People need to be offended. You can't very well challenge outmoded or mistaken thinking patterns about anything significant without irritating or offending their established sensibilities.
Yet somehow in some people's minds, merely branding some idea as "offensive" constitutes an overwhelming argument that the idea is wrong and shouldn't even be expressed or considered further.
Then the argument becomes one of what is or is not "offensive." Some social conservatives have problems based on some WWJW idea- What would Jesus watch? Some liberals are deeply offended by any expression even hinting that homosexual marriage is anything less than an inviolable constitutional right.
"Offensiveness" seems to be basically a moral judgment. Within it are numerous sub-categories of offensiveness: obscene, homophobic, sexist, and- of course- racist. If you can tag someone or some writing, video or other art work with one of these labels indicating immorality, then it is invalid and discredited.
Some people are Most Always Complaining that anything or anyone they don't like "is" somehow "racist" or otherwise "offensive." Doesn't Involve Valid Argument, but it doesn't need to.
For my part, when someone objects that some article I've written is offensive, or one of the sub-categories of offense, I find it irrelevant. If someone says 'This is a homophobic article,' I'll say, "And your point is?"
The point is, offensiveness is not the question. Truth is. Homophobic (whatever that means) is beside the point. Is the offending statement TRUE? Is it logical, and in keeping with known facts on the ground?
Besides which, "offensive" is a subjective personal emotion. In essence, people are arguing that their subjective internal emotional reaction of distaste constitutes an argument that an idea, artwork or person is wrong. Sounds kind of silly when you look at it like that, doesn't it?
Offending people just for the fun of seeing them mad tends to mark someone as a jerk in my book, though. It's not nice to say things just to hurt people's feelings for no good reason. It's good to be nice where you can.
But you're not doing anyone a favor by coddling bad beliefs and dysfunctional behavior systems for fear of offending them.
You can't make an omelet without breaking some eggs. Being offended is part of learning.
Plus, as per the slogan of my Culpepper Log, Sacred cows make the tastiest burgers.
Mmm, burgers...
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Chris Kent
Al,
When someone calls me a racist, it's like someone calling me a cow. I laugh because I know it's not true. It does not strike a chord within me, nor does it infuriate me.
I am, quite simply, a somewhat educated, middle class, Caucasian man raised by school teacher parents. Sometimes I will write to make a point, or take a stance which will create conversation. Sometimes I will write a post and just let it go, reading it later and asking myself, "Where in the hell did that come from?" I accept criticism wholeheartedly because I know full well I do not reside upon nor own a mountain. I have faults like the rest of us.
We write posts as a way to stroke our own vanity. We love receiving compliments and hate beng taken to task or termed anything remotely unpleasant. But what is a good fight and what is a bad fight? And is not certain people fighting a very good fight?
I once interviewed a local man who played for Vince Lombardi for several years. One of my first questions was, "What was it like to play for Vince?" He answered, without hesitation, "I hated that son of a bitch!" My respect for him decreased immediately. This man, decent for the most part, couldn't stand the heat and thus retired from pro football after only three seasons. Now such an analogy may reveal my limited intellect, but it's valid.
Some writers in here are on a different level than others, though we all aspire to be on that level. Rather than take up the challenge, some of us have decided to write simply to antagonize. Some writers have banded together to throw others out, creating a fabricated world of happiness. Kick Vince off the team, and we lose the very spark of variety so necessary for this room to succeed.
I don't know where you were raised or where you live. I know what I have witnessed in my short life, and I have strong feelings about many things. I do know that certain people in here are fighting a good fight, and I respect that, and I think we are all better because of it. The accusations either strike a chord or they do not. How we handle them is revealing.
2 - boomcrashbaby
People need to be offended. You can't very well challenge outmoded or mistaken thinking patterns about anything significant without irritating or offending their established sensibilities.
This is true and I think it would do us all well to remember that it goes both ways. Since you talk about racism, homosexual marriage, obscenity and sexism, I will respond from the homosexual marriage point of view, since I do not qualify to speak out on any of the others.
Some liberals are deeply offended by any expression even hinting that homosexual marriage is anything less than an inviolable constitutional right.
One important thing to remember, when an individual says that homosexual marriage is a constitutional right, they are attempting to not have to say 4 or more paragraphs of explaination to what basically amounts to the same thing. It became a convenient shortcut to get the same point across. The precept of marriage itself might not be a constitutional right, but the over 1,000 federal benefits of marriage (source - General Accounting Office pdf file)and the 700 state benefits of marriage (actual number varies from state to state) being accorded to some individuals and denied to others DOES constitute a violation of an individuals constitutional right to equal treatment.
Some blatant examples include the Department of Veteran Affairs allowing ONLY spouses to be co-signers on home loans, but then not all people are allowed to have spouses, or on a civil/community level having organizations like the YMCA or Disneyland offering 'family membership discounts' but then denying some families the fairness of fitting into that definition. So when someone says that marriage is a constitutional right, they are referring to the treatment of all individuals and all families on an equal basis.
The point is, offensiveness is not the question. Truth is. Homophobic (whatever that means) is beside the point. Is the offending statement TRUE? Is it logical, and in keeping with known facts on the ground?
Homophobic, to clarify, stems from the word phobia, which means fear. And I assume you know where Homo stems from. This word, while it is overused in regards to the marriage debate, comes from the ridiculous catch phrases such as 'Defense of Marriage', or 'defending traditional families'. At no time at all, are heterosexual marriages under attack or threatened, so it is easy to see that there is a distinct and unrational fear being used to justify discrimination and a continual violation of some U.S. citizens rights to equality and justice. Should people wish to have the word 'homophobic' dropped from the marriage debate, then they will need to drop words like 'defending' from their attempts to exclude extending equality to all Americans.
Offending people just for the fun of seeing them mad tends to mark someone as a jerk in my book, though. It's not nice to say things just to hurt people's feelings for no good reason. It's good to be nice where you can.
Because you mention other topics like racism and sexism, I do realize you are speaking on a broader spectrum than that to which I am responding, but in terms of interpreting the intent of offending as being just for fun, I think most people, myself included have been guilty at times of putting intent in online statements where there is not enough data to support that reasoning. Many of my posts on the Iraq situation get the response of me being flippant, and many of my comments on other issues definitely offend people on this board, but it is never just for the fun of seeing people mad, because that accomplishes nothing. When someone offends me, my first assumption is not that they are doing it mischeviously but out of an ignorance of other peoples sensibilities and values, something that all people do at one time or another, myself included. "Never ascribe to malice that which can be adequately explained by ignorance."
3 - apparent bad guy
Hey Al, is your web page down?
-d3
4 - RJ Elliott
"Homophobia" is a misnomer.
I don't know a single straight guy (or gal) who "fears" gay men (or women). But there is certainly a level of disgust among many straights (and not just straight men).
Look at it this way: Some people like to eat sushi. They find it delicious. Others find this disgusting. It's all subjective.
Those who find it disgusting are not "uneducated" or "fearful." They just have a different opinion.
I know no one who would cower before a gay man. And I know of no one who would physically attack a man simply because he is gay.
Of course, I live in the 'burbs. Maybe if I was in a rural backwater, my experiences would be different.
Anyways, denouncing someone's position as "racist, sexist, bigoted, homophobic, etc." is not an argument. It is name-calling, in an attempt to avoid a logical debate on the issue(s).
5 - boomcrashbaby
Look at it this way: Some people like to eat sushi. They find it delicious. Others find this disgusting. It's all subjective.
But how many of them feel the need to defend their pancakes from the threat of sushi.
6 - Natalie Davis
And why would many of them be so hellbent on making sure that people are punished under law -- denied rights and legislated as second-class citizens -- for having sushi?
7 - boomcrashbaby
RJ, unfortunately I don't have time on all my posts to offer two versions, a very clear one and then an even more simplistic one.
It is possible to be against gay marriage and not be homophobic. As I originally stated, to feel threatened by something that is not a threat is an irrational fear. An irrational fear is a phobia. Note that nowhere in my post did I mention people who find homosexuality disgusting. That is a preference. Totally different. And denouncing someone's opinion is not an attempt to avoid a logical debate. However, one cannot have a logical debate with someone who continually does not read thoroughly and clearly think about what is actually being said.
8 - RJ Elliott
BCB:
Lots of people oppose homosexual "marriage" because they find the whole idea disgusting. Like eating raw oysters is disgusting to some.
Some people oppose it because it would involve re-defining marriage for the first time in literally centuries. This opens the door to the slippery-slope of polygamists, beastiality-freaks, etc.
Anyway, most people oppose it. It has never been a "right" in the US. We live in a democracy.
You'd be wise to take your civil unions and be happy for your "progress."
Irrational fear does not play into the equation for most people.
I don't fear you. I just don't want one of the hallmarks of Western Civilization to be re-defined by a tiny minority who calls those who disagree with them "bigots" and "homophobes."
9 - boomcrashbaby
Lots of people oppose homosexual "marriage" because they find the whole idea disgusting.
I know.
Some people oppose it because it would involve re-defining marriage for the first time in literally centuries. This opens the door to the slippery-slope of polygamists, beastiality-freaks, etc.
Yes I know, allowing two consenting adults to get married is one step away from unconsenting animals. You sure got me there.
It has never been a "right" in the US.
As I stated in my original post.
You'd be wise to take your civil unions and be happy for your "progress."
I'd certainly be wise to take your advice.
Irrational fear does not play into the equation for most people.
Never said it did.
I don't fear you.
Good. Because you have nothing to fear.
I just don't want one of the hallmarks of Western Civilization to be re-defined by a tiny minority
so now Western Civilization created marriage? Marriage started out as harems and polygamy to ensure the survival of the species. It transformed into the transfer of property (the wife) between father and husband (arranged marriages). Ancient Rome, extending into the Christian period, documents legally recognized homosexual marriage. Marriage also went from polygamy into polyandry in many nations. Monogamous marriages evolved from demographic and economic reasons rather than moral ones. While you might not want a hallmark of Western Civilization to be re-defined, check your history a bit and find out it has been re-defined many many times according to the changing times of any given society.
who calls those who disagree with them "bigots" and "homophobes."
I don't call those who disagree with me a bigot and a homophobe. I will call a bigot a bigot though and a homophobe a homophobe.
10 - RJ Elliott
Polygamy has a more recent and more respectable history than "gay marriage."
Hell, I'm all for polygamy. Just run pro-polygamy agit-prop on MTV for a few years, and it will seem like the status-quo to the young and impressionable.
So, if you can re-define marriage to include same-sex couples, I want the right to marry two chicks.
Fair enough?
11 - boomcrashbaby
Personally, RJ, if you want to marry two 'chicks' and if you can find two women who will willingly marry a man who refers to them as a chick, then I will gladly hold your train up as you walk down the aisle.
12 - Al Barger
Homosexual couples certainly have some legitimate issues to be addressed, as Boom outlines in comment 2. Not urgent, I might say. Homosexuals certainly can't really claim much oppression in the US. You're mostly pretty well tolerated now, which is the main thing you should have a right to expect from society.
However, it seems reasonable that you might also ask for equivalent legal protections, the common contractual relationships that heterosexual couples routinely get.
Still, it's not that simple. Most obviously, some people have not so much legal as semantic objection to homosexual "marriage." You are expecting to suddenly re-define perhaps the oldest institution in human culture.
Then there might be issues to consider first in the actual practice. What kinds of other institutional shifts will be involved throughout society? What kinds of impact might this have on, say, the insurance industry? What, exactly, are we getting into here?
All I ask here is that advocates of homosexual marriage show honest goodwill, and not work on the assumption that opponents are wicked oppressors.
For example, Natalie comes off pretty militant and judgmental in comment 6 at anyone who would even hesitate for a moment to give her absolutely everything she has decided that she has a "right" to.
I might stand to be corrected by Miss Natalie, but based on comment 6 and past impressions of her, I detect a strong note of- back to the actual topic of the post- offense. She seems to be absolutely morally offended that anyone would presume to register any objection to, in this case, gay marriage- and she's not shy about saying so.
I would counter that this indignance 1)Is not justified by the actual facts at hand, and 2)Is not conducive to broader social reconciliation.
Not necessarily putting this all on Natalie and her few words in this one comment, but homosexual advocates who argue that militantly are not only wrong but arguably counterproductive to their own cause.
A conservative Christian might understandably see this attitude as disrespectful and hostile. How is snarling and rebuking going to get their understanding or co-operation?
Finally, I'll note for the benefit of both homosexual advocates and evangelicals alike that the fact that you feel offended, ie have an agitated emotional state, does NOT constitute proof or logical argument that you are right.
13 - boomcrashbaby
Homosexual couples certainly have some legitimate issues to be addressed, as Boom outlines in comment 2. Not urgent, I might say.
Urgent? Might I point out that these lawsuits, whether it is the Supreme Court knocking down discriminatory sodomy laws or Mass. et.al. saying that gays are entitled to equal recognition, have been in the court systems for years? Urgent? At what point down the road do I decide to stand up for my daughter and the equal treatment of her family? When she is old enough to move out? I'm not flippant. I'm astounded.
However, it seems reasonable that you might also ask for equivalent legal protections, the common contractual relationships that heterosexual couples routinely get. Refer to comment #2. We are not seeking marriage so that we can get anything other than equivalent legal protections from our government. Frankly, Al, if it makes society happy, they can call my union a civil union and not a marriage, but it needs to be 100% equal with marriage for full equality, not just 10 benefits that can be achieved anyway with a will.
Still, it's not that simple. Most obviously, some people have not so much legal as semantic objection to homosexual "marriage." You are expecting to suddenly re-define perhaps the oldest institution in human culture.
Yes, an old institution that has been redefined many times over the centuries. I do know it is entirely semantic/religious objections that we face. What is amazing to me is how many Americans want equality for all based on popular vote. I cannot speak for any other than myself, but I am not seeking society approval. I am not seeking Al and Mary down the street to bless or even condone my relationship. I am seeking equality from my government.
Then there might be issues to consider first in the actual practice. What kinds of other institutional shifts will be involved throughout society? What kinds of impact might this have on, say, the insurance industry? What, exactly, are we getting into here?
What will this have on the insurance industry? They offer insurance to an individual and his/her spouse. How does that change? Should I not seek equality because that might give someone else some extra paperwork?
All I ask here is that advocates of homosexual marriage show honest goodwill, and not work on the assumption that opponents are wicked oppressors.
Not speaking for anybody but myself, can I point out to you, Al, a person who seems willing to at least consider alternate viewpoints if not agree with them, one simple fact? We have on the one hand an individual who says that my 18 year monogamous relationship, complete with child and white picket fence, is just a slippery slope away from a man screwing a goat. Then on the other hand, should we get offended about said comparison, suddenly we are militant and counterproductive to logic, debate and reasoning.
A conservative Christian might understandably see this attitude as disrespectful and hostile. How is snarling and rebuking going to get their understanding or co-operation?
There will be those who will never understand because they choose not to, and technically we cannot force them to understand. It's not about getting the approval of those who just aren't going to approve.
Finally, I'll note for the benefit of both homosexual advocates and evangelicals alike that the fact that you feel offended, ie have an agitated emotional state, does NOT constitute proof or logical argument that you are right.
This is 100% true.
14 - Al Barger
Is polygamy a "right" to "equal treatment from the government" like homosexual marriage? If not, why not?
15 - bhw
but homosexual advocates who argue that militantly are not only wrong but arguably counterproductive to their own cause.
A conservative Christian might understandably see this attitude as disrespectful and hostile. How is snarling and rebuking going to get their understanding or co-operation?
Why is it that someone fighting for civil rights has to behave politely, so as not to offend the people who want to retain the status quo and keep those rights from being given? Why should person who feels that our laws don't provide equal protection to him/her *pretend* not to be angry in the face of people getting on pulpits denouncing them as "depraved," an "abomination" and whole host of other dispicable things?
Who gives a shit if the Christian Right is turned off by strong rhetoric? They're the ones who use it the most.
I think the frustration shows how sick and tired the gay community is of being ignored by equal protection laws. Why should they hide that frustration?
16 - bhw
Oh, and I have no problem with polygamy being legal, as long as it's between adults not some guy and some 15-year-old girls, half of whom he's related to by blood.
Feminists generally don't argue in favor of polygamy, but I can't see why it should be illegal. Prostitution, either, for that matter.
17 - boomcrashbaby
Is polygamy a "right" to "equal treatment from the government" like homosexual marriage? If not, why not?
It is my perception, Al, that the government should not be in the business of defining, rewarding or punishing families in any way. If someone wants to marry two consenting adult women and those two women want to marry him, that is their own business and not the business of the religious community, the government or myself.
Those who are weakly trying to mask their religious convictions by saying that a male/female only relationship is the preferred method for raising children and that is why we are not given full equality, do not realize the inconsistency of their statements when applied to society overall. For example, a young female adult in her early 20's who has a child out of wedlock and the immature man who fathered said child skips town suddenly finds herself in a single parent family situation. She does not fit their description now, yet she is given federal assistance, rather than denial of anything. A man in prison for life can marry a woman, yet cannot be around to help rear any children in the relationship and suddenly HE has more legal status, recognition and protection than two loving, law abiding parents who have been together for years.
NOWHERE in any argument against gay marriage, is there EVER any discussion that what constitutes a family and that what is best for the children is a family founded on love. NOWHERE. The only criteria is that the household have one penis and one vagina. It is an absurd rule to REQUIRE everybody to live by.
Should people want to protect the concept of marriage, I would suggest they turn to reality tv where marriage is created by deception, treachery and falsehood and then REWARDED by a million dollar check. I would suggest these people also focus on how easy they have made divorce in this society, I would suggest they focus on statistics that show that of those who can get married, fully 1/2 or more cheat on their marriages. One freakin half of all heterosexual marriages include adultery. NOWHERE is the religious right combatting that disrespect for marriage on the level they are attacking loving families.
A family is best built on love. If you look at that simple sentence , I believe you cannot disagree with it. Yet it is NEVER a criteria for those who seek to limit my family to second class citizenship. I cannot fathom how those who believe they are doing the compassionate Christian thing, do not care about the over 10 million children being raised by gay parents in this country who hear on a daily basis that their families are depraved, immoral, synonomous with beastality and just overall 'lesser'. I ask you, Al, What Would Jesus Do?
18 - bhw
The "family" argument can be effective, but it leans toward an appeal to emotion on both sides of it.
The strongest argument in favor of "gay marriage" is the legal one. So many legal protections and benefits are given to married couples that aren't given to anyone else [in fact, all unmarried people ought to complain louder about some of it!].
Here's a good example of the legal ramifications of "difference." Rosie O'Donnell's case against her magazine publisher: O'Donnell and her partner, who had been living together and raising children together for years, were denied the legal protection of spousal privilege in their communications. If they had been married, their e-mail and other communications would have been considered protected by the laws of spousal privilege, and therefore not admissible in court. But since they weren't married -- even though were UNmarried not by choice but by law -- they were denied that protection. So in that court case, their personal correspondence was admissible.
Now, you can argue that there should be no such thing as spousal privilege in the first place. Fine. But you can see the double wrong in this case: first they were denied the right to be married, and then they were denied the right to spousal privilege because they weren't married.
So either we have to get rid of laws that give married people special rights, or we need to give all adults the right to be married to the person or people of their choice [that crap about "we all have the same right to get married to someone of the opposite sex" is just stoopid]. Otherwise, we don't have equal protection under the law.
19 - Debbie
"But how many of them feel the need to defend their pancakes from the threat of sushi."
I would kill to protect my pancakes from sushi - YUCK!!!!
"Oh, and I have no problem with polygamy being legal, as long as it's between adults not some guy and some 15-year-old girls, half of whom he's related to by blood."
What about adults that are related by 'blood'? Brothers and sisters? Mothers and sons, fathers and daughters - if everyone is an adult? Is this alright too? If not, then why? Why do we have laws against it?
If we get into polygamy, how many spouses are allowed? Is 20 wives too many, 20 husbands, what about paternaty if there are multiple husbands? If there is a divorce, who pays child support?
20 - bhw
But marriage is so perfect and ideal, there'd be no divorce!
21 - Dan
"if everyone is an adult? " Debbie, you sound like a pedofobe. Why should 15 year olds be 2nd class citizens? Just because society arbitrarily assigns 18 yrs. as the age of informed consent? There are many 15 year olds who are more informed and mature than some 30 year olds. You realize of course that pedofilia occurs naturally. No one would ever choose this despised lifestyle voluntarily. :)
22 - bhw
What about adults that are related by 'blood'? Brothers and sisters? Mothers and sons, fathers and daughters - if everyone is an adult? Is this alright too? If not, then why? Why do we have laws against it?
The ick factor.
Also, the belief that too much inbreeding causes genetic problems [see the Hapsburg chin]. But about a year ago or so, scientists said that, genetically speaking, it'd be okay for first cousins to reproduce.
That's kind of gross to me. I love my cousins, but you know, not THAT way.
23 - Dan
Maybe it's the "ick" factor that explains why many people oppose same sex marriage.
24 - bhw
I'm sure it is. But that's not a sound legal reason to ban it.
25 - boomcrashbaby
Why should a man and a woman be allowed to be married? What does that lead to? Next thing you know people will be wanting to marry their dirty laundry. It's a slippery slope that just opens the door to all kinds of things.