So, Just How Crazy Are Republicans?
The blogosphere has been abuzz with the recent poll by Daily Kos/Research 2000 that points a not so favorable view of the Republican Party. The way the poll looks it gives a picture a party filled with bigoted know-nothings.
This poll has bothered me for a lot of reasons. As a gay Republican who is a moderate, it felt like yet another slam against the party that makes one wonder why one should stay. It has also bothered me because I know a lot of Republicans and none of them seem as crazy as this poll suggests.
Now, I have some reservations of a poll that was commissioned by a partisan website, but as David Adesnik notes, that doesn’t mean it isn’t true.
However, I also don’t think the poll tells the whole story. As David notes a recent Gallup polls shows that more Republicans and conservatives favor dropping Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, the policy that bans gays from serving openly in the military.This is what David reported from that Gallup poll:
In November 2004, 52% of Republicans supported gays serving openly in the military. In May 2009, the number was up to 58%.
In the Kos poll, only 24 percent of Republicans supported overturning DADT. So what explains an over 30 percent difference?
In 2007, Log Cabin Republicans conducted a poll on what Republicans think when it comes to gay issues. I wrote a blog post on it because the results seemed so surprising to me. This is what they find out on various issues:
Gays in the military:
49% of Republicans believe gays and lesbians should be able to serve openly in the U.S. military, while 42% are opposed.Gay marriage:
43% of Republicans support either marriage equality or civil unions. 51% oppose all relationship recognition. “There’s much more work to be done educating Republicans about this issue, but we’re encouraged that almost half of Republicans support basic fairness for gay and lesbian families,” said Sammon.Employment:
an overwhelming 77% of Republicans believe an employer should not have the right to fire an employee based solely on their sexual orientation. Even among social conservatives, 67% don’t believe an employer should be able to fire someone for being gay.
The Kos poll has the following numbers on some gay issues:
Gays in the Military:
26% yes
55% no
19% not sureGay Marriage:
7% yes
77% no
16% not sureState Benefits for Gays:
11% yes
68% no
21% not sureGays as teachers:
8% yes
73% no
19% not sure
While you can’t compare apples to pears, I do have to wonder why the two polls have such a wide disparity. I’m not a pollster and I don’t have a background in statistics. (You can read some opinions by some real pollsters here, hereand here.) But I do wonder why these polls are painting different pictures of the GOP.
What I can say is that the Kos poll in many ways tended to bolster the opinion of those on the Left and a few former Republicans that the Republican Party is full of nuts. Andrew Sullivan and Bruce Barlett have already made their conclusions.
I’m not here to say that some of the issues brought up in the Kos poll aren’t real problems for the GOP. Republicans needs to be more gay friendly and more welcoming of immigrants. But I have a hard time believing that most of the people I hang out with that are Republicans are as vile as the poll suggests.
I think the poll might show a sliver of the GOP, but I also think the 2007 Log Cabin poll does as well. That’s the ting with reality: it’s a lot more complicated than our imaginations. The sad thing is that the general public will focus on the Kos poll, not the Log Cabin poll or even the Gallup poll.
Twenty years ago this summer, I went to Washington, DC to intern with my congressman. While I was there, I met a guy named Dan from Arkansas. We hit it off and became good friends. He was also one of the first real Republicans I met. I was a blue-collar black kid from Michigan which meant I came from a Democratic household. Republicans were bad people in my mind. But here was this guy who became a friend, who happened to be a Republican. Dan doesn’t know this, but he helped humanize Republicans and allowed me to ultimately become one.
I share this because I tend to think we like to deal with stereotypes rather than real people. Democrats are not commie lovers and Republicans are not fascists. We are all just people. It would be nice if stopped to actually get to know each other.
Crossposted at Republicans United
48 Responses to “So, Just How Crazy Are Republicans?”
Dennis,
I wouldn't let that poll worry you. The numbers don't look anywhere near reality. The numbers you site about Gays in the military, etc. from a past poll looks more accurate to me. Conversely, I remember polls that had high numbers of self described Democrats though Bush should be impeached, Bush stole the election, Bush is a fascist. The average Republican is quite a bit more tolerant then the Daily Kos/Research2000 poll infers. There are fringe groups on both sides, Birthers to truthers. Don't go trying to find another party now.
Mr. Sanders,
I'm afraid that like so many of your fellow gay and moderate “Republicans” you are in very deep denial. The institution currently carrying the label “Republican Party” bears absolutely no resemblance to what I grew up with in the 50's and 60's, even the Goldwater era. The hallmarks of earlier conservatism, as represented in the old GOP, were 1) fiscal responsibility, 2) strong inclination toward small government at all levels and 3) a fundamental libertarianism which accompanied the belief in less government.
Let the record show that what is currently called “The Republican Party” has;
1) presided, in both the federal executive and legislature, over an astounding growth in government spending and debt.
2) Assumed more powers and limited civil liberties as none since Adams' promotion of the Alien and Sedition Acts.
3) allied itself strongly and definitively with a group of extreme Christianist religious groups which have, among other things, promoted a death penalty for homosexuality (nearly the law in Uganda), the elimination of reproductive rights for women (irrespective of their health, I might add) and the historically false position that this is a Christian nation. These people would deny you the basic civil liberties enshrined in the Bill of Rights.
Isn’t it long past time that you separate yourself from this bitter hateful political grouping? As a gay man, be assured that if the current GOP gains power in the US, you will see all of the gains made in the last decade be stalled until the more tolerant new generation gains power.
I am a life long Democrat. I frequently find elements of my party ideological, impractical and wrong -headed. But, you have to go back to the Southern Democrats of the previous century to find a group which has consistently promoted fear and hatred among its constituents.
I really do want a viable honest conservative party. I live in the People’s Republic of Portland as a moderate Democrat. I believe this city needs a strong dose of fiscal responsibility and shrinking back of government.
I am having to edit myself here (this was twice as long). Calling yourself a Republican associates you with a group of people who have promoted an agenda of hatred, ignorance and fear.
I do recognize that there are politicians in the GOP who do not believe in these things but, their voices have long since been been drowned out by the demagoguery of those who seek to further their ambitions and ideologies by using the tools Goebbels developed.
Nice post, Dennis.
For many progressives, it's comforting, and less intellectually rigorous, to tell themselves conservatives are biased and foolish. Such belief eliminates the need to fully understand why conservatives believe as we (not you, maybe, but me) do. As a bonus, such progressives get to feel virtuous about opposing biased and foolish people. For them, it's a win all the way around – except in reality. In reality, progressives who take the easy, less intellectually rigorous path, i.e. progressives who freely choose a path of ignorance: these are the persons who are demonstrating bias, foolishness, and I'll throw in lack of self-awareness.
Now, if such a progressive reads my comment, s/he might instantly react: I understand your simplistic ideas better than you, fool. And, barring an extended communication, I've no way of knowing the truth of that assertion. However, I anecdotally observe, in many blogposts and comments, many progressives demonstrating zero understanding of why conservatives believe as we do. If these progressives understand why I believe as I do, they do a wonderful job of it from me.
In our society, especially in the blogosphere, a conservative – out of self defense – is almost forced to research and to understand what progressives believe about issues, and why. Conversely, it seems easy for progressives to take the “biased' and “foolish” path of accusation. This is unfortunate for progressives: it leads to widespread intellectual slovenliness. Tammy Bruce says reflexive ad hominem is causing progressives to lose their sharpness in debate; is costing progressives the ability to reason and to effectively argue. I agree. The ease of reflexive ad hominem, the widespread cheerleading of reflexive ad hominem, does progressives no favors. It leads to progressives believing that ridiculousness such as the Kos Poll results might actually represent reality.
The point of this polls was to attempt to splinter away moderate reps from the party. What it most likely has done is create more partisan animosity between the two parties. Completely unproductive and a waste of money. The far left is proving that it is just as bad for America as Rush and Cheney.
Lots of people hang up on push polls, but not until they realize that it's a push poll, so they make it through a few of the more mundane and/or demographic questions, find out they're getting their chains yanked, and hang up. The pollster.com analysis addresses this and says that KOS claims the number of mid-interview terminations was “not higher than usual” without providing data on it. The spread on some of the really looney tune questions should be proof enough for the casual observer that a LOT of people hung up on this wacky poll without finishing and the one who did finish are well out on the fringe.
The unfortunate fact is that the Republican Party has been hijacked by ultra-conservatives and Christianists. When even John McCain, who initially supported the repeal of DADT, reverses his position and now opposes it, this gives you an idea of how much these groups have eroded the influence of moderates. All you have to do is follow the news to see just how virulently anti-gay the Republicans are.
The party you belong to doesn’t want you.
One thing I find greatly comforting about this whole thing is that Republicans seem fairly united in wanting to distance themselves from the poll results. I'm seeing every Republican/conservative on this board, which includes people from moderate to pretty far right say that the numbers couldn't possibly be true. This makes me feel good, because at least among those whose opinions I've heard, it's pretty unanimous that the views being asked about are both stupid and bigoted. They of course are stupid and bigoted, and very obviously so, but sometimes those of us on the left start to wonder if our brethren on the right get that. It's good to know they do.
jeainnj,
Your comment illustrates my point above: without understanding John McCain's reasoning about DADT, you've taken the easy, less intellectually rigorous path of accusing John McCain of surrendering to “ultra-conservatives and Christianists”. [As a separate, and minor, issue: you've also misunderstood McCain's initial position about DADT, which I summarize as: I punt, until a future point at which I will reexamine the issue. That future point is now.]
I happen to support repeal of DADT. However, Sen. McCain has compelling reason to oppose repeal. There's a strong chance I am on the wrong side of the issue; a strong chance Sen. McCain's reasoning is superior to my own. Sen. McCain's opinions are easy to Google. I could give you a link, but would then be cheating you of fulfillment.
“many progressives demonstrating zero understanding of why conservatives believe as we do”
So my instant reaction to your post is that I think you make a mistake thinking most of the left care *why* you believe what you believe, particularly if that “why” is different than what you say it is. Having a deep understanding of your soul isn't going to make the violence against the LGBT community go away, isn't going to help our loved ones get to marry, isn't going to remove discriminatory employment policies from our laws, isn't going to allow our gay friends the right to serve their country with honor. A vast majority of arguments against gay rights boil down to four things — God, tradition, ewwie yucky boys doing it, and the “slippery slope”. If the majority of conservatives have deep, soul-based arguments against gay people that don't fall into these categories, which seems to be what you're suggesting, they most certainly aren't making them known. Why does it fall upon me, who is merely advocating for equal rights for those I love, to dig deep to understand the conservative soul? If you want others to “understand” you (and, it seems you're suggesting, all conservatives), you'd best make yourself understood.
Arguments in favor of the left making effort to better understand the right
1. Ethic of Reciprocity / Golden Rule
We are brothers who share this Earth.
2. Sun Tzu and Don Draper: Know your opponent / Know your market
If the left better understands conservative principle, belief, and philosophy: then the left can better argue/persuade in favor of the left's preferred actions, beliefs, principles, and philosophy.
3. Socrates and Psychological Defense Mechanisms: Fantasy v Reality
It's mostly undesirable, and mostly unnecessary, to live in fantasyworld.
re “you'd best make yourself understood”
I agree. I'm trying to do my part.
No, I think the phrase is apt. If there are arguments deep within the conservative soul about why gay people shouldn't have the same rights as anyone else, they have not been expressed. There are four categories I listed, and if all of your (and by “your”, I mean “conservative”, since you seem to enjoy speaking for all conservatives) arguments fall into those 4 categories, please be assured that I do very much understand them, as does any self-respecting progressive who has been paying the least bit of attention to the issue; I, along with most progressives, merely disagree with them, strongly, and have strong arguments to counter them. All I can do is listen to what conservatives say are their reasons, and believe them. If they are hiding something so as to be misunderstood, that's not my fault.
You say you're trying to make yourself understood, but your saying “you don't understand me” doesn't help anything. From what I can tell, that's all you've said on this thread so far. So, again: make your arguments understood, if you think they are not. Do not simply claim that you are misunderstood. What I'm getting from you is that you think that if I only knew your (and, by extention, conservatives') real feelings and motivations for believing what you do, that suddenly I'd agree that your agruments are reasonable. My counter is that I doubt it, but I'm perfectly willing to hear them if they've gone unexpressed. The onus falls on you to show your real feelings and motivations, not on me to magically understand what you're not saying.
Calling yourself a Republican associates you with a group of people who have promoted an agenda of hatred, ignorance and fear.”
This is most disturbing since I am still on the old GOP page. And to the extent that they are willing to, I hope the Dems will realize that there are a lot of us out here. BTW: Same sentiment for Reps understanding Dems (you guys have your hearts in the right (oops, correct place) too).
You know I respect you, and I enjoy back and forth with you. However, I also don't want to turn this still fresh comment thread into an extended back and forth hashing out of individual gay issues. If you will email me: gcotharn at gmail.com, then let's talk.
How do you explain then that only the 'crazy” part of the Republicans has an influence over party decisions? Why all the elected politicians care about their opinion? What good is it if the moderate part of the republican party is greater in numbers if nobody caries their agenda? Don't you think that if there was 1 (one) Rep vote for Don't ask repeal, it would've been passed already? ..)
A very curious stance. That's kind of what this thread is for, as related to the poll, anyway. Also, I don't give out personal information to people I don't know, so that means sending you a personal email is out of the question. Sorry.
Mr. Mysterious,
I “liked” your comment, by accident, b/c I am a mouse klutz.
Let the thread run until Sunday (also since I am busy all day tomorrow), and then the comments will have calmed down and aged, and then we can back and forth. Each of your issues: violence, marriage, discrimination, military service, is a separate issue in it's own right and with it's own considerations. Your four mentioned issues do not fall under an umbrella of: we oppose gay people.
In fact, there is no issue of whether to be against people vs for people. Who, besides a jerk or a deluded person, is against any people? Your phrasing: “deep, soul-based arguments against gay people”, would be offensive were it not so silly. You are arguing that conservatives occupy a special level of delusion and/or jerkiness. It's a silly argument. Humans are deluded jerks. Conservatives do not hold some special place in the pantheon of delusional jerks. I can't believe I'm doing this, but consider two bullet points:
1. This Jan 28, 2010 Pew Poll finds that Repubs are more informed than Dems. Being more informed, or approximately as informed, is a factor in being no more deluded than a regular human thinker.
2. Re jerks: conservatives donate far more to charity, per capita, than progressives. Again, not dispositive, but not a bad bullet point when measuring relative jerkiness.
Sigh. I'm so embarrassed that I'm actually providing evidence about that, but, I am.
I'm wondering what kind of results Fox could get if it polled regular Daily Kos readers. I've seen some pretty interesting agreements in their blogs.
I am neither a “Mr.” nor particularly mysterious, but “Mr. Mysterious” is as good a nickname as any, I suppose.
“Who, besides a jerk or a deluded person, is against any people?”
Great question. But I definitely disagree that there aren't people who are “against” another group of people. Look at any group in any point in history, and you've got huge swaths who are against them.
“You are arguing that conservatives occupy a special level of delusion and/or jerkiness.”
Dude, your words, not mine. I really don't know where you're getting that I called anyone delusional or a jerk. Which pretty much makes your (admittedly very silly) bullet points moot. Since you brought them up, though, I'd like to point out that Republicans skew white, older, weathier, and male. Neither of the bullet points are particularly surprising considering these groups — the most priviledged groups tend to have more time for reading news. Those who are struggling to put food on the table tend not to give as much to charity, and the extremely wealthy give the most to charity — both on the left and the right.
“Your four mentioned issues do not fall under an umbrella of: we oppose gay people.”
Um…are you trying to suggest that conservatives and Republicans are somehow NOT trying to keep gay rights from passing? Perhaps all those people so adamant about “maintaining traditional marriage” are actually progressives? Is it the bohemian hippies who are trying to keep hate crime legislation from passing? Honestly, the line between being against someone's rights and against them themselves is so fine as to be inconsequential. It might be just a political excersize to your mind — you are just against some political policy with some nebulous effect on the rights of someone you don't really know — but for those who are fighting for those rights, it's actually their life. If you are against my rights, you are against me.
Well, maybe I'll see back this way on Sunday.
Look, what we have is some agreement about what constitutes “rights” (for instance: “77% of Republicans believe an employer should not have the right to fire an employee based solely on their sexual orientation”) and some disagreement about what constitutes “rights” (for instance: hate crimes legislation).
You are saying: No one can disagree with my definition of “rights” unless they are acting out of ignorance and bigotry. And you are making a type of special pleading which is based upon your deep certainty that you are right. You are saying: I really really REALLY know I am correct about the definition of “rights”. And I really REALLY mean it: no one can disagree with me unless they are acting out of ignorance and bigotry.
So this is the second time on this thread that you've told me what I'm saying, and been wrong about what I was saying. Please kindly refrain from putting words in my mouth. You say I'm making claims about REALLY knowing I'm correct about what a “right” is, when you've not articulated at all what you think my definition is, nor how you think it's wrong.
Perhaps you're trying to open up a conversation about constitutional law or something, and sure, if you want, we can do that. More interesting, and perhaps more practical, might be to look at the idea of “equal protection under the law”, and how it relates to the subject at hand. In any case, I'm not sure where you're trying to take this, but you're obviously quite upset at something I've said.
Maybe let's go back to your first comment — that progressives don't understand why conservatives have the views they do. Just to be clear: is this just a general statement, or was the implication that you think the poll results were correct but progressives were mistaking the results for a show of hatred and bigotry when they really indicate something else? What my response was saying was: if there's something else there, why not make it understood? In other words: why, besides hatred and bigotry, would a conservative want to keep a qualified teacher out of the classroom because he or she happens to be gay? Why, besides hatred and bigotry, would conservatives think it's acceptable for a man's job to be safe when he says “my wife and I are going sailing this weekend” at the workplace, but not a woman? (etc with the other questions).
roro (which makes me think of Astro the Jetsons dog going “Ruhro!”),
In your original comment on this thread, you said
I agree. Some insane Kos numbers (not a comprehensive list):
39% believe Pres. Obama ought be impeached.
8% believe openly gay persons ought be allowed to teach
Those are impossible results. The Kos Poll numbers are fantasy.
However, deeper into your same comment, you go astray:
Many conservatives can and do oppose views on gay issues for intelligent and unbigoted reasons. If any Repubs/conservatives on this blog asserted differently, they are wrong. My assertion was that the Kos Poll numbers are fantasy. I was not asserting that conservative views are stupid and bigoted.
My concern, in this conversation with you, is not about which viewpoints about particular issues are the shrewdest, best, wisest viewpoints. Rather, I am pointing to a way of looking at things: two opposite viewpoints can exist, yet both viewpoints can still be intelligent and unbigoted. A view can be intelligent, unbigoted, and yet still be the less shrewd and less wise of two opposing views.
In the 18th comment on the thread, in which you begin “I am neither….”, you ask
Two points:
I find it awkward to use shorthand such as “gay issues”, etc, b/c I am really speaking of human issues. But I do use the shorthand – to skip the shorthand is just too much verbiage. That said, technically, conservatives do not oppose rights for any person. Conservatives are pro rights! Power to the people!
Second, and sort of related: it's obvious that many Repubs/Conservatives oppose some or all gay issue proposals (though I'm confident that you would be shocked at the large numbers of conservatives who support many or all gay issue proposals). Such opposition is not evidence of stupidity and bigotry. You are making a tail wagging the dog assertion, i.e. opposition ipso facto equals stupid and bigoted. It's an offensive assertion – dare I say a stupid and bigoted assertion?
For instance, Sen. McCain and Mackubin Thomas Owens support DADT. If they were surveyed in the Kos Poll, you would now be promoting their survey answers as evidence that they hold stupid and bigoted views about DADT. Do they really? Or, do they hold intelligent and unbigoted views which may or may not be the wisest views about the subject?
At this point, I can almost hear you saying: Wha the? Dude, when do I EVER get to call someone stupid and bigoted?!
A big question. Big enough for an entire essay. For now, I ask: Who is your audience? Who are you trying to persuade? If you call someone stupid and bigoted, are you winning that person over to your side?
We can only speak into the listening which is available. If your audience really is stupid and bigoted about gay issues, then shaming can be an effective strategy. However, if your audience actually has intelligent and unbigoted arguments about gay issues, and knows other people who share their intelligent and unbigoted views, then your audience instantly tunes you out.
If Sen. McCain and Mackubin Thomas Owens are making intelligent and unbigoted argument in favor of DADT: then, by definition, intelligent and unbigoted opposition to gay issues does exist, and your flat assertion of “stupid and bigoted” is invalid.
If you still want to discuss specific issues, I will do so: one issue at a time. Just (re)name an issue. I don't want to tack an issue onto this already long comment. I'm still hopeful we can find agreement about some of the above, and don't want to distract from it. If we discuss an issue(s): I expect we can cover things briefly and efficiently, b/c we mostly or fully know most or all of the arguments and nuances. I am always open to learning a bit more about things, and might learn more stuff from you. Note: I can't prove that Repubs/conservatives are equally as intelligent/unintelligent and bigoted/unbigoted about gay issues as are progressives. That same “can't prove a negative” thing applies. You will always have to formulate your own speculation. However, there are easy arguments to be made in favor of Repubs being just as intelligent and unbigoted about gay issues as Dems.
I meant to reply to you, but did not think to hit “Reply” until it was too late. My new comment is in the comment thread.
“If they were surveyed in the Kos Poll, you would now be promoting their survey answers as evidence that they hold stupid and bigoted views about DADT.”
Yes, that's what I'm saying. I think they hold stupid and bigoted views (or are at least promoting stupid and bigoted views — with pols there's always the possibility that they don't actually believe what they are saying) about DADT.
” That said, technically, conservatives do not oppose rights for any person. “
It's hard to believe even you think this is correct — I would certainly not make so bold a statement about any group, including progressives. If you take for granted your right to speak about your loved one at work, or to marry the person you love, that's your own personal privilege talking, and doesn't mean they aren't rights you enjoy.
“Wha the? Dude, when do I EVER get to call someone stupid and bigoted?!”
I'm gonna call it out as loud as I can, every time I see bigoted behavior. If you don't like that, well, that's too bad. Far too often we get complacent — as individuals and on the society level — with bigotry, sexism, racism, ablism…we get numb to the background soft bigotry, which makes it all too easy to take our privilege for granted when it comes to the not-so-soft bigotry we see enshrined in our laws. Calling out hateful or bigoted behavior is one small thing we can do to make sure that we are not numbed.
We can hash out issues if you'd like. I'd start with marriage, just because it's such a hot-button one now, but if you'd prefer to talk about something else, that's fine too.
Oops, I did the same. By the way, the nickname comes from Nyai Roro Kidul, an Indonesian goddess.
re my “conservatives do not oppose rights”
I'm not asserting about individual conservatives. I'm speaking of conservative philosophy: it's about rights.
re “I'm gonna call it out as loud as I can [...] we get numb to the soft bigotry”
A thing to be careful of … if you unjustly accuse the innocent: you invalidate the suffering of true victims, you lessen the perceived gravitas of those who advocate for the cause, you violate the Ethic of Reciprocity. And you do offend me – both over the silliness and the viciousness of your actions.
Marriage is easy and quick:
You have a number of conservatives who support gay marriage.
You have a number of bigots and idiots.
You have a number of homosexuality is a sin and an abomination people. Why would such persons favor a law which legitimizes an illegitimate activity? They do not.
The above category of persons often embrace Natural Design. It's clear that homosexuality, as Camille Paglia has noted, is a perversion of natural design. An aside: imo, and in Paglia's opinion, the cause of gays would be helped if gays would incorporate this simple and obvious truth into their persuasion on behalf of gay issues.
And a number of conservatives make this argument:
Because the state has an interest in children being born, and b/c marriage produces more children, therefore the state has an interest in encouraging marriage via maintaining marriage as a special category.
Persons who make this argument will say: Marriage is between a man and a woman. The word cannot be expanded and still be itself. Gay persons have no right to take the word – let gay persons create their own word. Gay persons cannot actually take the concept, as the concept is what it is, and cannot be diluted.
A number of persons who make this argument are okay with civil unions and with legal rights for gay partners. However, there seems to me, anecdotally, to be a greater number of persons who make this argument who are either skeptical of, or flatly against, civil unions and partnership rights. Here's why: they foresee endless and unresolvable legal entanglements – of the known knowns variety, of the known unknowns variety, and of the unknown unknowns variety. For instance, the Catholic Church runs wonderful adoption agencies. The Catholic Church will not place orphans with gay couples. The U.S. Government will not allow discrimination. Either 1) entanglements and problems are inevitable (though, who knows, possibly resolvable. Or not) or 2) the Catholic Church will get out of the adoption business. I once skimmed an article about the explosion of legal entanglements which would be created by official government sanction of gay marriage. This is not really my big issue, and I skimmed fast and really cannot remember much about the material. However, skimming over the material, I remember thinking: wow, the legal issues could explode far beyond what I have previously considered.
It seems, to me, that the best persuasive argument for gay marriage is that gay marriage will be good for the nation; will make the nation stronger. Few persons are making this argument. The left, and gay persons, are so infatuated with “J'accuse! Bigot!”, that they completely ignore their most effective argument. Gay persons are so infatuated with their victim status that they ignore their best argument – and the left is similarly infatuated with the victim status of gay persons. To the left, being a victim confers virtue. Crying over a victim confers virtue upon the lefty who is shedding tears while doing nothing else to help move the situation towards a favorable resolution. But I digress. The only persons I see who are making the strongest argument are conservatives who support gay marriage and who make the argument, i.e. gay marriage will make the nation stronger, in casual conversation. Such conversation is rare, as conservatives do not spend a lot of time chatting about or worrying about gay marriage. The left is much more animated about the subject, as the left smells victims, and smells resulting opportunity to cover themselves in perceived collateral victim virtue.
“if you unjustly accuse the innocent”
See, I see most people as basically good, and willing to learn when they hurt others with their words or actions. However, if the offense is never pointed out, there is no learning. Even if there is no hate nor intention to cause harm, the harm is still done. In my mind, the most virtuous are not those who never cause harm, but those who are willing to learn from their mistakes. I strive to be one of those people every day.
“And you do offend me – both over the silliness and the viciousness of your actions.”
Silly and vicious? Obviously our definitions of these words are different than mine. Silly is thinking that the word “bigot” has more effect than using political power to deny entire classes of Americans equal protection under the law. Vicious is having the hubris to think that this is acceptable because you are better than them in some way, more worthy of the rights you take for granted.
“You have a number of homosexuality is a sin and an abomination people. …The above category of persons often embrace Natural Design.”
I would really check your numbers on this. Those who choose Biblican language as their framing for the anti-gay agenda generally use Biblical language to talk about creation as well. Of course, there's a great deal of cognitive dissonance required to think that God created everything just as it is, but that there is something inherently wrong with how he created gay people. You're right to point this out, but I've certainly met very few “sin and abomination” folks who believe in evolution. In fact, I've met exactly zero of those people. (Doesn't mean they don't exist, but it's probably a good idea to check your numbers before making such a statement). ETA: Looking at it again, I'm not sure what you mean by “natural design”. Do you mean intelligent design or natural selection? Nature doesn't design.
“It's clear that homosexuality … is a perversion of natural design.”
And who's the vicious one, here? Let's just say quoting Camille Paglia isn't going to win you any friends with me. Homosexuality seems to be a naturally-occuring phenomenon in all mammals, so there's almost certainly some genetic and/or embryologic or developmental component to it. Science is far from sure on this. Calling it a “perversion” in any case is offensive.
“The word cannot be expanded and still be itself.”
The word has been expanded. In fact the word has a translation into every language in every culture since the dawn of language and culture, and it has had many, many different definitions. For example, the word as conceived in English (and in many other cultures) signified a transfer of property of the bride from her father to her new husband. You can see this in many of the still-existing traditions involved in marriage. In some cultures, polygny and polyandry are parts of the definition. Before the 60s, the laws in many states in our very own country specifically set out that misegenation was beyond the definition of “marriage”. And in many cultures (believe it or not), it was perfectly acceptable to take a male “wife” — in fact, it was considered an honor in many native American tribes. The point is, there's nothing magical about the word “marriage”.
“Gay persons have no right to take the word – let gay persons create their own word.”
Now this is a very interesting argument. Mine would be: what makes straight people so awesome and special that they get to own the word? There is a legal definition of marriage, and allowing gay people to take on that sort of legal partnership would not change the legal definition at all. Sure, we could make up a new, separate word for being gay married, spend hundreds of thousands of man hours writing it into current law, or we could use the word “marriage”, which already exists within the law. We could collectively remember “oh yeah! we already figured out that separate cannot be equal.” We've seen this over and over again with domestic partnerships — it does not confer equal rights to gay couples.
“wow, the legal issues could explode far beyond what I have previously considered.”
Yep, they sure could. However, if you're committed to the idea that the 5-10% of the population who is LGBT actually deserve equal rights which is their birthright as Americans, then it's still the right thing to do. There will need to be some adjustment of the laws in order to do so. Sometimes legal complications come out of doing the right thing.
“Because the state has an interest in children being born and in children being reared effectively, and b/c marriage both produces more children and rears them more effectively, therefore the state has an interest in encouraging marriage via maintaining marriage as a special category.”
How does keeping marriage from huge portions of the population “encourage marriage”? Like all the vehemently anti-gay folks talking about it as a sin will suddenly go out and get divorces because gay people can now get married? Methinks not, and if so, honestly, I couldn't care less. Anti-gay folks should also be able to deside if marriage is an institution of which they want to be part. In addition, I disagree that marriage and childrearing are necessarily linked. I'm married, with no kids. The state did not ask my husband and me if we're planning on raising kids when we went for our license. They did not ask what type of sex we were planning on having. We promised to love each other until death parts us, but made no promises about our sexual or reproductive plans.
“the best persuasive argument for gay marriage is that gay marriage will be good for the nation; will make the nation stronger”
This argument is made all the time, in pretty much every single case where folks talk about gay marriage. When the pro-gay-marriage side says that marriage makes relationships more stable, make child-rearing easier, make things like health insurance and power of attorney easier, confer the social message of stability, allow both partners confidence that they will be taken care of when sick or out of work — these are all the same reasons that communities have an interest in straight marriage as well. Stable, legal families are better not only for those directly involved (the couple plus any children), but they are also better for the community as a whole.
Finally: your whole “lefties love victims and gays love to be victims” just makes me believe you've never met a gay person. Or a “leftie”. If you really feel this way, you know what would stop it really quick? Stop denying rights to gay people. If you don't want them to be victims, stop victimizing them through discriminatory laws. Truly stop thinking of LGBT people as less than you. ETA: Saying that those who are passionate about equality are overemotional, or whiny, or are wallowing in some victimhood, is one of the classic silencing techniques. Let it be noted that it will not work on me.
Just one more thing:
“btw, according to you, the Pope is a bigot”
I'm finding it pretty funny that you think this would be a problem for me to admit. You already know me to be an athiest, a strong proponent of science including Evolution, a passionate activist for reproductive justice and gay rights, and and activist for religious freedom. I have many Catholic loved ones, and I find the Catholic dogma and tradition much more rich and nuanced than most of the Christian traditions, but there's certainly no love lost between me and Papa Ratzi; my jaw drops on a regular basis at the yuck that comes out of his mouth…
I repeat: “A thing to be careful of … if you unjustly accuse the innocent….”
What about my statement is unfair? Nothing.
Re your explanation of how you educate people: you can point to offensive language without accusing of bigotry.
Also, disagreements between left and right can largely be traced to this foundational disagreement: the left thinks humans are basically good; the right disagrees.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Why would I – a weak, sinning, jerk – be better than a gay person? Billy Graham said “I think homosexuality is a sin, yet it is no worse of a sin than any of the many sins which I commit every day”. I don't even think homosexuality is a sin.
Why would I be more worthy of rights? Why would I take rights for granted? I repeat: the philosophy of conservatism is about rights. You and I are talking about Constitutional questions, i.e. What is and is not a right? Intelligent people can disagree. Louder, more scornful, more viciously accusatory, and more vehement doesn't impress anyone, and doesn't win the day. Reasoned argument wins.
You don't even know if I support or oppose gay marriage. I did nothing more than lay out various arguments for you to see. I advocated nothing. My hope, apparently unrealized, is for you to see that persons can oppose gay marriage and gay issues w/o being bigots.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I repeat: “The above category of persons often embrace Natural Design.”
What part of “often” is confusing?
Intelligent Design is more proper.
roro: “I've certainly met very few “sin and abomination” folks who believe in evolution. In fact, I've met exactly zero of those people.”
You need to come and swim in my ocean. Look, Christians believe life evolves from God's design, as opposed to evolving at random, i.e. w/o design. Could God have designed species to adapt to their environment? Absolutely, and evidence indicates He did design things that way(though Christians disagree on this point). When MANY Christians answer “No” to some poll question about Evolution, they are answering no to this perceived question: Did life evolve outside of God's design? They perceive the question as being a question of “no God” vs “God designed existence”. I know you disagree that they perceive the question in this way. You are simply wrong. You don't swim in my ocean, and you don't know many of the fish: they believe species adapt, they believe it is God's design, they believe the Evolution argument is largely about atheism vs. God, and they will not answer any poll question in a way which risks denying God. You don't have to believe it, but I do have to laugh at you.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
re perversion of design
The hell? It's only offensive if you twist it into something I did not mean.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I note your various opinions/arguments about various conservative opinions/arguments
Your argument re marriage not promoting the birth of and the effective rearing of children is a loser, and you ought abandon it immediately and just concede the point. It's a macro point about birth and child-rearing, and it is valid in our society/culture, yet gay marriage can still be a positive thing in our society/culture.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
re gay marriage is makes our nation stronger
Now that you mention it, I do recall seeing and hearing left/gay persons make this point. I had brain glitch before. I do think, however, they could do an even better job of promoting this point.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
roro: “your whole “lefties love victims and gays love to be victims” just makes me believe you've never met a gay person. Or a “leftie”.”
Your belief is naive. I easily might have more gay friends and acquaintances than you. I live in the 4th most populous metropolitan area in the U.S. This is not a gay free zone.
You are completely determined that anyone who disagrees with you is ignorant. Yours is ignorant affectation and rationalization. It is not attractive.
And it's not “leftie” but rather “lefty”. And I'm surrounded by em – though they are less dense here in Texas.
roro: “Truly stop thinking of LGBT people as less than you.”
Again, why would I believe LGBT persons are less than myself? I am weak, massively imperfect, a jerk. The issues are constitutional issues: what is a “right”? Intelligent, unbigoted persons can and do disagree.
re “overemotional” & “whiny”
I never said that. You are imagining bias where it does not exist.
roro: “Saying … wallowing in some victimhood, is one of the classic silencing techniques.”
I said, as regards the national conversation about gay marriage: gay persons are so infatuated with their victim status that they ignore their best argument. “Ignore” turned out to be a mistaken assertion by me. However, the strategic point remains: less focus on victimhood, and more focus on benefits to the nation/culture/society, would only help the cause of gay marriage.
Wouldn't I only wish to silence gay people if I were against gay marriage? And why would you assume I am against gay marriage? Is it shocking that someone could be for gay marriage, yet criticize gay persons? That someone could be for gay marriage, yet understand and fairly present the various arguments against it? Except, I keep forgetting that I am a bigot. And, naturally, a bigot would be happy to silence gay people.
As to my alleged desire to silence lefties, don't you know plenty of lefties who operate like this:
“Crying over a victim confers virtue upon the lefty who is shedding tears while doing nothing else to help move the situation towards a favorable resolution. [...] the left smells victims, and smells resulting opportunity to cover themselves in perceived collateral victim virtue.”
I prefer to see your reasoning.
Political correctness amounts to a demand to shut up, shut up, shut up – and the alleged reason to shut up is that particular language is offending people. I'm not accusing the left persons who heavily promote victimhood of offending some second victim group who hears or reads their words. Instead, I'm flat out accusing those left persons of acting foolishly. It's a different thing. And it's a stretch to say “you are acting foolishly” equates to silencing. Are left persons such fragile flowers? “You are being foolish!” “OMG! I am silenced!”
Re Pope
Many people disagree with the Pope without calling him a bigot.
It's as if “Bigot!” is a winning formula for you. Only, in reality, imo, it's a losing formula for you, and you just don't know it.
“What about my statement is unfair? Nothing”
Nothing, it's just not how I make my choices. I can choose to sit around and worry that those whose behavior is hurtful might be miffed that I point out the offense, or I can choose to side with those less privileged who are hurt every day by careless speech and discriminatory policy and an overall culture of othering certain classes. I choose the latter. I choose to side with those who are hurt by our society because of what they are, not with those who might feel uncomfortable by me pointing out what they do. I choose to defend the less privileged over allowing the privileged to go unchallenged when they are offensive.
“the left thinks humans are basically good; the right disagrees.”
This is so funny, because it's definitely the opposite of what most on the right will tell you. I also think it might be an accurate statement. If I thought humans were basically bad, I would have very little reason to fight for rights for anyone.
“Why would I be more worthy of rights? Why would I take rights for granted?”
I don't think you are more worthy of rights, and I don't know if you do take your rights for granted, although I would certainly argue that most of us do. And by “us”, I mean most people in general. My point is that the foundation of most of your arguments against gay marriage (whether you actually adhere to those arguments or not) are based in the belief that there are certain rights and privileges that you (again — the general “you”) enjoy and would not want to give up, yet you are willing to deny to other groups, like gay people. This indicates that somehow gay people (or whatever other group) are somehow less deserving of those rights. If you (general you) are allowed to marry the person you love, and you would not want to give up this right nor all the privileges granted from married status, yet you think that others should not be granted the ability to do the same, this does, certainly, indicate that you think the other undeserving of the privilege you have.
“You and I are talking about Constitutional questions, i.e. What is and is not a right? Intelligent people can disagree.”
As I said before, the Constitution guarantees equal protection under the law. Gays are not granted this. If you want to twist the meaning of those words and go for a “some animals are more equal than others” view, please at least admit that that's what you're doing. We can quibble about constitutional law as opposed to states' rights as opposed to all sorts of other legal questions, but when it comes down to it, you and I both know that gay people are not afforded the same protection under the law that straight people are. Again: there can be intelligent discussions about the legality of the laws, and how different laws conflict or are overbroad or too narrow, but that doesn't change this fact.
“The hell? It's only offensive if you twist it into something I did not mean.”
You didn't explain what you meant. You only said “perversion of design”. Is there a non-offensive meaning to the word “perversion”, as in, comes from “perverse”: “persistent or obstinate in what is wrong”?
“You don't even know if I support or oppose gay marriage. I did nothing more than lay out various arguments for you to see. I advocated nothing.”
I argued against the arguments you laid out, not against you personally. Again, you've decided to defend the “conservatives” and speak for them in this context, and that's fine, so if you see the word “you”, just assume it's a general “you”.
“My hope, apparently unrealized, is for you to see that persons can oppose gay marriage and gay issues w/o being bigots.”
This is going to be pretty much impossible, because if someone is generally committed to the idea that gay people are just as good as straight people, all the gay issues become extremely clear. If you think that gay people are just like you, and you are enjoying the benefits of marriage, you think that gay people should also have that ability. If you are able to talk about your weekend with your loved-one, or even your blind date, at work without the fear of getting fired, you think gay people should be able to do the same. There's not a whole lot of thought that even needs to go into which side of the argument you're on, if you first concede that gay people are just as important and good and worthy as you are. It may not be clear how to go about removing the discriminatory laws from the books, and it may be even less clear how to remove the discrimination from the hearts of other people, but the right thing to do is not hard to see if equality is the jumping-off point.
“they could do an even better job of promoting this point.”
This is quite possible. It's important to remember, though, that for gay people, it's not just about what's good for the country, but also what's good for them personally, what's good for their children, what's good for their health, what's good for their relationship with the person they love. It's always a good idea to emphasize the “greater good”, but it's also a highly personal issue for people who just want to love their long-time partners, and just want a stable and recognized family unit in which to raise their children.
“Your belief is naive. I easily might have more gay friends and acquaintances than you.”
Scarcely possible. Anyway, you make the mistake of confusing people being passionate about issues as mere “victimhood”; it denies the fact that there are huge inequitudes. When you use the phrase “playing the victim”, the underlying implication is that there is nothing wrong with the situation as it stands, that they are “just” playing the victim. When it comes down to it, there *is* something wrong, and asking people to roll over and keep quiet about having their rights denied is that silencing technique I was talking about.
“You are imagining bias where it does not exist.”
Another classic silencing technique.
“Crying over a victim confers virtue upon the lefty who is shedding tears while doing nothing else to help move the situation towards a favorable resolution”
There will always be more people willing to talk about something than work to do something about it. However, I think you're making a mistake in confusing “crying” with “doing”. When you hear any pro-marriage rights message, you are hearing the “doing” of many. I am an activist. I have shed more tears over this issue than you know, but I also have marched, I have also given my time and money, sent letters to my congresspeople, worked with youth. There are many on the left who will shed crocodile tears for the oppressed while doing nothing — while generally not terribly useful, at least they don't try and pull the trick of shedding those tears for rich, white, straight men, as do many on the other side of the aisle. Again: I choose to side with those who are actually oppressed.
“Many people disagree with the Pope without calling him a bigot. It's as if “Bigot!” is a winning formula for you”
Assumptions, assumptions. Here, yours is that the word “bigot” is merely an insult. It has a meaning. We've become afraid of being called a bigot, yet do nothing to change our bigoted ways. Here's a tip for those who don't like to be called by that term: you hear it a lot less when you make a point to understand its meaning. I am a bigot. I am a racist. Hell, I'm even a sexist. I strive to become less and less of these things every day. In order to do so, I have to understand to a greater and greater degree what those words mean.
Let me get this straight:
You say: A.
I say: Hey, I never said that. You are imagining bias where it does not exist.
You say: You are trying to silence me!
Great reasoning there. In fact, the entire: gcotharn is a bigot, and of course: I am not trying to silence him by calling him a bigot, yet he is trying to silence me! And he will never silence me! I am incredibly tough and unconquerable! …. just, wow. I'm pretty sure your
“gcotharn is trying to silence me” argument WOULD NOT win a formal debate.
Second,
Words such as “bigot” have common meanings inside a culture. If you are using the word to signify an uncommon meaning, and you wish to be understood, it would be smart to initially point out the uncommon meaning you intend to signify.
I used to sell BMWs. I could have, if I wished (and did, before I realized the viciousness of what I was doing) parsed words to mean almost anything. If someone later objected, i.e. “You said this…”, I could patiently explain “But I meant that to indicate this other thing”. I did that, and, technically, I was correct and justified. However, in transactions amongst persons of good will, what I was doing was “lying.”
Parsing words to signify your own (group's) obscure meaning is ineffective and impolite, at best; underhanded and vicious, at worst. I've seen this exact parsing thing done by two bloggers who leveled separate charges of racism. When attacked by commenters (including me!), in both cases the bloggers fell back on Well, everyone is racist, and I don't think being racist is such a bad thing, and I don't use 'racist' to indicate that the racist person ought lose their job or anything. Well, great. But being called racist is a good way to at least have people thinking about firing you from your job; is a good way to have your name Googled and eliminated from consideration for a future job.
This type of parsing argument is common amongst “critical studies” enthusiasts, as critical studies is all about being critical, and this argument means criticism is easier to spout. Which: hunky dory argument, but only a subsection of society currently uses “racism” the way critical studies criticizers do, and it would be more effective and forthright if they would make their usage of the word clear right up front. When they do not, they are being vicious.
I don't think “bigot” is merely an insult. In our society, the term commonly indicates a person who harbors hatred or special prejudice for another group due to some ethnic, gender, et al characteristic of the group. Merriam Webster: “a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance”
In the common usage of our society, you are saying the Pope has hatred for homosexuals. Since you apparently (?) don't mean the Pope has hatred for homosexuals, but merely mean (?) the Pope has intransigent attitude towards homosexual activity(?), therefore, it's a good idea to make such a thing clear up front.
Now, I ask: do you think it possible for Christians to object to gay marriage on grounds that the state has an interest in promoting child bearing and effective child rearing, and for these very same Christians to not harbor hatred or special prejudice against homosexuals? Because, if you merely mean that these Christians are intransigent in their opposition to gay marriage, then I retract my assertion that your opinion is silly and vicious.
re your “I strive to become less and less of these things [bigot, racist, sexist] every day.”
Scam. Power play. You're simultaneously falling for it and advocating it. You can spend the rest of your life in daily reflection about the ever expanding definition of various isms – I'm out. The definitions will keep expanding, believe me. The definitions will still be expanding in the 2020s; still be expanding in the 2030s: the definitions have to keep expanding in order to keep the scam/power play going. The definitions will keep expanding as long as useful idiots keep buying into the definitional expansions. Now, you can say: “You are trying to silence me!” Or, you can reflect on things and resolve to quit being a credulous useful idiot. Either way, I can't make you do a damn thing. Nor would I want to. Free will all that. I am trying to persuade, but you get to choose your path. I believe in graceful and gracious living, but I'm not turning my life over to scammers who are running power plays for their own benefit.
And this reminds me: you said, as best I can figure, McCain and Mackubin Thomas Owens might not be bigots, but, rather, might be persons who are lying about their beliefs in order to influence other persons who are already inclined towards bigotry. If this is the case, then McCain and Mackubin Thomas Owens are worse than bigots, and I spit in their general direction.
re human beings are basically good
A minor point: I believe most on the right would never say human beings are basically good. Certainly, Christians on the right will say human beings are fallen. Conservative philosophy is about using rights, and legal structure, to protect individuals and property from the machinations and subversions of other, unscrupulous persons. For instance: if humans were basically good, then government would be basically good, and we would not need to protect the people from the government.
As to the rest of it: we each know where the other stands, and we agree to disagree, and that's fine with me. It's a good and civilized place to be. You understand me, and you disagree with me, and I fully respect and appreciate that.
And now ridicule, and calling me a “useful idiot”. Whatever, dude. You can go on making excuses for why it's right and ok and totally intellectually consistent and just plain super-duper to perpetuate and defend the inequality in our society. You can call it a “scam” that I wish not to participate in that. You can think that people are basically jerks, and therefore emeliorate yourself for being one (as you called yourself) and call that “graceful and gracious living”. Whatever floats your boat. I think it might be more useful to stop being a jerk. But that's just me.
Sigh. Guess I'll forever be unclear as to whether I am hate filled, or merely intractable.
I suspect you've argued yourself into a corner, and are going with “I'm offended” so as to avoid honestly looking at your positions, and so as to subsequently avoid amending or retracting anything which might need it.
I think this b/c you have said, variously:
gcotharn thinks it's acceptable to deny people equality under the law; supports discriminatory laws which deny rights to gay people; thinks gay people are less deserving of rights.
I believe gcotharn has never met a gay person or a lefty.
gcotharn believes gay people are less than he is; does not believe gay people are as good or as important or as worthy as straight people.
gcotharn is trying to silence me.
ANY of the above assertions are worthy of this appropriate response: F YOU. The response would be followed, were you a man, by a punch in the nose sufficient to ensure that you stayed punched. Now that I think about it: I do favor certain instances of silencing – for at least a little while – as a policy. I certainly did take some shots (which you fully deserved), yet those shots fall under the category of “Giving back as good as you are getting.”
Amusing that you attempt tweaking me over my acknowledgment of my own human weakness. This attempted tweaking is doubly amusing in light of your proclamations of your own racism and sexism.
Sigh. Guess I'll forever be unclear as to whether I am hate filled, or merely intractable.
I suspect you've argued yourself into a corner, and are going with “I'm offended” so as to avoid honestly looking at your positions, and so as to subsequently avoid amending or retracting anything which might need it.
I think this b/c you have said, variously:
gcotharn thinks it's acceptable to deny people equality under the law; supports discriminatory laws which deny rights to gay people; thinks gay people are less deserving of rights.
I believe gcotharn has never met a gay person or a lefty.
gcotharn believes gay people are less than he is; does not believe gay people are as good or as important or as worthy as straight people.
gcotharn is trying to silence me.
ANY of the above assertions are worthy of this appropriate response: F YOU. The response would be followed, were you a man, by a punch in the nose sufficient to ensure that you stayed punched. Now that I think about it: I do favor certain instances of silencing – for at least a little while – as a policy. I certainly did take some shots (which you fully deserved), yet those shots fall under the category of “Giving back as good as you are getting.”
Amusing that you attempt tweaking me over my acknowledgment of my own human weakness. This attempted tweaking is doubly amusing in light of your proclamations of your own racism and sexism.
“I suspect you've argued yourself into a corner”
That's kind of cute. No, dear. I'm just uninterested in continuing a conversation with you. You've called me an idiot and a scam artist for the simple fact that I try to live up to my ideals. Instead of arguing the actual points, you've resorted to ridicule and diversion and silencing techniques. If you wanted to make yourself “understood”, you've done an excellent job of showing where you're coming from, and quite frankly, it's not anything I want to be a part of. I feel a bit foolish for wasting so much time thinking you were arguing in good faith. And now you've brought up a desire to inflict violence, to which I breath a sigh of relief that I did not give you my email address earlier. Anyway, I'm uninterested in talking with you further.
Yeah, “cute” and “dear” are persuasive responses. Precious, in fact. Adorable. What kind of children do you usually converse with that you believe “cute” and “dear” are somehow stinging and clever ripostes? You have zinged with such sharp wit. Ouch.
You're in a corner on the hate v intractable thing, and you know it. Whichever way you go on that, you come smack up against the necessity to shift the way you have been looking at things for almost forever; smack up against an opportunity for personal growth. From your perspective: that can't be! YOU are one who teaches the lessons. YOU are the one who is smarter and wiser in all areas. If you shift your way of looking at things, an entire section of your world view is smashed. For the better. But you can't see that right now, so threatened are you by the uncertain ground you would be treading if you shifted your perspective away from “conservatives/Repubs/Christians are filled with hatred and ignorance”. You and I both know whats going on here, and it has little to do with me. It has everything to do with your fear of shifting a worldview which suddenly, obviously needs shifting; everything to do with your choosing fantasy over a suddenly threatening and scary reality. In this instance, your running from reality is cowardly.
And stop with the phony allusions to being physically threatened. I never threatened you, I would never touch a hair on your head, and you know it. And I would punch a man who said, to my face, any of your individual assertions that I was a hate filled bigot. He would deserve it. And I'll be damned if I'll apologize for adhering to manly code of conduct. Go neuter some “man” who is foolish enough to believe your crap.
And re email: may I recommend a second email account, such as roro80@gmail.com? The price would be right, your anonymity would remain intact, you would have to slave for perhaps 3 minutes to create the account.
OMG!! My world is falling down around me!!! The power of arguments I've heard a thousand times is suddenly totally making sense! The manly man with his manly code has put me in my place and told me the ways of the world… And he would, like TOTALLY hit me if I were a dude!! Oh noes! I have totally seen the light, and should totally drop all that “equality” stuff, 'cause this manly guy said the word “intractable”!!!
Or you, know, maybe I'm just bored. Dudes shouting how their manliness has totally! rocked! my! world! while refusing to acknowledge any actual facts or any of the issues presented is really entirely uninteresting.
1. Me: Why do straight people think they're more deserving of rights like marrying the person they love?
2. You: They don't! I'm not more deserving of rights!
3: You: In fact, if you imply that I think that, I will hit you!
1 –>2 –> 3 leads to exactly 3 possibilities.
a) you think gay people should have the rights of things like marrying the person they love.
b) you think straight people should not have the rights they already have to marry the person they love.
c) you are “intractable”, which perhaps you don't realize just means obstinate and stubborn. Essentially: you refuse to pick an answer.
Answer c is a non-argument. This is the answer you seem to be going with, and you seem to think it's a winning argument that will bring down my entire way of thinking about the whole world. This is utterly naive and childish. Children are cute. If you dislike being called “cute”, maybe you shouldn't make such childish arguments.
You have, to your credit, argued yourself to the point at which you recognize the threat to your worldview. So far, you have not quite been ready to squarely face the newly appeared reality. I have not put you in your place, or rocked anything – and could not do so, even if I desired. Which I do not. Such a journey must be made alone. You have done the work, you have brought yourself to the threshold.
Pretending (hoping? wishing?) I do not understand the meaning of intractable = method of denying the reality of the hatred vs intractable corner into which you have (to your credit) argued yourself. Pretending (hoping? wishing?) amounts to an agonized cry of desperate defiance. I know you are strong enough and intellectually honest enough to let go and take the next step. You can do it anytime you wish.
Robin of Berkeley is one of millions who have. Robin of Berkeley
Robin of Berkeley archives
Am I getting punk'd? If so, good on ya. Good one! If not, perhaps it's even more hilarious.
You have done the work to bring yourself to a point where you can clearly see that Repubs/conservatives/Christians can be motivated by intelligent and unbigoted reasoning. I know you are intellectually honest enough to let go and take the next step. You can do it. Anytime you want.
neoneocon: A Mind is a Difficult Thing to Change
“You have done the work, you have brought yourself to the threshold.”
You are deluded. And creepy.
Okay. Let's say I am. That doesn't change that you have, to your credit, argued yourself into a hatred vs intractable corner from which there is no escape, except through denial of reality.
Okay. Let's say I am. That doesn't change that you have, to your credit, argued yourself into a hatred vs intractable corner from which there is no escape, except through denial of reality.
Oh. My. God. Really — what is wrong with you? Are you mentally unstable? Perhaps in some sort of hypnosis-induced trance?
Here, let me make it very clear for you: I do *not* think that anti-gay arguments can be made in an intelligent or unbigoted manner. If they can, you most certainly have not made those arguments.
Clear enough? Now kindly stop thinking I'm some sort of convert to your views. It's seriously creeping me out.
“That doesn't change that you have, to your credit, argued yourself into a hatred vs intractable corner from which there is no escape, except through denial of reality.”
Ok, let's hear it: what in the world is a “hatred vs intractable corner”? What, in gcotharn's alternate world, does the word “intractable” mean? This is, of course, just out of morbid curiousity to know what in god's name you're talking about at this point.
You could, if you desire, change your own views. You are not a victim who can be pushed around or dominated by me.
I'll be back tonight. I've an appt at 3:00.
“You could, if you desire, change your own views.”
I could, but considering how aptly you've answered the question in the title of this post, I'd say I'm feeling pretty darn good about what I already believe. I do not consider myself a victim, and despite your attempts at being a big strong manly man who would never be “neutered” by the likes of a woman like me and would hit someone you disagree with, I do not in any way feel dominated by you. I kind of feel sorry for you.
You know, you could also, if you so desired, change your own views. I'd suggest you go with some logically consistent views: a) or b) listed above. c) is still just stubborness for the sake of stubborness.