It's just as hostile to men who want to be treated as men (instead of woman-slaves) to have to constantly dance around women's sensitivities rather than getting real work done
Umm... since when is getting a lap dance "real work?"
I mean, it's delightfully inflammatory for you to claim that all these awful female sensitivities are getting in the way of Progress, but so far the examples I've discussed are lap dances and booth babes. Do you have any better ones?
And what are these confounded "standards" women have that are crimping your workplace style?
Had the cheerleaders for an NFL team been there in tight shirts and tiny skirts waving pompoms nobody would have said a word.
Um, no.
Women (try talking to one sometime) are very widely offended at the whole phenomenon of Booth Babes, scantily clad spokesmodels, etc. The difference with this is that because it was lapdances, it actually makes the news. It's just as hostile to the women who want to be treated as colleagues (instead of sex objects) to have micro-bikini models hanging around, but that won't make the papers.
First, let me just say I hope you enjoy your vacation. I'm sorry that we won't have a chance to continue this here, but hopefully we'll run into each other again.
[Religious believers] believe things that you (and quite possibly I) find implausible but that they do not find implausible, without proof but with what they believe to be good evidence.
Fair enough. Though in many cases (e.g. Buddhist reincarnation, in which nothing of the individual except the karmic debt passes on to the next life) they believe things about which there cannot be any evidence at all; and in many cases, the evidence they accept is incapable of objective verification. More on that in a minute.
Incidentally, I'm glad to hear that your philosophy-of-religion studies have covered multiple religions, i.e. that this was "philosophy of religious ideas." Much of the philosophical apparatus built around religion in the West has been specifically tied to Christian apologetics, and as a result is kind of orthogonal to other religious traditions.
The most convincing argument... is an uninterrupted chain of witness
Presumably you mean the argument that you find most convincing. I don't find that convincing on its own, only in conjunction with the subjective evidence of religious experience
Well, TBH I don't find it terribly convincing either -- "I heard it from Joe, who got it from Bob, whose grandfather's barber's cousin's wife said her great-great-grandfather knew a guy named Luke who saw Christ be Risen" isn't exactly a compelling standard of evidence. Subjective religious experience is, however, a different beast. But it struggles with the problems inherent in subjectivity and non-repeatability. In my way of thinking, when it comes to establishing knowledge of the world, what we're really doing is building mental models of how the world works. And these models are "true" to the extent that they have explanatory power over collected observations, and (more importantly) predictive force for future ones. (This is similar to, but subtly different from, the variety of pragmatism James attributes to Schiller, Dewey, et al. -- ferinstance, mental models can have varying degrees of truth, as the relation between Newtonian and Relativistic physics, where the former is less true than the latter, but still much more true than, say, Platonism.) Wotan speaking to you in a dream is a rather striking datum; but you just plain can't find out more about it. It's all the problems of historical knowledge generally, only the stakes are a good deal higher.
even science has its metaphysical assumptions
Well, sure. But they're kept to a minimum as much as possible -- essentially 1) observations (incl. technologically augmented) can be treated as accurate (with rule-based exceptions); 2) the real world exists and is the same for all observers (with predictable known exceptions); 3) within the time frame of our experience, and the time frame of historical events we can deduce, the rules stay the same, or will show evidence otherwise. (I suppose there should also be a lemma about math being true, too, though I think all that's really required there is that it be consistent.) Those seem more well-grounded and productive than alternatives, but I do accept that others might disagree. (I find the thought of a strictly illusory, radically subjective, non-rule-governed world to be basically useless, and wrongheaded given the readily observable consistencies & patterns within experiences.) I am not aware of a metaphysical system which maintains the desirable qualities (objectivity and ordered predictability) of this system without requiring additional metaphysical assumptions (which likely needlessly complicate the system).
If you have a forced decision then it is rational to take a decision not on the basis of absolute truth but on the
You mean they disagree with you, so they must be stupid?
No, I mean they believe implausible things without proof, and are thus operating on faith. Challenging one's own faith is not possible so long as one still clings to the verities of that faith; it is looking for confirmation, a form of apologetics, which is separate from sincere doubt.
If you seriously study the philosophy of religion
Why do I have a feeling you mean, if I seriously study the philosophy of one religion, without regard to others?
I have studied the philosophical content and historical foundations of a large number of religions (including Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, Confucianism, and various varieties of Taoism), and surveyed a fair amount of Christian apologetics. The most convincing argument from this latter (and indeed for most of the religions I've mentioned) is an uninterrupted chain of witness, a collective memory vouchsafed by a trust network. The problem is that religions with entirely incompatible cosmologies use the same justification (which boils down to an uncomfirmable appeal to authority), which suggests that this justification is an insufficient means of arriving at the truth, which must be faulty in at least one case, and thus is likely faulty in all cases. Essentially, the best arguments that can be raised for one's own beliefs can be equally raised for most incompatible religious systems, so assigning Truth to any single religious system is an arbitrary decision. If one is generous, one might conclude that Religion is True, but beyond that... It's not that one cannot put together a rational basis for belief in any particular religion or in Religion generally; it's just that no particular religion is actually true.
It's been a while since I've studied epistemology; I gave it up after recognizing that most philosophical fields are obviated by the cognitive-neuroscientific study of human thought. Add to that the observation that, whether or not there's something beyond the illusory curtain of our (technologically enhanced) senses, we're constrained to acting within the real world as though it is the real world, and you'll realize that there are far more interesting matters of study crying out for one's time.
But if you're interested in my epistemological views, I suppose you could say I'm a contingent reformed logical positivist (barring all that universal-rational-language claptrap). I would contend that we do not and cannot have access to a non-contingent universal Truth. We may have axiomatic beliefs (a la foundationalists) but they are simply beliefs, and no Truer for our believing them. And we could always just be brains in vats. But, our perceptions of reality are real to us; so it is perfectly possible to construct a coherent worldview based on these collected perceptions. Moreover, our perceptions are structured and constrained by nature of the brains and bodies in which we reside, so we are fundamentally incapable of any other approach -- and it is thus not only perfectly reasonable, but necessary (if we are not to plunge into a solipsistic pit), to act as though the sense-perceived worldview is real until such time as that basis for action is challenged by subsequent observation. (Naturally, future observation may necessitate worldview modification. One proceeds in life by building mental models, which are contingently true to the extent that they have predictive force for future perceptions.) This corresponds exactly to the human instinct of believing in the perceived world, but with the useful corrective of knowing that one could always be wrong. Similarly, memory is a perfectly rational basis for belief, so long as one accepts that that belief is conditional, and subject to later disproof. It is well to remember that memory, or our senses, or our a priori certainties, any of them can be flawed or false; but it's useless to plunge into existential despair as a result. One soldiers on.
I'd be happy to talk theory, or to try applying any of this to actual ideas or propositions, if you have the time.
To be fair, he said "old English," not "Old English." Shakespeare's English is from around four hundred years ago, which makes it pretty old. "Archaic" would have been a less ambiguous word choice, and "Elizabethan" more accurate, but he wasn't necessarily confusing Shakespeare with Alfred.
I'm not seeing how this is a guaranteed win for the people. If senators have the power to keep the central government from overreaching, that isn't really affected by having them elected by the state government instead of by the people -- if anything, state-government election would just increase the stakes of making sure the state government elections were fair and honest (which has not historically been the case; they've certainly been no more honest and representative than direct senatorial election).
Moreover, while I appreciate the sentiment and agree that it's reasonable for local governments to create more specific subsets of law, there are solid historical reasons the US government has been evolving towards increased centralization of power, from the problems with the Articles of Confederation through the Nullification Crisis and Secession, through slavery, segregation, modern warfare, the Voting Rights Act...
What's less important to me than what level of government makes the decisions, is that it makes the right decisions. In theory that should be easier with a smaller electorate, but anyone who's ever dealt with a Home Owner's Association can see how well that theory stands up.
where welfare recipients have too many kids to increase their "paychecks".
I'd love to see your evidence for that claim. Or even evidence that you've ever had any interaction with the welfare system whatsoever.
It is absurd to claim that most people's child-rearing behavior is determined by financial concerns. Sadly, most children aren't planned at all; but the very people you accuse of maliciously having children to game the system are the people least likely to be practicing family planning.
What I see in "the inner city" is people get pregnant, don't have access to abortions (or are infected with the notion that abortions are immoral), and are stuck raising children by themselves, while unable to qualify for anything more than a minimum-wage job which they struggle to keep due to the demands of parenthood.
I would also suggest you should consider the idea that perhaps single motherhood wouldn't be such a death trap of continuing intergenerational poverty if there were more government support for children and parents who need it. Enforcing broader child-care-work-leave policies, providing child care so parents can have access to higher-paying jobs, and decreasing the costs of educational opportunities would all go a much longer way to improving the "fitness" of the entire population. Though I suppose it lacks social-darwinian appeal...
This is actually incorrect, a gay person can file head of household as well as a single straight person. Both people could also claim the adopted child as a dependent. Marriage-based tax benefits are not tested according to whether one has children, and child-rearing benefits are not tested according to whether one is married.
Is the problem lack of attention, or lack of exposure to people of multiple genders? There isn't enough evidence either way.
Hogwash. Unless the child is raised in a lesbian commune, s/he will be exposed to plenty of people of varying genders -- teachers, non-parental relatives, friends, parents of friends... Many of these people might even have different personalities and identities outside of their gender roles!
Men and women, contrary to political correctness, approach many situations differently.
I'm not disagreeing with the assertion, but the problem is that variance within each gender is greater than stable variance between genders. Are you going to next ban marriages where the dad's a bit of a girlie-man?
Isn't that what this is all about, the tax credits given to married couples for children. If it wasn't about money, then wouldn't civil commitment be good enough?
Um, no. For one, there's inheritance rights within the couple. Or hospital visitation rights, tax inequality (regardless of the presence of children), right not to testify against a spouse, and a slew of other benefits. Gay people don't want marriage rights so that they can have children. (And most gay couples, married or no, are unlikely to have children accidentally...)
I don't see why you couldn't use criteria like annual income after taxes, employment status (how often are you employed)...They should still be able to marry, just not receive any tax benefits for doing so.
So, the State decides that you meet the wealth threshold, then gives you an additional tax break for breeding; while people who have children but do not meet the wealth threshold have disproportionately higher tax rates as a result? The people who are least financially equipped to raise children should have an additional financial burden to do so?
Surely the "ideal form of adult flourishing" (I'm assuming you have controlled, peer-reviewed studies demonstrating this, hmm?) also includes a loving relationship. People who are gay do not generally experience romantic love, or sexual desire, for people of the opposite gender. Thus, regardless of marriage laws, you are stating they are fundamentally capable of experiencing human flourishing. This claim bears a substantial burden of proof. In any event, there is no basis for the claim that (legal) marriage is meant to "promote the ideal form of human flourishing." In civil law, it has very well-defined civil benefits having to do with property inheritance, visitation rights, etc.
The view you propose equally demands laws stating that sexless marriages be forbidden, and that couples who do not intend to have children may not marry. Call me when you're willing to support a law that decides whether you can marry based on how often you have sex and whether you use condoms.
Yes, indeed. However, most laws have a justification for doing so, in the probable harm that can be done by limitless exercise of those rights; and laws which arbitrarily deny a right to one group while permitting it to another, based solely on identity and without bona fide reason, are considered illegitimate.
You want to know the biggest block of demographic opposition to gay marriage? Blacks and Latinos
Right. Those groups have particularly negative views of homosexuality and gay people. This significantly weakens your earlier point about opposition to same-sex marriage not necessarily being opposition to gay people...
That said, there is no justification for opposition to same-sex civil marriage that doesn't (a) reduce to homophobia or (b) apply equally strongly to anti-miscegenation laws (which are much more widely recognized as undue limitations on freedom). That's where the stereotype comes from. Maybe people who want laws to take away the rights of others would like to think of themselves as perfectly reasonable, nice, principled people; but sadly, that refuge isn't available to you once you're taking away other people's rights, whatever your self-justification.
Don't want to piss off the guy who lets him use the saw.
This is how societies institutionalize oppression. There's a relatively small number who are actively supporting $foo-bashing, and a silent majority that sits on its hands and doesn't want to rock the boat, even though they don't really support what's going on.
Public exposure is nothing more than adding weight to that choice. Are you going to offend the person collecting the signatures, or all the people who'll see you signed? You no longer have the option of pretending you can ignore the oppression of others. I don't see that as even remotely unjust.
the names should be protected based on what we know these elements will do with them.
Which is what, exactly? Claim they've taken action on beliefs they hold?
You're claiming that a powerful majority group (straight people) is so at-risk that its members cannot even bear being named publicly. Since when have socially privileged actors ever needed protection from a marginalized group?
Should someone be allowed to create a law specifically limiting the freedoms of other consenting adults, and do so from the shadows, without even having the balls to acknowledge publicly the position they'll take in secret?
And it's the height of irony that now it's the ANTI-gay folks who want to stay in the closet.
Slashdot Mirror
It's just as hostile to men who want to be treated as men (instead of woman-slaves) to have to constantly dance around women's sensitivities rather than getting real work done
Umm... since when is getting a lap dance "real work?"
I mean, it's delightfully inflammatory for you to claim that all these awful female sensitivities are getting in the way of Progress, but so far the examples I've discussed are lap dances and booth babes. Do you have any better ones?
And what are these confounded "standards" women have that are crimping your workplace style?
Had the cheerleaders for an NFL team been there in tight shirts and tiny skirts waving pompoms nobody would have said a word.
Um, no.
Women (try talking to one sometime) are very widely offended at the whole phenomenon of Booth Babes, scantily clad spokesmodels, etc. The difference with this is that because it was lapdances, it actually makes the news.
It's just as hostile to the women who want to be treated as colleagues (instead of sex objects) to have micro-bikini models hanging around, but that won't make the papers.
GP:
The people who do that are like any other wacky group (like flat earthers), loud and crazy.
Good thing your kids aren't learning your reading skills.
Um, I'll wait until the "pop open your skull" part has been engineered away.
Really, there's no "just" about that process.
Sounds like somebody hasn't heard about the cable monopoly.
First, let me just say I hope you enjoy your vacation. I'm sorry that we won't have a chance to continue this here, but hopefully we'll run into each other again.
[Religious believers] believe things that you (and quite possibly I) find implausible but that they do not find implausible, without proof but with what they believe to be good evidence.
Fair enough. Though in many cases (e.g. Buddhist reincarnation, in which nothing of the individual except the karmic debt passes on to the next life) they believe things about which there cannot be any evidence at all; and in many cases, the evidence they accept is incapable of objective verification. More on that in a minute.
Incidentally, I'm glad to hear that your philosophy-of-religion studies have covered multiple religions, i.e. that this was "philosophy of religious ideas." Much of the philosophical apparatus built around religion in the West has been specifically tied to Christian apologetics, and as a result is kind of orthogonal to other religious traditions.
The most convincing argument ... is an uninterrupted chain of witness
Presumably you mean the argument that you find most convincing. I don't find that convincing on its own, only in conjunction with the subjective evidence of religious experience
Well, TBH I don't find it terribly convincing either -- "I heard it from Joe, who got it from Bob, whose grandfather's barber's cousin's wife said her great-great-grandfather knew a guy named Luke who saw Christ be Risen" isn't exactly a compelling standard of evidence.
Subjective religious experience is, however, a different beast. But it struggles with the problems inherent in subjectivity and non-repeatability. In my way of thinking, when it comes to establishing knowledge of the world, what we're really doing is building mental models of how the world works. And these models are "true" to the extent that they have explanatory power over collected observations, and (more importantly) predictive force for future ones. (This is similar to, but subtly different from, the variety of pragmatism James attributes to Schiller, Dewey, et al. -- ferinstance, mental models can have varying degrees of truth, as the relation between Newtonian and Relativistic physics, where the former is less true than the latter, but still much more true than, say, Platonism.) Wotan speaking to you in a dream is a rather striking datum; but you just plain can't find out more about it. It's all the problems of historical knowledge generally, only the stakes are a good deal higher.
even science has its metaphysical assumptions
Well, sure. But they're kept to a minimum as much as possible -- essentially 1) observations (incl. technologically augmented) can be treated as accurate (with rule-based exceptions); 2) the real world exists and is the same for all observers (with predictable known exceptions); 3) within the time frame of our experience, and the time frame of historical events we can deduce, the rules stay the same, or will show evidence otherwise. (I suppose there should also be a lemma about math being true, too, though I think all that's really required there is that it be consistent.)
Those seem more well-grounded and productive than alternatives, but I do accept that others might disagree. (I find the thought of a strictly illusory, radically subjective, non-rule-governed world to be basically useless, and wrongheaded given the readily observable consistencies & patterns within experiences.) I am not aware of a metaphysical system which maintains the desirable qualities (objectivity and ordered predictability) of this system without requiring additional metaphysical assumptions (which likely needlessly complicate the system).
If you have a forced decision then it is rational to take a decision not on the basis of absolute truth but on the
You mean they disagree with you, so they must be stupid?
No, I mean they believe implausible things without proof, and are thus operating on faith. Challenging one's own faith is not possible so long as one still clings to the verities of that faith; it is looking for confirmation, a form of apologetics, which is separate from sincere doubt.
If you seriously study the philosophy of religion
Why do I have a feeling you mean, if I seriously study the philosophy of one religion, without regard to others?
I have studied the philosophical content and historical foundations of a large number of religions (including Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, Confucianism, and various varieties of Taoism), and surveyed a fair amount of Christian apologetics. The most convincing argument from this latter (and indeed for most of the religions I've mentioned) is an uninterrupted chain of witness, a collective memory vouchsafed by a trust network. The problem is that religions with entirely incompatible cosmologies use the same justification (which boils down to an uncomfirmable appeal to authority), which suggests that this justification is an insufficient means of arriving at the truth, which must be faulty in at least one case, and thus is likely faulty in all cases. Essentially, the best arguments that can be raised for one's own beliefs can be equally raised for most incompatible religious systems, so assigning Truth to any single religious system is an arbitrary decision. If one is generous, one might conclude that Religion is True, but beyond that... It's not that one cannot put together a rational basis for belief in any particular religion or in Religion generally; it's just that no particular religion is actually true.
It's been a while since I've studied epistemology; I gave it up after recognizing that most philosophical fields are obviated by the cognitive-neuroscientific study of human thought. Add to that the observation that, whether or not there's something beyond the illusory curtain of our (technologically enhanced) senses, we're constrained to acting within the real world as though it is the real world, and you'll realize that there are far more interesting matters of study crying out for one's time.
But if you're interested in my epistemological views, I suppose you could say I'm a contingent reformed logical positivist (barring all that universal-rational-language claptrap). I would contend that we do not and cannot have access to a non-contingent universal Truth. We may have axiomatic beliefs (a la foundationalists) but they are simply beliefs, and no Truer for our believing them. And we could always just be brains in vats. But, our perceptions of reality are real to us; so it is perfectly possible to construct a coherent worldview based on these collected perceptions. Moreover, our perceptions are structured and constrained by nature of the brains and bodies in which we reside, so we are fundamentally incapable of any other approach -- and it is thus not only perfectly reasonable, but necessary (if we are not to plunge into a solipsistic pit), to act as though the sense-perceived worldview is real until such time as that basis for action is challenged by subsequent observation. (Naturally, future observation may necessitate worldview modification. One proceeds in life by building mental models, which are contingently true to the extent that they have predictive force for future perceptions.) This corresponds exactly to the human instinct of believing in the perceived world, but with the useful corrective of knowing that one could always be wrong.
Similarly, memory is a perfectly rational basis for belief, so long as one accepts that that belief is conditional, and subject to later disproof. It is well to remember that memory, or our senses, or our a priori certainties, any of them can be flawed or false; but it's useless to plunge into existential despair as a result. One soldiers on.
I'd be happy to talk theory, or to try applying any of this to actual ideas or propositions, if you have the time.
You don't think it possible that they might want to know whether their beliefs are well founded?
Nah. If they were that capable of doubting received faith, they probably would've realized already that their beliefs aren't well-founded.
To be fair, he said "old English," not "Old English." Shakespeare's English is from around four hundred years ago, which makes it pretty old. "Archaic" would have been a less ambiguous word choice, and "Elizabethan" more accurate, but he wasn't necessarily confusing Shakespeare with Alfred.
I'm not seeing how this is a guaranteed win for the people. If senators have the power to keep the central government from overreaching, that isn't really affected by having them elected by the state government instead of by the people -- if anything, state-government election would just increase the stakes of making sure the state government elections were fair and honest (which has not historically been the case; they've certainly been no more honest and representative than direct senatorial election).
Moreover, while I appreciate the sentiment and agree that it's reasonable for local governments to create more specific subsets of law, there are solid historical reasons the US government has been evolving towards increased centralization of power, from the problems with the Articles of Confederation through the Nullification Crisis and Secession, through slavery, segregation, modern warfare, the Voting Rights Act...
What's less important to me than what level of government makes the decisions, is that it makes the right decisions. In theory that should be easier with a smaller electorate, but anyone who's ever dealt with a Home Owner's Association can see how well that theory stands up.
Obligatory XKCD..
Exactly. "Learning new skills stimulates brain -- film at 11" would be a better headline.
where welfare recipients have too many kids to increase their "paychecks".
I'd love to see your evidence for that claim. Or even evidence that you've ever had any interaction with the welfare system whatsoever.
It is absurd to claim that most people's child-rearing behavior is determined by financial concerns. Sadly, most children aren't planned at all; but the very people you accuse of maliciously having children to game the system are the people least likely to be practicing family planning.
What I see in "the inner city" is people get pregnant, don't have access to abortions (or are infected with the notion that abortions are immoral), and are stuck raising children by themselves, while unable to qualify for anything more than a minimum-wage job which they struggle to keep due to the demands of parenthood.
I would also suggest you should consider the idea that perhaps single motherhood wouldn't be such a death trap of continuing intergenerational poverty if there were more government support for children and parents who need it. Enforcing broader child-care-work-leave policies, providing child care so parents can have access to higher-paying jobs, and decreasing the costs of educational opportunities would all go a much longer way to improving the "fitness" of the entire population. Though I suppose it lacks social-darwinian appeal...
it's not encouraged with tax breaks.
This is actually incorrect, a gay person can file head of household as well as a single straight person. Both people could also claim the adopted child as a dependent.
Marriage-based tax benefits are not tested according to whether one has children, and child-rearing benefits are not tested according to whether one is married.
Is the problem lack of attention, or lack of exposure to people of multiple genders? There isn't enough evidence either way.
Hogwash. Unless the child is raised in a lesbian commune, s/he will be exposed to plenty of people of varying genders -- teachers, non-parental relatives, friends, parents of friends... Many of these people might even have different personalities and identities outside of their gender roles!
Men and women, contrary to political correctness, approach many situations differently.
I'm not disagreeing with the assertion, but the problem is that variance within each gender is greater than stable variance between genders. Are you going to next ban marriages where the dad's a bit of a girlie-man?
Isn't that what this is all about, the tax credits given to married couples for children. If it wasn't about money, then wouldn't civil commitment be good enough?
Um, no. For one, there's inheritance rights within the couple. Or hospital visitation rights, tax inequality (regardless of the presence of children), right not to testify against a spouse, and a slew of other benefits.
Gay people don't want marriage rights so that they can have children. (And most gay couples, married or no, are unlikely to have children accidentally...)
I don't see why you couldn't use criteria like annual income after taxes, employment status (how often are you employed)...They should still be able to marry, just not receive any tax benefits for doing so.
So, the State decides that you meet the wealth threshold, then gives you an additional tax break for breeding; while people who have children but do not meet the wealth threshold have disproportionately higher tax rates as a result? The people who are least financially equipped to raise children should have an additional financial burden to do so?
You have not thought this through, methinks.
Surely the "ideal form of adult flourishing" (I'm assuming you have controlled, peer-reviewed studies demonstrating this, hmm?) also includes a loving relationship. People who are gay do not generally experience romantic love, or sexual desire, for people of the opposite gender. Thus, regardless of marriage laws, you are stating they are fundamentally capable of experiencing human flourishing. This claim bears a substantial burden of proof.
In any event, there is no basis for the claim that (legal) marriage is meant to "promote the ideal form of human flourishing." In civil law, it has very well-defined civil benefits having to do with property inheritance, visitation rights, etc.
The view you propose equally demands laws stating that sexless marriages be forbidden, and that couples who do not intend to have children may not marry. Call me when you're willing to support a law that decides whether you can marry based on how often you have sex and whether you use condoms.
Yes, indeed. However, most laws have a justification for doing so, in the probable harm that can be done by limitless exercise of those rights; and laws which arbitrarily deny a right to one group while permitting it to another, based solely on identity and without bona fide reason, are considered illegitimate.
Except that these are not votes. They're signatures on a petition to schedule a vote.
Oh you know who else checked who didn't vote for him? Winston Churchill. This system is equal to British democracy during World War II. (What?)
You want to know the biggest block of demographic opposition to gay marriage? Blacks and Latinos
Right. Those groups have particularly negative views of homosexuality and gay people. This significantly weakens your earlier point about opposition to same-sex marriage not necessarily being opposition to gay people...
That said, there is no justification for opposition to same-sex civil marriage that doesn't (a) reduce to homophobia or (b) apply equally strongly to anti-miscegenation laws (which are much more widely recognized as undue limitations on freedom). That's where the stereotype comes from. Maybe people who want laws to take away the rights of others would like to think of themselves as perfectly reasonable, nice, principled people; but sadly, that refuge isn't available to you once you're taking away other people's rights, whatever your self-justification.
Oh Christ. See definition 3.
Modern colloquial English -- do you speak it?
Don't want to piss off the guy who lets him use the saw.
This is how societies institutionalize oppression. There's a relatively small number who are actively supporting $foo-bashing, and a silent majority that sits on its hands and doesn't want to rock the boat, even though they don't really support what's going on.
Public exposure is nothing more than adding weight to that choice. Are you going to offend the person collecting the signatures, or all the people who'll see you signed? You no longer have the option of pretending you can ignore the oppression of others.
I don't see that as even remotely unjust.
the names should be protected based on what we know these elements will do with them.
Which is what, exactly? Claim they've taken action on beliefs they hold?
You're claiming that a powerful majority group (straight people) is so at-risk that its members cannot even bear being named publicly. Since when have socially privileged actors ever needed protection from a marginalized group?
Should someone be allowed to create a law specifically limiting the freedoms of other consenting adults, and do so from the shadows, without even having the balls to acknowledge publicly the position they'll take in secret?
And it's the height of irony that now it's the ANTI-gay folks who want to stay in the closet.
Nah, Turing would not have objected to "DUDES."
keep humanity in a state of perpetual subsistence poverty.
Haven't visited the non-developed world recently, eh?
Personally, I consider that Malthus wasn't right; he just inevitably will be. Someday. Hopefully long after I'm gone.