twa Posted April 7, 2014 Share Posted April 7, 2014 False, allowing same-sex marriage does not ban groups. Allowing same-sex marriage removes a ban from one group. allowing male/female only does not ban groups add are groups other than male/female and SSC under a defacto ban or not under your example? the perception from those enabled differs from those not benefitting Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AdamB Posted April 7, 2014 Author Share Posted April 7, 2014 allowing male/female only does not ban groups No, it does not ban groups. It does deny same sex couples the same legal rights as heterosexual couples. By allowing same-sex marriage, both groups will then have the same legal rights, thus is not exclusionary. Now will you provide examples of how allowing same-sex marriage bans groups. Edit: are groups other than male/female and SSC under a defacto ban or not under your example? Are you speaking of things such as polygamy? If the individuals are over the age of consent, then I personally do not have an issue with it. In fact, being as my wife and I are both poly, I would be in favor of it, while understanding there are more legal issues involved than simple hetero/homosexual marriages. Are there reasons for banning marriages between adults and children beyond "ick" factor or religious beliefs? Yes, thus a separate argument than SSM. Therefore banning marriages between adults and children does not mean that SSM should also be banned. the perception from those enabled differs from those not benefitting That is true, which is why I have issues basing laws on perceptions or viewpoints instead of legal rights (or lack there of). Perceptions: Same-sex couples having the same rights as heterosexual couples in regards to marriage is bad, Same-sex couples having the same rights as heterosexual couples in regards to marriage is good. Rights: Same-sex couples not having the same rights under the law as heterosexual couples is exclusionary no matter the perception of SSM. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted April 7, 2014 Share Posted April 7, 2014 No, it does not ban groups. It does deny same sex couples the same legal rights as heterosexual couples. By allowing same-sex marriage, both groups will then have the same legal rights, thus is not exclusionary. Now will you provide examples of how allowing same-sex marriage bans groups. so the use of the word ban is variable? It is still exclusionary despite being more inclusive. those excluded will see allowing SSM as still banning groups goes back to any restriction is intolerant....you really need examples? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zguy28 Posted April 7, 2014 Share Posted April 7, 2014 To me tolerant and intolerant is tied to inclusive vs. exclusive. For example, as many hear know I am Jewish yet I love Christmas music, decorations, and many of the traditions. Likewise, I've gone to Buhudist New Year's ceremonies and Eid events in the past and found them inspiring and interesting in a positive way. So, I would argue that I am tolerant of beliefs or religions different than my own. Part of that hinges on the idea of inclusion though. If you tell me I can not celebrate my beliefs and traditions and only you get to celebrate yours my feelings change. In simpler terms, if in your government holiday display there is room for a nativity, a Christmas tree, and Santa, but you can't find room for a menorah your intolerance tresspasses on my tolerance making me a suspicious and potentially unhappy. Likewise, I am very tolerant of different social views as long as it isn't forcibly projected into my sphere. Why should I be against a gay wedding? It harms me in no way if two men or two women fall in love and want to cherish each other and have tax breaks. I can accept a NeoNazism parade and even the handing out of literature, but if you demand that everyone join the party or incite and act violently on your supremacy beliefs you strain my tolerance. So, I think ultimately tolerance is a two way street. We should be tolerant of each other's differences as long as those tolerances are not ones which cause harm to another. The definition of harm sometimes being very difficult. Even inclusive and exclusive are words subject to interpretation. I don't view your example as an example of inclusiveness, but it is tolerance. Would you say that your Scriptural ancestors in Judah and Israel were exclusive or inclusive? What does the Scripture tell you happened when they were inclusive vs. exclusive? And what did God instruct them about whether or not they should be inclusive of the people (or their ways and beliefs) who lived in the land prior to their arrival? The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob is not inclusive when it comes to His people I don't think. A good example is King Josiah. Would you have considered him tolerant or inclusive? What about Nehemiah? I'm curious as to what you think, given your Jewish heritage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AdamB Posted April 7, 2014 Author Share Posted April 7, 2014 so the use of the word ban is variable? It is still exclusionary despite being more inclusive. those excluded will see allowing SSM as still banning groups goes back to any restriction is intolerant....you really need examples? Allowing Same-Sex Marriage does not ban other groups that are already banned. Those who are in poly relationships are not going to say "Damn those gays for banning us from marriage" since they were banned before homosexuals gained the right to marry. Did Latino's in 1930's and 40's California who won their fight against legal school segregation mean that African American students where then segregated in schools, or did Latinos winning in California mean nothing concerning the fact that African American students were already legally segregated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mocountyskins Posted April 7, 2014 Share Posted April 7, 2014 Is it possible to be tolerant of intolerant people? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AdamB Posted April 7, 2014 Author Share Posted April 7, 2014 Is it possible to be tolerant of intolerant people? Yes. I am tolerant of the views of some of the older members of my family, as my wife was of her grandmother, when it came to race. While we both found the views wrong, ignorant, and bigoted, we also understood that they grew up during a much different time in the South. However, being tolerant of their views did not mean we kept quiet about our own views on race Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mocountyskins Posted April 7, 2014 Share Posted April 7, 2014 I was just wondering because I always found it funny when a tolerent group would sink just as low as a intolerant group. Why can't we all just be friends! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted April 7, 2014 Share Posted April 7, 2014 Allowing Same-Sex Marriage does not ban other groups that are already banned. Those who are in poly relationships are not going to say "Damn those gays for banning us from marriage" since they were banned before homosexuals gained the right to marry. Did Latino's in 1930's and 40's California who won their fight against legal school segregation mean that African American students where then segregated in schools, or did Latinos winning in California mean nothing concerning the fact that African American students were already legally segregated. It bans them in the same manner male/female restrictions do....or not, if ya prefer Who they blame is simply decided by what they base it on....I can promise some will see it as gays excluding them in favor of themselves. Is it possible to be tolerant of intolerant people? certainly, but everyone has limits....and rights the amount of interaction, freedom and controls imposed varies both with where the limits are set and the imposition of the intolerant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AdamB Posted April 7, 2014 Author Share Posted April 7, 2014 It bans them in the same manner male/female restrictions do....or not, if ya prefer Who they blame is simply decided by what they base it on....I can promise some will see it as gays excluding them in favor of themselves. Ok, but how does allowing same sex marriage ban them in the same manner when the other groups were already being banned? It is in effect opening the laws in regards to marriage being male/female only. As a result, other groups, such as poly, have more opportunity to open discussion on their own situations. And ya, I am sure there will be some. People are people. I have met tolerant Christians, and intolerant homosexuals. Bring up bisexuals sometime on a large LGBT boards...wow. I know that in the poly community, I have yet to see anyone blaming homosexuals for the fact that poly relationships do not have legal status. In fact, I have not seen much push for legal recognition at all - many seem to have a "would be nice but all well" attitude under most circumstances. If anything, I have seen a fair amount of heterosexual polys cheering on same-sex marriage. (note: the "poly" community is generally not based around religion like breakaway Mormon groups in Utah or societal reasons in Africa, thus I cannot comment on how those groups feel about it). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted April 7, 2014 Share Posted April 7, 2014 Ok, but how does allowing same sex marriage ban them in the same manner when the other groups were already being banned? It is in effect opening the laws in regards to marriage being male/female only. As a result, other groups, such as poly, have more opportunity to open discussion on their own situations. The exact same thing holds true with allowing just male/female...the just doesn't matter till it does till it becomes beneficial to argue the other allowing the male/female did no harm until it became oppressive bigotry and exclusionary Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted April 7, 2014 Share Posted April 7, 2014 Yes, a large amount of Christians spend their time bashing homosexuality on a regular basis. So yes Larry's cartoon is accurate in those respects. twa doesn't like the cartoon because it isn't reflective of 100% of Christians and therefore isn't "accurate". Well, duh, Christians aren't a monolithic group so no kidding, but is the cartoon accurate enough to reflect a reality that many homosexuals face? Yeppers. That said, what began as a movement of tolerance has evolved into a demand for acceptance and approval. At least that's the way it appears from those who stand outside of those circles. As such that isn't about tolerance anymore, and what's more is that if I don't agree with the homosexual lifestyle simply stating that anymore is seen as intolerant. So my question becomes this; For those who plea for tolerance (regardless of issue) what do you ACTUALLY want from those who disagree with you? Does tolerance mean they lose their ability to disagree, or speak about their disagreement, or even act on their disagreement? If so then tolerance seems more like a gag order. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AdamB Posted April 7, 2014 Author Share Posted April 7, 2014 The exact same thing holds true with allowing just male/female...the just doesn't matter till it does till it becomes beneficial to argue the other allowing the male/female did no harm until it became oppressive bigotry and exclusionary And wasn't there recently a media figure who talked about how happy African-Americans were before the Civil Rights Movement? I guess segregation did no harm until it became oppressive bigotry and exclusionary. Oh...wait...it did cause harm. And preventing homosexual couples from having the same rights as heterosexual couples does cause legal harm - homosexuals did not have the same right to visit their loved ones in the hospital as next of kin, to receive retirement payments, to have legal rights to the children they were raising if they were not the birth parent (registration, waivers, education planning, etc), to be covered by the same insurance plan, automatic rights if no will is present, spousal support, tax benefits directly tied to marriage, "tenants by the entirety" laws, protection under domestic violence laws, disability, rights as non-biological parents if biological parent dies, and so forth. Those are just some of the legal rights homosexual couples cannot enjoy in states where it is banned, and does not address the research into the emotional impact involved for both the couples and their children. For those who plea for tolerance (regardless of issue) what do you ACTUALLY want from those who disagree with you? Absolutely nothing beyond the same respect and acceptance that others hold differing opinions and beliefs that I extend to them. Does tolerance mean they lose their ability to disagree, or speak about their disagreement, or even act on their disagreement? Nope. They still have the right to disagree, speak about their disagreement, or even act on their disagreement. However, that does not mean others give up their rights to respond, nor that their actions, specifically within the realm of law, is without consequences, especially when it has a negative effect on the rights of others. I have, and continue, to disagree with TWA on his views expressed in this thread. I have in turn expressed my views, which he seems to disagree with. At the end of the discussion however I will not dismiss TWA as a person because of his views. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted April 7, 2014 Share Posted April 7, 2014 Absolutely nothing beyond the same respect and acceptance that others hold differing opinions and beliefs that I extend to them.Ok, and I'm just asking here because I know you probably haven't been elected the sole voice representative for those demanding tolerance, but you added a new word and "acceptance". To what extent? In your opinion is it possible to be tolerant and accepting of people within society while still disageeing with even a major lifestyle variation? Let's not even focus on homosexuality, what about a someone from a different religion? Is it tolerance and acceptance to participate fully with them in society and yet believe and teach that they are in error? (And no I am not looking for nor will I engage a philosophy of religion debate). Nope. They still have the right to disagree, speak about their disagreement, or even act on their disagreement. However, that does not mean others give up their rights to respond, nor that their actions, specifically within the realm of law, is without consequences, especially when it has a negative effect on the rights of others. Ok, because what it seems like is that just about any opposition is met with cries of homophobia and bigotry. At what point is the tolerance from the one side reciprocated to those who stand in disagreement? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted April 7, 2014 Share Posted April 7, 2014 Even inclusive and exclusive are words subject to interpretation. I don't view your example as an example of inclusiveness, but it is tolerance. Religions by their nature are intolerant and prejudicial. Tough to devise a religion whose primary logic is all philosopy, religions are equal. Mine is no exception to that. Generally, a religion wants to be right and to have the answer. It won't attract many followers by saying the other guy is just as good and just as wise. What I was explaining, perhaps poorly, was my way of personally grappling with tolerance through an inclusive/exclusive spectrum. I believe that there is beauty and wisdom as well as foolishnes in most of man's religions or at least foolishness in how we interpret/act upon them. I think where we can get into conflict is the idea of exclusion and real/perceived harm. Imagine for instance, if no secular land was allowed to "own" Jerusalem. What if it were just considered a holy city for all and not the Israeli capitol. I'm not sure how much that would change in practice, but I think that change in "posession" would make a real difference. Now, I don't see it happening because Jerusalem symbolically means too much, but that's a different story. The other thing to remember is that when you "tolerate" you are making a negative judgment. You are willing to hold your nose to something you think is distasteful or wrong. Tolerance will always be intolerant to a degree. The spectrum is really acceptance-tolerance-intolerance (plus a few others). The question is what do we accept? Do we really accept that all men are created equal with the right to pursue life, liberty and happiness? I think many strive towards that ideal, but in practice fail. Man loves creating "others" and finding fault in "others" and intellectual maturation is a very, very slow and uneven process. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AdamB Posted April 7, 2014 Author Share Posted April 7, 2014 Ok, and I'm just asking here because I know you probably haven't been elected the sole voice representative for those demanding tolerance... Jeez, I hope not.....unless there is a nice paycheck attached to the position ...but you added a new word and "acceptance". To what extent? In your opinion is it possible to be tolerant and accepting of people within society while still disageeing with even a major lifestyle variation? Let's not even focus on homosexuality, what about a someone from a different religion? Is it tolerance and acceptance to participate fully with them in society and yet believe and teach that they are in error? Well, all I meant by the word "acceptance" is that I accept the fact that not everyone will agree with me or share my viewpoints, and I would hope to receive the same understanding in return. It would be rather...presumptuous for me to believe that everyone (you, TWA, that guy down at the Circle K) all share my views and beliefs. That's all. And yes,I believe it is. You are a devout Christian (Methodist if I remember correctly). My family includes Southern Baptists, Methodists, and Congregationalists. My daughter is a Jehovah's Witness. I on the other hand am not a Christian of any flavor. For my part, the fact that I do not believe the way they do does not mean that I should treat them any differently than I would if I was a Christian. Religious beliefs, or the lack of, are a major part of most individuals but not the only part, nor do I measure their worth by which church, mosque, or shrine they attend. Am I always successful - nope, That does not mean that if someone comes up and asks "Hey, what do you think ASF's religious beliefs" that I will not voice an opinion, though I will try to be polite and respectful when I do so. One definition of tolerance is "a fair, objective,and permissive attitude toward those whose opinions, practices, race, religion, nationality, etc., differ from one's own." It does not state that one has to sacrifice one's own views and beliefs to show tolerance. Now, whether or not a society can really show tolerance is very much up for debate, especially when society cannot even agree on what tolerance and intolerance are. (And no I am not looking for nor will I engage a philosophy of religion debate). Good because I hate debating religion on public forums. PMs, face to face, whatever, fine...open forums...nope. Ok, because what it seems like is that just about any opposition is met with cries of homophobia and bigotry. At what point is the tolerance from the one side reciprocated to those who stand in disagreement? And then those who stand in disagreement respond with cries about "Gay Brownshirts". And then the other side responds with "Christian Taliban". And then the other side cries....ya. See "Firing Squad, Circular". The simple answer would be when those standing in disagreement show tolerance in the first place. However, the simple answer is not necessarily the fair or right one for several reasons. First, just because a group shows intolerance towards you does not mean that you have to show intolerance towards them, though it is understandable as humans tend to react badly to that sort of thing, even tolerant ones. Second, it assumes that everyone who is in disagreement with a particular stance is exactly like that other person who also disagrees with a particular stance. Third, it assumes that everyone who is in disagreement is going to display that disagreement in the same way. For example, in my opinion (and I think this is the main point TWA and I are getting stuck on), there is a difference between someone who says "My religious beliefs say homosexuality is wrong" and someone who says "My religious beliefs say homosexuality is wrong, and I am going to try and make everyone live by my religious beliefs". Also, on the third point, how we express our disagreement also effects the responses we receive, which has less to do with tolerance and more to do with how we interact with others or support our beliefs. Someone who says "I believe homosexuality is wrong because of my religious beliefs" will (or should at least) have a different response than "I believe homosexuality is wrong...and oh, btw, they rape kids and family pets while plotting to throw Christians in concentration camps." I think what is going on right now is that when a group (any group) is oppressed or persecuted for a long period of time will eventually get to the point that they begin feeling towards the oppressors the same way the oppressors feel about them. Or put another way, oppression tends to create extreme views and behaviors. Homosexuals faced persecution for so long that many (but by no means all) now see *any* disagreement as an attack and lash out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted April 7, 2014 Share Posted April 7, 2014 And wasn't there recently a media figure who talked about how happy African-Americans were before the Civil Rights Movement? I guess segregation did no harm until it became oppressive bigotry and exclusionary. Oh...wait...it did cause harm. And preventing homosexual couples from having the same rights as heterosexual couples does cause legal harm - and those still prevented after SSM is allowed have the same argument....if it is a right and not just a legal status will the poly reference how you talked about them ? by narrowing the discrimination will it become a issue to them then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AdamB Posted April 7, 2014 Author Share Posted April 7, 2014 and those still prevented after SSM is allowed have the same argument....if it is a right and not just a legal status And? If group A fights for their rights and wins, that automatically means Group B cannot also fight for their rights as well? Or that the arguments for and against Group A are exactly the same as the arguments for and against Group B? will the poly reference how you talked about them ? by narrowing the discrimination will it become a issue to them then? I am not sure exactly what you are asking with the first question. Poly relationships are different than homosexual or heterosexual monogamous relationships, thus have different factors involved. Couple of examples being: 1. Poly is independent of sexual orientation. My wife and I are poly. We are also married heterosexuals. Right now we have the same rights as other heterosexual married couples in the state of Texas. If same-sex marriage was passed, then there would be married homosexual couples, who are poly, that have the same rights as we do, thus benefiting the same as monogamous homosexual couples would from the legalization of SSM. Where the issues comes in is if my wife and I were to decide to add another person/persons to our family unit which leads to point 2. 2. The majority of other poly folks I have talked to in person or on community boards understand that to gain legal recognition of poly relationship would be much more complex than SSM. Everything from tax codes to life insurance policies would have to be changed or updated. As such, most assume SSM would happen long before recognition of poly relationships (if ever). I remember one discussion about simply using business laws to form an LLC with a separate document for issues with children as the simplest, if imperfect, solution. 3. Poly relationships do not form themselves into a set pattern like monogamous relations do. In monogamous relationships there are always going to be two adults involved. Poly relationships can be everything from V's and triads to mixed families of 4 or more adults. This goes back to point 2 and the complexity of legal recognition. So no, based on my observations and experience, I do not think it will not become an issue for most poly people if SSM is legalized. I could be wrong, but I have not seen anything that leads me to think I am. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted April 7, 2014 Share Posted April 7, 2014 And? If group A fights for their rights and wins, that automatically means Group B cannot also fight for their rights as well? Or that the arguments for and against Group A are exactly the same as the arguments for and against Group B? I am not sure exactly what you are asking with the first question. I'm all for people fighting for their rights....including the religious,and tolerate donations and opposition votes (we ain't much different) the first question was to illustrate how things can be taken out of context no group is really similarly circumstanced until ya change the focus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted April 7, 2014 Share Posted April 7, 2014 Jeez, I hope not.....unless there is a nice paycheck attached to the position I read your entire post, and I for one would gladly nominate you to be that voice....a-freaking-men!!!!That is all..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted April 8, 2014 Share Posted April 8, 2014 http://www.cnet.com/news/eich-resignation-as-mozilla-ceo-as-messy-as-his-appointment/ "We never expected this to get as big as it has, and we never expected thatBrendan wouldn't make a simple statement. I met with Brendan and asked him to just apologize for the discrimination under the law that we faced. He can still keep his personal beliefs, but I wanted him to recognize that we faced real issues with immigration and say that he never intended to cause people problems," Catlin said in a blog post Thursday. "It's heartbreaking to us that he was unwilling to say even that." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted April 8, 2014 Share Posted April 8, 2014 So they bluffed, and he called them on it. Good for him not backing down to a bully. This leaves a big hole in Mozilla and while the PC crowd maybe joyful, now the company has some seriously big shoes to fill. Actions have consequences, Eich accepted his...now Mozilla has to swallow theirs. IMO it will be instances like these where companies begin to realize that bending like a reed in the wind to whatever PC voices are screaming at them will be more harmful in the long run than maintaining their leadership and brain trusts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riggo-toni Posted April 8, 2014 Share Posted April 8, 2014 Anyone who eats at ChikFilA is intolerant... of his own digestive system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zguy28 Posted April 8, 2014 Share Posted April 8, 2014 Anyone who eats at ChikFilA is intolerant... of his own digestive system. Or is it just that your d GI is intolerant of Chick fil A? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.