Education Intelligent Design Mathematics Racism

Jonathan Bartlett: Antiracism in Math Promotes Racism and Bad Math

Spread the love

If you are scratching your head over how math might be racist, you are not alone:

… one thing that is helpful for parents, students, and teachers is for students to show their work. I know it can be hard to get students to do this. My own children hate to do it. However, being explicit about the steps in their reasoning is important for a number of reasons. First, showing their work helps students with harder problems. Oftentimes students will get into a habit of completing easy problems in their heads. Then, when more complicated problems come, they fail simply because they got into the habit of not writing down what they were doing. Second, it helps the teachers and parents help the students. The teachers and parents can explicitly see what the student was thinking and where that thinking went awry. This helps everyone involved pinpoint and correct the mistake.

So, what does Equitable Math say about this practice?

According to their published guide, “White supremacy culture shows up in math class when students are required to show their work” (Dismantling Racism in Math Instruction, page 51). Why? For the reasons mentioned above! It promotes “paternalism” — the idea that math teachers and parents might know more about mathematics than the students (see also page 72 where it claims that teachers teaching is another facet of white supremacy culture). It promotes “worship of the written word” — the idea that writing things down makes things more explicit, understandable, and knowable. These are things that most of us perceive as benefits, but according to Equitable Math, is a product of “white supremacy culture.

Jonathan Bartlett, “Antiracism in Math Promotes Racism and Bad Math” at Mind Matters News

Funny how discouraging some people (but not all of us, mind you) from numeracy is supposed to help make the world more just.


See also: Yes, there really is a war on math in our schools. Pundits differ as to the causes but here are some facts parents should know. It feels odd to hear math, a multi-ethnic enterprise for as long as we have had written records, described as “white supremacy.”

70 Replies to “Jonathan Bartlett: Antiracism in Math Promotes Racism and Bad Math

  1. 1
    Fasteddious says:

    It’s no wonder our society is going down the drain. We do not teach our children how to be mature citizens; you know, honest, courteous, humble, respectful, hard working, truth seekers. We let them decide their own morals, what they will do on a given day, what they should study (if anything), who to listen to, what to believe, and so on. The view of children as blank slates in need of filling has been replaced by a romantically false notion that children are perfect to begin with, can set their own course in life without direction, and decide everything for themselves; that parents, teachers, and other authority figures should not act authoritatively. So the kids grow up (if at all) to be narcissistic, self-important, anxiety-ridden, know-it-alls, expecting everything will be handed to them and that they deserve the best. And now they are taught to hate their parents, church, country, elders, ancestors, etc. I fear for the future of Western reality. I am not alone.

  2. 2
    polistra says:

    Of course. The purpose of “rights” and “diversity” is to divide the population by an ever-finer fractionation of meaningless categories. This wasn’t always clear, but Alinsky clarified it perfectly. When everyone is focused on “conversations” about the differences, nothing gets done. When everyone is focused on getting things done (ie work) the differences fade down to a tolerable level.

  3. 3
    mahuna says:

    This is ENTIRELY about differences in IQ, and best discussed there. People of African ancestry have averages IQ of 75, with a Standard Deviation of 10. People of European Ancestry (Indo-Europeans or Aryans) have an average IQ of 100, with a Standard Deviation of 15. So some tiny percentage of Africans have what would be considered “normal” or “average” among Europeans (and would be rated as “Genius” amongst Africans: 2 standard deviations about African “normal”.). There is NOTHING either Africans or Europeans can do about this difference in IQ. Or you can of course “cross-breed” Africans with Europeans to slowly (over generations) bring the offspring’s IQs up as they become more fully European.
    If you want to UNDERSTAND this, read the books by Charles Murray, etc. If you want to ARGUE about this, you’re a fool and should stop now.

  4. 4
    Seversky says:

    Racism in math is a distraction. What is really needed is teachers who can actually teach the subject in a way that engages students rather than making them feel incompetent and excluded.

  5. 5
    BleacherBum says:

    Sev, I believe the obstacle for teachers is overcoming a culture that primes the student starting before K all the way to 12 to feel incompetent and excluded. When my wife homeschooled our kids from K to 12 we didn’t have to overcome anything except a little sleepiness from time to time. No dysfunctional home life, no dysfunctional communities, distractions under control. Very little wasted time, very efficient skill acquisition. Sadly, though, we are white.

  6. 6
    BobRyan says:

    Seversky

    Teachers are not allowed to teach, since one size fits all prohibits the very idea of teaching. Students are not all the same, but the unions and bureaucrats demand they learn the same. Education should be fluid and catered towards strengths in both how a child learns as well as the natural abilities that exist within.

    Innovation does not exist within a bureaucracy.

  7. 7
    JVL says:

    Fasteddious: We let them decide their own morals

    There was a time, not so long ago, wherein if a white woman wanted to marry a black man a lot of people would have told her she was wrong. Perhaps allowing some morals to move ahead isn’t such a bad thing.

  8. 8
    ET says:

    White marrying black has nothing to do with morals.

  9. 9
    Steve Alten2 says:

    ET ” White marrying black has nothing to do with morals.”

    The opposition to governments’ refusal to recognize interracial marriage had nothing to do with morals? I’m sure we would all like to hear your rationale for this claim.

  10. 10
    ET says:

    Acartia Stevie:

    The opposition to governments’ refusal to recognize interracial marriage had nothing to do with morals?

    Look, you immoral jerk, that has nothing to do with what I said.

    I’m sure we would all like to hear your rationale for this claim.

    Arbitrary laws and rules based on nonsensical ideas should be ignored and fought by all rational and reasonable people.

  11. 11
    Fasteddious says:

    There is a big difference between teaching children morals, some of which may be later seen as in need of changing, and not teaching them anything at all.
    Morals should indeed advance, but only when it can be shown, logically and in line with the rest of the moral fabric holding society together, that particular morals need tweaking. This is very different from a wholesale dismissal of all previous norms in favour of moral anarchy.
    When you ask a woke person, “where are you taking us?”, and they cannot give a cogent response, or their response is unrealistically utopian, then you know we are in trouble if we allow them to proceed.

  12. 12
    JVL says:

    ET: Arbitrary laws and rules based on nonsensical ideas should be ignored and fought by all rational and reasonable people.

    Laws banning same-sex marriage are arbitrary based on what exactly? Laws banning polygamy (practiced by many people in the Bible and the Koran) are arbitrary based on what exactly?

  13. 13
    ET says:

    Marriage was defined as the union between a man an a woman. Someone had to change the definition. I am OK with polygamy. As long as procreation occurs. No procreation, no marriage, as far as I am concerned. If you can’t procreate with your chosen mate then you shouldn’t be able to marry. Too bad for the sterile people.

  14. 14
    JVL says:

    ET: Marriage was defined as the union between a man an a woman.

    By whom? When?

    I am OK with polygamy. As long as procreation occurs. No procreation, no marriage, as far as I am concerned. If you can’t procreate with your chosen mate then you shouldn’t be able to marry. Too bad for the sterile people.

    How does a couple show they can procreate before they get married if premarital sex is not allowed? What about couples who are no longer able to procreate (if the women is past menopause? Or because of an illness?)? If science allows two women to procreate then can they get married?

    Also, on what legal basis do you propose to limit marriage to heterosexual couples who can procreate?

    Why is polygamy outlawed in most of the US? What are the bases of those laws? Should they be protested and changed?

  15. 15
    Steve Alten2 says:

    JVL “ By whom? When?

    By man. As such, there is no reason man can’t modify that definition, as we have many times over the centuries.

    Also, on what legal basis do you propose to limit marriage to heterosexual couples who can procreate?“

    I don’t believe that it is based on any legal arguments. And it is unlikely that it can be defended on any grounds other than personal prejudices.

  16. 16
    ET says:

    How does a couple show they can procreate before they get married if premarital sex is not allowed?

    I never said anything about premarital sex, so grow up. And there are ways to determine fertility.

    What about couples who are no longer able to procreate (if the women is past menopause? Or because of an illness?)?

    They can still be together.

    If science allows two women to procreate then can they get married?

    I don’t even know what that means.

    Also, on what legal basis do you propose to limit marriage to heterosexual couples who can procreate?

    Why do I need a legal basis? I have a scientific basis.

    Why is polygamy outlawed in most of the US? What are the bases of those laws? Should they be protested and changed?

    Don’t know, don’t care, be my guest.

    Look, the ONLY reason that same sex people want to get married is that marriage comes with some benefits. But that is because of what marriage entails. The benefits are for those who sacrifice to have and raise their own children. The very people who keep the population alive. So the same sex couples want something that they don’t deserve for the mere reason that they cannot procreate.

    And as I keep saying, and you keep ignoring, why do we stop at same sex? Multiple partners, no age limits, marry your dog so the vet bills are lower- where do you stop and what is YOUR legal basis?

  17. 17
    ET says:

    acartia stevie:

    As such, there is no reason man can’t modify that definition, as we have many times over the centuries.

    That is what desperate people do, though.

    And it is unlikely that it can be defended on any grounds other than personal prejudices.

    The SAME can be said for polygamy, child marriages, marrying your dog or cat or whatever you want.

  18. 18
    JVL says:

    <ET: I never said anything about premarital sex, so grow up. And there are ways to determine fertility.

    I didn’t say you did mention it; I mentioned it.

    Let’s say a young women finds out, because of cancer, that her ovaries are kaput and not producing eggs. She cannot conceive children. Should she be allowed to marry?

    They can still be together.

    So, your actual criteria has nothing to do with whether or not a couple can actually produce children?

    I don’t even know what that means.

    The genetic material from one woman is implanted in the egg of the other. They bring a child into the world, by choice, that is theirs. Can they marry?

    Why do I need a legal basis? I have a scientific basis.

    Because most modern countries accept that the laws of the nation are the guidelines which much be obeyed by all citizens regardless of race, creed, theology, etc. Also, because you are saying certain civil liberties should be withheld from some citizens without providing a basis in constitutional law.

    The benefits are for those who sacrifice to have and raise their own children. The very people who keep the population alive. So the same sex couples want something that they don’t deserve for the mere reason that they cannot procreate.

    They can at least adopt, give a child a good, loving, supportive home. Doesn’t that count?

    And as I keep saying, and you keep ignoring, why do we stop at same sex? Multiple partners, no age limits, marry your dog so the vet bills are lower- where do you stop and what is YOUR legal basis?

    Radical changes in the laws (allowing people to marry children or animals) would entail a lot of public debate and very, likely would no pass. So your slippery-slope argument is just fear mongering. Underlying all such issues is: informed consent. A child or an animal cannot give informed consent.

    What is your real reason for wanting to deny same-sex couples the right to marry? I don’t believe it’s really the ability to procreate, there’s some other issue you’re not saying.

  19. 19
    ET says:

    Again, for the learning impaired: Once you allow same sex marriages you HAVE to allow ALL TYPES of marriages for the SAME reasons. It is hypocrisy to not do so. Blatant, dishonest hypocrisy. But I understand that the people who are OK with same-sex marriages are dishonest hypocrites.

    And I do not care what JVL doesn’t believe me when I say that marriage should only be between people who can procreate.

  20. 20
    Steve Alten2 says:

    JVL “What is your real reason for wanting to deny same-sex couples the right to marry? I don’t believe it’s really the ability to procreate, there’s some other issue you’re not saying.

    I suggest that you look at the comments he has posted on other websites. From these I think it is easy to determine why he is opposed to same sex marriage.

  21. 21
    ET says:

    Acartia Stevie is still just a pathological liar and coward. Make your case or admit that my assessment of you is correct.

    But then again, acartia stevie is a proven dishonest hypocrite.

  22. 22
    JVL says:

    ET:Again, for the learning impaired: Once you allow same sex marriages you HAVE to allow ALL TYPES of marriages for the SAME reasons. It is hypocrisy to not do so. Blatant, dishonest hypocrisy. But I understand that the people who are OK with same-sex marriages are dishonest hypocrites.

    No, you do NOT have to allow anything beyond adult human marriage; apply the principle of informed consent and the age of consent and you avoid anything past that.

    It’s not hypocrisy because there is no principle being claimed or supported that it needs to go beyond adult humans. And if there are a few weirdos who want to be able to marry their dog it doesn’t mean the rest of us have to concede to their wishes.

    And I do not care what JVL doesn’t believe me when I say that marriage should only be between people who can procreate.

    I believe that you believe that, I’m trying to figure out why. You are holding back on something because your reasons are thin and easily argued against. So what is it really? Why are you afraid to say what you really think? If it’s a matter of faith then I can’t really argue against that. If you think marriage should only be between a man and a woman because it says so in the Koran well . . . I’ve got no argument against that except to say I don’t think theological beliefs should be binding on societal ethics. But I can’t argue an issue of faith with science.

  23. 23
    ET says:

    JVL:

    No, you do NOT have to allow anything beyond adult human marriage; apply the principle of informed consent and the age of consent and you avoid anything past that.

    That is all personal prejudices.

    It’s not hypocrisy because there is no principle being claimed or supported that it needs to go beyond adult humans. And if there are a few weirdos who want to be able to marry their dog it doesn’t mean the rest of us have to concede to their wishes.

    They aren’t any weirder than people marrying the same sex partners. Your personal prejudices are showing. So it is blatant hypocrisy.

    And you do not understand science. So don’t even try to bring that up.

    Science says it- same sex unions- are unnatural. So stuff it. And I am not religious. So make that a double stuff.

    The same reasons to allow same-sex marriages goes for all types of marriages. The same reasons to disallow same-sex marriages also applies to all types of marriages. It isn’t my fault that JVL cannot grasp that. And it isn’t my fault that JVL has personal prejudices that make him act like a hypocrite

  24. 24
    JVL says:

    ET: That is all personal prejudices.

    If you introduce a law which says: all human adults can marry that implies a species limitation and an age of consent limitation. What are you arguing against really?

    They aren’t any weirder than people marrying the same sex partners. Your personal prejudices are showing. So it is blatant hypocrisy.

    Why does it bother you so much if two women or two men want to have the same civil liberties and you and your wife have? What is it?

    Science says it- same sex unions- are unnatural. So stuff it. And I am not religious. So make that a double stuff.

    References please. Seriously, where does science say same-sex couples are unnatural? You are aware that many animal species have examples of same-sex pairings so what is it that bothers you so much?

    The same reasons to allow same-sex marriages goes for all types of marriages. The same reasons to disallow same-sex marriages also applies to all types of marriages. It isn’t my fault that JVL cannot grasp that. And it isn’t my fault that JVL has personal prejudices that make him act like a hypocrite

    I’m just trying to figure out what your real concerns are. Allowing two men or two women to marry doesn’t damage your marriage one bit. It doesn’t threaten you in any way. Based on the experience of many countries it doesn’t damage or threaten society at all.

    So, what is it that bothers you about same-sex marriages? Just spell it out so your view is clear.

  25. 25
    JVL says:

    Eye glasses are unnatural. Flying in airplanes at 35,000 feet is unnatural. Traveling to the moon is unnatural. But no one is suggesting we outlaw those. Why is same-sex marriage something to be afraid of? I’d really like to know.

  26. 26
    ET says:

    JVL, strawman maker:

    If you introduce a law which says: all human adults can marry that implies a species limitation and an age of consent limitation.

    Again, you miss the point. It’s as you you relish being willfully ignorant.

    Do other animals get married? No. You you just scored an own-goal, dippy.

    The same-sex couples cannot procreate with their chosen mate. There is no reason for marriage beyond having and raising a family.

    The same reasons to allow same-sex marriages goes for all types of marriages. The same reasons to disallow same-sex marriages also applies to all types of marriages. It isn’t my fault that JVL cannot grasp that. And it isn’t my fault that JVL has personal prejudices that make him act like a hypocrite

    JVL just avoids that and prattles on like an infant. Good luck with that.

  27. 27
    ET says:

    JVL:

    Eye glasses are unnatural. Flying in airplanes at 35,000 feet is unnatural. Traveling to the moon is unnatural.

    So those are supernatural? Really? Or are you just grasping at straws because you cannot form a coherent argument? Or are you trying to distract from the fact that you are a blatant hypocrite?

    No one wants to marry their glasses. No one wants to marry an airplane or a rocket. So why are you such a dishonest punk?

  28. 28
    JVL says:

    ET: Again, you miss the point. It’s as you you relish being willfully ignorant. Do other animals get married? No. You you just scored an own-goal, dippy.k

    That wasn’t my point at all. Are you going to respond to what I actually said with some sensible argument?

    The same-sex couples cannot procreate with their chosen mate. There is no reason for marriage beyond having and raising a family.

    Your opinion is based on what exactly? Who says marriage is all about having and raising a family? Besides, I can give you examples of same-sex couples having and raising children so . . .

    JVL just avoids that and prattles on like an infant. Good luck with that.

    You can’t seem to come up with a clear and cogent and data-supported reason why same-sex marriage should be prohibited. This is why you view is losing such arguments: you can’t support your view.

  29. 29
    Steve Alten2 says:

    JVL “ Why is same-sex marriage something to be afraid of?“

    To understand this I think you have to understand the psychology and pathology behind homophobia. For many, their reason is religious. Their intentions are good although, in my opinion, misguided.

    For some, it is just ignorance and insecurity. They have little first-hand experience with same sex couples. These people just follow the lead of their peers for fear of their reaction should they disagree. These are the type of people who disown their own children if they happen to be gay.

    The last group are those who are insecure about their own sexuality, fearful of their own same sex desires. I think this group constitutes a significant portion of the most vocal opponents to SSM and the acceptance of homosexuality.

  30. 30
    ET says:

    Again: The same reasons to allow same-sex marriages goes for all types of marriages. The same reasons to disallow same-sex marriages also applies to all types of marriages. It isn’t my fault that JVL cannot grasp that. And it isn’t my fault that JVL has personal prejudices that make him act like a hypocrite.

    Next, JVL, take an anatomy class and learn what science says about the anus.

    It is not my opinion that same sex couples cannot procreate with their chosen partner. JVL is totally ignorant of science.

  31. 31
    ET says:

    Acartia loser:

    To understand this I think you have to understand the psychology and pathology behind homophobia.

    I am OK with two men or two women being together. So clearly you are just an infant loser.

    The same reasons to allow same-sex marriages goes for all types of marriages. The same reasons to disallow same-sex marriages also applies to all types of marriages. It isn’t my fault that JVL cannot grasp that. And it isn’t my fault that JVL has personal prejudices that make him act like a hypocrite.

    So if you allow same sex marriages you have to allow all types of marriages or else you are a prejudiced hypocrite suffering from some phobia.

  32. 32
    ET says:

    JVL:

    Why does it bother you so much if two women or two men want to have the same civil liberties and you and your wife have?

    What civil liberties were they denied before same-sex marriage was approved? Or are you just a liar?

  33. 33
    ET says:

    Furthermore, we can just change the definition of the words “adult” and “consent”. We can even get rid of the species concept making OK to marry a dog.

    You guys are hypocrites for being OK with same-sex marriages but not OK with all other types of marriage.

  34. 34
    JVL says:

    ET: No one wants to marry their glasses. No one wants to marry an airplane or a rocket. So why are you such a dishonest punk?

    No one suggested they wanted to marry their glasses. Maybe you should try and focus a bit.

    Next, JVL, take an anatomy class and learn what science says about the anus.

    What does the anus have to do with anything?

    It is not my opinion that same sex couples cannot procreate with their chosen partner. JVL is totally ignorant of science.

    You seem hell-bent on pursuing a particular form of prejudice and I’m trying to figure out why.

    So if you allow same sex marriages you have to allow all types of marriages or else you are a prejudiced hypocrite suffering from some phobia.

    No, you do not. Why are you perpetrating this myth?

    What civil liberties were they denied before same-sex marriage was approved? Or are you just a liar?

    Why don’t you ask them? If you really care.

    Furthermore, we can just change the definition of the words “adult” and “consent”. We can even get rid of the species concept making OK to marry a dog.

    Scaremongering is not an argument. It’s just scaremongering. Clearly you have a real problem with same-sex couples marrying but you can’t clearly say what is wrong with it.

    You guys are hypocrites for being OK with same-sex marriages but not OK with all other types of marriage.

    You projecting what you think our opinion should be is just prejudice. How about you actually stand up and be clear about your own opinion: what is your actual problem with same sex marriage?

  35. 35
    Steve Alten2 says:

    JVL “ No one suggested they wanted to marry their glasses.

    True. But it has the same level of pertinence as the argument that SSM will lead to inter-species marriage.

    What does the anus have to do with anything?

    Well, it is essential, and multi-functional. It defines both a part of the human anatomy and certain people who base their views on homophobic prejudices.

    Why don’t you ask them? If you really care.

    Why ask people what they desire when you can just tell them what they are limited to? The latter is so much easier.

    Clearly you have a real problem with same-sex couples marrying but you can’t clearly say what is wrong with it.

    Perhaps some people are just worried that same sex couples may be more successful at marriage than they are.

    Might I point out that the legalization of same sex marriage has been linked to a significant reduction in teen suicides and suicide attempts.

  36. 36
    ET says:

    JVL:

    No one suggested they wanted to marry their glasses.

    Then why did YOU bring it up in a discussion on marriage? Are you an ass?

    What does the anus have to do with anything?

    Your ignorance isn’t an argument.

    You seem hell-bent on pursuing a particular form of prejudice and I’m trying to figure out why.

    Spoken like a prejudiced ignoramus.

    No, you do not.

    Yes, you do or else you are a cowardly hypocrite.

    Why don’t you ask them?

    So you are a liar.

    Scaremongering is not an argument.

    Your ignorance, cowardice and hypocrisy aren’t arguments and yet that is all you have.

    How about you actually stand up and be clear about your own opinion: what is your actual problem with same sex marriage?

    Look, asshole, I have already told you. YOU have serious issues and should seek help.

  37. 37
    ET says:

    Acartia loser:

    Might I point out that the legalization of same sex marriage has been linked to a significant reduction in teen suicides and suicide attempts.

    Correlation is not causation, moron. And if same-sex marriage helped them then they are losers anyway. Thankfully they won’t reproduce and give us more whining losers.

    You guys are hypocrites for being OK with same-sex marriages but not OK with all other types of marriage.

  38. 38
    ET says:

    The same reasons to allow same-sex marriages goes for all types of marriages. The same reasons to disallow same-sex marriages also applies to all types of marriages. It isn’t my fault that JVL cannot grasp that. And it isn’t my fault that JVL has personal prejudices that make him act like a hypocrite.

    I don’t care if you two want to ignore the facts and you are proud to be hypocrites.

    Furthermore, we can just change the definition of the words “adult” and “consent”. We can even get rid of the species concept making OK to marry a dog.

    It is entertaining watching you dance around that, too.

  39. 39
    JVL says:

    ET: Then why did YOU bring it up in a discussion on marriage? Are you an ass?

    I stated clearly why I brought them up; if you can’t remember the conversation maybe you shouldn’t participate.

    Your ignorance isn’t an argument.

    If you’re not going to explain why you brought up anuses then I’ll just ignore that comment.

    Look, asshole, I have already told you. YOU have serious issues and should seek help.

    You haven’t really explained anything. You’ve made a vague assertion, can’t find any legal reasons to back up your opinion, and I suspect you have some unstated reason for your stance.

    What harm does it cause to let same-sex couples marry? Does it affect you in any way? What do you care what consenting adults get up to in the privacy of their own home? Would you be happy letting the world see what you do in your bedroom?

    The same reasons to allow same-sex marriages goes for all types of marriages.

    Nope, making sure the participants are consenting adults stops your slippery-slope fear.

    Furthermore, we can just change the definition of the words “adult” and “consent”. We can even get rid of the species concept making OK to marry a dog.

    Who thinks that would happen? I don’t. I wouldn’t support that. Why are you so afraid of same-sex marriage?

    It is entertaining watching you dance around that, too.

    Your continual projection of your fears on other people is pretty blatant and tiring.

  40. 40
    Steve Alten2 says:

    JVL “ Why are you so afraid of same-sex marriage?”

    I think it is obvious to anyone who has read ET’s comments. Irrational fear based on unresolved sexual issues. He might be less angry if he just came out of the closet. 🙂

  41. 41
    ET says:

    JVL:

    I stated clearly why I brought them up;

    Only a dishonest prick would bring them up in a discussion on marriage.

    If you’re not going to explain why you brought up anuses then I’ll just ignore that comment.

    I shouldn’t have to explain that. Your ignorance just exposes you as an ass.

    You haven’t really explained anything.

    Liar.

    What harm does it cause to let same-sex couples marry?

    I have explained that, too.
    The same reasons to allow same-sex marriages goes for all types of marriages.

    Nope, making sure the participants are consenting adults stops your slippery-slope fear.

    What fear? Make your case that I have some fear or shut up. And AGAIN, consent can be changed. Laws can be changed.

    Furthermore, we can just change the definition of the words “adult” and “consent”. We can even get rid of the species concept making OK to marry a dog.

    Who thinks that would happen?

    Only hypocrites would prevent it.

    Why are you so afraid of same-sex marriage?

    Why do you beat your wife?

    Your continual projection of your fears on other people is pretty blatant and tiring.

    Perhaps YOU should stop being a lying hypocrite.

  42. 42
    ET says:

    Acartia Liar:

    Irrational fear based on unresolved sexual issues.

    You are the one with the irrational fear. You are the one who is a pathological liar.

    So stop projecting your bullshit onto me.

  43. 43
    ET says:

    There isn’t any reason to get married unless you are going to have and raise children with your spouse. Biological fitness is the key.

  44. 44
    JVL says:

    ET: Only a dishonest prick would bring them up in a discussion on marriage.

    I stated clearly why I brought them up. I’ll leave it up to any readers to decide if my reference was pertinent.

    I shouldn’t have to explain that. Your ignorance just exposes you as an ass.

    I guess I’m just as not anally-focused as you since I don’t get the connection.

    I have explained that, too. The same reasons to allow same-sex marriages goes for all types of marriages.

    You have proposed a slippery-slope fear scenario which no one thinks is going to happen. And keeping the notion of informed adult consent prevents sliding down your slope of destruction. So, the question of why you fear same-sex marriages is unanswered.

    What fear? Make your case that I have some fear or shut up. And AGAIN, consent can be changed. Laws can be changed.

    No where near enough people are even considering allowing people to marry their pets. It ain’t gonna happen. So, what are you really afraid of.

    Only hypocrites would prevent it.

    I’m in favour of consenting adults being able to marry. I think allowing people to marry their pets violates the condition of informed consent. How is that hypocritical?

    Perhaps YOU should stop being a lying hypocrite.

    Since I’m not lying or a hypocrite perhaps you’d like to toss out your straw man, slippery-slope argument and tell us why you’re really afraid of same-sex marriage.

    There isn’t any reason to get married unless you are going to have and raise children with your spouse. Biological fitness is the key.

    There’s lots of reasons that people want to get married. Tax benefits are one. Showing their commitment publicly is another. The ability to act on your spouse’s behalf when they are incapacitated is a very important benefit. Inheritance laws. There are lots of reasons people want to get married.

    You are an extremely insensitive and callous individual when it comes to supporting people whose lifestyles you disagree with. And your reasons are thin and clearly a facade for something else you are too cowardly to relate. You disrespect millions of people and you disrespect yourself.

  45. 45
    ET says:

    JVL:

    I stated clearly why I brought them up.

    Only a dishonest prick would bring them up in a discussion on marriage.

    You have proposed a slippery-slope fear scenario

    Nope. I just brought up the facts. Then you proved that you are a hypocrite

    No where near enough people are even considering allowing people to marry their pets.

    All it takes is ONE person. Hypocrite.

    I’m in favour of consenting adults being able to marry.

    And we can change the definition of consent. We can change marriage so it doesn’t need any consent.

    There isn’t any reason to get married unless you are going to have and raise children with your spouse. Biological fitness is the key.

    There’s lots of reasons that people want to get married.

    There are lots of reasons to not get married.

    Tax benefits are one. Showing their commitment publicly is another. The ability to act on your spouse’s behalf when they are incapacitated is a very important benefit. Inheritance laws.

    None of that requires marriage. Tax benefits? You are clueless.

    You are an extremely insensitive and callous individual when it comes to supporting people whose lifestyles you disagree with.

    You are just an ass. Just because I say that marriage should be limited to those who can procreate doesn’t mean I am against any lifestyle. Clearly you are just a loser coward and pathetic waste of skin.

    And your reasons are thin and clearly a facade for something else you are too cowardly to relate.

    You are pathological.

    You disrespect millions of people and you disrespect yourself.

    Coming from a known lowlife like yourself I take that as a compliment

    Still waiting on those civil liberties denied to same-sex couples.

  46. 46
    JVL says:

    ET: Only a dishonest prick would bring them up in a discussion on marriage.

    Okay, so you didn’t get the comparison.

    Nope. I just brought up the facts. Then you proved that you are a hypocrite

    There is no indication that a majority of people in any country would support being able to marry your pet. You’re a merchant of fear and doubt.

    All it takes is ONE person. Hypocrite.

    One person cannot change the civil laws in any country.

    And we can change the definition of consent. We can change marriage so it doesn’t need any consent.

    We can but no one is proposing to extend that to animals. No one.

    There isn’t any reason to get married unless you are going to have and raise children with your spouse. Biological fitness is the key.

    In your opinion.

    None of that requires marriage. Tax benefits? You are clueless.

    It’s all easier and some of it’s automatic when you are married. Also, the laws in other countries are different.

    You are just an ass. Just because I say that marriage should be limited to those who can procreate doesn’t mean I am against any lifestyle. Clearly you are just a loser coward and pathetic waste of skin.

    You clearly are. And you deny it. You can’t even own up to your own view.

    Still waiting on those civil liberties denied to same-sex couples.

    I told you some. And even if those particular things are possible without being married in the US it doesn’t mean that is the case in other countries.

    Like I said: clearly you have some unstated objection to same-sex marriage which you can’t/won’t own up to. Allowing same-sex marriage harms you and your spouse not a bit. Allowing same-sex marriage doesn’t even grant them any legal advantages (according to you) in the US. Marriage is clearly not just about procreation and your insistence it is is strange and you offer no legal support for that view. Marriage is clearly a human-created contract so why shouldn’t humans be able to extend and modify it to encompass valued and civil members of society? You’ve got no answer for any of that. So what is it? Don’t just keep repeating the same bogus arguments; be honest and clear. Own your views. There’s no shame in that.

  47. 47
    Steve Alten2 says:

    JVL “Like I said: clearly you have some unstated objection to same-sex marriage which you can’t/won’t own up to.”

    JVL, I think that a look at ET’s own blog might give you a hint about where ET’s mind-set with respect to homosexuality comes from. Normal people do not talk like this.

    https://intelligentreasoning.blogspot.com/2021/03/stevestory-is-proud-to-be-ignorant.html

  48. 48
    Viola Lee says:

    I take it that since this isn’t KF’s thread, it’s OK to talk about “forbidden subjects” like same-sex marriage! 🙂

    And from what little I’ve read, I take it that from ET’s position, a hetero couple where the woman or the
    man wasn’t able to contribute to reproduction shouldn’t be allowed to marry. That’s flabbergasting.

    It appears that ET is unfamilar with all the other reasons people might want to get married like, you know, love, affection, companionship in sickness or in health, financial and household well being, etc.–sort of like all the reasons a same-sex couple might want to be married.

  49. 49
    Steve Alten2 says:

    Viola Lee “That’s flabbergasting.”

    Understatement of the year.

    Society should attempt to support everyone as long as their behaviour does not harm others either directly or indirectly. Homosexuality falls into this category. As such, homosexuals should be entitled to all of the opportunities that others benefit from. This includes marriage, adoption, freedom from persecution, etc. It also comes with obligations.

    What I find encouraging is that in the last couple decades, society has slowly accepted homosexuality as a reality of life for some people. This has resulted with the removal of employment limitations and service delivery limitations. As a result, we have seen a significant reduction in the rates of teen suicide and attempted suicide.

  50. 50
    ET says:

    Earth to acartia stevie- Normal people don’t talk like you do. Normal people don’t talk like stevestory does. Normal people aren’t evoTARDs.

  51. 51
    ET says:

    Viola Lee:

    And from what little I’ve read, I take it that from ET’s position, a hetero couple where the woman or the man wasn’t able to contribute to reproduction shouldn’t be allowed to marry. That’s flabbergasting.

    Ye of little minds seem to think so.

    It appears that ET is unfamilar with all the other reasons people might want to get married like, you know, love, affection, companionship in sickness or in health, financial and household well being, etc.

    Marriage isn’t required for any of that.

    You people are daft. Marriage doesn’t make people happy. It doesn’t make them in love. It doesn’t force anyone to be there in sickness or health.

    Clearly you are unable to think beyond your own arses

  52. 52
    ET says:

    JVL:

    Okay, so you didn’t get the comparison.

    No, YOU don’t get that there isn’t any comparison.

    There is no indication that a majority of people in any country would support being able to marry your pet.

    Stuff your strawman, coward.

    One person cannot change the civil laws in any country.

    All it takes is one to get the laws changed.

    You clearly are.

    You clearly are a loser and an ass. You are going to believe whatever you want. So go pound sand. You are a hypocrite for being OK with same sex marriages and against all other types of marriage. Those people deserve happiness and tax exemptions too. You have no right to not include them.

    My point is that not everyone is included in everything. Many things are exclusive. They have there reasons to be exclusive. So are exclusive by skill-set. Others are exclusive by skin color or nationality. That is just the way it is. Marriage should be exclusive to those who can procreate with their chosen partner. OR open to everyone. To exclude others is to be a total loser hypocrite.

    And I don’t care if you don’t get it. You aren’t a deep thinker.

  53. 53
    Viola Lee says:

    ET, there are other legal benefits to marriage such as being able to file taxes jointly, rights to see a spouse in the hospital, etc. Would you be OK with a hetero couple who couldn’t reproduce being allowed to be in a civil union that would give them those rights?

  54. 54
    ET says:

    acartia dippy:

    As such, homosexuals should be entitled…

    Marriage isn’t an entitlement. How stupid are you?

  55. 55
    ET says:

    Viola Lee:

    there are other legal benefits to marriage such as being able to file taxes jointly, rights to see a spouse in the hospital, etc.

    Grasping at straws. How entertaining. Filing jointly doesn’t help my wife and I. But we would be penalized by filing separately. Even though filing separately would be a financial benefit. I never heard of someone being denied the right to see someone in the hospital because they weren’t married to them.

    You guys make stuff up as if it’s real. Pathetic.

  56. 56
    Steve Alten2 says:

    Viola Lee, i suggest that you don’t respond to ET. He is pathologically incapable of engaging in a discussion with someone whom he disagrees without being abusive. He also has a long history of calling people “faggots” and other homosexual related derogatory terms.

  57. 57
    ET says:

    Acartia Kevin- Please stop whining like an infant. You are nothing but a pathological liar. You have a long history of misrepresenting what I say, lying about what I say an taking what I say out of context. You are the lowest of the low. The people I attack are nothing by childish gossips intent on lying and slandering. So I understand why you would side with them.

  58. 58
    Steve Alten2 says:

    See Viola? Certain people simply are not capable of engaging in a debate with those they disagree without resorting to insults and abuse.

  59. 59
    ET says:

    There is ONE and ONLY one reason that I have heard with respect to allowing same-sex marriages- the insurance coverage reason. It seems that if you aren’t legally married to your chosen partner, same sex or hetero, your partner will not be carried under your insurance policy. So that means either your uninsured partner has to get a job with benefits, together you save money to pay for medical expenses or they get their own insurance.

    Marriage doesn’t guarantee anyone happiness. It doesn’t make you love someone any more than you did before. But it does guarantee you a spot on your partner’s insurance plan.

  60. 60
    ET says:

    Acartia Kevin:

    Certain people simply are not capable of engaging in a debate with those they disagree without resorting to insults and abuse.

    You just described yourself. Nice own goal.

    I am not attacking Viola. I am just pointing out the facts with respect to you and the people you are trying to defend. But I understand why you would have an issue with that.

  61. 61
    Viola Lee says:

    ET, I am sure that married persons have some rights in respect to the medical system that unmarried people, including domestic partners, don’t have.

  62. 62
    ET says:

    Viola Lee:

    I am sure that married persons have some rights in respect to the medical system that unmarried people, including domestic partners, don’t have.

    Is that supposed to be an argument? Do you think there are those in the legal system that can draw up papers allowing those rights? There are several flavors of “Power of Attorney”. You could even make it so the person you are married to doesn’t get a legal say in what happens.

    I am sure that unmarried people, including domestic partners, can have all of those same medical rights as hetero couples enjoy. They just may have to plan ahead.

  63. 63
    Viola Lee says:

    But my question is, ET, would you support a civil union contract which would bundle all those legal rights together for hetero couples that wanted to live as a committed couple, and have that recognized by society, but couldn’t reproduce. It wouldn’t be marriage, but it would provide a uniform legal status for such people. Would that be OK from your point of view?

  64. 64
    ET says:

    I never heard of any couple having a civil union contract. But I don’t care about any of that. I don’t care about same sex relationships. I don’t care about men and women living together unmarried. They are all protected under current laws. So I don’t understand what you are saying.

    All that should happen is someone signs the power of attorney of tells the hospital who is allowed to visit. I have never seen nor heard of anyone being denied just because they weren’t married to the patient.

    Insurance companies are leery for financial reasons.

  65. 65
    ET says:

    I never heard of any couple having a civil union contract. But I don’t care about any of that. I don’t care about same sex relationships. I don’t care about men and women living together unmarried. They are all protected under current laws. So I don’t understand what you are saying.

    All that should happen is someone signs the power of attorney of tells the hospital who is allowed to visit. I have never seen nor heard of anyone being denied just because they weren’t married to the patient.

    Insurance companies are leery for financial reasons.

    But yes, I am OK with people being able to see the one they love in the hospital. Regardless of the sex or the species.

  66. 66
    Viola Lee says:

    I see. Well, I think formalizing and making it easy for people to get all the legal benefits of marriage, even if you call it something else, would be useful, so we will be in disagreement about this. But people disagree about moral matters all the time, and we just have to live with that, I guess.

  67. 67
    ET says:

    Legal benefits of marriage? What are those beyond letting a foreigner live in the USA because they are married to a US citizen? Was I suppose to get a packet describing these legal benefits of marriage?

    Methinks you are making much ado about nothing

  68. 68
    jerry says:

    This is comment 67 of an OP on teaching math. Last mention of math was in comment 4. Last mention of teaching was in comment 11. 56 straight comments off topic.

  69. 69
    Steve Alten2 says:

    Jerry “ Last mention of teaching was in comment 11.

    To be fair, many of the comments were an attempt to teach tolerance, fairness and morality to an ignorant homophobic individual. Sadly, with no success. The individual remains as ignorant, intolerant and homophobic as ever. 🙂

  70. 70
    ET says:

    Acartia Kevin, you are the most ignorant, intolerant, immoral and unfair person around. So perhaps you should focus on your own pathological life and leave others alone. You are one sad psychopath.

Leave a Reply