Immediately after Proposition 8 passed, many who supported [neutering] marriage tried to make sense of the results.Here's the sense: Most people, even if they retain no disapproval of homosexual behavior, understand that marriage unites the sexes, and that the state has an interest in marriage that it doesn't have with other kinds of voluntary personal relationships. Also, they don't like the judiciary usurping their authority.
A set of assumptions gained wide acceptance. Some are correct. Most, however, are just plain wrong. And it's crucial that we know what happened in the last election before launching another attempt to legalize marriage for all.
For all? Really? Even for a bisexual who is in love with two people at the same time?
But it is interesting that a marriage neutering advocate is finally getting serious, rather than simply blaming a church headquartered in Utah and in which a tiny percentage of California voters hold membership.
One big question after the election: Who moved? Six weeks before the vote, Proposition 8 was too close to call. But in the final weeks, supporters pulled ahead, and by election day, the outcome was all but certain.Maybe the polls were wrong.
The shift, it turns out, was greatest among parents with children under 18 living at home - many of them white Democrats.
Parents - unless they have deluded themselves to deal with the guilt of actively deciding to raise children without their parent of the opposite sex in the home, or the guilt of making a series of poor choices that ended up with the same result – can see that a child is best off with a mother and a father who are married to each other. A mother realizes that she can't be a father, and a father realizes that he can't be a mother. They see masculine traits in boys from the earliest ages, and feminine traits in girls at the earliest ages.
[Much more after the jump.]
Among the array of untrue ideas that parents could easily take away: that impressionable kids would be indoctrinated; that they would learn about gay sex; that they would be more likely to become gay; and that they might choose to be gay.What parents correctly realized was that neutering state marriage licensing would make it much more difficult to fight the devaluation of marriage and the advocacy of homosexual behavior in public (state... duh) schools; it would be much harder to opt their children out of anything that taught the demonstrable falsehood that homosexual behavior is equal to heterosexual behavior. Based on the past actions of homosexuality advocates, this was a reasonable consideration.
Another misconception was that those who voted for Proposition 8 were motivated by hate.Read that again. Over and over again. It contradicts the claims of the marriage neutering advocates in the federal trial over Prop 8. But it comes a little late, doesn't it?
Yes, they turned out to be susceptible to an appeal based on anti-gay prejudice.Please explain how that was ant-gay prejudice. It wasn’t a prejudgment. It wasn’t anti-gay. Where did any of the ads imply that homosexual people were bad? It is possible that a signifcant perecentage the population has considered the differences between the sexes and a union that brings together both and one that doesn't.
It's true that the official election results — 52% to 48% — appeared quite close. But the truth is more complicated. The data we analyzed show that the No on 8 campaign benefitted from voter confusion.
Polling suggests that half a million people who opposed [neutering] marriage mistakenly voted against the proposition. They were confused by the idea that a "no" vote was actually a vote for [neutering] marriage.
And let’s not forget that as people mature, marry, and have children (preferably in that order) they are more likely to see the importance of marriage and the difference between marriage and other kinds of relationships. That means, despite what the hateful comments typically say after pieces like this, you can't count on marriage supporters to die out.
"SFNative" at 1:23 AM August 3, 2010:
To Lc39B1, if you don't agree with homosexual marriage, then how about you leave me alone and focus on your own self.
As we have pointed out numerous times, it is actually the marriage neutering advocates who are not leaving other people alone. It is a little silly to insist how vitally important this issue is and then turn around and ask us why we care so much.
State marriage licensing is a public issue as the licenses are issued on behalf of the people of the state. You are free to share your life, name, and bed with anyone else – to have your ceremonies and ask others to consider you married. But forcing the rest of us to call it marriage? That’s another matter.
"bertthebear1" at 3:32 AM August 3, 2010:
You are being replaced by young voters with a much more progressive viewpoint. People who have grown up with Gay classmates and Gay relatives, perhaps a Gay parent, teachers etc. and realize we are normal.I grew up with classmates, teachers, relatives, etc. who identified as homosexual, and some of them were strange (just as some straights were), but others were fairly normal is most aspects of life. I still don’t something as marriage if it is missing either a bride or a groom.
People who understand that we have separation of church and state in this country and that religious views are not a basis for making civil laws.People are allowed to vote for their own reasons. And we did.
This is a civil rights issue. We pay taxes and we are entitled to all of the same rights and benefits as everyone else and that includes the right to marry the person of our choice whether the same or opposite sex.If a heterosexual person can get a marriage license with someone of the same sex, then yes, you'll have to have that access too. Which makes me wonder – if a heterosexual person had sued over Prop 22, would the marriage neutering advocacy groups have supported that? Would the California Supreme Court have made the same decision? Or does a heterosexual person not have the "right" to marry someone of the same sex?
Ya think you can convince the angry "trolls" at the FB NOM site to drop the charge of "bigot" of those who of us who maintain that marriage is about kinship/family, and equal representation of the genders in marriage, as opposed to focusing on one's sexuality? I won't be holding my breath.
ReplyDeleteThere probably ARE people who vote for marriage amendments simply because thet don't like the idea of homosexuality. But isn't the main thrust of marriage defense movement. One can think homosexual behavior is a positive thing and still want to limit state marriage licenses to bride+groom couples.
ReplyDeleteAND... there probably are same-sex couples, who, deep down, don't really care about the whole organized movement and find the demonstrations distasteful but want the affirmation that they think a state marriage license would convey, or the legalities that it automatically brings along; they don't want to hurt anyone. HOWEVER, the activist groups behind the marriage neutering movement have conducted a long, planned effort to tear down the cultural foundation of marriage as something that integrates the sexes and is the ideal container of sexuality and reproduction. Part of this effort has been to punish people who do not celebrate homosexual behavior; tolerance wasn't the goal, forced "approval" was.
Some comments on Fleischer's article:
ReplyDeleteSix weeks before the vote, Proposition 8 was too close to call. But in the final weeks, supporters pulled ahead, and by election day, the outcome was all but certain.
It's true that polls showed movement toward Prop 8 as election approached, but whether the polls actually showed it ahead is another matter. Apparently Fleischer doesn't consider that the polls may have been unreliable, as many who were really in favor of or leaning toward Prop 8 may have told pollsters they were against it.
It has become a regular pattern in states that the polls consistently underestimate the vote for man-woman marriage. The most likely reason for this is that pollsters, perhaps unwillingly, betray a pro-SSM bias when talking to voters, causing some who are uneasy about disagreeing with the pollster to say they are for it (SSM) when they are not. Also, the pollsters may temporarily sway some uncertain persons, but these persons may bounce back the other way afterward.
Another factor, though, may be that the media campaign to brand all opponents of neutering marriage as unenlightened hateful bigots causes some such opponents to not tell their true feelings to pollsters. This should be a lesson for the neutered marriage advocates: the more you try to send the message that good, caring, intelligent people just can't be opposed to SSM, the greater the gap will be between the polls and the reality expressed in the voting booth.
In the last six weeks, when both sides saturated the airwaves with television ads, more than 687,000 voters changed their minds and decided to oppose same-sex marriage. More than 500,000 of those, the data suggest, were parents with children under 18 living at home.
I'm curious as to how they get the 687,000 figure---and how they can be so sure these voters really changed their minds. Anyone have more info on this?
"Mom! Guess what I learned in school today!" were the cheery-frightening first words of the supporters' most-broadcast ad. They emerged from the mouth of a young girl who had supposedly just learned that she could marry a female when she grew up.
Please note: That is all the ad said. Is Fleischer saying that is untrue? That kids won't learn in school that they can marry one of the same sex when they grow up?
Well, Fleischer doesn't deal with this, for he goes on, with no quotes:
Among the array of untrue ideas that parents could easily take away: that impressionable kids would be indoctrinated; that they would learn about gay sex; that they would be more likely to become gay; and that they might choose to be gay.
And then that:
It's also important to arm voters — particularly parents — against an inevitable propaganda attack. And it's crucial to rebut lies so parents don't panic.
But what were the "lies"? The main point, easily, of the "schools issue", in both California and Maine, as well as other states was simply that if same-sex marriage passes, kids will be taught in school that marriage is just between any two persons regardless of gender.
Now, can Fleischer or anyone else explain just how that is a "lie"?
What has become obvious, both in California and Maine, and elsewhere as well, is that supporters of neutering marriage don't want to straight out tell the public that if SSM passes, children will likely be taught in school that marriage is just between any two persons, same-sex or opposite-sex
ReplyDeleteAnd when anyone does state this, they distort it to imply that they are saying something more offensive.
Question is, why?
The reason is that they know full well that what bothers the public is not so much just a same-sex couple being married legally, but the cultural perception of marriage as a neutered institution.
So they do their best to pretend, when trying to make their case before the heterosexual public, that the issue is only about the former and not the latter. And the question of what the kids will learn in school about what marriage is brings the latter out too much.
What this demonstrates is that they know, contrary to their claims of animus toward homosexual individuals or homosexual couples, it really is about the institution, and this is what all those parents who Fleischer believes changed their votes were really motivated by.
There is a big difference in the minds of many people between just granting a same-sex couple a marriage, on the one hand, and neuterizing the understanding of the institution, on the other. So neutered marriage advocates have to convince people that it's only about one and not the other.
Why don't they just say, "Yes, of course the kids should be taught that. It's the law. Why shouldn't they be prepared for it?" This would at least be an honest answer.
Instead, the whole way they and many of their supporters have responded to the ads about the schools has been sheathed in mendacity.
Polling suggests that half a million people who opposed same-sex marriage mistakenly voted against the proposition. They were confused by the idea that a "no" vote was actually a vote for gay marriage. This "wrong-way voting" affected both sides, but overwhelmingly it helped the "no" side.
He doesn't mention, of course, that this was due to the deliberately loaded wording on the ballot. Also, in Maine, the wording on the ballot was deliberately confusing, causing some to erroneously believe that a vote for Prop 1 would be a vote against religious liberty, so it's likely Prop 1 would have otherwise passed by a wider margin as well.
Expect Judge Walker to rule against Prop 8 tomorrow. On to the appeal. Let's see what kind of reasoning he gives, and whether he finds ways to get around the obvious pitfalls (When is marriage not a fundamental right? How does one judge know when a social experiment is final? Is the public ever to have a say in changing an institution?, etc.)
But what were the "lies"? The main point, easily, of the "schools issue", in both California and Maine, as well as other states was simply that if same-sex marriage passes, kids will be taught in school that marriage is just between any two persons regardless of gender.
ReplyDeleteNow, can Fleischer or anyone else explain just how that is a "lie"?
Since you asked, I'll analyze the statement "If same-sex marriage passes, kids will be taught in school that marriage is just between any two persons regardless of gender." It is a nominally true but misleading statement.
The statement, and particular its use as a campaign meme, is based on the premise that something will change in school curricula if, for example, Proposition 8 were not be passed. Here's what's misleading about this premise:
1.) It's accurate to say that schools will, if same-sex marriage is legal, acknowledge that fact when it comes up during school. This is true of same-sex marriage, and it is equally true of every law that is ever passed within a state. Unless we anticipate that schools will lie about the laws of a state, then every single law that has ever been passed is potentially part of a school's curriculum.
This means that, as a parent, if there is any activity in the state which is legal but of which you disapprove, then "kids will be taught in school" that such an activity is legal.
2.) The other premise on which the statement is based is that something will change, and that something is not just the minutiae of law, but rather in the way that schools compare same-sex couples to mixed-sex couples. Specifically, the implication is that children will not be taught that same-sex couples are inferior or that same-sex couplehood is less desirable than heterosexual coupling.
What's misleading about that premise is that it relies on the notion that schools will change what they teach. In fact, public schools can teach what they will about same-sex couples without regard to the legal status of those union. In other words, a public school teacher can choose to say that "Same-sex couples are just as valid as heterosexual couples in this state," and the legal status of same-sex marriage has no bearing on their right to say that.
Further, given that these are public schools, the default is to not avoid making statements which pass judgment on controversial issues. For example, it may be the belief of 50-60% of the state's population that men are better suited to be providers and that women are better suited to be caretakers. Regardless, public schools do not teach that.
It may be the belief of 50-60% of the population that same-sex couples are inferior to mixed-sex couples. But public schools do not teach that belief. A teacher who makes a clear, unambiguous statement to the effect that same-sex couples are inferior to heterosexual couples would face disciplinary action in almost all of the most populous areas of the state of California. The fact that there are areas where such a statement might not result in disciplinary action is not because public school curricula are different there, it's because no one of note would likely complain.
So, while the statement suggests that schools will change what they teach about gay couples with regard to straight couples, the reality is: that status quo at public schools will not/would not change based on a law legalizing same-sex marriage.
Phil, it's not about whether "schools will change what they teach about gay couples with regard to straight couples", or whether "same-sex couples are inferior to mixed-sex couples". It's whether or not marriage is a man-woman or "person-person" institution. With all that implies. Unless it is intended to separate marriage into two de facto different institutions, one for heterosexuals and one for homosexuals, the effective message of person-person marriage is, ultimately, pansexuality. I think many sense this, and that is why the schools message has been effective. It's one thing to say that you must respect homosexuals and heterosexuals equally; it's another thing to say in effect that there is no distinction.
ReplyDeleteBy the way, under Judge Walker's ruling, if upheld, I see no way that ultimately the limitations on the number of people who can marry, or the limits on how closely related they can be, can stand.
Shorter Phil: No, it's not a lie.
ReplyDeleteR.K., you write that "the schools message has been effective" because it's not about what schools will teach? Are you acknowledging that the schools message is a red herring?
ReplyDeleteOp-ed: the "schools message" is misleading because when the legal status of same-sex marriage changes in a state like California, it has almost no effect on the curriculum taught to public school students. In spite of what R.K. typed, schools already teach that there is no distinction between homosexuals and heterosexuals. Proposition 8 had nothing to do with that.
op-ed: just to be clear, I'm only arguing in this thread about the effect that legalizing same-sex marriage has on what public school students are taught.
ReplyDeleteYou may believe, and it may be very effective to rally parents with the belief, that schools ought to teach that there are important distinctions between homosexuals and heterosexuals. That does not change the fact that Proposition 8 had almost no effect on such teachings. Homosexuality, contrary to popular belief, is not a huge component of public school education. Administrators, generally, do not like to court controversy. When the subject of homosexuality does come up in a public school, the teachers do not send the message that "homosexuals are distinct from heterosexuals" in significant ways. Do you dispute that?
Phil: R.K., you write that "the schools message has been effective" because it's not about what schools will teach?
ReplyDeleteNo, not at all. If you think that, you are reading me all wrong.
That schools are not teaching pre-SSM that gays are "inferior" does not mean that SSM will not mean a difference in what the schools teach that marriage is.
In spite of what R.K. typed, schools already teach that there is no distinction between homosexuals and heterosexuals.
Even if true in the moral sense, that is not the same thing as saying that marriage is just between two persons regardless of gender. It's the implications of that message that concerns parents. Oh, and it's very debatable that SSM didn't change anything in Massachusetts. Don't forget, California only had it for a few months, and SSM proponents knew that Prop 8 was on the ballot, so obviously they did not want to stir anything up in that brief period.
Your argument is basically the "so what, we're already teaching that" line. SSM proponents in California and Maine did not find that to be an effective counter-argument, so they went with the "schools aren't required by law to teach marriage at all" chicanery instead. That didn't work either.
SSM proponents in California and Maine did not find that to be an effective counter-argument
ReplyDeleteYou'll agree, perhaps, that whether something is an effective counter-argument is a separate issue from whether it is true.
[...]does not mean that SSM will not mean a difference in what the schools teach that marriage is.
In order to substantiate a claim like that, you would necessarily have to have some concrete idea of what schools currently teach about what marriage is. Do you? Because if you don't, then you can't really make, with any credibility, the claim that something will change.
And, to be clear, I'm not trying to equivocate. I think you'll agree that, generally, parents vote for something like Proposition 8 because they don't want schools to encourage their children enter into homosexual relationships.
ReplyDeleteI'm not trying to convince you that schools are actually doing (or will be doing) what you and/or many parents would like. I'm just stating the truth: schools are absolutely telling students that homosexual relationships are just fine. If your high school student tells his/her teacher or guidance counselor, "Hey, I think I'm gay!" it is extremely likely that the student will be told: that is just fine. Be gay. Pursue a relationship with someone of the same sex. That is true today, when the Prop 8 decision is being stayed. It will be true next week, regardless of the judges' decision on the stay. It was true last week, when Prop 8 was in effect, and it was true in January 2008.
I am quite certain that what I'm describing, with regard to what students are currently being told by teachers and counselors, is not what many parents want to hear. But do you dispute that it's the status quo?
Phil: In order to substantiate a claim like that,you would necessarily have to have some concrete idea of what schools currently teach about what marriage is. Do you? Because if you don't, then you can't really make, with any credibility, the claim that something will change.
ReplyDeleteOh, come off it with the hair splitting. Phil, it's needless to say that school districts differ a lot between them, so you can't speak for all schools any more than I can. What I can tell you is that if schools are teaching now, in states that don't have SSM, that marriage is just between any two persons regardless of gender, that would not be accurate. Are you saying that all or most schools are teaching that without SSM? Are you denying that they will be much more likely to teach that with SSM?
I'm just stating the truth: schools are absolutely telling students that homosexual relationships are just fine.
And, again, that is not the same thing as saying that marriage is just between any two persons. The former implies being equal though different, which is fine with most people; the latter implies there's not even a difference.
R.K.,
ReplyDeleteYou're making the case that the "schools issue" is fundamentally about the nuanced point about the parameters of civil marriage with regard to the social institution, and not fundamentally about what parents believe(d) their children should be taught about homosexuality, homosexual behavior, and forming homosexual relationships.
If you honestly believe that's all that parents cared about, then yes, you are technically correct, then Proposition 8 could have led to a shift in curriculum.
But I don't think it's a stretch to believe that many of the parents swayed by the "schools issue" would actually have a problem with the idea of public schools teaching that homosexual couples are equal to straight couples, and that gay kids ought to pursue same-sex relationships.
Teachers in states where SSM is not legal can certainly refer to "marriage" between two people of the same-sex if they make reference to a committed couple in a lecture, or refer to the partner of a gay man or woman as a "husband" or "wife." Those terms might be colloquial, but their use is unaffected by the legal status of those marriages.
Do you honestly think, though, that school districts in general quiz students on the legal definition of marriage? In what subject do you believe this to be taught?
People see through this, Phil. And they detect that SSM is likely to mean a shift, even more in the stress placed on the subject than on a difference in what's taught, though in regard to marriage that will change, yes.
ReplyDeleteIf we keep going with this back-and-forth maybe eventually we'll be debating what the definition of "is" is, too.
If we keep going with this back-and-forth maybe eventually we'll be debating what the definition of "is" is, too.
ReplyDeleteRight, because any time someone suggests that a claim be subjected to a reasonable level of scrutiny to determine whether it's valid, that is the same as devolving into meaningless abstractions.
People "see through" things, and they see what they want to see, whether they can support what they "see" or not.
On another note, what did you mean when you said this: "the effective message of person-person marriage is, ultimately, pansexuality?"
Right, because any time someone suggests that a claim be subjected to a reasonable level of scrutiny to determine whether it's valid, that is the same as devolving into meaningless abstractions.
ReplyDeleteWith you, Phil, yes, it is. Last time I recall it devolving into discussions of when you can't tell the difference between rocks and trees.
It's accurate to say that schools will, if same-sex marriage is legal, acknowledge that fact when it comes up during school.
What's misleading about that premise is that it relies on the notion that schools will change what they teach.
but then,
If you honestly believe that's all that parents cared about, then yes, you are technically correct, then Proposition 8 could have led to a shift in curriculum.
But...
As a lawyer would say here, Phil, no further questions.
Do you honestly think, though, that school districts in general quiz students on the legal definition of marriage? In what subject do you believe this to be taught?
Marriage will come up in whatever class it comes up in. No need to "quiz" them on it.
On another note, what did you mean when you said this: "the effective message of person-person marriage is, ultimately, pansexuality?"
Best way to answer this is to quote from Gabriel Rosenberg, a supporter of neutering marriage:
SSM advocates have generally argued that prohibitions on homosexual relations are unjustified. Couldn't one similarly argue adultery and incest prohibitions are unjustified. The problem remains, though, one of role conflict. If sexual relations were permitted with close kin that would sexualize such relations. Siblings, for example, could no longer be as close with the knowledge that it was legally permissible for a sexual relation to develop whether or not such a relation actually develops. Similarly the knowledge that a spouse is legally permitted to develop a sexual relation with another inhibits the development of a close relationship between the married couple. I should note these harms occur for all, even those opposed to such relations. Permitting homosexuality does similarly affect the relationships between men (and those between women). The effect is not so significant, though, because unlike adultery and incest it's not interfering with the more important family relationships. It only affects general social relationships like business contacts. This might have been a problem in the past when business contacts were almost entirely between men (I believe this might explain why male homosexuality was and is viewed more harshly than female homosexuality). In today's world we are used to making social contacts with both men and women.
I think Rosenberg hit the nail on the head for the most part, but I believe he's very wrong about one point. If you know what I'm referring to, we can further discuss what I mean about "pansexuality". If you don't, no need to discuss it further.
http://gabrielrosenberg.typepad.com/galois/2004/02/slippery_slope__1.html
Phil: ...teachers do not send the message that "homosexuals are distinct from heterosexuals" in significant ways. Do you dispute that?
ReplyDeleteI see. So having lost the debate about Prop. 8 supporters lying, you now want to switch to discussing some kind of "homo" vs. "hetero" dichotomy.
Not interested.
With you, Phil, yes, it is. Last time I recall[...]
ReplyDeleteGosh, R.K., I've never made a statement on this blog that I can't defend.
If you want to open up this thread into a debate about every post you or I have ever made here, I guess that's your prerogative. Most blogs consider that sort of thing to be "threadjacking" or getting off-topic, but I understand if you feel the need to switch tactics in this current discussion.
Here's the claim I started out with in this thread: I'll analyze the statement "If same-sex marriage passes, kids will be taught in school that marriage is just between any two persons regardless of gender." It is a nominally true but misleading statement.
You quoted three passages from my comments here that support that statement.
When I asked what you meant when you said that the message of person-person marriage is pansexuality, you quoted Gabriel Rosenberg. To explain what you meant. First, can we both acknowledge that it's irrelevant to our discussion whether Rosenberg is a supporter of SSM? Unless you're willing to stand by every statement ever made by an opponent of SSM, I think we can both agree that people are capable of making bad arguments in support of good legal positions.
But here's how Rosenberg starts out: "SSM advocates have generally argued that prohibitions on homosexual relations are unjustified."
Rosenberg proceeds to jump from prohibitions on homosexual relations to prohibitions on incest and adultery, without any link or rational connection. But what's most significant here is that Rosenberg isn't talking about SSM. He's talking about "homosexual relations," which are legal.
This raises two questions. 1.) Do you oppose legal homosexual relations? In other words, do you believe that sodomy should be re-criminalized? And 2.) Do you see what I meant when I said that the status quo in school curricula will not change much with regard to legal SSM?
The first example that you came up with supported my claim. Your pansexuality support was about homosexual relations, not homosexual marriage.
Since op-ed is not interested, I will ignore his taking a quotation out of context and pulling an Andrew Breitbart, pretending that I somehow shifted away from my original claim.
But in terms of our discussion, R.K., it is interesting to note that op-ed, an opponent of marriage equality, is singling out a phrase that you introduced in order to disparage it.
Here's what you said at 6:56: It's one thing to say that you must respect homosexuals and heterosexuals equally; it's another thing to say in effect that there is no distinction.
(And, for the record, I was making a funny when I said that op-ed is an opponent of marriage equality. As I indicated earlier, I don't expect you to have to defend every harebrained thing that any irrational SSM opponent might choose to say.)
Alas, this blog doesn't allow editing, but if it did, I would change the fourth "paragraph" in my previous post to read, "You quoted three passages from my comments here that support that claim."
ReplyDeletePhil: I will ignore his taking a quotation out of context and pulling an Andrew Breitbart...
ReplyDeleteQuit flailing Phil. If you want to have a discussion with Andrew Breitbart he has his own blog for such things. As for context, go ahead and point out what context I omitted that shows you are actually discussing marriage rather than turning this thread into your typical tramp through identity politics.
No, seriously. Do it. Point it out, Phil.
...pretending that I somehow shifted away from my original claim.
I pretend nothing, and you are now simply lying about your position in this conversation. Next time you decide to lie, at least go back and delete the comments you are trying to lie about.
You started in this thread ostensibly to show how PW's statement: "If same-sex marriage passes, kids will be taught in school that marriage is just between any two persons regardless of gender," is a lie. You then proceed to announce that statement as actually "nominally true." "Nominally true" is another of your weasel phrases that in this case means "absolutely true but I hate to admit it."
That's where you go off the rails. The statement is misleading, you claim, even though it is true. It's misleading, supposedly, because you have discovered evil "premises" hiding behind it, evil premises that coincidentally allow you to collapse into your standard rant, pushing your distasteful brand of identity politics onto the discussion.
You are no different than the obnoxious Amway salesman who thinks every discussion is actually about multi-level marketing even if the people having the conversation didn't realize it. Like I said, Phil, not interested. Yet like the pushy Amway salesman, you're just not willing to take no for an answer.
You are no different that Judge Walker who thinks that everybody everywhere across time and culture who has ever practiced marriage only did so to "...enshrine ... the notion that opposite sex couples are superior to same-sex couples." Yes, I remember that famous scene in Shakespeare where the star struck young lover asks the fair maiden if she will join him in making same-sex couples feel inferior.
Like I said, Phil, not interested.
ReplyDeleteNot interested in what?
I'm sure you're a very nice person in some contexts, op-ed, but I find your comments and attempts at discussion annoying and I don't wish to engage you.
Did you read the part of my post where I pointed out that the language you quoted from me was a direct response to a comment by R.K?
But you do get extra points for complaining that I compared your _actions_ to Andrew Breitbart's, and then in the same post equating me _as a person_ to Judge Walker.
Gosh, R.K., I've never made a statement on this blog that I can't defend.
ReplyDeleteIn the case of that particular aside I referred to, Phil, it's not that you couldn't defend it, it's just an example of how discussions with you tend to turn into hair-splitting contests which devolve from the original point.
...but I understand if you feel the need to switch tactics in this current discussion.
No, because I've made my point, and you haven't refuted it, though you keep trying to find ways to find an out in the hope people won't notice.
First, can we both acknowledge that it's irrelevant to our discussion whether Rosenberg is a supporter of SSM?
Acknowledged, though I only point that out so you don't say or think "of course he'd say that; he's one of your own".
Rosenberg proceeds to jump from prohibitions on homosexual relations to prohibitions on incest and adultery, without any link or rational connection.
Wrong. Read the first part again. In the context he uses, the rational connection is plain.
But what's most significant here is that Rosenberg isn't talking about SSM. He's talking about "homosexual relations," which are legal.
You're missing the main point. Can you state what the point he's making is? If you can't, no need for further discussion.
To your questions: 1.) No, which means I'm going half rather than full. 2.) Absolutely not, and again, that's because there's a difference between half and full.
Your pansexuality support was about homosexual relations, not homosexual marriage.
Argument is the same, difference is between half and full, and that difference does not diminish the point made.
As I indicated earlier, I don't expect you to have to defend every harebrained thing that any irrational SSM opponent might choose to say.
Rosenberg doesn't need you to defend him, and I'm not asking you to. His argument is not "harebrained". I don't think he's "irrational", just that in one area he's overlooking something important, which could lead many to a totally different position than the one he supports.
Just asking, do you have an idea what I'm referring to in Rosenberg's argument that I feel is right? Do you have an idea what I'm referring to in his argument that I think is wrong? If not, you're missing the point and we might as well end the discussion.
Surprise, surprise. Phil makes an accusation. I ask him to back it up. Phil responds with a completely superfluous personal attack instead. Is anybody really surprised? Anyone? Anyone?
ReplyDelete...I find your comments and attempts at discussion annoying...
What is the purpose of a statement like this? Who cares what your pet intolerances are? I don't see where anybody asked you to expound on your small emotions.
...complaining that I compared your _actions_ to Andrew Breitbart's...
Lie. I told you to vent your Breitbart-phobia on his blog, not mine.
...equating me _as a person_ to Judge Walker.
What was that you were saying about "out of context?" Zero points for reading comprehension. Zero points for consistent ethics.
Walker was supposed to rule on marriage, instead he rules on his own brand of identity politics. You are supposed to expose the "lie" related to teaching marriage in schools and instead veer off into your own brand of identity politics. That is the equivalency I made and you don't refute it by generating straw man arguments.
Lie. I told you to vent your Breitbart-phobia on his blog, not mine.
ReplyDeleteThis is one of many instances where you misuse the word "lie."
How is that a lie, op-ed? Are you saying that "vent your Breitbart-phobia on his blog, not mine" is not a "complaint?"
I said you "pulled an Andrew Breitbart," and you said "You are no different that Judge Walker."
Rather than saying, "Take your complaints to Judge Walker's blog," I pointed out your inconsistency.
Read the first part again. In the context he uses, the rational connection is plain.
ReplyDeleteNo. The only link is, "If someone argues that prohibitions on one thing are unjustified, then one can similarly argue that prohibitions on any other thing in the universe are unjustified." There is no heed given to the reasons that bans on homosexual relations are unjustified, and thus there is no rational link to adultery and incest. In other words, there is no greater link in the passage you quoted between homosexual relations and incest than there is between homosexual relations and gum-chewing, wine-drinking, interfaith relations, etc.
Rosenberg makes an interesting point, because, for example, he says that accepting male-male sexual relationships will have an impact on male-male non-sexual intimacy. There's a grain of truth to that. In conservative Muslim countries, for example, men will walk down the street holding hands, or put their arms around each other. Homosexual relationships are so forbidden that men needn't worry that their intimate behavior will be misinterpreted, either by each other, or by onlookers.
I don't disagree with some of Rosenberg's analysis. My issue is that he approaches it from a sexist viewpoint--he acts like there's something super-distinct about male-male and female-female nonsexual relationships, and their business relationships, such that they are categorized differently than male-female nonsexual relationships. I disagree. Despite claims that I'm beholden to identity politics, I think people are people. We put too much stock in "maleness" and "femaleness" and not in individual humans.
Now, let me recap.
1. I asked you what you meant when you said that teaching about person-person marriage would have the message of "pansexuality."
2. You responded with a quote from Rosenberg.
3. I interpret your response to mean that you believe that if schools teach children that marriage is between a person and a person, that will have the effect of encouraging incest and/or adultery.
Is that a reasonable interpretation of your posts here? Am I getting off-topic by trying to closely follow what you're saying?
Phil: In other words, there is no greater link in the passage you quoted between homosexual relations and incest than there is between homosexual relations and gum-chewing, wine-drinking, interfaith relations, etc.
ReplyDeleteThe point he makes is not about a "link between homosexual relations and incest". If you think that it is, you aren't reading it right. Try again to tell me what his argument is. You're confusing parallels with equivalencies.
Rosenberg makes an interesting point, because, for example, he says that accepting male-male sexual relationships will have an impact on male-male non-sexual intimacy.
Okay, now we're getting somewhere.
My issue is that he approaches it from a sexist viewpoint--he acts like there's something super-distinct about male-male and female-female nonsexual relationships, and their business relationships, such that they are categorized differently than male-female nonsexual relationships. I disagree.
He's not saying that, if you read it correctly, but even if it can be read as you do to any extent it reflects not "categorization" but simple reality.
I think people are people. We put too much stock in "maleness" and "femaleness" and not in individual humans.
Take that up with human nature itself, Phil. Like it or not, people do not think of themselves as just people but as men or women. Are you denying that gender identity is important to individuals?
See, I think this is the ultimate difference between those who think SSM is going to work out just fine, and those who don't. The former believe gender identity is only very minimally important to people, the latter do not. And if gender identity is in fact important to individuals and that can't be erased as easy as many used to think, that is likely going to be at the core of the fatal flaws of neutering marriage.
BTW, Phil, a rational connection is not the same as a "link" in the context in which you use the word. The former merely implies use of a parallel for the sake of making an argument about a related point; the way you use "link" implies a direct connection as in moral equivalency or direct cause-and-effect.
ReplyDelete3. I interpret your response to mean that you believe that if schools teach children that marriage is between a person and a person, that will have the effect of encouraging incest and/or adultery.
ReplyDeleteNo, you're interpreting wrong. You still don't get my point, or Rosenberg's.
If it were to have the effect you think I'm implying, it would be through a different route than the one I'm getting at here.
Is that a reasonable interpretation of your posts here? Am I getting off-topic by trying to closely follow what you're saying?
No, and you're getting off topic by not following what I'm saying.
Try again to tell me what his argument is.
ReplyDeleteR.K., you may be a professor or a teacher in real life, but I think it's only fair to tell you that I find your tone condescending when you "give assignments" in a discussion like this.
Further, it's inappropriate because you're misinterpreting the passage that you presented. If you want to make the case that saying "one could similarly argue" is somehow very different from linking two subjects, then you're misinterpreting what I said.
I used "link" in the sense of "connecting one thing in a paragraph to another." I'm not saying that Rosenberg was claiming that homosexual relations are exactly like incest; rather, he says "People have argued that prohibitions on X are unjustified. They could similarly argue that prohibitions on Y are unjustified."
In my example, X and Y could be anything. Based on the quoted text from Rosenberg, they could be anything in _his_ example, too. "People have argued that prohibitions on gambling are unjustified. They could similarly argue that prohibitions on false teeth are unjustified"--and so forth.
Are you denying that gender identity is important to individuals?
No, actually, I think that gender identity is often very important to individuals, although it's more important to some individuals than others.
Now, are we on the same page in thinking that "gender identity" is a separate thing from the quality of being biologically male or female?
No, you're interpreting wrong. You still don't get my point, or Rosenberg's.
I appreciate your correction, but I mourn your lack of clarification. Why not just say what you meant when you said that if schools teach person-person marriage, the effect will be pansexuality?
Here's an example of a statement that is "nominally true, but misleading."
ReplyDeleteWhen asked by Jim Lehrer about the Monica Lewinsky scandal, Bill Clinton said, "There is no improper relationship." He even clarified later, "There is not a sexual relationship."
We now know that Clinton, indeed, engaged in oral sex with Lewinsky. But, in his mind, his statements to Lehrer were true. His defense of his words rested on the word "is"--although it wasn't really an existential or abstract defense, as is sometimes implied these days. "Is" is a present-tense verb, and at the time of the interview, Clinton was no longer engaging in sexual or intimate activity with Monica Lewinsky.
Now, if you hold the belief that a statement is either true or false, and that's all there is to it, then Clinton was telling the _truth_. The words he were saying weren't a lie.
But I think most Americans, and most reasonable people around the world, recognize that Clinton was telling the truth in a crafty way, knowing that his true words would, if accepted, cause his listeners to believe something untrue.
So, is it possible for a statement to be nominally true, but misleading? Or is Bill Clinton really a paragon of honesty?
R.K., you may be a professor or a teacher in real life
ReplyDeleteActually no. Tutor sometimes.
I think it's only fair to tell you that I find your tone condescending when you "give assignments" in a discussion like this.
Sorry, but sometimes I'd rather see if people can see the point themselves rather than have to tell them.
I used "link" in the sense of "connecting one thing in a paragraph to another." I'm not saying that Rosenberg was claiming that homosexual relations are exactly like incest; rather, he says "People have argued that prohibitions on X are unjustified. They could similarly argue that prohibitions on Y are unjustified."
In my example, X and Y could be anything. Based on the quoted text from Rosenberg, they could be anything in _his_ example, too. "People have argued that prohibitions on gambling are unjustified. They could similarly argue that prohibitions on false teeth are unjustified"--and so forth.
That attempt at using an analogy to dismiss another analogy fails, Phil. As much as you may not like hearing this, yes, logically speaking, homosexuality and incest do have this much in common: they are both sexual activities that have been discouraged or prohibited by cultures. To argue that they are no more similar for purposes of analogy or argument than gambling is to false teeth is ludicrous on its face.
Now, are we on the same page in thinking that "gender identity" is a separate thing from the quality of being biologically male or female?
Not for most people it isn't. I realize that a small percentage feel that it is, but what gets me is when LGBT activists act as if gender identity is so much more important for those who don't identify as the sex that they are biologically than it is, or should be, for the 98 percent plus who do identify as the sex they are.
Why not just say what you meant when you said that if schools teach person-person marriage, the effect will be pansexuality?
On same-gender friendships, the effect will be parallel, note, parallel, to the effect that it would have on sibling relationships if it were taught that sibling marriage was allowed. It harms the essence of the important non-sexual relationship by injecting the possibility that it could be sexual. In essence then, all peer relationships outside immediate family (for a time) are potentially sexualized even if not acted on. It may be a gradual process, but relationships outside immediate family are in this way "pansexualized". I know, you're going to want elaboration on this, but that will have to be in a longer post.
As for close-relation marriage and polygamy, the route is not that SSM would lead to them, but that the arguments for keeping them illegal are no better than the ones for keeping marriage opposite-sex only were, and that will eventually be seen. Also, SSM actually weakens or even destroys some of the arguments against both polygamy and close-relation marriage. Again, if you want elaboration, I'll give it in a later post.
But I think most Americans, and most reasonable people around the world, recognize that Clinton was telling the truth in a crafty way, knowing that his true words would, if accepted, cause his listeners to believe something untrue.
ReplyDeletePoint well taken, Phil, but that actually fits better with what Prop 8 and Maine Prop 1 opponents used in their campaign adds against the "schools argument" than it does with what the propositions' proponents said.
On same-gender friendships, the effect will be parallel, note, parallel, to the effect that it would have on sibling relationships if it were taught that sibling marriage was allowed.
ReplyDeleteOkay, that makes more sense. It sounds like you're using "pansexuality" in the sense that all relationships will be perceived to be potentially sexual, because same-sex romantic intimate relations will be (or are) acceptable. So the problems that will be inherent in "male-male" buddy relationships will be similar to what Billy Crystal's character says in "When Harry Met Sally"-essentially, that it's impossible for men and women to be friends.
That argument is problematic for lots of reasons, but let's pretend it's reasonable. It still has almost nothing to do with marriage. The point is that acceptance of or removal of taboos concerning homosexual relationships will eventually lead to more tension (or "issues") in intimate same-sex friendships.
In order to prove your point--that the "schools issue" is essentially true--you have to completely misrepresent what Rosenberg is saying. You can't possibly think that the impetus for the negative effects that Rosenberg lists will be things like tax status and inheritance rights?
"Acceptance of homosexual relationships" and "removal of taboos concerning homosexual relationships" can and will happen independent of the legal status of same-sex marriage.
Are you trying to say that two straight men who share a sleeping bag in a culture where they can form a long-term, committed, sexual relationship and get married in a church will feel very different about each other than two straight men who share a sleeping bag in a culture where they can from a long-term, committed, sexual relationship and get married at city hall?
That's why I make the statement that the "schools issue" is misleading. Schools can and will teach and encourage acceptance of homosexual relationships; Proposition 8 had minimal influence on curricula. A vote for Proposition 8 was a proxy for the real bogeymen that parents don't get a say in. Convincing them that, "hey, here's something you can do to prevent your kids from hearing messages you don't like" was an effective strategy--but, for the most part, it won't actually protect their kids from hearing messages they don't like.
Do you see what I'm saying? I'm not saying that Prop 8 opponents were entirely truthful in their ads--the truth is, if Prop 8 opponents were entirely candid in their campaign materials about what they believe children should be taught in schools, then many parents would run _screaming_ to the ballot boxes to try to thwart them.
Unfortunately for those parents, the Prop 8 vote wouldn't, and didn't, really have much impact what students will be taught in schools.
Again, if you want elaboration, I'll give it in a later post.
I have no desire to discuss incest and polygamy with you. I can't fathom that you want to hear what I have to say about those old tropes, either. I am pretty sure both of us would be re-hashing stuff we've either said or heard a hundred times before, and I suspect you'll agree with me there.
Phil: This is one of many instances where you misuse the word "lie."
ReplyDeleteThis is one of many instances where you lie.
Are you saying that "vent your Breitbart-phobia on his blog, not mine" is not a "complaint?"
It is a directive, not a complaint. A complaint would be something like: "...I find your tone condescending when you 'give assignments' in a discussion like this."
I pointed out your inconsistency.
No, you didn't. You tried to invent an inconsistency to hide your own. I didn't throw out a vacuous and irrelevant "You pulled a Walker," but rather fully discussed his statement and how it was relevant to the conversation at hand. You did nothing of the sort and still do not.
Apropos of "still do not," you still do not back up your accusation that I twisted anything you said by failing to provide context. You've responded at least a half dozen times since I challenged you to substantiate your false accusation and you still have not. It's time to admit your accusation was false.
Bill Clinton said, ...
Oh, good grief. First your identity politics drivel failed now you're trying to discuss Bill Clinton?
If you're not going to admit you were wrong the least you could do is drop the subject. Don't keep trying to bury it in an avalanche of irrelevant tangents. PW pointed out that how marriage is taught in school would change, you agreed. Move on. Dwelling on points where by your own admission you've lost the debate isn't doing anything to restore your credibility.
Nobody puts Bill Clinton's statement about Monica Lewinsky on par with PW's statement about the teaching of marriage in schools. Therefore, what anyone thinks of Bill Clinton's statements has no bearing on how marriage will be taught differently in schools.
You can't possibly think that the impetus for the negative effects that Rosenberg lists will be things like tax status and inheritance rights?
ReplyDeleteNo, Phil, it will be the word marriage, and the image that students get of marriage, that will take the process a lot further than it's already been taken with merely the legalization of homosexual relations. I don't dispute that the "Rosenberg effect", if we can call it that for now, will take place to some extent, not just by the fact that homosexuality is legal but by talking about it a lot, but I very much do dispute your contention that the effect will not be much more when marriage----a word which means far more culturally than just things like tax status and inheritance rights---is held to be just between "any two persons". As much as you are trying to pretend this will not be a big step affecting a lot of things including what is taught in schools, it is simply unconvincing to anyone who knows not just what marriage means legally, but the symbolism it carries with it in a culture.
Convincing them that, "hey, here's something you can do to prevent your kids from hearing messages you don't like" was an effective strategy--but, for the most part, it won't actually protect their kids from hearing messages they don't like.
Failing to see a difference between half and full again.
In short, Phil, no, none of your denials that SSM would affect what kids get taught is convincing. Oh, I'm sure that in some areas that already are coming close to teaching as if marriage was neuterized, the jump neutering marriage would cause would be less than it is in other areas that just don't talk much about homosexuality. Even in California, are you telling me that what is taught in San Francisco and Berkeley and Santa Cruz is no different from what is taught in places like Bakersfield, Visalia, or Alturas? Particularly in how much is taught or talked about relating to homosexuality?
I'm not saying that Prop 8 opponents were entirely truthful in their ads--the truth is, if Prop 8 opponents were entirely candid in their campaign materials about what they believe children should be taught in schools, then many parents would run _screaming_ to the ballot boxes to try to thwart them.
Uh, I did read that right, didn't I? I think you just conceded my point on the schools, whether you meant to or not. Do you think many parents did not sense exactly what you say?
...the Prop 8 vote wouldn't, and didn't, really have much impact what students will be taught in schools.
Of course, because it's opponents knew the vote was coming and didn't want to give Prop 8 more ammunition before the vote.
I have no desire to discuss incest and polygamy with you. I can't fathom that you want to hear what I have to say about those old tropes, either. I am pretty sure both of us would be re-hashing stuff we've either said or heard a hundred times before, and I suspect you'll agree with me there.
OK, if you wish, but I will bring it up whenever it is logically relevant. Actually, Phil, this has essentially always been your response, so I don't know what you'd be "re-hashing" if we really did discuss it in depth.
Phil: This is one of many instances where you misuse the word "lie."
ReplyDeleteop-ed: This is one of many instances where you lie.
op-ed, may I have your permission to quote that exchange in an email signature? I think it encompasses, very succinctly, what it's often like to debate with a stranger online.
Beyond that, no offense, but I'm going to restrict my responses to R.K.'s comments or other posters whose comments are coherent.
I very much do dispute your contention that the effect will not be much more when marriage----a word which means far more culturally than just things like tax status and inheritance rights---is held to be just between "any two persons".
ReplyDeleteI think that we agree, substantially, on the facts, and we disagree on interpretation of them and on predictions.
I think the "cultural stuff" is proceeding apace, including the new understanding of the word marriage, and you seem to think that there is an important milestone that will only be met when same-sex marriage is legal.
It's kind of fascinating, because, on one hand, Proposition 8 really was about the word marriage, since same-sex couples can enter into civil unions and enjoy all of the rights afforded by the state to married couples. On the other hand, it really wasn't about the word, since word usage isn't regulated by the state.
Failing to see a difference between half and full again.
I think this is where our disagreement really centers. I'd estimate that it's a difference between 85% and 100%, but then I'm a public school teacher in a fairly large urban area.
On the other hand, even in the event that the circuit court judge strikes down Judge Walker's ruling and upholds or reinstates Prop 8, that 85% is moving upward.
[...]are you telling me that what is taught in San Francisco and Berkeley and Santa Cruz is no different from what is taught in places like Bakersfield, Visalia, or Alturas? Particularly in how much is taught or talked about relating to homosexuality?
What matters is not just how much is talked about relating to homosexuality, but how much is taught about marriage, and whether the talk about homosexuality will change much when/if the law changes.
Interestingly, you picked fairly populous cities as your examples of "some areas" where schools teach as if marriage equality were already law. I agree with you; I'm sure that populous and diverse places like San Francisco, Los Angeles, and San Diego have a more liberal take on marriage equality discussions in the classroom than, say, Barstow.
On the other hand, those places are the population centers. So if your estimates (half vs. full) are true in the smaller towns and my estimates (.85 vs full) are true in the big cities, then a comparatively small number of students will actually experience much _change_ in what they hear in schools.
Uh, I did read that right, didn't I? I think you just conceded my point on the schools, whether you meant to or not.
Uh, no, I didn't concede your point. Perhaps you understand my point more clearly? Parents might have run screaming to the ballot box, but that ballot wouldn't actually allow them to change much.
Of course, because it's opponents knew the vote was coming and didn't want to give Prop 8 more ammunition before the vote.
ReplyDeleteI see what you're saying now--that during the time that same-sex marriage was legal, school curricula didn't change much because SSM advocates didn't want to rock the boat before the election. This thinking presupposes that the needs/wants of SSM advocates somehow hold sway in public schools.
It's funny, though, because during the campaign, I perceived the opposite. I mean, I was an SSM advocate. I didn't want teachers to rock the boat and give fuel to our enemies. And I kept hearing about teachers who were doing just that.
I remember reading about the SF-area lesbian grade school teacher who invited her class to come watch her marriage to another woman. I was furious. "This is not the time for such a stunt!" I thought. (In addition, I think our culture raises children, and especially girls, to be wedding-obsessed, so I would have had issues with it even if I didn't think it was bad PR.
Imagine my surprise when I learned that the "gay marriage field trip" was actually planned by _parents_ of students in the class, and that it was a surprise for the teacher. and that every student who went had a signed permission slip from their parents. Many of their parents actually accompanied them. The reality was a far cry from the shrill pro-prop-8 sound byte.
Wow, I thought, these people are willing to lie blatantly in order to convince parents that the "schools issue" has merit.
Phil: Beyond that, no offense, but I'm going to restrict my responses to R.K.'s comments or other posters whose comments are coherent.
ReplyDeleteMore Honest Phil: "I can't support my original thesis so I'm going to hurl random insults at those who try to drag me back to it."
...I'm a public school teacher in a fairly large urban area.
And do you feel comfortable modeling for your students the behavior that when one has been caught in a lie one should respond by insulting the one who caught you rather than retracting one's untruth? I sincerely hope your example is the exception rather than the rule among teachers. Dance of the Lemons much?
op-ed, sorry for the additional comment, but this is how I perceive our discussion(s) to go:
ReplyDeleteMe: [A statement that you disagree with, because we hold opposing views on several subjects.]
op-ed: I don't think that's true! And things that are not true are lies! You are lying!
Me: Actually, no, that's not a "lie," op-ed, that's just a point of disagreement.
op-ed: Another lie! You're lying to cover up your lie!
Me: No, no...you're throwing that word around without regard to what it means.
op-ed: I do too know what it means! You're lying again!
Me: Ugh. Your posts are incoherent.
op-ed: You're changing the subject! And insulting me! Because I caught you in a lie!
...so do you want to just keep going back-and-forth? There just doesn't seem to be a point in responding to you. It's meta-discourse, where I'm forced to say, "No, this was not a lie, op-ed," or "No, I didn't 'switch to discussing some kind of homo vs. hetero dichotomy'--I was responding directly to a comment that R.K. made, using his language," etc.
It was wrong of me to suggest that your posts are incoherent when I was trying to bow out of discussion with you; such a comment invites a rebuttal. I realize this post, too, might call for a response. If so, I'll just say "thanks."
I think this is where our disagreement really centers. I'd estimate that it's a difference between 85% and 100%, but then I'm a public school teacher in a fairly large urban area.
ReplyDeleteI think your estimate is probably about right for large California urban centers, particularly those in the Bay Area. Elsewhere, much more of a jump. Just my estimate, but I'd say that in many small towns and rural areas the figure is more like 20 percent. Not sure how we'd measure this, or if anybody has used a method to measure it yet, so debating these numbers is ultimately pointless.
Parents might have run screaming to the ballot box, but that ballot wouldn't actually allow them to change much.
I think our disagreement on this issue narrows down to this (as well as the cultural importance of the word marriage): you don't believe in a "green-light effect": I do. I think we should agree to disagree on that.
I was an SSM advocate. I didn't want teachers to rock the boat and give fuel to our enemies. And I kept hearing about teachers who were doing just that.
And I'm sure there are still many SSM advocates who feel as you do even in states where it's legal, even in Massachusetts, as they know that the rest of the country still needs to be persuaded and "rocking the boat" even there would hurt SSM's chances in other states. And some who want to rock the boat now, some who would love to rock it but not yet. The question is, how many will still feel this way if or when SSM is nationalized, and they feel the "enemies" have been defeated?
In short, yes, I think there is some "green-light" effect in states that neuter marriage, but even a bigger one if the whole country is forced to.
Imagine my surprise when I learned that the "gay marriage field trip" was actually planned by _parents_ of students in the class, and that it was a surprise for the teacher. and that every student who went had a signed permission slip from their parents. Many of their parents actually accompanied them. The reality was a far cry from the shrill pro-prop-8 sound byte.
Wow, I thought, these people are willing to lie blatantly in order to convince parents that the "schools issue" has merit.
Now here we've got to get back to the definition of "lying": Did those on the Prop 8 side who publicized this know the additional information when they publicized it? After all, you didn't even know it at first. If they didn't, it was a case of not getting the full story first, but not of "lying".
Phil, I think we've come to a point where we at least understand each other's concerns even though we still disagree, and I don't think there is much point in trying to convince the other in those areas where we disagree, as we've reduced those areas to the subjective (or, at least, to subjective disagreement over the meaning of the objective). Can we now just respectfully agree to disagree in those areas where we do?
Phil,
ReplyDeleteI doubt that is how you perceive the conversation, but rather how you wish to portray it. I give you more credit than to believe you are actually that incapable of comprehending the debate as written.
Phil: Me: No, no...you're throwing that word around without regard to what it means.
False. A lie is a deliberately false or misleading statement and that is precisely the meaning I have ascribed to it in every instance.
There just doesn't seem to be a point in responding to you.
Only if one's responses continue to be attempts at rhetorical slight of hand. You can legitimize your participation at any time by responding honestly. I cannot do that for you, neither can R.K.
I was responding directly to a comment that R.K. made, using his language,...
Lie, in that you are here attempting to deliberately mislead. The phrase "using his language" is non-responsive to the charge that one is "pushing your distasteful brand of identity politics onto the discussion." An Amway salesman attempting to co-opt a discussion is perfectly capable of using the same language as the legitimate participants while attempting to push his new topic. There is no point in making this non-responsive statement other than to attempt to mislead, i.e., lie.
For starters, the comment you actually say you are trying to respond to in your initial post is PW's, and is taken from his actual post rather than from R.K.'s comment.
Second, even if you are responding to R.K. per your new claim, the dichotomy being discussed by R.K. is not "homo" vs. "hetero" as in your response, but rather the legal vs. cultural understanding of marriage.
"The reason is that they know full well that what bothers the public is not so much just a same-sex couple being married legally, but the cultural perception of marriage as a neutered institution." [emphasis added]
He reiterates that as his proposed dichotomy in the very next sentence:
"...that the issue is only about the former and not the latter."
Your last statement in what you claim was your response to R.K. identifies the dichotomy you are discussing:
"So, while the statement suggests that schools will change what they teach about gay couples with regard to straight couples," [emphasis added]
This is clearly a change of topic and clearly the change of topic I had accused you of making:
"...you now want to switch to discussing some kind of 'homo' vs. 'hetero' dichotomy."
I have now reiterated my defense of that statement. You, on the other hand, have yet to defend your accusation in response or to retract the statement:
"I will ignore [op-ed's] taking a quotation out of context ... pretending that I somehow shifted away from my original claim."
Your "original claim" was that you would "analyze the statement" made by PW. Your new claim is that you were actually responding to the substance of R.K.'s post. Granting, for the sake of discussion, that either of those claims is true, diverting to your typical "gay" vs. "straight" pap is clearly a "shift away." I am therefore not "pretending" anything. These are your exact words and your intended meanings.
I challenged you to similarly substantiate this very accusation you leveled at me. You have not. Therefore either you knew the statement was false when you said it, making it a lie, or you do now but wish to mislead us into believing you still back it but have simply discovered new and more interesting topics to discuss. Either case would constitute lying and you are correct that there is no purpose in your continuing to do so here.
Checkmate.
Hey Phil,
ReplyDeleteIts no point trying to rewrite history (as in the comment conversation between you and Op-Ed), its a clear sign you rely on spin rather than facts.
Op-Ed simply asked you to support your claim against Playful Walrus. You haven't. In fact you've simply corroborated his statement, even calling it "nominally true" at some point.
Your presentation of the school trip also proves you are wrong and Playful is right.
1) The children were already being taught about homosexuality, and without any media attention from Prop 8.
2) The school trip was a field trip, endorsed by the school (hence the need for permission slips which is a standard for all field trips). I'm sure parents played some role in it, no one said otherwise. However, the involvement and planning from the school is unmistakable.
3) The field trip was about a marriage and what marriage should mean for the children involved.
All that is gleaned from what you wrote, and gives evidence that Playful is right, not wrong.
Just as Prop 8 presented both then and in the mere presentation (with nothing shown but neutral inquisitiveness from the actor) of a children's book that has been introduced in elementary schools. A book, like the field trip, which presents that marriage is supposed to mean something that it does not mean.
op-ed:
ReplyDeleteThanks!
On Lawn,
ReplyDeleteIn fact you've simply corroborated his statement, even calling it "nominally true" at some point.
I didn't call it nominally true at "some" point. I called it "nominally true" right off the bat. I explained that it was nominally true, but misleading.
I gave an example of a famous statement that is "nominally true, but misleading," with Bill Clinton's "There is no inappropriate relationship."
That's not "spin," On Lawn. That's a reasonable explanation of a nuanced concept. Some things are complex.
Op-ed waved off my Clinton example without actually acknowledging that I had made my point: a statement can indeed be true, but misleading.
What's your take, On Lawn? Can a statement ever be "true, but misleading?" Or do you believe that Bill Clinton was actually being honest and telling the truth?
Not sure how we'd measure this, or if anybody has used a method to measure it yet, so debating these numbers is ultimately pointless.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you; we're both conjecturing, and I think we agree a little bit on the broader points of conjecture, and we disagree on specifics, which really can't be supported.
Remember, though, that matters in this particular debate thread is not just _attitudes_ in a small town about marriage and the distinction between homosexual and heterosexual relationships and person-person marriage, but what is taught in school. A town like Barstow might 20% of the way there in terms of the Rosenberg effect, but it does not follow that public school teachers are giving students messages to that effect. If, for example, their attitudes manifest themselves in a stance that they will not ever discuss homosexuals or homosexual relationships in schools, it's possible they will maintain that stance, or give only a cursory mention, regardless of the status of person-person marriage. So the "schools issue" can still be incremental in rural areas, just as it may be in urban areas, too.
I'm not going to argue that it _is_ incremental; I think we're calling a truce on this area of debate. I'm just pointing out that it _could_ be_ incremental, for different reasons than it would be in the population centers.
On the other hand:
Now here we've got to get back to the definition of "lying": Did those on the Prop 8 side who publicized this know the additional information when they publicized it?
This changes the entire focus of our previous debate. Are you saying that it is possible for a claim advanced in a political campaign to be "false, but not a lie?"
I must confess, my discussion here has been focused on the idea that the "schools issue" is false. I haven't really focused on whether the people putting forth that argument knew it was false.
So, if you're willing to concede that the schools issue is almost completely false, I'm willing to concede that it is not a "lie."
I'm mostly kidding (but I'd still accept your concession), however, you can see how your analysis of the SF teacher story brings this up. You're saying that there's an important difference between "repeating something that is not true" and "lying." While that's fine for the purposes of interpersonal discussions, perhaps, if you think that distinction bears out on the level of a massive statewide campaign, then it really does put a "spin" on what we've previously discussed.
Phil: Op-ed waved off my Clinton example...
ReplyDeleteBecause it is utterly irrelevant, a point you do not dispute. Since it is irrelevant, why do you continue to discuss it?
Can a statement ever be "true, but misleading?"
Still irrelevant. Still not worth answering. Either show how your question is relevant or move on. All you are proving is that you are not here to debate honestly but rather to distract and bog down the conversation.
Thanks!
You're welcome. Now justify or retract your accusation. Gratitude is no substitute for integrity.
R.K.: Did those on the Prop 8 side who publicized this know the additional information when they publicized it?
ReplyDeleteR.K., don't make the mistake of taking Phil's account of events as truthful. Phil has a demonstrated propensity to lie to try and divert the discussion.
This was not a parental outing but a school one. As On Lawn points out, permission slips show that. This event was orchestrated with photo opportunities for the media, the children wearing anti-8 buttons, and providing anti-8 quotes to the press. Parents are free to drive their children down to watch any wedding they want, but they did not. Instead, the school got involved making this an official field trip and adding its imprimatur to the campaign event. That Phil would even attempt to justify this gross misconduct by the schools tells much about how he sees the students in his own classroom.
I gave an example of a famous statement that is "nominally true, but misleading,"
ReplyDeleteThat is if you think Clinton was telling the truth. As for the rest of us, what he did was inappropriate sexual relations.
Besides, that is not an example of a nominal truth. I think what you mean is it is true from a very technical and even obscure interpretation.
You've given your own obscure interpretation, and then undercut it with examples and acknowledgement that it is not only obscure but irrational. As outlined above, feel free to re-read, you undercut your own interpretation.
I think you have been misleading to suggest that while some statements are only true when interpreted in a strict way, that the statement in question is one of those because you came up with a very obscure and irrational interpretation.
That's not "spin," On Lawn. That's a reasonable explanation of a nuanced concept.
Spin depends on nuanced concepts. It seems you are corroborating my take, once again.
And as also outlined your explanation may be reasonable, but it also undermines your accusation -- making your beginning accusation the unreasonable statement.
I'm just looking at it from what you wrote.
That's not "spin," On Lawn. That's a reasonable explanation of a nuanced concept.
Even if Clinton's statement is nominally true, that doesn't make PW's statement true or false. Even if Clinton's statement is an example of what you mean by nominally true, the evidence provided by yourself shows that the more obscure interpretation is the one you present in the stead of what was presented in support of Prop 8.
And just so you realize just how worn your argument is, I noticed that while responding to a point is important to you that on that point, you haven't replied yet.
What's your take, On Lawn?
My take is that you are diverting rather than defending the position. And every time you are pinned to discuss it, you've wound up undercutting your own argument.
My take is that this attempt is turning out as comical as your contradictions the last time we talked. You may find contradicting yourself a good way to defend your arguments, or talk circles around people, but its embarrassing for me to watch you do.
Can a statement ever be "true, but misleading?"
If it is true, caveat emptor. In this case, the discussion has born out that the intended interpretation was more rational, and your unintended misinterpretation is not very rational at all. In fact, it seems to be born more in paranoia and insecurity than fact.
Or do you believe that Bill Clinton was actually being honest and telling the truth?
As I mentioned before, Bill did have inappropriate sexual relations with that woman. But that is unrelated to what PW did.
So, if you're willing to concede that the schools issue is almost completely false, I'm willing to concede that it is not a "lie."
ReplyDeleteNo, Phil, not by a long shot. The school issue is not "almost completely false" by any means. I thought in the paragraph above we were talking specifically about the field trip, and more specifically about the issue of whether it was organized by parents or by the school. Now which was it, really? Whatever the facts are about the field trip, you aren't saying that it was the entirety of the "schools issue", are you?
Lying is telling something which you know to be untrue. For the broader issue of whether SSM will change the meaning of marriage conveyed in the schools, what Prop 8 and Prop 1 supporters said was not only not a "lie", it was not "untrue", either. On the last point, though, our arguments have gotten us as far (or as close) as we can get.
I'm not going to argue that it _is_ incremental; I think we're calling a truce on this area of debate. I'm just pointing out that it _could_ be_ incremental, for different reasons than it would be in the population centers.
OK, let's call it a truce at that.
That is if you think Clinton was telling the truth. As for the rest of us, what he did was inappropriate sexual relations.
ReplyDeleteNo, no. You're misinterpreting what I wrote, as well as what Clinton said.
He did have an inappropriate relationship with Monica Lewinsky, but on the day he was asked that question, the relationship was over. Since it was in the past, Clinton said, "There is no inappropriate relationship."
He used the word "is" because it's a present-tense verb. Clinton meant--and he later explained--that he felt his statement was true because, on the day he made the statement, he was no longer involved in an inappropriate relationship. So it all depended on what your definition of is is.
That's Clinton's logic.
My point was that Clinton made a true statement to convey a false message.
I brought up that example to illustrate that a statement can be "nominally true, but misleading."
An example was justified because a previous poster had attacked my use of the word "true," stating "'Nominally true' is another of your weasel phrases that in this case means 'absolutely true but I hate to admit it.'"
I wanted to establish, clearly, that a true statement can be misleading. Clinton's statement was 100% true: he wasn't involved in an inappropriate relationship on that day.
But as you and I agree, Clinton had been involved in an inappropriate relationship. Ergo, the category of statements that are "nominally true, but misleading" exists. That category contains at least one statement: Clinton's line.
Thus, you can argue that the "schools issue" doesn't fit into that category, but you cannot argue that the category does not exist. That's the only point I was making in bringing up the Clinton example. That's it. There is no point in arguing about it unless you really want to make the case that Clinton was telling the absolute truth.
I think you have been misleading to suggest that while some statements are only true when interpreted in a strict way, that the statement in question is one of those because you came up with a very obscure and irrational interpretation.
That's fair. You may find it obscure or irrational. I disagree; I think I made a pretty reasonable analysis of it, and every claim I made was pretty thoroughly explained. If there's any statement that someone has trouble understanding, I'd be happy to provide further explanation.
I noticed that while responding to a point is important to you that on that point, you haven't replied yet.
Did you leave out a word? I'm not sure what you mean there.
My take is that this attempt is turning out as comical as your contradictions the last time we talked
I've never made a statement on this blog that I can't defend, On Lawn. If you want to open up this discussion thread into a giant, multi-pronged discussion of every post that you and I have ever made here, that is your prerogative. But that is generally not considered good form.
op-ed:
ReplyDeleteThanks!
My point was that Clinton made a true statement to convey a false message.
ReplyDeleteExcept that it was false.
Next.
I brought up that example to illustrate that a statement can be "nominally true, but misleading."
Except that it was nominally false. It was false even in his circumstance.
You said earlier you could defend any statement you made. It sounds like you have a very low standard for defending statements if you take Clinton as that standard.
He used the word "is" because it's a present-tense verb.
To change the definition between the question and answer is an amphibology, which doesn't make a false statement true, not even nominally.
For the purpose of the inquiry, a relationship of that nature with a subordinate is inappropriate even if it ended previous to the inquiry. Similarly, his statement is false, even though he uttered it many years ago.
There is no point in arguing about it unless you really want to make the case that Clinton was telling the absolute truth.
You've attempted to make a slaughter shoot again, constricting the conversation where it clearly needs not be. I've argued it because you are still wrong, and Clinton was clearly lying.
And, what Playful said was clearly true (I noticed you've dropped complaining about it, even).
You may find it obscure or irrational.
At this point, so much so as to suggest willful malice or severe incompetence on your part. As I pointed out previously, your own evidence provides the futility of clinging to that interpretation. It is the equivalent of hoping your teacher believes aliens ate your homework.
Or perhaps you provided the best example. Perhaps your clinging to the possibility of that misunderstanding from any reasonable person to be the same gambit Clinton placed his hands in when he lied about his relationship with Lewinsky. Its no coincidence you place so much value in his attempt to divert from his lie, its what you rely on so often for yourself.
I've never made a statement on this blog that I can't defend
As I just said...
But that is generally not considered good form.
You can defend what you want, I've certainly found your attempts to be comical. Even to the point where you easily started contradicting what you previously said to defend the statement of the moment. By the way, when someone says aliens ate their homework, and then starts contradicting themselves, I'm pretty sure it was a lie at that point.
Phil: An example was justified because a previous poster had attacked my use of the word "true,...
ReplyDeleteAh yes, now the appeal to Phil-logic. If your use of a word in one example was "attacked," bringing up a second example doesn't change the first. It is therefore, no defense and not "justified." Phil-logic fails again.
I wanted to establish, clearly, that a true statement can be misleading.
And you failed. But even if you had managed, that still would not legitimize your use of the weasel phrase. You therefore were engaged (and still are engaged) in an irrelevant distraction.
That category contains at least one statement: Clinton's line.
Which, even if accepted as true, says nothing about your use of the weasel phrase.
...but you cannot argue that the category does not exist.
Which nobody is arguing since that would be irrelevant. I do not have to prove there are no little green moon men to prove you are not one.
That's the only point I was making in bringing up the Clinton example.
Then you have succeeded in proving that the Clinton example was irrelevant and a waste of time. Q.E.D.
There is no point in arguing about it...
And yet here you are, arguing about it. Telling. Most telling.
I think I made a pretty reasonable analysis...
That would be interesting if your goal was to communicate only with yourself. Since it was not, you are wasting everybody else's time telling us all what you think of your own statements.
I've never made a statement on this blog that I can't defend...
Lie. You've made several. I've pointed them out in the comments above and you have made no attempt to refute that claim or to actually defend the statements I pointed to.
If you want to open up this discussion thread into a giant, multi-pronged discussion of every post that you and I have ever made here,...
No need. There are multiple examples within this own thread of comments you cannot support. No need to bring in all the rest of them as well.
Thanks!
"You're welcome. Now justify or retract your accusation. Gratitude is no substitute for integrity."
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeletePhil, our comment threads are important to us. We work hard to present a high signal to noise value. Please work with us by not copying your own posts over and over.
ReplyDeleteThanks.
On Lawn:
ReplyDeleteFor the record, I did not copy and paste any of my own posts in their entirety. I simply copied the relevant portion where I explained to op-ed that I would respond to his rebuttal with "Thanks." It seemed relevant, since he or she kept inviting me to respond back.
Wow, now that you explained it it sounds even more immature than simple spamming.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, since you already said it before there is no need. Our readership doesn't appreciate a last word contest, and especially not one where you act like a spoiled child plugging your ears and chanting the same thing over to yourself so you don't have to hear.
Phil: ...since he or she kept inviting me to respond back.
ReplyDeleteI had no intention of "inviting [Phil] to respond back." Rather, I explained how he could continue on a legitimate basis if he was going to continue to respond. Instead he responded by chanting, which is entirely inappropriate in reasoned discourse and another behavior teachers should not be modeling for students.
On Lawn:
ReplyDeleteAs you know, in discussion forums like this, participants often act as if they have "won" a debate if the person they're talking to doesn't respond to one of their points.
As such, it was reasonable to remind this person that I had previously bowed out of engaging them. It was an effort to avoid the type of "last word contest" that you say your readers don't appreciate.
You'll notice that the post after yours gets in a few additional personal digs, knowing that I've already indicated that I'm not going to respond.
Your analogy doesn't really work, On Lawn. Writing a one-word post doesn't equate in any way to "plugging your ears so you don't have to hear." And if you think that saying "thanks" instead of arguing is somehow immature, you might want to reconsider.
Phil: ...participants often act as if they have "won" a debate...
ReplyDeleteWhat a perfectly childish view of debate. No wonder Phil is engaged in a "last word" contest.
As such, it was reasonable to remind this person that I had previously bowed out of engaging them.
Except for the "last word contest," Phil means.
So in Phil-logic, the side who speaks last is the most reasoned... unless the other side executes a successful "previous bow out." And, I'm guessing, no backsies.
"...knowing that I've already indicated that I'm not going to respond."
Knowing Phil "indicated" he would not respond is useless, since Phil clearly feels no compunction for going back on said "indication."
And if you think that saying "thanks" instead of arguing is somehow immature, you might want to reconsider.
No, On Lawn clearly doesn't as there is little doubt to the immaturity in question. Chanting a one word phrase over and over again is clearly not intended to further the conversation. If one does not intend to further the conversation, one should not participate.