On Nov 4, 2004, at 11:54 AM, Dan Minette wrote:
Or, that there are opinions that differ from yours that are not homophobic.
How about bigoted, then? IMO banning gay marriage is identical to banning interracial marriage.
You can find no differences?
No, I can't. Skin color/ethnicity is a biological fact; it doesn't change (Michael Jackson loosely excepted). There's increasing evidence for a genetic factor involved in sexual orientation, or at least a *tendency* toward an orientation-like behavior. From a strictly organic perspective there's quite probably no difference. (The rest of this note is about how there's no difference in other ways either.)
I think gay mariages are a good idea, but I
realize that legal gay marriages represents a public rethinking of a
foundational institution of our society. Inter-racial marriages do not.
They most certainly did until the 1960s for most people in the US, and they still do now for many. And of course in the 1800s, plenty of "public rethinking" was needed in the states to suggest that blacks were free or even *human*.
Here's a quick little illustration table thing:
Before 1960 Now Interracial dating/marriage Gay dating/marriage
Opposed on religious grounds Opposed on religious grounds Socially appalling Socially appalling Might result in murder Might result in murder
Sorry, Dan, but your argument here is weak. The only reason most see gay marriage as such a big issue as opposed to interracial marriage is that it's not 1950. Neither subject would have been seriously discussed as even remotely *feasible* then; both would have been seen as equally impossible. (Black men dating white women used to be killed. Just like men dating men today can be killed. Are you seriously saying you see these behaviors as different in any significant way?)
So no, there is no difference whatsoever between opposing gay marriage or opposing interracial marriage. They're both the results of bigoted attitudes.
You know, I might try that too, but I've been on this front for over
half my damn life now and frankly I am tired of trying to reason with
bigoted attitudes. It's not possible. It's worse in this instance
because I *thought* we were past the worst of it a decade ago, but this
damned hydra just keeps coming back.
Oh, I didn't realize gay marriages were well accepted 10 years ago. I'd
like some examples.
I guess you weren't on the lines in the early 90s. There were massive steps forward made then in the GLBT rights cause, and they persisted for quite a long time. There was a sense of optimism that has been lacking in the GLBT community since 2000. (Clinton/Gore were looked on quite favorably in the GLBT community as extremely progressive in their attitudes.) It was then -- early 90s -- that I attended my first Lesbian wedding, for instance.
I'm not surprised you're unaware of these issues; for most of your life you likely haven't had much reason to be up on GLBT politics.
Indeed. The flipside of that is: This dialog happened in 1992. It's hard to get motivated to do it all again.
I've been talking with folks who differ from me for over 30 years now. The
motivation for me is understanding someone else; finding common ground.
I'm not talking about people who "differ from" me. I'm talking about people who want to restrict my freedoms, at least some of whom want to do it in the name of a god whose existence I utterly reject. (And whose reasons are therefore, to my mind, indefensibly irrational.) There is a significant difference here.
Further, there's little to understand about a bigoted attitude. Ultimately there aren't that many reasons people hold the points of view they have, and bigotry's main root line appears to be fear. (Xenophobia.) That's fine. We all have it to some degree and it's evolutionarily sensible.
What is not fine -- and what also doesn't require me to respond with understanding -- is when that xenophobia tries to establish itself as a means to delegitimize my existence. (Do I attempt to achieve detente with the felon who's robbing my house? Do I try to find a compromise with the guy who's carjacking me in the parking lot? Do I try to reason with a mugger? Heck no. If I happen to be armed, and possibly even if not, I'll defend myself to the extent necessary to terminate the assault on my person and property.)
You are free to try to gain understanding of someone when that person's attitudes are not a threat to your livelihood or freedom. Try living as an oppressed person for a while, though, and you get pretty tired after a while of trying to understand those who would see you and your kind eliminated, either literally or by marginalization through judicial fiat.
Understanding and dialog are luxuries that you don't have when you're threatened, and sometimes the effort can't be spared. Life is short, time is finite, and after a while repetition becomes too oppressive a drain on resources to make it practical. So you get shorthand, labels; like "bigotry".
The label's not inaccurate, by the way. Regardless of the secular or parochial underpinning, bigotry is precisely what we're seeing in 11 states right now, bigotry made manifest by law.
I find it really interesting that there's almost a prevailing attitude in the US that liberal-minded people should simply shut up and take the oppression they suffer daily. When we stand up and start fighting back, it's shocking. Well, that needs to change; tolerance of oppression is identical to imprisoning oneself. To that extent Michael Moore is correct: Liberals need their own Anne Coulter.
All I'm doing is calling a point-blade shovel the spade that it is.
-- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress "The Seven-Year Mirror" http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf
_______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
