Griff
Phoenix
Joined: Nov 17, 2006
Posts: 1615
|
 Posted: Fri Jun 06, 2008 2:48 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
No. You might find this surprising, but the Latin populace has very similar attitudes to the white, non-Hispanic populace. Their youths are just as thuggish as any, but teenage brats don't seem to vary much across cultural or ethnic lines. The only group that consistently shows greater opposition to gay marriage is the black populace. American Latinos may be mostly blue collar, but they are still very successful due to their preservation of the nuclear family. Their ability to fall back on cousins, uncles, and so forth has prevented them from being hit as hard by poverty and economic problems. Homophobia is usually correlated with economic hardship. Well, the numbers say that the Latinos are poor, but their culture makes them rich in a way that we have all but forgotten. I honestly don't think that true homophobia ever really took root in the Latin population. Just typical teenage thuggishness, which is a universal. Otherwise, I think that our immigrants should be more recognized for their resilience and their integrity.
Besides, they're going to constitute the majority of the American voting population within a few more years. That'll make me a double-minority. Kissing up starting now would be wise. Consider yourself warned. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Fnord
Enigmatic Threadkilling Metasyntactic Variable
Joined: May 07, 2008
Posts: 17894
Location: Stendec
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 06, 2008 3:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The_Chosen_One wrote: | | Say if you did vote on it, does anybody besides the person counting the vote and yourself have to know who you voted for? Afterall, your vote is meant to kept private, and the people counting these votes (whether in elections or referenda) are meant to sign statutory declarations that they will not disclose the inforamtion they come across. Which means the only way someone else could find out what you voted for would be if you told them yourself. Or maybe it doesn't work that way in the US, which means that no-one can mind their own business. |
... none of which addresses the "What's in it for me?" aspect.
| Griff wrote: | | Sociological stability. |
An intangible element, at best. At worst, a Non-Sequitur to the initial question, because is same-sex marriages would not benefit a single representative of dominant society, then same-sex marriage could not possibly benefit society as a whole. I am not asking about any benefits (perceptual, or actual) to society as a whole. I am asking how would same-sex marriage benefit me?
| Griff wrote: | | What do you have to gain? Let's first examine what you have to gain from ignoring the issue: absolutely nothing. |
You've addressed a question of your own; one which is the opposite of what I've asked. This is called the "Strawman Fallacy", wherein you present a hypothetical condition, and then argue for or against it. Now address my question. Start with "Second, let us examine the direct benefits of same-sex marriage, which are..."
| Griff wrote: | | This issue will just keep coming back until we have closure. The gay community needs closure, and I am sure that you want your peace. |
So it is now obvious - by your statement - that the "gay community" is threatening the rest of us with lack of peace until they get their way. This is called the "Appeal To Fear" and the "Argument From Adverse Consequences", and is a fallacious form of asserting one's argument. It is also very childish. The danger of using this fallacy is that it can also lead to other irrational emotions that can rebound upon the persuader, such as dislike and hate. Appeals to Fear seldom gain more than temporary compliance. Emotional and intellectual agreement will lag far behind and opposing ideas may actually be strengthened).
_________________
* Believing in myths allows the comfort of having an opinion without the discomfort of having to think.
* Believing that you're worthless allows the comfort of having something to complain about without the discomfort of having to change. |
|
| Back to top |
|
oscuria
Verbal Guerrilla
Joined: Feb 01, 2008
Posts: 2194
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 06, 2008 3:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Griff wrote: | No. You might find this surprising, but the Latin populace has very similar attitudes to the white, non-Hispanic populace. Their youths are just as thuggish as any, but teenage brats don't seem to vary much across cultural or ethnic lines. The only group that consistently shows greater opposition to gay marriage is the black populace. American Latinos may be mostly blue collar, but they are still very successful due to their preservation of the nuclear family. Their ability to fall back on cousins, uncles, and so forth has prevented them from being hit as hard by poverty and economic problems. Homophobia is usually correlated with economic hardship. Well, the numbers say that the Latinos are poor, but their culture makes them rich in a way that we have all but forgotten. I honestly don't think that true homophobia ever really took root in the Latin population. Just typical teenage thuggishness, which is a universal. Otherwise, I think that our immigrants should be more recognized for their resilience and their integrity.
Besides, they're going to constitute the majority of the American voting population within a few more years. That'll make me a double-minority. Kissing up starting now would be wise. Consider yourself warned. |
Uhmm, this is something I am going to verily disagree on. Homosexuality is not something that the Hispanics as a whole embrace.
_________________
sticks and stones may kill you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
LKL
Phoenix
Joined: Jul 22, 2007
Age: 37
Posts: 5692
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 08, 2008 2:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
Fnord,
even if you yourself are not gay, chances are that someone you know - maybe even someone in your family - is. It impacts you because your friends and family will be allowed to form legally recognized spousal relationships.
Besides which is the morality of it; if the right wing succeeds in defining a marriage around the possibility of intra-spousal reproduction, it lessens the value of marriage for any of us who are either incapable of or not desiring to produce our own genetic children. I don't want the right wing defining my marriage or my family; I don't want them deciding who is a first class citizen and who is a 2nd class citizen. Do you really want them to be able to solidify their straight-jacketed view of what is right into the California constitution? |
|
| Back to top |
|
Fnord
Enigmatic Threadkilling Metasyntactic Variable
Joined: May 07, 2008
Posts: 17894
Location: Stendec
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 09, 2008 12:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| LKL wrote: | Fnord,
even if you yourself are not gay, chances are that someone you know - maybe even someone in your family - is. It impacts you because your friends and family will be allowed to form legally recognized spousal relationships.
Besides which is the morality of it; if the right wing succeeds in defining a marriage around the possibility of intra-spousal reproduction, it lessens the value of marriage for any of us who are either incapable of or not desiring to produce our own genetic children. I don't want the right wing defining my marriage or my family; I don't want them deciding who is a first class citizen and who is a 2nd class citizen. Do you really want them to be able to solidify their straight-jacketed view of what is right into the California constitution? |
Again, a respondent has failed to answer the question as it is stated ("What is in it for me?"). Even if one of my relatives were gay, their marriage to another gay person would not affect me adversely or otherwise.
And again, I am not addressing issues of "right or wrong", only in how voting against a "one man + one woman" marriage amendment would benefit me. This is the only issue that both sides ignore; the direct benefits, or lack thereof, of legalized same-sex marriages for a person who would never marry anyone but a member of the opposite sex.
Let the extremists on either side of the issue foam at the mouth and rant about "Family values" versus "Fairness and rights". Simply answer my question as it is stated: What is in it for me to vote against a "one man / one woman" marriage amendment?
_________________
* Believing in myths allows the comfort of having an opinion without the discomfort of having to think.
* Believing that you're worthless allows the comfort of having something to complain about without the discomfort of having to change. |
|
| Back to top |
|
DeanFoley
Deinonychus
Joined: Nov 07, 2007
Posts: 399
Location: England-Birmingham
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 09, 2008 12:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Nothing's in it for you.
But then again, what's really in it for you to vote against it?
What's in it for you to not be racist or xenephobic? |
|
| Back to top |
|
monty
Phoenix
Joined: Sep 05, 2007
Posts: 3170
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 09, 2008 1:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fnord wrote: | | What is in it for me to vote against a "one man / one woman" marriage amendment? |
You've repeatedly asked a rational question. However, what evidence is their that the average voter pursues their own interests rationally? I know several hard working, underpaid people that will vote against their own economic interests with respect to the minimum wage. Those people don't even know how the candidates stand on the issue - instead, their vote will be cast for 'perceived patriotism' (measured by wearing a flag lapel pin).
It's more about emotion than reason. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Fnord
Enigmatic Threadkilling Metasyntactic Variable
Joined: May 07, 2008
Posts: 17894
Location: Stendec
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 09, 2008 1:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| monty wrote: | | Fnord wrote: | | What is in it for me to vote against a "one man / one woman" marriage amendment? |
You've repeatedly asked a rational question. |
Then why have you and others repeatedly evaded it? A rational question deserves a rational answer, not a dumpload of emo posturing.
| DeanFoley wrote: | | What's in it for you to not be racist or xenephobic? |
Behold! The "Ad Hominem" attack! With spelling errors, no less! I am neither racist nor xenophobic - neither of which has anything to do with the proposed amendment, anyway.
(At least, two posters were honest enough to reply "nothing" to my question.)
Look, an average Joe like me doesn't care two cents about the emotionalism of extremist groups on either side. Guys like me tend to look at issues from our own personal perspectives. Thus, the "What's in it for me?" type of question.
So, if there is no direct benefit to me from defeating the "One Man - One Woman" marriage amendment, then I am going to do what I can to maintain the status quo and support it - as long as I'm standing in the voting booth casting my ballot, I will expend the same a mount of effort to vote "Yes" as it would have taken me to vote "No".
Otherwise, to change my mind, make it worth my while.
_________________
* Believing in myths allows the comfort of having an opinion without the discomfort of having to think.
* Believing that you're worthless allows the comfort of having something to complain about without the discomfort of having to change. |
|
| Back to top |
|
monty
Phoenix
Joined: Sep 05, 2007
Posts: 3170
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 09, 2008 1:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fnord wrote: | | monty wrote: | | Fnord wrote: | | What is in it for me to vote against a "one man / one woman" marriage amendment? |
You've repeatedly asked a rational question. |
Then why have you and others repeatedly evaded it? A rational question deserves a rational answer, not a dumpload of emo posturing. |
Umm... I DID answer in a rational fashion, remember ?
| Fnord wrote: | | monty wrote: | | Fnord wrote: |
... what is in it for me to vote against a "one man / one woman" marriage amendment?
|
Absolutely nothing, either way. It boils down to doing what you think is right, just as it does if you get paneled on a jury. Just one of the duties of citizenship. |
No better response. No elaboration needed. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Fnord
Enigmatic Threadkilling Metasyntactic Variable
Joined: May 07, 2008
Posts: 17894
Location: Stendec
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 09, 2008 1:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Monty,
Yes, I did remember. That's why you were one of the two that I acknowledged in the statement:
| Quote: | | (At least, two posters were honest enough to reply "nothing" to my question.) |
However, I claim "Brain Fart" as an excuse for accusing you of not doing so.
My bad.
-Fnord
_________________
* Believing in myths allows the comfort of having an opinion without the discomfort of having to think.
* Believing that you're worthless allows the comfort of having something to complain about without the discomfort of having to change. |
|
| Back to top |
|
oscuria
Verbal Guerrilla
Joined: Feb 01, 2008
Posts: 2194
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 09, 2008 5:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Why would it be xenophobic/homophobic/whatever to believe that homosexuals should not marry?
Why this sudden movement of denouncing people who do not go with the liberal swing? I don't understand the restrictive minds of the "Free Thinkers."
_________________
sticks and stones may kill you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Fnord
Enigmatic Threadkilling Metasyntactic Variable
Joined: May 07, 2008
Posts: 17894
Location: Stendec
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 09, 2008 7:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| oscuria wrote: | | Why this sudden movement of denouncing people who do not go with the liberal swing? I don't understand the restrictive minds of the "Free Thinkers." |
Liberal (n) - a person who believes that Personal Freedom, the Democratic Process, and Civil Liberties are important.
- Personal Freedom: Everyone has the right to live their lives as the please, as long as they obey their liberal leaders.
- Democratic Process: Governments should be elected by the people in free and fair elections, unless the liberal candidate loses in a free and fair election.
- Civil Liberties: Governments should protect personal freedoms, except where those personal freedoms might allow a person to choose or express conservative values.
Free Thinker (n) - A person who forms opinions on the basis of reason, and independent of tradition, authority, or established belief. Free Thinkers include anarchists, atheists, agnostics, and rationalists.
'Nuff Said?
_________________
* Believing in myths allows the comfort of having an opinion without the discomfort of having to think.
* Believing that you're worthless allows the comfort of having something to complain about without the discomfort of having to change. |
|
| Back to top |
|
LKL
Phoenix
Joined: Jul 22, 2007
Age: 37
Posts: 5692
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 09, 2008 9:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fnord wrote: | | LKL wrote: | Fnord,
even if you yourself are not gay, chances are that someone you know - maybe even someone in your family - is. It impacts you because your friends and family will be allowed to form legally recognized spousal relationships.
Besides which is the morality of it; if the right wing succeeds in defining a marriage around the possibility of intra-spousal reproduction, it lessens the value of marriage for any of us who are either incapable of or not desiring to produce our own genetic children. I don't want the right wing defining my marriage or my family; I don't want them deciding who is a first class citizen and who is a 2nd class citizen. Do you really want them to be able to solidify their straight-jacketed view of what is right into the California constitution? |
Again, a respondent has failed to answer the question as it is stated ("What is in it for me?"). |
What? The idea of your friends and family receiving equal treatment does not make you, yourself, happy?
ps
if you alone define the terms, then you can make any claims you want about anyone. If you want to have conversations with other people, however, it works better to use commonly agreed upon definitions. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Fnord
Enigmatic Threadkilling Metasyntactic Variable
Joined: May 07, 2008
Posts: 17894
Location: Stendec
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 09, 2008 11:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| LKL wrote: | | Fnord wrote: | | LKL wrote: | Fnord,
even if you yourself are not gay, chances are that someone you know - maybe even someone in your family - is. It impacts you because your friends and family will be allowed to form legally recognized spousal relationships.
Besides which is the morality of it; if the right wing succeeds in defining a marriage around the possibility of intra-spousal reproduction, it lessens the value of marriage for any of us who are either incapable of or not desiring to produce our own genetic children. I don't want the right wing defining my marriage or my family; I don't want them deciding who is a first class citizen and who is a 2nd class citizen. Do you really want them to be able to solidify their straight-jacketed view of what is right into the California constitution? |
Again, a respondent has failed to answer the question as it is stated ("What is in it for me?"). |
What? The idea of your friends and family receiving equal treatment does not make you, yourself, happy?
ps
if you alone define the terms, then you can make any claims you want about anyone. If you want to have conversations with other people, however, it works better to use commonly agreed upon definitions. |
We already receive "equal treatment" under the law. There is not much more "equally" that we can we be treated. Your "False Dilemma" fallacy needs rework.
However, I am not redefining any terms, having stuck with the same basic question: "What's in it for me?". It's folks like you who keep trying to turn the question from that to whatever their own personal agenda may be.
_________________
* Believing in myths allows the comfort of having an opinion without the discomfort of having to think.
* Believing that you're worthless allows the comfort of having something to complain about without the discomfort of having to change. |
|
| Back to top |
|
monty
Phoenix
Joined: Sep 05, 2007
Posts: 3170
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 10, 2008 10:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
| OK, Fnord! - here's what's in it for you. The gay marriage industry in California is set to boom. Pent-up demand means gay people will spend billions on all the accompaniments of a wedding. Much of that money will go to the local service economy (wedding halls, caterers, cake makers, planners, etc). By being an early adopter, California will also attract tourism. This may not be enough to offset the subprime mess, but do you see any other comparable economic stimuli for Cali that do not require taxing people or floating bond issues?? The voters only need to say "ok, you can have your party" and it will trigger a wave of economic activity. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
