Might be my most pointless Facebook debate yet

[Firebird]

You keep seeing things that are simply not there

Such as?

Still waiting for someone to quote the part where I called anyone an asshole or any other name. 

[Tennesseer]

Jul 28, 2014 16:31:40 GMT -5 @sroo4 said:

So let me ask this question.  Where does everyone put people who are gay,  but also are active in religions that don't accept gay marriage? 

Are they asshole, bigot, racists too?

Why would you think just because someone belongs to a specific religious sect which does not believe in gay marriage and who are gay themselves are therefore, against gay marriage?  Not all religious folks believe their church's dogma 100%.  Or am I misunderstanding your post?

The Roman Catholic Church is against birth control medications yet (probably more than) 75% of RC women have taken birth control medications during their lifetime.

[Firebird]

Why would you think just because someone belongs to a specific religious sect which does not believe in gay marriage and who are gay themselves are therefore, against gay marriage?

I know several (straight) Catholics that don't believe gay marriage should be sanctioned in the Church but have no problem with it being legal.  And that belief makes perfect sense to me; I don't know why more people don't hold to it.

I don't have a Catholic-sanctioned marriage either.  In the eyes of the Church, I am not married.  But they had no problem with me getting legally hitched.  It shouldn't be any different for same sex couples.  Define marriage however you want within your church/religion; meanwhile, let the state legally bind any two consenting people of age who want to be bound.

[Firebird]

I wasn't saying anything one way or another. I was asking the question. It's an interesting dichotomy and I was curious how people felt. I probably should have phrased the question in a more neutral way.

I personally didn't understand the question, but if you want to rephrase I'll try to answer.

[zibazinski]

But of course if you call names and degrade everyone who doesn't agree with you, you win the battle but you lose the war. You've not only not changed people's thinking but because of name calling, you reinforce their ideas. Right or wrong. 

[Firebird]

My question if you are either for or against, how does it work with the gay people who belong to typically anti-gay religions?

I don't believe it's that binary. There are plenty of people who don't care one way or the other. 

In case this isn't clear yet:

1) I DON'T believe people are necessarily assholes for holding what I consider to be wrong beliefs.

2) I DO believe it's wrong to try to take rights away from a whole group of people just because you don't agree with a morally neutral choice they're making.

[Firebird]

Jul 28, 2014 16:52:42 GMT -5 zibazinski said:

But of course if you call names and degrade everyone who doesn't agree with you, you win the battle but you lose the war. You've not only not changed people's thinking but because of name calling, you reinforce their ideas. Right or wrong. 

That's why I never call anyone names.  There's no reason for it and it doesn't add anything to the conversation.  I will explain why I feel something is wrong all day long (and if someone wants to interpret that as me calling them an asshole for believing it, that's their choice) but I'll never actually call anyone a name for believing something even if I believe it's a wrong and dangerous thing to believe.

If I had resorted to name calling in the FB discussion this weekend, I seriously doubt it would have ended with "your last few comments actually had me rethinking my view."

[billisonboard]

Jul 28, 2014 16:52:42 GMT -5 zibazinski said:

But of course if you call names and degrade everyone who doesn't agree with you, you win the battle but you lose the war. You've not only not changed people's thinking but because of name calling, you reinforce their ideas. Right or wrong. 

It is interesting this idea of "name calling". There are people who are racist, bigoted, and assholes who do not in the least consider themselves degraded by these accurate descriptors being applied to them. I have dealt with people who take the attitude that being a racist is bad, I am not a bad person, therefore I am not a racist in spite of the fact that they hold clearly racist attitudes. I think people should adapt and adopt the old, "I'm here, I'm an asshole, get over it" mantra.

[midjd]

Can someone please point out in which post(s) a poster was calling another poster an asshole or other "horseshit names"? I think I'm supposed to delete that sort of thing.

[Opti]

Jul 28, 2014 16:48:50 GMT -5 @sroo4 said:

Jul 28, 2014 16:46:08 GMT -5 Firebird said:

Why would you think just because someone belongs to a specific religious sect which does not believe in gay marriage and who are gay themselves are therefore, against gay marriage?

I know several (straight) Catholics that don't believe gay marriage should be sanctioned in the Church but have no problem with it being legal.  And that belief makes perfect sense to me; I don't know why more people don't hold to it.

I don't have a Catholic-sanctioned marriage either.  In the eyes of the Church, I am not married.  But they had no problem with me getting legally hitched.  It shouldn't be any different for same sex couples.  Define marriage however you want within your church/religion; meanwhile, let the state legally bind any two consenting people of age who want to be bound.

That wasn't my question.   My question if you are either for or against,  how does it work with the gay people who belong to typically anti-gay religions? 

I think they either change their views, change to another more accepting religion, or drop out.

I'm reading an interesting book called Supersurvivors. In the chapter "Faith's Mixed Blessing" it discusses the

journey of two men who originally co-founded Exodus International, a group to reorient gays to straight,

because their religion wasn't accepting of gays. After he found out about a suicide, related to being in the

group, he started on the path of realizing he couldn't do it anymore and rejected the view of God being

judgmental and unforgiving of gays and homosexuality.

[Firebird]

Jul 28, 2014 17:14:32 GMT -5 midjd said:

Can someone please point out in which post(s) a poster was calling another poster an asshole or other "horseshit names"? I think I'm supposed to delete that sort of thing.

I've asked this twice and so far no answer

[Opti]

Jul 28, 2014 17:14:32 GMT -5 midjd said:

Can someone please point out in which post(s) a poster was calling another poster an asshole or other "horseshit names"? I think I'm supposed to delete that sort of thing.

I don't think it exists, but I could be wrong.

I notice with inflammatory topics people start seeing things that aren't written and respond to

people who aren't even posting. (Its like the chorus in their head or their beliefs overwhelms the

ability to deal with the now and what is actually being said.)

[Firebird]

Optimist, I might have to give that book a read.

[whoisjohngalt]

Jul 28, 2014 16:35:43 GMT -5 Firebird said:

You keep seeing things that are simply not there

Such as?

Still waiting for someone to quote the part where I called anyone an asshole or any other name. 

You keep making assumptions that if someone doesn't like gay/black/fat/disabled/stinky/short/ugly or whatever else people, they discriminate against them.

And I never said you called anyone an asshole.

I did say that people like you go to great length to show that if someone doesn't agree with your pinion, then there has to be something wrong with them.  Bc surely, if there was nothing wrong with them, they would simply agree with you

[Green Eyed Lady]

Jul 28, 2014 17:14:32 GMT -5 midjd said:

Can someone please point out in which post(s) a poster was calling another poster an asshole or other "horseshit names"? I think I'm supposed to delete that sort of thing.

Don't be obtuse.  It's all over the thread.  And I, for one, never said one word about "asshole".   I have no intention of going back and copying each post that said something about "bigoted", "intolerant", or "uninformed", which were the horseshit terms I was referring to.  If you wish to for admin purposes, knock yourself out.

If you mean me, please say so and ask me directly.  I'll be glad to answer.  Attempting to disguise it with sarcasm and a simple-looking smiley is beneath you.  Since I'm the one who typed "horseshit names", I assume you were wishing an answer from me.

[Firebird]

You keep making assumptions that if someone doesn't like gay/black/fat/disabled/stinky/short/ugly or whatever else people, they discriminate against them.

Yeah, if only we had a catchall word for not liking someone due to some random quality they have, e.g. race/body type/sexuality...

[whoisjohngalt]

Jul 28, 2014 17:14:32 GMT -5 midjd said:

Can someone please point out in which post(s) a poster was calling another poster an asshole or other "horseshit names"? I think I'm supposed to delete that sort of thing.

 I am pretty sure it all stared with my post that said: (not direct quote)

"if you don't like gay/black/fat/ etc people you are called a bigot, racist and an asshole"

I didn't mean any one in particular, but a whole group of people who seem to think that unless you embrace everyone, there is something wrong with you and you are a bgiot, racist and an asshole.

My statement took a life of its own and Firebird decided that she is the one being accused.

[Tennesseer]

Jul 28, 2014 16:45:19 GMT -5 @sroo4 said:

Jul 28, 2014 16:34:58 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

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.

So again,  neither agreeing or disagreeing with their vote,  but the majority did voice their wants in those states. 

If that's the case, then maybe now's not the time for the laws to be changed. That's not to say that people shouldn't keep trying or that it will never happen or that it will happen.  

I also wonder how many people chose to abstain from that vote.  My totally unscientific thought is there would be a large majority that falls under that camp. 

In 27 of the 28 states where the strict definition of marriage (only between a man and a woman) was added to the state constitution, only Montana or North Dakota has not had it challenged in the courts.

In many of the 27 states the ban on same-sex marriage has been ruled unconstitutional by the courts.  For some of those states, the judges have put their rulings on hold (the ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional) until either a federal appeals court rules or the case goes all the way to SCOTUS for a final ruling.  In some of the other states, the challenge to the ban is in the initial stages of legal review.

Today it is no longer 'if' same-sex marriage will ever be legal nationwide but just a matter of 'when'.  Just like SCOTUS' ruling on inter-racial marriage back in 1967.  The southern states fought it to the bitter end.

Opponents of same-sex marriage know they have lost the war. 

[Deleted]

I was raised to believe that homosexuality is a sin. As an adult, do I still believe that? Honestly, I don't know, because I haven't given it a lot of thought. It's not important enough to me to try to figure it out. I do know that I don't believe that everything I was taught as a child was necessarily true. Fortunately, I learned to think for myself along the way.

Regardless of what I was taught as I child, even if one day I decide that I do still believe that, I feel that it's just not up to me to judge people's "sins". Period. Someone that's raping and robbing, yes I'll judge them, talk bad about them and hope they pay for what they do, because they've willfully harmed another human and they've broken laws. Someone that's attracted to people of the same gender hasn't willfully harmed anyone or broken any laws (imo, if they did, it was a busybody law in the first place), so it's not my place to judge them, talk bad about them, or wish them any harm. It's not even my place to tell them what I think about it (which is pretty much limited to "they're gay" ) unless they ask me and so far nobody's asked me. My place is to treat people with respect and be kind, regardless of what we have in common or how we're different. Unless of course they do something to me that makes them undeserving of my respect and kindness.......... I'm not mature enough to just turn the other cheek. I have a hard enough time trying to figure out my own life and what's right for me and just like I want people to leave me the hell alone and stay out of my personal business, I'm happy to give other people the same consideration.

I have a child that is "different". Having watched him struggle, be bullied and beat up because of that, I know how difficult life can be and how people sometimes treat you like shit for no reason when you go against the grain. I don't wish that on anybody, child or adult. I believe in letting people that aren't hurting anyone be themselves, even when they're not quite what our society expects or would like them to be. 

[Firebird]

I did say that people like you go to great length to show that if someone doesn't agree with your pinion, then there has to be something wrong with them. Bc surely, if there was nothing wrong with them, they would simply agree with you

Explaining why I believe something is wrong = / = stating that something is "wrong" with people who disagree.

The former, I do quite a lot.  The latter, I try to do NEVER.

It's not my fault if people see me doing the first one and interpret it as me doing the second one.

So again, you show me where I said there was anything wrong with people who disagree with me.  Obviously I think they're wrong (that's what an opinion means) and there are plenty of posts where I explain that disagreement in detail, but show me a post where I said that something was wrong with THEM as people for holding a different opinion than mine, e.g. "they're stupid" or "they're jerks."

[whoisjohngalt]

Jul 28, 2014 17:23:16 GMT -5 Firebird said:

You keep making assumptions that if someone doesn't like gay/black/fat/disabled/stinky/short/ugly or whatever else people, they discriminate against them.

Yeah, if only we had a catchall word for not liking someone due to some random quality they have, e.g. race/body type/sexuality...

I don't know if you truly don't understand or just doing this for kick and giggles, but you keep responding to imaginary posts, and since I usually get bored with walking and talking in circles, I am done.

[Firebird]

"if you don't like gay/black/fat/ etc people you are called a bigot, racist and an asshole"

I didn't mean any one in particular, but a whole group of people who seem to think that unless you embrace everyone, there is something wrong with you and you are a bgiot, racist and an asshole.

My statement took a life of its own and Firebird decided that she is the one being accused.

** * *********

I did say that people like you go to great length to show that if someone doesn't agree with your pinion, then there has to be something wrong with them.

So... you weren't referring to me according to the first post but you clearly put me in that group according to the second.  Which is it?  Since I'm obviously having trouble understanding you. 

[Firebird]

Jul 28, 2014 17:30:02 GMT -5 whoisjohngalt said:

Jul 28, 2014 17:23:16 GMT -5 Firebird said:

You keep making assumptions that if someone doesn't like gay/black/fat/disabled/stinky/short/ugly or whatever else people, they discriminate against them.

Yeah, if only we had a catchall word for not liking someone due to some random quality they have, e.g. race/body type/sexuality...

I don't know if you truly don't understand or just doing this for kick and giggles, but you keep responding to imaginary posts, and since I usually get bored with walking and talking in circles, I am done.

What am I imagining, exactly?  It sounds like you're saying that there are groups of people out there who "don't like" blacks/gays/ugly people, etc.  but somehow they don't discriminate against them.  They just don't like them for belonging to that particular group. 

I guess it's possible to be prejudiced against a group of people without discriminating against them, but I do find it hard to believe there are large groups of people managing that feat.  Typically prejudice leads to discrimination, which is why people tend to have a slight problem with it. 

[Opti]

That's not been my experience. While I agree some do, it's not universal. And I'm curious as to how those that do subscribe to a religion that is against gay marriage is perceived. Are they in the for camp or the against?

There is is a reason why I am asking this question. 
 

 

Sroo, I can't help with that because I've intentionally moved to spiritual beliefs that are more generous than

the religion of my birth which was one of the more generous and open Lutheran denominations anyway.

So since I haven't been part of a religion that is unaccepting of gays, I can only speak to those I've met

in my more recent spiritual experiences and from what I've read.

I remember vividly my Mom being on her church council when how the church would address

homosexuality came up. Lots of different views. I'm sure part of it also depends on where you

live and your family.

[Deleted]

Jul 28, 2014 17:30:42 GMT -5 @sroo4 said:

Jul 28, 2014 17:14:44 GMT -5 Opti said:

I think they either change their views, change to another more accepting religion, or drop out.

I'm reading an interesting book called Supersurvivors. In the chapter "Faith's Mixed Blessing" it discusses the

journey of two men who originally co-founded Exodus International, a group to reorient gays to straight,

because their religion wasn't accepting of gays. After he found out about a suicide, related to being in the

group, he started on the path of realizing he couldn't do it anymore and rejected the view of God being

judgmental and unforgiving of gays and homosexuality.

That's not been my experience.  While I agree some do, it's not universal. And I'm curious as to how those that do subscribe to a religion that is against gay marriage is perceived.  Are they in the for camp or the against?  

There is is a reason why I am asking this question. 

My religion is against gay marriage (I think, it's been a while since I attended church regularly), but I'm not sure I understand your question. My gay coworker is the same religion and he goes to church regularly, and we've had members that were "flamboyant" but never (to my knowledge) openly admitted they were gay. Are you asking how they handle what they're taught in church contradicting how they live their lives?

If you are, my personal opinion (that you're not asking for because the question doesn't even apply to me lol) is that it isn't all that different from those of us that got our groove on with someone we weren't married to Saturday night and got up and went to church Sunday morning. Each and every one of us had something going on in our lives that went against what we were taught in church, whether we admitted it or not.

[Deleted]

Jul 28, 2014 17:39:57 GMT -5 Opti said:

That's not been my experience. While I agree some do, it's not universal. And I'm curious as to how those that do subscribe to a religion that is against gay marriage is perceived. Are they in the for camp or the against?

There is is a reason why I am asking this question. 
 

 

Sroo, I can't help with that because I've intentionally moved to spiritual beliefs that are more generous than

the religion of my birth which was one of the more generous and open Lutheran denominations anyway.

So since I haven't been part of a religion that is unaccepting of gays, I can only speak to those I've met

in my more recent spiritual experiences and from what I've read.

I remember vividly my Mom being on her church council when how the church would address

homosexuality came up. Lots of different views. I'm sure part of it also depends on where you

live and your family.

I live in the South. Everything is immoral!

[Plain Old Petunia]

Jul 28, 2014 16:48:50 GMT -5 @sroo4 said:

Jul 28, 2014 16:46:08 GMT -5 Firebird said:

Why would you think just because someone belongs to a specific religious sect which does not believe in gay marriage and who are gay themselves are therefore, against gay marriage?

I know several (straight) Catholics that don't believe gay marriage should be sanctioned in the Church but have no problem with it being legal.  And that belief makes perfect sense to me; I don't know why more people don't hold to it.

I don't have a Catholic-sanctioned marriage either.  In the eyes of the Church, I am not married.  But they had no problem with me getting legally hitched.  It shouldn't be any different for same sex couples.  Define marriage however you want within your church/religion; meanwhile, let the state legally bind any two consenting people of age who want to be bound.

That wasn't my question.   My question if you are either for or against,  how does it work with the gay people who belong to typically anti-gay religions? 

Do you mean members who are secretly gay, or do you mean members who have "repented" and are now pretending they are straight? Either way, I guess it depends on how anti-gay the particular religious group is.

[midjd]

Jul 28, 2014 17:23:07 GMT -5 Green Eyed Lady said:

Jul 28, 2014 17:14:32 GMT -5 midjd said:

Can someone please point out in which post(s) a poster was calling another poster an asshole or other "horseshit names"? I think I'm supposed to delete that sort of thing.

Don't be obtuse.  It's all over the thread.  And I, for one, never said one word about "asshole".   I have no intention of going back and copying each post that said something about "bigoted", "intolerant", or "uninformed", which were the horseshit terms I was referring to.  If you wish to for admin purposes, knock yourself out.

If you mean me, please say so and ask me directly.  I'll be glad to answer.  Attempting to disguise it with sarcasm and a simple-looking smiley is beneath you.  Since I'm the one who typed "horseshit names", I assume you were wishing an answer from me.

You were not the only poster stating or implying that those on the pro-same-sex-marriage side of the debate were calling names. Zib specifically said it several times. I asked the question generally so that anyone else who may have seen those posts (which I didn't believe existed, hence the smiley) could answer. 

Does that clear things up?

[Firebird]

If we go with the argument that you either support or are against gay marriage, then which camp do gay people of religions who are opposed to gay marriage fall?

I've already said I don't accept that setup because I think there are plenty of people who are neither for or against gay marriage. 

Maybe if you can tell me where you're going with this, I can share a more nuanced opinion. 

[Green Eyed Lady]

Jul 28, 2014 17:48:01 GMT -5 midjd said:

Jul 28, 2014 17:23:07 GMT -5 Green Eyed Lady said:

Don't be obtuse.  It's all over the thread.  And I, for one, never said one word about "asshole".   I have no intention of going back and copying each post that said something about "bigoted", "intolerant", or "uninformed", which were the horseshit terms I was referring to.  If you wish to for admin purposes, knock yourself out.

If you mean me, please say so and ask me directly.  I'll be glad to answer.  Attempting to disguise it with sarcasm and a simple-looking smiley is beneath you.  Since I'm the one who typed "horseshit names", I assume you were wishing an answer from me.

You were not the only poster stating or implying that those on the pro-same-sex-marriage side of the debate were calling names. Zib specifically said it several times. I asked the question generally so that anyone else who may have seen those posts (which I didn't believe existed, hence the smiley) could answer. 

Does that clear things up?

If you don't believe they exist, then your job is done!   Here is a portion of one post that doesn't exist:

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 certainly wasn't implying that anybody here was calling another poster here those names - just that they are used in debates. I don't think anybody here called anybody a name. I wasn't saying they did.

Does that clear things up for you?