Thursday, November 8, 2007

Watchmen on the Walls and Opine Editorials: A Comparison

When a website's editor-in-chief displays dishonest tactics it is difficult to take his blog and his cast of characters seriously.

What is even more difficult to take seriously is when that editor-in-chief compares himself and his blog to dangerous, violent anti-homosexual hate group.

Observe this exchange:

http://opine-editorials.blogspot.com/2007/10/watchmen-on-walls.html


Op-ed:

"The effort to undermine the importance of the family existed before gay identity and it will exist after."


Grace:

"After gay identity? What do you mean by that?"....

"Do you think gay identities are going to disappear someday? That homosexuality is a trend? That gay people are like platform shoes or parachute pants?"


Op-ed:

"That question doesn't even make sense. How are people like articles of clothing to you? Then maybe I can answer."....

"Comparing people to clothing, like discarding responsible procreation, is just another example of the unreasonable notions that follow from an initial belief in identity politics."



Grace:

"I wasn't really making a comparison between people and articles of clothing. Does anyone REALLY think I was?"


[No, Grace. Intelligent readers get that you were asking Op-ed if he thought gayness was a fad, like parachute pants. But alas, the dishonesty progresses....]


Op-ed:

"Here is what you wrote: [emphasis added] "That gay people are like platform shoes or parachute pants?"

If that's not a comparison, you need to tell us what it is. Because otherwise we only have what you actually wrote to go by."


[Everyone, note how Op-Ed dishonestly deleted the crucial beginning to Grace's thought which, when left unedited, reads like this: "Do you think gay identities are going to disappear someday? That homosexuality is a trend? That gay people are like platform shoes or parachute pants?" Details Shmetails, "Ed." Sorry man, but I'd fire him. At best, he's sloppy. At worst, he's intentionally lying. Is this the kind of "Editor" they value? One whose only consistency is distorting the other's sides arguments? Because they are better than his own "arguments?"]

What is funny, and scary, is that the point of this post was for the members of Opine Editorials to compare and contrast themselves to the hate-group Watchmen on the Walls. Seriously. Observe how Op-Ed and his tiny clan masturbate each other's bigotry and hatred, and feed off each other's rationalizations of their anti-gay stances:

The initial article was this (because On Lawn is never one for words:)

"We are the Watchmen on the Walls.[Jane's note: Opine posted a hypertext link to Watchmen on the Walls]

This might be a good place to discuss how much Opine has in common, and not in common, with their statement.

Your comments are welcome. Are homosexuals the chief enemy of the natural family? Are they thinly veiled hate-mongers? I will save my commentary for the comment section also."

Chairm said this: "...I'm not in favor of villifying same-sex attracted people for the sake of their experience of same-sex attraction.

I'm not in favor of gay identity politics and its corruptive influence even on the rhetoric, if not the thinking, of those who defend the natural family and defend the nature of marriage.

With those qualifications, there is much to agree with on the website." [emphasis Jane Know's]

Like what, Chair? What exactly do you agree with if it is not for villifying gay people? Because you sure could've fooled me. And many others.

Read what the Southern Poverty Law Center's "Hatewatch Blog" says about this violent group:

http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=809

Among other things, the SPLC says about this violent hate group "The anti-gay tactics of the Slavic evangelicals in the U.S. branch of the Watchmen movement are just as crude and even more physically abusive than Fred Phelps' infamous Westboro Baptist Church, and they're rooted in gay-bashing theology that's even more hardcore than the late Jerry Falwell's. Slavic anti-gay talk radio hosts and fundamentalist preachers routinely deliver hateful screeds on the airwaves and from the pulpit in their native tongue that, were they delivered in English, would be a source of nationwide controversy."

Perhaps Op-Ed and his clan should be more careful with which hate groups they compare themselves to instead of blindly (and stupidly) agreeing with everyone who says "gays are an abomination."

Or perhaps Chair and Op-Ed agree because of these ideals, by Scott Lively,a longtime anti-gay activist who is now the chief international envoy for the Watchmen movement, "Lively identifies 'the enemy' as not only homosexuals, but also what he terms 'homosexualists,' a category that includes anyone, regardless of sexual orientation, who "actively promotes homosexuality as morally and socially equivalent to heterosexuality as a basis for social policy."

Sound familiar?

I wouldn't be so proud. Lively was just ordered by a civil judge to pay $20,000 to a lesbian photojournalist he dragged by the hair through the halls of a Portland church in 1991. A quick google search of "Scott Lively" also found that he is your state AFA (American Family Association) affiliate for California. Are all these people connected? Jeesh.

Lively is also credited with writing the book "The Pink Swastika: Homosexuality in the Nazi Party." A book that blames gay people on everything from South African apartheid and U.S. slavery; to, predictably, the Holocaust.

The book was largely and logically discredited by legitimate historians and in a 2005 Intelligence Report article. Stephen Feinstein, director of the Center for Holocaust and Genocide Studies at the University of Minnesota, said the book was "produced by a right-wing Christian cult and is as correct as flat earth theory."

[side rant: Lively is also close friends with "Pastor" Alexey Ledyaev, the head of the New Generation Church, an evangelical Christian megachurch based in Riga, the capital city of Latvia. Ledyaev is close friends with televangelist Pat Robertson--"a man who once predicted God would punish Florida with hurricanes and other disasters because Disney World had allowed a "Gay Days" discount — and was invited to the 2006 National Prayer Breakfast hosted by President George Bush."]

Let's play a new game: How many degrees of separation from one man in power to dangerous men on the brink of it?

The group of Watchmen also associate with ex-NFL player Ken Hutchinson, "the African-American founder of Antioch Bible Church, a Seattle-area megachurch. "Hutch," as the ex-NFL player is known, played a key role in persuading Microsoft to temporarily withdraw its support for a Washington bill that would have made it illegal to fire an employee for their sexual orientation. In 2004, his "Mayday for Marriage" rally drew 20,000 people to the Seattle Mariner's Safeco Field to oppose legalizing same-sex marriage."

I'm sure they think this means they have the full support and backing of the entire black community now that "Hutch" is on their side.

Back to the issue of Lively, In August he spoke in Russia about the hate crime death of Satender Singh, a 26-year-old gay Indian man who was beaten to death by Russian-speaking gay bashers in a park near Sacramento, Calif., a hotbed of militant anti-gay activism among Slavic immigrants.

Here is his own personal take on the murder:

"I’ve been working with the Russian community in Sacramento. And I want to tell you this is an example [that] will show how bad things are in the United States. There was a situation in Sacramento a few weeks ago in a public park. There was a group of homosexuals and they were very drunk. And one of the homosexual men was taking off his pants. And there were children in the park. And a Russian man went over to these homosexuals and he was rebuking them. And there started a fight. The Russian man punched the homosexual [audience applauds and laughs]. No, no… don’t.

The homosexual was very drunk and he fell down and he hit his head and he died. And now [audience applauds] no … no.

And the Russian man has been accused of murder. And the FBI is seeking him. And all the powers in Sacramento have been accusing all of the Russian community of being murderers. And the goal is to silence everyone who speaks against homosexuality. And this is a very dangerous situation."


Back to the issue of Opine Editorials comparison of themselves to The Watchmen, apparently, the only problem they have with this group is their focus on "identity politics." They don't care about the violence against gay people, because to them, gay people don't exist. Gay people to the Opine Editorials are just pandering to an anti-family, anti-religious bias, on their mission to destory American Families, and using their "gay identities" as a means of that.

Yes. That is really how delusional they are.

Note the following exchange:

Op-Ed started it here..."I'm not saying the Watchmen are doing any of the above. I'm just saying clearing away the identity politics rather than appearing to embrace them will do more to accomplish the Watchmen's goals.

10/23/2007 10:30:00 AM
op-ed said...
Correction: What the Watchmen really say is this:

'But we are especially focused against homosexuality, because those who practice this self-destructive vice, and have organized themselves into a political movement, are the chief enemies of the natural family.'

So they don't really blame 'homosexuals,' but rather those who are promoting this particular brand of identity politics. I still think focusing on just one brand of identity politics misses the point. The effort to undermine the importance of the family existed before gay identity and it will exist after.

10/23/2007 11:32:00 AM
Marty said...
I don't see gay identity politics as seeking to destroy the family. I see those seeking to destroy the family using identity politics to get that goal accomplished.


Amen."

So, there you have it. If the Watchmen stopped feeding into homosexualists' "identity politics," they would have a hell of a lot more in common with Opine Editorials. Because feeding into identity politics makes one immoral. Thus, by their own logic, not playing identiy politics makes one a moral, righteous savior of the American Family, regardless of who gets killed and hurt in the process. Shall I break down into simple logic, Op-Ed style? Nah. I think you get it.

They call homosexuals "thinly veiled hate-mongers."

I have yet to see gay rights groups focus on killing, beating, denouncing lifestyles, etc. to get their messages across. Yet groups like Opine and Watchmen will do or say whatever it takes to spread their messages and ideals. And to them, it is all okay because they are "religious" or it's in the name of preserving families. Or something.

My favorite is the last quote by Chairm, ever the master at creating his own vocab: "Treating the both-sexed combinations as one-sexed would discard the core of marriage. And that presupposes that the gay model is superior to the conjugal relationship. The merger would be a takeover.

Gay identity politics corrupts on multiple levels. But it is promoted as some sort of cleansing agent that will improve society."

Right. A "cleansing agent." That is the purpose of proponents of gay marriage. To cleanse out all those "yucky" heteros and take over the world. bwah hah hah.

But for real, Op-Ed is attempting to associate himself and his blog with this radical right-wing, violent hate group. A group that laughs at and mocks the killing of an innocent gay man. You either don't care that they support his death, or you agree with it. Ignorance is no excuse. So which is it, Op-Ed? Would you like to see them kill more gay people? Is that your ultimate goal? That we will just go away? Everything you write certainly suggests that.

Yet, to Chairm and Opine Editorials, homosexuals are the ones that want to "cleanse" society?

Then answer these questions: How can making something more inclusive lead to "cleansing" and/or exclusion? How does tolerance lead to exclusion of heterosexuals or families?

I'll stick with my allies and ideologies. And Opine Editorials, you stick with yours. Have fun with that.

129 comments:

Fannie said...

Study up, Opiner bloggers. Look at what you can aspire to be if you just hate a little bit more!

Actually, I honestly do wonder if any of the "Opiners" are part of the Watchmen hate group... or, maybe they just study their tactics and steal their lingo...

Who knows. Either way, it's creepy.

Rachel M. said...

I’m sorry? What did you say? I had trouble paying attention while trying to figure out how you could possibly deduce that Grace compared human beings to clothing. I mean, if nothing else Opine usually at least spells everything right, so they can’t be flat-out stupid. Can they???

Jane Know said...

Well, not all of their bloggers spell everything right. Fitz is known for his constant misspellings and misuse of different homophones. Not very edumucated-sounding for someone who is supposedly an attorney. Maybe he isn't.

I don't think the Opiners hate gays *any less* than the Watchmen. They apparently dedicate a huge portion of their time to writing their anti-gay sentiments. That shows a large degree of hatred in itself.

And Jose Solano goes beyond the internet in his (see my previous post). As does the Culturologist/Professor Alexander T. Riley. I'm sure most of those bloggers espouse their hate in the real world on a daily basis.

Their main point of contention with the Watchmen is the "gay identity politics" that the Watchmen supposedly buy into.

I don't think they give a rat's ass that the Watchmen are advocating for the killing, or "cleansing," if you will, of gay people.

On Lawn said...

Fannie, thanks for noting there is much lack of "hating" at Opine.

Jane, I counted a number of misspellings in your post. One of them even carried over in my reply.

I deleted the link to your post in the unaffiliated column, but I have devoted a whole front page post to your link in return.

http://opine-editorials.blogspot.com/2007/11/jane-know-watchmen-are-violent-hate.html

Perhaps some day you will get past the politics of claiming people hate you, and we can find a more mutual base of understanding.

John said...

Jane, you have written so much here that is good food for thought and deserving of commentary, but I can't help but focus on On Lawn's very last comment.

He says:

"Perhaps some day you will get past the politics of claiming people hate you, and we can find a more mutual base of understanding."

How out of touch does one have to be to not understand that everything they write boils down to pure hate?

Every single "point" they make about marriage is useless sophistry, all designed to find some intellectual cover for their hatred.

I am beyond disgusted with the opine editorials.

On Lawn said...

John,

You should be ashamed of yourself.

There is so much disinformation, even slander that people throw about on the internet that it is a wonder people attempt to get along at all these days. And you could say there are two types of accusations, those that are verifiable and those that are not. It is only through verifiable claims that people can hopefully gain a real understanding.

Jane attempted to verify claims, but wound up discrediting herself further (see link in comment above). I mean to be honest, in reading that link you will find she made some very notable and demonstrable mistakes. Her reasoning and conclusion are fallacious.

Yet she at least tried. There are many important things to consider and investigate in what she wrote, they include many serious charges. It is simply that in my investigation about what she said about Opine, she was provably unsupported in her claims.

Yet you didn't even try to substantiate your claims. It really takes a particular kind of person to make such false accusations, but perhaps you have more to say that can back that claim up? Are you simply part of the emotionally charged raging slander on the internet, or do you have clear verifiable support for those claims?

I'm rather disappointed because we had, I feel, a very good discussion before. It would be a shame to erase any well wishes from that conversation with shrill unsubstantiated and unwarranted allogations.

Fannie said...

On Lawn,

So, basically, your dishonesty is not limited to your own blog. Can you please direct me to where I said there is a lack of hate at Opine Editorials?

This is what I said:

"Look at what you can aspire to be IF YOU JUST HATE A LITTE BIT MORE!" [emphasis added]


Thanks for providing yet another example of the dishonesty and mischaracterization associated with your hateful site.

Fannie said...

"Shrill" eh?

Learn that from your buddy culturologist?

John said...

"Yet you didn't even try to substantiate your claims."

I need not do so, because I made only one claim, and the evidence is there for everyone to see.

Virtually without exception, everything on your site demeans and belittles LGBTI people, and denies the validity of their relationships.

Jane Know said...

My accusations stand, On Lawn. Your scare tactics and attempts at accusing me of "slander" do nothing.

You are hateful, your blog is worse.

YOU should be ashamed. You continue with your dishonesty and false accusations.

You will never get it. You will never understand why gay people like myself find you (and your little tiny cohort) threatening.

That is scary. That you espouse so much hatred on a site and still think you are righteous.

Jane Know said...

I'm leaving On Lawn's comments up for everyone to see how dishonest he is, and the impossibility that anyone faces when arguing with him (because he uses deliberate obtuseness and mischaracterizations in place of any real argument, because he has none).

I wouldn't recommend anyone going over to this blog, though. they will just (metaphorically, of course) gang bang the one or two brave souls who dare enter their unfair, mean, hateful internet domain.

Jane Know said...

"Yet she at least tried. There are many important things to consider and investigate in what she wrote, they include many serious charges. It is simply that in my investigation about what she said about Opine, she was provably unsupported in her claims."

I would love to see how my claims are unsupported, because in your article about me, you didn't show that at all. You insinuated that you just didn't agree with the articles, without showing any evidence of your own to say otherwise.

I don't expect any more from you, though. You are widely known as dishonest.

Wait! On Lawn, are you a Watchmen? That would explain your resistance to the media's stories about their blatant violence.

Jane Know said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jane Know said...

John,
I deleted your comment with your email address. But I responded to you via email.
Jane

Fannie said...

His defense of the Watchmen is interesting. I think he's just a little embarassed that they compared themselves to that hate group and are now trying to save face. Well done, boys.

That he devotes a significant portion of his post to rambling attempt at trying to defend Op-Ed's dishonesty is a bit humorous to watch. Jolly good try, fella. Just call a spade a spade and admit that Op-Ed's a lying creep.

Hell to the no if I'm gonna go to Opine and subject myself to their (metaphoricall, of course) gang-banging.

Fannie said...

On Lawn says:

"I hope Jane has the decency to retract her error."


Jane, for the record, I saw no error. On Lawn needs to learn that just cuz someone disagrees with him, it doesn't mean that person is lying.

I sincerely he hopes he corrects his rant. And if he doesn't, it's his credibility loss. Not yours.

Jane Know said...

They just need to admit it already. They. hate. gay. people.

Regardless of how much they may claim to "love" them. I must then ask what their definition of "love" is, because it sure as hell isn't the same as mine.

Instead, they meander around the issue by claiming we are playing "identity politics." As if gay people don't exist and deserve equal treatment. As if ALL the world of politics isn't some form of "identity politics." They just hate in particular the politics of the gay identity. Why? Because some males prefer anal sex with other males.

Fannie said...

"They just need to admit it already. They. hate. gay. people."


Yes. How could their blog writings and their dedication to the anti-gay movement point to anything other than hate?

John Howard said...

There is something very fishy about Opine. Do you notice that they delete all of my posts that say that marriage should guarantee conception rights, and that people should not have conception rights with someone of their same sex?

Then they go right on posting about how same-sex couples cannot possibly ever have a child, as if Kaguya wasn't a reality and Dr. Richard Scott, a respected award-winning fertility doctor in New Jersey, didn't say he expected it to be tried in humans by 2010.

This same cover-up happens at MarriageDebate, which is where I was introduced to Opine. Maggie also refuses to acknowledge same-sex conception or use the argument that same-sex couples should not have the right to attempt to conceive together. She refuses to say that same-sex conception should not be allowed. So does Opine, so does FamilyScholars, so does Wesley Smith, so does Alan Carlson, so does just about everybody that is supposedly opposed to same-sex marriage.

I seriously think that many of the supposedly anti-gay organizations are fraudulent parodies of anti-gay people, created by After The Ball trained progressives intent on diverting attention away from genetic engineering.

I used to accept their excuse that they didn't support the Egg and Sperm Civil Union compromise because they didn't want civil unions, but I think it is more than that. I also thought they didn't like how it ignored the issue of homosexuality being a sin and all that. But I think it is more than that too. I think they are frauds and I call on them to prove me wrong by defending marriage's conception rights and calling for an egg and sperm law. If they continue to support same-sex conception or denying that marriage should protect conception rights, then please don't take them seriously, they probably are a bunch of eugenicists, pretending to be the opposition to SSM.

John Howard said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
John Howard said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
John Howard said...

(sorry - i keep messing up a link, the whole post is a link. i even previewed it the second time, but it still came out wrong when published. I think it was the "/" at the end of the link, or, I should have put quotes around it. Here's my last attempt:)

clarification: I don't think Wesley Smith is opposed to SSM, but he is supposedly opposed to a Brave New World and human cloning and bio colonialism. Here is his blog, SecondHand Smoke.

But like the anti-SSM sites, he also refuses to call for an egg and sperm law. In fact he supports repealing Missouri's amendment 2, the only egg and sperm law in the country. His duplicity is exposed when I ask him if he is concerned about all of the human embryos that would be created and destroyed in genetic engineering experiments: he refuses to consider them. As long as they weren't created through strict SCNT, he's fine with embryos being created to be destroyed, and fine with GE'd embryos being implanted and birthed, too. How could that be, unless he was specifically trying to make a false front of opposition, to lull the public into thinking that everyone was doing all they could to oppose a Brave New World. He's not, he's greasing the rails.

Anonymous said...

John, I think that each blogger at Opine has supported an Egg and Sperm Law, as you put it. None of us support the experimentation, let alone the practice, of same-sex procreation with human beings.

Civil Union is not a compromise, as you would have it, and it is a seperate issue, except in your point of view.

Same-sex procreation is not in accord with the principles of responsible procreation. It is also sex-segregative. So that makes it outside the core of marriage as a social institution.

***

Jane, I hav enot, and I do not, condone violence. I made that clear in the last comment I submitted to your blog. I made it clear in my comments at Opine regarding the Watchmen.

I also do not condone hate-mongering. I've made that clear also.

Read the statement that was discussed at Opine. Tell us what you disagreed with in that statement.

Trying to apply guilt by association is a very lowball tactic and it seems to rise to a full fledged strategy in your blogpost.

As for identity politics, it comes in many forms.

Gay identity politics can be a positive force, in some ways, but not in the form that is presented in SSM argumentation.

Identity politics, whatever its brand, tends toward malice and corruption of public discourse and so forth.

With gay identity politics, it takes a particularly bad turn when it forms the basis for a direct attack on the nature of the most important and pro-child social institution that society has.

You disagree with my defence of marriage; I disagree with your advocacy of the merger of SSM with marriage recognition.

Disagreement is not hatred. Crying wolf the way you have here is what discredits too many who advocate for SSM.

If you have documentation for the violence that the Watchmen have been accused of, please present it. Primary sources or sources one step removed from the primary sources would be best.

Then, like Fannie suggests, your readers can study up on the Watchmen you have accused in your blogpost.

But I return to the statement that was discussed at Opine and you have yet to shed any light on what you think is hateful in that statement.

-- Chairm Ohn

Fannie said...

Op-Ed's latest victory speech:


"If Jane had a rational argument to make, she'd make it rather than wallowing in her incessant personal attacks. She's out of ideas. Let's move on."


They continually tell themselves that disagreement with them and criticism of them is a "personal attack." A word of advice for them: just because you don't like what someone says about you doesn't make it an ad hominem.

Jane Know said...

Chair,
don't tell me how to run my blog.
also, i don't take the "primary source" a letter from Lively seriously.
Would he really write something saying "yes, i condone violence to gays"
it's so fucking hypocritical of you and him...to say racism is the evilest of evils, but to condone homophobia the way you do
you should be proud of yourself.
I hope it makes you feel like more of a man.

John Howard said...

Chairm, I agree many, perhaps even all, Opine bloggers have agreed with me that same-sex conception is bad, and generally express passive "support" of an egg and sperm law.

But that only happens when I bring it up, and it seems it then gets immediately forgotten about. You all immediately go back to your old arguments that depend on same-sex conception being an impossibility, instead of using the argument that same-sex couples should not have marriage rights because same-sex conception is unethical.

And many Opine bloggers have disputed marriage's core of conception rights. You seem to believe that it would be fine if a marriage was publicly prohibited from attempting to conceive children using their own gametes. I would really like to know where you got that idea, it is very scary.

And the Civil Unions themselves are not the compromise, they are part of the compromise deal that would get an egg and sperm law passed and preserve natural conception rights and preserve marriage as a man and a woman. The Civil Unions that I am proposing would not be just like marriage, they would not be a stepping stone to marriage, they would not be marriage in all but name. They would give equal protections, but not give equal rights, because they would not give conception rights. They would be defined as being exactly like marriage but not granting conception rights of marriage. I really don't see why you have a problem with that, at least a large enough one to withhold support of preserving marriage and stopping same-sex conception and genetic engineering.

I stand by my charge that you aren't really interested in preserving marriage or stopping genetic engineering. Otherwise you wouldn't waste time on obtuse arguments and you'd go right to the one that Jane, Michael, et al cannot defend. And offering the civil unions are essential in forcing them to defend same-sex conception or admit that they want to change marriage by stripping it of conception rights. You guys stand aside and let them by, you don't defend marriage.

And regarding responsible procreation, which is more responsible: having a baby in marriage, or having a baby outside of marriage? Because without an egg and sperm law, same-sex couples will be having babies in three years. Three years. That is a professional expert's prediction, not mine. Don't you see how your argument winds up supporting SSM for couples that are planning on attempting SSP at some point in the future?

You guys need to oppose same-sex conception when I am not forcing you to answer, buried 70 comments into a thread. You guys need to defend marriage's guarantee of conception rights, too. Otherwise, the charge stands: you are a bunch of eugenicists pretending to be the opposition to SSM. You are not defending marriage.

Jane Know said...

Chair said: "You disagree with my defence of marriage; I disagree with your advocacy of the merger of SSM with marriage recognition.

Disagreement is not hatred. Crying wolf the way you have here is what discredits too many who advocate for SSM."

First of all, this Watchmen on the Walls article isn't about gay marriage. It's about your comparison of yourselves to a known hate group. Something you seem rather proud of.

Furthermore, it is dishonest to say we are "crying wolf," as you put it.

Wait until someone tells you you are a "dangerous social experiment" for wanting to marry the love of your life and see how attacked you feel by those who disagree. No one is attacking YOU here. You are already allowed to get married to the love of your life. But you are seeking to deny me the opportunity for equal access to laws. That is an attack.

I've often wondered myself if perhaps the Opiners are really progressive bloggers parodying fundamentalists, as John Howard mentioned. But perhaps I am just used to giving people the benefit of the doubt. And assuming that people really are not this intolerant in this day and age.

On Lawn said...

Disagreement is not hatred.

True, hatred is a reaction to disagreement. You will note that there is quite a bit of agreement and disagreement here in general.

Crying wolf the way you have here is what discredits too many who advocate for SSM.

Its rather trite to claim that Chairm is simply crying wolf. You are, after all, the one who questions, "Would you like to see them kill more gay people? Is that your ultimate goal? That we will just go away? Everything you write certainly suggests that."

When actually nothing we wrote suggests that. Even Op-Ed notes that your attempt to twist his words to such a conclusion would be unsupported by what he said.

You've simply made a bunch of horribly contrived slanders, each documented carefully in exactly how they are over reaching, by the response on Opine.

There are not many knowns here, especially about the group itself. Yet if there is anything demonstrated or known in this discussion it is known or demonstrated by the actions of the participants here. Why would you seed such discord and dishonesty about Opine? I do not know. I leave short of making an accusation as to your motives, for they are not known to me.

Wait until someone tells you you are a "dangerous social experiment" for wanting to marry the love of your life

Actually, many heterosexual couples are told that all the time. Polygamous, incestuous, adulterous, and simply the irresponsible are told that they are playing things they know nothing about. What do you say to those couples also?

But the facts remain very simple, and very clear. If marriage is a life of mutual love and cherishing, feel free. You have no need to neuter marriage to be completely happy together the rest of your lives.

If that is an attack to you, then I can't attempt to pretend to control your actions. But they are ludicrous.

Look again at the "Safe Zone" picture in your article. Does it say, "willing to provide acceptance and assistance"? Yes. But only to one group. Opine is much more circumspect than that, which should no wise be interpreted as an attack.

Yet you obviously perceive violence, and intent to violence under non-violent statements, and behind those that agree with that non-violent statement. This is a very violent war to you, which is either warranted or simply paranoid. My advice is to be kinder to others, retract the mis-statements you made about Opine, just for the sake of an inner peace and community that we have extended to you in potential understanding and friendship. Honestly, it only hurts yourself to make such vile accusations falsely about others.

On Lawn said...

John,

Aren't you the one that specifically wants to code into law a same-sex exclusion?

In other words, aren't you the one seeking to name and exclude same-sex couples from medical procedures that would be hazardous to others, yet acceptable to you -- only for everyone else?

Rachel M. said...

"Trying to apply guilt by association is a very lowball tactic and it seems to rise to a full fledged strategy in your blogpost."

Did someone from Opine really have the balls to write this?! To accuse someone else of being judge and jury in a guilt by association trial? Are they not the same gay-bashing group that doesn't believe that a gay couple is suitable to raise a child because some gay men have been promiscuous or have HIV/AIDS, or which ever other stereo-type you'd like to pin on the gay community. But here's the rub, it's not even that it’s an oversight or an accident. Nope. Just a bunch of bigoted assholes that just aren't used to intelligent women challenging them (that includes my 2nd favorite dumb-fuck, Renee. Beat out only by the below average Jose Solano. Keep faith though Renee. One or two more meaningless tales about your child realizing how sub-par you are or of your lactate-capades and you just could be my #1). Baby-steps Opine Idiots. It starts by letting your women walk next to you instead of three steps behind, and allowing them to eat their meals at the same time as you.

On Lawn said...

Are they not the same gay-bashing group that doesn't believe that a gay couple is suitable to raise a child because some gay men have been promiscuous or have HIV/AIDS

Correct, Opine does not promote that belief.

Nope. Just a bunch of bigoted assholes that just aren't used to intelligent women challenging them

Not for lack of trying to find such individuals to have a well understood and cordial conversation with :)

In all seriousness though, you realize that intellectual discourse has promoted very civil ideals to conversations. I've always appreciated Opine's polite and civil discourse, especially in the midst of people who seem to want to always turn things into a knock-down drag-out fight of internet egos. But then, that is (as I mentioned in my reply) all to expected in internet discourse.

If your rudeness wasn't so usual on the internet at large, it would perhaps mean something. But we've all seen to many individuals who feel that rudeness is a way to persuade people. It means less and less each time it is tried.

Jane Know said...

On Lawn,
did you really just tell me to be kinder to others?
Hey everybody, look here! The King of Intolerance just told me to be nice.

Also, I won't entertain comparisons to polygamy, incest, and adultery. You always bring that up. Why are you so obsessed with other people's sex? Who made YOU the arbiter of other people's relationships?

You are ridiculous. You embarrass yourself every time you post a comment or idiotic anti-gay article.

Jane Know said...

On Lawn, just because you don't allow profanity on your blog, doesn't make it a "polite" one or a cordial one.

I've always had the feeling of being metaphorically gang banged each time I've responded to any of your articles. By Jose Solano, by Marty, by Op-Ed, by you... Your deliberate obtuseness in most of your responses is a very dishonest tactic. One that makes any real attempt at civility impossible.

Believe me, I've tried.

John Howard said...

Aren't you the one that specifically wants to code into law a same-sex exclusion?

You mean the "Egg and Sperm" law? Yes, we need a national one. right now all we've got is Missouri's:

No person may clone or attempt to clone a human being.
"Clone or attempt to clone a human being” means to implant in a uterus or attempt to implant in a uterus anything other than the product of fertilization of an egg of a human female by a sperm of a human male for the purpose of initiating a pregnancy that could result in the creation of a human fetus, or the birth of a human being.


I am the one who wants to make it a federal law, along with the President's Council on Bioethics. Yes, it prohibits same-sex conception and all genetic engineering for both-sex couples as well. (Well, that's assuming that "of a human fe|male" means that the gamete has not been modified so as to only be partially "of" the person. The law needs to be clear that modifying gametes severs them from the person that originally provided them, and so only unmodified gametes may be used.

In other words, aren't you the one seeking to name and exclude same-sex couples from medical procedures that would be hazardous to others, yet acceptable to you -- only for everyone else?

I certainly wouldn't call same-sex conception a medical procedure, or genetic engineering. I do consider efforts to restore gametes to people who cannot produce them to be medicine. Medicine is about curing disease and restoring health of existing people. It is not about manufacturing new people. Having sex is not medicine, after all.

John Howard said...

And On Lawn, if you are saying that we should be able to ban unsafe procedures, or artificial wombs, say, well, I agree. But banning artificial wombs would not publicly prohibit any couple from attempting to conceive together, even if the woman had no uterus and they wanted to use an artificial womb. It would just force them to try other methods, like prayer for example, to conceive together. Affirming that marriage guarantees conception rights does not mean we cannot prohibit unsafe or unethical procedures.

R.K. said...

"Also, I won't entertain comparisons to polygamy, incest, and adultery".

Why? Don't pretend that you don't know that the comparisons are logical, not moral. All are categories for which we do not currently allow marriages. All are categories for which some may believe that their exclusion from marriage is unfair. All are categories for which examples can surely be found of good, loving relationships. Your curt dismissal of the challenge to why they should still be not allowed to have marriages recognized, but how same-sex couples must, is no different from me, as one who supports interracial marriage, merely saying it is "insulting" to compare interracial relationships with same-sex relationships. What would your response be to one who said that?

Sorry, Jane, Fannie, etc., but I have visited Opine many times (and will soon be posting there myself), and they do not engage in the kind of rhetoric I see here. Resorting to the namecalling as I see you doing is an act of desperation, and you guys are showing it in spades.

Jane Know said...

whatevs. r.k. i completely disagree with you. you're probably one of the Opiners, yourself.

i think most people agree with me. i'm sorry you do not.

Jane Know said...

Further,
Opine Editorials frequently censors the comments of those who disagree with them, accusing them publicly of profanity while deleting their comments, when often there was no profanity. They can do what they want on their blog, but I don't go over there anymore because of it.

They've done it to me several times, and I've seen them do it to several other bloggers, as well.

They put themselves out there in public, thus they are subject to scrutiny.

If you don't see why the polygamy and incest and bestiality comparisons are offensive to gay people, then arguing with you is futile, "r.k." I get your "logic," and understand what you are saying, but I definiitely disagree. Anti-gay people constantly use the polygamy/incest [insert moral judgment here] comparisons to attempt to invalidate gay relationships. I get it. You don't think gay relationships are on par with heterosexual ones, and you don't believe society should see them as such.

But to those of us involved in gay relationships, they are very much real and deserving of the same rights and liberties as your relationship. Your intolerance of a group you fear or dislike or think is immoral or unnatural DOES affect real, good people and their families... not just some nameless, faceless crowd of promiscuous, flamboyant anal-sex obsessed "queers" that your side depicts gays as.

R.K. said...

"i completely disagree with you. you're probably one of the Opiners, yourself."

Yes, I am. If I had found them as prone to the use of namecalling and insult as you are here I would not have joined, regardless of their position on the issues.

"i think most people agree with me. i'm sorry you do not."

Agree on what? About whether or not SSM should be legalized? About whether or not namecalling such as that I see here is an act of desperation? Or on the point I was making, that merely crying "foul" on any comparison of gay relationships and polygamous, incestuous, or other relationships is no different from the advocate of interracial marriage crying "foul" over the comparison of interracial relationships and same-sex relationships?

Is it really about saying "I'll decide where to draw the line, and that's that?", and no debate about how we decide where we draw the line, or for that matter whether we then should draw one at all?

Jane Know said...

And need I remind my opponents that the Opine/Watchmen comparison is their own construct?

Jane Know said...

r.k., surprise.

For the record, the Opiners have called gays or people who engage in same-gendered sex "perverted," "immoral," "unnatural," "vile," "repulsive," and more. Are you lacking that much empathy and emotional hard-wiring to see why that blog is offensive to gay people?

Get a clue.

Rachel M. said...

r.k.
Yes, yes. You’re smart and moral and I’m not b/c I call a spade a spade...or rather an asshole as asshole. It's old. I do not now, nor will I ever show respect to a group who continues to act like there is any comparison between incest and adultery and being in a gay relationship. Gay relationships do not psychologically harm or betray anyone. There are no victims in a gay relationship. There are in the others mentioned (not to mention that participating in a gay relationship is not an illegal act, like the other two). Another simple mind appears on Jane's blog and joins the Opine Klan. Write me a compare and contrast between incest, adultery, and gay relationships. I’ll save you some research time…the only similarity you'll find that is NOT a moral judgment is sex. The bullying, the psychological damage, the effects on children and family who are victims of incest or adultery...NONE of these things mirrors the inner-workings of a gay relationship. BUT, again someone with ZERO knowledge of psycho-social systems is deciding to tell the world about the evils of homosexuality and how it will destroy mankind. This proves you know nothing about mankind. Only YOUR kind.

Jane Know said...

That, obviously, is what I think most people agree on. That the blog is hateful and offensive. I wasn't even talking about gay marriage.

Jane Know said...

And... I am scared of people who lack empathy. It suggests somewhat of an antisocial personality. The Opiners appear unable to put themselves in our position to see why their blog is hateful/offensive/threatening.

arturo fernandez said...

On Lawn: "Actually, many heterosexual couples are told that all the time. Polygamous, incestuous, adulterous, and simply the irresponsible are told that they are playing things they know nothing about. What do you say to those couples also?"

Well, gays should not be allowed into polygamous, incestous, adulterous, or "irresponsible" unions either. That straights should ask for these, if gay marriage is allowed, is stupid.

arturo fernandez said...

Jane, "Wait until someone tells you you are a "dangerous social experiment" for wanting to marry the love of your life"

On Lawn, "Actually, many heterosexual couples are told that all the time. Polygamous, incestuous, adulterous, and simply the irresponsible are told that they are playing things they know nothing about. What do you say to those couples also?"

On Lawn, are you in a "polygamous, incenstous, adulterous, or simply irresponsible" relationship?

R.K. said...

"For the record, the Opiners have called gays or people who engage in same-gendered sex "perverted," "immoral," "unnatural," "vile," "repulsive," and more".

I see. ALL the Opiners are the same, and they all regularly use such words. Perhaps your hope is that readers of your blog won't bother to check it out for themselves, and compare and contrast.

"That, obviously, is what I think most people agree on. That the blog is hateful and offensive."

Let's take a poll of all individuals (not just those that come here, or agree with you, or agree with Opine), let them read both blogs (and particularly Rachel's comments), and see.

If you wanted to influence voters on a referendum related to SSM, Jane, Rachel, would you show them the posts you have posted here for persuasion? Do you really think that if they looked at both blogs, it would tilt the vote in your direction rather than the opponents'? If so, then by all means, when you want to influence an election, argue just as you do here.

"Opine Editorials frequently censors the comments of those who disagree with them, accusing them publicly of profanity while deleting their comments, when often there was no profanity."

Insulting and cheap namecalling which employs meaningless words is not necessarily profanity, but it contributes no more to the argument.

Rachel: "I do not now, nor will I ever show respect to a group who continues to act like there is any comparison between incest and adultery and being in a gay relationship".

On Lawn said "Polygamous, incestuous, adulterous, and simply the irresponsible are told that they are playing things they know nothing about". He said that in response to Jane's statement, "Wait until someone tells you you are a 'dangerous social experiment' for wanting to marry the love of your life". He DID NOT say that they were morally comparable. The point is that Jane seemed to be making the statement that people who want to marry the love of their life should be allowed to do so, and On Lawn pointed out that we don't always allow them to do so, and even Jane (and certainly Rachel) agree that we should not always allow them to do so. But, they both argue, well, OF COURSE there are reasons why polygamy, incest, and adultery should be banned.

And yet, the contention here is that the argument for changing the definition of marriage that has been throughout history is undebatable, that there is no argument against it.

You can argue, of course, that the case for SSM is better than the case for legalized polygamy, or incestuous marriage, or lowering the age of marriage. And I can see your point.

But I can also see that those who want polygamy legalized may argue that you are stereotyping them with your assumption that polygamy must always involve force, or bullying, or psychological damage, or that they never have agreement between all parties in the union, or that they always produce damaged kids, or that those that do not conform to this stereotype are nevertheless engaging in a "dangerous social experiment".

A couple of CONSENTING ADULTS who love each other and want to get married and happen to be "parsib" and "sibchild" (or, if that's not where you draw the line, first cousins) may argue that you are stereotyping them with your assumption that incest is always about adults and children, or that it always involves coercion, or that it always produces children with birth defects, or that even if it did we must operate on the assumption that they intend to have biological children rather than adopting, or that, even if none of these assumptions were true in their case, they are nevertheless engaging in a "dangerous social experiment".

An adult who wants to marry an underage child may argue that you are stereotyping them with your assumtion that the younger one is always too immature to make the decision, or that it involves coercion in every case, or that even if not, they are nevertheless engaging in a "dangerous social experiment".

Are you, Jane and Rachel, saying that they would have NO case in the three above instances in challenging your insistence that they cannot get married, even if they conformed to NONE of the stereotypes you have of them? Are you saying that it is undebatable that they do not?

My argument is that you cannot claim "undebatability" regarding your desire on where to draw the line on marriage and yet insist that it is also "undebatable" that the line not be extended even further by someone else. You have an argument against polygamy, incestuous marriage, and child marriage, and I agree and respect that. You argue for gay marriage, and I respect that, though you do not respect anyone's argument against it. What I cannot respect is your need to feel that in order to win, you must not only make a better case than your opponents, but must maintain the idea that they have NO case. You apparently have to believe that unless the other side has NO real argument, your own case collapses. What you seem to need to cling to is the sense of absolute irrefutability and undebatability. This is an immature intellectual arrogance, frequently found in teenagers or college students but one that should disappear with age, as people discover and accept the fact that other persons not only may have ideas different from theirs but may also be capable of defending them. To feel threatened by this fact demonstrates a belief that you have nothing you could possibly yet learn in life. What is the word for this, if arrogance is not appropriate?

If one uses the argument that the right to marry the person you love is "undebatable", this is only consistent if it is "undebatable" for anyone who claims that right, whatever the circumstances. To state merely that the line must be redrawn to include you, but not others, is inconsistant with a claim of an "undebatable" or "irrefutable" right.

Jane Know said...

Opine Editorials deletes comments that *they deem* personal attacks or profanity, even when the common reader would not. That is my point.

Further, this particular article was written to expose the lunacy of Opiners, not to influence voters one way or the other. I think I did a pretty good job showing how mean-spirited you guys are.

I realize you aren't all the same over at Opine, just as I hope you realize that not all gay people are the same. But you condone and allow your hateful bloggers to post there as much as the "more respectful" ones. Your disregard of certain bloggers' homophobias speaks for itself. That you even allow it speaks for itself, and does much to lessen what little credibility the blog has.

So, spare me the lessons on how to run my blog.

It's mine. And if I want to accuse a blatantly anti-gay blog and its bloggers of being homophobic, I will do so.

Your constant obsession over incest and polygamy is just getting weird.

The issue is same-sex marriage. Not polygamy, incest, bestiality, or any other "morally reprehensible action."

I can't speak for family members who want to marry each other, and I won't. But, as many have asked you and others to do, show me any Alliance for Incestual Marriage and I will discuss it further. But for now, it's common knowledge that your side uses arguments like that to downplay gay relationships.

It's an argument that is immediately met with rolled eyes and instant disregard. Why? Because it's the same argument that many used back in the days of the interracial marriage bans in the 1950s.

One day soon gays will be allowed to get married with all the rights that heteros receive. History tells us that the people have always eventually decided towards humanism and liberalism.

I'm glad to know I'll have been on the right side of this fight, and you will be embarrassed of your bigotry. I hope.

Fannie said...

Wait, did On Lawn really say this:

"I've always appreciated Opine's polite and civil discourse"


And by that I suppose he means: Polite and civil discourse amongst themselves while simultaneously calling gay people perverse, immoral, depraved, disgusting, etc.

I'll wait for On Lawn to correct his error.

But I won't hold my breath.


"r.k." said:

"I see. ALL the Opiners are the same, and they all regularly use such words. Perhaps your hope is that readers of your blog won't bother to check it out for themselves, and compare and contrast."

No. They are not all the same. Some are nicer than others, not that that's saying a whole lot. But most are bigots who try to use logic not to transcend their inner biases against gay people, but to justify them. And then, when some of them rip on gay people by calling them the above insults (depraved, perverted, etc.) I rarely see others jump in and say "hey, let's stay away from the name-calling." Nope. They're blind to these faults of those who are on "their side" and continue to claim that their blog is "polite and civil."

Open your eyes people.

It's sort of Opine identity politics, if you will.

Rachel M. said...

r.k.
First I must address your passive-aggressive attack on my intellect and immaturity. It's been done before. Consider this; could it be that some people have been around the block so often then they are fully aware of the forum in which they speak and the level of formality required? Please, spare me the lobbying advice. I will by no means divulge specifics of my life on this blog, due to the importance of discretion in my field. But I assure you, I know how legislation works. I know social systems and I know psychology. And what this all means is that there is a definite system in the drafting and implementation of legislation, specifically in the realm of public policy. There is no such thing as “everyone” and there is no such thing as “always.” That's part of the deal. I feel like I'm in some sort of undergrad intro class in doing this, but here goes: There is first a study (or more likely a combination of several studies) to find out the effects that a potential public policy my have on the population. Analyze the potential economic effects. Analyze the potential systematic effects (of both directly and indirectly effected populations). Determine how much of a global effect will come of the legislation (if any). And finally measure individual psychological effects the policy will have of the focus population of the policy (this, of course, must include generalizations based on means due to the impossibility of knowing the specific psychology of every human being in the focus population, and further the entire United States or global population). Got that? That being said, do you think that one can generalize that there is very often varying degrees of psychological damage resulting from adultery, incest, and pedophilia? As a sidebar to your comment on incest; there is overwhelming evidence that the vast majority of cases of incest (so vast that it is nearly ALL) are predatory. And that's who policy is supposed to served. The majority. NOT the majority of an entire system, but rather the majority within a sub-system (i.e. teenage mothers/families, college students, the LGBT community, the elderly, etc...). And I must also quickly address the desire for parents to marry children and siblings to marry siblings; VERY RARE. Don't worry your pretty little head about thinking the flood gates will open for that with the legalization of ssm. SSM will be legalized due the large numbers of advocates and organizations growing in power and numbers everyday. I fail to see the threat of a great and powerful lobby for incest marriage. Back to our regularly scheduled program: In the examples used in the analogies (incest, pedophilia, adultery, etc...)You have mentioned sexual relationships that have been extensively researched and overwhelmingly proven to psychologically damage the participants/victims. It is not in all areas of legislation that it is best or necessary to be so firm and inflexible with opposition, but with the issue of SSM, given all of the evidence proving that there is no risk of victimization of persons or populations by legalizing SSM, I am 100% confident that bigotry is the root of its opposition. Support of ssm has nothing to do with agreeing with a lifestyle, and everything to do with human dignity. Empathy is at the core. Not even understanding. Just empathy. All decent human beings must vigilantly stand against all forms of bigotry.

Jane Know said...

Fannie,
Exactly. They are polite and civil to each other and those with whom they agree. I have never seen one opiner tell another that he or she is a "loud, shrill feminist."


As for everyone else, they mischaracterize arguments, censor them, are deliberately obtuse, call gay people names, condone outright expressions of disgust and hatred of gay people, etc...

I don't find that "logical," "polite," or "civil."

As for me, well... I don't continuously make it a point to brag about being polite OR civil. I think I am generally a nice person, until a sophomoric, self-righteous bunch o' assholes starts an anti-gay blog that says I am immoral, depraved, vile, unnatural, etc.; and that my relationship doesn't count as much as theirs...and that the sex I have isn't even considered sex.

Fannie said...

"I don't continuously make it a point to brag about being polite OR civil"

And furthermore, you have to wonder about those who do continuously make it a point to brag about being polite or civil.

Are they trying to convince others, or themselves?

Heh.

R.K. said...

"Opine Editorials deletes comments that *they deem* personal attacks or profanity, even when the common reader would not. That is my point."

I haven't done any of the deleting, and I certainly have not seen all or even most of the deleted posts. Give me examples.

"Further, this particular article was written to expose the lunacy of Opiners, not to influence voters one way or the other. I think I did a pretty good job showing how mean-spirited you guys are."

Um....no, you didn't. You completely failed to get the point of what is meant by "identity politics", but no one need take my word for it; again, anyone "on the fence" can check out Opine for themselves and see what they think.
They can also read for themselves what they have said regarding Watchmen On The Walls, and judge for themselves after getting all the facts, not just hearsay. They can also read, for that matter, what Opiners have said about "Reverend" Fred Phelps.

"I realize you aren't all the same over at Opine, just as I hope you realize that not all gay people are the same. But you condone and allow your hateful bloggers to post there as much as the "more respectful" ones. Your disregard of certain bloggers' homophobias speaks for itself. That you even allow it speaks for itself, and does much to lessen what little credibility the blog has."

I have had no role in deciding what is allowed or not allowed on Opine, or in deleting posts, as I have not even yet posted on Opine due to technical reasons. When I am on, I will do all I can to insure or try to persuade others to remain within the bounds of decency.

"So, spare me the lessons on how to run my blog."

I have no authority over you. Spare me the accusation that I'm trying to give you "lessons" about anything. You have the right to operate your blog as you wish, I have the right to criticize the arguments. If you can't take it, that's your problem, not mine.

"It's mine. And if I want to accuse a blatantly anti-gay blog and its bloggers of being homophobic, I will do so."

Sounds like another way of saying that you can dish it out but you can't take it.

"Your constant obsession over incest and polygamy is just getting weird."

Right, just keep saying that, and keep pretending that you don't understand the argument.

"The issue is same-sex marriage. Not polygamy, incest, bestiality, or any other 'morally reprehensible action.'"

No, it's not. It's MARRIAGE. And, it's the logic of the arguments for changing it, insisting that the argument for changing it is undebatable, but still holding that it's debatable for others who may want to change it further.

"I can't speak for family members who want to marry each other, and I won't. But, as many have asked you and others to do, show me any Alliance for Incestual Marriage and I will discuss it further."

The "might makes right" argument. So, back in the days of Loving vs. Virginia, when there was no big organized movement for gay marriage, are you saying that then it was not a "basic, undebatable, irrefutable" civil right"?

"But for now, it's common knowledge that your side uses arguments like that to downplay gay relationships.
It's an argument that is immediately met with rolled eyes and instant disregard. Why? Because it's the same argument that many used back in the days of the interracial marriage bans in the 1950s."

It's not used to downplay gay relationships, it's used to attack the faulty logic behind the idea that the changing of the universal human idea of what constitutes marriage is "undebatable" because it's a "basic human right"....but then apply this inconsistently. I repeat, it's about the faulty logic. Study logic.

Oh, yes, it's the "same argument that many used back in the days of the interracial marriage bans in the 1950s." And many who SUPPORTED lifting the ban on interracial marriage, like myself, were met with "slippery slope" arguments like "Next thing you know, they'll be talking about letting two people of the SAME SEX get married". To which some supporters of interracial couples replied "That's ludicrous"! And others, including interracial couples, replied that that "analogy" was "insulting" to them.

"One day soon gays will be allowed to get married with all the rights that heteros receive. History tells us that the people have always eventually decided towards humanism and liberalism."

"I'm glad to know I'll have been on the right side of this fight, and you will be embarrassed of your bigotry. I hope."

Ah, the "argument from inevitability." Show me your crystal ball, Jane, I'd be glad to see it.

For SSM opponents, the best scenario would be if it does pass, and very quickly proves to be a disaster.

For SSM supporters, the best scenario would be if it passes and proves to be a success, not just five or ten, but thirty, forty, fifty, 100 years down the line.

But I'll tell you what the worst scenario would be, for both supporters and opponents. This would be if SSM does pass, and appears to be a success for the first five or ten years, leading to its adoption everywhere, only to then find in 30, 40, or 50 years that it was a disaster after all (only to be discovered after the next generations grow up with the new "you marry another person" definition being the only one they've ever known).

Those of us who strongly suspect that this may be what happens, and that this may be the real reason for the unanswered question of why a totally androgynized concept of marriage has never taken root long-term in any culture known (despite many cultures that were quite tolerant of homosexuality, and even some who developed some form of institution for homosexual couples), feel they have a responsibility to ask all the questions that can possibly be asked before just letting this unprecedented change sweep the globe in a bandwagon. Not every state or nation will hold out, but some will, and they may be glad they did.

Farmer: "I'm going to spray DDT on my crops".

Skeptic: "But you might hurt the environment! We have no idea what this chemical may do to the air!"

Farmer: "Well, I know this. I've been struggling and my family's been starving because of all the damage insects have done. And DDT kills them. And thus I'll be able to feed my family! And the fruit I sell will be healthier for all as well. How could you deny me that?"

Skeptic: "You don't know that the damage to the environment in the long run might not be far worse for everyone! It's an untested experiment."

Farmer: "You are telling me that something that helps feed my family, so that we can afford our clothes, so that I can send my children to school, is somehow an 'untested experiment' that is going to hurt the environment? YOU ARE INSULTING ME! GET OFF MY LAND!"

R.K. said...

Rachel, you pretty much make many of the same arguments Jane makes, such as the "might makes right" argument.

But, a few other things:

"It is not in all areas of legislation that it is best or necessary to be so firm and inflexible with opposition, but with the issue of SSM, given all of the evidence proving that there is no risk of victimization of persons or populations by legalizing SSM, I am 100% confident that bigotry is the root of its opposition."

"evidence proving that there is no risk of victimization of persons or populations by legalizing SSM"

There is no "evidence proving"....anything about the effects of SSM. Effects of the changing of the cultural perception of an institution are unlikely to be really certain until at least a full generation has grown up with the new understanding of the institution ingrained in them from birth.

"I am 100% confident that bigotry is the root of its opposition."

I am not "100 percent confident" of anything, and neither are you, particularly regarding people whom you don't 100 percent know. This statement only underscores the point I made in my 8:55 PM post. I know of many who oppose SSM who are definitely not "bigots". But then, I suppose, the way "bigot" is defined by you is someone who opposes SSM.

Rachel M. said...

r.k.

There is a great deal of evidence concerning gay couples and co-habitation. There is a great deal of evidence on the effects on children being raised by same-sex couples. This is as close as we can get to projected evidence about ssm. LIKE all changes in legislation, one can only project based on exiting studies. You cannot study something that does not yet exist. I feel like you should know that. You continue to argue with emotion rather than logic. The research on same-sex coupling and parenting is in. The children and families are doing NO WORSE than hetero-sexual households. You are not using any unbiased research to make your claims. Also, please provide me with the link that recorded the African American community being A) compared to the gay community and the potential for ssm during the civil rights movement and B) being insulted by that. I smell more homo-bigot demagogy.

Rachel M. said...

Oh, and by the way; bigot is defined by me as one intolerantly devoted to his or her own prejudices or opinions.

Jane Know said...

r.k.-
So basically, what it comes down to for you is your appeal to tradition. In other words, you are saying men and women have only been allowed to get married in the past, therefore that proves that it is the one and only right way to form a union.

You also allege that some harm is going to result when gays are allowed to marry each other. Can you explain this further?

There is no legitimate evidence saying gay marriage is harmful to anyone. That is your basic inclination based on your bias against homosexuals. Sorry. study the research, pal. Study your own faulty logic.

As far as not being able to take it when you dish it out, that's fine if you believe that. But to be clear, I am the one writing blog articles on a very controversial topic... you're a commenter posting from the safety of your anonymity and relative unknown status. I realize that by the very nature of my articles, people like you are going to come over here and argue your points. I posted the link to my article on Opine's website, and that was an open invitation to take the discussion further. The only things I don't tolerate are blatantly hateful comments directed at gays and lesbians, or any other group of people. You call that "identity politics" I call it unfair mischaracterizations.

You also say you aren't responsible for allowing and disallowing comments on Opine. You say you can't control what your other bloggers write. Yet you still associate with a blog whose sole purpose is to attack gay people. Claim innocence all you want, just like the employee who does everything his boss tells him to, even when they don't agree with it and "is just following orders." That is cowardly. And to say nothing at all to stop it encourages people like that to keep spouting their hatred towards an innocent group of people.

Opine Editorials does "speak for itself." I don't think it needs my bad press, but it certainly doesn't hurt my case any. By talking with people like you and Chairm and others, it exposes everyone else to your arguments, which all predictably usually end up being traditionalist and/or religious.

As far as marriage being a "universal human idea," that's a load of crap. The human species tends to pair up, but nowhere in science does it say they must "get married as man and wife." I can't count the variations in marriage that have existed over time. It is similar to religion in that sense. Because you believe marriage is one thing, in no way makes you the arbiter of what a marriage is to everyone. You can't arbitrarily place restrictions of marriage to same sex couples (who have been historically repressed for centuries, thus there is no "tradition" of marriage for them), when marriage has changed so greatly over time and across cultures. How egocentric of you.

For you to claim absolute knowledge over something like "marriage" or "how people should pair up" is resonant of the AFA or other wacky fundamentalist groups.

Jane Know said...

Oh, and nice try with the farmer/DDT analogy.

I can play that game, too.

Interracial Couple: But we deserve to get married, too. We are an adult, non-related, consenting couple who loves each other. It is a matter of equal protection.

Fundamentalist: No way! What a dangerous social experiment. Think about the mixed-race children that will result. Think about the incestual relationships who will then want to get married. Think of all the polygamists...

Interracial couple: Yes, but we are not those groups. We are this group. We are adults. We are not related. We are consensual. We have a lifelong commitment to each other, and would like to receive the same benefits and protections as other couples who have made lifelong commitments to each other.

Fundamentalist: But... it is unnatural to mix the races. It isn't God's plan. For centuries, people have not mixed the races in marriage. Why should we mess with this basic human institution of marriage? We will only cause harm to all of society.

Interracial Couple: But how could our marriage possibly affect someone else's? If we love our children and are able to provide a loving home for them, how is that harmful?

*well, we all know how that "social experiment" has panned out, don't we?

It's easy to conjure up hypotheticals and one-in-a-million scenarios of relatives wanting to marry each other. It's easy to resist change and breaks from "tradition." It's easy to let your innate bias control your feelings and positions on particular topics. r.k., I urge you to look beyond all that, if you can, and see where your true opposition to gay marriage lies.

On Lawn said...

A few more mis-perceptions to clear up...

1) No one at opine has called someone else vile, reprehensible, etc... We have deleted people who have used homosexual slurs, and will continue to do so. Jose, the only contributor that has made references to the acts of homosexuality being vile, etc... is free to express his opinion just as much as we allow people like Michael and others who wish to state how great they find their homosexuality to be in their own lives. The reader, is then free to make up their own minds.

See, censorship is a tricky thing. It essentially says that people cannot make up their own minds, that you fear people's ability to investigate on their own. There are so many things that contributors to Opine differ on, we run the political gamut of fiercely independent non-partisan (myself) to arch conservatives and progressive liberals. Views on what homosexuality is, we don't agree on. We leave it up to the reader to. I personally am sure that Jose does not hate homosexuals, and has many close friends and associations with many homosexuals. I have seen him personally extend great love in the midst of persecution, and defamity. He has endured destruction of property, all in attempts to intimidate him from his views on homosexuality, and returned only love and hope to those who have wronged him.

What we do agree on is marriage equality -- equal gender representation in marriage. It is something that people have fought for over millennia, and reversing that with making segregation (homosexuality) the new integration. We agree on the importance of responsibility in procreation in preserving in-tact family bonds (which are by definition shared only between a child and the parents who gave them birth). Those are special bonds, and the responsibility shared in them are foundations for a particular altruism responsible for the day-in and day-out of social progress. Its not the sole pillar of social progress, but it is the one we call marriage.

You are promoting the equalization, forcibly by state regulation and dominance, of sex segregation and sex integration. Tell that to the interracial couple. Tell the segregated schools, that you feel that is forced and wrong, that there must be a publicly supported segregated school for fairness sake. That they must be as equal, the segregated school, as the integrated one. Or just tell that to the interracial couple :)

Because no one on Opine is against interracial marriages. No one even borrows such arguments. No one says that God never meant for homosexuals to get together, because no one there is out to keep homosexuals from getting together. But the ideals of equal gender representation, and the fairness to children to have parents ready with a commitment of marriage to raise their children with the same commitment. Those ideals are not attacking homosexuality, banning it, outlawing it, or even oppressing it. Let the ideal of homosexuality stand up and claim its credit -- on its own merits. This isn't bigotry, it is simply big of them to help out people who are big enough, tolerant enough, to not only tolerate but be devoted to the opposite gender, and the children they have together.

But that does bring up...

2) The deletion policy on Opine. Deleting profanity is something that everyone who has had it happen has agreed to. Even Opine editors have had their posts deleted for profanity, and if there are cases you know of where profanity still exists, let me know. You are deputized to the cause, and I will personally either edit the post, or delete the comment.

All comments deleted are invited to return without the offenses. Which range from personal attacks (which Fanny suggested, and we have held her to and Jane ever since) to profanity, to special cases like John Howard who acts much like a Amway salesman at a dinner party always injecting their own sales pitch into every conversation going on. In John's case he is welcome to email us posts which we will gladly post for him on Opine, but for the sake of the conversations that happen in the comment section, he is banned from dominating them with his sales pitch.

Reading the comments Jane, Grace, and Michael have left show that dissent is not only tolerated it is welcomed. It drives good discussion. But be prepared, if you can't present your points, it probably is better to run back to your own echo chambers for safety. We are very good at scrutinizing points, which if you feel that is metaphorical lynching or ganging up on you, then again perhaps a more accommodating echo chamber is what you seek for.


Which brings up the question, here is another link. It asks a question. Please answer honestly, as this is for posterity.

On Lawn said...

r.k., I urge you to look beyond all that, if you can, and see where your true opposition to gay marriage lies.

This reminds me of Star Wars...

"Search your feelings Luke, you know it is true..."

Sincerely Jane, you presume to know a lot about people you just met. Especially in how you completely over-reached in vain conclusions in this article.

The simple fact of the matter is that marriage equality, equal gender representation, does not require any gay animus at all. Over the years I've even cataloged the brave homosexuals who support equal gender representation in marriage, as well. One of them, Steve Yuhas, has even cataloged the intimidation and threats he's received from the gay community for his efforts to simply have them clean up the gay image a little.

Thought Experiment: How would your community members, the people on this site treat you if you finally decided that equal gender representation in marriage, gender integration, was as good a notion to give government support to as integration in the schools? How yould they take the news that you finally said, "Hey everyone, we really can support marriage and be perfectly tolerant of homosexuality". Would they treat you with tolerance and respect? You tell me. How long would it take for them to start coming up with wild accusations, which are over-reaching and false, to try to discredit you the same way you work so feverishly to discredit Opine?

John said...

On Lawn said:

"How yould they take the news that you finally said, "Hey everyone, we really can support marriage and be perfectly tolerant of homosexuality"."

I would hope such news would not be well received as in you statement is a serious error.

It is not possible to defend "tradition marriage" and still be perfectly tolerant of homosexuality". And your choice of worlds is insulting.

There is only ONE REASON to oppose same sex marriage, ONLY ONE:

That reason is this:

You want to deny LGBTI people their equal dignity.

And in my humble opinion that makes you a fuckwad.

R.K. said...

John (and others can answer if they wish):

What, then, is your attitude toward gays who take this position (the one that On Lawn describes)themselves?

John said...

"What, then, is your attitude toward gays who take this position (the one that On Lawn describes)themselves?"

I actually know such a person. He is "ex-gay" and I think him an idiot.

He is only an idiot at this point because he doesn't work to destroy marriage rights for gays. (Remember, I live in Massachusetts).

If he starts doing that, he will be upgraded to fuckwad.

Rachel M. said...

"You are promoting the equalization, forcibly by state regulation and dominance, of sex segregation and sex integration. Tell that to the interracial couple. Tell the segregated schools, that you feel that is forced and wrong, that there must be a publicly supported segregated school for fairness sake. That they must be as equal, the segregated school, as the integrated one. Or just tell that to the interracial couple :)"

Are you suggesting that there are several men walking the streets with their heads hung low because yet, ANOTHER lesbian couple wouldn't allow them into their relationship? And further, are you suggesting that the government should make them do so...that is if they'd like to be married?

Jane Know said...

On Lawn, you have a big opinion of yourselves over at Opine, if you think the reasons people leave your blog are your remarkable abilities to "scrutinize points."

Ha.

I have already stated the reasons I don't go over to your blog, and instead prefer the confines of my own... where you won't delete my comments, accusing me of profanity or personal attacks, when there have been none.

Your Op-Ed is on a major power trip over there, and it just becomes exasperating to finally be getting somewhere with someone, and have him delete my comments.

If you want sincere, honest debate my best advice is to have him stop doing that. Or if you are doing it, to stop, as well.

How can you possibly say that letting Jose (and Culturologist and others) calling homosexuals vile, perverted, etc is not a personal attack when arguing with a gay person?

What if instead, I went to a website where Jose was arguing for Latino rights. And I said, "I love Latinos, but they just aren't my equal as a white person. Their traditions are repulsive and perverted and they must be stopped from getting married."

I have no idea why he was "attacked" or whatever else you claim happened to him, but I doubt it is merely for stating his opinions.

What you and your friends over there have is the remarkable ability to mischaracterize your opposition's arguments, and act deliberately obtuse. You also make up your own vocabulary, that no one else uses or understands, and then claim to have "won" when people stop arguing with you because they don't know what the hell you are talking about, after many attempts to have you clarify what you mean.

I've already debated in great detail your main argument, which I believe is 1.) homosexual relationships are "sex segregative," and since they don't have "equal gender representation" they shouldn't be allowed.

There are many reasons that is a horrible analogy, but that isn't the point. The point is that I no longer take SSM arguments with you seriously because of you dishonest tactics.

r.k.-you asked what we would think of gay people who don't believe gays should get married, it makes no difference to me whether my opposition is gay or straight. If they are anti-SSM, then I disagree with them.

Just because someone else is gay, doesn't mean I automatically agree with everything they say and do. The same way you probably know many straight people who are in favor of gay marriage.

I don't really understand what you were trying to prove when asking that, other than that gays and lesbians are pretty damn diverse in their political ideas.

Jane Know said...

And if your blog was only about "protecting marriage," then why do you post so many non-related, anti-gay articles?

Thought experiment: Suppose someone started a "Protect the Rights of Gays" blog. Yet instead of talking about positive actions people could do to protect their rights, they instead wrote mainly anti-heterosexual articles....Like how some characters in Harry Potter are straight. And how straight, married men are the #1 perpetrators of pedophilia and incest.

You just don't get it. I don't think you ever will.

Again, your lack of empathy is frightening. For, you don't ever try to put yourselves in our shoes to see how it might feel to be called horrible names and to be blamed for the marital problems of heterosexuals.

R.K. said...

Rachel before: "but with the issue of SSM, given all of the evidence proving that there is no risk of victimization of persons or populations by legalizing SSM..."

Rachel after: "This is as close as we can get to projected evidence about ssm. LIKE all changes in legislation, one can only project based on exiting studies. You cannot study something that does not yet exist. I feel like you should know that".

Do I have to point out the obvious here....?

"The research on same-sex coupling and parenting is in. The children and families are doing NO WORSE than hetero-sexual households".

Several researchers have examined the studies themselves, and found that most contained fatal methodological flaws. I will try to locate the links to them if you wish. One was by Professor Steven Nock of the University of Virginia, who is a neutral on the issue of SSM. (I know, I know, "or so he says"). But for now, I won't even go there. Read what those who are pro-SSM say about whether or not the studies are "in" or "prove" anything:

http://www.slate.com/id/2097048/

I have a number of questions about the studies, too, one big one being whether or not the parents of the children being studied are themselves aware of them being studied, and whether or not they have to approve of their participation. This is relevant to whether or not the studies are reliable.

"Also, please provide me with the link that recorded the African American community being A) compared to the gay community and the potential for ssm during the civil rights movement and B) being insulted by that. I smell more homo-bigot demagogy."

I heard the arguments myself plenty of times. Granted, not in magazines, but verbally, for whatever difference that is supposed to make. (I could go and search through magazines of that period, and I'd probably find plenty of examples, but frankly it's a waste of time just to prove to your satisfaction that I'm not making this up). And granted, not before Loving, as I was too young at that time to have a good memory of it, but during the 60s and into the 70s, when interracial marriage was legal but still not well accepted. I can tell you from memory that if a "what's next" was mentioned by opponents, it was far more likely to be same-sex marriage than polygamy or incestuous marriage, and yes, interracial couples and those that supported them found this analogy insulting. Jane, please note also, as this invalidates the point you're trying to make in your analogy.

"Oh, and by the way; bigot is defined by me as one intolerantly devoted to his or her own prejudices or opinions."

Another case where I should not even have to point out the obvious.

Jane: "So basically, what it comes down to for you is your appeal to tradition. In other words, you are saying men and women have only been allowed to get married in the past, therefore that proves that it is the one and only right way to form a union."

What I'm saying is that: 1) culture is a highly complex organism; 2) it is highly unpredictable how major changes can effect highly complex organisms; 3) that there are always more ways things can go wrong than go right; 4) that it is thus fair to first ask "did it work anywhere in the past"; 5) that the argument that it (an androgynized concept of marriage) was not found because it was never thought of seems highly improbable, particularly considering how tolerant many cultures were of homosexuality; 6) that this, all together, gives us good reason to suspect that it has been tried and has failed, before the experiment even got recorded.

"There is no legitimate evidence saying gay marriage is harmful to anyone. That is your basic inclination based on your bias against homosexuals. Sorry. study the research, pal. Study your own faulty logic."

Again, there is no evidence about the effect of gay marriage on culture, period. (See above). It's a step in the dark.

"You call that "identity politics" I call it unfair mischaracterizations".

You still don't understand what is meant by "identity politics". It's about the inclination among many in society to take just one among many facets of their identity as a person and define all of their political positions around that facet alone. This is not just about gays, or racial or religious groups; it has sadly become even true about the political parties.

"I can't count the variations in marriage that have existed over time."

Yes, and you I'm sure would admit that many of those variations (polygamy, child marriage, etc.) do not "work", but one thing hasn't varied: it's always been understood as between men and women (long term, anyway).

"You can't arbitrarily place restrictions of marriage to same sex couples (who have been historically repressed for centuries, thus there is no "tradition" of marriage for them), when marriage has changed so greatly over time and across cultures. How egocentric of you."

First of all, homosexuals have been accepted in many cultures throughout history, as anthropologists have long noted, and this fact only makes the lack of long-term androgynized marriage in any cultures all the more puzzling for those who argue that "it can't possibly hurt".

My point is this: Androgynization of marriage is a step in the dark. We have no idea where it leads. It is a radical change to a highly complex system. Just like adding unknown elements into the environment or ecosystem. I suppose, though, that if anyone had, years ago, argued that what we were putting into our atmosphere would one day cause our lowlands to be flooded out, and all the other effects of global warming, they would have been laughed off and dismissed with cries of "Prove it!", and by your way of thinking, that would have been just fine.

That was the point of my analogy. The point of yours was the fallacious reasoning that we can dismiss arguments about change B merely because similar arguments were made once about change A. This is fallacious because it neglects to point out that A and B have major differences, and thus the success of one cannot be used to assume success for the other.

R.K. said...

Jane: "r.k.-you asked what we would think of gay people who don't believe gays should get married, it makes no difference to me whether my opposition is gay or straight. If they are anti-SSM, then I disagree with them."

"Just because someone else is gay, doesn't mean I automatically agree with everything they say and do. The same way you probably know many straight people who are in favor of gay marriage."

"I don't really understand what you were trying to prove when asking that, other than that gays and lesbians are pretty damn diverse in their political ideas."


You're backpedaling, Jane. Now you just "disagree with them". The whole argument you've been making through this blog is that SSM is an undebatable, irrefutable right and that the only people doubting this are bigots, not just people you respectfully disagree with. My point should thus have been obvious. It's essentially the one you just stated, but this does not match with what you've said before.

Jane Know said...

r.k.-I am sorry you are so pessimistic about the potential effects of gay marriage. Are you this pessimistic about each and every aspect of social change, or just the ones involving gay people?

Are you this resistant to all forms of change?

For each of your scenarios and hypotheticals (the DDT example and others), I can list a thousand more social changes that were once considered "radical" that are now seen as signs of a more tolerant, loving society.

Remember racial integration and schools? The end of slavery? Women's suffrage?

I have never once said that this issue is "undebatable" as you claim. Otherwise, what would I be doing debating the issue and writing articles about it?

Furthermore, I have already read the Stephen Nock article that attempts to discredit most of the studies that have said gay parenting is not harmful. It isn't relevant to me whether or not he is for against gay marriage. I am curious, though, if any of the major fundie groups set him up to it and/or paid him. I have already written articles on the issue of gay parents, so I don't want to turn this into a debate about the research, which I believe speaks for itself. Maybe I'll revisit the issue in a future article.

As for that last bit you wrote about, I'd appreciate you not putting words in my mouth. Again, I have never said gay marriage is an undebatable, irrefutable right. You must be confusing me with another loud, shrill feminist lesbian woman that you read about.

But while we're on the topic, these are my real thoughts: so long as marriage is a "basic human right" for straight couples in this country, it is only fair that it be a right for gay couples. I don't think it's an irrefutable human right for ANYONE to get married. But so long as it's a legal option for heterosexual couples, it should be for gay couples, too.

R.K. said...

"Are you this resistant to all forms of change?"

No, but I do ask at least two questions:

1) How universal in human culture is the institution being considered for the change?

2) If the institution is universal, is the change that is being proposed found successfully anywhere among the myriad varieties that we find for the institution?

The other changes you mention are not comparable to SSM in this regard. Voting is far from a universal tradition. Segregated schools is certainly not a universal tradition. Slavery was always practiced somewhere (indeed, it unfortunately still is), but it was never practiced everywhere. (Actually, slavery is more properly compared with vices like thievery and murder than with traditions. There are other reasons why the comparison is faulty, but I'll have to discuss that in a longer post, as it involves the relationship of slavery to capitalism, colonialism, and expansionism.)
The "Columbus Argument", as David Stove called it, has flaws big enough to drive a truck through.

"I have never once said that this issue is "undebatable" as you claim. Otherwise, what would I be doing debating the issue and writing articles about it?"

No, you never used the word "undebatable", but when you imply that the other side has no argument at all and that bigotry is the only reason why anyone would disagree with you, this is the clear implication, regardless of whether or not you allow the other side to post here.

on Nock: "I am curious, though, if any of the major fundie groups set him up to it and/or paid him".

I'm curious, too, but this is less relevant than the question of whether or not he is right about the methodological flaws. Identifying sources of funding in and of themselves does not refute the arguments or evidence in a study they fund. And are you also curious as to whether or not the same "fundie groups" paid off Judith Stacey, and the author of the article I linked to?

"Again, I have never said gay marriage is an undebatable, irrefutable right. You must be confusing me with another loud, shrill feminist lesbian woman that you read about."

A couple of posters on this blog, whom I don't have to name as they are quite obvious, have clearly stated, albeit in slightly different words, that they do believe the issue is "undebatable' and that bigotry is the only reason why anyone would disagree with them.

"But while we're on the topic, these are my real thoughts: so long as marriage is a "basic human right" for straight couples in this country, it is only fair that it be a right for gay couples. I don't think it's an irrefutable human right for ANYONE to get married. But so long as it's a legal option for heterosexual couples, it should be for gay couples, too."

Okay, that's a fair and reasonable statement of your feelings on the issue, and I respect it, even if I feel that it still begs some questions.

John said...

"A couple of posters on this blog, whom I don't have to name as they are quite obvious, have clearly stated, albeit in slightly different words, that they do believe the issue is "undebatable' and that bigotry is the only reason why anyone would disagree with them."

I plead guilty, and your bullshit makes me sick.

Jane Know said...

r.k.-and several of your Opine friends, by those same "implications," have then also argued about the undebatability of SSM, too. (by claiming marriage is a "universal human right"). Are you really claiming absolute knowledge over universal human truths? Again, your argument boils down to tradition. Marriages haven't always been the same for the past couple centuries. You say now that marriage "has always been between men and women" while ignoring that there have also been same-sex relationships for millenia, as well. But due to persecution in MOST societies, gay people have had to hide their relationships, instead of "flaunting them" and getting married the way straight people get to do. There hasn't been much history of same-sex marriage because of that... not because marriage exists on its own, as some sort of universal human law. Marriage is a sociological construct, not a law of nature. It is constantly evolving. Before interracial marriages were legalized in this country, I am sure its opponents were saying "But marriage has always been between people of the same race."

These are arbitrary "marriage" distinctions that people use to justify their prejudice. Maybe you aren't overtly anti-gay in your real life or when you interact with gay people. But the fact that you seemingly deny the existence of same-sex relationships for millenia, and the persecution they have faced by most societies as a reason for the lack in gay marriage, says otherwise about your thoughts, at least.

I agree with you that it is a basic human tendency to "pair up." But whether that is with someone of the same sex or someone of the opposite sex is a matter of sexual orientation, something which can't be controlled innately. (with delving into the "causes" of sexual orientation).

R.K. said...

"Are you really claiming absolute knowledge over universal human truths?"

Nope. Nor am I claiming that I know enough to just arbitrarily decide that humanity through all its history has just been stupid. I'm not claiming to have the answers, only that we haven't answered the questions.

"But due to persecution in MOST societies, gay people have had to hide their relationships, instead of "flaunting them" and getting married the way straight people get to do"

Most societies, not all. So there have been societies that have accepted homosexuality. But why have THESE societies not then gone all the way and androgynized the concept of marriage? Still a begged question.

"Before interracial marriages were legalized in this country, I am sure its opponents were saying 'But marriage has always been between people of the same race.'"

And that would not have been true, as a little historical research would have shown them.

Really, though, I respect that you and I are of different opinions on this matter. The problem with dogmatism is not so much that it insists on the answers as that it denies the questions. I maintain that with a proposed change as radical as this, we need to ask all the questions we can. Those who deny skeptics the respect in asking their questions, well, if all they can do is call names and curt dismissals, that tells us more about them than about those who they are calling names.

John said...

"I maintain that with a proposed change as radical as this, we need to ask all the questions we can."

Basically fairness is not radical.

And we all know why same-sex marriage was not practiced in societies where homosexuality was tolerated.

No mystery; nothing radical; nothing to see here.

R.K. said...

John knows everything. I got that. John has achieved perfect wisdom. Nothing left to learn.

John said...

"John knows everything. I got that. John has achieved perfect wisdom. Nothing left to learn."

John ignores all the silly studies and authoritarian assholes and talks to real people.

All it takes to know the truth about gay relationships is just to get to know a few gay couples. I guarantee you will find that their relationships are identical to straight relationships in every pertinent way.

Identical

You have nothing to fear. Nothing will change in your life if gays marry each other. I guarantee it.

Nothing bad will happen to the country or the world.

But, and this is the important thing.

All kinds of GOOD things will happen.

Jane Know said...

John, exactly. I don't see equality as a "radical change."

And again, r.k., if you are saying that I resort to name-calling, remember your Opine friends who frequently call gay people radical, extreme, egocentric, self-centered, immoral, unnatural, perveted, vile, depraved, unhealthy, and disgusting.

Also remember that the invite for comparison between the hateful Watchmen and Opine Editorials was their own idea. Not mine. I just chose to write about an expose their ideas to more people.

I respect that you disagree with me, as well. We all have the right to form our own opinions. I doubt anything I say would get you to change your mind on the issue, or vice versa. I'm not influenced by hypothetical harms that the research thus far has shown to not even exist. I don't believe that because something *may* happen, though very unlikely, that is a basis for denying equality to a group of people who have been traditionally frowned upon in this society.

I can't think of many scenarios where making society more inclusive and more tolerant has been a bad thing. But to get to that point, one has to rid himself or herself of prejudice towards gay people, and believing that they are--for the most part--just like everyone else. That they aren't gay through any fault of their own, that they certainly don't *choose* to be attracted to members of the same sex, and that that attraction must be so strong that, even when society forbids it, makes it illegal, and/or persecutes it, they act on it anyway. Because living a lie and/or pretending to be heterosexual or being asexual makes them generally unhappy.

r.k., perhaps you like gay people. Maybe, in fact, you have lots of gay friends. But it is fair to say that the majority of people who oppose gay marriage do so because they don't understand gay people, hate them, and/or are scared of them.

And I do believe, as John states, that the gay couples who want to get married (and not all of them do) are exactly like heterosexual couples in every way (genitalia aside). The current trends say that the more familiar you are with a gay person or people, the more likely you are to favor gay rights and gay marriage.

I think most of this stems from the fact that once gays are no longer "unknown," most people realize that they are just like everyone else. So would you be able to look at your "friends" in the face and tell them they are a dangerous social experiment that shouldn't be allowed to get married?

Rachel M. said...

"I have a number of questions about the studies, too, one big one being whether or not the parents of the children being studied are themselves aware of them being studied, and whether or not they have to approve of their participation. This is relevant to whether or not the studies are reliable.”

In response to this; they have to. We need permission to study living people. It's pretty much the 1st question IRB asks the researcher.

You keep holding onto the inconclusive findings angle. Take for example the heart transplant. All of the data was gathered. The research was done. And when it was probable that it would work, the surgery happened. We were unable to gather stats on the thing itself until the ACTUAL transplants occurred. The legalization of gay marriage is NOT a "shot in the dark." There has been research done on same-sex couple and same sex-parenting. These things already happen...successfully. The only change that will happen in SSM (as opposed to same-sex unions) is a change in rhetoric that will facilitate equality and normalization. That being said, I stand by my position that anyone who claims to be in favor of same-sex unions and NOT of ssm is in fact, a bigot who doesn't want to share their language. Why? Because without that difference in label how else can you separate "US" from "THEM?" How else will you be able to say, "We’re first-class citizens and they're second class.”?

Jane Know said...

Also, r.k., name a couple of these societies that have not frowned upon gay relationships. Ancient Greece? But that more of a mentor/student role than a legit homosexual relationship. Yet I guarantee adult consensual homosexual relationships existed back then. I'm not aware of any societies that have looked at two-adult homosexuality as a "good" or "normal" thing. Now that that is changing in many countries, and people are realizing that gays are not a bad thing, the logical next step is marriage.

R.K. said...

"Also, r.k., name a couple of these societies that have not frowned upon gay relationships".

You have heard of the Native American berdaches, have you not?

Rachel: "In response to this; they have to. We need permission to study living people. It's pretty much the 1st question IRB asks the researcher."

And I agree, we should, but don't you see how this alone renders the studies unreliable? Parents who sense that their kids have problems will say no while those who feel their kids are fine will say yes. Also, the researcher can try to hide the purpose of the study, but gay parents, and the kids of gay parents, most likely suspect that this is what it's really about whenever they are asked to participate in a study. Plus, some "coaching" cannot be ruled out.

"So would you be able to look at your "friends" in the face and tell them they are a dangerous social experiment that shouldn't be allowed to get married?"

I have explained my skepticism to several gay friends and relatives. One is highly skeptical himself and agrees with my concerns. Several others say they respectfully disagree but understand and respect my argument, and a few others just say I couldn't understand unless I was gay. As you said, Jane, the gay population is not monolithic in its feelings on this.

What all of you fail to see is this: The limits of your imagination are not the limits of reality. You can't see how something might go wrong, but your inability to see it (or mine) tells us nothing about all the possible ways that things might go wrong, or, for that matter, about the likely smaller number of ways they may go right. Essentially, you are taking a gamble, whether you see it or not. You are all willing to take the gamble. I need a lot more convincing. Is this a fair assessment of our differences?

John said...

"You can't see how something might go wrong, but your inability to see it (or mine) tells us nothing about all the possible ways that things might go wrong, or, for that matter, about the likely smaller number of ways they may go right. Essentially, you are taking a gamble, whether you see it or not. You are all willing to take the gamble. I need a lot more convincing. Is this a fair assessment of our differences?"

You are simply an authoritarian.

Let me clue in. We who back equality are sick and tired of this bizarre concept that we have to ask you for permission.

We are asking only one thing from the likes of you. Get out of the way. We and the kids of today are past your silly notions and we are moving on.

R.K. said...

If you want us to stop arguing so badly, John, you want us out of the way, you can kill us! Then see how that helps your cause.

People who are afraid of argument always resort to this kind of talk as an act of desperation.

Jane, please tell me who there is at Opine that is allowed to talk like this. Then I will give some credence to the possibility that their blog is as hateful as this one. Otherwise, your reference to Opine as "hateful" is a classic example of pot calling kettle black.

Jane Know said...

r.k.-
so basically will any amount of evidence ever convince you? probably not.

You all keeping talking about the dangers gay marriage would bring, without really saying what those dangers are. Could you enlighten us?

Okay, so you can name one society that did not frown upon gays and lesbians who did not offer "marriage" to gays and lesbians. Would you agree that there are many, many more who do frown on gays and lesbians, and that is the reason they (of course) don't allow gay marriages?

I don't see how anyone can see it any other way.

I agree with John that it sounds like you are authoritarian. Let me guess: Is your basis for denying gays the right to get married built upon the premise that it will then only be a matter of time till incestuous relationships and polygamists are allowed to get married? Till people are allowed to marry their pet goats?

Well, why don't we wait and cross that bridge when we come to it.

It that a valid reason to deny marriage to a healthy relationship between two consenting adults of the same sex?

Do you believe that gay people deserve equal treatment under the law?

I agree, the limits of *all of our* imaginations are exceeded by the limits of reality.

We will NEVER know for sure what the results are going to be of a potential new social change. Without that proverbial crystal ball, that is impossible.

The difference is that I tend to see society and this country in general from a more humanistic, positive standpoint, while you and fundamentalists see it from a pessimistic, "people are sinners: and need to be morally contained standpoint.

I stand firm when I say that acceptance, love, and tolerance are rarely ever bad things.

The gay marriage issue will probably follow the course of most civil rights issues: from radical, to liberal, to mainstream. It's already on its way, especially in the younger generation. The more stubborn, conservative older folks of my parent's generation will soon be left in the dust. Of course, that is just my opinion (before you tell me to whip out my crystal ball).

Rachel M. said...

r.k.
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/fanniesroom/1431166814796256142/

Jane Know said...

sorry, r.k., i don't see the harm in calling you authoritarian. i've been called MUCH worse over at opine. by culturologist, by marty, by jose.

and my comment policy is stated in my "about me" section... i had to add it because of some the opiners, who were "anonymously" telling lesbians to commit suicide.

i have also been a lot more liberal in what i allow on my site than they have. if people want to say fuck or shit once in a while, i allow it.

i see in no way where John threatened to kill you, as you imply.

i don't know why you are so threatened by him. to insinuate that he physically threatened you in any way is dishonest and a serious accusation.

gay people are beat up and killed all the time by gay-bashers, yet you ignored that part of this original article (the part about the Indian man being killed by Russian men in California for being a "faggot.") that's most of the reason gay marriage should be allowed. by keeping gays and lesbians "in their place" or giving them an alternative "civil union" with *some* of the rights and benefits of marriage treats them and their relationships like second-class citizens, as Rachel said. That carries a lot of undertones, including that is still acceptable for people to kick some "pansy-ass fag's" ass for being a sissy. don't believe that this still happens? go over the the "free republic" and read some of their comments about gay people.

i don't condone violence, as a method of solving conflict or in retaliation of it, for the record.

but if you can dish out the insults and personal attacks as you did with John, i certainly also expect you to be able to take them once in a while.

Rachel M. said...

r.k.
also, check out a man named culturologist. he posts at opine and often on jane's blog. he pulled his own blog, so it's not always easy to find him, but he's an a snippet of the respectful opine-er

"The Culturologist said...
Why on earth would I urge you to commit suicide? You're so much fun to observe, Fannie. A walking talking stereotype of the loud shrill feminist know nothing. "

yes. a very logical and repectful way to debate.

John said...

I am emboldened perhaps more than I should be because I live in Massachusetts.

Here, the bigots are losing fast. They tried to take away rights acknowledged by our Supreme Judicial Court, but we fought for 3 years to stop the petition and when we won, well, we gloated perhaps more than we should have.

So when I say "get out of the way" I certainly don't mean I or any of my cohorts would physically do anything.

But here in Massachusetts we can afford to proceed with a little more confidence.

We WILL repeal the 1913 bigot law and allow the residents of other states to come here to marry.

We will make Massachusetts the best state in the nation for fair minded people.

And we lead the nation in marriage quality.

And all the while the bigots have reduced to whining on radio shows where they have to pay to get on the air.

So maybe it's a tougher row to hoe where you are, but here, we're just moving on, leaving the bigots in the dust. We don't want to hear about democracy, we're too busy getting things done.

Again, I guarantee it.

Nothing bad can come from recognizing,in the most public way possible, loving relationships.

Jane Know said...

for reference, r.k. (it looks like you were in on the discussion, too), here is what people like Jose are allowed to say on other anti-gay blogs and Opine:

"Yes Arturo, I think you are right but for the wrong reason. I don’t think it has anything to do with ethnic prejudice.

Homosexualists try very hard to silence me because of my uncompromising position on their perverse behaviors. Much as I care for them as people, their aberrant sexual practices cannot be condoned and are a terrible impediment to their actualizing their full potential as human beings. They can’t stand that I do not take seriously their mock marriages and their fallacious, empty and contradictory arguments by which they seek to justify their gross conduct and desensitize the gullible masses to what they do to each other. I tell it as it is. Their sexual practices are an abomination.

Well, of course they are not going to like me and think I’m quite rude, to say the least. How dare I say such a thing when they are working so hard to convince themselves and everyone else that theirs is a normal and healthy lifestyle, indeed that it’s their actual identity. What nonsense!

Some wish to so aggrandize their moral turpitude as to use the term for obscene sexual behavior, “gay”, to denote the appreciation of sublime, intelligent and creative non-perverse acts. So coming from you I am to take it as a compliment that I “have more of a gay marriage than most straights do.”

People engaging in homosexual acts can do any number of wonderful things and have great appreciation of the arts. Likewise with the adulterer or abortionist or zoophile. Some years back I had wonderful neighbor who was an excellent cellist, a friend of Yoko Ono, who cared for her dog so much she would masturbate him so that he might be happy. Is there a law against that? I don’t know. It’s certainly a behavior I cannot condone and by Old Testament standards she would have been stoned to death. I’m a pacifist so I wouldn’t go that far. I don’t think that because we both appreciate and are involved in the arts she would “compliment” my marriage by saying we “have more of a zoophile marriage than most straight people.” Can you appreciate the analogy?

I wish you wellness and spiritual growth.

AdiĆ³s. ¡Viva la raza!

7:52 PM, July 10, 2007" http://gruntledcenter.blogspot.com/2007/06/blankenhorns-three-rules-of-marriage.html

Do you perhaps see why this kind of speech is harmful to gay people? And why it's hypocritical to allow comments like this, but delete others by their opponents.

Jane Know said...

fuckin' moron.

Rachel M. said...

r.k.
or how about the polite rhetoric that is
"Thanks for that one, Jane. The mask comes completely off and we get to see the monstrous Gorgon underneath. Just right for Halloween.

I'm sorry, I'm not speaking your language. GRUNT! GRUNT! UGH! UGH!"

do your research, man! Do you honestly think we're going to play nice when we've tried reason, logic, emotion, and presenting research findings from highly respected unbiased sources, and we are still met with bullshit responses criticizing our character and lifestyles? When it all comes down to it, OPINE THINKS GAY PEOPLE ARE LESS THAN STRAIGHT PEOPLE AND DO NOT DESERVE TO BE TREATED AS EQUALS.

Jane Know said...

I agree, Rachel. Every now and again, they let their prejudice slip through.

Grace said...

Woah!!! I leave for a couple of days and all hell breaks loose?

I have a couple of things to say on the subject, but since I don't just cut and paste all of the same comments into different discussions (cough Fitz cough Renee cough Jose) it might take me a little time.

I do feel confidant in saying RK is a fucknut.

We are allowed to say fucknut on this blog, right? I mean, I wouldn't want to appear uncivil...

R.K. said...

"so basically will any amount of evidence ever convince you? probably not."

Yes. Forty years of SSM with minimal negative effects.

"You all keeping talking about the dangers gay marriage would bring, without really saying what those dangers are. Could you enlighten us?"

Reducing it to one paragraph, it's that the general cultural concept of "boy meets girl" in regard to marriage...and hence dating, romance, attraction and everything else related as well....will be replaced by one of "person meets person". No, it will not be "boy meets girl" for heteros and "boy meets boy" for gay males and "girl meets girl" for lesbians, it will be "person meets person" for all....because "boy meets girl" is "heteosexist". Anyone disagree that this is what's intended? Anyway, it's about the effects of that, not about whether or not Adam marrying Steve threatens any heterosexual's already intact marriage. And knowing good, outstanding gay couples tells us nothing about the effects of the conceptual change.

"Okay, so you can name one society that did not frown upon gays and lesbians who did not offer "marriage" to gays and lesbians".

Actually, the berdache or its equivalent was a feature of many cultures, not just one.

"Well, why don't we wait and cross that bridge when we come to it."

Because by then it may be too late to undo the damage.

"Do you believe that gay people deserve equal treatment under the law?"

In almost all cases, yes. (I'll believe the Boy Scouts should be forced to hire gay scoutmasters if the Girl Scouts are told they must allow heterosexual males as scoutmasters. That would be equality).

"I stand firm when I say that acceptance, love, and tolerance are rarely ever bad things".

Agreed. The problem is, we don't even really know that SSM will lead to this at all. Though it may seem paradoxical, there is a good possibility, maybe even a probability, that it will have the opposite effect down the line. And you have nothing but wishful thinking to support the belief that SSM will end gay bashing incidents. I would not be surprised at all if it caused an increase, though that should not be used as an argument against SSM any more than your prediction of a decrease should be used as an argument for it.

"i see in no way where John threatened to kill you, as you imply."

And if you read what I said, you'll see that I never accused him of that. I said, that if he wants me to "get out of the way" (which I interpret to mean shut up and stop arguing your points), that is what he'll have to do.

Now, what Opiners have told you guys to "get out of the way"? Sorry, but trying to intimidate us from speaking our minds is worse, in my opinion, than namecalling is.

Or this: "We don't want to hear about democracy, we're too busy getting things done."

No need to say any more about that. The implications should be obvious.

Many of the Opine comments you've pointed out should not have been made. I will do what I can to discourage them. But if you don't want me to tell you how to run your blog, then don't lump me in by guilt-by-association with every off the wall statement you may find on Opine. Especially when so many of you here use namecalling as a replacement for argument.

Jane Know said...

So basically we're down to this: you think gay marriage will be bad for society and I think it will be good for society. I respect your position, and I can see your side of it. But I respectfully disagree. I think it is similar to many other civil rights issues that were once considered unthinkable and radical, but will eventually be accepted.

I fail to see the harm in the person/person dynamic you believe will occur when gay marriage is passed. I think society is trending towards fewer gender distinctions in general, as technology, industrialization, bioengineering, etc replace the old model of stronger-dominant-male-hunters and weaker-submissive-female-gatherers with both male and female heads of households. I don't see how that is a bad thing.

Gender distinctions now are usually repressive and polarize the males and females when they could be working together as a more cohesive unit if those distinctions were always made.

I also think that too many excuses are given to both men and women, based on gender alone when that often has nothing to do with it. The "boys will be boys" mentality, for example, to excuse certain behavior. Or the common misconception that only men can excel in math and science. Or that only women are emotional.

But I am sure that is where I differ in opinion with many people on the Traditional Family side of things.

I thank you for your civility, however. I think you and I have gotten further than I have with many other bloggers as a result of that in most of our exchanges.

Jane Know said...

I should add, just for the record, that by "bioengineering" I wasn't talking about it in a John Howard kind of way. ;-)

I meant this (per the Wikipedia definition): "Biological engineering (also biosystems engineering and bioengineering) deals with engineering biological processes in general. It is a broad-based engineering discipline that also may involve product design, sustainability and analysis of biological systems. In other words, Bioengineering is a discipline that applies engineering principles to biological systems for the purpose of developing new technologies of services to improve the living standards of societies. It exploits the new developments in molecular biology, biochemistry, microbiology, cell metabolism and engineering principles and applies them in order to understand living systems and to bring solutions to various problems associated with these systems."

Basically, that we have more control over our health, biology, metabolism, hormones, etc. through technology and everything related than our ancestors we evolved from tens of thousands of years ago, thus the gender differences really aren't as necessary or important.

R.K. said...

Jane, I thank you, too, for your civility. And I respect your position, and I'm going to let you have the last word. Take care and have a happy Thanksgiving.

Rachel M. said...

r.k.

"Yes. Forty years of SSM with minimal negative effects."

And how do you propose we determine the effects without first legalizing ssm? As I said before, the research on same-sex couples and same-sex parenting has been done. The majority of psycho-social fields/publications/studies/institutions/agencies/leaders have given it the thumbs up (as far as determining whether or not families and the nation will be negatively affected. The answer is no). Are you ready for a 40 year trial run?

Jane Know said...

Thanks, r.k., you have a good Thanksgiving, too.

Fannie said...

More enlightenment from Senor Solano:

"Yes Culturologist, that’s exactly the goal the homosexualist movement is heading towards, the creation of hate speech legislation. They want everyone to love and affirm perverse sexual practices. They realize that’s impossible so the next best thing is to smother any statement that even intimates there is something intrinsically wrong with their aberrant behaviors. But millions of us will not be pressured into evading the obvious truth that has always been known. We will continue to provide the facts about these unhealthy and immoral behaviors though we may be maligned or even persecuted."

http://opine-editorials.blogspot.com/2007/06/apostasy-and-heresy-part-1.html#c4968734690136861896


But wait, there's more!

"We have a deconstruction work of our own to do in dismantling the myth that somehow a man having anal intercourse, or other thoroughly aberrant sexual behavior, with another man could possibly relate to a marriage regardless of any “lifetime commitment.” We must without any compromise whatsoever continually emphasize that it is not only preposterous to imagine such a relationship could possibly constitute a marriage, but that the relationship itself is an absurdity, an act of grave depravity. You see, the anus is simply not designed to be penetrated by the penis.

Now, I emphasize that within the depths of the psyche the absurdity of the homosexual relationship is recognized, albeit unconsciously, even by the homosexual. The homosexual forever struggles with this contradiction of being a man or a woman yet being sexually attracted to his/her own sex.

Somehow, though I’ve been speaking of this absurdity from varied perspective since I was invited on this blog—just check my other posts for my frequent statements on the absurd—now it is suggested that such commentary would be better suited to some other sites. What a coup for the homosexualists if they can pull everyone’s attention away from the absurdity and depravity of homosexual behaviors. They’ve been working very hard to desensitize society to this preposterous relationship and they hate to have people focus on what they actually do.

One thing is explaining what marriage is and another thing is clarifying what a homosexual relationship is. If we wish to protect marriage from a homosexual takeover we must not ignore describing what an absurdity the homosexual relationship is in actuality. Why ignore the truth about this relationship if we seek to defend marriage?"

(http://opine-editorials.blogspot.com/2007/09/responding-to-absurd.html#c8137259071270270993)

And so on.

(sarcasm) THE BURNING QUESTION, FOLKS, IS THIS: HOW COULD A SITE OR A BLOG THAT PERMITS SUCH SPEECH POSSIBLY BE CONSIDERED BIGOTED??

It's just unfair! (/sarcasm)

Can you imagine replacing homosexual with Latino and such a tirade not being called "bigotry"? And imagine Jose not being offended or felt as though he were under personal attack?

You see, RK, not everyone who disagrees with us is a bigot. But many of them are. Jose is one such person, and Jane's articles about him are meant to expose his bigotry and the hypocrisy of calling himself a loving Christian when he is one of the most (THE most?) intolerant, bigoted people on the Opine site.

And I, for one, will not be persuaded otherwise by secondhand stories from his buddies about how he truly loves gay people in real life and has gay friends and is nice to them and buys them rainbows and sno-cones and ponies.

You see, the only label you have to fear is "bigot." Our labels are depraved, unnatural, asburd, etc. and also "intolerant" of some people's intolerance.


And for the record "On Lawn" and others, the comments of mine that Op-Ed deleted in the past on Opine, were not personal attacks. Of course, since he deleted them, there is (conveniently) no way to prove that. (I don't have file of my internet comments that I save before posting, although Op-Ed seems to think that's standard). My deleted comments were statements about how other people were mischaracterizing what I had said and how they were being dishonest. Yet, Op-Ed continued to delete my comments (when I was in the midst of having a civil conversation with another person) yet continued to respond to my deleted posts as though I had written strings of profane personal attacks.

Shady fella, that guy.

But, it's all good. I have simply chosen not to play anymore with crybaby cheaters :-)

Something to ponder before your eventual association with this blog RK. You are judged, as they say, by the company you keep. For better or worse. And I would rather be judged by keeping company with my so-called "potty-mouth dyke" friends than with your potty-mouth bigots.

Peace.

R.K. said...

Rachel, Fannie, I'm tempted to comment, but I think I've used up enough of your time and it's time to let you have your blog back. Happy Thanksgiving!

Rachel M. said...

r.k.
If you want to be in the blogoshere, just start your own blog. Fannie is right. Are sure you want to be associated with people like that? Thus far, they don't seem like your bag. I could be wrong.

On Lawn said...

As I read these comments, looking for the promised assault on individuals as vile, etc... I see a few things.

1) Probably best seen in Grace's attempt to chase down Fannie's claim that she was called racist:

-- Oh WAIT OH WAIT... Fannie wasn't called a racist; her comments were just "ethnically demeaning". But WAIT... her comments weren't "ethnically demeaning", Jose just "thought" they were. I just don't want to be accused of not reading carefully, thus have the rest of my point completely ignored. Zzzzzz. --

Actually, they were ethnically demeaning. It was later said that she was quoting a movie, but in investigation she added the key racial inflection to that quote. She tried to pull the wool over our eyes, and regrettably continues in that today.

This longstanding dishonesty in claims against opine are even documented by Grace, in moments of her own honesty. They are also documented in the response to the article Jane published above.

She asks in sarcasm, "THE BURNING QUESTION, FOLKS, IS THIS: HOW COULD A SITE OR A BLOG THAT PERMITS SUCH SPEECH POSSIBLY BE CONSIDERED BIGOTED??"

On further review, a blog that permits people to speak things they may not agree with is tolerant, not bigoted. Case in point, of Fannie's own website it is documented she wiped out whole conversations between her and people at Opine. And has banned Opine people from any sense of speaking. That, as it is called, is bigoted and small minded. Even if she deleted comments which did demeaned the acts of homosexuality, it would only be a small portion of the actual conversation. Yet it was the whole that was deleted and banned.

Probably the most critical example of this kind of forthright expectation of rational argument, yet acceptance of those arguments one might disagree with, is Voltaire. A pillar of the social tolerance and free speech, we today still repeat his quote, "I disagree with what you say but I defend your right to say it." Was Voltaire bigoted in that statement? No, but the attitudes here seem to have exalted their own intolerance as tolerance (see the discussion on the sign above) and others tolerance as intolerance (as in the allowance of Jose to post his views of homosexuality).

Jane asked a thought experiment about what I would do if someone was posting such views of heterosexuality. Well its not too much of a stretch, just read what I replied to when Jose was shocked to learn that Rowlings thinks Dumbledore is gay. My post on the front page continues my thoughts on the subject.

When people post what I disagree with, I discuss it rationally with them. I do not call them names, though I've endured more vicious name calling here than I care to discuss.

I have espoused here the principles of equal gender representation. Of the love of two people of opposite genders, seeing to each other's equality in the household they both founded, and the concern of children who have an innate bond to those who shared their identity with them (genetically and heritage).

And in reply I get John iterating just how incompatible the ideals of the in-tact family are to homosexuality, longing for the day we abandon such humanitarian goals to further the ambitions of a small self-established identity of individuals.

But I do appreciate that Jane has turned more civil as the conversation has gone on. I nearly expect her to re-write her untrue statements about Opine in this article, now that she has been corrected. If she wishes to turn it into simply quoting Jose, and saying it she thinks he should be censored for his thoughts on homosexuality, so be it. That is honest, and I appreciate that as the dialog she now wishes to have, having abandoned the unsubstantiated and over-reaching slanderous accusations she made earlier.

Its no big deal for you to make this step forward for honest dialog. Honesty is its own reward.

Jane Know said...

Um. What about my article is dishonest again? I don't see at all where I've "been correced."

I have reached mutual understanding and civility with the r.k. moniker. But that doesn't mean he has "corrected" me in regards to the article.

On Lawn said...

Jane, the corrections to the article above are found, as they always have been, in the response I wrote and linked to above. If you disagree with anything written, you should enumerate them. As it stands there is probably nothing left of your accusations against Opine that are still standing. If this is a piece against the Watchmen, you can turn it into such. If you feel I have erred in correcting you, please point out how and where.

I am so happy to see you turn to a path of civility with R.K., just as you did with Christian and Fitz before. That makes quite a few on Opine that you are being civil with. Its real progress, I was worried your initial prejudices against the site would be permanent.

I also believe such civility is eventually possible between you and Jose, when you two put down your weapons and actually get to know one another.

Jane Know said...

You know, it's funny, "Grandpa" On Lawn. You allow Jose's hateful comments... but you and/or Op-Ed delete much more benign ones from commenters who oppose you.

I don't think that is at all tolerant. You are tolerant of your intolerant friends, but not your more tolerant enemies. I, on the other hand, refuse to accept Jose calling gay people those horrible names (but I don't believe I have ever censored him, and hardly anyone else for that matter).

I have to agree with Fannie here. She mentioned that had Jose inserted "Latino" or "black" or "Christians" in place of homosexuals, there would have been an uproar on your site, even amongst your fellow bloggers.

While I respect anyone's decision to oppose same-sex marriage on other reasons (even when I don't agree with them), I don't respect a bigot. And I don't respect people who immediately denounce my arguments without giving them consideration... calling me "silly girl" or "shrill feminist" or "Marxist." As Marty, Culturologist, and Fitz have all done at some point(s).

EVERYONE needs to know that it is unacceptable in this day and age to continue to persecute homosexuals the way Jose and Culturologist and some others attempt to. It's dangerous, and no one deserves to be shamed, mocked, degraded, harmed, or killed solely on the basis of their sexual orientation.

Too many people still think it's acceptable.

I'm sure this is the part, On Lawn, where you whip out your "stop playing the victim card" argument, but it still happens. Maybe not in your neck of the woods. Or maybe you just couldn't possibly understand, because you have never been a gay person who has been victimized.

If that is the case, then again, I worry about your lack of empathy.

Jane Know said...

I'm sure I would get along with those bloggers in real life. But sadly, it is only because I would not know how they really felt about me and my girlfriend.

Rachel M. said...

On-Lawn,
You are patronizing, to say the least. I don’t feel as though Jane or any of her colleagues are seeking your approval; in fact for you to offer it seems like a failure on the part of ssm advocates. There are times when compromise is just not an option. It’s not as though we could have been like, “Well Hitler, I see your point and respect the fact that you’d like a ‘pure race.’ How about you keep the gays and the Jews and do what you’d like with them and just give us back the Gypsies and a couple of Catholics?” No. Not an acceptable compromise because it still allows for injustice. You’re not asking for civility and compromise in a meeting about your annual raise. You (and Opine) are asking for people to tolerate hatred. You’ve read Jose’s postings. You’ve read Culturologist and Renee. I must say that it is insulting for you to suggest that there could ever be any civility between Jose and an ssm-advocate when the only way that would be possible is if we were to tell him that he is correct and that gay people are depraved. Further, why do you think a gay person who has read the things Jose has written would EVER want to get to know him after what he has said about gay people and their lifestyle? To EVER accept your patronizing false approval would be a defeat to a true ssm advocate. It would mean that they have become weak. So save it.

On Lawn said...

You know, it's funny, "Grandpa" On Lawn. You allow Jose's hateful comments

Which share his opinion of certain actions.

but you and/or Op-Ed delete much more benign ones from commenters who oppose you.

That is simple. "Benign" is such a subjective term. Often a selfish term as it relates so readily to whether you are shined on with a positive light or not.

Instead, the metric we use is that the argument must discuss actions and other arguments -- not people. Shoot the message not the messenger. You are free to do that with Jose on Opine all you want, but attack the arguments themselves not him. You know this rule, its been repeated to you often. It is surprising that you neglect to even acknowledge its existence.

Beyond that there is a rule about profanity, which seeks to simply keep the place inoffensive to the normal sensible people who do not indulge int he profane from day to day. It is a site written for them, to help them learn to tolerate and to stand up to humanitarian ideals. It seeks to defend marriage on the grounds of reason and respect for human dignity. Part of that human dignity is allowing people you disagree with say their piece. As we have allowed you to do, to argue against arguments and actions, all you want. But we've noticed that you often decide to call people names, and hope to slander them instead of making an argument. It is hoped that with some guidance you too will do better and become a more effective by doing so.

She mentioned that had Jose inserted "Latino" or "black" or "Christians" in place of homosexuals, there would have been an uproar on your site, even amongst your fellow bloggers.

While you agree, and I disagree, with that statement I can only offer that to expect to be more of an authority on Opine is presumptuous. But lets look at it this way. What actions would she have called vile that Latinos do? What actions would she have called immoral that Christians do? What actions that African Americans do that she would have even thought of decrying?

Without the ability to isolate actions, instead of people, she would have immediately been censored and you would not (I presume) object her calling people vile because of their race.

Are we coming to an understanding of just why the focus on actions and arguments is so crucial as a razor for rational debate? I believe we are, what do you have to say about it?

As Marty, Culturologist, and Fitz have all done at some point(s).

You will provide quotes to go with your accusations. So far when you have done that for Jose, we have seen that he has called actions -- not people -- those words. I would like to see if these quotes follow the same pattern, if you could please.

EVERYONE needs to know that it is unacceptable in this day and age to continue to persecute homosexuals the way Jose and Culturologist and some others attempt to.

Well you have allegations, and they are being taken very seriously. But if I may humbly offer, cleanse the inner vessel first? Retract the untrue statements, and over-reaching allegations you made about Opine in this article. Such persecution is also unacceptable. Lead the way, as a gesture of honesty. Honesty is its own reward.

And I will continue to prosecute these requests you've made against Opine. As I said before, you are duly deputized. Where you find people calling others names, let me know. I will take care of it. And if you find the rules an escape to say mean things about others by saying mean things about their actions, by all means take advantage of the same loophole.

I have deleted comments by opine editors in the past, and have had my own comments deleted too. This rule will be prosecuted equally among dissenters and those that agree.

I appreciate your worries and concerns. It is good to hear someone concerned, to be honest. Admining a site on such hot topics is not easy, as I'm sure you understand. And everyone seems to have a complaint. Your help and concern is always appreciated.

On Lawn said...

I am sometimes imprecise in my typing, and sometimes make petty mistakes and sometimes substantial ones. Please bear with me. Allow me to correct this...

-- Without the ability to isolate actions, instead of people, she would have immediately been censored and you would not (I presume) object her calling people vile because of their race. --

To read...

-- Without the ability to isolate actions, instead of people, she would have immediately been censored and you would not (I presume) object our deleting comments with her calling people vile because of their race. --

Again my apologies. I believe the second rendering is more fair to you, and more what I had in mind as I wrote it.

Jane Know said...

How about this then, the actions of Jose on your blog are fuckwadery, bigoted, and assholish. I'm sure you will agree that this is an assault on his actions, not his person.

On Lawn said...

Well, unfortunately two of those descriptive terms run afoul of our profanity rule. I remember we had to delete God of Biscuits and perhaps even Grace for using profane homosexual slurs, which Fannie later expressed appreciation for.

But there is a way to express the same thing, I'm sure of it.

How about this?

-- Jose's argument depends on seeing homosexuality as perverse, and are therefore discredited by anyone who does not see it that way. Many people find their homosexuality to be a source of fulfillment. --

While not as emotionally charged as you might feel, does it at least encapsulate your views on the matter?

Jane Know said...

Suppose, for example, in a talk about responsible procreation, someone had said about Latino immigrants and African men and women, for example, that it is vile, selfish, and irresponsible of them to continuously have unprotected sex and have dozens of babies when they can't afford to care for their children...thus the rest of society has to pay for their irresponsible procreation. Suppose someone said that because of those irresponsible individuals, Latinos and Africans were disgusting and egocentric and shouldn't deserve to get married. because they are ALL that way.

Suppose someone said that heterosexual, older white men should no longer be allowed to raise children because they are the #1 perpetrators of child molestation and incest, thus that is evidence they have serious psychological illnesses and the risks are too great to allow men to raise children.

It's a common unfair stereotypes of both communities, and ones lacking in serious empathy, I believe. Perhaps a few members of those communities do those acts...but so do members of other communities and groups (like the way straight people have anal sex, for example). But people allow their prejudices to get in the way of common sense.

But that's all it is. A stereotype. And I'm sure the hypothetical person who spoke those words would have been censored.

Jose also perpetuates unfair stereotypes like this upon gay people.

But I digress... you asked for an example of how someone could attack the actions of a Latino or black person and I gave it to you. I just think that it's still too acceptable for people like Jose to spout their ignorance and unfair, untrue stereotypes that are based on hatred.

Jane Know said...

And if you want to get really low, suppose someone had said to Jose, perhaps people whose families have been in this country the longest shall have greater voting power and influence... and let's not allow the influence of an immigrant or someone with more recent history in our country attempt to bring his outside bigotry and influence into this country.

See how when they hit close to home, the comments may hurt a little more?

But remember. I love Jose. He and his immigrant status just aren't my equal.

*obviously, that was sarcasm.

Jane Know said...

I'll try to dig up the quotes from the others later. But for now, duty calls, and I must go to bed before my lady-friend gets too annoyed with my blogging.

On Lawn said...

Latino immigrants and African men and women, for example, that it is vile, selfish, and irresponsible of them to continuously have unprotected sex and have dozens of babies when they can't afford to care for their children

The "is it responsible to have kids while poor" argument has happened on Opine about a half dozen times or so, with Latinos and Blacks mentioned.

... thus the rest of society has to pay for their irresponsible procreation.

My first inclination is not to censor (at this point) but to ask what mechanism they see this happening by. Is it by emergency room care that they leave to the state to fill the bill, or as criminals later in live in the penitentiary?

Suppose someone said that because of those irresponsible individuals, Latinos and Africans were disgusting and egocentric and shouldn't deserve to get married.

This is somewhat similar to the discussion with John Howard, as it turns out.

You may remember that he wishes a specific exclusion to combining gametes of same sex couples. I've told him in the past that I cannot support such a law because I do not find homosexuality a offense warranting such a law. Instead, it is the procedure itself, combining gametes through electro-static methods (also used in cloning). That action, in and of itself, could be justified as dangerous to the human life it might create, and therefore offensive enough to legislate against. But the humans involved, some with an exclusion and others included? No.

The same thing with such a statement, there is no reason why "Latino" or "African Americans" should be considered in such a law. If it is dangerous behavior that is worthy of legislation, it is true for all races.

Thanks for providing a very real example of why it is important to consider the actions and arguments, not the people involved. Shoot the message, not the messenger.

Suppose someone said that heterosexual, older white men should no longer be allowed to raise children because they are the #1 perpetrators of child molestation and incest, thus that is evidence they have serious psychological illnesses and the risks are too great to allow men to raise children.

I can't remember correctly, but you discussed with Chairm a case like this. A foster care agency actually declined evidence that two gays were pedophiles, because they were afraid of the ramifications of denying homosexuals into the foster care program. Whomever was the GLBT advocate in that discussion, I remember, agreed that was the negligence of the agency.

What this also points to is that there are even better indicators that should be followed that should not be influenced by the sexual orientation of those giving care.

They would be allowed to make such an argument, if not just so they could be discredited. Again, the application of actions over people applies not only to the discussion, but to the topic of discussion to a fair conclusion.

Thats been my experience, anyway.

Jose also perpetuates unfair stereotypes like this upon gay people.

And I hope you are there to correct him when he does. Because deleting such comments do not discredit them, only well formed counter arguments do.

On Lawn said...

perhaps people whose families have been in this country the longest shall have greater voting power and influence

He isn't an immigrant, he was born in the Bronx.

But in any case, if your point is that immigration disqualifies people (even in a small degree) for voting status is a debate that should be censored, I would disagree. He may be offended, honestly I'm offended by many arguments I have to deal with on a weekly basis, but he will have to argue against them rather than expect them to be censored.

Have a good night. I just went in to find my children all peaceful and asleep, and it has done much to temper my mood with an appreciation of what it means to be hopelessly devoted to another in love. I go now to where my wife is peacefully in bed. Hopefully our lives will can continue with attention and devotion to make a difference for others, no?

But don't procrastinate that correction to the article to long ;)

John said...

"But don't procrastinate that correction to the article to long ;)"

Jane, will throw me off the island if I note that On Lawn is a condescending little prick?

Rachel M. said...

On lawn said, “Beyond that there is a rule about profanity, which seeks to simply keep the place inoffensive to the normal sensible people who do not indulge int he profane from day to day.”

On Lawn, this is an example of what is infuriating about your language and approach. Judgment. “normal sensible people who do not indulge int he profane from day to day.” You accuse a person of being abnormal or to lack sense because they use profanity. He who humbles himself will be exhaled. He who exalts himself will be humbled.


On Lawn said,
“My first inclination is not to censor (at this point) but to ask what mechanism they see this happening by. Is it by emergency room care that they leave to the state to fill the bill, or as criminals later in live in the penitentiary?”

The medical bills, followed by the public aid that often follows. Penitentiary might be an option, but I know several children of single persons of color who have been raised with the use of public aid who have turned out to be very productive members of society. But you are correct in your generalization that the highest rate of incarceration is of African-American males raised in poverty.

Jane said,
“Suppose someone said that heterosexual, older white men should no longer be allowed to raise children because they are the #1 perpetrators of child molestation and incest, thus that is evidence they have serious psychological illnesses and the risks are too great to allow men to raise children.

On lawn answered with,
“I can't remember correctly, but you discussed with Chairm a case like this. A foster care agency actually declined evidence that two gays were pedophiles, because they were afraid of the ramifications of denying homosexuals into the foster care program. Whomever was the GLBT advocate in that discussion, I remember, agreed that was the negligence of the agency.”

I don’t see how the two are connected.

Jane said,
“perhaps people whose families have been in this country the longest shall have greater voting power and influence”

On lawn answered with,
“He isn't an immigrant, he was born in the Bronx.”

I believe that Jane had said something about families who have been in this county longer than others. Meaning that, whether or not Jose was born in the United States I would bet that his family has not been here for 200 years +, like some families have. The families who have established “tradition” in the US. She then used the hypothetical that suggesting that THOSE families have greater voting power than any that came after them, because after all, they are the people for whom the laws have been created. And tradition IS tradition. It worked in 1683, and again in 1776. Why wouldn’t it work today? (Sarcasm)

Fannie said...

On Lawn's dishonesty knows no bounds. That is why he got banned from site. Others were banned for their own unique reasons. They truly are a "special" bunch.

As for this particular steaming pile of horseshit from On Lawn:

"Actually, they were ethnically demeaning. It was later said that she was quoting a movie, but in investigation she added the key racial inflection to that quote. She tried to pull the wool over our eyes, and regrettably continues in that today."

This old hat is just a blatant lie. As anyone who knows me can attest to. As anyone with any sort of intelligence can surmise. On Lawn is talking about the Forrest Gump quote that Jose took as me mocking his "Latino heritage" or whatever, in a paranoid attempt to villanize me as racist.

I will wait for On Lawn to correct his error.

But again, I will not hold my breath.

Peace.

Fannie said...

ps- On Lawn, I am fine with people disagreeing with what I write on my blog. I have had various civil arguments with others. And someday, when you and some of your fellow Opiners are able to honestly argue with others not in violation of my stated comment policy, you may be allowed back on my blog.

Being banned from a blog isn't a travesty, dear. So suck it up and be a big boy about it.

Jane Know said...

I agree Fannie. It is obvious to most people that you were imitating Forest Gump, and his Southern Alabaman accent, and not a Latino accent.

Because unlike Jose, you don't have to resort to attacking groups of people on characteristics they stereotypically have, based on ignorance.

But On Lawn isn't very hip to anything newfangled, even if it is related to a decade-old movie.

Again, I stand in that the comparison to the hateful Watchmen and Opine Editorials was their own idea.

Now they are simply embarrassed that the Watchmen has received so much horrible press by mainstream and progressive news sources. Perhaps they should do their research before proudly declaring how much they agree with a hate group.

Jane Know said...

Further,
I am not about to make corrections to an article when none are warranted.

You quote as your main source a statement by Scott Lively himself. Get real. Do you think he's really going to admit to being one of the founding fathers of a "hate" group? Just as Fannie wrote about today, even the KKK calls themselves a loving group who is just trying to spread the word of God.

Sound familiar?

How can one call homosexuals the chief enemy of the state and Christian society, villifying them, etc. and they not be considered a hate group? Sounds exactly like your blog, if you ask me.

Fannie said...

"I agree Fannie. It is obvious to most people that you were imitating Forest Gump, and his Southern Alabaman accent, and not a Latino accent."


Oh, I'm sure their *innocent mistake* can be explained by one of the following:

They've never traveled down South, so they've never heard a Southern accent.

They've never seen Forrest Gump, (I'm sure it's pro-gay or un-Christian or something.)

Jose is just extremely self-absorbed and interpreted a Southern accent as a Latino one.


Who knows. Either way, their goal of taking the bigot limelight off of themselves failed.


Anyway, Jane, I agree that you have made a valid comparison between Opine and Watchmen- similarities exist between the two groups. And the way they borrow Watchmen lingo (eg- homosexualist), I wouldn't be surprised if some of the Opiners were involved with the Watchman group.

Grace said...

I know I'm entering this conversation a bit late, so forgive me.

When I am angry, I find it best to write in list form. These are things I'd like to comment on, in no particular order.

1. On Lawn, I was not attempting to chase down the accusations of racism. Fannie was all but blatantly called a racist. That was sarcasm from me. The accusations were evident. I was just pointing out the very FUCKING annoying habit you and the other clowns over at Opine have of avoiding answering questions and facing the real arguments by turning statements into this ridiculous and overly precious semantic debate. Clearly I need to work on my sarcasm skills. Oh wait. No I don't. I am fine. I'm not the problem. YOU ARE.

2. There has been no real understanding gained between your camp and mine. And yes. It is CLEARLY an us and them. And us rock, and them (meaning you) are hateful jerks. I asked a question on your blog. It was a simple question. WHICH NO ONE EVER ANSWERED. There was no understanding!! I gave up. I quit trying because no one ever answered my question. (until this thread sort of resurfaced and Fitz half-answered it.)

3. I stopped responding, for the moment, because more than anything, you people make me sad. I'm not about debate. I'll leave the debate in the way more capable hands of Jane and Fannie and Rachel and John.

I asked questions. You couldn't or wouldn't answer them. The only thing you did was attack the form of the question. That's not mutual understanding.

4. Additionally, i have a lot to say on your views of identity. Which, quite frankly, I think are retarded. But I'll save those comments for later.

5. What's wrong with Renee? Seriously, guys...I really want to know.

Jane Know said...

Grace, thanks for making it over here!

I agree with many of your points. But that's no surprise.

You're absolutely right in that Opine turns easy questions into difficult ones, and into debates over semantics. Their method and madness is old hat.

The only understanding I believe was reached from this article is that we had much more civil arguments, with Jose, Fitz, Culturologist, Marty, and Op-Ed (am I missing anyone?) not involved.

But you're right. As for any real understanding gained from the whole gay marriage argument, they are using the same ole arguments as before. And those, I already understood.

Oh. And I don't know what is wrong with Renee.

Rachel M. said...

Hey, yeah. What IS wrong with Renee?! Well at least we know that Opine doesn't discriminate against people with learning disabilities/cognitive impairments. That’s like, noble. Right?

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

Grace said about Opine:

"I asked a question on your blog. It was a simple question. WHICH NO ONE EVER ANSWERED."

Yup. They turned your question into this game of "what are you getting at?" and "why do you want to know that?" instead of just. answering. the question. And they were unnecessarily bitchy about it. And then they started playing a semantic game. And then they (as is typical) missed your sarcasm. And then they accused you of comparing gay people to clothing. And then they believed they reached "true understanding" with you.

Dear delusional boys.

John Howard said...

like John Howard who acts much like a Amway salesman at a dinner party always injecting their own sales pitch into every conversation going on. In John's case he is welcome to email us posts which we will gladly post for him on Opine, but for the sake of the conversations that happen in the comment section, he is banned from dominating them with his sales pitch.

Well, I don't recall my very first comments being greeted with any less hostility. And this isn't a dinner party, it is a debate about marriage and same-sex rights, and I'm not giving a "sales pitch" I'm making important points about marriage and same-sex rights. The fact is, it is the subject matter which you want to keep out of the debate.

But I have decided to take you up on your offer of writing up a guest post that tries to summarize why marriage's conception rights must be protected, and why Opine's arguments inadvertently (I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt about that) harm marriage and will lead to SSM and genetic engineering and strip marriage of its core meaning. I'll email it to you in the next day or two. The opportunity is greatly appreciated, and maybe it will lead to Opine incorporating conception rights into its arguments more.

Also On Lawn, did I answer your question above (about a hundred comments upthread)? You seemed to be making a point and I have tried to understand it and respond. Do you still have that same objection you had?