5 ms·

> * assuming that you use the same model as we do, it is impossible to support Prop 8 unless you also think that gay people don't deserve to be treated as peopl

by glesica 13y ago

> * assuming that you use the same model as we do, it is impossible to support Prop 8 unless you also think that gay people don't deserve to be treated as people This is basically accurate. It is not possible to support Prop 8 without treating gay people as though they are not people. If the only advantage marriage conferred was being allowed to make babies, then I would agree with you. The problem is that marriage confers a bunch of additional benefits (including hospital visitation and inheritance with less drama). Additionally, there is no need to be married to have children, and there is no need to have children to be married, so the whole "marriage is about kids" thing is, frankly, really, really hard to take seriously. So by supporting Prop 8, people were saying "gay people do not deserve the privileges mentioned above even through straight people who don't intend to have kids can have those privileges". If this is really about children and families, where is the movement to prevent infertile straight people from getting married, or just people who have no intention of having children. They are ruining the tradition just as much as gay people supposedly would.

fennecfoxen 13y ago
It sounds like your ability to reason about the way other people think is limited. Be aware that this is a defect, not a virtue. It is also one definition I've seen of bigotry: the inability to conceive of an alternative point of view. In the meantime, as an exercise, let's do some reasoning about what people might hypothetically think, with the example of "infertile straight people". First, infertile straight people commonly are unaware of their infertility until such time as they are actually interested in having children, which occurs late in the traditional order of [marriage, sex, children]. Perhaps someone could think that enforcing this question up front is impractically difficult, and this is a defect of the current regime. Perhaps someone could think that it's important that you're willing to have children before you enter marriage, but that subsequent discovery of infertility doesn't dissolve the marriage. Perhaps the issue didn't really occur to the person in question -- the media coverage of the issue is nil, so awareness has got to be pretty limited. Perhaps there are actually such movements, and you're just unaware of them. (For instance, were you aware of Sixtus V's decree of 27 June 1587?) Perhaps the people with these opinions are silly and wrong to think what they think: from time to time, people can and are intellectually inconsistent. Perhaps this is the result of a something that invokes an inconsistent pattern of reasoning about the matter, such as a politician of an unfavored political party promoting the matter, or perhaps they were exposed to some cultural artifact depicting gay marriage in combination with a celebration of human sexuality in a way that the person in question found disgusting. Or perhaps they have a prejudice against gay people that falls short of being an un-person but which affects reasoning about relevant topics in an unfair and negative way (as is commonly suggested in a variety of racial-sensitivity contexts).
jrs235 13y ago
Thank you for using the correct word, privileges, and not the incorrect word, rights. The issue isn't about rights, its about equal treatment and equal privileges. However, I disagree with you on "It is not possible to support Prop 8 without treating gay people as though they are not people." That would be like saying "It is not possible to support progressive tax rates without treating 'rich' people as though they are not people."
- fennecfoxen 13y ago
  On the topic of loaded words, the Wall Street Journal this morning had a front-page above-the-fold piece quoting Anil Dash: "The 'mob'? Seriously? Would you say that someone who tried to criminalize your marriage was fit to lead you?" Results of Prop 8, to wit: No one was charged with a felony. No one was charged with a misdemeanor. No one was charged with an infraction. No one was fined, arrested, detained, or jailed. Criminalization!!! (Determining whether "the mob" that forced Eich to step down, the phrase against which Dash protests, is similarly loaded or not: is left as an exercise to the HN reader.)

by glesica 13y ago

fennecfoxen 13y ago

It sounds like your ability to reason about the way other people think is limited. Be aware that this is a defect, not a virtue. It is also one definition I've seen of bigotry: the inability to conceive of an alternative point of view. In the meantime, as an exercise, let's do some reasoning about what people might hypothetically think, with the example of "infertile straight people". First, infertile straight people commonly are unaware of their infertility until such time as they are actually interested in having children, which occurs late in the traditional order of [marriage, sex, children]. Perhaps someone could think that enforcing this question up front is impractically difficult, and this is a defect of the current regime. Perhaps someone could think that it's important that you're willing to have children before you enter marriage, but that subsequent discovery of infertility doesn't dissolve the marriage. Perhaps the issue didn't really occur to the person in question -- the media coverage of the issue is nil, so awareness has got to be pretty limited. Perhaps there are actually such movements, and you're just unaware of them. (For instance, were you aware of Sixtus V's decree of 27 June 1587?) Perhaps the people with these opinions are silly and wrong to think what they think: from time to time, people can and are intellectually inconsistent. Perhaps this is the result of a something that invokes an inconsistent pattern of reasoning about the matter, such as a politician of an unfavored political party promoting the matter, or perhaps they were exposed to some cultural artifact depicting gay marriage in combination with a celebration of human sexuality in a way that the person in question found disgusting. Or perhaps they have a prejudice against gay people that falls short of being an un-person but which affects reasoning about relevant topics in an unfair and negative way (as is commonly suggested in a variety of racial-sensitivity contexts).

jrs235 13y ago

Thank you for using the correct word, privileges, and not the incorrect word, rights. The issue isn't about rights, its about equal treatment and equal privileges. However, I disagree with you on "It is not possible to support Prop 8 without treating gay people as though they are not people." That would be like saying "It is not possible to support progressive tax rates without treating 'rich' people as though they are not people."

fennecfoxen 13y ago
On the topic of loaded words, the Wall Street Journal this morning had a front-page above-the-fold piece quoting Anil Dash: "The 'mob'? Seriously? Would you say that someone who tried to criminalize your marriage was fit to lead you?" Results of Prop 8, to wit: No one was charged with a felony. No one was charged with a misdemeanor. No one was charged with an infraction. No one was fined, arrested, detained, or jailed. Criminalization!!! (Determining whether "the mob" that forced Eich to step down, the phrase against which Dash protests, is similarly loaded or not: is left as an exercise to the HN reader.)