Now some Utah sheriffs are calling for an uprising against gay marriage.
The Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association on Saturday organized a meeting in Highland, Utah to call for an uprising and to express their opposition to same-sex marriage in Utah, Fox 13 Now Salt Lake City reported.
"The people of Utah have rights, too, not just the homosexuals. The homosexuals are shoving their agenda down our throats," Former Graham County, Ariz., Sheriff Richard Mack said at the meeting.
1) Have they forgotten that there are homosexuals who are people of Utah? 2) The non-homosexual people of Utah have not lost any rights, so they have no grounds for complaint. 3) Could all the homophobes please avoid that phrase “shoving…down our throats” from now on? Save it for the day that there is a law passed that compels all men to have oral sex with another man. That day has not come.
Having it shoved down their throats seems more like their fantasy than their fear.
So, we’re back to that “queers ain’t people!” business, eh? Lovely, just fuckin’ lovely.
tsig:
No, it isn’t. Thanks ever for providing a stupid, unhelpful comment.
You know rather than just calling names you might have explained why it was stupid and unhelpful.
You haven’t noticed that gay bashers are often living in the closet?
Since Sheriff is usually an elected position, there should be automatic impeachment for any deliberate infringement of anybody’s civil rights. If they don’t like a court ruling, they obey it until it is overturned/repealed/etc, or they automatically lose their job.
It appears a few of the dinosaurs in Utah are still lumbering around the landscape rather than resting their bones in a nice sandstone formation. There’s never an asteroid around when you really need one.
There’s an interesting strain of right-wing thought, kind of an offshoot of some of the weirder “the government isn’t real”/sovereign citizen stuff, which posits counties as the “natural” unit of government, and the elected sheriff as the highest office representing real people and embodying natural law, giving sheriffs the right and duty to interpret and protect the constitutional rights of citizens. This is very closely related to the Oath Keepers movement, which claims to be a bulwark of conscientious law enforcement officers against unconstitutional national government actions.
At some point, it’s not going to be a lone whacko, or an isolated family-cult, going up against the power of the state. It’s going to be a fully-functional municipal paramilitary, backed by a citizen posse of NRA members.
tsig
The issue was discussed on the recent corrective rape thread.
short answer; While some homophobes are closeted, most of them aren’t. Observing that some are is not helpful when dealing with Sheriffs who think they are above the law.
@tsig @4:
Why what you have said is both wrong and harmful was explained at length, by Caine and by others, in the comment thread for one of PZ’s posts yesterday: https://proxy.freethought.online/pharyngula/2014/01/04/corrective-rape-aimed-at-curing-lesbians/ .
It should not need to be explained again.
Sadly, nothing new under the sun.
100 years after the end of the Civil War/passage of 13-15th amendments, Black folks were still denied basic rights. Even with Johnson’s signing Civil Rights legislation into law and the SCOTUS decision in Brown v. Board of Education eliminated overt “separate but equal,” there was and is still rampant discrimination throughout America.
Sundown Towns are everywhere to this day, and surprisingly more of them are in the North than the South (Source).
About 150 years ago, the “people of Utah” (I guess the sheriff means just the Mormon ones) had a disagreement with the rest of the nation about the definition of marriage. They were wrong then, too.
These people seem to overuse the “having something shoved down their throat” metaphor way too much. They doth protest too much, methinks.
I went to the CSPOA’s website and it looks like a pretty small organization aimed mostly at fighting gun control laws. It boasts proudly of 479 sheriffs and police chiefs voicing their opposition to “Obama’s unconstitutional gun control measures”, yet only a handful of those officers are listed as members of the CSPOA, and the statements I’ve read are all boilerplate statements that the agencies are committed to “uphold individual liberties”, etc, etc.
So basically, it looks like ex-Sheriff Richard Mack is just another right-wing blowhard who got a few dozen upset ordinary citizens to come to his little meeting. Nothing close to a big cohort of active peace officers planning to take the law into their own hands, in spite of how he tries to make it seem.
@drinsomnia:
Read the fucking thread.
The duty of the police is to uphold the law- a rather different matter. It means they are obliged to ensure the law is obeyed and to enforce the law. They have no more right than anyone else to decide what the law is or should be, which is what they seem to be doing here.
Certainly the best way to fight an overused cliche is with another.
CD @ 14:
Thank you.
Maybe they’re meant to cancel each other out.
Is it not possible to have a thread about a topic like this without having some pointless insuation that these people are in the closet coming up in the first few comments? Seriously, I have to wonder if these commenters have ever read the comments on other threads, if they did they should know why it is so fucking unwelcome.
The cluelessness of comments like this are simply staggering. It is hard for me to even figure out what my response is. They really do love the idea of having their right to deny other people’s rights.
I did. Do you have a point, or do you just like throwing around f-bombs on the internet?
“f-bomb”, forsooth.
I had always believed the prehistoric creatures that roamed what is now the Utah redrock country 65 million years ago were long dead and had become like stone. Apparently, I’m wrong. They still walk the earth in Highland.
drinsomnia,
Did you not see the response to tsig? Your remark was pretty much exactly the same as their comment and it is not welcome for all the reasons given, if you want more info read the comments on the post that has been linked to multiple times so far.
Also, whining about people swearing here is not going to go over well. This is a rough and tumble place and no one cares if they hurt your sensibilities, or if you think that swearing invalidates an argument.
From the link:
Cherilyn, please, detail just what calls for noise and outrage. Really, how does a sheriff’s “now coming out” protect the people in any way from anything?
These people probably understand virtually nothing about those rocks and fossils underneath them. Understanding of science being generally inversely correlated with adherence to bigotry. Once someone gets curious about the sciences of geology and biology it’s hard to worry about such minor things as a social issue that will not affect oneself at all. Unless, of course, you are one of the people affected by the injustice, then you’ll be bothered by it even more.
As I recall, this is an organization founded by “Sheriff Joe” Arpaio, which tells you pretty much all you need to know about it. And I haven’t checked, but I’m betting the office of Sheriff is nowhere mentioned in the constitution.
I see. Anything goes, unless I post something that you don’t agree with, then it’s not allowed.
Makes total sense. Have you considered moving to Utah?
Putting down “uprisings” is the sort of thing the National Guard is designed for.
Either stop tone trolling, or shut the fuck up.
drinsomnia
Your #12 is homophobic.
Yes, we disagree with that here.
Both.
I would dearly love to see these folks chaining themselves to county clerk desks.
Well, actually I guess I wouldn’t. They have guns and authoritarian personalities.
Anything goes? Where did you get that idea? Are you new here? People should really read comments and get a feel of a blog before they start posting. All sorts of things are going to be pretty unwelcome here, homophobia, gendered slurs, racism. I guess one can do the aformentioned things but they are likely to be recieved poorly. Being a bit rough here does not mean anything goes at all, it means that substance is more highly prized than tone.
And I would like to see US Marshall’s SWAT teams come in and arrest their sorry asses for civil rights violations.
You must be new here. This exact same quote has been said 1000 times over the years. Umm, 1001 times. Unless NoR says 10,001 times. He would know.
drinsomnia – what is “not allowed” is stating something that has already been both stated and refuted less than a dozen comments before you, where “not allowed” means “considered the height of rudeness and will be treated as such.”
Isn’t there a legal term for government officials (like sheriffs) who swear to uphold the constitution, to “protect and serve” and then refuse to or actively work against it?
According to my understanding, the only legal option those sheriffs have is not to sign a marriage certificate, which they are entitled to do as elected state representatives, also according to my understanding. Besides that, I’d be surprised the state of utha would recognize gay marriage at all. Somebody lecture me on this if it is the case.
Exactly how it it homophobic? It is a fact that they use that phrase, a lot.
See, for example: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/02/21/1188789/-GAYS-ARE-SHOVING-IT-DOWN-OUR-THROATS-OBAMA-HAS-BIG-THROBBING-PLANS-FOR-DOMA-BEING-OVERTURNED
But we all know that Kos is a big bastion of gay-bashing, huh?
Are there any limitations on them when it comes to deciding they will not sign a marriage certificate? Can they reject them for arbitary reasons or only for specific ones?
About the “shoving down the throat” term….lol. nobody forces you to have oral intercourse by getting married. If you don’t like people getting married, that’s ok, but again not your problem. And you don’t get to make it your problem because it doesn’t affect you.
drinsomnia
And what does the FEDS not defending a portion of DOMA have to do with Utah Sheriffs disobeying a court order? Your non-sequiturs are showing.
Nah, it’s really not an excuse to use gay as an insult like you’re suggesting. It’s more like schadenfreude.
A similar example would be like how Hatewatch revels in the fact that the white supremacist Craig Cobb was found to bepart Sub-Saharan African. In their articles, they clearly enjoy saying that he’s “not-so-white” or “mixed race white supremacist” etc. etc. That’s not racist, that’s mocking racism.
Travis,
When We got married they told us any elected state official, judge or priest is allowed to sign the certificate. That was in Tennessee, we asked the major and she was glad todo so. not sure about Utah. They elect their sheriffs too, right?
yubal, umm, maybe? I am not American but I assume they do, but honestly I do not know how individual states decide these things.
We tried several people back then. Some didn’t bother to reply, some refused, some asked for a lot of money, just had to keep looking for someone willing to do it.
It doesn’t. I was giving an example of Kos using the phrase in jest, although even more graphically (and thus with more homophobia, apparently).
Travis wrote:
No idea what the law actually says, but I’m a little old fashioned on this: if they’re going to refuse to do their job, then perhaps they should no longer hold their job. I’m sure they can find a new job for him — handing out parking tickets, for instance.
If I was a lawmaker I would want laws that forced them to do their job. I suppose there are probably good reasons out there for not issuing a marriage certificate but I think they should be specific, and lay down exactly what circumstances that would be allowed. The idea of letting them simply decide not to issue it because they do not want to is a bizare idea to me.
Utah right, they at are least a controlling majority morman first then citizens of the US second the laws they do not like or the “prophets” do not like do not apply to them.judging from their behavior over time.
uncle frogy
… the day that there is a law passed that compels all men to have oral sex with another man. That day has not come.
But everybody knows it is written in The Agenda. In lavender ink, with glitter and superfluous swashes.
Yubal @39:
As of the moment I am typing this, the state of Utah is recognizing same-sex marriages. Some Utahns, including some elected officials, are unhappy about this and trying to change it, but even if the Supreme Court issues a stay of the federal court ruling, a stay is not going to be retroactive.
The Utah Income Tax website currently states (under “new this year” that the federal government allows same-sex married couples to file jointly but Utah does not. But that may have been last revised before the recent court ruling.
Thanks Vicki.
I got curious reading about that happened to be the law of the land in Utah.
Does that mean Utah recognizes gay marriages closed in another state or does that mean you can legalize a gay marriage in Utah?
We’re not Kos.
And we also don’t care for the “homophobes must be closeted gay people” meme, which was kinda the whole point.
Nerd, you’ve lost the trail. again.
drinsomnia, the part of your #12 that’s being interpreted as homophobic is not the first sentence, the one you’re defending. That one was simply redundant, since that point is made in the OP.
It’s the second sentence, the one about they protest too much, youthinks. People are interpreting that as an implication that people who use the phrase in question actually want just that, same as tsig’s #1 and, by extension, that there’s something wrong with wanting that or something like it. OK? Is that clear?
It’s always amazing that people will search for the ONE thing which supports their views rather than listen to the people who are marginalized by the insinuation of phobes being closeted.
Doublereed @44:
Nah, you can’t take a statement about a specific person and say that it applies to types of people in general. In this case, the charges were factual. Generalizations are bullshit.
Someone page Josh, drinsomnia needs a verbal lashing, the likes of which only he can give.
Sorry, I have misread you Doublereed. Sorry about that. Either way, my response to you can also work as a re-iteration and breaking down of your example.
No, in fact, it’s anything but clear. It’s unbelievably convoluted and obtuse. It does not follow at all that suggesting that someone is acting out bigotry because they are unhappy with their own lives, due to repressed desires, makes being gay wrong.
And to be entirely clear, there are studies to support what I said. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=homophobes-might-be-hidden-homosexuals
But you may want to write Prof. Ryan a message and tell him that “doth protest too much” is now unacceptably homophobic before he publishes again.
This is amazing. Gay and lesbian couples can marry in Utah right now. Yesterday two long time friends got married. They are lesbian. The marriage was administered by another old friend who is recognized as priest in Utah. There was a gay couple in attendance. I am proud that Utah is performing same sex marriages and ashamed that the state is still trying to overturn the decision of a judge.
Nothing is certain right now. Supreme Court Justice Sotamayor asked for briefs from Utah and the attorneys for the plaintiffs. The briefs were due on Friday. The Supreme Court will decide in the next few days whether to grant a stay of the judge’s decision to allow same sex marriages to continue during the appeals process.
I live in southeast Utah in a small town of about 5K. I like living in Utah.
Sheriffs cannot issue marriage licenses or “solemnize” (the term used in Utah law) marriages.
drinsomnia @59:
Methinks thou doth protesteth too much.
Go fucking read, now. Do not skim. Do not formulate a response right away. Think about it. A loooong time.
drinsomnia, do you not know the difference between a study that shows that some hobophobes may have latent homosexual desires (keep in mind, they could be bisexual), and implying that each and every homophobe that crops up must be secretly gay? Because people here are only really objecting to one of those two things.
And if I still disagree, then what? And I do like how you attempt to suggest that if I just think about it long enough, I’ll come around to your side, suggesting that only yours is the one real truth at which all will inevitably arrive. It’s an attempt to set-up a strawman to knock down – if I disagree with what was written, I just haven’t thought long enough. Evangelicals use similar tactics. I did read it, but I’ll spare both of us the waste of time that me having any opinion at this stage would represent since I clearly haven’t thought about it long enough.
The irony here, for me, is that you are putting an intent on my words that I never meant. Reading that piece won’t change that.
Yes, of course I do. You’d have to be an idiot to suggest otherwise. In fact, I suggested that only one person might be gay, the one whose quote I paraphrased. I did nowhere suggest that every bigot on the planet is a closeted homosexual. But thanks for asking – clarity is important.
clarity is important
clarity is important
clarity is important
drinsomnia @64:
Then you come back and you discuss why you disagree rather than imputing motivation upon my words (itself a strawperson, by the way).
Speaking of irony, you owe me a new one after that comment.
Except this is pretty much a guaranteed response to bigots. It doesn’t matter that you singled one out. That’s irrelevant to the fact that it is one of the most common tropes amongst allies – and even within the queer community – whenever a bigot is saying some horrible shit. You are part of the problem. You continue this harmful trope and do not avail yourself of understanding because there’s NO way you can possibly be wrong. Is there?
Fuck off you fucking fucker.
Meter, that is.
drinsomnia:
Right, but the problem with this is that not all homophobes are gay, as you seem to be perfectly aware. Therefore, you can’t assume that someone is gay because they said something homophobic. And when you try to imply someone is gay in such a way as to discredit them (as in your “dost protest too much” comment), it makes it seem as if you are using homosexuality as an insult. That may not have been your intent, but it’s the way your original comment came across to me, and clearly to many others here.
The intent of a comment I made in the past cannot be changed by something I read in the future.
So much anger. That’s no way to win an argument, or make progress on any front.
drinsomnia:
If you’re upset about being named a part of the problem just get over it. It’s not about you.
Just go look at the comments in the article PZ linked to.
Count up all the times anyone is accused or insinuated to be closeted homophobes.
Some samples, you original wit, you:
Gee, you wonder why we get upset over this?
So much tone trolling. That’s one way to ignore the substance of someone’s posts.
Everyone can see you’re blustering your way through. Save yourself from the indignity of it all and go away.
drinsomnia
Seriously.
Stop digging.
The “shoving” really does force one’s eyebrows to raise. Don’t the lousy conservatives of today ever listen to the sounds their throats emit?
Speaking of being part of the problem, you need a refresher on what trolling is: hint, it’s not pointing out that having decency when talking to another human being is acceptable societal practice. And you are angry, as your post scripts show. My comment was aside of the point I had already made, not in lieu of. And I do hope you’re in therapy, and I mean that sincerely, not as a troll, for your sake and those around you.
drinsomnia: Why is it so very important to you, after a number of people, most of whom are actually members of the LGBT community (myself included), have told you that the cliche that you’re repeating is really homophobic, to defend it? Like, what possible benefit is there to your “totes not a homophobe” claim to keep hurting queer people in a way that they explicitly say they feel is homophobic?
Claiming that homophobes are all (or hey, I’ll go with your claim here and say “some”) themselves gay is a really neat way to pawn the worst (and it’s always the nastiest of these folks who get the label, isn’t that weird?) of the bigots off on the queer folks? Like homophobia is not something institutionally upheld by straight people. Which is not to say that LGB people cannot have internalized homophobia, but the power is not in our hands.
drinsomnia: Here you go, now stop embarrassing yourself so badly: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Tone_troll
drinsomnia @74
Ableist asshole. Yes I’m in therapy and unashamed by it. It’s funny how this insult also mirrors the insinuation that bigots are gay. “If you use bad words then you must be angry! And if you’re angry at me then you must be crazy!” Illogical as all fucking hell.
drinsomnia #74
Who are you addressing?
What are you talking about?
Of course a homophobe is also going to be ableist. And completely unable to logic about all kids of things, not just one.
chigau (違う): It was to me. They decided to turn my “being a part of the problem” thing around without thinking about why anyone would think that about them. Boring troll is getting more boringer.
throwaway
OK that makes perfect sense.
(i.e. not)
Seriously? Have you considered that anger, well, in my case usually frustration, is possibly appropriate? It certainly doesn’t invalidate any arguments. But most of all, how can one say anger is not the way to make progress on any front? There’s been a significant amount of anger in pretty much any movement that has resulted in change. I know some people love to pretend the suffragettes and civil rights leaders were all happy, quite people that politely asked for their rights but that is not the case.
Sometimes allies are some of the most frustrating people. It is frustrating how often they want to dictate what you find offensive, and worse, demand that they be coddled and treated with infinite calm and patience, lest they decide to take their ball home and stop being an ally. That last threat always makes me so angry.
@drinsomnia:
Attempting to disparage someone by claiming that they are part of the group they hate, as if that’s a shameful group to be part of, in order to defend people who are part of that group.
Ally: you’re doing it wrong.
The sexual overtone of the whole “forcing-it-down-our-throats” bit so popular with the phobes is obviously deliberate. They’re (not so) subtly insinuating that LGBT people are sexual predators.
I think it’s pretty much becoming a dog-whistle for homophobia.
drinsomnia
Monitor note:
Please remember that it’s not appropriate to refer to mental illness when criticizing somebody’s behaviour on Pharyngula:
The Rules
drinsomnia
Purely from the view of argumetnation, it seems to me that you just commited one of the fallacy family “a dicto simpliciter”. There is observed trend of people having closeted homosexual desires they vere conditioned to supress being homophobes. However you cannot say the reverse, i.e. that there is a trend of homophobes being closeted homosexuals.
On Venns diagramm, homophobes with closeted desires are subgroup of a much, much larger group called “homophopbes-period”.
Even if you single one loud homophobe out, you have no objective reason to imply they have homosexual desires, you are still applying overeaching statistical description of one subgroup to one unit of the larger group on no other grounds than correlation in the subgroup.
Your are trying to justify (not only) logically unsound argument.
___________
That is my 5 cents. Now I go to read what has been discussed the previous day, which I unfortunately missed.
Again, this is not true. That’s simply a matter of schadenfreude of their own self-hatred. I bring up the mixed race white supremacist Craig Cobb as an example once again. Do you really think Hatewatch is shaming mixed race people or something? I think that’s a ridiculous assertion.
Also, I’m unsure of the actual effectiveness in conversation. I would think such humor would absolutely infuriate the homophobes, which also makes it a good thing XD
Anyway, it’s not as if drinsomnia is saying most homophobes are gay. He never made such a generalization. He commented about this particular, fervent homophobe that continues to use that weird and creepy idiom “shoving down our throats.” That’s not insignificant, especially to jokes of schadenfreude.
Err… not that I’m defending the other asshole things he’s been saying. :-/
doublereed @87
Do you know who is also infuriated by this kind of “humor”? This gay man here. I can only speak for myself, but here is why: I’m fucking tired of “is gay” being some joke’s punchline. For you it’s just schadenfreude “humor” and when it’s done, you get back to your bussiness and hardly think about it again. For a gay man like me, it’s just another case of being-gay-as-a-punchline that I have to endure during my day — it’s noon where I am, and I know that I’ll be exposed to it (watching TV, overhearing someone’s conversation on the bus stop or among my coworkers) at least another half dozen times today.
You and shitty drinsomnia might think it’s just clever “schadenfreude humor” and that it hurts the homophobes and so it’s all good. IT’S NOT ALL GOOD — it hurts gay people as well. It’s SHITTY to be reminded ALL THE FUCKING TIME that, because I’m gay, I’m in some way “inferior” or “wrong”. When you do your “humor” thing, guess what — I am reminded YET AGAIN that is gay = bad thing, because, frankly, if it weren’t a bad thing, you wouldn’t be using it as an insult.
(English is not my first language, but I hope you can understand why doing this homophobe = closeted gay crap is assholish.)
doublereed
every time some homophobe opens his mouth, gleeful snickering about him being gay can be heard. As I said in another thread recently, it’s become an acceptable way among supposedly progressive people to use gay as an insult.
Huh. I thought the police were here to preserve disorder.
It would be comforting to reflect how firmly the Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association have put themselves on the wrong side of history, if it were not for their stated intent to try to hurt people in the here and now. Jerks.
Maybe this will help. You frequently hear religious people inexplicably attempt to insult atheists by calling atheism a “religion”. It seems to be not completely obvious to them that they’re not exactly endearing religion to atheists by doing so. I sometimes raise an eyebrow and say, “So, you’re saying we’re actually delusional in the exact same manner your people are, right?” which often blue-screens the unprepared interlocutor. The point is that saying your “enemy” is secretly part of your own group is a foot-bullet way to accuse them of stupidity and hypocrisy.
This is the exact thing I’m arguing against.
Why are people completely ignoring what I’m saying like @89 Remvs? Like, seriously, please address my argument. The joke is not that they’re gay, it’s that they’re hateful and homophobic.
Making fun of a mixed race white supremacist for being, well, a mixed race white supremacist is not making fun of people who are mixed race. It’s making fun of white supremacists for being absolutely ridiculous. The same for a homophobic gay person. The joke is how absolutely ridiculous they’re being.
It should be patently obvious that I do not understand this.
as badgersdaughter has hinted at, pointing out hypocrisy works best when both people (the one pointing out the hypocrisy and the one being hypocritical) share the same values.
otherwise, it can go in all sorts of directions.
and in this case, that gamble is being played with an oppressed group of people as the pawn.
The behaviour of these supposed law enforcement officers is an example of the difference between the “two solitudes,” Canada and the US. I’ve never heard of Canadian small town police chiefs banding together to promote some fringe belief. Of course perhaps that’s because there are a lot less of them, and they don’t have the same kind of power or influence as they do in the US. Policing in much if not most of small town Canada is provided by RCMP detachments, and we don’t have the American practice of electing sheriffs and other positions in the legal system. I suspect that a lot of Canadian police chiefs would seem terrifyingly liberal to someone like Richard Mack, which frankly isn’t saying much.
there is also the issue of making up the suspicion that someone might be gay, when you don’t have very good evidence.
@ #93, doublereed
The problem, as I’ll elaborate on, is that you don’t know they’re gay. If you did, it would be different. Uncle Mary or log cabin republicans, for instance.
No, it isn’t. The thing that makes this different from making fun of a homophobe by insinuating they’re gay is that you don’t know they’re gay. Unless you know the person is gay, and since there isn’t anything wrong with being gay and the absurd part about being a gay homophobe is being a gay homophobe, then it’s just using gay as a slur.
This is true.
Only if you know that they’re gay. Otherwise, as I said, it’s using gay as a slur.
Don’t do that. This is easy.
The police in Utah scare me. I wonder what form of horrific violence their uprising will result in? …Shudder.
when someone is not white and they are a white supremacist, it at least makes enough sense to just say “they are a hypocrite”.
you don’t say “i think they are not white” with “hypocrite” implied.
if you have a good reason to call someone a hypocrite, call them a hypocrite instead of gay.
(or maybe the phrase “self opposed” or something is better than “hypocrite”, because i do think “hypocrite” means that the hypocrite’s own **values** are being used)
I’m not interested in marginalizing homosexuals.
That seems like an easy enough restriction. Fair enough.
It’s also a way of blaming gays for homophobia. It resembles the efforts in some quarters to “prove” that various Nazi leaders were Jews, or partly Jewish. The intent may be to point and laugh at the homophobes/antisemites; the effect is to cast blame on the targets of bigotry.
“Why are people completely ignoring what I’m saying like @89 Remvs? Like, seriously, please address my argument. The joke is not that they’re gay, it’s that they’re hateful and homophobic.”
Yo, tip from one would-be ally to another: when somebody in the group you’re trying to help says “please stop”, and you don’t understand why, consider that your misunderstanding may come from the fact that you’re not part of that group.
Seriously, he’s trying to tell you what his experience is like, as a gay man, and you’re responding “that’s illogical!”. He’s not arguing a hypothetical, he’s describing his own life. Respect that. It takes courage to be real. You and I do not know what it’s like to be gay, so there will be many times as allies where we have to shut up and listen to people who are.
So, here’s my suggestion: saying somebody is a self-hating gay person shouldn’t be counted as a joke, but as an armchair diagnosis. Even if thinking this way doesn’t make sense to you, know that actual gay folks have asked you to change, and you can respect their struggle by agreeing.
@drinsomnia
FUCK! FUCK! FUCK! FUCK! FUCK! FUCK! FUCK! FUCK! FUCK! FUCK!
FUCK! FUCK! FUCK! FUCK! FUCK! FUCK! FUCK! FUCK! FUCK! FUCK!
FUCK! FUCK! FUCK! FUCK! FUCK! FUCK! FUCK! FUCK! FUCK! FUCK!
FUCK! FUCK! FUCK! FUCK! FUCK! FUCK! FUCK! FUCK! FUCK! FUCK!
FUCK! FUCK! FUCK! FUCK! FUCK! FUCK! FUCK! FUCK! FUCK! FUCK!
FUCK! FUCK! FUCK! FUCK! FUCK! FUCK! FUCK! FUCK! FUCK! FUCK!
Is that fucking enough fucking F-bombs for you? The point to this exercise is not to say, “Fuck” but to remind you to look at the point that the commentor is making. The point that the commetor was making was very direct with FUCK used as an adjective. Grabbing your collective pearls at the use of the word FUCK is not an appropriate response.
I recommend commenting over at Disney.com, if you are offended by fucking words.
To All: sorry for the derailment. I just fucking hate fuckwads who fucking complain about the use of certain words in a fucking comment instead of the fucking content in the comment.
/FuckingEnd
P.S. Due to the Pharyngula hoard, especially Caine et al, I previsouly would have used phrases like “panties in a bunch”, “prissy” and other sexists words and phrases to call you out. Sterotypically, we try not to use sterotypes around here along with sexist, abilist language. Of course, we have the occassional fuckwad who miss the memo after having it pointed out to them, and continue to miss the memo.
Then, all fucking hell breaks loose.
I get that, that’s why I brought up a different example. If he addressed what I said, rather than misunderstand my argument (and he very much did misunderstand what I said), then that’s what I would’ve done.
And I rather just put forward my strongest honest argument and be shown to be wrong, then be confused, shut up, and not understand. And the link that they presented did not address my argument either, so it’s not something I would’ve found easily if I’d googled it or whatever.
And look, because I didn’t shut up, someone else pointed out that my example isn’t analogous because in one you’re insinuating that they’re gay, rather than knowing that they’re gay and making fun of them for being self-hating. That’s a distinctive difference. Lesson learned. Everybody wins.
Doublered,
You’re wrong. Please stop.
The Supreme Court stayed the district court’s ruling permitting same sex marriage in Utah. It remains unclear what will happen. The 10th Circuit Court will receive arguments later this month. I have been following this in the Utah paper but also this blog:
http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/01/court-stops-utah-gay-marriages/
If I remember correctly the sheriff quoted in the original article is from Arizona. You will find people with this attitude throughout most of the west. Definitely people like this sheriff can be found in Utah, Arizona, Idaho, Nevada, Wyoming and parts of Colorado, Oregon and Washington. I would not be surprised if such thinking is not even more widespread.
Reading the comments for this post has been illuminating. As a member of perhaps the most privileged class of people in history, the white heterosexual male, I am always running up against my ignorance. I think the issue of same sex marriage is a human rights issue and not just a gay and lesbian rights issue. Many classes of people are not yet fully franchised in our society. We cannot continue to deny rights to any group of people without harming our society.
doublereed:
Yeah, about that…are you mixed race by chance? Because I am, and I don’t think I want you unilaterally deciding what is and isn’t offensive when it comes to that. It really doesn’t do harm to stop people from indulging in nasty ass bigoted statements they think are witty. That would be the point – it does not do harm. Insisting that nasty ass bigoted statements can be cool, witty and funny, that does do harm.
Donnie:
I’m quite fond of flaming doucheweasel. Good to see you posting, Donnie.
Moabite:
Absolutely. It’s telling that those opposed keep insisting on making it a GLBT issue only.
And now we come full circle.
You see, to me, and I am indeed allowed to have an opinion, using language that you wouldn’t use in a conversation with your family and friends (and you would never say what you just said to anyone you cared about) prevents any sort of recognition and understanding. It’s petulant and childish, and, although some people on this board are too obtuse to realize it, the epitome of trollish behavior. It’s intended to silence dissent, and it’s abusive. Far more than the original comments that riled people up because they read an intent into words that never existed in the mind of the writer.
Calling someone a tone troll when they point out that your inflammatory language is off-topic, abusive, and intended to incite a response is deflecting behavior. It’s trolling, albeit a popular form at pharyngula (though it wasn’t always). I have no problem using such language, in general. But there is a time and place. If you want to make a point and have someone come to understand it, that’s not the time.
And here’s the full circle: I did not ignore the content of the comment, as you set up a straw man and claim I did. I responded, and then also pointed out the needlessness of the foul language. It’s ridiculous to lambaste someone for a twisted interpretation of a comment to suggest bigoted intent and then to use language widely construed by society to be abusive with impunity. It’s hypocrisy to criticize someone for their choice of words and then be unhappy when they criticize you for yours. If you want someone to hear your opinion, learn how speak it.
To All: sorry for the derailment. I just fucking hate hypocrites.
Homophobia is, in my opinion, a result of ignorance about what the homosexuals are: Normal people that are attracted to people of the same gender, quite simple isn’t it?
I am quite optimist about the progressive disapearance of homofobia, simply because people is more and more, connected, learning about diferente kinds of cultures and ways of life and, surely, will understand that showing contempt for the sexual choices of other people is unjust and stupid.
Even today, im convinced that we have even more former homophobes,because they realize, after learning a bit more about the world that is around them and realizing that homosexuals are normal people (kin, friends, co-workers, neighbours, teachers, doctors, artists, etc.), they see how much bigoted they were, and all men and women deserve respect and not should be condemned and persecuted by their sexual choices.
Myself was a homophobe in the past, simply because i was ignorant about a lot of things regarding homosexuals – i thought that homosexuality was some kind of mental ilness, that gay marriage was an aberration against society, that homosexuals could not adopt children because they would turn their adopted children in gays,etc. all kind of stupid ideas born out of ignorance – but, later, after i decided to get more information about homosexuality and the homosexuals, i started to think and analyse all the subject, and finally understanding that homosexuals are like me (a human beings) and not some kind of freaks that deserve to be cast aside and repressed.
fernando, it’s heartening that you educated yourself out of ignorance and bigotry. Would it were that everyone could do that.
In Utah, it seems that there isn’t even majority support for gay marriage and yet, equality won the day …for a time.
Unfortunately, there has just been a stay in equal marriage pending the State’s appeal.
doublereed @ 106
Fuck you.
I didn’t misunderstand what you said. I understood it just fine — I just wrote that it bothers me nonetheless. Intent isn’t magical, you know?
I completely agree with Beatrice, an amateur cynic looking for a happy thought @90:
That’s where I’m coming from. That’s not logical enough for you? Too bad — it’s not like I can use logic to dictate my feelings on the matter. Everytime I read or listen someone saying “X is a homophobe, so X is probably gay” I might know rationally that they’re meaning what you meant (i.e. “hypocrite” is the real punchline), but my emotional response? It’s like being slapped in the face — because it just falls to close to other, similar, statements in which “gay” is the real punchline. While, for you, these other vile statements might be filed under “crap bigots say”, in my brain they’re filed under “hurtful things against which I’m never completely safe, because they tend to happen on a daily basis”.
I would have to go do some reading, but I think the literature on the topic has largely supported the idea that exposing homophobes to the object to their hatred, especially if they are someone close to them, reduces that hatred, at least on average. Sadly individual cases are not all go rosy. I am pretty sure I remember a section in Robert Altemeyer’s book, The Authoritarians that dealt with this and found that their views about homosexuals softened when people near them came out and told them, and in general, when they found out how extreme they were on most topics, they moved toward more normal views.
drinsomnia:
Seems to me your primary problem is refusing to see when you’re wrong. All the rest of your mighty dissent wouldn’t have been necessary if you simply clicked the ‘commenting rules‘ tab at the top of the page, and indulged in some reading before shoving your foot in your mouth, soon to be joined by the other one.
You’d benefit mightily from the first rule of holes, as well. That one is very simple: when you find yourself digging a hole, stop.
Fernando:
You’re a shining example of a decent human being deciding that knowledge was better than ignorance, and changing because of it. Thank you, a million times.
if you simply clicked the ‘commenting rules‘ tab at the top of the page, and indulged in some reading before shoving your foot in your mouth, soon to be joined by the other one.
Reading rules? What a silly notion. We all know that when someone breaks the rules it is a completely valid excuse to say you did not bother to read them. This came up today on a website I use that only allows you to post photos you have the right to post. Someone reported a user’s stolen photos and they got angry after they were removed, said the person that reported them should have given them a chance and contacted them personally, and that they never read the rules on websites they join, so how can you blame them for not knowing?
Arg, embarassing blockquote fail. I really must use preview more often.
Caine @ 109
Seconding this. That’s some mighty complex internal stuff.
There is a world of difference between mixed race people/POC saying to a confirmed mixed race white supremacist “ha! You’re one of us!” versus white people saying “well, I bet this random white supremacist is secretly mixed race”. One is chiding the self-loathing of a member of one’s own group and the other is using race as an insult. Hell, even with the confirmation of that particular white supremacist’s Sub-Saharan African ancestry, the teasing he got on that video would have been mighty inappropriate coming from white people instead of POC jokingly embracing him.
Someone saying “you’re one of us” is not the same as someone saying “you’re one of them”. And when straight people declare any random homophobe to be closeted, they are doing the latter.
@ 111, drinsomnia
It may be your opinion, but it’s just not true that the use of an expletive necessarily reduces understanding.
It can be petulant and childish and it may be trollish behaviour. It is not necessarily any of those things.
It can be. You like abslutes, a lot!
Intent isn’t magic, as is well known around here. That doesn’t excuse unhelpfully reactionary behaviour, of course. I’m unsure, however, if any of the more piqued responses were entirely unhelpful. A dog’s bark is a warning, after all. Sometimes it’s more important to shut something potentially harmful down than engage in a dialogue.
Don’t enage in tone trolling, then. The word is ‘fuck’ and it doesn’t hinder comprehension of the surounding words.
Ugh. Please! It’s not trolling and this isn’t all about you. You were wrong. You kept being wrong. People swore!
Swearing does not hinder comprehension. That is an asinine belief.
‘Foul language’. You must be joking! The ‘need’ for the kinds of words a person uses is not for you to decide upon.
Damn. Is there more where that came from? Expletives are not contrued by society to be impunitively abusive. That is utterly ridiculous.
Except that someone was criticised for a collection of words that have a meaning when taken together. You, on the other hand, saw fit to take issue with someone’s swearing. That’s not only pathetic, it’s not comparable.
Again, swearing doesn’t affect comprehension.
Apology not accepted; I hate fucking passive-aggressive assholes.
MM:
Perfectly stated. To both drinsomnia and doublereed, I suggest you repeat the above to yourself about 10 times until it sinks in. Thanks.
@drinsomnia
And pointing out the bad language in the first place isn’t off topic? Remind me again, who’s the hyppocrite?
Yes, I quote-mined. Because the rest of your post is nothing but hyperbolic whining about how being sworn at hurts your feelings.
Travis:
Oh FFS. People can be so damn annoying.
Fernando
Good on you, mate.
Re: the whole ‘Shoving it down [our] throats’ meme, I do wonder if it relates to Haidt’s moral foundations. One of the things he notes is that conservatives tend to have more focus on the purity/disgust axis, which often relates emotionally to the idea of repulsive foods. Thus, a tendency to go with food/eating/mouth related metaphors when talking about things that disgust them, and hence “forcing/shoving [x practice they find disgusting] down their throats” when asked to tolerate it.
Life is one long, linked list of annoying situations and people. Or at least it feels like that.
Dalillama:
That makes a great deal of sense to me. No one likes being force fed, however, the conservatives warp this concept by assuming that providing the other with rights is force feeding.
Hmm, that is an interesting idea. I do have a really hard time understanding why they even think of themselves as being forced. Sometimes it feels like the very existance of things they dislike is viewed as some sort of coercion, something that forces them to be involved with it.
Honestly, disgust and purity are things I have a hard time wraping my mind around. I don’t really find I think in those terms very well. Purity is just out the window as a concern, and disgust, hmm, I have a hard time explaining this, but I feel anger, I feel frustration, but whenever people talk about some sort of visceral feelings of disgust, I find I do not understand. I do not really get that revolted feeling even when I know I should.
Caine:
That, and I suspect that they’re more likely to go to it as a metaphor for being made to do things they don’t like (i.e. stop actively being bigots). We on the left are more likely to go with other metaphors ( ones I see a lot involve predators, scavengers and jackboots).
Travis
I definitely hear you there; to me, visceral feelings of disgust pretty much come from the smell of rotten food and similar, but not otherwise.
drinsomnia:
Have you counted all the occurrences of that witty and original insinuation you so desperately cling to on the article in the OP?
They just keep coming.
RE: “shoving down their throats”:
In RE to the above:
Those would be your allies? They seem rather dull-minded and repetitive. Oh well, to each their own, like unto like.
Travis:
Having been raised Catholic, it’s very easy for me. Those concepts are vitally important, and they get drilled into you at every opportunity. The emphasis on pure thoughts alone used to bug the hell out of me – always reminded me of that Twilight Zone, “think happy thoughts! Happy thoughts!”
About the homophobic references to ‘shoved down their throat’ – I think it’s much more in line with Dalillama’s reasoning. I also really resent the fact that “shoved down someone’s throat” immediately makes so many people think of oral sex, in particular, that of gay men. Oral sex isn’t something that makes me think of the use of force, and thankfully, I’ve never had a partner who thought choking me half to death was the sexy fun times.
The Sheriffs of Utah have a temporary stay, issued by Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor, against having gay marriages shoved down their throat. Let’s hope that “temporary” really is temporary. What about the 1000 Utah gay couples that already got married?
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/57357406-78/court-utah-decision-marriage.html.csp
From the comments below the Salt Lake Tribune article (link in comment #134):
A compendium of negative comments from the Readers Comments section below the Salt Lake Tribune article (link in comment #134). This compendium was put together by “50sense,” http://www.sltrib.com/pages/comments?cid=57357406#comment-1189384306
I have heard this nonsense way too many times throughout my life, mostly from assholes who have no problem telling me that yes, my marriage should be invalid on the basis of our being childfree.*
*Of course, it should also be invalidated on the basis of me being bisexual, because that means I can absolutely not be monogamous, what with being a predatory housebreaker and all that. :spits:
More from the Readers Comments section of the Salt Lake Tribune:
The Ignorance is dense in Utah. I wonder if it alters the earth’s magnetic field.
A good response from a Utah mormon:
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/57348126-78/wedding-kirby-alex-marrying.html.csp
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/high-court-halts-utah-marriages
This is just so fucking stupid! Why can’t it just be “hey, marry the person of your choice. The End.”?
Seriously, what the hell is it to these people if two men or two women can get married? Does it make their own marriage or prospective marriage somehow “less”? (Less than what?!?!?) There’s no logical consistency at all to any of this shit.
drinsomnia:
No, it’s not ridiculous. They’re just fucking words. You are not harmed by the presence of the word fuck in this sentence (nor the preceding one).
Have you ever fucking considered why these words have such power?
“profanity” or “swearing” are considered socially unacceptable by many, but for fucks sake, why?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Profanity
See where I’m heading with this shit?
I suspect much of the opposition to the use of profane words (or swearing/cursing) is due to religion.
As an atheist, I reject the religious attitude towards “profanity”. I don’t consider anything sacred.
By rejecting that, I reject one of the big sources of opposition to the use of taboo words.
The hangups many people have with bad words has become a source of frustration for me. So many people-like yourself-whine and whine about the use of bad words, then offer no reasonable justification for avoiding their use. It’s always “society deems these words unacceptable”. Focusing on the tone, rather than the substance.
Fuck that.
And fuck your whinging about the use of bad words.
You don’t get to unilaterally dictate the direction the discourse takes.
@133, Caine,
From what I’ve seen of anti-gay arguments (at least of the hyper-macho variety), I get a strong impression that they’ve got an unmentioned fear that gay men are going to rape them (or “seduce” them–more on that in a sec). Their arguments for anti-gay laws seem to revolve around the fear that if gay men get enough cultural acceptance, everyone will be somehow forced into homosexual behavior (I don’t believe they’re really all that concerned with the private lives of strangers–they’re too self-centered for that).
Also, yes, gay men specifically, because lesbians are just women who are being uppity, according to that particular train of logic. (Also, bisexuals are in denial, and trans* people are just extra super gay. I don’t like typing this stuff out.)
So, of course, it’s all about the men. I’ve been theorizing about why the hyper-macho types get so freaked out about gay guys (logically, lesbians should bother them a lot more). Here’s what I think I’ve worked out (caution: about to dive into a vat of stupid):
Per the standard patriarchal doctrine: men are strong, brave, dominant, and good, while women are weak, timid, submissive, and deceptive. Men are encouraged to be more manly and be less womanly, and must always be in charge over more feminine people of any gender.
But! There’s a problem. No matter how dominant men become, women always have some power over them simply by being able to turn men on sexually. In order to reframe this “disadvantage”, men are recast as sexual “hunters”, with women being the ever-unwilling “prey”. Women are not supposed to like sex, and it is therefore the role of the man to force, coerce, or trick women into “giving it up”–therefore once again placing him back in charge.
Here’s where gay men come in. Gay men represent a confusing problem for the hyper-macho types. On the one hand, they are men who willingly behave in a “womanly” way, making them the “weakest” kind of men. On the other hand, gay men are at the top of the imaginary sexual food-chain: they’re hunters who hunt other hunters.
To put it another way: To the hyper-macho types, there’s no difference between a woman being pursued by a straight man, and a straight man being pursued by a gay man. If straight men can seduce women despite women being unwilling, that means gay men can seduce them using the same tactics.
They won’t openly admit being afraid of gay men, of course, since “real men” aren’t supposed to fear anything, and I’m not going to go so far as to say that my armchair psychoanalyzing is actually true (certainly not for all straight men). But there’s definitely some evidence for: how many of you have heard straight guys joking about clenching their butt cheeks when a gay dude walks into the room? (What do they actually think is going to happen if they let their guard down?)
Lynna, OM @ # 136: “No matter how bad my Cat wants to become a Dog she will still be a cat.”
Somebody’s cat has severe self-esteem issues and needs counseling, stat!
Tony:
What bothers me is that assholes like drinsomnia will whine and rail about cussing, while having absolutely no problem in tossing out a homophobic, bigoted comment. Being homophobic and bigoted* doesn’t bother them at all, but you had better not swear, oh no!
*Whether aware of it or not. However, it’s even worse in the case of someone like drinsomnia, who claimed to have read the comments, and proceeded with the homophobic and bigoted comment anyway.
“Save it for the day that there is a law passed that compels all men to have oral sex with another man. ”
That’s what they’re all
hoping for— I mean, “afraid of.”Goblinman @ 143:
Well, yes, it always is, isn’t it? It’s interesting, Kimmel notes in Manhood in America: a cultural history, that the manly men didn’t have a problem with gay men in the early 1800s. This changed, of course, and it’s been one hell of a slide ever since, with men feeling edged out of every space which used to be a homosocial refuge, and beset on all sides by unseemly wimmins, and immigrants, and and those lavender lilies, why there’s just no place to be a man anymore!
hunter @ 146:
Oh for fuckety fuck’s sake! Read the fucking thread, and stop saying such stupid fucking shit.
Pierce:
Nah, I have a cat who likes to think he’s one of the dogs. /derail
Caine:
Too….much…profanity…
Where’s my fainting couch?
Ok, for the folks who can’t get the difference between the “homophobes are really gay” and “a racist is mixed-race”, ask your self this:
Are you insinuating there is anything about being mixed-race that might make you a racist? No?
Are you insinuating there is anything about being closetedly gay that might make you homophobic? Yes?
Oh, that’s the difference!
My cat’s adoption papers, because they were out of the “kitten” ones, all certify him as a healthy male puppy. Despite the label given him by authorities, he is clearly a cat, and is happy with cat food and never going outside.
I feel like there’s a point to be made here.
@HappiestSadist, Repellent Little Martyr (#152): Does the document have the word “dog” crossed out, and the word “cat” written in in crayon? And is your cat’s name ‘Eric’?
I appreciate that people love to talk about cats, however, can that discussion move over to the lounge, please?
@Remvs
I never called you illogical, or anything of the sort. I certainly don’t think you are. By no means, did I intend to dismiss your feelings. I’m sorry if it seemed that way. I just think we were talking past each other.
@Caine
What? Goddammit, you can’t do that. I already admitted to being wrong, but now you’re confusing me all the more. So okay, I won’t insinuate that a homophobe is gay. There’s a clear issue there, and I certainly don’t want to marginalize homosexuals. That’s no fun at all.
But I’m trying to make these questions as simple as possible, here. Are you suggesting that it’s somehow racist to make fun of Craig Cobb for being a mixed race white supremacist? Can I make fun of homophobes who are caught hanging around on Grindr? Are you suggesting that this is marginalizing as well?
Because frankly I can’t tell what you’re suggesting in your post. At least Remvs was crystal clear on what actually pissed him off. He didn’t dance around it.
Goblinman @ 143
…and so someone infected with such a strain of toxic masculinity may think that since women don’t like sex and so are always somehow coerced/tricked/bribed into it, then “no” has no meaning. And, thus, a straight man not wanting sex with other men is similarly meaningless. Simply the existence of someone who could potentially be interested is a threat.
Huh. Lightbulb moment.
@Remvs
I realize my answer may not have made the most sense in context to that response. But generally I don’t believe that emotions and logic are opposed. It’s not like your emotions are randomly firing off in your brain, man. You have good, solid reasons for being pissed off at me based on your experiences and such. No need to pretend that you’re behaving ‘illogically’ or whatever.
You being pissed off at me, however, did not clear up any of my confusion, nor did the links that were provided earlier. So I kind of dismissed you, which was rather tactless and assholish. Sorry about that.
The irony never ends. I made one post and was labeled a homophobe and bigot for it, which I am neither, for reasons I won’t bother explaining to people who clearly about as freethinking as a Pentecostal Sunday Mass. And then I’m told that words don’t matter.
Have any of you ever considered that the effect language like this has one some people could be similar to the effect of reading bigoted language? Or is it really only about what bothers you, specifically, and fuck all to anyone else?
Mellow Monkey @143
Exactly. In that kind of thinking, there’s no real difference between “rape” and “seduce”. It’s all about “winning” and “losing”.
(Note: women always lose)
drinsomnia:
How big a hole are you determined to dig?
1. Have you? Seriously, have you done any research? You put this idea forward as if we’re supposed to treat it seriously, yet you back it with…? You want to convince me and others that we should talk to you on your terms, you’ve got an uphill battle ahead. All because you don’t like certain words. Words that are not slurs. Words that are deemed taboo…just bc.
2. Fuck you. You’re equating using words that are deemed inappropriate for no good reason with using bigoted slurs against members of marginalized groups??!
Yes people, FUCK is just as bad as slurs against black people, queers, and trans* individuals.
A second fuck you.
I don’t criticize people for using misogynistic, ableist, or transphobic slurs bc it’s all about me. I do so because the use of such terms dehumanizes and further marginalizes members of those groups who are oppressed in society.
Fuck.
Shit.
Hell.
Goddamit.
None of those words harms anyone.
The use of these words does not oppress anyone.
The use of these words does not dehumanize anyone.
It’s offensive that you’d even try to make such a comparison.
drinsomnia, you are off topic and derailing with the discussion of swearing. That’s against the commenting rules. Try reading them, eh? If you wish to write many a screed more about fuck, shit, piss, etc., take it fucking Thunderdome, an open thread, where such shit belongs. Thank you ever so fucking much.
For our resident idiot (drinsomnia):
From the commenting rules:
Your post will be edited if:
1. You use bigoted slurs.
6. You ignore requests by other readers to stop a behavior.
You may be banned from a comment thread if:
2. Your comments are repetitive, especially if you repeat arguments that have already been addressed.
You will be banned from the blog if:
3. You use bigoted slurs.
10. You are relentlessly negative — why are you here if you have nothing positive to say?
Recommended attitudes:
This is a rude blog. Expect rough handling.
Courtesies:
Stay on topic, unless it’s an obvious “fun” thread. If you have something off topic that you must share, the Thunderdome thread is always appropriate.
Man, I really shouldn’t have associated myself with drinsomnia. Jesus fucking christ.
Those words can be used to dehumanize and oppress. They are regularly part of the abuse that people of all stripes are subjected to every day. It is abusive language, and it is used to marginalize and dehumanize.
The level of hypocrisy and intolerance is so high here that there’s no reason to have any discussions of any sort. I was accused of being a bigot, which I find very insulting, and far worse offense than anything I’ve said. Yet you hypocrites find that tolerable and acceptable. It’s OK to call someone a bigot, to equate me with these sheriffs in Utah (see: on-topic), because of your perceived slight, and without knowing a thing about me. I think that’s fucking ridiculous.
The level of hypocrisy out of a supposed freethought community is mind-boggling. It’s sad what this site has become.
drinsomnia:
Please gather your pearls and depart forthwith.
drinsomnia
What was the pseudonym you commented under in the old days?
Monitor note:*
drinsomnia – please take this discussion to the thunderdome thread if you wish to continue in this vein. You are not being asked to stop, just to move it to a more appropriate place.
*monitors do not have the authority to ban or modify comments, but are here to remind people of the commenting policy and alert PZ to take a look if they think someone is in flagrant violation thereof.
How, you have evidenced nothing, only given your OPINION.
Yes, but the hypocrisy is coming from you. And your intolerance to certain language. Until you acknowledge your prissiness, there can be no discussion.
Drinsomia, Thundome is found here.
Moving the conversation to the Thunderdome. Drinsomnia, I have a request.
Me neither. However, it is a disturbing feature of much contemporary pornography.
hmm. It’s true. This guy’s argument is logically airtight. There is not a single thing I can think of that distinguishes marrying another human being from marrying a dog, cat, or box turtle. Not even one.
Oh yeah? Then WE’ll call ourselves “Justice of the Peace Married” or “Ship’s Captain Married” or “Vegas ELvis Impersonator Marriage” and see who gets more pissed off about it.
No, numbskull, you were not. You were accused of saying something bigoted. Actually not even that until you started with the defensiveness; you were originally accused of saying something that could be interpreted as bigoted. “Oops, sorry; I really didn;t mean it that way!” would have taken care of the whole thing right away. But no; not you.
Chas @171
Three words: Gay Covenant Marriage.
“Next they’ll be wanting us to suck on their agenda like a lollipop!”
I see projection is your favorite way to express yourself.
OTOH, you do have a point here.
bottom line, you won’t like commenting here. best to move on. and i say that in a positive fashion, not in a “don’t let the door hit your ass on the way out” fashion.
Back on the topic of the Sheriffs… The article says nothing about which Sheriffs attended and which didn’t.
As a voting resident of Utah, I would like to know if mine is involved in this or not (Weber County).
The Sheriff is an elected position, whose job it is to enforce the law. Not interpreting it. Not creating it. Enforcement of it. That is what the Sheriff is paid by the people to do. This is absurd. Also note, that the guys holding the convention thingy were out-of-state folks.
I wonder how many Sheriffs actually attended it, and how many were there in support of it, as opposed to simply wanting to know what is going on (which I would consider part of their job).
doublereed
Do you understand the difference between making fun of somebody who has been caught doing something they have publicly condemed and insinuating that whoever publicly condems X is secretly doing it?
That’s the difference we’re talking about. Because as somebody else noticed (sorry, I forgot your name, but you nailed it), the “closeted gay” trope tries to pass off the problem of often violent homophobes who literally hunt gay kids to suicide in highschool from the privileged hetero majority to the marginalised LGBTQ minority.
It’s like the sexual orientation variation of “black on black crime”
So if both gay and straight men have the right to marry women, why don’t women have the same right? Still no equality under law.
If man can marry woman then man can marry dogs. No argument against this either.
@LynnaOM #136
I wondered how long it would take for this idea to surface. I have suspected for some time now that when marriage equality eventually becomes the norm, and I am confident it will, the bigots would find some way to verbally distinguish their marriage as a last-ditch effort to make out it is somehow superior. “Christian married” seems a strong candidate.
@The Mellow Monkey #136
Yeah, I had a similar lightbulb moment (Thanks, Goblinman; very well reasoned). I think finally understanding the macho aversion to homosexuality has made me more disgusted with the pople who have that aversion.
You guys are forgetting that utah police officers also refused to enforce the racist check-for-citizenship-papers law that arizona copied. I’m pretty sure cops selectively enforce laws (and break laws) all the fucking time, they just usually aren’t dumb enough to tell the media about it.
Thumper – they sort of already do; they’re calling it a “covenant marriage”. Basically, it’s marriage but with extra promises not to get divorced. In some states, there are even legal ramifications, sort of like a reverse pre-nup – extra penalties for divorce. Unsurprisingly, it isn’t very popular even amongst the hardcore faithful.
@doublereed:
Craig Cobb is not mixed race. He’s white. I’m mixed race, in that I’m Pamunkey and white. He’s white, white white with the little bit of African that every human has.
Uh… yes, I do understand that. Or at least I thought I did until Caine confused the hell out of me.
That certainly didn’t stop Goddard from trying to give Cobb a fist bump of solidarity.
Monitor note
Please move the discussion of Craig Cobb’s race to Thunderdome; it’s way off topic here.
Well, there’s your first mistake…
@carlie
I meant it would arise specifically as a response to marriage equality. Or did “covenant marriage” arise because of that? I haven’t heard of it. How would that even work? For it to have higher penalties attached to divorce then it must surely be state-sanctioned? X-/
It sounds like a similar concept, though I would imagine as a response to rising divorce rates. A way of socking it to the sinners and publicly declaring your elevated level of holiness through the public pronouncement that “Our marriage is better than yours! Ner ner!”. But not purely a verbal distinction.
Arizona follows suit:
Arizona Central link.
Excerpt from the Arizona Central article (link in comment #188):
I continue to be embarrassed by the US Supreme Court. About the only time in history they weren’t trying to drag the country into the past was the Warren court. Even when I agree with their decisions, their reasons and arguments are ridiculous, petty, and weak. They’re intellectually and morally weak-ass cowards.