Opine--intransitive verb: to express opinions
transitive verb: to state as an opinion
Editorial--an article giving opinions or perspectives
Opiner--n. a frequent commenter, supporter, or editor of blog Opine Editorials. [my definition]
Opine Editorials claims to defend "marriage on the firm ground of reason and respect for human dignity" and that they are open to dialogue out of mutual respect.
Let's take a gander at the defintion of dignity, shall we?
Dignity: "1. The quality or state of being worthy of esteem or respect."
Now, throw the "human dignity" aspect of their motto in their and you get the idea that Opiners believe humans are worthy of esteem or respect.
Observe the following comments and see for yourself how accurate this is:
Marty said: "The "inner city" (read "African American") experience has proven to everyone the importance of a father in a child's life.
I wonder why white lesbians are ignoring the evidence?
Racism perhaps? Or just plain old sexism?"
(Because yes, all lesbians are really just sexist and racist. Perhaps if they learn to like dick a little bit more, they will stop being so narrow-minded.)
Or how about this article, in which they already assume that which they set out to prove, among other things?
The article starts out with a logical fallacy:
"Objectively, marriage is both-sexed by its very nature.
The nature of something is its essence, its core, its reason for being. One can acknowledge the nature of marriage but one cannot construct it out of thin air"
How, pray tell, can something which is man-made (marriage) be something "by its very nature?"
Something may have sociologically started as one definition, but definitions have changed throughout the course of history for many, many things... marriage being but one of them.
By this reasoning, the fact that marriage is now same-sexed in some states and countries, also means that this type of marriage is also "the essence" of marriage.
Oh, and read here Renee's obsession with "coitus" and lesbians. (in which she implicitly denounces all lesbians because her college roommate was one):
"Unlike other relationships, only heterosexual who engage in coitus, have to assume the possibility of another human being being created from the sexual act. So I'm a 'homobigot' is I say... a man's penis is more well endowed then a gorilla three times his size, so he can please a woman with a forward tilted vagina with face to face intercourse?
In high school/college my best friend was a lesbian, since I use my real name in my profile, I rather not to speak too much in detail, because some people reading could know who I'm talking about. I'll say, she had issues with men and abuse. She was lonely, especially seeing her girlfriends getting attention from guys. I have to admit though this wasn't good attention. Guys would seriously say some wicked awful things to her, she became more and more depressed. She started not to take care of her appearance, and self esteem was very low.
We were close, until I met my husband. My husband wasn't a 'guy', very early on, it became clear one day we were going to get married. She became very angry how nice my husband was while dating. She couldn't stand me being happy with a man, she rather enjoy hearing me bitch out how horrible the guys I was with and how SHE would be there for me."
First, respect for human dignity, means ALL humans. Not just heterosexuals who are "capable of coitus." And it also includes all lesbians. I have a feeling that Renee's hatred of lesbians stem from a relationship she almost had with this alleged roommate, and perhaps her own internalized homophobia. (yep, there I said, I think she's a closeted lesbo). Just my own opinion, though.
Here is Chairm's own description and explanation of the SSM debate in regards to their motto:
"Identity politics tends to create self-serving short cuts that cut out far too much. When people find themselves lost in the woods, they regret the short cuts taken and become frustrated and panicky.
That is not something rarely experienced in this day an age of identity politics. This is not peculair to gay identity politics, but the SSM campaign illustrates it most flagrantly.
SSMers propose a replacement for marriage recognition but they have come to believe their own publicity. They truly believe that marriage already has been replaced and that the rest of the world will inevitably catch-up with them.
But they are in the woods, lost, with only hopeful short cuts to get them from one place to another.
There is more wrong with SSM argumentation than the issues of elegibility, however, it is such an obvious problem since the SSM campaign is all about revamping the line-drawing. How can they possibly hope to find their way out of the woods without owning this fundamental aspect of a special relationship status?
Perhaps only through willful ignorance, based on clinging to misrepresentations.
I think we should continue to invite SSMers to do better. And, of course, we need the patience and resolve to remain diligent and to promote improved understanding of all sides.
The standard that is evoked in our motto is a guiding light that we must strive to adhere to even when others run off into the woods to get lost in darkness.
We defend marriage on the firm ground of reason and respect for human dignity."
*pause, to wipe a tear from my eye*
Again, apparently "human dignity" only applies to heterosexuals. Or to those who are happy in heterosexual relationships and will realistically marry someone of the opposite sex. And, apparently when gays ask for marriage rights, they are self-serving and playing identity politics. He could easily take the more humanly dignified route and gay people the benefit of the doubt, and seek to understand why gay people are seeking marriage rights for their relationships. Instead, he pettily dismisses their arguments without a clear argument as to why, exactly, they are so "lost in the woods."
Really, Chairm. I invite you and your cohort to do better.
Opiners also frequently deny that same-sex marriage is a civil rights issue. Again, the respect for human dignity thing...
Going back to the definition of dignity, if one is to indeed respect that humans are worthy of respect (as they claim), one should acknowledge that often in issues of civil rights, the claims of offense of those seeking civil rights often go unheard for decades.
If one is to respect that humans are worthy of respect, one should also recognize that the rights of the minority need to be acknowledged, too.
If one is to respect that humans are worthy of respect, one should respect that their actions and/or words are offensive to an entire group of people.
Observe Renee's article here. In this article she (again) insists that gay marriages are "unnatural" (see above for my reply to this) because they are void of procreative ability.
She states, "No amount of human consensus can change physical and biological reality. A while back a friend of mine pointed to a bumper sticker on a car (from California, of course) which read Repeal Entropy and it's a bit like that. Same sex marriages may happen, but the folks going through their motions may as well participate in ceremonies to reverse gravity or get licenses to allow them to breath water."
To which the self-labeled "Culturologist" responds, "It would be interesting to have some systematic data on how African-Americans feel about the homosexual lobby's attempt to hijack the language of the civil rights movement."
Is anyone else bored with this argument? I am. I've already addressed it. Here. Here. Here. Oh, and here.
Now, getting back to the topic of human dignity and their other claim of "Petty insults or ad hom attacks or profanity are strongly discouraged. These detract, rather than add, to the discussion."
Observe here which petty insults and ad hom attacks are allowed, encouraged even, so long as it goes along with their anti-gay message:
One of several Jose Solano posts. (though On Lawn does do some scolding here, thanks).
One of "Culturologist's" comments:
"...In this sense, not only are homosexual 'pairs' (the very term is wrong here) absurd, they are anti-difference. This may seem a strange thing, given the constant cry of the pro-SSM crowd for the toleration of 'difference.' In point of fact, it is the difference of the fundamental binary of human existence that they reject."
Another Jose Solano quote about gay people: "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." [emphasis mine]
And consider this gem by Jose Solano:
"It is important to remember that everyone dies. If it’s not disease that kills us, it’s accidents or world cataclysms. Populations are reduced by nature itself and we do not need artificial means of birth control or human destruction. We must emerge from the very primitive mentality that calls for human sacrifice to solve world problems. When abortionists consider destroying the unborn, defenseless human being, in the interest of humanity, they should contemplate aborting themselves. This is said just for contemplation to emphasize that non-hypocritical altruism calls for self-sacrifice not murder or suicide.
There is meaning in the natural birthing and dying process which those obsessed with materialism fail to understand. The foundation of this meaning is compassion, compassion for the aged, for the infirmed, for the unborn.
[I have no problem drifting from the thread as tangentially significant issues enter the conversation.]" [emphasis mine]
I fail to understand why someone would be more interested in a not-yet person than an actual human being. But that's a whole other can of worms. Mkay, Jose. Go ahead and try to "abort" an adult, we'll see where you end up.
And consider this ad hom by On Lawn, the ringleader of the brigade:
"[John Hosty] is a classic pathological liar."
Per On Lawn's request to keep Opine Editorials honest, that is just a mere recent accounting of personal attacks that Opiners have made (in the midst of claiming others are "abusive" and traverse personal boundaries, nonetheless!).
Here's another. From Renee:
"You have to understand the ideology of Jane Know is nothing more then of a con artist..... She isn't a feminist..."
My attempts at clarification were predictably unmet by Renee or any of the other Opiners, even after I explained my ideologies.
Observe On Lawn's immediate reply to this: "Jane,
What would you define as your brand of Feminism? How would you describe Renee's brand of Feminism?"
Yes, right after I had just defined my brand of feminism. And right after seeking clarification as to Renee's brand. I have yet to get any answers from them.
But I am not surprised.
In summary, my point is that no. The Opiners do not opine the way they say they opine.
Thus, I may venture to their blog when I am bored. I may continue to voice my opinions. But my main goal will continue to be to get my message out there...and to continue to support my allies in this battle...a battle that we will inevitably win.
Friday, December 28, 2007
Opine--intransitive verb: to express opinions
Posted by Jane Know at 12:54 PM