The Oatmeal fights back, snaps photo of cash, sends money to charity(arstechnica.com)
arstechnica.com
The Oatmeal fights back, snaps photo of cash, sends money to charity
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/07/the-oatmeal-fights-backs-snaps-photo-of-cash-sends-money-to-charity/
12 comments
Right? Reading the second response by his wife was particularly disturbing.
"...Just look at their cartoons. They like to kill. They think it's fun to kill. They think their friends will admire them if they kill. Without mercy!
...They are stupid, silent people, who are absolutely worthless to our society. Really, what good is their life, but a burden to the planet?"
She is accusing "these people" of being murderers? Honestly, from the following comments, I'm quite a bit more concerned that this whole story will end with her going on a killing spree.
I'm slowly becoming more and more convinced that this is one majorly elaborate practical joke, concocted by the oatmeal and funnyjunk to raise tons of money for charity. Because I'd rather believe that than believe that people this dense actually exist.
"...Just look at their cartoons. They like to kill. They think it's fun to kill. They think their friends will admire them if they kill. Without mercy!
...They are stupid, silent people, who are absolutely worthless to our society. Really, what good is their life, but a burden to the planet?"
She is accusing "these people" of being murderers? Honestly, from the following comments, I'm quite a bit more concerned that this whole story will end with her going on a killing spree.
I'm slowly becoming more and more convinced that this is one majorly elaborate practical joke, concocted by the oatmeal and funnyjunk to raise tons of money for charity. Because I'd rather believe that than believe that people this dense actually exist.
As I recall, the same thing happened with a lawyer named Jack Thompson. I think it's just something about Law as a discipline that it attracts people who can be very literal-minded and who at least in their own mind are moral crusaders. (Disclaimer: I don't know whether Carreon's wife actually does anything legal herself or whether she just married a lawyer.)
I think when you mix that sort of mentality with modern entertainment, you get quotes like these. Sure, we say, "any normal person" understands the difference between cartoons and real life. Perhaps Mrs. Carreon would even agree that she understands the difference. But she is somehow not convinced that we understand the difference. Jack Thomson was the same way; he referred to games as "murder simulators" and assumed that anyone attracted to them was merely 'in the closet' about actions that they secretly intensely wanted to do. Since indulging a normal addiction usually makes it worse and not better, it's easy from this screwed-up perspective to imagine that The Youth will fail to be satisfied one day with the latest violent media -- and will turn to violence itself in their craving.
There is another aspect here which is: the things that disturb us about others are usually things which disturb us about ourselves. It's about resonance. Normally if someone is being stupid people say "to hell with him, he's stupid." But let us all endeavor, when we find ourselves outraged, to ask not only "what is wrong with THEM?!" but also "why does this bug me so much? What resonates here?" If we apply that to Mrs. Carreon, I think we'll all see that we've all been on the wrong side of a dispute, that we've all been wronged before and wanted to "get back," etc.
I think when you mix that sort of mentality with modern entertainment, you get quotes like these. Sure, we say, "any normal person" understands the difference between cartoons and real life. Perhaps Mrs. Carreon would even agree that she understands the difference. But she is somehow not convinced that we understand the difference. Jack Thomson was the same way; he referred to games as "murder simulators" and assumed that anyone attracted to them was merely 'in the closet' about actions that they secretly intensely wanted to do. Since indulging a normal addiction usually makes it worse and not better, it's easy from this screwed-up perspective to imagine that The Youth will fail to be satisfied one day with the latest violent media -- and will turn to violence itself in their craving.
There is another aspect here which is: the things that disturb us about others are usually things which disturb us about ourselves. It's about resonance. Normally if someone is being stupid people say "to hell with him, he's stupid." But let us all endeavor, when we find ourselves outraged, to ask not only "what is wrong with THEM?!" but also "why does this bug me so much? What resonates here?" If we apply that to Mrs. Carreon, I think we'll all see that we've all been on the wrong side of a dispute, that we've all been wronged before and wanted to "get back," etc.
Disclaimer: I don't know whether Carreon's wife actually does anything legal herself or whether she just married a lawyer.
In one of her article or message board comments (assuming it was actually her), she claims to have worked as a legal secretary for 20 years.
In one of her article or message board comments (assuming it was actually her), she claims to have worked as a legal secretary for 20 years.
Yes, for her husband when he opened his solo practice.
(There's nothing bad or incompetent about this.)
(There's nothing bad or incompetent about this.)
I think it's just something about Law as a discipline that it attracts people who can be very literal-minded and who at least in their own mind are moral crusaders.
Since this whole case is, um, horribly embarrassing to my profession, I'll just respond here and move on. The huge majority of lawyers I know are much more like the EFF lawyers here than like Carreon. They're smart, creative, resilient, flexible, and more often than not they're honest and respectful. Some of them do it for moral reasons and some are just doing a job; some of them make the world a lot better in my opinion and some of them end up screwing it up. But there's not one lawyer I know who I can imagine acting anything like Carreon, let alone his wife. I mean, even the few jerks would at least make more effective choices.
In short: don't think of this guy as a typical lawyer. He's not. Think of him as a typical guy-screwing-up-his-career-with-a-weird,-paranoid-flameout,-in-an-unusually-public-way-thanks-to-the-internet. It's just too bad he happens to have a career that will let him waste a lot of other people's time in the process ...
Since this whole case is, um, horribly embarrassing to my profession, I'll just respond here and move on. The huge majority of lawyers I know are much more like the EFF lawyers here than like Carreon. They're smart, creative, resilient, flexible, and more often than not they're honest and respectful. Some of them do it for moral reasons and some are just doing a job; some of them make the world a lot better in my opinion and some of them end up screwing it up. But there's not one lawyer I know who I can imagine acting anything like Carreon, let alone his wife. I mean, even the few jerks would at least make more effective choices.
In short: don't think of this guy as a typical lawyer. He's not. Think of him as a typical guy-screwing-up-his-career-with-a-weird,-paranoid-flameout,-in-an-unusually-public-way-thanks-to-the-internet. It's just too bad he happens to have a career that will let him waste a lot of other people's time in the process ...
Oh! I'm sorry, it occurs to me that my comment can indeed be read that way, and that's not what I intended.
I mean it as "they attract these people", not "they are mostly these people:" the tiny percentage of society which is A is much more likely to be L, but that does not mean that most L's are A. So for example I would guess that most programmers are pretty sociable people, but we have a nasty reputation as highly antisocial because we attract people who prefer programming to partying. The Catholic church can tell you all about their difficulties with this type of thing.
I mean it as "they attract these people", not "they are mostly these people:" the tiny percentage of society which is A is much more likely to be L, but that does not mean that most L's are A. So for example I would guess that most programmers are pretty sociable people, but we have a nasty reputation as highly antisocial because we attract people who prefer programming to partying. The Catholic church can tell you all about their difficulties with this type of thing.
Hey, thanks for the clarification. That's a totally fair point. I was probably a little over-eager to reply here since this story so much invites the lawyers-are-evil thing and I've been looking for a chance to put it in context. Like, "yes OK lawyers are evil sometimes but this isn't that." :)
After thinking more about it, the literal-minded moral crusade is something I've definitely seen in the legal system, not from lawyers but from pro se parties -- non-lawyers who are representing themselves. There's a group of people who are absolutely sure that the world has wronged them and that they'll eventually be able to make everyone understand, but are unable to parse or accept the reality checks they're getting back from the system, so they go through a series of lawyers before striking out on their own. I bet any clerk's office you walked into, they could name a handful of people like that who they recognize by sight when they come in to file their next complaint (and then a complaint against the judge who handled the last complaint, and so on). They're sad situations.
I don't really know anything about Carreon or the rest of this mess, but assuming that's what's happening, maybe there's some observer bias here -- the reason we're hearing about this at all is that he is a lawyer, so he's able to navigate the system well enough to cause real trouble, at least for a while.
After thinking more about it, the literal-minded moral crusade is something I've definitely seen in the legal system, not from lawyers but from pro se parties -- non-lawyers who are representing themselves. There's a group of people who are absolutely sure that the world has wronged them and that they'll eventually be able to make everyone understand, but are unable to parse or accept the reality checks they're getting back from the system, so they go through a series of lawyers before striking out on their own. I bet any clerk's office you walked into, they could name a handful of people like that who they recognize by sight when they come in to file their next complaint (and then a complaint against the judge who handled the last complaint, and so on). They're sad situations.
I don't really know anything about Carreon or the rest of this mess, but assuming that's what's happening, maybe there's some observer bias here -- the reason we're hearing about this at all is that he is a lawyer, so he's able to navigate the system well enough to cause real trouble, at least for a while.
Interesting little tidbit, Jack Thompson was disbarred permanently by the Florida Supreme Court for making up BS about ebil vidya games and how ebil the people who play/make them are.
Personally, I would be interested to know if the whole Jack Thompson thjng made legal headlines outside of the tech/videogame world, and what the reactions were.
> I think when you mix that sort of mentality with modern entertainment, you get quotes like these. Sure, we say, "any normal person" understands the difference between cartoons and real life. Perhaps Mrs. Carreon would even agree that she understands the difference. But she is somehow not convinced that we understand the difference.
Time to burn some Karma.
Well, here's the disturbing truth of the matter: There is a small minority of gamers that don't understand the difference. Just like there's a small minority of moviegoers who "don't understand the difference" and novel readers and consumers and even producers of media of all sorts. Sturm und Drang novels precipitated suicides of young people across Europe. People who talk to the public at the Vatican had to deal with people who thought The DaVinci Code was real. (And I suspect they still do!)
Also, as in other media, some celebrities act in anti-social ways and are actually somehow excused or admired for it. Again, this is nothing new. There also comes a time when the majority of sane people need to come out and say -- "Okay, that's entertaining, but here's how real people act."
There are people out there who believe that all of society's rules are just hackable machines to and are out there to be exploited, and it's their right to get away with as much as they can, even to the point of throwing out basic human decency. (And if you're not aware of this, then just start some in-depth conversations at a con some time.) What disturbs me is that there seems to be considerable lionization of antisocial behavior on the Internet and in gaming culture -- to the point of there being entire ideologies to justify it.
I am not siding with the Carreons or Jack Thompson. Nor am I against the Oatmeal. It's just that they're not 2D villains in some black and white narrative contrivance. They're human beings, not NPCs. Subtract the stupidity and shortsightedness from their position and see what's left. If you're honest with yourself, you may not like what you see.
Time to burn some Karma.
Well, here's the disturbing truth of the matter: There is a small minority of gamers that don't understand the difference. Just like there's a small minority of moviegoers who "don't understand the difference" and novel readers and consumers and even producers of media of all sorts. Sturm und Drang novels precipitated suicides of young people across Europe. People who talk to the public at the Vatican had to deal with people who thought The DaVinci Code was real. (And I suspect they still do!)
Also, as in other media, some celebrities act in anti-social ways and are actually somehow excused or admired for it. Again, this is nothing new. There also comes a time when the majority of sane people need to come out and say -- "Okay, that's entertaining, but here's how real people act."
There are people out there who believe that all of society's rules are just hackable machines to and are out there to be exploited, and it's their right to get away with as much as they can, even to the point of throwing out basic human decency. (And if you're not aware of this, then just start some in-depth conversations at a con some time.) What disturbs me is that there seems to be considerable lionization of antisocial behavior on the Internet and in gaming culture -- to the point of there being entire ideologies to justify it.
I am not siding with the Carreons or Jack Thompson. Nor am I against the Oatmeal. It's just that they're not 2D villains in some black and white narrative contrivance. They're human beings, not NPCs. Subtract the stupidity and shortsightedness from their position and see what's left. If you're honest with yourself, you may not like what you see.
Time to burn some Karma.
Please don't do this. It serves no purpose other than hostilizing your readers.
Well, here's the disturbing truth of the matter: There is a small minority of gamers that don't understand the difference. Just like there's a small minority of moviegoers who "don't understand the difference" and novel readers and consumers and even producers of media of all sorts. Sturm und Drang novels precipitated suicides of young people across Europe. People who talk to the public at the Vatican had to deal with people who thought The DaVinci Code was real. (And I suspect they still do!)
Sure, but that's not what she's saying; she's claiming that about everyone who likes The Oatmeal ("...just look at their cartoons. They like to kill"). Which would be absurd when said about someone who likes war movies, but is downright insane when applied to fans of the Oatmeal, which are comics mostly about cats, iPhone apps and annoying people.
It's more or less like treating kids playing Cowboys and Indians as dangerous schizophrenics.
There are people out there who believe that all of society's rules are just hackable machines to and are out there to be exploited, and it's their right to get away with as much as they can, even to the point of throwing out basic human decency. (And if you're not aware of this, then just start some in-depth conversations at a con some time.)
I don't get how is this related to the issue. Who is exploiting people here, exactly? Except maybe for FunnyJunk?
What disturbs me is that there seems to be considerable lionization of antisocial behavior on the Internet and in gaming culture -- to the point of there being entire ideologies to justify it.
There were entire ideologies to justify killing and raping. If the new are just to justify being a dick, it's a positive step! ;) Besides, in my experience, if you find behaviors on the Internet anti-social, you don't know many schools.
The Internet is just the perfect medium of communication for misfits, from the people with weird passions, to the non-socials (like me), to the anti-socials. And the gaming culture is worse because it's the zone of the Internet full of 14 year olds. I don't think there's any new worrying trend, compared to what I've seen before.
Then again, I come from a somewhat different culture, so maybe it's worse there in the US.
But! Getting back to the topic, we should consider if Mr. Carreon's initial actions weren't the really anti-social behaviors. Threatening to sue people for complaining that your (or in this case, your client's) business model rests in using content made by others without so much as a link is hardly a nice thing to do.
So yes, they're human beings. Human beings who starting all this with their own douche behavior.
Please don't do this. It serves no purpose other than hostilizing your readers.
Well, here's the disturbing truth of the matter: There is a small minority of gamers that don't understand the difference. Just like there's a small minority of moviegoers who "don't understand the difference" and novel readers and consumers and even producers of media of all sorts. Sturm und Drang novels precipitated suicides of young people across Europe. People who talk to the public at the Vatican had to deal with people who thought The DaVinci Code was real. (And I suspect they still do!)
Sure, but that's not what she's saying; she's claiming that about everyone who likes The Oatmeal ("...just look at their cartoons. They like to kill"). Which would be absurd when said about someone who likes war movies, but is downright insane when applied to fans of the Oatmeal, which are comics mostly about cats, iPhone apps and annoying people.
It's more or less like treating kids playing Cowboys and Indians as dangerous schizophrenics.
There are people out there who believe that all of society's rules are just hackable machines to and are out there to be exploited, and it's their right to get away with as much as they can, even to the point of throwing out basic human decency. (And if you're not aware of this, then just start some in-depth conversations at a con some time.)
I don't get how is this related to the issue. Who is exploiting people here, exactly? Except maybe for FunnyJunk?
What disturbs me is that there seems to be considerable lionization of antisocial behavior on the Internet and in gaming culture -- to the point of there being entire ideologies to justify it.
There were entire ideologies to justify killing and raping. If the new are just to justify being a dick, it's a positive step! ;) Besides, in my experience, if you find behaviors on the Internet anti-social, you don't know many schools.
The Internet is just the perfect medium of communication for misfits, from the people with weird passions, to the non-socials (like me), to the anti-socials. And the gaming culture is worse because it's the zone of the Internet full of 14 year olds. I don't think there's any new worrying trend, compared to what I've seen before.
Then again, I come from a somewhat different culture, so maybe it's worse there in the US.
But! Getting back to the topic, we should consider if Mr. Carreon's initial actions weren't the really anti-social behaviors. Threatening to sue people for complaining that your (or in this case, your client's) business model rests in using content made by others without so much as a link is hardly a nice thing to do.
So yes, they're human beings. Human beings who starting all this with their own douche behavior.
>> Time to burn some Karma.
> Please don't do this. It serves no purpose other than hostilizing your readers.
Thanks for the advice, but that's simply incorrect. (Unless you add "some of.")
> Sure, but that's not what she's saying; she's claiming that about everyone who likes The Oatmeal ("...just look at their cartoons. They like to kill"). Which would be absurd when said about someone who likes war movies, but is downright insane when applied to fans of the Oatmeal, which are comics mostly about cats, iPhone apps and annoying people.
Wow, are you really taking what I wrote as a defense of the Carreon's position? Sorry, but that's just wrong.
> I don't get how is this related to the issue. Who is exploiting people here, exactly? Except maybe for FunnyJunk?
No one is exploiting anyone here, except maybe for FunnyJunk. However, there is a red flag that should go up with uncivil behavior and disdain.
> The Internet is just the perfect medium of communication for misfits, from the people with weird passions, to the non-socials (like me), to the anti-socials. And the gaming culture is worse because it's the zone of the Internet full of 14 year olds. I don't think there's any new worrying trend, compared to what I've seen before.
I've met people like a 33 year old man who is taking the warped version of morality he learned from championship FPS tournaments and is applying it to taking over and running a community 501C3 non profit. The Internet is also the perfect medium for relatively consequence-free communication with people whose social distance is very far away. The lessons learned in such a medium are often very bad in other contexts.
> So yes, they're human beings. Human beings who starting all this with their own douche behavior.
You've completely missed my point. I'm not defending or demonizing anyone. I'm suggesting that the self-righteous urge to demonize someone is often the best time for self-examination. Re-read and try again.
> Please don't do this. It serves no purpose other than hostilizing your readers.
Thanks for the advice, but that's simply incorrect. (Unless you add "some of.")
> Sure, but that's not what she's saying; she's claiming that about everyone who likes The Oatmeal ("...just look at their cartoons. They like to kill"). Which would be absurd when said about someone who likes war movies, but is downright insane when applied to fans of the Oatmeal, which are comics mostly about cats, iPhone apps and annoying people.
Wow, are you really taking what I wrote as a defense of the Carreon's position? Sorry, but that's just wrong.
> I don't get how is this related to the issue. Who is exploiting people here, exactly? Except maybe for FunnyJunk?
No one is exploiting anyone here, except maybe for FunnyJunk. However, there is a red flag that should go up with uncivil behavior and disdain.
> The Internet is just the perfect medium of communication for misfits, from the people with weird passions, to the non-socials (like me), to the anti-socials. And the gaming culture is worse because it's the zone of the Internet full of 14 year olds. I don't think there's any new worrying trend, compared to what I've seen before.
I've met people like a 33 year old man who is taking the warped version of morality he learned from championship FPS tournaments and is applying it to taking over and running a community 501C3 non profit. The Internet is also the perfect medium for relatively consequence-free communication with people whose social distance is very far away. The lessons learned in such a medium are often very bad in other contexts.
> So yes, they're human beings. Human beings who starting all this with their own douche behavior.
You've completely missed my point. I'm not defending or demonizing anyone. I'm suggesting that the self-righteous urge to demonize someone is often the best time for self-examination. Re-read and try again.
> I think it's just something about Law as a discipline that it attracts people who can be very literal-minded and who at least in their own mind are moral crusaders.
Why do you think this is something that is unique to the law?
Should Hans Reiser be taken as an example of programmers?
Should Ted Kaczynski be taken as an example of mathematicians?
Should Amy Bishop be used as an example of disgruntled academics?
So, you see one or two prominent crazy lawyers (and the wife of one crazy lawyer), and decide that this is something unique to the law?
Why do you think this is something that is unique to the law?
Should Hans Reiser be taken as an example of programmers?
Should Ted Kaczynski be taken as an example of mathematicians?
Should Amy Bishop be used as an example of disgruntled academics?
So, you see one or two prominent crazy lawyers (and the wife of one crazy lawyer), and decide that this is something unique to the law?
I'm actually wondering what the legal ramifications of this type of behavior is. The Oatmeal can clearly be described as parody/satire. It never once purports to be serious.
However, this woman is dead serious, and is making quite defamatory remarks about Inman. She's directly and unashamedly calling him a murderer, a Nazi, the man who shot Giffords et al, and a criminal. I would love to see a defamation of character lawsuit from Inman against Tara. She's given no hint that she is playing satire or making a joke (no matter how distasteful). Even going so far to make veiled threats against his life!
However, this woman is dead serious, and is making quite defamatory remarks about Inman. She's directly and unashamedly calling him a murderer, a Nazi, the man who shot Giffords et al, and a criminal. I would love to see a defamation of character lawsuit from Inman against Tara. She's given no hint that she is playing satire or making a joke (no matter how distasteful). Even going so far to make veiled threats against his life!
In order to be actionable, someone would need to believe what Tara is saying.
And no one believes a thing she says.
And no one believes a thing she says.
> Because I'd rather believe that than believe that people this dense actually exist.
Oh, just ask any hardcore religious right-winger why they think women should have no birth control or why gays shouldn't marry. The world is filled with these brain dead crazies who can't put 1 + 1 together if their life depend on it. We just don't see them too much during our day-to-day, if we're too busy inside our work routine on our little tech bubble. That we tend to forget about them. But they're all over the place.
Oh, just ask any hardcore religious right-winger why they think women should have no birth control or why gays shouldn't marry. The world is filled with these brain dead crazies who can't put 1 + 1 together if their life depend on it. We just don't see them too much during our day-to-day, if we're too busy inside our work routine on our little tech bubble. That we tend to forget about them. But they're all over the place.
Sadly, even those these people are outliers, they still exist. One need only visit the topix message boards or the anonymous comments section of a national web site to see it.
It is one of the less useful aspects of the Internet that it amplifies the small crazy voices along with the small useful ones.
It is one of the less useful aspects of the Internet that it amplifies the small crazy voices along with the small useful ones.
Haha, you raise a valid point. And as an lgbt female, I can't say that I ever forget about them. And yes, its that same exact feeling of complete disbelief when someone that closed-minded speaks to me. However, its a bit more difficult to write it off as an elaborate hoax.
I don't believe gay persons should marry and I can put 1+1 together even when my life doesn't depend on it.
I'm not really sure what social conservatism has to do with launching flagrantly frivolous legal complaints and comparing satirical writers to Jared Loughner, though...
I'm not really sure what social conservatism has to do with launching flagrantly frivolous legal complaints and comparing satirical writers to Jared Loughner, though...
Because "social conservatism" is often just thinly veiled hate and bigotry and intolerance. I have yet to see a sound argument on why two consenting adults shouldn't have the right to marry. I'll eagerly and openly listen to what you have to say on the matter.
I don't believe my mother and I should be allowed to marry, no matter how good the sex is.
If you are already having sex, does it really matter if you marry?
Marriage is not a natural right, so first of all, no one has a "right" to marry. From the context of a debate about legalization of marital relationships, it's a privilege and a certification given by the government to a couple because the government feels there is a special social interest served by awarding that privilege and status to certain groups.
Marriage is NOT and has never been a "love certificate". It serves a real function.
Historically, that group has always been heterosexual pairings (and in some cases heterosexual groups). It is not simply a forgone conclusion that the interest of the state in granting marriage privileges to heterosexual couples automatically extends to homosexual couples -- there are important differences between the nature of these pairings, regardless of anyone's opinion on the morality of homosexual activity. The question, then, is "is it in the interest of the community to promote homosexual pairing by providing special privileges to homosexual couples?"
In my opinion, it's not in the community's interest to do so. There are many reasons. One is that homosexuality is considered immoral by large swaths of the population, and that official sanction and promotion of homosexual pairing will anger this significant segment. Most of this segment is, however, at least less opposed to civil unions and the granting of certain default privileges that decent persons believe ought to be granted to persons who live as a couple, regardless of their affiliation or activity.
If the most vital privileges can be granted with a "lesser" legal status, and we can strike a reasonable compromise that promotes peace and civil discourse, isn't that better than choosing the more divisive, incendiary method?
I believe if the debate really were about basic privileges related to emergency medical notification, etc., gay rights activists would wait to push the "marriage" terminology. I think that the debate is actually more about validation; homosexuals demand the government grant them and their relationships equal standing and promotion as it grants heterosexual relationships. Gay rights activists are thereby attempting to use the government as a weapon to cram their concept of the equality of homosexual relationships down the throats of an otherwise skeptical public; over and over again referenda have shown that majorities in most states DO NOT want this to happen.
There are many other implications that flow from state equivocation of hetero and homo pairings. Religious groups may be censured for preaching doctrine that the state has deemed illegal; they may also be censured for exercising that doctrine, i.e. excluding practicing homosexuals from the clergy on grounds of unworthiness. In Massachusetts, we've already seen the complete withdrawal of Catholic Charities, as the courts attempted to force them to adopt to gay couples. This trend will become broader as gay marriages are legalized, recognized, and normalized, and may culminate in the denial of many religious services to the residents of many states.
Whether you think the religious are right or wrong in their assessment of the morality of homosexuality, you should be willing to protect their privilege to exercise and proclaim their beliefs that do not directly result in the termination of life or the loss of right and control of property, just as you expect the same privilege for yourself.
It's worth noting here that the attachment of negative attributes to homosexual practice need not be strictly associated with religion. An independent observer may likewise rule homosexuality irregular, abnormal, or otherwise not something worthy of active state promotion via marriage. Homosexuals cannot bear natural children. Homosexual couplings cannot provide the duality of permanent male-female parental role models, which I believe most of the West now wrongly considers worthless since so many were raised in single-parent homes. You may think this trivial now, but the fact is a huge component of the organization and legal recognition of marriage was the effect of parental partnership on children. Does the community really have an interest in equalizing homosexual and heterosexual couples, when homosexual marriage cannot produce any children in the first place by its very nature, and when any adopted children are automatically disadvantaged without even the prospect of opposite-sex parental role models (a "mommy" and a "daddy")?
I could go on; as I said, there are many angles to take on this, and many sides from which it appears negative. I understand that some people are eager to use the government to enforce their particular vision of equality on everyone else, and probably mean well, but that is not how a free society operates; you must convince people on your own merits, you don't just go and get the government to endorse your beliefs and then attempt to intimidate otherwise unwilling participants with that endorsement.
Marriage is NOT and has never been a "love certificate". It serves a real function.
Historically, that group has always been heterosexual pairings (and in some cases heterosexual groups). It is not simply a forgone conclusion that the interest of the state in granting marriage privileges to heterosexual couples automatically extends to homosexual couples -- there are important differences between the nature of these pairings, regardless of anyone's opinion on the morality of homosexual activity. The question, then, is "is it in the interest of the community to promote homosexual pairing by providing special privileges to homosexual couples?"
In my opinion, it's not in the community's interest to do so. There are many reasons. One is that homosexuality is considered immoral by large swaths of the population, and that official sanction and promotion of homosexual pairing will anger this significant segment. Most of this segment is, however, at least less opposed to civil unions and the granting of certain default privileges that decent persons believe ought to be granted to persons who live as a couple, regardless of their affiliation or activity.
If the most vital privileges can be granted with a "lesser" legal status, and we can strike a reasonable compromise that promotes peace and civil discourse, isn't that better than choosing the more divisive, incendiary method?
I believe if the debate really were about basic privileges related to emergency medical notification, etc., gay rights activists would wait to push the "marriage" terminology. I think that the debate is actually more about validation; homosexuals demand the government grant them and their relationships equal standing and promotion as it grants heterosexual relationships. Gay rights activists are thereby attempting to use the government as a weapon to cram their concept of the equality of homosexual relationships down the throats of an otherwise skeptical public; over and over again referenda have shown that majorities in most states DO NOT want this to happen.
There are many other implications that flow from state equivocation of hetero and homo pairings. Religious groups may be censured for preaching doctrine that the state has deemed illegal; they may also be censured for exercising that doctrine, i.e. excluding practicing homosexuals from the clergy on grounds of unworthiness. In Massachusetts, we've already seen the complete withdrawal of Catholic Charities, as the courts attempted to force them to adopt to gay couples. This trend will become broader as gay marriages are legalized, recognized, and normalized, and may culminate in the denial of many religious services to the residents of many states.
Whether you think the religious are right or wrong in their assessment of the morality of homosexuality, you should be willing to protect their privilege to exercise and proclaim their beliefs that do not directly result in the termination of life or the loss of right and control of property, just as you expect the same privilege for yourself.
It's worth noting here that the attachment of negative attributes to homosexual practice need not be strictly associated with religion. An independent observer may likewise rule homosexuality irregular, abnormal, or otherwise not something worthy of active state promotion via marriage. Homosexuals cannot bear natural children. Homosexual couplings cannot provide the duality of permanent male-female parental role models, which I believe most of the West now wrongly considers worthless since so many were raised in single-parent homes. You may think this trivial now, but the fact is a huge component of the organization and legal recognition of marriage was the effect of parental partnership on children. Does the community really have an interest in equalizing homosexual and heterosexual couples, when homosexual marriage cannot produce any children in the first place by its very nature, and when any adopted children are automatically disadvantaged without even the prospect of opposite-sex parental role models (a "mommy" and a "daddy")?
I could go on; as I said, there are many angles to take on this, and many sides from which it appears negative. I understand that some people are eager to use the government to enforce their particular vision of equality on everyone else, and probably mean well, but that is not how a free society operates; you must convince people on your own merits, you don't just go and get the government to endorse your beliefs and then attempt to intimidate otherwise unwilling participants with that endorsement.
Homosexuality has existed as long as humans, it's all over our recorded, and spoken, history.
The legal problem is mostly about the word "marriage" and nothing else. Sure, we could fix everything by changing tons of laws (LOTS and LOTS) - or we could federally re-define marriage and be done with it. Or as a Canadian PM said "Different but equal is not equal".
Marriage started as a religious concept. Eventually, it flowed into non-religious lawmaking with separation of church and state in general, and the churche's waning power over the state. It wasn't a grand plan with tons of subtle concepts.
An adopted child with two loving dads or moms is better than an institutionalized child with the state raising them. And who says that there is no mommy-type figure in the picture too? You don't know everyone's personal business.
And news fella - homosexual women are physically capable of having children, and homosexual men are physically capable of providing their needed bit to get a woman pregnant.
To your last paragraph - why do we bother to elect lawmakers and have a government if not to make law.
Plenty of heterosexual couples cannot bear children either - should they not be allowed to marry?
The legal problem is mostly about the word "marriage" and nothing else. Sure, we could fix everything by changing tons of laws (LOTS and LOTS) - or we could federally re-define marriage and be done with it. Or as a Canadian PM said "Different but equal is not equal".
Marriage started as a religious concept. Eventually, it flowed into non-religious lawmaking with separation of church and state in general, and the churche's waning power over the state. It wasn't a grand plan with tons of subtle concepts.
An adopted child with two loving dads or moms is better than an institutionalized child with the state raising them. And who says that there is no mommy-type figure in the picture too? You don't know everyone's personal business.
And news fella - homosexual women are physically capable of having children, and homosexual men are physically capable of providing their needed bit to get a woman pregnant.
To your last paragraph - why do we bother to elect lawmakers and have a government if not to make law.
Plenty of heterosexual couples cannot bear children either - should they not be allowed to marry?
>Homosexuality has existed as long as humans, it's all over our recorded, and spoken, history.
OK.
>The legal problem is mostly about the word "marriage" and nothing else. Sure, we could fix everything by changing tons of laws (LOTS and LOTS) - or we could federally re-define marriage and be done with it. Or as a Canadian PM said "Different but equal is not equal".
Indeed. I do not assert that offering civil unions in lieu of marriage represents an equivocation between heterosexual and homosexual coupling. This is precisely why people find the option of civil unions more agreeable -- it doesn't equivocate the relationship.
>An adopted child with two loving dads or moms is better than an institutionalized child with the state raising them.
I'm not sure this is self-evident, but obviously nobody wants children to have to be institutionalized either. If we have the option of adopting a child to a homosexual couple now or a heterosexual couple later, I believe the child will be better off with the heterosexual couple. It is our responsibility to ensure we give wards of the state over to a healthy home environment; in my opinion, same-sex adoptive parentage is an automatic disqualification.
>And who says that there is no mommy-type figure in the picture too? You don't know everyone's personal business.
Mommy-type figures function differently than natural mothers or permanent adoptive live-in mothers. It is possible that a mother figure like the latter would exist, but not likely or common. Do you suggest we allow gay couples to adopt only if there is a committed permanent live-in woman who can function as a mother-type figure? If so, your hypothetical may be relevant.
>And news fella - homosexual women are physically capable of having children, and homosexual men are physically capable of providing their needed bit to get a woman pregnant.
This isn't news to me. I was already aware of it, but I suppose it's good to clarify in case someone thinks that one is automatically sterilized when he or she engages in homosexual activity.
This is basically semantics. The point I intended, which you probably understood, is that homosexual partners cannot procreate together; i.e., the biological material of two same-sex partners cannot combine to produce offspring, automatically depriving the offspring of at least one biological parent (again, assuming a typical relationship where one couple occupies a single home as an independent family unit) of true "parentage" by that parent, even if his/her identity is known and the couple and child remain in contact (which, as I understand it, is not necessarily common). As I said, many do not think this matters anymore because they were similarly deprived or because they know many people who were similarly deprived and "turned out OK". While I agree it's not guaranteed to create problems, it's certainly not ideal, and not a condition the government should take special action to encourage.
>To your last paragraph - why do we bother to elect lawmakers and have a government if not to make law.
They should make law, but not law that serves primarily to impose a certain ideological perspective on an individual. Laws should be made to protect communal life and preserve the communal right and control of property. Anything that does not sufficiently threaten these fundamental principles should be left to individual freedom of conscience. As the function of redefining marriage to include homosexuality is primarily to establish a governmental endorsement on homosexual behavior, it doesn't pass muster.
>Plenty of heterosexual couples cannot bear children either - should they not be allowed to marry?
No, because a) children aren't the entire basis of my opposition. There is also the question of whether the state wants to encourage homosexual coupling and promote the idea as an acceptable life choice. And b) it's a matter of respect and hope. We rarely know when someone is infertile ahead of marriage, and in the cases where we do, we do not know that the infertility will be impossible to cure over the course of the marriage. Furthermore, even if we are assured fertility will be impossible to restore, we allow the dignity of marriage out of respect for the potential and representation of heterosexual union.
OK.
>The legal problem is mostly about the word "marriage" and nothing else. Sure, we could fix everything by changing tons of laws (LOTS and LOTS) - or we could federally re-define marriage and be done with it. Or as a Canadian PM said "Different but equal is not equal".
Indeed. I do not assert that offering civil unions in lieu of marriage represents an equivocation between heterosexual and homosexual coupling. This is precisely why people find the option of civil unions more agreeable -- it doesn't equivocate the relationship.
>An adopted child with two loving dads or moms is better than an institutionalized child with the state raising them.
I'm not sure this is self-evident, but obviously nobody wants children to have to be institutionalized either. If we have the option of adopting a child to a homosexual couple now or a heterosexual couple later, I believe the child will be better off with the heterosexual couple. It is our responsibility to ensure we give wards of the state over to a healthy home environment; in my opinion, same-sex adoptive parentage is an automatic disqualification.
>And who says that there is no mommy-type figure in the picture too? You don't know everyone's personal business.
Mommy-type figures function differently than natural mothers or permanent adoptive live-in mothers. It is possible that a mother figure like the latter would exist, but not likely or common. Do you suggest we allow gay couples to adopt only if there is a committed permanent live-in woman who can function as a mother-type figure? If so, your hypothetical may be relevant.
>And news fella - homosexual women are physically capable of having children, and homosexual men are physically capable of providing their needed bit to get a woman pregnant.
This isn't news to me. I was already aware of it, but I suppose it's good to clarify in case someone thinks that one is automatically sterilized when he or she engages in homosexual activity.
This is basically semantics. The point I intended, which you probably understood, is that homosexual partners cannot procreate together; i.e., the biological material of two same-sex partners cannot combine to produce offspring, automatically depriving the offspring of at least one biological parent (again, assuming a typical relationship where one couple occupies a single home as an independent family unit) of true "parentage" by that parent, even if his/her identity is known and the couple and child remain in contact (which, as I understand it, is not necessarily common). As I said, many do not think this matters anymore because they were similarly deprived or because they know many people who were similarly deprived and "turned out OK". While I agree it's not guaranteed to create problems, it's certainly not ideal, and not a condition the government should take special action to encourage.
>To your last paragraph - why do we bother to elect lawmakers and have a government if not to make law.
They should make law, but not law that serves primarily to impose a certain ideological perspective on an individual. Laws should be made to protect communal life and preserve the communal right and control of property. Anything that does not sufficiently threaten these fundamental principles should be left to individual freedom of conscience. As the function of redefining marriage to include homosexuality is primarily to establish a governmental endorsement on homosexual behavior, it doesn't pass muster.
>Plenty of heterosexual couples cannot bear children either - should they not be allowed to marry?
No, because a) children aren't the entire basis of my opposition. There is also the question of whether the state wants to encourage homosexual coupling and promote the idea as an acceptable life choice. And b) it's a matter of respect and hope. We rarely know when someone is infertile ahead of marriage, and in the cases where we do, we do not know that the infertility will be impossible to cure over the course of the marriage. Furthermore, even if we are assured fertility will be impossible to restore, we allow the dignity of marriage out of respect for the potential and representation of heterosexual union.
I will attempt to keep this as unbiased as possible. I appreciate that you have presented an argument that is significantly more cogent than most that I've heard on the matter.
> Marriage is not a natural right, so first of all, no one has a "right" to marry. From the context of a debate about legalization of marital relationships, it's a privilege and a certification given by the government to a couple because the government feels there is a special social interest served by awarding that privilege and status to certain groups.
I agree with you that marriage is not a "right". I however do not think that there is a "special social interest" to be gained by awarding that privileged to heterosexual pairings and not to homosexual pairings. You address children later, and I will get back to that. However, I didn't see any other argument for what social good heterosexual relationships serve that can't also be said for homosexual ones.
>...there are important differences between the nature of these pairings, regardless of anyone's opinion on the morality of homosexual activity.
Outside of the natural born children question, I don't see any important differences.
> One is that homosexuality is considered immoral by large swaths of the population, and that official sanction and promotion of homosexual pairing will anger this significant segment.
Popular opinion is hardly a reason for whether or not one should or should not support something. Just look back a few decades at the civil rights movement. Interracial marriage. Desegregation of schools and public buildings. These are all things that once angered large swaths of the population. Do you think that the United States was in the wrong for supporting these things, just because it angered some people? Furthermore, popular opinion is shifting towards supporting gay marriage. Would you change your mind and support it if more people stopped supporting it? Do you vote with the majority on every single political decision? (I realize that this is an absurd question. In my opinion though, this is an absurd argument)
>If the most vital privileges can be granted with a "lesser" legal status, and we can strike a reasonable compromise that promotes peace and civil discourse, isn't that better than choosing the more divisive, incendiary method?
No. It isn't. It is spitting in the face of millions of people and telling them that they are lesser beings because of what other happen to think of them.
> I think that the debate is actually more about validation; homosexuals demand the government grant them and their relationships equal standing and promotion as it grants heterosexual relationships.
I think the debate is about equality. I have yet to see an argument on why homosexual relationships do not deserve equal standing.
> There are many other implications that flow from state equivocation of hetero and homo pairings.
Please do not invoke a slippery slope argument. It is weak and it is a logical fallacy. The role of churches is another debate that is not germane to the topic at hand.
> Does the community really have an interest in equalizing homosexual and heterosexual couples, when homosexual marriage cannot produce any children in the first place by its very nature, and when any adopted children are automatically disadvantaged without even the prospect of opposite-sex parental role models (a "mommy" and a "daddy")?
You make a large assumption here (that a lot of people make) that it is advantageous to have a "mommy" and a "daddy". I have yet to see anything but anecdotal evidence to back this claim up (that did not come out of obviously biased studies).
Furthermore, if that is your only "social benefit" that is to be gained by marriage (as I didn't see another one), and you believe that groups must prove that there must be a special social interest in getting this privelige to marry, then lets follow through. Lets take away the right to marry from senior citizens. From couples that are infertile. From couples that simply choose not to have children. I don't see any benefit to them being married.
> I understand that some people are eager to use the government to enforce their particular vision of equality on everyone else, and probably mean well, but that is not how a free society operates; you must convince people on your own merits, you don't just go and get the government to endorse your beliefs and then attempt to intimidate otherwise unwilling participants with that endorsement.
We do not live in an anarchy. We have a government for a reason, and one of the large reasons is to protect minorities. Unless there is a strong reason not to, our government should treat all citizens equally. That has been the stance the United States government has taken over and over again. And this time should be no different.
As far as "unwilling participants" go: What are they participating in? This is a decision that gives gay people a privilege. It doesn't take anything away from the majority of the population, nor does it force anything down their throats.
> Marriage is not a natural right, so first of all, no one has a "right" to marry. From the context of a debate about legalization of marital relationships, it's a privilege and a certification given by the government to a couple because the government feels there is a special social interest served by awarding that privilege and status to certain groups.
I agree with you that marriage is not a "right". I however do not think that there is a "special social interest" to be gained by awarding that privileged to heterosexual pairings and not to homosexual pairings. You address children later, and I will get back to that. However, I didn't see any other argument for what social good heterosexual relationships serve that can't also be said for homosexual ones.
>...there are important differences between the nature of these pairings, regardless of anyone's opinion on the morality of homosexual activity.
Outside of the natural born children question, I don't see any important differences.
> One is that homosexuality is considered immoral by large swaths of the population, and that official sanction and promotion of homosexual pairing will anger this significant segment.
Popular opinion is hardly a reason for whether or not one should or should not support something. Just look back a few decades at the civil rights movement. Interracial marriage. Desegregation of schools and public buildings. These are all things that once angered large swaths of the population. Do you think that the United States was in the wrong for supporting these things, just because it angered some people? Furthermore, popular opinion is shifting towards supporting gay marriage. Would you change your mind and support it if more people stopped supporting it? Do you vote with the majority on every single political decision? (I realize that this is an absurd question. In my opinion though, this is an absurd argument)
>If the most vital privileges can be granted with a "lesser" legal status, and we can strike a reasonable compromise that promotes peace and civil discourse, isn't that better than choosing the more divisive, incendiary method?
No. It isn't. It is spitting in the face of millions of people and telling them that they are lesser beings because of what other happen to think of them.
> I think that the debate is actually more about validation; homosexuals demand the government grant them and their relationships equal standing and promotion as it grants heterosexual relationships.
I think the debate is about equality. I have yet to see an argument on why homosexual relationships do not deserve equal standing.
> There are many other implications that flow from state equivocation of hetero and homo pairings.
Please do not invoke a slippery slope argument. It is weak and it is a logical fallacy. The role of churches is another debate that is not germane to the topic at hand.
> Does the community really have an interest in equalizing homosexual and heterosexual couples, when homosexual marriage cannot produce any children in the first place by its very nature, and when any adopted children are automatically disadvantaged without even the prospect of opposite-sex parental role models (a "mommy" and a "daddy")?
You make a large assumption here (that a lot of people make) that it is advantageous to have a "mommy" and a "daddy". I have yet to see anything but anecdotal evidence to back this claim up (that did not come out of obviously biased studies).
Furthermore, if that is your only "social benefit" that is to be gained by marriage (as I didn't see another one), and you believe that groups must prove that there must be a special social interest in getting this privelige to marry, then lets follow through. Lets take away the right to marry from senior citizens. From couples that are infertile. From couples that simply choose not to have children. I don't see any benefit to them being married.
> I understand that some people are eager to use the government to enforce their particular vision of equality on everyone else, and probably mean well, but that is not how a free society operates; you must convince people on your own merits, you don't just go and get the government to endorse your beliefs and then attempt to intimidate otherwise unwilling participants with that endorsement.
We do not live in an anarchy. We have a government for a reason, and one of the large reasons is to protect minorities. Unless there is a strong reason not to, our government should treat all citizens equally. That has been the stance the United States government has taken over and over again. And this time should be no different.
As far as "unwilling participants" go: What are they participating in? This is a decision that gives gay people a privilege. It doesn't take anything away from the majority of the population, nor does it force anything down their throats.
Do us all a favour and leave this off HN.
Presumably by "all" you mean everyone except the poster who specifically asked for this post?
I agree the post is hardly relevant to the discussion, but for some reason the user posting actual content gets downvoted to oblivion while the user who sidetracks the discussion and adds nothing gets upvotes.
Well done HN.
I agree the post is hardly relevant to the discussion, but for some reason the user posting actual content gets downvoted to oblivion while the user who sidetracks the discussion and adds nothing gets upvotes.
Well done HN.
I cannot downvote. This entire conversion is out of line though as far as I am concerned (primarily because it brings out posts like the one I responded to).
It seems like you are objecting to the post based on the alignment of its content. Not the depth of its content, not the relevance of its content to the discussion, but because it offends your sensibilities and you would rather not see it.
THAT is an attitude that has not historically been welcome on HN. At least, when I started coming here and fell in love with the place. I have no interest in reading an echo chamber.
THAT is an attitude that has not historically been welcome on HN. At least, when I started coming here and fell in love with the place. I have no interest in reading an echo chamber.
I am objecting to the content of the post because I don't think bigotry has any place in a civil conversation.
If this guy was a stormfront guy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stormfront_(website)) instead of a "socially conservative" guy, you would never dream of entertaining him.
If this guy was a stormfront guy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stormfront_(website)) instead of a "socially conservative" guy, you would never dream of entertaining him.
Whether or not the person behind that post is personally bigoted, their post is a valuable contribution to the conversation that was happening* because it represents, with relatively solid reasoning and in uncommon depth, a viewpoint that was otherwise absent. A viewpoint that is absolutely relevant to the wider public conversation on the subject, and one that, even/especially if one happens to be on the other side of the issue, it is very valuable to understand.
It was, frankly, the most cogently I've ever seen that "side" of the issue presented, and (this is the most important heuristic) my understanding of the debate would be impoverished had it been censored or self-censored, as you've suggested. That is why YOURS is the unwelcome attitude to have, and one that, as far as I have noticed, has not been historically cultivated on Hacker News.
I wouldn't care if this was a "stormfront guy". If an argument is well-formed and wrong, and not directly an incitement to harm, it is in the best interests of the truth and the people on its side to have it come to light and be publicly exposed in the discussion forum... which is exactly what's ended up happening here.
More personally: I WOULD dream of entertaining a "stormfront guy" (in fact it's a personal hobby of mine), so I can enjoy, or enjoy others enjoying, the dismantling of an argument I dislike. And if it weren't dismantled, if it held up, then I would have something to think about. But I can't see any reason why someone should tell a civil and reasonable representative of any contentious viewpoint to just shut up and go away, other than either for their own comfort, or for validation for having publicly upheld a taboo.
-----
* I say "the conversation that was happening", because the whole conversation is off-topic, which is a legitimate reason to complain.
It was, frankly, the most cogently I've ever seen that "side" of the issue presented, and (this is the most important heuristic) my understanding of the debate would be impoverished had it been censored or self-censored, as you've suggested. That is why YOURS is the unwelcome attitude to have, and one that, as far as I have noticed, has not been historically cultivated on Hacker News.
I wouldn't care if this was a "stormfront guy". If an argument is well-formed and wrong, and not directly an incitement to harm, it is in the best interests of the truth and the people on its side to have it come to light and be publicly exposed in the discussion forum... which is exactly what's ended up happening here.
More personally: I WOULD dream of entertaining a "stormfront guy" (in fact it's a personal hobby of mine), so I can enjoy, or enjoy others enjoying, the dismantling of an argument I dislike. And if it weren't dismantled, if it held up, then I would have something to think about. But I can't see any reason why someone should tell a civil and reasonable representative of any contentious viewpoint to just shut up and go away, other than either for their own comfort, or for validation for having publicly upheld a taboo.
-----
* I say "the conversation that was happening", because the whole conversation is off-topic, which is a legitimate reason to complain.
> Does the community really have an interest in equalizing homosexual and heterosexual couples, when homosexual marriage cannot produce any children in the first place by its very nature, and when any adopted children are automatically disadvantaged without even the prospect of opposite-sex parental role models (a "mommy" and a "daddy")?
Doesn't it stand to reason, that if the goal of the government recognition on marriage is to provide incentive opposite-sex parental roles, that perhaps marriage is the wrong way to be doing that? We recognize plenty of marriages that will remain childless due to no-desire, or inability to have/raise children, yet they continue to reap the benefits of marriage.
Doesn't it stand to reason, that if the goal of the government recognition on marriage is to provide incentive opposite-sex parental roles, that perhaps marriage is the wrong way to be doing that? We recognize plenty of marriages that will remain childless due to no-desire, or inability to have/raise children, yet they continue to reap the benefits of marriage.
Your public opinion data is outdated as of the last couple of years: http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/20/gay-marr...
April 2011 is one year, but my "public opinion data" is based on the results of the various referenda on this topic (North Carolina, in May this year, being the most recent). Not a single one of these has had favorable results for same-sex marriage supporters.
> over and over again referenda have shown that majorities in most states DO NOT want this to happen.
Millions of Americans agreed with slavery - that does not make slavery right.
Treating human beings equally, when there is no valid reason not to, isn't something that you get to have an opinion on.
Millions of Americans agreed with slavery - that does not make slavery right.
Treating human beings equally, when there is no valid reason not to, isn't something that you get to have an opinion on.
See my post for a big list of valid reasons. You're taking my comment out of context and trying to make it appear like that was my justification -- it wasn't.
I'm not trying to do anything of the sort, so stop it. Your position is reprehensible enough without you trying to pull a stunt like that.
You have repeatedly asserted that multiple referenda shows your position is supported by the majority of Americans. All I'm doing is equating your assertion with that of the you from 150 years ago - the "social conservative" who doesn't believe a slave should have the same rights as a white man.
We'll say nothing about the fact that the trend of public opinion seems to be inexorably towards more tolerance and less bigotry, as that would just make your reliance on popular opinion even more farcical.
You have repeatedly asserted that multiple referenda shows your position is supported by the majority of Americans. All I'm doing is equating your assertion with that of the you from 150 years ago - the "social conservative" who doesn't believe a slave should have the same rights as a white man.
We'll say nothing about the fact that the trend of public opinion seems to be inexorably towards more tolerance and less bigotry, as that would just make your reliance on popular opinion even more farcical.
>I'm not trying to do anything of the sort, so stop it. Your position is reprehensible enough without you trying to pull a stunt like that.
But you've done the same thing with this post! "So stop it." Your strawmen and ignorance are reprehensible enough without pulling stunts, etc. etc. etc.
True, my post mentions public opinion mutliple times, mostly to demonstrate that the narrative of gay rights activists that "religious people are forcing" their views upon the gay community is not only false but in fact the opposite of the reality. It is not, however, a fundamental component of most of my reasons for opposing gay marriage. It was mentioned that gay rights activists would have far more success in gaining the same privileges if they were content with civil unions due to public opinion against the equivocation of straight and gay relationships, but that's about it as it pertains to actual involvement in rationale.
So, if this is such a blatantly incorrect position, why don't you address some of the real rationale above. If you find the supply of rationale insufficient due to the necessity to construct a correct context of events for the reader, I can post more.
>We'll say nothing about the fact that the trend of public opinion seems to be inexorably towards more tolerance and less bigotry, as that would just make your reliance on popular opinion even more farcical.
Perhaps you mean towards more permissiveness and less intelligence, fidelity, loyalty, etc. "Bigotry" is not meaningful when its definition is "incomplete moral relativism".
But you've done the same thing with this post! "So stop it." Your strawmen and ignorance are reprehensible enough without pulling stunts, etc. etc. etc.
True, my post mentions public opinion mutliple times, mostly to demonstrate that the narrative of gay rights activists that "religious people are forcing" their views upon the gay community is not only false but in fact the opposite of the reality. It is not, however, a fundamental component of most of my reasons for opposing gay marriage. It was mentioned that gay rights activists would have far more success in gaining the same privileges if they were content with civil unions due to public opinion against the equivocation of straight and gay relationships, but that's about it as it pertains to actual involvement in rationale.
So, if this is such a blatantly incorrect position, why don't you address some of the real rationale above. If you find the supply of rationale insufficient due to the necessity to construct a correct context of events for the reader, I can post more.
>We'll say nothing about the fact that the trend of public opinion seems to be inexorably towards more tolerance and less bigotry, as that would just make your reliance on popular opinion even more farcical.
Perhaps you mean towards more permissiveness and less intelligence, fidelity, loyalty, etc. "Bigotry" is not meaningful when its definition is "incomplete moral relativism".
It's instructive how quickly you decide that public opinion is worthless when you don't have it on your side.
The reason I don't address the rest of your points is that fundamentally they boil down to this
Having destroyed your arguments regarding popular support for your position, I feel no great compunction to school you morally, or to teach you basic precepts from your own religion. I will say one thing - I am 100% certain that your Jesus Christ would be on my side of this debate - not yours.
The reason I don't address the rest of your points is that fundamentally they boil down to this
"Gay people don't deserve the same rights as straight people"
Having destroyed your arguments regarding popular support for your position, I feel no great compunction to school you morally, or to teach you basic precepts from your own religion. I will say one thing - I am 100% certain that your Jesus Christ would be on my side of this debate - not yours.
I disagree! I established in the OP that marriage is not a right. I'm not sure why you refuse to acknowledge any difference between "existing with black skin" and "choosing to enter a consensual sexual relationship with a person of the same sex". One of these components requires a much larger degree of energy and initiative than the other. One of these is the result of an individual making a conscious decision to do a thing.
On top of that, I am not advocating any removal of rights from gay people. Marriage is not a right; it's a social program the state undertakes because it believes it has a reason to encourage permanent heterosexual coupling. The question isn't "do you hate gay people and hope they die?", but "do you think the government should encourage permanent homosexual coupling?"
I don't believe sodomy should be criminalized. If two adults want to engage in homosexual activity, it is within their rights to do so. This DOES NOT mean that it is automatically a good idea for the government to grant special rights, privileges, and endorsement to that relationship.
I don't believe it should be legal to own other people, and I'm not sure where my argument implies that I do. You're the only one who has mentioned race or slavery. It seems that it's just your go-to demonization attempt for people with whom you disagree on this matter. Self-direction and autonomy IS a natural right, unlike marriage, and natural rights should be preserved. We can debate slavery more if you really think it's necessary, I guess. I am opposed to slavery. Perhaps you can demonstrate a true, substantive link between not believing the government should give homosexual couples special positive benefits and believing that black people shouldn't be able to self-direct. "I don't like either belief" is not legitimate.
You're correct that the question "Should the state encourage permanent homosexual coupling?" typically boils down to "Do you believe homosexuality is a a socially beneficial behavior that should be encouraged among those inclined to practice it?" For me, the answer is no. Nevertheless, this debate is built upon from pretty seriously false and shallow pretenses by both sides -- I'm hoping to demonstrate that there can be a reasonable mode of disagreement and that someone can't immediately be considered stupid for failing to want to encourage homosexual behavior. Reasonable persons can disagree on the matter.
>Having destroyed your arguments regarding popular support for your position
I would hardly consider any of my arguments "destroyed", and as I've pointed out multiple times, popular support is not a major component in my rationale for opposing gay marriage, or anything else, really. If it were, would I be here on HN getting myself downvoted all the time? I have already explained where public opinion factored into the post I posted. Perhaps you should re-read that explanation until you understand it.
>I feel no great compunction to school you morally, or to teach you basic precepts from your own religion. I will say one thing - I am 100% certain that your Jesus Christ would be on my side of this debate - not yours.
This statement proves that you know very little of my religious inclinations. You may want to stop making presumptions like this soon -- it hasn't served you very well so far.
On top of that, I am not advocating any removal of rights from gay people. Marriage is not a right; it's a social program the state undertakes because it believes it has a reason to encourage permanent heterosexual coupling. The question isn't "do you hate gay people and hope they die?", but "do you think the government should encourage permanent homosexual coupling?"
I don't believe sodomy should be criminalized. If two adults want to engage in homosexual activity, it is within their rights to do so. This DOES NOT mean that it is automatically a good idea for the government to grant special rights, privileges, and endorsement to that relationship.
I don't believe it should be legal to own other people, and I'm not sure where my argument implies that I do. You're the only one who has mentioned race or slavery. It seems that it's just your go-to demonization attempt for people with whom you disagree on this matter. Self-direction and autonomy IS a natural right, unlike marriage, and natural rights should be preserved. We can debate slavery more if you really think it's necessary, I guess. I am opposed to slavery. Perhaps you can demonstrate a true, substantive link between not believing the government should give homosexual couples special positive benefits and believing that black people shouldn't be able to self-direct. "I don't like either belief" is not legitimate.
You're correct that the question "Should the state encourage permanent homosexual coupling?" typically boils down to "Do you believe homosexuality is a a socially beneficial behavior that should be encouraged among those inclined to practice it?" For me, the answer is no. Nevertheless, this debate is built upon from pretty seriously false and shallow pretenses by both sides -- I'm hoping to demonstrate that there can be a reasonable mode of disagreement and that someone can't immediately be considered stupid for failing to want to encourage homosexual behavior. Reasonable persons can disagree on the matter.
>Having destroyed your arguments regarding popular support for your position
I would hardly consider any of my arguments "destroyed", and as I've pointed out multiple times, popular support is not a major component in my rationale for opposing gay marriage, or anything else, really. If it were, would I be here on HN getting myself downvoted all the time? I have already explained where public opinion factored into the post I posted. Perhaps you should re-read that explanation until you understand it.
>I feel no great compunction to school you morally, or to teach you basic precepts from your own religion. I will say one thing - I am 100% certain that your Jesus Christ would be on my side of this debate - not yours.
This statement proves that you know very little of my religious inclinations. You may want to stop making presumptions like this soon -- it hasn't served you very well so far.
It should be honored in the exact same way as heterosexual relationships, on all levels. :)
I am of the belief that the government should not be saying who is and isn't married. Marriage is a religious institution, and should be used for the religions that use that. That would also mean if a 'Church of Reformed Satanism' had a marriage, is to let them.
The problem is we have a system that looks towards 'ordained' religious positions for our tax record. So this country mixes up person rights with religious gunk.
The legal question then, after removing religious stuff: do GLBT people have the right to have a relationship respected for tax and governmental reasons? I see no justification for taking rights away because of their brain chemistry.
The problem is we have a system that looks towards 'ordained' religious positions for our tax record. So this country mixes up person rights with religious gunk.
The legal question then, after removing religious stuff: do GLBT people have the right to have a relationship respected for tax and governmental reasons? I see no justification for taking rights away because of their brain chemistry.
Marriage is not a right and it is not a default state. (Legal) marriage can only exist when a government explicitly defines the relationship and then issues privileges based on that definition. Marriage is a positive action. There is nothing to take away; gay rights activists are not just asking to be left alone, they're asking that we explicitly expand our definition to include their relationships. As above, it is not a forgone conclusion that the incentives for encouraging the citizenry to engage in permanent heterosexual relationships are applicable to homosexual relationships. It is a matter that must be considered separately.
Suppose I offer friend X twenty dollars. Now suppose friend Y also demands twenty dollars, and accuses me of violating my offer when I refuse it. That is what is happening here -- heterosexual and homosexual relationships are DIFFERENT and deserve independent consideration. Most communities have decided they want to offer an incentive for permanent heterosexual coupling; the same reasoning can NOT necessarily automatically be extrapolated and applied to homosexual coupling, just as I may offer friend X some money because he is poor or I owe him one or something like that, but that reasoning doesn't always automatically include friend Y. No right is being denied here.
Furthermore, no punishment is made due to "brain chemistry"; we are not testing individuals and discarding them based on the presence of certain biological markers (either externally or internally visible) that exist through no personal or direct fault. We are simply choosing that we do not want to incentivize, endorse, or equalize permanent homosexual coupling as we do with permanent heterosexual coupling. Such coupling is an independent affirmative action that does not involve one's brain chemistry.
Suppose I offer friend X twenty dollars. Now suppose friend Y also demands twenty dollars, and accuses me of violating my offer when I refuse it. That is what is happening here -- heterosexual and homosexual relationships are DIFFERENT and deserve independent consideration. Most communities have decided they want to offer an incentive for permanent heterosexual coupling; the same reasoning can NOT necessarily automatically be extrapolated and applied to homosexual coupling, just as I may offer friend X some money because he is poor or I owe him one or something like that, but that reasoning doesn't always automatically include friend Y. No right is being denied here.
Furthermore, no punishment is made due to "brain chemistry"; we are not testing individuals and discarding them based on the presence of certain biological markers (either externally or internally visible) that exist through no personal or direct fault. We are simply choosing that we do not want to incentivize, endorse, or equalize permanent homosexual coupling as we do with permanent heterosexual coupling. Such coupling is an independent affirmative action that does not involve one's brain chemistry.
I don't see why government should define marriage at all. If anything, it seems we could do with a little discouraging of heterosexual relationships.
If your religion wants to define marriage, cool. If a gay person's religion defines marriage, then that's cool, too.
But if you want special privileges from the government (like tax breaks) for your religious status, then you need to accept everybody's definition of marriage.
If your religion wants to define marriage, cool. If a gay person's religion defines marriage, then that's cool, too.
But if you want special privileges from the government (like tax breaks) for your religious status, then you need to accept everybody's definition of marriage.
>I don't see why government should define marriage at all. If anything, it seems we could do with a little discouraging of heterosexual relationships.
Sure, this position can exist. It simply doesn't reflect the status quo or have much to do with whether the state should expand marital privileges to cover homosexuals. This is basically an entirely different and opposite campaign: "Stop encouraging permanent coupling all together" instead of "please give more people special encouragement to couple permanently". Also, this argument is what is sometimes meant by "gay marriage will destroy marriage" -- you're extrapolating that based on the contentious attitudes around the gay marriage debate, marriage should stop being a legal thing. This is pretty much as close as you can get to "destroying marriage" in an objective or technical sense.
>But if you want special privileges from the government (like tax breaks) for your religious status, then you need to accept everybody's definition of marriage.
wut. If religions only qualified as religious institutions if they accepted everything the government said, the only religion that would exist would be "nationalism".
Further, from the referenda that keep saying "no" to gay marriage, I think "everybody's definition of marriage" may be better aligned with the predominant religious view anyway...
Sure, this position can exist. It simply doesn't reflect the status quo or have much to do with whether the state should expand marital privileges to cover homosexuals. This is basically an entirely different and opposite campaign: "Stop encouraging permanent coupling all together" instead of "please give more people special encouragement to couple permanently". Also, this argument is what is sometimes meant by "gay marriage will destroy marriage" -- you're extrapolating that based on the contentious attitudes around the gay marriage debate, marriage should stop being a legal thing. This is pretty much as close as you can get to "destroying marriage" in an objective or technical sense.
>But if you want special privileges from the government (like tax breaks) for your religious status, then you need to accept everybody's definition of marriage.
wut. If religions only qualified as religious institutions if they accepted everything the government said, the only religion that would exist would be "nationalism".
Further, from the referenda that keep saying "no" to gay marriage, I think "everybody's definition of marriage" may be better aligned with the predominant religious view anyway...
>Sure, this position can exist. It simply doesn't reflect the status quo or have much to do with whether the state should expand marital privileges to cover homosexuals. This is basically an entirely different and opposite campaign: "Stop encouraging permanent coupling all together" instead of "please give more people special encouragement to couple permanently". Also, this argument is what is sometimes meant by "gay marriage will destroy marriage" -- you're extrapolating that based on the contentious attitudes around the gay marriage debate, marriage should stop being a legal thing. This is pretty much as close as you can get to "destroying marriage" in an objective or technical sense.
You know what, I'm not sure I see the downside there? The concept that certain people should get special privileges from the government is a concept that should be destroyed, IMO.
> wut. If religions only qualified as religious institutions if they accepted everything the government said, the only religion that would exist would be "nationalism".
You've got it backwards. Marriage started out as a religious thing, dating back thousands of years. Only recently has the government stepped in and had anything to do with it. So if the government wants to be involved in the religious matter of marriage, they need to be more accepting of other religions that may define marriage differently.
You know what, I'm not sure I see the downside there? The concept that certain people should get special privileges from the government is a concept that should be destroyed, IMO.
> wut. If religions only qualified as religious institutions if they accepted everything the government said, the only religion that would exist would be "nationalism".
You've got it backwards. Marriage started out as a religious thing, dating back thousands of years. Only recently has the government stepped in and had anything to do with it. So if the government wants to be involved in the religious matter of marriage, they need to be more accepting of other religions that may define marriage differently.
>You know what, I'm not sure I see the downside there? The concept that certain people should get special privileges from the government is a concept that should be destroyed, IMO.
The downside is that it results in overall diminished social stability and cohesion. Marriage helps families by providing heavy incentives for partners to settle their differences and stay coupled rather than get frustrated and split. It provides a foundation of stability for and an obligation to children. It protects a dependent spouse (say, a mother who chooses to stay home and care for her children instead of producing her own income) from abandonment by supplying the dependent with legal recourse for support even if the breadwinner decides to blow it. It creates a default set of conditions for emergencies, death, etc., that would otherwise have to be defined contractually. It creates a social pressure for young couples to settle down and start having children.
I understand much of this is diminishing in the face of no-fault divorce and concerted efforts to make alternate lifestyles appear glamorous or beneficial (when in reality they are filled with despair, confusion, and turmoil), but that is the promise and benefit of legal marriage.
Simply deleting the term "marriage" and making everything a "civil union" for the sake of the feelings of religious people is ultimately vain. The same net negative effects occur from the equivocation of permanent heterosexual coupling and permanent homosexual coupling. Or did you mean we should do away with any default legal benefit and do all marriage-type relationships individually through contracts, etc.?
>You've got it backwards.
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage#History_of_marriage_b..., where the first line contains "the institution of marriage pre-dates reliable recorded history", and then expands on implementations in "ancient Israel", "Europe", and "China". See also "Marriage in Ancient Egypt": http://www.kingtutshop.com/freeinfo/Marrage-in-Ancient-Egypt... , etc.
The downside is that it results in overall diminished social stability and cohesion. Marriage helps families by providing heavy incentives for partners to settle their differences and stay coupled rather than get frustrated and split. It provides a foundation of stability for and an obligation to children. It protects a dependent spouse (say, a mother who chooses to stay home and care for her children instead of producing her own income) from abandonment by supplying the dependent with legal recourse for support even if the breadwinner decides to blow it. It creates a default set of conditions for emergencies, death, etc., that would otherwise have to be defined contractually. It creates a social pressure for young couples to settle down and start having children.
I understand much of this is diminishing in the face of no-fault divorce and concerted efforts to make alternate lifestyles appear glamorous or beneficial (when in reality they are filled with despair, confusion, and turmoil), but that is the promise and benefit of legal marriage.
Simply deleting the term "marriage" and making everything a "civil union" for the sake of the feelings of religious people is ultimately vain. The same net negative effects occur from the equivocation of permanent heterosexual coupling and permanent homosexual coupling. Or did you mean we should do away with any default legal benefit and do all marriage-type relationships individually through contracts, etc.?
>You've got it backwards.
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage#History_of_marriage_b..., where the first line contains "the institution of marriage pre-dates reliable recorded history", and then expands on implementations in "ancient Israel", "Europe", and "China". See also "Marriage in Ancient Egypt": http://www.kingtutshop.com/freeinfo/Marrage-in-Ancient-Egypt... , etc.
> Marriage helps families by providing heavy incentives for partners to settle their differences and stay coupled rather than get frustrated and split
Yes, except it doesn't seem to be working.
> It protects a dependent spouse (say, a mother who chooses to stay home and care for her children instead of producing her own income) from abandonment by supplying the dependent with legal recourse for support even if the breadwinner decides to blow it
In theory yes...in point of fact, it doesn't always work out that way.
I could pick apart your extremely loose reasoning more, but let's get down to brass tacks. Your entire argument is predicated on the notion that "family" === Mother, Father, and biological children. This is patently absurd.
There are millions of infertile, adoptive, heterosexual couples who by your implicit argument don't deserve the protections and rights of marriage. However, if you expand the definition to include them, you must include homosexual couples too.
You're partially right. Marriage encourages stability. I would disagree that is the only reason for it though. More importantly what you're missing is that it's beneficial to society to have ALL families stable...regardless of whether they have biological children or not. It makes for a healthier and happier population.
Yes, except it doesn't seem to be working.
> It protects a dependent spouse (say, a mother who chooses to stay home and care for her children instead of producing her own income) from abandonment by supplying the dependent with legal recourse for support even if the breadwinner decides to blow it
In theory yes...in point of fact, it doesn't always work out that way.
I could pick apart your extremely loose reasoning more, but let's get down to brass tacks. Your entire argument is predicated on the notion that "family" === Mother, Father, and biological children. This is patently absurd.
There are millions of infertile, adoptive, heterosexual couples who by your implicit argument don't deserve the protections and rights of marriage. However, if you expand the definition to include them, you must include homosexual couples too.
You're partially right. Marriage encourages stability. I would disagree that is the only reason for it though. More importantly what you're missing is that it's beneficial to society to have ALL families stable...regardless of whether they have biological children or not. It makes for a healthier and happier population.
>Your entire argument is predicated on the notion that "family" === Mother, Father, and biological children. This is patently absurd.
I disagree. Rather than patently absurd, I think it is a natural and biological imperative that the traditional nuclear family is ideal.
I believe that children who do not have a conventional male/female parental duality (i.e., a permanent "mother" and "father" figure that operate as the dominate force in the child's development) are instantly disadvantaged.
>There are millions of infertile, adoptive, heterosexual couples who by your implicit argument don't deserve the protections and rights of marriage.
This is false; my argument does not exclude heterosexual relationships even amongst infertile people. First, there is the possibility these persons will become fertile; we cannot say for sure that they will not. Secondly, in a home ruled by a permanent heterosexual coupling, there is both a permanent mother figure and a permanent father figure for adopted children. I believe that duality is a majorly important part of the functional development of a child, and therefore intentionally placing a ward in the home of a permanent homosexual coupling is placing them at a serious disadvantage. A home ruled by a permanent homosexual coupling by definition does not have a mother and father figure that fill their respective roles; instead, they have "two dads" or "two moms".
Thirdly, even if a heterosexual coupling can never have or adopt children, it is valuable because it promotes a tradition of stability, garnishes the minds of those who observe its operation with thoughts of elevation, unity, and eternity, and allows individuals who, normally through no personal fault, are infertile to retain dignity and honor among their peers. Fertility is a very personal medical issue and we shouldn't need to broadcast it. I would also like to establish that in this context, polygyny is rather reasonable.
This doesn't mean that mockeries of the true way, like permanent homosexual coupling, are passable; these are counterfeits, minted by confused and misguided individuals. They are no replacement for a permanent heterosexual coupling. As such, we have no interest in the government actively encouraging them and awarding special privileges to practitioners.
I disagree. Rather than patently absurd, I think it is a natural and biological imperative that the traditional nuclear family is ideal.
I believe that children who do not have a conventional male/female parental duality (i.e., a permanent "mother" and "father" figure that operate as the dominate force in the child's development) are instantly disadvantaged.
>There are millions of infertile, adoptive, heterosexual couples who by your implicit argument don't deserve the protections and rights of marriage.
This is false; my argument does not exclude heterosexual relationships even amongst infertile people. First, there is the possibility these persons will become fertile; we cannot say for sure that they will not. Secondly, in a home ruled by a permanent heterosexual coupling, there is both a permanent mother figure and a permanent father figure for adopted children. I believe that duality is a majorly important part of the functional development of a child, and therefore intentionally placing a ward in the home of a permanent homosexual coupling is placing them at a serious disadvantage. A home ruled by a permanent homosexual coupling by definition does not have a mother and father figure that fill their respective roles; instead, they have "two dads" or "two moms".
Thirdly, even if a heterosexual coupling can never have or adopt children, it is valuable because it promotes a tradition of stability, garnishes the minds of those who observe its operation with thoughts of elevation, unity, and eternity, and allows individuals who, normally through no personal fault, are infertile to retain dignity and honor among their peers. Fertility is a very personal medical issue and we shouldn't need to broadcast it. I would also like to establish that in this context, polygyny is rather reasonable.
This doesn't mean that mockeries of the true way, like permanent homosexual coupling, are passable; these are counterfeits, minted by confused and misguided individuals. They are no replacement for a permanent heterosexual coupling. As such, we have no interest in the government actively encouraging them and awarding special privileges to practitioners.
First, every negative thing you mention there happens all the time, and it's done by straight people in heterosexual marriages. Where's the gay connection?
All of the positive things you mention are generic arguments in favor of marriage that could be applied just as well to gay marriage. You're completely leaving out the part about why one group of people can marry, but another group can't.
Edit: Also, your Wikipedia link actually backs up my argument that marriage has historically been a religious institution, so I'm not sure what you're going for there, or how it explains why the government needed to get involved.
All of the positive things you mention are generic arguments in favor of marriage that could be applied just as well to gay marriage. You're completely leaving out the part about why one group of people can marry, but another group can't.
Edit: Also, your Wikipedia link actually backs up my argument that marriage has historically been a religious institution, so I'm not sure what you're going for there, or how it explains why the government needed to get involved.
>First, every negative thing you mention there happens all the time, and it's done by straight people in heterosexual marriages. Where's the gay connection?
There isn't one. You asked what the downside was to deleting legal marriage entirely.
>Edit: Also, your Wikipedia link actually backs up my argument that marriage has historically been a religious institution, so I'm not sure what you're going for there, or how it explains why the government needed to get involved.
You said that "only recently" had governments started supplying benefits to married persons. This is false. As Wikipedia shows, there was legal recognition in various jurisdictions from ancient times. If you mean to say that there are few instances of purely secular marital law until recently, then sure, but also note that until the American Revolution there were few states without an officially-sanctioned state religion, so the religious tradition and the enforceable legal body may not be separate. Israel, for instance, enforced law related to marriage; adulterers were prosecuted, etc. etc. Likewise throughout history. Here's a whole page on "Ancient Greek Marriage Law", indicating non-recent legal recognition of marriage: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Greek_marriage_law
There isn't one. You asked what the downside was to deleting legal marriage entirely.
>Edit: Also, your Wikipedia link actually backs up my argument that marriage has historically been a religious institution, so I'm not sure what you're going for there, or how it explains why the government needed to get involved.
You said that "only recently" had governments started supplying benefits to married persons. This is false. As Wikipedia shows, there was legal recognition in various jurisdictions from ancient times. If you mean to say that there are few instances of purely secular marital law until recently, then sure, but also note that until the American Revolution there were few states without an officially-sanctioned state religion, so the religious tradition and the enforceable legal body may not be separate. Israel, for instance, enforced law related to marriage; adulterers were prosecuted, etc. etc. Likewise throughout history. Here's a whole page on "Ancient Greek Marriage Law", indicating non-recent legal recognition of marriage: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Greek_marriage_law
Not an argument against your primary point, really just semanitcs, but: "everybody's definition of marriage", is very different than what you may suggest is more in line with "the general/average definition of marriage" If you accept "everybody's definition of marriage" You need to accept what everybody things marriage is, which does include people that think it can be homosexual in nature. While it also includes people that think it cannot be, it stands to reason that accepting most forms of marriage would be less harmful, since that government recognition of marriage doesn't mean that I, or my religion has to recognize the marriage. I will not however comment on the validity of "accepting everybody's definition of marriage" only trying to bring coherency to the discussion so that we aren't just arguing semantics.
> Suppose I offer friend X twenty dollars. Now suppose friend Y also demands twenty dollars, and accuses me of violating my offer when I refuse it
That's a false analogy. The government has a different responsibility to it's citizens than you would have to two of your friends. You are free to treat your friend differently based on any arbitrary criteria you choose...it's a relationship that is an extremely poor model for understanding how government works. The fact that you would bring something like that up, does not bode well for your argument that your ability to reason is intact.
The Government has a responsibility to treat all of it's citizens exactly the same. If it treats one group differently it has to have some pretty solid reasons. In the United States, the "default action" is that you are free to pursue your life as you wish unless the state has a compelling reason to stop you...furthermore if the Government extends some privilege to some ALL must have the opportunity to pursue it, if only in theory.
> There is nothing to take away; gay rights activists are not just asking to be left alone
This is extremely specious reasoning. By that rationale many atrocities of history are justified...the slaves wanted us to expand our definition of "human" and "free man".
> Furthermore, no punishment is made due to "brain chemistry"; we are not testing individuals and discarding them based on the presence of certain biological markers (either externally or internally visible)
This is based on an extremely dubious and narrow definition of "punishment".
> We are simply choosing that we do not want to incentivize, endorse, or equalize permanent homosexual coupling as we do with permanent heterosexual coupling.
Yes precisely. Except the government can't just randomly decide to "incentivize" one life style over another for no particular reason. We "incentiveize" a murder-free life style because it's necessary to have a functioning society.
There's absolutely no evidence that homosexuality is harmful to individuals or society at large. There's no reason to actively discriminate against it, which is what is going on.
At some point in time, some group of people sat down and decided marriage was between a man and a woman...that was an act of actively discriminating against another group of people. It's natural that it takes an action to rectify it....just as slavery couldn't be stopped by all the white people suddenly deciding to be nice to black people.
The sorry state of marriage rights in this country exists only by virtue of how indifferent and ignorant the general population is. The good news is that just as we look back in horror at the times we burned people at the stake, the people of the future will look back at the time we finally started to respect people's personal lifestyle choices. Unfortunately, they will probably be seeking comfort from some new horror.
That's a false analogy. The government has a different responsibility to it's citizens than you would have to two of your friends. You are free to treat your friend differently based on any arbitrary criteria you choose...it's a relationship that is an extremely poor model for understanding how government works. The fact that you would bring something like that up, does not bode well for your argument that your ability to reason is intact.
The Government has a responsibility to treat all of it's citizens exactly the same. If it treats one group differently it has to have some pretty solid reasons. In the United States, the "default action" is that you are free to pursue your life as you wish unless the state has a compelling reason to stop you...furthermore if the Government extends some privilege to some ALL must have the opportunity to pursue it, if only in theory.
> There is nothing to take away; gay rights activists are not just asking to be left alone
This is extremely specious reasoning. By that rationale many atrocities of history are justified...the slaves wanted us to expand our definition of "human" and "free man".
> Furthermore, no punishment is made due to "brain chemistry"; we are not testing individuals and discarding them based on the presence of certain biological markers (either externally or internally visible)
This is based on an extremely dubious and narrow definition of "punishment".
> We are simply choosing that we do not want to incentivize, endorse, or equalize permanent homosexual coupling as we do with permanent heterosexual coupling.
Yes precisely. Except the government can't just randomly decide to "incentivize" one life style over another for no particular reason. We "incentiveize" a murder-free life style because it's necessary to have a functioning society.
There's absolutely no evidence that homosexuality is harmful to individuals or society at large. There's no reason to actively discriminate against it, which is what is going on.
At some point in time, some group of people sat down and decided marriage was between a man and a woman...that was an act of actively discriminating against another group of people. It's natural that it takes an action to rectify it....just as slavery couldn't be stopped by all the white people suddenly deciding to be nice to black people.
The sorry state of marriage rights in this country exists only by virtue of how indifferent and ignorant the general population is. The good news is that just as we look back in horror at the times we burned people at the stake, the people of the future will look back at the time we finally started to respect people's personal lifestyle choices. Unfortunately, they will probably be seeking comfort from some new horror.
>That's a false analogy. The government has a different responsibility to it's citizens than you would have to two of your friends. [...] The fact that you would bring something like that up, does not bode well for your argument that your ability to reason is intact.
It's a narrow analogy meant to illustrate one specific point. It is reasonable to say that the analogy is not applicable to a government because it has an obligation to treat citizens legally (meaning that everything offered to one group must be offered to another), but this hardly seems a universally settled question. If we follow it, why are veterans given special benefits (because we "owe them one", as stated in the analogy for Friend A), and less justifiably, why does affirmative action exist? What about federal contracting quotas for minority or women-owned businesses? etc.
There are many cases where a distinction between groups is reasonable, despite your assertion that the government is obligated to treat all citizens identically. This applies even less to same sex marriage, though, because there is no inherent classification based on unchangeable effects or attributes. Sexual orientation does not enter into it; the government refuses to sanction or endorse same sex marriages for anybody. If I take another male to the marriage office, they will deny me based on my action, regardless of whether I have a natural sexual attraction to that person or not; I do not qualify for marriage because I have not met the defined requirements for the benefits the state has offered, not because I am a member of a certain biological group (as occurs in race, age, or sex discrimination). You do not have to try to marry someone or gain a governmental endorsement on your relationship just because you have a sexual attraction to that someone.
>This is extremely specious reasoning. By that rationale many atrocities of history are justified...the slaves wanted us to expand our definition of "human" and "free man".
No, if we did not have a special classification for "blacks" / "slaves" in the slavery era they would have existed as free men and there would be no force that could compel them to obey someone who claimed to be their master. This is what a natural right is: something that exists naturally and cannot be given by any entity; it can only be abused or protected. Self-direction is a natural right. Special endorsement, licensure, and privilege granted by the government to participants in a certain interpersonal relationship in exchange for certain social commitments ("we promise not to break up", etc.) (that is, marriage) is not a natural right; it is, in fact, something that can't even exist without the exercise of some fundamental criteria.
>At some point in time, some group of people sat down and decided marriage was between a man and a woman...that was an act of actively discriminating against another group of people.
You presume that the originators of marriage meant it as an arrangement between any two adults. It was not conceived as "let's make this agreement for any grown-ups that want to live together ... except gay people, because they're yucky". In the first place, the concept of marriage was a gift from God to mankind. That is where the idea originated (just as the idea of the existence of God was given to mankind as a gift from God, and passed through the generations by our fathers).
Legally it is conceived as a mechanism to promote general social cohesion by providing stability and legal recourse for nuclear families. Homosexuality itself is contrary to this cohesion, so it is counterproductive to extend marital benefits to homosexual couplings.
>There's absolutely no evidence that homosexuality is harmful to individuals or society at large. There's no reason to actively discriminate against it, which is what is going on.
I disagree that we are "actively discriminating". I see it as not just not giving into spurious political and ideological demands without basis. Even if a person believes that permanent homosexual coupling is a fine and good course, this is not in itself an argument to give special privileges to its participants.
>It's natural that it takes an action to rectify it....just as slavery couldn't be stopped by all the white people suddenly deciding to be nice to black people.
Except that if all the white people actually had decided to "start being nice", where "nice" means respectful of natural rights to autonomy, there really wouldn't have been any more slaves. All of the masters would have let them go and not exercised any compulsion on them anymore. Even if the books still said a person could do this, there would effectively be no slavery in your hypothetical where all the white people decide to be "nice".
Gay couples will gain no extra privilege, endorsement, or promotion from the government even if "all the straight people start being 'nice' to the gay people", where an analogous meaning of "nice" is applied (i.e., 'left alone', not 'given whatever they ask for').
It's a narrow analogy meant to illustrate one specific point. It is reasonable to say that the analogy is not applicable to a government because it has an obligation to treat citizens legally (meaning that everything offered to one group must be offered to another), but this hardly seems a universally settled question. If we follow it, why are veterans given special benefits (because we "owe them one", as stated in the analogy for Friend A), and less justifiably, why does affirmative action exist? What about federal contracting quotas for minority or women-owned businesses? etc.
There are many cases where a distinction between groups is reasonable, despite your assertion that the government is obligated to treat all citizens identically. This applies even less to same sex marriage, though, because there is no inherent classification based on unchangeable effects or attributes. Sexual orientation does not enter into it; the government refuses to sanction or endorse same sex marriages for anybody. If I take another male to the marriage office, they will deny me based on my action, regardless of whether I have a natural sexual attraction to that person or not; I do not qualify for marriage because I have not met the defined requirements for the benefits the state has offered, not because I am a member of a certain biological group (as occurs in race, age, or sex discrimination). You do not have to try to marry someone or gain a governmental endorsement on your relationship just because you have a sexual attraction to that someone.
>This is extremely specious reasoning. By that rationale many atrocities of history are justified...the slaves wanted us to expand our definition of "human" and "free man".
No, if we did not have a special classification for "blacks" / "slaves" in the slavery era they would have existed as free men and there would be no force that could compel them to obey someone who claimed to be their master. This is what a natural right is: something that exists naturally and cannot be given by any entity; it can only be abused or protected. Self-direction is a natural right. Special endorsement, licensure, and privilege granted by the government to participants in a certain interpersonal relationship in exchange for certain social commitments ("we promise not to break up", etc.) (that is, marriage) is not a natural right; it is, in fact, something that can't even exist without the exercise of some fundamental criteria.
>At some point in time, some group of people sat down and decided marriage was between a man and a woman...that was an act of actively discriminating against another group of people.
You presume that the originators of marriage meant it as an arrangement between any two adults. It was not conceived as "let's make this agreement for any grown-ups that want to live together ... except gay people, because they're yucky". In the first place, the concept of marriage was a gift from God to mankind. That is where the idea originated (just as the idea of the existence of God was given to mankind as a gift from God, and passed through the generations by our fathers).
Legally it is conceived as a mechanism to promote general social cohesion by providing stability and legal recourse for nuclear families. Homosexuality itself is contrary to this cohesion, so it is counterproductive to extend marital benefits to homosexual couplings.
>There's absolutely no evidence that homosexuality is harmful to individuals or society at large. There's no reason to actively discriminate against it, which is what is going on.
I disagree that we are "actively discriminating". I see it as not just not giving into spurious political and ideological demands without basis. Even if a person believes that permanent homosexual coupling is a fine and good course, this is not in itself an argument to give special privileges to its participants.
>It's natural that it takes an action to rectify it....just as slavery couldn't be stopped by all the white people suddenly deciding to be nice to black people.
Except that if all the white people actually had decided to "start being nice", where "nice" means respectful of natural rights to autonomy, there really wouldn't have been any more slaves. All of the masters would have let them go and not exercised any compulsion on them anymore. Even if the books still said a person could do this, there would effectively be no slavery in your hypothetical where all the white people decide to be "nice".
Gay couples will gain no extra privilege, endorsement, or promotion from the government even if "all the straight people start being 'nice' to the gay people", where an analogous meaning of "nice" is applied (i.e., 'left alone', not 'given whatever they ask for').
> gay rights activists are not just asking to be left alone, they're asking that we explicitly expand our definition to include their relationships.
How dare those gays demand to be treated like everyone else? How very dare they?
If anyone needs me, I'll be catching up with the latest in modern thinking over at the Westboro Baptist Church site.
How dare those gays demand to be treated like everyone else? How very dare they?
If anyone needs me, I'll be catching up with the latest in modern thinking over at the Westboro Baptist Church site.
>How dare those gays demand to be treated like everyone else? How very dare they?
Everyone else is treated this way. I cannot take another man and try to marry him. In the government's eyes, same-sex partners simply do not qualify for the benefits provided by marriage. It is the same as attempting to apply for welfare while making $250k/yr, or whatever; it's nothing personal or discriminatory to an unchangeable attribute of my biological makeup, the government just has not decided it is in its interest to give money out to people who make $250k/yr. Likewise, the government has not decided it is in its interest to grant privileges to permanent homosexual couples.
As I have stated elsewhere, this is fundamentally different from denying any privilege simply due to an external, unchangeable physical attribute like ethnicity; if no black people could get any welfare, that would be bad, but because it takes positive action, intent, and forethought to make $250k/yr (even if it is just in claiming the cash offered via inheritance, etc.) or to bring another person of the same sex and request a marriage license, these are valid points of "discrimination". All citizens are being treated equally; no one is allowed to qualify for a marriage license with a same sex partner, regardless of any other consideration, just as no one is allowed to qualify for welfare with a $250k/yr salary.
Any argument in favor of gay marriage must establish why it is in the the state's interest to grant privileges to permanent homosexual couples, just as any claimaint who wants to gather welfare despite his $250k/yr salary must establish why it is in the state and/or community's interest to give him that welfare.
Everyone else is treated this way. I cannot take another man and try to marry him. In the government's eyes, same-sex partners simply do not qualify for the benefits provided by marriage. It is the same as attempting to apply for welfare while making $250k/yr, or whatever; it's nothing personal or discriminatory to an unchangeable attribute of my biological makeup, the government just has not decided it is in its interest to give money out to people who make $250k/yr. Likewise, the government has not decided it is in its interest to grant privileges to permanent homosexual couples.
As I have stated elsewhere, this is fundamentally different from denying any privilege simply due to an external, unchangeable physical attribute like ethnicity; if no black people could get any welfare, that would be bad, but because it takes positive action, intent, and forethought to make $250k/yr (even if it is just in claiming the cash offered via inheritance, etc.) or to bring another person of the same sex and request a marriage license, these are valid points of "discrimination". All citizens are being treated equally; no one is allowed to qualify for a marriage license with a same sex partner, regardless of any other consideration, just as no one is allowed to qualify for welfare with a $250k/yr salary.
Any argument in favor of gay marriage must establish why it is in the the state's interest to grant privileges to permanent homosexual couples, just as any claimaint who wants to gather welfare despite his $250k/yr salary must establish why it is in the state and/or community's interest to give him that welfare.
You can pretend that homosexuality is a conscious choice akin to earning more money than someone else, it just increases the pity I feel for you.
Luckily, you're on the losing side of the trend, as more and more states and countries in the world pass laws that promote equality.
I shall now let you have the last word. Have a lovely life, and try to find a way to eradicate that hate you have in your heart - it's the Christian thing to do.
Luckily, you're on the losing side of the trend, as more and more states and countries in the world pass laws that promote equality.
I shall now let you have the last word. Have a lovely life, and try to find a way to eradicate that hate you have in your heart - it's the Christian thing to do.
Then you should be both embarrassed and ashamed of yourself.
It's not social conservatism, it's bigotry.
It's not social conservatism, it's bigotry.
Seems like the intolerance of ideas you disagree with is something you struggle with as well.
> "Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them."
-Karl Popper in The Open Society and Its Enemies (1945)
-Karl Popper in The Open Society and Its Enemies (1945)
And whose tolerance is the right tolerance? Shall we defend against the "intolerant" who attempt to force their sexual-interpersonal ideals upon the public despite repeated referenda that demonstrate the public rejects those concepts, or did you mean the "intolerant" who do not believe that new types of relationships are necessarily automatically entitled to hetero-identical encouragement from the state?
It seems "intolerant" is basically an empty ad hominem, usable by any side.
It seems "intolerant" is basically an empty ad hominem, usable by any side.
The issue should be unambiguous to all not blinded by hatred. Now kindly knock this shit off.
Indeed -- those unblinded by hatred of sexual morality, successful sexual development, and normative familial relationships will see the issue as unambiguous.
I find your attempts to illegitimately marginalize an opposing argument with such an elegant and sophisticated rebuttal as "knock this shit off" both amusing and demonstrative.
I find your attempts to illegitimately marginalize an opposing argument with such an elegant and sophisticated rebuttal as "knock this shit off" both amusing and demonstrative.
Would you have said that it's acceptable for black people to be forced to ride the back of a bus? Or perhaps that women should not be allowed to vote.
The idea that all ideas have merit is complete shite. Some ideas and attitudes are reprehensible - the more so when being cloaked in language like "social conservatism"
The idea that all ideas have merit is complete shite. Some ideas and attitudes are reprehensible - the more so when being cloaked in language like "social conservatism"
[deleted]
Isn't it defamatory to assert that they like to kill with sole argument a questionable interpretation of some comic art ? It's not only defamatory, it's promoting hate to a level one could feel against a killer and which could put peoples life really in danger. This is disinformation which is not to be confused with liberty of expression.
This just strenghten the global impression that it's a lawyer who can't even control and properly deal with it's own affairs. I guess this is what a lose canon lawyer looks like.
As an european I would add that it contributes to give a very bad image of the USA.
This just strenghten the global impression that it's a lawyer who can't even control and properly deal with it's own affairs. I guess this is what a lose canon lawyer looks like.
As an european I would add that it contributes to give a very bad image of the USA.
As an American, we hold free speech to be much more important. We don't put arrest people for making racists Tweets. We don't put people in jail for denying the Holocaust. We don't have censors for people who dare to say that homeopathy doesn't work. (Or, for that matter, who say that it does, unless they are trying to defraud customers.)
To find Tara guilty of defamation, a target of her batshit insanity would need to meet specific burdens of proof. They would need to prove to the court that they don't like to kill, and that Tara knew (or ought to have known) that that wasn't true.
Free speech is damn messy.
To find Tara guilty of defamation, a target of her batshit insanity would need to meet specific burdens of proof. They would need to prove to the court that they don't like to kill, and that Tara knew (or ought to have known) that that wasn't true.
Free speech is damn messy.
In France, it would be Tara's responsibility to prove her claims. It makes more sense than the opposite.
One of the rationale of this principle is that setting up a trial to contest defamatory claims is reproducing the defamatory action.
Beside, if someone claims you are a pedophile, a human body eater or like to kill for instance, how could you objectively prove you're not ?
Those who claim things should logically have the burden of proof, especially if it is defamatory.
This is surprising because it seem to me like a common sense limit to free speech. It is also why I feel much safer in France.
One of the rationale of this principle is that setting up a trial to contest defamatory claims is reproducing the defamatory action.
Beside, if someone claims you are a pedophile, a human body eater or like to kill for instance, how could you objectively prove you're not ?
Those who claim things should logically have the burden of proof, especially if it is defamatory.
This is surprising because it seem to me like a common sense limit to free speech. It is also why I feel much safer in France.
"Common sense limit to free speech" is why you are French, not American. There's no freedom to not be offended.
There's a reason the Church of Scientology loves suing people in England.
There's a reason the Church of Scientology loves suing people in England.
>It's not only defamatory, it's promoting hate to a level one could feel against a killer and which could put peoples life really in danger.
Which is, ironically, exactly what Tara Carreon has accused Inman of doing:
>History is full of evidence of the connection between hate speech and hate action. We need go no further than the Nazi propaganda against the Jews…
>These Techdirt nazi scumbags are doing to Charles what they did to the Jewish lawyers in Nazi Germany. Accusing him of greed and being responsible for the entire economic mess that our country is in. I mean, that is crazy! No group of people deserves to be so wholesaledly condemned, unless they are a criminal organization like the Mafia. I don't even believe in groups! Give every individual identity, dignity, human rights, and freedom.
And now today,
>These children have been corrupted by a corrupt society. And everyone who fails to register an opinion and act in this matter is to blame. They are stupid, silent people, who are absolutely worthless to our society. Really, what good is their life, but a burden to the planet?
Physician, heal thyself.
Which is, ironically, exactly what Tara Carreon has accused Inman of doing:
>History is full of evidence of the connection between hate speech and hate action. We need go no further than the Nazi propaganda against the Jews…
>These Techdirt nazi scumbags are doing to Charles what they did to the Jewish lawyers in Nazi Germany. Accusing him of greed and being responsible for the entire economic mess that our country is in. I mean, that is crazy! No group of people deserves to be so wholesaledly condemned, unless they are a criminal organization like the Mafia. I don't even believe in groups! Give every individual identity, dignity, human rights, and freedom.
And now today,
>These children have been corrupted by a corrupt society. And everyone who fails to register an opinion and act in this matter is to blame. They are stupid, silent people, who are absolutely worthless to our society. Really, what good is their life, but a burden to the planet?
Physician, heal thyself.
"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." -Albert Einstein
She -or someone claiming to be her- has directly linked Inman to real Nazis in Europe.
(The account joined in 2008, but web forum software is notoriously insecure and there are many ways to fake or hijack a profile. So it might not be her.)
(http://www.naderlibrary.com/bulletin_board/viewtopic.php?p=1...)
> His mother is a psychic, who does palm reading, angel communication, tarot, channeling, psychometry, aura readings, and mediumship. She says she comes from "a line of readers, mystics in Europe." I wonder if her family associated with the Blavatsky Nazi crowd. Most of the medium/psychic whackos did. She studied with a Tibetan Shaman in Nepal. Wow. A totally crazy woman. Matt Inman has crazy parents on both sides. No wonder he's crazy, too.
I'm not sure what I expect from a thread titled "Charles Carreon vs. The Illuminati and Matt Inman".
(The account joined in 2008, but web forum software is notoriously insecure and there are many ways to fake or hijack a profile. So it might not be her.)
(http://www.naderlibrary.com/bulletin_board/viewtopic.php?p=1...)
> His mother is a psychic, who does palm reading, angel communication, tarot, channeling, psychometry, aura readings, and mediumship. She says she comes from "a line of readers, mystics in Europe." I wonder if her family associated with the Blavatsky Nazi crowd. Most of the medium/psychic whackos did. She studied with a Tibetan Shaman in Nepal. Wow. A totally crazy woman. Matt Inman has crazy parents on both sides. No wonder he's crazy, too.
I'm not sure what I expect from a thread titled "Charles Carreon vs. The Illuminati and Matt Inman".
Um, I ventured on over to the bulletin board on her website, and she's basically the only poster on it, with loads and loads of posts in various discussion threads. Which are incidentally all about conspiracy theories.
For some reason, the tone and structure of the wife's writing reminds me of the LoseThos situation. [1]
[1] http://qaa.ath.cx/LoseThos.html
For some reason, the tone and structure of the wife's writing reminds me of the LoseThos situation. [1]
[1] http://qaa.ath.cx/LoseThos.html
Wow, I just read up on the LoseThos thing and it's heartbreaking.
Call me a bleeding heart killjoy if you must, but I've recently come to the conclusion that just like prison rape and developmental disabilities, mental illness just isn't something you can make tasteful jokes about.
Call me a bleeding heart killjoy if you must, but I've recently come to the conclusion that just like prison rape and developmental disabilities, mental illness just isn't something you can make tasteful jokes about.
What's even more heartbreaking is that he's quite active on HN even though he's banned.
If you read his comments there's something definitely wrong with him (I hesitate using that phrase, but I don't know how else to say it). He's a talented individual with a strong work ethic, hopefully he gets the help that he needs.
If you read his comments there's something definitely wrong with him (I hesitate using that phrase, but I don't know how else to say it). He's a talented individual with a strong work ethic, hopefully he gets the help that he needs.
Yes, I've seen his [dead] comments before, and had a flash of recognition reading the article.
You're hesitant to use the phrase "something definitely wrong with him". That made me think of other terms, like "disturbed", "unhinged", "unbalanced" or the clinical "mentally ill" and I can't find anything that doesn't sound demeaning, judgmental, or moralistic. I think that says something about our ability to understand and help these people.
You're hesitant to use the phrase "something definitely wrong with him". That made me think of other terms, like "disturbed", "unhinged", "unbalanced" or the clinical "mentally ill" and I can't find anything that doesn't sound demeaning, judgmental, or moralistic. I think that says something about our ability to understand and help these people.
Somehow, the idea that a joke can be both tasteful and gut-bustingly funny is oxymoronic. As Lord Buckley was wont to say: "If you must tell the truth, be sure to leave them laughing. Remember what they did to Jesus."
Too soon. That joke is in very poor taste.
I guess that's a lot less funny if she's actually mentally ill.
Seriously. This has got to be a very elaborated troll. [1]
[1] http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/06/funnyjunk-lawyers...
[1] http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/06/funnyjunk-lawyers...
priceless
This quotation is particularly scary:
"It's not the first time we've been targeted as sacrificial victims," Tara wrote. "We were targeted by the entire Buddhist community when I told them to go fuck themselves, for being nihilists, elitists, and authoritarians."
"It's not the first time we've been targeted as sacrificial victims," Tara wrote. "We were targeted by the entire Buddhist community when I told them to go fuck themselves, for being nihilists, elitists, and authoritarians."
Indeed you cannot. Try browsing their personal site for a while... Mind bending. http://www.american-buddha.com/index.htm (warning, gets NSFW very quickly.)
Surely what his wife is saying could be classed as defamatory as well? Stupid move on her part, I hope she goes down as well and taints the case even further.
It is really hard to understand how Carreon and his wife don't realise that they are digging themselves into their own hole. They even went out and bought the shovels themselves. Getting involved in a battle which isn't yours and then stretching it this far is beyond belief.
It's as if they have never heard of the internet before, and expect everyone to side with them. It's pathological ignorance.
It's as if they have never heard of the internet before, and expect everyone to side with them. It's pathological ignorance.
The really bizarre aspect of this is that Carreon, in his non-lawyer private life, has a blog. So you can't say he doesn't know what the Internet is.
Shooting off your mouth about an ongoing case is just asking for trouble. All of this could be brought into the courtroom, with Tara being an associate of Charles. It wouldn't be the first time a judge has ruled on a case partially due to professional behavior outside the courtroom.
On the evening of June 14th, Carreon told Forbes that he didn't know what was wrong but he'd find something. “California code is just so long, but there’s something in there about this.” That evening around 9pm he donated $10, and then filed his suit the very next day claiming he had been misled.
Sadly, he's probably right. Many estimates suggest that the average American is unknowingly committing multiple felonies every day due to vague criminal statutes.
Try getting a definitive list of state or federal laws. No such list for the Feds and most states.
I have the list:
1) Don't do anything an agent of the government doesn't want you to do
2) Don't do anything a future agent of the government won't want you to do
Yeah, because he needed standing to request an emergency restraining order. It would be much harder to prove damages if he wasn't involved.
I didn't even realize until this article that Carreon had actually donated to the campaign, apparently expressly for the purpose of then claiming that Inman was going to use the funds in a different way than promised? Except I have no idea how he can possibly argue that taking the picture of the funds is somehow wrong, when that was kind of the main objective of the fundraising (with the secondary objective being to then distribute the funds to the 2 charities).
> different way than promised
Once the originally-planned $20k had been exceeded, Inman suggested that he would find some more charities that might benefit from the cash. This thought was abandoned shortly after Carreon cried foul about the "different way than promised". So, good-good for the bears, they'll get a bigger money pit to roll around in.
Once the originally-planned $20k had been exceeded, Inman suggested that he would find some more charities that might benefit from the cash. This thought was abandoned shortly after Carreon cried foul about the "different way than promised". So, good-good for the bears, they'll get a bigger money pit to roll around in.
I'm not sure what bearing that has on taking a picture of the cash. Nor do I see how this could be related to the current lawsuit if Inman abandoned that idea.
"One man’s vulgarity is another’s lyric." -Inman's lawyer
This is going into my quotes file.
This is going into my quotes file.
Inman's lawyer is quoting Justice Harlan in Cohen v. California:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cohen_v._California
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cohen_v._California
That was actually Justice Harlan in Cohen v. California.
This is starting to feel like one of those fake hip-hop artists fights (recognizing that The Oatmeal is clearly in the right imho).
I wonder if FunnyJunk is now just continuing this for the publicity.
I wonder if FunnyJunk is now just continuing this for the publicity.
It left FJs hands a while ago now, this is all on Carreon. Unsurprisingly FJ haven't mentioned anything for a while.
Given his previous attempt to drum up public outrage over Mattel's failure to take him up on his offer to represent them over another trademark dispute, there's a good chance that this whole thing was entirely Carreon's idea. "Hey, you should get a trademark, and then let me file a contingency suit against that guy who is more successful than you."
Wait so where are the photos?
Seems like the Ars headline is inaccurate. Inman posts in his blog that the money is still with IndieGoGo pending a restraining order to have it transferred.
"Once the money is moved, I still plan on withdrawing $211k in cash and taking a photo to send to Charles Carreon and FunnyJunk, along with the drawing of Funnyjunk's mother."
http://theoatmeal.com/blog/fundraiser_update
"Once the money is moved, I still plan on withdrawing $211k in cash and taking a photo to send to Charles Carreon and FunnyJunk, along with the drawing of Funnyjunk's mother."
http://theoatmeal.com/blog/fundraiser_update
Yesterday, IndieGoGo filed documents, revealing that
1. the money donated by PayPal was already in Inman's hands.
2. the money donated via credit card was already sent to the charities.
Oddly, Inman's blog isn't as up-to-date as the court filings. Inman's filing is here: https://www.eff.org/sites/default/files/filenode/OatmealOppT...
1. the money donated by PayPal was already in Inman's hands.
2. the money donated via credit card was already sent to the charities.
Oddly, Inman's blog isn't as up-to-date as the court filings. Inman's filing is here: https://www.eff.org/sites/default/files/filenode/OatmealOppT...
It could be that Inman was unsure what he could legally say, and didn't want to make things worse. He'll get his 15 minutes and rushing things won't make any difference.
According to Inman's affidavit on PACER, he states "I still plan on sending a photograph of the money along with the satirical comic to FunnyJunk. However, in order to avoid having this lawsuit interfere with my expression and to avoid jeopardizing the funds from the campaign in any way, I withdrew funds from my own personal account and photographed those funds."
And where is that photo?
That's exactly what I was wondering.
Ars writes an entire article purportedly about the picture, yet they don't even have the picture.
Ars writes an entire article purportedly about the picture, yet they don't even have the picture.
Let me quote Humphrey Bogart for you: "The only reason to have money is to tell any SOB in the world to go to hell."
Am I the only one who thinks Carreon wants to be the new Jack Thompson?
That's exactly what I was thinking. How long before they disbar this clown for abusing the legal system with frivolous, vindictive lawsuits?
Tara and Charles are most clearly mentally ill. At least they have each other.
It's rather difficult for most of us to accept criticism but at some point most sane people would try to take a step back and conclude that if thousands upon thousands of people think you are behaving poorly it might be prudent to at least consider their viewpoint is valid.
don't wanna be a 9gag supporter but even 9gag gives some source/credit
About that hate speech...
Kind of like how trogs don't grok that Colbert is making fun of them.
Hate speech is wishing harm on your opponents for political reasons. Calling people names is not hate speech. Neither is making fun of people. That's just being a dick.
Alas, wingers don't get that distinction. I suspect the root cause (mental failing) also explains trogs rampant false equivalency (e.g. Clinton got a blow job == Bush allowing 9/11, illegally invading a foreign country, killing 100,000s of its citizens, making refugees out of a few million, and using depleted uranium to convert much of the formerly inhabited areas into Superfund sites).
I once had a winger tell me that the Rodney King riots in LA were an example of left wing hate speech. The stupid, it hurts. I honestly can't decide if trogs say ridiculous non sequiturs because they're thick or if it's merely to distract and enrage (a la Limbaugh, Beck, Coulter). I've decided to simply judge people by their actions, vs their intent.
The grandma having sex with a bear is obviously funny. To you and me. But the trogs can't see it that way. Any mocking is a direct personal attack demanding a defensive response.
Inman didn't know the Carreon's were mentally impaired. But for future, just know that trogs will misunderstand, misinterpret, twist, assume the worst, distort, etc. No one can control the audience's reaction. But in my mocking, I do try to avoid borderline humor which can be labeled "hate speech". No sense giving the trogs another chew toy. And there's no shortage of funny stuff to say.
Tara Carreon responded:
"There is now plenty of proof that Matt Inman is one
of a gang of people who promote the same type of ideas
that inspired Jared Loughner to try and kill Gabrielle
Giffords," she wrote. "Mark Potok of the Southern Poverty
Law Center, who studies hate groups and hate speech,
examined Loughner's sites and concluded that his material
on grammar, in particular, likely came from the writings of
far right activist David Wynn Miller. If you Google Matt
Inman + grammar, you will find a similar obsession. And
similar hate."
Kind of like how trogs don't grok that Colbert is making fun of them.
Hate speech is wishing harm on your opponents for political reasons. Calling people names is not hate speech. Neither is making fun of people. That's just being a dick.
Alas, wingers don't get that distinction. I suspect the root cause (mental failing) also explains trogs rampant false equivalency (e.g. Clinton got a blow job == Bush allowing 9/11, illegally invading a foreign country, killing 100,000s of its citizens, making refugees out of a few million, and using depleted uranium to convert much of the formerly inhabited areas into Superfund sites).
I once had a winger tell me that the Rodney King riots in LA were an example of left wing hate speech. The stupid, it hurts. I honestly can't decide if trogs say ridiculous non sequiturs because they're thick or if it's merely to distract and enrage (a la Limbaugh, Beck, Coulter). I've decided to simply judge people by their actions, vs their intent.
The grandma having sex with a bear is obviously funny. To you and me. But the trogs can't see it that way. Any mocking is a direct personal attack demanding a defensive response.
Inman didn't know the Carreon's were mentally impaired. But for future, just know that trogs will misunderstand, misinterpret, twist, assume the worst, distort, etc. No one can control the audience's reaction. But in my mocking, I do try to avoid borderline humor which can be labeled "hate speech". No sense giving the trogs another chew toy. And there's no shortage of funny stuff to say.
You come close to smearing roughly half of all people with the comical stupidity of the worst within that half. All of what you say seems true, but even describing reality along those lines (even without your epithets) arouses passion+stupidity.
Just half?
I had to read Tara Carreon's quote for myself. The "hate speech" reference jumped out. No one else had commented on it. Probably because few here are as political as me, so wouldn't know that it's a politically charged phrase.
Oh, I forgot to mention something.
Carreon's equating Inman to Jared Loughner is just sick. As in reprehensible. No different than invoking Hitler (Godwin's Law). And is a pretty good example of hateful (vs hate) speech.
I had to read Tara Carreon's quote for myself. The "hate speech" reference jumped out. No one else had commented on it. Probably because few here are as political as me, so wouldn't know that it's a politically charged phrase.
Oh, I forgot to mention something.
Carreon's equating Inman to Jared Loughner is just sick. As in reprehensible. No different than invoking Hitler (Godwin's Law). And is a pretty good example of hateful (vs hate) speech.
Not to discount your point, but half of Americans is nowhere close to half of all people. (considering how much further right the American Right is compared to the European Right for example, I'd need some evidence to support half the worlds population having something in common with the American Right)
By "trogs" are you referring to troglodytes? I have never heard that being a synonym to far right republicans so am a bit confused.
It's an accident of history, snapshot of time that most anti-intellectuals currently vote Republican.
You can't make this stuff up, folks.