John Corvino: "Are People Who Oppose Gay Marriage Bigots?"

Comments

1
**sigh** John is sooooooooooo hot! I wish my professors in college were as hot as him!
2
John is very insightful this time.

If only Danny could learn the lesson.....

The only way to effect meaningful change in a democracy is to convince enough of the population to reach a consensus.

That requires open mutually respectful communication.

Furthermore, the robust free open uninhibited competition in the marketplace of ideas is how society evaluates options then selects the best one.
That also requires open mutually respectful communication.

Danny wants to declare those who disagree with him beyond the pale, to ban them and their ideas from public affairs television programs, to delete their accounts on Slog....

Only cowards and tyrants fear open public discourse....
3
Is anyone else getting the wrong video? I'm seeing the "Definition of marriage" vid.
5
4

In the whole history of the Human Race no society has ever made it work....
6
No, I see that too; the "series of Youtube videos" link also doesn't work.

I tend to agree that the "bigot" word is really a matter of tactics. Using it won't change anybody's mind; at best it may shut them up.
8
@4 - I think the best argument against equality for black people is that the civil rights movement is a relatively new phenomenon and we don't know what the long term effects of a radical restructuring of the social fabric of the Jim Crow South will be.

No. Full stop. Marriage equality is right because it is a matter of EQUALITY. For people. The end.
9
@3 Yes. Here's the video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q1b6w2q4F…
Are People Who Oppose Gay Marriage Bigots? - John Corvino
10
@4 - Are we allowed to extrapolate from Loving v. Virginia? Race mixing was projected to radically change society. And they're right. It did. And people got over it. You could say the same thing for a whole host of civil rights issues from the past century. Avoiding change because it's change is not a very good argument.

@5 - In the whole history of the Human Race no society has ever made the computer work either but I think we're managing.
11
@7: That's because you write a new post every time you argue against marriage equality, instead of just copying&pasting the same thing, whether or not it's on topic.
12
@4,
That's a catch-22 though. If gay marriage is never legalized, then we'll never know what the long term effects will be.

Also, how long is an idea considered too "new" to implement?
13
8

and polygamy?

No. Full stop. Marriage equality is right because it is a matter of EQUALITY. For people. For people Like Me.The end.
14
7

but Keeeen....

you're speeecial!

15
@4
And you're the same person who thinks that a black firefighter is more likely to steal than a white firefighter.

There is no "radical redefinition of marriage".
All that is changing is the terms "man" and "woman" are being replaced by "person".
17
@16
"That means women don't need to spend as much of their lives being pregnant in order to propogate the species."

Just when I thought you couldn't get any more stupid you go and demonstrate a complete lack of understanding of biology.

"Contraception and and in-vitro fertilization inevitably weaken the connection between sex and babies."

Biology is just a word to you, right?
Women are not fertile 100% of the time.
20
@19
"Perhaps you would be so good as to explain why I am stupid?"

You'll have to look within yourself for the answer to that question.
Is it just intellectual laziness?
Because I did cover the issues you were incorrect on in my original reply to your post.
But only someone with a basic understanding of biology would be able to understand the references.
21
@18
"I don't recall ever having made such a statement."

Maybe this thread will refresh your memory:
http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archive…
"I think this makes African Americans less inclined to follow society's rules."

That's some racist circular logic there.
22
This video is a confusing mess of self-contraditictions. First, it's framed by this silly bit about being able to deal with NOM only by virtue of drinking alcohol, which although clearly intended humourously, certainly isn't going to be creating warm feelings on the other side.

Then, John calls NOM "anti-gay," which is another way of saying bigoted, before going on to say we shouldn't call people bigots because when you call someone a bigot, you're saying they're outside the realm of polite conversation." No--what you're actually saying is that they are "a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group . . . with hatred and intolerance."

But then, he says that we should fight vigorously for our rights, but "without demonizing anyone," which, he says, is what they do when they say gays are perverts or sinners.

Look, we don't win over sexists or racists by *not* calling them on their bigotry, but calling them on it doesn't mean we can't politely and rationally explain *why* their behaviour is bigoted--being able to get along with someone doesn't mean they aren't a bigot. And John's effort at "building relationships" is accomplishing about as much with NOM as GOProud's effort is with the Republicans.
23
@Ken, marriage never has had anything to do with keeping the species going. Being married doesn't make babies, having child while married is probably more socially accepted and that family unit will probably have an easier time at life. But that's not due to their 'choice', it's the larger society who decides who is a 'good' family.
People have kids all the time and married people sometimes don't. I've been married for a few years now and no kids. I hardly doubt my wife and I are destroying the bedrock of civilization.
25
@4 I'm pretty sure Canada is doing just fine.
26
My reaction every time I watch one of his videos is the same: Why are we even debating this?

But then I know the truth: People will choose comfortable lies so they don't have to think. Thinking is hard for most of us, and they chose not to do it.
28
Massachusetts has had gay marriage for over eight years, and has the lowest divorce rate. No straight person has ever gotten a divorce because gay people can get married, nor have straights decided not to marry because of the gays.

Straight traditional marriage is not redefined by gay marriage.
30
@27
"The comment you linked to never mentions firefighters, African American, or otherwise."

Nice try, racist.
My point was: So, in your opinion, if the only difference is their skin color then, in your opinion still, they WILL exhibit different criminal behaviors.

A non-racist would have replied to the effect that skin color made no difference.
You replied:
"I think this makes African Americans less inclined to follow society's rules."

That's some racist, circular logic you have there.

"No, but a child is more likely to survive to adulthood if his dad hangs around and helps raise him."

No. It does not have to be "dad". It can be anyone capable of providing food / shelter / clothing while the child is cared for.

You're a racist who lacks the most fundamental understanding of biology.
You do NOT need a marriage certificate in order to conceive.
Pregnancy was around a LOT longer than marriage.
32
@5 - Has any society demonstrably not made it work? That is, where was it tried that it failed? How did it fail? What were the undesirable effects?
33
@4 - If that's the best argument, it doesn't strike me as very compelling. That is, if no one can make an evidence-based prediction as to what will happen (and I've yet to hear one of any veracity), "we don't know what will happen!" seems indicative of a lack of a coherent argument.
34
@31
So being black does not make a person more likely to steal but being black makes a person more likely to steal.
Nice bit of racist circular logic you have there.

And that's the point of this exercise.
I disagree with John Corvino on this.
You might not CALL someone a bigot but it is important to recognize that they ARE a bigot.
Because bigots utilize the same, flawed, circular reasoning as racists.
They substitute terms and phrases so that they can argue for/against those instead.

I'm not against "gay marriage".
I'm against X which is not "gay marriage" but I'm going to argue that instead.
Or I'm for Y which is not "gay marriage" but I'm going to argue that instead.
Even if it makes absolutely no scientific sense at all.
Such as confusion about basic biology.
No, you do not need a marriage certificate to procreate.
35
@34 - I think we're generally on the same side of things, but it seems you're being a little willfully obtuse here. Being left-handed doesn't make one unable to use scissors well, but the poor design of most so-called left-handed scissors and the lesser dexterity of the right hand in left-handed individuals means that most left-handed people are likely to be less adept at using scissors than their right-handed counterparts (I say this as a southpaw myself; the advantages it gives me as a boxer make up for the disadvantages I suffer with regards to cutting fabric in a straight line).

Likewise, it seems to me Ken is just pointing out that, sometimes, the unjust ways in which certain groups are treated by society at large leads them to behave like people treated unjustly. That doesn't strike me as a particularly radical or bigoted statement in and of itself; the designation of "bigot" could only be justified by certain categories of conclusion he may draw from that.

As long as you treat such observations as observations, and not as something predictive, you can avoid essentialist or deterministic traps. I think. I hope.

Societal recognition of marital contracts has often--not always, not in all cases, but often enough to bear mention--been related to procreation. I don't think that we need to discuss "scientific advances" to reason our way out of that being a necessary or determining factor; the fact that we recognize, and have almost always recognized, childless marriages is enough indication that marriage offers other civic benefits that justify civic recognition (as I've noted before, the tendency for married households to rely less on social services and for its parties to commit crime at lower rates are two that are easily reeled off; there are others that are borne out statistically). But it's still not incorrect to say that much of the original social intention behind the contract had something or other to do with womb-rats.
37
@35
I suggest you read the thread that I linked to.

"Likewise, it seems to me Ken is just pointing out that, sometimes, the unjust ways in which certain groups are treated by society at large leads them to behave like people treated unjustly."

Isn't this discussion about marriage equality?
So it is obvious that gays are treated in "unjust ways" by society.
Yet no one is claiming that a gay guy is more likely to commit a crime than a straight guy is.
(unless, of course, that "crime" is being gay or such)

Which is what makes the statements by "Ken Mehlman" racist.
You can find all kinds of groups that are treated in "unjust ways".
Women - they aren't paid as much as men.
Are women more likely to steal then men?
Gays -
Jews -
etc.
Even some Christian groups claim "oppression".
Watch Fox sometime and see how many white males are claiming "oppression".
But only someone like "Ken Mehlman" will take the next step and claim that because of such, the members of that group are more likely to commit a crime (than white males).
38
@27. The history of child raising is too complex and long winded to get into. So we'll skip that. But as far as the pope goes, those concerned about children and marriage only care when gays are involved. My wife is Catholic, she attends mass about monthly, I've talked to her priest a few times. We're always very friendly, I'm a childless Quaker married to a Catholic. We have never gotten into our veering from the Catholic teaching of multiply and be fruitful.
People only bring up children when gays are involved. Or at least from my experience.
39
@4 - Gay marriage is a relatively new idea, but it's a natural extension of another new idea - marriage for love. It's only in the past couple hundred years that marriage in the west has gone from a primarily economic and political arrangement to the romantic notion of "a union of two souls" and all that associated crap. In some cultures, marriage for love is still disdained as impractical and ridiculously sentimental.

The cultural shift in marriage in the last couple centuries has erased (or is erasing) long-standing barriers to marriage like class, race, wealth, religion, and family opposition. Barriers that had been in place for thousands of years, in cultures all over the world.

Nowadays, most people believe that if two consenting adults love each other and want to get married, they have the right to do so, regardless of class, race, wealth, religion, and family opposition. And most people who feel this way would have no idea just how new and radical an idea this is. Instead, they generally assume that marriage in its present form is how marriage has been all along, in every culture, for thousands of years. The way God intended it.

Our society has decided class, race, wealth, religion, and family are irrelevant when two people love each other. So why not add gender to that list? It's a new idea, but so are all the other ones.

But same-sex marriage? That's different! The very idea is scandalous! Not to mention icky! Well, sixty years ago, an interracial marriage would have been equally abhorrent to large segments of the population. We got over it. Civilization didn't collapse.
40
@36 - Perhaps, Ken (though you'd have to ask an ancient Greek, if you could dig one up; there are certainly passages in Plato that aren't particularly flattering with regard to the "catamite"), but that doesn't really speak to whether ALL marriage in ALL cultures is centered on the notion of child-rearing, or whether the ancient Greek exemption for the elderly or infertile (assuming that they, like we, allowed the elderly or infertile to marry) means that a government with an ostensible dedication to the principle of moral self-determination ought to be rewarding equally infertile households on decidedly unequal bases.
42
Nobody with a brain can think gay marriage will have any negative effects. Look at the states and countries with legalized gayness. Nothing bad has happened. You can't fight facts.

Gay people are a tiny minority. There are more seriously mentally ill people in America (6%) than there are homosexuals. A minority of that gay minority are drug abusers. If you think drug abusers are unfit to raise children, does that mean straight couples with a history of drug abuse should not be allowed to legally marry?
43
@41
"I think those behaviors are, to some extent, caused by social prejudice."

Of course you do.
Because that is racist, circular logic.
Blacks commit more crimes because of X.
Gays do more drugs because of X.

Jews do/are (whatever) because of X.
Women do/are (something else) because of X.
And so on and so forth.

Just about every group out there has been (or is being) oppressed.
But the results don't seem to match your claims.
That's because you're a racist.
44
I need to see someone here defend this scientific claim that marriage is a natural state: i.e. "made by God." Otherwise, f you and your "radical redefinition of marriage."