http://www.godhatesshrimp.com/

User avatar
mosc
Doesn't care what you think.
Posts: 5404
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 3:03 pm UTC

Re: Prop. 8 Federally Overturned

Postby mosc » Wed Aug 11, 2010 8:17 pm UTC

netcrusher88 wrote:Organizations that exist for the sole purpose of spreading libel under the the guise of religious freedom are an impediment to changing minds.

Hold on cowboy. Religion is protected too. As is speech. They can call you whatever they want and you don't get to call it libel. They can write a new book of the bible saying simply "netcrusher88 is the anti-christ, the biggest douche ever created" and all you get to do is tell em they're crazy. Hating gays isn't against the law ffs. Neither is saying you hate gays. Neither is saying ANY opinion. What's illegal is doing more than talking (ie prop 8). Lets not throw out free speech every time you disagree with somebody.
Title: It was given by the XKCD moderators to me because they didn't care what I thought (I made some rantings, etc). I care what YOU think, the joke is forums.xkcd doesn't care what I think.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7368
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Prop. 8 Federally Overturned

Postby The Great Hippo » Wed Aug 11, 2010 8:44 pm UTC

mosc wrote:Hold on cowboy. Religion is protected too. As is speech. They can call you whatever they want and you don't get to call it libel. They can write a new book of the bible saying simply "netcrusher88 is the anti-christ, the biggest douche ever created" and all you get to do is tell em they're crazy. Hating gays isn't against the law ffs. Neither is saying you hate gays. Neither is saying ANY opinion. What's illegal is doing more than talking (ie prop 8). Lets not throw out free speech every time you disagree with somebody.
I'm pretty sure Prop 8 isn't actually an example of libel, and that netcrusher88's point had less to do with the legalistic consequences of libel and more to do with the pragmatic consequences of libel. I'm also pretty sure that netcrusher88 wasn't proposing that religious-based intolerance should be disallowed--rather that religious-based intolerance has consequences. Writing a new book of the bible that says 'mosc is the anti-christ, the biggest douche ever created' isn't illegal, yes--not should it be--but it is an action with certain consequences.
Telchar wrote:Until we find gay lobsters.
My search continues.

User avatar
netcrusher88
Posts: 2166
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 4:35 pm UTC
Location: Seattle

Re: Prop. 8 Federally Overturned

Postby netcrusher88 » Wed Aug 11, 2010 8:51 pm UTC

What I'm saying is, "God says so" should not be a magic implication that makes otherwise libelous statements okay.

When I refer to organizations that exist for the purpose of spreading libel, I refer to the FRC and others like them. Is everything they say libel? No. But some of it probably could be sued over if you could get 12 semi-random people without their collective head up their collective ass on the issue.
Sexothermic
I have only ever made one prayer to God, a very short one: "O Lord, make my enemies ridiculous." And God granted it. -Voltaire
They said we would never have a black president until Swine Flu. -Gears

User avatar
sophyturtle
I'll go put my shirt back on for this kind of shock. No I won't. I'll get my purse.
Posts: 3476
Joined: Thu Mar 20, 2008 4:19 pm UTC
Location: it's turtles all the way down, even in the suburbs
Contact:

Re: Prop. 8 Federally Overturned

Postby sophyturtle » Wed Aug 11, 2010 8:54 pm UTC

I want to get to a place where I am neither conforming nor rebelling but simply being.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7368
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Prop. 8 Federally Overturned

Postby The Great Hippo » Wed Aug 11, 2010 9:09 pm UTC

netcrusher88 wrote:When I refer to organizations that exist for the purpose of spreading libel, I refer to the FRC and others like them. Is everything they say libel? No. But some of it probably could be sued over if you could get 12 semi-random people without their collective head up their collective ass on the issue.
I stand corrected; you are talking about the legalistic consequences of libel.
That is a fascinating article; I was wholly unaware of the documented Christian rites concerning same-sex marriage (though I was familiar with the concept of 'adelphopoiia' as a Christian defense against the presence of homosexual ideology in their theology). Thanks.

User avatar
Triangle_Man
WINNING
Posts: 1500
Joined: Sat May 02, 2009 8:41 pm UTC
Location: CANADA

Re: Prop. 8 Federally Overturned

Postby Triangle_Man » Wed Aug 11, 2010 9:10 pm UTC

The other explanation is that the supporters of Prop 8 truely believe in what they are saying with a certainty that is rock solid; that is, they know they're right and they are determined to convince others of what they know to be the truth via any means nessicary.

This is scary, because when you know that you are right, you become frusterated when other people claim that you are wrong, and you become militant about proving your point. I've had this feeling before over Pink Floyd; my friend said that they sucked, and I was about ready to grab him by the sholders and scream in his face whilest shaking him.

The point is, knowing that you're right can cause you to act in extreme ways. I'm not excusing the pro-prop 8 supporter's stupidity, and bigotry does play a very important role in these protests, but extreme curtainty can also serve as motivation for these people to protest.
I really should be working right now, but somehow I don't have the energy.

The Mighty Thesaurus wrote:My moral system allows me to bitch slap you for typing that.

User avatar
mosc
Doesn't care what you think.
Posts: 5404
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 3:03 pm UTC

Re: Prop. 8 Federally Overturned

Postby mosc » Thu Aug 12, 2010 3:14 pm UTC

netcrusher88 wrote:What I'm saying is, "God says so" should not be a magic implication that makes otherwise libelous statements okay.

When I refer to organizations that exist for the purpose of spreading libel, I refer to the FRC and others like them. Is everything they say libel? No. But some of it probably could be sued over if you could get 12 semi-random people without their collective head up their collective ass on the issue.

You don't seem to have a good grasp of libel. In fact, your statement is much closer to the actual definition of libel (against a religion) than what you are accusing the religion of doing (hope that makes sense to you). Saying an opinion is NEVER EVER EVER libel. To prove libel, you have to prove a) somebody was factually incorrect and b) they did so, knowingly, on purpose, with the intent of discrediting/demeaning/etc. An opinion is never factually incorrect, that's why we call it an opinion. Saying "I hate X" or "All X are Y" are inherently opinion statements.
Title: It was given by the XKCD moderators to me because they didn't care what I thought (I made some rantings, etc). I care what YOU think, the joke is forums.xkcd doesn't care what I think.

Nordic Einar
Posts: 783
Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2008 7:21 am UTC

Re: Prop. 8 Federally Overturned

Postby Nordic Einar » Thu Aug 12, 2010 4:06 pm UTC

mosc wrote:
netcrusher88 wrote:What I'm saying is, "God says so" should not be a magic implication that makes otherwise libelous statements okay.

When I refer to organizations that exist for the purpose of spreading libel, I refer to the FRC and others like them. Is everything they say libel? No. But some of it probably could be sued over if you could get 12 semi-random people without their collective head up their collective ass on the issue.

You don't seem to have a good grasp of libel. In fact, your statement is much closer to the actual definition of libel (against a religion) than what you are accusing the religion of doing (hope that makes sense to you). Saying an opinion is NEVER EVER EVER libel. To prove libel, you have to prove a) somebody was factually incorrect and b) they did so, knowingly, on purpose, with the intent of discrediting/demeaning/etc. An opinion is never factually incorrect, that's why we call it an opinion. Saying "I hate X" or "All X are Y" are inherently opinion statements.


I'd say many of the "scientific" statements the FRC puts out that are demeaning of gays and gay unions which are factually and demonstratively incorrect satisfy both a) and b), so... yeah. I don't think you understand who we're talking about, specifically, here.

The Reaper
Posts: 4008
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2007 5:37 am UTC
Location: San Antonio, Tx
Contact:

Re: Prop. 8 Federally Overturned

Postby The Reaper » Thu Aug 12, 2010 4:07 pm UTC


User avatar
Silknor
Posts: 842
Joined: Fri Jun 20, 2008 1:21 am UTC

Re: Prop. 8 Federally Overturned

Postby Silknor » Thu Aug 12, 2010 5:23 pm UTC

Nordic Einar wrote:I'd say many of the "scientific" statements the FRC puts out that are demeaning of gays and gay unions which are factually and demonstratively incorrect satisfy both a) and b), so... yeah. I don't think you understand who we're talking about, specifically, here.


Still not libel. If they believe they're right, it doesn't fit. Unless you can prove that FRC, NOM, etc know they're lying in order to attack gays (and I think it's pretty likely they believe what they're saying), libel is not the right term to use. FUD would be more accurate.
Nikc wrote:Silknor is the JJ Abrams of mafia modding

Sourire
Posts: 334
Joined: Mon May 25, 2009 3:11 pm UTC

Re: Prop. 8 Federally Overturned

Postby Sourire » Thu Aug 12, 2010 5:44 pm UTC

Silknor wrote:
Nordic Einar wrote:I'd say many of the "scientific" statements the FRC puts out that are demeaning of gays and gay unions which are factually and demonstratively incorrect satisfy both a) and b), so... yeah. I don't think you understand who we're talking about, specifically, here.


Still not libel. If they believe they're right, it doesn't fit. Unless you can prove that FRC, NOM, etc know they're lying in order to attack gays (and I think it's pretty likely they believe what they're saying), libel is not the right term to use. FUD would be more accurate.

I'm pretty sure "libel" covers both providing knowingly false information, and showing a reckless disregard for truth. I'm not saying the second is happening here, but I can imagine some would make that argument.
Emi: Let the urge take you on a magic coaster ride of innuendo!

Kewangji: The universe is having an orgasm. Right now.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7368
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Prop. 8 Federally Overturned

Postby The Great Hippo » Thu Aug 12, 2010 5:49 pm UTC

Sourire wrote:
Silknor wrote:Still not libel. If they believe they're right, it doesn't fit. Unless you can prove that FRC, NOM, etc know they're lying in order to attack gays (and I think it's pretty likely they believe what they're saying), libel is not the right term to use. FUD would be more accurate.

I'm pretty sure "libel" covers both providing knowingly false information, and showing a reckless disregard for truth. I'm not saying the second is happening here, but I can imagine some would make that argument.
Yeah, it's been a while since I've read up on libel, but from what I recall, it's less 'We Have To Prove You Knew You Were Lying' and more 'We Have To Prove You Didn't Bother To Verify These Facts'. The onus for individuals is low (you probably couldn't sue me for libel if I said 'homosexuals eat babies' and I could point to a newspaper article that described this), but the onus for organizations is high (if a NEWSPAPER said 'homosexuals eat babies', they are expected to have researched that shit before stating it).

User avatar
mosc
Doesn't care what you think.
Posts: 5404
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 3:03 pm UTC

Re: Prop. 8 Federally Overturned

Postby mosc » Thu Aug 12, 2010 5:54 pm UTC

Well, it would matter on the specifics of the FRC's statements. If they use opinion words, then it's not possible to be libel. It would be pretty interesting trying to prove them wrong in a legal sense. I mean obviously they're idiots but proving them legally incorrect is a totally different question. It's also hard to say that they KNEW they were wrong and did it anyway. If you think you're presenting facts, you're somewhat protected. #2 may sound easy to prove but it's not.
Title: It was given by the XKCD moderators to me because they didn't care what I thought (I made some rantings, etc). I care what YOU think, the joke is forums.xkcd doesn't care what I think.

User avatar
netcrusher88
Posts: 2166
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 4:35 pm UTC
Location: Seattle

Re: Prop. 8 Federally Overturned

Postby netcrusher88 » Thu Aug 12, 2010 8:39 pm UTC

A break from the pedantry: Judge Walker refuses to make stay permanent. The temporary stay has been extended to Aug 18 so that the proponents of Prop 8 have time to appeal this decision, but it's not clear whether they have any right to, and even if they have the right to appeal the lift of the stay, it's not clear whether they have any right to appeal Judge Walker's decision on Prop 8 as the defendants in the case (effectively the State of California) will not appeal.
Sexothermic
I have only ever made one prayer to God, a very short one: "O Lord, make my enemies ridiculous." And God granted it. -Voltaire
They said we would never have a black president until Swine Flu. -Gears

User avatar
Silknor
Posts: 842
Joined: Fri Jun 20, 2008 1:21 am UTC

Re: Prop. 8 Federally Overturned

Postby Silknor » Thu Aug 12, 2010 9:13 pm UTC

While the individual factors behind this all seem good, a troubling consequence (of the Prop 8 supporters being unable to appeal) will be that to many of those on the fence or who support Prop 8, this will appear to be proof of judicial tyranny.

I'm glad the state isn't appealing the ruling. I agree it seems unlikely the organizations for Prop 8 have standing unless Congress passes a law giving it to them (high unlikely). But I can't help but to be troubled by how well it'll fit into a narrative as we approach midterms (or at any other time).

One of the principles of our judicial system is the right to appeal the decision of lower courts. In normal cases cases get heard at least twice in the federal system, first at the district level (Judge Walker) and then at the circuit level, sometimes twice there if they decide to grant full court review after hearing it as a smaller panel (plus rarely a Supreme Court review).

To someone who likes Prop 8, this will look like a lot of legal handwaving to prevent a chance to re-argue the case. It thus fits perfectly into a story of a judiciary out of control and without proper checks and balances.

It's hard to say if delaying the time when it gets to SCOTUS is good or not. I think it will reach there eventually, but we can't predict the composition of the court at this time (if Obama gets to replace one of the 4 in the conservative bloc, it should pass easily, if a Republican gets to replace one of the 4 in the liberal bloc, it'll most likely fail easily, as it is, who can say).
Nikc wrote:Silknor is the JJ Abrams of mafia modding

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7368
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Prop. 8 Federally Overturned

Postby The Great Hippo » Thu Aug 12, 2010 10:08 pm UTC

Silknor wrote:To someone who likes Prop 8, this will look like a lot of legal handwaving to prevent a chance to re-argue the case. It thus fits perfectly into a story of a judiciary out of control and without proper checks and balances.
Ultimately, while the narratives you create are important and never without consequence, I don't think we should worry about the various 'Just-So' stories that proponents of Prop 8 will create based on a brief, superficial analysis of the facts. Better to appeal to truth and reason.

Besides, as has probably already been pointed out--the judge was appointed by Reagan and reconfirmed by Bush Sr. An activist judge he ain't.

User avatar
mythago
Posts: 210
Joined: Sun Feb 24, 2008 9:27 pm UTC

Re: Prop. 8 Federally Overturned

Postby mythago » Thu Aug 12, 2010 10:09 pm UTC

Silknor wrote:While the individual factors behind this all seem good, a troubling consequence (of the Prop 8 supporters being unable to appeal) will be that to many of those on the fence or who support Prop 8, this will appear to be proof of judicial tyranny.


To those people, anything that does not go their way is "tyranny". If a court rules against them, it's judicial activism. If the people vote against them, it was the Homosexual Conspiracy lying to and misleading the people. If the Legislature passes a law they don't like, it's oppression by the fat cats in Washington/Sacramento/wherever ignoring their constitutents. And if it turns out overwhelming public support is against them, why, they're an oppressed minority.

We are not discussing folks who care about the truth as anything other than a political tool.
three lines of plaintext
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7368
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Prop. 8 Federally Overturned

Postby The Great Hippo » Thu Aug 12, 2010 10:14 pm UTC

mythago wrote:We are not discussing folks who care about the truth as anything other than a political tool.
To be fair, I see that happen on both sides. People are more concerned with how the universe should be rather than how it is--and we allow our desire for a just world interfere with our ability to see the real one. Of course, I see this happen a lot more on the side of the discussion that has no standing in either realism or morality.

I don't think the people supporting Prop 8 are necessarily disinterested in the truth; rather, they've approached to universe with all the answers already in hand. I don't think they often realize this. I'd rather describe them as misguided than manipulative (though I imagine quite a number of them qualify as manipulative, too).

User avatar
Silknor
Posts: 842
Joined: Fri Jun 20, 2008 1:21 am UTC

Re: Prop. 8 Federally Overturned

Postby Silknor » Thu Aug 12, 2010 10:25 pm UTC

I'm obviously not saying that the judge made a bad decision because the politics might be unfavorable, just in case I didn't make that clear.

The Great Hippo wrote:Besides, as has probably already been pointed out--the judge was appointed by Reagan and reconfirmed by Bush Sr. An activist judge he ain't.


Why are you repeating the myth that activist judges must be or are more likely to be liberals? The decision *was* activist, it created a new legal right that overturned both the legislature and the voters. If it was activist or not has no connection to who appointed him. This decision (the original, not the stay ending), as right as it may be, was anything but judicial modesty.

Of course, I see this happen a lot more on the side of the discussion that has no standing in either realism or morality.

they've approached to universe with all the answers already in hand.


The second statement seems to apply to the first as well as to its intended target I think.
Nikc wrote:Silknor is the JJ Abrams of mafia modding

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7368
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Prop. 8 Federally Overturned

Postby The Great Hippo » Thu Aug 12, 2010 10:32 pm UTC

Silknor wrote:Why are you repeating the myth that activist judges must be or are more likely to be liberals? The decision *was* activist, it created a new legal right that overturned both the legislature and the voters. If it was activist or not has no connection to who appointed him. This decision (the original, not the stay ending), as right as it may be, was anything but judicial modesty.
Oh, I'm fully aware; I'm just pointing out why your magical narrative would be flawed: "Activist judge!" - "He was appointed by Reagan, reconfirmed by Bush Sr.--it is magically impossible for him to be an activist judge."
Silknor wrote:The second statement seems to apply to the first as well as to its intended target I think.
You're going to have to clarify, because I have absolutely no idea what the heck you're saying.

User avatar
Silknor
Posts: 842
Joined: Fri Jun 20, 2008 1:21 am UTC

Re: Prop. 8 Federally Overturned

Postby Silknor » Thu Aug 12, 2010 10:40 pm UTC

Of course, I see this happen a lot more on the side of the discussion that has no standing in either realism or morality.


To me that sounds a lot like having your mind made up already, exactly the same thing you accused the Prop 8 supporters of doing. Leaving no room for error, or the possibility of legitimate other positions, it reminds me a lot of those who believe homosexuality is wrong and nothing will convince them otherwise.
Nikc wrote:Silknor is the JJ Abrams of mafia modding

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7368
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Prop. 8 Federally Overturned

Postby The Great Hippo » Thu Aug 12, 2010 10:47 pm UTC

Silknor wrote:To me that sounds a lot like having your mind made up already, exactly the same thing you accused the Prop 8 supporters of doing. Leaving no room for error, or the possibility of legitimate other positions, it reminds me a lot of those who believe homosexuality is wrong and nothing will convince them otherwise.
In related news: People who insist the earth is round are clearly guilty of the same level of slavish, fanatical devotion that flat-earthers exhibit.

Yeah, it just wouldn't be a classic thread without someone dusting off the old "Maybe it's YOU who are wrong!" argument. I figured this one out in third grade; sad to see you didn't do the same. Here, let me fetch my crayons and break it the fuck down for you:

Person A: Homosexuality is not an abomination, and homosexuals deserve to have equal access to marriage.
Person B: But have you considered... That maybe... YOU ARE WRONG?
Person A: No.
Person B: Clearly, you are a close-minded fuck incapable of opening your eyes to the vast wealth of possibilities! Possibilities that involve you being wrong!
Person A: Clearly.

User avatar
Silknor
Posts: 842
Joined: Fri Jun 20, 2008 1:21 am UTC

Re: Prop. 8 Federally Overturned

Postby Silknor » Thu Aug 12, 2010 11:11 pm UTC

Thank you for doing such an excellent job of describing what I'm saying. :roll:

I'm sorry but there's simply no equivalency between an objective fact such as if the Earth is pretty round or if it's flat and a moral argument for gay marriage. You might be dead certain that you're right, but it doesn't follow that anyone who disagrees with you is ignorant and/or hateful. But yet that's exactly the implication your post gives.

Supporting Prop 8 does not make you evil, or bigoted, or hateful, or ignorant, objectively wrong, or immoral. These terms may accurately be ascribed to some supporters. But to ascribe them to all supporters is just wrong.
Nikc wrote:Silknor is the JJ Abrams of mafia modding

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7368
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Prop. 8 Federally Overturned

Postby The Great Hippo » Thu Aug 12, 2010 11:16 pm UTC

Silknor wrote:I'm sorry but there's simply no equivalency between an objective fact such as if the Earth is pretty round or if it's flat and a moral argument for gay marriage. You might be dead certain that you're right, but it doesn't follow that anyone who disagrees with you is ignorant and/or hateful. But yet that's exactly the implication your post gives.
"I'm just going to ignore the part of your post where you explicitly make clear that you don't think anyone who disagrees with you is ignorant, hateful, or evil, and insist that they're just on the wrong page. In addition, I'm going to pretend that it's impossible to make objectively factual statements about things like human prosperity and morality, and wave my hands, thereby magically make you close-minded because you know for a fact that homosexuality is not an abomination and that gays should be allowed to marry."

Yeah, like I said: I figured these rhetorical ploys out in the third grade.
Silknor wrote:Supporting Prop 8 does not make you evil, or bigoted, or hateful, or ignorant, objectively wrong, or immoral. These terms may accurately be ascribed to some supporters. But to ascribe them to all supporters is just wrong.
Glad we agree on that much, at least.
Last edited by The Great Hippo on Thu Aug 12, 2010 11:19 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
TheGrammarBolshevik
Posts: 4878
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 2:12 am UTC
Location: Going to and fro in the earth, and walking up and down in it.

Re: Prop. 8 Federally Overturned

Postby TheGrammarBolshevik » Thu Aug 12, 2010 11:17 pm UTC

I believe it's wrong to deny people equality on the basis of gender and sexual orientation. Is there a way to vote for Prop 8 without doing that?
Nothing rhymes with orange,
Not even sporange.

Nordic Einar
Posts: 783
Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2008 7:21 am UTC

Re: Prop. 8 Federally Overturned

Postby Nordic Einar » Thu Aug 12, 2010 11:18 pm UTC

Silknor wrote:Supporting Prop 8 does not make you evil, or bigoted, or hateful, or ignorant, objectively wrong, or immoral. These terms may accurately be ascribed to some supporters. But to ascribe them to all supporters is just wrong.


That doesn't make their stance any less observable wrong, though. There isn't really much in the way of a reasonable rationalization of imposing restrictions on homosexuals like this.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 guests