M
Maxirad
Guest
This Yahoo! documentary has been brought up on PBS NewsHour. Was the stuff brought up in the documentary really that bad?
- Status
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
Likely not, but I suspect the government’s war on those who don’t agree with same sex marriage will become just as “uniquely” nasty. It isn’t that we learned from the first instance, it’s just that now the shoe is on the other foot. Time will tell.
A
agnes_therese
Guest
Well, not unless you were the target.
B
Bradski
Guest
I suspect that you really mean: I hope that the government’s war…etc
Much easier to fight against. Your worst scenario is mild acceptance. It’s people saying things like: ‘hey, you know, there’s really nothing wrong with it’. It’s life going on day by day and nobody really worrying about it at all.
If your argument is that bad things are going to happen if we continue on this path, then bad things don’t happen, tell me where you go from there…
We get the day a little earlier down here so I can put your mind at rest. The Supreme Court has made the call and I can tell you now that when you wake up later today, the sky will not have fallen.
It’s not a fight any more. It’s a rearguard action. You’ve been losing battles for many years. You have been losing troops who have defected in huge numbers. You have lost the hearts and minds of the non combatants. You have now lost the war.
J
JackVk
Guest
My sentiments exactly. I don’t support same-sex marriage, but at the same time I’m intelligent enough to understand that “traditional family values” is nothing more than whistling Dixie. And it’s one of many reasons I am surely, but not-so-slowly, turning into a misanthrope.
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
It wasn’t a war, Bradski; it was and continues to be a propaganda campaign by those who control the media and, therefore, effectively control what people hear and why. A coup is a better term. The war will begin shortly when people realize it won’t end with this decision.
B
Bradski
Guest
Which people? The ones who have already decided there’s no problem?
So what’s next on the agenda that is likely to change their minds? Now that SSM is acceptable, What’s next on your list of things to complain about? Where does this slippery slope of yours lead us now?
You’ll need to be specific, otherwise all those hearts and minds will keep drifting off. Whistling Dixie no doubt. Call it a coup,if you like. I guess it doesn’t sound so much like a defeat if you do. But maybe you’re right. Perhaps I was being melodramatic. It hasn’t been a war. But you really need it to be such.
Tough call when hardly anyone thinks there’s any enemy to fight.
D
DaisymaeD
Guest
You know what’s uniquely nasty? People who show up on a Catholic site to gloat.
The gay marriage side says “love is love”, but gloating, smugness and sarcasm are all the opposite of love.
And, actually, this type of ugly behavior, that I saw at close hand and in real life, was one of the first reasons I started to be a lot less sympathetic to the gay cause. Relentless rage and bullying is not something I want to be anywhere near
The gay marriage side says “love is love”, but gloating, smugness and sarcasm are all the opposite of love.
And, actually, this type of ugly behavior, that I saw at close hand and in real life, was one of the first reasons I started to be a lot less sympathetic to the gay cause. Relentless rage and bullying is not something I want to be anywhere near
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
Goliath syndrome
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
Goliath syndrome
T
Tarpeian_Rock
Guest
You mustn’t have gotten the memo: we’re not allowed to “whistle Dixie” anymore. That song, the “Dukes of Hazzard,” the Confederate flag – nada.
B
Bradski
Guest
If gloating is simply a matter of pointing out the facts of the matter, then I stand guilty.
If smugness is the sense of satisfaction one gets when one has pointed out what was happening and what was going to happen and has been proved right, then again I stand guilty as charged.
If you class a little light hearted, yet pointed banter with no evil intent as sarcasm, then the fault is yours, not mine. Stick around for a few hundred more posts and you might get a feel for what I have to say and the way in which I say it. I do my best to be polite, but if you find what I say and the way I say it objectionable, then I apologise in advance.
None of those failings, incidentally, are the opposite of love. And we are together in agreeing that relentless rage and bullying is something that should be discouraged. I think that the recent decision will go some way to reducing the incidence of both. But feel free to vent your spleen in any way that seems suitable. There are still some people who might listen.
B
Bradski
Guest
Overt patriotism has never been a feature of either the UK, where I grew up, or Australia, where I live.
There was a time, not so long ago, that far right political parties flaunted the Union Flag at rallies at which they railed against immigration. It got to the point where the flag was becoming a symbol of racism.
Similarly, the Southern Cross (the stars on the Australian flag) were put to similar use. Having them tattooed on your body might be seen as a mark of intolerance in some quarters.
It’s a shame that part of American history has become tainted in the same way.
L
Lion_IRC
Guest
Bradski, I didn’t think DaisymaeD was referring specifically to your post.
Obviously it’s not ‘gloating’ to restate one’s support for the SCOTUS ruling using the exact same reasons which a person had previously used before the ruling.
Where I would take issue with you however is the idea that you have been ‘proven’ right.
SCOTUS’ split decision doesn’t prove that anything about SSM or the constitution is objectively true.
The only way you might have been proven right or wrong is if we had placed a wager about which way their decision may have gone.
Heads - you win. Tails - I win.
Obviously it’s not ‘gloating’ to restate one’s support for the SCOTUS ruling using the exact same reasons which a person had previously used before the ruling.
Where I would take issue with you however is the idea that you have been ‘proven’ right.
SCOTUS’ split decision doesn’t prove that anything about SSM or the constitution is objectively true.
The only way you might have been proven right or wrong is if we had placed a wager about which way their decision may have gone.
Heads - you win. Tails - I win.
B
Bradski
Guest
Fair point in regard to the morality of the decision. This is not a matter where I can specifically say that I have been proven right about whether SSM is morally acceptable. It is relative to the individual. Although, being a Catholic I’d assume that you could say that I am definately wrong.
However, what I was referring to when I said I was proved right was that this decision would be reached at some point. Earlier rather than later. It was unavoidable. I have always said that more and more people will come to realise that there’s nothing wrong with it. Which, as you pointed out, and, in my defence I have stated on more than one ocassion, does not prove me right. It just confirms that the majority of reasonable people share my beliefs.
And that majority will keep on increasing, possibly now at a greater rate.
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
You sound desperate to prove your position
Appeal to public opinion is surely the most compelling of rationales. 
B
Bradski
Guest
You REALLY don’t read what I write. I said that this is a matter when I cannot be proved right. The position you take, the position I take and the position everyone takes, is personal. Is relative to their outlook. Public opinion, as I said, does NOT prove me right, if it happens to accord with my view.You sound desperate to prove your position
It’s your arguments that can be proven right or wrong. Mine seem to be holding up. In the court of public opinion. Whereas yours…not so much.
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
Like I said, if the court of public opinion matters to you in the relevant sense of you thinking it proves you correct, then bringing up public opinion would be important. It isn’t.
The problem with public opinion is that public policy is often determined - at least in democracies - by it. Of course, the public is notoriously fickle and prone to faddism. When key moral matters are made dependent on public opinion rather than truth we are in trouble.
You don’t agree with that, obviously, which is why you keep bringing up public opinion as if what you know is a problematic moral position will be vindicated merely by having persuaded the masses. That persuasion hasn’t been by looking at the ethical case for and against traditional views of marriage, it has been a matter of rhetoric and social pressure. “Cave or we’ll come after you” is the blunt club held over the heads of those who do not agree at the same time as “tolerance” is vacuously mouthed. The “discrimination” claim is nonsense and you know it. So do the judges, but at least 5 of them value public opinion over justice and truth. Which is why we are in trouble.
Policy decisions are no longer decided by truth, but by marshaling the majority using coercive media campaigns. You know this is also true, which is why you hang around here trying to rationalize your view by bringing up public opinion, as if the “public” really have a firm grasp on truth. Clearly, they don’t.
Yes, I understand, moral matters are subjective and so “public opinion” is critical to moral judgements. For you, not for me.
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
Obviously a Freudian slip. I think you meant: “…can’t be proven right or wrong.”
- Status