Tonight, at the fireworks, a kid sat next to me on the wall by Town Hall. He was about nine, and his mother was with him. Shortly before the fireworks began, he asked, "Why do we celebrate the fourth of July?"
"Well," his mother replied, "I'm not sure. It has to do with independence."
"What's that?"
"Hm. We'll have to look it up when we get home."
I am sad that I suppressed the urge to butt in and explain, now.
Re:umm...
pudge on 2005-07-13T21:55:58
What's scary is that you think bigots are considered normal, let alone in power, in America.
You really lack perspective, I think.
Re:umm...
TeeJay on 2005-07-14T08:15:32
Bigots are in power and normal, thats why gay marriage was such a big issue in the election and why various sexual practices remain illegal in some US States.
Bush won the popular vote based on the exact same agenda I saw from the republicans on that program.
If such bigotry was rare, then their would be equal rights for gay couples, and segregation would have ended in the first half of the 20th century rather than the 2nd.Re:umm...
pudge on 2005-07-14T14:49:56
Bigots are in power and normal, thats why gay marriage was such a big issue in the election and why various sexual practices remain illegal in some US States.
Right, like I said, you lack perspective. You simply do not have the ability to understand points of view other than your own. The fact is that the overwhelming majority of people I know, in Massachusetts, Washington, California, and elsewhere, who oppose gay marriage do so for reasons unrelated to bigotry. Here's a tip for your future screeds: belief that something is immoral is not de facto bigotry. Really. No, no, really.
Re:umm...
TeeJay on 2005-07-15T08:04:08
....right.
Applying the duck test - if it looks, sounds and feels like bigotry, it's bigotry.
no different to those who thought mixed race schools or mixed race marriage was immoral.Re:umm...
pudge on 2005-07-15T14:23:26
So, you look, sound, and feel entirely ignorant to me. Therefore, you are.Re:umm...
TeeJay on 2005-07-15T15:25:58
You've nicely ducked the issue of how either :
being against equal gay rights is somehow different to equal racial rights..
or that neither are biggotted and just a question of subjective morality.Re:umm...
pudge on 2005-07-15T15:57:27
You've nicely ducked the issue of how either
I ducked nothing. You provided no argument. Broadly comparing two things and saying one is evil and so therefore the other is, is not an argument that can be rationally responded to.
being against equal gay rights is somehow different to equal racial rights..
You weren't talking about equal gay rights, you were talking about gay marriage rights. If you actually understood the issues involved, you would know that the part of the very question *is* whether denial of the ability to marry constitutes a denial of equal rights, and you are therefore committing the logical fallacy of begging the question.
Maybe you don't understand how it cannot be a denial of equal rights. Well, it's simple: marriage is defined as being a partnership between an adult man and an adult woman who are not closely related and are not otherwise married. If gays are being denied equal rights by that, then so are multiple partners, so are children, and so are siblings and cousins.
Very few people would argue that those people are being denied equal rights; they simply fall outside society's established definition of marriage. You may disagree with that definition, but others agree with it. What makes you more right? And this is necessarily a slippery slope: if we open up the definition to one legal partnership just because they love each other, then we have no right to deny it to anyone, including incestuous partnerships, or maybe just familial ones. Me and my brother want to get married to get a tax break; who are you to tell us we can't? Don't deny us our equal rights!!
Yes, you could try to make the argument that the same held for anti-miscegenation laws, but you could not reasonably make the argument that marriage a man and a woman of different race is less well-established in our culture and history than is gay marriage, which has almost no recognition until recently. You'd have a better chance at arguing for those other types of marriages -- polygamy, minors, incest -- from history than for homosexual marriage.
That's not to say the definition can't or shouldn't be changed, it's simply to show that denial of ability to marry is not a de facto denial of equal rights. The definition of marriage cannot simply change by circumstances, else we cannot prevent it from changing for incest and other relationships society won't accept. The definition must be changed intentionally, which means convincing society, not forcing it on society.
or that neither are biggotted and just a question of subjective morality.
It's not merely a question of morality. I can think of a half-dozen reasons off the top of my head to be against gay marriage, and a few of those are entirely unrelated to morality.
For example, I am against government-sanctioned gay marriage, simply because marriage has a specific definition in our culture, and the government has no business redefining it for the country. There never should have been state-sanctioned marriage in the first place, and the problem should be rectified by allowing churches and other private groups to define marriage on their own, while the state should take its proper place in sanctioning all of them equally as domestic partnerships.
And I would vote against any gay marriage provision, because I think the government is overstepping its lawful boundaries, and I would vote in favor of domestic partnerships.
Is that "bigotted"? Not in any meaningful sense, no, it cannot be.
That said, how is differing morality "bigotted"? What does that NOT apply to? Isn't you showing rampant intolerance for me and my views "bigotted", by the same standard you use?
"Let's look it up" when we get home is a standard ploy of home-schoolers and other pushy parents to encourage dictionary usage and good research practices.
Re:look it up
pudge on 2005-07-13T21:57:23
"Let's look it up" when we get home is a standard ploy of home-schoolers and other pushy parents to encourage dictionary usage and good research practices.
Good point (although you almost make it sound like it is a bad thing...).
Re:look it up
n1vux on 2005-07-14T19:08:38
you almost make it sound like it is a bad thingWell... that depends what "it" is
;-) Parents being involved in the kids education, and continuing it outside school, is a very good thing.
Dictionaries are a very good thing; using them regularly is even better.
I'll defend a parent's right to homeschool their kids, no matter how goofy or paranoid their reasons may be, provided they don't cross the other lines which might cause the state to intervene for the child's welfare. And those lines should be pretty obvious to everyone, not trip wires everywhere. I do not want to see a nanny-state that outlaws every stupid idea, or micro-manages every family.
I've even seen a few who seem to have made the correct decision for them and their kids with homeschooling. The proof will be in college, of course.
Re:look it up
pudge on 2005-07-14T19:35:06
I've even seen a few who seem to have made the correct decision for them and their kids with homeschooling. The proof will be in college, of course.
Assuming college happens. My kids might not go to college... who knows? I wouldn't call college a waste of time. But I had a B+/A- average, I barely studied, and I learned little memorable or worthy of note. I think I could have done better by learning on my own.
Re:look it up
runrig on 2005-07-13T23:29:59
"Let's look it up when we get home" is just a nicer way of saying "Shut up and watch the fireworks":-) Re:look it up
n1vux on 2005-07-14T18:52:30
well, everyone within ear shot would probably rather they discuss the finer points of american history later rather than try to shout over the illuminatory percussion. I hope they did look it up.
