posted
Two usages of the word "disagree" so different to each other, that human languages would really be better if they had two different words for them.
When there's a disagreement on a factual question, you can call the other person stupid or ignorant.
When there's a disagreement in terminal values, you can call the other person evil.
People often confuse the two: If, e.g., someone honestly thought that SSM will harm society, and you think that it will benefit it, using the same criteria to judge what "harm" and "benefit" means; then that's just a factual disagreement. If you shared the same beliefs about the consequences, you would also be reaching the same conclusions.
Posts: 676 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The shape of the earth is -not- a moral question (it might have been at one time).
So, if someone argued that some good had resulted from the holocaust, they are automatically wrong and evil? I don't buy it for a second. If someone were to argue that genocide is a good thing in and of itself, then likely you should stop talking to them immediately and leave the premiss as quickly as you can without putting yourself at risk.
We are not talking about organized mass murder here, we are talking about morally -challenging- topics.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You don't think that concentration camps were morally challenging 75 years ago? Or slavery 150 years ago? Or segregation 50 years ago? You don't think that "reasonable people" disagreed?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:You don't think that concentration camps were morally challenging 75 years ago? Or slavery 150 years ago? Or segregation 50 years ago? You don't think that "reasonable people" disagreed?
Not to mention genocide isn't, actually, so morally challenging a question that it's open and shut even right this moment. In the past generation, multiple genocides have been attempted, all of them lacking the unanimous prompt reprisal by force that would indicate. There have been folks on Hatrack, even, who feel genocide can and has actually been justified in the past.
But anyway, 'is it a hard question' isn't actually what you or Ssmprimary asked in the first place but rather 'are there positions on which just, reasonable people cannot disagree?' Like you, I feel there are, but they generally have body count attached and unless the question asked is one such as 'is genicide bad', the widespread agreement we as humans flatter ourselves exist, doesn't.
To get closer to real-world, less widely acclaimed as evil examples, concentration camps. Of course it's not politic to say 'well, there was a reason', but even today it's not just a totally open and shut case to the extent everyone agrees.
To seek further clarification, I would be surprised if either you or Samprimary were suggesting 'if you disagree on SSM, you're a bad person' or even 'you cannot possibly arrive at opposition to SSM in an honest, non-hateful way.' I certainly don't mean and never said or even suggested such.
What you can do, however, is examine a given position, try and evaluate it, and reasonably conclude that however good and reliable an individual's personal reasons for coming to believe in that position, there are in fact no good and reliable reasons to do so. With the example of SSM, one can indeed believe in the (contradictory) notions that God loves all of His children, and will also damn to everlasting torment any practicing homosexuals, and therefore it isn't just decent but extremely good within that frame of reference to attempt to keep as many people as possible from being practicing homosexuals.
There are certainly people who do really manage to believe that God deems a homosexual as so wretched and despicable as to be good only for the fire-but don't themselves hold personal contempt for or animosity to them on their own behalf. But I don't think anyone here would claim that's a very common outlook, and for good reason. Upon reading that proposition, most likely anyone considering it quickly thought of quite a few open hellfire for gays types, but had to strain their brain to find someone to even *consider* thinking weren't personally prejudiced or hateful.
For them, they arrive at their position for a real, powerful altruism and it cannot be said they are bad people. But we may certainly and without reluctance point out they believe an inconsistent, irrational, and terrible thing and that not intending us any harm doesn't mean we should treat them as though they were doing none.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
There is a line between reasonable disagreemet is appropriate and when armed liberation is called for. When people are being killed, enslaved and deeply repressed it is not the time for disagreement, it is the time for action. And while gays -should- have the ability (and I predict soon will) marry as they see fit, we are talking about the dying gasp of society's intolerance toward our gay brothers and sisters.
If the topic at hand was "should we make it illegal to murder gays" then I would not be calling for a calm and reasoned discussion.
Yes gays should be able to marry, but the holocaust and slavery were orders of magnitude (not just one) worse repression then this current issue. (The Nazis shipped gays off to die along with Jews just for the record.)
There are causes where it is appropriate to strap on an assault weapon and go in guns a blazing (both literally and figuratively) and discussion boards are rarely the right place. And the way I see it, when it comes to this particular topic, majoritativly you have two types who oppose SSM. One, haters, and you hating back is not going to change their minds or make our side look good for that matter, and two, those who believe what they believe because of a religious or "moral tradition" belief.
This second group are the ones who can change their minds. And railing at injustice, with anger and shaken fists is not going to get the job done.
But mostly it's simply a matter of societal acceptance. The mainstream culture has accepted gays, the war is over. We won. Who cares if there is a subculture who doesn't like it? They will more then likely not like it to their graves while their children are raised in a culture of acceptance and fewer and fewer of those beliefs will exist until they attain that weird hater cult status that will never die, like skin heads and other extremest groups.
What I don't get is why people are this up in arms about marriage vs civil union and there are still genocides going on in the world, there are still children dying of hunger and thirst. Want to get your moral outrage on, there are more important topics at hand.
posted
Aris: There's nothing wrong with the substance of your post other than your addressing Rakeesh. You are not currently permitted to comment on his posts or address him. Please refrain from doing so.
Posts: 1194 | Registered: Jun 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Skirting past several caveats that don't interest me, because I'm self-absorbed like that:
I feel the need to reiterate. This article is not about whether or not LGBT people should be nice.
I know that my experiences as a gay Christian have shaped me such that I work a great deal towards reconciliation between the evangelically-minded, "traditionally"-modeled Christians of the 21st century and those more progressive, specifically on the issue of LGBTQQIAA rights and acceptance. And, towards this, always try to engage with Christ-like love those who disagree with me.
As a Christian, I do believe strongly in loving my enemies (A term that Jesus uses, thus justifying the word's usage if you subscribe to Biblical infallibility), and extending friendship to them. But that does not mean for one second that they are any less my enemies. It does not mean that they have been anything like a friend to me.
This is what I always want to say to people who oppose equality and claim that they have gay friends. I think that in the vast majority of cases, they know gay people who have extended civility and kindness to them. That doesn't change the fact that they've been piss poor friends in return.
Opposition against SSM and other civil rights promotes a nationally-endorsed prejudice against gays. It, however inadvertently, justifies physical violence against them and is one reason that LGBT youth are five times more likely to commit suicide and disproportionately populate the homeless. This is not removed from SSM. They are connected.
But even allowing for that disconnect: I may not be guaranteed the same job safety as a heterosexual; I cannot grant my hypothetical spouse citizenship; I cannot receive the same tax benefits to support my children; and I could be denied seeing my hypothetical husband on his deathbed - These are things that, when people support them through legislation, deal great violence to me. This violence may not be the same size or shape as WBC, or a man kicking in a Kentucky lesbian's teeth while calling her "dyke," but it's the same ugly color. That color is shaded by bigotry. And no amount of niceness is going to change its hue.
My friends don't demean me. They don't think me lesser. They don't deny me civil rights. For those that do any of those things, I may be their friend, but they will never be mine.
And here's why this distinction is important: I've, through my life, tried to engage civilly with people against SSM. And I finally found something out. These people, people I thought were reciprocating my kindness, never left thinking about what I had said. Instead, they left with some perverted sense of nobility and moral collateral - They had talked to a gay person, and because that gay person didn't yell or scream at them, they were being like Christ. They were nice. They didn't have to for a second reconsider their views. And when they later argued for oppression, they used me as a buffer. "No, see, I talked to this other gay guy, and he didn't hate me. So, I'm not the bad guy." And in some bizarre way, this seemed to strengthen their rhetoric.
No more.
The reason I like this article, and the reason I now tell every single person opposing SSM marriage that they are incapable of giving me their friendship is because when I haven't, I've had it used against me. And I will not - will not - have it used to bolster their views. Because these views affect so much more than me. They affect a lot of people, suffering even greater violence. Whatever moral tarnish I may suffer in their eyes, I cannot accept their friendship. I can only offer mine, and hope they change.
posted
JanitorBlade, apologies, I had thought that measure was valid for only that one past thread. I will obey.
Posts: 676 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The connection between SSM and violence prevention is debatable. Homosexuals have many civil right, atleast to me, a lot more important than marriage, and violence still exists.
Equality in all cases should be encouraged, but I'm not sure the opposition deserves to have that hung over their head: especially when they promote the opposite by tutoring, teaching, playing, crying, praying, and doing all kinds of contructive things with them. At one point in my life I was opposed to DADT, but opposed to SSM.
I used to be anti-ssm, not on a proactive level, but if you gave me questionare that I was forced to answer I would have chosen. But, even though I might not be the norm, marriage isn't a big right to me. I can easily see myself never getting married, and I bring this up because if we'd ever intersected in life, I would have felt that my friendship meant more than who could marry, because to me marriage was and is just a formality. One that has benefits that I don't think should exist (unless having/adopting0 a child, but a formality.) I couldn't/can't empathize with how important it is to some people. My friendship would have been strong, genuine, and in good-faith because to me it would have been a much, much bigger gesture. In that circumstance, you would (our atleast your article) feel different because you think pro marriage is a bigger gesture.
This is all pretty trivial, since I'm not anti ssm anymore but there it is. But I would feel more of a friend for helping you move, picking you up from a bar, recommending a good book, or even something like playing a game of basketball with you.
quote:And here's why this distinction is important: I've, through my life, tried to engage civilly with people against SSM. And I finally found something out. These people, people I thought were reciprocating my kindness, never left thinking about what I had said. Instead, they left with some perverted sense of nobility and moral collateral - They had talked to a gay person, and because that gay person didn't yell or scream at them, they were being like Christ. They were nice. They didn't have to for a second reconsider their views. And when they later argued for oppression, they used me as a buffer. "No, see, I talked to this other gay guy, and he didn't hate me. So, I'm not the bad guy." And in some bizarre way, this seemed to strengthen their rhetoric.
I wouldn't put it in such a deliberate way, but what you said cuts to the heart of my disagreement with (much of) what BlackBlade was saying.
For good, generally valid reasons, it seems to me people generally look at their own positions in a way such as 'is this decent, good, fair?' and don't take it much further than that. And 'nice' is often associated with those things-if someone can tell themselves they're being nice, they will also probably not think they're being unfair much less bigoted.
So if people can leave a conversation thinking they've been nice even if they're repeatedly challenged on being wrong, often the latter will crowd out the former-because people disagree about politics all the time, and most of us don't sweat that much. But if your belief is challenged as being mean-spirited, that needs to be shrugged off in a different way.
--------
quote:The connection between SSM and violence prevention is debatable. Homosexuals have many civil right, atleast to me, a lot more important than marriage, and violence still exists.
I doubt he meant that there was a straightforward point-to-point link, but rather that the current status of SSM and other policies in this country make it plain we regard them as not full citizens. Not just God or your preacher or that crass jackass you might know at work tell you there's something wrong with gays, the actual laws do. People don't get hitched to trucks and dragged to pieces because they're straight.
quote:I used to be anti-ssm, not on a proactive level, but if you gave me questionare that I was forced to answer I would have chosen. But, even though I might not be the norm, marriage isn't a big right to me. I can easily see myself never getting married, and I bring this up because if we'd ever intersected in life, I would have felt that my friendship meant more than who could marry...
Certainly there are things more important than marriage and higher priorities, but the notion that because there are worse things going on than denial of SSM means it's unimportant, much less that proponents are somehow misguided because they don't drop what they're doing and working on other things, is frankly absurd, umberhulk. We can multitask, and wield individually much more power to make change right here at home on this than abroad on other, more pressing issues. We won't be silenced or minimized because yes there are bigger fish to fry: if there are, tell the people trying to keep as much of their brand of Christianty in our government as they can that there's bigger things-it goes both ways.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not saying should will be. That isn't what I was going for at all. I'm pro-ssm I'm just saying that the article seemed...I dunno...I want to say cynical...not sure if thats a good word, but it seems to shrug off good decent friendship as something meaningless and two-faced, if you're anti-ssm. I don't really agree with that.
Hope you get married (gay or straight) bro!
I was responding to this:
The reason I like this article, and the reason I now tell every single person opposing SSM marriage that they are incapable of giving me their friendship is because when I haven't, I've had it used against me. And I will not - will not - have it used to bolster their views. Because these views affect so much more than me. They affect a lot of people, suffering even greater violence. Whatever moral tarnish I may suffer in their eyes, I cannot accept their friendship. I can only offer mine, and hope they change.
And despite the fact that I'm pro-ssm marriage, I'm at odds with it.
quote:I'm not saying you will be. That isn't what I was going for at all. I'm pro-ssm I'm just saying that the article seemed...I dunno...I want to say cynical...not sure if thats a good, but it seems to shrug off good decent friendship as something meaningless and two-faced, if you're anti-ssm. I don't really agree with that.
Hope you get married bro!
Sure thing, 'bro'!
You're missing the question being asked, which is for example to what extent and in what way can hypothetical Emreecheek (used only as a reference, not meaning to speak for you) consider hypothetical past-Umberhulk a friend to him if hypothetical past-Umberhulk remains quiet on the government denial of hypothetical-Emreecheek's personhood, still less if he actively supports it with votes, words, or money.
Although it may feel bad to hypothetical past-Umberhulk, it's hardly unfair of hypothetical-Emreecheek to think twice about the value of his friendship-whatever his own personal motivation, on the other end of things, personhood is being denied.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well I would think twice about the value of his friendship, albeit to a less degree, because his friendship has more expectations attached to it than friendships that I tend to assume I'm accepting.
But regardless, fair enough.
Also, I really hate it when people capitalalize my screename. Please stop.
Posts: 1407 | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ah, didn't know that. Must've been grating with the use of your name repeatedly. No worries, happy to stop. Could do without the bro-ing myself, but not to the level of hating it.
quote:Well I would think twice about the value of his friendship, albeit to a less degree, because his friendship has more expectations attached to it than friendships that I tend to assume I'm accepting.
Yes, but...that's your friendship, not anyone else's. I'm not suggesting you should change what makes someone a friend to you. But consider this: you are 'at odds with' SSM (not sure what that means), *and* marriage isn't that important to you anyway. So it's doubly less likely to be something important to you, personally. Put yourself in the position of someone who is themselves homosexual, and thus unlikely to be 'at odds' with SSM, and also values marriage highly for themselves and their partner, and then perhaps reconsider just how justified your own hurt feelings are if they don't consider you a friend to them. Friends don't typically insert their own morality into the home loves and lives of other friends without some pretty compelling evidence that those things have a wider impact. No such evidence, aside from the religious evidence (which despite what you might be told, ought to be considered invalid for this discussion), exists.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Pretty much, what Rakeesh said. Like, three times.
I'd also add that requiring friends to consider me as equal, in my mind, does not constitute an expectation that is unique to me. That's an expectation I'd wager most people have.
Posts: 196 | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by umberhulk: I have, that's why I'm pro ssm.
Then why be 'at odds' with SSM? Why be hurt when homosexuals question the friendship of those who, while otherwise authentic, support or seek to continue their legally-sanctioned diminished personhood?
It's not about what is important to you personally, what you feel a bigger gesture of friendship is-unmitigated support of SSM, or otherwise thoroughly friendly words and actions. If you, or perhaps more appropriately you-in-the-past, are going to say to a homosexual, "You're not as worthy a human being as I am, you cannot be recognized in the eyes of your fellow humans in your consenting adult romantic relationship," then you're simply in no position to be hurt if they spurn or question your friendship. No opponent of SSM is. If a given person is sufficiently forgiving and kind hearted and decides to believe you're their friend despite working against their fundamental interest as a human being, well, alright. But that's their call, and no one else's.
You can oppose SSM, or you can suggest they should think of you as a friend. You can't do both, and it doesn't matter that plenty of people claim they can, perhaps even some people reading this post right now. They may do you (past you) the grace of forgiving or ignoring your fundamental work against them, but if they don't manage that level of virtue, if they look on your friendship with scorn and bitterness, who are you to blame them? Who is anyone?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
But, I mean, no one does to complete perfection. I'm treated differently than a girl. People think there's something wrong with me because I've been single all my life (I'm 24), either deliberately or not. Apparently people think I'm less worthy of having the health-medical benefits as a married person should have, and to me, that's as big or benign as my freedom to marry. You might responds that it's a choice to get benefits or not, and you would be right. But it's unfair to expect me to sacrifice my independance to get those benefits. I've been raised as the oldest son differently than all of my little brothers. I've been juedged and I judge other. There's more choice involved in all that, but it's judgerment, and one can argue that juedgement for choices is hurtful for things I never had control over, and it effects me, and I'm able to shrug it off. To me friendship transcends all that, and I have an ammount of l/g friends who have that attitude. And I love them for it.
Look, it's all fair, you can think and feel what you want. I was only trying to weigh my attitude towards friendship against yours, because yours is a little off putting to mine, and only wanted to offer mine to if anyone had an opinion on it.
quote:Originally posted by umberhulk: I have, that's why I'm pro ssm.
Then why be 'at odds' with SSM? Why be hurt when homosexuals question the friendship of those who, while otherwise authentic, support or seek to continue their legally-sanctioned diminished personhood?
You can oppose SSM, or you can suggest they should think of you as a friend.
Yes, I can, and have successfully, not that I'm entitled to it, or that I have to anymore.
And when you're treated as superior to a girl, that's not just different, it's bad.
quote:Apparently people think I'm less worthy of having the health-medical benefits as a married person should have, and to me, that's as big or benign as my freedom to marry.
I'm not sure what you're talking about. Perhaps that a spouse may be covered by the other spouse's healthcare? That's hardly the same thing either-government doesn't step into your life and say 'you can't form the family you want' as a straight man, do they? So if you find someone willing to put you on their healthcare, there's already a way to do that...for you.
quote:But it's unfair to expect me to sacrifice my independance to get those benefits.
Unfair for who to have such an expectation?
quote:Look, it's all fair, you can think and feel what you want. I was only trying to weigh my attitude towards friendship against yours, because yours is a little off putting to mine, and only wanted to offer mine to if anyone had an opinion on it.
Yes, got that. What I'm questioning is why you're 'off-put' by the notion that because you don't think something that you personally don't value (marriage) and only dubiously approve of (SSM) shouldn't be considered important to them. I'm questioning why you're put-off when what is 'transcendent' for you isn't for someone else.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
And when you're treated as superior to a girl, that's not just different, it's bad.
quote:Apparently people think I'm less worthy of having the health-medical benefits as a married person should have, and to me, that's as big or benign as my freedom to marry.
I'm not sure what you're talking about. Perhaps that a spouse may be covered by the other spouse's healthcare? That's hardly the same thing either-government doesn't step into your life and say 'you can't form the family you want' as a straight man, do they? So if you find someone willing to put you on their healthcare, there's already a way to do that...for you.
quote:But it's unfair to expect me to sacrifice my independance to get those benefits.
Unfair for who to have such an expectation?
quote:Look, it's all fair, you can think and feel what you want. I was only trying to weigh my attitude towards friendship against yours, because yours is a little off putting to mine, and only wanted to offer mine to if anyone had an opinion on it.
Yes, got that. What I'm questioning is why you're 'off-put' by the notion that because you don't think something that you personally don't value (marriage) and only dubiously approve of (SSM) shouldn't be considered important to them. I'm questioning why you're put-off when what is 'transcendent' for you isn't for someone else.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay, I misread that post two posts ago. Not the one the recent one immediately follows. \
I'm off-put my that notion because I value friendship a different way. It's not anything more complicated by that. It was an emotional reaction.
My choice reference my attitude towards marriage (was probably confusing and ill-advised), was only to flesh one of the reason I used to be anti-ssm.Because I didn't relate to how depressing it would be for some people. I fully dissaprove of anti-ssm. I don't know if it's possible to half-disaprove of it...
I can't form the family I want, because the family I want, in the way were using it the term is only made up of one person (and a dog) I don't have close knowledge of all the finance-health benefits afforded to married couples, but I know DOMA prohibits a lot benefit laws (a thousand) from l/g civil unions (that are allowed otherwise). If one person on Earth has those, everyone should. And a little brother of my choosing should be able to share my plan (if i had one) 100%.
"End its silence," say what? These culture war issues have been the most prominent political causes of American Christianity for decades now, to the exclusion of nearly everything else Jesus of Nazareth preached about. The narrow focus on social issues has only served to alienate young people from the churches, too. Heck, just look at that audience. A bunch of gray-haired, scowling white people. Whatever Christianity's future is, it won't look like this.
posted
It speaks to how much power such groups think they should wield in the actual, real world. They don't have it, and that is why they feel they have been 'too silent'.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here is some more related to the issue of "civility" in the argument. In an article with the ace title of Chick Fellatio.
quote:This isn’t about mutual tolerance because there’s nothing mutual about it. If we agree to disagree on this issue, you walk away a full member of this society and I don’t. There is no “live and let live” on this issue.
Asking for “mutual tolerance” on this like running up to a bully beating a kid to death on the playground and scolding them both for not getting along. I’m not trying to dissolve Mr. Cathy’s marriage or make his sex illegal. I’m not trying to make him a second-class citizen, or get him killed. He’s doing that to me, folks; I’m just fighting back.
All your life, you’re told to stand up to bullies, but when WE do it, we’re told WE are the ones being intolerant? Well, okay. Yes. I refuse to tolerate getting my ass kicked. “Guilty as charged.”
posted
[sarcasm]Because people following their religion and trying to vote their conscious is -exactly- like a bully beating a kid to death.[/sarcasm]
There are some bigoted, hate mongering jack asses out there, but simply being opposed to gay marriage does not make you one of them in and of itself.
Is voting against SSM repression? Yes. Is it a mild and gentle form of oppression? Yes. Should gays be able to marry? Yes! Does voting against SSM make you a bigot? Only if you want the word bigot to mean next to nothing.
There are evil pricks in this world who deserve to be stood up to as the monsters they are. But quite a few people on the other side of this issue deserve nothing more then a pat on the hand and a sad head shake.
quote:Asking for “mutual tolerance” on this like running up to a bully beating a kid to death on the playground and scolding them both for not getting along. I’m not trying to dissolve Mr. Cathy’s marriage or make his sex illegal. I’m not trying to make him a second-class citizen, or get him killed. He’s doing that to me, folks; I’m just fighting back.
Being neither homosexual or openly homosexual, I'm in a poor position to have much of an opinion on the link between state-sanctioned second-class citizenship, and violence from citizens to other citizens. But while I think he should've explained this comparison better, since it falls short as it stands, I do wholeheartedly agree that there is a link, and so in that sense it's valid. I don't think anyone could look at any victimized class of people and not find, somewhere, a government endorsement or other. South Africans, African-Americans, Indians, Native Americans, Jews, Irish, Quakers, Mormons, Tibetans, on and on and on and on, they go hand in hand-civil violence towards the group, and overt government disapproval of that group.
So in that sense, the author is exactly right-the fight isn't over. The kids are still fighting on the playground, and if they both stopped this very instant, one would be able to walk away and marry a consenting adult of their choice when they grew up, and the other one wouldn't. So in that sense, the author is exactly right-the struggle is still going on, and when fence-sitters say otherwise there's a good chance they're selling something.
I hadn't heard of the guy before, Samprimary. Thanks for sharing.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Stone Wolf, the group that the president of Chick-Fil-A gave thousands of dollars to a group that lobbied Congress to NOT condemn a law in Libya that PUTS GAYS TO DEATH FOR BEING GAY.
It's worse than a bully. Most bullies aren't in favor of killing the person they bully.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
And I'm sure that would clearly put him into bigoted A-hole group, but "mutual tolerance" isn't only about the president of an evil chicken empire.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mild, maybe, but there isn't anything gentle about it, Stone. There can be good intentions, and the intolerance can be coupled with other-wise displays of tolerance. But calling discrimination gentle is an oxy-moron.
That said, as I was reading the recent post, I thought about Breaking Bad and laughed.
Posts: 1407 | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit: racial and religious intolerance and discrimination.
There is nothing ungentle in the definition of discrimination hulk. When compared to being stoned to death, having civil unions instead of marriages -is- gentle. It's still discrimination, don't get me wrong, but it is also quite gentle compared to some of the horrible things that can and have happened to humans who do not fit in with the majority crowd.
posted
Yeah, I get what your saying, but just because I don't break your arm, I wouldn't call giving you a bruise gentle under any circumstances. Not that it's a big deal.
How much impact will legalizing marriage have on children? The uniqueness to orientation based discrimination, is that some of it's rooted in that people feel some intrinsic repulsion to varying degrees of sexual imagery between two people of their sex, and I figure that's probably reciprical for some gay men feeling about lesbian, or heterosexual imagery (or how lesbians feel about a man's body) It's a little similar to the intrinsic repulsion we have to sex-in-general before we hit puberty. I imagine that would effect the prejudices of some kids before they grow up, no matter how accepting society is. Can we stop it?
posted
We have not already won the war. Were you be facetious there, Stone Wolf? And, I'm sorry, are you arguing that the justifiability of the word bigot is dependent upon the severity of the desired oppression from said bigot?
We have not won the war. Anymore than feminists in the 80's had won the war, even though media frequently told them they had.
I'm in Kentucky. It's clear to me just how not-won the war is. I wonder sometimes if the complacency I sense from others sometimes is due to their region - In New York, I suspect, it's a lot easier to believe the war won.
But it's not won. Far from it.
Posts: 196 | Registered: Jun 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Yeah, I get what your saying, but just because I don't break your arm, I wouldn't call giving you a bruise gentle under any circumstances. Not that it's a big deal.
No kidding. When measured against some of the worst possible violence and hatred humans do to one another, most intolerance and discrimination comes off as seeming quite mild. It's another not uncommon diversionary tactic by opponents and fence-sitters, or reluctant supporters that I've seen more and more often that the reality of shifting public opinion really sits in: there's worse things, the fight is won, the benefits of marriage aren't really that substantial, why can't you settle for 'civil unions', etc.
I suspect we would find, if polled, proportionally fewer people directly impacted by this discrimination who would label it 'gentle', as you say, umberhulk.
quote:I'm in Kentucky. It's clear to me just how not-won the war is. I wonder sometimes if the complacency I sense from others sometimes is due to their region - In New York, I suspect, it's a lot easier to believe the war won.
No kidding. There's someone who used to post on these boards who lives not far from where a lesbian couple were beaten by three children in front of their own house. The majority always labels the struggle over before it really is. There are honest reasons to do so, but not well-thought-out reasons.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: ... the group that the president of Chick-Fil-A gave thousands of dollars to a group that lobbied Congress to NOT condemn a law in Libya that PUTS GAYS TO DEATH FOR BEING GAY.
Not quite accurate. Although there there are certainly things on that page which will cause further outrage, they did not lobby against condemning the law.
Posts: 95 | Registered: Aug 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
While it is probable that the attitudes of the area I live in (SoCal) do affect my beliefs, the war that is won that I refer to is the acceptance of the main culture. While many battles and skirmishes will fight on as y'all struggle for legal equality, the main hurdle has already been cleared. The war is over though the battles rage on. My children will never know any other world than the one which has accepted gays as normal. They will not question if the belief that some people are just gay is ordinary or acceptable.
As to the people who still strive to subject gays currently, they will die all too soon, and most of their (some hateful, some not so much) ideas on the subject will die with them.
This is how the world changes. It is not with a sudden epiphany that makes a bigot sit up in the night from a sound sleep with wide eyes, saying "Oh no, gays are people too and deserve to be treated with the same love and respect as everyone!"
It is with the group collective acceptance which guides the impressionable youth...and the death of the older generation.
As to the word "bigot"...if all it takes to qualify someone for this distinction is to vote in a way that causes unfair laws to be or remain on the books then I'd guess that 40-90% of the country are bigots.
I'm not saying you shouldn't fight the good fight. You should. With my support. As a freedom lover. Because to put it bluntly, I don't care about gays, in and of themselves. I care about injustice, and protecting the freedoms which this country's most important ideals. It is unjust that y'all can't marry who you see fit. But again it is a question of degree. There are those who are called by their beliefs to see homosexuality as a sin, and just like they would vote against gambling or nude beaches, they will vote what their morality guides them to vote.
Are they wrong? Yes. I think so. I'll be voting against them. Are they bigots? Not to my way of thinking.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, and to clarify my position: When I say I don't care about gays, I mean, I have no vested interest in the on going battle for equality of homosexuals, as I am not gay myself nor do I have any close personal friends or family who are. Not that I -don't care- at all, just that my feelings on the matter are outrage in general, not specific to anything that has touched my life at all.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: ... the group that the president of Chick-Fil-A gave thousands of dollars to a group that lobbied Congress to NOT condemn a law in Libya that PUTS GAYS TO DEATH FOR BEING GAY.
Not quite accurate. Although there there are certainly things on that page which will cause further outrage, they did not lobby against condemning the law.
quote:FRC did not lobby against or oppose passage of the congressional resolution. FRC’s efforts, at the request of Congressional offices, were limited to seeking changes in the language of proposed drafts of the resolution, in order to make it more factually accurate regarding the content of the Uganda bill, and to remove sweeping and inaccurate assertions that homosexual conduct is internationally recognized as a fundamental human right.
Even in their own defense, they say 'we didn't try and block passage of the condemnation, just change the condemnation such that homosexuality is not a right consenting adults should enjoy anywhere in the world'. It's a quibble. Their leadership has repeatedly, if anyone cares to look, endorsed worldwide criminalizing and enforcement of such laws of homosexuality. I see no reason to trust their wavering semi-endorsement of the Ugandan law (wrong, in their eyes, only in degree) because even they aren't sufficiently dead to all shame to be able to openly call for the deaths of gays.
As Christians, though, even by their own telling of it the critical thing with respect to this Ugandan law wasn't a full-throated expression of revulsion, but rather an effort to make sure homosexuality isn't regarded as a human right.
So a little digging on FRC deepens my agreement with you, Emreecheek. The 'war' is hardly over while there are still serious battles being fought, but then to those apathetic to it the war is in a sense not happening ever.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Oh, and to clarify my position: When I say I don't care about gays, I mean, I have no vested interest in the on going battle for equality of homosexuals, as I am not gay myself nor do I have any close personal friends or family who are. Not that I -don't care- at all, just that my feelings on the matter are outrage in general, not specific to anything that has touched my life at all.
I would count that as caring.
FYI, you *do* have a vested interest in the battle for equality, as the evolving interpretation of our constitution and the role of government in private and public life are affected, rather profoundly, by how this issue evolves. Those fighting for marriage equality are fighting a battle for the continued relevance and vitality of our constitutional tradition. That, our ought to care about- as how we treat our protected groups can and will affect you in the future, be it through your friends, your children, or whatever. One or more of your children may be homosexuals- you have a vested interest in their rights to pursue equality in society.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
When a minority (or any group) can successfully subjugate the equal rights of peaceful law abiding people based on their preference of books, assume that you and everyone like you are next.
That is how the whole anti-gay rights movement has always made me feel. So I do have a stake in gay equality. I believe in equality for all peaceful people and that means taking a stand even if I'm not the one being threatened.
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: ... the group that the president of Chick-Fil-A gave thousands of dollars to a group that lobbied Congress to NOT condemn a law in Libya that PUTS GAYS TO DEATH FOR BEING GAY.
Not quite accurate. Although there there are certainly things on that page which will cause further outrage, they did not lobby against condemning the law.
I knew it was Uganda, but I wrote Libya despite that. Sorry.
They DID lobby against approving the bill, which would have condemned killing gays for being gay. Split hairs however you want, that's still disgusting.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:That is how the whole anti-gay rights movement has always made me feel. So I do have a stake in gay equality. I believe in equality for all peaceful people and that means taking a stand even if I'm not the one being threatened.
Especially when you consider that the book preference in question condemns quite a lot of things that others think are quite alright, for no other reason than their book says so. Historically, folks with such motivations are never, ever satisfied with just the one policy victory, since their book always has something else to work towards. Which people tend to forget when deciding just how big a fight that given issue should be, and tell themselves the fight is minor or over when, if one looks at it for only a moment or two, will see it's neither
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
And I have the choice to covet my neighbors wife or not (I just did), and on a legislative level, anyone should be allowed to get married. If it's not mutually understood to be a vow before and to Jesus Christ, Christian churches shouldnt be expected to ceremonialize them, but they should never be pushing for legislation to make them impossible on a community level.
Posts: 1407 | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Good news. Now if you really like Chick-Fil-A sandwiches but have a moral aversion to spending money there you can by chicken offsets! Kind of like carbon offsets.
quote:And I have the choice to covet my neighbors wife or not (I just did), and on a legislative level, anyone should be allowed to get married. If it's not mutually understood to be a vow before and to Jesus Christ, Christian churches shouldnt be expected to ceremonialize them, but they should never be pushing for legislation to make them impossible on a community level.
It's funny you should mention that in light of that story of the church that refused and later apologized for refusing to marry, was it an African-American couple or an interracial couple?
No lawsuits were filed. No police came to the door. They didn't lose their tax statue, or have a city official sternly mention they might have to leave. It's not an uncommon opposition to SSM claim that somehow, some way, if it's legal it will be compulsory for churches that oppose it. No one ever has much to say about how, for a good reason: it wouldn't happen. It's a scare tactic.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:And I have the choice to covet my neighbors wife or not (I just did), and on a legislative level, anyone should be allowed to get married. If it's not mutually understood to be a vow before and to Jesus Christ, Christian churches shouldnt be expected to ceremonialize them, but they should never be pushing for legislation to make them impossible on a community level.
It's funny you should mention that in light of that story of the church that refused and later apologized for refusing to marry, was it an African-American couple or an interracial couple?
No lawsuits were filed. No police came to the door. They didn't lose their tax statue, or have a city official sternly mention they might have to leave. It's not an uncommon opposition to SSM claim that somehow, some way, if it's legal it will be compulsory for churches that oppose it. No one ever has much to say about how, for a good reason: it wouldn't happen. It's a scare tactic.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
