Skip to main content

View Diary: How Same-Sex Marriage Would Have Resolved a $22,222.22 Moral Dilemma (182 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  If this is what you think: (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mrkvica, Purple Priestess
    You're working awfully hard to absolve (or excuse your disinterest in noticing the ugliness of) a person who has openly stolen thousands of dollars from a widow's bequest.
    As a result, "the 'immorality' of the Diarist" (and you can kindly stick those scare-quotes up your rear end) in fact directly undermines the point you would prefer to believe (s)he was making.
    Then you are simply blinded by your own view, and not listening.

    Please show me the "theft" of which you speak. There was none, there was the application of existing law, and you are doing a dis-service to the LGBT community if you simply refuse to stand back and discuss the issues accurately.

    You are doing nothing, by your persistent personal attacks on me, to demonstrate any other than your own inability to form an argument we can work with.

    Do you think our opponents give a flying fuck for morality. Get down off that high horse, before you fall, and construct something that prevents this from happening, rather than simply railing against something you cannot hope to control.

    We are done here.

    I hope that the quality of debate will improve,
    but I fear we will remain Democrats.

    Who is twigg?

    by twigg on Wed Jan 23, 2013 at 10:37:14 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  the theft is a moral one. (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Lost and Found, Renee, cai, kyril

      I'll refrain from commenting further.

      "Til you're so fucking crazy you can't follow their rules" John Lennon - Working Class Hero

      by Horace Boothroyd III on Wed Jan 23, 2013 at 10:59:57 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Oh? (4+ / 0-)
      Please show me the "theft" of which you speak.
      The diarist took more than $22,000 that rightfully belonged to Caroline and pocketed it for him/herself. That's theft. It isn't legally theft because the shakedown that was employed in the diarist's favor was based on the legal system's bigotry against GLBT people, but it is theft nonetheless.

      Theft is not merely a legal category. Intent as you are on denying this, it's a moral category as well.

      Have you noticed that your attempt at a debater's point ("it's not legally theft!") is founded on homophobia in just the same way that—though, thankfully, much more abstractly than—the $22K theft itself is? Homophobic law allows (1) the diarist to steal twenty-two grand and (2) you to think you can win this debater's point. Both efforts are seriously ugly.

      ...there was the application of existing law....
      Oh, well, that excuses everything! How can "the application of existing law" ever result in innocent people being bilked out of property that they own?

      Given that it is unanimously agreed that the law, in this instance, is unjust, how in the world can you seriously appeal to that very body of law as justification for anything you or the diarist are saying? It's mindblowing.

      Do you think our opponents give a flying fuck for morality.
      "Our opponents"? What "our", pray tell, would that be?

      We are here discussing an episode that amounts to a blatant and not even disputed use of homophobia as a weapon to steal $22,000 from an innocent lesbian widow. Charged with taking that seriously, you have made excuses for the diarist, attempted to distract attention from the seriousness of what (s)he did, and now argued that the taking does not constitute theft. To the extent that the phrase "our opponents" is supposed to refer to homophobes and those who aid and abet them, why exactly should one not conclude, in light of your refusal to deal squarely with this incident, that that phrase includes you?

      construct something that prevents this from happening....
      Why do you think that providing excuses for people like the diarist does anything "construct"ive at all?

      I'm communicating well-deserved scorn both for homophobia profiteers like the diarist and apologists like you. Creating a social discourse in which neither part of that is accepted seems rather constructive, actually.

      •  Using their logic (5+ / 0-)

        the Jews never had their property stolen by the Nazi's. Since it was legal.

        "Til you're so fucking crazy you can't follow their rules" John Lennon - Working Class Hero

        by Horace Boothroyd III on Wed Jan 23, 2013 at 11:47:45 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  I will report this. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Susan from 29, Purple Priestess

        Accusations of homophobia are bannable.

        I hope that the quality of debate will improve,
        but I fear we will remain Democrats.

        Who is twigg?

        by twigg on Wed Jan 23, 2013 at 12:01:24 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  You go too far. (6+ / 0-)

        Creating a social discourse in which ANY discussion other than virulent and unmitigated condemnation is equally virulently condemned, is too extreme.  We need room to canvass the nuances of any given topic, and your over-the-top personalizing is acting to prevent that.  I think you should disagree more civilly.  No one here is ADVOCATING robbing widows and orphans.  

        "The extinction of the human race will come from its inability to EMOTIONALLY comprehend the exponential function." -- Edward Teller

        by lgmcp on Wed Jan 23, 2013 at 02:03:05 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Oh, (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          lgmcp, kyril

          I'm happy to countenance less-vituperative criticism of the diarist. But that's not what twigg provided. Instead, (s)he did little but distract, deflect, and dismiss whenever the central moral point came up. (S)he brooked no criticism at all, but instead provided a mere hand-waving reference to how said central point was "a moral issue" for the diarist. That, I submit, is objectionable, if less so than the diary itself.

          Greeting the diary with quiet opprobrium rather than hot scorn seems to me perfectly acceptable... though, in this particular case (and especially in light of this diarist's bigoted history), it seems to me necessary for someone to provide the latter. Happily, a meaningful number of us in this comment section have done so.

      •  But what about Betty? You know, the one with (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        lgmcp, twigg, Purple Priestess, elfling

        whom Sandy spent so much of her life. If this had been a legally recognized marriage, she would have received a settlement at the time of the dissolution. But same sex marriage was not legal, she got nothing.

        It was Betty who instigated the challenge to the will. The diarist (I am going to assume for the sake of discussion that the situation was, as presented, accurate although just having completed the probate of my husband's estate, I do doubt the entire story) was one of four possible heirs.

        It is the absence of legally recognized same sex marriage that allows the entire question to arise. Perhaps that is where the focus should be instead of making this all about finding homophobia where there is only a difference of opinion.

        Only in the darkness can you see the stars - Martin Luther King, Jr

        by Susan Grigsby on Wed Jan 23, 2013 at 02:56:53 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Er, (3+ / 0-)

          Betty and Caroline themselves may be engaged in "a difference of opinion"—though I'm sure they, like any ex-spouse and widow(er) disputing an inheritance, experience it somewhat differently than that. To whatever extent Betty can legally demonstrate that her claims to the estate are superior to Caroline's, I certainly have no objection to them; I think we can be rather confident that "Caroline should get nothing because she's a scummy lesbian" is not Betty's argument.

          The diarist, his cousin, and their representatives are in no such innocent position. They are well aware that the only reason they stand to get anything is because Caroline (like, for that matter, Betty) has an entirely reasonable fear of being denied every penny of the estate because of a homophobic legal system. In that context, the diarist (especially in recent comments) has openly sneered that (s)he feels no compunction about pocketing the money that one or the other of the deceased's partners is very obviously entitled to.

          This diary details a major social problem that has been inflicted by marriage inequality. The diarist—who has a DKos history of horrific racism and homophobic pseudoscience—is laughing about that problem all the way to the bank. That's not "a difference of opinion," it's a sneering homophobic fact.

          •  I really think that if you are so persuaded of the (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            vcmvo2, twigg, Purple Priestess, elfling

            problems this diarist presents you should report it to the admins instead of calling other posters homophobic.

            If you feel he is a troll you should definitely report him.

            But that does not automatically make people who disagree with your position homophobic. Regardless of the intent of the diarist, the diary does discuss an issue that needs to be addressed.

            Only in the darkness can you see the stars - Martin Luther King, Jr

            by Susan Grigsby on Wed Jan 23, 2013 at 03:36:46 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  asdf (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              kyril
              you should report it to the admins....
              I did do a bit to assist cai's attempt to file such a report. At this point, alas, the report appears to have been to no avail.
              ...instead of calling other posters homophobic.
              Despite twigg's declaration to that end, I did not call him/her homophobic, nor do I believe (s)he is. (The diarist is another story.) Instead, my criticism of twigg referenced "homophobes and those who aid and abet them":
              To the extent that the phrase "our opponents" is supposed to refer to homophobes and those who aid and abet them, why exactly should one not conclude, in light of your refusal to deal squarely with this incident, that that phrase includes you?
              And I stand by that. I submit that twigg's continual attempts to deflect attention and criticism of the diarist's misconduct aided and abetted homophobia; they are therefore themselves blameworthy and are proper targets of criticism.
              But that does not automatically make people who disagree with your position homophobic.
              Of course not. Nonetheless, it is objectionable to throw chaff (e.g., "That is a moral issue for the Diarist, but not the point of the Diary") into the air in an attempt to obstruct criticism of instances of homophobia such as this diary—even if the chaff-thrower isn't him/herself homophobic. twigg's work here was a defense of the diary, and it was notably unwarranted.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site