question about gay marriage

[the carpet man]

there is a very big difference between intolerance and indifference. maybe the link www.dictionary.com would help you to see which one fits me best.

as i said, i have no problem with gay people. i wish them all the happiness. i just find this particular struggle of theirs (and some others) unimportant and inconsequential.

[natty dread]

i just find this particular struggle of theirs (and some others) unimportant and inconsequential.

In other words, you don't care about their problems because they don't consern you?

[the carpet man]

i feel that you are taking this argument into a circle. if you read back to some of my previous posts you might see why i do not care about this struggle.

[natty dread]

Is it because their problems don't consern you?

[thegreekdog]

I'm having difficulty following here...are the two of you agreeing with the assertion that what affects others is of no concern as long as it doesn't directly affect you? BBS, aren't you the one always going on about unintended consequences?

I'm going to do this clearly so you don't misunderstand.

Your first question is "are the two of you agreeing with the assertion that what affects others is of no concern as long as it doesn't directly affect you?"

The answer to that question is no.

Here is a more explicit explanation, but hopefully the above clears up your first question. I can't speak to BBS and his thoughts on unintended consequences mostly because I'm not BBS. Feel free not to read anything that follows. But I suspect your next question or assertion is that we are, in fact, agreeing that what does not affect us doesn't concern us.

The explanation as to why you may think we are asserting that what affects others is of no concern as long as it doesn't directly affect me lies in the various posts in this thread and others. Essentially, I have particular personal finite resources: (1) time, (2) emotional investment, and (3) money. I choose to spend those things on either stuff that does directly affect me and on stuff that doesn't directly affect me, but for which I care about for various other reasons.

So, for example, I have a passing interest in whether or not gays should be permitted to marry. My interest mostly lies in the legal and constitutional nature of allowing gays to marry. I'm interested in the constitutional development of that particular issue. Do I think gays should be permitted the legal status of marriage with respect to the government's said licensing of marriage? Yes. Do I care enough to donate my time and money? No. The carpet man has indicated he doesn't care. Certain people take offense to this and I'm not sure that's fair. Otherwise, we get into a discussion of why we're not caring about the plight of Aborigines in Australia or the plight of workers in China, and that's stupid. We may not care as much about those things because we have limited time and resources to pay attention to and help do something about those things. If the carpet man were making an argument against gay marriage (i.e. saying we need to pay attention and do something to prevent gays from marrying), then perhaps he's paying attention and then perhaps he's a douchebag. He's not doing that. His determination to spend his limited resources on other things does not mean he is against gay marriage; it means he's spending his limited resources on other things.

On a related note, it's natural for people to care more about things that directly affect them. I would assume you care more about the state of teachers unions in whatever state you are in than I do. Does that mean I'm a douche bag? I would assume I care more about the property taxes in New Jersey or the fiscal situation in Greece than you do. Does that mean you're a douche bag? If your answer is no to that question, then is it fair for me to assert that what affects others is of no concern to you as long as it doesn't directly affect you?

[thegreekdog]

i didnt word it very well; i meant to say "inb4 Natty ruthlessly attempts to cut BBS down using personal attacks to show HOW VERY FUCKING WRONG he is"

In b4 the whole "in b4" thing became irrelevant and boring... oh wait, too late for that.

According to natty's logic, if you don't value the above as much as I do, then you're a douche bag. That logic deserves ridicule (which is what TGD and I were doing).

Sure, that's always your way of "winning" arguments. You take something entirely out of context, twist it to fit your own definitions, then attack your own strawman argument and declare yourself a winner. Then you get a couple of your ideological fanboys to circle-jerk over how irrefutable and infallibe your logic is...

Job Well Done, again, BBS. I salute you.

Because natty dread never does any of these things.

[BigBallinStalin]

i didnt word it very well; i meant to say "inb4 Natty ruthlessly attempts to cut BBS down using personal attacks to show HOW VERY FUCKING WRONG he is"

In b4 the whole "in b4" thing became irrelevant and boring... oh wait, too late for that.

According to natty's logic, if you don't value the above as much as I do, then you're a douche bag. That logic deserves ridicule (which is what TGD and I were doing).

Sure, that's always your way of "winning" arguments. You take something entirely out of context, twist it to fit your own definitions, then attack your own strawman argument and declare yourself a winner. Then you get a couple of your ideological fanboys to circle-jerk over how irrefutable and infallibe your logic is...

Job Well Done, again, BBS. I salute you.

Because natty dread never does any of these things.

Hey, stop being a douche bag!

inb4: "AH-HA! Now you're being TGD's fanboy! Your circle-jerking makes me sick! I'MA GO inflate my ego and get all Zeppelin on your asses!"

[BigBallinStalin]

According to natty's logic, if you don't value the above as much as I do, then you're a douche bag. That logic deserves ridicule (which is what TGD and I were doing).

Sure, that's always your way of "winning" arguments.

Always? Wow! I'd like to see the empirical evidence on that one!

You take something entirely out of context, twist it to fit your own definitions, then attack your own strawman argument and declare yourself a winner.

Oh, I can't joke around about you being a belligerent jerk on the Internet? That's pretty much how you've been portraying yourself ITT.


On a more serious note, I think the following is pretty much what's been recently going on ITT:

"Time is a scarce resource. Concern and care have to be limited to a finite amount of affairs. Natty values X. carpet man values other affairs more than X. The conclusion that carpet man is a douche bag because he doesn't value X as much as natty does is ridiculous."

In order to support your claim, please explain how the above quote is not true.

Then there's this:

"While making the case that the topic of this thread does affect carpet man in some marginal way, natty resorts to constantly calling carpet man a douche bag. That's pretty low and childish."

That's how I perceived this thread since I joined in the past 2-3 pages. How do you justify calling him a douche bag?


To me, a true liberal, i.e. someone who is tolerant of others, would strive to explain why the topic really matters, so he would make a strong argument about the effects of this proposition (egad, insert "unintended consequences" perhaps). I haven't really seen you do this. Much of your time, which I've witnessed, has been dedicated to being intolerant while calling the carpet man a douche bag. :/

That's not cool, bro. So, instead of reporting you (which I frown upon), I decided to joke about your being a jerk. It's probably a much better enforcement mechanism.

[BigBallinStalin]

Then you get a couple of your ideological fanboys to circle-jerk over how irrefutable and infallibe your logic is...

Job Well Done, again, BBS. I salute you.

Lootifer and I have the same ideology? LOOT! WHEN DID YOU STOP BEING A PINKO??? Come here, my boy! Give me a hug!


Anyway, there's nothing wrong with circle-jerking. I don't appreciate how you cast this pleasurable past-time in such poor light. To me, your sentence is implying that a certain homosexual activity is as debase as considering oneself to be irrefutable and infallible in one's logic.

Spoiler

[natty dread]

TL;DR

[BigBallinStalin]

TL;DR

lol, okay, natty.

1) You insulted a sexual activity of homosexuals, which is ironic.

2) Your position regarding me is incorrect. You're just being pissy.

3) There's no need to call people a douche bag because they value different issues at magnitudes different from yours. Most children can understand that.

[narthuro]

Let's go back to the original post, since this is clearly out of hand now.

the thing about gay marriage is i do not mind if people do different things to me. it does not affect me if they want to do bum - like, why should i care if they make a different lifestyle choice to me? i could never oppose gay because there is no point. it is not harmful to anyone else.

but then, i am straight so i do not care about gay rights at all. it does not affect me. it is like asking me to care about the rights of sea mammals or amazonian tree moss. it is irrelevant. if gay is illegal or lynched then that is sad but also there is no danger to me. so i do not mind so much.

so, beyond voicing my casual opinion that i have no problem with 'gay marriage', i cannot muster the energy to care.

but then, that is the average voter? indifferent

Firstly, being gay isn't a lifestyle choice, it's genetic. I hope this is a misstatement, and not some indicator of hidden homophobia. I'm shocked no one else has pointed this out.

I think what people are getting at is the fact that you are so brash and adamant about how much you don't care. I understand this feeling, it's the same way I feel about questions like "Is there a god?" However, you are talking about the rights of other people, which is slightly different than amazonian tree moss.

In my opinion, the rights of all people are important, be they hispanic or gay or atheist or youth or any other minority. But I understand if you don't feel the same way, even if you agree with the sentiment. It's fine if you have too much on your plate to care about gay rights. I understand that. It would be nice of you to indicate that, or list some things of more importance to you, so you didn't come across as a selfish douchebag, but that's just a suggestion.

[Swimmerdude99]

Let's go back to the original post, since this is clearly out of hand now.

the thing about gay marriage is i do not mind if people do different things to me. it does not affect me if they want to do bum - like, why should i care if they make a different lifestyle choice to me? i could never oppose gay because there is no point. it is not harmful to anyone else.

but then, i am straight so i do not care about gay rights at all. it does not affect me. it is like asking me to care about the rights of sea mammals or amazonian tree moss. it is irrelevant. if gay is illegal or lynched then that is sad but also there is no danger to me. so i do not mind so much.

so, beyond voicing my casual opinion that i have no problem with 'gay marriage', i cannot muster the energy to care.

but then, that is the average voter? indifferent

Firstly, being gay isn't a lifestyle choice, it's genetic. I hope this is a misstatement, and not some indicator of hidden homophobia. I'm shocked no one else has pointed this out.

Ummmm because thats not true?

[narthuro]

Firstly, being gay isn't a lifestyle choice, it's genetic. I hope this is a misstatement, and not some indicator of hidden homophobia. I'm shocked no one else has pointed this out.

Ummmm because thats not true?

Fine. Let me put it this way: Being gay (as well as bi and trans) isn't a lifestyle choice, it's most likely a combination of biological, hormonal, and environmental influences. Either way, stating that it is a simple choice, like the flick of a switch, is a gross misstatement. If it is a choice, it is made in the first few years of life, not when you are 16 or 30.

[natty dread]

TL;DR

lol, okay, natty.

1) You insulted a sexual activity of homosexuals, which is ironic.

2) Your position regarding me is incorrect. You're just being pissy.

3) There's no need to call people a douche bag because they value different issues at magnitudes different from yours. Most children can understand that.

1) I've done no such thing. This just proves my point - you take something I say way out of context and try to use it as an argument, when your actual arguments have no base to stand on. Basically, you're just making shit up in an attempt to slander me, to divert the conversation away from the actual issue.

2) Your position regarding me is incorrect. You're just being shitty.

3) I haven't called anyone a douchebag, per se. I said carpet dude was espousing views that are by their nature selfish douchebaggery. Furthermore, the issue is not that carpet dude "values different issues at different magnitudes", this is another strawman argument invented by you, which again speaks volumes about your intellectual dishonesty.

The issue is that he was basically saying that he doesn't care if gay people are lynched for being gay, because "there is no danger to him", so he actually approves the killing of people for being gay. And this is not an esoteric thing - there are still many countries in the world where homosexuality is punishable by death.

So, here's the thing BBS. You think carpetdude should have the right to express a bigoted and harmful view, because to not approve of that view would be intolerant. DUHHH!!!! GOTCHA NATTY, LOL!!!! NOW UR THE INTOLERANT ONE!!! Amirite?

You know, that's just what the White power crowd does - right after ranting about how all the "jews and n****rs" need to be killed, they hide behind "freedom of speech" and say that people need to respect their harmful, racist views because TOLERANCE.

Well, it doesn't work that way, obviously.

[Woodruff]

So, for example, I have a passing interest in whether or not gays should be permitted to marry. My interest mostly lies in the legal and constitutional nature of allowing gays to marry. I'm interested in the constitutional development of that particular issue. Do I think gays should be permitted the legal status of marriage with respect to the government's said licensing of marriage? Yes. Do I care enough to donate my time and money? No. The carpet man has indicated he doesn't care. Certain people take offense to this and I'm not sure that's fair.

I am not actually offended that he doesn't care. There are plenty of things that I don't care about, because I don't personally think they're important. It is actually the assertion that he doesn't care "because it doesn't affect him" that I find distasteful (you'll notice I have not called him a douche bag or anything of that sort).

Otherwise, we get into a discussion of why we're not caring about the plight of Aborigines in Australia or the plight of workers in China, and that's stupid. We may not care as much about those things because we have limited time and resources to pay attention to and help do something about those things. If the carpet man were making an argument against gay marriage (i.e. saying we need to pay attention and do something to prevent gays from marrying), then perhaps he's paying attention and then perhaps he's a douchebag. He's not doing that. His determination to spend his limited resources on other things does not mean he is against gay marriage; it means he's spending his limited resources on other things.

That's actually NOT what he's saying. He's saying HE DOESN'T CARE, NOT "I don't have time or money to devote to that". There is a big difference, to be sure.

On a related note, it's natural for people to care more about things that directly affect them.

Of course. I've never suggested otherwise.

I would assume you care more about the state of teachers unions in whatever state you are in than I do. Does that mean I'm a douche bag? I would assume I care more about the property taxes in New Jersey or the fiscal situation in Greece than you do. Does that mean you're a douche bag? If your answer is no to that question, then is it fair for me to assert that what affects others is of no concern to you as long as it doesn't directly affect you?

Nope, because that's demonstrably not the case. Whereas in this situation, there is an explicit statement of it.

[thegreekdog]

So, for example, I have a passing interest in whether or not gays should be permitted to marry. My interest mostly lies in the legal and constitutional nature of allowing gays to marry. I'm interested in the constitutional development of that particular issue. Do I think gays should be permitted the legal status of marriage with respect to the government's said licensing of marriage? Yes. Do I care enough to donate my time and money? No. The carpet man has indicated he doesn't care. Certain people take offense to this and I'm not sure that's fair.

I am not actually offended that he doesn't care. There are plenty of things that I don't care about, because I don't personally think they're important. It is actually the assertion that he doesn't care "because it doesn't affect him" that I find distasteful (you'll notice I have not called him a douche bag or anything of that sort).

Otherwise, we get into a discussion of why we're not caring about the plight of Aborigines in Australia or the plight of workers in China, and that's stupid. We may not care as much about those things because we have limited time and resources to pay attention to and help do something about those things. If the carpet man were making an argument against gay marriage (i.e. saying we need to pay attention and do something to prevent gays from marrying), then perhaps he's paying attention and then perhaps he's a douchebag. He's not doing that. His determination to spend his limited resources on other things does not mean he is against gay marriage; it means he's spending his limited resources on other things.

That's actually NOT what he's saying. He's saying HE DOESN'T CARE, NOT "I don't have time or money to devote to that". There is a big difference, to be sure.

On a related note, it's natural for people to care more about things that directly affect them.

Of course. I've never suggested otherwise.

I would assume you care more about the state of teachers unions in whatever state you are in than I do. Does that mean I'm a douche bag? I would assume I care more about the property taxes in New Jersey or the fiscal situation in Greece than you do. Does that mean you're a douche bag? If your answer is no to that question, then is it fair for me to assert that what affects others is of no concern to you as long as it doesn't directly affect you?

Nope, because that's demonstrably not the case. Whereas in this situation, there is an explicit statement of it.

I thought you just wanted your question answered. Are we starting a new discussion?

[thegreekdog]

3) I haven't called anyone a douchebag, per se. I said carpet dude was espousing views that are by their nature selfish douchebaggery. Furthermore, the issue is not that carpet dude "values different issues at different magnitudes", this is another strawman argument invented by you, which again speaks volumes about your intellectual dishonesty.

The issue is that he was basically saying that he doesn't care if gay people are lynched for being gay, because "there is no danger to him", so he actually approves the killing of people for being gay. And this is not an esoteric thing - there are still many countries in the world where homosexuality is punishable by death.

So, here's the thing BBS. You think carpetdude should have the right to express a bigoted and harmful view, because to not approve of that view would be intolerant. DUHHH!!!! GOTCHA NATTY, LOL!!!! NOW UR THE INTOLERANT ONE!!! Amirite?

Dude... what is the bigoted and harmful view? Did he actually type that he wants gay people lynched or killed in some other way? If that's the case, yeah, he's a douchebag. If that's not the case, is he really a douchebag? Really natty?

I'm going to check to see if he actually says that anywhere in here.

EDIT - He did say it he doesn't care if gay people are lynched (or otherwise killed). Carry on natty.

[natty dread]

Dude... what is the bigoted and harmful view? Did he actually type that he wants gay people lynched or killed in some other way?

If you're saying "I don't care if gay people get lynched for being gay, I'm straight so I'm not worried" you're implying that you don't care what happens to gay people, even if they get killed. That them getting killed is all the same to you. That is implicitly and indirectly condoning violence against minorities.

One doesn't have to explicitly state "I want to kill ni***rs" to be a racist.

[comic boy]

Gender should not be an issue in relation to civil union , all couples should recieve exactly the same benefits without exception . However any supposed benefits arising from the traditional
religious ceremony ( Respectability / Gods good favour etc ) are purely a perception and non religious couples of any kind should not expect a church wedding as of right.

[Woodruff]

So, for example, I have a passing interest in whether or not gays should be permitted to marry. My interest mostly lies in the legal and constitutional nature of allowing gays to marry. I'm interested in the constitutional development of that particular issue. Do I think gays should be permitted the legal status of marriage with respect to the government's said licensing of marriage? Yes. Do I care enough to donate my time and money? No. The carpet man has indicated he doesn't care. Certain people take offense to this and I'm not sure that's fair.

I am not actually offended that he doesn't care. There are plenty of things that I don't care about, because I don't personally think they're important. It is actually the assertion that he doesn't care "because it doesn't affect him" that I find distasteful (you'll notice I have not called him a douche bag or anything of that sort).

Otherwise, we get into a discussion of why we're not caring about the plight of Aborigines in Australia or the plight of workers in China, and that's stupid. We may not care as much about those things because we have limited time and resources to pay attention to and help do something about those things. If the carpet man were making an argument against gay marriage (i.e. saying we need to pay attention and do something to prevent gays from marrying), then perhaps he's paying attention and then perhaps he's a douchebag. He's not doing that. His determination to spend his limited resources on other things does not mean he is against gay marriage; it means he's spending his limited resources on other things.

That's actually NOT what he's saying. He's saying HE DOESN'T CARE, NOT "I don't have time or money to devote to that". There is a big difference, to be sure.

On a related note, it's natural for people to care more about things that directly affect them.

Of course. I've never suggested otherwise.

I would assume you care more about the state of teachers unions in whatever state you are in than I do. Does that mean I'm a douche bag? I would assume I care more about the property taxes in New Jersey or the fiscal situation in Greece than you do. Does that mean you're a douche bag? If your answer is no to that question, then is it fair for me to assert that what affects others is of no concern to you as long as it doesn't directly affect you?

Nope, because that's demonstrably not the case. Whereas in this situation, there is an explicit statement of it.

I thought you just wanted your question answered. Are we starting a new discussion?

I believe it's part of the same discussion.

[Woodruff]

Gender should not be an issue in relation to civil union , all couples should recieve exactly the same benefits without exception . However any supposed benefits arising from the traditional
religious ceremony ( Respectability / Gods good favour etc ) are purely a perception and non religious couples of any kind should not expect a church wedding as of right.

Sure, that absolutely make sense. A "church wedding" is up to the church, it's membership and the individual minister. Heck the church that married my wife and I could have denied us the church wedding and we were members of the church itself (we had to go through a form of required marriage counseling first). So if they can deny actual members, then it only stands to reason that they could deny someone for reasons that they feel go against their religion.

[thegreekdog]

Dude... what is the bigoted and harmful view? Did he actually type that he wants gay people lynched or killed in some other way?

If you're saying "I don't care if gay people get lynched for being gay, I'm straight so I'm not worried" you're implying that you don't care what happens to gay people, even if they get killed. That them getting killed is all the same to you. That is implicitly and indirectly condoning violence against minorities.

One doesn't have to explicitly state "I want to kill ni***rs" to be a racist.

Agreed - see my edit above.

[natty dread]

Dude... what is the bigoted and harmful view? Did he actually type that he wants gay people lynched or killed in some other way?

If you're saying "I don't care if gay people get lynched for being gay, I'm straight so I'm not worried" you're implying that you don't care what happens to gay people, even if they get killed. That them getting killed is all the same to you. That is implicitly and indirectly condoning violence against minorities.

One doesn't have to explicitly state "I want to kill ni***rs" to be a racist.

Agreed - see my edit above.

I saw your edit after I posted. It seems we are in agreement on this one.

[thegreekdog]

Dude... what is the bigoted and harmful view? Did he actually type that he wants gay people lynched or killed in some other way?

If you're saying "I don't care if gay people get lynched for being gay, I'm straight so I'm not worried" you're implying that you don't care what happens to gay people, even if they get killed. That them getting killed is all the same to you. That is implicitly and indirectly condoning violence against minorities.

One doesn't have to explicitly state "I want to kill ni***rs" to be a racist.

Agreed - see my edit above.

I saw your edit after I posted. It seems we are in agreement on this one.

Yep. People that don't care if others are lynched merely for being gay are douchebags.