Questionable Motives

November 25, 2010

What are the consequences of gay marriage?

Filed under: belief,Bias,Bigotry,Gay Marriage — tildeb @ 12:03 pm

(Hat tip to Ken)

Advertisements

14 Comments »

  1. Following my traditional impulse to contradict you, I do think that same sex marriage has some consequences for the whole of society beyond some men marrying men and some women marrying women; especially if same sex couples were also permitted to adopt and raise children. It would have the consequence of weakening fixed gender roles, both in relationship to one another and in relationship to children. After all, in a same sex marriage with kids, who’s the “daddy” and who’s the “mummy”? This is more than just who earns the money and who stays home with the kids, it is also who changes the lightbulbs, who pays when eating out, how represents the family in an argument with the neighbours, who is the forgiving parent and who is the punishing parent, who talks to the teachers (or cops) when the kid fucks up, who deals with the boyfriends or girlfriends of the kids, who buys the car, all of those things were traditionally men and women behave differently from one another (but similiarly to others of their own gender.)
    In some ways it would “destroy” traditional marriage – by showing the narrow, medieval, mysogynistic and androgynistic demands traditonal marriage imposes on those who live it. Which is why those still trapped in “tradition” fight this change claw and tooth.

    Comment by FreeFox — November 25, 2010 @ 1:14 pm | Reply

    • Haven’t you heard? Gender roles have already undergone a revolution. Stay-at-home dads, primary caregivers, two parent incomes, and so on. Judge Walker regarding overturning Prop 8 argued that there is no evidence that gay marriage causes harm to children and that adopted children with gay parents show fewer negative and more positive affects. If this is destruction, then we need more of it.

      Comment by tildeb — November 25, 2010 @ 2:18 pm | Reply

      • Aye. We do. Lots more.

        Comment by FreeFox — November 25, 2010 @ 2:19 pm

  2. Just wanted to tell you, that while I still think you’re position on religion is mostly bigotted, unpleasantly arrogant, and logically faulty, I quit John Shore’s blog in protest to his blocking policy.
    If there is anything that annoys me more than a holy-than-thou atheist, it’s a censor.
    Cheers.

    Comment by FreeFox — November 26, 2010 @ 7:12 am | Reply

    • In the marketplace of exchanging ideas, censoring is a bully tactic. Taking offense at what someone says is everyone’s right and I do like to allow people their rights. John seems to want it both ways: he wants a love fest about what a great guy he is but also thinks he must protect people from having their ideas criticized. It is always a very fine line between criticizing ideas and being seen as a bigot, which is why I specifically asked for reasons to explain the name calling; apparently my words were straw that the camel’s back couldn’t handle. But that’s not a reason; it’s an excuse.

      What is unseen by readers is how much traffic my comments generated for John’s site, which is why he tolerated me for as long as he did. That, plus many of my comments were affecting support from some his long-time readers and I think that caused him concern. He wants followers rather than build a community of diverse thinkers. He certainly appreciated my words and arguments about issues he cared about – like lgbt discrimination – and used them to highlight the quality of his readers’ comments when it cast his blog in a light he wanted but funny how the same principle and style and content of my critical review when applied against content he agreed with magically turns me into an arrogant and bigoted person. That he holds the comments of atheists to a different standard than the comments of similar believers is rather obvious to people like Mike Burns and me. And I have to laugh out loud that a writer like John pretends to hate people who use words like a weapon! The irony is too rich. He can give it, but seems to blame others when he doesn’t want to take it. Nothing unusual about that but it’s hardly a position of virtue… hence the censoring without reason. That’s what an intellectual coward does.

      By his acts we shall know him.

      Comment by tildeb — November 26, 2010 @ 7:51 am | Reply

      • I can’t believe he actually deleted my leaving remarks. He leaves the name-calling, but real criticism he can’t abide. What an embarrassing old salak

        Comment by FreeFox — November 26, 2010 @ 8:41 am

      • Quite true, but the regular readers never see these responses or this unpleasant side of him; instead, he throws it out there that he will invite back those he has so arbitrarily blocked if enough other commentators wish it and so appears rather than acts to be a fair moderator. He reminds me too much of Chris Mooney in this. I thought your leaving remarks were pretty accurate, FF, but now the other comments are those two as if we come as a tandem! You’ve got to admit, that’s pretty funny considering our differences in opinion!

        Comment by tildeb — November 26, 2010 @ 4:55 pm

  3. A lot of religious sites censor ideas (not surprising really) – censorship doesn’t really help their argument, it just shows that they are unable to defend their view point with reason – this is the transparency that shows their ignorance and their ability to fabricate evidence to support their shaky beliefs.

    I didn’t contribute much to John’s site because I realised very early on that the site was all about him and how ‘wonderful’ he was at putting ‘the faith’ to the test. I am afraid I saw through it.

    John is a lair, he lies to himself (and others), and because he feels bad about it he needs a following of others to sooth his conscience.

    Poor deluded pathetic man – trapped in his own deceit.

    Comment by misunderstoodranter — November 26, 2010 @ 2:37 pm | Reply

    • If it’s any consolation, I have only been censored or banned from christian sites. Muslim and Jewish and Hindu sites seem to be a little more… tolerant of my tone, hard as that may be to believe.

      Comment by tildeb — November 26, 2010 @ 4:58 pm | Reply

      • This might be due to the ‘belief’ that atheism is a post Christian movement, pursued by individuals from a post Christian culture only. It would be interesting to see how many ‘outspoken’ atheists are from which ‘post’ religion culture – I suspect we would find that the majority are of Christian decent.

        Comment by misunderstoodranter — November 27, 2010 @ 4:13 am

  4. I hate to read these things about John – I have great respect for him and his blog.

    While this likely matters little, especially because I’m not an intellectual, I always appreciated your input, tildeb. As I posted on John’s blog, I was intrigued by your perspective as an intellectual, an athiest and a Canadian. You helped broaden my own perspective, and for that, I’m grateful.

    Best,
    Susan

    Comment by Susan — November 26, 2010 @ 3:37 pm | Reply

    • Thanks, Susan. You always seemed to me to be honest in your inquiries and questions and interesting opinions and that I think is highly commendable. That we differed on certain matters is to be expected; that we agreed on others is not so surprising.

      What is surprising to me is that the typical response to comments one doesn’t feel one can add anything to is to simply leave the thread alone, ignore longer comments one doesn’t wish to read based on some fundamental disagreement with the author, and let it die a natural death. In this regard, one chooses to disagree and moves on to other comments that are more favourable to read. But to respond to a comment is to invite more commentary, so it rather bizarre to receive a comment from John centered on name-calling and then be banned for responding in a polite and respectful way to it.

      But many folk seem to easily confuse tone with content and seem rather put out if no good reasons can be found for feeling so deeply offended. I think it’s always a learning experience when one tries to square one’s strong emotional response to an idea or comment or opinion by trying to figure out why. Sometimes that can be a real eye-opener. But being an atheist on a christian site and not being accused of being offensively arrogant will likely never happen. Funny, though: I’ve never been accused of that on sites that aren’t christian.

      The attempt to participate within such a faith-based community is always walking this tightrope that others don’t see and seems to be a matter of time before one is pushed off for reasons of tone.

      Comment by tildeb — November 26, 2010 @ 5:20 pm | Reply

      • There is so much subjectivity involved in cyber-conversations. Interpersonal relationships are hard to guage sometimes, so I imagine virutal ones are even more difficult.

        I, for one, hope for your return.

        Comment by Susan — November 26, 2010 @ 7:56 pm

      • Yes, which is why I wrote several times to remember that my intention is not to offend out of some sense of superiority or arrogance but to challenge reasons with reasons. With this intention in mind, it is difficult to excuse the willful reading of my comments to assume bigotry and arrogance. The reader – if he or she wishes to take my comments seriously – has a duty to get past that suspicion and follow the reasoning wherever it leads and is welcome to challenge them on that level playing field. I have a long history of changing my mind, altering my opinions, dropping poor reasons when someone offers me better reasons in their place. But that can rarely be done in a very short comment and I can’t offer my reasoning in a very short comment either. So the charge of making comments too long is quite justified from a reading perspective but rather important in an explanation. It’s a refined skill that continues to elude me.

        Writing on another person’s blog is not a favour someone grants me; rather, arrogant as I am, it is a favour I give to another person’s blog that stimulates discussion, raises passions, and draws in readers from both sides: those who see it and read what I have written to find that may or may not be of some value, to those who get seriously pissed off that anyone would suggest whatever it is I have suggested. To my way of thinking, those who censor or ban what I write have lost more in the long run than they have gained in the short.

        Comment by tildeb — November 26, 2010 @ 11:54 pm


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: