whoisjohngalt
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 14:12:07 GMT -5
Posts: 9,140
|
Post by whoisjohngalt on Jul 28, 2014 15:49:36 GMT -5
... If you don't have the opinion that is "in" - well, you are racist and a biggot and a asshole and....all kinds of other things. Unless there is physical harm is done to anyone, people should be entitled to believe whatever the hell the want. But it's not the case anymore. ... People are fully entitled to believe whatever the hell they want to believe. They just aren't entitled to not be called out for their racist, bigoted, asshole views. Well, I guess you can call anyone anything. Theoretically. I say "theoretically", bc it seems to be OK to call someone a racist, a biggot, an asshole if they are not subscribing to the same opinion as the majority. Of course, it doesn't go other way.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 38,230
Member is Online
|
Post by billisonboard on Jul 28, 2014 15:51:59 GMT -5
Because if you don't believe their way, that makes you one? It is the actual belief that makes one such independent of the judgement of others, IM(not so)HO of course.
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Jul 28, 2014 15:53:41 GMT -5
Because if you don't believe their way, that makes you one? It is the actual belief that makes one such independent of the judgement of others, IM(not so)HO of course. But who gets to decide whose beliefs are the right ones? I can think you are an asshole all day long because of your beliefs but that is just my opinion...and you can think I'm an asshole because of my beliefs but that is just your opinion...just because you think it doesn't make it true
|
|
whoisjohngalt
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 14:12:07 GMT -5
Posts: 9,140
|
Post by whoisjohngalt on Jul 28, 2014 15:53:52 GMT -5
Unless there is physical harm is done to anyone, people should be entitled to believe whatever the hell the want. But it's not the case anymore.
So harm has to be physical to count? If we were just talking about people's "opinions," that would be fine. But we're not. We're talking about ACTIONS that cause very real harm to any number of real people. Have you ever heard the expression "your right to swing your fist ends with my nose"? Basically, you're allowed to think and feel however you want until it starts harming someone else. If these people who believed that being gay was wrong were content to simply BELIEVE that, it would be one thing. But they're not. They're determined to make legislation reflect their MORAL belief, which is not how things are supposed to work. Yes, I believe it's a worthwhile use of time to get them to see how much harm they are doing to a whole group of people who never did a damn thing to them. You might not think that "disallowing" gay marriage is causing severe harm but a) next time your husband is in the hospital, try to imagine what it would feel like not to be able to sit by his side and hold his hand - or even know how he's doing, if his family didn't feel like telling you, and b) this kind of prejudice DOES CAUSE other forms of harm, such as hate crimes. Tl;dr - your opinions aren't anyone's business UNLESS they are causing innocent people harm. I've said it many times - I don't put a lot of value in words and being hurt by words. And you do realize that legislation has ALWAYS been based on morality. It has always been based on the morality of the majority or the ones in power. That is exactly what is happening now. So, really, the only issue is - does the minority still entitled to their opinion? Do they still entitled to fight for whatever they believe in? Or are against that?
|
|
Green Eyed Lady
Senior Associate
Look inna eye! Always look inna eye!
Joined: Jan 23, 2012 11:23:55 GMT -5
Posts: 19,629
|
Post by Green Eyed Lady on Jul 28, 2014 15:54:22 GMT -5
Well? I don't know who "you guys" is, but I'm assuming you mean me since you quoted my post. What exactly will I learn, since it's apparently assumed I have no contact with homosexuals in my world? If you wish to continue to be dismissive and act like anyone who doesn't agree with you must, somehow, be a total recluse with no contacts in the outside world, feel free. It you wish to continue to believe that anybody who doesn't agree with you just, somehow, just not know what they are talking about, please feel free. It's an argument neither you or I will win. We don't agree. It's a given that must make me horrible, and I'm ok with you feeling like that. The funny part is we don't disagree. But since I won't label people with horseshit names, I'm bad. Got it. I am so freaking confused. Why are you getting so defensive over my post? If you think being gay or gay marriage is wrong, just say that. Instead of saying that all gay people hate people who oppose gay marriage when no one has said anything like that. Sent from my ADR6410LVW using proboards Good Heavens! Where did I say that? If that's how you read it, I worded it badly. I certainly don't believe that. I don't believe I ever used the word "hate" either, but this interaction is proving my entire point!
|
|
raeoflyte
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 3, 2011 15:43:53 GMT -5
Posts: 15,014
|
Post by raeoflyte on Jul 28, 2014 15:56:16 GMT -5
I am so freaking confused. Why are you getting so defensive over my post? If you think being gay or gay marriage is wrong, just say that. Instead of saying that all gay people hate people who oppose gay marriage when no one has said anything like that. Sent from my ADR6410LVW using proboards It wasn't your post. It was Firebird's post I was responding to. I just didn't use the quote thing and others posted in between. I'm sorry I wasn't more clear. I'm sorry you are so defensive, but I've said like a million times that I don't see one thing wrong with gay marriage. I don't know how much more clear I can be. My issue is labeling people who don't as bigoted or uninformed or any other of that trite and tired crap. I haven't read you doing that so I don't know why you are taking such exception. I'm not defensive, but definitely still confused. You're telling me what I think and feel because of a group I belong to, and I'm demonstrating that I do not have the beliefs you are attributing to "my group". Sent from my ADR6410LVW using proboards
|
|
whoisjohngalt
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 14:12:07 GMT -5
Posts: 9,140
|
Post by whoisjohngalt on Jul 28, 2014 15:59:09 GMT -5
One group of people wants others to accept them as just "people" (which I agree with because they ARE just "people") yet that same group sees everyone who doesn't agree with them as bigoted, uninformed or some other horseshit buzzword of the day that just simply isn't true.
Some of you guys really need to spend a year or two walking in the shoes of others before you decide how they should feel about something. If you don't know (and don't care to learn) what it's like to be systematically oppressed and have your rights taken away by bigoted, uninformed people who don't even know you, then you really shouldn't be talking about how it's no biggie to deal with bigoted, uninformed people. So many assumptions, so few facts, so much grand statement. How do you know what we didn't spend a year or two or a decade or a lifetime being discriminated against?
|
|
Firebird
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 12:55:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,452
|
Post by Firebird on Jul 28, 2014 15:59:39 GMT -5
It's a given that must make me horrible, and I'm ok with you feeling like that. The funny part is we don't disagree. But since I won't label people with horseshit names, I'm bad. Got it.
Huh? Deeply confused now. I don't think you're horrible at all, but I do think people who dismiss struggles that minority groups deal with tend not to know what they're saying.
What horseshit names am I trying to label people exactly?
People are fully entitled to believe whatever the hell they want to believe. They just aren't entitled to not be called out for their racist, bigoted, asshole views.
This is my view and I stick by it. They're also not entitled to force others to live in accordance with them.
|
|
Firebird
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 12:55:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,452
|
Post by Firebird on Jul 28, 2014 16:01:09 GMT -5
I say "theoretically", bc it seems to be OK to call someone a racist, a biggot, an asshole if they are not subscribing to the same opinion as the majority. Of course, it doesn't go other way.
I don't know where you live, but in many areas of the country, you are very much in the majority if you believe that gay marriage is wrong and being gay is evil/sinful.
So it's not like people are being hugely persecuted for this radical belief that gays are bad. Get real.
|
|
ArchietheDragon
Junior Associate
Joined: Jul 7, 2014 14:29:23 GMT -5
Posts: 6,379
|
Post by ArchietheDragon on Jul 28, 2014 16:03:25 GMT -5
Don't know about facebook, but this is a great discussion on YM!
|
|
Green Eyed Lady
Senior Associate
Look inna eye! Always look inna eye!
Joined: Jan 23, 2012 11:23:55 GMT -5
Posts: 19,629
|
Post by Green Eyed Lady on Jul 28, 2014 16:03:30 GMT -5
Thank you, sroo. Exactly the point I was making, but between my inability to remember to use the quote thing and the hot button issue here, it's easy to be misunderstood. Part of it was of my own making.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 64,530
|
Post by Tennesseer on Jul 28, 2014 16:04:40 GMT -5
If you don't have the opinion that is "in" - well, you are racist and a biggot and a asshole and....all kinds of other things.
This is basically the "if you're so tolerant why can't you tolerate my intolerance?" argument. Which makes neither logical nor grammatical sense If denying interracial couples the right to marry is racist, why would denying same-sex couples the right to marry not be bigoted? Isn't denying a right to a specific group (based on an immutable characteristic of that group) basically the definition of an "-ism"? One of my favorite poll graphs. Gallup has been tracking this issue since 1958. Keep in mind SCOTUS's Loving v. Virginia decision was in 1967.
In U.S., 87% Approve of Black-White Marriage, vs. 4% in 1958
|
|
Firebird
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 12:55:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,452
|
Post by Firebird on Jul 28, 2014 16:06:33 GMT -5
GEL, correct me if I'm wrong here: Not agreeing or accepting is not the same as oppressing.
I agree, BUT (huge qualification) it's the lack of acceptance that LEADS to oppression in many cases.
You don't have to agree with gay marriage, but if you're voting against it then you are actively voting to oppress a group of people simply because you "disagree" with their actions.
|
|
Green Eyed Lady
Senior Associate
Look inna eye! Always look inna eye!
Joined: Jan 23, 2012 11:23:55 GMT -5
Posts: 19,629
|
Post by Green Eyed Lady on Jul 28, 2014 16:06:45 GMT -5
It wasn't your post. It was Firebird's post I was responding to. I just didn't use the quote thing and others posted in between. I'm sorry I wasn't more clear. I'm sorry you are so defensive, but I've said like a million times that I don't see one thing wrong with gay marriage. I don't know how much more clear I can be. My issue is labeling people who don't as bigoted or uninformed or any other of that trite and tired crap. I haven't read you doing that so I don't know why you are taking such exception. I'm not defensive, but definitely still confused. You're telling me what I think and feel because of a group I belong to, and I'm demonstrating that I do not have the beliefs you are attributing to "my group". Sent from my ADR6410LVW using proboards Oh no...not at all. The "group" I was referring to are those who are on different sides of the issues like same-sex marriage. Both groups include heterosexuals. I never said you have those beliefs. In fact, you seem like a very accepting and generous person. I'm sorry it wasn't more clear. However, if you'll just read this thread, you'll see those terms I was speaking of being bandied about like a tennis ball. Most of the time it has been by heterosexuals. That is the "group" I was speaking of. Sorry it wasn't more clear.
|
|
Firebird
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 12:55:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,452
|
Post by Firebird on Jul 28, 2014 16:08:12 GMT -5
And this is always the crux of the problem. If you have absolutes and diametrically opposing viewpoints. Somebody will always be forced to live against their beliefs.
Untrue. Making same sex marriage legal doesn't force anyone into a same sex marriage. You can still have your hetero marriage. Making it NOT legal, however, means you can still have your hetero marriage but your gay neighbors cannot have their same sex one.
Laws that allow certain choices IN ADDITION TO other certain choices do not infringe on the rights of people who choose to make those other choices. I don't get why this is hard to understand.
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Jul 28, 2014 16:08:19 GMT -5
One group of people wants others to accept them as just "people" (which I agree with because they ARE just "people") yet that same group sees everyone who doesn't agree with them as bigoted, uninformed or some other horseshit buzzword of the day that just simply isn't true.
Some of you guys really need to spend a year or two walking in the shoes of others before you decide how they should feel about something. If you don't know (and don't care to learn) what it's like to be systematically oppressed and have your rights taken away by bigoted, uninformed people who don't even know you, then you really shouldn't be talking about how it's no biggie to deal with bigoted, uninformed people. I think you might be missing the point that GEL was making. GEL, correct me if I'm wrong here: Not agreeing or accepting is not the same as oppressing. Let me step out of the Gay Marriage topic for a minute and see if I can find a not so emotionally charged example. Please don't throw the legal vs. non legal or discrimination or anything else that differentiates my analogy from gay rights. I'm not intending to make a one for one absolutely lock-step comparison. Merely trying to explain the thought process. Drinkers vs. Non Drinkers. Now some of non-drinkers are batshit crazy about it and walk around condemning drinkers to worst place imaginable. Some NDs pity drinkers thinking there must be something wrong with them for consuming alcohol. Some non-drinkers shrug and say "It's not my thing, but whatever" Now as a Drinker, do you automatically lump those 3 groups together? Is the "Not My Thing" person automatically on-par with the batshit crazy teetotaler? No, they are not, so if we are able to separate these imaginary Non Drinkers, why is it we can't separate those on the spectrum when it comes to gay issues? Anyway.. that's my take on it. I'm generally pretty neutral on gay rights. I see both sides of the issue and neither agree or disagree with either. See, gay people I'm totally ok with...that freaking tea-totallers get the hell on my nerves
|
|
ArchietheDragon
Junior Associate
Joined: Jul 7, 2014 14:29:23 GMT -5
Posts: 6,379
|
Post by ArchietheDragon on Jul 28, 2014 16:09:59 GMT -5
See, gay people I'm totally ok with...that freaking tea-totallers get the hell on my nerves You should make it your goal to get as many hot, straight, non-drinking women drunk and then make out with them. That will show the world.
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Jul 28, 2014 16:09:59 GMT -5
And this is always the crux of the problem. If you have absolutes and diametrically opposing viewpoints. Somebody will always be forced to live against their beliefs.
Untrue. Making same sex marriage legal doesn't force anyone into a same sex marriage. You can still have your hetero marriage. Making it NOT legal, however, means you can still have your hetero marriage but your gay neighbors cannot have their same sex one. Laws that allow certain choices IN ADDITION TO other certain choices do not infringe on the rights of people who choose to make those other choices. I don't get why this is hard to understand. I'm still confused on what this has to do with the guy who believed he should be proud of being straight......
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 38,230
Member is Online
|
Post by billisonboard on Jul 28, 2014 16:10:04 GMT -5
It is the actual belief that makes one such independent of the judgement of others, IM(not so)HO of course. But who gets to decide whose beliefs are the right ones? I can think you are an asshole all day long because of your beliefs but that is just my opinion...and you can think I'm an asshole because of my beliefs but that is just your opinion...just because you think it doesn't make it true So now you want to discuss right and wrong? That is an entirely diffferent issue. Is it wrong to be racist, bigoted, and an asshole? That is a matter of opinion. I think it is but YMMV.
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Jul 28, 2014 16:11:08 GMT -5
See, gay people I'm totally ok with...that freaking tea-totallers get the hell on my nerves You should make it your goal to get as many hot, straight, non-drinking women drunk and then make out with them. That will show the world. Whose to say I haven't?
|
|
Firebird
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 12:55:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,452
|
Post by Firebird on Jul 28, 2014 16:14:29 GMT -5
Now as a Drinker, do you automatically lump those 3 groups together? Is the "Not My Thing" person automatically on-par with the batshit crazy teetotaler? No, they are not, so if we are able to separate these imaginary Non Drinkers, why is it we can't separate those on the spectrum when it comes to gay issues?
Because no one on your spectrum of "I believe drinking is bad" is trying to make drinking ILLEGAL because of that belief (not anymore at least).
That's the point I'm trying to make. You can think certain choices are wrong/sinful all you want, that doesn't mean there should be LAWS against them.
Tons of people think it's wrong to live with someone romantically outside marriage, but that's legal - and it should be, because it's a morally neutral choice (by that I mean you can legitimately believe it's either wrong or not wrong, unlike something like murder which is pretty clearly wrong across the board) that doesn't hurt anyone.
If gay marriage became legal today, there would still be plenty of people who believed it was wrong. But that would be okay. I would care way less that those people existed because they would no longer be controlling the legal code with their moral beliefs.
|
|
Firebird
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 12:55:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,452
|
Post by Firebird on Jul 28, 2014 16:16:56 GMT -5
How do you know what we didn't spend a year or two or a decade or a lifetime being discriminated against?
If you did (general you) then I'm really surprised you're okay with the concept of discriminating against others. I'm always surprised and disappointed when people who know what discrimination feels like turn right around and do it to some other group, but of course it does happen.
I don't think that's anything to be proud of, though.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 38,230
Member is Online
|
Post by billisonboard on Jul 28, 2014 16:22:18 GMT -5
People are fully entitled to believe whatever the hell they want to believe. They just aren't entitled to not be called out for their racist, bigoted, asshole views.
This is my view and I stick by it. They're also not entitled to force others to live in accordance with them. And this is always the crux of the problem. If you have absolutes and diametrically opposing viewpoints. Somebody will always be forced to live against their beliefs. We are all forced to live in ways against our beliefs. The beauty of this country is we are able to work to get majorities or important minorities to line things up with our beliefs to create as minimum disagreement has possible.
|
|
Firebird
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 12:55:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,452
|
Post by Firebird on Jul 28, 2014 16:26:12 GMT -5
To go back to my analogy yeah, if I were that 'whatever' non drinker and I kept being called a lunatic teetotaler I would imagine my attitude towards the drinkers would start to degrade after awhile.
The "whatever" non drinkers are not the people I'm talking about here. All my remarks refer to people who think it's wrong to be gay and are actively prejudiced toward gay people. The ones who fully believe that gay marriage should remain illegal.
I've never known anyone to get riled up like this guy did over a gay pride sentiment who didn't have some really deep seated hatred for gay people. And the fact that he admits he got the graphic from a group with strong anti-gay leanings supports that suspicion.
I suppose it's possible that he's one of the "whatever, I don't care if you're gay" people (he sure claimed to be) but then I really have to question why he cares so much that gay people are proud to be gay, and why he feels the need to proclaim equally loudly that he's proud to be straight when no one around him disputes that.
|
|
Firebird
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 12:55:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,452
|
Post by Firebird on Jul 28, 2014 16:27:51 GMT -5
Stop... FB, I specifically asked folks to not bring up the OMG it's totally not the same!!!! argument. I know it's not the same. It wasn't meant to be exactly the same.
I wasn't arguing that they were the same. I actually thought it was a good analogy because drinking is a morally neutral choice that doesn't hurt anyone and shouldn't be illegal. You can believe it's wrong if you like, and that's fine - because no one is forcing you to drink. But that doesn't mean it should be illegal to drink just because YOU believe it's wrong.
Not sure what you want me to "stop" doing... I never said it wasn't the same.
|
|
Plain Old Petunia
Senior Member
bloom where you are planted
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 2:09:44 GMT -5
Posts: 4,840
|
Post by Plain Old Petunia on Jul 28, 2014 16:28:42 GMT -5
GEL, correct me if I'm wrong here: Not agreeing or accepting is not the same as oppressing.
I agree, BUT (huge qualification) it's the lack of acceptance that LEADS to oppression in many cases. I think that's a pretty huge leap to take there. But, there is no third option. First, I've never been able to vote YES or NO just on gay marriage. So that means it's lumped in with an existing candidate. I think you'd find that most people are not voting on a candidate based solely on their stance on gay marriage. And I have yet to see a ballot where I can vote for "Bob" except when it comes to issues X,Y,and Z. I think what is getting some hackles up here is that, and yes I'll call you out on it, you are automatically vilifying people if they don't agree with you on this issue. I mean if you do think that everyone that doesn't agree or accept gay marriage is a racist, bigot, asshole then great. But I've rarely seen derision and hostility used a successful sway technique on a hot issue, and I think that is where some of the push back is coming from. To go back to my analogy yeah, if I were that 'whatever' non drinker and I kept being called a lunatic teetotaler I would imagine my attitude towards the drinkers would start to degrade after awhile. Well, by "not accepting gay marriage", you are in effect saying others should be denied the right to marry the person they choose to marry on the grounds that you personally do not approve. So yeah, a good case can be made that such a view is a bit asshol-ish.
|
|
Firebird
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 12:55:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,452
|
Post by Firebird on Jul 28, 2014 16:30:19 GMT -5
I mean if you do think that everyone that doesn't agree or accept gay marriage is a racist, bigot, asshole then great. But I've rarely seen derision and hostility used a successful sway technique on a hot issue, and I think that is where some of the push back is coming from.
Someone really needs to point out where I called ANYONE an asshole for their beliefs. Apparently I did it a lot since everyone's getting so upset. Funny how I can't remember even doing it once.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 38,230
Member is Online
|
Post by billisonboard on Jul 28, 2014 16:31:39 GMT -5
We are all forced to live in ways against our beliefs. The beauty of this country is we are able to work to get majorities or important minorities to line things up with our beliefs to create as minimum disagreement has possible. I agree, but it sometimes takes awhile and is not easy. And that is when it happens. I have a few that I will never see happen in my lifetime.
|
|
whoisjohngalt
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 14:12:07 GMT -5
Posts: 9,140
|
Post by whoisjohngalt on Jul 28, 2014 16:32:19 GMT -5
How do you know what we didn't spend a year or two or a decade or a lifetime being discriminated against?
If you did (general you) then I'm really surprised you're okay with the concept of discriminating against others. I'm always surprised and disappointed when people who know what discrimination feels like turn right around and do it to some other group, but of course it does happen. I don't think that's anything to be proud of, though. You keep seeing things that are simply not there
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 64,530
|
Post by Tennesseer on Jul 28, 2014 16:34:58 GMT -5
GEL, correct me if I'm wrong here: Not agreeing or accepting is not the same as oppressing.
I agree, BUT (huge qualification) it's the lack of acceptance that LEADS to oppression in many cases. I think that's a pretty huge leap to take there. But, there is no third option. First, I've never been able to vote YES or NO just on gay marriage. You personally may not have had the opportunity, but I believe voters in approximately 28 states had the opportunity to amend their state constitution and vote as to whether or not marriage should be defined as only between a man and a woman. Voters approved the new language (between a man and a woman only) in those states in their state constitution.
|
|