The gay marriage debate in the US these days

Thomas K

quote:

---

And for the 100th time -- most people here are less upset about Brian's view as such, but about his lack of stringent argument. "It's always been like that and we don't want change because change is dangerous" doesn't cut it, especially if you're denying someone certain rights on the basis of their sexuality.

---

We differ in our approach to change.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

I need to be convinced that changing something to something else is beneficial.

If I understand you correctly, you have to be convinced that something is worth maintaining otherwise you would change it to something else just for the sake of change.

Hence, I have to convince you that the existing law restraining the marriage of gays is correct, rather than you convincing me of the justification for change?

Is this what you're saying?

BTW I don't agree that people aren't upset about my views and are more upset that I haven't supported them. IMO People are very much upset by my view that gays shouldn't be allowed to marry.

quote:

---

especially if you're denying someone certain rights on the basis of their sexuality

---

I have said that I am agreeable to awarding all married couple rights to gay couples in long term relationships. The only thing I'd deny them is the actual 'marriage'.

Brian,

quote:

---

I'm sorry, but I must respond to this. For the first time in this thread I really wish a person was standing in front of me making this accusation face to face. This has now gone too far.

---

I seem to remember a certain individual being banned for this sort of thing - ironic isn't it? It is you who have gone too far.

Nick

We can definitely agree on that one.

In fact we can agree on both, although as usual before any match, I'll settle for 1-0. I expect we'd have more chance if we hadn't sold Solano, but that's for another day.

I've just read this thread.

I do not understand why BrianD has to produce reams of rational argument for his view to be taken as valid. It may make for a more interesting debate if he could develop his ideas here, but it does not reduce his right to hold that view.

I also struggle to admire insults based on perceived defects of spelling, punctuation or writing stile (sic)

Is it only me that senses a vicarious enjoyment in seizing on the post of a contributor (in this and other infamous threads) and calling them 'fascist', 'racist', 'homophobic' with scant evidence ?

Throbnorth's post, way back on Page 2, makes a pretty compelling summary for me. It also made me laugh. His latter post makes it all the more relevant.

Bruce

Jeremy

quote:

---

I seem to remember a certain individual being banned for this sort of thing - ironic isn't it?

---

This is entirely different, but if it bothers you report it to the administrators. It won't be a loss to me to be banned and I'm sure many of you agreeable types will be relieved if I'm gone. The comment I made represents an instant reaction from me, and since I don't go about threatening people because it isn't my nature, it portrays quite well what I think about that unfounded accusation and slur on my character. No doubt you aren't bothered about that though.

Incidentally, why have you chosen to respond to THAT section rather than the more important content of my post. This is important particularly as you also posted in reply to my earlier response to throbnorth.

Take your time working out another spin on my words in order that you can find something else to moan about.

Bruce

quote:

---

I've just read this thread.

I do not understand why BrianD has to produce reams of rational argument for his view to be taken as valid. It may make for a more interesting debate if he could develop his ideas here, but it does not reduce his right to hold that view.

---

Nobody suggested anything of the sort - except Brian in his repeated accusations.

The only reason that the thread developed the way it did was that Brian appeared to be uncertain about whether or not he had a reason for his view, first presenting a tautology as his reason, then denying that he needed to give a reason (quite reasonably) while simultaneously (unrasonably) presenting an argument based on the assumption that his reason was known. He later denied that he had said that he had a reason, which was more or less true [if you interpret his tautology as a way of saying "Who says I need a reason?"] but, nevertheless, was also deeply confusing...

After this, we were left with the tantalising prospect that Brian did have a reason but had not yet managed to explain it. People just wanted to make sense of what Brian was trying to say.

Bruce, like adamk you seem to be suggesting that poor Brian was the victim of an unprovoked stream of accusations and insults. As you can easily check, it was Brian who set the ball rolling with his baseless collective accusation that people wanting to stifle his right to an opinion. Repeating such an accusation ad nauseam doesn't make it true.

It was only then when he started receiving less than polite responses.

Brian,

I need to be convinced that changing something to something else is beneficial.

I understand that perfectly, and I'm not saying change is inherently good. (Neither do we need to maintain the status quo just for the sake of it.)

I and others believe that legal changes are necessary to reflect the current state of society. It is quite common for the law to be changed, not because a group of people seek to protect their interests, but to reflect changes that have already taken place. A number of pertinent reasons have been put forward (all very tangible and aimed at making life easier for homosexual couples who wish to bond). Belief thus becomes a cause, aiming to eliminate discrepancies between life in our society and the rules that govern it.

You believe that the proposed legal changes are not necessary or indeed wrong, which is fine. But you do not seem to have a cause, you can’t even say how the proposed changes would limit your own or others’ rights. You’re doing nothing to convince us it’s wrong. You can't really expect people not to tread new ground because someone else says “I believe that’s wrong”.

I have said that I am agreeable to awarding all married couple rights to gay couples in long term relationships. The only thing I'd deny them is the actual 'marriage'.

This I still find somewhat confusing, but perhaps it is just an indication of how personal this subject is to you (that is, how impossible or difficult it is to integrate into what is largely a political debate).

Thomas

Wot Jeremy said.

Thomas

quote:

---

You believe that the proposed legal changes are not necessary or indeed wrong, which is fine. But you do not seem to have a cause, you can’t even say how the proposed changes would limit your own or others’ rights. You’re doing nothing to convince us it’s wrong. You can't really expect people not to tread new ground because someone else says “I believe that’s wrong”.

---

Ah, but Thomas, I believe that change should only come when there is a convincing argument that the change is right. As I said earlier, it is for those who want the change to produce the reasons why, not for others to jusify the current system. That exists already.

A question. Why does a change have to "limit my rights", for me to oppose it?

Jeremy

quote:

---

It was only then when he started receiving less than polite responses.

---

For someone with such a high IQ as yourself, you really do miss a lot.

Read the thread again. The hassle began on page 2 on 17th Feb at 0919 with the post from Matthew Robinson when he said.......

quote:

---

BrianD,

(<penny drops> Oh you're *that* BrianD. It all makes more sense now)

---

I know when I became cynical in my responses and this was the moment. Not saying it's justified, I'd like to have not taken the bait, but I did.

quote:

---

After this, we were left with the tantalising prospect that Brian did have a reason but had not yet managed to explain it. People just wanted to make sense of what Brian was trying to say.

---

I prefer to believe that certain individuals were deliberately baiting me in an attempt to get me to say something like, "I hate all gays and would like to execute them all", or something along those lines.

Q. Why do I have to have a reason to oppose a change to a law?
Q. Why is it not up to those who want the change to produce the reasons for that change?

[This message was edited by BrianD on THURSDAY 19 February 2004 at 18:29.]

I believe that change should only come when there is a convincing argument that the change is right.

I can't understand how you can make such a sweeping statement. In my view it depends on the particular case (or thing up for change), otherwise I might as well say that "the status quo should only be maintained if there is a convincing argument that it is right" and we'd be running in circles (as we are here).

There are a lot of things I like to see changed for the heck of it (my dinner, for example), but that is entirely beside the point and why I called your earlier statement to that effect absurd. Sorry if that offended you, but I stand by it.

Why does a change have to "limit my rights", for me to oppose it?

It doesn't at all. That's what I tried to explain in the last post. You can believe and oppose all you like, but don't expect anyone to restrict themselves if you cannot show that they're restricting you.

Q. Why is it not up to those who want the change to produce the reasons for that change?

Regardless of whether it is or is not up to those in favour of the change in this particular case -- we/they have produced reasons exhaustively.

This really is awfully repetitive.

Thomas

Thomas

quote:

---

It doesn't at all.

---

Thank you.

quote:

---

but don't expect anyone to restrict themselves if you cannot show that they're restricting you

---

This sounds like you're telling me I can't oppose something unless it has a direct effect upon me.

Thomas

quote:

---

we/they have produced reasons exhaustively.

---

It is becoming repetitive, yes. However, you have stated this again and I will say again, I am not convinced by the reasons put forward. I have agreed that gay couples could have the same rights as married couples, the ONLY thing they don't get is the actual marriage itself. Why can this not be viewed as a compromise?

Q. Why do I have to have a reason to oppose a change to a law?



Q. Why is it not up to those who want the change to produce the reasons for that change?

They have.

Brian,
Here are some quotations from your posts on page 2 - before the one where Matthew said, "*that* BrianD":

Looks like you lot are all in one corner and I'm in the opposite.

So, getting back to tolerance and rights. Since I have the right to an opinion I suggest you people learn to tolerate it even though it is different from your own.

What insult prompted this - other than the fact that almost everyoner else had a different opinion from yours?

I am in the camp of believing that man/man and woman/woman is wrong. That's it. That they should go one step further and be married is ridiculous to me.

You described an idea you disagreed with as "ridiculous". Fair enough - it's not the most offensive remark in the world - but you later took great exception to having your own argument described as "absurd". You cannot have it both ways.

I do have an issue. And despite what everybody else on here appears to be suggesting, I am entitled to have an issue with this...

Nobody suggested otherwise.

...I assume many of you on here won't agree that I'm entitled to this view merely because you don't agree with it. Hypocritical springs to mind.

A wild assumpion with no factual basis, followed by an accusation of collective hypocrisy.

What do you expect after this?

This sounds like you're telling me I can't oppose something unless it has a direct effect upon me.

No. Apart from the fact that the word "you" in the sentence you quoted should be a collective you (inclusive of third parties), you can take the statement at face value.

Jeremy

"Looks like you lot are all in one corner and I'm in the opposite."

What's wrong with this? It was true, it wasn't an insult toward anybody, let alone any one individual.

"So, getting back to tolerance and rights. Since I have the right to an opinion I suggest you people learn to tolerate it even though it is different from your own."
Again, what's wrong with this? The issue of tolerance had been brought up in the thread and it seemed that nobody wanted to tolerate a different one. Again, not aimed toward any one individual.

Jeremy, the posts from everybody on the thread was along the lines of my opinion didn't count because it was different. If you can't see that, then that's your problem. I am bound to become defensive in those circumstances and that's what is clear in my posts. If you prefer to be judgemental of me and imagine some other motive, then that's your problem. Perhaps you wouldn't become defensive in those circumstances, although I'd doubt you'd manage it.

The PERSONAL stuff began with Matthew's post. If you can't see that, then that is also your problem. Frankly, I'm not that bothered. I know you tear apart every post I make and look for anything to pick up on and question, you were doing it for 12 months before I left the last time. I have no idea what I've done to you, but it's about time you grew up and dropped it.

Brian,

quote:

---

"Looks like you lot are all in one corner and I'm in the opposite."

What's wrong with this? It was true, it wasn't an insult toward anybody, let alone any one individual.

---

I did not say or imply that there was anything wrong with it.

quote:

---

"So, getting back to tolerance and rights. Since I have the right to an opinion I suggest you people learn to tolerate it even though it is different from your own."
Again, what's wrong with this? The issue of tolerance had been brought up in the thread and it seemed that nobody wanted to tolerate a different one.

---

Please humour me and find one quotation from before you posted your "you people" remark that justifies the accusation.

quote:

---

The PERSONAL stuff began with Matthew's post.

---

The OFFENSIVE stuff began with your posts - particularly your accusation of hypocrisy, which I quoted in my last post.

quote:

---

I have no idea what I've done to you, but it's about time you grew up and dropped it.

---

I think this speaks for itself.

Jeremy

quote:

---

The OFFENSIVE stuff began with your posts

---

No it, didn't. The first comment YOU may have taken offence at was mine, but the first personal snipe was fired by Matthew. Had he not done that later comments in my posts would not have appeared. You don't see this because it was not directed toward you and you have no issue with it. Try putting yourself in my position reading that post and you just might begin to grasp what I'm talking about. The reason it began with Matthews comment was because I found it extremely annoying. I considered that he was negatively influencing forum members who have never seen a post from me.

quote:

---

I did not say or imply that there was anything wrong with it.

---

You make me laugh. So I'm to believe that you read old posts in the thread and extracted the comment in question because you think it was a perfectly harmless and legitimate comment for me to make? You are starting to annoy me now, Jeremy. You are moving back to your old habits of pretending to appear unable to understand context. You know exactly what I meant when I said, "what's wrong with this then". Everybody else will know what I mean too.

quote:

---

I think this speaks for itself

---

I'm surprised you acknowledge your problem. However, it's a pleasant surprise. The sooner you get on with correcting it the better. I'm sure you'll agree.

Fellas, let's just move on.

Anyway, I can't imagine seeing the joy in these newly married couples in San Francisco the past week and not thinking "how wonderful". I mean, happy is happy, right?

Ludwig, Zen'd out

Oh. My turn, is it?

quote:

---

Originally posted by BrianD:
You know exactly what I meant when I said, "what's wrong with this then". Everybody else will know what I mean too.

---

I thought you meant "what's wrong with this then?". I was obviously mistaken.

It's a bit rich to quote part of my quotation of your quotation out of context and then accuse me of pretending not to understand context.

Since you have failed to provide the quotation that I asked for I can only assume that you acknowledge that no such quotation exists and that you have no justification for your paranoid accusations.

Good night.

BrianD said "The hassle began on page 2 on 17th Feb at 0919 with the post from Matthew Robinson when he said..."

Ok lets examine what I said at that point with the benefit of hindsight, which was "Oh you're *that* BrianD. It all makes more sense now".

As subsequently became apparent, what I meant by that was that I recognised BrianD as someone who had a particular style of debate and that recognising BrianD and his debating style made sense of much of what had been previously confusing discussions.

Specifically it was my view that it was best to talk to Brian in simple one fact sentences arranged in bullet points. And that if one didn't adopt this approach then, based on previous experience, we would be in for multiple pages of tedious, confusing, poorly argued, circular sophistry mixed with an element of BrianD's bizarre personal persecution fantaisies.

Doh!

Matthew

BrianD said:

quote:

---

For the first time in this thread I really wish a person was standing in front of me making this accusation face to face. This has now gone too far.

---

As I mentioned Brian, I am not trying to pick a fight with you, merely expressing my opinion, which fact I stated, as to your seeming insensitivity towards Throbnorths feelings, based upon your post. I cannot say that this IS who you are, as clearly in this instance you are, like all of us, mere text on a page - you may be a totally different person in real life, and I respect and understand that. My comments/opinion per se, was directed at your public statements, NOT YOU PERSONALLY, as I DONT KNOW YOU.

Again, In My Humble Opinion, your comments in your reply to throbnorth:

quote:

---

Seriously, I'm sitting here with pint glass in hand and I almost dropped it in laughter. God, what a stupid thing to say. You have no idea.

---

in part lead to me to form my opinion of your insensitivity towards him, and I responded by making my post, and expressing the opinion I have. Obviously, I can't read your mind, and somehow deduce that you meant something else entirely, I can only 'interpret' things as they appear to be with the written word. One of the disadvantages of thoughts and feelings expressed in text on internet forums etc, where one doesn't hear the vocal inflections etc which convey so much of the meaning, and hence 2 + 2 can often appear to equal 6 as it were.

I do hope that your sensitivity does extend to others, as well as yourself, and that your comments about meeting face to face are more to do with hearing/understanding comments made and opinions expressed, in a more complete way than mere text can convey, and not some veiled hint at discussing matters with s hidden agenda on your behalf of my "getting a good kicking" which you initiated firstly in comments as regards Matthew, and now, perhaps erroneously, I feel are possibly directed towards me.

If indeed this is some sort of veiled and/or insinuated comment directed towards me, as to what you might like to do if we were face to face, I wonder how you can be so sensitive to yourself, whilst seemingly quite willing to dish it out several times fold, even to the extent of expressing such thoughts?

IMHO, you are indeed a complex person, and this thread has been discussing a reasonably complex, or at least contentious issue, and tempers will always flare.

Rest assured, again I bear you no ill will; I accept your right to your opinion, as I hope that you respect mine, and other than taking umbridge with your written views/remarks/comments/opinions/writing style etc, I have no axe to grind as it were, with you whatsoever.

I'd like to think it was mutual.

Best Regards to All

John...

Populist thinking exalts the simplistic and the ordinary

Ludwig

quote:

---

Fellas, let's just move on

---

Fine by me. Having now been unable to refrain from following posts after the one from Ludwig, it appears that Matthew and Jeremy cannot move on.

quote:

---

Specifically it was my view that it was best to talk to Brian in simple one fact sentences arranged in bullet points. And that if one didn't adopt this approach then, based on previous experience, we would be in for multiple pages of tedious, confusing, poorly argued, circular sophistry mixed with an element of BrianD's bizarre personal persecution fantaisies.

---

Matthew, don't you realise how insulting your posts are? You're so arrogant it's unbelievable. How you can go on about my 'style' is absolutely amazing. I go back to what I said to you earlier, there is clearly no way at all that you would speak to a person face to face in the manner you post to them on a forum. No way at all.

God. I'm taking the bait again. Listen, Matthew. If other people don't recognise the condescending manner in virtually every post you make when you DON'T AGREE WITH SOMEBODY, I would be amazed. Over the years of reading this forum this is one of the main things that always strikes me as obvious. You can rattle on all you like about my style, hoping to discredit me in this petty manner, but I'm sure people on here are intelligent enough to realise what you are doing, even those who don't agree with me. At least some will be.

Jeremy, how come you see fit to bang on and on at me yet totally ignore this kind of personal tripe from Matthew? Do you bow to the superiority that Matthew clearly attempts to assume over everybody else on this forum?

There are over 6000 members of this forum, how come many don't post? How many have thought about it, but then decided not to because of the tone of some of you people? Might it be they are afraid to post lest they incur the wrath of the half dozen or so regulars who jump down anyone's throat who posts an opposing view to their own?

[This message was edited by BrianD on FRIDAY 20 February 2004 at 09:54.]

Brian,

One last try...

On Page 2 (before Matthew's "*that* BrianD" remark) you accused other contributors collectively of:
1. being intolerant of your view
2. thinking you were not entitled to your opinion
3. being hypocritical.

(I quoted from the relevant posts on page 9).

If you truly believe that your accusations are justified then why have you repeatedly ignored my request to provide even one quotation from Page 1 or 2 that justifies your accusations?

By asking the question I have given you an opportunity to demonstrate that I am mistaken, and that you have a vaild reason for your accusations. Quite frankly, I cannot see why you would not want provide a quotation - unless you knew that you could not. It's up to you.