miss_s_b: A Comment on @CiceroBlog

miss_s_b (

miss_s_b) wrote,
@ 2012-03-27 06:55 pm UTC

Current mood:	concerned
Entry tags:	blogging

A Comment on @CiceroBlog

... since they ~~appear to have turned off the comments option~~ only have Disqus comments and I don't see them as an option because of my anti-tracking-software-blocker.

The relevant post is here. My immediate reactions are as follows:

While I totally agree with you that one shouldn't be sent to jail for tweeting offensive crap, no matter how offensive it is, I think you REALLY drop the ball on the other half of your post

Calling someone a bigot does not in any way shape or form equate to a 56 day jail sentence.

Calling someone a bigot does not restrict their freedom of speech either. I got called a bigot myself yesterday, for saying that those advocating prayer as a method for healing cancer should have to adhere to the same rules as everyone else. My freedom of speech has not been infringed one jot.

The science on parenting seems to show that it doesn't matter what gender a child's parents are, or if they are biological parents, or even how many of them there are, but how much money they have. Parents with money tend to produce far "better" children, who have better life chances and live longer, whether they are gay, straight, single, couples or poly, than traditional married couples with no cash. The reason traditional married couples correlate with "better" children is that it's only the rich folks that tend to bother getting married these days. Chris Dillow has collated a lot of research on this point if you want to find out more.

Nobody wants to force churches to hold equal marriages if they don't want to, but it would be quite nice if all the religions who are in favour of equal marriage (reform judaism, quakers, etc.) could be allowed to marry non-het couples if they want to. Whilst I agree with you that it would be illiberal to force religions who don't want to have equal marriage to have it - which is why nobody sane is pushing for that - surely it would be equally illiberal to force religions who WANT to have equal marriage to not have it just because some religions don't want to?

Your posts are normally a lot better thought out than this, and I'm fairly sure you normally allow comments too. Are you feeling OK?

(10 comments) - (Post a new comment)
(Flat) (Top-level comments only)

no subject

ginasketch
2012-03-27 07:35 pm UTC (link)

Must...not...lose...temp...OH FUCKIT

What a bunch of navel-gazing, hand-wringing CRAP.

Where is even getting this information from? I mean, other than his ass.

There are serious issues at the heart of the debate, not least the fact that marriage is not merely a legal and moral commitment of individuals to each other, but also to any children they may produce.Naturally this asks a lot of questions of gay relationships- or indeed hetero but infertile relationships

Wow. Just wow. So only MARRIED people have children. And marriage is only for making Teh Baybeez. And infertile people should feel inadequate because they can't produce children.

the religious have a point of view which is sincerely held: stay faithfully together if at all possible, no matter what- even if, perhaps, the majority disagree with it.

Yeah isn't it funny that most of the longest lasting couples I know are gay. I've seen far more straight relationships fail.

To attack the religious because they disagree with you - particularly to dismiss their positions as mere bigotry- is unfair, and may be dangerous.

AHAHAHAHA. This is just like the time someone I know got offended by the Flying Spaghetti Monster. I laughed then too.

For myself, having been friends for years with a couple that were amongst the very first to register a civil partnership, which I found very difficult to distinguish from a wedding, I do not oppose gay marriage

"HEY, I HAVE GAY FRIENDS SO I'M ALLOWED TO SAY THIS"

Forcing churches against their will to offer gay marriages is in any event- I believe- deeply illiberal. The tyranny of the majority over a minority is still tyranny.

Because the church has never forced anyone to do anything against their will and gotten away with it...OH WAIT

By all means ensure legal equality for gay and straight relationships, but also accept that there are inevitable differences among all relationships and that these should be respected.

Oh, the irony. I'm so sick of this bullshit, and I'm THROUGH being polite to people who say stupid things. Hell, I was over it years ago.

(Reply to this) (Thread) (Hide 5 comments) (Show 5 comments)

	no subject miss_s_b 2012-03-27 07:39 pm UTC (link)
	I haven't reached snapping point yet, but I can feel it getting closer. One day somebody is going to say something this ridiculous and I'm just going to go kaboom. (Reply to this) (Thread from start) (Parent) (Thread) (Hide 4 comments) (Show 4 comments)

	no subject ginasketch 2012-03-27 07:40 pm UTC (link)
	Going kaboom is my only way of coping with this crap anymore. (Reply to this) (Thread from start) (Parent) (Thread) (Hide 3 comments) (Show 3 comments)

	no subject miss_s_b 2012-03-27 07:59 pm UTC (link)
	I'm watching Scott and Bailey and falling deeply in love with the take-no-shit bosslady. This helps. (Reply to this) (Thread from start) (Parent) (Thread) (Hide 2 comments) (Show 2 comments)

	no subject ginasketch 2012-03-27 08:03 pm UTC (link)
	On a related subject, I may have to get back into Bones. (Reply to this) (Thread from start) (Parent) (Thread) (Hide 1 comment) (Show 1 comment)

	no subject miss_s_b 2012-03-27 08:14 pm UTC (link)
	Boooooooooooooooooones! It's back on in the US soon after Emily Deschaniel's maternity leave. I dunno how soon it'll be on Sky Living after that. The episode with Freddie Kruegar and the episode with the power cut and the episode with Bunsen Jude the Science Dude are my favourites. (Reply to this) (Thread from start) (Parent)

Cicero

(Anonymous)
2012-03-30 11:18 am UTC (link)

Hi, Dunno why Disqus has taken over the comments on my blog- think it maybe because you came via twitter- all comments in whatever format are still more than welcome.

Yes sure my view, FWIW was and is pro gay marriage. What I was objecting to was the glib way that The Now Show and others dismiss those they disagree with. Re: parenting, like most things, it is down to individual qualities, not group qualities ( whether "gay", "straight" or whatever. I'm a Liberal and believe the value of the individual should almost always trump the collective). There is some evidence that not having a genetic relationship with kids you bring up creates a pressure- hence the wicked step parent stereotype- again in my view a function of individual qualities, not sexualities and so not an argument against gay marriage- but the religious believe that kids should only come into the world in the context of straight marriage, remember, so it does apply in their view. However even if you disagree with the point of view that anti campaigners put forward, which I do, I don't like the anger and contempt that is poured on those who sincerely hold anti-gay marriage positions (or anti straight promiscuity, for that matter). So I put forward a view that while I disagree with their position, they are perfectly entitled to their views, while the people I generally support- the pros- are not winning the argument through "like" buttons and vituperation. So, rather clumsily perhaps, I drew the parallel between the gay marriage argument and the drunken drivel of Liam Stacey.

Probably didn't work- been too busy to even blog recently. On the other hand good to see that it annoyed a couple of people- high blood pressure is probably the only thing that keeps them upright.

Otherwise, feeling fine- more power to your elbow.

(Reply to this) (Thread) (Hide 3 comments) (Show 3 comments)

Re: Cicero

miss_s_b
2012-03-30 12:42 pm UTC (link)

I think the anger and contempt comes from the fact that these people who are so judgemental of things that do them no harm whatsoever also have as central tenets of their religion "judge not lest ye be judged" and "let he that is without sin cast the first stone". I think this is possibly the point you were trying to make about the other side, but: sincerely holding a view is no reason to be a cock about it, and so many of the religious lobby ARE.

* shrug *

There is an element of "get off my side" sometimes when (for example) Dawkins goes off on one; but as a corrolary to that, there are very many reasonable religious people who have that reaction when some of the madder religious folks speak. And that's the other thing. The Christians who make the big noises about being anti-equal-marriage don't speak for all Christians. In fact, the polling suggests they may not even speak for the majority of them. Yet they pretend that they do... I don't think it's Liberal to allow them to do THAT without challenging it, and if they refuse to engage with the rules of argument, and refuse to listen, then sometimes laughing at them is the only option left.

Glad to see that you're OK, though, and it's just that you're busy.

(Reply to this) (Thread from start) (Parent) (Thread) (Hide 2 comments) (Show 2 comments)

	Re: Cicero (Anonymous) 2012-03-30 04:46 pm UTC (link)
	Yeah, fair enough- with you on that. Plenty of VERY religious folk still think Rick Santorum is a nutter, which I guess is a relief. (Reply to this) (Thread from start) (Parent) (Thread) (Hide 1 comment) (Show 1 comment)

	Re: Cicero miss_s_b 2012-03-31 12:44 am UTC (link)
	Yeah, I have some Christian readers, and if I get too strident and intolerant for THEM then I'll start to worry. And they ALL think Rick Santorum is a nutter (well, except that some of them might object to the use of the word nutter as a perjorative) (Reply to this) (Thread from start) (Parent)

(10 comments) - (Post a new comment)
(Flat) (Top-level comments only)