Gay marriage - is it any of your damned business?

[mikem8634]

The following seems to relate rather well to one or two positions that have been adopted on this thread. I hope it doesn't prove too long for some.

 

.................................................................................................................................................................

 

In a recent conversation about homosexuals serving in the military I ran into someone who really pulled out every cliché you can think of to support banning gays from military service.

 

Paraphrasing one core point, the argument went something like this:

 

I don’t have a problem with gays, but some people do. That’s just the real world. It’s all well and good to talk about tolerance, but some people don’t like that and if they don’t want to serve with gays they shouldn’t be forced to. It’s just reality, some people are uncomfortable serving with gays. Sure, all that peace and love stuff sounds good, but this is the real world. I don’t like it any more than you do, but I recognize that’s how things are, and you have to preserve the morale of the unit.

 

This is a favorite line of reasoning among those who wish to preserve and defend institutionalized discrimination of any kind. You can swap out any minority and any social interaction throughout the above paragraph, and it’s a certainty that someone has said it:

 

“I don’t have a problem with Jews, but some people do. It’s all well and good to talk about tolerance, but some people don’t like that, and if they don’t want to eat with blacks then they shouldn’t be forced to. It’s just reality, some people are uncomfortable working for a woman. “

All of these arguments then attempt to invert the offense:

 

Those people have a right to not like (x), and forcing them to (interact with x) is a violation of their rights. Who are you to judge them for what they believe in? YOU are the one who’s a bigot!

 

I know many reading have dealt with these lines of argument before, and I imagine some have even used them, and in both cases you’ve been struck with a sense that this makes no sense at all, but you couldn’t quite say why.

 

So let’s break it down, shall we?

 

I Got A Right

 

This is the core idea at the heart of much of the above argumentation. “I’ve got a right” to be a bigot, “I’ve got a right” to not work for a woman, “I’ve got a right” to not rent my apartment to a homosexual.

 

In the purest sense of the phrase, you actually do have a right to all of these things. You have the right to not work for a woman – you can stay home. You have the right to not rent property to a homosexual – you can not rent property to anyone at all. You have the right to not hire a black person – you can not operate a business.

 

But in the more practical sense, you don’t have those rights – Not if you want to work, or be a landlord, or be an employer. Not only don’t you have them, you shouldn’t have them – they are in fact not rights at all, but impositions of privilege.

 

The classic argument goes, “Your right to swing your arm ends where my nose begins.” This is a nice, plain-language way of saying that no human being has the right to cause harm to another.

 

Refusing to work for a female boss creates an excuse to not have women as bosses – that creates harm against women, both individually and as a class. Refusing to hire a Muslim because they are Muslim creates harm against that person – direct financial harm, emotional harm, and the broader social harm of reinforcing stereotypes of bigotry.

 

Refusing to tolerate bigotry, however, is not a limitation of rights but a consequence of actions. Bigotry is a choice, a behavior, a deliberate decision to impose your prerogatives on others without their consent.

 

And you say, “But you’re doing the same thing!” It’s not the same thing. Opposing bigotry is decent, humane, loving, productive, and a positive and preservative step for the species. Being a bigot isn’t. There is no argument in favor of bigotry that doesn’t rely on lies or dishonest interpretation of facts.

 

Passive-Aggressive Intolerance

 

My friend the eminently quotable Pope Snarky said it best:

 

“Tolerating intolerance is not, in fact, tolerance. It is merely the passive-aggressive enabling of intolerance.”

 

In other words, it’s what people do who really agree with bigotry and discrimination, but they don’t want to admit it, to themselves or other people.

 

That attitude is the same as the kid who stands in the crowd watching bullies beat up on the ugly kid with bad teeth, thinking you’re better than the bullies because you aren’t throwing punches. Oh, sure, you’ll hang out with the ugly kid with bad teeth when there’s nobody around…but when the rest of your baseball team starts calling “horse-face,” you fade into the background. YOU accept that the ugly bad-teeth kid might be a good catcher, but if defending him hurts the morale of the team then that’s just how it is. Sorry, nothing you can do. It can’t be helped – it’s what the people want.

 

That attitude is the same as the millions of Europeans who looked the other way as the holocaust happened, thinking you’re just doing the pragmatic thing – no sense in fighting against the majority. YOU accept that the Jews may have very good products and prices, but if it affects the performance of the community then that’s just how it is. Your hands are tied.

 

That attitude is the same as the white southerner who keeps on eating at the whites-only lunch counter…YOU aren’t a bigot, but they’ve got good sandwiches and all your friends are there. YOU accept that the blacks are fine people and do no harm by eating at that lunch counter, but if it’s going to affect the morale of your co-workers to eat somewhere else then that’s just how it is. You’re powerless to do anything about it.

 

That attitude is the same as the guy who laughs with his friends at the “n****r” and “f****t” jokes, telling yourself that you’re not really like that but you’re just trying not to hurt your friends’ feelings. You accept that the blacks and homosexuals don’t deserve to be made fun of, but if confronting the people making the jokes will hurt the morale of your social circle, then that’s just how it is.

 

“I got nothing against the ******, I just wouldn’t want my daughter to marry one.”

 

Or:

 

“I have no problem with the Jews, but if I do business with them my Aryan friends won’t do business with ME…so I have to, you see. It’s not MY fault. I can’t make waves…it will hurt morale and the economy will suffer. I won’t be able to get groceries for my family.”

There’s a word for that.

 

That word is not “honor.”

 

That word is “coward.”

http://www.politicususa.com/tolerating-intolerance-bigotry.html

 

Perhaps we could add - I have no problem with gays so long as they don't kiss in front of me? Or get married in a church?

[flamingjimmy]

The most enduring Judao-Christian taboos are against adult men having sex with

 

(i) other adult males

(ii) children/minors

(iii) their own siblings

(iv) animals

 

Sorry but that is not true, for the vast majority of the time Christianity has existed, sex with what you and I consider a minor was totally cool.

 

In fact, traditional christian marriage totally includes girls as young as 12, anyone who's argument against gay marriage comes from tradition must either also argue for that or else be a massive hypocrite who can be ignored.

[janie48]

When you say the traditional institution of marriage, do you mean the type where women are very much subservient to the man, and they vow to obey him? Or are you talking about the modern version where a marriage is a union of equals?

The one you had which i'm assuming was the modern version.

[flamingjimmy]

The one you had which i'm assuming was the modern version.

 

The modern version is not traditional, otherwise there would be no need to call it the modern version.

 

Traditional Christian marriage is where a young girl (in a great many cases much younger than we would consider appropriate' is given away by her father to another man.

 

It is inherently misogynistic and by our standards paedophilic.

[JFKvsNixon]

The one you had which i'm assuming was the modern version.

 

That's the point though isn't it?

 

When people argue about saving the traditions of marriage, they're only talking about our modern traditions. If the tradition of marriage can alter to allow women more rights, what's the big deal in altering it again to allow homosexuals more rights?

[mikem8634]

The most enduring Judao-Christian taboos are against adult men having sex with

 

(i) other adult males

(ii) children/minors

(iii) their own siblings

(iv) animals

 

(i) is now decriminalised.

 

Nobody would (I hope) argue that (ii) ever should be legal.

 

What about (iii) and (iv)?

 

How old was Mary when she married Joseph?

[Jessica23]

That's the point though isn't it?

 

When people argue about saving the traditions of marriage, they're only talking about our modern traditions. If the tradition of marriage can alter to allow women more rights, what's the big deal in altering it again to allow homosexuals more rights?

 

The tradition of marriage was altered as recently as the 1990s, when it finally became illegal for men to rape their wives. Assuming that we're all on board with that small step towards progress, the idea that marriage has a traditional structure that should be sanctified or applauded is grotesque.

 

It's a socio-cultural institution that adapts for the times. The marital rape law and the provision of equal marriage are both embarrassingly late in arriving.

[janie48]

The modern version is not traditional, otherwise there would be no need to call it the modern version.

 

Traditional Christian marriage is where a young girl (in a great many cases much younger than we would consider appropriate' is given away by her father to another man.

 

It is inherently misogynistic and by our standards paedophilic.

 

You're going back a long time with that tradition,but long after we've departed you never know it might be back in fashion again,but i hope not.

 

---------- Post added 09-02-2013 at 00:32 ----------

 

That's the point though isn't it?

 

When people argue about saving the traditions of marriage, they're only talking about our modern traditions. If the tradition of marriage can alter to allow women more rights, what's the big deal in altering it again to allow homosexuals more rights?

It isn't a big deal for everybody,but some people are slower at adapting to change,can't you forgive them for that,you might be like it when you get older.

[flamingjimmy]

You're going back a long time with that tradition,but long after we've departed you never know it might be back in fashion again,but i hope not.

 

But that is what tradition is, and is rather my point, if you accept that it's ok to abandon traditions and create new ones then surely 'because it's traditional' is not a good argument for anything?

 

Also, as Jessica23 pointed out, many of these traditions didn't die out until recently, up until less than a quarter of a century ago there was no such thing as rape within marriage in British law, and there was a well known Christian poster on this forum who has since left who objected to that change.

 

---------- Post added 09-02-2013 at 01:05 ----------

 

It isn't a big deal for everybody,but some people are slower at adapting to change,can't you forgive them for that,you might be like it when you get older.

 

I can forgive them for that, however I don't should wait for every last homophobe to die of old age before we change society for the better, I think we should do that now.

[onewheeldave]

The following seems to relate rather well to one or two positions that have been adopted on this thread. I hope it doesn't prove too long for some.

 

.................................................................................................................................................................

 

In a recent conversation about homosexuals serving in the military I ran into someone who really pulled out every cliché you can think of to support banning gays from military service.

 

Paraphrasing one core point, the argument went something like this:

 

I don’t have a problem with gays, but some people do. That’s just the real world. It’s all well and good to talk about tolerance, but some people don’t like that and if they don’t want to serve with gays they shouldn’t be forced to. It’s just reality, some people are uncomfortable serving with gays. Sure, all that peace and love stuff sounds good, but this is the real world. I don’t like it any more than you do, but I recognize that’s how things are, and you have to preserve the morale of the unit.

 

This is a favorite line of reasoning among those who wish to preserve and defend institutionalized discrimination of any kind. You can swap out any minority and any social interaction throughout the above paragraph, and it’s a certainty that someone has said it:

 

“I don’t have a problem with Jews, but some people do. It’s all well and good to talk about tolerance, but some people don’t like that, and if they don’t want to eat with blacks then they shouldn’t be forced to. It’s just reality, some people are uncomfortable working for a woman. “

All of these arguments then attempt to invert the offense:

 

Those people have a right to not like (x), and forcing them to (interact with x) is a violation of their rights. Who are you to judge them for what they believe in? YOU are the one who’s a bigot!

 

I know many reading have dealt with these lines of argument before, and I imagine some have even used them, and in both cases you’ve been struck with a sense that this makes no sense at all, but you couldn’t quite say why.

 

So let’s break it down, shall we?

 

I Got A Right

 

This is the core idea at the heart of much of the above argumentation. “I’ve got a right” to be a bigot, “I’ve got a right” to not work for a woman, “I’ve got a right” to not rent my apartment to a homosexual.

 

In the purest sense of the phrase, you actually do have a right to all of these things. You have the right to not work for a woman – you can stay home. You have the right to not rent property to a homosexual – you can not rent property to anyone at all. You have the right to not hire a black person – you can not operate a business.

 

But in the more practical sense, you don’t have those rights – Not if you want to work, or be a landlord, or be an employer. Not only don’t you have them, you shouldn’t have them – they are in fact not rights at all, but impositions of privilege.

 

The classic argument goes, “Your right to swing your arm ends where my nose begins.” This is a nice, plain-language way of saying that no human being has the right to cause harm to another.

 

Refusing to work for a female boss creates an excuse to not have women as bosses – that creates harm against women, both individually and as a class. Refusing to hire a Muslim because they are Muslim creates harm against that person – direct financial harm, emotional harm, and the broader social harm of reinforcing stereotypes of bigotry.

 

Refusing to tolerate bigotry, however, is not a limitation of rights but a consequence of actions. Bigotry is a choice, a behavior, a deliberate decision to impose your prerogatives on others without their consent.

 

And you say, “But you’re doing the same thing!” It’s not the same thing. Opposing bigotry is decent, humane, loving, productive, and a positive and preservative step for the species. Being a bigot isn’t. There is no argument in favor of bigotry that doesn’t rely on lies or dishonest interpretation of facts.

 

Passive-Aggressive Intolerance

 

My friend the eminently quotable Pope Snarky said it best:

 

“Tolerating intolerance is not, in fact, tolerance. It is merely the passive-aggressive enabling of intolerance.”

 

In other words, it’s what people do who really agree with bigotry and discrimination, but they don’t want to admit it, to themselves or other people.

 

That attitude is the same as the kid who stands in the crowd watching bullies beat up on the ugly kid with bad teeth, thinking you’re better than the bullies because you aren’t throwing punches. Oh, sure, you’ll hang out with the ugly kid with bad teeth when there’s nobody around…but when the rest of your baseball team starts calling “horse-face,” you fade into the background. YOU accept that the ugly bad-teeth kid might be a good catcher, but if defending him hurts the morale of the team then that’s just how it is. Sorry, nothing you can do. It can’t be helped – it’s what the people want.

 

That attitude is the same as the millions of Europeans who looked the other way as the holocaust happened, thinking you’re just doing the pragmatic thing – no sense in fighting against the majority. YOU accept that the Jews may have very good products and prices, but if it affects the performance of the community then that’s just how it is. Your hands are tied.

 

That attitude is the same as the white southerner who keeps on eating at the whites-only lunch counter…YOU aren’t a bigot, but they’ve got good sandwiches and all your friends are there. YOU accept that the blacks are fine people and do no harm by eating at that lunch counter, but if it’s going to affect the morale of your co-workers to eat somewhere else then that’s just how it is. You’re powerless to do anything about it.

 

That attitude is the same as the guy who laughs with his friends at the “n****r” and “f****t” jokes, telling yourself that you’re not really like that but you’re just trying not to hurt your friends’ feelings. You accept that the blacks and homosexuals don’t deserve to be made fun of, but if confronting the people making the jokes will hurt the morale of your social circle, then that’s just how it is.

 

“I got nothing against the ******, I just wouldn’t want my daughter to marry one.”

 

Or:

 

“I have no problem with the Jews, but if I do business with them my Aryan friends won’t do business with ME…so I have to, you see. It’s not MY fault. I can’t make waves…it will hurt morale and the economy will suffer. I won’t be able to get groceries for my family.”

There’s a word for that.

 

That word is not “honor.”

 

That word is “coward.”

http://www.politicususa.com/tolerating-intolerance-bigotry.html

 

Perhaps we could add - I have no problem with gays so long as they don't kiss in front of me? Or get married in a church?

 

One of the most intelligent posts I've seen on this board.