Maggie Gallagher giving up on optimism

[zsdersw]

Well we're not taking about race. Why not answer the question.

By substituting race and asking yourself the question you'll also answer your question about SSM.

 

[Retro Rob]

By substituting race and asking yourself the question you'll also answer your question about SSM.

If this was a question about race, I'd insert "race". If it was about abortion, I'd use "abortion", if it was about animals, i'd insert "animals".

 

[Retro Rob]

By substituting race and asking yourself the question you'll also answer your question about SSM.

If this was a question about race, I'd insert "race". If it was about abortion, I'd use "abortion", if it was about animals, i'd insert "animals".

 

[zsdersw]

If this was a question about race, I'd insert "race". If it was about abortion, I'd use "abortion", if it was about animals, i'd insert "animals".

If you ask yourself that question about race you'll have what I'd answer about SSM.

 

[zinfamous]

If this was a question about race, I'd insert "race". If it was about abortion, I'd use "abortion", if it was about animals, i'd insert "animals".

what is the difference between defining someone by their skin color vs defining them by their sexual orientation?

 

[Retro Rob]

Well I wanted some honest opinions and some reasons, but thanks anyway, guys.

 

[zsdersw]

Well I wanted some honest opinions and some reasons, but thanks anyway, guys.

You got them.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Let me ask you: is one a bigot for not accepting SSM, but wouldn't fight for nor against the legalization of it?

I ask because there are some floating opinions that once it is legalized, Biblical views of hetero marriage are bigoted by definition even if a religious person minds his/her own business.

Bigotry can be defined as a state of mind. Or it can be defined in terms of actions.

So it really depends on how you look at it.

I think one can be a bigot but not act like a bigot. And personally, I think that's all anyone can ask of anyone else.

 

[soulcougher73]

Let me ask you: is one a bigot for not accepting SSM, but wouldn't fight for nor against the legalization of it?

I ask because there are some floating opinions that once it is legalized, Biblical views of hetero marriage are bigoted by definition even if a religious person minds his/her own business.

This is just my opinion, but by standing on the side lines you are condoning what is going on. So in this case SSM is not legalized federally and you doing nothing means you support the status quo of it being not recognized. To me its supporting something by default.

 

[Retro Rob]

You got them.

Not from you cuz you are not being honest.

 

[Retro Rob]

Bigotry can be defined as a state of mind. Or it can be defined in terms of actions.

So it really depends on how you look at it.

I think one can be a bigot but not act like a bigot. And personally, I think that's all anyone can ask of anyone else.

Well yeah I see that.

There are people who are politically neutral and won't take part in the political side of it (because they won't violate their conscience), nor will they force their own views by fighting to make it illegal. That doesn't mean they have distain toward those of a different sexual orientation. They'd rather allow the persons in charge of it handle the issue. Either outcome won't make a shred of difference to them.

To equate that with racism is beyond asinine, IMO, and ignorant.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

To equate that with racism is beyond asinine, IMO, and ignorant.

Why so?

The same exact argument you make about it being okay to 'stay out of' the gay rights fight has been made routinely about the fight for equal rights for other minorities.

 

[GreenMeters]

There are people who are politically neutral and won't take part in the political side of it (because they won't violate their conscience), nor will they force their own views by fighting to make it illegal. That doesn't mean they have distain toward those of a different sexual orientation. They'd rather allow the persons in charge of it handle the issue. Either outcome won't make a shred of difference to them.

That's not what you asked. Your text:

Let me ask you: is one a bigot for not accepting SSM, but wouldn't fight for nor against the legalization of it?

If someone doesn't "have disdain towards those of a different sexual orientation" and doesn't care if "the persons in charge of it handle" letting homosexuals get married because it "won't make a shred of difference" then that's a pretty textbook example of being "accepting". So, I personally would say that's not a very noble attitude in that they're unwilling to fight for equality, but it isn't bigoted.

But if someone is NOT accepting of SSM then clearly the outcomes DO matter.

That is, if the thought process is "Homosexuals can get married if they want to, but I'm not going to fight for their right to do so, and really probably won't think about SSM at all" that's acceptance, not bigotry.

But if the thought process is "Homosexuals should not be allowed to marry, but I'm not willing to fight against it and acknowledge that I'm powerless to stop it" that IS bigotry.

Just as "Blacks and whites should not be allowed to marry, but I'm not willing to fight against it and acknowledge that I'm powerless to stop it" is also bigotry.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Gallagher believes men must lead all households, which must consist of a husband, a wife, and children.

Speaking as a man who provides for his wife and child (my wife works out of the house) I think this is a load of horseshit. My wife and I are a team.

I have no problem with gay couples marrying.

 

[Retro Rob]

Why so?

The same exact argument you make about it being okay to 'stay out of' the gay rights fight has been made routinely about the fight for equal rights for other minorities.

If a white person had nothing aganist blacks in any way, shape, or form.. but refused to get involved in the political part of rights for minorities, he isn't racist in my eyes. It's not like he's refusing to help minorites -- which he isn't doing -- but he helps them outside of getting poltical (serving blacks in his resturant, supplying various civil services for them etc).

This is basically my stance on the issue. I am more than willing to serve homosexuals in any capacity outside of joining up in a political battle on either side of the isle. If they came into my computer shop, car garage, bring it on. They're only people.

 

[Retro Rob]

That's not what you asked. Your text:

If someone doesn't "have disdain towards those of a different sexual orientation" and doesn't care if "the persons in charge of it handle" letting homosexuals get married because it "won't make a shred of difference" then that's a pretty textbook example of being "accepting". So, I personally would say that's not a very noble attitude in that they're unwilling to fight for equality, but it isn't bigoted.

Well, my answer to that would be that you are welcome to have your opinion. It's not noble in your eyes, or in the eyes of the public. However, my noblilty isn't afforded to me based on your (or anyone else's) approval.

And I am not lashing out at what you're saying. I understand it.

 

[drebo]

Speaking as a man who provides for his wife and child (my wife works out of the house) I think this is a load of horseshit. My wife and I are a team.

I have no problem with gay couples marrying.

Neither do I.

However, there is less focus on masculinity in our world today, and I do think it has negatively affected us.

The current generation is one of sheltered infants incapable of doing anything for themselves or enduring any kind of hardship. Seriously, when you ban keeping score in school-time athletic competition, you're not fostering a healthy society.

We've lost sight of what made America and replaced it with an ideology that will be our undoing.

 

[GreenMeters]

Well, my answer to that would be that you are welcome to have your opinion. It's not noble in your eyes, or in the eyes of the public. However, my noblilty isn't afforded to me based on your (or anyone else's) approval.

And I am not lashing out at what you're saying. I understand it.

So you accept same sex marriage?

 

[Retro Rob]

So you accept same sex marriage?

I am NOT answering this question again. Re-read through the posts in this thread and draw your own conclusion.

 

[GreenMeters]

I am NOT answering this question again. Re-read through the posts in this thread and draw your own conclusion.

You demanded straight answers from others, please have the courtesy to provide straight answers yourself:

Do you accept same sex marriage?

 

[Retro Rob]

You demanded straight answers from others, please have the courtesy to provide straight answers yourself:

Do you accept same sex marriage?

You don't demand a flippn thing from me. Read through the thread, use your comprehension abilities, formulate your own conclusion.

 

[GreenMeters]

You don't demand a flippn thing from me. Read through the thread, use your comprehension abilities, formulate your own conclusion.

Please read that again. YOU demanded straight answers from others. It would be courteous if you then would provide straight answers yourself. Please be a good Christian and lead by example. No misdirection, no interpretation, just a straightforward "yes" or "no".

Do you accept same sex marriage?

 

[sandorski]

Please read that again. YOU demanded straight answers from others. It would be courteous if you then would provide straight answers yourself. Please be a good Christian and lead by example. No misdirection, no interpretation, just a straightforward "yes" or "no".

Do you accept same sex marriage?

Yneos

 

[werepossum]

Well, if you're just trying to make the general point that gays "can" choose to ignore their orientation, then that's obviously true. They've been doing it for centuries.

We can control how we behave (to within the limits of our self-control capabilities, which varies). We can't control how we feel. And we should only have to force ourselves to deny our feelings when there is good reason to do so.

This is one of the reasons that denying same-sex marriage is an anachronism. At one point it was part and parcel of our society marginalizing gays. People who are predominantly gay were forced to either deny those feelings or accept being marginalized. Today we no longer do that; people are free to be as openly gay as they wish. Whatever bad effects (if any) come with open gay relationships are here now, yet we're denying that part that strengthens society. I think this denial also weakens marriage as an institution. If one is arguing that marriage is valuable and positive, then the question "Then why don't you want these people to have it?" must surely resonate.

I could liken it to other things as well. If one wants a bigger government handing out more goodies and wants it funded by others, one is inherently selfish. Same with gay marriage; if I want a traditional America and I approach that by demanding that others be forced to make a sacrifice of freedom - a sacrifice that by its definition cannot be asked of me - I'm acting in a similarly selfish manner in that I want something that's of value to me and I want someone else to pay the price. And it's a steep price indeed. My right to marry as I choose is of far more import to me than how much of my pay check government allows me to retain.

 

[nehalem256]

And here you just admitted that there is no fundamental universal definition of marriage and that it differs culturally. And therefore the more culturally equal societies should have a more equal definition of marriage. Although from your own postings I'm sure you wish women were allowed to be property in this nation.

I said consent was not part of the fundamental definition. Not that it didn't have one.

Well, substitute race for SSM in your question and then ask it.

This question is only relevant assuming one of the following

(1) This is no real difference between men and women

or

(2) There is a real difference between a black and white person.