Rules of Engagement

Assembled masses.  Let us review our Rules of Engagement here on asktheBigot.

You are invited to think critically. I encourage you to present and attack arguments. (Surprise! It’s biblical to judge ideas. John 7:24) Ask, discuss, share and big little tankdebate. Come on IN! The water is hot and shark infested. All the cool kids are doing it.

You absolutely, in no way, may attack people.  If your comments degrade persons, people or a group of persons, you shall be excommunicated (by a Bigot no less).

Here is an example of a comment that will not be approved.  “Tommy” felt the need to express his thoughts on a post in the following way:

…All you people make me sick. You may get gay marriage legalized, but its not going to change a thing. You will never be accepted as normal. Common, perhaps, but never normal… Why don’t you freaks advocate for something everyone actually gives a shit about? You feel empowered now simply because we have a queer for a president. REAL empowerment is if you all could win the favor of a heterosexual president…

Because I respect your intelligence I chose not to highlight the phrases but as you can clearly see, Tommy is a multi-level offender.

Descriptors such as freak, low-life, queer (unless that is how you choose to self-identify) and the like are low-brow and should be beneath you. Expletives I will consider on a case by case basis, excessive use of them will not be tolerated.  Neither will demeaning comments about our President, however you may feel about him.  You are welcome to vehemently disagree on behaviors, policies, or concepts, but you may not personally attack someone who holds those ideals.  So, put on your big kid pants and engage.  Otherwise, remove thyself from the sandbox, take your toys and head on home.

Now, why do we have these rules, you may ask?  It is because bigotry is not defined by holding a strong opinion.  A bigot is one who holds “obstinately or intolerantly” to that opinion (i.e. will not engage in honest conversation) and then “regards or treats the members of a group with hatred and intolerance.”  And guess what, we don’t do bigotry here. (Hint- this blog was birthed to highlight the rampant duplicity in the use of that word by those who espouse “tolerance”.)

Also, for clarification:  There are posts on this blog aimed specifically at Christians, in which case I appeal to scripture as the authority.  There are also posts on this blog which argue for a specific public policy.  In those posts, I do not appeal to the Bible as the public does not recognize its relevance or authority.  You do not have to follow that formula (though I highly recommend it), but if you choose to use the Bible in a discussion about civil code, you are on your own and godspeed to you.

It is a privilege to live in a country where we are free to debate and disagree. You may choose to handle yourself classlessly but, let us remember, actions do have consequences. Just because you can say it, doesn’t mean you should.

Aaaaand… Engage.

Advertisements

11 thoughts on “Rules of Engagement

  1. What really worries me about the repeal of DOMA and Proposition 8 is what may follow afterwards; what will become the limit of “acceptable relationships”? If DOMA defined marriage solely as the union between a man and a woman, will it become legal to be polygamous? It seems to me it will be the next step. If we use the perspective that everyone’s rights must be upheld, because those rights and choices make them who they are, as long as that behavior does not impinge on someone else’s freedom, then we will lack any solid basis to tell someone “No” when they want to exercise their choices.

    • Once we step away from the only objective (because it is a universal truth that children are born of one man and one woman) standard, and when we base marriage policy on an emotional union, there is no logical or legal reason to prohibit polygamy. Indeed, inroads for polygamy are being made in many areas of the world where gay marriage has been legalized. Here a response to DOMA by a polygamist group in Utah.
      http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/56515337-78/marriage-darger-polygamy-case.html.csp

      “The government,” he said, “can’t single out a single class of people for favorable or unfavorable treatment.”

      Darger added that he believes the decision also will influence the high-profile Brown case, which is pending in Utah before federal Judge Clark Waddoups. In that case, the polygamous Brown family — which is well known from the TV show “Sister Wives” — is suing to strike down the statute that makes bigamy a third-degree felony.”

  2. If marriage is no longer limited to man and woman then of course polygamy should be legal.

    • NB B. etal. People with sensitive hearts and stomachs might want to consider before reading this reply.

      Once you change the definition of marriage in one way, other changes will probably follow. Note well: this Does Not Mean that if you experience same sex attraction, you are also likely to experience other ways of loving, as some people have thought this response implied. Being different in one way does not mean you are different in any other way. All it means is that when the definition of marriage changes once, that sets a precedent that other (different) people with other agendas will start making use of.

      So why will the definition of marriage not, as Frau M has rightly noted, eventually change again to include number? Unlike (to the best of my knowledge) same-sex marriages, there is historic precedent for polygamous marriages in some cultures. One kind of polygamy is ‘polyamory’, which doesn’t require the relationship to be between one partner of one gender and multiple partners of the other gender: polyamory can include multiple partners of both genders. Again, there are other restrictions on marriage, currently defined, that could be lifted: restrictions such as blood ties: but then, what if they didn’t know they were related until later, and they were in love, and may even have had children? That didn’t stop a judge in Germany, fairly recently, nullifying exactly such a union.

      Or what about objectophilia: people who fall in love with inanimate objects? I’m not inventing this: look it up. About twenty years ago I watched a British documentary about a person who fell in love – sequentially – with a bridge, an archery bow, and finally the Eiffel Tower. Why should not such a relationship be officially recognised? Maybe, one day, it will be.

      All these potential fears don’t mean that there shouldn’t be changes if something should be changed. We have to consider what should (or should not) be changed, why it should (or should not) be changed, and the potential dangers of changing (or not changing). Either way, we have to deal with the issue, not attack people who hold a different view to us.

    • Nice shot Cliff. Right in the eye of the bull. 🙂 In fact ‘bigot’ – as our gracious hostess could point out – is an irregular verb: I hold to the truth; you are a bigot. The noun ‘intolerance’ is also irregular, in that it is dependent: not on case, gender, number, tense, voice or mood, but on person: your beliefs will be tolerated…as long as I find them acceptable.

  3. To reply to an above comment, there is a clear, logical, legal rational for prohibiting polygamy while also allowing gay marriage. But that aside . . .

    Three cheers for these rules of engagement! What are the chances we can get them implemented across the blogosphere?

    • Hi again, Keefe. I would be supportive of an effort to have these Rules of Engagement extended to the rest of the blogging community. But methinks it would appear somewhat Marxists if we were to impose these standards by force, and I don’t think many bloggers would willingly bend. So we will just have to live on our own little island.

      Out of curiosity, I would love to hear your thoughts on how polygamists would not be able to use any/all of the objections which have been the rallying cry for gay marriage supporters in an effort to redefine marriage to include polygamous unions.

      • You are right, of course, I didn’t mean a Kim Jong Un-style implementation program. But maybe the principals you outlined will catch on organically? (I’m an optimist).

        So . . . marriage can and very much should have rules. Private churches can make nearly any rule around marriage they wish. But our constitution (and, I’d say, morality) dictate that rules made by the government must apply equally to every individual adult citizen, regardless of their race, creed, etc. Do we agree so far?

        A rule that permits some adults the full benefit of marriage but denies others on the basis of their gender and sexual orientation is unequal and discriminatory. A rule limiting the number of people in a marriage is not discriminatory — it applies to everyone equally.

        Maybe it’s easier to see in a non-marriage context:

        Right now I’m writing from a wonderful little coffee shop. It has a sign by the door: “Maximum legal occupancy: 38 people.” That rule is not discriminatory. Because, if the place were full and a 39th person arrived for a caffeine fix, that person would be denied entry no matter who he or she was.

        Now imagine if this coffee shop’s sign read: “Maximum legal occupancy: 38 heterosexual people.” You’d agree that would be blatant discrimination, no?

        Marriage, in essence, has had a proverbial sign out out front that read “Legal occupancy: 2 heterosexual people.” In overturning DOMA, the court rightly crossed off the word “heterosexual” (at least as it pertains to federal law). “2 people” is still on the sign. As with the occupancy limit on this coffee shop, that 2-adult-per-marriage rule is not discriminatory, QED.

Comments are closed.