Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Wednesday, October 31, 2012

OTP November 2012 - Moneypoll! The Pundits vs. The Election-Data Nerds

Come next Tuesday night, we’ll get a resolution (let’s hope) to a great ongoing battle of 2012: not just the Presidential election between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney, but the one between the pundits trying to analyze that race with their guts and a new breed of statistics gurus trying to forecast it with data.

In Election 2012 as seen by the pundits–political journalists on the trail, commentators in cable-news studios–the campaign is a jump ball. There’s a slight lead for Mitt Romney in national polls and slight leads for Barack Obama in swing-state polls, and no good way of predicting next Tuesday’s outcome beyond flipping a coin. ...

Bonus link: Esquire - The Enemies of Nate Silver

Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 31, 2012 at 11:42 PM | 11298 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: mr president, off-topic, politics, sabermetrics, usa

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 75 of 114 pages ‹ First  < 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 >  Last ›
   7401. Jay Z Posted: November 13, 2012 at 12:08 AM (#4301080)
You're talking past one another. If we lived in an alternate reality where "civil unions" were what the state did, with all of those rights the states gives currently to "marriage," and "marriage" has been reserved for religious ceremony and mickamucking, we wouldn't be currently having this conversation about "marriage." (We would, almost certainly, be having this conversation about "civil unions" though, because at the end of the day the social-con right's problem with gay marriage isn't some pedantic bit of philological dalliance around the historical uses of the term "marriage," so much as it is a gut level impurity/disgust reaction to the idea of gay sex, gayness, and the idea that society at large is validating gay people and their icky gross ass-oriented ####### with officially sanctioned status.)


This point needs to be made. If civil unions were the magic bullet, well they would have been the magic bullet. Civil unions everywhere for gays, done and done. Hasn't happened. Once you move on to civil unions, the opponents say "well, that's just like marriage" and it's no to civil unions too. So much for semantics. Some of the "domestic partnership" laws actually have fewer rights than marriages or civil unions, but how come we don't have domestic partnership everywhere?

Once you negotiate for second class status, I think you strengthen the opposition, not weaken it. If they're second class, why should they have anything? It has to be all or nothing, and indeed it's come down to that. Civil unions were never going to work.
   7402. Steve Treder Posted: November 13, 2012 at 12:11 AM (#4301081)
There is not anyone who voted because their pastor told them to? No one who voted that way because their Dad hates gays and they accept what their father says (because they respect and follow the guidance of their father)? No one who votes against SSM because they are a member of the GOP, and because their tribe (the GOP and Fox news) says to vote against SSM they do? No one votes against SSM because they are reflexively vote against all social change?

Wait, those are supposed to be valid reasons?
   7403. Steve Treder Posted: November 13, 2012 at 12:13 AM (#4301082)
Once you negotiate for second class status, I think you strengthen the opposition, not weaken it. If they're second class, why should they have anything? It has to be all or nothing, and indeed it's come down to that. Civil unions were never going to work.

Damn fracking straight. Equality is like that.
   7404. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: November 13, 2012 at 12:15 AM (#4301084)
This point needs to be made. If civil unions were the magic bullet, well they would have been the magic bullet. Civil unions everywhere for gays, done and done. Hasn't happened. Once you move on to civil unions, the opponents say "well, that's just like marriage" and it's no to civil unions too. So much for semantics. Some of the "domestic partnership" laws actually have fewer rights than marriages or civil unions, but how come we don't have domestic partnership everywhere?

Once you negotiate for second class status, I think you strengthen the opposition, not weaken it. If they're second class, why should they have anything? It has to be all or nothing, and indeed it's come down to that. Civil unions were never going to work.


And once you accept any sort of second class status, you're effectively conceding an unacceptable moral point to those who don't have your interests at heart. There may have been some strategic or tactical justification for doing this in times past, but by now I'd think you'd want to keep up the offensive on both the moral and political fronts. Just my opinion FWIW.
   7405. Howie Menckel Posted: November 13, 2012 at 12:16 AM (#4301085)
odd that in several posts against the Mouse's observations, I didn't notice anyone direct this one head-on:

"I love how a huge portion of black Americans went from bigoted to not bigoted in just a few days after Obama declared he was for SSM."

Are African-Americans who still oppose same-sex marriage therefore bigots?
And if so, why hasn't anyone highlighted it?

Or is equality of criticism not open to all?

I do agree that for some time now, there has been no point any longer in settling for "equal civil unions." If it was ever possible, and I doubt it, it's irrelevant now.

And if some African-Americans can't be hammered by the left for their intolerance of same-sex marriage, then the left is being condescending. True equality, for a fervent believer, means full-throated anger at all who oppose same-sex marriage. Nobody gets a free pass.





   7406. The kids disappeared, now Der-K has too much candy Posted: November 13, 2012 at 12:17 AM (#4301087)
Howie, if I may, what is your position on SSM? I may have missed it...
   7407. Steve Treder Posted: November 13, 2012 at 12:19 AM (#4301089)
Are African-Americans who still oppose same-sex marriage therefore bigots?

If the shoe fits.

And if so, why hasn't anyone highlighted it?

Consider it highlighted.
   7408. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: November 13, 2012 at 12:21 AM (#4301091)
odd that in several posts against the Mouse's observations, I didn't notice anyone direct this one head-on:

"I love how a huge portion of black Americans went from bigoted to not bigoted in just a few days after Obama declared he was for SSM."


I thought I tried to address that in #7391 and #7396.
   7409. SoSH U at work Posted: November 13, 2012 at 12:31 AM (#4301096)
This point needs to be made. If civil unions were the magic bullet, well they would have been the magic bullet. Civil unions everywhere for gays, done and done. Hasn't happened. Once you move on to civil unions, the opponents say "well, that's just like marriage" and it's no to civil unions too. So much for semantics. Some of the "domestic partnership" laws actually have fewer rights than marriages or civil unions, but how come we don't have domestic partnership everywhere?


There's no question that the hardcore opponents of gay marriage want/wanted nothing to do with civil unions. I don't think anyone would argue that if gay marriage supporters would just agree to civil unions and stop the fight over the word, the right would have just yielded. That's obviously not the case.

But I don't see the case that civil unions idea strengthened this opposition in any way. The far right was and is going to be hardened against anything resembling marriage, whatever you want to call it. The left wants nothing but complete and full marriage. Some in the middle are/were willing to yield on civil unions, but balked at "marriage." I don't see evidence to support the idea that a compromise on civil unions has strengthened the opposition. And, FTR, I don't consider Steve's "damn fracking straight" to be evidence :-).

Not negotiated, but Vermont went from nothing to civil unions to gay marriage. The existence of civil unions doesn't appear to have been some kind of roadblock to the latter.

The reason gay marriage has had trouble getting a foothold in this country is not because its supporters have been weak-willed on the issue. It's because not enough people were willing to grant same-sex couples those rights under any name. That's changing, as older opponents die and are replaced by younger people who don't share those opinions (as well as, to a lesser extent, changing feelings among older people). Civil unions had nothing to do with it.
   7410. Howie Menckel Posted: November 13, 2012 at 12:39 AM (#4301098)
Jolly,
You addressed it from your already reasonable viewpoint, agreed.

I am talking about those who seem more fervent about other opponents than African-Americans, which makes little sense to me. I think your answers also left room for others who may have grown up in similar circumstances.

.........

"Howie, if I may, what is your position on SSM? I may have missed it..."

I have never opposed it, though I recognized years ago that this was about more than simply civil rights. That was my point in earlier comments: the intertwining of religious and civil made this more complicated than I wish it had to be.

After the widespread ignorance of the 1990s that led to extremes such as longtime partners not even being able to see a dying partner in a hospital because they weren't "family" - which most sane people recognized as disgraceful - efforts were made to equalize civil unions with traditional marriages.

My other posts have noted how that didn't really work, and why same-sex marriage now seems like the only logical conclusion.

And I don't ignore the battle for the word "marriage" that zealots on both sides have had - though each sometimes has tried to downplay their own strong focus on "owning" the word, for some reason.

I still see some of that here.

And not sure what to say about the resigned nature of objecting to African-Americans who oppose same-sex marriage, compared to hard-core right-wingers. They both vote the same way on the issue.

Waiting for the first fresh post that takes on the African-American or Latino communities for their lack of sufficient support for what I agree is an important issue.


   7411. Biff, highly-regarded young guy Posted: November 13, 2012 at 12:52 AM (#4301103)
I Nicole <redacted> had understood the aesthetic brilliance of Master of Puppets I would have totally gotten laid earlier than I did.

I don't know why, but I never took Sam H as a Metallica fan. I suppose you could reconcile that with the pro-neck stabbing platform.
   7412. Poulanc Posted: November 13, 2012 at 12:53 AM (#4301104)
Waiting for the first fresh post that takes on the African-American or Latino communities for their lack of sufficient support for what I agree is an important issue.


What are you looking for exactly?

Folks who don't support same sex marriage are supporting a bigoted belief. It doesn't matter where they got it - their religious leader, their parents, their friends - it's still a bigoted belief. It also doesn't matter what race they are.

Can someone have bigoted beliefs and not be a bigot? Sure, I guess. The video about racism that someone linked to earlier (sorry, I quickly browsed and didn't see it again) pretty much nailed it. We should be talking about the act and not the person. People who vote against same sex marriage are exhibiting bigoted behavior. I guess I don't know how else to say it.
   7413. Steve Treder Posted: November 13, 2012 at 01:00 AM (#4301108)
Can someone have bigoted beliefs and not be a bigot? Sure, I guess.

But why should we care?

We should be talking about the act and not the person. People who vote against same sex marriage are exhibiting bigoted behavior. I guess I don't know how else to say it.

There are a million ways to spin it, but it remains what is is.
   7414. Howie Menckel Posted: November 13, 2012 at 01:12 AM (#4301111)
"What are you looking for exactly?"

"Waiting for the first fresh post that takes on the African-American or Latino communities for their lack of sufficient support for what I agree is an important issue."

I am intrigued by the fairly even proportion of same-sex marriage backers on whether opposition to it guarantees the "bigot" comment.

The political party phrase "big tent" isn't exactly coming to mind for the more hardcore half, which leaves out many African-Americans and Latinos in particular. If the Democratic Party took on this stance, they might not do as well down the road.

Anyone who calls any gay marriage opponents "bigots" should not be as namby-pamby about different folks who say it. In fact, why not focus hardest on the traditionally left groups who aren't following suit sufficiently? We're 24 months before another big election - why be shy now?

Reminds me of the old 1960s line about the left: "At least we treat the minorities as if they were as good as we are!"

If they really are equal (and they are, duh), then don't treat those attitudes as anything less.


   7415. rr Posted: November 13, 2012 at 01:14 AM (#4301112)
Waiting for the first fresh post that takes on the African-American or Latino communities for their lack of sufficient support for what I agree is an important issue.


Those "communities" are not monoliths, on gay marriage or on any other issue. So if you "not sure what to say" about people's reactions to the issue, you might start by thinking about that and the fact that you used the term "communities" and what that says about you.

As SOSH suggests, age tends to play a role in how people feel about SSM, as do other factors. This is readily apparent in polling data and can be seen anacdotally on the ground.

As to why people at BTF don't rant and rave about it, well, people tend to pick their battles here for in part for political reasons; we see that on both sides at BTF and in the public sphere. Gotchas along those lines are generally cliche'd and tiresome. Occasionally they serve a purpose.
   7416. Howie Menckel Posted: November 13, 2012 at 01:19 AM (#4301113)
Yes, my point was about the portion of the African-American and Latino communities that oppose same-sex marriage.

What is says about me, is that it is late, and I am responding to several posts, so thanks for that.

I am not exactly a stranger to these communities, compared to most of those here....

   7417. steagles Posted: November 13, 2012 at 01:20 AM (#4301115)
"What are you looking for exactly?"

"Waiting for the first fresh post that takes on the African-American or Latino communities for their lack of sufficient support for what I agree is an important issue."

I am intrigued by the fairly even proportion of same-sex marriage backers on whether opposition to it guarantees the "bigot" comment.

The political party phrase "big tent" isn't exactly coming to mind for the more hardcore half, which leaves out many African-Americans and Latinos in particular. If the Democratic Party took on this stance, they might not do as well down the road.

Anyone who calls any gay marriage opponents "bigots" should not be as namby-pamby about different folks who say it. In fact, why not focus hardest on the traditionally left groups who aren't following suit sufficiently? We're 24 months before another big election - why be shy now?
would it make you happy if we just called them tom?
   7418. Lassus Posted: November 13, 2012 at 01:21 AM (#4301116)
Waiting for the first fresh post that takes on the African-American or Latino communities for their lack of sufficient support for what I agree is an important issue.
Anyone who calls any gay marriage opponents "bigots" should not be as namby-pamby about different folks who say it. In fact, why not focus hardest on the traditionally left groups who aren't following suit sufficiently? We're 24 months before another big election - why be shy now?


You are very late to a HA HA, AHA! AHA, HA HA! GOTCHA STUPID HYPOCRITE LIBERALS argument that JoeK and Ray have shrilly repeated ad nauseum in previous threads. Sorry.

It's a bigoted position, and holding it is indeed bigotry by blacks and latinos. Now go, go and spread my indictment far and wide!
   7419. rr Posted: November 13, 2012 at 01:21 AM (#4301117)
I am not exactly a stranger to these communities, compared to most of those here....


Perhaps, but I wouldn't be too sure about that. This site is demographically homeogeneous but experiencially fairly diverse.

And in fairness to you, a lot of people of all races use that term; I find it a little careless, however.
   7420. Howie Menckel Posted: November 13, 2012 at 01:27 AM (#4301118)

Thanks, robinred, but this thread is getting even weirder than I expected.

Reminds me of the Blues Brothers line about how "we play both kinds of music here: country AND western!"

   7421. Ray (RDP) Posted: November 13, 2012 at 01:31 AM (#4301119)
.
   7422. Ray (RDP) Posted: November 13, 2012 at 01:32 AM (#4301120)
"Marriage is X and I'm doing Y but I demand you call Y marriage because otherwise I would feel less dignified!!" is not an argument that moves me.


Great, but that's a stupid argument.


My point exactly.

The argument in the SSM case is "Marriage is X and I'm doing X so I demand you call it X because to do otherwise is to fail to grant me the dignity I deserve as a fellow citizen with equal rights."


But same-sex marriage is not X. If it were X, there would be no problem.

No law told Rosie O'Donnell and Ricky Martin that they couldn't get married to each other.

   7423. Steve Treder Posted: November 13, 2012 at 01:36 AM (#4301122)
My point exactly.

Of course it wasn't.

But same-sex marriage is not X. If it were X, there would be no problem.

It is X. There is no valid problem.

No law told Rosie O'Donnell and Ricky Martin that they couldn't get married to each other.

Swing and a miss.
   7424. DA Baracus Posted: November 13, 2012 at 01:44 AM (#4301123)
This thread really needs a gay black woman up for promotion at a law firm to join the conversation to tie the last few pages together.
   7425. DevilInABlueCap Posted: November 13, 2012 at 02:02 AM (#4301126)
With 7424 above, my timing is perfect.

To weigh in: is being against SSM bigoted? Maybe, if in the face of every decent argument, you move the goalposts to why it shouldn't happen. Then you're a bigot! But is it homophobic? Yes, absolutely! There is no way to be against SSM and not be homophobic. It is intrinsic to the position. It doesn't really matter what your rationale is, where you're coming from, or how you formulated your opinion. In the end, if you don't believe that gay people are entitled to the same contract that legally validates straight relationships, then you are homophobic. There are lots of different levels of homophobia, so you can pick and choose whether you're the person who is "fine with it, as long as it's not around me" or the "would disown child/family member if they came out" or the "try to convert back to 'normal' Exorcist-style". It's the same for civil rights laws. It doesn't really matter how you get there, if you think that the economic and political system of the pre-CRA ex-Confederacy was a fine system, you're racist. There are even lots of different layers to racism too! (It's why I'd love to rehabilitate the word to a degree. "Racist" has become a bizarre soul-searching exercise instead of the more obvious "are you doing something racist or that makes racists happy? then you're being racist." It's a state of being, not a state of mind.)

And as for indicting the black and Latino communities who have voted against SSM: holy moly, the only way to miss that is to have only passing knowledge of the SSM movement. After Prop 8, the attacks on the black community were so virulent as to expose that there is still plenty of racism left in the gay rights movement (blacks can be homophobic and gays can be racist, which just goes to show that anyone can be an #######). This was such a schism in the liberal coalition that the National Organization for Marriage (anti-SSM) deliberately tried to use black churches as a way to beat the amendment in North Carolina.
   7426. Steve Treder Posted: November 13, 2012 at 02:06 AM (#4301127)
#7425 I would compliment you on your excellent post, but -- ya know. Let's just say it was horrible.
   7427. DevilInABlueCap Posted: November 13, 2012 at 02:13 AM (#4301128)
I am clearly getting an affirmative action boost! There's a white guy out there somewhere who could've made that post.
   7428. Steve Treder Posted: November 13, 2012 at 02:16 AM (#4301130)
And better than you did. Duh.
   7429. DA Baracus Posted: November 13, 2012 at 02:16 AM (#4301131)
I am clearly getting an affirmative action boost! There's a white guy out there somewhere who could've made that post.


But then we wouldn't have met our quota.
   7430. DevilInABlueCap Posted: November 13, 2012 at 02:21 AM (#4301132)
I knew there was a reason that my BBTF entrance exam had "identify which color is blue" and "how do you spell 'cat'?" as questions instead of calculus and 16th century English history.
   7431. Steve Treder Posted: November 13, 2012 at 02:30 AM (#4301133)
Heh, heh. Don't worry your nappy little head about that stuff. Just keep your mouth shut and keep accepting unearned promotions. You know the drill.
   7432. rr Posted: November 13, 2012 at 02:31 AM (#4301134)
I knew there was a reason that my BBTF entrance exam had "identify which color is blue" and "how do you spell 'cat'?" as questions instead of calculus and 16th century English history.


Don't sweat it; when they found out that I went to and teach in public educational institutions, they let me take that version of the test, too. There was a section from The Communist Manifesto on that one, but I have read that so many times (usually with my lips moving) that I was able to get most of the questions.
   7433. DevilInABlueCap Posted: November 13, 2012 at 02:41 AM (#4301136)
Is this the part where I high-five, or does that come later?
   7434. rr Posted: November 13, 2012 at 02:54 AM (#4301139)
Is this the part where I high-five, or does that come later?


High-fiving is out. We fist-bump now.
   7435. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: November 13, 2012 at 06:43 AM (#4301153)


Given the upcoming donnybrook over getting the wealthy to pay their fair share I'm optimistic the CRS's recent report will get plenty of publicity. Here's Eliot Spitzer's take:

Why the GOP Quashed a Superb Report on Income Tax Rates for the Rich

And we now have the analysis, a fascinating report just issued by the Congressional Research Service. The CRS is a nonpartisan entity that produces academic-quality research to answer tough policy questions. The bottom line conclusion of the CRS report is this:

The reduction in top tax rates appears to be uncorrelated with saving, investment, and productivity growth. The top tax rates appear to have little or no relation to the size of the economic pie. However, the top tax rate reductions appear to be associated with the increasing concentration of income at the top of the income distribution.

The report notes that tax rates were at the highest when growth was at its peak, and that the reduction in rates has not had any discernible impact on the types of investment that lead to growth. Rather than acknowledge the findings, however, Senate Republicans successfully pressured the CRS to withdraw the report. It is reminiscent of a different era, when news the government didn't like was simply suppressed.

The important point here is the rigorous conclusion reached by the study: Raising the top income tax rate to 39.6 percent will not have any of the damaging consequences that the Grover Norquists of the world suggest. A week after the political and ideological battle for slightly higher taxes on the wealthy was won, we now have a careful analysis supporting the same course. Facts matter. And in this case, fairness wins.
   7436. Blastin Posted: November 13, 2012 at 08:28 AM (#4301158)
As BlueCap said, tons of ssm advocates railed against the black community after prop 8. Some shy away because they think it makes them seem racist.

But, yeah, look, not every black person who opposes ssm is extremely bigoted, but it is necessarily homophobic. And to be blunt, my relatives are straight up bigoted about it. It makes me upset enough that I literally leave the room when they get going during the holidays. This used to lead to discussion about my own sexuality, which is mature.


But, they trust Barack. His support for the issue has, I'm sure, not changed all their views, but it has made them shut up. I know some black folks turned on him, but they just stopped talking about the issue. I do hope that means they will eventually fully accept it, but I guess I will find out if things have changed during the upcoming holidays.


Short answer: yeah, It's homophobic and in my own family has definitely been bigoted. I have a sliver of hope that they can grow the #### up. Along with the rest of the community. Especially since my rather serious gf is bi and I don't feel like lying to them.
   7437. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: November 13, 2012 at 08:38 AM (#4301160)
ya'know folks, it's all over but the shouting. gay marriage is a done deal. in 15 years tops nobody is going to think twice about this stuff.

teh amount of energy you are wasting on whether attitudes are bigoted or not is a waste of your resources.

not that you should move on to another cause because you don't want to let your guard down but boy there are other things to be kvetching about.

ain't my cause. just sayin'...........
   7438. Lassus Posted: November 13, 2012 at 08:42 AM (#4301161)
Ray, you're back! Anyhow, as a repeat, you said the argument you like, the honest one no liberal makes (where HAVE I heard that before?) is something about how marriage harms no one but harms the institution of marriage.

How does it harm the institution of marriage? I find that a curious statement.
   7439. Non-Youkilidian Geometry Posted: November 13, 2012 at 08:54 AM (#4301164)
Is this the part where I high-five, or does that come later?


High-fiving is out. We fist-bump now.

Terrorists!
   7440. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: November 13, 2012 at 09:08 AM (#4301171)
However, I don't know what a bigoted position is. Bigotry in my mind has always been around a person and their opinions. A person is bigoted. Their opinions reflect their bigotry.
I think this is an important point to go back to.

We can't know the underlying cause of a person's beliefs or the underlying intent of their words or actions with any particular certainty. This is greatly due to the existence of the unconscious, the way in which our minds are not transparent even to ourselves.

There are all kinds of bigotry that get ingrained in a person, into your unconscious, just growing up in a racialized society. (Have you ever taken the implicit racism test? That thing'll scare you as to what's actually in your unconscious brain.) This is, for instance, that impression your white high school teacher did of Chris Rock was so uncomfortable. Even if he's just trying to do a fair impression, he can't help but draw on unconscious stores of stereotypical black diction and affect in putting together that impression. I'm not saying he is a racist - he probably wasn't! - but the impression he was doing, it was kind of racist.

With same-sex marriage, I don't know why someone votes to deny gay folks equal rights. It could be ignorance or a lack of critical thought. It could be following community standards. It could be an underlying desire to be a contrarian on the internet. All of these are ways in which unconscious bigotry penetrates our mind, whether we meant it to our not, whether we are consciously in our heart horrible bigots or not. Their actions - seeking to deny equal rights to gay folks - are kind of bigoted, and their actions are what should be called out.
   7441. formerly dp Posted: November 13, 2012 at 09:09 AM (#4301172)
I think there was a moment when a lot of gay rights advocates would have been happy with civil unions as a compromise position, if only because the non-compromise position seemed eons away. But from my knowledge of the situation, that changed when the right wing started actively and hatefully campaigning against gay marriage as a response to gay rights advocates' victories around civil unions, which they represented as a slippery slope to marriage. 'Marriage' was one of many issues advocates wanted to see movement on, though it certainly wasn't considered the most important one, especially since some see it as involving an assimilation to a lot of the norms of straight culture. That vision of progress wasn't/isn't universally shared. (this is not me making/advocating an anti-SSM argument; I'm just not entirely comfortable with the flattening of GLBT perspectives that seems to be happening here-- these are hugely complex question around identity, and most of us are just tourists in our explorations)

Going back a bit:
My preference was that the Government get out of the business of recognizing "marriages"- have the Government solely recognize civil unions. let Church's recognize or not recognize "marriages" as they see fit.

A lot of feminists, especially of the older stripe, have long made abolishing/moving past the institution of marriage a goal, and a lot of gay rights advocates share similar roots. There's a lot of intragroup politics behind how advocate groups represent and market a particular assimilationist vision of homosexuality in an attempt to neutralize the threat gay *culture* (to the extent that such a thing exists, it is of course an imaginary) was seen as posing to straight culture. But at the end of the day, this is the issue that galvanized the culture war, and the victory on this one issue appears decisive, but 1) the battle even over SSM is far from complete (the way harv is suggesting; especially in the ####### south, it's not close). And the fear that equality and full citizenship will be equated with marriage rights ("you got that, now stop complaining, you're equal") is IMO a legitimate one.
   7442. Greg K Posted: November 13, 2012 at 09:15 AM (#4301177)
Have you ever taken the implicit racism test?

I did the other day. I'll let the fact that I'm not comfortable saying what the results were speak for itself.
   7443. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: November 13, 2012 at 09:15 AM (#4301178)
There's a lot of intragroup politics behind how advocate groups represent and market a particular assimilationist vision of homosexuality in an attempt to neutralize the threat gay *culture* (to the extent that such a thing exists, it is of course an imaginary) was seen as posing to straight culture.
Yeah, but having been in the movement for a while, I think that's pretty much been shown to be a load of crap. It turned out, contrary to the fears of some radicals, that marriage wasn't assimilationist. The opportunity to commit and have that commitment recognized fully by the state has been an opportunity equally for buttoned-up bankers and leather daddies alike. The gay marriage movement has been so fully embraced by folks across the spectrum in the gay community that it's been an amazing source of unity and a source of new forms of gay culture. It was a real mass movement, a movement of ordinary folks in many ways contrary to, or at least separate from the aims of elite groups, both activists and theoreticians.
   7444. Bitter Mouse Posted: November 13, 2012 at 09:23 AM (#4301183)
Wait, those are supposed to be valid reasons?


Who said they needed to be good reasons? I never claimed there were good reasons. I think it is a wrong position. All I am saying is you can vote against SSM and not be bigoted (Wrong, stupid, a follower, hate all social change or perhaps even bigoted - heck many agaiinst it are several on the list).

Now in 20 years or so when SSM is the law of the land and a huge majority have moved on, those idiots still against it, they are clearly bigoted. Where to draw the line between them is up for discussion. Basically I think you (collective, many) are way too free to use terms like bigoted. I don't think it is a correct use of the word and as Andy said very well it is not helpful to demonize people.

Off to hunt the internet to find someting (anything) else to argue about.
   7445. formerly dp Posted: November 13, 2012 at 09:26 AM (#4301184)
Yeah, but having been in the movement for a while, I think that's pretty much been shown to be a load of crap. It turned out, contrary to the fears of some radicals, that marriage wasn't assimilationist. The opportunity to commit and have that commitment recognized fully by the state has been an opportunity equally for buttoned-up bankers and leather daddies alike. The gay marriage movement has been so fully embraced by folks across the spectrum in the gay community that it's been an amazing source of unity and a source of new forms of gay culture.

I appreciate that perspective, and I've seen some of that play out. But I know others who still disagree. And I know a few people who came around to rallying on the issue, because what sort of dumbass would actively speak out against more rights for themselves and (more importantly) their friends? But it also wasn't necessarily important to them when the fight began. Of course, a lot of this maps onto issues like class/geography/age too.
Edit: MCoA, I'm not entirely comfortable with this exchange, because it seems to involve a lot of 'speaking for'-- and I can only go by what I've read and who I've talked to.
   7446. formerly dp Posted: November 13, 2012 at 09:39 AM (#4301188)
It was a real mass movement, a movement of ordinary folks in many ways contrary to, or at least separate from the aims of elite groups, both activists and theoreticians.

This was added after my response: I agree entirely. But that doesn't mean that it's without internal dissidents. And it doesn't mean that there wasn't a struggle over which identity got to be the 'face' of the movement.
   7447. Lassus Posted: November 13, 2012 at 09:42 AM (#4301189)
A lot of feminists, especially of the older stripe, have long made abolishing/moving past the institution of marriage a goal, and a lot of gay rights advocates share similar roots.

Things in this I question:

a.) "A lot."

b.) The present-tense statement of this percentage.
   7448. Edmundo got dem ol' Kozma blues again mama Posted: November 13, 2012 at 09:53 AM (#4301191)
Now in 20 years or so when SSM is the law of the land and a huge majority have moved on

I remember thinking 40 years ago that we were right around the corner from legalizing pot.
   7449. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: November 13, 2012 at 09:56 AM (#4301192)
Or maybe they're not even "morons", but simply people...


This sentence makes no sense at all.
   7450. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: November 13, 2012 at 10:05 AM (#4301196)
But same-sex marriage is not X. If it were X, there would be no problem.


Hey Ray, do you have a little hand made cardboard sign that you occasionally hold up to passing motorists as they exit the freeway, or do you just beg the question on the internet?
   7451. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: November 13, 2012 at 10:13 AM (#4301201)
A lot of feminists, especially of the older stripe, have long made abolishing/moving past the institution of marriage a goal, and a lot of gay rights advocates share similar roots.

Things in this I question:

a.) "A lot."

b.) The present-tense statement of this percentage.


This is something akin to arguing that the modern Republican party is still the "party of Lincoln." I mean, they use the same name and ####, right?

Yes, 2nd Wave feminism were often opposed to marriage on the grounds that it was an archaic institution fundamentally compromised by patriarchal oppression*. 3rd Wave feminism moved passed that somewhat in the 80s and 90s, and 4th wave feminists all but ignore the position completely. But hey, keep arguing to the 1970s, man. Later we can all get worried about OPEC and stagflation, put on our bell bottoms and smoke a bowl in the basement listening to that new "Dark Side of the Moon" LP.

*Yes, the gay rights movement aligned to this position in the 70s and early 80s; in fact Andrew Sullivan was almost run out of "Gayville" for even suggesting that gays and lesbians ought to fight for inclusion in the institution of marriage, rather than fight to eliminate marriage from the post-modern world. In 1995.
   7452. formerly dp Posted: November 13, 2012 at 10:32 AM (#4301215)
3rd Wave feminism moved passed that somewhat in the 80s and 90s, and 4th wave feminists all but ignore the position completely. But hey, keep arguing to the 1970s, man. Later we can all get worried about OPEC and stagflation, put on our bell bottoms and smoke a bowl in the basement listening to that new "Dark Side of the Moon" LP.

This seems like a terrible way to think about the history of rights advocacy. Third wave feminists basically took abortion rights as a given. That turned out to be a mistake. Second wave feminists were encouraging them to think of it as an ongoing battle, rather than something another generation fought and won.
*Yes, the gay rights movement aligned to this position in the 70s and early 80s; in fact Andrew Sullivan was almost run out of "Gayville" for even suggesting that gays and lesbians ought to fight for inclusion in the institution of marriage, rather than fight to eliminate marriage from the post-modern world. In 1995.

That doesn't mean those perspectives are gone, or that the debates have been permanently settled, or that the concerns they give voice to are invalid. There are a plurality of perspectives on the issue, and that plurality is being erased in this discussion. There are identities that have been marginalized in this push, and they're not just the identities of elite queer theorists. You can invalidate those perspectives if you want, but I'm not sure what there is to gain in doing so. Here's the TOC of the collection I linked to above (warning PDF!). Again, I'm not endorsing these perspectives, but to present them as firmly swept into the dustbin is inaccurate.
   7453. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: November 13, 2012 at 10:36 AM (#4301216)
This seems like a terrible way to think about the history of rights advocacy. Third wave feminists basically took abortion rights as a given. That turned out to be a mistake. Second wave feminists were encouraging them to think of it as an ongoing battle, rather than something another generation fought and won.


Tactical errors were made. Ground was lost and has to be regained. Such is the fog of war.

That doesn't mean those perspectives are gone, or that the debates have been permanently settled, or that the concerns they give voice to are invalid. There are a plurality of perspectives on the issue, and that plurality is being erased in this discussion. There are identities that have been marginalized in this push, and they're not just the identities of elite queer theorists. You can invalidate those perspectives if you want, but I'm not sure what there is to gain in doing so.


I'm not invalidating those perspectives, I'm just telling them that they're wrong.
   7454. BDC Posted: November 13, 2012 at 10:37 AM (#4301217)
As I said somewhere above, I'm not eager to be married again myself. But I'm not eager to own a home or a boat, or barbecue, or build a deck, or go to summer action movies, or watch tennis on TV. I do think that other people should have the right to do those things, however :)
   7455. formerly dp Posted: November 13, 2012 at 10:41 AM (#4301218)
I'm not invalidating those perspectives, I'm just telling them that they're wrong.

So you would tell a transgendered person who feels marginalized by the image of 'gayness' being marketed by SSM advocacy organizations that they're wrong to feel that way? That seems predictably arrogant on your part, but also harmfully dismissive of their perspective.
   7456. zonk Posted: November 13, 2012 at 10:49 AM (#4301221)
I knew there was a reason that my BBTF entrance exam had "identify which color is blue" and "how do you spell 'cat'?" as questions instead of calculus and 16th century English history.


Repoz threatened to filibuster your nomination based on the lack of Pavement mentions in the essay portion, though the liberal circlejerk was able to successfully argue that reliance on Pavement mentions in the essay was a culturally biased standard.


But hey, keep arguing to the 1970s, man. Later we can all get worried about OPEC and stagflation, put on our bell bottoms and smoke a bowl in the basement listening to that new "Dark Side of the Moon" LP.


Sweet... does this mean I can stop showering, too?


Folks who don't support same sex marriage are supporting a bigoted belief. It doesn't matter where they got it - their religious leader, their parents, their friends - it's still a bigoted belief. It also doesn't matter what race they are.


Mike Huckabee was on TDS last night, and while I agree with Jon Stewart - I'm not so sure that Huckanee didn't win the debate on points and style when gay marriage was discussed... I don't agree with him, but it advances the idea of SSM/marriage equality not a wit to argue the tack that Stewart did --- we're rapidly getting to the... sorry, but it's the best way to phrase it -- "dead enders" -- on the subject. Arguing that they should 'accept' SSM because their faith is 'wrong' does no good... the best argument there is "you're entitled to your beliefs, but not entitled to have those beliefs codified into our secular government's laws".
   7457. zonk Posted: November 13, 2012 at 10:50 AM (#4301223)
As I said somewhere above, I'm not eager to be married again myself. But I'm not eager to own a home or a boat, or barbecue, or build a deck, or go to summer action movies, or watch tennis on TV. I do think that other people should have the right to do those things, however :)


I would quibble with watching tennis on TV -- the airwaves are a shared, publicly owned medium -- and the sooner we get tennis off of them, the better we'll all be.
   7458. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: November 13, 2012 at 10:56 AM (#4301229)
I would ask a TG why they feel marginalized. Why they feel the need to identify with gays and lesbians at all. Are they gay or lesbian, or just TG? Why not stop using the generic alphabet soup "GLBT" identity bucket that might as well be marked "let me identify myself by what I'm not, thus giving the power that I claim to be fighting back to the heterodoxy that I claim to be opposing without so much as a "by your leave.""
   7459. zonk Posted: November 13, 2012 at 10:59 AM (#4301230)
A pretty wild article regarding Patraeus in the NYT...

Among the interesting things --

1) Eric Cantor knew about this before Obama

2) We had a rogue FBI agent who essentially got involved because A) he wanted to bed the target of Broadwell's e-mailed 'hands off my man', and B) wanted to uncover a massive Obama scandal.

As Josh Marshall sums up --

So basically this entire scandal both at the outset and in the denouement was driven by Freakshow FBI Agent X who both wanted to bed the victim of the alleged harassment and also decided that the FBI was covering up it’s investigation of the Tampa socialite to protect President Obama. And this because of his “worldview”. Please let us meet this awesome example of American law enforcement.


   7460. zonk Posted: November 13, 2012 at 11:01 AM (#4301232)
And apropos to 7459 -- tell me again about this 'sacred' institution that will be horrifically disfigured and devalued if a man marries a man or woman marries a woman?

I'd think the purveyors of 'traditional marriage' might be well-served to support SSM... it seems we heteros have pretty much mucked it up to the greatest extent possible, so letting some new blood see if they can reinvigorate it would seem like the least bad option.
   7461. Blastin Posted: November 13, 2012 at 11:07 AM (#4301237)
Were transfolk just referred to as considering themselves something that they're not? The whole point is that the culture wants them to be what they arent while they want to be accepted as what they are.

Yeah, no wonder they feel marginalized.
   7462. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: November 13, 2012 at 11:09 AM (#4301239)
The link in 7459 is pretty friggin' hilarious.

Hey Ray, tell us about how this is a massive breach of national security again?
   7463. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: November 13, 2012 at 11:10 AM (#4301240)
Were transfolk just referred to as considering themselves something that they're not?


No.

The whole point is that the culture wants them to be what they arent while they want to be accepted as what they are.


Sure thing, sweet cheeks.
   7464. Blastin Posted: November 13, 2012 at 11:13 AM (#4301243)
?
   7465. BurlyBuehrle Posted: November 13, 2012 at 11:13 AM (#4301244)
(Have you ever taken the implicit racism test? That thing'll scare you as to what's actually in your unconscious brain.)


In case anyone is interested: http://www.understandingprejudice.org/iat/index2.htm

If there are other tests (better tests?), I'd appreciate a link.
   7466. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: November 13, 2012 at 11:14 AM (#4301245)
Oh, but for the record, we all consider ourselves something we're not. Notably, "selves." But that's probably a distraction at this point.
   7467. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: November 13, 2012 at 11:15 AM (#4301247)
(Have you ever taken the implicit racism test? That thing'll scare you as to what's actually in your unconscious brain.)


I grew up in south Georgia. I just assume I want to lynch the lot of you people, actually.
   7468. spike Posted: November 13, 2012 at 11:15 AM (#4301248)
And just for good measure to 7459, ANOTHER 4 star has been quite the typist - Gen Allen has sent 20 - 30,000 PAGES of inappropriate email to Jill Kelley. And gay marriage is somehow the threat here.
   7469. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: November 13, 2012 at 11:17 AM (#4301249)
A pretty wild article regarding Patraeus in the NYT...

Among the interesting things --

1) Eric Cantor knew about this before Obama

2) We had a rogue FBI agent who essentially got involved because A) he wanted to bed the target of Broadwell's e-mailed 'hands off my man', and B) wanted to uncover a massive Obama scandal.


Ms. Kelley, a volunteer with wounded veterans and military families, brought her complaint to a rank-and-file agent she knew from a previous encounter with the F.B.I. office, the official also said. That agent, who had previously pursued a friendship with Ms. Kelley and had earlier sent her shirtless photographs of himself, was “just a conduit” for the complaint, he said. He had no training in cybercrime, was not part of the cyber squad handling the case and was never assigned to the investigation.

But the agent, who was not identified, continued to “nose around” about the case, and eventually his superiors “told him to stay the hell away from it, and he was not invited to briefings,” the official said. The Wall Street Journal first reported on Monday night that the agent had been barred from the case.

Later, the agent became convinced — incorrectly, the official said — that the case had stalled. Because of his “worldview,” as the official put it, he suspected a politically motivated cover-up to protect President Obama. The agent alerted Eric Cantor, the House majority leader, who called the F.B.I. director, Robert S. Mueller III, on Oct. 31 to tell him of the agent’s concerns.


So why didn't Cantor tell Obama, and who's hiring the FBI agents these days? J. Edgar Hoover?
   7470. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: November 13, 2012 at 11:18 AM (#4301251)
?


Just me being cursory and dismissive. To answer your question more fully, no, I did not suggest transfolk (lovely term of art, that) should be something they're not. I simply suggested that the alphabet suit nomenclature by which all "abnormals" jump in the same tiny lifeboat and row furiously away isn't the best way to wrangle steerage away from the "normals" who are trying to kick you off the big ship Lollipop to begin with.

Stop letting the heterodox ####### define normal.
   7471. DJS and the Infinite Sadness Posted: November 13, 2012 at 11:18 AM (#4301252)
Arguing that they should 'accept' SSM because their faith is 'wrong' does no good... the best argument there is "you're entitled to your beliefs, but not entitled to have those beliefs codified into our secular government's laws".

I disagree. I still strongly believe the best argument here is the libertarian one (though that shouldn't come as a shock to you guys, I'm sure). Marriage is none of the government's business. Or, to rephrase it for the religious, marriage is too sacred to let a government play a determining role.

The argument at the top, I personally find weak. I feel that gay marriages being easily obtainable as a matter of contract to be the superior position, but the argument is weak to use on those that disagree because you're essentially telling them "my personal beliefs can be codified because they are more legitimate than your personal beliefs." Religion is more than rituals and creation myths, it's the foundation for an ethical framework. The division drawn between religion/secular is generally quite arbitrary - on a fundamental level, libertarianism, progressivism, etc. take on the same characteristics as a religion, each with their own set of dogma and beliefs that we hold as a matter of faith. It doesn't really matter if we hold our ethical positions because we get our inspiration from a creator-God, from the opinions of others, or from ourselves. I'm not a religious person, but I do get along well with plenty of people with deep faith and essentially telling them that your moral construction is objectively superior to their moral construction is the 100% wrong approach to convincing them on a subject.

That's why I feel getting government out of the marriage game *enhances* religious freedom (and the argument I've had the most success with when talking with religious people that aren't on board). An American civil marriage contract being separate from a Catholic marriage, a Jewish marriage, or an Atheist marriage, allows everyone to marry according to their own rules of their own religion.

   7472. Blastin Posted: November 13, 2012 at 11:20 AM (#4301254)
The IAT freaked me out even as a black guy. Amusingly I took it in front of a group of classmates in college, all of whom were white.

I have read that the way to unracist your score is being shown positive images of black people beforehand. Sad that we have to do that to counteract society in general.
   7473. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: November 13, 2012 at 11:21 AM (#4301255)
And just for good measure to 7459, ANOTHER 4 star has been quite the typist - Gen Allen has sent 20 - 30,000 PAGES of inappropriate email to Jill Kelley. And gay marriage is somehow the threat here.


Is it like a supper club where all of the 4+ stars pass around the same crazy piece of ass on the side?
   7474. Bitter Mouse Posted: November 13, 2012 at 11:21 AM (#4301256)
20,000 to 30,000 pages of email. Seriously think about that for a second. And people think this thread is silly long.

The whole thing has turned into a farce, with the good being less Benghazi chatter the bad being it is kind of stepping on Obama's post election fist bump.
   7475. formerly dp Posted: November 13, 2012 at 11:23 AM (#4301258)
I would ask a TG why they feel marginalized. Why they feel the need to identify with gays and lesbians at all. Are they gay or lesbian, or just TG? Why not stop using the generic alphabet soup "GLBT" identity bucket that might as well be marked "let me identify myself by what I'm not, thus giving the power that I claim to be fighting back to the heterodoxy that I claim to be opposing without so much as a "by your leave.""

I sort of don't know what you mean here.

To me, the SSM question is a no-brainer. But I also understand that ID politics are insanely complicated and personal, so I'm interested in leaving open a space for dialogue about the new marginalizations/exclusions created by new modes of inclusion/mainstreaming.
   7476. bunyon Posted: November 13, 2012 at 11:24 AM (#4301259)
I just assume I want to lynch the lot of you people, actually.

So do we, Sam.
   7477. bunyon Posted: November 13, 2012 at 11:24 AM (#4301260)
"Most mentally balanced individual in his own scandal."

Awesome.
   7478. spike Posted: November 13, 2012 at 11:25 AM (#4301261)
The whole thing has turned into a farce, with the good being less Benghazi chatter the bad being it is kind of stepping on Obama's post election fist bump.

If it will help tamp down some of the disturbing fetishization of the military in this country of late, so much the better
   7479. Barry`s_Lazy_Boy Posted: November 13, 2012 at 11:25 AM (#4301262)
No one who voted that way because their Dad hates gays and they accept what their father says (because they respect and follow the guidance of their father)?

BM, I'm mostly agreeing with you that its heavy-handed to call everyone a bigot who doesn't support SSM.

But you just defended centuries of racial bigotry.
   7480. The Good Face Posted: November 13, 2012 at 11:25 AM (#4301263)
Well, I see you've gone from "Bitter Mouse said this" to "many people on the left" say this, but you still can't figure out what is being said.


Ah Lassus, we were discussing TWO things when you decided to interject with your... special perspective. First, the issue of why so many on the left insist that AA is both essential and good while claiming it's racist to say anybody ever benefitted from it. And second, BM's behavior and how it perfectly replicated what people claim to find annoying about Joe K.*

My opinions on the racist qualities of the protestation of Affirmative Action: When you say it as an insult, yeah, it's racist. When you say that the only reason a cum laude graduate as successful as plenty of Supreme Court Justices has ever advanced AT EVERY SINGLE LEVEL OF THEIR CAREER is because of Affirmative Action, yes, it's tending towards racist. When you pick a random job you know nothing about that's been filled by a minority and cry omnisciently that YOU KNOW the job should have gone to some beleaguered white person who was passed over because of Affirmative Action, it's... well, it's mostly pathetic whining. But it's also kind of racist as well.


Right, so it's racist to say somebody has benefitted from AA when you decide it is. Well, that's... unsurprising. Again, if AA is doing good and essential work, it should be both trivially easy and a source of pleasure for its supporters to point out examples of people who have benefitted from it.

When I said I hadn't gone back, I meant I hadn't gone back to JOE K's repeated commentary to compare it to BM's - who I did read - so therefore I was kind of guessing from memory, as I was at work. I said I didn't pay attention to what Bitter Mouse wrote? ORLY? No. Man, you are something else with the making #### up you want to believe. As self-aware as you are, though, I assume you already know that.


Alas, I can only go on what you write. When you write poorly, people will often misconstrue your meaning. Furthermore, I would argue that the guy who's accusing the person who accurately QUOTED him of "making #### up" might want to look in the mirror on that front.


* What people REALLY find annoying about Joe K is that he disagrees with them, stridently and persistently. With one or two exceptions, every lefty here would be Joe K if you surrounded them with dissenting voices.
   7481. Barry`s_Lazy_Boy Posted: November 13, 2012 at 11:27 AM (#4301264)
Are African-Americans who still oppose same-sex marriage therefore bigots?

Well, sure.
   7482. Infinite Joost (Voxter) Posted: November 13, 2012 at 11:29 AM (#4301265)
The idea that people are campaigning for the option to get married, and this somehow marginalizes people who are not part of the demographic that wants to get married, reeks of the kind of crypto-Calvinist bullshit that pretty much discredited most of academic liberalism in the late 20th century. It stinks, and should be fought back against. There is nothing deterministic about a portion of a population being given a choice.
   7483. zonk Posted: November 13, 2012 at 11:29 AM (#4301266)

I disagree. I still strongly believe the best argument here is the libertarian one (though that shouldn't come as a shock to you guys, I'm sure). Marriage is none of the government's business. Or, to rephrase it for the religious, marriage is too sacred to let a government play a determining role.

The argument at the top, I personally find weak. I feel that gay marriages being easily obtainable as a matter of contract to be the superior position, but the argument is weak to use on those that disagree because you're essentially telling them "my personal beliefs can be codified because they are more legitimate than your personal beliefs." Religion is more than rituals and creation myths, it's the foundation for an ethical framework. The division drawn between religion/secular is generally quite arbitrary - on a fundamental level, libertarianism, progressivism, etc. take on the same characteristics as a religion, each with their own set of dogma and beliefs that we hold as a matter of faith. It doesn't really matter if we hold our ethical positions because we get our inspiration from a creator-God, from the opinions of others, or from ourselves. I'm not a religious person, but I do get along well with plenty of people with deep faith and essentially telling them that your moral construction is objectively superior to their moral construction is the 100% wrong approach to convincing them on a subject.

That's why I feel getting government out of the marriage game *enhances* religious freedom (and the argument I've had the most success with when talking with religious people that aren't on board). An American civil marriage contract being separate from a Catholic marriage, a Jewish marriage, or an Atheist marriage, allows everyone to marry according to their own rules of their own religion.


It doesn't sound like we disagree, though --

If the answer is the "no secular 'marriage' -- civil unions for all" - that's fine by me... Growing up Catholic and having some very devout Catholic family members to whom I remain quite close, I absolutely get the faith aspect -- be it about abortion or SSM or whatever. It's faith... you can't crack faith... Not my cup of tea and doesn't work for me, but I actually don't have the hubris (OK, all the necessary hubris) to just flat out say it's 'wrong'.

In effect, that's why I think the answer is the wall of separation -- believe what you want, your church may bless whatever institutions it wants, but that has no place in our secular laws.

   7484. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: November 13, 2012 at 11:30 AM (#4301267)
To me, the SSM question is a no-brainer. But I also understand that ID politics are insanely complicated and personal, so I'm interested in leaving open a space for dialogue about the new marginalizations/exclusions created by new modes of inclusion/mainstreaming


First, as I said to Blastin, I find the alphabet soup ID game (GLBTG...) to be silly at best, counter productive at worse. It's basically allowing there to exist only two possible, binary options of identification; "normal, heterosexual, straight" and "other, abnormal, freaky deaky weirdo ####." You don't break down heterodoxy by allowing it to define the terms from the start.

Second, if by normalizing and including gays and lesbians in "mainstream" culture we pull transgenders out of the fringe margins and into the lesser margins formally occupied by the now normalized gays and lesbians, well, that seems like progress to me. And if gays, lesbians, straights, trannies, cross-dressers, furries or anyone else wants to *stay* in the margins of their own free will, well, okay. It's a free country. The point isn't that you have to come to the party at the country club. It's that the country club can't refuse to let you in because you freak them out a little with your crazy-assed high heels wearing man-thang.
   7485. Random Transaction Generator Posted: November 13, 2012 at 11:31 AM (#4301268)
Because of his “worldview,” as the official put it, he suspected a politically motivated cover-up to protect President Obama.


I remember telling my friends that if the conspiracy folks who hate Obama are just crazy people on the internet, then there really isn't any harm.

But if they are getting into positions of power/importance like this...
   7486. Howie Menckel Posted: November 13, 2012 at 11:34 AM (#4301269)
"There is no way to be against SSM and not be homophobic. .....In the end, if you don't believe that gay people are entitled to the same contract that legally validates straight relationships, then you are homophobic."

Of course, those are not necessarily the same thing, which is why I think that post was overly simplistic, or at least incomplete.

If someone believes that gay people are entitled to the same contract that legally validates straight relationships, but also believes that this construct should be described as "a civil union" rather than "marriage," does that make them homophobic? (not my stance, but there are plenty who have it)

One can quite reasonably say that not attaching the word "marriage" to these rights makes it a lesser contract, of course. But can we be so all-knowing as to definitively declare that those who support equal specific rights, but argue the semantics, are homophobic?

Again, I get a little jumpy around completely certain folks of all political stripes (and notice the pitchforks surrounding Bitter Mouse's castle for not toeing the party line even when he's just raising questions and not disagreeing with the final required thought)...

   7487. Bitter Mouse Posted: November 13, 2012 at 11:34 AM (#4301270)
But you just defended centuries of racial bigotry.


I am not defending it. Where am I defending voting against SSM? It is wrong. But if someone does something in an unthinking fashion - like voting for something because someone tells them to without actually thinking through the issue - they are unthinking idiots (likely) but that doesn't mean they are bigots.

How is calling someone an unthinking idiot who is wrong on the merits of the issue defending them?
   7488. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: November 13, 2012 at 11:37 AM (#4301273)
But if they are getting into positions of power/importance like this...


Really? We're shocked by this? Of course the po-po is made up of people who would believe this sort of ####. Have you never met the po-po?!
   7489. Ron J2 Posted: November 13, 2012 at 11:39 AM (#4301274)
terrorist trial in absentia


Been brooding on this for some time now. I'm halfway convinced that a kangaroo court would actually be worse, and I'm damned if I can think of a setup that doesn't in practice end up as a rubber stamp.


I say half way because at least it does force somebody to go on the record.
   7490. Dr. Vaux Posted: November 13, 2012 at 11:39 AM (#4301275)
That implicit racism test is deeply flawed, by the way, in tying physical reflexes to mental ones. Parts of the brain have to communicate with each other, and then with your muscles. Because you can't control what finger goes down when with 100% dexterity, you're a racist? I understand that the test claims to measure what it claims to measure by assessing the nature of the mistakes, not their mere presence, but there's too much noise for it to be useful, because it ultimately comes down to "can't immediately and flawlessly switch from one set of instructions to an opposite set = racist." I hope that the test is just badly and naively designed, rather than being designed for the explicit purpose of making people start worrying that they're racists. We should be constantly inventorying ourselves for biased behaviors of all kinds, but adding extra, imagined ones isn't helping anyone.
   7491. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: November 13, 2012 at 11:40 AM (#4301276)
Ah Lassus, we were discussing TWO things when you decided to interject with your... special perspective. First, the issue of why so many on the left insist that AA is both essential and good while claiming it's racist to say anybody ever benefited from it.

Of course it's not racist to say that someone may have benefited from AA, as long as you acknowledge that the AA that preceded it was infinitely more destructive to infinitely more people than the current version, and as long as you're not implicitly adding "unfairly" to "benefited" when you're talking about people like Sonia Sotomayor.
   7492. Bitter Mouse Posted: November 13, 2012 at 11:42 AM (#4301278)
I find the alphabet soup ID game (GLBTG...) to be silly at best, counter productive at worse. It's basically allowing their to exist only two possible, binary options of identification; "normal, heterosexual, straight" and "other, abnormal, freaky deaky weirdo ####." You don't break down heterodoxy by allowing it to define the terms from the start.


Sam I think you are wrong on this. The GLBT movement is a collective based on shared goals. it does not define the members. What you are saying is roughly like saying you find Liberals or Occupy Wall Street or basically any group of people with similar goals to be silly.

There are maybe some folks in the GLBT movement who define themselves by that, but for the vast majority that I know personally it is a group(s) they are part of. How is being part of a group like that "defining only two possible, binary options of identification" any more or less than membership and identification in other groups.

Much of society viewed the GLBT folks as "other" long before the founding of that movement. The movement has helped change peoples opinions by leveraging the collective power of its membership.

Do you think that the various subsections of the GLBT movement would be better off now if they had never joined together and instead had decided that it was everyone for themselves? Sorry Transgender folks I know you are getting hit by much the same discrimination we are, but we are Gay and you aren't so we don't want you in our club.
   7493. Yeaarrgghhhh Posted: November 13, 2012 at 11:43 AM (#4301280)
I just took that test and it said that I have a slight preference for African Americans. (I'm white.) Not sure what that means.
   7494. formerly dp Posted: November 13, 2012 at 11:43 AM (#4301284)
First, as I said to Blastin, I find the alphabet soup ID game (GLBTG...) to be silly at best, counter productive at worse. It's basically allowing their to exist only two possible, binary options of identification; "normal, heterosexual, straight" and "other, abnormal, freaky deaky weirdo ####." You don't break down heterodoxy by allowing it to define the terms from the start.

That's actually the process that's being called into question. The 'alphabet soup' ID game is constantly being interrogated, and revised, by people who want to unite under that banner.
The point isn't that you have to come to the party at the country club. It's that the country club can't refuse to let you in because you freak them out a little with your crazy-assed high heels wearing man-thang.

Again, I agree with the outcome, I agree with goal. But I understand and sympathize with the objections over the flattening, because some people invest a lot in the definition and public representation of an identity that's important to them.

   7495. Edmundo got dem ol' Kozma blues again mama Posted: November 13, 2012 at 11:45 AM (#4301285)
An American civil marriage contract being separate from a Catholic marriage, a Jewish marriage, or an Atheist marriage, allows everyone to marry according to their own rules of their own religion.

By this system, polygamy would have been fine. Would there be any restriction that the government could place on a religious marriage? Age? Species?

And on the flip side, could a civil marriage be set up among more than 2 people?
   7496. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: November 13, 2012 at 11:46 AM (#4301286)
I just took that test and it said that I have a slight preference for African Americans. (I'm white.) Not sure what that means.


Once you go black...
   7497. Barry`s_Lazy_Boy Posted: November 13, 2012 at 11:46 AM (#4301287)
Is this the part where I high-five, or does that come later?

MBS.
   7498. Barry`s_Lazy_Boy Posted: November 13, 2012 at 11:47 AM (#4301289)
teh amount of energy you are wasting on whether attitudes are bigoted or not is a waste of your resources.

HW, you're absolutely right, but this is also SOP for BBTF. :)
   7499. DJS and the Infinite Sadness Posted: November 13, 2012 at 11:49 AM (#4301291)
In effect, that's why I think the answer is the wall of separation -- believe what you want, your church may bless whatever institutions it wants, but that has no place in our secular laws.

But to a religious person, you're putting up the wall of separation in front of their beliefs and not yours. You're essentially telling them that you can have your beliefs enshrined in law but they can't, because beliefs formed out of faith of their type are inherently inferior to beliefs formed out of faith of your type. And with a lot of religious people, you will have cemented their opposition rather than relaxing it.

Get government out of marriage and you don't need to use walls to essentially decide whose faith-formed beliefs are superior. You can objectively prove Lagrange's Theorem, you can't objectively prove what kind of marriages are just outside the context of personal, first belief. Like Global Thermonuclear War, the only winning move is not to play.
   7500. Misirlou was a Buddhist prodigy Posted: November 13, 2012 at 11:51 AM (#4301292)
you freak them out a little with your crazy-assed high heels wearing man-thang.


Emergency chicken mode
Page 75 of 114 pages ‹ First  < 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 >  Last ›

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Traderdave
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogOTP Politics November 2014: Mets Deny Bias in Ticket Official’s Firing
(4378 - 5:53pm, Nov 24)
Last: Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip

NewsblogOT: Wrestling Thread November 2014
(74 - 5:50pm, Nov 24)
Last: Rowland Office Supplies

NewsblogSandoval agrees to Red Sox deal, as Boston looks for free agent sweep - CBSSports.com
(26 - 5:50pm, Nov 24)
Last: TVerik, the gum-snappin' hairdresser

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 11-24-2014
(15 - 5:47pm, Nov 24)
Last: RoyalsRetro (AG#1F)

NewsblogESPN Suspends Keith Law From Twitter For Defending Evolution
(154 - 5:47pm, Nov 24)
Last: Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip

NewsblogStanton Losing About $141 Million of Record Deal to Taxes - Bloomberg
(57 - 5:47pm, Nov 24)
Last: David Nieporent (now, with children)

NewsblogRed Sox trying for mega-free agent double play: Panda and Hanley - CBSSports.com
(141 - 5:46pm, Nov 24)
Last: Darren

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread - November 2014
(1041 - 5:46pm, Nov 24)
Last: AROM

NewsblogFemale Sportswriter Asks: 'Why Are All My Twitter Followers Men?' | ThinkProgress
(156 - 5:44pm, Nov 24)
Last: Morty Causa

NewsblogOT:  Soccer (the Round, True Football), November 2014
(458 - 5:36pm, Nov 24)
Last: Shooty Is Disappointed With His Midstream Urine

NewsblogBig Unit, Pedro, Smoltz headline Hall of Fame ballot
(29 - 5:29pm, Nov 24)
Last: Pasta-diving Jeter (jmac66)

NewsblogSources: Kyle Seager nearing $100 million extension with Mariners - Yahoo Sports
(29 - 5:17pm, Nov 24)
Last: toratoratora

NewsblogRays name managerial finalists: Cash, Ibanez, Wakamatsu | Tampa Bay Times
(14 - 5:00pm, Nov 24)
Last: Zach

NewsblogOT: NFL/NHL thread
(8659 - 4:22pm, Nov 24)
Last: PASTE Thinks This Trout Kid Might Be OK (Zeth)

NewsblogWhich Pablo Sandoval Did the Red Sox Buy | FanGraphs Baseball
(1 - 3:18pm, Nov 24)
Last: zack

Page rendered in 1.3826 seconds
52 querie(s) executed