Saturday, August 25, 2007

knowing when to give up...

I've been in the midst of a nasty gay marriage argument over in Fannie's Room. Somewhere between being shot down again after I had listed several sources from (what I believe) are reputable, scholarly sources and being called close-minded (for vowing not to change my stance on gay marriage) I realized that it was pointless to argue. Pointless to try to reason my way to a bunch of men who the issue doesn't, and will never, affect. They sit in their safe, male comfortable heterosexual priveleged worlds and victimize themselves. For surely, their world will crumble if two loving partners are allowed to marry. Similar to the way white men often paint themselves as victims in the war against white racism. (which is another myth I will get to later). men who are afraid to let go of perhaps a tiny bit of their power. or are scared of change, when they don't realize that change can often be a very good thing.

I could go on and on about their arguments and our counter-arguments. and their counter-counter arguments... ad nauseum.

but i fear they would come to this blog and see an opportunity for more arguments.

thus, i am throwing in the towel with that particular group and that argument. finito.

i will never change my stance on gay marriage. i believe that as a tax-paying, hard-working, lesbian, i should have the liberty to marry my girlfriend and have that marriage recognized by the government for all the benefits and penalties that's worth. if that makes me close-minded to a small group of people, so be it. to me, they are the close-minded ones. and i feel that they are, simply, scared of creating a world where gays and lesbians are treated as equals in their hetero-priveleged worlds.

i know who i am in the real world. and i know the people (gay and straight) that i help on a daily basis. but a little part of me can't help but be saddened by the on-line discourse that took place over the past couple days. and how such different views can be had by people who would probably be friends in the real world.

this is something i will have to think about as i blog more.

I'll end with these quotes (from: http://www.buddybuddy.com/quotes-2.html):

"“Marriage is a civil right. If you don’t want gay people to marry in your church, good for you. But you can’t say they can’t marry in your city.”-- Julian Bond, National NAACP chair, October 2006 Spoken at a University of Virginia forum where Bond is a professor


"The plurality and concurrence condone blatant discrimination against Washington’s gay and lesbian citizens in the name of encouraging procreation, marriage for individuals in relationships that result in children, and the raising of children in homes headed by opposite-sex parents, while ignoring the fact that denying same-sex couples the right to marry has no prospect of furthering any of those interests. With the proper issue in mind — whether denying same-sex couples the right to marry will encourage procreation, marriage for individuals in relationships that result in children, or child rearing in households headed by opposite-sex parents — I would hold that there is no rational basis for denying samesex couples the right to marry.
“I would hold further that the right to marry the person of one’s choice is a fundamental right, the denial of which has historically received heightened scrutiny. It is error to artificially limit the inquiry, as the plurality and concurrence do, to whether there is a fundamental right to same-sex marriage. It is equally incorrect to limit the definition of the right to marry to the right to marry a person of the opposite sex. Because the Defense of Marriage Act’s (DOMA’s) denial of the right to marry to same-sex couples is not rationally related to any asserted state interest, it is also not narrowly tailored to any compelling state interest.
“Therefore, for both of these reasons, I would affirm the two trial courts in declaring RCW 26.04.010(1) and .020(1)(c) unconstitutional. The plurality uses the excuse of deference to the legislature to perpetuate the existence of an unconstitutional and unjust law. I dissent.”--Justice Mary E. Fairhurst, dissenting opinion in Andersen v. King County, July 26, 2006


“The DOMA denies fundamental basic human rights to Washington’s gay and lesbian citizens, human rights that impact the very core of their everyday lives. The plaintiffs in this case represent the ever-growing diversity of the openly gay community in Washington. They are teachers, attorneys, ministers, and foster parents. In their everyday lives they are bosses, coworkers, neighbors, clients, parents, friends, and volunteers. It is in these seemingly mundane, everyday roles that the discrimination imposed by the DOMA is deeply felt, but it is nowhere more wounding than in their very homes. Unless the concept of equal rights has meaning there, it has little meaning anywhere.”-- — Justice Bobbe J. Bridge, dissenting opinion in Andersen v. King County, July 26, 2006


“The National Lawyers Guild strongly opposes the New York Court of Appeals ruling upholding the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage. The Guild believes that everyone should be entitled to equal protection under the law, which includes affording the same status, privileges and protections that exist for heterosexual couples to same-sex partnerships.”--— National Lawyers Guild, press release, July 11, 2006


"Simply put, fundamental rights are fundamental rights. They are not defined in terms of who is entitled to exercise them.”--Chief Judge Judith S. Kaye, dissenting opinion in Hernandez v. Robles, July 6, 2006

"“I believe all New Yorkers should have the right to marry whom ever they choose regardless of sexual orientation.
“I do not believe the government should be in the business of telling us who we can, and can’t marry … as mayor, I have an obligation to enforce the laws of the city and the state, but I also have an equal obligation to work to change laws that I believe are not in our city’s best interest.”-- Michael Bloomberg, NYC Mayor, in his weekly radio address, May 28, 2006

" ...A constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages is a form of gay bashing, and it would do nothing at all to protect traditional marriages.” --Coretta Scott King, Richard Stockton College, New Jersey, March 23, 2005


"For Planned Parenthood, marriage equality is a critical social justice and equality issue, and the denial of marriage is a threat to our basic human and civil rights. Planned Parenthood stands firm in its vow to end inequality and discrimination, and supports the rights of same-sex couples and their families to enjoy the protection of civil marriage.” --Planned Parenthood, Washington State branch, March 2, 2007, Communication to members concerning the Washington State Civil Union Bill.

58 comments:

Grace said...

JEEEEEZ... I actually just read all of the comments. Crazy. Great insight, though, Jane. Just out of curiosity do Jane and Grace know each other? I have a feeling we do, but I'm not sure.

Jane Know said...

i can't believe you sifted through all that! yes, i think jane and grace may know each other. :-) we should meet for pool and beer soon.

Grace said...

Uh-oh... we've "known" each other? Like in the biblical sense? This must be my daughter, then!! if only the law would let us marry!

Ok... I have an idea...did Jane attend my fake bachelorette party at the jazz bar a couple of years ago?

Jane Know said...

haha! yes, i am but one of the daughters you gave up for adoption when you were in high school. yes, i believe we will have our day in court and eventually be able to marry each other.

and yes, i was at that bachelorette party. good times.

Rachel said...

I'm pretty sure you two know each other...perhaps have KNOWN each other ;-) On another note; it's comforting to see leaders and lawmakers who are rational and progessive. fannie's blog was starting to freak me out. people can be pretty scary...and that jose dude is a TOTAL boner. (that was actually me who wrote that, i just didn't log out of Jane's account first)...

Grace said...

Just think... this whole time Jane was watching Buffy, and Rachel was writing her paper, you two could have been over here drinking wine and acting morally/intellectually superior with Grace!

Rachel said...

Grace is right. She's AAAALLWAYS right.

Anonymous said...

Hi Jane,

I thought I'd stop over for a chat when I saw your remark on Fannie's, referring to me, that -- "So I guess he won't get a chance to respond to my comments above?/oh well."

But like Fannie, you're sending mixed signals here.

-Christian

Let's get this straight ... you "realized that it was pointless to argue" because someone called you "closed minded?"

That kind of reminds me of a line from one of my wife's favorite movies, where a character, when asked why his girlfriend left him, says "she said I don't listen to her, or some shit like that, I don't know, I wasn't really paying attention."

So which is it? Are you looking for dialogue, or for an excuse not to have a dialogue?

You and Rachel seem like sincere, educated, strong-minded women. Why does groupthink and "team" mentality have to prevent honest discussion?

Grace said...

Oh, and by the way Jane-

Re: your profile "I am an average woman..."

You are as far from average as a person can get.

Jane Know said...

Christian,
i believe the movie reference from your wife is "Dumb & Dumber," it's a line i use often, myself, as it is one of my favorite movies, too. but i say it as a joke. no one has ever accused me of not listening or paying attention.

the reason i'm quitting the argument over there is the same as rachel's. i believe we have reached a point where we just disagree on the issue. what's the point of a pissing contest and further questioning other people's style of argument/smartness/education/morality/values/lives when it only leads to frustration and anger towards a faceless, nameless person who is also never going to change his stance? it's not healthy for me. i said my piece. i listened to you and your cohorts'. i don't think much was achieved over there, other than learning more arguments "your side" is going to give us in the future.

i think both sides can state their case in a way that seems reasonable to most people. so what it come down to now, as with every moral issue, is how many people are on my side... and how many are on your side.

i believe that tide is changing, and my side will (if it isn't already) outnumber yours.

i wish you the best. i think you state your side's case the best, the most reasonably, and with the least disrespect to the GLBT population, and for that I say thanks.

but i am now simply agreeing to disagree.

Jane Know said...

Grace,
thanks! i beg to differ about that, but i appreciate it. too bad we missed each other today. :-( let's get together soon.
Jane

Anonymous said...

Pretty sharp, Jane; you recognized the quote. I laughed through the movie the first time we watched it, but these days, I pull it out mostly to watch my wife laugh.

I'm glad to see that the resemblance between what you said and what f. said was superficial, and that you're not actually taking her position.

I appreciated Rachel's reply to my question of why the word "marriage" was important, and why the rights associated with marriage under some other name (e.g. ssus) did not suffice. I'd like to not have to make my bed with the homophobic right; I'd rather vote for Obama than for some Republican. Hell, until Clinton switched her position on ssm, I was all ready to vote for her. But this is a huge issue that affects the rights of most Americans, rewriting the language, sweeping a broad range of beliefs out of the judiciary, and chilling discussion of real marriage in the public sphere. Please don't make me and millions of other moderate Americans hold their nose and vote Republican -- again. Consider compromise.

Marty said...

What, all of a sudden separate is supposed to be "equal" again? Who knew???

Can two wives be a "marriage"?
Can two fathers be a "family"?
Can two left shoes be a "pair of shoes"?

Anonymous said...

" ...A constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages is a form of gay bashing, and it would do nothing at all to protect traditional marriages.”

Ms King is wrong. A constitutional amendment to protect the existing definition of marriage, would protect our ability to talk about marriage, without forcing us to qualify the term as "traditional marriage," a term which lumps the idea of "man and woman" into the same category as "traditional" bride burning, female subjugation, and other shameful relics of the past. Marriage is not about "tradition." It's a link to the future as well as the past. I'm not content to place marriage into the narrow little ghetto that Ms. King names "traditional marriage."

-c

Jane Know said...

thank you, Christian. i am glad we are able to leave it at this. (for now). i'm sure i will revisit the issue again given the current state of U.S. politics.

Marty, i'm not sure i get your comments.

oh, and i was under the assumption that a "pair" is two of anything. as in a "pair of pants" means "clothing with two anatomically identical pieces to put your legs in." same with a pair of scissors.... and eyeglasses.

and if you want to get really technical, two left shoes can equal a pair of shoes if someone (like me) has two left feet. haha.

Marty said...

Obviously you don't get it Jane. The legs in a "pair of pants" are NOT anatomically identical. In fact, they are exact opposites.

You'd be very uncomfortable indeed, wearing a pair of pants with two left legs, or a pair of shoes with two lefts and no right.

Anatomically, we are all born as male or female, and FROM exactly one male or female. I know this hurts you, but you cannot change the fact of humanity -- you can only pretend.

Marty said...

I meant "FROM exactly one male AND one female" obviously.

The single sexed pair is as pointless as two left shoes, or two keys with no lock.

But your bias against the opposite sex is duly noted.

Jane Know said...

hmm, but what about intersexed people. there are people born as both sexes, you know. it happens in humans, and it happens in other species of nature. so actually, we are not all born as either male or female.

you can claim i am biased against the opposite sex all you want. the same way i can claim you probably fantasize about male on male butt sex every night. it doesn't make any of it true.

Jane Know said...

and marty, and because this is MY blog, and you can't delete my comments on my blog: again, i ask you to bring your wife (if you even have one) over to me, and i'll show you how "pointless" same sex couples are.

do you even have a blog of your own, or do you just post bigoted comments on other people's?

toodles.

The Culturologist said...

Nice. YOur response at the end of the day is "bring me your wife and I'll try to stick my tongue in her vagina and that'll prove that gay marriage should be accepted by everyone." Well reasoned!

Jane Know said...

i save my real reasoning for people who deserve it. (see my blog today... this is the same blogger who insinuated matthew shepard deserved to die because he was a "meth-head").

you have no idea what my real arguments are.

and. GROSS. i would not try to stick my tongue in his wife's vag.

OBVIOUSLY that's not my real argument for gay marriage. i would've thunk your critical reading and inference skills were better than that.

Marty said...

Jane, are you now claiming to be intersexed?

In any case, intersexed people KNOW that they are born disabled. They aren't out there pretending that the law of nature (man+woman=humanity) don't apply to them.

They deserve our utmost sympathy. You however are merely biased against anyone born with a penis -- they will never be worthy of your love -- because of that darned penis.

Jane Know said...

no, i'm not intersexed. just a lezzie.

but i also don't think people who are born intersexed deserve our sympathy, as they are not really "disabled." i highly doubt they would want any sympathy at all from anyone, especially from you and your cohorts.

nor am i biased against males or anything with a penis. i'm only biased against bigoted pricks. namely: you.

Rachel said...

Whoa, whoa, whoa...is Marty SERIOUSLY claiming that being a lesbian means that you hate men? Does that mean heterosexual men hate men? They choose to sleep with women too. How's your bubble? Getting enough oxygen? Cultureologist; you may not approve of Amy’s “bring your wife over here” comments, but as least she was only joking...as opposed to the school of, "women are lezzies because they just ain't been fucked right by a man", to which you no doubt belong. In my experience, heterosexual women hate men WAAAAAY more than lesbians.

arturo fernandez said...

On the male-female nature of humanity, I recommend this.

http://www.gryphmon.com/2005/07/the_blood_of_ed.html#more

hammerpants said...

Culturologist,

I'm not quite sure you know how cunnilingus works. I, for one, wouldn't try putting my tongue in anyone's va-jay-jay. If you want some tips, I'd be glad to help you out.

And Marty,

I am perfectly comfortable as one woman in a pair of ladies. So it doesn't really matter how "comfortable" it is for you or anyone else. And I am still confounded why it is you think that, because I don't particularly want to have sex with a man, that I discriminate against him or am incapable of loving him. Refer to Rachel's points on this issue... you clearly are a broken record.

And I'm not quite sure why protecting a person's right to "talk" about something a certain way trumps the notion that maybe everyone should have the same rights.

That's all.

arturo fernandez said...

If it's not linking right, the website name is "Gryphmon's Grumbles", the article is "Blood of Eden". Google it and you'll find it fast. Very worth reading.

Fannie said...

Marty,

I don't see where Jane claimed to be intersexed, but I did see how you avoided the issue.

PS- they aren't "disabled," God made them that way. It is our narrow-minded gender-binary society that says there is something "wrong" with them, and that subsequently causes them a lot of pain in their lives.


Christian,

That you would "hold your nose and vote Republican" solely on the issue of gay marriage says a lot about your priorities, in this time of Republican-led war and environmental destruction-- all more pressing threats to "the family" than letting gay people get the same rights and benefits that you have.

arturo fernandez said...

"And I am still confounded why it is you think that, because I don't particularly want to have sex with a man, that I discriminate against him or am incapable of loving him."

Basically, Marty is saying "if you really love me, have sex with me." It's the male chauvanist's motto. It's the only way they can connect with women. And they say gays and lesbians "discriminate" and "segregate". They're a joke.

Fannie said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
The Culturologist said...

Thanks for those kind offers. I'll pass.

Jane, maybe you can help me out with my critical thinking skills and remind me how and why your thing about him bringing his wife over to prove to him some point about lesbianism was a thoughtful point in the debate.

Fannie said...

Arturo, I do find it interesting that most of the members of Opine are men. I think that says something.....

Culturologist, Jane was being funny. It was a joke. Stop pretending like you don't know that.

(you probably could use the tips though)

Jane Know said...

fitch/marty/jose, et. al., i have posted a new blog that is a general response to your gay marriage argument. petty namecalling aside.

Marty said...

Jane:

they aren't "disabled," God made them that way. It is our narrow-minded gender-binary society that says there is something "wrong" with them, and that subsequently causes them a lot of pain in their lives.

The vast majority of them are infertile/sterile, as you well know. I'd say this qualifies as a medical disability and/or handicap.

Fannie:

I do find it interesting that most of the members of Opine are men. I think that says something.....

Mmmmm.. is that misandry I smell?

Jane Know said...

"The vast majority of them are infertile/sterile, as you well know. I'd say this qualifies as a medical disability and/or handicap."

hmm, tell that "disability/handicap" bullshit to any doctor. they may not be able to procreate, but that doesn't make them disabled.

and i repeat, i'm sure they do not want your sympathy.

Marty said...

they may not be able to procreate, but that doesn't make them disabled.

Huh? There really is no arguing with you, is there?

Infertility is a medical problem -- a disability of normal procreative function.

How can you possibly deny this simple fact?

Jane Know said...

marty,
there you go again, slipping up with your use of the phrase "normal procreative function."

read my later blog again ("Are Homosexual Unions Unnatural"). and this time read slowly. take notes if you have to. re-read. and re-read.

Anonymous said...

The sad thing is that this is as close as Fannie has ever come to actually responding to something that I actually said.

"That you would "hold your nose and vote Republican" solely on the issue of gay marriage says a lot about your priorities, in this time of Republican-led war and environmental destruction-- "
---------------

As opposed to the previous time of Democrat-led war (remember Kosovo?) and environmental destruction (remember the "Salvage" act?) Remember Madaleine Albright's rationale for warring on Serbia rather than accepting the deal they offered before the war (virtually identical to the deal we cut after the war). Albright's justification was, "what's the use of having such a big military if we can't do anything with it." I defy you to show me a more bloodthirsty warmongering quote from even Rumsfeld or Cheney. Not to mention that don't ask don't tell passed during Clinton's admin. Sure, I miss Bill Clinton's presidency in a number of ways. But he wasn't *that* different from Bush Jr. Yes, the Patriot act is the bane of my existence in criminal defense. But you really think Clinton would not have signed it, after 9-11?Even before 9/11, Clinton was the one who started the torture-by extradition program (google Jane Meyer's New Yorker article). I have little doubt that Clinton would have expanded the use of torture as much as Bush did if he'd been running things after 9/11. Yes, I like the left-wing authoritarians a little better than the right wing authoritarians, but it's not *that* much difference. Hell, when Hillary Clinton can't openly say that socialized medicine is a good thing, and when Al Gore says that "Americans have a right to drive where they want, when they want, for a cheap price," what's the big forking difference?

What am I giving up, anyway? Reproductive Choice? I don't think so. RU 486 can be emulated using three birth control pills of a particular brand, and the studies just showed this year that it's as safe as clinical abortion. Technology's finally put reproductive choice back where it belongs -- in women's hands, not in the clinics, the preachers, the polititians, or the courts.

So far in this post, I've respectfully disagreed with your argument. I'm glad that you got so far without misprepresenting what I've said. Too bad that you proceed to blow it with the next part, and roll back into your habits of misrepresentation. So now my tone changes appropriately:

"... all more pressing threats to "the family" than letting gay people get the same rights and benefits that you have."

Like I said repeatedly on your site, I support giving same-sex unions all of the substantive rights and benefits of marriage. The marriage rules that I would withold from ssus are rules that no sincere same-sex couple would want to apply, and cannot be reasonably characterized as "rights" or "benefits," such as the ability in NY and several other states to unilaterally annul a marriage for lack of vaginal consummation, or the presumption of paternity. (If your partner cheated on you and became pregnant by a man, would you want the law to presume you the child's father?)

The word "marriage" is not a legal right or a legal benefit. There is no substantive right to a word. If my state wanted to change the legal term "marriage" to unions, across the board, there's no precedent to say that they could not do that. A word is not a civil right. Two different words is not "separate" within the meaning of Brown v. Education.

-c

Thank you, Jane. I appreciate the way that you've dealt honestly with me, and if you change your mind about debating me, please drop me a note at logicblackbelt on yahoo mail. I congradulate Marty and Jose at having won your innvitation to a continued argument. I respect your right to argue with whoever you wish to argue, and to run your cite generally as you see fit, and if you ask me not to post here, I won't, except in response to misrepresentation, e.g. what Fannie said above.

Marty said...

there you go again, slipping up with your use of the phrase "normal procreative function."

Yep, there reaslly is no debating with you.

Seek ye therapy, young girl.

Jane Know said...

" I congradulate (sic) Marty and Jose at having won your innvitation to a continued argument. "

*spitting out beer*

yep. congrats jose and marty.

Anonymous said...

;) I am impressed, Jane. That's the third joke of mine that you've caught. While I can be reasoned with, most people -- male or female, gay or straight, young or old, find my sense of humor at least 95% impenetrable.

-c

Fannie said...

"c"

"Like I said repeatedly on your site, I support giving same-sex unions all of the substantive rights and benefits of marriage. The marriage rules that I would withold from ssus are rules that no sincere same-sex couple would want to apply, and cannot be reasonably characterized as "rights" or "benefits," such as the ability in NY and several other states to unilaterally annul a marriage for lack of vaginal consummation, or the presumption of paternity. (If your partner cheated on you and became pregnant by a man, would you want the law to presume you the child's father?)

The word "marriage" is not a legal right or a legal benefit. There is no substantive right to a word. If my state wanted to change the legal term "marriage" to unions, across the board, there's no precedent to say that they could not do that. A word is not a civil right. Two different words is not "separate" within the meaning of Brown v. Education."


All this fight over a "forking" word?????????

Are you forking kidding me?

I don't forking care about a word. I want the forking benefits and rights of "marriage."

That's all.

And I'd appreciate it if you stopped (a) trying to demonize me and (b) trying to pit my friends against me with that "I'm glad your reasonable unlike Fannie" tone of yours.

Fannie said...

Marty asked everyone:

"Mmmmm.. is that misandry I smell?"


Nope, just his own putrid homobigot breath blowing back in his face.

Anonymous said...

All this fight over a "forking" word?????????

YES!

Are you forking kidding me?

NO! Even the Republican Maggie Gallager admits that for her, the word "marriage" is "90% of the loaf." For me, it's 100%. The Gallup statistics show that a majority of Americans oppose ssm, but a majority would support ssus. I'm part of that moderate plurality that supports ssus but opposes the neutering of the word marriage.

That's what the whole "neuterist" thing is about, Fannie. It's about neutering a WORD. We oppose changing the meaning of the word "marriage" to signify the union of two "persons."

I don't forking care about a word. I want the forking benefits and rights of "marriage."

That's all.


I hope you agree with me that this little epiphany was worth the long discussion. It really *wasn't* clear to you that we were arguing about the word "marriage", rather than about the incidental rights?

And I'd appreciate it if you stopped (a) trying to demonize me and

I'm not sure what you mean by "demonizing you." I've repeatedly emphasized that my politics, personalities, style, and motives are similar to yours. That would be a strange way to "demonize" someone, unless I was demonizing myself.

If I understand what you just said correctly, it appears that I mistook your misunderstanding of my position for malicious misrepresentation. But I had no idea that you actually believed that I held the position that you attributed to me. And I never accused you of dishonesty until *after* you'd banned me from your site and made edits and deletions that were misleading and inflammatory with respect to me. I'm willing to believe that it was an honest mistake, but I still ask you to set the record straight.

(b) trying to pit my friends against me

I am not trying to pit your friends against you. I would have preferred to sort out my differences with you on your site or via private email, but you closed those options to me by banning me and by not listing an email. I've been asked to write an Opine response to our experiences on your blog, and I wanted to exhaust every effort to clarify possible misunderstandings before I wrote an article about you. After what you just said, I'm very glad that I chose to pursue discussion with you rather than putting an article up based on your earlier responses.

I like talking with Jane and Rachel. That is not an attack on you, nor does it even exclude you. If you stop talking to me or about me, you'll see that I'd continue to talk to Jane and Rachel, and that you would not come up in the conversation. Alternately, if you gave me a chance, I suspect that we'd probably both enjoy a few non-hostile and eye-opening conversations.


with that "I'm glad your reasonable unlike Fannie" tone of yours

I've always believed that you were a reasonable person, otherwise I would not have pursued this conversation. You don't see me pursuing [1 male and 1 female name removed by c, for conflict avoidance purposes], do you? 'Nuff said. :(

It is possible that you are projecting ;) since it was you who said that I was unreasonable, not the other way around. What I did was accuse you of making some dishonest statements, and now it appears that at least some of those statements were honest misunderstanding.

While we've both made our share of mistakes in this discussion, I think that I've so far been mostly right about you, that you are intelligent, reasonable, and possess a conscience. I've assumed those things about you in everything that I've said to you.

Now HERE is where I declare "victory" for both of us, Fannie. Thank you for persisting and helping to clear up a couple of troublesome misunderstandings.

-c

Jane Know said...

christian,
"I've been asked to write an Opine response to our experiences on your blog, and I wanted to exhaust every effort to clarify possible misunderstandings before I wrote an article about you."

part of me is paranoid now that the reason you have been friendly towards me is because you want some "insider scoop" to give the Opine people in this article you may be writing.

part of me is sad that you are aligning with them, when they support views on homosexuality that seem to be very different from your own.

but, i'm sure whatever you write will be much better/fairer than most of the garbage on that site. i only ask that you don't give them more credit than they are worth.

Rachel said...

Christian!
Why do you associate with OPINE?! Jose and Renee alone are enough to disassociate. It'd be cool if you and I saw each other on the senate floor one day, but can you honestly include those (excuse my Philadelphia ((worse than French)) bigot-pricks as allies? The "just change" argument is AWFUL and demeaning!!!! No way can I for a moment think that the person saying that is looking out for humanity. You MUST recognize that!!!!

Anonymous said...

"part of me is paranoid now that the reason you have been friendly towards me is because you want some "insider scoop" to give the Opine people in this article you may be writing."

No, Jane. I would not be comfortable with doing that, under these circumstances, and that was never my intent. I admit that I did use your site to continue my discussion with Fannie after she banned me, but that was Fannie's choice (to keep talking to me here) as well as mine. And that wasn't the only reason. I also wanted to present you, Grace, and others who read at Fannie's with an accurate picture of my views.

Additionally, I've become involved in other discussions here that have nothing to do with Fannie. I'm a fairly transparent person, and faking friendliness is not my style.

Anonymous said...

The reason I did not disclose my intent with the article earlier, is that I feared that Fannie would interpret that as a threat, and would respond by refusing to talk to me. I disclose it now, because it looks like my report will be generally positive towards Fannie, and hopefull that the ssm conflict may be largely based in misunderstanding and semantics.

Fannie -- to correct what I said earlier, I guess I *did* say something that arguably "demonized" you once, on your vaccine thread. I am very emotional about the mandatory vaccination topic, as you know. But I've already apologized to you on this forum for that remark. Unlike Andrew Sullivan's remarks on the same vaccine, you did at least acknowledge in the beginning that there might be other considerations, and I should have seen that, if I hadn't let emotion get the better of me.

Anonymous said...

The "just change" argument is AWFUL and demeaning!!!! No way can I for a moment think that the person saying that is looking out for humanity.

I was looking out for humanity when I used to believe that about gays. It took time and great effort for me to get past my brainwashing about gays. I don't mean to present myself as a model of tolerance. I could not be, given my upbringing. My best friend in my freshman year tried to come out to me and I kept changing the subject on the poor guy. He was my best friend, and I could not do him the courtesy of listening to him. It made me too uncomfortable. That act of cowardice still shames me 20 years later. I've come a long way, but God isn't done with me yet. I haven't had a chance to speak with Renee much, but I have found that Jose is someone that I can reason with. We disagree on a great deal, but we've also learned from each other. I respect that your impressions of him may be different, and I haven't followed your argument.

One example of reasoning with Jose: while I come from a *very* different religious tradition than Jose, he listened to my interpretation of Bible scripture, and after a discussion, ended up admitting that I was right, that the passage on Sodom and Gomorrah had nothing to do with homosexuality. The fact that the attempted gang rape involved is "homosexual" is as irrelevant to the story as the marital status of the female gang rape victim in the almost identical of the Levite's Concubine in the book of judges. (The bible makes adultery more of a sin than fornication, but that distinction is irrelevant in the monstrous context of a rape.)

That discussion is still up on Grundle for you to see.

That's an enormous change of position. Teaching people that God has destroyed whole cities because of "homosexuality" is a recipe for hate crime and persecution.

I'm not asking you to give Jose another chance; I'm simply answering your question of why I associate with him. Because I enjoy arguing with him, and find him someone that I can reason with, despite the sharp differences in some of our views.

-christian

Fannie said...

Just to clarify, my email address is displayed on my blog. A simple perusal would have found it.

Fannie said...

And to further clarify,

My disagreement with you Christian is based on semantics.

With some (all?) of the others, it is much, much more than that. I can't respect those who claim to use "reason" to justify their biases, and then further claim that they are not being biased (because they are merely using reason, of course).

Like I will continue to say, the beauty of free speech in the US is that you can say whatever you want to on your own blog. But, when there's already so much hateful speech about gay people out there, I will reserve the right to ban such speech on my own blog. Even if it's wrapped in the so-called language of "reason."


Talking to me in this forum under false pretenses was deceptive. And it was sneaky on all of your parts.

And that's what I'm not happy about.

Anonymous said...

"Just to clarify, my email address is displayed on my blog. A simple perusal would have found it."

Perhaps my perusal was too complex, then. :) I perused, but did not find.

"Talking to me in this forum under false pretenses was deceptive."

False pretenses? What in the world are you talking about? Please be specific, because I take such charges very seriously.

"And that's what I'm not happy about."

What is? ???

-c, baffled at Fannie's latest accusations.

Anonymous said...

Like I will continue to say, the beauty of free speech in the US is that you can say whatever you want to on your own blog. But, when there's already so much hateful speech about gay people out there, I will reserve the right to ban such speech on my own blog.

Yes, Fanny. But when you make that announcement, in conjunction with deleting my posts and announcing that I am banned from your site, that implies that I have used hateful speech about gays. You know that's false. You don't have a duty to deal with me, but if you choose to deal with me, you have a duty to do so honestly.

You know this. I should not have to tell it to you. Why would you resist something so obvious?

-christian

Fannie said...

fanniesroom@gmail.com

First off, how about you start from the premise that I'm not an evil liar misrepresenting you out of malice.

Secondly,

false pretenses: how you came on here with the intention of writing an article about me, under the guise of dialoguing with jane and rachel. You may have sincerely wanted to engage in dialogue with them, but you also had another motive that you kept to yourself- to engage me and then write an article for Opine about that.

Your accusations about me being dishonest are really getting tiresome. Let me be clear, I banned you because of your comabtive tone and your melodramatic accusations against me (your "maiming children" comment), mischaracterizing my blog posting and making an issue out of something I wasn't making an issue out of, and then attributing something someone else said to me- that indicated to me that you weren't reading closely, and I don't have time or inclination to respond to people who are arguing against a point I didn't even make.

And yes, you did apologize, but again, your comments up to that point and beyond indicated to me that you were just looking for a fight and making assumptions about me (that I only care about little girls and not little boys, or something) that are based on nothing but your unfounded beliefs about who you think I am. I fear the only way for me to redeem myself in your eyes would be to post an article clearing your name for the public to read.

Others from Opine were using hateful language, wrapped in so-called reason. Maybe I should have been more clear that THEY were the ones using hateful language. YOU, while not saying anything hateful about gays were being unnecessarily combative about something I didn't even write. And, in the context of the Opine mob coming at me from all directions, I didn't want to deal with your irrelevant comments attacking what I didn't even say.

I don't know if you're just upset about being banned from my blog or what? Is this some sort of ego thing where you pride yourself on not being banned from blogs and I have harmed your image? I will consider taking your ban off, but I don't want to spend time arguing with commenters who read carelessly or make assumptions about what I believe without any proof on their part.


I don't appreciate one bit how you continue to portray me as this dishonest person and I don't like how everytime you give me some sort of "compliment" it seems to be a backhanded one "I can reason with Jane and Rachel, and even Fannie today"... or whatever your exact words were [disclaimer: those weren't Christian's exact words, lest I intentionally misrepresent him]

Generally, this dialogue is getting stale.

Anonymous said...

Fannie accused me: "Talking to me in this forum under false pretenses was deceptive."

Baffled, I asked her to clarify her accusation. Fannie gives two examples of what she considers to be my "false pretenses":

Count #1. "how about you start from the premise that I'm not an evil liar misrepresenting you out of malice."

Even if I had started from that premise, how could that possibly be a "false pretense"?

I've never painted you as "evil" on this forum. I arguably did that once on your forum, in the heat of a very emotional argument, and I've apologized for that twice, which is more than you've done, and you're the greater offender in that regard.

I did start posting here with the belief that you are a liar, but as my posts yesterday prove, I was hoping that a conversation with you would prove that these were a misunderstandings, and that you would prove yourself honest. I thought that was the direction that you were heading, but then you started on this distractathon, calling me a liar to punish me for showing the inconsistencies of your statements.

Exactly the dirty little sophmoric trick that you were describing above -- when you have no argument, just yell "you're projecting: and duck. :(

Until now I haven't speculated about what you do for a living, Fannie, but from Fannie's second accused count of false pretenses against me, I infer that if Fannie is practicing law and arguing in court, that she must be a prosecutor:

Count #2: false pretenses: how you came on here with the intention of writing an article about me, under the guise of dialoguing with jane and rachel. You may have sincerely wanted to engage in dialogue

[groan] Only prosecutors are allowed to get away with this kind of argument, which is why we have so many innocent men and women in prison.

Please up your mind, counselor. Was my desire to dialogue with them sincere, or was it a "false pretense?"

[i]but you also had another motive that you kept to yourself- to engage me and then write an article for Opine about that. [/i]

Prithee, how the fuck do you construe that as a "false pretense"? Even the prosecutor that charged my sister with a "drive by shooting" for her use of a water pistol from a car had the "drive by" element nailed down. What I did was neither "false" nor "pretense." My posts are longwinded enough; if I talked about everything on my mind, no one would read my posts. You're obviously just pulling at straws trying to call me dishonest because you've embarassed yourself in front of your friends, which you keep blaming me for.

"I don't know if you're just upset about being banned from my blog or what?"

No, and if you don't know that, then you haven't read what I said. AGAIN: What irks me is that you banned me from your blog while deleting innocent posts (such as an apology) and making statements on your site that make it look like I said things, did things, and took positions that are completely inimical to me. Maybe you'll understand it if I put it in Tort terms: you've mass-disseminated a publication that depicts me in a FALSE LIGHT that would be offensive to the ordinary person. Please do not take my explanation out of that context, and pretend that I've threatened to sue or report you. You asked why I am hurt and I replied in terms that I hope you are familliar with, since you didn't appear to understand my first explanation.



"And yes, you did apologize, "

And you deleted the apology. With not purpose, if not to dishonestly present me as less reasonable than I am?

""compliment" it seems to be a backhanded one "I can reason with Jane and Rachel, and even Fannie today"..."

I can see how you could reasonably construe that as a back-handed compliment. But unlike you, I don't assume that my inability to reason with someone is necessarily their fault.

Now *that* was a back-handed compliment. Do you see the difference? (Uh-oh. That was patronizing. So much for my new year's resolution not to use a patronizing tone even when some prick is trying to intimidate me.)

Fannie, I have REAL character flaws. You don't have to invent new ones for me. Despite my efforts, I have been known to err in logic, to hold mistaken assumptions of fact, or to respond emotionally. And I don't always put out my best efforts. To make matters worse, I'm at least as hyperbolic as you are about things that are important to me. So your excuses that it's "just entertainement" or that you're fighting for a good cause against Evildoers, really is no excuse at all for what you've done. If you need to make fun of me, or form a counterargument, you *could* do so honestly. There's plenty of material there if you make an effort.

Anonymous said...

Fannie, what I've been looking for on this forum is not material for an article, but reasons to *not* write the impressions of you that I had on your site. Because my instict tells me that you're a better person than all the evidence then available to me suggested.

Yesterday, you seemed to suddenly *understand* that my position was simply about a word. I was very happy at the prospect that this might be a series of misunderstandings, and that you might actually not be a liar. You've been a real prick to me from the beginning, but I'm still giving you the benefit of the doubt. Please give me some plausible reason to believe that you removed my apology post for some reason *other* than to (1) make me look bad, or (2) to make you look like less of a prick for banning me.

-Christian

Jane Know said...

Christian,
i doubt that calling a woman a "prick" is going to make Fannie want to validate to you why she banned you from her blog.
is that the way you talk to all women who stand up for themselves and their positions to you? or do you just silently think it in real life and leave the name-calling to the internet, where you can do it anonymously?

Anonymous said...

"Christian,
i doubt that calling a woman a "prick" is going to make Fannie want to validate to you why she banned you from her blog."


I didn't ask why she banned me, Jane. I never criticized Fannie for banning me. Fannie has every right to ban someone simply because she doesn't feel like talking to them, and I have NEVER questioned that.

I criticized Fannie for the misleading statements she made regarding my banning, and for deleting my APOLOGY for an mistake that I'd made on her site, while banning me. It seems obvious, from what she did and from her silence, that she realized she would look like a complete prick if she just banned me, so she edited my statements and made misleading claims about what I'd said and done, so others would not think that she was a prick.

I did not call Fannie a prick. I said that she seemed to be trying very hard to not look like a prick.


"is that the way you talk to all women who stand up for themselves and their positions to you?"

Certainly not. You've stood up for yourself and your position to me, and I've never called you a prick or said that you were acting like one. And I cannot imagine your deleting a polite apology, just so you would look better while banning someone.

This is the 21st century, Jane. A man can be a "bitch" or a "pussy," so why can't we point it out when someone acts like a prick, without fussing over their actual sex? I thought you were a feminist. I've been gentler with Fanny than she has with me. Why would you have me fuss over the delicacy of her feelings just because I'm a man and she's a woman? I'm not a gentleman. On the internet, shouldn't we treat each other as intellectual equals?

"or do you just silently think it in real life and leave the name-calling to the internet, where you can do it anonymously? "

The only other time that I've eer I called a woman a prick was 3 years ago and in real life, and the other persons present, one lesbian and one bisexual, laughed and agreed wholeheartedly that the woman was acting like a complete prick, i.e. swollen, hypersensitive, and looking for any excuse to poke someone and go off ;). If you were not Fannie's friend, and if you'd followed what she'd done to me, I don't think that you'd complain about my usage. I don't often use words like "prick," in real life or on the internet, but Christian is my actual name; I'm not anonymous here.

As you observed before, I'm generally a polite person, but Fannie's unfounded and hypocritical accusations that I was being "dishonest" crossed too many lines. I am not here to insult your friend, and unless you or she want to continue to argue the point, I won't bring Fannie up again.

-c