Because I’ve been pretty active in the comment thread to Barry’s post on Free Speech, I decided to open up a comment thread for the conversation to continue.
Thanks for participating everyone.
[Edit: At the moderator's request, guiding topics for this thread would be (a) Barry's contention that "When it comes to free speech, the anti-gay-marriage movement is much, much worse," (b) Barry and my shared contention that it's inaccurate to portray these free speech issues as being unique to the anti-gay marriage side, (c) the Gallaudet incident generally, and (d) religious versus secular arguments against SSM (I'm.... kind of not sure why that particular topic was brought up in Barry's thread, but it seems to be a.... conversation people want to have).]
Categories: General
Bregalad says:
“So it would be fair and accurate if NOM presented instances of anti-SSM folks being oppressed if they always qualified it by saying that other groups are oppressed too (or more)?”
Like I said, it would be fair and accurate, given Barry’s specific examples of pro-SSM folks being fired for their positions, for them not to suggest that this sort of employment retaliation only happens to those who disagree with SSM. Just as it would be fair and accurate for pro-SSM folks to not suggest that this sort of employment retaliation only happens to those who support SSM.
Do you disagree?
“I’m sure NOM and other advocacy groups will get right on that.”
That’s an interesting….. admission.
Like I said, I just get really frustrated by those on all sides who claim the mantle of moral righteousness yet who never seem to be the change they purportedly want to see in the world, or to hold those on “their” side accountable for misbehavior.
It’s pretty darn easy for HRC and NOM to point fingers at how awful the “other side” is. But, I find many such political narratives to be pretty polarizing more than anything. That’s my point.
“Frankly, I doubt the NOM folks think oppression only happens to anti-SSM people. You’re just assuming something about them without a shread of proof.”
Now now now, back it up Bregalad. I never claimed that the “NOM folks think oppression only happens to anti-SSM people.” If you can point to where I made that claim, then please do so.
My argument, rather, was that the group does, in my opinion, perpetuate a narrative that this sort of oppression only happens to anti-SSM people, regardless of whether NOM folks actually think that or not. And, the primary way that I believe NOM does this is by omitting instances of pro-SSM oppression while hyping up instances of anti-SSM oppression. In fact, this very strategy was revealed in the group’s notorious leaked memo that contained a “Document The Victims” strategy point.
I hope you understand the distinction now between what you said I said, and what I actually said.
So, as for this snark:
“Hey, I have an idea! Why don’t you just ask Maggie what she thinks? That’d be the civil thing to do before you claim that her organization thinks a certain way.”
I think you’re out of line here both in tone and content.
I have directly addressed Maggie with my concerns and argument and am still waiting for her to reply. Actually.
Barry says the petition is anti-queer.
Tell that to my queer catholic priest friend.
The petition is anti-SSM, not anti-queer. Saying that it is anti-queer is deeply offensive and uncivil. You are stacking the deck, Barry, with your semantics. I don’t want or need an apology, but I want you to realize how truly offensive your words are.
In addition, to all, regarding Bregalad’s accusation:
“That’d be the civil thing to do before you claim that [NOM] thinks a certain way.”
I also want to emphatically stress that I did not claim that NOM “thinks a certain way.” That is a really unfair and inaccurate characterization of my argument, since I actually suggested that the group engages in a pattern of behaviors and messaging that I find to be problematic and unfair. There is a distinction between claiming to know someone’s thoughts versus claiming to find someone’s actions to be problematic, and I would have thought it was kind of…. an obvious distinction.
So, it would be appreciated if Bregalad would acknowledge that point and distinction.
Bregalad:
“I don’t want or need an apology, but I want you to realize how truly offensive your words are.”
Well, maybe you should spell out how and why Barry’s words are “truly offensive” because your bare-bones accusation certainly isn’t self-evident to me.
Are you suggesting that queer people can’t be anti-queer?
Like how women can’t be anti-woman?
From the link. So says Tea Party candidate Janis Lane:
“Our country might have been better off if it was still just men voting. There is nothing worse than a bunch of mean, hateful women. They are diabolical in how than can skewer a person. I do not see that in men. The whole time I worked, I’d much rather have a male boss than a female boss. Double-minded, you never can trust them.”
(It’s okay though, she said “God Bless America” at the end of her interview).
I don’t think that’s a reasonable assessment of Barry’s rhetoric; I think that it would be more accurate to say that Barry consistently points out when someone is engaging in the fallacy of “false balance”–that is, when someone states or implies that “both sides are just as guilty” of some perceived bad action.
Bregalad, the statement to which you are responding here did not, in any way, make reference to what NOM folks are thinking.
Matthew was writing about the examples that he perceives it is unfair for NOM to present to the exclusion of other examples.
Perhaps you could consider apologizing to Matthew?
Karen, it surprises me that you would make a statement like this, since (correct me if I’m wrong) you frequently take issue with people referring to donor-conceived persons as “children,” because it keeps us from thinking about them as the adults that they are or that they will become.
There is no such thing as “adult’s love rights,” because the rights of adults are also the rights of children. Children born today, be they donor-conceived or conventionally-conceived, will grow up and form relationships and families and seek legal recognition and protections of their relationships and families. Your stance is that the gay/lesbian children, who will one day be adults, should be stripped of the rights to have legal recognition and protections for their relationships and families.
The fact that those children will one day be adults doesn’t mean that they don’t deserve the same damn rights as their heterosexual peers, does it?
Karen, there are plenty of places that you can go to read anti-SSM viewpoints. But it may be that in the most respected and intellectually…desirable(?) forums, your viewpoint is a minority.
There may be many explanations for that. But it is reasonable to point out that there is a correlation between level of education and support for marriage equality. It is probably also true that there is a correlation between exposure to diversity and pro-SSM views.
Note that I am not saying that education causes people to be pro-SSM, or that all SSM opponents are uneducated. Nonetheless, there is a correlation between education and support for SSM.
You perceive yourself to be a minority voice, even though your viewpoint was the majority viewpoint just a few years ago, and is absolutely still the majority viewpoint in many U.S. states.
Respectfully, I suggest that perhaps your real issue is that you are the minority viewpoint in forums that are populated by educated, sophisticated, open-minded people who construct arguments thoughtfully and logically. I’m not saying that there are no educated, sophisticated and open-minded people who construct thoughtful and logical arguments against SSM, but I do think it is reasonable to say that you’re in the minority. Would you agree with that assessment?
Sorry, Bregalad–in the passage I quoted, you were responding to Fannie, not Matthew. But her response was posted before mine; I think mine is superfluous.
oooooo you said the “dam*” word!!!!!
Phil, I will give you links to articles and books about what I’m talking about but I’m not going to hash this out in the comment section of the blog…
and Phil, I think you are being very rude.
Amazing how much can happen in the time it takes one to commute home…
I would just like to ask everyone to take it down a notch on the sarcasm, and on liberally construing what others have said – as that seems to be an issue at the moment. Seek clarification where there is confusion, but do so with the goal of having a productive conversation.
Also – don’t be rude, and be considerate of how your comments might be perceived by others – as sometimes what we write in the moment doesn’t always come out the way we intend it.
Lastly – Fannie – to give us some structure to this thread and help us reboot, would you mind posing a question or topic to guide the continued discussion?
Thanks all,
The Moderator
Bregalad,
I think our comments crossed in the air, so you might not have seen my blanket warning of a moment ago. I took your comment down for its sarcasm and personal nature. This is your warning, please bring your tone in line with our civility policy.
Admin, I admit “think” and “perpetuate” are different concepts, and I’m glad Fannie clarified. She thinks her clarification helps her cause; I disagree. She’s using “perpetuate” in lazy, uncharitable way. The whole NOM organization could think correctly — that gays are more oppressed than anti-SSM folks — and still they’d be guilty of “perpetuating” a myth, even though they’ve never said that anti-SSM folks are more oppressed than gays.
Karen, I’m sorry that you think I’m being rude. I don’t, however, think that I’ve been rude, but I’d be willing to evaluate any specific statement that you feel was inappropriate. (I don’t find the word “damn” to be inherently rude, when it’s not applied to a person. Where I’m from, it’s a word that is used to connote that a person intends the phrase in question to be interpreted plainly and directly, and not to be perceived as highfalutin.)
If there is something I pointed out that you think is factually or logically inaccurate, I think the civil thing to do would be to indicate exactly what you are talking about, and point out to me where I was wrong. I feel I was accurate and chose my words carefully, and I even included disclaimers to make it clear that I was not trying to demonize all those who disagree with me. The alternative would be for me to lie, or to tiptoe around what I perceive to be a truthful explanation for the actual state of the situation.
The way that I show respect to a viewpoint, argument, or claim is by evaluating it carefully and analyzing to the best of my ability. I also ask questions for clarification and to assess whether the person(s) I am talking to agree with the individual points I am making.
I don’t disagree with you that there are some quarters where it is difficult to voice opposition to legal SSM without suffering social consequences–your son’s high school sounds like such a place. But isn’t it possible that this is a direct result of the position that one takes? In other words, isn’t it possible that there is something intrinsic about holding [a political position that stipulates that a minority group will be treated differently than the majority] that leads directly to social consequences?
My cousin, for example, holds the political and social belief that race-mixing is wrong. He holds this belief not for religious reasons, but because he believes that some races are inferior to others.
I disagree with him about miscegenation, and I disagree with you about SSM.
I believe that hmy cousin has a right to speak and to be heard, and that his right to speak and be heard is exactly the same as a person who, like you and your son, oppose SSM.
Do you agree with me–that the two viewpoints should be treated exactly the same? If not, what criteria do you propose for someone like me, who disagrees with both viewpoints, to distinguish between how I treat my cousin’s statements and how I treat your statements?
I’m asking seriously, of anyone who’s willing to answer. Maggie Gallagher, for example, has repeatedly decried the fact that anti-SSM folks will be treated like racists. My question is: why should I treat you differently from racists, and how can I determine which viewpoints I treat like racism and which ones I treat like Maggie and Karen’s anti-SSM views? What should my criteria be, assuming I find you all equally wrong?
Bregalad,
It would be civil of you to direct your comments about me to me within this thread.
Frankly, I think it’s pretty rude to continue to not take responsibility for mischaracterizing my argument while also not even directing your continued mischaracterization and “counter-arguments” (scare quotes because you’re countering a mis-characterized argument) to me personally.
That you’re doing so within this comment thread that I created so we all could continue to participate is kinda an added jab.
Because I don’t want to condone your incivility, I’m not going to respond to your substantive commentary until you see fit to direct your comments to me in a civil manner.
I’m not a moderator here, but I would further appreciate moderators keeping a close eye on Bregalad’s unapologetic sarcasm and incivility.
Thanks.
But Phil if people who oppose same sex marriage are going to be treated as if they are racists, why should they change their minds?
And if we want people to go into the privacy of a voting booth and vote for same sex marriage, we are going to have to convince them.
I oppose what happened to the woman at Galludet for idealistic reasons, but I am also terrified of the political fall-out. People won’t accept same sex marriage as something that can be legal but their religion can oppose like divorce and remarriage, if saying you are opposed to same sex marriage makes people call you a bigot.
In (partial) response to diane m’s question regarding the racism/bigotry language and line of discussion … I always return to Jay Smooth’s two web videos on how to have productive conversations about racism. I think they’re useful contributions on how to have productive conversations about any topic about which feelings run high and peoples’ identities and characteristics (inherent or chosen) are on the table for discussion.
One of the key things Jay Smooth reminds us all is that there’s a difference between saying someone IS something (i.e. “a bigot”) and saying someone has SAID something prejudiced about a particular group. I don’t think we can have a meaningful discussion about how same-sex marriage opponents’ views, when acted on politically, bring material harm to queer folks, without talking about how those of us who experience that harm (either as queer people or as allies) experience those prejudices as an attack, like those who are the targets of other types of prejudice (ableism, ageism, racism, classism, sexism, etc. … all of which queer people also sometimes experience if they are members of target groups). But we CAN be mindful of articulating what is objectionable, to us, about specific words and actions as they adversely effect our lives rather than labeling those who hold those views as “haters” or “bigots” as if those are defining characteristics.
I see Phil talking more about actions and words rather than inherent characteristics: someone who expresses racist anti-same-sex-marriage views is holding beliefs about a class of people Phil believes causes material harm to that group, so he is critical of that belief … just as he is critical of his relation who holds beliefs about a class of people characterized by race which Phil believes is damaging to society.
If we cannot talk about the harm that that sort of prejudicial thinking can do to the people who are the object of those beliefs, how do we discuss why marriage equality (or other issues related to sexuality and social equality) are important to us (as those who are discriminated against)?
annajcook – great video
Thanks Anna.
In short, it seems as though it’s considered rude to talk about how same-sex marriage bans hurt LGBT people just because it makes opponents of SSM feel badly that their advocacy might be hurting people.
I think this really comes back to intentions. Sure, some anti-SSM people really do hate gay people and have bad faith motives for opposing SSM. But, not all anti-SSM people do. However, at the same time, a person and their advocacy can hurt others even if that is not the intent.
I believe this kind of “law of unintended consequences” is, in fact, often put forth by opponents of SSM- in that as much as some might like to recognize SSM out of a sense of fairness, they believe that it, and the advocacy for SSM, might unintentionally hurt families, society, children, or certain other rights.
Karen,
I think if you’re going to call Phil, or anyone, “rude,” it would be helpful to explain what about his statements you are finding to be rude. For instance, when I said that I found someone’s comments in this thread to be uncivil, I gave concrete reasons as to why.
(see my blog for full details)
Last June, a Minnesota Catholic school terminated a teacher for conceding to peers that she disagreed with the Church’s position on gay marriage.
That is not a reason to support equal marriage.
Similarly, the incident at Gallaudet is irrelevant to the issue of whether or not Maryland should recognize same-sex marriage. Somehow, NOM equates “victims” with something to do with equal marriage. It’s nonsense.
I’m not sure I understand your line of reasoning here, Diane. Obviously, I think that people who oppose same-sex marriage ought to change their minds. But I also think that racists ought to change their minds. If there is something about the way that we treat racists that is encouraging them to remain racist, then we need to evaluate the way we’re treating them, don’t we?
I think they deserve a certain measure of respect; and I think that the amount of respect that racists deserve is exactly the same as the respect that homophobes, transphobes, sexists, and people who oppose legal SSM deserve (among others, to be sure.)
I understand that there may be strategic reasons to avoid certain kinds of rhetoric, but I don’t think that dishonesty is a reasonable solution. If a person makes a bigoted statement, I could choose not to point out the bigotry, but it doesn’t mean that the statement is therefore not bigoted.
I find the notion that anti-SSMers ought not be treated like racists to be curious. It’s weird to me when Maggie Gallagher says, for example, ” I have always accepted cultural taboos on racist talk as a social good,” and then pretends that one of the effects of same-sex marriage will be that people who oppose SSM will be treated like racists–i.e., their statements and arguments will become culturally taboo.
Isn’t this hypocritical? If you identify people whose discourse, no matter how fervently-believed, is legitimately taboo in polite society, then how do you justify drawing a line around your own discourse, no matter how fervently-believed. There are people whose deeply-held religious beliefs require them to oppose interracial marriage. If you believe that SSM opponents must be respected or remain un-taboo if they are acting because of deeply-held religious beliefs, then logically, you must also believe that religious racists must be respected and remain un-taboo. If “deeply held religious beliefs” matter, then you must support treating these two groups exactly equally, or you are being a hypocrite.
Of course it’s possible to claim secular reasons to oppose SSM, just as it’s possible to claim secular reasons to support segregation or oppose women’s suffrage.
I think the problem I have with people who call for civility and tolerance toward opponents of SSM is that there’s this underlying theme that I ought to find the discrimination that they support more palatable than racism or sexism. It’s as if there’s this mindset that, “I understand we disagree, but the laws that I support aren’t as bad as segregation or anti-women’s suffrage laws or anti-miscegenation laws, and we can all agree on that, right?”
To which I want to reply, no. No, we cannot all agree that the political stance you are taking is somehow more acceptable than racism or sexism. I think one of the results of the passage or Proposition 8 and the rallies afterward–the inspiring, awesome rallies, to be clear–was that a lot of people, who were accustomed to believing that their own anti-gay or anti-SSM beliefs were widely accepted default beliefs, discovered that, in fact, they had friends and colleagues and neighbors who actually found these beliefs deeply, deeply offensive and objectionable.
SSM opponents sometimes act like I’m being unreasonable when I bring up women’s suffrage opponents or interracial marriage opponents as examples of people in the same category as SSM opponents–as if I don’t have the right to decide for myself how to view the world. As if I should give a fig that something is “still a matter of contentious debate in this country.”
It seems that SSM opponents get frustrated not by the way they are treated, but by the way others think of them. That’s kinda the crux of the issue, isn’t it? Nobody is realistically saying that racists don’t have a right to sign petitions, or to free speech, or to assemble and hold racist rallies. But we–most of us, anyway–think of racism as really, really icky. And anti-SSM folks seem to be very concerned that a growing percentage of the population doesn’t just disagree with them, it thinks of their beliefs as icky.
The problem is, you don’t get to tell me what to think. And if it bothers you, or shocks you, that I think of you in exactly the same way that I think of, say, people who oppose a woman’s right to vote, then you can change your words, actions, or viewpoints. But you can’t change what I think, even if it’s what I think about you.
Diane:
There is a great deal of projection going on here – some of it intentionally induced. I think that people who oppose equal marriage feel that they are being treated as racists more than they actually are.
Some of this is the result of NOM intentionally creating a wedge – a divide in the black community. This causes equality opponents to frequently claim that there is no relationship between gay rights and racial equality. The NAACP disagrees. When I say that the struggle is comparable that can be heard as an accusation of racism.
The reason that some people cannot see the parity is because they are wed to the notion that sexual orientation is a choice in contrast to skin color. In point of fact there is absolutely no difference. Once you can appreciate that established scientific fact you can have an intellectually honest conversation.
Fannie,
I too have contacted the admin of your continued incivility and unfair behavior both on my account and for others — I have done so on several occasions actually, both before this exchange and during, so apparently the feeling is mutual. Unfortunately for me, there’s a power disparity between you and I. You have much more power to influence others to ban me from this forum… I’m not saying that you would exercise your influence in this way, but the fact that you have this influence makes me uneasy, I admit. I assume you create a lot of positive web traffic for Family Scholars given the popularity of your blog, so I tangle with you at my peril.
Regardless of my unease in arguing with you, I feel justified in saying that you are routinely unfair to your opponents, but I guess I’ll continue to engage with you despite this.
Here are my comments again if you choose to respond; they are directed squarely at you:
I admit “think” and “perpetuate” are different concepts, and I’m glad you clarified that. You think your clarification helps your cause; I disagree. You are using “perpetuate” in a lazy, uncharitable way. The whole NOM organization could think correctly — that gays are more oppressed than anti-SSM folks — and still they’d be declared guilty by you of “perpetuating” a myth, even though they’ve never said that anti-SSM folks are more oppressed than gays.
I have a request: Define “perpetuate.”
Because I really do think you are making a facile argument with the use of that word. Seriously, if I started an organization devoted to rooting out instances of oppression against christians in American society, would you castigate me for perpetuating the myth that christians are routinely oppressed in the USA? Similarly, if I started a high profile organization that fought against pay discrimination directed at males, would you claim that I was perpetuating a destructive myth?
Because I would probably claim that I was just fighting for truth and justice, irrespective of the poor inferences that some people make.
If you want to fight against people making poor inferences, be my guest. It certainly needs doing. But don’t claim that other people are forcing inferences or purposely perpetuating something when there’s no evidence of that.
You say that, “NOM presents examples like Dr. McKaskill’s as though they are unique to the pro-SSM side- and as though it is the pro-SSM side, and only the pro-SSM side, who engages in this sort of “bullying”/anti-liberty/anti-freedom behavior.”
This analysis is… one-sided, unfair, and harmful to public discourse. NOM has a particular mission, as does MarriageEqualityUSA. Each should, by and large, focus on thier particular mission. It would be silly if I said that MarriageEqualityUSA presents examples as though they are unique to the anti-SSM side — and as though it is the anti-SSM side, and only the anti-SSM side, who engages in this sort of “bullying”/anti-liberty/anti-freedom behavior. It would be silly because I know thier mission and I don’t begrudge them for pursuing it. Apparently you would.
“Well, maybe you should spell out how and why Barry’s words are “truly offensive” because your bare-bones accusation certainly isn’t self-evident to me.”
Do you believe, Fannie, that opposition to SSM is necessarily anti-gay? Let’s start there because if you answer in the positive that would shock many of my gay friends. They don’t think I’m against them or their identity just because I support the complete legal disestablishment of marriage in favor of domestic partnerships.
That’s a different route to marriage equality. But one problem with it is, there has been zero progress made towards this goal; it has virtually no constituency, no lawmakers in support, no advocacy groups, no successful court cases. It’s starting from the ground level.
My point is that, even if we could get to marriage equality though “the complete legal disestablishment of marriage,” it will take many decades before we get there – if we ever do. It’s very possible that the policy you want will never happen at all.
In those intervening decades before we get disestablishment of marriage — if ever — what do you think marriage law should be? Until marriage is disestablished, should same-sex couples have access to it, or only heterosexual couples?
Fannie observes:
I think this really comes back to intentions. Sure, some anti-SSM people really do hate gay people and have bad faith motives for opposing SSM. But, not all anti-SSM people do. However, at the same time, a person and their advocacy can hurt others even if that is not the intent.
You make the point so much more concisely than I did! This is exactly what the Jay Smooth videos end up discussing: how do we recognize that even with the best of intentions, as thoughtful and caring people, we sometimes hold views or repeat learned beliefs, that are prejudiced and harmful. For example, until I was in my mid-twenties I held pretty strong anti-trans prejudices. And then a friendship with a man who felt safe enough with me to self-disclose as trans prompted me to confront my own discomfort with trans experiences, and deal with the fact that I’d been pretty prejudiced in the past about that particular group of people. By virtue of living in our culture, most of us express racist sentiments sometimes, often without meaning to, and we are casually ageist and engage in body snarking … all of this doesn’t make us unworthy beings, but it should call us to reflect deeply on how our beliefs and actions may harm others, and strive to change those beliefs and actions that cause harm.
Obviously, sometimes we believe the benefit of sticking to a certain principle or action outweighs the harm caused (for example, I believe that the benefit of marriage equality as a civil right outweighs the emotional distress that right causes to people who believe my wife and I should not be married). But I do think it’s important to acknowledge that we’ve gone through that process of weighing benefit and harm and come to a conclusion about what is the moral or ethical choice, and then not try to pretend the harm we’ve decided is justified simply does not exist or is not relevant.
I sympathize with Diane’s comment above about how the McCaskill incident may influence voters in Maryland. Indeed, the incident is already the subject of a NOM-sponsored ad. But the thing is, NOM lies all the time in their ads.
One lie they constantly push, and is now on the airwaves in Maine, is that Catholic Charities of Boston stopped brokering adoptions in 2006. However, yesterday Peter Meade, the organization’s former board chairman, told reporters in Maine that the decision to end adoptions by the group had nothing to do with same-sex marriage.
He said “I’ve heard [campaigns using the Boston Catholic Charities example] and frankly presumed because it was incorrect that people would straighten it out. That is certainly not what happened. I know in campaigns that people sometimes stretch credulity, but this is going way beyond that. Opponents of the freedom to marry in Maine have tried to rewrite history to create fear and uncertainty among voters.”
He explained, “Catholic Charities of Boston formerly held a state-issued contract funded by taxpayer dollars to provide adoption services, and placed 13 children with same-sex couples between 1989 and 2006. The work was done in accordance with a Massachusetts anti-discrimination law that requires taxpayer-funded services to be provided equitably and without regard to sexual orientation, among other things.”
Meade said that the Vatican demanded in 2006 that Catholic Charities end its adoption service, despite a unanimous vote by the charity’s local board to continue adoptions.
It’s hard to imagine a parallel situation where the head of diversity signs a petition at church that would encourage a vote on the civil rights of a minority group where that executive’s commitment to the mission of her job wouldn’t be questioned or where she would be turned into a martyr.
Bregalad,
Your specific concerns about my alleged “incivility” and treatment of my “opponents” have never been brought to my attention by Elizabeth, David, or any moderator here. Nor have you ever directly addressed me with your specific concerns, certainly not privately via email, prior to your vague public accusation within this thread.
I find myself once again questioning my continued involvement with this blog as I, yet again, find that my motives and good faith are being questioned in a very vague, public, unprofessional, and non-specific manner.
I created this thread so a civil conversation could continue, and I find myself on the receiving end of basically, yet another Fannie’s A Very Bad Person rant just because some random dude on the Internet says so without backing up his accusations with concrete examples.
I’m a fan of direct communication, and I was under the impression that the channels of communication were always open. All of the moderators have my email address, we correspond somewhat regularly, and I believe they probably know that they can contact me if they have concerns about my behavior here.
In fact, that would be appreciated, because I really don’t think it’s fair for Bregalad to imply that Big Conversations About My Behavior Here are happening behind my back, without my involvement.
Bregalad,
As for the substantive point you are trying to make. I have to ask, how much of the prior conversation have you read?
“I admit ‘think’ and ‘perpetuate’ are different concepts, and I’m glad you clarified that. You think your clarification helps your cause; I disagree. You are using ‘perpetuate’ in a lazy, uncharitable way.”
Because…. I am sincerely at a loss as to how a person cannot understand a distinction between an argument claiming that someone thinks a certain way versus an argument that a person behaves a certain way. I’m also not sure how it’s possible to think that me making such a distinction is “lazy” and “uncharitable.”
If you accusations and interpretation weren’t so frustrating, your argument almost reads as a parody of someone going out of one’s way to be argumentative and not make reasonable concessions.
Simply put, I have no idea what Maggie Gallagher or anyone at NOM thinks about the oppression that LGBT and pro-SSM people experience. What I do know is that at this very blog, Maggie said this:
Here, Maggie is referring to alleged new norms, purportedly brought about due to pro-SSM advocacy, wherein people who hold religiously-based beliefs opposing SSM are treated like racists, are marginalized, and are unable to exercise their civil rights to speak out and advocate against SSM.
You will also note that I highlighted two portions of her statement, which to me imply that currently only one side of the debate- the pro-SSM side- is able to exercise said civil rights. After noting that she’s glad that pro-SSM folks said Dr. McKaskill should keep her job, she explicitly states that she hopes this speaking out is a “new” “consensus” – that is, a consensus that does not now exist- that people on “both sides of the debate” should be able to exercise core civil rights. To me, this statement implies that the current consensus is that only one side of this debate currently gets to exercise said core rights: the pro-SSM side.
Thus, Barry’s point, in my opinion (and he’s clarified that he agrees) wasn’t to play “Oppression Olympics,” but was to say: No, Maggie, LGBT people and pro-SSM people get fired for this stuff too, so there is no current consensus that says only one side gets to exercise these core rights.
So, in addition to the leaked memo I already cited in which NOM’s strategy specifically detailed getting anti-SSM people to talk about how they’ve been victimized by SSM advocacy, this statement suggests to me that NOM perpetuates a narrative in which it is only, or mostly, anti-SSM people who experience oppression.
I have never said, contrary to your assertion, that NOM does this on purpose. Like. I. said., I get that they’re an advocacy group, just as, say, HRC is an advocacy group. I get that they have a mission, I just think it’s possible to advocate for one’s mission while keeping the dignity of one’s opponents intact and being respectful of the harms they endure. You seem to disagree.
I hope that clarifies things for you.
Bregelad says:
Here are the problems with this statment:
1. There is no power disparity between you and Fannie on this blog. She and you are on exactly equal footing as regards power.
2. In this comment and others (at least one of which has been deleted) you are violating our civility policy by engaging in personal attacks rather than engaging the ideas on the table. If you continue to do this, you’ll be banned from commenting.
3. Arguing about our civility policy, or criticizing those who enforce it, is a violation of the policy and is not permitted on this site.
4. And now I’m speaking personally only (and not as an editor): In my view Fannie makes strong arguments in strong terms but does not, has not ever in my own experience, violated our civility policy. So I personally disagree with your assessment of her contributions.
If you follow our civility policy, you are more than welcome to participate in these disscussions; I know you have much to offer.
Barry,
I actually think you and Bregalad’s exchange about dis-establishing marriage is an interesting idea worth discussion.
Just because it is novel, politically uncertain, and might take a long time to accomplish doesn’t mean we should dismiss it out of hand. But it would also require a interim compromise position, which would need to be hashed out…hmmm…
Maybe I’ll do a post on it…
With respect to my argument that NOM perpetuates a message that it’s only anti-SSM folks whose core civil rights are under attack with respect to the SSM issue, I further render the following quote by Maggie Gallagher.
On October 10th, in response to the Gaullaudet incident, she wrote a blog post at National Review where she said:
Given that Barry has taken the time to list many examples of those who have lost their jobs for being for gay marriage, I guess we will see if Ms. Gallagher makes a concession that this stuff happens to pro-SSM people too.
I also hope this statement helps clarify for all, and especially Bregalad, why I believe that regardless of what Maggie Gallagher thinks pro-SSM people are or aren’t oppressed, NOM does perpetuate a message that it’s only anti-SSM people who are oppressed.
I hope folks further understand why I find such a narrative to be problematic. Namely, it’s not an accurate portrayal of reality.