Does opposing gay marriage make you an asshole?

Started by Trapezoid, Sat 01/06/2013 17:06:48

Previous topic - Next topic

Trapezoid

If it's relevant to anyone's support, Doug Tennapel is kind of a shit. Not quite Orson Scott Card levels of gross, but worth pointing out.

(Mod Note: This topic was split from here)

Armageddon

Quote from: Trapezoid on Sat 01/06/2013 17:06:48
If it's relevant to anyone's support, Doug Tennapel is kind of a shit. Not quite Orson Scott Card levels of gross, but worth pointing out.

Good thing I haven't backed it yet.

Khris

Oh wow, that's disappointing.

I have an idea, let's start a huge discussion about whether one can separate the artist from the art or not (j/k)
I guess I'll still play it, but I won't pay for it, hah!

Anian

I don't want the world, I just want your half

Fitz

Quote from: Trapezoid on Sat 01/06/2013 17:06:48
If it's relevant to anyone's support, Doug Tennapel is kind of a shit. Not quite Orson Scott Card levels of gross, but worth pointing out.

It shouldn't be relevant. It's not like Armikrog's going to be a propaganda tube for TenNapel's anti-gay-marriage/polygamy ideology, is it? Besides, the exchange in question doesn't strike me as particularly offensive. It's the internet, people, we've heard worse. It's incoherent, at best, on both sides - with 21st desperately trying to take offense ("Lastly, i'm at least thankful you're not equating gays to pedophiles or zoophiles. That's more respectful than some.") Yes, it's a hot topic these days, and a lot of people will have an opinion, and some don't keep it to themselves. So, naturally, some people will be offended. But this isn't presidential elections. We're not helping TNP become head of the State, so that he could implement his policies. It's a Kickstarter campaign for an absurdist claymation game. Likewise, Armikrog's KS campaign isn't very likely to attract massive flocks of anti-gay-marriage activists.

Also, if each and every opinionated, foul-mouthed asshole in the world made something as fun as Neverhood the world would be a better place. More fun, definitely. I might support Armikrog, and I'm definitely buying FEZ. I'm not worried about some of my spare change going to these two. I'm waaaaay more concerned where 30% of my gross salary goes every single month.

Igor Hardy

Quote from: Trapezoid on Sat 01/06/2013 17:06:48
If it's relevant to anyone's support, Doug Tennapel is kind of a shit.

Can anyone describe what did he do in short?

I don't want to go through the whole conversation in the blog's comments section.

Fitz

TL:DR - He's against state-approved gay marriage, not quite against polygamy (though that one might be TNP pulling the OP's leg/trolling for the giggles) and thinks USA rocks ;)

My summary might be a little sarcastic, but I don't really see how any of this pertains to the game's KS campaign. Quite interestingly, the blogger himself doesn't call for boycott of TNP's work, either -- and some commenters are making some great points there.


Igor Hardy

Quote from: Fitz on Sun 02/06/2013 17:48:01
TL:DR - He's against state-approved gay marriage, not quite against polygamy (though that one might be TNP pulling the OP's leg/trolling for the giggles) and thinks USA rocks ;)

And that's considered... extreme? Doesn't even involve doing any direct harm to another person.

No offense anyone, but so far I assumed that more than a half of individuals in this community are more controversial and strange in real life than Tennapel (as presented in Fitz's summary).

Andail

I won't struggle to find out if every author or creator of works I enjoy or plan to obtain is likeable, but if I do find out s/he's an asshole, I refuse to support it. It simply doesn't feel right to know that I'm financially backing someone that reactionary.

Orson Scott Card is a good example - like many others here, I loved Ender's game. But now I just can't feel any enthusiasm. Plus I fear the movie is going to suck anyway. 

So no, I personally can't easily separate the art from the artist.

PS:
Ascovel, I suggest you do read it before deciding if he's better or worse than half of this community, it's not a very long text.

kaput

Wow, Earthworm Jim looks sooo weird in this game... ;)

As for the debate - you don't have to be strange to have views like Tennapel. Homophobic, probably, but strange... Nah. Hitler was a vegetarian who didn't drink but I wouldn't consider him a better person than the pie eating homeless drunk on my local high street.

Just sayin ;)

Igor Hardy

Quote from: Andail on Sun 02/06/2013 18:01:46
PS:
Ascovel, I suggest you do read it before deciding if he's better or worse than half of this community, it's not a very long text.

Can't access the original page. "Page not found". Gaygamer's quotes I find an insufficient point of reference.

And to be clear - in no way I was deciding who's better. I'm against judging so easily. I'm against judging Tennapel's whole character and harmfulness based just on the info that he's prejudiced against some groups. I think taking a stand (even homophobic one) in a political conversation over the Internet has little to do with what a person is really made of when it counts. If Tennapel acted deliberately to harm someone then it would be a different matter.

Snarky

Like Ascovel, I have a hard time figuring out what he said that was so offensive. (From a quick Google search, all blogs seem to be repeating the same not-particularly-shocking quotes.) I don't agree with his opinion, and it wouldn't surprise me if it was rooted in some level of bigotry... and OK, his analogy is not great... but what I've seen is nowhere close to Orson Scott Card-level douchebaggery. Boycotting on this basis seems to me like, say, boycotting an artist for being Catholic.

Stupot

I know nothing about this guy except what I've read in this thread, but it seems to me the negativity toward him far outweighs the severity of his crime. So someone disagrees with gay marriage? We're living in a time when gay marriage supporters are at their most vocal and anyone who has an alternative opinion is instantly shut down and made into a figure of disgust. But does that necessarily mean he's an asshole? Or does it mean he's a bit of a misinformed guy with conservative parents who went to the wrong church as a kid?

As for the game, it looks great. I hope it does well, but I won't be backing, for financial reasons.

Cyrus

Well, I've always said that homophobophobia isn't much better than homophobia: anyone who is somewhat critical of the LGBT movement is automatically labeled as a homophobe and jerkass.

To tell you the truth, his (negative) opinion on Toonstruck is much more offensive to me  :wink:

Khris

Seriously? This guy is against equality for all people, plain and simple. What does that have to do with "homophobophobia" or the LGBT movement?
To me, speaking out publicly against gay marriage is on the same level as being against black people marrying white people.
There is simply nothing you can say in support of banning gay marriage that isn't bigoted or wrong. It's that easy.

Snarky

Quote from: Khris on Sun 02/06/2013 20:51:02
Seriously? This guy is against equality for all people, plain and simple.

1. People aren't actually all equal, and treating different people differently isn't always unfair.
2. Conservatives argue that gay people already have the same marriage rights as straight people. The law doesn't discriminate, it just defines what a marriage is.

QuoteTo me, speaking out publicly against gay marriage is on the same level as being against black people marrying white people.
There is simply nothing you can say in support of banning gay marriage that isn't bigoted or wrong. It's that easy.

That makes sense if you start from certain assumptions, but people who disagree aren't coming from those assumptions. Their reasoning is something more like:

The concept of marriage between two people of the same sex is a modern invention, not found in any culture anywhere in the world or in history. "Traditional marriage," (everywhere, always) is a union between a man and a woman. That's still what a real marriage is, just like it's always been. You can't simply make up something else and call it a marriage, any more than you could adopt your dog as your child (not because you can't love your dog, but because no matter how much you do, it's still not your child, just like your same-sex partner is not your spouse, no matter how much you love him/her). A "gay marriage" isn't a real marriage, and society is doing everyone a disservice by pretending it is.

In other words, they don't see refusing to accept gay marriage as any kind of bigotry or unfair discrimination. They see it as defending the truth against politically motivated lies spread by deluded people. (Kind of how we see defending evolution against intelligent design, where opponents argue that "both sides should get equal treatment or else you're discriminating against our beliefs.")

And it's true that same-sex marriage seen as the equivalent of opposite-sex marriage is a modern invention. (While there have been a variety of forms of same-sex unions historically, they've apparently never had the same legal or social status as male-female marriages.) Whether the union of people of opposite sex is an essential characteristic of marriage or an historically contingent one is a debatable, political question, not an absolute truth.

Since I'm an atheist and relativist, I have no problem with the idea that we as a society can decide that a marriage is any damn thing we please, and that extending the definition to cover same-sex marriages is only fair to all the gay couples in committed relationships that already include all the things I think are important in a marriage. But I can understand that someone who thinks that marriage is a rite handed down by God, and that by His definition it's a for a man and a woman, wouldn't be so ready to redefine it.

That doesn't necessarily make them bigots, although no doubt many of them are in fact homophobes.

(Personally, I would prefer that the state got out of the business of defining marriage, and just offered civil unions to everyone. Then it would be up to each church what unions they would accept.)

Khris

I'm of course aware of all that, I should have been more precise though. I was expecting a response like that and debating whether I should add to my post but was too lazy to do so when I wrote it.

Yes, not all people are equal, but all people should be treated as equal. That's why I wrote "equality for all people" (badly phrased?), not "all people are equal".

When it comes to marriage, I was actually referring to the bond between two otherwise unrelated people sanctioned by the government that grants them and their relationship certain privileges, for instance the permission to visit their spouse at a hospital bed, or the ability to inherit their stuff in case they die.
I don't really care what people call it, but it is colloquially referred to as marriage, so that's the word I used.
From what I read about this issue, same-sex couples care about being able to acquire the same rights as married couples, not necessarily about being able to call themselves married.

In other words, if the conservatives who are against gay marriage only care about their holy word and have no problem with gay couples getting "civil unioned", and the state granting them the same rights as married people, that's fine.

However, my personal impression is that this isn't what's happening. Instead, conservatives claim that children are worse off growing up with two mommies or two daddies, despite studies showing that isn't true, and try to use the idea of traditional marriage to keep same-sex couples from entering any kind of union which would grant them additional rights. They also claim that allowing two men or two women to marry, bond, unite, whatever, demeans the concept of family.
This isn't about the word, it's entirely about equal rights, and conservatives trying to basically prevent them. Which makes them bigoted assholes.

Trapezoid

To me, his answers seemed to be a bit of flimsy faux-logic masking a more deeply-rooted internal reasoning (he's religious), which he must know would come across as very ugly in the public eye. So he's smart enough not to go blathering about how God Hates Fags, but too prideful not to spout off some smug reasoning that just happens to support his emotional objection to gay marriage. Anti-gay-marriage arguments have been deconstructed so many times over, I no longer see them as anything other than obfuscation, and making a lame restroom analogy is bottom-of-the-barrel obfuscation. Tell us how you really feel, Doug.

That said, whether this is relevant to you as a consumer of his art seems to be up in the air. I don't think anyone can actually control their ability to separate art from artist, and it probably varies wildly depending on the art and artist.

Snarky

Quote from: Khris on Sun 02/06/2013 23:49:57
In other words, if the conservatives who are against gay marriage only care about their holy word and have no problem with gay couples getting "civil unioned", and the state granting them the same rights as married people, that's fine.

However, my personal impression is that this isn't what's happening. Instead, conservatives claim that children are worse off growing up with two mommies or two daddies, despite studies showing that isn't true, and try to use the idea of traditional marriage to keep same-sex couples from entering any kind of union which would grant them additional rights. They also claim that allowing two men or two women to marry, bond, unite, whatever, demeans the concept of family.
This isn't about the word, it's entirely about equal rights, and conservatives trying to basically prevent them. Which makes them bigoted assholes.

I don't know about conservatives in general, but Tennapel says: "I don't have a problem with anyone visiting anyone in the hospital... but we both know this isn't about hospital visits." That seems to indicate he's not against additional rights for gay couples, though he's dismissive of their importance. (My impression is that many conservatives are simply not seriously aware of the various and numerous problems faced by committed gay couples who're not allowed to marry.)

I'm not in his mind, I don't know what he truly believes or feels. But denying that anyone could have any rational reasons, within their own particular world view, to oppose same-sex marriage; assuming that even non-bigoted statements are made in bad faith as a front for bigotry; and that anyone who opposes same-sex marriage are therefore assholes who deserve to be boycotted... it's a little bit more extremist than I'm comfortable with.

I'm more concerned with what the Supreme Court thinks about the issue than about what Doug Tennapel thinks, anyway.

Khris

I know, it's extreme, but the concept of gay marriage has been around for quite some time, and I haven't heard a rational argument against it so far (sure, that doesn't mean there isn't one, but until somebody comes up with one, I assume there are actually none).
Which means people who oppose it do so for religious or other irrational reasons. They want to deny civil rights to a certain outgroup, thus: assholes.

Show me how they are different from racists in that regard, and I'll gladly change my view. (Saying their religion/word-view demands it obviously doesn't cut it though.)

SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk