obama endorses same-sex marriage

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

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
darkone238
Posts: 111
Joined: Thu Feb 09, 2012 6:37 am UTC

Re: obama endorses same-sex marriage

Postby darkone238 » Thu May 10, 2012 6:31 pm UTC

Steroid wrote:Why is it a stretch? They had status; they lost it. That's what harm is. If you've never had normalcy, continuing to not have it isn't harm. Just because you now think you should have it, doesn't mean that the world should change.

I'm sure this has already been addressed by now, but I have to step in, specifically towards the emphasized portion. Do you really think that we only now want equality under the law? Do you think wanting to be treated equally is a new concept? I obviously can't speak for people in the past, but I'd like to think that people who faced being told they have a mental illness would've wanted to be treated equally back then too. Did black people not want to be treated equally before the 1960s?

iamspen
Posts: 484
Joined: Tue May 01, 2012 2:23 pm UTC

Re: obama endorses same-sex marriage

Postby iamspen » Thu May 10, 2012 6:48 pm UTC

http://mediamatters.org/blog/201205090013

Original Fox News headline: Obama flip-flops, declares war on marriage." Since we're soon going to be required to get gay married, I'm calling dibs on John Barrowman.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7361
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: obama endorses same-sex marriage

Postby The Great Hippo » Thu May 10, 2012 6:59 pm UTC

EVERYONE IS GETTING GAY MARRIED. END OF DISCUSSION.
Spoiler:
Image
you're getting a gay marriage! and you're getting a gay marriage! and you're getting a gay marriage!

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

Re: obama endorses same-sex marriage

Postby netcrusher88 » Thu May 10, 2012 7:05 pm UTC

darkone238 wrote:
Steroid wrote:Why is it a stretch? They had status; they lost it. That's what harm is. If you've never had normalcy, continuing to not have it isn't harm. Just because you now think you should have it, doesn't mean that the world should change.

I'm sure this has already been addressed by now, but I have to step in, specifically towards the emphasized portion. Do you really think that we only now want equality under the law? Do you think wanting to be treated equally is a new concept? I obviously can't speak for people in the past, but I'd like to think that people who faced being told they have a mental illness would've wanted to be treated equally back then too. Did black people not want to be treated equally before the 1960s?

Slavery totally isn't harmful if it's all you've ever known, didn't you know?
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
meridian
Posts: 367
Joined: Tue Dec 09, 2008 12:26 am UTC
Location: Cambervillia
Contact:

Re: obama endorses same-sex marriage

Postby meridian » Thu May 10, 2012 7:09 pm UTC

iamspen wrote:http://mediamatters.org/blog/201205090013

Original Fox News headline: Obama flip-flops, declares war on marriage." Since we're soon going to be required to get gay married, I'm calling dibs on John Barrowman.

He's already married, I believe. I mean, last time I checked. Incidentally. A long time ago.
Spoiler:
People don't really go to heaven when they die. They are taken to a special room and burned.
- Sherlock
torontoraptor wrote:Internet is a zombie, and it is eating our brains.

Роберт
Posts: 4285
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 1:56 am UTC

Re: obama endorses same-sex marriage

Postby Роберт » Thu May 10, 2012 7:10 pm UTC

netcrusher88 wrote:
darkone238 wrote:
Steroid wrote:Why is it a stretch? They had status; they lost it. That's what harm is. If you've never had normalcy, continuing to not have it isn't harm. Just because you now think you should have it, doesn't mean that the world should change.

I'm sure this has already been addressed by now, but I have to step in, specifically towards the emphasized portion. Do you really think that we only now want equality under the law? Do you think wanting to be treated equally is a new concept? I obviously can't speak for people in the past, but I'd like to think that people who faced being told they have a mental illness would've wanted to be treated equally back then too. Did black people not want to be treated equally before the 1960s?

Slavery totally isn't harmful if it's all you've ever known, didn't you know?

Of course not. The only thing harmful is change.

For example, men were harmed by women's suffrage, because their votes lost power.
The Great Hippo wrote:[T]he way we treat suspected terrorists genuinely terrifies me.

iamspen
Posts: 484
Joined: Tue May 01, 2012 2:23 pm UTC

Re: obama endorses same-sex marriage

Postby iamspen » Thu May 10, 2012 7:14 pm UTC

meridian wrote:
iamspen wrote:http://mediamatters.org/blog/201205090013

Original Fox News headline: Obama flip-flops, declares war on marriage." Since we're soon going to be required to get gay married, I'm calling dibs on John Barrowman.

He's already married, I believe. I mean, last time I checked. Incidentally. A long time ago.


Killjoy. Man, all the women I've ever talked to, including my own girlfriend, were right. All the good men are taken.

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

Re: obama endorses same-sex marriage

Postby netcrusher88 » Thu May 10, 2012 7:39 pm UTC

Роберт wrote:For example, men were harmed by women's suffrage, because their votes lost power.

There you go, now you're thinking like Steroid.
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
aeki
Posts: 109
Joined: Fri Feb 22, 2008 12:25 am UTC

Re: obama endorses same-sex marriage

Postby aeki » Thu May 10, 2012 7:45 pm UTC

Роберт wrote:For example, men were harmed by women's suffrage, because their votes lost power.


If only we were still in the good old days when men were men who understood the nature of woman!

Chen
Posts: 5570
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 6:53 pm UTC
Location: Montreal

Re: obama endorses same-sex marriage

Postby Chen » Thu May 10, 2012 7:54 pm UTC

netcrusher88 wrote:
Роберт wrote:For example, men were harmed by women's suffrage, because their votes lost power.

There you go, now you're thinking like Steroid.


Technically it is true men were harmed by women's suffrage due to a lessening of their votes value. Thing is that's probably more an example of how it can still be the correct thing to do even though it can harm SOME people. Same way abolishing slavery was probably harmful to the people who used slaves as workers. Still a good thing that it was abolished.

To be more on topic, the harm to "traditional marriage" is what exactly? They feel less special because homosexuals can also use the word now? Their personal religious beliefs are being contradicted by a state that is supposed to secular? I suppose there's the off chance that god comes down and smites everyone because of it. Then again we've had gay marriage here in Canada for a while now and nothing has smoten us yet, so I guess I'm ok with that type of harm being done to allow gay marriage to be legalized.

IcedT
Posts: 867
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2010 8:34 pm UTC

Re: obama endorses same-sex marriage

Postby IcedT » Thu May 10, 2012 7:59 pm UTC

aeki wrote:
Роберт wrote:For example, men were harmed by women's suffrage, because their votes lost power.


If only we were still in the good old days when men were men who understood the nature of woman!

Also when plantation owners taught black people the value of hard work!

(Holy shit guys. I can't believe that guy exists.)

Steroid
Posts: 549
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2008 10:50 am UTC

Re: obama endorses same-sex marriage

Postby Steroid » Thu May 10, 2012 8:07 pm UTC

Ghostbear wrote:(2) If your opposition is on the concept that people will now think about things, then you have absolutely zero sympathy from me on this point. In fact, you have the opposite -- I herald the day when people think about what they believe instead of just believing something because that's the 'default' of those around them. A world with thoughtless automatons is a terrible world, I will be glad to see ours a little more distant from it.

And I'm shooting for the exact opposite: a world where we already know everything and don't have to think anymore. Thinking, work, understanding; all these are human suffering, and I have as much or more sympathy for that suffering as I do for oppression.
netcrusher88 wrote:Steroid's a strong libertaryan. You know, everyone is free to be a rich straight white cis male protestant Christian, and if they're anything else and unhappy with the status quo it's their own damn fault they chose to be downtrodden. The Ronpaul™ version of Libertarianism.

Except that the Ronpaul is against the military.

The Great Hippo wrote:And why on earth should social change be additive instead of transformative? What does that even mean? How do you think 'we' should go about making sure social change happens in this way? Should we use the government to make sure values never disappear? Are you proposing some sort of 'cultural welfare' system, where we support values long after they've become outdated?

I find your position on this subject increasingly bizarre.

Hell, no, we shouldn't use the government. What we should have are strong cultural institutions that don't go away just because something else comes along to fill their niches. The kind of world where everyone in town was the same religion (or weird) is worth preserving, because it produced so much good (including the world as is).

Ghostbear wrote:You guessed correctly. I'd like to also add that Steroid's statement is a rather odd interpretation of what I was saying in response to his comment asking if there was anything that church's can deny people. I said that there wouldn't be anything forcing the church to declare gay people saints (among other things -- I believe I also mentioned that the wouldn't need to perform the marriages either) as part of a basic list of things that churches can keep to themselves -- which is, essentially, anything that stays wholly and solely within the church as a church-only practice.

But you also said that if sainthood became societally valuable, that you would expect gays to start fighting for the right as they did for marriage. What I'm looking for is something that gays want but accept that they can't have without giving in to the religious establishment. If it doesn't currently exist, that's a quirk of fate. If you're saying that it *shouldn't* exist, then you're again favoring inclusiveness over exclusiveness.

Lucrece wrote:Not having normalcy is itself a harm -- there are financial and social consequences to it.

Then why do you want to impute that harm to Christians?

And since you seem set on moving to a hypothetical about some magical government not grounded by human nature and reality, as libertarians are wont to do; no, it won't happen. Humans are NEVER just happy to hold an opinion on social matters and stay away from doing something about it to see that opinion enforced. A belief in the inferiority of homosexuals doesn't just stay a belief, just like any other superiority complex doesn't stay nebulous and individual.

Then what am I? I think I'm superior to homosexuals but support their equal rights. The fact that you say that humans can't do that would lend weight to my belief that I am superior to all humans. :D :D :D :D

When you're able to make some sort of cyborg or life form capable of divorcing prejudice from behavior toward the objects of his/her/its prejudice, you get back to me about your "rights-oriented government". Rights for humans exist only so far as humans that make up part of the group discussing it choose to recognize such rights and invest in seeing them enforced.

I disagree. Rights are inherent; it takes an active decision to violate them. But even if you were right, I would say that we should spend our time working on that form of life rather than trying to patchwork together something to fit the status quo.

IcedT wrote:So wait- it's wrong to treat gays as second-class citizens, but also wrong to encourage people not to think of gays as second-class citizens? What kind of mental gymnastics did you have to go through to reach that conclusion, Steroid?


The root of the problem is that there seems to be a general agreement that there should be no second-class citizens at all. Well, I want to be better than others. How can I do that if the people whom I'm better than don't have to take it but can demand class elevation to my level?
darkone238 wrote:I'm sure this has already been addressed by now, but I have to step in, specifically towards the emphasized portion. Do you really think that we only now want equality under the law? Do you think wanting to be treated equally is a new concept? I obviously can't speak for people in the past, but I'd like to think that people who faced being told they have a mental illness would've wanted to be treated equally back then too. Did black people not want to be treated equally before the 1960s?

No, but they did want to be treated equally socially, and they still are claiming more than they should in my opinion. Equality under law, inequality outside of law. Simple formula.

User avatar
Jave D
chavey-dee
Posts: 1042
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2010 4:41 pm UTC

Re: obama endorses same-sex marriage

Postby Jave D » Thu May 10, 2012 8:12 pm UTC

Steroid wrote:And I'm shooting for the exact opposite: a world where we already know everything and don't have to think anymore. Thinking, work, understanding; all these are human suffering


Erm. Not for all of us.

Hell, no, we shouldn't use the government. What we should have are strong cultural institutions that don't go away just because something else comes along to fill their niches. The kind of world where everyone in town was the same religion (or weird) is worth preserving, because it produced so much good (including the world as is).


Interesting. Well, in the real world, people are not homogenous culturally, ethnically, sexually, or by race or religion. That's not about to change, so rather than pining away for some fantasy world where everyone is just like you, it's more productive to deal with the world as it is. Since the world as is, as you say, is so very good even though not everyone in town is exactly the same.

iamspen
Posts: 484
Joined: Tue May 01, 2012 2:23 pm UTC

Re: obama endorses same-sex marriage

Postby iamspen » Thu May 10, 2012 8:14 pm UTC

Not sure if real or hardcore troll.

Steroid wrote:Hell, no, we shouldn't use the government. What we should have are strong cultural institutions that don't go away just because something else comes along to fill their niches. The kind of world where everyone in town was the same religion (or weird) is worth preserving, because it produced so much good (including the world as is).


In the past, people tended to form communities based on religion out of a.) convenience and b.) they flat-out murdered anyone who fucking disagreed. GREAT SYSTEM.

User avatar
Diadem
Posts: 5654
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 11:03 am UTC
Location: The Netherlands

Re: obama endorses same-sex marriage

Postby Diadem » Thu May 10, 2012 8:17 pm UTC

aeki wrote:
Роберт wrote:For example, men were harmed by women's suffrage, because their votes lost power.


If only we were still in the good old days when men were men who understood the nature of woman!

Well, at least he's in favour of gay marriage.

At least, I can only assume he is, given that he said: "They don’t have love".
It's one of those irregular verbs, isn't it? I have an independent mind, you are an eccentric, he is round the twist
- Bernard Woolley in Yes, Prime Minister

User avatar
Diadem
Posts: 5654
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 11:03 am UTC
Location: The Netherlands

Re: obama endorses same-sex marriage

Postby Diadem » Thu May 10, 2012 8:17 pm UTC

aeki wrote:
Роберт wrote:For example, men were harmed by women's suffrage, because their votes lost power.


If only we were still in the good old days when men were men who understood the nature of woman!

Well, at least he's in favour of gay marriage.

At least, I can only assume he is, given that he said: "They don’t have love".
It's one of those irregular verbs, isn't it? I have an independent mind, you are an eccentric, he is round the twist
- Bernard Woolley in Yes, Prime Minister

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: obama endorses same-sex marriage

Postby TheGrammarBolshevik » Thu May 10, 2012 8:22 pm UTC

Steroid wrote:Thinking, work, understanding; all these are human suffering

This is a psychological claim. Do you have psychological evidence to back it up?
Nothing rhymes with orange,
Not even sporange.

Ghostbear
Posts: 1764
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 10:06 pm UTC

Re: obama endorses same-sex marriage

Postby Ghostbear » Thu May 10, 2012 8:30 pm UTC

Steroid wrote:And I'm shooting for the exact opposite: a world where we already know everything and don't have to think anymore. Thinking, work, understanding; all these are human suffering, and I have as much or more sympathy for that suffering as I do for oppression.

You can't know things if you don't think about them. We're never going to see a world where we know everything in such detail that thought is never required. Since we don't live in that world, all you're advocating for is a world with less thought when thought is still useful. The only reason you want people to not think on this issue is because the 'default', for so many centuries, has been the one that you share.

I also happen to quite enjoy thinking and understanding, and will frequently enjoy the work that brings me the other two.

Steroid wrote:
netcrusher88 wrote:Steroid's a strong libertaryan. You know, everyone is free to be a rich straight white cis male protestant Christian, and if they're anything else and unhappy with the status quo it's their own damn fault they chose to be downtrodden. The Ronpaul™ version of Libertarianism.

Except that the Ronpaul is against the military.

R. Paul is also 76 years old -- him being militarily isolationist has absolutely nothing to do with what netcrusher said.

Steroid wrote:But you also said that if sainthood became societally valuable, that you would expect gays to start fighting for the right as they did for marriage. What I'm looking for is something that gays want but accept that they can't have without giving in to the religious establishment. If it doesn't currently exist, that's a quirk of fate. If you're saying that it *shouldn't* exist, then you're again favoring inclusiveness over exclusiveness.

You aren't even attempting to follow my line of reasoning. So long as they keep sainthood an exclusively religious act, contained entirely within the church, granted solely by the church, governed solely by the church, and recognized solely by the church, they can do whatever they want with it. Once they start getting secular government recognition of it, once the they stop keeping it exclusive to their own followers, once they cease to keep it solely theirs, then they don't deserve exclusivity of it anymore, because they don't even have it in the first place. If they can keep sainthood along that first set of guidelines, they can deny it or grant it to anyone they want, for any arbitrary reasons.

Steroid wrote:
IcedT wrote:So wait- it's wrong to treat gays as second-class citizens, but also wrong to encourage people not to think of gays as second-class citizens? What kind of mental gymnastics did you have to go through to reach that conclusion, Steroid?

The root of the problem is that there seems to be a general agreement that there should be no second-class citizens at all. Well, I want to be better than others. How can I do that if the people whom I'm better than don't have to take it but can demand class elevation to my level?

I don't even know how to respond to this properly. I have never seen such self-centered, narcissistic, selfish pride before. How do you know, not just think, but know, you're better than them? Why does your hatred of government involvement cease when you feel superior to the people disadvantaged by that involvement? There is so much cognitive dissonance here.

User avatar
aeki
Posts: 109
Joined: Fri Feb 22, 2008 12:25 am UTC

Re: obama endorses same-sex marriage

Postby aeki » Thu May 10, 2012 8:36 pm UTC

iamspen wrote:Not sure if real or hardcore troll.

I'm thinking troll. People who want to preserve their unfair advantages tend to make up rationalizations for why the disadvantaged class don't deserve to be equal, they don't flat-out say that it's for personal gain.

Also, this:
Thinking, work, understanding; all these are human suffering, and I have as much or more sympathy for that suffering as I do for oppression.

Either he's about to blow up the earth to end all suffering or he's fucking with us.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7361
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: obama endorses same-sex marriage

Postby The Great Hippo » Thu May 10, 2012 8:41 pm UTC

Steroid wrote:Hell, no, we shouldn't use the government. What we should have are strong cultural institutions that don't go away just because something else comes along to fill their niches. The kind of world where everyone in town was the same religion (or weird) is worth preserving, because it produced so much good (including the world as is).
Is that what you think is largely responsible for America's success? Everyone having the same beliefs, the same culture, the same ideas?

But that's besides the point. We already have strong cultural institutions that don't go away just because someone else comes along to fill their niches. They're called 'cultural institutions'. Whether they succeed or fail is a function of reality. Arguing that we need to play nice and 'let' these institutions survive--when their values are directly opposed to our own cultural institutions--is tantamount to telling me I need to 'let' a competing business succeed, because it's very crucial that no business ever fail. If my ideas succeed where theirs failed, maybe that's because I had better ideas.

Ideas fail. Values grow outdated. Cultures pass their expiration date. That's life. Deal with it.

IcedT
Posts: 867
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2010 8:34 pm UTC

Re: obama endorses same-sex marriage

Postby IcedT » Thu May 10, 2012 8:43 pm UTC

Steroid wrote:
IcedT wrote:So wait- it's wrong to treat gays as second-class citizens, but also wrong to encourage people not to think of gays as second-class citizens? What kind of mental gymnastics did you have to go through to reach that conclusion, Steroid?

The root of the problem is that there seems to be a general agreement that there should be no second-class citizens at all. Well, I want to be better than others. How can I do that if the people whom I'm better than don't have to take it but can demand class elevation to my level?

Ah, I see. We spend so much time thinking about the plight of the oppressed that we forget to consider the oppressor's delicate sensibilities. Cry me a fucking river.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7361
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: obama endorses same-sex marriage

Postby The Great Hippo » Thu May 10, 2012 8:49 pm UTC

I mean seriously, you're arguing for cultural welfare. You might not think the government should do it, but you think that everyone else--who's busy promoting their own culture, their own values, their own ideas--needs to stop and 'play nice' with the current dominant paradigm, because otherwise we might hurt its feelings by running it out of business.

If Christianity can't handle the heat, how is that my problem? Adapt or perish.

User avatar
Not A Raptor
Posts: 417
Joined: Sun Sep 21, 2008 4:06 pm UTC

Re: obama endorses same-sex marriage

Postby Not A Raptor » Thu May 10, 2012 8:52 pm UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:Arguing that we need to play nice and 'let' these institutions survive--when their values are directly opposed to our own cultural institutions--is tantamount to telling me I need to 'let' a competing business succeed, because it's very crucial that no business ever fail.

ITT: Discrimination inherent in culture is Too Big To Fail, so says Steroid?
Van wrote:I like simple games.

Like Wizardry.

WARNING: Is acting like NaR.
Kellsbells: NAR is a sillypants
Not_A_Raptor: :p
Kellsbells: That is my expert assessment

User avatar
Angua
Don't call her Delphine.
Posts: 5929
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 12:42 pm UTC
Location: UK/[St. Kitts and] Nevis Occasionally, I migrate to the US for a bit

Re: obama endorses same-sex marriage

Postby Angua » Thu May 10, 2012 9:05 pm UTC

iamspen wrote:Not sure if real or hardcore troll.

Steroid wrote:Hell, no, we shouldn't use the government. What we should have are strong cultural institutions that don't go away just because something else comes along to fill their niches. The kind of world where everyone in town was the same religion (or weird) is worth preserving, because it produced so much good (including the world as is).


In the past, people tended to form communities based on religion out of a.) convenience and b.) they flat-out murdered anyone who fucking disagreed. GREAT SYSTEM.

Agreed. See - the crusades, the inquisition, the wars against communism.
Crabtree's bludgeon: “no set of mutually inconsistent observations can exist for which some human intellect cannot conceive a coherent explanation, however complicated”
GNU Terry Pratchett

User avatar
Garm
Posts: 2241
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2007 5:29 pm UTC
Location: Usually at work. Otherwise, Longmont, CO.

Re: obama endorses same-sex marriage

Postby Garm » Thu May 10, 2012 10:47 pm UTC

Angua wrote:
iamspen wrote:Not sure if real or hardcore troll.

Steroid wrote:Hell, no, we shouldn't use the government. What we should have are strong cultural institutions that don't go away just because something else comes along to fill their niches. The kind of world where everyone in town was the same religion (or weird) is worth preserving, because it produced so much good (including the world as is).


In the past, people tended to form communities based on religion out of a.) convenience and b.) they flat-out murdered anyone who fucking disagreed. GREAT SYSTEM.

Agreed. See - the crusades, the inquisition, the wars against communism.


Funny that you mention wars against communism. While not exactly a war, McCarthyism and the Red Scare didn't do much damage to communism in this country (largely because it didn't really exist) but did do a great deal of harm to homosexuals in government (see the lavender scare).
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.
- JFK

User avatar
Dauric
Posts: 3988
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 6:58 pm UTC
Location: In midair, traversing laterally over a container of sharks. No water, just sharks, with lasers.

Re: obama endorses same-sex marriage

Postby Dauric » Thu May 10, 2012 11:11 pm UTC

Angua wrote:
iamspen wrote:Not sure if real or hardcore troll.

Steroid wrote:Hell, no, we shouldn't use the government. What we should have are strong cultural institutions that don't go away just because something else comes along to fill their niches. The kind of world where everyone in town was the same religion (or weird) is worth preserving, because it produced so much good (including the world as is).


In the past, people tended to form communities based on religion out of a.) convenience and b.) they flat-out murdered anyone who fucking disagreed. GREAT SYSTEM.

Agreed. See - the crusades, the inquisition, the wars against communism.

Hell, people are still being lynched for being gay.

The Christian-centric culture is collapsing under the weight of their own collective asshattery. When they can't make everyone be Christian by threatening people with being burned at the stake for heresy their cultural dominance slips from their grasp because the various hierarchies have been asshats for so long that large portions of the population don't want to have anything to do with them.

Fuck, people have already detailed in this very thread Christian subcultures and hierarchies that have had enough of being asshats and support legal rights for homosexuals.

The more of a jackass you make yourself in the argument for your precious cultural privilege the more people will hate and attack that very same privilege because it's what's driving you to be a jackass.
We're in the traffic-chopper over the XKCD boards where there's been a thread-derailment. A Liquified Godwin spill has evacuated threads in a fourty-post radius of the accident, Lolcats and TVTropes have broken free of their containers. It is believed that the Point has perished.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10493
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: obama endorses same-sex marriage

Postby CorruptUser » Fri May 11, 2012 12:57 am UTC

Dauric wrote:The more of a jackass you make yourself in the argument for your precious cultural privilege the more people will hate and attack that very same privilege because it's what's driving you to be a jackass.


And the more people hate and attack that privilege, the more aggressive/defensive the Christian asshats become. Ah, the circle of violence.

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

Re: obama endorses same-sex marriage

Postby netcrusher88 » Fri May 11, 2012 2:20 am UTC

CorruptUser wrote:
Dauric wrote:The more of a jackass you make yourself in the argument for your precious cultural privilege the more people will hate and attack that very same privilege because it's what's driving you to be a jackass.

And the more people hate and attack that privilege, the more aggressive/defensive the Christian asshats become. Ah, the circle of violence.

There are not enough words in the history of human communication to convey how furious this sentiment makes me.

Yes, historically queerphobic people have been less overtly violent towards those people who stayed in the closet. You know, they're fine with gays and lesbians (most of these people have never heard of the word transgender and don't know Kate Bornstein from Dr. Frankenfurter) as long as they keep it at home and don't talk about their relationships and stay out of the schools and the churches and the shopping malls and you know generally don't attempt to be part of society.

I suppose it's much nicer for the arrogant ignorant narcissistic bystanders like you when you don't have to hear the din of battle between oppressors and oppressed. It's nice to be able to see subjugation as something other than violence itself, isn't it? I remember it being pretty nice, inasmuch as I ever experienced it. Ah, privilege.

You've gotta start a circle somewhere. Every time a leading politician goes up on stage and says queer people don't deserve equal rights, that's violence. Every time CNN has Tony Perkins on and lets him spout his hatred without identifying him as the leader of a noted hate group or calling out his statements, that's violent. Every time some kid of a backwater politician gets airtime because mommy was the most famous hypocrite of 2008 and uses it to blame something-or-other on the popularity of Glee - a show with a gay main character - it's a slap in the face. When a legislator openly threatens violence against transgender women and faces no consequences, it's... christ, it's terrifying. When I introduced my little brother and sister to Doctor Who and when in The Doctor Dances Jack kissed a guy and they both gleefully said practically in unison "eew, that's gay!" it was almost physically painful. Every time somebody uses gay as pejorative or says "no homo" or derides a photo of some woman or other with "yeah, but she probably has a penis" that's called microaggression - alone maybe they're an offhand joke but together they add up to serious harm.

And when the President of the United States, son of an interracial couple himself (whose marriage was legitimized in many states by federal action), goes on ABC and hypocritically says that same-sex marriage is a matter for the states, legitimizing without substantial political cost the opinion that sexual orientation is an inferior class... it hurts. Again, not to say I don't appreciate the statement of support, but... yeah.

So you want to talk about violence? Let's talk about violence. But let's be honest about it.
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
CorruptUser
Posts: 10493
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: obama endorses same-sex marriage

Postby CorruptUser » Fri May 11, 2012 2:26 am UTC

netcrusher88 wrote:
CorruptUser wrote:
Dauric wrote:The more of a jackass you make yourself in the argument for your precious cultural privilege the more people will hate and attack that very same privilege because it's what's driving you to be a jackass.

And the more people hate and attack that privilege, the more aggressive/defensive the Christian asshats become. Ah, the circle of violence.

There are not enough words in the history of human communication to convey how furious this sentiment makes me.

Yes, historically queerphobic people have been less overtly violent towards those people who stayed in the closet. You know, they're fine with gays and lesbians (most of these people have never heard of the word transgender and don't know Kate Bornstein from Dr. Frankenfurter) as long as they keep it at home and don't talk about their relationships and stay out of the schools and the churches and the shopping malls and you know generally don't attempt to be part of society.

I suppose it's much nicer for the arrogant ignorant narcissistic bystanders like you when you don't have to hear the din of battle between oppressors and oppressed. It's nice to be able to see subjugation as something other than violence itself, isn't it? I remember it being pretty nice, inasmuch as I ever experienced it. Ah, privilege.

You've gotta start a circle somewhere. Every time a leading politician goes up on stage and says queer people don't deserve equal rights, that's violence. Every time CNN has Tony Perkins on and lets him spout his hatred without identifying him as the leader of a noted hate group or calling out his statements, that's violent. Every time some kid of a backwater politician gets airtime because mommy was the most famous hypocrite of 2008 and uses it to blame something-or-other on the popularity of Glee - a show with a gay main character - it's a slap in the face. When a legislator openly threatens violence against transgender women and faces no consequences, it's... christ, it's terrifying. When I introduced my little brother and sister to Doctor Who and when in The Doctor Dances Jack kissed a guy and they both gleefully said practically in unison "eew, that's gay!" it was almost physically painful. Every time somebody uses gay as pejorative or says "no homo" or derides a photo of some woman or other with "yeah, but she probably has a penis" that's called microaggression - alone maybe they're an offhand joke but together they add up to serious harm.

And when the President of the United States, son of an interracial couple himself (whose marriage was legitimized in many states by federal action), goes on ABC and hypocritically says that same-sex marriage is a matter for the states, legitimizing without substantial political cost the opinion that sexual orientation is an inferior class... it hurts. Again, not to say I don't appreciate the statement of support, but... yeah.

So you want to talk about violence? Let's talk about violence. But let's be honest about it.


Sigh, Poe's law strikes again. I could become rich by inventing an easier way to determine sarcasm on the intertubes. Otherwise, I agree with your sentiments in general.

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

Re: obama endorses same-sex marriage

Postby netcrusher88 » Fri May 11, 2012 2:30 am UTC

Bigotry is bigotry. The actions of bigots toward those they are bigoted against are violent. That was my point.

ETA: I'm just leaving this here as a memorial to the ninja edit war :D
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
CorruptUser
Posts: 10493
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: obama endorses same-sex marriage

Postby CorruptUser » Fri May 11, 2012 2:32 am UTC

Yeah, I initially said violence was physical only, but Wiki'd it just to make sure, and nope. I guess the definition broadened over the years to include nonphysical attacks/threats such as excommunication/shunning and likewise. [Sarcasm]Hooray, we can have violent pacifists![/Sarcasm]

It's weird, under Disambiguation, violence is "the use of physical force to cause injury, damage or death", but when you click on it, it's "the intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, against oneself, another person, or against a group or community, that either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment or deprivation."

Very different definitions.

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

Re: obama endorses same-sex marriage

Postby netcrusher88 » Fri May 11, 2012 2:41 am UTC

Generally, violence is causing harm. But I'm not going down that rabbit hole.

Nice flamebait earlier, there, even if it was sarcastic. That was cathartic to write :)
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
jakovasaur
Posts: 678
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2009 7:43 am UTC

Re: obama endorses same-sex marriage

Postby jakovasaur » Fri May 11, 2012 2:43 am UTC

It was very dramatic. I liked it.

User avatar
Garm
Posts: 2241
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2007 5:29 pm UTC
Location: Usually at work. Otherwise, Longmont, CO.

Re: obama endorses same-sex marriage

Postby Garm » Fri May 11, 2012 3:52 am UTC

CorruptUser wrote:
Dauric wrote:The more of a jackass you make yourself in the argument for your precious cultural privilege the more people will hate and attack that very same privilege because it's what's driving you to be a jackass.


And the more people hate and attack that privilege, the more aggressive/defensive the Christian asshats become. Ah, the circle of violence.


Even having read the responses to this: I think it's funny that even if the current crop of Evangelists aren't being "attacked" or hated on they'll invent something like the "War on Christmas" so they can feel butthurt and perpetuate the circle of violence.
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.
- JFK

Save Point
Posts: 425
Joined: Sun Jun 07, 2009 5:27 am UTC

Re: obama endorses same-sex marriage

Postby Save Point » Fri May 11, 2012 4:42 am UTC

Steroid wrote:2. If people have to make an affirmative step to decide whether or not to accept gays rather than simply doing so because that is what's done, that is a loss of culture. Indeed it might be a greater loss of culture than if they were being forced to accept gays, since the change from "no decision to make" to "decide your values" is harder than the reverse.

Sorry, didn't realize government has any kind of imperative to maintain a static culture, to say nothing of the fact that marriage equality puts no onus on you accept homosexuality. It simply requires the state to treat such couples equally before the law.

EDIT: I realize I'm late to the party but the point needs to be repeated.

User avatar
eran_rathan
Mostly Wrong
Posts: 1840
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2010 2:36 pm UTC
Location: in your ceiling, judging you

Re: obama endorses same-sex marriage

Postby eran_rathan » Fri May 11, 2012 11:44 am UTC

Steroid wrote:Hell, no, we shouldn't use the government. What we should have are strong cultural institutions that don't go away just because something else comes along to fill their niches. The kind of world where everyone in town was the same religion (or weird) is worth preserving, because it produced so much good (including the world as is).


Yeah, like pogroms, and witch hunts, and stuff...

IcedT wrote:So wait- it's wrong to treat gays as second-class citizens, but also wrong to encourage people not to think of gays as second-class citizens? What kind of mental gymnastics did you have to go through to reach that conclusion, Steroid?


The root of the problem is that there seems to be a general agreement that there should be no second-class citizens at all. Well, I want to be better than others. How can I do that if the people whom I'm better than don't have to take it but can demand class elevation to my level?


Here's a hint: if you think that you are better than them, that's called bigotry. No matter what fancy word you use to hide behind, its bigotry.

darkone238 wrote:I'm sure this has already been addressed by now, but I have to step in, specifically towards the emphasized portion. Do you really think that we only now want equality under the law? Do you think wanting to be treated equally is a new concept? I obviously can't speak for people in the past, but I'd like to think that people who faced being told they have a mental illness would've wanted to be treated equally back then too. Did black people not want to be treated equally before the 1960s?

No, but they did want to be treated equally socially, and they still are claiming more than they should in my opinion. Equality under law, inequality outside of law. Simple formula.

[/quote]

Ah, good, now we see where you are coming from: racist, bigoted, priviledged. Good to know.
"Does this smell like chloroform to you?"
"Google tells me you are not unique. You are, however, wrong."
nɒʜƚɒɿ_nɒɿɘ

Mellowed Out
Posts: 2
Joined: Sat May 12, 2012 1:45 am UTC

Re: obama endorses same-sex marriage

Postby Mellowed Out » Sat May 12, 2012 2:02 am UTC

Hi Steroid, you say that you want to reach a stage where we have all knowledge and don't need to think anymore. Whilst I completely disagree with you there, working on the idea that that is a good goal, presumably you'd want that stage to be humans having the factually correct knowledge and not just some group knowledge that may or may not be based on facts. On that basis, I was wondering if you'd watched the video at the bottom of page 2, or read the transcript of it?

I would be genuinely interested to hear your review of it's analysis, I'm not a Christian myself and frankly have no plans to read the entire bible including its original version, but it seems like the guy in the video has put a lot of work into doing exactly that, so it would be interesting to hear from you as a fellow Christian what your rebuttal to the points he's raised would be.

Personally I work on the idea that you should have the right to whatever you want so long as it doesn't interfere with the rights of others (e.g. my right to life supersedes anyone else's right to murder me). What the hierarchy of those rights should be isn't really relevant to this discussion as what two consenting adults do with each other (sex, marriage, tiddlywinks) has no bearing on my life whatsoever. The only way it could would be if I was offended by the idea of two same-sex people having sex, and frankly I don't believe humans have the right to not be offended, and even if they did I'm sure the others' right to a family life would be higher up the ladder.

(Hi everyone btw, I'm always pretty much a lurker on any forum as other's tend to say most of what I would say anyway, but really wanted to ask Steroid about that video. Will jump in on topics from time to time though so nice to meet you.)

Steroid
Posts: 549
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2008 10:50 am UTC

Re: obama endorses same-sex marriage

Postby Steroid » Sat May 12, 2012 2:55 pm UTC

Mellowed Out wrote:Hi Steroid, you say that you want to reach a stage where we have all knowledge and don't need to think anymore. Whilst I completely disagree with you there, working on the idea that that is a good goal, presumably you'd want that stage to be humans having the factually correct knowledge and not just some group knowledge that may or may not be based on facts. On that basis, I was wondering if you'd watched the video at the bottom of page 2, or read the transcript of it?

Your presumption is a bit off. I want humans to be the originators of correctness, not the interpreters. I'd rather have a person who says that the sky is green result in angels painting the sky (metaphorically speaking) than the person have to look up and correct himself. I believe that people, or at least any sapient being, are the only entities that give value, that say what's good and what's not. So just as supreme factual truth doesn't change because of what we say is good or bad, neither should the standard of what's good change because of what's true. The ideal would be us determining what is true as well as what's good.

I would be genuinely interested to hear your review of it's analysis, I'm not a Christian myself and frankly have no plans to read the entire bible including its original version, but it seems like the guy in the video has put a lot of work into doing exactly that, so it would be interesting to hear from you as a fellow Christian what your rebuttal to the points he's raised would be.

I'm actually not a Christian either. I'm just sympathetic to anyone who has a belief and uses it in their life.

Personally I work on the idea that you should have the right to whatever you want so long as it doesn't interfere with the rights of others (e.g. my right to life supersedes anyone else's right to murder me). What the hierarchy of those rights should be isn't really relevant to this discussion as what two consenting adults do with each other (sex, marriage, tiddlywinks) has no bearing on my life whatsoever. The only way it could would be if I was offended by the idea of two same-sex people having sex, and frankly I don't believe humans have the right to not be offended, and even if they did I'm sure the others' right to a family life would be higher up the ladder.[/quote]
I take the same view of rights, and I extend it past two. If two hundred consenting adults want to get together and have sex or talk about sex or do anything sex-related, I am fine to let them do that. In the same way, if two hundred consenting adults want to get together and talk about how the first two hundred are sinners, how they're evil, how they're against god, and how their love isn't really like the love that their group has, I'm OK with that too. Both are rights in that no-one here wants a government to interfere with them.

The difference between me and everyone else here is that everyone else says that while a government shouldn't interfere with or influence the second group, non-governmental structures should. They should be taught, argued with, economically sanctioned, laughed-at, and have ideas counter to theirs taught to children. Fifty years ago, the common sentiment was that that should happen to the first group (whether or not in went beyond that to governmental interference is irrelevant; social pressures existed against homosexuality then, against homophobia now.) The movement from exclusion to inclusion is called progress. I don't think it is.

I would be more understanding of the movement of homosexual advancement if it were advocating damaging Christianity for the sake of its own elevation. If they were saying that they wanted their own communities where Christianity of any stripe was not welcome, and that the superiority of the homosexual lifestyle over the heterosexual was taken as a norm, I would find it easier to empathize with. But they're not. They're saying they want everyone together in a mix, with every individual forced to give attention to the concerns of Christians and homosexuals, and for that matter everyone else who has an issue to complain about. And that's a far more monolithic demand than anything I'm making.

User avatar
Yakk
Poster with most posts but no title.
Posts: 11116
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2007 7:27 pm UTC
Location: E pur si muove

Re: obama endorses same-sex marriage

Postby Yakk » Sat May 12, 2012 3:09 pm UTC

The difference between me and everyone else here is that everyone else says that while a government shouldn't interfere with or influence the second group, non-governmental structures should.
If 200 people want to get together and form a non-governmental structure to interfere with or influence the second group, why are you not ok with this when you are in favor of the first group interfering with other people again?

Your demand is that society form under a monolithic iron fist that crushes all deviance from its dictated norm. That is a far more monolithic demand than "you can go off and call us sinners all you like, but we'll call you douches for doing so". Insofar as the definition of "monolith" is a "large uniform structure".
One of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid, and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt and indecision - BR

Last edited by JHVH on Fri Oct 23, 4004 BCE 6:17 pm, edited 6 times in total.

User avatar
K-R
Posts: 1564
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 6:42 pm UTC
Location: Australia

Re: obama endorses same-sex marriage

Postby K-R » Sat May 12, 2012 3:24 pm UTC

Steroid wrote:I want humans to be the originators of correctness, not the interpreters. I'd rather have a person who says that the sky is green result in angels painting the sky (metaphorically speaking) than the person have to look up and correct himself. I believe that people, or at least any sapient being, are the only entities that give value, that say what's good and what's not. So just as supreme factual truth doesn't change because of what we say is good or bad, neither should the standard of what's good change because of what's true. The ideal would be us determining what is true as well as what's good.

You're Stephen Colbert, aren't you?


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Link and 6 guests