posted
I propose that there is no benefit to considering people your enemies, or judging their personhood as being evil based on their mistaken thoughts and actions, or to hating them. I propose that there is no benefit to holding a grudge against those who don't agree with you, or with whom you don't agree, even if it's about the most important matters imaginable. I propose that there is no benefit to allowing the faults of a person to blind you to their gifts, or to rejecting the value of an otherwise good person because they have said, thought, or acted wrongly. I propose that there is no good reason to withhold friendship from anyone, even if there may be reason to be wary or untrusting of some of your friends. I propose that we should ultimately judge others as we would have those others judge us, with understanding towards the frame with which they see the world.
In fact, I often propose these things - and am almost always told I'm out of my mind, that it's a disney-cartoon philosophy that can't work in real life. I'm told it is impractical - that it can't work - that I just don't understand.
And then, inevitably, everyone goes and gets into a big fight. Time and time and time again, on a national level or on a personal level, for good reasons sometimes and absurd reasons other times. It ends up side against side, both angry with eachother and suffering, and yet both also insisting that they absolutely MUST be angry with the other. The other side ALWAYS deserves it. And then it ends and people make up or they don't, but everyone ends up behind, and eventually the sides realign and there is another battle. And so on and so on.
I get tired of this sometimes. Why can't people disagree without disliking one another? Why can't people see that an attack on their belief is not intended to be an attack on their character? Why must people be so obsessed with being respected or thought well of that they will become enemies with those who do not give it to them? Why do they insist on the value of considering people bad and making them suffer?
My proposal is that we approach everything (even the most serious of issues) with both passion and lighthearted understanding, like two athletes dueling with eachother, not out of rage, but to improve, excercise, and challenge one another. We are not holy temples, and neither are our beliefs - the things we say, think, and do are not sacred. We are just children playing games - games with serious consequences, but also games with no certain answers, no certain blame, and no certain rules. We're all just learning, trying to figure it out, some better at it than others but nobody provably so. So why does everyone have to get so worked up about it?
So OSC thinks homosexuals are doing something wrong - so what? Does this mean he can't be a good author, good person, or good friend? At worst it means he's imperfect in a significant way.
So maybe OSC thinks you are wrong if you are a liberal - so what? Is that so bad? Is it really worth giving up a friend over the desire for respect? Is it really important to devalue someone because he fundamentally disagrees with you, and thinks your beliefs are a threat to the world?
So maybe Eddie feel some people are bigots, maybe even you, and maybe he's unafraid to say it - so what? So maybe I like to go around making unpopular or even silly arguments and telling people they are wrong because of them, and maybe I like to give advice unheeded, or maybe I like to start long rants on personal views about life with little to no justification other than because I think it's true, or maybe I'm just plain annoying - so what? So maybe Slash the Berzerker eats children and pacifists - so what? Why does any of this imply any benefit exists in getting angry, or judgemental, or giving up friendships?
People are weird and crazy, and they do weird and crazy things - that's just a fact. Sometimes those crazy things are also dangerous and terrible. Sometimes you can stop them and sometimes you can't, but your capacity to do so is not increased by making enemies, or by getting pissed off at the craziness of humanity in general or in specific cases.
So, why not just chill, dudes and dudettes? (Like that turtle in Finding Nemo. I liked him.)
But as I said, people only rarely buy this argument. It's impractical and wrong, they say. I'm just stubborn so I keep giving it anyway.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tresopax, I agree completely. I don't post in the the major issue threads for fear of being ripped to shreds for my views. I wish we could avoid the name calling and discuss things in a calm, rational manner.
I feel that everyone here is a vital part of the Hatrack community, even those whose opinions I disagree with. I hope nobody leaves because of all the fighting that's been going on. Can't we just agree to disagree and still be friends.
Posts: 4569 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was thinking "maybe there are no rhetorical questions" the whole time I was reading that.
And I'm pretty sure "dudettes" didn't originate with Finding Nemo. My mom has been using that term whenever she wants to feel hip for as long as I can remember. And, just to clarify and despite any evidence to the contrary, I can remember back farther than a year. Posts: 2292 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
One time I said something like that in school, and the next comment was, "Arabs subdivide into groups more than Jews."
It soared over everyone's head, including the teacher's. Nobody had any clue what I was talking about.
Remember, everyone is human. People in the Nazi Party, in Al Queda, and in America all fall in love, have friendships, and are role models for others.
Posts: 755 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Let me break up the and rain on your parade.
quote:Why can't people see that an attack on their belief is not intended to be an attack on their character? Why must people be so obsessed with being respected or thought well of that they will become enemies with those who do not give it to them?
Opposition to gay marriages is a direct attack on the very validlity of a gay person's existence. When someone say you are less of a person because you are gay, Black, poor, or unmarried, that is not a "light hearted" spar among friends.
I can be friends with people who think homosexuality is wrong or unnatural. But I cannot be friends with someone who will actively seek to deny homosexuals of their rights based on that belief. I'm sorry, I just can't.
Fortunately, I do not see such intolerance on Hatrack. 99% of the debate has been respectful and even enlightening. OSC has drawn the line on the sand, but luckily no one has crossed it.
Posts: 4116 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh. I was having trouble with the "no certain answers" line. Believing in absolute truth denies that by definition.
Although, if it's any help, Tesopax, the same religion that tells me what the certain answers are also tell me not to argue minor points of doctrine with people and to avoid contention at all costs. Which I gather was the gist of your post. And it's a very nice thought. Posts: 575 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:But I cannot be friends with someone who will actively seek to deny homosexuals of their rights based on that belief. I'm sorry, I just can't.
Why not? Are you just naturally incapable of it in the way you might be naturally incapable of physical attraction for members of the same sex? Or is it a choice? If the latter, what possible benefit do you get from it - from denying friendship to people who may otherwise be great people?
quote:Although, if it's any help, Tesopax, the same religion that tells me what the certain answers are also tell me not to argue minor points of doctrine with people and to avoid contention at all costs. Which I gather was the gist of your post.
No, the gist of my post is that you SHOULD argue minor points of doctrine and SHOULD NOT avoid contention at all costs, but that while doing so you don't have to dislike or get angry at or hate the person you are contending with.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sure, you other people are cool and all, but I think Tresopax now officially defines what Hatrack should be about Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I propose that there is no benefit to considering people your enemies, or judging their personhood as being evil based on their mistaken thoughts and actions, or to hating them.
Now if everyone who opposes gay marriage would just accept that proposal.
Posts: 779 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, Dag. I mean the bigots who don't want to allow homosexuals rights. Bigots.
You can disagree with homosexuality as a lifestyle all you want—that is your right. When you say that homosexuals should not be allowed the same opportunity as heterosexuals, you are crossing the line into bigotry. Since you anti-homosexual crowd like slippery slopes so much, what's to stop this hateful anti-gay proposal from Bush to turn into something making it illegal the be gay?
Posts: 779 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
1.) You can read my position in any one of several threads - I'm not part of any "anti-homosexual crowd."
2.) How is what you just posted not "judging [anti-homosexual marriage advocates'] personhood as being evil based on their mistaken thoughts and actions?"
quote:Why can't people see that an attack on their belief is not intended to be an attack on their character?
But it is a personal attack on me and my character. I cannot separate my "religious" self from myself. I am a Christian, and it means more to me than just a definition of where I go on Sunday Mornings. A person redeemed in Christ is a new creation, and they will be that new creation forever.
So, telling me to look at something "outside of my religion" is impossible, because I see everything through the eyes of a person who believes. Likewise, saying that someone insulting my religion doesn't mean they are insulting me is not something I can deal with. It's as if someone said "I would be your friend if you just weren't a Christian" as if I could drop that facet of me. I can't.
Personal attacks on people because of their religious beliefs is a personal attack. And it's going to hurt, and no "it's just about your religion, not really you" comment can take away the sting.
I think you'll note I've never said I hated homosexuals, that homosexuals are headed for hell, that I could never be friends with one or anything else. I have gay family members, and they get the same Christmas picture and card as any other extended family member does. I care about them and treat thim with respect, even though I don't agree with their lifestyle. So many people disdain the phrase "hate the sin, love the sinner" but it's, to me, one of the core statements that can define Christianity. Christ told us to love one another, so when you lump me in as a bigot you are hurting me where I really live, because bigotry is expressly against my beliefs.
I'm hearing "opposing gay marriage is fundamentally wrong and you are a bigot if you oppose it." That's very, very hurtful to be called that, when hatred of homosexuals has never been in my heart. There is nothing that can change the fact that I and others people believe homosexual behavior is a sin, unless God comes down and gives us some new information. All I can go on right now is the Bible, and I'm pretty sure I'm correct in my interpretation of the relevant passages. Naturally, not all religious people interpret them the same way - but since this is what I personally believe after prayer and meditation, I'm not going to change just because some other Christian thinks differently, no more than I would ask a sincere Christian I know and respect like dkw, to change her particular interpretation of a Biblical passage just because I said so.
Now, if you want to attack the behavior of a Christian, that's fine. If you want to say that a particular quote by a Christian is ridiculous, do so. But don't tell me that anyone who opposes allowing the union of gay couples to be considered on the same level as a marriage between a man and a woman is someone who hates gays and wants to deprive them of basic rights. Bigots and homophobes take their positions out of hatred and fear. Most Christians are taking theirs because of their love for God and their commitment to their beliefs. Can you not see the difference? Yes,I know the end result is still hurtful to some people. And you can question that, and even question why they feel that way, but don't attack the believer the same way you would someone whose motives stem from hate and anger. Then you are putting us into a crowd we don't belong in and that we find abhorrent, because any follower of Christ opposes bigotry in any form.
Your little analogy of children playing games sounds appealing Tres, but it won't work for me, and I suspect it won't for some others. We are adults, with very passionate beliefs about the things that matter to us. To some of us, those beliefs are so core to our being we can't separate them.
Now, if because I cannot play games with children means I'm not going to be welcome in issue threads, then just let me know.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tresopax plays games with meanings and beliefs a lot. Belle feels her beliefs integral to her character. I think these are as important diversities as Rep/Dem, Con/Lib etc. I tend heavily to Belle's side on a lot of things, but she and I can also get in serious arguments. I think that is important.
I think we have to be free to dislike a person, but we aren't free to lump folks together and dislike them all because we dislike one. Then we become prisoners to prejudice and fear.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
I disagree passionately with Olivia on things and yet I consider her my dearest friend. But, if Olivia because of some bad experiences with the church, held that against all Christians, then we wouldn't be friends. Fortunately, she's a better person than that.
It's the name calling and putting people in groups with wide, sweeping movements just because you don't like one aspect of their opinions is what needs to stop.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I figure "bigot" is just another smear word used to discredit (like "homophobic" used to be), and is used by people who don't have the experience/insight/empathy/imagination needed to understand that you can adore people, understand temptation, and still not be willing to officially sanction behavior that you believe will hurt them and everyone else in the long run.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thank you Belle for the reality check. You made an important distiction that many seem to have missed. One about bigotry and it's true motivation and it's difference from those who disagree with homosexuality in general, beleive in the sacred institution of marriage as a foundation to our society, and yet do not hate those who think otherwise. I think this realization can help everyone discuss this topic more in a manor like Tres has suggested.
Posts: 181 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: I figure "bigot" is just another smear word used to discredit (like "homophobic" used to be), and is used by people who don't have the experience/insight/empathy/imagination needed to understand that you can adore people, understand temptation, and still not be willing to officially sanction behavior that you believe will hurt them and everyone else in the long run.
Actually, I would say that the disagreement comes over exactly what a bigot is. If you think a bigot is defined by their actions, no matter what their motivation, then that changes things, doesn't it? I don't think the word 'bigot' is being thrown around *just* to shut people down, or because of laziness.
quote:Personal attacks on people because of their religious beliefs is a personal attack. And it's going to hurt, and no "it's just about your religion, not really you" comment can take away the sting.
I wonder if the same can be said by someone who's told "it's just about your sin, not really you?" Maybe the feeling is just as strong for someone told to ignore his or her sexual identity, even if that seems do-able from an outsider's perspective.
Sometimes what is crucial about self-identity seems inexplicable to another person. I can see how Belle would find the suggestion to separate her self from her religion to be an affront; I can't, however, know what it's like to be her in that situation. It does help to have it explained, though.
posted
I would define a bigot as someone who hates a group of people based upon illogical reasoning or beleifs.
The two distinct parts of this definition are;
"hate" (which implies more that just to disagree with or not approve of, or think is wrong) and "group" (as I think it is ok to dislike people on an individual basis)
Notice I didn't include "logic and beliefs" as they can be highly subjective and individualized.
Oh and yes, I would define a bigot based upon their motivation, not necessarily their actions.
Posts: 181 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Geoff, Did you stop reading the other thread? I posted a reply (midway down page 7) but you haven't posted since page 6, I think. Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
The difference here is where the person is coming from. Teh person that attacks someone for their religious beliefs does not share that belief.
I do however share the belief that "it's not about you, it's about your sin" applies to me. I am not speaking from the outside, but as an insider with the exact same issues.
Before you define whether a bigot is just someone who exhibits bigoted behavior, or someone who is hateful at the heart, you need to define bigoted behavior. That's the sticking point. Many people think opposition to gay marriage automatically makes you a bigot. But there are those of us who don't see that stance as being bigoted. That's where we fundamentally disagree. Karl Ed, Tom, John L, Dag, Pat, CT, everyone I can call to mind thinks bigotry is wrong. Yes, even me. None of us are arguing that people should be denied basic rights on any reason.
But, we disagree as to the meaning of the word marriage, and to whether or not marriage is a right or a privilege. That makes a huge difference. By the way this is a generalized "we" I'm not trying to speak for any person other than myself, I'm using we to refer to Christians with similar beliefs to my own.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Some slave owners defended their right to own slaves based on their religious convictions. ("Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves." Leviticus 25:44.)
Undoubtedly many of these slave owners did not hate their slaves. I mean, why would they? The slaves are valuable property and in many households they were treated as part of the extended family. So I guess what I'm saying is, those slave owners are all right in my book.
Posts: 4116 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Interesting point Beren...but I contend that if that religious reference was their sole motivation (which I would seriously doubt) then they were in fact not bigots, just very deluded. The nasty word "bigotry" implies hatred. They may have been opressive, selfish, and just plain wrong to rely on slavery, but people make wrong decisions based upon other reasons than hate and bigotry.
Posts: 181 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
OSC fan, putting the mocking smiley in reference to Sodom and Gomorrah is deeply offensive to me. Please remove it. I am not kidding. I doubt God laughed about having to do that.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
So would you feel better if we replaced bigotry with "religiously motivated intolerance." Seems kind of PC to me. Posts: 4116 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Karl, I'm vaguely monitoring the other thread, but it took so much out of me to participate on the first day, that I've kind of burned out. Sorry if you felt like I left in the middle of something, I wasn't trying to drop anybody. I'd like to continue our conversations on the matter at some point, but right now, I've got catching up to do at work
Storm, you're being whiny, cut it out And bigotry IS a motivation, it's not an action. If someone attacked my family to rob us, they're greedy. If someone attacked my family because we're Mormons and deserve it, then they're a bigot. The actions are exactly the same, but the motives are different. Neither motive is GOOD, and admitting your opponent isn't a bigot doesn't mean you thing they are correct in their opinion. But it's a lot more honest than just using the word as a bludgeon to beat down anyone who opposes you.
Beren, your analogy is flawed. Bigotry involves more than the emotion of hate. Contempt is also a part of bigotry, and I submit that it is impossible to treat someone as your permanent inferior without at least some measure of contempt. If the sole reason for your contempt is that person's race or heritage, then you're a bigot.
Many opponents of gay marriage are accused of treating homosexuals with irrational hate or contempt based on their sexual orientation. For some, this is true, and for others, this is not. I daresay that most of us here on Hatrack are not bigots, as we demonstrate time and again by our explanations, our reasoning, our willingness to consider and incorporate all the arguments from the other side ... You do have opponents who are bigots, but it's insulting that you make no effort to make a distinction between the true bigots and those of us here who disagree with you for non-bigoted reasons and try to consider ourselves your friends.
Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't mind being called a bigot. Since I've tried to focus most of my arguments around the question on social issues and legal definitions, please don't lay my intolerance at the foot of my religion.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
How come Geoff made his point so much better than I did? I mean, we are both trying to get the same point across, but he was just so much more eloquent than I.
quote:Contempt is also a part of bigotry, and I submit that it is impossible to treat someone as your permanent inferior without at least some measure of contempt.
You mean like denying people the right to marry?
Let's break this down:
Religious objectors: God says gay marriage is wrong.
Homophobic objectors: Evolution says gay marriage is wrong.
The religious objectors seem to be arguing that they are not bigots because, hey, they are just relaying the message of God: We didn't write the rules, we're just following them!
But the non-religious objector can just as easily appeal to a higher source, whether it be biology or some social study showing gay marriages are doomed to fail.
If we say that you cannot be a bigot if you believe you have a really good reason to discriminate against someone, then how can any objector of gay marriages be labeled as a bigot?
edited for spelling, although I'm sure I still missed a couple.
[ February 26, 2004, 02:46 PM: Message edited by: Beren One Hand ]
Posts: 4116 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
See, the fact that you feel that you can just lump your opponents into big piles of straw men and set them ablaze shows utter contempt for them, far more contempt than most opponents of gay marriage have shown towards homosexuals on this board.
I mean, look at your definitions. Disagreeing with gay marriage because of the way you interpret evolution isn't inherently homophobic. Disagreeing with gay marriage because you think it's "perverted" or "icky" is homophobic.
The simple act of trying to understand the causes, potential effects, and possible downsides of changing our marriage policy does not automatically render one a bigoted homophobe. You act as though you think that "The TRUTH!" is some big, obvious, flashing sign that any really good person (like yourself) will instantly recognize, and anyone who questions your interpretation of it must be immediately labeled a dangerous moral cretin before their wicked ideas do harm to society.
Wait a second, what does that sound like ..? You've got a lot more in common with the Christian Right than you'd like to admit ...
Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
Curse you! I was reading along, ready to jump on you for the third paragraph and then you bust out the funny. Unfair! Unfair!
quote:Disagreeing with gay marriage because you think it's "perverted" or "icky" is homophobic.
OK, back to my regularly scheduled hate mongering. But some religions do say gay marriage is perverted.
Posts: 4116 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
And I'll go on the record to say that religions who say homosexuality is "perverted" are, in turn, "retarded" It helps no one to call names, on either side of any argument. A religion that takes part in that should be ashamed of itself.
Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tresopax, I have always found your posts eloquent and well written, but rarely if ever have I agreed with you, this time Tresopax, you are completely right.
posted
Geoff, I was more concerned that you saw that I was acknowledging your posts more than that I was expecting a reply to mine. I agree that this has been very tiring and has taken way too much of my work time.
But that said, I'm more than willing to continue this discussion with anyone who is interested. And I am perfectly willing to discuss via private email practically anything anyone would want to discuss on the subject of homosexuality, gay rights, post-religious attitudes, or whatever.
quote:“The Lord specifically forbids certain behaviors, including all sexual relations before marriage, petting, sex perversion (such as homosexuality, rape, and incest), masturbation, or preoccupation with sex in thought, speech, or action. … Homosexual and lesbian activities are sinful and an abomination to the Lord"
(emphasis added)
Edited Link: Sorry, the address is too long. Just go to the advanced search at lds.org. Search for all of these words "Homosexual and lesbian activities are sinful and an abomination to the Lord."
[ February 26, 2004, 04:08 PM: Message edited by: Beren One Hand ]
Posts: 4116 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Beren, you're being a jerk I don't see how a single quote from a lower-down Mormon authority scores you anything but some cheap "zing!" points.
And a man of his generation referring to homosexuality under the broader dategory of "perversions" is a far cry from pointing to a guy and calling him a "pervert".
[ February 26, 2004, 04:12 PM: Message edited by: A Rat Named Dog ]
Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Group Hug]](graemlins/grouphug.gif)
and rain on your parade.![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
99% of the debate has been respectful and even enlightening. OSC has drawn the line on the sand, but luckily no one has crossed it.
![[Kiss]](graemlins/kiss.gif)
to Belle
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
