Conservatives insist the rest of us live by their rules

Post Reply New Topic

More and more it's Americans in general it seems

http://www.pennlive.com/opinion/2015/06/gay_marriage_anthony_kennedy_o.html

I just think they should have clamped down on it earlier.

Arguments against marriage equality tended to fall into one of two categories.

Firstly, logical fallacy.

And secondly, hate speech.

I'm not arguing, by the way, that "My church does not allow it" is a fallacy. "My church does not allow it so you shouldn't be able to go down to the courthouse and be wedded in a civil ceremony" is a logical fallacy.

I remember when the prop 8 politiking was at full steam, people would go on tv and raise the horrible specter of having to raise children in a world where kids might find out that not all girls are into boys and not all boys are into girls.

The horror.

And all those arguments about it destroying the "sanctity" of marriage. As though there were any sanctity. As though it is the responsibility of the state to sanctify anything. Your clergy give you any sanctification you get. If your clergy decline to sanctify something, that's their business. The state is here for the civil, legal aspects. The state was the only problem. Some churches did, in fact, support marriage equality and did perform religious wedding ceremonies for gay couples. They just couldn't help them with the government paperwork.

Fallacy and hate, 100% of it.

Barring a constitutional amendment, which isn't gonna happen, like it or not, it is here to stay. Arguments about why are obsolete. Arguments about why not may as well be pissing in the wind.

I can't figure out why that paper is announcing that they won't publish letters on those arguments anymore when they could just, not print them.

Letters about the legal merits of the decision are an academic exercise, however, and professional journalists never turn down a good academic exercise.

Please do not feed my God a peanut.

If it's a matter of eternal life and death, then what is the right thing to do? Let people go to Hell or try to prevent that?

Here's a thought. Stay the hell out of other peoples business. Many of us don't believe as you do. Even some Christians don't believe in hell. Worry about your own life...

Would you let someone jump off a building?

That has nothing to do with your comment. Hell doesn't exist. The pavement below does. Even then, I might not have the power to prevent it. I also believe there are valid reasons for some to commit suicide...

Next ludicrous question...

I am happy you don't have ability to cause me harm if I say a thing you deem hate speech or incorrect argument style. I am unhappy there are too many with your way of thinking that do have this power. Luckily for them the gay activists did not take the view that the anti sodomy laws were well established laws that had Supreme Court approval, a done deal, therefore talking about repealing them should not have be allowed.

Why do you seem to want to pretend that hate speech doesn't exist, and that saying hateful things to others can't possibly hurt them at all? I mean, you do realize that a lot of bullying could be classed as hate speech, don't you? So do you think that bullies' free speech should be protected, no matter how hurtful their words are to the people they're bullying? As someone who was bullied throughout much of my grade school years, I can honestly say that I wish there had been harsher laws against bullying back then. I still struggle with bitterness and trust issues as a result of the fact that I was bullied. I guess you don't care about that, though.

I was bullied in grade school, Jr..High school, college and at work and was called "k*e" in school more times then I care to remember. Bullying is an action with intent, expressing ones opinion no matter how unpopular or outdated it may or may not be bullying or hate speech. It depends on intent.

This whole idea of banning words to fight hate is often wrong, it is defensive in nature. A better method is Reappropriation. It is taking a word that are slurs and making them positive. Crippled is often used a pejorative so people have reappropriated the word to crip. "Aspie" is a form of this. Gay (a reapproriated word) advocates made what was almost universally considered "wrong" into a positive or at least not a threat.

A friend from about 20 years ago, Evan Wolfson (the man who charted the course for national same-sex marriage in 1991) was published in the LGBT Washington Blade newspaper today wherein he talks about "reclaiming this vocabulary of marriage[.]" Seems like he agrees with the idea of reappropriation of formerly restricted words ( http://www.washingtonblade.com/2015/06/ ... ge-victory ).

But reappropriation takes the combined efforts of a lot of people to successfully change the meaning of the word. And that isn't always possible, especially in the case of bullying, where people are often afraid to stand up against the bully.

I am confused by the way you brought up violence. I don't know where that came from.

A newspaper declining to print an op-ed or letter to the editor based on it's subject matter is hardly a restriction of speech. The right to expression does not guarantee a venue. Certainly not a privately owned venue.

While people are welcome to try to bring a suit all the way up to the supreme court, i am doubtful that any state will win the right to continue to outlaw same sex marriage. They are welcome to try.

First, though, someone will have to find a leg to stand on. Which is to say, they have to establish locus standi. Someone will have to find a way to assert that they have somehow been harmed by two other people getting married.

And moreover, they will probably have to show that this harm would not have happened if one of them had been a different gender.

Lots of luck.

It's also much harder, potentially impossible, to reappropriate a sentence or slogan.

While Randall may have had a shot at reappropriating "Porch Monkey" in Clerks II - if he got enough people on board - i have doubts that "God Hates Fags" can be reappropriated.

While it can be argued that "Porch Monkey" can refer to any primate who likes to inhabit porches, and i understand that this is tradition in New Jersey, where the Clerks movies are set, "God Hates Fags" is both a logical fallacy (appeal to the supernatural; purporting to know the mind of God) AND since it contains the word "hate", pretty clearly hate speech.

We are so strident in our efforts to allow free speech that it is not uncommon to see people who claim to follow the teachings of one alleged Jesus of Nazareth holding signs that bear this slogan, and shouting said slogan, and both of these activities on public streets, in full view and earshot of the intended target, as well as children of impressionable ages.

But it is nevertheless unambiguous hate speech.

We do in fact live in an era when so-called "fags" in their formative years may hear this phrase so often that it causes them great emotional trauma. So much so that they have a shockingly high suicide rate. And yet we allow it.

We have allowed it for so long that many parents have taken it to heart, and will go so far as to disown and cast out children who are avowed "fags". These children then frequently become homeless, and many fall into prostitution.

I need to preface that I am not talking about children who by definition are not mature. As minors 9 year olds have never had full free speech rights.

I'm not arguing against a newspaper being allowed what they want in their paper as it is their right of free speech to do that. I am arguing that their decision was wrong. Interesting you brought up others not being harmed by gay marriage. Instead of saying don't call me fa***t it hurts my feelings the gay rights movement used exactly that positive argument to successfully sway public opinion. Gay marriage was legal in 38 of 50 states before the Supreme Court made it a national law.

Having many people and institutions tell the defeated gay marriage opponents you can't complain because we deem all opposition to the decision hate speech is bullying. Rubbing your victory in defeated opponents face is questionable strategy. It did not work out well after WWI with Germany and after the cold war. It's not working out so well here. You can't say certain hate words but yet hate crimes go up. Successfully silencing your opponent only makes it harder to identify them.

You seriously want to ban people in a public street from saying I love Jesus, or I oppose gay marriage or even you are going to hell if your gay? As much as I may not like the message I am grateful to live in in country that allows this. Arrest them if they attack threaten or gang up on people.

As far reappropriation queer was every bit the pejorative fag is now yet now we have genderqueer.

Last edited by ASPartOfMe on 30 Jun 2015, 11:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.