On Understanding

[Adam]

I started this thread because I wanted to address some comments Helen made in response to some comments of mine in another thread that's, frankly, too scary for me to look at any more.

I feel disappointed to read comments like Adam's earlier in this thread, because he says he doesn't understand strongly religious people, yet doesn't demonstrate any interest in understanding them.

Well, to clarify where I'm coming from, it's not as though I suddenly became aware that there are people whose values come from strong religious convictions that I don't share and decided that I'll never understand them. Rather, I base my opinion that I'll likely never understand such points of view on a number of conversations I've had with people who hold them, face to face and online, as well as on reading some of the things such people have written, and on my own observations of similar value divides, as I'll try to explain.

I think this comment of yours leads into what I want to say next very well:

Here's just one aspect of it which Adam has ignored or missed, based on the above. People who oppose same-sex marriage consider it is their business because they think it contributes to the breakdown of society.

First, to nitpick, I'd say that some people who opoose same-sex marriage do so for this reason. Other people (my mother, for one), oppose it because it's "icky" and "unnatural" and "the parts don't fit" (yes, those are all direct quotes from my mom), or due to classic homophobia. In these cases, I'm simply at a loss. I have no similar values that I can base understanding on. I mean, I think that the thought of grossly obese people having sex is pretty damned icky, but I can't imagine basing an opposition to such people marrying on that gut reaction. My mother, apparently, can base on opposition to gay marriage on her gut reaction.

Moving beyond that nitpick, to address the substance of your point, yes, an argument based on the potential breakdown of society (however you want to define such a breakdown...I don't know what sort of situation I'd term an actual breakdown of society) is somethgin that I could, theoretically, identify with and understand. Unfortunately, each of the several discussions I've had that have traveled down that path have mved quickly to being discussions about the sanctity of marriage, which is not something that holds a whole lot of water with me. Leaving aside the rational portion of the argument (how on earth person A's marriage is less sanctified if person B, who is different from person A in some key way, is allowed to be married), I simply lack the underlying value structure that would allow me to identify with someone's concern for sanctity, and that's what it comes down to; the underlying value structures. A person who is opposed to gay marriage on the grounds that it affects the sancity of other marriages isn't going to be able to explain their position to me so that I understand it because it necessarily involves referring to values that I do not hold, and are not similar enough to values that I do hold, for me to understand or, at least, for me to understand in any sense but the most abstract. I'm not going to feel it. Likewise, I suspect that the same problem would crop up if I were to try to explain my position to a person who did not hold my underlying value structure, or something similar to it, as mine is based heavily in a gut level abhorrence of unjust discrimination. Someone who did not experience such an abhorrence might not understand why mine motivates me so strongly.


The core of my point here is that my general experience is that it's not fruitful to try and bridge the values gap in such cases, and that one's energy is better spent focusing on values that one does have in common with the other person if one wants to understand them better. My mother and I certainly have quite a bit in common, for example, and I prefer to focus on those commonalities when relating to her than to dwell on the frustration that is inevitably entailed in trying to make each other understand our divergent viewpoints on gay marriage. On a more politically oriented note, I stated in the post you responded to that I think that there are issues where there is fairly broad agreement between socially liberal and socially conservative voters, and that these issues are less divisive the the so-called "moral values" issues of same-sex marriage and abortion. My observation, in fact, is that these divisive issues have been exploited by political hacks (on both sides, but more ostentatiously and succesfully by the right), and the excessive attention paid to them has overshadowed the many values that the electorate does, in fact, share. I'm all for agreeing to disagree, to the extent that it's possible, on these issues, and spending more time discussing what we do have in common, and seeing where we can go with that. Unfortunately, I don't know if that's possible, not least because the aformentioned political hacks won't let the issues drop, but also because of the main problem with politics, that being that someone's values are inevitably legislated on someone else, and that usually leads to hard feelings.

I hope that made some degree of sense. I'm trying to let out my stream of consciousness in the hopes that it will provide some insight into why I feel the way I do about understanding and the lack thereof.

A personal frustration of mine here is that I feel, rightly or wrongly, that any attempt on my part to promote better understanding of a 'them' such as theists (by trying to explain theist POVs) will be turned into a debate about why theists are wrong. I'd like to see more evidence of people wanting to understand 'them' rather than simply argue 'them' down.

Well, personally, if you, or anyone, is willing to lay out the "other" side in terms that aren't alien to me, I'd certainly be willing to participate in a non-confrontational discussion. For example, I'd love to see "breakdown of society" defined in such a way that everyone could agree would be an undesireable situation, and then a rational argument put forth for why gay marriage will lead to it.

Adam

[HelenM]

Adam, thanks for your response and for putting it in a new thread.

I'll look over your post again when I'm less tired; for now, here's a response just to the end of it:

A personal frustration of mine here is that I feel, rightly or wrongly, that any attempt on my part to promote better understanding of a 'them' such as theists (by trying to explain theist POVs) will be turned into a debate about why theists are wrong. I'd like to see more evidence of people wanting to understand 'them' rather than simply argue 'them' down.

Well, personally, if you, or anyone, is willing to lay out the "other" side in terms that aren't alien to me, I'd certainly be willing to participate in a non-confrontational discussion. For example, I'd love to see "breakdown of society" defined in such a way that everyone could agree would be an undesireable situation, and then a rational argument put forth for why gay marriage will lead to it.

Adam

But this doesn't sound like a quest for understanding. It sounds more like a two-part challenge to theists: a) make your definition of "breakdown of society" make sense to me and b) demonstrate that your argument for why gay marriage leads to the "breakdown of society" [defined in a way that makes sense to me] meets my criteria for what is a 'rational' argument.

I'm not arguing that challenging theists to justify their position is inappropriate or wrong. But it's a very different endeavor from seeking to understand their position - which involves simply listening to them. And perhaps asking questions - but only for clarification and not with the purpose of arguing against what they say or challenging them to prove that it is reasonable.

Helen

[Nathan Poe]

But this doesn't sound like a quest for understanding. It sounds more like a two-part challenge to theists: a) make your definition of "breakdown of society" make sense to me and b) demonstrate that your argument for why gay marriage leads to the "breakdown of society" [defined in a way that makes sense to me] meets my criteria for what is a 'rational' argument.

I'm not arguing that challenging theists to justify their position is inappropriate or wrong. But it's a very different endeavor from seeking to understand their position - which involves simply listening to them. And perhaps asking questions - but only for clarification and not with the purpose of arguing against what they say or challenging them to prove that it is reasonable.

Helen

Perhaps the tone could be taken as confrontational, but the question is certainly valid.

What, specifically, is the danger to society that would be caused by legalized gay marriage?

[maddog]

Hmm.
I must confess a certain parallel between Adam's feelings and my own in connection to this particular issue -- gay rights/gay marriage -- in this sense: It's really hard for me to "understand" that which makes absolutely no sense to me. I simply don't know how what 2 OTHER PEOPLE are doing "affects" what couple no. 1 is doing.

I understand that some people sincerely believe that gay marriage will contribute to the "breakdown of society," but I don't really know what "breakdown of society" means in that case. Where does the antipathy to gay marriage come from? So far as I can tell from what opponents have said, it comes from homosexuality being an aberration or "unnatural." It's not statistically prevalent, true, but I don't know what "unnatural" means in this context. For a lot of people, it seems to come down to "tab A fits in slot B; anything else is 'unnatural'." Or, any kind of sex that doesn't lead to procreation is "unnatural." I think there are problems with this view. The only other articulated justification I have seen, which sort of ties in with the "unnatural" theme, is that God says it's an "abomination." But WHY does God hate it so?

I think I know the answer to this; it's rooted in the imperative of life to live, and of species to propagate themselves. In the earliest stages of human development, the success of the species was in doubt. So all "seed" was precious, and needed for survival. That's why it's such an important waste for a man to spill his seed (masturbation) or put it where it won't get a child (sodomy, homosexuality). I think that's why it's such a taboo. Our civilization has ensured the success of the species beyond the danger of being wiped out if every person didn't procreate, which was the case in ancient and pre-historic times. So it's not so critical that every human being expend its energy in procreation. We can specialize a little more. I think that's one reason why monogamy, rather than polygamy, is the prevailing paradigm now -- we can afford it. (An aside: Polygamy is Biblical, however. The Bible definition of marriage was not limited to one man and one woman until quite recently.) That's why we can afford monogamy. That's why we can afford not to punish people for sodomy inside a heterosexual relationship. The taboo against homosexuality still remains, but I think it's just as anachronistic as some of the other things that used to be "abominations," but into which people don't care to inquire very much any more. If married couples could be prosecuted for having consensual anal sex, I think there would be a whole lot more people in prison.

The "breakdown of society" rationale doesn't hold up to scrutiny, either, I don't think. Which is worse for society, letting people get divorced at the drop of a hat, or preventing some people from making the commitment to stay together and support one another (in effect forcing them to be divorced)?

Yes, I've thought about the issue. I've reached my own conclusions based on the information I have. If I've missed something or left something out, I'd be happy to reevaluate my position. I really DO wish I could understand, but, as I say, it's hard for me to understand that which, so far, doesn't seem to make sense to me.

The only thing I can add in terms of understanding is that homosexuality is an issue that seems to get people enraged and/or scared. Being scared is something I understand. I don't yet understand being scared about THIS particular thing. Is it fear of the unknown? Would it help if everyone met some gay people, esp. some that want to get married?
#56

[Adora]

I simply don't know how what 2 OTHER PEOPLE are doing "affects" what couple no. 1 is doing.
The accepted theory by those who study homophobia is that acknowledgement of gay human rights threatens hegemonic "Traditional"* gender relations, which try and assert that they are "natural" and "essential" and everything else is deviant and "unnatural" etc. They're a "threat" because they prove that it's all a load of bullshit.

It's not the "breakdown of society" they're really ranting about (though they call it that), it's the breakdown of heterosexual privilege & status at the top of a sexual heirachy, and their fear of losing power and inability to see beyond this. We live in a heterosexist society. Anything that challanges that is a threat as much to a civil rights movement in a racist society or an equal rights movement in a sexist society.

But WHY does God hate it so?

Back in the old days, it was basic misogyny. Y'know, top= good manly male, bottom= submissive, dirty, "receiving" female garbage. These days... well... it's still misogyny. Anything that threatens hegemonic masculinity is instantly classified as something "feminine" and, because of gross gender imbalances in society, "bad". Therefore, anything that somehow lowers a perceived essentialist masculine manly man to a "female" position= "bad". It's the same reasons transgender/sexuals/vestites get such a shit time. Subversion of perceived "naturalism".

Would it help if everyone met some gay people, esp. some that want to get married?

Queers are people too, remember. Like all humans, there are those who will get along with some people, and those who will get along with others. Simply "meeting a queer" doesn't guarantee understanding and endorsement for human rights.

*Traditional, meaning created only in the last 300-200 years, of course. Stupid capitalist industrial revolution... *shakes fist*.

[HelenM]

Perhaps the tone could be taken as confrontational, but the question is certainly valid.

What, specifically, is the danger to society that would be caused by legalized gay marriage?

But I'm not talking about whether a question is valid. I'm talking about the difference between "Please explain your POV to me; I'm listening" and "I think you're wrong. Prove to me that you aren't wrong".

Why must it be the latter? What's wrong with the former? When you're already almost certain you're not going to agree with the other person's POV anyway, the latter is a failed endeavor before it begins.

Helen

[HelenM]

Hmm.
I must confess a certain parallel between Adam's feelings and my own in connection to this particular issue -- gay rights/gay marriage -- in this sense: It's really hard for me to "understand" that which makes absolutely no sense to me. I simply don't know how what 2 OTHER PEOPLE are doing "affects" what couple no. 1 is doing.

But - as I see often - you seem to be confusing "understand" with "agree".

I understand that some people sincerely believe that gay marriage will contribute to the "breakdown of society," but I don't really know what "breakdown of society" means in that case.

That's not surprising, if you don't know how what two people do affects anyone else.

Yet in general, the behavior of people often does affect others, doesn't it? I would say so, anyway.

Where does the antipathy to gay marriage come from? So far as I can tell from what opponents have said, it comes from homosexuality being an aberration or "unnatural." It's not statistically prevalent, true, but I don't know what "unnatural" means in this context. For a lot of people, it seems to come down to "tab A fits in slot B; anything else is 'unnatural'." Or, any kind of sex that doesn't lead to procreation is "unnatural." I think there are problems with this view. The only other articulated justification I have seen, which sort of ties in with the "unnatural" theme, is that God says it's an "abomination." But WHY does God hate it so?

I think I know the answer to this; it's rooted in the imperative of life to live, and of species to propagate themselves. In the earliest stages of human development, the success of the species was in doubt. So all "seed" was precious, and needed for survival. That's why it's such an important waste for a man to spill his seed (masturbation) or put it where it won't get a child (sodomy, homosexuality). I think that's why it's such a taboo. Our civilization has ensured the success of the species beyond the danger of being wiped out if every person didn't procreate, which was the case in ancient and pre-historic times. So it's not so critical that every human being expend its energy in procreation. We can specialize a little more. I think that's one reason why monogamy, rather than polygamy, is the prevailing paradigm now -- we can afford it. (An aside: Polygamy is Biblical, however. The Bible definition of marriage was not limited to one man and one woman until quite recently.) That's why we can afford monogamy. That's why we can afford not to punish people for sodomy inside a heterosexual relationship. The taboo against homosexuality still remains, but I think it's just as anachronistic as some of the other things that used to be "abominations," but into which people don't care to inquire very much any more. If married couples could be prosecuted for having consensual anal sex, I think there would be a whole lot more people in prison.

The "breakdown of society" rationale doesn't hold up to scrutiny, either, I don't think. Which is worse for society, letting people get divorced at the drop of a hat, or preventing some people from making the commitment to stay together and support one another (in effect forcing them to be divorced)?

Yes, I've thought about the issue. I've reached my own conclusions based on the information I have. If I've missed something or left something out, I'd be happy to reevaluate my position. I really DO wish I could understand, but, as I say, it's hard for me to understand that which, so far, doesn't seem to make sense to me.

The only thing I can add in terms of understanding is that homosexuality is an issue that seems to get people enraged and/or scared. Being scared is something I understand. I don't yet understand being scared about THIS particular thing. Is it fear of the unknown? Would it help if everyone met some gay people, esp. some that want to get married?
#56

With all due respect, maddog, your post is a great illustration of something that I don't understand. You say you don't fully understand a certain POV and then you proceed to theorize about the basis of it rather than going and asking someone who holds it, what their basis is. And you aren't the only one who speculates about the answer without asking those who would know because it's their POV. Why is that? Do you think your thoughts about the basis for their POV are likely to be more accurate than what they say about it?

And, not that you would, but if you do ask, yet do it in such a way as "I think your POV is ridiculous, irrational and bigoted. Prove me wrong", I don't think you'll find a lot of takers. Just a few extremists who love to argue. Who may well not represent most of those who hold the given POV.

Helen

[Adam]

But this doesn't sound like a quest for understanding. It sounds more like a two-part challenge to theists: a) make your definition of "breakdown of society" make sense to me and b) demonstrate that your argument for why gay marriage leads to the "breakdown of society" [defined in a way that makes sense to me] meets my criteria for what is a 'rational' argument.

I'm not arguing that challenging theists to justify their position is inappropriate or wrong. But it's a very different endeavor from seeking to understand their position - which involves simply listening to them. And perhaps asking questions - but only for clarification and not with the purpose of arguing against what they say or challenging them to prove that it is reasonable.

I may have worded my post a bit poorly, but what I'm trying to get at is that I don't understand the "breakdown of society" argument because I've never seen it formulated in terms that make visceral sense to me. I can grasp, in an abstract sense, that people who use this argument are concerned that society will cease functioning in manner X if gay people are allowed to marry, but X is usually poorly defined, and never, in my experience, related to anything that I, personally, would consider anything significant enough to term a "breakdown of society". In other words, I don't understand where people who use that argument are coming from because, to the degree that they are able to articulate their concerns, their concerns are far removed from anything that concerns me, so I have no referrant for true understanding. I can understand that they are very concerned about "asdfhjl", but "asdfhjl" makes no sense at all to me, so I don't really understand thier positions. Does that make a degree of sense?

[HelenM]

I simply don't know how what 2 OTHER PEOPLE are doing "affects" what couple no. 1 is doing.
The accepted theory by those who study homophobia is that acknowledgement of gay human rights threatens hegemonic "Traditional"* gender relations, which try and assert that they are "natural" and "essential" and everything else is deviant and "unnatural" etc. They're a "threat" because they prove that it's all a load of bullshit.

It's not the "breakdown of society" they're really ranting about (though they call it that), it's the breakdown of heterosexual privilege & status at the top of a sexual heirachy, and their fear of losing power and inability to see beyond this. We live in a heterosexist society. Anything that challanges that is a threat as much to a civil rights movement in a racist society or an equal rights movement in a sexist society.

But WHY does God hate it so?

Back in the old days, it was basic misogyny. Y'know, top= good manly male, bottom= submissive, dirty, "receiving" female garbage. These days... well... it's still misogyny. Anything that threatens hegemonic masculinity is instantly classified as something "feminine" and, because of gross gender imbalances in society, "bad". Therefore, anything that somehow lowers a perceived essentialist masculine manly man to a "female" position= "bad". It's the same reasons transgender/sexuals/vestites get such a shit time. Subversion of perceived "naturalism".

Would it help if everyone met some gay people, esp. some that want to get married?

Queers are people too, remember. Like all humans, there are those who will get along with some people, and those who will get along with others. Simply "meeting a queer" doesn't guarantee understanding and endorsement for human rights.

*Traditional, meaning created only in the last 300-200 years, of course. Stupid capitalist industrial revolution... *shakes fist*.

Here's an example of someone who disagrees with a POV telling someone else who disagrees with it why people hold it. Why not ask the people with that POV instead of speaking for them?

And besides, here again this thread is not about understanding other people so much as saying why they're wrong.

When Christians (say) do this - one has a question about nontheists, say, and it's answered confidently by other Christians who also feel free to speculate on nontheist motives - how do you all feel about that? Does it bother you that they never asked you? Do you think it's wrong when they build and re-assert their pictures of you, sharing them with each other without ever coming to find out about you first-hand, from you - yet it's reasonable for you to form a nontheist huddle and tell each other what they are like and why the are the way they are? This is what I want to understand better and I am asking, rather than speculating on why and your motives. If you see a more confrontational tone in the way I'm asking than I indicated I think is optimal, I apologize for that. If so then evidently my frustration is showing.

And please please please don't simply respond by being incredulous that I'm not simply "Yep, you're all right and they're all wrong". That's not the focus of my original comments to Adam; the point is not "who is right and who is wrong". It's more "How can we be so sure we have the best understanding of them we can possibly have, when so much of what we think about them comes from us discussing them among ourselves, rather than us going out to them and getting to know them better?"

Helen

[HelenM]

I may have worded my post a bit poorly, but what I'm trying to get at is that I don't understand the "breakdown of society" argument because I've never seen it formulated in terms that make visceral sense to me.

This sounds like a confusion between "understand" and "agree" to some extent. Does another person's position have to make visceral sense to you for you to understand it? I would have thought maybe you could understand it in a sort of detached "I don't think like that" way.

I can grasp, in an abstract sense, that people who use this argument are concerned that society will cease functioning in manner X if gay people are allowed to marry, but X is usually poorly defined,

Is it always?

and never, in my experience, related to anything that I, personally, would consider anything significant enough to term a "breakdown of society".

This is lack of agreement, not lack of understanding their argument.

In other words, I don't understand where people who use that argument are coming from because, to the degree that they are able to articulate their concerns, their concerns are far removed from anything that concerns me, so I have no referrant for true understanding. I can understand that they are very concerned about "asdfhjl", but "asdfhjl" makes no sense at all to me, so I don't really understand thier positions. Does that make a degree of sense?

Yes, but...why would you say you don't understand rather than you don't agree? To me, you don't understand implies you are missing some knowledge about how they got to their POV. Would you say that's true?

Of course you're not obliged to seek more information about how they get to their POV. However, there's always the possibility there is more reason behind it than you think, if you don't actually know how they get there. If what you're doing (not that you are, but for the sake of argument) is assuming the bit you don't know is completely irrational, then I'd say that indicates prejudice. I think I've seen a lot of that in nontheist discussion of theists POVs, but please don't conclude I'm accusing you of it unless I quote something specific you wrote and claim it as an example of prejudice.

Helen

[Roland98]

how do you all feel about that? Does it bother you that they never asked you?

But this is the thing. Many of us have asked "them." However, of course, we can never ask every "them." So at some point, we have to generalize based on answers we've received from "them." For example, I'd never lump all theists together on the gay marriage issue. Nor really all atheists. I know non-theists who also think it's "icky" and that's their sole reason for being against it. I know theists who are in favor of it for many reasons, from a Biblical call for social justice, equality, and "love thy neighbor" to more secular reasons (such as basic church/state separation). At some point it's simply useful to generalize, realizing full well that when you do so, it should be made with the notion that it is simply a generalization, and there will be many people who don't fit into any handy little category.

Here's an example of someone who disagrees with a POV telling someone else who disagrees with it why people hold it. Why not ask the people with that POV instead of speaking for them?

But maybe you missed where Adora said...

The accepted theory by those who study homophobia...

So again, this is, of course, a generalization, based (I assume, since it's been made by people who study the issue) on lots of "asking them." At some point you're going to see broad trends in the answers you get, and this is when you can start grouping people by the answers they give. Of course, this is a simplistic way of looking at it, as generalizations necessarily are, but I think it's going much to far to say the people who hold that POV have not been asked. Sure, everyone who holds that POV hasn't been asked by the researchers in question, but if they're worth their salt, they've asked a good number representing a cross-section of society.

[HelenM]

how do you all feel about that? Does it bother you that they never asked you?

But this is the thing. Many of us have asked "them." However, of course, we can never ask every "them." So at some point, we have to generalize based on answers we've received from "them." For example, I'd never lump all theists together on the gay marriage issue. Nor really all atheists. I know non-theists who also think it's "icky" and that's their sole reason for being against it. I know theists who are in favor of it for many reasons, from a Biblical call for social justice, equality, and "love thy neighbor" to more secular reasons (such as basic church/state separation). At some point it's simply useful to generalize, realizing full well that when you do so, it should be made with the notion that it is simply a generalization, and there will be many people who don't fit into any handy little category.

I understand what you're saying, but when you come across a nontheist discussion of a theist POV, does anyone ever suggest "let's go and ask them; we should check the general validity of what we're saying" or is it implied that there's enough pooled knowledge to discuss the issue - that there's no need? Which implies to those who've never asked theists that there's no need for them to do so?

Here's an example of someone who disagrees with a POV telling someone else who disagrees with it why people hold it. Why not ask the people with that POV instead of speaking for them?

But maybe you missed where Adora said...

The accepted theory by those who study homophobia...

But why are we talking about homophobia unless some theist has said to you "Yes, I'm afraid of gay people"?

I've noticed that nontheists frequently accuse theists of being homophobic. However, that's speculating on motives, isn't it?

So again, this is, of course, a generalization, based (I assume, since it's been made by people who study the issue) on lots of "asking them."

It's not just a generalization. It's often a speculation on motives also.

At some point you're going to see broad trends in the answers you get, and this is when you can start grouping people by the answers they give. Of course, this is a simplistic way of looking at it, as generalizations necessarily are, but I think it's going much to far to say the people who hold that POV have not been asked. Sure, everyone who holds that POV hasn't been asked by the researchers in question, but if they're worth their salt, they've asked a good number representing a cross-section of society.

I don't think all generalizing is wrong. It can be useful. However, in my opinion people use it too much in place of researching 'their' POVs through interaction first-hand with 'them'. I'm not going to generalize from what I've seen some nontheists do and say you in particular use it too much. You seem to know a lot of theists.

Helen

[Roland98]

I understand what you're saying, but when you come across a nontheist discussion of a theist POV, does anyone ever suggest "let's go and ask them; we should check the general validity of what we're saying" or is it implied that there's enough pooled knowledge to discuss the issue - that there's no need? Which implies to those who've never asked theists that there's no need for them to do so?

No, admittedly that rarely gets suggested. One problem with doing so, however, is the difficulty of defining "them." You're using the broad term "theist" here, but as you certainly know, even if you ask a dozen Christians their opinion on the gay marriage issue, you may well come up with a dozen different answers as to why they support it/oppose it. And that's not even bringing in other religions. I'm not saying it's ever a bad thing to ask someone directly their opinion on an issue, and try to understand where they're coming from--I'm certainly in favor of hearing it "from the horse's mouth," so to speak. But I'm not always sure that will really enlighten you very much if the question being asked is "why do theists think this, or "why do atheists think this," because none of us can really speak for anyone but ourselves, and the reasons one supports/opposes often aren't unique to one group.

But why are we talking about homophobia unless some theist has said to you "Yes, I'm afraid of gay people"?

I've noticed that nontheists frequently accuse theists of being homophobic. However, that's speculating on motives, isn't it?

Good points, and I can't really answer them. Hopefully Adora will return to the conversation and address them.


I don't think all generalizing is wrong. It can be useful. However, in my opinion people use it too much in place of researching 'their' POVs through interaction first-hand with 'them'. I'm not going to generalize from what I've seen some nontheists do and say you in particular use it too much. You seem to know a lot of theists.

And I agree that interaction is always a good thing, and ideally a two-way street. But I've found that a lot of people aren't even comfortable discussing the "why" of their stance. Even though most everyone I know IRL is a theist, mostly Christian, I've been able to coax very few of them into actually discussing these things with me. And it can't be because all of them think of me as a rabid atheist who will deconstruct their view or something, because not even all of them know that I don't share their belief in God. So when I've made an attempt and they're reluctant to talk, I don't pry or nag; and I'm sure many of us here have been in similar situations. Most of the discussing I do with theists is over at crossandflame, where there's a pretty good mix of Christians, deists, pagans, non-theists, and probably other groups I'm not thinking of at the moment.

[viscousmemories]

But I'm not talking about whether a question is valid. I'm talking about the difference between "Please explain your POV to me; I'm listening" and "I think you're wrong. Prove to me that you aren't wrong".

Why must it be the latter? What's wrong with the former? When you're already almost certain you're not going to agree with the other person's POV anyway, the latter is a failed endeavor before it begins.
I think I understand the crux of your argument, but while I agree that it is more difficult to make it from hostile disagreement to understanding I don't think it's always a failed endeavor before it begins. Most discussions about why people hold the values they do, regardless of who initiates it, start with some amount of disagreement. The more dear the value to the person, the more hostile that disagreement will be. In such cases you aren't likely to find the kind of dispassionate, impartial inquiry characterized by "Please explain your POV to me; I'm listening" outside of a research setting.

[maddog]

Hi Helen,
Good discussion.

I think I really do "get" the difference between "understand" and "agree." What I was attempting to do was to illustrate that, when I DO ask "them," or listen to "them" about "why" on this particular, illustrative, gay-marriage question, the answers "they" give seem so nebulous to me. In fact, I'm wondering why "they" don't SEEM to say anything beyond, "it will result in the breakdown of society," or "it's unnatural," or "it's against God's law." I've been relatively unsuccessful in getting "them" to elaborate on this.

One of your responses was, "what people do DOES affect other people, yes?" I would answer, "IN GENERAL, that's true, or can be true. Please elaborate on how 2 OTHER PEOPLE being married 'affects' the relationship of 2 people who are already married." That's what I don't get. I'd really like to understand. For the moment, based on my current thinking, I also don't agree, but I'm willing to listen.

I DO pride myself, generally, as being someone who can understand and tolerate a view different from mine, even if I don't agree with it. From what I DO understand about this particular issue, the "reasons" given (so far) don't seem congruent with the conclusion. I'm willing to be educated, though. Especially from someone, like yourself, who is a good conversationalist, and a kind and intelligent person. It's much easier for me to lay down any defensiveness on the issue with someone I already have a rapport and some level of understanding with.
#57

[LadyShea]

Maybe we need to define the actual word understand, because I think Helen and Adam are using it differently.

Several definitions of "understand" include acceptance of or sympathy towards another POV. It also can mean to comprehend. What way are you you using it, Helen? Adam, what does the word understand mean to you?

Helen, my sister-in-law and my niece are both afraid of gay people because they believe gays are actively out to recruit and/or harm children. This is taught in their church; so homophobia is definitely one of their reasons for hating gays in general because fear leads to hate, they are interrelated. I do not understand that POV, I heard them say it, I comprehend their words, but I cannot even begin to understand where it comes from.

I have no frame of reference...nothing I can connect that fear and hatred to and say "I can see why you might hold that view though I disagree"....because I don't see why they would hold that view. To me that means I don't understand, though I listened as you suggested.

[Dingfod]

I too have never gotten a clear understanding of what sort of "breakdown in society" is supposed to occur if gays were allowed to get married and enjoy the same economic and legal benefits of others coupled in matrimony. I do understand there would be costs incurred, insurance might go up little bit, government tax collections might drop a tiny percentage, etc. But, I am inspired by this subject and tone of this thread to directly ask my homophobic, ... er, anti-gay-marriage coworkers (well, they are homophobes to boot) to define what they think will happen if gay marriage were allowed. It might be interesting. I'll report back my findings. I don't go back to work until Saturday night, so it might be Sunday or Monday before I can get them to respond.

But, to make a prediction ahead of time, because I have casually posed the question before, they won't have an answer that makes any logical sense at all to me. It will be something to the effect that "it's not natural", or "the bible says" or some such. I'm not even labeling this an unbiased survey at all, but you will get the unvarnished truth about what they tell me. I will also ask other people what their stance is and why they think that, it shouldn't be too hard to find people that voted for the anti-gay marriage amendment in Oklahoma, it passed with over 2/3 of the vote.

[Clutch Munny]

Someone tells me that germs are unrelated to disease, I'm going to say I don't understand. Because I don't fully grasp the meaning or truth-conditions of what they say? Of course not. What I mean is, I don't understand why somebody would feel justified in making that claim.

In general, when speakers make claims for which there is no mutually manifest justification, then the only way to do the courtesy of engaging them is to ask why they would say that.

Someone tells me that we have to outlaw gay marriage or else society will break down, I'm going to say, What reason is there to accept this? That is, why do you accept this?

One reason why someone might find such interaction oppressive is if he systematically finds himself unable to explain in a cogent fashion even his own reasons for believing it. But it's hard to see how else to pursue an exploration of someone's views when their weighty claims have no obvious rational underpinnings.

If I started campaigning to have all churches banned on the grounds that they destroy society, the obvious route to understanding this claim would be to ask what leads me to assert it -- why I would think that this is a reasonable thing to say. Were I to reply that you should seek to understand me, not challenge me, your puzzlement would be quite justified.

[Goliath]

But I'm not talking about whether a question is valid. I'm talking about the difference between "Please explain your POV to me; I'm listening" and "I think you're wrong. Prove to me that you aren't wrong".

Why must it be the latter? What's wrong with the former?



Why whould an answer to the former be of any use to me whatsoever?



When you're already almost certain you're not going to agree with the other person's POV anyway, the latter is a failed endeavor before it begins.



No, the latter is a failed endeavor when the theist fails to prove his/her claim(s).

[HelenM]

I understand what you're saying, but when you come across a nontheist discussion of a theist POV, does anyone ever suggest "let's go and ask them; we should check the general validity of what we're saying" or is it implied that there's enough pooled knowledge to discuss the issue - that there's no need? Which implies to those who've never asked theists that there's no need for them to do so?

No, admittedly that rarely gets suggested. One problem with doing so, however, is the difficulty of defining "them." You're using the broad term "theist" here, but as you certainly know, even if you ask a dozen Christians their opinion on the gay marriage issue, you may well come up with a dozen different answers as to why they support it/oppose it. And that's not even bringing in other religions. I'm not saying it's ever a bad thing to ask someone directly their opinion on an issue, and try to understand where they're coming from--I'm certainly in favor of hearing it "from the horse's mouth," so to speak. But I'm not always sure that will really enlighten you very much if the question being asked is "why do theists think this, or "why do atheists think this," because none of us can really speak for anyone but ourselves, and the reasons one supports/opposes often aren't unique to one group.

I'm confused now, because in your last post you defended the value of making generalizations; yet you seem to be saying that talking to one person is not helpful because you can't simply generalize what they say as if it applies to a group. If you can't generalize now, how come you could, one post earlier? :?


I don't think all generalizing is wrong. It can be useful. However, in my opinion people use it too much in place of researching 'their' POVs through interaction first-hand with 'them'. I'm not going to generalize from what I've seen some nontheists do and say you in particular use it too much. You seem to know a lot of theists.

And I agree that interaction is always a good thing, and ideally a two-way street.

Here is something we agree upon, then :)

But I've found that a lot of people aren't even comfortable discussing the "why" of their stance. Even though most everyone I know IRL is a theist, mostly Christian, I've been able to coax very few of them into actually discussing these things with me. And it can't be because all of them think of me as a rabid atheist who will deconstruct their view or something, because not even all of them know that I don't share their belief in God. So when I've made an attempt and they're reluctant to talk, I don't pry or nag; and I'm sure many of us here have been in similar situations. Most of the discussing I do with theists is over at crossandflame, where there's a pretty good mix of Christians, deists, pagans, non-theists, and probably other groups I'm not thinking of at the moment.

I don't know why the theists you know IRL are reluctant to elaborate IRL. Perhaps they've received reactions from others that have made them hesitant. And although you may not have explicitly said you're an atheist, I expect they're aware whether you're 'one of them' or not from what you've said in general.

Helen

[HelenM]

But I'm not talking about whether a question is valid. I'm talking about the difference between "Please explain your POV to me; I'm listening" and "I think you're wrong. Prove to me that you aren't wrong".

Why must it be the latter? What's wrong with the former? When you're already almost certain you're not going to agree with the other person's POV anyway, the latter is a failed endeavor before it begins.
I think I understand the crux of your argument, but while I agree that it is more difficult to make it from hostile disagreement to understanding I don't think it's always a failed endeavor before it begins. Most discussions about why people hold the values they do, regardless of who initiates it, start with some amount of disagreement. The more dear the value to the person, the more hostile that disagreement will be. In such cases you aren't likely to find the kind of dispassionate, impartial inquiry characterized by "Please explain your POV to me; I'm listening" outside of a research setting.

Point taken - "failed endeavor" was too definitive. I suspect that "likely to fail" may be accurate from a statistical point of view but I ought not to have asserted that it's always a failed endeavor. It might not be. People do sometimes change their minds, don't they? (Or so I've been told, anyway ;))

Also, I take your point that emotions often run high when values are being discussed, especially those values most important/dear to us.

Helen

[HelenM]

Hi Helen,
Good discussion.

I think I really do "get" the difference between "understand" and "agree." What I was attempting to do was to illustrate that, when I DO ask "them," or listen to "them" about "why" on this particular, illustrative, gay-marriage question, the answers "they" give seem so nebulous to me. In fact, I'm wondering why "they" don't SEEM to say anything beyond, "it will result in the breakdown of society," or "it's unnatural," or "it's against God's law." I've been relatively unsuccessful in getting "them" to elaborate on this.

I don't know why they wouldn't elaborate. I could guess: perhaps they assume you know more than you do about the theist POV. Or perhaps they think you are trying to argue rather than learn more about their POV and they're feeling defensive. Of course I don't know and it goes against what I wrote earlier to guess about them rather than asking them why.

One of your responses was, "what people do DOES affect other people, yes?" I would answer, "IN GENERAL, that's true, or can be true. Please elaborate on how 2 OTHER PEOPLE being married 'affects' the relationship of 2 people who are already married." That's what I don't get. I'd really like to understand. For the moment, based on my current thinking, I also don't agree, but I'm willing to listen.

Here's one thing: it affects the world their children grow up in and they're often rather sensitive about that.

I DO pride myself, generally, as being someone who can understand and tolerate a view different from mine, even if I don't agree with it.

Fair enough.

From what I DO understand about this particular issue, the "reasons" given (so far) don't seem congruent with the conclusion. I'm willing to be educated, though. Especially from someone, like yourself, who is a good conversationalist, and a kind and intelligent person. It's much easier for me to lay down any defensiveness on the issue with someone I already have a rapport and some level of understanding with.
#57

Thanks :)

Part of the difficulty is that to discuss any given theist POV I feel that I have to begin at the beginning because theists do have very different starting place, in many respects. And each thing I say would be challenged by at least one nontheist, most likely. It would be like in the Life of Brian where Brian tries to tell a parable and is constantly interrupted with skeptical questions until his audience decides he's rubbish and wanders off. Except it wouldn't be funny and I'd be the one who left the conversation out of emotional exhaustion/inability to spend continued time on it, long before the questions and challenges ran out. It's hard to have a discussion that's many-on-one because it takes so much time to respond to everyone.

Helen

[Roland98]

I'm confused now, because in your last post you defended the value of making generalizations; yet you seem to be saying that talking to one person is not helpful because you can't simply generalize what they say as if it applies to a group. If you can't generalize now, how come you could, one post earlier? :?

Because I'm generalizing based on the answers, not on the religious stance of the person saying them; that's why I said I wouldn't lump all atheists or all theists together in this issue (or really, most others. I think there are very few things that can be starkly divided into "theists say this," "nontheists say this," with the exception of "do you believe in God.") Like most of the people who are against same-sex marriages based on the "ick" factor I'd group together, those who are against it based on the "downfall of society" idea I'd group together, etc. Then when discussing "why are people opposed to same-sex marriage" with someone, my generalizations would be those stances, and not the religious inclinations of the people who hold them. Make sense?


I don't know why the theists you know IRL are reluctant to elaborate IRL. Perhaps they've received reactions from others that have made them hesitant. And although you may not have explicitly said you're an atheist, I expect they're aware whether you're 'one of them' or not from what you've said in general.

I don't think so. One reason I say that with some confidence is because one of those "fill out this survey about me" emails just ran through my circle of friends, and one of the questions is "do you believe in God?" (This was a survey where the friend fills in the answers based on what they think I would answer, to see how well they "know" the other person). Not one put "no" for that answer for me. I think it's more of a cultural thing. You just don't really talk about that here; it makes them uncomfortable. *shrug*

[HelenM]

Maybe we need to define the actual word understand, because I think Helen and Adam are using it differently.

Several definitions of "understand" include acceptance of or sympathy towards another POV. It also can mean to comprehend. What way are you you using it, Helen? Adam, what does the word understand mean to you?

Helen, my sister-in-law and my niece are both afraid of gay people because they believe gays are actively out to recruit and/or harm children. This is taught in their church; so homophobia is definitely one of their reasons for hating gays in general because fear leads to hate, they are interrelated. I do not understand that POV, I heard them say it, I comprehend their words, but I cannot even begin to understand where it comes from.

I have no frame of reference...nothing I can connect that fear and hatred to and say "I can see why you might hold that view though I disagree"....because I don't see why they would hold that view. To me that means I don't understand, though I listened as you suggested.

I think you're right that Adam and I probably are using the word 'understand' differently.

I guess I'm using it more in the intellectual knowledge sense of "do you see the steps that get them to their POV"?

I didn't completely understand what you said about your sister-in-law and niece. Do they openly say "We hate gay people"?

Helen

[HelenM]

I too have never gotten a clear understanding of what sort of "breakdown in society" is supposed to occur if gays were allowed to get married and enjoy the same economic and legal benefits of others coupled in matrimony. I do understand there would be costs incurred, insurance might go up little bit, government tax collections might drop a tiny percentage, etc. But, I am inspired by this subject and tone of this thread to directly ask my homophobic, ... er, anti-gay-marriage coworkers (well, they are homophobes to boot) to define what they think will happen if gay marriage were allowed. It might be interesting. I'll report back my findings. I don't go back to work until Saturday night, so it might be Sunday or Monday before I can get them to respond.

Please do report back.

But, to make a prediction ahead of time, because I have casually posed the question before, they won't have an answer that makes any logical sense at all to me. It will be something to the effect that "it's not natural", or "the bible says" or some such.

But that's not an answer to "what breakdown of society will occur?" Maybe you can ask them to answer that specifically.

Helen

[HelenM]

Someone tells me that germs are unrelated to disease, I'm going to say I don't understand. Because I don't fully grasp the meaning or truth-conditions of what they say? Of course not. What I mean is, I don't understand why somebody would feel justified in making that claim.

In general, when speakers make claims for which there is no mutually manifest justification, then the only way to do the courtesy of engaging them is to ask why they would say that.

Someone tells me that we have to outlaw gay marriage or else society will break down, I'm going to say, What reason is there to accept this? That is, why do you accept this?

One reason why someone might find such interaction oppressive is if he systematically finds himself unable to explain in a cogent fashion even his own reasons for believing it. But it's hard to see how else to pursue an exploration of someone's views when their weighty claims have no obvious rational underpinnings.

If I started campaigning to have all churches banned on the grounds that they destroy society, the obvious route to understanding this claim would be to ask what leads me to assert it -- why I would think that this is a reasonable thing to say. Were I to reply that you should seek to understand me, not challenge me, your puzzlement would be quite justified.

When I talk about understanding, I include understanding someone's justification for their viewpoint.

Helen

[HelenM]

But I'm not talking about whether a question is valid. I'm talking about the difference between "Please explain your POV to me; I'm listening" and "I think you're wrong. Prove to me that you aren't wrong".

Why must it be the latter? What's wrong with the former?



Why whould an answer to the former be of any use to me whatsoever?

I don't know, Goliath.



When you're already almost certain you're not going to agree with the other person's POV anyway, the latter is a failed endeavor before it begins.



No, the latter is a failed endeavor when the theist fails to prove his/her claim(s).

Yes, you're right. I should not have asserted it was a failed endeavor before it begins.

Helen

[HelenM]

I'm confused now, because in your last post you defended the value of making generalizations; yet you seem to be saying that talking to one person is not helpful because you can't simply generalize what they say as if it applies to a group. If you can't generalize now, how come you could, one post earlier? :?

Because I'm generalizing based on the answers, not on the religious stance of the person saying them; that's why I said I wouldn't lump all atheists or all theists together in this issue (or really, most others. I think there are very few things that can be starkly divided into "theists say this," "nontheists say this," with the exception of "do you believe in God.") Like most of the people who are against same-sex marriages based on the "ick" factor I'd group together, those who are against it based on the "downfall of society" idea I'd group together, etc. Then when discussing "why are people opposed to same-sex marriage" with someone, my generalizations would be those stances, and not the religious inclinations of the people who hold them. Make sense?

Yes it does; but I didn't ever intend to imply that you should ask one theist to explain what some other theist believes. I meant, you ask someone of that POV why they hold it.


I don't know why the theists you know IRL are reluctant to elaborate IRL. Perhaps they've received reactions from others that have made them hesitant. And although you may not have explicitly said you're an atheist, I expect they're aware whether you're 'one of them' or not from what you've said in general.

I don't think so. One reason I say that with some confidence is because one of those "fill out this survey about me" emails just ran through my circle of friends, and one of the questions is "do you believe in God?" (This was a survey where the friend fills in the answers based on what they think I would answer, to see how well they "know" the other person). Not one put "no" for that answer for me. I think it's more of a cultural thing. You just don't really talk about that here; it makes them uncomfortable. *shrug*

I didn't mean that they intuit you're an atheist. I meant that they intuit you're not at-one with their POV without knowing any details about your own POV. And that may be enough to make them hesitant to open up to you even if they do assume you're some sort of theist.

Helen

[HelenM]

Oops, I think I missed this one...


But this doesn't sound like a quest for understanding. It sounds more like a two-part challenge to theists: a) make your definition of "breakdown of society" make sense to me and b) demonstrate that your argument for why gay marriage leads to the "breakdown of society" [defined in a way that makes sense to me] meets my criteria for what is a 'rational' argument.

I'm not arguing that challenging theists to justify their position is inappropriate or wrong. But it's a very different endeavor from seeking to understand their position - which involves simply listening to them. And perhaps asking questions - but only for clarification and not with the purpose of arguing against what they say or challenging them to prove that it is reasonable.

Helen

Perhaps the tone could be taken as confrontational, but the question is certainly valid.

Yes, I don't take the position that it's invalid, per se.

Helen

[Dingfod]

But, to make a prediction ahead of time, because I have casually posed the question before, they won't have an answer that makes any logical sense at all to me. It will be something to the effect that "it's not natural", or "the bible says" or some such.

But that's not an answer to "what breakdown of society will occur?" Maybe you can ask them to answer that specifically.I know it's not an answer, but it is the best I've gotten in a brief interaction on it. The approach I plan to take this time is to offer no personal opinion on the amendment or the question I pose, make it more of an inquiry to help me form my own opinion. I think they might be more willing to open up and let me know what they really think what problems would occur if gay marriage were to be legal.

However, if they tell me to pray or to seek guidance from the bible, that too is a non-answer to me. This may take several weeks. I really would like to understand where this whole "it will cause the breakdown of society" think comes from and what it means to them. My curiosity is peaked, I really would like the answer from average Joe or average Joan what they think, not what their minister told them, what they themselves in their own minds think.

Of course, I have a good idea where they are coming. I wasn't always an atheist. I fear their answer will not be one of deep thought and consideration and will be as simplisitic as I stated before.

[Clutch Munny]

Someone tells me that germs are unrelated to disease, I'm going to say I don't understand. Because I don't fully grasp the meaning or truth-conditions of what they say? Of course not. What I mean is, I don't understand why somebody would feel justified in making that claim.

In general, when speakers make claims for which there is no mutually manifest justification, then the only way to do the courtesy of engaging them is to ask why they would say that.

Someone tells me that we have to outlaw gay marriage or else society will break down, I'm going to say, What reason is there to accept this? That is, why do you accept this?

One reason why someone might find such interaction oppressive is if he systematically finds himself unable to explain in a cogent fashion even his own reasons for believing it. But it's hard to see how else to pursue an exploration of someone's views when their weighty claims have no obvious rational underpinnings.

If I started campaigning to have all churches banned on the grounds that they destroy society, the obvious route to understanding this claim would be to ask what leads me to assert it -- why I would think that this is a reasonable thing to say. Were I to reply that you should seek to understand me, not challenge me, your puzzlement would be quite justified.

When I talk about understanding, I include understanding someone's justification for their viewpoint.



Okay. Then why think that asking for a justification is somehow a departure from, or in tension with, seeking understanding of their views?

[LadyShea]

I didn't completely understand what you said about your sister-in-law and niece. Do they openly say "We hate gay people"?

Helen

Hi Helen,

Well, they demonstrated they do. We live in different states, so aren't around them often, but one incident was telling. We were all driving back from a Christmas light display at the zoo, and it was freezing cold. My husband was driving. He saw a Starbuck's and went to pull in and my sister in law yelled "No, not here, this is queer town!" I was in the back seat with my niece (she was maybe 9 or 10) who started looking terrified and I asked her what was wrong and she said "gays will try to lure me to them". She said it. Made me sick.

Then, my husband pulled in anyway, and made a big deal of "scouting for gangs of gays" like a Commando, to try to brush it off as silly or make it funny. So we get inside, and my niece said something I didn't hear, and our other sister in law suddenly yelled at her sister "Did you hear your daughter, what are you teaching her?" And they had a fierce whispering conversation and the only words I heard were "afraid of gays"

My mother-in-law has told me on numerous occasions that gays send out people called "Chicken Hawks" to entice and recruit children into being gay so they can abuse them.

I firmly believe that much hatred stems from fear and that hate and fear are interrelated.

[Adam]

This sounds like a confusion between "understand" and "agree" to some extent. Does another person's position have to make visceral sense to you for you to understand it? I would have thought maybe you could understand it in a sort of detached "I don't think like that" way.

I think that LadyShea is right, and that it would be useful to define the terms we're using. The detached sort of "I don't think like that" way of understanding you mention is, I think, pretty close to what I called understanding in an abstract sense a few posts up. By this, I mean that, it makes syntactical sense to me that a person can be very negatively concerned about X, think that Y will lead to X, and, thus, be opposed to Y. It's even possible that I can understand why they think that Y will lead to X. When I say that I can understand something in an abstract way, but not really understand it viscerally, what I mean is that, while I have the syntactical sense down, as I just explained, the value involved (i.e. the negative concern for X, above) is alien to me. I can't empathize with the concern that motivates the person involved and that, IMO, prevents true understanding.

I'm trying to think of a good analogy. This is sort of silly, but here goes. Let's say that there's a proposal on the table to change the tax code in such a way that everyone will pay significantly less taxes, but public services will lose no funding (sort of like if 'trickle-down' really worked), and it is largely thought that this will be a good idea, but I can show, with a very good argument, that this plan will, as a side effect, make it a near certainity that no one will ever produce yellow note paper again, as it just won't be profitable under the new tax scheme. There will still be white note paper, green note paper, etc., just not yellow. (Yes, I'm sitting at my desk and using the things around me for inspiration.) Now, I happen to be very passionate about yellow note paper, and so I vote against the proposed tax reduction. I'm sure you can understand, in an abstract sense, my position: I'm opposed to the loss of yellow note paper, the tax plan will lead to the loss of yellow note paper, so I oppose the tax plan. Assume that my argument for why the plan will eliminate yellow paper makes perfect sense as well. Even given all that, I'm guessing that you would remain incapable of really understanding my position...why am I so freakin' concerned about yellow freakin' notepaper that I'm willing to forego all the benefits of the proposed tax reduction in order to preserve it? It doesn't make any sense! You don't experience the sort of passion for yellow notepaper that I do, so you won't be able to understand my concern over the tax plan. Similarly, I understand (in the abstract sense) that some people are so concerned about <the sanctitiy of marriage/breakdown of society/god's law/take your pick> that they oppose same-sex marriage, but those concerns are in yellow note paper territory for me. They don't make sense, because I don't experience the same passions/fears/what have you.

Is it always?

Nope. That's why I said "usually". :)

This is lack of agreement, not lack of understanding their argument.

Well, like I said, I can understand their argument, and not really understand their position. I'm trying to ignore the question of understanding the argument for now by simply assuming that any given argument that "gay marriage will lead to <pick your negative result here>" is valid, even if I wouldn't agree with that argument in real life.

Yes, but...why would you say you don't understand rather than you don't agree? To me, you don't understand implies you are missing some knowledge about how they got to their POV. Would you say that's true?

Of course you're not obliged to seek more information about how they get to their POV. However, there's always the possibility there is more reason behind it than you think, if you don't actually know how they get there. If what you're doing (not that you are, but for the sake of argument) is assuming the bit you don't know is completely irrational, then I'd say that indicates prejudice. I think I've seen a lot of that in nontheist discussion of theists POVs, but please don't conclude I'm accusing you of it unless I quote something specific you wrote and claim it as an example of prejudice.

Hopefully, I've been able to explain in this post that it's not so much how they get to their POV that eludes me, it's the values they started from. IOW, I can be perfectly clear on how they got from there to here, but not really understand why a person would start from "there" in the first place. What's missing isn't so much irrational as it is arational, as any values based position is, my own included. I could certainly gain a greater rational understanding of why a person holds the values they do (which might be primarily an exercise in psychology), but I don't know that this would help me gain the sort of understanding I'm talking about.

[maddog]

Hi again, Helen,

Good job on perseverence with your POV on "understanding." :)

What I was attempting to do was to illustrate that, when I DO ask "them," or listen to "them" about "why" on this particular, illustrative, gay-marriage question, the answers "they" give seem so nebulous to me. In fact, I'm wondering why "they" don't SEEM to say anything beyond, "it will result in the breakdown of society," or "it's unnatural," or "it's against God's law." I've been relatively unsuccessful in getting "them" to elaborate on this.I don't know why they wouldn't elaborate.Neither do I. But somehow, it never seems to get beyond that, even if I ask. I just get a variation on these same themes, or a shift from one to another. So I can get THAT they don't approve of homosexuality, but I can't glean WHY this is the case. I could guess: perhaps they assume you know more than you do about the theist POV.I actually find this quite common among theists. But, when asking for elaboration, I seldom get it. I get repetition instead. Or perhaps they think you are trying to argue rather than learn more about their POV and they're feeling defensive.If I argue, I find it's often BECAUSE I CAN'T find out more about their POV; nothing more is offered. What little HAS been offered doesn't make sense to me. If it's "arguing" to say, "but I'm confused; I don't really see how that answers the question," or "that doesn't make sense to me," then, very often, I get a defensive response instead of a more detailed explanation. Perhaps you can suggest a different way of phrasing it that would be more productive. Of course I don't knowneither do I; the failure to get anything much beyond a basic position statement is pretty frustrating and puzzling. and it goes against what I wrote earlier to guess about them rather than asking them why.agreed.

One of your responses was, "what people do DOES affect other people, yes?" I would answer, "IN GENERAL, that's true, or can be true. Please elaborate on how 2 OTHER PEOPLE being married 'affects' the relationship of 2 people who are already married." That's what I don't get. I'd really like to understand. For the moment, based on my current thinking, I also don't agree, but I'm willing to listen.
Here's one thing: it affects the world their children grow up in and they're often rather sensitive about that. oohhkay. Now, to me, this is a completely "non-answer" answer. Not just something I disagree with -- I agree that people are sensitive about things that happen to their children -- but something I don't understand. WHY is this an answer to the question I asked? this is so abstract and nebulous. Sure, "no man is an island," and everything that we do puts ripples in the water that affect the rest of the universe. A butterfly wing can cause a tsunami, or some such thing as that. But here's what I don't get, HOW does 2 gay people getting married (which, they are going to BE married, with or without government sanction) affect 2 heterosexual married people? HOW does the "world their children grow up in" get "affected"? what would ACTUALLY HAPPEN to those children, if 2 gay people were allowed to be married/not forced to be "divorced"? Yes, people are sensitive about changes in their world. Yes, they love their children. But the gay people love each other, pretty much the same as the heterosexual spouses do. The gay people love their children, pretty much the same as the heterosexual parents do. The gay people are sensitive about what kind of world their children grow up in, pretty much the same as the heterosexual parents do. So, what does that mean in terms of policy in this context?

*********************************
The following is an aside. what I'm MORE interested in is what's above ^
*********************************
I didn't completely understand what you said about your sister-in-law and niece. Do they openly say "We hate gay people"? You also remarked, But why are we talking about homophobia unless some theist has said to you "Yes, I'm afraid of gay people"?

I've noticed that nontheists frequently accuse theists of being homophobic. However, that's speculating on motives, isn't it?I'm going to tackle this one from a lawyer's analogy.

In a criminal trial, a murder case, say, the killer very seldom says, "I hate you because of X and I'm going to kill you now!" Yet the jury may nevertheless reasonably find, based on particular evidence, that the killing was intentional (on purpose, not accidental), and premeditated (planned ahead of time), and for a hateful motive (say, racial bias). The jury may do so based upon reasonable inferences from observable acts, and is not required to rely solely on the killer's declarations. (To make a completely over-the-top analogy, suppose there was evidence that the killer frequented certain web-sites, possessed KKK literature, had Aryan Brotherhood tattoos, burned crosses on someone's lawn, beat up black people in the past, bought a gun, bought bullets, cased the victim's movements, waited for hours in a car for the victim to leave his home, the victim was a well-known black person and civil rights advocate, and the killer walked up and shot the victim at point-blank range.) This is a caricature, of course, but I think it is not always necessary for someone to say that they fear something or hate something for the inference to be a fair and reasonable one. People make judgments on nonverbal evidence all the time. People of reason may legitimately rely on these inferences in many cases. It may not be 100% verified by a direct confession, but it also isn't worthless, unreliable speculation, either. It's not an either-or situation. There are gradations along the line of what evidence we receive about what people believe.

I should point out, as well, that "homophobic," is something of a euphemism. Even if someone like Fred Phelps is labeled "homophobic," I think it is reasonable to infer from his behavior that he is not merely fearful, but that he actively and virulently hates.

OTOH, I think that psychology as a field has verified that "hate" or "anger" is very often a mask for, or derived from "fear." I think that hatred and fear are closely allied emotions, even though it might not seem so on the surface. So, saying someone is likely to be, or has been taught to be "fearful," is actually much kinder than saying, "you're a hatemonger."

And when someone twists their face into a grimace and screams, "YOU'RE GOING TO HELL, FAGGOT!!" am I speculating that the person "hates" gays -- because he hasn't actually said the words, "I HATE YOU, FAGGOT!"? Am I speculating that he "hates," and that he REALLY means merely that, "your behavior is not consistent with my scripture's code of sexual morality"?
#60

[Adora]

Why not ask the people with that POV instead of speaking for them?

Because the people that hold that POV don't analyse it. They don't actually think about why they hold it. They just justify it with indoctrinated dogma. Thus, my comments about hegemonic masculinities, heterosexism and essentialism.

But why are we talking about homophobia unless some theist has said to you "Yes, I'm afraid of gay people"?

I've noticed that nontheists frequently accuse theists of being homophobic. However, that's speculating on motives, isn't it?

This is why I make a distinction between homophobia and heterosexism. We were talking about homophobia in the original post. Christianity, however, is inherently heterosexist, as much of our society is.

In this thread, people explained their lack of understanding at certain dogmas regarding the "debate" (pfff, like there is one) on Gay marriage. They mentioned things like the rhetoric of "breakdown of society". I offered answers based on research I've read about what they're really talking about, and why, to try and help these people understand. If you don't like that, tough shit. I could have gone into massively long explanations of the actual history of construction of Western gender, the part "science" and "canonical law" (ie-religious dogma) had to play in this, specifically how it oppresses women, creates a heterosexist society, embodies essentialism in its workings though the essentialism is a fucking illusion, and how this relates to homosexual rights and the recognition of them being equal in all ways in society as heterosexuals. But I gave the very shorthand version to this thread, which you should be fucking happy about. It's the same thing as any research- I don't know how my calf muscle works. I just know that it has something to do with energy and muscle and ligaments and joints and that's it. However, a well-researched a versed scientist can tell me in their scientific language how it works. I may not understand it very well, so I may go to someone who can translate it for me for a shorthand version. That's what I tried to do, because there are psychological and communication barriers in the transfer of any knowledge. If I were to go and ask someone else on the street who doesn't know how or why their calf muscle works, but was told by their parents all the time that it was because magical calf-muscle-fairies were doing their job, well... I'm sure you understand the comparison.

However, if anyone interested in the subject wants some references, PM or ask me in this thread and I'll be more than happy to provide you with some on the subject for further reading.

My mother-in-law has told me on numerous occasions that gays send out people called "Chicken Hawks" to entice and recruit children into being gay so they can abuse them.

*snickers* See? You try asking people like this why they're really afraid of homosexuality, when they're so incredibly misinformed about what homosexuality even is.

[HelenM]

I didn't completely understand what you said about your sister-in-law and niece. Do they openly say "We hate gay people"?

Helen

Hi Helen,

Well, they demonstrated they do. We live in different states, so aren't around them often, but one incident was telling. We were all driving back from a Christmas light display at the zoo, and it was freezing cold. My husband was driving. He saw a Starbuck's and went to pull in and my sister in law yelled "No, not here, this is queer town!" I was in the back seat with my niece (she was maybe 9 or 10) who started looking terrified and I asked her what was wrong and she said "gays will try to lure me to them". She said it. Made me sick.

Then, my husband pulled in anyway, and made a big deal of "scouting for gangs of gays" like a Commando, to try to brush it off as silly or make it funny. So we get inside, and my niece said something I didn't hear, and our other sister in law suddenly yelled at her sister "Did you hear your daughter, what are you teaching her?" And they had a fierce whispering conversation and the only words I heard were "afraid of gays"

My mother-in-law has told me on numerous occasions that gays send out people called "Chicken Hawks" to entice and recruit children into being gay so they can abuse them.

I firmly believe that much hatred stems from fear and that hate and fear are interrelated.

I agree that fear is often a component of hate. Perhaps hate is a way to try to regain control because fear makes us feel weak and powerless.

However, I don't think that people who fear other people necessarily also hate them. From what I read above, I see fear but not hate. But then, you have much more experience of these people and that is how you get from them fearing gay people to them hating them.

Certainly your mother-in-law seems sadly misinformed about gay people. Perhaps she does hate them if she confuses them with pedophiles.

Helen

[HelenM]

This sounds like a confusion between "understand" and "agree" to some extent. Does another person's position have to make visceral sense to you for you to understand it? I would have thought maybe you could understand it in a sort of detached "I don't think like that" way.

I think that LadyShea is right, and that it would be useful to define the terms we're using. The detached sort of "I don't think like that" way of understanding you mention is, I think, pretty close to what I called understanding in an abstract sense a few posts up. By this, I mean that, it makes syntactical sense to me that a person can be very negatively concerned about X, think that Y will lead to X, and, thus, be opposed to Y. It's even possible that I can understand why they think that Y will lead to X. When I say that I can understand something in an abstract way, but not really understand it viscerally, what I mean is that, while I have the syntactical sense down, as I just explained, the value involved (i.e. the negative concern for X, above) is alien to me. I can't empathize with the concern that motivates the person involved and that, IMO, prevents true understanding.

I'm trying to think of a good analogy. This is sort of silly, but here goes. Let's say that there's a proposal on the table to change the tax code in such a way that everyone will pay significantly less taxes, but public services will lose no funding (sort of like if 'trickle-down' really worked), and it is largely thought that this will be a good idea, but I can show, with a very good argument, that this plan will, as a side effect, make it a near certainity that no one will ever produce yellow note paper again, as it just won't be profitable under the new tax scheme. There will still be white note paper, green note paper, etc., just not yellow. (Yes, I'm sitting at my desk and using the things around me for inspiration.) Now, I happen to be very passionate about yellow note paper, and so I vote against the proposed tax reduction. I'm sure you can understand, in an abstract sense, my position: I'm opposed to the loss of yellow note paper, the tax plan will lead to the loss of yellow note paper, so I oppose the tax plan. Assume that my argument for why the plan will eliminate yellow paper makes perfect sense as well. Even given all that, I'm guessing that you would remain incapable of really understanding my position...why am I so freakin' concerned about yellow freakin' notepaper that I'm willing to forego all the benefits of the proposed tax reduction in order to preserve it? It doesn't make any sense! You don't experience the sort of passion for yellow notepaper that I do, so you won't be able to understand my concern over the tax plan. Similarly, I understand (in the abstract sense) that some people are so concerned about <the sanctitiy of marriage/breakdown of society/god's law/take your pick> that they oppose same-sex marriage, but those concerns are in yellow note paper territory for me. They don't make sense, because I don't experience the same passions/fears/what have you.

Ok, I'd say you clarified that pretty well.

This is lack of agreement, not lack of understanding their argument.

Well, like I said, I can understand their argument, and not really understand their position. I'm trying to ignore the question of understanding the argument for now by simply assuming that any given argument that "gay marriage will lead to <pick your negative result here>" is valid, even if I wouldn't agree with that argument in real life.

Yes, but...why would you say you don't understand rather than you don't agree? To me, you don't understand implies you are missing some knowledge about how they got to their POV. Would you say that's true?

Of course you're not obliged to seek more information about how they get to their POV. However, there's always the possibility there is more reason behind it than you think, if you don't actually know how they get there. If what you're doing (not that you are, but for the sake of argument) is assuming the bit you don't know is completely irrational, then I'd say that indicates prejudice. I think I've seen a lot of that in nontheist discussion of theists POVs, but please don't conclude I'm accusing you of it unless I quote something specific you wrote and claim it as an example of prejudice.

Hopefully, I've been able to explain in this post that it's not so much how they get to their POV that eludes me, it's the values they started from. IOW, I can be perfectly clear on how they got from there to here, but not really understand why a person would start from "there" in the first place. What's missing isn't so much irrational as it is arational, as any values based position is, my own included. I could certainly gain a greater rational understanding of why a person holds the values they do (which might be primarily an exercise in psychology), but I don't know that this would help me gain the sort of understanding I'm talking about.

Ok, so it's their starting values that are alien to you.

Why do you think they have different starting values from you? Do you think they're less smart? Do you think they lack the information you have? Do you think they're genetically (or perhaps environmentally) disposed to have a different starting place from you? Do you think of them as in some way "less" than you or do you simply think of them as "different" from you?

Or do you not think about why they have different starting values from you?

Helen

[maddog]

I think that the single greatest predictive factor in different sets of "starting values" is one's family of origin. Those families are influenced by geography, nationality, culture, economics, language, politics and religion, among other important factors. My parents were liberal Democrats. I'm a liberal Democrat. My parents were both atheists. I'm an atheist. I'm a late-20th c. English-speaking American, born post-WWII and heavily influenced by the advent of television. So I'm culturally ignorant and arrogant, a hogger of the world's resources, ethno-centric, and a few other things my culture has conditioned me to be. Not all of these things are pretty or defensible. But all of the sources of my values should be open to examination and scrutiny.

#68

[HelenM]

Hi again, Helen,

Good job on perseverence with your POV on "understanding." :)

Thanks :)

Or perhaps they think you are trying to argue rather than learn more about their POV and they're feeling defensive.If I argue, I find it's often BECAUSE I CAN'T find out more about their POV; nothing more is offered. What little HAS been offered doesn't make sense to me. If it's "arguing" to say, "but I'm confused; I don't really see how that answers the question," or "that doesn't make sense to me," then, very often, I get a defensive response instead of a more detailed explanation. Perhaps you can suggest a different way of phrasing it that would be more productive.

I think one way - but it takes time - is to establish a mutually respectful relationship, because then they'll be more willing to open up to you and share more with you.

People often don't want to put that much time into getting information out of other people.


Here's one thing: it affects the world their children grow up in and they're often rather sensitive about that. oohhkay. Now, to me, this is a completely "non-answer" answer. Not just something I disagree with -- I agree that people are sensitive about things that happen to their children -- but something I don't understand. WHY is this an answer to the question I asked? this is so abstract and nebulous. Sure, "no man is an island," and everything that we do puts ripples in the water that affect the rest of the universe. A butterfly wing can cause a tsunami, or some such thing as that. But here's what I don't get, HOW does 2 gay people getting married (which, they are going to BE married, with or without government sanction) affect 2 heterosexual married people? HOW does the "world their children grow up in" get "affected"? what would ACTUALLY HAPPEN to those children, if 2 gay people were allowed to be married/not forced to be "divorced"? Yes, people are sensitive about changes in their world. Yes, they love their children. But the gay people love each other, pretty much the same as the heterosexual spouses do. The gay people love their children, pretty much the same as the heterosexual parents do. The gay people are sensitive about what kind of world their children grow up in, pretty much the same as the heterosexual parents do. So, what does that mean in terms of policy in this context?

Christians who believe that sexual intimacy is wrong unless it is between two married people (one man and one woman) want their children to share their belief. They don't want the world around them implying to their children that there's nothing wrong with two men marrying, or two women marrying. What their children see will affect them and the parents will not favor any step the world around them takes which moves the world further away from sharing the parents' moral values.

I've noticed that nontheists frequently accuse theists of being homophobic. However, that's speculating on motives, isn't it?I'm going to tackle this one from a lawyer's analogy.

In a criminal trial, a murder case, say, the killer very seldom says, "I hate you because of X and I'm going to kill you now!" Yet the jury may nevertheless reasonably find, based on particular evidence, that the killing was intentional (on purpose, not accidental), and premeditated (planned ahead of time), and for a hateful motive (say, racial bias). The jury may do so based upon reasonable inferences from observable acts, and is not required to rely solely on the killer's declarations. (To make a completely over-the-top analogy, suppose there was evidence that the killer frequented certain web-sites, possessed KKK literature, had Aryan Brotherhood tattoos, burned crosses on someone's lawn, beat up black people in the past, bought a gun, bought bullets, cased the victim's movements, waited for hours in a car for the victim to leave his home, the victim was a well-known black person and civil rights advocate, and the killer walked up and shot the victim at point-blank range.) This is a caricature, of course, but I think it is not always necessary for someone to say that they fear something or hate something for the inference to be a fair and reasonable one. People make judgments on nonverbal evidence all the time. People of reason may legitimately rely on these inferences in many cases. It may not be 100% verified by a direct confession, but it also isn't worthless, unreliable speculation, either. It's not an either-or situation. There are gradations along the line of what evidence we receive about what people believe.

I agree that people make judgments on nonverbal evidence all the time. But I have also seen a lot of speculation about theist motives by nontheists on discussion boards which doesn't fit with my own knowledge of theists and in many cases I'm sure the nontheists know much less about how theists think than I do.

I should point out, as well, that "homophobic," is something of a euphemism. Even if someone like Fred Phelps is labeled "homophobic," I think it is reasonable to infer from his behavior that he is not merely fearful, but that he actively and virulently hates.

I don't know that much about him first-hand but I wouldn't be surprised if his behavior demonstrates hatred.

OTOH, I think that psychology as a field has verified that "hate" or "anger" is very often a mask for, or derived from "fear." I think that hatred and fear are closely allied emotions, even though it might not seem so on the surface. So, saying someone is likely to be, or has been taught to be "fearful," is actually much kinder than saying, "you're a hatemonger."

And when someone twists their face into a grimace and screams, "YOU'RE GOING TO HELL, FAGGOT!!" am I speculating that the person "hates" gays -- because he hasn't actually said the words, "I HATE YOU, FAGGOT!"? Am I speculating that he "hates," and that he REALLY means merely that, "your behavior is not consistent with my scripture's code of sexual morality"?
#60

Not all judgments about whether someone hates are invalid. But as I said above, I've seen some judgments which indicate little underlying knowledge and don't line up with what I know.

Helen

[beyelzu]

But, to make a prediction ahead of time, because I have casually posed the question before, they won't have an answer that makes any logical sense at all to me. It will be something to the effect that "it's not natural", or "the bible says" or some such.

But that's not an answer to "what breakdown of society will occur?" Maybe you can ask them to answer that specifically.I know it's not an answer, but it is the best I've gotten in a brief interaction on it. The approach I plan to take this time is to offer no personal opinion on the amendment or the question I pose, make it more of an inquiry to help me form my own opinion. I think they might be more willing to open up and let me know what they really think what problems would occur if gay marriage were to be legal.

However, if they tell me to pray or to seek guidance from the bible, that too is a non-answer to me. This may take several weeks. I really would like to understand where this whole "it will cause the breakdown of society" think comes from and what it means to them. My curiosity is peaked, I really would like the answer from average Joe or average Joan what they think, not what their minister told them, what they themselves in their own minds think.

Of course, I have a good idea where they are coming. I wasn't always an atheist. I fear their answer will not be one of deep thought and consideration and will be as simplisitic as I stated before.


as a former proponent of the breakdown of society. I think it comes from a traditionalist viewpoint. Marriage is an offshoot of pair bonding which is in turn a result of large heads and walking erect producing a relatively helpless offspring.

The family is the basic building block of society. Altering it further would be a bad thing.

Obviously, I understand that this viewpoint isnt particularly good, which is why I am a former proponent.

[beyelzu]

Why not ask the people with that POV instead of speaking for them?

Because the people that hold that POV don't analyse it. They don't actually think about why they hold it. They just justify it with indoctrinated dogma. Thus, my comments about hegemonic masculinities, heterosexism and essentialism.

But why are we talking about homophobia unless some theist has said to you "Yes, I'm afraid of gay people"?

I've noticed that nontheists frequently accuse theists of being homophobic. However, that's speculating on motives, isn't it?

This is why I make a distinction between homophobia and heterosexism. We were talking about homophobia in the original post. Christianity, however, is inherently heterosexist, as much of our society is.

In this thread, people explained their lack of understanding at certain dogmas regarding the "debate" (pfff, like there is one) on Gay marriage. They mentioned things like the rhetoric of "breakdown of society". I offered answers based on research I've read about what they're really talking about, and why, to try and help these people understand. If you don't like that, tough shit. I could have gone into massively long explanations of the actual history of construction of Western gender, the part "science" and "canonical law" (ie-religious dogma) had to play in this, specifically how it oppresses women, creates a heterosexist society, embodies essentialism in its workings though the essentialism is a fucking illusion, and how this relates to homosexual rights and the recognition of them being equal in all ways in society as heterosexuals. But I gave the very shorthand version to this thread, which you should be fucking happy about. It's the same thing as any research- I don't know how my calf muscle works. I just know that it has something to do with energy and muscle and ligaments and joints and that's it. However, a well-researched a versed scientist can tell me in their scientific language how it works. I may not understand it very well, so I may go to someone who can translate it for me for a shorthand version. That's what I tried to do, because there are psychological and communication barriers in the transfer of any knowledge. If I were to go and ask someone else on the street who doesn't know how or why their calf muscle works, but was told by their parents all the time that it was because magical calf-muscle-fairies were doing their job, well... I'm sure you understand the comparison.

However, if anyone interested in the subject wants some references, PM or ask me in this thread and I'll be more than happy to provide you with some on the subject for further reading.

My mother-in-law has told me on numerous occasions that gays send out people called "Chicken Hawks" to entice and recruit children into being gay so they can abuse them.

*snickers* See? You try asking people like this why they're really afraid of homosexuality, when they're so incredibly misinformed about what homosexuality even is.


heterosexism?

you have to be fucking kidding me.

elaborate further please so I can deconstruct your arguments.

the gauntlet is officially being thrown.

[HelenM]

Why not ask the people with that POV instead of speaking for them?

Because the people that hold that POV don't analyse it. They don't actually think about why they hold it. They just justify it with indoctrinated dogma.

They justify it with what you call dogma and they call truth, or facts.

Isn't that what you do too?

But why are we talking about homophobia unless some theist has said to you "Yes, I'm afraid of gay people"?

I've noticed that nontheists frequently accuse theists of being homophobic. However, that's speculating on motives, isn't it?

This is why I make a distinction between homophobia and heterosexism. We were talking about homophobia in the original post.

I thought we were talking about people who oppose gay marriage. Not homophobia.

Christianity, however, is inherently heterosexist, as much of our society is.

Fwiw, not liberal Christianity.

In this thread, people explained their lack of understanding at certain dogmas regarding the "debate" (pfff, like there is one) on Gay marriage. They mentioned things like the rhetoric of "breakdown of society". I offered answers based on research I've read about what they're really talking about, and why, to try and help these people understand.

How do you know the research is correct?

If you don't like that, tough shit.

Little Miss Defensive, huh? :P

I don't remember saying that I didn't like it, actually.

I could have gone into massively long explanations of the actual history of construction of Western gender, the part "science" and "canonical law" (ie-religious dogma) had to play in this, specifically how it oppresses women, creates a heterosexist society, embodies essentialism in its workings though the essentialism is a fucking illusion, and how this relates to homosexual rights and the recognition of them being equal in all ways in society as heterosexuals. But I gave the very shorthand version to this thread, which you should be fucking happy about. It's the same thing as any research- I don't know how my calf muscle works. I just know that it has something to do with energy and muscle and ligaments and joints and that's it. However, a well-researched a versed scientist can tell me in their scientific language how it works. I may not understand it very well, so I may go to someone who can translate it for me for a shorthand version. That's what I tried to do, because there are psychological and communication barriers in the transfer of any knowledge. If I were to go and ask someone else on the street who doesn't know how or why their calf muscle works, but was told by their parents all the time that it was because magical calf-muscle-fairies were doing their job, well... I'm sure you understand the comparison.

However, if anyone interested in the subject wants some references, PM or ask me in this thread and I'll be more than happy to provide you with some on the subject for further reading.

Thanks for offering.

My mother-in-law has told me on numerous occasions that gays send out people called "Chicken Hawks" to entice and recruit children into being gay so they can abuse them.

*snickers* See? You try asking people like this why they're really afraid of homosexuality, when they're so incredibly misinformed about what homosexuality even is.

I can see why people who believe what LadyShea's mother-in-law believes are afraid. I guess I could snicker, but I find it more sad than funny that people really believe such things.

Helen

[Adam]

Ok, so it's their starting values that are alien to you.

Yep.

Why do you think they have different starting values from you? Do you think they're less smart? Do you think they lack the information you have? Do you think they're genetically (or perhaps environmentally) disposed to have a different starting place from you? Do you think of them as in some way "less" than you or do you simply think of them as "different" from you?

Or do you not think about why they have different starting values from you?

Well, like I said, it's largely an exercise in psychology and, while I'm sure it's possible to make certain broad statistical generalizations, each individual's reasons for holding their own values are going to be different. I mean, it's tautologically true to say that 'they' have different genetic and environmental predispositions than I but that's, of course, a nonanswer. Some of it might also be lack of information as well. For example, someone who is misinformed and believes that there really is a predatory "gay agenda" effort to "convert" children to homosexuality and abuse them, seemingly not an uncommon notion, probably has, from their own point of view, a very good reason to support discrimination against homosexuals.

As far as thinking people with different values "less" than me or just "different", I guess it's a little from column A and a little from column B, depending on the degree to which I attach ethical baggage to the particular value we differ on. One of the problems with bringing moral or ethical values to the table is that, if I hold value A to be moral then, by definition, I'm going to find anyone who does not hold value A to be immoral. An example might be a good friend of mine who is generally a nice guy, fun to know, great to his family, awlays willing to help his freinds, but a racist and a half. I do think that he's "less" than me, in a moral sense, on that one issue, but I don't think that he's "less" than me in general, if that makes any sense to you.

[maddog]

Or perhaps they think you are trying to argue rather than learn more about their POV and they're feeling defensive.If I argue, I find it's often BECAUSE I CAN'T find out more about their POV; nothing more is offered. What little HAS been offered doesn't make sense to me. If it's "arguing" to say, "but I'm confused; I don't really see how that answers the question," or "that doesn't make sense to me," then, very often, I get a defensive response instead of a more detailed explanation. Perhaps you can suggest a different way of phrasing it that would be more productive.I think one way - but it takes time - is to establish a mutually respectful relationship, because then they'll be more willing to open up to you and share more with you.

People often don't want to put that much time into getting information out of other people. Yes, Helen, I agree wholeheartedly with the general principle that mutual respect is one (and to me, the best) way of helping one another be more willing to open up and share more. I like this value SO much, in fact, that I endeavor to put it into practice as much as this frail human being can. You and I have labored on the same side in a number of "civil discourse" discussions (er, "battles" might be more apt).

I want to ask you, personally, in our exchanges, have I ever been less than civil and mutually respectful? (I have never observed YOU to be anything other than completely honorable.)

If I have failings in this regard, I'd really like to know. I am perfectly capable of having blind spots.

OTOH, in places like this board, and IRL conversations with people that I am on enough of a footing to have a discussion about serious value differences, if I normally DO behave civilly and respectfully, why choose to direct this general principle my way as a response to my question? That answer in that place appears to imply that I must not have gotten a satisfactory response because I was somehow DISrespectful. Do you really think that's the case? If so, I'm afraid I must seriously re-evaluate my behavior, because I'm honestly not AWARE of giving such offense to others. I do know that it's entirely possible for such a lack of awareness to occur, because I experience it in other areas. For example, when doing physical exercise under the supervision of a trainer, I often cannot answer the question, "what do you feel?" I'm unable to put the focus of my attention on a certain muscle, at least sometimes.

I'll be really depressed and chagrined if I find out I'm that bad of a judge of my own emotional projections; but it's better to know than not.

If, however, my own assessment of my behavior is at least mostly accurate, and I DO succeed in being basically civil, friendly, respectful, conscientious, tolerant, accepting, etc., then I'm really at a loss how to respond to your suggestion. I don't understand what I, in terms of real actions, should be doing differently.


Here's one thing: it affects the world their children grow up in and they're often rather sensitive about that. oohhkay. Now, to me, this is a completely "non-answer" answer. Not just something I disagree with -- I agree that people are sensitive about things that happen to their children -- but something I don't understand. WHY is this an answer to the question I asked? eta: the question I originally asked was, "Please elaborate on how 2 OTHER PEOPLE being married 'affects' the relationship of 2 people who are already married." [T]his is so abstract and nebulous. Sure, "no man is an island," and everything that we do puts ripples in the water that affect the rest of the universe. A butterfly wing can cause a tsunami, or some such thing as that. But here's what I don't get, HOW does 2 gay people getting married (which, they are going to BE married, with or without government sanction) affect 2 heterosexual married people? HOW does the "world their children grow up in" get "affected"? what would ACTUALLY HAPPEN to those children, if 2 gay people were allowed to be married/not forced to be "divorced"? Yes, people are sensitive about changes in their world. Yes, they love their children. But the gay people love each other, pretty much the same as the heterosexual spouses do. The gay people love their children, pretty much the same as the heterosexual parents do. The gay people are sensitive about what kind of world their children grow up in, pretty much the same as the heterosexual parents do. So, what does that mean in terms of policy in this context?Christians who believe that sexual intimacy is wrong unless it is between two married people (one man and one woman) want their children to share their belief. They don't want the world around them implying to their children that there's nothing wrong with two men marrying, or two women marrying. What their children see will affect them and the parents will not favor any step the world around them takes which moves the world further away from sharing the parents' moral values.Thank you, Helen. This is a great example for purposes of gaining understanding about what "understanding" means. Let me explain how I see this:

Let me start with "Christians who believe that sexual intimacy is wrong unless it is between two married people." I "know" and therefore I "understand" that many Christians believe this. I also know that non-Christians, both theist and non-theist, also believe this. In fact, I'm not sure why the example has shifted to "Christians who believe . . ." such-and-such, because my initial question was not specific to Christians, but to heterosexuals who oppose gay marriage. (For the record, I myself think that sexual intimacy on a casual, un-committed basis is wrong.) But the statement of itself doesn't tell me anything about WHY the Christian thinks so. So, once again, this is, to me, a "non-answer answer." It hasn't gotten me any closer to understanding the BASIS of the Christian's (or other objector's) objection to homosexuality in general or homosexual marriage in particular.

The same thing happens with the add-on that the two married people should be "(one man, one woman)." Yes, I understand THAT the Christian thinks so. But I still have not been given any information about WHY this limitation is important. A non-answer answer, or going in circles, from my point of view.

I understand COMPLETELY that families choose the best and wisest morals that they want to inculcate in their children. I would certainly hope so! I've never known it to be any other way, except in families that were so dysfunctional that morals didn't enter into the equation (believe me, THOSE people are SCARY!!) I know and understand that they want their children to share their beliefs and that they want the children not to be hurt by the world. I would never expect anything less.

The world would be wonderful (I suppose) from everyone's point of view if morals were absolutely agreed-upon by everyone everywhere. In the real world, of course, that isn't the case.

In terms of our discussion of homosexual marriage, the answer that you are now giving seems to be, if I've read it correctly (and almost literally) that children will "see" other people having different morals out in the world. You say that what they "see" will "affect" them. But this answer STILL does not really identify WHAT effect will result, or HOW knowing or seeing that other people have different values will affect or harm these children.

(As an aside, I notice that the focus of your answers appears to be potential effect on children, and not any effect on the heterosexuals' own marriage per se. Some of the discussion against gay marriage has argued that letting gays get married will affect other marriages. That in fact was my initial question, "Please elaborate on how 2 OTHER PEOPLE being married 'affects' the relationship of 2 people who are already married." If I've read you correctly, the potential issues or effects you have been discussing so far do not involve effects on the marriages of heterosexuals, but simply on their children. Have I understood this correctly?)

(As another aside, I think EVERYONE can understand -- and I really mean "understand," as we have been speaking of "understanding" -- about how parents feel about their children and the nurturance of their children, including morality and danger. I also think that everyone can understand and recognize that, in life as lived by real people, not everyone agrees on the same identical moral values in every case. Real people have to face difficulties and diversity of opinion, even about important things. So, another question, left wholly unaddressed by the answer -- i.e., that "people don't favor changes in the world which seem to be taking a step away from the parents' values" -- is what the world's lack of congruence to MY own moral values means in terms of what the legislative policy should be for EVERYONE, even those who do not hold my same values.)

I am looking for something underlying what was said before. That's why I asked for elaboration or clarification. From what I can see, however, this "answer" does not really elaborate on anything beyond the previous one -- the first answer was that parents are "sensitive" about changes in the world that "affect" their children. The second answer was that parents want their children to share their values and don't want changed or different values out in the world to "affect" their children. Can you see how, to my way of thinking, these are essentially the same answer? To me, we've just gone in a circle, rather than advancing our understanding.

So, let me try again. Given that a hypothetical Christian (we'll go with your hypothetical that they are Christian) heterosexual married couple thinks that sex between any other kind of couple is "wrong," do you know or can you explain WHY they hold this value? (sex only within marriage; marriage only between one man/one woman) Let's start there and leave the rest aside for the moment. And perhaps it's only fair to say, can you explain why YOU, as a Christian, believe this (if you do) (as opposed to speculating about all kinds of Christians in the abstract)? I'm only trying to ascertain what is within your knowledge.

Thanks again, Helen.
This is a great topic!

your friend in understanding,
maddog

#70

[Godfather]

Why do you think they have different starting values from you? Do you think they're less smart? Do you think they lack the information you have? Do you think they're genetically (or perhaps environmentally) disposed to have a different starting place from you? Do you think of them as in some way "less" than you or do you simply think of them as "different" from you?
Your missing the point. It doesn't matter why they happen to have different core assumptions, or 'starting values'. I might know the specific derivation of all of those assumptions, or some, or none - it doesn't matter. Every signifier - every datum, every particle of knowledge a person can have about another person, thing, idea or institution, carries linkages and suggestions which predict other data, based on the observer's experience and assumptions.

You are suggesting that the best way to approach a debate is with an open mind. That's good - I agree with that. You should never assume that you know everyything about a person's POV (or about anything, for that matter). But you seem to be suggesting that anyone who doesn't begin throwing out all of their assumptions isn't playing fair. That is ridiculous. I don't think it's too much of a stretch to assume, for example, that a theist believes in a deity. That's one fair assumption right there. Now, that inescapably suggests other facts to the observer, depending on their own POV. From my POV, it suggests that their POV is fairly fundamentally based on a strong belief in something despite its being demonstrably counter to all the evidence of our common experience of the world, and that this is therefore a person who is not concerned with exercising critical or rational thought. I can see no reason why I should feel obliged to waste my time trying to rationally engage with such a person in order to learn more about their flawed beliefs.

Christians who believe that sexual intimacy is wrong unless it is between two married people (one man and one woman) want their children to share their belief. They don't want the world around them implying to their children that there's nothing wrong with two men marrying, or two women marrying. What their children see will affect them and the parents will not favor any step the world around them takes which moves the world further away from sharing the parents' moral values.
Fair enough. Let's extend this same principal to the rest of society as well. Muslims believe the consumption of alcohol; non-Muslims should therefore not have a legal right to drink, in case their doing so implies to Muslim children that there is nothing wrong with drinking. Judaism forbids eating the flesh of pigs; non-Jews should therefore not have a legal right to eat ham sandwiches, in case their behaviour influences Jewish children.

heterosexism?

you have to be fucking kidding me.
What? The connection between words and their meanings is arbitrary. Sometimes words aren't sufficiently descriptive to convey the intended meaning, so different words are needed. 'Heterosexism' seems to me to be a perfectly acceptable alternative to 'homophobia' for use when dealing with those more concerned with elementary etymology than sense, whose attitude is something along the lines of, 'Homophobia?! I ain't afraid of no fucking faggot. I'll kick any fucking faggot's cock-sucking ass!'

[Adam]

Your missing the point. It doesn't matter why they happen to have different core assumptions, or 'starting values'.

To an extent, I'd argue that it does matter, especially if we're talking about a seriously divergent value. For example, I think it's very important to understand why a number of people in the world seem to devalue American influence in their affairs to the point that they're willing to kill civilians in reaction to it. Presumably, we'd like to prevent others from coming to hold similar values, and we can't do that unless we understand why they hold the values that they hold. (Note that I'm using "understand" here in the rational/abstract sense. I don't have to empathically understand your values in order to rationally understand why you hold them.) Although it's a little less extreme, I think the same applies to value confilcts on topics like gay marriage or abortion. I wish more people felt as I did on these issues, and understanding what leads people to feel otherwise is an important step in swaying them to my way of thinking.

Upon reflection, that sounds sort of cold and manipulative, but here's another example: Let's say that I determine that people who distrust atheists (or, like George H W Bush, don't think they can be good citizens) often feel that way because they base their own morality firmly in their religion and, thus, believe that people without religion must be immoral. I might, then, as an atheist, go out of my way to demonstrate to the people with whom I interact that atheists can be moral people just like anyone else.

I can see no reason why I should feel obliged to waste my time trying to rationally engage with such a person in order to learn more about their flawed beliefs.

I don't think that disagrement over the correctness of one assertion, even one as fundamental as "a god exists". makes it a waste of time to engage rationally with someone. Even if you believe that my beliefs are flawed, you can still benefit from a better understanding of how I came to hold them, and what actions they might lead me to take. For that matter, a lot of what I'm personally talking about here isn't even rational engagement so much as it is social and empathic engagement.

While I'm here, I might point out that referring to someone's strongly held beliefs as "flawed" (even if they are flawed in some way) is a stumblign block to understanding or even acceptance, in the same way that referring to those one disagrees with as "sinners" or the like would be., Yeah, you think Christians' beliefs are flawed. I do too, otherwise I'd call myself a Christian. But waving that fact around like a banner is, IMO, unnecessarily antagonistic and, just as importantly, counterproductive. This is what I was talking about earlier when I said that I think, politically, that we need to focus on what unites us rather than what divides us, otherwise we're simply playing into the hands of unscrupulous politicians who exploit our differences on narrow wedge issues for their own gain. If "we" tell "them" their beliefs are flawed and "they" tell "us" that we're sinners, then we've drawn convenient little boxes around ourselves labeled "exploit here". IMO. Soapbox speech ends here.

Fair enough. Let's extend this same principal to the rest of society as well. Muslims believe the consumption of alcohol; non-Muslims should therefore not have a legal right to drink, in case their doing so implies to Muslim children that there is nothing wrong with drinking. Judaism forbids eating the flesh of pigs; non-Jews should therefore not have a legal right to eat ham sandwiches, in case their behaviour influences Jewish children.

That's a good point. What is it about gay marriage that differentiates it from these other things? I'm guessing that there might be a different gut reaction to allowing people to gain a new right that offends one's personal values as opposed to actively campaigning to remove an existing right that offends one's values. I'm also guessing that sexual conduct is of greater than normal interest (as opposed to food or drink related issues) to us humans.

'Heterosexism' seems to me to be a perfectly acceptable alternative to 'homophobia' for use when dealing with those more concerned with elementary etymology than sense, whose attitude is something along the lines of, 'Homophobia?! I ain't afraid of no fucking faggot. I'll kick any fucking faggot's cock-sucking ass!'

Huh. I'd read "heterosexism" more as an analogue to "sexism", i.e. granting preferential treatment to heterosexuals as a sexist grants preferential treatment to a preferred sex, usually the male one. That would make homophobes a subset of heterosexists. Maybe Adora (who, I think introduced the term to this thread) could clarify.

[Adora]

They justify it with what you call dogma and they call truth, or facts.

You can call a duck a rare red-feathered quigybo, it's still a duck. You can call lies about "Chicken Hawkes" and "The Nazi's were all Homos" truth, I shall continue to call it lies/dogma/doctrine.

Isn't that what you do too?
No. I don't. I present theories and information. It's up to you to decide it if it's the truth for you.

I thought we were talking about people who oppose gay marriage. Not homophobia.
OKay, fine. So we're discussing heterosexism. However, heterosexism is culpable for homophobia existing, and in many cases oppositions to gay marriage cross the heterosexist/homophobic line.

How do you know the research is correct?
Because I've seen and been involved in instances where this research was applied in practice to issues of heterosexism and homophobia and seen the theories work.

Fwiw, not liberal Christianity.
Honestly- I do agree that some sects of Christianity are making good progress in regards to heterosexism and homophobia in the religion. I am particularly impressed by the US Episcopalians. But I was making wanky generalisations about the world-phenomenon as a whole, so you'll have to excuse me. :)

heterosexism?
Is a term referring to the general prejudice directed against anyone who is not straight in society. It is a definition recently created to deal with the issue of the divide between general prejudice and psychological outright fear and hatred. Homophobia is a term to heterosexism like xenophobia is to racism and misogyny/misandry is to sexism. The -ism is the general environment that leads to extreme cases.

For example, people who use "accepted norms" of family/child rearing in society to back up their claims that "gay people shouldn't have kids" are not pathologically fearful of it. There is an underlying theory of fear that is larger than the individual though, that works through constructed social orders and those currently in control of them. These people are not homophobic, and many of them have loved ones/friends who are gay and who they love as people. However, they are heterosexist- ie favouring heterosexual modes of society and privilege in culture.

I use the term because I think it's wrong to say people like these are homophobic. I see the term 'homophobia' like its medical counterparts- agrophobia, arachnophobia etc. It is an extreme fear and hatred of something that leads to extreme reactions and detremental effects in the lives of those who have it and the lives of the people they act out this fear on. Someone simply holding a view that is considered a social norm because of established modes of thinking and viewing sexuality (if only for the past approx 300 or so years) is not an extreme case of pathological fear that leads to the violent outbursts homophobia does.

It's not a PC-friendly alternative to homophobia. It's simply a lesser form of/contributer to homophobia, the same way subtle cultural racism contributes to xenophobia and the like. People who feel the desire to commit violence against queers are homophobic, even if the fear is covered by a facade of hatred and aggression. However, without heterosexism, the exaggerated fear of homosexuality can't exist. It's like trying to plant a seed in concrete that can't grow without ideal tropical soil conditions. It simply won't be allowed to grow unless the conditions are right.

*sniffs* Mmmm, gauntlet fresh.

[viscousmemories]

If "we" tell "them" their beliefs are flawed and "they" tell "us" that we're sinners, then we've drawn convenient little boxes around ourselves labeled "exploit here". IMO. Soapbox speech ends here.
I agree, Adam. And not to pick on Godfather or anything, but you were generous to point out only the "flawed beliefs" part. He also asserted that belief in God is "demonstrably counter to all the evidence of our common experience of the world", and that a believer is "therefore a person who is not concerned with exercising critical or rational thought" before concluding that it would therefore be a waste of his time to try to "rationally engage with such a person".

Telling someone their beliefs are flawed is one obstacle to seeking understanding. Telling them what they believe is counter to all knowledge, they are obviously incapable or unwilling to engage in critical or rational thought and hence it would be a waste of your time to even try to have a rational discussion with them is quite another. I suspect that under the circumstances seeking understanding with believers here would be difficult from that foundation.

[HelenM]

An example might be a good friend of mine who is generally a nice guy, fun to know, great to his family, awlays willing to help his freinds, but a racist and a half. I do think that he's "less" than me, in a moral sense, on that one issue, but I don't think that he's "less" than me in general, if that makes any sense to you.

It makes sense to me. I assume it wouldn't make sense to people who hear Christians say they "hate the sin but not the sinner" and respond that to separate in that way is not possible.

Helen

[HelenM]

I think one way - but it takes time - is to establish a mutually respectful relationship, because then they'll be more willing to open up to you and share more with you.

People often don't want to put that much time into getting information out of other people. Yes, Helen, I agree wholeheartedly with the general principle that mutual respect is one (and to me, the best) way of helping one another be more willing to open up and share more. I like this value SO much, in fact, that I endeavor to put it into practice as much as this frail human being can. You and I have labored on the same side in a number of "civil discourse" discussions (er, "battles" might be more apt).

I want to ask you, personally, in our exchanges, have I ever been less than civil and mutually respectful? (I have never observed YOU to be anything other than completely honorable.)

If I have failings in this regard, I'd really like to know. I am perfectly capable of having blind spots.

OTOH, in places like this board, and IRL conversations with people that I am on enough of a footing to have a discussion about serious value differences, if I normally DO behave civilly and respectfully, why choose to direct this general principle my way as a response to my question? That answer in that place appears to imply that I must not have gotten a satisfactory response because I was somehow DISrespectful. Do you really think that's the case? If so, I'm afraid I must seriously re-evaluate my behavior, because I'm honestly not AWARE of giving such offense to others. I do know that it's entirely possible for such a lack of awareness to occur, because I experience it in other areas. For example, when doing physical exercise under the supervision of a trainer, I often cannot answer the question, "what do you feel?" I'm unable to put the focus of my attention on a certain muscle, at least sometimes.

I'll be really depressed and chagrined if I find out I'm that bad of a judge of my own emotional projections; but it's better to know than not.

If, however, my own assessment of my behavior is at least mostly accurate, and I DO succeed in being basically civil, friendly, respectful, conscientious, tolerant, accepting, etc., then I'm really at a loss how to respond to your suggestion. I don't understand what I, in terms of real actions, should be doing differently.

I think you may have misunderstood me. You inferred that I was emphasizing civility and wondered if I was implying that I've seen you less than civil.

As far as I can recall you're one of the more civil people I've encountered on discussion boards :). So I certainly wasn't implying that.

As I wrote my answer I was thinking the emphasis was on the time it takes for some people to become comfortable enough with us to open up to us. Even then, I'm not necessarily saying you don't take enough time. It's meant more as an observation about other people - especially ones who've had bad experiences discussing their POV - that it may take them a while to feel comfortable enough to open up even with you, a polite and civil person in my experience. It might be mostly/all about them and hardly at all about you that they're defensive.

Thank you, Helen. This is a great example for purposes of gaining understanding about what "understanding" means. Let me explain how I see this:

Let me start with "Christians who believe that sexual intimacy is wrong unless it is between two married people." I "know" and therefore I "understand" that many Christians believe this. I also know that non-Christians, both theist and non-theist, also believe this. In fact, I'm not sure why the example has shifted to "Christians who believe . . ." such-and-such, because my initial question was not specific to Christians, but to heterosexuals who oppose gay marriage. (For the record, I myself think that sexual intimacy on a casual, un-committed basis is wrong.) But the statement of itself doesn't tell me anything about WHY the Christian thinks so. So, once again, this is, to me, a "non-answer answer." It hasn't gotten me any closer to understanding the BASIS of the Christian's (or other objector's) objection to homosexuality in general or homosexual marriage in particular.

I have a problem with you saying what I wrote is a "non-answer", if that's what you're saying. I tried to answer your question and so it was an answer. I would prefer you to describe it as, say, "not the answer I was looking for".

The same thing happens with the add-on that the two married people should be "(one man, one woman)." Yes, I understand THAT the Christian thinks so. But I still have not been given any information about WHY this limitation is important. A non-answer answer, or going in circles, from my point of view.

Is it a non-answer to say because they believe that's the only kind of marriage of which God approves? I suppose I was assuming you knew that that's what lies behind Christian beliefs. You do realize that, don't you? The issues they really care about are the ones they believe God has made His opinion clear about. Now do I have to say why they believe that or how they believe He has done it? At some point we're going to get to the point Adam spoke of, at which you say "Ok, I know what they think but I don't understand how they can think certain things are true which seem ridiculous to me". Are we there and is that why you're saying my answers are "non-answers"? Or is it that you don't know that Christians care about what they think God cares about? Or you don't know that these are (for conservative Christians) based on how they understand the Bible? Or that you don't know such Christians believe the Bible is God's word?

I'm confused now because I don't know what is a non-answer to you and what isn't.

I understand COMPLETELY that families choose the best and wisest morals that they want to inculcate in their children. I would certainly hope so! I've never known it to be any other way, except in families that were so dysfunctional that morals didn't enter into the equation (believe me, THOSE people are SCARY!!) I know and understand that they want their children to share their beliefs and that they want the children not to be hurt by the world. I would never expect anything less.

The world would be wonderful (I suppose) from everyone's point of view if morals were absolutely agreed-upon by everyone everywhere. In the real world, of course, that isn't the case.

In terms of our discussion of homosexual marriage, the answer that you are now giving seems to be, if I've read it correctly (and almost literally) that children will "see" other people having different morals out in the world. You say that what they "see" will "affect" them. But this answer STILL does not really identify WHAT effect will result, or HOW knowing or seeing that other people have different values will affect or harm these children.

Why does it have to? If Christians believe there is likely to be any effect along the lines of enticing their children away from what they believe is right and true, they are going to resist that.

(As an aside, I notice that the focus of your answers appears to be potential effect on children, and not any effect on the heterosexuals' own marriage per se. Some of the discussion against gay marriage has argued that letting gays get married will affect other marriages. That in fact was my initial question, "Please elaborate on how 2 OTHER PEOPLE being married 'affects' the relationship of 2 people who are already married." If I've read you correctly, the potential issues or effects you have been discussing so far do not involve effects on the marriages of heterosexuals, but simply on their children. Have I understood this correctly?)

True. I should have said the following when you first asked - my apologies: in fact, I don't understand why you phrased the question that way. It implies that that's what you've heard Christians say. I don't recall hearing Christians say that it will affect the relationships of people who are already married, per se. Could you explain why you phrased the question that way?

(As another aside, I think EVERYONE can understand -- and I really mean "understand," as we have been speaking of "understanding" -- about how parents feel about their children and the nurturance of their children, including morality and danger. I also think that everyone can understand and recognize that, in life as lived by real people, not everyone agrees on the same identical moral values in every case. Real people have to face difficulties and diversity of opinion, even about important things. So, another question, left wholly unaddressed by the answer -- i.e., that "people don't favor changes in the world which seem to be taking a step away from the parents' values" -- is what the world's lack of congruence to MY own moral values means in terms of what the legislative policy should be for EVERYONE, even those who do not hold my same values.)

Well, Christians don't believe moral values are subjective, do they? Do we need to discuss this too? On the whole, if God says something is wrong for me then it's wrong for you also.

I am looking for something underlying what was said before. That's why I asked for elaboration or clarification. From what I can see, however, this "answer" does not really elaborate on anything beyond the previous one -- the first answer was that parents are "sensitive" about changes in the world that "affect" their children. The second answer was that parents want their children to share their values and don't want changed or different values out in the world to "affect" their children. Can you see how, to my way of thinking, these are essentially the same answer? To me, we've just gone in a circle, rather than advancing our understanding.

I'm at a loss how to advance your understanding then, because either you seem to be asking me to explain things I thought you'd know about Christians or you're asking me to explain what makes them care about different things from you, which is something I don't profess to fully understand.

So, let me try again. Given that a hypothetical Christian (we'll go with your hypothetical that they are Christian) heterosexual married couple thinks that sex between any other kind of couple is "wrong," do you know or can you explain WHY they hold this value? (sex only within marriage; marriage only between one man/one woman) Let's start there and leave the rest aside for the moment. And perhaps it's only fair to say, can you explain why YOU, as a Christian, believe this (if you do) (as opposed to speculating about all kinds of Christians in the abstract)? I'm only trying to ascertain what is within your knowledge.

At this point I don't know what to say that you won't consider a "non-answer".

Thanks again, Helen.
This is a great topic!

I'm glad you think so, but a little frustrated that you're finding my answers to be non-answers. Maybe you can tell ;)

your friend in understanding,
maddog

I hope so. Friends sounds good to me! :)

Helen

[HelenM]

Why do you think they have different starting values from you? Do you think they're less smart? Do you think they lack the information you have? Do you think they're genetically (or perhaps environmentally) disposed to have a different starting place from you? Do you think of them as in some way "less" than you or do you simply think of them as "different" from you?
Your missing the point.

How can asking questions which I'm curious to have answered be missing the point? The point is that I was curious about something so I asked.

You're missing the point to say I'm missing the point simply because I was curious about something and therefore asked.

It doesn't matter why they happen to have different core assumptions, or 'starting values'. I might know the specific derivation of all of those assumptions, or some, or none - it doesn't matter. Every signifier - every datum, every particle of knowledge a person can have about another person, thing, idea or institution, carries linkages and suggestions which predict other data, based on the observer's experience and assumptions.

I think what we believe about why does matter. You are free to disagree, obviously.

You are suggesting that the best way to approach a debate is with an open mind. That's good - I agree with that. You should never assume that you know everyything about a person's POV (or about anything, for that matter). But you seem to be suggesting that anyone who doesn't begin throwing out all of their assumptions isn't playing fair.

It's very hard to have a discussion with someone who, without even quoting where I said something, tells me what they think I seem to be suggesting.

I'd rather stick to what I said, otherwise all I'm likely to do is defend what I actually said and that what I seemed to suggest is in your head only.

That is ridiculous.

Why did you assume I would suggest something ridiculous?

I don't think it's too much of a stretch to assume, for example, that a theist believes in a deity. That's one fair assumption right there. Now, that inescapably suggests other facts to the observer, depending on their own POV. From my POV, it suggests that their POV is fairly fundamentally based on a strong belief in something despite its being demonstrably counter to all the evidence of our common experience of the world, and that this is therefore a person who is not concerned with exercising critical or rational thought. I can see no reason why I should feel obliged to waste my time trying to rationally engage with such a person in order to learn more about their flawed beliefs.

I can give you a reason why. Because your implied assumption that people who have beliefs you consider flawed cannot rationally engage might be incorrect and if so, you will have your incorrect assumption corrected by the reality that people with what you label 'flawed beliefs' can engage rationally after all. However, refusing to engage rationally with them ensures that if you are wrong, you won't be corrected. It's a good way to proceed if preserving your presuppositions whether right or wrong is more important to you than checking whether they're correct.

Christians who believe that sexual intimacy is wrong unless it is between two married people (one man and one woman) want their children to share their belief. They don't want the world around them implying to their children that there's nothing wrong with two men marrying, or two women marrying. What their children see will affect them and the parents will not favor any step the world around them takes which moves the world further away from sharing the parents' moral values.
Fair enough. Let's extend this same principal to the rest of society as well. Muslims believe the consumption of alcohol; non-Muslims should therefore not have a legal right to drink, in case their doing so implies to Muslim children that there is nothing wrong with drinking. Judaism forbids eating the flesh of pigs; non-Jews should therefore not have a legal right to eat ham sandwiches, in case their behaviour influences Jewish children.

This shows your ignorance of other religions.

(I know there was a point buried in there somewhere which is quite a good one, but if you're not interested in stating it more directly, I'm not interested in discussing it)

heterosexism?

you have to be fucking kidding me.
What? The connection between words and their meanings is arbitrary. Sometimes words aren't sufficiently descriptive to convey the intended meaning, so different words are needed. 'Heterosexism' seems to me to be a perfectly acceptable alternative to 'homophobia' for use when dealing with those more concerned with elementary etymology than sense, whose attitude is something along the lines of, 'Homophobia?! I ain't afraid of no fucking faggot. I'll kick any fucking faggot's cock-sucking ass!'

Have you dealt with anyone who has actually said that to you? How did you infer this was their attitude?

Helen

[HelenM]

They justify it with what you call dogma and they call truth, or facts.

You can call a duck a rare red-feathered quigybo, it's still a duck. You can call lies about "Chicken Hawkes" and "The Nazi's were all Homos" truth, I shall continue to call it lies/dogma/doctrine.

You're free to call it whatever you like.

Isn't that what you do too?
No. I don't. I present theories and information. It's up to you to decide it if it's the truth for you.

So you don't use what you present to justify your own POV? How do you justify your own, then?

I thought we were talking about people who oppose gay marriage. Not homophobia.
OKay, fine. So we're discussing heterosexism. However, heterosexism is culpable for homophobia existing, and in many cases oppositions to gay marriage cross the heterosexist/homophobic line.

Maybe so.

How do you know the research is correct?
Because I've seen and been involved in instances where this research was applied in practice to issues of heterosexism and homophobia and seen the theories work.

What do you mean by "they work"?

Fwiw, not liberal Christianity.
Honestly- I do agree that some sects of Christianity are making good progress in regards to heterosexism and homophobia in the religion. I am particularly impressed by the US Episcopalians. But I was making wanky generalisations about the world-phenomenon as a whole, so you'll have to excuse me. :)

Not a problem. Yes, if you' ve read any Spong, who represented the extreme end of US Episcopalian bishops before retiring, I doubt the most fervent gay rights activists would have any problem with his views.

I use the term [heterosexism] because I think it's wrong to say people like these are homophobic. I see the term 'homophobia' like its medical counterparts- agrophobia, arachnophobia etc. It is an extreme fear and hatred of something that leads to extreme reactions and detremental effects in the lives of those who have it and the lives of the people they act out this fear on. Someone simply holding a view that is considered a social norm because of established modes of thinking and viewing sexuality (if only for the past approx 300 or so years) is not an extreme case of pathological fear that leads to the violent outbursts homophobia does.

I appreciate you making the distinction.

Helen

[maddog]

I think you may have misunderstood me. . . .
As I wrote my answer I was thinking the emphasis was on the time it takes for some people to become comfortable enough with us to open up to us. Even then, I'm not necessarily saying you don't take enough time. It's meant more as an observation about other people - especially ones who've had bad experiences discussing their POV - that it may take them a while to feel comfortable enough to open up even with you, a polite and civil person in my experience. It might be mostly/all about them and hardly at all about you that they're defensive.Ah, just a general observation then. Yes, I agree with your general observation. I guess I was hoping for a practical suggestion to improve chances of communication/understanding in those situations where "Why don't you ask them?" (I did), "Why don't you ask them to elaborate?" (I did), "Don't 'challenge,' but be civil," (I certainly thought I did), and "take time to build a relationship of rapport and trust so they can open up," (I've endeavored as well as I can to do this), still doesn't yield results in terms of advancing understanding.

Thank you, Helen. This is a great example for purposes of gaining understanding about what "understanding" means. Let me explain how I see this:

Let me start with "Christians who believe that sexual intimacy is wrong unless it is between two married people." I "know" and therefore I "understand" that many Christians believe this. I also know that non-Christians, both theist and non-theist, also believe this. In fact, I'm not sure why the example has shifted to "Christians who believe . . ." such-and-such, because my initial question was not specific to Christians, but to heterosexuals who oppose gay marriage. (For the record, I myself think that sexual intimacy on a casual, un-committed basis is wrong.) But the statement of itself doesn't tell me anything about WHY the Christian thinks so. So, once again, this is, to me, a "non-answer answer." It hasn't gotten me any closer to understanding the BASIS of the Christian's (or other objector's) objection to homosexuality in general or homosexual marriage in particular.

I have a problem with you saying what I wrote is a "non-answer", if that's what you're saying. I tried to answer your question and so it was an answer. I would prefer you to describe it as, say, "not the answer I was looking for". Fair enough. I was simply making a tongue-in-cheek shorthand (like the Woodward/Bernstein characters in "All the President's Men," who said, "Is that a non-denial denial?" in trying to figure out, journalistically, whether the source had "denied" a particular statement). If it's not comfortable, we don't need to use that vocabulary. In fact, you can just elide over that part and read what I said as, "once again, to me, this . . . hasn't gotten me any closer to understanding the BASIS of the objection to homosexuality or homosexual marriage."

The same thing happens with the add-on that the two married people should be "(one man, one woman)." Yes, I understand THAT the Christian thinks so. But I still have not been given any information about WHY this limitation is important. A non-answer answer, or going in circles, from my point of view.

Is it a non-answer to say because they believe that's the only kind of marriage of which God approves? I suppose I was assuming you knew that that's what lies behind Christian beliefs. You do realize that, don't you?Now we are getting to it. Of course I "realize" or "assume" that the objector (if the objector is a Christian -- not all objectors are, however, and I didn't start out assuming that those who oppose gay marriage are necessarily Christian) thinks God doesn't approve of gays or gay marriage. I've had the "abomination" texts trotted out to me often enough to know this. But, in gaining understanding -- genuine understanding -- I was trying not to ASSUME things about what the other person believes, or to make generalizations that, e.g., "Because they are a Christian, they oppose gays because God says homosexuality is an abomination." Isn't that kind of thinking or assumption exactly what we are trying to avoid when we are trying to achieve genuine understanding?

So, if the Christian opponent of gay marriage answers the question, "why shouldn't gays be allowed to get married, " with the observation that "God says homosexuality is an abomination," then, yes, I would say this is not the answer I was looking for. It is only one step removed from "I'm against it." why are you against it? "because God is against it." Can you understand how, to me, this does not help me understand their point of view? The issues they really care about are the ones they believe God has made His opinion clear about. Now do I have to say why they believe that or how they believe He has done it? At some point we're going to get to the point Adam spoke of, at which you say "Ok, I know what they think but I don't understand how they can think certain things are true which seem ridiculous to me". Are we there and is that why you're saying my answers are "non-answers"? Or is it that you don't know that Christians care about what they think God cares about? Or you don't know that these are (for conservative Christians) based on how they understand the Bible? Or that you don't know such Christians believe the Bible is God's word?

I'm confused now because I don't know what is a non-answer to you and what isn't.And that's exactly why we are here -- to clear up vocabulary and help one another gain the knowledge to get past our confusion. (That's why this particular exercise is so great!!)

Yes, the thing that I am looking for is behind the "because God says so" answer. Yes, I want to know (if that's who I'm talking to) why they believe that, or how (or why) God has made it clear. If God has made a law; why? what's the reason for that law? Why would God say that? If you think that God has made a law about something, why do you think so? Could there be ambiguity or a different way to interpret the text? Is God's opinion really clear? That's the sort of thing I want to examine. HOW does the opponent of gay marriage get to their position? What are the foundations of that position? Are they defensible?

Sure, I "know" that Christians care about what they think God cares about. I also "know" that Christians by and large understand what they think God cares about through their understanding of the Bible. I also "know" that a lot of Christians think that the Bible is God's word. But when I'm asking somebody about issues that seem important to both of us, I don't want to assume and project my "knowledge" onto them. I am trying to approach the question as open-mindedly as I possibly can, looking into the reasons behind a particular position. My own position might be very wrong, you know! And I don't like it when people "know" or "assume" or "speculate" about my reasons when they haven't asked me. I'm not going to simply assume something about someone because they are a Christian, instead of asking them. Isn't that what we had talked about before? Not doing that to people when you're trying to understand them?

So yes, I want to know, beyond "my religion says it's bad," what reason a person actually has for opposing gay marriage. If the only "understanding" that I can get from someone's opposition to gay marriage is that "God says so," then the ONLY basis the opponent has presented is a RELIGIOUS one. So far as I am aware, the United States is not yet a theocracy.

I understand COMPLETELY that families choose the best and wisest morals that they want to inculcate in their children. I would certainly hope so! I've never known it to be any other way, except in families that were so dysfunctional that morals didn't enter into the equation (believe me, THOSE people are SCARY!!) I know and understand that they want their children to share their beliefs and that they want the children not to be hurt by the world. I would never expect anything less.

The world would be wonderful (I suppose) from everyone's point of view if morals were absolutely agreed-upon by everyone everywhere. In the real world, of course, that isn't the case.

In terms of our discussion of homosexual marriage, the answer that you are now giving seems to be, if I've read it correctly (and almost literally) that children will "see" other people having different morals out in the world. You say that what they "see" will "affect" them. But this answer STILL does not really identify WHAT effect will result, or HOW knowing or seeing that other people have different values will affect or harm these children.

Why does it have to? If Christians believe there is likely to be any effect along the lines of enticing their children away from what they believe is right and true, they are going to resist that.Yes, resistance to bad influences is understandable. But that does not explain why it OUGHT to be LEGISLATED for EVERYONE. And, I thought, the reason advanced for legislating AGAINST gay marriage was that gay marriage was somehow going to affect the institution of marriage as it exists for heterosexual people. What effect? That's what I'm asking. Your answer now, is "why do they have to show it's going to have any effect at all?" Well, some kind of bad effect is the supposed justification for legislating against gay marriage. If they don't really think it's going to have any known effect, or can't come up with some likely effect, then I'm at a loss as to the justification for the legislation.

(As an aside, I notice that the focus of your answers appears to be potential effect on children, and not any effect on the heterosexuals' own marriage per se. Some of the discussion against gay marriage has argued that letting gays get married will affect other marriages. That in fact was my initial question, "Please elaborate on how 2 OTHER PEOPLE being married 'affects' the relationship of 2 people who are already married." If I've read you correctly, the potential issues or effects you have been discussing so far do not involve effects on the marriages of heterosexuals, but simply on their children. Have I understood this correctly?)

True. I should have said the following when you first asked - my apologies: in fact, I don't understand why you phrased the question that way. It implies that that's what you've heard Christians say. I don't recall hearing [/u]Christians[/u] say that it will affect the relationships of people who are already married, per se. Could you explain why you phrased the question that way? First off, I was trying not to assume or project that opposition to gay marriage is strictly a Christian issue. You brought in the assumption of the Christian couple that would be concerned about their kids seeing anybody condone gay marriaige, and now you are implicitly saying that it must be "Christians" who are saying that allowing gays to be married will affect "marriage." It isn't only Christians (I don't think) who oppose gay marriage, so it's based not only on what Christians say, but on what other opponents say as well.

I was going by, just for starters, the federal "Defense of Marriage Act" or DOMA. Why in the world do they name the statute "Defense of Marriage Act" if they are not implying that letting gay people get married will affect "marriage," such that "marriage" needs defending? This is exactly the question I opened with -- how does letting 2 MORE people get married affect "marriage" for people who already ARE or already CAN BE married any time they want to? What is needing "defense"? That's exactly what I'm trying to understand. That's why I asked the question.

(As another aside, I think EVERYONE can understand -- and I really mean "understand," as we have been speaking of "understanding" -- about how parents feel about their children and the nurturance of their children, including morality and danger. I also think that everyone can understand and recognize that, in life as lived by real people, not everyone agrees on the same identical moral values in every case. Real people have to face difficulties and diversity of opinion, even about important things. So, another question, left wholly unaddressed by the answer -- i.e., that "people don't favor changes in the world which seem to be taking a step away from the parents' values" -- is what the world's lack of congruence to MY own moral values means in terms of what the legislative policy should be for EVERYONE, even those who do not hold my same values.)

Well, Christians don't believe moral values are subjective, do they? Do we need to discuss this too? On the whole, if God says something is wrong for me then it's wrong for you also.Yes, we need to discuss this too. Because we are not talking just about belief, we are talking about legislation. Are you saying that Christians believe they should/must legislate Christian morality for everyone? That Christians don't recognize plurality? That Christians want theocracy rather than secular government? That they do not recognize or want a separation between church and state? That's exactly the kind of assumptions about Christians and Christianity that I was attempting not to make. I am seeking understanding, not projection of my assumptions about Christians.

I am looking for something underlying what was said before. That's why I asked for elaboration or clarification. From what I can see, however, this "answer" does not really elaborate on anything beyond the previous one -- the first answer was that parents are "sensitive" about changes in the world that "affect" their children. The second answer was that parents want their children to share their values and don't want changed or different values out in the world to "affect" their children. Can you see how, to my way of thinking, these are essentially the same answer? To me, we've just gone in a circle, rather than advancing our understanding.

I'm at a loss how to advance your understanding then, because either you seem to be asking me to explain things I thought you'd know about Christians or you're asking me to explain what makes them care about different things from you, which is something I don't profess to fully understand. The former; explaining things which I might ASSUME about Christians (your example; mine was broader -- opponents of gay marriage) rather than simply assuming them seems to be a better road to understanding.

So, let me try again. Given that a hypothetical Christian (we'll go with your hypothetical that they are Christian) heterosexual married couple thinks that sex between any other kind of couple is "wrong," do you know or can you explain WHY they hold this value? (sex only within marriage; marriage only between one man/one woman) Let's start there and leave the rest aside for the moment. And perhaps it's only fair to say, can you explain why YOU, as a Christian, believe this (if you do) (as opposed to speculating about all kinds of Christians in the abstract)? I'm only trying to ascertain what is within your knowledge.

At this point I don't know what to say that you won't consider a "non-answer".Perfect! this is such a great exercise in how to achieve understanding. You're confused, and have signalled a request for clarification.

Let me attempt it again. I hope I have made clear that I was trying NOT to project or assume certain things about WHY someone thinks something. Yes, I have cultural knowledge about Christians, but I'm assuming I'm talking to a real person, and that we each want to understand the other's point of view. OK so far? So I'm not going to assume any particular thing about what they believe or why they believe it. I want to explore those things. So let's say I'm talking to a hypothetical Christian, heterosexual, married person. Let's say we're talking about gay marriage. The Christian opposes it. I ask, "why do you oppose this?"

Where do you think we can go from here? Maybe you can use yourself for an example, or use arguments with which you are familiar and which you understand.


Thanks again, Helen.
This is a great topic!

I'm glad you think so, but a little frustrated that you're finding my answers to be non-answers. Maybe you can tell ;)

your friend in understanding,
maddog

I hope so. Friends sounds good to me! :)

Helen

See why I think this is a great topic? We can use it to ILLUSTRATE exactly how to do that sort of investing in rapport, time and civility that lead to better real understanding on an issue of importance. We're doing it as we speak!!
#73

[HelenM]

I agree with your general observation. I guess I was hoping for a practical suggestion to improve chances of communication/understanding in those situations where "Why don't you ask them?" (I did), "Why don't you ask them to elaborate?" (I did), "Don't 'challenge,' but be civil," (I certainly thought I did), and "take time to build a relationship of rapport and trust so they can open up," (I've endeavored as well as I can to do this), still doesn't yield results in terms of advancing understanding.

One suggestion from what you wrote further down is: you can ask them specific questions. Like "Is your view on this from the Bible?" (if you're talking to Bible-believers) and if they say "yes" you can ask which verses. etc.

I was simply making a tongue-in-cheek shorthand (like the Woodward/Bernstein characters in "All the President's Men," who said, "Is that a non-denial denial?" in trying to figure out, journalistically, whether the source had "denied" a particular statement). If it's not comfortable, we don't need to use that vocabulary. In fact, you can just elide over that part and read what I said as, "once again, to me, this . . . hasn't gotten me any closer to understanding the BASIS of the objection to homosexuality or homosexual marriage."

It's not the vocabulary such as the sense that my answers aren't helping explain and so I may be wasting my time trying to explain.

Is it a non-answer to say because they believe that's the only kind of marriage of which God approves? I suppose I was assuming you knew that that's what lies behind Christian beliefs. You do realize that, don't you?Now we are getting to it. Of course I "realize" or "assume" that the objector (if the objector is a Christian -- not all objectors are, however, and I didn't start out assuming that those who oppose gay marriage are necessarily Christian)

I'll just interrupt here to say: fair enough - good point.

thinks God doesn't approve of gays or gay marriage. I've had the "abomination" texts trotted out to me often enough to know this. But, in gaining understanding -- genuine understanding -- I was trying not to ASSUME things about what the other person believes, or to make generalizations that, e.g., "Because they are a Christian, they oppose gays because God says homosexuality is an abomination." Isn't that kind of thinking or assumption exactly what we are trying to avoid when we are trying to achieve genuine understanding?

But I think it's possible to avoid assuming things and yet offer possibilities you're aware of, which would make the discussion easier for the other person. It's going to be very lengthy if you simply say "Talk to me. Explain things to me. I'm assuming nothing". That makes it hard for them to know what you're looking for. And then if they try and you say "ok, but that's a non-answer" they might give up in frustration.

So, if the Christian opponent of gay marriage answers the question, "why shouldn't gays be allowed to get married, " with the observation that "God says homosexuality is an abomination," then, yes, I would say this is not the answer I was looking for.

I don't see what's wrong with it.

It is only one step removed from "I'm against it."

It's a big step, I'd say.

why are you against it? "because God is against it." Can you understand how, to me, this does not help me understand their point of view?

I don't understand how it's zero help.

I'm confused now because I don't know what is a non-answer to you and what isn't.And that's exactly why we are here -- to clear up vocabulary and help one another gain the knowledge to get past our confusion. (That's why this particular exercise is so great!!)

Well, maybe...but I'm feeling like I'm soon going to run out of time to continue this endeavor.

Yes, the thing that I am looking for is behind the "because God says so" answer. Yes, I want to know (if that's who I'm talking to) why they believe that, or how (or why) God has made it clear. If God has made a law; why? what's the reason for that law? Why would God say that?

Christians don't know all the answer to 'why' questions. It's a basic ramification of Christian theology that humans don't fully understand God.

If you think that God has made a law about something, why do you think so? Could there be ambiguity or a different way to interpret the text? Is God's opinion really clear? That's the sort of thing I want to examine.

I could see why people might find that frustrating. I think it would work better to ask them what their text is and try to demonstrate some specific ambiguity about it if you think it's ambiguous. If they're relying on it it seems to me that that implies they don't think it's ambiguous.

HOW does the opponent of gay marriage get to their position? What are the foundations of that position? Are they defensible?

Again, I can't see people answering other than "yes", so if you don't think they're defensible it would probably work better to try to demonstrate why not, than to expect them to say they aren't defensible.

Sure, I "know" that Christians care about what they think God cares about. I also "know" that Christians by and large understand what they think God cares about through their understanding of the Bible. I also "know" that a lot of Christians think that the Bible is God's word. But when I'm asking somebody about issues that seem important to both of us, I don't want to assume and project my "knowledge" onto them. I am trying to approach the question as open-mindedly as I possibly can, looking into the reasons behind a particular position. My own position might be very wrong, you know! And I don't like it when people "know" or "assume" or "speculate" about my reasons when they haven't asked me. I'm not going to simply assume something about someone because they are a Christian, instead of asking them. Isn't that what we had talked about before? Not doing that to people when you're trying to understand them?

I agree and I like what you said, but if all you do is ask questions, few people will have time to write explanations upon explanations.

So yes, I want to know, beyond "my religion says it's bad," what reason a person actually has for opposing gay marriage. If the only "understanding" that I can get from someone's opposition to gay marriage is that "God says so," then the ONLY basis the opponent has presented is a RELIGIOUS one.

Fair enough.

So far as I am aware, the United States is not yet a theocracy.

So what? Everyone lobbies to have the government act according to their preferences. If it's ok for non-Christians to do so, why not Christians also?

I thought, the reason advanced for legislating AGAINST gay marriage was that gay marriage was somehow going to affect the institution of marriage as it exists for heterosexual people.

But I don't think they necessarily mean by that that it will affect already married couples' marriages per se.

Anyway, I really don't have time to discuss opposition to same-sex marriage any more. If you can't find anyone else to discuss it I'm sorry about that but I can't step in instead of them and do what they won't do. I have too much else to do.

I was going by, just for starters, the federal "Defense of Marriage Act" or DOMA. Why in the world do they name the statute "Defense of Marriage Act" if they are not implying that letting gay people get married will affect "marriage," such that "marriage" needs defending? This is exactly the question I opened with -- how does letting 2 MORE people get married affect "marriage" for people who already ARE or already CAN BE married any time they want to? What is needing "defense"? That's exactly what I'm trying to understand. That's why I asked the question.

I think it's defense in the sense of defending the definition of it as being between one man and one woman. But I haven't read it.

Yes, we need to discuss this too. Because we are not talking just about belief, we are talking about legislation. Are you saying that Christians believe they should/must legislate Christian morality for everyone? That Christians don't recognize plurality? That Christians want theocracy rather than secular government? That they do not recognize or want a separation between church and state? That's exactly the kind of assumptions about Christians and Christianity that I was attempting not to make. I am seeking understanding, not projection of my assumptions about Christians.

As I said, I can't really discuss it beyond what I already wrote.

The former; explaining things which I might ASSUME about Christians (your example; mine was broader -- opponents of gay marriage) rather than simply assuming them seems to be a better road to understanding.

Again, I think there must be some other option than a) you assume things b) you ask for everything to be explained from scratch, which I can't imagine many people having time to do.

At this point I don't know what to say that you won't consider a "non-answer".Perfect! this is such a great exercise in how to achieve understanding. You're confused, and have signalled a request for clarification.

Let me attempt it again. I hope I have made clear that I was trying NOT to project or assume certain things about WHY someone thinks something. Yes, I have cultural knowledge about Christians, but I'm assuming I'm talking to a real person, and that we each want to understand the other's point of view. OK so far? So I'm not going to assume any particular thing about what they believe or why they believe it. I want to explore those things. So let's say I'm talking to a hypothetical Christian, heterosexual, married person. Let's say we're talking about gay marriage. The Christian opposes it. I ask, "why do you oppose this?"

Where do you think we can go from here? Maybe you can use yourself for an example, or use arguments with which you are familiar and which you understand.

Speaking for myself, I have to go in the next room and do some violin practice, then go upstairs and do some ironing, then...well, the list goes on... :p

See why I think this is a great topic? We can use it to ILLUSTRATE exactly how to do that sort of investing in rapport, time and civility that lead to better real understanding on an issue of importance. We're doing it as we speak!!

I do appreciate your civility - thanks :)

Helen

[Goliath]

Regarding the answer of "God says homosexuality is an abomination" that a xian gives to "Why shouldn't gays be allowed to get married?":

Until the xian in question proves that his/her god exists, why should I accept that as an answer that is logically any different from "Ewwww! Homos are icky!"?

[Adora]

So you don't use what you present to justify your own POV? How do you justify your own, then?
The same way scientists do. I see the theories working in day-to-day life. How many of those who claim "Chicken Hawkes" exist have actually met a Chicken Hawke?

What do you mean by "they work"?
I mean the same way the laws of thermodynamics work. I mean the same way my calf-muscle example works. Occam's Razor is not only applicable to the "Higher" sciences. Really, if you want exact examples, I think we should start a new thread, since this thread is more of a general one than one specifically about queer theory.

[maddog]

I agree with your general observation. I guess I was hoping for a practical suggestion to improve chances of communication/understanding in those situations where "Why don't you ask them?" (I did), "Why don't you ask them to elaborate?" (I did), "Don't 'challenge,' but be civil," (I certainly thought I did), and "take time to build a relationship of rapport and trust so they can open up," (I've endeavored as well as I can to do this), still doesn't yield results in terms of advancing understanding.

One suggestion from what you wrote further down is: you can ask them specific questions. Like "Is your view on this from the Bible?" (if you're talking to Bible-believers) and if they say "yes" you can ask which verses. etc.

I was simply making a tongue-in-cheek shorthand (like the Woodward/Bernstein characters in "All the President's Men," who said, "Is that a non-denial denial?" in trying to figure out, journalistically, whether the source had "denied" a particular statement). If it's not comfortable, we don't need to use that vocabulary. In fact, you can just elide over that part and read what I said as, "once again, to me, this . . . hasn't gotten me any closer to understanding the BASIS of the objection to homosexuality or homosexual marriage."

It's not the vocabulary such as the sense that my answers aren't helping explain and so I may be wasting my time trying to explain.

Is it a non-answer to say because they believe that's the only kind of marriage of which God approves? I suppose I was assuming you knew that that's what lies behind Christian beliefs. You do realize that, don't you?Now we are getting to it. Of course I "realize" or "assume" that the objector (if the objector is a Christian -- not all objectors are, however, and I didn't start out assuming that those who oppose gay marriage are necessarily Christian)

I'll just interrupt here to say: fair enough - good point.

thinks God doesn't approve of gays or gay marriage. I've had the "abomination" texts trotted out to me often enough to know this. But, in gaining understanding -- genuine understanding -- I was trying not to ASSUME things about what the other person believes, or to make generalizations that, e.g., "Because they are a Christian, they oppose gays because God says homosexuality is an abomination." Isn't that kind of thinking or assumption exactly what we are trying to avoid when we are trying to achieve genuine understanding?

But I think it's possible to avoid assuming things and yet offer possibilities you're aware of, which would make the discussion easier for the other person. It's going to be very lengthy if you simply say "Talk to me. Explain things to me. I'm assuming nothing". That makes it hard for them to know what you're looking for. And then if they try and you say "ok, but that's a non-answer" they might give up in frustration.

So, if the Christian opponent of gay marriage answers the question, "why shouldn't gays be allowed to get married, " with the observation that "God says homosexuality is an abomination," then, yes, I would say this is not the answer I was looking for.

I don't see what's wrong with it.

It is only one step removed from "I'm against it."

It's a big step, I'd say.

why are you against it? "because God is against it." Can you understand how, to me, this does not help me understand their point of view?

I don't understand how it's zero help.

I'm confused now because I don't know what is a non-answer to you and what isn't.And that's exactly why we are here -- to clear up vocabulary and help one another gain the knowledge to get past our confusion. (That's why this particular exercise is so great!!)

Well, maybe...but I'm feeling like I'm soon going to run out of time to continue this endeavor.

Yes, the thing that I am looking for is behind the "because God says so" answer. Yes, I want to know (if that's who I'm talking to) why they believe that, or how (or why) God has made it clear. If God has made a law; why? what's the reason for that law? Why would God say that?

Christians don't know all the answer to 'why' questions. It's a basic ramification of Christian theology that humans don't fully understand God.

If you think that God has made a law about something, why do you think so? Could there be ambiguity or a different way to interpret the text? Is God's opinion really clear? That's the sort of thing I want to examine.

I could see why people might find that frustrating. I think it would work better to ask them what their text is and try to demonstrate some specific ambiguity about it if you think it's ambiguous. If they're relying on it it seems to me that that implies they don't think it's ambiguous.

HOW does the opponent of gay marriage get to their position? What are the foundations of that position? Are they defensible?

Again, I can't see people answering other than "yes", so if you don't think they're defensible it would probably work better to try to demonstrate why not, than to expect them to say they aren't defensible.

Sure, I "know" that Christians care about what they think God cares about. I also "know" that Christians by and large understand what they think God cares about through their understanding of the Bible. I also "know" that a lot of Christians think that the Bible is God's word. But when I'm asking somebody about issues that seem important to both of us, I don't want to assume and project my "knowledge" onto them. I am trying to approach the question as open-mindedly as I possibly can, looking into the reasons behind a particular position. My own position might be very wrong, you know! And I don't like it when people "know" or "assume" or "speculate" about my reasons when they haven't asked me. I'm not going to simply assume something about someone because they are a Christian, instead of asking them. Isn't that what we had talked about before? Not doing that to people when you're trying to understand them?

I agree and I like what you said, but if all you do is ask questions, few people will have time to write explanations upon explanations.

So yes, I want to know, beyond "my religion says it's bad," what reason a person actually has for opposing gay marriage. If the only "understanding" that I can get from someone's opposition to gay marriage is that "God says so," then the ONLY basis the opponent has presented is a RELIGIOUS one.

Fair enough.

So far as I am aware, the United States is not yet a theocracy.

So what? Everyone lobbies to have the government act according to their preferences. If it's ok for non-Christians to do so, why not Christians also?

I thought, the reason advanced for legislating AGAINST gay marriage was that gay marriage was somehow going to affect the institution of marriage as it exists for heterosexual people.

But I don't think they necessarily mean by that that it will affect already married couples' marriages per se.

Anyway, I really don't have time to discuss opposition to same-sex marriage any more. If you can't find anyone else to discuss it I'm sorry about that but I can't step in instead of them and do what they won't do. I have too much else to do.

I was going by, just for starters, the federal "Defense of Marriage Act" or DOMA. Why in the world do they name the statute "Defense of Marriage Act" if they are not implying that letting gay people get married will affect "marriage," such that "marriage" needs defending? This is exactly the question I opened with -- how does letting 2 MORE people get married affect "marriage" for people who already ARE or already CAN BE married any time they want to? What is needing "defense"? That's exactly what I'm trying to understand. That's why I asked the question.

I think it's defense in the sense of defending the definition of it as being between one man and one woman. But I haven't read it.

Yes, we need to discuss this too. Because we are not talking just about belief, we are talking about legislation. Are you saying that Christians believe they should/must legislate Christian morality for everyone? That Christians don't recognize plurality? That Christians want theocracy rather than secular government? That they do not recognize or want a separation between church and state? That's exactly the kind of assumptions about Christians and Christianity that I was attempting not to make. I am seeking understanding, not projection of my assumptions about Christians.

As I said, I can't really discuss it beyond what I already wrote.

The former; explaining things which I might ASSUME about Christians (your example; mine was broader -- opponents of gay marriage) rather than simply assuming them seems to be a better road to understanding.

Again, I think there must be some other option than a) you assume things b) you ask for everything to be explained from scratch, which I can't imagine many people having time to do.

At this point I don't know what to say that you won't consider a "non-answer".Perfect! this is such a great exercise in how to achieve understanding. You're confused, and have signalled a request for clarification.

Let me attempt it again. I hope I have made clear that I was trying NOT to project or assume certain things about WHY someone thinks something. Yes, I have cultural knowledge about Christians, but I'm assuming I'm talking to a real person, and that we each want to understand the other's point of view. OK so far? So I'm not going to assume any particular thing about what they believe or why they believe it. I want to explore those things. So let's say I'm talking to a hypothetical Christian, heterosexual, married person. Let's say we're talking about gay marriage. The Christian opposes it. I ask, "why do you oppose this?"

Where do you think we can go from here? Maybe you can use yourself for an example, or use arguments with which you are familiar and which you understand.

Speaking for myself, I have to go in the next room and do some violin practice, then go upstairs and do some ironing, then...well, the list goes on... :p

See why I think this is a great topic? We can use it to ILLUSTRATE exactly how to do that sort of investing in rapport, time and civility that lead to better real understanding on an issue of importance. We're doing it as we speak!!

I do appreciate your civility - thanks :)

Helen
Thank you, Helen.

I've really enjoyed this exchange. It's very illustrative, I think, of the problems people encounter in trying to reach "understanding" with one another.

Hints or suggestions have been, "don't assume, don't project." and "if you want to know, ask them." Yet, "asking" is fraught with its own difficulties. A particular question may make assumptions of its own that may be unwarranted. If you ask about details, the person may feel "challenged" rather than "listened to" and so not want to engage. If you keep asking questions, because the "answer" received doesn't seem to address your concern, the person may decide to disengage because they think they're "wasting their time" if you don't accept the first answer at face value. People don't have time to answer "questions upon questions," or make "explanations on explanations."

What this sounds like, to me, aside from common human experience is, "If you don't accept what I say at face value, it's not WORTH trying to get to understanding." Therefore, all we have achieved by the exchange is possible disagreement (possibly not), but no "understanding." The person whose point of view I'm trying to understand has decided it's not worth the effort to them that I understand them. And yet, I wager, they really would like to be understood.

I'd call this "Exhibit 1" in a demonstration of how "understanding" bogs down. I'm trying to understand, in this example, why an opponent of gay marriage is opposed. As I said at some earlier point, I usually get only variations on a couple of themes: "it will result in the breakdown of society," or "it's unnatural," or "it's against God's law." I've been relatively unsuccessful in getting "them" to elaborate on this.

Either I get repetition of essentially the same answer, or I get shifts between these answers, but I seldom if ever get anything beyond this. In this very thread, as you and I have been discussing this example, (1) I still have no idea what your own thoughts on the matter are at all, (2) I still don't know why the hypothetical Christian we've been talking about is opposed to it, other than (by assumption, not by what the Christian has answered) "God's against it," and (3) I still don't know why "God's against it" is a good reason. I've asked four times, and now, I've gotten no further toward true "understanding" -- which we've both said we're in favor of -- than the three basic, unexamined answers I have already danced around with gay marriage opponents.

Now, this,
But I think it's possible to avoid assuming things and yet offer possibilities you're aware of, which would make the discussion easier for the other person. It's going to be very lengthy if you simply say "Talk to me. Explain things to me. I'm assuming nothing". That makes it hard for them to know what you're looking for. And then if they try and you say "ok, but that's a non-answer" they might give up in frustration. is an exceptionally good point. One of my problems is that I AM a linear thinker. My proofs in geometry class were always an order of magnitude longer than other people's. I tend to be verbose (you hadn't noticed that, had you? :D). So making some cultural assumptions may be OK in terms of saving time. I was just trying so hard to be procedurally fair, and not to project my (potentially erroneous) assumptions, and possible ignorant biases, onto the other person, that I wasn't realizing that the time-value might not be worth it for them. So I just might have to take those risks and "assume." But then you get into dangerous territory about "assuming" things about "Christians" that any individual person might not subscribe to. It also might be viewed as accusatory -- as if I've already made up my mind about what they think. A difficult tightrope to walk.

So, if the Christian opponent of gay marriage answers the question, "why shouldn't gays be allowed to get married, " with the observation that "God says homosexuality is an abomination," then, yes, I would say this is not the answer I was looking for.

I don't see what's wrong with it. Well, presumably God doesn't decide such things for arbitrary reasons -- unless of course we are talking to someone whose only idea of morality is "God said it; that settles it." There simply IS no way to "understand" that. It doesn't require, and doesn't lend itself to examination in terms of "understanding." It is to be "accepted," not to be "understood." What is "good," then, is "whatever God says." So, in this scheme of morality, if God says, "kill those people," that's good, because, and only because, God says so. Whatever is labeled "good" and "bad," in that case, is simply an accident of what the book contains within it.

Now if we're not dealing with a "God said so, and that's the only reason I need" kind of person, then the person and I CAN have an examination of, Well, what kind of reason would God have had for saying this? Even if we never come to a completely definitive answer, at least we can explore the question. God thinks it's bad FOR SOME REASON. It's up to us to see if we can understand what that reason could be. After all, according to the same book, God once upon a time said certain things were bad, but then, when circumstances changed, decided that it wasn't necessary to have that law any more. Simply throwing up one's hands and saying that "God is too complex for us to understand," is taking refuge once again in position one -- it's bad because, and only because, God said so.

That position of course, still leaves the question why God's opinion has to be enacted into law for everyone.

It is only one step removed from "I'm against it." why are you against it? "because God is against it."

It's a big step, I'd say. I think I disagree with this. I think that's the case (i.e., it's a big step away from "I'm against it") ONLY if God's reason for being "against it" is completely unascertainable. Otherwise, it's merely a matter of dogma. Not only that, but the person opposing homosexual marriage isn't really doing it because THEY THEMSELVES oppose gay marriage. They think merely that GOD opposes gay marriage. They are happy simply to defer their judgment, and to make no real judgment OF THEIR OWN on the issue.

I'm not at all sure it's the case that God's reasons are unknowable. I think it is possible to examine the matter to see and try to understand why God would have made such a rule once upon a time, and to see if the reasons are still valid.

Can you understand how, to me, this ("I'm against it" because "God's against it") does not help me understand their point of view? I don't understand how it's zero help. Well (wincing). that's a little hyperbolic, isn't it? I don't think I said it was "zero" help; but I really don't see how it advances the discussion much. Do you think God has a reason for being against it? Do you think we can try to figure out what that reason is? (I have my own ideas on this, but don't want to project or poison the well or simply dispute.) Because I don't think even believers think that God is willfully arbitrary about such things. I think he by and large has understandable reasons for things. If God is so completely incomprehensible that we can't examine his motives and reasons, then we can't know enough to call God "good" and worthy of worship. So I AM assuming at least this much -- God has reasons for moral laws which our moral sense can help us understand.

Yes, the thing that I am looking for is behind the "because God says so" answer. Yes, I want to know (if that's who I'm talking to) why they believe that, or how (or why) God has made it clear. If God has made a law; why? what's the reason for that law? Why would God say that?

Christians don't know all the answer to 'why' questions. It's a basic ramification of Christian theology that humans don't fully understand God. They may not "fully" understand, but do they understand "some"? What part DO they understand? Are you suggesting that this question is not capable of examination beyond "God said so"?

If you think that God has made a law about something, why do you think so? Could there be ambiguity or a different way to interpret the text? Is God's opinion really clear? That's the sort of thing I want to examine.

I could see why people might find that frustrating. I think it would work better to ask them what their text is and try to demonstrate some specific ambiguity about it if you think it's ambiguous. If they're relying on it it seems to me that that implies they don't think it's ambiguous. yes, agreed that they don't think it's ambiguous. Do you think they are unwilling to even discuss the possibility that there is ambiguity? Experts HAVE examined the cited texts (which are very, very few), and argued for alternative interpretations, or alternative views about the continuing viability of that particular doctrine. Other texts about other prohibitions seem to have been discarded. Why the maintenance of this particular one, when others have been left behind as no longer needed?

HOW does the opponent of gay marriage get to their position? What are the foundations of that position? Are they defensible?
Again, I can't see people answering other than "yes", so if you don't think they're defensible it would probably work better to try to demonstrate why not, than to expect them to say they aren't defensible.My mistake; I phrased this badly. I was describing not only the inquiries I would want to make (what are the foundations?) but also the purpose of the inquiry (once I know what the foundations are, we can examine them to see if they are defensible). OF COURSE everyone thinks their point of view is defensible, at least when they start out. But are we going to make an honest examination into our foundations or not? Are we going to lay them out on the table and see if they withstand scrutiny, or not? I thought that was the point of discussing things to reach understanding.

I am trying to approach the question as open-mindedly as I possibly can, looking into the reasons behind a particular position. My own position might be very wrong, you know! And I don't like it when people "know" or "assume" or "speculate" about my reasons when they haven't asked me. I'm not going to simply assume something about someone because they are a Christian, instead of asking them. Isn't that what we had talked about before? Not doing that to people when you're trying to understand them?

I agree and I like what you said, but if all you do is ask questions, few people will have time to write explanations upon explanations. Yes, I guess I haven't factored in enough about the time-problem, but then that seems to point up an inherent difficulty in our discussion on "understanding." "understanding" seems to come only with the investment of time (in addition to civility), as you had pointed out in an earlier part of our exchange. And yet, asking details and taking the time and not assuming or projecting things takes more time than they want to invest. Other things are more important than reaching understanding.

So yes, I want to know, beyond "my religion says it's bad," what reason a person actually has for opposing gay marriage. If the only "understanding" that I can get from someone's opposition to gay marriage is that "God says so," then the ONLY basis the opponent has presented is a RELIGIOUS one.

Fair enough.

So far as I am aware, the United States is not yet a theocracy.

So what? Everyone lobbies to have the government act according to their preferences. If it's ok for non-Christians to do so, why not Christians also?
I have to say, I find this part:
So far as I am aware, the United States is not yet a theocracy.

So what? fairly shocking. what do you mean, "so what?" I thought surely you understood the importance of church/state separation and that our representative democracy is a secular government. If the ONLY reason for a law is a RELIGIOUS one, then that means, necessarily, it is NO REASON upon which a secular government is entitled to act. This isn't ordinary lobbying. This is enacting RELIGIOUS, not secular, law.

I thought, the reason advanced for legislating AGAINST gay marriage was that gay marriage was somehow going to affect the institution of marriage as it exists for heterosexual people.

But I don't think they necessarily mean by that that it will affect already married couples' marriages per se. I am really puzzled by this. I can't imagine who ELSE it could possibly affect. It isn't going to affect two people who DON'T want to get married, is it?

I was going by, just for starters, the federal "Defense of Marriage Act" or DOMA. Why in the world do they name the statute "Defense of Marriage Act" if they are not implying that letting gay people get married will affect "marriage," such that "marriage" needs defending? This is exactly the question I opened with -- how does letting 2 MORE people get married affect "marriage" for people who already ARE or already CAN BE married any time they want to? What is needing "defense"? That's exactly what I'm trying to understand. That's why I asked the question.

I think it's defense in the sense of defending the definition of it as being between one man and one woman. But I haven't read it. Well, yes, but again this, to me, has just removed the discussion one step. Why does "marriage" need defending? What's going to happen to "marriage" if we let more people be "married"? We're not talking about defending "marriage," we're talking about defending the definition of marriage as one man/one woman. OK, but why does this need "defending"? What terrible thing is going to happen to all the one-man/one-woman couples, such that they need "defending" from letting 2 OTHER people get married?

Anyway, I really don't have time to discuss opposition to same-sex marriage any more. If you can't find anyone else to discuss it I'm sorry about that but I can't step in instead of them and do what they won't do. I have too much else to do. fair enough
So, another question, left wholly unaddressed by the answer -- i.e., that "people don't favor changes in the world which seem to be taking a step away from the parents' values" -- is what the world's lack of congruence to MY own moral values means in terms of what the legislative policy should be for EVERYONE, even those who do not hold my same values.)Well, Christians don't believe moral values are subjective, do they? Do we need to discuss this too? On the whole, if God says something is wrong for me then it's wrong for you also.Yes, we need to discuss this too. Because we are not talking just about belief, we are talking about legislation. Are you saying that Christians believe they should/must legislate Christian morality for everyone? That Christians don't recognize plurality? That Christians want theocracy rather than secular government? That they do not recognize or want a separation between church and state? That's exactly the kind of assumptions about Christians and Christianity that I was attempting not to make. I am seeking understanding, not projection of my assumptions about Christians.As I said, I can't really discuss it beyond what I already wrote. I confess, again, I find this fairly shocking. I'm really surprised that you (or our hypothetical Christian) have nothing to say, discuss, or offer about the proper role of church and government in devising legislation for all citizens. I really think this is the crux of the matter altogether. And it's exactly at that point (if I even get that far), that discussion or the potential for "understanding" ceases.

So, I'd say, that this whole discussion has been a rather brilliant exercise and illustration in just how difficult it is to achieve genuine "understanding" between people even of mutual good will, civility, intelligence, and respect. I am no closer to getting any "understanding" between myself and any Christian (let alone any other kind of opponent) opponent of gay marriage as to why such legislation is necessary or what it will accomplish, either in terms of morals, or in terms of American governmental theory of a limited secular state. "God said it," is the only definitive answer received, and that answer does not address many of the concerns raised when such legislation is proposed. It's also no more than I would have guessed if I had simply projected my assumptions about "Christians" in the first place. The gay marriage opponent, in my experience, retires from the field well before the point at which understanding (for me) is possible.

Thank you, Helen. I appreciate very much the time you've taken already, and I'm really sorry that I didn't have a better approach that could have cut to the chase quicker. Maybe somebody can analyze this exchange and come up with a more successful approach in getting engagement, discussion, analysis and resolution on a timetable more average people are comfortable with. I'm afraid I'm a rather plodding and ponderous thinker. Perhaps others will have better techniques and, consequently, better results.

#75

[HelenM]

Just a couple of comments; that's all I have time for.

Now, this,
But I think it's possible to avoid assuming things and yet offer possibilities you're aware of, which would make the discussion easier for the other person. It's going to be very lengthy if you simply say "Talk to me. Explain things to me. I'm assuming nothing". That makes it hard for them to know what you're looking for. And then if they try and you say "ok, but that's a non-answer" they might give up in frustration. is an exceptionally good point. One of my problems is that I AM a linear thinker. My proofs in geometry class were always an order of magnitude longer than other people's. I tend to be verbose (you hadn't noticed that, had you? :D). So making some cultural assumptions may be OK in terms of saving time. I was just trying so hard to be procedurally fair, and not to project my (potentially erroneous) assumptions, and possible ignorant biases, onto the other person, that I wasn't realizing that the time-value might not be worth it for them. So I just might have to take those risks and "assume." But then you get into dangerous territory about "assuming" things about "Christians" that any individual person might not subscribe to. It also might be viewed as accusatory -- as if I've already made up my mind about what they think. A difficult tightrope to walk.

Please go back and reread my last post because in it I said I don't think the only way to make the interaction less time-consuming is to make assumptions. It's disappointing that despite what I said you are still saying "Oh well, I guess I'll have to make assumptions". Did you see what I said about this? Do you disagree?

As I said, I can't really discuss it beyond what I already wrote. I confess, again, I find this fairly shocking. I'm really surprised that you (or our hypothetical Christian) have nothing to say, discuss, or offer about the proper role of church and government in devising legislation for all citizens. I really think this is the crux of the matter altogether. And it's exactly at that point (if I even get that far), that discussion or the potential for "understanding" ceases.

You find it shocking that I don't have time to discuss it? It's a matter of priorities.

Helen

[viscousmemories]

I've really enjoyed this exchange. It's very illustrative, I think, of the problems people encounter in trying to reach "understanding" with one another.
I agree, but probably from a different angle than what you might be thinking of. What I see as the primary source of disconnect here is that this thread originated as a discussion about ways in which people might seek to understand each other better, and has become an examination of why Christians oppose gay marriage. This happened because Adam used the issue of gay marriage as an example in his OP, and as often happens the example hijacked the discussion.

I say it hijacked the discussion because I believe that's how these things happen. I don't think anyone is to blame for the massive derail, but I am not at all surprised that communication has broken down at this juncture. Here you are writing these crazy long, detailed, well thought out posts trying to reach a real understanding with Helen in a very respectful and generous manner, yet Helen never signed up for this discussion.

Sure in my opinion she's equally responsible for the derail and her own subtle changes to the subplot as it went on (moving from "people who oppose gay marriage" to "theists who oppose gay marriage" for example) but she never seemed much interested in having this particular discussion at this point in time as much as she wanted to discuss the metaissue she originally commented on. Here's part of her first post:

I'm not arguing that challenging theists to justify their position is inappropriate or wrong. But it's a very different endeavor from seeking to understand their position - which involves simply listening to them. And perhaps asking questions - but only for clarification and not with the purpose of arguing against what they say or challenging them to prove that it is reasonable.

And we are faaaaar afield from that issue at this stage in the game. So it really doesn't surprise me at all that Helen would not want to devote anymore time to it now, nor does it surprise me that maddog feels like Helen is bailing out mid-discussion. For all appearances it seems y'all have both been actively, respectively seeking to understand each other on two separate issues. :)

[Clutch Munny]

Here's part of her first post:

I'm not arguing that challenging theists to justify their position is inappropriate or wrong. But it's a very different endeavor from seeking to understand their position - which involves simply listening to them. And perhaps asking questions - but only for clarification and not with the purpose of arguing against what they say or challenging them to prove that it is reasonable.

And we are faaaaar afield from that issue at this stage in the game. So it really doesn't surprise me at all that Helen would not want to devote anymore time to it now, nor does it surprise me that maddog feels like Helen is bailing out mid-discussion. For all appearances it seems y'all have both been actively, respectively seeking to understand each other on two separate issues. :)

Well, I tried to stick to exactly this point, and had, I thought, achieved a result of Socratic shape if not proportions right about here (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showpost.php?p=21182&postcount=31).

Never heard back, though.

[maddog]

My apologies, Helen. Of course, I did see that you wrote:

you can ask them specific questions. Like "Is your view on this from the Bible?" (if you're talking to Bible-believers) and if they say "yes" you can ask which verses. etc. and But I think it's possible to avoid assuming things and yet offer possibilities you're aware of, which would make the discussion easier for the other person. It's going to be very lengthy if you simply say "Talk to me. Explain things to me. I'm assuming nothing". That makes it hard for them to know what you're looking for. and I think it would work better to ask them what their text is and try to demonstrate some specific ambiguity about it if you think it's ambiguous. and
if you don't think they're defensible it would probably work better to try to demonstrate why not, than to expect them to say they aren't defensible. and Again, I think there must be some other option than a) you assume things b) you ask for everything to be explained from scratch, which I can't imagine many people having time to do.
I guess I didn't see too much difference between knowing how to ask a Christian, "do you base this view on the Bible?" and *assuming* that the Christian's view is based on the Bible; otherwise I wouldn't have known to ask that question, "do you base it on the Bible?" and "which verse?"

I also interpreted "assuming" something, and "offering possibilities I'm aware of" as functionally equivalent -- how would I be able to offer a possibility without relying on what general cultural assumptions I have about the Christian view of things? So, I accepted fully what you were saying about helping the conversation along by applying general knowledge instead of making them work harder by having to reinvent the entire wheel again from scratch.

Sure, it works better in terms of "is a text ambiguous" to establish what the text is and try to demonstrate either why it is or isn't ambiguous. But I need to get to the place in the conversation, without making too many assumptions or being too challenging, or seeming to be attacking, or having enough rapport (all of these are problems which we recognized are difficult to overcome, in reaching genuine "understanding"), to get to talk about the text. I've seldom got that far in real life discussions. FWIW, I've seen the OT quote (Leviticus?) about it being an "abomination" for a man to lie with a man as he does with a woman. Without a whole lot of background and scholarship, I'd have to say on the face of it, it doesn't look too ambiguous to me. I've also seen articles attempting to deconstruct those passages and construe them not to be such an absolute prohibition, and I find those essays less than wholly convincing. But that's not the point at the moment. The point is how to get a conversation down to brass tacks so that greater understanding can be achieved.

Of course, I never expect someone to say that their reasons are not defensible. And, if we ever got in the conversation to the point where we were looking at the foundational reasons, then we could examine whether or not we each think they are defensible. But the advice to "demonstrate why they are not defensible" sort of reflects the attitude which I thought we had agreed was better to avoid -- of "arguing" instead of "understanding." I want to know why they think what they think. I'm also fully aware that things can be "defensible" that I still don't agree with. that's the point at which we do not "agree," but we DO "understand."

Yes, there must be some middle ground, I think, between assuming (which I think in practice means assuming too much, or in a biased way [such as "projecting"]) and making the other party to the conversation have to explain everything under the sun from the ground up. I'm not saying it's all or nothing, either/or. You were chastising me, for example, for not using my cultural knowledge that Christians base their beliefs on the Bible. Of course I know that. I just didn't want to raise hackles by assuming "too much." And I consider that kind of cultural knowledge roughly equivalent to an "assumption." It's just not a complete, pre-judged package of assumptions that doesn't give the person a chance to have their own say about what they think and believe. So yes, I think a middle ground of helpful general knowledge is perhaps permissible and necessary. In terms of "from scratch," however, the reality is that sometimes the foundations for positions on important issues are very deep. The roots may go far toward the origins of the entire system, if the principle is truly basic.

As to the second part of your answer, You find it shocking that I don't have time to discuss it? It's a matter of priorities.
my apologies again. I completely misunderstood that you were speaking only in terms of time commitment. (The nature of my misunderstanding should also have been obvious, however: I never indicated shock that you didn't have time to answer, but that, it seemed you were saying: "that you (or our hypothetical Christian) have nothing to say, discuss, or offer about the proper role of church and government in devising legislation for all citizens. I really think this is the crux of the matter altogether.") That you were talking only about not having time to answer was not immediately obvious to me from the set-up to your response:

So, another question, left wholly unaddressed by the answer -- i.e., that "people don't favor changes in the world which seem to be taking a step away from the parents' values" -- is what the world's lack of congruence to MY own moral values means in terms of what the legislative policy should be for EVERYONE, even those who do not hold my same values.)

Well, Christians don't believe moral values are subjective, do they? Do we need to discuss this too? On the whole, if God says something is wrong for me then it's wrong for you also.
Yes, we need to discuss this too. Because we are not talking just about belief, we are talking about legislation. Are you saying that Christians believe they should/must legislate Christian morality for everyone? That Christians don't recognize plurality? That Christians want theocracy rather than secular government? That they do not recognize or want a separation between church and state? That's exactly the kind of assumptions about Christians and Christianity that I was attempting not to make. I am seeking understanding, not projection of my assumptions about Christians.

As I said, I can't really discuss it beyond what I already wrote.

I thought you were saying, again, At this point I don't know what to say that you won't consider a "non-answer" when, I was hoping, that that problem had been cleared up -- I want to talk about foundations and (the REAL importance of discussion/understanding AT ALL in this context) why this subject should be legislated in a particular way for all citizens. We probably wouldn't be discussing it at all if it weren't for that. I failed to realize, from that context, that you were merely saying, instead, I'm soon going to run out of time to continue this endeavor. My apologies for the misunderstanding.

If you don't care to come back to this, I understand. Thanks for the discussion!
Carry on!

your friend,
maddog

#76

[viscousmemories]

Well, I tried to stick to exactly this point, and had, I thought, achieved a result of Socratic shape if not proportions right about here (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showpost.php?p=21182&postcount=31).

Never heard back, though.
Hey I remember that post! It was a very clear and succint question, so much that I can see how Helen might've read it as rhetorical. In any case good show, man! Those pants are lookin' more attractive every day.

[maddog]

I've really enjoyed this exchange. It's very illustrative, I think, of the problems people encounter in trying to reach "understanding" with one another.
I agree, but probably from a different angle than what you might be thinking of. What I see as the primary source of disconnect here is that this thread originated as a discussion about ways in which people might seek to understand each other better, and has become an examination of why Christians oppose gay marriage. This happened because Adam used the issue of gay marriage as an example in his OP, and as often happens the example hijacked the discussion.

I say it hijacked the discussion because I believe that's how these things happen. I don't think anyone is to blame for the massive derail, but I am not at all surprised that communication has broken down at this juncture. Here you are writing these crazy long, detailed, well thought out posts trying to reach a real understanding with Helen in a very respectful and generous manner, yet Helen never signed up for this discussion.

Sure in my opinion she's equally responsible for the derail and her own subtle changes to the subplot as it went on (moving from "people who oppose gay marriage" to "theists who oppose gay marriage" for example) but she never seemed much interested in having this particular discussion at this point in time as much as she wanted to discuss the metaissue she originally commented on. Here's part of her first post:

I'm not arguing that challenging theists to justify their position is inappropriate or wrong. But it's a very different endeavor from seeking to understand their position - which involves simply listening to them. And perhaps asking questions - but only for clarification and not with the purpose of arguing against what they say or challenging them to prove that it is reasonable.

And we are faaaaar afield from that issue at this stage in the game. So it really doesn't surprise me at all that Helen would not want to devote anymore time to it now, nor does it surprise me that maddog feels like Helen is bailing out mid-discussion. For all appearances it seems y'all have both been actively, respectively seeking to understand each other on two separate issues. :)


One person's "hijack" is another person's "illustration." Mind you, I've never been terribly good at multi-tasking, but I thought it was obvious that we were "exemplifying" the "understanding" issue in this way. The "how to discuss things so that understanding can be achieved" was always the primary effort of my posts. The topic of "gay marriage" was simply used as an illustration of how the suggestions made could work in practice. "Ask" "don't make assumptions," "have you ASKED them?" "don't challenge" "don't seek to attack rather than to understand" etc. The "gay marriage" issue was simply a practicum. NOT "faaaaar afield" IMO. I think as an illustration, it's quite useful in pointing out how some suggested techniques either don't work, or are mis-applied, or are not themselves understood by the user.

If everybody thinks it is a derail, my apologies. I was attempting to "do" or "illustrate" how to reach "understanding," using the suggestions made.
#77

[HelenM]

Well, I tried to stick to exactly this point, and had, I thought, achieved a result of Socratic shape if not proportions right about here (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showpost.php?p=21182&postcount=31).

Never heard back, though.

You asked me why I think [X]. But you didn't tell me how you concluded that I think [X] and I'm not sure that I do think [X]. So it seemed we were at cross-purposes and given how much time I'd already spent on this thread, I didn't want to spend even more trying to uncross whatever was going on.

Perhaps I should clarify at this point: I have nowhere said that people are obliged to spend huge amounts of time trying to understand others. (Or if I did, it was a misspeak)

It's more that I think it's unfortunate when people spend the time they do have reinforcing each other's stereotypes of 'them' instead of going out and finding out what 'they' are really like. I don't have a problem at all with people saying 'I don't know about them - I don't have time to learn about them'. It's when people claim to know and then roll out a stereotype that I get frustrated.

Helen

[viscousmemories]

One person's "hijack" is another person's "illustration."
That may be true, but I definitely recognize the difference between an illustration and a hijack. The "gay marriage" issue was an illustration in the very beginning, but at some point early on - so it seems to me - it became the main topic of discussion.

Mind you, I've never been terribly good at multi-tasking, but I thought it was obvious that we were "exemplifying" the "understanding" issue in this way. The "how to discuss things so that understanding can be achieved" was always the primary effort of my posts. The topic of "gay marriage" was simply used as an illustration of how the suggestions made could work in practice. "Ask" "don't make assumptions," "have you ASKED them?" "don't challenge" "don't seek to attack rather than to understand" etc. The "gay marriage" issue was simply a practicum. NOT "faaaaar afield" IMO. I think as an illustration, it's quite useful in pointing out how some suggested techniques either don't work, or are mis-applied, or are not themselves understood by the user.
I understood what you were trying to do, I just don't think seeking to understand an issue through dialogue with someone who is uninterested in defending the opposite perspective is a good example of seeking understanding. It seems like a far better example of how people can talk past each other at length without realizing that they're having two separate and only tangentially related conversations.

If everybody thinks it is a derail, my apologies. I was attempting to "do" or "illustrate" how to reach "understanding," using the suggestions made.
I can't emphasize strongly enough that I'm not trying to be accusatory here, I've just been following this thread since the beginning and that's my interpretation of your interaction here. But by all means don't take my word for it, I'm often wrong. I just thought maybe a third party perspective of your interaction might be useful, given that one of the biggest stumbling blocks to understanding, typically, is being blinded by our own bias. I have no doubts whatsoever about your sincerity or your committment to seeking understanding here.

[Adora]

It's more that I think it's unfortunate when people spend the time they do have reinforcing each other's stereotypes of 'them' instead of going out and finding out what 'they' are really like.
Unfortunately, those I do meet who I consider "them" tend to live up to the theories/stereotypes I have. When I meet one who doesn't I'll give you a call.

It's when people claim to know and then roll out a stereotype that I get frustrated.
Is it impossible to believe that, just perhaps, arguments against gay rights are so utterly stupid that the only people who claim them are stereotypes? Of course, they can be many different kinds of stereotypes - the macho man, the complicit unthinking citizen, the religious kind - but they still are stereotypes.

[HelenM]

About assumptions:

I guess I didn't see too much difference between knowing how to ask a Christian, "do you base this view on the Bible?" and *assuming* that the Christian's view is based on the Bible; otherwise I wouldn't have known to ask that question, "do you base it on the Bible?" and "which verse?"

I think it's fine to ask questions which show awareness of what some people think/believe/base their views on. I don't think that's inappropriate 'assuming'. I think it becomes inappropriate when you indicate you assume that somethink you know or have heard about someone else applies to them in particular. But since you're asking them, you aren't assuming it applies to them, are you? You wouldn't ask, if you were assuming it did. Then instead of saying "Do you...?" you'd ask "Why do you...?" before they'd told you whether they did. I think the former question is fine but the latter is inappropriate.

Helen

[HelenM]

If everybody thinks it is a derail, my apologies. I was attempting to "do" or "illustrate" how to reach "understanding," using the suggestions made.
#77

Fair enough. I'm afraid I don't have time to be the illustration, though.

Helen

[HelenM]

It's more that I think it's unfortunate when people spend the time they do have reinforcing each other's stereotypes of 'them' instead of going out and finding out what 'they' are really like.
Unfortunately, those I do meet who I consider "them" tend to live up to the theories/stereotypes I have. When I meet one who doesn't I'll give you a call.

Just e-mail me - it's cheaper ;)

It's when people claim to know and then roll out a stereotype that I get frustrated.
Is it impossible to believe that, just perhaps, arguments against gay rights are so utterly stupid that the only people who claim them are stereotypes? Of course, they can be many different kinds of stereotypes - the macho man, the complicit unthinking citizen, the religious kind - but they still are stereotypes.[/QUOTE]

I don't understand what you mean by the word 'stereotype' in what you wrote above. I don't really understand the connection between arguments that seem stupid and the people holding them being stereotypes.

I don't think of people as stereotypes even when they do hold stupid arguments. I just think of them as people who hold stupid arguments. I don't see that people who hold stupid arguments inherently are 'stereotypes' any more than people who hold sensible ones.

Helen

[HelenM]

I just don't think seeking to understand an issue through dialogue with someone who is uninterested in defending the opposite perspective is a good example of seeking understanding.

That's basically it. I wanted to talk about understanding those of other viewpoints, not about why people might oppose gay marriage.

Helen

[Clutch Munny]

Well, I tried to stick to exactly this point, and had, I thought, achieved a result of Socratic shape if not proportions right about here (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showpost.php?p=21182&postcount=31).

Never heard back, though.

You asked me why I think [X]. But you didn't tell me how you concluded that I think [X] and I'm not sure that I do think [X].

Dang, this is why it's better to write your own dialogue if it's Socratic tidyness you like. Nobody ever replies this way if you do. It's always, "Indubitably, Socrates -- no reasonable person could think otherwise!"

Anyhow, I included the quote from you, which I thought made the connection clear. You said, in essence, challenging theists to justify their position is ... a very different endeavor from seeking to understand their position - which involves simply listening to them. And perhaps asking questions - but only for clarification and not with the purpose of arguing against what they say or challenging them to prove that it is reasonable.

And I argued that seeking to understand a claim is often precisely a matter of asking for a justification of it. So what you say here looks like a false contrast. And then you seemed to say that you agreed -- that "When I talk about understanding, I include understanding someone's justification for their viewpoint."

So it's been unclear to me just what the problem is. You want people to understand people; you agree that understanding people is often a matter of seeing their justifications; so what's the contrast between trying to understand people and asking them to justify their claims?

[Adora]

I don't understand what you mean by the word 'stereotype' in what you wrote above. I don't really understand the connection between arguments that seem stupid and the people holding them being stereotypes.
You said "when people claim to know yadda and then roll out a stereotype". What I mean is, isn't it possible that the examples they give are close to (or outright) stereotypes because the issue at hand is so illogical and stupid, that stereotypes dominate? I mean, yes, on one side of the fence you have the problem of such people who believe in "Chicken Hawkes".

I just think of them as people who hold stupid arguments.
But then you need to ask the question why they hold those arguments. If person A holds the argument that gays shouldn't be allowed to marry because they threaten the traditional power of marriage, you have to break that argument and the speaker down. I have found that men (and it is predominantly men) who tout this stupid argument are men who are the most hegemonically masculine (ie- head of the household, primary earner, nuclear family, hold traditional views of gender, like their footy & beer, white middle class) and therefore have the most to loose by the traditional power of marriage being broken. Many of them fit the stereotype of the Manly Man quite closely, and they are the ones who are the most passionate supports, I have found in social discussions, of anti-gay-marriage bills.

It is those who have the most invested in stereotypes, and therefore have the most to loose when those stereotypes and ideologies are challanged in society, who are the ones who hold these views passionately. And then there is, as I mentioned, the "complicit citizen" stereotype who doesn't really know deeply why they oppose the bill, and isn't terribly invested in stereotypes, but knows that somehow, society will change if such rights are given to minorities, and is afraid conciously or unconciously in some way of that change. Then there are the religious wackos, who are basically the aforementioned men with a Big Invisible Friend to back them up. And they are the worst of the lot.

[wade-w]

[I have found that men (and it is predominantly men) who tout this stupid argument are men who are the most hegemonically masculine (ie- head of the household, primary earner, nuclear family, hold traditional views of gender, like their footy & beer, white middle class) and therefore have the most to loose by the traditional power of marriage being broken.

Please back up your contention that this attitude is predominately held by men, if you can.

[Adora]

Er, okay, how about extensive research into gender and homosexuality by Michael S Kimmel, R.W. Connell, Kenneth Clatterbaugh, Patrick Hopkins, and a host of other men (and women) who study the phenomenon of masculinity? Not to mention my own experiences with males of that kind. Good enough for you, honeykins?

I knew there was a reason I usually have you on ignore... :rolleye1:

[wade-w]

Er, okay, how about extensive research into gender and homosexuality by Michael S Kimmel, R.W. Connell, Kenneth Clatterbaugh, Patrick Hopkins, and a host of other men (and women) who study the phenomenon of masculinity? Not to mention my own experiences with males of that kind. Good enough for you, honeykins?

I knew there was a reason I usually have you on ignore... :rolleye1:

No, it's not. Until you provide hard data, I will consider this yet another unsupported assertion. And why you'd be so condescending when you are asked to back up a statement on a free thought oriented boaed is beyond me. But go ahead and put me back on ignore.

[Adora]

I will consider this yet another unsupported assertion.
You do that. Good thing I couldn't give a shit what you consider. *ignores*

[beyelzu]

I will consider this yet another unsupported assertion.
You do that. Good thing I couldn't give a shit what you consider. *ignores*
until you actually provide hard data, you have made an unsupported claim. throwing out some names does not in fact support your argument. this is obviously a case of the logical fallacy of from authority which is just bullshit.


and going off on wade for no reason is just fucking stupid. when you make positive claims you should expect to be asked to provide proof for you assertions.

[HelenM]

It's more that I think it's unfortunate when people spend the time they do have reinforcing each other's stereotypes of 'them' instead of going out and finding out what 'they' are really like.
Unfortunately, those I do meet who I consider "them" tend to live up to the theories/stereotypes I have. When I meet one who doesn't I'll give you a call.

I don't understand what you mean by the word 'stereotype' in what you wrote above. I don't really understand the connection between arguments that seem stupid and the people holding them being stereotypes.
You said "when people claim to know yadda and then roll out a stereotype". What I mean is, isn't it possible that the examples they give are close to (or outright) stereotypes because the issue at hand is so illogical and stupid, that stereotypes dominate? I mean, yes, on one side of the fence you have the problem of such people who believe in "Chicken Hawkes".

I just think of them as people who hold stupid arguments.
But then you need to ask the question why they hold those arguments. If person A holds the argument that gays shouldn't be allowed to marry because they threaten the traditional power of marriage, you have to break that argument and the speaker down. I have found that men (and it is predominantly men) who tout this stupid argument are men who are the most hegemonically masculine (ie- head of the household, primary earner, nuclear family, hold traditional views of gender, like their footy & beer, white middle class) and therefore have the most to loose by the traditional power of marriage being broken. Many of them fit the stereotype of the Manly Man quite closely, and they are the ones who are the most passionate supports, I have found in social discussions, of anti-gay-marriage bills.

It is those who have the most invested in stereotypes, and therefore have the most to loose when those stereotypes and ideologies are challanged in society, who are the ones who hold these views passionately. And then there is, as I mentioned, the "complicit citizen" stereotype who doesn't really know deeply why they oppose the bill, and isn't terribly invested in stereotypes, but knows that somehow, society will change if such rights are given to minorities, and is afraid conciously or unconciously in some way of that change. Then there are the religious wackos, who are basically the aforementioned men with a Big Invisible Friend to back them up. And they are the worst of the lot.

Er, okay, how about extensive research into gender and homosexuality by Michael S Kimmel, R.W. Connell, Kenneth Clatterbaugh, Patrick Hopkins, and a host of other men (and women) who study the phenomenon of masculinity? Not to mention my own experiences with males of that kind. Good enough for you, honeykins?

Adora,

I could logically deduce that it is predominantly men who believe in being head of the household who are against changing the definition of marriage because they have the most to lose.

Evidently that's what the authors you mention say, otherwise you wouldn't list them as supporting evidence.

However, my first-hand experience doesn't line up with your authors or what you say or what I might logically deduce. I've met lots of women who believe the man should be head of the household. I know they believe this because we've discussed it IRL. Not that you ever would or would even want to, but if you ever came to my church with me I could introduce you to several of them.

And these aren't all stupid women; some of them are very smart.

So, in your first quote, when you wrote about those 'them's you meet living up to your stereotypes, I wonder if it's because you don't have much experience meeting 'them's. I'm guessing that you don't much enjoy spending social time with them so it wouldn't surprise me if you don't seek 'them' out. Or perhaps it's that you don't know any of 'them' well, because when you know people only superficially they look much more like stereotypes than when you get to know them better and find out 'they' don't quite fit in the neat little boxes that 'we' make for them.

Helen

[HelenM]

Well, I tried to stick to exactly this point, and had, I thought, achieved a result of Socratic shape if not proportions right about here (http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showpost.php?p=21182&postcount=31).

Never heard back, though.

You asked me why I think [X]. But you didn't tell me how you concluded that I think [X] and I'm not sure that I do think [X].

Dang, this is why it's better to write your own dialogue if it's Socratic tidyness you like. Nobody ever replies this way if you do. It's always, "Indubitably, Socrates -- no reasonable person could think otherwise!"

Reality never quite lives up to fantasy, but never mind ;)

Anyhow, I included the quote from you, which I thought made the connection clear. You said, in essence, challenging theists to justify their position is ... a very different endeavor from seeking to understand their position - which involves simply listening to them. And perhaps asking questions - but only for clarification and not with the purpose of arguing against what they say or challenging them to prove that it is reasonable.

And I argued that seeking to understand a claim is often precisely a matter of asking for a justification of it. So what you say here looks like a false contrast.

Then maybe it is. Perhaps I misspoke or perhaps you misunderstood me.

And then you seemed to say that you agreed -- that "When I talk about understanding, I include understanding someone's justification for their viewpoint."

Then I do :D

So it's been unclear to me just what the problem is. You want people to understand people; you agree that understanding people is often a matter of seeing their justifications; so what's the contrast between trying to understand people and asking them to justify their claims?

Ok...thanks for clarifying, Socrates ;).

The contrast is in motives and tone, when there is one.

On the one hand, you have a quest for understanding which may include questions about how someone comes to their beliefs.

On the other hand, you have a challenge: justify why you're right so I can shoot your arguments down.

To me the phrase "justify your claims" connotes challenge whereas "explain your claims" is less confrontational. If you like you can dismiss those differences as semantics. However, there is a contrast between someone who says to 'them': please explain your beliefs (with supporting evidence) so I can understand them better and someone who says to 'them' "justify your claims so I can prove you're wrong". The latter is looking for a debate and is trying to win it. The motive is different from the former who wants to understand the other person's argument even though they may feel fairly certain they won't agree with it. The former person is not precluded from offering his/her answers to what 'them' say but the goal of the exchange is not set beforehand as "I want to win (and I'm going to because your arguments are ridiculous, unfounded, irrational, etc)".

Do you understand better the contrast I'm seeing, now? (I expect you do, because of your Socratic wisdom ;)).

Helen

[Clutch Munny]

Anyhow, I included the quote from you, which I thought made the connection clear. You said, in essence, challenging theists to justify their position is ... a very different endeavor from seeking to understand their position - which involves simply listening to them. And perhaps asking questions - but only for clarification and not with the purpose of arguing against what they say or challenging them to prove that it is reasonable.

And I argued that seeking to understand a claim is often precisely a matter of asking for a justification of it. So what you say here looks like a false contrast.

Then maybe it is. Perhaps I misspoke or perhaps you misunderstood me.

Okay. Presumably you're in a position to illuminate these possibilities, since the words themselves seem fairly clear.

And then you seemed to say that you agreed -- that "When I talk about understanding, I include understanding someone's justification for their viewpoint."

Then I do :D

So it's been unclear to me just what the problem is. You want people to understand people; you agree that understanding people is often a matter of seeing their justifications; so what's the contrast between trying to understand people and asking them to justify their claims?

Ok...thanks for clarifying, Socrates ;).

The contrast is in motives and tone, when there is one.


The motives of the questioner, however, are pretty easy to confabulate when you're the questionee. For instance -- not that this has ever happened to either of us, of course -- if one is pressed for a justification and comes up with either nothing, or something which is in turn shown to lack justification, then it's particularly easy to imagine that one's interlocutor had somehow set out to embarrass or attack one's beliefs.

And of course a questioner's communicative goals can (and normally will) change over the course of a conversation. What starts out as, Okay, why do you think so? may well become Look, you owe some argument if you're gonna keep saying that! after some rounds of Q-and-A. It may be tempting to read frank disbelief, annoyance at evasiveness, or whatever, back into the initial motives simply because that's where a questioner ends up. But that doesn't follow. Sometimes I end up in hole because I dug myself into it, not because someone set out to put me there. My perceptions of how often this happens to me are unlikely to be the most reliable, though.

All of which is reason to think that the motives issue is badly confounded.

In any case, I'm happy to leave it at this: Asking someone to justify their claims is not just consistent with understanding them; it's frequently constitutive of understanding them. If you agree with this (I don't know if you do; your remarks above seem more coy than direct), then whatever else you're claiming -- viz, it's nicer to be polite than rude, etc -- you're not saying what it seemed you were at the outset.

[viscousmemories]

until you actually provide hard data, you have made an unsupported claim. throwing out some names does not in fact support your argument. this is obviously a case of the logical fallacy of from authority which is just bullshit.
I gotta disagree with you and wade on this one. There is no logical construct that dictates that all support for assertions from an acceptable authority on a subject must be linkable on the Internet, so I don't think you can really say her assertion is unsupported or a fallacious appeal to authority until you find and read those books and refute them. I did a Google search on one of the authors (R.W. Connell) and he does seem to be a widely respected authority on gender studies in the sociological community. To the best of my knowledge that makes him an actual authority, and her argument not fallacious.

and going off on wade for no reason is just fucking stupid. when you make positive claims you should expect to be asked to provide proof for you assertions.
You didn't think wade's "please back up your argument, if you can" was just a teeny bit snide?

[viscousmemories]

In any case, I'm happy to leave it at this: Asking someone to justify their claims is not just consistent with understanding them; it's frequently constitutive of understanding them. If you agree with this (I don't know if you do; your remarks above seem more coy than direct), then whatever else you're claiming -- viz, it's nicer to be polite than rude, etc -- you're not saying what it seemed you were at the outset.
Y'know, I think I get what Helen is trying to say and I think my last comment to Beyelzu shows that I agree with her, though I may be wrong on both counts.

Wade's query "Please back up your contention that this attitude is predominately held by men, if you can." could be read as an innocuous request for someone to justify their claim, but that particular phrasing (where I'm from, anyway) indicates more than just doubt about the substance of the claim, but doubt about the speakers ability or willingness to defend it, too.

It seems to me that's the distinction Helen has been trying to make. Between "obviously" honest inquiries and "obvious" confrontation. (Although of course neither is really obvious since you can't possible have all the contextual information you'd need to make that judgement in a written discussion like this.)

[HelenM]

In any case, I'm happy to leave it at this: Asking someone to justify their claims is not just consistent with understanding them; it's frequently constitutive of understanding them. If you agree with this (I don't know if you do; your remarks above seem more coy than direct), then whatever else you're claiming -- viz, it's nicer to be polite than rude, etc -- you're not saying what it seemed you were at the outset.

I don't have time to try to sort out whether what you think I'm saying is what I'm actually saying and whether it's the same as what I said or what you think I said earlier in the thread.

I don't know what caused you to think I was being coy. Perhaps it was the smilies or my refusal to hash out whether what you think I said is what I actually said and whether that's what I meant and whether it's the same as what you mean and whether it's what I said earlier and whether that was what I meant and whether this all proves I'm inconsistent or unclear or coy or self-contradictory.

Helen

[LadyShea]

until you actually provide hard data, you have made an unsupported claim. throwing out some names does not in fact support your argument. this is obviously a case of the logical fallacy of from authority which is just bullshit.


and going off on wade for no reason is just fucking stupid. when you make positive claims you should expect to be asked to provide proof for you assertions.

I am also a big believer in backing up assertions, but, both you and wade seemed to have missed or ignored Adora's qualifier "I have found..."

There was no assertion, IMO, there was an observation made from personal experience.

[pescifish]

I love using qualifiers like that. It frustrates the hell out of people trying to debate.

Still, using Adora's contributions to the thread as an example, 1) do you feel she has even tried to stay on target with Helen's OP even after Helen, vm and Clutch attempted to bring the thread back to the topic of "understanding"? 2) do you feel her posts have demonstrated the slightest desire to "understand" any other of the members here, even in the context of the gender-effect subjects she has chosen to soapbox on this and many other threads? and 3) do you think her abrasive (to many of us) style should be ignored, giving tacit approval to what can be considered emotionally charged smokescreen/distractions to "mutual understanding"?

In my opinion, Adora's posts illustrate an aspect of Helen's question: one cannot assume or guarantee that all parties in a discussion have even remotely concurrent goals, "mutual understanding" being only one of the possibles.

[LadyShea]

I love using qualifiers like that. It frustrates the hell out of people trying to debate.

Well, qualifiers, to me, simply differentiate between learned knowledge from various sources, and observed phenomena/behavior. Both have a place in most discussions, don't they? Do you believe all qualifiers are used as a ploy to frustrate debate?

Still, using Adora's contributions to the thread as an example, 1) do you feel she has even tried to stay on target with Helen's OP even after Helen, vm and Clutch attempted to bring the thread back to the topic of "understanding"? 2) do you feel her posts have demonstrated the slightest desire to "understand" any other of the members here, even in the context of the gender-effect subjects she has chosen to soapbox on this and many other threads? and 3) do you think her abrasive (to many of us) style should be ignored, giving tacit approval to what can be considered emotionally charged smokescreen/distractions to "mutual understanding"?

I don't know. I can't figure out what anyone on this thread is trying to say. I still don't feel we even have a working definition of understanding. However, if the criticisms of Adora are about abrasiveness, derailing, whatever, why not address those issues directly....why go round about by asking for sources for what was properly presented as an observation? That seems passive-aggressive to me, not an attempt to properly criticize form, content, or try to get the topic back on track.

In my opinion, Adora's posts illustrate an aspect of Helen's question: one cannot assume or guarantee that all parties in a discussion have even remotely concurrent goals, "mutual understanding" being only one of the possibles.

Sure, though I fail to see how bey's or wade's demands for documentation have anything to do with what Adora had to say. I only pointed it out because I thought it unfair...not because I have any strong feelings about what either side is trying to convey.

[pescifish]

I love using qualifiers like that. It frustrates the hell out of people trying to debate.

Well, qualifiers, to me, simply differentiate between learned knowledge from various sources, and observed phenomena/behavior. Both have a place in most discussions, don't they? Do you believe all qualifiers are used as a ploy to frustrate debate?I agree with your assessment of qualifiers. I definitely think they have a place in most discussions, but perhaps not in a debate (where debate is differentiated from simple conversational discussion.)

Personally, I have never found debate style to be conducive to mutual understanding, so my personal opinion is that qualifiers are useful in keeping a discussion on a conversational level. I suppose another way to put that would be "as a ploy to frustrate debate", yes. I think "what do you think and can you clarify?" is better than "state your views and justify them". Sometimes knowing "why" a person came to those opinions helps clarify the thoughts and ideas, but I don't usually need justification. However, if the criticisms of Adora are about abrasiveness, derailing, whatever, why not address those issues directly....why go round about by asking for sources for what was properly presented as an observation? That seems passive-aggressive to me, not an attempt to properly criticize form, content, or try to get the topic back on track.Well, I'm all for that. Is there a good place to do such a thing?

...I fail to see how bey's or wade's demands for documentation have anything to do with what Adora had to say. I only pointed it out because I thought it unfair...not because I have any strong feelings about what either side is trying to convey.I agree with this too. However, I think wade's question was a great way to illustrate exactly how easy it is to drive Adora into her what-seems-to-be-typical frenzy. I doubt very much that was wade's intention, but Adora needs to accept the consequences for her own behaviors when confronted. The situation does serve a purpose in this thread to demonstrate a particularly abrasive and distracting style. The repeated demonstration of which unfortunately may discredit Adora personally (and therefore her qualified opinions) in the eyes of the readers as it does for me.

[Adora]

Oh for fucks sake.

First of all- I never said it was only men who held this view. Maybe ya'll are having one of them reading lapses again that are a common occurance around here. I did, however, say it is predominantly those kinds of stereotypical men who hold this view. They are also the ones who hold the view the strongest because they have the most to loose. It challanges their power in the private and public spheres.

Also, what LadyShea said. I'm glad some people can read around here.

So, in your first quote, when you wrote about those 'them's you meet living up to your stereotypes, I wonder if it's because you don't have much experience meeting 'them's. I'm guessing that you don't much enjoy spending social time with them so it wouldn't surprise me if you don't seek 'them' out. Or perhaps it's that you don't know any of 'them' well, because when you know people only superficially they look much more like stereotypes than when you get to know them better and find out 'they' don't quite fit in the neat little boxes that 'we' make for them.
Er, sorry, no. Off the top of my head I can easily think of 7 men who I have known in the last 5 years who come under this dominant-head-of-household banner yet I counted as good friends (through family circumstances... though one is now removed from said social group because his wife finally divorced him for domestic violence and financial reasons). No, I don't seek them out, but we don't always become friends with people we seek out in this world, nor do we always get to choose people we mix with. One of these men even has a gay son, but still holds heterosexist views. Given, 7 isn't a large status group, but, they are the dominant group in the types of married-males I know. Others, if you want to call them snags or not-such-manly-men, are in the minority.

As for wade and all that shit, this is my deal with him. When I first came to this board, I generally had neutral expectations of people here. I knew there would be some atheists, but I'd been away from HH and II for so long I'd forgotten most of them. So then, through interactions, I came to have positive experiences with some, and negative experiences with others, and neutral experiences as well. Wade eventually ended up somewhere too-far in the negative zone for me to think his posts could possibly be worth the bandwidth. He never seemed to contribute anything to the board I found interesting, and when he did bother to make posts in reply to mine, he was rude, demanding, and for some reasons had something against me. So I put him on ignore, because I have better things to waste bandwidth on.

Yesterday, I was in a particularly good mood. So I was feeling generous and took him off, for once perhaps giving someone the benefit of the doubt. But no, he's still a little shit with something against me. I should really just stay the cynic and pessimist in these circumstances, and stop having expectations of people.

If wade spent his time on the board questioning every single statement made that could possibly require "hard evidence" to back it up, as he does mine, he'd have an awful big fucking job on his hands. But no, for some reason, I am speshul (awhhh). Also, the way he does it is ridiculous, and I can't possibly believe he does it because of some positive motives, or because he wants to engage in real discussion or debate. He doesn't engage people in conversation when he does it, doesn't present opposing views in a civil manner, doesn't try and earn the right for people to actually bother to give him their time and actually present whatever evidence he thinks is necessary for their claim's validation. He demands they do it, like they owe him something, like a petulant little brat.

I owe wade nothing. No, I owe wade less than nothing, which is why is he is on ignore, and staying on ignore.

Now, if this pointless shit is going to continue, can we please split the thread, or can we actually get back on topic, because I was really enjoying my conversation with Helen before a little brat made some demands he had no right to.

edit edit edit... it's too fucking early for this kind of shit...

[beyelzu]

until you actually provide hard data, you have made an unsupported claim. throwing out some names does not in fact support your argument. this is obviously a case of the logical fallacy of from authority which is just bullshit.


and going off on wade for no reason is just fucking stupid. when you make positive claims you should expect to be asked to provide proof for you assertions.

I am also a big believer in backing up assertions, but, both you and wade seemed to have missed or ignored Adora's qualifier "I have found..."

There was no assertion, IMO, there was an observation made from personal experience.
fine, if she wants to use personal experience, I would like to know just how extensive her experience is. where and why did she draw her conclusions. I think that her sloppy phrasing in one sentence suddenly negates her requirement to prove her assertions.

If you read her post she isnt making some sort of off the hip reaction. She isnt describing her personal experiences, she just qualifies a whole rant with a phrase.

[Clutch Munny]

I don't have time to try to sort out whether what you think I'm saying is what I'm actually saying and whether it's the same as what I said or what you think I said earlier in the thread.

I don't know what caused you to think I was being coy. Perhaps it was the smilies or my refusal to hash out whether what you think I said is what I actually said and whether that's what I meant and whether it's the same as what you mean and whether it's what I said earlier and whether that was what I meant and whether this all proves I'm inconsistent or unclear or coy or self-contradictory.

Helen

Helen, I have very little patience for this sort of thing. If for whatever reason you can't be bothered to explain how what you say in your OP fits with what you say subsequently in response to my queries and observations, please just say so. Too busy? Lost interest? Fine. But please, please, don't do what you've just done here.

I've done you the courtesy of engaging your original points and trying to discern what you might reasonably have meant by them. Writing with deliberate obscurity in a run-on sentence hardly shows that some unreasonable expectation has been placed on you by this discussion. If anything it suggests that the underlying issue really is some general resentment on your part at being asked to justify what you say. Whatever it is, I can say that I haven't detected much of what I'd call an open, honest search for understanding from you in this exchange.

[HelenM]

Helen, I have very little patience for this sort of thing.

If your lack of patience is causing you problems I suggest you work on acquiring some more patience.

Helen

[Goliath]

Thank you, Helen, for showing us just how much you value understanding what we have to say.

[wade-w]

Adora has stated that she finds confrontation more entertaining than rational discourse, so I am at a loss as to why she would object to being confronted. I hope nobody else has felt that I am antagonizing them, or that I never have anything interesting to contribute here.

Anyway, my apologies for furthering the derail.

[viscousmemories]

Thank you, Helen, for showing us just how much you value understanding what we have to say.
Who is we? Did you say something to Helen that she didn't respond to? From what I've seen she has been nothing but courteous and respectful to you every time you've said something to her. Why are you attacking her now?

[Goliath]

Who is we?

A subset of the posters here that seems to contain Clutch Munny and myself.


Did you say something to Helen that she didn't respond to?


That she didn't respond to? No. That she didn't respond to in any substantiative way? Yes.


Why are you attacking her now?

Mostly because of her rude, dismissive, and flippant comment to Clutch Munny.

[viscousmemories]

That she didn't respond to? No. That she didn't respond to in any substantiative way? Yes.
Where was that? I went back a couple pages and didn't see anything.

Mostly because of her rude, dismissive, and flippant comment to Clutch Munny.
Ah, okay.

[Goliath]

Where was that? I went back a couple pages and didn't see anything.

Well, I asked of what possible use it would be for me to understand theists, and she didn't really respond (other than to say "I don't know" before going back into a far-too-lengthy discussion on why we should all try to understand each other).

[HelenM]

Did you say something to Helen that she didn't respond to?


That she didn't respond to? No. That she didn't respond to in any substantiative way? Yes.

Where was that? I went back a couple pages and didn't see anything.

Well, I asked of what possible use it would be for me to understand theists, and she didn't really respond (other than to say "I don't know" before going back into a far-too-lengthy discussion on why we should all try to understand each other).

Goliath, here is your question and my answer:

But I'm not talking about whether a question is valid. I'm talking about the difference between "Please explain your POV to me; I'm listening" and "I think you're wrong. Prove to me that you aren't wrong".

Why must it be the latter? What's wrong with the former?



Why whould an answer to the former be of any use to me whatsoever?

I don't know, Goliath.

Goliath, how would you answer the question "Why would [such and such] be of any use to me whatsoever?" if you don't know the answer?

Helen

[LadyShea]

Adora has stated that she finds confrontation more entertaining than rational discourse, so I am at a loss as to why she would object to being confronted. I hope nobody else has felt that I am antagonizing them, or that I never have anything interesting to contribute here.

Anyway, my apologies for furthering the derail.

I don't agree with Adora's assessment of you personally, and felt the personal remarks sha made about you were way out of line, in fact.

If you read her post she isnt making some sort of off the hip reaction. She isnt describing her personal experiences, she just qualifies a whole rant with a phrase.

Yes bey, but since the whole rant was about a stereotype....there is no documentation. She had to be describing personal experiences unless sociologists study, "macho men" or whatever she called them, these days. I only pointed it out because I thought it a pointless excercise demanding evidence for an opinion.


And, for the record, I have reread this entire thread, and I still have no idea what the hell is going on. There seems to be a lot of beating around the bush and innuendo and ulterior mtoives at play. Is it me or are many of the participants in the thread not being direct?

[Clutch Munny]

Helen, I have very little patience for this sort of thing.

If your lack of patience is causing you problems I suggest you work on acquiring some more patience.


If seeking understanding, as you mean the expression, is consistent with replies that amount to "Suck it up; I won't justify my utterances for you", and with the attitudes that underlie such replies, then the curiously inarticulable problem you've been complaining about in this thread is even less clear.

If not, of course, then you cannot be characterized as having "sought understanding" here -- at least in your exchange with me. I too am frankly baffled by how hard it's been to get a direct, clear discussion of the issues you raised -- the sort of thing that would actually lead to (what I, at least, would call) an understanding of your view.

[HelenM]

If not, of course, then you cannot be characterized as having "sought understanding" here -- at least in your exchange with me. I too am frankly baffled by how hard it's been to get a direct, clear discussion of the issues you raised -- the sort of thing that would actually lead to (what I, at least, would call) an understanding of your view.

I've posted some thoughts about seeking to understand others. I didn't also say "here's a great opportunity for you: practice seeking understanding with me - I have lots of time for that".

Helen

[Adora]

...there is no documentation. She had to be describing personal experiences unless sociologists study, "macho men" or whatever she called them, these days.
Well yes, actually, they do study "macho men" and "not-so-macho men" and "black men" and "men from other cultures entirely" and "hispanic men" and "aboriginal men" and "gay men" and "bisexual men" and "disabled men" and "athletic men" and "academic men" and any other kind you care to name these days (whatever that's supposed to mean). That's why there's this wonderful word used called masculinities.

I provided the names of people who study masculinities. Use google if you want more extensive information, because I've only read their works in book-form, and obviously I can't automatically provide URLs with entire explanaitions of their theories. One of the best books edited by Kimmel and another fella called Messner is called Men's Lives. It contains many different essays compiled into one form that tackle things like homophobia and heterosexism, misogyny, general constructions of "fringe" masculinities, race in men's lives, etc etc etc. Gregory Herek specialises in homosexual issues. Marshall Kirk co-authored a book called After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Homophobia which I am having an exceptionally hard time getting my hands on, but I am told is one of the best books on the subjet. Like Helen said- practice seeking understanding yourself instead of expecting someone else to hand you all the answers on a plate. The findings of the people I mentioned correlate with my experiences, which is why I also provided their names along with my own opinion. They may not with yours, but you won't know that until you read their stuff, because its so diverse and complicated that I can't possibly do it all justice in a single (or few) posts. That's why there are entire schools called "Gender studies" and "Queer Theory" in which people devote their entire lives to discovering how this powerful aspect of society works. All kinds of sociologists, psychologists, psychiatrists and anthropoligists study gender (which includes hegemonic - stereotyped idealised - masculinities) and come up with these theories. Then there's fuckers with no qualifications or research, like Robert Bly (author of such steaming-piles-of-shit as Iron John, who step in and think they have the answers by returning to stereotypes as ideals that can solve all gender problems for everyone because they're poets *gags*. Unfortunately, because they provide easy no-brainer answers that can easily be swallowed by the masses because they don't require them to think outside the square (and they play into Backlash politics), they're the ones who get all the publicity.

"Suck it up; I won't justify my utterances for you"
Emphasis on the particular "you" in play here. If anybody else had asked who had been involved in the thread, and maybe even if they didn't not ask in such a demanding pathetic way, there would have been a good chance I wouldn't have reacted so. But it was a specific situation, related to a single member. Unfortunately, people's ability to keep their noses out of other people's business around here seems to be severely lacking, so yeah, let's just ruin another thread for the sake of factions.

[LadyShea]

Sorry Adora, I didn't mean to imply your opinion was uninformed. You did name some authors and sources for the basis of your opinion.

[beyelzu]

...there is no documentation. She had to be describing personal experiences unless sociologists study, "macho men" or whatever she called them, these days.
Well yes, actually, they do study "macho men" and "not-so-macho men" and "black men" and "men from other cultures entirely" and "hispanic men" and "aboriginal men" and "gay men" and "bisexual men" and "disabled men" and "athletic men" and "academic men" and any other kind you care to name these days (whatever that's supposed to mean). That's why there's this wonderful word used called masculinities.

I provided the names of people who study masculinities. Use google if you want more extensive information, because I've only read their works in book-form, and obviously I can't automatically provide URLs with entire explanaitions of their theories. One of the best books edited by Kimmel and another fella called Messner is called Men's Lives. It contains many different essays compiled into one form that tackle things like homophobia and heterosexism, misogyny, general constructions of "fringe" masculinities, race in men's lives, etc etc etc. Gregory Herek specialises in homosexual issues. Marshall Kirk co-authored a book called After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Homophobia which I am having an exceptionally hard time getting my hands on, but I am told is one of the best books on the subjet. Like Helen said- practice seeking understanding yourself instead of expecting someone else to hand you all the answers on a plate. The findings of the people I mentioned correlate with my experiences, which is why I also provided their names along with my own opinion. They may not with yours, but you won't know that until you read their stuff, because its so diverse and complicated that I can't possibly do it all justice in a single (or few) posts. That's why there are entire schools called "Gender studies" and "Queer Theory" in which people devote their entire lives to discovering how this powerful aspect of society works. All kinds of sociologists, psychologists, psychiatrists and anthropoligists study gender (which includes hegemonic - stereotyped idealised - masculinities) and come up with these theories. Then there's fuckers with no qualifications or research, like Robert Bly (author of such steaming-piles-of-shit as Iron John, who step in and think they have the answers by returning to stereotypes as ideals that can solve all gender problems for everyone because they're poets *gags*. Unfortunately, because they provide easy no-brainer answers that can easily be swallowed by the masses because they don't require them to think outside the square (and they play into Backlash politics), they're the ones who get all the publicity.

"Suck it up; I won't justify my utterances for you"
Emphasis on the particular "you" in play here. If anybody else had asked who had been involved in the thread, and maybe even if they didn't not ask in such a demanding pathetic way, there would have been a good chance I wouldn't have reacted so. But it was a specific situation, related to a single member. Unfortunately, people's ability to keep their noses out of other people's business around here seems to be severely lacking, so yeah, let's just ruin another thread for the sake of factions.



make a positive claim, back up your assertions.

it isnt that hard to understand.


a bunch of names listed is not actually backing up your assertions.

[Godfather]

You are suggesting that the best way to approach a debate is with an open mind. That's good - I agree with that. You should never assume that you know everyything about a person's POV (or about anything, for that matter). But you seem to be suggesting that anyone who doesn't begin throwing out all of their assumptions isn't playing fair.

It's very hard to have a discussion with someone who, without even quoting where I said something, tells me what they think I seem to be suggesting.

I'd rather stick to what I said, otherwise all I'm likely to do is defend what I actually said and that what I seemed to suggest is in your head only.
I'm sorry I tried to find the core of your argument, rather than looking at each individual statement in detail. I just tend to find point-for-point rebuttals tedious and, when they ignore the overall thrust of the argument, largely unhelpful. But I'm happy to respond to a quote if you prefer.

I'm not arguing that challenging theists to justify their position is inappropriate or wrong. But it's a very different endeavor from seeking to understand their position - which involves simply listening to them. And perhaps asking questions - but only for clarification and not with the purpose of arguing against what they say or challenging them to prove that it is reasonable.
So theism is entirely defensible, but only when it is not being challenged? Isn't that a bit like something that is invisible except when you are not looking at it?

I don't think it's too much of a stretch to assume, for example, that a theist believes in a deity. That's one fair assumption right there. Now, that inescapably suggests other facts to the observer, depending on their own POV. From my POV, it suggests that their POV is fairly fundamentally based on a strong belief in something despite its being demonstrably counter to all the evidence of our common experience of the world, and that this is therefore a person who is not concerned with exercising critical or rational thought. I can see no reason why I should feel obliged to waste my time trying to rationally engage with such a person in order to learn more about their flawed beliefs.

I can give you a reason why. Because your implied assumption that people who have beliefs you consider flawed cannot rationally engage might be incorrect and if so, you will have your incorrect assumption corrected by the reality that people with what you label 'flawed beliefs' can engage rationally after all. However, refusing to engage rationally with them ensures that if you are wrong, you won't be corrected. It's a good way to proceed if preserving your presuppositions whether right or wrong is more important to you than checking whether they're correct.
I believe wholeheartedly in the importance of questioning one's own assumptions. That is a very important principle to live by. And, on the surface, that is what you are suggesting I do. But it's actually not nearly that simple. In terms of the issue which is framing most of this thread - Christian views on gay marriage - I believe a hypothetical Christian's opposition to gay marriage to be groundless, based on two assumptions:

1. Their opposition to gay marriage is based on the teachings of the Christian faith.
2. The teachings of the Christian faith are groundless.

The second assumption is a major one, and very complex. But suffice it to say I have questioned this assumption and have found no reason to dismiss it. If I had, I would be a Christian. The first assumption is much less complex, and much easier to dismiss - I just have to ask the hypothetical Christian to provide a reason to be opposed to gay marriage which is not based on their faith. It sounds simple, but I have asked many real Christians, and they have not been able to do so. Can you? I'm not the first person in this thread to ask, but you haven't provided a direct answer yet.


Christians who believe that sexual intimacy is wrong unless it is between two married people (one man and one woman) want their children to share their belief. They don't want the world around them implying to their children that there's nothing wrong with two men marrying, or two women marrying. What their children see will affect them and the parents will not favor any step the world around them takes which moves the world further away from sharing the parents' moral values.
Fair enough. Let's extend this same principal to the rest of society as well. Muslims believe the consumption of alcohol; non-Muslims should therefore not have a legal right to drink, in case their doing so implies to Muslim children that there is nothing wrong with drinking. Judaism forbids eating the flesh of pigs; non-Jews should therefore not have a legal right to eat ham sandwiches, in case their behaviour influences Jewish children.

This shows your ignorance of other religions.

(I know there was a point buried in there somewhere which is quite a good one, but if you're not interested in stating it more directly, I'm not interested in discussing it)
My point, stated directly, is that your argument about the parents' right to pass on their beliefs to their children without interference boils down to freedom of religion - something I am, incidentally, in favour of. What I was illustrating, though, is that your interpretation stretches the right to freedom of religion too far - to the point where it interferes with another individual's right to other freedoms. I would suggest that you understood that well enough, and are not interested in rebutting it because you cannot.

'Heterosexism' seems to me to be a perfectly acceptable alternative to 'homophobia' for use when dealing with those more concerned with elementary etymology than sense, whose attitude is something along the lines of, 'Homophobia?! I ain't afraid of no fucking faggot. I'll kick any fucking faggot's cock-sucking ass!'

Have you dealt with anyone who has actually said that to you? How did you infer this was their attitude?

This was (fairly obvious, I thought) hyperbole. Adora has already given a fairly definitive justification for the distinction between the two terms.

[viscousmemories]

As long as the thread is tailspinning anyway...

2. The teachings of the Christian faith are groundless.

The second assumption is a major one, and very complex. But suffice it to say I have questioned this assumption and have found no reason to dismiss it. If I had, I would be a Christian.
What do you mean by this? That there is no rational basis for any of the teachings of the Christian faith?

[Adora]

make a positive claim, back up your assertions. it isnt that hard to understand. a bunch of names listed is not actually backing up your assertions.

I will when you provide the deconstruction you were going to bring before. C'mmoonnn. Give a little, get a little. :D I always like a bit of deconstruction.

[Goliath]

Goliath, how would you answer the question "Why would [such and such] be of any use to me whatsoever?" if you don't know the answer?


I would answer "I don't know."

But then--pay attention to this part--I wouldn't engage in what would be a consequently pointless discussion on the utility of trying to understand people who are vastly different from myself.

[Godfather]

2. The teachings of the Christian faith are groundless.

The second assumption is a major one, and very complex. But suffice it to say I have questioned this assumption and have found no reason to dismiss it. If I had, I would be a Christian.
What do you mean by this? That there is no rational basis for any of the teachings of the Christian faith?
Actually, yes I do. Well, I don't, but I might as well. I don't mean that Christians are irrational, or that nothing which the Christian religion teaches corresponds to objective reality. But faith, which Christianity views as a virtue, is almost by definition a rejection of rational explanation - God's wisdom is man's foolishness, and the earthly mind cannot comprehend the divine.

[viscousmemories]

What do you mean by this? That there is no rational basis for any of the teachings of the Christian faith?
Actually, yes I do. Well, I don't, but I might as well. I don't mean that Christians are irrational, or that nothing which the Christian religion teaches corresponds to objective reality. But faith, which Christianity views as a virtue, is almost by definition a rejection of rational explanation - God's wisdom is man's foolishness, and the earthly mind cannot comprehend the divine.
Okay maybe I misread you. I didn't know that you meant to suggest that faith itself has no rational basis. That would pretty much seem to go without saying, since as you said faith by definition means belief without evidence.

But that's not the same as saying there is no rational basis for any of the teachings of the Christian faith. "Thou shalt not kill" is a teaching of the Christian faith that has a rational basis, isn't it? Just because a Christian might take it on faith without concern for whether it has a rational basis doesn't mean there isn't one.

[Godfather]

What do you mean by this? That there is no rational basis for any of the teachings of the Christian faith?
Actually, yes I do. Well, I don't, but I might as well. I don't mean that Christians are irrational, or that nothing which the Christian religion teaches corresponds to objective reality. But faith, which Christianity views as a virtue, is almost by definition a rejection of rational explanation - God's wisdom is man's foolishness, and the earthly mind cannot comprehend the divine.
Okay maybe I misread you. I didn't know that you meant to suggest that faith itself has no rational basis. That would pretty much seem to go without saying, since as you said faith by definition means belief without evidence.

But that's not the same as saying there is no rational basis for any of the teachings of the Christian faith. "Thou shalt not kill" is a teaching of the Christian faith that has a rational basis, isn't it? Just because a Christian might take it on faith without concern for whether it has a rational basis doesn't mean there isn't one.
In one form or another, 'thou shalt not kill' is common to most belief systems, religious or not. It's possible for two different questions to have the same answer, or for two lines of reasoning to reach the same conclusion. In broad terms, I would say that it is more rational for a person to believe killing is wrong because they have a respect the right of self-aware, sentient organisms in a civilised society to exist without threat of malicious destruction than for them to believe killing is wrong because it was written on a stone in a fictitious story.