The Homosexuality Discussion Thread

[FoolKiller]

I'm criticizing her for applying a bias in a government position that she's not allowed to apply. She's an elected official, and has a duty to her constituency. If a federal judge said "I like white people, so I'm refusing to convict anyone who comes before my court who is white" people would be up in arms. Not because he liked white people, and not because he was refusing to do his job, but because he was not adhering to a fundamental requirement of the office - impartiality.

For me, at least, this has absolutely zero to do with righteousness of beliefs. For her, it has everything to do with it.

You realize the commentary was not about you specifically, but about the overall public reaction over this, right? If you aren't going around mocking attacking her then the general point is not about you.

For those who have been doing that kind of thing the question is, if this were a government employee failing to do their job to enforce something you found immoral for government to do, would you feel the same way or applaud that person as doing what is right?

I again bring up cases like Edward Snowden and Bradley/Chelsea Manning. They broke the law and failed to properly do their job because they felt that what the government was doing was immoral by their own personal standards. Whether their actions were just and whether the government's actions are unjust have been debated ever since.

 

[Danoff]

You realize the commentary was not about you specifically, but about the overall public reaction over this, right? If you aren't going around mocking attacking her then the general point is not about you.

For those who have been doing that kind of thing the question is, if this were a government employee failing to do their job to enforce something you found immoral for government to do, would you feel the same way or applaud that person as doing what is right?

I again bring up cases like Edward Snowden and Bradley/Chelsea Manning. They broke the law and failed to properly do their job because they felt that what the government was doing was immoral by their own personal standards. Whether their actions were just and whether the government's actions are unjust have been debated ever since.

Most people don't really think through their positions and just react based on gut instinct. Their gut instinct says that Davis is different than Snowden, and their gut instinct is right. Snowden broke a rule to expose the government for doing something it isn't allowed to do. Davis broke a rule to cause government to do something it isn't allowed to do.

I think that the general public has their heart in the right place even if their heads haven't fully grasped why. The only people that seem to really struggle with this are religious people who have trouble seeing someone stand up for their religiously motivated morals in a setting where it must be prohibited to do so. Those are the people who are having trouble looking at the situation objectively.

I think you'd be surprised how many people criticize Davis who would not attack a baker or florist for boycotting a gay wedding. Snowden is actually evidence in support of that.

 

[polysmut]

Snowden broke a rule to expose the government for doing something it isn't allowed to do. Davis broke a rule to cause government to do something it isn't allowed to do.

That is a noteworthy difference that I'm pleased you explained. I hadn't fully grasped that difference until you stated it.

 

[FoolKiller]

Most people don't really think through their positions and just react based on gut instinct. Their gut instinct says that Davis is different than Snowden, and their gut instinct is right. Snowden broke a rule to expose the government for doing something it isn't allowed to do. Davis broke a rule to cause government to do something it isn't allowed to do.

Then it isn't about just dong their job, as the meme on social media suggests. I saw the most recent gubernatorial debate here in Kentucky. Every candidate, including my favored third-party candidate, said, "We are a society of laws and we must obey the laws." The commentary has been couched behind that argument. For some reason people are avoiding talking about the issue.

And that makes me question:

I think that the general public has their heart in the right place even if their heads haven't fully grasped why.

I think they were given a media rhetoric to follow and are doing so. People picked sides based on their view of same sex marriage, but their narrative has been about the law and how it requires her to do her job. The same argument, as you point out, fails when applied to something they have a different opinion on.

The only people that seem to really struggle with this are religious people who have trouble seeing someone stand up for their religiously motivated morals in a setting where it must be prohibited to do so. Those are the people who are having trouble looking at the situation objectively.

I grew up around many of those religious people and they are on my Facebook page (and the argument I set forth came from an atheist) and they are not having any trouble seeing it in their own view. They aren't libertarians. Myself, as a libertarian-leaning Christian have the view that I appreciate her conviction, but she is wrong.

I think you'd be surprised how many people criticize Davis who would not attack a baker or florist for boycotting a gay wedding. Snowden is actually evidence in support of that.

And I wonder if you would be surprised by how many would, and do, attack the baker or florist. I work in government. I've seen these people in action first hand. Their protests create traffic issues, their lobbyists are in my building, and their representatives are fully on the "we say it, so do it" government power trip. Government didn't get big and overreaching because there is a majority of moderate thinkers out there.

 

[Danoff]

Then it isn't about just dong their job, as the meme on social media suggests. I saw the most recent gubernatorial debate here in Kentucky. Every candidate, including my favored third-party candidate, said, "We are a society of laws and we must obey the laws." The commentary has been couched behind that argument. For some reason people are avoiding talking about the issue.

...because usually they don't understand the issue. If you pressed them they'd realize that they don't agree with all laws, and would have to scratch their heads as to what differentiates this case.

And I wonder if you would be surprised by how many would, and do, attack the baker or florist. I work in government. I've seen these people in action first hand. Their protests create traffic issues, their lobbyists are in my building, and their representatives are fully on the "we say it, so do it" government power trip. Government didn't get big and overreaching because there is a majority of moderate thinkers out there.

Protesters are a loud minority. Yea, there are plenty who would attack a non-government worker for being a bigot. But that's fine, it's their prerogative to boycott and protest those people, as long as they don't advocate changes in law (or engage in assault or property damage).

Almost nobody obeys the law because it's the law. Most people obey the law because they agree with it. When they don't, you see people speed past speed limits, cheat on their taxes, download mp3s, and smoke pot (in states other than CO and WA). Those same people might think that the "we are a country of laws" argument is pretty solid, but they'd be wrong. Most people when really pressed don't know why they think what they do, they just intuit their way through morality, law, and society in general. In the cases of Snowden and Davis, they land no the right answer because it's pretty easy to intuit. Government shouldn't play favorites with arbitrary demographics, and government isn't supposed to be spying on everyone. One part where intuition gets screwed up is where it meets religious doctrine, but there are plenty of others. Most people can't fathom that someone would stoop to the point of removing their shoes in the winter in New York to get sympathy handouts, but that's drifting from the topic.

 

[LeMansAid]

I appreciate her conviction, but she is wrong.

Reading through, I see this as very much the crux of what you are aiming to put across. Given that, I cannot understand why anyone is taking issue. We need that kind of zeal, we need people that are different, and gnarled, and willing to put their own lives at a discomfort for the sake of what they believe in - because sometimes what they believe in will be truly righteous and necessary.

I've been thinking about generations a bit recently. I've been recognising that in all likelihood, the baby boomers and gen x will be some of the most fascinating old people that the world has ever seen - resplendent in their genuine quirkiness, enlightened but irreverent characters, and baring the battle scars and badges of having been through some extremely accelerated societal changes. Where generations before were largely forced into molds, and expected to be "proper", those two saw the dawn of a new era, and very much broke the mold. So what of gen y and onward? To be frank, I see a different mold, but a mold all the same. I see a complete lack of being able to accept that some people are gnarled and different, and a compulsion to arrest and destroy the development of anything outside of the new normal. I remember BHXRacer bringing up the concept of homophobophobia, and while it probably didn't come from the right mouth, I think it's a worthwhile concept to consider, when (as you've previously pointed to) there's a tendency to jump on anything at all at odds with the views of "the enlightened", and beat all the life out of it, and them.

So, I kind of see - "I appreciate her conviction"..... "She's a bigot!!". "Yeah, I know that, but I appreciate her conviction"....... "She's a bigot!!". "Yeah, but don't you think....."..... "BIGOT!!!".

 

[Johnnypenso]

Reading through, I see this as very much the crux of what you are aiming to put across. Given that, I cannot understand why anyone is taking issue. We need that kind zeal, we need people that are different, and gnarled, and willing to put their own lives at a discomfort for the sake of what they believe in - because sometimes what they believe in will be truly righteous and necessary.

I've been thinking about generations a bit recently. I've been recognising that in all likelihood, the baby boomers and gen x will be some of the most fascinating old people that the world has ever seen - resplendent in their genuine quirkiness, enlightened but irreverent characters, and baring the battle scars and badges of having been through some extremely accelerated societal changes. Where generations before were largely forced into molds, and expected to be "proper", those two saw the dawn of a new era, and very much broke the mold. So what of gen y and onward? To be frank, I see a different mold, but a mold all the same. I see a complete lack of being able to accept that some people are gnarled and different, and a compulsion to arrest and destroy the development of anything outside of the new normal. I remember BHXRacer bringing up the concept of homophobophobia, and while it probably didn't come from the right mouth, I think it's a worthwhile concept to consider, when (as you've previously pointed to) there's a tendency to jump on anything at all at odds with the views of "the enlightened", and beat all the life out of it, and them.

So, I kind of see - "I appreciate her conviction"..... "She's a bigot!!". "Yeah, I know that, but I appreciate her conviction"....... "She's a bigot!!". "Yeah, but don't you think....."..... "BIGOT!!!".

Nailed it.

 

[Joey D]

Reading through, I see this as very much the crux of what you are aiming to put across. Given that, I cannot understand why anyone is taking issue. We need that kind zeal, we need people that are different, and gnarled, and willing to put their own lives at a discomfort for the sake of what they believe in - because sometimes what they believe in will be truly righteous and necessary.

I've been thinking about generations a bit recently. I've been recognising that in all likelihood, the baby boomers and gen x will be some of the most fascinating old people that the world has ever seen - resplendent in their genuine quirkiness, enlightened but irreverent characters, and baring the battle scars and badges of having been through some extremely accelerated societal changes. Where generations before were largely forced into molds, and expected to be "proper", those two saw the dawn of a new era, and very much broke the mold. So what of gen y and onward? To be frank, I see a different mold, but a mold all the same. I see a complete lack of being able to accept that some people are gnarled and different, and a compulsion to arrest and destroy the development of anything outside of the new normal. I remember BHXRacer bringing up the concept of homophobophobia, and while it probably didn't come from the right mouth, I think it's a worthwhile concept to consider, when (as you've previously pointed to) there's a tendency to jump on anything at all at odds with the views of "the enlightened", and beat all the life out of it, and them.

So, I kind of see - "I appreciate her conviction"..... "She's a bigot!!". "Yeah, I know that, but I appreciate her conviction"....... "She's a bigot!!". "Yeah, but don't you think....."..... "BIGOT!!!".

I don't think any of us should appreciate her conviction, being an outspoken zealot with your religious beliefs while defying the law and the rights of others isn't something we should respect. Would you appreciate her conviction if she was refusing to give marriage licenses to blacks because she was racist? I could appreciate her conviction if she was still doing her government job while being outspoken about how she believes the law to be "wrong" or if she quit her job because she didn't agree with what the government was asking her to do. Nobody is forcing her to work where she works, if handing out marriage license to same-sex couples burdens her that much perhaps a career in something that doesn't involve serving the public is in order.

And I believe the reason generations moving forward have to fit into a mold is because the baby boomers really did a number to this country. In general they don't want to pay taxes, support the youth, invest money in any new start up, deny any healthcare reform and work past the age of 55 all while wanting their social security check, medicare, and expecting the youth to take care of them. Not everyone is like this, but if you look at where the country is heading and where it's been, it's as a result of the boomers since they typically are the only ones who vote.

 

[CodeRedR51]

http://www.thenewcivilrightsmovemen...ering_marriage_form_charges_deputy_s_attorney

Why does this not surprise me?

 

[Johnnypenso]

http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/18/politics/eric-fanning-secretary-of-the-army/index.html

An openly gay man is nominated for secretary of the Army.

 

[LeMansAid]

Would you appreciate her conviction if she was refusing to give marriage licenses to blacks because she was racist?

Yes, because we're not talking about whether or not the ideology is sound. It's a purely disassociated commentary on the level of commitment, and how in some circumstances that level of commitment (and disobedience) has been/may be vital. The ideology, in the full assessment of the situation, is far from a mere technicality - but in isolating the issue of one's fervour towards self sacrificial disobedience based on principles - it is.

 

[Joey D]

Yes, because we're not talking about whether or not the ideology is sound. It's a purely disassociated commentary on the level of commitment, and how in some circumstances that level of commitment (and disobedience) has been/may be vital. The ideology, in the full assessment of the situation, is far from a mere technicality - but in isolating the issue of one's fervour towards self sacrificial disobedience based on principles - it is.

I still don't agree with it. I do agree if people stand for something they should be allowed to show their commitment to it, but I think there's a proper way to do it and an improper way to do it. Working in a government job by choice and trying to impose your views that go against the rights of others isn't the proper way to do it, quitting your job because you don't agree with what you are doing and then protesting it is proper. I also agree that sometime disobedience can be vital, but not when you're in a position by choice.

You can still have strong convictions that can be appreciated by those who don't agree with you and not deny other's their rights.

 

[Johnnypenso]

I still don't agree with it. I do agree if people stand for something they should be allowed to show their commitment to it, but I think there's a proper way to do it and an improper way to do it. Working in a government job by choice and trying to impose your views that go against the rights of others isn't the proper way to do it, quitting your job because you don't agree with what you are doing and then protesting it is proper. I also agree that sometime disobedience can be vital, but not when you're in a position by choice.

You can still have strong convictions that can be appreciated by those who don't agree with you and not deny other's their rights.

You don't have to agree with something to appreciate the level of commitment and dedication it takes to stand up for what you believe in...that's kind of the point. I don't agree with her either, but I have no trouble seeing her side of things and respecting her for the strength of her convictions. History is not on her side, but we don't all progress at the same rate either. You guys down there are just catching up to where we were more than a decade ago in terms of same sex marriage, gay rights etc. and we don't look down on you for it. Not everyone progresses at the same rate

 

[Exorcet]

I think right vs wrong supersedes commitment. Sure, it's noble to stand up against something, but only if you're right. She wasn't.

 

[Touring Mars]

Being committed to what you believe in isn't especially admirable in and of itself - viewed from a different angle, it sounds like being unprepared to compromise, being impervious to persuasion and unable/unwilling to change one's mind... that's not admirable.

 

[LeMansAid]

I think right vs wrong supersedes commitment. Sure, it's noble to stand up against something, but only if you're right.

Sea Shepherd vs Japanese whalers....... Do we know who's in the right? And do we need to know before we can respect Sea Shepherd's peoples' commitment?

Yes, right vs wrong supercedes - but if you feel the need to state that, you're most likely missing the essence of this specific topic.

 

[Imari]

Sea Sheppard vs Japanese whalers....... Do we know who's in the right? And do we need to know before we can respect Sea Sheppard's peoples' commitment?

People respect Sea Shepherd?

There are people all over the world who are totally committed to doing dumbass things to the full extent of their ability. Their "commitment" tends to range from willful ignorance to whole-hearted altruism.

I don't think lumping idiots and altruists together is particularly useful. Altruists should be encouraged. Idiots should be whacked on the nose with a rolled up newspaper.

 

[LeMansAid]

People respect Sea Shepherd?

Shock, horror!! Or rather, sounds like....

willful ignorance

But that's still beside the point if you are referring to their philosophy. We're talking about commitment with all ideological flavour removed, for the point of this conversation. If you're referencing flavour, you're on another topic.

 

[Imari]

We're talking about commitment with all ideological flavour removed, for the point of this conversation.

Except that ideological flavour is exactly why commitment comes about. It's not removable without also removing the commitment.

If you remove the ideology from an altruist then they're no longer committed. They don't give a 🤬 without the ideology backing them. Same deal with racists and bigots, if you remove the ideology then they no longer have commitment to the cause.

I think I get what you're trying to say, but it just doesn't make sense. There is no basic, garden-variety, undirected commitment. It's entirely dependent on what the person is committed to and the ideology behind it. Comparing the commitment of a humanitarian aid worker and a serial killer is meaningless and insane. Sure, they may both take what they do very seriously, but what use is that statement? What useful reasoning can you derive from considering a humanitarian aid worker and a serial killer to be equal?

 

[niky]

When your commitment to an ideology exceeds your respect for other human beings, then there's not much to respect there.

-

The Nazis were extremely committed to their eugenic view of the world.

 

[Exorcet]

We're talking about commitment with all ideological flavour removed

Then what's left? Nothing really. As Touring Mars pointed out, it's just the same as being endlessly stubborn at that point. I don't see anything inherently inspiring about just not changing your mind. That doesn't mean the people that are wrong deserve to be tarred and feathered or mocked for the rest of their lives. Tell them they're being stupid and move on. After that I don't see much point in looking back and admiring their zeal, because zeal is neutral. It's neither good or bad. What's important is what you're supporting.

 

[Johnnypenso]

When your commitment to an ideology exceeds your respect for other human beings, then there's not much to respect there.

-

The Nazis were extremely committed to their eugenic view of the world.

Easy enough to turn that around. When our commitment to our ideology exceeds our respect for other human beings, there's not much to respect there either.

 

[LeMansAid]

Then what's left? Nothing really. As Touring Mars pointed out, it's just the same as being endlessly stubborn at that point. I don't see anything inherently inspiring about just not changing your mind.

Except it's not "just not changing your mind". It's being willing to suffer consequences.

Let's say Kim Davis gets all turned around on the subject at some point. I bet she'd still be a person willing to self sacrifice, and quite possibly in standing up for the opposite of what she had done.

I see more and more people that have their ideologies right, but haven't properly engaged with the underlying concepts, and certainly haven't suffered for their views. They are the same people that condemned homosexuals, only transported to another time where their malleability coincidentally sees them fall in line with what is right. And no, suffering is not a requirement - but the willingness to suffer if required, is valuable - and that's what I believe this conversation is about.

 

[Exorcet]

Except it's not "just not changing your mind". It's being willing to suffer consequences.

The difference there can be very small.

Let's say Kim Davis gets all turned around on the subject at some point. I bet she'd still be a person willing to self sacrifice, and quite possibly in standing up for the opposite of what she had done.

I'd like to know why, because I think of what you said after that:

I see more and more people that have their ideologies right, but haven't properly engaged with the underlying concepts, and certainly haven't suffered for their views. They are the same people that condemned homosexuals, only transported to another time where their malleability coincidentally sees them fall in line with what is right. And no, suffering is not a requirement - but the willingness to suffer if required, is valuable - and that's what I believe this conversation is about.

Is it just because someone found a previously lost page of Bible where Jesus explains that anti-gay sentiments were all typos? I suppose it would be good that she would end up picking the right side to fight for, but it would be all by chance. Who is to say she wouldn't be swayed again the next day?

I still think being able to take all kinds of flack and suffering is only really helpful if it's done for the right reasons. If someone can't tell the difference between right and wrong, their ability to endure is as much a hindrance as it is a help.

 

[LeMansAid]

I still think being able to take all kinds of flack and suffering is only really helpful if it's done for the right reasons.

Now we're suddenly shooting for helpful? Of course she's not helpful. She's in the wrong, and her actions are an offensive nuisance. It's really quite difficult to know if we agree or disagree on this, while you're wandering off to other topics.

The Earth has all sorts of valuable resources. Used for wrong applications, many of them will be very damaging. Used for the right, the same thing may be quite the boon. We're talking about another kind of resource here (will, drive, willingness to sacrifice). It can be used in the right, wrong, or an indifferent way, but it is still a useful resource no matter it's current application.

 

[huskeR32]

Easy enough to turn that around. When our commitment to our ideology exceeds our respect for other human beings, there's not much to respect there either.

Can you elaborate here? It looks to me like you just re-stated what @niky said.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Can you elaborate here? It looks to me like you just re-stated what @niky said.

"Your", implies talking about someone else or another group. "Our", you're talking about your own group. It's easy to point at the other guy when you're in the right and history is on your side and talk about respect for human beings and other high ideals, not so easy to be magnanimous and understanding when the other guy is wrong and history is not on their side.

 

[huskeR32]

"Your", implies talking about someone else or another group. "Our", you're talking about your own group. It's easy to point at the other guy when you're in the right and history is on your side and talk about respect for human beings and other high ideals, not so easy to be magnanimous and understanding when the other guy is wrong and history is not on their side.

And how would you like this wisdom to be applied? Nobody can be critical of Kim Davis unless they're in her "group?"

 

[Danoff]

I think right vs wrong supersedes commitment. Sure, it's noble to stand up against something, but only if you're right. She wasn't.

Being committed to what you believe in isn't especially admirable in and of itself - viewed from a different angle, it sounds like being unprepared to compromise, being impervious to persuasion and unable/unwilling to change one's mind... that's not admirable.

To dream the impossible dream,
To fight the unbeatable foe,
To bear with unbearable sorrow
To run where the brave dare not go;
To right the unrightable wrong.

To love, pure and chaste, from afar,
To try, when your arms are too weary,
To reach the unreachable star!

This is my Quest to follow that star,
No matter how hopeless, no matter how far,
To fight for the right
Without question or pause,
To be willing to march into hell
For a heavenly cause!

And I know, if I'll only be true
To this glorious Quest,
That my heart will lie peaceful and calm
When I'm laid to my rest.

And the world will be better for this,
That one man, scorned and covered with scars,
Still strove, with his last ounce of courage,
To reach the unreachable stars!

 

[Joel]

When your commitment to an ideology exceeds your respect for other human beings, then there's not much to respect there.

-

The Nazis were extremely committed to their eugenic view of the world.

There's a trend I'm seeing a lot lately where the context is completely removed from a situation and changed to be a "gotcha" and make any socially progressive opinion seem bigoted.

Now we're suddenly shooting for helpful? Of course she's not helpful. She's in the wrong, and her actions are an offensive nuisance. It's really quite difficult to know if we agree or disagree on this, while you're wandering off to other topics.

The Earth has all sorts of valuable resources. Used for wrong applications, many of them will be very damaging. Used for the right, the same thing may be quite the boon. We're talking about another kind of resource here (will, drive, willingness to sacrifice). It can be used in the right, wrong, or an indifferent way, but it is still a useful resource no matter it's crent application.

I guess I just don't agree that commitment or dedication is something valuable for its own sake. You're right, it's a resource like any other, but we don't value and praise resources for their own sake, we value resources for what they can be used for.

We can look at how people add value to resources in an economic sense. A construction worker might work very hard every day building houses, and another person might work very hard every day digging holes and filling them back in. They both work hard, but we aren't paying for the hard work, we're paying for the end result. We reward a construction worker for building our house while we think the guy digging holes is wasting time. We don't sit in our house and think about how happy we are for hiring someone who works hard, but we're glad we hired someone who was able to build a house.

We could have this discussion about resources and talk about everything, right down to the paper, bathroom and pens in her office. Should paper, running water, and pens be demonized because they facilitated her actions? Of course not, they're useful resources. But is it meaningful to say that just because she used them we shouldn't forget about the utility of paper, pens, and running water? I don't think so. This discussion is about the morality of her actions, not the utility of the resource. I think the difference here is that a trait like commitment doesn't just "exist" without human interaction, it only becomes relevant when a human applies their commitment towards a goal. I don't think we can separate her commitment from her cause, because without the cause her commitment is meaningless. She is committed because of the cause.

Easy enough to turn that around. When our commitment to our ideology exceeds our respect for other human beings, there's not much to respect there either.

In what way should "we" be respecting Kim Davis? The turnaround doesn't really work, nobody is depriving Kim Davis of her rights, but "we" have stopped her from violating the rights of others.